[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A NEW DIRECTION FOR FEDERAL OIL
SPILL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 4, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-820 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL D. TONKO, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH CHAPEL Republican Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
JANE WISE Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
June 4, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 14
Statement by Representative Lynn C. Woolsey, Member, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Witnesses:
Mr. Douglas R. Helton, Incident Operations Coordinator, Office of
Response and Restoration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Biography.................................................... 21
Dr. Albert D. Venosa, Director, Land Remediation and Pollution
Control Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 23
Biography.................................................... 26
Rear Admiral James A. Watson, Director of Prevention Policy for
Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Coast Guard
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 32
Mr. Stephen L. Edinger, Administrator, California Department of
Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 33
Biography.................................................... 36
Discussion
Achieving Necessary Research and Development Measures.......... 37
Possible Improvements to Existing Mechanisms................... 39
Inland Spills.................................................. 41
Containment Booms and University-Agency Cooperation............ 43
Spill Prevention............................................... 45
Scientific Modeling............................................ 47
Funding for Real-World Tools................................... 48
Research Efforts as Proportionate to Need...................... 49
Oil Spills and Coral Reefs..................................... 50
Useful Spin-off Technologies................................... 51
The Resource of Volunteer Aid.................................. 53
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
H.R. 2693, Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act................ 56
Statement of Minerals Management Service, Department of the
Interior, dated June 4, 2009................................... 65
Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan, Interagency
Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research, April 1997... 71
Letter to Jane Wise from Noel Turner, Legislative Affairs
Specialist, NOAA Office of Legislative Affairs................. 154
A NEW DIRECTION FOR FEDERAL OIL SPILL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
A New Direction for Federal Oil
Spill Research and Development
thursday, june 4, 2009
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, June 4th, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
will hold a hearing entitled ``A New Direction for Federal Oil Spill
Research and Development'' at 2 p.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House
Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to examine current
federal research and development efforts to prevent, detect, or
mitigate oil discharges and to receive testimony on the Federal Oil
Spill Research Program Act of 2009.
Witnesses
Mr. Doug Helton, Incident Operations Coordinator,
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of
Response and Restoration (OR&R). Mr. Helton assists in managing
NOAA's scientific support team during oil and chemical spill
responses. In addition, he works to ensure that NOAA's oil
spill response services are provided quickly and are useful to
the U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency, and
other on-scene responders.
Dr. Albert D. Venosa, Director of the Land
Remediation and Pollution Control Division at the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Dr. Venosa
directs EPA's research related to oil spill remediation and
mitigation. Dr. Venosa's twenty-year tenure in this area of
work includes assessing the effectiveness of nutrient
formulations in the field for stimulating enhanced bio-
degradation of contaminated shorelines in Prince William Sound
as part of the Alaska Oil Spill Bioremediation Project.
Rear Admiral James Watson, Director of Prevention
Policy for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship, United
States Coast Guard (USCG). Rear Admiral Watson serves as
Director of Prevention Policy Development for most legislative
mandates regarding oil pollution prevention. His work includes
oversight of Vessel Response Plans, oily-water separators,
ballast systems, navigation safety systems, and pollution
investigations.
Mr. Stephen Edinger, Director of the Office of Spill
Prevention and Response (OSPR), California Department of Fish
and Game. Mr. Edinger is the senior State of California
Official responsible for oil spill prevention and response.
Steve is an experienced law enforcement officer and Incident
Commander and served as the State-On-Scene Coordinator for the
M/V COSCO BUSAN oil spill response.
Background
Approximately three million gallons of oil, or refined petroleum
product, are spilled into U.S. waters every year.\1\ When one of the
hundreds of annual spills occur, the Federal Government takes primary
action through the Coast Guard or Environmental Protection Agency
depending on the location of the accident. As a part of the federal
response, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration often
plays a vital role in providing real time data and forecasting to
assist in the recovery and mitigation efforts. In 2008, NOAA received
requests for scientific assistance related to 169 environmental
incidents, three-quarters of which were oil spills.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council (2005) ``Oil Spill Dispersants:
Efficacy and Effects.'' pg. 1.
\2\ NOOA (2009) FY 2010 Budget Summary. May 11, 2009. pg. 2-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March of 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground on Bligh
Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, rupturing its hull and spilling
nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil. The oil slick spread over
11,000 square miles of ocean and onto over 350 miles of beaches in
Prince William Sound. It was the largest single oil spill in U.S.
coastal waters.\3\ The direct result of Exxon Valdez was the passing of
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), which clarified jurisdictional
ambiguities in previous legislation. The Act addressed many factors in
preventing, detecting, or mitigating oil spills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NOAA (2009) Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Website. National Ocean
Service. Office of Response and Restoration Website. http://
response.restoration.noaa.gov/. Accessed on May 20, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title VII of OPA created an interagency oil spill research and
technology program nineteen years ago. According to the Committee on
the Marine Transportation of Heavy Oils, which was established by the
National Research Council (NRC) at the request of the U.S. Coast Guard,
for most spills only about 10 to 15 percent of the oil is recovered,
and the best recovery rates are probably about 30 percent.\4\ Given
these low recovery percentages, additional research and development is
necessary to reach acceptable levels of mitigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Research Council (1999) Spills of Non-Floating Oils.
Committee on Marine Transportation of Heavy Oils. National Research
Council. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. Pg. v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, P.L. 101-380 (8-18-1990)
Title VII--Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
The Oil Pollution Act's Title VII created a program to conduct
research and development on oil spill prevention and response. The
Title established an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate a
comprehensive research and development effort among 14 federal agencies
and to coordinate federal research and development activities with
those of State and local governments, industries, universities, other
foreign governments. The law designated the Coast Guard as the
Committee Chairman and defined membership to include:
1. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC)
2. National Institute of Standards and Technology (DOC)
3. The Department of Energy
4. The Minerals Management Service (DOI)
5. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI)
6. The United States Coast Guard (Originally DOT, now DHS)
7. The Maritime Administration (Originally DOT, now DHS)
8. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration\5\ (DOT)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Originally called the Research and Special Projects
Administration this program was renamed the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration in the Norman Y. Mineta Research and
Special Programs Improvement Act (P.L. 108-426).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The Army Corps of Engineers (DOD)
10. The Navy (DOD)
11. The Environmental Protection Administration
12. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
13. The United States Fire Administration (now DHS)
14. The Federal Emergency management Agency (now DHS)
The research program was authorized at $28 million per year for
five years with $6 million per year of the total designated for the
Regional Research Program.
The Committee was tasked with developing a research plan to
investigate technologies to prevent and clean up spills, ways to
restore damaged natural resources, and the long-term environmental
effects of spills. In addition, the Committee was tasked with the
management of a Regional Research Program. The Regional program
administers competitive grants to universities or other research
institutions to address regional oil pollution needs. OPA authorized a
total of $600,000 per year over five years to each of the ten Coast
Guard regions. Finally, the Title directed the Coast Guard to conduct
oil pollution minimization demonstration projects, only some of which
were carried out due to a lack of funding.
Since the OPA passed there has been little legislative activity to
amend the Oil Pollution Research and Development Plan. Two laws, the
Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 and the Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 created a port oil
pollution demonstration project in the Great Lakes. Finally, in 1996,
the Coast Guard Authorization Act authorized the Prince William Sound
Oil Spill Recovery Institute and the Center for Marine Training and
Safety in Galveston, Texas to conduct oil spill research and
development.
OPA Research and Development Program
The Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research
produced the first Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan in 1992,
and after consulting with the National Academy of Sciences, submitted a
second plan in 1997. The plans identified and prioritized twenty
research and development program areas. These areas focused on spill
prevention; spill response planning, training, and management; spill
countermeasures and cleanup; fate and transport; and effects,
monitoring and restoration and assigned R&D focus areas to ten member
agencies. There has been no update of the research plan since 1997.
Despite the Interagency Committee's detailed research plan, there
have been modest technological advances in oil spill cleanup technology
since the enactment of the law in 1990. The Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Oil Pollution Research reported that, as late as 1997,
``most of the technology and information gaps of 1990 remain,'' due to
a failure to appropriate sufficient funds for oil pollution technology
programs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research
(1997) Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four agencies--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), the Mineral
Management Services (MMS), and the Coast Guard--have conducted the
majority of oil pollution research. Funding levels have been far lower
than the $28 million per year originally authorized for the program.
U.S. Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard is the lead federal response agency for
coastal waters and deepwater ports, and conducts research through its
Research and Development Center in Groton, Connecticut. Specifically,
the Coast Guard has focused on four main areas: spill response planning
and management, spill detection and surveillance, vessel salvage and
on-board containment, and spilled oil cleanup and countermeasures. Over
the past decade, the Coast Guard has spent approximately $20 million on
oil spill research and development.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA seeks to prevent, prepare for, and respond to oil spills that
occur in the inland waters of the United States, and EPA is the lead
federal response agency for such spills. The Office of Emergency
Management (OEM) provides the responder personnel, while the research
work, which addresses mitigation, fate and effects, and spill flow
characteristics, is conducted through the Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
In FY 2009, the Oil Spill Response Program received $720,000, a
modest but historically stable budget, to conduct research and
development at EPA.\7\ The Program's objective is to provide
environmental managers with the ``tools, models, and methods needed to
mitigate the effects of oil and biofuel spills on ecosystems.'' EPA's
program includes focused work into spill mitigation through
bioremediation, chemical and physical countermeasures, and ecotoxity
effects.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA (2009) FY 2010 Congressional Budget Justification. EPA-2-5-
E-09-001. Pg. 160.
\8\ EPA (2009) Congressional Briefing on OPA 1990 to the Science
and Technology Committee. May 12, 2009.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) provides immediate
operational and scientific support during the assessment, response, and
cleanup phases. In the role as science advisors to the Federal On-Scene
Coordinator, OR&R provided spill trajectory, resources at risk, and
early spill impact information during the initial stages of the spill.
Once the focus shifted from response to cleanup, OR&R addressed issues
related to the effectiveness and environmental effects of cleanup
technologies.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NOAA (2009) Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Website. National Ocean
Service. Office of Response and Restoration Website. Accessed on May
20, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there is currently no funded oil spill response research
and development program in NOAA, the Oil Pollution Act does grant NOAA
the authority to carry out research and development. From 2004-2007,
NOAA received funding for the Coastal Response Research Center in New
Hampshire, which brings together the resources of the University of New
Hampshire and the field expertise of OR&R to conduct and oversee basic
and applied research, perform outreach, and encourage strategic
partnerships in spill response, assessment and restoration. Aside from
this funding, NOAA has received no direct appropriation for NOAA
research and development for spill response.
The Minerals Management Service (MMS)
MMS's Oil Spill Response Research Program (OSRR) focuses on
improving the knowledge and technologies used for detection,
containment and cleanup of oil spills that may occur on the outer
continental shelf. MMS also operates OHMSETT--the National Oil Spill
Response Test Tank Facility--in Leonardo, New Jersey. Funding for MMS's
programs is appropriated from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
(OSLTF). While OSLFT had received funds from an oil tax from oil
imported into the U.S., once the fund reached one billion dollars, the
tax was suspended. Currently, funds are generated from interest on the
fund, cost recovery from responsible parties, and penalties.
Draft Legislation
In November 2007, a 900-foot container ship, the Cosco Busan,
struck the San Francisco Bay Bridge, spilling over 50,000 gallons of
oil into the Bay. This accident brought renewed attention and focus to
current Federal Government procedures, practices, and research. Spills
such as the Cosco Busan can be costly. The cleanup costs for this
relatively small spill were close to $100 million. Following this event
and other recent accidents, it is clear that the United States needs a
more robust research and development strategy to reduce the
environmental and economic impacts of oil spills. Currently, responders
face a number of emerging threats arising from an increase in maritime
transportation, potential for offshore energy exploration in remote
locations, aging infrastructure, and new fuel stocks and blends.
More than ten federal and numerous State and local agencies are
called upon to assist in the federal response team in some manner.
Given the high environmental and economic cost of oil spills such as
the Cosco Busan and the current lack of directed research, a
reinvigorated and streamlined research and development program would
help to improve the effectiveness of oil spill response efforts and
ecosystem mitigation at a fraction of the cost of a single large spill.
For these reasons, Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) plans to
introduce legislation to reorient the current federal interagency
research and development program created in OPA. The draft legislation
seeks to improve the Federal Government's research and development
efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil discharges. The bill
provides a new direction to the existing program by guiding research
towards emerging threats and streamlining a cumbersome interagency
structure. Through this reauthorization, the responsible federal
agencies will be better equipped to quickly and effectively respond to
oil discharges both inland and in coastal waters.
Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act
Section-by-Section
Title: Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act
Purpose: To amend Title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and for
other purposes.
Section 1: Short Title
Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act
Section 2: Federal Oil Spill Research Committee
Section 2 directs the President to establish an interagency
committee to be known as the Federal Oil Spill Research Committee
(`Committee'). The President shall designate a representative of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to serve as Chairperson
of the Committee, and the members of the Committee shall include
representatives from NOAA, the United States Coast Guard, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and such other federal agencies as the
President may designate.
Section 2 requires the Committee to: 1) coordinate a federal oil
spill research program (`Program') to coordinate oil pollution
research, technology development, and demonstration among the federal
agencies, in cooperation and coordination with industry, institutions
of higher education, research institutions, State and tribal
governments, and other relevant stakeholders; 2) complete a research
assessment (`Assessment') on the status of oil spill prevention and
response capabilities; and 3) develop a federal oil spill research plan
(`Plan'). The Assessment will provide the Committee with the
information necessary to create the Plan.
Section 3: Federal Oil Spill Research Program
Section 3 requires the Committee to establish a Program for
conducting oil pollution research, development, and demonstration. The
Program shall focus on new technologies, practices, and procedures that
provide for effective and direct response to prevent, detect, recover,
or mitigate oil discharges.
Section 4: Federal Research Assessment
Section 4 instructs the Committee to submit to Congress an
Assessment of the status of oil spill prevention and response
capabilities that identifies current oil pollution research and
development programs, identifies regional oil pollution research needs
and priorities, assesses the status of knowledge of oil pollution
prevention, response, and mitigation technologies, and assesses the
status of real-time data available to mariners, researchers, and
responders. The Assessment shall be subject to a 90-day public comment
period and shall incorporate public input as appropriate. The Committee
is required submit the Assessment to Congress no later than one year
after the enactment of Section 4.
Section 5: Federal Research Interagency Plan
Section 5 directs the Committee to develop a Plan to establish
federal oil spill research and development priorities. In developing
the Plan, the Committee shall consider and utilize recommendations from
the National Academy of Sciences, as well as State, local, and tribal
governments. The Plan will make recommendations for improving oil spill
recovery, mitigation, technologies, practices, procedures, and the
quality of real-time data available to mariners, researchers, and
responders. The Assessment shall be subject to a 90-day public comment
period and shall incorporate public input as appropriate. The Committee
is required to submit the Plan to Congress no later than one year after
the submission of the Assessment.
Section 6: Extramural Grants
Section 6 instructs the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the
Administrator of NOAA, to award competitive grants to institutions of
higher education and other research institutions to advance research,
development, and demonstration of technologies for preventing,
detecting, or mitigating oil discharges in accordance with the goals
and priorities of the Plan. The Secretary shall incorporate a
competitive, merit-based process for awarding grants under Section 6.
Section 7: Annual Report
Section 7 requires the Committee to submit an annual report to
Congress, concurrent with the annual submission of the President's
budget, describing the activities and results of the Program during the
previous fiscal year and outlining objectives for the next fiscal year.
Section 8: National Academy of Science Participation
Section 8 instructs the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the
Administrator of NOAA, to contract with the National Academy of
Sciences to assess and evaluate the status of federal oil spill
research and development prior to the enactment of the Federal Oil
Spill Research Program Act and to submit: 1) an assessment of the
program prior to enactment of the legislation; 2) a report to the
Committee evaluating the conclusions and recommendations from the
Assessment to be utilized in the creation of the Plan; and 3) a report
to Congress evaluating the Committee's Plan, no later than one year
after the Committee submits the Plan.
Section 9: Technical and Conforming Changes
Section 9 makes technical and conforming changes to the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990.
Chairman Baird. We will bring our hearing to order. I want
to thank all our participants for being here. The hearing will
now come to order. I want to welcome everyone to today's
hearing on investigating federal oil spill research and
development. Our hearing today provides us with an opportunity
to examine current federal R&D efforts to prevent, detect, or
mitigate oil discharges.
In addition, the Subcommittee will receive testimony on new
legislation introduced by Representative Woolsey entitled,
``The Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act of 2009.'' As a
co-sponsor of the legislation I want to thank Ms. Woolsey for
her dedication to this important issue.
The Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989 provided the impetus for
the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, also known as OPA
90, which expanded the oil prevention, preparedness, and
response capacity of the Federal Government and industry. OPA
90 has been a success story in many ways. However, new
challenges exist today that were not apparent when the bill was
authorized.
Although oil leaked from tankers has vastly decreased, oil
spills from other vessels and from on-land sources remain high.
In 2007, a 900-foot container ship, the Cosco Busan, struck the
San Francisco Bay Bridge, spilling over 50,000 gallons of oil
into the Bay. That accident has brought renewed attention and
focus to current Federal Government procedures, practices, and
research. Following that event and other recent accidents it is
clear that the United States needs a more robust research and
development strategy to reduce the environmental and economic
impacts of oil spills.
Currently, responders face increasing challenges arising
from an increase in maritime transportation, potential for
onshore energy exploration in remote locations, aging
infrastructure, and new fuel stocks and blends. Title VII of
OPA 90 created an interagency oil spill research and
development program with the goal of coordinating federal
research to encourage the development of new technologies to
address oil spills.
Despite the interagency committee's detailed research plan,
there have been modest technological advances in oil spill
cleanup technologies since the enactment of the law in 1990.
According to the Committee on Maritime Transportation of Heavy
Oils, most oil spills experience a 10 to 15 percent rate of
recovery. More recent estimates have reported an increase in
recovery rates to 40 percent in best-case scenarios.
Given these low recovery percentages, additional research
and development is necessary to reach acceptable levels of
mitigation. The Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act authored
by Ms. Woolsey seeks to re-orient the current federal
interagency research and development program created in OPA.
The legislation would improve the Federal Government's research
and development efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil
discharges. The bill provides a new direction to the existing
program by guiding research towards new challenges and making
interagency structures for this program more efficient.
Through this reauthorization, the responsible federal
agencies will be better equipped to quickly and effectively
respond to oil discharges, both inland and in coastal waters.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us this
morning who will share their views on oil spill responses,
recovery, and mitigation, and I thank you all for being with us
here today. I look forward to your suggestions relating the
Federal Oil Spill Research Act.
And we have been joined at this point by the author of the
proposed legislation, Ms. Woolsey. Ms. Woolsey, I have been
singing your praises in your absence and will do so again
throughout today's hearing.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing investigating federal
oil spill research and development.
This morning's hearing provides us with an opportunity to examine
current federal R&D efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil
discharges. In addition, the Subcommittee will receive testimony on new
legislation introduced by Representative Woolsey entitled, the Federal
Oil Spill Research Program Act of 2009. As a co-sponsor of this
legislation, I want to thank Ms. Woolsey for her dedication to this
important issue.
Twenty years ago, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground and
spilled nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's Prince
William Sound. In its first sweep, the oil spill killed about 250,000
seabirds, 4,000 sea otters, 250 bald eagles, and more than 20 orca
whales, according to World Wildlife Federation. Two decades later, huge
quantities of oil still coat Alaska's shores. Of the 11 million gallons
of crude oil that drained from the stranded tanker, more than 20,000
gallons remain in isolated coves and underneath the sand.
The Exxon Valdez disaster provided the impetus for the passage of
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), which expanded the oil
prevention, preparedness, and response capabilities of the Federal
Government and industry.
The OPA 90 has been a success story in many ways. Since the bill
was signed into law, the volume of oil spilled from tankers into U.S.
waters has fallen from an average of 70,000 barrels per year to an
average of 4,000 barrels per year--a decrease of 95 percent. A phased
move from single to double hulls is one of the most visible of OPA 90's
achievements.
However, new challenges exist today that were not apparent when the
bill was authorized. Although oil leaked from tankers has vastly
decreased, oil spills from other vessels and from on-land sources
remain high. In 2007, a 900-foot container ship, the Cosco Busan,
struck the San Francisco Bay Bridge, spilling over 50,000 gallons of
oil into the Bay. This accident has brought renewed attention and focus
to current Federal Government procedures, practices, and research.
Following this event and other recent accidents, it is clear that
the United States needs a more robust research and development strategy
to reduce the environmental and economic impacts of oil spills.
Currently, responders face increasing challenges arising from an
increase in maritime transportation, potential for offshore energy
exploration in remote locations, aging infrastructure, and new fuel
stocks and blends.
Title VII of OPA 1990 created an ``Interagency Oil Spill Research
and Development Program'' with the goal of coordinating federal
research to encourage the development of new technologies to address
oil spills. Despite the Interagency Committee's detailed research plan,
there have been modest technological advances in oil spill cleanup
technology since the enactment of the law in 1990. In the last Plan
issued by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution
Research, released in 1997, the Committee reported ``most of the
technology and information gaps of 1990 remain.''
According to the Committee on the Marine Transportation of Heavy
Oils, most oil spills experience a 10 to 15 percent rate of recovery.
More recent estimates have reported an increase in recovery rates to 40
percent in best case scenarios. Given these low recovery percentages,
additional research and development is necessary to reach acceptable
levels of mitigation.
Due to the high environmental and economic cost of oil spills such
as the Cosco Busan and the current lack of directed research, a
reinvigorated research and development program is needed to improve the
effectiveness of oil spill response efforts and ecosystem mitigation at
a fraction of the cost of a single large spill.
The Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act seeks to reorient the
current federal interagency research and development program created in
OPA. The legislation would improve the Federal Government's research
and development efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil discharges.
The bill provides a new direction to the existing program by guiding
research towards new challenges and making the interagency structure
for this program more efficient. Through this reauthorization, the
responsible federal agencies will be better equipped to quickly and
effectively respond to oil discharges both inland and in coastal
waters.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us this morning who
will share their views on oil spill response, recovery, and mitigation.
I thank you all for being with us here today, and I look forward to
your suggestions related to the Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act.
Chairman Baird. At this point I would like to yield time to
Representative Woolsey and then in one moment I will recognize
Mr. Inglis.
Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Ranking Member and panel for being here to talk about
something that is very important to me and holding this hearing
and also for allowing me to make an opening statement.
Oil spill prevention and mitigation is important to me, not
only because I think it is vital to protect the environment and
our coastal economies but also because my district has been
seriously affected by what many consider a minor spill. Well,
ha, ha. As a result of this I have been witness to how
difficult an oil spill cleanup effort can be, even with the
best available technology.
As some of you remember, on November 7, 2007, the container
ship Cosco Busan collided with the San Francisco Bay Bridge and
released 58,000 gallons of oil into San Francisco Bay. Because
of the complex tidal mechanics that are present in the Bay, the
spill spread rapidly and quickly affected a large area of the
north coast, including the Golden Gate National Recreation
Area, the Point Reyes National Seashore, and both the Gulf of
the Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries.
The pristine beaches of Marin County were soiled, waters off
our federal parklands were sullied, and important restoration
projects in Richardson and San Pueblo Bay were threatened.
In addition, the spill killed thousands of birds, many
marine mammals, and no one knows how many fish, and I can't
help but think that this oil spill played at least some part in
the closure of the Sacramento River Salmon Fishery that
migrates through the San Francisco Bay on their way out to sea.
All in all, about 200 miles of coastline were affected by
this one minor spill. That is why I have introduced H.R. 2693,
the Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act. This bill
coordinates federal research and development of oil spill
prevention, detection, recovery, and mitigation to ensure that
all the relevant agencies are working together for common
solutions.
In addition, the bill provides grants to institutes of
higher learning and research centers to improve technologies
that can be used to prevent, combat, and clean up oil spills.
One thing that I heard again and again from the people who were
tasked with cleaning up our mess was that the technology they
were using just wasn't adequate to get the job done. Actually,
of the 58,000 gallons of oil that were spilled into San
Francisco Bay, only a little more than 40 percent of that
amount was recovered.
It is clear that current technology is inadequate to
prevent and protect us from oil spills if we can only recover
such a small percentage with what is available to us today. I
know that the right focus and with the right focus and effort
we can do much, much better. I am hoping that H.R. 2693 will
help to ensure that we will take an active role to prevent oil
spills and when they do occur, we have the best possible
technology to minimize negative impacts.
So, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me spout
off. I am really proud that you are--we are introducing this
legislation, and we will hear from these great witnesses. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Lynn C. Woolsey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and for
allowing me to make an opening statement.
Oil spill prevention and mitigation is important to me not only
because I think it's vital to protect the environment and coastal
economies, but also because my District has been seriously affected by
what many consider a minor spill. And as a result of this, I've been
witness to how difficult an oil spill cleanup effort can be . . . even
with the best available technology.
As some of you remember, on November 7, 2007, the container ship
Cosco Busan collided with the San Francisco Bay Bridge, and released
58,000 gallons of oil into San Francisco Bay.
Because of the complex tidal mechanics that are present in the Bay,
the spill spread rapidly and quickly affected a large area of the north
coast, including the Golden Gate National Recreation Area; the Point
Reyes National Seashore; and both the Gulf of the Farallones and
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries.
The pristine beaches of Marin County were soiled, waters off of our
federal parklands were sullied, and important restoration projects in
Richardson and San Pablo Bay were threatened.
In addition, the spill killed thousands of birds, many marine
mammals, and no one knows how many fish . . . and I can't help but
think that this oil spill played at least some part in the closure of
the Sacramento River salmon fishery that migrates through the San
Francisco Bay on their way out to sea. All in all, about 200 miles of
coastline were affected by this spill.
That's why I have introduced the H.R. 2693, the ``Federal Oil Spill
Research Program Act.'' This bill coordinates federal research and
development of oil spill prevention, detection, recovery, and
mitigation to ensure that all the relevant agencies are working
together for common solutions.
In addition, the bill provides grants to institutes of higher
learning and research centers to improve technologies used to prevent,
combat, and clean up oil spills.
One thing that I heard again and again from the people who were
tasked with cleaning up our mess was that the technology they were
using just wasn't adequate to get the job done. Actually, of the 58,000
gallons of oil that were spilled into San Francisco Bay, only about a
third of that amount was recovered.
It's clear that current technology is inadequate to prevent and
protect us from oils spills if we can only recover such a small
percentage with what's available. And, I know with the right focus and
effort, we can do much, much better.
H.R. 2693 will help to ensure that the Federal Government is taking
an active role to prevent oil spills, and that when they do occur, we
have the best possible technology to minimize negative impacts to
ourselves and the environment.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for holding this hearing, and I
look forward to the testimony from our distinguished witnesses.
Chairman Baird. I am happy to do so, Ms. Woolsey. Your
passion for the issue comes through both in your words today
and in many of your actions as a Member of Congress over the
many years but also in the context of this legislation.
I am now pleased to recognize our distinguished Ranking
Member, Mr. Inglis, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing.
In many ways this hearing is an opportunity to applaud the
progress and success of NOAA, U.S. Coast Guard, research labs,
and environmental organizations at the State, federal, and
local level who have all contributed to a steady decline in oil
spill incidents in our nation.
This achievement is especially noteworthy considering that
our annual transport of oil and other hazardous materials is
not decreasing but growing rather at a rapid pace. So thank you
to the witnesses here for your hard work and for the work of
those you represent in protecting our waters, wildlife, and
ecological systems in the incidence of spills.
But oil spills are one of those areas where we are as a
country--where we as a country will stop being worried when we
are perfect, and since we are probably never going to be
perfect or able to prevent any imaginable accident, we are here
to discuss how we can redress our strategies and resources for
mitigating the impacts of oil spills.
The 50,000 gallon spill in November of 2007 in the San
Francisco Bay area was a reminder that even small spills can be
very costly. If they are ways that we can be promoting research
and development to improve response and cleanup while driving
down the cost of those efforts, we have a responsibility to
encourage that research.
I appreciate Congresswoman Woolsey's proactive efforts to
bring legislation before this subcommittee, and I look forward
to hearing our witnesses' thoughts on this bill. I am
especially interested to hear what deficiencies exist in the
current interagency coordination efforts and if new legislation
is necessary to correct these shortcomings.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Good afternoon, and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr.
Chairman.
In many ways, this hearing is an opportunity to applaud the
progress and success of NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, research labs, and
environmental organizations at the State, federal, and local level, who
have all contributed to a steady decline in oil spill incidents in our
nation's past. This achievement is especially noteworthy considering
that our annual transport of oil and other hazardous materials is not
decreasing, but growing at a rapid pace. So thank you to the witnesses
here for your hard work, and the work of those you represent, in
protecting our waters, wildlife, and ecological systems in the
incidents of spills.
But oil spills are one of those areas where we as a country will
stop being worried when we're perfect--and since we'll probably never
be perfect, or able to prevent any imaginable accident, we're here to
discuss how we can readdress our strategies and resources for
mitigating the impacts of oil spills. The 50,000 gallon spill in
November 2007 in the San Francisco Bay area was a reminder that even
small spills can be very costly. If there are ways that we can be
promoting research and development to improve response and cleanup,
.while driving down the costs of those efforts, we have a
responsibility to encourage such changes.
I appreciate Congresswoman Woolsey's proactive efforts to bring
draft legislation before this subcommittee, and I look forward to
hearing our witnesses' thoughts on this bill. I'm especially interested
to hear what deficiencies exist in the current interagency coordination
effort, and if new legislation is necessary to correct these
shortcomings.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Baird. I thank the gentleman. If there are other
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good Afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing to examine current federal research and development efforts to
address oil discharges and to receive testimony on the Federal Oil
Spill Research Program Act of 2009.
During the 101st Congress, I voted in support of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, which created an interagency research program on oil
spills. This legislation was considered in response to the devastating
Exxon Valdez oil spill, which covered 11,000 miles of ocean and 350
miles of beaches in a slick of oil. Nearly 20 years later, oil spills
continue to occur on our coasts and waterways, resulting in expensive
recovery and clean-up efforts.
The U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the
Mineral Management Service (MMS) completed substantial research efforts
in the last 20 years to address concerns about oil spills. While these
efforts have made advancements in responses to and prevention of
massive oil spills, more research is necessary to prevent spills and
improve clean-up and recovery programs.
The guidelines set forth in the proposed draft legislation aim to
be cost-effective and efficient by streamlining government efforts for
research and development. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
to learn more about our current research and to determine what changes
may be necessary to the federal oil spill research and development
program.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. I want to thank Mr. Lujan for being here as
well. Though not a coastal state per se, we very much
appreciate your input and participation. Thank you very, very
much.
At this point it is my pleasure to introduce our witnesses
at this time. Mr. Doug Helton is the Incident Operations
Coordinator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Response and Restoration. Dr. Albert
D. Venosa is the Director of the Land Remediation and Pollution
Control Division of the National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, a part of the Office of Research and Development at
EPA. Rear Admiral James Watson is the Director of Prevention
Policy for Marine Safety, Security, and Stewardship for the
U.S. Coast Guard. As I serve on the Coast Guard Subcommittee as
well, it is a pleasure to see you in this committee, Admiral
Watson. We will try to invite you more frequently on other
topics as well.
And at this point I am happy, again, to yield to Ms.
Woolsey to introduce our fourth witness, her fellow
Californian, Mr. Edinger.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is my pleasure to introduce Stephen Edinger as a witness
before our committee today. Mr. Edinger is the Administrator
for the California Department of Fish and Game, Office of Spill
Prevention and Response. That probably took up more time than
all of yours together, my just saying that. He is a graduate of
the University of California-Davis and was appointed as
Administrator by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in November,
2008. He spent his professional career protecting California's
wildlife and natural environments, serving over 28 years in
environmental law enforcement.
Mr. Edinger has investigated or served as the Incident
Commander on hundreds of pollution events across California,
most relevant to this hearing he served as California's
incident Commander during the Cosco Busan oil spill response in
November, 2007.
We look forward to hearing from you, Stephen.
Chairman Baird. As our witnesses know, we spoke briefly
before the hearing began, you will have five minutes for your
spoken testimony. I always have to apologize for that. You
spend your entire careers on this, fly a long distance, and we
give you five minutes. Your written testimony will be included
in the record for the hearing. When you have completed your
spoken testimony, we will each begin with questions.
We will start with Mr. Helton.
STATEMENT OF MR. DOUGLAS R. HELTON, INCIDENT OPERATIONS
COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RESTORATION, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Mr. Helton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee for the opportunity to talk about NOAA's, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's, role in oil spill
pollution response, research and development. My name is Doug
Helton. I am the Incident Operations Coordinator for NOAA's
Office of Response and Restoration.
During spills I help to manage NOAA's emergency response
efforts, including our roles as a scientific advisor to the
U.S. Coast Guard or other federal on-scene coordinators
responsible for the containment and the response and cleanup of
the spill.
Our marine transportation system is an integral part of the
U.S. economy, but that transportation bring risks. Tank vessels
loaded with large quantities of oil, up to 50 million gallons,
transit our waters every day, and tankers and barges are not
the only risk. There is also large cruise ships, freighters,
container ships, work boats, coastal pipelines, storage
facilities, and offshore oil exploration that also pose risks.
Oil spills can cause widespread environmental, economic,
and social impacts. The best course of action is to prevent
these spills. However, despite our best efforts, there are
still thousands of spills every year. Most are small, but the
DM-932 barge spill in the Mississippi River last year is a
reminder that large spills still occur, and the Cosco Busan
incident in 2007, is a reminder that even small spills can
cause significant impacts.
We need to be prepared to reduce these impacts. NOAA
provides products and services critical for making science-
based response decisions that prevent further harm, restore
natural resources, and promote effective planning for future
incidents. Once oil is spilled, our goal is to advise the Coast
Guard on the potential fate and impacts of the spill and to
coordinate any scientific issues that arise during the
response. Last year my office was called 169 times for such
support.
In addition to our response role, NOAA is also a natural
resource trustee for marine resources under the Oil Pollution
Act, and we are responsible for ensuring that there is
restoration that occurs after these spills.
Strong science is critical to effective decision-making
during spill response and restoration, and a robust R&D program
can improve how we respond. Congress recognized this need by
creating the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil
Pollution as part of the Oil Pollution Act. While some funding
has been provided over the years, the comprehensive research
and development that was envisioned by the Oil Pollution Act
has not been achieved, and research has actually declined in
recent years.
While research has produced advancements and especially in
technologies to prevent spills, the response community
essentially has the same tools we had 20 years ago during the
Exxon Valdez spill.
The Oil Pollution Act gives NOAA authority to do research
and development, and NOAA's most recent efforts in this regards
were through a partnership with the University of New
Hampshire's Coastal Response Research Center. That research
focused on tradeoffs of response technologies including
dispersants in burning, deep water well blowouts, arctic and
cold water spills, submerged oil, restoration science, modeling
and information management and the social dimensions of spills.
In a few short years the CRRC has become a focal point for
coordination and planning for oil spill research and
development.
And while these efforts have been beneficial, there is much
additional research that is needed. We need to improve the
capabilities for response and restoration in cold water and
arctic spills. Increasing vessel traffic and exploration will
increase the potential for oil spills in the Arctic, and many
of the standard approaches we have now do not work in arctic
waters.
There is also a need to develop restoration and assessment
technologies for these sensitive resources.
We need improved oil spill modeling. We currently lack the
modeling capability to determine how oil will behave when it
sinks--how it behaves in ice environments or when it sinks
below the surface. Understanding the behavior of oil in the
water column is important for a number of reasons, including
protecting water intakes and evaluating the effects on
fisheries.
For example, in 2004, the Athos I oil spill in Delaware
River had a neutrally-buoyant oil. That oil was entrained in
the Salem Nuclear Power Plants water intakes and resulted in
the precautionary closure of that power plant. Better
understanding of how that submerged oil would behave would have
been important in helping to reduce that closure which was
millions of dollars a day in losses.
We need to better use remote sensing technologies,
including unmanned aerial vehicles, real-time ocean observation
systems. NOAA's trajectory modeling can help direct oil spill
responders where the oil is heaviest but using remote sensing
would help us direct that cleanup technology more effectively.
We also need a better understanding of the effects of
residual oil. We know that from experience residual oil can
persist for a long time in the environment. We need to know the
tradeoffs associated with leaving that oil in place.
And finally, we need to address the human and social
dimensions of spill response. The success of a response is
partially dependent upon the--how well the local community is
engaged.
So thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues,
and I will stand by to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Helton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas R. Helton
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to testify about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA's) role in oil spill research and development. I
am Doug Helton, Incident Operations Coordinator for the Emergency
Response Division in NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration.
OVERVIEW
Our marine transportation system is an integral part of the U.S.
economy. According to a recent report from the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, our marine transportation system conveys as much as 78
percent of U.S. international merchandise trade by weight and 44
percent by value through our nation's ports each year, far more than
any other mode of transportation . Every day vessels containing large
quantities of oil--some up to 50 million gallons--travel through our
waterways to their destinations. These vessels include not only oil
tankers but also container ships, fishing vessels, ferries, and other
public and private vessels that carry millions of gallons of fuel oil
and some of which may carry hazardous materials as cargo.
Over the past fifty years, ships have doubled in length, width, and
draft, and seagoing commerce has tripled. The Department of
Transportation projects that by 2020 the volume of maritime trade will
more than double from 1998 levels, particularly in international
container traffic.\1\ Wherever these vessels travel on our waters,
there is an associated risk that oil may spill and/or there may be a
release of hazardous cargo (if present) into the water or the
atmosphere. While vessels take every precaution to avoid these
situations, they do happen and when spills occur, they can cause
widespread environmental, economic, and social impacts. For example, if
an oil spill were to disrupt the movement of commerce at the Port of
Los Angeles, it could have economic impacts across the entire country
due to the volume of commercial items that come through that port every
day. Effective spill response keeps commerce moving and reduces clean-
up costs and environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDOT Freight Analysis Framework National Summary: 1998, 2010,
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although our nation's energy policy likely will incorporate more
alternative energy sources in the future, the U.S. will continue to
rely on oil for years to come. Oil spills are an unfortunate but
unavoidable consequence of using oil to fuel our transportation system
and meet our domestic energy needs.
The Nation is also facing new challenges from a changing climate.
The summer melting of Arctic sea ice has opened up shipping channels
and energy exploration options that were inaccessible just a few years
ago. The resulting increase in vessel traffic and exploration
activities will increase the potential for oil spills to occur in the
Arctic. We have learned that many of today's standard approaches to oil
spill clean-up and restoration do not apply in the cold Arctic waters,
and there is a need for improved understanding and better methods to
clean up and restore this fragile environment. In other areas of the
country, aging oil infrastructure in coastal areas will be susceptible
to sea level rise and more frequent and violent storms in U.S. coastal
areas.
The best action to take is to prevent oil spills from occurring.
However, despite our best prevention efforts and advances that have
been made over the past twenty years, there are still thousands of
spills every year. Most are small spills less than 100 gallons.
However, the DM932 barge spill in the Mississippi River in 2008 is a
stark reminder that large spills still occur, and the 2007 Cosco Busan
incident in San Francisco Bay reminds us that large volumes of oil do
not have to be spilled for an incident to cause significant regional
impacts. Once oil is released into the marine environment, our goal is
to quickly and effectively mitigate and restore any harmful effects. An
effective response, based on solid science and smart decision-making,
reduces environmental and socioeconomic impacts as well as clean-up
costs.
NOAA'S ROLE IN RESPONSE
While several other agencies, including the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, have important roles in oil spill clean-up and oil
spill research, my testimony will focus specifically on NOAA's roles.
When oil is spilled into the marine environment, NOAA has three
critical roles mandated by the Oil Pollution Act and the National
Contingency Plan:
1. Serve as a single conduit for scientific information to the
Federal On-Scene Coordinator to provide trajectory predictions
for spilled oil, overflight observations of oil on water,
identification of environmental areas that are highly valued or
sensitive, and shoreline surveys of oil to determine clean-up
priorities.
