Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency
Response Framework
David M. Bearden
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Jonathan L. Ramseur
Specialist in Environmental Policy
October 10, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43251
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Summary
Thousands of oil and chemical spills of varying size occur in the United States each year. State
and local officials located in proximity to these incidents generally are the first responders and
may elevate an incident for federal attention if greater resources are desired. The National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, often referred to as the National Contingency
Plan (NCP), establishes the procedures for the federal response to oil and chemical spills. The
scope of the NCP encompasses discharges of oil into or upon U.S. waters and adjoining
shorelines and releases of hazardous substances into the environment. Several hundred toxic
chemicals and radionuclides are designated as hazardous substances under the NCP, and other
pollutants and contaminants also may fall within the scope of its response authorities.
Unlike most federal emergency response plans that are administrative mechanisms, the NCP is
codified in federal regulation and is binding and enforceable. The NCP was developed in 1968
and has been revised on multiple occasions to implement the federal statutory response
authorities that Congress has expanded over time. Three federal environmental statutes authorized
the development of the NCP: the Clean Water Act, as amended; the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended; and
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
Several executive orders have delegated the presidential response authorities of these statutes to
the federal departments and agencies tasked with implementing the NCP. The lead federal agency
serves as the On-Scene Coordinator to direct the resources used in a federal response. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) generally is the lead agency responsible for coordinating
the federal response within the inland zone, and the U.S. Coast Guard generally serves as the lead
agency within the coastal zone. However, a response to an incident occurring on a federal facility
is coordinated by the federal department or agency that administers the facility.
The NCP established the National Response System (NRS) as a multi-tiered framework for
coordinating the roles of 15 federal departments and agencies that serve as standing members of
the National Response Team to offer specialized resources and expertise that the On-Scene
Coordinator may call upon to carry out a response. The NRS also outlines the framework for
integrating the participation of non-federal entities, including state and local officials, the
responsible parties, and other private entities who may wish to contribute resources or expertise.
Although the framework of the NRS is the same for responding to discharges of oil or releases of
hazardous substances, the NCP establishes separate operational elements for responding to each
type of incident, and these elements differ in some respects. The source of federal funding to
carry out a response also differs. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund finances the federal response
to a discharge of oil, and the Superfund Trust Fund finances the federal response to a release of a
hazardous substance. Monies spent from these trust funds may be recouped from the responsible
parties under the liability provisions of the Oil Pollution Act and CERCLA, respectively.
For multi-faceted incidents, such as major disasters or emergencies, the NCP also could be
invoked under the National Response Framework (NRF) to address an aspect of an incident
involving a discharge of oil or release of a hazardous substance. The NRF is a broader
administrative mechanism for coordinating the array of federal emergency response plans.
However, the NRF itself is not an operational plan that dictates a step-by-step process. The NRF
Congressional Research Service
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
instead merely may apply the NCP as the operational plan to respond to a discharge of oil or
release of a hazardous substance.
This report discusses the statutory authorities of the NCP and relevant executive orders; outlines
the federal emergency response framework of the NCP to coordinate federal, state, and local
roles; and identifies the funding mechanisms to carry out a federal response to a discharge of oil
or a release of a hazardous substance.
Congressional Research Service
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Statutory Response Authorities ........................................................................................................ 3
Executive Orders ............................................................................................................................. 4
Reporting an Incident....................................................................................................................... 6
Coordination of the Federal Response ............................................................................................. 6
National Response Team ........................................................................................................... 8
State and Local Involvement in Regional Response Teams ...................................................... 9
Area Committees ..................................................................................................................... 10
On-Scene Coordinator ............................................................................................................. 11
Potential Role of Secretary of Homeland Security ........................................................... 12
Oil Spills of National Significance .................................................................................... 12
Non-governmental Participation .............................................................................................. 13
Funding and Liability .................................................................................................................... 14
National Response Framework ...................................................................................................... 15
Figures
Figure 1. NCP National Response System ....................................................................................... 7
Figure 2. Standard State and Territorial Boundaries for Federal Regions ..................................... 10
Tables
Table 1. Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................. 2
Appendixes
Appendix. Chronology of the NCP ................................................................................................ 17
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 20
Congressional Research Service
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Introduction
Thousands of oil and chemical spills occur in the United States each year, as a result of accidents,
explosions or fires, equipment failure, operator error, and other causes. State and local officials in
proximity to an incident usually serve as the first responders to stabilize site conditions and may
elevate an incident for federal attention if greater resources are desired. The National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan—often referred to as the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) for short—establishes the procedures for the federal response to oil and
chemical spills. The scope of the NCP specifically encompasses discharges of oil into or upon
U.S. waters and adjoining shorelines and releases of hazardous substances into the environment
more broadly. Several hundred toxic chemicals and radionuclides are designated as hazardous
substances under the NCP, and other pollutants and contaminants also fall within the scope of its
response authorities. The NCP is codified in federal regulation and is authorized in multiple
federal statutes. Unlike most other federal emergency response plans that are administrative
mechanisms, the regulations of the NCP have the force of law and are binding and enforceable.
After observing the effects of the 1967 Torrey Canyon oil tanker spill off the coast of England,1
the Johnson Administration developed the initial version of the NCP in 1968. The first NCP was
an administrative initiative to coordinate the federal response to potential oil spills in U.S. waters.
Congress later enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 19722 (often
referred to as the Clean Water Act) to provide explicit statutory authority for the federal response
to discharges of oil or hazardous substances into or upon U.S. waters within the contiguous zone
and the adjoining shorelines.3 The 1972 amendments also explicitly directed the preparation of
the NCP to carry out these authorities.
The NCP has been revised multiple times since 1968 to implement additional federal statutory
authorities that Congress has enacted in the wake of other major incidents. The discovery of
severely contaminated sites in the 1970s, such as Love Canal in New York, led to the enactment
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA).4 This statute addresses releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants into the environment, and it directed a federal response plan for these incidents to
be included in the NCP. Although Congress initially considered including oil spills within the
response authorities of CERCLA, petroleum was excluded from the scope of the statute with the
intention of addressing oil spills in separate legislation.
