COMMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
is on the Web! Visit us at
pubs.acs.org/est Our
Web Edition is available now!
See what w e have to offer: with an ES&T Web Edition you'll enjoy these great features: Articles ASAP (as soon as publishable) Logical links Easily move from articles to databases. HTML or PDF display. You choose what's best for you. Search. Search by author, title, or keyword. Back issues. Access articles back to January 1996. Download capabilities. Keep and use information.
Subscribe now by calling 800-333-9511 (if outside the U.S. call 614-447-3776). See our masthead in this issue for further ordering details and subscription prices.
Lessons from the Exxon Valdez few minutes after midnight on March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, loaded with crude from the Alaska North Slope, went aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound. The events that followed form one of the most important chapters in the environmental chronicle of the 20th century. This was not the first major oil spill from a tanker or a runaway offshore rig, yet because of the sensitivity of the affected environment, it drew by far the most attention. Beyond the pictures showing the struggling sea otters and birds, which tore our hearts, the public was gripped with the story of Captain Hazelwood and the role of human frailty in the disaster. As in a melodrama, big business was depicted as the villain, and the innocent inhabitants of Alaska's pristine shore as the exploited. Now, 10 years later, what are the lessons that remain from the Valdez catastrophe? The first lesson is that nature is resilient, perhaps more so than many recognized. Residues remain, but a very large part of the almost 11 million gallons of oil that flowed out of the Valdez has been removed by biodegradation and other natural processes. The second lesson is that our best scientists found it difficult to know just how badly natural systems were damaged because of the lack of good baseline data and by deficiencies in assessment tools and methods available at that time. Thus, in spite of the fact that most of the petroleum has dissipated, it is difficult to know just how completely the system has recovered and what will be the long-term effects of deeper oil residues that remain. Another lesson is that it is possible for a disaster of this magnitude to be addressed without a long and resource-draining litigious process. Although some litigation is still pending, the majority of the cleanup was carried out quickly with Exxon, the State of Alaska, and U.S. governments, as well as other parties cooperating. Litigation over environmental damage will no doubt continue to stay with us, but the experience of Superfund has shown us that the environment does not always win when litigation is the default response. Perhaps the most important lesson of the Exxon Valdez is that our society has reached such a proportion that it can affect nature in spectacular ways. The spill did not actually show this from a scientific point of view, but the impact was equivalent. Moreover, the disaster occurred in close juxtaposition to the Chernobyl disaster and growing public awareness of the ozone hole. These and other environmental stories—some true, some exaggerated—slowly convinced policy makers, business leaders, and citizens that the environmental movement was not a temporary phenomenon. The crash of the Exxon Valdez showed us how important it is to think ahead about the potential for a crisis to occur and to use science and management practices in a proactive, environmentally sustainable way. So, although the beaches of Prince William Sound may be cleaner than after that fateful day in 1989, the lessons of the Exxon Valdez remain.
A
William H. Glaze, Editor (
[email protected]) © 1999 American Chemical Society
APRIL 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 4 5 A
