CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
March 12, 1968
Page 6088
OIL POLLUTION
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, the recent oil spill in San Juan Bay, Puerto Rico, is a reminder of important unfinished business before Congress.
I speak, of course, of legislation to strengthen the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, to make it both more simple to enforce and more effective in the protection of our fish, seabirds, and beaches against oil discharges.
The Senate last year passed S. 2760, a bill I cosponsored, which, in my judgment, would go a long way toward achieving these objectives. Unfortunately, the House has not acted on this measure; indeed, the Committee on Public Works of the other body has not even held hearings.
This is all the more regrettable because S. 2760 is especially relevant to the Puerto Rico oil spill. Were the bill law, Puerto Rico, as well as other U.S. possessions, could be assisted by the Federal Government in cleaning up after the spill in a more expeditious and comprehensive manner than is possible under existing law or emergency arrangements between Federal agencies.
The Torrey Canyon disaster off England and the destructive oil spills last year off the New Jersey and Massachusetts coasts alerted the Nation to the weakness of its oil pollution control laws.
The most serious aspect of the legal problem involved a requirement, slipped into the act in the dying days of the 89th Congress, that the Federal Government must prove "gross negligence" in prosecuting violators. The effect of the provision was predictable -- it dried up further prosecutions under the law.
S. 2760 deals effectively with this and other deficiencies. For example, the requirement for proving gross negligence is removed, in line with separate bills introduced last year by the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] and myself. Further, the Senate bill covers oil discharges from shore installations for the first time, and provides for the immediate cleanup of oil either by the perpetrator of a spill or by the Federal Government. In either case, the perpetrator will be liable for the total costs of cleanup unless the spill results from an act of God.
As the Senate Committee on Public Works pointed out in its report on S. 2760, the object of the proposed legislation "is to control pollution by oil by making it unprofitable for the owners or operators of a vessel or shore installation to countenance carelessness, and by providing a ready statutory basis for containing and removing the oil when it is discharged."
The bill itself does not deal with the problem of Coast Guard oil pollution patrols which, unfortunately, at present are largely based on happenstance sightings by passing ships and planes.
Last year I wrote to Senator MUSKIE urging that the committee report include language on the need for systematizing and increasing these oil pollution patrols. I am glad, indeed, that the committee accepted my proposed language almost word for word.
As I have pointed out in the past, the lack of systematic patrols encourages violation of existing law and would be damaging as well to the constructive steps that would be undertaken through S. 2760.
While obviously the patrolling of vast areas of ocean would not be a simple matter, a shipping expert for the New York Times stated in an April 23, 1967, article concerned with the Atlantic coast that the Coast Guard "knows at any time the identity and location of 60 percent of the ships offshore."
The Secretary of the Interior has authority under present law to get the Coast Guard to do more patrolling for oil pollution in offshore waters. In the light of the urgency of the oil pollution problem, I strongly recommend that he not wait for the new law to be enacted before securing Coast Guard agreement to step up these patrols.
I am pleased that the President, in his conservation message to the Congress, endorsed S. 2760 and stated his desire to "build upon" it. I hope that the House will respond to his urging by acting promptly on the Senate bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement by the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], who is not present today.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE OCEAN EAGLE DISASTER (Statement by Senator MUSKIE)
Mr. President, on Sunday, March 3, an oil pollution disaster occurred in San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico.
Though much smaller than the Torrey Canyon, which broke up off the British Isles last year, the tanker Ocean Eagle was carrying nearly 6 million gallons of crude oil at the time it broke in two and grounded.
About two million gallons of its polluting cargo has thus far been released, fouling waters and devastating over ten miles of beautiful Puerto Rican beaches. These beaches and waters, as severely damaged as those of England when the tanker Torrey Canyon went down last May, are a main attraction for a group of multi-million dollar hotels, support a major tourist industry and provide recreation for the people of Puerto Rico.
