Editing Exxon Valdez oil spill (section)

==Political consequences and reforms==
===Coast Guard report===
A 1989 report by the Coast Guard's [[Missions of the United States Coast Guard#National Response Center|U.S. National Response Center]] summarized the event and made many recommendations, including that neither Exxon, [[Alyeska Pipeline Service Company]], the State of Alaska, nor the federal government were prepared for a spill of this magnitude.<ref>{{cite book |last1=The National Response Team |title=The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill May 1989 – A Report to the President |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1i-6NdG0YiwC&pg=PP1 |website=National Service Center for Environmental Publications |year=1989 |publisher=Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency |access-date=6 April 2021}}</ref><ref name="corps">{{cite book |last1=McDonnell |first1=Janet A. |title=The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill |date=1992 |publisher=United States Army Corps of Engineers |location=Fort Belvoir, Virginia |isbn=978-1410222534 |url=https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerPamphlets/EP_870-1-41.pdf |access-date=6 April 2021 |archive-date=April 20, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210420234520/https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerPamphlets/EP_870-1-41.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Oil Pollution Act of 1990===
In response to the spill, the [[Congress of the United States|United States Congress]] passed the [[Oil Pollution Act of 1990]] (OPA). The legislation included a clause that prohibits any vessel that, after March 22, 1989, has caused an oil spill of more than {{convert|1|e6USgal|m3}} in any marine area, from operating in Prince William Sound.<ref name="opa" />

In April 1998, the company argued in a legal action against the federal government that the ship should be allowed back into Alaskan waters. Exxon claimed OPA was effectively a [[bill of attainder]], a regulation that was unfairly directed at Exxon alone.<ref name="attainder" /> In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Exxon. As of 2002, OPA had prevented 18 ships from entering Prince William Sound.<ref name="nyt" />

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 ''Exxon Valdez'' disaster, a Coast Guard study estimated that it would have cut the amount of oil spilled by 60 percent.<ref name="AUTOREF17" />

''[[Exxon Valdez]]'' was towed to San Diego, arriving on July 10. Repairs began on July 30. Approximately {{convert|1600|ST|t|lk=on}} of steel were removed and replaced. In June 1990, the tanker, renamed ''Exxon Mediterranean'', left the harbor after $30&nbsp;million of repairs.<ref name="nyt" /> In 1993, owned by SeaRiver Maritime, it was named ''S/R Mediterranean'', then in 2005 ''Mediterranean''. In 2008 the vessel was acquired by a Hong Kong company that operated her as ''Dong Fang Ocean'', then in 2011 renamed her ''Oriental Nicety''. In August 2012, she was beached at [[Alang Ship Breaking Yard|Alang]], and dismantled.

===Alaska regulations===
In the aftermath of the spill, Alaska governor [[Steve Cowper]] issued an executive order requiring two [[tugboat]]s to escort every loaded tanker from Valdez out through Prince William Sound to Hinchinbrook Entrance. As the plan evolved in the 1990s, one of the two routine tugboats was replaced with a {{convert|210|ft|adj=on}} Escort Response Vehicle (ERV). Tankers at Valdez are no longer single-hulled. Congress enacted legislation requiring all tankers to be [[double hull|double-hulled]] as of 2015.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Fargo Balliett|first1=James|title=Oceans: Environmental Issues, Global Perspectives|date=2014|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781317463665|page=51}}</ref>