This page intentionally left blank.
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws
Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Summary of applicable statutes, identifying strengths/weaknesses and
noting how—and by which agency—laws are implemented
Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................1
1
Introduction...........................................................................................................................3
2
Federal Laws, Regulations, and Agency Responsibilities .................................................3
2.1
Pre-Spill Oversight and Preparedness Requirements ................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Agency Responsibilities ............................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: 43 U.S.C. § 1331–1356 ...................................................... 7
2.1.3 Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf: 30 CFR Section 250
(BSEE) and 30 CFR Section 550 (BOEM) .................................................................................. 7
2.1.4 Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Explorations of the Outer Continental Shelf: 30 CFR
Section 251 .................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.5 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Information Program: 30 CFR Section 552 ...................... 9
2.1.6 Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Offshore Facilities: 30 CFR Section 553 .......................... 10
2.1.7 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: 43 U.S.C. §§1331–1336 (2002) ........................................ 11
2.2
Spill Oversight, Preparedness, and Requirements .................................................................... 12
2.2.1 Clean Water Act of 1972 (formerly, Water Pollution Control Act): 33 U.S.C. Section 1251
et seq. (2002) ............................................................................................................................. 12
2.2.2 Oil Pollution Act of 1990: 33 U.S.C. Section 2701 et seq. (1990) ............................................. 12
2.2.2.1 Spill Response Authority .................................................................................................. 12
2.2.2.2 Liability, Damages, and Funding ..................................................................................... 15
2.2.3 Oil-Spill Response Requirements for Facilities Located Seaward of the Coast Line:
30 CFR Section 254 .................................................................................................................. 17
2.2.4 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA): 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. (1990) ............................................................................. 18
2.2.5 The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (National
Contingency Plan): Section 105, CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9605); 40 CFR Section 300 .............. 18
2.2.5.1 Area Contingency Plans—U.S. Coast Guard Sectors Jacksonville, St. Petersburg,
Miami, Key West, and Mobile: 33 CFR Section 3 ............................................................ 20
2.2.6 Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived
Economies of the Gulf Coast States (RESTORE) Act of 2012: 33 U.S.C. §1321,
Subsection (t) ............................................................................................................................. 23
2.2.7 Congressional Actions: OPA Amendments (proposed and passed) ......................................... 25
2.2.7.1 S 3298: Oil Spill Technology and Research Act of 2012 ................................................. 25
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
i
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
2.2.7.2 S 1836: Foreign Oil Pollution Act .....................................................................................25
2.2.7.3 HR 3393: Foreign Oil Spill Liability Act of 2011 ...............................................................25
2.2.7.4 HR 5499 and S 3473 .......................................................................................................26
2.2.7.5 S 214: Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2011 ....................................26
2.2.7.6 HR 3619: The Coast Guard Authorization Act .................................................................27
3
Florida Laws, Regulations, and Agency Responsibilities................................................27
3.1
Florida State Laws and Regulations ............................................................................................27
3.1.1 Florida Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Control Act (FPDPCA) .........................................27
3.1.2 Florida Statute 376.121, Liability for Damage to Natural Resources, and 376.07 1(e) .............28
3.1.3 State Emergency Management Act ...........................................................................................29
3.1.4 Public Health ..............................................................................................................................29
3.1.5 Energy Resources .....................................................................................................................30
3.2
Florida Legislative, Executive, and Agency Responsibilities....................................................31
3.2.1 Florida Legislature .....................................................................................................................31
3.2.2 Office of the Governor ...............................................................................................................31
3.2.3 Florida Department of Environmental Protection.......................................................................32
3.2.4 Florida Department of Health.....................................................................................................33
3.2.5 Florida Division of Emergency Management .............................................................................33
3.2.6 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission .................................................................34
3.2.7 Florida Department of Transportation ........................................................................................35
3.2.8 Florida National Guard ...............................................................................................................35
3.3
Local Government Roles and Responsibilities—Florida ...........................................................36
4
Analysis of Existing Laws and Regulations......................................................................36
5
Recommendations ..............................................................................................................38
Appendices ...............................................................................................................................40
Appendix A: The Offshore Energy Exploration & Production Sector ...............................................40
Appendix B: Organizational Structure of the National Response System ........................................41
Appendix C: Draft List of Recommendations Regarding the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Response in Florida .......................................................................................................................42
Appendix D: Florida House of Representatives Workgroup 1 Recommendations ..........................48
Appendix E: Acronyms ...........................................................................................................................49
ii
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Executive Summary
Following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) offshore drilling rig on April 20, 2010,
federal, state, and local governments and the responsible party (RP) faced an unprecedented
challenge in the Gulf of Mexico. Never before had a subsea drill unit malfunction of that
magnitude occurred in U.S. waters. This incident called on the existing governing frameworks for
offshore activities and oil spill and disaster response, both of which cut across every level of
governance, from national to local, and involved multiple actors at each of those levels.
Section 496 of Chapter 2011-142 of the Laws of Florida created the Commission on Oil Spill
Response Coordination. The commission was charged with preparing a final report that identifies
potential changes to state and federal laws and regulations, which will improve response
capabilities and processes, and protect Florida’s people and resources. This report is one of
several reports that will help form the basis for the final report. The analysis conducted for this
report tries to answer the question of whether existing federal and state laws for oil spill planning
and response are adequate to deal with large-scale spills such as the DWH incident.
While the general framework of statutes and implementing regulations for oil spill response and
cleanup is sound, there are some notable gaps—and it is clear that some significant
improvements in operating policies and procedures are needed to address these complex
issues. As was noted in the National Commission’s Report to the President, “complex systems
almost always fail in complex ways. . . . If we are to make future deepwater drilling safer and
more environmentally responsible, we will need to address all [the] deficiencies together; a
piecemeal approach will surely leave us vulnerable to future crises in the communities and
natural environments most exposed to offshore energy exploration and production.” 1 The
analysis and recommendations in this report are framed with this complexity in mind.
Future governmental activity could be influenced by several factors, including conditions in the
Gulf region, independent inquiries, judicial actions, and the availability of data for further study.
As multiple state and federal agencies seek to better our oil spill preparedness and response
capabilities, it will be important to understand the current framework for addressing such
incidences.
1
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, Report to the President, Deepwater: The
Gulf Oil Disaster And The Future Of Offshore Drilling, at viii, x (2011) (quoting NASA, Columbia Accident Investigation Board
6 (2003), available at http://anon.nasa-global.speedera.net/anon.nasaglobal/caib/caib_lowres_intro.pdf), at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/deepwater/deepwater.pdf.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
1
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
This report recommends considering the following for improved response capabilities in future
incidents:
•
Update or amend Area Contingency Plan (ACP) policy guidance to include the use (or
restriction) of dispersants, qualifications of response personnel, and when various
components of the plan are to be implemented following a spill/release.
•
Amend ACP documents to allow for better identification and prioritization of environmentally
sensitive areas/habitats (e.g., maps depicting marsh habitat along interior bays near tidal
inlets).
•
Improve participation in ACP development process by state, local (county, city, and town)
and the public.
•
Integrate viable scientific knowledge and technology into planning process (e.g., knowledge
of currents, tidal variations).
2
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
1 Introduction
This report provides an overview of federal and state statutes pertaining to offshore oil
exploration and spills, identifies the strengths and weaknesses of those laws and regulations,
and offers recommendations for government action related to oil spill response and
preparedness. The current oil spill governance structure is complex and takes place at the
intersection of two legal regimes: one addressing offshore activities and the other addressing oil
spills and related disasters. In the aftermath of the DWH incident, numerous petitions for reform
and reorganization of oil spill-related regulatory structures surfaced. However, the strengths of
the current regulatory framework for oil spills are easily overlooked in the face of a major, highprofile, and contentious oil spill. Today’s oil spill liability structure successfully places the cost of
preparing for and responding to oil spills on the parties most able to bear that cost – the
transporters and the oil industry. Additionally, it addresses the full range of damages that result
from oil spills and sets out protocols and funds to assess and recover such damages.
Recent events have demonstrated to the regulatory community that while the scheme is
workable and even ingenious, it requires revisions to keep pace with modern technology and oil
sector advancements. The specific challenges explored in this document include scientific and
legal uncertainty, simultaneous overlap and fragmentation, and the difficulties of balancing
efficiency and inclusion. This report provides information that will be useful in any potential
reassessment of current regulations and development of recommendations for improved oil spill
planning and response.
2 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Agency
Responsibilities
The governing framework for oil spills in the United States consists of a combination of federal,
state, and international authorities. 2 The largest and most prominent federal statute related to oil
spills is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (hereinafter OPA), which, in addition to other
advancements, expanded and clarified the authority of the federal government, created new oil
spill prevention and preparedness requirements, and solidified the role and obligations of
responsible parties. The primary federal law governing oil development and operations in waters
within federal jurisdiction is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, implemented by the Secretary
of the Interior. Shown in Figure 1 below are the Territorial Sea (straight bright line), Contiguous
Zone (dashed bright line), and the Exclusive Economic Zone (bright thick line) delineations in the
2
J.L. Ramseur, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background and Governance (Washington, DC: Congressional Research
Service, 2012).
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
3
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Gulf of Mexico. As discussed later in this document, pipeline and vessel statutes cover oil spill
preparedness and response guidelines for entities that transport oil within U.S. waters.
Figure 1. Federal & State Maritime Boundaries
ArcGIS, U.S. Maritime Limits and Boundaries, available at: http://bit.ly/S2wS9H
The U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extends 200 nautical miles 3 offshore, encompassing
diverse ecosystems and vast natural resources, such as fisheries and energy and other mineral
resources. The U.S. EEZ is the largest in the world, spanning over 13,000 miles of coastline and
containing 3.4 million square nautical miles of ocean—larger than the combined land area of all
50 states. 4 DWH was in the Macondo Prospect (Mississippi Canyon Block 252,
abbreviated MC252), an oil and gas prospect in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone of
the Gulf of Mexico.
Agency responsibilities can be grouped into (1) oil spill prevention and preparedness and (2) oil
spill response and cleanup. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)
oversees all field operations including permitting and research, inspections, offshore regulatory
programs, oil spill response, and newly formed training and environmental compliance
3
4
4
One nautical mile is equal to 1.3 statute miles.
NOAA, The United States is an Ocean Nation, 2011. Available at:
http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/2011/012711_gcil_maritime_eez_map.pdf
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
functions. 5 The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is responsible for overseeing the
leasing of offshore resources, plan administration, environmental studies, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, resource evaluation, economic analysis, and the
Renewable Energy Program. For maritime oil spills, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is designated
as the agency responsible for directing and overseeing cleanup activities. 6 The aforementioned
laws, regulations, and agency responsibilities are explained in greater detail in the sections that
follow.
2.1 Pre-Spill Oversight and Preparedness Requirements
Appendix A provides a brief overview of the offshore energy extraction and production sector to
frame the following discussion related to governance structures of the oil and gas exploration
and production industry. Statutes regulating oversight and preparedness for oil spills are
primarily enforced by the Department of the Interior. This section identifies the legal authorities
granted to federal agencies to enforce regulations aimed at preparing the oil extraction industry
for leaks, spills, and other incidents that might harm the natural resources of the U.S. coastline
and particularly inland waterways.
