TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/071089/07108900.015

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 9.1 KB | 173 lines

                                                                                BUSINESS, Page 42

Whose Mess Is It?


In the gooey aftermath of three spills, Congress is putting
pressure on Big Oil to prevent accidents and do a better job of
cleaning them up

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.