From: “Legal Planet: Environmental Law and Policy”
Date: June 8, 2010 10:19:52 AM PDT

Dan Farber | June 8, 2010 at 9:18 am URL: http://wp.me/prxko-1Nh

That Washington Post has a detailed story that details BP’s culture of carelessness:

Taken together, these documents portray a company that systemically ignored its own safety policies across its North American operations — from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico to California and Texas. Executives were not held accountable for the failures, and some were promoted despite them.

What’s most disturbing in the story is BP’s history of filing false reports and suppressing worker concerns about safety and adverse safety information.

It’s worth pointing out that for once the lawyers were the good guys in the story.   BP’s Houston law firm, Vinson & Elkins, warned BP that warned that pipeline corrosion endangered operations” in Alaska:

[The V&E report] also offered a harsh assessment of BP’s management of employee concerns. According to the report, workers accused the company of allowing “pencil whipping,” or falsifying inspection data. The report quoted an employee who said employees felt forced to skip key diagnostics, including pressure testing, pipeline cleaning and corrosion checks.

The report said that Richard Woollam, the manager in charge of corrosion safety in Alaska at the time, had “an aggressive management style” and subverted inspectors’ tendency to report problems. “Pressure on contractor management to hit performance metrics (e.g. fewer OSHA recordables) creates an environment where fear of retaliation and intimidation did occur,” it said. Woollam was soon transferred.

Unfortunately, BP did not heed the report, resulting in a disastrous accident in Alaska two years later.  The company has apparently made some efforts to clean up its act in the last few years, but obviously this was too little and too late.

I can’t help wondering whether criminal charges against BP should have been filed years ago.  That might have gotten the attention of management and the shareholders in time to fix the corporate culture before Deepwater Horizon started drilling.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/oped-not-enough-lifeboats/

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

Not Enough Lifeboats by Tony Munoz, Editor-in-Chief, MarEx Newsletter and the Maritime Executive Magazine

Forty-nine days of “top kill,” “junk Shot,” controlled burns, dispersants and hi-tech domes and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is still a calamity of immeasurable proportions, which is still continuing to devastate the environment and economies of the Gulf States. For the White House the spill has been yet another test of competence and leadership, and the glaring truth is there are not enough lifeboats for everyone.

There was so much excitement in the offshore industry after the 27-year congressional moratorium on offshore drilling ended on September 29, 2008. While the pro-oil Bush administration did nothing after the end of the moratorium, it would take the anti-drilling Obama to lift the ban on March 31, 2010. The offshore industry embraced the potential renaissance. But, the OCS stimulus potential simply exploded and melted into the bottom of the ocean on April 20th.

This “Energy Pearl Harbor” has shaken every American and many throughout the world. In the last few days, LSU’s Pelican subsea vessel witnessed at least a 400-foot underwater plume of thick oil sitting on the ocean floor that goes on forever and NOAA has sent its research vessel, THOMAS JEFFERSON, to hopefully provide us the truth about the impact of the spill undersea. But, what is clear to everyone is that neither BP nor the oil industry had anything even closely resembling an emergency response plan for drilling at 5,000 feet. For years the oil industry has touted the deepwater technologies, which had evidently outstripped government regulators’ ability to understand and deal with the realities of a possible catastrophic oil spill event.

Then, of course, there are rumors about the purported cowboy tensions between Transocean workers and BP superintendents about the pace of drilling, which could have led to many mistakes. These tensions were so evident to all the workers that Transocean Tool Pusher, Jason Anderson, one of the eleven men that died in the explosion, spent his last trip home getting his affairs in order. He told his wife Shelly he was so concerned about the safety practices of BP that he drew up a Will and began offering advice to his wife about how to raise their kids. While Transocean filed a petition to limit its liability to $27 million, BP, who spent a record $15 million last year for Lobbyists in Washington, will feel the full impact of the event, because nobody wants to see BP limit its liability.

As the oil spreads 100 miles across the Gulf coastline devastating businesses and wildlife, Americans are appalled by the unneeded suffering. However, this brings me to another point; Louisiana’s governor, Bobby Jindal, who last year said there should be as little federal government interference as possible because the American people can handle anything is now begging for federal interference for money, supplies, and assistance to create barriers islands to protect the state’s wetland. And, what about all the folks that screamed and shouted about the socialistic president that federalized the financial institutions, car companies and health care, these are now the same people screaming for him to do something in the Gulf of Mexico crisis. It’s a catch 22 Mr. Obama, damned if you do and damned if you don’t, it’s just the same American political climate that has grinded congress to a halt of ever getting anything done up there.

For all the devastation being inflicted on wildlife and businesses in the Gulf, for all the uncalculated billions (?) that BP and its associates may be on the hook for, for all the offshore operators and shipbuilders whose futures may hang in the balance, for the workers cleaning and skimming crude in the ocean and on the beaches whose future health may become another casualty, and for Obama who may or may not be competent enough to fix the problem because he entered the fray way too late, there are simply not be enough lifeboats.

But, like Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, who is the designated incident command leader, said, “Replace BP with what?

