Alaskans should insist on better from BP, DEC

In this space two weeks ago, shortly after another BP mishap on the North Slope resulted in the suspension of production, we cautioned Alaskans to resist the temptation to point all fingers exclusively at the multinational corporation. We laid out the case that regulatory and enforcement laxity on the part of state and federal officials, bought with the millions of dollars the oil industry expends in campaign contributions, was a large part of the problem.

The Saturday edition of the Seattle Times included a story that supported this contention. In a nutshell, the state Department of Environmental Conservation, the agency charged with regulating North Slope operations, commissioned a report in 2000 from Coffman Engineers, a national engineering firm with an office in Anchorage, on BP's corrosion monitoring and control programs. After its investigation, Coffman submitted an 11-page, unambiguously negative account of its findings, in which it warned of large-scale improprieties and showed routine maintenance would have made the recent shutdown avoidable.

In turn, DEC officials took the report, which was released in late 2001, to BP, which immediately cried foul. DEC officials responded by allowing BP to rewrite the report. The edited eight-page version became the official report on file.

Among the findings in the original report were &#8220the actual magnitude of the corrosion increase is not reported and subsequent damage to the pipe wall due to increased corrosivity is not quantified. … No statistics on the extent of corrosion defects were reported. … Structural issues beyond corrosion were not addressed in either the report or the presentation.” BP's revision included none of these concerns.

In a separate section of the report, it was noted that BP &#8220stated intent to ‘report openly, good or bad …' the results of its corrosion management programs. However, the reporting style makes it difficult to develop a qualitative understanding of the basis for their corrosion strategy.”

In BP's version, these comments were replaced with a statement saying the company &#8220has demonstrated a clear commitment to corrosion control” and &#8220has developed a comprehensive program of monitoring and inspection.”

On an unsettling related note, in a 2002 survey of DEC employees by the Washington, D.C.-based group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, 45 said they were &#8220aware of cases in which the DEC commissioner or division directors have blocked enforcement against politically influential members of the regulated community,” while a full 56 said the department does not &#8220hold the oil industry to the same environmental standards as other small industries in the state.”

The complete survey can be found at www.peer.org/pubs/ surveys/2002_ak_dec.pdf. It makes for interesting - and eye-opening - reading, especially in a year when Alaskans will choose the next governor and Legislature.

There is much at stake for Alaskans on the North Slope right now. A gas pipeline and development of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil would make the state's economic future a whole lot brighter. But as evidence mounts against the environmental commitment of operators like BP, the state's unwillingness to take a tough stand will make it all the more difficult to gather the necessary support for these big projects.

The November election offers Alaskans an opportunity. As candidates for office, many of whom have benefited handsomely from industry contributions, make their rounds in the next couple of months, concerned voters should consider asking the following question of those who seek their support: &#8220What, specifically, will you do to strengthen regulations and ensure their enforcement to help prevent another operational failure in Alaska's oil fields?”