Regulatory Differences: Freight Ship and Tank Ship Pollution Response Preparedness1

Abstract

ABSTRACT There is an ancient maritime adage that says “a collision at sea can ruin your whole day.” While that is undoubtedly as true today as it ever was, the modern mariner would likely express a similar opinion about oil spills. This paper is about how the shipowner's degree of preparedness affects the quality of his response once his day has been ruined by an oil spill—or a potential spill. The authors will compare two responses to potential major oil spills associated with vessel groundings. These occurred in the same geographic area, approximately 1 year apart, and involved many of the same government and industry responders. The primary difference between the two cases is vessel type: one vessel was a freight ship, which posed a significant pollution threat due to the quantity and location of its fuel, while the other was a laden tank vessel. Because the spill response planning requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 differ for freight ships and tank vessels, the quality of the owners' environmental response preparedness varied dramatically. The fact that these two cases occurred in the same geographic area is significant only because it tends to highlight the differences in response planning as a function of vessel type, while at the same time limiting the effect of other potential response variables. The focus of the paper is not bound by the geography of the case examples. The authors contend that the same preplanning requirements in effect nationally for tank vessels are also needed for freight ships which pose a substantial threat to the environment, and advocate national and/or international regulatory changes to close the preparedness gap.