BP » Topics » US regional review

This excerpt taken from the BP 20-F filed Mar 4, 2008.
US regional review
The following is a summary of significant US environmental issues and legislation or regulations affecting the group.

     The Clean Air Act and its regulations require, among other things, stringent air emission limits and operating permits for chemicals plants, refineries, marine and distribution terminals; stricter fuel specifications and sulphur reductions; enhanced monitoring of major sources of specified pollutants; and risk management plans for storage of hazardous substances. This law affects BP facilities producing, storing, refining, manufacturing and distributing oil and products as well as the fuels themselves. Federal and state controls on ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, benzene, sulphur, MTBE, nitrogen dioxide, oxygenates and Reid Vapor Pressure affect BP’s activities and products in the US. BP is continually adapting its business to these rules, which are subject to recent change. Beginning January 2006, all gasoline produced by BP was subject to the EPA’s stringent low-sulphur standards. Furthermore, by June 2006, at least 80% of the highway diesel fuel produced each year by BP was required to meet a sulphur cap of 15 parts per million (ppm) and 100% with effect from January 2010. By June 2007, all non-road diesel fuel production had to meet a sulphur cap of 500ppm and 15ppm by June 2012. With effect from January 2011, EPA’s Mobile Source Air Toxics regulations will require a refinery annual average benzene level of 0.62 volume percentage on all gasoline.
     The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also required several changes to the US fuels market with the following fuel provisions: elimination of the Federal Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) oxygen requirement in May 2006; establishment of a renewable fuels mandate (4 billion gallons in 2006, increasing to 7.5 billion in 2012); consolidation of the summertime RFG Volatile organic compound (VOC) standards for Regions 1 and 2; provision to allow the Ozone Transport Commission states on the east coast to opt any area into RFG; and a provision to allow states to repeal the 1psi Reid Vapor Pressure waiver for 10% ethanol blends.
     In 2001, BP entered into a consent decree with the EPA and several states that settled alleged violations of various Clean Air Act requirements related largely to emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides at BP’s refineries. Implementation of the decree’s requirements continues.
     The Clean Water Act is designed to protect and enhance the quality of US surface waters by regulating the discharge of wastewater and other discharges from both onshore and offshore operations. Facilities are required to obtain permits for most surface water discharges, install control equipment and implement operational controls and preventative measures, including spill prevention and control plans. Requirements under the Clean Water Act have become more stringent in recent years, including coverage of storm and surface water discharges at many more facilities and increased control of toxic discharges. New regulations are expected during the next several years that could require, for example, additional wastewater treatment systems at some facilities.
     The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates the storage, handling, treatment, transportation and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. It also requires the investigation and remediation of locations at a facility where such wastes have been handled, released or disposed of. BP facilities generate and handle a number of wastes regulated by RCRA and have units that have been used for the storage, handling or disposal of RCRA wastes that are subject to investigation and corrective action.
     Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), waste generators, site owners, facility operators and certain other parties are strictly liable for part or all of the cost of addressing sites contaminated by spills or waste disposal regardless of fault or the amount of waste sent to a site. Additionally, each state has separate laws similar to CERCLA.
     BP has been identified as a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) under CERCLA or otherwise named under similar state statutes at approximately 805 sites. A PRP or named party can incur joint and several liability for site remediation costs under some of these statutes and so BP may be required to assume, among other costs, the share attributed to insolvent, unidentified or other parties. BP has the most significant exposure for remediation costs at 52 of these sites. For the remaining sites, the number of parties can range up to 200 or more. BP expects its share of remediation costs at these sites to be small in comparison with the major sites. BP has estimated its potential exposure



