EXXON ASKS FOR RIGHT TO BRING TANKER BACK

By NATALIE PHILLIPS
Daily News reporter

ANCHORAGE- Nine years after the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil in Prince William Sound, oil company and government lawyers were back in court Friday arguing whether the 984-foot tanker, now named SeaRiver Mediterranean, should be allowed to return to the Sound.

Exxon's attorneys contend that the clause in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 prohibiting the tanker's return is unconstitutional and is unfairly directed only at the former Exxon Valdez. It has been operating in the Mediterranean Sea since 1990.

The clause says in part, ''tank vessels that have spilled more than 1 million gallons of oil into the marine environment after March 22, 1989, are prohibited from operating on the navigable waters of Prince William Sound.''

The Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef on March 24, 1989.

''When it passed, and as of today, there is only one U.S. tanker that fits that description,'' Exxon attorney Layne Kruse said in U.S. District Court in Anchorage. ''That's the SeaRiver Mediterranean, formerly known as the Exxon Valdez.''

Government attorneys countered that Exxon officials should have thought of that before signing papers in 1991 that settled the criminal and civil suits the state and federal government brought against the oil giant for damage done by the spill. Exxon agreed to pay $1 billion and both side agreed that was the end of all litigation resulting from the 1989 spill.

Exxon ''voluntarily and willingly signed'' those papers, said assistant U.S. Department of Justice attorney David Bono.

Exxon filed the lawsuit in Houston two years ago. A judge moved to dismiss it because it was improperly filed in the wrong jurisdiction. Exxon then filed in Washington, D.C. The court there moved the case to Alaska. Exxon and the government filed more than 10 pounds of motions and depositions to bolster their cases. Each got 15 minutes Friday morning to make their case.

At the close of the hearing, U.S. District Judge H. Russel Holland told the lawyers sitting in the empty courtroom that he would take the case under advisement. He said because of his busy caseload, it would be several weeks before he ruled.

Though Exxon officials insist no decision has been made whether the ship would ever be brought back to Alaska, the lawsuit the company filed has triggered a ripple of anger through Sound communities.

''It is reprehensible,'' said Cheri Shaw, executive director of the Cordova District Fishermen United. ''It's like rubbing salt in wounds, like letting a molester come back into the neighborhood.''

''I don't ever want to see it up here again,'' said Bob Henrichs, president of the Native Village of Eyak. ''It would be a slap in the face to the people here.''

Rikki Ott, a Cordova biologist and Exxon watchdog, said Exxon's bid is a strategic move to delay converting its fleet to double-hulled tankers, which is also a mandate under the oil spill act.

The act requires that once tankers become 25 years old, they be retired and replaced by double-hulled ships. The Exxon Valdez was built in 1986, so it is one of the oil company's youngest vessels. If Exxon can clear hurdles to bring the ship back, the company could use it to replace an older vessel due to retire soon, Ott said.

''We would view that as regrettable because we have always been in favor of double-hulls and the sooner the better,'' said Stan Jones, a spokesman for the Regional Citizens Advisory Council, an oil industry watchdog.

When asked if the oil company intended to replace an aging ship with the SeaRiver Mediterranean, Art Stephen, a spokesman for SeaRiver Maritime, a subsidiary of Exxon, said the company has made no decisions whether the ship would return to Alaska.

''The ship is operating in foreign service, that is where she will continue to operate,'' he said. The ship has made more than 140 voyages since its repairs in 1990.

When the suit was filed, however, SeaRiver vice president Pete Rupp said the vessel can't earn much money in the Mediterranean Sea because the Jones Act requires it to be operated by American crews whose higher wages make it noncompetitive. Rupp said, at the time, SeaRiver's intention was to bring the ship back to Alaska.

''That's where we would like to bring her,'' Rupp said.

The motivation behind the lawsuit is to challenge the clause in the law ''on principle,'' Stephen said. ''We are addressing that piece with no particular preconceived disposition of the vessel.''

Exxon contends that the final settlement signed in 1991 reads that neither Exxon nor the government will sue one another on any other matters directly related to the spill. It was negotiated by Exxon attorney Ed Lynch and former Alaska Attorney General Charlie Cole.

''What both concluded is that there was no intent to waive right to challenge constitutionality,'' Exxon attorney Kruse told the judge.

---

Story Index: Main | The Ship	Overall: story 365 of 380 The Ship story 20 of 22