Environmental Compliance and Safety - Research Paper Example

 Environmental Compliance and Safety Introduction The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the largest accidental spill in the globe exceeding both Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and the Ixtoc blowout (Uhlmann, 2011). The oil spill provided a formidable test on the ability of oil corporations and the government to contain and respond to oil spills of such magnitude in compliance to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Ramseur, 2011). From the onset of the oil spill, it was apparent that the oil stakeholders and federal agencies lacked information and appropriate mechanisms or structures of responding to the disaster correctly. This was evidenced by lack of coordination between the various agencies and companies involved in oil drilling operations during the disaster. This paper examines corrective mechanisms employed to control the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and agencies involved in the exercise. In addition, the paper explores the compliance regulations violated during the exercise. Summary of what happened The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was triggered by an explosion in the British Petroleum (BP) operated Macondo well in April 20 2010. The explosion killed eleven crewmembers of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and several others suffered various levels of injuries (Ramseur, 2011). The blowout destroyed the drilling platform and it sunk two days later. Following the explosion, oil leakage was discovered at the sea floor and it continued discharging crude oil until its containment in July 15 2010 (Uhlmann, 2011). According to Ramseur and Hargety (2011), over 4.9 million barrels were discharged in the water during the period. However, the exact volume of crude oil discharged remains unknown. The oil discharge was so voluminous that it contaminated the beaches of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida (Ramseur, 2011). The oil spill caused significant environmental and economic damage to the region. Commercial activities in the Gulf of Mexico especially commercial fishing and tourism were disrupted. Consequently, livelihoods of many people depending on these sectors were adversely affected. The impact on aquatic life was equally disastrous, killing numerous animals and plants in addition to polluting their habitats. The exact environmental, economic and social effects of the oil spill remain unknown up to date. However, the adverse environmental effects are expected to continue being felt in the affected region for many years, as demonstrated by the earlier Exxon Valdez oil discharge in 1989 (Uhlmann, 2011). The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has elicited various environmental concerns emanating from documented adverse impacts of discharged crude oil and the chemical dispersants applied to clean up the contaminated areas. According to Etkin (1999), effects of oil spills on environment depend on the volume of discharged oil, the kind of oil and the location of the spill. The resulting environmental effects could last for short period or extend for long depending on the aforementioned characteristics of the spillage. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had profound impacts on the aquatic environments, and Ramseur (2011) classified the effects into two categories, namely short term and long-term impacts. Short-term exposure to oil is detrimental to aquatic life and could cause death or severe impairment. However, the severity of oil spills on aquatic life depends on the toxic level and concentration of the spill (Jackson, et al 1989). According to Jackson et al (1989), crude oil contains over a thousand different hydrocarbons in addition to trace metals, sulphur, nitrogen and other elements. However, composition of these constituents in the crude oil depends on where it is extracted. Some of the oil constituents cause severe physiological impairments, such as altering growth and development of organisms, feeding mechanisms, reproduction or undermining their immune systems (Jackson, et al 1989). According to Ramseur (2011), vulnerability of an organism depends on the species, their habitat and the level of their development. During the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Ramseur (2011) noted that birds, aquatic mammals and organisms in the deep sea were highly vulnerable to the oil spill. In addition, egg and larval developmental stages are prone to toxicological effects of the crude oil spills (Jackson, et al 1989). Other short-term effects include disturbance of the structure and functioning of the ecosystem by polluting aquatic habitats such as mangrove swamps, coral reefs and salt marshes. These effects were evident in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Long-term effects of oil spillage arise from continuous discharge of crude oil into the environment especially through leaking pipelines and offshore extraction leakages (Ramseur, 2011). According to Ramseur (2011), persistent and low degree exposure to crude oil discharge affect reproduction and survival of the aquatic birds and mammals considerably. However, the magnitude of long-term oil spillage to aquatic life remains controversial because of the presence of other toxic pollutants that get access to water bodies. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico also caused considerable economic losses. Ramseur (2012) classified the costs into three categories namely destruction of natural resources in the affected area, clean up expenditures, and other financial damages incurred by the affected individuals and the community. The clean up costs depend on several factors, which include the type of crude oil spilt, the location of the spillage and the volume of oil discharged into the environment (Etkin, 1999). Although the location of oil spillage in the Gulf of Mexico was offshore, the large volume of discharged crude oil affected diverse locations, including marshlands, ecosystems with rich biodiversity and tourist destinations. According to Etkin (1999), the costs of cleaning locations with limited water movements such as marshes are higher than cleaning open waters. In addition, cleaning areas with rich biodiversity could be less expensive because the existing microorganisms help in detoxifying and natural degradation of the crude oil. However, polluted tourist destinations and important aquatic habits require comprehensive cleaning up exercises, which increase the costs of the exercise. The crude oil