[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DELAWARE RIVER OIL SPILL
=======================================================================
(109-1)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 18, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-869 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama BOB FILNER, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SUE W. KELLY, New York GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
GARY G. MILLER, California ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JULIA CARSON, Indiana
JON C. PORTER, Nevada TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
TED POE, Texas RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
VACANCY
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Democrat
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington, California
Vice-Chair MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
CONNIE MACK, Florida ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
DON YOUNG, Alaska JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio) (Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Brice-O'Hara, Rear Admiral Sally, Commander, Fifth District,
U.S. Coast Guard, accompanied by Captain John Sarubbi, Port of
Philadelphia................................................... 7
Campbell, Bradley M., Commissioner, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection....................................... 22
McGinty, Kathleen A., Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection....................................... 22
Rochford, Dennis, President, Maritime Exchange for the Delaware
River and Bay.................................................. 32
Ruch, Lieutenant Colonel Robert J., Commander, Philadelphia
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers......................... 7
Stiles, Eric P., Vice President for Conservation and
Stewardship, New Jersey Audubon Society........................ 32
PREPARED STATEMENT FROM A MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Saxton, Hon. Jim, of New Jersey.................................. 70
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Brice-O'Hara, Rear Admiral Sally................................ 43
Campbell, Bradley M.............................................. 55
McGinty, Kathleen A............................................. 58
Rochford, Dennis................................................. 61
Ruch, Lieutenant Colonel Robert J............................... 68
Sarubbi, Capt. Jonathan.......................................... 44
Stiles, Eric P.................................................. 76
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Delaware Riverkeeper, Maya K. Van Rossum, statement.............. 77
Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Inc., Kathy Klein,
Executive Director, statement.................................. 84
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON THE DELAWARE RIVER OIL SPILL
----------
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington,
D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Independence Seaport Museum, Penn's Landing, 211 South Columbus
Boulevard and Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hon.
Frank A. LoBiondo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. I would like to call this
hearing of the Coast Guard Subcommittee to order. And I am
going to start with a brief statement. We will have statements
from some of the other Members of Congress, and then we will
move to our first panel.
The Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
is meeting this morning to investigate the recent oil spill in
the Delaware River and to review the response of Federal,
State, and local official to the incident.
On November 26 of '04, the ATHOS I, a Cypriot-flagged tank
vessel carrying heavy crude oil, struck a submerged metal
object as it was being guided by tugs to the Citgo Oil
Processing Facility in Paulsboro, New Jersey. The collision
created two gashes in the vessel's hull and resulted in the
release of 265,000 gallons of oil into the Delaware River. The
oil has affected some of the most environmentally sensitive
shorelines on the East Coast, resulting in the loss of wildlife
in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Efforts to remove
the oil and mitigate the damage are still ongoing. And although
we still do not know the full extent of the environmental and
economic damage caused by the spill, we do know that we are
likely to suffer its consequences for years to come.
The Coast Guard, in conjunction with numerous Federal and
State agencies, has coordinated the response to this incident.
I want to commend the Coast Guard and the other Federal, State,
and local officials for their quick response to the spill and
their efforts to minimize the extent of this disaster.
Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Congress passed the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which improved the Federal
Government's ability to prevent and respond to oil spills. This
Act directed the Coast Guard to develop and maintain specific
contingency plans for spills in coastal waters throughout the
United States. I look forward to hearing the testimony this
morning regarding the coordination and completeness of the
response efforts to the incident under the Delaware River Plan
and whether any improvements should be made to the Act to help
prevent further incidents and ensure the viability of our
ecologically sensitive coastal waters.
I also look forward to hearing from the witnesses on how
such a large obstruction came to be located in the middle of a
shipping channel that is used by large oil tankers each and
every day. Obstructions like this not only pose a huge risk to
the safety of the vessels and the coastal environment, but also
to the efficient movement of goods and cargo in the maritime
transportation system. I understand the investigation into the
origins of this object is ongoing; however, I hope that the
witnesses can provide the Subcommittee with an update this
morning. I also hope the witnesses can tell me and the other
Members what efforts will be made to locate and remove or mark
any similar obstructions from the Delaware River and other
important U.S. waterways. I am sure we are going to be hearing
from Congressman Andrews on this issue, because Rob and I have
talked privately, and there is an initiative that we are very
interested in pursuing together.
The safety and security of the maritime transportation
system will remain a priority concern of this Subcommittee in
the 109th Congress. Our ports provide the entry point for more
than 95 percent of the United States overseas trade. The
maritime transportation industry provides employment to
hundreds of thousands of Americans and is an integral part of
the U.S. economy. The Nation depends on the safe and efficient
transport of commerce via the maritime transportation system.
This Subcommittee will continue to oversee the industry and
will develop and move legislation to improve the safety and
security of America's ports and vessels operating in U.S.
waters.
I hope the testimony we receive at this hearing will help
us develop initiatives to ensure the safety of the maritime
transportation system and help prevent future oil spills in our
ecologically sensitive coastal waters. I want to take a moment
to thank the witnesses who have come here today as well as
groups, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Tri-State
Bird Rescue, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and the hundreds
of volunteers for their tremendous efforts to mitigate this
incident, protect critical habitat, and save countless wild
animals. I also want to extend my sincere appreciation to the
Independent Seaport Museum for hosting us today. You have a
very impressive facility here. Finally, I would like to thank
my colleagues who are here with us today who are going to help
out with this hearing.
We will proceed now, and I would like to ask Congressman
Castle, who has been gracious to join us today but has to
leave, if he would like to make any opening remarks.
Mr. Castle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would first like to thank you, Frank, for the invitation
to participate in the hearing today. I am also pleased to join
my colleagues today, Rob Andrews, with whom I have worked for a
number of years, and Allison Schwartz, with whom I have worked
for a least a few years in my case in discussing this critical
issue. Finally, I would also like to thank the expert witnesses
for taking their time to be here today.
The Delaware River is a valued environmental resource and
commerce channel in Delaware and all states represented here at
this table. Protecting its viability is a top priority for all
of us. The federal and state agencies responded to the spill in
a coordinated, timely, and efficient way, and have worked
tirelessly to find solutions and execute extensive clean-up
efforts. Certainly the impact on the health of the river and
the wildlife it is home to is quite serious.
But I believe we need to focus on lessons learned and how
to prevent such an environmental tragedy from happening in the
first place and happening again. Therefore, we would be at
fault if we did not ask: Is the scope of the investigation
broad enough, and are there enough federal resources in place
to identify ways to ensure that an incident like the oil spill
does not happen again?
Identifying the sequence of events surrounding the Delaware
River oil spill on November 26, 2004 determine exactly how it
happened and who is responsible for this submerged object that
led to the punctured hole of the ATHOS I remains central in
unanswered questions in this ongoing investigation and must be
answered. However, it is also my hope that in the course of
this hearing we will learn what steps are necessary as we look
to the future to prevent another disaster along the Delaware
River. Personally, I have a number of questions that I believe
need to be answered and hope that they will be through the
course of the testimonies. And at the end, I will make a
recommendation on what I believe might be helpful as our states
collectively face various proposals affecting this river.
First, what warning and detection systems are in place to
notify authorities of dangerous or questionable submerged
objects? Second, why did the Army Corps of Engineers' sonar
equipment not detect this submerged object or objects? Third,
it seems evident that we need better inspection of the Delaware
River bottom, but do we need better inspection of vessels that
travel the Delaware River? Fourth, if we believe we do, how
would such systems be implemented? And finally, while it is my
understanding that the majority of vessels that travel the
Delaware River are double-hulled, not 100 percent are;
therefore, should we, or can we, as a region, designate the
Delaware River as navigable exclusively by double-hulled
vessels or approach that in some other manner?
It is clear to me, and probably everyone in this room, that
regional coordination for happenings in and along the Delaware
River must be coordinated in order to effectively balance the
interests of both industry and the environment. In the coming
months and years, our states will face numerous proposed
industrial and government activities that have potential
safety, environmental, and economic consequences, including the
proposal by the U.S. Army to release the X nerve gas, the
siting of a liquid natural gas facility by British Petroleum,
possible transport of spent nuclear fuel by barge to our ports,
and deepening of this river.
As we vet current and projected regional proposals for
activity in and along the Delaware River, and as we try to
prevent disasters like the oil spill from occurring, it seems
to me we must do the following: one, first and foremost, ensure
each State's own environmental and safety laws are recognized
and adhered to; two, increase regional coordination among the
States and the Federal and local agencies to ensure all
interests are considered; three, design a sustained prevention,
monitoring, and research program of the Delaware River to
better ensure that we understand the effects of industrial
proposals or incidents on the river and its wildlife habitats.
In order to accomplish the above three goals, I would like
to suggest the establishment of the Delaware River Industrial
Prevention, Monitoring, and Event Response Task Force. This
Task Force would be charged with three primary
responsibilities: one, researching and examining ways to
prevent future accidents and incidents in the future, perhaps
by starting with the questions I proposed earlier in my
statement; two, establish a regional response team comprised of
Federal and State agencies to analyze proposed and present
activity along the Delaware River to determine regional costs
and benefits and to coordinate any necessary clean-up efforts
in the wake of an adverse incident; and three, implement a
sustained Delaware River health monitoring program. One way to
implement such a task force would be to designate an earmark
appropriation in fiscal year 2006 to a particular agency to be
the lead in setting up a specific Delaware River Industrial
Prevention, Monitoring, and Event Response Task Force.
Mr. Chairman, the goal of all of us is to ensure the
viability of the Delaware River as a commercial tool and an
environmental resource for years to come. This is what I hope
to accomplish for the establish of the above discussed task
force.
Mr. Chairman, as you indicated when you were kind enough to
call on me, I apologize that I can not stay long enough to hear
the testimony of our expert witnesses, as I must depart for the
inauguration of Delaware's governor to occur at 12:00 noon in
Dover. I am going to be pressing it as it is. I do, however,
look forward to reading the transcript and to learning the
opinions of the witnesses here with us today on the questions
and proposals I have suggested as well as those of my
colleagues. I will have a staff person here as well. And Mr.
Chairman, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here,
and I thank my colleagues for allowing me to go first because
of my schedule.
Mr. LoBiondo. Well, thank you, Mike. We appreciate your
being here. We appreciate your interest and involvement and
your suggestions and look forward to working with you as we
move forward on these issues. Thanks.
Next, I would like to call on Congressman Rob Andrews. Rob,
I thank you for being here. Rob and I have worked together on a
number of issues. Our Districts share a common boundary, and we
have many topics that we have similar views on. And I am very
appreciative, Rob, that you have taken the time to be here to
give us your views and help out on this important issue.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to you,
Chairman. I will call you Frank. It feels more comfortable
calling you Frank. As usual, Frank is a champion for this
region, and when this very unfortunate occurrence, I think
tragedy, occurred, he was the first to step forward with a
proactive, intelligent response to it. I thank him for his
leadership, for his friendship, and I am certain that all of us
working together will find the best solution to this. I thank
you for inviting me to be here this morning. I thank the
witnesses. I look forward to hearing from you.
I also want to echo Mike Castle's comment about thanking
the individuals who responded to this tragedy: the Coast
Guard's men and women; the personnel of the Army Corps of
Engineers; the Federal employees who work for the Fish and
Wildlife Service and many other agencies; the State agencies
and local agencies that came out; first responders up and down
the river; citizen volunteers, many of whom put in countless
hours. It was--as disturbing as the incident was, it was
encouraging and inspiring to see the selflessness and
dedication of men and women who went out under bitter weather
conditions hour after hour, day after day, and we express our
appreciation for that.
I hope this is the last one of these hearings we ever have.
I hope that we never have a need for another hearing to
evaluate a disaster, an ongoing disaster of this magnitude. And
as Frank eluded to--as the Chairman eluded to just a few
moments ago, I think that one of the ways we can avoid having
another tragedy and therefore another hearing of this nature is
to press for a robust and full debris maintenance or debris
clean-up mission for the Army Corps of Engineers on this river.
It is not the fault of the Army Corps that it has not embraced
such a mission to this point. We, in the Congress, have not
given the Corps the resources that are needed to embrace such a
mission.
I am not an expert at all in these issues, but in my mind,
it comes down to this: Whose responsibility was it to, on a
regular basis, check for the presence of debris like that,
which evidently caused this spill? The best I can tell is the
answer is it was no one's responsibility. It wasn't anyone's
primary responsibility to take care of such an issue. That is
not an indictment of the agencies involved. It is an
observation of the gap that we have in the protection of our
river.
A few years ago, Congressman Curt Weldon, another river
neighbor, and I embarked on an effort to give the Army Corps of
Engineers a debris clean-up mission for the Delaware River. We
were successful in obtaining some authorizing language, which
gave the Corps the beginnings of the authority to do that
mission, but we were not yet successful in obtaining the
resources that the Corps needs to have the boats and the other
equipment necessary to do the job.
One of the results that I hope that will flow from this
morning's discussion is a consensus, number one, as to what the
right solution is, and then a commitment, number two, to work
together, both sides--all sides of the river, both sides of the
aisle, both sides of the capital to effectuate that solution.
So, to my colleagues Allison Schwartz, Mike Castle, it is
an honor to join you, and especially the Chairman of the
Committee, Frank LoBiondo. Thank you for exercising leadership
on this issue. I look forward to following your lead and coming
up with a solution that prevents this from happening again.
Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. Thank you, Rob.
Congressman Jim Saxton was very interested in being here
today. Jim led a small delegation that I was privileged to be a
part of, which was in Iraq and Afghanistan last week, and he
had some prior commitments that kept him from changing things
around, but he has asked that we submit a statement into the
record. And I would ask to do that at this point. Jim will
certainly be a partner with us as we move forward.
We are joined today by Congresswoman Allison Schwartz.
Allison, congratulations on your service to Congress, and we
look forward to working with you. We and the Delaware Valley
have a very strong bipartisan activity, I guess you would call
it, or activism that works well, and we are thrilled you are
with us today. Good luck with your future endeavors.
Ms. Schwartz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very
pleased to be with you this morning, and I thank you very much
for the privilege and the opportunity to participate in today's
hearing.
As you know, I was just recently appointed to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in the coming weeks,
I look forward to working with you and other distinguished
Members of the Committee.
I also want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for
providing the expert testimony. In addition, I want to thank
and applaud the hundreds, literally thousands of Pennsylvanians
who donated their time to the massive clean-up effort. I think
the estimates are that 1,700 volunteers came out on the river
to help with the clean up.
Mr. Chairman, I am really pleased to be rolling up my
sleeves and getting to work right away on Congressional
oversight responsibilities. As you know, this is really the
15th day on the job for me, so this is one of my first official
duties, and I am really--I am very pleased to be here, although
I will echo my colleague's comments in saying I am sorry that
we are not here to be discussing some better circumstances than
we are this morning.
As you know, the Port of Philadelphia is the region's--
really one of the reason's epicenters of international
commerce, and it plays a vital role in the area's economy. The
Delaware River bay and the tributaries are visited also by
thousands of fishermen, wildlife observers, and recreational
boaters every year. Like the port itself, these activities
contribute substantially to Pennsylvania's economy. I am sure
my colleagues will agree that it does the same for New Jersey
and for Delaware. The recent oil spill had a devastating
multiplier effect, temporarily shutting down the Salem Nuclear
Power Plant, impeding trade, injuring and killing wildlife, and
putting area drinking water at risk. Despite the round-the-
clock clean up, we have yet to complete determination of the
total costs of the clean up or for restoration, and we have not
yet identified the party or parties responsible for the spill
and for its associated costs.
Over the last several weeks, we have quickly realized that
our response system needs to be reviewed and analyzed and
action may need to be taken on any improvements determined to
be necessary. In addition, we have to assess actions that are
available to us now that could and should prevent future
spills. As a resident of the region and a citizen concerned
about the State's fiscal well being, I want this regional
resource to maintain its economic and environmental health. The
business of the port is a company commerce and the surrounding
recreational activities depend on it.
It is my hope that today's hearing will demonstrate that
this is a shared goal and that it will be met with strong,
bipartisan support and cooperation.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this vitally
important hearing. Please know that I will be a dedicated
member of the team, working not just today, but in the future
to remedy the damage caused by this incident and to work, in
the most important way, to prevent any future spills. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. Thank you, Allison.
We have three panels today that will be testifying
officially. We will start with the first panel. We have Rear
Admiral Sally Brice-O'Hara, who is the Commander of the Fifth
District of the United States Coast Guard. The Admiral is
accompanied by Captain John Sarubbi, who is the Captain of the
Port of Philadelphia. And we also have Colonel Robert Ruch, who
is the Commander of the Philadelphia District U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL SALLY BRICE-O'HARA, COMMANDER, FIFTH
DISTRICT, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, ACCOMPANIED BY CAPTAIN
JOHN SARUBBI, PORT OF PHILADELPHIA; AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL
ROBERT J. RUCH, COMMANDER, PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Rear Admiral Brice-O'Hara. Thank you. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and distinguished Members. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the ATHOS I incident.
The Delaware Bay and River is home to the Nation's sixth
largest port. Daily nearly 42 million gallons of crude oil are
moved on this waterway. The entire port system generates
approximately $19 billion in annual economic activity. On
November 26, the ATHOS I, a 750-feet Cypriot-flagged tank ship
was delivering Venezuelan crude oil to the Citgo pier in
Paulsboro, New Jersey.
Within 250 feet of its destination, a submerged object
hulled the number seven center cargo tank, spilling oil into
the Delaware River. The response was swift, comprehensive, and
in accordance with the requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990. Quick establishment of a unified command ensured
inclusion of all interested stakeholders. By early morning,
members had assembled from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware,
the Coast Guard, and the O'Brien's Group, representing the
responsible party. It would ultimately grow to include nearly
three dozen entities aligned by their use of the Incident
Command System.
Despite the complexity of this case, the unified command
and its general staff worked exceptionally well. Their primary
objectives included stabilizing the vessel and preventing
further discharge, shoreline assessments, protective booming,
oil recovery, establishing and enforcing a safety zone,
collecting and rehabilitating injured wildlife, facilitating
vessel traffic, and informing the public.
Within hours, thick oil had spread six miles to the north
and was slowly moving south. Initially, it was slightly
buoyant, very viscous, and sticky. With cooling and weathering,
it tended to sink. Eventually, it impacted 57 miles of the
Delaware River. At its peak, the response employed over 1,800
people and 140 vessels. The clean up will continue into the
summer.
The spill significantly affected vessel traffic and
facilities. Collaboration with the Mariners Advisory Committee
and Delaware Bay and River Pilots Association was instrumental
in returning the port to normal operations. Submerged oil was a
major concern. It threatened water intakes at the Salem Nuclear
Power Plant and prompted a precautionary 11-day shutdown of two
reactors. Tracking and locating submerged oil was a new and
major challenge, however, consultations with experts led to
several unconventional, yet effective, detection and recovery
methods.
Concurrently, Captain Sarubbi initiated a marine casualty
investigation, retracing the ship's track lines, survey teams
located several objects, a large cast iron item approximately
700 feet from the pier was removed and proved to be a heavily
corroded lower housing of a centrifugal pump. It showed
evidence of fresh scrapes, including red paint, which the NTSB
matched to the ATHOS I. In addition, an anchor was salvaged
yesterday, and it appears to have evidence of impact. An
investigation is ongoing. We do not know the manufacturers or
owners of any item. The ATHOS I was stabilized, lightered, and
brought to Citgo for discharge of its remaining cargo.
A temporary hull patch allowed it to safely proceed to
Mobile, Alabama for repairs. Initial estimates proved
inaccurate. The tank cleaning during dry-docking resulted in
the Unified Command's final estimate that about 265,000 gallons
of oil spilled into the Delaware River. Planning, preparedness,
and training were key to the success of the community's rapid
and thorough response to this incident.
Mr. Chairman, meeting America's need for waterborne
transportation of goods while, at the same time, protecting the
environment is a great challenge. It is imperative that the
public, maritime communities, and the government work closely
to manage these competing priorities. I wish to acknowledge the
professional expertise of the representatives of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the States of New Jersey and
Delaware, and the O'Brien's Group. Additionally, several
agencies and special teams contributed noteworthy assistance.
EPA's Emergency Response Team, the Navy Supervisor of Salvage,
NOAA's Scientific Support Coordinator and Navigation Response
Team, the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Tri-
State Bird Rescue, and all involved citizens.
Captain Sarubbi and I are ready to answer your questions,
sir.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. Thank you, Admiral.
Colonel, please proceed.
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished Members of the panel. I am Lieutenant Colonel
Robert Ruch, Commander of the Philadelphia District of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the role
played by the Corps in response to the ATHOS I oil spill in the
Delaware River on November 26, 2004. On November 27, 2004,
Captain Sarubbi, the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port and
Incident Commander for the ATHOS I spill event, requested that
the Philadelphia District survey the Mantua Creek Anchorage.
The Philadelphia District Survey Team began this work on
November 28, 2004 using multi-beam surveying technology to look
for possible obstructions that could have caused the incident.
Initial surveys, which were conducted over the time period
of November 28 through the 30th, did not identify any
obstructions. On December 1, 2004, the Corps supplemented the
multi-beam technology with a contractor-provided side scan
sonar to--in an attempt to identify obstructions, focusing its
efforts along the paths taken by the ATHOS I as it approached
the Citgo dock. On December 2, 2004, the Corps began to work in
association with NOAA, and they sent a surveying team that was
also assigned to assist in the event. Data provided by the
Corps and NOAA were provided daily to the U.S. Coast Guard
investigation team. This information, combined with similar
data provided by the surveying and dive team hired by the ship
owner, led to the identification of the suspected object in the
Mantua Creek Anchorage.
Due to concerns raised by the shipping industry, Captain
Sarubbi requested that the Corps perform in-depth surveys along
the entire Delaware River shipping channel from the Commodore
Barry Bridge upstream to the incident site, a distance of
approximately seven miles, to assure that the this was to
assure that the channel was free of any further obstructions.
The Corps and NOAA team worked together in this effort from
December 4, 2004 through the afternoon of December 7, 2004. The
channel was determined to be clear of obstructions and was
opened without restrictions on December 7, 2004.
The Corps continues to work with the Coast Guard
investigation team in the identification of the obstruction
found in the anchorage and other related issues, as further
discussed by the Coast Guard. I commend Captain Sarubbi and the
entire team on their efforts following the incident. The
excellent cooperation of all of the parties involved, including
federal and state agencies and the representatives of the
ship's owner, are attributed to Captain Sarubbi's outstanding
leadership.
I would also like to commend the efforts of the NOAA
Navigation Response Team led by Mr. Howard Danley and
Lieutenant Commander Rick Fletcher. Their survey expertise and
dedication throughout the investigation greatly assisted the
Corps in its mission and proved to be an invaluable
partnership.
This concludes my testimony, and I will be pleased to
answer any questions you have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. Thank you, Colonel, very much.
First, for the Admiral, does the Coast Guard, in its lead
role under the Delaware River Committee for Incident Response,
have access to the latest information on location of the area's
critical wildlife habitats?
Rear Admiral Brice-O'Hara. Yes, sir. The Coast Guard has
access to that information, which is developed through the Area
Contingency Plan. That is part of the pre-planning that is done
collaboratively in anticipation that there would be a tragedy
of this nature.
Mr. LoBiondo. So those areas have been taken into account
in the incident response planning process?
Rear Admiral Brice-O'Hara. Yes, sir. Would you like a more
specific answer? Captain Sarubbi is more familiar with the
details, if you would like a little amplification.
Mr. LoBiondo. Well, I would, and just, as a little more of
a preamble with it, I, along with a number of environmental
groups, are somewhat frustrated with the delay in putting out
the booms. Now I know that that is where some of the oil spread
into the sensitive areas. I also know that you had a critical
weather problem that prevented you from doing some things, but
that is why I am going along this line a little bit, and I
would like you to elaborate, if you could, Captain.
Captain Sarubbi. Yes, I can, Chairman.
As a requirement, each Captain of the Port was required to
establish an area committee. That area committee is primarily
charged with ensuring that the port community, both government
and industry, is prepared to respond to an incident of this
nature, and oil spill. Our area committee has been in place
since about the mid-'90s, and just after the formation of the
committee we developed the Area Contingency Plan, which the
Admiral talked about. That plan has identified in it all of the
different environmental-sensitive areas that need to be
addressed during an oil spill. As part of the planning efforts
that take place in our area committee, we had previously
established protocols for booming off of the environmentally-
sensitive creeks. And on the first day of the incident, we
began to boom off those environmentally-sensitive creeks. In
fact, by the end of the first day, we had some 12 of those
creeks boomed off.
So we had a plan in place to boom the creeks off based
however, and I think going--looking back, we boomed off, in
total, about 26 environmentally-sensitive rivers, creeks, and
those types of areas. I think, as we look back at--you know,
now we are, I think in about 52 days into it, it is probably
one of the things where we may need to take another look at
that plan that we have for some lessons learned to see if we
can do a better job. We did have some difficulty initially
putting off some of the boom. We had a long, wide part of the
river that we had to put boom out. We ended up putting over 20
miles of boom over 120,000 feet. We had difficulty in some
areas in maintaining the boom. For example, at Raccoon Creek,
the current there is very strong and difficult to deal with,
and every time we put a boom out, it broke. In other cases, we
had a lot of debris in the river, and that interfered with the
boom. In some cases, it actually helped, because it put an
increased barrier between the river and the tributary. In other
cases, we had the current, because the current was so strong,
the oil was entrained underneath the booms or just passed right
under the booms, so we do realize that some oil did get into
some of these more environmentally-sensitive creeks and, as I
said, I think this is probably one of the lessons learned that
we will take back to the area committee, take a look at our
booming strategies for the future.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. Again, for Admiral or Captain, the
Delaware River is home to some of the largest and most critical
ports in our Nation. They employ thousands and are a vital link
for international trade. Are the representatives of the local
maritime community involved with the incident response planning
process?
