Markey Attacks BP Oil Dispersant Use

Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) is Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Energy and Environment Subcommittee. That committee released a number of documents on July 31 that corroborate previous reporting on the use of chemical oil dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, the material was detailed in a long letter from the Congressman to retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, who is the National Incident Commander for the response to the BP oil spill.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) directed BP on May 26 to limit its use of dispersant on the surface to 75% of the maximum amount used in one day of 70,000 gallons. At that point, 700,000 gallons of dispersant had been applied to the surface, an average of just over 24,000 gallons per day over the preceding 29 calendar days. The reduction would limit the use of dispersant to 17,500 gallons per day unless an exception was granted. The Coast Guard granted some 74 waivers, according to Cong. Markey.

Data from the records of the Unified Command website reveal that on at least nine days after May 26^th, the amount of dispersant applied to the surface by BP exceeded 17,500 gallons. The company ceased applying surface dispersant on July 5. During the 41 days since the EPA directive, 370,000 gallons of dispersant were applied to the surface, an average of just over 9,000 gallons per calendar day. The number of actual application days in this period was 28, and the average per application day was 13,214 gallons.

BP was also directed to limit application of dispersant under water, subsurface, to no more than 15,000 gallons per day. In the period May 26, until they ceased applying dispersant on July 16, there were six days in which BP exceeded that limit.

Congressman Markey's letter to Admiral Allen points out many discrepancies in data provided directly by BP to his committee, testimony by BP officials and the data provided by the Unified Command. A table with the letter details figures that differ in some cases from the data on the Unified Command website. The letter also points out that requests for exemptions from the EPA limits were handled is differing ways on different dates. There is an appearance of a lack of consistent practice and process.

CNN quotes a spokesperson for the EPA:

"The use of dispersant is always a difficult decision, with environmental trade-offs that must be taken seriously into consideration," EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said Sunday. "As a result, its use in response to the BP spill was subject to numerous strict conditions once it quickly became apparent that BP wanted to use it in unprecedented quantities and in novel ways."

BP has maintained that its use of the dispersant was based upon its inclusion as approved in the National Emergency Response Plan. The L.A. Times reports:

"Responding to the Markey investigation, BP spokesman Steve Rinehart wrote in an e-mail, "We were in regular communication with EPA on the topic of dispersant use and we followed the direction of the Unified Command," the federal agency in charge of spill response. He added that "dispersant use was pre-approved as a response tool, and approved during the response, because it is effective and, on balance, less harmful" than undispersed oil."