[House Report 111-553]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 111-553
======================================================================
OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF
2010
_______
July 21, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and Technology,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2693]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2693) to amend title VII of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend
that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Bill............................................................2
II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................8
III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................8
IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................9
V. Committee Actions..............................................10
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................16
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis....................................18
VIII. Committee Views................................................22
IX. Cost Estimate..................................................26
X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................26
XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4...............................27
XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............27
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........27
XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................27
XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................27
XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................28
XVII. Earmark Identification.........................................28
XVIII.Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........28
XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........28
XX. Committee Recommendations......................................40
XXI. Exchange of Committee Correspondence...........................41
XXII. Additional Views...............................................46
XXIII.Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup.........................49
XXIV. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................91
I. Bill
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Oil Pollution Research and Development
Program Reauthorization Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH COMMITTEE.
(a) Purposes.--Section 7001(a)(2) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2761(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``State'' and inserting
``State and tribal''.
(b) Membership.--Section 7001(a)(3) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
2761(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Structure.--
``(A) Members.--The Interagency Committee shall
consist of representatives from the following:
``(i) The Coast Guard.
``(ii) The Department of Commerce, including
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
``(iii) The Department of the Interior.
``(iv) The Environmental Protection Agency.
``(B) Collaborating agencies.--The Interagency
Committee shall collaborate with the following:
``(i) The National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
``(ii) The Department of Energy.
``(iii) The Department of Transportation,
including the Maritime Administration and the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration.
``(iv) The Department of Defense, including
the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy.
``(v) The Department of Homeland Security,
including the United States Fire Administration
in the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
``(vi) The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
``(vii) The National Science Foundation.
``(viii) Other Federal agencies, as
appropriate.''.
(c) Role of the Chair.--Section 7001(a)(4) of such Act (33. U.S.C.
2761(a)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Chair.--
``(A) In general.--A representative of the Coast
Guard shall serve as Chair.
``(B) Role of chair.--The primary role of the Chair
shall be to ensure that--
``(i) the activities of the Interagency
Committee and the agencies listed in paragraph
(3)(B) are coordinated;
``(ii) the implementation plans required
under subsection (b)(1) are completed and
submitted;
``(iii) the annual reports required under
subsection (e) are completed and submitted;
``(iv) the Interagency Committee meets in
accordance with the requirements of paragraph
(5); and
``(v) the Oil Pollution Research Advisory
Committee under subsection (f) is established
and utilized.''.
(d) Activities.--Section 7001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Activities.--
``(A) Ongoing, coordinated efforts.--The Interagency
Committee shall ensure that the research, development,
and demonstration efforts authorized by this section
are coordinated and conducted on an ongoing basis.
``(B) Meetings.--
``(i) In general.--The Interagency Committee
shall meet, or otherwise communicate, as
appropriate, to--
``(I) plan program-related
activities; and
``(II) determine whether the program
is resulting in the development of new
or improved methods and technologies to
prevent, detect, respond to, contain,
and mitigate oil discharge.
``(ii) Frequency.--In no event shall the
Interagency Committee meet less than once per
year.
``(C) Information exchange.--The Interagency
Committee, acting through the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall
develop a national information clearinghouse on oil
discharge that--
``(i) includes scientific information and
research on preparedness, response, and
restoration; and
``(ii) serves as a single electronic access
and input point for Federal agencies, emergency
responders, the research community, and other
interested parties for such information.''.
SEC. 3. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PLAN.
(a) Implementation Plan.--Section 7001(b)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
2761(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act'' and inserting ``180 days after the date of enactment
of the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
Reauthorization Act of 2010 and periodically thereafter, as
appropriate, but not less than once every 5 years'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(A) identify the roles and responsibilities of each
member agency of the Interagency Committee under
subsection (a)(3)(A) and each of the collaborating
agencies under subsection (a)(3)(B);'';
(3) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``containment,'' after
``response,'';
(4) in subparagraph (D) by inserting ``containment,'' after
``response,'';
(5) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(6) in subparagraph (F)--
(A) by striking ``the States'' through ``research
needs'' and inserting ``State and tribal governments,
regional oil pollution research needs, including
natural seeps and pollution resulting from importing
oil from overseas,''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(7) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(G) identify the information needed to conduct risk
assessment and risk analysis research to effectively
prevent oil discharges, including information on human
factors and decisionmaking, and to protect the
environment; and
``(H) identify a methodology that--
``(i) provides for the solicitation,
evaluation, preapproval, funding, and
utilization of technologies and research
projects developed by the public and private
sector in advance of future oil discharges; and
``(ii) where appropriate, ensures that such
technologies are readily available for rapid
testing and potential deployment and that
research projects can be implemented during an
incident response.''.
(b) Advice and Guidance.--Section 7001(b)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
2761(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Advice and guidance.--
``(A) In general.--The Chair shall solicit advice and
guidance in the development of the research plan under
paragraph (1) from--
``(i) the Oil Pollution Research Advisory
Committee established under subsection (f);
``(ii) the National Institute of Standards
and Technology on issues relating to quality
assurance and standards measurements;
``(iii) third party standard-setting
organizations on issues relating to voluntary
consensus standards; and
``(iv) the public in accordance with
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Public comment.--Prior to the submission of the
research plan to Congress under paragraph (1), the
research plan shall be published in the Federal
Register and subject to a public comment period of 30
days. The Chair shall review the public comments
received and incorporate those comments into the plan,
as appropriate.''.
(c) Review.--Section 7001(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Review.--After the submission of each research plan to
Congress under paragraph (1), the Chair shall contract with the
National Academy of Sciences--
``(A) to review the research plan;
``(B) to assess the adequacy of the research plan;
and
``(C) to submit a report to Congress on the
conclusions of the assessment.
``(4) Incorporation of recommendations.--The Chair shall
address any recommendations in the review conducted under
paragraph (3) and shall incorporate such recommendations into
the research plan, as appropriate.''.
SEC. 4. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--Section 7001(c)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
2761(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``research and development, as
provided in this subsection'' and inserting ``research, development,
and demonstration, as provided in this subsection and subsection
(a)(2)''.
(b) Innovative Oil Pollution Technology.--Section 7001(c)(2) of such
Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking
``preventing or mitigating'' and inserting ``preventing,
detecting, containing, recovering, or mitigating'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (I);
(3) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph (I);
(4) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (I) (as
so redesignated) and by inserting at the end a semicolon; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(J) technologies and methods to address oil
discharge on land and in inland waters, coastal areas,
offshore areas, including deepwater and ultra-deepwater
areas, and polar and other icy areas;
``(K) modeling and simulation capabilities, including
tools and technologies, that can be used to facilitate
effective recovery and containment of oil discharge
during incident response; and
``(L) research conducted by the Environmental
Protection Agency on the development and approval of
technologies with maximum effectiveness, including
application and delivery mechanisms, and minimum
toxicity to natural resources, the public, and the
environment in both the near and long-term.''.
(c) Oil Pollution Technology Evaluation.--Section 7001(c)(3) of such
Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Oil pollution technology evaluation.--The program
established under this subsection shall provide for the
evaluation of oil pollution prevention, containment, and
mitigation technologies, including--
``(A) the evaluation of the performance and
effectiveness of such technologies in preventing,
detecting, containing, recovering, and mitigating oil
discharges;
``(B) the evaluation of the environmental effects of
the use of such technologies;
``(C) the evaluation and testing of technologies
developed independently of the research and development
program established under this subsection, including
technologies developed by small businesses;
``(D) the establishment, with the advice and guidance
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
of standards and testing protocols traceable to
national standards to measure the performance of oil
pollution prevention, containment, or mitigation
technologies;
``(E) an evaluation of the environmental effects and
utility of controlled field testing;
``(F) the use, where appropriate, of controlled field
testing to evaluate real-world application of new or
improved oil discharge prevention, response,
containment, recovery, or mitigation technologies; and
``(G) an evaluation of the effectiveness of oil
pollution prevention technologies based on
probabilistic risk analyses of the system.''.
(d) Oil Pollution Effects Research.--Section 7001(c)(4) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Establishment.--The Interagency
Committee, acting through the Administrator of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, shall establish a research
program to monitor and scientifically evaluate
the environmental effects, including long-term
effects, of oil discharge.
``(ii) Specifications.--Such program shall
include the following elements:
``(I) Research on and the development
of effective tools to detect, measure,
observe, analyze, monitor, model, and
forecast the presence, transport, fate,
and effect of an oil discharge
throughout the environment, including
tools and models to accurately measure
and predict the flow of oil discharged.
``(II) The development of methods,
including economic methods, to assess
and predict damages to natural
resources, including air quality,
resulting from oil discharges,
including in economically disadvantaged
communities and areas.
``(III) The identification of types
of ecologically sensitive areas at
particular risk from oil discharges,
such as inland waters, coastal areas,
offshore areas, including deepwater and
ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and
other icy areas.
``(IV) The preparation of scientific
monitoring and evaluation plans for the
areas identified under subclause (III)
to be implemented in the event of major
oil discharges in such areas.
``(V) The collection of environmental
baseline data in the areas identified
under subclause (III) if such data are
insufficient.
``(VI) The use of both onshore and
offshore air quality monitoring to
study the effects of oil pollution and
oil pollution cleanup technologies on
air quality; and making the results,
health, and safety warnings readily
available to the public, including
emergency responders, the research
community, local residents, and other
interested parties.
``(VII) Research on technologies,
methods, and standards for protecting
removal personnel and for volunteers
that may participate in incident
responses, including training, adequate
supervision, protective equipment,
maximum exposure limits, and
decontamination procedures.'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``(B) The Department of Commerce''
and all that follows through ``future oil discharges.''
and inserting the following:
``(B) Conditions.--The Interagency Committee, acting
through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, shall conduct research
activities under subparagraph (A) for areas in which--
``(i) the amount of oil discharged exceeds
250,000 gallons; and
``(ii) a study of the long-term environmental
effects of the discharge would be of
significant scientific value, especially for
preventing or responding to future oil
discharges.'';
(B) by striking ``ATHOS I, and'' and inserting
``ATHOS I;''; and
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting
``; Prince William Sound, where oil was discharged by
the EXXON VALDEZ; and the Gulf of Mexico, where oil was
discharged by the DEEPWATER HORIZON.''; and
(3) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``Research'' and
inserting ``Coordination.--Research''.
(e) Demonstration Projects.--Section 7001(c)(6) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 2761(c)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``The United States Coast Guard, in conjunction with
such agencies as the President may designate, shall conduct a
total of 2 port oil pollution minimization demonstration
projects, 1 with the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,
California, and 1 with a port on the Great Lakes, for the
purpose of developing and demonstrating integrated port oil
pollution prevention and cleanup systems that utilize the
information and implement the improved practices and
technologies developed from the research, development, and
demonstration program established in this section.''; and
(2) in the second sentence by striking ``oil spill'' and
inserting ``oil discharge''.
(f) Simulated Environmental Testing.--Section 7001(c)(7) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(7)) is amended by inserting ``Oil pollution
technology testing and evaluations shall be given priority over all
other activities performed at such Research Center.'' after
``evaluations.''.
(g) Regional Research Program.--
(1) In general.--Section 7001(c)(8) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
2761(c)(8)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``program of competitive
grants'' and inserting ``program of peer-
reviewed, competitive grants''; and
(ii) by striking ``(1989)'' and inserting
``(2009)'';
(B) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``the entity or
entities which'' and inserting ``at least one entity
that''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) In carrying out this paragraph, the Interagency
Committee shall coordinate the program of peer-
reviewed, competitive grants to universities or other
research institutions, including Minority Serving
Institutions as defined under section 371(a) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067q(a)), and
provide consideration to such institutions in the
recommendations for awarding grants.''.
(2) Funding.--Section 7001(c)(9) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
2741(c)(9)) is amended by striking ``1991'' and all that
follows through ``shall be available'' and inserting ``2011,
2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, there are authorized to be
appropriated from amounts in the Fund $12,000,000''.
SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.
Section 7001(d) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(d)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) International Cooperation.--In accordance with the research
plan submitted under subsection (b), the Interagency Committee shall
engage in international cooperation by harnessing global expertise
through collaborative partnerships with foreign governments and
research entities, and domestic and foreign private actors, including
nongovernmental organizations and private sector companies, and by
leveraging public and private capital, technology, expertise, and
services towards innovative models that can be instituted to conduct
collaborative oil pollution research, development, and demonstration
activities, including controlled field tests of oil discharges, oil
recovery, and cleanup standards.''.
SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORTS.
Section 7001(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(e)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(e) Annual Report.--
``(1) Concurrent with the submission to Congress of the
President's annual budget request in each year after the date
of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and Development
Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, the Chair of the
Interagency Committee shall submit to Congress a report
describing the--
``(A) activities carried out under this section in
the preceding fiscal year, including--
``(i) a description of major research
conducted on oil discharge prevention,
detection, containment, recovery, and
mitigation techniques in all environments by
each agency described in subsection (a)(3)(A)
and (B); and
``(ii) a summary of--
``(I) projects in which the agency
contributed funding or other resources;
``(II) major projects undertaken by
State and tribal governments, and
foreign governments; and
``(III) major projects undertaken by
the private sector and educational
institutions;
``(B) activities being carried out under this section
in the current fiscal year, including a description of
major research and development activities on oil
discharge prevention, detection, containment, recovery,
and mitigation technologies and techniques in all
environments that each agency will conduct or
contribute to; and
``(C) activities proposed to be carried out under
this section in the subsequent fiscal year, including
an analysis of how these activities will further the
purposes of the program authorized by this section.
``(2) If the National Academy of Sciences provides
recommendations on the research plan under section 7001(b)(3),
the Chair shall include, in the first annual report under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, a description of those
recommendations incorporated into the research plan, and a
description of, and explanation for, any recommendations that
are not included in such plan.''.
SEC. 7. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Section 7001 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761) is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Advisory Committee.--
``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and Development
Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, the Chair of the
Interagency Committee shall establish an advisory committee to
be known as the Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee (in
this subsection referred to as the `advisory committee').
``(2) Membership.--
``(A) In general.--The advisory committee shall be
composed of members appointed by the Chair, in
consultation with the each member agency described in
subsection (a)(3), including--
``(i) individuals with extensive knowledge
and research experience or operational
knowledge of prevention, detection, response,
containment, and mitigation of oil discharges;
``(ii) individuals broadly representative of
stakeholders affected by oil discharges; and
``(iii) other individuals, as determined by
the Chair.
``(B) Limitations.--The Chair shall--
``(i) appoint no more than 25 members that
shall not include representatives of the
Federal Government, but may include
representatives from State, tribal, and local
governments; and
``(ii) ensure that no class of individuals
described in clause (ii) or (iii) of
subparagraph (A) comprises more than \1/3\ of
the membership of the advisory committee.
``(C) Terms of service.--
``(i) In general.--Members shall be appointed
for a 3-year term and may serve for not more
than 2 terms, except as provided in clause
(iii).
``(ii) Vacancies.--Vacancy appointments shall
be for the remainder of the unexpired term of
the vacancy.
``(iii) Special rule.--If a member is
appointed to fill a vacancy and the remainder
of the unexpired term is less than 1 year, the
member may subsequently be appointed for 2 full
terms.
``(D) Compensation and expenses.--Members of the
advisory committee shall not be compensated for service
on the advisory committee, but may be allowed travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5,
United States Code.
``(3) Duties.--The advisory committee shall review, advise,
and comment on Interagency Committee activities, including the
following:
``(A) Management and functioning of the Interagency
Committee.
``(B) Collaboration of the Interagency Committee and
the agencies listed in subsection (a)(3)(B).
``(C) The research and technology development of new
or improved response capabilities.
``(D) The use of cost-effective research mechanisms.
``(E) Research, computation, and modeling needs and
other resources needed to develop a comprehensive
program of oil pollution research.
``(4) Subcommittees.--The advisory committee may establish
subcommittees of its members.
``(5) Meetings.--The advisory committee shall meet at least
once per year and at other times at the call of the
chairperson.
``(6) Report.--The advisory committee shall submit biennial
reports to the Interagency Committee and Congress on the
function, activities, and progress of the Interagency Committee
and the programs established under this section.
``(7) Expiration.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the advisory
committee.''.
SEC. 8. FUNDING.
(a) In General.--Section 7001(g) of such Act, as redesignated by
section 7 of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
from amounts in the Fund not more than $48,000,000 annually to
carry out this section, except for subsection (c)(8).
``(2) Specific allocations.--From the amounts in paragraph
(1), there are authorized to be appropriated--
``(A) $16,000,000 to the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
annually to carry out this section; and
``(B) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011, 2012,
2013, and 2014 to carry out the activities in
subsection (c)(6).''.
(b) Authorization.--Section 1012(a)(5)(C) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
2712(a)(5)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) not more than $48,000,000 in each fiscal year
shall be available to carry out title VII of this Act;
and''.
SEC. 9. ACCESS TO RESEARCH DURING AN EMERGENCY.
Section 7001 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(h) Access to Research During an Emergency.--Any entity that
receives Federal funding for research, the methodologies or results of
which may be useful for response activities in the event of an oil
discharge incident described in sections 300.300-334 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, shall, upon request, make the
methodologies or results of such research available to the Interagency
Committee and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (as defined in section
311(a)(21) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1321(a)(21)), except to the extent that the information is protected
from disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.
Such information shall be for use in response activities in the event
of an oil discharge, and shall not be included in information made
publicly available pursuant to this Act.''.
II. Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and
Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 is to amend and
reauthorize the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2761)
(Title VII (Section 7001) and Title I (Section 1012)). The bill
authorizes the establishment of the Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Oil Pollution Research and coordination of a
comprehensive program of oil pollution research, technology
development, and demonstration.
III. Background and Need for the Legislation
Oil spills are reported every day in the United States. Few
spills are environmental disasters of national or global
significance; most of the three million gallons of oil and
refined petroleum product spilled into U.S. waters each year
goes unnoticed by the public. Regardless of the level of public
awareness in each case, natural resources such as fish, corals,
marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, beaches, coastal habitats,
and water quality are often negatively affected, as are the
businesses and industries which depend on the immediate and
long-term health of these resources.
The United States has incorporated lessons learned from
past spills into Federal law and relevant response readiness
practices. We now have response tools and trained personnel at
ports and aboard vessels across the nation. However, oil
recovery and clean up techniques, including in situ burns,
chemical dispersants, skimmers, and booms have changed little
since the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989.
The Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90), P.L. 101-380 (8-18-1990),
was signed into law in August 1990, largely in response to
rising public concern following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The
intent of OPA 90 was to improve the nation's ability to prevent
and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that
expand the Federal government's ability to respond to oil
spills, and provide the funding and resources necessary for an
adequate response.
Title VII of OPA 90 establishes an Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Oil Pollution Research to coordinate a
comprehensive program of oil pollution research, technology
development, and demonstration among the Federal agencies, in
cooperation and coordination with industry, universities,
research institutions, state governments, and other nations, as
appropriate, and to foster cost-effective research mechanisms,
including the joint funding of research. Fourteen Federal
partners are named as members of the Interagency Committee, and
a representative of the Coast Guard serves as Chairman.
This program provides for research, development, and
demonstration of new or improved technologies which are
effective in preventing or mitigating oil discharges and which
protect the environment, including oil pollution technology
evaluation, oil pollution effects research, marine simulation
research, demonstration projects, simulated environmental
testing, and regional research programs.
Few legislative modifications to OPA 90's research and
development program have been made since its enactment, and
appropriations for these provisions have been small in
comparison to the need. The response to the Deepwater Horizon
disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has exposed the need for an
effective and coordinated research program for oil spill
response.
H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and Development
Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 modifies the research,
development, and demonstration program authorized under OPA 90
to ensure the ongoing development of methods and technologies
to prevent, detect, recover, and mitigate oil discharges.
IV. Summary of Hearings
On Thursday, June 4, 2009 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled ``A New Direction for
Federal Oil Spill Research and Development'' to examine the
Federal research and development efforts to prevent, detect, or
mitigate oil discharges and to receive testimony on H.R. 2693,
the Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act of 2009.
The following witnesses provided testimony:
Mr. Doug Helton, Incident Operations Coordinator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office
of Response and Restoration (OR&R).
Dr. Albert D. Venosa, Director of the Land
Remediation and Pollution Control Division at the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD).
Rear Admiral James Watson, Director of Prevention
Policy for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship, United
States Coast Guard (USCG).
Mr. Stephen Edinger, Director of the Office of
Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), California Department of
Fish and Game.
The hearing highlighted current Federal oil pollution
research and development efforts at the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Witnesses
described a number of emerging challenges that require new
research and development. The panel shared a variety of ways
that the current program could be improved. This included
research to address new challenges, improved response
technologies, requirements for new blends of biofuels, and
increased transportation.
On Wednesday, June 9, 2010 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled ``Deluge of Oil Highlights
Research and Technology Needs for Oil Recovery and Effective
Cleanup of Oil Spills'' with the purpose of exploring the
research, development, and technology needs for the recovery of
oil and effective cleanup of oil spills. The following
witnesses provided testimony:
Panel I
Mr. Douglas R. Helton, Incident Operations
Coordinator, Office of Response and Restoration, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department
of Commerce.
Captain Anthony Lloyd, Chief, Office of Incident
Management and Preparedness, United States Coast Guard.
Ms. Sharon Buffington, Chief, Engineering and
Research Branch, Offshore Energy and Minerals Management,
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Dr. Albert Venosa, Director, Land Remediation and
Pollution Control Division, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Panel II
Dr. Jeffrey Short, Pacific Science Director for
Oceana.
Dr. Samantha Joye, Professor of Marine Sciences,
University of Georgia.
Dr. Richard Haut, Senior Research Scientist,
Houston Advanced Research Center.
Dr. Nancy Kinner, Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire and Co-
Director of the Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC).
Mr. Kevin Costner, Partner, Ocean Therapy
Solutions (OTS).
Members and witnesses examined Federal agency roles in oil
spill response research; the activities and programs Federal
agencies have pursued since the passage of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990; the gaps in spill response research and technology
development; ways to improve the coordinated Federal response
going forward; and lessons learned from the Exxon Valdez oil
spill of 1989. Additionally, an important topic of discussion
was the interaction of oil with the natural environment, and
how the structure and function of marine ecosystems, including
food webs, are directly impacted by spilled oil or spill
response efforts, such as dispersants. Finally, witnesses
expressed concern about the effectiveness of currently deployed
technologies such as booms, skimmers, and in situ burns.
Members also consulted witnesses about the barriers to the
development and use of transformational technologies for oil
spill cleanup.
V. Committee Actions
On June 3, 2009, Representative Lynn Woolsey, for herself
and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird,
introduced H.R. 2693--the Federal Oil Spill Research Program
Act of 2009.
On June 16, 2009, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee
met to consider H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil Spill Research
Program Act of 2009. The Committee considered the following
amendments:
1. Ms. Woolsey offered a manager's amendment. The amendment
proposed replacing the term ``Oil Spill'' with ``Oil
Pollution'' to better explain the scope of the program, which
includes research into oil discharges both on water and on
land. Section 2 of the bill is amended to provide for more
effective notification to the public about the activities of
the program, including information on existing volunteer
training opportunities in incident response. Section 3 of the
bill is amended to clarify some of the elements of the
Interagency Research Program. It also adds additional program
elements, including research into: (1) the mechanical,
chemical, and biological methods for the recovery, removal, and
disposal of oil; (2) technologies, methods, and standards for
protecting removal personnel and volunteers that may
participate in incident response; (3) improved information
systems to assist Federal response efforts; and (4) methods to
restore and rehabilitate natural resources damaged by oil
discharges. A new Section 4 of the bill is inserted to allow
for the continuation of an existing technology evaluation
program that will be supplemented with guidance from the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. The manager's
amendment also modifies the contents of the Interagency
Coordinating Committee's research assessment. It specifically
adds a new requirement to identify emerging technologies and
the barriers to the utilization of those technologies by
Federal response teams. In addition, the manager's amendment
clarifies that the assessment will include an analysis of the
effectiveness of current technologies to address oil pollution
and an assessment and comparison of regional differences in
response capabilities. Section 5 of the bill is amended to
clarify the required contents of the Federal oil pollution
research and development plan. Specifically, the amendment
clarifies that the plan is to include research to improve: the
rates of oil recovery, the effectiveness of the response to oil
discharges, and the accessibility and utility of the
information available to mariners, researchers, and responders.
Section 6 of the bill is amended to clarify that each of the
agencies in the interagency program, not just NOAA, may award
grants or utilize other funding mechanisms to address the
research priorities set forth in the research plan. Section 7
of the bill simplifies the reporting required by the National
Academy of Sciences. Under the Manager's Amendment, the
National Academy will be responsible for submitting to Congress
and the Interagency Committee a report evaluating the oil
pollution research and development program and identifying
priority areas of research and technology development. Finally,
the amendment includes a direct authorization for NOAA and EPA,
each in the amount of $2 million dollars a year for Fiscal Year
2010 through Fiscal Year 2014. The amendment was agreed to by
voice vote.
2. Mr. Inglis offered a second degree amendment to the
manager's amendment. The amendment proposed amending the text
to reinstate the Coast Guard as the chair of the Interagency
Committee instead of changing the chair to NOAA as was written
in H.R. 2693. The amendment was withdrawn.
3. Mr. Baird offered an amendment to expand the interagency
program to include research related to economic incentives and
barriers to technology development. In addition, Mr. Baird's
amendment requires the program to conduct research to develop
new technologies and methods to respond to oil pollution in
artic regions. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
4. Mr. Lujan offered an amendment to add new requirements
to the program, assessment, and plan to consider and
investigate technologies and methods to address oil discharges
on land and in inland waters. The amendment was agreed to by
voice vote.
H.R. 2693, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Baird moved that the Subcommittee favorably report H.R.
2693, as amended, to the full Committee with the recommendation
to pass the bill. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.
On July 14, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology
met to consider H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil Spill Research
Program Act of 2009. The Committee considered the following
amendments:
1. Ms. Woolsey offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute (ANS). The amendment proposed striking and replacing
the language of H.R. 2693. The ANS amends Section 7001(a)(3) of
OPA 90 to designate the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of the
Interior (DOI), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
as the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution
Research (hereafter, the ``Interagency Committee''). The
remaining agencies from Section 7001(a)(3) are designated as
Collaborating Agencies. The ANS adds the National Science
Foundation (NSF) to the list of Collaborating Agencies. The ANS
adds a provision detailing the role of the Chair of the
Interagency Committee, and directs the Interagency Committee to
ensure that research, development, and demonstration efforts
are coordinated and conducted on an ongoing basis. The ANS also
requires that the Interagency Committee meet not less than once
per year to plan program activities and to determine whether
the program is meeting its objectives. Additionally, the ANS
directs NOAA to develop an electronic information exchange on
oil pollution scientific information and research.
The ANS amends Section 7001(b) of OPA 90 to direct the
Interagency Committee to submit an implementation plan to
Congress within 180 days of enactment. The plan will identify
the roles and responsibilities of each of the Interagency
Committee and Collaborating Agencies. In developing the plan,
the Chair is directed to solicit advice and guidance from the
Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and through
public comments. The Chair is further directed to contract with
the National Academy of Sciences to review and assess the plan,
and the National Academy of Sciences will submit a report to
Congress on its findings.
The ANS amends Section 7001(c) of OPA 90 to authorize
research, development, and demonstration of new or improved
technologies that are effective in ``preventing, detecting,
recovering, or mitigating'' oil discharges, including:
technologies and methods to address oil pollution on land, in
inland waters, offshore areas, including deepwater and ultra-
deepwater areas, and polar and other icy areas; modeling and
simulation capabilities, including tools and technologies that
can be used to facilitate effective recovery and containment of
oil pollution during an incident response; and research
conducted by the EPA on the development and approval of
technologies with maximum effectiveness and minimum toxicity to
natural resources, the public, and the environment in both the
near and long-term.
The ANS authorizes an oil pollution technology evaluation
as part of the research program. Research elements include: the
evaluation of the environmental effects of oil pollution
prevention and mitigation technologies; the evaluation and
testing of technologies developed independently of the
authorized research program; the establishment of standards and
protocols to measure the performance of prevention or
mitigation technologies; and research activities related to
controlled field testing. The ANS directs the Interagency
Committee to conduct a research program to monitor and
scientifically evaluate the environmental effects, including
long-term effects, of oil pollution. The research program
includes the following elements: (1) research and development
of effective tools to detect, measure, observe, analyze,
monitor, model, and forecast the presence, transport, fate, and
effect of oil throughout the environment; (2) the development
of methods, including economic methods, to assess and predict
damages to natural resources, including air quality, resulting
from oil discharges; (3) the identification of types of
ecologically sensitive areas at particular risk to oil
discharges, such as in inland waters, coastal areas, offshore
areas, including deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar
and other icy areas; (4) the preparation of scientific
monitoring and evaluation plans to be implemented in the event
of major oil discharges in such areas; and (5) the collection
of environmental baseline data in ecologically sensitive areas
at particular risk to oil discharges where there are
insufficient data. Additionally, the ANS directs that the
Interagency Committee, acting through NOAA, conduct research
activities for cases where the amount of oil discharged exceeds
250,000 gallons and it is determined that a study of the long-
term environmental effects of the discharge would be of
significant scientific value, especially for preventing or
responding to future oil discharges.
The ANS amends Section 7001(c)(8)(A) of OPA 90 by striking
completed demonstration projects in the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey and the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana. The
Interagency Committee is directed to coordinate a program of
peer reviewed, competitive grants to universities or other
research institutions or to groups of universities or research
institutions, for the purposes of conducting a coordinated
research program related to the regional aspects of oil
pollution, such as prevention, removal, mitigation, and the
effects of discharged oil in regional environments. At least
one entity from a group application must be located in the
region for which the project is proposed.
The ANS authorizes appropriations from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund (hereafter, ``the Fund'') in the amount of
$12,000,000 for each fiscal year 2011 through 2015 for this
Regional research program. The ANS directs the Interagency
Committee, in accordance with the research plan, to coordinate
and cooperate with other nations and foreign research entities
in conducting oil pollution research, development, and
demonstration activities, including controlled field tests of
oil discharges, oil recovery, and cleanup standards. The ANS
requires the Interagency Committee Chair to annually submit to
Congress a report describing the Interagency Committee
activities, along with an analysis of how these activities
further the purposes of the research program.
The ANS establishes an Oil Pollution Research Advisory
Committee that consists of at least 25 representatives from
non-governmental entities. The Advisory Committee is directed
to review, advise, and comment on Interagency Committee
activities. The Advisory Committee will meet at least once per
year and submit biennial reports on the function, activities,
and progress of the Interagency Committee to both Congress and
the Interagency Committee.
The ANS authorizes to be appropriated from amounts in the
Fund not more than $48,000,000 annually. From this amount,
$16,000,000 annually are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and $2,000,000 annually for each of fiscal years
2011 through 2014 for the demonstration projects described in
subsection (c)(6). Lastly, the ANS amends 1012(a)(5)(c) of OPA
90 to increase the authorization of appropriations to carry out
Section 7001 to $48,000,000.
2. Ms. Woolsey offered an amendment to make a conforming
change in several places to replace the word ``pollution'' with
``discharge.'' The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
3. Mr. Hall offered an amendment to add the word
``containment'' in several places to the list of activities at
which oil pollution research is directed. The amendment was
agreed to by voice vote.
4. Mr. Baird offered an amendment to direct that the
Research Plan ``identify the information needed to conduct risk
assessment and risk analysis research to effectively prevent
oil discharges, including information on human factors and
decisionmaking, and to protect the environment.'' The amendment
was agreed to by voice vote.
5. Mr. Tonko and Mr. Baird offered an amendment to direct
that the research plan ``identify a methodology that--(i)
provides for the solicitation, evaluation, preapproval,
funding, and utilization of technologies and research projects
developed by the public and private sector in advance of future
oil discharges; and (ii) where appropriate, ensures that such
technologies are readily available for rapid testing and
potential deployment and that research projects can be
implemented during an incident response. The amendment was
agreed to by voice vote.
6. Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment to direct that the
research plan identify, in consultation with State and tribal
governments, regional oil pollution research needs, ``including
seeps and pollution resulting from importing oil from
overseas.'' The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
7. Mr. Lamar Smith offered an amendment to require that the
Chair solicit advice in the development of the research plan
from ``third party standard-setting organizations on issues
relating to voluntary consensus standards'' in addition to the
other entities. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
8. Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment to change the
paragraph on the Environmental Protection Agency research in
the innovative oil pollution technology research elements by
striking the EPA. The amendment was defeated by voice vote.