Captain Sarubbi. Yes, Chairman. We actually have two
committees now. As you know, with the Maritime Transportation
Security Act, each of the Captains of the Ports are required to
establish an area maritime security committee. That committee
ensures that the maritime community, both on the government
side, Federal, State, and local, as well as the industry are
ready to do two things. One is to prevent a terrorist attack
from happening within our port, but also to respond if we need
to do so we do do some response planning in that as well, but
in the area committee, the one that is primarily to deal with
oil spill response, the--both the industry and government work
together. We have representatives from the State of New Jersey,
the Department of Environmental Protection, for example,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, as well as members of the industry from
oil refineries from the oil spill response companies, and other
interested members that would be involved should we have a
spill.
Mr. LoBiondo. I am assuming there are detailed contingency
plans that deal with an extended closure of the river?
Captain Sarubbi. Under my authority, of course I have the
authority to close the river, and that is, in fact, what we did
on the first night of the event. We quickly realized that
closing down the river, with a port as large as the Port of
Philadelphia, would have a significant economic impact on the
community. So one of the top priorities of the Unified Command
was to reopen the port. Our initial priority--our top priority
had to remain recovering the oil, but we quickly realized that
getting the port back open was also an important priority.
As the Admiral indicated in her opening statement, we had
Captain Mike Linton from the Pilot Association, and also
representing the Mariner Advisory Committee, which is the local
harbor safety committee, joining Unified Command on Saturday,
and he began helping us to develop protocols. He worked with my
waterways management staff to develop protocols to get the port
reopened.
And in fact, on Sunday, the second day into the spill, we
did allow limited ship movement. I think we allowed three ships
to come into port and a couple of ships to move within the
port. On Monday, we implemented those protocols and began to
allow ship traffic to move on a limited basis. We were
concerned for a number of different things. One, we wanted to
make sure that ships that had been in port and had been
contaminated by the oil did not leave port dirty and then
contaminate areas of the river and bay that were not oiled.
So we had to establish a cleaning process, which we did. We
actually put teams of people together to clean ships. As you
can imagine, cleaning an 800-foot tanker is not an easy chore.
We had some difficulties in initially doing that. And as the
first couple of days into the incident, we had some significant
backlogs of shipping. I think it--all total, we probably had
about 200 ships that were impacted, either delayed from
entering port or from departing port. I think at, maybe at the
maximum in an individual day, we probably had as many as 50
ships awaiting either arrival or departure into port.
We also--as a part of the process, we developed a risk-
based tool that helped us to prioritize the shipping that
needed to leave first, and we did that in conjunction with the
industry. We brought in representatives from the oil industry,
representatives from different port authorities, South Jersey
Port Corporation, the Pennsylvania Regional Port Corporation,
and we developed this technique to help us, as I said, to
prioritize ships so that we could get those ships that were
most critical and most needed of leaving or entering the port
first. And those, of course, would be oil tankers or ships with
fruit on them that may have had spoilage.
So while we did not have detailed plans in place for
reopening the port prior to the spill, we quickly developed
those plans with the help of the maritime community, Captain
Mike Linton of the Mariner's Advisory Committee, and also the
Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay.
Mr. LoBiondo. The ships that needed to be cleaned, you said
you put together a team that then prioritized and cleaned them
before they came in or out. Did the ships have the ability to
hire themselves, contract a cleaning crew, if they chose to,
can you comment on that?
Captain Sarubbi. Yeah, initially, the Unified Command--it
was the Unified Command's desire for the Unified Command and
the oil spill response workers to clean the ships. We felt it
was important for us to go in and clean the ships, because we
had the expertise to do that. But later on, we became--well,
not later--a couple--within a couple of days, we became
overwhelmed, so we eventually did allow the ships to clean
themselves, but we retained the right to do the final
inspection on the ship and then declare whether or not a ship
was clean to leave. And we had developed a cleaning standard,
and basically, that standard was that the ship did not have any
visible sheening, there was no oil coming from the ship.
As I said, we did--we quickly did get overwhelmed in the
first few days of the spill, we did overcome that, and then we
got into a routine, which--and I think within 11 days--on day
11 of the spill, we were able to reopen the port, and by that
time, traffic was pretty much up and running at that time. The
port was reopened.
Mr. LoBiondo. Colonel, in your testimony, you indicated
that the Corps could not find any obstructions in the area in
its initial scan with current sonar technology and that only
after contracting out for necessary sonar technology was the
obstruction located. Is the Corps conducting their regular
surveys of the river using only the older sonar technology that
didn't find this obstruction?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. Mr. Chairman, I think I need to
clear that up a little bit. We did not find any objects above
project level. We look for things to the 40-foot level, and
anything below that is below the project level that we are
actually looking for. Now the technology we use in our routine
surveys is a single beam, and it is almost like what you would
have on a fishing boat. We go along a line, and they are at
400-foot intervals perpendicular to the channel. And every 50
feet, basically, there is a reading. So we are getting point
readings across the bottom, not covering a great deal of the
entire bottom of the river. We have another technology that we
use, and we did use in this case after the incident, a multi-
beam. It really looks at the entire bottom.
There are advantages to each kind of technology. We did not
detect anything above the 40-foot level in the federal area of
the anchorage. After the side scan sonar was brought in, which
you are referring to as the contractor-owned sonar, which the
responsible party also hired out a firm that had a side-scan
sonar in that area, everyone went through the area. We had
identified some areas of interest. Now not something sticking
up off of the bottom. The main thing that was seen was
basically a trough that people had a lot of different theories
on what may have caused it, whether the ship dragged bottom or
oil jetting from the ship may have caused it in the mud. But
the actual pipe that was found was found when a diver backed
into it. They were down looking at an area that was interesting
because of all of the markings on the bottom, but no one ever
was able to say, before they found that pipe, that that pipe
was sitting there and that is what we were going down to pull
up.
Now every little bit of technology we have is of a great
aide, because we see things like this trough and it gets us
down into that area. No one found that pipe with a sonar. It
may have read that way, but they were brought to an area of
interest, based on all of the markings and things down there.
It looked like something had occurred.
Mr. LoBiondo. So what can we say about being sure the
channel is definitely clear of further obstructions?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. We are certain that there is
nothing coming up above project level in the areas we checked.
An individual piece of material right now, I can not tell you
that, with absolute certainty, that you can find everything.
But with the technology we have, over the past years we have
been doing this, we have been very, very successful in our
ability to say the channel is open. And I don't have a fear
that there is a great deal of items or there is ``N'' items
sticking up anywhere above project level. But to go down and
find that one below the 40 foot is very difficult if it is
below 40 foot.
Mr. LoBiondo. The pipe was not above project level?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. Not according to my surveys. Now,
sir, I can not tell you exactly--you know, that is part of the
ongoing investigation.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. Okay. I don't want to monopolize too
much.
Rob?
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Lieutenant Colonel, I want to come back to this discussion
about the iron housing and the pipe. I understand the
investigation is not yet concluded, so we don't know what
caused the tear in the bottom of the ship. The ship had a 39-
foot draft, is that correct?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. I believe it was 36.6.
Captain Sarubbi. The draft of the ship is 36.6 feet.
Mr. Andrews. And your sonar went down to 40 feet, is that
right?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. Well, yes, Congressman. I mean, it
goes to bottom. We are looking for anything that would come
above that 40-foot level. Yes.
Mr. Andrews. Well, okay. Are you then ruling out the theory
that the iron pump housing caused the gash in the bottom of the
ship?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. No, absolutely not.
Mr. Andrews. How is it possible that it caused the gash at
the bottom of the ship if the draft of the ship was 36.6 feet
and you went down to 40 feet and didn't see it?
Captain Sarubbi. I could clarify. I am conducting an
investigation, Congressman, once the divers found the piece,
they did take measurements of the piece, not only the length
and the diameter and so forth, but they also measured the
distance of the piece above the river bottom.
Mr. Andrews. What was that distance?
Captain Sarubbi. It was about 31/2 feet at its highest
place, so it was protruding 31/2 feet above the river bottom--
Mr. Andrews. And the river bottom is--
Captain Sarubbi. --as of the time we found it.
Mr. Andrews. --approximately 39 feet in that area?
Captain Sarubbi. It's a project depth of 40 feet at that--
Mr. Andrews. But it may not be exact. So if it is 39 feet,
then wouldn't the pipe be protruding 351/2 feet, roughly, from
the surface of the river?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. Given what you said, yes,
Congressman.
Mr. Andrews. Well, then why didn't the sonar technology
find it?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. The sonar technology I have is
what is currently available, and it did not pick up anything
that came up above that level.
Mr. Andrews. Is there any better technology out there that
would have found it?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. Yes, and once again, the multi-
beam technology we are using now seems to be better. What we
are looking for in our normal surveys, and I am not talking
about the debris that you are actually talking about, we are
looking for shoaling, and that is what we go out and look for.
And that is those 400-foot lines. We are looking for areas of
where the river sediment is piling up and we need to do--
Mr. Andrews. I think what you told us this morning is the
multi-beam technology didn't find it either.
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. That is correct.
Mr. Andrews. How extensive was the search by the multi-beam
technology?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. It was to the level of its
ability. We did 75-foot passes. We put a great deal of effort
into it.
Mr. Andrews. So there was no more intense look that the
multi-beam technology could have taken?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. No.
Mr. Andrews. Is there anything else out there that is
better than the multi-beam technology?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. The side scan is better, and that
is really what led us to be down looking in that area. And that
is what you are looking--you are hoping to, you know, find
something that leads you to further investigation.
Mr. Andrews. I am sorry. What is a side scan?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. A side scan, it is a towed array
that goes--that we put out behind a ship. Instead of doing a
direct look down, it is down to a certain depth, whatever depth
we are at, and it is looking out to the side, so it has a
better ability to see above the bottom.
Mr. Andrews. And did you or did you not use that here?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. We did use that.
Mr. Andrews. Okay.
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. And once again, it led us to put
divers down into the area, but no one had showed me that little
object on the bottom.
Mr. Andrews. What would it cost to use the side scan to--if
you had the side scan, if you used it this morning to take a
look at the river, how much money do you need to buy one?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. It is not an exceedingly expensive
piece of equipment. You can probably purchase one for around
$100,000, a digital system. Now, with that said, there is a lot
that goes into having the vessel, the vessel to use it, the
personnel to use it.
Mr. Andrews. It is like buying a car and hearing about the
extras. What--if we bought the whole package, with all of the
extras, what does it cost us?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. To do the sonar, I can give you a
basic cost for the actual survey equipment. And this is
everything from a launch to tow it to the--about $3.15 million
for the actual equipment that would be necessary and then an
annual of about $540,000 to actually have the personnel trained
and performing those types of surveys. Now that doesn't go into
removal and all of the other things that I think you are
looking at as part of--
Mr. Andrews. If you had the sonar technology this morning
and you detected a possible obstruction in the shipping
channel, whose responsibility is it to remove it?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. As the regulations read now, I
would remove a vessel that was noted to be in the channel. I do
not have an authority to remove other items.
Mr. Andrews. So in other words, if you were out there this
morning and you saw what you saw after the spill and you sent
the divers down and they confirmed that there was this pipe
casing sticking three and a half feet up, you don't have the
authority to remove it?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. We would probably find a way to
remove something, if it was impacting the shipping channel or
the federal anchorage--
Mr. Andrews. Well--
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. --yes, we could remove that.
Mr. Andrews. Well, based on what authority?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. I would have to go to the actual
authorities I have back here.
Mr. Andrews. But your first answer was you wouldn't have
the authority really, and then you said you probably--
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. Well, it--
Mr. Andrews. Common sense tells you you should.
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. I am saying that it is inside the
federal area. If it is an obstruction, one of two things
happen. We go down and see if we can remove it. And then, if we
can't remove it for some reason, and I am saying there are
things that are down on the bottom, rock or whatever, then we
would mark it on the charts, and the ships would then have to
navigate around it. But in this case, we would bring in a crane
and bring it up.
Mr. Andrews. Who would pay for that?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. The Corps of Engineers. It would
come out of existing O&M budget and take away from our efforts
and our ability to do what you are asking us to do on a day-to-
day basis.
Mr. Andrews. Mr. Chairman, this will be my last question,
but I think I heard the cost of this being rather modest.
What--in your opening statement, you talked about the initial
estimates of the economic loss because of the spill. How much
was it? It was a huge amount of money, wasn't it?
Mr. LoBiondo. It was a huge amount of money.
Mr. Andrews. And it was certainly multitudes higher than
the relatively modest amount the Lieutenant Colonel just talked
about. I am encouraged by our discussions that we have had
about trying to implement that solution. I would just ask you
to submit, Lieutenant Colonel, for the record, if there is any
authority this Congress needs to give you explicitly, so there
would be no doubt that you would have the authority to remove
an obstruction that you found in the future, I think we would
like to know what that is.
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. Absolutely. And I--we will provide
that, and we provided it--we have, in the past, provided it and
have been working with your staff on that. And your letter that
several members of the panel have sent to the President has
also requested that for the '06 budget.
Mr. Andrews. Yeah. For the record, I know the Chairman
knows this, but the Chairman and I and several others joined in
a letter asking the President to include in his budget proposal
the funding to do what the Lieutenant Colonel essentially just
talked about.
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. But I will provide the language in
written for the testimony, sir.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. Congresswoman?
Ms. Schwartz. Thank you.
Just following up on some of those questions, I really
wanted to see--two questions really to start with is where are
we in the process of the clean up? How far along are we in this
process, and--in terms of monies expended? And you said the
estimates were $84 million to clean up. Those are the estimates
that we have. Could you speak to how far along we are and how
we have--do you have those dollars to spend, and how much have
you already expended in the clean up?
Captain Sarubbi. I can answer that question, Congresswoman.
As of yesterday, the cost of recovery operations is $94.5
million.
Ms. Schwartz. $94 million?
Captain Sarubbi. $94.5 million. Of that $94.5 million, $4.2
million is money that has been expended by the Coast Guard and
other Federal agencies, as well as State agencies in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. That $4.2 million is
being funded out of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The
remainder of the money is being paid for by the responsible
party. As you may know, there are limits set forth as to how
much money that the responsible party is responsible for paying
in an incident like this. For a ship of this size, the amount
is $45.5 million. On December 20, the responsible party sent me
a letter stating that they will continue to fund the clean up
past their limits of liability and also handle claims. And they
are doing that. And they are, as I said, to date, continuing to
fund the cost of the recovery and also handling all of the
claims that are coming in from third parties, such as ships
that were delayed or recreational boats that might have been
contaminated by the spill.
Ms. Schwartz. So, well, I guess that's good news. Are you
saying then that the shipping company has agreed to pay any
amount up to the $94 million? I mean, their liability is set at
$45.5 million now by law, so--but they have said they are
willing to pay whatever it takes to do the clean up?
Captain Sarubbi. Yeah, they have told me they will continue
to fund the cost of the recovery, and as I said, to date, they
have spent $94.5 million, minus the $4.2 million that the Coast
Guard has--and other Federal agencies are spending in the--out
of the fund. Now whether they are going to continue to do that,
I don't know. But the word I have from them now is they are
going to continue to fund the recovery operations and address
claims. We anticipate that recovery operations will probably be
complete some time this summer.
Ms. Schwartz. And does the liability trust fund have the
money you need? I understand there is some question about
whether you have that money in the trust fund. Do you have all
of the money you need out of the trust fund to be able to take
some of the burden you have financially?
Rear Admiral Brice-O'Hara. Congresswoman, allow me to give
you a little bit of background. The Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund was created by OPA 90 at a billion dollars, and the
sources of funding were an oil tax, which was phased out in
1994, and some legacy funds, which shifted into the trust fund.
And those shifts were complete in 2000. So currently, the level
of funds that remain in the trust fund are $842 million. So we
are short of the anticipated one billion when it was created,
because it is not self-generating income. So we do have
concerns. As we look at a typical draw on that trust fund
annually and look forward, we expect the trust fund to be
depleted as early as 2009.
Ms. Schwartz. So if this spill were to occur in 2010, there
would be no money for you to do what you are doing now, but
right now, you have the money?
Rear Admiral Brice-O'Hara. We have the money now. Long-
term, we are not assured of a way ahead. There is provision for
a consumer price increase adjustment every three years. No
adjustment has ever been made. That authority resides with the
Department of Transportation, the department of which the Coast
Guard was a member at the time of the legislation. That
authority was never delegated to the Coast Guard, and so there
has not been an increase or adjustment for the CPI increases,
nor does the Coast Guard have the ability to make those
increases. So there are some structural concerns there in terms
of now being within the Department of Homeland Security, who
has authority, and should that be divested down to the Coast
Guard's level.
Ms. Schwartz. My staff told me that if we had used the CPI
with--if that authority had been exercised, $64 million would
have been the liability limit in this case. Now I--since--
having just said that the shipping company is already accepting
greater liability than the $45 million, that may not be the
kind of concern we would have if they were not, although we
could be in that situation where they could say, ``This is it.
We are not paying any more.'' And then I guess the question is
what happens then to any additional challenges or damage in the
future. Could you speak to what happens at that point?
Rear Admiral Brice-O'Hara. Well, there needs to be a
remedy, Congresswoman.
Ms. Schwartz. But at this point, there isn't a remedy
unless it is through lawsuits or actions against the shipping
company or whoever might be determined to be responsible?
Rear Admiral Brice-O'Hara. Or legislative adjustments as
well. I think we are looking at two different types of
remedies, liability limits being one piece of that, the other
being how we manage sources of income to sustain the trust fund
at the level that was envisioned when it was created in 1990.
Ms. Schwartz. Well, we could reauthorize the trust fund. We
could do that. And as Congress, we could reauthorize it and
make sure that those funds come in from the shipping companies,
the oil companies, which is where that trust fund dollars came
from, correct? We could do that.
Mr. LoBiondo. Would you yield for a minute?
Ms. Schwartz. Yeah.
Mr. LoBiondo. That is a great question that you brought up,
and I think we are going to research it. If we were to deal
with the tax, we would have to refer to Ways and Means.
Ms. Schwartz. Um-hum.
Mr. LoBiondo. But I believe, and we are going to check
this, that in the Coast Guard authorization bill, which we have
been successful with the last couple of years, that we can deal
with the limits and that definitely will be something that we
will look at.
Ms. Schwartz. Great.
Mr. LoBiondo. So that is a great point.
Ms. Schwartz. All right. Well, thank you. And if I may, Mr.
Chairman, just--
Mr. LoBiondo. Sure.
Ms. Schwartz. Just one other set of questions, if I may.
And it really speaks to--I think Congressman Andrews was
getting to some of this. The issue about prevention, one of
them obviously is the concerns about finding debris on the
floor--the riverbed and identifying that before we have to look
for it because there has been a spill. Do you--without my
providing suggestions, could you make the three top suggestions
you would make to us that would, in fact, prevent a spill like
this? I will offer that to the Lieutenant or to the Admiral.
Captain Sarubbi. Well, Congresswoman, I think it is
somewhat premature to make those recommendations. We are still
in the very early stages of our investigation. We are still
collecting facts. As the Admiral mentioned, we have found
additional objects on the river bottom that we believe may have
been associated with this incident, an anchor and also a slab
of cement, which we are looking at as well. So to make
recommendations or to draw any conclusions from what we have
learned so far, I think would be very difficult to do at this
point.
Ms. Schwartz. It is something that I think is an extremely
important next step. We want to first make sure that you have
what you need, and that we are moving ahead on the clean up and
remediation and restoration, but we also want to make sure that
we do everything we can. One of the issues that none of you
have mentioned, because it is not in your authority, is the
issue that this was a single-hull vessel rather than a double-
hull vessel. And while Congress has made a clear commitment to
push and insist upon our vessels in the future being able to be
double-hull, this one was not. Could you--I mean, do you have
any comments to make on that? I mean, you are working on
cleaning up afterwards, but if it would have been a double-
hulled vessel, this would not have occurred, is that correct?
Rear Admiral Brice-O'Hara. We know through historical
evidence that when you have a double-hulled vessel, typically
the outer hull has been holed, and that has been enough
protection so that the inner hull has not been holed. It is
very difficult, until we get through this investigation, to say
conclusively that that would have been the case with the ATHOS
I. What we are going to have to do is reconstruct--the piece of
damaged hull from the ATHOS I is going to be cropped and
delivered up here, and then we are going to compare that with
these objects that we have brought from the bottom and do an
analysis as to what we think exactly happened, how deep the
punctures were, all of that is information that will come out
during the investigation and will help us then extrapolate and
determine whether the two double hulls would have provided
enough protection.
Ms. Schwartz. What I should say is when that investigation
is complete, I am sure that you will be sending a copy to the
Chairman, and really our being able to look at the
investigation results and to receive any recommendations you
might make or we might draw from them, so that we could take
that--take action, if necessary. So--
Mr. LoBiondo. We will--
Ms. Schwartz. --I hope you provide that information to the
Chairman.
Rear Admiral Brice-O'Hara. Yes, Congresswoman.
Mr. LoBiondo. We are understanding that the timing of the
hearing today would mean that we wouldn't have all of the
answers. And understanding that, we wanted to at least get the
process started, and we will certainly be looking at follow-up
hearings depending on what additional testimony that we
receive.
Ms. Schwartz. Can I just--how long is it going to take to
do the investigation and for us to get some of those answers?
Captain Sarubbi. The investigation will probably take
several more months, Congresswoman.
Ms. Schwartz. Go ahead.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay.
Ms. Schwartz. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. A couple more quick things. Rob, we have on
another panel Dennis Rochford, who is the president of the
maritime agency that might be able to give us a closer dollar
amount. I know Dennis talked about that briefly. And I wanted
to follow-up, just briefly, Colonel, on what Congressman
Andrews was talking about. If we had this technology that would
cost in the neighborhood of $3 million and something and then
an additional requirement each year to fund for the personnel,
how often would you use this? Would it be every week, every
month, every day?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. It would be used every day. I--
what we would do is we would probably--what we hope to do is
make the switch to do a multi-beam look of the entire river
instead of a single scan look. And once again, instead of
having point, point, point, we are looking at a better look at
the entire river. When we see the anomalies, then we put the
side scan down or the ROB or whatever the technology said at
that time, and then we would go down and look at that area. So
it would be used every day. We would be using it to prove--to
proof the channels
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. One additional question for either the
Coast Guard and/or the Corps. Are vessel operators required to
notify the Coast Guard or the Corps of a loss of cargo
overboard or failure to retrieve objects that are left in
navigable waterways? For example, if a vessel dropped an
anchor, lost that anchor, or lost a cargo container overboard,
are they required to notify you about that?
Lieutenant Colonel Ruch. I leave that to them, because they
are the ones who the ship owners actually notify.
Rear Admiral Brice-O'Hara. Mr. Chairman, the regulations
are very specific regarding the reporting of obstructions to
navigation with respect to a sunken vessel, raft, or other
craft. And in that case, the owner is obligated to report that
and to mark that obstruction. However, the regulations, when
they discuss other obstructions, more general, provide only
that the owner may report and mark it in the same manner as
prescribed for sunken vessels. That is the way that the
specific language is worded. So I think that the law could be
clarified to impose an affirmative obligation on the owner to
report an obstruction other than a vessel.
Mr. LoBiondo. So what you are saying is that this piece of
housing that we are seeing could have fallen overboard at some
point in time and whoever--wherever this fell overboard, if in
fact someone saw it, they did not break the law by not
reporting it?
Rear Admiral Brice-O'Hara. Yes, sir, the way the law is
written, the--it uses the term ``may'' as opposed to ``shall''.
Mr. LoBiondo. I can assure you that that will be remedied
also in the authorization bill. Rob, do you have anything
additional?
Mr. Andrews. Just very quickly. I am--I must say I am
pleased at the Chairman of the Subcommittee with jurisdiction
over that issue is sitting immediately to our right. It is good
that Frank is sitting in that chair.
I just want to follow up one more question that the
Chairman asked about booming and the effectiveness of the
effort. If you had to give a letter grade to the quality of the
booming effort that had taken place, let us say, as of sunrise
on the morning of the 27th, A being top-notch, great job, F
being failure, what is the grade you would give?
Captain Sarubbi. Congressman, I would give it a B or a B+.
I think we had some very difficult circumstances we had to deal
with. You know, in addition to booming off those
environmentally-sensitive areas, we also had to start
recovering oil, and that meant bringing in skimming vessels. We
also had to do an assessment of the shoreline to see how much
oil we had and where that oil was. We had a vessel with almost
13 million gallons still on it. We didn't know, at the time,
what caused the rupture of the hull. So there were a lot of
different things going on. So I think, overall, we did a good
job--
Mr. Andrews. What was lacking that would have made it an
A+?
Captain Sarubbi. I don't know that we have fully done our
overview of that. I think we have to go back and look at, you
know, the manpower and resources we put into doing that as well
as the strategies. I think we also had to wait for the daylight
to occur to be able to start that process, but we have to look
at our strategies. I think that is probably one of the biggest
things we have to look at. As I said, we had difficulty in
booming off some of the creeks because of the current or the
debris that was in the area, and we need to maybe look at
repositioning that booming and putting it in different
locations as--and make the booming more effective.
Mr. Andrews. That is something that Commissioner Campbell
is going to talk about in a few minutes, so I am interested in
his recommendation.
Captain Sarubbi. And maybe we need to put some booming
further in some of these creeks so that there is a second
barrier as well.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. Allison, do you have any follow-up?
Ms. Schwartz. Just--if you are able to identify who owned
that pipe or whose it was that dropped it and lost it, do they
have to then participate in the liability and what are the
chances of that happening?
Captain Sarubbi. I think that depends on, you know, our
investigation if we can actually determine the owner of the
piece, and then we will decide at that time what the
appropriate legal authorities or actions should be.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. Admiral, Captain, Colonel, thank you so
very much. This was very enlightening. Thanks for your
dedication to service, and we look forward to following up on
this very important issue. We will take a very short break
while we set up for the second panel. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much. We are very pleased to
move to our second panel. We have Mr. Bradley Campbell, who is
the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, and Ms. Kathleen McGinty, who is the Secretary of
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. We
thank you so much for being here. Commissioner Campbell and I
have worked together on many, many, many issues, and Brad, I
deeply appreciate your participation today and your expertise
in helping us try to figure out where we go from here, and I
would appreciate it if you start off.
