Federal Oil and Gas: Interagency Committee Needs to Better Coordinate Research on Oil Pollution Prevention and Response
Published: 2011-03-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act in 1990 (OPA). Among other things, OPA established the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (interagency committee) to coordinate an oil pollution research program among federal agencies, including developing a plan, having the National Academy of Sciences review that plan, and reporting to Congress on the interagency committee's efforts biennially. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and fire led to the largest oil spill in U.S. history, raising new concerns about the effects of oil spills. GAO was asked to assess the extent to which the interagency committee has facilitated the coordination of federal agencies' oil pollution research. (The Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, House Committee on Science and Technology, now retired; and Representative Woolsey initiated this request.) In part, GAO analyzed committee documents and biennial reports and interviewed agency officials and nonfederal research entities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal agencies have conducted at least 144 research projects on oil pollution since 2003, but the interagency committee has played a limited role in coordinating this research, according to GAO's analysis of interagency committee reports and documents. For example, agencies conducted research on identifying the toxicity of nonpetroleum oils recovering oil from the sea floor. The interagency committee issued a research plan mandated by OPA in 1997 that set research priorities. This plan, however, did not fully address the recommendations on a draft plan made by the National Research Council, the organization through which the National Academy of Sciences provides most of its advice. For example, the National Research Council noted that the interagency committee should review and evaluate past and present oil pollution research to help guide federal efforts and to avoid duplication. The interagency committee has captured some member agencies' oil pollution research in its biennial reports to Congress, but it has not evaluated whether past research has advanced the 1997 research priorities; instead, the reports summarized projects. Without such an assessment, Congress may be less able to oversee the contributions of federal research to preventing and responding to oil spills. In addition, although OPA did not require that the interagency committee revise its 1997 plan, the National Research Council noted the need to continually reassess a comprehensive research plan. However, the interagency committee has not done so; consequently, the plan does not reflect changes in the oil production and transportation sectors since 1997, such as a significant increase in deepwater drilling. In September 2010, the interagency committee chair began to inventory completed research and categorize research projects according to the 1997 plan's research priorities, and the chair told GAO that the interagency committee will begin to update the 1997 plan in 2011. OPA also directed the interagency committee to coordinate a comprehensive research program of oil pollution research among the member agencies, in cooperation with external stakeholders, such as industry, research institutions, state governments, and universities. An interagency member official told GAO that the committee helped foster interagency cooperation between two agencies comparing two types of testing to determine the effectiveness of certain chemicals in dispersing oil in sea water; However, more generally, the interagency committee took limited action to foster communication among member agencies between 1997 and 2009, when the chair proposed updating the 1997 plan, according to some member agency officials. Although the interagency committee's meetings have occurred once or twice annually for the past 2 years, they occurred irregularly before then. Additionally, member agencies were not consistently represented in the interagency committee. In October 2010, to better communicate with interagency committee member agencies, among others, the interagency committee launched a Web site, which provides transcripts from its past public meetings and biennial reports to Congress.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends, among other things, that the interagency committee coordinate efforts to evaluate the contributions of completed research and provide, in its 2012 biennial report to Congress, an update of its efforts to revise its research plan. The Department of Homeland Security concurred with our recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: On April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire onboard the Deepwater Horizon  drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico led to the largest oil spill in U.S. waters.  The total cost of cleaning up this massive spill, the extent of the damage to  the environment, and the potential effect on the Gulf Coast states’  economies will not be known for some time. However, current estimates  suggest that spill cleanup and related damage claims will cost tens of  billions of dollars—far more than the more than $2 billion that was spent  to clean up the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, which contaminated Alaska’s  south central coastline, including portions of national wildlife refuges,  national and state parks, a national forest, and a state game sanctuary.
