BP refuses EPA order to switch to less-toxic oil dispersant

[Better Believe It]

BP refuses EPA order to switch to less-toxic oil dispersant
Oil washes ashore on 50 miles of Louisiana shoreline as tensions mount over how to treat the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
By Margot Roosevelt and Carolyn Cole
May 23, 2010

BP has rebuffed demands from government officials and environmentalists to use a less-toxic dispersant to break up the oil from its massive offshore spill, saying that the chemical product it is now using continues to be "the best option for subsea application."

On Thursday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gave the London-based company 72 hours to replace the dispersant Corexit 9500 or to describe in detail why other dispersants fail to meet environmental standards.

The agency on Saturday released a 12-page document from BP, representing only a portion of the company's full response. Along with several dispersant manufacturers, BP claimed that releasing its full evaluation of alternatives would violate its legal right to keep confidential business information private.

But in a strongly worded retort, the EPA said that it was "evaluating all legal options" to force BP to release the remaining information "so Americans can get a full picture of the potential environmental impact of these alternative dispersants."

So far, 715,000 gallons of dispersant has been applied since the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, mostly on the spill's surface. The chemical has also been released near the leaking pipe on the seafloor.

Dispersants break oil into droplets that decompose more quickly. But scientists worry that extensive use of the chemicals in the BP spill is increasing marine life's exposure to the toxins in oil.

"While the dispersant BP has been using is on the agency's approved list, BP is using this dispersant in unprecedented volumes and, last week, began using it underwater at the source of the leak — a procedure that has never been tried before," the EPA noted last week, acknowledging that "much is unknown about the underwater use of dispersants."

Read the full article at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-20100523,0,3247111,print.story

[theophilus]

1. Fine and jail time. n/t

[Cleita]

7. Agree.

Arrest their top execs until they change their minds.

[inna]

2. .

:banghead:


Words fail.

[gateley]

3. +1

[laughingliberal]

4. Obviously, BP's first priority is protecting themselves. Time for some of that 'government oversight

Appalling!

[DrDan]

5. maybe we can compromise . . .ala HCR . . . let them do it their way and we shall step aside

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. Argh!! "violate its legal right to keep confidential business information private"

:wtf:

Um, isn't that the fucking reason for the fucking EPA in the first place? To protect US citizens from being polluted by corporations "protecting their interests"?

I am so pissed about this quote I could spit.

Edit - apologies for the strong language. This INFURIATES me.

[northernlights]

8. what possible business information could that be, BP?

the fact that you are part effing owner of Corexit's manufacturer?

...that *other* dispersants may cost you a few more dollars?

...that *other* disperants may be far less toxic?

....that *other* disperants may be owned by competitors?

Please, do share with us....:grr: :grr: :grr:

[thecrow]

9. I have a question....

Is the dispersant the white cloud that is alonside the gusher?
SInce it appears to be gushing at the same rate of the oil, is that how they measure the amoount of oil, by checking on how much dispersant is being released?

[Swamp Rat]

10. BP = Death Merchants

[noamnety]

11. If the administration is all about assassinating US citizens without a trial

if they constitute a grave threat to the US, someone needs to explain why these guys aren't at the top of the list. If they were muslims actively engaged in a chemical attack of this magnitude on the US we'd take them out in an instant and go to war over it.

[Better Believe It]

12. Bingo!