2.1.1 Agency Responsibilities
Prior to the DWH oil spill, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) regulated most oil
exploration activities in federal waters. Public attention and scrutiny during and following the
MC252 7 well failure and subsequent DWH incident revealed various internal conflicts of interest
and corruption within MMS. The report of the National Commission on the BP DWH Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling best depicts the internal problems at MMS, observing that “…(p)erhaps
because of the cumulative lack of adequate resources, absence of a sustained agency mission,
or sheer erosion of professional culture within some offices, MMS came progressively to suffer
from serious deficiencies of organization and management.” 8
At the time, the reorganization of MMS was the latest in a series of agency reform actions the
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar had taken since January 2009. The process occurred in
three phases, beginning in June 2010, while the MC252 well remained uncapped and was still
discharging oil into the Gulf of Mexico, Secretary Salazar replaced MMS with a transitional
5
Department of the Interior, Fact Sheet: the BSEE and BOEM Separation—An Independent Safety, Enforcement, and
Oversight Mission (January 19, 2010). Available at: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/01-19-11_Fact-SheetBSEE-BOEM-separation-2.pdf.
6
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees all oil spill that occur inland.
7
The Macondo Prospect (Mississippi Canyon Block 252, abbreviated MC252) is an oil and gas prospect in the United
States Exclusive Economic Zone of the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Louisiana and was the sight of the Deepwater
Horizon fire and explosion.
8
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, .Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and
the Future of Offshore Drilling (2011). Page 78.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
5
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE).
The second phase of the reorganization in October 2012 involved the transfer of the Office of
Natural Resources Revenue to the Policy, Management, and Budget Assistant Secretary.
October 1, 2011, the third phase of reorganization occurred when BOEMRE was divided into two
separate agencies—BOEM and BSEE. Figure 2 displays the post-DWH structure of the federal
agencies overseeing oil extraction and spill preparedness in federal waters.
Secretary of the Interior
Assistant Secretary for Land
and Minerals Management
Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM)
Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE)
Office of Policy,
Management and Budget
Office of Natural Resources
Revenue
Figure 2. Restructured Department of the Interior
BOEM is now responsible for managing the development of the nation’s offshore resources in an
“environmentally and economically responsible way.” 9 The agency’s primary functions are
leasing of marine oil resources, plan administration, environmental studies, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, resource evaluation, economic analysis, and the
Renewable Energy Program. BSEE now enforces safety and environmental regulations. Its
functions include all field operations, including permitting and research, inspections, offshore
regulatory programs, oil spill response, and newly formed training and environmental compliance
functions. 10 The separation of BOEMRE into separate agencies successfully isolated the
resource development and energy management functions from the safety and enforcement
functions.
The Office of Natural Resources Revenue now manages the revenue collection function within a
separate Department of the Interior (DOI) office. This move attempts to eliminate the conflict of
interest issues that previously existed within MMS.
9
Department of the Interior, Fact Sheet: the BSEE and BOEM Separation—An Independent Safety, Enforcement, and
Oversight Mission (January 19, 2010). Available at: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/01-19-11_Fact-SheetBSEE-BOEM-separation-2.pdf.
10
Ibid.
6
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
2.1.2 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: 43 U.S.C. § 1331–1356
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue,
on a competitive basis, leases for oil and gas in submerged lands of the outer Continental Shelf
(OCS, see Figure 1 in Section 3). The act authorizes the Secretary to grant rights-of-way, rightsof-use, and easements through the submerged lands of the OCS. 11 Since its original enactment
in 1953, the OCSLA has been amended several times, most recently as a result of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. These amendments have included the establishment of an oil spill liability
fund and the distribution of a portion of the receipts from the leasing of mineral resources of the
OCS to coastal states. 12
2.1.3 Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf:
30 CFR Section 250 (BSEE) and 30 CFR Section 550 (BOEM)
The Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf rule (30 CFR Section
250) was initially published by BOEMRE on October 14, 2010, following the division of BOEMRE
into BOEM and BSEE, its responsibilities were split between BOEM and BSEE. The Secretary of
the Interior announced a ruling codified under Title 30 of the code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
stating that Chapter II-Minerals Revenue Management, Subchapter B-Offshore, and Subchapter
C-Appeals would be implemented by BSEE and Chapter V would be implemented by BOEM.
Subpart C – Pollution Prevention and Control, was divided between BSEE and BOEM, with
pollution prevention during operations and inspection of facilities housed under BSEE and air
quality concerns housed under BOEM. Part 250 established the requirements for offshore oil,
natural gas, and sulphur operations. These operations include activities after a lease is
established and most will stay under BSEE. Some sections, such as the approval of subsurface
gas storage, granting right-of-use and easements, and lease cancelations were set under
BOEM.
30 CFR Section 550 contains the regulations of the BOEM Offshore program that govern oil,
gas, and sulphur exploration, development, and production operations on the OCS. When an
entity conducts operations on the OCS, they must submit requests, applications, and notices, or
provide supplemental information for BOEM approval. All financial responsibility functions were
moved under the authority of BOE, under its mission to manage the development of offshore
resources in an economically responsible way. BOEM was also given the authority in Chapter V
for lease sales, bidding systems, the regulatory oversight of incentive-based royalty relief, and
establishing royalty relief thresholds. 13
11
43 U.S.C. §§ 1331–1356.
BOEM, OCSLA History. Available at: http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/Leasing/Outer-ContinentalShelf/Lands-Act-History/OCSLA-HIstory.aspx.
13
All information from: Department of the Interior, 30 CFR Chapter II, Reorganization of Title 30: Bureaus of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement and Ocean Energy Management. Docket ID: BOEM-2011-0079.
12
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
7
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
2.1.4 Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Explorations of the Outer
Continental Shelf: 30 CFR Section 251
The Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Explorations of the Outer Continental Shelf (30 CFR
Section 251) regulation pertains to changes to the proprietary term of certain geophysical
information previously under the purview of MMS (now BOEM and BSEE). According to the
Federal Register, MMS proposed to extend the proprietary term of geophysical information that a
permittee reprocessed 20 or more years after MMS issued the relevant permit under which the
originating data were collected. This rule proposed to give up to five years of additional
protection to reprocessed vintage geophysical information that MMS retains and, without an
extension, is subject to release by MMS 25 years after issuing the permit. The extension
provides incentives to permittees and third parties to reprocess, market, or in other ways use
geophysical information that might not otherwise be reprocessed without the term extension. 14
These duties are now shared by BSEE and BOEM. 15
Section 251.7 of this regulation (“Test drilling activities under a permit”) requires each actor to
complete a drilling plan and submit it to BOEM. The drilling plan must include the proposed type,
sequence, and timetable of drilling activities; a description of the drilling rig, indicating the
important features, with special attention to safety, pollution prevention, oil spill containment and
cleanup plans; and onshore disposal procedures. Any actor must submit an environmental report
to BOEM as well. The environmental report must include:
•
A summary with data and information available at the time of submittal of the related drilling
plan. BOEM will consider site-specific data and information developed since the most recent
environmental impact statement or other environmental impact analysis in the immediate
area. The summary must meet the following requirements:
• It must concentrate on the issues specific to the site(s) of drilling activity. However, the
actor/applicant only needs to summarize data and information discussed in any
environmental reports, analyses, or impact statements prepared for the geographic area
of the drilling activity.
• It must list referenced material. Include brief descriptions and a statement of where the
material is available for inspection.
• It must refer only to data that are available to BOEM.
•
Details about the proposed project such as:
• A list and description of new or unusual technologies
• The location of travel routes for supplies and personnel
14
15
8
Federal Register 74, no. 155, August 13, 2009, pages 40726 - 40731
30 CFR 251.7
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
• The kinds and approximate levels of energy sources
• The environmental monitoring systems
• Suitable maps and diagrams showing details of the proposed project layout.
•
A description of the existing environment. For this section, the following information on the
area must be included:
• Geology
• Physical oceanography
• Other uses of the area
• Flora and fauna
• Existing environmental monitoring systems
• Other unusual or unique characteristics that might affect or be affected by the drilling
activities.
•
A description of the probable impacts of the proposed action on the environment and the
measures proposed for mitigating these impacts.
•
A description of any unavoidable or irreversible adverse effects on the environment that
could occur. 16
2.1.5 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Information Program:
30 CFR Section 552
Section 552 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 17 provides procedures and requirements
for submitting oil and gas data and information resulting from exploration, development, and
production operations on the OCS to the Director of the Department of the Interior. In addition,
the OCS Oil and Gas Information Program 18 establishes a procedure for the Director to make
certain information available to the governors and local government officials of nearby states.
The Director provides states with a Summary Report of data and information designed to assist
them in planning for the onshore impacts of potential OCS oil and gas development and
production.
16
30 CFR 251.7(2).
43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq.
18
30 CFR § 552
17
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
9
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
2.1.6 Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Offshore Facilities:
30 CFR Section 553
30 CFR § 553 covers Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Offshore Facilities and is the final
regulation establishing requirements for demonstrating oil spill financial responsibility (OSFR) for
removal costs and damages caused by oil discharges and substantial threats of oil discharges
from oil and gas exploration and production facilities and associated pipelines. Under OPA
section 1016, oil and gas exploration and production leases issued by BOEM for operation in the
Gulf of Mexico must establish and maintain OSFR capability to meet liabilities caused by oil
discharges. 19
Before the DWH incident, MMS collected information from offshore facilities to ensure that they
had the financial resources necessary to pay for cleanup and damages that could be caused by
oil discharges from such facilities. Currently, BOEM receives OSFR forms and oversees the
regulatory process related to OSFR activities. OSFR requirements apply to the OCS, state
waters seaward of the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast that is in direct
contact with the open sea, and certain coastal inland waters.
OSFR is demonstrated in various ways, including surety bonds, guarantees, letters of credit, and
self-insurance, but the most common method is by means of an insurance certificate. The
minimum amounts of OSFR that must be demonstrated are $35 million for covered offshore
facilities (COF) located in the OCS (Table 1) and $10 million for covered offshore facilities
located in state waters. The regulation provides an exemption for persons responsible for
facilities having a potential worst-case oil spill discharge of 1,000 barrels or less, unless the risks
posed by a facility justify a lower threshold volume. 20
Civil penalties are associated with noncompliance with OSFR. 21 These penalties double each
time a facility incurs an additional violation within one calendar year of the first violation, up to a
maximum of $27,000 per day. 22 Penalties are levied for failure to submit OSFR evidence, failure
of a RP to prepare the necessary forms, lapse in OSFR coverage, cancellation of OSFR without
alternative coverage, and failure to correct an erroneous or inadequate submission within 30
days of BOEM request. 23
19
30 CFR § 553
Ibid.
21
30 CFR 553.51
22
BOEM, Civil Penalties for Noncompliance with OSFR. Available at: http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-EnergyProgram/Leasing/Regional-Leasing/Gulf-of-Mexico-Region/OSFR/Civil-Penalties-for-Noncompliance-with-OSFR.aspx
(BOEM, no date).
23
Ibid.
20
10
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Table 1. OSFR Requirements for Covered Offshore Facilities Located Wholly or Partially in the OCS
COF Worst-Case Oil-Spill Discharge Volume
Applicable Amount for OSFR
Over 1,000 up to 35,000 barrels
$35,000,000
Over 35,000 but not more than 70,000 barrels
$70,000,000
Over 70,000 but not more than 105,000 barrels
$105,000,000
Over 105,000 barrels
$150,000,000
Source: BOEM, Civil Penalties for Noncompliance with OSFR.
2.1.7 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: 43 U.S.C. §§1331–1336 (2002)
OCSLA (43 U.S.C. §§1331-1336 (2002)) establishes a procedural framework under which the
Department of the Interior could lease ocean areas for the purposes of exploring and developing
the oil and gas deposits. OCSLA and its amendments 24 provided the foundation for regulations
that are implemented by BOEM and BSEE.
