iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Miles Grant

Miles Grant

Posted: May 24, 2010 12:41 AM

BP Still Stonewalling EPA on Dispersant Chemicals

What's Your Reaction:

Plane Sprays Dispersant Over Oil Spill

BP's oil spill size cover-up started to unravel on Friday as BP finally admitted its figure of 5,000 barrels a day lowballed the true size of the spill. But another of BP's cover-ups is still going strong.

BP has already dumped over 700,000 gallons of chemical dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico - America's public waters. But incredibly, BP is still refusing to reveal exactly what's in that dispersant:

BP is keeping secret some of the "alternative" chemical ingredients it is using in the oil spill dispersants it is pouring into the Gulf of Mexico, claiming it is "confidential business information."

Concern is growing over the effect of the chemical dispersant on the environment, separate to the oil spill, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) trying to force BP to reveal what makes up the hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical dispersant it is pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.

The EPA has issued a directive to BP requiring it to use a less toxic and more effective dispersant to deal with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Like so many aspects of BP's oil spill response, the redacted passages would be comical if the disaster wasn't so serious:

Redacted

"Exceedances of the chronic criteria appear unlikely, but could occur if [REDACTED] is applied in the same area over a period of several days." Doesn't that seem like something Americans deserve to know? I guess BP thinks "confidential business information" trumps the public good.

Jeremy Symons, senior vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, blasted BP's continued stonewalling:

The administration demanded transparency from BP, and we got censored documents. BP cannot be trusted and this is not acceptable. These toxic chemicals have been dumped in the gulf for a month at levels never envisioned, and any information that sheds light on their effects and the potential for less toxic dispersants needs to be made public immediately.

First BP said trust us, only 1,000 barrels a day are spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. Then BP said no, wait, it's actually 5,000 barrels a day -- but trust us, that's correct. Today, BP is refusing to put any number on the spill size.

Now BP is saying the dispersants are safe for people & wildlife -- trust us. But the National Wildlife Federation won't take [REDACTED] for an answer. We'll continue pushing the federal government to do what BP won't -- conduct proper environmental monitoring, testing & public safety protection.

You can read BP's full response here (PDF) and read other documents at the EPA's dispersant page.

Donate NowHelp ensure NWF has the funding needed to be on the front lines helping wildlife >>
 

For all the latest news on how the oil spill is impacting the Gulf Coast's wildlife & to learn how you can help, visit NWF.org/OilSpill.

 

Follow Miles Grant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MilesGrant

 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:02 PM on 05/24/2010
We are shown this particular footage of the leak now seemingly everywhere. Can anyone tell me if this is the only point at which the Oil is flowing? I have not heard this question put forth. Did I miss something? Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
miamivalleyjournal
10:40 PM on 05/24/2010
Researching the maritime laws that Transocean may try to employ against lawsuits raises the question about whether the families of those whose lives were lost in this explosion will be treated fairly. For a look at one maritime law that is being considered, read this story in the Times Picayune: (http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1274682611159500.xml&coll=1).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:14 AM on 05/24/2010
wow! seems like the FDA should be involved if [ ] this is becoming fishfood for our seafood. 1 million gallons of oil + 5K [ ] = (1 million gallons of oil still in the gulf) + (a new contaminent of 5K gallons). It's as if they think the problem is solved is we can't see the oil in one huge lake. Do they really think trillions of drops of oil is better than a lake of it (same quantity). When the crap hits the fan, it doesn't mean there is not a mess on the walls because it was disspersed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mech126
Science, and government are "NOT" the enemy...
04:12 AM on 05/24/2010
This oil spill is a unmitigated disaster, and if anyone tells you otherwise they are a F ING fool....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paladine
01:06 AM on 05/24/2010
Thank you for this important info. I hope people listen. I will be donating in the morning, I'm in bed without a credit card. Thank you for all you do, NWF.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Miles Grant
Progressive activist, climate hawk
08:49 AM on 05/24/2010
Who needs a credit card? Text "Wildlife" to 20222 to donate $10 to NWF's Gulf Restoration Fund via your cell phone bill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paladine
10:24 AM on 05/24/2010
I do...cause I don't have a cell....believe it or not. My kids do, but Mom doesn't. I had one and found it cluttered my life, calls all the time, people EXPECTING to get ahold of me...some would even get indignant when there wouldn't be an answer! Saying, "you have a cell, answer it!"...so I canceled it, and love it! :)

I'm up now, I'm now, I'll check out how to donate by credit card.....peace.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paladine
10:29 AM on 05/24/2010
Done. I see your directors name is "Senft"...funny thing, I do genealogy, that's a variation of my very rare last name, "Sanftenberg". Cool coincidence.