CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Contaminated beaches reopen
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - own after they were polluted by Cosco Busan shipping fuel were judged safe and reopened during the weekend, including Baker Beach, China Beach, Crissy Field and Ocean Beach, but four area beaches remained heavily oiled Sunday, including Angel Island and Kirby Cove.
More than 2,000 white- and yellow-clad cleanup workers and volunteers scoured area shorelines and removed oil using sticks, gloved hands and buckets over the weekend, nearly two weeks after the Chinese container ship ripped its hull against the Bay Bridge and spilled 58,000 gallons of fuel.
Uncertified would-be volunteers continued to be ordered off closed beaches over the weekend and hundreds were turned away from four-hour beach-cleaning training courses because the courses were full.
Tar balls, made up of fuel mixed with sand, could wash up on shores for another week as far south as Año Nuevo, 55 miles south of San Francisco, and as far north as Point Reyes, and they will continue to ebb in and out of the Bay on high tides expected this week, the U.S. Coast Guard said Sunday.
Booms remain in place around polluted piers to prevent fuel from spreading back into the Bay. The piers will be scrubbed after more environmentally sensitive areas have been decontaminated, under Coast Guard plans. Spokeswoman Angelia Rorison on Sunday said that it’s not known when the dirty piers will be cleaned.
Although oil slicks have disappeared from the Bay, Department of Fish and Game spokesman Rob Roberts said efforts to rescue oiled birds will continue.
“They’re still coming in,” Roberts said early Sunday evening.
Two-thirds of the more than 2,000 oiled birds found so far were found dead or died after they were rescued, figures show.
Comments from Examiner Readers
6:17 AM MST on Sat., Dec. 29, 2007 re: "Cosco Busan owners pay $80M to leave"
Report as inappropriate
6:12 AM MST on Sat., Dec. 29, 2007
re: "Tests show Bay water is clean"
Report as inappropriate
11:56 PM MST on Thu., Dec. 20, 2007
re: "Cosco Busan owners pay $80M to leave"
Report as inappropriate
1:23 PM MST on Thu., Dec. 20, 2007
re: "Group turns oil into food for ’shrooms"
Report as inappropriate
10:30 AM MST on Tue., Dec. 11, 2007
re: "Bay spill lawsuits pour in"
Report as inappropriate
1:50 PM MST on Tue., Dec. 4, 2007
re: "Supervisor slams response to oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
12:40 PM MST on Tue., Dec. 4, 2007
re: "Supervisor slams response to oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
12:00 PM MST on Tue., Dec. 4, 2007
re: "Supervisor slams response to oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
9:34 PM MST on Thu., Nov. 29, 2007
re: "Waters now safe, fishing to resume"
Report as inappropriate
9:32 AM MST on Thu., Nov. 29, 2007
re: "Bay Bridge bumper bits lost"
Report as inappropriate
11:34 AM MST on Mon., Nov. 26, 2007
re: "Birds death toll continues climb following oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Examiner Reader said: The ship's destination was QINQDAO (Tsingtao), China, not Korea as reported above. 7 agree | 6 disagree Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree How does one disagree with a statement of provable fact?
151 agree | 141 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"Additionally, state officials said that tests conducted by a California Department of Fish and Game biologist last week that found what seemed to be oil found in local herring fisheries were “inclusive,” according to Lt. Rob Roberts of the Department of Fish and Game’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response." Perhaps "inconclusive" was intended
125 agree | 102 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The ship's destination was QINQDAO (Tsingtao), China, not Korea as reported above.
160 agree | 164 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The Coast Guard did not turn away the Fire Department boat that came to investigate. That is false. The Coast Guard did, inform them of the 100 yard safey zoen around the Cosco Busan after the incident occurred. The statement implies that the Coast Guard is covering up this incident, which is ridiculous.
194 agree | 148 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Hey, SFoff, I live in SF and yes my county did fail miserably in their response. I just wonder if Dennis Herrera is really going to believe that he will get 25K for each day of the spill from Captain Cota.
138 agree | 142 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
SFoff said:
Dear Examiner reader (first grade level, apparently)12:40pm. There was no mention of S.F. being the only county affected by the spill. The article was from a San Francisco Newspaper, regarding San Francisco's response to the oil spill. Not very obscure. It's all clear in context. Nobody was wondering why SF. "was not kept in the loop". He is questioning why S.F. did not enter the loop of it's own accord, considering how much "training and partnership" had been established. Are we supposed to be happy with our particular cities response because your county also failed miserably to do anything in time to prevent this problem? And BTW, S.F. is not the center of the Universe, just the Solar System, but thanks for the exaggeration!
158 agree | 169 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
... and San Francisco was the only city, the only county affected by this spill. It seems that SF is to self-centered in this incident, wondering why it was not kept in teh loop. It seems that many other cities and counties were affected by this incident. way to go SF. Show you true colors. If ross Mirkirami wants to be mayor in 2012 then he should just come out and proclaim that San Francisco is in fact, the center of the universe. Then he will get my vote
161 agree | 148 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Seems strange that we would be knocking ourselves up for something we had little control over and had misleading info about. One would think you can rely on the Coast Guard to provide accurate info, since this IS their jurisdiction, but to get the info wrong hours later and even when others are pointing out that it's a LARGE spill (and to ignore this emergency) seems unconscionable. This, to me, should be about the ship crashing into the bridge tower and the bungled response of the Coast Guard, their effect on the greater Bay Area and effective preventive measures.
160 agree | 144 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Its my understanding two-thirds of the 58,000 gallons of oil is unaccounted for and will remain so. The water quality of San Francisco Bay was questionable before this event. Some sort of blanket statement regarding the "safeness" of the bay water seems a bit dubious to me.
319 agree | 169 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Having said that black made it harder to find the missing pieces of plastic lumber, they're going to use black again for the replacement?!! Foolish.
392 agree | 138 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Very self indulgent of you to equate an oil spill dead birds and your situation. Get over it already.
246 agree | 186 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree