BP Oil Spill Law Blog

If Approved, Gulf States to Receive Millions from BP

The RESTORE the Gulf Coast States Act was approved by the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works on September 21, 2011. The RESTORE Act was backed by bipartisan committee approval and will now proceed to the Senate floor for a full vote.

The RESTORE Act was drafted in response to the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill which pumped approximately 4.9 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana Senator Mary L. Landrieu and Alabama Senator Richard Shelby introduced the legislation supported by several fellow Gulf Coast Senators.

If approved by the full Senate, the bill would ensure that funds for economic and environmental recovery are sent to the Gulf Coast States and streamline the process for receiving the funds. Current law requires responsible parties to pay penalties to the Federal Treasury and affected states are on their own. The Clean Water Act allows the EPA to collect $1,100 per barrel of oil spilled, or $4,300 per barrel if there is a finding of gross negligence, from any party found responsible for an oil spill in federal waters. Based on the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, BP could face fines between $5.4 billion and $21.1 billion. If the RESTORE Act is approved, 80% of the fines BP is required to pay under the Clean Water Act will be allocated to Gulf States affected by the spill. This funding could serve as a major economic boost to communities still struggling to clean-up coastline and businesses damaged by the spill.

We have a very strong bill with very strong support including the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee," Louisiana Senator David Vitter said. "Louisiana and the Gulf Coast took a beating from the oil spill last summer, and the culprits - BP - are being held accountable. Our coastlines were the first line of defense against the oil spill as well as for tropical storms. It's extremely important to support the ongoing projects to build up our ecosystems and coastline."

For more information on RESTORE Act, visit

http://landrieu.senate.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases/07-21-2011-1.cfm

http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/11714_RESTORE-Act-Summary-April2011.pdf

A recent report on the chemical dispersants used on the BP oil spill suggests it could be years before the full range of human and environmental effects are clear. "The Chaos of Clean-up" report was recently released through a partnership between Toxipedia Consulting Services of Washington and Earthjustice, a nonprofit public interest law firm based in California. The Louisiana based Gulf Restoration Network and Florida Wildlife Federation funded the scientific review of the dispersants chemical makeup and potential effects on environmental and marine health.

The use of chemical dispersants to clean up the BP Oil spill has been the subject of debate and scrutiny since clean-up began in the summer of 2010. While some maintain that the use of nearly 1.8 million gallons of dispersants was the most efficient way to stop oil from seeping onshore and damaging coastline, others believe the potentially harmful effects of dispersants and application methods warranted careful consideration.

The report's main goal was to analyze the toxicity of various chemicals used in the dispersants in response to claims made by the EPA and BP regarding dispersants' safe toxicity levels. The name and quantity of the exact chemicals used in a dispersant product belong to dispersant manufacturers and are not released. Environmental advocates hope this report will encourage the EPA to research and release toxicity and safety information for all chemical ingredients used in oil dispersants. Without a complete list of dispersant ingredients, assessment of the effects of a dispersant product is impossible.

There is a wide range of effects associated with some of the chemicals used in dispersants. Effects may also vary depending on the environment and exposure level. The "Chaos of Clean-Up" report suggests the oil dispersants used could contain toxins and cancer-causing agents that may be harmful to humans and animals. Because a full list of dispersant ingredients has not been released, the report remains speculative. A group of Gulf Coast scientists are currently engaged in a three year BP funded research study of the effects of dispersant use.

"At this point, we cannot do anything about what already happened. What the public needs to do is make sure it never happens again", said Cynthia Sarthou of the Gulf Restoration Network. "Dispersants may not be the way to deal with oil disasters."

http://www.pnj.com/article/20110926/NEWS09/109260325/Study-shows-dispersants-BP-used-oil-spill-may-cause-cancer?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

The health effects of last spring's Deepwater Horizon oil spill will likely exceed the government and oil industry's expectations and present problems for Gulf residents living and working in close proximity to the spill for years to come. At a forum held February 5th in New Orleans, biochemist Wilma Subra of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network presented results from toxicity tests preformed on Gulf marine life, soil, and humans. Subra's human subjects included men and women of various ages exposed to different levels of crude oil following the April 2010 spill. Blood test results performed on test subjects showed elevated levels of chemicals typically found in crude oil and dispersant including benzene, ethylbenzene, and Xylene. All of the participants exposed to crude oil displayed some physical symptoms as a result of the exposure. According to Subra, acute symptoms associated with exposure to crude oil include skin irritation, nausea, headaches and vomiting while liver and kidney damage, cardiac abnormalities, chronic respiratory problems, and cancer caused by the chemical Benzene are some of the long-term health effects of oil exposure. Alarming levels of chemicals were also found in the Gulf seafood Supra tested as well as soil samples taken in four Gulf Coast states.

Subra, a Louisianan herself, offered criticism of the government and oil industry's response to the public health implications of the oil spill stating that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration endorsed safety requirements and gear provided to BP cleanup workers were inadequate, the methodology used by the Food and Drug Administration to test Gulf seafood for contaminants was flawed, and a large scale study financed jointly by the National Institutes of Health and BP to track the long-term health effects of the spill does not include much of the Gulf Coast's population or provide health care to participants.

Subra's discussion and study results came on the heels of last month's National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill where many Gulf Coast residents gathered in New Orleans to voice health concerns and hear an overview of the Commission's 400-page final report to President Barack Obama. Although the Commission recommended that the Environmental Protection Agency establish a more thorough protocol to monitor health effects of major oil spills, many cleanup workers, fishermen, and residents felt the recommendation would not help ease their current health maladies and medical expenses. One Commission member excited the crowd's fury by responding to a local fisherman's comment by stating that BP's use of chemical dispersants to break up the oil was a "trade-off" between possible exposure to dangerous chemicals and the need to contain the oil spill.

Although health issues were the main focus of the January National Oil Spill Commission gathering, commission member Dr. Donald Boesch cited a lack of scientific evidence of the spill's effect on human health as a limitation in drafting the report to the President.

"We were charged with being evidence-driven, and the fact is we've asked for and sought out evidence that the oil spill is the proximate cause of these health problems, and we just haven't found it," Boesch said.

The report does state that regardless of whether or not there is supporting evidence linking the oil spill to health issues, the government's response to health concerns has been inadequate.

Cleanup workers and Gulf Coast residents experiencing health problems potentially linked to the oil spill can file personal-injury claims. If you are an injured worker, the types of claims and deadlines for making any claims may hinge on the type of work you did at the time of the cleanup. Of course, your BP Oil Spill Lawyer must establish the causal relationship between the injury and the BP Oil Spill.

A report released today by the Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia concludes that up to 79 percent of the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon well has not been recovered and remains a threat to the ecosystem.

The report, authored by five prominent marine scientists, strongly contradicts media reports that suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill remains.

Source:

UGA Sea Grant Report

The Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation announced today that it has assigned U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans to preside over lawsuits related to the BP Oil Spill.

Upon careful consideration, however, we have settled upon the Eastern District of Louisiana as the most appropriate district for this litigation. Without discounting the spill's effects on other states, if there is a geographic and psychological "center of gravity" in this docket, then the Eastern District of Louisiana is closest to it. Considering all of the applicable factors, we have asked Judge Carl J. Barbier to serve as transferee judge. He has had a distinguished career as an attorney and now as a jurist. Moreover, during his twelve years on the bench, Judge Barbier has gained considerable MDL experience, and has been already actively managing dozens of cases in this docket. We have every confidence that he is well prepared to handle a litigation of this magnitude.

John G. Heyburn II, chief judge for the panel wrote in today's five-page decision.

Sources:

TRANSFER ORDER- IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG "DEEPWATER HORIZON"
IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, ON APRIL 20, 2010 (MDL Docket No. 2179.) MDL-2179-Transfer_Order.pdf

As BP prepares for a deluge of spill related lawsuits, contractual agreements with scientists hired to access the extent of the damage and provide expert testimony will be under close scrutiny. A July 29th letter written by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey to BP America Chairman Lamar McKay warns that "any effort to muzzle scientists or shield their findings" will not be tolerated.

Concerns over the transparency of scientific data and suppression of scientific testimony arose as a result of an investigation led by the House panel and recent media reports. Information alleging that BP has retained only those scientific experts agreeing to contractual confidentiality agreements led the Committee on Energy and Commerce to request timely access to "copies of all contracts that BP has executed with any third party consultant, scientist, or academic... relating to assessing the environmental and health impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or restoration efforts in the Gulf of Mexico".

BP's corporate influence on research has also come under recent inquiry. Last week, California congresswomen Lois Capps and Lynn Woolsey urged BP to allow the National Academy of Sciences to take over management of its Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, citing the need for " a rigorous peer review process" of research proposals. UC Berkeley is currently engaged in a 10 year, $500 million dollar contract with BP's Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative and has received heated criticism from students and staff who feel the corporate influence of BP compromises research validity. BP spokesman Steve Rinehart responded to complaints that Initiative scientists are contractually prohibited from releasing their research findings for three years stating, "We have asked that they limit public discussion of the dealings they have directly with our attorneys ... or the projects directly done for BP. They are free to discuss environmental or other data."

Reminding McKay and BP that " the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is not a private matter", the Committee's letter stressed the importance of " an open exchange of scientific data and analysis" for the full recovery and future development of the Gulf environment.

More information/Sources:

BP's scientific integrity is questioned

A copy of the Committee's letter to McKay McKay.BP.2010.7.29.pdf

Why no campus protest over Berkeley-BP connection?

According to a Congressional investigation led by Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, the U.S Coast Guard may be to blame for the haphazard use of thousands of gallons of chemical dispersants to break up oil slicks in the Gulf. According to government and BP documents, the U.S Coast Guard approved 74 requests for dispersant use over 48 days even after a federal order to stop the use of chemical dispersants on surface waters "except in rare cases were there might have to be an exception " was imposed at the urging of the EPA in late May. The EPA Directive instructed BP to "reduce the overall volume of dispersant used by 75% from the maximum daily amount used and to limit subsurface application to no more than 15,000 gallons a day" and required the submission of exemption requests to the U.S Coast Guard for consideration.

Despite concerns over the long-term effects of the toxic chemicals on the aquatic environment and the existing federal restriction, Markey's investigation maintains that the U.S Coast Guard routinely approved requests for the application of between 6,000 and 10,000 gallons of chemical dispersants a day, amounting to the overall use of hundreds of thousands of gallons of potentially toxic chemical dispersant on surface waters. Despite EPA concerns that the "exemption requests do not meet the requirements of the May 26th Directive", the U.S Coast Guard consistently approved exemption requests upon reception, even pre-authorizing requests for the use of dispersants up to a week in advance in some instances.

According to Markey, blatant discrepancies between the volumes of dispersants BP petitioned the U.S Coast Guard for and the figures for the actual volume of surface water dispersant used presented to the U.S Congressional staff exist. In his July 30th letter to Thad Allen, the retired U.S Coast Guard Admiral leading the response to the oil spill, Rep. Markey questioned the USCG's approval of exemption requests, inquiring what "rare circumstances" a-typical of a large scale oil spill necessitated such immediate approval.

In his letter, Markey stated that " the May 26th EPA Directive has become more of a meaningless paperwork exercise than an attempt to abide by the Directive and eliminate surface application of chemical dispersants" and requested a full response to the Subcommittee's findings by August 20,2010. So far, Allen has defended the approval of the exemption waivers, citing the overall decrease in chemical dispersants following the May 26th Directive and defending the use of dispersant as a "tactical" decision.

More information:

Rep. Markey's letter to Thad Allen 07-30-10ejmtocgdispersants.pdf

Despite Rule, BP Used Dispersant, Panel Finds

BP offered lucrative contracts and signing bonuses to top scientists at an Alabama University.

Scientists at other universities like Louisiana State University, Mississippi State University and Texas A&M have taken BP up on the offer. However, Alabama scientists took the high road. "We told them there was no way we would agree to any kind of restrictions on the data we collect. It was pretty clear we wouldn't be hearing from them again after that," said Bob Shipp, head of marine sciences at the University of South Alabama. "We didn't like the perception of the university representing BP in any fashion."

Source:

BP buys up Gulf scientists for legal defense, roiling academic community

A recent Washington Post Poll of Gulf Residents indicates many Gulf Coast Residents are depressed, disapprove of the federal government's response and are very concerned about the economy, environment, seafood safety and tourism.

Source:

The glum gulf (Washington Post)

Worried about the recent BP oil spill and what it could mean for your health? Here's what you can expect and how you can best protect your family's health.

