U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

49–820PS 2009

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

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

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

PETE OLSON, Texas

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

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

(III)

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

Page

IV

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

(1)

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.

2

3

1 National Research Council (2005) ‘‘Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects.’’ pg. 1.

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 onscene 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 asVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:19 Nov 02, 2009 Jkt 049820 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\060409\49820 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
4

2 NOOA (2009) FY 2010 Budget Summary. May 11, 2009. pg. 2–31.

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. 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. 5Originally 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).

sistance related to 169 environmental incidents, three-quarters of which were oil

spills.2

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.

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.

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 Administration5 (DOT)

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.

5

6 Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (1997) Oil Pollution Research

and Technology Plan. 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.

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

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

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 adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:19 Nov 02, 2009 Jkt 049820 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\060409\49820 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
6

9 NOAA (2009) Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Website. National Ocean Service. Office of Response and

Restoration Website. Accessed on May 20, 2009.

dressed issues related to the effectiveness and environmental effects of cleanup technologies.9

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

7

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

8

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.

9

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.

10

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.

11

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.

12

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.

13

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.

14

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. Luja ́n 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.

15

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

16

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:]

17

1 USDOT Freight Analysis Framework National Summary: 1998, 2010, 2020.

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.

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 decisionmaking, 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 obserVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:19 Nov 02, 2009 Jkt 049820 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\060409\49820 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
18

vations 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 cleanup 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 underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:19 Nov 02, 2009 Jkt 049820 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\060409\49820 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
19

stood 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.

20

• 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

21

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 decisionmaking 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 onscene 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

22

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.

23

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.

24

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 nonpetroleum oils), and agents for remediation; and modeling fate and effects in the enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:19 Nov 02, 2009 Jkt 049820 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\060409\49820 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
25

vironment. 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 oilbased 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

26

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

27

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.

28

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 phaseout 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

29

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 prepositioned recovery system that is designed for both Coast Guard cutters and priVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:19 Nov 02, 2009 Jkt 049820 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\060409\49820 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
30

vate 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.

31

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

32

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

33

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 realtime 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 AdminisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:19 Nov 02, 2009 Jkt 049820 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\060409\49820 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
34

trator 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 techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:19 Nov 02, 2009 Jkt 049820 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\060409\49820 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
35

nology. 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 navigaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:19 Nov 02, 2009 Jkt 049820 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\060409\49820 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
36

tion, 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 multispectral 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

37

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

38

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

39

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.

40

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. Luja ́n.

41

INLAND SPILLS

Mr. LUJA ́ N. 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. Luja ́n. 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

42

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. LUJA ́ N. 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. Luja ́n. 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.

43

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——

44

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.

45

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.

46

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 hemiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:19 Nov 02, 2009 Jkt 049820 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\060409\49820 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
47

sphere. 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 shoreVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:19 Nov 02, 2009 Jkt 049820 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\060409\49820 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
48

line 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

49

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 oneknot 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

50

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. Luja ́n’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

51

1The 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.’’

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.]

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

52

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.

53

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.

54

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.]

(55)

Appendix:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

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.

66

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, mesoscale 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

67

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.

68

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.

69

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.

70

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.

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

Æ