In Valdez’s Wake: Where’s Rest of Bay Oil Coming From?

As the Exxon Valdez was guided Tuesday into a National Steel & Shipbuilding Co. dock for repairs, a bluish sheen appeared around the beleaguered tanker.

Pollution-response boats immediately went to work, trying to clean up the material and collect samples to be tested later. But, although slicks and sheens that appeared near the tanker in weeks past had triggered an uproar, this one did little to faze Nassco officials who stood on a dock nearby.

“You’ll see oil almost any day in the bay, regrettably,” said Fred Hallett, the company’s vice president of finance.

During many of the 21 days in which the 987-foot-long Valdez drifted off San Diego, helicopters flying overhead sighted a sheen, a light film and usually rainbow-colored--characteristic of what happens when oil or fuel meets water.

Most of the sheens were not believed to have come from the Valdez, the Coast Guard said, although at least one has been traced back to it. Many were miles away from the crippled tanker, and often in normal shipping lanes.

‘Where’s It Coming From’

The watchful eye of the Coast Guard, state agencies and the public on the movements of the Valdez have revealed a more ordinary problem: the routine discharging and dumping of oily pollutants inside and outside San Diego Bay, and the murky process for monitoring it.

“If the stuff isn’t coming from the Valdez, where’s it coming from? And who is watching over it? Who’s in charge?” asked Jay Powell, special projects director for the Environmental Health Coalition and coordinator for the group’s Clean Bay campaign. “If nothing else, the Valdez event is really bringing these questions to bear. Perhaps we’ve been taking for granted that the bay is really protected.”

San Diego port officials maintain that there is little problem with such pollution and cite regular patrolling of the bay, strict regulations and a concerned public as their preventive measures.

“Any time there’s a discharge, there is automatic notification of the Coast Guard. My experience has been that (discharges or spills) are very infrequent. When they have been observed, they have been dealt with immediately,” said Bob Hutton, the port’s assistant manager of marine operations.

The Toxics Waste Advisory Committee, in fact, a conglomeration of local politicians, Port District officials and citizens organized earlier this year, is the newest monitoring effort by the port.

Monitoring Questioned

But environmentalists, state politicians and even some agencies involved in monitoring the bay are not as convinced of the effectiveness of the system.

“There are holes all over the place. There was oil in the water before (the Valdez) even entered the bay,” said Art Coe, assistant executive officer with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. “There are programs in place to deal with spills after they happen. What is probably lacking somewhat (are) programs to prevent them from happening. There’s just no money to go around for general monitoring.”

Kelly Quirke, ocean ecology coordinator for Greenpeace, added: “The Valdez remains a symbol of the dangers of oil transportation, and it’s important to retain that scrutiny. But I hope what people will learn from the Valdez is that it isn’t an isolated incident. The cumulative effect of all of the routine, business-as-usual spills--it’s an epidemic.”

In general, regulations permit dumping in federal waters, which extend 12 miles from the coast, of oily discharge with no more than 15 parts of oil per million parts of water; or more simply, any amount that won’t create a visible sheen or slick.

Regulations for state waters, which extend 3 miles from the coast, are more stringent. No discharge of oily materials is permitted in such waters, including the bay.

The Navy has 100 ships, including 23 submarines, stationed in San Diego, and officials estimate that 30 each week travel in and out of the bay. Commercial traffic in the bay is slower, with about 19 cargo vessels and 10 passenger vessels coming and going each month. From 5,000 to 7,000 small boats each month are tied up in the bay, and about 21 boatyards and shipyards line the shores. Dozens of storm drains empty wastes from inland into the bay.

How Often Are Rules Broken?

All of these are capable of spilling or dumping oil or fuel into the bay and ocean, officials say. But no one seems certain how often the rules are broken, and how much dumping, accidental or intentional, occurs.

Environmental groups offer a ballpark example: More than 15,000 oil spills in U.S. waters were reported to the Environmental Protection Agency in 1987, and 33% of those were considered part of “routine operations” by the oil industry.

The general condition of the bay is less doubtful. San Diego Bay has ranked among the nation’s leading sites for metals, zinc and carcinogenic PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, man-made fluids used by shipyard industries. It ranked No. 1 for arsenic and copper in a November report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Lead and other metals have been found throughout the waterway’s sediment, prompting signs warning people not to eat fish and shellfish from certain parts of the bay.

Last year, in fact, the San Diego Unified Port District agreed to pay for a landmark study that would examine possible health risks to people who consume fish and shellfish caught in the bay.

The degree of pollution is not all that concerns Quirke, Powell and others. The uncertainty about who tracks discharging and dumping of oil and fuel, and who enforces protective measures, also is a problem, they say.

“There seems to be a lack of information, and, on top of that, a lack of communication” among agencies responsible, said Chris Crotty, a spokesman for State Assemblywoman Lucy Killea (D-San Diego) who last year established a San Diego panel to look at pollution in the bay.

The Coast Guard is the lead agency for monitoring federal and navigable waters, which include the ocean as far out as 12 miles and San Diego Bay. The federal agency also is the lookout for waters 200 miles offshore under international laws, particularly when a U.S. commercial ship or tanker traffic lanes are involved.

