Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m. in Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Billy Tauzin (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Tauzin, Studds, Hughes, Hutto, Carper, Ortiz, Bennett, Manton, Pickett, Brennan, Hochbrueckner, Clement, Laughlin, Lowey, Jones, Pallone, Bosco, Dyson, Solarz, Tallon, Unsoeld, Hertel, Young, Bateman, Bentley, Coble, Inhofe, Goss, Miller, Herger, Lent, Schneider, and Saxton.

Staff present: Roy Willis, Cornel Martin, Sue Stilley, Bill Wright, Ed Welch, Barbara Cavas, Kurt Oxley, Lee Crockett, George Pence, Rebecca Dye, Sherry Steele, Sue Waldron, Cyndy Wilkinson, Greg Lambert, and Gwen Lockhart.

Mr. TAUZIN. The Subcommittee will please come to order.

Before we hear from witnesses, I will say a few words about our procedures for this hearing.

We have a very long list of witnesses, and it is the intention of the Chair to limit his own opening statement in order that we might hear our witnesses, and I would encourage many of the Members to limit, or to contain their desire to speak at length on this disaster, so we do have a chance to hear our witnesses.

Only Subcommittee Members will be recognized for opening statements, although we have invited other Full Committee Members who wished to participate, and they will be allowed to participate in the questioning part of our hearing today.

The five-minute rule for questioning will be strictly adhered to. Depending upon the time available, as I pointed out, we will recognize additional Members from the Full Committee. I am authorized to say that the Full Committee Chairman, Chairman Jones, will be here later, and he has an opening statement which, without objection, will be included as a part of the record.

[The statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER B. JONES, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH CAROLINA, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES

The unthinkable has happened, a major oil spill off our shores. The question we must all ask ourselves is "Were we fully prepared for this eventuality?" Regretfully, I am afraid we must answer "No."

(1)

Since 1976, the United States Congress has approached the need for comprehensive oil spill legislation with varying degrees of interest and success. We in this Committee can be proud of our staunch support for such legislation. A long held belief has been that it would take a disaster to get others to realize the necessity of such legislation. Well, the disaster has occurred and while some would be tempted to gloat, I feel only sadness. This spill once again exposes the uncertainties in teh crazy-quilt system of laws and plans currently in place to deal with disasters such as the Exxon accident. I no longer fear sounding like Chicken Little with idle threats that the sky is falling; instead, for the people and wildlife of Alaska, the sky has fallen and will all suffer as a result of our unpreparedness.

Mr. TAUZIN. And we will also include as part of the record statements submitted by Mr. Davis, Mrs. Bentley, and Mr. Shumway. [The statements of Mr. Davis, Mrs. Bentley and Mr. Shumway follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. DAVIS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE from MICHIGAN Mr. Chairman, I welcome the witnesses who appear here today to report to us on the progress of the cleanup efforts surrounding the Exxon Valdez oil spill. We are all concerned about the damage to the Alaskan economy and environment caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and hope that the testimony we receive will provide us with insights concerning preventative measures which we should consider to keep a disaster of this magnitude from happening again.

Our greatest concern is for the lasting effects of the oil spill on the Alaskan environment and natural resources and for those individuals who depend on those resources for their livelihoods. The victims of this accident should be promptly and adequately compensated for their losses resulting from the oil spill. I understand that Exxon has offered to compensate the Alaskan fishermen and others suffering oil spill damages as well as support the oil cleanup effort. If this incident involved a company without the resources to make an offer of this type, the existing compensation schemes may prove to be inadequate. Although it is difficult to assess the magnitude of the damage at this early date, it is clear that this spill has already caused legitimate damage to many Alaskans.