2. Conduct a natural resource damage assessment with the goal
of restoring any ocean resources harmed by the spill. This
includes fulfilling the role of Natural Resource Trustee for
impacted marine resources.
3. Represent Department of Commerce interests in spill
response decision-making activities through the Regional
Response Team.
NOAA serves the Nation by providing expertise and a suite of
products and services critical for making science-based response
decisions that prevent further harm, restore natural resources, and
promote effective planning for future incidents. Federal, State, and
local agencies across the country called upon NOAA's Office of Response
and Restoration for scientific support 169 times in 2008. Most of these
calls were related to oil spills.
NOAA's Scientific Support Coordinators are located around the
country in U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Districts, ready to respond around
the clock to any emergencies involving the release of oil or hazardous
materials into the oceans or atmosphere. During an oil spill, the
Scientific Support Coordinator delivers scientific support to the USCG
in its role as Federal On-Scene Coordinator. Using experience,
expertise, and state-of-the-art technology, NOAA forecasts the movement
and behavior of spilled oil, evaluates the risk to resources, conducts
overflight observations and shoreline surveys, and recommends
protection priorities and appropriate clean-up actions. NOAA also
provides spot weather forecasts, emergency coastal survey and charting
capabilities, aerial and satellite imagery, and real-time coastal ocean
observation data to assist response efforts. Federal, State, and local
entities look to NOAA for assistance, experience, local perspective,
and scientific knowledge.
Effective spill response also depends on effective planning and
preparation, which is how NOAA responders spend the bulk of their time
between spills. NOAA promotes preparedness by representing the
Department of Commerce on the National Response Team and working
closely with regional response teams and local area committees to
develop policies on dispersant use, best clean-up practices,
communications, and ensuring access to science-related resources, data
and expertise. In addition, NOAA enhances the state of readiness by
conducting training for the response community and developing better
response tools including trajectory models, fate models, and
integrating improved weather and ocean observing systems data into
spill trajectory forecasts.
NOAA'S ROLE IN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION
Oil spills affect our natural resources in a variety of ways. They
can directly impact our natural resources, such as the oiling of marine
mammals. They can also diminish the ecological services provided by
these natural resources, such as when oil degrades a coastal marsh that
provides habitat for fish and wildlife. Oil spills may also diminish
how we use these resources, by affecting fishing, boating, beach going,
and wildlife viewing opportunities.
As the lead federal trustee for marine resources, NOAA is mandated
by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) to achieve full compensation for the
public for injuries to natural resources resulting from an oil spill.
OPA encourages compensation in the form of restoration and this is
accomplished through the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process--by
assessing injury and then developing a restoration plan that
appropriately compensates the public for the injured resources. NOAA
scientists and economists provide the technical information for natural
resource damage assessments and work with other trustees and
responsible parties to restore resources injured by oil spills. To
accomplish this effort NOAA experts collect data, conduct studies, and
perform analyses needed to determine whether and to what degree coastal
and marine resources have sustained injury from oil spills. They
determine how best to restore injured resources and develop the most
appropriate restoration projects to compensate the public for
associated lost services. Over the past 20 years, NOAA and other
natural resource trustees have recovered over $440 million from
responsible parties for restoration of wetlands, coral reefs, oyster
reefs, and other important habitats.
The successful recovery of injured natural resources depends upon
integrated spill response and restoration approaches. The initial goals
of a response include containment and recovery of floating oil because
recovery rates for floating oil can be quite high under certain
conditions. As the oil reaches the shoreline, clean-up efforts become
more intrusive and oil recovery rates decline. At this point it becomes
important to recognize that further spill response can cause additional
harm to natural resources and actually slow recovery rates. Such
decision points need to be understood so that cost effective and
successful restoration can take place. Further research on clean-up and
restoration techniques and the recovery of environmental and human
services after spills can improve such decision-making.
NOAA'S ROLE IN OIL SPILL RESEARCH
Strong science is critical to effective decision-making to minimize
the economic impacts and mitigate the effects of oil spills on coastal
and marine resources and associated communities.
Continued use of science, through robust research and development
program, can improve the effectiveness of spill response efforts and
habitat restoration.
In 1990, the OPA recognized the need for research by creating the
Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research to
establish a coordinated effort among industry, universities, and
agencies to address oil pollution research and development. While some
funding has been provided through various State and federal agencies
and industry, the comprehensive research and development envisioned by
OPA has not been achieved. Oil spill research in the private and public
sectors has declined over the years in part because larger spills have
become less frequent. While research has resulted in advancement in
some technologies, our nation's capabilities can be strengthened.
OPA does grant NOAA the authority to carry out research and
development. NOAA's most recent effort in oil spill research was
through a partnership with the Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC)
at the University of New Hampshire. Research at the CRRC focused on
improving decision-making capabilities for dispersant use on oil
spills, improving predictive and response capabilities for deepwater
well blowouts, and improving response in cold-water environments
through national and international collaborations. This research also
included collaboration with government, industry and international
partners to identify plausible disaster scenarios facing the Arctic,
outlined how NOAA and its partners would respond, and determined
response and research needs. We have worked with our partners to
address other pressing issues including submerged oil, human dimensions
of spills, assessment and restoration of ecosystem services,
environmental tradeoffs, integrated modeling, and methods associated
with in situ burning approached in coastal marshes to minimize further
injury to resources.
PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS FOR THE NATION
NOAA has seen the value of a strong and successful partnership with
the academic community to focus on priority program-driven oil spill
research areas. Future research activities that would benefit NOAA oil
spill response and restoration include:
Improved oil spill modeling to better predict where
the oil will go in the environment. We currently lack the
modeling capability to determine how oil will behave in icy
environments or when it sinks below the surface. Improving our
fate and trajectory models even a small amount may result in
improved response efficiency and considerable reduction in
spill costs. The FY 2010 President's Request includes resources
to address modeling needs, with a particular focus on three-
dimensional models.
Better response methods and improved capabilities for
response in cold water spills, and baseline understanding of
Arctic resources for conducting injury assessments and
developing restoration strategies. This is important as Arctic
development leases are issued and marine transportation
increases.
Better understanding of climate change on existing
ecosystems and how this will directly affect long-term
restoration options.
Better use of remote-sensing technologies, Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles, and an improved ability to access and use
real-time observation systems to optimize clean-up operations.
For example, when oil spreads across the water it does not do
so in a uniform manner. Oil slicks can be quite patchy and vary
in thickness. The effectiveness of response options the booms,
skimmers, and dispersants--depends on whether they are applied
in the areas of the heaviest oil. NOAA's trajectory modeling
and visual observations though overflights can help direct the
application of spill technologies, but remote sensing
technology could be used to more effectively detect oil,
determine areas of heaviest amounts of oil, and then use this
information to direct oil skimming operations and increase the
recovery of spilled oil. Remote sensing technology could have
also assisted in the Cosco Busan oil spill. Traditional methods
of visual observation can be difficult at night or in low
visibility conditions, as was the case in the Cosco Busan
response.
Improved use of real time data on currents, tides and
winds in driving oil predictions models. As the Integrated
Ocean Observing System generates more data from technological
advances like high frequency radar, oil location predictions
can be improved by pulling these observations into trajectory
models in real time. To accomplish this will require research
to work out effective protocols and procedures.
Improved understanding of the long-term effects of
oil on sensitive and economically important species.
Incorporation of impacted communities into the
preparedness and response processes to address the human
dimensions of spills, including social issues, community
effects, risk communication methods, and valuation of natural
resources.
EXAMPLES OF THE IMPORTANCE OF RESPONSE, RESTORATION, AND RESEARCH
I would like to illustrate some examples of two significant oil
spills (Athos I and M/V Selendang Ayu), NOAA's role in these responses,
and the issues and challenges encountered during the response to these
oil spills.
M/V Selendang Ayu
On December 7-8, 2004, the cargo vessel M/V Selendang Ayu lost
power, ran aground and broke in half on the shore of Unalaska Island,
Alaska, losing her 60,000 ton cargo of soybeans and spilling
approximately 335,000 gallons of fuel oil. During the response, NOAA
participated in aerial observations and mapping of floating and beached
oil, provided trajectory analysis, conducted shoreline assessments to
determine the magnitude and extent of the contamination, as well as
provided on-scene weather information, including the establishment of
an emergency remote weather station and the provision of a dedicated
on-scene meteorologist. Since the initial response NOAA has continued
to work with the other natural resource trustees and the responsible
party to conduct a natural resource damage assessment, and evaluate
restoration alternatives.
The remote location of the spill along with the difficult
conditions (e.g., weather, cold water, etc.) posed many challenges to
the response. These challenges are similar to ones we may face in the
future in responding to spills in the Arctic. The issues encountered in
the Selendang spill response demonstrate the importance and need for
sustained oil spill research. The Port of Dutch Harbor on Unalaska
Island is the largest fishing port in the United States and has the
largest Alaskan native subsistence community in the Aleutians. NOAA,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State of Alaska worked with the
local community to address subsistence and seafood safety concerns. Any
real or perceived contamination of fisheries products with oil has the
potential to disrupt both the local community and worldwide markets.
Better knowledge and understanding of the short-term and long-term
potential impacts of both floating oil and submerged oil on fisheries
would have been beneficial in the response and the injury assessment
decision-making.
Due to the severe winter weather conditions, the response was
halted during the winter. The USCG continued to conduct periodic
overflights to monitor the wreck. The vessel was in poor condition and
was still carrying a large quantity of oil, and had the vessel lost
that oil it may have taken 24 hours or more before that was detected
through overflights. Improved remote sensing technologies could have
helped monitor the wreck and detect any spilled oil.
The Scientific Support Coordinator provided input on environmental
issues to the Unified Command, including technical matters related to
potential dispersant use. While dispersants were readily available, the
Unified Command decided not to use dispersants because of uncertainty
about the effectiveness of the available dispersants on the type of oil
spilled, and the potential environmental impacts. Dispersants are
rarely used in spill response, mainly due to our lack of understanding
of the environmental impacts of dispersants. While there have been
advancements in the application of dispersants and their efficacy of
dispersion once applied, there is still a gap in research to determine
the long-term fate and effects of dispersants on marine life.
Another issue that arose was the fate of residual oil. This is a
common issue with large oil spills, and has certainly been the case
with the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Twenty years after the Exxon Valdez
spill there is still residual oil remaining on the Alaskan shoreline.
When oil is spilled into the water, a goal is to minimize the
environmental impacts. One method to do this is through rigorous clean-
up techniques to remove oil from the shoreline. However, some of these
techniques can actually do more environmental harm than leaving the oil
in place. We need to better understand the fate of lingering oil--where
will it persist, in what types of environments, what are the impacts to
the environment from this remaining oil, as well as the effects of low-
level chronic exposure on birds and mammals. This type of information
is critical as decisions are made in the clean-up operations and to
determine the potential trade-offs in using one clean-up technique
versus another. This information is also critical to how we assess the
injury to natural resources from the spill and restoration options.
Further research in this area to improve decision-making can reduce the
overall environmental impacts and clean-up costs.
M/T Athos I
On November 26, 2004, the M/T Athos I, a 750-foot tanker, hit a
submerged object in the Delaware River near Philadelphia, PA, spilling
approximately 265,000 gallons of heavy oil. The oil spread down river,
ultimately oiling 57 miles of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware
shorelines. In addition to surface and shoreline oiling, a portion of
the oil migrated below the water surface, complicating response and
assessment efforts. During the response, NOAA provided its traditional
support: oil trajectory analysis, weather forecasts, identification of
sensitive resources at risk, coordination of shoreline impact
assessment, recommendations on environmentally appropriate clean-up
techniques, and seafood safety consultation.
The spill closed the Delaware River to commercial vessel traffic
for over a week. The submerged oil resulted in contamination of water
intakes and the closure of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant. The detection
of submerged oil was a critical economic issue in this case, essential
to the reopening of the port and the reactivation of the power plant.
The Athos I incident is a reminder that there is still a need to
sustain an integrated spill response and restoration research program.
NOAA's response to the Athos I spill highlighted the need for improved
understanding of the transport and fate of submerged oil, and the need
to develop more efficient technologies for submerged oil detection,
tracking, and modeling. The Athos I response also highlighted the need
for additional research on ways to collect submerged oil and/or protect
locations from it. Without reliable technologies for prediction and
detection, the Federal On-Scene Coordinator and his science staff are
placed in the position of ``proving a negative'' to the public in order
to ensure no continued threat. Such ``proof'' adds time and expense to
the response and can substantially raise the overall costs of clean-up.
NOAA's research efforts continue to address these concerns. Better
modeling and understanding of submerged oil behavior could have
prevented the plant closure.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you NOAA's important
role in oil spill response and resource restoration. NOAA's expertise
is critical to prevent further harm, restore natural resources, and aid
planning and response decision-making associated with oil spills. Sound
science is the foundation for effective spill response and restoration
decision-making. It is critical that we continue to invest in high
priority scientific research to develop the methods and techniques
necessary to improve the effectiveness of spill response and
restoration. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Biography for Douglas R. Helton
I am the Incident Operations Coordinator for NOAA's Emergency
Response Division. I help manage NOAA's scientific support team during
oil and chemical spill responses and ensure that NOAA products and
services are provided quickly and are useful to the U.S. Coast Guard
and other on-scene responders. I respond on-scene to incidents and I
have worked on spill events and emergency response efforts in almost
all coastal states, ranging from Maine to Alaska to Guam. Between
incidents, I manage various preparedness projects including directing
the Division's prime support contract. I also work with the NOAA coral
and NOAA Marine Debris Programs on the problem of grounded and derelict
vessels in coastal environments. I spent several month following
Hurricane Katrina working on a U.S. Coast Guard vessel salvage and
wreck removal team.
I am currently in NOAA's leadership development program. Over the
past 18 months I have had rotational assignments as the Acting Director
of NOAA's Marine Debris Program and with the Port of Seattle's ``Green
Port'' team. I also completed a 6 month detail with the Senate Commerce
Committee. In that capacity I worked on several bills including Ballast
Water Management, Coral Reef Conservation, Oil Pollution, Climate
Change, Coast Guard reauthorization, and other ocean-related
legislation.
Prior to my current position, I headed NOAA's Damage Assessment
Center (DAC) which allows NOAA to place scientists on-scene quickly
after an oil or chemical spill to collect perishable biological and
economic data and to initiate damage assessment studies to support
legal claims for restoration. I received a BA from Reed College in
Portland, OR in 1985 and an MS from the University of Washington School
of Fisheries in 1991. I started my NOAA career as a John Knauss Sea
Grant Fellow in 1991-1992.
Chairman Baird. Thank you very much, Mr. Helton.
Dr. Venosa.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALBERT D. VENOSA, DIRECTOR, LAND REMEDIATION
AND POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION, NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH LABORATORY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD),
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Dr. Venosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
everyone. I am Dr. Albert Venosa, Director of the Office of
Research and Development's Land Remediation and Pollution
Control Division and National Risk Management Research Lab in
Cincinnati. It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss EPA's
Oil Spill Research Program, its past accomplishments, and its
future research plans.
I have been with the Agency for over 40 years and for the
last 20 I have led EPA's Oil Spill Research and Development
Program. Its objective is to provide environmental managers
with tools, models, and methods needed to mitigate the effects
of oil spills in all ecosystems with emphasis on the inland
environment. The research includes development of practical
solutions to mitigate spill impacts on fresh water and marine
environments, development and publication of remedial guidance
for cleanup and restoration of oil-impacted environments, and
determination of the fate and effects of oil contamination in
the environment through effective modeling of oil transport in
a variety of settings, especially river networks.
So why does oil spill research need to be continued? The
major source of inland oil spills in the U.S. is from ruptured
pipelines and above-ground storage tanks, ASTs. Although larger
oil spills from oceangoing tanker accidents have been on the
decline over the last several decades, I believe that the
number of inland oil spills may actually increase due to the
greater emphasis on domestic oil production and higher volume
generation of alternative fuels such as biofuels, which will be
stored in ASTs.
So the spill threat continues even without consideration of
domestic alternative fuel development. Little is known about
the effect of spills of biodiesel, emerging biofuels, or
byproducts from the manufacturer, from their manufacturer on
watersheds. So consequently research is needed to continue to
find effective ways to respond not only to traditional
petroleum spills, but also to spills of non-traditional
alternative fuels and fuel blends.
EPA's past research has resulted in new protocols for
testing the effectiveness of commercial oil spill treating
agents, guidance documents for implementing bio-remediation in
different environments, a clearer understanding of the impact
and persistence of non-petroleum oil spills in the environment,
and development of new spill treatment approaches.
Ten years ago we began conducting research on non-petroleum
oils such as vegetable oils and animal fats. This anticipatory
research investment will be invaluable as the national emphasis
on fuels development gains traction.
Why? Because vegetable oils and animal fats are the primary
feedstocks for biodiesel production. Contrary to some claims,
our research has shown that edible oils are not as
biodegradable as sugar in the environment because of the
complexity of chemical interactions along saturated and
unsaturated fatty acids.
The future research that we will do will involve the study
of multiple fuel types and blends resulting from passage of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Last year in
anticipation of this we initiated the study of the different
types of biodiesel and biodiesel, petro-diesel blends. An
important byproduct in the production of biodiesel is glycerin,
and we need to understand how to deal with glycerin spills in
flowing streams, because they have already resulted in large
fish kills in several of our regions.
As for arctic spills, next year EPA plans to partner with
the Canadian government to conduct both pilot and field scale
research, dispersant research in icy waters. Protection of this
environment will become more critical as global climate change
affects the integrity of the glacial ice fields in the arctic.
So in conclusion then, EPA's Oil Spill Research Program is
an applied practical program based on high-quality, sound
science. It promises to provide answers to real important, real
and important emergency spill response and environmental
protection challenges, especially in the area of emerging
alternative fuel sources. Our research informs EPA regulatory
decision-making and policy development for oil spill
prevention, preparedness, and response programs.
In the 20 years I have led this program we have published
over 85 peer review journal articles, three guidance documents,
and 79 conference proceedings. So it has been a pretty
productive and successful program both nationally and
internationally.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. I
will be happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Venosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Albert D. Venosa
Good afternoon. I am Dr. Albert D. Venosa, Director of ORD's Land
Remediation and Pollution Control Division in EPA's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. It is a pleasure to
be here today to discuss EPA's oil spill research program, its past
accomplishments, and future research plans.
For the past 20 years, I have led EPA's oil spill research and
development program to conduct basic and applied research in both the
laboratory and the field in the area of spill response technology
development. I was an EPA team leader in the Exxon Valdez
bioremediation project in 1989 and 1990. I also conceived and led an
important controlled oil spill project on the shoreline of Delaware Bay
in 1994[1], which demonstrated statistically that bioremediation with
simple inorganic nutrients enhances the biodegradation rate of crude
oil on a marine shoreline compared to natural attenuation without
amendments. I repeated a similar experiment in 1999[2] on a Quebec
freshwater wetland and again in 2001[3] on a Nova Scotia salt marsh in
collaboration with our Canadian government partners. In addition to
those field studies, I led a research team in developing laboratory
protocols to test the effectiveness of commercial bioremediation agents
and chemical dispersant products for use in treating oil spills[4-6]. I
have conceived and led numerous other studies to understand how best to
respond to and mitigate oil spills on land.
The Environmental Threat of Oil Spills
Why does oil spill research need to be continued? From 1980 to
2003, one study[7] (http://www.epa.gov/OEM/docs/oil/fss/fss06/
etkin-2.pdf) reported more than 280 million gallons of oil
(about 12 million gallons/year) were discharged to the inland waters of
the U.S. or its adjoining shorelines in about 52,000 spill incidents.
Even though larger oil spills from ocean-going tanker accidents have
been on the decline over the last several decades, I believe the number
of inland spills will likely increase due to greater emphasis on
domestic oil production and higher volume production of alternative
fuels such as biofuels, as our nation continues to address its
independent energy security needs. Waterborne transportation of oil in
the U.S. continues to increase, and the volume of oil spilled from tank
barges has remained constant at approximately 200,000 gallons spilled
each year. EPA is also concerned about spills from pipelines and above
ground storage tanks that could contaminate surface and/or ground
waters. These are the major source of inland oil spills nationwide[7].