9. Mr. Diaz-Balart offered an amendment to add the
evaluation of the performance and effectiveness of oil
pollution prevention and mitigation technologies in preventing,
detecting, containing, recovering, and mitigating oil
discharges to the oil pollution technology evaluation. The
amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
10. Mr. Tonko offered an amendment to add technologies
developed by small businesses to the oil Pollution technology
evaluation. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
11. Mr. Lipinski offered an amendment to add an evaluation
of the effectiveness of oil pollution prevention technologies
based on probabilistic risk analyses of the system to the oil
pollution technology evaluation. The amendment was agreed to by
voice vote.
12. Mr. Garamendi offered an amendment to add tools and
models to accurately measure and predict the flow of oil
discharged. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
13. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to add ``economically
disadvantaged communities and areas'' to the oil pollution
effects research elements on assessing and predicting damages
to natural resources resulting from oil discharges. The
amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
14. Mrs. Dahlkemper and Mr. Grayson offered an amendment to
add to the oil pollution effects research elements to include
the ``use of both onshore and offshore air quality monitoring
to study the effects of oil pollution and oil pollution cleanup
technologies on air quality; and making the results, health,
and safety warnings readily available to the public, including
emergency responders, the research community, local residents,
and other interested parties.'' The amendment was agreed to by
voice vote.
15. Mr. Grayson offered an amendment to add to the oil
pollution effects research elements to include ``research on
technologies, methods, and standards for protecting removal
personnel and for volunteers that may participate in incident
responses, including training, adequate supervision, protective
equipment, maximum exposure limits, and decontamination
procedures.'' The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
16. Mr. Hall offered an amendment to state that ``Oil
pollution technology testing and evaluations shall be given
priority over all other activities performed at the Oil and
Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT)
Research Center.'' The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
17. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to direct the
Interagency Committee to include Minority Serving Institutions
in the coordination of the Regional Research Program and
provide consideration to such institutions in the
recommendations for awarding grants. The amendment was agreed
to by voice vote.
18. Mr. Baird offered an amendment to expand the
international cooperation requirement to include harnessing
global expertise through collaborative partnerships to conduct
collaborative oil pollution research, development, and
demonstration activities, including controlled field testing,
oil recovery, and cleanup standards. The amendment was agreed
to by voice vote.
19. Ms. Biggert offered an amendment to expand the annual
reporting requirements. The amendment was agreed to by voice
vote.
20. Mr. Broun offered an amendment to expand the membership
requirements of the Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee.
The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
21. Mr. Baird offered an amendment to add a new section to
make federally-funded research accessible during an oil spill
incident. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
H.R. 2693, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Baird moved that the Committee favorably report H.R.
2693, as amended, to the House with the recommendation to pass
the bill. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill
H.R. 2693 amends Section 7001 of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 to designate the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of the
Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the
Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution research
(hereafter, the ``Interagency Committee''). The remaining
agencies from Section 7001(a)(3) are designated as
Collaborating Agencies. H.R. 2693 also adds the National
Science Foundation (NSF) to the list of Collaborating Agencies.
H.R. 2693 adds a provision to Section 7001(a) detailing the
role of the Chair of the Interagency Committee, and directs the
Interagency Committee to ensure that research, development, and
demonstration efforts are coordinated and conducted on an
ongoing basis. The bill also requires that the Interagency
Committee meet no less than once per year to plan program
activities and to determine whether the program is meeting its
objectives. Additionally, H.R. 2693 directs NOAA to develop an
electronic information exchange on oil pollution scientific
information and research.
H.R. 2693 amends Section 7001(b) of OPA 90 to direct the
Interagency Committee to submit an implementation plan to
Congress within 180 days of enactment. The plan will: (1)
identify the roles and responsibilities of each of the
Interagency Committee and Collaborating Agencies; (2) identify
regional research needs, including natural seeps and pollution
from importing oil from overseas; (3) identify information
needed to conduct risk assessments and analyses, including
information on human factors and decision-making, to prevent
oil discharges; and (4) identify a methodology to solicit,
evaluate, pre-approve, fund, make readily available, and
utilize technologies and research in advance of a future oil
discharge. In developing the plan, the Chair is directed to
solicit advice and guidance from the Oil Pollution Research
Advisory Committee (established in Section 7 of H.R. 2693), the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), third-
party standard setting organizations, and public comment. The
Chair is further directed to contract with the National Academy
of Sciences to review and assess the plan, and the National
Academy will submit a report to Congress on its findings.
H.R. 2693 amends Section 7001(c) of OPA 90 to authorize
research, development, and demonstration of new or improved
technologies effective in ``preventing, detecting, containing,
recovering, or mitigating'' oil discharges, including: (1)
technologies and methods to address oil pollution on land, in
inland waters, offshore areas, including deepwater and ultra-
deepwater areas, and polar and other icy areas; (2) modeling
and simulation capabilities, including tools and technologies
that can be used to facilitate effective recovery and
containment of oil pollution during incident response; and (3)
research conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency on
the development and approval of technologies with maximum
effectiveness and minimum toxicity to natural resources, the
public, and the environment in both the near and long-term.
H.R. 2693 also authorizes an oil pollution technology
evaluation as part of the research program for prevention,
containment, and mitigation of oil pollution. Research elements
include: (1) the evaluation of the performance and
effectiveness of technologies; (2) the evaluation of the
environmental effects of oil pollution technologies; (3) the
evaluation and testing of technologies developed independently
of the authorized research program; (4) the establishment of
standards and protocols to measure the performance of
prevention or mitigation technologies; (5) the evaluation and
use of controlled field testing; and (6) the evaluation of
technology effectiveness based on probabilistic risk analyses.
H.R. 2693 directs the Interagency Committee to act through
NOAA to conduct a research program to monitor and
scientifically evaluate the environmental effects, including
long-term effects, of oil pollution, that includes the
following elements: (1) research and development of effective
tools to detect, measure, observe, analyze, monitor, model, and
forecast the presence, transport, fate, and effect of oil
throughout the environment, including tools to measure flow of
oil discharged; (2) the development of methods, including
economic methods, to assess and predict damages to natural
resources, including air quality, resulting from oil
discharges; including in economically disadvantaged
communities; (3) the identification of types of ecologically
sensitive areas at particular risk to oil discharges, such as
in inland waters, coastal areas, offshore areas, including
deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy
areas; (4) the preparation of scientific monitoring and
evaluation plans to be implemented in the event of major oil
discharges in such areas; (5) the collection of environmental
baseline data in ecologically sensitive areas at particular
risk to oil discharges where there are insufficient data; (6)
the use of onshore and offshore air quality monitoring; and (7)
research on technologies and standards, including training,
supervision, protective equipment, maximum exposure limits, and
decontamination procedures for protecting removal personnel and
volunteers. Additionally, the Interagency Committee, acting
through NOAA, shall conduct research activities for cases where
the amount of oil discharged exceeds 250,000 gallons and it is
determined that a study of the long-term environmental effects
of the discharge would be of significant scientific value,
especially for preventing or responding to future oil
discharges. H.R. 2693 also adds Prince William Sound and the
Gulf of Mexico to the areas to be studied where oil discharges
have occurred by Exxon Valdez and the Deepwater Horizon,
respectively.
H.R. 2693 amends Section 7001(c)(8)(A) of OPA 90 by
striking completed demonstration projects in the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey and the Port of New Orleans,
Louisiana. H.R. 2693 also amends Section 7001(c)(7) to ensure
the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test
Tank (OHMSETT) Research Center gives priority to oil pollution
technology testing and evaluations.
The Interagency Committee is also directed in H.R. 2693 to
coordinate a program of peer reviewed, competitive grants to
universities or other research institutions, or groups of
universities or research institutions, including Minority
Serving Institutions, for the purposes of conducting a
coordinated research program related to the regional aspects of
oil pollution, such as prevention, removal, mitigation, and the
effects of discharged oil in regional environments. At least
one entity from a group application must be located in the
region for which the project is proposed. The Interagency is
also directed to give consideration to Minority Serving
Institutions in their recommendations for awarding grants. H.R.
2693 authorizes appropriations from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund (hereafter, the Fund) in the amount of $12,000,000
for each fiscal year 2011 through 2015 for this regional
research program.
H.R. 2693 directs the Interagency Committee, in accordance
with the research plan, to engage in international cooperation
through collaborative partnerships with foreign governments,
research entities, non-governmental organizations, and the
private sector by harnessing global expertise and leveraging
public and private capital, technology and services to conduct
oil pollution research, development, and demonstration
activities, including controlled field tests of oil discharges,
oil recovery, and cleanup standards.
H.R. 2693 requires the Interagency Committee Chair to
annually submit to Congress a report describing the Interagency
Committee activities, along with an analysis of how these
activities further the purposes of the research program.
H.R. 2693 also establishes an Oil Pollution Research
Advisory Committee consisting of no more than 25
representatives that do not include representatives of the
Federal government, but may include representatives from State,
tribal, and local governments and individuals with extensive
knowledge and expertise in the prevention and mitigation of oil
discharges. The Advisory Committee is directed to review,
advise, and comment on Interagency Committee activities. The
Advisory Committee will meet at least once per year and submit
biennial reports on the function, activities, and progress of
the Interagency Committee to both Congress and the Interagency
Committee.
H.R. 2693 authorizes to be to be appropriated from amounts
in the Fund not more than $48,000,000 annually. From this
amount, $16,000,000 annually are authorized to be appropriated
to the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and $2,000,000 annually for each of fiscal years
2011 through 2014 for the demonstration projects described in
subsection (c)(6). H.R. 2693 also amends Section 1012(a)(5)(c)
of OPA 90 to increase the authorization of appropriations to
carry out Section 7001 to $48,000,000.
Lastly, H.R. 2693 includes a provision for the Interagency
Committee and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator to be able to
have access to federally-funded research data and methodologies
that may be useful for response activities in the event of an
oil discharge incident.
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
The purpose of H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and
Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 is to amend and
reauthorize the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (33 U.S.C.
2761) (Title VII (Section 7001) and Title I (Section 1012).
Section 1. Short title
Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
Reauthorization Act of 2010.
Section 2. Federal Oil Pollution Research Committee
PURPOSES.--Section 7001(a)(2) of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 is amended to add tribal governments to the list of
entities with which the Interagency Committee shall cooperate
and coordinate.
MEMBERSHIP.--Section 7001(a)(3) is amended to designate the
U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the Department of the Interior (DOI),
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the
Interagency Committee; the remaining Federal agencies from
Section 7001(a)(3) are designated as Collaborating Agencies;
and the National Science Foundation (NSF) is added to the list
of Collaborating Agencies.
ROLE OF THE CHAIR.--Section 7001(a)(4) is amended to
include a paragraph on the roles of the Chair of the
Interagency Committee.
ACTIVITIES.-- Section 7001(a) is amended to insert a
section of activities which directs the Interagency Committee:
to ensure that research, development, and demonstration efforts
are coordinated and conducted on an ongoing basis, to meet no
less than once per year to plan the program's activities, and
to determine whether the program is producing new or improved
methods and technologies; and for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration to develop an electronic information
exchange on oil pollution scientific information and research.
Section 3. Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.--Section 7001(b)(1) is amended to
direct the Interagency Committee to submit a plan to Congress,
as directed in OPA 90, within 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
Reauthorization Act of 2010 and periodically thereafter but not
less than once every 5 years.
The plan will: (1) identify the roles and responsibilities
of each of the Interagency Committee and Collaborating
Agencies; (2) identify regional research needs, including
natural seeps and pollution from importing oil from overseas;
(3) identify information needed to conduct risk assessments and
analysis, including information on human factors and decision-
making, to prevent oil discharges; and (4) identify a
methodology to solicit, evaluate, pre-approve, fund, make
readily available, and utilize technologies and research in
advance of a future oil discharge.
ADVICE AND GUIDANCE.--Section 7001(b)(2) is amended to
direct the Chair of the Interagency Committee to solicit advice
and guidance in the preparation and development of the plan
from: the Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, third-party
standard setting organizations, and through public comment
prior to the submission of the research plan.
REVIEW.--Section 7001(b) is also amended to direct the
Chair of the Interagency Committee to contract with the
National Academy of Sciences to review and assess the adequacy
of the Plan and to submit a report to Congress.
Section 4. Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
INNOVATIVE OIL POLLUTION TECHNOLOGY.--Section 7001(c)(2) is
amended to include research, development, and demonstration of
new or improved technologies that are effective in preventing,
detecting, containing, recovering, or mitigating oil
discharges; technologies and methods to address oil pollution
on land, in inland waters, offshore areas, including deepwater
and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy areas;
modeling and simulation capabilities, including tools and
technologies that can be used to facilitate effective recovery
and containment of oil pollution during incident response; and
research conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency on
the development and approval of technologies with maximum
effectiveness and minimum toxicity to natural resources, the
public, and the environment in both the near and long-term.
OIL POLLUTION TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION.--Section 7001(c)(3) is
amended to provide for: an oil pollution prevention,
containment, and mitigation technology evaluation, with an
evaluation of the performance and effectiveness of
technologies; an evaluation of the environmental effects,
including: the evaluation and testing of technologies developed
independently of the research and development program; the
establishment, with the advice and guidance of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, of standards and testing
protocols traceable to national standards to measure the
performance of oil pollution prevention or mitigation
technologies; an evaluation of the environmental effects and
utility of controlled field testing; the use, where
appropriate, of controlled field testing to evaluate real-world
application of oil discharge prevention or mitigation
technologies; and the evaluation of technology effectiveness
based on probabilistic risk analyses.
OIL POLLUTION EFFECTS RESEARCH.--Sections 7001(c)(4)(A) and
(B) are amended to direct the Interagency Committee, acting
through the Administrator of NOAA, to establish a research
program to monitor and scientifically evaluate the
environmental effects, including long-term effects, of oil
pollution. The program includes: research and development of
effective tools to detect, measure, observe, analyze, monitor,
model, and forecast the presence, transport, fate, and effect
of oil throughout the environment, including tools to measure
flow of oil discharged; the development of methods, including
economic methods, to assess and predict damages to natural
resources, including air quality, resulting from oil
discharges, including in economically disadvantaged
communities; the identification of types of ecologically
sensitive areas at particular risk to oil discharges, such as
in inland waters, coastal areas, offshore areas, including
deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy
areas; and the preparation of scientific monitoring and
evaluation plans to be implemented in the event of major oil
discharges in such areas; the collection of environmental
baseline data in ecologically sensitive areas at particular
risk to oil discharges where there are insufficient data; and
the use of onshore and offshore air quality monitoring; and
research on technologies and standards, including training,
supervision, protective equipment, maximum exposure limits, and
decontamination procedures for protecting removal personnel and
volunteers. In addition, the Interagency Committee, through the
NOAA shall conduct research activities for cases where the
amount of oil discharged exceeds 250,000 gallons and it is
determined that a study of the long-term environmental effects
of the discharge would be of significant scientific value,
especially for preventing or responding to future oil
discharges.
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.--Section 7001(c)(6) is amended to
strike the completed demonstration projects in the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Port of New
Orleans, Louisiana.
SIMULATED ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING.--Section 7001(c)(7) is
amended by providing language to ensure that the Oil and
Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT)
Research Center gives priority to oil pollution technology
testing and evaluations.
REGIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAM.--Section 7001(c)(8)(A) is
amended to direct the Interagency Committee to coordinate a
program of peer reviewed, competitive grants to universities or
other research institutions, or groups of universities or
research institutions, including Minority Serving Institutions,
for the purposes of conducting a coordinated research program
related to the regional aspects of oil pollution, such as
prevention, removal, containment, mitigation, and the effects
of discharged oil on regional environments. Section
7001(c)(8)(C) is also amended to specify that at least one
entity from each group application must be affiliated with a
university or research institution from the region for which
the research project is proposed.
Section 7001(c)(9) is amended to authorize to be
appropriated from amounts in the Fund $12,000,000 for fiscal
years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015
Section 5. International cooperation
Section 7001(d) is amended to direct the Interagency
Committee, in accordance with the research plan, to engage in
international cooperation through collaborative partnerships
with foreign governments, research entities, non-governmental
organizations, and the private sector by harnessing global
expertise and leveraging public and private capital, technology
and services to conduct oil pollution research, development,
and demonstration activities, including controlled field tests
of oil discharges, oil recovery, and cleanup standards.
Section 6. Annual reports
Section 7001(e) is amended to direct the Chair of the
Interagency Committee to submit to Congress, concurrent with
the President's annual budget request, a report describing the
activities: carried out under this section in the preceding
fiscal year with a description of major projects undertaken;
being carried out under this section in the current fiscal year
with a description of the research and development activities;
and proposed to be carried out under this section in the
subsequent fiscal year, including an analysis of how these
activities will further the purposes of the program authorized
by this section. Additionally, any recommendations for the Plan
from the National Academy of Sciences must be included in the
first annual report.
Section 7. Federal Advisory Committee
Section 7001 is further amended to direct the Interagency
Chair to establish an Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee
consisting of no more than 25 representatives that do not
include representatives of the Federal government, but may
include representatives from State, tribal, and local
governments and individuals with extensive knowledge and
expertise in the prevention and mitigation of oil discharges.
The Chair of the Interagency Committee shall designate a
chairperson from among the members of the Advisory Committee.
Members shall be appointed for 3-year terms, renewable once.
The Advisory Committee is directed to review, advise, and
comment on Interagency Committee activities, including:
management and functioning of the Interagency Committee;
collaboration of the Interagency Committee and the
Collaborating Agencies; the research and technology development
of new or improved response capabilities; the use of cost-
effective research mechanisms; and research, computation, and
modeling needs and other resources needed to develop a
comprehensive program of oil pollution research. The Advisory
Committee is directed to review, advise, and comment on
Interagency Committee activities. The Advisory Committee will
meet at least once per year and submit biennial reports on the
function, activities, and progress of the Interagency Committee
to both Congress and the Interagency Committee.
Section 8. Funding
Section 7001(f) is amended to authorize to be appropriated
from amounts in the Fund not more than $48,000,000 annually to
carry out this section. From this amount there are authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator of NOAA $16,000,000
annually to carry out this section and $2,000,000 for carrying
out the activities in subsection (c)(6) for fiscal years 2011,
2012, 2013, and 2014.
In addition, Section 1012 (a)(5)(C) of OPA 90 is amended to
read as follows: (C) not more than $48,000,000 in each fiscal
year shall be available to carry out title VII of this Act.
Section 9. Access to research during an emergency
H.R. 2693 includes a provision for the Interagency
Committee and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator to be able to
have access to federally-funded research data and methodologies
that may be useful for response activities in the event of an
oil discharge incident.
VIII. Committee Views
The purpose of H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and
Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, is to protect
the public and the environment from future oil spills through
targeted and coordinated research, development and
demonstration. The United States needs such a program to
effectively enhance our preparedness and response for future
oil spills. It is the intent of the Committee that the new
structure of the Interagency Committee along with the
authorized research activities, the extramural grant program,
and the other provisions of this bill will better prioritize
research needed for effective cleanup technologies and
methodologies.
The streamlined structure of the Interagency Committee is
key to providing better oversight, accountability, and
effective research--across the Federal government and the
extramural community. It is the intent of the Committee that
the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the Department of Interior (DOI), and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) be the primary
agencies responsible for coordinating a comprehensive program
of oil pollution research, development and demonstration of
new, improved, or innovative technologies to prevent, detect,
contain, recover, and mitigate oil discharges. The Committee
intends for the four agencies of the Interagency Committee to
create and actively maintain research programs and to
collaborate on research with one another and with the
Collaborating Agencies, which include the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, the
Department of Transportation, including the Maritime
Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, the Department of Defense, including the Army
Corp of Engineers and the Navy, the Department of Homeland
Security, including the United States Fire Administration in
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science
Foundation, and other appropriate Federal agencies.
The intent of the Committee is that each of the Federal
agencies, both the members of the Interagency Committee and the
Collaborating Agencies, should conduct research to provide for
new, improved, and innovative technologies for an effective
cleanup response to oil discharges and to protect the
environment. Each Federal agency and department named in the
bill should actively participate in defining their roles and
responsibilities to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts
and to better align research efforts for an effective research
program.
It is the intent of the Committee that the streamlined
Interagency Committee does not allow the research and
development efforts to wane during times when the United States
is not experiencing a significant oil discharge incident.
Therefore, the Committee intends for the Interagency Committee
to meet in person at least once a year and continually
communicate via other methods to move this research agenda
forward. The Committee intends for the Interagency Committee to
meet in order to develop the research plan and to plan all of
the research program's activities so that the United States is
positioned to respond effectively to the next oil discharge
incident. The Interagency Committee should periodically
evaluate whether the program is resulting in new or improved
methods and technologies to prevent, detect, respond to,
contain, and mitigate oil discharge, and if not, find ways to
improve upon these methods and technologies.
The Committee intends for the Chair of the Interagency
Committee, the U.S. Coast Guard, to be responsible for several
administrative functions which include the following: (1)
administering the coordination of research activities of the
Interagency Committee and the Collaborating Agencies so that
the Interagency Committee functions properly and to avoid
unnecessary duplication of activities among the Federal
agencies; (2) implementing, completing, and submitting the
research plans and annual reports to Congress as required; (3)
ensuring that the Interagency Committee meets as required; and
(4) establishing, maintaining, and utilizing the Research
Advisory Committee according to the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA). Additionally, the intent of the Committee is that
the U.S. Coast Guard carry out research as a member of the
Interagency Committee. It is not the intent of the Committee
that the U.S. Coast Guard, as Chair, bears the burden of the
entire research program; however, it is the intent that the
U.S. Coast Guard leverage and strengthen the roles and research
activities of NOAA, DOI, and EPA. In addition, the Chair should
have appropriate expertise and position within the U.S. Coast
Guard to chair the Interagency Committee.
The Committee intends for NOAA to be responsible for the
development of the national information clearinghouse. The
Committee intends for the clearinghouse to be an open portal
for all scientific information and data, including raw data
that are useful for preparedness, response or restoration. The
national information clearinghouse is intended to not only be a
point of access to retrieve information but an exchange for
input from Federal agencies, emergency responders, the research
community, and other interested parties. The Committee
envisions the clearinghouse to be a shared virtual resource
that serves as an open, virtual repository for vital scientific
data and information, and would provide a cyber-infrastructure
fostering innovation, improved scientific understanding, and
encourage participation in research, education, planning and
management for all aspects of oil discharge response and
restoration. Therefore, the clearinghouse should also include
baseline scientific information and data, data identifying
important ecological areas, and other data related to the
environmental effects of oil discharges and cleanup
technologies.
It is the intent of the Committee that the additional
research elements added to the Oil Pollution Research and
Development Program were added to ensure that these new areas
become a research priority in addition to the areas of research
included in the underlying law (OPA 90). It is the intent of
the Committee that the Interagency Committee ensures that these
research activities are carried out by the appropriate
agencies. The Committee intends that modeling and simulation
capabilities be utilized to study various magnitudes of oil
discharges to achieve effective recovery and containment tools
and technologies at multiple scales, as needed. Without the
ability to evaluate and test tools and technologies in various
magnitudes of oil discharges in a real-world scenario, the
Committee finds that the use of computer modeling and
simulation technologies can be useful in testing and evaluating
the effectiveness of technologies at various scales.
Additionally, the Committee believes that research to evaluate
the relative effectiveness of bioremediation technologies has
shown their beneficial utility in mitigating oil discharges. As
such, the Interagency Committee should consider these
technologies on par with other technologies in the Research and
Development Program.
The Committee's intent is that NOAA be responsible for the
oil pollution effects research. The Committee also intends for
NOAA to work with other appropriate agencies, as necessary, to
ensure an effective and comprehensive program to scientifically
evaluate the long and short-term environmental effects of oil
discharges. The Committee finds that the collection of
environmental data is needed to form an adequate baseline of
information on important ecosystem attributes to allow for the
quantitative measurement of oil spill impacts. The Committee
intends for the Interagency Committee to collect environmental
baseline data for areas that are critical for the health of the
ecosystem; sensitive and at high risk to oil discharges; and
where knowledge gaps exist. It is the intent of the Committee
that the effect of oildischarges be studied throughout the
environment, including sediments, throughout the water column, on land,
and in the air.
It is the intent of the Committee that the U.S Coast Guard
completes the final two port oil pollution minimization
demonstration projects with the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, California, and with a port on the Great Lakes. The
Committee intended to remove the two port demonstration
projects that were completed with the Ports of New York and New
Jersey and the port of New Orleans, Louisiana. The Committee
finds that the remaining port demonstration projects will serve
as invaluable sites to test real-world applications of recovery
and cleanup technologies. Such exercises are essential to
maintaining the nation's readiness to respond to oil discharges
by providing practical experience for real world response.
The intent of the Committee is that the Interagency
Committee coordinates a peer-reviewed, competitive regional
research grants program for universities, Minority Serving
Institutions, and other research institutions. At least one
entity from each group application must be affiliated with a
university or research institution from the region for which
the research project is proposed. The Committee intends for
this Regional Research Program to function as the extramural
research arm of the Interagency Committee to ensure that the
unique needs of each region are studied to ensure an effective
response to an oil discharge. It is also the intent of the
Committee that the regional research program is funded from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
The Committee intends for the Interagency Committee to go
beyond coordination and cooperation with other nations to make
use of global expertise by engaging in collaborative
partnerships with foreign governments and research entities.
The Committee finds that the United States should conduct world
class research on oil pollution research, development, and
demonstration, and learn from the successes and failures of
these activities in other countries. The Committee finds that
the Interagency Committee should engage internationally with
foreign governments, research entities, and the private sector
through partnerships to conduct collaborative oil pollution
research, development, and demonstration activities. It is also
the intent of the Committee that these international
partnerships also include other activities designed to improve
U.S. technologies and methods to improve oil recovery and
cleanup such as the use of controlled field testing. It is the
intent of the Committee that the United States engage in these
international partnerships in an effort to advance global
expertise and develop innovative models to address oil
discharges.
During a Committee hearing on oil spills, it was expressed
that greater access to research could be helpful during a
response to an oil discharge. The Committee recognizes the
proprietary nature of research data. The Committee intends for
the Interagency Committee and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator
to have access, upon their request, to federally-funded
research data and methodologies that are relevant and may be
useful for response activities during an incident response. It
is not the intent of the Committee that this information be
made public, but would be exclusively used for oil spill
response activities.
The Committee intends for the provisions of H.R. 2693 to
build upon Title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The
Committee finds that the provisions of H.R. 2693 will better
prepare the U.S. for future responses to oil discharges, no
matter the size, through increased funding and strengthening of
research, development, and demonstration of innovative tools,
methods, and technologies.
IX. Cost Estimate
A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to
the Committee on Science and Technology prior to the filing of
this report and is included in Section X of this report
pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
H.R. 2693 does not contain new budget authority, credit
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R.
2693 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.
X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
H.R. 2693--Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
Reauthorization Act of 2010
Summary: H.R. 2693 would authorize appropriations totaling
$240 million through 2015 for an interagency program to
research and develop technologies to prevent, mitigate, and
clean up oil spills. Of that amount, $136 million is already
authorized under existing law.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing the legislation would cost $93
million over the 2011-2015 period and $11 million after 2015.
(Those amounts are in addition to the sums authorized to be
appropriated under current law.) Enacting H.R. 2693 would not
affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures do not apply.
H.R. 2693 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 2693 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------
2011-
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law:
Authorization Level............................. 27 27 27 27 27 136
Estimated Outlays............................... 16 25 27 27 27 123
Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level............................. 21 21 21 21 21 104
Estimated Outlays............................... 12 19 21 21 21 93
Spending Under H.R. 2693:
Authorization Level............................. 48 48 48 48 48 240
Estimated Outlays............................... 29 43 48 48 48 216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Amounts may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
legislation will be enacted in 2010 and that the amounts
authorized by the bill will be appropriated each year.
Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for
similar programs.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2693
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on State, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jeff LaFave; Impact on
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on
the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4
H.R. 2693 contains no unfunded mandates.
XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
The Committee on Science and Technology's oversight
findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this
report.
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the goal of
H.R. 2693 is to authorize the establishment of the Interagency
Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research and
coordination of a comprehensive program of oil pollution
research, technology development, and demonstration.
XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 2693.
XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement
The functions of the advisory committee authorized in H.R.
2693 are not currently being nor could they be performed by one
or more agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another
existing advisory committee.
XVI. Congressional Accountability Act
The Committee finds that H.R. 2693 does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).
XVII. Earmark Identification
H.R. 2693 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
House Rule XXI, clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f).
XVIII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or
tribal law.
XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--OIL POLLUTION LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1012. USES OF THE FUND.
(a) Uses Generally.--The Fund shall be available to the
President for--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) the payment of Federal administrative,
operational, and personnel costs and expenses
reasonably necessary for and incidental to the
implementation, administration, and enforcement of this
Act (including, but not limited to, sections
1004(d)(2), 1006(e), 4107, 4110, 4111, 4112, 4117,
5006, 8103, and title VII) and subsections (b), (c),
(d), (j), and (l) of section 311 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321), as amended by
this Act, with respect to prevention, removal, and
enforcement related to oil discharges, provided that--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(C) not more than $27,250,000 in each fiscal
year shall be available to carry out title VII
of this Act; and]
(C) not more than $48,000,000 in each fiscal
year shall be available to carry out title VII
of this Act; and
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
SEC. 7001. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution
Research.--
(1) * * *
(2) Purposes.--The Interagency Committee shall
coordinate a comprehensive program of oil pollution
research, technology development, and demonstration
among the Federal agencies, in cooperation and
coordination with industry, universities, research
institutions, [State] State and tribal governments, and
other nations, as appropriate, and shall foster cost-
effective research mechanisms, including the joint
funding of research.
[(3) Membership.--The Interagency Committee shall
include representatives from the Coast Guard, the
Department of Commerce (including the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology), the Department
of Energy, the Department of the Interior (including
the Minerals Management Service and the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service), the Department of
Transportation (including the Maritime Administration
and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration), the Department of Defense (including
the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy), the
Department of Homeland Security (including the United
States Fire Administration in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency), the Environmental Protection
Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and such other Federal agencies the
President may designate.
[(4) Chairman.--A representative of the Coast Guard
shall serve as Chairman.]
(3) Structure.--
(A) Members.--The Interagency Committee shall
consist of representatives from the following:
(i) The Coast Guard.
(ii) The Department of Commerce,
including the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
(iii) The Department of the Interior.
(iv) The Environmental Protection
Agency.
(B) Collaborating agencies.--The Interagency
Committee shall collaborate with the following:
(i) The National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
(ii) The Department of Energy.
(iii) The Department of
Transportation, including the Maritime
Administration and the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration.
(iv) The Department of Defense,
including the Army Corps of Engineers
and the Navy.
(v) The Department of Homeland
Security, including the United States
Fire Administration in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
(vi) The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
(vii) The National Science
Foundation.
(viii) Other Federal agencies, as
appropriate.
(4) Chair.--
(A) In general.--A representative of the
Coast Guard shall serve as Chair.
(B) Role of chair.--The primary role of the
Chair shall be to ensure that--
(i) the activities of the Interagency
Committee and the agencies listed in
paragraph (3)(B) are coordinated;
(ii) the implementation plans
required under subsection (b)(1) are
completed and submitted;
(iii) the annual reports required
under subsection (e) are completed and
submitted;
(iv) the Interagency Committee meets
in accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (5); and
(v) the Oil Pollution Research
Advisory Committee under subsection (f)
is established and utilized.
(5) Activities.--
(A) Ongoing, coordinated efforts.--The
Interagency Committee shall ensure that the
research, development, and demonstration
efforts authorized by this section are
coordinated and conducted on an ongoing basis.
(B) Meetings.--
(i) In general.--The Interagency
Committee shall meet, or otherwise
communicate, as appropriate, to--
(I) plan program-related
activities; and
(II) determine whether the
program is resulting in the
development of new or improved
methods and technologies to
prevent, detect, respond to,
contain, and mitigate oil
discharge.
(ii) Frequency.--In no event shall
the Interagency Committee meet less
than once per year.
(C) Information exchange.--The Interagency
Committee, acting through the Administrator of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, shall develop a national
information clearinghouse on oil discharge
that--
(i) includes scientific information
and research on preparedness, response,
and restoration; and
(ii) serves as a single electronic
access and input point for Federal
agencies, emergency responders, the
research community, and other
interested parties for such
information.
(b) Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan.--
(1) Implementation plan.--Within [180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act] 180 days after the date
of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and
Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 and
periodically thereafter, as appropriate, but not less
than once every 5 years, the Interagency Committee
shall submit to Congress a plan for the implementation
of the oil pollution research, development, and
demonstration program established pursuant to
subsection (c). The research plan shall--
[(A) identify agency roles and
responsibilities;]
(A) identify the roles and responsibilities
of each member agency of the Interagency
Committee under subsection (a)(3)(A) and each
of the collaborating agencies under subsection
(a)(3)(B);
(B) assess the current status of knowledge on
oil pollution prevention, response,
containment, and mitigation technologies and
effects of oil pollution on the environment;
* * * * * * *
(D) establish research priorities and goals
for oil pollution technology development
related to prevention, response, containment,
mitigation, and environmental effects;
(E) estimate the resources needed to conduct
the oil pollution research and development
program established pursuant to subsection (c),
and timetables for completing research tasks;
[and]
(F) identify, in consultation with [the
States, regional oil pollution research needs]
State and tribal governments, regional oil
pollution research needs, including natural
seeps and pollution resulting from importing
oil from overseas, and priorities for a
coordinated, multidisciplinary program of
research at the regional level[.];
(G) identify the information needed to
conduct risk assessment and risk analysis
research to effectively prevent oil discharges,
including information on human factors and
decisionmaking, and to protect the environment;
and
(H) identify a methodology that--
(i) provides for the solicitation,
evaluation, preapproval, funding, and
utilization of technologies and
research projects developed by the
public and private sector in advance of
future oil discharges; and
(ii) where appropriate, ensures that
such technologies are readily available
for rapid testing and potential
deployment and that research projects
can be implemented during an incident
response.
[(2) Advice and guidance.--The Chairman, through the
Department of Transportation, shall contract with the
National Academy of Sciences to--
[(A) provide advice and guidance in the
preparation and development of the research
plan; and
[(B) assess the adequacy of the plan as
submitted, and submit a report to Congress on
the conclusions of such assessment.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology
shall provide the Interagency Committee with advice and
guidance on issues relating to quality assurance and
standards measurements relating to its activities under
this section.]
(2) Advice and guidance.--
(A) In general.--The Chair shall solicit
advice and guidance in the development of the
research plan under paragraph (1) from--
(i) the Oil Pollution Research
Advisory Committee established under
subsection (f);
(ii) the National Institute of
Standards and Technology on issues
relating to quality assurance and
standards measurements;
(iii) third party standard-setting
organizations on issues relating to
voluntary consensus standards; and
(iv) the public in accordance with
subparagraph (B).
(B) Public comment.--Prior to the submission
of the research plan to Congress under
paragraph (1), the research plan shall be
published in the Federal Register and subject
to a public comment period of 30 days. The
Chair shall review the public comments received
and incorporate those comments into the plan,
as appropriate.
(3) Review.--After the submission of each research
plan to Congress under paragraph (1), the Chair shall
contract with the National Academy of Sciences--
(A) to review the research plan;
(B) to assess the adequacy of the research
plan; and
(C) to submit a report to Congress on the
conclusions of the assessment.
(4) Incorporation of recommendations.--The Chair
shall address any recommendations in the review
conducted under paragraph (3) and shall incorporate
such recommendations into the research plan, as
appropriate.
(c) Oil Pollution Research and Development Program.--
(1) Establishment.--The Interagency Committee shall
coordinate the establishment, by the agencies
represented on the Interagency Committee, of a program
for conducting oil pollution [research and development,
as provided in this subsection] research, development,
and demonstration, as provided in this subsection and
subsection (a)(2).
(2) Innovative oil pollution technology.--The program
established under this subsection shall provide for
research, development, and demonstration of new or
improved technologies which are effective in
[preventing or mitigating] preventing, detecting,
containing, recovering, or mitigating oil discharges
and which protect the environment, including--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(I) research to evaluate the relative
effectiveness and environmental impacts of
bioremediation technologies; and]
[(J)] (I) the demonstration of a satellite-
based, dependent surveillance vessel traffic
system in Narragansett Bay to evaluate the
utility of such system in reducing the risk of
oil discharges from vessel collisions and
groundings in confined waters[.];
(J) technologies and methods to address oil
discharge on land and in inland waters, coastal
areas, offshore areas, including deepwater and
ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy
areas;
(K) modeling and simulation capabilities,
including tools and technologies, that can be
used to facilitate effective recovery and
containment of oil discharge during incident
response; and
(L) research conducted by the Environmental
Protection Agency on the development and
approval of technologies with maximum
effectiveness, including application and
delivery mechanisms, and minimum toxicity to
natural resources, the public, and the
environment in both the near and long-term.
[(3) Oil pollution technology evaluation.--The
program established under this subsection shall provide
for oil pollution prevention and mitigation technology
evaluation including--
[(A) the evaluation and testing of
technologies developed independently of the
research and development program established
under this subsection;
[(B) the establishment, where appropriate, of
standards and testing protocols traceable to
national standards to measure the performance
of oil pollution prevention or mitigation
technologies; and
[(C) the use, where appropriate, of
controlled field testing to evaluate real-world
application of oil discharge prevention or
mitigation technologies.]
(3) Oil pollution technology evaluation.--The program
established under this subsection shall provide for the
evaluation of oil pollution prevention, containment,
and mitigation technologies, including--
(A) the evaluation of the performance and
effectiveness of such technologies in
preventing, detecting, containing, recovering,
and mitigating oil discharges;
(B) the evaluation of the environmental
effects of the use of such technologies;
(C) the evaluation and testing of
technologies developed independently of the
research and development program established
under this subsection, including technologies
developed by small businesses;
(D) the establishment, with the advice and
guidance of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, of standards and testing
protocols traceable to national standards to
measure the performance of oil pollution
prevention, containment, or mitigation
technologies;
(E) an evaluation of the environmental
effects and utility of controlled field
testing;
(F) the use, where appropriate, of controlled
field testing to evaluate real-world
application of new or improved oil discharge
prevention, response, containment, recovery, or
mitigation technologies; and
(G) an evaluation of the effectiveness of oil
pollution prevention technologies based on
probabilistic risk analyses of the system.
(4) Oil pollution effects research.--[(A) The
Committee shall establish a research program to monitor
and evaluate the environmental effects of oil
discharges. Such program shall include the following
elements:
[(i) The development of improved models and
capabilities for predicting the environmental
fate, transport, and effects of oil discharges.
[(ii) The development of methods, including
economic methods, to assess damages to natural
resources resulting from oil discharges.
[(iii) The identification of types of
ecologically sensitive areas at particular risk
to oil discharges and the preparation of
scientific monitoring and evaluation plans, one
for each of several types of ecological
conditions, to be implemented in the event of
major oil discharges in such areas.
[(iv) The collection of environmental
baseline data in ecologically sensitive areas
at particular risk to oil discharges where such
data are insufficient.]
(A) In general.--
(i) Establishment.--The Interagency
Committee, acting through the Administrator of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, shall establish a research
program to monitor and scientifically evaluate
the environmental effects, including long-term
effects, of oil discharge.
(ii) Specifications.--Such program shall
include the following elements:
(I) Research on and the development
of effective tools to detect, measure,
observe, analyze, monitor, model, and
forecast the presence, transport, fate,
and effect of an oil discharge
throughout the environment, including
tools and models to accurately measure
and predict the flow of oil discharged.
(II) The development of methods,
including economic methods, to assess
and predict damages to natural
resources, including air quality,
resulting from oil discharges,
including in economically disadvantaged
communities and areas.
(III) The identification of types of
ecologically sensitive areas at
particular risk from oil discharges,
such as inland waters, coastal areas,
offshore areas, including deepwater and
ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and
other icy areas.
(IV) The preparation of scientific
monitoring and evaluation plans for the
areas identified under subclause (III)
to be implemented in the event of major
oil discharges in such areas.
(V) The collection of environmental
baseline data in the areas identified
under subclause (III) if such data are
insufficient.
(VI) The use of both onshore and
offshore air quality monitoring to
study the effects of oil pollution and
oil pollution cleanup technologies on
air quality; and making the results,
health, and safety warnings readily
available to the public, including
emergency responders, the research
community, local residents, and other
interested parties.
(VII) Research on technologies,
methods, and standards for protecting
removal personnel and for volunteers
that may participate in incident
responses, including training, adequate
supervision, protective equipment,
maximum exposure limits, and
decontamination procedures.
[(B) The Department of Commerce in consultation with
the Environmental Protection Agency shall monitor and
scientifically evaluate the long-term environmental
effects of oil discharges if--
[(i) the amount of oil discharged exceeds
250,000 gallons;
[(ii) the oil discharge has occurred on or
after January 1, 1989; and
[(iii) the Interagency Committee determines
that a study of the long-term environmental
effects of the discharge would be of
significant scientific value, especially for
preventing or responding to future oil
discharges.]
(B) Conditions.--The Interagency Committee, acting
through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, shall conduct research
activities under subparagraph (A) for areas in which--
(i) the amount of oil discharged exceeds
250,000 gallons; and
(ii) a study of the long-term environmental
effects of the discharge would be of
significant scientific value, especially for
preventing or responding to future oil
discharges.
Areas for study may include the following sites where
oil discharges have occurred: the New York/New Jersey
Harbor area, where oil was discharged by an Exxon
underwater pipeline, the T/B CIBRO SAVANNAH, and the M/
V BT NAUTILUS; Narragansett Bay where oil was
discharged by the WORLD PRODIGY; the Houston Ship
Channel where oil was discharged by the RACHEL B; the
Delaware River, where oil was discharged by the
PRESIDENTE RIVERA and the T/V [ATHOS I, and] ATHOS I;
Huntington Beach, California, where oil was discharged
by the AMERICAN TRADER[.]; Prince William Sound, where
oil was discharged by the EXXON VALDEZ; and the Gulf of
Mexico, where oil was discharged by the DEEPWATER
HORIZON.
(C) [Research] Coordination._Research conducted under
this paragraph by, or through, the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service shall be directed and coordinated
by the National Wetland Research Center.
* * * * * * *
(6) Demonstration projects.--[The United States Coast
Guard, in conjunction with such agencies as the
President may designate, shall conduct 4 port oil
pollution minimization demonstration projects, one each
with (A) the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
(B) the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,
California, (C) the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana, and
(D) a port on the Great Lakes for the purpose of
developing and demonstrating integrated port oil
pollution prevention and cleanup systems which utilize
the information and implement the improved practices
and technologies developed from the research,
development, and demonstration program established in
this section.] The United States Coast Guard, in
conjunction with such agencies as the President may
designate, shall conduct a total of 2 port oil
pollution minimization demonstration projects, 1 with
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California,
and 1 with a port on the Great Lakes, for the purpose
of developing and demonstrating integrated port oil
pollution prevention and cleanup systems that utilize
the information and implement the improved practices
and technologies developed from the research,
development, and demonstration program established in
this section. Such systems shall utilize improved
technologies and management practices for reducing the
risk of oil discharges, including, as appropriate,
improved data access, computerized tracking of oil
shipments, improved vessel tracking and navigation
systems, advanced technology to monitor pipeline and
tank conditions, improved [oil spill] oil discharge
response capability, improved capability to predict the
flow and effects of oil discharges in both the inner
and outer harbor areas for the purposes of making
infrastructure decisions, and such other activities
necessary to achieve the purposes of this section.
(7) Simulated environmental testing.--Agencies
represented on the Interagency Committee shall ensure
the long-term use and operation of the Oil and
Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank
(OHMSETT) Research Center in New Jersey for oil
pollution technology testing and evaluations. Oil
pollution technology testing and evaluations shall be
given priority over all other activities performed at
such Research Center.
(8) Regional research program.--(A) Consistent with
the research plan in subsection (b), the Interagency
Committee shall coordinate a [program of competitive
grants] program of peer-reviewed, competitive grants to
universities or other research institutions, or groups
of universities or research institutions, for the
purposes of conducting a coordinated research program
related to the regional aspects of oil pollution, such
as prevention, removal, mitigation, and the effects of
discharged oil on regional environments. For the
purposes of this paragraph, a region means a Coast
Guard district as set out in part 3 of title 33, Code
of Federal Regulations [(1989)] (2009).
* * * * * * *
(C) Any university or other research institution, or
group of universities or research institutions, may
apply for a grant for the regional research program
established by this paragraph. The applicant must be
located in the region, or in a State a part of which is
in the region, for which the project is proposed as
part of the regional research program. With respect to
a group application, [the entity or entities which] at
least one entity that will carry out the substantial
portion of the proposed research must be located in the
region, or in a State a part of which is in the region,
for which the project is proposed as part of the
regional research program.
* * * * * * *
(H) In carrying out this paragraph, the Interagency
Committee shall coordinate the program of peer-
reviewed, competitive grants to universities or other
research institutions, including Minority Serving
Institutions as defined under section 371(a) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067q(a)), and
provide consideration to such institutions in the
recommendations for awarding grants.
(9) Funding.--For each of the fiscal years [1991,
1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, $6,000,000 of amounts in
the Fund shall be available] 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014,
and 2015, there are authorized to be appropriated from
amounts in the Fund $12,000,000 to carry out the
regional research program in paragraph (8), such
amounts to be available in equal amounts for the
regional research program in each region; except that
if the agencies represented on the Interagency
Committee determine that regional research needs exist
which cannot be addressed within such funding limits,
such agencies may use their authority under paragraph
(10) to make additional grants to meet such needs. For
the purposes of this paragraph, the research program
carried out by the Prince William Sound Oil Spill
Recovery Institute established under section 5001,
shall not be eligible to receive grants under this
paragraph until the authorization for funding under
section 5006(b) expires.
* * * * * * *
[(d) International Cooperation.--In accordance with the
research plan submitted under subsection (b), the Interagency
Committee shall coordinate and cooperate with other nations and
foreign research entities in conducting oil pollution research,
development, and demonstration activities, including controlled
field tests of oil discharges.
[(e) Biennial Reports.--The Chairman of the Interagency
Committee shall submit to Congress every 2 years on October 30
a report on the activities carried out under this section in
the preceding 2 fiscal years, and on activities proposed to be
carried out under this section in the current 2 fiscal year
period.]
(d) International Cooperation.--In accordance with the
research plan submitted under subsection (b), the Interagency
Committee shall engage in international cooperation by
harnessing global expertise through collaborative partnerships
with foreign governments and research entities, and domestic
and foreign private actors, including nongovernmental
organizations and private sector companies, and by leveraging
public and private capital, technology, expertise, and services
towards innovative models that can be instituted to conduct
collaborative oil pollution research, development, and
demonstration activities, including controlled field tests of
oil discharges, oil recovery, and cleanup standards.
(e) Annual Report.--
(1) Concurrent with the submission to Congress of the
President's annual budget request in each year after
the date of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and
Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, the
Chair of the Interagency Committee shall submit to
Congress a report describing the--
(A) activities carried out under this section
in the preceding fiscal year, including--
(i) a description of major research
conducted on oil discharge prevention,
detection, containment, recovery, and
mitigation techniques in all
environments by each agency described
in subsection (a)(3)(A) and (B); and
(ii) a summary of--
(I) projects in which the
agency contributed funding or
other resources;
(II) major projects
undertaken by State and tribal
governments, and foreign
governments; and
(III) major projects
undertaken by the private
sector and educational
institutions;
(B) activities being carried out under this
section in the current fiscal year, including a
description of major research and development
activities on oil discharge prevention,
detection, containment, recovery, and
mitigation technologies and techniques in all
environments that each agency will conduct or
contribute to; and
(C) activities proposed to be carried out
under this section in the subsequent fiscal
year, including an analysis of how these
activities will further the purposes of the
program authorized by this section.
(2) If the National Academy of Sciences provides
recommendations on the research plan under section
7001(b)(3), the Chair shall include, in the first
annual report under paragraph (1) of this subsection, a
description of those recommendations incorporated into
the research plan, and a description of, and
explanation for, any recommendations that are not
included in such plan.
(f) Advisory Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and
Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, the
Chair of the Interagency Committee shall establish an
advisory committee to be known as the Oil Pollution
Research Advisory Committee (in this subsection
referred to as the ``advisory committee'').
(2) Membership.--
(A) In general.--The advisory committee shall
be composed of members appointed by the Chair,
in consultation with the each member agency
described in subsection (a)(3), including--
(i) individuals with extensive
knowledge and research experience or
operational knowledge of prevention,
detection, response, containment, and
mitigation of oil discharges;
(ii) individuals broadly
representative of stakeholders affected
by oil discharges; and
(iii) other individuals, as
determined by the Chair.
(B) Limitations.--The Chair shall--
(i) appoint no more than 25 members
that shall not include representatives
of the Federal Government, but may
include representatives from State,
tribal, and local governments; and
(ii) ensure that no class of
individuals described in clause (ii) or
(iii) of subparagraph (A) comprises
more than \1/3\ of the membership of
the advisory committee.
(C) Terms of service.--
(i) In general.--Members shall be
appointed for a 3-year term and may
serve for not more than 2 terms, except
as provided in clause (iii).
(ii) Vacancies.--Vacancy appointments
shall be for the remainder of the
unexpired term of the vacancy.
(iii) Special rule.--If a member is
appointed to fill a vacancy and the
remainder of the unexpired term is less
than 1 year, the member may
subsequently be appointed for 2 full
terms.
(D) Compensation and expenses.--Members of
the advisory committee shall not be compensated
for service on the advisory committee, but may
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem
in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United
States Code.
(3) Duties.--The advisory committee shall review,
advise, and comment on Interagency Committee
activities, including the following:
(A) Management and functioning of the
Interagency Committee.
(B) Collaboration of the Interagency
Committee and the agencies listed in subsection
(a)(3)(B).
(C) The research and technology development
of new or improved response capabilities.
(D) The use of cost-effective research
mechanisms.
(E) Research, computation, and modeling needs
and other resources needed to develop a
comprehensive program of oil pollution
research.
(4) Subcommittees.--The advisory committee may
establish subcommittees of its members.
(5) Meetings.--The advisory committee shall meet at
least once per year and at other times at the call of
the chairperson.
(6) Report.--The advisory committee shall submit
biennial reports to the Interagency Committee and
Congress on the function, activities, and progress of
the Interagency Committee and the programs established
under this section.
(7) Expiration.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
advisory committee.
[(f) Funding.--Not to exceed $22,000,000 of amounts in the
Fund shall be available annually to carry out this section
except for subsection (c)(8). Of such sums--
[(1) funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out
the activities under subsection (c)(4) shall not exceed
$5,000,000 for fiscal year 1991 or $3,500,000 for any
subsequent fiscal year; and
[(2) not less than $3,000,000 shall be available for
carrying out the activities in subsection (c)(6) for
fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995.
All activities authorized in this section, including subsection
(c)(8), are subject to appropriations.]
(g) Funding.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be
appropriated from amounts in the Fund not more than
$48,000,000 annually to carry out this section, except
for subsection (c)(8).
(2) Specific allocations.--From the amounts in
paragraph (1), there are authorized to be
appropriated--
(A) $16,000,000 to the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
annually to carry out this section; and
(B) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011,
2012, 2013, and 2014 to carry out the
activities in subsection (c)(6).
(h) Access to Research During an Emergency.--Any entity that
receives Federal funding for research, the methodologies or
results of which may be useful for response activities in the
event of an oil discharge incident described in sections
300.300-334 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
shall, upon request, make the methodologies or results of such
research available to the Interagency Committee and the Federal
On-Scene Coordinator (as defined in section 311(a)(21) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(21)),
except to the extent that the information is protected from
disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.
Such information shall be for use in response activities in the
event of an oil discharge, and shall not be included in
information made publicly available pursuant to this Act.
* * * * * * *
XX. Committee Recommendations
On July 14, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology
favorably reported the Oil Pollution Research and Development
Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 by voice vote, and
recommended its enactment.
XXII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS
In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the Committee
has taken a renewed interest in H.R. 2693, a bill to
reauthorize and amend Title VII, the research and development
program, of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute (ANS) that was offered at the Full
Committee markup was a good effort to address many of the
reservations that Members on both sides had previously
expressed; however, we continue to have some concerns with the
bill as reported.
Although we understand that the apparent lack of progress
of the Interagency Committee in research was the motivation
behind streamlining the Committee to include only the Coast
Guard, the Department of Interior, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection
Agency, we are concerned that the removal of the other agencies
from direct involvement in the research program will be a
signal to these agencies to no longer make this research a
priority and we will lose the benefit of the cross-cutting
expertise of different federal agencies.
The ANS to H.R. 2693 shifts the focus of the underlying
statute to concentrate much more on the environmental effects
of the cleanup technologies rather than the effectiveness of
the technologies themselves. While we support the research and
understanding of the environmental effects of technology use as
part of the program, we are alarmed that the development and
performance of these technologies is now a secondary mission
instead of the primary one. We seek additional balance between
the goals of technology effectiveness and performance and
environmental effects of the utilized technology. The
environmental effects of these technologies are meaningless
unless we are first assured of their effectiveness in
preventing, containing, responding to, and mitigating oil
discharges.
We are also concerned about the inclusion of an amendment
that substantially modifies current law regarding International
Cooperation on oil pollution research, development and
demonstration activities. The Interagency Committee's primary
task is to conduct a research and development program for
technology development and effects of discharges on the
environment. H.R. 2693 as reported would alter this program by
requiring a greater amount of diplomacy and international
interaction in the research and development program. While the
intent of this expansion is laudable, it could easily utilize
much of the program's resources.
While we believe expanded international interaction in the
area of research and development of oil pollution prevention,
response, and mitigation technologies is a good thing, the
inclusion of the concept of laying the foundation for cleanup
``standards'' shifts the focus in a direction not necessarily
suitable to this program. Additionally, the inclusion of the
development of cleanup ``standards'' may prove to be a futile
exercise if the technology does not exist to reach such goals.
Delegating to the Interagency Committee a substantial
international outreach role will distract them from the very
research and development activities H.R. 2693 attempts to
strengthen.
Finally, we are concerned with language included in the
reported version that would require any entity receiving
federal research funds to divulge the results of such research.
While we support greater transparency with the use of
taxpayers' dollars, we are concerned that this provision is
overly broad and, as currently drafted, may not provide enough
statutory protections to alleviate concerns regarding release
of confidential work product to the general public.
We are committed to oil pollution research, technology
development, and demonstration and remain hopeful that the
concerns expressed here and during the full committee markup
will be addressed as we move forward in the legislative
process.
Ralph M. Hall.
Paul C. Broun.
Vernon J. Ehlers.
W. Todd Akin.
Michael T. McCaul.
Adrian Smith.
Pete Olson.
Randy Neugebauer.
Judy Biggert.
Dana Rohrabacher.
Lamar Smith.
XXIII: PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT ON H.R. 2693, THE FEDERAL OIL SPILL RESEARCH PROGRAM ACT
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Chair Baird. Good morning to everyone. Our committee will
now come to order.
Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment meets to consider the following measures: H.R.
2693, the Federal Oil Pollution Research Program Act; H.R.
2729, To authorize the designation of National Environment
Research Parks by the Secretary of Energy and for other
purposes; and H.R. 1622, To provide for a program of research,
development and demonstration on natural gas vehicles. We will
now proceed with the markup.
This morning the Energy and Environment Subcommittee meets
to consider, as mentioned, three pieces of legislation: the
Federal Oil Pollution Research Program Act, which is H.R. 2693;
also H.R. 2729, the bill to authorize the Department of
Energy's National Environment Research Parks; and H.R. 1622, a
bill to provide for a program of research and development of
vehicles that operate using natural gas as a fuel.
First, the Subcommittee will consider H.R. 2693 authorized
by Ms. Woolsey from California, which amends the federal
interagency research and development program created in the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990. This bill would improve the Federal
Government's research and development efforts to prevent,
detect or mitigate oil discharges. Through this
reauthorization, federal agencies will be better equipped to
respond to oil discharges wherever they occur.
We will also mark up H.R. 2729, the bill introduced by Mr.
Lujan from New Mexico to authorize the Department of Energy's
seven National Environmental Research Parks. These parks are
truly a national treasure, providing large tracts of land that
represent nearly all of the major eco-regions in the United
States and are a valuable resource for examining the transport
of DOE-related contaminants, the long-term impacts of climate
change and the various ways carbon is captured and released
within the ecosystem. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of both
H.R. 2693 and H.R. 2729, and I encourage colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to join in supporting those important bills.
Finally, the Subcommittee will consider H.R. 1622, a bill
introduced by Mr. Sullivan of Oklahoma and co-sponsored by Full
Committee Ranking Member Mr. Hall. This bill reauthorizes the
Department of Energy's research, development and demonstration
program in natural gas-powered vehicles and related
infrastructure. To transform our nation's energy sector, we
must explore a diverse range of fuels and vehicle technologies.
While only a piece in a very complex puzzle, natural gas can
potentially provide us with an option that is both cleaner than
petroleum and more domestically available. I look forward to
the discussion on the bill and moving it towards a Full
Committee markup.
I thank the Members for their participation this morning
and look forward to a productive markup.
I now recognize Mr. Inglis to present opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Chair Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair Brian Baird
This morning the Energy and Environment Subcommittee meets to
consider three pieces of legislation: H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil
Pollution Research Program Act; H.R. 2729, A bill to authorize the
Department of Energy's National Environmental Research Parks; and H.R.
1622, A bill to provide for a program of research and development of
vehicles that operate using natural gas as a fuel.
First, the Subcommittee will consider H.R. 2693, authored by Ms.
Woolsey, which amends the federal interagency research and development
program created in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This bill would
improve the Federal Government's research and development efforts to
prevent, detect, or mitigate oil discharges. Through this
reauthorization, federal agencies will be better equipped to respond to
oil discharges wherever they occur.
We will also be marking up H.R. 2729, a bill introduced by Mr.
Lujan to authorize the Department of Energy's seven National
Environmental Research Parks. These parks are truly a national
treasure, providing large tracts of land that represent nearly all of
the major eco-regions in the United States. They are a valuable
resource for examining the transport of DOE-related contaminants, long-
term impacts of climate change, and the various ways carbon is captured
and released within ecosystems.
I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of both H.R. 2693 and H.R. 2729,
and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
supporting these important bills.
Finally, the Subcommittee will consider H.R. 1622, a bill
introduced by Mr. Sullivan of Oklahoma and co-sponsored by the Full
Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Hall. This bill reauthorizes the
Department of Energy's research, development, and demonstration program
in natural gas powered vehicles and related infrastructure.
To transform our nation's energy sector we must explore a diverse
range of fuels and vehicle technologies. While only a piece in very
complex puzzle, natural gas can potentially provide us with an option
that is both cleaner than petroleum and domestically available. I look
forward to the discussion on the bill and moving it towards a Full
Committee markup.
I thank the Members for their participation this morning, and I
look forward to a productive markup.
Mr. Inglis. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for
this hearing today. We will address several pieces of
legislation that highlight the diversity of federal research
initiatives into pressing environmental and energy-related
problems. It is an opportunity to reflect on our broad
jurisdiction and to ensure that federal research dollars are
focused and well spent.
The first bill before us, the Federal Oil Spill Research
Program Act, will revitalize the federal research efforts
focused on the prevention, detection and mitigation of oil
spills. While this is critical research and I commend Ms.
Woolsey's dedication to this important issue, I am not
confident that H.R. 2693 is necessary to improve the
interagency commitment to oil spill research. The testimony we
heard on this topic two weeks ago indicated that the
interagency process seems to be working. The witnesses
indicated that the most significant problems were related to
limited funding and poor communication with the states.
Further, this bill makes NOAA the Chair of the interagency
research committee though other federal agencies seem better
geared toward leading this particular research effort.
The second bill is H.R. 2729, a bill to permanently
authorize the National Environmental Research Parks. I
appreciate Mr. Lujan's leadership in this area. These
facilities are a unique environmental research asset. The
Environmental Research Park at the Savannah River site, for
example, has provided South Carolina and Georgia students with
the opportunity to engage in research in our local ecologies.
Especially as we develop new energy alternatives, our
Environmental Research Parks will help us understand how our
energy choices impact our distinct ecosystems.
I would also like to speak in support of H.R. 1622 and
commend Mr. Sullivan for his leadership in promoting the
development of natural gas vehicles. As long as we rely on oil
to power our transportation sector, the U.S. will be dependent
on hostile foreign nations and will continue to fund both sides
of the War on Terror. H.R. 1622 will utilize American ingenuity
to increase competition and fuel choices in the transportation
sector and spur innovation economy and increasing our national
security.
Thank you again, Mr. Chair. I look forward to developing
legislation that truly improves our diverse federal research
efforts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Good morning and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will address several pieces of legislation that highlight
the diversity of federal research initiatives into pressing
environmental and energy related problems. It's an opportunity to
reflect on our broad jurisdiction and to ensure that federal research
dollars are focused and well spent.
The first bill before us, the Federal Oil Spill Research Program
Act will revitalize the federal research effort focused on the
prevention, detection, and mitigation of oil spills. While this is
critical research and I commend Ms. Woolsey's dedication to this
important issue, I am not confident that H.R. 2693 is necessary to
improve the interagency commitment to oil spill research. The testimony
we heard on this topic two weeks ago indicated that the interagency
process seems to be working. The witnesses indicated that the most
significant problems were related to limited funding and poor
communication with the states. Further, this bill makes NOAA the Chair
of the interagency research committee, though other federal agencies
are better geared toward leading this particular research effort.
The second bill is H.R. 2729, a bill to permanently authorize
National Environmental Research Parks. I appreciate Mr. Lujan's
leadership in this area. These facilities are a unique environmental
research asset. The environmental research park at the Savannah River
Site has provided South Carolina's research universities and students
with the unique opportunity to engage in research on our local ecology.
Especially as we develop new energy alternatives, our National
Environmental Research Parks will help us understand how our energy
choices impact our distinct ecosystems.
I'd also like to speak in support of H.R. 1622 and commend Mr.
Sullivan for his leadership in promoting the development of natural gas
vehicles. So long as we rely on oil to power our transportation sector,
the U.S. will be dependent on hostile foreign nations and we will
continue to fund both sides of the war on terror. H.R. 1622 will
utilize American ingenuity to increase competition and fuel choice in
the transportation sector, spurring our innovation economy and
increasing our national security.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to developing
legislation that truly improves our diverse federal research efforts.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. Members may place any
statements for the record at this point.
We will now consider H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil Spill
Research Program Act, and I am pleased to recognize Ms. Woolsey
to prevent--present any additional remarks on her legislation.
Ms. Woolsey. To prevent?
Chair Baird. Present.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you
for holding this markup today.
As some of you remember on November 7, 2007, the container
ship Cosco Busan collided with the San Francisco Bay Bridge and
released 58,000 gallons of oil into the San Francisco Bay.
Although this was considered a minor spill by comparison, the
impact to my District was widespread. The pristine beaches of
Marin County were soiled, waters off our federal parklands were
sullied and important restoration projects in Richardson and
San Pablo Bay were threatened. All in all, about 200 miles of
coastline were affected. In addition, the spill killed
thousands of birds, maimed marine mammals, and no one knows how
many fish.
That is why I have introduced H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil
Spill Research Program Act. This bill reorganizes the agencies
responsible for federal research and development of oil spill
prevention, detection, recovery and mitigation to ensure that
the three agencies with the most expertise in this area are
working together for common solutions in the most effective and
efficient way possible. Although under current law there are 14
separate agencies tasked with oil spill research, when the
Committee held a hearing on this bill it became clear that the
Coast Guard, the EPA and NOAA are in fact the most engaged. As
a result, H.R. 2693 creates the Federal Oil Spill Research
Committee to give these three agencies the primary
responsibility for our federal oil spill prevention activities.
In the aftermath of the Cosco Busan spill, one thing that I
heard again and again from the people who are tasked with
cleaning up our mess was that the technology they were using
wasn't adequate to get the job done, and the Committee heard
similar testimonies from experts who testified on H.R. 2693.
That is why this bill also provides grants to institutions of
higher learning and research centers to improve technologies
used to prevent, combat and clean up oil spills. It is clear
that current technology is inadequate to prevent and protect us
from oil spills, as the average recovery is only between 10 and
15 percent, and I know with a lot of focus and the effort that
we need, we can do much, much better.
H.R. 2693 will help to ensure that the Federal Government
is taking an active role to prevent oil spills, and that when
they do occur, we have the best possible technology to minimize
negative impacts to ourselves and to our environment.
Mr. Chair, again, I thank you for holding this markup. I
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2693.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Lynn Woolsey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this markup today.
As some of you remember, on November 7, 2007, the container ship
Cosco Busan collided with the San Francisco Bay Bridge, and released
58,000 gallons of oil into San Francisco Bay.
Although this was considered a minor spill by comparison, the
impact to my District was widespread. The pristine beaches of Marin
County were soiled, waters off of our federal parklands were sullied,
and important restoration projects in Richardson and San Pablo Bay were
threatened. All in all, about 200 miles of coastline were affected.
In addition, the spill killed thousands of birds, many marine
mammals, and no one knows how many fish.
That's why I have introduced the H.R. 2693, the ``Federal Oil Spill
Research Program Act.'' This bill reorganizes the agencies responsible
for federal research and development of oil spill prevention,
detection, recovery, and mitigation to ensure that the three agencies
with the most expertise in this area are all working together for
common solutions, in the most effective and efficient way possible.
Although under current law there are 14 separate agencies tasked
with oil spill research, when the Committee held a hearing on this
bill, we heard from the Coast Guard, EPA, and NOAA that they are in
fact the ones that are most engaged in this field. As a result, H.R.
2693 creates the federal oil spill research committee to give these
three agencies the primary responsibility for our federal oil spill
prevention activities.
In the aftermath of the Cosco Busan spill, one thing that I heard
again and again from the people who were tasked with cleaning up our
mess was that the technology they were using just wasn't adequate to
get the job done . . . and, the Committee heard similar testimony from
the experts who testified on H.R. 2693.
That's why this bill also provides grants to institutes of higher
learning and research centers to improve technologies used to prevent,
combat, and clean up oil spills.
It's clear that current technology is inadequate to prevent and
protect us from oils spills . . . as the average recovery is only
between 10-15 percent. and, I know with the right focus and effort, we
can do much, much better.
H.R. 2693 will help to ensure that the Federal Government is taking
an active role to prevent oil spills, and that when they do occur, we
have the best possible technology to minimize negative impacts to
ourselves and the environment.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for holding this markup, and I
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. I commend you for your
passion and clearly you have such dedication, you always have
for many years in the Congress and I applaud you for that and
for addressing it so vigorously with this legislation. Thank
you for your work on this.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Inglis for opening remarks on
the bill.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and we will have several
questions about this bill and in fact have got an amendment I
will offer. The main question really has to do with why are we
choosing NOAA as the Chair for the interagency committee.
Currently it is the Coast Guard. NOAA receives no funding from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. They do not act as an on-
scene coordinator for either land-based or marine-based oil
discharges. Their research and development is heavily focused
on restoration and habitat recovery for the long-term instead
of prevention and response in oil recovery immediately after a
spill. And so as we proceed here, that will be a question I
will be asking, in the form of an amendment really, to ask
whether really the Coast Guard is better equipped to handle
these functions than NOAA. But in the interest of time, why
don't we proceed on to the amendments and I will be happy to
yield back.
Chair Baird. I thank the gentleman. Is there anyone else
wishing to be recognized on this legislation? I would ask
unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and open
to amendment at any point and that Members proceed with the
amendments in order of the roster. Without objection, so
ordered.
The first amendment on the roster is a manager's amendment
offered by the gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey. Are you
ready to proceed, Ms. Woolsey?
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chair, I am. I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chair Baird. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2693, amendment number 141,
offered by Ms. Woolsey of California.
Chair Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chair, I offer this manager's amendment to
make a series of changes throughout H.R. 2693 to clarify the
intent of the legislation and to incorporate recommendations
from the legislative hearing held on June 4.
To start, this amendment replaces the term ``oil spill''
with ``oil pollution'' to better explain the scope of the
program which includes research into oil discharges both on
water and on land. Section 2 of the bill is amended to provide
for more effective notification to the public about the
activities of the program, including information on existing
volunteer training opportunities in incident response.
Section 3 of the bill is the amended to clarify some of the
elements of the interagency research program. It also adds
additional program elements, including research into the
mechanical, chemical and biological methods for the recovery,
removal and disposal of oil, technologies, methods and
standards for protecting removal personnel and volunteers that
participate in incident response, improved information systems
to assist federal response efforts and methods to restore and
rehabilitate natural resources damaged by oil discharges.
A new section 4 of the bill is inserted to allow for the
continuation of an existing technology evaluation program that
will be supplemented with guidance from the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, NIST. The manager's amendment also
modifies the contents of the interagency committee's research
assessment. It specifically adds a new requirement to identify
emerging technologies and the barriers to the utilization of
those technologies by federal response teams. In addition, the
manager's amendment clarifies that the assessment will include
an analysis of the effectiveness of current technologies to
address oil pollution and an assessment and comparison of
regional differences in response capabilities.
Section 5 of the bill is amended to clarify the required
contents of the Federal Oil Pollution Research and Development
Plan. Specifically, the amendment clarifies that the plan is to
include research to improve the rates of oil recovery, the
effectiveness of the response to oil discharges and the
accessibility and utility of the information available to
mariners, researchers and responders.
Section 6 of the bill is amended to make clear that each of
the agencies in the interagency program, not just NOAA, may
award grants to utilize other funding mechanisms to address
research priorities set forth in the research plan.
Section 7 of the bill is modified to simplify the reporting
requirement of the National Academy of Sciences. Under the
manager's amendment, the National Academy will be responsible
for submitting to Congress and the interagency committee a
report evaluating the oil pollution research and development
program and identifying priority areas of needed research and
technology development.
Finally, the amendment includes a direct authorization for
NOAA and EPA, each in the amount of $2 million a year for
fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2014. Mr. Chair, this amendment
is based on witness recommendations from the hearing and
follow-up conversations with related federal agencies.
I ask my colleagues to please support the manager's
amendment. I yield back.
Chair Baird. I thank the gentlelady. In a moment Mr. Inglis
will have a second-degree amendment to offer, but before we
turn to him, does anyone else have comments they wish to offer
on Ms. Woolsey's amendment? If not, then we will turn to Mr.
Inglis to offer his second-degree amendment. Are you ready to
proceed with your amendment, Mr. Inglis?
Mr. Inglis. Yes, Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment offered by Mr. Inglis of South
Carolina. This is a second-degree amendment to the amendment
offered by Ms. Woolsey to H.R. 2693. This is amendment number
007.
Chair Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This manager's amendment
makes substantial improvements to the underlying bill. There
are many aspects of the amendment that I agree with and think
are worthy. However, as I mentioned earlier, I have significant
concern with NOAA being named as the Chair of the interagency
committee. Since the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was passed
almost 20 years ago, the U.S. Coast Guard has led the
interagency committee for research and development. The Coast
Guard has a proven record of being Chair of this committee,
encouraging coordination and cooperation, and still continues
today with annual conferences and monthly conference calls with
other participating agencies. All three federal witnesses at
our hearing two weeks ago stated that the current structure
works. While there is always room for improvement, it should
not require tossing the existing structure that works in favor
of something new. NOAA provides strategic and important
information to the on-scene coordinator, either the Coast Guard
or EPA, as a science coordinator. They provide information to
help track where the oil is moving to. They are in charge of
restoration efforts after cleanup has occurred. However, NOAA's
focus is not on the response in oil recovery but on restoration
and habitat recovery. NOAA does not even receive R&D funding
from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. I believe the R&D
program originally envisioned by Congress after the terrible
Valdez spill was to provide better technologies to prevent the
oil from causing so much devastation. That means being able to
collect it, burn it or disperse it. The Coast Guard and the
Mineral Management Service are the two agencies that conduct
the most research in these areas. Although NOAA's scientific
contribution to clean-up after oil discharges is world class, I
do not believe being Chair of this interagency committee is an
appropriate role for them. So I urge the Committee to consider
the amendment, changing NOAA to Coast Guard, and I would be
happy to yield to the gentlelady for any response to those
observations. I would be interested in what she----
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment makes vast improvements to
the underlying bill. There are many aspects of the amendment I agree
with and I think are worthy. However, I have a significant concern with
NOAA being named as Chair of the interagency committee. Since the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 was passed almost 20 years ago, the U.S. Coast
Guard has led the interagency committee for research and development.
The Coast Guard has a proven record for being Chair of this committee,
encouraging coordination and cooperation that still continues today
with annual conferences and monthly conference phone calls with other
participating agencies. All three federal witnesses at our hearing two
weeks ago stated that the current structure works. While there is
always room for improvement, it should not require tossing the existing
structure that works in favor of something new.
NOAA provides strategic and important information to the on-scene
coordinator, either the Coast Guard or EPA, as the Science Coordinator.
They provide information to help track where the oil is moving to. They
are in charge of restoration efforts after spill clean up has occurred.
However, NOAA's focus is not on response and oil recovery, but on
restoration and habitat recovery. NOAA does not even receive R&D
funding from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
I believe the R&D program originally envisioned by Congress after
that awful Valdez spill was to provide better technologies to prevent
the oil from causing so much devastation. That means being able to
collect it, burn it or disperse it. The Coast Guard and the Mineral
Management Service are the two agencies that conduct the most research
in these areas. Although NOAA's scientific contribution to clean-up
after oil discharges is world-class, I do not believe being Chair of
this interagency committee is an appropriate role for them.
I urge this committee to support passage of this amendment.
Chair Baird. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Woolsey. Do I have time or should I take my own time?
Are you going to give us----
Mr. Inglis. Well, actually----
Chair Baird. You will have five minutes if you seek it
after Mr. Inglis is done.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay.
Mr. Inglis. Well, let me reclaim my time then and ask
another question so that you can think about this. So the
question number one is NOAA as the Chair as opposed to Coast
Guard. The second one is that there is an interesting provision
you have got about field testing. It sounds like it may be a
good idea. It is different than what we have done before. As I
understand it, U.S. agencies have had to participate with other
countries in field testing because it is so difficult for us to
get field-testing permits. So it may be a good idea to do some
field tests, which, as I understand it, means dumping some oil
in the ocean and seeing what happens, and so it may be a good
idea. I am sort of curious about the process by which you came
to that conclusion. Like I say, I am not necessarily doubting
that concept. It is just a fairly new approach for the United
States.
So with those two questions, I yield back the balance of my
time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird. Does anyone else wish to be recognized on the
amendment?
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird. The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
In response to field testing, that language is in the 1990
Act, so I don't think we changed anything in that. It was just
brought forward. Maybe they haven't been doing enough with it
and maybe we should be doing more, but at least we want to
recognize that it is part of what was, and we thought it was a
good idea then.
Mr. Inglis. If the gentlelady would yield, it is just
interesting that apparently the permitting for such a field
test is very difficult to accomplish because you really are--
you are dumping oil in the ocean. But if there is a way to
streamline it, it sounds like it may be worth pursuing, you
know, try it out.
Ms. Woolsey. And possibly using computer models instead of
our oceans to show what could happen.
Now, I would like to go on. Thank you. Reclaiming my time.
My concern, Mr. Inglis, and certainly Mr. Chair, with the
Inglis amendment is that it preserves the status quo. Now,
there is nobody that respects and supports the United States
Coast Guard more than I. I serve two Coast Guard bases--well, I
serve one Coast Guard base twice in my district, the Two Rock
Coast Guard facility. They are the best partners any community
could have. But their focus now is homeland security, and
because of that, I believe we should be looking elsewhere. I
want them to be part of the triad that is going to be running
this show but I believe that NOAA is the answer to be the Chair
of it.
Part of what we are trying to do in this bill is to
restructure our federal oil spill research and prevention and
frankly breathe some new life into this area. Unfortunately, as
it stands, the Coast Guard, who are currently in charge of
these efforts under the interagency coordinating committee on
oil pollution research, seems to be focused more on homeland
security. So under the leadership of the Coast Guard, the
coordinating committee hasn't produced an oil pollution
research and technology plan since 1997. That was 12 years ago,
and the plan has been in place for 20 years and they have only
put that plan together once. They really--this really is not
their focus, and we need them desperately but we don't need
them to be doing the nitty gritty, and NOAA is a nitty-gritty
kind of agency as far as I can tell when they work with me.
That is why I put NOAA at the head of the Committee in H.R.
2693 because their science and their expertise is absolutely
world class and I have--as I said, I not only don't have
anything against the Coast Guard, I actually absolutely support
them and think they are wonderful but I believe NOAA is better
suited to lead this effort at this time.
So Mr. Chair, because of this, I oppose the Inglis
amendment.
Chair Baird. I thank the gentlelady. I appreciate the
question raised by the gentleman from South Carolina and I
appreciate the response from the sponsor of the legislation,
and this is an issue that I think merits perhaps further
discussion between now and final markup and I would be happy to
recognize the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to withdraw
the amendment at this point and hope that we can continue the
discussion as we move toward the Full Committee with just this
thought, that, you know, it seems to me that when you have got
a spill, the thing you need is boats and booms and containment
devices and pumps, and my experience is, that is what the Coast
Guard knows how to do. They do boats, they do pumps, they do
booms, they do collection things, and that is what they are
good at. NOAA seems to be good at other things and so they
don't really have the resources, a little bit like the
situation we have had. The opposite argument I guess has been
in Antarctica about who pays for the boats down there and who
does the boats, and NOAA is not so great at boats, it seems to
me. NSF in that case is not so great at boats.
Ms. Woolsey. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Inglis. Sure, I would be happy to.
Ms. Woolsey. With the Cosco Busan spill, the Coast Guard
was there doing exactly what they were supposed to do. What was
missing was the equipment and the strategies for what NOAA
knows what the tides will be doing, where the oil will be going
and that is--and I don't think--I am sure that the Coast Guard
will continue to do what the Coast Guard does with its big
equipment, but we need new clean-up equipment. We need new ways
of training volunteers, for one thing also. The Coast Guard is
not going to do that, I am sure. But when we watched it, we
were absolutely proud of our Coast Guard but we weren't proud
that a lot of what they needed to be working with wasn't even
available and hadn't even been thought about. And we wouldn't
expect them to be doing that when they are so focused on
homeland security. And certainly their boats are always
available but we think the committee could be led by more
scientific leadership.
Mr. Inglis. Reclaiming my time. I think the gentlelady
makes two important points. One is with training volunteers.
You are trying to clean up a spill or contain a spill. It is
sort of how to hard to see how volunteers exactly do that.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, it wouldn't be all volunteers. May I--
will you yield back? I am sorry.
Mr. Inglis. I will just make sure I am getting the point
across, is that when you are getting out there to try to
contain a spill and get around it with containment vessels,
there may be a role for people in speedboats helping out, but
on the other hand, it is probably a matter of really heavy
equipment getting out there to get in place. Now, once the
spill has happened and there is some remediation and we need
birds cleaned up and things like that, certainly there is an
opportunity for volunteers. But again, I am not real sure
that--the Coast Guard is a place that has big boats and they
are moving in with a lot of power and heavy metal. They don't
exactly have time for volunteers to be jumping in with their
johnboats.
Chair Baird. If the gentleman----
Ms. Woolsey. Would you yield?
Mr. Inglis. Sure, I would be happy to yield.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chair?
Chair Baird. Go ahead.
Ms. Woolsey. It wasn't--yes, the birds of course and the
beaches, but the fisherman, they weren't speedboats. These are
our big trawling, you know, fishing vessels that were out there
with the booms on each, you know. They weren't adequate. They
had no way to--they could have been much more helpful and
useful had there been a way to do it.
Mr. Inglis. Reclaiming my time. I would just point out that
in that moment, what I would be looking for is somebody who
really knows how to operate a boat, which seems to me the Coast
Guard. I am not sure that NOAA scientists really know how to
operate a boat.
Chair Baird. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Inglis. Yes.
Chair Baird. I think your point is well taken about the on-
scene response. Remember that this bill has to do with the
research side of it, and I think what we can do is--I
appreciate the gentleman's offer to withdraw the amendment. I
think what happens in a positive sense is, both of you are
making very good points but I think they are a bit orthogonal
in terms of what the issue before us is, and so what we can try
to do in discussion before final markup is find a way to
address your concern about the on-the-scene jurisdiction
management of the hardware, et cetera, and Ms. Woolsey's
concern about the need for ongoing research and the apparent
limited application of that kind of research, and that is what
I would hope we could discuss before the next markup.
Mr. Inglis. Yes. So Mr. Chair, I am happy to withdraw the
amendment at this point and to continue the discussion as we go
to markup.
Chair Baird. I appreciate that, and we will work together,
the three of us, and anyone else who is interested to do that.
I appreciate that very much.
With the second-degree amendment having been withdrawn, the
vote occurs on the manager's amendment offered by Ms. Woolsey.
All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and
the amendment is agreed to.
The third amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the Chair. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2693 offered by Mr. Baird of
Washington, amendment number 017.
Chair Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize myself for
five minutes to explain the amendment.
This amendment is intended to expand the current
interagency program and related assessments in two ways. First,
the amendment ensures the program will involve research and
development into new technologies and methods to respond to oil
pollution in arctic regions. As polar ice continues to melt,
the new channels are emerging that allow for increased vessel
traffic and also expanded oil exploration in the region. As
arctic transportation increases, we need to have technologies
in place to deal with oil spills in these unique environments.
Second, this amendment inserts a new requirement into the
assessment section of the bill. The assessment should include
an investigation into the economic incentives and barriers to
the development of new technologies for oil pollution response.
Because large oil spills happen infrequently but carry the
possibility of an environmental disaster, it is important that
we are creating the correct incentive structure for the
development of technologies to mitigate and prevent such an
accident. This is a commonsense amendment. I urge its adoption.
[The prepared statement of Chair Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair Brian Baird
My amendment is intended to expand the current Interagency Program
and related Assessment in two ways. First, the amendment ensures that
the Program will involve research and development in to new
technologies and methods to respond to oil pollution in arctic regions.
As the polar ice continues to melt, new channels are emerging that
allow for increased vessel travel. As arctic transportation increases,
we need to have technologies in place to deal with oil spills in these
unique environments.
Second, my amendment inserts a new requirement into the Assessment
section of the bill. The Assessment should include an investigation
into the economic incentives and barriers to the development of new
technologies for oil pollution response. Since large oil spills happen
infrequently but carry the possibility of an environmental disaster, it
is important that we are creating the correct incentive structure for
the development of technologies to mitigate such an accident.
This is a commonsense amendment, and I urge its adoption.
Chair Baird. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed
to.
The fourth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan. Mr. Lujan, are you
ready to proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Lujan. Yes, Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chair Baird. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2693, amendment number 018,
offered by Mr. Lujan of New Mexico.
Chair Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
gentleman from New Mexico for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Congresswoman Woolsey, for your work on the bill. It is
important that the federal oil pollution research and
development efforts consider incidents that occur in locations
across the country, coastal waters, inland waters and on land.
Since the original interagency program focused primarily on
coastal oil spills, my amendment adds new requirements to the
program assessment and plan to consider and investigate
technologies and methods to address oil discharges on land and
inland waters. This amendment is based on comments from
witnesses at the June 4th Energy and Environment hearing and
conversations with related federal agencies involved in the
interagency program.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank
you for your consideration. I yield back my time.
Chair Baird. Is there further discussion of the amendment?
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird. Yes, Ms. Woolsey is recognized.
Ms. Woolsey. I would just like to thank Congressman Lujan
for his addition to this legislation.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. I concur with that. I
think it is an important addition and I appreciate his insights
and contribution.
Any further comments on the amendment? If no, the vote
occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed,
no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The fifth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis. Are you ready
to proceed with your amendment, Mr. Inglis?
Mr. Inglis. Yes, Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2693, amendment number 157,
offered by Mr. Inglis of South Carolina.
Chair Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
gentleman from South Carolina for five minutes to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment will
ensure that the technologies and techniques that emerge from
the oil spill research program are helpful to non-federal oil
pollution response agencies. At our hearing two weeks ago, we
learned that the California Office of Spill Prevention and
Response felt that there were several deficiencies in oil spill
research. We also learned that there was work at the federal
level that could meet those deficiencies. This amendment will
push federal agencies to communicate significant research
advancements to State and local oil spill teams and improve
their ability to respond to spills. So I would urge the
adoption of the amendment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
This amendment will ensure that the technologies and techniques
that emerge from the oil spill research program are helpful to non-
federal oil pollution response agencies. At our hearing two weeks ago,
we learned that the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response
felt there were several deficiencies in oil spill research. We also
learned that there was work at the federal level that could meet those
deficiencies. This amendment will push federal agencies to communicate
significant research advancements to State and local oil spill teams
and improve their ability to respond to spills.
Chair Baird. I commend the gentleman for his amendment. I
think it is very constructive.
Any other comments from additional Members of the panel on
this amendment? I would urge support myself with no additional
comments. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. The
ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. I thank the
gentleman for his amendment.
Are there any other amendments? If no, the vote is on the
bill, H.R. 2693, as amended. All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the
ayes have it.
I recognize myself to offer a motion. I move that the
Subcommittee favorably report H.R. 2693 as amended to the Full
Committee. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to
prepare the necessary Committee report and make any technical
changes and conforming--technical and conforming changes to the
bill in accordance with the recommendation of the Subcommittee.
The question is on the motion to report the bill favorably.
Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably
reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
upon the table. Members will have two subsequent calendar days
in which to submit supplemental Minority or additional views on
the measure.
I want to thank Members for their attendance. This
concludes our Subcommittee markup.
[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 2693, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster
Section-by-Section Analysis of
H.R. 2693: THE FEDERAL OIL SPILL RESEARCH PROGRAM ACT
Title: Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act
Purpose: To amend Title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and for
other purposes.
Section 1: Short Title
Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act
Section 2: Federal Oil Spill Research Committee
Section 2 directs the President to establish an interagency
committee to be known as the Federal Oil Spill Research Committee
(`Committee'). The President shall designate a representative of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to serve as Chairperson
of the Committee, and the members of the Committee shall include
representatives from NOAA, the United States Coast Guard, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and such other federal agencies as the
President may designate.
Section 2 requires the Committee to: 1) coordinate a federal oil
spill research program (`Program') to coordinate oil pollution
research, technology development, and demonstration among the federal
agencies, in cooperation and coordination with industry, institutions
of higher education, research institutions, State and tribal
governments, and other relevant stakeholders; 2) complete a research
assessment (`Assessment') on the status of oil spill prevention and
response capabilities; and 3) develop a federal oil spill research plan
(`Plan'). The Assessment will provide the Committee with the
information necessary to create the Plan.
Section 3: Federal Oil Spill Research Program
Section 3 requires the Committee to establish a Program for
conducting oil pollution research, development, and demonstration. The
Program shall focus on new technologies, practices, and procedures that
provide for effective and direct response to prevent, detect, recover,
or mitigate oil discharges.
Section 4: Federal Research Assessment
Section 4 instructs the Committee to submit to Congress an
Assessment of the status of oil spill prevention and response
capabilities that identifies current oil pollution research and
development programs, identifies regional oil pollution research needs
and priorities, assesses the status of knowledge of oil pollution
prevention, response, and mitigation technologies, and assesses the
status of real-time data available to mariners, researchers, and
responders. The Assessment shall be subject to a 90-day public comment
period and shall incorporate public input as appropriate. The Committee
is required submit the Assessment to Congress no later than one year
after the enactment of Section 4.
Section 5: Federal Research Interagency Plan
Section 5 directs the Committee to develop a Plan to establish
federal oil spill research and development priorities. In developing
the Plan, the Committee shall consider and utilize recommendations from
the National Academy of Sciences, as well as State, local, and tribal
governments. The Plan will make recommendations for improving oil spill
recovery, mitigation, technologies, practices, procedures, and the
quality of real-time data available to mariners, researchers, and
responders. The Assessment shall be subject to a 90-day public comment
period and shall incorporate public input as appropriate. The Committee
is required to submit the Plan to Congress no later than one year after
the submission of the Assessment.
Section 6: Extramural Grants
Section 6 instructs the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the
Administrator of NOAA, to award competitive grants to institutions of
higher education and other research institutions to advance research,
development, and demonstration of technologies for preventing,
detecting, or mitigating oil discharges in accordance with the goals
and priorities of the Plan. The Secretary shall incorporate a
competitive, merit-based process for awarding grants under Section 6.
Section 7: Annual Report
Section 7 requires the Committee to submit an annual report to
Congress, concurrent with the annual submission of the President's
budget, describing the activities and results of the Program during the
previous fiscal year and outlining objectives for the next fiscal year.
Section 8: National Academy of Science Participation
Section 8 instructs the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the
Administrator of NOAA, to contract with the National Academy of
Sciences to assess and evaluate the status of federal oil spill
research and development prior to the enactment of the Federal Oil
Spill Research Program Act and to submit: 1) an assessment of the
program prior to enactment of the legislation; 2) a report to the
Committee evaluating the conclusions and recommendations from the
Assessment to be utilized in the creation of the Plan; and 3) a report
to Congress evaluating the Committee's Plan, no later than one year
after the Committee submits the Plan.
Section 9: Technical and Conforming Changes
Section 9 makes technical and conforming changes to the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990.
XXIV. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 2693, THE OIL
POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2010
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Gordon. Good morning. The Committee will come to
order.
Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and Technology
meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 2693, the Oil
Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act
of 2010, and H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling
Technology Research and Development Act. We will now proceed
with the markup.
Today the Committee will consider two bills that address
oil spill cleanup technologies and response coordination, as
well as research and development of safe drilling technologies.
First, we will consider H.R. 2693, authored by Ms. Woolsey
of California. This bill was introduced and marked up in the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment last summer. Ms.
Woolsey's foresight in introducing this legislation last year
put us one step closer to advancing a robust Federal research
and development program on oil spill response, and I thank Ms.
Woolsey for her foresight.
At the time, Ms. Woolsey was responding to a spill in her
district. But the Deepwater Horizon accident and the subsequent
response effort have made the intent of this bill all the more
relevant today. In light of that, the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to be marked up today sets up a more efficient
Federal management structure, reprioritizes the research and
development activities, and provides for more robust oversight
and accountability of the interagency R&D program.
Second, we will consider H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and
Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Act.
This bill amends Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
which authorized the Secretary of Energy to establish an Ultra-
Deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas and Other
Petroleum Resources Research and Development program. As a
long-time champion of this program, Mr. Hall recognized its
potential for developing technologies to prevent and mitigate
oil spills, and worked closely with us in drafting this bill.
The bill makes a series of changes to the 999 program,
including a shift in the focus and funding of the program to
research and development of technologies for safety and
accident prevention and mitigation. This bill will also
streamline the operations of the program.
It is our hope that with passage of this bill, activities
conducted under Section 999 will better serve the Nation's
needs for the development of advanced and improved
environmental and worker safety technologies and practices,
while also providing a Federal resource for technical expertise
in this field.
This bill is the product of significant bipartisan
collaboration, and I want to thank Mr. Hall and his staff for
their continued good work as we move this legislation out of
Committee and to the Floor.
The two bills before us today help to ensure that all
stakeholders, including the Federal Government, industry, and
academia, are better equipped to prevent and respond to such
accidents in the future.
Let me also bring up another point. As I think everyone on
this Committee knows, it has been a long tradition of the
Committee to request that amendments be presented by 10:00 the
day before the bill is brought up. There is a good reason for
this, and that is, particularly when we are at a Full Committee
markup, that we want to send a bill to the Floor that doesn't
have unintended consequences by a late amendment, and that is
the reason that they need to be vetted. That doesn't mean that
we are not going to hear an amendment that might be brought
late. It just makes it a higher burden on the person who brings
it. Our Committee staff--I mean our Members have been very good
in that. We had a couple of amendments both Democrat and
Republican this time that were a little late, although we did
have notice on some of those. So again, let me--and I know part
of the problem is just getting legislative counsel to get
things through. So let me just say once again, everybody, to
try to get those up on time.
Let me also give a quick overview of what our intentions
are for the rest of this month. We have a nuclear energy
research bill that we think is important and good that will
move forward research in the fourth-generation design that
could make nuclear energy safer and less expensive, also, less
likely to proliferate and hopefully less waste to have to
store. So that is in the works in a bipartisan way.
We also have a NASA reauthorization that we are struggling
with and we hope that the first of next week that we can have a
good discussion about where we think we are going on that. As I
had mentioned to someone earlier, when you try to put two tons
of canaries in a one-ton box, it makes it tough, but we are
still trying to stuff them in there.
And finally, we hope to have a rare earth minerals bill. As
you might remember from our testimony, 90 to 95 percent of the
rare earth mineral production in the world is in the hands of
the Chinese. There were some hints from them earlier that they
might try to restrict those to the rest of the world. The
reason that is important is that those rare earth minerals in
small amounts can significantly increase the efficiency of
alternative energy and telecommunication, as well as a lot of
other products. I just returned from a very quick, jet-lagged
trip to Brussels to testify before our equivalent in the EU
Parliament, and requested that they also take up rare earth
minerals. I think we are going to see them do that so that
hopefully there can be some joint research, as we are both in
the same boat and can help each other in terms of that basic
research where there really isn't a first-to-market advantage.
So I thank you all for your attendance and participation
this morning. I look forward to a productive markup.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
Good morning, and welcome. Today the Committee will consider two
bills that address oil spill cleanup technologies and response
coordination, as well as research and development of safe drilling
technologies.
First, we will consider H.R. 2693 authored by Ms. Woolsey of
California. This bill was introduced and marked up in the Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment last summer.
Ms. Woolsey's foresight in introducing this legislation last year
put us one step closer to advancing a more robust Federal research and
development program on oil spill response.
At the time, Ms. Woolsey was responding to the spill in her
district. But the Deepwater Horizon accident and the subsequent
response effort have made the intent of this bill all the more relevant
today. In light of that, the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
be marked up today sets up a more efficient Federal management
structure, reprioritizes the research and development activities, and
provides for more robust oversight and accountability of the
interagency R&D program.
Next, we will consider H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas
Drilling Technology Research and Development Act. This bill amends
Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which authorized the
Secretary of Energy to establish an Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional
Onshore Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources research and
development program. As the long-time champion for this program, Mr.
Hall recognized its potential for developing technologies to prevent
and mitigate oil spills, and worked closely with us in drafting this
bill.
The bill makes a series of changes to the 999 program, including a
shift in the focus and funding of the program to research and
development of technologies for safety and accident prevention and
mitigation. This bill will also streamline the operations of the
program.
It is our hope that with passage of this bill, activities conducted
under Section 999 will better serve the nation's needs for development
of advanced and improved environmental and worker safety technologies
and practices, while also providing a Federal resource for technical
expertise in this field.
H.R. 5716 is the product of significant bipartisan collaboration,
and I want to thank Mr. Hall and his staff for their continued good
work as we move this legislation out of Committee and to the floor.
The two bills before us today help to ensure that all
stakeholders--including the Federal Government, industry, and
academia--are better equipped to prevent and respond to such accidents
in the future.
I thank you all for your attendance and participation this morning,
and I look forward to a productive markup.
Chairman Gordon. I now recognize Mr. Hall to present his
opening remarks.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the disaster in the Gulf nears now, what, about three
months and we await the results of the latest attempt to cap
the well and stop the leak, our understanding of the precise
causes of the accident and the missteps in the days that
followed remain unclear even now. These unanswered questions
really should serve to advise against temptations to overreact,
especially given the importance of the offshore oil and gas
industry to the Gulf Coast economy and America's energy
independence goals. Regardless of the ultimate causes of and
best responses to the disaster, it makes sense to continue
pursuing improvements to safe and environmentally responsible
drilling operations as well as effective spill response
systems.
The first bill we consider, H.R. 2693, amends the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990. This bill was introduced last year and
had gone through a subcommittee markup. The current bill
illustrates the need to update certain aspects of the research
and development title of the Oil Pollution Act since its
passage 20 years ago. Further, it will be important for us to
continue to exercise our Congressional duties and perform the
necessary oversight to ensure that the laws we pass are being
implemented and certainly carried out.
Today we mark up an amendment in the nature of a substitute
that changes the bill in ways that seek to address members'
concerns as well as concerns expressed by expert witnesses. I
applaud the author's willingness to move her bill in a
direction that alleviates these concerns, and while there are
still some unresolved issues, the approach of the ANS in
correcting the problem of insecure law is more in the line with
what we heard from scientists, industry and we heard from
stakeholders that it should be.
The second bill we consider amends the drilling
technologies R&D program established by section 999 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. I led and helped work with the
creation of this program in 2005 and I believe it has
contributed significantly to recent technological advances that
are enabling recovery of energy supplies that we know existed
but we were unable to access. The program relies on established
program structure and network of worldwide private and public
sector experts. The funding for the program is drawn from the
taxes paid by the industry on oil leases, and that money is
paid back with eventual royalties on oil and natural gas that
is discovered and used as a result of the program. I have
always said that this program is a win-win for taxpayers. Not
only do Americans move in the direction of energy independence
but the program pays for itself. Further, this is the only R&D
program in the Federal Government capable of addressing
drilling safety and accident prevention-related technology
needs in a timely and effective manner.
As the present spill in the Gulf illustrates, we should
encourage further research into this vital area so that we are
best able to amend needed resources safety and effectively.
Unfortunately, despite its clear growing in importance, this
program along with most other fossil fuel R&D activities,
remains targeted by the Administration and others in Congress
for termination. I think this represents a clear
misprioritization and I am glad that Chairman Gordon agrees and
has worked very closely with us on the vehicle before us today.
I may quibble with some of the details but I believe this
vehicle represents a reasonable compromise that will preserve
and strengthen this successful program.
Before I close, I do want to say a word about the process,
as the chairman has. Many amendments including one of my own
were filed well after the 10:00 a.m. deadline. However, the
majority of the Republican colleagues worked hard and met or
came very close to meeting the submission deadline. I may have
more to say about this as we move forward today but I do want
to mention amendments introducing significant policy shift or
additions should be, we wish they would be, filed earlier
rather than later so members and staff might thoroughly review
and prepare for their consideration. I know the chairman agrees
with this as he stated in the past and stated today.
Again, I thank the chairman and the majority for working
with Republicans on both bills and I look forward to continuing
this result and find a good result, continue our effort as
these vehicles move through the legislative process.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
As the disaster in the Gulf nears three full months and we await
the results of the latest attempt to cap the well and stop the leak,
our understanding of the precise causes of the accident--and the
missteps in the days that followed--remain unclear. These unanswered
questions should serve to advise against temptations to overreact to
the disaster, especially given the importance of the offshore oil and
gas industry to the Gulf Coast economy and America's energy
independence goals.
Regardless of the ultimate causes of and best rest responses to the
disaster it makes sense to continue pursuing improvements to safe and
environmentally responsible drilling operations, as well as effective
spill response systems. This Committee will play a key role in this
effort, and the legislation before us today will have a significant
impact on future drilling and environmental response mitigation
efforts.
The first bill we will consider, H.R. 2693, amends the Federal Oil
Spill Research Program Act. This legislation was introduced last year
and had gone through a subcommittee markup, demonstrating once again
this Committee's foresight of the research and development needs of the
nation. Today, we markup an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
that changes the bill in ways that reflect the concerns of members on
both sides of the aisle and testimony we received both last year and
last month. . . .
The second bill we will consider amends the drilling technologies
R&D program established by Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. I led creation of this program in 2005, and I believe it has
contributed significantly to recent technological advances that are
enabling recovery of energy supplies that we knew existed but were
unable to access. Further, with its established program structure and
network of worldwide private and public sector experts, it is the only
R&D program in the Federal Government capable of addressing priority
drilling safety and accident prevention-related technology needs in a
timely and effective manner.
Unfortunately, despite its clear and growing importance, the
program remains targeted by the Administration and others in Congress
for termination. I think this represents a clear mis-prioritization,
and I am glad that Chairman Gordon agrees and worked closely with me on
the bill before us today. I may quibble with some of the details, but I
believe the committee print represents a reasonable compromise that
will preserve and strengthen this successful program.
Again, I thank the Chairman and the majority for working with
Republicans on both of these bills, and I look forward to continuing
this effort as these vehicles move through the legislative process.
I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Members may place
statements in the record at this point.
Chairman Gordon. We will now consider H.R. 2693, the Oil
Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act
of 2010. As I mentioned earlier, this is Ms. Woolsey's bill,
but I understand that she is going to wait to talk more about
it until her amendment. So I will now recognize Mr. Hall to
present any remarks on the bill.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the wake of the Exxon Valdez accident, Congress enacted
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This law addressed deficiencies
in response activities, adjusted natural resource damage
assessments, clarified issues related to liability concerns and
encouraged a research and development program to help prepare
us for any future spills. Twenty years later, Congress is
responding to a major oil spill that will be the catalyst for
major change in exploring and producing oil and natural gas.
Members have asked many questions regarding the success of the
research and development program spelled out in the Oil
Pollution Act.
Last month the Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a
hearing to discuss the state of cleanup technologies and what
is actually needed moving forward to provide the necessary
tools to those who respond to disasters. It was clear from this
hearing that our Nation has made little progress in these
cleanup technologies over the last 20 years.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute is a good
effort to address the many concerns that members on both sides
of the aisle had with the introduced version. The ANS maintains
the Coast Guard as the chair of the Interagency Committee but
whittles down the participants on the Committee to Coast Guard,
NOAA, EPA and the Department of Interior. While I understand
the concern that the Interagency Committee was too wieldy, we
heard testimony that the current structure works. So I am left
wondering if this is a case of a solution in search of a
problem given that these agencies did not express a problem
with the current structure. I am pleased to see that they are
increasing reporting requirements and duties of the chair to
ensure greater accountability and information for Congress. We
must also do our due diligence and perform the necessary
oversight so the lapses of the last 20 years are not repeated.
I am also a bit concerned that the direction of the ANS has
shifted the focus of the underlying statute to concentrate much
more on the environmental effects of the cleanup technologies
rather than the effectiveness of the technologies themselves.
While researching and understanding the environmental effects
of technology use is important and should definitely be a part
of this program, it should not be to the detriment of the
overreaching focus of the law which reads ``research,
technology, development and demonstration.'' I understand that
there will be an amendment offered today that will alleviate
these concerns, so hopefully the bill that is reported out is
more balanced between the two.
A provision in the ANS that amends the section of
international cooperation has given me pause. Coordination and
collaboration with other nations and foreign research entities
on cleanup standards is a highly contentious issue, and all we
need to do to see this is to read the reports of the last three
months where foreign aid was offered in the cleanup of the
Deepwater Horizon. Offers were made to the U.S. government, to
BP and sometimes to both. There has been a lot of confusion as
to who has the authority to accept the assistance, and there
have been suggestions that assistance was rebuffed solely due
to the cost of the equipment. Some international assistance
could not be accepted because the technologies were not
compatible with our own. It would be more helpful for the
international research coordination and collaboration to focus
on developing ways to make these technologies work together
before focusing on what cleanup standards should really be
used.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider
each amendment carefully. When the country is in the midst of a
crisis and Congress decides to act, it is possible for us to go
too far to fix things and end up causing unintended
consequences. Acting deliberatively and in a much more focused
manner will help the current situation and ultimately prevent
the necessity of having to go back and fix things that resulted
unexpectedly.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read
and open to amendment at any point and that the Members proceed
with amendments in order of the roster. Without objection, so
ordered.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
Chairman Gordon. Certainly. Do you want to address those
questions now so we can----
Mr. Hall. I will.
Chairman Gordon. OK. Sure.
Mr. Hall. Sure. I would ask the Chairman to confirm for the
Members a few matters in regard to the Full Committee markup
process for H.R. 2693 and the accompanying amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
First, Mr. Chairman, you are not asking unanimous consent
that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered
base text for the purposes of amendment?
Chairman Gordon. No, we are not.
Mr. Hall. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Historically, when
considering an ANS, this Committee after unanimous consent
request by the Chairman treated the ANS as base text for
purposes of amendment, allowing for two degrees of amendment.
Mr. Chairman, at our last Full Committee markup in April,
we discussed a matter of concern to both sides of the aisle and
that is the policy that Members try their best to file
amendments by 10 a.m. the day prior to a markup. Mr. Chairman,
during the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee markup, you
stated that the responsibility for getting things in on time
was on the Democratic Members as well as on the Republican
Members. For this markup, several amendments were not filed nor
shared with the minority until quite some time past the
deadline. I acknowledge that even one of my amendments was a
bit tardy. It is my understanding for the purposes of this
markup, Mr. Chairman, you are not going to be disinclined to
support those amendments that were substituted or shared in a
tardy fashion.
Chairman Gordon. As I stated in my earlier remarks, no,
they will not automatically be blocked but there will be a
higher burden placed on the person who has that amendment since
they need to be fully vetted.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your comments on
these issues and I thank you for the other many conferences
that we have held that you have been kind and free with your
time, and I thank you for that, and I withdraw my reservation.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
Chairman Gordon. Oh, Mr. Sensenbrenner is recognized.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yes, I noticed that most of the
amendments are drafted as amendments to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute. Wouldn't it be proper that the
amendment in the nature of a substitute be offered first so
that we have something to amend?
Chairman Gordon. You are correct, and that is what we are
trying to do.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. Well, thank you, Mr. Hall, and Mr.
Sensenbrenner, I think it is good to get those things
clarified. Now without objection, so ordered.
The first amendment on the roster is an amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Woolsey? Are you ready to proceed with your
amendment?
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 296, amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 2693 offered by Ms. Woolsey of California.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and just before I
explain the amendment, I would like just to briefly say how we
got to this amendment.
I think we all remember that a little over a year--well,
two years ago there was an oil spill in the San Francisco Bay,
and it was because of that experience that it became very clear
to this Member of Congress that there is a big question of who
is in charge of the prevention and the cleanup and taking care
of the lasting impacts to our environment. So I introduced H.R.
2693. That was a good idea then but it is an even better idea
now, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is a much
better fit since we have learned so much more since the Gulf
oil and the BP spill. So that was my introduction to how we got
here, and now I would like to explain the amendment.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute strikes and
replaces the language of H.R. 2693 to amend Title VII of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Section 2 of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute amends the membership structure of the
Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research to
better align and streamline the Coordinating Committee to
ensure that the research program is actually effective. This
Interagency Coordinating Committee includes representatives
from the Coast Guard, NOAA, the Department of the Interior and
EPA. The Interagency Committee is also required to collaborate
with the other Federal agencies listed in the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990, with the inclusion of the National Science Foundation.
Section 2 also includes roles for the chair of the
Interagency Committee, activities for the Committee to ensure
an ongoing, sustained and coordinated research effort, and an
information exchange to improve the accessibility and utility
of information among the Federal agencies, the research
community and emergency responders.
Section 3 includes a research and implementation plan to be
submitted to Congress 180 days after the date of enactment,
which shall be periodically updated. And the Interagency
Committee shall solicit the advice and guidance on the plan
from the Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and a 30-day
public comment period. The plan shall also be reviewed by the
National Academy of Sciences to assess its adequacy.
Section 4 of the bill includes several changes to the Oil
Pollution Research and Development Program. The amendment in
the nature of a substitute adds research elements such as
research, development and demonstration for new or improved
response capabilities and modeling for the recovery, removal
and disposal of oil. This includes mechanical capabilities for
the recovery of oil and chemical and biological methods such as
the use of dispersants, solvents and bioremediation
technologies and methods to address oil discharges on land and
in inland waters. And the EPA must focus on the development and
approval of technologies with maximum effectiveness and minimum
toxicity to the environment in both the near and long term.
Section 4, Mr. Chairman, also bolsters the research role of
NOAA by including language requiring NOAA to monitor and
evaluate the environmental effects of oil discharges throughout
the environment, including air quality and in sensitive and
high-risk areas.
Section 5 provides a simple provision for the Interagency
Committee to coordinate and cooperate with other nations and
foreign research entities in conducting oil pollution research,
development and demonstration activities including activities
related to oil recovery and cleanup standards.
Section 6 adds another layer of accountability to ensure
research and development activities by requiring the
Interagency Committee to submit an annual report to Congress
concurrent with the President's annual budget request.
Section 7 directs the chair of the Interagency Committee to
establish an Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee, in part
to provide an additional layer of oversight. The Advisory
Committee complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
FACA, with the exception that it will not expire. This
exception has been invoked so that the Advisory Committee may
provide advice and comment on an ongoing basis to ensure the
program and activities are sustained.
Section 7 also requires that the Advisory Committee be
compromised of representatives from non-governmental entities
to review, advise and comment on the Interagency Committee's
activities, including the management and functioning of the
Interagency Committee and the collaborating agencies, the
development of new or improved response capabilities and other
research and resources needed to develop a comprehensive oil
pollution research program.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the amendment in the nature of a
substitute alters the funding levels to carry out this section.
It increases the authorized levels from $22 million to $30
million, with an additional $16 million carved out for NOAA and
$2 million for the demonstration projects which totals $48
million. This amendment is the product of a cooperative effort
between both majority and minority Committee staff. They have
worked really hard on this, and I so appreciate it. The
amendment improves the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and ensures
that we are moving the country toward a more effective and
streamlined research program.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support
this very necessary amendment, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Lynn C. Woolsey
I have an amendment at the desk.
The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute strikes and replaces
the language of H.R. 2693 to amend Title 7 of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990.
Section 2 of the ANS amends the membership structure of the
Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research to better
align and streamline the coordinating committee to ensure that the
research program is effective. This Interagency Coordinating Committee
includes representatives from the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Interior and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Interagency Committee is
also required to collaborate with the other Federal agencies listed in
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 with the inclusion of the National
Science Foundation.
Section 2 also includes roles for the Chair of the Interagency
Committee; activities for the Committee to ensure an ongoing,
sustained, and coordinated research effort; and an information exchange
to improve the accessibility and utility of information among the
Federal agencies, the research community, and emergency responders.
Section 3 includes a research and implementation plan to be
submitted to Congress 180 days after the date of enactment, which shall
be periodically updated. And the Interagency Committee shall solicit
the advice and guidance on the plan from the Oil Pollution Research
Advisory Committee, the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
and a 30 day Public Comment period. The Plan shall also be reviewed by
the National Academy of Sciences to assess the adequacy of the plan.
Section 4 of the bill includes several changes to the Oil Pollution
Research and Development Program. The ANS adds research elements such
as research, development and demonstration for new or improved response
capabilities and modeling for the recovery, removal, and disposal of
oil--this includes mechanical capabilities for the recovery of oil and
chemical and biological methods such as the use of dispersants,
solvents, and bioremediation; technologies and methods to address oil
discharges on land and in inland waters; and the EPA must focus on the
development and approval of technologies with maximum effectiveness and
minimum toxicity to the environment in both near- and long-term.
Section 4 also bolsters the research role of NOAA by including language
requiring NOAA to monitor and evaluate the environmental effects of oil
discharges throughout the environment, including air quality; and in
sensitive and high risk areas.
Section 5 provides a simple provision for the Interagency Committee
to coordinate and cooperate with other nations and foreign research
entities in conducting oil pollution research, development and
demonstration activities, including activities related to oil recovery
and cleanup standards.
Section 6 adds another layer of accountability to ensure ongoing
research and development activities by requiring the Interagency
Committee to submit an annual report to Congress concurrent with the
President's annual budget request.
Section 7 directs the Chair of the Interagency Committee to
establish an Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee, in part, to
provide an additional layer of oversight. The Advisory Committee
complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) with the
exception that it will not expire. This exception has been invoked so
that the Advisory Committee may provide advice and comment on an
ongoing basis to ensure the program and activities are sustained.
Section 7 also requires that the Advisory Committee be comprised of
representatives from non-governmental entities to review, advise, and
comment on the Interagency Committee's activities, including the
management and functioning of the Interagency Committee and the
collaborating agencies; the development of new or improved response
capabilities; and other research and resources needed to develop a
comprehensive oil pollution research program.
Finally the ANS alters the funding levels to carry out this
section. It increases the authorized levels from $22 million to $30
million, with an additional $16 million carved out for NOAA and $2
million for the demonstration projects. This is a total of $48 million
dollars.
This amendment is the product of a cooperative effort between both
majority and minority Committee staff. The amendment improves the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 and ensures we are moving the country towards a
more effective and streamlined research program. I urge my colleagues
to support the amendment.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey, for your
leadership and good explanation.
Is there further discussion on the amendment? If not, the
second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey. Are you ready to
proceed with your amendment?
Ms. Woolsey. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment 162, amendment offered by Ms. Woolsey
of California to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, this simple amendment makes a
conforming correction to the word ``pollution'' and changes it
to ``discharge.'' The word ``discharge'' is defined in the
underlying law, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. I want to ensure
that we align the amendment in the nature of a substitute with
the use of the word ``discharge.''
With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Lynn C. Woolsey
I have an amendment at the desk.
This simple amendment makes a conforming correction to the word
``pollution'' and changes it to ``discharge.''
The word ``discharge'' is defined in the underlying law, the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990. I want to ensure that we align the Amendment in
the Nature of a Substitute with the use of the word ``discharge.''
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
amendment?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
Mr. Hall. I thank you. We support the amendment offered by
the author of the bill. The changes the amendment makes to the
ANS are simply consistent with the underlying Act and improves
the clarity of the Congressional intent. I urge passage of this
amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Opposed, no. The
ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The third amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. Are you ready to proceed
with your amendment?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 004, amendment offered by Mr.
Hall of Texas to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would insert the word
``containment'' into the bill in various places to elevate
containing oil as a concept on par with prevention, detection,
responding to and mitigating oil damages and discharges.
One of the major flaws in many government and industry
response plans seems to be the lack of focus on containment.
Once an oil discharge occurs, the fastest way to minimize the
impact is to contain the oil in as small a geographic area as
possible so while people work to stop a leak from happening,
others are making sure the oil doesn't spread so far within the
environment that cleanup becomes a much larger task.
Containment would allow the oil to be scooped up more easily
and would also allow for removal by burning the oil when it is
on the surface of the water. However, the oil has to be a
certain thickness before it will ignite. Containment is a
technique that could be applied at any time in the period from
the immediate aftermath of a spill until the cleanup is done.
By amending the ANS and the underlying statute to include the
idea as part of the research and development program, it will
help emphasize the utility of containment when industry submits
incident response plans to the Federal Government and when
government agencies accept those plans.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would insert the word
``containment into the bill in various places to elevate containing oil
as a concept on par with prevention, detection, responding to and
mitigating oil discharges.
One of the major flaws in many government and industry response
plans seems to be the lack of focus on containment. Once an oil
discharge occurs, the fastest way to minimize the impact is to contain
the oil in as small a geographic area as possible. So while people work
to stop a leak from happening, others are making sure the oil doesn't
spread so far within the environment that clean up becomes a much
larger task. Containment would allow the oil to be scooped up more
easily and would also allow for removal by burning the oil when it's on
the surface of the water. However, the oil has to be a certain
thickness before it will ignite.
Containment is a technique that could be applied at any time in the
period from the immediate aftermath of a spill until the clean up is
done. By amending the ANS and the underlying statute to include this
idea as part of the research and development program, it will help
emphasize the utility of containment when industry submits incident
response plans to the Federal Government and when government agencies
accept those plans.
I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, for that timely
amendment.
If there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on
the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes
have it.
The fourth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman from Washington, Dr. Baird. Are you ready to
proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Baird. I am indeed. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment 047, amendment offered by Mr. Baird of
Washington to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief on
this.
Analysis of the factors that led to the disaster in the
Gulf have indicated that decision-making and communication and
prioritization of responsibility all probably contributed to
this tragedy, with the loss of 11 lives and all the pollution
that has resulted. This amendment basically urges that we look
at human factors, communication, decision-making, et cetera as
part of the research agenda and it is a commonsense amendment.
This kind of measure is engaged in with the FAA, nuclear power
industry, defense department, et cetera. I think we ought to
apply it to this industry as well.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Baird.
Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Unfortunately, I am unable to support this type of
amendment. The underlying Act outlines the focus area the
research plan absolutely must address. The Interagency
Committee is tasked with assessing the current state of
knowledge, identifying significant gaps in research,
establishing research priorities, estimating the resources
needed to conduct this research and identifying in coordination
with states the research needed for the regional research
program. Within all these focus areas and with the individual
research elements already laid out in the Act and in the ANS, I
think it is safe to presume that risk assessment and risk
analysis will be conducted on a continuous basis.
How would the identification of information needed to
conduct risk assessment and risk analysis not be included in
the main focus area that I just mentioned? What do we gain by
identifying information in the research plan? If this was truly
a research necessity, wouldn't it be covered by the Interagency
Committee assessing the current status of knowledge and
identifying the significant research gaps? I see no reason to
include such a specific provision in a section of the bill that
talks of generalities and I am concerned that such a provision
would heavily shift the focus of the research from the purpose
of the bill, which is ``research, technology development and
demonstration'' to assessing the risk of human factors and
decision-making of causing oil spills.
I yield back my time, sir.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Dr. Baird is recognized.
Mr. Baird. I want to clarify. It is certainly not the
intent of this to shift the major focus of this enterprise to
human factors. However, I think it is absolutely evident that
the lack of attention to human factors in this industry very
likely contributed to this spill, and I am very respectful of
the gentleman's desire to support this industry but spills like
this are very likely the biggest threat to the viability of the
industry, let alone to the lives of the people who have been
lost and to the environmental impacts, and if we are going to
make this industry more safe, we absolutely have to attend to
human factors, and the history of enterprises like this is that
they tend not to address human factors until after a disaster.
That was the case with Three Mile Island. It was the case with
the airline that crashed in the Potomac River. And all those
other entities have made human factors a central part, and I
think it is the responsibility of this Congress to direct the
agencies and entities to focus on this measure for the safety
of the public.
Chairman Gordon. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Baird. I would be happy to.
Chairman Gordon. Did I understand you correctly in your
opening statement that this was not a novel approach but rather
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other regulatory agencies
already take this into consideration?
Mr. Baird. Absolutely. The postmortem on Three Mile Island
revealed that one of the reasons for that accident was human
factors and the inadequacy of attending to human factors in the
design of the plant and in the training of the staff
technicians there. When that airplane crashed into the Potomac
River some years ago, it had ice on the wings. The analysis of
the cockpit communications revealed that the copilot had grave
concerns about the ice on the wings. The pilot basically
overrode the copilot's concerns with the result of the loss of
multiple lives. FAA now has dramatically increased its
attention to human factors and changed the cockpit
communication rules.
We know the decisions along the line that led up to this
disaster in the Gulf had to do with communication, with
decision-making about a host of factors. We have scientific
analysis that tells us how to do that better and it has
apparently been largely neglected in this industry, and I think
we have again, not just a right as Congress but a
responsibility to direct the Committee at least to give some
attention to this and best practices.
Finally, our witnesses in the hearing in our subcommittee
repeatedly said, in fact, the minority's chosen witness, the
minority's witness said that the technology is in place to
prevent these spills, and it was human error that contributed
to the failure. Well, if human error contributed to this
failure and the minority witness so claimed, then it would seem
to be in the minority's interest to prevent that human error.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Baird
It was clear from our witnesses in our hearings that
there is insufficient research available on the human factors
involved in effectively preventing oil spills.
The Interagency Committee and all collaborating
agencies need to consider human components, like decision
making, when developing plans to protect the environment from
oil spills.
My amendment would require the Oil Pollution Research
and Technology Plan to identify information, including human
factors and decision making, necessary for conducting risk
assessment research to prevent oil spills.
Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
amendment?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
Mr. Hall. I am not opposed to research, just where this
amendment puts it in the bill. This info would already be
collected in the underlying Act. The Interagency Committee
assesses the current status of knowledge and identifies the
significant research gaps. This isn't a breaker of the bill or
cause anyone to vote for or against the bill. I just thought I
would want to get a question in the record, and I thank the
gentleman for his answers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I am unable to support this
type of amendment. The underlying Act outlines the focus area the
research plan must address. The Interagency Committee is tasked with
assessing the current status of knowledge, identifying significant gaps
in the research, establishing research priorities, estimating the
resources needed to conduct this research and identifying, in
coordination with States, the research needs for the regional research
program.
Within all these focus areas, and with the individual research
elements already laid out in the Act and in the ANS, I think it is safe
to presume that risk assessment and risk analysis will be conducted on
a continuous basis. How would the identification of information needed
to conduct risk assessment and risk analysis not be included in the
main focus areas I just mentioned? What do we gain by identifying this
information in the research plan? If this was truly a research
necessity, wouldn't it be covered by the Interagency Committee
assessing the current status of knowledge and identifying the
significant research gaps?
I see no reason to include such a specific provision in a section
of the bill that talks of generalities, and I am concerned that such a
provision would heavily shift the focus of the research from the
purpose of the bill which is ``research, technology development, and
demonstration,'' to assessing the risks of human factors and decision
making of causing oil spills.
Mr. Baird. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Chairman Gordon. All right. I think that we now have a
record on this, so if there further discussion? If no, those in
favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed, say no. The ayes have
it and the amendment is agreed to.
The fifth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko. Are you ready to
proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Tonko. Yes, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Gordon. I assume you have an amendment at the
desk?
Mr. Tonko. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 012, amendment offered by Mr.
Tonko of New York and Mr. Baird of Washington.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Only hours after the news hit about the terrible disaster
that was unfolding in the Gulf, the first thought of millions
of Americans was to try and help. For some, that meant offering
up technologies and ideas with which they are familiar on the
best way to recover and clean up the oil spill. In response to
this interest, a website and telephone number were set up to
take information on the public's suggestions. However, after
thousands of calls and submissions to the website, no one
seemed to know what happened to those ideas. As we watched
millions of gallons of oil continue to spill into the open
ocean, many ideas were still being evaluated. This kind of
backup cannot happen again, Mr. Chair. We must take the
opportunity through this legislation to correct the problem at
hand.
The Tonko-Baird amendment will make certain that this
doesn't happen again. Our amendment would make the research
plan as it exists include a methodology that provides for the
solicitation, the evaluation, pre-approval, the funding and
utilization of technologies and research projects developed by
the public and private sector in advance of future oil
discharges so that such technologies can be implemented if such
an incident for response is required again. It is my firm
belief that the innovation spirit of the American people can
solve any problem, but it is up to us in Congress to make
certain that that spirit can be developed in a way that
provides real outcomes. This channels that talent in a very
fundamental sort of way. I believe this amendment can do that
sort of improvement.
I want to thank Chairman Baird and his staff for working
with me on this amendment, and I urge our colleagues to support
the amendment and yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair,
to Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. I thank Mr. Tonko and commend him for his
leadership on this.
We certainly heard during our testimony from people who had
products or innovative ideas that they wanted to deploy should
there be a spill, and they had found it very, very difficult to
do so. That really is an opportunity lost, and the same applies
to researchers. Researchers often feel that they need to
understand certain aspects of what happens when oil is in the
water, but they don't have a mechanism to pre-stage that
research so it is ready in the event an incident occurs. Having
that pre-staged, ready to go, pre-approved and a mechanism by
which it can be deployed can immeasurably help us gather
information about real-world incidents, not just incidents in
the lab. So that is what Mr. Tonko is trying to do with the
technology element, and the research element that I have added
is related to that. Certainly I have heard from a number of
researchers and from incident commanders in the field who have
said, we wish we had a mechanism to gather this data ready to
go at our disposal but we just don't and there is just not time
once the incident has happened to develop that in an
expeditious manner. So that is the purpose of----
Chairman Gordon. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Baird. I would be happy to.
Chairman Gordon. Would this apply to Mr. Costner, the
product that he put forth in his testimony before the
Committee?
Mr. Baird. I think that is precisely what we are looking at
on the technology side. But there are also research studies
that have the same kind of implication, and I think that is
where Mr. Tonko is coming from. But I will yield back to Mr.
Tonko to respond to that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Baird
During the Deepwater Horizon disaster, we have seen
rapid response research through the NSF and real world testing
of new oil recovery technologies. However, during the years
since the Exxon Valdez spill, the amount of research on the
effects oil and dispersants in the marine environment declined.
We have learned from our hearings that we aren't
prepared with field research to conduct in the event of an oil
spill.
We need a mechanism by which the appropriate agency
can fund and pre-approve research and technologies to be
implemented and tested in the field in the event of a sizable
oil spill.
Our amendment would direct the Interagency Committee
to find the best mechanism by which to pre-approve and fund
public and private sector research and technology projects
related in order to expedite their implementation in the field
during an oil spill event.
Mr. Tonko. I agree with Mr. Baird's comments. I think that
there is a universe of talent that needs to have a better, more
formal connection to a process that can certainly help us in
response for incidents in the future.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Hall is
recognized.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and although I am not
necessarily opposed to the amendment, I am hoping the authors
of the bill could explain how this language would work and how
it differs from the National Contingency Plan, or the NCP. And
I apologize to Mr. Tonko, who tried to get in touch with me
earlier today. I didn't get a chance to call him back because I
am sure he would have cleared up some of the problems that we
had with it.
I have a question as to how this amendment would make the
current system any better. That is not a killer either, but how
does the language ensure that technologies that really do work
will be deployed when needed and not held up by some
bureaucratic red tape?
I will be offering an amendment later on that would ensure
that the one oil pollution technology testing facility our
Nation stays focused on its primary goal and not stray into
other areas that have resources at their disposal. If adopted,
would the language in this amendment strengthen the principle
of the amendment that I will be offering? Would either Mr.
Baird or Mr. Tonko answer that?
Mr. Tonko. I think what we are trying to accomplish with
the amendment is to have yet another gateway that allows for
product development or research opportunities to be exchanged
with the people who will be governing the response to these
situations. I think it just opens up the connection and the
possibilities for areas of involvement that people believe just
fit as a solution for the given situation. There were those who
thought they could help tremendously with the oil spill and
they need to have, I think, the sort of clustering opportunity,
the gathering of information that proves very useful.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Hall, if----
Mr. Hall. I yield back my time. I intend to vote for the
amendment.
Chairman Gordon. Since there is no further discussion, the
vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
The sixth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman California. Comrade Rohrabacher, are you ready
to proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
something non-controversial first, and that is, I would like to
thank the serious approach that Mr. Baird has taken to this
issue. My understanding of the challenges we face has been
enhanced by his leadership on this, and I appreciate that very
much.
But again, now to the controversial aspect of what I have
to say----
Chairman Gordon. And you do have an amendment at the desk?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I do. I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Gordon. And the clerk will report that amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 005, amendment offered by Mr.
Rohrabacher of California to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. So first let me preface my
remarks on the amendment by saying once again that we are
spending billions of dollars every year on global warming
research and very little on oil and natural gas drilling and
cleanup technology. In fact, the Department of Energy has
funneled all of their research funds for fossil fuels, critical
areas that account for a huge proportion of our Nation's annual
energy needs. All of that money has been funneled instead of
into making it safer to achieve the oil and gas we need and
that we depend upon, instead we channeled all of it into carbon
capture and sequestration. I am not sure there is any money
that is spent by the United States government that is more
foolish than that.
And what happens is, that leaves people in the private
sector to pick up the load. Kevin Costner is an example of, he
stepped up and put his own money into it, and then to add
insult to injury, we are spending taxpayer dollars on
foolishness, then we couldn't even get some sort of a stamp of
approval to use that technology so it stood there on the shelf
all of these years instead of being ready for a crisis moment
that we are in today.
Likewise, British Petroleum, who has limited resources,
channeled their resources into the politically correct
considerations of alternative energy sources while their
primary job was oil and gas development and they didn't spend
their money developing the technologies that would have made
that safer. So we need to make sure that that type of nonsense
doesn't put us in a situation ten years from now that is
similar to the one we are in.
So let me describe this amendment, which I believe will
correct certain oversights of the bill. This amendment that I
am proposing adds both natural seepage and pollution resulting
from the importation of oil from overseas to the list of
possible focus areas for research that needs to be looked at
among the list of priorities for research at the regional
level. In California, natural seepage is a major problem, a
major problem, and we need to have research into that to see
what can be done, what we should be doing to confront that
problem, as well as we need to make sure that we are fully
aware of the risks when we don't develop our offshore oil and
natural gas, which we haven't been. If we import more natural
gas and oil from overseas, there are risks that come with that,
and tankers are much more liable to have an accident than an
offshore oil rig.
One of the first things I voted for and I am proud to say
that I did vote for this, was requiring the double hulling of
oil tankers. That was 20 years ago. And there was a big debate
on that. It was a controversial issue, and I will have to
admit, some people in my own party were putting pressure on me
not to vote for double hulling, but that made sense.
So our research when it comes to trying to look at oil
spills and such, we should be taking in seepage and
transportation risks, and that is what my amendment provides
that we look at that as well. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. I thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Despite your
effort to try to make a bad argument for your amendment, it is
a good amendment, and if there is no further discussion, all in
favor, say aye.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Opposed, no. Oh, excuse me. Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. I don't think I can improve on it nor do any
damage to it. I yield back my time.
Chairman Gordon. So once again, all in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. Are you ready to proceed
with your amendment?
Mr. Smith of Texas. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 006, amendment offered by Mr.
Lamar Smith of Texas to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Smith of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires
the chairman of the interagency coordinating committee to
solicit advice and guidance in the development of the research
plan from third-party standard-setting organizations on issues
related to voluntary consensus standards. This is a commonsense
way of facilitating more industry involvement in the process
above and beyond any input from the Oil Pollution Research
Advisory Committee.
Industry is responsible for buying and commercializing the
equipment being developed under this program. Furthermore,
industry leaders have real-world operating experience and
understand the effectiveness of different types of
technologies. Accordingly, it makes sense to give industry some
input during the development of the research plan.
This amendment helps accomplish that goal, and I urge my
colleagues to support it and I will yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Lamar S. Smith
This amendment requires the Chairman of the Inter-agency
Coordinating Committee to solicit advice and guidance in the
development of the research plan from ``third party standard-setting
organizations on issues related to voluntary consensus standards.''
This is a common sense way of facilitating more industry
involvement in the process, above and beyond any input from the Oil
Pollution Research Advisory Committee.
Industry is responsible for buying and commercializing the
equipment being developed under this program.
Furthermore, industry leaders have real-world operating experience
and understand the effectiveness of different types of technologies.
Accordingly, it makes sense to give industry some input during the
development of the research plan.
This amendment helps accomplish that goal. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Smith, thank your for that excellent
amendment. It makes a good bill better.
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Hall is
recognized.
Mr. Hall. I thank you.
I support this amendment because it requires the
Interagency Committee to seek advice from some of the outside
experts who have been working for years in the field and have
probably the best sense of what the best practices for industry
have been and what they should be. Ultimately, industry is
going to be responsible for commercializing and purchasing of
the prevention and response technologies that will result from
this research and development program. Their exclusion from the
process in the underlying Act has allowed for a huge disconnect
to occur in the research to operations transition, and while
there is no way to tell if this contributed to the lack of
progress in technology and development and commercialization
for so long, I think it is prudent to ensure that the folks
that have the practical experience in dealing with these issues
to weigh in on the development of the research and develop the
plan. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you. I support this amendment because it requires the
Interagency Committee to seek advice from some of the outside experts
who have been working for years in the field and have the best sense of
what the best practices for industry have been and should be.
Ultimately, industry will be responsible for commercializing and
purchasing of the prevention and response technologies that result from
this research and development program. Their exclusion from the process
in the underlying act has allowed for a huge disconnect to occur in the
research to operations transition.
While there is no way to tell if this contributed to the lack of
progress in technology development and commercialization for so long,
it is prudent to ensure that folks that have the practical experiences
in dealing with these issues to weigh in on the development of the
research and development plan. I urge my colleagues to adopt this
amendment.
Chairman Gordon. If there is no further comments on the
amendment, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
The eighth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman from California. Again, Mr. Rohrabacher, are
you ready to proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I am. I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 008, amendment offered by Mr.
Rohrabacher of California to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I had previously mentioned, it is our responsibility in
the Science Committee and the responsibility of each of us
individually to do everything we can to make certain that
technologies are developed, tested and implemented to protect
people and the environment from real harm that is posed by oil
discharges. This amendment does that by removing the specific
directive that the EPA must perform the research rather than
all the members of the Interagency Committee. It clarifies the
language to direct the research to focus on the effects to
human health and the environment rather than simply toxicity of
the technologies developed.
Let me just note that there is no reason that I think that
just the EPA should be doing research and giving us their
benefit of their work. The Department of Interior, the Coast
Guard, NOAA, all of them have something to contribute as well
as the EPA.
Yield back.
Chairman Gordon. And is there further discussion on the
amendment? Dr. Baird is recognized.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Rohrabacher, I think there are a number of
points that are worthwhile in the amendment. I just want to
understand something and I may need to confer with counsel. The
way I understand the way it is worded, EPA is taken out, but
you are not saying--is it your intent to say EPA cannot do this
research?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, that is not my intention. My intention
is to have other agencies and their capabilities brought into
play rather than just excluding all of them and making it just
the EPA.
Mr. Baird. So in other words, if NOAA wanted to look at the
toxicity or--I think your expansion of the definition is
meritorious.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of counsel if that is
the actual effect of this? In other words, I don't want to
inadvertently exclude EPA. I also see Dr. Bartlett has a
comment he may want to offer. But let me ask counsel, we are
not excluding EPA from this by this language, we are just
saying other agencies could do it as well versus exclusively
EPA?
Counsel. Yes, and the underlying ANS is not ``rather than''
the Interagency Coordinating Committee but it does do a
specific callout for EPA under the auspices of the Interagency
Committee that has jurisdiction over this entire program.
Mr. Baird. When it gives a callout, does that de facto
exclude--does the existing language exclude other entities or
does it merely focus on EPA because of its known expertise in
this?
Counsel. That is correct. It does not exclude the other
agencies.
Mr. Baird. The existing language does not?
Counsel. Exactly.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Basically what we are doing is clarifying
the language to make sure that they know that these other
agencies should be included in the research efforts rather than
the possibility that they would think that it is just EPA.
Mr. Baird. I see the point. I support the intent,
absolutely. I just----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let us just note that in the current law,
none of them are specifically called out to do the research.
This certainly makes it clear that we would think that they
would be participating.
Mr. Baird. So you don't have opposition to EPA doing it,
you just want to make sure the other entities----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Baird. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Bartlett is recognized.
Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the
suggestion that we ought to be looking at the effects on human
health rather than toxicity.
Everything which is toxic does not have a negative effect
on human health. The classic research of Hans Selier of a half
a century ago in Montreal, Canada, indicated that we are better
off with low levels of stimulation, and I think it is very
appropriate that you look at the effects on human health rather
than toxicity. Almost everything in our environment is toxic if
you elevate it to an appropriate level. So looking at toxicity
is not the appropriate way to look at the effects on human
health, and very few people understand, EPA among them, that
low levels of stimulation are advantageous because they
exercise your immune system and make you better capable of
resisting real levels of threat.
So I think it is very appropriate that we look at effects
on human health rather than toxicity. Everything is toxic in
enough concentration. So if you are simply looking at toxicity,
you are going to put yourself in a little cocoon somewhere. Let
us look at the effects on human health. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, it does
focus on human health but it also does include the
environmental effects, so we are not just focusing on human
health. It would also be the effects on the environment. And I
agree, and as usual, Dr. Bartlett has been very stimulative in
his comments. But too much of a good thing, of course, could
overwhelm us.
Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
amendment? Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Just a little clarification, Mr. Chairman. The amendment
changes the language to development and testing from
development and approval, and I was just curious as to what the
impact of the change from testing and approval would result?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, approval has different standards
than testing, so we would like the Interagency Committee to
make sure that it can be involved with approving and testing of
this type of research.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, does the net effect have--does it
lower standards or does it increase standards?
Chairman Gordon. And you yield to Mr. Rohrabacher to----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Excuse me. Could you repeat the question?
Mr. Lujan. If the impact of changing the level of standards
from testing and approval, does the net effect of the amendment
increase standards or lower standards?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I don't think it has an impact on that.
Mr. Lujan. Then Mr. Chairman, what is the need for the
change from approval to testing?
Mr. Rohrabacher. We are making this basically aimed at
research rather than regulation, and this emphasizes that we
are talking about research rather than regulation.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. I don't think we have authority for any
regulation here anyway. Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think everybody remembers during the Committee hearings
that we heard from witnesses on the need to develop new
responses and technologies that have minimum impact on the
environment and human health and maximum effectiveness in
responding to oil spills. That is clearly the basis for this
legislation. So you have to know, I oppose this amendment
because the EPA is clearly the best agency equipped to analyze,
monitor and conduct research on the health and environmental
effects of oil pollution technologies and specifically chemical
dispersants. It is their mandate as an agency. That doesn't
mean that other research universities or other agencies won't
also be working on it. There is nothing in this legislation
that says only EPA can do this. But they have kind of--they
need, pardon the expression, a focus. I was going to say a kick
in the butt, but they need a focus. We need to tell them that
again they have to focus on this.
So I really urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment,
and I yield back the--well, I would yield to Dr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. Thank you.
The spirit of allowing--of encouraging broad-spectrum
research by the agencies makes a lot of sense. The fear I have,
and I think one of the historical trends seems to be from our
understanding is that if sort of everybody is in charge, then
nobody may be in charge, and traditionally EPA has the most
horsepower at its disposal and the most regulatory authority,
though that is not our bailiwick, but it has the research
horsepower to look at toxicity studies probably more than most
of the other agencies involved. And the fear is, if we don't
specifically call out EPA to do that, do we then sort of
absolve them of the responsibility by so doing. So my question
is, I think the gentleman's intent is right but I don't want to
have an unintended consequence. I am wondering--I don't know. I
am wondering if there is a way----
Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield, I think the
bottom line is this, that this is clearly not a mischievous or
sort of a poison pill kind of amendment. It is an effort to try
to move closer. I think that we would have to oppose the
amendment as it is now, but if the gentleman would want to
withdraw it, I think there is good faith on all sides to
continue to work to move forward with that. And so I yield to
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let me just note, I think that you
can sort of nitpick things to death sometimes, and it is clear
that what we are trying to put forward here is a team effort by
mobilizing the various research capabilities of the Federal
Government, which are not just incorporated in the EPA,
although we have at the same time made sure that the EPA is
still considered the lead sled dog in the whole effort. So I
don't see what the problem is here. I would be happy to--let me
consult with my leader here, my Ranking Member.
Mr. Hall. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I would.
Mr. Hall. I think while I admire Mrs. Woolsey for upgrading
the legislation that she launched some time ago on behalf of
her own district, I differ with her on some of her statements
just a few moments ago. I think EPA is the very worst entity to
give any rights to, any additional rights, because I have gone
through about 30 years here with them when they wouldn't give a
decision, and when you don't give a decision, there is no
appeal from it. It has caused us on a lot of bills where the
EPA is involved in to place a provision in there that if they
don't approve something within 30 days, that it is approved.
Otherwise they wouldn't approve it, so the person asking for it
may be a small businessman that wants some consideration for
something that he is trying to bring to his district and has to
wait until they decide to give him a no. You can't appeal from
no action, and they rode that horse to the front line many,
many times.
I think any time you can set out and really relay what EPA
has to say about it, you ought to do it, and I think that is
what this bill does.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Rohrabacher still has time.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And I will----
Chairman Gordon. Would the gentleman like to call for a
vote?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I will call for a vote.
Chairman Gordon. Then if there is no further discussion,
the vote is on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment,
say aye. Opposed, no. The no's have it. The amendment is not
agreed to, but let me say that Mr. Rohrabacher in no way waives
his right to continue to discuss this. It was a good-faith
amendment.
The ninth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Diaz-Balart, are you ready
to proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 010, amendment offered by Mr.
Diaz-Balart of Florida, to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute before us
contains standards for the evaluation of oil pollution
prevention technology. Now, this technology can also include
dispersants, skimmers, booms, et cetera. Currently, the bill
includes the evaluation of the environmental effects of these
technologies as it well needs to, as it well should. My
amendment would just add a new standard to the evaluation. It
states that this program should also evaluate the performance
and effectiveness of oil pollution prevention technologies in
detecting, you know, containing, recovering, et cetera,
mitigating for the discharges. In other words, my amendment
just says that we should evaluate the effectiveness of those
technologies that are developed to get the oil out of the water
or off the land or off the ice, et cetera. So I think it is a
commonsense amendment.
I do want to, Mr. Chairman, also while I still have the
floor also want to add to what Mr. Rohrabacher said. Mr. Baird
has been exceedingly good to work with. He is one of those
people that is serious, he is thoughtful, so it has been a
pleasure to work for him and I just wanted to add those words
as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. You have also been serious and thoughtful,
and I guess sensitive by virtue of being from Florida, and so
if there is no further discussion, the vote occurs on the
amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The tenth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York. Mr. Tonko, are you ready to
proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Tonko. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 032, amendment offered by Mr.
Tonko of New York to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We all know the very important role that small business
plays in our economy. There are thousands of businesses which
have developed or are developing technologies to solve various
problems and societal challenges. Most of these technologies
will be created outside of the research and development program
area that is set up by this legislation. So therefore, it is
important, I believe, that when we set up standards and
protocols for oil technology evaluation, that we consider these
small businesses that are outside the program as a part of the
response.
This amendment is a straightforward amendment that will
make sure that small businesses are considered in the
technology evaluation program. Including small businesses in
the equation will not only help us find solutions to possible
oil discharges but will also give those businesses more
opportunities, which will create then a stronger economic
recovery for our small business community.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and Mr.
Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. We all know that
small business is a major generator of jobs in this country,
and we thank you for that amendment.
Is there further discussion? If no, the vote occurs on the
amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, say no. The ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The 11th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski--Dr. Lipinski. Are
you ready to proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Lipinski. Yes, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 072, amendment offered by Mr.
Lipinski of Illinois to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman Gordon. I won't take 5
minutes.
I am very appreciative of the leadership that you have
shown in response to the disaster in the Gulf, and I would also
like to commend the work of Ms. Woolsey and Dr. Baird in
crafting this bill.
Now, section 4 of the bill requires that the oil pollution
research programs provide for the evaluation of prevention
technologies. My amendment would simply add probabilistic
research analysis to the list of techniques that can be used in
these evaluations. From the perspective of a systems engineer,
which I am trained in, this is common sense.
For those who are unfamiliar with the term ``probabilistic
risk analysis'', or PRA, this is systematic and comprehensive
methodology used to evaluate the risks associated with a
complex engineered technological entity. To put it more simply,
it looks at what can go wrong, what the consequences can be and
how likely they are to occur. This approach was first used in
the aerospace industry during the Apollo program and it has
since spread to other industries, notably the nuclear power
industry. The pollution prevention control systems on oil rigs
are a complex technological system, and this is the right tool
for evaluating their potential problems.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Daniel Lipinski
Thank you Chairman Gordon. I am very appreciative of your
leadership in response to the disaster in the Gulf. I would also like
to commend the work of Ms. Woolsey and Dr. Baird in crafting H.R. 2693.
Section 4 of this bill requires that the oil pollution research
programs provide for the evaluation of prevention technologies. My
amendment would add probabilistic risk analyses to the list of
techniques that can be used in these evaluations. From the perspective
of a systems engineer, this is simply common sense.
For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a probabilistic risk
analysis, or PRA, is a systematic and comprehensive methodology used to
evaluate the risks associated with a complex engineered technological
entity. Simply put, it looks at what can go wrong, what the
consequences can be, and how likely they are to occur. It's an approach
that was first used in the aerospace industry during the Apollo
program, and it's since spread to other industries, notably the nuclear
power industry.
The pollution prevention control systems on an oil rig are a
complex technological system, and this is the right tool to for
evaluating potential problems. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment and yield back.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Lipinski, for your good
amendment.
Is there further discussion on the amendment? If not, those
in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment
is agreed to.
The 12th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
the gentleman from California. Mr. Garamendi, are you ready to
proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Garamendi. I am. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 011, amendment offered by Mr.
Garamendi of California to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the authors
of the bill, thank you for your good work.
This would simply add a little piece to the research about
where the oil is and what it is doing and where it is going. I
would add a half a sentence that says maybe we ought to
understand how much there is. And so the specific language does
just that. It says including tools and models to accurately
measure and predict the flow of oil that is discharged. We know
that from the issue that arose in San Francisco Bay, the
genesis of this bill. There was not good information at the
outset on how much oil would be there and therefore the
response was initially insufficient. We know from the Gulf oil
spill that how much oil is being discharged has been an ongoing
issue from day one and continues to this day.
This would add to the research program a modeling program
to understand and to be able to predict exactly how much is
being discharged. I would ask for support.
Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
amendment? Mr. Grayson is recognized.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say
how important I think this particular amendment is because we
are in a situation now where oil companies have a built-in
incentive to hide their spills because of the $4,000-a-barrel
fine for oil spills, and we have seen the effect of that
recently with the BP oil spill. When there has been somewhere
between 5,000 and 100,000 barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf
each day, we don't know how much by a factor of 20. So this is
research that is definitely much needed, and we will have to
make sure that in the future we have a better idea of what the
extent of these spills really is.
So I support this amendment.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. This clearly is
an amendment that makes a good bill better.
If there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on
the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes
have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Now, the 13th amendment on the roster is an amendment
offered by the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Are you
ready to proceed with your amendment?
Ms. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 122, amendment offered by Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for considering my amendment.
My amendment provides language to ensure economically
disadvantaged communities are a strong focus in this
legislation. My amendment is a simple reminder that groups that
historically are hit the hardest by environmental disasters are
not forgotten. I feel strongly that the immediate concerns must
be the livelihoods of families who have lost their income due
to this spill. A number of these families are having trouble
putting food on their tables. The disproportionate burden from
the environmental disasters on communities of color, low-income
people and indigenous communities also need to be reduced as
well. These communities are experiencing the highest rates of
morbidity and/or death from asthma, cancer, learning
disabilities, lead poisoning, lupus and several other diseases.
It is my hope that my amendment will bring attention to the
disproportionate burden of pollution on the most vulnerable
members of our society.
Those along the coast who are elderly, children or have
existing health conditions, especially respiratory diseases,
are at the highest risk for adverse health impacts from this
spill. A clear understanding, however, is missing about what
the short- and long-term health impacts will be. When
considering research on the effects of the spill, we must not
forget those who are hurting the most. This is the intent of my
amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate your
consideration of this straightforward amendment and yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for that good
amendment.
Is there further discussion? If note, the vote occurs on
the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes
have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The 14th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. Ms. Dahlkemper, are you ready
to proceed with your amendment?
Ms. Dahlkemper. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an
amendment at the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 045, amendment offered by Mrs.
Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania and Mr. Grayson of Florida to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her
amendment.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member Hall. I am speaking today in support of my
amendment along with Mr. Grayson.
As you know, we have only begun to assess the damage of the
BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast, damage to the environment, to
the economy and to our people. As we meet here today, hundreds
of brave men and women, including my daughter, who is in the
Coast Guard, are on the Gulf Coast working to save our waters,
beaches and the Gulf economy. Most of them have no idea what
chemicals and pollutants they are being exposed to in the air
while they work to clean the beaches and the water.
My amendment would direct research programs to monitor both
the onshore and offshore air quality in these spill areas and
ensure that this information is readily available to our
emergency responders, to scientists, and most significantly, to
the local residents. I urge all to support my amendment to
protect these dedicated to cleaning up oil spills like the one
in the Gulf Coast.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the remainder of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dahlkemper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Kathleen Dahlkemper
I am speaking today in support of my amendment, along with Mr.
Grayson, to the Oil Pollution Research Act. We have only begun to
assess the damage of BP's oil spill in the Gulf Coast--damage to the
environment, to the economy and to our people. Unimaginable harm has
been done to an area of great natural beauty and national pride. As we
speak, hundreds of brave men and women, including my daughter, who is
in the Coast Guard, are in the Gulf Coast to save our waters, beaches
and the Gulf economy. Many of them have no idea what chemicals and
pollutants they are being exposed to in the air while they work to
clean the beaches and the water. My amendment would direct research
programs to monitor both the onshore and offshore air quality in these
spill areas and ensure that this information is readily available to
our emergency responders, like my daughter, to scientists, and
significantly, to local residents. I urge you all to support my
amendment to protect those dedicating to cleaning up oil spills like
the one in the Gulf Coast.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, and many thanks to your
daughter for the good work that she is doing.
Ms. Dahlkemper. I am very proud of her.
Chairman Gordon. You should be.
Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the
vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed,
no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The 15th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson. Are you ready to
proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Grayson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 078, amendment offered by Mr.
Grayson of Florida to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental purpose of this
amendment is to extend and expand research on the effects of
these spills on the human beings who are assigned to clean them
up. It is interesting that after a century of exposure to
hydrocarbons and intensive use of hydrocarbons throughout our
economy to generate energy, to provide transportation and so
on, we still don't know what is the effect of exposure of
hydrocarbons to human beings in the context of a cleanup like
this. Recently, some people who are involved in the cleanup of
the spill in the Gulf were instructed not to wear respirators
because that might imply that they needed them, and it is odd
that at this point there is some doubt or even an open question
about whether that is the case or not. We have many, many
anecdotal reports at this point of people who are doing this
kind of work who have been exposed to these fumes and to these
toxic elements, and as a result of that have already gotten
sick. We need to know with some specificity what the actual
effect of the spill is on the people who are assigned to clean
it up, and that is exactly what this amendment proposes to
determine.
Therefore, I offer the amendment and I urge my colleagues
to support it. Thank you. I yield the rest of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
amendment? If not, the vote is called on the amendment. All in
favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The 16th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. Are you ready to proceed
with your amendment?
Mr. Hall. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorized the operation of
the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test
Tank, pronounced OHMSETT, as the official facility to test and
evaluate all oil pollution technologies. Since it has been
impossible for government agencies to conduct controlled field
testing due to a complex maze of bureaucratic red tape, OHMSETT
is the only facility the United States has to evaluate the
performance of cleanup technology. The only other options are
to test them in other nations but their testing procedures are
different from ours.
During the Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on
oil spill research and development, the witness from the
Minerals Management Service stated that ``OHMSETT is critical
to oil spill response technology development in the United
States. It plays an essential role in developing the most
effective response technology as well as preparing responders
with the most realistic training available before an actual
spill.'' Despite being so critical to U.S. development of oil
spill response technology, this facility has been redesignated
as the National Oil Spill Response and Renewable Energy Test
Facility.
This committee has been supportive of a wide range of
renewable energy technologies and has authorized an enormous
amount of resources for them. OHMSETT is the only place where
oil spill technologies can be tested and then approved by
Interior to be used during response incidences. It is vital
that this single resource preserves its primary focus, which is
the testing and evaluation of technologies that clean up oil
discharges. These technologies should not have to compete for
resources with renewable technologies.
My amendment would in no uncertain terms state that oil
pollution technology testing and evaluation should be given
priority over all over activities this facility is now used
for. Diverting resources to test renewables will not help us
clean up oil spills more effectively and could even become a
detrimental practice if the approval of cleanup technologies is
delayed in favor of renewable testing.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorized
the operation of the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated
Environmental Test Tank, or OHMSETT as the official facility to test
and evaluate all oil pollution technologies. Since it has been
impossible for government agencies to conduct controlled field testing
due to a complex maze of bureaucratic red tape, OHMSETT is the only
facility the U.S. has to evaluate the performance of cleanup
technologies. The only other options are to test them in other nations,
but their testing procedures are different then ours.
During the Energy and Environment subcommittee hearing on oil spill
research and development, the witness from the Mineral Management
Service stated that the OHMSETT is ``critical to oil spill response
technology development in the U.S. . . . it plays an essential role in
developing the most effective response technologies, as well as
preparing responders with the most realistic training available before
an actual spill.'' Despite being so critical to U.S. development of oil
spill response technology, this facility has been redesignated as the
National Oil Spill Response and Renewable Energy Test Facility.
This Committee has been supportive of a wide range of renewable
energy technologies and has authorized an enormous amount of resources
for them. OHMSETT is the only place where oil spill technologies can be
tested and then approved by Interior to be used during response
incidences. It is vital that this single resource preserves its primary
focus, which is the testing and, evaluation of technologies that
cleanup oil discharges. These technologies should not have to compete
for resources with renewable technologies.
My amendment would, in no uncertain terms, state that oil pollution
technology testing and evaluation should be given priority over all
other activities this facility is now used for. Diverting resources to
test renewables will not help us cleanup oil spills more effectively,
and could even become a detrimental practice if the approval of cleanup
technologies is delayed in favor of renewable testing.
I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, for the good
amendment.
Is there further discussion? If not, the vote occurs on the
amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The 20th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun. At the risk of making a
dangerous motion, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we--
oh, OK. I appreciate being corrected. We are now on the 17th
amendment, and with Dr. Broun being noticed that he is 20.
The 17th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
the gentlelady from Texas. Ms. Johnson, are you ready to
proceed with your amendment?
Ms. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 121, amendment offered by Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
for considering this amendment.
My amendment is pretty straightforward. It clarifies that
competitive grants awarded through the regional research
program shall award grants competitively to universities or
other research institutions including minority-serving
institutions. This language is basic. As you know, the bill
authorizes grants to institutions of higher education and
research centers to improve technologies used to prevent,
combat and clean up oil pollution. Research at these centers
will indeed advance the Nation's ability to prevent future oil
spills and create groundbreaking technology to mitigate future
disasters. These institutional grants will authorize research,
development and technology transfer activities.
My amendment encourages partnerships with minority-serving
institutions. We want to be sure to award grants to the best
institutions of higher education and research centers to
improve partnerships so Federal agencies can do their work even
better. At the same time, we want to give the minority-serving
institutions a realistic change to participate in the research.
As you know, the majority of students at the minority-
serving institutions study at small two-year institutions.
These students can come to the larger universities to engage in
research and gain some important career experience.
Undergraduate research experience is key to gaining admission
to a graduate-degree program, so the more we encourage
partnerships with the minority-serving institutions in these
activities, the more diverse the workforce we cultivate for oil
spill research. To me, this creates a win-win situation.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in the structure of this
amendment, the intent was for it to be handled with regional
institutions and not nationwide, and I think there might be
some confusion in the language, and if that is the case, I
certainly would like to make sure it is corrected so it is
clearly understood.
I appreciate you considering this amendment and I encourage
the support of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for your good
amendment.
Is there further discussion?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
Mr. Hall. I certainly support this amendment offered by Ms.
Johnson. I urge the passage of the amendment and yield back my
very valuable time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and also I want to
thank all the Members that are here. I know this is--we had a
lot of good ideas that came in toward the last and we are
making that good bill better, and I thank you for hanging in
there as we try to proceed with this.
If there is no further discussion, then all in favor say
aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The 18th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
the gentleman from Washington, Dr. Baird. Are you ready to
proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Baird. I am. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 048, amendment offered by Mr.
Baird of Washington to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment.
Insofar as oil spills transcend national and international
borders, and the expertise and knowledge for dealing with oil
spills does as well, that expertise is also not limited to
governmental entities. Basically what this amendment does is
strengthen and expand the emphasis on international
collaboration in two ways. It encourages domestic and foreign
private actors, not just governmental and research entities,
and it also encourages the leveraging of private and public
capital because as we have discussed today and in our hearings,
there is a lot of private expertise and knowledge and funding
to conduct the research and develop the technologies we need,
and that is the focus of the amendment and urge passage.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Baird
As a Member of this Committee, I have traveled around
the world and seen the real value in international
collaboration on science.
While we conduct world class research on oil
pollution research, development, and demonstration, we can
learn from the successes and failures of these activities in
other countries.
My amendment would strengthen the international
cooperation language in OPA 90. The amendment directs the
Interagency Committee to go beyond coordination and cooperation
with other nations to make use of global expertise by creating
collaborative partnerships with foreign governments and
research entities. These partnerships would have the
opportunity to collaborate on oil pollution research,
development, and demonstration activities.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Baird, for the good
amendment.
Is there further discussion? Ms. Biggert is recognized.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a
question about this. I certainly agree that we need to work
with foreign countries, but does this go too far when we start
talking about cleanup standards with foreign governments? And
does that mean that, you know, those standards might be adopted
and then the United States is not setting its own standards but
really having an international standard? You know, we have had
this problem with the financial services. We have had other
areas where the adoption of standards might not be in our best
interest.
Chairman Gordon. And I assume you yield to Dr. Baird?
Ms. Biggert. Dr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. It is an interesting question. I mean, the shoe
can easily be on the other foot. You know, if there are spills
in other national waters, they could say well, we are cleaning
it up. I respect the gentlelady's point. The goal is certainly
not to tie us--there is no treaty ratification function here
but if there are international standards to be proposed, we
ought to have a voice in that, I would think. I think it is in
our best interest to have a voice in that, and that is the
intent here. It is not in any way to say we are going to get
ourselves--this amendment certainly has no authority to tie us
nor does this Committee have the jurisdiction that would do
that.
Ms. Biggert. Well, I guess just because it requires, it is
almost like their function is going to get together and these
standards, are we going to try and impose our standards on
them, you know, when we have--getting towards a treaty I think
would be a problem. Maybe just the way it is stated but----
Mr. Baird. Well, you know, it is funny. I respect the
gentlelady's concern. I am trying to see where the language
evokes that, so I want to be respectful of that and understand
it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman----
Mr. Baird. We are talking controlled field tests of oil
discharges. Go ahead.
Chairman Gordon. Is the gentleman saying very explicitly
that he is not trying to set up any kind of international
standards?
Mr. Baird. Exactly.
Chairman Gordon. Or require our country to be a part of any
kind of international standards?
Mr. Baird. That is certainly not the intent. The intent
would be, though, however, let us suppose some international
body were to say you set a standard at one part per trillion or
something. Well, if you don't have technologies that--you may
need to test the applicability of that standard, would be the
point. In other words, it is a research activity related to
potential standards but not in any way to try to promulgate
standards. This is not designated to promulgate standards.
Chairman Gordon. So would it be fair to say that if someone
tried to create a standard, that this would give the United
States the opportunity to test it and say that is not a good
standard, it won't even work?
Mr. Baird. That is the premise, yes, if standards become an
issue.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Biggert. Reclaiming my time.
Chairman Gordon. Ms. Biggert.
Ms. Biggert. Well, there are a couple of things. You know,
``shall engage'' which means you have to engage in
international cooperation by harnessing global expertise, et
cetera, and you have to--and you are going to leverage public
and private capital and then you are going to--just the cleanup
standards, maybe just taking that out, take out cleanup
standards?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentlelady yield----
Ms. Biggert. Or just standards----
Mr. Rohrabacher. --for a suggestion?
Ms. Biggert. You can have cleanup but not standards.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentlelady yield for a
suggestion?
Ms. Biggert. Yes, I yield to you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Whereas I used to have lots of discussions
about specific words that go in places, having been a
speechwriter for President Reagan for seven years, might I
suggest instead of ``standards'' that you say ``procedures''?
Yield back.
Mr. Bilbray. Will the gentlelady yield?
Chairman Gordon. Well, I think the----
Mr. Baird. Pardon me. I am trying to evaluate the impacts
of that in terms of the underlying base bill, so that is where
it has taken me.
Ms. Biggert. OK. Then I----
Chairman Gordon. Why don't we----
Ms. Biggert. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Bilbray, is recognized.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you. I strongly support the amendment. I
think that the proposed wording change kind of fits into it.
Let me point out, I think one of the things that we can point
at the United States not cooperating in international
strategies on one item, we didn't cooperate in the development
of technologies and techniques and research in cleanup. A good
example was, it was a great opportunity and continues to be a
great opportunity in the Niger Delta. The largest oil spills in
the world have not even been talked about. We talk about it
because it is in our backyard but because it is out of sight
and out of mind, we have got major oil problems in west Africa
that have basically not been addressed by the western countries
very much. That would be a perfect test platform to go in there
and try those technologies, try everything from remediation,
biological remediation, or if you wanted to talk about the
centrifuge system that Kevin Costner brought up. All of those
technologies and all those techniques could have been
developed, could have been refined, could have been proven in
an area that basically has been ignored for too long, and I
think this motion fits into that capability of cooperation
around the world will help us develop technologies and
techniques and procedures that can defend our own shorelines,
and I think this is being proactive and I strongly support it.
I think the gentleman's recommendation is compatible with
that goal of not so much setting standards but actually setting
procedures and minimum standards for operation rather than
regulatory control. I think we want to find answers, not blame
here. Even though the gentleman from California did throw in
that evil empire every once in a while, I think that overall he
is pretty good with words.
Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
discussion?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Biggert. I was just wondering if Mr. Baird is ready
to----
Chairman Gordon. Well, I think he will let us know when he
is ready.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. Let me just note that, well, first of
all it seems a little bit of a disconnect here that we were
kind of opposing my effort to promote cooperation among
government agencies in our own government, and now we have an
amendment that is proposing that we have cooperation on a
global scale with other governments, so there is a little bit
of a disconnect between what I had proposed earlier and the
opposition to that and now a proposal that is going way beyond
that scope and going internationally. I support international
cooperation. I support international cooperation to develop new
technologies and I think we all should with procedures. What
are the procedures that are used that permit companies and
other entities to do the very best job? What are those things
that work? Yes, we should be doing it. We should not be,
however, cooperating on trying to develop our standards here,
our legal regulatory standards so that we will in some way be
harmonizing with China, which may have no standards or very low
standards or some other country that may have higher standards
which would negate any type of development.
So that word actually opens up a Pandora's box here and
again I would suggest that you look at just that one word
change would alleviate these problems, and I yield back my
time.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. I think Mr. Baird is recognized now.
Mr. Baird. I think the points are well taken. It is
certainly not the intent to get us into the kind of dilemmas
that you have described, but I can see the concern about that,
and that is the last thing we would want to do, that I would
want to do. It is certainly not the intent here.
But I do want to at some point, and this may not be the
best place to do it, I think there is a need for some
international standard-setting, not the least common
denominator kind of standard setting but--and so my question
is, I don't want to remove this. Remember, what I am trying to
get at is, is there a way to clarify? We have no authority in
this committee to mandate the nature of standards or the
approval of a treaty or anything of that sort. We just don't
have that authority. But it makes sense to me that our research
entities would participate if there is direct research relevant
to those standards, and I am not opposed to----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Baird. Please.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Do you really want to direct our various
government agencies and people on these task forces that we are
setting up to get together with foreign entities and discuss
the standards or do you want them to discuss the technologies
that we can work together and develop and the methodologies
that can be used to prevent oil spills and to help in cleanup
operations or do you want them to be discussing legalities
and----
Mr. Baird. My intent would be the former, but I need to
concur with----
Ms. Biggert. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Baird. Surely.
Ms. Biggert. I think there is one other issue by the use of
the word ``standards'' and I am afraid that this might put the
jurisdiction of this bill into Energy and Commerce.
Chairman Gordon. If I might interject here, since it
appears that most folks are on the same page in terms of the
objective and that Mr. Baird has said that is it not an effort
to set standards, that we would accept that amendment and get
the thesaurus out between now and the Floor and see if we can
come up with a better word.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if it would be in
order possibly while we confer on this to move to the next
amendment, table this for one moment while I can discuss with
counsel the implications of making this change and then resume
this in just a moment? I don't know if that is in order or not,
and I don't know if the subsequent amendment would affect this.
Chairman Gordon. Well, then, by unanimous consent, I will
suggest that we move on to amendment #19.
Ms. Biggert. I object.
Chairman Gordon. Ms. Biggert objects, so I guess we will
just wait a while.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
Mr. Hall. Strike the last word.
I support Mrs. Biggert's change and I am concerned that the
word ``standards'' is going to create a number of problems. You
know, for weeks it has been mentioned that the use of the word
``standards'' in the section dealing with international
cooperation was not something many of us could support. We have
talked about that before. Language was offered that would have
tamped down the language in the ANS while at the same
preserving the original intent of the law, but this amendment
really moves in the complete opposite direction and has only
served to magnify the concerns that a lot of us on this side
have. It expands the focus of the research program from
coordinate and cooperate in conducting this research in the
existing law to engaging in international cooperation by
harassing--harnessing global expertise. Remember, I have had an
operation on my eyes.
This requirement, though, to continuously interact with
these international entities named in the amendment and could
divert attention away from the purpose of the bill. The
development of standards is a very lengthy and highly technical
process and it is also a process that each nation does for
itself, and we have joined many international treaties to
attempt to align some of these standards. Sometimes these
treaty negotiations take decades. Again, the direction of the
program would be diverted from the main purpose of the existing
law. The focus of international cooperation should remain on
the research, development and demonstration activities
including those addressing oil containment, recovery and
control of field tests of oil discharges.
So I think this amendment presents a pretty significant
challenge.
Chairman Gordon. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Hall. I think Dr. Baird is correct in suggesting a
timeout and see what they can work out.
Chairman Gordon. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Hall. I do yield.
Chairman Gordon. I would like to just read the language,
and this is how it concludes: ``Oil pollution research,
development and demonstration activities including controlled
field tests of oil discharges, oil recovery and cleanup
standards.'' What this sounds to me like is saying if there are
some standards, if there are oil recovery, that we need to have
the equipment here in this country to test them.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, if I have your permission?
Chairman Gordon. OK. Sure.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think----
Chairman Gordon. Well, Mr. Hall controls the time.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would Mr. Hall yield?
Mr. Hall. I yield to Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would just note that you started a
little bit too late in your analysis of what that sentence
really meant or what--or how to determine what it will mean if
we leave it the same language. You have to start up towards
innovative models, innovative models that can be instituted to
conduct cleanup standards. I mean, that is very clear what you
are looking for then. There are other things in between there
but you are talking about people getting together and
discussing innovative models that can be instituted to conduct
cleanup standards, and we just asked Mr. Baird whether his
intent was to have people coming together to talk about
standards or talk about technologies and procedures, and he
made it very clear his intent is international cooperation for
that and not to come up with innovative models for standards,
so----
Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield, I think it
is not to come up with models for standards, come up with
models to test if there are standards, but I yield to----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Innovative models that can be instituted
to conduct, not----
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall has the time now, and Mr. Hall,
do you want to yield to Mr. Baird?
Mr. Hall. I believe you want me to. I do yield to Dr.
Baird, and I am pleased to.
Mr. Baird. I appreciate that.
My original intent was much more in line with the
Chairman's description was that the research could look at the
standards. If standards were proposed, the research would look
at how those standards functioned. My focus was not to say let
us all get together and promulgate standards. That was not my
intent with the underlying text, and so personally, I am
amenable to changing ``standards'' to ``methodologies'' so we
can move forward.
Now, Mr. Bilbray had a good suggestion, but I don't know, I
am going to ask counsel on this. One of the things our
witnesses pointed out was, if you are going to--so everybody
descends on the Gulf or whatever the location of the spill is
and says, I am going to clean up this material. Well, by what
criteria do we evaluate, and Mr. Bilbray came up with the word
``criteria.'' By what criteria do we evaluate efficacy of
cleanup? Now, what I don't know is, does ``criteria'' carry
with it the legalese baggage that ``standards'' may? If it
doesn't, ``criteria'' may be a happy resolution to this.
Ms. Biggert. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Baird. I would be happy to.
Ms. Biggert. I would prefer ``procedures'' rather than
``criteria'' but----
Mr. Baird. Here is question.
Chairman Gordon. Or ``methodology.''
Ms. Biggert. Or ``methodology.''
Mr. Baird. Yeah, the only question is, some of our
witnesses had suggested that a methodology might be skimming as
a generic methodology. But what criteria do we use to evaluate
the efficacy of the skimming? And so the point was, we may need
to come up with some ways to look at--and that is a research
question, how do we evaluate the efficacy of a methodology and
hence that was the purpose here, was not a legalese.
Chairman Gordon. Let me make a suggestion. Since we are on
the 18th amendment and we have a few more to go, I think where
we are is that we can do one of two things. If Dr. Baird has a
word that he is comfortable with, we will take unanimous
consent and see whether we get that to change that word.
Otherwise we will vote on the underlying amendment and, you
know, as I say, get the thesaurus out at a later date.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if Dr.
Baird would considering putting the change of the word in so
that we can move this through, and if he wants to try to change
it later on----
Chairman Baird. What if we do this? What if we add--and I
think the suggestion that has been most helpful, what if we say
``methodologies and criteria for evaluation''?
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent that the language
just spoken by Mr. Baird is used to replace the existing
language. Does Ms. Biggert object? Ms. Biggest objects. The
unanimous consent is not granted.
Without further discussion, the motion is on Mr. Baird's
amendment. All in favor of Mr. Baird's amendment say aye.
Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is passed but the
discussion does not stop.
Ms. Biggert. I would hope that that would happen. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. The 19th amendment on the roster is an
amendment offered coincidentally by Ms. Biggert. Are you ready
to proceed with your amendment?
Ms. Biggert. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I should
have done that first. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 002, amendment offered by Mrs.
Biggert of Illinois to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her
amendment.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Chairman
Baird for all the work that he has done on this, and I did have
the opportunity to go down to the Gulf and was there this past
Friday and toured by helicopter and the Coast Guard to Grand
Isle, and it was a very interesting trip. This is, I think, day
87, I think, that we are looking at now and there certainly are
so many things that are not resolved.
Going out there and meeting with the locals, the mayor and
all of the other locals in that area was very revealing, and
what bothered me the most was the Federal Government and the
slowness of the cleanup and--well, of course BP is working on
actually the actual rig but the slowness. For example, one of
the gentlemen said that I guess it takes a celebrity to get the
skimmers out there rather than, you know, just allowing it to
happen and EPA working very hard with the studies that they are
making but, you know, the whaler was delayed and they
wouldn't--I guess it actually didn't work after that but the
slowness, particularly of the EPA and the frustrations of the
locals because they had a lot of solutions. I mean, they live
there. For example, trying to close off the inlets in the Grand
Isle, they want to put in rocks which they think will really
hold back the oil from the estuaries and from the wetlands, and
this has been delayed, and as I said, this is now day 87 and
the oil is moving into so many of these places, and it seems
like there is no--I don't want to use the word ``czar'' but
there is nobody really in charge, I think, that is really
moving this forward and so I think this is a really good bill.
We have the interagency council.
My amendment then is really to amend the annual report
section of the underlying bill to require more detailed
information from the Interagency Committee and require the
Interagency Committee to report to Congress on proposed
research changes which would come from the National Academies
of Science. You know, we want to make sure--we are the Science
Committee--that this really is science based and have them have
the opportunity to look at research too. So I believe it is
important to focus our research efforts and show progress in
areas where new solutions are most needed. We obviously were
caught without having the ability to bring in so many research.
I had somebody in my district call me, and they have a fabric
that soaks up oil to try and get anybody to listen, you know,
and you put your name in and then you don't hear from anybody.
I mean, there is so much innovation that we really have that
hasn't been used.
So I think with more detailed information disclosed to
Congress, we can hold our agencies accountable and expedite
possible solutions for mitigation or containment, and I think
we need to work to prevent the future unknown scenarios like
those encountered in the wake of this recent oil spill, and so
my amendment I think will help us do just that, and I would
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Biggert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Judy Biggert
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would amend the annual report
section of the underlying bill to require more detailed information
from the Interagency Committee and require the Interagency Committee to
report to Congress on proposed research changes from the National
Academies of Science.
I believe it is important to focus our research efforts and show
progress in areas where new solutions are most needed. With more
detailed information disclosed to Congress, we can hold our agencies
accountable and expedite possible solutions for mitigation or
containment. We need to work to prevent future ``unknown'' scenarios
like those encountered in the wake of the recent oil spill. My
amendment will help us do just that.
I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, any time you can work on annual
reporting requirements and make them better I think is
something good that this Committee ought to consider. This
amendment would ensure more detailed information about projects
that agencies are funding, what technological advancements have
resulted and what is planned for the coming year. The amendment
also includes a mechanism to ensure that any recommendation
made by the National Academies of Science after their review of
the research and development plan and reporting to Congress
with reasons why they were or were not incorporated into the
Interagency Committee's plan. I think these changes will help
this Committee conduct our oversight responsibility over the
program in the future. I urge support of this language.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and Ms. Biggert,
despite your other comments, this is a good amendment, and I
suggest that we take it.
All in favor, say aye. All opposed, no. The amendment
passes, and, again, I thank the committee for their patience,
and to let you know we are down to our last two amendments, and
Dr. Broun, you are recognized for amendment number 20.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 009, amendment offered by Mr.
Broun of Georgia to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading.
Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is simple
and straightforward. It simply establishes a criteria to be
used in the selection of the appointments to the Oil Pollution
Research Advisory Committee.
It states that the Advisory Committee shall be composed of
``individuals with extensive knowledge and research experience
or operational knowledge of prevention detection, response,
containment, and mitigation of oil discharges.''
It adds that, ``Individuals broadly representative of
stakeholders affected by oil, oil discharges,'' be included on
the Advisory Committee. The Oil Pollution Research Advisory
Committee will play an important role and needs to be comprised
of individuals who have the technical experience and the
knowledge in this area.
We have all witnessed numerous commissions and committees
in the past that has been effective and those that have been a
waste of time and resources. Those committees that have been
most effective and most credible are those that have utilized
the experience, talent, knowledge from experts in those
particular areas.
I hope that my colleagues will support this non-
controversial amendment, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Paul C. Broun
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
My amendment is simple and straightforward. It simply establishes
criteria to be used in the selection of appointments to the Oil
Pollution Research Advisory Committee.
It states that the advisory committee shalt be composed of
``individuals with extensive knowledge and research experience or
operational knowledge of prevention, detection, response, containment,
and mitigation of oil discharges.''
It adds that ``individuals broadly representative of stakeholders
affected by oil discharges'' be included on the advisory committee.
The Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee will play an
important role and needs to be comprised of individuals who have the
technical experience and knowledge of this area.
We have all witnessed numerous commissions and committees in the
past that have been effective and those that have been a waste of time
and resources.
Those committees that have been effective and the most credible are
those that utilized the experience, talent and knowledge from experts
of those particular areas.
I hope my colleagues will support this non-controversial amendment.
I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr.--Dr. Broun, and it is our
pleasure to support a Broun amendment, and is there further
discussion on the amendment.
Mr. Broun. Wonder of wonders.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman. I am sorry.
Mr. Baird. I just would echo. I think it is a good
amendment, and I think it is a needed piece, and we certainly
heard from our testimony that the collaboration is needed and
support.
Chairman Gordon. If there is no further discussion, the
vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed,
no. The ayes have it, and we will see if Dr. Broun can do two
for two here as he brings up the 21st amendment. Oh, Dr. Baird
is closing. OK. Dr. Baird. Excuse me. I got----
Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman, I will loan you my glasses.
Chairman Gordon. All right. Now we are on the 21st
amendment of the roster and offered by the gentleman from
Washington, Dr. Baird. Are you ready to proceed?
Mr. Baird. I have an amendment at the desk. I am ready to
proceed.
Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment number 049, amendment offered by Mr.
Baird of Washington to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading.
Without objection, so ordered.
I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, during our visit to the Gulf we
met with a number of people and on several occasions asked
questions about what was happening down there, and in a couple
of instances were apprised that there were research activities
ongoing, but that the incident commander was unable, or that
people along the chain of command were unable, to access
information from that research.
And to me it seems that if you got a national disaster of
this magnitude, it needs to be an all-hands-on-deck kind of
situation, and if you have got someone receiving Federal money
to conduct research in the region of a disaster, and their
research methodologies or findings could be relevant to how you
respond to that disaster, we ought to have a mechanism whereby
the incident commander can get access to that information so
they can use it in making the most effective response.
As an academic and researcher I recognize that one wants to
be mindful of respecting proprietary interests for publication,
et cetera, et cetera, but this bill does that. This amendment
does that. It provides that the mechanism whereby information
would be accessible but proprietary and not yet public
information would be preserved, and certainly the people we
spoke to in the region seemed to think this would be a very
useful mechanism because they had found instances where they
knew of data that would be helpful to them, but they were
unable to get that data in a timely manner. And it seems to me
if you are a researcher getting taxpayer dollars to conduct
your research and the information you are obtaining is needed
to help respond to a disaster like this, you ought to
voluntarily try to provide it, but if you are reluctant to do
that, we ought to have a mechanism whereby it can--there can be
some insistence that that be provided.
And with that I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Baird
During our June 9 oil spill hearing, we discussed the
difficulty in accessing research that could be helpful in
response to the spill.
As a scientist, I certainly recognize the proprietary
nature of research data. However, in the event of a national
emergency, like an oil spill, where scientific research can
provide great value to Federal response, the agency responding
should be able to access relevant data.
My amendment would require recipients of Federal
research funding, with methodologies and results that are
relevant to the oil spill emergency, to provide their data to
the Interagency Committee and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator
upon request. This information would not be made public, but
would be exclusively used for oil spill response activities.
Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
amendment?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly support
the concept this bill is based on, but I have a concern. The
amendment is drafted in such a way it would make the scope of
its reach what I would contend as enormous. It would apply to
every single entity that receives Federal funding for research,
public or private, to make their research available to the
Interagency Committee and on-scene coordinator upon request.
This would require the Interagency Committee or the on-
scene coordinator to know that such research exists. At one
time there was something called the RaDiUS database, research
and development in the United States. This database contained
the description and funding of levels of every research project
funded by the Federal Government and gave access to interested
users.
Ironically, the largest set of these users was from other
countries. The funding for the database has lapsed, and it no
longer exists. Without such a tool how would the Interagency
Committee or on-scene coordinator know what usable research was
out there?
I may have missed something in it. I don't want to do that.
I like the intent of it. The intent of the amendment is a good
one to get the available research to the people that need it
the most, no matter where it originates. I am just not so sure
how it is going to be implemented.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the concept this bill is based
on. But I have a concern. The amendment is drafted in such a way that
it would make the scope of its reach enormous. It would apply to every
single entity that receives Federal funding for research, public or
private, to make their research available to the Interagency Committee
and On Scene Coordinator upon request. This would require the
Interagency Committee or the On Scene Coordinator to know that such
research exists.
At one time, there was something called the Radius database,
Research and Development in the U.S. This database contained the
description and funding levels of every research project funded by the
Federal Government and gave access to interested users. Ironically, the
largest set of users was from other countries. The funding for this
database has lapsed, and it no longer exists.. Without such a tool, how
would the Interagency Committee or On Scene Coordinator know what
useable research was out there?
The intent of the amendment is a good one--get the available
research to the people that need it the most, no matter where it
originates. I'm just not so sure how it would be implemented.
Mr. Baird. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Hall. Yeah. I sure do.
Mr. Baird. And maybe I am missing something. I don't
believe there is anything in the bill that mandates that the
incident coordinator have such a database of everything that is
going on. If it is there, I missed it and certainly didn't
intend to put it there.
But what we became aware of is incident commanders or
someone up at a fairly high level being aware that research was
being conducted.
Let me give you an example. Let us suppose there is a
researcher conducting a study of oxygen levels in the water
system, and they have got gliders or some other mechanism
gathering data, and the incident commander says, well, what is
the effect of the dispersants or the oil or something else on
oxygenation levels?
Now, that is an important question because it might relate
to whether or not you open fisheries or not, et cetera. There
are consequential decisions to be made. Someone says, well, we
have got a researcher in the field doing that study right now.
Why don't we call him and ask him what they are finding? And
that researcher says, I am not going to share my findings with
you. And they are stymied.
So there is no mandate here in this section in my amendment
that the incident commander know of all these kind of things. I
am not sure where that concern is being derived. So maybe the
gentleman can enlighten me about that.
Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Baird. Yeah. It is your time. I would be happy to.
Yeah.
Mr. Hall. On line nine of the amendment here it says,
``shall, upon request, make the methodologies or research,
results of such research available.'' How would they know? How
could they possibly know if there is not some implementation or
some way that it is implemented where they would have--they
have access to it, but what is available to let them know that
they would even make such a request?
Mr. Baird. Well, it sounds to me like you are adding
something to my amendment that doesn't exist and then proposing
to defeat the amendment on grounds of something that is not
there to begin with.
Mr. Hall. No, I am not trying to do that. I am trying to
help you.
Mr. Baird. Well, there is nothing in there that does it,
though.
Chairman Gordon. If Mr. Hall would--I think--would yield, I
think what--the question is how would they know. Well, someone
might have gotten a National Science Foundation grant, somebody
might have gotten a research grant through some university, you
know, that was public knowledge that they knew that there was a
grant given to someone to research a particular area.
So as Mr. Hall said, I mean, Mr. Baird, Dr. Baird said, he
is not advocating that there be an inventory, but if there is,
again, a common knowledge, public knowledge that research is
going on somewhere that they should have access to.
Mr. Baird. Yeah. I am not----
Chairman Gordon. Would that be fair?
Mr. Baird. Indeed, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing in here
mandating that the incident commander or anyone else know this
is being done. It is simply saying if you are aware that it is
being done, you can access it. It is a fairly small community
of researchers, first of all, that does this kind of research.
The incident commander has got to have the broad sweep of the
field of play at his or her disposal so they know if there is a
ship out there doing something, they know it is there, if there
is a glider out there under the water, they get to know that is
in the terrain.
So if they do find out about that, they ought to be able to
say to folks, hey, what are you finding?
Ms. Biggert. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Baird. I would be happy to.
Chairman Gordon. I think it is Mr. Hall's time, and I am
sure he will yield to you.
Mr. Hall. I will yield to Ms. Biggert.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you. Does--is what you are saying, let
us say the researcher does not want to give the information,
you know, it is proprietary, he is working on it, doesn't want
somebody, you know, to put all the pieces together. Would he
have to disclose how it works?
Mr. Baird. To the incident commander and there is--if you
look, it is a very good question, and if--the last line, Ms.
Biggert, in response to activity in the event of an oil
discharge----
Ms. Biggert. What page are you on?
Mr. Baird. I am on the second page of the proposed
amendment. ``Shall not be included in information made publicly
available pursuant to this act.''
So in other words, we are not saying you have to publicize
this. In fact, we are specifically not requiring publication,
and from line 14, ``except to the extent that the information
is protected from disclosure of Title IX.''
So there are some information that can be protected, but
what we are trying to say, we are not saying Mr. or Ms.
Incident Commander, you can just gather all the data and put it
up on the web and let anybody look at it that you want. But if
you have got data that might be helpful, I want to be able to
at least have you tell me what you are finding. Imagine the
frustration of an incident commander who says, there is already
a researcher in the field.
Let me put it this way. From the perspective of the
researcher, the paramount importance may be getting that
publication, and I respect and understand that. From the
perspective of the American taxpayer, their paramount interest
is not in that researcher's publication, it is in cleaning up
and containing these spills in the most efficacious way
possible.
Ms. Biggert. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Baird. Sure.
Ms. Biggert. You already have kind of situation that
concerns me. There is a company that has--with the dispersants
and the EPA really wants everything, you know, what is in
there, and it is very hard for a company then to protect
something that is a proprietary, you know, product.
Mr. Baird. Remember, this only applies to entities
receiving Federal funding for research. So if the companies got
proprietary chemical substance and they are doing their own
research, this does not intrude upon them.
Ms. Biggert. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Grayson is recognized.
Mr. Grayson. I yield back. That was the point that I wanted
to make, the fact that what we are doing here is simply
informing the left hand what the right hand is doing. This
amendment is limited to Federal funding and specifically the
research results that come out of federally-funded research.
Why would we not want to know what one Federal grantee is doing
when another Federal grantee needs to know? That is the point
that I wanted to make, and Dr. Baird just made it.
Chairman Gordon. If there is no further discussion on the
21st and last amendment, then we will----
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
Mr. Hall. Doesn't this amendment contend that there might
be unusual research that could be helpful, and isn't there some
way that--or is this such a select group that would have access
or interest in such that they would have something to key, to
let them know that it was here?
And, you know, it is not impossible maybe to fix this and
report language. Maybe that is the answer to it, but it seems,
you know, it would be some way that we could connect it to the
oil cleanup, but--or what if NIH or DOD had something that
would not necessarily be connected to the oil cleanup?
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. But could be helpful otherwise. And any of that--
if we can work on report language, it might--I just don't see
how it is implemented to where people that really need it the
most wouldn't know--wouldn't have any information on it,
wouldn't know it was there.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall yields to Mr. Baird?
Mr. Hall. I yield. Yes. I yield to Dr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. The challenge we face and I respect what I
think, if I understand what Mr. Hall was saying, one would
assume as Mr. Grayson said that the left hand ought to tell the
right hand what it is doing.
I have personally in this Congress had the experience of
seeking data and methodologies from a federally-funded research
study, the purported results of which were used to influence
policy and quoted on the floor of the House, and when I wanted
to get access to the data and the methodologies to understand
that, they were denied. Taxpayer-funded research. And we just
talked a few weeks ago, staff members and I, two members, two
people involved in the cleanup, and they frankly were reticent
to even acknowledge it. I said, well, what is the status? What
do you know about this data, and they said, well, someone is
gathering data on that right now, and I said something to the
effect of, well, what are they learning, and they said, they
won't tell us.
Now----
Chairman Gordon. And Dr. Baird, this is only activated in
an emergency situation?
Mr. Baird. It is only activated in an emergency. Any--but
it says in the event of an oil discharge incident described in
sections of the bill, so it has got to be an oil discharge. It
has got to be this emergency kind of oil discharge situation.
The reason is it has got to be relevant to possibly be
useful for response activity. It has got to be an oil discharge
situation; the reason for requesting the information has to be
relevant to the response activities. In other words, you can't
just say we are going to just ask for everything under this.
Chairman Gordon. And Dr. Baird, I assume that you are
receptive to talking with Mr. Hall about report language----
Mr. Baird. Yeah. The problem with the report language is--I
am happy to talk about report language to clarify the intent of
this, but I think it has to have statutory authority, and the
reason is people will say, I appreciate your report language.
You can't make me do nothing.
Chairman Gordon. Oh, no. We are not trying to substitute.
Mr. Baird. OK. Yeah. OK.
Chairman Gordon. Rather say if there was report language.
Mr. Baird. Yeah. Right.
Chairman Gordon. So if there is no further discussion, then
the motion is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. All
opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
And if there are no other amendments then the vote occurs
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2693 as
amended. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no.
The ayes have it. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it.
The vote is now on the bill.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is agreed to?
Chairman Gordon. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Are we passed any time for debate on the
general bill then? We have? OK.
Chairman Gordon. According to our parliamentarian, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, we are.
The vote is now on the bill, H.R. 2693 as amended. All
those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes--in
the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it.
I now recognize Dr. Baird for a motion.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee favorably
report H.R. 2693 as amended to the House with the
recommendation that the bill do pass.
Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to prepare
the legislative report and make necessary technical and
conforming changes and that the Chairman take all necessary
steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.
Chairman Gordon. The question is on the motion to report
the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify
by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The bill is
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion is reconsidered as laid upon
the table. Members will have two subsequent calendar days in
which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on
the measure.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 2693 as amended, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Markup
Report, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP
JUNE 16, 2009
H.R. 2693, The Federal Oil Pollution
Research Program Act of 2009
*Please note that this Subcommittee report was prepared in June
2009 and therefore does not reflect developments that have taken place
since that date.
I. Purpose
The purpose of the H.R. 2693 is to amend the current Federal
Interagency oil spill research and development program created in the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (P.L. 101-380) by providing a new
direction in research to address emerging threats including increases
in maritime transportation, offshore energy exploration in remote
locations, aging infrastructure, and new fuel stocks and blends.
II. Background and Need for Legislation
Approximately three million gallons of oil, or refined petroleum
product, are spilled into U.S. waters every year.\1\ When spills occur,
the Federal Government takes primary action through the Coast Guard or
the Environmental Protection Agency depending on the location of the
accident. As a part of the Federal response, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) often plays a vital role in providing
real time data and weather forecasting to assist in the recovery and
mitigation efforts. In 2008, NOAA received requests for scientific
assistance related to 169 environmental incidents, three-quarters of
which were oil spills.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\National Research Council (2005) ``Oil Spill Dispersants:
Efficacy and Effects.'' pg. 1
\2\NOOA (2009) FY 2010 Budget Summary. May 11, 2009. pg. 2-31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March of 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground on Bligh
Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, rupturing its hull and spilling
nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil. The oil slick spread over
11,000 square miles of ocean and onto over 350 miles of beaches in
Prince William Sound. The direct result of Exxon Valdez was the passing
of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), which clarified the roles and
research responsibilities in previous legislation. The Act addressed
many factors in preventing, detecting, or mitigating oil spills.
Nineteen years ago Title VII of OPA created an interagency oil
spill research and technology program. According to the Committee on
the Marine Transportation of Heavy Oils, which was established by the
National Research Council (NRC) at the request of the U.S. Coast Guard,
for most spills only about 10 to 15 percent of the oil is recovered,
and the best recovery rates are probably about 30 percent.\3\ Given
these low recovery percentages, additional research and development is
necessary to reach acceptable levels of mitigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\National Research Council (1999) Spills of Non-Floating Oils.
Committee on Marine Transportation of Heavy Oils. National Research
Council. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. pg. v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 (P.L. 101-380)
Title VII--Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
The Oil Pollution Act's Title VII created a program to conduct
research and development on oil spill prevention and response. The
Title established an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate a
comprehensive research and development effort among 14 Federal agencies
and to coordinate Federal research and development activities with
those of state and local governments, industries, universities, other
foreign governments. The law designated the Coast Guard as the
Committee Chair and defined membership to include:
1. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2. National Institute of Standards and Technology
3. The Department of Energy
4. The Minerals Management Service
5. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
6. The United States Coast Guard
7. The Maritime Administration
8. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Originally called the Research and Special Projects
Administration this program was renamed the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration in the Norman Y. Mineta Research and
Special Programs Improvement Act (P.L. 108-426).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The Army Corps of Engineers
10. The Navy
11. The Environmental Protection Administration
12. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
13. The United States Fire Administration
14. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
The research program was authorized at $22 million annually and $6
million per year for fiscal years 1991-1995 for the Regional Research
Program.
The Committee was tasked with developing a research plan to
investigate technologies to prevent and clean up spills, ways to
restore damaged natural resources, and the long-term environmental
effects of spills. In addition, the Committee was tasked with the
management of a Regional Research Program. The Regional program
administers competitive grants to universities or other research
institutions to address regional oil pollution needs. OPA authorized a
total of $6,000,000 per year over five years to each of the ten Coast
Guard regions. Finally, the Title directed the Coast Guard to conduct
oil pollution minimization demonstration projects, only some of which
were carried out due to a lack of funding.
The Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research
produced the first Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan in 1992,
and after consulting with the National Academy of Sciences, submitted a
second plan in 1997. The plans identified and prioritized twenty
research and development program areas. These areas focused on spill
prevention; spill response planning, training, and management; spill
countermeasures and cleanup; fate and transport; and effects,
monitoring and restoration and assigned R&D focus areas to ten member
agencies. There has been no update of the research plan since 1997.
Despite the Interagency Committee's detailed research plan, there
have been modest technological advances in oil spill cleanup technology
since the enactment of the law in 1990. The Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Oil Pollution Research reported that, as late as 1997,
``most of the technology and information gaps of 1990 remain,'' due to
a failure to appropriate sufficient funds for oil pollution technology
programs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research
(1997) Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four agencies--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), the Mineral
Management Services (MMS), and the Coast Guard--have conducted the
majority of oil pollution research. Funding levels have been far lower
than the $28 million per year originally authorized for the program.
In November 2007, a 900-foot container ship, the Cosco Busan,
struck the San Francisco Bay Bridge, spilling over 50,000 gallons of
oil into the Bay. This accident brought renewed attention and focus to
current Federal Government procedures, practices, and research. The
cleanup costs for this relatively small spill were close to $100
million. Following this event and other recent accidents, it is clear
that the United States needs a more robust research and development
strategy to reduce the environmental and economic impacts of oil
spills. Currently, responders face a number of emerging threats arising
from an increase in maritime transportation, potential for offshore
energy exploration in remote locations, aging infrastructure, and new
fuel stocks and blends.
More than ten Federal and numerous State and local agencies are
called upon to assist in the Federal Response Team in some manner.
Given the high environmental and economic cost of oil spills, such as
the Cosco Busan, and the current lack of directed research, a new
approach to research is needed. A reinvigorated and streamlined
research and development program would help improve the effectiveness
of oil spill response efforts and ecosystem impact mitigation
activities at a fraction of the environmental and economic costs of a
single large spill.
To address these and other concerns, Representative Lynn Woolsey
(D-CA) introduced H.R. 2693 to amend the current Federal interagency
research and development program created in OPA 1990. The legislation
seeks to improve the Federal Government's research and development
efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil discharges. The bill
provides a new direction to the existing program by guiding research
towards emerging threats and streamlining a cumbersome interagency
structure. Through this reauthorization, the responsible Federal
agencies will be better equipped to quickly and effectively respond to
oil discharges both in inland and coastal waters.
III. Subcommittee Actions
On June 3, 2009, Representative Lynn Woolsey, for herself and
Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird, introduced
H.R. 2693--The Oil Spill Research Program Act of 2009.
Energy and Environment Subcommittee Hearing--A New Direction for
Federal Oil Spill Research and Development
The Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on Thursday,
June 4, 2009, to examine current Federal research and development
efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil discharges. The following
witnesses provided testimony:
Mr. Doug Helton, Incident Operations Coordinator,
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of
Response and Restoration (OR&R)
Dr. Albert D. Venosa, Director of the Land
Remediation and Pollution Control Division at the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Rear Admiral James Watson, Director of Prevention
Policy for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship, United
States Coast Guard (USCG)
Mr. Stephen Edinger, Director of the Office of Spill
Prevention and Response (OSPR), California Department of Fish
and Game
The hearing highlighted current Federal Oil Pollution research and
development efforts at the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Witnesses described a number of emerging
challenges that require new research and development. The panel shared
a variety of ways that the current program could be improved. This
included research to address new challenges, improved response
technologies, requirements for new blends of biofuels, and increased
transportation.
Energy and Environment Subcommittee Markup
On June 16, 2009, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee met to
consider H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act of 2009.
The Committee considered the following amendments:
1. Ms. Woolsey offered a manager's amendment. The amendment
proposed replacing the term ``Oil Spill'' with ``Oil Pollution'' to
better explain the scope of the program, which includes research into
oil discharges both on water and on land. Section 2 of the bill is
amended to provide for more effective notification to the public about
the activities of the program, including information on existing
volunteer training opportunities in incident response. Section 3 of the
bill is amended to clarify some of the elements of the Interagency
Research Program. It also adds additional program elements, including
research into: (1) the mechanical, chemical, and biological methods for
the recovery, removal, and disposal of oil; (2) technologies, methods,
and standards for protecting removal personnel and volunteers that may
participate in incident response; (3) improved information systems to
assist Federal response efforts; and (4) methods to restore and
rehabilitate natural resources damaged by oil discharges. A new Section
4 of the bill is inserted to allow for the continuation of an existing
technology evaluation program that will be supplemented with guidance
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The manager's
amendment also modifies the contents of the Interagency Committee's
research assessment. It specifically adds a new requirement to identify
emerging technologies and the barriers to the utilization of those
technologies by Federal response teams. In addition, the manager's
amendment clarifies that the assessment will include an analysis of the
effectiveness of current technologies to address oil pollution and an
assessment and comparison of regional differences in response
capabilities. Section 5 of the bill is amended to clarify the required
contents of the Federal oil pollution research and development plan.
