Order Code RL33705
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background,
Governance, and Issues for Congress
October 25, 2006Updated April 24, 2007
Jonathan L. Ramseur
Environmental Policy Analyst
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background,
Governance, and Issues for Congress
Summary
During the past two decades, while U.S. oil imports and consumption have
steadily risen, oil spill incidents and the volume of oil spilled have not followed a
similar course. In general, the annual number and volume of oil spills have shown
declines — in some cases, dramatic declines. The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in
Alaskan waters played a large role in stimulating actions that contributed to this
trend, particularly the decrease in the annual spill volumes. The Exxon Valdez spill
highlighted the need for stronger legislation, inflamed public sentiment, and spurred
Congress to enact comprehensive oil spill legislation, resulting in the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-380). This law expanded and clarified the authority of the
federal government and created new oil spill prevention and preparedness
requirements. Moreover, the 1990 legislation strengthened existing liability
provisions, providing a greater deterrent against spills. After 1990, spill volume from
oil tankers, the vessels that carry and have spilled the most oil, decreased
significantly.
Considering that U.S. oil consumption and oil imports have steadily increased,
the trend of declining spill incidents and volume in past years is noteworthy. Yet,
recent annual data indicate that the overall decline of annual spill events may have
stopped. Both consumption and imports are projected to maintain upward
movement, and the United States is expected to increase the proportion of its
imported oil. More oil-carrying vessels will be entering U.S. waters, and a higher
percentage of transported oil will likely travel by vessel. The threat of oil spills may
increase if more oil is being transported into and around the nation. This increased
threat raises the question of whether U.S. officials have the necessary resources at
hand to respond to a major spill. There is some concern that the favorable U.S. spill
record has resulted in a loss of experienced personnel, capable of responding quickly
and effectively to a major oil spill. Moreover, the level of funding required to
respond to such a spill, particularly its aftermath, may be currently inadequate,
according to U.S. Coast Guard reports.
No oil spill is entirely benign. Even a relatively minor spill, depending on the
timing and location, can cause significant harm to individual organisms and entire
populations. Marine mammals and bottom-dwelling species are especially
vulnerable to a nearby spill. However, the effects of oil spills can vary greatly. Oil
spills can cause impacts over a range of time scales, from only a few days to several
years, or even decades in some cases.
This report reviews the history and trends of oil spills in the United States, and
identifies of oil spills, presents relevant data, and identifies
the legal authorities governing oil spill prevention, response, and cleanup.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Impacts of Oil Spills in Aquatic Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Acute Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Chronic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ecosystem Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Economic Costs of Oil Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Natural Resources Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Other Economic Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Oil Spill Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Federal Authorities: Before and After the Exxon Valdez Spill . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Other Federal Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
International Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
MARPOL 73/78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intervention Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1617
Federal Agencies Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Federal Funding for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
State Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Threat of Future Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Possibilities for Future Oil Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
U.S. Oil Imports and Possible Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2425
Domestic Oil Transportation and Possible Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Level of Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Recent Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix: Additional Statistical Information Regarding Oil Spills . . . . . . . . . . 30
Sources of Oil Inputs to U.S. Coastal Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Spills from Facilities and Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Spills from Oil Extraction Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Figures
Figure 1:. Volume and Number of Oil Spills for Incidents Above 100 Gallons
in in
U.S. Coastal Waters, 1973-20012004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2:. Volume of Oil Spilled from Vessels into U.S. Coastal Waters,
1980-20012004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 3:. Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund: Projected Annual Balances,
FY2006-FY2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 4:. U.S. Oil Imports and Consumption: Actual (1990-2005) and
Projected (2010-2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 5: U.S. Imports by Mode of Transportation, 1995-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 6: Average Annual Distribution of U.S. Oil Imports, by Geographic
Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Figure 5. Volume and Number of Oil Spills for Incidents Above 100 Gallons in
U.S. Coastal Waters, 1995-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 6. U.S. Imports by Mode of Transportation, 1995-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 7. Average Annual Distribution of U.S. Oil Imports, by
Geographic Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 7:8. Domestic Transportation of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products,
1990-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure A1. Percentage Contribution of Oil Inputs into North American
Coastal Waters, by Major Source Categories (based on average annual
releases, 1990-1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure A2:. Volume of Oil Spills into U.S. Coastal Waters from Facilities
and Pipelines, 1980-20012004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure A3:. Annual Number of Spills to U.S. Waters from Facilities and
Pipelines, 1980-20012004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure A4:. Annual Oil Spill Volume for Spills Greater than 50 Gallons
from from
Oil Exploration and Extraction Activities in the Federal Waters
on the
Outer Continental Shelf, 1985-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
List of Tables
Table 1:. Federal Agency Jurisdiction for Oil Spill Prevention and
Preparedness Duties, by Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters:
Background, Governance, and Issues
for Congress
Introduction
Oil is the dominant source of energy in the United States, supplying the nation
with approximately 40% of its energy needs. Its use is widespread, providing fuel
for the transportation, industrial, and residential sectors. Vast quantities of oil
continuously enter the country via vessel or pipeline and are then transported to
destinations throughout the nation. With such widespread use and nonstop
movement, it is inevitable that some number of spills will occur. One continuing
policy issue is whether the nation has the necessary resources and personnel in place
to respond to a major spill.
Several major U.S. oil spills have had lasting repercussions that transcended the
local environmental and economic effects. The most notable example is the 1989
Exxon Valdez spill, which released approximately 11 million gallons of crude oil into
Prince William Sound, Alaska. The Exxon Valdez spill — the largest and most
expensive oil spill in U.S. waters to date1 — produced extensive consequences
beyond Alaska. According to the National Academies of Science, the Exxon Valdez
disaster caused “fundamental changes in the way the U.S. public thought about oil,
the oil industry, and the transport of petroleum products by tankers ... ‘big oil’ was
suddenly seen as a necessary evil, something to be feared and mistrusted.”2
This report focuses on oil spills3 in U.S. coastal waters.4 The first section
highlights background issues, including oil spill statistics and potential
environmental impacts. The second section discusses the legal framework that
governs oil spill prevention and response. The third section examines the threat of
1
Note that the Exxon Valdez spill ranks only 35th for spill volume on the list of international
tanker spills since 1967. See International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited,
Historical Data, at [http://www.itopf.com/stats.html].
2
See National Research Council (NRC), Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects,
National Academies of Science (hereinafter “NRC report”), February 2003, p. 11.
3
In this report, “oil” refers to crude oil and petroleum products, including gasoline and other
fuels, unless stated otherwise.
4
For the purposes of this report, “U.S. coastal waters” is defined broadly to encompass all
waters between the shore and the boundary of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (200
nautical miles from shore). Note that in other documents, “coastal” may refer only to state
waters, but in this report, the term “coastal waters” includes state and federally regulated
waters.
CRS-2
future oil spills in coastal waters and whether response personnel are prepared to
respond to a major spill. The final section highlights legislative activity of the 109th
Congress.
Background
Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters
While U.S. oil imports and consumption have steadily risen, oil spill incidents
and volume spilled have not followed a similar course. (See (Figure 1)..) In general, oil
oil spill events and the volume of oil released have declined over the past two
decades;
in some years, the declines have been dramatic.
425,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Total Volume
20
01
19
97
19
93
19
89
19
85
19
81
-
19
77
19
73
2520,000,000
15,000,000
2010,000,000
155,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
-
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
-
Number of Spills
Gallons
Figure 1:. Volume and Number of Oil Spills for Incidents Above 100
Gallons in U.S. Coastal Waters, 1973-20012004
Total Volume
Spill Incidents
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the United States Coast Guard (USCG) Oil Spill
Compendium, available at [http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/index.htm].
The decline of spill incidents is likely related, at least in part, to international oil
pollution standards that went into effect in 1983. These new standards were
implemented in the United States by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.5 The
substantial drop in the annual spill volume is most attributable to the decline in
volume spilled by oil tankers and barges — the vessels that transport oil and have
historically spilled the most oil. As shown in Figure 2, the volume of oil spilled
from vessels in U.S. waters in the 1990s differed dramatically from the volume
spilled in the 1980s. The Exxon Valdez spill of 1989 and the resulting Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (OPA) played key roles in the subsequent spill volume reduction. The
1990 Act (discussed below) made comprehensive changes to U.S. oil pollution law
5
P.L. 96-478, 33 U.S.C. 1901, et seq. These standards and the U.S. law are discussed later
in this report.
CRS-3
1990 Act (discussed below) made comprehensive changes to U.S. oil pollution law
by expanding federal response authority and increasing spill liability. The high costs
associated with the Exxon Valdez spill,6 and the threat of broad liability imposed by
OPA (in some scenarios, unlimited liability), have likely been the central drivers for
the spill volume decline seen in the 1990s.
Figure 2:. Volume of Oil Spilled from Vessels into U.S.
Coastal Waters,
1980-20012004
14,000,000
12,000,000
Gallons
10,000,000
Tankers
8,000,000
Barges
6,000,000
Other Vessels
4,000,000
2,000,000
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
-
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the USCG Oil Spill Compendium.
The Appendix to this report contains additional information, including a further
breakdown of oil inputs in coastal waters by source category. The Appendix also
provides oil spill data and analysis specific to onshore facilities and pipelines, as well
as offshore oil extraction operations.
Impacts of Oil Spills in Aquatic Environments
No oil spill is entirely benign. Depending on timing and location, even a
relatively minor spill can cause significant harm to individual organisms and entire
populations.7 Oil spills can cause impacts over a range of time scales, from days to
years, or even decades for certain spills. Impacts are typically divided into acute
(short-term) and chronic (long-term) effects. Both types are part of a complicated
and often controversial equation that is addressed after an oil spill: ecosystem
recovery.
6
As of September 2006, Exxon has6
Exxon has so far paid approximately $3 billion for the spill: $2 billion
for cleanup
activities and $900 million in a civil settlement for natural resource damages. In June 2006,
parties filed for an additional $92 million for damages per a reopener provision in the civil
settlement. Moreover, acivil settlement (with a $100 million re-opener
clause) for natural resource damages. A dispute over the amount of punitive damages is still
in the court
system. This amount could be as high as $2.5 billion. SeeFor more details, see Exxon Valdez Trustee
Trustee Oil Spill Trustee Council, at [http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/History/settlement_detailsettlement
_detail.htm].
7
NRC report, p. 4.
CRS-4
and often controversial equation that is addressed after an oil spill: ecosystem
recovery.
Acute Impacts. Depending on the toxicity and concentration of the spill,
acute exposure to oil spills can kill various organisms and cause the following
debilitating (but not necessarily lethal) effects:8
!
!
!
!
reduced reproduction,
stunted development,
impaired feeding mechanisms, and
decreased defense from disease.