The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska led to the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA).5 This statute clarified and expanded the oil spill response authorities of the Clean Water
1 The Torrey Canyon spill released approximately 35 million gallons of crude oil into the coastal environments of both
England and France (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Oil Spill Case Histories, Summaries of
Significant U.S. and International Spills, 1967-2001, 1992). At that time, many considered this spill to be among the
worst environmental disasters in history. See Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Overview, at http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/lawsregs/ncpover.htm.
2 P.L. 92-500.
3 The contiguous zone generally is defined as an area that extends from 12 to 24 nautical miles from shore.
4 P.L. 96-510.
5 P.L. 101-380.
Congressional Research Service
1
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Act extending to U.S. waters within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)6 and directed revisions
to the NCP to carry out these authorities.
Over time, the NCP has been applied on a routine basis to respond to many varied incidents
across the United States involving discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances. The
framework and procedures of the NCP often generate interest among Members of Congress and
affected stakeholders in the execution of federal resources to respond to an incident and the
participation of state, local, and private entities. Whereas individual incidents may differ in terms
of the magnitude, scope, complexity, and associated hazards, effective coordination of the
respondents and the adequacy of resources available to carry out a response can be common
issues. Larger and more complex spills may garner more prominent attention, such as the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Some raised questions about the authorities
and roles of the entities involved in the response to that incident, including federal agencies, state
and local governments, and private parties.7
This report provides background information on the NCP to address potential questions that may
arise in congressional oversight of the federal response to particular incidents. The report
discusses the federal statutes that authorize the NCP and related executive orders; mechanisms for
reporting incidents to the federal government; the framework under which federal, state, and local
roles are to be coordinated; funding mechanisms for federal response actions, including liability
for response costs and related damages; and circumstances under which the NCP may be
integrated within the National Response Framework (NRF) to address multi-faceted incidents,
such as major disasters or emergencies. The Appendix to this report provides a chronology of the
development of the NCP over time. A list of commonly used acronyms also is provided below.
Table 1. Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACP
Area Contingency Plan
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CWA
Clean Water Act
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
HHS
Department of Health and Human Services
NCP
National Contingency Plan (short for National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pol ution Contingency
Plan)
NPL
National Priorities List
NRF
National Response Framework
NRT
National Response Team
OPA
Oil Pollution Act
OSC On-Scene
Coordinator
RRT
Regional Response Team
SARA
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
6 The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) generally is defined as an area that encompasses the contiguous zone and
extends 200 nautical miles seaward of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured.
7 See, for example, Thad Allen, National Incident Commander’s Report: MC252 Deepwater Horizon, October 2010.
Congressional Research Service
2
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Statutory Response Authorities
Since its inception in 1968, the NCP has been revised on multiple occasions to establish
regulatory procedures for implementing the federal statutory authorities that Congress has
expanded over time to respond to incidents involving a discharge of oil or a release of a
hazardous substance. These statutes are outlined briefly below in chronological order of
enactment. For a discussion of funding authorized under these statutes to carry out response
actions and the scope of liability for response costs and related damages, see the section on
“Funding and Liability” later in this report.
The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act added Section 311 to the statute to provide explicit
statutory authority for the President to respond to a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance into
or upon the navigable waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines, and the waters of the
contiguous zone.8 The original NCP had focused on the federal response to oil spills. Section 311
directed the President to further develop the NCP to govern discharges of both oil and hazardous
substances within the above aspects of the natural environment. The statute also required several
basic elements to be included in the NCP, including mechanisms to coordinate the federal, state,
and local roles in responding to an incident, and specific response procedures.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980 established the Superfund program and expanded the authorities of the President to respond
to releases of hazardous substances into the environment more broadly than Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act.9 Section 101(8) of CERCLA explicitly defines the term “environment” to
include “the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, and the ocean waters of which
the natural resources are under the exclusive management authority of the United States under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,” and any other surface water,
groundwater, surface soil, sub-surface soil, or ambient air within or under the jurisdiction of the
United States.10 CERCLA also expanded federal response authority to address releases of
pollutants and contaminants into the environment that may present an imminent and substantial
danger to the public health or welfare. Section 105 of CERCLA directed the President to revise
the NCP to include a plan for responding to these types of incidents.11 This plan is codified in
Subpart E of the regulations of the NCP.12
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)13 amended various
response, liability, and enforcement provisions of CERCLA. Among these provisions, SARA
amended Section 105 of the statute directing the President to further revise the NCP and expand
the criteria used to evaluate contaminated sites for placement on the National Priorities List
(NPL). The primary purpose of the NPL is to identify—in conjunction with the states—the most
8 33 U.S.C. § 1321. For a discussion of the Clean Water Act as a whole, see CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A
Summary of the Law, by Claudia Copeland.
9 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et. seq. For a more in-depth discussion of CERCLA, see CRS Report R41039, Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related
Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden.
10 42 U.S.C. § 9601(8).
11 42 U.S.C. § 9605.
12 Subpart E of the NCP also establishes the procedures for the long-term remediation of a site that may be necessary to
protect human health and the environment, once short-term actions are completed to stabilize site conditions.
13 P.L. 99-499.
Congressional Research Service
3
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
threatening sites that warrant federal involvement in long-term remediation. Sites that may
require short-term response actions to address emergency situations do not require listing on the
NPL to be eligible for federal involvement under the NCP.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 expanded and clarified the President’s authorities under Section
311 of the Clean Water Act specifically to respond to discharges of oil into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines, the waters of the EEZ, or that may affect
natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of
the United States.14 As amended by OPA, Section 311(d) of the Clean Water Act directed the
President to further revise the NCP to develop specific procedures for implementing these oil spill
response authorities.15 The procedures are codified in Subpart D of the regulations of the NCP
and provide the federal plan for undertaking an oil spill response.
Executive Orders
Several executive orders have delegated the President’s response authorities under the above
statutes to the federal departments and agencies tasked with implementing the NCP. The two
executive orders discussed below amended previous executive orders that initially had delegated
the President’s response authorities after the enactment of the amendments to the Clean Water Act
in 1972 and the enactment of CERCLA in 1980.
