Task Force On Carbon Capture & Storage Recommendations

Aug 12: President Obama's Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), co-chaired by the U.S. EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE), delivered a series of recommendations to the President today (August 12) on overcoming the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years. CCS is a group of technologies for capturing, compressing, transporting and permanently storing power plant and industrial source emissions of carbon dioxide. Rapid development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS), will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race. The report concludes that CCS can play an important role in domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions while preserving the option of using coal and other abundant domestic fossil energy resources.

    In February 2010, the President charged the task force with proposing a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage within 10 years, with a goal of bringing five to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016 [See WIMS 2/4/10]. The Task Force announcement follows the August 6 announcement from DOE on the $1 billion award toward the FutureGen 2.0, a clean coal repowering program and carbon dioxide (CO2) storage network -- the world's first, commercial-scale, oxy-combustion power plant [See WIMS 8/6/10].

    In a release from EPA & DOE the agencies said charting the path toward clean coal is essential to achieving the administration's clean energy goals, supporting American jobs and reducing emissions of carbon pollution. Already, the United States has made the largest government investment in carbon capture and storage of any nation in history, and these investments are being matched by private capital. DOE is currently pursuing multiple demonstration projects using close to $4 billion in Federal funds, matched by more than $7 billion in private investments, which will begin to pave the way for widespread deployment of advanced CCS technologies within a decade. Ongoing EPA efforts will clarify the existing regulatory framework by developing requirements tailored for CCS, which will reduce uncertainty for early projects and help to ensure safe and effective deployment.

    President Obama told the nation's governors when establishing the task force, "If we can develop the technology to capture the carbon pollution released by coal, it can create jobs and provide energy well into the future." EPA Administrator Jackson commented on the Task Force report and said, "These recommendations mark an important step forward in combating climate change and strengthening our economy through green jobs -- top priorities for this administration. Consistent with these recommendations, EPA is proactively developing regulations tailored to carbon storage technology that will reduce uncertainty for early projects and help to ensure safe and effective use of the technology. By encouraging efforts to develop clean coal technology we will obtain new tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, and make our nation more competitive in the global race for clean energy technology."

    DOE Secretary Chu said, "Around the world countries are moving aggressively on investing in clean energy. The U.S. has the ability to develop clean energy innovation here at home. Rather than sending billions overseas to pay for clean technologies, we should invest these dollars here -- in America's workers, industries, and innovations."

    Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) said, "A diversified energy portfolio, which includes coal, is important for a strong 21st century American economy. These recommendations move us toward bringing safe and deployable CCS technologies to the marketplace to help us meet the goal of reducing harmful carbon emissions while continuing to use this energy source."

 

    The report reflects input from 14 Federal agencies and departments as well as hundreds of stakeholders and CCS experts. It addresses the incentives for CCS adoption and any financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional, or other barriers to deployment. The Task Force also considered how best to coordinate existing Federal authorities and programs, as well as identify areas where additional federal authority may be necessary. The report's main findings and recommendations include:

• CCS is Viable: There are no insurmountable technical, legal, institutional, or other barriers to the deployment of this technology.
• A Carbon Price is Critical: Widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS is best achieved with a carbon price, but there are market drivers and actions that can and are taking place now, which are essential to support near-term CCS demonstration projects that will pave the way for broader deployment after a carbon price is in place.
• Federal Coordination should be Strengthened: With additional Federal actions and coordination, the Task Force believes the nation can meet the President's near-term goal and get 5-10 commercial demonstration CCS demonstration projects online by 2016. The report recommends the creation of a standing Federal agency roundtable and expert committee to facilitate that goal.
• Recommendations on Liability: The Task Force conducted an in-depth analysis of options to address concerns that long-term liability could be a barrier to CCS deployment. It concluded that open-ended Federal indemnification is not a viable alternative but that four approaches merit further consideration: relying on existing frameworks, limits on claims, a trust fund, and transfer of liability to the Federal government (with contingencies). Efforts to improve long-term liability and stewardship frameworks led by EPA, DOE and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will continue in order to provide evaluation and recommendations in these areas by late 2011.

    Additional recommendations include setting up an effort by DOE and EPA -- in consultation with other agencies -- to track regulatory implementation for early commercial CCS demonstration projects and consider whether additional statutory revisions are needed. The report also encourages leveraging existing efforts among Federal agencies, states, industry, and NGOs to gather information and evaluate potential key concerns about CCS in different areas of the United States and develop a comprehensive outreach strategy that would include: (1) a broad plan for public outreach targeted at the general public and decision makers; and (2) a more focused engagement with communities that are candidates for CCS projects, to address such issues as environmental justice.

    The agencies said many experts consider CCS an important option as part of a portfolio of strategies -- including increased efficiency and greater use of low-carbon energy resources -- to help mitigate growing atmospheric CO2 emissions from human sources. It can play a major role in reducing GHG emissions globally. However, widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will occur only if the technology is commercially available at economically competitive prices and supportive national policy frameworks, such as a cap on carbon pollution, are in place. The administration's policy and technology initiatives are intended to address these needs.

    Access a release from the agencies (click here). Access the full report, the presidential memorandum, a fact sheet, an FAQ document, and executive summary (click here); or (click here). [*Energy/Coal; *Climate]

---

EPA Proposed Rules For GHG Emissions Permitting - Aug 12: U.S. EPA is proposing two rules to ensure that businesses planning to build new, large facilities or make major expansions to existing ones will be able to obtain Clean Air Act (CAA) permits that address their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the spring of 2010, EPA finalized the GHG Tailoring Rule [See WIMS 5/14/10], which specifies that beginning in 2011, projects that will increase GHG emissions substantially will require an air permit. EPA said, "Today's rules will help ensure that these sources will be able to get those permits regardless of where they are located."

    According to a release, the Tailoring Rule covers large industrial facilities like power plants and oil refineries that are responsible for 70 percent of the GHGs from stationary sources. The new proposals announced today are a critical component for implementing the Tailoring Rule and would ensure that GHG emissions from these large facilities are minimized in all 50 states and that local economies can continue to grow. The Clean Air Act requires states to develop EPA-approved implementation plans that include requirements for issuing air permits. When Federal permitting requirements change, as they did after EPA finalized the GHG Tailoring Rule, states may need to modify these plans.

    In the first rule, EPA said it is proposing to require permitting programs in 13 states to make changes to their implementation plans to ensure that GHG emissions will be covered. All other states that implement an EPA-approved air permitting program must review their existing permitting authority and inform EPA if their programs do not address GHG emissions. The 13 specified states and substate areas are: Alaska; Arizona: Pinal County; Rest of Arizona (Excludes Maricopa County, Pima County, and Indian Country); Arkansas; California: Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD; Connecticut; Florida; Idaho; Kansas; Kentucky: Jefferson County; Rest of Kentucky; Nebraska: Lincoln Lancaster; Omaha; Rest of Nebraska; Nevada: Clark County; Oregon; and Texas.

    Because some states may not be able to develop and submit revisions to their plans before the Tailoring Rule becomes effective in 2011, in the second rule, EPA is proposing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), which would allow EPA to issue permits for large GHG emitters located in these states. This would be a temporary measure that is in place until the state can revise its own plan and resume responsibility for GHG permitting. 

    EPA said, states are best-suited to issue permits to sources of GHG emissions and have long-standing experience working together with industrial facilities. EPA will work closely and promptly with states to help them develop, submit, and approve necessary revisions to enable the affected states to issue air permits to GHG-emitting sources. Additionally, EPA will continue to provide guidance and act as a resource for the states as they make the various required permitting decisions for GHG emissions.

    EPA will accept comment on the first proposal for updated state implementation plans for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA has scheduled a hearing on the second proposal for the FIP on August 25, 2010, and will accept comment for 30 days after that hearing. The Agency is working to finalize these rules prior to January 2, 2011, the earliest GHG permitting requirements will be effective.

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access links to the proposed rules, fact sheet and notice of hearing (click here).

GAO Report Calls For E-Waste Legislation & Improved Partnerships

Aug 11: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Electronic Waste: Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound Reuse and Recycling (GAO-10-626,  July 12, 2010). The report was requested by Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) the Chair of the House Science & Technology Committee.  

 

    According to GAO, low recycling rates for used televisions, computers, and other electronics result in the loss of valuable resources, and electronic waste exports risk harming human health and the environment in countries that lack safe recycling and disposal capacity. The U.S. EPA regulates the management of used electronics that qualify as hazardous waste and promotes voluntary efforts among electronics manufacturers, recyclers, and other stakeholders. However, in the absence of a comprehensive national approach, a growing number of states have enacted electronics recycling laws, raising concerns about a patchwork of state requirements. In this context, GAO examined (1) EPA's efforts to facilitate environmentally sound used electronics management, (2) the views of various stakeholders on the state-by-state approach, and (3) considerations to further promote environmentally sound management. GAO reviewed EPA documents, interviewed EPA officials, and interviewed stakeholders in five states with electronics recycling legislation.

 

    GAO indicates that it found EPA's efforts to facilitate the environmentally sound management of used electronics consist largely of (1) enforcing its rule for the recycling and exporting of cathode-ray tubes (CRT), which contain significant quantities of lead, and (2) an array of partnership programs that encourage voluntary efforts among manufacturers and other stakeholders. GAO said that EPA has improved enforcement of export provisions of its CRT rule, but issues related to exports remain. In particular, EPA does not specifically regulate the export of many other electronic devices, such as cell phones, which typically are not within the regulatory definition of hazardous waste despite containing some toxic substances. In addition, the impact of EPA's partnership programs is limited or uncertain, and EPA has not systematically analyzed the programs to determine how their impact could be augmented.

 

    The views of stakeholders on the state-by-state approach to managing used electronics have been shaped by the increasing number of states with electronics recycling legislation. To varying degrees, the entities typically regulated under the state laws -- electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers -- consider the increasing number of state laws to be a compliance burden. In contrast, in the five states GAO visited (California, Maine, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington), state and local solid waste management officials expressed overall support for states taking a lead role in the absence of a national approach. The officials attributed their varying levels of satisfaction more to the design and implementation of individual state recycling programs, rather than to the state-by-state approach.

 

    Options to further promote the environmentally sound management of used electronics involve a number of policy considerations and encompass many variations, which generally range from a continued reliance on state recycling programs to the establishment of Federal standards via legislation. The first approach provides the greatest degree of flexibility to states but does not address stakeholder concerns that the state-by-state approach is a compliance burden or will leave some states without electronics recycling programs. Moreover, EPA does not have a plan for coordinating its efforts with state recycling programs or articulating how EPA's partnership programs can best assist stakeholders to achieve the environmentally sound management of used electronics.

 

    Under the second approach, a primary policy issue is the degree to which federal standards would allow for stricter state standards, thereby providing states with flexibility but also potentially worsening the compliance burden from the standpoint of regulated entities. As a component of any approach, a greater Federal regulatory role over exports could address limitations on the authority of states to regulate exports. GAO previously recommended that EPA submit to Congress a legislative proposal for ratification of the Basel Convention, a multilateral environmental agreement that aims to protect against the adverse effects resulting from transboundary movements of hazardous waste. EPA officials told GAO that the agency had developed a legislative proposal under previous administrations but had not finalized a proposal with other Federal agencies.

 

    GAO recommended that the Administrator, EPA, (1) examine how EPA's partnership programs could be improved to contribute more effectively to used electronics management; and (2) work with other Federal agencies to finalize a legislative proposal on ratification of the Basel Convention for congressional consideration. GAO indicated that EPA agreed with the recommendations.

 

    WIMS has previously reported on the competing electronic waste recycling programs of the Basel Action Network (BAN) and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) [See WIMS 4/16/10]. The GAO report acknowledges these programs and discusses them somewhat; however, it does not seem to reflect the depth of difference between the programs and various interest groups reactions to those differences.

 

    The Basel Action Network (BAN), the group that first documented the dumping of toxic electronic waste in China and Africa, announced the official launch of what it said was "the world's first global e-waste recycler certification" on April 15, 2010. BAN also indicated its program was the first such program backed by environmental organizations and major corporations alike. The accredited, third-party audited certification program has been endorsed by Greenpeace USA, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Electronics TakeBack Coalition and 68 other environmental organizations; as well as major corporate "e-Stewards Enterprises" including: Apollo Group, Inc.; Bank of America; Capitol One Financial Corp.; Ind. Distributors of Electronics Assoc.; Nemours Foundation; Premier, Inc.; Premier Farnell; Resource Media; Samsung; Sprout Creation; Stokes Lawrence; and Wells Fargo.

 

        The other major program is operated by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI). On March 25, 2010, ISRI announced that its board had laid out "a roadmap addressing the growing problem of the improper export of end-of-life electronic scrap." The Board voted unanimously to approve what they called "a new, aggressive policy to protect health, the environment and worker safety." They said the action signaled that ISRI members are behind efforts to stem possible health and environmental hazards that occur when e-scrap is not exported responsibly. ISRI said the Board's decision reinforces environmental, health and worker safety standards that closely track the EPA's Responsible Recycling (R2) program [See WIMS 3/25/10].

 

    On March 10, 2010, WIMS reported that a release from U.S. EPA regarding its sponsored R2 electronic recycling certification program did not mention what some consider to be a more restrictive and competing international certification program from the Basel Action Network (BAN) [See WIMS 3/10/10]. On July 18, 2010, EPA formally recognized the e-Stewards® Recycler Certification and associated e-Stewards® Standard for the Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment.

