According to a Congressional investigation led by Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, the U.S Coast Guard may be to blame for the haphazard use of thousands of gallons of chemical dispersants to break up oil slicks in the Gulf. According to government and BP documents, the U.S Coast Guard approved 74 requests for dispersant use over 48 days even after a federal order to stop the use of chemical dispersants on surface waters "except in rare cases were there might have to be an exception " was imposed at the urging of the EPA in late May. The EPA Directive instructed BP to "reduce the overall volume of dispersant used by 75% from the maximum daily amount used and to limit subsurface application to no more than 15,000 gallons a day" and required the submission of exemption requests to the U.S Coast Guard for consideration.
Despite concerns over the long-term effects of the toxic chemicals on the aquatic environment and the existing federal restriction, Markey's investigation maintains that the U.S Coast Guard routinely approved requests for the application of between 6,000 and 10,000 gallons of chemical dispersants a day, amounting to the overall use of hundreds of thousands of gallons of potentially toxic chemical dispersant on surface waters. Despite EPA concerns that the "exemption requests do not meet the requirements of the May 26th Directive", the U.S Coast Guard consistently approved exemption requests upon reception, even pre-authorizing requests for the use of dispersants up to a week in advance in some instances.
According to Markey, blatant discrepancies between the volumes of dispersants BP petitioned the U.S Coast Guard for and the figures for the actual volume of surface water dispersant used presented to the U.S Congressional staff exist. In his July 30th letter to Thad Allen, the retired U.S Coast Guard Admiral leading the response to the oil spill, Rep. Markey questioned the USCG's approval of exemption requests, inquiring what "rare circumstances" a-typical of a large scale oil spill necessitated such immediate approval.
In his letter, Markey stated that " the May 26th EPA Directive has become more of a meaningless paperwork exercise than an attempt to abide by the Directive and eliminate surface application of chemical dispersants" and requested a full response to the Subcommittee's findings by August 20,2010. So far, Allen has defended the approval of the exemption waivers, citing the overall decrease in chemical dispersants following the May 26th Directive and defending the use of dispersant as a "tactical" decision.
More information:
Rep. Markey's letter to Thad Allen 07-30-10ejmtocgdispersants.pdf
