Review of ICCOPR's 2022-2027 Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan (2023)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Review of ICCOPR’s 2022- 2027 Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan Committee to Review the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR) 2022-2027 Research and Technology Plan Ocean Studies Board Division on Earth and Life Studies PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs Consensus Study Report 

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the United States Coast Guard. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26780 This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of ICCOPR’s 2022-2027 Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26780. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www. nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www. nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

COMMITTEE ON THE REVIEW OF THE INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH (ICCOPR) 2022-2027 RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PLAN KENNETH LEE, Chair, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia JACQUELINE MICHEL, Vice-Chair, Research Planning Inc., Columbia, South Carolina ADRIANA C. BEJARANO, Shell Global Solutions US Inc., Houston, Texas MICHEL C. BOUFADEL, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark ABBAS FIROOZABADI (NAE), Rice University, Houston, Texas KURT HANSEN, Hansen Spill Response Research LLC, Mystic, Connecticut SERGIO D. KAPUSTA, Rice University, Houston, Texas DEBRA PAYTON, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (ret.), U.S. Department of the Interior, Woodinville, Washington Staff KELLY OSKVIG, Study Director, Ocean Studies Board GRACE CALLAHAN, Program Assistant (until June 2022) SAFAH WYNE, Program Assistant (from September 2022) THANH NGUYEN, Financial Business Partner v PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

OCEAN STUDIES BOARD CLAUDIA BENITEZ-NELSON, Chair, University of South Carolina, Columbia MARK R. ABBOTT, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts ROSANNA ‘ANOLANI ALEGADO, University of Hawai’i, Manoa CAROL ARNOSTI, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill AMY BOWER, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts LISA M. CAMPBELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina THOMAS S. CHANCE, ASV Global, LLC (ret.), Broussard, Louisiana DANIEL COSTA, University of California, Santa Cruz JOHN R. DELANEY, University of Washington (ret.), Seattle TIMOTHY GALLAUDET, Ocean STL Consulting, LLC, North Beach, Maryland SCOTT GLENN, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey MARCIA ISAKSON, The University of Texas at Austin LEKELIA JENKINS, Arizona State University, Tempe NANCY KNOWLTON (NAS), Smithsonian Institution (ret.), Washington, District of Columbia ANTHONY MacDONALD, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, New Jersey GALEN McKINLEY, Columbia University, Palisades, New York THOMAS J. MILLER, University of Maryland, Solomons S. BRADLEY MORAN, University of Alaska Fairbanks RUTH PERRY, Shell Exploration & Production Company, Houston, Texas DEAN ROEMMICH, Scripps Institute of Oceanography (ret.), Solana Beach, California JAMES SANCHIRICO, University of California, Davis MARK J. SPALDING, The Ocean Foundation, Washington, District of Columbia PAUL WILLIAMS, Squamish Indian Tribe, Seattle, Washington Staff SUSAN ROBERTS, Director STACEE KARRAS, Senior Program Officer KELLY OSKVIG, Senior Program Officer EMILY TWIGG, Senior Program Officer VANESSA CONSTANT, Program Officer (through September 2022) CAROLINE BELL, Associate Program Officer THANH NGUYEN, Financial Business Partner LEIGHANN MARTIN, Research Associate ELIZABETH COSTA, Senior Program Assistant GRACE CALLAHAN, Program Assistant (through June 2022) SAFAH WYNE, Program Assistant vi PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

Acknowledgments T he committee would like to thank United States Coast Guard staff who helped with the project, especially Ricardo Alonso, Christopher Bodner, Belinda Djeha, Clifton Graham, and Tracy Wirth­. The committee would also like to thank the ICCOPR R&T Workgroup and the University of New Hampshire Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC)—these groups participated in the committee public meetings and served as a valuable resource to the committee throughout the study process, specifically Cliff Graham (United States Coast Guard), Lisa DiPinto (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Eric Miller (Bureau of Safety and Environ- mental Enforcement), Robyn Conmy (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), and Nancy Kinner and Katie Perry (CRRC). Several others participated in the committee’s public meetings, enriching the committee’s discussion with additional perspectives on oil spill science. The committee wishes to thank Paul Schuler (Oil Spill Response Limited), Scott Fields, M.J. Lewandowski, and Karin Messenger (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund), Tim Nedwed (American Petroleum Institute), Kevin Hoskins (Marine Spill Response Corporation), Brent Koza (Texas General Land Office), Bernie Goldstein (­University of Pittsburgh), and Leisel Ritchie (Virginia Tech). This Consensus Study Report was reviewed as a draft by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide can- did and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: THOMAS COOLBAUGH, Ohmsett Applied Research Associates SARAH GLITZ, Oceana STEVEN LEHMANN, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (ret.) EDWIN LEVINE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (ret.) vii PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS STEPHEN MONISMITH, Stanford University MONICA PHILIPPART, Ergonomics Human Factors Solutions CHRISTOPHER REDDY, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by MARY FEELEY, ExxonMobil Exploration Company (ret.), and DAVID DZOMBAK, Carnegie Mellon University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was car- ried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

