Federal Oil and Gas
Interagency Committee Needs to Better Coordinate Research on Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Gao ID: GAO-11-319 March 25, 2011Congress 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.
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. 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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Franklin W. Rusco Team: Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment Phone: (202) 512-4597GAO-11-319, Federal Oil and Gas: Interagency Committee Needs to Better Coordinate Research on Oil Pollution Prevention and Response
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-319
entitled 'Federal Oil And Gas: Interagency Committee Needs to Better
Coordinate Research on Oil Pollution Prevention and Response' which
was released on April 25, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Honorable Lynn Woolsey, House of Representatives:
March 2011:
Federal Oil And Gas:
Interagency Committee Needs to Better Coordinate Research on Oil
Pollution Prevention and Response:
GAO-11-319:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-319, a report to the Honorable Lynn Woolsey,
House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
What GAO Recommends:
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.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-319] or key
components. For more information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-
3841 or ruscof@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Federal Agencies Have Conducted Oil Pollution Research, but with a
Limited Coordination Role by the Interagency Committee:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Interagency Committee Member Agencies' Funding for Oil
Pollution Research, Both Trust and Agency Funds, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2010:
Table 2: Number of Oil Pollution Research Projects Conducted by Member
Agencies as Reported in the Interagency Committee's Biennial Reports
to Congress, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2010:
Abbreviations:
BOEMRE: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
NRT: National Response Team:
OPA: Oil Pollution Act of 1990:
OSRI: Oil Spill Recovery Institute:
PHMSA: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 25, 2011:
The Honorable Lynn Woolsey:
House of Representatives:
Dear Ms. Woolsey:
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.[Footnote 1] 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.
Background:
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.
The Interagency Committee on Oil Pollution Research:
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.[Footnote 2] 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.
Interagency Committee Member Agencies' Expenditures for Oil Pollution
Research:
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.[Footnote 3] 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).[Footnote 4]
Table 1: Interagency Committee Member Agencies' Funding for Oil
Pollution Research, Both Trust and Agency Funds, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2010:
Fiscal year 2010 dollars in millions:
Member agency: BOEMRE[A];
Fiscal year: 2000: $7.1 million;
Fiscal year: 2001: $6.9 million;
Fiscal year: 2002: $6.8 million;
Fiscal year: 2003: $6.7 million;
Fiscal year: 2004: $7.5 million;
Fiscal year: 2005: $7.9 million;
Fiscal year: 2006: $7.5 million;
Fiscal year: 2007: $7.5 million;
Fiscal year: 2008: $7.1 million;
Fiscal year: 2009: $6.6 million;
Fiscal year: 2010: $6.2 million;
Agency total: $77.8 million.
Member agency: Coast Guard;
Fiscal year: 2000: $4.7 million;
Fiscal year: 2001: $4.8 million;
Fiscal year: 2002: $4.8 million;
Fiscal year: 2003: $4.3 million;
Fiscal year: 2004: $4.1 million;
Fiscal year: 2005: $2.3 million;
Fiscal year: 2006: $2.8 million;
Fiscal year: 2007: $2.1 million;
Fiscal year: 2008: $2.1 million;
Fiscal year: 2009: $0.6 million;
Fiscal year: 2010: $0.7 million;
Agency total: $33.3 million.
Member agency: EPA;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.1 million;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.1 million;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.1 million;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.1 million;
Fiscal year: 2004: $1.0 million;
Fiscal year: 2005: $1.0 million;
Fiscal year: 2006: $0.9 million;
Fiscal year: 2007: $0.8 million;
Fiscal year: 2008: $0.9 million;
Fiscal year: 2009: $0.7 million;
Fiscal year: 2010: $0.6 million;
Agency total: $10.3.
Member agency: NASA;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 0;
Fiscal year: 2008: $0.4 million;
Fiscal year: 2009: 0;
Fiscal year: 2010: 0;
Agency total: $0.4 million.
Member agency: Navy;
Fiscal year: 2000: $4.3 million;
Fiscal year: 2001: $3.5 million;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.2 million;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.4 million;
Fiscal year: 2004: $0.3 million;
Fiscal year: 2005: $0.3 million;
Fiscal year: 2006: $0.2 million;
Fiscal year: 2007: $0.3 million;
Fiscal year: 2008: $0.6 million;
Fiscal year: 2009: $0.4 million;
Fiscal year: 2010: $0.6 million;
Agency total: $12.1 million.
Member agency: NOAA;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: $2.3 million;
Fiscal year: 2005: $2.2 million;
Fiscal year: 2006: $3.3 million;
Fiscal year: 2007: $3.2 million;
Fiscal year: 2008: 0;
Fiscal year: 2009: 0;
Fiscal year: 2010: 0;
Agency total: $11.0 million.
