Earlier today I posted the announcement that a phone call will be happening with the EPA and BP announcing the first round of toxicity data from the oil dipersants in the gulf. Here are the notes from the phone call that the EPA had with the press today.

WASHINGTON —The US Environmental Protection Agency today released peer reviewed results from the first round of its own independent toxicity testing on eight oil dispersants. EPA conducted testing to ensure that decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico continue to be grounded in the best available science.

EPA’s results indicated that none of the eight dispersants tested, including the product in use in the Gulf, displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity. While the dispersant products alone – not mixed with oil – have roughly the same impact on aquatic life, JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 were generally less toxic to small fish and JD-2000 and SAF-RON GOLD were least toxic to mysid shrimp.  While this is important information to have, additional testing is needed to further inform the use of dispersants.

“EPA is performing independent tests to determine the potential impacts of various dispersants. We will continue to conduct additional research before providing a final recommendation, ” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.  “We want to ensure that every tool is available to mitigate the impact of the BP spill and protect our fragile wetlands.  But we continue to direct BP to use dispersants responsibly and in as limited an amount as possible.”

EPA continues to carefully monitor BP’s use of dispersant in the Gulf. Dispersants are generally less toxic than oil and can prevent some oil from impacting sensitive areas along the Gulf Coast. EPA believes BP should use as little dispersant as necessary and, on May 23, Administrator Jackson and then-Federal On-Scene Coordinator Rear Admiral Mary Landry directed BP to reduce dispersant usage by 75 percent from peak usage. EPA and the Coast Guard formalized that order in a directive to BP on May 26. Over the next month BP reduced dispersant use 68 percent from that peak.

Before directing BP to ramp down dispersant use, EPA directed BP to analyze potential alternative dispersants for toxicity and effectiveness. BP reported to EPA that they were unable to find a dispersant that is less toxic than Corexit 9500, the product currently in use. Following that, EPA began its own scientific testing of eight dispersant products on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule (NCP-PS). Those dispersant products are: Dispersit SPC 1000, Nokomis 3-F4, Nokomis 3-AA, ZI-400, SAF-RON Gold, Sea Brat #4, Corexit 9500 A and JD 2000. Today’s results represent the first stage of that effort.

EPA tested these eight products for endocrine disrupting activity and potential impacts on small fish and mysid shrimp. The testing found:

·         None of the eight dispersants tested displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity.
·         While all eight dispersants alone – not mixed with oil – showed roughly the same effects, JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 proved to be the least toxic to small fish, and JD-2000 and SAF-RON GOLD were the least toxic to the mysid shrimp.

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 each of the eight dispersants for two test species.

To view the first round of test results please visit: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants

With all of the media covering the oil spill (which it should rightfully due) there has been a piece of legislation that has been lost in the calamity of the Gulf Oil Spill. The Home Star legislation passed last month by the House but pending Senate approval, will spur the retrofit of 3.3 million homes, enough to save the energy floating in the Gulf 44 times over, at roughly 1/40 the cost of mopping it up. As we speak the Senate is languishing for a bill to help this situation and there is one sitting right next to their feet. The Gulf Oil Spill does need to be handled correctly however at the same time it seems a little odd not to move on a piece of legislature that is readily available and could make a major impact on our environment and our wallets.

Here’s Energy Savvy’s logic to the graphic above.

• The energy contained in the biggest oil spill in U.S. history is equal to the energy that just 75,000 homes waste in a single year.

• The estimated cost to clean up the oil spill ($40 B) is many times greater than the cost to retrofit 75,000 houses ($1 B) and save the energy equivalent of the gulf oil spill every year.

• 75,000 houses = mid-sized U.S. city or large suburb of a major city, like Chattanooga, Tenn. or Providence, R.I.

• The oil spill, since it began in April 2010, has leaked between 25 – 50 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. We’re using a conservative estimate of around 30 million gallons for our calculations.

• A typical house wastes 30 percent more energy than an efficient one does. On average, that means that 51 MMBtu’s are being wasted by a typical home every year.

• A typical home energy retrofit costs around $10,000 per house — before any utility or governments energy rebates are applied. A home energy retrofit doesn’t just save energy for a single year — it prevents waste year after year on an ongoing basis once it’s done.

After four trips to visit the gulf stat affected by the BP disaster President Oboma plans to give his first-ever Oval Office speech to the nation on Tuesday evening.This manmade calamity threatens the nation’s economy, health, and environment. This is also a crucial moment in the BP catastrophe, which threatens to swamp his domestic agenda. But it also provides an opportunity for President Obama to demonstrate leadership by tackling all the aspects of this crisis, including taking charge of the clean up, getting more help from BP, providing long-term public health and economic recovery, and adopting an oil-use and pollution-reduction reform agenda to minimize the likelihood of another catastrophe.

Moreover this is an even a bigger opportunity for community members in our state to start understanding what is going on in our own local area. To give you a quick update here’s a letter that I received from our state’s senator Patty Murray. I’d like to ask you a few questions to keep at top of mind when reading through this letter from our senator.

1. Do you think we’re doing enough collectively in our city?
2. What other political or grass root movements are happening that you think deserves some light on their efforts?
3. What tools do you need to make a difference?

Dear Mr. Lemenager:

Thank you for contacting me regarding energy and climate change legislation currently being considered in Congress.  I appreciate hearing from you regarding this important issue.

As you know, our nation is faced with a growing global demand for energy, a heavy reliance on fossil fuels, high energy prices, and environmental concerns regarding energy use.  Washington state families are struggling with energy costs in these tough economic times, and we all want a more diversified national energy policy that increases our national security by cutting our demand for foreign oil.

The Pacific Northwest has much to lose from climate change, including increasingly severe storms and rising sea levels.  Climate change will negatively impact forests, coastal and salmon habitats, and economically important farmland.  These resources define Washington state’s quality of life and help sustain the region’s economic competitiveness.  I believe American innovation will lead to real solutions to these issues, and will be an economic engine that creates millions of clean technology jobs.  Congress must adopt a comprehensive policy that promotes research and development to keep America at the cutting edge of the clean technology economy.

As you may know, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, on June 26, 2009.  There are several energy and climate change proposals under consideration by the Senate.  Senator Bingaman (D-NM) has an energy only bill.  Senator Cantwell (D-WA) introduced a “cap and dividend” bill.  Most recently, Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Lieberman (I-CT) have unveiled a draft comprehensive climate and energy proposal that prices carbon.  I am working with my colleagues to continue to push for a comprehensive climate change and clean energy bill.

Throughout my tenure in the United States Senate, I have supported energy and climate policies that benefit consumers, encourage diversification of our nation’s energy sources and protect our fragile environment. As a member of both the Senate Budget and Appropriation Committees, I have fought for increased funding for important alternative energy research and development programs in Washington State and across the nation. In order to encourage private sector development of new forms of energy technology, I have consistently supported higher fuel economy standards for vehicles and federal tax incentives to help spur investment in wind, solar, biomass, and other renewable energy sources. I believe it is vital that Congress works to increase energy independence without sacrificing environmental protections or hurting the economy or consumers.

Energy use and climate change are two of the most critical issues facing our nation. Please be assured I will keep your views in mind as related legislation comes before the Senate for consideration. If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my updates at http://murray.senate.gov/updates. Thank you again for writing, and please keep in touch.

I hope all is well in Issaquah.

Sincerely,

Patty Murray
United States Senator