GOVERNMENT UPDATEOSROThe Child of NecessityBY DENNIS BRYANTost people in the maritime sponse and damages arising therefrom. from individual and separate examina- simply being a Coast Guard-classi? ed industry in the United In the real world, though, how is a ves- tions by the vessel owners. At the same OSRO does not guarantee performance States are familiar with sel owner to know whether a company time, vessel owners and operators who during an actual spill. In this regard it Mthe concept of the Oil offering spill response services is ca- agreed to utilize OSROs that met our should be remembered that the response Spill Removal Organization (OSRO). pable of doing so? Does it have trained voluntary standards would not have to plan regulations also include the follow-It is one of the many quiet successes of personnel? Does it have the right equip- conduct an independent evaluation. ing caveat: “The speci? c criteria for re-the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) ment? Is the equipment in good work- With expert assistance from various sponse resources and their arrival times and has enhanced the prompt and ef? - ing order? Does each vessel owner have stakeholders, we created an evaluation are not performance standards. They are cient cleanup of spills of oil and hazard- to independently examine each potential program for rating the capabilities of planning criteria based on a set of as-ous materials into waters of the United contractor to determine adequacy? Does each OSRO that elected to participate. sumptions that may not exist during an States. each potential contractor have to subject The OSROs could elect to provide all actual oil spill incident.” The curious thing about OSROs is that itself to hundreds, potentially thousands, or only some of the needed services OSROs, including salvage and marine they are not mentioned in OPA 90. of separate examinations by the vessel and could also elect the geographic area ? re? ghting companies, are important OSROs, as a recognized industry, were owners? within which they would make their ser- players in the overall spill response ef-created following enactment of OPA 90 Those were the issues that were pre- vices available. fort. Without them, the spiller, be it a and that statute’s requirement that tank sented to the US Coast Guard as it led At the same time, we inserted the fol- vessel, an onshore facility, or an offshore vessels (and now certain non-tank ves- the effort to implement OPA 90. The lowing provision into the response plan facility, would have little capability to sels) have written plans for response to Coast Guard had created a special group regulations: ful? ll its legal obligation to remove the oil spills in US waters adequate to re- at headquarters devoted to this mas- If an oil spill removal organization(s) oil or hazardous material and restore spond to worst case discharges. Prior sive implementation project, called the has been evaluated by the Coast Guard the environment. The response to most to adoption of OPA 90, entities capable OPA 90 Staff. At the time, Mr. Norman and their capability has been determined spills into waters of the United States is and willing to respond to oil spills were Lemley, a member of the Coast Guard’s to equal or exceed the response capabil- now both prompt and ef? cient. There mostly small businesses. Each port had Senior Executive Service, was the Staff ity needed by the vessel, the [geographic remains room for improvement, but the one or more such entities, but few of Director; Captain Gerald Willis was the speci? c] appendix [to the vessel response situation is far better than it was prior to them provided more than limited geo- Deputy Director; and I was the Chief of plan – VRP] may identify only the orga- enactment and implementation of OPA graphic coverage. Regulatory Development. We had about nization and their applicable classi? ca- 90. I am not claiming that Norm Lemley, As part of the settlement of certain 40 military and civilian subject mat- tion and not the information [otherwise Jerry Willis, and I were geniuses, but we litigation arising out of the grounding ter experts, lawyers, economists, envi- required by] this section. were creative and willing to think out-of the tanker EXXON VALDEZ and the ronmentalists, and clerical personnel to It was an act of faith on our part that side the box. Our charge was limited to subsequent oil spill, the major oil com- draft the paperwork for forty separate the various stakeholders would partici- drafting regulations, but we realized that panies and their shipping subsidiaries rulemaking projects and a number of pate, but they did. the regulations alone would not get the established the Marine Spill Response studies mandated by OPA 90. Now the Coast Guard has a detailed job done. We also had superiors who Corporation (MSRC). When the MSRC The three of us met a number of times program addressing this issue. The cur- were trustful of our efforts and willing initially declined to provide spill re- to analyze this particularly thorny issue. rent version was published on 24 April to give us a certain amount of leeway. sponse services to smaller tanker com- We quickly realized that we couldn’t just 2013 as CG-MER Policy Letter 03-13. In addition, the industry stepped up and panies, the National Response Corpora- mandate standards for OSROs. It would The 64-page attachment thereto is en- seized the opportunity provided. tion (NRC) was created to ? ll the void. exceed the Coast Guard’s statutory au- titled “Guidelines for the U.S. Coast The results speak for themselves. Subsequently, a number of companies thority and open the agency to litiga- Guard Oil Spill Removal Organization and joint ventures have been established tion. On the other hand, we knew that Classi? cation Program”. The guidelines to provide the needed services. the complex and integrated program we note that the voluntary program was cre-The AuthorThe problem, which was not initially were charged with developing would not ated so that plan holders could simply recognized, is that, because OSROs are succeed if the vessel owners and the OS- list OSROs in their response plans rather Dennis L. Bryant is with Maritime Regu-not directly covered by OPA 90, the US ROs were left to their own devices. than providing extensive detailed lists latory Consulting, and a regular contribu-Coast Guard and other federal agencies We jointly settled on a hybrid ap- of response resources. OSROs and plan tor to Maritime Reporter & Engineering with responsibility for oil spill response, proach. We proposed a package deal. holders participate in and use the clas-News as well as online at MaritimePro-have no real authority to regulate them. If the OSROs voluntarily submitted to si? cation program on a strictly voluntary fessional.com. OPA 90 places the onus for oil spill re- examination and evaluation by the Coast basis. The guidelines further note that t: 1 352 692 5493 sponse on the spiller, under the concept Guard as to their personnel and equip- while classi? cation provides a good indi-e: dennis.l.bryant@gmail.com that the polluter should pay for the re- ment capabilities, we would free them cation of an OSRO’s response capability, 14 Maritime Reporter & Engineering News • JULY 2014MR #7 (10-17).indd 14 MR #7 (10-17).indd 14 6/30/2014 10:30:10 AM6/30/2014 10:30:10 AM