May 23, 2010
Ignoring a demand from the EPA and requests from Homeland Security and environmental groups, BP refuses to change dispersants. Dispersants act to break down the oil into smaller particles so bacteria can ultimately scavenge it. They claim what they have been using is best suited for subsea use. Which is curious considering the EPA said subsea dispersant use has never before been attempted.
What they have been using – Corexit 9500 - is on the EPA’s approved list but they are using it on the surface and at the source of the leak – so far over 700K gallons of it – in an attempt to lessen the damage being done by the suspension of oil in the water column.
BP claims Corexit 9500 non-toxically degrades in 28 days while the suggested alternative degrades into a toxic chemical that remains.
Either way, no one knows what the effects will be because dispersants have never been used in that volume.
Anderson Cooper mentioned a connection between BP and the manufacturer of CoCorexit 9500. Don’t know if it was confirmed.
What’s not clear – why does the EPA have to negotiate?
Why don’t they have absolute control over the situation?
Because BP os British-owned or because barry hasn’t granted them the authority?
