02/04/1993 10:00 AM House O&G

  HB 99:  REPEAL 65-DAY DEADLINE:  OIL SPILL PLANS                             
                                                                               
  STEVE PORTER testified via teleconference from Anchorage, on                 
  behalf of ARCO.  He clarified deleting this statute did not                  
  change the law in respect to the applicant because the                       
  identical language was still in regulation.  He believed HB
 would allow streamlining of the process so it would be                    
  understood more easily.  The provision of statute for the 65                 
  days came out of HB 567, he said.                                            
                                                                               
  MR. PORTER stated the standpoint of the oil industry was if                  
  they submitted an oil spill plan to make sure there was some                 
  certainty getting it through the process in the 65 day time                  
  frame.  He said the 65 days was time certain and it really                   
  did not integrate into the process.  Several stages of                       
  processing could be walked through with a certain number of                  
  days for comment, a certain number of days for review and a                  
  decision, he surmised.                                                       
                                                                               
  MR. PORTER said here was opportunity to stop the process,                    
  and time for evaluation of the process in applying the 65                    
  days into the regulations.  He said, "What ultimately                        
  happens is you have to make that 65 days an area where you                   
  knew for certain that you could comply with the law.                         
  Reviews were done prior to 65 day time period, which wasn't                  
  the original intent of the legislation.  The 65 days wasn't                  
  giving any benefit to us, what it ultimately was doing was                   
  buying the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation                   
  (DEC), provided fairly prompt regulation to accommodate the                  
  65 days and comply with the Coastal Management review                        
  process, which is another regulation."                                       
                                                                               
  MR. PORTER added most state activities or projects that were                 
  submitted by an applicant in the coastal zone must be                        
  reviewed by the Alaska Coastal Management program, which was                 
  a separate process.  From the technician standpoint half the                 
  people that reviewed the spill plans took the 65 days with                   
  the help of constituents to be a statutory provision, he                     
  added.                                                                       
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN GREEN mentioned Paul Quesnel with BP was at the                     
  teleconference site in Anchorage and Beth Kerttula from the                  
  Department of Law and Mike Conway from the DEC who was the                   
  Director of Spill Prevention and Response, were present in                   
  Juneau.                                                                      
                                                                               
  RAY GILLESPIE, LOBBYIST for an association of refined fuel                   
  product distributors comprised of Carlyle Maritime, Petro                    
  Marine Services, and Delta Western-Western Pioneer, gave                     
  their unanimous support for HB 99.                                           
                                                                               
  RUSSELL HEATH testified on behalf of the ALASKA                              
  ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL), a coalition of about 20                           
  environmental groups in the state, in support of HB 99.  He                  
  said the environmental community's primary concern on this                   
  issue was that all oil spill contingency plans were                          
  adequately reviewed by the DEC, the public and any other                     
  interested body, and believed HB 99 would not affect this                    
  review.  For the record he noted if any substantial changes                  
  were made to HB 99, the AEL would withdraw its support.                      
                                                                               
  JANICE ADAIR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEC, expressed the                     
  DEC's support for HB 99.                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN GREEN believed HB 99 was a good piece of                            
  legislation, and supported anything that could streamline                    
  the process without jeopardizing the intent of thorough                      
  review.  He stated, "We don't want to do anything that would                 
  detract from an adequate surveillance necessary component                    
  through this oil spill contingency plan, however, anything                   
  we can do to streamline the process is in the best interest                  
  of all."                                                                     
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS had no problem with HB 99.  He                     
  understood the conflict was between a time limit in the                      
  DEC's response time and the Coastal Management policy.  He                   
  understood further that the agencies were being allowed to                   
  rework regulations.  He inquired whether time limits and                     
  regulations could be put together without any conflict.                      
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified HB 99 would relieve the conflict                    
  brought about by the current statute.  He pointed out the                    
  DEC could continue to have the 65 day clock in its                           
  regulations and, if not pleased with a plan under existing                   
  statute or regulations, the DEC could simply reject such                     
  plan.  The DEC generally worked with the applicant, and if                   
  the applicant did not object an extension would be given to                  
  allow the applicant to come back with additional                             
  information, as needed.  He then asked Ms. Bielawski to                      
  explain how the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC),                 
  obtained the information necessary to get approval on an oil                 
  spill contingency plan.                                                      
                                                                               
  PATTY BIELAWSKI, a representative from BP, felt that was a                   
  question that could be easily answered and deferred it to                    
  the DGC.                                                                     
                                                                               
  BETH KERTTULA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, explained that                    
  the DGC brought regulations forth to the Coastal Policy                      
  Council (CPC), in an attempt at better coordination with the                 
  DEC's regulations which had already been adopted.  The CPC                   
  adopted the regulations which were currently undergoing                      
  review to better coordinate with the DEC's review on                         
  contingency plans.  This statutory change would not change                   
  the regulations themselves, she noted.                                       
                                                                               
  MS. KERTTULA added the DGC and the CPC had already adopted                   
  regulations to try to clarify things better, and HB 99 would                 
  just let DEC go back and better clarify their regulations.                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN GREEN noted concern had been expressed that while                   
  most of the activities of Coastal Management were directly                   
  linked with the DEC's spill plans, there were areas in the                   
  interior that were not governed by the Coastal Management                    
  Policy.  There was also concern that by changing the statute                 
  the response time that an applicant might make from an                       
  interior location might be altered.                                          
                                                                               
  MS. KERTTULA believed the interior operators might like to                   
  still have the 65 day limit so the DEC would have a                          
  statutory limit on them.  She understood the interior                        
  operators were happy to see the amendment go forward as                      
  well.  As far as changing response times in terms of                         
  contingency plans, that would not be changed by HB 99, she                   
  added.                                                                       
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS pointed out HB 99 had a zero                    
  fiscal note and asked if he was to assume that no one was                    
  involved in establishing, keeping track of, or enforcing the                 
  time limits, and whether or not there would be any savings                   
  as a result of enactment of HB 99.                                           
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR explained HB 99 would repeal a requirement that                    
  the DEC, by statute, either approve or disapprove a                          
  contingency plan within 65 days.  The DEC would still have                   
  to approve or disapprove a contingency plan.  For those in                   
  the coastal zone, the coastal zone process would govern; for                 
  those outside the coastal zone, the DEC's regulations, which                 
  still included a 65 day time period, would govern, she said.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR further explained that HB 99 determined which                      
  agency's regulations would be the lead regulations, and                      
  removed the conflict between the coastal zone process that                   
  might or might not be able to be accomplished within 65                      
  days.  She reasoned HB 99 did not have a fiscal impact                       
  because the DEC still had to do the work, but under a                        
  different governing regulation in some cases.                                
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE moved HB 99 from committee with                  
  individual recommendations.                                                  
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN GREEN, without objection, adjourned the meeting at                  
  10:30 a.m.