Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/20/1998 03:50 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 299 - WELL TEST FLARES & NONROAD ENGINES
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:50 p.m. and announced SB 299 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR LEMAN said he worked on the State's implementation of the
Clean Air Act five years ago and one of the issues that remained
unresolved was that of mobile sources vs. stationary. EPA, Title
5 regulations clearly point out that these are treated differently
under the federal law. At that time, DEC said they would work on
it and his staff, particularly Ms. Kreitzer, has spent a lot of
time in the last four years trying to come up with a constructive
way to deal with this. They had hoped this would be handled
administratively in the Department, but they have done an about-
face and he felt it was necessary to introduce this legislation to
get the issue on the table and proceed in a direction that he
thinks is appropriate for Alaska.
MS. ANNETTE KREITZER, Aide to Senator Leman, reviewed SB 299 for
the Committee. She said it amends Alaska's air quality control
statute to clarify that nonroad engines are mobile sources and are
not to be regulated as though they are stationary facilities.
Section One provides guidance on the treatment of well test flares
which are not part of a rig, but are brought on to a drill site
after a well is completed. It allows an operator to evaluate a
well's potential flow of oil and/or gas. Normally, only gas is
burned at a test flare. The associated oil and water are collected
in storage tanks to be reinjected down a hole or transported to a
production facility.
Section Two adds the EPA and state adopted regulatory definition of
nonroad engines to Alaska statute, so that owners and operators
have the same understanding at the state level as they do at the
federal level of what a non-road engine is. In addition, the bill
adds the federal definition of stationary source to Alaska
statutes.
To put this bill in perspective, currently there are at most 20
rigs operating on the North Slope in Cook Inlet. Those who are
regulated by DEC might not say in public what they are willing to
say behind closed doors due to perceived "intimidation" by the
Department.
It appears now that DEC intends to go beyond the minimums set under
the federal Clean Air Act.
SENATOR LEMAN said he was concerned with the intimidation regarding
the issuance and timeliness of permits and how people might be
concerned about speaking out on this and he wondered how pervasive
that concern was.
MS. KREITZER said over the last six years of working on oil and gas
issues with the legislature, she has noticed this said in the same
way by different people in different industries, not that she has
seen an increase in these kinds of comments.
SENATOR LEMAN said he had worked with the people from DEC and has
found them to be extremely competent and professional, but there
are times when they are pressured perhaps and that is why he would
like to have the debate here.
MR. MIKE CONWAY, Director, Division of Air Quality Control, said
the Department believes the bill would impose several limitations
on the State's ability to regulate sources of air pollution as
needed to maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act. It would
prohibit the Department from regulating sources of air pollution
that can violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the
prevention of significant deterioration increments. It would
prohibit them from issuing permits to sources of air pollution that
are specifically required to obtain permits under the Clean Air Act
and believes it would jeopardize State primacy of the Air Program.
They also believe the bill would increase third party intervention
and permits to oil development activities on the North Slope and
sends the wrong message to the public about Alaska's ability to do
it right from the environmental perspective in developing its oil
resources. The message is being sent at the wrong time, because we
are working with the federal government to lease areas of the
National Petroleum Reserve Alaska for oil and gas exploration.
Since the 1977 Clean Air Act, the policy of Alaska has been to
obtain authority to manage its air quality. We first obtained
primacy from the federal government in 1972 by starting an air
permit and air pollution control program. In 1983, Alaska obtained
primacy of the prevention of significant deterioration, the P.D.
program, created by the 1977 Clean Air Act. In 1993, the Alaska
Legislature passed new clean air laws with the intent to enable
Alaska to maintain control of its air resources, to implement an
air program that complies with the federal Clean Air Act, and to
run an efficient air program.
In 1995 and 96, Alaska adopted new regulations implementing the
1993 Clean Air laws and submitted the regulations to EPA for
approval. To retain primacy, Alaska must demonstrate we will meet
the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act which, in general,
requires Alaska to develop and implement plans and regulations for
preventing air pollution that exceed the National Ambient Air
Quality standards and the prevention of significant deterioration
increments. The National Ambient Air Standards established maximum
permissible concentrations of air pollutants and ambient air. The
standards are necessary to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety and to protect the public health from any known or
anticipated adverse effects.