In addition to the impacts to individual organisms, oil spills can lead to a
disruption of the structure and function of the ecosystem. Certain habitats — such
as coral reefs, mangrove swamps, and salt marshes — are especially vulnerable,
because the physical structure of the habitats depends upon living organisms. These
potential acute effects to individual organisms and marine ecosystems have been
“unambiguously established” by laboratory studies and well-studied spills, such as
the Exxon Valdez.9
Chronic Impacts. Long-term, chronic exposure typically occurs from
continuous oil releases — leaking pipelines, offshore production discharges, and nonpoint sources (e.g., urban runoff). Although spills are normally associated with acute
impacts, some oil spills have also demonstrated chronic exposure and effects.10
There is increasing evidence that chronic, low-level exposures to oil contaminants
can significantly affect the survival and reproductive success of marine birds and
mammals.11 However, because of the complexity of factors, including a longer time
period and presence of other pollutants, determining the precise effects on species
and ecosystems due to chronic oil exposure in a particular locale is difficult for
scientists. As a result, studies involving chronic effects are often met with debate and
some controversy.
Ecosystem Recovery. Ecosystem recovery after an oil spill is difficult to
define, because interested parties often have differing opinions. At one end of the
spectrum, local groups may demand that the ecosystem be returned to pre-spill
conditions. However, according to the National Oceanographic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), scientists do not define recovery as a return to the precise
conditions that existed before the oil spill. Recovery, according to NOAA, is “the
act, process or instance of bringing a habitat or ecosystem back to a normal
condition; or to save it from loss and restore it to usefulness.”12 This definition
leaves room for site-specific interpretation, which, in the case of the Exxon Valdez
spill and cleanup, continues to generate considerable argument.
8
These “sub-lethal” effects can occur at concentrations that are several orders of magnitude
lower than concentrations that cause death. NRC report, p. 127.
9
NRC report, p. 120.
10
NRC report, p. 121.
11
NRC report, p. 134.
12
Emphasis added. NOAA, Prince William’s Oily Mess: A Tale of Recovery, (online
document) at [http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov].
CRS-5(continued...)
CRS-5
leaves room for site-specific interpretation, which, in the case of the Exxon Valdez
spill and cleanup, continues to generate considerable argument.
Economic Costs of Oil Spills
The economic costs that can result from an oil spill can be broken into three
categories: cleanup expenses, natural resource damages, and the various economic
losses incurred by the affected community or individuals.
Cleanup Costs. The cleanup costs of an oil spill can vary greatly and are
influenced by a mix of factors: location characteristics, oil type, and oil volume.
Location is generally considered the most important factor because it involves
multiple variables. Areas with less water movement, such as marshlands, will
generally cost more to clean up than open water. Tourist destinations or sensitive
habitats, such as coral reefs, will likely require more stringent cleanup standards, thus
increasing the costs. The political and social culture at the spill site plays a part as
well. For instance, major oil spills, especially ones that affect shoreline ecosystems,
are often met with extensive media coverage, placing pressure on parties to take
action. Coupled with this pressure, authorities (federal or state) at these locations
may require extensive oil spill response requirements, which can influence cleanup
cost. The United States likely meets this description, because its average cleanup
cost (per barrel of oil spilled) is considerably higher than in other parts of the world.13
The more persistent and viscous oil types, such as heavy crude, are more
expensive to clean up. Gasoline and other lighter refined products may require only
minimal cleanup action, because the spilled material will evaporate or disperse
relatively quickly.
Compared with other factors, spill volume is less important. A major spill away
from shore will likely cost considerably less than a minor spill in a sensitive location.
Certainly, the amount of oil spilled affects cleanup costs, because, all things being
equal, a larger spill will require a larger and more expensive cleanup effort.
However, the relationship between cleanup costs and spill volume is not linear.
Cleaning up a smaller spill is likely to cost more than a larger spill on a per-gallon
basis.14
Natural Resources Damages. This category of costs relates to the
environmental impacts caused by an oil spill. Pursuant to OPA, the party responsible
for an oil spill is liable for any loss of natural resources (fish, animals) and the
services provided by the resource (drinking water, recreation).
12
(...continued)
document) at [http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov].
13
The average cleanup cost is three times higher in the United States than in Europe (based
on 1997 data and excluding the Exxon Valdez costs). See, Etkin, Dagmar, “Estimating
Cleanup Costs for Oil Spills,” paper presented at the 1999 International Oil Spill
Conference, 1999, citing data from the Oil Spill Intelligence Report International Oil Spill
Database.
14
This is primarily due to the fact that a spill of any size (e.g., in a sensitive area) will
require that equipment and response experts be sent to the scene. See Etkin, Dagmar,
“Estimating Cleanup Costs for Oil Spills,” paper presented at the 1999 International Oil
Spill Conference, 1999, p. 5.
CRS-6
Natural Resources Damages. This category of costs relates to the
environmental impacts caused by an oil spill. Pursuant to OPA, the party responsible
for an oil spill is liable for any loss of natural resources (fish, animals) and the
services provided by the resource (drinking water, recreation).
When a spill occurs, government representatives, known as trustees, conduct
a natural resource damage assessment to determine the extent of the harm. Natural
resource damage assessments have generated controversy in recent years, particularly
regarding the measurement of a resource’s passive-use value. A passive-use value
(as opposed to a resource’s market value, such as commercial fishing or recreation)
includes the preference of people who believe the resource should be protected for
its own sake or preserved for future generations. Many have argued that including
passive-use value in damage assessmentassessments leads to arbitrary or artificially high
damages. The counter-argument is that passive-use values must be included to assess
the full loss of a resource. This view has been affirmed in several court decisions.15
However, putting a precise dollar figure on the lost passive-use of a resource can be
challenging, and the primary method employed — contingent valuation — is often
criticized. The contingent valuation method is essentially a survey in which
participants are asked, for example, how much they would pay (hypothetically) to
protect a resource. For more information on this method, see CRS Report RL30242,
Natural Resources: Assessing Nonmarket Values through Contingent Valuation, by
Joseph T. Breedlove and Ross W. Gorte.
Other Economic Costs. Oil spills can generate costs other than response
expenses or damages to natural resources. An oil spill can disrupt business activity
near the spill, particularly businesses that count on the reputation of the local
environment. For example, the local tourist industry may be affected. In some cases,
a well-publicized oil spill can weaken the tourist industry near the spill site,
regardless of the actual threat to human health created by the spill.
Local infrastructure and services can be disrupted by an oil spill. Port and
harbor operations may be interrupted, altering the flow of trade goods. Power plants
that use cooling water systems may need to temporarily cease operations. For
example, the Salem Nuclear Plant — the second largest nuclear plant in the United
States — was forced to halt activity due to a substantial oil spill (more than 250,000
gallons) in the Delaware River in November 2004. The plant is seeking
reimbursement for $57 million in lost profits.16
Oil Spill Governance
When the Exxon Valdez ran aground in March 1989, there were multiple federal
statutes, state statutes, and international conventions that dealt with oil discharges.
The governing framework for oil spills in the United States remains a combination
of federal, state, and international authorities. Within this framework, several federal
agencies have the authority to implement oil spill regulations. The framework and
15
See, for exampple15
See, e.g., State of Ohio v. United States Department of the Interior, 880 F.2d
432, 464
(D.C. Cir. 1989).
16
Testimony of Rear Admiral Thomas Gilmour (U.S. Coast Guard), in U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation, Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act, hearings, 109th Cong., 2nd
Sess., Apr. 27, 2006.
CRS-7sess., April 27, 2006.
CRS-7
Oil Spill Governance
When the Exxon Valdez ran aground in March 1989, there were multiple federal
statutes, state statutes, and international conventions that dealt with oil discharges.
The governing framework for oil spills in the United States remains a combination
of federal, state, and international authorities. Within this framework, several federal
agencies have the authority to implement oil spill regulations. The framework and
primary federal funding process (the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund) used to respond
to oil spills are described below.
Federal Authorities: Before and After the Exxon Valdez Spill
The following list highlights the primary federal authorities that were in effect
when the Exxon Valdez spill occurred in 1989:
!
Clean Water Act (1972):17 The Clean Water Act (CWA) represented
the broadest authority for addressing oil spills at the time of the
Exxon Valdez spill. Section 311 of the CWA established
requirements for oil spill reporting, response, and liability. The act
also created a fund (311 Fund), maintained by federal
appropriations, that could be used for cleanup and natural resource
restoration.
!
Deepwater Port Act (1974):18 This statute addressed oil spills and
liability issues at deepwater oil ports. The act also set up the
Deepwater Port Fund to provide for prompt cleanup and compensate
damages above liability limits. The fund was financed by a pergallon tax on oil transferred at a deepwater port.
!
Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (1973):19 This act covered
oil spills and liability relating to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System
(TAPS). Although the pipeline is constructed over land, spills from
it could reach coastal waters via inland rivers. The act created a trust
fund, financed through a lessee fee, that could be used to respond to
spills and damages from the pipeline.
!
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments (1978):20 This act
established an oil spill liability structure and rules for oil extraction
facilities in federal offshore waters. With this legislation, Congress
created the Offshore Pollution Fund, financed by a per-gallon fee on
produced oil, that could be used for oil spill cleanup and damages.
!
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP): The NCP was first established in 1968, after U.S.
policymakers observed the response to a 37-million-gallon oil tanker
spill (Torrey Canyon) off the coast of England.21 The NCP contains
the federal government’s procedures for responding to oil spills and
17
The official statutory name is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500, as
amended, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.
18
P.L. 93-627, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.
19
P.L. 93-153, codified at 43 U.S.C. 1651, et seq.
20
P.L. 95-372, codified at 43 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.
21
See EPA “National Contingency Plan Overview” at [http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/
ncpover.htm].
CRS-8
CRS-8
!
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP): The NCP was first established in 1968, after U.S.
policymakers observed the response to a 37-million-gallon oil tanker
spill (Torrey Canyon) off the coast of England.21 The NCP contains
the federal government’s procedures for responding to oil spills and
hazardous substance releases.22 Subsequent laws have amended the
NCP, including the CWA in 1972 and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund) in 1980.
After the Exxon Valdez spill, many observers23 described the above legal
collection as an ineffective patchwork. Arguably, each law had perceived
shortcomings (discussed below in the context of post-Exxon Valdez legislation), and
none provided comprehensive oil spill coverage.
For more than 15 years prior to the Exxon Valdez incident, Congress made
attempts to enact a unified oil pollution law. Several contentious issues produced
deadlocks, hindering the passage of legislation. One of the central points of debate,
state preemption, dealt with whether a federal oil spill law should limit a state’s
ability to impose stricter requirements, particularly unlimited liability. Other liability
questions also generated debate. For example, if an oil spill occurred, should the
owner of the cargo (i.e., oil) be held liable, as was the ship owner/operator? Another
point of contention was whether oil-carrying vessels should be required to have
double hulls. Although proponents argued that a second hull would help prevent oil
spills, the shipping industry raised concern that implementing such a mandate would
disrupt oil transportation and potentially affect the national economy. A final issue
involved the interaction between domestic legislation (federal and state) and
international measures. Some were concerned that if the United States became a
party to certain international agreements under consideration in the 1980s,24 the
international standards would preempt federal and state laws, especially those
establishing liability limits. Proponents argued that these concerns were overstated,
and stressed that joining the international agreements was especially important for
the United States because of the international nature of oil transportation and
associated pollution.