discharge at the bottom of the sea increased the costs considerably mainly because of the specialized skills and equipment that were required to stop and manage the spillage. According to Ramseur (2012), BP estimated the total expenses of cleanup, economic and natural resources damages, penalties and other financial obligations accruing from the oil spill would cost the company about $41 billion. The oil spill inflicted heavy damage on the natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico. After the explosion of the deepwater horizon, large areas of commercial and recreational fishing were closed to prevent the entry of contaminated seafood to the markets. A total of 88,522 square miles at the Gulf of Mexico were closed and fishing ban remained in various areas for over six months after the spillage was contained (Ramseur & Hargety 2011). The prohibited areas are the richest sources of commercial seafood such as oysters, shrimps and menhaden. Since the oil spill, the safety of seafood from the Gulf of Mexico remains an important public health issue of concern in the United States. Corrective actions taken and agencies involved The immediate action after the explosion and the subsequent crude oil discharge was to seal the leaking well and stop the leakage from spreading to other regions. After several engineering failures, the oil discharge was controlled after about 84 days of continuous leakage (Uhlmann, 2011). In the United States’ Congress, the oil spill and clean up activities was a major issue. Majority of congress members expressed concerns about the existing policies dealing with oil spills. Consequently, several committees were formed to discuss and make recommendations on reports made by the national commission on the Deepwater Horizon and offshore drilling. Following these deliberations, the congress members came up with over 2 proposals to address various issues related to control and management of oil spills. According to Ramseur (2012), the 111th congress enacted three of these proposals into law. These laws generally dealt with short term issues that would not have long-term effects on the governance of oil spills. Nevertheless, the Coast Guard Authorization Act (HR. 3619) for 2010 and 2011 financial years contains extensive changes on the control and management of oil spills. Other bills passed in the congress to address the issue included H.R 3534, which is the Consolidated Land Energy and Aquatic Act (CLEAR Act) that incorporated several oil spill provisions. The enactment of these laws has however raised concerns in the congress about their possible effects of limiting offshore oil exploration and development (Ramseur, 2011). This resulted to formulation of various proposals to encourage offshore oil exploration and development. Following these additional proposals, the House enacted a bill that directed the secretary of State of the Interior to authorize four oil gas lease sales in specified period, three of them in the Gulf of Mexico (Ramseur, 2011). In United States, Mineral Management Service (MMS), under the Department of Interior was the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil and gas exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) (Alexander, 2010). However, the agency was restructured and replaced by two regulatory bodies, namely the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) (Ramseur & Hargety 2011). The response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico involved several agencies including the Mineral Management Service, coast guard and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The United States Coast Guard directed and coordinated the on-scene activities of state, federal, local and private entities on the site of the spill in a unified command system (Alexander, 2010). However, MMS came under intense criticism for its inefficiency in managing and controlling the oil spill. According to Uhlmann (2011), MMS had a serious shortage of skilled inspectors, which lead to its overdependence on information collected by the coast guards and oil drilling companies. In addition, the agency had a serious lapse in enforcing deterrent measures to prevent pollution in the affected region. Moreover, the agency was criticized for applying outdated techniques while investigating oil spills and other disasters in their area of jurisdiction (Uhlmann, 2011). EPA is responsible for onshore oil spills and non-transportation facilities (Ramseur, 2011). Although the spill was offshore, Environmental Protection Agency was actively involved in mobilizing the community affected by the spill to participate in the recovery of the region. In addition, the agency screened and tested the toxic levels of the dispersant chemicals used in the clean up and the discharged crude oil. It achieved this by collecting and analyzing air, soil, water samples and wastes produced in the cleaning up operations. These findings were used to plan and predict the future impacts of the spill and the clean up intervention measures (Earthpulsedaily, 2011). Other actions undertaken by the EPA included reviewing and formulating appropriate measures of restoring areas contaminated by the oil spill. Moreover, EPA agency managed waste disposal of materials and equipment contaminated by the oil spill and formulating future action plans to enhance effective response to oil spills in the future (Earthpulsedaily, 2011). To fulfill these roles effectively, EPA collaborated with other agencies involved in control and management of the oil spill. British Petroleum (BP) one of the major parties liable for the oil spill took the immediate responsibility of cleaning up and paying for the determined natural and economic damages. The oil corporation played a major role in responding to the disaster by collaborating with other agencies under unified command in preventing the spill and mitigating the impacts of the discharged crude oil (Ramseur & Hargety 2011). According to Etkin (1999), the main methods used to eradicate oil from the contaminated areas are mechanical, chemical and biological cleanup. Some of the mechanical clean up techniques used during the spill included booms and skimmers. Chemical techniques are usually intended to assist the mechanical methods by enhancing separation of oil from water, while natural method relies on biological and other natural process to degrade the discharged oil (Etkin, 1999). Dispersants are the chemicals applied in cleaning up oil spills and they function by “reducing the surface tension forces between the oil and water interfaces” (Etkin, 1999, p.72). The oil