So, the spill threat continues even without consideration of domestic
alternative fuel development. An oil discharge to the waters of the
U.S. can affect drinking water supplies; sicken and/or kill fish,
animals, and birds; foul beaches and recreational areas; and persist in
the environment, harming sensitive ecosystems. Little is known about
the effect of spills of biodiesel, emerging biofuels, or by-products
from their manufacture on watersheds. Consequently, research is
critically essential not only to continue to find effective ways to
mitigate and respond to petroleum spills but also to understand the
potential adverse human and environmental consequences of alternative
fuels and non-petroleum oils and to develop effective clean-up tools to
mitigate any adverse consequences. Recent research on vegetable oils
and biodiesel blends suggests that the biodegradability and
environmental persistence of these oils is very complex[8]. Developing
an understanding of the potential environmental impacts associated with
spills of these oils requires fundamental research. Without this
understanding, the potential is significant for greater environmental
harm if the wrong steps are taken to respond to and mitigate these
spills.
EPA's Role in Spill Response
The National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) has established a successful oil spill response framework
defining the roles of federal agencies, and this has been in effect for
41 years. In addition to EPA's normal role in spill response and
planning, the NCP serves as the basis for actions taken in support of
the National Response Framework, when Emergency Support Function (ESF)
#10 is activated. The National Response Framework is a guide that
details how the Nation conducts all-hazards response, from the smallest
incident to the largest catastrophe. The Framework identifies the key
response principles and the roles and structures that organize national
response. ESF #10 provides for a coordinated federal response to actual
or potential oil and hazardous materials incidents. EPA or DHS/USCG
serves as the primary agency for ESF #10 actions, depending upon
whether the incident affects the inland or coastal zone, respectively.
For incidents affecting both, EPA is the primary agency and DHS/USCG
serves as the deputy. In addition, EPA serves as the ESF #10
Coordinator.
EPA also plays a key role on the U.S. National Response Team (NRT),
which is chaired by EPA and vice-chaired by the U.S. Coast Guard. The
NRT is an organization of 16 federal departments and agencies
responsible for coordinating emergency preparedness and response
activities for oil and hazardous substance pollution incidents and
provides federal resources, technical assistance, and policy guidance
as defined in the NCP. The Science and Technology Committee, which is
the NRT's science arm and of which I am a participating member,
provides a forum for the NRT to fulfill its delegated responsibilities
in research and development. Users of and sometimes collaborators in
our research include multi-agency regional response teams, EPA's
environmental response team, EPA and Coast Guard federal on-scene
coordinators (FOSCs) responsible for oil spill response, and other
government agencies such as NOAA, Minerals Management Service (MMS),
Fish and Wildlife Service, and states. Not only do these U.S.
organizations rely significantly on EPA research results, the
international community does as well.
Past and Current Research
The specific objective of EPA's oil spill research program is to
provide environmental managers with the tools, models, and methods
needed to mitigate the effects of oil spills on ecosystems. The
research includes development of practical solutions to mitigate spill
impacts on freshwater and marine environments; development of remedial
guidelines that address the environment, type of oil (petroleum and
non-petroleum oils), and agents for remediation; and modeling fate and
effects in the environment. Spill mitigation research includes
bioremediation, chemical and physical countermeasures, and ecotoxicity
effects. Fate and effects research focuses on modeling the transport of
oil in a variety of settings with application to field situations.
The work described above has resulted in new protocols for testing
the effectiveness of commercial oil spill treating agents, guidance
documents for implementing bioremediation in different environments, a
clearer understanding of the impact and persistence of non-petroleum
oil spills in the environment, and development of potentially new
treatment approaches. Important on-going research is helping to
understand oil persistence long after the initial spill incident, such
as the Exxon Valdez oil that still lingers in certain areas of Prince
William Sound, Alaska. This research has conclusively shown that the
lingering oil is still quite biodegradable despite persisting for over
20 years in the subsurface. Why is this important? Because, if oil that
has been treated after a spill lingers long after the cleanup, then we
need to understand if the lingering oil still poses an environmental
threat to the habitat and the resources at risk. If it does, we must
learn why it still lingers and develop means to remove this lingering
oil to safeguard the ecosystem.
Ten years ago, we began conducting research on non-petroleum oil
such as vegetable oils and animal fats. This anticipatory research
investment will be invaluable as the national emphasis on biofuels
development gains traction because vegetable oils and animal fats are
the primary feedstocks for biodiesel production. Contrary to some
claims, we have found that edible oils are not as ``biodegradable as
sugar'' in the environment because of the complexity of chemical
interactions among saturated and unsaturated fatty acids.
Future Research
Biodiesel will play a crucial role in our nation's domestic fuel
source development. Future research will include multiple fuel types
and blends that result from passage of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA), including changes in fuels as a result of
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program. We initiated an important
project in 2008 to study the comparative biodegradability of soybean
oil-based biodiesel blends ranging from B0 (pure petrodiesel) to B100
(pure biodiesel). We are initiating testing of other types of
biodiesels consistent with anticipated alternative fuel feedstock usage
in the U.S. An important by-product in the production of biodiesel is
glycerin, and we need to understand how to deal with spills of glycerin
in flowing streams (spills have already caused large fish kills).
Ethanol/gasoline blends, their fate and transport in freshwater bodies,
and our need to understand the spill impacts of these blended fuels are
another high priority research area as greater quantities of blended
fuels and potentially greater ethanol percentages are handled. EPA is
the only federal agency actively engaged in researching this particular
topic. Second generation biofuels will be studied in the near future,
such as biobutanol, whose properties are more similar to gasoline than
alcohol.
The behavior of other oil types, including synthetic oils and
lubricants, has not been characterized scientifically. An important
topic not previously addressed in our research program is a mixed spill
incident (e.g., a biofuel and an organic chemical). We need a better
understanding of the consequences of such scenarios to help FOSCs from
both the EPA and the Coast Guard respond appropriately.
As for spills that occur near or in Arctic regions, EPA plans to
pursue partnering with the Canadian government to conduct pilot-scale
dispersant research in icy waters at a jointly owned wave tank facility
in Nova Scotia and field research on dispersant effectiveness and use
in Arctic waters. Protection of this environment will become more
critical as global climate change affects the integrity of the glacial
ice fields in the Arctic.
Finally, EPA's Environmental Response Team (ERT) plays a key role
in testing and validating monitoring equipment in collaboration with
the MMS at the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test
Tank (OHMSETT) Facility in New Jersey to understand oil monitoring
systems under the Special Monitoring and Response Technologies (SMART)
protocol. This interaction allows ERT and the Coast Guard to be trained
on oil spill monitoring equipment for detecting oil in the water
column. This understanding is important in light of the Coast Guard's
Response Capabilities rule coming out soon dealing with dispersant
usage.
Summary and Conclusions
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that EPA's oil spill research
program is an applied, practical program that seeks to provide answers
to real and important emergency spill response and environmental
protection challenges based on high quality, sound science. Our
research informs EPA's regulatory decision-making and policy
development for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response
programs and the National Response Team. EPA's oil spill research work
is vitally important to the protection of the environment from the harm
associated with oil spills. So, it is vital that EPA's R&D program
continue to provide its knowledge and expertise in spill response and
prevention. In the 20 years that I have led this program, we have
published over 85 peer-reviewed journal articles, three guidance
documents, and 79 conference proceedings papers. Thus, the research
program has been highly productive and successful both nationally and
internationally.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. I am happy
to answer your questions.
References
1. Venosa, A.D., M.T. Suidan, B.A. Wrenn, K.L, Strohmeier,
J.R. Haines, B.L. Eberhart, D. King, and E. Holder. 1996.
``Bioremediation of an experimental oil spill on the shoreline
of Delaware Bay.'' Environmental Science and Technology
30(5):1764-1775.
2. Venosa, A.D., K. Lee, M.T. Suidan, S. Garcia-Blanco, S.
Cobanli, M. Moteleb, J.R. Haines, G. Tremblay, and M.
Hazelwood. 2002. Bioremediation and biorestoration of a crude
oil contaminated freshwater wetland on the St. Lawrence River.
EPA/600/J-02/432.
3. Garcia-Blanco, S., A.D. Venosa, M.T. Suidan, K. Lee, S.
Cobanli, and J.R. Haines. 2007. ``Biostimulation for the
treatment of an oil-contaminated coastal salt marsh,''
Biodegradation, 18(1):1-15.
4. Venosa, A.D., D.W. King, and G.A. Sorial. 2002. ``The
baffled flask test for dispersant effectiveness: a round robin
evaluation of reproducibility and repeatability.'' Spill Sci. &
Technol. Bulletin 7(5-6):299-308.
5. Sorial, G.A., A.D. Venosa, K.M. Miller, E. Holder, and D.W.
King. 2004a. ``Oil spill dispersant effectiveness protocol--
Part I. Impact of operational variables.'' ASCE J. Env. Eng.
Div., 130(10):1073-1084.
6. Sorial, G.A., A.D. Venosa, K.M. Miller, E. Holder, and D.W.
King. 2004b. ``Oil spill dispersant effectiveness protocol--
Part II. Performance of the revised protocol.'' ASCE J. Env.
Eng. Div., 130(10):1085-1093.
7. Etkin, D.S. 2006. Risk assessment of oil spills to U.S.
inland waterways. (http://www.epa.gov/OEM/docs/oil/fss/fss06/
etkin-2.pdf)
8. Campo-Moreno, P., Y. Zhao, M.T. Suidan, and A.D. Venosa.
2007. ``Biodegradation kinetics and toxicity of vegetable oil
triacylglycerols under aerobic conditions,'' Chemosphere,
68(11):2054-2062.
Biography for Albert D. Venosa
Dr. Venosa is the Director of the Land Remediation and Pollution
Control Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory in EPA's
Office of Research and Development. He manages and directs the
Division's science and research programs and conducts research in his
area of expertise, which is oil spill remediation and mitigation. From
1990 to 2009, Dr. Venosa served as Senior Research Scientist and
Program Manager, Oil Spill Research Program. Dr. Venosa's 20 years of
work in this area include membership on the science team for the Alaska
Oil Spill Bioremediation Project involved with assessing effectiveness
of nutrient formulations in the field for stimulating enhanced
biodegradation of contaminated shorelines in Prince William Sound. In
1990 he led an independent field study to determine if commercial
bioremediation agents could accelerate biodegradation in multiple field
plots. From 1986 to 1988, he served as EPA's Chairman of the Pathogen
Equivalency Committee in the sludge research program, and for the
previous 18 years he was the National Program Manager for ORD's
Municipal Wastewater Disinfection Program.
Dr. Venosa holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Environmental
Science, a Master of Science degree in Environmental Engineering, and a
Bachelor of Science degree in Microbiology from the University of
Cincinnati. His research interests and expertise include developing
protocols for testing the effectiveness of commercial bioremediation
products for biodegrading crude oil in seawater; developing protocols
for chemical countermeasure products such as dispersants, surface
washing agents, and solidifiers in freshwater, beach sediments,
wetlands, and soils; conceiving methods for microbiological and
chemical analysis of oil spill remediation activities; and advancing
our knowledge in the area of improved scientific and practical
understanding of the mechanisms of biodegradation of petroleum
hydrocarbons, especially polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Dr. Venosa
has received numerous awards for his work and has been lead author on
37 out of a total of 121 peer-reviewed scientific publications
throughout his career.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Venosa.
Mr. Watson.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL JAMES A. WATSON, DIRECTOR OF
PREVENTION POLICY FOR MARINE SAFETY, SECURITY AND STEWARDSHIP,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral Watson. Good afternoon, Chairman Baird and
distinguished Members of the Committee. I am grateful for the
opportunity to testify before this committee on the subject of
federal oil spill research and development.
The Coast Guard has been the lead federal agency for
coastal zone oil and HazMat response since 1968, and I have
been personally involved with oil and HazMat prevention and
response my entire Coast Guard career. As an engineer and first
responder, I value research and development.
In the area of maritime pollution prevention and response
in particular, R&D has been a major factor in reducing both the
number of major oil incidents and the quantities left in the
environment after an accident.
For example, the annual number of oil spills greater than
100 gallons has decreased from over 300 per year to less than
100 since 1996. Simultaneously, recovery rates, which are
historically less than 15 percent, are improving. Today we are
recovering as much as three times the historic rate due to
better planning, more response capacity, and better projections
and recovery equipment. I attribute many of these improvements
to the collective efforts of government agencies and industry
following the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
OPA 90 created and integrated team-based approach, which
successfully leveraged the federal on-scene coordinator
leadership attributes of the Coast Guard and the EPA at both
the national and local level, as well as the technical and
scientific capabilities of NOAA, the Minerals Management
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Navy, State and
environmental agencies, and universities nationwide.
The Coast Guard's own research and development center which
just recently moved from Groton, Connecticut, to New London,
Connecticut, has been included in the collective R&D effort
since well before 1990, and continues to be productive in oil
and HazMat R&D.
While EPA tends to focus on toxicity and NOAA on oil
behavior and impacts and MMS and offshore blowouts, for
example, Coast Guard's R&D is currently focused on sensors for
aircraft, recovery of submerged oil, and oil and ice and
decision-making tools for the responders. This distribution of
labor for R&D is being monitored and reported to Congress in
accordance with Section 7001 of OPA 90, which established the
Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research.
The Coast Guard shares this interagency committee and provides
the biannual report to Congress. Coast Guard personnel must
stay closely plugged into the various R&D facilities,
conferences, and publications to fulfill their duty.
But speaking as a federal on-scene coordinator myself and
as a beneficiary of these collective R&D efforts, I can tell
you the benefits have far exceeded the cost of participating
with this interagency R&D effort. We estimate that a recovery
capability increase of 10 percent would have saved over $1
billion in response and environmental damage based on the cost
figures since 1992.
Despite past successes, much more R&D is needed. We are
just beginning to understand and solve the challenges of
submerged oil, oil and ice, dispersed oil, oil in fast
currents, and biofuels in water. We are pleased to see other
nations and even the maritime industry taking on these
challenges.
For example, Norway is conducting a major oil and ice
analysis, and oil companies are engaged with Coast Guard
engineers in the conceptual stages for high-latitude prevention
and response capabilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be
happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Rear Admiral Watson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral James A. Watson
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the
Committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss Coast
Guard oil spill response research efforts.
The passing of Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) represented a
significant paradigm shift for the Coast Guard. That historic
legislation provided the Nation with the means to immediately access
and distribute funding for oil spill response efforts; made the spiller
the responsible party with very specific requirements; and provided a
process to restore the marine environment to its pre-incident
condition. With this legislation came annual funding for the Coast
Guard to take the lead in oil spill prevention, response, and research
and development.
The Coast Guard continues to appreciate the significance of the
Exxon Valdez event. After running aground at Bligh Reef and spilling
over 10 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound at Valdez,
Alaska, this incident became the catalyst for stricter environmental
protections and regulations. For the Nation, and for the Coast Guard,
the impacts served as the catalyst for developing a stronger regime to
improve the shipment of oil and the way oil spills are handled on the
water and in the courtroom. The Coast Guard's research and development
program ensures we retain the critical expertise and capabilities to
prepare, prevent, and, if necessary, respond and recover from future
incidents in an increasingly complex national and global operating
environment.
The United States has a comprehensive framework for oil spill
prevention, preparedness and response that is fully supported by the
Coast Guard's Research and Development Center (R&DC). While several
other agencies, including the Department of Commerce, the Department of
the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency, have important
roles in oil spill clean-up and oil spill research, my testimony will
focus specifically on the Coast Guard's roles. For more than 25 years,
the R&DC has maintained a comprehensive, long-term research program to
improve oil spill response technologies. The major focus of the program
is to improve the knowledge, technologies and methodologies used for
the detection, containment and cleanup of oil spills. I am encouraged
by the significant advancements we have made since the Exxon Valdez
incident and the passage of OPA 90.
Ship designs for tankers are mandated to have double hulls. The OPA
90 phase-out schedule requires existing single-hulled tank vessels be
retrofitted with a double hull or phased out of operation by 2015.
A basic tenet of OPA 90 holds that those responsible for oil
pollution incidents are liable for clean up costs and compensation
damages. Currently over 22,500 vessels carrying oil in U.S. waters hold
active Certificates of Financial Responsibility to satisfy this
requirement.
Regulations tightened the authorities of the Federal On-Scene
Coordinator (FOSC) to oversee spill response as well as preparedness
activities at the local level. This is consistent with the Nation's
approach to response as represented in the National Response Framework
(NRF). In a sense, this approach was well ahead of its time and remains
a model for integrating all entities, including private industry, into
effective response organizations.
We must be mindful that our Marine Transportation System is the
lifeblood of our national economy. Part of that is the shipping of oil.
Three months ago, the 900 foot tanker SKS SATILLA hit a submerged jack-
up rig in the Gulf of Mexico while carrying 41 million gallons of crude
oil--nearly four times the amount spilled by the Exxon Valdez.
Thankfully, the double hull protection put into place by OPA 90
protected the cargo. The stakes remain high. We must continue to work
together--the public and private sectors--to ensure we remain prepared
and get this right.
We have learned a great deal from the Exxon Valdez incident and
have made tremendous progress. Work still remains. And these efforts
are dependent on our oil spill research efforts. The ideas, standards,
and technologies that have emerged from the R&DC benefit all spill
responders; federal, State, local and private sector.
U.S. Coast Guard Research & Development Center Accomplishments:
The R&DC has been instrumental in identifying and developing
prevention capabilities which have benefited mariners, ship to ship and
ship to shore communications, and naval architecture. They have
assessed risks associated with human-factors (e.g., crew fatigue and
certification requirements), harbor management (e.g., Automated
Information Systems), and hull design. Furthermore, the R&DC evaluated
alternatives to double-hull designs and provided the foundation for our
regulatory initiatives by assessing vessel self-help response methods.
Coast Guard research efforts have also greatly advanced our
preparedness in consequence planning and response management. Databases
have been developed for response equipment and spill histories and are
widely used in contingency planning and commercial product evaluations.
Additionally, the Oil Spill Command & Control System (OSC2) prototype
has become integrated into the Coast Guard enterprise Command, Control,
Communications, Computers, and Information Technology (C4IT) system and
the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement system. R&DC
efforts to support response management also includes curriculum
development, training, and developing safety guidelines for field
personnel and the three strike teams, and ensuring Coast Guard
personnel are familiar with current and emerging response technologies.
The Multi-Agency Team-Building Enhancement System (MATES) that was
developed by the R&DC is used for Incident Command System (ICS)
training. R&DC is also responsible for developing airborne radar and
infrared sensors used for oil spill response operations.
The R&DC has provided the Coast Guard with advanced oil containment
and recovery countermeasures. Immediately after EXXON VALDEZ, the R&DC
provided the critical technical information requirements, fielded
prototypes, and tested the first articles of modern oil spill response
equipment for the Coast Guard's National Strike Force. The Vessel of
Opportunity Skimming System (VOSS) is a unique pre-positioned recovery
system that is designed for both Coast Guard cutters and private sector
commercial vessels. The R&DC has also developed the Spilled Oil
Recovery System (SORS) for the 16 Coast Guard Juniper Class buoy
tenders. Other recovery and countermeasure technologies include: (1)
fast-water response boom and skimmers; (2) temporary storage devices;
(3) oil/water separation systems; (4) in situ burning; and (5)
technology capability decision support.
The R&DC partners with other governmental agencies and the private
sector. The Coast Guard helped expand the Nation's testing
infrastructure by re-establishing the Oil and Hazardous Materials
Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT) in Leonardo, New Jersey, in
cooperation with the Minerals Management Service.
Over the last twenty years the Nation has seen a decrease in the
annual number of spills over 100 gallons (per 100 million tons
shipped); 25 spills met this criteria in 2002 and only 19 in 2007. The
following graph shows 10 years of data on the total amount spilled by
source. From 1999 to 2007 (the latest available data), an average of
only three gallons of oil were spilled for every one million gallons of
oil transported over the inland river system. This is due to the
significant increase over the last 20 years in federal and industry
partnerships supporting maritime oil transportation, the application of
OPA 90 standards and safeguards, and enhanced prevention and response
capabilities.
