(HOUSTON) - A computer operator at Exxon headquarters here says he inadvertently destroyed computer copies of thousands of documents with potentially important information on the Alaskan oil spill.
Under a federal court order, Exxon was required to preserve the computer records along with all other material concerning the grounding of the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound on March 24 and the subsequent cleanup effort.
Les Rogers, a spokesman for the Exxon Company USA, confirmed the destruction of the computer records but said the oil company's lawyers believed other copies exist either on paper or in other computer files.
"Very early in the spill, even before the court order, Exxon took the initiative to instruct all its employees to save all documents relating to the event because of the anticipated litigation," Rogers said. "We assume these instructions have been followed." He acknowledged that no check had been made on compliance with the instruction.
The computer technician, Kenneth A. Davis, said in an interview that it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to determine just what documents were on destroyed computer files.
Rogers also said that so far "there has been no need to undertake any document search or compilation," adding, "When the court determines what documents are needed and appropriate, they will be produced."
Exxon faces about 150 lawsuits as a result of the spill, which dumped nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound, and it appears certain that the loss of these documents will be the subject of court arguments.
Stephen D. Sussman, a Houston lawyer involved in a suit against Exxon on behalf of Alaska fisherman, Native Americans and others, said, "The destruction of these records is potentially significant to our case in that we will be arguing that Exxon has been negligent throughout this disaster and now perhaps it was negligent even in the handling of its own documents."
Alaska's attorney general, Douglas Bailey, who is heading an investigation of Exxon's actions, said, "We have reason to believe that at least some people in Exxon made a concerted effort to create a public perception of the situation that differs from what the facts would justify, and if these records have disappeared, it will be a substantial loss to any effort to reconstruct what actually happened."
The computer technician, Davis, said, "I have no reason to believe that anyone at Exxon wanted these records to be destroyed." Davis, 33, was dismissed June 8, the day after the destruction of the computer records was discovered.
In several interviews, and in written statements to the Texas Employment Commission, Davis alleged that his superiors had been negligent in safeguarding the computer records and that his actions resulted from their failures. Davis said he got in touch with the New York Times and volunteered to tell his story because "they are making me the scapegoat."
Davis and Rogers said the records at issue were computer tapes that held all the information that had been entered into an individual computer system for a given day. Routinely, these tapes are kept as a backup archive for as long as a month before they are used again, when the old material is destroyed as new data is written over it. All backup tapes pertaining to the spill were supposed to be kept in a permanent archive as the one complete set of all Exxon documents, Davis said.
The destroyed material included all internal communications and word-processing documents from both the Exxon Shipping Co., which owned the tanker, and the executive offices of Exxon USA. Davis said that since the tapes were the only complete copy of what passed through those computer systems, it might be impossible to determine just what documents were lost.
Bailey, the attorney general, said the time covered by the tapes was "exactly that critical time when Exxon was deciding how it was going to explain what happened and started erecting its defenses."
Sussman, the Houston lawyer, said, "The time period is highly significant because it is one of our claims that Exxon was negligent in the cleanup then and if we are unable to get their internal messages for that period it is something the jury should know about."
The computer technician repeatedly expressed his regret over the destruction of the material and said he had an excellent record at Exxon, where he had worked for two and a half years.
Davis said he recalled being informed of the order to preserve documents, which was issued by U.S. District Judge Russel Holland in Anchorage on April 24. But he said he was not involved in destroying or retaining records until he took over as supervisor of a night shift on June 5.
He was informed of his duties that night through a series of memorandums, but he said none explicitly stated that he would be handling material concerning the tanker that had to be retained. Instead, he and three other computer operators performed the routine procedure of writing over old tapes.
They did so for three nights in a row before anyone realized that material covered by the court order was being destroyed.
"The tapes containing Valdez-related information were not labeled as such and they should have been," he said. "They were not dated or marked 'do not destroy' as they should have been. They should have been on another floor in the secure storage room where other Valdez material were kept, instead of sitting on the rack where we put tapes that are to be written over."
Rogers said all computer personnel had been explicitly instructed to preserve materials that might be relevant to the oil spill.
- Ann Arbor News, Sunday, July 2, 1989, page 1.