The Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament sat recently and as we reported on oil leaks they agreed to write to the Scottish Government (again). They also asked SEPA, SNH, MCA and the Scottish Government for responses to our petition. This time SEPA’s response:
PE1637/B
SUBMISSION FROM SEPA
Thank you for seeking the views of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on the matter of ship to ship transfers of crude oil in Scotland.
SEPA has no direct regulatory role in relation to ship to ship transfers of oil. SEPA does not authorise discharges from vessels in coastal or transitional waters. These are controlled by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (as set out in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995) and are not covered by the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR).
Although SEPA does not authorise any of the activities directly, we work closely with other organisations to ensure that sufficient consideration is given to the risks associated with these activities and that appropriate planning is carried out and contingency steps put in place. SEPA provides advice and support as a consultee to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Marine Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage who are the lead organisations in these matters. Our role would be to provide advice where SEPA have expertise so that activities are compatible with EU Water Framework Directive and other relevant legislation, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
SEPA has previously responded to individual consultation requests and provided specific advice regarding ship to ship oil transfers including the Cromarty Firth proposal. In that response (attached) we highlighted concerns in relation to the risks associated with the emissions into the atmosphere, oil spill contingency planning and ballast water and marine non-native species controls. The relevant points raised in the Cromarty Rising submission to SEPA are already covered in that response.
SEPA believes that sustainable development should be within the environment’s capacity and ship-to-ship transfers of oil in any environment should be rigorously assessed for that particular environment’s sensitivities. The environmental risk and issues must be considered as part the environmental assessment undertaken through the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010 (as amended).
To comply with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 the harbour authority must determine “whether the cargo transfers to be authorised pursuant to the licence would be likely to have significant effect on any European site” in accordance with Schedule 1 of Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010 (as amended).
Schedule 2 of the regulations requires that an environmental statement be submitted containing a description of the “environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed cargo transfers”, including measures to prevent or reduce, and where possible offset any significant effects. The regulations also require an outline of main alternatives to be considered, taking into account the environmental effects of those alternatives.
SEPA considers the scope of the legislation should be sufficient where the competent authority is mindful of the standards set by Scottish domestic legislation and Scottish regional policies as well as the concerns raised by the responsible conservation and environmental agencies. Decisions related to ship to ship transfers are subject to the objectives and policies set out in Scotland’s National Marine Plan which includes ballast water management and the risk of transferring non-native species. In relation to invasive non-native species, chapter eight of the River Basin Management Plan for Scotland states that the Scottish Government, SEPA, responsible authorities and other public bodies will work “with government administrations across the UK to ensure action is taken to reduce the risk of introductions via ship ballast water in line with protocols established by the International Maritime Organisation.”
I do not feel that SEPA can provide any useful comments on the accountability of trust port boards to their stakeholders.
RESPONSE TO CROMARTY FIRTH PROPOSAL
Thank you for the consultation for the Ship to Ship transfer licence for the Cromarty Firth Port Authority.
In drafting this response SEPA looked at the potential releases to the environment and their consequences. The Cromarty Firth application largely covers environmental issues well and we will only comment where concerns have been highlighted.
SEPA also note there are a great many designated sites in the area. Scottish Natural Heritage, (SNH), are the lead authority on designated sites and SEPA will generally not comment on potential impacts on particular sites or protected species.
SEPA also received the enclosed submission from concerned members of the public in the Cromarty area. The document does appear to raise some pertinent questions. Rather than extract individual paragraphs I have forwarded the whole document for your attention. The Author of the document would appear to have relevant experience within the industry that he has been able to draw upon. The Port Authority may be able to offer re-assurance or clarification on the points raised within.
Emissions to Atmosphere
As highlighted in the consultation, crude oil is variable in nature consisting of a variety of hydrocarbons and impurities with varying chemical and physical properties. Some crude oils contain hydrocarbons that are readily volatised into gaseous form. The release of Volatile Organic Carbons, (VOC’s) and Hydrogen Sulphide, (H2S), into atmosphere is undesirable in terms of climate change effects, risk of ignition and local air quality and should be minimised wherever possible. Fortunately, the properties of crude oil transferred are normally well documented and understood. Therefore, an informed decision can be made on whether a cargo is likely to present a VOC’s release risk. SEPA would recommend that only tankers with VOC recovery systems are used where there is a risk of VOC or H2S release from the cargo transfer. We also note similar concerns raised by the author of the enclosed submission.
