THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF OIL SPILL FINGERPRINTING1

1979 ◽  
Vol 1979 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6
Author(s):  
Alan P. Bentz ◽  
Stanley L. Smith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Identification System ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Oil Spill Identification ◽  
Civil Penalty

ABSTRACT In several recent court cases, evidence of an oil “fingerprint” has been used to identify the source of an oil spill. As a result, those responsible for the spill have been required to pay a civil penalty and to reimburse the United States for the cost of cleaning up the oil. The use of such evidence in court supports the conclusion that the U.S. Coast Guard's oil spill identification system is both scientifically and legally sound.

With a Little Help from my Friends

2005 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 971-999 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Victoria Murillo ◽  
Andrew Schrank
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Labor Rights ◽  
Labor Laws ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The U.S

Why did Latin American governments adopt potentially costly, union-friendly labor reforms in the cost-sensitive 1980s and 1990s? The authors answer the question by exploring the relationship between trade unions and two of their most important allies: labor-backed parties at home and labor rights activists overseas. While labor-backed parties in Latin America have locked in the support of their core constituencies by adopting relatively union-friendly labor laws in an otherwise uncertain political and economic environment, labor rights activists in the United States have demonstrated their support for their Latin American allies by asking the U.S. government to treat the protection of labor rights as the price of access to the U.S. market. The former trajectory is the norm in traditionally labor-mobilizing polities, where industrialization encouraged the growth of labor-backed parties in the postwar era; the latter is more common in more labor-repressive environments, where vulnerable unions tend to look for allies overseas.

Notes from the Editors, May 2015

2015 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
The Editors
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Vietnam War ◽  
The United States ◽  
Back Issue ◽  
Japanese Occupation ◽  
Monthly Review ◽  
Office Of Strategic Services ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Indochina War ◽  
The U.S

<div class="buynow"><a title="Back issue of Monthly Review, May 2015 (Volume 67, Number 1)" href="http://monthlyreview.org/back-issues/mr-067-01-2015-05/">buy this issue</a></div>As we write these notes in March 2015, the Pentagon's official Vietnam War Commemoration, conducted in cooperation with the U.S. media, is highlighting the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of the U.S. ground war in Vietnam, marked by the arrival of two Marine battalions in De Nang on March 8, 1965. This date, however, was far from constituting the beginning of the war. The first American to die of military causes in Vietnam, killed in 1945, was a member of the Office of Strategic Services (a precursor of the CIA). U.S. intelligence officers were there in support of the French war to recolonize Vietnam, following the end of the Japanese occupation in the Second World War and Vietnam's declaration of national independence as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The French recolonization effort is sometimes called the First Indochina War in order to distinguish it from the Second Indochina War, initiated by the United States. In reality, it was all one war against the Viet Minh (Vietnamese Independence League). By the time that the Vietnamese defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the United States was paying for 80&ndash;90 percent of the cost of the war.<p class="mrlink"><p class="mrpurchaselink"><a href="http://monthlyreview.org/index/volume-67-number-1" title="Vol. 67, No. 1: May 2015" target="_self">Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the <em>Monthly Review</em> website.</a></p>

Developing Epa's Core Oil Spill Program

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 369-372
Author(s):  
Dennisses Valdes ◽  
Dana Stalcup ◽  
Wendy Christopherson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Industry ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hazardous Substance ◽  
Program Effort ◽  
Industry Culture ◽  
Major Pipeline ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The purpose of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Core Oil Spill Program effort is to help define core or fundamental Oil Spill Program activities nationwide to ensure that EPA maintains a well-trained, dedicated staff with the necessary resources to prevent, prepare for, and respond to oil and hazardous substance incidents the threaten the waters of the United States. It is especially important that sound oil spill programs are in place in all EPA regions and headquarters to adequately address the changing industry culture and to prevent future disasters comparable to the Ashland tank collapse, the Exxon Valdez spill, and recent major pipeline spills. Emphasis on these core activities should help the regional oil spill programs prioritize activities in an era of reduced funding for EPA's Oil Spill Program and aging oil industry infrastructure.

