Gulf of Mexico becomes science laboratory for dispersants

President Barack Obama requested $2 million in supplemental federal funds for dispersant research associated with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Record volumes of dispersants have been used on the gulf's surface and in the subsea at 5,000 ft of water. Most previous research on dispersants involved laboratory testing, but the spill resulted in scientists monitoring the effects of chemical dispersant on a much grander scale.

Lisa P. Jackson, administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, testified on July 15 before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations about the request for funding dispersant research.

Dispersants played a big role in the Macondo oil spill response efforts. Scientists and others are studying the effects that dispersants might have on marine life. Federal officials and Louisiana state officials granted BP authorization to use approved dispersants to break down the oil into smaller drops.

In May, EPA and the US Coast Guard issued a directive requiring BP to implement a monitoring and assessment plan for subsurface and surface applications of dispersants. Federal authorities on May 26 asked BP to significantly decrease the overall volume of dispersants being used.

“Since that directive, we have seen the total volume of dispersants used fall by almost 70% from their peak levels,” Jackson said. EPA set up an extensive network to monitor the air, water, and sediments for the presence of dispersants and crude oil components.

The next phase of EPA’s testing will assess the acute toxicity of multiple concentrations of Louisiana sweet crude oil alone and combinations of Louisiana sweet crude oil with dispersants.

EPA seeks emission control status for US waters

In March 2010, the International Maritime Organization is scheduled to vote on whether to designate US coastal waters as an Emission Control Area (ECA) under international law.

The designation would regulate the fuel type burned by oil tankers and other ocean vessels. Container ships, tankers, and other large vessels that dock at US port cities burn low-grade residual fuel.

The US Environmental Protection Agency applied for an ECA in an effort to reduce air pollution from ships. The application was a joint US-Canadian proposal that the IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Commission favorably received at a London meeting.

The Environmental Defense Fund supports the EPA’s request, saying the ECA designation will help ensure federal air-quality standards around US ports.

“Ships are floating smokestacks that deliver soot and smog straight to the heart of our most crowded coastal cities, home to 87 million Americans,” said Elena Craft, air quality specialist with the EDF in Houston. An ECA could help reduce air pollution from ships, she said.

Ocean vessels account for about 3% of the world’s total greenhouse gas pollution, EDF said in a report it released earlier this year. The EPA applied for a designation under international law because government officials estimate foreign-flagged vessels account for the majority of the ship calls on US ports.

Should Clean Air Act regulate carbon dioxide?

Should the US government regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? If so, how? These questions and related issues are drawing much attention among lawmakers this year.

The Obama administration issued a notice Apr. 14 saying the Environmental Protection Agency will review whether CO2 emissions should fall under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA already was reviewing whether CO2 should be regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The Obama administration’s notice about the CWA stems from a petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, which wants to protect ocean water from ocean acidification.

The EPA is contemplating mandatory reporting of GHG emissions. In April 2007, the US Supreme Court ordered the Bush administration to reconsider whether GHG emissions are pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA.

H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, questions the CAA approach. He argues that if it must be undertaken at all, then Congress should pass a law directly addressing CO2.

“The regulation of CO2 should not be done through bureaucratic bootstrapping current clean air laws,” Burnett said. “Since this will affect the economy as a whole, it should be undertaken by those directly accountable to the voters or the nation as a whole.”

It will be interesting to see whether others, particularly Congress, adopt his philosophy.

Meanwhile, US House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) suggests the committee’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee will discuss energy and climate legislation on Earth Day, Apr. 22.

Waxman and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the committee’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee, introduced proposed legislation, the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).

Waxman expects that the full committee will complete consideration of the legislation by Memorial Day.