ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, January 16, 1997 TAG: 9701160041
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: Associated Press
Exxon Corp. wants the Exxon Valdez to again navigate the Alaska shores it fouled with millions of gallons of crude oil in 1989. Some Alaskans are outraged.
Attorneys for the corporation were to ask a U.S. district judge here today to strike down federal legislation that barred the vessel, since renamed the Mediterranean, from Prince William Sound.
``It is impossible to overstate the depth of Exxon's insensitivity to the Alaskan natives,'' said Gary Mason, an attorney representing a group of Alaskan Indians.
In a brief, Mason and colleagues Michael Hausfeld and Lloyd Miller argued that Exxon's proposal is not only offensive to residents of the affected region but could again imperil the fish and fowl that are still recovering from the tanker accident.
The Oil Pollution Act, a provision of which is at issue in the case, ``was plainly intended to prevent rusty buckets such as the Exxon Valdez from plying the waters of Prince William Sound again,'' the attorneys wrote.
A representative of Exxon's shipping company said it was challenging the ban because Congress improperly punished the ship's owners retroactively.
In March 1989, the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil.
Exxon was ordered to pay $5 billion in punitive damages to commercial fishermen, Alaskan Indians, property owners and others harmed by the spill. It also was ordered to pay $287million to fishermen for actual losses.
The Oil Pollution Act, which was passed in response to several accidents that occurred about the time of the Valdez spill, barred any tanker that had spilled more than 1 million gallons from navigating Prince William Sound.
In a complaint filed against the Transportation Department, SeaRiver Maritime Financial Holdings, a subsidiary of Exxon, argued that the act's exclusion was unconstitutional.
``Basically you're finding the vessel guilty of something [when] you passed a law after it happened,'' said Pete Rupp, a SeaRiver vice president. ``It's retroactively applying a law, which is not permissible, that was not in effect at the time of the Valdez incident.''
U.S. maritime law requires that certain vessels doing business in U.S. ports be built in the United States and operated by Americans, significantly raising the costs of such vessels.
Built in 1986, the Mediterranean and her sister ship, the Long Beach, are the newest U.S. tankers, Rupp said. The company is losing money by operating the Mediterranean between Europe and Egypt where cheaper ships are available.
The vessel was rebuilt after the accident and its seaworthiness isn't an issue, Rupp said.
The Transportation Department has asked that the case be dismissed, or moved to an Alaska courtroom.
In the friend of the court brief filed Tuesday, the native village of Port Graham and the Valdez tribe argue Exxon waived its right to contest any federal action related to the Valdez spill in a 1992 consent decree.
LENGTH: Medium: 66 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: AP FILE. The Exxon Valdez is pictured being towed out ofby CNBPrince William Sound by tug boats in 1989. After renaming the ship
the Mediterranean, Exxon wants to return the vessel to the shipping
lanes where it spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil. color.