ARTICLE 9 ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND REPORTING

1. 
   Each Contracting Party shall designate an appropriate authority or authorities to:
   

1. 
   issue permits in accordance with this Protocol;
   

2. 
   keep records of the nature and quantities of all wastes or other matter for which Jumping permits have been issued and where practicable the quantities actually dumped and the location, time and method of dumping; and
   

3. 
   monitor individually, or in collaboration with other Contracting Parties and competent international organizations, the condition of the sea for the purposes of this Protocol.
   

1. 
   The following wastes or other matter are those that may be considered for dumping being mindful of the Objectives and General Obligations of this Protocol set out in articles 2 and 3:
   

1. 
   dredged material;
   

2. 
   sewage sludge;
   

3. 
   fish waste, or material resulting from industrial Fish processing operations;
   

4. 
   vessels and platforms or other man-made structures at sea;
   

5. 
   inert, inorganic geological material;
   

6. 
   organic material of natural origin;
   

7. 
   bulky items primarily comprising iron, steel, concrete and similarly unharmful materials for which the concern is physical impact, and limited to those circumstances where such wastes are generated at locations, such as small islands with isolated communities, having no practicable access to disposal options other than dumping;and
   

8. 
   Carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration.
   

2. 
   The wastes or other matter listed in paragraphs 1.4 and l.7 may be considered for dumping, provided that material capable of creating floating debris or otherwise contributing to pollution of the marine environment has been removed to the maximum extent and provided that the material dumped poses no serious obstacle to fishing or navigation.
   

2. 
   Notwithstanding the above, materials listed in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.8 containing levels of radioactivity greater than de minimis (exempt) concentrations as defined by the IAEA and adopted by Contracting Parties, shall not be considered eligible for dumping; provided further that within 25 years of 20 February 1 994, and at each 25 year interval thereafter, Contracting Parties shall complete a scientific study relating to all radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter other than high level wastes or matter, taking into account such other factors as Contracting Parties consider appropriate and shall review the prohibition on dumping of such substances in accordance with the procedures set forth in article 22.
   

2. 
   Carbon dioxide streams referred to in paragraph 1.8 may only be considered for dumping, if:
   

1. 
   disposal is into a sub-seabed geological formation; and
   
2. 
   they consist overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide.
   

1. 
   The reverse list approach. Is the reverse list approach better than the 1972 Convention's approach of forbidding the dumping of listed substances?
   
2. 
   Ocean carbon sequestration. Does the 1996 Protocol allow ocean carbon sequestration—the storage of carbon dioxide beneath the sea? Is this a good idea? Will ocean carbon sequestration help combat climate change?
   
3. 
   Radioactive wastes. To what extent can radioactive waste be dumped into the sea? Can low level radioactive waste (equipment and clothing) be dumped?
   
4. 
   Offshore oil and gas operations. Does the 1996 Protocol unduly interfere with seabed mining or offshore oil and gas operations? Article I (4.3) provides that "the disposal of wastes or other matter directly arising from, or related to the exploration, exploitation and associated off-shore processing of seabed mineral resources is not covered by the provisions of this Protocol."
   
5. 
   Dumping of sewage, sludge and medical wastes. Does the Protocol permit ocean dumping of sewage, sludge and medical waste? Congress banned the dumping of these wastes after December 31, 1991. See 33 USC sec. 1414b (a)(l)(B).
   
6. 
   Dumping of dredge spoil. Does the Protocol allow dumping of dredge spoil?
   
7. 
   Incineration at sea. Does the Protocol permit incineration of wastes at sea ? Article I (5.2) provides that "incineration at sea" does not include "the incineration of wastes or other matter on board a vessel, platform, or other man-made structure at sea if such wastes or other matter were generated during the normal operation of that vessel, platform, or other man-made structure at sea."
   
8. 
   Exceptions. Are the exceptions in the 1996 Protocol too broad or are they reasonable?
   
9. 
   Precautionary and polluter pays principles. Are these two principles part of the 1996 Protocol? Are they meaningful in this context or just window dressing?
   
10. 
    US Ratification. Should the United States ratify the 1996 Protocol? In 2008 the Bush Administration submitted the Protocol to the US Senate for ratification, but no action has been taken. What are the advantages of ratification for the United States as opposed to unilateral action?
    

