Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
U.S. COAST GUARD ICEBREAKING MISSION
Wednesday, March 29, 2000
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Committee Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.,
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. GILCHREST. The Transportation Subcommittee will come to order. We appreciate Rear Admiral Riutta coming this morning to testify, and Mr. Glasgow.
The hearing this morning will be on the icebreaking responsibilities and capabilities of the U.S. Coast Guard. We'll ask questions concerning the icebreaking issues involving the Great Lakes, the East Coast of the United States, the international responsibilities for the Coast Guard, and the fascinating Coast Guard icebreaking capabilities at the North Pole and the Antarctic.
The Ranking Member and myself have visited the Antarctic. I was on the Polish Star, and I think you were also on the Polish Star. It's a magnificent region of the world. The Coast Guard does a stunning, stellar job down there, and we want to ensure that the jurisdiction that the Coast Guard has with icebreaking along the East Coast of the United States, especially from Virginia up to Maine, are maintained adequately for mostly commercial activities.
The Great Lakes is an important economic region of the world and we want to ensure that the Coast Guard's capabilities there are intact, well-funded, and that the new icebreaker is delivered on time and does its job.
Recently, the Coast Guard built Icebreaker HEALY which is now underway, to the West Coast from Baltimore, the U.S. Coast Guard HEALY was quite admirably honored over the weekend by the former chair of this subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina, who set sail from Baltimore to Annapolis. He probably will tell us a few things about that. He was a little upset that the present chairman of the committee wasn't present at the time on the HEALY, but I had a horse riding activity scheduled with my daughter.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But anyway, gentlemen, we look forward to you testimony this morning, and we as a subcommittee will ensure that we do all we can to make sure that the Coast Guard has the adequate resources to make America proud.
I now yield to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from the panel. I did recently have the opportunity to spend an afternoon and evening on the POLAR STAR in Antarctica and was impressed by the crew and the operations there, and will look forward to learning more about, you know, the future of icebreaking activities on the part of the Coast Guard, and I have a prepared statement that I would insert in the record.
Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, you said I was a little upset that you were absent. I was really upset that you and the ranking member weren't aboard the HEALY on Saturday. That was a very fine experience.
Mr. Chairman, pardon my immodesty, but as the late Dizzy Dee used to say, if you can do it, it ain't bragging. I have been one of the most vocal and most supportive advocates of the significance of the Coast Guard's icebreaking mission than anybody in Congress. I'll take second place to no one.
I am an alumnus of the icebreaker fleet. As you may know, I served aboard the North Wind, which reminded me of an antique vessel compared to the HEALY. But it is a very significant and important mission, and I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, you and the gentleman from Oregon staging this hearing today.
Unfortunately, I have a simultaneous hearing going on in Judiciary, so I may have to go back and forth, but I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if I could. To respond to Mr. Coble's comment, I was in my district on official business, which is a couple of thousand miles away. Otherwise, I certainly would have been happy to be there. But I note that the ship is going to be in Seattle in the not too distant future, and I look forward to opportunities to being on board the ship on the West Coast. I would love to do the Northern Passage, but I don't think we can get official leave to take that much time.
Mr. COBLE. Would the gentleman yield just a minute?
Mr. Chairman, when I said I was upset with you and the gentleman from Oregon, I didn't mean that in an angry way, I meant it in a disappointed way. But you were ably represented by the staffer who was aboard on Saturday.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Coble.
Mr. DeFazio and I are vying for first place—I know that will make the Coast Guard feel good—as far as supporters of the Coast Guard.
The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor?
Mr. Baird?
Thank you for coming this morning, Admiral, and we look forward to your testimony. You may begin.
TESTIMONY BY RADM ERNEST R. RIUTTA, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD; CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER RICHARD W. GLASGOW, U.S COAST GUARD ACTIVITIES, NEW YORK
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I'm Rear Admiral Ray Riutta, Coast Guard's Assistant Commandant for Operations. I have with me this morning Chief Warrant Officer Richard Glasgow, who is the Ice Operations Officer in Activities, New York, who should be able to shed some more light and more detail on our activities up there this past winter.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Coast Guard's Icebreaking program. I would like to start by thanking you for your support of the President's budget, which has enabled us to get the funding we critically needed for our equipment in the form of the replacement for one of our oldest ships, the U.S.C.G.C. MACKINAW, which operates on the Great Lakes, and for three 225-foot buoy tenders.
I also wanted to emphasize the importance of the funds in Fiscal Year 2001 budget that are vital for continued operation of our fleet of 11 65-foot harbor tugs. These are critical for successful East Coast icebreaking operations as we saw just this past winter.
The icebreaking program has three key components: domestic icebreaking, polar icebreaking, and the operation of the International Ice Patrol. I would like to summarize briefly each of these and impress upon you the longstanding and long-lasting value each mission has for our nation.
Domestic icebreaking is mandated by Executive Order 7521 dated December 24th, 1936, that directs the Coast Guard to assist in keeping channels and harbors open to navigation by means of icebreaking operations so that reasonable demands of commerce can be satisfied. It is conducted essentially in the Chesapeake Bay northward to Maine, and on the Great Lakes.
In a typical winter, icebreaking is vital for the movement of all manner of goods for both major ports and inland communities. Without a robust icebreaking capability, waterborne commerce would simply come to a halt. The impact would be felt in major metropolitan areas such as Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, which depend on marine transportation of petroleum for heating and power generation as well as on the Eastern Shore of Maryland where waterborne carriers are the primary link, not only so oil, but for basic consumer goods as well, particularly in the island communities, as you know so well, Mr. Chairman.
During this past winter, for example, our icebreakers escorted barges and tugs carrying 43 million gallons of heating oil to 17 communities along the Hudson River in New York. In the Northeast, more than 120 oil carriers were assisted through the ice, and more than 100 shoreside facilities were cleared of ice to allow deliveries to get through.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The critical nature of these shipments was well illustrated during the severe winter of 1996, when both Pennsylvania and New Jersey were forced to declare states of emergency when all oil supplies became critically low, even with our fleet working at full capacity.
On the Great Lakes, there are seven key waterways that must be kept navigable during the winter when ice formation restricts or prohibits ship movements. In an average year, over 100 million metric ton of domestic cargo moves on the Great Lakes. During most winters, the Great Lakes Icebreaking Program allows shipping to continue for an additional six to eight weeks, enabling an additional 10 to 12 million tons of cargo to be shipped over ice-covered waters. Overall, this effort on the Great Lakes saves the industry about $78 million a year in stockpiling and warehousing costs.
In the polar regions, Coast Guard heavy icebreakers are the sole United States surface ships capable of creating channels through eight-foot-thick ice to enable tankers and bulk cargo ships to resupply remote stations in the Arctic and the Antarctic. These facilities serve diverse national interests, including research activities in the South Pole region and maintaining routes to a critical Air Force base in Greenland for national security purposes.
These Polar icebreakers give the Nation the capability to respond to search and rescue cases in the high latitudes. They also provide a limited capability to respond to oil spill incidents in these remote regions, which are increasingly becoming sources of oil exploration.
The recently released report by the Interagency Task Force on U.S. Coast Guard Roles and Missions validated the Polar Icebreaking mission as being a key element in the country's national security and mobility picture.
With the commissioning of our newest polar icebreaker, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter HEALY, the Nation will gain a third multimission resource with a unique scientific support capability. Unlike the older Polar class ships built in the 1970's, HEALY was designed from the keel up as a science platform with multimission capabilities.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Starting in 2001, HEALY will give Arctic researchers a dedicated laboratory from which to study a variety of scientific disciplines, including complex climatological systems that impact the entire globe. HEALY is also capable of carrying out other Polar class and Coast Guard support missions.
Our third ice-related mission is the operation of the International Ice Patrol. The Ice Patrol was established following the Titanic disaster in order to locate, track and report the limits of the iceberg fields off Newfoundland. It is mandated by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and by U.S. law.
A total of 18 nations contribute to support this service. This little-known operation involves the use of Coast Guard C–130 aircraft with side and forward looking radar sensors to patrol the North Atlantic from February to July to locate the boundaries of the ice field. This information is then provided to all mariners transiting between Europe and the United States and Canada.
Since its inception, there have been no iceberg collisions by ships cooperating with the International Ice Patrol's warning system.
Analysis has also shown that the United States shipping companies benefit from this system by a factor greater than five times the cost of the Coast Guard's share for supporting the International Ice Patrol. This is gained through the ability to plan optimal ship routes rather than having to resort to more conservative tracks that would create longer transits and greater costs.
I have provided a quick overview of the Coast Guard's Icebreaking Program. As noted earlier, the recently released report by the Interagency Task Force on Coast Guard Roles and Missions validated the requirement for the polar mission, and for the International Organization endorsed the continued need for International Ice Patrol in December of 1998.
On the domestic front, recent experience in the Chesapeake Bay, the Northeast and the Great Lakes clearly demonstrates the need for icebreakers to keep our ports and waterways open and active on a year-round basis.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues with you today. I will be happy to answer any questions you or members of the subcommittee may have.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Glasgow.
Mr. GLASGOW. Yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. Good morning.
Mr. GLASGOW. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am Chief Warrant Officer Richard W. Glasgow of the Coast Guard Activities, New York Operations Department. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Among my duties is the coordination of all Coast Guard icebreaking operations on the Hudson River and in the Activities New York area of responsibility. Icebreaking in this area usually takes place between December 15th and the middle of March. During that time, five Coast Guard cutters perform icebreaking duties from Sandy Hook, New Jersey, north to Troy, New York.
Approximately four million people live in communities that adjoin the river's shoreline from New York City north to Albany and Troy, a distance of 150 miles. Seventy percent of their homes are heated by fuel oil. The region depends upon the ready availability of heating oil as there is never more than a four-day supply usually on hand. Between December 15th and March 20th of this winter, approximately 509 million gallons of petroleum products, gasoline, fuel oil, kerosene, and diesel fuel, were delivered by barge to Albany, Troy, Newburg, and more than a dozen other cities.
Close to three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of product arrived safely despite the generally heavy ice that covered the Hudson River in January and February. As a direct result of the Coast Guard's continuous icebreaking efforts, all 274 petroleum-bearing barges that started the trip up river made it through the ice. Ninety-two of these vessels required further icebreaking services to free them from the ice. The Coast Guard cleared the approaches to 77 shoreline facilities. Had the Hudson River remained closed to barge traffic during this winter's harshest freeze, it would have taken over 21,000 tank truck loads to move this petroleum, significantly increasing the cost, assuming that the trucks were even available to make these deliveries.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
From January 13th almost through all of February, the Hudson River was completely frozen from West Point to Troy. Along with freeing barges and tugs stuck in the ice, the cutters completed traditional flood mitigation missions. They kept the river choke points open and the ice flowing through bottlenecks to prevent ice dams and flooding during the spring thaws. Had spring flooding occurred without the maintenance of proper flow, many communities would have been inundated. The loss of life and property would have been a possibility.
As the Coast Guard has done since 1936, it ensured the Hudson River stayed open to commercial petroleum barge traffic. This mission has a direct, positive impact on the physical and economic well-being of millions of people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify before you today. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Glasgow.
Mr. GLASGOW. Yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Glasgow, could commercial and barge traffic, in your judgment, safely operate on the East Coast without these 11 65-foot tugs, the icebreakers?
Mr. GLASGOW. No, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is there any commercial activity that could replace these eleven harbor tugs?
Mr. GLASGOW. As far as icebreaking, sir?
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.
Mr. GLASGOW. Not that we're aware of, no, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. Admiral Riutta, I guess your answer would be the same, that the commercial and barge traffic on the East Coast could not function the way they do now if these eleven 65-foot tugs were decommissioned?
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. And there are no plans by the Administration to decommission these vessels in 2001.
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. No, sir, we have no plans to decommission these vessels.
Mr. GILCHREST. Due to the age of these vessels, are there any long-range plans in the Coast Guard to replace these vessels?
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. We are beginning what we call the mission analysis phase right now to start looking at replacing these vessels. Right now, we have a lot of other things on the books and we've got to get our older vessels replaced first, and then we'll start working on these. But we are beginning to look at that, and over the course of the next few years, we will have developed a plan to replace these vessels in the future.
Mr. GILCHREST. Can you explain, Admiral, and maybe Mr. Glasgow, the significance of these particular vessels, the 65-foot tugs, as far as problems with flooding is concerned. Are they a major contributor to alleviating that problem along the East Coast?
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. I would like to let Mr. Glasgow respond, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GLASGOW. Yes, sir. Actually, the 65-footers, particularly the three that I work with in New York—those are the ones that I'm most familiar with, on the Hudson River, when the ice is up so much up there, if they don't break the ice to free it so that the ice flows down the river, what happens during the spring thaw is that the ice is backed up, the water melts, causing the communities to be flooded.
There are areas particularly where only the 65-footers can get to. The other icebreakers that we have available are 140-foot icebreakers, and because the height of their mast precludes them from getting under most of the bridges north of Albany, they're limited to just clearing the ice south of Albany. So the 65-footers are of primary importance for flood mitigation.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Thank you.
There's eleven 65-foot small harbor tugs between Virginia and Maine, and I think you mentioned where they are located in most places, but two are stationed in Pennsylvania. Where are they in Pennsylvania? Are they on the Delaware River?
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. They're in Philadelphia, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. Philadelphia. And where is the one in Maine? There's three in Maine.
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. There are, sir. I can submit that for the record.
Mr. GILCHREST. That would be fine.
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. I can look up the answer. I just don't remember the names off the top of my head. If that would be OK.
Mr. GILCHREST. There was discussion on decommissioning these eleven tugs, and periodically there's discussions about decommissioning a number of vessels in the Coast Guard. Most of that is to save money and put it into other important areas.
A few years ago, there was a discussion about decommissioning for purposes of saving money the two Polar Class Icebreakers. Is there any discussion that you are aware of about the U.S. or the Coast Guard or the Administration eliminating that capability or that responsibility for the Coast Guard?
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. No, sir, we are not under any—we have no plans to do that and certainly haven't been involved in any discussions to decommission the polar breakers.
Mr. GILCHREST. If there were discussions, I think this subcommittee would probably oppose it rather vigorously.
The Coast Guard wants a reimbursement from the National Science Foundation of $7.8 million. Over the past number of years, the National Science Foundation reimbursed the Coast Guard $2.5 million for its activities.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Is there any reason for the increase in reimbursement from the National Science Foundation for the Coast Guard's icebreaking capabilities?
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. Well, the reason, sir, is because that money was removed from our budget and placed in the National Science Foundation's budget.
Mr. GILCHREST. Pardon?
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. That money was removed from our budget and placed in the National Science Foundation's budget.
Mr. GILCHREST. So that extra $7.8 million that you're being reimbursed from the National Science Foundation was originally taken out of the Coast Guard's budget and put in the National——
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. The $7.8 million you refer to is the money that we use to operate the polar breakers. That money was placed in the National Science Foundation's budget in order for them to reimburse us for operating the Polar Ice Breakers above and beyond what they already reimburse us now.
Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, I see. So they didn't——
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. If the money doesn't come back to us, then we're going to have a significant——
Mr. GILCHREST. So you lose it.
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA.—problem because we're still going to have to maintain and operate the Polar Ice Breakers, and if for some reason the National Science Foundation chose not to provide that $7.8 million back to us, then we would be just forced to, you know, to eat those operating expenses out of a base that's already been depleted by that amount.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Is there any problem with the international icebreaking on the North Atlantic shipping lanes as far as other nations contributing an amount of money that the formula requires? Does the U.S. get reimbursed for that?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. The U.S. gets reimbursed directly to the Treasury. It comes back—it's collected by the State Department. I know there have been some problems from time to time, but we don't track that money because——
Mr. GILCHREST. So that money doesn't go back into the Coast Guard;——
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. Sir, it does not.
Mr. GILCHREST.—that money goes into the general treasury.
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. That's correct. And it's done that way because frequently it takes several years to get the reimbursement process through, so if we were to rely on that on an annual basis, it would be so unpredictable that we wouldn't really be able to count on it. So it's into our base, it's part of our operating funds, and the U.S. Treasury is reimbursed by way of the State Department for that operation.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Thank you.
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. Sure.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Now following up on that, Admiral, I understand that some of the flag countries, particularly Liberia, are refusing to pay; is that correct?
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. I don't know, sir. I know there are 18 countries that do contribute and I don't know if Liberia is one of those or not. We can find out and submit that for the record if you would like, sir.
21[The information follows:]
Eighteen countries are signatory to the International Ice Patrol Agreement (IIP). Participating nations include Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, the United States, and Yugoslavia. The reimbursement amounts are based on the tonnage shipped across the North Atlantic each year. Non-signatory nations benefit from the IIP broadcasts and pay nothing for this service. Liberia is one of them. The State Department has been discussing this inequity with the International Maritime Organization, but there is no remedy negotiated to date.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DEFAZIO. That's my understanding, and I would like to have that confirmed. It causes me concern that these phony nations or flag states are basically undermining us in a whole lot of ways in terms of stricter standards and safety, and if they are refusing to pay their share, whoever constitutes the so-called flag state of Liberia now—I'm not sure—I think they moved from Virginia to New York, didn't they? I think Liberia has moved up to New York.
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. I believe they have, but I'm not certain where their flag is located.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. That's an outrage, and I would want to find some way to make them pay their fair share. So I would certainly like to know that.
As I understand it, this is still—despite satellite transmissions and detection and all that, there is still validity in the continuation of this program?
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. That's correct, sir. You really have to get down and tag these icebergs to be sure you know where they're at. A satellite gives you a picture, but it doesn't give you all of it. It's still a valid mission.
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Well, I would be very concerned if they are not paying their fair share.
With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maine, who is going to refer to the next panel, which he'll be unable to attend.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much, Mr. DeFazio, and thank the committee for the indulgence and also for having our city engineer from the Bangor, Maine and the director of public services, Mr. Jim Ring, here relative to this issue. I want to compliment the Chair and the committee for holding these hearings because they're vitally important.