• Executive Order 12580 was issued in 1987 and delegated the President’s
authorities to respond to releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants under CERCLA, as amended in 1986 by SARA.16
• Executive Order 12777 was issued in 1991 and delegated the President’s
authorities to respond to discharges of oil under Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act, as amended in 1990 by OPA.17
Under both executive orders, the coordination of the federal response generally is delegated to
EPA within the inland zone and to the U.S. Coast Guard within the coastal zone, unless the two
agencies agree otherwise.18 For the purpose of these delegated roles, the coastal zone is defined in
the NCP to include:
all U.S. waters subject to the tide, United States waters of the Great Lakes, specified ports
and harbors on inland rivers, waters of the contiguous zone, other waters of the high seas
14 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et. seq. For a more in-depth discussion of the Oil Pollution Act, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil
Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background and Governance, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
15 33 U.S.C. § 1321(d).
16 Executive Order 12580, “Superfund Implementation," 52 Federal Register 2923, January 29, 1987.
17 Executive Order 12777, “Implementation of Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of October 18,
1972, as amended, and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990," 56 Federal Register 54757, October 22, 1991.
18 Executive Order 13286 amended both of these Executive Orders to reflect the transfer of the U.S. Coast Guard from
the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. See Executive Order 13286,
“Amendment of Executive Orders, and Other Actions, in Connection with the Transfer of Certain Functions to the
Secretary of Homeland Security," 68 Federal Register 10625, 10627, March 5, 2003.
Congressional Research Service
4
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
subject to the NCP, and the land surface or land substrata, ground waters, and ambient air
proximal to those waters.19
Conversely, the NCP defines the inland zone to encompass “the environment inland of the coastal
zone excluding the Great Lakes and specified ports and harbors on inland rivers.”20
Although responsibility for coordinating a federal response generally is divided between EPA and
the U.S. Coast Guard with respect to these two geographic zones, both executive orders assign
EPA the sole responsibility of revising the regulations of the NCP, as warranted. Prior to
proposing any revisions to the NCP for public comment, EPA must consult with the U.S. Coast
Guard and other federal departments and agencies that serve as standing members of the National
Response Team (discussed below). As generally is the case with any federal regulation, revisions
to the NCP also are subject to the federal rulemaking process, including the opportunity for public
comment. Both executive orders further specify that any proposed or finalized revisions to the
NCP would be subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Executive Order 12580 established differing lead agency roles in responding to releases of
hazardous substances at federal facilities and vessels. The Department of Defense (DOD) and
Department of Energy (DOE) administer most of the federal facilities from which a release of a
hazardous substance has occurred.21 Executive Order 12580 explicitly delegates the President’s
response authorities under CERCLA to DOD and DOE at facilities and vessels within their
respective jurisdiction, custody, or control. DOD also is responsible for responding to incidents
involving the removal of military weapons and munitions that are or were under its jurisdiction,
custody, or control. Other federal departments and agencies may lead the federal response under
CERCLA at facilities and vessels under their jurisdiction, custody, or control only in non-
emergency situations. Within their respective zones, EPA or the U.S. Coast Guard would retain
the lead role under CERCLA in emergency situations at these federal facilities and vessels.
Executive Order 12777 did not similarly delegate the President’s oil spill response authorities
under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act with respect to federal facilities and vessels. Under the
NCP, the U.S. Coast Guard retains the lead role in responding to discharges of oil from federal
facilities or vessels within the coastal zone, regardless of which other federal department or
agency may have jurisdiction, custody, or control over that facility or vessel. EPA similarly would
lead the response to such incidents at federal facilities in the inland zone. In practice, the federal
department or agency that administers the facility or vessel still may carry out a response with its
own funds, under the direction of the U.S. Coast Guard or EPA within their respective zones.
The NCP itself also establishes the lead roles of federal departments and agencies in accordance
with the delegation of the President’s authorities under these two executive orders.22
19 40 C.F.R. § 300.5.
20 Ibid.
21 DOD administers the Defense Environmental Restoration Program to remediate environmental contamination,
military munitions, and other safety hazards on active and decommissioned U.S. military facilities. DOE administers
the Office of Environmental Management to remediate environmental contamination and dispose of radioactive and
other hazardous wastes at former nuclear weapons production sites and federal nuclear research laboratories. The DOE
Office of Legacy Management is responsible for the long-term stewardship of federal nuclear facilities that do not have
a continuing mission.
22 40 C.F.R. § 300.120.
Congressional Research Service
5
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Reporting an Incident
A federal response to a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance may be triggered
upon reporting of the incident. The National Response Center serves as the national clearinghouse
of all discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances in the United States that are reported
to the federal government.23 The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for administering the National
Response Center, collecting data on reported incidents, and notifying the appropriate federal
departments and agencies that may be involved in responding to an incident under the NCP in
coordination with state and local authorities. The U.S. Coast Guard itself generally would be
responsible for coordinating a federal response within the coastal zone, but would notify EPA to
coordinate the federal response within the inland zone.
The parties who discharge oil or release a hazardous substance are required to report the incident
to the National Response Center, if the quantity of the discharge or release exceeds allowable
amounts.24 Reportable discharges of oil include discharges that would (1) violate applicable water
quality standards, (2) cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or
adjoining shorelines, or (3) cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the
water or upon adjoining shorelines.25 Reportable quantities of hazardous substances vary by
individual substance in pounds (and kilograms), and in curies (and becquerels) for individual
radionuclides designated as hazardous substances.26 State or local officials, or members of the
public, who witness a discharge or release also may report the incident. Furthermore, state or
local officials acting as the first responders on-site may contact the National Response Center to
elevate a site for federal attention.
Once the National Response Center is notified of an incident, a federal response may be
undertaken in accordance with the framework and procedures of the NCP to draw upon available
resources to respond to potential hazards, discussed next.
Coordination of the Federal Response
The NCP established the National Response System (NRS) as a multi-tiered framework for
coordinating the federal response to a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant. The NRS establishes the respective roles of federal, state, and local
governments in carrying out a federal response, including the party or parties responsible for the
incident and other private entities that may wish to contribute resources. As stated in the NCP, the
NRS is intended to be “capable of expanding or contracting to accommodate the response effort
required by the size or complexity of the discharge or release.”27 Accordingly, the array of
23 The National Response Center website provides an online reporting tool and contact information to report an
incident, presents statistical information on reported discharges and releases over time, and maintains a searchable
database of reported incidents, available at http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrchp.html.
