Continued from page 25 tion response in the coastal zone, while EPA is the predesignated coordinator for the inland zone. The boundaries between these zones are established by agreement between the two agencies and contained in federal regional contingency plans. However, facilities and their associated environmental hazards are not divided along such clear locational boundaries. In other words, there is no legal mandate for the response plan from a non-transportation-related facility in the coastal zone to receive any regulatory scrutiny by the Coast Guard on-scene coordinator charged with responding to a pollution incident from that facility. Likewise, the EPA coordinator may be coping with a spill from a facility whose response plans he or she has never seen, or more importantly, from a facility that, unknown to him or her, was not required to have a response plan. Due to the long-lived cooperative spirit between the EPA and the Coast Guard, such a scenario is unlikely to occur. Headquarters staff from both agencies have long recognized the pitfalls of establishing overly narrow and parochial response plan programs for on-shore facilities. non-transportation-related facility in the coastal zone. Similar language will also be developed to allow the EPA coordinator to review and comment on any transportation-related facility in the inland zone before the Coast Guard approves the plan. It is also expected that both agencies will be aware of any determination that a facility does not pose either a threat of "substantial harm" or "significant and substantial harm." It is expected that the agency regulating a specific facility will defer to the opinion of the predesignated on-scene coordinator that the facility could reasonably be expected to cause either threat. The joint development of the determining criteria should minimize the likelihood that the agencies will have different opinions. Complexes In the real world, facilities are not as neatly divided along transportation-and non-transportation-related lines as regulating agencies would like. It is possible that within the security fence of a facility operated by one company, several agencies may have jurisdiction over pollution response plans. facilities are not as neatly divided..." Discussion between the agencies has resulted in a general agreement that an on-scene coordinator will be able to review any response plan required from a facility in his or her response zone before the agency with authority to approve the plan grants final approval. The intention is not for the Coast Guard on-scene coordinator to comment on every response plan to be approved by EPA, but to review plans from certain facilities that could be expected to pose "significant and substantial harm" to the environment in the event of a discharge into or on navigable waters. This may include plans from facilities that have a history of pollution incidents. More importantly, these plans will also become integrated into the area contingency plan, which must be developed by the on-scene coordinator in accordance with OPA 90 revisions to section 311(j)(4) of the FWPCA. However, under executive order 12777, EPA has approval authority for the response plan for any A facility subjected to multi-agency jurisdiction is considered a "complex." This facility may have a pier with a manifold used to transfer oil to or from vessels. The manifold is connected by a pipeline to a large storage tank surrounded by a dike, berm or other method of secondary containment. This tank receives product from or supplies product to a transportation-related pipeline that may be part of an interstate or intrastate pipeline network. Following the 1971 memorandum of understanding between EPA and DOT, the marine manifold and pipeline connecting it to the storage tank are the responsibility of DOT, delegated to the Coast Guard. Inside the secondary containment, the storage tank and associated piping are EPA's responsibility. The interstate or intrastate pipeline feeding to or from the storage tank would be the responsibility of DOT. The burning question has been, "Does this mean that a different response plan is required for each agency?" One plan The general consensus between individuals working on this issue for both EPA and DOT is that one plan will suffice. It is expected that both DOT and the Coast Guard will settle on a mutually-agreeable format and response plan contents. The plan must address the items required by law. Both agencies agree that they must have similar requirements on the qualifications of the designated individual who activates the response plan, on the amount of response equipment required to respond to a worst case scenario, and on requirements for testing and conducting drills with pollution response equipment. It is anticipated that both agencies will review and jointly approve the response plan submitted by the owner or operator of a "complex." Unresolved issues Many policy issues remain to be resolved before requirements for facility response plans can be issued. These include a definition of the worst case scenario for facilities, a definition of "the maximum extent practicable" for a planned response to a worst case scenario, and an agreement on the amount and type of equipment necessary to respond to a worst case scenario. Also not yet resolved is what form of contractor certification would best assure that response contractors identified in a response plan are reliable and capable of performing at an expected level. Some of these issues may be resolved in the development of regulations by the Coast Guard to carry out tank vessel response plans. Under section 311(j)(6) of the FWPCA, tank vessels are subject to the same regulatory deadlines as offshore and onshore facilities. Cooperative efforts The development of regulations for facility response plans will take the combined efforts of several agencies. It will also require the active participation of the petroleum industry, clean-up contractors, environmental groups and affected states. This exchange of information and ideas must take place within the constraints of the rulemaking process as stated in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553, et sec). All participants must remember that the purpose is to ensure that sufficient private sector resources are identified and available to respond to massive discharges of oil or hazardous substances. The broader goal, however, is to minimize future damage to the environment. See page 47 for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for facility