Donate
Support LEAN
Make a donation today.
Subscribe
| Sign up for our newsletter and action alerts. |
|
|
|
BP Chooses Not To Change Dispersants Despite EPA Directive |
|
|
In
a letter dated May 20, 2010 BP responded to an EPA directive requiring
BP to use a less toxic dispersant by defending its use of COREXIT
products as the best option available.
Based
on the information that is available today, BP continues to believe
that COREXIT was the best and most appropriate choice at the time when
the incident occurred and that COREXIT remains the best option for
subsea application.
Before
the Coast Guard and EPA issue further directives requiring a change in
dispersant products or monitoring, we would appreciate the opportunity
to meet with you to discuss the options and their efficacy and
potential impacts, in view of the circumstances at the spill site, and
the proposed methods of usage.
The EPA directive stated:
Within
24
hours of the issuance of this Addendum 2, BP shall identify to the
FOSC and the EPA RRT Co-chair for EPA's and the FOSC's approval, one or
more approved dispersant products from the National Contingency Plan
Product Schedule that are available in sufficient quantities, are as
effective at dispersing the oil plume, and have a toxicity value less
than or equal to 23.00 ppm LC50 toxicity value for Menidia or 18.00
ppm LC50 for Mysidopsis, as indicated on the NCP Product Schedule
(http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/ncp/tox_tables.htm). The less toxic
dispersant product(s) shall be used by BP for surface application and
subsurface application as directed by the FOSC. Within 72 hours after
submitting the list of alternatives, and after receiving EPA approval,
BP shall immediately use only the approved alternative dispersant.
Should BP not be able to identify alternative dispersant products, BP
shall provide the FOSC and EPA RRT CO-Chair a detailed description of
the products investigated, the reason the products did not meet the
standards described above. Availability shall be based on existing
stockpiles of dispersants, the estimated time to begin and aerial and
subsurface application, time for manufacturing, shipping, and
warehousing.
In other words BP was asked to:
- Identify
one or more alternative (to the currently used COREXIT products)
dispersant products that is already approved for use in the national
oil-spill response plan that is:
- as effective as the currently
used COREXIT products
- has a toxicity that is less than 2
specific toxicity test measurements
- Provide
the identified products to the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC),
Rear Admiral Mary Landry of the U.S. Coast Guard and the EPA Regional
Response Team (RRT) Co-chair, Samuel Coleman of the EPA for their
review.
- Then, if the EPA approved the alternative
dispersant(s), within 72 hours of receiving EPA approval BP was to
immediately use only the alternative dispersant for surface and
subsurface use.
If
BP was unable to do the above, then BP was to give a detailed
description of the products that it had investigated and the reasons
why they did not meet the given criteria.
BP asserted in its
letter that only 5 products in the list of dispersants in the national
oil spill response plan meet the criteria given by the EPA. These are:
Sea Brat #4, Nokomis 3-F4, Nokomis 3-AA, Mare Clean 200 and Neos AB3000.
BP
went
on to assert that of the 5 alternative products identified only
Sea Brat #4 was available in sufficient quantities for use. However, BP
believed that Sea Brat #4 should not be used without further evaluation
because it contains a small amount of a chemical that may degrade to a
nonylphenol.
Nonylphenol is a family of organic compounds that
are considered to be endocrine disruptors due to a weak ability to mimic
estrogen and in turn disrupt the natural balance of hormones in a given
organism. Nonylphenol is persistent in the environment,
and therefore lingers with the potential to negatively affect organisms
it
comes in contact with. Nonylphenol also bioaccumulates, which means that
it could work its way up the food chain.
In
BP's letter the availability of sufficient quantities of the
dispersants is repeatedly given as "one of the most important criteria"
in the selection of dispersants. In its letter BP states that "the
manufacturers (of the other dispersants) tell us that they cannot
produce the requested volume for 10 to 14 days or more."
In the
BP letter an attachment is referenced a number of times. This
attachment is said to contain "a table that describes the availability
and production capacity for each dispersant option." As well as "a
table that shows the expected effectiveness ratings for the four other
dispersants that meet the acute toxicity criteria in (the EPA
directive)."
Attached to the letter is a document titled
"Attachment: Evaluation of EPA-Pre Approved Chemical Oil Dispersants"
However this attachment contains evaluations of Corexit EC9500A,
COREXIT EC9527A, JD-2000, Nokomis 3-FA, Sea Brat #4 and Saf-Ron Gold.
It does NOT contain evaluations of Mare Clean 200, Nokomis 3-AA or Neos
AB3000.
Interestingly, JD-2000, according to the attached
tables, appears to be, by far, the least toxic product evaluated and
slightly more effective than the COREXIT products and yet it does not
appear in the actual BP letter.
The attachment also makes it
clear that BP has or claims to have insufficient data to make proper
evaluations of the dispersant products.
BP's response to the EPA
directive makes it more clear than ever that EPA in cooperation with
NOAA and the Coast Guard should be making the decisions about which
dispersants are to be used and in what manner they are to be used.
Approximately
785,000 gallons of total
dispersant have been deployed - 685,000 on the surface and 100,000
subsea.
 Visit SaveOurGulf.org
to get more information about the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster from
Waterkeeper organizations across the Gulf Coast and donate to Save Our
Gulf!
|
|
