EXXON VALDEZ CONTROVERSY REVIVED

Four years after its occurrence rocked the petroleum industry and revitalized the U.S. environmental movement, the Exxon Valdez tanker oil spill off Alaska continues to stir controversy. Conflicting reports abound over whether there is long term damage to the Prince William Sound ecosystem resulting from the Mar. 24, 1989, spill. The worst U.S. oil spill occurred when the tanker laden with Alaskan North Slope crude struck a submerged reef and spilled 258,000 bbl of oil.

April 26, 1993

7 min read

Four years after its occurrence rocked the petroleum industry and revitalized the U.S. environmental movement, the Exxon Valdez tanker oil spill off Alaska continues to stir controversy.

Conflicting reports abound over whether there is long term damage to the Prince William Sound ecosystem resulting from the Mar. 24, 1989, spill. The worst U.S. oil spill occurred when the tanker laden with Alaskan North Slope crude struck a submerged reef and spilled 258,000 bbl of oil.

Since then, Exxon Corp. has spent more than $3.5 billion for cleanup, fines, and further environmental mitigation, monitoring, and studies related to the spill. However, government scientists at recent conferences disclosed studies they contend show long term, significant damage to the sound.

Exxon this month launched a counteroffensive, disclosing results of studies it funded that it claims show no credible scientific evidence of long term damage. At the same time, the company blasted as flawed the government's data on assessing environmental damage to the sound and charged that test samples from the sound were mishandled. Both contributed to exaggerated damage claims, Exxon said.

Exxon this week will present details of its studies at an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) symposium in Atlanta.

Meantime, Prince William Sound still shows lingering effects from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, witnesses told the U.S. House merchant marine committee.

But recovery has been so rapid that there is more controversy over how to use $900 million in natural resource recovery funds that Exxon paid than over how badly species are suffering.

EXXON'S STUDIES

Exxon said results of studies by oil spill researchers from academia and private environmental consultants funded by Exxon verify that while the spill had acute short term effects on the environment, there is no credible scientific evidence of long term damage.

Researchers studied the presence and persistence of oil in the environment, recovery of seabirds, and the health of key commercial fisheries populations.

"These sophisticated studies produce conclusions that refute the broadly communicated claims of long term and dire impacts on the environment," Exxon said.

Exxon sought to refute some government claims ahead of the ASTM meeting, specifically claims that:

Certain Gulf of Alaska murre colonies may take as long as 70 years to recover from the spill. Studies by John Wiens, a U.S. ornithologist, show murre populations are at historic levels and the birds are reproducing normally, Exxon said.
Significant portions of the sound are contaminated today with high levels of oil comparable to those the day of the spill. "In fact, comprehensive shoreline surveys conducted by state, federal, and Exxon scientists show that by the spring of 1992, oil was present only on 0.2% of the 3,000 miles of shoreline in the sound," Exxon said. "Biological recovery of affected species has been rapid and in most cases is nearly complete."
The herring fishery in the sound has been devastated. A Battelle Marine Science Laboratories study found the oil did not have significant effects on the sound's herring population and the fishery continues to support record harvests, Exxon said.

EXXON: FAULTY DATA

Exxon said it used chemical fingerprinting to determine that some of the hydrocarbons found in test samples from the sound came from naturally occurring oil seeps upstream and from marine diesel fuel.

It also claimed frequent instances of lab contamination of the samples, contending lab contamination was responsible for about half the suspect substances found in tissue samples from wildlife tests in 1989-90. Texas A&M University, which conducted most of the lab testing for the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under a $2 million contract, denied Exxon's claims.

NOAA officials said Exxon's claims were plausible and the agency has begun to review its database on the spill. However, the Seattle Times newspaper quoted a NOAA official in Seattle as charging Exxon with putting up a "smokescreen" that does not make "any difference in the big picture in regards to damage."

Exxon scientist Hans Jahns, acknowledging the extent of short term damage from the spill, said, "The issue is the claim of continuing long term damage," the Seattle Times reported. "That doesn't agree with our data, and it doesn't agree with oil spill literature. One year after the spill, as expected, there was not much exposure to Exxon Valdez oil."

LINGERING DAMAGE?

The House committee was told nature is doing the main job of restoration so well that scientists and environmental groups are urging that most of the settlement money be used to acquire upland habitat, including land and timber rights in the sound and adjacent areas. About $27 million in acquisitions are planned.

Commerce Sec. Ronald Brown disclosed $25 million more would be spent this year for land acquisition.

Brown conceded, "There has been criticism regarding the progress to date in using the settlement money to restore the sound region. Natural resource restoration is a complicated and time consuming process but I am committed to expediting the process to the greatest extent possible."

Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), committee chairman, said, "Some species such as bald eagles appear to have recovered reasonably well, while others may take many more years to return to anything approaching normalcy and in fact are still suffering from contact with lingering oil on beaches, in eelgrass beds, and in the food chain."

Elenore McMullen, chief of the native village of Port Graham, said, "Since the spill there is simply less life in Prince William Sound. Ducks are rarely seen. Seals are difficult, if not impossible to find. Sea otters are scarce. Even the pink salmon run has gotten smaller."

Studds said the settlement money "must not become a slush fund for unending research studies, nor should it be used to pay for locally popular projects that have little, if anything, to do with the spill or sound.

"While the trustee system established under the terms of the settlement is cumbersome and exhausting, that system must ensure that the funds are used for their proper purpose, the restoration of the environment damaged by the oil."

TANKER SAFETY UPDATE

Adm. William Kime, U.S. Coast Guard commandant, told the committee his agency is making continued progress in implementing the 1990 Oil Pollution Act, the tanker safety legislation passed in response to the accident.

He said the Coast Guard, Alaska, the petroleum industry, and others are negotiating with Russia to conduct an offshore in situ test of the burning of spilled oil as a response technique.

He said Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. "has accumulated the most extensive spill response equipment inventory in the world and they now routinely exercise it."

That gear includes five 210 ft emergency response vessels, 50 other response vessels and skimmers with a cumulative recovery rate of 44,000 bbl/hr, and more than 200,000 ft of containment boom.

James Hermiller, Alyeska president, said Trans-Alaska Pipeline System owners have spent more than $237 million since 1989 to enhance oil spill prevention and response capability in the sound and will spend another $73 million this year.

He said, "All laden outbound tankers and all partially laden inbound tankers are escorted in the sound by two specially fitted vessels to assist in safe navigation and to provide immediate assistance in the event of a tanker problem or an oil spill."