Opinion ID: 2632357
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

Text: Alaska Statute 46.04.030(a) provides that [a] person may not cause or permit the operation of an oil terminal facility in the state unless an oil discharge prevention and contingency plan for the facility has been approved by [DEC] and the person is in compliance with the plan. [16] Moreover, subsection.030(k) further requires that contingency plan holders be able to comply with specified standards. The subsection sets specific spill containment and cleanup response planning standards [17] and commands plan holders to maintain, or have available under contract, sufficient oil discharge containment, storage, transfer, and cleanup equipment, personnel, and resources to meet these standards. [18] DEC has adopted regulations setting analogous performance standards that plan holders must meet with respect to oil spill prevention. [19] And finally, subsection .030(e) requires that oil spill contingency plans also provide for the use by the applicant of the best technology that was available at the time the contingency plan was submitted or renewed. It is this latter provision, subsection.030(e)'s best available technology requirement, that is in controversy here. DEC chose to adopt a three-tiered approach for determining whether a contingency plan provides for the use of the best available technology. [20] The first tier of the definition, set out in 18 AAC 75.445(k)(1), covers cleanup and containment technology governed by the oil spill response planning standards mandated by AS 46.04.030(k); cleanup and containment technology included in this tier meets the best available technology requirement if it is capable of complying with the statutory cleanup and containment standards  that is, if the technology as a whole is appropriate and reliable for the intended use as well as the magnitude of the applicable response planning standard. [21] The second tier of the definition, 18 AAC 75.445(k)(2), governs oil spill prevention technology, which is governed by the oil pollution prevention performance standards found in 18 AAC 75.005.080; with limited exceptions not relevant here, the oil spill prevention technology in this tier meets the best available technology requirement if it is capable of meeting the performance standards in the applicable oil spill prevention regulations. [22] The third tier of the definition, set out in 18 AAC 75.445(k)(3), covers remaining technology not subject to either the response planning standards or the prevention performance standards; in this tier, DEC determines whether the best available technology requirement has been met by undertaking a case-by-case evaluation based on specified criteria. [23] Thus, the challenged regulation uses individualized analysis to determine compliance with the best available technology requirement only for those residual classes of technology included in the third tier of the definition. [24] For technologies covered in the first two tiers  those involved in almost all oil spill prevention, containment, and cleanup activities  compliance with the applicable standards essentially serves as a proxy for the best available technology determination.