Article

Non-Tank Vessels Could Face the Brunt

Jonathan K. Waldron, partner in Blank Rome’s maritime group, was recently quoted in the article “Non-tank vessels could face the brunt” by Rajesh Joshi, which first appeared in the July 2010 edition of Lloyd’s List, Maritime Americas 2010.

Non-tank vessels, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon incident, face the possibility of unlimited liability in future U.S. oil spills due to existing requirements of the Vessel Response Plan (VRP) in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). 

The Deepwater Horizon vessel, considered a non-tank vessel, had a VRP in place, but not one that was as extensive as it might have been if a proper OPA 90 mechanism were in place.

The OPA 90 mandates only that all tank vessels have VRP’s that outline steps to be taken in case of an oil spill.

The requirement was tightened at the end of 2008 when the USCG published a regulation requiring tanks vessels to have a more detailed salvage and marine firefighting regime. This comprehensive plan was set to take effect in February 2011.

For non-tank vessels, there is no corresponding USCG requirement for an OPA 90-compliant VRP. 

Congress amended the OPA 90 in 2004 to rectify this issue, requiring that the USCG go through a similar rule-making process to establish a non-tank VRP regime.  The USCG, however, published a non-enforceable recommendation through the Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) for non-tank vessels.

A proposed regulation was published in August 2009, but is yet to be finished. 

Prior to the Deepwater Horizon incident, the U.S. Mineral Management Service (MMS) was responsible for ensuring that offshore installations had adequate response plans, however, the USCG may now take over responsibility of overseeing contingency plans on offshore facilities.

Jon Waldron said that the proposed USCG rule in this regard is currently being vetted by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and is scheduled for publication towards the end of the year.