Oil Spill Planning
Oil spill contingency plans are an important part of the strategy for dealing with an accidental release of cargo from a ship to ship transfer. SEPA note the Port Authority’s strong track record in prevention of oil spills although it would appear that these are related to dockside transfers rather than open sea ship to ship transfers. Open sea transfers would seem to present more risk and greater difficulty in containing any oil spillage. Oil spill prevention is essential in a sensitive area such as the Cromarty Firth. We also note the sites are quite exposed to some wind directions and therefore prevention measures need to be robust. SEPA raise the following points and concerns;
- There are doubts raised on whether a 1 tonne release of oil is a realistic scenario as tanker transfer pumps could not be switched off immediately but would require to be gradually slowed down for safety reasons. With quoted pump rates of 2 tonnes per second it is likely that more than a 1 tonne spill is probably. The Author of the submission document and the figures presented would seem to indicate that a 10-75 tonne spillage is more likely if a hose connection were to de-couple or fail. The Port Authority should provide some clarification and re-examine the risks posed by a much larger spill.
- SEPA noted that modelling was conducted using high tide as a starting point. Whilst we understand the reasons given for this we also think these models would have the effect of keeping an oil spill out of the Cromarty Firth area, as the falling tide would push water out of the area. It would seem appropriate to have run some models based on an incoming tide when oil would be swept in. This would also be applicable to the modelling of ballast water discharges, as none of the models show oil spill or ballast entering the Cromarty Firth area.
- The Author of the public submission, indicates that the applicant should be considering oil spills of 300 tonnes as the worst case scenario as this is a requirement of the STS regulations. Some clarification on this point would be useful.
- There are doubts cast on the suitability, quantity and availability of oil recovery equipment in this open sea environment. SEPA recommend that this is reviewed to ensure it is adequate for offshore conditions and fit for purpose for realistic oil spill scenarios.
- SEPA note that two oil storage facilities are identified at Sureclean and MSIS which could be called upon for the storage of oil contaminated wastes after a spill event. It is not clear however what capacities these facilities have and how this might compare with the quantity of oil contaminated material that might arise in the worst case spill. Information on the likely storage capacity available is important and should be included in this assessment.
- SEPA note the reliance on the paragraph 41 waste management exemption for temporary storage of recovered beached oil. An adequate stock of suitable, impermeable containment for oil contaminated material must available for deployment should this be required. The containment could be held by a third part vendor but should be available at reasonably short notice.
- We note the contingency measures for oil spill, it was stated that the contents of Fin fish farms could be moved. Marine Scotland and SEPA licence these activities. Whilst movement could be done in an emergency it is highly unlikely this could be achieved in a timescale that would avoid an oil pollution event, the practicality of this contingency measures should be reviewed. In the event of an incident which resulted in contamination of a farm the costs are likely to be significant.
- A large oil spill in the designated area may have potentially serious consequences for sensitive habitats, nationally important species and economic activities in the area that depend upon the water environment. The costs involved in mitigation, clean up, habitat recovery and compensation could be huge. A contingency plan for covering the cost of such an incident should be developed.
Ballast Water and Marine Invasive Non-Native Species
SEPA would make the following recommendations to minimise the risks posed by Invasive Non Native Species. As eluded in the application an invasive non-native species could affect the status of the waterbody under the Water Framework Directive, (WFD). WFD states there should be no deterioration in water quality classification. The Cromarty Firth itself was classified as Good in 2014.
- SEPA welcome the undertaking that ballast water discharges would be only to IMO standards. SEPA recommend that where D-2 compliant treatment systems are available these must be used. The D-2 standard offers a much higher level of protection from biological species than D-1. Whilst this doesn’t eliminate risks to the receiving environment, it does substantially reduce the likelihood of a release.
- The Port Authority should develop a biosecurity plan. Advice on this can be obtained from the UK Marine Pathways Partnership using HACCIP methods (http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1294630.pdf).
- The Port Authority should familiarise themselves with other biosecurity plans in particular the Shetland marine plan, where a risk analysis of ship movements revealed the most risky areas for biosecurity measures to be actioned.
- The Port Authority should set up a monitoring strategy for areas of ballast water discharge so that rapid response measures can be enacted before any accidental spread. Orkney Islands Council conducts such surveillance for example. Since surveillance started it is interesting to note that several non-native species have been identified including those which experts think are likely to have been transported in ballast water.
- The Port Authority should investigate and cost out mitigation measures in case of NNS arrival. Measures such as cleaning or dropping moorings to suffocate any NNS.
- The Port Authority should consider open communications with all marine users on biosecurity, including publication of surveillance results.
SEPA object to the granting of a Ship to Ship transfer licence until the highlighted concerns are addressed.
We would of course be happy to enter into further dialogue on these matters.
