EXXON VALDEZ ACCIDENT

EXXON VALDEZ ACCIDENT
OPA 90 INTRODUCTION
Shoreline impacted	Exxon Valdez oil spill 3 days after Exxon Valdez ran aground Location Prince William Sound, Alaska Coordinates 60.83333°N 146.86667°WCoordinates: 60.83333°N 146.86667°W Date 24 March 1989 Cause Cause Grounding of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker Operator Exxon Spill characteristics Volume 260,000 barrels (41,000 m3) - 750,000 barrels (119,000 m3) Area 11,000 sq mi (28,000 km2) Shoreline impacted 1,300 mi (2,100 km) The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m3) of crude oil.[1][2] It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters.[3] The Valdez spill was the largest ever in U.S. waters until the 2010 Deep-water Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume released.[4 The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline,[5] and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km2) of ocean.[6] Then Exxon CEO, Lawrence G. Rawl, shaped the company's response.[7] Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.[13] The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.[13] Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the Bligh Reef by detecting the "radar reflector", placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping boats on course via radar.[14]Other factors, according to an MIT course entitled "Software System Safety" by Professor Nancy G. Leveson,[16] included: Tanker crews were not told that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh reef had ceased.[17] The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.[18] Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.[18] The 1989 tanker crew was half the size of the 1977 crew, worked 12−14 hour shifts, plus overtime. The crew was rushing to leave Valdez with a load of oil.[19] Coast Guard tankThere was use of a dispersant, a surfactant and solvent mixture. A private company applied dispersant on March 24 with a helicopter and dispersant bucket. Because there was not enough wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil in the water, the use of the dispersant was discontinued. One trial explosion was also conducted during the early stages of the spill to burn the oil, in a region of the spill isolated from the rest by another explosion. The test was relatively successful, reducing 113,400 liters of oil to 1,134 liters of removable residue, but because of unfavorable weather no additional burning was attempted. The dispersant Corexit 9580 was tried as part of the cleanup Corexit has been found to be toxic to cleanup workers and wildlife while breaking down oil Mechanical cleanup was started shortly afterwards using booms and skimmers, but the skimmers were not readily available during the first 24 hours following the spill, and thick oil and kelp tended to clog the equipment. er inspections in Valdez were not done, and the number of staff was reduced. Lack of available equipment and personnel hampered the spill cleanup. This disaster resulted in International Maritime Organization introducing comprehensive Marine pollution prevention rules (MARPOL AND IOPP) through various conventions. The rules were ratified by MEMBER countries and after International Ship Management rules the Ships are being operated whith a common objective of "SAFER SHIPS AND CLEANER OCEANS" Oil Pollution Act of 1990 In response to the spill, the United States Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA The Oil Pollution Act (101 H.R.1465, P.L. 101-380]) was passed by the 101st United States Congress, and signed by President George H. W. Bush, to mitigate and prevent civil liability from the future oil spills off the coast of the United States. The law stated that companies must have a "plan to prevent spills that may occur" and have a "detailed containment and cleanup plan" for oil spills. The law also includes a clause that prohibits any vessel that, after March 22, 1989, has caused an oil spill of more than one million U.S. gallons (3,800 m³) in any marine area, from operating in Prince William Sound ). The legislation included a clause that prohibits any vessel that, after March 22, 1989, has caused an oil spill of more than 1 million US gallons (3,800 m3) in any marine area, from operating in Prince William Soun. OPA also set a schedule for the gradual phase in of a double hull design, providing an additional layer between the oil tanks and the ocean. While a double hull would likely not have prevented the Valdez disaster, a Coast Guard study estimated that it would have cut the amount of oil spilled by 60 percent Enforcement Following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, numerous U.S. Senators attempted to pass a bill to raise the $75 million cap limit to $10 billion, retroactive to before the spill occurred. Senators of both Republican Party and Democratic Party blocked efforts for new legislation on multiple occasions, arguing that the new law could have unintended consequences.[5] Democratic Party senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana was quoted in saying “We want to be careful before we change any of these laws that we don’t jeopardize the operations of an ongoing industry,