24 40 C.F.R. § 300.300 specifies the requirements and procedures for the discovery or notification of a discharge of oil.
40 C.F.R. § 300.405 specifies the requirements and procedures for the discovery or notification of a release of a
hazardous substance. CERCLA generally does not require the reporting of a release of a pollutant or contaminant that
is not otherwise designated as a hazardous substance.
25 40 C.F.R. Part 110 specifies the criteria for reportable quantities of discharges of oil.
26 40 C.F.R. § 302.4 lists the reportable quantity for each hazardous substance designated for the purposes of the NCP.
27 40 C.F.R. § 300.5.
Congressional Research Service
6
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
respondents and resources used to carry out a response may vary with the magnitude, scope, and
complexity of an incident and the associated hazards. The following sections discuss the various
components of the NRS, illustrated in Figure 1 as excerpted from the NCP.
Figure 1. NCP National Response System
Source: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pol ution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, Subpart B—
Responsibility and Organization for Response, Section 300.105—General Organization Concepts.
Notes: NRT = National Response Team, RRT = Regional Response Team, OSC = On-Scene Coordinator,
SERC = State Emergency Response Commission, LEPC = Local Emergency Response Commission.
Federal Departments and Agencies: EPA = Environmental Protection Agency, USCG = U.S. Coast Guard, DOI =
Department of the Interior, DOC = Department of Commerce, DOJ = Department of Justice, HHS =
Department of Health and Human Services, DOT = Department of Transportation, Nuc. Reg. Comm. = Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture, DOD = Department of Defense, DOS =
Department of State, GSA = General Services Administration, DOE = Department of Energy, FEMA = Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and DOL = Department of Labor.
Strike Teams (i.e. specialized teams): NPFC = National Pollution Funds Center, ERT = (EPA) Environmental
Response Team, RERT = (EPA) Radiological Emergency Response Team, DRG = (U.S. Coast Guard) District
Response Group, DRAT = (U.S. Coast Guard) District Response Advisory Team, SSC = Scientific Support
Coordinator, PIAT = Public Information Assist Team, SUPSALV = (U.S. Navy) Supervisor of Salvage.
Congressional Research Service
7
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
National Response Team
The National Response Team (NRT) consists of 15 federal departments and agencies (Figure 1 ).
The specific role of each department and agency in responding to a discharge of oil or a release of
a hazardous substance is outlined in the NCP.28 These departments and agencies include:
• Environmental Protection Agency (Chair),
• U.S. Coast Guard (Vice-Chair),
• Department of Agriculture,
• Department of Commerce,
• Department of Defense,
• Department of Energy,
• Department of Health and Human Services,
• Department of the Interior,
• Department of Justice,
• Department of Labor
• Department of State,
• Department of Transportation,
• Federal Emergency Management Agency,
• General Services Administration, and
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
EPA serves as the “standing” Chair of the NRT, and the U.S. Coast Guard serves as the standing
Vice-Chair. Consistent with the delegation of the President’s response authorities by executive
order, the U.S. Coast Guard becomes the “acting” Chair of the NRT for a federal response to a
discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance within the coastal zone, and EPA becomes
the acting Vice-Chair in such instances.29 Conversely, EPA remains the Chair for a federal
response within the inland zone, and the U.S. Coast Guard the Vice-Chair.
Due to the nature of their ongoing missions, the NRT departments and agencies employ skilled
personnel and maintain specialized equipment that can enhance the effectiveness of the federal
response. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) maintains expertise
that may be drawn upon to assess threats to public health resulting from an incident.30 Within
HHS, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) specifically is responsible
for assessing public health threats from the release of a hazardous substance, and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) assesses public health threats from discharges of oil. The
28 40 U.S.C. § 300.175.
29 40 C.F.R. § 300.110.
30 40 C.F.R. § 300.175(b)(8).
Congressional Research Service
8
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
CDC played a prominent role in assessing threats to public health from the oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident.31
Federal departments and agencies that administer federal facilities and vessels are standing
members of the NRT to carry out the response to hazardous incidents that may occur in
connection with their own activities. Under the NCP, these departments and agencies also may be
called upon to use these capabilities in support of the response to non-federal incidents that
present similar challenges. For example, the U.S. Navy Supervisor of Salvage maintains
specialized equipment and capabilities to respond to pollution incidents involving U.S. Naval
vessels. These capabilities may be drawn upon to respond to a civilian incident in ocean
environments.32 During the Deepwater Horizon incident, for example, the Navy dispatched oil
collection equipment to aid in the federal response under the NCP.
In addition, the Department of Justice also serves as a standing member of the NRT to represent
the United States in any litigation that may involve the federal response to a discharge of oil or a
release of a hazardous substance under the NCP.33
State and Local Involvement in Regional Response Teams
The NCP provides state, territorial,34 local, and tribal governments the opportunity to participate
in the federal response to an incident through the Regional Response Teams that fall under the
NRT (Figure 1).35 The NCP established 13 Regional Response Teams.36 (See Figure 2 for a map
of these regions, as excerpted from the NCP.) Each federal department or agency that is a
standing member of the NRT designates an official to serve on each Regional Response Team
(RRT) to represent the federal government. The governor of each state or territory within a region
may designate an official to represent the state or territorial government. The state and territorial
officials serving on a RRT may invite local governments to participate. Indian tribes within a
region may designate an official to represent the tribal government.
Because state, territorial, or local officials are likely to be located in closer proximity to incidents
that occur within their respective geographic regions, the NCP specifies that they are expected to
be the first government representatives on the RRT to arrive at the scene of a discharge or release
to take initial response actions.37 Consequently, state, territorial, or local officials usually are the
first responders who may initiate immediate safety measures to protect the public. For example,
the NCP indicates that state, territorial, or local officials may be responsible for conducting
evacuations of affected populations according to applicable state, territorial, or local procedures.
As discussed earlier, state, territorial, or local officials acting as the first responders also may
notify the National Response Center to elevate an incident for federal involvement, at which point
the coordinating framework of the NCP would be applied.