Contents PREFACE xi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xiii SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 7 Interagency Coordination Committee on Oil Pollution Research, 8 Oil Pollution Risks, 8 Origin and Evolution of the Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan and Review, 10 Study Approach, 12 Report Organization, 14 2 EVALUATION OF THE R&T PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 15 Framework for the R&T Plan, 15 Identification of Research Needs, 17 Prioritization of Research Needs, 22 Plan Development 6-Year Cycle, 24 R&T Plan Report Structure, 25 Conclusions and Recommendation, 26 3 EVALUTION OF THE R&T PLAN CONTENT 29 Adequacy of Research Priorities Identified, 29 Adherence to Congressional Requirements, 32 Conclusions and Recommendation, 35 ix PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

x CONTENTS 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE R&T PLAN 37 Communication of the R&T Plan, 37 Cooperation, Coordination, and Collaboration in Advancing Research, 39 Performance Evaluation, 40 Obstacles to Implementation, 43 Conclusions and Recommendations, 44 REFERENCES 47 APPENDIX: COMMITTEE BIOGRAPHIES 49 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

Preface T he National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) were asked to provide advice and guidance to the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR) on ICCOPR’s 2022-2027 Research and Technology Plan. This review is important, not only because it was mandated in authorizing legislation, but also because it comes at a critical time as new regions of oil and gas exploration, production, and trans- portation are being developed. Much has been learned in the 12 years since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the northern Gulf of Mexico—an event that triggered extensive research focused on subsea releases and the impacts on a very wide range of natural and socioeconomic resources in the region. However, much more remains to be learned through continuing research and develop- ment projects that build on this knowledge base. Oil pollution research is expensive and requires long-term commitments to achieve the goals of improving prevention, preparedness, response, and injury assessment and restoration. Thus, close coordination among the agencies and organizations that sponsor and conduct oil pollution research, and agreement on research priorities, are some of the keys to success. This need to coordinate and leverage funding resources applies to organiza- tions within the United States and internationally, particularly in the Arctic and deep-sea regions. Acknowledging the need to develop more effective tools for oil spill response, understand and monitor their effects, and train the next generation of oil spill response experts, this report suggests methods to fill the gaps attributed to a reduction in spill response personnel as the frequency of large spills (e.g., tankers at sea) have declined and as experienced scientists and responders retire. This report also highlights the need to update and refine risk assessment methods to improve preparedness, which involves improvements in the ability to accurately predict the behavior, fate, and effects (acute and chronic) of various types of oils in the environment under different scenarios, as well as the development of enhanced technologies and safety protocols. The long-term effects of oil spills remain a concern. Debates over the ecological impacts from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are still ongoing, and it is now recognized that we must also consider the effect of oil spills at the population, community, and ecosystem levels, as discussed in the 2022 National Academies report, Oil in the Sea IV. In particular, the lack of adequate baseline data limits our knowledge of the xi PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

xii PREFACE environmental impact of spilled oil in high-risk and poorly understood areas (e.g., Arctic waters, the deep ocean and shores, inland rivers and wetlands); our understanding of these systems’ ­natural variability and resilience and their response to climate change is incomplete; and programs to moni- tor the environmental effects of spills are insufficient. Given the difficulties in using new technologies during training exercises, drills, or actual events, it would be beneficial to engage the operational responder community in the development and testing of new or improved technologies. This engagement could lead the operational responder community to incorporate new technologies into their response portfolios. Validation and evaluation of the effectiveness of emerging and current oil spill countermeasures with a range of crude oil types under field conditions (field trials/spills of opportunity) would enhance acceptance by both regulators and end users. This report also explores limitations in the establishment of research networks among govern- ment agencies, academia, industry, and other organizations to promote the sharing of expertise, reduce duplication of research effort, and enhance interoperability during response operations. The committee discussed different outreach mechanisms to improve sharing and awareness, such as dashboards and dedicated workshops and sessions at conferences. We want to thank the committee members, who shared their extensive knowledge and time, and the individuals and groups listed in the acknowledgments, who provided their expertise and ­perspectives. The Ocean Studies Board staff provided excellent support that made our remote collaborations during the COVID-19 pandemic effective. In particular, Kelly Oskvig, the Study ­Director, guided the committee through the challenges of discussing and writing the report remotely. The committee also wishes to thank other staff who assisted the committee during the study pro- cess: Caroline Bell, Leighann Martin, and Susan Roberts. It was an honor to work with the com- mittee, the project sponsors, and the National Academies staff. We look forward to seeing the next ICCOPR Research and Technology Plan. Kenneth Lee, Chair Jacqueline Michel, Vice-Chair Committee to Review the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR) 2022-2027 Research and Technology Plan PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

Acronyms and Abbreviations BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement CRRC Coastal Response Research Center (of University of New Hampshire) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ICCOPR Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research NAS National Academy of Sciences NDAA National Defense Authorization Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRC National Research Council OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 OSLTF Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund R&D research and development R&T Plan ICCOPR Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan ROI return on investment SME subject-matter expert SRA Standing Research Area TRL technology readiness level xiii PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs 

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs