EDF Health

Exceptions swallow the rule: “Rare cases” turn into daily approvals for dispersant use

By / Published: July 7, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

What the EPA hath sought to take away from BP, the US Coast Guard hath given back.

Remember the May 26 Directive that, well, directed BP to “eliminate the surface application of dispersants” except in “rare cases when there may have to be an exemption” and where BP submits a written request and receives an exemption in writing from the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC, currently Admiral James Watson of the Coast Guard)?

Naturally, I was curious about the nature and number of such exemptions, given that, as I noted earlier, surface application of dispersants has continued since the May 26 Directive.  After I (and others, I expect) made inquiries a couple of weeks ago to get copies of the written requests from BP and written approvals from the FOSC, the Coast Guard has informed me that it has posted these documents on the Deepwater Horizon response website.

These documents reveal that, as of June 30 (the last day for which a document has been posted as of this writing), more than 40 exemption requests have been submitted – and approved.  These exemptions have allowed surface application of dispersant to occur virtually every day since the Directive was issued.

The documents also hold some other interesting details as to the rationales offered for the exemptions and the nature of the approvals.  Read More »

Posted in Environment, Health policy, Health science, Regulation / Tagged , | Read 3 Responses

Not so fast: Why dispersants EPA ranks as “practically non-toxic” are still a concern

By / Published: July 2, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

To judge by the headlines and leads of stories that ran on the websites of the New York Times (“The E.P.A. on Dispersants: Cure Is Not Worse Than the Disease”) and the Washington Post (“Oil dispersant does not pose environmental threat, early EPA findings suggest”) reporting on an EPA conference call held Wednesday, you’d think the first round of test results on dispersants conducted by EPA answered all outstanding questions and gave their use a clean bill of health.

Hardly.  (Despite the misleading headlines and leads, the rest of these stories were more nuanced and more accurate.)

As I reported in a post Wednesday, the new acute toxicity data were from tests conducted on the dispersants by themselves, rather than mixed with oil – which is what the environment sees.  Moreover, the new data did little more than confirm already available data showing that currently listed dispersants exhibit relatively low acute toxicity to fish and shrimp, and that by themselves they are less toxic than oil by itself.

So despite the hoopla, the new data from this first round of testing are of very limited utility in answering any of the more profound questions surrounding the use of dispersants.  Read More »

Posted in Environment, Health science / Tagged , , | Read 2 Responses

Katrina chronicles meet the BP oil disaster: Formaldehyde-laced trailers are back in the Gulf

By / Published: July 1, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

In another truly bizarre collision between recent Gulf coast disasters (on top of Hurricane Alex), Ian Urbina of the New York Times reports on the front page today that those toxic trailers – sold at auction by FEMA back in March – have been reincarnated once again, this time as housing for Gulf cleanup workers.

I had blogged about the sale at the time, questioning the viability of FEMA’s assurance that “wholesale buyers from the auction must sign contracts attesting that trailers will not be used, sold or advertised as housing, and that trailers will carry a sticker saying, ‘Not to be used for housing’.”  In that post, I had cynically asked:  “Think that’s likely to be enough?”

With good reason, it turns out.  Read More »

Posted in Health science / Tagged , , , , | Read 2 Responses

Hurry up and wait: Not much new revealed by EPA’s initial round of dispersant toxicity testing

By / Published: June 30, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

EPA held a press call today to discuss the initial results of its own testing of oil spill dispersants.  The testing by EPA was initiated after BP resisted complying with an EPA-Coast Guard Directive issued May 20 that directed the company to identify and switch to dispersants that are less toxic and more effective than the two Corexit® dispersants on which BP has exclusively relied to mitigate the effects of the oil disaster unfolding at Deepwater Horizon.  In expressing disappointment with BP’s response to the Directive, EPA indicated it would initiate its own toxicity and effectiveness testing of Corexit and other dispersants.  Today’s call reported on round 1 of that testing.

First let me say I applaud EPA for taking on the unglamorous task of conducting further testing and seeking to answer questions that would have been nice to have had answers to well before this mess developed.  Second, I understand that testing takes time, that this is only round one and EPA says more is coming, so that at least partially compensates for the distinctly anticlimactic feeling I had listening in on today’s call.

So, what did we learn today?  Not too much new. Read More »

Posted in Environment, Health science / Tagged , , | Read 2 Responses

Does dispersant toxicity count? No toxicity standard limits EPA’s listing of oil spill dispersants

By / Published: June 24, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.  EDF’s Health Program Intern Shannon O’Shea provided valuable assistance in the research for this post.

The more I have looked into the question of how dispersants get listed and selected under the country’s National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), the more disturbing it gets.

It turns out EPA regulations impose no maximum toxicity limits on dispersants allowed to be listed on the NCP Product Schedule.  Nor is such a listing deemed by EPA to be an approval or authorization for use of a dispersant on a spill – it merely signifies (with one exception) that required data have been submitted to EPA.  Yet, once listed, a dispersant is effectively “pre-authorized” for use, and the guidance provided to officials charged with deciding whether to allow use of a dispersant, and if so which one and in what quantities and settings, makes scant mention of toxicity as a factor to be considered in the selection decision.

No wonder there’s little incentive to do the research needed to understand the full scope of impacts associated with dispersant use, let alone to develop and shift to safer and more effective dispersants.

This post examines the following questions:

  • How does a dispersant get listed on the NCP Product Schedule?
  • Is listing of a dispersant considered approval for use on a spill?
  • How is a dispersant approved for use in a spill?
  • How are decisions made about dispersant use?
  • How is toxicity information considered in making decisions about dispersant use?

Read More »

Posted in Environment, Health policy / Tagged , , , | Read 4 Responses

Correction to my last post: Clarification from EPA

By / Published: June 22, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

I have learned from EPA (see EPA’s statement at the end of this post) that, in my last post, I misinterpreted a key part of the May 26 Directive that EPA and the Coast Guard issued to BP calling for reductions in overall dispersant use.   Specifically, it stated “BP shall establish an overall goal of reducing dispersant application by 75% from the maximum daily amount” (emphasis added).  My calculation indicating only a 9% reduction was based on the average rather than maximum daily amount applied prior to the Directive.

According to EPA, the Directive was issued in direct response to concern over BP’s escalating use of dispersants in the days immediately prior: 45,000 gallons on May 22 and 70,000 gallons on May 23.

Using the maximum daily amount of 70,000 gallons as the baseline, BP’s subsequent use of dispersant post-Directive averaging 22,600 gallons per day represents a 68% reduction, much closer to the 75% goal.

My apologies for the confusion and my misreading of the Directive.

EPA also indicates that the continuing surface application of dispersant by BP has been approved by the Coast Guard, as provided for in the Directive.  I am seeking confirmation of that from the Coast Guard directly.

EPA statement added at 4:15 EDT today:

Statement from EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy:

When Administrator Jackson saw two straight days (May 22, 23) of skyrocketing dispersant volumes applied in the Gulf of Mexico she acted immediately to do something about it.  On the evening of May 23 Administrator Jackson and Coast Guard Rear Admiral Landry sat down with BP and ordered them to ramp down dispersant use – with an overall goal of 75% from its peak usage of 70,000 gallons on May 23.  The next day May 24, dispersant use dropped more than 50%.  Since Administrator Jackson and Admiral Landry met with BP on May 23 to demand a reduction, dispersant use is down 68% from its peak.  The Federal On-Scene Coordinator, in this case it’s Coast Guard Admiral Watson, has the authority to grant waivers for the use of more dispersant based on changing conditions at sea.

Posted in Health policy / Tagged , , | Comments are closed