JOINT MEXICO-UNITED STATES OIL SPILL RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS TRAINING ACTIVITIES

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 711-714
Author(s):  
Heather A. Parker-Hall ◽  
Timothy P. Holmes ◽  
Norma A. Hernandez Ramirez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Joint Training ◽  
Response Team ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT Exercise and evaluation of the Pacific Annex of the Joint Contingency Plan Between the United Mexican States and the United States of America Regarding Pollution of the Marine Environment by Discharges of Hydrocarbons or Other Hazardous Substances (MEXUSPLAN) uncovered a significant need for joint training between spill responders, planners, decision-makers and stakeholders on both sides of our border. Sponsored by U.S. Coast Guard District 11 (USCG Dll) and the Second Mexican Naval Zone (ZN2), a series of training sessions were held for Mexican officials from the Northern Baja California region and Mexico City in early 2003. The first of these well-attended sessions was held in two locations: San Diego, CA and Ensenada, Mexico in February 2003. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Hazmat facilitated the first session, the Joint Mexico-United States Oil Spill Science Forum. It provided a scientific view of oil spills. The following joint session facilitated by USCG Dll and held in Ensenada was a tabletop exercise designed in preparation for the signing of the MEXUSPAC Annex. Through the use of a spill drill scenario, this session included instruction and dialogue about the roles and responsibilities of both U.S. and Mexican spill responders. Both sessions included presentations from several agencies of the Regional Response Team IX/Joint Response Team: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Dept. of the Interior and California's Office of Spill Prevention and Response. Industry partners also contributed topics of discussion, further complementing the U.S. response landscape. Mexican response agencies, including PEMEX, SAGARPA, SEMARNAT and PROFEPA, provided valuable input ensuring dialogue helping to identify additional joint response gaps. Upon the most significant gaps brought to light was the need for additional information regarding dispersant use by Mexican agencies, particularly in light of the approaching international SONS Exercise in April 2004. To this end, USCG Dll and NOAA HAZMAT developed and presented a modified Ecological Risk Assessment for their Mexican counterparts. Hosted by ZN2 in October 2003, this highly successful workshop brought together many key decision makers, planners and stakeholders from both sides of the border to discuss tradeoffs inherent in the use of existing spill response tools, including dispersants. Joint training and discussion sessions such as these are key to ensuring any measure of success in a joint spill response. Several additional training and discussion topics designed for the Mexican-U.S. joint response forum have been identified with many in the planning phase. Acknowledging the similarities as well as differences in response systems of our two nations' is essential to the success of these joint collaborations. Such continued efforts will help bridge existing gaps.

Poverty and Protectionism

1988 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 25-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Y. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Trade Deficit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Consistent Pattern ◽  
Trade Imbalance ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Major Consideration ◽  
The U.S

The United States had a trade deficit of $170 billion in 1987 and, even though the value of the dollar has been declining, the deficit has shown no consistent pattern of improvement. The magnitude and persistence of the trade imbalance has led to a great deal of discussion of its impact on the U.S. economy and of policies that might be used to correct the imbalance. One major consideration that is often overlooked is the distributional and equity effect of the trade situation on the poor. While some advocates embrace protectionist policies as a means of “saving” jobs for low-income Americans, others argue that these measures raise the cost of goods used by the poor with no guarantee that jobs are actually saved. The following article reviews the available evidence on the position of low-income Americans under a policy of protectionism.

scholarly journals Are the U.S. Patent Priority Rules Really Necessary?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
File System ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Person ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Priority Rules ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
System P ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The U.S

The United States is the only country in the world that awards patents tothe first person to invent something, rather than the first to file apatent application. In order to determine who is first to invent, theUnited States has created an elaborate set of "interference" proceedingsand legal standards to define invention and decide how it may be proven.Supporters of this system claim that it is necessary to protect smallinventors, who may not have the resources to file patent applicationsquickly, and may therefore lose a patent race to large companies whoinvented after they did. Advocates of global patent harmonization havesuggested, however, that the first inventor is usually also the first tofile, and that the first-to-invent standard is unnecessary and wasteful.In this Article, we study U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO")interference proceedings and court cases in which the parties dispute whois first to invent. We find that the first person to file is usually, butby no means always, also the first to invent. In over 40% of the cases, thefirst to invent is last to file. We also find that the long-standing rulethat discriminated against foreign inventors by requiring proof ofinventive activity in the U.S. had surprisingly little effect on outcomes;that a large number of priority disputes involve near-simultaneousinvention; and that the vast majority of such disputes could be resolvedwithout reliance on much of the evidence the law permits. Finally, we studythe role of small inventors to see whether they are disproportionately thebeneficiaries of the first to invent system. While the evidence is mixed,it does not appear that small inventors particularly benefit from the firstto invent system.Part I describes the legal background for the international debate over howto determine patent priority. Part II describes our studies and discussesour results in detail. Finally, Part III draws conclusions forpolicy-makers from the data. There is some truth to the arguments of bothsides in this debate. The first to invent system does produce significantlydifferent results in individual cases than a first to file system would.But it is not clear that those different results are particularly fairer,or that they are worth the cost. We suggest some possible ways to modifythe U.S. system to take account of these facts without changing entirely toa first-to-file system.

