The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Oil Spill in the Delaware

JIM LEHRER: Good evening from Washington. Robert MacNeil is still in bed with flu tonight. The second Liberian oil tanker has emptied its oil into American water. The tanker, Olympic Game, ran aground in the Delaware River south of Philadelphia yesterday. Today, emergency crews were attempting to keep its 130 gallon oil spill from flowing into the neighboring New Jersey and Delaware marshlands.

This mishap follows the bigger and more dramatic one involving the Argo Merchant which went aground on shoals off the Massachusetts coast near Nantucket two weeks ago. Heavy winds and waves broke the ship into three pieces last week, and its cargo of some 7.6 million gallons of heavy fuel oil spilled into the Atlantic. Today the resulting oil slick was 25 miles east southeast of Nantucket, extending 165 miles out to sea. If it should finally go ashore there could be catastrophic losses to beaches, wildlife, and the fishing industry. Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis has already asked for federal funds to offset the potential damage. Also five different law suits have been filed by fishermen and other interested parties, including the oil company which lost its oil. At a hearing in-New York for one of the suits, the Captain of the Argo Merchant blamed a faulty gyro compass for his ship`s disaster. Reporters from Public Station WGBH in Boston did a special report on the Argo Merchant. Here are some excerpts from that report. The first reporter is Art Cohen.

WGBH, BOSTON: VIDEOTAPE

ART COHEN: The Argo Merchant was not an especially big tanker by 1976 standards, but then it was built 23 years ago in Hamburg, Germany. It was christened Arteris. It has had four owners and for all but one year of its life has flown the Liberian flag. In 1970 it became the Argo Merchant, and in 1973 was sold to its present owners, Thebes Shipping Incorporated of Monrovia, Liberia. The small, African nation of Liberia has the largest merchant marine in the world. It also has the worst record of ship disasters. We have been told by people knowledgeable of the shipping industry that ships flying the Liberian flag and other so-called flags of convenience are among the worst run ships on the ocean. The Argo Merchant has been typical. The Smithsonian Institution`s Center for Short-lived Phenomena has recorded 18 incidents this ship has been involved in since 1964. Among them a collision with another vessel in Japanese waters during April of 1957 which damaged the bow plates and internal structure of the bow; a collision with the dock at the port of Madras, India in May of 1968 which extensively dented the ship`s stern plating. In September-of 1969 it ran aground off Borneo with over 17 thousand tons of crude oil aboard. It was refloated after 36 hours. Officials feared internal damage to the hull. In March of 1971 the Argo Merchant ran aground off the coast of Italy. It was stranded for 60 hours and suffered a damaged rudder. In 1975 it was banned from Philadelphia because of rust and other structural weaknesses. That same year it leaked oil into Boston Harbor, and the Master was fined $300. Many of the ships which fly the Liberian flag are owned or financed by American firms. The reason for registering ships in Liberia is economic. Union wages can be avoided. Crews can be hired from just about anywhere in the world for very low wages. Taxes can also be avoided. Liberia`s corporate income taxes are a lot less than in the United States.

KARIN GIGER: This is Boston`s fishing pier where every day trullers return to port from working Georgia`s bank, a 16 million acre stretch of sea, from the Gulf of Maine to southeast of Nantucket Island: Georgia`s Bank is the Atlantic`s prime fishing ground, yielding 1/6th of the world`s fish supply. Vessels from 18 nations fish these treacherous waters fighting bitter cold, fog, tidal currents, and shifting shoals. At times there are so many trullers on Georgia`s Bank it looks like a city at night with ship lights cluttering the horizon. They come to harvest haddock, cod, pollock, flounder and shell fish. Almost every kind of Atlantic fish is found in this fertile area and in great quantities. In 1975, for example, the Canadians alone took $38,000,000 worth of scallops,-for fishing is big business. The total catch taken from Georgia`s Bank by foreign and domestic fleets in 1975 was 774,000 metric tons. That same year the United States took in nearly 373 million pounds of fish here for a market value of $164,000,000. So New England as well as international fishermen are watching the oil spill`s movement near their fishing turf with trepidation.