layer is subsequently broken into tiny particles that are easily dispersed on the water surface. Widespread application of dispersant by BP in the Gulf spill has raised environmental concerns, after its adverse effects were found in Torrey Canyon Cliff oil spill. According to Uhlmann (2011), over 1.84 million liters of dispersant were used in the gulf clean up operation. Discovery of underwater oil plumes in the Gulf of Mexico after application of dispersants in cleanup exercise has raised further concerns regarding their environmental effects. Other techniques that BP used in the cleanup include controlled burning of oil in situ and application of fire boom. According to Ramseur (2011), about 220,000 to 330,000 barrels of discharged oil were destroyed through controlled burning. Compliance regulations violated during the spill British Petroleum (BP), Transocean and Halliburton companies violated several legislations in their operations that culminated to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Before examining the regulations violated during and after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, it is important to investigate the regulatory structure in the United States. According to Ramseur (2011), regulations governing oil spills in the country are enforced and governed by state, federal and international authorities. This regulatory structure empowers federal agencies with authority to enforce oil spill regulations. In the United States, a number of legislations address oil spill related issues such as prevention, preparedness and response in addition to oil spill liability, compensation and restoration of the affected areas (Ramseur, 2012). The legislations that address these issues in United States include Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Clean Water Act (CWA) and its amendments, in addition to Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (Ramseur, 2011). From these statutory regulations, British Petroleum and its two contactors are liable for violating safety and environmental regulations in the United States. According to BSEE (2011), BP and the two other accused parties did not operate the Deepwater Horizon rig safely and in a responsible manner. From conclusions by the Joint Investigation on the Deepwater Horizon explosion, loss of lives and the subsequent spill, BSEE (2011) established that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean violated safety and environmental regulations, which were issued as “Incidents of Non Compliance”(INC). The Ocean Energy Bureau (OEB) stipulates the obligations of offshore oil operators in ensuring that health, safety property and environment are protected (BSEE, 2011). According to BSEE (2011), British Petroleum, Transocean and Halliburton failed to protect safety, health, property and environment as stipulated in 30 CFR 250 107(a) by their failure to conduct their operations in a secure and “workmanlike” way (BSEE, 2011). The three parties liable for the oil spill violated the regulation that requires drilling companies to take all necessary precautions to prevent illegal release of pollutants in offshore waters (BSEE, 2011). In addition, BP, Halliburton and Transocean did not comply with regulation that requires them to take appropriate measures of ensuring that the Macondo well was under control at all times. Furthermore, BP and Halliburton failed to cement the well properly, leading to build up of pressure that eventually contributed to the explosion and discharge of oil into the offshore waters (BSEE, 2011). BP and Transocean were also liable for additional violations that included failure to conduct precise pressure integrity test in the rig and maintaining Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer (BOP) system as stipulated in API RP 53 section 18.10.3. In addition, BP did not seek authorization of the Temporary Abandonment procedures applied at the Macondo well (BSEE, 2011). Conclusion The magnitude of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill reenergized the need for enhancing laws governing safety and environment protection in the offshore waters in the United States. Although various federal agencies are responsible for enforcing and ensuring the regulations are complied with by oil drilling companies, the explosion at Macondo well demonstrated that the agencies are poorly prepared in preventing and responding to oil spills of large magnitude. The oil spill caused a major environmental disaster by contaminating beaches, salt marshes and other breeding habitats for aquatic life in large areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Consequently, commercial and recreational fishing activities were suspended, causing heavy economic losses to fishing communities and tourism industries in the region. Investigations into the spill concluded that British Petroleum, Halliburton and Transocean failed to comply with various safety and environmental protection regulations. Although the exact environmental and economic damages are yet to be determined, the companies responsible for causing the spill are likely to pay heavy fines, exceeding other previous lawsuits related to oil spills. References Alexander, K.(2010). The 2010 oil spill: The Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Retrieved from http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/145106.pdf BSEE (2011). BSEE issues violations following investigations into Deepwater Horizon: Notices sent to BP, Halliburton and Transocean. Retrieved from http://www.bsee.gov/BSEE- Newsroom/Press-Releases/2011/press10122011.aspx Earth Pulse Daily (2011). EPA’s role during and after oil spill. Retrieved from http://www.earthpulsedaily.net/epd-post/epa-s-role-during-and-after-oil-spill Etkin, D.(1999). Oil dispersants: From technology to policy. Arlington, MA: Cutter Information Corporation. Jackson, J., et al (1989). Ecological effects of a major oil spill on the Panamanian coastal marine communities. Science 243(4887), 37-44. Ramseur, J.(2012). CRS report for congress: Oil spill legislation in the 112th Congress. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41684.pdf Ramseur, J.(2011). Oil spills in the US coastal waters: Background and governance. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33705.pdf Ramseur, J., & Hargety, C. (2011). Deepwater horizon oil spill: Highlighted actions and issues. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41407.pdf Uhlmann, D. (2011). After the spill is gone: The Gulf of Mexico environmental crime and the criminal law. Michigan Law Review, 109(1413), 1413-1461. Read More