Why the Delay in Using Skimmer Ships in Response to DWH

[Vincentc]

During a conversation with a shipbuilder friend of mine Friday, we talked about the lack of effective oil skimmers in response to the DWH. He explained that EPA regulations forbid a ship from discharging into the sea, water contining more than 30 parts per million oil.

Effective oil skimmers necessarily take in much more sea water than oil and must discharge the water. Skimmer ships separate the oil from the sea water, retain the oil and pump off the water; however that water necessarily will contain more than 30 parts per million oil.

It is my understanding that the EPA's refusal to waive that regulation has, for over 2 months, prevented the utilization of effective ship skimmers. This impression is corroborated by another friend of mine, who works for a refinery, and told me that they were asked to received and process oil and water mixtures from DWH but had to decline because they did not have the facilities to store and handle oil with that quantity of water.

News stories regarding "A Whale" have mentioned the Jones Act but never (to my reading) the EPA regulations, regarding the problem with skimmers.

I do know something about the Jones Act, and cannot see how the Jones Act requirement for the use of US vessels in the coastwise trade, could prevent the use of skimmer ships offshore.

Any logical skimmer operation would involve the skimmers staying on site, and pumping the oil they gathered into US flag tanker and the water they separate out, overboard. Tankers bringing the oil from the skimmers to US refineries would not violate the Jones Act. Pumping overboard water which contained more than 30 ppm oil would violate EPA regulations.

The EPA, not the Jones Act, has prevented the effective use of skimmer ships.

Anyone aware of any facts which support or refute my impressions?

Regards,

 

[Avenger]

Sounds right to me. The Jones act issues have to do with using the oil recovery vessels from the Netherlands which are supposed to be more effective than ours.

I was going to start a rant about bureacracy and agendas, but I guess we all already know what's going on here.

 

[oldawg]

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575339650877298556.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

See the link to a WSJ article discussing why the cleanup process is so slow. Pretty much covers all the bases. I don't know if it has been discussed here but the provisions of the Jones Act can be waived (as they were after Katrina). The various and storied issues with EPA and Coast Guard can also be waived if the political will is there. All that is required is energy and desire starting at the top. That desire is obviously not there.

Just my opinion.

Greg

 

[Genesis]

Yes.

It is unlawful to discharge oil into the sea in any amount.

Even if it came from the sea.

So if you pump oil + water into your ship, and then pump the water off the bottom back into the ocean (a trivially-simple separation procedure that will be in the high 90%s efficient) it is illegal to do so even though the result leaves the sea with much less oil in it than it had before.

In short we have idiots in our government.

 

[Vincentc]

Let me restate.
There is nothing in the Jones Act which prevents foreign flag skimmers from operating in the Gulf. That part of the Jones Act deals with trade between US ports. Skimming is not trade between 2 US ports. No Jones Act waiver is, or was ever, needed. Nevertheless, I understand that Sen. John McCain introduced a bill to repeal the Jones Act.

The problem is the EPA. Regulations, which should protect the enviroment, have prevented the use of equipment which would reduce the impact of the DWH oil leak, other than stopping / reducing the leak flow, more ( I believe ) than anything which has been done.

Regards,

 

[rsmith]

Yes.

It is unlawful to discharge oil into the sea in any amount.

Even if it came from the sea.

So if you pump oil + water into your ship, and then pump the water off the bottom back into the ocean (a trivially-simple separation procedure that will be in the high 90%s efficient) it is illegal to do so even though the result leaves the sea with much less oil in it than it had before.

In short we have idiots in our government.

Does anyone know what happened to the law that would require us to have a EPA permit for discharging bilge and grey water?I know Boat US was fighting it but never saw the end result.

 

[GJH]

Other than the amongst the tin foil hat crowd, there is no evidence that the EPA has anything to do with "approving" the skimmer. The tests with the Coast Guard have been continuing, weather permitting. There are hundreds of small skimmers already deployed. I think someone came up with a regulation and then ran with a theory from there; and in today's world people will then believe what they want to believe, much easier than trying to get facts!

This is one of those apocryphal tales that the paranoids love to proliferate because it fits whatever other agenda they have. It is certainly not confined to any one side of the political spectrum, that's for sure: witness some of the unsubstantiated goof ball conspiracy theories about Katrina and 9/11.