TESTIMONY OF BRADLEY M. CAMPBELL, COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; AND KATHLEEN A.
McGINTY, SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Congressman. If I may, I would
like to submit my formal testimony for the record and summarize
briefly, out of respect for your time.
Good morning, and thank you for your leadership, Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Committee, on this devastating impact
to the Delaware River. I want, first and foremost, to
congratulate and thank the Coast Guard for leading what was
truly a team effort among Federal and State and local agencies
responding to the spill, for their leadership and also their
cooperation and accommodation, their responsiveness to concerns
as they were raised, either by individual states or individual
communities. I include in that congratulations and praise the
many community and non-governmental organizations, the Delaware
Riverkeeper, who was on scene, and the series of non-
governmental groups, like Tri-State, who helped respond to the
spill, coordinating the work of many hundreds of volunteers.
From the very first day that Governor Codey visited the oil
spill, the first morning, it was clear that the Coast Guard was
in charge but responsive to state concerns, and that was
vitally important. And to the extent that they are lessons
learned, they truly are lessons that could only have been
learned in the context of this spill, and they are not
criticisms of the Coast Guard's response.
Second is to recognize, as this Committee's very hearing
today recognizes, that the impacts of this spill are
significant. More than 200 miles of shoreline are affected.
More than 500 water foul actually found that were affected, and
many more that we know to have been affected but will never be
found, either because they were killed or because we simply
haven't identified them. Significant impacts for this estuary,
a resource that is already under many other sources of stress,
from storm water runoff to other sources of pollution in the
estuary. So this is a significant event, and we fear, the
Department, because of the relative amount of oil that was
recovered is a relatively small proportion of the whole, that
those impacts we will be enduring that we will continue to see
oil wash-ups and tar balls over the coming months, and even
possibly over the coming years.
In terms of lessons learned, I would identify really four
points for the Committee's focus. First, in terms of
prevention, I think that the elements of debris removal and
responsibility, that the Committee has already discussed this
morning, are critically important, enhancing the resources and
technical capability of both the Coast Guard and the Corps of
Engineers to early detect any obstructions that could either
present a hazard to navigation or a potential threat to the
environment.
Second, in terms of the liability structure under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, in many ways a visionary law, but I
think this still highlights the need to revisit the caps, the
limits on liability, which are clearly--in terms of those
limits, they are simply not commensurate with the damage of the
spills relative to the amount of tonnage.
And I want to put a small cautionary note to Captain
Sarubbi's testimony earlier. It is true that the vessel owner
has agreed to continue to fund the clean up, but I think it is
important for the Committee to keep in mind two points. One is
that after clean up, or really at the same time that we are
completing the clean up, we need to be planning restoration
actions that make the public whole for the damage of the
environment. And there isn't yet a commitment to fund those
restoration actions.
Second, under Open 90, even when a responsible party agrees
to fund clean up beyond the limits of liability, they still
have a right to recover those funds in excess of the liability
cap against the fund. So there is no sense, yet, or no
assurance yet that the fund will be held harmless in this oil
spill. And obviously, given the revenue issues that--for the
fund that were identified earlier, that is a significant
concern for states like New Jersey, who are looking not only to
ensure that the clean up is fully funded, but may be looking--
but will be looking both to the responsible party and failing
that--the fund to ensure full natural resource restoration.
Third, in the area of response planning, I think there are
significant lessons learned. Congressman Andrews mentioned
earlier our--some of our frustrations about the booming
efforts. Clearly, there needs to be more boom material pre-
positioned at the sensitive estuaries. There needs to be, I
think, a reflexive booming effort as soon as a spill like this
occurs, not an assessment period to identify whether booming is
necessary, but immediate reflexive booming to be put in place
as part of the response plan. Also, we need more frequent
updates of the area contingency plan to ensure that issues like
that are addressed in a timely way, lessons from other spills
are learned, and certainly to ensure that data, like the data
the Chairman identified with respect to critical habitat areas,
was--is in the plan and is up-to-date. I think, Mr. Chairman,
the point you made earlier is absolutely correct. There was--as
Captain Sarubbi correctly said, there was critical habitat data
in the plan. It simply didn't reflect the latest data, for
example where eagles' nesting areas were that was available to
the respective agencies.
Finally, and fourth, I would note that, you know, the need,
as I mentioned earlier, to focus not just on completing the
clean up, but on a restoration effort commensurate with the
damages. Here it is our hope, and every indication from NOAA
has been consistent with our expectation that there will be a
focused, expedited restoration planning effort, very much like
the one NOAA so successfully undertook in the context of the
North Cape oil spill in Rhode Island. And so we very much look
forward to working cooperatively, State and Federal agencies,
with NOAA on that effort.
But in this, and in the Coast Guard's general effort, I
can't help but echo a concern that Governor Codey has
repeatedly raised, which is that in the areas of prevention and
the areas of response and the areas of clean up and the areas
of restoration, the Coast Guard has been asked to maintain
those missions, those traditional missions of the Coast Guard
over the last 15 years, at the same time they have assumed many
new duties as a result of the challenges of domestic security
and the threat of terrorist attack. However, the resources that
have been made available to the Coast Guard have not been
commensurate with those increases in duties. And our fear is,
as we try to learn the lessons from this spill, that we will
continue to have challenges integrating those lessons into
better prevention and better response as long as those resource
shortfalls are there.
And with that, I am happy to defer to any questions the
Committee may have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Commissioner, very much. And now
we will turn to Secretary McGinty. Thank you so much for being
here today.
Ms. McGinty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. It is a pleasure to be here, although, as has been
articulated, under different circumstances we hope, at some
time, to celebrate some additional successes in protection and
prevention. And as I look at the makeup of this Committee, I
have confidence about that, given, Mr. Chairman, your
leadership in both environmental and economic progress and
certainly, also, Congressman Andrews, a long-time friend of
mine, who, in my service in Washington, I know, and here now in
Pennsylvania, to be a champion of the environment, but
certainly none other or more than our new Congresswoman from
the Philadelphia area. We are thrilled to have Allison Schwartz
now in this critical role. She certainly had been a leader in
the Pennsylvania State Senate.
Several comments, first leading to--or first relevant to
what really worked well, what went right from Pennsylvania's
perspective, and then several reflections on some improvements
that we might make or considerations for the Congress to take a
look at.
First, to adopt by reference my colleague and friend Brad
Campbell's comments. I certainly couldn't agree more with all
that he has said, but first and foremost, the State of
Pennsylvania wants also to commend our gratitude and the
leadership of the Coast Guard. Their performance was exemplary.
We thought that their response was immediate, effective. The
organization was thorough, and the inclusion of all of the
relevant entities was very, very effective.
Specific to that, I want to comment to the Committee's
attention the National Incident Management System, in
particular. This system has seen its inaugural implementation
here in this oil spill. And our perspective is that it has
worked well. It brings all of the necessary competencies to the
table. It is sufficiently specific so that the entities know
what they are supposed to do, when they are supposed to do it,
and the command structure is essential in effectuating that.
However, we also found that it had the necessary flexibility so
that when surprises arose, when the weather turned so terrible,
it enabled us to respond and bring other resources to the table
as necessary. So NIMS worked, and it worked well.
Second, and also related to the overall effectiveness of
not only the Coast Guard, the Army Corps, the other
participating Federal and State agencies, the training that is
provided in the OPA 90 law, and specifically every three years,
OPA 90 provides for enhanced and renewed multi-state, multi-
federal and state training in the context of simulated
emergency scenarios. Here, just relatively shortly before this
incident, we had the occasion to go through a major oil spill
training exercise. Those investments by the Federal Government
are very effective, and I think without an exception, the
entities who participated in the exercise and then were called
on for the real thing would underscore that that training was
invaluable and was enormously helpful here.
The other thing that went right, and if the Committee would
indulge me, I just want to recognize some of my own colleagues
who are here. Many of you have done that in your opening
comments, and I am enormously grateful for your recognition of
the work of our first responders, our emergency response staff.
I am joined by Bob Bower and Stan Sneeds of my regional office
here. But just to add a little bit further urgency to what you
have recognized to what these individuals bring to the job, one
of our colleagues, Paul Jardelle, literally put his life on the
line in this response effort. He was among those who were on
boats deployed two or three days after the incident when the
weather did turn very, very bad. Those boats were over-topped
by the waves and nasty conditions that had arisen on the river,
and he was tossed from the boat. 45-degree water was a life-
threatening situation. And here, too, everyone pitched in and
rescued those who were tossed from those boats. But just to
underscore, this is a very serious business, and these
employees put their lives on the line repeatedly, and certainly
in this instance.
Some recommendations, going forward, are some things we
would commend to your attention. First, resources, and I am
surprised not others have rung this bell even louder, because
usually your hearings are an occasion for everyone to ask you
for more resources. But here, very specifically, our water
quality staff in the region, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection staff, 50 percent of the entirety of
our water staff have been deployed to this exercise, 3,600 man
hours in just--really what is over--a little over a month of
work here responding. At the same time we have that enhanced
deployment, the State of Pennsylvania has seen a substantial
decrease both in point source water infrastructure funds as
well as non-point source runoff pollution funds that we receive
from the Federal Government. Tough times all around, but just
this year, we saw an $11 million cut in those funds, so I would
commend your attention to those resources, because it is those
resources that enable us to have the kind of staff that we can
then deploy and the technology to deploy in an emergency like
this.
Second, waste management issues. We have found in the
course of putting together the overall response plan that we
are not adequately prepared to have identified in each state
facilities that can receive waste materials so that there is
not a bottleneck in the clean up. This was particularly
important here, as the size of the spill grew as we understood
that it was more than the originally 30,000 gallons that had
been identified. So in terms of emergency response
preparedness, we would commend to your attention a
consideration that every state look to its waste management
facilitates to try to identify it and have available adequate
facilities for the variety of incidents we might find ourselves
involved in.
And that leads to the next point. Mr. Chairman, you were
critically involved in the passage of the Marine Transportation
Security Act of 2002, an historic piece of legislation. It
provides us, I think, the critical opportunity to say even if,
in this instance, with the help of Open 90 we find ourselves
relatively well prepared when it comes to oil spills, I
certainly can not testify before you that we are equally
prepared to respond if it were a hazardous chemical other than
oil. And we have had such incidents, but we have not had the
structures through which we could ensure our preparedness. And
with your historic legislation, I think we now have the
occasion of the framework through which we can ensure we are
prepared for those non-oil emergencies.
Next, I would point to and underscore what Congresswoman
Schwartz was talking about in highlighting that this was a
single-hulled tanker. We would urge consideration of an
acceleration of the phase-out date of those single-hull
tankers. And I would just say as an aside here that this is an
area where the environment and the economy would go together.
An acceleration of the phase-out would bring new opportunities,
new businesses to our ports, for example, to the Philadelphia
naval yard where there is the capability to build those ships
that would be double-hulled in nature and therefore provide
further protections against this kind of emergency.
Finally, I would come back to the issue, also, that
Commissioner Campbell pointed to in natural resources damages.
He covered well the liability issues. I would only point to the
physical nature of what we are looking at here and counsel
against a rush to judgment as to whether or not we understand
the full impact on habitat and wildlife at this juncture.
Submerged oil, among other issues, remains a serious concern,
and it is our judgment that it will be at least a year and
maybe two years before we really understand what the impact on
habitat and wildlife is all about and can therefore take the
necessary both legal and technical measures to restore those
resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for
the opportunity to testify and again for your leadership and
attention to these critical issues.
Mr. LoBiondo. I thank you both for your insightful
testimony. It gives us some good ideas here.
Congressman Andrews, would you like to lead off the
questioning this time?
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome Secretary McGinty and Commissioner
Campbell and thank them for their service. You can not
represent this area in the United States Congress and not
interact with both of you on a regular basis, and you each
conduct yourselves with professionalism and great skill, and we
are fortunate to have both of you. We really appreciate you. I
especially want to say to Brad Campbell, you know, you can't be
the DEP Commissioner in New Jersey and not be involved in
controversy every single day. I personally appreciate the skill
and foresight you brought to this job, and thank you for the
great job that you do. I am just very pleased.
There is a report that--from the Delaware Riverkeepers
Network that they say that no booms were present at any time on
the Pompeston Creek, the Pennsauken Creek, the Newton Creek,
and the Cooper River. What do you think that says about the
adequacy of the booming effort that took place after the spill?
Mr. Campbell. Well, I would say, as I mentioned in my
testimony, that clearly there needs to be a more concerted and
immediate booming effort. I think what the Coast Guard followed
in terms of standard practice, and you were asking for grades
earlier, in standard practice they would have gotten an A,
because it was assessed--take a period of time to assess and
then proceed with booming. And so in the first days of the
spill, that--in my sense, I think we had lost a little bit of
time because that standard practice was followed. My sense is,
on this river, where you have a six-foot tidal swing, a strong
tidal current that is going to move the oil quickly, really the
booming effort should begin immediately. It should be focused
on started with the sensitive areas. And in order for it to
proceed quickly enough, there needs to be more pre-positioning
of material. So they lose time in actually getting the booming
material to the scene.
