Posts

Obama’s BP Disaster Commission: Looking Forward with No Subpoenas

/117 Comments/in , /by

As promised Obama signed an executive order forming a presidential commission to study the BP disaster today. I thought it’d be instructive to compare what he just formed with what Edward Markey and Lois Capps proposed. Starting with this detail:

Sec. 4. Administration. (a) The Commission shall hold public hearings and shall request information including relevant documents from Federal, State, and local officials, nongovernmental organizations, private entities, scientific institutions, industry and workforce representatives, communities, and others affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, as necessary to carry out its mission. [my emphasis]

Obama’s envisioning this Commission “requesting” information from entities like BP and Halliburton. Capps and Markey, however, envision subpoenas:

(b) Subpoenas-

(1) ISSUANCE-

(A) IN GENERAL- A subpoena may be issued under this subsection only–

(i) by agreement of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman; or

(ii) by the affirmative vote of eight members of the Commission.

(B) SIGNATURE- Subject to subparagraph (A), subpoenas issued under this subsection may be issued under the signature of the Chairman or any member designated by a majority of the Commission, and may be served by any person designated by the Chairman or a member designated by a majority of the Commission.

(2) ENFORCEMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- In the case of contumacy or failure to obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1), the United States district court for the judicial district in which the subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order requiring such person to appear at any designated place to testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.

(B) ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT- In the case of a failure of a witness to comply with a subpoena or to testify when summoned under authority of this section, the Commission may, by majority vote, certify a statement of fact constituting such failure to the appropriate United States attorney, who may bring the matter before a grand jury for its action, under the same statutory authority and procedures as if the United States attorney had received a certification under sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 192 et seq.).

Obama also has a different idea of who should serve on this committee, specifically providing for industry participation Read more →

Congress Gets Results on Corexit

/71 Comments/in , /by

At yesterday’s hearing on the BP Disaster, Peter DeFazio and Jerrold Nadler hammered BP America President Lamar McKay on the relative toxicity and efficacy of the dispersant Corexit as compared to some other dispersants. They pointed out that Corexit is one of the most toxic of the approved dispersants and is not as effective as others. Here’s a chart of the relative toxicity and efficacy from the EPA (click to enlarge).

In addition, on Monday, Edward Markey wrote EPA Administration Lisa Jackson asking why BP was using Corexit rather than a less toxic dispersant. Among other questions Markey asked were:

It is my understanding that the main dispersants applied so far are from a product line called Corexit, some of which had their approval rescinded in Britain more than a decade ago, because laboratory tests found them harmful to sea life that inhabits rocky shores.

a. How did EPA ensure that this dispersant’s toxicity to aquatic life was evaluated?

b. Was its toxicity to mollusks and other sea life that inhabit the Gulf of Mexico evaluated, and if so, what were the results? If not, why not?

c. If EPA relied on toxicity studies for coastal morphologies different from that of the Gulf Coast, what was done to evaluate the applicability of those studies for the use of the dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico environment?

d. Was the toxicity to other subsurface aquatic life evaluated? If so, please provide details, and if not, why not?

Late yesterday, the EPA informed BP it’s going to have to switch to another, less toxic, dispersant within three days.

The Environmental Protection Agency informed BP officials late Wednesday that the company has 24 hours to choose a less toxic form of chemical dispersants to break up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to government sources familiar with the decision, and must apply the new form of dispersants within 72 hours of submitting the list of alternatives.

The move is significant, because it suggests federal officials are now concerned that the unprecedented use of chemical dispersants could pose a significant threat to the Gulf of Mexico’s marine life. BP has been using two forms of dispersants, Corexit 9500A and Corexit 9527A, and so far has applied 600,000 gallons on the surface and 55,000 underwater.

I guess all these hearings aren’t entirely a waste of time.

(Updated with efficacy table.)

Update: Here’s EPA’s order to BP to use a less toxic dispersant. And here’s some data from the dispersant monitoring.

Update: According to Nadler’s office, the maker of Dispersit got an order from BP for 60,000 gallons today.

Don’t Gag Ma Bell

/119 Comments/in , /by

I’ve been dissing my Congressman John Dingell by not pointing to the letter he, Bart Stupak (also from Michigan) and Edward Markey sent their colleagues about the FISA bill. But it raises an issue that deserves more attention. After discussing the rationales for telecom immunity, they point out,

For the past five months this Committee has asked, in a bipartisan manner, the phone companies and the Administration to explain whether they acted outside the bounds of the law and what would justify Congress telling a Federal judge to dismiss all lawsuits against the phone companies. The phone companies respond that the Administration has gagged and threatened them with prosecution if they respond to our inquiries. When the Committee requested that the Administration either remove the gag or provide the Committee with the relevant information, the Administration repeatedly refused. Surprisingly, even at this late date, the Administration has not deemed it important enough to respond to our repeated inquiries or even to brief the Committee Members in closed session.

Understand, John Dingell is a long-time friend of the telecoms (and can muster an awesome lecture to constituents on telecom history on demand). And this is the crowd in the House that legislates on telecoms more generally.

Yet the Administration won’t let Ma Bell talk to them–at least not about her overwhelming need for immunity. The Republicans claim that, unless Ma Bell gets immunity, she’ll go out of business. But they won’t let her tell that to the legislators who know the telecom business best.

So it’s not just the Administration’s justifications for their illegal spying program they’ll show to only 20 or so members of Congress in each house. They won’t even let Ma Bell make her case herself. 

I’m traveling tomorrow through Wednesday, so I won’t be glued to the teevee to liveblog the FISA votes. But I’ll try to touch base as the Senate vote develops.