Member agency: PHMSA;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: $3.4 million;
Fiscal year: 2005: $3.3 million;
Fiscal year: 2006: $2.1 million;
Fiscal year: 2007: $2.0 million;
Fiscal year: 2008: $3.4 million;
Fiscal year: 2009: $2.2 million;
Fiscal year: 2010: $2.2 million;
Agency total: $18.6 million.
Member agency: Annual total;
Fiscal year: 2000: $17.2 million;
Fiscal year: 2001: $16.3 million;
Fiscal year: 2002: $13.9 million;
Fiscal year: 2003: $12.5 million;
Fiscal year: 2004: $18.6 million;
Fiscal year: 2005: $17.0 million;
Fiscal year: 2006: $16.8 million;
Fiscal year: 2007: $15.9 million;
Fiscal year: 2008: $14.5 million;
Fiscal year: 2009: $10.5 million;
Fiscal year: 2010: $10.3 million;
Agency total: $163.5 million.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by interagency committee member
agencies.
[A] Expenditures for BOEMRE include about $3 million per year for the
operation and maintenance of the National Oil Spill Response Research
and Renewable Energy Test Facility located in Leonardo, New Jersey.
This facility is used for both full scale equipment testing and
responder training.
[End of table]
Other Organizations that Conduct or Coordinate Oil Pollution Research:
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.[Footnote
5] 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.
Federal Agencies Have Conducted Oil Pollution Research, but with a
Limited Coordination Role by the Interagency Committee:
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.[Footnote 6] 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.
Federal Agencies Have Conducted at Least 144 Research Projects on Oil
Pollution Prevention and Response since Completion of the Research
Plan:
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.
Table 2: Number of Oil Pollution Research Projects Conducted by Member
Agencies as Reported in the Interagency Committee's Biennial Reports
to Congress, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2010:
Fiscal year: 2003;
Member agency: BOEMRE: 12;
Member agency: Coast Guard: 1;
Member agency: EPA: 12;
Member agency: NOAA: 0;
Member agency: Joint: 0;
Total: 25.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Member agency: BOEMRE: 8;
Member agency: Coast Guard: 1;
Member agency: EPA: 9;
Member agency: NOAA: 0;
Member agency: Joint: 0;
Total: 18.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Member agency: BOEMRE: 8;
Member agency: Coast Guard: 0;
Member agency: EPA: 8;
Member agency: NOAA: 2;
Member agency: Joint: 0;
Total: 18.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Member agency: BOEMRE: 7;
Member agency: Coast Guard: 1;
Member agency: EPA: 5;
Member agency: NOAA: 0;
Member agency: Joint: 1[A];
Total: 14.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Member agency: BOEMRE: 7;
Member agency: Coast Guard: 1;
Member agency: EPA: 3;
Member agency: NOAA: 10;
Member agency: Joint: 1[B];
Total: 22.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Member agency: BOEMRE: 3;
Member agency: Coast Guard: 0;
Member agency: EPA: 2;
Member agency: NOAA: 8;
Member agency: Joint: 1[C];
Total: 14.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Member agency: BOEMRE: 9;
Member agency: Coast Guard: 2;
Member agency: EPA: 2;
Member agency: NOAA: 9;
Member agency: Joint: 0;
Total: 22.
Fiscal year: 2010;
Member agency: BOEMRE: 2;
Member agency: Coast Guard: 0;
Member agency: EPA: 5;
Member agency: NOAA: 4;
Member agency: Joint: 0;
Total: 11.
Fiscal year: Total;
Member agency: BOEMRE: 56;
Member agency: Coast Guard: 6;
Member agency: EPA: 46;
Member agency: NOAA: 33;
Member agency: Joint: 3;
Total: 144.
Source: GAO analysis of interagency committee biennial reports to
Congress.
Notes: We could not identify the number of projects completed in 2000
because the interagency committee was not required to report on its
progress that year per the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act
of 1995, and did not do so. Additionally, we could not identify the
number of projects completed in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 because the
interagency committee's biennial reports did not include projects;
instead, the reports included publications authored by member
agencies, and we could not confirm whether individual publications
corresponded to a single project. The interagency committee plans to
release the next biennial report in 2012, which will cover 2010 and
2011.
[A] In 2006, BOEMRE and EPA jointly conducted a research project to
evaluate the reliability of a laboratory method used to test
dispersant effectiveness.
[B] In 2007, the Coast Guard and NOAA jointly developed a tool to help
responders and planners assess the risk from chemical spills in rivers.
[C] In 2008, BOEMRE and the Coast Guard completed a joint research
project on verifying the reliability of a cooperatively designed
monitoring program to use when in situ burning occurs and dispersants
are used.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 7] 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.[Footnote 8] 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.[Footnote 9]
Without knowing about these projects, Congress may be less informed
when making funding decisions about oil pollution research.
The Interagency Committee Coordinated Efforts to Develop the 1997
Research Plan, but until 2009, Took Limited Action to Foster
Communication and Coordinate Research:
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.
The Interagency Committee Developed the 1997 Research Plan through
Joint Efforts but Has Not Addressed Some National Research Council
Recommendations:
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.[Footnote 10]
* 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.
Interagency Committee Has Taken Limited Actions to Foster
Communication and Coordination among Member Agencies and Nonfederal
Stakeholders:
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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
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 [hyperlink,
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.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Frank Rusco:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
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.[Footnote 11] 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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
March 4, 2011:
Frank Rusco:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: GA0-11-319, Federal Oil and Gas: Interagency Committee Needs to
Better Coordinate Research on Oil Pollution Prevention and Response:
Dear Mr. Rusco:
The U.S. Coast Guard generally concurs with the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations and appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the draft report. The Coast Guard is taking
corrective actions to address the recommendations. The President's FY12
Budget request includes a position to serve as the full-time Executive
Director for the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution
Research (ICCOPR). This position is a key step in the Coast Guard's
efforts to revitalize the ICCOPR program.
The GAO audit focused on the ICCOPR's activities after 2000. By doing
so, numerous ICCOPR initiatives, interactions, and accomplishments are
not discussed. Many of these actions addressed specific
congressionally mandated requirements of the Interagency Committee.
For example, Section 7001, subsection (c), paragraph (8), of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (codified in 33 U.S.C. § 2761(c)(8)) required
the Interagency Committee to establish a regional research program and
authorized those agencies represented on the Interagency Committee to
make grants to universities and other such research institutions to
perform research related to regional effects of oil pollution.
Numerous academic grants were awarded with the funding that was
authorized from 1992-95. In addition, the Interagency Committee
conducted a series of port demonstration projects as well as
successful international outreach initiatives prior to 2000.
Specific DHS responses to the three recommendations follow:
"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
the member agencies:
Recommendation 1: 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."
Response: DHS concurs. In the fall of 2009, the Chair requested that
ICCOPR members review their respective research portfolios to identify
any research projects that had not been previously reported in the
ICCOPR Biennial Reports. The Interagency Committee will use this
validated catalogue of projects to help communicate what research gaps
from the 1997 Research and Technology Plan have been addressed. The
validated list of projects will also help to inform the ongoing
revision of the research plan.
Recommendation 2: "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."
Response: DHS concurs. The ICCOPR initiated plans and meetings to
revise its 1997 Research and Technology Plan in 2009. For example, the
ICCOPR scheduled three different Public Meetings to solicit input for
the plan's revision. These meetings were arranged to obtain regional
perspectives from the West Coast, East Coast, and the Gulf Coast. In
addition, the ICCOPR met with the U.S. Arctic Research Commission to
better understand its concerns and obtain feedback regarding needs for
high-latitude research. The ICCOPR continues to review the input from
these meetings as well as the perspectives and opinions contained in the
President's National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
and Offshore Drilling's findings and several other Deepwater Horizon
reports. Additionally, as part of the ongoing effort to identify
technology gaps for deepwater open ocean oil spills, the Coast Guard
Research and Development Center, in support of the Interagency
Committee, hosted two symposiums on oil spill response and recovery.
All of these information sources will be used to guide the ICCOPR's
plan revision efforts over the next year. These efforts and a
tentative timeline will be described in the FY10-11 Congressional
Biennial Report.
Recommendation 3: "Establish a more systematic process to identify and
consult with key nonfederal stakeholders on oil pollution risks and
research needs on an ongoing basis."
Response: DHS concurs. The ICCOPR is examining the collaboration needs
outlined in two joint industry task forces (Joint Industry Oil Spill
Preparedness and Response Task Force and the Joint Industry Subsea
Well Control and Containment Task Force) to improve spill response and
containment research efforts.
The Interagency Committee continues its participation and outreach at
oil pollution research and development conferences and workshops, such
as the International Oil Spill Conference, the Clean Gulf and Pacific
Conferences, and the Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP)
Technical Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response.
