NEW YORK -- Exxon Corp. exercised 'bad judgment' by allowing Capt. Joseph Hazelwood, who had been treated for alcoholism, to command the tanker Exxon Valdez that caused the Alaska oil spill, the company chairman was reported as saying Tuesday.
Lawrence Rawl also acknowledged his ability to persuade Congress of the need to drill for more oil in the Alaska wilderness reserve is now 'not so good' as a result of the March 24 spill, the largest in U.S. history.
'Someone in management should have been notified' when Hazelwood took his first drink after being treated for alcoholism in 1985, Rawl said. 'Our policy would not have permitted this man back on the ship,' he said.
'There's no question that there was bad judgment involved in even putting a person with a critical skill back in that kind of work. It is pretty clear we have to tighten those things up,' he said in a Fortune magazine interview.
Hazelwood, who was fired by Exxon after the spill, has been charged with three misdemeanors including being drunk on duty and turning over navigation of the tanker to an unlicensed third mate.
Asked how he'd now persuade Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, Rawl replied, 'Well, my ticket for persuading anybody on anything now is not so good. Before March 24 it might have been.'
He said Congress 'just has to recognize the cost to the nation if we do not explore ANWR.'
The Akaska reserve is believed to be the last remaining area in the United States with large potential oil reserves. Even if exploration started today, Rawl said, it would be 10 years before the area could produce oil.
Following the spill, Senate leaders shelved legislation that would have allowed drilling in the reserve. The bill had been scheduled for a Senate vote this month.
Rawl said the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. was not equipped to deal with a spill of more than 10 million gallons. Alyeska is the consortium of seven oil companies that operate the Alaska pipeline.
'So, the plan was for the shipper, Exxon in this case, to get on the scene promptly, gather the necessary equipment and, in a large spill, apply dispersants, the chemicals that break apart the oil.'
Exxon has been blamed for the failure to apply the dispersants for two days, after which storms prevented their use. 'One of the things I feel strongly about ... is that I don't think we've gotten a fair shake,' Rawl said.
He said the state of Alaska and the Coast Guard withheld approval to use the chemicals until late Sunday, more than two days after the early Friday spill, because of objections of environmentalists.
'We could have kept up to 50 percent of the oil from ending up on the beach somewhere.'
But, Tim Fields, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Emergency Response team in Washington, has said Exxon never had nearly enough dispersant on hand to deal with a spill of this size.
He told United Press International 500,000 gallons would have been needed. Exxon had only 30,000 gallons at Valdez at the time of the spill and had moved only 100,000 gallons to the port a week later, Fields said.
Rawl said one lesson learned from the spill was that Exxon is going to need spill cleanup teams standing by with the authority and capability to move in quickly.
A team Alyeska had stationed at Valdez was disbanded several years ago in a cost-cutting move.
'From a public relations standpoint,' Rawl acknowledged, it would have been better if he had gone to Valdez immediately after the spill.
Instead, Exxon elected to conduct a public relations blitz with Rawl and other executives appearing on television talks shows and the company taking out ads in 165 publications apologizing for the incident.