4. 
   Carbon dioxide streams referred to in paragraph 1.8 may only be considered for dumping, if:
   

1. 
   disposal is into a sub-seabed geological formation; and
   

2. 
   they consist overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide. They may contain incidental associated substances derived from the source material and the capture and sequestration processes used; and
   

3. 
   no wastes or other matter are added for the purpose of disposing of those wastes or other matter.
   

What criteria must Nation B satisfy in order to carry out its carbon capture and sequestration program in its EEZ? Is an aggressive carbon capture and sequestration program the answer to preventing climate change? Consider the costs and risks involved in (1) capturing and compressing C02; (2) transporting C02; and (3) injecting C02 deep into the earth. What assurances are there that the "impermeable" rock formations into which C02 is injected will not leak in the future?

dumping, if:

associated substances derived from the source material and the capture and

sequestration processes used; and
. 3 no wastes or other matter are added for the purpose of disposing of those

wastes or other matter.

Over the past sixty years international law has created a framework to deal with marine casualties involving accidental spills of oil or hazardous substances. Much of this legal architecture was erected in response to spectacular and tragic events. For example, on March 18, 1967, the tanker Torrey Canyon ran aground on Seven Stones reef near the Isles of Scilly near the United Kingdom. In a largely futile effort to minimize the damage from spilled oil, the U K destroyed the tanker without the permission of the flag state. Two years later the Brussels Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (1969), was concluded, which permits states (Article 1) to take "such measures on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate grave and

2. Jurisdiction. Under the Constitution of the United States, the judicial power of United States (federal) courts extends to "all Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." (Art. III, sec. 2). Federal court jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases is codified in 28 USC sec. 1333. There is a separate provision for "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" in criminal cases. 18 USC sec. 7.

3. Collision damages and limitation of liability. It appears that American law would apply to the collision itself. US maritime law imposes liability for collision damages on proof of negligence or fault, and damages are apportioned between the vessels involved in a collision on the basis of comparative negligence or fault. United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 US 397 (1975). Would Multi-Media Transp. Co. be able to claim collision damages from the owners of the S.S. Persian Festiva? Limitation of liability is an important principle of shipping law. The United States law on limitation is the Limitation of Shipowners' Liability Act, 46 USC sees 30501 et seq, which allows a shipowner involved in a casualty to file a complaint for exoneration or limitation of liability within six months after receiving written notice of a claim in a marine casualty. If limitation is upheld, all claims for damages must be filed in a single court proceeding, and liability is limited to the value of the vessel after the casualty plus pending freight. 46 USC sec. 30505. Limitation may be "broke,” denied by the court, if the "privity or knowledge" –the fault---of the master or crew that caused the casualty, can be imputed to the shipowner. How would apportionment of damages and limitation of liability be handled in this case?

4. Cargo owners. The owners of cargo aboard both ships would have claims; these damages would be included as collision damages and liability ultimately would be apportioned according to comparative fault. See, e .g., Allied Chemical Corp. v. Hess Tankship Co., 661 F . 2d 1044, 1982 AMC 127 1 ( 5th Cir. 1981)

Adoption: 27 November 1992; Entry into (force: 30 M ay 1996

The Convention covers pollution damage resulting from spills of persistent oils suffered in the territory (including the territorial sea) of a State Party to the Convention. It is applicable to ships which actually carry oil in bulk as cargo, i.e. generally laden tankers. Spills from tankers in ballast or bunker spills from ships other than other than tankers are not covered, nor is it possible to recover costs when preventive measures are so successful that no actual spill occurs. The shipowner cannot limit liability if the incident occurred as a result of the owner's personal fault.