The Coast Guard continues to lead the National Response System in
research and development. In addition to these efforts with federal and
State agencies, we have fostered strong partnerships with vessel
owners, facility operators, Oil Spill Removal Organizations, and
academia. The oil spill research and development conducted through the
U.S. Coast Guard R&DC and its partnerships is positioned ideally in a
research-prevent-respond system. By adopting the latest response
tactics, techniques, and procedures fostered and facilitated through
R&D efforts, our new Deployable Operations Group can tailor adaptive
force packages--including Coast Guard National Strike Force personnel--
to meet any maritime response need. Additionally, the U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Safety Laboratory (MSL) provides forensic oil analysis and
expert testimony in support of the oil pollution law enforcement
efforts for Marine Investigators, Department of Justice, and other
federal agencies. Finally, our National Pollution Funds Center ensures
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is ready to finance rapid, response
and recovery. Most importantly, the financial responsibility has been
placed on the polluters. Since OPA 90 was enacted, over $234 million
has been recovered and returned to the Fund.
Oil spill prevention and response actions need proven techniques,
technologies, and training. Continued investment in research and
development funding is crucial to developing the tools needed for the
variety of situations encountered--before they are needed.
We are positioning ourselves to meet future challenges. One example
is the Arctic. The Commandant has previously stated, ``there is water
where there was once ice and the Coast Guard has a responsibility for
it.'' As we develop our operating requirements to meet the mandates of
the NSPD-55/HSPD-25, Arctic Presidential Decision Directive, it is
clear our country needs the specialized capability of harsh environment
oil spill response. As Arctic ice recedes, opening up new shipping
routes and new areas for energy exploration, we must be aware of the
economic and environmental implications. We have made significant
progress, but there is still much left to be done to address future
conditions. In the upcoming years, we must address the more challenging
responses associated with harsh environments such as submerged oil and
oil in or under ice.
I appreciate Congressional support for our oil spill response
research and development and look forward to upcoming discussions on
the future of the Coast Guard's service to America. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.
Biography for Rear Admiral James A. Watson
Rear Admiral James Watson is currently Director of Prevention
Policy for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship, Coast Guard
Headquarters, Washington DC. Previous to this assignment he served as
Chief of Staff of the Seventh Coast Guard District in Miami, FL and
Chief, Office of Budget and Programs, Coast Guard Headquarters. Prior
field assignments include: Commanding Officer Marine Safety Office
Miami (2001-2004), Commanding Officer Marine Safety Office San Diego
(1995-1998), Executive Officer Marine Safety Office Savannah (1992-
1995), Chief of Port Operations Marine Safety Office Puget Sound (1989-
1992), and Engineering Officer USCGC Bibb (1978-1980). Headquarters
staff assignments have included: Program Reviewer--Office of Budget and
Programs (1998-2000), Staff Naval Architect--USCG Marine Safety Center
(1986-1989), Staff Engineer--Marine Technical and Hazardous Materials
Division (1980-1983).
Rear Admiral Watson graduated from the Coast Guard Academy in 1978
with a Bachelor of Science in Marine Engineering. In 1985 he earned two
Master of Science degrees from the University of Michigan, one in
Mechanical Engineering and the other in Naval Architecture. In 2001 he
graduated from Industrial College of the Armed Forces with a Master's
degree in Strategic Studies.
Rear Admiral Watson has been a member of the Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers since 1978. He was recognized as the
Southeastern United States Propeller Club Person of the Year in 2004.
His personal military awards include two Legion of Merits, two
Meritorious Service Medals, and six Coast Guard Commendation Medals.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Edinger.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN L. EDINGER, ADMINISTRATOR, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, OFFICE OF SPILL PREVENTION AND
RESPONSE
Mr. Edinger. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
regarding California's experience and perspective on the status
of oil spill response technologies. I am the Administrator of
the Office of Spill Prevention Response, also known as OSPR. I
oversee more than 200 employees dedicated to protecting
California's habitats and wildlife from the devastating effects
of pollution.
OSPR was established by the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil
Spill Prevention Response Act of 1990 following the Exxon
Valdez oil spill in 1989, and the oil trader spill in southern
California in 1990. OSPR is one of the few State-level entities
in the Nation that has both major pollution response authority
and public trustee authority for wildlife and habitat.
OSPR has a legislative mandate to ensure that California's
natural resources receive the best protection through oil spill
prevention, preparedness, response, and restoration. I am
required to consider using processes that are currently in use
anywhere in the world to obtain the best achievable technology.
Today I will share some of my observations from the
November 7 motor vessel Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco
Bay. I will emphasize some of the gaps in the oil spill
technologies that remain. I will highlight some of the
effective oil spill technologies utilized by OSPR that were
developed as a result of the enactment of State and federal oil
spill legislation.
On the morning of November 7, 2007, the motor vessel Cosco
Busan, a 900-foot container ship, departed the port of Oakland
with visibility estimated at less than one-fourth nautical
mile. The Cosco Busan collided with one of the towers of the
San Francisco Bay Bridge, resulting in the breach of three
tanks, spilling 53,000 gallons of bunker fuel in the San
Francisco Bay.
In the following weeks, 43 percent of the oil spilled into
the Bay was recovered. While the response to the Cosco Busan
oil spill was a success, improvements in technologies could
have increased recovery of oil and protection of the
environment.
Two technologies that might have increased oil recovery
include oil detection during reduced visibility or nighttime
conditions and oil containment in high-velocity environments.
Oil recovery is hampered during times of reduced visibility. As
demonstrated during the Cosco Busan response, fog hindered
accurate trajectory analysis and on-the-water recovery. We lack
a critical tool to detect concentrations of oil during periods
of restricted visibility.
About booming. Conventional containment and exclusion booms
begin to fail when currents exceed three-fourths of a knot. We
need a deployable boom that operates effectively in complex,
high-velocity currents that are frequently encountered in the
coastal environments.
While I mentioned two technologies that need improvement,
there are examples of emerging technologies utilized by OSPR.
One is multi-spectral and thermal imaging. This imaging
technology uses a combination of sensors to capture imagery
from wavelengths outside of the human visible light range. This
imaging system has enabled rapid oil spill mapping and far
greater quantitative and geographical accuracy than was
possible using only visual observations.
And the other is high-frequency radar surface current
monitoring. Along the California coastline high-frequency radar
stations record ocean currents. Surface current data were used
extensively during the Cosco Busan response to create
trajectories, using real-time conditions. These trajectories
aided in the identification and protection of environmentally-
sensitive sites at risk.
About our role in federal research and development, we
would support a continued and increased role with respect to
identification of research priorities and practical application
of new methods and technologies.
In conclusion, OSPR and the State of California recognize
the need for continued improvement in the prevention and
response to oil spills. OSPR is committed to utilizing the best
achievable technologies as required by statute to provide for
the best achievable protection of the marine environment. We
support federal research efforts to provide or to improve and
develop technologies that address these issues.
Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
address the Subcommittee. I would be happy to respond to any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Edinger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen L. Edinger
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify before you today regarding California's
experience and perspective on the status of oil spill response
technologies.
I am Stephen Edinger, Administrator for the California Department
of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR). I was
appointed as Administrator by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last
November. Prior to taking this appointment, I spent 28 years in law
enforcement, working for State and federal agencies, protecting the
natural resources of California. I have investigated or served as the
incident commander on hundreds of pollution events across California.
Today, I oversee more than 200 employees dedicated to protecting
California's habitats and wildlife from the devastating effects of
pollution.
OSPR was established by the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill
Prevention and Response Act of 1990 following the Exxon Valdez oil
spill in 1989 and the American Trader spill in Southern California in
1990. OSPR is one of the few State-level entities in the Nation that
has both major pollution response authority and public trustee
authority for wildlife and habitat.
OSPR has a legislated mandate to ensure that California's natural
resources receive the best protection through oil spill prevention,
preparedness, response and restoration. Specifically, I am required to
provide for the ``best achievable protection'' which is defined as the
highest level of protection that can be achieved through both the use
of the best achievable technology and those manpower levels, training
procedures and operational methods that provide the greatest degree of
protection achievable. Additionally, I am mandated to consider using
processes that are currently in use anywhere in the world to obtain the
``best achievable technology.''
I am proud of OSPR's close collaboration with federal partners. Our
relationships with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) and other federal
natural resource trustees have helped shape OSPR into the premier spill
response program in the Nation. We work closely with these agencies in
a variety of efforts including planning, training, prevention, research
and development, and spill response.
Today, I will share some of my observations from the November 2007
M/V Cosco Busan oil spill in the San Francisco Bay. I will also
emphasize some of the gaps in oil spill response technologies that
remain. I will highlight some of the effective oil spill technologies
utilized by OSPR that were developed as a result of the enactment of
State and federal oil spill legislation.
M/V Cosco Busan Oil Spill
On the morning of November 7, 2007, the M/V Cosco Busan was at
berth 56, at the Port of Oakland located on the Oakland Estuary. The
Cosco Busan, a 900-foot container ship, departed with visibility
estimated at less than one-fourth nautical mile. The Cosco Busan
allided with one of the towers of the San Francisco Bay Bridge,
resulting in the breach of three port wing tanks, spilling 53,000
gallons of bunker fuel into the San Francisco Bay. For almost three
weeks, I served as California's incident commander. My role in this
response gave me a unique perspective on the use and availability of
oil spill technology.
The spill response by Federal, State, local government and private
contractors was immediate and aggressive. Within 90 minutes of the
incident, the oil spill response organizations had the on-scene
recovery capability of 1.5 million gallons. The total on-water recovery
capability on scene within six hours was more than 2.4 million gallons.
However, effective deployment of assets was hampered by the very fog
that contributed to the accident. The first helicopter overflight was
not conducted until more than five hours after the allision.
Oil recovery and cleanup operations in and around the San Francisco
Bay continued for months following the accident. Recovery rates of oil
well exceeded industry norms. Forty three percent of the oil spilled
into the bay was recovered.
By comparison, on July 23, 2008, a collision between a barge and
tanker resulted in 250,000 gallons of fuel oil discharged into the
Mississippi River near downtown New Orleans. This spill resulted in the
closure of river traffic and disruption of commerce for weeks. Less
than 12 percent of the fuel oil was recovered.
While the response to the Cosco Busan oil spill was a success,
improvements in current technologies could have increased recovery of
oil and the protection of the environment.
Examples of Technology Needing Improvement
Oil Detection During Reduced Visibility or Nighttime Conditions
One of the highest priorities during an oil spill is to contain and
remove the oil from the water as early as possible. However, oil
recovery is hampered during times of reduced visibility. As
demonstrated during the Cosco Busan response, fog hindered accurate
trajectory analysis and on-water recovery. Skimming operations were
shut down at night because there was no mechanism for detecting the
oil. While thermal imaging is an effective oil detection tool, fog
limits the use of this technology. We lack a critical tool to detect
concentrations of oil during periods of restricted visibility.
Containment in High Velocity Environments
Conventional containment and exclusion booms begin to fail when
currents exceed three-fourths knots This limitation makes spill
containment and protection of environmentally sensitive areas difficult
if not impossible. We need a deployable boom that operates effectively
in complex, high-velocity currents that are frequently encountered in
coastal environments.
Chemical Dispersants
Chemical dispersants break oil into smaller particles that move
into the water column. Currently, chemical dispersants are applied as a
sprayed mix of water and dispersant onto freshly spilled oil. The type
of oil, degree of weathering, sea state and other environmental
conditions into which chemical dispersants can be applied safely and
effectively, are limited. New delivery systems for dispersant
applications including gels or other encapsulating forms show promise.
However more research and testing are needed.
Ship Simulators
Ship simulators show tremendous potential in preventing maritime
accidents. Just as airline pilots use simulators, they can be used by
ship pilots and vessel masters to practice entering and navigating
different California harbors and responding to different shipboard
emergencies, such as loss of power or loss of steering. However,
development of future simulators requires funding and programmatic
support to improve and strengthen maritime navigational safety.
Examples of Emerging Technology Utilized by OSPR
Multi-spectral and Thermal Imaging
One of the most important initial steps in response to an oil spill
at sea is the assessment of the extent of the oil slick and the
quantity (i.e., thickness) and distribution of oil within it. Since
most oils rapidly spread to very thin layers when released at sea,
accurate determination of which areas contain the most amount of oil is
vital for efficiently guiding oil spill response efforts. This emerging
technology uses a combination of sensors to capture imagery from
wavelengths outside of the human visible light range.
Platform A, located in federal waters six miles off of the Santa
Barbara coast developed a leak in an oil tank in December 2007. We
successfully utilized multi-spectral and thermal imaging technology
developed by OSPR, MMS and a Southern California company to locate and
characterize the slick. The Platform A oil spill response was OSPR's
first operational use of remote sensing technology to confirm the
presence of oil on the ocean's surface, accurately map the extent of
the oil slick, classify the remote sensing images into oil thickness
categories and present these data on a mapping web site for use by the
incident command in close to real time.
This imaging system has enabled rapid oil spill mapping with far
greater quantitative and geographical accuracy than is possible using
only visual observations. Current planned refinements include improving
the speed with which data can be captured, processed and disseminated.
High Frequency Radar Surface Current Monitoring
Along the California coastline, high frequency radar stations
record ocean currents. OSPR funded research with San Francisco State
University and the Naval Postgraduate School that allows the
dissemination of the data via the Internet in Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) format. These data, collected as part of a national
framework called the Integrated Ocean Observing System, are used to
create oil trajectories, implement strategies to protect sensitive
habitats and position oil recovery assets where they would be most
effective. Surface current data were used extensively during the Cosco
Busan response to create trajectories using real-time conditions. These
trajectories aided in the identification and protection of
environmentally sensitive sites at risk.
Physical Oceanographic Real Time System (PORTS)
PORTS consists of a complex array of measuring instruments, cable,
radio and telephone telemetry that compiles real time water levels,
tide, current, salinity, and meteorological data for the channels,
harbors and bays. It is an asset to safe navigation, spill response,
search and rescue operations, and in the collection of historical data
for determining long-term trends. The PORTS information is used on a
daily basis by vessel operators, harbor pilots, educational
institutions and recreational boaters.
In the years since its inception in California in 1995, the system
has enhanced navigational safety for the full range of commercial,
passenger and recreational vessels, improved pollution response and
supported both environmental protection and commerce in California.
PORTS is a cooperative effort by the State of California, harbor
authorities and NOAA. Under Gov. Schwarzenegger's leadership, OSPR has
been able to fully fund PORTS in the San Francisco Bay.
However, the use of PORTS in California has not reached its full
potential. Due to limited funding,some harbors and commercial ports on
the west coast lack access to the PORTS system. In addition, there is
no mechanism to incorporate data from other systems, like the high
frequency radar, into PORTS. Without a consistent funding effort for
maintenance and upgrade improvements, PORTS will remain an effective
but inconsistent tool for mariners. Currently, I am not aware of any
new or upcoming technology that may be available to replace the PORTS
system.
Geographic Information Systems
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are fully integrated into oil
spill prevention and response in California. GIS has proven to be an
excellent data management and organizational tool for drills,
exercises, contingency planning, natural resource damage assessment,
response and recovery. We generate large amounts of data during an oil
spill, much with a geospatial component. The inherent ability to import
and display convergent data layers provides the incident commanders
with powerful decision-making tools. GIS products are routinely used to
track the progress of the response, guide daily activities and support
the incident investigation.
California's Role in Federal Research and Development
OSPR's in-house research program has successfully partnered with
federal agencies on several projects, as described earlier. For
example, a proposal evaluated in OSPR's Scientific Study and Evaluation
Program led to real world testing of multi-spectral and thermal imaging
systems by the MMS at their Ohmsett facility in New Jersey.
In addition, OSPR co-sponsors a highly successful biannual
technology workshop that focuses on federal, State, academic and
private research efforts.
California has had limited but productive collaborations with the
federal research program. My staff has served on National Academy of
Science's panels evaluating chemical dispersants, the development of
national research priorities in conjunction with the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's collaboration with the
University of New Hampshire and the initial federal efforts for
standardization of dispersant testing protocols. We would support a
continued and increased role with respect to identification of research
priorities and the practical application of new methods and
technologies.
Conclusion
OSPR and the State of California recognize the need for continued
improvement in the prevention of and response to oil spills. OSPR is
committed to utilizing the best achievable technologies as required by
statute to provide for the best achievable protection of the marine
environment. We support federal research efforts to improve and develop
technologies that address these issues.
Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address
this sub-committee. I would be happy to respond to any questions you
may have.
Biography for Stephen L. Edinger
Stephen Edinger is Administrator for the California Department of
Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response. A graduate of
the University of California, Davis, Mr. Edinger was appointed as
Administrator by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in November, 2008.
Stephen Edinger has spent his professional career protecting
California's wildlife and natural environments, serving over 28 years
in environmental law enforcement. He began his career in 1982 as a law
enforcement ranger with the National Park Service. He then spent eight
years as a ranger with the California State Park System along the
northern California coast. For the past 17 years, he has served in
various capacities with the California Department of Fish and Game. Mr.
Edinger has investigated or served as the incident commander on
hundreds of pollution events across California. He served as
California's incident commander during the M/V Cosco Busan oil spill
response in November, 2007.
Today Mr. Edinger oversees more than 200 employees dedicated to
protecting California's habitats and wildlife from the devastating
effects of pollution. He leads the Office of Spill Prevention and
Response, which is recognized as the premiere spill response program in
the Nation.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Edinger.
At this point I will recognize myself for five minutes.
We have been joined, by the way, by Mr. Davis and Ms.
Edwards. Thank you both for joining us.
Achieving Necessary Research and Development Measures
You know, one of the things that tends to happen to all of
us, I suppose, is that when there is a big crisis, a massive
spill, Exxon Valdez, we scramble jets, create legislation, we
all respond, and then there is a natural sort of decline in
focus maybe.
I want to address that a little bit. Mr. Helton, you talked
in your testimony a little bit, at least in the written
testimony, about--that the comprehensive research, this is a
quote, ``Comprehensive research and development envisioned by
OPA has not been fully achieved.'' What needs to happen to make
that happen, to make the vision a reality?
Mr. Helton. I would say that the agencies are working
together to try to fulfill that vision. Resources are a
limitation. There is--that is a consideration. I think that the
plans are there. It just needs to be implemented.
Chairman Baird. Following up on that, OPA 90 created a
coordinating committee on oil pollution research. What is the
status of that committee? Does it meet regularly? Does it
produce documents? Does it analyze effectiveness? What is the
status of that?
Admiral Watson. Yes, sir. It does meet. It works primarily
through an ongoing amount of activity at conferences. There is
research activity going on at the various laboratories, and
the--I think that there is a constant communication between the
various scientists, and then every two years there is a report
that is compiled and submitted to Congress of all of the
different activities. And these are categorized in the various
different areas that help oil spill responders. In some cases
it is the surveillance equipment, other cases it is the
recovery equipment, the modeling oil in the water, the fate
analysis of different types of oil over time in the water
column, and so on.
So I think one of the main intents of that was to make sure
there is not duplication of effort and to make sure that there
is dialogue, and I think those two things are happening. Can
that committee be taken to another level? I think it could be.
I think actually if you look backwards in time, you will see
that one time it was involved with grants to states and
universities, for example. It spent a lot more money out of the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for research and development.
Some of those things are a function of appropriations. Some of
it was sort of an ending of the authority, for example, for the
grants and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund expenditures.
Chairman Baird. That trust fund predominantly is designed--
it is my understanding and feel free to correct me if I am
wrong, to help fund the cleanup operation. Does it also fund
the research side of it?
Admiral Watson. Yes, sir. It has in the past. I think--I
don't know the big number of all of the dollars spent on
research out of the fund. I do know since its inception the
fund has provided approximately $51 million to the Coast
Guard's R&D Program, and that is how we develop things like the
vessel of opportunity's skimming system and the skimming system
that we have built into our buoy tenders so that they are ready
at any time for an oil spill, and all sorts of different
things. The pump that was used on the new Carissa to get the
very viscous oil out of that hall while it lay on the beach
there in Oregon, I believe. And so----
Chairman Baird. Right off our coast actually.
Admiral Watson. Yes, sir. So these were some of the
outcomes of R&D, and I am sure a lot of that was due to the
fund.