31 For information on the CDC’s involvement in the federal response to the Deepwater Horizon incident, see the
agency’s website: http://emergency.cdc.gov/gulfoilspill2010.
32 40 C.F.R. § 300.175(b)(4)(ii).
33 40 C.F.R. § 300.175(b)(10).
34 References to states in the NCP include U.S. territories and the District of Columbia.
35 40 C.F.R. § 300.180.
36 40 C.F.R. § 300.115.
37 40 C.F.R. § 300.180(f).
Congressional Research Service
9
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Enacted in 1986, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)38
required each state to create a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), designate
emergency planning districts, and establish Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) for
each district. Each LEPC must prepare a local emergency response plan for the emergency
planning district. These local emergency plans are integrated into the appropriate geographic-
specific area response plan that may cover several local planning districts, 39 discussed in the
“Area Committees” section of this report below.
Figure 2. Standard State and Territorial Boundaries for Federal Regions
Source: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (National Contingency Plan or
NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300, Subpart B—Responsibility and Organization for Response, Section 300.105—General
Organization Concepts.
Notes: Alaska (Region X), Hawaii and Pacific Territories (Region IX), and Caribbean Territories (Region II) are
treated as separate regions for the purpose of establishing Regional Response Teams under the NCP, resulting in
a total of 13 Regional Response Teams, rather than10 teams with respect to the standard 10 federal regions.
Area Committees
Area Committees support the Regional Response Teams in preparing for a response to a discharge
of oil or a hazardous substance into U.S. waters and the adjoining shorelines, as authorized under
Section 311(j)(4) of the Clean Water Act (Figure 1).40 The President may designate “qualified”
personnel from federal, state, territorial, and local agencies to serve on these committees. The
primary function of each committee is to prepare an Area Contingency Plan (ACP) for its
38 EPCRA was in enacted in 1986 as Title III of SARA (42 U.S.C. § 11001-11050).
39 40 C.F.R. § 300.210.
40 33 U.S.C. § 1321(j)(4).
Congressional Research Service
10
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
designated geographic area within a region. The geographic-specific aspects of an ACP augment
the more general provisions of the NCP. When implemented together, these plans are intended to
ensure an effective response to a discharge from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility
operating in or near the area. CERCLA does not explicitly authorize Area Committees with
respect to a release of a hazardous substance into the environment, whereas Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act does authorize such committees to cover discharges of hazardous substances into
U.S. waters and the adjoining shorelines. In inland areas not covered by the Clean Water Act, the
Regional Response Teams may fulfill the planning functions of the Area Committees.
On-Scene Coordinator
Considering the potentially large number of individuals who may be involved in the federal
response to an incident under the NCP, one high-level federal official is responsible for directing
and coordinating all of the on-the-ground actions at the scene of a discharge of oil or a release of
a hazardous substance. A pre-designated On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) for the geographic area
where the discharge or release occurs performs this lead role.41 Within their respective locales, the
OSCs also oversee the development of ACPs by the Area Committees to ensure consistency with
the regulatory procedures of the NCP.
EPA generally is responsible for designating the OSCs for incidents involving a discharge of oil
or a release of a hazardous substance that may occur in the inland zone, and the U.S. Coast Guard
in the coastal zone.42 U.S. Coast Guard Captains of the Port usually serve as the OSCs,
coordinating the response to discharges of oil from all facilities and vessels operating within the
coastal zone. The NCP established these lead agency roles in accordance with the executive
orders that delegated the President’s response authorities, including exceptions for responses to
incidents at federal facilities at which the federal department or agency that administers the
facility may serve as the OSC instead. See the section of this report on “Executive Orders.”
The OSC is responsible for making final decisions on what specific actions are necessary to carry
out the federal response to an incident, the use and allocation of federal funds to carry out those
actions, what other federal resources may be needed to carry out those actions, and what specific
responsibilities are delegated to each entity participating in the federal response, including the
party or parties responsible for the incident. The OSC also determines when the federal response
to an individual incident is complete and the regulations of the NCP are satisfied. While state,
territorial, or local officials may participate in a federal response under the direction of the OSC,
the NCP does not preclude states, territories, or local governments from carrying out response
actions under their own authorities.
41 40 C.F.R. § 300.120. The NCP uses the term “Remedial Project Manager” instead of “On-Scene Coordinator” for the
official designated specifically to coordinate remedial actions. Under CERCLA, “remedial” actions are the long-term
actions intended to provide a more permanent means to protect human health and the environment, whereas “removal”
actions are intended to address more immediate risks associated with the release of a hazardous substance. When a
removal action may precede a remedial action at a site, the On-Scene Coordinator for the initial removal action and the
Remedial Project Manager for the subsequent remedial action are to coordinate their efforts to ensure an “orderly”
transition of responsibility.
42 40 C.F.R. § 300.120(a).
Congressional Research Service
11
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Potential Role of Secretary of Homeland Security
Although EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard usually serve as the OSCs within their respective
geographic zones, the Secretary of Homeland Security may assume the lead role in directing a
response taken under the NCP in certain circumstances. First, the Secretary of Homeland Security
generally has the discretion to assert a lead role in the coastal zone in the capacity of
administering the functions of the U.S. Coast Guard within the Department of Homeland
Security.43 Second, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (issued in 2003) more broadly
authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to be the “principal federal official for domestic
incident management” in response to terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies in
any of the following situations:
• a federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the
assistance of the Secretary;
• the resources of state and local authorities are overwhelmed and federal
assistance has been requested by the appropriate state and local authorities;
• more than one federal department or agency has become substantially involved in
responding to the incident; or
• the President has directed the Secretary to assume responsibility for managing
the domestic incident.44
In any of these instances, the procedures and requirements of the NCP still would continue to
apply, as the directive is an administrative mechanism that does not preempt existing authorities.45
In practice, the Secretary of Homeland Security has not been directly involved on a routine basis
in leading response actions taken under the NCP. The lead role of the Secretary generally has
been reserved for incidents of greater magnitude, scope, and complexity. For example, Secretary
Napolitano coordinated the response taken under the NCP during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Secretary's potential role in coordinating a response to other
incidents under the NCP generally would depend on the nature of the incident and the need for
elevating coordination within the executive branch in the types of situations identified above.
