1. Abstract
The introduction of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), is the instigation of the correct and planned method for a effective response towards marine pollution from an oil spill incident. It is pertinent to consider these aspects of a planned response to ultimate the level of response, and install the mechanics towards limiting and reducing effects to the wider marine environment during an incident.
In regards to the prosecution towards the compensatory necessities for a person or organisation The incident must be scrutinised to insure the relevant facts are established, and, where there is legitimate claim, the UK and International Community has in place legally bindings rules and regulations that not only allow for the plaintiff to obtain compensation, but also the reduction in incident occurring.
2. National Contingency Plan
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) states;
After saving human life, the key purpose of responding to a maritime incident is to protect human health, and the marine and terrestrial environment (p. 7. MCA. 2008).
The powers for the implementing of the emergency provision is found in the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 (the “1995 Act”) where it states within Chapter 28, 8(2)b, Safety Regulations;
“for securing the safety of other ships and persons on them while they are within United Kingdom waters and for protecting the health of persons on ships other than United Kingdom ships while they are within United Kingdom waters.”
And, under 12(3A) of the same act;
“provision imposing on local authorities responsibilities in relation to the preparation, review and implementation of any plans”.
This allows the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) the function of litigating and minimising pollution effects to the marine environment by powers of intervention (normally controlled by the Secretary of State’s Representative (SOSREP)).
Figure 1.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions, RT Hon. John Prescott MP.
Image: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4273/etr.htm
The DETR is responsible for eight agencies, one of them being The Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA). Created on 1st April 1998, currently under Chief Executive is Maurice Story. The MCA main responsibilities are minimising loss of life amongst seafarers and marine users, responding in marine emergencies (24hours a day), developing and promoting marine safety to minimise effects form pollution to preserve UK interests.
The NCP also for fills the UKs wider obligations under International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990 (the “OPRC Convention”). This international convention, harnessed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and came into force in May 1995, requires agreeing states to implement and establish measures for pollution incidents (the NCP), as well as, the provision for ships to carry ship-board pollution emergency plans and the necessity to report pollution incidents.
A pollution incident can result as from spills from vessels cargo whether carried as bulk or packages. Also, the ships bunkers as well as leaks from oil/gas installations and pipe lines. At this point, the NCP serves as a methodical and calculated response to ensure a timely and effective response to the incident. The NCP takes over, when the ships response capabilities no longer suffice (NCP. 2008). The NCP also sets out the MCAs’ management plans for the assets it uses to tackle problems arising within the marine environment.
Incidents occurring (within UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), defined UK waters), and as a problem arises, the nature of the incident is filtered to the correct parties be that HM Coastguard (HMCG), Habour Master or HM Coastguards Maritime Rescue Co-Ordination Centre (MRCC) for Scottish Offshore operations. It will also be necessary to inform the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) Oil and Gas Division (previously DTi). From here, the NCP moves the MCA through the systematic response management by ascertaining the;
o Details of the incident including,
· location of vessel
· owner of vessel
· weather and tidal conditions
· information on vessel
· control measure already in place
o Level of response necessary
o The setting up of response units
o Salvage rights
o Sea response unit
o Harbour and coastal response units
o Environmental monitoring and advice
o Media interaction
o Finance and Prosecution
o Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders and key organisations
· including contact details for said organisation
o International Assistance and Cooperation
o Legal and obligatory rulings and powers
In short, the purpose of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) is to provide the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.
The introduction of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), is the instigation of the correct and planned method for a effective response towards marine pollution from an oil spill incident. It is pertinent to consider these aspects of a planned response to ultimate the level of response, and install the mechanics towards limiting and reducing effects to the wider marine environment during an incident.
In regards to the prosecution towards the compensatory necessities for a person or organisation The incident must be scrutinised to insure the relevant facts are established, and, where there is legitimate claim, the UK and International Community has in place legally bindings rules and regulations that not only allow for the plaintiff to obtain compensation, but also the reduction in incident occurring.
2. National Contingency Plan
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) states;
After saving human life, the key purpose of responding to a maritime incident is to protect human health, and the marine and terrestrial environment (p. 7. MCA. 2008).
The powers for the implementing of the emergency provision is found in the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 (the “1995 Act”) where it states within Chapter 28, 8(2)b, Safety Regulations;
“for securing the safety of other ships and persons on them while they are within United Kingdom waters and for protecting the health of persons on ships other than United Kingdom ships while they are within United Kingdom waters.”
And, under 12(3A) of the same act;
“provision imposing on local authorities responsibilities in relation to the preparation, review and implementation of any plans”.
This allows the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) the function of litigating and minimising pollution effects to the marine environment by powers of intervention (normally controlled by the Secretary of State’s Representative (SOSREP)).
Figure 1.The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions, RT Hon. John Prescott MP.
Image: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4273/etr.htm
The DETR is responsible for eight agencies, one of them being The Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA). Created on 1st April 1998, currently under Chief Executive is Maurice Story. The MCA main responsibilities are minimising loss of life amongst seafarers and marine users, responding in marine emergencies (24hours a day), developing and promoting marine safety to minimise effects form pollution to preserve UK interests.
The NCP also for fills the UKs wider obligations under International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990 (the “OPRC Convention”). This international convention, harnessed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and came into force in May 1995, requires agreeing states to implement and establish measures for pollution incidents (the NCP), as well as, the provision for ships to carry ship-board pollution emergency plans and the necessity to report pollution incidents.
A pollution incident can result as from spills from vessels cargo whether carried as bulk or packages. Also, the ships bunkers as well as leaks from oil/gas installations and pipe lines. At this point, the NCP serves as a methodical and calculated response to ensure a timely and effective response to the incident. The NCP takes over, when the ships response capabilities no longer suffice (NCP. 2008). The NCP also sets out the MCAs’ management plans for the assets it uses to tackle problems arising within the marine environment.
Incidents occurring (within UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), defined UK waters), and as a problem arises, the nature of the incident is filtered to the correct parties be that HM Coastguard (HMCG), Habour Master or HM Coastguards Maritime Rescue Co-Ordination Centre (MRCC) for Scottish Offshore operations. It will also be necessary to inform the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) Oil and Gas Division (previously DTi). From here, the NCP moves the MCA through the systematic response management by ascertaining the;
o Details of the incident including,
· location of vessel
· owner of vessel
· weather and tidal conditions
· information on vessel
· control measure already in place
o Level of response necessary
o The setting up of response units
o Salvage rights
o Sea response unit
o Harbour and coastal response units
o Environmental monitoring and advice
o Media interaction
o Finance and Prosecution
o Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders and key organisations
· including contact details for said organisation
o International Assistance and Cooperation
o Legal and obligatory rulings and powers
In short, the purpose of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) is to provide the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.
3. Training Exercise at Falmouth Marine School
As a group activity, the students of Environmental Policies undertook an experiment to practice and test their ability to react, using the NCP, to an imaginary oil spill incident. The script for the exercise ran through a weeklong even over one day of lesson. The group were given each a role to play within the exercise. Roles were defined by the NCP guidelines (i.e. Shore response, Media etc.).
Within the activity, my particular part was that of Prosecution. This was a tough job considering the main role of the prosecution would take place over the years post the accident, and would allow time to build evidence and ultimately a case, towards prosecution if required.
For the exercise though, certain convenient problems towards the vessel were incorporated to allow a quick and easy addition from the prosecution side to the exercise. The age of the tanker, and the single hull of the vessel meant that under international and European legislation there were suspected breaches in;
o Regulation (EC) No. 417/2002 in “Erika I” on single hull carriers
o International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) 73/78 category 1, on single hull carriers
o International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) on the Duplication of Steering Gears
o IMOs’ Assembly Resolution A.744(18) on Enhanced Inspections
Finding where and how these transpose into UK legislation would be applicable later, and this be necessary to establish formal compensatory processes.
Within an oil pollution claim the identity of the Vessel is extremely important (Z. Oya özçayir. 1998). And traditionally, ship owners could only be exempted from liability unless they proved that the loss or damage had been caused by an act of God, the King of enemies, a defect in the Cargo or the Packaging thereof or by a general average sacrifice (p125. Z. Oya özçayir. 1998).
The 1969 Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage makes the ship-owner responsible for damage caused by oil spills up to $80m. However, it is important to remember that the International Oil Spill Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Fund will pay up to $180million compensation (less amount paid by owner of vessel) towards damage to bodies affected by a spill. The fund made up by levies in profits per ton by oil companies however, can pay for reasonable clean-up costs, but does not pay compensation for environmental damage (FOE. 2008).
Towards pursuing a claim towards damaged by oil pollution, the claimant would be a person who alleges that he has suffered damage or loss as a result of an oil spill (p. 89. G Gauci. 1997). In English Law, under the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1996, in certain limited circumstances, such a person would have cause of action.
As a group activity, the students of Environmental Policies undertook an experiment to practice and test their ability to react, using the NCP, to an imaginary oil spill incident. The script for the exercise ran through a weeklong even over one day of lesson. The group were given each a role to play within the exercise. Roles were defined by the NCP guidelines (i.e. Shore response, Media etc.).
Within the activity, my particular part was that of Prosecution. This was a tough job considering the main role of the prosecution would take place over the years post the accident, and would allow time to build evidence and ultimately a case, towards prosecution if required.
For the exercise though, certain convenient problems towards the vessel were incorporated to allow a quick and easy addition from the prosecution side to the exercise. The age of the tanker, and the single hull of the vessel meant that under international and European legislation there were suspected breaches in;
o Regulation (EC) No. 417/2002 in “Erika I” on single hull carriers
o International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) 73/78 category 1, on single hull carriers
o International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) on the Duplication of Steering Gears
o IMOs’ Assembly Resolution A.744(18) on Enhanced Inspections
Finding where and how these transpose into UK legislation would be applicable later, and this be necessary to establish formal compensatory processes.
Within an oil pollution claim the identity of the Vessel is extremely important (Z. Oya özçayir. 1998). And traditionally, ship owners could only be exempted from liability unless they proved that the loss or damage had been caused by an act of God, the King of enemies, a defect in the Cargo or the Packaging thereof or by a general average sacrifice (p125. Z. Oya özçayir. 1998).
The 1969 Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage makes the ship-owner responsible for damage caused by oil spills up to $80m. However, it is important to remember that the International Oil Spill Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Fund will pay up to $180million compensation (less amount paid by owner of vessel) towards damage to bodies affected by a spill. The fund made up by levies in profits per ton by oil companies however, can pay for reasonable clean-up costs, but does not pay compensation for environmental damage (FOE. 2008).
Towards pursuing a claim towards damaged by oil pollution, the claimant would be a person who alleges that he has suffered damage or loss as a result of an oil spill (p. 89. G Gauci. 1997). In English Law, under the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1996, in certain limited circumstances, such a person would have cause of action.
4. References
4.1. Bibliography
Gauci G. (1997). Oil Pollution at Sea, Civil Liability and Compensation for Damage, John Wiley & Sons, 1997, Chichester
Maritime & Coastguard Agency (2008). National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations, Maritime & Coastguard Agency, 2008, Southampton
özçayir. Z. Oya. (1998). Liability fir Oil Pollution and Collisions, LLP London Hong-Kong, Mendip Communications Ltd, 1998, Bridgend
4.2 Electronic
Friends of the Earth (FOE). (22.04.2008). Prestige oil spill - Who fits the Bill?, Friends of the Earth, 2008, available at http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/briefings/html/20021126160752.html
4.1. Bibliography
Gauci G. (1997). Oil Pollution at Sea, Civil Liability and Compensation for Damage, John Wiley & Sons, 1997, Chichester
Maritime & Coastguard Agency (2008). National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations, Maritime & Coastguard Agency, 2008, Southampton
özçayir. Z. Oya. (1998). Liability fir Oil Pollution and Collisions, LLP London Hong-Kong, Mendip Communications Ltd, 1998, Bridgend
4.2 Electronic
Friends of the Earth (FOE). (22.04.2008). Prestige oil spill - Who fits the Bill?, Friends of the Earth, 2008, available at http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/briefings/html/20021126160752.html
