Obama Lifts Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium...Earthjustice Files a Lawsuit

Earlier this week the Obama administration lifted the temporary moratorium of offshore oil drilling the the Gulf of Mexico.  The moratorium was put in place after the BP Deepwater Horizon oil leak and lifted after BP demonstrated (at least enough) that they could avoid a recurrence.  The very next day a coalition of environmental and health advocacy groups led by Earthjustice filed a petition to EPA under the Clean Water Act to revisit the process of assessing the toxicity of chemical dispersants such as those used to "clean up" the Deepwater spill.  According to their press release:

“Unprecedented use of toxic dispersants during the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster without prior scientific study and evaluation on the effect to Gulf of Mexico marine ecosystems and human health was a horrific mistake that should never have been allowed to happen,” said Clint Guidry of the Louisiana Shrimp Association. “Potential ecosystem collapse caused by toxic dispersant use during this disaster will have immediate and long term effects on the Gulf's traditional fishing communities’  ability to sustain our culture and heritage.”

Earthjustice is no stranger to filing lawsuits and writing reports in an effort to protect the environment. Last month they published a report on the "toxic threat" of coal ash "to our health and environment" and are lobbying to get EPA to strengthen their proposed coal ash rule.

For their current filing Earthjustice wants EPA to require additional toxicity testing and ingredient disclosure.  When Deepwater happened it was determined that EPA really didn't have suitable toxicity data on the main dispersant used or its alternatives, and they rushed to do some toxicity testing.  Of course, this took time, and basically was meaningless as BP had to keep using the original dispersant while EPA "did research."  Earthjustice wants this research to be done now, and for companies to have to reveal what is actually in the dispersant mixes likely to be used.

“We need to make sure that we understand the full effects of dispersants on the environment and human health,” said Florida Wildlife Federation President Manley Fuller. “And when dispersants are used, we need to be sure they are as safe as possible.”

EPA test results show eight oil dispersants are all about the same toxicity

Soon after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded into flames and sunk more than three months ago, a chemical called Corexit 9500A was used to disperse the oil. That didn't mean it was gone, just spread out in the water column more so that it is 1) less noticeable, and 2) has a better chance to degrade or to simply dilute further away.  But many questioned whether the dispersant chemical itself wasn't a danger to aquatic wildlife.


EPA has been testing Corexit and seven other dispersant chemicals to see if any substitutes are less toxic.  Well, it turns out they are all pretty much the same level of toxicity when mixed with Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil.  According to EPA, "these results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gulf, Corexit 9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other available alternatives. The results also indicate that dispersant-oil mixtures are generally no more toxic to the aquatic test species than oil alone."

Some have suggested that the fact EPA had to do testing in the first place, i.e., didn't already have the toxicity data for these chemicals, demonstrates that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is totally ineffectual.  The 63,000 or so existing chemicals that were grandfathered onto the TSCA Inventory over 30 years ago had no testing done at the time and only the most high volume ones produced during a certain period have had extensive data gathered on them.  New chemicals undergo a rigorous review by EPA, but based almost entirely on computer models and comparisons to chemicals of similar structure.  Most new chemical notifications include no toxicity testing data, and none is required under the current law unless EPA can show the likelihood of sufficient harm (which is hard to do when you have no data on which to base an assessment of harm).


Congress has started its August recess, after which they will focus mostly on trying to get reelected.  So it looks like next year for TSCA reform.

EPA Testing of BP Oil Spill Dispersants - Nearly Equal Toxicity

The ongoing BP oil spill (though I'm not sure "spill" is the right word for an open tap of oil gushing into the ocean uncontrolled) has stimulated a lot of interest in the toxicity of the chemical dispersant being used. Concerns were that the one BP is using, Corexit, is more toxic and less effective than alternative chemicals. Given that BP has already dumped over 1.6 million gallons of Corexit into the ocean, the question is not insignificant.

EPA initially ordered BP to identify a less toxic brand of dispersant, but BP indicated that "they were unable to find a dispersant that is less toxic than Corexit 9500, the product currently in use." It's unclear how hard BP tried to find an alternative given that they had millions of gallons of Corexit stockpiled and none of any alternative. It's also cheaper. They are also busy trying to stop the flow of oil into the Gulf and thus don't really have the resources at the moment to do a research project. Which, of course, begs the question as to why wasn't this research carried out already so that stockpiles of the most effective yet least toxic chemical dispersant could be ready for the catastrophe that many suggest was inevitable?

Given BP's inability to find an alternative, EPA decided to test a variety of dispersants with the intention of telling BP that they had to switch. But after the first round of toxicity testing, the results seem to show that they are all about the same.

EPA is not yet prepared to tell BP to switch to another brand of oil dispersant for use in response to the ongoing spill in the Gulf of Mexico, after releasing a first round of toxicity testing data that showed all available varieties had roughly similar toxicological properties. EPA did determine that "none of the eight dispersants tested, including the product in use in the Gulf, displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity."

