Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/01/1993 05:00 PM House O&G
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL & GAS
March 1, 1993
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Pete Kott, Vice Chairman
Representative Harley Olberg
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Sitton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Mackie
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Presentation by Alaska Clean Seas
WITNESS REGISTER
Norman Ingram, General Manager
Alaska Clean Seas
12350 Industry Way, Suite 202
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided background on Alaska Clean Seas
Dennis D. Rome, Commander
United States Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office
2760 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the Coast Guard's perspective on
burns
ACTION NARRATIVE
Tape 93-07, Side A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.,
members present were Representatives Green, Olberg, Davis,
Sanders, and Sitton. He introduced Norman Ingram from
Alaska Clean Seas to give a presentation on a proposal
showing the potential for correcting major oil spills on
water.
Number 030
NORMAN INGRAM, GENERAL MANAGER, ALASKA CLEAN SEAS (ACS),
passed around a brief background summary of ACS and directed
committee members to Page 3. He stated ACS was a non-profit
oil spill response cooperative formed in 1979 as an
equipment only co-op, which was reorganized in 1990, with an
expanded mandate to cover response and include the onshore
areas on the North Slope in addition to the Beaufort Sea,
which was the original area. The ACS currently have 10
member companies. Three companies have dropped out in the
past year: Marathon, Shell, and AMOCO (who no longer have
any activities on the North Slope), he added.
MR. INGRAM pointed out that on the North Slope no matter how
small the operation, the individual operator had equipment
and resources available to address any problem that might
happen, and they have the ability to call on ACS. He
directed members to Page 6 of the handout which showed the
hands-on personnel available on any particular day was 230
people on-site at all times, with a supplemental from the
North Slope available within 24 hours. He stated the
Auxiliary Contract Response Team had been tested on an
unannounced basis one year ago, and there were 756 people
on-scene when the drill was closed after approximately 9.5
hours.
MR. INGRAM stated the next four pages of the handout were a
detailed inventory of the equipment, including the
traditional items: Boom, boat, skimmers, etc., along with
some of the items that were not as obvious, such as wildlife
rehabilitation equipment and, most importantly,
telecommunications equipment. He stated ACS currently had
an inventory which had a replacement cost in excess of $2
million and telecommunications was a tremendous asset. He
stated ACS worked with the state of Alaska and the Division
of Telecommunications in establishing compatibility.
MR. INGRAM further stated the summary level of equipment in
total on the Slope included about 360,000 feet of boom, 84
vessels, and about 200 skimmers. The Beaufort Sea was an
extremely shallow sea and so the biggest challenge they had
was having vessels that could operate in that shallow water,
he added.
Number 163
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it was fair to say that equipment
could be moved from the North Slope to Prince William Sound,
or vice versa, within a 24 hour period.
Number 165
MR. INGRAM replied in the affirmative. He stated many of
the member companies were common with many of the people who
might have a problem in Prince William Sound. He advised
that ACS had participated in 10 actual events in 1992, seven
of which were off the North Slope, in assisting and
sometimes just consulting. One was as far away as Africa
where there was a major tanker incident in which the Coast
Guard Strike Team called on input from ACS, where in-situ
burning was being considered. He stated ACS had a fairly
active training program and have provided 17,500 man hours
of training in the past year, which was the equivalent of
providing about 430 people with a full week of training.
MR. INGRAM continued to say that the final element goes back
to the ability to utilize resource equipment to the
assistance of others. He said, "The issue of liability and,
to a certain extent, compensation, are very critical issues
and we have determined for a non-member company we are not
in a position to carry out the types of financial legal
checks in the midst of an emergency, as to whether or not we
could work with such a group. Therefore, we have determined
that we would only be able to respond to a non-member
company upon request by, or under contract with, either the
state of Alaska or the federal government."
MR. INGRAM stated they had presented a contract to the state
of Alaska in August, 1992, and have been working intensively
with the state, to try to put that contract in place before
an emergency happened rather than wishing they had after the
fact. On the Federal side, ACS anticipated having the
contract in place by this coming summer (1993), through the
U.S. Coast Guard, he said, and noted ACS was working closely
with other groups, both the Cook Inlet Group in Alaska and
some of the co-ops on the west coast.