Following the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, Members faced great pressure to
overcome the disputes discussed above.25 The spill highlighted the inadequacies of
the existing coverage and generated public outrage. The end result was the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)26 — the first comprehensive law to specifically address
oil pollution to waterways and coastlines of the United States.
21
See EPA “National Contingency Plan Overview” at [http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/
ncpover.htm].
22
The NCP is codified at 40 CFR Part 300.
23
See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
Report accompanying H.R. 1465, Oil Pollution Prevention, Removal, Liability, and
Compensation Act of 1989, 1989, H.Rept. 101-242, Part 2, 101st Cong., 1st sess., p. 32.
24
The two agreements under consideration were the 1984 Protocols to the International
Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and the Protocols to the
International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damages.
25
A handful of other oil spills followed the Exxon Valdez in 1989 and 1990 (e.g.,the Mega
Borg spilled 5 million gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico), further spurring congressional
action.
26
P.L. 101-380, primarily codified at U.S.C. 2701, et seq.
CRS-9
CRS-9
Following the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, Members faced great pressure to
overcome the disputes discussed above.25 The spill highlighted the inadequacies of
the existing coverage and generated public outrage. The end result was the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)26 — the first comprehensive law to specifically address
oil pollution to waterways and coastlines of the United States.
Oil Pollution Act of 1990. With the enactment of OPA on August 18, 1990,
Congress consolidated the existing federal oil spill laws under one program. The
1990 law expanded the existing liability provisions within the CWA and created new
free-standing requirements regarding oil spill prevention and response. Key OPA
provisions are discussed below.
Spill Response Authority. When responding to a spill, many considered the
lines of responsibility under the pre-OPA regime to be unclear,27 with too much
reliance on spillers to perform proper cleanup.28 OPA strengthened and clarified the
federal government’s role in oil spill response and cleanup. OPA Section 4201
amended Section 311(c) of the CWA to provide the President (delegated to the
USCG or EPA) with three options: perform cleanup immediately (“federalize” the
spill), monitor the response efforts of the spiller, or direct the spiller’s cleanup
activities. The revised response authorities addressed concerns “that precious time
would be lost while waiting for the spiller to marshall its cleanup forces.”29
The federal government determines the level of cleanup required. Although the
federal government must consult with designated trustees of natural resources and the
governor of the state affected by the spill, the decision that cleanup is completed and
can be ended rests with the federal government. States may require further work, but
without the support of federal funding.30
National Contingency Plan. OPA expanded the role and breadth of the
NCP. The 1990 law established a multi-layered planning and response system to
improve preparedness and response to spills in marine environments.31 Among other
things, the act also required the President to establish procedures and standards (as
part of the NCP) for responding to worst-case oil spill scenarios.32
Tank Vessel and Facility Response Plans. As a component of the
enhanced NCP, OPA amended the CWA to require that U.S. tank vessels, offshore
facilities, and certain onshore facilities33 prepare and submit oil spill response plans
25
A handful of other oil spills followed the Exxon Valdez in 1989 and 1990 (e.g.,the Mega
Borg spilled 5 million gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico), further spurring congressional
action.
26
P.L. 101-380, primarily codified at U.S.C. 2701, et seq.
27
See, for example, Wilkinson, Cynthia et al., “Slick Work: An Analysis of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990,” Journal of Energy, Natural Resources, and Environmental Law, 12 (1992),
p. 190.
28
See, Grumbles, Benjamin, and Manley, Joan, “The Oil Pollution Act of 1990: Legislation
in the Wake of a Crisis,” Natural Resources and Environment, 10:2 (1995), p. 38.
29
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Report
accompanying HaccompanyingH.R. 1465, Oil Pollution Prevention, Removal, Liability, and Compensation
Act of 1989, 1989, H.Rept. 101-242, Part 2, 101st Cong., 1st sess., p. 84.
30
OPA Section 1011.
31
OPA Section 4202, amending Section 311(j) of the CWA.
32
OPA Section 4201(b), amending Section 311(d)(2)(J) of the CWA.
33
The response plan requirement is applicable only to an onshore facility that, because of
its location, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by
discharging into navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone.
(continued...)
CRS-10
CRS-10
things, the act also required the President to establish procedures and standards (as
part of the NCP) for responding to worst-case oil spill scenarios.32
Tank Vessel and Facility Response Plans. As a component of the
enhanced NCP, OPA amended the CWA to require that U.S. tank vessels, offshore
facilities, and certain onshore facilities33 prepare and submit oil spill response plans
to the relevant federal agency. In general, vessels and facilities are prohibited from
handling, storing, or transporting oil if they do not have a plan approved by (or
submitted to) the appropriate agency34 (see Table 1).
The plans should, among other things, identify how the owner or operator of a
vessel or facility would respond to a worst-case scenario spill. Congress did not
intend for every vessel to have onboard all the personnel and equipment needed to
respond to a worst-case spill, but vessels must have a plan and procedures to call
upon — typically through a contractual relationship — the necessary equipment and
personnel for responding to a worst-case spill.35
In 2004, Congress enacted an amendment requiring non-tank vessels (i.e., ships
carrying oil for their own fuel use) over 400 gross tons to prepare and submit a vessel
response plan.36 Congress reasoned that many non-tank vessels have as much oil
onboard as small tank vessels, thus presenting a comparable risk from an oil spill.
Moreover, the international standards for oil spill prevention37 apply to tanker and
non-tanker vessels alike. Thus, the 2004 amendment brought the U.S. law more in
line with international provisions.
Double-Hull Design for Vessels. The issue of double hulls received
considerable debate for many years prior to OPA, and it was one of the stumbling
blocks for unified oil spill legislation. Proponents maintained that double-hull
construction provides extra protection if a vessel becomes damaged.38 However,
opponents argued that a double-hulled vessel might cause stability problems if an
accident occurred, thus negating the benefits.39 Stakeholders also highlighted the
impacts that a double-hull requirement would entail for the shipping industry (e.g.,
33
(...continued)
CWA Section 311(j)(5)(iii).
32
OPA Section 4201(b), amending Section 311(d)(2)(J) of the CWA.
33
The response plan requirement is applicable only to an onshore facility that, because of
its location, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by
discharging into navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone.
CWA Section 311(j)(5)(iii).
34
OPA Section 4202, amending Section 311(j)(5)(E) of the CWA.
35
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Report
accompanying H.R. 1465, Oil Pollution Prevention, Removal, Liability, and Compensation
Act of 1989, 1989, H.Rept. 101-242, Part 2, 101st Cong., 1st sess., p. 87. OPA Section 4202,
amending Section 311(j)(5)(C)(iii) of the CWA.
36
Amendments Relating to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Title VII of Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-293), codified at 33 U.S.C. 1321.
37
Primarily the shipboard oil pollution emergency plans required by MARPOL 73/78,
discussed later in this report.
38
A study from the National Academy of Sciences reached this conclusion in 1999. See
National Research Council, Double hull Tanker Legislation: An Assessment of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, National Academies of Science, 1999, p. 144.
39
Opponents maintained that if water entered the space between hulls, the ship could
become unstable, hindering salvage and possibly capsizing. Wilkinson, Cynthia et al.,
“Slick Work: An Analysis of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,” Journal of Energy, Natural
Resources, and Environmental Law, 12 (1992), p. 196.
CRS-11
CRS-11
accident occurred, thus negating the benefits.39 Stakeholders also highlighted the
impacts that a double-hull requirement would entail for the shipping industry (e.g.,
cost and time of retrofitting, ship availability).40 The OPA requirements for double
hulls reflected some of these concerns.
The act required new vessels carrying oil and operating in U.S. waters to have
double hulls.41 However, OPA provided certain exceptions, depending on the size
of the vessel (e.g., less than 5,000 gross tons)42 and its particular use (e.g.,
lightering).43 For older vessels, OPA established a staggered retrofitting schedule,
based on vessel age and size. Many of the age-based deadlines have already passed.
By 2015 at the latest, the law requires that all oil-carrying vessels operating in U.S.
waters have double hulls.
Liability Issues. OPA unified the liability provisions of existing oil spill law,
creating a freestanding liability regime. Section 1002 states that responsible parties
are liable for any discharge of oil (or threat of discharge) from a vessel or facility44
to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone45 of the
United States (i.e., 200 miles beyond the shore).
Regarding the existing oil spill law prior to OPA, Congress recognized that
“there is no comprehensive legislation in place that promptly and adequately
compensates those who suffer other types of economic loss as a result of an oil
pollution incident.”46 OPA broadened the scope of damages (i.e., costs) for which
an oil spiller would be liable. Under OPA, a responsible party is liable for all
cleanup costs incurred, not only by a government entity, but also by a private party.47
In addition to cleanup costs, OPA significantly increased the range of liable damages
to include the following:
!
!
!
injury to natural resources,
loss of personal property (and resultant economic losses),
loss of subsistence use of natural resources,
39
Opponents maintained that if water entered the space between hulls, the ship could
become unstable, hindering salvage and possibly capsizing. Wilkinson, Cynthia et al.,
“Slick Work: An Analysis of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,” Journal of Energy, Natural
Resources, and Environmental Law, 12 (1992), p. 196.
40
U.S. Congress, Conference Report accompanying H.R. 1465, Oil Pollution Act of 1990,
1990, Conf.Rept. 101-653, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., pp. 140-141.
41
OPA Section 4115, amending 46 U.S.C. 3703.
42
This exception applied to many inland barges.
43
Lightering is the process of transferring oil from a large vessel to a smaller vessel. This
common practice occurs in designated areas that are typically many miles away from shore.
44
The definition of “facility” is broadly worded and includes pipelines and motor vehicles.
OPA Section 1001.
45
Under the pre-OPA regime (primarily the CWA), a discharge 12 miles beyond shore had
to affect the natural resources before liability attached. Under OPA Section 1002, the
discharge itself triggers liability. Wilkinson, Cynthia et al., “Slick Work: An Analysis of
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,” Journal of Energy, Natural Resources, and Environmental
Law, 12 (1992), p. 201.
46
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Report
accompanying H.R. 1465, Oil Pollution Prevention, Removal, Liability, and Compensation
Act of 1989, 1989, H.Rept. 101-242, Part 2, 101st Cong., 1st sess., p. 31.
47
OPA Section 1002(b)(1).
CRS-12
!
!
!
CRS-12
cleanup costs incurred, not only by a government entity, but also by a private party.47
In addition to cleanup costs, OPA significantly increased the range of liable damages
to include the following:
!
!
!
!
!
!
injury to natural resources,
loss of personal property (and resultant economic losses),
loss of subsistence use of natural resources,
lost revenues resulting from destruction of property or natural
resource injury,
lost profits resulting from property loss or natural resource injury;
and
costs of providing extra public services during or after spill
response.48
OPA provided several defenses from liability: act of God, act of war, and act or
omission of a third party. Although these defenses are more narrow than those for
oil spills under the pre-OPA framework (primarily the CWA),49 they are similar to
those of the Superfund statute,5049 established in 1980 for releases of hazardous
substances.
Except for certain behavior, including acts of gross negligence or willful
misconduct,5150 OPA set liability limits (or caps) for cleanup costs and other damages.
