home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
012290
/
0122205.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
85 lines
<text id=90TT0197>
<title>
Jan. 22, 1990: Exxon's Attitude Problem
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
Jan. 22, 1990 A Murder In Boston
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
BUSINESS, Page 51
Exxon's Attitude Problem
</hdr>
<body>
<p>A spill raises new questions about the giant's safety measures
</p>
<p> Is Exxon plagued by bad luck or a bad attitude? After
suffering three major accidents in just the past ten months,
the largest U.S. oil company is earning a reputation as a
careless and callous despoiler of the environment. Last week
Exxon ran into a storm of criticism from New York State and New
Jersey authorities when it was disclosed that the company's
shoddy equipment and poor maintenance procedures helped cause
one of the largest oil spills in the region's history. On New
Year's Day a 12-in. pipeline running under the Arthur Kill
waterway, which separates Staten Island and New Jersey, ruptured
and spewed out 567,000 gal. of No. 2 heating oil. Much of the
fuel drifted into surrounding wetlands, which serve as a
rookery for rare wading birds.
</p>
<p> "This is a mini-Alaska," declared New York Attorney General
Robert Abrams, referring to last year's 11 million-gal. spill
from the Exxon Valdez.
</p>
<p> Appallingly, Exxon workers were warned of the possibility
of a rupture but did not act. The pipeline, which connects an
Exxon refinery with storage tanks, had a leak-detection system
in place that flashed an alarm when the accident occurred. But
instead of shutting down the pipeline, which would have kept
the spill to a minuscule amount, employees failed to take the
alarm seriously for nearly six hours. Reason: the safety system
was known to be defective and had frequently sent out false
alarms.
</p>
<p> Exxon's mop-up team did earn modest praise for its
effectiveness in soaking up some of the oil with cotton booms.
By week's end Exxon had recovered about 130,000 gal., but the
damage remains to be calculated. More than 300 birds have died,
and if the oil destroys the area's marine organisms, several
species of migratory birds may starve to death when they arrive
in the spring for breeding.
</p>
<p> Authorities in New Jersey have filed a lawsuit against
Exxon, and New York officials threatened to do so but held off
when the oil company agreed to assume some liability for the
spill. Both states want the oil giant to pay compensation for
damage to the environment and reimbursement for the
governments' cost of helping in the cleanup. Exxon's
environmental bills are mounting. The company has spent more
than $1 billion in its efforts to clean up the Valdez spill, and
is being sued for billions of dollars more by the state of
Alaska, the fishing industry and other aggrieved parties.
</p>
<p> Besides the two spills, Exxon suffered an explosion and fire
in late December at a major Louisiana oil refinery. To many
Exxon critics, the string of accidents suggests that the
company stubbornly refuses to embrace a policy of safety and
prevention. Says Albert Appleton, New York City's new
commissioner of environmental protection: "Exxon has a
corporate philosophy that the environment is some kind of
nuisance problem and a distraction from the real business of
moving oil around." Last week Exxon named Edwin Hess, a senior
vice president, to the new post of vice president in charge of
environment and safety. Never before has the company assigned
those issues to such a high-ranking executive.
</p>
<p>By Barbara Rudolph. Reported by Martha Smilgis/New York.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>