An Impossible Undertaking: The Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis in the United States

2004 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 734-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALAN L. OLMSTEAD ◽  
PAUL W. RHODE
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Early Detection ◽  
Bovine Tuberculosis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Suffering ◽  
Cattle Farm ◽  
Farm Sector ◽  
Full Compensation ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The U.S

In 1917, after scientific breakthroughs allowed for the early detection of bovine tuberculosis, the USDA began a campaign to eradicate the disease. Agents inspected nearly every cattle farm in the country and condemned roughly 4 million reactors to slaughter without full compensation. This article analyzes how the eradication program functioned, how incentives were aligned to ensure widespread participation without excessive moral hazard problems, and why the United States led most European nations in controlling the disease. The U.S. campaign was a spectacular success, reducing human suffering and death and yielding benefits in the farm sector alone that exceeded ten times the cost.

Exxon Oil Spill Technology Advances from the Valdez Cleanup

1999 ◽  
Vol 1999 (1) ◽  
pp. 357-362
Author(s):  
Richard R. Lessard ◽  
Gregory DeMarco ◽  
Roger C. Prince ◽  
Robert J. Fiocco ◽  
Jerry Canevari
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
International Research ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Response Effort ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
The World ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 was the largest marine oil spill in U.S. history. It triggered a massive cleanup and accelerated major changes to the U.S. structure for combating oil spills. It also led to a number of successful new programs within Exxon and industry aimed at reducing incidents, minimizing spillage of oil worldwide, and improving the capability to respond in the event of a spill. Exxon's response effort is widely acknowledged as the largest peacetime industrial mobilization ever in the United States and possibly in the world. Exxon immediately accepted responsibility and committed resources and personnel to clean up the environment affected by the spill The Valdez spill is the most studied ever. The cleanup involved the use of technology not previously applied to large spills. Many of these applications are now the subject of ongoing international research programs aimed at improving the ability to respond. This paper, written by several Exxon scientists who conducted technical studies in support of the cleanup, summarizes many of the technical learnings and advances that came out of the spill, and subsequent research studies with emphasis on how these apply to today's spills. This paper discusses only the response and cleanup. Exxon also initiated a number of programs to mitigate impacts on people, communities and wildlife affected by the spill.

U.S. NEED FOR AN INTEGRATED INTERNATIONAL OIL SPILL RESPONSE POLICY1

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1051-1054 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Adams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Lead Agency ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
International Engagement ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The United States has several international oil pollution response agreements for which the U.S. Coast Guard serves as lead agency for implementation. However, the United States does not have an integrated plan for implementing these agreements, the criteria to use in determining what level of cooperation is needed, or a strategy for prioritizing which countries with which to engage to forge new agreements. This paper outlines a strategy for international engagement that allows the United States to participate in response-related expertise exchange to ensure appropriate capabilities are available for spills that threaten U.S. interests. Obstacles to developing and implementing the strategy and ways to overcome them also are identified.

THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN, SUBPART J PRODUCT SCHEDULE (40 CFR 300.900)

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1479-1483 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Nichols
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Final Rule, Subpart J Product Schedule (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300.900), which lists dispersants, surface-washing agents (SWAs), bioremediation agents, surface-collecting agents, and miscellaneous oil spill control agents that may be used in response to oil spills on land and on or near waters of the United States, depending on the product and its proper application. Over the last few years, alternative oil spill response methods have been gaining in acceptance and use in the field among first responders, industry, state and federal agencies, Congress, and the entire oil spill response community. EPA sets policy and guidance for the proper use and authority to use these products. Manufacturers and vendors of these products have become more aware of this acceptance evidenced by the frequency that EPA is contacted to provide information on the listing process and EPA policy regarding their use. The number of applications to add new products to the Subpart J Product Schedule has increased over the last year. Subpart J is very prescriptive and specific in directing manufacturers to perform the proper test within the proper protocols, yet many applications are rejected or need modification because of errors in testing procedures or data reporting. This paper will address the data needed to list a product under each category and will clarify issues related to the Product Schedule. It will also address the policies that EPA uses to enforce the Subpart J regulation. The author has managed the Product Schedule for over 3 years, and his experience and expertise regarding the issues surrounding alternative countermeasures will be covered as well. Dispersants, SWAs, chemical sorbents, and other technologies have sparked controversy and confusion in all regions and areas of the United States, and in some cases internationally. Many research efforts have added to the baseline knowledge we have about dispersants and bioremediation agents' toxicity, efficacy, and proper use, but conflicts still arise as that data is interpreted and applied in the field. The reader will have a better understanding of why and how alternative countermeasures are required to be listed and describe the authority to use them based on EPA policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document