Liability limits for vessels are based on vessel carrying capacity, generally $1,200 per
gross ton. As an example, the liability limit for the 2004 Athos tanker spill in
Delaware River was approximately $45 million.5251 Offshore facility liability is capped
at $75 million; onshore facilities and deepwater port liability is limited to $350
million. These limits are much higher than under the pre-OPA liability structure.
OPA required the President to issue regulations to adjust the liability limits at
least every three years to take into account changes in the consumer price index
(CPI). Despite this requirement, adjustments to liability limits were not made until
July 2006. The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (P.L. 109241) amended OPA, increasing limits to $1,900/gross ton for double-hulled vessels
and $3,000/gross ton for single-hulled vessels.
The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Prior to OPA, federal funding for oil
spill response was generally considered inadequate,53 and damage recovery was
48
OPA Section 1002(b)(2).
49
Wilkinson, Cynthia et al., “Slick Work: An Analysis of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,”
Journal of Energy, Natural Resources, and Environmental Law, 12 (1992), p. 205.
50
47
OPA Section 1002(b)(1).
48
OPA Section 1002(b)(2).
49
Section 107(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund), P.L. 96-510.
5150
In addition, liability limits are unavailable if the violation of a federal safety, construction,
or operating requirement proximately caused the spill. Spillers must also report the incident
and cooperate with response officials to take advantage of the liability caps. OPA Section
1004(c).
5251
37,895 gross tons x $1,200/ton = $45.47 million. Vessel data from United States Coast
Guard, Investigation into the Striking of Submerged Objects by the Tank Vessel Athos I in
the Delaware River on November 26, 2004 with a Major Discharge of Oil, January 2006,
p. 4.
53
Wilkinson, Cynthia et al., “Slick Work: An Analysis of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,”
Journal of Energy, Natural Resources, and Environmental Law, 12 (1992), p. 188.
CRS-13
CRS-13
The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Prior to OPA, federal funding for oil
spill response was generally considered inadequate,52 and damage recovery was
difficult for private parties.5453 To help address these issues, Congress established the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).
Pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 12777, the USCG created the National
Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) to manage the trust fund in 1991. The fund may be
used for several purposes:
!
prompt payment of costs for responding to and removing oil spills;
!
payment of the costs incurred by the federal and state trustees of
natural resources for assessing the injuries to natural resources
caused by an oil spill, and developing and implementing the plans
to restore or replace the injured natural resources;
!
payment of parties’ claims for uncompensated removal costs, and for
uncompensated damages (e.g., financial losses of fishermen, hotels,
and beachfront businesses);
!
payment for the net loss of government revenue, and for increased
public services by a state or its political subdivisions; and
!
payment of federal administrative and operational costs, including
research and development, and $25 million per year for the Coast
Guard’s operating expenses.
Although Congress created the OSLTF in 1986,5554 Congress did not authorize its
use or provide its funding until after the Exxon Valdez incident. In 1990, OPA
provided the statutory authorization necessary to put the fund in motion. Through
OPA, Congress transferred other federal liability funds56funds55 into the OSLTF. In
complementary legislation, Congress imposed a 5-cent-per-barrel tax on the oil
industry to support the fund.5756 Collection of this fee ceased on December 31, 1994,
due to a sunset provision in the law. However, in April 2006, the tax resumed as
required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The level of funding in the
trust fund is discussed below.
Financial Responsibility. To preserve the trust fund and ensure that
responsible parties can be held accountable for oil spill cleanup and damages, OPA
requires that vessels maintain evidence of financial responsibility (e.g., insurance).
54
52
Wilkinson, Cynthia et al., “Slick Work: An Analysis of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,”
Journal of Energy, Natural Resources, and Environmental Law, 12 (1992), p. 188.
53
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Report
accompanying H.R. 1465, Oil Pollution Prevention, Removal, Liability, and Compensation
Act of 1989, 1989, H.Rept. 101-242, Part 2, 101st Cong., 1st sess., p. 35.
5554
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-510).
5655
The CWA Section 311(k) revolving fund; the Deepwater Port Liability Fund; the TransAlaska Pipeline Liability Fund; and the Offshore Oil Pollution Compensation Fund.
5756
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-239). Other revenue sources for
the fund include interest on the fund, cost recovery from the parties responsible for the
spills, and any fines or civil penalties collected.
CRS-14
Financial Responsibility. To preserve the trust fund and ensure that
responsible parties can be held accountable for oil spill cleanup and damages, OPA
requires that vessels maintain evidence of financial responsibility (e.g., insurance).
The National Pollution Funds Center carries out this mandate by issuing Certificates
of Financial Responsibility (COFRs) to shipping vessel owners when owners
demonstrate the ability to pay for oil spill cleanup and damages. In general, vessels
over 300 gross tons are required to have a valid COFR to operate in U.S. waters.
Other Federal Laws. Although OPA is the primary domestic legislation for
oil spills, other federal laws contain provisions that relate to oil spills. Many of these
provisions were in place before OPA. The following list is not all-inclusive, but it
highlights the main requirements authorized by laws other than OPA.
Clean Water Act. Section 311(j)(1) of the 1972 CWA called for regulations
to prevent the discharge of oil from vessels, onshore facilities, and offshore facilities.
Pursuant to this statutory requirement,5857 the EPA crafted regulations59regulations58 for spill
prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans in 1973, some of which are
scheduled to go into effect October 31, 2007.6059 SPCC plans address the “procedures,
methods, and equipment and other requirements for equipment to prevent
discharges.”6160 The EPA’s SPCC plans apply only to non-transportation, onshore
facilities that exceed a certain oil storage capacity and that, in the event of a spill, can
be reasonably expected, because of their location, to produce an oil discharge that
would reach navigable waters or adjoining shorelines of the United States.6261 Unlike
other oil spill preparedness provisions, SPCC plans focus more on prevention than
on response activities, requiring, for example, secondary containment (e.g., dikes,
berms) for oil-storage equipment.
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The primary federal law governing
oil development and operations in federal waters is the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953 and its subsequent amendments. The OCSLA provided
the foundation for regulations (30 CFR Part 250) that are implemented by the
Minerals Management Service (MMS). Sections of the MMS regulations address oil
spill prevention and response issues by requiring that various equipment and
procedures be in place at offshore facilities. For more information, see CRS Report
RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework, by Jon O.
Shimabukuro.
Pipeline Legislation. The U.S. pipeline network is extensive. Recent
estimates indicate there are more than 33,000 miles of pipelines just in the Gulf of
58
57
And in accordance with Executive Order 11735 (Aug.August 3, 1973), granting EPA the
authority to regulate non-transportation-related onshore and offshore facilities.
5958
U.S. EPA, “Oil Pollution Prevention: Non-Transportation Related Onshore and Offshore
Facilities,” Federal Register, vol. 38, no. 237 (Dec.December 11, 1973), pp. 34164-34170.
6059
EPA offered several regulatory amendments after the 1973 rulemaking. Following OPA
in 1991, the agency proposed substantial changes and clarifications that were not made final
until 2002. However, theThe effective date of the 2002 final rule has been extended four times;
the the
current effective date is October 31, 2007.
61
CWA Section 311(j)(1)(C).
62
See 40 CFR Section 112.1.
CRS-15
Mexico.63 However, EPA has issued a regulatory proposal
to further extend the compliance date to July 1, 2009. Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 247,
pp. 77357-77360 (December 26, 2006).
60
CWA Section 311(j)(1)(C).
61
See 40 CFR Section 112.1.
CRS-15
RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework, by Jon O.
Shimabukuro.
Pipeline Legislation. The U.S. pipeline network is extensive. Recent
estimates indicate there are more than 33,000 miles of pipelines just in the Gulf of
Mexico.62 Moreover, U.S. inland pipelines are concentrated in coastal areas,
particularly in the Gulf states, and these pipelines may have an impact on coastal
waters if spills reach waterways that empty into coastal waters.
Several laws govern oil pipelines. The Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Act of 1979
(P.L. 96-129) granted authority to the Department of Transportation (DOT) to
regulate various issues regarding oil spills from pipelines. Within the DOT, the
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) On December 29, 2006,
the President signed the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-468) to
improve pipeline safety and security practices, and to reauthorize the federal Office
of Pipeline Safety. The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), which is part of the DOT,
implements provisions concerning pipeline design,
construction, operation and
maintenance, and spill response planning. For further
information on pipeline
legislation, see CRS Report RL33347, Pipeline Safety and
Security: Federal
Programs, by Paul W. Parfomak.
Vessel Legislation. Several federal laws directly or indirectly deal with oil
pollution from vessels.6463 Laws concerning navigation reduce the possibilities of
vessel collision or hull breach by objects in the waterways.6564 Other laws call for
particular vessel design standards. For example, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act
of 1972,6665 amended by the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978,6766 called for specific
construction and equipment design requirements for oil tankers. (As noted, OPA
subsequently amended this statute in 1990 by establishing a phased-in schedule for
double-hulled tankers.) Congress enacted the 1970s legislation to coincide with
international initiatives. In fact, many of the federal laws concerning vessel standards
and pollution control procedures were written to implement international
conventions. These laws are discussed in the next section.
International Conventions
The relationship between international and domestic law can be complex. In
general, international conventions (i.e., treaties), when signed by the United States
and (if necessary) ratified by the Senate, are on equal footing with federal law.
Parties to such conventions must often implement domestic legislation to carry out
the provisions outlined in the convention. Several of the federal laws governing oil
spills were fashioned in this manner.68
6362
See, for example, MMS Press Release from Feb. 2, 2005, at
[http://www.mms.gov/ooc/
press/2005/press0202.htm].
64
February
2,
2005,
at
63
For a comprehensive list of federal maritime legislation see USCG, Marine Safety
Manual, Vol. IX (undated), Chapter 1, available at [http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/pubs/
msm/vol9.pdf].
6564
For example, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended (33 U.S.C. 401, et seq.),
and the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, as amended (33 U.S.C.
1601, et seq.).
6665
P.L. 92-340, 33 U.S.C. 1221, et seq.
6766
P.L. 95-474, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1221-1232 and 46 U.S.C. 3701-3718.
68
If a treaty is considered “self-executing,” domestic legislation implementing the treaty
is not necessary. For more details on these issues, see CRS Report RL32528, International
Law and Agreements: Their Effect Upon U.S. Law, by Michael John Garcia and Arthur
Traldi.
CRS-16
CRS-16
Parties to such conventions must often implement domestic legislation to carry out
the provisions outlined in the convention. Several of the federal laws governing oil
spills were fashioned in this manner.67
International conventions have played an important role in developing consistent
standards for oil-carrying vessels from different nations. A primary player in this
regard is the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a body of the United
Nations, which sets international maritime vessel safety and marine pollution
standards. The Coast Guard represents the United States at IMO meetings.
Multiple international conventions concern vessels and their impact on the
marine environment. The two conventions described below are the most relevant to
oil pollution in coastal waters.
MARPOL 73/78. The IMO implements the 1973 International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
(MARPOL 73/78).6968 Vessels whose nations are signatories to MARPOL are subject
to its requirements, regardless of where they sail, and member nations are responsible
for the vessels registered under their flag.