Mr. Andrews. So, Commissioner Campbell, you would recommend
changing the protocol so there is a swifter response. And
rather than an assessment first, you just get the booms out in
the water more quickly? Did I hear that correctly?
Mr. Campbell. Certainly in the immediate--the estuaries
most approximate to the spill, on this river, putting other
contacts to one side, where there is such a strong tidal swing,
I think immediate booming is appropriate, yes.
Mr. Andrews. And then I also understand your testimony is
advocating sort of pre-positioning of booms in closer
geographic proximity so we could have access to them more
quickly, is that correct?
Mr. Campbell. Exactly. Pre-positioning of the boom
material, and then also closer maintenance. What we have done
over the years, through our exercising with the Coast Guard and
other agencies is to practice booming. And part of that is
establishing in advance the anchor points for the booms. Some
of those weren't fully available or useable when we went to use
them this time, and so some closer attention to that also needs
to be paid.
Mr. Andrews. Madame Secretary, do you have anything to add
as far as recommendations on this question?
Ms. McGinty. I would just offer two thoughts. One is to add
to the pre-positioning an enhanced and updated ecological
assessment in these streams so that we have the latest
information on what the resources are. And second, just by way
of analogy, I think supportive of the comment, when it came to
Philadelphia's drinking water resources, we did go ahead,
working with the Philadelphia Water Department, and put in
place protective measures, even before, as the Commissioner is
articulating, the assessment was done. If we had waited until
the assessment was done, we may not have taken that step
because it looked like, in those assessments, the spill was not
going to make its way up to those drinking water intakes. Now
at the end of the day it didn't, but we immediately deployed
enhanced carbon filtration and enhanced monitoring and testing.
And probably, for ecological resources, as those human
resources, we should probably do the same.
Mr. Andrews. With respect to pre-positioning, where do you
think the best locations might be for locating these resources
more closely to the area?
Mr. Campbell. Well, they are clearly going to be in areas
in Salem and Cumberland County where we are going to want to
pre-position right along the coast. I mean, from our
perspective, assuming you can identify secure locations, the
closer to the affected resource, the better, because you are
just going to reduce deployment times. The same type of
analysis is going to have to be done, obviously, for our
counterparts in Delaware, where Secretary Hughes has some of
the same concerns, and in Pennsylvania, obviously.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Congresswoman?
Ms. Schwartz. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I
wanted to, first of all, thank you, Secretary, for reinforcing
my line of questioning and my concern about the fact that the--
under Open 90, they didn't--we have not seen an increase in the
limit on liability. And in this case, we know, from the
previous panel, that we are going to need more than $45 million
to not only clean up but remediate the situation we have in the
spill. And so we already know that. I am--I appreciate the
Chairman being willing to work with us to see if we can't get
that CPI implemented and that liability increased. As you
pointed out, and I was told in between the panels, it is
possible even if the shipping company is now paying these
costs, they could come back to the trust fund and say, you
know, ``My liability was only $45.5 million. You have to
reimburse me for the rest.'' That is a serious concern that
those dollars will then be public dollars rather than be paid
by the shipping company when they could. So I look forward to
working with you on making that happen.
I was also interested in your comments, and I think we need
to understand both comments that what we know now may not be
all we know in six months or a year from now, certainly from an
environmental point. So that--my question is, going forward, do
you have recommendations for the best way we can make sure that
we have not only cleaned up the river, but also--and remediated
the--any environmental impact? But then the issue of
restoration on the--and the public impact going forward, this
is a--could you speak specifically to what is the best way to
make those assessments, and are--is that now in place?
Ms. McGinty. I will just offer a couple of comments. Our
biggest concern right now is submerged oil and oil that was
immediately entrapped in sediments fairly quickly after the
incident. My staff was sharing with me some of their own
experience of digging into some of the sediments and finding,
even if those top sediments were relatively clean, inches of
oil just beneath that surface. So you can imagine, as the year
progresses and we see that tidal action in the river, we might
see a further re-suspension of some of that oil that is just
temporarily trapped. That is one issue.
Second, related but actually different, is the oil that
essentially formed hockey pucks, if you will, balls of various
sizes, and probably are further down in the water column. What
we do not know right now is whether when the warm temperatures
come back, will those temperatures be sufficient also to
release or re-suspend some of that oil. So I guess what comes
from that recommendation number one is after the immediate
attention to this issue begins to fade, we need to find a way,
nonetheless, to keep the spotlight, to keep the resources
coming, and to keep the books open on this, because we have got
a lot more to understand.
Ms. Schwartz. Well, who is responsible for making sure that
that happens, that we don't close the books on it?
Mr. Campbell. Well, in--under OPA 90, NOAA is the lead
federal trustee, and NOAA's job now is to lead a cooperative
assessment effort that involves both of our agencies to assess
the damage and to identify an appropriate restoration project.
One of the difficulties of this type of spill is that some of
the damage, either because it is beneath the surface or because
the particular birds that were killed were never recovered is
that there are always uncertainties. And the focus has to be on
identifying and developing a significant restoration project
commensurate with the damage. We know we will not replace the
actual birds that were lost or the actual fisheries that may be
affected, but we do know that there is going to have to be a
significant restoration project to enhance the habitat to make
the river whole through enhancement of the resources, even
though the actual resource can't be replaced in total.
Ms. Schwartz. The mayor of Valdez, Alaska wrote an
interesting piece and talked about the fact that they
developed--after that spill, they developed a Citizens'
Advisory Council that did not exist before that played a role
in keeping an eye on this and keeping an eye on what is now a
good working relationship between the government authorities
and the private sector, particularly the shipping company. But
I guess I am going to ask the questions and maybe push the
envelope a little bit on this, as a way of keeping public
attention on this on an ongoing basis and apparently they
continue well after the spill clean up to make sure that the
public aspect of keeping the environment and keeping the
waterway healthy and available both to commerce and recreation
really works. Would you make a comment on whether you think
that would be something we ought to encourage or even look at
in some kind of citizen advisory council that could work
specifically on maintaining the Delaware River, again for
commerce, but also with good attention to the environment?
Ms. McGinty. I would think that is an excellent suggestion.
I think we have some wonderful organizations that can step
right up and help. The Delaware Riverkeepers is certainly among
the most effective of those, but when you look at the variety
of entities that pitched in in this response, that gives you
some of the list of those who could make an invaluable
contribution.
I want to just quickly come back to your comment, if I
could. As you are looking at natural resources damages, I would
offer three other things in addition to what the Commissioner
has articulated. First, if you are looking at the liability
structures under OPA 90 and potentially looking at some reforms
there, expressly making it the case that natural resources
damages are liabilities over and above and to which the
responsible party is subject in addition to just, ``Here is the
bill for clean up for getting the oily waste out of the
river,'' et cetera, that that would be important.
Second, to rearticulate the resources question in terms of
when the spotlight is off, we still will need to be deploying
people out there doing those damage assessments, and it is
always harder once the emergency has gone.
And third, I guess this comment goes to the difficulty
actually of assessing natural resources damages. There is a
tendency always to say put a dollar sign and be able to
demonstrate exactly what the economic damage is in order to
justify a claim against a responsible party. That is hard
enough when you are talking about impact to physical structure
or business. It is very, very difficult when you are trying to
assess the value of intact habitat as opposed to destroyed
habitat, healthy wildlife as opposed to impaired wildlife. And
this is something actually that Commissioner Campbell and I
have worked together over the years. I guess I would just urge
that the Congress not require undue precision, if you will, in
how NRD damages are calculated, because some things are just
very difficult to put a dollar sign on. It does not follow the
same structure as some of our other liability and recovery
structures in other provisions of law.
Ms. Schwartz. Thank you very much, and I look forward to
continuing to hear from you as we move into the continued clean
up and into the next phase, I think, which, as you point out,
will take much longer. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. All right. Thank you.
One of the things that we are very interested in attempting
to determine through this whole unfortunate scenario is that
the level of communication and cooperation between all of the
various agencies is it what we hoped it would be. Is there
something additional that you--either of you could suggest
should have been done? And obviously we have come up with some
ideas of Committee jurisdiction that seem necessary from a
legislative standpoint that we are going to pursue. Are there
any recommendations along these lines that you can suggest need
to be strengthened by strong legislation?
Ms. McGinty. I would have to say, Mr. Chairman, from our
point of view, the communication structures did work well, that
the NIMS system worked well. Having said to Congressman Andrews
how well we also worked locally in taking that information from
the Unified Command and making it available down the chain to,
for example, the Philadelphia Water Department. I think
internally we want to work on our own enhanced efficiency at
dispatching that information. But overall, we thought the
command structure work well efficiently and effectively to get
the job done.
Mr. Campbell. I would certainly concur on that assessment.
I would identify a few areas where some thought needs to be
given. First, in terms of early community meetings, we
weren't--you know, in the exigencies of the spill, it took, I
think, over a few weeks before we had the first, sort of,
community-based meeting to get word out to the public, perhaps
less of a problem in this case, because we are at the heart of
the Philadelphia media market, a number of media outlets here,
but in other contexts, and in terms of more remote communities,
I think getting the word out, getting people understanding, I
think that is one area where we might have done better, again,
completely agreeing with Secretary McGinty's comment that the
system worked. Communication was early, robust, and effective.
And not just that there was communication, but that the Coast
Guard consistently responded and promptly to concerns as they
were raised.
Second, I think this is a great example of the many
volunteer organizations we have and the role they can play to
look thoughtfully at ways in which the resources of a volunteer
group like the Delaware Riverkeeper Network can be integrated
into the response effort earlier, recognizing that, as a
general, the actual response to oiling, the response to
wildlife has to be done by professional, but using their eyes
and ears on the ground more effectively, I think is another
lesson we could learn.
Mr. LoBiondo. Commissioner Campbell, I might ask you to do
a little bit of speculation here, but I have a great deal of
concern with our knowledge that 265,000 gallons were what was
spilled and there is a little bit of a question mark as to
exactly how much we have recovered, because some of it was a
water mixture. We know, and you have talked a little bit about
what is on the bottom. And Secretary, you mentioned that we are
not sure what may happen when the temperature rises a little
bit, but I think we are going to have to try to think about
this to some degree and bring some varying of expertise on the
issue because my big fear is that if temperature releases some
of what is on the bottom, does it migrate to our beaches? Can
you comment? Your thoughts? What can we do? Is there something
from our perspective that we can focus on to pay more attention
to this?
Mr. Campbell. Well, obviously this is of paramount concern
for me that we will be greeting Memorial Day and the advent of
summer with additional reports of oil surfing--surfacing and
potentially affecting our beaches. It is sobering to note that
in the context of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which
Congresswoman Schwartz mentioned earlier, they are, to this
day, discovering new pockets of oil that were not cleaned up.
And I think one of the important elements is to recognize, in
terms of the funding and the availability of whether it is from
the responsible party or the fund that, as Secretary McGinty
said, this is a response effort that is going to continue not
just for months, but probably for years, if you include the
natural resource damage assessment and restoration. And when
you consider the Coast Guard testimony earlier that we are
already at--over the $90 million mark, I think that gives--that
should give the Committee a sense of scale in terms of how
expensive it is to clean up oil after the fact and how the caps
are really dwarfed by the cost of the response effort. But the
focus of the Committee, and you, Mr. Chairman, have been
tenacious in your oversight in ensuring that the funding and
response resources continue to be there in the ensuing months
will be critical.
Mr. LoBiondo. Well, we certainly want to keep in very close
contact. The conclusion you draw tomorrow or next week about a
particular course of action that we have to pursue with what we
think is still left on the bottom from participation from an
outside source or from within your own framework, we certainly
want to react very quickly to that. I share your great fear of
what lies ahead with all of that oil that is not recovered.
Congressman Andrews, any follow up?
Mr. Andrews. No, thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Congresswoman, any follow up?
Ms. Schwartz. No.
Mr. LoBiondo. No? I thank you both very much. We will take
a short break to move to the third panel.
[Recess.]
Mr. LoBiondo. Let us move to the third panel. And before we
do that, we have--some groups that asked to participate today
that we weren't able to accommodate through the panel, they are
certainly a very important part of the partnership that we are
putting together. And the Delaware Riverkeeper and also the
Partnership for the Delaware Estuary has submitted testimony,
which I would like to ask unanimous consent to be submitted
into the record. Without objection, I will so order that.
And now we move to the third panel. I am very pleased that
we have Mr. Dennis Rochford, who is President of the Maritime
Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay Authority, and Mr. Eric
P. Stiles, who is the Vice President for Conservation and
Stewardship for the New Jersey Audubon Society. Thank you both
for being here, and Dennis, if you would start off, please.
TESTIMONY OF DENNIS ROCHFORD, PRESIDENT, MARITIME EXCHANGE FOR
THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY; AND ERIC P. STILES, VICE PRESIDENT
FOR CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP, NEW JERSEY AUDUBON SOCIETY
Mr. Rochford. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee, and for your leadership on this and
so many other issues that impact the ports along the Delaware
River.
The Maritime Exchange is a trade association representing
almost 300 port businesses in Southeastern Pennsylvania, South
Jersey, and Delaware. We basically function in two ways: we act
as the Chamber of Commerce of the Delaware River, we are an
advocate primarily with federal agencies in Washington, DC
representing the interests of a port community from the Coast
Guard to the Corps of Engineers, Customs, and other agencies.
