Legislature(2001 - 2002)
2002-04-02 House JournalFull Journal pdf
2002-04-02 House Journal Page 2758 SB 343 The following, which had been held to today's calendar (page 2743), was read the second time: CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 343(RES) "An Act clarifying the term 'best technology' required for use in oil discharge prevention and contingency plans; affirming existing Department of Environmental Conservation regulations defining 'best technology' and oil discharge prevention and contingency plans approved using those regulations; and providing for an effective date." with the: Journal Page O&G RPT 3DP 2NR 1AM 2642 FN1: ZERO(DEC) 2642 RES RPT 7DP 1AM 2683 FN1: ZERO(DEC) 2684 Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representatives Kerttula and Croft: Page 3, line 14, following "purpose of": Insert "secs. 2 and 4 - 6 of " Page 4, following line 11: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 3. AS 46.04.030(e), as amended by sec. 2 of this Act, is amended to read: (e) The department may attach reasonable terms and conditions to its approval or modification of a contingency plan that the department determines are necessary to ensure that the applicant for a contingency plan has access to sufficient resources to protect environmentally sensitive areas and to contain, clean up, and mitigate potential oil discharges from the facility or vessel as provided in (k) of this section, and to ensure that the applicant complies with the contingency plan. If a contingency plan submitted to the department for approval relies on the services of an oil spill primary response action contractor, the department 2002-04-02 House Journal Page 2759 may not approve the contingency plan unless the primary response action contractor is registered and approved under AS 46.04.035. The contingency plan must provide for the use by the applicant of the best technology that was available at the time the contingency plan was submitted or renewed. The department (1) shall (A) identify the prevention and response technologies that are subject to a best available technology determination; (B) determine the best available technology using the following criteria: (i) whether each technology is the best in use in other similar situations and is available for use by the applicant; (ii) whether each technology is transferable to the applicant's operations; (iii) whether there is a reasonable expectation that each technology will provide increased spill prevention or other environmental benefits; (iv) the cost to the applicant of achieving best available technology, including consideration of the cost relative to the remaining years of service of the technology in use by the applicant; (v) the age and condition of the technology in use by the applicant; (vi) whether each technology is compatible with existing operations and technologies in use by the applicant; (vii) the practical feasibility of each technology in terms of engineering and other operational aspects; and (viii) whether other environmental effects of each technology, such as air, land, water pollution, and energy requirements, offset any anticipated environmental benefits; and (2) [. THE DEPARTMENT MAY FIND THAT ANY TECHNOLOGY MEETING THE RESPONSE PLANNING STANDARDS IN (k) OF THIS SECTION OR A PREVENTION PERFORMANCE STANDARD ESTABLISHED UNDER 2002-04-02 House Journal Page 2760 AS 46.04.070 IS THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY. THE DEPARTMENT] may (A) prepare findings and maintain a list of those technologies that are considered the best available; and (B) [. THE DEPARTMENT MAY] require an applicant or holder of an approved contingency plan to take steps necessary to demonstrate the applicant's or holder's ability to carry out the contingency plan, including (i) [(1)] periodic training; (ii) [(2)] response team exercises; and (iii) [(3)] verifying access to inventories of equipment, supplies, and personnel identified as available in the approved contingency plan." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 4, line 17, following "implementing": Insert "sec. 2 of" Page 4, line 24: Delete "this Act" Insert "this section" Page 5, line 1: Delete "This Act takes" Insert "Sections 1, 2, and 4 - 6 of this Act take" Representative Kerttula moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 be adopted. Representative Green objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSSB 343(RES) Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 26 EXCUSED: 3 ABSENT: 2 2002-04-02 House Journal Page 2761 Yeas: Berkowitz, Cissna, Crawford, Croft, Davies, Halcro, Hudson, Joule, Kerttula Nays: Bunde, Chenault, Coghill, Dyson, Fate, Foster, Green, Harris, Hayes, James, Kohring, Kott, Lancaster, Masek, McGuire, Meyer, Morgan, Mulder, Murkowski, Porter, Rokeberg, Scalzi, Stevens, Whitaker, Williams, Wilson Excused: Kookesh, Moses, Ogan Absent: Guess, Kapsner And so, Amendment No. 1 was not adopted. Representative James moved and asked unanimous consent that CSSB 343(RES) be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. Representative Berkowitz objected. The Speaker stated that CSSB 343(RES) will be in third reading on tomorrow's calendar.