 

    EPA updated its website to include a new notice on their e-Cycling webpage indicating: "EPA supports and will continue to push for further safe and protective recycling efforts and encourage improvements in best management practices for recyclers. There are existing recycling certification programs, such as R2 and e-Stewards that EPA believes advance environmentally safe practices and includes standards for use in third party certification of such efforts. . . Use of either an R2 certified or e-Stewards certified electronics recycler meets your federal requirements to employ environmentally sound practices with respect to disposition of electronic products.  Use of these certified recyclers requires no further due diligence."

 

    Access the complete 70-page GAO report (click here). Access EPA's Responsible Recycling Practices for Electronics Recyclers website for links to more information (click here). Access the BAN e-Stewards website for complete details on certification and related information (click here). Access ISRI's Electronics Recycling website for additional details (click here).

EPA Finalizes Air Rules For Portland Cement Manufacturing

Aug 9: U.S.EPA is issuing final rules which it says will protect Americans' health by cutting emissions of mercury, particle pollution and other harmful pollutants from Portland cement manufacturing -- the third-largest source of mercury air emissions in the United States. EPA said the rules are expected to yield $7 to $19 in public health benefits for every dollar in costs. Mercury can damage children's developing brains, and particle pollution is linked to a wide variety of serious health effects, including aggravated asthma, irregular heartbeat, heart attacks, and premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "Americans throughout the country are suffering from the effects of pollutants in our air, especially our children who are more vulnerable to these chemicals. This administration is committed to reducing pollution that is hurting the health of our communities. With this historic step, we are going a long way in accomplishing that goal. By reducing harmful pollutants in the air we breathe, we cut the risk of asthma attacks and save lives."

    The action sets the nation's first limits on mercury air emissions from existing cement kilns, strengthens the limits for new kilns, and sets emission limits that will reduce acid gases. This final action also limits particle pollution from new and existing kilns, and sets new-kiln limits for particle and smog-forming nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. When fully implemented in 2013, EPA estimates the annual emissions will be reduced as follows: Mercury – 16,600 pounds or 92 percent; Total hydrocarbons – 10,600 tons or 83 percent; Particulate Matter – 11,500 tons or 92 percent; Acid gases – (measured as hydrochloric acid): 5,800 tons or 97 percent; Sulfur dioxide (SO2) – 110,000 tons or 78 percent; and Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – 6,600 tons or 5 percent.

    Mercury in the air eventually deposits into water, where it changes into methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in fish. People are primarily exposed to mercury by eating contaminated fish. Because the developing fetus is the most sensitive to the toxic effects of methylmercury, women of childbearing age and children are regarded as the populations of greatest concern. EPA estimates that the rules will yield $6.7 billion to $18 billion in health and environmental benefits, with costs estimated at $926 million to $950 million annually in 2013. Another EPA analysis estimates emission reductions and costs will be lower, with costs projected to be $350 million annually. The rules will become effective 60-days following publication in the Federal Register.

 

    On August 5, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) wrote to Administrator Jackson saying its members were "concerned that the final rule has not taken full advantage of a robust inter-agency process in producing the final rule." For example, PCA said, ".  . .the failure of the rule to consider fully subcategorization within the sector is likely to produce substantial cost to the industry and to hamper its international competitiveness without correlated environmental benefits. . . The rule will impact the cost of cement, creating an additional burden on public infrastructure development. . . Should EPA finalize this $4.7 billion rule without a truly complete inter-agency review, the result will provide uncertain environmental benefits while undermining the Administration's goal to get the economy back on track."

 

    Environmental organizations hailed the new rules. Earthjustice attorney James Pew said, "For years, the cement industry has gotten a free pass to pollute our air and water. Previous administrations ignored the law and turned a blind eye towards the cost of pollution on our health and environment. Under Lisa Jackson, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to finally curtail some of the biggest polluters and clean up our air and water. Today's announcement will save lives and prevent suffering from cement kiln pollution's devastating health effects for thousands of Americans." Bill Freese, Director for Huron Environmental Activist League said, "We've been living with the pollution from the Lafarge Cement plant in Alpena for decades. Cleaning up toxic air pollution from this cement plant and dozens more just like it across the country will mean cleaner air, fewer hospital visits, and better living for all."

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the final rules (click here). Access a fact sheet on the rules (click here). Access related information and background on the PCA rules (click here). Access the complete letter from PCA (click here). Access a lengthy release from Earthjustice and link to more information (click here).

Some Fear Copenhagen Climate Change Deal Unraveling

Aug 6: According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, the governments meeting at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn Germany (August 2 to 6) made progress towards deciding the shape of "a successful result at the November/December UN Climate Change Conference in Mexico," But, she said, the governments now need to narrow down the many options for action on climate change presently under negotiation. The Bonn UN Climate Change Conference was attended by 1656 participants from 175 countries.

    According to a release, many governments said they believed a set of COP decisions which quickly operationalize key elements of the Bali Action Plan would be an achievable outcome of Cancún. Figueres said, "This means countries could agree to take accountable action to, for example, manage and deploy climate finance, boost technology transfer, build skills and capacity to do this and deal with adaptation, especially in the poorest and most vulnerable countries." The Bali Action Plan, agreed in 2007, serves as a basis for work under the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA). The negotiating group is tasked to deliver a long-term global solution to the climate challenge. 

    The Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) also met in Bonn in parallel to the AWG-LCA. The focus of this group is on emissions reduction commitments for the 37 industrialized countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol for the period beyond 2012. The chair of the Kyoto Protocol negotiating track, John Ashe, produced a draft proposal text which governments will be able to consider between now and the next UNFCCC negotiating session in October. That text includes a possible set of draft decisions for Cancún, including impacts of agriculture on emissions, carbon markets and mechanisms, greenhouse gases, and the effects on different countries of moving to a low-emissions future.

    The UNFCCC Executive Secretary warned that many countries had reinserted established positions into the texts, increasing the number of options for action. She said, "To achieve desired outcomes in Cancún, governments must radically narrow down the choices on the table." She called on governments to agree further compromises at all levels between now and the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún (November 29 to December 10). Significant opportunities for this are the high-level meetings which are scheduled in Geneva and New York in September, followed by the next UNFCCC negotiating session in Tianjin, China (October 4 to 9).

    Figueres said, "This week has given governments a final opportunity to be clear on their individual stances. Tianjin has to be the place where they make clear what their collective stance is going to be." She also said, "Progress at Cancún would also include a mandate to take the process inexorably forward towards an encompassing agreement with legally binding status, which would take more time."

    Despite the somewhat optimistic report from Secretary Figueres, the UK Guardian reports that, "Global climate talks have sunk to a new low after China and the US clashed and rich countries lined up against poor in a refusal to compromise on emission reduction targets. With just six days' negotiating time left before a critical meeting in Cancun, Mexico, some diplomats fear that the fragile deal struck in Copenhagen last December could unravel. Rather than slim down the negotiating text to allow politicians to make choices at Cancun, the US, China and many developing countries all added pages to draft texts in a series of tit-for-tat moves that critics said had sent the talks backwards after a week of meetings."

    The Guardian also reported that Jonathan Pershing, the lead US negotiator at meeting in Bonn said the U.S. failure to put in place domestic legislation that would commit it to reaching its target cuts was not a problem. He said, "The US stands by its commitments. We are not backing away from legislation. We have multiple tools at our disposal" for cutting emissions. . . Events outside [such as the Russian heatwave and the Pakistan floods] are consistent with what we can expect from climate change . . .But I am very concerned that some countries are walking backwards in the progress made since Copenhagen. If we continue to go down this road, there is no hope of an agreement in Cancun. All parties are stepping back."

    In a related matter, on August 6, a University of Delaware researcher reports that an "ice island" four times the size of Manhattan has calved from Greenland's Petermann Glacier. The last time the Arctic lost such a large chunk of ice was in 1962.  Andreas Muenchow, associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware's College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment. Muenchow's research in Nares Strait, between Greenland and Canada. Satellite imagery of this remote area about 620 miles south of the North Pole, reveals that Petermann Glacier lost about one-quarter of its 43-mile long floating ice-shelf. Muenchow said, "The freshwater stored in this ice island could keep the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years. It could also keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days."

    On August 7, Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming issued a statement on the report of the "giant ice island" comes following the warmest six months on record. Markey said, "An iceberg four times the size of Manhattan has broken off Greenland, creating plenty of room for global warming deniers to start their own country. So far, 2010 has been the hottest year on record, and scientists agree arctic ice is a canary in a coal mine that provides clear warnings on climate. Last summer, the House passed landmark legislation to create clean energy jobs that cut carbon pollution. However, it's still unclear how many giant blocks of ice it will take to break the block of Republican climate deniers in the U.S. Senate who continue hold this critical clean energy and climate legislation hostage."

        Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the speaking notes of Secretary Figueres at the Bonn closing day press briefing (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to documents and more information (click here). Access the Guardian article (click here). Access a report from the University of Delaware with links to more information (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here).

Day 109 BP Oil Spill: Static Kill Cementing Completed

Aug 6: BP announced that it completed cementing operations at the MC252 well at 2:15 PM CDT, as part of the static kill procedure. Monitoring of the well is underway in order to confirm the effectiveness of the procedure. Operating with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander and government officials, BP continues the ongoing relief well operations. Depending upon weather conditions, mid-August is the current estimate of the most likely date by which the first relief well will intercept the Macondo well annulus. The latest operation completely seals the well and should assure that no more oil leaks into the Gulf.

 

    At noon today (August 6), Thad Allen, National Incident Commander for the Deepwater Horizon/BP provided a further update indicating that BP had complete a layer of fluid on top of the cement and then put more mud on top of that to press it down to help add pressure and cure the cement. That will be going on for 24 hours through today. Then BP will start pressure testing to make sure the cement is set and is holding in the well.

 

   At the same time, BP has commenced drilling through the cement shoe that was covering the end of the casing on the relief well, and will be proceeding forward. He said now that the well has been cemented from the top they are moving ahead with the relief well and cementing the well from the bottom. He said, "we are unequivocally committed to completing the relief wells, drilling into the annulus and cementing the annulus as the bottom portion of this kill."

 

    Allen said BP will "do a ranging run over the next 24 hours, and then drill approximately 30 feet further down into the well, and between the 8th of August and the 13th of August, there'll be three patterns where we will drill 30 feet, do a ranging run. That's putting the wire down the hole and sensing where the pipe is at on the Macondo well, and we expect to be somewhere around the annulus around the 13th of August, and the drilling portion into the annulus is expected to occur somewhere between the 14th and the 15th of August. The company, however, is prepared to move ahead and deal with the annulus somehow if they encounter it on the way down.  As I've told you in previous briefings, we're starting about 4-1/2 feet away from the well horizontally, and we'll drill down at a very, very slight angle.  If for some reason they penetrate the annulus in the process of doing that, they'll prepare – they'll be prepared to go ahead and assess the condition of the annulus at that point and go ahead and cement the well in."

 

    Access a release from BP on completing the cementing operation (click here). Access the transcript from the briefing by Allen (click here). Access more information on BP activities from the BP response website (click here). Access the Restore the Gulf website for more information (click here). Access the Unified Command website which contains additional information (click here).

Senate Hearing On Dispersants In The BP Gulf Oil Spill

Aug 4: Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Full Committee and Subcommittee on Oversight joint hearing entitled, "Oversight Hearing on the Use of Oil Dispersants in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill." Witnesses included representatives from: U.S. EPA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Department of Environmental Toxicology, Texas Tech University; Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island; Louisiana State University Department of Environmental Science; and the environmental organization Oceana. Full Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) also delivered statements along with Senator John Barrasso (R-WY).

 

    In her opening statement Chairman Boxer indicated that as of August 3, 2010, the Unified Command reports that BP has used an extraordinary quantity of dispersants in dealing with the Gulf spill -- 1.8 million gallons all together, including 1.1 million gallons applied on the surface and almost 780,000 gallons beneath the surface of the sea.

 

    She said, ". . while dispersants may have been applied in the hope of reducing the effects of heavy oil slicks on shorelines and wildlife, more needs to be done to fully understand the impact the dispersant and dispersed oil are having beneath the surface. These decisions have very real consequences, not just for fish and wildlife that inhabit the gulf, but for the fishermen and oystermen and others whose livelihoods and families depend on the long-term health of the Gulf of Mexico. Questions have also been raised about the process the incident command and federal agencies used for approving dispersant use."

 

    Senator Inhofe said, "Following the tragic Exxon Valdez oil spill, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) was updated to address new issues that might arise in the event of an oil spill of national significance. Among other things, the NCP was amended to require a pre-approved list of dispersants deemed safe for emergency use by the Environmental Protection Agency. . . I am disappointed that this important tool–which was first approved for use by EPA and then-Administrator Carol Browner in 1994 -- was implemented in fits and starts. EPA first approved, then stopped, then approved again the use of dispersants. I am concerned that EPA's back and forth -- which runs counter to having a list approved prior to an emergency—may have exacerbated the damages caused by the BP spill."

 

    Inhofe continued, "The current dispersant being used, Corexit 9500, was formulated following the Exxon Valdez spill and approved by EPA for use in 1994. This dispersant is currently approved for use in 28 countries, and 30 groups have access to samples as well as complete access to its ingredients and mixtures. . . The House-passed language institutes a 2-year moratorium on dispersants and requires full public disclosure of ingredients. This would greatly limit our ability to respond to any potential future spills and could drastically diminish our domestic manufacture and supply of dispersants in the future. . . we must be measured in how we address these uncertainties, because we could ultimately do more harm than good. . ."

 

    Senator Barrasso said, "I would suggest that those who criticize the use of dispersants are the same people who cannot offer one alternative to the use of dispersants in this situation. They leave responders with a catch twenty two, where either you are blamed for dumping chemicals in the Gulf or you allow the oil to devastate the Gulf. Some who criticize the use of dispersants want to over-regulate the use of them. There is no proven need for such an action at this time. . . legislating new dispersant regulations before you even know how existing law is working makes no sense. It would only serve to create more regulation, and slow the response to any future spills."

 

    EPA testified that, "EPA will continue to provide full support to the USCG and the Unified Command and will continue to take a science based approach to dispersant use. We will continue monitoring, identifying, and responding to potential public health and environmental concerns, including waste management and beach cleanup. In coordination with our federal, state, and local partners, EPA is committed to protecting Gulf Coast communities from the adverse environmental effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. We will persist in asking the hard questions until we more fully understand the long-term effects of the Gulf oil spill and conduct the investigations required to enable the Gulf's recovery. We have taken nothing for granted. EPA has constantly questioned, verified, and validated decisions with monitoring, analysis, and use of the best available science and data. EPA is fully committed to working with the people of the Gulf Coast, our federal partners, the scientific community and NGOs toward the recovery of the Gulf of Mexico and the restoration of its precious ecosystem."

 

    Dr. David Smith, Professor of Oceanography, Associate Dean, Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island testified that, "It will be difficult to assess the changes that will occur as a result of the oil and dispersants on the deep-sea community given our limited knowledge of the prespill community structure, particularly with regards to microorganisms. Working

in the deep-sea presents many challenges but it is essential to address these if we are to understand the impact of the large-scale experiment that has just been conducted in the Gulf of Mexico and we need to do so quickly."   

    Dr. Edward B. Overton, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences School of the Coast and Environment Louisiana State University, who has 34 years experience studying the environmental impacts of oil spills said, "Dispersant use has been controversial for years because initial formulations were shown to cause more environmental damage than was caused by the oil itself. Over the years, these formulations have evolved, and the current formulations are relatively benign in terms of potential environmental damage from the dispersant. In fact, most of the offshore environmental impacts associated with dispersant use are from the oil that has been dispersed rather than from the dispersant."

 

    Overton also said, "Oil dispersed into the water column will have environmental impacts on organisms exposed to the oil, and can have the potential to cause oxygen depletion in the water column due to natural biodegradation of the oil. Dispersant use represents a trade off between the areas of the environment that will be impacted to the greatest extent if covered with oil. Oil spills cause environmental damage, some very obvious, but much of the damage is to the very small, tiny organisms that are the basis of the ecological life cycle (larval and juvenile life cycle organisms) in both near shore and off shore marine environments. These damages are not readily observed during a spill and may not be obvious for several years after the damage takes place. Dispersant use will enhance the damage to these tiny organisms because it spreads the oil below the surface rather than leaving the oil concentrated on the surface. Therefore, offshore dispersant use represents a decision by responders that damage from on-shore oiling will be more severe than damage to offshore environments."

 

    Access the hearing website and link to all testimony and a webcast (click here).

Day 107 BP Oil Spill: 75% Of Oil Gone; Static Kill Success

Aug 4: The Federal government has issued a report indicating that the vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill (i.e. approximately 75 percent) has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed -- much of which is in the process of being degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts. The latest government report follows the revised estimate released by the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) on August 2, indicating that 4.9 million barrels of oil were released into the Gulf by the BP leak.

 

    The new report -- BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget: What Happened To the Oil? -- says that a third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill was captured or mitigated by the Unified Command (UC) recovery operations, including burning, skimming, chemical dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead. An additional 25 percent of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and 16 percent was dispersed naturally into microscopic droplets. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26 percent), is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and residual oil remain in the system until they degrade through a number of natural processes. According to a release, early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly. 

 

    The estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (DOI), who jointly developed what's known as an Oil Budget Calculator, to provide measurements and best estimates of what happened to the spilled oil. The calculator is based on the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf and more than 25 of the "best government and independent scientists" contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods.

 

    Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator said, "Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide these useful and educated estimates about the fate of the oil. Less oil on the surface does not mean that there isn't oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing generally what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of risk and likely impacts."

 

   The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-term impacts of oil on the Gulf. Fully understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something that will take time and continued monitoring and research. The release indicates that dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and at the surface. "While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate." 

 

   The release explains that it is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and biological processes.  Microbes consume the oil, and wave action, sun, currents and continued evaporation and dissolution continue to break down the residual oil in the water and on shorelines.

 

    In additional major news on the BP spill, the company issued a statement on August 3, indicating that based on the results of the injectivity test, it started pumping drilling mud at 15:00 (CDT) [4 PM EDT] as part of the static kill operations. All operations are being carried out with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander. The aim of these procedures is to assist with the strategy to kill and isolate the well, and will complement the upcoming relief well operation.

    Today (August 4), BP announced that the MC252 well appears to have reached a static condition -- "a significant milestone." The well pressure is now being controlled by the hydrostatic pressure of the drilling mud, which is the desired outcome of the static kill procedure carried out on August 3. Pumping of heavy drilling mud into the well from vessels on the surface was stopped after about eight hours of pumping. The well is now being monitored, per the agreed procedure, to ensure it remains static. Further pumping of mud may or may not be required depending on results observed during monitoring.

    BP said it will continue to work with the National Incident Commander and other government officials to determine the next course of action, which involves assessing whether to inject cement in the well via the same route. The aim of the procedures is to assist with the strategy to kill and isolate the well, and will complement the upcoming relief well operation, which will continue as per plan. A relief well remains the ultimate solution to kill and permanently cement the well. The first relief well, which started May 2, has set its final 9 7/8-inch casing. Operations on the relief wells are suspended during static kill operations. Depending upon weather conditions, mid-August is the current estimate of the most likely date by which the first relief well will intercept the Macondo well annulus, and kill and cement operations commence.

 

    Access the release on the Federal report (click here). Access the complete 5-page BP oil spill budget report (click here). Access a release from BP on the current static condition (click here). Access more information on BP activities from the BP response website (click here). Access the Restore the Gulf website for more information (click here). Access the Unified Command website which contains additional information (click here). 

Day 106 BP Oil Spill: "Kill" Delayed; New Leak Estimates

Aug 3: The expected "static kill" operation was delayed due to a small leak in the top cap. BP issued a brief announcement indicating that "during final preparations to commence with the injectivity test, a small hydraulic leak was discovered in the capping stack hydraulic control system." The injectivity test , scheduled to take place Monday (August 2) was rescheduled until the leak is repaired. BP said, "It is anticipated that the injectivity test and possibly the static kill will take place Tuesday (August 3).

