Dramatic Changes at Minerals Management Service

Shortly after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, Chris Oynes, the top official responsible for the supervision of offshore oil drilling for MMS, announced he would be retiring on June 30.

Subsequent to the Gulf accident, the Interior Department announced that it would realign the Minerals Management Service (MMS) by one part of the agency being charged with inspections of rigs and enforcing safety regulations, while the other would oversee leases for drilling and collection of billions of dollars in royalties. Before this reorganization, MMS had the dual duties of collecting royalties from the oil industry and enforcing regulations that could impact companies' bottom lines. The implication being that MMS would relax regulations to insure that oil company production and thus royalty collections could be maximized. Critics are now charging that such a conflict led to the Deepwater Horizon accident.

Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), lef, chairman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, is questioning why the government's leasing function under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act -- where environmental compliance would take place -- would still remain under the segment of the newly divided MMS that handles royalties rather than the new enforcement entity. Grijalva is opposed to deep-water drilling. (The Money Times, 5/19/10, Government Executive, 5/17/10)

50 Comments To OSHA Addressing Challenges

Dave Johnson, left, editor of "Industrial Safety & Hygiene News" magazine, has selected 50 comments to show you the challenge the OSHA faces. He wants to know "Which ones do you think deserve top priority?" Email him at johnsond@bnpmedia.com.

1 OSHA needs to do a better job of communicating with the public. It takes forever to track down the correct office and person.

2 OSHA must do a better public relations job with workers. Half of workers do not like OSHA.

3 OSHA needs to address mental health. Many workers are stuck in boring, underpaying jobs in cubicles with no privacy and no prospects to advance. OSHA can recommend and talk about onsite therapy.

4 OSHA should send a warning letter each time an employee calls in a complaint.

5 Small business is worse than big business when it comes to injuries. OSHA can’t fine small businesses like the millions it fined BP, but it should enforce small business compliance before accidents happen.

6 Emphasize compliance and culture. Culture is a major safety determinant. OSHA does not help employers with their safety cultures.

7 The Voluntary Protection Program offers the best management system in the U.S. for job safety and health. VPP needs more OSHA support, not less.

8 The window cleaning industry still faces 12 to 15 serious injury incidents each year, with four or five fatalities. OSHA should incorporate by reference the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) I-14.1 Window Cleaning Safety Standard.

9 Hand-arm vibration syndrome was investigated by Dr. Alice Hamilton in 1918. NIOSH has reported that 1.2 to 1.5 million U.S. workers are exposed to hand-arm vibration. OSHA should recognize the current situation and prevent vibrationinduced disease.

10 Sixty-nine percent of 9,442 9/11 recovery and response workers examined between July 2002 and April 2004 presented new or worsened respiratory symptoms and lung abnormalities. OSHA urgently needs to protect response, recovery and support personnel who are asked to take action in any disaster.

FULL 50 ITEM LIST

Iran To Ship Nuclear Fuel To Brazil & Turkey for Enrichment

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

Iran has crafted an agreement with Brazil and Turkey to ship its low-enriched uranium to Turkey for reprocessing. This is an attempt to prevent international sanctions, which are being threatened by the U.N. Security Council if Iran does not allow third party nations to monitor and manage enrichment of its uranium fuel. Iran will continue to enrich its own uranium. Iran wants to build nuclear weapons and they are trying to disguise their program. They are also obfuscating its program in an attempt to keep the international community from preventing its bomb building program.

Iran will ship 1,200 kilograms 2,600 pounds of uranium enriched to low levels to Turkey to trade it for fuel rods containing uranium enriched to higher levels. This plan is similar to the IAEA proposal, which would remove the majority of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile and delay Tehran's move to build a bomb. Tehran will continue to enrich nuclear fuel up to 20% levels. A nuclear bomb needs fuel enriched beyond 95%. (WSJ, 5/17/10)

EPA Subsurface Dispersant Protocols

Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive for Subsurface Dispersant Application
May 10, 2010
Plume Monitoring and Assessment Plan for Subsurface Dispersant Application

Full Document

Part 1: “Proof of Concept” to determine if subsurface dispersant operation is chemically dispersing the oil plume.

Part 2: Robust sampling to detect and delineate the dispersed plume.

Part 3: “Subsurface Injection of Dispersant” outlines the operational procedures.

Excerpts

BP shall provide a Dispersant Application Plan that identifies the dispersants to be used, describes the methods and equipment used to inject the dispersant, plume model to assure
representative sampling, proposed method of visual observation, process for determining the effectiveness of subsurface injection, the specific injection rate (i.e., gallons/minute), the total amount to be used for the duration of the test, the total length of time that dispersant is injected, and the plan for sampling and monitoring, as approved by the Unified Command

Environmental Unit. Dispersants must be on the approved product schedule and suitable for this use.

All data shall be provided to the United States Coast Guard (USCG) Federal On‐Scene
Coordinator, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Response Team (RRT) representative within 24 hours of the information being received. This data includes real time monitoring, laboratory analysis, documented observations, photographs, video, and any other information related to subsurface dispersant application.

BP’s monitoring plan shall include a more thorough oil analysis, to enable EPA to determine whether the dispersed plume is toxic to aquatic life. This plan shall be designed and implemented to determine whether the dispersed oil will hang in the water column and eventually come in contact with the benthos as it approaches land.

EPA Adds Thousands of Chemicals To Public Database

EPA Adds More Than 6,300 Chemicals and 3,800 Chemical Facilities to Public Database

Unprecedented access provided for the first time

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has added more than 6,300 chemicals and 3,800 chemical facilities regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to a public database called Envirofacts. The addition to Envirofacts will provide the American people with unprecedented access to information about chemicals that are manufactured in their communities. This is another step EPA is taking to empower the public with information on chemicals in their communities.

The Envirofacts database is EPA’s single point of access on the Internet for information about environmental activities that may affect air, water and land in the U.S and provides tools for analyzing the data. It includes facility name and address information, aerial image of the facility and surrounding area, map location of the facility, and links to other EPA information on the facility, such as EPA’s inspection and compliance reports that are available through the Enforcement Compliance History Online (ECHO) database.

EPA is also adding historic facility information for another 2,500 facilities. EPA has conducted a series of aggressive efforts to increase the public’s access to chemical information including reducing confidentiality claims by industry and making the public portion of the TSCA inventory available free of charge on the agency’s Web site. EPA intends to take additional actions in the months ahead to further increase the amount of information available to the public.

More Information on Envirofacts

More information about EPA’s efforts on increasing transparency on chemical information

CO2 To Fuel: Ctr Presentation at Environment Conference

Converting Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Into Gasoline

Norris McDonald, President, Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy
and John McCormick, President, Energy Policy Center conduct a session at the State of Environmental Justice in America 2010 Conference entitled, "The Defense Department, Environmental Justice and Climate Change," describing how to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) into gasoline.

McDonald opened the session by describing how a program called Energy Defense Reservations (EDR) can utiltize funding from the Defense Department to help in building emission free nuclear plants that will reduce air pollution and mitigate global warming. He described that reducing smog in urban areas is a very important environmental justice issue. So is mitigating global warming, which produces even more intensive nonattainment days. A large scale project that reduces emissions mitigates environmental injustice and global warming.

ALL VIDEOS

The EDR would be a public/private partnership that simultaneously reduces carbon dioxide emissions from utility plants, while providing hydrogen for fuel cells and diesel fuel for military and civilian transportation purposes. EDR would combine the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), electricity utilities, coal producers and oil companies into consortia that produce electricity from coal and nuclear power, convert carbon dioxide into diesel fuel and gasoline, produce hydrogen, use the separated oxygen for coal-fired oxy-combustion and reprocess/recycle nuclear waste - all in a closed loop system. Ten reservations strategically located around the nation producing 100,000 megawatts of electricity without releasing any greenhouse gases.

McCormick proceeded with a technical powerpoint presentation that described the process in detail. These processes need very high temperatures of about 900 degrees Celsius. Carbon dioxide would be used from the coal plant to make a vehicle fuel while an adjacent nuclear plant would produce hydrogen for fuel cell production and oxygen for the coal plant firebox. The oxygen from the electrolysis would be used in the coal firebox to reduce the volume of emission gases by 80 percent, which represents nitrogen in the air. There will be little to no CO2 emitted from the coal plant because the gas will be used to make vehicle fuel. There will be CO2 released from vehicle use but these emissions would occur anyway from vehicle use. We are still studying the energy penalties and economics for these processes.

Norris McDonald Meets John Rowe, CEO of Exelon

Norris McDonald, John Rowe

Exelon CEO John W. Rowe, right, gave a presentation entitled, "Fixing the Carbon Problem Without Breaking the Economy," at the National Association of Homebuilders Auditorium on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 in Washington, D.C. Exelon Corporation is the largest nuclear power company in the world. The presentation was sponsored by Resources for the Future (RFF).

Mr. Rowe discussed U.S. legislative and regulatory actions to address climate change, and why we must focus on economic approaches that will provide the country with cleaner, more secure energy while minimizing the costs to consumers and putting more people to work. As the electricity industry’s longest-serving chief executive, Rowe was among the first CEOs in the industry to focus on climate change, first testifying before Congress on the potential effects of carbon emissions in 1992.

Following the presentation, McDonald shared with Mr. Rowe that he had been inside the Clinton nuclear power station containment dome looking down on the reactor vessel that was 10 feet under water and was operating at full power. He also questioned Mr. Rowe about pulling Exelon out of the partnership in South Africa to build a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). McDonald informed Rowe that he had toured the built PBMR near Beijing, China. Rowe expressed that part of the reason for pulling out of the project about five years ago was that the South African partnership at that time wanted to build the plant without a containment dome. The Center believes that although the PBMR does not really need a containment dome, it would be good insurance and good public relations to build one. The Center will encourage Mr. Rowe to get Exelon to rejoin the project to build a PBMR in South Africa.

Green DMV Receives The Washingtonian Magazine Award

Rhon Hayes, Norris McDonald, Philip O'Neal
Rhon Hayes and Philip O'Neal, left, acepted an award from Washingtonian magazine on behalf of Green DMV for their environmental stewardship. Hayes and O'Neal received the award at the Washingtonian 3rd Annual Green Awards, which honors those who preserve and protect our environment and teaches the virtues of living green. Green DMV was one of the honorees.

The awards ceremony was held at the Blue Ridge Restaurant and other honorees included: Tracy Bowen, Founder, Alice Ferguson Foundation, Seth Goldman, Found, Honest Tea and Bethesda Green, Chris Johns, Editor-in-Chief, National Geographic magazine and Cate Magennis Wyatt, Founder and Executive Director, Journey Through Hallowed Ground.

Center President Norris McDonald is on the advisory board of Green DMV. (See Washingtonian, May 2010)

New Federal Strategy for Chesapeake Bay

The new federal strategy for the Chesapeake region released today focuses on protecting and restoring the environment in communities throughout the 64,000-square-mile watershed and in its thousands of streams, creeks and rivers. The strategy includes using rigorous regulations to restore clean water, implementing new conservation practices on 4 million acres of farms, conserving 2 million acres of undeveloped land and rebuilding oysters in 20 tributaries of the bay.

To increase accountability, federal agencies will establish milestones every two years for actions to make progress toward measurable environmental goals. These will support and complement the states’ two-year milestones. The “Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” was developed under the executive order issued by President Obama in May 2009, which declared the Chesapeake Bay a national treasure and ushered in a new era of shared federal leadership, action and accountability.

To restore clean water, EPA will implement the Chesapeake total maximum daily load (a pollution diet for the Chesapeake Bay and local waterways), expand regulation of urban and suburban stormwater and concentrated animal feeding operations and increase enforcement activities and funding for state regulatory programs.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will provide farmers and forest owners throughout the bay watershed with the resources to prevent soil erosion and keep nitrogen and phosphorous out of local waterways. USDA will target federal funding to the places where it will have the greatest water quality impact and ensure that agricultural producers’ conservation efforts are accurately reported. USDA will also lead a federal initiative to develop a watershed-wide environmental services market that would allow producers to generate tradable water quality credits in return for installing effective conservation practices. Conserving 2 million acres of natural areas, forests and farmland preserves the environmental, recreational, cultural and economic benefits these lands provide.

