|
Cook Inletkeeper wants DEC hearing The environmental advocacy organization objects to state certification of discharges from Cook Inlet oil and gas production Alan Bailey Petroleum News
In an ongoing challenge to the permitting of discharges into Cook Inlet from oil and gas facilities, Cook Inletkeeper has asked the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to hold a public hearing to adjudicate the advocacy organization’s claim that DEC certification of the discharges violates the U.S. Clean Water Act.
DEC requires comments on the hearing request by Nov. 24.
Tim Twomey, assistant state attorney general, told Petroleum News Nov. 6 that the state will file a statement in opposition to the hearing request.
“The statement will argue that the state fulfilled its duties in ensuring that water quality standards are met,” Twomey said.
General permit appealed An appeal against the permitting of Cook Inlet discharges is also proceeding through federal court — in June 2007 Cook Inletkeeper, Cook Inlet Fishermen’s Fund, United Cook Inlet Drift Association and the Native villages of Port Graham and Nanwalek filed the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s general permit for Cook Inlet discharges. That case is still in progress, with briefs due in November and December.
The general permit, which was renewed in 2007, allows most of the oil and gas production facilities around the inlet to continue discharging drilling waste and produced water, provided that the content of the discharges remain within the specifications of the permit.
EPA regulates discharges from oil and gas operations under the terms of the Clean Water Act through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, generally known as NPDES. But, although in Alaska NPDES is administered by the federal government, EPA requires the state to certify that a permitted operation will meet state water quality standards before EPA will issue a federal NPDES permit.
In May 2007 DEC issued a certification for any Cook Inlet discharges that fall within the terms of the renewed EPA general permit. Cook Inletkeeper objects to that certification, saying that the certification fails to ensure that state water quality standards will be met.
Started in the 1960s Oil and gas production facilities in Cook Inlet have been discharging drilling waste and produced water since the facilities went into operation in the 1960s.
In 1995 EPA brought in new zero-discharge standards for U.S. offshore oil installations, EPA attorney Courtney Hamamoto has told Petroleum News. But the agency exempted existing Cook Inlet facilities from that standard: the retrofitting of the required disposal technology was deemed impractical; the aging facilities had a limited life expectancy; and the discharges from the facilities were within acceptable limits, she said.
Rather than prohibiting discharges, Cook Inlet facilities are subject to technology-based numerical limits for potential pollutants in discharges, to ensure that the discharges remain within federal guidelines, Dianne Soderlund, EPA program manager for the Alaska oil and gas sector, told Petroleum News.
When EPA renewed the Cook Inlet general permit in 2007, it retained the Cook Inlet exemption from zero-discharge requirements. The exemption only applies to facilities built prior to 1993 — new production facilities are not allowed to discharge either drilling waste or produced water into the waters of the Cook Inlet.
For each of the existing facilities, the general permit spells out the allowed upper limits of total toxicity and potential pollutants associated with oil field produced water, together with requirements for monitoring the levels of the pollutants.
Produced water
But Cook Inletkeeper is questioning whether the state’s review of the renewed permit adequately takes into account a continuing increase in the volumes of produced water emanating from aging Cook Inlet fields, as the amount of oil in the fields declines.
“Currently, in Cook Inlet there are 17 offshore platforms, 13 of which are active, and three onshore treatment facilities. All but one of the platforms and all three onshore facilities have sought coverage to discharge pollutants to Cook Inlet under this Cook Inlet general permit,” Cook Inletkeeper said. “… By issuing its stamp of approval on the Cook Inlet general permit, DEC neither led the way nor lived up to its duty under the Clean Water Act. Instead, DEC arbitrarily certified that the substantial increase in the amount of pollutants and the reduction in water quality … does not violate Alaska’s anti-degradation policy or Alaska’s water quality standard.”
Cook Inletkeeper said DEC did not perform a legally valid anti-degradation analysis and has authorized excessively large mixing zones for discharges entering inlet waters. As a consequence, the agency has not completed a valid evaluation of risks that the discharges pose to aquatic organisms, Cook Inletkeeper said.
Federal guidelines met But when Cook Inletkeeper launched its appeal against the Cook Inlet general permit in 2007, EPA said that the permit ensures that oil industry discharges meet federal guidelines.
“Obviously, we issued a permit that we think fully complies with federal law,” Soderlund said at the time.
And oil industry advocates vehemently defended the EPA position.
Marilyn Crockett, director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, said that the strong tidal currents in Cook Inlet rapidly disperse and dilute waste material discharged into the water. Numerous studies have concluded that there is no evidence of industry contamination of Cook Inlet water or sediment, Crockett said.
Jason Brune, executive director of the Resource Development Council for Alaska said there is no scientific evidence of drilling pollution harming Cook Inlet wildlife. Tissue samples from beluga whales, for example, have proved to be cleaner than samples from whales elsewhere, he said.
Cook Inlet oil producers Chevron and ConocoPhillips said that they have already taken steps to reduce or eliminate produced water discharges from their facilities. Chevron said it eliminated produced water discharges from several of its platforms, while ConocoPhillips said it eliminated the discharge of produced water from its North Cook Inlet platform by injecting the water into a permitted disposal well.
| 