We have an operating responsibility in that we operate Maritime
On-Line, which is the electronic communications hub of the
Delaware River capturing all--an Internet-based system that
captures all of the vessel, cargo, and crew list information
for the 2,600 vessels that come up the Delaware River.
Let me, first of all, submit--I am not going to read it, my
testimony for the record, copies of which were sent to your
Committee last week.
Let me just make a couple or three points, and having had
the opportunity to listen to a lot of the testimony here
earlier, not be repetitive and try to hit on what the impact is
with respect to the maritime industry, port businesses, the men
and women that bring the ships up the river, the longshore
workers and everybody else whose income depends on this river:
$4 billion a year in terms of economic revenues to the region,
75,000 employed people, $1.5 billion in wages and salaries and
almost $150 million in state and local taxes. So this is
significant to the regional economy.
We indicate that the Exchange's role was really one of a
facilitator and communicating, if you will, between the various
federal agencies and port agencies that were involved in the
initial phases of the containment and clean up. We worked
closely with the Coast Guard, the Corps of Engineers, the
Pilots Association, the Mariners Advisory Committee. And our
goal, if we had one goal, was, A, to facilitate what they were
doing, but secondly to make sure that the port operators and
port customers had accurate information. Somebody mentioned a
few minutes ago the world we live in today with CNN news and
the media, as we have it today, and this oil spill was being
listened to and read about throughout the world. And our
concern was that the port customers, the people that bring
their cargoes through our port, had accurate information with
respect to the status of the spill, the status of the clean up,
and as we moved very quickly in the initial stages, Sunday
through Monday or Tuesday, as the port began to open up and as
vessels began to move in and move out, that is the information
that we needed to get to our port customers.
Let me make a general comment with respect to the economic
impact. Significant. I don't think anybody has got a number
today that can tell you what the cost is of this spill. I think
you can say it is in the tens of millions of dollars. And let
me cite just a couple of specific examples I have with respect
to either real or potential costs. We are an niche port.
I am going to reference three specific cargo commodities.
One is oil, crude oil. The six oil refineries that operate on
this river operate with very strict crude oil inventory
requirements. And what that means is if there was, in fact, an
extended closure of this port over a period of time, it would
directly impact the second largest refining complex, the United
States of America, and in terms of home heating oil and
gasoline and jet fuel and all of the other products that they
produce to support the economy in the mid-Atlantic and New
England regions and beyond would be put in jeopardy. One of the
reasons that we are happy in terms of the quick response to get
the port opened up can be measured by that impact.
Secondly, the Delaware River, in both Philadelphia, Camden,
and Wilmington, we bring in over 65 percent of all of the South
and Central American fruit that comes into the United States of
America. It is a perishable commodity. We are the largest
banana port in the United States of America. Del Monte, as an
example, over in Camden, had they been delayed another day, it
would have cost them close to $7 million in terms of the cost
of destroying the cargo, the bananas and the Chilean fruit.
That didn't happen, but they did experience a $30,000 cost for
standby labor. One of the challenges when a port is closed down
or the scheduled vessel's arrival is disrupted, the terminal
operators, the people that have the responsibility to offload
those ships, have to go and get labor, and if that labor has to
wait and they have to bring in another crew, well, there is a
direct cost there.
The other commodity I would mention briefly is steel. Very
important on this river. We used to handle 4 million tons a
year, almost 400 ships. The economy went soft. The 201 tariffs
went in place, but over the last 18 months, the line is going
up, the tonnage is going up, the number of ships is going up.
That is good for the port. We only had two or three ships that
were diverted from this port to another port, and one of those
ships was a steel ship destined for Penn Terminals in Chester,
and the cost to Penn Terminals, as well as the labor cost, was
close to $50,000.
Let me give you one other statistic. The cost to operate a
ship ranges anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 a day for general
cargo, steel ships all of the way up to $250,000 a day for the
modern VLCC and tankers. If you are to take our average
weekend, which it was, with 20 ships in port, on a daily basis,
we are talking about $650,000 to $1.3 million in costs because
of delays that occurred or the potential of delays, if they
were to occur.
Let me--if I might, I am a minute over my limit here, let
me make two points in terms of lessons learned. One, it is on
industry. I--and I want to compliment the Coast Guard and the
Corps and everybody, the Pilots Association, Mariners Advisory
Committee as they came together in the Unified Command to make
the decisions, A, to contain the spill, B, to get the clean-up
operation going, and C, to open this port up to--for commercial
use. But the bottom line is that we--I think that we were
effective in getting information out, but we, as a port
community, and I know there have been discussions here amongst
other witnesses with respect to, you know, coordinating our
efforts, we need to continue to improve communications. In this
marketplace, in this global marketplace today, we can't have
bad information going out around the world with respect to what
is going on in the Delaware River, and we, as industry, which
we demonstrated through this spill, working with government,
need to enhance on that effort.
And I will conclude with something that is relevant, not
particularly specific to this incident, but relevant in
listening to the testimony. I listened to it earlier. The
bottom line is, it is a federal responsibility to keep federal
channels and anchorages over. And in my view, this
Administration and previous Administrations have shortchanged
that commitment. And I want to cite the numbers for fiscal year
2005. The Administration recommended $4.1 billion for civil
works in the Corps of Engineers, and the Colonel addressed some
of those expenditures. The Congress, always a little bit more
sympathetic to our efforts here, appropriated $4.7 billion. The
American Association of Port Authorities indicate, for fiscal
year 2005, to meet just the bare minimum. Civil works
requirements for the Corps of Engineers is $5.5 billion.
I would say the same with NOAA. We have been fighting hard
here for the last couple of years. We have a port system in
place, Physical Ocean Real Time System, which provides real
time tidal and atmospheric information that is available to the
captains and the pilots as they bring the ships up the river.
We have been fighting for 3 years. We got $750,000 out of the
Delaware River Port Authority to put that system in place. The
operating cost is about $250,000 a year. There are 13 systems
like that around the United States, and we are trying to get $3
million appropriated in the NOAA budget to maintain systems.
And again, like the Corps of Engineers and like the Coast
Guard, this NOAA system is all part of the federal
responsibility to keep those channels open. And everybody
bringing ships up the river is paying taxes into the Federal
Treasury. And if we can take care of the highways and railroads
and airlines, we need to take care of our port system.
I hate to use this situation as an example to make that
statement, but it is so very important to this port and to the
ports around the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Dennis.
I might note that I have had the pleasure of working with
Dennis for a number of years now, basically on port security
and maritime anti-terrorist measures, and I thank you for all
of the time and energy you have put in to helping us understand
the impact of the maritime industry.
Eric, thank you very much for joining us today. Please
proceed with your testimony.
Mr. Stiles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Eric Stiles. I am testifying today on behalf of
New Jersey Audubon Society and our 22,000 members in New
Jersey. First of all, I would like to thank the Chairman for
inviting me to speak today.
I worked as an endangered species biologist with the New
Jersey DEP for a decade working to recover the wildlife species
on the lower Delaware River and Delaware Bay for nearly a
decade, so I am intimately aware of what is at stake here.
My immediate visceral response, looking at the evening news
was as if I had lost a good friend, knowing how much is at
stake to the quality of life and public safety in this region
and what can be disrupted through a single tragic event.
New Jersey Audubon Society was impacted at two levels.
First of all, we have been supporting wildlife conservation
since 1897. And second, we actually own two islands in the
Delaware River, just down river from the spill, Chester and
Mahn's Islands, so we are an affected landowner and can offer
insights through those two different vantage points.
First of all, they impacted, I guess, our Nation's symbol:
bald eagles. Again, we had one remaining in New Jersey from
1972 to 1984. Hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer time,
primarily from citizens, has jump-started the population in New
Jersey. There were several pairs within the active zone,
including one at Mahn's Island that nests on top of a 110-foot
tall Eastern Cottonwood tree. It is absolutely amazing. It
looks like a Volkswagen parked in a deciduous tree.
Now the tale of Mahn's Island can be told time and time
again. The pair perennially fails because of PCB contaminants.
Again, we are looking at an industrialized area that has
contamination issues. Each year, the pair failed, they would
relocate in the state's endangered species program, and Elmer
Klegg, the volunteer, would work with the landowners tens of
thousands of hours to minimize disturbance. Now in 1996, a
corporation, DuPont, approached New Jersey Audubon Society and
the state, and the partnership went as follows: if you accept
this land as a wildlife preserve, would the state step up to
the plate and every year bring in an orphaned eaglet for the
pair to raise. Since that time, that pair has successfully
fledged young. The New Jersey Audubon Society has accepted
ownership and responsibility for the island. The state, and
their incredible biologists, have stepped up to the plate with
the orphaned eaglet, and Elmer Klegg is donating tens of
thousands of hours as, still, the pair's guardian ambassador.
This time spent, these volunteers, this love and quality of
life, can be told time and time again from the Delaware River
and lower Delaware Bay. Congressman Andrews and Congressman
LoBiondo have been real champions in forwarding the protection
of these. We know what is at stake. A single tragic event can
disrupt that.
Now we know that the Delaware River and estuary is a multi-
use complex, from commerce, it is very important for commerce,
to recreation. In 2001, 1.64 million residents in New Jersey
and 688,000 residents watched wildlife, spending $1.24 billion.
People that hunt and fish spent another $1 billion. It is a
fundamental quality of life for why people live there. I have
lived in South Jersey for 30 years, recently exported to North
Jersey, but South Jersey will always be my home. I love the
area because of the wildlife. It is also very important for
public drinking water. Only one industry, that is the transport
of oil and other hazardous materials, has the ability to
compromise all other interests and public safety on that
complex.
And I would say that the famous American historian, Arthur
Slessinger, was right: ``History has an eerie way of repeating
itself.'' If I were a betting man, my money would be that there
is going to be another oil spill. But what can we do to take
upon the successes of this response, identify areas for reform,
and move forward? And I think that is the question before us
today.
Now first of all, I need to thank the New Jersey delegates,
specifically Congressman LoBiondo, Andrews, Senators Korzon and
Lattenburg for their leadership effort. We fed information from
our members directly to the Congressional delegates about areas
that were not being protected, and it was the Congressional
participation in the process that I think really stepped up the
reflexive booming, if you will, to which Commissioner Campbell
spoke.
Second, New Jersey DEP and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
staff biologists did an exemplary job working with non-profits.
In fact, we had close to 100 of our members participating as
expert avian monitors to assess the damage. And really, it is
counting heads. Unfortunately, many of these birds that were
oiled were never captured and go on to die. But that is part of
the natural resource damage assessment.
Third, Tri-State Bird Research and Rescue, again, they are
not here today, but they are an international expert in
cleaning up and responding to oil spills. They deserve great
praise.
And last, the U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA, again, I worked on
a boat for a day from Mantua Creek to Commodore Barry Bridge.
The men and women of the Coast Guard Service deserve great
accolades for the performance they underwent I think under some
very difficult times and tasks. My observation is they don't
have the resources they need to do their jobs. So any reform
that I posit is not based upon the individual performance of an
individual, but rather I think the failure of the system.
Now the four areas that I would posit for reform. First of
all, reduce the likelihood of further spills. I think this is
going to be repeating some of the wisdom we heard previously.
First of all, the shipping channel, we heard there are
additional technologies that can and should be used, whether it
is a magnetometer, wire survey drag, side-scanning sonar, and I
think Congressman Andrews, in his question, helped me
understand that technology better, should be in play here, and
they require the appropriate appropriations to fund that.
Again, a vision with no funding is a hallucination, so if we
have plans here but not the means to implement those plans, I
can not blame the agencies responsible with that charge.
Second, the minimum depth clearance should be examined. I
think that has been raised time and again. Allegedly, the ATHOS
hole rupture occurred at a low tide. Again, if you look at the
differentiation between the draft of these craft that are under
significant weight loads and the bottom of the channel itself,
you want to increase that, so perhaps only allowing them to
operate at a mid to high tide, especially the single-hull
design, would be advantageous.
Let us look to get rid of the single-hull craft before
2015. That is a significant risk factor in what is at stake
with this. I think responsible parties, that is responsible
companies using double-hull craft, should be rewarded. If you
are a company that is investing in a double-hull, you should
have an incentive to bring that to this port. Conversely, if
you have a single-hull, I think there should be an additional
port fee. If you are coming in, and you are posing this
additional risk hazard, this port fee should go into a
dedicated fee that goes to both increase our preparedness for
oil spill as well as to fund the natural resource damage from
it.
Second, and I just drew this number out of a hat, but I
know that the $45 million liability threshold is grossly
insufficient. As we have heard today, I think it was $92
million. The company can go back to OPA? The risk and the
damages are being assumed by a dwindling pool of money that is
coming from taxpayers. I think $150 million or $200 million
might be more in the ballpark of that liability ceiling that
needs to be set.
