Well this happens. Most emergency response people are very reluctant to get
involved with a clean-up unless they can clearly identify who caused the
problem. It does not cost them anything to look at it but if they start to
clean it up then they are now responsible and if they can't recover the
costs (generally in court) they get the bill.

mark

rock_doctor wrote:

Well this happens. Most emergency response people are very reluctant to get
involved with a clean-up unless they can clearly identify who caused the
problem. It does not cost them anything to look at it but if they start to
clean it up then they are now responsible and if they can't recover the
costs (generally in court) they get the bill.

That is not quite how it works. The federal agency involved in
coordinating the cleanup (it is in navigable waters) is empowered to
call in all the contractors required to deal with the incident. The
cleanup fund covers all the costs and the government deals with the
details of who to sue for recovery after the dust settles.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was setup to avoid just the scenario
you described.

Take a look at:

http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfun.../lgr/index.htm

and

http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfun...nrs/nrsosc.htm

Rick

Please note, petroleum products are not considered hazardous substances, and are
not eligible for this program (Click "eligibility" on the reimbursement web
page.) All the other web pages refer to "oil spills and hazardous substance
releases." For political/economic reasons petroleum products are not defined as
"hazardous substances."

Rick wrote:

rock_doctor wrote:

Well this happens. Most emergency response people are very reluctant to get
involved with a clean-up unless they can clearly identify who caused the
problem. It does not cost them anything to look at it but if they start to
clean it up then they are now responsible and if they can't recover the
costs (generally in court) they get the bill.

That is not quite how it works. The federal agency involved in
coordinating the cleanup (it is in navigable waters) is empowered to
call in all the contractors required to deal with the incident. The
cleanup fund covers all the costs and the government deals with the
details of who to sue for recovery after the dust settles.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was setup to avoid just the scenario
you described.

Take a look at:

http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfun.../lgr/index.htm

and

http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfun...nrs/nrsosc.htm

Rick

wrote:

Please note, petroleum products are not considered hazardous substances, and are
not eligible for this program ...

That will come as a shock to the EPA, the USCG, and a whole stack of oil
cleanup contractors in addition to all those who have been paying into
the fund.

I don't know what you missed but read this:

http://www.rivermedia.com/consulting/er/oilfund.htm


Rick

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 02:54:21 GMT, Rick
wrote:

wrote:

Please note, petroleum products are not considered hazardous substances, and are
not eligible for this program ...

That will come as a shock to the EPA, the USCG, and a whole stack of oil
cleanup contractors in addition to all those who have been paying into
the fund.

It also comes as quite a shock to the Fiddler Crabs, too!



Larry W4CSC

"Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"

x-no-archive:yes wrote:

Please note, petroleum products are not considered hazardous substances, and are
not eligible for this program (Click "eligibility" on the reimbursement web
page.) All the other web pages refer to "oil spills and hazardous substance
releases." For political/economic reasons petroleum products are not defined as
"hazardous substances."

The reason that they are not coded as hazardous is that if they were
everyone would have to have a hazardous permit to drive their cars.
Also the folks that recycle the oil used in cars would have to have a
hazardous waste permit to collect it and drive it to the disposal
site. If they had to do that, they might not be willing to act as a
collection site. If there are no collection sites, then people will
go back to dumping the used oil in the storm drains.

Classifying something has hazardous or non-hazardous doesn't always
have a lot to do with whether it actually IS hazardous. If you look
at some pesticides they will list the ingredients and then say - 98%
inert. That's because the labeling of pesticides is covered under
FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) which says
that anything that's not an insecticide or whatever doesn't count. So
you have butane or propane propellant or methylene chloride as a
carrier and they are labeled inert.

Rick wrote:

rock_doctor wrote:

Well this happens. Most emergency response people are very reluctant to get
involved with a clean-up unless they can clearly identify who caused the
problem. It does not cost them anything to look at it but if they start to
clean it up then they are now responsible and if they can't recover the
costs (generally in court) they get the bill.

That is not quite how it works. The federal agency involved in
coordinating the cleanup (it is in navigable waters) is empowered to
call in all the contractors required to deal with the incident. The
cleanup fund covers all the costs and the government deals with the
details of who to sue for recovery after the dust settles.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was setup to avoid just the scenario
you described.

Take a look at:

http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfun.../lgr/index.htm

and

http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfun...nrs/nrsosc.htm

Rick

grandma Rosalie

I would have thought the proper response to the leaking boat the FIRST
time it was discovered to pollute the river, several times ago, would
have been to simply put a big sheet of plastic UNDER the boat
suspended on its lift that would catch any oil dripping or drizzling
from it and order the owner to get a mechanic to fix it. Then, once
fixed, the "plastic inspector" would come inspect that, in fact, the
damned leak had been fixed before removing the plastic catcher from
the boat and allowing it to be freed up, again........in lieu of the
lawyers and court and fines and that stuff....solving the problem on a
more permanent basis.

Refusing that in, say, 10 days, CG should have confiscated the boat to
pay for the cleanup contractor, also solving the problem.....and
giving its owner incentive to get that mechanic down here, TODAY.

Silly me. I thought someone cared about the environment. I confused
them with people trying to protect the sun from my old R-12 air
conditioner in the '73 Mercedes 220D.



Larry W4CSC

"Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"

Larry W4CSC wrote:

I would have thought the proper response to the leaking boat the FIRST
time it was discovered to pollute the river, several times ago, would
have been to simply put a big sheet of plastic UNDER the boat
suspended on its lift that would catch any oil dripping or drizzling
from it and order the owner to get a mechanic to fix it.

Kind of tough with a 130 foot crabber.

Silly me. I thought someone cared about the environment.

It does seem to be a variable ethic. I have seen the oil spill nazis go
berserk at the Valdez oil terminal when, literally, a single drop of
hydraulic oil from an assist tug created a tiny circle of sheen on
mirror calm water alongside the dock.

At the same time the water at the city dock across the way was literally
rainbowed with bilge oil and runoff from hydraulic leaks on the
recreational and fishing boats. Not a soul was bothered by the sheen on
the water in that area.

I am not a tree hugging anti oil, anti boating, luddite environmentalist
by any means but I would like to see some balance in how the pollution
nazis respond. On ships we are getting gray hair worrying about losing
our licenses or getting jailed over putting a half ounce in the water
due to an accident or mechanical failure while thousands of little
one-gallon spills that are not newsworthy enough to attract politicians
and ecofascists are simply ignored as were the spills you and I described.

Part of the problem is the insane position taken by the enforcers. They
say "spill a drop and die - fail to report a spill and rot in jail -
report a spill and lose your job or go bankrupt - all the while they
will not provide places to easily dispose of oil waste, do not respond
to small spills at all, or when they do show up, automatically assume a
cop/criminal relationship no matter what the circumstance of the spill.

It has made for an adversarial relationship between those who might
however innocently put oil in the water and those in a position to
quickly and economically remove that oil. People are afraid to call for
help for fear of financial disaster ... who wants to lose their house or
be fined tens of thousands of dollars for a single stupid mistake? No
one does and that translates into thousands of small spills that go
unreported and untreated. I believe those spills are cumulatively more
dangerous and do more damage to the environment than most of the spills
that are large enough to attract news cameras and politicians.

Rick