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.