The prevention of significant deterioration increments established
maximum permissible increases in air pollution that may occur in
geographic areas having air quality better than the national
ambient air quality standards. Alaska has made a demonstration to
EPA that its current air quality laws and regulations are adequate
to meet the Clean Air Act requirements. If we fail to do that, the
EPA is required by law to implement its own air program in Alaska.
Oil exploration and production activities on the North Slope are
currently regulated by Alaska's permit program. Under this
program, the North Slope facility operators, BP and ARCO, obtain
the permits, not the drilling rig operators. In 1996, DEC proposed
a simplified procedure for controlling nonroad engine emissions
including those associated with drilling rigs. However, they did
not proceed with the approach because of the controversy it
created. In early 1997, the North Slope operators asked DEC if it
was possible to come up with a better method of regulating air
pollution from oil exploration activities. The reason for their
request is the timeliness issue, because operators did not have the
time to wait for case by case permit approvals. The nature of
today's oil exploration industry requires quick lead times and
sufficient regulatory flexibility to move equipment throughout the
Slope. The compliance issue was that operators were having
difficulty showing air pollution from oil exploration activities
meeting the Clean Air Act requirements through Alaska's current
program. The operators suggested that a performance based
emissions standard might be an alternative way to meet the Clean
Air Act.
In late 1997 and early 1998, the drilling contractors expressed
their need to have sufficient regulatory flexibility to move
equipment around on short lead times. DEC agreed to work with the
operators and drilling contractors to come up with a better method
of regulations that continued to meet the requirements of State and
federal law. In February of this year, DEC released draft
regulations to address the operators and drilling contractors
concern over timeliness and compliance while making sure that
Alaska's clean air laws remain in compliance with the Clean Air
Act. Very recently, it appeared that the drilling contractors
believe that a complete exemption of air pollution emitted by the
industry from the Clean Air Act is possible and that a complete
exemption appears to be their favored approach. DEC has told the
drilling contractors that a complete exemption is not possible if
Alaska is to maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act because the
Clean Air Act does not allow certain sources of air pollution to be
ignored in determining compliance with its requirements. A ton of
sulphur dioxide is a ton of sulphur dioxide. It doesn't matter if
it comes from a pulp mill or an oil rig. Under some circumstances
the State may determine that some sources of air pollution are too
small to regulate, but this must be based on sound information.
All information available to DEC at this time indicates that air
pollution from oil exploration needs to be regulated or
significantly reduced to meet the Clean Air requirements. Oil
exploration activities do not have "insignificant emissions" which
are those considered from equipment like lawn mowers and snow
blowers, etc.
There are 20 oil drilling rigs on the North Slope with five more
planned in the near future. The air pollution from a typical
diesel-fired oil drilling rig is equivalent to the air pollution
emitted from 100 city buses or half the air pollution emitted from
the Greens Creek mine or the air pollution emitted from a power
plant in a city of 7,000 residents. These are not insignificant
emissions.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what's the largest thing that can be
insignificant under DEC's interpretation.
MR. CONWAY answered that it depends on what the emission is.
Number 260
MR. JOHN STONE, Chief, Air Quality Maintenance Section, added that
there are two permit programs, both based on air pollution quantity
thresholds. The construction permit program also contains some
categories based on equipment size. In general the threshold is
250 tons of any air contaminants per year in order to need a
permit. It's 100 tons per year in the operating permit program,
the equivalent of 330,000 gallons per year of diesel fuel consumed.
This would be the lower size they would permit through the
operating permit program.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked what a drilling rig normally uses.
MR. STONE said he thought it was 2,000 - 6,000 gallons per day when
they are operating.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if they analyze their usage or do they go
by actual days on the permit.
MR. STONE explained that they don't actually permit the drilling
rigs, per se. It depends on how the operator submits the
application. They have the ability to select the operating rates
in the application.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if they take the requirements as if they
would be running year-round or just for that length of time it
takes them to do the job.
MR. STONE answered that the application for the permit contains the
operating rates anticipated by the operator and that's what they
use to make the permit decision. They can ask for year-long
operation or 60-day or 30-day.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if they claim 60-day operation, and that
puts them under the 330,000, do they need a permit?
MR. STONE answered yes.
MR. CONWAY clarified that a facility applies for the permit. In
their permit, they have to list all the pieces of equipment that
have the potential to reach that level, including the boilers,
heaters, etc.
Number 300
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how far apart the facilities could be.
MR. CONWAY answered that it's up to the operator to define the size
of the facility; they have to demonstrate that they have control
over that facility. The Clean Air Act is not based on the workers
(which is handled by OCEA).
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said this applies to a mine as well. If a mine
has a pit that is a mile long and is running every kind of
equipment, plus a processing plant, he asked if that is one
facility or a whole series of separate facilities with permits or
exemptions from the fuel burn-rate.
MR. STONE answered that mines can be separate facilities. They
have done that. The definition of facilities in statute is
basically the collection of contiguous or adjacent properties that
are under common control or ownership, so there's a legal test to
see what constitutes a facility.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked when Vladez Creek Mine was operating, was it
one facility or multiple facilities?
MR. STONE said he would have to check, but Greens Creek, for
instance, is two facilities. They have the port operation where
they load the concentrate on the ships and then the actual mine
operation which is seven and a half miles up the road.
MR. CONWAY reiterated that the choice is up to the operator on how
they want to manage that facility. His permitting staff usually
works with the facility operator in the application phase to see
how it best works for them.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if any equipment is exempt from 6,000
gallons per day and do they count all the equipment that burns
diesel.
MR. STONE answered that there is an exemption for certain
emissions, like nonroad engine emissions.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if nonroad engines that are part of an oil
rig are exempt.
MR. STONE answered yes, that exemption was adopted in January 1997.
MR. CONWAY clarified that first of all, you have to determine if
the facility requires a permit based upon the inventory of its
emissions. Mr. Stone stated that a nonroad engine does not count
when the operator goes around to measure all the sources, but if
all the other equipment that is measured exceeds the 100 tons or
250 tons, it requires a permit. Then all of the sources, including
the nonroad engine source, needs to be counted as a total emission.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there are two sources, internal
combustion engines and boilers or heat sources.
MR. STONE answered with respect to oil rigs, there are internal
combustion engines, heaters, and test flares.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if things other than engines have to total
up to the 100 or 250 tons per year and then, if the non-internal
combustion engines do that, the permit applies to all of the
sources, including the internal combustion engines.
MR. STONE answered that is correct.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if they used federal specs.
MR. CONWAY answered that the program is approved by the EPA which
provides oversight. The State has the ability to have more
flexibility than the federal government does. EPA sets the bottom
floor; the flexibility comes in on things like the wart hog
facility which is permitted because it's off-shore and the State
does not have primacy for the off-shore rigs. The requirements EPA
puts on wart hog were much more extensive than if the State had
that part of the program. The purpose of his testimony today is to
let everyone know that if we drop below the floor, the EPA is
compelled to remove our primacy.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if specifications we adopt are superior to
the federal specifications.
MR. STONE answered that the 100 and 250 tons comes from Section 167
of the Clean Air Act.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if that was the minimum or the maximum.
MR. STONE answered that those are the exact numbers.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if those are the exact numbers required
under federal law with the same exemptions or different exemptions.
MR. STONE answered it is the exact same program we would get under
the Clean Air Act with the same exemptions.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked how wart hog was permitted at a different
specification, then.
MR. STONE explained during the permit process, emission standards
are developed that govern the amount of pollution that can leave
that facility. In that process, EPA is more stringent than the
State is for similar operations on-shore.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if the EPA didn't follow their own
guidelines.
MR. STONE answered that they did follow their guidelines, but they
took a more stringent approach to following them.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that a more stringent approach meant
different numbers.
Number 420
SENATOR LEMAN said he didn't think they were fairly representing
what has happened and he thought further testimony would
demonstrate why the bill is necessary. The threat of primacy
removal is one that DEC consistently brings and he's tired of
hearing it. He said the legislature gave his department five years
to do this and they haven't. He asked if they had any hard data,
not just modeling, that shows ambient air quality problems on the
North Slope.