MARPOL 73/78 includes six annexes, each covering a different pollution type.
Annex I (Prevention of Pollution by Oil) entered into force in 198370198369 and established
requirements for controlling oil discharges to sea. Annex I requires vessels to have
equipment that minimizes oil discharge, such as oil-water separators, and shipboard
oil pollution emergency plans (SOPEPs). Although the SOPEP applicability is
similar to that of the vessel response plan (VRP) required by OPA,7170 the purpose of
the SOPEP is somewhat different. A SOPEP is intended to provide guidance to the
vessel’s officers regarding proper onboard emergency procedures when an oil spill
occurs,7271 whereas the VRP is more focused on responding to the spill itself.
The United States implements Annex I through the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships (APPS).7372 APPS applies to all U.S.-flagged ships, irrespective of
location, and to all foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. waters or at ports under U.S.
jurisdiction. The USCG issues and enforces regulations necessary to carry out the
APPS provisions. The USCG inspection program is a key component of its oil spill
prevention effort.
Intervention Convention. The 1967 Torrey Canyon spill off the coast of
Great Britain was one of the first major spills to receive worldwide attention.74 The
69
67
If a treaty is considered “self-executing,” domestic legislation implementing the treaty
is not necessary. For more details on these issues, see CRS Report RL32528, International
Law and Agreements: Their Effect Upon U.S. Law, by Michael John Garcia and Arthur
Traldi.
68
For convention texts and other materials, see [http://www.imo.org].
7069
The phrase “entry into force” signifies that the requisite number of nations have ratified
the convention or annex, thus making the agreed upon requirements binding for all
participating nations. For more discussion of the procedures of international conventions,
see the IMO website at [http://www.imo.org].
7170
All vessels of any type over 400 gross tons traveling over international waters must have
a SOPEP approved by their flag state. See USCG VRP/SOPEP “FAQs” at
[http://www.uscg.mil/vrp].
72
73
74
71
72
USCG, 1997, Marine Safety Manual, Marine Environment Protection, Volume IX, p. 4-24.
P.L. 96-478, 33 U.S.C. 1901, et seq.
The Torrey Canyon, a Liberian-flagged tanker, spilled approximately 35 million gallons
(continued...)
CRS-17
CRS-17
jurisdiction. The USCG issues and enforces regulations necessary to carry out the
APPS provisions. The USCG inspection program is a key component of its oil spill
prevention effort.
Intervention Convention. The 1967 Torrey Canyon spill off the coast of
Great Britain was one of the first major spills to receive worldwide attention.73 The
incident raised many questions regarding oil spill response, particularly when dealing
with vessels from other nations. For example, the incident prompted debate over
actions allowable if a nation’s waters and environment are threatened by a spill from
another nation’s vessel. The 1969 International Convention Relating to Intervention
on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (the Intervention Convention)
sought to address these issues.
To implement this convention in the United States, Congress passed the
Intervention on the High Seas Act of 1974.7574 Under this act, if the USCG determines
there to be a “grave and imminent danger to the coastline or related interests of the
United States from pollution or threat of pollution of the sea by convention oil [i.e.,
as defined in the convention],” the USCG can take action to “prevent, mitigate, or
eliminate that danger.”
Federal Agencies Responsibilities
Unlike most countries, the United States shares jurisdiction over its territorial
seas (0-12 nautical miles from shore) with its coastal states. The 1953 Submerged
Lands Act (SLA) gave coastal states jurisdiction over the submerged lands, waters,
and natural resources (e.g., oil deposits) located, in most cases, within three nautical
miles off the coastline.7675 The waters, seabed, and natural resources beyond the states’
waters are exclusively federal, and extend to the edge of the exclusive economic zone
(200 nautical miles from shore). However, the federal government maintains the
authority to regulate commerce, navigation, national defense, power production, and
international affairs within state waters. For more discussion on state and federal
jurisdictional issues, see CRS Report RL32912, Federal-State Maritime Boundary
Issues, by Laura Welles, Aaron M. Flynn, and Eugene H. Buck.
The oil spill legal framework involves implementation by multiple federal
agencies. Agency responsibilities can be divided into two categories: (1) oil spill
response and cleanup and (2) oil spill prevention/preparedness. Responsibility for
oil spill response is determined by the location of the spill: the USCG has response
authority in coastal waters, and the EPA responds to inland oil spills.77 As the
74
(...continued)
of crude oil.
73
The Torrey Canyon, a Liberian-flagged tanker, spilled approximately 35 million gallons
of crude oil.
74
75
P.L. 93-248 , 33 U.S.C. 1471, et seq.
76
Most state waters extend 3 nautical miles (1 nautical mile = 6,076 feet, or 1.15 miles)
from shore. Louisiana waters extend 3 imperial nautical miles (1 imperial nautical mile =
6,080 feet). Texas and Gulf Coast of Florida waters extend 3 marine leagues (equating to
9 nautical miles). See the MMS, OCS, website (“Definitions and Jurisdictions”) at
[http://www.mms.gov/incidents/pollution.htm].
77
The terms inland and coastal are defined in the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR
Section 300.5). The coastal zone covers all waters subject to the tide, the Great Lakes, and
all seaward waters (extending 200 nautical miles beyond shore). The inland zone covers all
other U.S. waters. Spills in inland waters can potentially affect coastal waters and
ecosystems, particularly if the spill occurs in water systems near the coast. In fact, a fine
line may separate specific inland and coastal waters (e.g., consider the nexus between a bay
(continued...)
CRS-18
CRS-18
authority in coastal waters, and the EPA responds to inland oil spills.76 As the
primary response authority in coastal waters, the USCG has the ultimate authority to
ensure that an oil spill is effectively removed and actions are taken to prevent further
discharge from the source. During response operations, the USCG coordinates the
efforts of federal, state, and private parties.
Regarding oil spill prevention and preparedness duties, jurisdiction is
determined by the potential sources (e.g., vessels, facilities, pipelines) of oil spills.
A series of executive orders (EOs), coupled with memoranda of understanding
(MOU), have established the various agency responsibilities.7877 Table 1 identifies the
agencies responsible for implementing prevention and preparedness regulations for
the potential sources of oil spills.
Table 1:. Federal Agency Jurisdiction for Oil Spill Prevention and
Preparedness Duties, by Source
Potential Source of Oil Spill
Responsible Agency
Vessels
USCG
Onshore, non-transportation facilities
EPA
Onshore, transportation facilities
USCG and Department of Transportation
(DOT)
Deepwater ports79ports78
USCG and DOT
Offshore facilities (oil/gas extraction)
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
within within
the Department of Interior
Offshore pipelines directly associated
with oil extraction activities (i.e.,
“production lines”)8079
MMS
Offshore pipelines not directly
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) within the
associated with oil extraction
activities DOT
(i.e., “transmission lines”)
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) within the
DOT
Inland pipelines
OPS
77
(...continued)
and a river).
78
Executive Order (EO) 12777 (Oct.
Inland pipelines
OPS
76
The terms inland and coastal are defined in the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR
Section 300.5). The coastal zone covers all waters subject to the tide, the Great Lakes, and
all seaward waters (extending 200 nautical miles beyond shore). The inland zone covers all
other U.S. waters. Spills in inland waters can potentially affect coastal waters and
ecosystems, particularly if the spill occurs in water systems near the coast. In fact, a fine
line may separate specific inland and coastal waters (e.g., consider the nexus between a bay
and a river).
77
Executive Order (EO) 12777 (October 18, 1991) delegates authorities pursuant to the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990. This order was amended by EO 13286 (Mar.March 5, 2003), which
reorganized duties in response to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
79
78
There is only one deepwater port in U.S. coastal waters: the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port
(LOOP).
8079
For further discussion on federal pipeline jurisdiction, see National Research Council,
Improving the Safety of Marine Pipelines, National Academies of Science, 1994, pp. 86-89.
CRS-19
Prevention responsibilities include, among other things, assessing whether
facilities or vessels have the necessary equipment in place. As discussed above,
vessels may be required to have double hulls; facilities may need secondary
containment. Preparedness duties involve oversight tasks, such as evaluating facility
and vessel response plans. In addition, OPA requires agencies to conduct internal
examinations to test preparedness.8180 As part of this requirement, the USCG conducts
Spills of National Significance (SONS) exercises to analyze the Coast Guard’s ability
to respond to a major oil spill.
Federal Funding for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
In recent years, the level of funding for the trust fund has created some concern.
Prior to two separate actions by the 109th Congress, the trust fund was particularly
vulnerable. In the first session2005, Congress reinstated the 5-cent-per-barrel tax on oil,
thus thus
providing a dedicated source of revenue for the trust fund.82 In the second
session81 In 2006, Congress raised
the vessel liability limits, thus requiring the responsible
party to pay a greater
proportion of the oil spill costs.8382 Before these changes, fund
managers projected the
fund would be completely depleted by FY2009.8483 With the
recent legislation in
effect, the most currentrecent projection indicates that the fund will
reach $1 billion by
FY2014, the year the tax is currently set to expire (Figure 3).
However, this
projection does not account for possible claims arising from oil spills
associated with
Hurricane Katrina. Although the federal response costs were covered
under the
Disaster Relief Fund,8584 private parties can seek reimbursement from the
trust fund
for cleanup or other costs (e.g., damage to property) that exceed their
liability limits.
The possible number and value of these potential claims remain
uncertain.86
8185
80
As required by OPA Section 4202(a), which amended CWA Section 311(j)(7), codified
in 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(7).
8281
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). Congress also raised the ceiling from $1 billion
to $2.7 billion for when the tax would temporarily expire. Under the original tax legislation
(Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-239), the per-barrel tax would be
suspended in any calendar quarter if the fund balance reached $1 billion, restarting again if
it dipped below that number. The 2005 act increased this threshold to $2.7 billion.
83
8482
83
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-241).
USCG, Report on the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, May 2005, p. 11.
8584
The President may issue a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) and invoke federal authorities and
resources, as occurred in response to Hurricane Katrina. For more on this issue, see CRS
Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations,
Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Keith Bea.
8685
The most recent publications from the NPFC, which manages the OSLTF, do not provide
an estimate because of this uncertainty. However, a background document that was offered
at an April 27, 2006, hearing stated, “the Coast Guard had estimated these costs could
exceed $800 million” (House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,
Hearing on the Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act). A recent discussion (Sept. 22,
2006) with anAn NPFC official suggests this
estimate is possibly overstated (per telephone conversation on September 22, 2006).
CRS-20
Figure 3:. Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund: Projected Annual Balances,
FY2006-FY2014
1200
Millions of Dollars
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the National Pollution Funds Center (as of Aug. 17, 2006).
Note: The projections assume there will not be any claims associated with spills caused by Hurricane
Katrina.
