Senate Dem Pledges Dispersant Reform

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


A new bill is in the works that would regulate the use of dispersants on oil spills. But is it too little too late?

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said Thursday that he plans to introduce the Safe Dispersants Act next week, which would require companies to disclose the chemicals in their products and compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to test the safety of the chemicals before authorizing their use. The bill would reform the current rules on dispersants, which require no safety testing and allow companies to keep the ingredients of the compounds secret.

Lautenberg announced the new measure at a hearing on dispersants Thursday morning, where EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was put on the hot seat about their use. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) pressed Jackson on whether the EPA even had the authority to force BP to stop using Corexit, its dispersant of choice.

Jackson responded that it was “a matter of untested law” and a matter she was unable to weigh in on: “I would not know, I’m not an attorney.” Jackson assured Mikulski that the EPA’s lawyers would get back to her office with the specifics on their authority.

“You needed to know on day one,” Mikulski shot back.

How much power EPA has over the situation has been an outstanding question. EPA told BP to find an alternative dispersant almost two months ago, but the company chose to ignore that directive. So EPA pledged to do its own tests. (The first round of results was released several weeks ago, but testing continues.) Meanwhile, BP is still using a large volume of dispersants, with the consent of the Coast Guard.

Jackson says that while her agency is still concerned about their use, it’s still letting BP use the dispersants because they’re considered safer than the oil itself. Yet she acknowledged repeatedly that the EPA did not have enough research on the long-term impacts of the chemicals. “With the use of dispersants, we are faced with environmental trade-offs,” Jackson told the panel. “The long term effects on aquatic life are largely unknown.” But, she said, “We have not seen significant environmental impacts from the use of dispersants so far.”

Critics of the dispersants say there should have been a better understanding of the potential health impacts of disperaants, and regulations government their use, long before the Gulf disaster. “We basically entered into this with a complete lack of preparedness,” Ken Cook president of the Environmental Working Group, told the panel. “The government and oil industry long ago should have made sure we had those answers.”

A representative of Nalco, the chemical company that manufactures the dispersants BP is using in the Gulf, declined to testify at the hearing, Mikulski said.

UPDATE: A Nalco spokesman emails to say that Mikulski misspoke; “One of the trade associations that Nalco is a member of was asked to testify, Nalco was not asked to testify,” he says.

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

Our fall fundraising drive is off to a rough start, and we very much need to raise $250,000 in the next couple of weeks. If you value the journalism you get from Mother Jones, please help us do it with a donation today.

As we wrote over the summer, traffic has been down at Mother Jones and a lot of sites with many people thinking news is less important now that Donald Trump is no longer president. But if you're reading this, you're not one of those people, and we're hoping we can rally support from folks like you who really get why our reporting matters right now. And that's how it's always worked: For 45 years now, a relatively small group of readers (compared to everyone we reach) who pitch in from time to time has allowed Mother Jones to do the type of journalism the moment demands and keep it free for everyone else.

Please pitch in with a donation during our fall fundraising drive if you can. We can't afford to come up short, and there's still a long way to go by November 5.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Our fall fundraising drive is off to a rough start, and we very much need to raise $250,000 in the next couple of weeks. If you value the journalism you get from Mother Jones, please help us do it with a donation today.

As we wrote over the summer, traffic has been down at Mother Jones and a lot of sites with many people thinking news is less important now that Donald Trump is no longer president. But if you're reading this, you're not one of those people, and we're hoping we can rally support from folks like you who really get why our reporting matters right now. And that's how it's always worked: For 45 years now, a relatively small group of readers (compared to everyone we reach) who pitch in from time to time has allowed Mother Jones to do the type of journalism the moment demands and keep it free for everyone else.

Please pitch in with a donation during our fall fundraising drive if you can. We can't afford to come up short, and there's still a long way to go by November 5.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate