ALASKAN TO RULE ON EX-EXXON VALDEZ

By DAVID WHITNEY
Daily News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON- An Alaska judge should decide whether the former Exxon Valdez tanker is permitted to sail again in the waters it polluted in 1989, U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin said in an opinion made public Thursday.

Sporkin's six-page opinion transfers to U.S. District Judge Russel Holland in Anchorage a lawsuit filed by Exxon Corp.'s shipping subsidiaries seeking to return the renamed tanker to service in the Alaska oil trade.

The 1990 Oil Pollution Act, written in the aftermath of the 11 million gallon spill in Prince William Sound, contained a clause written by Sen. Ted Stevens that barred the vessel from returning to Alaska.

SeaRiver Maritime, Exxon's shipping subsidiary, maintains that the Stevens provision is unconstitutional because it was written only to retroactively punish the company for the spill.

The tanker, renamed the SeaRiver Mediterranean after undergoing extensive repairs following the 1989 grounding, has been in service in the Mediterranean Sea where the company said it is losing money.

The $125 million tanker was built specifically for carrying Alaska crude to Lower 48 ports, and unless it is let back into that business, the company has said, the ship may have to be sold for scrap.

SeaRiver has a separate lawsuit pending before the U.S. Court of Claims here seeking damages from the federal government on grounds that the Stevens provision amounts to a taking of a property right. That case is being held up pending resolution of the lawsuit seeking to overturn the ban.

The lawsuit was first filed in Texas, Exxon's home state, but was transferred to the federal court here because it often is the venue for lawsuits involving constitutional questions.

Lawyers for the Justice Department and Alaska Natives asked Sporkin to either dismiss the case outright or send it up to Holland, who retained continuing jurisdiction over Exxon's $1 billion settlement of criminal and civil claims by Alaska and the federal government.

The lawyers argued that in signing the 1991 settlement, Exxon had agreed not to file any further litigation arising out of the spill. Because the tanker's banishment was a direct result of the spill, they argued, Exxon's lawsuit to return it to service in Alaska should be barred.

Sporkin said he based his decision in part on the fact that residents of Alaska ''have an extraordinary interest in the outcome of this suit.''

''This is a vessel that on its last visit inflicted immeasurable damage to the people and ecology of Alaska,'' Sporkin wrote. ''While it may be debatable whether it was the ship or its captain that actually caused the disaster, the court recognizes the interests of Alaska to participate in the proceedings arising out of this case.''

But Sporkin said Sea-River's lawsuit presents a ''serious claim.''

The best person to determine whether Exxon, by signing the settlement, waived its right to go to court over the tanker is Holland, Sporkin said.

SeaRiver spokesman Arthur Stephens said the company would have no comment about Sporkin's ruling until its lawyers had time to review it.

---

Story Index: Main | The Ship	Overall: story 351 of 380 The Ship story 19 of 22