Regardless of the possible Katrina-related claims, and even considering the
substantial enhancements made by the 109th Congress, the trust fund remains
vulnerable to a major spill. After conducting the two most recent Spills of National
Significance (SONS) exercises (in 2002 and 2004), the Coast Guard observed that
a major spill can exceed the available resources in the trust fund.8786 As a reference
point, the Exxon Valdez spill tallied approximately $2 billion in cleanup costs and $1
billion in natural resource damages. If an accidental oil spill from a vessel matching
the size of the Exxon Valdez (95,000 gross tons)8887 were to occur, the vessel liability
(under the new limits) would be capped at either $285 million (single-hull) or $181
million (double hull).8988 Cleanup costs and damages in excess of the liability limits
could be covered by the trust fund.9089 OPA Section 900191900190 established per-incident
8786
See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, California SONS 2004:
After Action Report, pp. 46 and A-7.
88
87
The Exxon Valdez has been renamed the Sea River Mediterranean, and its logistics can
be found at the USCG Port State Information Exchange database at [http://cgmix.uscg.mil/
PSIX/].
8988
This assumes that the owner/operator can take advantage of the liability limits provided
by OPA (e.g., obeyed relevant regulations and did not act with “gross negligence or willful
misconduct “”). OPA Section 1004(c).
9089
Except for emergency funds available to federal officials, the trust fund distributes monies
through a claims process. Persons who have incurred cleanup costs or suffered damages
from an oil spill may submit a claim for reimbursement from the trust fund. This includes
responsible parties who have reached their respective liability limits. For more details on
(continued...)this process, see the National Pollution Fund Center’s website at [http://www.uscg.mil/
CRS-21
expenditure caps: no more than $1 billion (or the maximum amount available in the
fund) for all eligible costs, and no more than $500 million for natural resource
damages. The fund currently has about $637 million and is projected to have slightly
more than $1 billion by 2014 (see Figure 3). Thus, a major spill, particularly one in
a sensitive environment, could threaten the viability of the fund, possibly depleting
it entirely.
There are several options that Congress might consider to address this
possibility. First, Congress could maintain the status quo. If a major oil spill
depleted the fund, Congress could replenish the fund through the appropriations
process. Thus, general treasury revenues would finance a (possibly significant)
portion of the spill response and natural resource restoration. Second, Congress
could increase the 5-cent-per-barrel oil tax to more quickly raise the fund’s balance
closer to its ceiling of $2.7 billion. A fully funded OSLTF would be more capable
of absorbing the costs in excess of a spiller’s liability limit. Third, Congress could
further increase the liability limits for vessels, so that the responsible party would be
required to pay a greater portion of the total spill cost before accessing trust fund
dollars.
The above options spotlight a central consideration for policymakers: who
should pay for the costs associated with a major, accidental oil spill? The first option
spreads the costs among all taxpayers. Some groups may contend this conflicts with
the “polluter pays” principle. However, there are two interpretations of this principle.
The broader view holds that the relevant industry should bear the environmental costs
that may develop during the course of business. A different interpretation of the
“polluter pays” principle finds that only the responsible party should pay. One with
such a view might conclude that the second option is overreaching and unfair,
because it spreads the costs across the entire industry instead of on the actual
responsible party.9291
There are likely many economic policy arguments both for and against an
additional per-barrel tax on oil. For instance, some groups may claim that an
additional oil barrel tax will be reflected in higher energy costs (gasoline, home
heating oil) for consumers, which could disproportionately affect lower-income
households. (In general, these types of tax policy debates are beyond the scope of
this report.) However, policymakers might consider whether any negative
consequences from an additional tax on industry would outweigh the potential
benefits of allocating the costs to the oil industry.
90
(...continued)
this process, see the National Pollution Fund Center’s website at [http://www.uscg.mil/
89
(...continued)
npfc/About%20Us/claims_adjudication.htm].
91
9290
91
Codified in 26 U.S.C. 9509.
The Bush Administration maintained an analogous view of the “polluter pays” principle
in the context of whether or not to reinstate the Superfund tax on the chemical and oil
industry. See CRS Report RL31410, Superfund Taxes or General Revenues: Future
Funding Issues for the Superfund Program, by Jonathan L. Ramseur, Mark Reisch, and
James E. McCarthy.
CRS-22
The third option would help preserve the trust fund by increasing the liability
limit of the spiller. Setting liability limits is a challenge because lawmakers must
apportion the risk of a costly, accidental spill fairly between the responsible party and
the trust fund. The shipping industry would likely argue that a further increase would
be disruptive due to the cost of maintaining additional financial assurance.
Considering that the limits were increased substantially in July 2006, this option
might be the least feasible.
State Laws
Prior to the passage of OPA in 1990, 28 states had oil spill liability laws, 19 of
which imposed unlimited liability.9392 During the 15 years prior to OPA’s passage, the
issue of whether or not to preempt state liability laws was perhaps the primary
obstacle to enacting unified oil spill legislation. Proponents of preemption argued
that differing state laws — particularly the various levels of liability — frustrate the
shipping industry and are contrary to the goal of comprehensive federal legislation.
Preemption opponents maintained that states should be allowed (as with most other
federal environmental statutes) to set stiffer standards regarding liability,
compensation, and cleanup.9493 In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill, the scales
tipped to the side of anti-preemption. According to OPA Section 1018 (referred to
as a “savings clause”), the act will not preempt any state from imposing additional
liability or requirements with respect to the discharge of oil or related response
activity (e.g., cleanup standards).
There was some concern that the language of OPA’s savings clause would allow
states to regulate matters typically reserved for the federal government, such as oil
tanker construction. To address this issue, the conference report stated that the
savings clause would not disturb a 1978 Supreme Court decision that dealt with the
intersection of federal and state authority to regulate the shipping industry.9594 In that
case, the Court invalidated a Washington State law that had attempted to govern oil
tanker design, size, and movement in Puget Sound.9695
Regardless of the clarification in the conference report, the line between federal
and state jurisdiction continues to be tested. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down
a Washington State rule calling for various personnel requirements, such as training,
on oil tankers.9796 Similarly, in July 2006, a federal district court in Massachusetts
9392
CRS Report (out-of-print), Liability Provisions in State Oil Spill Laws: A Brief Summary,
Oct.October 1, 1990.
9493
In fact, one argument against preemption was that existing requirements under particular
state laws would be diminished or negated entirely. See Benjamin Grumbles and Joan
Manley, “The Oil Pollution Act of 1990: Legislation in the Wake of a Crisis,” Natural
Resources and Environment, 10:2 (1995), p. 38.
9594
U.S. Congress, Conference Report accompanying H.R. 1465, Oil Pollution Act of 1990,
1990, Conf.Rept. 101-653, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., p. 122.
9695
Ray v. Atlantic Richfield, 435 U.S. 151 (1978).
9796
United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000).
CRS-23
ruled against a state law that would govern logistics, such as tanker design, personnel
qualifications, and navigation.9897
Threat of Future Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters
This section examines the threat of future oil spills in coastal waters by
assessing the possibilities for such spills, including spill location and oil type (crude
versus refined product) and the nation’s level of preparedness (or readiness) for
responding to a major spill.
Possibilities for Future Oil Spills
Oil is expected to remain the dominant source of energy in the United States for
at least the next several decades.9998 Oil consumption is expected to increase: the
Department of Energy estimates that daily petroleum consumption in the United
States will rise from 20.76 million gallons to 27.57 million gallons by 2030 (Figure
4).100see
Figure 4).99 With this steady rise in oil consumption, more oil will be transported
from the
well (domestic or international) to the refinery, and ultimately to the
consumer. The
increased oil transportation suggests that the possibilities for oil spills may increase.
Nonetheless, a greater potential for spills does not necessarily correspond with
a higher spill frequency. U.S. oil consumption has been steadily rising for at least
two decades,101 during which time the number of oil spills in coastal waters has
declined (see Figure 1). However, the most recent annual data suggest that the
decline has halted, as annual numbers have remained fairly consistent. Between 1997
and 2001 (the most recent five-year span for which data are available), the annual
number of spills in coastal waters from all combined sources remained consistent,
averaging 393 incidents per year.102 Assuming other variables (e.g., level of
prevention and preparedness) remain constant, the annual numbers of spills may take
an upward turn.
98
may increase.
Thousands of Barrels
Figure 4. U.S. Oil Imports and Consumption:
Actual (1990-2005) and Projected (2010-2025)
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1990
1995
2000
Imports
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Consumption
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the following: actual import data (1990-2005) from Energy
Information Administration (EIA) online statistics, at [http://www.eia.doe.gov], and projected import
data (2010-2025) and all consumption data from EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (tables 11 and 91,
respectively).
97
United States v. Massachusetts, 440 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D. Mass. 2006).
9998
Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (hereinafter EIA
2006 Report), February 2006, p. 6, at [http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2006).pdf].
100
EIA 2006 Report, p. 11.
101
The increase in U.S. oil consumption may have started even earlier. The EIA historical
data only go back to 1981. EIA online petroleum statistics, “Total Crude and Petroleum
Products Supplied,” (historical data), at [http://www.eia.doe.gov].
102
See USCG Oil Spill Compendium.
CRS-24
Thousands of Barrels
Figure 4: U.S. Oil Imports and Consumption:
Actual (1990-2005) and Projected (2010-2025)
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1990
1995
2000
Imports
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Consumption
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the following: actual import data (1990-2005) from Energy
Information Administration (EIA) online statistics, at [http://www.eia.doe.gov], and projected import
data (2010-2025) and all consumption data from EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (tables 11 and 91,
respectively).
However, these other variables are not constant and are likely to play a role in
the oil spill equation. Oil vessel upgrades (i.e., double hulls) are still ongoing: two
important deadlines, 2010 and 2015,103 will yield a higher percentage of doublehulled vessels in U.S. waters. These improvements should help keep the number of
spills low. On the other hand, the nation’s oil pipeline infrastructure is old, and in
some (perhaps many) areas, pipelines are operating well beyond their intended
service life.104 The United States will obtain its oil from a combination of domestic
and foreign sources. The ratio of this mix and the method of its delivery could play
a role in the number and volume of oil spills in the coming years. The following
sections discuss this delivery system and its implications for oil spills in greater
detail.
U.S. Oil Imports and Possible Spills. The volume and proportion of
imported oil, compared with oil produced domestically, may play a role in the
frequency and location of oil spills. Transportation of oil into the United States from
foreign nations has steadily risen and is projected to continue increasing (Figure 4).
103
Barring a few exceptions, single-hull vessels over 5,000 gross tons may not operate in
U.S. waters after January 1, 2010. Single-hull vessels below 5,000 gross tons (chiefly
barges) and other previously excepted vessels (e.g., lightering vessels or those upgraded
with double-sides or bottoms) must have double hulls by January 1, 2015. OPA Section
4115 (codified at 46 U.S.C. 3703a).
104
See, for example, National Research Council, Improving the Safety of Marine Pipelines,
National Academies of Science, 1994, p. 45, and Epstein, Paul (editor), Oil: A Life Cycle
Analysis of its Health and Environmental Impacts, Harvard Medical School’s Center for
Health and the Global Environment, March 2002, p. 21.
CRS-2599
EIA 2006 Report, p. 11.
CRS-24
Nonetheless, a greater potential for spills does not necessarily correspond with
a higher spill frequency. U.S. oil consumption has been steadily rising for at least
two decades,100 during which time the number of oil spills in coastal waters has
declined (see Figure 1). Between 1995 and 2004, the number of annual spills
declined by approximately 50% (see Figure 5). Between 2002 and 2004 (the most
recent three-year span for which data are available), the annual number of spills in
coastal waters from all combined sources remained consistent, averaging 263
incidents per year.101 This three-year span also shows that while the number of
annual spills may remain constant, the annual spill volume can fluctuate. The 2004
spill volume was almost four times greater than the volume spilled in 2003, yet the
number of spill incidents was nearly identical.
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-
600
500
400
300
200
100
Number of Spills
Total Volume
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
Gallons
Figure 5. Volume and Number of Oil Spills for Incidents Above 100
Gallons in U.S. Coastal Waters, 1995-2004
Spill Incidents
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the USCG Oil Spill Compendium.
Assuming other variables (e.g., level of prevention and preparedness) remain
constant, the annual numbers of spills may take an upward turn. However, these
other variables are not constant and are likely to play a role in the oil spill equation.
Oil vessel upgrades (i.e., double hulls) are still ongoing: two important deadlines,
2010 and 2015,102 will yield a higher percentage of double-hulled vessels in U.S.
waters. These improvements should help keep the number of spills low. On the
other hand, the nation’s oil pipeline infrastructure is old, and in some (perhaps many)
100
The increase in U.S. oil consumption may have started even earlier. The EIA historical
data only go back to 1981. EIA online petroleum statistics, “Total Crude and Petroleum
Products Supplied,” (historical data), at [http://www.eia.doe.gov].
101
102
See USCG Oil Spill Compendium.
Barring a few exceptions, single-hull vessels over 5,000 gross tons may not operate in
U.S. waters after January 1, 2010. Single-hull vessels below 5,000 gross tons (chiefly
barges) and other previously excepted vessels (e.g., lightering vessels or those upgraded
with double-sides or bottoms) must have double hulls by January 1, 2015. OPA Section
4115 (codified at 46 U.S.C. 3703a).
CRS-25
areas, pipelines are operating well beyond their intended service life.103 The United
States will obtain its oil from a combination of domestic and foreign sources. The
ratio of this mix and the method of its delivery could play a role in the number and
volume of oil spills in the coming years. The following sections discuss this delivery
system and its implications for oil spills in greater detail.
U.S. Oil Imports and Possible Spills. The volume and proportion of
imported oil, compared with oil produced domestically, may play a role in the
frequency and location of oil spills. Transportation of oil into the United States from
foreign nations has steadily risen and is projected to continue increasing (Figure 4).
Oil imports are expected to increase, not only in volume but also in proportion to
domestically produced oil. Most of this increase will be reflected in increased tank
vessel traffic. Only Canada delivers oil by pipeline to the United States. Although
Canada is the leading single source of U.S. oil imports,105104 the vast majority of U.S.
oil imports arrive via vessel. (See Figure 56.)
Figure 5:6. U.S. Imports by Mode of Transportation,
1995-2005
Thousands of Barrels
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
Pipeline Imports
3,000,000
Vessel Imports
2,000,000
1,000,000
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
-
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from EIA online statistics (U.S. Imports by Country of Origin),
at [http://www.eia.doe.gov].
NotesNote: Pipeline imports represent imports from Canada; vessel imports are from all other nations.
Most of the U.S. oil imports (55%) arrive via the Gulf Coast (Figure 6).106 Of
the oil spills within the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction (i.e., marine and coastal areas),
approximately 50% of the incidents and the volume spilled have occurred in the Gulf
of Mexico and its shoreline states.107 The Gulf will likely remain an area of special
attention, because the number of vessels arriving with oil will increase in coming
years.
105103
See, for example, National Research Council, Improving the Safety of Marine Pipelines,
National Academies of Science, 1994, p. 45, and Epstein, Paul (editor), Oil: A Life Cycle
Analysis of its Health and Environmental Impacts, Harvard Medical School’s Center for
Health and the Global Environment, March 2002, p. 21.
104
Approximately 16% of total U.S. oil imports come from Canada. Energy Information
Association, Petroleum Statistics, U.S. Imports by Country of Origin, available at
[http://www.eia.doe.gov].
106
Although most crude oil (62%) enters the United States through the Gulf, most of the
petroleum products (70%) enter through ports on the east coast. EIA online statistics
(Imports by Area of Entry), available at [http://www.eia.doe.gov].
107
USCG Spill Compendium, Cumulative Data And Graphics For Oil Spills (1973-2001),
at [http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/index.htm].
CRS-26
Figure 6:
CRS-26
Most of the U.S. oil imports (55%) arrive via the Gulf Coast (Figure 7).105 Of
the oil spills within the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction (i.e., marine and coastal areas),
approximately 50% of the incidents and the volume spilled have occurred in the Gulf
of Mexico and its shoreline states.106 The Gulf will likely remain an area of special
attention, because the number of vessels arriving with oil will increase in coming
years.
Figure 7. Average Annual Distribution of U.S. Oil Imports,
by Geographic Region
West Coast
9%
Rocky
Mountains
3%
East Coast
24%
Midwest
9%
Gulf Coast
55%
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from EIA online statistics (Imports by Area of Entry), available
viaat [http://www.eia.doe.gov].
Note: The above reflects an average of the years 2000-2005.
Domestic Oil Transportation and Possible Spills. Although U.S.
imports and consumption increased over the past 15 years, total domestic
transportation of crude oil and petroleum products (measured in billions of ton
miles)108107 declined by 16% during this time (Figure 78). At first glance, this
information appears incongruous; however, further analysis reveals that the overall
decline is attributable to a 50% decrease in Alaskan oil production that has occurred
over the past 15 years.109108 Alaskan oil travels long distances via pipeline (across
Alaska) and vessel (to the West Coast of the United States) and has historically
accounted for a significant percentage of oil in domestic transportation. Therefore,
the production of Alaskan oil and its distance traveled will have a strong influence
on the overall measure of domestic transportation of oil.
In recent years, total domestic transportation has shown a modest increase
(Figure 7). Although the total increase is relatively small,110 transportation for the
continental United States is likely increasing more substantially, considering the
context of a continuous decline from Alaskan oil production.111 As mentioned
108
105
Although most crude oil (62%) enters the United States through the Gulf, most of the
petroleum products (70%) enter through ports on the east coast. EIA online statistics
(Imports by Area of Entry), available at [http://www.eia.doe.gov].
106
USCG Spill Compendium, Cumulative Data And Graphics For Oil Spills (1973-2001),
at [http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/index.htm].
107
Note that using this unit of measure is different from using volume alone. With this
measure, distance traveled is as important a factor as volume.
109108
Alaskan crude oil production yielded 647,309 barrels in 1990 but declined to 315,420
barrels by 2005 (EIA website, Petroleum, “Crude Oil Production”).
110
The total value increased from 873 billion ton miles in 2000 to 903 billion ton miles in
2004.
111
The degree of increase for oil transportation within the continental United States is
uncertai, because the segregated data are not readily available.
CRS-27
previously, an increase in oil transportation will not necessarily yield more oil spills,
but it may increase the possibilities for spills to occur.
Figure 7:
CRS-27
the production of Alaskan oil and its distance traveled will have a strong influence
on the overall measure of domestic transportation of oil.
Figure 8. Domestic Transportation of Crude Oil and
Petroleum Products, 1990-2004
1200.0
Billions of Ton Miles
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
Pipelines
600.0
Water Carriers
Total Transported
400.0
200.0
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
90
0.01000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Pipelines
Water Carriers
Total Transported
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from Association of Oil Pipelines, Shifts in Petroleum
Transportation, June 2006, available at [http://www.aopl.org].
In recent years, total domestic transportation has shown a modest increase
(Figure 8). Although the total increase is relatively small,109 transportation for the
continental United States is likely increasing more substantially, considering the
context of a continuous decline from Alaskan oil production.110 As mentioned
previously, an increase in oil transportation will not necessarily yield more oil spills,
but it may increase the possibilities for spills to occur.
Level of Preparedness
Although many consider the United States’ spill record over the last 15 years,
particularly for major spills, to have been favorable, the absence of a major spill
raises at least one issue. Because the nation has not been forced to respond to a
109
The total value increased from 873 billion ton miles in 2000 to 903 billion ton miles in
2004.
110
The degree of increase for oil transportation within the continental United States is
uncertain, because the segregated data are not readily available.
CRS-28
major oil spill for such a long period, some have voiced concern that the nation might
have lost the expertise and institutional knowledge necessary for quick and effective
response action. The USCG found evidence to support this concern after the 2004
Spill of National Significance (SONS) exercise.112111 The After Action Report
concluded:
Oil spill response personnel did not appear to have even a basic knowledge of the
equipment required to support salvage or spill cleanup operations.... There was
a shortage of personnel with experience to fill key positions. Many middle-level
spill management staff had never worked a large spill and some had never been
involved in an exercise. As a result, some issues and complex processes unique
to spill response were not effectively addressed.113
112
The California SONS 2004 was conducted in April 2004 and was the fourth SONS
exercise performed by the USCG. The purpose of the SONS exercises is to ensure and
evaluate the readiness of personnel to respond to a major oil spill. The 2004 SONS exercise
was the largest to date and the first international SONS (involving Mexico).
113
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, California SONS 2004: After
Action Report, September 2004, p. 46.
CRS-28
112
Congress might consider oversight to monitor this situation as the USCG
conducts periodic SONS exercises. The next national exercise is scheduled for June
2007.
Recent Legislative Activity
From 1990 to the 109th Congress, oil spill issues received relatively little
congressional attention, most likely because a. A major spill (more than 1 million
gallons) has not had an
impact on the nation’s shores and sensitive natural resources
since 1990. However,
the 109th Congress enacted two important provisions affecting
cleanup funding and liability. In addition, members introduced several bills that
would address or include provisions concerning oil pollution issues.
!
P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005: This
comprehensive energy legislation was introduced by Representative
Barton on April 18, 2005. The final version included a provision to
reinstate cleanup funding and
liability.
!
P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (signed August
8, 2005): Congress reinstated the 5-cent-per-barrel tax on domestic
and imported oil that
had expired on December 31, 1994. As with
the original tax, it
the tax revenue provides direct funding to the OSLTFOil
Spill Liability Trust Fund but would be suspended for
any period in
which the fund’s quarterly balance exceeded $2.7
billion (the
original suspension trigger was $1 billion). H.R. 6 was
signed by the President August on 8, 2005.
!
P.L. 109-241, H.R. 889, The Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2006: This legislation, introduced by
Representative Young on February 17, 2005, included language
from H.R. 1412 (the Delaware River Protection Act) that proposed
to increase the oil spill liability limits for vessels under OPA. The
final version of H.R. 889, which was signed into law on July 12,
2006, increased (signed July 12, 2006): Congress
increased vessel liability limits to $1,900/gross ton for double-hulled vessels
vessels and $3,000/gross ton for single-hulled vessels.
!