 

    Also, on August 2, based on new pressure readings, data, and analysis, the U.S. scientific teams charged by National Incident Commander Thad Allen with determining the flow of oil from BP's leaking well have refined their estimates of the oil flow prior to the well being capped on July 15. The new estimates, which draw heavily on recent oil reservoir modeling and on pressure readings of a closed system, are the most accurate to date and have an uncertainty of plus or minus approximately 10 percent. The scientific teams estimate that 53,000 barrels of oil per day were leaking from BP's well immediately preceding its closure via the capping stack.

 

    According to a release, recent measurements and modeling also show that, as a result of depletion of the hydrocarbon reservoir, the daily flow rate decreased over the 87 days prior to the well's closure. Based on these measurements and modeling, the scientific teams estimate that, at the beginning of the spill, 62,000 barrels of oil per day were leaking from the well. As previously reported by WIMS, initial estimates from BP and the Federal government were 1,000 barrels/day, and then 5,000 barrels/day.

 

    Overall, the scientific teams estimate that approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil have been released from the well. Not all of this oil and gas flowed into the ocean; containment activities conducted by BP under U.S. direction captured approximately 800,000 barrels of oil prior to the capping of the well.

 

    The new estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and engineers, led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu. At meetings on July 30 and July 31, the group of Federal and independent scientists and engineers discussed new analyses and data points to provide the updated range, relying heavily on newly available pressure readings from the new containment cap. An estimation of how much the flow rate has decreased over time was enabled by observing the pressure at shut in and by initial pressure estimates for the well when it was first drilled.

 

    The release indicates that the improved flow rate estimate brings together the work of several scientific teams and is based on a combination of analyses of high resolution videos taken by ROVs, measurements and modeling of reservoir and well properties, acoustic technologies, and measurements of oil collected by the oil production ship together with pressure measurements inside the containment cap. The installation of a new containment cap and the subsequent well integrity testing procedure provided the opportunity to calculate the flow by measuring the pressure at the top of the well as the choke and kill valves were manipulated after the main containment valve was closed to trap hydrocarbons.

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Energy & Commerce Committee, issued a release reminding that BP officials stated that a maximum estimated flow would be 60,000 barrels a day, with a mid-range estimate of 40,000 barrels a day at a May 4, briefing to Members of Congress on the spill. He said, "Today we learned that BP's initial worst case scenario has been the reality since day one of this disaster. Had BP owned up to the size and magnitude of this oil spill from the very beginning, the government and families in the Gulf would have been better prepared to respond to this tragedy."

 

    Markey also indicated, "It took over 100 days and the pressure of flow rate calculations by independent scientists using high-definition undersea video to tell the world what BP most likely suspected from the start." He said additionally, last week he released documents indicating that BP assumed a flow rate of 53,000 barrels per day as early as July 6 when calculating how much dispersant to apply. Markey also reminded that the flow rate of the well will have substantial financial implications for the company. Under current law, BP would have to pay a fine of at least $1,100 and up to $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled, with the higher figure in the case of gross negligence being found against the company. Assuming 4 million barrels released and not recovered that could be a range of $4.4 to $17.2 billion.

 

    On August 3, BP announced that it has instituted a series of actions to expedite claim payments to businesses impacted by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, including establishing an Immediate Action Claims Team. Darryl Willis, of the BP Claims Team said, "While we have paid thousands of business claims over the past 13 weeks, we recognize the frustration of small business owners who still have claims pending as we transition from the BP claims process to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility. We heard from many businesspeople who are suffering, so we acted. These changes are designed to cut through paperwork and expedite payments."

 

    About 2,600 business claims were processed over the past three days, using new guidelines developed to specifically address challenges faced by businesses. As a result, business claims totaling $9 million were approved Saturday, Sunday and Monday. The payments will be mailed to businesses this week. BP said the new procedures include paying claims from tourist businesses not directly linked to the natural resource but located in close proximity to the affected tourist resource, such as an oiled beach; simplifying documentation requirements; easing requirements for start-up businesses to prove a loss; and increasing the delegation of authority for adjusters.

 

    Access a release from BP on the delay (click here). Access a release on the new leak estimates (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a release on new payment procedures (click here). Access more information on BP activities from the BP response website (click here). Access the Restore the Gulf website for more information (click here). Access the Unified Command website which contains additional information (click here).

Day 105 BP Oil Spill: "Kill" Starts Tonight; Dispersant Concerns

Aug 1: At a mid-afternoon, Sunday press briefing, National Incident Commander for the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill, Admiral Thad Allen indicated that the current pressure in the capping stack is 6,980 pounds. He said it continues to rise and give indications he said is what they expect with a well with integrity.

    He said they were in the process of laying the final casing run for the relief well and casing has now been placed at the bottom of the well bore. BP is circulating fluids just to make sure it's clean and ready to go. He said they are making preparations (now expected to begin this evening) to do the hydrostatic or "static kill" (from the top).  He said BP will be doing what is called an "injectivity test" to make sure that all the systems are operating properly. And there is a sequence of events that has to be followed before they can actually start pumping mud into the capping stack itself.

    He said the mud boats, the pumping boats and the Q4000 are online and all the systems have been tested and they are ready to go. He indicated cleanup operations continue to survey the entire area for tar balls and any type of oil. Additionally, they are continuing to replace boom that was damaged during the recent storm and pick up absorbent boom that has oil on it and replace that with clean boom and we'll continue to do that. Allen also indicated that the interception from the relief well, or so-called "bottom kill" would begin "probably five to seven days at a minimum after the static kill. . . most optimistic five to seven days after the static kill."

    On Saturday, July 31, Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Chair of the House Environment and Energy Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, released a letter sent to National Incident Commander Thad Allen and documents revealing that the U.S. Coast Guard, tasked with limiting BP's use of toxic dispersants during the Gulf oil spill disaster, "repeatedly allowed the oil company to use excessive amounts of the chemical on the surface of the ocean." Markey indicates that these exemptions were granted on a daily basis despite a prior Federal directive that the company cease that tactic to combat the spill except in "rare" circumstances. The exemptions were also extended to Houma Unified Command, an oil spill response center in Houma, LA, which consists of U.S. Coast Guard and other personnel and reports to the Federal On Scene Coordinator.

    Markey indicates that, "In many cases, these applications appeared to be rubber stamped by the Coast Guard, including pre-approvals for weeks' worth of unlimited use, as well as retroactive approvals for surface applications of dispersants for which BP failed to obtain prior permission. These actions by the Coast Guard appear to have largely undercut a directive it co-signed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that said that dispersant chemicals be used on the ocean's surface only in 'rare cases,' and only with advance approval."