Section 18 of the OCSLA states the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall prepare and
submit to Congress oil and gas leasing schedules to implement the policies of the OCSLA. This
schedule indicates the location of leasing activity that the Secretary determines will best meet
national energy needs for the five-year period following the schedules’ approval. 25 Within the
OCSLA, Congress created the Offshore Pollution Fund, financed by a per-gallon fee on
produced oil, to be used for cleanup activities and spill-related damages. 26
Since its original enactment in 1953, the OCSLA has been amended several times, most
recently as a result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Amendments have included, for example,
the establishment of an oil spill liability fund and the distribution of a portion of the receipts from
the leasing of mineral resources of the OCS to coastal states. 27
24
43 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1356
43 U.S.C. §§ 1344
26
Public Law 95-372, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.
27
BOEM, OCS Lands Act History (BOEM, 2012). Available at: http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-EnergyProgram/Leasing/Outer-Continental-Shelf/Lands-Act-History/OCSLA-HIstory.aspx. Accessed August 22, 2012.
25
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
11
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
2.2 Spill Oversight, Preparedness, and Requirements
2.2.1 Clean Water Act of 1972 (formerly, Water Pollution Control Act):
33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq. (2002)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) represented the broadest authority for addressing oil spills prior to
the Exxon Valdez spill. 28 Generally, section 311 of the act mandates requirements for oil spill
reporting, response, and liability. Section 311(b)(3) of the CWA prohibits the discharge of oil or
hazardous substances into U.S. navigable waters. The CWA also created a fund (the 311 Fund)
to be maintained by federal appropriations; the fund could be used for cleanup and natural
resource restoration in the event of a spill. Various elements of section 311 of the CWA were
amended and expanded with the passage of OPA in 1990.
2.2.2 Oil Pollution Act of 1990: 33 U.S.C. Section 2701 et seq. (1990)
OPA passed in 1990 (101 HR 1465, Public Law 101-380) was largely a response to growing
public concern surrounding the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. That spill
highlighted a national need for strong and comprehensive oil spill legislation and spurred
Congress to enact OPA. OPA expanded and clarified the authority of the federal government
(primarily the executive branch) and created new oil spill prevention and preparedness
requirements. OPA also strengthened existing liability provisions, providing a greater deterrent
for the oil industry, which subsequently implemented more cautious practices. Since this
legislation was enacted in 1990, spill occurrence and volume have decreased substantially.
2.2.2.1 Spill Response Authority
OPA consolidated several existing federal oil spill laws and streamlined the federal legislative
criteria for oil spills on land and sea. OPA also amended key sections of the CWA and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Specifically, OPA
section 4201 amended section 113(c) of the CWA and provided the president (and the USCG)
with the authority to perform cleanup immediately using federal resources, monitor the response
efforts of the spiller, or direct the spiller’s cleanup activities.
OPA designated authority pertaining to spill response and cleanup to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for land-based spills and to the USCG for spills occurring within the
U.S. coastal zone, 200 nautical miles off the coastline. Florida’s territorial waters runs the entire
state and extends nine nautical miles into the Gulf of Mexico and three nautical miles into the
Atlantic Ocean and is included in the USCG’s response and cleanup authority.
28
12
J.L. Ramseur, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
The level of cleanup required is determined by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), a
federal official (from the USCG for coastal zone spills and from EPA for land-based spills) who
coordinates all federal efforts with, and provides support and information to, local, state, and
regional response communities. Coastal zone as defined for the purpose of the NCP, means all
U.S. waters subject to the tide, U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, specified ports and harbors on
inland rivers, waters of the contiguous zone, other waters of the high seas subject to the NCP,
and the land surface or land substrata, ground waters, and ambient air proximal to those waters.
Precise boundaries are determined by EPA/USCG agreements and identified in federal regional
contingency plans. 29 The FOSC takes on the responsibilities of assessment, monitoring,
response assistance, and evaluation during and after oil spill incidents. Thus, jurisdiction is
determined by the source of the oil, vessel, onshore facility, pipelines, and so forth. 30 (Refer to
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Section 2.2.5 of this
report) for more information regarding spill authority.)
OPA also amended the NCP and transformed the plan into a multi-tiered and coordinated
National Response Strategy for addressing oil spills (40 CFR Section 300, subpart D). OPA
expanded the role and breadth of the NCP as well. OPA requires the president to establish
procedures and standards as part of the NCP for responding to worst-case oil spill scenarios. In
addition, the law establishes a multilayered planning and response system to improve
preparedness and response to spills. A component of this enhanced NCP is a requirement that
tank vessels, offshore facilities, and certain onshore facilities prepare oil spill response plans and
submit them to the USCG. These plans have since evolved, and they are now usually fulfilled by
a contractual relationship between a vessel or facility owner/operator and an emergency
response company with the necessary resources on hand to respond to a worst-case oil spill.
Before 1990, many states had oil spill liability laws in place; therefore, the issue of whether to
preempt state laws was one of the primary obstacles to passage of OPA. Although much
negotiation related to this topic occurred, the Exxon Valdez spill tipped the scales toward antipreemption. According to OPA section 1018, the act will not preempt any state from imposing
“additional liability or requirements” with respect to the discharge of oil or related response
activity. As of 2003, 16 states had imposed unlimited liability for oil spills, a higher standard than
that set in OPA.
Over the years since OPA was passed, it has been amended by various statutes. The most
notable amendments are the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act (2004) and, more
recently, S 3473 (June 2010) in response to the DWH spill.
29
30
40 CFR § 300.5
J.L. Ramseur, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
13
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
The Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act, section 701 (Vessel Response Plans for Nontank
Vessels over 400 Gross Tons), amends OPA to require the owner or operator of any “nontank
vessel” of 400 gross tons or more that carries oil of any kind as a fuel for main propulsion to
prepare and submit a response plan for each vessel. 31 This amendment also harmonizes the
United States’ list of regulated bulk cargoes with the internationally maintained list, increasing the
number of vessels that must submit a response plan for worst-case spills. Senate measure
S 3473 amended OPA to authorize advances from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) for
the DWH oil spill. 32
In its current state, OPA affects all vessels, all offshore facilities, and certain onshore facilities
operating in federal waters. Federal entities that have direct oversight of OPA activities include
the president, the USCG, and EPA. 33 The president “consults” with state and regional
government officials when he or she selects discharge removal plans and cleanup schedules,
but that is the extent of state activity within OPA. OPA does not regulate recovery of damages
incurred as a result of a collision, personal injury claims, or collision-related cargo claims; all of
these damages remain subject to general maritime law.
2.2.2.1.1 Authority During the DWH Oil Spill
In the case of the DWH incident, response processes minimized local authority and had the
effect of supplanting local governments’ ability to make response decisions. This was primarily a
function of the protocol within the National Contingency Plan for oil spill response, but could have
been mitigated by efforts from both sides to include local knowledge and resources. Following
the spill, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) stated that one of the key
reasons local entities were not able to take part in cleanup efforts was that OPA was designed
for more localized oil spills, where a response dictated by the USCG works effectively. However,
the DWH oil spill was of such magnitude that it exceeded the response assumptions inherent in
the NCP. 34 This proved particularly problematic when response actions had to cross
jurisdictional boundaries. Furthermore, under NCP protocols, all operational response actions
were directed by the USCG and by BP as the RP, which meant that impacted counties had no
control over response resources.
USCG generally oversees the safety of systems at the platform level of a Mobil Offshore Drilling
Unit (MODU), as opposed to the sub-platform systems overseen by BOEM/BSEE. The agency
31
Blank Rome LLP, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (September 2004). Accessed at:
http://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=37&itemID=266#amendments.
32
CNN, Obama says laws must be updated after oil disaster (June 10, 2010). Available at: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-0610/politics/obama.gulf.spill_1_rig-oil-disaster-oil-pollution-act?_s=PM:POLITICS.
33
EPA maintains oversight duties for inland oil spills.
34
Florida Division of Emergency Management, After Action Report/Improvement Plan: Deepwater Horizon Response
(Tallahassee, FL: Florida Division of Emergency Management, March 2, 2011, page 29). Accessed at:
http://www.floridadisaster.org/eoc/deepwaterhorizon2010/documents/DWH%20AAR%20March%202%20-%20Final.pdf
14
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
conducts full system surveys of each MODU every two years to ensure compliance with US and
international regulations. When an oil spill occurs, USCG chairs the National Response Team
(NRT), a group of agency representatives that delegates roles during the response effort.
Additionally, the Coast Guard leads the relevant Regional Response Teams (RRTs), which
comprised of Regions IV and VI during the Gulf spill (see Figure 5 on Page 19). 35 Executive
Order 12777 (signed by President George H. W. Bush on October 18, 1991) delegated response
authority in the coastal zone to the Coast Guard FOSC. The FOSC is broadly empowered to
direct and coordinate all response and recovery activities of federal, state, local, and private
entities (including the RP), and will draw on resources available through the appropriate ACPs
and RRTs. For more information on the FOSC, please see Section 2.2.5.
2.2.2.2 Liability, Damages, and Funding
OPA unified various federal liability funds and provisions as well, creating a freestanding liability
structure that outlines and enforces damage payments. Motivated by the failure of existing
systems to make vessel owners primarily liable for the response, OPA broadened the scope of
damages (or costs) for which a RP would be liable, including all cleanup costs incurred.
Furthermore, OPA increased the range of liable damages to include the following:
•
Injury to natural resources
•
Loss of personal property (and related economic losses)
•
Loss of subsistence use of natural resources
•
Loss of revenue resulting from destruction of property or natural resource injury
•
Loss of profits and earning capacity resulting from property injury of natural resource injury
•
Cost of providing extra public services during or after spill response.
The only defense from incurring these liable damages was if the spill was caused by an act of
God, act of war, or act/omission of certain third parties. However, OPA does set limits on the
liabilities that can be assigned to a RP (excluding instances of gross negligence or willful
misconduct). Liability limits for mobile offshore drilling units (such as DWH) are grouped with
liability limits for vessels at $3,200 per gross ton. If the damages caused by a spill from an
offshore drilling unit exceed this amount, they are grouped with offshore facilities. Offshore
facility liability is unlimited for removal costs but capped at $75 million for other costs and
damages.
35
J.L. Ramseur,and Curry L. Hagerty, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Selected Issues for Congress (Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service, 2010).
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
15
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
2.2.2.2.1 The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
Before the enactment of OPA, it was generally known that the current funding for oil spill response
was inadequate and that the damage recovery process was quite difficult for private parties to
navigate. To address these concerns, in 1989 Congress supplemented OPA’s increased range of
covered damages with the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF, Public Law 101-239). 36 OSLTF
consolidated the liability requirements under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Deepwater
Port Act, Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Authorization Act, and Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act. After the merging of these various federal funds and initiation of a tax on the petroleum
industry, OSLTF was able to increase to $1 billion with the possibility of borrowing another $1billion
if necessary. The permitted uses of OSLTF funds are delineated by OPA to include:
•
Removal costs incurred by the USCG and EPA
•
State access for removal activities
•
Payments to federal, state, and Indian tribe trustees to conduct natural resource damage
assessments and restorations
•
Payment of claims for uncompensated removal costs and damages
•
Research and development
•
Other specific appropriations.
Today OSLTF’s Principal Fund is funded by an 8-cent-per-barrel tax (up from 5 cents in 1990) on
the oil industry and any related interest generated in the account. The tax will increase to 9 cents
in 2017, but it will terminate at the end of that year unless otherwise mandated to stay in place.