To protect priority lands, the Department of the Interior will launch a collaborative Chesapeake Treasured Landscape Initiative and expand land conservation by coordinating federal funding and providing community assistance. Interior will also develop a plan for increasing public access to the bay and its rivers.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will launch a bay-wide oyster restoration strategy in close collaboration with Maryland and Virginia that focuses on priority tributaries, expands commercial aquaculture and bolsters research on oyster stock, habitat and restoration progress. Oysters are among the bay’s most struggling species and restoration in 20 tributaries will yield great environmental and economic benefits.

Executive Order Background On May 12, 2009, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13508 on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. The purpose of the executive order is “to protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and economic value of the nation’s largest estuarine ecosystem and the natural sustainability of its watershed.” To bring the full weight of the federal government to address the Chesapeake’s challenges, the executive order established the Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bay, which is chaired by the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and includes senior representatives from the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior and Transportation. The FLC was charged with developing a new strategy for protection and restoration. To view the strategy

EPA Sets Greenhouse Gas Permitting Requirements

Small Businesses & Farms Will Be Shielded

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced (3/13) a final rule to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the largest stationary sources, while shielding millions of small sources of GHGs from Clean Air Act permitting requirements. The phased-in, common-sense approach will address facilities like power plants and oil refineries that are responsible for 70 percent of the greenhouse gases from stationary sources that threaten American’s health and welfare.

EPA’s phased-in approach will start in January 2011, when Clean Air Act permitting requirements for GHGs will kick in for large facilities that are already obtaining Clean Air Act permits for other pollutants. Those facilities will be required to include GHGs in their permit if they increase these emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year (tpy).

In July 2011, Clean Air Act permitting requirements will expand to cover all new facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy and modifications at existing facilities that would increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies to minimize GHG emission increases when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.

Under the new emissions thresholds for GHGs that begin in July 2011, EPA estimates approximately 900 additional permitting actions covering new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year. In addition, 550 sources will need to obtain operating permits for the first time because of their GHG emissions.
In April 2010, EPA set the first national GHG tailpipe standards for passenger cars and light trucks. When GHG emissions limits for these vehicles go into effect in January 2011, EPA is also required to address GHG emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act’s permitting programs, which it is doing in the plan outlined today.

The final rule addresses a group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

EPA issued a proposed rule in October 2009 and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received about 450,000 comments, which were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of this final rule.

More information

Center Gets What It Wants In Climate Bill

The Center has consistently advocated for a provision in any climate bill that allows 'anyone' to hold and trade allowances. Such a provision is included in the Kerry-Lieberman climate legislation. It is included in:

Title VII—GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION REDUCTION AND INVESTMENT
PROGRAM

Part C—Program Rules

Section 724. Trading. Clarifies that Title VII as established by this section does not restrict who can hold an allowance, nor does it restrict the purchase, sale, or other transactions involving allowances.

Such language is one of the most powerful tools in the bill. It will lead to innovations that we cannot imagine. There is also such a provision in the Acid Rain Program and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The Center is registered in the EPA Acid Rain Program and the RGGI Program.

Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733)

Comparison of Kerry-Lieberman Bill to House Greenhouse Gas Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although proposed again on May 12, 2010Senator Kerry's Office lists the language below as the current bill.

FULL TEXT

A SUMMARY OF THE CLEAN ENERGY JOBS AND AMERICAN POWER ACT
AS INTRODUCED September 30, 2009

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE: “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (Section Summary)”.

