No way for OPA.

• Author: Baker, Allen
• Position: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990's impact on industry

Critics say the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 would virtually shut down the state -- but Congress says that wasn't its intention.

Look for common sense to prevail in Washington, eventually, on a proposal that would apply the $150 million liability requirements of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 to gas stations, trucking firms, marinas and many other businesses.

Despite the uproar over the federal proposal, nobody really expects it to actually go into effect -- not industry leaders, not politicians, and not even the agency people themselves.

What the final rules will say, and what kind of requirements could be imposed on small operators under the law, is still up in the air. And the genesis of this particular controversy illustrates how a few word choices can turn a simple provision of law into a regulatory nightmare.

"Congress did not intend to place a $150 million economic burden on each and every individual or business facility that houses an internal combustion engine on navigable waters," Alaska Sen. Frank Murkowski wrote in a February letter to Minerals Management Service (MMS) director Tom Fry.

OFFSHORE ONLY

Maybe not, but that's pretty much how Fry's agency is interpreting the law. One provision of the OPA, passed in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, was supposed to increase liability limits for offshore oil platforms and drilling rigs from $35 million to $150 million.

When Congress passed the law in 1990, members clearly intended for the liability requirement to be raised, but to apply only to offshore oil production and transport facilities, Murkowski says.

But the MMS, charged with writing regulations to carry out the directive in the law, says the definitions of "facility," "offshore facilities" and "navigable waters," as set out in OPA and prior laws, give it no option but to apply that liability requirement to a broad range of facilities.

Sen. Murkowski has drafted an amendment to OPA to give the Secretary of the Interior authority to set bonding requirements of less than $150 million based on the size of a business, storage capacity, and other factors. That legislation could be a start toward fixing the problems with the MMS approach, Murkowski says.

"I think everybody now agrees it ought to be changed," says Chuck Kleeschulte, Murkowski's aide. "Our goal is to make this a simple, non-controversial amendment." He says there's been no opposition even from environmental groups, and the Clinton administration supports the...