The Gulf Coast spill is far from over, and there is so much more pain and suffering yet to come. While the Russians may be snickering in their vodka at us, they have suggested putting a nuke 16,000 feet into the well to cauterize the hole. Something, they did in the 60s and 70’s five times with an 80 percent success rate.

Well, we need to do something, because we just had lunch at the OceanEnergy Conference in Fort Lauderdale, where Matthew Simmons, the renowned energy investment guru and author of “Twilight in the Desert”, spoke and said, if we let it bleed out it may take 25 years because there is more oil in the hole than even BP expected. He also said, what this country needs is a good education on alternative wind energy, and as far as the offshore industry is concerned there are 3,442 active rigs in the Gulf and many are over 30 years old. The federal government will require inspections and upgrades, which will be another boom for the energy support industry.

Déjà Vu All Over Again

While this is day 49 for the Deepwater Horizon debacle, its day 34 in Akwa Ibom along the Niger Delta, where another offshore spill is still adding millions of more gallons of crude to the ocean environment. In an already devastate estuary, an oil rig operated by a subsidiary of ExxonMobile is polluting the seas and tidal marshes in a country that admits there have been at least 2,000 major oil spills. Nigeria has tough sounding “paper tiger’ environmental laws, but their enforcement is by a government totally corrupted by big-oil. And, let’s not forget about the “ABAN PEARL” natural gas exploration rig that sank 23 days after the Gulf of Mexico event. On May 13th, the rig sank for no apparent reason, but Chavez said on his Tweeter account that all the gas connections had been disconnected and all 95 workers were taken off safely.

Note: The MarEx has covered this event since the beginning and we will continue to do so and let our readers have access via OPEDs. So, if you want your comments heard, please send your messages to tonymunoz@maritime-executive.com

Thanks to Richard Charter

Coast Guard Panel to Screen, Evaluate Oil Spill Technologies

Jun 09, 2010
The Interagency Alternative Technology Assessment Program workgroup, newly established by the National Incident Commander for the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, has called for white papers that cover oil spill response solutions on http://www.FedBiz Opps.gov.
The Coast Guard’s Research and Development Center, in collaboration with interagency partners, is seeking white papers on:

oil sensing improvements to response and detection;
oil wellhead control and submerged oil response;
traditional oil spill response technologies;
alternative oil spill response technologies; and
oil spill damage assessment and restoration.
The workgroup and center will screen and triage submissions based on technical feasibility efficacy and deployability. This will be a federal process to ensure a fair, systematic, responsive and accountable review of alternative response technologies by interagency experts.

The initial screening will determine potential for immediate benefit to the oil spill response effort; whether more detailed investigation or evaluation by the appropriate government agency is needed; or if the white paper submission does not support this incident.

The workgroup, established by Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander, includes the U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Agriculture.

The Research and Development Center, located in New London, Conn., is part of the U.S. Coast Guard Acquisition Directorate’s Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Program. The Acquisition Directorate has been supporting the response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill with an on-site subject matter expert who provides guidance on in-situ burns, dispersant and sorbent boom use. The RDT&E Program’s Fire and Safety Test Detachment in Mobile, Ala., is coordinating local logistical support for volunteers in the Gulf Coast region. The RDC also participates in the interagency Flow Rate Technical Group, helping provide the latest scientifically validated information about the amount of oil flowing from the Mississippi Canyon 252 well.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Notices]             
[Page 32769-32770]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09jn10-52]                       

———————————————————————–

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9160-6]

 
Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Request for Nominations of
Experts to Provide Scientific and Technical Advice Related to the Gulf
of Mexico Oil Spill