MR. STONE answered that they don't have any hard data showing a
problem.
SENATOR LEMAN asked Mr. Stone if he had ever been on the North
Slope or on a drilling rig.
MR. STONE answered no, that he hadn't done either.
SENATOR LEMAN asked him if he had been invited.
MR. STONE answered that he had.
SENATOR LEMAN encouraged him to go.
Number 455
MR. ROBERT REGES, Ruddy Bradley & Kolkhorst, said he was not
representing anyone, but he does work in the air quality field. He
did not want to speak for or against the bill, but wanted to raise
an issue for consideration. He wanted to answer a few questions
first. Insignificant emissions units, like lawn mowers are defined
in regulations and defined by tons per year of emission as well as
other things. The cut-off he thought was three tons per year.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how that worked out to gallons.
MR. REGES said he hadn't figured that out, but that the quantity is
listed straight forward in the regulations. One distinction
between the State and federal programs which is under some dispute
is that the State said when you are trying to determine whether you
qualify for a permit, there's an initial calculation of your
potential to emit for the entire facility. The State said do not
count the insignificant emission units(IEUs). Don't include your
lawn mower, if you're trying to permit your house. The feds have
come back and questioned that. That's one way you can get
different numbers by different interpretations of the federal
regulations. He said the list of IEU's is phenomenal, like
painting the parking lot and basic maintenance things.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked what the feds had questioned.
MR. REGES answered whether IEU's can be exempted in the initial
calculations of the potential to emit.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if that was under a permit the State of
Alaska has put in.
MR. REGES answered that it is codified in 18AAC, Chapter 15. They
have to be reviewed by EPA who came back to DEC and said in some
respects, about a dozen, the State regulations have not met their
minimum standards. One of the questions they raised was that we
are not calculating IEUs in the thresholds and said that we should.
So there's a proposed regulation change.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked about the rest of the states.
MR. REGES said he wanted to talk about those, but first he wanted
to explain how big a facility can be. Contiguous and adjacent
presents some interesting concepts. There is a guidance document
the State uses saying if emissions of any particular contaminant
from one source mingle with emissions from another source, in the
quantity greater than one microgram per cubic meter, then they are
the same facility. This means if you are on the North Slope, your
facility can get fairly large, because emissions from one drill rig
might intermingle with emissions from another drill rig in
concentrations greater than one microgram per cubic meter. If they
are one facility, they become subject to the permit requirement for
the facility.
What they are seeing on the Slope is a base camp with dorms and
generators, etc. Then you have your drilling pads. When you are
doing calculations and the emissions intermingle, the camp becomes
part of your facility. Then you look at the next pad, if that
intermingles more than one microgram per cubic meter, that's part
of the facility. So when you're trying to get a permit for your
base camp, you are looking at drill pads that are pretty far
removed physically.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was trying to figure out how far down this
went to the miner who might be operating 10 different pieces of
equipment on a 40-acre mining claim.
MR. REGES answered outside of the North Slope you have fewer
problems because there are distinct air sheds. The proposed Borax
Mine in Ketchikan, for instance, were separate facilities because
it had valleys and there wouldn't be the cumulative impact. One of
the problems on the North Slope is that it becomes one big air
shed. There are no mountains or valleys to change the air flow.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked who defined air sheds.
MR. REGES said the definition of facility in the statute is
contiguous and adjacent. From the legal perspective, you look at
whether it's contiguous in terms of air intermingling.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if it was weather dependent.
MR. REGES said it was to some extent. He thought you look at it on
a case by case basis. They can issue more than one permit, even to
a single facility. That authority was given to them with the Clean
Air statute in 1993. There was a problem with Healy Coal where the
new clean coal technology facility is right next to the old
existing facility and they were not able to have separate permits.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what happens when two competitors are
operating in the same air shed.