Routes of exposure

Humans can be exposed to hazardous materials related to the oil spill via

• Inhalation (air)
• Ingestion (via food or water)
• Skin absorption through touch

Air Quality

You may be able to smell the oil spill from the shore. Symptoms from low-level exposure to these fumes may include irritation of the throat, skin, eyes, and nose.

When workers burn oil, particulate matter is released. If you have asthma or other respiratory illnesses, you may be especially susceptible to these symptoms. If you smell gas, see smoke, or know oil burning is occurring nearby, the CDC recommends you stay inside your home, set the air conditioner to reuse indoor air, close the windows, and avoid intense physical activity.

Water

Drinking water and household water are not expected to be compromised by the spill. The CDC does not recommend swimming in water contaminated by the oil spill. Local and state guidelines and warnings should be followed for coastal water recreational use. More information about beach safety is available at The Official Site of the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command.

Dispersants

Most people will be unharmed by brief exposure to a small amount of oil spill dispersants. Longer contact, however, may cause eye and skin irritations. If you are concerned that you have been exposed to oil or dispersants, see your doctor.

In a recent statement, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") addresses several questions people are having about the health effects of BP Oil Spill. The CDC recommends "If possible, everyone, including pregnant women, should avoid the oil and spill-affected areas."
Additional Resources:

CDC Emergency Preparedness and Response "Gulf Oil Spill Information for Pregnant Women"

For up-to-date information on monitoring data along the Gulf Coast, please visit EPA's website.

NOAA has opened more than 8,000 square miles of previously closed fishing area in the Gulf of Mexico, because the agency has not observed oil in the area. The most significant opening is an area due south of Mississippi which was closed Monday, June 21.

Additionally, some smaller areas were opened off the Louisiana and central Florida coasts.

These areas were initially closed as a precaution because oil was projected to be within those areas over the next few days. However, the review of satellite imagery, radar and aerial data indicated that oil had not moved into these areas.

The federal closed area does not apply to any state waters. Closing fishing in this area is a precautionary measure to ensure that seafood from the Gulf will remain safe for consumers.

The closed area now represents 78,597 square miles, which is approximately 32.5 percent of Gulf of Mexico federal waters. This leaves more than two-thirds of Gulf federal waters available for fishing. The closure will be effective at 6 p.m. EDT. Details can be found at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/. The last closed area modification was June 21, when 86,985 square miles were closed to fishing, or roughly 36 percent of federal waters of the Gulf.

Federal and state governments have systems in place to test and monitor seafood safety, prohibit harvesting from affected areas and keep oiled products out of the marketplace. NOAA continues to work closely with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the states to ensure seafood safety, by closing fishing areas where tainted seafood could potentially be caught, and assessing whether seafood is tainted or contaminated to levels that pose a risk to human health. NOAA and FDA are implementing a broad-scaled seafood sampling plan. The plan includes sampling seafood from inside and outside the closure area, as well as market-based sampling.

According to NOAA, there are approximately 5.7 million recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico region who took 25 million fishing trips in 2008. Commercial fishermen in the Gulf harvested more than 1 billion pounds of fish and shellfish in 2008.

Fishermen who wish to contact BP about a claim should call 800-440-0858.

NOAA will continue to evaluate the need for fisheries closures based on the evolving nature of the spill and will re-open closed areas as appropriate. NOAA will also re-evaluate the closure areas as new information that would change the boundaries of these closed areas becomes available.

NOAA has a number of new methods for the public to obtain information or be notified when there is a change to the closed area:

•Sign up to receive Southeast Fishery Bulletins by email at SERO.Communications.Comments@noaa.gov

•Call 1-800-627-NOAA (1-800-627-6622) to hear a recording of the current coordinates
•Listen to NOAA Weather Radio for messages about the closure

•Receive text messages on your cell phone about changes to the closed area by texting fishing@gulf to 84469 (visit http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/558107 for more information)

•Follow them on Twitter: usnoaagov to get a tweet when the closed area changes

Questions about exposure-related illnesses can be directed to the Louisiana Poison Center: 1-800-222-1222. The Poison Center is staffed 24-hours a day and can provide medical management advice. To report an exposure-related illness, call 1-888-293-7020.

The full Oil Spill Surveillance Report is available here. The report will be generated by DHH weekly and posted on www.dhhemergencynews.com.

DHH's Office of Public Health, Section of Environmental Epidemiology & Toxicology gathers and analyzes information provided by surveillance sites, including hospital emergency departments, outpatient clinics, physician's offices and the Louisiana Poison Center

Anyone seeking to file a claim with BP for damages resulting from the April 20, 2010 oil spill must first call BP's claim center at 800-440-0858 or fill out a claims form online at to register their claim and receive a claim number. When filing a claim, the following information must be provided: the type of loss (e.g. wages, boat, home etc.) the location of the loss, a mailing address, occupation, social security number and date of birth.

Approximately seven to ten days after filing a claim with BP, an adjuster will contact the claim holder. After being contacted by an adjuster, the claim holder may then go to the BP claims center to discuss their claim and damages. Claim holders must bring the following information with them to the claims center: a valid driver's license and fishing license, and any financial information or documentation including W-2s, trip tickets, receipts, or a letter of income from the ship's captain (if applicable;)Also See BP Oil Spill Claims Process Manual of May_26_2010.pdf ; .

The following is a list of claims centers as of May 18, 2010, which are all open seven days a week from 8:00am - 7:00pm:

Gretna/Belle Chasse - 2766 Belle Chasse Hwy, Gretna, LA

Pointe a la Hache - 15535 Highway 15, Pointe a la Hache, LA

Venice - 41093 Highway 23, Boothville-Venice, LA

St. Bernard - 1345 Bayou Road, St. Bernard, LA

Jean Lafitte - 2607 Jean Lafitte Boulevard, Lafitte, LA

Grand Isle - 3811 LA 1, Grand Isle, LA

Slidell - 2040 E. Gause Blvd, Suite 10, Slidell, LA

Chauvin- 5703 Highway 56 in Chauvin, LA

Bayou LaBatre - 13290 North Wintzell Avenue, Bayou La Batre, AL

Foley - 1506 North McKenzie Street, Suite 104, Foley, AL

Biloxi - 920 Cedar Lake Road, Suite K, Biloxi, MS

Pascagoula - 59012 Old Mobile Hwy, Suite 3, Pascagoula, MS

Claim holders who are experiencing difficulty with the claims center are encouraged to call their attorney, the Saint Bernard Emergency Operating Center at 504-278-4268 or Senator David Vitter's office at 866-345-0931.

If the claim holder is unable to resolve their claim with BP's claim center, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) is available as an alternative at 800-280-7118. The claim holder must try and resolve their claim with BP before contacting the NPFC or attempting to file suit.

Other helpful numbers and websites regarding the April 20, 2010 BP oil spill include:

BP Claims Center: 800-440-0858

Environmental Hotline and Community Information: 866-448-5816

If you spot oil or oil sheen contact the Department of Health and Hospitals' Molluscan Shellfish Program: 800-256-2775

National Pollution Funds Center: 800-280-7118

Questions about the removal of oil: 504-565-5089

Registering your professional services: 281-366-5511

Saint Bernard Emergency Operations Center: 504-278-4268

Senator David Vitter: 866-345-4268

United States Coast Guard Joint Information: 985-902-5231

United States Small Business Association: 800-659-2955

Vietnamese American Oil Spill Victims Hotline: 504-814-0195

Volunteers: 866-448-5816

Wildlife Distress Hotline: 866-557-1401

Bp.com

Emergency.louisiana.gov

www.nguoi-viet.com

www.uscg.mil/npfc

www.bpoilspilllawblog.com

www.lavislaw.com

Although BP has refused to switch the type of dispersant that is being used to mitigate the amount of oil leaking through the coast, they have agreed to reduce the amount of dispersant being used. The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) reports that they expect a 50 - 80% reduction, mostly the result of limiting the amount of dispersant used on the water's surface. Subsurface use of the dispersant has been found to be more effective, while requiring lower levels of the dispersant.

BP maintains that the dispersant currently being used, Corexit, is the safest, most readily available product, and therefore, they are unable to switch to any of the E.P.A.'s alternatives. The E.P.A. disputes this finding and has stated that they will conduct their own testing in Florida to determine the validity of BP's claims regarding the chemicals toxicity and biodegradation.

Nalco has jus recently disclosed the complete chemical constituents of Corexit to EPA to assist in the government's evaluation and testing of the otherwise proprietary formula.

Additional Resources;

Material Safety Data Sheet for Corexit

'We Have Nothing to Hide,' Oil Dispersant Maker Says (NY TImes)