The EPA has been testing to make sure that the dispersants being used don't cause a bigger problem than they solve.

 

[Vincentc]

George,
Before we talk about foil hats, lets try to deal with facts. What is your source?
Can you identify any skimmers that are separating out oil and discharging water?
I have seen lots of photos of small boats towing booms but am unaware of them collecting oiled water, separating then discharging the water.
Regards,

 

[Genesis]

There was a waiver given for some of the smaller vessels that required they modify their discharge piping to be in front of the intakes.

This won't work for the big vessels for obvious reasons (the intakes are on the hull itself, not on extended booms among other things.)

EPA regs (in this case The Federal Water Pollution Control Act) are not "tinfoil" they are fact. To violate the no-discharge LAWS you need an explicit waiver or you are subject to citation and/or arrest.

You have an oil placard on your boat right? It means what it says, and whether the original source of the oil was the water itself is immaterial.

Costner's devices likewise required a waiver (and that he was delayed in getting one is a documented fact) for the same reason - while the centrifuges kept something like 99% of the oil on board the fact that any could be discharged in the filtered water was enough to require a formal legal waiver from the EPA under that act.

You'd think the law would read that discharge of any oil not originally present in the intake seawater would be prohibited. You'd be wrong; the law in fact reads that discharge of any petroleum product is prohibited; there is no exception for re-emitting a small amount of the petroleum product you just sucked up five minutes earlier while skimming off oil from the surface - unless you have a waiver.

 

[Vincentc]

In further response I took a few minutes to check the EPA site and a couple of Wall Street Journal articles. Excerpts below:

§110.3 Discharge of oil in such quantities as "may be harmful" pursuant to section 311(b)(4) of the Act.
For purposes of section 311(b)(4) of the Act, discharges of oil in such quantities that the Administrator has determined may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment of the United States include discharges of oil that:
(a) Violate applicable water quality standards; or
(b) Cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines. [61 FR 7421, Feb. 28, 1996]
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/sheenovr.htm

Unlike smaller skimming boats—mostly converted fishing boats—that bring the oily water back to shore for disposal, the A Whale is designed to separate oil from the water and then discharge cleansed water back into the sea. The vessel could collect some 500,000 barrels of oily water a day.
EPA guidelines require that the discharged water contain no more than 15 parts per million of oil—a difficult standard to meet, said Prof. Overton. The federal on-scene coordinator can exempt the discharge from the Clean Water Act standard.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704699604575343230185357188.html



By PAUL H. RUBIN

Destin, Fla.
As the oil spill continues and the cleanup lags, we must begin to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions. There does not seem to be much that anyone can do to stop the spill except dig a relief well, not due until August. But the cleanup is a different story. The press and Internet are full of straightforward suggestions for easy ways of improving the cleanup, but the federal government is resisting these remedies.
First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time.
Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations

Mr. Rubin, a professor of economics at Emory University, held several senior positions in the federal government in the 1980s. Since 1991 he has spent his summers on the Gulf.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575339650877298556.html

George, can you site any references in support of your assertions?

 

[rhprop]

GJH

Before you blow off again, you may want to at least use a bit of intellectual effort to do some quick research. Just Google " epa approval of oil skimmer " . You will find enough links to keep you busy for the rest of the night. Even that " right wing " news outlet, Huffington Post has the following article huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/03/a-whale-worlds-largest-oi_n_634900.html

rhprop

" Slow Dancer "

 

[DeeRow]

Can a president waive the law of the land?
If he could, would a president ever be impeached?

If the Jones Act is not applicable to ships operating offshore, are EPA regulations applicable offshore?

It is frustrating that more is not being done.

Mark

 

[Genesis]

Federal Clean Water regulations are applicable to all vessels in the US EEZ, defined as 200nm from shore.

If you wish to argue that it's REASONABLE that a ship that can hold 90+% of the oil it skims should be prohibited from operating, go right ahead. That's what you're arguing for if you are arguing AGAINST an immediate waiver.

And incidentally, the EPA's head is an Executive Appointee that could be immediately FIRED if she refused to provide said waiver.

