1. Hazardous Substance Response Plan Regulations Lieutenant Eric A. Bauer, USCG Office of Response Planning & Preparedness Division Industry Preparedness Branch Manager, Vessel Response Plan Program

2. Hazardous Substance Response Plans History of the Hazardous Substance Response Plan Regulation Project –Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA-90) “(5) TANK VESSEL AND FACILITY RESPONSE PLANS.,(A) The President shall issue regulations which require an owner or operator of a tank vessel or facility described in subparagraph (B) to prepare and submit to the President a plan for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance.”

3. Hazardous Substance Response Plans Tank Vessel Response Plans for Hazardous Substances (USCG-1998-4354) TITLE Marine Transportation- Related Facility Response Plans for Hazardous Substances (USCG-1999-5705) This project would implement provisions of the OPA-90 that require an owner or operator of a T/V carrying bulk hazardous substances to develop and operate in accordance with an approved response plan. PURPOSE This project would implement provisions of the OPA-90 that require an owner or operator of a MTR facility transferring bulk hazardous substances to develop and operate in accordance with an approved response plan.

4. Hazardous Substance Response Plans T/Vs TITLE MTR Facilities The regulations would apply to vessels operating on the navigable waters or within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States that carry bulk hazardous substances. APPLIC- ABILITY The regulations would apply to marine transportation- related facilities that, because of their location, could cause harm to the environment by discharging a hazardous substance into or on the navigable waters or adjoining shoreline.

5. Hazardous Substance Response Plans T/Vs TITLE MTR Facilities This project supports the Coast Guard’s strategic goals of maritime safety and protection of natural resources by reducing the amount of chemicals entering the environment, as well as reducing the consequences of pollution incidents. ALLEIG- NMENT This project supports the Coast Guard’s strategic goals of maritime safety and protection of natural resources by reducing the consequence of pollution incidents.

6. Hazardous Substance Response Plans T/Vs TITLE MTR Facilities 03 May 1996 ANPRM 03 May 1996 03 July 1996 Notice of Public Hearing 03 July 1996 30 July 1996 Washington, DC Public Hearing 30 July 1996 Washington, DC 05 August 1996 Houston, TX Public Hearing 05 August 1996 Houston, TX

7. Hazardous Substance Response Plans T/Vs TITLE MTR Facilities 26-27 February 1997 Houston, TX Public Hearing 26-27 February 1997 Houston, TX 03 September 1996 ANPRM Comment Period End 03 September 1996 22 March 1999 NPRM 31 March 2000 15 June 1999 Notice of Public Hearing N/A

8. Hazardous Substance Response Plans T/Vs TITLE MTR Facilities 21 June 1999 NPRM Comment Period End 29 June 2000 12-13 August 1999 Houston, TX Public Hearing 10-11 May 2000 New Orleans, LA

9. Hazardous Substance Response Plans September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the United States. November 25, 2002 The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA 2002), signed.

10. Hazardous Substance Response Plans January 01, 2003 Regulation 16 of Annex II to MARPOL 73/78, requiring Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plans for Noxious Liquid Substances (SMPEP- NLS) took effective. October 22, 2003 The FR for the MTSA Regulations for the Vessel & Facility Security Plans was published.

11. Hazardous Substance Response Plans Renewed emphasis for Hazardous Substance Response Plans –Mandated by OPA 90. –By preplanning we will be able to better respond to any Hazardous Substance release, whether the release is the result of an accidental or an act of terrorism. –Hazardous Substance Response plans are a contingency to the Security Plans.

12. Hazardous Substance Response Plans Where we are now… –We have a NPRM for both Vessel and Facility Hazardous Substance Plans. Comments were submitted in response to the NPRM. The comments have been sorted and combined. The comments are being reviewed and addressed. –Proposed regulations are being compared against requirements of the SMPEP-NLS mandates. –Proposed regulations are being compared against the requirements of the MTSA and it regulations.

13. Hazardous Substance Response Plans Where we are going…