Oil Spills of National Significance
The NCP establishes differing roles with respect to the OSC for an oil spill of national
significance (SONS).46 The NCP does not provide a similar counterpart for releases of hazardous
substances.47 The Administrator of EPA is responsible for designating a SONS in the inland zone,
and the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for making such designations in the
43 The U.S. Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003.
44 The White House, Management of Domestic Incidents, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5, Washington,
DC, February 28, 2003, available on the Government Printing Office (GPO) website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
PPP-2003-book1/pdf/PPP-2003-book1-doc-pg229.pdf.
45 Section 5 of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 states that “Nothing in this directive alters, or impedes the
ability to carry out, the authorities of Federal departments and agencies to perform their responsibilities under law.”
46 40 C.F.R. § 300.323.
47 As authorized in CERCLA, the NCP establishes procedures for designating sites on the National Priorities List
(NPL) for long-term remediation. An NPL designation is not required for conducting emergency responses.
Congressional Research Service
12
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
coastal zone. For a SONS in the inland zone, the Administrator of EPA may appoint a senior
agency official to assist the OSC in “communicating with affected parties and the public and
coordinating federal, state, local, and international resources at the national level.”48 For a SONS
in the coastal zone, the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard may appoint a National Incident
Commander (NIC) to assume the role of the OSC in these capacities, rather than merely assist the
OSC. Although the designation of a SONS may affect communication and coordination roles, it
does not alter the oil response procedures or requirements of the NCP, and does not make any
additional funds available to carry out a response.
In practice, the designation of a discharge of oil as a SONS is rare. On April 29, 2010, Secretary
Napolitano classified the Deepwater Horizon event as a SONS and appointed U.S. Coast Guard
Admiral Thad Allen as the NIC for that incident. This was the first spill to receive such a
designation.
Non-governmental Participation
The participation of non-governmental entities in a federal response may include parties
responsible for a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance who perform response
actions under the direction of the OSC, private contractors procured either by a responsible party
or a federal agency to conduct the physical work, and members of the general public who may
wish to contribute resources.49 In particular, Section 311(j)(5)(D) of the Clean Water Act requires
certain types of facilities and vessels to prepare response plans that would ensure the availability
of private personnel and equipment to address a worst case discharge of oil or a hazardous
substance into or upon navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, and the
Exclusive Economic Zone.50 These facility and vessel plans must be consistent with the
applicable ACPs. In many instances, private facilities and vessels may maintain a contractual
relationship with an oil spill removal organization to satisfy this planning requirement for
potential oil spills.
The NCP also encourages industry groups, academic organizations, and others to commit
resources for federal response operations.51 Commitments of non-governmental entities may be
identified in ACPs, which can be called upon when an incident occurs. Non-governmental entities
also may generate scientific or technical information to assist in the development of response
strategies, which can be incorporated into ACPs. Individual volunteers also may participate in the
federal response. The NCP requires Area Committees to establish procedures that allow for “well
organized, worthwhile, and safe use of volunteers.”52 However, the participation of volunteers in
the response to a specific incident may be limited to certain activities more appropriate for their
skill level or could be restricted if dangerous conditions exist.
48 40 C.F.R. § 300.323(b).
49 40 C.F.R. § 300.185.
50 33 U.S.C. § 1321(j)(5)(D). The NCP references this provision in 40 C.F.R. § 300.211 and points to specific
regulations for different categories of facilities.
51 40 C.F.R. § 300.185(a).
52 40 C.F.R. § 300.185(c).
Congressional Research Service
13
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Funding and Liability
Congress has established two dedicated trust funds to finance the costs of a federal response to a
discharge or oil or release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Through its
National Pollution Funds Center, the U.S. Coast Guard administers the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund to finance the costs of responding to a discharge of oil.53 Currently, revenues for the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund primarily are derived from a dedicated eight cents per-barrel tax on
domestic and imported oil. The tax is scheduled to increase to nine cents in 2017 and terminate at
the end of that year.
EPA administers the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund to finance the costs of
responding to a release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.54 The Superfund
Trust Fund is financed mostly with revenues transferred from the General Fund of the U.S.
Treasury, since the taxes on domestic and imported oil, chemical feedstocks, and corporate
income that once financed this trust fund expired at the end of 1995. Neither of these trust funds
is available to cover the costs of responding to a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous
substance from a federal facility or vessel. Congress appropriates separate funding directly to the
federal departments or agencies with jurisdiction, custody, or control over the facility or vessel
from which the discharge or release occurred to pay the response costs of the federal government.
These two trust funds differ in terms of how the monies are made available to carry out a
response. Monies from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund are authorized as mandatory (i.e.,
permanent) appropriations that do not require a subsequent discretionary appropriation before
they are made available to federal agencies for obligation. However, these monies are subject to
certain caps on annual withdrawals from the trust fund55 and total expenditures per incident.56
Monies from the Superfund Trust Fund are subject to discretionary appropriations before they are
made available for response actions. To enable response capabilities, Congress has annually
appropriated monies out of this trust fund to EPA’s Superfund account and has reserved separate
portions of these funds for emergency “removal” actions versus long-term “remedial” actions.
These funds remain available indefinitely until they are expended.
The federal government may recover its response costs from the responsible parties under the
liability provisions of OPA and CERCLA, respectively. Recovered funds are to be deposited back
into the respective trust fund that financed the federal response.57 The responsible parties also
53 26 U.S.C. § 9509. For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43128, Oil Sands and the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund: The Definition of "Oil" and Related Issues for Congress, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
54 26 U.S.C. § 9507. For additional discussion, see the “Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund” section in CRS
Report R41039, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund
Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden.
55 33 U.S.C. § 2752. The U.S. Coast Guard may “advance” (i.e., withdraw) up to $150 million each fiscal year from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to respond to discharges of oil. Once advanced, the monies remain available until
expended. P.L. 111-191 removed this annual limit on the advance of trust fund monies specifically for the Deepwater
Horizon incident to increase the availability of resources for the federal response. The $150 million annual limit on the
advance of trust fund monies remains in place for the federal response to other incidents.