Number 240
MR. INGRAM said, "Part of this has been cleared by the fact
that the federal government either has become, or is
literally, within the next week or so, about to become a
member of the CISPRI Organization in Cook Inlet." This is
with respect to the Defense Fuel Supply Service, which
brings fuel up and down Cook Inlet in fairly large
quantities for Ft. Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base.
The ACS needs a response contractor, and have approached
CISPRI and worked out indemnification language that both
sides can live with, he added.
Number 267
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked who became the incident commander in
the case of a major spill.
Number 271
MR. INGRAM replied that ACS' view in all cases was that they
were part of the unified command team. He said, "We have
federal, state, and local communities and the responsible
party working together as a team. If we were called in
either by the state or federal government, under contract
with them, we would be a part of their team, which I would
like to think would be working cooperatively with the
responsible party. If one of their member companies were
involved, we would be coming in as part of their team, but
in any case we would be seeking to work as one team."
Number 287
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked how they would handle
materials such as absorbent rags, boom, and whatever bulk
oil might be picked up from the spill.
Number 292
MR. INGRAM said the North Slope area provided the ability to
recycle any oil which was picked up and reuse the oil and
have it go to market. He added that in terms of material,
there were a couple of possibilities. One was incineration,
or if it was material that was not contaminated and could be
cleaned up then it could go to the landfill. If it
contained hazardous waste it would have to go outside the
state (to a Class I disposal site).
Number 308
MR. INGRAM stated ACS was the only cooperative in North
America with a research and development program, and focused
attention on those things which were unique to the Arctic
and sub-Arctic. One of those things was in-situ burning.
He said, "As the name implies, if you have a spill you burn
the oil in place, particularly if it is on the water prior
to it spreading too far. You may have to contain it with
special fire resistant boom to keep the thickness necessary
(to ignite a burn). There are some restrictions on this,
the biggest one is time. You have a very limited window of
time when you can burn the oil. Oil will naturally try to
thin out and you must have a minimum thickness."
MR. INGRAM continued, "The chemical dispersants which are
out there have not proven themselves to be particularly
effective in cold water situations." He disclosed in 1992,
ACS made an attempt to carry out a much needed, lengthy
offshore burn test in the Beaufort Sea that got wide support
both from the local communities, government agencies and
environmental advocacy groups. One agency which did not get
into step was the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As
a result of this, the permits which were necessary to carry
out the task had not been granted.
MR. INGRAM added that in the aftermath of this
disappointment, ACS have pursued this option and in doing
so, reached some agreement with their Russian counterpart,
the Marine Pollution Control and Salvage Administration, who
proposed working with ACS in a burn test which would
replicate the plan for the Beaufort Sea, but in Eastern
Russian waters. "Recognizing a lot of hurdles obviously, we
were nevertheless pleased and honored to have this request
from the Coast Guard to assist them," he said. He then
passed out the ACS summary plan.
MR. INGRAM stated this plan would release approximately
1,000 barrels over a five hour period at a rate of about 200
barrels per hour. The release would be made in a controlled
fashion. There would be scientific measurements taken prior
to the ignition of the crude. Crude oil has emissions that
come off naturally, and it is important to compare those
with the smoke after a burn takes place. During this time
the release vessel, and the containment boom, would be
moving through the oil at approximately half a knot and
there would be a full backup system in place.
MR. INGRAM directed committee members to Page 17 of his
handout and stated there was a representation of how the
flotilla might look with the release vessel and backup
equipment. He stated this test would involve the University
of Alaska, specialized equipment from the University of
Washington, which was the same team who did the monitoring
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), in the aftermath of the Kuwait oil fires, teams from
the NOAA HAZ-MAT (hazardous material) Team and from the
National Institute of Standard Testing. He said, "The
Russians have proposed a location about as far away as you
can get, 60 miles east of Vladivostok, and about 15 miles
offshore."
Number 448
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked about the reason for the site
selection.
Number 449
MR. INGRAM felt the site was convenient. He noted the
Vladivostok area had a huge marine base.
