PDA

View Full Version : EPA Orders BP to Use Less-Toxic Dispersant in Gulf



MNeagle
20th May 2010, 02:13 PM
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-IO305_0520oi_F_20100520101902.jpg

Oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is infiltrating the coast of Louisiana.
.The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday it has ordered BP PLC to use a different chemical dispersant to break up oil gushing out of a broken underground pipe in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP has been using a dispersant called Corexit, made by Nalco Holding Co. The EPA authorized BP to use Corexit last week, but EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had said that she was pushing the company to consider other dispersants that might be less harmful.

BP conceded Thursday that more oil than it estimated is gushing into the Gulf as heavy crude washed into Louisiana's wetlands for the first time, feeding worries and uncertainty about the massive monthlong spill.

A BP spokesman said that 5,000 barrels of oil a day were being collected through a mile-long tube the company inserted over the weekend, and acknowledged that there was still more oil leaking. A spokesman with the Unified Command, a unit established by the U.S. Coast Guard, BP, Transocean Ltd. and several U.S. agencies involved in responding to the spill, said that there was still an undetermined amount of oil leaking into the Gulf.

"The visible oil plume escaping from the riser pipe has noticeably declined," although it is impossible to give an exact measure of how much oil is still flowing into open water, the BP spokesman said.

The leak followed the April 20 explosion and later sinking of Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, which was drilling for London-based BP about 40 miles from the Louisiana coast.

Scientists said water samples taken from far below the water's surface showed oil, and lawmakers in Congress raised concerns about the toxicity of the dispersants that BP is spraying on the spill.

Dispersants are traditionally used to break up oil slicks on the sea surface. The risks of underwater use over long periods of time are unknown. Initial testing of Corexit on small fish, conducted earlier this week, produced survival rates of 80% to 90%, the EPA chief told reporters Wednesday, but those tests don't measure long-term effects.

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy confirmed that the agency ordered a switch. She said more details would come later. The EPA's decision was announced earlier by Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), who has been warning that the release of large volumes of chemicals into the Gulf could be an "aggressive experiment."

The manufacturer of Sea Brat 4, Alabaster Corp. of Pasadena, Texas, said Wednesday that BP had ordered about 100,000 gallons. A BP spokesman said he didn't immediately know whether the EPA had ordered a switch. The chemical used at present is a version called Corexit 9500.

Last week, the EPA and the Coast Guard authorized chemical dispersants to be used undersea, saying that dispersants are generally less harmful than the "highly toxic oil leaking from the source." Officials have said that the government was put into an impossible situation of choosing between the shores and the seas.

BP's choice of Corexit came under heavy fire on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, where Democratic lawmakers questioned the use of the chemical and said that other dispersants on a government-approved list would be more effective and less harmful. Mr. Markey warned Monday that "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."

Meanwhile, Louisiana officials reported the landfall of thick pockets of brownish oil in several parts of the state's fragile coastline, which they've dreaded since the blast.

"We knew it was coming," said PJ Hahn, Plaquemines Parish's Coastal Zone Manager. Mr. Hahn saw the crude first-hand on Wednesday in the sensitive Pass-a-Loutre Wildlife Management Area.

"It was just thick, gooey oil in pools all up against the marsh," he said. The marshes, which teem with wildlife, help keep erosion at bay, and if they're damaged by the crude, officials fear that even more of Louisiana's rapidly disappearing coastline would melt away into the Gulf.

"We haven't seen the worst of it," said Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, the area where the Mississippi empties into the gulf and the bulk of the beached oil has been found.

In an effort to stave off damage until a solution could be found, BP hired local fishermen to lay plastic piping, known as "boom," in spots along the Gulf coast. BP and federal officials have acknowledged that they don't have enough boom to wall off the entire coastline, a jagged jumble of inlets, islands and bays. So they are playing triage, deciding which areas are the most important to block off as winds and currents constantly shift.

Mr. Nungesser warned that more oil probably would wash ashore in coming days unless BP and state and federal officials moved fast to approve a plan from his parish to dredge and spray sand on submerged barrier islands along its coastline, in a frantic bid to build them up.

Plaquemines officials informed BP on Tuesday that they had spotted an oily sludge in the marshes. Cleanup crews still hadn't arrived by early Thursday morning, though they were expected later in the day, he said.

"This thing is not organized," Mr. Nungesser said of the cleanup effort. "They're trying," he said of BP officials, but "every day it keeps getting worse." BP officials were not immediately available for comment.

Until recently, government officials fighting the spill were expressing optimism. Spraying chemicals on the oil to break it up, collecting the oil with machines known as skimmers, and burning parts of the slick were containing the spill offshore, Benjamin Cooper, a Coast Guard commander helping lead the oil-spill response, told a gathering of shrimpers in south Louisiana on May 13.

"It's not the worst-case scenario we could have imagined," he said. "That's because of the efforts offshore,"

But now, the arrival of waves of thick oil is sparking a new round of criticism that BP and the government haven't properly deployed even the limited amount of boom that they have.

Rough weather over the past few days has broken up much of the boom that has been laid on the water, making it ineffective in blocking incoming oil, Mr. Nungesser said. "They have probably deployed the same boom ten times. It ends up on the beach," he said of BP and its contractors.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has endorsed a plan by Plaquemines Parish to do the boom one better. The idea is to dredge and spray area sand onto the top of barrier islands that now sit just below the surface of the gulf. Proponents say whatever oil washed up onto those beaches would be easier to clean up than oil that nestled in the marshes.

Mr. Nungesser said he believed the buildup of the barrier islands could be finished in 10 days if federal officials granted the necessary approvals. But the plan has been the subject of debate for some two weeks. Some environmental groups have expressed concerns that building up the islands would divert the natural flow of water along the coastline, potentially causing long-term environmental damage. They point to the way that Louisiana's decades-old levee system has contributed to erosion.

Further west, Terrebonne Parish spokesman Brennan Matherne said that "heavy brown oil" washed up on Fourchon Beach late Wednesday, covering about half of the 15-mile beachfront. Although no new oil had appeared on Thursday morning, "yesterday you could see it in the waves coming on," he added.

Both Messrs. Matherne and Hahn speculated that the oil may have been traveling underwater, raising concerns that it could be eluding the 1.4 million feet of boom lines deployed to contain it. "Booms are not doing it," Mr. Hahn said.

Link to Article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256110885560980.html?m od=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews)


EDIT: Changed long link to named link to prevent horizontal scrolling. -Gaillo

Quantum
20th May 2010, 05:05 PM
Why BP is using more toxic dispersants...


Link to Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/business/energy-environment/13greenwire-less-toxic-dispersants-lose-out-in-bp-oil-spil-81183.html)

Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup
By PAUL QUINLAN of Greenwire
Published: May 13, 2010

BP PLC continues to stockpile and deploy oil-dispersing chemicals manufactured by a company with which it shares close ties, even though other U.S. EPA-approved alternatives have been shown to be far less toxic and, in some cases, nearly twice as effective.

After the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and a deepwater well began gushing crude in the Gulf of Mexico three weeks ago, BP quickly marshaled a third of the world's available supply of dispersants, chemicals that break surface oil slicks into microscopic droplets that can sink into the sea.

But the benefits of keeping some oil out of beaches and wetlands carry uncertain costs. Scientists warn that the dispersed oil, as well as the dispersants themselves, might cause long-term harm to marine life.

So far, BP has told federal agencies that it has applied more than 400,000 gallons of a dispersant sold under the trade name Corexit and manufactured by Nalco Co., whose current leadership includes executives from BP and Exxon. And another 805,000 gallons of Corexit are on order, the company said, with the possibility that hundreds of thousands of more gallons may be needed if the well continues spewing oil for weeks or months.

But according to EPA data, Corexit ranks far above dispersants made by competitors in toxicity and far below them in effectiveness in handling southern Louisiana crude.

Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.

EPA has not taken a stance on whether one dispersant should be used over another, leaving that up to BP. All the company is required to do is to choose an EPA-approved chemical, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters yesterday during a conference call aimed at addressing questions about dispersants being used in efforts to contain the Gulf spill.

"Our regular responsibilities say, if it's on the list and they want to use it, then they are preauthorized to do so," Jackson said.