I want to point out that this Committee, under the leadership of our distinguished Chairman Walter Jones, did not wait for this oil spill to happen before acting to provide a system to compensate victims of oil spills. We have been actively pursuing comprehensive oil spill legislation for many Congresses, and on March 16yh of this year, H.R. 1465, which I cosponsored, was reintroduced. This bill, the Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act of 1989, was reported by this Committee during the last Congress as H.R. 1632. I am delighted to see renewed interest from our House and Senate colleagues on oil spill compensation legislation. I believe we have allowed different positions on certain provisions of various oil spill bills to stand in the way of reaching an agreement on a valuable piece of legislation. I hope that we won't wait for another disaster to occur before we sit down and actually produce a workable piece of legislation. I look forward to working with my House and Senate colleagues who are concerned about this issue to enact a comprehensive oil pollution compensation bill, so no United States citizen need fear losing his lifelihood as a result of an oil spill.

I agree with the Congressman from Alaska, Don Young, that we must continue to carefully monitor this situation to assess what needs to be done to prevent a reoccurrence. Barely two weeks have passed since the incident occurred, and neither the National Transportation Safety Board or the Coast Guard has had time to complete their investigations. I do not believe that we should take a "wait and see" attitude, but I do believe that we should give the Government investigators a reasonable chance to assess the situation and make recommendations to us.

I also believe that we should work to ensure the safety of future oil tanker operations, rather than take the short-sighted route of prohibiting future oil exploration. There is no question that our environment must be protected, and we must take necessary measures to secure the environment from this type of harm in the future. With the experience gained from this accident, we can succeed in making oil shipping operations safer, and also safeguard the energy independence of this country.

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN Delich Bentley, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

MARYLAND

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Davis for holding this hearing today on an issue that captured the attention of the entire world.

I want to thank both of you for taking the initiative of revising the agenda of today's scheduled hearing so that this Subcommittee could deliberate on a catastrophe which has devasted the delicate environment of Prince William Sound.

I join the millions of people not only throughout the United States, but throughout the world, who are mourning the tremendous losses incurred there.

Mr. Chairman, the news media has reported on the Exxon Valdez oil spill from every conceivable angle, bringing to light several factors which may have contributed to this disaster and its monumental consequences.

Of particular concern to me, and I am sure to my colleagues on this Subcommittee, are the reports that Captain Joseph Hazelwood was not at his post on the bridge of the Exxon Valdez during its transit through the Sound. For reasons that have not been totally clear, Captain Hazelwood was in his cabin, while the third mate, Gregory Cousins, who was not certified as a qualified pilot, was in command. Also troubling to me, is the reported slow response by Exxon officials to institute immediate steps to contain the 11 million gallons of crude oil spilling unchecked from the slashed hull of the vessel.

Alaskan Governor Steve Cowper, who will appear before us today to share with us his insight on this disaster, was quoted in the media as characterizing Exxon's response as "slow and inadequate.'

Mr. Chairman, this Subcommittee also needs to examine the resources available to the Coast Guard to adequately respond to and monitor oil and hazardous chemical spills.

We all know how the Coast Guard has been forced during recent years to expand its missions, while at the same time face imposed budget restraints.

Part of those budget reductions resulted in the consolidation of its Atlantic and Gulf national strike teams into one team located at Mobile, Alabama, and a reduction in the number of billets from 82 to 65.

Clearly, this incident has demonstrated that no one, in particular the oil industry, is properly equipped to adequately respond to an oil spill disaster of this magnitude. The question this Subcommittee needs to ask is: Why not? Is this a case where the industry, and Exxon in particular, maintains minimal resources, rather than resources sufficient to handle a worse case scenario.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the worst case scenario in Prince William Sound.

The sensitive environment in that portion of Alaska has been dramatically altered, most likely forever. That's regrettable. It never should have happened. It must never happen again-in Alaska-in the United States, or anywhere in the world.

However, I want to caution everyone that we must get to the root problem and develop ways of addressing that problem.

Rushing to judgment and introducing legislative initiatives for the sake of doing something-would be wrong. Whatever this Subcommittee-this Congress-decides to do in a constructive manner to prevent future disastrous oil spills from happening, must be well thought out and made with a great degree of reasoning.

There are those, I am sure, who will exploit the Exxon Valdez accident and call for a prohibition to energy exploration and development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That, too, would be wrong. We must resist any exploitation of this incident to thwart future development of

our energy resources.

The United States is becoming more and more dependent on foreign sources for its energy needs. From a strategic perspective, this is dangerous. We have all lived through that experience in the early 1970s, and we must strive to prevent a repetition of that experience, as well.

Overall, the oil industry, admittedly with prodding and encouragement from environmental groups, has an excellent record in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

This unfortunate accident, which is the apparent result of irresponsible human behavior on the part of one person and the inexperience of another, will, for the time being, overshadow that good record.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of our panelist today, and I want to pledge to you and to all Americans that I will support any constructive proposals that will, hopefully, prevent a reoccurrence of the Prince William Sound disaster.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN D. SHUMWAY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, this hearing is certainly timely. Unfortunately, we already know that the cause of the VALDEZ accident was avoidable and the result of gross negligence on the part of the master. In response, I believe this Committee needs to reexamine the regulatory policies for drug and alcohol testing for those responsible for navigating these tankers.

The Committee also needs to closely review the contingency plans now in place to clean up these potential accidents as quickly as possible. It's my understanding that these contingency plans are outdated nd that they were not planned for vessels anywhere near the size of the Exxon Valdez. Clearly the government and the industry need to be better prepared.

Mr. Chairman, we also need to make every effort to assess the environmental damage and ensure that restoration efforts move forward expeditiously. And, I'm confident under your leadership, as evidenced by today's hearing, we will afford it such attention.

However, I'm also concerned about the long-term policy affects this spill may have on our energy security. Years from now, long after the environment has been restored and the fisheries replenished, the effect of this spill on our Nation's energy security and economy could be devastating if the Congress and the Nation learn the wrong lesson.

The easy, quick, and appealing response to the Exxon Valdez disaster is to blame the oil company and argue that this spill proves oil operations are unsafe, and that ANWR and offshore OCS areas should remain closed to oil and gas development. Mr. Chairman, if this knee-jerk response is what we derive from this unfortunate spill, then I am afraid that we are actually setting ourselves up for more tanker disasters like this one down the road.

There is simply no denying the fact that this Nation is the largest energy consumer in the world. We need oil, coal, and other sources of energy to live. If as a result of this tragedy we shut down potential domestic supplies of oil and gas, then we are in fact increasing our dependence on foreign oil and on tanker transportation, an energy option which the VALDEZ incident proves is much more dangerous environmentally than domestic production.

I certainly hope this Committee comes to the conclusion that the Federal Government and the oil companies need to be better equipped and prepared to both prevent and clean up these tanker accidents. There is no question that our contintency plans need to be re-examined and updated. But, just as important, I hope we realize that current oil imports represent 45 percent of our consumption, and that is dangerously high. We need a sound national energy policy which relies on secure and safe domestic production from a variety of sources-including ANWR and offshore sources and we need to promote conservation and wise use of energy supplies in America. If we can learn these lessons from the Prince William Sound disaster and implement these policies as a result, we will have gone a long way in reducing the chance of repeating this kind of tanker spill in the future.

Mr. TAUZIN. Now last week, when the Subcommittee began planning the hearing, numerous Government witnesses, as well as representatives of Exxon, were invited to attend.

On Monday, the Senate Commerce Committee decided that it, too, would hold a hearing, and scheduled it for the same day and time as our hearing.

While we are pleased, indeed, that the Senate is interested in all oil spill issues, as a consequence of the scheduling, now, two of our key witnesses, Transportation Secretary Samuel Skinner, and Exxon Board Chairman L.G. Rawl, will be joining us following their testimony before the Senate committee.

We will indeed adjust our witness panels to accommodate those two witnesses when they arrive. In addition, Admiral Yost, who is with us today, will need to leave our hearing no later than 10:30.

« Previous Continue »

Books

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and ...