    Rep. Markey's letter was based on an analysis conducted by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee staff and showed that by comparing the amounts BP reported using to Congress to the amounts contained in the company's requests for exemptions from the ban on surface dispersants it submitted to the Coast Guard, that BP often exceeded its own requests, with little indication that it informed the Coast Guard or that the Coast Guard attempted to verify whether BP was shooting past the approved volumes.

    Markey said, "BP carpet bombed the ocean with these chemicals, and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it. Rep. Markey has authored numerous oversight letters to EPA, the Coast Guard and the FDA related to dispersant use, and has also introduced H.R.5608, legislation that would require more extensive testing of these chemicals before they are used. According to publicly disclosed amounts, more than 1.8 million gallons of toxic dispersants were used to break up the oil as it came out of the well, as well as after it reached the ocean surface. The validity of those numbers are now in question.

    Markey cites for example, in one approval request, one of BP's top executives, Doug Suttles, claimed that the maximum daily application of dispersants on the surface in the days preceding June 16, 2010 was 3,360 gallons. However, an examination of the dispersant totals BP provided to congressional staff in its daily "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response Updates" indicates that on June 11, BP said it applied 14,305 gallons of the chemical on the surface; on June 13, 36,000 gallons; and on June 14, 10,706 gallons. Markey said, "Either BP was lying to Congress or to the Coast Guard about how much dispersants they were shooting onto the ocean. These huge discrepancies also raise the question of whether the Coast Guard made sufficient efforts to verify the information BP provided in support of its requests, and whether it exercised appropriate oversight surrounding the use of these toxic chemicals."

    When asked about Markey's most recent letter, Thad Allen said, "I have had numerous discussions with Lisa Jackson and continue to have numerous discussions regarding dispersant use. This is something that we have worked together as leaders. It was determined back in late May that we needed to reduce the amount of dispersant but we also understand that sometimes there is no other way to attack than to use dispersant if it's not a situation where you can skim or do an in-situ burn or the weather conditions might preclude those two. We established a goal to reduce dispersant use by 75 percent. At the time the capping stack went on we reduced that to 72 percent. . . There is no disagreement between Lisa Jackson and I regarding what we want to do with dispersants. It really is an issue of just trying to make decisions day to day based on where the oil is at out there."

    Allen emphasized, "Let me clear it up. It's not a decision by BP on whether or not to use dispersants. It's a decision by the Federal on-scene coordinator whether to approve the incident commander's recommendation to use dispersants once they've been located by surveillance aircraft and has an opportunity to use them. It's a very disciplined doctrinal process on how this works. In the end it may be executed by BP through a contractor. But these are all decisions made by the Federal on-scene coordinator because that's where the responsibility rests." EPA released its 2nd phase dispersant testing results today (August 2) [See article below].

    Access an update briefing from the Unified Command (click here). Access the on-going response update from UC (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey with extensive links to letters and documentation (click here). Access more information on BP activities from the BP response website (click here). Access the Restore the Gulf website for more information (click here). Access the Unified Command website which contains additional information (click here).

Senate Hearing On Gulf Natural Resource Damage Assessment

Jul 27: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, Chaired by Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), held a hearing entitled, "Assessing Natural Resource Damages Resulting from the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster." Witnesses included representatives from the: Southeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); Assessment and Restoration Division, Office of Response and Restoration National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Smithsonian Institution; Exxon Valdez Trustee Council; Ocean Conservancy; National Aquarium Conservation Center; and Jefferson Parish Council.

 

    The hearing came two days prior to a report in Time magazine article entitled, "The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?" Time's environmental reporter Michael Grunwald reports that "the damage seems to have been limited. The number of bird kills is far lower than those occurring after the Exxon Valdez spill, much of the surface oil has already begun to break down in the warm Gulf waters and the sensitive wetlands of Louisiana have largely escaped serious oiling. . ." Grunwald report comes as many reports from the Gulf are indicating that surface oil is actually becoming hard to find and discussions are underway about scaling back the response and recovery operations. Also today (July 30), NOAA reported that the Southern Florida, the Florida Keys and the East Coast are not likely to experience any effects from the remaining oil on the surface [See related article this issue].

 

    Grunwald, who said the reality of his reporting surprised him. He said it was not what he expected to find. He said, "The scientists I spoke with cite four basic reasons the initial eco-fears seem overblown. First, the Deepwater oil, unlike the black glop from the Valdez, is unusually light and degradable, which is why the slick in the Gulf is dissolving surprisingly rapidly now that the gusher has been capped. Second, the Gulf of Mexico, unlike Alaska's Prince William Sound, is very warm, which has helped bacteria break down the oil. Third, heavy flows of Mississippi River water have helped keep the oil away from the coast, where it can do much more damage. And finally, Mother Nature can be incredibly resilient. Van Heerden's assessment team showed me around Casse-tete Island in Timbalier Bay, where new shoots of Spartina grasses were sprouting in oiled marshes and new leaves were growing on the first black mangroves I've ever seen that were actually black. . ."

    In a statement on the hearing Senator Cardin said, "BP and its partners are responsible for repairing the environmental destruction they have caused, in addition to the economic devastation. But if we can't trust BP to tell us how much oil had been leaking into the Gulf of Mexico for three months, why should we trust them when it comes to assessing the damage they have done to our environment?. We can't afford to have the same incomplete approach to assessment when it comes to cleaning our waters and restoring our fishing stocks or bird populations or any of the other critical ecosystem restoration tasks that lie ahead.

    "If we are going to get the restoration work done right and if we are going to hold BP and its partners accountable for the true extent of the damage they've caused, then we need an accurate and complete assessment. The answers developed through a Natural Resource Damage Assessment determine the size of the bill presented to BP and its partners. They shape the scale and scope of the restoration work done to repair the damage. This is a legal process, conducted by federal and state agencies, to identify how natural resources have been injured, the best methods for restoring them, and the type and amount of restoration needed to compensate the public.

    "The first priority in this disaster has been to stop the flow of oil from well. We're heartened by recent progress and hope the well will soon be sealed for good. We must ensure our responders have the resources and organization they need to remove the oil that's in the water and to protect the Gulf coast. But even when the oil is removed to the extent possible, it will not be enough to fully restore water and wildlife or compensate the public for the loss of these natural resources.

    Senator Inhofe said, "I am working on a report on the Administration's response to the BP incident thus far.  To date we have discovered numerous bureaucratic delays to mitigation and containment caused by federal entities, and I look forward to a thoughtful discussion on some of those issues today. After the tragic Exxon Valdez spill, which occurred over 20 years ago now, Congress worked diligently to pass the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) to help address many of the legislative gaps and shortcomings highlighted by that tragedy.  The OPA was created with the important goals of strengthening federal authority over oil spill removal actions, creating a federal liability scheme for addressing oil spills, and addressing the issues of removal costs and damages.  OPA established a solid framework for response that was missing during the Exxon Valdez spill. This hearing can help us examine the process of natural resource damage assessment currently underway and hopefully give us the necessary guidance to improve any inadequacies. . ."

