EDF Health

Should we continue to take the chemical industry at its word when it insists it’s still for TSCA reform?

By / Published: July 28, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

I’m one of those throwbacks that loves to read a hard copy of a newspaper in the morning.  One thing the hard copies provide that reading online doesn’t is the ability to take in those full-page paid ads that Corporate America runs on a virtually daily basis.

Lately, not surprisingly, ads from “the people of America’s oil and natural gas industry” – aka the American Petroleum Institute (API) – are appearing frequently in the New York Times and Washington Post.  In one recent ad, API asserts:  “Above all else, the people of America’s oil and natural gas industry are committed to safe operations.”  That one is a little hard to swallow, coming as it does not only right on the heels of the largest environmental disaster in American history, but after years of staunch opposition to stronger safety regulation.  It seems API is now all for safety, after years of being against it.

This got me thinking about the chemical industry.  The industry’s main trade association, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), now says it’s all for “modernizing” TSCA, after years of opposing any such effort.  Why am I getting suspicious that there may be no there there?  Read More »

Also posted in TSCA reform / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

More than weather heating up in DC: Rush-Waxman House bill puts TSCA reform back on front burner

By / Published: July 22, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

We’ve just moved another step closer to protecting Americans and our environment from dangerous chemicals.

The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 (H.R. 5820) has been formally introduced by Congressmen Bobby Rush (D-IL) and Henry Waxman (D-CA).  The legislation would implement a top-to-bottom overhaul of the outmoded and ineffectual 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Read More »

Also posted in TSCA reform / Tagged , , , , | Read 2 Responses

Exceptions swallow the rule: “Rare cases” turn into daily approvals for dispersant use

By / Published: July 7, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

What the EPA hath sought to take away from BP, the US Coast Guard hath given back.

Remember the May 26 Directive that, well, directed BP to “eliminate the surface application of dispersants” except in “rare cases when there may have to be an exemption” and where BP submits a written request and receives an exemption in writing from the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC, currently Admiral James Watson of the Coast Guard)?

Naturally, I was curious about the nature and number of such exemptions, given that, as I noted earlier, surface application of dispersants has continued since the May 26 Directive.  After I (and others, I expect) made inquiries a couple of weeks ago to get copies of the written requests from BP and written approvals from the FOSC, the Coast Guard has informed me that it has posted these documents on the Deepwater Horizon response website.

These documents reveal that, as of June 30 (the last day for which a document has been posted as of this writing), more than 40 exemption requests have been submitted – and approved.  These exemptions have allowed surface application of dispersant to occur virtually every day since the Directive was issued.

The documents also hold some other interesting details as to the rationales offered for the exemptions and the nature of the approvals.  Read More »

Also posted in Environment, Health science, Regulation / Tagged , | Read 3 Responses

Does dispersant toxicity count? No toxicity standard limits EPA’s listing of oil spill dispersants

By / Published: June 24, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.  EDF’s Health Program Intern Shannon O’Shea provided valuable assistance in the research for this post.

The more I have looked into the question of how dispersants get listed and selected under the country’s National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), the more disturbing it gets.

It turns out EPA regulations impose no maximum toxicity limits on dispersants allowed to be listed on the NCP Product Schedule.  Nor is such a listing deemed by EPA to be an approval or authorization for use of a dispersant on a spill – it merely signifies (with one exception) that required data have been submitted to EPA.  Yet, once listed, a dispersant is effectively “pre-authorized” for use, and the guidance provided to officials charged with deciding whether to allow use of a dispersant, and if so which one and in what quantities and settings, makes scant mention of toxicity as a factor to be considered in the selection decision.

No wonder there’s little incentive to do the research needed to understand the full scope of impacts associated with dispersant use, let alone to develop and shift to safer and more effective dispersants.

This post examines the following questions:

  • How does a dispersant get listed on the NCP Product Schedule?
  • Is listing of a dispersant considered approval for use on a spill?
  • How is a dispersant approved for use in a spill?
  • How are decisions made about dispersant use?
  • How is toxicity information considered in making decisions about dispersant use?

Read More »

Also posted in Environment / Tagged , , , | Read 4 Responses

Correction to my last post: Clarification from EPA

By / Published: June 22, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

I have learned from EPA (see EPA’s statement at the end of this post) that, in my last post, I misinterpreted a key part of the May 26 Directive that EPA and the Coast Guard issued to BP calling for reductions in overall dispersant use.   Specifically, it stated “BP shall establish an overall goal of reducing dispersant application by 75% from the maximum daily amount” (emphasis added).  My calculation indicating only a 9% reduction was based on the average rather than maximum daily amount applied prior to the Directive.

According to EPA, the Directive was issued in direct response to concern over BP’s escalating use of dispersants in the days immediately prior: 45,000 gallons on May 22 and 70,000 gallons on May 23.

Using the maximum daily amount of 70,000 gallons as the baseline, BP’s subsequent use of dispersant post-Directive averaging 22,600 gallons per day represents a 68% reduction, much closer to the 75% goal.

My apologies for the confusion and my misreading of the Directive.

EPA also indicates that the continuing surface application of dispersant by BP has been approved by the Coast Guard, as provided for in the Directive.  I am seeking confirmation of that from the Coast Guard directly.

EPA statement added at 4:15 EDT today:

Statement from EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy:

When Administrator Jackson saw two straight days (May 22, 23) of skyrocketing dispersant volumes applied in the Gulf of Mexico she acted immediately to do something about it.  On the evening of May 23 Administrator Jackson and Coast Guard Rear Admiral Landry sat down with BP and ordered them to ramp down dispersant use – with an overall goal of 75% from its peak usage of 70,000 gallons on May 23.  The next day May 24, dispersant use dropped more than 50%.  Since Administrator Jackson and Admiral Landry met with BP on May 23 to demand a reduction, dispersant use is down 68% from its peak.  The Federal On-Scene Coordinator, in this case it’s Coast Guard Admiral Watson, has the authority to grant waivers for the use of more dispersant based on changing conditions at sea.

Posted in Health policy / Tagged , , | Comments are closed

Is BP complying with the Directive to reduce dispersant use in the Gulf?

By / Published: June 21, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

[Note added 6/22:  I have corrected one of the figures below, which was based on a misunderstanding of the EPA/Coast Guard Directive.  Please see this correction for the updated information and a statement from EPA.]

As of yesterday, BP’s use of dispersants to address the ongoing Deepwater Horizon spill has topped 1.4 million gallons.

On May 26, 2010, EPA and the Coast Guard issued a Directive to BP calling for significant reductions in BP’s use of dispersants.  That directive set out three requirements:

  • Eliminate surface application of dispersant except in rare cases where exemptions are requested in writing and granted by the Coast Guard’s Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC).
  • Limit subsurface application of dispersant to a maximum of 15,000 gallons per day.
  • Overall goal of reducing dispersant use by 75%.

Has BP complied?  The short answer is not even close.  The details follow.  Read More »

Also posted in Environment / Tagged , | Read 2 Responses