Number 453
REPRESENTATIVE JOE SITTON asked if the Japanese had
expressed any interest.
MR. INGRAM said the Japanese have had some casual interest,
but ACS had not pursued them too hard. He advised that
quite a bit of the equipment, especially the specialized
equipment, came from the North Slope and would be used over
there. The U.S. Coast Guard identified a 378 foot-cutter
from Honolulu, which would be assigned to the project and
would be the command and control vessel. This test was
proposed for late July, 1993. Funding was a significant
challenge and ACS has been asked by the Coast Guard to
manage and carry out the details of the test, he disclosed.
MR. INGRAM approximated the total cost of the test,
including the research and development components and the
ultimate reporting to be $3 million, and proposed that
funding for this be supported equally on a partnership basis
between the U.S. Federal Government, the State of Alaska,
and industry. He stated the State of Alaska, certainly more
than any other state in the United States, had more
application here because of the remote nature of Alaska.
Number 487
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked if a test this far south
would have results pertinent to what would happen on the
North Slope.
Number 490
MR. INGRAM understood the sea conditions and temperature
were pretty similar and the issue of temperature was one of
the least important factors. In-situ burnings have been
carried out at -40 degrees on the North Slope, he pointed
out, so temperature was not a factor as long as an initial
heat source could be generated for ignition. It was
preferable not to have ice simply because it would be an
inconvenience since transition would occur approximately
three miles during the four to five hour period and having
to navigate around or through ice would detract from the
ability to maximize the scientific gain. He disclosed the
Russians had been given a list of the criteria that the ACS
was trying to achieve.
Number 508
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS did not understand how the test could
be effective because the ice was an inconvenience. If there
was a real oil spill, there would be a whole lot of
inconvenience, he declared.
Number 510
MR. INGRAM clarified it was an inconvenience in terms of
carrying out the test and trying to gain scientific
knowledge from it. In fact, he added, ice was a challenge
no matter when you worked with it, however, it did have one
considerable advantage in that it holds the oil. He advised
that experiments in Canada had shown you could get away
without using containment boom in ice because the oil would
be held by the ice. It was a legitimate question that
needed to be tried and tested, he said, and added "Some of
this we have done, and some work we are doing with the
Norwegians will do this as well."
Number 528
CHAIRMAN GREEN added the majority of offshore drilling in
Alaska had been done during solid ice coverage, because the
regulatory agencies concurred with Mr. Ingram's statements
above.
Number 533
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON stated there was a time line on the
funding question and wondered if Mr. Ingram had any sense of
the legislators' leadership about their commitment to the
state's thirty-three percent.
Number 536
MR. INGRAM said the reaction from the administration and, in
general, from the legislature, and certainly from the Senate
Oil and Gas Committee meeting the previous week, had been
very favorable. He stated that many people were aware and
very supportive of the test from the work done in 1992 in
the Beaufort Sea. Funds have been specifically targeted
from the restitution fund of the Exxon Valdez. In their
request for support they targeted this on both the state and
federal side, he added, and in the overall funding, the
federal funding, in essence, was in place for their share
and the industry's was also substantially in place.
Number 552
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON asked if they wanted to get started
and just hope we catch up.
Number 553
MR. INGRAM said, "It may be that way regarding the
expenditure side, but if the full funding is not in place by
the go-no-go date, at the end of March, then the project
will be cancelled, as the one in 1992 with the EPA."
Number 558
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON asked Chairman Green what kind of
latitude the Governor's office had on this kind of
expenditure, since the legislature could not act this
quickly.
Number 560
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "It would be faster to have the
Governor act, however, $1 million would be tough." He hoped
to get a recommendation from the committee to add $1 million
to the $35 million Exxon fund in time to meet this
commitment. "This does not mean the spill drill would be
done the end of March, just the commitment of funds, and the
spill drill would be done in the summer," he clarified.
Number 576
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON asked how the Senate Oil and Gas
Committee felt about that.
Number 577
CHAIRMAN GREEN said he did not witness that meeting, but it
was his understanding the Senate Oil and Gas Committee was
in agreement.