MR. REGES answered that part of the definition is that they have to
be under common ownership and control. He said he was here
principally to talk about the other states and to talk about an
issue he hoped they would consider in going through any effort to
prevent DEC from being the regulator. In the last few weeks, it
has come to his attention that there's a possibility of native
tribes becoming regulators. He emphasized this is not a red
herring.
The Clean Air Act describes native tribes expressly to include
Alaska natives. The recent Venetie decision which dealt with
Indian country did nothing to affect the status of Alaska Natives
as federally recognized Indian Tribes. So, start with the fact
that they are Tribes. Second, the Clean Air Act says EPA may treat
Tribes as states under certain circumstances. If a tribe qualifies
as a state, that tribe can become the regulator over the air route
resources within its jurisdiction. Just looking at the statute, it
looks like they may only be treated as states on reservations. So,
one would say, in light of the recent Venetie case, not only don't
we have any reservations, except for Metlakatla, we don't have any
Indian Country. But EPA has very consistently taken the position
that it is not confined to reservations; it is not even confined to
Indian Country. EPA may interpret whether any given tribal body
has any sufficient jurisdiction over air resources to give it
primacy.
On February 12, 1998, EPA came out with its new Tribal Air Rule.
There's one other state in the union that is similar to Alaska in
this matter and that's Oklahoma. It has a lot of drill rigs, oil
production, a lot of natives, has no reservations. He has dealt
with Oklahoma a lot on native issues and they called him last week,
because EPA is coming into Oklahoma to reassess whether states
should have primacy over air resources over which Indians have
jurisdiction.
He has been practicing environmental law for 13 years and in his
best professional judgement, if the Legislature wants to invoke
this problem, take control away from the State agency, it could
fall in the lap of the EPA or the Tribes. He just talked to EPA
and this is where the money, in the form of grants, is right now.
He said they confronted this in the solid waste program a few years
ago where the State has always had primacy over landfills. EPA
came in and said they were going to take over. However, we fended
that one off.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if this is being challenged in Oklahoma
now.
MR. REGES said they hadn't raised the challenge yet, but attorneys
there called him to ask if we are interested in joining them in a
challenge.
TAPE 98-20, SIDE B
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how they defined the land base on which they
try to extend air powers over.
MR. REGES answered that would be the issue to be litigated. In the
federal register, it is defined as "air resources over areas within
the tribe's jurisdiction." The precise argument Oklahoma is making
is what might that be, if there are no reservations.
He dealt with EPA when he worked for the Department of Law and they
tried to exercise jurisdiction over the solid waste program and
they said they had federal congressional authority to treat tribes
as state over Indian lands and Indian lands is somewhat broader
than Indian country. It is anything the tribe can demonstrate.
He didn't think they wanted to take the regulatory control away
from the State agency and assume we could hold the feds off,
because in Oklahoma the EPA is very actively trying to give tribes
that authority.
Number 563
SENATOR LEMAN asked if a substantial part of his background was in
environmental law.
MR. REGES answered that he started practice in 1985 and worked with
the EPA in Dallas, Texas for a few years. He worked in private
practice representing industry in Tucson, Arizona, for a few years,
he worked on the Exxon-Valdez litigation on behalf of Exxon for one
year, and worked for the Department of Law, representing DEC for
six years and was one of the primary authors of this bill. Now he
is in private practice representing both citizens groups and North
Slope industries. He is not here today on behalf of anyone in
particular.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the intermingling of emissions applies when
the drill rigs drill for 7 - 10 days and then move to drill
somewhere else.
MR. REGES responded that DEC's representative spoke truthfully when
he said the companies that employ the drillers have the right and
the ability to tell DEC what their expected operating scenario will
be, so they could avoid some of the permitting problems by
presenting a permit application in which they say the drill rigs
will not operate in close proximity to one another and they will
not all operate at the same time. They are reluctant to do that,
in his experience, because it requires significant planning ahead
in an industry that doesn't lend itself to that kind of planning.
You don't know if you hit oil on one, you might want to explore
there right away. They prefer to give DEC a scenario that says
just assume that at least some of the year all the rigs will be
operating all at the same time in close proximity to each other,
the worst case scenario. If they can get a permit for that, they
are O.K. for anything less than that.
