Remember The Valdez

Coast Guard fiddles while Big Oil yearns to continue sending tankers without tug escorts into Washington's inland waters

By Renee Kjartan, Free Press contributor

n the eve of the tenth anniversary of the Exxon Valdez spill, debates, proposals, counterproposals, and lawsuits swirl around an issue that would seem to be a no-brainer: Should loaded oil tankers entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca be required to be escorted by tugboats? The public, many newspapers, local politicians, and environmental groups overwhelmingly favor mandatory tug escorts so that, if tankers run into trouble, they won't spill their cargo into Washington's inland waters. But the Coast Guard, trotting at the heels of the oil companies, argues that tugs should not be required.

Recent shipping mishaps add further urgency to the issue. On Feb 2, a 600-foot cargo vessel carrying wood chips and 360,000 gallons of fuel ran aground just north of Coos Bay, Oregon, in rising seas of 20-30 feet and high winds. Its fuel began to leak into the water, oiling birds and spoiling the coastal waters and protected dunes. On Feb. 5, a 960-foot container ship lost power near Port Angeles and was rescued just 200 yards before going aground. If the ship had been further west, where tugs aren't readily available, it would have been a disaster rather than a near-miss.

Some 5,000 cargo and passenger ships traverse the Strait annually, making for 10,000 crossings as they enter and then leave Puget Sound. This includes some 500 tankers per year. Rear Admiral Paul M. Blayney, 13th District commander of the U.S. Coast Guard, admitted in a Seattle Times editorial: "...every vessel that sails--even an escort tug--poses some risk to the environment." Even the cleanest vessel leaves unspent fuel and other contaminants in the water.

No tugs are required when vessels enter the Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Pacific Ocean at Neah Bay, and no help is available if they get into trouble, until they reach Port Angeles, about 70 miles away. Here, two tugboat escorts are required for laden fuel tankers and no escorts are required for cargo and other vessels.

Guarding the coast for
petrochemical interests

Despite the recent spills, the Coast Guard advocates a "tug of opportunity" solution, which requires that any tug nearby help a vessel in trouble.

"But the nearby tug may already have a tow," says Fred Felleman, a conservation biologist and Northwest director of Ocean Advocates, a national non-profit organization dedicated to conserving the world's oceans, with specific expertise in maritime safety. "Should the tug let go its tow to help another vessel? And what if no tug is nearby?"

Despite a clear need for caution, the Coast Guard is against mandatory tug escorts. Rear Adm. Blayney wrote in the Seattle Times that voluntary efforts, already in place, are sufficient to prevent disasters in the region. "[T]here is a misplaced trust in the omniscience of regulation....What we need is a reasoned debate between regulators, industry, and responsible citizen groups," Blayney wrote. Blayney echoed the line of the tanker owners, whose 5-cent per barrel tax on incoming loads would be used, in part, to pay for the tug escorts.

The Washington Department of Ecology is also "studying" the issue. "Puget Sound is a national treasure that deserves all the protection we can give it," said Tom Fitzsimmons, head of the department. But Felleman points out that the Washington State Department of Ecology usually follows "the Coast Guard's pathetic lead of pandering to the industry rather than upholding the public's trust."

The U.S. Department of Transportation is scheduled to do a cost/benefit analysis of the mandatory tug issue. And the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, a program within the Department of Commerce that "panders to the maritime industry," according to Felleman, also has opposed mandatory tug escorts of oil-laden tankers.

President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have said they favor safety in Puget Sound, but they, too, haven't done anything to alienate the oil companies, Felleman says.

The list of groups and government agencies favoring tug escorts is impressive. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Skagit Valley Herald, and Bellingham Herald, have called for escorts, as have the Sierra Club Cascade Chapter, People for Puget Sound, Washington State Audubon Society, Friends of the San Juans, and the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, as well as Sen. Patty Murray, Gov. Gary Locke, and Rep. Jack Metcalf.

There oughta be a law

State Senate Bill 5288, introduced in January, would extend the current tug escort requirement to incoming tankers as soon as they enter the Strait of Juan de Fuca. So many people and organizations testified for the bill in early February, that time ran out.

Speaking against SB 5288 were the Coast Guard, Western States Petroleum Association, and Arco.

"The federal government up to now has ordered more studies but failed to provide any kind of interim measures to reduce the danger of an oil spill in the western Strait," says Kathy Fletcher of People for Puget Sound. "In 1991, bipartisan legislation passed the state's oil spill prevention law that required an emergency response system at the mouth of the Strait. That requirement was never was carried out. This bill fulfills that commitment."

The Puget Sound Council, appointed by Gov. Locke and consisting of representatives from business, environmental groups, agricultural and shellfish industries, counties, cities and tribes, also has weighed in strongly for tug escorts for the tankers on the first leg of their journey into Puget Sound.

Recently Rep. Norm Dicks got the Navy to pay for 60 days of contract tug services for the remainder of this winter. If there is to be contracted tug services for next winter (November 1999-April 2000), the governor will have to introduce another bill, which could be passed as early as this summer if enough pressure is exerted.

But even if tugs are mandatory throughout the tankers' journey through the region, danger to the purity of the waters abounds.

"It is the two-hour response/recovery benchmark at the entrance to the strait that all shippers have failed to meet," says Felleman, in reference to the state Department of Ecology's failure to enforce the 1991 law's requirement for ships entering Washington to have spill prevention plans. In other words, the shippers do not have plans to clean up specified amounts of oil within two hours if a spill should occur.

The United States Justice Department is even weighing in against Washington's present laws to prevent oil spills. The department was to decide by Feb. 24 whether to petition the Supreme Court to hear its lawsuit with foreign tanker owners against the state's spill prevention laws. The Coast Guard and the U.S. Department of Transportation are also involved in this suit. President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have said they favor safety in Puget Sound, but they, too, haven't done anything to alienate the oil companies, Felleman says.

Neither the state nor the Coast Guard will order the shutdown of ports during storms. Felleman points out that on November 25, 1998, the Coast Guard allowed a barge laden with oil to head out the Strait through the Olympic Coast Sanctuary and to attempt to enter the Columbia River during the peak of a storm. The tug lost its barge containing 2 million gallons of oil. Luckily, no oil spilled.

Maritime activists say that clear lessons were taught by the Exxon Valdez disaster. In Alaska, since the Exxon Valdez, says Felleman, tug escorts have been found to reduce the likelihood of a spill by up to 75%. Moreover, the port is shut down when there are severe storms.

Companies with incomes bigger than those of many countries ply the world's open seas and straits, using them as their private highways. Just as the car companies screamed they would go broke if forced to provide seat belts, or greater fuel efficiency, the oil giants scream that a few cents a barrel to protect the seas will hurt their profit margins.

"There is little left of representative government when every local elected official and citizens' group can call for added protection, but the government only responds to the calls for delays by the maritime industry," says Felleman. "As long as we are stuck with a petroleum based economy we owe it to ourselves to assure that it is delivered in as safe a way as possible. The ultimate solution is, of course, reducing our petroleum dependency and demand for stuff in general."