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of request for nominations.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: The Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is requesting
public nominations of experts to serve on potential workgroups or
panels to advise the Agency on scientific and technical issues related
to the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted by June 24, 2010 per
instructions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing
further information regarding this Request for Nominations may contact
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science
Advisory Board (1400F), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460; via telephone/voice mail (202) 343-9697; by fax at (202) 233-
0643; or via e-mail at sanzone.stephanie@epa.gov. General information
concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board can be found on the EPA SAB
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent
scientific and technical advice, consultation, and recommendations to
the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and
regulations. As announced previously Federal Register, May 19, 2010,
Volume 75, Number 96, Page 28009), the SAB may be asked to provide
advice on a range of scientific and technical issues related to the
Gulf of Mexico oil spill. To expand the pool of experts available to
serve as SAB consultants, the SAB Staff Office is seeking public
nominations of nationally recognized experts for potential service on
SAB workgroups, panels or committees to provide advice on this critical
matter. The advice will assist the Agency in developing and
implementing timely and scientifically appropriate responses to oil
spill contamination in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Gulf Coast. All
SAB advisory activities generally comply with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As announced previously (Federal
Register, May 19, 2010, Volume 75, Number 96, Page 28009), critical
mission and schedule requirements may preclude the full 15 days notice
in the Federal Register prior to advisory meetings, pursuant to the
final rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management codified at 41 CFR
102-3.150. However, information on Gulf of Mexico oil spill meetings,
as well as experts selected for service will be posted on the SAB Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/sab as they are available. Nominees will be
invited to serve based on: Scientific and technical expertise,
knowledge, and experience; availability and willingness to serve;
absence of financial conflicts of interest; and scientific credibility
and impartiality.
    Request for Nominations: The SAB Staff Office is requesting
nominations of nationally and internationally recognized experts with
demonstrated research or operational experience assessing the
environmental impacts and associated mitigation of impacts due to oil
spills, oil products, oil constituents, and dispersants in air and
water (including wetlands) media. Appropriate expertise may include one
or more of the following disciplines: Chemistry; fate, transport and
exposure assessment; toxicology; public health; ecology; ecotoxicology;
risk assessment; engineering; and economics.
    Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Any interested
person or organization may nominate qualified individuals for possible
service in the areas of expertise described above. Self-nominations are
encouraged. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format (which
is preferred over hard copy) following the instructions for
“Nominating Experts to Advisory Panels and Ad Hoc Committees Being
Formed” provided on the SAB Web site. The instructions can be accessed
through the “Nomination of Experts” link on the blue navigational bar
on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab. To receive full
consideration, nominations should include all of the information
requested.
    EPA’s SAB Staff Office requests: contact information about the
person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee;
the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the
nominee’s curriculum vitae; sources of recent grants and/or contracts;
and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position,
educational background, research activities, and recent service on
other national advisory committees or national professional
organizations.
    Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who
are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should
contact Ms. Sanzone, DFO as indicated above in this notice. Nominations
should be submitted in time to arrive no later than June 24, 2010. EPA
values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of
diverse candidates, EPA encourages

[[Page 32770]]

nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.
    The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations.
The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by
respondents to the Federal Register notice and additional experts
identified by the SAB Staff will be posted on the SAB Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/sab. Public comments on this List of Candidates will
be accepted for 15 calendar days. The public will be requested to
provide relevant information or other documentation on nominees that
the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating candidates.
    For the EPA SAB Staff Office, a balanced subcommittee or review
panel includes candidates who possess the necessary domains of
knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other
factors, may be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the
collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. In
establishing workgroups, the SAB Staff Office will consider information
provided by the candidates themselves, and background information
independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria to
be used for panel membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical
expertise, knowledge and experience (primary factors); (b) availability
and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of
interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality; (e)
skills working in advisory committees and panels for the Panel as a
whole, and (f) diversity of and balance among scientific expertise and
viewpoints.
    The SAB Staff Office’s evaluation of an absence of financial
conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential
Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on
Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows Government
officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between
that person’s public responsibilities (which includes membership on an
EPA Federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities,
or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal
regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following
URL address http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/epaform3110-48.pdf.
    The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects
subcommittees and review panels is described in the following document:
Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the Environmental Protection
Agency Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-EC-02-010), which is posted on
the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ec02010.pdf.

    Dated: June 1, 2010.
Anthony F. Maciorowski,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-13858 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Robin Bravender, E&E reporter

Industry and left-leaning advocacy groups are waging last-minute lobbying efforts as the Senate prepares to vote tomorrow on a measure aimed at blocking federal climate regulations.

A coalition of 24 industry groups sent a letter yesterday to members of the Senate urging them to support a resolution from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would prevent U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The groups include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, National Mining Association, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, National Association of Manufacturers and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, among others.

“While our organizations may differ on some subjects with respect to approaches toward climate change, we are united in opposition to unilateral EPA action to regulate [greenhouse gases] under the [Clean Air Act],” the letter says.

The letter also urges senators to oppose any measures to codify EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act by legislatively affirming EPA’s “tailoring” rule or similar measures.

Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) have discussed introducing a measure that would seek to exempt small stationary sources from greenhouse gas regulations while allowing the agency to regulate larger emitters. The proposal would be “very similar” to EPA’s tailoring rule, which would phase in greenhouse gas permitting requirements starting with the biggest polluters, according to a Senate aide (E&E Daily, May 18).

Meanwhile, a liberal advocacy group is expanding a television campaign targeting Murkowski’s supporters to include Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, one of the few Republicans who has not yet declared support for the resolution.

Americans United for Change — a group formed in 2005 by Democratic officials and labor interests — will launch a $40,000 television ad in Boston tomorrow targeting the Massachusetts senator after hearing that he is “leaning toward supporting it,” said Jeremy Funk, the group’s spokesman.

The 30-second ad, which features images of oil spewing from BP PLC’s Deepwater Horizon rig, accuses Republicans of “working to gut the bipartisan Clean Air Act” and “giving Big Oil a bailout.” Worst of all, the ad says, “Senator Brown is considering voting ‘yes.'”

Brown and Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are the three Republican senators who have not yet publicly staked out a position on the resolution. The remaining 38 GOP senators are co-sponsoring Murkowski’s legislation.

Brown’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Americans United for Change is running similar ads in Maine targeting Collins and a national ad running on Washington, D.C., cable channels during the run-up to tomorrow’s vote (E&ENews PM, June 7).

Special thanks to Richard Charter