About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

37 Ocean & Coastal L. Memo 1 (1991)

handle is hein.journals/ocoaslme37 and id is 1 raw text is: Ocean and Coasral Law Memo Issue 37 February 1991 Recent Developments in Ocean and Coastal Law, 1990 I. Federal Legislation A. Oil Spill Liability Act of 1990 On August 18, 1990, President Bush signed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 into law. After approxi- mately 15 years in the making, the United States now has compre- hensive legislation covering oil spills. Pressure from environ- mentalists, fueled by the disas- trous 11 million gallon spill from the Exxon Valdez in Alaska's pristine ecosystem, obviously hastened this new legislation. Before this legislation was enacted, the Clean Water Act (CWA) provided some coverage, albeit small, for oil pollution. Under the CWA, liability was limited to a vessel owner or operator up to the greater of $125 per gross weight ton or $125,000 for inland oil barges; up to $150 per gross weight ton or $150,000 for tanker vessels; and $150 per gross weight ton for all other vessels. This liability applied only to cleanup costs which included restoration of natural resources. The Oil Pollutionf Act of 1990 increases the upper limit of a spiller's liability to $10,000,000 or $1,200 per gross weight ton, whichever is greater, for a vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons. For vessels of 3,000 gross tons or less, the limit on liability is $2,000,000. The Act also provides for a $75,000,000 liability cap plus the total of all removal costs for an offshore facility except a deep- water port and a $350,000,000 cap for any onshore facility and a deepwater port. Lastly, any other vessel has a limitation of liability of $600 per gross ton or $500,000, whichever is greater. The Act also imposes penal- ties of up to three years incarcera- tion and fines up to $250,000 for an individual or $500,000 for an organization who fails to report a spill. Civil penalties are raised to $25,000 a day, or $1,000 per bar- rel of oil for a violation. The minimum penalty is $100,000 for cases of gross negligence, but no more than $3,000 per barrel of oil. One major point of contro- versy in the Congress was whether double hulls should be required on oil tankers. Proponents argued that double hulls will prevent major spill disasters in the future. Strong support for their assertion was a Coast Guard study of 30 tanker groundings that occurred between 1969 and 1973. The study concluded that 96 per- cent of the spills caused by those groundings would have been pre- vented if the tankers were equipped with double hulls. The opponents of double hulls argued that water can rush in between a ruptured hull and the inner hull thereby causing the vessel to settle lower and exaggerate the leak. They also argued that explosive vapors could possibly collect between the hulls and create a bigger catastrophe than with a single hull. The proponents won out in the end as the Act requires double hull tankers by the year 2010 for all tankers entering United States ports. The Act does allow an amortization period Distributed by: Oregon State University Extension * Sea Grant Program Corvallis OR

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most