Refiners say clarity key for new maritime security rules

July 23, 2003
The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association Wednesday told regulators that clarity and consistency are important to keep in mind when crafting final maritime security rules. NPRA offered comments at a US Coast Guard hearing on recently issued temporary interim rule implementing the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.

By OGJ editors
WASHINGTON, DC, July 23 -- The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association Wednesday told regulators that clarity and consistency are important to keep in mind when crafting final maritime security rules. NPRA offered comments at a US Coast Guard hearing on recently issued temporary interim rule implementing the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. NPRA indicated it could be useful for the USCG to be more specific on some of the definitions cited in the current rule.

One example NPRA noted was that facilities "adjacent to waters of the United States" must develop Facility Security Assessments (FSAs) and Facility Security Plans to implement a range of security measures.

The trade group estimates that more than half of US refineries and petrochemical plants are covered by the new rules. These facilities will have to submit security assessments and plans to the USCG no later than Dec. 31 (OGJ Online, July 3, 2003).

After a round of public hearings this summer, final rules are expected by Oct. 25, US officials said. The regulations impact an estimated 10,000 vessels, 5,000 facilities, and 40 Outer Continental Shelf facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. Initial compliance costs for OCS facilities are expected to total $37 million, with compliance estimated at $5 million/year, USCG said. A public hearing on the OCS facility portion of the rule is being held in Washington, DC, Wednesday, with comments due by July 31.

Fine-tuning sought
Industry representatives, whether they are refiners or drillers, generally support the rule. But refiners said they want to fine-tune the sweeping regulation to clear up confusion over which government agency holds jurisdiction over certain rules.

NPRA strongly recommended that the federal government "recognize fully" the need for consistency as it develops and implements security-related rules and regulations. The group also warned that the temporary rule still leaves questions as to applicability.

As the rule is written now, a facility may be unclear which federal agency or department has jurisdiction over it when it comes to facility security, the group said.

"The last thing a company striving to enhance security needs is more confusion as a result of overlapping jurisdictions," said Bob Slaughter, NPRA president. "A significant majority of NPRA members would prefer to see a firm demarcation limiting USCG authority to the dock."

With respect to FSAs, NPRA strongly urged USCG to delete the requirement that the FSA be included as part of the submission of the Facility Security Plan. Refiners said the information in the FSA is of such a sensitive nature that, unless it is protected with 'secret' designation, the risk of disclosure—and the damage that could result thereby—are simply too great.

"NPRA believes that the submission of the 'Facility Vulnerability and Security Measures Summary' should be sufficient for the Captain of the Port and would promote facility security," Slaughter explained. "If the Captain of the Port (COTP) or his designee needs to review the specifics of the FSA kept on file with the owner or operator, at any time, he could do so."

Additionally, NPRA wants the USCG to take a closer look at the restrictions it is imposing on the Facility Security Officer (FSO). Section 105.205 limits the responsibilities of the company-appointed FSO to facilities "in the same COTP zone," and says that the facilities for which the FSO has responsibility must be no more than 50 miles apart. "Companies with multiple facilities should be able to exercise these management decisions by themselves," said Slaughter, "especially since this section allows the FSO to delegate security duties to other personnel, so long as he retains final responsibility for these duties."

NPRA is holding a security regulations compliance workshop Wednesday and Thursday to provide a detailed look at the USCG site security regulations with information on complying with the US Department of Transportation's hazardous materials transportation regulations.