Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 3216 DECEMBER 2016 • FOGHORN LEGISLATIVEREPORT By Ed Welch, PV A Legislative Director I s your vessel covered by the legal requirement to have a Nontank Vessel Response Plan (NTVRP)? If so, are you complying with the U.S. Coast Guard’s mandate that you perform certain personnel training and exercises? In 2004, lawmakers in Congress amended the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (the statute enacted after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska) to require certain nontank vessels (that is, vessels other than oil tankers) to have oil spill response plans. The amendment was spurred by a spill of 70,000 gallons of heavy bunker and fuel oil on an Oregon beach when a wood-chip freighter called the New Carissa ran aground in a storm in 1999. In November 2007, while the Coast Guard was still devel- oping the rule to implement the 2004 amendment, another big spill from a nontank vessel occurred when the con- tainership Cosco Busan allided with a tower of the San Francisco Bay Bridge, discharging more than 53,000 gallons of bunker fuel into the estuary. However, it wasn’t until September 30, 2013, that the Coast Guard finalized the Nontank Vessel Response Plan (NTVRP) rule. Complying with Training, Exercise Requirements of Your Nontank Vessel Spill Plan gplink.com Put Your Fleet at Your Fingertips gplink_halfpage.indd 1 1/14/2015 3:37:02 PM