TITLE I—GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PROGRAMS
Subtitle A—Clean Transportation
Section 111. Emission Standards. Amends Title VIII of the Clean Air Act to require EPA to
establish greenhouse gas emission standards for new heavy-duty vehicles and engines, and for
nonroad vehicles and engines.
Section 112. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Through Transportation Efficiency.
Section 113. Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Program Grants.
Section 114. SmartWay Transportation Efficiency Program.
Subtitle B—Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Section 121. National Strategy.
Section 122. Regulations for Geological Sequestration Sites.
Section 123. Studies and Reports.
Section 124. Performance Standards for Coal-fueled Power Plants.
Section 125. Carbon Capture and Sequestration Demonstration and Early Deployment Program.
Subtitle C—Nuclear and Advanced Technologies
Section 131. Findings and Policy.
Section 132. Nuclear Worker Training.
Section 133. Nuclear Safety and Waste Management Programs.
Subtitle D—Water Efficiency
Section 141. WaterSense. (under the Energy Star program).
Section 142. Federal Procurement of Water-efficient Products.
Section 143. State Residential Water Efficiency and Conservation Incentives Program.
Section 151. Office of Consumer Advocacy.
Section 152. Clean Technology Business Competition Grant Program.
Section 153. Product Carbon Disclosure Program.
Section 154. State Recycling Programs.
Section 155. Supplemental Agriculture and Forestry GHG Reduction and Renewable Energy
Section 156. Economic Development Climate Change Fund.
Section 157. Study of Risk-based Programs Addressing Vulnerable Areas.
Subtitle F—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Section 161. Renewable Energy.
Section 162. Advanced Biofuels.
Section 163. Energy Efficiency in Building Codes.
Section 164. Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance.
Subtitle G—Emission Reductions From Public Transportation Vehicles
Sections 171-173. Amends the Clean Air Act to allow State and local governments to set fuel
efficiency standards for emissions from taxi cabs at least as stringent as applicable Federal
standards.
Subtitle H—Clean Energy and Natural Gas
Section 181. Clean Energy and Accelerated Emission Reduction Program.
Section 182. Advanced Natural Gas Technologies. Authorizes
TITLE II—RESEARCH
Subtitle A—Energy Research
Section 201. Advanced Energy Research. Subtitle B—Drinking Water Adaptation, Technology, Education, and Research
Section 211. Effects of Climate Change on Drinking Water Utilities.
TITLE III—TRANSITION AND ADAPTATION
Subtitle A—Green Jobs and Worker Transition
Section 301. Clean Energy Curriculum Development Grants.
Section 302. Development of Information and Resources Clearinghouse for Vocational Education and Job Training in Renewable Energy Sectors.
Section 303. Green Construction Careers Demonstration Project.
Part 2—Climate Change Worker Adjustment Assistance
Sections 311- 313. Establishes a program pursuant to which any worker displaced as a result of
Title VII of the Clean Air Act would be entitled to 156 weeks of income supplement.
Subtitle B—International Climate Change Programs
Section 321. Strategic Interagency Board on International Climate Investment.
Section 322. Emission Reductions from Reduced Deforestation.
Part E—Supplemental Emission Reductions
Sections 751-752. Definitions and Purposes. Defines forest carbon activities.
Section 753. Emission Reductions from Reduced Deforestation.
Section 323. International Clean Energy Deployment Program.
Section 324. International Climate Change Adaptation and Global Security Program.
Section 325. Evaluation and Reports.
Section 326. Report on Climate Action of Major Economies.
Subtitle C—Adapting to Climate Change
PART 1—Domestic Adaptation
Subpart A—National Climate Change Adaptation Program
Sections 341-342. National Climate Change Adaptation Program and Services.
Subpart B—Public Health and Climate Change
Sections 351 – 356. Public Health Adaptation Policy, Action Plans and Advisory Board.
Subpart C—Climate Change Safeguards for Natural Resources Conservation
Sections 361-365. Purposes, Policy, Definitions, Adaptation Panel.
Section 366. Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.
Section 367. Natural Resources Adaptation Science and Information.
Section 368. Federal Natural Resource Agency Adaptation Plans.
Section 369. State Natural Resources Adaptation Plans.
Section 370. Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Account.
Section 371. National Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Information Program.
Section 372. Additional Provisions Regarding Indian Tribes.
Subpart D—Additional Climate Change Adaptation Programs
Section 381. Water System Mitigation and Adaptation Partnerships.
Section 382. Flood Control, Protection, Prevention and Response.
Section 383. Wildfire.
Section 384. Coastal and Great Lakes State Adaptation Program.
Title VII—GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION REDUCTION AND INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Section 701-702. Findings, Economywide Reduction Goals.
Section 703. Reduction Targets for Specified Sources.
Section 704. Supplemental Pollution Reductions. )incentives to reduce emissions from international deforestation).
Section 705. Review and Program Recommendations.
Section 706. National Academy Review.
Section 707. Presidential Response and Recommendations.
Part B—Designation and Registration of Greenhouse Gases
Section 711. Designation of Greenhouse Gases.
Section 712. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Value of Greenhouse Gases. Lists carbon dioxide equivalents for each gas.
Section 713. Greenhouse Gas Registry.
Section 714. Perfluorocarbon Regulation.
Part C—Program Rules
Section 721. Emission Allowances.
Section 722. Prohibition of Excess Emissions.
Section 723. Penalty for Noncompliance.
Section 724. Trading.
Section 725. Banking and Borrowing.
Section 726. Market Stability Reserve.
Section 727. Permits.
Section 728. International Emission Allowances. Part D – Offsets
Section 731. Offsets Integrity Advisory Board.
Section 732. Establishment of Offsets Program.
Section 733 Eligible Project Types.
Section 734. Requirements for Offset Projects.
Section 735. Approval of Offset Projects.
Section 736. Verification of Offset Projects.
Section 737. Issuance of Offset Credits.
Section 738. Audits.
Section 739. Program Review and Revision.
Section 740. Early Offset Supply.
Section 741. Environmental Considerations.
Section 742. Trading.
Section 743. Office of Offsets Integrity.
Section 744. International Offset Credits.
Subtitle B—Disposition of Allowances
Section 111. Disposition of Allowances for Global Warming Pollution Reduction Program.
Part H—Disposition of Allowances
Section 771. Allocation of Emission Allowances.
Section 772. Electricity Consumers.
Section 773. Natural Gas Consumers.
Section 774. Home Heating Oil and Propane Consumers.
Section 775. Domestic Fuel Production.
Section 776. Consumer Protection.
Section 777. Exchange for State-Issued Allowances.
Section 778. Auction Procedures.
Section 779. Auctioning Allowances for Other Entities.
Section 780. Commercial Deployment of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies.
Section 781. Oversight of Allocations.
Section 782. Early Action Recognition.
Section 783. Establishment of Deficit Reduction Fund.
Subtitle C—Additional Greenhouse Gas Standards
Section 121. Greenhouse Gas Standards.
Title VIII—ADDITIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS STANDARDS
Section 801. Definitions. Defines terms used in Title VIII.
Part A—Stationary Source Standards
Section 811. Standards of Performance.
Section 122. HFC Regulation.
Section 123. Black Carbon.
Section 124. States.
Section 125. State Programs.
Section 126. Enforcement.
Section 127. Conforming Amendments.
Section 128. Davis-Bacon Compliance.
Subtitle D—Carbon Market Assurance
Sections 131. Carbon Market Assurance.
Subtitle E—Ensuring Real Reductions in Industrial Emissions
Section 141. Ensuring Real Reductions in Industrial Emissions.
Part F—Ensuring Real Reductions in Industrial Emissions
Section 761. Purposes.
Section 762-764. Definitions, Eligible Industrial Sectors, Distribution of Emission Allowance
Rebates.
Section 765. International Trade.
TITLE II—PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS
Section 201. Investment in Clean Vehicle Technology.
Section 202. State and Local Investment in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Section 203. Energy Efficiency in Building Codes.
Section 204. Building Retrofit Program.
Section 205. Energy Innovation Hubs.
Section 206. ARPA-E Research.
Section 208. International Climate Change Adaptation and Global Security.
Section 209. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training.
Section 210. Worker Transition.
Section 211. State Programs for Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Climate Adaptation.
Section 212. Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Fund.
Section 213. Climate Change Safeguards for Natural Resources Conservation.
Section 214. Nuclear Worker Training.
Section 215. Supplemental Agriculture, Renewable Energy, and Forestry.

A Very Interesting Day

PRESIDENT'S CORNER

By Norris McDonald

Today was a very interesting day. It started with attending a presentation entitled, "Fixing the Carbon Problem Without Breaking the Economy," which was delivered by John W. Rowe, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Exelon Corporation, the largest nuclear power company in the world. The presentation was sponsored by Resources for the Future (RFF) and was held at the National Association of Homebuilders Auditorium.

