Oil Spill Pollution Act of 1990

Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (PL 101-380), referred to herein as OPA ’90, was a direct Congressional response to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. The Act had several impacts on emergency management and hazardous materials response, even while upgrading technical safety standards for tankers (e.g., mandating double hulling for new tankers).

In 1989 Senator Ted Stevens (Alaska) pushed the amendments of the Stafford Act in response to FEMA’s recommendation to the President not to declare a disaster under the authority of the Stafford Act. In a Senate appropriations hearing on May 1, 1989, FEMA officials testified that they interpreted the Stafford Act as not giving the President authority to respond if another statute authorized a federal response. Regarding the Exxon Valdez incident, the National Contingency Plan (NCP), authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33USC. § 1321), was triggered, and FEMA did not respond under the Stafford Act.

The NCP, a Memorandum of Agreement to which 16 federal agencies are signatories, is designed to respond to intentional or unintentional releases of oil or hazardous materials on land or water. There was, however, a requirement in place in OPA ’90 to update the NCP on a comprehensive basis. The NCP was completed in Sept. 1994 and codified and published at 40 CFR Part 300.

OPA ’90 also mandated a report to Congress on duplications, overlaps, and deficiencies in the federal response to hazardous materials releases. EPA submitted that report to Congress in Dec. 1993. Two key documents are: (1) Review of Federal Authorities for Hazardous Materials Accident Safety. Report to Congress Section 112(r)(10), Clean Air Act as Amended (Presidential Review), 12-01-93, 550-R-93-002 (2) Review of Emergency Systems, Report to Congress Section 305(b) Title III Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 Final Report, 6-01-88, OSWER 305B. Both are in hard copy only, available from EPA.

Additionally, EO 12580, delegating authority from the President to a number of departments and agencies and creating the National Response System, was amended after passage of OPA ’90 to reflect experience from the Valdez oil spill and administrative procedures connected with that incident. Nothing in the floor debates, committee hearings, committee reports or conference report on OPA”90 addressed hazardous materials releases caused by terrorists. Administratively, however, in the revisions to the NCP required by OPA’90, it was made clear that the NCP had full applicability in response to terrorism incidents/events. See E.O. 12580 of January 23, 1987, “Superfund Implementation” as amended by E.O. 12777 and E.O. 13016. See also President’s memorandum of August 19, 1993, 52 Fed. Reg. 2923, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp, p. 767.

In February 1998 and every year since, the subject of response to terrorist-related hazardous materials releases has been a principal issue at the annual meeting of the National Response Team co-chairs (EPA and USCG). E.O. 12580 of January 23, 1987, was originally published at 52 Fed Reg. 2923, 3 CFR 1987 comp., p. 193.

Wondering if terrorists might target offshore oil drilling rigs?

What did WH know and When did it know it?

It is now becoming apparent that the WH [White House] has consistently failed to appreciate the probable destruction of the Gulf Coast water related and energy related economy by the BP oil spill. Why? First, almost total reliance on information produced by BP for the first 5 weeks of the event! Second, the failure of the DOJ {Department of Justice}to file protective actions against BP concerning its reporting to the federal government and its data! Third, corruption of the federal reporting system by BP. Fourth, the clear lack of incident command caused by the continued reliance on HSPD-5 as the oil spill crisis command and control and response charter. Five, Congressional lack of understanding of how 40 CFR Part 300 mandates how the federal government responds in oil spills, and how substantially underfunded the Coast Guard (within DHS) and EPA are for this event.

What could be done? Authority to mobilize existing federal resources and assets could be done under the authority of the Defense Production Act of 1950, most recently extended for an addition 5 years last fall by legislation introduced on Senate floor by Senator Dodd, now soon to be ending his Senate career.
Bottom line, is that the BP oil spill is now likely to be the largest manmade contamination of a body of water on the surface of the earth in World History.

Folks, this is the big one, at least for the 21st century so far and will make 9/11/01 and Katrina look like child play. I am now willing to predict that while political fall out at the federal level was perhaps minimal from those two events, the BP oil spill will soon be recognized as requiring a massive assertion of national will if the Gulf States are to survive as political and economic parts of the federal system.
It would be interesting to know if the President of Mexico and President Obama discussed the spill at any length or any regard during the President of Mexico's recent visit. This should have topped immigration and drug enforcement but my guess did not.
Memorial Day will be one calibration point for this event but certainly by Labor Day and certainly by the 2010 Congressional elections this fall the BP event will cause revolutionary change in the Congress, IMO [In My Opinion]!

What do I mean by revolutionary change? The oil industries loyalists funded by big oil will start to be pariahs in the Congress and driven out. They have essentially controlled energy policy and transportation policy for over a century and now that is coming to a disasterous and complicated end. And as always could be wrong but don't think so as of this time.

Deepwater Horizon Catastrophe

The drill rig explosion and oil seepage may well rival Katrina Hurricane and its impact IMO. Follow news at Gulf of Mexico-Transocean Drilling Incident for best coverage. If you have trouble finding site let me know.

I posted and it was published a letter to the editor of the NATURAL HAZARDS OBSERVER concerning an article in the fall 2008 issue. The letter was published in the January 2009 Observer which is available on-line from the Center for Natural Hazards, Boulder Colorado or me. The letter concerned the Exxon-Valdez Accident and the Stafford Act.

If I was President I would already have declared an EMERGENCY under the Stafford Act pursuant to Section 501(b) of that statute. One thing we know after almost 18 months of this Administration it is not agile in its response to events.