In addition, Congress (under OPA) created an “emergency fund” within OSLTF that is available
to the USCG for removal costs, as well as to
the natural resources trustees (discussed
below) for the costs of initiating natural
resource damage assessments under OPA
(see Figure 3). This emergency fund was
initially set at $50 million a year (with the
option of rolling over unused funds). For
instances when the initial $50 million proves to
be inadequate, the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002 granted authority to
Figure 3. OSLTF’s Principal and Emergency Fund
advance up to $100 million from the Principal
Allocation
Fund to fund removal activities (Public Law
36
Congress created the fund in 1986 but did not pass legislation to authorize the use of the money or the collection of
revenue necessary for its maintenance. It was only after the Exxon Valdez grounding and passage of OPA that
authorization was granted.
16
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
107-295).
2.2.2.2.2 Financial Responsibility
To ensure that RPs can be held accountable for damages in the instance of a spill, OPA requires
that vessels and offshore facilities maintain evidence of financial responsibility (e.g., insurance).
RPs for offshore facilities in federal waters must demonstrate $35 million financial responsibility,
unless the president determines that a greater amount (not exceeding $150 million) is justified
(33 U.S.C. 2716(c)). A National Pollution Funds Center publication stipulates that where
incidents have multiple RPs, liability is “joint and several,” which means that “each [RP] is liable
for the entire amount of removal costs and damages resulting from a spill.” 37
2.2.2.2.3 Natural Resource Damages
When a spill occurs, natural resource trustees conduct natural resource damage assessments to
determine the extent of the damage caused by the spill. Natural resource trustees are appointed
by the governor from each state involved and the president. Governors usually appoint a state or
tribal government representative, and the president is likely to appoint a representative from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
OPA states that the measure of natural resource damages includes:
•
The cost of restoring, rehabilitating, replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of the damaged
natural resources
•
The diminution in value of those natural resources pending restoration
•
The reasonable cost of assessing those damages.
Pursuant to OPA, NOAA developed regulations pertaining to natural resource damage
assessments in 1996 (61 Federal Register 440, 1996). Damages may include losses of both
direct use and passive use of natural resources. NOAA’s regulations focus on the costs of
primary restoration (returning the resource back to baseline conditions) and compensatory
restoration (addressing interim losses).
2.2.3 Oil-Spill Response Requirements for Facilities Located Seaward of the
Coast Line: 30 CFR Section 254
The CWA, as amended by OPA, requires that a spill-response plan be submitted for offshore
facilities prior to February 18, 1993. OPA specifies that after that date an offshore facility may not
handle, store, or transport oil unless a plan has been submitted. The authority and responsibility
37
“Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) Funding for Oil Spills.” National Pollution Funds Center Publication NPFCPUB
16465.2 (page 3). Arlington, VA, January 2006.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
17
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
under 30 CFR Section 254 were delegated to BSEE. Regulations at 30 CFR Section 254
establish requirements for spill response plans for oil-handling facilities seaward of the coast line,
including associated pipelines. BSEE uses the information collected under 30 CFR Section 254
to determine compliance with OPA by lessees/operators. Specifically, BSEE uses the
information gathered to:
•
Determine the effectiveness of the spill-response capability of lessees/operators
•
Review plans prepared under federal and state regulations and submitted to BSEE to satisfy
BSEE’s condition that they meet the minimum requirements of OPA
•
Verify that personnel involved in oil spill response are properly trained and familiar with the
requirements of the spill response plans, and to witness spill response exercises
•
Assess the sufficiency and availability of contractor equipment and materials
•
Verify that sufficient quantities of equipment are available and in working order
•
Oversee spill response efforts and maintain official records of pollution events
•
Assess the efforts of lessees/operators to prevent oil spills or prevent substantial threats of
such discharges.38
2.2.4 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA): 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. (1990)
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund and codified as 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., on
December 11, 1980. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) on October 17, 1986. CERCLA gave the federal government the
authority and the funding (i.e., Superfund) to clean up sites contaminated by hazardous waste.
The CERCLA response effort is guided by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, which is commonly referred to as the NCP. As discussed above, the NCP
describes the steps that RPs (including federal facilities) must follow in reporting and responding
to situations in which hazardous substances are released into the environment.
2.2.5 The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (National Contingency Plan): Section 105, CERCLA (42 U.S.C.
§ 9605); 40 CFR Section 300
Initially established in 1968, the NCP was amended by the CWA in 1972, CERCLA in 1980, and
OPA in 1990. 39 Oil spill response actions required under the regulations of the NCP are binding
38
39
18
All information in this section was taken from 30 CFR Section 254.
J.L. Ramseur, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
and enforceable per these enforcement authorities. The NCP contains the federal government’s
framework and operative requirements for responding to an oil spill and the release of a
hazardous substance. (See Appendix B for a graphic of the NCP structure.)
The NCP establishes the National Response System (NRS, see Figure 4), a coordinated
national oil spill response framework organized by multiple national, regional, and local tiers. 40
The NRS consists of four key components—the NRT, RRTs, Area Committees (ACs), and
FOSC.
National
National Contingency Plan
Regional
Regional Contingency Plan
Local
Area Contingency Plan
Vessel Contingency Plan
Facility Contingency Plan
Figure 4. The National Response System
There are 13 RRTs, one for each of the 10 federal regions, plus Alaska, the Caribbean, and the
Pacific Basin (Figure 5). 41
Regional Response Teams
Region I
Region III
Region V
Region VII
Region II
Region IV
Region VI
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
The Caribbean
Alaska
Pacific Basin
Figure 5. Regional Response Teams
40
40 CFR Section 300, subpart D.
U.S. National Response Team, Regional Response Team Home Pages, last modified August 22, 2003. Available at:
http://www.nrt.org/production/NRT/RRTHome.nsf/Allpages/othr_rrt.htm?OpenDocument. Accessed August 23, 2012.
41
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
19
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Florida resides in Region IV, and it has developed a Regional Contingency Plan along with
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky. 42 The
NRS functions as a mechanism that supports the pre-designated federal OSC in coordinating
national, regional, and local government agencies, industry, and the RP or parties during spill
response operations (see Figure 5 above).
40 CFR §300.323 provides special consideration to discharges that have been classified as a
spill of national significance (SONS). In such an instance, senior federal officials direct nationally
coordinated response teams. A spill of national significance (SONS) is defined as "a spill that,
due to its severity, size, location, actual or potential impact on the public health and welfare or
the environment, or the necessary response effort, is so complex that it requires extraordinary
coordination of federal, state, local, and responsible party resources to contain and clean up the
discharge." 43
2.2.5.1 Area Contingency Plans—U.S. Coast Guard Sectors Jacksonville,
St. Petersburg, Miami, Key West, and Mobile: 33 CFR Section 3
Title 33 of the CFR, Navigation and Navigable Waters, sets out the geographic structure of
command for the USCG. Specifically, the United States is divided into the Pacific and Atlantic
areas and then further divided into districts and sectors. Florida resides within USCG District 7,
except for the northwest Florida west of longitude 83°50' W, which is part of USCG District 8.
Within each USCG District, 33 CFR designated regional sectors to provide region-specific
direction and coordination. Florida’s land and marine areas fall into five sectors (as shown in
Figure 6): Jacksonville, Miami, Key West, St. Petersburg, and Mobile (Alabama). 44 Each sector
has appointed members to an Area Committee, and each Area Committee has created an ACP
for its respective sector. The functions of designating these areas, appointing Area Committee
members, determining the information to be included in ACPs, and reviewing and approving
ACPs has been delegated by Executive Order 12777 of October 22, 1991, to the Commandant
of the USCG (through the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security) for the coastal
zone.
42
Regional Response Team – Region IV website. Available at:
http://www.nrt.org/production/NRT/RRTHome.nsf/Allpages/newrrt_iv-opsmanual.htm. Accessed August 23, 2012.
43
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/features/apr10/sons.html; accessed September 27, 2012.
44
30 CFR 3.01-1.
20
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Figure 6. Florida’s Five USCG Sectors
Area committees are composed of qualified personnel from federal, state, and local agencies.
The development process for ACPs includes appointing Area Committee members, determining
information to be included in the ACP, and reviewing and approving the ACP. The members of
each Area Committee consist of an executive steering group (which consists of a FOSC and the
state OSC(s)); area members from federal, state, and local governments; and any advisors and
sub-committees and work groups that may be designated. ACPs are modeled after the NCP,
with additional information specific to the area they cover. The next tier of contingency planning
is the Vessel and Facility Response Plans, which are required of facilities that process oil or
vessels that handle oil as cargo in an amount that could cause substantial harm to the
environment if spilled.
The ACP, when implemented in conjunction with the NCP, should (in theory) be capable of
handling the worst-case oil spill scenario. Each Area Committee is responsible for working with
state and local officials to pre-plan for joint response efforts, including appropriate procedures for
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
21
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
mechanical recovery; dispersal;
shoreline cleanup; protection of
sensitive environmental areas; and
protection, rescue, and rehabilitation
of fisheries and wildlife. The Area
Committee is also required to work
with state and local officials to
expedite decisions for the use of
dispersants and other mitigating
substances and devices.
Members
of the Area
Committee
Executive
Steering Group
FOSC & State OnScene
Commander(s)
Area Members
Federal, State and
Local
Governments
Others
Advisors, SubCommittees &
Work Groups
The pre-designated FOSC for the area serves as the Chairman of the Area Committee. The
FOSC designates the vice-chairman and the Committee members and provides general
direction and guidance for the Area Committee. There are four standing subcommittees—the
Executive Steering Subcommittee, Scientific Support Subcommittee, Preparedness
Subcommittee, and Resources Subcommittee (Figure 7). After consulting the RRT, the FOSC
directs the selection of appropriate representatives from federal and state agencies to be
appointed to the Area Committee. The Area Committee ideally solicits advice, guidance, and/or
expertise from all the appropriate sources. The Area Committee can also establish
subcommittees as necessary to accomplish the assigned preparedness and planning tasks.
Figure 7. Area Committee Structure
Each member is empowered by his or her own agency to make decisions on behalf of the
agency and to commit the agency to carrying out the roles and responsibilities described in the
plan. Members of subcommittees may be from governmental organizations, facility
owners/operators, shipping companies, cleanup contractors, emergency response groups,
22
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
consultants, response organizations, and concerned citizens; they who will assist with the Area
Committee’s development and maintenance of the ACP. 45
For Sector Mobile, the June 2008 ACP identifies the sector commander as the chairman of the
Executive Steering Group, with the Mississippi, Alabama, and northwest Florida OSCs serving
as vice-chairs. 46 Federal Government Area Committee representatives include USCG Sector
Mobile, USCG Detached Duty Office Mobile, NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator, National
Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (EPA and National Park Service).
The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Alabama Department of Environmental
Management, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection are the state members on the
ACP, and county emergency management agencies within the sector boundaries round out the
Area Committee membership.
2.2.6 Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and
Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States (RESTORE) Act of 2012:
33 U.S.C. §1321, Subsection (t)
Congress passed the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and
Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States (RESTORE) Act on June 29, 2012, as part of the
surface transportation and federal-aid highways act, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act, or “MAP-21.” 47 The RESTORE Act was signed into law by the president on July 6,
2012. The RESTORE Act established the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (RTF) housed
within the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
The Act recognizes the need to recover from and repair/restore damages attributable to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, as well as establishing a mechanism for long-term recovery of the
impacted ecosystems in the five gulf coast states affected by the spill: Alabama, Florida,
Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. The RTF will receive 80 percent of the civil and administrative
penalties paid to the United States under the CWA by the parties responsible for the DWH oil
spill. These funds will then be available for:
•
Projects and programs to restore and protect the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries,
marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, coastal wetlands, and economy of the Gulf region
•
Gulf state efforts to restore the ecosystems and economy of the Gulf Coast region.
•
The act states that 35 percent of the funds accrued within the RTF will be allocated equally
each fiscal year among the five impacted Gulf States (i.e., 7 percent each). Another 30
45
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCG, Sector St. Petersburg Area Contingency Plan (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, January 2012).
46
Alabama, Mississippi, & Northwest Florida Area Contingency Plan (June 2008).
47
Public Law 112-141; HR 4348.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
23
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
percent of the funds will be allocated to states using an intricate formula-based calculation to
determine the impacts of Deepwater Horizon on each state. These funds shall be used to
develop and implement state implementation plans. 2.5 percent of the money will go to the
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Science, Observation, Monitoring and Technology
Program (RSOMT). Another 2.5 percent of the money will go to the Centers of Excellence
Research Grants. Figure 3 below shows how exactly the funds from the RTF will be allocated
amongst affected states and through scientific research grants.
RTF Allocations
AL - 7%
Impact-Based State
Allocations 30%
FL - 7%
TX - 7%
LA - 7%
MS - 7%
Centers of
Excellence Grants
Program 2.5%
Interstate
Restoration Council
30%
RSOMT Program
2.5%
Figure 8. RTF Allocations
For Florida, the act further stipulates how their funds will be used (Figure 9). Florida’s allocations
stipulates that 25 percent of the state funds will go to unaffected (or non-disproportionally
affected) counties, while the majority of these funds (75 percent) will go to the eight
disproportionally affected Florida counties. The Environmental Law Institute has stated that “it is
necessary for RESTORE to specify county-by-county allocation in Florida because the coastal
zone of Florida includes the entire state.” 48 Of the funds to non-disproportionally impacted
counties:
•
34 percent will be based on the average
population
•
33 percent will be based on the average per
capita sales tax collections
•
33 percent will be based on the inverse
proportion of the average distance from the
Distribution of Florida's Equal
Share Funds
25%
75%
Unaffected
Counties
Affected Counties
(8)
Figure 9. Florida's Equal Share Funds
48
M. Herzog and J. Austin, Detailed Analysis of the RESTORE Act (Environmental Law Institute, July 13, 2012). Available at:
http://eli-ocean.org/gulf/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/RESTORE-Act-Analysis.pdf.
24
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
DWH oil rig to the nearest and farthest points of the shoreline.
It is important to note that the RESTORE Act does not supersede or affect the recovery actions
under OPA or other federal laws, nor does it apply to any oil spill incident other than the DWH
incident.
2.2.7 Congressional Actions: OPA Amendments (proposed and passed)
2.2.7.1 S 3298: Oil Spill Technology and Research Act of 2012
This was a bill to amend OPA to establish the Federal Oil Spill Research Committee, to amend
the CWA to include in a response plan certain planned and demonstrated investments in
research relating to discharges of oil, and to modify the dates by which a response plan must be
updated. This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation on June 14, 2012, and it has seen no further action.
2.2.7.2 S 1836: Foreign Oil Pollution Act
The Foreign Oil Pollution Act would amend OPA to make each RP for a foreign offshore unit
from which oil is discharged outside the navigable waters or the EEZ before entering or posing a
substantial threat to enter the navigable waters or EEZ liable for specified removal costs and
damages that result from such an incident. The Foreign Oil Pollution Act redefines foreign
offshore unit to include a facility that is located within the EEZ. It prohibits a limit on liability under
such act for any incident involving a foreign offshore unit in which oil is discharged and enters or
poses a substantial threat to enter such waters or the EEZ. It amends the Internal Revenue
Code to eliminate the $1 billion per incident limitation on expenditures from the OSLTF for
incidents involving a foreign offshore unit in which oil is discharged and enters or poses a
substantial threat to enter such waters or the EEZ. This bill was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works on November 9, 2011.
2.2.7.3 HR 3393: Foreign Oil Spill Liability Act of 2011
This Foreign Oil Spill Liability Act of 2011 would amend OPA to make the owner or operator of a
facility liable for removal costs and specified damages that result from a discharge, or substantial
threat of discharge, of oil from a foreign offshore unit that reaches or threatens to reach the
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines of the exclusive economic zone. The Foreign Oil Spill
Liability Act treats such owners or operators as a RP with respect to the incident for the purposes
of such act in the same manner as a RP for an offshore facility. The Foreign Oil Spill Liability Act
also requires the current liability limit to be multiplied by three when applied to a foreign offshore
unit that is involved in such an incident and is located in the territorial sea or on the continental
shelf of a foreign country that is a state sponsor of terrorism. This bill has been sent to committee
and is awaiting committee reporting.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
25
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
2.2.7.4 HR 5499 and S 3473
These bills attempted to amend OPA to authorize advances from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
for the DWH oil spill; S 3473 was passed on June 9, 2010.
HR 5499 amends the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to exempt advances to the Coast Guard in
connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater
Horizon from the requirement that amounts in the OSLTF shall be available only as provided in
annual appropriations. This bill would also limit advances to a maximum of $100 million each,
with the total amount for all advances not exceeding $1 billion for any single incident and $500
million for natural resource damage assessments and claims for any single incident. According
the HR 5499, an advance may be made only if the amount in the Fund after such advance will
not be less than $30 million, except in the case of payments of removal costs. This bill would
also require the Coast Guard to notify Congress of the amount advanced and the facts and
circumstances necessitating the advance within seven days of the advance. 49 HR 5499 was
referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and additionally the committee
on the Budget on June 10, 2010. On June 11, 2010 it was referred to the Subcommittee on
Coast Guard and Maritime Transpiration and the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the
Environment. However, this bill was abandoned with the passage of S 3473, which attempted
similar actions related to oil spill funding.
S 3473 (now Public Law No: 111-191) amended OPA to exempt advances to the Coast Guard in
connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater
Horizon from the requirement that amounts in the OSLTF shall be available only as provided in
annual appropriations. The bill limited such advances to a maximum of $100 million each, with
the total amount for all advances subject to limits under existing law. The law requires the Coast
Guard to notify Congress of the amount advanced and the facts and circumstances necessitating
the advance within seven days of the advance. 50
2.2.7.5 S 214: Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2011
The Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2011would amend OPA to make the
party responsible for an offshore facility, except a deepwater port, from which oil is discharged
into or upon navigable waters or adjoining shorelines liable for all discharge removal costs and
damages for each incident. (Under current law, such a party is liable for the total of all removal
costs plus $75 million.) The bill was referred to committee on January 27, 2011, and it has seen
no further action.
49
Library of Congress, HR 5499 Bill Summary and Status. Available at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR05499:@@@L&summ2=m&
50
Library of Congress, S3473 – Bill Summary and Status, Available at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN03473:@@@L&summ2=m&
26
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
2.2.7.6 HR 3619: The Coast Guard Authorization Act
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (CGAA), Public Law 111-281, 124 Stat. 2905 (2010)
was signed into law by the president on October 15, 2010. The legislation includes an
amendment to OPA liability provisions that for the first time extends OPA liability to cargo
owners. Section 1001(32)(A) of OPA (33 U.S.C. § 2701(32)(A)) is amended by inserting “In the
case of a vessel, the term ‘responsible party’ also includes the owner of oil being transported in a
tank vessel with a single hull after December 31, 2010.”
This bill was introduced on September 22, 2009; reported by committee on September 24, 2009;
passed by the House on October 23, 2009; passed by the Senate with changes on May 7, 2010;
and signed into law by President Obama on October 15, 2010.
3 Florida Laws, Regulations, and Agency
Responsibilities
3.1 Florida State Laws and Regulations
3.1.1 Florida Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Control Act (FPDPCA)
The Florida Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Control Act (FPDPCA) 51 states that the main
threat to the state’s coastal areas is from spills and discharges of hazardous substances and
pollutants. These spills or discharges likely occur as a result of errors during the storage,
transportation, and transfer of these substances and pollutants between ships, onshore facilities,
offshore facilities, and terminal facilities. 52 FPDPC empowers and sets up the Florida Coastal
Protection Trust Fund (FCPTF) for the FDEP and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC). FCPTF provides funding for FDEP and FWC to prevent (through
regulations), investigate, rehabilitate, and cleanup sites contaminated by spills and discharges.
FDEP is the primary enforcer of FPDPCA; however, FWC must assist FDEP with assessing
damages to wildlife caused by spills and with recovering the costs of the damage. FPDPCA sets
various requirements for ships traversing Florida waters, such as a discharge prevention and
response certificate, discharge prevention gear, holding tanks, containment gear, and a written
ship-specific discharge prevention and control contingency plan. 53 Any violation of FPDPCA or of
a rule of order of FDEP is punishable by a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per violation per
51
§§ 376.011–376.21, F.S.
M. Olexa and Z. Broome, Handbook of Florida Water Regulation: Florida Pollutant Discharge Prevention Act (Gainesville,
FL: Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida, 2005, revised 2011).
53
Ibid.
52
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
27
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
day. 54The FPDPCA also extends this liability to several potential defendants and is a potent
measure for forcing responsible parties to monetarily contribute to cleanup activities.
3.1.2 Florida Statute 376.121, Liability for Damage to Natural Resources,
and 376.07 1(e)
Florida Statute 376.121, Liability for Damage to Natural Resources, and 376.07 1(e), Creation of
State Contingency Plans, require that:
•
A state response team be created that shall be responsible for creating and maintaining a
contingency plan of response, organization, and equipment for handling emergency cleanup
operations and wildlife rescue and rehabilitation operations;
•
State plans include detailed emergency operating procedures for the state as a whole,
including a plan for wildlife rescue and rehabilitation operations;
•
These plans be filed with the governor and all Coast Guard stations in the state and Coast
Guard captains of the port having responsibility for enforcement of federal pollution laws in
the state;
•
The state response team act independently of federal agencies but cooperate with any
federal cleanup operation;
•
An adequate wildlife rescue and rehabilitation program be developed;
•
Injuries to natural resources from a spill be assessed and restoration plans developed to
compensate for adversely affected wildlife resources and habitats.
To address these statutory mandates, the Wildlife Contingency Plan for Oil Spills in Florida
(Plan) has been developed by a group of federal and state agencies and other interested parties.
This Plan is a joint document of the U.S. Coast Guard, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and is part of the Regional
Contingency Plan for Federal Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and six tribes), although it is also designed to
function as a stand-alone document.
The Plan is intended to address wildlife concerns that will arise in any oil spill event, large or
small. In smaller spills it is understood that coordination is usually among a small group of
individuals directly involved with the response, but understanding statutory authorities and which
agencies and contacts need to be notified or activated in response to a spill in a given area is
required regardless of the size of the spill, and are outlined in this Plan accordingly. For large
54
28
§§ 376.011–376.21, F.S.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
spills, which require the creation of a Unified Command/Incident Command Structure (UC/IC),
the Wildlife Branch is in the Operations Section of the Incident Command Structure for oil spill
response. For these circumstances, this Plan details the Wildlife Branch’s purposes, goals,
objectives, responsibilities, and structures. The Wildlife Branch structure required in Florida and
detailed in this plan is expanded beyond that described in the NCP (and USCG Incident
Management Handbook) at the Group level. As always, the structure may be expanded or
reduced to fit the need, but the mission remains unchanged: effective wildlife rescue and
rehabilitation operations. 55
3.1.3 State Emergency Management Act
The State Emergency Management Act (chapter 252, Florida Statutes [F.S.]) establishes a
framework and procedures to allow Florida to respond to emergencies and disasters—natural,
technological, and those caused by humans. The implementing elements of the statute provide
for preparation, reduction of vulnerability, and recovery from damages attributable to such
impacts. Section 252.36, F.S., empowers the governor to provide for appropriate response,
including delegating power to the appropriate state agencies to assist and issuing emergency
declarations that further stipulate specific actions to be undertaken. Certain regulatory statutory
elements may be suspended if such regulations would prevent, hinder, or delay response and
recovery actions.