KEVIN SHORE.(Nantucket): In a long range it`s simply going to be a tremendous added cost to us in terms of both money spent in looking around for alternate species to work on or different locations, and perhaps it will wind up ecologically unbalancing things so much that there will be a massive kill-off of the species which we all depend on.

GIGER: At its southern shoals, off Nantucket and closest to the wreck of the Argo Merchant, sea birds covered with oil have been spotted. These birds, about 100 of them, have been brought to the Island`s Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for cleaning. If the oil is not washed from their feathers they will die.

PAMELA BULLARD:. The twist in this story that hurts the most is that once all the government and private agencies and their scientists, biologists and environmentalists responded to the disaster, there was virtually nothing that could be done. The 200 mile, gooey slick could not be handled at sea. Only when the #6 oil hits the beaches can modern technology, in the form of bulldozers, deal with the oil. Meanwhile, the Atlantic coast is hostage to the oil, but we are also hostage in effect to every oil bearing vessel that comes near our shores.

BRYAN DAVIES: It`s quite obvious that what must happen is that these elderly, ill manned tankers flying flags of convenience just can`t be allowed to come close to the shores of North America, Europe and Japan which are the major areas that import oil. I think that United States could and should take a lead and demand of all tankers that bring oil to this country that they meet certain standards for vessel construction, maintenance, crew training and navigational equipment. Now if you do that, you`re still going to have accidents, but you`re not going to have worn out tankers plying their trade up and down your coast with incompetent crews and with navigational aids that are not either being used or are not working.

LEHRER: Incidents like the Argo Merchant disaster always cause people to say there ought to be a law. In this case there is one. It`s the Ports and Waterways Act of 1972. It gives the U.S. Coast Guard extensive authority over the design, construction, repair, maintenance and operation of all oil tankers which enter U.S. waters, regardless of flag of registry. But there is severe disagreement over how far the Coast Guard can or should go in enforcing that law, and that disagreement is one of several fallout questions from the Argo Merchant story that we want to explore tonight. First with Eldon Greenberg, an attorney at the Center for Law and Social Policy, a foundation funded, public interest law firm. Mr. Greenberg represents an environmental group in cases dealing with marine pollution.

Mr. Greenberg, has the Coast Guard done enough in your opinion to enforce that 1972 law?

ELDON GREENBERG: It is the view of the environmental organizations that I represent that it has not done enough,. and it has not done enough in two senses. First of all, it has delayed over a substantial number of years in putting into effect any regulations at all to meet the purposes which Congress had in mind in 1972. It took a law suit by the, environmental group which I represent in 1975 to prod the issue into the first set of regulations under the 1972 act. And regulations applicable to foreign vessels were only put into effect this December, some four and a half years after the law was enacted. The second concern that we have is that the regulations which have been put into effect are inadequate both in scope and effect. They simply don`t go far enough to prevent marine pollution.

LEHRER: What about incidents like the Argo Merchant? The gentleman we just saw on the tape was saying there should be rules and regulations that would prevent ships like that from even coming close to the United States. Do you think that the Coast Guard should institute or interpret this law or do something that would prohibit that kind of ship from coming into the United States at all?

GREENBERG: I think the Coast Guard certainly has authority under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act to exclude substandard vessels from U.S. water, on to exclude vessels which persistently violated discharge standards. Furthermore, the Coast Guard can require that every ship which comes into U.S. waters meet certain, minimum requirements, and if a ship such as the Argo Merchant does not meet such requirements, then it can be legitimately excluded.

LEHRER: What`s your view of why the Coast Guard has not moved more vigorously in this area?

GREENBERG I think the basic problem with the Coast Guard`s implementation of the Act has been a deep-seated belief that the United States should not move ahead of the international community. That the standards we have should be no different than those which are agreed upon internationally. The problem is that those international standards represent compromises, compromises reached among a number of nations, particularly the maritime and shipping nations such as Liberia and Greece which in the past have opposed stringent regulations.