Just for the Chairman's information, the three tugs are located in Southwest Harbor, South Portland, and Rockland are where the three are located. And they are vitally important for the very reasons the study and the Chairman have recognized, and I will work with you to make sure that we continue to get the flow of petroleum products to the Northeast during the vitally important times and sensitive times.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I thank the Chairman and I have a statement for the record and thank the gentleman from Bangor for being here today.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. TAYLOR. We have a lot of ice problems in Mississippi, so I'm glad you came to the hearing.
[Laughter.]
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Baird.
Mr. BAIRD. Just very briefly. I've been told by various shipbuilding industries or companies that there have been some problems with maintenance on various icebreaking vessels. I'm not fully informed of the details of that, but I wondered if you could comment on the maintenance and repair of the various vessels.
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. Yes, sir. Let me start with the polars and work my way down, if I may.
The polar class vessels were built in 1970 and they're getting old, and as ships get older, they're tougher and tougher to maintain. We have what we call a Polar Icebreaking Rehabilitation Project, what we call the Polar RIP, that in between deployments, we take the ships into a major yard to try to maintain them as best we can and replace old systems. This has stretched out over many years because we only have two or have only had two for a long time, and you just can't take them out of commission for a couple, three years or you won't be able to meet your mission requirements. So trying to maintain those vessels and keep them working at their normal operating tempo is very, very difficult, but we're doing it.
U.S.C.G.C MACKINAW of course, is a very old ship. We're preparing to replace her and we have a project moving along very smartly to do that and hope to replace her in 2005.
The WTGBs, which are icebreaking tugs, are relatively new, in fairly good shape, and are operating very well. The WYTLs, which we've heard about a number of times today already, are getting old. We're still able to maintain them, but we're looking at maybe five to seven or eight more years and we'll have to replace them, and they will become more expensive as time goes on.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Pressures in our maintenance accounts have caused us to restrict some of the maintenance on all of these vessels below that which we would like to keep them at. We are doing what's necessary to keep them operating and running safely, but in the case of the WYTLs, for example, I believe this year we had to postpone one of the yard availabilities. Wasn't that, Mr. Glasgow——
Mr. GLASGOW. The U.S.C.G.C. WIRE.
Rear ADMIRAL RIUTTA. On the Coast Guard Cutter WIRE because we simply didn't have enough funds in our maintenance account to do it.
Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Baird.
We have a vote, so we'll take a 15-minute recess, and I don't think there are any further questions for Admiral Riutta or Mr. Glasgow. Gentlemen, thank you so much for coming down. Just a note on that U.S.C.G.C. POLAR STAR: Admiral Riutta and I and a number of other people were down there a couple of years ago, and it is quite an extraordinary activity and it's a great adventure for those young Coast Guardsmen.
Again, Admiral, thank you for coming. Mr. Glasgow. I appreciate your testimony this morning.
We'll take a 15-minute recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. GILCHREST. The subcommittee will come to order.
Mr. Ryan, the President, Lake Carriers' Association, we appreciate you making the trip out here today, sir, and we look forward to your testimony. You may begin.
TESTIMONY BY GEORGE J. RYAN, PRESIDENT, LAKE CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. RYAN. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chairman.
I know everyone in this room recognizes that the United States Coast Guard is one of the most valuable agencies of our Government. Its many and varied missions benefit virtually every citizen of this country.
By the way, sir, my comments are supported by the American Maritime Officers, the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, the American Great Lakes Ports, and many others too numerous to mention on the Great Lakes.
I can assure you we on the Great Lakes value U.S. Coast Guard's extensive role on the inland seas, but if I had to select one function which is most important in the winter, it surely would be the domestic icebreaking.
Without adequate Coast Guard icebreaking resources, Great Lakes shipping could not fulfill its mission of supplying the region's raw material needs. The ice that forms on the Great Lakes is a formidable opponent even for vessels with ice-strengthened hulls and 20,000 shaft horsepower engines packed in those hulls. The plate ice that blankets the open Lakes and the connecting channels can reach thicknesses of three to four feet, with windrows growing to 12 to 15 feet in height, and that's a very inhospitable environment, but our region and the national economy demands that cargo move under these conditions.
To give you an idea of the volume of cargo moving during the periods of ice cover—and by they way, it's iron ore, coal, stone, cement—in 1996/97, we moved 16.6 million tons; in 95/96, 18.4 million tons; 94/95, 20.4 million tons. These cargo totals are impressive, but their true value requires a little bit of explanation.
Take for instance the iron ore statistics. Those totals represent anywhere from 15 to 20 percent of all the iron ore that's carried during that particular navigation season. The coal, stone and cement totals likewise account for a significant portion of the season.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In our table that's in the testimony, it omits the past two winters. We, like much of the rest of the country, have been experiencing very mild winters of late, so ice coverage has been unusually light. It would be misleading to include those totals in this testimony.
I hasten to add, however, no one expects these mild weather conditions to last forever, so we will have harsh winters again. It was only a few years ago that the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker MACKINAW was leading convoys across frozen Lake Superior at the beginning and the end of the season. In fact, so severe was the winter of 95/96 that the MACKINAW did not stop icebreaking until the first week of May. Just think of that—the baseball season was fully one month in play and we still needed icebreaking on the Lakes.
The importance and thus the justification for the Coast Guard icebreaking mission has historically been tied to the domestic steel industry, and that is still so. As the statistics provided illustrate, iron ore for the steel industry is still the primary cargo moving during the ice season. More than 70 percent of the nation's steel-making capacity is located in the Great Lakes basin. In order to compete with foreign suppliers of steel, American steel mills must seize on every economy. Our ability to move iron ore from early March until late January significantly reduces the stockpiling costs and thus helps preserve those family-sustaining jobs for more than 125,000 steelworkers in the basin and 8,000 iron ore miners in Michigan and Minnesota, not to mention the 2,500 American mariners working on the Great Lakes.
However, the strong economy of the '90's has required a longer shipping season for just about every major cargo. The low-sulfer Western coal trade now routinely starts from Superior, Wisconsin in mid-March and continues into January. The cement shipping industry mirrors that of coal. Any deficiency in Great Lakes icebreaking would hinder overseas trade on the Fourth Seacoast as well.
The bottom line, then, is that domestic icebreaking is a service to many industries that, in turn, power the Great Lakes region, our nation's industrial heartland. Congress has always recognized this fact, and we thank you for that support.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We seek authorization and appropriations for the construction of this new multipurpose vessel with icebreaking capability equal to the MACKINAW. This new vessel will be a multimission asset. Unlike the MACKINAW, the new buoytender/icebreaker will be capable of placing and maintaining Aids to Navigation, Search and Rescue Missions, and other Coast Guard responsibilities.
I would like to stress one other point about the new buoytender/icebreaker. The vessel will not only be a wise investment, it will be a long-term investment. The Great Lakes is a freshwater environment, so a properly maintained hull can have an almost indefinite life span. There is no reason why this new ship can't be breaking ice efficiently when the 131st Congress is in session, and decades after that.
In summary, the Coast Guard has many vital missions, but from a Great Lakes perspective, icebreaking is certainly one of the essential Federal responsibilities.
Sir, I would be available for any questions you might have.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
How was this past winter?
Mr. RYAN. Sir, I think I have more ice in this cup than I have in Lake Erie.
Mr. GILCHREST. Right now?
Mr. RYAN. We had a very mild winter. Cleveland itself where I live is five degrees warmer than average for the first three months of the year.
Mr. GILCHREST. So there is no ice now anywhere in the Great Lakes region?
Mr. RYAN. No, we do have some ice in the bays, in the connecting channels. We have it in Whitefish Bay, but not navigationally significant.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. RYAN. Icebreaking was conducted in order to break the channel in St. Mary's River, it was used to break out Duluth Superior Harbor, but with the warm weather that followed, we began moving, because we started moving on March the 16th out of Duluth Superior with coal for Marquette.
Mr. GILCHREST. Was the MACKINAW used much this season?
Mr. RYAN. It was used at the beginning of the season, yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. And the smaller vessels were able to deal with some of the smaller channels and much of the ice problems?
Mr. RYAN. Yes, they were. In the lower lakes of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, there wasn't any need at the opening of the season. They were needed at the close of the season, at the beginning of January when we had some ice that was built up, and some of the small movements of barges, oil barges, required their assistance.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is there any commercial icebreaking activity at all up there?
Mr. RYAN. Sir, there are some who will offer that service, but it's inadequate to perform the task when we have a cold winter. It would be remiss of me to say that this winter, commercial couldn't have handled it, but when we have a winter—when we have a 1993/94 winter or a 95/96 winter, no, commercial icebreaking could not handle it.
Mr. GILCHREST. How do the commercial icebreaking vessels get paid? Is it by the job, by the hour? Do they bid out their services? Do people call them for small jobs? And do you ever see a time when the commercial icebreaking industry could ever replace what the Coast Guard does?
Mr. RYAN. They are paid by the hour and they are called for the job. There are some available in the Green Bay area and sometimes someone will station a vessel in the St. Clair River, and they're called out for the job. It is quite expensive because there's no other competition at the time they're offering their service.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Do they do anything else, the commercial icebreakers? Do they have another——
Mr. RYAN. Yes, they do. Each of those that have been offered for service do provide other towing services, usually towing services during the season; however, not all towboats have a hull equipped to handle it or have enough protection around their screw so it's not damaged. We had had experience when commercial services were provided and suddenly the Coast Guard had to come out and help them and then help the carrier who needed that assistance.
