Tanker Catches Bay With Plans Down

Extraordinary events require extraordinary measures. Yet, with the plan to bring the Exxon Valdez, responsible for the one of the worst ecological disasters in history, into San Diego Bay, no extraordinary precautions were taken to protect the bay.

While the creation of 300 jobs at National Steel & Shipbuilding was being celebrated, few government and community leaders seemed willing to pause and consider just what it meant to bring this ship into San Diego Bay.

What was the difference between San Diego Bay and Portland Harbor? Certainly, the ship-repair industry in Portland is as desirous of work as San Diego’s. But, when the captain of the Port of Portland became aware that the ship was to go there, a multistate task force was quickly assembled. The task force immediately advised Exxon of its concerns and demands. One of its most important demands was requiring full cost recovery for any government costs associated with its review and financial assurances in case of accident.

As it has turned out, Portland officials had some justification for their concerns. The Valdez, which was supposed to enter San Diego Bay on Tuesday, is marooned offshore because it is suspected of discharging oil and because of structural damage incurred en route from Alaska.

One has to wonder if this situation could have been avoided if officials in San Diego and California had taken a more active role in the beginning. For example:

- A broadbased technical review group, including all appropriate government agencies and the public, should have been named for the state of California to assist the U. S. Coast Guard in the preparation of a comprehensive plan to ensure the protection of the environment and the safety of the Valdez. This group could have included members of the San Diego Bay Interagency Water Quality Panel. After the plan was developed, it should have been available for public comment.

- Requirements for entering San Diego Bay, docking the vessel and assuring protection of water quality during repairs should have been delineated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Port of San Diego and other affected or interested agencies. One reason why this is important is that Nassco’s national pollutant discharge permit now requires minimal or no monitoring of surrounding water quality and sediments.

- There should have been a binding agreement between the state of California, local jurisdictions and Exxon--similar to the one submitted by the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon and the province of British Columbia--setting forth specific principles and conditions of the voyage.

- The Regional Water Quality Control Board should have sent a representative to Alaska to inspect the vessel and observe the testing procedures. The board was willing to do the inspection, however the state Water Resources Control Board would not approve it.

The Environmental Health Coalition raised these concerns and made these recommendations to the Coast Guard shortly after learning that the Valdez would be coming to Nassco for repairs. The Coast Guard never officially responded, but the federal agency did make public assurances that the Exxon Valdez would be one of the cleanest ships to ever dock in San Diego Bay. Assurances based on what?

No one from the state was sent to directly inspect the vessel. No comprehensive plan was prepared. There was no public input. It has even come to light that the state Department of Fish and Game knew that petroleum levels in the tanker exceeded state standards.

What should have been done when the Valdez was still in Alaska may not be practical now that the Valdez is sitting 50 miles off shore, but there’s still the time and the need for a coordinated effort.

For the first time in this process, a government agency has emerged to take control. On Friday, the state attorney general’s office filed for an injunction requiring specific assurances before the Valdez is allowed to enter state waters.

We recommend that the Coast Guard follow the attorney general’s lead and develop a specific protocol for movement and docking of the vessel. Exxon and all appropriate government agencies must agree in writing to these conditions, including Exxon assuming full financial responsibilities. The public should have the opportunity to review this as well.

If we do not demand that government officials address these issues now, if we do not assert our right to participate in decisions affecting our coastal waters, we may be inviting another source of pollution to an already polluted bay.