One explanation for BP's reliance on Nalco's Corexit, which its competitors say dominates the niche market for dispersants because of its industry ties, was its availability in large quantities at the time of the Gulf spill.

"Obviously, logistics and stockpiles and the ability for the responsible party to pull the materials together," Jackson said. "I'm sure that has a lot to do with the ones that they choose."

Nonetheless, experts question BP's sustained commitment to Corexit, given apparently superior alternatives.

"Why wouldn't you go for the lesser toxic formulation?" said Carys Mitchelmore, an assistant professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at the University of Maryland's Center for Environmental Science. Mitchelmore testified on Capitol Hill this week about dispersants and co-authored a 2005 National Academy of Sciences report on the chemicals.

BP spokesman Jon Pack defended the use of Corexit, which he said was decided in consultation with EPA. He called Corexit "pretty effective" and said the product had been "rigorously tested."

"I'm not sure about the others," Pack said. "This has been used by a number of major companies as an effective, low-toxicity dispersant."

BP is not considering or testing other dispersants because the company's attention is focused on plugging the leak and otherwise containing the spill, Pack said.

"That has to be our primary focus right now," he said.

Nalco spokesman Charlie Pajor said the decision on what to use was out of his company's hands. He also declined to comment on EPA comparison tests, saying only that lab conditions cannot necessarily replicate those in the field. "The decision about what's used is made by others -- not by us," he said.

Nalco's connections

Critics say Nalco, which formed a joint venture company with Exxon Chemical in 1994, boasts oil-industry insiders on its board of directors and among its executives, including an 11-year board member at BP and a top Exxon executive who spent 43 years with the oil giant.

"It's a chemical that the oil industry makes to sell to itself, basically," said Richard Charter, a senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife.

The older of the two Corexit products that BP has used in the Gulf spill, Corexit 9527, was also sprayed in 1989 on the 11-million-gallon slick created by the Exxon Valdez grounding in Alaska's Prince William Sound.

Cleanup workers suffered health problems afterward, including blood in their urine and assorted kidney and liver disorders. Some health problems were blamed on the chemical 2-butoxyethanol, an ingredient discontinued in the latest version of Corexit, Corexit 9500, whose production Nalco officials say has been ramped up in response to the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

Among Corexit's competitors, a product called Dispersit far outpaced Corexit 9500, EPA test results show, rating nearly twice as effective and between half and a third as toxic, based on two tests performed on fish and shrimp.

Bruce Gebhardt, president of the company that manufactures Dispersit, U.S. Polychemical Corp., said BP asked for samples of his company's product two weeks ago. Later, he said, BP officials told him that EPA had wanted to ensure they had "crossed all their T's and dotted all their I's" before moving forward.

Gebhardt says he could make 60,000 gallons a day of Dispersit to meet the needs of spill-containment efforts. Dispersit was formulated to outperform Corexit and got EPA approval 10 years ago, he said, but the dispersant has failed to grab market share from its larger rival.

"When we came out with a safer product, we thought people would jump on board," he said. "That's not the case. We were never able to move anyone of any size off the Corexit product."

He added, "We're just up against a giant."

Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com.
Greenwire is published by Environment & Energy Publishing. Read More »

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: May 14, 2010

Nalco and Exxon Chemical Company formed a joint venture company in 1994 called Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. Nalco was acquired in 1999 by the multinational corporation then called Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, which eventually bought out Exxon Mobil’s interest in the joint venture in 2001. An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the Nalco-Exxon connection.



EDIT: Changed long link to named link to prevent horizontal scrolling. -Gaillo

Cebu_4_2
20th May 2010, 05:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXTcM2ntlkM

gunDriller
20th May 2010, 06:02 PM
by far the least un-healthy response to the oil that's been spilled, is to quarantine it, and to let it wash up on shore.

the dispersants are poison - toxic to wildlife.

it's far better for the environment to let millions of birds die coated in oil, than to poison the entire f'ing Gulf of Mexico.

this is a time of extremely hard choices.

i think BP may have been trying to lessen the PR impact, which in this case is a major crime. they need to forget about PR and develop the courses of action that are least destructive to the environment of the US and the Caribbean states.

mick silver
20th May 2010, 06:05 PM
it all about money ... and bp not going to give it up easy