Oil Pollution Act Pros And Cons
The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) 90 is an act of the Congress enforced in response to the Exxon Valdez incident of Good Friday 1989. The accident involved Exxon Valdez which spilled more than 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. It emerged from the incident that the country lacked sufficient resources to counter cases of oil spills. The country’s facility entrusted with the role of responding to cases of maritime oil pollution was the United States Coast of Guard. However, the agency was incapacitated to effectively execute its role due to insufficient funding from the Federal, State, and local authorities. Whilst, the lack of adequate funding, the United States Coast Guard also lacked the necessary training to counter such incidents as the Exxon Valdez spill. Upon the realization of the ineffectiveness of US systems to deal with cases of poor response to oil pollution, the Congress initiated the process of drafting an Act which would power the necessary resources to counter oil spill incidents in the United States. In the wake of 1990, the US
…show more content…
It was worth noting that these two Acts constituted the oil pollution response, liability framework, and containment used during the Exxon Valdez. At this point that it emerged the oil spill liability and response laws in the country were defective. Ideally, such laws ought to be clear on: the parties responsible for reporting and responding to the incident; those will lead the containment and cleanup exercises; detailed damages, costs, and expenses to be incurred by the party deemed responsible for the spill (Sump, 2011). In addition, the Act ought to define the means of compensating the damage caused by the spill and finite conditions under which the responsible party can transfer liability to a third party, limit liability, or evade it all the
It was worth noting that these two Acts constituted the oil pollution response, liability framework, and containment used during the Exxon Valdez. At this point that it emerged the oil spill liability and response laws in the country were defective. Ideally, such laws ought to be clear on: the parties responsible for reporting and responding to the incident; those will lead the containment and cleanup exercises; detailed damages, costs, and expenses to be incurred by the party deemed responsible for the spill (Sump, 2011). In addition, the Act ought to define the means of compensating the damage caused by the spill and finite conditions under which the responsible party can transfer liability to a third party, limit liability, or evade it all the