Following the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of  1990 (OPA). Among other things, OPA addresses liability for the costs of  cleaning up spills and damages to the environment. OPA also established  the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (the  interagency committee) to coordinate a comprehensive program of oil  pollution research, technology, development, and demonstration among  federal agencies. OPA, as amended, requires the U.S. Coast Guard to chair  the 13-member interagency committee. In addition, the chair is required to  report every 2 years to Congress on the committee’s past activities and  future plans for oil pollution research. OPA also directed the interagency  committee to develop a comprehensive research and technology plan to  lead federal oil pollution research. In response to this directive, the  interagency committee issued a plan in 1997 to guide research on oil  pollution prevention and response. Additionally, OPA authorized funds  from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to, among other things, pay for  certain oil pollution research.
In this context, you asked us to review the interagency committee’s work  concerning federal oil pollution research. (This request was originally  made by the Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, House  Committee on Science and Technology, now retired; and Representative  Woolsey.) Our objective was to assess the extent to which the interagency  committee has facilitated the coordination of federal agencies’ oil  pollution research. To address this objective, we reviewed OPA to  understand the interagency committee’s purpose and charge. We reviewed  the interagency committee’s biennial reports to Congress for the fiscal  years 2000 through 2009 to assess efforts to identify and set priorities for  research needs. We focused on the period since 2000 because of  Congress’s interest in the interagency committee’s current and recent  activities. We interviewed cognizant agency officials on the extent of  coordination among interagency committee member agencies and, in  September 2010, attended a public meeting of the interagency committee  to observe efforts to coordinate oil pollution research. We also obtained  the views of stakeholders, such as state agencies and a nonprofit research  organization. We reviewed interagency committee documentation and the  National Research Council’s report on the interagency committee’s  research plan to assess the committee’s efforts to evaluate research  projects and determine progress made toward completing research goals.  We reviewed committee documentation and interviewed cognizant agency  officials about any current and emerging oil pollution risks and discussed  how they were identified. To determine the number of research projects  conducted by member agencies, we reviewed the interagency committee’s  biennial reports to Congress. We intended to identify the number of  projects conducted since the completion of the 1997 research plan but  could not do so for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 because research  projects were not reported separately during those years. Because of  concerns about the availability and reliability of data, we were not able to  identify all research projects completed during those years; however, we  believe we captured the majority of the projects with our methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to March 2011 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. A further discussion of our scope and  methodology is presented in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: This section provides information on OPA requirements, expenditures for  oil pollution research conducted by interagency committee member  agencies, and certain other organizations that conduct or coordinate  research.
subsections: section_title: The Interagency Committee on Oil Pollution Research
paragraphs: Through OPA Congress established the interagency committee to  coordinate a comprehensive oil pollution research program among federal  agencies and in cooperation with industry, universities, research  institutions, state governments, and other nations, as appropriate. It also  designated member agencies, authorized the President to designate other  federal agencies, and directed that a representative of the Coast Guard  chair the interagency committee. The chairman’s duties include reporting  biennially to Congress on the interagency committee’s member agencies’  activities related to oil pollution research.
As also directed by OPA, the interagency committee was to develop a  research plan that:  identified member agencies’ roles and responsibilities;   assessed the current status of knowledge on oil pollution prevention,  response and mitigation technologies, and effects of oil pollution on the  environment; identified significant oil pollution research gaps, including an assessment  of major technological deficiencies in responses to past oil discharges;    established research priorities and goals for oil pollution technology  development related to prevention, response, mitigation, and  environmental effects;    estimated the resources needed for federal agencies to conduct the oil  pollution research and development program and timetables for  completing research tasks; and  identified, in consultation with the states, regional oil pollution research  needs and priorities for a coordinated, multidisciplinary program of  research at the regional level.
OPA also directed the chair of the interagency committee to contract with  the National Academy of Sciences to (1) provide advice and guidance in  the preparation and development of the research plan and (2) assess the  adequacy of the plan as submitted and submit a report to Congress on the  conclusions of that assessment. The interagency committee prepared the  original research plan and, in 1992, submitted it to Congress and the  National Research Council—created under the auspices of the National  Academy of Sciences and through which the academy provides most of its  advice—for their review and comment. The second edition of the research  plan was submitted to Congress on April 1, 1997.
section_title: Interagency Committee Member Agencies’ Expenditures for Oil Pollution Research
paragraphs: According to agency officials, since fiscal year 2000, member agencies  have spent about $163 million on oil pollution research. Of this total,  approximately $145 million came from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund  authorized by OPA. The largest source of revenue for the trust fund has  been a tax collected from the oil industry on petroleum produced in or  imported into the United States. The tax, which was $0.05 per barrel when  OPA was enacted, expired in 1994 but was reinstated in 2005 and  increased to $0.08 per barrel in 2008.
Member agencies spent an additional $18 million on oil pollution. Table 1  shows the sources of funding for oil pollution research among seven  interagency committee member agencies who reported that they  conducted oil pollution research: the Bureau of Ocean Energy  Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE); the Coast Guard;  the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the National Aeronautics and  Space Administration (NASA); the U.S. Navy; the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and the Pipeline and Hazardous  Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
section_title: Other Organizations that Conduct or Coordinate Oil Pollution Research
paragraphs: After the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, at least  four states created or expanded their own oil pollution research programs  and Congress created an oil pollution research institute.
Alaska Division of Spill Prevention and Response. This division was  established in 1991, although an official from the Alaska Division of Spill  Prevention and Response told us that the state has had an oil pollution  control program, which included research, since the 1970s. According to  the agency’s Web site, Alaska appropriated a total of $2.5 million in the  wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill to enhance the ability of the state and  industry to respond to oil spills. The funds were to be used for research  programs directed toward the prevention, containment, cleanup, and amelioration of oil spills in Alaska. To date, more than 30 research and  development projects have been completed.
California Office of Spill Prevention and Response. This office was  created in 1990 and has a variety of responsibilities related to spill  prevention and response, including oil spill contingency planning. The  office’s research program operated from 2004 through 2010 and supported  a total of 38 research projects with a budget of $430,000 annually during  this 6-year period.
Louisiana Applied and Educational Oil Spill Research and Development  Program. Louisiana’s program was established after the Exxon Valdez oil  spill. The state created the Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, which,  with Louisiana State University, formed the Oil Spill Research and  Development Program. The program’s mission was to provide the state of  Louisiana with tools related to oil spill prevention, detection, response,  and cleanup. According to a program official, from 1993 through 2007, the  program provided more than $500,000 per year to public colleges and  universities to support a range of research.
Texas General Land Office Oil Spill Prevention and Response Program.
According to a state official, the Texas General Land Office’s Oil Spill  Prevention and Response Program has spent $1.25 million per year for oil  spill research since 1991. Its research is funded by a fee on oil loaded or  unloaded in Texas.
Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI). OPA established OSRI for research,  education, and demonstration projects to respond to and understand the  effects of oil spills in the Arctic and sub-Arctic marine environments,  amongst other purposes. OSRI is administered through and housed at the  Prince William Sound Science Center, a nonprofit research and education  organization in Cordova, Alaska. Funding for OSRI comes from interest on  $22.5 million in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. OSRI received more than  $1 million from the fund in 2009 and $225,000 in 2010 and expects to  receive between $560,000 and $1.3 million in 2011, according to an agency  official.
In addition, the National Response Team (NRT) coordinates some oil  pollution research. NRT is an interagency organization responsible for,  among other things, coordinating emergency preparedness and response  to oil and hazardous substance pollution incidents. EPA and the Coast  Guard serve as its Chair and Vice Chair, respectively. One of NRT’s  responsibilities is to monitor “response related research and development,  testing and evaluation activities of NRT agencies to enhance coordination,  avoid duplication of effort and facilitate research in support of response  activities.” Every 2 years NRT’s science and technology committee—which  includes, among others, BOEMRE, the Coast Guard, EPA, and NOAA— provides the interagency committee with the information for its biennial  reports to Congress. The science and technology committee also meets  monthly and member agencies coordinate regularly on oil pollution  research projects. These meetings allow agencies to leverage each other’s  resources to achieve mutually beneficial oil pollution research, according  to agency officials.
section_title: Federal Agencies Have Conducted Oil Pollution Research, but with a Limited Coordination Role by the Interagency Committee
paragraphs: According to our analysis of interagency committee reports, federal  agencies have conducted at least 144 research projects on oil pollution  prevention and response since 2003, but the interagency committee had a  limited role in facilitating the coordination of agency efforts. The  interagency committee established a joint research plan in 1997 that  identified oil pollution risks and research priorities, but it has not updated  that plan in light of changes in the oil production and transportation  sector. The interagency committee also submitted biennial reports to  Congress, as directed, but it has not evaluated member agencies’ progress  in addressing research gaps identified in the 1997 research plan; until  recently, it also had not revisited the plan, as the National Research  Council recommended. Furthermore, since completing the 1997 research  plan, the interagency committee has taken limited action, until recently, to  foster communication and coordinate research among member agencies  and to reach out to stakeholders, such as industry and state organizations.
subsections: section_title: Federal Agencies Have Conducted at Least 144 Research Projects on Oil Pollution Prevention and Response since Completion of the Research Plan
paragraphs: According to the interagency committee’s biennial reports, since 2003  member agencies have conducted at least 144 research projects related to  preventing or responding to oil pollution. These projects have addressed a  range of topics, such as responding to an oil spill by burning oil off the  water’s surface (in situ burning), detecting oil in icy waters, predicting oil  behavior in deepwater blowouts, and using micro-organisms to remove  spilled oil in saltwater marshes. As table 2 shows, BOEMRE, the Coast  Guard, EPA, and NOAA—4 of the 13 member agencies—accounted for all  of the projects reported to Congress. Of the remaining nine member  agencies, three agencies conducted research, but their research was not  reported in the interagency committee’s biennial reports, and six agencies  did not conduct any research.
Projects conducted by these agencies and included in the interagency  committee’s biennial reports addressed a wide range of topics. For  example:    BOEMRE: research to develop an aerial oil thickness and mapping  system. Based on this research, initiated in 2005, BOEMRE developed a  portable aerial sensor to detect and accurately map the thickness and  distribution of oil slicks in coastal and offshore waters. The aerial  thickness mapping system was deployed for the Deepwater Horizon oil  spill and flown over the spill, providing maps of oil thickness. The Coast  Guard used these maps to guide mechanical response efforts and  dispersant operations and to plan in situ burns, according to Coast Guard  officials. In addition, NOAA used this information to validate its model  predictions for how the oil would behave in water, to document the  potential for the oil to arrive on beaches, and to assess oil infiltration to  the shoreline and marshes, according to NOAA officials.
Coast Guard: recovery of oil on the sea floor. This project, which is  ongoing is intended to develop methods to recover oil located on the  bottom of the sea, according to Coast Guard officials. Its first objective is  to develop a number of potential methods for detecting the oil and then  selecting the most cost effective methods for further development.
EPA: research into the biodegradability and toxicity of nonpetroleum  oils. Through its ongoing research, EPA has found that the degree to  which vegetable oils will biodegrade in the environment depends on a  number of factors, including the oil’s chemical structure, according to EPA  officials. Also, EPA found that vegetable oils can readily biodegrade  anaerobically—or without oxygen—suggesting that a new treatment  technology could be used for cleaning up a vegetable oil spill. This  technology involves sinking the oil into the sediment by adding clay so  that the oil rapidly biodegrades under anaerobic conditions with little  adverse effects on the ecosystem. Currently, the National Contingency  Plan provides that sinking agents may not be used as an oil recovery or  mitigation measure, but as a result of this research, EPA is considering  proposing an exception for treating vegetable oil spills.