Your question about do I ever foresee the time when they would be available on a regular basis instead of the Coast Guard? No, I do not, simply because of the extent of the Great Lakes, the fact that an investor would be fitting out a vessel for a unique purpose such as icebreaking and risk damage of it so it couldn't be used later in the season. So I don't think, from a capital risk standpoint, it would be prudent, and that's why it's really not being offered.
Mr. GILCHREST. How thick have you seen the ice get in your lifetime?
Mr. RYAN. In the St. Mary's River, I've seen it at 39 inches.
Mr. GILCHREST. Wow.
Mr. RYAN. And I have been on——
Mr. GILCHREST. Can the MACKINAW break that?
Mr. RYAN. Oh, yes. In fact, I was on board the MACKINAW.
Mr. GILCHREST. Oh. I see.
Mr. RYAN. I was on board the 140's in the St. Mary's River as well, and they're quite capable. They can work through 16, 18 inches of pretty tough ice, and they do a great job.
Mr. GILCHREST. The Administration is proposing $128 million to replace the MACKINAW. In your judgment, is that a sufficient amount of money?
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. RYAN. From what the Coast Guard has advised me, and I have looked at some of what they have in mind, I believe it is. I don't think all of that is what's needed for shipyard contract; a lot of that is Coast Guard overhead and expenses, as we're well aware.
Mr. GILCHREST. Sure.
Mr. RYAN. I think the shipyard contract should be a lot less than that, and the multimission capability should not add unduly to it, but it will certainly make the vessel a greater asset for the nation.
Mr. GILCHREST. Do you have any recommendation as to what should happen to the MACKINAW once it's replaced?
Mr. RYAN. Sir, the MACKINAW is a revered object of art and on the Great Lakes, it's certainly a ship that has a tradition. I'm sure there are a number of ports in the Great Lakes that will compete for the vessel to be a museum vessel on the Lakes, and I would not get in the way of those who will fight for that right.
Mr. GILCHREST. So you think the longevity of the MACKINAW as a icebreaker has nearly come to an end?
Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. At the beginning of this—at the end of last season, for instance, it had some severe steering engine problems. In fact, it wasn't available to help at the end of the season because—until this problem got fixed.
Mr. GILCHREST. Do you foresee it lasting until 2006?
Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir, I do. The Coast Guard does try very hard to make sure that vessel is available, and they do try to get the repair work scheduled so it will be ready, but in this case, a major glitch occurred with a contractor and the steering engine that they had installed shuddered and vibrated the ship so much, it had a major job to——
Mr. GILCHREST. You said it was a mild winter this season except for near the end of the season. Was the MACKINAW used at all this year?
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. RYAN. Yes, it was. It was used at the beginning of this season. It was in service in St. Mary's River. I believe it went over to Duluth Superior.
Mr. GILCHREST. So the ice was thick enough in the beginning of the season to require the MACKINAW and not some other vessel?
Mr. RYAN. I don't question why the Coast Guard would use one vessel over another. I think it's important that vessels—men and women who are trained to do icebreaking and the vessel being available, it would be useful to use that vessel and keep that training skills up.
Mr. GILCHREST. So you'll leave that to us, to question the Coast Guard——
Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST.—as to their activity?
Well, Mr. Ryan, thank you very much for your testimony. It has been very helpful. You have given us a realistic perspective on the importance of icebreaking on the Great Lakes. Would you like to add anything else while you have the floor, any suggestions?
Mr. RYAN. No, sir. I'm just pleased that this time has come, because it has been a long fight.
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir. Well, the Great Lakes delegation has been talking about this for most of this decade.
Mr. Ryan, thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. RYAN. Thank you, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. Our third panel is James Ring, City Engineer, City of Bangor, Maine; William Flynn, Vice President, New York State Energy and Research Development Authority; and Mr. Anthony Sarbanes, President, Delmarva Water Transport Committee; Dennis Rochford, President, Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay, accompanied by Kevin Krick, Director of Public Affairs, Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay. Mr. Sarbanes is accompanied by Charles Hughes, Chairman of the Board, Vane Brothers; and Michael Abercrombie, President of Cato Gas and Oil Company.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I thought Mr. Sarbanes was going to be accompanied by Senator Sarbanes, but I guess he's busy on the other side.
Mr. SARBANES. I couldn't get him out of bed in time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. GILCHREST. I'll tell the press that, Tony.
[Laughter.]
Mr. GILCHREST. Gentlemen, welcome this morning to this hearing. We appreciate all of you traveling the distance that you have to come and share the information with us that will be vital for our understanding of this most important activity. I can't help but make a comment about Bangor, Maine, if you would give me 15 seconds. In 1991, I was up there on vacation in East Orland, actually, Mr. Ring. I've learned the accent a little bit, I think: Bangor is across the river from Brewer. We brought baseball cards and we went to Bucksport.
Actually, in 1991, we went to Bangor and we saw—what do you call it? The Star Trek Convention was there. I don't know if you remember that.
Mr. RING. Oh, yes.
Mr. GILCHREST. We were on vacation with my three children. We went by, we found out it was $18 a person, and not realizing how fanatical my children were for Star Trek, I just turned around and started walking away, and they looked rather sad and bewildered, and so we paid the $18 a person to see the Star Trek show.
So, beautiful town, Mr. Ring. We appreciate your coming down here to give us your perspective on icebreaking. Mr. Ring, you may begin.
TESTIMONY BY JAMES D. RING, P.E., CITY ENGINEER/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES, CITY OF BANGOR, MAINE; WILLIAM M. FLYNN, VICE PRESIDENT, NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; DENNIS ROCHFORD, PRESIDENT, MARITIME EXCHANGE FOR THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY, ACCOMPANIED BY KEVIN W. KRICK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, MARITIME EXCHANGE FOR THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY; AND ANTHONY SARBANES, PRESIDENT, DELMARVA WATER TRANSPORT COMMITTEE, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES HUGHES, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, VANE BROTHERS, AND MICHAEL ABERCROMBIE, PRESIDENT, CATO GAS AND OIL COMPANY
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. RING. Thank you very much, Chairman Gilchrest.
It's interesting, you said you were in Orland. I happen to have a cottage in Orland on one of the local ponds up there, and yes, I agree, it's a beautiful area.
Mr. GILCHREST. Can you move the microphone a little bit closer, sir? I can't quite——
Mr. RING. Certainly. How's that?
Mr. GILCHREST. That's fine. Thank you.
Mr. RING. OK. Good morning, Chairman Gilchrest and members of the subcommittee.
Mr. GILCHREST. Just one—you said you were in East Orland?
Mr. RING. I have a cottage in East Orland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, you have a cottage. On Lake Alamusic or Toddy Pond?
Mr. RING. Toddy Pond.
Mr. GILCHREST. Toddy Pond. I might retire up there. That's why I'm practicing the accent, so I'll move right in with the locals.
Mr. RING. You're doing very well at it.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Sarbanes isn't going to tell my constituents that just yet.
Yes.
Mr. RING. My name is James Ring and I'm the City Engineer and Director of Public Services for the City of Bangor, Maine. I'm here today to speak on behalf of the City of Bangor in support of continued operation of the existing 65-foot Coast Guard icebreakers, particularly those that serve our region.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The City of Bangor is a community of 33,000 situated on the Penobscot River, which is about 25 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. Bangor is the center of a metropolitan area of over 100,000, and represents the economic hub of a much larger service area encompassing much of central and eastern Maine.
One of the primary reasons that Bangor has developed as the economic center in our region is the Penobscot River. By the mid 1850's, Bangor was recognized as the lumber export capital of the world. In more recent times, the Penobscot has become a critical transportation link for the receipt and shipment of bulk cargo on a year-round basis. Of particular importance are the petroleum products that are so essential to our region.
It's our understanding that there is a proposal to decommission a number of 65-foot Coast Guard icebreaking vessels due to budgetary constraints. This would include two vessels, the Tackle and the Bridle, which have historically provided icebreaking services in the Penobscot for about four months of the year. Loss or reduction of these services is a great concern to us for several reasons.
First, I had previously mentioned that the receipt and shipment of bulk cargo is extremely important to our economy. Currently, there are four petroleum terminals in Bangor Harbor which receive petroleum products from ocean-going tankers and barges. This amounts to over 1.5 million tons per year, consisting primarily of fuel and heating oil.
If I could pause for a moment, I had the opportunity to read a memo that you wrote, Mr. Chair, to the committee on this issue, and in that, you made reference to some statistics on fuel distribution on the Hudson, and it was also mentioned this motion by Rear Admiral Riutta.
In your memo and as he indicated, there are 437 million gallons of petroleum products to the Hudson. The reason I point this out, I just stated that we receive 1.5 million tons per year. That's about the same amount.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, first, that might seem unusual because, as you know, Maine is a very rural state, but we are so dependent on these products. We are a rural state, we depend heavily on highway transportation for distribution of essential goods and services. Out of necessity, there are a lot of vehicle miles travelled per person even though we aren't a huge population center.
