Whose Mess Is It?

By Barbara Rudolph

The scene has become painfully familiar this year: exhausted workers struggling to scoop up a noxious tide of inky goo. A major cleanup campaign was under way once again last week in three different spots in the U.S.: the Delaware River, Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay and the Houston Ship Channel. Crews were deploying rakes, hand-held skimmers, oversize absorbent pads and "supersucker" vacuums to scoop up the oil spilled in the accidents. While all the slicks were much smaller than the 10.5 million-gal. spill of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska last March, the timing of the latest mishaps, which all ! occurred within a twelve-hour period on June 23 and 24, had a powerful effect. "The political impact of these three spills will be much, much greater than their environmental impact," said Richard Golob, editor of Golob's Oil Pollution Bulletin, an industry newsletter.

The spills stirred public outcry and galvanized congressional sentiment to impose tougher regulations on the oil-shipping industry. In House testimony last week, the Coast Guard reported that it had recorded 6,700 oil spills during 1988, ten of which involved at least 100,000 gals. While total spills were down from 10,000 in 1984, environmentalists contend that the level remains unacceptably high, especially in light of the poor results of most mop-up efforts. Cleanup crews recover on average no more than 10% of major oil spills, a performance that has failed to improve during the past 20 years, according to Amy Stolls, editor of Oil Spill Intelligence Report. Declares Alaska Governor Steven Cowper: "It is clear that the industry does not have the equipment, expertise or technology to mount an effective response ((to a spill)) within a critically short period of time." As the U.S. imports a growing share of the oil it consumes, bringing it in on tankers, spills will inevitably become a larger environmental threat.

Last week the Coast Guard, National Guardsmen and private contractors made unusually good progress in cleaning up the uncanny string of spills. In Narragansett Bay, where the Greek tanker World Prodigy struck a reef and spewed 420,000 gals. of No. 2 fuel oil, most of the residue had evaporated or was rounded up by week's end. While the fuel may have long-term toxic effects on some marine life, fishermen were able to harvest shellfish for the first time since the accident. After an initial investigation, the ship's captain, Iakovos Georgudis, was charged with one misdemeanor count of discharging pollutants in violation of the Clean Water Act and another misdemeanor count of discharging refuse. (Maximum penalty for each count: one year in prison and a fine that could amount to as much as twice the total cost of the cleanup.)

In Delaware, where the Uruguayan tanker Presidente Rivera ran aground and spilled 300,000 gals. of heavy No. 6 oil, about 70% had been cleaned up. The smallest of the spills, which occurred when a barge collided with a cargo ship in the Houston Ship Channel and released 250,000 gals. of heavy crude, was almost completely recovered. Nature cooperated: high winds blew most of the petroleum into an industrial channel where it could be scooped up easily.

Even the most effective cleanup operations, however, could not derail the momentum in Congress to enact tougher laws to regulate oil shipping. Already more than 16 bills have been introduced in the wake of the Valdez disaster. Though similar legislation has foundered on Capitol Hill during the past 14 years, "the pressure is on Congress to get something passed this year," says John Catena, a science-policy analyst at the Oceanic Society. Last week the Senate Commerce Committee approved the Oil Tanker Navigation Safety Act, making that proposed law the first post-Valdez bill to reach the full Senate. In response to the Valdez accident, in which the captain may have been drinking, the proposed law would require mandatory alcohol testing.

Lawmakers and environmentalists grow especially militant when they recall the oil industry's past bravado about its ability to handle any spills. In 1982, for example, a Mobil Corp. newspaper ad headlined OIL SPILLS: LESS THREAT NOW boasted that "oceanic pollution from oil transportation has abated, thus insuring the continued health of the seas. That's progress of which we are understandably proud." Says Erik Olson, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation: "The oil industry has been dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything about oil-spill response."

The industry's strongest effort at reform came two weeks ago, when the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group of big oil companies, announced a $250 million program to make cleanups more effective. Admitting that the industry is now unable to respond adequately to catastrophic (over 8 million gals.) spills, the group will establish five regional centers, staffed 24 hours a day, to rush equipment and workers to accident sites.

The group has also called for a study of better cleanup technology and tanker construction. The proposed research would consider whether double- hulled tankers are safer than single-hulled ships, which are now far more common in U.S. waterways. Oil company executives have so far resisted double hulls, which are about 10% more expensive to build, arguing that they could prove harder to salvage in the event of an accident because water could fill the cavity between the hulls. But some proponents of the more costly model dispute that point and contend that the second hull offers more protection in a collision. While modern ships are equipped with increasingly advanced guidance systems, human error is blamed for more than half of all spills. "We are seeing a number of ships with state-of-the-art technology bumping into things. That shouldn't happen," says Alan Pollock, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board. As a result, several congressional bills would require larger staffed and better trained tanker crews. In recent years, shipping companies have cut back their crews to save money.

Another line of defense that is targeted for bolstering is the Coast Guard, which had diverted some of its attention in the 1980s from oil-spill prevention to drug interdiction. Several congressional bills would provide money to improve the Coast Guard's traffic-control system, which coordinates ship movements in coastal waters. Shipping experts believe the Coast Guard should improve its radar facilities. In the case of the Exxon Valdez, the equipment failed to show the ship cruising off course.

A new generation of spill-cleanup technology would have the most dramatic impact on the problem. "Our current technology is in the Stone Age," says the National Wildlife Federation's Olson. The booms and skimmers that are most frequently used suffer some basic flaws: they do not work in rough seas, and heavy crude tends to seep under a boom and clog a skimmer. Finally, the devices are all but useless when confronted with a devastatingly large spill like the Valdez disaster. Once the oil had spread over the vast Prince William Sound, a boat towing a skimmer needed fully 14 hours to clear one narrow swath across the 35-mile-wide bay. The chemical dispersants often used in oil cleanups have problems too. They cannot function in calm water, and because they are toxic, they can seriously damage fish and wildlife.

Such statistics have persuaded many people that some territories should be placed off limits to oil-field development. Last week the House Appropriations Committee voted to enact a yearlong ban on drilling off vast areas of the coasts of California and Florida, a 50-mile stretch of the mid-Atlantic and part of New England. Congress has never before urged so sweeping a ban on offshore exploration. The committee also voted for a year's moratorium on oil and gas exploration in Alaska's Bristol Bay, an exceedingly rich fishing area.

That strategy, however, has a catch. If the U.S were to develop new domestic sources of oil, the country could reduce its dependence on foreign tankers in its harbors. Last year foreign producers provided the U.S. with 37% of its oil supplies, up from 27% in 1985. Since foreign oil enters the country mostly by tanker, growing imports only increase the odds of new spills. According to projections by Ohio Democrat Mary Oakar, chairwoman of the House Economic Stabilization Subcommittee, by the end of the 1990s as much as 90% of the oil consumed in the U.S. could arrive by tanker, up from about 65% now. A serious, renewed campaign of energy conservation would help stem that tanker flow and pay other fringe benefits as well. But as long as foreign crude remains relatively cheap, that goal may prove as elusive as the puncture-proof oil tanker.

With reporting by Miriam Rabkin/Washington and Stephen Sawicki/Boston