The Environmental Protection Agency informed BP officials late Wednesday that the company has 24 hours to choose a less toxic form of chemical dispersants to break up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to government sources familiar with the decision, and must apply the new form of dispersants within 72 hours of submitting the list of alternatives.
Well, better 600,000 gallons (!) late than never (see “Out of Sight: BP’s dispersants are toxic “” but not as toxic as dispersed oil” and “BP chooses more toxic, less effective dispersants“).
While this is clearly uncharted waters for many federal agencies, EPA should never have approved the Corexit dispersants for use in this quantity. It just shows one more time that nobody is planning for the worst-case scenario — hint, hint swing Senators who stand in the way of climate action this year (see “Lisa Murkowski proposes to fiddle while Alaska burns” — and everybody swallowed the BP self-certified, self-delusion (see BP calls blowout disaster ‘inconceivable,’ ‘unprecedented,’ and unforeseeable).
The WashPost has more on this point:
The move is significant, because it suggests federal officials are now concerned that the unprecedented use of chemical dispersants could pose a significant threat to the Gulf of Mexico’s marine life. BP has been using two forms of dispersants, Corexit 9500A and Corexit 9527A, and so far has applied 600,000 gallons on the surface and 55,000 underwater.
“Dispersants have never been used in this volume before,” said an administration official spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision hasn’t been formally announced. “This is a large amount of dispersants being used, larger amounts than have ever been used, on a pipe that continues to leak oil and that BP is still trying to cap.”
The new policy applies to both surface and undersea application, according to sources, and comes as EPA has just posted BP’s own results from monitoring the effect underwater application of chemical dispersants has had in terms of toxicity, dissolved oxygen and effectiveness.
An EPA official said the agency would make an announcement on the matter later today.
After BP conducted three rounds of testing, federal officials approved the use of underwater dispersants late last week, but environmentalists and some lawmakers have questioned the potential dangers of such a strategy.
On Monday, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson questioning the approach, given that Britain banned some formulations of the dispersant the government is now using, Corexit, more than a decade ago.
In the letter, Markey warned, The release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico could be an unprecedented, large and aggressive experiment on our oceans, and requires careful oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other appropriate federal agencies.”
EPA has a list of its approved dispersants on its Web site.
I’m not certain why we need a constant reminder that worst-case scenarios often play out. That’s especially true if people’s believe that they can’t occur lead them to take actions that make such scenarios more likely, as in the case of BP (see “The three causes of BP’s Titanic oil disaster: Recklessness, Arrogance, and Hubris“) or as in case of the nation and the world when it comes to human-caused global warming.
Responsible government planning must be based around plausible worst-case scenarios. Indeed, in most other areas of national security, like military planning, it is.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I liked that sentence, Joe: “I’m not certain why we need a constant reminder that worst case scenarios often play out”.
I’m not either, but here’s a guess: Fossil fuels have become so embedded in our lives that we unconsciously block evidence of the many short and long term dangers. This failure of cognition has been expertly exploited by those who are selling us these products.
Do you think anyone is doing water tests near the Florida reefs? When the reefs die off, (hopefully not) I predict BP will fall back to the usual chemical industry approach and debate the cause. If I was Florida I would be busting my butt right now trying to document what’s happening on the reefs. When this hits the courts, they will need all the evidence they can get.
Just when you think Oil companies can’t be anymore evil, they seem to find another way. It’s almost like they consider it a challenge.
This is a good move but it is worth remembering that BP had pre-approval to use the dispersants it has been using. Disperants do allow oil to be broken down more rapidly and their use is probably a good thing. The bigger issue is that BP seems to think the job is done once the dispersant is applied. That may be the case at the surface where oxygen mixes fairly readily into the water, but at depth, breakdown of the oil (which is what we want) exhausts the oxygen supply and creates an environmental hazard (hypoxia) while also slowing the breakdown of the oil. At depth, BP needs to supply oxygen where the extended oil plumes are to feed the breakdown of the oil. According to NPR, they have refused to do this through their storied executive Robert Dudley.
Well certainly the industry is designed so that the majority of spill
should only happen after the product is consumer purchased. Unfortunately, for everyone, the spill will reach international realms.
Well before it becomes only in the air. Reminds me of when as a child I
watched some of the westerns coming out of the tv and I rightly asked
but wher did they get all that tar to tar and feather. Seems that the tar
has new aspects. It’s distribution before purchase by the public and
gov. plus the dispersant value of the situation. Then there is the danger
that such would float into the wrong hands.
Use of toxic chemicals in oil & gas drilling. Now with the release of the dispersants into the ocean and currents, other atlantic nations will also be affected.
The Endocrine Disruption Exchange just released a report which finds that over 430 million gallons of chemicals have been injected into the state of Colorado.
OGAP and partner groups are supporting the state on this proposed rule in the formal hearing process against the concerns of major industry players such as Halliburton, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and the Colorado Petroleum Association. Read the prehearing statements and rebuttals from all of these parties! Halliburton has gone so far as to claim it will leave the state of Colorado if forced to disclose the chemicals it uses because the state agencies cannot be trusted with this information.
http://www.earthworksaction.org/Chemicalsandhealth.cfm
Our analysis also identified more than 150 other chemicals or chemical mixes used in these operations that are not regulated by these 6 major environmental laws. The fact that these chemical products are not listed under the 6 laws does not mean that they are safe — it simply reveals the magnitude of the shortcomings in these federal laws when it comes to protecting the environment and human health from chemicals used in oil and gas drilling operations.
http://www.ewg.org/reports/injection