In response to the DWH incident, then-Governor Charlie Crist issued Executive Order 10-99 on
April 30, 2010. An initial state of emergency was declared for Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa,
Walton, Bay and Gulf counties. Executive Orders 10-100, 10-106, and subsequent amendments
by FDEP to Emergency Final Order OGC 10-1610 added Franklin, Wakulla (and at the time,
Jefferson) counties to compose the emergency area in Florida. The order designated the director
of the Division of Emergency Management (DEM) as the State Coordination Officer and directed
activation of the state’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. FDEP was designated
as the lead agency for coordination of emergency response activities among state and local
governments. The order also served to activate the Florida National Guard.
3.1.4 Public Health
Under the general provisions of chapter 381, F.S. (Public Health), the Florida Department of
Health (DOH) is responsible for the state’s public health system. This responsibility recognizes
that coordination between federal, state, and local governments, and public- and private-sector
involvement, is essential. Section 00315 (Public Health Advisories; Public Health Emergencies)
empowers the State Health Officer with declaring emergencies and issuing advisories.
55
Florida’s Wildlife Contingency Plan for Oil Spill Response; produced by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Commission in Cooperation with the FDEP – Emergency Response, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Coast Guard, October 2012.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
29
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Following the DWH oil spill, DOH worked in concert with FDEP, which issued public health
advisories. Later, beach samples were collected and analyzed for oil contamination along the
affected northwest Florida counties. DOH did not find polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
concentrations exceeding human health levels. An after-action report and improvement plan was
prepared; it was transmitted in April 2011. 56
Part I (Sanitary Nuisances) of chapter 386, F.S. (Particular Conditions Affecting Public Health)
provides for DOH to perform actions to investigate causes and to take necessary actions to
abate the cause of the nuisance. Although not specifically listed by direct reference, the DWH
appears to fall under the provisions of “nuisances injurious to public health,” as articulated in
section 386.041, F.S.
3.1.5 Energy Resources
In 2011 chapter 377, F.S. (Energy Resources) was amended to include a new section 377.43
(Disbursement of Funds Received for Damages Caused by the DWH Oil Spill). In addition to a
note referencing the creation of the Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination and the
specific charge of that commission, this section of Florida law provides for allocating and
distributing funds collected for damages attributable to the DWH incident. In the funding
allocation, 75 percent of collected monies must be used for the following activities/efforts along
any of the eight disproportionally affected counties in northwest Florida:
•
Scientific research into the impact of the oil spill on fisheries, coastal wildlife, and vegetation.
•
Environmental restoration of coastal areas damaged by the spill.
•
Economic incentives.
•
Initiatives to expand and diversify the economies of the affected counties.
The remaining 25 percent is allocated for the same efforts as above, for any Florida county other
than Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, Gulf, Franklin, and Wakulla. FDEP is
charged with fund expenditures for those activities designated as environmental restoration; the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity is responsible for funds designated for economic
incentives and diversification efforts.
56
Florida Department of Health, 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response ESF 8 After Action Report/Improvement Plan
(AAP/IP) (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Health, April 30, 2011).
30
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
3.2 Florida Legislative, Executive, and Agency Responsibilities
3.2.1 Florida Legislature
Article II of the Florida Constitution establishes the branches of government in Florida—
legislative, executive, and judicial. Article III establishes the composition and members (including
the provision for a Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives), and
sessions, quorum and procedures, and the like. Relevant to this report is article III, sections 6–8
(Laws, Passage of Bills, and Executive Approval and Veto, respectively). 57 The process in those
sections enables the consideration and, if favorable, passage of legislation relevant to the
citizenry of the state.
3.2.2 Office of the Governor
The governor is vested authority to act in response to threats and dangers presented to the state
and its people. This authority is contained in article IV, section 1(a), of the Florida Constitution,
the State Emergency Management Act, and section 376.13 of the Florida Pollutant Discharge
Prevention and Control Act (described previously). On April 30, 2010, in response to the DWH
incident, Governor Crist executed Executive Order 10-99 to allow the emergency response
activities to be enabled. In section 2 of the order, the director of the DEM was designated as the
State Coordinating Officer. Among the responsibilities of this person was activation of the state’s
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, and response, recovery, and mitigation plans
necessary to respond to the emergency rendered by the spill.
The governor may determine, after consulting with local government officials, that the recovery
appears to be beyond the combined resources of both the state and local governments, and that
federal assistance might be needed. In requesting supplemental federal assistance under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121–5206
(Stafford Act—not at issue herein but relevant to emergency assistance activities), the governor
must certify that the severity and magnitude of the disaster exceed state and local capabilities;
certify that federal assistance is necessary to supplement the efforts and available resources of
the state and local governments, disaster relief organizations, and compensation by insurance
for disaster-related losses; confirm execution of the state's emergency plan; and certify
adherence to cost-sharing requirements. 58
57
58
Constitution of the State of Florida, as revised in 1968 and subsequently amended.
FEMA, Declaration Process Fact Sheet, http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/declaration_process.shtm.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
31
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
3.2.3 Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Article IV, section 6 (Executive Departments) enables the establishment of the FDEP as one of
the departments not otherwise specifically designated by the Constitution. The head of FDEP,
the secretary, is subject to confirmation by the senate. The secretary reports directly to the
governor.
Following the DWH oil spill, Executive Order 10-99 designated FDEP as the “lead state agency
to coordinate emergency response activities among the various state and local governments
responding to this emergency.” 59
The FDEP secretary conducted daily briefings in the Florida Emergency Operations Center
(SEOC) and with Incident Command and the northwest Florida counties. Because of the scope
of the response effort, there were many activities and proposed response actions to coordinate.
The state worked closely with the FOSC and assisted with state and local resources. Initial
efforts included tracking the spill plume, evaluating weather and Gulf circulation patterns, and
conducting risk assessment determinations. The State Emergency Response Team (SERT) was
activated, and it established an extensive reconnaissance element composed of air, land, and
sea resources to detect possible impacts. This information was relayed to all command elements
through the Florida DEM’s Geospatial Assessment Tool for Operations and Response (GATOR)
to facilitate response actions. 60
Over the first few weeks after the spill, and with oil movement closer to the northwest Florida
shorelines, additional coordination began with local government response actions. This included
evaluating plans to deploy booms at the tidal entrances (passes), constructing sand berms along
the beaches to preclude intrusion of oil to the dunes and sensitive environmental habitats, and,
eventually, various mechanical and chemical means for removing tar balls and mats from the
beaches. FDEP also deployed personnel to the beaches to report the presence of oil and to tag
its location for cleanup crews, and it coordinated the assignment of Shoreline Cleanup and
Assessment Technique (SCAT) teams to affected areas.
59
State of Florida Office of the Governor, Executive Order 10-99 (Emergency Management – Deepwater Horizon).
Final Report – Deepwater Horizon Workgroup 1 – Response to current disaster and preparation for future disasters
(August 31, 2010). Letter report to House Speaker Larry Cretul, submitted by Representative Trudi Williams, lead member
of Deepwater Horizon Response and Recovery Workgroup 1.
60
32
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
3.2.4 Florida Department of Health
Specific to declared emergencies, the Florida DOH is designated as the lead agency for
Emergency Support Function 8. According to the After Action Report prepared by DOH, the
solutions to address public health concerns in Florida in response to the DWH incident were as
follow:
•
A public health unit, in conjunction with other affected states, which coordinated response
efforts across the multistate area of operations.
•
An agreement with EPA to establish a central data repository (EPA-hosted SCRIBE).
•
Human health benchmarks for oil, to develop an interstate human health benchmark
framework on the basis of the constituents of the spilled oil.
•
Developing several successive interim plans that created the framework for posting public
health advisories, and public health notices on Florida beaches, and for later, lifting the
advisories and notices. These plans required close coordination with county health
departments, which were responsible for implementing the plans.
•
Activating the Advanced Planning Unit, which developed several key documents/procedures,
including Florida Health Triggers, a tool used as a foundation for the public health impact
notice concept of operations, and hurricane impact analysis, which examined the potential
public health and health consequences of a hurricane that might affect the area affected by
the spill.
•
Cooperation in the multistate Area Command (Houma, Louisiana) and Unified Command
(Mobile, Alabama).
•
Staffing the Public Information Emergency Support Function (ESF 14) with public information
officers from FDEP to disseminate information to Floridians and visitors. 61
3.2.5 Florida Division of Emergency Management
Florida’s DEM plans for and responds to both natural and manmade disasters. These range from
floods and hurricanes to incidents involving hazardous materials or nuclear power. DEM
prepares and implements a statewide Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, and it
routinely conducts extensive exercises to test state and county emergency response capabilities.
DEM is the state’s liaison with federal and local agencies on emergencies of all kinds. Division
staff members provide technical assistance to local governments for preparing emergency plans
and procedures. In addition, they conduct emergency operations training for state and local
governmental agencies.
61
Florida Department of Health, 2011.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
33
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
After a disaster, DEM conducts damage assessment surveys and advises the governor on
whether to declare an emergency and seek federal relief funds. The division maintains a primary
SEOC in Tallahassee. The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) serves as the communications
and command center for reporting emergencies and coordinating state response activities. DEM
also operates the State Warning Point, a state emergency communications center staffed 24
hours a day. The center maintains statewide communications with county emergency officials. 62
3.2.6 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
The FWC came into existence on July 1, 1999, as the result of a constitutional amendment
approved in the 1998 general election as part of the package proposed by the Constitution
Revision Commission. In implementing the Constitutional Amendment, the Florida Legislature
combined all the staff and commissioners of the former Marine Fisheries Commission, elements
of the Divisions of Marine Resources and Law Enforcement of FDEP, and all the employees and
commissioners of the former Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
The Florida FWC’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) houses several centers of
expertise, one of which is the Center for Spatial Analysis in the Information Science and
Management Section. Through the use of geographic information system (GIS) technology, the
Center for Spatial Analysis provides several functions and technical services in oil spill planning
and response efforts.
The center assists the USCG, NOAA, and FDEP if an oil spill occurs. Its analyses assist decision
makers in developing response and cleanup strategies, in prioritizing response efforts, and in
assessing damage after a spill. FWRI has partnered with the USCG to produce several of the
Coast Guard’s Area Contingency Plans and has made them digitally available on CD and the
Internet. The Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) is a measure of a coastal zones’ natural,
socio-economic, wildlife, and habitat resources as depicted through the use of maps and atlases.
ESI is used in oil spill planning, evaluation, prevention, and cleanup efforts. The Florida Marine
Spill Analysis System (FMSAS) is a complex GIS application that allows users to conduct oil spill
planning activities and manage response and mitigation efforts during an actual spill. Through
an MOU, the FWRI maintains the FMSAS for DEP responders around the state and conducts
regular training exercises and drills. 63
62
63
34
Florida Disaster website, http://www.floridadisaster.org/about_the_division.htm .
Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Marine S pill Analysis System, http://myfwc.com/research/gis/projects/oil-spill.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
3.2.7 Florida Department of Transportation
As one of the components of Executive Order 10-99, the governor granted Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) authorization to suspend enforcement of registration requirements for
commercial motor vehicles that enter the state to provide emergency services and supplies or to
transport equipment, supplies, or personnel. It also authorized the waiver of hours of service
requirements for such vehicles, and size and weight restrictions for divisible loads on any
vehicles transporting emergency equipment, services, and supplies. Further, it allowed for the
establishment of alternate size and weight restrictions for all such vehicles through the duration
of the spill/emergency. In response, on June 29, 2010, FDOT issued a memorandum to all law
enforcement personnel with specifics on emergency road use permits. This memorandum gave
not-to-exceed weight, height, length, and width limitations for vehicle transit on roadways
maintained by Florida. 64
As additional coordination and responsibility elements of the spill response, FDOT personnel led
the Maritime Transportation System Recovery Unit (MTSRU) and worked closely with the USCG.
Updates were provided to the USCG to address any concerns that Floridians might have had
about the closure of their waterways. FDOT provided support for decontamination and waste
management plans, ensuring that waste collected at sites was properly disposed of before being
transported on Florida’s roads. FDOT also oversaw operations to ensure that boats were
properly decontaminated. 65
3.2.8 Florida National Guard
The Florida Department of Military Affairs provides management oversight of the Florida National
Guard. It provides units and personnel ready to support national security objectives; to protect
the public safety of citizens; and to contribute to federal, state, and community programs that add
value to the United States and Florida. The Department of Military Affairs, a state agency created
by chapter 250, F.S., oversees and provides administrative support to the Florida National
Guard. Directly responsive to the Florida governor, FDEP and the Florida National Guard
together operate within the policy guidance and fiscal framework of both federal and state
authorities.
In accordance with chapters 250, 251 and 252, F.S., the Adjutant General is specifically tasked
with (1) the combat readiness and emergency preparedness of the Florida National Guard,
(2) responding to disasters and civil disturbances, (3) reducing the importation of controlled
64
FDOT Emergency Road Use Permit Authorizing the Movement of Overweight and/or Overdimensional Commercial
Vehicles Transporting Emergency Equipment, Services and Supplies Responding to Crude Oil Leaking from the Deepwater
Horizon Drilling Platform and Well (Tallahassee, FL: June 29, 2010).
65
Florida Division of Emergency Management, After Action Report/Improvement Plan: Deepwater Horizon Response
(Tallahassee, FL: Florida Division of Emergency Management, March 2, 2011).
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
35
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
substances, and (4) assisting Floridians at risk. 66 The Florida National Guard was activated by
Executive Order 10-99 and placed under the direction of the State Coordinating Officer for the
DWH emergency response efforts. 67
3.3 Local Government Roles and Responsibilities—Florida
Following the DWH spill, county governments in Florida began readiness and response
preparations almost immediately. As noted earlier, because of the location of the spill in the Gulf
of Mexico relative to the Florida coast, the governor’s Executive Order 10-99 initially proclaimed
a state of emergency for Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, and Gulf counties;
subsequent amendments to the order ultimately resulted in the inclusion of Franklin and Wakulla
counties because of the threat of oil intrusion and effects on the local economy (e.g., fisheries).
County emergency management regulations are governed by chapter 252, F.S. (Emergency
Management), and they are further implemented by Code of Ordinance enactment at the local
government level.
County governments activated their respective emergency operations centers and functions in
response to the declared emergency, and they coordinated their efforts with the Florida DEM,
FDEP, the USCG, and others as the threat of oil contaminants reaching the northwest Florida
coastline progressed. Boom deployment plans to limit the threat of oil contamination of sensitive
marine and estuarine habitats inside northwest Florida’s tidal entrances (passes) were prepared
and submitted to FDEP for review and approval, as were means and methods to remove oil from
the beaches.
4 Analysis of Existing Laws and Regulations
The scope and scale of the DWH oil spill in U.S. waters was truly unprecedented. Federal and
state regulations were in place when the disaster occurred, but unlike responding to a natural
disaster, the added element of an RP with authority under existing policy to approve response
and cleanup actions complicated post-incident operations at the federal, state, and local levels.
In addition, the oil industry, government, or the private sector did not anticipate the nature of a
massive drilling failure and the extent and effects of a well discharge fouling such a large
expanse of the Gulf and its coastline.
The unforeseen—almost unimagined—scope of the DWH incident was reflected in an overall
lack of preparedness at all levels. Federal agencies—and the drillers themselves—were not
66
67
36
Florida National Guard Online, http://www.floridaguard.army.mil/about-us.
Florida Office of the Governor, Executive Order 10-99 (Emergency Management – Deepwater Horizon).
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
prepared to deal with the failure of the well. State and local entities were also overwhelmed by
the multitude and complexity of response issues that arose. However, a central question
addressed by this report focuses on the adequacy of existing laws and regulations: are they
sufficient—that is, can they accommodate appropriate future oil spill response actions in their
current form? The analysis conducted for this report provides a mixed answer. While the general
framework of statutes and implementing regulations for oil spill response and cleanup is sound,
there are some notable gaps—and some significant improvements in operating policies and
procedures are needed.
In terms of laws and regulations, the most significant findings relate to the role of the RP and the
liability limits in federal law. As noted in this report, the RP works jointly with USCG and EPA
after a spill to control oil releases, contain spilled oil, clean up affected areas, and generally
conduct needed response actions. This approach works well for small and medium-sized spills,
where the parties in the incident command group are focused on a relatively defined set of
known variables regarding the oil source and transport/fate of the release. Even for the DWH
incident, the command role of the RP in addressing the technical and engineering challenges of
the discharging well was appropriate, given BP’s intimate knowledge of the site, personnel
resources, and equipment.
However, as the spilled oil moved into the larger Gulf and migrated toward the shore, the
justification for requiring RP approval for slick monitoring, coastal response, and cleanup actions
fades. State and local government agencies—accustomed to rapid mobilization and response
under typical disaster scenarios—were stymied by the need to obtain RP authorization for
response actions that by definition required significant financial outlays. The effects of RP
involvement in approving incident command decisions regarding response and cleanup were
most evident in the weeks following the explosion of DWH, a period marked by confusion,
delays, conflicting information, and emotional reactions to both the threat posed by the oil and
the seeming inability of the response system to function effectively. In addition, the prospect—
and legal ability—of the RP to remove itself from cleanup responsibilities by simply paying the
maximum penalty under current law caused some concern over how to pay for the massive
response required. Therefore, the two primary recommendations summarized in the next section
focus on the role of the RP in large spills and spills of national significance and the liability limits
under existing law.
The remainder of the recommendations deal with how to plan and prepare for future spills. It is
somewhat gratifying that many—indeed most—of the recommendations acknowledge the ability
of existing statutes and rules to accommodate needed preparations for future events. However,
some revision of existing policies and procedures are needed. For example, the well-established
protocols and high level of success associated with state and local disaster response under the
approach outlined under the Stafford Act provide some guidance for improving and adapting
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
37
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
area contingency planning among the USCG, state agencies, and local governments. Realistic
response scenarios—including spill monitoring, coastal hydrodynamic modeling, and cleanup—
can now be anticipated, given the lessons of DWH. The education provided by DWH strongly
supports a more proactive approach, supported by better area contingency planning that
includes a higher level of involvement by state and local government, a greater ability to act
quickly and responsibly in preparing for and responding to incoming oil, and a simpler and more
seamless procedure for response action reimbursements.
It appears that existing ACP laws and regulations would support such an approach, and—given
the need to improve future oil spill response—existing response agencies and entities are
interested in leveraging the ACP process to ready their people and resources for the next set of
challenges posed by a large discharge event. The recommendations in the next section provide
details on specific statutory, regulatory, policy, and procedural improvements to accomplish that
goal.
5 Recommendations
The breadth and complexity of current statutes is quite impressive; however, in the case of the
DWH incident, they failed to deliver the protections and swift response set forth in writing. Since
the DWH oil spill in April 2010, at least three committees in both the U.S. House and Senate
have held hearings on issues associated with the incident. Members have introduced multiple
proposals that would address various issues including the regulatory regime for oil exploration,
liability and compensation for damages, response activities, and technological issues faced
during the spill.
Future governmental activity may be influenced by several factors, including conditions in the
Gulf region, independent inquiries, judicial actions, and the availability of data for further study.
As multiple state and federal agencies seek to better our oil spill preparedness and response
capabilities, it will be important to understand the current framework for addressing such
incidences.
The following should be considered for improved response capabilities in future incidents:
•
Update or amend ACP policy guidance to include the use (or restriction) of dispersants,
qualifications of response personnel, and when various components of the Plan are to be
implemented following a spill/release.
•
Amend ACP documents to allow for better identification and prioritization of environmentally
sensitive areas/habitats (e.g., maps depicting marsh habitat along interior bays near tidal
inlets).
38
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
•
Improve participation in ACP development process by state, local (county, city, and town)
and the public.
•
Integrate viable scientific knowledge and technology into planning process (e.g., knowledge
of currents, tidal variations).
In July 2010, Florida House of Representatives Speaker Larry Cretul appointed six Workgroups
to evaluate various aspects of the DWH response. Workgroup 1, in their report to the Speaker on
August 31, 2010, indicated the “…overarching sentiment expressed to the Workgroup is that no
state legislative action is needed with regard to the Deepwater Horizon incident response or for
any future incident of a similar nature; however, the Workgroup learned of several changes to
the federal response system that should be considered.” 68
DRAFT recommendations (Appendix C) were developed by Tetra Tech, based on research and
interviews, for consideration by members of the Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response
Coordination. The information in Appendix C has not been fully reviewed or vetted by the
commission, and is presented for information purposes only.
Those recommendations for federal action or consideration offered by Workgroup 1 are
summarized in Appendix D.
68
Final Report – Deepwater Horizon Workgroup 1 – Response to current disaster and preparation for future disasters;
August 31, 2010 letter report to House Speaker Larry Cretul, submitted by Representative Trudi Williams, lead Member of
Deepwater Horizon Response and Recovery Workgroup 1.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
39
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Appendices
Appendix A: The Offshore Energy Exploration & Production Sector
Main Types of Oil and Gas Companies
Types of Companies
40
International
Integrated
Companies
Major
Integrated
Companies
Involved in
almost every
aspect of the
oil and natural
gas business
and also make
and sell
petrochemicals
Firms with at
least $100
billion in
market
capitalization
that engage in
worldwide
exploration but
whose
upstream and
downstream
operations are
not integrated.
Independent
Exploration and
Production
Companies
Engage in
exploration,
development,
refining, and
marketing but
whose
upstream and
downstream
operations are
not integrated.
Midstream
Service
Companies
Engage in the
transport,
storage, and
trading of oil,
natural gas,
and refined
products.
Refining and
Marketing
Companies
Engage in the
refining and
selling of crude
oil products.
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Appendix B: Organizational Structure of the National Response
System
Incident Occurs
National Response Center
OSC
Initial
Assessment/First
Response,
Federal/State/Local
PRP Notification, &
Response Measures
Natural Resource Trustees
Federal Assistance Required?