Because we are situated in a cold climate area, and uninterrupted supply of heating oils—heating fuels during the winter months is absolutely critical to our region's residents and businesses. Currently, petroleum fuels provide approximately 95 percent of our heating energy needs.
I would also point out that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has recently recognized the importance of barge and tanker movements to this region and has determined that a dredging project to maintain authorized channel depth in the Penobscot River should be undertaken in the near future so that reliable, uninterrupted shipments are maintained.
Diminished icebreaking services could threaten what is essentially a lifeline to our region. Icebreaking in Bangor Harbor is also essential for the protection of persons and property. I have included with my written testimony, which I have provided 15 copies to you folks, an aerial map which shows the Penobscot River and downtown Bangor. Kenduskeag Stream is a major tributary to the Penobscot River and flows through the heart of downtown Bangor before joining with the Penobscot.
While icebreaking to maintain vessel access to the river terminals is extremely important, equally important is need to keep the river free of ice up to the confluence of the Kenduskeag Stream. Failure to do so will result in sizeable ice jams in downtown Bangor in both the Kenduskeag Stream and the Penobscot River, posing a potential threat of major flooding in downtown Bangor.
This actually occurred once a number of years ago with disastrous results. I remember it all too well. It was a mess. Fortunately, there has been no reoccurrence because the Coast Guard's present 65-foot icebreakers have been able to keep Bangor's harbor clear of ice buildups.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In conversations that I have had with the Coast Guard, it is my understanding that if the 65-foot icebreakers Tackle and Bridle are taken out of service, icebreaking service in the Penobscot River will have to be accomplished by the only other icebreaker in the region, which is the Thunder Bay.
The Thunder Bay is a 140-foot vessel stationed in Rockland, Maine, which is nearly 100 miles away by water. While the Thunder Bay occasionally comes up to the Penobscot River to clear ice up to the fuel terminals, it is too large to continue further up river to ensure protection of downtown Bangor.
Coast Guard operations personnel have told me that at times, it has been necessary to operate icebreakers on a continuous basis for several days at a time to keep the Penobscot open for navigation. Obviously, reliance on a single vessel, if that should become the case, to clear ice on the Penobscot River and other areas in the region will not provide the level of service that is needed.
Moreover, a major breakdown or damage to the Thunder Bay would pose a very serious problem if no other icebreakers are in the area to provide backup service.
Another issue that relates to this is our riverfront development. Over the past ten years, the City of Bangor has made a considerable investment in acquiring and clearing riverfront property for redevelopment. The City presently owns approximately one mile of property frontage on the Penobscot River and has recently completed a very significant study for its redevelopment. We have already received letters of qualification from a number of major developers who are interested in our area.
This project represents the largest development project to be undertaken in our region, with an estimated value of over $184 million. The needs and concerns that I have already outlined will have a direct impact on the success of our redevelopment efforts.
For the record, I am providing, in addition to my testimony today, a copy of Bangor's Waterfront Development Project Summary - March 2000. This summary outlines our redevelopment project in greater detail and includes a conceptual plan layout.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and to bring to your attention the extreme importance that Coast Guard icebreaking services on the Penobscot River represents to the City of Bangor and to our region.
We respectfully request your support for the continued operation of the 65-foot icebreakers Tackle and Bridle and the services that we are so dependent on. Loss of these services would a very adverse impact on much of central and eastern Maine.
We are also requesting that sufficient funding be established to undertake essential maintenance and improvement to these vessels, which I understand has been deferred for nearly three years. Further postponement of this work will certainly increase future operational costs.
Again, thank you, Chair Gilchrest, Ranking Member DeFazio, and other committee members, for this opportunity to present our needs and concerns to you. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Ring.
Mr. Flynn.
Mr. FLYNN. Good morning, Chairman Gilchrest. On behalf of Governor Pataki and the residents of New York State, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the role that the United States Coast Guard played in helping New York consumers meet their energy supply needs this past winter.
There is no other state in our country that relies on heating oil more than New York to meet its heating needs. Forty-three percent of New York's households use oil for space heating. That's 2.9 million households, making New York's residential sector the largest consumer of heating oil and kerosene, or distillate fuels, in the nation. New York State accounts for 20 percent of the total U.S. distillate demand.
Furthermore, New York consumes more than 5.6 billion gallons of gasoline and nearly one billion gallons of diesel fuel annually.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
While record-setting petroleum prices in the Northeast attracted national attention these past few months, I want to focus on the role that the Coast Guard's icebreaking activities played in helping protect the public health and safety of New York residents as well as consumers in western Massachusetts, western Connecticut and southern Vermont, who are all served by New York oil terminals.
The primary method to move petroleum products through the Northeast is waterborne transport, including coastal tankers and barges. Keeping these vessels moving is vital because the petroleum industry no longer maintains large product inventories.
The petroleum industry, like other industries, has adopted just-in-time resupply of inventories. This change in industry practice that developed over the last several years has had a large impact in New York. According to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation data, New York's total petroleum bulk storage capacity has declined by 15 percent, and our heating oil storage capacity has declined by nearly 20 percent over the past five years. Additionally, over this same period, in-state storage capacity for gasoline fell by over 17 percent.
I understand that New York State is not alone in seeing its storage capacity decline. There are several reasons for this decline in New York: the high cost associated with meeting more stringent environmental regulations; increasing insurance and carrying costs to hold petroleum products; and the lack of market incentives to build and maintain new facilities.
This decline in storage capacity and inventory makes the Coast Guard's icebreaking mission even more critical to ensuring that petroleum products are in place when they are needed. NYSERDA, New York's agency with primary responsibility for energy emergencies, annually meets with personnel from the United States Coast Guard Activities New York Station prior to the start of the heating season. We review icebreaking procedures and establish lines of communication to track the movement of products in New York Harbor, on the Hudson River, and into Long Island Sound.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The primary source of petroleum products for eastern New York, southern Vermont, western Massachusetts, and western Connecticut are the oil terminals located on the 150-mile stretch of the Hudson River from New York Harbor to Troy, New York. Eastern New York and the western region of New England, with a population of 4.1 million, have nearly 650,000 homes heated with petroleum. These oil terminals, which supply a major share of the region's heating oil, are also important sources of kerosene, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and gasoline.
New York's emergency response was initiated when we were contacted by industry officials about the impending home heating oil shortage. Governor Pataki immediately directed several actions. He directed NYSERDA, the State Emergency Management Office, the Public Service Commission, and the Consumer Protection Board to establish an around-the-clock coordinated effort.
Two: Telephone hotlines were established to handle emergency calls for shelter, heating assistance, and to report any suspected instances of price gouging.
Three: State officials began contacting county emergency coordinators across the state to assess the local situation.
Four: Daily calls were placed to dealers to assess supply problems and price trends.
Five: Heating oil distributors were also supplied with emergency contact information for their customers in the event they experience a shortfall in supply.
And last but not least, daily contact was established with the United States Coast Guard.
There is a rich history of cooperation between the New York State Government and the United States Coast Guard dating back to the 1930's. Former New York Governor and then President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order in December of 1936. Since that time, Coast Guard icebreakers have provided critical support to the everyday activities in New York Harbor and along the Hudson River as far north as Troy, New York.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Coast Guard Activities New York maintains five icebreakers that work in New York Harbor and on the Hudson River. Two of these icebreakers are 140-foot vessels, and the other three are 65-foot vessels. While the main purpose of the vessels is icebreaking activities, they also perform other vital functions such as search and rescue, maritime law enforcement, and port safety and security.
The 140-foot vessels are used to open and maintain main shipping channels, while the 65-foot vessels break ice in shallow water close to docks. Since 1963, the 65-foot vessels have provided this unique and critical service.
We realize that these vessels are getting old; however, their mission is more critical today than when they went into service nearly 40 years ago. Less storage capacity and greater demand for petroleum products have made it so.
The Coast Guard reports that between mid-December and mid-March, over 509 million gallons of petroleum fuels were delivered by 274 barge deliveries to oil terminals along the Hudson River. These barge deliveries represent an increase of nearly 6 percent as compared to 1999. Heating oil comprised over 131 million gallons of this total. We estimate that these products had a retail value of over $750 million.
To put these volumes and deliveries into perspective, we estimate that it would have taken over 46,000 separate truckloads of product to transport the same volume of fuel that was shipped by barge this season.
More importantly, the Coast Guard icebreakers were a vital element in ensuring the timely resupply of these terminals. The Coast Guard was also called on over 90 times to free tugs and barges that were stuck, unable to move their oil cargoes to market.
The 65-foot vessels have the unique ability to ice break near docks in shallow water because of their eight-foot draft. Because of ice buildup like that experienced this past winter, these vessels were invaluable because they were able to break ice close to docks, thereby enabling petroleum barges to enter the docking area and unload fuel. These 65-foot vessels also perform another extremely important function. They are able to break up ice packs near the mouths of streams flowing into the Hudson River to prevent flooding.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Failure to provide this type of relief could result in flooding of low-lying areas upstream. The 140-foot icebreakers with their deeper draft are unable to perform this type of flood-relief activity.
