In Gulf Spill, BP Using Dispersants Banned in U.K.

Source: Pro Publica

In Gulf Spill, BP Using Dispersants Banned in U.K.

by Marian Wang, ProPublica - May 18, 2010 2:24 pm EDT

The two types of dispersants BP is spraying in the Gulf are banned for use on oil spills in the U.K. As EPA-approved products, BP has been using them in greater quantities than dispersants have ever been used in the history of US oil spills.

BP is using two products from a line of dispersants called Corexit, which EPA data appears to show is more toxic and less effective on South Louisiana crude than other available dispersants, according to Greenwire.

We learned about the U.K. ban from a mention on the New York Times’ website. (The reference was cut from later versions of the article, so we can’t link to the Times, but we found the piece elsewhere.) The Times flagged a letter Rep. Edward Markey, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, sent to the EPA yesterday. The letter pointed out that both the Corexit products currently being used in the Gulf were removed from a list of approved treatments for oil spills in the UK more than a decade ago. (Here’s the letter.)

As we’ve reported, Corexit was also used after Exxon Valdez and was “later linked with health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders.” One of the two Corexit products also contains a compound associated with “headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses.”

As we’ve reported, Corexit was also used after Exxon Valdez <8> and was “later linked with health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders.” One of the two Corexit products also contains a compound associated with “headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses.”



Read more: http://www.propublica.org/ion/blog/item/In-Gulf-Spill-BP-Using-Dispersants-Banned-in-UK

http://www.iosc.org/papers/00020.pdf

Corexit 7664 was applied on Ingot Island, followed by a warm water wash. No significant change in oil cover or the physical state of the oil was observed as ...

http://www.eoearth.org/article/exxon_valdez_oil_spill

How did we become another country's bitch?

.
.
.

It's that simple

A version of Corexit was widely used after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and, according to a literature review performed by the group the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, was later linked with health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. But the Academy report makes clear that the dispersants used today are less toxic than those used a decade ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit

BTW - I tried searching to see if it is actually true that Corexit is banned in the UK , which version that applis to and when that ban was implemented but blanked completely other than current news items in the US media. Anyone had any luck with that search ?

The other half of the truth is that for whatever reason the EPA approved it use.

Please don't tell me a Dem administration approved this.

I hears it will MELT THEM.

in the ProPublica article.

http://www.propublica.org/ion/blog/item/In-Gulf-Spill-BP-Using-Dispersants-Banned-in-UK


The two Corexit products removed from the UK's approved list for shoreline use are on page 10.

http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/protecting/pollution/documents/approval_approved_products.pdf

Here's what the EPA is saying:

The EPA, while recognizing that long-term effects on the environment are unknown <15>, has said that the federal government will regularly analyze <16> the effect of dispersants, and that it will discontinue the application of dispersants underwater <17> “if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits.”

AFTER they've already used what-- half the world's stockpile already-- before it even became a known controversy? And we'll know the effects of all that WHEN?

The EPA doesn't want accountability. They don't even want to be quoted on their shit these days.

EPA Officials Demand Anonymity

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x535425#top

http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/protecting/pollution/documents/approval_approved_products.pdf

Oil spill treatment products approved for use in the United Kingdom
Compiled: 18 May 2010
Next review: January 2011


All products approved after 1 April 1996 have been required to pass both the Sea/Beach and Rocky Shore Toxicity Tests. Any products coming up for renewal that have only passed the Sea/Beach toxicity test in the past are required, before they can be renewed, to pass the Rocky Shore Test also. The following products have been removed from the list of approved products because they did not pass the Rocky Shore Test when submitted for renewal:

Chemkleen OSDA JAC (removed from list 21/01/1998)

Corexit 9527 (removed from list 30/07/1998)

Corexit 9500 (removed from list 30/07/1998).



http://blog.al.com/al/2010/05/oil_spill_dispersants_could_be.html

Most experts won't go that far, but even EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and NOAA administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco admitted in a recent conference call that the effects of the dispersants are largely unknown. Most of the studies performed on the agents have been testing effectiveness on dispersing oil, not on toxicity.

~~~

The exact chemical composition of the dispersants being used is not public information, but the products are called Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500. Corexit 9527 was used in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez spill, and contains 2-butoxyethanol, a chemical solvent that is used in paint thinners and varnish removers, among other products.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a branch of the CDC, describes 2-butoxyethanol as a toxic compound with a host of negative effects on humans, including kidney and liver damage at high doses. The data material safety sheets for both Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500 advise "Do not contaminate surface water," under the heading "Environmental Precautions."

Corexit 9500 is a newer formula that does not include 2-butoxyethanol. Jackson said the EPA had approved both Corexit products for use, and did not know how much of the total 582,416 gallons used was 9527 and how much was 9500.




Seems pretty clear that it's banned in the UK and that these are the formulations being used here.

Letter from Rep. Markey is worth reading. Note, it is a PDF:
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/letter-about-disperants-from-rep.-markey-to-epa1

Watch the Fed nail a couple and let the rest go without any accountability.

HAS to be pretty toxic to "break up" crude oil.

They're desperate.

We're screwed.

Somebody (else) profits.

The United States of British Petroleum? The one that tells the CIC and Coast Guard what to do?
THAT government?

by "dispersing" the oil from the surface, using the Corporate M$M/PR/advertising model this will cause people's overall upset to drop, and who cares about those sea creatures who don't buy BP products anyway.

Unfortunately for BP, the obvious magnitude of the spill, possibly BILLIONS of gallons by the time it's all over, especially considering the laughable lie of BP's "5K barrels per day" statement, will make all these dispersants one of those rare PR efforts that is overwhelmed by the reality of the situation.

This doesn't often happen, but this looks like it might be one of those times.

Don't count out the Corporate M$M/PR Lie Machine though. They have demonstrated an unprecedented power in rewriting reality and may yet be able to worm their way out of this.

Thanks for the thread, IndianaGreen.

I don't care if it picks up two gallons (of oil) a week. Get that shit out there and stand it around where people can see it".

- executive Don Cornett, audio tape of Cornett gathered for a 1994 trial on the spill. (Exxon Valdez)

Special report: Will the cleanup make the BP oil spill worse?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6465O320100507?type=domesticNews

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8288487#8292133