State not ready for oil spill

COMMENT: If Washington State is unprepared for an oil spill - and arguably it is as well prepared as any other place with large oil tankering activity in North America such as Alaska, California or the Gulf - then British Columbia is a catastrophe in the making.

Virtually the only signficant response capability in BC is in Vancouver, and most of the rescue capacity BC relies on is in Washington State.

This red-necked grebe is covered in oil after the Exxon Valdez ran aground March 24, 1989, in Prince William Sound. This bird was found six days later on Knights Island, about 35 miles from the spill.

By ROBERT McCLURE
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
January 23, 2009

Ability to react sadly lacking, says agency facing cuts in funding, staff

Washington's state government and maritime industry are dangerously underprepared to handle an oil spill even one-fifth the size of an Exxon Valdez. No more than two-fifths of the oil could be skimmed out of the water -- and that's only if the weather's great and everything goes off without a hitch.

That last assumption is quite a stretch, because the state Department of Ecology rarely requires large-scale drills of oil spill-response equipment.

Those disturbing conclusions and others are contained in a forthcoming report by a four-year-old state watchdog agency. They're part of the first comprehensive, independent technical review of the state's oil spill-response program.

But even before the agency can issue the report, Gov. Chris Gregoire is moving to eliminate its funding and staff. She wants to order an even newer agency with larger responsibilities to shoulder the burden of riding herd on oil companies and others who could cause a spill. Gregoire says it has to be done to save the $357,000 the Oil Spill Advisory Council spends each year. It's the same agency she tried to defang two years ago by moving it under the control of Ecology -- the same state department the oil spill council was supposed to watch over.

Gregoire tried that back when the state budget was flush. The Legislature refused.

A major oil spill represents the largest short-term risk of extinction for Puget Sound orcas, scientists say.

"We're just looking at where is the equipment, what is the equipment, what does it do and where will the people come from to operate it?" said Jacqueline Brown Miller, executive director of the council. "We are not ready."

The council was created as a result of an oil spill in Puget Sound's Dalco Passage, between Tacoma's Point Defiance and the south end of Vashon Island, before dawn one morning in 2004. Crude oil fouled shorelines around central Puget Sound and on Maury and Vashon islands.

That spill came on the heels of one the year before that a state review said was characterized by foul-ups in containing the spill, recovering oil once it got loose, tracking the slick by air and staffing the cleanup. That one tainted tribal shellfish grounds.

Officials admitted shortcomings in responding to both spills, which together involved no more than 6,000 gallons of oil.

The size of the spill anticipated in the forthcoming study is 2.1 million gallons -- easily a possibility if an oil tanker were to run aground.

Due out next month, the council's draft study says Ecology and the oil and shipping industries count on equipment to be brought in from out of state during the first 48 hours after a spill.

"Spill response planners are relying on resources that may not be available, and never arrive on scene," the draft report says.

Among the shortcomings:

Oil from the Exxon Valdez swirls on the surface of Prince William Sound on April 9, 1989, 16 days after the tanker ran aground.

* Ecology does not conduct enough large-scale oil-spill drills.

* Washington does not require oil and shipping companies and others covered by its oil-spill rules to have the best equipment, which would allow better response to oil spills in big waves, fast currents and stiff winds.

* The state also doesn't require equipment in use in Europe that would allow tracking of oil spills in the dark or thick fog.

"This is a very important report because for the first time, we're gauging the state's ability to respond to a major oil spill," said Bruce Wishart of the environmental group People for Puget Sound, who serves as an alternate member on the oil spill council. "The analysis shows that we are far from ready to respond."

Dale Jensen, head of Ecology's spills program, said he wouldn't comment because the council's report is still in draft form. He said he wants to read the final report before discussing the shortcomings it describes.

With such a damning report coming out, why would Gregoire remove the council's funding?

Gregoire's chief adviser on pollution issues, Keith Phillips, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

A Gregoire spokeswoman, Karina Shagren, explained: "During these tough times, she looked very hard at every board and commission seat, which ones to keep and which ones could be completed by someone else, and there will be many, many more, not just the oil spill advisory council."

Gregoire is proposing to give the responsibility for critiquing Ecology's oil spill oversight to the Puget Sound Partnership, an agency headed by citizens appointed by Gregoire. In its recent "action agenda" for protecting and restoring Puget Sound, the Partnership said it looks to the oil spill council for guidance on preventing and responding to spills.

Now, with the governor who appointed the Partnership's governing board trying to give it more work -- but no more staff -- Partnership officials are saluting and saying they're up for it.

"We think it's going to better cinch up the oversight role on oil spills with the work of Puget Sound recovery and bring greater accountability," said Partnership spokesman Paul Bergman.

Fred Felleman, a consultant for Friends of the Earth who has been critical of the oil spill council, said he favors moving it to the Partnership -- but technical expertise must be maintained. "Whether they have a budget is more important than which agency they're housed in," he said.

The original idea for the watchdog council would have patterned it after one set up in Alaska's Prince William Sound after the Exxon Valdez spill 20 years ago. In that council, Indian tribes, fishermen and others with a stake in preventing oil spills appoint members to a council that is funded -- by congressional order -- by the oil companies.

Washington's council was never that independent. It is appointed by the governor, and paid for out of a tax on oil refined in the state. The savings from pulling the plug on the oil spill council would be shifted to Ecology to make up for a shortfall in those revenues.

Oil and shipping companies, sometimes aided by publicly owned ports, fought against creation of the watchdog council and have complained about its work after it was established. They prefer to deal with Ecology.

"We've had good progress in the past working with the Department of Ecology," said BP spokesman Bill Kidd. "I would say there's a lot of expertise in the Department of Ecology."

P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or robertmcclure@seattlepi.com.
Read his blog on the environment at datelineearth.com.