CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

November 10, 1969

Page 33590

COMBATING POLLUTION CREATED BY OIL SPILLS

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I invite the attention of the Senate to a recent study on the subject of oil pollution.

Arthur D. Little, Inc., pursuant to a contract with the Department of Transportation, reviewed the question of oil discharges "to assist the Coast Guard in enhancing its short-term preparedness for combating and ultimately managing oil pollution." Volume I of the report, which has been made available to the public, is an assessment of oil pollution control and abatement methods. The summary conclusion of volume I states:

The major operational consideration in any oil spill situation is that, if at all possible, the oil spill should be treated at sea to prevent the contamination of the coastline and attendant damage to the coastal ecology and economy. Operational procedures for combating oil spills at sea must be based on a 24-hour day capability and point to a logical order of priority. First, the oil should be, if possible, contained at the source. Second, the oil inside the containment area should be removed. And, third, the oil that has spread outside the containment area should be removed -- the combatant method depending on the kind of oil, its age, the sea-state, and other considerations.

The study points out that the technological capabilities to deal with major oil spills are severely limited:

The state-of-the-art for combating oil spills in the open ocean has not progressed significantly since the Torrey Canyon Incident in March 1967, as demonstrated by the agonizing and expensive cleanup operations at Santa Barbara. In contrast, the state-of-the-art for combating the more frequent oil spills in harbors is developing rapidly because of public pressures, harbor regulations, and the less severe conditions.

The following statements from the study indicate the present level of our capability to deal with oil pollution spills: Mechanical Containment: Mechanical booms are commercially available and have been successfully demonstrated in protected waters. However, none of these systems has proven effective in containing an oil spill in the open ocean, nor is there any boom system designed specifically for open-ocean use. The boom concept of open ocean containment, however, offers potential for all cleanup operations and reduction of cleanup costs by reducing the area to be treated.

Mechanical Removal: The skimmer concept offers a potentially effective way of removing the oil from the ocean environment without introduction of other foreign materials. . . No skimming device has been demonstrated to be effective under open ocean conditions.

Physical Sinking Methods: Sinking agents were used with some success in the Torrey Canyon disaster. However, systems for efficiently spreading sinking agents are not available for treating large spills on the open ocean. More importantly, little is known about the mechanism of sinking. and the behavior of sunken oil on the ocean floor and its effect on the benthic ecology.

Chemical Dispersion: Chemical dispersion has been the most extensively used of any combatant method. Dispersants are most useful on freshly formed slicks of light oil in a moderate temperature environment. However, the toxicity of chemical dispersants to marine life has limited their wider application. We believe that the use of dispersants has been unduly restricted, particularly in the open ocean where biological activity is low. At present, chemical dispersion offers the most effective method of treating open ocean spills.

Nevertheless, a better understanding of the physical chemistry and dynamics of dispersions is needed as well as that of the ultimate fate of the dispersed oil and the toxicity of oil-chemical mixtures. Equipment for the efficient application of dispersants must be developed before this method can be rated as operationally effective for large spills.

Physical Absorption: Inexpensive absorption materials which could be easily distributed are available for the treatment of an oil spill with minimum damage to the ecology. The major limitation of absorption, however, is that the spent, oil-soaked materials must be collected.

Equipment now available for the spreading and collecting of these materials either on calm or open water is ineffective. If effective equipment can be developed, this technique would be best suited for thin to moderate oil slicks where the wind will not unduly impede the distribution of the materials and where the biology is of sufficient importance to preclude the use of sinking agents or chemical dispersants.

Combustion: . . the feasibility of improving combustion of a large oil spill on the open ocean has not been demonstrated.

Biological Degradation: Biological seeding of oil slicks with special bacterial cultures is neither necessary nor especially effective for the treatment of an oil spill.

The report shows that the technology to restore damaged shoreline and beaches is even less adequate:

Shoreline restoration technology is almost nonexistent and is highly labor intensive. The cleaning method to be used will depend upon the economic and recreational value and the nature of the shoreline. Restoration of sandy beaches may involve the loss of large quantities of valuable sand; the cleaning of rocky shores has had only limited success; and all restoration methods may have severe effects on the littoral ecology.

Mr. President, the most significant information provided by this study is the information on the cost associated with cleanup of an oil spill. On page 7 of the report the following statement appears: We estimate that these direct costs range from $1700 to $4100 for a small (1,000-gallon) harbor spill; from $64,000 to $115,000 for a medium (100,000-gallon) off-shore oil spill; and from $4.5 million to $8.5 million for a large (10,000,000-gallon of a 35,000-ton) off-shore spill.

Senators may recall that the section of the Water Quality Improvement Act passed by the Senate which deals with oil pollution did not establish a liability limit in those instances when the Government can prove that the discharge was the result of negligence or a willful act.

According to the report, the only operationally feasible method of oil pollution clean-up appears to be physical absorption, the use of straw to absorb the oil. This method would cost approximately $255 per gross ton in a 35,000-ton oil spill. Therefore, only when the Government can prove that a discharge was the result of negligence or a willful act will the liability limits passed by the Senate be adequate to cover the cost of clean-up.

Mr. President, the report should help those Senators who will join with me in the conference on the Water Quality Improvement Act insist on the provisions of the Senate bill which offer the possibility of adequate liability limits as against the provisions of the House version which do not.

More important, the report should also be important to members of the United States negotiating party at the conference of the International Maritime Consultative Organization in Brussels this month where an attempt will be made to negotiate an international oil pollution agreement.

I hope that Senators, the shipping industry, the oil industry, the negotiating team, and all others who share our interest in this serious and critical problem will examine the report carefully.