Port Controls May Curb Spills : Harbor: Gov. Wilson is expected to approve a new system to keep track of oil tankers and other ships.

An incoming oil tanker collides with an outbound ship off Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, covering Santa Monica Bay with a vast oil slick that snuffs out marine life and blackens local beaches.

Fears of such an event have propelled plans for a local ship-tracking system through the Legislature and onto Gov. Pete Wilson’s desk, where prospects appear good that he will sign the bill.

This month’s legislative approval of the proposal, which calls for the country’s first major ship-tracking system in private hands, did not come easily.

The Marine Exchange, the nonprofit agency that would operate the system, initially wanted broad legal immunity from ship accident lawsuits before undertaking the project. It had to settle for limited immunity in the face of strong fire from the California Trial Lawyers Assn.

Supporters of the plan also had to insert amendments sought by lawmakers concerned that a private tracking service must be made accountable to the U.S. Coast Guard and a state oil-spill prevention administrator.

Now the ground-breaking plan is in Wilson’s hands, and Administration officials say approval is likely.

“There are very few objections to the bill,” said a state natural resources official who declined to be quoted by name. “It is likely the governor will sign it.”

The Marine Exchange, a port information service controlled by the shipping industry, already provides vessel tracking within a 5 1/2-by-8-mile area outside the federal breakwater for ships that request the service. Under the plan, which backers hope to have implemented by mid-1992, the marine center would expand that service dramatically.

Ships within 20 nautical miles of Point Fermin Light would be required to radio the Marine Exchange, identify themselves, give their course, speed and destination and receive navigational advice from the exchange’s San Pedro observation tower.

Vessels would also have to pay an as-yet-undetermined port fee to cover the costs of the system, which will involve boosting the Marine Exchange’s tower staff from four employees to 10 and purchasing about $50,000 in additional radar equipment.

Ships’ masters would not be obligated to follow the exchange’s advice. But the Coast Guard, which helped draft the tracking plan, says that is not crucial to the operation of vessel traffic services, known as VTS.

“For that one-in-a-million incident when you need it, (the command authority) is nice to have,” said Mike Sollosi of the Coast Guard’s vessel traffic services division in Washington. “But providing the advisory service adds a considerable measure of safety.”

Environmentalists and some lawmakers said they would have preferred to see a Coast Guard-run system precisely because the Coast Guard has the power to issue navigational orders. But they supported the Marine Exchange legislation after several provisions were added to the ship-tracking plan.

Among them was language stating that if the Coast Guard decides to operate vessel tracking in Los Angeles and Long Beach, the Marine Exchange system would be terminated.

Another provision requires that the Marine Exchange system be certified by both the Coast Guard and a state oil-spill prevention administrator. The administrator, whose position was created in a state law passed last year, is charged with seeing that VTS systems are set up at key points along the California coast.

“If we had our druthers, what we’d like to see would be funding for the Coast Guard to run VTS throughout the state,” said Assemblyman Ted Lempert (D-San Mateo), co-author of the state oil spill law.

But given state and federal budget problems, Lempert says, the Marine Exchange proposal merited support.

Assemblyman Dave Elder (D-San Pedro), a sponsor of the Marine Exchange plan, says the privately operated system will actually be more effective because the exchange is in close touch with the shipping industry.

The Marine Exchange plan’s most difficult hurdle was the liability question. Members of the exchange’s board, which is controlled by representatives of the shipping industry, feared that they and their companies would be held liable for injuries, deaths and damage stemming from ship collisions or groundings.

Their initial proposal to the Legislature called for broad legal immunity. But it drew strong opposition from trial lawyers--and, more important, from the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

A compromise was struck that shields the Marine Exchange from liability except in cases of gross negligence or intentional or willful misconduct. The exchange would also be obligated to buy $1 million in liability insurance.

Oliver Williams, a senior adviser with Arco’s shipping subsidiary, says the result will be safer and more efficient shipping.

“By getting vessels to communicate, you help eliminate the chance for human error,” Williams said. “You also make management of the harbor better because things run a little smoother.”