response plans. LCDR Walter Hunt is a project manager with the Coast Guard's OPA 90 staff. Telephone: (202) 267-6230. The Ashland Cincinnati terminal will be regulated by both EPA and the Coast Guard. Photo courtesy of Ashland Oil. New record-checking measures under OPA 90 go a long way toward assuring that reliable crews serve aboard merchant vessels. Title IV, subtitle A of OPA 90 (prevention) addresses licensing and certification of merchant seamen. Specifically, this part authorizes the secretary of transportation to access the National Driver Register. Based on information contained in this register, the Coast Guard may deny issuance of licenses, certificates of registry and merchant mariners' documents. Under subtitle A, the secretary also has discretionary authority to review the criminal record of an applicant for a license, certificate or document. OPA 90 also requires that these applicants be tested for use of dangerous drugs in violation of law or federal regulations. reliable crews In addition, OPA 90 requires the Coast Guard to establish an expiration date not exceeding five years and a renewal procedure for existing and newly issued certificates of registry and merchant mariners' documents. The provisions regarding the National Driver Register and the criminal record check are intended to identify individuals with specific motor vehicle driving offenses or serious criminal offenses that would impair the holder's ability to safely serve on a merchant vessel. The drug testing requirement is an additional tool in assuring a drug- and alcohol-free workplace in the maritime industry. The five-year renewal period will allow the Coast Guard to ensure that vessel personnel continue to be qualified to operate vessels safely. The legislation authorizes temporary suspension of licenses, certificates of registry and merchant mariners' documents before convening a hearing. Temporarily suspending merchant mariner creditionals before convening a hearing will allow the Coast Guard to prevent some merchant seamen who are considered a threat to marine safety from sailing while they are waiting for a hearing. Pre-hearing suspension is allowed only for certain offenses, and the suspension and revocation hearing must be convened within 30 days. Two new categories have been added to the list of offenses for which merchant seamen can be summoned to a suspension and revocation hearing. Charges can now be based on offenses that would prevent the issuance or renewal of a license, certificate or document. Realizing that undesirable shore-side activities are not necessarily left on the pier when a merchant seaman crosses the gangway and heads to sea, Congress expanded the list of suspension and revocation offenses to include unsafe conduct on the highways. A merchant seaman who is convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or of traffic violations arising in connection with a fatal traffic accident, reckless driving or racing on the highways may be summoned to a Coast Guard suspension or revocation hearing for those offenses. By identifying persons with such problems and preventing them from serving on United States flag vessels, the Coast Guard will ensure safer operations of vessels, resulting in fewer accidents and oil spills. Photographs accompanying this article are courtesy of the Seafarers International Union. Mr. James W. Cratty is a project manager with the Coast Guard's OPA 90 staff. Telephone: (202) 267-6742. How tugs can prevent pollution By LCDR Tim Healey The use of tugs is not new. They have been a key fixture in seaports throughout the world for more than a century. Bustling about harbors, pushing, pulling and directing large vessels in docking and undocking, tugs help the deep-draft ships maneuver at slow speeds in confined areas. OPA 90, under section 4116(c), takes tug duties a step further -- escorting loaded oil tankers operating in United States designated waters. Purpose The intent of Congress in requiring tug escorts for loaded oil tank vessels over 5,000 gross tons is to have immediate capacity to regain control over a tanker should it suddenly lose steering or propulsion control. By being on scene, a towing vessel can respond to a tanker's distress call in a matter of a few minutes instead of a few hours. The proximity of two escorts gives the tanker master additional resources to help keep the stricken vessel off the rocks and the cargo in the tanks. Current practice This general escort practice is already in use in Puget Sound, Washington; Valdez, Alaska and overseas in major oil ports, including Sullom Voe in the Shetland Islands. A 1975 Washington state law requires an escorting towing vessel for loaded oil tankers over 40,000 deadweight tons (dwt). In Valdez, outbound loaded tankers over 20,000 dwt have been escorted since mid-1989. Other domestic port administrations, harbor safety commissions and other interested safety-conscious bodies are examining the use of escorts for loaded tankers to help prevent oil spills. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the California ports of San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles/ Long Beach are areas of high tanker traffic density where state and local officials have taken a pro-active, spill prevention stance by addressing the possible use of towing vessels as tanker escorts. Responsibilities It is generally held that the ultimate responsibility for the safe navigation of a tanker rests with its master. But the master has a supporting cast of professional mariners who have their responsibilities as well. They include pilots, licensed officers and unlicensed crew members on the tanker, and the licensed operators of the escorting towing vessels and their crews. The Coast Guard will address the issue of defining who is responsible for what in it's rulemaking activity. Benefits and limits Numerous studies and tests have demonstrated benefits that can be obtained from having tanker escorts. Within certain parameters, towing vessels can effectively influence the direction and speed of a loaded tanker that is no longer controlled by its own propulsion or steering machinery. The importance of these parameters or limitations cannot be overlooked. Variations in tanker size and speed, wind speed and direction, wave height and swell direction, tide level and currents, the presence of ice, tug shaft horsepower and bollard pull, tug propulsion and steering design, tug draft and other factors can, alone or in combination, radically alter the needs of a tanker to safety transit a given body of water. |