Dispersant use: the DDT of the oil spill? Not really …
Now that the leak is under control, attention seems to have turned to the massive use of dispersants by BP, particularly the dispersant Corexit, which had not been tested for use in the amounts and at the depths used during this incident.
Nontroversy? Not entirely; however, this statement by Ed Overton, a chemist with LSU’s Dept of Environmental Science, sums up my thoughts on the matter:
“That’s ridiculous, what the hell is wrong with these people?” Overton said. “It’s a political debate and not an environmental matter and that’s what irritates me.”
Amazingly, with all the oil that gushed from that well, only 300 miles of the 7000 miles of Louisiana coastline got “oiled”, thanks in part to the use of dispersants, and there appears to have been minimal effect on seafood.
This event was so huge, unprecedented, it was necessary to take drastic steps to contain the damage. While I’ve taken issue from time to time with some of the actions of the officials in charge of trying to contain this, the dispersant use isn’t one of those.
WASHINGTON — With the BP oil well capped for now, the battle and focus in Washington has turned to the company’s use of chemical dispersants to break up the leaked oil.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., ignited the debate this weekend when he released a letter sent to the federal government’s representative on the oil spill disaster, retired U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen.
Markey questioned the U.S. Coast Guard’s approval of waivers allowing BP to apply more dispersants than initially authorized.
The Environmental Protection Agency instructed BP to reduce the overall volume of the chemical used to break up the oil by 75 percent. That came after a day when BP used 70,000 gallons of the material.
Despite the directive, the Coast Guard has granted BP 74 exemptions of the order over a 48-day period to allow BP to use more than directed, Markey said. The use of 1.8 million gallons of the chemical since the spill began has contributed to a “toxic stew of chemicals, oil and gas with impacts that are not well understood.,” Markey said.
Markey called the EPA’s directive “more of a meaningless paperwork exercise.”
Markey’s action has people jumping. But he also has detractors who disagree with his position.
On Monday, the EPA held a press conference announcing a study that found the oil and dispersant mix is not more toxic than the dispersant itself.
The finding shows that using the dispersants “seems to be a wise decision,” said Paul Anastas, EPA assistant administrator for research and development.
Ed Overton, the environmental chemist with LSU’s Department of Environmental Science, agrees.
“Using dispersants is a bad idea,” Overton said. “The worst idea is not using dispersants.”
That less than 300 of the 7,000 miles of Louisiana coast line has been oiled is an indication that the dispersants likely helped, Overton said. He expressed anger over Markey’s assertions.
“That’s ridiculous, what the hell is wrong with these people?” Overton said. “It’s a political debate and not an environmental matter and that’s what irritates me.”
As for the impact on seafood, both Anastas and Overton said the largest impact would be on larval and juvenile species of fish that live on the surface.