The situation came to light at congressional hearings when a top USCG official said his service "has not been aggressively enforcing the compliance" of vessel response plans filed under federal Salvage and Marine Firefighting (SMFF) regulations.
USCG Rear Admiral Paul Thomas lamented before the maritime House subcommittee that the USCG doesn't have resources to enforce the law.
Regulations attendant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, are meant to prevent a worst-case discharge resulting from fire or explosion aboard a vessel.
Said Salvor Nicholas Nedeau, CEO of Rapid Ocean Response Corporation (ROR): "The shocking admission by the coast guard that it cannot, and is not, enforcing its own marine firefighting rules should be a warning to all shipowners, insurers and legal teams."
Mr Nedeau said this as a "disaster just waiting to happen" and insurers should insist upon a dedicated network of fire-response vessels instead of taking their chances on the current and risky vessel of opportunity approach to emergency response.
Charleston maritime lawyer Ryan Gilsenan, with Womble Carlyle, warned: "With the coast guard admitting it doesn't enforce its own regulations, the financial and legal risk to vessel owners and P&I insurers may be much higher.
"I am concerned that if the current vessel response plans result in an unduly delayed response, then the shipowner could be subjected to punitive damages, fines and other penalties for failure to comply with regulations.
"A violation of regulations is a strict liability offense regardless of whether it was done so negligently, unknowingly or willfully. If this is the case, the responsible party may no longer enjoy limited liability under OPA 90," said Mr Gilsenan.
USCG Rear Admiral Paul Thomas lamented before the maritime House subcommittee that the USCG doesn't have resources to enforce the law.
Regulations attendant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, are meant to prevent a worst-case discharge resulting from fire or explosion aboard a vessel.
Said Salvor Nicholas Nedeau, CEO of Rapid Ocean Response Corporation (ROR): "The shocking admission by the coast guard that it cannot, and is not, enforcing its own marine firefighting rules should be a warning to all shipowners, insurers and legal teams."
Mr Nedeau said this as a "disaster just waiting to happen" and insurers should insist upon a dedicated network of fire-response vessels instead of taking their chances on the current and risky vessel of opportunity approach to emergency response.
Charleston maritime lawyer Ryan Gilsenan, with Womble Carlyle, warned: "With the coast guard admitting it doesn't enforce its own regulations, the financial and legal risk to vessel owners and P&I insurers may be much higher.
"I am concerned that if the current vessel response plans result in an unduly delayed response, then the shipowner could be subjected to punitive damages, fines and other penalties for failure to comply with regulations.
"A violation of regulations is a strict liability offense regardless of whether it was done so negligently, unknowingly or willfully. If this is the case, the responsible party may no longer enjoy limited liability under OPA 90," said Mr Gilsenan.