56 26 U.S.C. § 9509(c)(2). Total expenditures from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to respond to an individual
incident are limited to $1 billion.
57 The Internal Revenue Code directs recovered costs to be deposited back into the Hazardous Substance Superfund
Trust Fund (26 U.S.C. § 9507) and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (26 U.S.C. § 9509), respectively.
Congressional Research Service
14
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
may perform and pay for response actions up-front with their own monies, subject to direction by
the OSC. In the event that the responsible parties are not financially viable or cannot be
identified, the applicable trust fund still may pay for federal response actions, up to the amounts
made available from that trust fund and within certain limitations.
Financial liability differs somewhat for discharges of oil versus releases of hazardous substances.
Section 1002 of OPA establishes the liability of parties responsible for a discharge of oil,
including response costs, natural resource damages, certain categories of economic damages, and
damages for net costs borne by states and local governments in providing public services in
support of a response.58 Section 107 of CERCLA establishes the liability of parties responsible for
a release of a hazardous substance, including response costs, natural resource damages, and the
costs of federal public health studies performed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry.59 Unlike OPA, CERCLA does not establish a separate category of liability for economic
damages, with the exception of certain economic losses that may be compensable through natural
resource damages based on the loss of the use of resources.60 Other economic damages attributed
to releases of hazardous substances primarily are left to tort law. Notably, CERCLA also does not
apply liability to a release of a pollutant or contaminant. The federal government still may
respond to such incidents, albeit without a mechanism to recover the costs under CERCLA.
For a presidential declaration of an incident as a major disaster or emergency, funds provided
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act)
may finance the federal response costs,61 rather than the above trust funds. The use of Stafford
Act funds usually would entail the Secretary of Homeland Security applying the NCP under the
National Response Framework (discussed below) to address a discharge of oil or a release of a
hazardous substance associated with a major disaster or emergency. In practice, the use of
Stafford Act funds to pay for the federal response to a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous
substance has been more limited to discharges or releases caused by natural disasters or other
emergencies for which there is not a responsible party to pursue. In such instances, the President
may make a Stafford Act declaration to provide federal assistance to augment state and local
resources, in the absence of viable responsible parties to pay for the response.62
National Response Framework
The National Response Framework (NRF) is the federal government's broader administrative
mechanism that is intended to coordinate the array of federal response plans.63 As such, the NRF
58 33 U.S.C. § 2702. For additional discussion of liability under OPA, see CRS Report R41266, Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (OPA): Liability of Responsible Parties, by Robert Meltz.
59 42 U.S.C. § 9607. For additional discussion of liability under CERCLA, see the “Financial Liability” section in CRS
Report R41039, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund
Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden.
60 43 C.F.R. §11.83(c).
61 42 U.S.C. § 5121 et seq.
62 For example, a Stafford Act declaration was not made during the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill nor the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, as there were viable responsible parties to pursue in each instance.
63 Authority for the creation of the NRF emanates from numerous sources. FEMA has described the NRF as being
guided by 15 "principal emergency authorities," 48 other statutory authorities and regulations, 17 executive orders, and
20 presidential directives. See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
National Response Framework: List of Authorities and References, January 2008.
Congressional Research Service
15
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
provides the administrative policies and guiding principles for a unified response from all levels
of government, and all sectors of communities, to all types of hazards through the combined
scope of the various federal response plans that it incorporates. However, the NRF itself is not an
operational plan that dictates a step-by-step process for responding to a specific type of hazard,
nor is the NRF codified in federal regulation like the NCP.64
Through Emergency Support Function (ESF) #10 of the NRF, the Secretary of Homeland
Security may apply the operational elements of the NCP for incidents involving the discharge of
oil or release of hazardous materials that require a coordinated federal response.65 (ESF #10
references the term hazardous materials and defines that term to include hazardous substances,
pollutants, and contaminants covered under the NCP.) Situations in which the application of the
NCP through the NRF may occur include:
• a major disaster or emergency declared under the Stafford Act, when state and
local authorities are overwhelmed and federal assistance is requested;
• an incident to which a federal agency is responding under its own authority and
requests support from other federal agencies to respond to aspects of the incident
that involve the discharge of oil or release of hazardous materials; or
• an incident for which the Department of Homeland Secretary determines that it
should lead the response because of special circumstances.
In practice, the federal response to a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance is most
often executed under the regulations of the NCP alone, rather than through the coordinating
structures of the NRF under ESF #10. The Secretary of Homeland Security’s application of the
NCP through the NRF appears to be less common and more limited to multi-faceted incidents of
greater magnitude, scope, and complexity that may necessitate the coordination of multiple
federal response plans. For example, the Department of Homeland Security has stated that the
NCP still was applied to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as a stand-alone regulatory authority
without involvement of other federal response plans under the NRF.66 Regardless of whether the
NCP is applied as a stand-alone regulatory authority or through the NRF, the procedures for
responding to a discharge of oil or release of a hazardous substance are the same because the NCP
remains the operative plan in either instance.
64 For more information, see CRS Report RL34758, The National Response Framework: Overview and Possible Issues
for Congress, by Bruce R. Lindsay. For a broad overview of the federal emergency response framework, also see CRS
Report R42845, Federal Emergency Management: A Brief Introduction, coordinated by Bruce R. Lindsay.
65 Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework—Emergency Support Function #10—Oil and
Hazardous Materials Response Annex, as revised May 2013, available on the Federal Emergency Management Agency
website at http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1914-25045-0304/
final_esf_10_oil_and_hazardous_materials_response_20130501.pdf.
66 CRS telephone conversation with Department of Homeland Security Office of Legislative Affairs, July 13, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
16
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Appendix. Chronology of the NCP
Since its inception in 1968, the NCP has been revised on multiple occasions to develop
procedures for implementing the federal statutory authorities that Congress has expanded over
time to respond to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants. Major events in the development of the NCP are outlined below.
