Exxon Valdez Is Called Likely Oil Slick Source

Coast Guard officials said Tuesday that the Exxon Valdez, the tanker responsible for dumping 11 million gallons of oil off Alaska, probably is the source of a 10-mile oil slick off the San Diego coast and is trailing a smaller sheen as it waits offshore to enter the harbor for repairs.

The two lines of oil, as well as huge, steel plates jutting down from the crippled tanker’s hull that prevent it from clearing the harbor bottom, will delay the ship’s docking for at least several days, officials said.

The 987-foot tanker was expected to dock Tuesday morning at the National Steel & Shipbuilding Co. yard for repairs. But final inspections by the Coast Guard and other agencies revealed the oil slicks and the dangling steel plates, and the ship was instructed to stay out of the harbor indefinitely.

Tests conducted late Monday night did not confirm whether the oil slick, at one point as much as 18 miles long and 200 yards wide, was directly caused by the tanker, now sitting about 40 miles off Point Loma and slowly moving southwest.

‘A Positive Fingerprint’

But Coast Guard authorities, awaiting results from their own tests, said they are assuming the Valdez was responsible.

“We haven’t got a positive fingerprint. But they (Exxon officials) were wrong. The ship is not squeaky clean,” said Cmdr. Frank Scarborough, during a press conference early Tuesday at Coast Guard headquarters.

Exxon officials acknowledged that the Valdez was leaking what appeared to be oil and trailing a brown sheen at least 3 miles long and 25 yards wide, but said they were not certain the bigger slick had been caused by the tanker.

“We have confirmed that there is material coming out of the Exxon Valdez,” said John Tompkins, fleet services manager for the oil company. “But we still don’t know if there’s any association with the (major) slick and the Valdez.

“I’ve got to tell you, the lack of trying and the lack of effort was not there. We took every precaution we knew how,” Tompkins continued. Before the Valdez left Alaska, “In every part of that ship, we removed every bit of oil, all the free oil that was there. This isn’t what we had in our design.”

Coast Guard officials said the bigger slick may have been caused by a merchant ship or another oil tanker, and that winds may have blown it within a mile of the Valdez.

That oil slick has been dissipated by winds and is heading out to sea, and poses little danger to marine life or San Diego beaches, state fish and game officials said.

The Valdez, towed by two tugs and accompanied by another tug and a salvage boat, arrived off San Diego late Sunday, after leaving Prince William Sound on June 23 for the 2,200-mile voyage.

On March 24, the giant tanker hit a reef in Alaska and spilled millions of gallons of oil, fouling hundreds of miles of pristine Alaskan shoreline, killing thousands of animals and upsetting the fishing industry.

About 42 million gallons of oil aboard the Valdez were transferred to other tankers, and tests showed about one part of oil per million parts of water remained in the ship’s tanks, Exxon officials said.

Before it left Alaska, oil company leaders assured San Diego agencies and environmental groups that the ship’s tanks had been scrubbed and cleaned of oil, and that the Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency, state of Alaska and other agencies had approved the ship’s transit to San Diego for repairs.

But tests conducted Tuesday by the Regional Water Quality Control Board appeared to match oil from the sheen to a milky white substance seen bubbling up from the ship’s bottom late Monday.

On Monday, authorities said one possible source of the slicks was the discharge of seawater from the Valdez’ tanks as the ship approached the harbor, to allow it to clear the harbor’s bottom.

That possibility, as well as a theory that turbulent ocean waves loosened residual oil within the ship’s tanks as they washed through the open hull, were reiterated Tuesday.

“Exxon theorized that, as a result of bringing the ship up, with the turbulence of flushing it out . . . it had a scouring effect that is removing pockets of oil that were not cleaned,” said Scarborough. “That’s the most likely possibility. I think it’s very likely that the (discharge) effort flushed out materials that (Exxon) didn’t think were there.”

To stop the spill, the Coast Guard and Exxon on Tuesday were filling the tanker with water, lowering the ship from a depth of about 24 feet to about 33 feet, to float the oil up inside the vessel.

The method seemed to be working by late afternoon as the sheen trailing the ship lessened, Coast Guard officials reported.

The measure also may have been the first step toward removing the steel plates that make it impossible for the tanker to enter San Diego’s harbor. The condition with the ship plate was created during the voyage when turbulence peeled back the steel around the damaged areas of the hull.

Once authorities are certain no more oil is leaking from the Valdez, the ship will be moved on its own power to an area with shallower, calmer waters, Scarborough said. The active sea around the ship’s current position makes it difficult for divers to remove the five 1-inch-thick steel plates, about 40 feet long and 65 feet wide.

The waters off San Clemente Island appeared to be the most likely site for the procedure, although officials also were considering the Coronado-Point Loma area.

But the process could be troublesome. If the ship leaks oil or Exxon dumps the steel plates in state waters around San Clemente Island, the oil company could face civil and criminal penalties for polluting the ocean. Federal and international laws against pollution also could trigger such penalties, but may not be as stringent as state regulations, officials said.

“It could create a problem, if they don’t get it cleaned up before they take it in there,” said Capt. Rod Shackelford of the California Department of Fish and Game, which enforces state water laws.

If the plates can be removed, the ship can be filled with water and draw as much as 38 feet while still clearing the 42-foot deep harbor channel, officials said.

Although Timpson said he is unsure when the ship can be moved, Scarborough said the Coast Guard may order a 24-hour waiting period once the leak appears to be stopped, to practice maneuvering the tanker and to ensure no more oil is discharged.

Meanwhile, environmentalists Tuesday rallied in protest against Exxon.

About 100 people demonstrated at Coronado Tidelands Park, across the bay from the Naasco repair yard. Members of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Environmental Health Coalition and other groups called for penalties against the oil company and an end to America’s dependence on fossil fuels, and encouraged a new national energy agenda.

“We’re talking about a much deeper problem than a sea captain who had a few too many shots of whiskey and an oil company that’s greedy for profits,” said Rick Nadeau, director of Greenpeace Action in San Diego. “The Exxon Valdez has become a symbol of the destruction of our oceans and the destruction of our atmosphere, and represents our addiction to fossil fuels.”

Added Carole Jo Oberle, a protester and local elementary school teacher: “It’s so frightening. I can see our shores following Alaska’s lead. God help us.”

Coast Guard Cmdr. Scarborough said he was frustrated by the Valdez incident, but that he would not chastise Exxon. “My assessment is that they are as surprised as we are that this is happening. I can honestly say that they took all the precautions we asked them to take.”

In response to calls by state politicians for more durable construction of oil-carrying tankers, Tompkins said Exxon will “study” proposals such as one requiring the ships to have double hulls, but probably won’t change the construction of the Valdez.

The Valdez, built by Naasco in 1986, is a single-hulled ship. Naasco will have to repair an area 700 feet long and 100 feet wide on the ship’s hull, as well as another hole about 20 feet by 15 feet, Exxon officials said.

“We plan on rebuilding this vessel in the same manner it was built before,” said Tompkins.