Specifically, the amendment clarifies that the plan is to include
research to improve: the rates of oil recovery, the effectiveness of
the response to oil discharges, and the accessibility and utility of
the information available to mariners, researchers, and responders.
Section 6 of the bill is amended to clarify that each of the agencies
in the interagency program, not just NOAA, may award grants or utilize
other funding mechanisms to address the research priorities set forth
in the research plan. Section 7 of the bill simplifies the reporting
required by the National Academy of Sciences. Under the Manager's
Amendment, the National Academy will be responsible for submitting to
Congress and the Interagency Committee a report evaluating the oil
pollution research and development program and identifying priority
areas of research and technology development. Finally, the amendment
includes a direct authorization for NOAA and EPA, each in the amount of
$2 million dollars a year for Fiscal Year 2010 through Fiscal Year
2014. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
2. Mr. Inglis offered a second degree amendment to the manager's
amendment. The amendment proposed amending the text to reinstate the
Coast Guard as the chair of the Interagency Committee instead of
changing the chair to NOAA as was written in H.R. 2693. The amendment
was withdrawn.
3. Mr. Baird offered an amendment to expand the Interagency Program
to include research related to economic incentives and barriers to
technology development. In addition, Mr. Baird's amendment requires the
Program to conduct research to develop new technologies and methods to
respond to oil pollution in artic regions. The amendment was agreed to
by voice vote.
4. Mr. Lujan offered an amendment to add new requirements to the
Program, Assessment, and Plan to consider and investigate technologies
and methods to address oil discharges on land and in inland waters. The
amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
H.R. 2693, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Baird moved that the Subcommittee favorably report H.R. 2693,
as amended, to the full Committee with the recommendation to pass the
bill. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.
IV. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill
The Federal Oil Pollution Research Program Act amends Title VII of
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and provides a new direction to an
existing Interagency Research and Development program. The new
legislation guides the research agenda towards emerging challenges and
requires research to improve rates of oil recovery. The bill also
provides grants to institutes of higher education and research centers
to improve technologies used to prevent, combat, and clean up oil
pollution. H.R. 2693 will improve the Federal Government's research and
development efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil discharges.
Through this reauthorization, the responsible Federal agencies will be
better equipped to effectively respond to oil discharges both in inland
and in coastal waters.
The bill reauthorizes an Interagency Federal Oil Spill Research
Committee and places NOAA as the chair of the Committee. H.R. 2693
directs the Committee to coordinate a National Oil Pollution Program,
complete an Assessment of the current status of oil spill prevention
and response, and develop a plan to guide future research at the
Federal level. H.R. 2693 will encourage the development of new
technologies, practices, and procedures to allow for a more effective
Federal response to oil spills. In addition, the legislation requires a
National Academies review to evaluate the current Oil Spill Interagency
Program and for the Academy to provide guidance in the creation of a
new plan to direct future Federal research and development efforts.
V. Section by Section Analysis of H.R. 2693, as reported by the
Subcommittee
Title: Federal Oil Pollution Research Program Act
Purpose: To amend Title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and for
other purposes.
Section 1: Short Title
Federal Oil Pollution Research Program Act
Section 2: Federal Oil Pollution Research Committee
Section 2 directs the President to establish an Interagency
Committee to be known as the Federal Oil Pollution Research Committee
(`Committee'). The President shall designate a representative of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to serve as Chairperson
of the Committee, and the members of the Committee shall include
representatives from NOAA, the United States Coast Guard, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and such other Federal Agencies as the
President may designate.
Section 2 also requires the Committee to: 1) coordinate a Federal
oil spill research program (`Program') to coordinate oil pollution
research, technology development, and demonstration among the Federal
agencies, in cooperation and coordination with industry, institutions
of higher education, research institutions, State and tribal
governments, and other relevant stakeholders; 2) complete a research
assessment (`Assessment') on the status of oil spill prevention and
response capabilities; 3) develop a Federal oil spill research plan
(`Plan'); and (4) publish web-based information for the purpose of
notifying the public about volunteer training opportunities. The
Assessment will provide the Committee with the information necessary to
create the Plan.
Section 3: Federal Oil Spill Research Program
Section 3 requires the Committee to establish a Program for
conducting oil pollution research, development, and demonstration. The
Program shall focus on new technologies, practices, methods, and
procedures that provide for effective and direct response to prevent,
detect, recover, or mitigate oil discharges. Required elements of the
amended Program include: (1) new technologies to detect oil discharges;
(2) models and monitoring capabilities to predict the environmental
fate, transport, and effects of oil discharges; (3) new technologies
and methods to improve response capabilities and recovery rates; (4)
research and training in coordination with the National Response Team;
(5) decision support systems for contingency planning and response; (6)
mechanical, chemical, and biological methods for the recovery, removal,
and disposable of oil; (7) technologies, methods, and standards for
protecting removal personnel and volunteers that participate in
incident response; (8) improved information systems for decisions
making; (9) methods to restore and rehabilitate natural resources
damaged by oil discharges; (10) technologies and methods to prevent,
detect, and recover, and mitigate oil discharges in polar environments;
and (11) technologies and methods to address oil discharges on land and
in inland waters.
Section 4: Federal Research Assessment
Section 4 instructs the Committee to submit to Congress an
Assessment of the status of oil spill prevention and response
capabilities. The Assessment shall identify emerging technologies and
barriers to their implementation; assess the effectiveness of current
technologies available; assess and compare response capabilities in
different regions of the United States; assess oil pollution prevention
and response for inland oil discharges; assess the status of real time
information available to mariners, researchers and responders; assess
the economic incentives and barriers to implementation of new
technologies to address oil discharges; assess the status of the
deployment to State and local oil pollution response agencies of
technologies resulting from research and development; and address
comments received during the public comment period. The Assessment
shall be subject to a 30-day public comment period and shall
incorporate public input as appropriate. The Committee is required to
submit the Assessment to Congress no later than one year after
enactment.
Section 5: Federal Research Interagency Plan
Section 5 directs the Committee to develop a Plan to establish
Federal oil spill research and development priorities. In developing
the Plan, the Committee shall consider and utilize recommendations from
the National Academy of Sciences, as well as State, local, and tribal
governments. The Plan will include: (1) research to improve rates of
oil recovery; (2) research, development, and demonstration to improve
technologies, practices, and procedures for effective and direct
response to oil discharges; (3) research, development, and
demonstration to improve the accessibility and utility of real time
information available to mariners, researchers, and responders; (4)
research, development, and demonstration to address inland oil
discharges; (5) recommendations to improve the deployment of oil
pollution prevention, response, and mitigation technologies to State
and local oil pollution response agencies; and (6) a summary of
comments received during the 30-day public comment period. The
Assessment shall incorporate public input as appropriate. The Committee
is required to submit the Plan to Congress no later than one year after
the submission of the Assessment.
Section 6: Extramural Grants
Section 6 provides direction to the Committee to enter into
contracts and cooperative agreements and award grants to institutions
of higher education or non-governmental research organizations. Such
contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants shall address research,
development, and demonstration priorities established in the Plan.
Section 7: Annual Report
Section 7 requires the Committee to submit an annual report to
Congress, concurrent with the annual submission of the President's
budget, describing the activities and results of the Program during the
previous fiscal year and outlining objectives for the next fiscal year.
Section 8: National Academy of Science Participation
Section 8 instructs the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the
Administrator of NOAA, to contract with the National Academy of
Sciences to assess and evaluate the status of the Federal oil spill
research and development program and to identify priority areas of
research and technology development to improve capabilities to prevent,
detect, recover, and mitigate oil discharges. Within one year of
enactment, the National Academy shall submit to Congress and the
Committee a report on the results of the evaluation and the
recommendations of the Academy.
Section 9: Technical and Conforming Changes
Section 9 makes technical and conforming changes to the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990.
Section 10: Authorization of Appropriations
For the purpose of carrying out this act, Section 10 authorizes $2
million per year for fiscal years 2010-2014 for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and $2 million a year for fiscal years
2010-2014 for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Section-by-Section Analysis of the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 2693, Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
Reauthorization Act of 2010
The purpose of the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
Reauthorization Act of 2010 is to amend and reauthorize Title VII
(Section 7001) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (33 U.S.C.
2761).
Section 1. Short Title
Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act
of 2010.
Section 2. Federal Oil Pollution Research Committee
PURPOSES.--Section 7001(a)(2) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is
amended to add tribal governments to the list of entities with which
the Interagency Committee shall cooperate and coordinate.
MEMBERSHIP.--Section 7001(a)(3) is amended to designate the U.S.
Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency as
the Interagency Committee; the remaining Federal agencies from Section
7001 (a)(3) are designated as collaborating agencies; the National
Science Foundation is added to the list of collaborating agencies.
ROLE OF THE CHAIR.--Section 7001(a)(4) is amended to include a
paragraph on the roles of the Chair of the Interagency Committee.
ACTIVITIES.--Section 7001(a) is amended to insert a section of
activities which directs the Interagency Committee: to ensure that
research, development, and demonstration efforts are coordinated and
conducted on an ongoing basis, to meet no less than once per year to
plan the program's activities, and to determine whether the program is
producing new or improved methods and technologies; and for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop an
electronic information exchange on oil pollution scientific information
and research.
Section 3. Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.--Section 7001(b)(1) is amended to direct the
Interagency Committee to submit a plan to Congress, as directed in OPA
90, within 180 days after the date of enactment of the Oil Pollution
Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 and
periodically thereafter but not less than once every five years.
Section 7001(b)(1) is also amended for the Plan to identify the
roles and responsibilities of each member agency of the Interagency
Committee and each of the collaborating agencies.
ADVICE AND GUIDANCE.--Section 7001(b)(2) is amended to direct the
Chair of the Interagency Committee to solicit advice and guidance in
the preparation and development of the plan from: the Oil Pollution
Research Advisory Committee; the National Institute of Standards and
Technology; and through public comment prior to the submission of the
research plan.
REVIEW.--Section 7001(b) is also amended to direct the Chair of the
Interagency Committee to contract with the National Academy of Sciences
to review and assess the adequacy of the plan and to submit a report to
Congress.
Section 4. Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
INNOVATIVE OIL POLLUTION TECHNOLOGY.--Section 7001(c)(2) is amended
to include research, development, and demonstration of new or improved
technologies effective in preventing, detecting, recovering, or
mitigating oil discharges; technologies and methods to address oil
pollution on land, in inland waters, offshore areas, including
deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy areas;
modeling and simulation capabilities, including tools and technologies
that can be used to facilitate effective recovery and containment of
oil pollution during incident response; and research conducted by the
Environmental Protection Agency on the development and approval of
technologies with maximum effectiveness and minimum toxicity to natural
resources, the public, and the environment in both the near and long-
term.
OIL POLLUTION TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION.--Section 7001(c)(3) is amended
to provide for oil pollution prevention and mitigation technology
evaluation, with an evaluation of the environmental effects, including:
the evaluation and testing of technologies developed independently of
the research and development program; the establishment, with the
advice and guidance of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, of standards and testing protocols traceable to national
standards to measure the performance of oil pollution prevention or
mitigation technologies; an evaluation of the environmental effects and
utility of controlled field testing; the use, where appropriate, of
controlled field testing to evaluate real-world application of oil
discharge prevention or mitigation technologies.
OIL POLLUTION EFFECTS RESEARCH.--Section 7001(c)(4)(A) and (B) is
amended, to direct the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, acting through the Interagency Committee,
to establish a research program to monitor and scientifically evaluate
the environmental effects, including long-term effects, of oil
pollution. The program includes: research and development of effective
tools to detect, measure, observe, analyze, monitor, model, and
forecast the presence, transport, fate, and effect of oil throughout
the environment; the development of methods, including economic
methods, to assess and predict damages to natural resources, including
air quality, resulting from oil discharges; the identification of types
of ecologically sensitive areas at particular risk to oil discharges,
such as in inland waters, coastal areas, offshore areas, including
deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy areas; and
the preparation of scientific monitoring and evaluation plans to be
implemented in the event of major oil discharges in such areas; and the
collection of environmental baseline data in ecologically sensitive
areas at particular risk to oil discharges where there are insufficient
data.
In addition, the Interagency Committee, through the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall conduct research
activities for cases where the amount of oil discharged exceeds 250,000
gallons and it is determined that a study of the long-term
environmental effects of the discharge would be of significant
scientific value, especially for preventing or responding to future oil
discharges.
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.--Section 7001(c)(6) is amended to strike
the completed demonstration projects in the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey and the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana.
REGIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAM.--Section 7001(c)(8)(A) is amended to
direct the Interagency Committee to coordinate a program of peer
reviewed, competitive grants to universities or other research
institutions, or groups of universities or research institutions, for
the purposes of conducting a coordinated research program related to
the regional aspects of oil pollution, such as prevention, removal,
mitigation, and the effects of discharged oil on regional environments.
Section 7001(c)(8)(C) is also amended to specify that at least on
entity of a group application to carry out the substantial portion of
the proposed research must be located in the region, for which the
project is proposed as part of the regional research program.
Section 7001(c)(9) is amended to authorize to be appropriated from
amounts in the Fund $12,000,000 for fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
and 2015.
Section 5. International Cooperation
Section 7001(d) is amended to direct the Interagency Committee, in
accordance with the research plan, to coordinate and cooperate with
other nations and foreign research entities in conducting oil pollution
research, development, and demonstration activities, including
controlled field tests of oil discharges, oil recovery, and cleanup
standards.
Section 6. Annual Reports
Section 7001(e) is amended to direct the Chair of the Interagency
Committee to submit to Congress, concurrent with the President's annual
budget request, a report describing the activities: carried out under
this section in the preceding fiscal year; being carried out under this
section in the current fiscal year; and proposed to be carried out
under this section in the subsequent fiscal year, including an analysis
of how these activities will further the purposes of the program
authorized by this section.
Section 7. Federal Advisory Committee
Section 7001 is further amended to direct the Interagency Chair to
establish an Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee consisting of at
least 25 representatives from non-governmental entities. Each member of
the Advisory Committee shall be qualified by education, training, and
experience to evaluate scientific and technical information relevant to
the research, development and demonstration under this Act. The Chair
of the Interagency Committee shall designate a chairperson from among
the members of the Advisory Committee. Members shall be appointed for
three-year terms, renewable once. The Advisory Committee is directed to
review, advise, and comment on Interagency Committee activities,
including: management and functioning of the Interagency Committee;
collaboration of the Interagency Committee and the Collaborating
Agencies; the research and technology development of new or improved
response capabilities; the use of cost-effective research mechanisms;
and research, computation, and modeling needs and other resources
needed to develop a comprehensive program of oil pollution research.
The Advisory Committee is also directed to meet at least once a year
submit biennial reports to the Interagency Committee and Congress.
Section 8. Funding
Section 7001(f) is amended to authorize to be appropriated from
amounts in the Fund not more than $48,000,000 annually to carry out
this section. From this amount there are authorized to be appropriated
to the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration $16,000,000 annually to carry out this section and
$2,000,000 for carrying out the activities in subsection (c)(6) for
fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.
In addition, Section 1012 (a)(5)(C) OPA 90 is amended to read as
follows: (C) not more than $48,000,000 in each fiscal year shall be
available to carry out title VII of this Act.
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Oil Pollution Research and
Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH COMMITTEE.
(a) Purposes.--Section 7001(a)(2) of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (33 U.S.C. 2761(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``State''
and inserting ``State and tribal''.
(b) Membership.--Section 7001(a)(3) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
2761(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Structure.--
``(A) Members.--The Interagency Committee
shall consist of representatives from the
following:
``(i) The Coast Guard.
``(ii) The Department of Commerce,
including the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
``(iii) The Department of the
Interior.
``(iv) The Environmental Protection
Agency.
``(B) Collaborating agencies.--The
Interagency Committee shall collaborate with
the following:
``(i) The National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
``(ii) The Department of Energy.
``(iii) The Department of
Transportation, including the Maritime
Administration and the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration.
``(iv) The Department of Defense,
including the Army Corps of Engineers
and the Navy.
``(v) The Department of Homeland
Security, including the United States
Fire Administration in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
``(vi) The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
``(vii) The National Science
Foundation.
``(viii) Other Federal agencies, as
appropriate.''.
(c) Role of the Chair.--Section 7001(a)(4) of such Act (33.
U.S.C. 2761(a)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Chair.--
``(A) In general.--A representative of the
Coast Guard shall serve as Chair.
``(B) Role of chair.--The primary role of the
Chair shall be to ensure that--
``(i) the activities of the
Interagency Committee and the agencies
listed in paragraph (3)(B) are
coordinated;
``(ii) the implementation plans
required under subsection (b)(1) are
completed and submitted;
``(iii) the annual reports required
under subsection (e) are completed and
submitted;
``(iv) the Interagency Committee
meets in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (5); and
``(v) the Oil Pollution Research
Advisory Committee under subsection (f)
is established and utilized.''.
(d) Activities.--Section 7001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
2761(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Activities.--
``(A) Ongoing, coordinated efforts.--The
Interagency Committee shall ensure that the
research, development, and demonstration
efforts authorized by this section are
coordinated and conducted on an ongoing basis.
``(B) Meetings.--
``(i) In general.--The Interagency
Committee shall meet, or otherwise
communicate, as appropriate, to--
``(I) plan program-related
activities; and
``(II) determine whether the
program is resulting in the
development of new or improved
methods and technologies to
prevent, detect, respond to,
contain, and mitigate oil
discharge.
``(ii) Frequency.--In no event shall
the Interagency Committee meet less
than once per year.
``(C) Information exchange.--The Interagency
Committee, acting through the Administrator of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, shall develop a national
information clearinghouse on oil discharge
that--
``(i) includes scientific information
and research on preparedness, response,
and restoration; and
``(ii) serves as a single electronic
access and input point for Federal
agencies, emergency responders, the
research community, and other
interested parties for such
information.''.
SEC. 3. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PLAN.
(a) Implementation Plan.--Section 7001(b)(1) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 2761(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``180 days after
the date of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and
Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 and
periodically thereafter, as appropriate, but not less
than once every 5 years,'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) identify the roles and responsibilities
of each member agency of the Interagency
Committee under subsection (a)(3)(A) and each
of the collaborating agencies under subsection
(a)(3)(B);'';
(3) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``containment,''
after ``response,'';
(4) in subparagraph (D) by inserting ``containment,''
after ``response,'';
(5) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph
(E);
(6) in subparagraph (F)--
(A) by striking ``the States'' through
``research needs'' and inserting ``State and
tribal governments, regional oil pollution
research needs, including natural seeps and
pollution resulting from importing oil from
overseas,''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(7) by adding at the end the following new
subparagraphs:
``(G) identify the information needed to
conduct risk assessment and risk analysis
research to effectively prevent oil discharges,
including information on human factors and
decisionmaking, and to protect the environment;
and
``(H) identify a methodology that--
``(i) provides for the solicitation,
evaluation, preapproval, funding, and
utilization of technologies and
research projects developed by the
public and private sector in advance of
future oil discharges; and
``(ii) where appropriate, ensures
that such technologies are readily
available for rapid testing and
potential deployment and that research
projects can be implemented during an
incident response.''.
(b) Advice and Guidance.--Section 7001(b)(2) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 2761(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Advice and guidance.--
``(A) In general.--The Chair shall solicit
advice and guidance in the development of the
research plan under paragraph (1) from--
``(i) the Oil Pollution Research
Advisory Committee established under
subsection (f);
``(ii) the National Institute of
Standards and Technology on issues
relating to quality assurance and
standards measurements;
``(iii) third party standard-setting
organizations on issues relating to
voluntary consensus standards; and
``(iv) the public in accordance with
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Public comment.--Prior to the
submission of the research plan to Congress
under paragraph (1), the research plan shall be
published in the Federal Register and subject
to a public comment period of 30 days. The
Chair shall review the public comments received
and incorporate those comments into the plan,
as appropriate.''.
(c) Review.--Section 7001(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(b))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Review.--After the submission of each research
plan to Congress under paragraph (1), the Chair shall
contract with the National Academy of Sciences--
``(A) to review the research plan;
``(B) to assess the adequacy of the research
plan; and
``(C) to submit a report to Congress on the
conclusions of the assessment.
``(4) Incorporation of recommendations.--The Chair
shall address any recommendations in the review
conducted under paragraph (3) and shall incorporate
such recommendations into the research plan, as
appropriate.''.
SEC. 4. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--Section 7001(c)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
2761(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``research and development,
as provided in this subsection'' and inserting ``research,
development, and demonstration, as provided in this subsection
and subsection (a)(2)''.
(b) Innovative Oil Pollution Technology.--Section 7001(c)(2)
of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by
striking ``preventing or mitigating'' and inserting
``preventing, detecting, containing, recovering, or
mitigating'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (I);
(3) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph
(I);
(4) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph
(I) (as so redesignated) and by inserting at the end a
semicolon; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(J) technologies and methods to address oil
discharge on land and in inland waters, coastal
areas, offshore areas, including deepwater and
ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy
areas;
``(K) modeling and simulation capabilities,
including tools and technologies, that can be
used to facilitate effective recovery and
containment of oil discharge during incident
response; and
``(L) research conducted by the Environmental
Protection Agency on the development and
approval of technologies with maximum
effectiveness, including application and
delivery mechanisms, and minimum toxicity to
natural resources, the public, and the
environment in both the near and long-term.''.
(c) Oil Pollution Technology Evaluation.--Section 7001(c)(3)
of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(3)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Oil pollution technology evaluation.--The
program established under this subsection shall provide
for the evaluation of oil pollution prevention,
containment, and mitigation technologies, including--
``(A) the evaluation of the performance and
effectiveness of such technologies in
preventing, detecting, containing, recovering,
and mitigating oil discharges;
``(B) the evaluation of the environmental
effects of the use of such technologies;
``(C) the evaluation and testing of
technologies developed independently of the
research and development program established
under this subsection, including technologies
developed by small businesses;
``(D) the establishment, with the advice and
guidance of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, of standards and testing
protocols traceable to national standards to
measure the performance of oil pollution
prevention, containment, or mitigation
technologies;
``(E) an evaluation of the environmental
effects and utility of controlled field
testing;
``(F) the use, where appropriate, of
controlled field testing to evaluate real-world
application of new or improved oil discharge
prevention, response, containment, recovery, or
mitigation technologies; and
``(G) an evaluation of the effectiveness of
oil pollution prevention technologies based on
probabilistic risk analyses of the system.''.
(d) Oil Pollution Effects Research.--Section 7001(c)(4) of
such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Establishment.--The Interagency
Committee, acting through the
Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, shall
establish a research program to monitor
and scientifically evaluate the
environmental effects, including long-
term effects, of oil discharge.
``(ii) Specifications.--Such program
shall include the following elements:
``(I) Research on and the
development of effective tools
to detect, measure, observe,
analyze, monitor, model, and
forecast the presence,
transport, fate, and effect of
an oil discharge throughout the
environment, including tools
and models to accurately
measure and predict the flow of
oil discharged.
``(II) The development of
methods, including economic
methods, to assess and predict
damages to natural resources,
including air quality,
resulting from oil discharges,
including in economically
disadvantaged communities and
areas.
``(III) The identification of
types of ecologically sensitive
areas at particular risk from
oil discharges, such as inland
waters, coastal areas, offshore
areas, including deepwater and
ultra-deepwater areas, and
polar and other icy areas.
``(IV) The preparation of
scientific monitoring and
evaluation plans for the areas
identified under subclause
(III) to be implemented in the
event of major oil discharges
in such areas.
``(V) The collection of
environmental baseline data in
the areas identified under
subclause (III) if such data
are insufficient.
``(VI) The use of both
onshore and offshore air
quality monitoring to study the
effects of oil pollution and
oil pollution cleanup
technologies on air quality;
and making the results, health,
and safety warnings readily
available to the public,
including emergency responders,
the research community, local
residents, and other interested
parties.
``(VII) Research on
technologies, methods, and
standards for protecting
removal personnel and for
volunteers that may participate
in incident responses,
including training, adequate
supervision, protective
equipment, maximum exposure
limits, and decontamination
procedures.'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``The Department of
Commerce'' and all that follows through
``future oil discharges.'' and inserting the
following:
``(B) Conditions.--The Interagency Committee,
acting through the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, shall conduct research
activities under subparagraph (A) for areas in
which--
``(i) the amount of oil discharged
exceeds 250,000 gallons; and
``(ii) a study of the long-term
environmental effects of the discharge
would be of significant scientific
value, especially for preventing or
responding to future oil discharges.'';
(B) by striking ``ATHOS I, and'' and
inserting ``ATHOS I;''; and
(C) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; Prince William Sound, where oil
was discharged by the EXXON VALDEZ; and the
Gulf of Mexico, where oil was discharged by the
DEEPWATER HORIZON.''; and
(3) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``Research'' and
inserting ``Coordination.--Research''.
(e) Demonstration Projects.--Section 7001(c)(6) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``The United States Coast Guard, in
conjunction with such agencies as the President may
designate, shall conduct a total of 2 port oil
pollution minimization demonstration projects, 1 with
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California,
and 1 with a port on the Great Lakes, for the purpose
of developing and demonstrating integrated port oil
pollution prevention and cleanup systems that utilize
the information and implement the improved practices
and technologies developed from the research,
development, and demonstration program established in
this section.''; and
(2) in the second sentence by striking ``oil spill''
and inserting ``oil discharge''.
(f) Simulated Environmental Testing.--Section 7001(c)(7) of
such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(7)) is amended by inserting ``Oil
pollution technology testing and evaluations shall be given
priority over all other activities performed at such Research
Center.'' after ``evaluations.''.
(g) Regional Research Program.--
(1) In general.--Section 7001(c)(8) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 2761(c)(8)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``program of
competitive grants'' and inserting
``program of peer-reviewed, competitive
grants''; and
(ii) by striking ``(1989)'' and
inserting ``(2009)'';
(B) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``the
entity or entities which'' and inserting ``at
least one entity that''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) In carrying out this paragraph, the
Interagency Committee shall coordinate the
program of peer-reviewed, competitive grants to
universities or other research institutions,
including Minority Serving Institutions as
defined under section 371(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067q(a)), and
provide consideration to such institutions in
the recommendations for awarding grants.''.
(2) Funding.--Section 7001(c)(9) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 2741(c)(9)) is amended by striking ``1991'' and
all that follows through ``shall be available'' and
inserting ``2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, there are
authorized to be appropriated from amounts in the Fund
$12,000,000''.
SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.
Section 7001(d) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(d)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(d) International Cooperation.--In accordance with the
research plan submitted under subsection (b), the Interagency
Committee shall engage in international cooperation by
harnessing global expertise through collaborative partnerships
with foreign governments and research entities, and domestic
and foreign private actors, including nongovernmental
organizations and private sector companies, and by leveraging
public and private capital, technology, expertise, and services
towards innovative models that can be instituted to conduct
collaborative oil pollution research, development, and
demonstration activities, including controlled field tests of
oil discharges, oil recovery, and cleanup standards.''.
SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORTS.
Section 7001(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(e)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(e) Annual Report.--
``(1) Concurrent with the submission to Congress of
the President's annual budget request in each year
after the date of enactment of the Oil Pollution
Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act of
2010, the Chair of the Interagency Committee shall
submit to Congress a report describing the--
``(A) activities carried out under this
section in the preceding fiscal year,
including--
``(i) a description of major research
conducted on oil discharge prevention,
detection, containment, recovery, and
mitigation techniques in all
environments by each agency described
in subsection (a)(3)(A) and (B); and
``(ii) a summary of--
``(I) projects in which the
agency contributed funding or
other resources;
``(II) major projects
undertaken by State and tribal
governments, and foreign
governments; and
``(III) major projects
undertaken by the private
sector and educational
institutions;
``(B) activities being carried out under this
section in the current fiscal year, including a
description of major research and development
activities on oil discharge prevention,
detection, containment, recovery, and
mitigation technologies and techniques in all
environments that each agency will conduct or
contribute to; and
``(C) activities proposed to be carried out
under this section in the subsequent fiscal
year, including an analysis of how these
activities will further the purposes of the
program authorized by this section.
``(2) If the National Academy of Sciences provides
recommendations on the research plan under section
7001(b)(3), the Chair shall include, in the first
annual report under paragraph (1) of this subsection, a
description of those recommendations incorporated into
the research plan, and a description of, and
explanation for, any recommendations that are not
included in such plan.''.
SEC. 7. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Section 7001 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761) is further
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection
(g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Advisory Committee.--
``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and
Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, the
Chair of the Interagency Committee shall establish an
advisory committee to be known as the Oil Pollution
Research Advisory Committee (in this subsection
referred to as the `advisory committee').
``(2) Membership.--
``(A) In general.--The advisory committee
shall be composed of members appointed by the
Chair, in consultation with the each member
agency described in subsection (a)(3),
including--
``(i) individuals with extensive
knowledge and research experience or
operational knowledge of prevention,
detection, response, containment, and
mitigation of oil discharges;
``(ii) individuals broadly
representative of stakeholders affected
by oil discharges; and
``(iii) other individuals, as
determined by the Chair.
``(B) Limitations.--The Chair shall--
``(i) appoint no more than 25 members
that shall not include representatives
of the Federal Government, but may
include representatives from State,
tribal, and local governments; and
``(ii) ensure that no class of
individuals described in clause (ii) or
(iii) of subparagraph (A) comprises
more than \1/3\ of the membership of
the advisory committee.
``(C) Terms of service.--
``(i) In general.--Members shall be
appointed for a 3-year term and may
serve for not more than 2 terms, except
as provided in clause (iii).
``(ii) Vacancies.--Vacancy
appointments shall be for the remainder
of the unexpired term of the vacancy.
``(iii) Special rule.--If a member is
appointed to fill a vacancy and the
remainder of the unexpired term is less
than 1 year, the member may
subsequently be appointed for 2 full
terms.
``(D) Compensation and expenses.--Members of
the advisory committee shall not be compensated
for service on the advisory committee, but may
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem
in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United
States Code.
``(3) Duties.--The advisory committee shall review,
advise, and comment on Interagency Committee
activities, including the following:
``(A) Management and functioning of the
Interagency Committee.
``(B) Collaboration of the Interagency
Committee and the agencies listed in subsection
(a)(3)(B).
``(C) The research and technology development
of new or improved response capabilities.
``(D) The use of cost-effective research
mechanisms.
``(E) Research, computation, and modeling
needs and other resources needed to develop a
comprehensive program of oil pollution
research.
``(4) Subcommittees.--The advisory committee may
establish subcommittees of its members.
``(5) Meetings.--The advisory committee shall meet at
least once per year and at other times at the call of
the chairperson.
``(6) Report.--The advisory committee shall submit
biennial reports to the Interagency Committee and
Congress on the function, activities, and progress of
the Interagency Committee and the programs established
under this section.
``(7) Expiration.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
advisory committee.''.
SEC. 8. FUNDING.
(a) In General.--Section 7001(g) of such Act, as redesignated
by section 7 of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be
appropriated from amounts in the Fund not more than
$48,000,000 annually to carry out this section, except
for subsection (c)(8).
``(2) Specific allocations.--From the amounts in
paragraph (1), there are authorized to be
appropriated--
``(A) $16,000,000 to the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
annually to carry out this section; and
``(B) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 to carry out the
activities in subsection (c)(6).''.
(b) Authorization.--Section 1012(a)(5)(C) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) not more than $48,000,000 in each
fiscal year shall be available to carry out
title VII of this Act; and''.
SEC. 9. ACCESS TO RESEARCH DURING AN EMERGENCY.
Section 7001 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Access to Research During an Emergency.--Any entity
that receives Federal funding for research, the methodologies
or results of which may be useful for response activities in
the event of an oil discharge incident described in sections
300.300-334 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
shall, upon request, make the methodologies or results of such
research available to the Interagency Committee and the Federal
On-Scene Coordinator (as defined in section 311(a)(21) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(21)),
except to the extent that the information is protected from
disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.
Such information shall be for use in response activities in the
event of an oil discharge, and shall not be included in
information made publicly available pursuant to this Act.''.