|
Federal OCS panel responds to questions Environmental compliance panel comments on issues of transparency and community involvement in oversight of offshore drilling Alan Bailey Petroleum News
Formed in June 2012 to steer federal oversight of oil industry compliance with environmental laws and permits during exploration drilling operations on the Alaska Arctic outer continental shelf, the Interagency Compliance Monitoring Panel, a group of officials from several federal government agencies, has been reflecting on its experiences from its first season of operation.
The panel includes representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Weekly meetings Jeffrey Missal, regional environmental officer with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, told the National Marine Fisheries Service’s annual Arctic Open Water Meeting on March 5 that the panel had met weekly during the 2012 Arctic open water season to review activities in progress on the outer continental shelf. At that time Shell was deploying its drilling fleet for exploration drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, with one drilling rig in each sea.
Typically 17 to 25 people, in some cases including people from industry, participated in the meetings, discussing issues arising from the offshore operations, Missal said.
The purpose of convening the panel, a new venture by the federal agencies, was to coordinate oversight of industry activities, ensuring the implementation of required environmental monitoring and required environmental compliance measures, Missal explained. The panel also set out to identify and respond to any new regulatory issues that emerged from the offshore activities, and to find solutions to those issues, he said.
Public access Much discussion at the Open Water Meeting revolved around questions of public access to the compliance panel’s discussions, and the need for the panel to consider input from North Slope communities impacted by offshore industrial activities. Missal said that the panel had decided not to invite the public to its meetings because of concerns about the possibility of proprietary information being discussed.
A Shell representative at the Open Water Meeting said that proprietary information could include the status of a drilling operation and the nature of the drilling technology being used. A U.S. Coast Guard representative on the panel commented that panel discussions might sometimes relate to agency enforcement actions, a situation that might require restricted access to meetings.
In response to requests for the panel to take a more open approach, Missal said that the panel would be happy to release reports from its meetings and that it could work on posting information on its public website.
The agencies had inspectors on the drilling rigs 24 hours per day during drilling operations although, because of staffing and logistical constraints, the agencies also depended on self-reporting by the industry, Missal said. The agencies have “worked tirelessly” with industry to refine the self-reporting process and ensure that it works well, he said.
Missal said that the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is implementing a new position, an environmental enforcement officer, who will in the future step up the agency’s oversight of the industry by being in the area and on site during drilling operations.
Community involvement Given that one purpose of federal environmental regulation is to ensure that industry does not disrupt Native subsistence hunting, an activity that North Slope communities depend on for food, several representatives of those communities attending the Open Water Meeting requested more community involvement in what the agencies are doing, with the agencies taking more account of traditional Native knowledge of the environment and of the behavior of the ocean wildlife.
Jim Kendall, Alaska regional director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, assured the community representatives that the agencies take Native traditional knowledge very seriously. And a representative from the Environmental Protection Agency said that Shell’s air quality and waste discharge permits included information gleaned from traditional knowledge.
Local concerns But why are the local communities not involved in the monitoring process, asked a representative from the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, a Native tribal organization. Information should be made available to any tribal or local entity, especially when it comes to issues relating to subsistence needs, one villager commented. Regulatory decisions affect people’s ability to put food on their tables, said another, while another commented that local people had been “left on the sidelines while federal agencies make decisions that impact our way of life.”
Harry Brower, vice chairman of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, asked what the panel proposed doing to address the possibility of industrial activities creating problems for subsistence hunters by deflecting whale migration routes.
Compliance Monitoring Panel member Brad Smith from the National Marine Fisheries Service protected resources division commented that the panel is still learning lessons from its first year of operation. Smith acknowledged that there is a need to understand local North Slope opinion and knowledge. One lesson from the past year is a need to integrate the panel activities more closely with village community centers, providing information to the villages and obtaining local perspectives on the industrial activities, he said.
|
