Gordon Bennett is the Conservation Chair of Sierra Club’’s Marin Group, and is a longtime marine and oil spill
activist. He provided the following
comments to the Senate Committee holding hearings on the response to the recent
San Francisco Bay oil spill.
Though this is not an exhaustive list, these are helpful and
useful recommendations to reduce the risk of additional catastrophic oil spills
in California.
Gordon Bennett
● 2003 National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer of the Year
● Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Beachwatch Program, 15 years
● Beachwatch oil spotter for Cosco Busan, Cape Mohican, Jacob Lukenbach incidents
● Conservation Chair of the Marin Sierra Club, 8 years
n Fundamental
economics must shift against bunkerfuel use
Studies
indicate that bunkerfuel, the cheapest petroleum-based fuel, can do more
environmental damage than crude oil because bunkerfuel concentrates crude oil’s
toxins. Yet oil spill concern in SF
Bay has focused on the 600 crude oil tankers entering each year, overlooking
3000 other vessels whose owners are gambling that the cost of an occasional
bunkerfuel spill will be less than the cost of using less toxic alternatives such
as diesel.
State
Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) is
funded only by a fee based on crude oil, rather than on bunkerfuel, the most
used and most toxic petroleum product.
n There should be a two-hour maximum response time
on spills
Current state law allows oil-spill cleanup companies up to
six hours to respond to oil spills from cargo ships in heavily used ports and
up 12 hours in less used ports. Unless a spill can be cleaned up within the
first two hours, it spreads rapidly and becomes a disaster.
n Added precautions should be
required for ships using bunkerfuel
Such precautions could include double-hulled fuel tanks and
increased tugboat escorts.
n OSPR must hire
more inspection personnel for more frequent drills
A
2005 audit found OSPR was sitting on $18 million of unspent fees, yet OSPR’s
unnecessarily limited staff subjects less than 1% of ships to unannounced
drills.
n OSPR must provide local
agencies with equipment, training and authority
Currently available booms are not only days late in getting to sensitive creek and lagoon
mouths,
but are designed for less than one knot of current. Higher flows regularly occur at the mouths
of creeks and lagoons, where spill intrusion should be halted. OSPR should provide for functional equipment
to be stored locally. Boom attachment
points should be established or constructed.
OSPR should fund local agencies for at least one annual oil spill drill
during the highest tides to make sure that, in this approximation of a
worst-case high-flow events, the boom can successfully be deployed and remain
intact.
n OSPR should establish a
rapid certification program for oil spill volunteers
Hazmat training is a legitimate concern, but Marin County stands
out as an example of an overly rigid response that transformed an outpouring of
volunteer help into acts of civil disobedience (“one pair of handcuffs for 78
oil spill volunteers”). Volunteers
trained by other jurisdictions were turned away from Marin beaches, while Marin
volunteers drove to other localities for training. OSPR should fund and require local agencies
to conduct focused 2 to 4 hour (not 24-hour) oil spill certifications at the
first notice of a spill so that teams of volunteers can be quickly turned out
using limited meeting room capacities.
|
Thank you for the opportunity to
testify, |
|