Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/04/1993 10:00 AM 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
February 4, 1993
10:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Pete Kott, Vice-Chairman
Representative Harley Olberg
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Sitton
Representative Jerry Mackie
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 99 "An Act repealing the 65-day time limit for
approval or disapproval of proposed oil discharge
contingency plan by the Department of
Environmental Conservation; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
(* first public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
Steve Porter
ARCO
700 G Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Indeterminable
Ray Gillespie, Lobbyist
9478 Riverbent Court
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 99
Russell Heath
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 99
Janice Adair, Assistant Commissioner
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
465-5010
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 99
Patty Bielawski
British Petroleum
900 E. Benson Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Deferred questions to the Division of
Governmental Coordination (DGC)
Beth Kerttula, Assistant Attorney General
Alaska Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to the DGC
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 99
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL 65-DAY DEADLINE: OIL SPILL PLANS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL AND GAS
TITLE: "An Act repealing the 65-day time limit for approval
or disapproval of proposed oil discharge contingency plan by
the Department of Environmental Conservation; and providing
for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/93 178 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/29/93 178 (H) OIL & GAS, RESOURCES, JUDICIARY
02/04/93 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
Tape 93-4, Side A
Number 000
The House Special Committee on Oil & Gas was called to order
by Chairman Green at 10:05 a.m. Members present at the call
to order were Representatives Green, Kott, Olberg, Davis,
Sanders, and Sitton.
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN stated this was to be a joint session
with the Senate Special Committee on Oil & Gas, but the
Senate had postponed their meeting. He noted the meeting
was being teleconferenced. (Representative Mackie joined
the meeting at this time). He then asked for an overview
from Steve Porter.
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
99 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.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|