LEHRER: Thank you, Mr. Greenberg. Let`s hear what the Coast Guard has to say for itself. The Chief of the Coast Guard`s Office of Merchant Marine Safety is Rear Admiral William Benkert. A 1940 graduate of the Coast Guard Academy, the Admiral has commanded ships and has had numerous `shore assignments involving marine safety. Admiral, why have you not done more to enforce this law?

Adm. WILLIAM BENKERT: Well sir, I think I must say that I disagree, of course, with much of what Mr. Greenberg has said. I think that the Coast Guard has done a great deal to implement and to enforce the intent of this particular law, and we`re speaking of course of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. Since the passage of the Act we have produced and we are implementing a large number of regulations in the areas of our jurisdiction which apply not only to United States flag vessels but also foreign flag vessels which are in our waters. Now, if I may say just one thing further in that vein, sir, I think the important thing to remember is that in complying with the intent and the specifics --specifically here I think we are talking about Title II of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act which deals with design, construction and equipment requirements. We have a limited jurisdiction here in the sense that we can only apply these to foreign flag vessels in our navigable waters. We also are required under the Act itself to follow the Administrative Procedures Act in the development of regulations which involves a consultation with the public, public hearings, proposals, and if I may say so, a rather lengthy procedure. Additionally, the very Act itself requires that we consult with the industry, environmental groups with other government agencies, and I think very importantly, that we look at cost and technical feasibility of regulations. So it isn`t so easy to issue a set of regulations instantly. I think we have proceeded with quite good speed myself, and in a number of areas that Mr. Greenberg has mentioned.

LEHRER: What about the international point that he raised?

He said that you folks, that the Coast Guard were reluctant to move unilaterally because of the international implications.

BENKERT: I don`t think that`s a fair appraisal of our position, sir. I think what our position has been is this. The United States, and I might say this is really not the Coast Guard, this is the United States` position. The United States position has been that we will follow, we will enter into international agreements in the maritime arena. We have been very participatory in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the International Lowline Convention, the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution of the Seas from Ships. In these conventions in effect we are agreeing to live with an international regime, but where we have found in our own waters where we have jurisdiction that we feel something additional is needed, we have implemented this. In 1974 we put out pollution prevention regulations which were over and above anything that has been agreed to internationally. Just recently we have, in fact, unilaterally implemented the `73 Pollution Convention in our areas of jurisdiction.

LEHRER: Mr. Greenberg, it seems to me like the two of you are talking about two, entirely different things.

GREENBERG: I don`t think so. First with regard to the question of delay. I appreciate that the Coast Guard has difficulties in producing its regulations, but Congress was very clear when it passed the Ports and Waterways Safety Act that these regulations for the protection of the marine environment were to be promulgated as a matter of urgent priority. And Congress set some very clear statutory time limits. The first such time limit was that regulations for tankers and coast-wise trade be effective by June 30th, 1974. The second time limit was that regulations for ships and international trade be effective by I believe it was January 1st, 1976. Now the Coast Guard simply has not met those statutorily mandated dates. As far as the standards themselves are concerned, Admiral Benkert mentions that the standards we have put into effect represent a unilateral implementation of the 1973 Convention. That is correct. They represent a unilateral implementation of standards which have been agreed to internationally but have not been put into effect internationally. They don`t represent the adoption of new, advances standards beyond those.

BENKERT: I would like to say something if I might, sir, in that regard. The standards which we have put into effect, and I think I mentioned a moment ago, have, in fact, not only implemented the provisions of that Convention but have gone on beyond that convention.

LEHRER: But Admiral, of course the immediate question at hand

is how could a ship with a:-record and apparently in the condition of the Argo Merchant meet -- is that within the standards that the Coast Guard now has?

BENKERT: To tell you the truth, sir, I don`t know what the condition of that vessel was when she was on that particular voyage, and I really don`t believe that anybody else does either. What I know is that that vessel was improperly navigated and the whole scope of that particular accident of the Argo Merchant in my opinion can be blamed on poor navigation. I might say that regardless of the condition of that vessel or any other vessel, had you run a vessel aground in that location under those weather conditions, in all probability you would have had exactly the same results happen to that vessel, a breaking up in the heavy seas that occurred there.

