ELR Citation: ELR 21500
No(s). 92-55155 (9th Cir. Aug 31, 1992)

The court holds that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act's (TAPAA's or the Act's) strict liability scheme requires payment from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund (the Fund) for damages resulting from the February 1990 tanker spill of crude oil offshore Huntington Beach, California, and the Act's strict liability provision applies to the transport of oil from loading until it is first brought ashore at a U.S. port. A spill of approximately 400,000 gallons of Alaskan crude oil, which the tanker had received during transloading of a supertanker's oil cargo originating in Valdez, Alaska, occurred when the tanker ran over its anchor while approaching its mooring at low tide. Individuals injured by the spill sued for recovery from the Fund, which makes the holders of pipeline right-of-way permits strictly liable for damages resulting along the pipeline right-of-way. The Fund moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that TAPAA does not apply to oil spills from vessels that were not loaded at an Alaskan pipeline terminal facility. The court holds that TAPAA's strict liability provision follows the oil rather than the vessel. The Act flatly states that strict liability does not cease until the oil is brought ashore at a port under the jurisdiction of the United States. The oil from the tanker had not yet been taken ashore. Construing the Act to leave a hole in the liability attaching to the marine leg of the oil's journey would mark a sharp departure from the comprehensive liability Congress imposed through TAPAA. Nothing in the Act suggests that the statute concerns itself only with catastrophic oil spills from the large tankers that dock in Alaska. Although TAPAA's legislative history does not specifically address the question of liability for transloaded oil, committee reports and statements of members of Congress indicate that Congress intended the statute to reach this type of spill. The Fund's argument that Congress planned to rely on preexisting antipollution laws to cover spills from transloaded vessels is unavailing. Similarly, the court rejects the Fund's reliance on comments made by a single legislator during enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, ELR STAT. OIL POLL. 001-034, as evidence that TAPAA does not reach this spill. The court further observes that case interpretations support its conclusion that TAPAA's strict liability scheme follows the oil rather than the vessel. Finally, the court defers to the consistent interpretations of three agencies that TAPAA's strict liability provision applies to incidents like this one.

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
Randall D. Moss
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering
2445 M St. NW, Washington DC 20037
(202) 663-6000

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees
David E.R. Woolley
Williams, Woolley, Cogswell, Nakazawa & Russell
200 Oceangate Dr., Ste. 700, Long Beach CA 90802
(213) 495-6000

Counsel for Defendant-Appellee
Linus Masouredis, Deputy Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
2101 Webster St., 12th Fl., Oakland CA 94612
(510) 286-4200

Counsel for Defendant-Appellee
William P. Barry
Baker, Hostetler, McCutchen & Black
600 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles CA 90017
(213) 624-2400

Before Schroeder and Beezer, JJ.