• For a ship 5,000 to 140,000 gross tonnage: liability is limited to 3 million SDR plus 420 SDR for each additional unit of tonnage

• For a ship over 140,000 gross tonnage: liability is limited to 59.7 million SDR.
The 1992 protocol also widened the scope of the Convention to cover pollution damage caused in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or equivalent area of a State Party. The Protocol covers pollution damage as before but environmental damage compensation is limited to costs incurred for reasonable measures to reinstate the contaminated environment. It also allows expenses incurred for preventive measures to be recovered even when no spill of oil occurs, provided there was g rave and imminent threat of pollution damage.
The Protocol also extended the Convention to cover spills from sea-going vessels constructed or adapted to carry oil in bulk as cargo so that it applies to both laden and unladen tankers, including spills of bunker oil from such ships.
Under the 1 992 Protocol, a shipowner cannot limit liability if it is proved that the pollution damage resulted from the shipowner's personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.
The 2000 Amendments

Adoption: 18 October 2000

Entry into force: 1 November 2003

The amendments raised the compensation limits by 50 percent compared to the limits set in the 1992 Protocol, as follows:

• For a ship 5,000 to 1 40,000 gross tonnage: liability is limited to 4.51 million SDR plus 631 SDR for each additional gross tonne over 5, 000

• For a ship over 140, 000 gross tonnage: liability is limited to 89.77 million SDR
Special Drawing Rights

The daily conversion rates for Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) can be found on the International Monetary Fund website at http/www.imf.org

Adoption: 27 November 1992; Entry into force: 30 May 1996

Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution

Damage was adopted at a Conference held in Brussels in 1971. It is supplementary to the Civil Liability Convention.
The purposes of the Fund Convention are:

To provide compensation for pollution damage to the extent that the protection afforded by the 1969 Civil Liability Convention is inadequate.

To give relief to shipowners in respect of the additional financial burden imposed on them by the 1969 Civil Liability Convention, such relief being subject to conditions designed to ensure compliance with safety at sea and other conventions.

To give effect to the related purposes set out in the Convention.

The Fund is not obliged to indemnify the owner if damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or if the accident was caused, even partially, because the ship did not comply with certain international conventions.

Adoption: 27 November 1992

Entry into force: 30 May 1996
As was the case with the 1 992 Protocol to the CLC Convention, the main purpose of the Protocol was to modify the entry into force requirements and increase compensation amounts.

The scope of coverage was extended in line with the 1992 CLC Protocol.

(IOPC) Fund, known as the 1992 Fund, which is managed in London by a Secretariat.

This happened on 24 May 2002, because of the denunciations by States Parties to Fund 1971 in favor of their membership of Fund 1 992.

Fund was adopted by a diplomatic conference held at IMO Headquarters in London.

Civil Liability and Fund Conventions with an additional, third tier of compensation. The Protocol is optional and participation is open to all States Parties to the 1992 Fund Convention.

Contracting State and in the exclusive economic zone of a Contracting State.

1,000,000 tons of contributing oil in each Contracting State.

Although the Funds were established under Conventions adopted under the auspices of IMO, they are completely independent legal entities.

Only States can become Members of the IOPC Funds.

The daily conversion rates for Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) can be found on the International Monetary Fund website at http://www. imf.org/

• Costs of response and clean up both onshore and offshore

• Economic losses by fishers

• Certain economic losses of the tourism industry

2. The French commune (local government) of Mesquer filed an action for damages in a French court against Total, S. A., the cargo owner/charterer of the Erika, praying for damages on the theory that oil spilled into the sea becomes "waste" under the laws of France and the European Union, and that under these laws, Total, as the owner of the "waste", has the duty to bear the full cost of clean-up and damages. When the case reached the Supreme Court of France, the judges of that court, the Cour de Cassation, referred the question of whether spilled oil constitutes waste to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to answer the question under European law. I n 2008, the ECJ, in Case C-188/07, Commune de Mesquer v. Total France, S.A. [2008} ECRI 4501, ruled that, indeed, hydrocarbons accidentally spilled into the sea constitute "waste" within the meaning of European Union Council Directive 75/442, and in accordance with the "polluter pays" principle, Total, as generator of the waste, is fully liable for damages if it has contributed by its conduct to the risk that pollution caused by the shipwreck will occur. Under this ruling Total, as the cargo owner, may have virtually unlimited liability for further damages.

