Bill Overview
Title: Oil Spill Response Review Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the U.S. Coast Guard to develop and carry out a process to update its review of vessel response plans by increasing the collection and improving the quality of incident data on oil spill location and response capability. The bill also expands expenditure purposes of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office must conduct a study on Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency oversight of national, regional, and local area oil spill response frameworks.
Sponsors: Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: People living in coastal and marine areas and reliant on maritime health
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The bill primarily affects the capabilities of the U.S. Coast Guard, which supervises maritime activities and emergencies in U.S. waters.
- Coastal communities in the U.S. depend on healthy maritime environments and would benefit from improved oil spill responses.
- Marine transportation workers and industries related to oil transport, like shipping and offshore drilling, will be directly impacted.
- Environmental conservationists and organizations will also be stakeholders due to their interest in the environmental health related to oil spills.
Reasoning
- The policy predominantly focuses on enhancing oil spill response mechanisms, thereby affecting various stakeholders related to or living in coastal areas.
- The Coast Guard and local maritime industries will be directly influenced due to their operational changes and increased response capacities.
- Residents of coastal communities may experience an improved sense of safety and environmental quality, potentially boosting their wellbeing over time.
- While the policy's immediate direct effects are limited, its medium to long-term impacts could enhance the overall health of maritime ecosystems, beneficially impacting those reliant on these environments for livelihood or leisure.
- While the target population for this policy is expansive (e.g., coastal residents), not all will experience direct changes in their day-to-day lives, but may indirectly benefit from being part of safer and more sustainable environments.
- The budget constraints might limit the immediate scope of response improvements, impacting initial wellbeing changes.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisherman (Miami, Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a good step towards protecting our waters and, by extension, our job security.
- If they follow through on the promised data improvements and response enhancements, this could make a big difference for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Maritime Safety Analyst (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could significantly improve maritime safety, which is crucial for our work.
- Data and oversight improvements are vital for more effective spill responses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired (San Francisco, California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having lived through some devastating spills, I believe this action is overdue for safeguarding our waters.
- Any improvement in spill responses is a win for the environment and future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental Lawyer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill is a positive step, but more rigorous enforcement and follow-through are necessary.
- Improving data quality and accountability is essential for effectiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Shipping Company Manager (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might mean additional compliance costs, but improved spill response infrastructure could indirectly benefit our operations.
- We operate in environmentally sensitive areas; this could be beneficial in preventing costly spill incidents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Marine Biologist (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The improvement in response plans could be a game-changer for marine conservation.
- Better strategies are crucial for protecting marine biodiversity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Coast Guard Officer (Baltimore, Maryland)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The changes proposed will likely improve our operational effectiveness.
- It's crucial to be prepared and have sound response plans for spills.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Oil Rig Operator (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could improve our industry's reputation by bolstering safety measures.
- Preventative measures could substantially reduce environmental liability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Environmental Activist (Long Beach, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's promising to see steps being taken toward better spill management.
- We need continual pressure to ensure consistent action and accountability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Tourism Operator (Miami, Florida)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cleaner and safer waters are crucial for my business's success.
- This policy is a step toward ensuring long-term viability for eco-tourism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $9000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $11000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $7500000 (Low: $5500000, High: $9500000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $9000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The actual impact on both costs and savings depends heavily on the scale and frequency of oil spills and the effectiveness of the new measures.
- The long-term environmental benefits may provide indirect economic benefits not easily captured in initial estimates.
- Coordination between various federal agencies will be required to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.