CTX Director Jack Devanney was at this spill the next morning
and recalls that the spillage had stopped,
and then restarted when the ship started pumping out the non-damaged tanks,
lifting the ship and destroying the hydrostatic balance in the damaged tank.
However, in no offical account of this spill
of which CTX is aware is this mentioned.
The OSCH account is clearly wrong is saying
that the ship started pumping out the ruptured tank.
With a 20 foot gash all this would have done is move sea water around.
The EPA report is revealing in that it refers
to salvage pumps only after the second spill.
In any event after hydrostatic balanced had been achieved,
there's no way new spillage could have started
unless the ship was lightened.
CTX believes that the new oil discovered on the 23rd
was the result of mishandling hydrostatic balance.
The EPA report is valuable in that it contains
a rough idea of the height of the damage,
tells us the volume in 1S, and the ship's draft.
Unfortunately, "near the turn of the bilge" is
not very specific especially for a No 1 wing tank.
But it is pretty clear that the damage was quite low in the tank.
Since the draft is put at 44 feet,
and Soldiers Ledge is put at 40 feet at MLW,
the damage was probably confined to the bottom 3 or four feet.
(The ship must have grounded at near low tide.)
We need to know the innage in 1S to compute
the hydrostatic outflow if the crew had done nothing.
Of course, if the crew had quickly trimmed and listed the ship
toward the damage, there would have been very little outflow.
The EPA report is a bit misleading
when it talks about inaccuracies.
It's true that the amount recovered is very hard to measure.
But the amount lost from the tank is not.
The ship (and presumably the USCG) should have been able to
measure the amount lost from the tank in both the first and
second spills to within a few tens of barrels.
We need depth of penetration, but based on 8 inch width number,
double hull almost certainly would have avoided a spill.
Of course, the flooding of forward wing ballast tank may have generated
its own problems, depending on the topography and the state of the tide.
Need more data, most importantly, the innage in 1S.