Former MMS Staffers Push Back

The same day the director of the Minerals Management Service resigned (got fired?) and President Obama said "more needs to be done" to clean up the MMS, staffers who recently left the federal regulatory agency in charge of off-shore drilling are pushing back hard against the Obama administration for feeding what they see as false information about the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico to the press. Here's the one-pager they are pushing:

• "New" IG is simply rehash of older reports.  In each case, the individual violations were referred to the IG's office by--MMS officials.  There are a very limited number and, as the press has reported (usually at the end of each story), each individual has either been fired, or is on Administrative leave awaiting the result of Administrative procedures.
• Claim: MMS failed to issue necessary permits before allowing drilling.  There is no truth to this.  The news accounts are related to ESA/MMPA requirements for IHA's in the Gulf.  MMS completed an EIS on the issue and obtained NOAA sign-off on the conclusion that permits were not required.  There is currently a new draft EIS "on the street" for comments and, based on process, the procedures could change.
• Claim: MMS supervisors "buried" or "withheld" staff analysis.  This is false.  In each case, the supervisor asked staff to proavide support for analysis and, in most cases, there was none.  Disgruntled employees are simply venting being forced to articulate and document their conclusions.  There are only one or two employees who are running to the press.  Press should ask MMS to respond.  The problem is--MMS leadership is not being allowed to respond.
• Claim: MMS employees routinely accept gifts from industry.  There is no support for this in any press account.  Again, the only support is the cases that MMS supervisors referred to the IG.  MMS has the strictest possible ethical standards that are diligently enforced.  As Bud Danenberger, the retired head of all supervisors, testified last week at the Senate hearing, "MMS inspectors would not take a donut from industry."
• Claim: MMS did not perform the necessary NEPA analysis and, instead, did "Cat Ex" shortcut.  This is false.  MMS has a strict NEPA procedure for "grid" EA's to determine if EIS is necessary.  Cat Ex is only used for followup work such as "in-fill" wells.  Although "in-fill" wells are at issue in the BP incident, the Cat Ex is based on company's adhering to standard cementing procedures.  If companies fail to do this, it's not a NEPA issue; it's an issue of non-compliance with regulations.
• MMS simply "rubber stamps" industry proposals.  This is false.  MMS routinely "bounces" EP proposals until they comport with regulatory requirements.  In the Arctic, for example, there were numerous rounds of failed submittals before industry produced one that adhered to the regs.  If the press would check, MMS could document the number of rejects.  Then again, they may not like the results.  It wouldn't fit their presupposed storyline.
• Claim: MMS failed to perform the required number of inspections on BP facility.  This is false.  MMS policy is for "risk-based" inspections, due to scarce resources.  That is, MMS bases the rate of inspections on the tract record of non-compliance/compliance.  MMS reduces the rate of inspections when facilities have a continuous record of 100 percent compliance.  In the case of BP's facility, until the incident, the record was good and the rate of inspections was less than at the initial period of installation.  If inspections had turned up a number of violations, MMS inspectors would have been "all over" the facility.