The ICCOPR continues to expand and advertise its website for further
outreach efforts [hyperlink, http://www.iccopr.uscg.gov]. The website
provides a convenient and informative way for stakeholders and the
public to have access to ICCOPRs latest activities and to communicate
with membership. An important element of the website is a
comprehensive listing of ongoing conferences and workshops offered by
academia, industry, and the federal government.
The ICCOPR continues to support numerous academic/industry outreach
endeavors. For example, ICCOPR members will be participating in the
March 22-24 Workshop on Coordinating Research and Development on Oil
Spill Response in the Wake of the Deepwater Horizon hosted by the
Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC) at the University of New
Hampshire. Also, the Coast Guard Research and Development Center
hosted two symposiums on oil spill response and recovery as part of
the ongoing effort to identify technology gaps for deepwater open
ocean oil spills. These symposiums were organized to provide an
audience of federal agency responders, academic representatives, and
industry contractors involved in the Deepwater Horizon response with a
forum to discuss current oil spill priorities and the needs and
challenges in executing the spill clean-up.
Although several state oil pollution research and development programs
no longer exist as indicated in the draft report, the ICCOPR will
reach out to those that still operate to share information about
current research and education efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Report. We look
forward to working with you on future Department of Homeland Security
issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jim H. Crumpacker:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Frank Rusco, (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
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.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The agencies assigned to the interagency committee under OPA
include the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and National Institute of Standards and Technology;
Department of Defense's U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Navy;
Department of Energy; Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Coast
Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency; Department of the
Interior's Minerals Management Service (now the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and Enforcement) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration and
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; Environmental
Protection Agency; and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[2] The National Academy of Sciences, chartered by Congress in 1863 to
advise the federal government on subjects of science and art, is a
quasi-public honorary organization to which scientists are elected
annually by vote of the membership. The academy in turn created the
National Research Council, which can call upon respected scientists
and engineers--who are not necessarily academy members--to serve on
voluntary committees.
[3] In addition to research and development, OPA allows the fund to be
used for, among other things, oil spill removal costs; payments to
federal, state, and Indian tribe trustees to conduct natural resource
damage assessments; and payment of claims for certain uncompensated
removal costs and damages.
[4] Six agencies reported that they did not conduct oil pollution
research: the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Energy, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, Maritime
Administration, and National Institute of Standards and Technology.
[5] NRT is the interagency organization responsible for planning and
coordinating responses to major discharges of oil or hazardous waste
in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, which is the federal government's blueprint for
responding to both oil spills and hazardous substance releases with
the purpose of developing a national response capability and promoting
overall coordination among the hierarchy of responders and contingency
plans. According to EPA officials, the first contingency plan was
developed and published in 1968 in response to a massive oil spill
from the oil tanker, Torrey Canyon, off the coast of England the year
before. More than 37 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the
water, causing massive environmental damage. To avoid the problems
faced by response officials involved in this incident, U.S. officials
developed a coordinated approach to cope with potential spills in U.S.
waters.
[6] We could not identify the number of projects completed in 2000
because the interagency committee was not required to report on its
progress for those 2 years per the Federal Reports Elimination and
Sunset Act of 1995, and did not do so. Additionally, we could not
identify the number of projects completed in fiscal years 2001 and
2002 because the interagency committee's biennial reports did not
include projects; instead, the reports included publications authored
by member agencies, and we could not confirm whether individual
publications corresponded to a single project.
[7] Nonpetroleum oils include synthetic oils, such as silicone fluids,
and seed oils from plants, among other things.
[8] Through the Gulf of Mexico Initiative, NASA conducts applied
research and development on weather and climate change to enhance the
ecological and economic health of the Gulf of Mexico by using remote
sensing, oceanography, coastal processes, signal processing, and
mathematical modeling. The initiative was created in 2007 in response
to a series of hurricanes in 2005, including hurricanes Dennis,
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, according to NASA officials.
[9] Remote sensing involves gathering data and information about the
physical world by detecting and measuring signals composed of
radiation, particles and fields emanating from objects located beyond
the immediate vicinity of the sensor devices.
[10] According to a BOEMRE report on trends in oil production in the
Gulf of Mexico, in 1997 the Gulf of Mexico average annual oil
production rates (in thousands of barrels a day (Mbpd)) were 830 for
shallow water and 296 for deepwater. In its report, BOEMRE defined
shallow water production as production from oil wells in less than
1,000 feet of water and deepwater production as production from oil
wells in greater than 1,000 feet of water. By 2000, the rate was 690
Mbpd for shallow water and 743 Mbpd for deepwater. In 2007, the
difference between shallow water and deepwater production had
increased, with shallow water production at 381 Mbpd and deepwater
production at 895 Mbpd.
[11] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21,
2005).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