Third, we need to improve the efficacy of the oil response
effort. Again, I can not fault NOAA and the Coast Guard, but
they did not have the data. I know of three bald eagle
locations that Congressman LoBiondo, in particular, was helpful
in getting that to the Coast Guard. Our attorneys did
participate in the Unified Command center. Mahn's Island bald
eagle nest, which has been there since '96, was not on the NOAA
and Coast Guard inventory. The important information about
Mannington Meadows was not on the NOAA and Coast Guard
inventory. I think that this Committee needs to look at
providing sufficient appropriations to allow the data from the
federal and state wildlife and fish agencies to be provided to
NOAA and the Coast Guard to be updated annually.
Lastly--I am sorry. Two additional responses. Again,
reflexive booming, that Commissioner Campbell talked about, the
booms were following the leading edge of the oil slick. This
was before the massive wind event. The massive wind event, I
think, started November 30 and then went into December 1.
Mannington Meadows is one of the largest staging grounds for
waterfowl on the eastern flyway. There was no boom in place.
Getting those anchor points also in place ahead of the spill, I
think, is critical, as we heard from Commissioner Campbell,
whether they are absent or in disrepair. Getting them in place
and maintained over a regular cycle is critical.
Lastly, when I was looking at the Oil Pollution Act of
1990, there is a provision called Title V, the Prince William
Provision. Under that provision, the visionary legislation
established a body of federal, state, academic, and
conservation agencies and local citizens with backgrounds in
commerce, fisheries, wildlife, public health and safety, and
education. That body worked and would work in this case to
better protect natural resources and public health and safety
on the Delaware Bay while still accommodating a functioning
port. Most importantly, as someone that worked in the
government both at the National Park Service and DEP for 10
years, this body would cut through the interagency red tape by
establishing a council with a clear mandate and goal. So I
think that what Congresswoman Schwartz referred to is there a
need to create this, a citizens council, I think not only is
there a gross need here, but there is some exciting precedent
under existing legislation, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
We look forward to working with this body. I think one
additional opportunity for this body is to work with federal
appropriators to look at land and water conservation funds. I
know that there is almost no dollars now for acquisition
through the federal side, but to protect and enhance these
critical fish and wildlife locations on all three sides of the
bay, including Pennsylvania.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you both.
Allison, do you want to start off?
Ms. Schwartz. Sure. Thank you. I just have two questions,
but I have one for Mr. Stiles, and I thank you for your, in
some ways, summary of the things that we ought to be looking at
and moving forward on. Do you have an assessment of the effect
broken down by state, how much an effect we have seen from the
environmental point of view in Pennsylvania?
Mr. Stiles. That is, I think, a very good question. I think
it is an interesting question posed to an organization that is
focused on a state. When I look at the Delaware Bay and
estuary, to me, it is--I could care less about the political
boundaries. It is very important, I think, for the
Congressional delegates to know the impact to their
constituents. When you look at the lower Delaware River and
Delaware Bay, it is one complex. To answer your question, I
haven't seen any assessment broken down by political
boundaries. I think it is a fair question that could be posed
to your state agencies.
But again, when you look at the submerged oil, it is what
we don't know that is really scary. We have the largest
concentration of shorebirds in all of North America. Again,
Commissioner Campbell is concerned with May 31. I am really
scared come late April, because that is when the shorebirds
start coming up. If you talk about the reintegration of this
oil, the spawning horseshoe crabs. It is the largest, globally,
population that we have. It is critical for fisheries. So I
applaud the federal participation, because this is a federally
shared resource. We are talking about commerce. We are talking
about migratory species. So I think that the Congressional
delegates are to be commended for working so closely on a
comprehensive solution.
Ms. Schwartz. Maybe it is a good thing that we haven't
actually broken it down by state so that we have accepted it as
a shared responsibility and recognize the fact that the
Delaware River does affect all three states pretty
dramatically, and working together maybe is the way to go. I
shouldn't ask for it being broken down. I was curious, though,
that no one has broken it down that way, either in terms of
impact or cost, but thank you for your comments.
My only--my other question, Mr. Rochford is there an effect
going forward in whether any of the shipping companies might
say I might not come to the port here because of potential for
a spill, or is this seen as a one-time impact and there isn't
necessarily a negative effect going forward? I was just curious
about whether you have to deal with, sort of, damage control
going forward in a--maybe a more attitudinal--or if we don't
take certain steps, will they say, well, it is a risk I don't
want to put my vessel in, even if I don't carry oil or
particularly if I do, are they not doing enough to make sure
that I won't end up spilling the oil? Obviously, they don't
want to--
Mr. Rochford. Right.
Ms. Schwartz. So are you getting questions from some of the
oil shipping companies saying what are you doing now going
forward, or any of the other shipping companies that bring in
fruit, for example? Are they saying wait a minute, at $30,000,
$40,000, or $50,000 a day, that is a big hit for me. I am not
willing to do it in the future.
Mr. Rochford. Well, a couple comments or observations.
Number one, I think those ship owners, charters, and very
importantly, cargo owners, they are the ones that really drive
this equation, I think looked at how this situation was handled
from Sunday through Monday or Tuesday. And the ability to begin
to start to move vessels as early as Sunday indicated that, you
know, we were open for business. And moving forward for that--
from that point of view, if you get to Tuesday, Wednesday, or
Thursday of that week, when the Captain opened the port up 24/
7, there was a quick ramp up. And to my earlier comments in why
the Coast Guard and the Pilots Association and the Maritime
Exchange put out two, or possibly three, statements, was to lay
those concerns. I think that is a very good question going
forward, and let me, as an example--and I don't think we are
there yet, but let me, as an example, give you a scenario where
I think there is long-term impact, and I think they have
suffered from it over the last year and a half or 2 years and
continue to suffer, and that is when the West Coast struck and
shut down all of the ports in California and Oregon and
Washington. We see, today, because of that, a diversion of--and
not just because of that reason, but that is something the
people talk about in the industry. We see a diversion of those
cargoes, including container ships, coming to Gulf, South
Atlantic, and some North Atlantic ports.So what we need to
avoid, and I think how this incident was handled, I would also
add the fact that there is Congressional interest in what can
we do to make sure it doesn't happen again demonstrates that we
are taking the kind of prudent steps that a cargo owner or a
ship owner or operator would want us to take. But we can never
let our guard down on that.
Ms. Schwartz. Well, I thank you. Those were my only
questions. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Rochford. Thank--you are welcome.
Mr. LoBiondo. Congressman Andrews?
Mr. Andrews. Thank you. And I would like to thank both
witnesses. It is very encouraging to hear the level of
cooperation between the business community, port community, and
environmental community on this issue, and it is heartening.
Dennis, if I may, I wanted to ask you a question. You
estimate the daily cost to operate a ship being $25,000 to
$40,000 in the low end for a general cargo ship daily up to
$250,000 a day for the post-Panamex class ships. What is a fair
estimate of the cost of operating one of the tankers, like the
one that created this problem?
Mr. Rochford. Well, it is not in the $250,000 range. They
are the larger VLCCs, the ones that are coming on line now. I
would just be guessing, but I am going to indicate it is
probably somewhere in the $50,000 to $100,000 range, but I can
get you that answer. I don't have that information--
Mr. Andrews. Yeah, I mean--
Mr. Rochford. --at my finger--
Mr. Andrews. --I am just really interested in a range.
Mr. Rochford. Yeah.
Mr. Andrews. I am interested in Eric's suggestion about
pursuing the idea of the minimum clearance. I have heard some
very experienced voices in the community talk about this as
well. If we adopted a policy that would not let these oil ships
up the river until the tide had reached a certain point above
low tide, what kind of cost impact does that have on the
operation of that ship? Is it--is this $75,000 or so broken
into 24 equal parts, so if it waits three more hours, it adds
1/8 to the cost? Do you following my reasoning? Does it work
that way?
Mr. Rochford. Well, it would work a couple of ways. Number
one is whatever the operating cost is, I am sure you can take
it and divide by 24.
Mr. Andrews. Yeah.
Mr. Rochford. But in the supply chain or, if you will, the
transportation chain coming up the Delaware River--
Mr. Andrews. There are costs, I am sure.
Mr. Rochford. There are any number of scheduling issues in
consideration as well as the cost of the facility in terms of
the inventory that they require. Let me say has been always the
discussion about how much water is under the--I think the other
point worth noting here is the level of sophistication that we
have in place on the Delaware River to move vessels up the
river, whether it is a fruit ship or an oil tanker. The Pilots
Association has invested millions upon millions of dollars in
the last 5 years and before that in enhanced radar down at the
Bay, the Delaware Bay. They have invested, if not millions,
hundreds of thousands of dollars in GPS capabilities, so every
pilot that gets on a ship in this river knows exactly where
they are in the channel and they also know who else is around
them. Every four years, every licensed--first-class licensed
pilot is--goes off for training and retraining. So in--from our
vantage point, from industry's vantage point, you know, if you
are running a port, deeper water is always better. That is why
I support the 45-foot channel. But--
Mr. Andrews. Oh, I didn't know you supported it.
Mr. Rochford. I had to get it in. You know I had to get it
in. But I believe we have--and take that a step back to--you
could say, well, Rochford, that is your judgment about the
pilots. Well, okay, it is. But I will tell you whose other
judgment it is. It is the people that are bringing those ships
up the Delaware River, the captains, the owners, and the
charters. And I would conclude by getting back to the other
point I made, and that is there needs to be a clear acceptance
of the fact that keeping the water at 40 feet is a federal
responsibility in this case, and I think there needs to be a
level of confidence that industry, from the tug operators to
the pilots to the ship masters and everybody else in the Coast
Guard that has responsibility to bring that vessel up or doing
the right job.
And very quickly, the other thing that we do have in place
is the port system. And I believe the funding for this year to
keep that system up and operational came through Pennsylvania.
But we still believe that is a federal responsibility.
Mr. Andrews. Yeah. I want to say, for the record, I agree
with you. The pilots do an outstanding job. Without them, the
river doesn't work. They are indispensable. I trust their
judgment on these things, and I think they do a great job. I
think one of the stories here is how many problems are avoided
because of their skill in the work that they do.
Mr. Rochford. I agree with that.
Mr. Andrews. I just want to explore Eric's point a bit that
if it costs $70,000 a day to run one of these, and if there is
a fair relationship of, you know, 1/24 for each hour, and if
you wait 3 or 4 hours for the tide to get a bit higher, you
know, you are talking about 12 or 15 percent of the cost, which
is $14,000, $15,000, $16,000. Now I understand there is--there
are costs on shore. There are scheduling issues at the
refineries, there are trucking issues, and so forth, that that
doesn't capture the full cost, but I venture to say there isn't
anybody here who wouldn't be in favor of having expended
another $20,000 or $30,000 on November the 16th to wait the few
hours, if that would have avoided this problem. Maybe one of
the ideas that we could pick up on what Eric talked about was
that if ships have very sophisticated technology that would
identify a hazard, maybe they don't have to go by these minimum
standards, but if they don't, they should, particularly when it
comes to oil. I am just--I am interested in exploring that
concept further.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. Thank you, Rob.
Dennis, I understood correctly that the shipping industry
was involved with representation to manage the vessel traffic
when all of this was taking place?
Mr. Rochford. In the what? Excuse me?
Mr. LoBiondo. In managing the vessel traffic for the port,
did the Coast Guard include--
Mr. Rochford. The vessel traffic system?
Mr. LoBiondo. Did the Coast Guard include the shipping
industry?
Mr. Rochford. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. LoBiondo. Yes.
Mr. Rochford. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay.
Mr. Rochford. As the Captain mentioned, Captain Linton was
part of the Unified Command--
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay.
Mr. Rochford. --on day one, and we were engaged and our
time was exchanged through the weekend in getting information
out. I didn't spend a lot of time over at the Unified Command,
but any number of industry representatives were there.
Mr. LoBiondo. I want to take just a moment, although he
wasn't on the panel. His name has been mentioned a couple of
times. Captain Mike Linton is here today. Captain, we thank you
for your expertise and your help in so many different areas
that we work with that are of critical importance to the
maritime industry.
Eric, I wanted to pursue for just a minute a concern that
Mannington Meadows and the bald eagle's nest were not on a
critical list. We are going to have to explore how that
information is updated, but I assume that it is safe to assume
that we would expect that you would be willing to help out if
there is a role that you can play in verifying the information
or helping to update what we already have?
Mr. Stiles. Yes, Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay.
Mr. Stiles. I think, again, when I worked for the DEP, we
updated our base annually, and I did exchange that with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It would seem that those two
agencies--that information is not being transported or
communicated at that same time interval with NOAA and with the
U.S. Coast Guard. Any help that we can have--offer in
supporting that and if a general, whether a council is formed
regarding the Delaware Bay and taking a look at some of these
issues, broader issues, we would love to help support.
Mr. LoBiondo. Sure. I just didn't want to make any false
assumptions there.
Well, I would like, at the conclusion, to thank my
colleagues for joining me today. I would like to thank Seaport
Museum for hosting us today and all of the panel members. I
think that while we have had some answers that were given, we
had, maybe, many more questions that were raised, and I will
assure you that we will be following up with specific
suggestions that we know we can move on legislatively sort of
in a quick manner. And we will be looking, although we haven't
set the dates, we were anticipating that we would have to have
additional hearings, and we certainly will be following up on
that. So once again, I thank everyone, and the hearing is
adjourned at 12:40.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0869.043