 

[oldawg]

Can a president waive the law of the land?
If he could, would a president ever be impeached?

If the Jones Act is not applicable to ships operating offshore, are EPA regulations applicable offshore?

It is frustrating that more is not being done.

Mark

I believe there is some difference. One could aruge that if the skimmers touch port (before also touching a foreign port) the Jones Act provisions could apply. Waiver of Jones Act probably requires congressional action. EPA regulations are not law per se and could possibly be changed/waived without specific legislative action. In either case it is difficult to see how it wouldn't get the support of congress if the President proposed the waiver actions. It seems to me both things are not getting done because the President either "actively" doesn't want them done or doesn't care. Hard for me to come up with any other explanation.

 

[Canuck Dennis]

When I investigated the Jones act, as a charter operator in Canada, west Coast, I had written confirmation that , "trading from port to port in US waters was illegal for foreign flagged vessels", however I could enter the US with an empty conveyance, pick up passengers at a port and then depart the Country without stopping at a US port. I could also pick up in US port, have the majority of the charter take place in foreign waters with proof of foreign port entry, then return to the US port and disembark passengers. There has been some relief granted to the foreign registered cruise liners if they agree to carry out maintenance work at a US port, Vancouver was taking too much business from Seattle so they modified the act to suit.

 

[BlackPearl36c]

I know alot of the reason there is a lack of skimmers is due to

A) they are building fleets of them as we speak.

B) they are trying to employ and train all the captains and crew that were put out of work from fishing vessels.

C) they were manufacturing the seperator device that Kevin Costner designed google it its pretty cool.

D) every fishing guy with a boat is trying to become a skimmer right now and get contracts with the Gov. however insurance is almost impossible to obtain, I am currently working on a policy for a fleet of 150 custom built skimmer tankers and the insurance carriers dont want anything to do with it even though the premium is going to be close to half a million per year.

 

[Walter P]

Re: Genesis post #5...

"in short we have idiots in our government"

Says it all. Sad but true, had they let the skimmers in right at the start, I doubt if Pensacola would have any tar balls on the beach today. The problem is that while it's difficult to get rid of elected idiots, it's almost impossible to get rid of appointed idiots. Most (or at least a good percentage) of these so called gov't "experts" wouldn't be able to hold a job in the private sector. Businesses require a prime ingredient in their employees - common sense.

Walt

 

[GJH]

GJH

Before you blow off again, you may want to at least use a bit of intellectual effort to do some quick research. Just Google " epa approval of oil skimmer " . You will find enough links to keep you busy for the rest of the night. Even that " right wing " news outlet, Huffington Post has the following article huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/03/a-whale-worlds-largest-oi_n_634900.html

rhprop

" Slow Dancer "

Yes, I did and I suggest you do the same and actually read them. All blogs and conspiracy theory type sites. Nothing from any reputable source... why, because it was not true. Just because gov agencies eff things up on a regular basis doesn't mean that every theory of further f'ing up is by default true. Yet people just love to believe those things that support their political or world view, critical thinking be damned!

I am as mad at the gov and all involved in this disaster as anyone; we love the Gulf and some of our happiest boating and fishing has taken place on it. I want the facts. There are plenty of them involved we don't have to make up stuff and spend useless time analysing it.

 

[Vincentc]

George,
I posted facts, with no reference to any "conspiracy theory".

My conversation was with a vice president of a major shipbuilder on the Gulf Coast. I can find nothing in any of the posts between my first post and yours, which mention a conspiracy.

Yet you state:

"Other than the amongst the tin foil hat crowd, there is no evidence that the EPA has anything to do with "approving" the skimmer.. . . I think someone came up with a regulation and then ran with a theory from there; ... people will then believe what they want to believe, much easier than trying to get facts!

"This is one of those apocryphal tales that the paranoids love to proliferate because it fits whatever other agenda they have. ...witness some of the unsubstantiated goof ball conspiracy theories about Katrina and 9/11.
. . .

Rather than make insulting and simply false conspiracy accusations, would you please respond to the facts as I stated them, and if you have facts to the contrary, please present them and provide credible sources as I did. Name calling contributes nothing to this forum, nor to a better understanding of this serious situation.

Sincerely,