Back to Contents

  43

 

at all sites where it has been identified as a PRP or is otherwise named and has established provisions accordingly. BP does not anticipate that its ultimate exposure at these sites individually, or in aggregate, will be significant, except as reported for Atlantic Richfield Company in the matters below.
     The US and the State of Montana seek to hold Atlantic Richfield Company liable for environmental remediation, related costs and natural resource damages arising out of mining-related activities by Atlantic Richfield’s predecessors in the upper Clark Fork River Basin (basin). Federal and state trustees also seek to recover damages for alleged injuries to natural resources in the basin. Past settlements resolved Atlantic Richfield’s alleged liability for portions of these claims. In 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle in which Atlantic Richfield agreed to pay approximately $169 million, plus interest, to settle all remaining claims for natural resource damages in the basin, and federal and state claims for environmental remediation and related costs in the Clark Fork River operable unit and in portions of the Anaconda operable unit owned by the State of Montana. Under the agreement, the State of Montana agreed to use most of the settlement funds to remediate and restore the identified areas. The settlement must be lodged in federal court and is contingent on government review of public comments on the settlement, and court approval of the settlement. It includes limited reservations of rights against Atlantic Richfield. Other portions of the basin, principally in Anaconda and Butte, still require remediation. The estimated future cost of completing remedies that the EPA has selected or proposed in the other remaining operable units in the basin is approximately $290 million. Past settlements between Atlantic Richfield, the US and the State of Montana, including consent decree settlements in other portions of the basin, may provide a framework for future settlement of the remaining claims.
     The group is also subject to other claims for natural resource damages (NRD) under CERCLA, OPA 90 and other federal and state laws. NRD claims have been asserted by government trustees against a number of group operations. This is a developing area of the law that could affect the cost of addressing environmental conditions at some sites in the future.
     In the US, many environmental clean-ups are the result of strict groundwater protection standards at both the state and federal level. Contamination or the threat of contamination of current or potential drinking water resources can result in stringent clean-up requirements even if the water is not being used for drinking water. Some states have even addressed contamination of non-potable water resources using similarly strict standards. BP has encouraged risk-based approaches to these issues and seeks to tailor remedies at its facilities to match the level of risk presented by the contamination.
     Other significant legislation includes the Toxic Substances Control Act, which regulates the development, testing, import, export and introduction of new chemical products into commerce; the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which imposes workplace safety and health, training and process safety requirements to reduce the risks of physical and chemical hazards and injury to employees; and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, which requires emergency planning and spill notification as well as public disclosure of chemical usage and emissions. In addition, the US Department of Transport (DOT), through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, comprehensively regulates the transportation of the group’s petroleum products such as crude oil, gasoline and chemicals to protect the health and safety of the public.
     BP is subject to the Marine Transportation Security Act (MTSA) and the DOT Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) security compliance regulations in the US. These regulations require many of our US businesses to conduct security vulnerability assessments and prepare security mitigation plans that require the implementation of upgrades to security measures, the appointment and training of designated security personnel and the submission of plans for approval and inspection by government agencies.
     The US government, in an effort to further mitigate the threat of terrorism to critical US infrastructure, is additionally mandating two new

security legislation initiatives, which began in the fourth quarter of 2007 and will continue through 2008:
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard (CFATS) rollout starting in 2007/2008.
Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC) rollout starting in 2007/2008.
     CFATS is new legislation that began implementation in the fourth quarter of 2007 and will continue through 2008. It is intended to provide an enhanced security posture for US facilities that manufacture or store fuels. Additionally, it will cover facilities that have national economic impact to the US, should these facilities be a target for terrorism. A number of BP facilities will be impacted by this legislation. Compliance will require them to complete a screening review, and if not found to be exempt, they will be required to conduct a detailed security vulnerability assessment and a detailed security plan for each facility impacted.
     TWIC is a new government employee background screening programme that is linked to the MTSA facilities. The programme requires all designated personnel with unescorted access to restricted areas of the MTSA designated facilities to submit to a detailed background screening programme and to be issued a bio-metric identification card. All of BP’s MTSA-regulated facilities will be impacted and will be required to comply by the end of 2008 in a phased in approach.
     BP has a national spill response team, the BP Americas Response Team (BART), consisting of approximately 250 trained emergency responders at group locations throughout North America. In addition to the BART, there are five Regional Response Incident Management Teams, a number of HAZMAT Teams and emergency response teams at our major facilities. Collectively, these teams are ready to assist in a response to a major incident.
     
See also Legal proceedings on page 82.

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki