BP ‘Mechanical Difficulties’ Led To Usage Of Subsea Dispersants Twice The EPA Limit

[Are_grits_groceries]

<snip>
On May 26, the EPA and Coast issued a new directive, saying that BP “shall eliminate the surface application of dispersants” unless approved by the Rear Admiral James Allen, the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, and “be limited to a maximum subsurface application of dispersant of not more than 15,000 gallons in a single calendar day,” with “an overall goal of reducing dispersant application by 75% from the maximum daily amount used.”

A Wonk Room analysis of information released by the oil disaster command center found that the May 26 directive has not been followed — 120,000 gallons of dispersant have been used at the surface, total use is only down by 25 percent, and on Sunday, June 6, BP used 33,000 gallons of subsea dispersant, more than twice the allowed amount.

After notified of this discrepancy by the Wonk Room on Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responded the next day that BP blamed “mechanical difficulties” but “do not expect it to happen again”:

BP informed the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (U.S. Coast Guard) they experienced mechanical difficulties that resulted in them applying more subsea dispersant than they intended to several days last week. They claim they have fixed this problem and do not expect it to happen again, and EPA will continue to monitor their usage to ensure BP complies with our directive and does not exceed the limits set forth in that directive without prior written approval from the FOSC.


http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/13/too-much-dispersant/

etrade baby says it for me:

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. Oh FFS!!! OSHA needs to get off their pasty asses and get in there NOW.

:grr:

[glinda]

2. BS. Mechanical Difficulties my ass.

:grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke:

[Trillo]

3. The reason I've seen stated (PR) for the use of dispersants is to break

up large droplets of oil into smaller ones with more total surface area, so that microbes may more quickly digest the oil.

Has anyone tested the dispersant's toxicity on microbes? Does the dispersant kill oil-eating bacteria or microbes?

[Trillo]

4. "Corexit may undermine the microbes that naturally eat oil."

We know these dispersants are toxic. In lab tests, Corexit—BP's favorite—kills shrimp and fish. Now David Valentine, a biogeochemist at the University of California Santa Barbara, warns the stuff may be riskier than just its toxicity. Corexit may undermine the microbes that naturally eat oil.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/dispersants-killing-natural-oil-eaters

[Igel]

6. All things in balance.

The oil plume analyses reported in the media say that O2 levels in the vecinity of the plumes are reduced. In other words, the bacteria are consuming the oil. If they're being undermined, it certainly hasn't stopped them.

On the other hand, every analysis has a bit of caution associated with it: If the microbes digest too much oil it'll deplete the O2 levels beyond what other life forms need to survive. This, however, hasn't happened, at least not yet.

So if it makes you feel better, think to yourself: "Sure, the Corexit is undermining the bacteria. It's allowing it to eat the oil, but not so much that it asphyxiates all animal life in a few hundred square miles of ocean."

If it doesn't make you feel better, think about something else.

[flyarm]

5. BP refuses EPA order to swtich to less -toxic Dispersant-LA Times

a reminder of this................


BP refuses EPA order to switch to less-toxic oil dispersant - latimes.com

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, Los Angeles Times

May 23, 2010


Reporting from Los Angeles and Elmer’s —
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.

[Laelth]

7. They shouldn't be using any dispersant at all, and EPA should not let them use any.

This is maddening. The oil needs to be skimmed. That can't be done if it's dispersed, and the dispersant is equally poisonous.

This makes me very, very angry.

:dem:

-Laelth

[eppur_se_muova]

8. It was like that when they got there ...

and the dog ate their homework.