3. French prosecutors filed criminal actions in a Paris court against several defendants in connection with the Erika spill, and in 2008, the trial court rendered guilty verdicts against Total, Giuseppe Savarese, the principle shareholder of the shipowning company, Antonio Pollara, the ship's master, and RINA, the classification society. Proces Erika, Jugement du Tribunal Correctional de Paris (Gran de Instance), 16 Jan. 2008. The court levied a criminal fine of 375 million euros against Total . In addition, under French law, as is typical of civil law countries, victims of crimes may join the criminal proceedings and recover damages [see the Code Penal de France, Arts. 85 and 86]. Some 200 French communes and French environmental organizations joined the criminal action, and the court declared that under French law the four convicted defendants were liable for civil compensatory damages in the amount of 200.6 million euros. The two amounts levied---the 375 million euro criminal fin e and the 200.6 million euro civil damages-were in addition to a mounts voluntarily paid already by Total and RINA, 171 million euros and 30 million euros, respectively. The trial court's judgment was upheld by the French Court of Appeal in 2010 [Affaire Erika, Judgment of the Cour d'Appe/ de Paris, 30 March 2010], and was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Cour de Cassation. Most observers expected the Cour de Cassation to nullify the judgment, especially after the Court's Advocate General, which Cour de Cassation follows most of the time, ruled in an II Avis" on May 24, 2012, that French courts had no criminal or civil jurisdiction in the matter. As to the criminal liability, the Advocate General held that French criminal jurisdiction under the Code Penal, Art. 113-2 is territorial and that this included only French territory and the French territorial sea, not the French Exclusive Economic Zone. He further ruled that in the area of the EEZ the flag state, Malta, had exclusive criminal jurisdiction. As to the civil liability of the defendants, the Advocate General held that the CLC and Fund Conventions as accepted by France provided exclusive jurisdiction and that collateral civil actions for damages were excluded under French law. Nonetheless, on September 25, 2012, the Cour de Cassation handed down a 330 page opinion

fully upholding the criminal convictions and the criminal and civil liability rendered by the trial court. The Cour de Cassation ruled that the court had jurisdiction under French criminal law over pollution incidents occurring in the French EEZ based on the provisions of UNCLOS (see Articles 27, 28, 56, 97, 2 1 1, and 220). The court up held civil jurisdiction for damages under a theory of "prejudice ecologique" which could be the basis for civil damages rendered to victims of crimes resulting from an oil spill incident. Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, Arret no. 3439 of 25 September 2012, available at http://www.courdecassation.fr/IMG///Crim arret3439 2012092S.pdf, accessed 23 November 2012.

[OPA 90 imposes strict liability for damages resulting from an oil spill on "responsible parties" who are defined as, for vessels, the owner, operator or demise charterer (and the owner of the oil for single hull tankers); for offshore facilities, the lessee or permittee and the holder of the right of use; for onshore facilities, the owner and the operator; for pipelines, the owner and operator; and for deep water ports, the licensee. 33 USC sec 2701 (32). Oil spill liability is triggered by any discharge of oil that produces” sheen" on the water; a sheen is an iridescent appearance on the surface of the water. 40 CFR sec. 110.

OPA 90 also establishes an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is available to pay claims up to $ 1 billion per incident if a claim is not paid after first being presented to a responsible party or if the responsible party is entitled to a defense or if the liability limit under the statute has been reached. 33 USC sec. 2708. The principal liability provisions of OPA 90 are as follows.]
§ 2702. Elements of liability

(a) In general. Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject to the provisions of this Act. each responsible party for a vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone is liable for the removal costs and damages specified in subsection (b) that result from such incident

(I) Removal costs. The removal costs referred to in subsection (a) are--

(A) all removal costs incurred by the United States, a State, or an Indian tribe under subsection (c),

(d), (e), or ( I) of section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S. C. 1321), as amended by this Act, under the Intervention on the High Seas Act ( 33 U.S. C. 1-171 et seq.), or under State law; and

(B) any removal costs incurred by any person for acts taken by the person which are consistent with the National Contingency Plan.

(2) Damages. The damages referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(A) Natural resources. Damages for injury to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing the damage, which shall be recoverable by a United States trustee, a State trustee, an Indian tribe trustee, or a foreign trustee.

(B) Real or personal property. Damages for injury to, or economic losses resulting from destruction of real or personal property, which shall be recoverable by a claimant who owns or leases that property.

(c) Excluded discharges. This title does not apply to any discharge-

(1) permitted by a permit issued under Federal, State, or local law;

(2) from a public vessel; or

(3) from an onshore facility which is subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (-43 U.S. C.
(d) Liability of third parties.

(I) In general.

(A) Third party treated as responsible party. Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in any case in which a responsible party establishes that a discharge or threat of a discharge and the resulting removal costs and damages were caused solely by an act or omission of one or more third parties described in section 1003(a)(3) [33 USC § 2703(a)(3)) (or solely by such an act or omission in combination with an act of God or an act of war), the third party or parties shall be treated as the responsible party or parties for purposes of determining liability under this title.

(B) Subrogation of responsible party. If the responsible party alleges that the discharge or threat of a discharge was caused solely by an act or omission of a third party, the responsible party--

(i) in accordance with section 1013 [33 USC § 2713] shall pay removal costs and damages to any claimant; and

(ii) shall be entitled by subrogation to all rights of the United States Government and the claimant to recover removal costs or damages from the third party or the Fund paid under this subsection.

(2) Limitation applied.

(A) Owner or operator of vessel or facility. If the act or omission of a third party that causes an incident occurs in connection with a vessel or facility owned or operated by the third party, the liability of the third party shall be subject to the limits provided in section I004

[33 USC § 2704] as applied with respect to the vessel or facility.

(B) Other cases. In any other case, the liability of a third party or parties shall not exceed the limitation which would have been applicable to the responsible party of the vessel or facility from which the discharge actually occurred if the responsible party were liable.

(a) Complete defenses. A responsible party is not liable for removal costs or damages under section I 002 [33 USC § 270] if the responsible party establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil and the resulting damages or removal costs were caused solely by--

(1) an act of God;

(2) an act of war;

(3) an act or omission of a third party, other than an employee or agent of the responsible party or a third party whose act or omission occurs in connection with any contractual relationship with the responsible party (except where the sole contractual arrangement arises in connection with carriage by a common carrier by rail), if the responsible party establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the responsible

party—
(A) exercised due care with respect to the oil concerned, taking into consideration the characteristics of the oil and in light of all relevant facts and circumstances; and

(B) took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions of any such third party and the foreseeable consequences of those acts or omissions; or

(4) any combination of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).

(b) Defenses as to particular claimants. A responsible party is not liable under section I 002 [33 USC §
2701] to a claimant, to the extent that the incident is caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the claimant.
(c) Limitation on complete defense. Subsection (a) does not apply with respect to a responsible party who fails or refuses—
(1) to report the incident as required by law if the responsible party knows or has reason to know of the incident;

(2) to provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance requested by a responsible official in connection with removal activities; or

(3) without sufficient cause, to comply with an order issued under subsection (c) or (e) of section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 US. C. 132 1), as amended by this Act, or the Intervention on the High Seas Act ( 33 U S. C. 1 -1 71 et seq.).
§ 2704. Limits on liability

(a) General rule. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the total of the liability of a responsible party under section 1 002 [33 USC § 2 702] and any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of the responsible party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed-

( 1 ) for a tank vessel, the greater of--

(A) $ 1 ,200 per gross ton; or

(B) (i) in the case of a vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons, $ I 0,000,000; or

(ii) in the case of a vessel of 3,000 gross tons or less, $ 2,000,000;

(2) for any other vessel, $ 600 per gross ton or $ 500,000. whichever is greater;

(3) for an offshore facility except a deep water port, the total of all removal costs plus $ 75,000,000; and

(4) for any onshore facility and a deep water port, $ 3 50,000,000.
(c) Exceptions.

(I) Acts of responsible party. Subsection (a) does not apply if the incident was proximately caused by--

(A) gross negligence or willful misconduct of, or

(B) the violation of an applicable Federal safety, construction, or operating regulation by, the responsible party, an agent or employee of the responsible party, or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship with the responsible party.

(a) Required showing by foreign claimants.

(1) In general. In addition to satisfying the other requirements of this Act, to recover removal costs or damages resulting from an incident a foreign claimant shall demonstrate that--

(A)the claimant has not been otherwise compensated for the removal costs or damages: and

(B) recovery is authorized by a treaty or executive agreement between the United States and the claimant's country, or the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and other appropriate officials, has certified that the claimant's country provides a comparable remedy for United States claimants.

