Legislature(2001 - 2002)
2002-06-21 Senate Journal
Full Journal pdf2002-06-21 Senate Journal Page 3747 SB 371 Message dated June 7 and received June 10, stating: Dear President Halford: On this date I have signed the following bill and am transmitting the engrossed and enrolled copies to the Lieutenant Governor's Office for permanent filing: CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 371(RES) am "An Act exempting the use of munitions in certain areas from a waste disposal permit requirement of the Department of Environmental Conservation; relating to general or nationwide permits under the Alaska coastal management program and to authorizations and permits issued by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; and providing for an effective date." Chapter 44, SLA 2002 Effective Date: See Chapter 2002-06-21 Senate Journal Page 3748 The primary benefit of this bill is to codify important Alaska Coastal Management Program processes, ensuring the State of Alaska can allow for timely development permitting while also protecting the environment. This section of the bill is a response to the Alaska Supreme Court's recent decision in Cook Inlet Keeper v. State of Alaska, a case involving a dispute over discharges of drilling mud from the exploration activities on the Osprey oil platform in Cook Inlet. The Court interpreted the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) as prohibiting the long-standing practice of excluding general and nationwide permitted activities from ACMP project reviews. This section of the bill clarifies that it is within the coordinating agency's discretion to exclude such activities from a project review. This clarification is necessary because the implications of the Court decision on the state's permitting system go far beyond the subject matter of this particular case. It could jeopardize oil and gas permits as well as other resource development activities. It is also unfortunate the Court decision came at a critical time in the development of the Osprey project. Even though the project no longer involves significant discharges of drilling mud, the uncertainty caused by the Court's decision would subject it to a lengthy procedural process and could jeopardize the project. Having said that, I also believe the Court raised a good point regarding the need in certain circumstances to review generally permitted activities in the context of a particular project. Such a review is not necessary in all instances, but is appropriate when there is a significant project involving multiple state or federal permits. Therefore, in conjunction with signing SB 371 into law, I am requesting the Coastal Policy Council exercise its authority over the ACMP consistency review process by requiring the Division of Governmental Coordination to include activities covered by a general or nationwide permit within the scope of review for projects that require a DGC coordinated review. This action will ensure that the significant projects requiring multiple state or federal permits will 2002-06-21 Senate Journal Page 3749 consider generally permitted activities during the project review, but that other projects requiring permits from just a single state agency do not have to undergo this additional consideration. This section of the bill also allows permits issued by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) to be excluded from ACMP consistency reviews. I am signing this bill into law with the understanding this discretionary language in the bill will not undermine the current exclusion of AOGCC permits from ACMP review. The first section of SB 371 exempts the use of munitions in training activities on active ranges from the state Department of Environmental Conservation permitting requirements of AS 46.03.100. The Department of Environmental Conservation has consistently interpreted AS 46.03.100 in a manner that has not interfered with or hampered active firing ranges operated by the United States Department of Defense. Further, the Department of Defense facilities in Alaska have frequently committed to environmental stewardship consistent with our standards. Nonetheless the Legislature, with virtually no deliberation, not only granted the Department of Defense exemption but also included non-military firing ranges. I am signing this bill with the following understanding regarding section one: · The Department of Environmental Conservation has full authority to address any pollution problems caused by active range activities; · The Department of Environmental Conservation has full authority, upon closure of a range, to require assessment, remediation, and monitoring of hazardous substances to ensure that the site poses no ongoing risk to health or the environment and may require a permit if solid waste will be abandoned; 2002-06-21 Senate Journal Page 3750 · The Department of Environmental Conservation has full authority to seek compensation for natural resource or other damages caused by hazardous substances on a range; · The term "ranges" will be applied only to formally designated ranges and not applied to other locations where munitions are used. Sincerely, /s/ Tony Knowles Governor