effects of dispersed oil which were based on traditional 48-96 hour tests have been put into better perspective. Many of today's dispersant formulations have much lower toxicity than common products used every day in kitchens around the world. In the marine environment, contact is relatively brief and traditional toxicity tests which keep marine species in contact with test solutions for extended periods do not apply. More relevant tests have been developed which now indicate that toxic effects will be much lower than would have been predicted by the earlier methods - up to 100 times less toxic (7).
Management of the Response Effort
During the initial days of the VALDEZ spill, involvement of numerous parties in the decision process became problematic. In the U.S., the National Contingency Plan established the U.S. Coast Guard as FOSC for marine oil spills; however, the FOSC was not empowered to make unilateral decisions. In the emergency phase, while oil is on the water, decisiveness and speed of decisions are critical to mounting a successful response effort. Input from local towns, states, fishery groups and environmental entities should be obtained long in advance of such an emergency so that all points of view have been weighed in establishing the contingency plan well before any incident. During the crisis, there should be one sole authority who can balance the diverse and often contradictory interests of the many parties involved. Though involvement of all the parties in the post-emergency phase (i.e., shoreline cleaning) may be appropriate, when time is of the essence, as in the oil response phase, a lead agency must always be in command to make the final decision in an expedited manner. In the U.S., this agency is the Coast Guard; in the U.K. it is the Marine Pollution Control Unit, a branch of the U.K. Coast Guard.
Application to Today : In Japan, it is the Maritime Safety Agency (MSA) which is the lead organization However, in Japan over 15 national government agencies cooperate with MSA during a major spill, including the Fisheries Agency which coordinates and negotiates with fishermen unions before dispersants can be used. Such negotiation is proper for nearshore fisheries, and mariculture areas, but when the oil is in deep water offshore, it would be advantageous for Japan to consider adapting the pre-authorization approach used by other countries and delegating clear authority to MSA to approve dispersant use in these zones without the need for time-consuming consultation.
Shoreline Cleaning Innovations
After the oil reached the shorelines in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska, Exxon, working with government and local groups, committed itself to their cleanup. This cleanup was a mammoth task complicated by geographical and ecological factors. At its peak in 1989, the effort involved over 11,000 people. Nearly 6,000 km of shoreline were surveyed by assessment teams which generated geomorphological, biological, archaeological and oiling information that led to site specific treatment plans (12). Most of the shoreline oiling outside of Prince William Sound was very light, involving scattered mousse and tar balls which could be cleaned by manual techniques (shovels, buckets, and hand-held tools). In Prince William Sound, the oiling was more severe and the heavily oiled shorelines required water washing to dislodge the oil. The consensus of all parties involved (up to 14 organizations) as well as of oil spill consulting experts was that it was imperative to improve bulk oil from the shorelines to minimize its potential for refloating and affecting additional shorelines or wildlife beyond that already impacted. Some of the more aggressive cleanup techniques, such as hot water washing have been criticized by others, but it must be realized that intertidal biota had already been impacted by the oil and all parties involved in the decision to clean the beaches deemed it critical to remove the oil to minimize impact on other wildlife using the Sound.
This was the first spill to utilize the Net Environmental Benefit Assessment (NEBA) concept to help define cleanup extent, methods, and priorities. Net Environmental Benefit is determined by weighing all factors and deciding the course of action with the lowest negative impact on the overall environment. Ultimately, 2,400 km of shoreline were cleaned. The principal cleaning method on the 400 km of moderate to heavily oiled shorelines was to wash the oil from the rocks, using warm or cold water, or both. The oil was flushed into the Sound where it was contained by booms and removed by skimmers for subsequent separation and treatment.
Because of safety considerations, it was agreed that operations would need to end by mid-September because of the onset of winter storms. For this reason, Exxon elected to pursue a number of innovative methods to