Chairman Baird. But there may be a need to revisit that
issue of whether or not that fund is still adequately
contributing to ongoing research, apparently for a timed
function and there is--it at least seems to be a bit of a
question mark about whether or not a sufficient portion of that
fund is actually going to fund the research. Is that a fair
portrayal?
Dr. Venosa.
Dr. Venosa. Yes. I think it is. I think the resources--I
don't want to sound like a scientist who is begging for money,
but I think that----
Chairman Baird. That never happens before this committee.
Dr. Venosa. No, no. We never do that, but the resources--my
budget has been about a half a million dollars for the--per
year for the last 20 years. We have got, as I said, we have got
a lot of publications out of it, but half a million dollars
doesn't go very far.
And, in fact, a lab study that 20, 15 years ago cost 60 to
$80,000 now costs 130. So really the budget has actually gone
down.
Chairman Baird. Yes. I guess----
Dr. Venosa. Due to inflation.
Chairman Baird.--I want to close out with really two
questions and maybe we may pursue them later if we have another
round.
One is the degree to which folks like Admiral Watson, Mr.
Edinger, who are out there on the ground, more likely in the
water I should say, trying to clean up the spills. You have
each given some examples, and there is mention by Mr. Helton
about dealing with cold water situations.
But one of my fundamental questions would be to what extent
and through what mechanisms does the real world practitioner
who says, gosh, if only we had a way to see where the darn oil
is in the fog or at night or to suck up viscous material or to
deal with cold water, to what extent does that drive the
research? Where is that nexus? That is one question.
And then related to that is let us suppose you do drive the
research, where is the financial incentive? This strikes me as
a little bit like the problem we have with funding for
pharmaceuticals to deal with rare disease outbreaks. All the
incentives are in the wrong direction. Why should a drug
company invest a significant amount of money for something that
may never get to be used? If they do use it, they could get
sued, et cetera.
And separately I worked on that issue, but here where is
the incentive? Let us suppose Mr. Edinger says, ``Look. I have
got to get something that helps me identify where oil is at
night.'' Where is the financial incentive for some company to
invest in producing the products that allow you to do that? It
is similar, I suppose, to the need for a more viscous pump. But
that would be a second question. We don't have time to deal
with it in this round, but I hope maybe we can get to that.
I will recognize Mr. Inglis for five minutes at this point.
Possible Improvements to Existing Mechanisms
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman was just asking the question about the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, and the Interagency Coordinating
Committee. I wonder if anybody wants to comment on how it could
be improved. I assume things are always subject to improvement,
and if we approach it in a process way and say, you know, what
could be really better about what was called for in that Act
and driving things along.
Any thoughts about what you would like to see if you had a
wish list of things that you could ask Congress and Congress
would do it? What would that be?
Mr. Helton. Well, we have a number of areas that we believe
would be fruitful for research. I think the question is not
necessarily the structure of the organizational committee as
much as what resources that they have to take under--take new
research, especially the areas I mentioned. There is a lot of
new technologies that are available that we are not applying
towards oil spills, we are not using some of the remote
sensing, we are not using some of the unmanned aerial vehicles,
things like that that are out there in industry now in other
areas. Some of those areas need more research on how they can
applied.
On the question of the nexus on research and how we make
sure that research is appropriate, that the people in the field
actually get their ideas to the scientists, the structure of
the research that NOAA has done with the University of New
Hampshire is actually intentionally designed that way. Every
research project has an assigned field responder who is--who
has expertise in that area from a field perspective to make
sure that the research is providing information that is useful
to the responders.
Mr. Inglis. Anyone else want to comment on that?
Dr. Venosa. EPA gets its research ideas so to speak from
interactions with the program office, the Office of Emergency
Management, because they deal with the on-scene coordinators on
a daily basis, and they know what the--where the needs for
inland oil spills are. And so I have an almost daily discussion
with the OEM folks about research and what can we do to solve
the problems that the on-scene coordinators are facing within
our agency. And that is basically where we get our ideas for
research, through interactions with the program office and the
on-scene coordinators.
The Admiral talked about the Interagency Coordinating
Committee, and I would like to say that I think it has worked--
in fact, one of the ways that we do interact, and he didn't
mention is through the Science and Technology Committee, which
is a committee of the National Response Team. And the people
who are--compose the International or the Interagency
Coordinating Committee are also on that Science and Technology
Committee. We meet on a monthly basis through conference call.
We talk, always talk about the research that we are doing.
So we do communicate, we do collaborate, and we do
coordinate. Perhaps we haven't been as good about reporting to
Congress as much as we should, but at least we do do what we
are supposed to be doing in terms of the directive.
Admiral Watson. I would like to echo Dr. Venosa. I think
that the system is working pretty good as far as having an ear
toward the responder. I mean, the--both the Coast Guard and the
EPA are the responders, and we are certainly very involved with
that interagency committee and feeding those needs directly to
the research facilities and the researchers.
I think one thing that--and you touched on it, Chairman
Baird, you know, maybe coming up with some better incentives
for companies for the private sector to be involved. Now, we
try to stay involved and actually I am very complimentary about
a number of privately-funded research activities, but that is a
little less organized. It is not maybe as robust as it could be
or as--led as well as it might be by the federal agencies on
this committee.
There is also the international efforts, and, again, we try
to be as involved as possible. The United States is seen as the
world leader, and maybe this committee could have even a better
leadership role if it was a little emphasis there.
Mr. Edinger. Ranking Member, regarding participation by
State, local entities, you know, certainly we want to continue
to participate in this process. In California we don't
necessarily do the research, but we apply the research that is
done or funded by the Federal Government. So research certainly
is very important to us.
As far as financial incentive, I think we could look once
again to the Cosco Busan, which as Representative Woolsey said,
may be not that large of a size of a spill but certainly
significant in the response. Response costs are going to end up
somewhere between 1,000 and $2,000 per gallon for a product
spilled. So there is a financial incentive out there.
In addition, in California we have a regulatory structure
that requires best achievable technology by the industry. The
industry is required to use what is the best achievable
technology, similar to what the Federal Government does. We
are--have a work group together that includes Federal
Government, includes State, includes non-governmental
organizations looking at the different technologies and
deciding which is the best achievable technology.
But there is a financial incentive certainly for companies
to develop new technologies and for the industry to use those
during an event.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. Mr. Lujan.
Inland Spills
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Dr. Venosa,
if I could begin with something that you said in your opening
remarks about some of the concerns that you did have with
support that may be needed to also address inland spills, I
know that the overlying reason that we are here is some of the
concerns that have occurred on our coast, but you brought up a
point there that cause my interest. And if you could talk about
that a little bit more.
And then to hear from each of you to your experiences or
how maybe Mr. Helton or Admiral Watson or Mr. Edinger with your
experience in California responsibilities both coastal and
inland, on what can be learned from there so that way we are
making sure that we are looking at the entire country for
preparedness here.
Dr. Venosa. Thank you. Yeah. I think in the area of inland
spills, and this is my opinion, but I think and I said that we
are probably going to have more spills rather than fewer as we
change our emphasis in the future to biofuels development. I
think you are going to--since all these biofuels are going to
be transported by pipeline, and they are going to be stored in
above-ground storage tanks, I think you are going to see that
those pipelines do corrode, and so do the above-ground storage
tanks. You are going to see more and more of these spills as we
increase the volume production of biofuels in the future.
And so I think we need to start conducting research to try
to--how do we deal with those new spills? I mean, these are new
things to us. We have been doing research for 10 years on
vegetable oils. We know a lot about vegetable oils and how they
persist in the environment and how they are treated
biologically, but we don't know enough yet. We have--and with
biofuels they are slightly different from the vegetable oil
feedstocks. We have--we don't know that much about them at all
yet. Nor do we know anything about animal fats.
I think you are going to see a lot more of those being
produced as well as being spilled.
Mr. Helton. Thank you, Mr. Lujan. My agency's primary focus
is ocean and coastal resources, but we do support inland spills
and work in the Great Lakes as well. We have all the inland
rivers we provide support on. This is the--next week is the
10th anniversary of the Olympic Pipeline spill in Washington
State, which is one of the spills I worked on that was 250,000
gallons of gasoline that was spilled into a coastal stream and
caught fire and caused several fatalities as well as destroying
a city park.
And so NOAA is involved in those level incidents as well
and certainly it is something we try to remind our audience
that we are not just talking about the large tanker accidents,
that these can happen at any community, and we need to be
prepared.
Admiral Watson. One of the things I would like to mention
is that the Coast Guard's National Strike Force is actually a
national strike force that serves both the EPA federal on-scene
coordinators as well as the Coast Guard federal on-scene
coordinators who are responsible for the coastal spills.
So one of the things that happens almost without thinking
is that all of the experiences and lessons learned from that
team are shared throughout the country. They are deployed from
three different locations, and they work for both EPA and Coast
Guard, so you have got some real synergies going back and
forth, even though EPA's focus is inland and normally fresh
water.
There are, like you presumed, lessons learned. We do have
some pipeline, some refineries, some chemical facilities in the
coastal area that maybe are at lower numbers in terms of, you
know, their numbers in the coastal zone, but when they have an
incident, it quite often is a big incident, and we are glad to
bring that knowledge and experience from the responses that our
strike team has had working for EPA coordinators inland.
Mr. Edinger. My office has responsibility, not just in the
marine environment, but also the inland environment in
California. We respond to petroleum oil spills in the inland
environment. I could say without hesitation that we have more
oil spills in the inland environment than we do in the marine
environment. One of the differences normally is the marine
environment is an open system, maybe much more difficult to
corral than it is in the inland environment, but this year
quantities and numbers of spills are much greater in the inland
environment.
As I addressed in the opening statement, you know, booming
systems for rapid, high-velocity areas like inland areas,
rivers and streams, you know, having things that are easily
deployable is something I think we still need some work and
research on that, certainly some of the research that is being
looked at in updating would help to address, I hope.
Mr. Lujan. I would like to know if there is something that
we may be able to explore, understanding that there may be many
more inland incidents but truly understanding when we talk
about devastation when it comes to quantities how that may
impact our oceans as well. Not to say that there is not
devastation from one of these accidents occurring inland. We
need to make sure as well that we are looking at this. As we
lean from a technological perspective with arming our Coast
Guard or first responders with the resources they need to
adequately respond, we need to look to some of our laboratories
with some of their expertise as well in being able to not only
model these situations but in some of their homeland
preparedness techniques, which may lend to some support in the
specific area.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms.
Woolsey, for bringing this forward.
Chairman Baird. Excellent point, Mr. Lujan. It was, indeed,
10 years ago that we had the terrible accident up in
Bellingham. My colleague, Rick Larson, led the effort to fix
that, and I will never forget the testimony of the families who
lost children in that extraordinary explosion. Hundreds of
thousands of gallons of gasoline ignited in one moment, and it
devastated the community and killed three innocent people.
And so it is a very, very good point that this is not just
a marine thing that happens offshore.
Ms. Woolsey.
Containment Booms and University-Agency Cooperation
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and H.R. 2693 is not
just a marine bill. It is an oil spill bill, in both prevention
and cleanup.
Mr. Edinger, thank you for being a boots on the ground
example to us. I mean, you are the great expert that we need to
hear from because you were really right there. And you
mentioned that the failure of containment booms when the
currents exceed that certain speed, I think it is three-fourths
of a knot, that this makes it really difficult and particularly
for protecting environmentally-sensitive areas.
So knowing that and knowing that we need to do something
about that, how do you go about and who do you give your
feedback to. How does the process begin for you to get somebody
to invent something that will work better?
Mr. Edinger. Well, once again, Representative Woolsey, I
would like to thank you for inviting me here and as a former
resident of your District, I do appreciate all that you do.
Ms. Woolsey. It is a nice District, isn't it?
Mr. Edinger. It is a great District. It is a great
District.
As far as--there are incentives out there for the market
environment. Regarding what we do now in protecting areas where
we don't have the right tools we develop plans to use what is
existing, what is out there right now. As an example, the Cosco
Busan, we had difficulty with the Bolinas Lagoon, which I
believe is in your district.
Ms. Woolsey. It certainly is.
Mr. Edinger. The Bolinas Lagoon is a high-energy area. You
have waves coming in, you have currents going up to five,
sometimes six knots. We ended up having two very complex
booming systems to try and keep oil out of that environment,
but ultimately, that is very difficult. It is very difficult
when you have limited resources as far as response
capabilities, and quite frankly, often those technologies fail.
There is a failure.
As far as who it is that we try and get to create these new
systems, you know, unfortunately, we deal with what is in
place. There is not a mechanism certainly for us to go out and
say, you, here is a grant from the State of California to
develop that. Really we rely on the Federal Government and some
of the research that goes on with the agencies. Also with the
Minerals Management Service.
Ms. Woolsey. Uh-huh. Well, thank you. Because you are the
four agents including Mineral Management Services that my bill
will be focusing on. What it does it is streamlines from 17
agencies to the four of you to ensure that we don't have this
so dissipated that we don't get anything done.
But you said that you had conference calls, Dr. Venosa. Do
you have all 17 agencies on those conference calls, or is it
the doers that are right here at the table?
Dr. Venosa. It is mostly the doers. I mean, we have, gee
whiz, probably half a dozen to eight people who call in every
month and talk about the research that we are doing. So----
Ms. Woolsey. Uh-huh.
Dr. Venosa.--it is certainly not all 14 or 16 agencies that
are named in the bill.
Ms. Woolsey. How do you get in touch with the universities,
I mean, that we can apply for these grants in my bill to do the
research and build the booms we designed? Somebody, I guess it
would be a mechanical engineering group or something designing
the booms we need. Who is talking to who? That is what I am
trying to get to right here.
Dr. Venosa. Well, we do--the agencies do talk to each
other. We do. I mean, like we say every month, NOAA does it a
little bit differently from the way we do it. NOAA has their
CRRC, and they have their annual peer review request for
proposals.
Ms. Woolsey. Uh-huh.
Dr. Venosa. We also have--we have a competitive contract
that we have in Cincinnati with the university----
Ms. Woolsey. Uh-huh.
Dr. Venosa.--and we do a lot of research with that
university both in house, among our own people, with people
from the university who help us, as well as extramurally with
that university.
Ms. Woolsey. And you are funding that project at the
university?
Dr. Venosa. Yes. Our--the monies that EPA gets, we funnel--
--
Ms. Woolsey. Uh-huh.
Dr. Venosa.--we compete some of it.
Ms. Woolsey. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Dr. Venosa. We--some of it goes to our LOE contract with
that university, the University of Cincinnati, and some of it
we do ourselves in house. We have in-house capabilities in not
only our lab but other labs throughout the country.
Ms. Woolsey. And how do you get feedback on whether or not
these programs are working once they are out in the field?
Dr. Venosa. Well, everything that we do is peer reviewed--
--
Ms. Woolsey. Uh-huh.
Dr. Venosa.--you know, and we all attend the same
conferences. The oil spill community, research community is
very small. We all know each other, and we get, we meet on a
monthly basis, and we get together annually at various
conferences. We know what is going on. We all know----
Ms. Woolsey. So then how come we didn't have booms that
would work in anything beyond three-fourths knots? I mean, that
is pretty still waters, isn't it, up until there?
Admiral Watson. Well, there are booms that have been
developed by research and developments for fast water, and
there is also manuals that have been developed to give to the
responders, and the--I guess the challenge is to having the
right resources at the right place at the right time. And I
don't know the specific circumstances of where these things
were for the Cosco Busan but, you know, the weather is
something you can't predict. I guess there is an expectation
for fog out there in the San Francisco Bay obviously, and there
is obviously rivers with a lot of potential for oil spills
where you would pre-stage booms that are designed specifically
for fast water recoveries.
But sometimes you have a spill that occurs in low
visibility that is in a place that usually has low visibility
or in fast water that maybe you were expecting a different type
of a spill. We have to continue to get the mostly private
response organizations, the oil spill response organizations,
to produce and acquire the technologies that the R&D community
develops.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey.
Mr. Davis.
Spill Prevention
Mr. Davis. I watched and observed the Exxon Valdez spill,
others that we have had in our country and along our streams.
Observed it one time, a small pond on a farm where domestic oil
wells were being drilled and stored in a tank and the tank
erupted to a leak, went into the actual holding pond, and for
somehow it leaked down through the soil and got into some
springs and the pond ultimately had to be dammed off with
roping that you use and eventually burned.
So I am somewhat aware as I look at the past and observe
the damage that oil spills have had. And one of--I think Dr.
Venosa. Am I saying that right?
Dr. Venosa. Venosa.
Mr. Davis. Venosa.
Dr. Venosa. Yeah.
Mr. Davis. You have to forgive me. I am from Tennessee,
from the mountains of Tennessee, I guess some folks would say,
but I know you made a comment that as we engage more in
alternative fuels, perhaps maybe the piping underground of
ethanol, that we could perhaps see more corrosion.
I think that is a long way off to be honest with you. We
have got to grow an awful lot of switchgrass to get that much
to where it would demand us maybe 10 or 15 percent of the uses
to start putting pipes in. So I think our efforts to control
spills that we may have from oil is perhaps our biggest
challenge.
If you were to compare the safety today of transporting
oil, are we using more and more, eight billion barrels a year
that we use in this country alone? If you were to compare the
safety record that we have today, either the four of you or all
the four of you, compared to what we had a decade ago and two
decades or three decades ago, how would you compare the safety
records today? Do you think that we have adequate, in-place
rules and regulations that would take us to the level of almost
perfection in safety?
Either one. What do we have to do to be sure we get to the
point to where we have 100 percent certainty we don't have a
spill?
Mr. Helton. I would say that the review of the data on the
recurrence of spills is--there has been great success since the
passage of OPA 90 and the reduction of spills has been
significant. The problem is that spills, there is still that
chance of a spill happening. We haven't safeguarded the system
completely, so we still have to have preparedness but overall
the system is much--much less oil is being spilled today than
was being spilled in pre-OPA period.
Dr. Venosa. Nothing is 100 percent. We will never, ever be
free of oil spills or any kind of chemical spills for that
matter. I mean, we can have the best technology in the world,
and we probably do right now, and with double-hulled vessels
and all that kind of thing, but you are going to always have
weather accidents that we can't--hurricanes, you know, the
Murphy oil spill in Louisiana. That was caused by a level five
hurricane.
I mean, there is not much you can do about things like
that. We can try to do as--the best science that we can, and we
are doing the best science that we can right now, and I think
we have, as Doug said, we have come a long way in improving our
capabilities of responding to spills, but we will never be 100
percent able to prevent them.
Mr. Davis. Anyone else?
Admiral Watson. I would just like to comment because I have
spent a large part of my career on the prevention side, which
is the point of your question here, as opposed to the response
side, and we have implemented regulations for double bottoms
and electronic equipment to improve navigation. I mean, just on
the ship construction side. I think we are to the point where
accidents are typically caused by human factors, at least in
ships' navigating. There is probably some more work that could
be done as far as engineering on some of the shore facilities
that Dr. Venosa mentioned.
But there is still work going on in that area. I can tell
you particularly in the area of human factors and regulation of
vessels. For example, the Congress has authorized the Coast
Guard to have an inspection regime for towing vessels. Most of
the 7,000 towing vessels in this country are currently un-
inspected, and so we were provided the resources just in this
fiscal year to begin building an inspection program, and we
hope to have the proposed rules out for that inspection regime
very soon.
And there are, you know, there is other types of un-
inspected activities that I think we could address in the
maritime, and yet I think we can look back with a great degree
of satisfaction in where--how far we have come just in my
career.
So it is never good to pat yourself on the back too much,
but it is nice to take some credit.
Mr. Edinger. I would like to echo what Admiral Watson said
that we have come a long way. The number of spills along our
coastline has gone down. The amount spilled has gone down, but
I still think if we look at the Cosco Busan as an example, that
was a vessel vision, and we could look at the investigation and
confirm that the bridge did not move. There was--they collided
with a fixed object, which means that we will always have the
potential for accidents where there is humans involved.
As Dr. Venosa also mentioned, you know, weather involved, a
large weather event will cause spills. So we will always have
spills unfortunately. The best thing we can do, though, is be
as prepared as possible with the best technologies available.