From New York State's perspective, we are concerned that the continued and future funding for the 65-foot vessels is in jeopardy. While some may view the 65-foot vessels as low priority assets that are under-used, and that their current mission can be fully covered by other existing resources, we respectfully disagree.
Although these vessels are old, they provide an essential service that no other vessel can provide. We understand they cost about $1.2 million annually to operate all three 65-foot vessels. We believe this is a small price to pay for the public health and safety of the 4.1 million residents that rely on some form of petroleum product to meet their heating and transportation needs.
We respectfully urge Congress and the Coast Guard to dedicate the funding for these vessels in the next fiscal year as well as in the years to come. It is also imperative that consideration be given to funding the design and construction of the next generation of shallow draft icebreakers to replace these 65-foot vessels.
On behalf of Governor Pataki and the citizens in New York State, we would like to thank you, Chairman, for having us here today, and obviously we would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Rochford.
Mr. ROCHFORD. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding these hearings. My name is Dennis Rochford, President of the Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay. Rather than read from my prepared remarks, which I have submitted to the committee, I will summarize some of the key points, and many of the points have been made by other panel members here this morning.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Maritime Exchange is a trade association whose membership includes port and port-related businesses up and down the Delaware River in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. Our 300 members effect about $4 billion to the regional economy.
We come here today in strong support of the continued operation of the United States Coast Guard icebreaking tug, the Cleat and the Capstan, that are stationed at the Philadelphia Coast Guard facility.
These two icebreakers—most people would think, I guess, that icebreakers are only used up in the Great Lakes and only during the wintertime, but these two vessels are used year-round on the Delaware River.
They clearly provide a critical service during the winter months to break ice on the Delaware River and Bay and tributaries attendant to that and have a significant impact on the commercial and the fishing and the passenger vessels which operate along the Delaware River and Bay, but they also provide critical services and support services in the search and rescue operations of the entire Coast Guard facilities along the Delaware River and Bay.
Characteristics: About 65 feet in length; have a seven-foot draft; break ice up to 18 inches in depth. We don't have the 39 inches of ice that they have up on the Great Lakes, but we have our fair share of it during the winter season.
I say that because it provides the kind of navigational flexibility, if you will, for the Cleat and the Capstan to perform a multitude of services in terms of breaking ice as well, as I said, as search and rescue operations.
On the Delaware River—and they also serve the C&D Canal and the Chesapeake Bay, which I'm sure you're aware of as well because it's in your district or your area.
On the Delaware River, we have this past year 2900 cargo vessels, general cargo vessels, and the cargo on those vessels travels—comes to consumers and businesses throughout our tri-state region as well as to Mid-Atlantic states and beyond. So that's a significant impact on the economy.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There is any number of public interests that are served. We have six oil refineries on the Delaware River. Six-hundred oil tankers a year come to supply crude oil. Hundreds upon hundreds of barges move finished products, whether it's home heating oil or gasoline or jet fuel, out from those refineries to customers throughout the Mid-Atlantic states. In addition to that, there are five major power generating plants along the Delaware River that receive fuel and comes via water. So it's important that during the winter months, that the channel is able to be navigated.
There's a lot of other cargoes also dependent on that. We're the largest importer of Chilean fruit and bananas, of South American fruit and bananas, certainly on the East Coast, and that serves markets not only in our region, but as far away as Chicago and as far north as the New England states.
There are seven fisheries, processing plants and landings, all located on the Jersey side along the Delaware Bay. The Cape May/Lewes ferry operates through the winter, handling about 1800 passengers per day, and so the icebreaking tugs provide a service with respect to them as well.
We have the Dover Air Force base which receives a lot of its fuel, I'm sure heating fuel, but certainly jet fuel that's delivered to the Delaware River and Bay, so there's a military component as well.
In 1999–2000, this past winter, even though it seemed to be a mild winter compared to some others, those two icebreaking tugs conducted 15 missions and also led a convoy, if you will, of heating oil barges through the C&D Canal from the Delaware River over to the Chesapeake. So they were hands-on in terms of doing what is perceived to the their primary mission.
Beyond that, they do provide support for search and rescue. Obviously if search and rescue occurs, activity going on during the ice season, you've got to break away the ice for the vessels to get in there. These two tugs also have the capacity to operate as platforms, long-term platforms from which they can coordinate the activities of other vessels in support of search and rescue activities. Again, they have the kind of flexibility that allows them to navigate in a way where they can more quickly establish safety zones with respect to recreational boats in addition to supporting search and rescue operations.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let me conclude by saying that the question I guess as I understand it is whether or not we're going to continue to have the U.S. Coast Guard have icebreaking tugs throughout the country and on the Delaware River, and you asked a question to one of the other panel members and I will echo his answer: No, sir, we can't operate without Coast Guard icebreaking tugs.
So if there is going to be a discussion and a debate on this, and let me speak principally now as president of the Maritime Exchange representing the commercial shipping industry on the Delaware River, we've been stung too many times, whether it's the Corps of Engineers or Customs or even the United States Coast Guard, where decisions are made that apparently are seen in the best interest of somebody, but they're certainly not in the best interest of the shipping industry.
The shipping industry pays over—somewhere in the area of 20 to 25 billion dollars a year in user fees, in tariffs, in merchandise fees and the like, and then special fees to get services from Federal agencies. I heard one yesterday—we're paying $450 per vessel to get the USDA to hop on a vessel and basically inspect the garbage cans.
Now, this industry contributes an awful lot to the economy, we're spending an awful lot in user fees, and what we don't need now is to take away other services that are really critical, and that's where I'd sort of put the icebreaking tugs. We need them on the Delaware River, we can't—if there's going to be any discussion with respect to a commercial alternative, there clearly needs to be a survey and a study of what capacity is out there already. How is somebody going to make a decision? If I operate a private tug, am I going to go and satisfy a contractor or am I going to respond to a Coast Guard request? Where is the public interest served, and how would that process go forward?
I really don't think we need to go down that road. I think the Coast Guard has a responsibility to keep the channels open. They have basically total control of that river. They in effect are the police department of that river. They do a good job on our river. I think we need to ensure that they have this kind of support so they can deal with the kinds of issues that we face during the winter months that can have an adverse impact on commercial shipping as well as the other areas I mentioned.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Rochford.
Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. SARBANES. Good morning.
Mr. GILCHREST. Welcome to Washington.
Mr. SARBANES. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Anthony Sarbanes, a resident of Salisbury, Maryland, current president of the Delmarva Water Transport Committee, commonly referred to as DWTC.
With me today is Charles Hughes, Chairman of Board of Vane Brothers, a large barge and towing company in Baltimore, Maryland; Michael Abercrombie, President of Cato Gas and Oil Company, a major petroleum distributor on the lower eastern shore in Salisbury, and former president of DWTC; and George Cofield, and our Executive Director.
Geographically, as you know, the Delmarva Peninsula includes all of Delaware, nine Maryland counties, and two Virginia counties. DWTC works with all but Newcastle County, Delaware.
Allow me to elaborate briefly on the geographic area I just described. We are a peninsula without adequate rail systems to support our petroleum needs and a road system that would be overburdened by the many tanker trucks required to provide all of our petroleum needs even if those trucks were available to serve our 700,000 residents. In addition, we have no pipeline for petroleum supply.
We deeply appreciate the outstanding support and cooperation we have received from the U.S. Coast Guard over the years, and their professionalism in fulfilling their missions. They are a real credit to our nation.
We also appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
DWTC started in 1974 in Salisbury. We currently have 48 members from Maryland, Delaware and Virginia. Although we have several waterborne responsibilities, one of our major duties is the coordination of icebreaking activities in our geographic region.
Since its inception, DWTC has worked closely with the Coast Guard in icebreaking services, in 1977, 1984, 1986, 1989, 1995 and 1999, some six occasions of various lengths of time. Our purpose today is to express our concern over the Coast Guard's future ability to provide icebreaking services to the Delmarva waterways, particularly if the 65-foot WYTL harbor tugs are removed from the Coast Guard inventory.
Although we do not have severe winters every year, there is a strong need to maintain the proper icebreaking vessel for the Delmarva Peninsula when those vessels are needed. There are no feasible alternative sources of supply for the quantity of petroleum needed if it does not come by barge. In the final analysis, the Coast Guard's 65-foot tug is the only cutter that can operate effectively on the Delmarva Peninsula.
We believe that the 175-foot WLM and the 49-foot BUSLR would not operate effectively in our waters. The 175-footer cannot maneuver in our winding and narrow waterways, while the 49-footer cannot break ice over four inches thick. Just this past winter, the Chesapeake Bay had ice up to 24 inches thick, while our area waterways were up to 14 inches thick.
In addition, none of the 65-foot tugs are home-quartered on the Chesapeake Bay. Although one is in Portsmouth, Virginia, we would ask that at least one be moved to the Chesapeake Bay area.