S. 2023: Senator Inhofe introduced S. 2023 on November 16, 2005.
The current version of the bill would require a biennial audit of
OSLTF monies distributed by the National Pollution Funds Center,
the federal entity in charge of managing the fund. In addition, the
federal agencies that receive funding from the OSLTF would be
required to submit an annual report describing how the money was
spent. S. 2023 was reported out of the Committee on Environment
and Public Works on June 29, 2006 (S.Rept. 109-272).
!
H.R. 4724: Representative Inslee introduced this bill on February 8,
2006. It would require specific personnel and equipment
requirements when oil tankers transfer oil to other tankers or
facilities. The bill has not received committee action.
!
S. 2440: Senator Cantwell introduced legislation on March 16, 2006,
that would strengthen the current prevention, response, and spill
CRS-29
tracking duties of the USCG. The bill has not received committee
action.
!
H.R. 5782: Representative Young offered a bill on July 13, 2006,
that would strengthen the requirements for pipeline operators. The
bill has not received committee action. For more information on this
legislation and other pipeline governance issues, see CRS Report
RL33347, Pipeline Safety and Security: Federal Programs, by Paul
In addition, the 109th Congress passed the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of
2006 (P.L. 109-468), which calls for improved pipeline safety and security practices,
111
The California SONS 2004 was conducted in April 2004 and was the fourth SONS
exercise performed by the USCG. The purpose of the SONS exercises is to ensure and
evaluate the readiness of personnel to respond to a major oil spill. The 2004 SONS exercise
was the largest to date and the first international SONS (involving Mexico).
112
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, California SONS 2004: After
Action Report, September 2004, p. 46.
CRS-29
and reauthorizes the federal Office of Pipeline Safety.113 Members introduced other
bills that addressed or included provisions concerning oil pollution issues, but none
of the bills were considered on the House floor.
In the 110th Congress, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation reported the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act of 2007 (S.
184) on February 15, 2007. This bill would require federal plans for critical pipeline
security and incident recovery, and would mandate pipeline security inspections and
enforcement.114 As of the date of this report, members have not introduced other bills
concerning oil spill governance.
113
114
The President signed the legislation into law on December 29, 2006.
For further information on pipeline legislation and issues, see CRS Report RL33347,
Pipeline Safety and Security: Federal Programs, by Paul W. Parfomak.
CRS-30
Appendix: Additional Statistical Information
Regarding Oil Spills
Sources of Oil Inputs to U.S. Coastal Waters
Oil enters the coastal waters of the United States from a wide variety of sources.
These sources comprise four major categories: natural seeps, oil consumption, oil
transportation, and oil extraction.114115 The majority of oil inputs are from natural seeps
— geologic openings on the ocean floor. (See Figure A1.) Well-known natural
seeps are found in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of southern California,
regions with extensive oil exploration and production. Although the seeps release
large volumes of oil each year,115116 the surrounding ecosystem can adapt, and even
thrive, because the rate of release is relatively slow.116117
Figure A1. Percentage Contribution of Oil Inputs into
North American Coastal Waters, by Major Source
Categories (based on average annual releases,
1990-1999)
Oil Consumption
33%
Natural Seeps
62%
Oil
Transportation
4%
Oil Extraction
1%
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the National
Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies of Science, 2003, Oil in the Sea III: Inputs,
Fates, and Effects, p. 69.
Releases associated with petroleum consumption activities account for the vast
majority of oil introduced to the coastal environment through human behavior.
Rivers and man-made conveyances, such as storm-water drains, receive oil from
114115
NRC report, pp. 67-88.
115116
The NRC report (p. 69) estimates that natural seeps off North America release 47 million
gallons of oil each year (converted from tonnes).
116117
NRC report, p. 2.
CRS-31
numerous non-point sources (e.g., urban runoff) and carry the oil to coastal waters.
These sources are frequent and widespread, but their rates of release are relatively
slow and occur over a long period of time. Moreover, both the quantitative value and
the environmental fate of these sources are poorly understood.117118
Oil transportation and oil extraction represent, on an annual average basis, a
minor input to coastal waters. (See Figure A1.) Unlike the other categories, which
generally release oil at a slow rate over a wider geographic area, transportation and
extraction releases can occur as major spills. Statistics for oil vessel transportation
are provided in Figure 2 at the beginning of this report. Spills from oil extraction
operations are discussed later in this Appendix.
Spills from Facilities and Pipelines
As Figure A2 shows, theThe volume of oil spills from facilities and pipelines has
declined since the 1980s
1980s (see Figure A2). Over the most recent five-year span of data (1997-20012000-2004),
pipeline spill volume was especially low (compared with previous years), averaging
only 68about 12,000 gallons of spilled oil per year; during the first five-year span (19801984
(1980-1984), the average annual pipeline spill volume was 2.5 million gallons.
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
Gallons
Figure A2:. Volume of Oil Spills into U.S. Coastal Waters
from from
Facilities and Pipelines, 1980-20012004
Facilities
Pipelines
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from USCG Oil Spill Compendium.
Note: The above USCG data includes incidents from land-based facilities and pipelines, as well as
oil industry facilities and pipelines in state (nearshore) and federal (offshore) waters.
The number of spills from pipelines in U.S. waters began to decline in the mid1980s, averaging 32 spills per year from 1997 through 2001 (Figure A3). The trend
117
The range of uncertainty of land-based runoff is substantial, from a minimum estimate
of 5.6 million gallons to 588 million gallons (based on average, annual releases from 19901999). NRC report, pp. 69, 87.
CRS-32
of spill incidents from facilities and other non-vessels is more difficult to
characterize. It has not followed a pattern of steady decline since 1980, but has
fluctuated over the last two decades. The most recent five-year interval (1997-2001)
has been relatively stable, showing annual incident numbers that are generally lower
than previous years.
Figure A3: Annual Number of Spills to U.S. Waters from
Facilities and Pipelines, 1980-2001
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Facilities
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
- (Figure A3). According to the Coast Guard data, there were only two spills
between 2002 and 2004, each spill releasing approximately 15,000 gallons of oil.
This low number of pipeline spills may be misleading, because some incidents might
118
The range of uncertainty of land-based runoff is substantial, from a minimum estimate
of 5.6 million gallons to 588 million gallons (based on average, annual releases from 19901999). NRC report, pp. 69, 87.
CRS-32
not be captured by the Coast Guard’s database. In a disclaimer on it website, the
Coast Guard points out that its Oil Spill Compendium includes spills “investigated”
by the Coast Guard.119 Some spills in coastal waters may be under another agency’s
jurisdiction, such as the Office of Pipeline Safety or Minerals Management Service.
Although the Coast Guard still includes some of these spills in the database, others
are not included.
Spills from facilities have not followed a pattern of steady decline since 1980,
but have fluctuated over the last two decades. However, in recent years the number
of annual spills has been relatively stable.
Figure A3. Annual Number of Spills to U.S. Waters from Facilities
and Pipelines, 1980-2004
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
-
Facilities
Pipelines
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the USCG Oil Spill Compendium.
Spills from Oil Extraction Operations
As depicted in Figure A1, oil extraction activities contribute approximately 1%
of the total oil input to North American waters. The vast majority (95%) of this (1%)
oil extraction input comes from operational discharges, which are regulated by a
Clean Water Act permit system. Thus, oil extraction spills represent, on an annual
basis, only a relatively minor (only 0.05%) component of the total input to North
American waters.
However, oil well blowouts from offshore oil extraction operations have
historically been a source of major oil spills. The largest accidental oil spill in world
history — the IXTOC I, estimated at 140 million gallons — was due to an oil well
blowout in Mexican Gulf Coast waters in 1979.118120 A 1969 well blowout off the coast
of Santa Barbara released approximately 4 million gallons into the environment and
119
See Oil Spill Compendium at [http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/index.htm].
120
NRC report, p. 33.
CRS-33
has been credited with catalyzing some of the landmark environmental legislation of
the 1970s.
118
NRC report, p. 33.
CRS-33
The spill record for offshore platforms in federal waters119waters121 was noteworthy
during the 1980s and 1990s. According to the Minerals Management Service
(MMS)120122 oil spill database, there were no oil spills over 1,000 barrels121barrels123 from
federally regulated offshore facilities between 1981 and 2001 (Figure A4). This
effort was achieved in the context of increasing oil production on the outer
continental shelf (OCS).122124
OCS Pipelines
20
05
20
03
20
01
19
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
-
19
85
Gallons
Figure A4:. Annual Oil Spill Volume for Spills Greater than 50 Gallons
from Oil Exploration and Extraction Activities in the Federal Waters
on the Outer Continental Shelf, 1985-2005
OCS Facilities
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the Minerals Management Service (MMS) spill database,
at [http://www.mms.gov/incidents/pollution.htm].
Note: The MMS database includes spills from chemicals (e.g., methanol), but the above only includes
spills of crude oil and petroleum products.
Since 2002, there have been six offshore facility spills in federal waters over
1,000 barrels, the largest estimated at 2,000 barrels (84,000 gallons). Annual spill
volumes from offshore facilities in federal waters have increased in recent years
(Figure A4). Part of the recent increase in facility spill volume is attributable to a
119121
Federal waters extend 200 nautical miles from shore but do not include the waters
adjacent to shore that are under state control (as discussed earlier in this report).
120122
The MMS, in the U.S. Department of Interior, is the federal agency responsible for
managing the oil and gas resources on the outer continental shelf.
121
122123
124
1,000 barrels = 42,000 gallons.
The annual crude oil production in the Gulf of Mexico (the primary source of offshore
crude oil) increased by 112% from 1981 to 2001. Energy Information Administration,
Crude Oil Production statistics, at [http://www.eia.doe.gov/].
CRS-34
more comprehensive reporting regime. For example, tanks or machines with oil that
are lost at sea during hurricanes are now counted as spills.123125
As Figure A4 indicates, there were several years in which offshore pipelines
contributed a relatively minor (or zero) spill volume. However, periodic large spills
generated the vast majority of the spill volume from offshore operations between
1985 and 2000. For example, in 1988, there was only one pipeline spill over 1,000
barrels, but that one incident released 15,576 barrels into the environment (654,192
gallons).
The vast majority of the offshore spills in federal waters have taken place in the
Gulf of Mexico. In fact, there have been only four spills greater than 50 barrels
(2,100 gallons) in the Pacific Region since 1985, none occurring after 1996.124126
Although Figure A4 and the above discussion pertain only to federal waters,
there are numerous platforms and pipelines in state waters as well. The majority of
the oil extraction operations are located in state waters off the coast of Louisiana and
Texas. The precise volume and incident frequency in state waters are difficult to
determine. The NRC report describes the data as “generally lacking,”125127 but the
report estimates that oil spills from operations in state waters account for twice the
oil discharges of activities in federal waters.126128 This estimate is noteworthy
considering that spills in state waters present a potentially greater threat to the more
sensitive shoreline environments.
123125
Per Aug. 15, 2006, telephone conversation with MMS official.
124126
MMS Oil Spill database, at [http://www.mms.gov/incidents/pollution.htm].
125127
NRC report, p. 193.
126128
NRC report, p. 38.