NOAA: research into monitoring the effectiveness of chemicals used to  disperse oil. This research, completed in 2008, compared the behavior of  oils with and without dispersants in different types of sediment from U.S.  coastal waters, according to the interagency committee’s 2008–2009  biennial report.
While these four agencies’ research projects were discussed in the  interagency committee’s biennial reports, three other member agencies  also conducted research that was not reported, according to our analysis  of information that some agencies provided. In speaking with agency  officials, however, we could not determine why the following agencies  were omitted from the interagency committee’s biennial reports.
PHMSA has administered an oil pollution research program since fiscal  year 2002, but none of its projects have been included in the biennial  reports. For example, PHMSA has an ongoing project to develop a model  for commercial companies to predict the rate at which operating pipelines  become weakened and suddenly fracture because of stress and corrosion,  and in 2009, PHMSA completed a project examining the risk of plastic pipe  failures, according to PHMSA documentation.
The Navy and NASA have conducted some oil pollution research, but none  of their research efforts were included in the biennial reports. For  example, the Navy has an ongoing, multiphase project to evaluate the  efficacy of equipment used to separate oil from wastewater before the  wastewater is discharged from Navy ships. The Navy decided to research  this issue because the chemical and physical properties of synthetic  lubricants, some of which are denser than water, have posed problems for  its oil-water separators, which operate based on the differences in specific  gravity between oil and water, according to Navy documentation.  Similarly, NASA recently provided funding to an oil pollution detection  project through its Gulf of Mexico Initiative. The goal of the project,  which is being conducted in partnership with the Naval Research  Laboratory and NOAA, is to demonstrate practical applications for oil spill  detection from observations of two NASA sensors in low-earth orbit. From  these observations, NASA officials said that new methods will be  developed for NOAA to use to detect oil spills. NASA officials said they  selected this project because it would employ an innovative use of remote  sensing technology, not because of its focus on detecting oil spills.
Without knowing about these projects, Congress may be less informed  when making funding decisions about oil pollution research.
section_title: The Interagency Committee Coordinated Efforts to Develop the 1997 Research Plan, but until 2009, Took Limited Action to Foster Communication and Coordinate Research
paragraphs: The interagency committee completed the research plan mandated by  OPA to help guide member agencies’ research on oil pollution prevention  and response in 1997. However, once the plan was completed, the  interagency committee played a limited role in coordinating member  agencies’ efforts.
subsections: section_title: The Interagency Committee Developed the 1997 Research Plan through Joint Efforts but Has Not Addressed Some National Research Council Recommendations
paragraphs: The interagency committee prepared a research plan required by OPA and  submitted it for review to the National Research Council and Congress in  1992. The National Research Council provided its review of the first plan  in 1994, and the interagency committee submitted the second edition of  the plan to Congress on April 1, 1997. According to the interagency  committee’s documentation, the committee conducted a 2-year voluntary  interagency effort to address the National Research Council’s  recommendations. The interagency committee’s 1997 research plan  includes (1) an analysis of the oil production and transportation systems  and associated oil pollution risks; (2) an identification of 21 research  priorities intended to address oil pollution risks, categorized into three  priority levels; (3) an identification of research areas of focus for some  member agencies; and (4) an identification of some nonfederal  stakeholders.
While the interagency committee revised its research plan in order to  address the National Research Council’s review, the committee did not  fully address all of the council’s recommendations. For example, after  reviewing the interagency committee’s first draft research plan, the  National Research Council noted the interagency committee should, as  part of its activities, comprehensively review and evaluate past and  present oil pollution research to help guide federal research efforts and  avoid duplication. The interagency committee followed this  recommendation, in part, by capturing the results of some member  agencies’ oil pollution research in its biennial reports to Congress, but it  did not assess whether completed research contributed to advancing the  1997 research priorities; rather, the reports provided only summaries of  research projects. Without such an assessment, Congress may be less able  to provide oversight on the contributions of federal research to prevent  and respond to oil spills. Furthermore, while some member agencies  maintain Web sites that are accessible to the public and that contain data  and reports on oil pollution research that has been conducted, the  interagency committee has not assembled or published a comprehensive  inventory of all research projects conducted by member agencies, which  limits the interagency committee’s ability to evaluate past research.
The interagency committee has recently taken steps to inventory member  agencies’ research. Specifically, according to Coast Guard documents, in  September 2010, the interagency committee chair began to inventory  research projects and categorize them according to the 1997 plan’s  research priorities. The interagency committee chair told us that this  inventory is likely to help the interagency committee determine where to  focus future research efforts in response to current and emerging risks.
In addition, while OPA did not require the interagency committee to revise  its research and technology plan, the National Research Council noted in  its review that a comprehensive research plan should be continually  reassessed. However, the interagency committee has not revised its 1997  research plan. As a result, the plan does not reflect significant changes in  the oil production and transportation sectors or assess current and  emerging risks or research priorities. Consequently, knowledge gaps in  critical research areas may have been overlooked. For example:    The 1997 plan contained 21 research priorities, such as oil spill  surveillance and environmental restoration methods, and identified  knowledge gaps in these areas, but it did not identify deepwater drilling as  a specific research priority. However, by 2000, deepwater oil production  had surpassed shallow water oil production, and within 5 years of the  plan’s completion, oil production in deepwater had tripled, according to  data from BOEMRE.
The plan did not identify oil spills in icy waters as a risk, although oil  production and shipping are expected to increase substantially in the  Arctic, according to member agency officials.
Coast Guard officials said that although the 1997 plan did not focus on oil  spills in deepwater or the Arctic, many of the plan’s research priorities are  still relevant for guiding current research. However, most officials from  the 13 member agencies we spoke with told us that they either did not  know that the interagency committee’s 1997 plan existed or did not use it  to guide research; rather, each agency determined its own research  priorities based on its mission. For example, EPA used a multiyear plan to  guide all of its research, including oil pollution, but its plan did not  reference the interagency committee’s 1997 research plan.
Recognizing the need for a more active approach, the interagency  committee chair told us that the committee began to consider updating the  1997 plan in late 2009 and planned to ask member agency officials to draft  components of the revised plan during the summer of 2010. However, a  number of member agencies were occupied with responding to the  Deepwater Horizon incident, according to agency officials, and were thus  unable to begin revising the plan. Coast Guard officials expect drafting of a  revised research plan to begin during the summer 2011 and stated that it  will take approximately 2 years to update the plan because the interagency  committee intends to submit the plan to the National Research Council for  its review. Coast Guard officials said that this effort to review and revise  could take several years, as it did in the 1990s. Furthermore, according to  Coast Guard officials, they have not yet decided whether the new research  plan will include an evaluation of past research or address research  priorities outlined in the 1997 plan.
section_title: Interagency Committee Has Taken Limited Actions to Foster Communication and Coordination among Member Agencies and Nonfederal Stakeholders
paragraphs: As directed by OPA, the interagency committee was to coordinate a  comprehensive program of oil pollution research among the member  agencies, in cooperation and coordination with industry, universities,  research institutions, state governments, and other nations, as appropriate.  The interagency committee has helped member agencies collaborate on  some occasions. For example, according to an agency official who  participates in the interagency committee, the committee played a role in  facilitating interagency cooperation between BOEMRE and EPA. These  agencies jointly conducted research, completed in 2006, in comparing how  laboratory tests of the effectiveness of certain chemicals in dispersing oil  in sea water compared with certain larger scale tests at a research facility.