In round numbers, 150 tanker trucks would be needed to bring in the equivalent petroleum product of one barge. Petroleum product brought in by barge serves of 700,000 residents, many industries including Dupont and two connective power plants. Just at the Cato Royal Terminal alone, 573,250 barrels of petroleum product were delivered on 25 barges from January to March of this year. That translates into 24,076,500 gallons of petroleum product in the one terminal alone in three months.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Please remember that rail transportation of petroleum products does not exist. Trucking the amount required is nearly an impossibility and would cause highway damage, air pollution and the risk of highway accidents with resultant oil spills.
In conclusion, DWTC strongly supports keeping the 65-foot Coast Guard harbor tug in the active Coast Guard inventory until a comparable vessel is available that will duplicate the services currently provided by this versatile and durable tug. To do anything less than that will truly place the Delmarva Peninsula in an extremely precarious, vulnerable, and life-threatening position.
On behalf of DWTC, I want to thank you for your support of this critical issue and for allowing us to appear before you today.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes, could you tell us this past winter or in any winter in recent memory, has there been a problem breaking ice for these commercial barges in a timely way so that the oil flow, especially for home heating fuel, was not interrupted?
Mr. SARBANES. This past year—I might have to ask my people—this past year, it was fine. There has been one occasion where we were down to within four to six hours of actually running out. Now, this goes back about 20 years. But only because the Coast Guard has been so responsive to us and supportive have we been able to maintain the proper amount of petroleum that we need. Without them, we would really be in a very, very precarious position.
Mr. GILCHREST. So this past year, when the ice came a little bit late in the season, there was no problem getting this 65-foot tug up from Portsmouth, Virginia?
Mr. SARBANES. There was not.
Mr. GILCHREST. But you would rather see that up a little closer?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SARBANES. I would, yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. I don't think they have much ice down around Portsmouth, Virginia, but we can certainly look into that.
Mr. SARBANES. All right.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is there enough storage capacity, do you feel, in the Salisbury area? Mr. Flynn, from New York, discussed the reasons for the reduction in storage capacity in the New York area. Do you see a problem with that in the Delmarva Peninsula or the lower shore?
Mr. SARBANES. Well, there is a limit in number of companies that are holding fuel, and because of that, there needs to be a constant and regular resupply or there will be a problem in providing these residents.
Remember, there is no rail, trucking couldn't do it, and there is no pipeline. We're fully dependent on these barges bringing petroleum into our area.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is there or has there ever been a discussion on a pipeline?
Mr. SARBANES. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. GILCHREST. Do you think that's cost-prohibitive?
Mr. SARBANES. I think it's cost-prohibitive. In fact, there has been some discussion. In fact, Mr. Abercrombie and I talked about it a little bit coming up here today. The cost of that really would be very prohibitive, and the environment issues. Where would it come from if it came across the Bay, and those issues that would be of concern.
Mr. GILCHREST. For the lower shore, does all or most of the oil get barged up the Wicomico River, or is there any oil off-loaded in Cambridge?
Mr. SARBANES. No. It comes into the Wicomico and it goes into the Nanicoke, and—for Delaware. So it is—and we deal very closely with those areas. And the Coast Guard, when we have asked for their support, they have been—really, they're outstanding. I can't say enough good things about the Coast Guard.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. And rail I would assume at this point in time would be expensive, cost-prohibitive. Could rail ever take to the slack for what the barges——
Mr. SARBANES. Well, it would be cost-prohibitive. Rail on the Eastern Shore needs a lot of work, and then getting it exactly to the facilities where it would have to go—it's still going to have to be off-loaded and moved, so we're back in the same problem.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Ring from Bangor, you mentioned some of the similar problems that we've been discussing today. Is there any problem, as Mr. Flynn described, with storage facilities?
Mr. RING. My understanding in talking to some of the terminal operators is that the storage capacity is diminished. I don't have an exact figure of that, but I know that many times I've heard from them about—in fact, I've actually had some calls back in my former life when I was public works director to get in touch with the Coast Guard because we're really getting low on heating oil.
I don't have a specific number, I apologize, but I can probably find that out if it is of importance to you. But we have a lot of the same problems.
Mr. GILCHREST. As long as the ice is broken, the river is free, there is no problem.
Mr. RING. Right.
Mr. GILCHREST. But has the Penobscot River in recent memory frozen deeper than the icebreaking capability?
Mr. RING. Not that I'm aware of. We typically see ice thicknesses of about two feet. I was on one of the 65-footers that services our area, the Tackle, and it was about two feet of ice. Although we have had what seems to be somewhat of a mild winter here recently, I happened to come across an article in a local newspaper in which there were some quotations by the chief petty officer who is in command of one of those vessels and he stated that he had been in four feet of ice on the Penobscot at one point this winter.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. This winter?
Mr. RING. Yes.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is that near Bucksport?
Mr. RING. No. It was up closer to Bangor.
Mr. GILCHREST. Closer to Bangor.
Mr. RING. But no, I would have to echo what Mr. Sarbanes had said, is that my experience over the past 25-plus years has been excellent with the Coast Guard. They, you know—the folks in Maine recognize the importance of keeping the Penobscot free and there has not been a problem because of that.
Again, if we lose those 65-footers, you understand we have real concerns.
Mr. GILCHREST. I think the committee is in support of retaining them for some time to come.
Mr. Ring, you also mentioned something about channel depths in the Penobscot. Do you see a need now or eventually for dredging operations?
Mr. RING. Well——
Mr. GILCHREST. How deep do you need the channel to be?
Mr. RING. We have—I had mentioned in my testimony that the Corps of Engineers this past year has taken—has done a preliminary study, a feasibility study, if you will, to look at that issue, and there are varying depths of—varying authorized depths in the channels from the Atlantic up to Bangor.
Currently, there are some areas that are shored in by several feet, which means the barges occasionally need to be short-loaded. So they have recommended within the next few years funding as it becomes available to do a dredging project, a maintenance dredging project to restore. But when they were up this past summer, you know, they interviewed the terminal operators, and it was a fairly lengthy process. In fact, that's where I got the number that I quoted in terms of deliveries to Bangor. So again, they recognize that it's extremely important to keep that river open for the vessels that serve us and, you know, the winter is every bit as—actually, it's more important than the summer months.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Can you remember when the last time the Penobscot River was dredged?
Mr. RING. That's an interesting question. There have been some places on the Penobscott down river from Bangor that we dredged, at least reportedly, within the last 20 years, but up in Bangor and proximity, it's been perhaps 40 years.
Mr. GILCHREST. So because of—with the exception of some of the shoaling on some of the turns, the river pretty well scours itself.
Mr. RING. Yes, it is. It's a fairly sizeable river. If you've been up there, you know, and there are varying depths there, but the channel—it's interesting. I was talking to another gentleman earlier. The channel in the Penobscott, even in the wide portions, really threads its way across so that it's very important to follow the channel, even though there are—in some areas, it seems very wide.
And one of the other functions that the 65-footers provide in our area is each of them has over 40 navigational aids that they have to maintain and check, and, of course, that's on a year-round basis.
Mr. GILCHREST. What predominantly brings up the oil or the other goods, barges, tankers?
Mr. RING. Yes. We have ocean-going tankers ranging from 300 feet up to 600-plus feet.
Mr. GILCHREST. That go up to Bangor.
Mr. RING. Yes.
Mr. GILCHREST. Can they get up there at low tide?
Mr. RING. Many barges. They have to arrive on the high tide, but because of the shoaling that's occurred in some areas, but there are some fairly sizeable vessels.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Ring.
Mr. RING. Thank you.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Flynn, was there much of a problem this past winter along the Hudson River?
Mr. FLYNN. Yes, there was, Chairman. You touched upon the issue of just-in-time re-supply and the practice seems to be growing a little more each year.
In the past, the refinery industry had enough supply to take care of the delivery services, but once we've had these somewhat warmer winters over the last, say, decade or so, the industry decided to lower their supplies because they didn't want to get caught at the end of the heating season with having too much supply on hand.
When the cold snap hit us early in the year, there soon was some dry terminals in the Albany area and along the Hudson River and without the Coast Guard breaking that ice and getting those barges in to the docks to be able to fill up the storage tanks, we could have had a very serious and critical problem getting heating oil to consumers.
Mr. GILCHREST. So the 65-footers did most of the ice-breaking.
Mr. FLYNN. They do all of it near the docks. The larger vessels cannot go near the docks without those ice-breakers, there would have been a real, real serious problem.
Mr. GILCHREST. You said that if the river was shut down for fuel deliveries you'd need 4,600 trucks to deliver the same amount of oil.
Mr. FLYNN. 46,000.
Mr. GILCHREST. 46,000?
Mr. FLYNN. 46,000. It would have taken 46,000 trucks to deliver——all the fuel the barges carry.
Mr. GILCHREST. How many barges is that?
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FLYNN. 274.
Mr. GILCHREST. 274 barges.
Mr. FLYNN. That's correct. Six percent more than the previous year's total.
Mr. GILCHREST. Six percent increase.
Mr. FLYNN. That's correct.
Mr. GILCHREST. Do you foresee it continuing to increase over the years if capacity for storage stays the same or even diminishes?
Mr. FLYNN. I believe so. I don't see it—if it does decrease, it will be a minimal amount, just because of the way that they're keeping the supply now at the terminals, they're not taking on as much oil as they were before in the past.
