EPA Finds Chemical Dispersant Unharmful

I’m not a chemist so forgive me for not swallowing hook, line and sinker the Environmental Protection Agency’s findings Monday that the dispersant used by BP in the Gulf of Mexico oil blowout is no more toxic when mixed with oil than the oil alone.

The EPA tests were twofold. One was challenging BP’s assertion that the chemical Corexit was less toxic than other dispersants. It wasn’t. The second was conducted on a sampling of small fish and baby shrimp. No harmful evidence was ascertained.

Paul Anastas, EPA assistant administrator for research and development said the tests prove the oil itself is public enemy No. 1 in a conference call with reporters.

He said tests on the sampled fish included higher concentrates of dispersant chemicals than the species would be expected to encounter in the Gulf.

The EPA findings ease the spanking the Coast Guard received from Rep. Edward Markey, chairman of the House Energy and Environmental Subcommittee on Saturday. The Massachusetts Democrat said the Coast Guard allowed 74 waivers allowing BP to spray the dispersants in defiance of a federal order restricting the usage to rare occasions.

BP applied about 1.8 million gallons of Corexit at the wellhead of the blowout 5,000 below the Gulf and on the surface with aerial tankers following the accident April 20 until the well was temporarily capped July 15.

CNN:

On June 30, the EPA released the results from its first round of testing, which showed that none of the eight dispersants appeared to have harmful effects on the endocrine systems of marine life. “I have not seen any evidence, any data, that has shown wildlife sickened or killed because of dispersants,” Anastas said Monday.

In addition, researchers have seen no data to suggest the dispersant has spread away from the well head, Anastas said.

Asked about the oil sinking to the sea floor because of the dispersant, Anastas said the purpose of dispersant is to put the oil in a form where it can be broken down by natural microbes — where it is now. During that process, the microbes metabolize the oil, breaking it down until it turns into carbon dioxide and water.

“What we ultimately want is this hazard, the oil … to of course go away,” he said. “The way that it goes away in nature is to be metabolized by these microbes.”

Anastas is telling us those underwater floating oil plumes drenched at the wellhead are free of the chemical Corexit.

As of this writing, EPA had not posted its findings on its website. It is unclear whether the chemical companies released confidential patent trade secrets in their products to the EPA.

What the findings do suggest is we will never know the harm, if any, the chemicals play in the long term on fish and wildlife. They also suggest adding one toxic on top of the toxicity in the natural crude does not equate to greater toxic potential damage.

One bad effect the dispersants did have. As the slimmed down viscosity of the oil slick arrived on shore, skimmers and booms failed to trap and collect it as it simply flowed under the devices and into the marshes and beaches. There was less of it but too slippery and elusive to catch and the results of it striking landfall were the same.

Here is a EPA summary report on the oil disaster in the Gulf.

Race No Issue For Crooked Congressmen

Politico reporters John Bresnahan and Jonathon Allen raise the question of when the race card is drawn when it comes to investigation of House ethics violations.

At one point this session of the 111th Congress, eight of the 42 members of the House Black Caucus were under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics which was created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2006 to clear the swamp of congressional malfeasance. All were filed by the conservative watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The eight Democrats represent 19% of the black caucus and 1.8% of the 435-member House of Representatives.

Politico quoted one anonymous black Congressman:

There’s a “dual standard, one for most members and one for African-Americans,” said one member of the Congressional Black Caucus, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The member said it’s too easy for an outside group to damage someone’s reputation by filing a claim with OCE.

“This is stacked against you once an accusation is made,” the lawmaker added. “You’re guilty until proven otherwise.”

Majority whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and a member of the black caucus spoke on the record last October: “A lot of people have been raising concerns [about the OCE], and I support them… At some point in the not-so-distant future, these concerns will have to be addressed.”

The OCE  investigates and reports its findings to the House Ethics Committee. That committee can send cases for a trial among its peers which, in turn, can expel, censure, reprimand or exonerate.

Unless deals are struck, two trials will be held in September for Rep. Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of Los Angeles.

On its own with only two black sources, Politico reports: “Raising questions about race and whether black lawmakers face more scrutiny over allegations of ethical or criminal wrongdoing than their white colleagues.”

Politico points out that another black Congresswoman  under investigation was ed by Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), a member of the caucus.

“House Democrats are paying a price for OCE’s focus on black lawmakers,” added still another anonymous Democratic insider close to House leaders, quoted by Politico.

“But that doesn’t change the fact that voters are going to see two African-Americans on trial in the House while they see no action against white members with ethical problems.”

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is quoted the current situation is bound to anger black lawmakers.

“There are ethics problems within the CBC,” she said. “They have to acknowledge that.”

Sloan noted that several white lawmakers, including Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), are currently under investigation by federal and congressional investigators. Ensign is being investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee and the Justice Department over the fallout from an extramarital affair he had with the wife of a top aide, while Visclosky and his former chief of staff are being probed over their ties to a now-defunct lobbying firm raided by the feds last year.

———————-

EPILOGUE

Can someone please explain a double negative to me. Since when is ethics and criminal violations among our elected representatives gone color blind? I always figured it crossed racial lines. A couple of white Southern House speakers come to mind in Newt Gingrich and Jim Wright. Pardon me, but I don’t buy any race card being played in the current flap involving Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters. Of course, the party in power usually is the subject of most of the ethical improprieties. It lends credence to the axiom that power corrupts. This is an equal opportunity crime unconfined by racial or gender or sexual orientation.

The Bell Pay Scandal Rings Worser and Worser

You need not be a numbers cruncher to chew on this. Robert Rizzo was forced to resign as city manager of Bell, Calif., (pop. 36,900) when his salary was discovered the highest in the nation for that job position at $787,637. His pension is estimated $637,985 for the rest of his life. Rizzo is 55.

The public employee worked for three cities for 30 years, the last for one year at Bell. He earns 2.7% of his final pay for every year worked.

As one of 90% and 1.6 million public employees in California, Rizzo is invested in CalPERS, one of two state pension plans which combined are the largest in the country. Three basic factors go into retirement calculations: age, years of service and ending salary.

Half of Rizzo’s annual retirement pay will come from his two previous cities of Hesperia and Rancho Cucamonga. The other half spread between 140 cities and special district’s in the same pension liability pool as the City of Bell.

CalPERS benefit system is so complex, so convoluted, it stumped Gov. Arnold Schwarzenneger.

“Even the governor’s office couldn’t figure these Bell pensions out,” said Marcia Fritz, a certified public accountant and president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.

On this the top state political leaders and gubernatorial candidates Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown agree: Reform CalPERS before it breaks the backs of state taxpayers.

The latest estimate for pensions due Rizzo and other Bell employees forced to resign were calculated by investigations by the Los Angeles Times in concert with pension experts.

The lavish salaries also are being investigated by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office and the state attorney general. The report did not say what percentage of Rizzo’s salaries paid into the pension plan.

CalPERS announced last week it was putting on hold any payments to Rizzo and his cohorts until the dust settles.

Rizzo is exempt from Internal Revenue Service rules capping pensions at $245,000 annually because he joined CalPERS years before the 1996 IRS edict.

Unless the investigations find criminal intent by the Bell city council which approved the pay scales for favored employees and compensation perks for themselves, Rizzo will join this list of miscreants taxpayers are stuck with:

Michael Carona, former Orange County Sheriff convicted of witness tampering — $215,000.

Robert Citron, the public administrator who led Orange County into bankruptcy in 1994 — $142,000.

Bruce Malkenhorst Sr., former Vernon city manager, indicted for misappropriating public funds — $509,664.

And, here’s the lipstick on this pig:

Bell voters in 2009 approved a ballot measure changing the legal status of the city from general law to charter. Under general law, city councils are governed by established parameters. Charter cities are not, allowing the city council, among other things, to establish those lavish salaries and compensations.

In Bell’s case, the residents saw the errors of their ways and thanks to an enterprising large daily newspaper, have the power to right their ship.

According to the Times, this story will not guarantee a Hollywood ending of redemption and reform.

California courts have consistently ruled in favor of pensioners, said Stephen Silver, a Santa Monica attorney specializing in public pension law..

“It’s pretty hard to do,” Silver said. “You’d have to prove some sort of fraud or undue influence.” The best chance for rescinding at least part of a pension would be for investigators to show that Bell’s high salaries were an unlawful expenditure  of public funds.

“That’s what this really smacks of,” he said.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that politicians claiming they want to reform the public pension system are blowing smoke.