BP and Corexit | Why won’t BP use a less-toxic chemical dispersant?

Deepwater Horizon Response: Is the Medicine (Corexit) Worse Than the Disease?

BP came under criticism weeks ago for using Corexit(R), a highly toxic chemical oil dispersant, in huge amounts to try to break up the oil gushing from its well in the Gulf of Mexico. Some scientists argued that there are less-toxic, more effective dispersants available. Other scientists argued we should use no dispersants, as the damage from the dispersants may do more harm than good. As we reported May 20,2010, Corexit is carcinogenic, mutagenic, and highly toxic, and scientists are concerned about its effect on marine life. Corexit is banned in Great Britain.

Corexit Alternatives Available?

In response to these criticisms, British Petroleum claimed that these alternatives are not available in the necessary quantities. This argument seemed to have been blown out of the water when one of the cable news networks showed thousands of gallons of an alternate dispersant sitting in the sun in Houston, Texas, just waiting to be shipped to the Gulf. The manufacturer’s president expressed frustration, saying his company could be manufacturing large quantities every day if only BP would take delivery of the dispersant and order more.

Finally, on May 19, 2010, the EPA ordered BP to stop using Corexit and switch to a less-toxic dispersant. Instead of changing dispersants, however, the company simply refused and told the EPA that Sea Brat No. 4, the only alternative dispersant available in sufficient quantities, contains “potential endocrine disruptors” that “may persist in the environment for a period of years.” EPA has now asked BP to reduce the amount of Corexit being used.

John Sheffield of the Alabaster Corp., which manufactures Sea Brat No. 4, told NOLA.com that the ingredient in question is not considered toxic as “a marine pollutant” unless it is present in the mixture of greater than 10 percent by weight. Alabaster’s concentration is below that, at 1.91 percent, Sheffield said.

Some have questioned whether BP’s decision to use Corexit stems from a business relationship with the chemical’s manufacturer. A former BP executive sits on the board of Nalco, the manufacturer of Corexit. The Guardian reported that Congessman Jerrold Nadler (D. N.Y.) asked, “Why would you use something that is much more toxic and much less effective, other than you have a corporate relationship with the manufacturer?”

Tagged as: BP, BP oil spill, carcinogenic, chemical, chemical dispersant, Corexit, Deepwater Horizon, EPA, Gulf oil spill, oil spill, Sea Brat, toxic