MR. RUSS DOUGLAS, Alaska Chapter, International Association of
Drilling Contractors (IADC), said on March 16 they unanimously
passed a resolution, 98-1, in support of SB 299. He said the
Federal Clean Air Act established the means to protect and assess
air quality resources throughout the states. It provided for
maintenance of these air quality resources where the resources were
determined to be within ambient air quality standard limits and
provided requirements for improvement if those resources were
determined not within ambient air quality standards. It clearly
recognizes two categories of emission forces: mobile and
stationary. The Committee has been talking about the stationary
air sources. Control of emissions from mobile sources is done
through establishment of federal emission standards which requires
the manufacturers of mobile sources to manufacture their product to
meet federal emission standards before they can be marketed.
Nonroad engines are a subset of mobile sources; they are internal
combustion engines which are mobile and are subject to federal
emissions standards at the manufacturing level.
SB 299 codifies in State statute the federal distinction between
mobile and stationary sources. It also simplifies and clarifies
treatment of nonroad engines as they relate to stationary sources.
IADC does not believe SB 299 takes any regulatory authority away
from the DEC. The recent EPA ruling of December 30, 1997 on non-
road engines gives states the option to present to EPA a means by
which they can control nonroad emissions provided they show that it
is a necessary and reasonable effort.
He said there is no drilling rig in Alaska that owns, operates, or
has with its rig a well test flare. It is codified in regulation
that the actual and potential emissions of nonroad engines are not
to be counted against the threshold for stationary source
determinations, thereby further separating stationary from mobile
sources. Normally an average rig on the Slope running slowly on
diesel will average during a year 4,000 - 5,000 per day depending
on the job they were doing. In addition, there is a rig on the
Slope that operates on natural gas and there are more expected in
the near future. On natural gas, you burn diesel at a much lower
rate, more in the lines of 1,000 - 1,500 gallons per day. There
are also several rigs on the Slope that are capable of operating on
electric high line power which also significantly reduces the
amount of diesel to be burned to that 1,000 - 1,500 per day level.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if he still felt the bill was necessary after
hearing testimony.
MR. DOUGLASS answered, "Yes."
Number 477
MS. PAMELA MILLER, Program Director and Biologist, Alaska Community
Action on Toxics, a program of the Alaska Conservation Foundation
which seeks to protect human health and the environment from the
toxic effects of contaminants and strive to stop production,
proliferation, and release of toxic chemicals that threaten
environmental and human health. She opposed SB 299 because it
exempts significant sources of air pollution from permit
requirements and regulatory oversight. This bill violates
requirements under the Clean Air Act and jeopardizes the State's
implementation of the Act as delegated by federal law. This bill
blatantly ignores provisions of the Clean Air Act, so that federal
takeover of management of Alaska's resources would be inevitable if
this bill were to pass. Some of the facilities proposed by this
bill for exemption include some of the largest sources of air
pollution, including the well test flares used to dispose of oil
and gas waste, diesel engines used to power drill rigs, asphalt
plants, dirt burners, power plants, mines, etc. Hazardous air
pollutants from these facilities are known to cause acute and
chronic respiratory illnesses. These are soot, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic chemicals.
Some of the facilities burning hazardous waste produce cancer-
causing air pollutants such as dioxins and pherans. These
substances cause endocrine disruptions, reproductive disorders, and
other serious health effects at extremely low concentrations.
There is no other limit to amount of pollution exempted by this
bill.
This bill will also have adverse economic consequences including
imposition of federal highway fund sanctions. The detrimental
health resulting from this bill will cause increases in health care
costs for many Alaskans who already suffer from respiratory illness
such as asthma. Health care officials in Nuiqsut have been
concerned over the last several years that air pollution from
production facilities at Prudhoe Bay is causing dramatic increases
in respiratory illnesses such as asthma, particularly during the
air inversions of the winter months. There is no hard data because
there is no monitoring.
Number 432
SENATOR LEMAN said that was interesting testimony and he shares her
concern over public health, but we already have regulations that
deal with the protection of workers' health when it comes to air
quality and this bill does not destroy that ability.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass SB 299 from Committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|