MR. INGRAM stated the Senate Oil & Gas Committee was very
supportive and had indicated they would also move forward
with support for the test. He advised of his meeting with
the administration and felt members of the administration
were supportive. He said, "The bottom line is there is an
opportunity here, as there was last year." He found it
commendable that the Coast Guard continued to push this for
the range of reasons that the Russians were interested in
doing this, and thought it should be obvious that one of the
things they were not putting into this was any funding; but
it was recognized they were fairly strapped in that regard.
MR. INGRAM said, "They are taking the risk, they are
providing the ballpark. This is not a technology that they
have looked to in the past, they see a lot of potential for
it. They are quite well equipped in some other regards in
terms of oil spill equipment. Some of the big units in
Prince William Sound were in Vladivostok before they were in
the United States. This is an opportunity they presented to
us and we are giving it full thrust at the moment and we
hope it comes out favorably."
Number 605
CHAIRMAN GREEN understood the information to be gained from
this would be a matter of public record, and would be
available to the Russians, the state, industry, and ACS. He
asked if there was any chance, barring a catastrophe, that
if the state went along with this and committed $1 million,
it might end up costing $5-7 million more.
Number 614
MR. INGRAM stated liability was a real issue. He said, "The
liability resides with the co-sponsors, which is the U.S.
Coast Guard and the Russian Marine Pollution Control and
Salvage Administration. The request is up to a maximum of
$1 million from the State of Alaska."
Number 625
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked where they planned to get the oil that
would be used.
Number 629
MR. INGRAM hoped to use North Slope crude. "However,
Vladivostok is a very long way away and we need to look at
the benefits of using North Slope crude versus a Russian
crude we could get with somewhat the same characteristics,"
he said.
Number 639
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON asked if the EPA had objected in 1992,
or if they dragged their feet.
Number 641
MR. INGRAM felt the EPA was extremely supportive at the
local level in Alaska, but the problem seemed to happen in
Washington D.C. where it got bogged down. His sense was if
they had to do it over, they would have handled it very
differently. In essence what happened was that the clock
expired, he believed.
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON stated that perhaps Alaska would have
its own EPA region before long and could then get better
responses.
Number 654
MR. INGRAM stated they have formally requested the support
of a wide range of groups, including the North Slope
Borough. One very important group that has been asked for
support was the Alaska Regional Response Team, co-chaired by
the EPA and the Coast Guard. He understood this support was
forthcoming.
Number 662
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS found it hard to believe that crude
behaved the same way in an arctic environment as it would
behave down there.
Number 668
MR. INGRAM stated no two spills were identical, but one
could look at the characteristics. He said, "Sea
temperature does not vary that much, really you are looking
at measurable and controllable changes. One of the issues
we will look at is water column sampling, and that is part
of the reason for moving through the water. Very little oil
sinks and the residue from previous testing is very much a
'taffy-like' material. Oil shrinks in the same way plastic
shrinks, so you have a black plastic like material that you
can lift with your hands and pull apart."
Number 696
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if there would be more
viscosity if it was colder, so if it worked here it would
work better in the north.
Number 697
MR. INGRAM stated one of the benefits of the cold
environment was that it inhibited the extent to which
evaporation took place. He said, "In extremely cold
climates you tend to get a seal formed over the top layer of
oil. The area north of the Brooks Range is the only area in
the United States that has conditional pre-approval in-situ
burning."
TAPE 93-07, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. INGRAM stated in a newsletter there was a story about a
road tanker spill in the Brooks Range, which was a fuel
hauler, the tanker flipped over, spilled 8,000 gallons of
arctic grade diesel and the solution that was used to
address this response in a very remote, steep terrain area,
was to burn it. The burn took place about 20 hours after
the spill and was very effective.
Number 034
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON stated that there was a lot said
during the Valdez Spill about the cold water effects on the
clean-up.
Number 039
MR. INGRAM stated there was a short burn test carried out in
the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez about 40 hours after the
spill. There were about 30,000 gallons that were burned off
in about an hour.