No:
State/Local/PRP
Yes:
OSC
State/Local & PRP
Regional Response Team
National Response Team
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
41
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Appendix C: Draft List of Recommendations Regarding the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill Response in Florida
This list of DRAFT recommendations was developed by Tetra Tech, based on research and
interviews, for consideration by members of the Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response
Coordination. The information which follows has not been fully reviewed or vetted by the
Commission, and is presented for information purposes only. The information is organized by
general topic area.
Below are the reports corresponding to the report numbers in the last column of the table on the
following pages:
1. Federal and State Legal Framework
2. Lessons Learned
3. Incident Command System
4. National Contingency Plan & Response Framework
5. Funding Mechanisms
6. Other Gulf State Laws
42
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Action Type
Implementing Entity
Report #
Policy
Procedural
Counties
State Agencies
1, 4
Specify oil spill watch/warning protocols and appropriate
actions for responders, similar to Stafford Act system
(i.e., watch = responders on alert; warning = responders open
Emergency Operations Centers and mobilize for action).
Policy
Procedural
USCG
1, 4
For major spills, activate state and county agencies as Incident
Command System (ICS) branches and divisions under the
Operations Section, to improve spill response, leverage
existing EOCs and response contracts, and ease the burden
on the USCG.
Policy
Procedural
EPA
USCG
1, 2, 3, 4
Update and improve descriptions of protective measures for
different types of oil, worst-case discharge scenarios, response
personnel qualifications, position assignments; use applicable
and appropriate ACP measures adopted by other states,
areas, and regions; implement adaptations derived from the
DWH incident “lessons learned”.
Policy
Procedural
USCG
4
Improve state, local (county and city), and public participation
in the ACP development process; thoroughly vet ACP
components and implications of ACP acceptance with each
Gulf coast county.
Policy
Procedural
USCG
State Agencies
Counties
Local Stakeholders
4
Improve the identification, prioritization, and protection of
environmentally sensitive coastal areas in the ACPs by
involving resource management experts, public agency
personnel, and local stakeholders.
Procedural
USCG
State Agencies
Counties
Local Stakeholders
1, 4
Update ACP policy guidance to include dispersant use (or
restriction) within State waters, with input from county
governments.
Policy
USCG
State Agencies
Counties
4
Specify additional pre-event requirements for Area
Contingency Plans (ACPs), including provisions for plan
development, approval, and execution.
Establish Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) or
cooperative agreements between state of Florida and USCG
under the ACP to pre-solicit quickly approvable contracts for
implementation of ACP elements similar to pre-storm contracts.
43
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Planning & Operational Recommendations
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Policy
Procedural
USCG
State Agencies
Counties
2, 4
Develop updated guidance for the use of Vessels of
Opportunity (VOO) in responding to oil spills, with input from
state and local agencies/stakeholders; include provisions for
pre-approved lists of VOOs classified by vessel type,
equipment, staffing, etc.
Policy
Procedural
USCG
State Agencies
Counties
Local Stakeholders
2, 4
Require Oil Spill Removal Organizations to participate in the
development of ACPs and biannual oil spill response drills.
Policy
Procedural
USCG
2, 4
Develop guidance for soliciting, enlisting, training, managing,
supervising, and reporting on spill response volunteer services.
Procedural
USCG
State Agencies
Counties
2, 4
Incorporate new ACP policies and protocols into updated and
amended Regional Contingency Plans
Policy
Procedural
USCG
Federal Agencies
4
For large spills and SONs, consolidate public health and
scientific research and information functions at the Incident
Command level, to reduce redundancy and overlap; include
state or region specific information as appendices or
addenda as necessary; separate research and information
functions from operational functions.
Policy
Procedural
EPA
USCG
NOAA
1, 2, 3, 4
Policy
USCG
NOAA
State Agencies
Counties
2, 4
Apply sound science, engineering, and technical principles in
area contingency planning, considering water currents, tidal
variations and the effects of protective measures used in
environmentally and economically sensitive areas; update and
improve NOAA’s scientific support function and integrate it into
other federal and state scientific efforts.
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
44
Implement biannual ACP reviews complemented by drills
involving federal, state, and local agencies to ensure that ACPs
are kept current and functional, and that responders are
knowledgeable regarding response protocols and procedures.
Action Type
Implementing Entity
Report #
Statutory
Regulatory
Policy
Procedural
USCG
1, 2, 4
For SONs events, clearly stipulate that the Responsible Party
(RP) will continue to be involved in offshore well/vessel repair,
recovery, and containment efforts, but that oil spill monitoring,
tracking, interception, and cleanup in near shore (i.e., 6 miles
out) and coastal areas will be directed by the FOSC under the
ACP, with appropriate and approved expenses the
responsibility of the RP.
Statutory (?)
Regulatory
Policy
Procedural
EPA
USCG
1, 2, 4
For SONs events, activate state and county agencies as
Incident Command System (ICS) branches and divisions
under the Operations Section, to improve spill response,
leverage existing EOCs and response contracts, and ease the
burden on the USCG.
Regulatory
Policy
Procedural
EPA
USCG
1, 2, 3, 4
Sponsor Gulf coast SONS meetings or conferences every two
to four years to review regional and area contingency plans,
previous SONS exercise “lessons learned,” technological
advancements, regulatory changes, One Gulf Plan changes,
and other pertinent items.
Policy
Procedural
EPA
USCG
State Agencies
Counties
1, 2, 3
Require participation by federal, state, and local governments
in the National Response Framework (NRF); amend the NRF
and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) organizational
structures to accommodate state and county agencies.
Policy
EPA
USCG
1, 2, 3, 4
USCG and EPA should direct National Response Teams
(NRTs) and Regional Response Teams (RRTs) to improve
outreach and educational efforts in an ongoing effort to better
explain the National Response System (NRS) and National
Contingency Plan to policymakers, state and local
governments, and other stakeholders.
Procedural
EPA
USCG
1, 2, 3, 4
Develop new responsibilities and assignments for public
agencies and Responsible Parties (RPs) related to a Spill of
National Significance (SONS).
45
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Command & Control Recommendations
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Procedural
EPA
USCG
1, 2, 3
Require FEMA to include federal, state, and local personnel in
National Incident Management System/Incident Command
System (NIMS/ICS) training.
Procedural
FEMA
State Agencies
Counties
1, 2, 3
Action Type
Implementing Entity
Report #
Policy
Procedural
USCG
State Agencies
Counties
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Update USCG, EPA, and other forms / database entry screens
for approving response actions, acquiring resources, invoicing
reimbursement agencies, and reporting activities and other
information.
Procedural
EPA
USCG
2, 5
For SONs events, require representatives from USCG and the
RP to be represented and functional within each state EOC
when oil reaches within 9 nautical miles of state waters.
Statutory?
Regulatory
Policy
Procedural
USCG
State Agencies
1, 2, 3
Establish real-time requirements for RP to communicate with
federal, state and local governments.
Procedural
USCG
1, 2, 3
Develop policy guidelines for Vessels of Opportunity (VOO) as
part of the RCPs and ACPs, with pre-certification,
implementation requirements, sustainability requirements, and
execution utilizing a “locals first” procedure.
Policy
Procedural
USCG
1, 2, 3
Develop pre-packaged, pre-event news media packets with
information, graphics, and references on oil spill response and
cleanup approaches (e.g., NOAA Characteristic Coastal
Habitats – Choosing Spill Response Alternatives guide).
Procedural
EPA
USCG
NOAA
1, 2, 3
Resources & Logistics Recommendations
Amend ACPs to allow greater flexibility – including preapproved response actions and contracts – by counties that
are implementing ACP responsibilities and protective
measures (e.g., boom placement, activation of statecoordinated spill monitoring, mobilizing cleanup resources,
etc.).
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
46
Require USCG and US EPA to include state and local
emergency management personnel in NCP training and
exercises that includes sharing/coordination of applicable
resources, such as State Emergency Response Team (SERT)
Air Branch.
Policy
Procedural
USCG
State Agencies
1, 2, 3
Develop standards and processes for expedited collection,
processing, correlation, analysis, and distribution of satellite
imagery and oil thickness sensors to provide readl-time
direction of spill response operations.
Policy
Procedural
USCG
1, 2, 3
Require that response vessels be directed in real-time by
controllers in the air, not on water.
Procedural
USCG
State Agencies
1, 2, 3
47
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Establish a unified Gulf coast web mapping application
compatible across all five Gulf coast states to track data
reports (e.g., the Geospatial Assessment Tool for Operations
and Response – GATOR).
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Appendix D: Florida House of Representatives Workgroup 1
Recommendations
•
Congress should revise the National Contingency Plan or Unified Command Structure to
require local branch incident command offices be established for spills that impact or
threaten to impact multiple state and local government jurisdictions.
•
The USCG should reassess the adequacy of Area Contingency Plans, ensuring that local
governments are involved in the plan development and update process. Further, the USCG
should discuss with the State of Florida and other Gulf Coast states the need for a multi-state
response plan.
•
The USCG should review the role of the RP during multi-jurisdictional spills and identify ways
to streamline the approval process for response activities.
•
Congress should revise the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and Area Contingency Plans to allow
certain permit requirements to be relaxed or waived under certain guidelines.
•
The unified command spill response structure should include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
•
Federal fishery managers should establish specific criteria and a clear process for
determining when and how to close fisheries, and establish better tracking of oil and use of
higher-resolution mapping of significant oil in the water. State and local health officials should
be better informed on the risks posed by oil in the water and on Florida’s beaches.
•
The USCG should redraw its district boundaries to include all of Florida in one district instead
of being split between the 7th and 8th districts, and should designate a federal coordinating
officer for each state in a USCG district. 69
The above recommendations appear to have merit, especially considering the process in which
the Florida House of Representatives’ Workgroup 1 assimilated information to develop them.
69
Deepwater Horizon Response and Recovery – Executive Summary. Letter report to Florida House Speaker Larry Cretul by
Representative Gary Aubuchon, Coordinator of the six established Workgroups, August 31, 2010.
48
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
Appendix E: Acronyms
AC
Area Committees
ACP
Area Contingency Plan
BOEM
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
BSEE
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
COF
Covered Offshore Facility
CWA
Clean Water Act
DEM
Division of Emergency Management
DOH
Department of Health
DOI
Department of the Interior
DWH
Deepwater Horizon
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
EOC
Emergency Operations Center
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESF
Emergency Support Function
ESI
Environmental Sensitivity Index
FCPTF
Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund
FDEP
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDOT
Florida Department of Transportation
FMSAS
Florida Marine Spill Analysis System
FOSC
Federal On-Scene Coordinator
FPDPCA
Florida Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Control Act
FWC
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
FWRI
Fish and Wildlife Research Institute
G&G
Geological and Geophysical
GATOR
Geospatial Assessment Tool for Operations and Response
GIS
Geographic Information System
MC252
Mississippi Canyon Block 252
MMS
Minerals Management Service
MODU
Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
MTSRU
Maritime Transportation System Recovery Unit
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response
49
Florida Commission on Oil Spill Response Coordination
NRS
National Response System
NRT
National Response Team
OCSLA
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
OPA
Oil Pollution Act
OSC
Outer Continental Shelf
OSFR
Oil Spill Financial Responsibility
OSLTF
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
PAH
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
RESTORE
Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived
Economies of the Gulf Coast States
RP
Responsible Party
RRT
Regional Response Team
RTF
Restoration Trust Fund
SARA
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Ac
SCAT
Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Technique
SEOC
Florida Emergency Operations Center
SERT
State Emergency Response Team
SONS
Spill of National Significance
USCG
United States Coast Guard
50
Report 1: Analysis of Current State and Federal Laws Addressing Oil Spill Planning and Response