Mr. Davis. I asked the question for a reason. As you look
at the huge increase in our imports, whether it be by land or
from Canada or Mexico, a great percentage of our crude oil that
is shipped into this country comes from this hemisphere, not as
some folks would believe from the Middle East. It really comes
from our hemisphere. But as you look at that large volume, I am
impressed that we haven't had much, much greater spills than we
have had, because not only are we importing 60 some percent of
the crude oil that we consume, that 60 something percent is a
huge number increase in barrels from the last 30 years of what
we used to bring in.
So I applaud the efforts of those, of you that have been
involved in safety of those, enforcement, and others and
continue to do equal or better job.
Thanks for being here today.
Chairman Baird. Ms. Edwards.
Scientific Modeling
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for all
your testimony.
I just have one question, and I don't know a lot about
this. I do recall visiting with my son on a vacation the site
of the Exxon Valdez spill and several years after the spill and
seeing the continued devastation, and so I am curious about it.
I wonder, Mr. Helton, in your testimony you talked about the
research gaps related to your ability to do effective modeling,
and so I wonder if you could explore that with us just a little
bit more and particularly with respect to being able to
simulate or use intelligent design to simulate different
materials and quantities and densities, weather conditions, all
of the factors that you described in your testimony.
And then your ability also to look at modeling in terms of
impacts on ecosystems and communities. And I think it would be
helpful for us if you were able to explore with a little bit
more depth about where those research gaps are and what it is
that this committee could consider to really fill them.
Mr. Helton. Thank you, Congresswoman Edwards. That is a
very excellent question because we struggle with modeling
questions all the time. There is a number of kinds of models
that we use in oil spill response and restoration. The ones
that come to mind immediately are the models that we use to
predict how the oil will behave once it is spilled in the
water. The oil is going to behave--move laterally with currents
and winds. It is also going to move into the atmosphere through
evaporation, and it will also move into the water through
disollution and dispersion.
Most of the models that we have focus on the surface layer,
how the oil will move. We have less rigorous models predicting
how the oil will move once it is dissolved into the water
column. So that is an area of research, and we are trying to
fill those gaps now.
But there is a whole other suite of models that we use for
biological effects, trying to figure out what is the effects on
a salmon run or a shellfish population after it has been
exposed to an oil spill. So those--we have models that will
help us predict the severity of exposure, the longevity of that
exposure, but it could be much more rigorous. We use them in a
predictive model to help us understand how to respond and how
to improve our responses, but we have a long way to go to be
certain and confident in those.
And you mentioned the Exxon Valdez and the lingering oil
question is still an issue 20 years later, and one of the
questions is how well can we model the oil once it has been
entrained in those shoreline sediments and then being
remobilized by storms and biotic activities.
So that is an area of research. The models that we have to
predict how oil moves on the sea surface are not well
calibrated for arctic spills. Once you throw in the variable of
having broken ice conditions or even complete ice cover, we
have little confidence in how that oil will behave and move
because of that--the barrier that the floating ice causes.
Ms. Edwards. Is that also true for modeling the rapid
changes that we are seeing related to climate affect your
ability to model what would happen with a spill, you know, as
we are in the throes of experiencing climate change?
Mr. Helton. The climate change variable is a whole other
additional variable when you are--when we are trying to predict
the effects of a biological impact on a resource. For example,
take a salmon run in Alaska. It may be changing because of
climate independent of a spill and then adding a spill event on
top of that creates a whole other level of complexity that
happens at very different timescales, because the spill is
having effects on the days to months to years level, and the
climate effects are, you know, years to decades level. So it is
a very complicated additional scenario to consider.
Ms. Edwards. And are there questions that you are asking
now say 20 years down the line from the Exxon Valdez spill that
should be instructive in terms of predicting the long-term
impacts of an oil spill?
Mr. Helton. We try to learn from every spill that we go to,
and the Exxon Valdez has been fairly well studied in the long
run. Several NOAA laboratories, EPA has done long-term
research, Exxon has done research on the recovery as well.
There is still a lot of uncertainty and a lot of--lack of
consensus about how long it will take for that residual oil to
resolve itself and when the non-recovered resources will
recover.
And back to your previous question about climate change,
one of the areas that we are particularly looking at that
question is with very long-lived resources. Imagine a coral
reef that is affected by an oil spill. So then you have very
sensitive resources that are very sensitive to both oil and
climate, and we know that they are already in decline because
of climate impacts. So those would obviously be areas where
those kinds of very sensitive resources would be the focus of
additional research.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know we can't
study everything, and so sometimes it helps to have kind of a
priority list of those things that need to be put at the top.
Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
I have just a few follow-up questions, then we may--then if
Ms. Woolsey has any, we may finish with that.
Funding for Real-World Tools
Ms. Woolsey, I was looking again at the text of the bill,
and I think it is an outstanding bill. As I heard Mr. Edinger
and the others, I still am concerned about this gap of where
funding comes from to develop the real-world materials needed
to deal with different situations. It is rather shocking,
really. I mean, if I look at the waterways I am familiar with,
there is not many waterways that have less than one knot
current. When you look at the Puget Sound, the narrows of the
Puget Sound is nearly eight-knot current at times in high ebb,
and most rivers are going to have easily one-knot current.
And so the reason I say that if one of our best available
technologies in booming is not able to meet the most likely
scenarios that it is maybe to encounter, one says why hasn't
something better been done?
And Ms. Woolsey, I would suggest there might be some merit
to including economic research in the list of topics, and
economic research I would suggest is worth considering is this.
My hunch is the way many companies deal with the risk of oil
spill is through insurance, and they deal with it insurance,
and they basically buy off the risk. But buying off the risk
probably doesn't incentivize the creation of new technologies
to actually reduce the impact of the risk.
I mean, somebody would be smart enough to do the calculus
and say, what is the probability, it is low of an incident,
what is the cost relative to the cost of insurance, et cetera,
and then so where is the financial incentive? I am not saying
you should impose some draconian penalty structure, but my
guess would be that if that is, in fact, how risk is
capitalized, you are not going to have incentive to actually
create the new tools, because there is going to be R&D costs,
manufacturing costs, a low probability of use, et cetera, et
cetera.
And so you may want to look at just sort of a regulatory
economic structure that actually may impede rather than enhance
development of this.
Another thing that strikes me----
Ms. Woolsey. If the gentleman would yield.
Chairman Baird. Please. I would be happy to.
Ms. Woolsey. Then when we have a hearing, I mean, have a
markup, we can add that in as----
Chairman Baird. If folks have some suggestions, I would
sure welcome that, because my hunch is that is part of what is
going on here. You know, if somebody said, gosh, I have got a
great idea for a piece of equipment to contain or recover oil
from oil spills, I would interested in the economics of whether
it makes sense to produce that. Maybe it is there. I don't
know, you know, and given that we are apparently better at
reducing the frequency of them, that makes the economics
somewhat paradoxically less beneficial.
Research Efforts as Proportionate to Need
I am also struck by the chart I think provided with Admiral
Watson's testimony. As I look at that chart the major spills in
'05, and '06, you can't tell necessarily from '04, it is on
page five, came actually from ground sources. We tend to think
of Exxon Valdez, Cosco, and much of our discussion today has
been focused on that, but if we look at--and maybe I am
misinterpreting this, net volume by source in the given years,
they came from--you look at the Hurricane Katrina damages.
People often say, oh, there were no oil spills in Katrina.
There was a heck of a lot of oil spilled related to Katrina,
but as I read it, I may be wrong here, much of that came from
damages to oil storage facilities and a barge that ran aground
on a devastated, a wrecked platform. But the bulk of that graph
is oil storage facilities. In '06, 1.6 million gallons from
damaged refineries, storm water setting tank, again, during a
several storm.
Now, so much of OPA 90 was focused on at-sea spills, maybe
we ought to ask ourselves to what extent--following up on Ms.
Edwards' observation--should our research focus be
proportionate to the actual causes at least as observed in
recent years?
Does anyone care to comment on that?
Admiral Watson. Yes, sir, I will just comment briefly and
then maybe Dr. Venosa, but, yeah. What you are seeing here is--
are large storage tanks that are affected by large storms. I
think, you know, one of the, I mean, obviously huge amounts of
oil is lost in one of these incidents, but there are berms
around these facilities and I mean, there are regulations for
this situation that mitigate even worse damage to the
environment and----
Chairman Baird. Unless a flood overtakes the berm.
Admiral Watson. Well, and that has happened. Yes, sir. So,
you know, it is a tough problem. Do you invest a huge amount of
money to make a storage tank hurricane proof----
Chairman Baird. If you build it in a hurricane zone.
Admiral Watson. Right. Maybe that is what you have to do.
Or do you do--you invest more in the berming system and the
consequence management side. So----
Oil Spills and Coral Reefs
Chairman Baird. Yes. I just think we want to look at that,
and that relates also to Mr. Lujan's earlier question about,
you know, non-maritime-related events.
As my colleagues know, I am very passionate about what is
happening to our oceans and corals especially. It is my
understanding that if, for example, you were to use
dispersants, you could actually kill the coral, that the
dispersants kill the coral. And so there is a generic question
of are we spending enough attention on issues of coral-type
environments and impact of spills and the remediation of
spills.
And also to what extent is this worldwide, is this
knowledge and technology disseminated worldwide? If you look at
the coral triangle and for example. Do we know what we are
doing when we are dealing with spills in the coral reef areas,
and to what extent does the rest of the world know and have the
technology to deal with that?
Mr. Helton. Well, the subject of coral and oil spills could
be a whole hearing in itself. It is something that NOAA has
paid a lot of attention to, and we have a coral reef
conservation program. One of the things that that program
helped fund was research that was oil spill response guidelines
for coral environments, and we would be happy to provide a copy
of that manual to the Committee.
It is a very complicated issue. We know that dispersants
can sometimes cause more harm than good, and evaluating what
those tradeoffs are is a major part of the research that we
have been trying to move forward on.
The idea of sharing that technology, the coral guide book
that we prepared on oil spills was supposedly translated into
Spanish to be available for the Caribbean region.\1\ I am not
aware of it being shared beyond that, but it is certainly
available for that kind of use. [See Appendix: Additional
Material for the Record for a letter from Noel Turner
concerning a clarification to this statement.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The coral guide book on oil spills has not been translated into
Spanish. OR&R has translated four of its publications into Spanish,
including: ``Open Water Oil Identification Job Aide for Aerial
Observation,'' ``Shoreline Assessment Job Aide,'' ``Trajectory Analysis
Handbook,'' and ``Characteristic Coastal Habitats: Choosing Spill
Response Alternative.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Baird. Thank you. One final comment I will make
and then recognize Mr. Inglis, if he has comments.
My understanding is the Coast Guard spent about $20 million
over the past 10 years on oil spill R&D. EPA spent 720,000 last
year, I believe, and NOAA doesn't really have a line for this.
Is that a correct understanding?
Mr. Helton. That is correct. NOAA doesn't get a direct
appropriation for oil spill R&D. We use base funds. Unlike some
of the other agencies we don't have a line from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund. And as a point, I think the Interagency
Coordinating Committee is a coordinator of research, but the
Committee itself doesn't control any funds, any research
priorities that they identify are then the responsibility of
the individual agencies that have that authority and funding to
move forward.
Chairman Baird. Reminds me of the lesson I was taught as a
little child. You clean up your mess but in this case nobody is
paying for the broom.
Mr. Inglis.
Useful Spin-off Technologies
Mr. Inglis. I wonder if there have been any spin-off
technologies here from the work that we have been doing into
other kinds of applications, so, you know, for example,
drilling for geothermal resources resulted in better drilling
techniques for the oil industry. I wonder--do you know of any
spin-offs that have occurred here where other applications have
been found from the technology that we are trying to develop to
control oil and water?
Mr. Helton. I think that the--we have borrowed technologies
from other industries. I am not aware of any other industries
borrowing our technologies. Is that the question?
Mr. Inglis. Yeah. That was the question. I got to tell you
what the Chairman said. Better salad dressing could be part of
what comes out of this, you know. Keeping things mixed, I
guess, that oil and water mixture.
Mr. Helton. I was just passed a note that the medical
community uses some of the sorbent technology. So----
Mr. Inglis. Interesting. Yes. How about--one other thing
for the Admiral. Do you own or have control over unmanned
vehicles, reconnaissance vehicles, or if you needed one, where
would you go to get it? You know, everybody always wants their
own, of course, and maybe you have your own, but if you don't
have your own, can you go get them somewhere else?
Admiral Watson. Yes, sir. We, of course, are a member of
the Armed Services, so we are working very closely with the Air
Force and the Northern Command for Homeland Security, and then
we are very involved with the project that the border, Customs
and Border Protection have. They owned a predator, and they
have been testing those for the border, and we are working on a
marinize, which means for the maritime environment, a version
of that. So I don't know exactly where this R&D acquisition
plan is going to end up, but my guess is that there will be a
cross use of these assets.
And, you know, just almost going back to your last
question, I can't answer exactly how oil spill stuff has been
used elsewhere, but I can tell you that a lot of the tools that
we have developed for the various Coast Guard missions, whether
it is search and rescue or whether it is Homeland Security or
whether it is fisheries patrols, oftentimes are handy in an oil
spill event as well. Some of the surveillance equipment, you
mentioned unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles. These are
things that will be able to carry any sort of sensor equipment
that can fit in there, and when we develop these things, we
will--as we have for the last two decades, equip them to be
able to be used in an oil spill or a chemical incident as well.
Mr. Inglis. That is helpful, because, you know, I am aware
of a municipality that wanted basically an armored personnel
carrier, and they got it from Homeland Security, a Homeland
Security grant. I was asking them, well, why don't we just call
up the National Guard that has those assets. Can't ever reach
them was the answer, and I said, well, maybe we could buy them
a cell phone and then you could have two cell phones, two red
cell phones, and if you ever need one of those armored
personnel carriers in this city in South Carolina, perhaps we
could use the red phones to call rather than having a multi-
million dollar piece of equipment now that we have paid for. So
we have got two within two miles of each other.
You know, so I hope that when we do this sort of thing with
the, you know, figuring out how to track this oil, that we
really can move assets seamlessly from the Air Force to the
Coast Guard to get them assigned to a spill quickly. A bunch of
red cell phones might be a good idea, you know, so we can make
sure that we can get those.
But really, it is--that is something that seriously look
into is quickly deploying those assets so that we don't have,
you know, this situation of waiting for the drone to come over
and find where it is going because we can't get the asset
there. It could become a very frustrating and damaging
situation.
So it sounds like good protocol to work on. What do you
think? Making sure it can be deployed quickly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Ms. Woolsey, we have about 11 minutes, 50
seconds until the vote, so you are recognized.
Ms. Woolsey. Right, and we know that it is going to be
about 25 minutes before that vote is over.
Chairman Baird. No. Remember, we changed that policy.
Ms. Woolsey. Oh, no, no, but we didn't. All right.
The Resource of Volunteer Aid
Mr. Helton, you mentioned in your testimony about depending
on how well local communities engage, and I believe engage in
the cleanup and the response and all of that.
I can tell you that during the Cosco Busan cleanup, my
constituents were really frustrated. We had armies of
volunteers that wanted to be down there on the beach cleaning
up, cleaning the fowl that were coming in, you know, and trying
to save their lives and all that. They were turned back because
they weren't trained. So first of all, I need you to tell me
what you meant by how well the communities engage.
But there is something in my legislation that says
extramural grants and it includes detecting or mitigating oil
discharges. By helping volunteers, keeping them prepared and
trained, would that be helpful in the mitigation of these
disasters? Do you see it as that, or what did you mean by that?
Mr. Helton. I had a very broad statement about engagement
of local communities before, during, and after spills that
would include the example that you raised of volunteers. What I
was thinking of when I was drafting the testimony was the
broader experiences from large spills like the Exxon Valdez,
where some communities after the spill suffered very
substantial social disruption from the influx of the response
as well as the damage, the loss of their fisheries, loss of
income.
So especially in rural subsistence communities a spill can
have very significant impacts to their economy and social
structure, and a city like San Francisco, I don't think that it
had that kind of impact, but it certainly had a social impact
and essentially a double tragedy because people felt strongly
about trying to prevent the spill and clean up the spill and
then being denied the ability to help out. They were
essentially injured twice.
And so--and I am sure your office received thousands of
calls from citizens about that.
Ms. Woolsey. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Helton. There is an effort through the National
Response Committee to address how volunteers can be better
used. There are a number of concerns about management of a
cadre of volunteers that might change on a daily basis so we
don't want to take away resources from the response to train
1,000 people one day and then have a different 1,000 people the
next day that have to be trained.
But that is a major focus of the NRT Committee this year
and perhaps the Coast Guard could address that.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Admiral Watson.
Admiral Watson. That is a function of an oil spill response
quite often, is that you need to have some capacity to provide
training, and as Mr. Helton said, it is particularly an issue
when you have people whose subsistence depend on the water that
has been affected. That has been something I have been involved
with personally up in northern Washington coast where the Macaw
Indian Tribe was affected by a significant oil spill, and the
National Response Team is working on that issue. I think that
was one of the lessons learned from the Cosco Busan spill, and
it is going to have to be something that is really implemented
at the local level.
Ms. Woolsey. Right.
Admiral Watson. But the guidelines and the targets for what
we want to achieve in the long run will be established by the--
at the national level by the National Response Team.
Ms. Woolsey. Right. Thank you for reminding me. The
fishermen were out there in their boats. I mean, they would
have done anything to help and realize they didn't have
permission and didn't quite know what they were supposed to do.
Mr. Edinger.
Mr. Edinger. You brought up a great point about the Cosco
Busan. The need for volunteers, you know, never before have we
had volunteers that wanted to actually go up and clean oil up
on California's beaches. We have seen people that will swim
through oil to save wildlife, but we have never seen people
that are willing to go out and actually clean up oil
themselves.
So we changed things. With the U.S. Coast Guard we have
changed the Area Contingency Plan in the San Francisco Bay to
address that, but kind of overarching also was the problem we
had on the Cosco Busan was never getting in front of the story.
The public was looking at that. It was Veterans' Day weekend.
They were looking at the oil on the beaches, and they never
really understood what was going on with the beaches. We never
got in front of the story to say, you know, our efforts right
now are on the water efforts, to get the water--the oil off of
the water as soon as possible, and the sandy beaches where the
oil was being deposited, that is actually a place where we
could deal with it much better than anywhere else.
So we were going through a progression in our spill
response, but we never got that message out. We have developed
tools, websites, use social media to get the message out for
the next spill. We have also worked with the local volunteer
centers to make sure that we have a mechanism in place to
engage them should one of these events occur in the future.
Ms. Woolsey. I believe that the people in that area would
be willing to be certified, take training, even though they
don't expect there ever to be another spill, just in case, so
they would be prepared before the spill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for this
hearing.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey, for introducing the
legislation, and thanks to our witnesses and all the others who
have participated today. I thank my colleague, Mr. Inglis, for
his insightful questions, and with that the hearing stands
adjourned. Thank you very much. Enjoy the day.
It is customary to hold the record open for two weeks to
allow for additional statements from Members and for answers to
all the follow-up questions that the Committee may have asked
the witnesses.
[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Minerals Management Service
Department of the Interior
June 4, 2009
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) is the bureau within the
Department of the Interior responsible for the management of the
Nation's renewable energy, oil, natural gas, and other mineral
resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) as well as the energy
and mineral revenues from the OCS and from federal onshore and American
Indian lands. From the gasoline that powers our cars, the natural gas
that heats our homes, and the benefits obtained through the
disbursement of collected mineral revenues, the Nation and its citizens
benefit from the efforts of the MMS.
The MMS has jurisdiction over approximately 1.7 billion acres of
the OCS, on which there are about 8,100 active oil and gas leases. We
work with other federal agencies, State and local governments,
industry, and academia to achieve a common objective to maintain high
standards for safety and the environment and to meet national economic,
security and energy policy goals. The OCS is a significant source of
oil and natural gas for the Nation's energy supply, providing about 14
percent of domestic natural gas production and 27 percent of domestic
oil production.
MMS recently published the final rule-making that provides the
framework to grant leases, easements and rights of way for the orderly,
safe, and environmentally responsible development of renewable energy
resources on the OCS such as wind, wave, and ocean current.