Number 049
DENNIS D. ROME, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, stated
40 hours after the Exxon Valdez oil spill a fire started
that burned 15,000 to 30,000 gallons in a period of 55
minutes. The down side of that was no attention was being
paid to the wind, which drove some of the debris into the
village of Tatitlek. The two factors that would affect a
burn were the temperature, and the physical sea conditions,
he added.
Number 121
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the Coast Guard cutter would be the
command vessel.
Number 131
COMMANDER ROME replied in the affirmative. He said this
offered a variety of things, like showing the flags in
Russian water, which had a positive benefit for the Coast
Guard. He stated the Coast Guard planned to get
interpreters and as much of the Russian delegation on board
the vessel as possible and show them the technology.
Number 142
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the Coast Guard would be the
incident command or ACS would actually carry out the
operation and backup operation.
Number 151
MR. INGRAM stated the project manager almost certainly would
come through ACS, but would take program direction from the
joint U.S. sponsor team, which meant they would ultimately
be taking direction from the U.S. Coast Guard.
COMMANDER ROME added the basis for this was a signed
agreement between the U.S. and the USSR which allowed a
mechanism for each party to assume responsibility for paying
their bills. He said, "If we spill oil in Russian waters
then technically it is our responsibility that it gets
cleaned up."
Number 177
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if this test would be done during the
day and video taped for review.
COMMANDER ROME replied in the affirmative.
Number 188
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON felt all the questions about who was
in charge were very important because during the Valdez Oil
Spill the President of the United States had to step in and
say that the Coast Guard was in charge.
Number 196
MR. INGRAM stated a program like this had a very significant
safety element. He said, "The folks from their organization
who will be over there are a very well drilled, trained,
confident group and they will be in charge of when we burn -
when we do not burn."
Number 206
COMMANDER ROME stated the Coast Guard came out with a
statement that they would be participating in a unified
command structure with the state agency. He said, "There
are no time lines for decisions, but if you cannot reach a
consensus then it is a responsibility of the Coast Guard to
direct what is going to go on."
Number 227
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON stated there were a couple of suitable
Universities and Canadians.
Number 229
MR. INGRAM stated there were excellent folks, particularly
the folks at the University of Alaska.
Number 238
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the $3 million commitment to the
project would be needed prior to the end of March, but if it
was a no-go situation, the state would not lose any money.
Number 251
MR. INGRAM stated the U.S. Coast Guard and the Alaska Clean
Seas have agreed to carry the burden of this into April,
1993, in case they get into a situation like the one in
1992, and if this project does not go ahead then no one else
would contribute. The issue of the go-no-go time frame was
quite critical. The time frame at the end of March happened
to be convenient in the sense the big oil spill conference
held every two years was held in Tampa at the end of March.
The Russian delegation will be over for that and plans were
already in place for some sort of an agreement ceremony on
April 2, then, interestingly enough, the Russian group was
coming to Alaska and would participate in the Valdez
exercise the first week in April, he noted.
Number 277
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON asked if the Governor could spend
$838,000 promoting the development of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge without legislative approval, how come one
million dollars could not be given to ACS to let them have
the go ahead. He said, "Obviously he has discretionary
latitude in that range of figures."
CHAIRMAN GREEN was not sure, but thought so.
Number 291
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON stated that was $838,000 which the
Governor just wrote a check for.
Number 298
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that was a good point and asked if it
was the consensus of the committee to get a letter to that
effect to the Governor; that the committee had reviewed this
process, supported it and certainly felt funding should come
from the Exxon settlement so it would not cost the people of
the state anything.
Number 304
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON MOVED to send a letter to the Governor
as suggested by the Chair.
Number 307
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none he promised to draft a letter to the Governor. He
stated the main concern he had was to the benefit of the
people in the state.
Number 312
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON endorsed the Chair's comment, and
voiced his concern about the time line.
Number 314
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated this was very critical. He asked for
any other questions.
Number 319
MR. INGRAM stated it was his intent to show a five minute
video of in-situ burning, but could not get a hold of a VCR.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Number 338
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced there would be a joint oil and gas
committee meeting in the Butrovich Room with Julian Darley,
President of BP.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|