The total social, economic and ecological costs of Sunday's disaster cannot yet be assessed. The remaining oily cargo lies threateningly in the holds of the two parts of the tanker. Oil that has already escaped continues to wash onto the beaches.
The Federal Government and Commonwealth officials are fighting to contain this pollution.
Booms have been moved in to contain the oil that spills from the grounded stern section of the tanker. Efforts are continuing to tow the bow section of the tanker out to sea. A fleet of trucks and crews of local laborers are removing oil from the beaches and attempting to cover the remainder with absorbent materials.
But the damage has already been done. Restoration of non-living resources will take substantial work. The living resources may never recover.
The Senate anticipated this disaster last year when it unanimously passed S. 2760, which made major changes in the Oil Pollution Act. I was pleased to note President Johnson's strong endorsement of this legislation in his recent message on environmental quality.
During our hearings on that legislation, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution discussed, at considerable length, the need to move effectively to protect the public from oil pollution. And even though the hearings were announced prior to the Torrey Canyon disaster, considerable testimony was presented regarding the inability of the British Government to move quickly to protect her shores.
Now Puerto Rico is confronted with a similar, though somewhat smaller, repetition of the great British episode. Had the legislation been passed, had the other body acted on S. 2760, tools would have been in the hands of the Secretary to move to limit the damage now occurring.
The oil pollution provisions of S. 2760 would have prevented or limited the damage in San Juan Harbor in these important ways:
1) S. 2760 extends the coverage of the oil pollution control provisions of existing law and the new provisions of S. 2760 to Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands. Today, no adequate oil pollution controls are set up for Puerto Rico, which has increasing traffic in giant oil tankers.
2) S. 2760 provides the Secretary of the Interior with adequate authority to prevent or abate threatened or actual pollution. Today, no Federal agency has clear authority to avert oil pollution and its damages. Considerable work is being conducted in San Juan by the Coast Guard, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Navy and Commonwealth officials. However, there is no clear directional authority. The results are delay, some confusion and a cleanup of less-than-top efficiency. The legislation which passed the Senate clearly designates the Secretary of the Interior as leader in any such oil pollution crisis.
3) S. 2760 authorizes a revolving fund in the Treasury to be used by the Secretary of the Interior to carry out cleanup operations. There are no funds now specially designated for the cleanup such as the one being done in Puerto Rico. Because no funds are available for a cleanup operation, there has been no stockpiling of cleanup equipment or know-how. No oil control equipment was available in San Juan when the spill occurred, and virtually none was available in all of Puerto Rico. This resulted in delay which turned an oil spill into an oil disaster.
4) S. 2760 fixes the owner or operator of the vessel with responsibility for removal of spilled oil and for immediately lessening the potential danger to natural resources. If the discharger fails to do so, the Secretary of the Interior would clean up the oil while the owner or operator would be fully liable for the costs to the Federal Government. In the case of the Ocean Eagle, the owner was contacted but apparently has made no attempt to alleviate the oil disaster.
While the owner of the vessel was not responsive, the owner of the cargo -- the Gulf Oil Company -- has provided cleanup equipment and is working in other ways to minimize the damage of the oil.
Had the provisions of S. 2760 become law, that owner of the vessel would have had initial responsibility and may have acted differently. His liability would be a powerful incentive to preventing the pollution in the first place. Or, failing that, he would be more responsive and cooperative, and fully repay the cleanup costs to the Federal Government.
In Report No. 917 to the Senate on S. 2760 last year, the Committee on Public Works cited the "need to give increased attention not only to the assurance of recovery of damages but to better methods to prevent these damages from occurring."
Delay has been costly. Inadequate or limited methods to deal with the problem still prevail and the question of authority remains unresolved. It is with the sense of highest urgency that I repeat my call for immediate Congressional action to secure final passage of S. 2760. The President has underscored this urgency. We cannot and must not wait for a repetition of this disaster on the shores of Maryland, Florida, or any of our great coastal States.