The Coast Guard requires passing ships to keep specific records of the contents of their cargo and report discharges or dumping of oily substances. When such reports are received, or when the Coast Guard discovers a sheen or slick of oil or fuel, an investigation is launched to find the culprit, said spokesman Lt. Larry Solberg.

But tracking down the source of a small spill, which often dissipates quickly, making it difficult for authorities to collect a sample for “fingerprinting,” is neither easy nor quick.

“We have a pretty good track record of trying to track down vessels,” Solberg said. “But a lot of times these sheens are fairly small, and cleanup on the open ocean is hard. We monitor and investigate as best we can.”

Solberg said two sheens--one a 10-mile-long slick July 12 and another small discharge July 21--have been linked to the Valdez, which may lead to violations and fines after an investigation.

But the Coast Guard probably won’t be able to track down the sources of the other oil sheens sighted during the three weeks the Valdez drifted off San Diego, he said.

“There are so many ships passing in and out, the likelihood of catching the one who (caused the sheens) is very, very slim,” Solberg said.

Budget restrictions have limited the Coast Guard’s monitoring efforts, agency officials say. Daily flights over the bay and seas are primarily for law enforcement or search and rescue, although observers keep an eye out for suspicious sheens or slicks. The Coast Guard more often relies on the shipping industry, Navy and boaters on smaller vessels for reports of spilled oil or fuel.

In fact, about half of all oil- and fuel-spill reports to the Washington-based National Response Center, operated by the Coast Guard, come from the public, according to a spokesman for the center.

“With the Valdez, everything’s been overly scrutinized, so we’re seeing (sheens) probably more than we would on an everyday basis. A lot of times they’re not reported to us, and if we happen not to have an overflight over the area that day, we wouldn’t see them,” Solberg said. “There’s always a concern that we can’t be everywhere all the time. That’s true with police departments or any public agency that is faced with limited budgets and manpower.”

Other agencies responsible for monitoring discharges into the bay and seas off California’s coast face similar problems.

The budget of the California Coastal Commission, which examines state water and coastal issues, including routine oil and fuel pollution, has been cut by almost 57% since 1977. In fact, Gov. George Deukmejian recently cut $651,000 from the commission’s 1989-90 budget, the “bottom-line” amount needed to operate on last year’s level of funding, said Jim Burns, the agency’s chief deputy director.

“We should be involved with other agencies” discussing routine oil and fuel discharges, Burns said, “but we’re not. We don’t have the staff or the budget to do that.”

Deukmejian also cut funding for the San Diego Interagency Water Quality Panel, a group that advises the Regional Water Quality Control Board, panel officials say. Formed last year by Killea, the panel comprises about 23 local, state and federal agencies that have a say in bay issues and reports several times a year to the Legislature.

But last year, the group operated strictly on volunteer time and effort, with no money from state government. This year, the panel’s request for $75,000 was approved by the Legislature but vetoed by the governor.

The state’s lead agency for oil pollution in state waters, the Department of Fish and Game, has only a “mussel watch” program in place for monitoring, periodically testing mussels placed in different parts of the bay for chemical pollution levels, agency officials said.

“We’re dependent on being alerted to spills or hazardous conditions by the party responsible for the spill, or from the Coast Guard or some other agency that’s down there by the bay,” said Dwayne Maxwell, a fish and game water quality biologist.

“A monitoring program, even in a bay the size of San Diego Bay, would be enormous,” Maxwell said. “You’d have to have a staff of people out there all the time, working on the bay day in and day out. There isn’t anybody who has the staff or money to do that.”

In another instance, the Regional Water Quality Board in San Diego, responsible for issuing discharge permits to shipyards and boatyards around the bay and monitoring oil and fuel dumping, lost a bid this year for a $200,000 EPA grant to pay for aerial infrared surveillance to detect oil spills and “midnight dumping,” a common way of avoiding regulations and periodic Coast Guard and harbor patrols, officials said.

The board’s plan for general monitoring of the bay’s water quality and of regular oil and fuel discharging also has been put off because of lack of funds, Coe said.

In fact, partly because of staff and budget limitations, the board allows 12 shipyards and boatyards to monitor themselves for contamination or pollution of the bay. On-site inspections by board officials usually occur only one to three times a year, according to Coe.

Nine other facilities, including four Navy shipyards, do not have permits and have been requested by the board to apply, Coe said.

“To me, three times a year is not enough. Once a day is probably overkill. Somewhere in between lies the magic number,” Coe said. “Give us enough dollars, and we’ll regulate the hell out of everything.”

The self-monitoring system has its benefits. Companies are much less likely to dispute results from evidence they collected than from that gathered by the board. And some permits are being upgraded to include more stringent requirements for sediment and other types of monitoring, officials said.

But allowing shipyards and boatyards around the bay to monitor themselves also has its drawbacks. Facilities with permits may be less inclined to abide by regulations, and the fiscal inability of the board to inspect them routinely leaves opportunity to break the rules.