(2) Exceptions. Paragraph ( l )(B) shall not apply with respect to recovery by a resident of Canada in the case of an incident described in subsection (b)(4).

(1) an Outer Continental Shelf facility or a deepwater port;

(2) a vessel in the navigable waters;

(3) a vessel carrying oil as cargo between 2 places in the United States; or

(4) a tanker that received the oil at the terminal of the pipeline constructed under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act(43 U S. C. 165 1 et seq.), for transportation to a place in the United States, and the discharge or threat occurs prior to delivery of the oil to that place.
(c) Foreign claimant defined. In this section, the term "foreign claimant" means-

(1) a person residing in a foreign country;

(2) the government of a foreign country; and

(3) an agency or political subdivision of a foreign country.

§ 2713. Claims procedure

(a) Presentation. Except as provided in subsection (b), all claims for removal costs or damages shall be presented first to the responsible party or guarantor of the source designated under section 1014(a) [33 USC § 2714(a)].

(1) In general. Claims tor removal costs or damages may be presented t1rst to the Fund-

(A) if the President has advertised or otherwise notified claimants in accordance with section 10l4(c) [33 USC § 2714(c)J;

(B) by a responsible party who may assert a claim under section 1008 [33 USC § 2708]:

(C) by the Governor of a State for removal costs incurred by that State: or

(D) by a United States claimant in a case where a foreign offshore unit has discharged oil causing damage for which the Fund is liable under section 1012(a) [33 USC § 2712(a)].

(2) Limitation on presenting claim. No claim of a person against the Fund may be approved or certified during the pendency of an action by the person in court to recover costs which are the subject of the claim.
(c) Election. If a claim is presented in accordance with subsection (a) and-

(1) each person to whom the claim is presented denies all liability for the claim, or

(2) the claim is not settled by any person by payment within 90 days after the date upon which (A) the claim was presented, or (B) advertising was begun pursuant to section 1014(b) [33 USC § 2714(b)], whichever is later, the claimant may elect to commence an action in court against the responsible party or guarantor or to present the claim to the Fund.
(d) Uncompensated damages. If a claim is presented in accordance with this section, including a claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount of damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled, and full and adequate compensation is unavailable, a claim for the uncompensated damages and removal costs may be presented to the Fund.
(e) Procedure for claims against Fund. The President shall promulgate, and may from time to time amend, regulations for the presentation, filing, processing, settlement, and adjudication of claims under this Act against the Fund.
§ 27 1 8. Relationship to other law

(a) Preservation of State authorities; Solid Waste Disposal Act. Nothing in this Act or the Act of March 3, 1851 shall--

(A) the discharge of oil or other pollution by oil within such State; or

(B) any removal activities in connection with such a discharge; or

(2) affect, or be construed or interpreted to affect or modify in any way the obligations or liabilities of any person under the Solid Waste Disposal Act(48 U.S.C. 690 1 et seq.) or State law, including common law.

(1) to establish, or to continue in effect, a fund any purpose of which is to pay for costs or damages arising out of, or directly resulting from, oil pollution or the substantial threat of oil pollution; or

(2) to require any person to contribute to such a fund.
(c) Additional requirements and liabilities; penalties. Nothing in this Act, the Act of March 3, 1 851 (46 U.S.C. 183 et seq.), or section 9509 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9509), shall in any way affect, or be construed to affect, the authority of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof—
(1) to impose additional liability or additional requirements; or

(2) to impose, or to determine the amount of, any fine or penalty (whether criminal or civil in nature) for any violation of law; relating to the discharge, or substantial threat of a discharge, of oil.

(a) Cross-references. A reference to a law replaced by this Act, including a reference in a regulation, order, or other law, is deemed to refer to the corresponding provision of this Act.

(1) admiralty and maritime law; or

(2) the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States with respect to civil actions under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.
IN RE OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG DEEPWATE R HORIZON
United States District Court, 2011

Eastern District of Louisiana

808 F. Supp. 2d 943
[This case is the first published decision by the Court handling the multi-district litigation arising from the explosion, fire, and subsequent release of an estimated 4.9 million barrels (205 .8 million gallons) of oil in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010].
ORDER AND REASONS

[As to Motions to Dismiss the B1 master Complaint]