Markey Study: Coast Guard Allowed BP, Spill Responders to Excessively Use Dispersants

[Pathfinder]

<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">Aug. 1, 2010: Markey Study: Coast Guard Allowed BP, Spill Responders to Excessively Use Dispersants </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>
Coast Guard Rubber-Stamped Applications as BP Provided Vastly Different Numbers to Congress, Executive Branch


WASHINGTON (July 31, 2010) ? Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee, today 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.


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.


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, based on an analysis conducted by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee staff, further 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.


?BP carpet bombed the ocean with these chemicals, and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it,? said Rep. Markey. Rep. Markey has authored numerous oversight letters to EPA, the Coast Guard and the FDA related to dispersant use, and has additionally introduced H.R. 5608, legislation that would require more extensive testing of these chemicals before they are used. ?After we discovered how toxic these chemicals really are, they had no business being spread across the Gulf in this manner.?


On May 17, Rep. Markey wrote to the EPA raising concerns about the use of unprecedented volumes of dispersants in the Gulf, as the chemicals had not undergone a thorough review of their toxicity or effects. Following a rapid analysis by the EPA, on May 26 the agency, along with the Coast Guard, directed BP to completely eliminate surface application of the chemicals except in ?rare cases? for which exemptions had to be requested.


Yet following that directive, Rep. Markey?s analysis shows that more than 74 daily exemption requests were sent to the Coast Guard by BP and Houma Unified Command, and all of them were approved by the Coast Guard, usually within the same day, and despite concerns raised by EPA that the exemptions were being approved on a pro forma rather than rare basis, and that these approvals were occurring without the specific data and justification required.


The analysis also found that the amounts of surface dispersants used that were reported by BP to Congress and the amounts reported to have been used that were contained in BP?s requests for approval by the Coast Guard also vary widely, bringing into question whether BP was being truthful about the total amount used, and whether the Coast Guard was conducting rigorous monitoring and oversight over the company?s use of the chemical.


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 on June 12. 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.


According to publicly disclosed amounts on DeepwaterHorizonResponse.com, 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.


?Either BP was lying to Congress or to the Coast Guard about how much dispersants they were shooting onto the ocean,? said Rep. Markey. ?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.?


Chairman Markey?s July 30 letter to the Coast Guard is available here: http://markey.house.gov/docs/07-30-1...ispersants.pdf


Chairman Markey?s June 24 letter to the Coast Guard is available here: http://markey.house.gov/docs/06-24-1...oast_guard.pdf


The Coast Guard?s July 15 letter to Chairman Markey is available here: http://markey.house.gov/docs/07-15-1...ispersants.pdf


Documents related to the analysis, in chronological order:

http://markey.house.gov/images/DISPERSANTDOCUMENTSMAY28-31.pdf

http://markey.house.gov/images/DISPERSANTDOCUMENTSJUNE1-7.pdf

http://markey.house.gov/images/DISPERSANTDOCUMENTSJUNE8-14.pdf

http://markey.house.gov/images/DISPERSANTDOCUMENTSJUNE15-21.pdf

http://markey.house.gov/images/DISPERSANTDOCUMENTSJUNE22-24.pdf

http://markey.house.gov/images/DISPERSANTDOCUMENTSJUNE25-29.pdf

http://markey.house.gov/images/reduced.DISPERSANTDOCUMENTSJULY1-7.pdf

http://markey.house.gov/images/DISPERSANTDOCUMENTSJULY8-19.pdf

# # # http://markey.house.gov/index.php?op...073&Itemid=141
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Pathfinder]

Re: Markey Study: Coast Guard Allowed BP, Spill Responders to Excessively Use Dispersants

DATE: August 01, 2010 17:50:45 CST

Transcript ? Press Briefing by National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen

Excerpts:

First you have the line of Vivian Kuo with CNN.

Vivian Kuo: Hi there Admiral I was just checking to see what your response was to Representative Markey's letter asking about the EPA's usage and allowance of BP's dispersants?

Thad Allen: Sure, we'll answer Representative Markey's letter in detail. 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 are times when our leaders have to make decisions on-scene based on oil that's sighted by aircraft and we may have a window of opportunity to try and deal with it there rather than take the impact into the marshes or the beaches.

And on those occasions there's a deviation from the plan for that day. But overall we've been pretty much on the same line. We intended to reduce the overall amount and we were at 72 when the capping stack got put on.

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Operator: Next sir you have that line of Jim Acosta with CNN.

Jim Acosta: Yes, Admiral Allen. I was just curious getting back to the issue of the dispersants, when the decision was made to grant an exception to BP to use dispersants on any given day, did you or your command staff have supervision over how much dispersant was used and how can you be sure that you know were able to curtail the use of dispersants by 72 percent?

Did BP present numbers to you that led you to draw that conclusion? Where do these numbers come from?

Thad Allen: The basis for the numbers are EPA's own numbers. And they are in agreement with it, that those are the numbers. These are decisions that are being made by the Federal on-scene coordinator.

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.

And those are closely supervised and on several occasions. I've been privy to those briefs in New Orleans when the decision's being made for the following day. And I'm satisfied that we only use them when they're needed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Operator: You now have Rich Braham with ABC News.


Rich Braham: Apologies Admiral because I missed the top of the call. But the allegations that the Coast Guard has been ignoring the EPA guidelines how do you address that?


Thad Allen: I did but I'm happy to address it again. We haven't ignored the EPA guidelines. Lisa Jackson and I talk daily and sometimes more on dispersant issues. We established jointly back in May that we would seek a reduction of 75 percent in dispersant use. By our joint accounting we at the time the capping stack went on had achieved a 72 percent reduction.

So the effect we were trying to achieve were generally met. Our field commander is on a case-by-case basis when oil is spotted by a surveillance aircraft and there is no other method to control it, rather than have that end up on a marsh or on a beach we have authorized on a case-by-case basis for them to use dispersant in those areas. There is a very strict doctrinal process that's followed.


The incident commanders go to the unified area command and seek permission and that guidance is provided back to them. It is a decision made by the federal on-scene coordinator, not BP but then is executed by BP through one of their sub contractors.


There is obviously a tension here in trying to reduce the amount of dispersants and still deal with the (inaudible) and the fact that when we use dispersant that's a de facto decision and we're going to accept some impact in the water column in leiu of having that oil reach a marsh area or a beach.


So I have worked very closely with Lisa Jackson on this. On the 22nd of June I actually convened a meeting and we put one additional step in to make sure that EPA had total visibility on how this was going on. We put EPA into the clearance process down at the unified command so they would have visibility on it.


But in the end they're going to times when our field commanders have to make a decision based on the best information that's available. And sometimes that?s not all the information you need but they're in the position to make the decisions and they're authorized to do that.

/.../

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/838395/