LEHRER: So there was nothing. In other words there was nothing the Coast Guard could have done in its own, unilateral regulations that could have prevented what happened off the coast of Nantucket?

BENKERT: I belief that is correct, sir, because of the simple reason that that casualty was a result of poor navigation. Now, I`d like to add one thing to that. The facilities that the Master of that vessel had on board for insuring, shall we say, proper navigation of the vessel -- we are looking, we have been looking, we have been discussing both internationally and nationally and upgrading of navigation equipment requirements for vessels.

LEHRER: That come into the U.S. waters?

BENKERT: That come into our navigable waters where we have jurisdiction, yes sir.

LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, thank you. Jim Reynolds is the President of the American Institute of Merchant Shipping. As President, Mr. Reynolds represents the interests of the U.S. ship

ping fleet before Congress and the regulatory agencies. Before Mr. Reynolds assumed his present post in 1969 he was an Under Secretary of Labor for President Johnson. Mr. Reynolds, what is your basic position on unilateral U.S. action in enforcing oil tanker standards.

JAMES REYNOLDS: In the first place, let me just make a comment, Mr. Lehrer. I delighted all three of you finally realized I`m sitting here.

LEHRER: We get to everybody eventually, Mr. Reynolds.

REYNOLDS: I listened with great interest to the opening. You know, I heard the fisherman and I heard the chap talking about he didn`t want any tankers other than very fine tankers, which I can share, come in our ports. I think it`s terribly important that without in any way minimizing the even that occurred up in Nantucket, to keep it in some perspective. We`re bringing about 7.3 million barrels of petroleum and petroleum products into this country every day. Practically all of it comes on ships. If you multiply that by 42 gallons to the barrel, you come out with something like 293 or 4 gallons of oil a day. Now, most of that comes in tranquilly, safely, properly. Nobody can defend a substandard ship or substandard crews. The most important piece of equipment on a ship are human beings, and no matter what the Coast Guard does about examining the Certificate of Compliance, let`s say, of a Liberian ship, which indicates that it is meeting all of the requirements of the International Convention for Safety of Life and Ship at Sea, has all the proper equipment, the ship has been properly surveyed, that it comes to the human equation time and time again. But the fact of the matter is the United States and the industry have been in the forefront and supported the United States government in all international forms to improve standards of construction, training of crews and all the rest` of it. So that, I think that any company in this country which would knowingly charter a substandard vessel with ill-trained men on it should be brought to task. Now if that`s what eventually the Federal Forum finds was the case here, somebody should be brought to task because most companies do not do that.

LEHRER: Is there really any difference between an American company owning a ship flying under the American flag and an American company owning a ship flying under the Liberian flag. Should the American public make any distinction between the two?

REYNOLDS: I don`t think there should be a distinction. What I`ve just said is consistently followed. I don`t think an American company should charter a vessel with a foreign flag on it unless they are sure that that vessel is sound in construction, is up to survey and has an adequately trained crew on it. And I don`t think responsible companies do that. Now, I don`t represent foreign flag ships, but I will say this. That the foreign flag fleets of many of the major American companies are used because petroleum is an international product. The transportation of it is an international problem, and vessels go from country to country, and the international petroleum companies of this country have to have the fluidity and flexibility of operation to put their ships wherever they want to put them. And some of those ships are as fine as any ships on the seas. Their crews are highly trained. They are brought to this country for retraining periodically. There`s no question of their seamanship. It is the gypsies and so forth that cause this trouble.

LEHRER: All right. Mr. Reynolds, we`ve got to go to another man now who has been waiting even longer than you, sir.

REYNOLDS: All right.

LEHRER: Peter Johnson is his name. He is a marine engineer. A naval architect for the past two years, Mr. Johnson has been with OTA, the Office of Technology Assistance, writing reports that help Congressmen among others to understand the technological problems posed by oil tankers and off shore drilling. Mr. Johnson, a year and a half ago you published a report on the dangers of tankers to the environment. Has there been much progress since then?

PETER JOHNSON: Our report which was published in July of 1975 prepared a number of possible solutions to the tanker problem, presented these in a way that the Congressional committees could understand that background of marine transportation systems, where we are today in oil transportation by tankers and what the safety and pollution problems are. We prepared this for the Senate Commerce Committee. The Senate Commerce Committee has held hearings over the past two years.

LEHRER: What are the basic dangers that remain at this point. Just to shorten it a moment. If we sit here now, what are the basic dangers that remain in terms of oil tankers and their dangers to the environment. Where are the real sensitive, bad areas?

JOHNSON: If the Argo Merchant were an isolated case, perhaps we wouldn`t have a real concern for this problem. However, the Argo Merchant isn`t an isolated case. Today we have taken a look at the past year`s experience in tanker accidents and 1976 has been one of the worst years for tanker accidents. More oil has been spilled in the first nine months of 1976 than in previous. years, and it`s about a factor of 10. There are an equivalent of 10 Argo Merchants spilling oil into the marine environment around the world each year.

LEHRER: Of course, the Argo Merchant is considered a relatively small tanker when compared to, say, the big, super tankers that are coming along. Are you concerned about this eventuality. That means ten times as much oil could be spilled if a similar thing happened to a big tanker.

JOHNSON: We suggested perhaps in our report that the whole problem needs a systems approach. We have heard a number of people tonight talking about various aspects of design of construction, of navigation problems. All of these are important, and we need to attack them all in a concerted effort, I believe. We need to look at the design construction features of tankers. We need to also look at the training and be sure that tankers are manned by well trained crews. We also should look at what we can do as far as keeping track of these ships that are far out at sea with modern technology. We have the capacity for doing this. Perhaps some new legislation would be required. Our position in the Office Of Technology Assistance is to suggest ways of making improvements, and the committees of Congress take this as they will, look at it through public hearing and decide whether and what needs to be done.

LEHRER: Mr. Reynolds, is your industry prepared to take a new look at this whole tanker problem as a result of what Mr. Johnson says. This is not just an isolated incident?

REYNOLDS: Mr. Lehrer, we`re thoroughly familiar with the, report that Mr. Johnson`s referring to. We have commented on it a number of times. I testified on it up in Alaska because a lot of the ideas that were in it were surfaced up there. A number of my staff did so in San Diego. Quite frankly, a lot of the ideas that surfaced we regard as something other than realistic. We are concerned and will continue to press for better tanker construction, better equipment, better trained people, but when you start talking about double bottoms as the panacea, when you start talking about bow thrusters as a panacea or twin screws as a panacea, they have to each one be evaluated carefully in the environment in which they are used. The important thing, Mr. Lehrer, about this whole thing is to do everything possible to minimize incidents. But you haven`t brought up a terribly important thing and that is when unfortunately they do occur through human error, that there be adequate compensations protection for the people injured. Now, those fishermen up there. I don`t think they have been hurt yet, and if they are hurt, and if a bill that we have been pressing for two years is passed, The Comprehensive Oil Pollution Fund, there would be unlimited resources to compensate them from any losses of income which they could demonstrate occurred.

LEHRER: Mr. Reynolds, excuse me. We have less than a minute left and there are going to be hearings. Senator Magnuson is going to hold hearings, he says, right after Congress convenes. My . question for each one of you, and it`s going to have to be a short answer, is do you think anything significant in the way of changes is the way we deal with the oil tankers is going to come about as a result of the Argo Merchant? Mr. Reynolds?

REYNOLDS: No, I do not. I think the situation in spite of that tragic matter and some of the others is being handled intelligently and effectively by the Coast Guard in international forums where it belongs. .

LEHRER: Mr. Johnson?

JOHNSON: I believe that we`ll see some changes coming about in this operation.

LEHRER: Admiral?

BENKERT: I think in the atmosphere that pervades it`s very possible that you might see some legislative change or some change of thrust. I would hope that if they are, that they are based on a sensible approach and not on an emotional approach to this problem.

LEHRER: Mr. Greenberg?

GREENBERG: In light of the history of the last four years I`m not hopeful about change occurring.

LEHRER: Mr. Reynolds, thank you in New York. Gentlemen,. thank-you here in Washington. I`m Jim Lehrer. I`ll see you tomorrow night. Thank you and good night.