• September 1968: Several departments in the Johnson Administration published
the National Multi-Agency Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution Contingency
Plan. This version established a Joint Operations Center, a national reaction team,
and regional reaction teams. This first version of the NCP was prepared under an
administrative initiative, and some have characterized its legal authority as being
“not as straightforward” as subsequent versions codified in federal regulation.67
• April 1970: The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-224) directed
the President to publish a National Contingency Plan for the removal of oil. The
act included specific details such as task forces at major ports, a national
coordination center, and a schedule identifying potential dispersant uses. This act
also altered the primary response authority provision, stating that “the President
is authorized to act to remove or arrange for the removal of such oil at any time,
unless he determines such removal will be done properly by the owner or
operator of the vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility from which the
discharge occurs.”
• June 1970: Pursuant to P.L. 91-224, the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) published in the Federal Register a National Oil and Hazardous Materials
Pollution Contingency Plan.68 This plan established the National Response
Center, National Response Team, Regional Response Team, and the On-Scene
Commander roles (later termed On-Scene Coordinator).69 The plan addressed
discharges of oil and “hazardous polluting substances.”
• August 1971: CEQ made several modifications to the NCP. CEQ changed the
name of the plan to the one that still exists today—the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. The revised plan established
roles for the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.70 In particular, the plan designated
EPA as the chair of the National Response Team.71
67 Frederick J. Kenney and Melissa A Hamann, “The Flow of Authority to Stop the Flow of Oil: Clean Water Act
Section 311(c) Removal Authority and the BP/DEEPWATER HORIZON Oil Spill,” Tulane Maritime Law Journal,
Vol. 36, 2012.
68 35 Federal Register 8508 (June 2, 1970).
69 This change was made in the August 1971 rulemaking.
70 The origin of both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) is rooted in a reorganization of the executive branch under the Nixon Administration. The 91st
Congress approved this reorganization plan on December 2, 1970. For further details see CRS Report RL30798,
Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated
by David M. Bearden.
71 A representative from the Department of the Interior served in this role in the previous version of the NCP.
Congressional Research Service
17
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
• October 1972: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(P.L. 92-500)—often referred to as the Clean Water Act—amended the 1970
statutory authority of the NCP by explicitly requiring it to address hazardous
substances as well as oil.72
• August 1973: Executive Order 11735 delegated presidential authorities pursuant
to the 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act to various federal agencies,
including EPA, the Secretary of the Department in which the U.S. Coast Guard is
operating, and the Council on Environmental Quality.73
• August 1973: CEQ published a revised NCP, pursuant to the 1972 amendments
to the Clean Water Act and lessons learned from the National Response Team.74
The NCP was codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 1510.
• February 1975: CEQ issued a revised version of the NCP, based on comments
regarding the 1973 NCP.75
• December 1977: The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95-217)
required revisions to the NCP to address “imminent threats” of oil and hazardous
substance discharges.
• March 1980: CEQ revised the NCP based on the 1977 amendments to the Clean
Water Act and experiences with several, high-profile spills at that time.76 The
1980 changes involved, among other things, state participation, local contingency
plans, and a national pollution equipment inventory.
• December 1980: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; P.L. 96-510) required the President to
develop, and incorporate into the NCP, procedures for prioritizing and responding
to releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants into the
environment.
• August 1981: Executive Order 12316, among other provisions, delegated to EPA
the authority to amend the NCP.77
• July 1982: EPA issued a revised NCP pursuant to CERCLA.78 The existing NCP
structure was largely unchanged. EPA added a new subpart in the regulations
with authorities and requirements that specifically addressed hazardous substance
response activities.
72 The 1972 act directed EPA to designate hazardous substances in federal regulation.
73 Executive Order 11735, signed by President Nixon on August 3, 1973, and published in 38 Federal Register 21243
(August 7, 1973).
74 38 Federal Register 21887 (August 13, 1973).
75 40 Federal Register 6282 (February 10, 1975).
76 45 Federal Register 17832 (March 19, 1980).
77 Executive Order 12316, signed by President Reagan August 14, 1981, and published in 46 Federal Register 42237
(August 20, 1981).
78 47 Federal Register 31180 (July 16, 1982).
Congressional Research Service
18
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
• November 1985: EPA revised the NCP regulations to, among other changes,
address “applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements” (ARARs) during
response activities.79
• October 1986: The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA; P.L. 99-499) amended various response, liability, and enforcement
provisions of CERCLA and directed the President to revise the NCP to carry out
these authorities.80 Title III of the act (EPCRA) created SERCs and LEPCs.
• January 1987: Executive Order 12580 delegated various functions assigned to
the President in CERCLA, as amended by SARA.81
• March 1990: EPA revised the NCP based on Executive Order 12580 and the
amendments to CERCLA in SARA, including changes to hazardous substance
reporting and response provisions, federal department and agency roles for
federal facilities and vessels, and state and public participation.82
• October 1990: Catalyzed by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaskan waters,
Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA; P.L. 101-380).83 Among
other provisions, OPA provided authority to the President to perform cleanup
immediately using federal resources, monitor the response efforts of the spiller,
or direct the spiller's cleanup activities.84 The act also required the President to
amend the NCP to establish procedures and standards for responding to worst-
case oil spill scenarios.
• October 1991: Executive Order 12777 delegated various functions assigned to
the President in OPA.85
• September 1994: EPA revised the NCP based on OPA and its amendments to the
Clean Water Act. The modifications to the NCP reflected the revised authorities
of the President (delegated to the U.S. Coast Guard or EPA) to direct and/or
undertake responses to oil spills. Additions to the NCP also included provisions
regarding the National Strike Force Coordination Center, Area Committees, Area
Contingency Plans (ACPs), vessel and facility oil spill response planning
requirements, and other response elements.
79 50 Federal Register 47912 (November 20, 1985).
80 For further details, see CRS Report R41039, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden.
81 Executive Order 12580, signed by President Reagan on January 23, 1987, and published in 52 Federal Register 2923
(January 29, 1987).
82 55 Federal Register 8666 (March 8, 1990).
83 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.
84 See 33 U.S.C. § 1321(c) as amended by OPA.
85 Executive Order 12777, signed by President George H.W. Bush on October 18, 1991, and published in 56 Federal
Register 54757 (October 22, 1991).
Congressional Research Service
19
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Author Contact Information
David M. Bearden
Jonathan L. Ramseur
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
dbearden@crs.loc.gov, 7-2390
jramseur@crs.loc.gov, 7-7919
Congressional Research Service
20