Norris McDonald and John Rowe

Mr. Rowe, pictured at right with me, discussed U.S. legislative and regulatory actions to address climate change, and why we must focus on economic approaches that will provide the country with cleaner, more secure energy while minimizing the costs to consumers and putting more people to work. As the electricity industry’s longest-serving chief executive, Rowe was among the first CEOs in the industry to focus on climate change, first testifying before Congress on the potential effects of carbon emissions in 1992.

I then went a few blocks to meet with Dr. Elsie Scott, left, President of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF), at their headquarters office on Massachusetts Avenue.

Dr. Scott briefed me on the activities and priorities of CBCF and I described the various programs of the Center. Dr. Scott joined CBCF in 2007.

Next I participated in the the grand opening session of the Fourth Annual State of Environmental Justice In America 2010 Conference at the Howard University School of Law, which was a huge success. A great crowd braved rain showers to listen to presentations and ask questions in the Moot Court Room. I am pictured at left with Dru Ealons, Special Assistant, Office of Public Engagement, EPA and Stephanie Owens, Director, Office of Public Outreach, EPA. I am pictured at right with Quentin Pair, Environmental Justice Director, U.S. Justice Department.

The session featured a moderated environmental justice conversation that discussed the application of fair treatment and meaningful involvement from different interests and perspectives. It addressed questions such as: How can environmental justice and economic development co-exist? How can we improve relations between communities and industry, communities and government, and government and industry? What are examples of model environmental justice activities? Are the Federal agencies committed to implementing the Executive Order? Is business and industry committed to environmental justice? What are the most significant environmental justice issues facing the country?

Finally, I attended The Washingtonian 3rd Annual Green Awards, which honored those who preserve and protect our environment and teaches the virtues of living green. Green DMV was one of the honorees. Rhon Hayes and Philip O'Neal, left, accepted the award on behalf of Green DMV. I am on the advisory board. The awards ceremony was held at the Blue Ridge Restaurant and other honorees included: Tracy Bowen, Founder, Alice Ferguson Foundation, Seth Goldman, Found, Honest Tea and Bethesda Green, Chris Johns, Editor-in-Chief, National Geographic magazine and Cate Magennis Wyatt, Founder and Executive Director, Journey Through Hallowed Ground.

Lisa Jackson Reporting on Meetings to Address Gulf Oil Spill

Via Facebook:

"Just wrapped a meeting at Tulane University speaking with scientists and public health experts from four states. Discussed Ushahidi, a crowdsourcing technology from Kenya that is helping people across the community track and report spill developments."

Senate Energy & Environment Hearings on Gulf Oil Spill

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Hearing on Gulf Oil Spill 10 a.m.

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Hearing on Gulf Oil Spill 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to review current issues related to offshore oil and gas development including the Department of the Interior’s recent five year planning announcements and the accident in the Gulf of Mexico involving the offshore oil rig Deepwater Horizon.

Witnesses

Panel 1

Dr. F.E. Beck , Associate Professor, Texas A&M University
Mr. Danenberger , Former Chief, Offshore Regulatory Program, Minerals Management Service

Panel 2

Mr. Lamar McKay , President and Chairman , BP America, Inc.
Mr. Steven Newman , President and Chief Executive Officer, Transocean Limited
Mr. Tim Probert , President, Global Business Lines; Chief Health, Safety and Environmental Officer, Halliburton

Tthe companies are all blaming each other for the April 20 Gulf of Mexico oil rig explosion and oil spill that also killed 11 people. Establishing blame will surely end up in court but many questions will be posed and answered at a serious of congressional hearings on the disaster. BP faces dozens of lawsuits for damages. But they might not be alone. BP America, Inc owns the well; Transocean owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon rig; and Halliburton was hired to cement the well. BP is blaming a failure of the Transocean's blowout preventer for the accident. Yet, determining why the equipment failed to work is critical because it was the fail-safe in case of an accident. Transocean is putting the blame on subcontractors working under BP's direction.

According to BP, the explosion occurred "after the well construction process was essentially finished." But Transocean is blaming the blowout on a failure of the well's lining, speculating that the blowout was caused by "a sudden, catastrophic failure of the cement, the casing or both." The casing is the area in the hole outside the pipe. Transocean is contradicting BP's assertion that the final blame must fall to the blowout preventer because at the point that the blowout occurred, "the well barriers—the cementing and the casing—were responsible for controlling any pressure from the reservoir."

According to Halliburton, its workers did not set a cement well plug before the blowout and explosion. Halliburton also contends that they had finished cementing the casing area outside the pipe and had not yet been able to set a cement plug to block the pipe before the explosion. Such a plug is necessary before the well could be temporarily closed. BP planned to close the well for a time while it devised a plan to bring it into production and start pumping oil. Finally, BP contends that "Prior to the point in the well construction plan that the Halliburton personnel would have set the final cement plug, the catastrophic incident occurred." [quotes from Senate testimony] (WSJ, 5/11/10)

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is holding a hearing titled, "Economic and Environmental Impacts of the Recent Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico,” to examine issues surrounding the oil spill in the Gulf, including the impact on the economy and the environment. In addition to testimony from several corporations involved in the spill, including BP, Halliburton and Transocean, witnesses will also include experts on the impacts to local economies, fisheries and tourism, as well as wildlife and natural resources. Senators from the coastal states are also expected to provide testimony.

Witnesses

Panel 1

Lamar McKay Chairman and President BP America
Steven L. Newman President and CEO Transocean Ltd.
Tim Probert President, Global Business Lines, and Chief Health, Safety and Environmental Officer, Halliburton

Panel 2

Dr. Steve Bortone Executive Director Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
Garret Graves Director Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities, State of Louisiana
Keith Overton CHA Chairman of the Board, Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association and Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, TradeWinds Island Resorts
Dr. Eric May, Research Scientist, Living Marine Resources Cooperative Science Center, Department of Natural Sciences University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Meg Caldwell JD Director, Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program; Executive Director, Center for Ocean Solutions, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University
Lieutenant General Thomas G. McInerney United States Air Force (Ret.)

New Stormwater Management Regulations in Maryland

Edmonston "Green Street" Stormwater Management Project Initiated

New environmental regulations adopted during the 2010 legislative session in Maryland require developers to slow the rate at which rainwater flows from streets and driveways in neighborhoods. The goal is to reduce pollutants going into the Chesapeake Bay by passing the water through soil and other natural filters. In the past, stormwater management consisted mostly of digging ponds at low points in communities in order to collect runoff. The new regulations decentralize the practice, spreading out devices and using new techniques throughout residential and commercial properties to ease the flow of water. Developers will also use of rain gardens and porous pavement to soak water into soil.

Edmonston Mayor Adam Ortiz & Lisa P. Jackson
Edmonston's "Green Street" project will retrofit Decatur Street with environmentally-friendly features with rain gardens and bioretention ponds to capture storm water runoff. Half of the road surface will be replaced with permeable pavement that will allow rainwater to soak into the ground. Low-energy street lamps will replace current ones. The project will cost more than $1 million, much of which comes from federal Stimulus Act money and a $25,000 grant from the Chesapeake Bay Trust to get the project started. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson appeared at a groundbreaking evernt on November 24, 2009 along with other federal and local officials.

Edmonston has been plagued with flooding for years due to poor a storm water management system. The green street project is projected to capture up to 90 percent of the storm water runoff. Edmonston is small town of about 1,400 people, whose population is a third white, a third black and a third Latino. (Maryland Daily Record, 5/9/2010, Maryland Gazette, 12/3/2010)

BP Issues Video of Remote Vehicle Capping 1 of 3 Leaks

British Petroleum (BP) has released footage of their remote operating vehicle (ROV) successfully capping one of the three leaks that are pouring thousands of barrels of oil a day into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

House Passes Cash For Caulkers Program

The House passed 246-161 the $6 billion Home Star rebate program known as "Cash for Caulkers," which will create jobs and potentially save homeowners billions of dollars over the next decade by providing tax incentives to become more energy efficient. Homeowners would qualify for rebates from $1,500 to $3,000 per home for retrofits. Similar legislation is pending in the Senate and President Obama supports the program.

National Academy of Sciences Roundtable on Technology

Oceanographer and Center Blog contributor Frank R. Hall recently attended the Meeting of the Roundtable on Science and Technology Sustainability at the National Academy of Sciences. He is pictured with two of the roundtable members: Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk and Dr. Mohammad Hassan. More on them below.

MOHAMED H.A. HASSAN is Executive Director of the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS), President of the African Academy of Sciences (AAS) and Chairman of the Honorary Presidential Advisory Council for Science and Technology in Nigeria. After obtaining his D.Phil. (University of Oxford, 1974), he returned to Sudan as professor and Dean of the School of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Khartoum. He was the 1985 TWAS Fellow in Mathematical Sciences. He received the Comendator (1996), Grand Cross (2005), and National Order of Scientific Merit, Brazil; and Officer, Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, 2003. Dr. Hassan’s membership includes: Founding Fellow, AAS, 1985; Fellow, Islamic World Academy of Sciences, 1992; Honorary Member, Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicasy Naturales, 1996; Corresponding Member, Académie Royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer, Belgium, 2001; and Foreign Fellow, Pakistan Academy of Sciences, 2002. His fields cover theoretical plasma physics, wind erosion, sand and dust transport, and diffusion of dust
particles.

DENISE STEPHENSON HAWK is Chairman of the Stephenson Group, LLC and a science, policy, and education consultant. She is a former provost of Spelman College and professor at Clark Atlanta University, recently held a position as the NCAR associate director for the Societal-Environmental Research & Education Laboratory (SERE). Through her multifaceted career in academia, government, and the corporate arena, Stephenson Hawk has often worked at the interface between science, education, and policy. She holds a Ph.D. from Princeton University in geophysical fluid dynamics. While at Clark Atlanta, Stephenson Hawk served as founding director of the interdisciplinary Earth Systems Science Program and co-led a program to enhance the mathematics and science achievement of Atlanta public school students. She has served on many NSF, NASA, and NOAA science and education advisory committees, as well as on the NOAA Science Advisory Board and the UCAR University Relations Committee.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Returns to Gulf Region

To meet officials, scientists and other local experts on BP oil spill’s potential impact

Jackson at Greater Little Zion Baptist Church in New Orleans on first trip after spill
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson is making another visit to the gulf region today and tomorrow to oversee efforts to mitigate the environmental and human health impacts of the ongoing BP oil spill. The administrator will receive a briefing from Louisiana State University scientists in Baton Rouge, a briefing with Federal agency scientists in Robert and briefings in New Orleans from local university scientists, Tulane University scientists and local community organizations. The administrator is seeking a thorough scientific assessment of the spill’s impact on the region’s residents and environment.

The administrator will meet with EPA response managers on the scene and review the agency’s on-going air and water monitoring efforts. She will also meet with scientists from inside and outside the federal government – including scientists at local universities and from local organizations – who have unique knowledge of the environmental challenges facing the gulf coast region and to discuss the potential impact of the use of dispersants on the spill on and below the surface of the water.

Administrator Jackson will also meet with BP officials, the Coast Guard and other federal agencies to discuss ongoing efforts to mitigate the impact of the spill.

For more information

Statement from Lisa Jackson's Facebook page today:

"Just left science meeting at LSU. Discussed several issues: dispersants, air/water monitoring and ecological impacts of BP spill. Bottom line: best decisions must be based on sound science and made in transparent way – and must engage local expertise on these critical scientific questions."

EPA Responds to the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico

Since the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico on April 22, 2010, EPA has mobilized resources to support the U.S. Coast Guard and protect public health and the environment. Their Emergency Operations Center at headquarters has been activated, trained EPA responders are working on the scene, and special mobile equipment has been sent to the Gulf area.

They have several online resources available:

1) They are posting updated data and other information on their BP oil spill site

Get air quality and water data
Find answers to common questions
Submit technology solutions

2) Connect with them on social media sites:

Administrator Jackson's personal account of the response to the oil spill: Facebook and Twitter

EPA's announcements about their response: Facebook and Twitter

3) Subscribe to their oil spill updates

You can also visit the coordinated government response site for:

Information about the spill and efforts to stop the oil from flowing

Hotlines to report oil on land or injured wildlife

Details of how you can volunteer

India Needs Nuclear Compensation System For Our Help

India Parliament Building
India's lower house of parliament has tabled the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage bill that would establish a nuclear accident compensation system that is needed in order for American companies to build reactors in India. Companies will need insurance for setting up nuclear reactors, so the law makes clear the compensation liability. Without insurance, the companies cannot pay the victims of a disaster. The liability legislation is one of the last steps needed to fully activate a landmark civilian nuclear agreement between India and the United States that will allow American companies to set up reactors in India. The Center supports the legislation.

Opponents believe the bill takes away victims' rights to bring compensation claims to court in the event of a nuclear accident. The legislation seeks to place the burden of damages solely on the nuclear plant operator and not on suppliers of equipment. Opponents say the bill say that it places legal liability for mishaps on the state-run operator of the plant, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, and not on the private suppliers and contractors -- many of which would be foreign companies. The bill places a compensation cap of $100 million on the state-run operator and allows compensation directly from the Indian government of up to $450 million.

Proponents cite that there will be thousands of suppliers to a nuclear plant. If the victims have to go after each and every supplier, they will never get compensation. Proponents beleive the bill is a single-window system of compensation.

The 2008 nuclear accord allows India to access global nuclear technology and fuel supplies after more than three decades of international boycott, following the Indian atomic test in 1974. With the help of American, French and Russian nuclear companies, India hopes to generate 63,000 megawatts of nuclear power by 2030 -- up from 1,700 megawatts currently.

India has no legislation to cover claims in the event of a nuclear accident. Of the 436 nuclear power reactors in the world, 416 are covered by liability laws. The exceptions are the 18 installations in India and two in its neighbor and rival, Pakistan. Until India passes a liability law, American companies such as GE and Westinghouse cannot begin operations there. (Wash Post, 5/7/2010)

Unbelievable: Dispersants Used On Spilled Oil In Gulf

First we pointed out that burning the spilled oil in the Gulf would add air pollution to the ocean water pollution. Now huge quantities of toxic dispersant chemicals are being poured into the Gulf in an effort to disperse the oil. So now we have double water pollution and air pollution as a result of the offshore oil drilling accident. Mother Nature is being hammered in the Gulf.

Information about dispersants is "kept secret under competitive trade laws." But two different dispersants sold under the banner of Corexit were being used in the Gulf to break up the oil in the hope that it will help in preventing coastline oil coatings. The Corexit brand is owned by an Illinois-based company called Nalco: Nalco's Material Safety Data Sheets for "Dispersant Type 1," Corexit 9500 (PDF); and "Dispersant Type 2," Corexit 9527A (PDF): 9500's states that "Component substances have a potential to bioconcentrate," while the one for 9527A has the Substances that bioconcentrate move from water into fish, where they damage the fish itself, as well as pass chemicals on to predator fish -- and on up the food chain, to human eaters.

Corexit 9527: excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects," and "repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol [an active ingredient] may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver. Prolonged and/or repeated exposure through inhalation or extensive skin contact with EGBE [butoxyethanol] may result in damage to the blood and kidneys.

Both 9500 and 9527 are composed of three potentially hazardous substances. They share two in common, organic sulfonic acid salt and propylene glycol. In addition to those two, Corexit 9500 contains something called "Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light," while Corexit 9527 contains 2-Butoxyethanol. Petroleum distillates and 2-Butoxyethanol are both solvents. (Grist, 5/6/2010)

Senate Nuclear Subcommittee Holds Hearing on NRC

Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety

Hearing entitled, "Oversight Hearing: Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

Senator Thomas R. Carper (D-DE), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, held an oversight hearing to examine the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) guidelines and processes for licensing new reactors and regulating the current nuclear fleet.

Bill Magwood, Derry Bigby

Bill Magwood, Norris McDonald

Center President Norris McDonald and Center Vice President Derry Bigby attended the hearing and engaged NRC commissioners after the hearing.

The Center supported the nominations of Bill Magwood and George Apostolakis. The Center is delighted to report that both commissioners are friendly and approachable. This is important to stakeholders interested in providing input on nuclear power issues that are of interest to the NRC and the general public.

George Apostolakis, Norris McDonald

(NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko with reporters in background)

Witnesses

Opening Remarks

Panel 1

The Honorable Gregory B. Jaczko Chairman, NRC
The Honorable Kristine L. Svinicki Commissioner, NRC
The Honorable George Apostolakis Commissioner, NRC
The Honorable William D. Magwood IV Commissioner, NRC
The Honorable William C. Ostendorff Commissioner,

Panel 2

Dr. Richard A. (Dick) Meserve President, Carnegie Institution for Science (Former NRC Commissioner)
Dr. Peter A. Bradford Adjunct Professor, Institute for Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law School (Former NRC Commissioner)
Dr. K.P. (Kris) Singh President and CEO Holtec International
Mr. George Vanderheyden President and CEO UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC

(Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety hearing entitled, "Oversight Hearing: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.")

EPA Announces Plans to Regulate Coal Ash

Agency proposals would address risks of unsafe coal ash disposal, while supporting safe forms of beneficial use

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today is proposing the first-ever national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants. Coal combustion residuals, commonly known as coal ash, are byproducts of the combustion of coal at power plants and are disposed of in liquid form at large surface impoundments and in solid form at landfills. The residuals contain contaminants like mercury, cadmium and arsenic, which are associated with cancer and various other serious health effects. EPA’s risk assessment and damage cases demonstrate that, without proper protections, these contaminants can leach into groundwater and can migrate to drinking water sources, posing significant health public concerns.

Today’s action will ensure for the first time that protective controls, such as liners and groundwater monitoring, are in place at new landfills to protect groundwater and human health. Existing surface impoundments will also require liners, with strong incentives to close the impoundments and transition to safer landfills, which store coal ash in dry form. The proposed regulations will ensure stronger oversight of the structural integrity of impoundments in order to prevent accidents like the one at Kingston, Tennessee.

Today’s action also will promote environmentally safe and desirable forms of recycling coal ash, known as beneficial uses. The dangers associated with structurally unsafe coal ash impoundments came to national attention in 2008 when an impoundment holding disposed waste ash generated by the Tennessee Valley Authority broke open, creating a massive spill in Kingston that covered millions of cubic yards of land and river. The spill displaced residents, required hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs and caused widespread environmental damage. Shortly afterwards, EPA began overseeing the cleanup, as well as investigating the structural integrity of impoundments where ash waste is stored.

The proposal opens a national dialogue by calling for public comment on two approaches for addressing the risks of coal ash management under the nation’s primary law for regulating solid waste, the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA).

One option is drawn from authorities available under Subtitle C, which creates a comprehensive program of federally enforceable requirements for waste management and disposal.

The other option includes remedies under Subtitle D, which gives EPA authority to set performance standards for waste management facilities and would be enforced primarily through citizen suits.

A chart comparing and contrasting the two approaches is available on EPA’s Web site. Under both approaches proposed by EPA, the agency would leave in place the Bevill exemption for beneficial uses of coal ash in which coal combustion residuals are recycled as components of products instead of placed in impoundments or landfills. Large quantities of coal ash are used today in concrete, cement, wallboard and other contained applications that should not involve any exposure by the public to unsafe contaminants. These uses would not be impacted by today’s proposal.

EPA supports the legitimate beneficial use of coal combustion residuals. Environmentally sound beneficial uses of ash conserve resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lessen the need for waste disposal units, and provide significant domestic economic benefits. This proposal will clearly differentiate these uses from coal ash disposal and assure that safe beneficial uses are not restricted and in fact are encouraged. EPA is seeking public comment on how to frame the continued exemption of beneficial uses from regulation and is focusing in particular on whether that exemption should exclude certain non-contained applications where contaminants in coal ash could pose risks to human health.

The public comment period is 90 days from the date the rule is published in the Federal Register. Coal combustion residual impoundments can be found in almost all states across America, most often on the properties of power plants. There are almost 900 landfills and surface impoundments nationwide. Since the spill at Kingston, EPA has been evaluating hundreds of coal ash impoundments throughout the country to ensure their structural integrity and to require improvements where necessary. The results of the assessments are on EPA’s Web site.

More information about the proposed regulation

To view the chart comparing the two approaches

Associated Issue:

"EPA Considers Non-Hazardous Solid Waste Under CAA"

Congressional Hearings on Gulf Oil Spill

Upcoming Capitol Hill Hearings to investigate the Gulf Oil Spill:

1) Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

Full Committee Hearing to review current issues related to offshore oil and gas development

Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 10:00 AM
Where: Energy Committee Hearing Room - 266 Dirksen Senate Office Building

The purpose of the hearing is to review current issues related to offshore oil and gas development including the Department of Interior's recent five year planning announcements and the accident in the Gulf of Mexico involving the offshore oil rig Deepwater Horizon.

2) House Energy and Commerce Committee: Hearing on Deepwater Horizon Rig Oil Spill Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 10:00 am
Where: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building

3) House Natural Resources Committee:

Full Committee Oversight Hearing on the "Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Strategy and Implications of the Deepwater Horizon Rig Explosion"

Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 10:00 am
Where: Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building

The House Natural Resources Committee, led by Chairman Nick J Rahall (D-WV), will hold an oversight hearing on the "Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Strategy and Implications of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion.

(Source: Clean Water Network, Alert #3)

Oil Slick Threatens Fishing & Oyster Industries In Gulf

Brown Pelican

The massive oil slick is threatening devastation to fragile wetlands and beaches in the Gulf of Mexico. That entire section of the Gulf is being contaminated and continued leakage could threaten other sections of the Atlantic Ocean. Wildlife and flora in the entire region are at risk. From oysters to seabirds to submerged aquatic vegetation, the Gulf spill provides clear evidence that expanded offshore oil drilling is not justified. The multibillion dollar tourist and fisheries industries in the Gulf have been placed at risk by the operations of the oil drilling sector. NOAA has restricted fishing for a minimum of ten days in federal waters most affected by the BP oil spill, largely between Louisiana state waters at the mouth of the Mississippi River to waters off Florida’s Pensacola Bay. (More)

According to BP officials 2,000 people are participating in remediation efforts. They were private environmental consultants, paramedics and crews from the state wildlife and fisheries department. The Louisiana Workforce Commission is hiring 500 workers for cleanup and protection operations. Hundreds of fishermen have signed up for a training class, arranged by BP, to transform them into hazmat cleanup and wetlands-protection experts. There is some controversy about BP requiring workers to sign waivers against future litigation by these workers.

President Obama has ordered a moratorium on new drilling projects while the federal government considers new guidelines to prevent future spills.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has asked for federal authority to call up 6,000 National Guard troops to help with the cleanup. Jindal has also asked BP to distribute cleanup tasks to fishermen, whose livelihood is threatened to such an extent that the governor asked for the declaration of a "commercial fisheries failure" to clear the way for financial assistance.

Officials said they have deployed 1,900 federal workers to protect coastal areas and wildlife. The Defense Department is sending two C-130 aircraft to drop oil-dispersing chemicals on the spill. The EPA brought in two mobile labs to test air quality and water quality. (Chicago Tribune, 5/1/2010)

BP Attempting Spill Cap With Subsea Oil Recovery System

The 125-ton Subsea Oil Recovery System (SORS), left, comprises a 14' x 24' x 40' water displacement structure that will be set on top of the largest leak source and act as a funnel for the leaking crude oil. The SORS is designed to collect oil from the well and pump it to a tanker at the surface, which will then be stored and shipped to shore. According to the unified command Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center, the SORS could be deployed within days.

The leak is located at the end of the riser (tubing), approximately 600 feet from the wellhead. Equipment at the top of the containment chamber is connected to a 5,000-foot, 6 5/8-inch drill pipe riser that will direct the oil to the Deepwater Enterprise surface ship where recovered hydrocarbons will be processed. Oil separated from water and gas will be shipped to a designated oil terminal onshore.

The Deepwater Enterprise can process 15,000 barrels of oil per day and store 139,000 barrels. A support barge capable of storing 137,000 barrels of oil will also be deployed. The containment system has never been used at the water depth in question, roughly one mile below the surface. [RigZone, 5/3/2010, picture & illustration courtesy unified command]