1. Washington State Oil Spill Contingency Plan Update Excellence in Environmental & Emergency Solutions Presented at Intertanko North American Panel Meeting October 22, 2013

2.  Washington has more stringent response requirements than OPA 90 (Federal)  Neither MSRC nor NRC provided full compliance with Washington regulations  Vessels generally contracted with the local co-op (WSMC) to meet compliance  As of December 31, 2013, WSMC will no longer provide full compliance 2 Washington State Plan History

3.  Filed new base plan September 9, 2013  Requires separate contract for “Supplemental” resources for full compliance  "Supplemental" resources required to meet 95% of Washington planning requirements  Base plan does not provide other resources such as wildlife rehab, fire boom and dispersants 3 WSMC Plan Status

4.  General arrangement plan not required  Supplemental resource system is untested  Supplemental resources are substantially more than the base resources  May not cover all areas such as Gray’s Harbor  May not provide reciprocal coverage for innocent passage to Canada  WSMC contract does not conform to P&I Club guidelines 4 WSMC Plan Benefits / Challenges

5.  P&I Club Agreements may not provide access to “supplemental” resources  USCG requires direct contract for OPA 90 compliance in new non tank regulations  Access to required dispersant resources is not clear  NRC & MSRC require separate amendments 5 WSMC Plan Challenges – Non Tank Vessels

6.  Filed August 22, 2013 in response to WSMC decision to no longer provide full compliance  Approved September 23, 2013  Provides all required resources including wildlife rehab, fire boom and dispersants 6 NRC Plan Status

7.  Requires general arrangement plan submittal  Main contract and Washington amendment conform to P&I Club guidelines  No charge for the remainder of 2013  Rates less than WSMC’s  One-Time annual fee  No subsequent transit fees 7 NRC Washington Plan Challenges / Benefits

8. Questions 8