The MMS has a robust regulatory system designed to prevent
accidents and oil spills associated with OCS oil and gas exploration
and production. However, whenever oil is being handled--whether in
tankers, pipelines, or production facilities, whether onshore or
offshore, and whether in the U.S. or abroad--spills are a possibility.
For that reason it is imperative that U.S. and international agencies
work together to prepare for oil spills in a comprehensive manner. This
preparation includes continued improvement in response technology and
procedures.
MMS is pleased to have the opportunity to present the Committee
with information on the MMS Oil Spill Response Research Program and the
operation of Ohmsett--The National Oil Spill Response Test Facility.
Overview
For more than 25 years, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) has
maintained a comprehensive, long-term research program to improve oil
spill response technologies. The major focus of the program is to
improve the knowledge, technologies and methodologies used for the
detection, containment and cleanup of oil spills that may occur on the
OCS and disseminate findings through a variety of public forums such as
workshops, conferences, peer-reviewed publications and the Internet.
The intent is to make this information widely available to oil spill
response personnel and organizations world wide. The activities
undertaken by the MMS oil spill response research (OSRR) program comply
with the research and development provisions of Title VII in the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90).
The OSRR program provides research leadership to improve the
capabilities for detecting and responding to an oil spill in the marine
environment. In the past decade the OSRR program has been making
progress in developing technological advances to improve the ability to
clean up oil spills in Arctic environments. This includes development
of systems, equipment and methodologies that can be used in extremely
cold temperatures and in broken ice conditions. These advancements have
allowed oil and gas exploration and development activities to move
forward in Arctic offshore environments and will produce real cost
savings.
The OSRR program is a cooperative effort bringing together funding
and expertise from research partners in government agencies, industry,
and the international community to collaborate on oil spill research
and development (R&D) projects. The OSRR program operates through
contracts with universities, government agencies and laboratories and
private industry to assess safety-related technologies and to perform
necessary applied research.
Funding for the OSRR program activities is appropriated from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF). MMS plans and implements OSRR
projects that have multiple phases in a step-wise approach over several
years, enabling the MMS to secure cooperative funding from private
industry as well as countries that have offshore regulatory programs.
The MMS OSRR program monitors and capitalizes on the efforts of other
agencies and industry whenever possible through active partnering. More
than 40 percent of the OSRR projects are Joint Industry Projects, where
MMS partners with other stakeholders to maximize research dollars.
The MMS coordinates oil spill research closely with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through
participation on the National Response Team and on the Interagency
Coordination Committee for Oil Pollution Research. This allows the MMS
to foster collaborative research at the national and international
level, optimize current and future research initiatives, minimize
research duplication, and ensure that MMS's interests are addressed.
Partnering has reinforced the MMS's oil spill response research and
development and encouraged oil spill technology development efforts by
academia and industry. The MMS has participated in the exchange of
technological information with Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Norway
and the United Kingdom through cooperative research projects, workshops
and technical meetings.
Information derived from the OSRR program is directly integrated
into MMS's offshore operations and is used to make regulatory decisions
pertaining to permitting and approving plans, safety and pollution
inspections, enforcement actions, and training requirements. The MMS as
well as US and foreign government agencies and organizations worldwide
utilize the results from the OSRR program and Ohmsett in making
planning, regulatory, and emergency response decisions. Current OSRR
projects cover a wide spectrum of oil spill response issues and include
laboratory, meso-scale and full-scale field experiments.
Major topic areas include:
-- Remote sensing and detection of spilled oil
-- Physical and chemical properties of crude oil
-- Mechanical containment and recovery
-- Chemical treating agents and dispersants
-- In situ burning
MMS Oil Spill Response Research
Success from the MMS OSRR program comes from a step-wise research
approach to solve specific research needs that includes formation of
joint industry projects to expand the scope and leverage program funds.
Many significant technical advances in oil spill response can be
attributed to successful multi-phase research projects that involve
scientists worldwide. Applied research and the development of response
strategies traditionally involve a combination of laboratory small-
scale tests, meso-scale tank and basin experiments, and full-scale
field trials. The MMS has used this approach to develop, initiate, and
conduct more than 200 successful oil spill research projects.
Once the MMS has identified a research need or data gap in spill
response we initiate and conduct a scoping project to define the
current state-of-the-art for this technology or methodology. The
results from these scoping projects are used to develop a systematic
approach required to successfully address the data need. Communicating
the results from these projects to government agencies and private
industry is the next step to build consensus on the future research
direction. A carefully focused work plan or agenda encompassing a
priority list of projects is developed. It is generally beyond the
capabilities of any one organization to fund these projects in their
entirety. International cooperation, including governmental and
industry participants, is needed to make substantial progress in the
most important research and development areas. Given the specialized
nature and limited number of researchers actively working on oil spill
response, it is essential to involve different centers of expertise on
a global scale. The MMS has initiated many successful joint industry
projects (national or international) to leverage our program funds and
expand the scope of the project to develop innovative or new
technological advancements to detect, contain, and cleanup oil spills
in the marine environment.
Ohmsett--The National Oil Spill Response Test Facility
The passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) significantly
expanded MMS's role in oil spill research. Title VII of OPA 90 mandated
the reactivation of Ohmsett--The National Oil Spill Response Test
Facility located in Leonardo, NJ. The Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Oil Pollution Research (created by OPA 90) delegated this
responsibility to the MMS. Ohmsett is the only facility in the world
where full-sized oil spill response equipment can be tested and
training of first responders can be conducted with a variety of oils in
a simulated marine environment under controlled conditions. The primary
feature of Ohmsett is a large outdoor, above ground concrete test tank
which measures 667 feet long (the approximate length of two football
fields) by 65 feet wide, by 11 feet deep. It is filled with 2.6 million
gallons of crystal clear salt water. Ohmsett is also the premier
training site for spill response personnel from State and Federal
Government agencies, private industry and foreign countries. This
includes the U.S. Coast Guard Strike Team personnel. MMS now manages
Ohmsett as part of its mandated requirements to ensure that the best
and safest technologies are used in offshore oil and gas operations. On
July 22, 2009, Ohmsett celebrated its 17th anniversary under MMS
management and to date 24 countries have made use of the facility.
The facility provides an environmentally safe place to conduct
objective, independent testing of oil spill response equipment as well
as training responders. Many of today's commercially available oil
spill cleanup products and services have been tested at Ohmsett either
as off-the-shelf commercially available equipment, or as equipment or
technology still under development. In North America, a large portion
of existing independent performance data and information on containment
booms and skimmers has been obtained through testing at Ohmsett. The
MMS has expanded the capabilities of Ohmsett to test all types of oil
spill response equipment and techniques. The testing capabilities of
Ohmsett were recently upgraded to provide a simulated Arctic
environment for cold water testing and training. This capability will
allow Ohmsett to remain operational year round, offering testing,
training and research. We now have the ability to test and evaluate
fire resistant containment booms using an air-injected propane burner
system that realistically simulates in situ burning at sea. We have
added the capability to conduct effectiveness testing on a variety of
chemical treating agents, dispersants, emulsion breakers, and sorbent
products.
The use of chemical dispersants is another important option in oil
spill response. The Ohmsett facility is a world leader in realistic
dispersant effectiveness testing through the design and development of
a calibrated, referenced and realistic test protocol and subsequent
testing under cold and temperate conditions using fresh and weathered
crude and fuel oils. The National Research Council strongly supported
the use of wave tank testing in their recent review of chemical
dispersants. Ohmsett is the world's largest wave-tank complex presently
conducting such research, and is the logical venue for bridging the gap
between laboratory and field testing.
The Ohmsett facility is developing the capability to conduct
independent and objective performance testing of emerging marine
renewable energy devices. The objective is to provide as realistic
conditions in the model scale as possible including realistic
parameters for wave heights, wave periods, and directional spreading
water depth. The program includes the development of standard test
protocols both nationally and internationally.
Ohmsett is an integral part of the MMS oil spill research program
and is essential for fulfilling the agency's regulatory
responsibilities under OPA 90. The facility directly supports MMS's
mission of ensuring safe and environmentally sound oil and gas
development on the OCS. Ohmsett is not only an important component of
the MMS oil spill research, it is also a national asset where
government agencies, private industry and academia can conduct full-
scale oil spill research and development programs in a controlled
environment with real oil. Ohmsett allows research, testing and
evaluation of equipment, systems and methodologies, and responder
training to take place in a controlled environment.
Significant Accomplishments of the MMS Oil Spill Response Research
Program
Following are some examples of the significant accomplishments of
the MMS OSRR Program and how these new technological advances are
currently being operationally used worldwide to respond to oil spills
in the marine environment.
1. Detection of Oil In, On, and Under Ice
The ability to detect reliably and map oil trapped in, under, on,
or among ice is critical to mounting an effective response in Arctic
waters. In the past, the only successful method for detecting the
presence of oil in or under ice involved drilling holes through the ice
sheet or by sending divers down under the ice to delineate the extent
of a spill. This method is expensive, labor intensive, and exposes
personnel to the vagaries of extreme weather.
In 1999, the MMS initiated a project to evaluate potential remote
sensing techniques to detect oil trapped within and under ice. Of the
many technologies recently reviewed, only ground penetrating radar
(GPR) showed potential. Between 2003 and 2008 the MMS initiated four
international joint industry projects to develop GPR into a functional
remote monitoring sensor. Two of these projects conducted offshore
Svalbard, Norway involved a permitted, intentional oil release for
research purposes.
2. Oil Spill Thickness Sensor
One of the most important initial steps in response to an oil spill
at sea is the assessment of the extent of the oil slick and the
quantity (i.e., thickness) distribution of oil within it.
A critical gap in spill response is the lack of capability to
measure and map accurately the thickness of oil on water and to rapidly
send this information to response personnel in the command post.
In testimony given before the Subcommittee, Mr. Doug Helton of
NOAA, cited the need for remote sensing technologies during the Cosco
Busan oil spill to detect oil effectively, determine areas of the
thickest amounts of oil, and then use this information to direct
skimming operations to increase the recovery of spilled oil.
In November 2005, the MMS initiated a research project that would
enable the measurement of oil slick thicknesses using multi-spectral
aerial imagery. The California Department of Fish and Game, Oil Spill
Prevention and Response (DFG/OSPR) partnered with MMS on this project
and provided technical expertise with the Geographic Information System
component of this project. Over a three-year period (2005-2008) the
aerial mapping system was developed through a systematic approach which
included many overflights of the Coal Oil Point, CA natural oil seeps.
In November 2007, remote aerial sensing of the Cosco Busan oil spill
was performed using the prototype thickness sensor mounted to a small
plane and flown over the spill area to test the system under actual
field conditions. The sensor performed as expected and could
effectively identify the extent and high density areas of the spill.
Under commercial application this aerial thickness sensor could have
been used to prioritize clean-up activities. The full system
integration flight of the aerial thickness mapping system was
successfully completed in November 2008.
On December 7, 2008, there was an oil spill from Platform A in the
Santa Barbara channel due to a ruptured tank. The California Department
of Fish and Game, Oil Spill Prevention and Response used the aerial
thickness mapping system to acquire image data. The data was
immediately processed and made available to the Unified Command center
for guiding response operations. The data was used to recover
successfully the spilled oil over a five-day period and none of the oil
hit the shoreline.
3. Mechanical Containment and Recovery in Arctic Ice Environments
More than a decade of MMS research has focused on methods to
improve the effectiveness of equipment and techniques for the
mechanical recovery of oil spills in ice-infested waters. This research
has substantially improved mechanical recovery of oil spills in Arctic
environments. In October 2004, the MMS initiated a research project
with the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) to study the
process of oil adhesion to the surface of oil skimmers and to identify
parameters to improve their efficiency. Over a three year period (2004-
2007), numerous laboratory, small and large scale tank tests were
conducted to improve the mechanical recovery of oil. Research results
demonstrated that changing the surface pattern of the drum will improve
recovery efficiency by over 200 percent. The results from this research
project were patented by UCSB and the principal investigator (PI). The
PI was awarded her doctoral degree as a result of her research. There
are at least six types of grooved skimmers being commercially sold
around the world that resulted from this research.
4. In Situ Burn Research
MMS was designated as the lead agency for in situ burn research
(ISB) in the Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan prepared under
the authority of Title VII of the OPA 90. The use of ISB as a spill
response technique is not new, having been researched and employed in
one form or another at a variety of oil spills since the 1960's.
Burning as a response tool for oil spills in broken ice has been
researched since the early 1980's using both tank tests and medium to
large-sized experimental spills. Many scientists and responders believe
this technique is among the best option for oil spill response in the
Arctic, especially with a high degree of ice coverage. Between 1995 and
2003, the MMS partnered with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to conduct more than ten different ISB research projects.
To disseminate results of eight years of intensive ISB research,
the MMS assembled a comprehensive compendium of scientific literature
on the role of in situ burning as a response option for the control,
removal and mitigation of marine oil spills. All operational aspects of
burning are covered in detail. It contains more than 350 documents with
over 13,000 pages and nearly one hour of video. The MMS has distributed
more than 2,000 ISB-CD sets worldwide.
In situ burning is now considered a viable countermeasure for
offshore oil spills. Regional Response Teams (RRT) and Area Committees
are integrating the use of in situ burning into their response
protocols and contingency plans. Overall the opportunity for use,
growing inventory of equipment resources and the trend for Federal On-
Scene Coordinators (FOSC's) and RRT's to seriously consider and more
readily approve its use indicate an expanded role for in situ burning
in the Arctic.
5. Dispersants in Cold Water/Broken Ice Environments
The use of chemical dispersants in is another important option in
oil spill response.
The Ohmsett facility is rapidly becoming a world leader in
realistic dispersant testing through the design and development of a
calibrated, referenced and realistic test protocol and subsequent
testing under cold and temperate conditions using a variety of crude
and fuel oils. Ohmsett is the world's largest wave-tank complex
presently conducting dispersant research and is a logical venue for
bridging the gap between laboratory and field testing. The National
Research Council strongly supported the use of wave tank testing in
their recent review of chemical dispersants. In the past seven years
there have been fourteen major dispersant research projects conducted
at Ohmsett. Experiments at Ohmsett have demonstrated that dispersants
are effective in near-freezing water temperatures but this is highly
dependent on the properties of the crude oil. Dispersants can be
effective in broken ice if there is some mixing energy present (wind,
waves, movement of ice floes caused by wind, waves, and currents).
Dispersants can potentially provide an invaluable third response option
when strong winds and sea conditions make mechanical cleanup and in
situ burn techniques unsafe and/or ineffective.
Results from dispersant testing at Ohmsett are being used by local,
State and federal regional response teams and regulators to support the
use of dispersants as an oil spill response tool in their
jurisdictions. Results from dispersant testing in cold water/broken ice
conditions at Ohmsett have been used by industry to gain regulatory
approval for the use of this countermeasure for the Sakhalin Island
project in Russia and for planned projects in the Canadian Beaufort
Sea.
6. Chemical Herders
Spilled oil rapidly spreads on the waters' surface into very thin
slicks. Chemical herders have the ability to quickly clear oil films
from the waters' surface. The intention of herding is to thicken oil
slicks sufficiently to allow them to be cleaned up with conventional
mechanical containment systems or through the use of in situ burning or
the use of dispersants.
Since 2004, the MMS and ExxonMobil have jointly funded research to
evaluate using herders to extend the window of opportunity for oil
spill response options in Arctic environments. Research efforts have
focused on the use of herders to thicken oil slicks in broken ice to
allow them to be effectively ignited and burned. Three years of
laboratory, small and large scale tank tests were completed. In May
2008, two full scale burn experiments were successfully conducted
during an intentional oil spill exercise offshore Svalbard, Norway. In
February 2009, the MMS conducted research on the use of herders to
improve the efficiency of mechanical containment and recovery systems.
More than 400,000 pounds of ice was delivered to Ohmsett for these
experiments. Research on the use of herders to expand the use of
dispersants will be conducted at the Ohmsett facility in October 2009.
Oil Spill Response Research Outreach
The MMS collaborates with State, Federal and international
governmental agencies, organizations, and private industry to
coordinate oil spill response research and Ohmsett testing. We also
participate in international, regional and local conferences, workshops
and meetings to present the results of MMS funded OSRR projects. We
publish and disseminate the results of OSRR projects as widely as
possible in peer reviewed scientific papers and articles, in technical
journals and reports and in public information documents. The MMS
sponsors and participates in Arctic related oil spill response
workshops and conferences to disseminate results from the OSRR program
and from Ohmsett testing, training and research activities to the
public. The MMS maintains a website that contains a listing of all
Arctic OSRR projects funded by the MMS as well as downloadable reports
and film clips free of charge.
The Ohmsett facility also plays an important role in environmental
outreach by informing the oil spill community of oil spills,
environmental contamination, cleanup methods and testing. Ohmsett's
recently renovated conference room enables various federal, State,
academic and private organizations to conduct on-site committee
meetings and conferences. Facility tours and presentations are given
upon request. Regular attendance at both U.S. and international
environmental conferences plays an important role in getting the
information, the analysis and the results achieved from the research
projects to the public.
Publication of The Ohmsett Gazette, the facility's semi-annual
newsletter, keeps the oil spill community abreast of recently conducted
facility activities. Ohmsett's website describes the testing that the
facility conducts and gives objective results of the research
conducted. Staff members also participate in environmental education
projects such as school science fairs, college work study programs, and
student mentorship programs. Through this type of public interaction,
Ohmsett is able to increase public awareness by educating the community
of the importance of marine safety and environmental protection.
The MMS Environmental Studies Program (ESP)
In addition to the Oil Spill Response Research, MMS also conducts
the Environmental Studies Program which is designed to gather
scientific information needed for stewardship of coastal and marine
environments as we manage the development of OCS energy and minerals. A
component of this broad-based program focuses on the collection and
development of scientific information needed to understand and predict
the fates and effects of potential oil spills from these OCS
activities.
The MMS assesses oil-spill risks associated with offshore energy
activities on the OCS by calculating spill trajectories and contact
probabilities. These analyses address the likelihood of spill
occurrences, the transport and fate of any spilled oil, and the
environmental impacts that might occur as a result of the spill. The
MMS Oil-Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) Model combines the probability of
spill occurrence with a statistical description of hypothetical oil-
spill movement on the ocean surface. Paths of hypothetical oil spills
are based on hind-casts (history) of winds, ocean currents, and ice in
arctic waters, using the best available input of environmental
information.
The research to support the oil-spill risk analyses includes
scientific observations of the ocean surface circulation in the Gulf of
Mexico, in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin offshore
Southern California, and in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off Alaska.
In addition, MMS has sponsored development of ocean surface circulation
models in these areas, as well as most recently in the mid-Atlantic OCS
area, to provide input for OCS lease sale environmental analyses. As
the oil and gas industry moved into deepwater areas of the Gulf of
Mexico, we also undertook research to characterize the deepwater
current movements in the Gulf of Mexico to assist our assessment of a
possible release of oil from these ocean depths. In Alaska, we have
sponsored research to better describe the weathering of oil on snow and
ice, and we have sponsored field studies and modeling of sea ice--ocean
movement and the interaction with spilled oil. The Environmental
Studies Program research management philosophy always seeks out
partners, and much of the research described is linked to programs in
NOAA and NASA, as well as cooperative efforts with key universities in
the affected States.
The MMS is committed to the continuous improvement of OSRA
estimations and environmental impact statements (EIS) analyses, and
uses the results of new observation and modeling to better manage OCS
oil and gas development. As offshore activity expands into deeper
waters and new geographic areas, MMS oil-spill modeling will be applied
to pertinent risk assessments and validated with environmental
observations.
Modeling results are used by MMS staff for preparation of
environmental documents in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act; other federal and State agencies for review of EISs,
environmental assessments, and endangered species consultations; and
oil industry specialists preparing the oil spill response plans.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, this concludes MMS's prepared statement. Thank you
for the opportunity to present an overview of the MMS's oil spill
response research program and the Ohmsett facility. The program
directly supports the MMS mission of ensuring safe and sound operations
on the OCS and has made substantive technological advances in the
ability to detect, respond and cleanup oil spills in the marine
environment. MMS would be happy to respond to any questions.