Dec 10, 2013
EPA Weighs Sanctions Against BP
Posted on May 25, 2010
In the past decade environmental accidents at BP facilities have killed at least 26 workers, led to the largest oil spill on Alaska’s North Slope and now sullied some of the country’s best coastal habitat, along with fishing and tourism economies along the Gulf.
Meunier said that when a business with a record of problems like BP’s has to justify its actions and corporate management decisions to the EPA “it’s going to get very dicey for the company.”
“How many times can a debarring official grant a resolution to an agreement if it looks like no matter how many times they agree to fix something it keeps manifesting itself as a problem?” he said.
Documents obtained by ProPublica show that the EPA’s debarment negotiations with BP were strained even before the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig. The fact that Doug Suttles, the BP executive responsible for offshore drilling in the Gulf, used to head BP Alaska and was the point person for negotiations with debarment officials there, only complicates matters. Now, the ongoing accident in the Gulf may push those relations to a break.
“In 10 years we’ve got four convictions,” Pascal said, referring to BP’s three environmental crimes and a 2009 deferred prosecution for manipulating the gas market, which counts as a conviction under debarment law. “At some point if a contractor’s behavior is so egregious and so bad, debarment would have to be an option.”
In the three instances where BP has had a felony or misdemeanor conviction under the Clean Air or Clean Water Acts, the facilities where the accidents happened automatically faced a statutory debarment, a lesser form of debarment that affects only the specific facility where the accident happened.
One of those cases has been settled. In October 2000, after a felony conviction for illegally dumping hazardous waste down a well hole to cut costs, BP’s Alaska subsidiary, BP Exploration Alaska, agreed to a five-year probation period and settlement. That agreement expired at the end of 2005.
The other two debarment actions are still open, and those are the cases that EPA officials and the company have been negotiating for several years.
In the first incident, on March 23, 2005, an explosion at BP’s Texas City refinery killed 15 workers. An investigation found the company had restarted a fuel tower without warning systems in place, and BP was eventually fined more than $62 million and convicted of a felony violation of the Clean Air Act. BP Products North America, the responsible subsidiary, was listed as debarred and the Texas City refinery was deemed ineligible for any federally funded contracts. But the company as a whole proceeded unhindered.
A year later, in March 2006, a hole in a pipeline in Prudhoe Bay led to the largest ever oil spill on Alaska’s North Slope – 200,000 gallons—and the temporary disruption of oil supplies to the continental U.S. An investigation found that BP had ignored warnings about corrosion in its pipelines and had cut back on precautionary measures to save money. The company’s Alaska subsidiary was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act and, again, debarred and listed as ineligible for government income at its Prudhoe Bay pipeline facilities. That debarment is still in effect.
That accident alone—which led to congressional investigations and revelations that BP executives harassed employees who warned of safety problems and ignored corrosion problems for years—was thought by some inside the EPA to be grounds for the more serious discretionary debarment.
“EPA routinely discretionarily debars companies that have Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act convictions,” said Pascal, the former EPA debarment attorney who ran the BP case. “The reason this case is different is because of the Defense Department’s extreme need for BP.”
Instead of a discretionary debarment, the EPA worked to negotiate a compromise that would bring BP into compliance but keep its services available. The goal was to reach an agreement that would guarantee that BP improve its safety operations, inspections, and treatment of employees not only at the Prudhoe Bay pipeline facility, but at its other facilities across the country.
According to e-mails obtained by ProPublica and several people close to the government’s investigation, the company rejected some of the basic settlement conditions proposed by the EPA—including who would police the progress—and took a confrontational approach with debarment officials.
One person close to the negotiations said he was confounded by what he characterized as the company’s stubborn approach to the debarment discussions. Given the history of BP’s problems, he said, any settlement would have been a second chance, a gift. Still, the e-mails show, BP resisted.
As more evidence is gathered about what went wrong in the Gulf, BP may soon wish it hadn’t.
It’s doubtful that the EPA will make any decisions about BP’s future in the United States until the Gulf investigation is completed, a process that could last a year. But as more information emerges about the causes of the accident there—about faulty blowout preventers and hasty orders to skip key steps and tests that could have prevented a blowout—the more the emerging story begins to echo the narrative of BP’s other disasters. That, Meunier said, could leave the EPA with little choice as it considers how “a corporate attitude of non-compliance” should affect the prospect of the company’s debarment going forward.
ProPublica reporters Mosi Secret and Ryan Knutson and director of research Lisa Schwartz contributed to this report.
This article is reprinted from ProPublica under Creative Commons license.
Previous item: Give Some Answers, Dr. Paul
New and Improved Comments