Governor signs best available technology bill, SB 343

Bill clarifies legislative intent for oil discharge prevention and contingency plans, was introduced by Senate Resources and opposed by activist Tom Lakosh

Kristen Nelson

PNA Editor-in-Chief

Gov. Tony Knowles signed Senate Bill 343 April 17, resolving the impasse which has existed in Department of Environmental Conservation regulations for oil discharge prevention and contingency plans since Feb. 1, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled DEC’s regulatory interpretation of best available technology did not meet legislative intent.

SB 343, clarifying legislative intent, was introduced by Senate Resources and had the support of DEC, the Department of Law and the Alaska Oil and Gas Association.

At issue was the interpretation of best available technology in regulations adopted by DEC in 1997 after a stakeholder process which included industry, regional citizens’ advisory council and representatives of the environmental community.

“The best available technology requirement is an integral part of managing oil exploration, development, and transportation in Alaska,” Knowles said in a statement.

“We have had great success in applying the best available technology to bring state-of-the-art tractor tugs to assist tankers in Prince William Sound, and improve well-head source control techniques and leak detection technologies. The best available technology determinations have continually improved Alaska’s spill prevention and response system and made it the best in the world.”

The governor’s office said the bill validates those consensus-developed and effective methods, sustains the same level of rigor for contingency plan reviews, and supports the ability of the Department of Environmental Conservation to evaluate new technologies and incorporate them into future contingency plans.

As the bill moved through the Legislature, committees were told that without clarification of legislative intent, more than 100 oil discharge prevention and contingency plans approved under the regulations were at risk, and decisions on new plans were stalled.

Forest Oil’s Senior Vice President Gary Carlson told Senate Resources March 4 that Forest Oil was “one of the companies caught in the middle of this dilemma” as the company tries to get approval of contingency plans for its Redoubt Shoal project. Carlson told the committee that the Redoubt Shoal development phase is in jeopardy without resolution of the problem.

Spill prevention and response activist Tom Lakosh, whose court suit resulted in the Supreme Court decision, argued against the bill, saying the state does not have adequate response capability and needs a DEC-run response authority.

Lakosh, the Alaska Conservation Voters and the Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility also argued that DEC needed to respond to the court’s ruling through changes in its regulations.