Effective Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC)
• Established following the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (Exxon Valdez incident)
• Quantifies the amount of pollution equipment
needed by plan holders for an effective
response to oil spills, including Worst Case
Discharge (WCD) scenarios
• Method of calculation (formula) is described
in 33 CFR 154 / 155
Effective Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC)
R = T x 24 hours x E
R = EDRC
T = Throughput rate in barrels per hour
(nameplate capacity)
E = 20 percent Efficiency factor (or lower factor
as determined by Coast Guard)
Alternate Method
• Approved method under regulations
• ASTM Standard F631, or
Verified actual spill performance data
• Calculates lower recovery capacity than EDRC
• Not used in calculations by most plan holders
What does EDRC account for?
• Weather
• Sea State
• Daily operating period
What does EDRC not account for?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Encounter rate
Oil type & thickness
Emulsification
Location of spill (offshore, inshore, inland)
Storage capacity
Skimmer operator proficiency (human factor)
Impact of dispersants on oil recoverability
Factors Affecting Skimming Efficiency
Human Factors
Weather, Geography
& Ocean Characteristics
Storage Capacity
Weathering
Skimming
Efficiency
Weathering
Detection
Oil
Characteristics
Chemical Dispersion
Credit: NASA
Encounter Rates
EDRC during Deepwater Horizon
• The EDRC on-scene during this incident far
exceeded BP’s Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP)
requirements
• At height of incident, EDRC on-scene was
equivalent to almost 2X the Worst Case
Discharge for the Macando Well
• Estimated only 3% of total amount of oil
released was mechanically recovered
DWH Reports on EDRC
National Commission report
• Coast Guard should revise EDRC to encourage
development of more efficient systems
ISPR Report
• EDRC on-scene far exceeded plan requirements, yet
mechanical recovery accounted for small amount
• EDRC should incorporate offshore limitations such as
encounter rate
• Regulations should encourage R&D of more effective
skimmer systems
EDRC Workshop at IOSC 2011
• Sponsored by USCG, BSEE, & API
• Attendance from representatives from the
oil spill response community
• Presentations followed by facilitated
discussion
IOSC 2011 – Federal Govt perspective
• We need to create incentives that allow the
government & industry to find ways to develop
more effective systems
• We need to better align planning standards with
actual performance
• We should consider different approaches for
different operating environments
• Regulations over-emphasize pump capacity &
neglect other parts of skimming systems
IOSC 2011 – Oil Industry perspective
• Statistics from DWH do not represent the whole
picture for mechanical recovery
• Industry has embraced DWH lessons learned &
is looking at ways to improve encounter rate
• We need to rely on all our response tools in the
offshore environment (dispersants, in-situ burn)
• Focus on a systems approach; must include
well-maintained equipment & trained personnel
IOSC 2011 – Shipping Industry perspective
• Public & Congress expects industry to improve
every time we respond
• OPA 90 is sound; there is no need to make
significant changes post-DWH
• Big differences between OPA 90 & DWH
• We need to embrace our existing regulatory
framework & build upon our successes
IOSC 2011 - OSRO Community perspective
• Planning measure estimate for oil recovery
• Fundamentally sound concept but open to enhancement
• Fundamental to Response Plan Holders and their
contracted OSROs
– Drives capital investment and inventory needs
– Provides broad framework for comparison and measurement
for Plan adequacy
• Performance dictated by numerous external factors and
not intended to be directly correlated to the planning
standard
IOSC 2011 - OSRO Community perspective
• Safe, Realistic, Achievable, Reliable criteria
• Broader “System” approach with oil recovery device
EDRC as only part of the solution
• ASTM F1780 - 97(2010) Standard Guide for Estimating
Oil Spill Recovery System Effectiveness
• Enhanced communication and education when we
greatly increase EDRC during large incident
• More Industry and Government sponsored R&D
Potential Courses of Action
• Making improvements & adjusting “E”
• Identifying different site specific “E”s
• Create a new model based on NOAAs
mechanical equipment calculation model
• Adopt another country’s system (i.e. Norway)
• Adopt an improved ASTM standard with a new
efficiency factor
Way Forward
• USCG & BSEE have initiated an independent,
3rd party research contract w/ GENWEST
• Agencies will review final report and
determine a way forward to address this issue