Marine Pollution Ditinjau dari Perbandingan Praktik Negara Terhadap Instrumen Hukum Internasional

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengurai strategi beberapa negara, serta menganalisis keberlakuan instrumen hukum internasional dalam menyikapi marine pollution. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach) dimana jenis dan sumber data yaitu terdiri dari bahan hukum primer dan sekunder. Selanjutnya, sumber data yang telah dikumpulkan akan diidentifikasi, klasifikasi dan sistematisasi sesuai permasalahan penelitian. Analisis data dalam penelitian ini dilakukan melalui cara menelaah sumber ataupun bahan hukum tertulis. Hasil telaah tersebut diinterpretasikan menggunakan metode interpretasi yang sistematis, gramatikal, dan, teleologis. Hasil penelitian menguraikan bahwa strategi dalam menyikapi marine pollution, terdiri dari empat negara, antara lain Australia memilih untuk meningkatkan pemahaman masyarakat terkait lingkungan di laut. Indonesia memilih untuk membuat payung hukum serta mendorong pemanfaatan sampah plastik sebagai campuran aspal. Amerika memilih untuk memprioritaskan peraturan perundang-undangan, antara lain Public Law Nomor 92-500 Tahun 1972 tentang Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 dan Public Law Nomor 109-449 Tahun 2006 tentang Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act. Jepang melalui Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup memilih untuk melakukan pembersihan di lautan, serta memberlakukan kepada masyarakat terkait daur ulang sampah. Lebih lanjut, instrumen hukum internasional dalam menyikapi marine pollution, antara lain Protocol 1996 dan UNCLOS, serta Protocol MARPOL. Protocol 1996 dan UNCLOS saling berkaitan dan tidak bisa dipisahkan, namun sebagian belum meratifikasi Protocol MARPOL sebagai bagian dari pelaksana Protocol 1996. Adapun saran-saran dalam menyikapi marine pollution secara umum, antara lain pertama, memberikan edukasi kepada masyarakat internasional agar membentuk kepeduliannya terhadap lingkungan laut. Kedua, meratifikasi instrumen hukum internasional terkait marine pollution sehingga terjadi sinkronisasi dan harmonisasi hukum yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan oleh seluruh masyarakat internasional. Dengan demikian, strategi mengatasi marine pollution dapat diatasi melalui keterhubungan antara perbandingan praktik negara dan instrumen hukum internasional.

The Application of Strict Criminal Liabilities to the Spillage of Oil; The Practical Impact on Effective Spill Response

ABSTRACT In spite of the marked success of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA – 33 USC 1251 et seq) and subsequent amendments in restoring and protecting our waterways, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has of late increasingly resorted to unrelated law to inject the concept of strict criminal liability for accidental spillage of oil. The application of strict liability for the spillage of oil can engender criminal penalties for accidental, unintentional spills in the same manner as if the spill was a result of an intentional, purposeful breach of the law. This paper describes the impact of a threat of imposition of strict criminal liability on coordination and communication between those directing a spill response. It describes the chill created when the threat of such liability becomes a reality and the resulting constraints imposed when that specter surfaces, constraints that are both self-imposed and imposed on coordinators by their legal advisors. The paper also identifies a solution in the form of legislation d aimed at limiting the use of unrelated law in oil spills to pull the teeth from this threat without allowing real criminals to escape. Importantly, it also reveals the increased threat to the environment caused by the imposition of strict criminal liability in oil spills resulting an unnecessary degradation of response effectiveness. It also suggests a unique opportunity for bi-lateral support for environmental protection from both commercial and environmental interests.

Some Thoughts On Salvage Operations During Oil Spills1

ABSTRACT Recent casualties have caused response planners, spill managers, underwriters, and government authorities to closely examine the role of salvage operations in the successful resolution of actual or potential spill events. The integration of salvage operations with oil spill response operations remains somewhat ill defined in the post-OPA 90 NIIMS based ICS response system. The responses to the Buffalo 292 and Buffalo 286 oil spills demonstrated that a coordinated, well-conceived, and professionally executed salvage operation can be conducted within the ICS framework. A similar response management model was used during the successful emergency lightering of the grounded tankship Overseas Valdez. These operations spotlighted the efficacy of the maritime community's implementation of the Vessel Response Plan (VRP) requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the successful integration of salvage operations into the incident command system, and the benefits of prompt access to computerized damage stability and residual strength calculation programs.

CLEANUP OF THE ABANDONED BUNKER BARGES1

ABSTRACT An estimated 1300 abandoned vessels are decaying on U.S. waterways. An unknown number of these vessels contain oil or hazardous substances and pose a substantial threat of discharge into the environment. Historically, the Coast Guard has responded to environmentally harmful oil and hazardous material spills from abandoned vessels after they occur, sometimes spending millions of unrecoverable dollars in cleanup and disposal costs. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended gives the Coast Guard jurisdiction to mitigate a “substantial threat of discharge” of oil or hazardous substances into the water. Responding to a substantial threat of discharge prevents environmental damage, reduces the number of medium or major spills, and costs substantially less than large shoreline or open water cleanups. Recently, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office (MSO) Hampton Roads initiated the first federal removal action in response to a substantial threat posed by abandoned barges; the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was used to remove 691,000 gallons of oily waste and to clean and render gas-free the abandoned tank barges Bunker Delaware, Bunker 1000, and VTL-1.

“You Alone Have the Answer”: Lake Erie and Federal Water Pollution Control Policy, 1960–1972

Prior to the 1960s, state governments retained primary responsibility for the regulation of water pollution. State officials emphasized voluntarism and close, informal cooperation between regulators and representatives from the major industrial and municipal sources of pollution. During the 1960s and early 1970s, growing dissatisfaction with state pollution control performance in Congress and at the local level acted as the driving force behind the gradual federal preemption of state authority. In the Lake Erie Basin, local advocates of tougher and more effective water pollution regulation looked to the federal government for relief and made common cause with sympathetic members of Congress.

POST-OPA 90 NATIONAL STRIKE FORCE1

ABSTRACT The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) has resulted in an overall restructuring and enhancement of the national strike force. The OPA 90 legislation amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA), which first gave the Coast Guard a role in marine environmental protection. The FWPCA led to the establishment of the national response system (NRS) and the establishment of “special forces” which would be available for pollution response. These special forces included the Coast Guard manned strike teams (collectively, the national strike force, or NSF) and the public information assist team (PIAT). OPA 90 legislation affected the NSF by requiring the Coast Guard to establish a national response unit (NRU) located at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The NRU, now renamed the National Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC), would provide overall management of the strike teams and PIAT and in addition, perform several new functions in consulting, exercise management, coordination of spill response, and logistics and maintenance of worldwide resource inventories. This paper examines all OPA 90 initiatives affecting the national strike force. It concludes that the overall impact on the national response system is quite positive and should result in significant improvement in response to both major and catastrophic oil spills.

THE REGIONAL RESPONSE TEAM (RRT): DYNAMITE OR DINOSAUR?1

ABSTRACT The U.S. Government has in place a national oil and hazardous substance spill response system as required under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FW?CA) of 1972, as amended, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. The National Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the National Response Team (NRT), Regional Response Teams (RRTs) and the National Response Center (NRC). This system has been in place since 1971, with NRT and RRT membership including 15 federal agencies having environmental responsibilities, and associated states in thirteen specific regional areas. Initially, when CERCLA-funded support positions were staffed in 1987, the RRT membership interaction proved to be dynamic and highly productive. However, as the organizations “matured,” work emphasis shifted from new initiatives to refinement of existing policies/documents. Examination of some of the existing organizational interactions demonstrates shortfalls that must be overcome before any RRT can be rejuvenated. These barriers to high productivity include skewed distribution of CERCLA-funded positions, accountability of CERCLA positions, parochial interests versus cooperation, adequacy of working level resources, duplication of efforts, lack of state funding support, and lack of continuity due to the constant personnel turnover and shortages. Also, in light of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) mandates, in order to better determine if increased RRT productivity is possible, two major questions must be examined: what exactly is the nature of the NRT/RRT relationship and appropriate interaction; and, how should area committees (ACs) and the RRTs interact?