|
DEC hears concerns regs would be weakened, others urge updating
Kristen Nelson Petroleum News
Last year the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation sought input on requirements for its oil discharge prevention and contingency plan requirements. The department said that based on feedback it “may consider amending contingency plan regulations” in 18 Alaska Administrative Code 75, Article 4, and said it was “also accepting comments on the related statutes that authorize the Article 4 regulations.”
“I’ve heard from many Alaskans that contingency plans are unnecessarily burdensome while lacking corresponding environmental benefits,” ADEC Commissioner Jason Brune said. “To achieve Governor Dunleavy’s goal of being open for business, today we are beginning a fully transparent scoping process seeking the public’s input,” he said in an Oct. 15 release.
Responses covered a spectrum from concern about exposing the state to another major oil spill to requests for consistent treatment by ADEC plan reviewers and a desire to see regulations reflect current technology.
A number of responses referred to the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill and the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 which established the regional citizens’ advisory councils.
Prince William Sound RCAC In its comments the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council said it “does not think the regulations are necessarily flawed as they are written,” and noted that “some plan holders and response action contractors have become frustrated with inconsistencies in the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the ODPCP regulations.”
Some of those frustrations, the council said, stem from differences in requirements for large and complex operations as compared to those for smaller, less complex operations, “but much of it stems from different expectations of individual ADEC plan reviewers. This frustration indicates that the problems are not with the regulations in and of themselves, but instead lie with training and supervision of ADEC plan reviewers.”
The council said there has been a loss of experience and institutional continuity in recent years because of high turnover at ADEC, combined with organizational changes in the Division of Spill Prevention and Response, combining plan review and spill response, and requiring “staff to learn new tasks in a short time,” resulting in inexperienced staff reviewing plans, increasing the time it takes and “exacerbating inconsistencies in the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the ODPCP regulations.”
PWSRCAC commented extensively, and made a number of recommendations, among them that ADEC develop training to ensure “all plan reviewers are trained to interpret, implement, and enforce the regulations consistently.”
Cook Inlet RCAC “We believe that sweeping changes to the current requirements are not warranted,” the Cook Inlet Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council said in its comments, but said that in its years of reviewing plans and plan amendments and evaluating drills and exercises “and participating in other plan-related activities for a variety of operators, we have become concerned about the inconsistent application of regulatory requirements across plan holders,” and noted that industry representatives have also shared these concerns in comments during the current scoping process.
CIRCAC said this highlights “the importance of consistent training and oversight of ADEC personnel charged with reviewing the plans,” and, like the PWSRCAC, cited turnover at ADEC and reorganization in SPAR.
“CIRCAC recommends that ADEC develop and adopt a training regime that ensures consistency in interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of regulations,” the council said.
AOGA recommends updating The Alaska Oil and Gas Association, a trade association whose 14 member companies represent the industry in Alaska, said the current ODPCP regulations “require change in order to be relevant and reflect the current state of Alaska’s oil exploration, production, pipelines, distribution and transportation industries,” citing improvements in equipment and technology, and years of industry experience since they were enacted.
AOGA said it “supports modernization of the regulatory scheme” and said that would “eliminate unnecessary administrative compliances.”
AOGA provided detailed comments, but in an overview listed revision and clarification of “oil terminal facility”; modernization of the administration of ODPCPs; modernization of prescribed industry standards, “which have not been revised since 2006 and are grossly outdated, to provide clear compliance standards”; revision of tank truck loading and permanent unloading area requirements; modernization of response planning standards; and elimination of best available technology analysis if plans “must be prepared in accordance with good engineering practice, including consideration of applicable industry standards, and if plans must be consistent with the state/federal-managed Regional and Area Contingency Plans.”
Alyeska Pipeline Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. noted it holds multiple state-approved oil discharge prevention and contingency plans and said it encourages ADEC “to initiate the formal regulation drafting and review process for all of 18 AAC 75 Article 4 and Alaska Statute 46.04.”
It said: “periodic review of contingency planning regulatory requirements is a valuable step in ensuring that the regulations and statutes remain relevant, comprehensive, transparent, and encourage state-of-the-art capability.”
The company said a 2016 regulation amendment “allowed for the State to host industry ODPCPs on the ADEC website,” which eliminated “expensive and time-consuming hard copy production and distribution” and made “the plans accessible and transparent to a wider audience.”
Alyeska created an internal work group which coordinated with industry peers on issues of joint interest and the company submitted “a representative sampling of both major issues and minor recommendations as sufficient evidence to support a formal public review of the statute and regulation.”
Local governments ADEC received resolutions opposing changes from a number of local governments.
That from the City of Seldovia is representative: “the City Council of the City of Seldovia strongly opposes legislative or regulatory changes that erode oil spill prevention and response standards, increase the risk of a catastrophic spill, or demonstrate a return of the complacency on the part of the oil industry and regulators that Congress determined to be a primary cause of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.”
The City of Valdez said: “The Valdez City Council strongly opposes any legislative or regulatory changes that erode oil spill prevention and response standards, reduce opportunities for public input and review, increase the risk of a catastrophic oil spill, or demonstrate complacency on the part of the oil industry and regulators.”
The resolutions were in line with numerous individual comments, which said ADEC should not weaken the state’s defense against oil spills.
- KRISTEN NELSON
| 