“I don’t think anything’s foolproof. It certainly depends to some extent on the good will of the discharger,” said Bruce Posthumus, a senior engineer with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. “If a discharger is disinclined to comply with the permit, he can probably find a way to get away with it, and may or may not get caught.”

Despite problems with shipyards, tanker and small boat traffic in and out of the bay produces the most culprits for oil and fuel dumping, say monitoring agencies. Ships that pump their bilges are required to separate the oil from the water before putting the latter into the bay, but some don’t bother and dump the stuff at night. Smaller boats that leak oil through their exhaust and fuel stations in the bay are most likely to blame for pollution of lesser magnitude.

The Navy, with four major facilities around the bay, is a concern for both the Regional Water Quality Control Board and environmentalists. This year, in fact, the board is stepping up its sediment and water sampling offshore from Navy yards.

More Scrutiny for Navy

The board decided “that Navy facilities be given a higher priority,” Coe said. “We feel the Navy has a significant impact on what occurs in San Diego Bay.”

According to officials, the board asked the Navy in November, 1987, to apply for current discharge permits for four of its yards so the board could more closely track how the Navy disposed of its oil and fuel and monitored its own discharge activities.

The Navy only last month responded to that request, reporting that it could have part of the application ready by September, board officials said.

The Navy has disputed that account, saying that communication problems between it and the board led to delays in meeting the request.

“I look at it as a problem from both sides,” said Chief Craig Huebler, a spokesman for Commander Naval Base in San Diego.

The Navy spills up to 40 gallons of fuel each month into the bay, but virtually all is contained and cleaned up immediately through an intricate system of equipment and response teams, Huebler said.

The Navy has, among other things, pollution response boats deployed at each of its facilities for shoreline spills. Also, Navy ships must keep detailed records of any oil or gas spilled in the bay or at sea, and must report accidents immediately. If an incident does occur, a structured, 15-step response is put into place, Huebler said.

“With our teams in place, there’s no way we could ever have the kind of disaster the Valdez experienced,” he said. “And, because our fuel is a processed fuel, we could get it cleaned up in a short amount of time, and it would not be environmentally dangerous.”

The Navy, in fact, often helps contain and clean up oil or fuel spilled in the bay or discovered at sea by the Coast Guard, said Huebler.

“The Navy is San Diego’s key to defense against oil spills,” he said. “I think (environmentalists) would be a little bit shocked to find out we are their first line of defense.”

But that system still has not quelled concerns about oil and fuel spills. About 8 p.m. July 23, a diesel fuel line broke at the Navy’s submarine base on Point Loma, spilling 6,000 to 8,000 gallons. About 1,000 gallons poured into the bay, and pollution response boats quickly were deployed to set out containment booms and clean up the spill. Most of the spill was recovered after two days of cleanup, a Navy spokesman said.

State officials, however, did not learn of the spill until the next morning, primarily because Navy personnel could not find the phone numbers necessary to call state authorities, the Coast Guard reported two days after the incident, at a hearing in San Diego of the Assembly Committee on Oil-spill Prevention.

Standard procedures dictate that any oil or fuel spilled in state waters be reported immediately to the state’s emergency services department, the Regional Water Quality Control Board or the Department of Fish and Game, the lead agency for the state in such incidents.

Despite the Navy’s response system, agencies responsible for the bay say oil and fuel spills always pollute the waters, no matter how well the material is cleaned up. Coe, of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, pointed to the finding of a sheen Tuesday near the Valdez as an example.

Coast Guard officials last Wednesday said they believed the sheen did not come from the Valdez; rather, it appeared after tugboats directing the ship churned up oil that had been sitting on the bottom of the bay, they said.

“Once an oil spill has occurred, even if you get a quick response to it, you still can’t get 100% cleanup,” Coe said. “It’s a lot easier to take some measure to prevent oil spills from occurring than it is to pick up after the spills.”

New Standards Considered

Such a measure soon may be unveiled. Legislation urged by Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy and others would set new standards for offshore and onshore oil loading, inspections of oil tankers and loading facilities, spill response equipment, and drug and alcohol tests for key tanker crew members, with fines for companies not complying.

It also would establish a $500-million oil-spill superfund, financed by oil companies, to pay for the new standards. “I don’t think there’s any new legislation specifically intended to deal with smaller spills,” said Ed Manning, chief environmental counsel to McCarthy. “But this legislation would have an effect on preventing them.”

Policy makers and environmentalists agree that Killea’s interagency panel may be the best immediate means to deal with the problem and coordinate state and federal monitoring of pollution in the bay. The panel already has suggested that a comprehensive, baywide monitoring and response system be constructed.

But the Coast Guard, the lead agency watching over the bay and federal waters offshore, is not included on the panel. And members, who so far have pitched in to finance the group’s efforts, say the interagency panel cannot exist indefinitely without funding from the state.

“It would seem to be the most appropriate organization to coordinate whatever occurs in the bay, because everybody’s in one room talking to each other,” said Killea spokesman Crotty. “The problem is funding.”

Added Environmental Health Coalition’s Powell: “Until there’s a real money-where-the-mouth-is situation, it’s going to be difficult for the panel to move forward.”