 

    The FWS explained that when an oil spill occurs, response efforts and the natural resource damage assessment and restoration (NRDAR) process under the Oil Pollution Act and its implementing regulations begin immediately. The U.S. Coast Guard leads response activities related to marine and coastal oil spills while the U.S. EPA is the lead for inland or hazardous waste spills. Other Federal and state agencies assist in the process. FWS said, "The scope and magnitude of natural resource injuries and other impacts resulting from the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill are extraordinary and still not fully known. We do not know at this time the extent of the injuries, but we believe that in all likelihood, they will affect fish, wildlife and plant resources in the Gulf, and possibly in other areas across the country, for years or more likely decades to come."

    Dr. Robert B. Spies, President, Applied Marine Sciences; Former Chief Scientist, Exxon Valdez Trustee Council testified, "It is critically important that we do all we can to ensure that the pre- and post-impact status of the Gulf ecosystems, including contaminant characterizations, is being assessed and documented as rigorously as possible in at least the most biologically productive and sensitive parts of the Gulf coast. These areas include the estuaries and especially the marshes and wetlands behind the barrier islands along the coast, which are the breeding and nursery grounds of myriad aquatic, intertidal, and avian species. Given the widespread and intensive application of chemical dispersants, the very large amounts of oil on the ocean's surface, and the presence of large quantities of subsurface oil, it also is critical to be sampling oceanic surface, deepwater and bottom communities as well."

    Access the hearing website and link to testimony, statements and a webcast (click here). Access the Time article (click here). Access a video interview with Time's Michael Grunwald and Bernard Charbonnet, former chairman of the New Orleans Port Authority on Hardball with Chris Matthews (click here). Access a release from Sen. Cardin (click here).

Dems, GOP & Interests Far Apart On TSCA Reform

Jul 29: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, held a hearing on H.R. 5820, the "Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010," The legislation, introduced last week by Representatives Bobby Rush (D-IL), Chairman of the Subcommittee, and Henry Waxman (R-CA), Chairman of the full committee [See WIMS 7/23/10]. The bill would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 to ensure that the public and the environment are protected from risks resulting from chemical exposure.

 

    Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. EPA; Richard Denison, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund; Calvin M. Dooley, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Chemistry Council; Construction Specialties, Inc.; Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice; Beth Bosley, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, Inc.; and Ken Cook, President, Environmental Working Group.

 

    Chairman Waxman, in an opening statement said, "This statute has been fundamentally unchanged for 34 years. When it has been amended, it is with new titles that address discrete issues and bypass the unworkable structure of the current law. TSCA has become a patchwork, not a framework. . . The result is that the U.S. is not leading the global move towards safer chemicals. Americans' public health is not being protected. And American businesses are behind the curve when they should be leading the world in innovative and safe chemical development."

 

    He said, "This bill will address the failures of TSCA and set up a flexible, responsive, and workable system for protecting health and the environment while promoting American jobs and innovation. Under this legislation, all chemicals will be subject to a safety review, and the burden of proof will be rightly shifted from EPA to chemical manufacturers. Basic safety data will be generated and made public. Commercial users of chemicals will get the information they need to make better business decisions. New policies will encourage the development of safer chemicals and create the green jobs of tomorrow."

 

    Full Committee Ranking Member, Joe Barton (R-TX) said in a statement, "As drafted, this bill would have sweeping ramifications for our economy. By regulating all entities that make, process, sell, or dispose of anything with a chemical in it, including consumer goods, it directly impacts every business, every home and every person in America and shuffles every level of a nationwide manufacturing economy that was struggling even before the recession drove unemployment to nearly 10 percent.

 

    Rep. Barton list four reasons why "I am so troubled by this legislation. First, the testing requirements in the bill are so over the top that they remind me of the same mistakes made in the toy bill. . . Secondly, the current administrator of the EPA says the current program dealing with new chemicals is a model program. Yet, this bill overhauls that model program and makes it harder instead of easier to get newer, safer products to consumers. . . "Thirdly, the so-called safety standard is neither safe nor standard because it is so impractical. . . Finally, the pre-emption provisions in the bill are just irresponsible. It incentivizes states to enact conflicting laws, which will only undermine the national marketplace and make products more expensive for everybody."

 

    Rep. Barton concluded, "Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is unworkable. I am open to being convinced otherwise by our witnesses, but that's going to be a steep order. Americans don't want unsafe chemicals. They also don't want feckless regulations that kill their jobs and make life harder. The federal government has a blind spot for how ordinary Americans live and knack for making it tougher on them through well-intentioned bills like this one."

 

    EPA testified that, "The time has come to bring TSCA into the 21st Century and give the American people the protection from harmful chemicals they expect. . . TSCA fallen behind the industry it is intended to regulate, it has also proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects. Mr. Chairman, the bill recently introduced by you and Chairman Waxman represents an important step toward providing greater protection for the health and safety of the American people, particularly our children. . .

 

    "This legislation would require that all chemicals be reviewed against a safety standard that appears to be based on sound science and reflects risk‐based criteria protective of human health and the environment. It would squarely place the burden on industry to provide data to demonstrate that chemicals are safe. It would give EPA significantly greater authority to require any data necessary to assess the safety of chemicals and to quickly take action on chemicals which cause harm. . ."

 

    The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said, "Despite some improvements, there are still significant fundamental issues in the legislation that undermine its workability. . . There are many aspects of HR5820 that we feel need to be addressed. Today, I'd like to highlight three: the safety standard, the regulation of new chemicals and the regulation of products imported into the United States. . ." The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, Inc said, "On balance, however, we are sorry to say that the bill before us today is still overreaching and unworkable. It would have a substantial negative impact on a strategic American industry that is already fighting recession and foreign competition. . ."

 

    (EDF) said that many of the problems with TSCA and U.S. chemical regulation "would be largely or entirely ameliorated by adoption of the legislation. . . H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010.  It provides the framework for a comprehensive, systematic solution to a set of problems that until now have been addressed, if at all, through reactive, piecemeal actions. . .  In our view, H.R. 5820 strikes the right balance, by reforming TSCA first and foremost to fully protect human health and the environment (including the most vulnerable among us) . . ."

 

    Environmental Working Group (EWG) said, "H.R.5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010, is essential to fixing our broken toxic chemicals policy." Will recommending further strengthening measures, EWG said, "We support H.R. 5820 and the steps Chairmen Rush and Waxman have taken to ensure a strong safety standard, mandate stronger EPA authority to put the burden on industry to show a chemical is safe before it goes on the market promote prioritization, require a minimum data set and address abuses of confidential business information claims."

 

    Access the hearing website for links to opening statements, testimony, background and a webcast (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Barton (click here). Access a release from Rush-Waxman and link to the full text, a summary and a section-by-section summary (click here). Access additional information and background (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 5820 (click here).