The toxicity of the dispersant is a tradeoff, and all of the chemicals appear to be less toxic than the oil itself. However, one drawback is that the testing is being done only on the individual chemicals; it's unclear whether there would be enhanced, or decreased, toxicity once the dispersant is mixed with the oil. Given that different fractions of the crude oil degrade at different rates (and react with the chemical dispersant differently), there are a lot of uncertainties that remain. EPA will continue to do testing and report their findings on the Response web site.

Meanwhile, problems with the cap have resulted in even more oil gushing into the Gulf and the first hurricane of the season - Alex, now a Category 2 - will pass well below the spill site, though surge effects from it will likely push more oil onshore. Hurricanes also will affect the ongoing activities in the Gulf. And this is expected by hurricane forecasters to be a particularly active season.

Let's hope they're wrong.

So how is TSCA related to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil leak?

Apparently the NGO coalition called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families is planning to continue its very high profile, very high activity advocacy for TSCA reform. Last week they held a webinar on TSCA reform and yesterday they did a conference call with the press to "announce a proposal and to help reporters make the connection between Corexit, the worrisome chemical dispersant being used to clean up the Gulf oil spill, and our nation’s failing system for regulating such chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control act of 1976 (TSCA)."

SCHF claims that "[w]hat’s going on in the Gulf is not an isolated incident — it’s a very dramatic, very public example of our nation’s broken system for managing chemicals." They go on to say

In their attempt to reassure Americans that Corexit was no more dangerous than common household products, chemical manufacturer Nalco unwittingly highlighted the fact that, because our laws are so weak, it’s entirely possible that our household products are quite dangerous! The reality is, our laws don’t require companies to show household products are safe before they arrive under our kitchen sinks, any more than they have to prove chemical dispersants are safe before they get dumped into our oceans. Hardly reassuring.

The group released a comparison chart showing the provisions of TSCA as it currently stands and how the Senate and House bills could "fix the problem." They go further and recommend what they believe are necessary additions to the current Safe Chemical Act proposals that would have required dispersants to demonstrate safety BEFORE being used in emergency situations like the Deepwater Horizon disaster (indicated in red in the chart).

If Corexit is so bad, why is BP using it as a dispersant in the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf

Okay, I suppose "spill" isn't the right word, given that the well head continues to gush oil. Maybe leak. I've heard some say "volcano." In any case, they first have to stop the oil from flowing. But while crews are working on what I think is now Plan F or G (or perhaps U or V), other crews are dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of dispersant into the Gulf. Word is that they will reach a million gallons shortly, with much of it being sprayed on the surface and at least 100,000 gallons injected a mile deep underwater at the well head.

But the EPA and NGOs are concerned that the dispersant of choice, Corexit, is both less effective and more toxic to aquatic life than alternatives. So why choose that one instead of something else?

In large part it is because they have lots of it on hand. And they don't have lots of whatever might be used to replace it. Even White House energy advisor, and former EPA Administrator, Carol Browner has acknowledged that "there are not as many being manufactured as people thought in the quantities" needed.

Which raises two questions. First, shouldn't this remind us that there are significant dangers to an oil-based economy, both economically and environmentally (not to mention from a national security standpoint)? And second, shouldn't companies and agencies ensure that they have on hand adequate supplies of emergency response gear and chemicals? As oil exploration goes into deeper and deeper waters the risks of catastrophic failures such as the Deepwater Horizon are likely to become more frequent.

And the dispersants don't actually get rid of the oil, just disperse it. Which means make it into smaller droplets that in theory can either degrade quicker or dilute out in a wider area. Unfortunately, these droplets actually make the oil more bioavailable to aquatic organisms. Not to mention the impact on the fishing, shellfishing, beaching, and tourist industries of the Gulf region, in particular Louisiana.

And did I mention that hurricane season is just beginning?

Obama Sends Energy Secretary Chu to Monitor BP's Oil Spill Response

In continuing his "all-hands-on-deck" response to BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which is quickly reaching the spill record long held by ExxonMobil with it's Exxon Valdez accident, President Obama is sending Energy Secretary Chu to the Gulf coast.

Along with Chu will be a team of "top administration officials and government scientists" who will swarm on BP's command facility in Houston. The move follows another meeting of Obama's cabinet and senior staff to get an update on the efforts to stem the flow of oil from 5,000 feet down off the coast of Louisiana.

The hope is that somehow they can figure out how to "contain the spread, mitigate the environmental impact and provide assistance to affected states, including individuals, businesses, and communities."

But Chu isn't the only top official to be involved. EPA Administrator Jackson has made several visits to the Gulf region to oversee efforts to mitigate the environmental and human health impact of the spill. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has been there and yesterday dispatched Director of the Bureau of Land Management Robert Abbey to the Gulf Coast to support ongoing response efforts. Other federal level resources responding include the Navy, the Coast Guard, NOAA, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey, and even the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service.

In addition, "to deal more generally with the harms created by oil spills, the President has requested that legislation be sent to Congress to toughen and update the law surrounding caps on damages."

More information and daily updates on the response can be found on the official Deepwater Horizon response site.