Mr. GILCHREST. As the number of barges increases, does that also increase the amount of activity of the tugs, the ice-breaking tugs?
Mr. FLYNN. Yes. It would give more activity to everybody.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Rochford seemed to explain very well the amount of user fees that the maritime industry already pays out. So I would guess that the answer to my question about a user fee for the barge operators or the oil industry to pay on a formula-based system for ice-breaking. Any comment on that?
Mr. FLYNN. Well, I'll—I agree with Mr. Rochford. I believe that the businesses in the area are—really felt the pinch this past winter and just adding on some additional user fees is not going to work.
But the one thing that I do want to comment on, listening to everybody else here, the Authority has been in contact with the Coast Guard on a yearly basis. Before the winter comes, we have winter outlook meetings. We do strategy sessions with them before the winter comes.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It was just this past winter that the Department of Energy focused on the Coast Guard and ice-breaking activities that they do in terms of an energy policy. The Authority, myself and the president of the Authority have had the honor to testify in front of some other Congressional and Senate committees and even our own state committees, and the one thing that keeps coming up is the supposed lack of an energy policy when it comes to whether it be oil or heating oil or anything along those lines.
And I think that whatever happens here with the committee today and the activity that the Coast Guard does, they need to be included within the Department of Energy's analysis and strategy of an energy policy, because they can go over to OPEC and get as much oil as they want or from non-OPEC nations and they can talk about other energy efficiency uses, et cetera.
But until we're able to have a stream of commerce that's able to take that oil, deliver it to the refineries and get the refines products to the people's homes, all the best laid plans aren't going to work.
So they don't—the U.S. Coast Guard does not get credit for the integral role that they play here. And if I can repeat one more time, anything that the Department of Energy or this committee or any other committee takes into consideration in terms of energy policy, the Coast Guard should be included in that strategy.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. It's an excellent comment.
Mr. FLYNN. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. GILCHREST. I will ask you one more question about pipelines. Are there any pipelines in the area? Are there sufficient—is it something that can be pursued?
Mr. FLYNN. Funny you should ask. At the Authority, what we've been doing, Governor Pataki had put together an energy planning board several years ago and we came out with an energy report for the state and we're going to have to be updating it in the very near future.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One of the issues that we're tackling now is issue of natural gas pipeline capacity. It depends on what school of thought you're in. If you're in the gas industry, there's an absolute need for more gas pipeline. If you're not, there's no need for more. There's other ways of getting fuel to people's homes.
The present capacity that we have is doing the job, but as population grows and businesses increase the use of natural gas. I think that in the near future, there's going to have to be serious consideration to increasing the natural gas pipeline capacity, not only in New York State, but in the New England states also.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Sometimes I wonder if New York already hasn't reached its capacity on population, but I guess we're not there yet.
Mr. FLYNN. Those same barges that bring in the oil bring in barges of people from Europe and beyond all the time. So we're constantly getting in influx of people along with oil.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Flynn.
Mr. FLYNN. Thank you.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Rochford, does your location lend itself to increased use of natural gas pipelines and rail energy deliveries to replace any of the water-borne traffic?
Mr. ROCHFORD. No, I don't—well, I guess anything is possible, but I don't think it's practical at this point in time. There are pipelines that bring crude product and also move finished product in and out of the refineries along the Delaware River, but they are really dependent upon the tanker movements to bring those cargoes up and the barge movements to bring the finished product out.
There was some discussion 15 or 20 years ago, before I got to the exchange, where there was the possibility of putting a pipeline up the Delaware River at the bottom of the channel and that didn't fly, I think probably for commercial reasons, as well as for some environmental reasons.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So in terms of the infrastructure in place today for the utilities, as well as the refineries, the river is sort of the key means by which they move the product.
Let me also say, just to take this opportunity, in terms of ice on the Delaware River, it was in 1994 when we had our last most severe experience with ice and as a result of that, the local Coast Guard district created the ice committee, similar to other committees in other areas, where it was really a cooperative effort with the Coast Guard, their capacity, their facilities, as well as with industry, to keep the river operational.
And in addition to the Coast Guard equipment and vessels, it involved the barge operators, the tug operators, obviously the tanker operators, the pilots association, and sort of a close cooperative effort, because there's a lot of management that goes on. The capacity of our refineries, Coast Guard statistics, over the last several years, is about two to three days of inventory. Maybe it was three or four days back in 1994.
When we had that heavy ice storm, we came close to running out of inventory at some of those facilities and it was really the cooperative effort that kind of made sure that—you know, which tanker do you bring up next. It might not be the one that showed up first. It might be the one that showed up second or third, because that utility or that refinery needed that crude more than the other one did.
It really was, I think, a very positive cooperative effort among the oil industry, as well as the people that were involved on the river.
Mr. GILCHREST. The Port of Wilmington, when it off-loads, petroleum products, how do they do that? Is there lightering that occurs? Is there a pipeline that goes out to the tanker?
Mr. ROCHFORD. Well, there might be lightering that occurs. What happens is a lot of tankers will come into the bay at 55 feet and they're lightered off at Big Stone Beach to 40, and then the tanker moves up to the facility on the river.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There is an oil facility at the Port of Wilmington, where they off-load tankers into a tank farm, that I believe supplies the utility down there. They just come in and dock and off-load it the same way they'd off-load at any other refinery or the same way they'd off-load a lighter in Big Stone Beach.
Mr. GILCHREST. So there's enough ice that there's two of these 65-foot tugs in Philadelphia. The demand is great enough there to keep those two vessels where they are?
Mr. ROCHFORD. Yes. In addition to that, the Coast Guard, William Tate, which is the billy tender, also has some ability and is involved in ice-breaking operations, as well. But the answer is yes, because you're never quite sure when you're going to have the kind of winter that generates the ice problem.
Mr. GILCHREST. I was just wondering if you couldn't move one of those to Salisbury. We'll work that out at another time.
Are there any dredging issues with the Delaware Bay or Delaware River at this point that is important for commerce, in your judgment?
Mr. ROCHFORD. There is one, the 45-foot channel deepening project.
Mr. GILCHREST. What is the depth of it now?
Mr. ROCHFORD. Well, it's 40 feet and the proposal is to take the channel from 40 to 45 feet, from Philadelphia to the sea. We're, I guess, in the third year of requesting Federal funds for that. The states of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania have—well, Pennsylvania and Delaware have already committed to local matching funds. Delaware Port Authority is involved in that. I mean, that's the major project.
Mr. GILCHREST. It's 40 feet right now.
Mr. ROCHFORD. Right. It will go from 40 to 45 feet.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. So you want the channel from the ocean to Philadelphia to go to 45.
Mr. ROCHFORD. Right.
Mr. GILCHREST. Are there anchorages or berths that are now going to be dredged to 45 feet?
Mr. ROCHFORD. There actually is one on Camden. When they extended their berth over at South Jersey, they went down to 45 feet. The other facilities obviously are dredged to the depth to be able to take 40-foot vessels. But using the Port of Wilmington as an example, two-thirds of the cargo that comes in there, steel, the dry bulk, and, arguably, some of the oil products, two-thirds of the tonnage that comes into that port could come in on the 45-foot vessel as opposed to a 40-foot draft vessel, and that's true up and down the river. Steel, dry bulk, liquid bulk.
Mr. GILCHREST. So you have places to put the dredge material.
Mr. ROCHFORD. Yes. There are—it's sort of an ongoing thing. As a matter of fact, there is now an ongoing discussion, particularly with the State of New Jersey, to look at the alternatives of moving some of the dredge material to perhaps the mines up in Schuykill County, Pennsylvania, to landfills, to brown fields.
I do know that the Corps is actively looking at that. I just reviewed a study that was done by the Delaware River Port Authority to be able to accommodate this project and, equally important, to accommodate the annual maintenance dredging that goes on on the Delaware River, the Schuykill, wherever, at the Port of Wilmington and as far north as NovoLog's operation up at Fairless Works in Bucks County.
So dredge capacity, dredge disposal capacity is an ongoing——
Mr. GILCHREST. Is that north of Philadelphia?
Mr. ROCHFORD. That is north of Philadelphia.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. So this dredging occurs north of Philadelphia.
Mr. ROCHFORD. Yes. The channel that goes up to NovoLog is, I think, dredged to 38 or 40 feet, whatever the authorized depth is, and there is maintenance dredging that goes on up there. I don't think there's maintenance dredging that goes on past NovoLog up to Trenton. Most of the activity going up to Trenton is barge.
Mr. GILCHREST. I'm interfering with jurisdiction of another subcommittee, talking about dredging. We were supposed to talk about ice-breaking. But I think we've reached a conclusion as to the necessity of at least 11 of these 65-footers on the east coast.
The committee will do all we can and I'm sure we'll be successful over the next several years, till it comes time when they will be replaced by something else.
Gentlemen, I appreciate the testimony you gave here this morning. It is valuable for our commitment to serve your needs and I wish you the best of luck. Maybe the next hearing can be up in Bangor. We'll sail up the Penobscott River.
Mr. RING. We can arrange that.
Mr. GILCHREST. Gentlemen, thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[insert here]