According to some member agency officials, however, the interagency  committee had taken limited action to foster communication among  member agencies between 1997 and 2009, when the interagency  committee chair proposed updating the 1997 plan. Although the  interagency committee’s meetings have occurred once or twice annually  for the past 2 years, they occurred irregularly before then, according to  some agency officials.
Additionally, member agencies were not consistently represented in the  interagency committee. Specifically, five agencies did not have a  representative designated to the interagency committee until 2010. An  official at one of these agencies told us that he was assigned as the  representative to the interagency committee only after the agency had  received our request to discuss the interagency committee’s work.  Furthermore, officials at one agency said that they have never heard of the  interagency committee and reported that the agency did not have a  representative designated to the interagency committee.
In October 2010, to better communicate with interagency committee  member agencies, among others, the Coast Guard launched the  interagency committee’s Web site, which includes transcripts from past  public meetings and biennial reports to Congress. In addition, as directed  by OPA, the interagency committee was to cooperate and coordinate with  industry, universities, research institutions, state governments, and other  nations, as appropriate. With specific regard to states, the interagency  committee was to consult with them on regional oil pollution research  needs and priorities. The National Research Council echoed these  requirements in its recommendations, noting that such work was  necessary in order to avoid duplication of research efforts and to enhance  coordination and cooperation with those entities. In its 1997 research plan,  the interagency committee identified the activities of some stakeholders,  including the oil pollution research programs of four states and three  industry groups, but interested stakeholders have reported limited contact  with the interagency committee. For example:    Officials from two of the four state oil pollution research programs we  spoke with were unaware of the interagency committee’s existence until  we contacted them.
Officials from the other two state oil pollution research programs reported  having past, albeit inconsistent, interaction with the interagency  committee.
The committee hosted three public meetings in 2010 to solicit input from  nonfederal stakeholders on the direction of a new research plan; however,  it announced the meetings only 4 weeks in advance, which may have been  insufficient time to obtain participation from a range of stakeholders.
An official we spoke with from a nonprofit oil pollution research  organization had never interacted with the interagency committee until  two of the conferences in 2010.
By not communicating with key nonfederal stakeholders, the interagency  committee may have missed opportunities to coordinate research efforts  across sectors. For example, a state official we spoke with said that he is  concerned that the interagency committee is not doing a sufficient job to  minimize the duplication of research efforts across sectors; he noted that  some of the federal and state research recently completed or currently  underway is similar to federal and state research completed in the 1990s.  Several state officials we spoke with also said that the interagency  committee has generally not done a sufficient job of disseminating the  results of completed federal research to nonfederal stakeholders, which  could help nonfederal research organizations in planning their own  research efforts. Furthermore, while the interagency committee’s last  biennial report listed workshops or conferences interagency members  attended, it did not report on any efforts to consult with key nonfederal  stakeholders.
In December 2010, Coast Guard officials told us that the interagency  committee was considering establishing a subcommittee to coordinate  with industry on planning and research, but they had not yet firmed up any  plans to do so.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Like the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, the Deepwater Horizon incident once  again highlighted the need for new knowledge about oil spill prevention  and response. The interagency committee completed a research plan  required by OPA in 1997 to help guide member agencies’ research on oil  pollution prevention and response. Federal agencies have conducted at  least 144 research projects related to this issue, but the interagency  committee, established to develop a comprehensive research and  development program on oil spill prevention and response, has been  incomplete in its accounting for research projects and has done little until  recently to coordinate the federal research effort.
The chair of the interagency committee has recognized the need for a  proactive approach to coordination, and the committee’s recent effort to  inventory member agencies’ research projects is a necessary step to  understanding past research. However, this effort will be incomplete  without an evaluation of whether this research addressed knowledge gaps  identified in the 1997 plan. Without such an evaluation, Congress may be  unable to provide effective oversight on the progress made in federal  efforts to conduct research on oil pollution prevention and response.  Furthermore, Coast Guard officials expect the drafting of a revised  research plan to begin during summer 2011, but the revision of the plan  has already been delayed because of the Deepwater Horizon incident, and  the interagency committee could take several years to complete the  planned revision, as it did in the 1990s with the 1997 research plan.  Moreover, in the past, the interagency committee has not reached out  effectively to identify and consult with key nonfederal stakeholders who  could provide insight into the research that may need to be conducted, as  it was directed to do by OPA. Without such outreach, the committee may  be missing opportunities to advance knowledge across sectors and to  avoid duplication of research efforts.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to better identify oil pollution risks, determine research priorities,  and coordinate research efforts, we recommend that the Commandant of  the U.S. Coast Guard direct the chair of the interagency committee to take  the following three actions, in coordination with member agencies:    Evaluate the contributions of past research to current knowledge on oil  pollution prevention and response and report the results of these  evaluations, including remaining gaps in knowledge, in its biennial reports  to Congress.
Provide a status update regarding the revision of the research plan, as well  as a schedule for completing the revision, in the next biennial report due  in 2012, which will cover 2010 and 2011.
Establish a more systematic process to identify and consult with key  nonfederal stakeholders on oil pollution risks and research needs on an  ongoing basis.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided the departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland  Security, the Interior, and Transportation; EPA; and NASA with a draft of  this report for review and comment. In commenting on this report, the  departments of the Interior and Transportation, and EPA provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In addition,  the Department of Homeland Security concurred with our  recommendations and provided a formal response, which we reprinted in  appendix II.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees; the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Energy,  Homeland Security, the Interior, and Transportation; the Administrators of  EPA and NASA; the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard; and other  interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on  the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To review the extent to which the Interagency Coordinating Committee on  Oil Pollution Research (interagency committee) has facilitated the  coordination of federal agencies’ oil pollution research efforts, we  analyzed biennial reports produced by the interagency committee to  assess efforts to identify and set priorities for research needs and  reviewed our guidance on interagency collaboration. We interviewed  cognizant agency officials on the extent of coordination among committee  member agencies and, in September 2010, we attended a public meeting of  the interagency committee to observe efforts to coordinate oil pollution  research. We also interviewed external stakeholders, including officials  from California, Louisiana, and Texas, and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute,  a nonprofit research organization. We selected these organizations  because all were listed in the interagency committee’s research plan as  stakeholders. The findings from the officials we interviewed, however,  cannot be generalized to other states or organizations. We also reviewed  and analyzed interagency committee documentation to assess efforts to  evaluate research projects and determine progress made toward  completing research goals. We reviewed committee documentation and  interviewed cognizant agency officials about any current and emerging oil  pollution risks, as well as how they were identified.
To determine the number of research projects conducted by member  agencies, we reviewed the interagency committee’s biennial reports to  Congress. While we intended to count the number of projects conducted  since completion of the 1997 research plan, we could not count projects  for fiscal years (1) 1997 and 1998 because the biennial report that includes  those years did not include any research projects initiated after  completion of the research plan; (2) 1999 and 2000 because the  interagency committee was not required to report on its progress for those  two years in accordance with the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset  Act of 1995, and did not do so; and (3) 2000, 2001, and 2002 because the  interagency committee’s biennial reports included publications and not  projects. Also, we could not confirm whether individual publications  corresponded to a single project. Because of concerns about the  availability and reliability of data, we were not able to identify all research  projects completed during those years; however, we believe we captured  the majority of the projects with our methodology because we were able  to interview program officials from each member agency that conducted  oil pollution research and confirm our approach and our list of projects  with them.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to March 2011 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Christine Kehr, Assistant  Director; David Bennett; Antoinette Capaccio; Nirmal Chaudhary; Scott  Doubleday; Cindy Gilbert; Rich Johnson; Michael Kendix; Carol Herrnstadt  Shulman; Vasiliki (Kiki) Theodoropoulos; and Jeremy Williams made key  contributions to this report.