April 19, 2026 –– This is the question that Agent Smith, the rogue computer virus bent on destroying the real world, asks the protagonist Neo Anderson who is trying to free humanity from the AI-controlled simulation in the film, “The Matrix.” The answer is at the end of this blog… but take the Red Pill and stick with me here as we dive down the rabbit-hole.

It’s been nearly a year since ALERT and allies filed its noncompliance complaint with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) against four dispersant manufacturers. We find ourselves in an isolated program for storing deviant human minds – revealed as a subway station, called Mobil Ave., an anagram for limbo in the film. Are we trapped? Or will the crumbling code of our government infrastructure find a way out?

Despite lengthy government shutdowns, we find OSHA is still pressing forward with its investigation into whether the four dispersant manufacturers (the Machines) failed to report known or anticipated human health impacts of their products in their Safety Data Sheets, as we claimed in our noncompliance complaint. The OSHA investigation was not deterred by the manufacturers’ blanket denials of any known or anticipated human health impacts from dispersant use. These denials were to be expected – it’s déjà vu!

Déjà vu

Déjà vu in the Matrix is a glitch, indicating where the Machines changed something within the simulated reality. So, what changed? The formulations of the deadly Corexit dispersants into more benign products – or so the Machines would have us believe.

After the British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil-chemical disaster, scientists causally linked a few of the chemical ingredients in Corexit dispersants with long-term harm to multiple body systems across species – dolphins, humans, fish, birds, sea turtles, crabs, and more. Scientists concluded that Corexit dispersants increased the toxicity of oil to humans and wildlife alike. In 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (driven by a citizens’ lawsuit) changed its regulations to limit use of known toxic dispersants like Corexit. This led the Corexit owner to discontinue its product line while three other manufacturers each developed an alternative but chemically similar “new” dispersant product.

How similar? Each “new” dispersant contains at least three of the four common killer ingredients – two contain all four common ingredients – that were causally-linked with toxicity and long-term harm in Corexit. The manufacturer of “EcoSafe” (Dasic USA LLC) even claims its product can be formulated from the global Corexit stockpiles that remain after the Corexit manufacturer discontinued its product line. These three manufacturers want OSHA and us to take the Blue Pill and stay in their simulated reality, that is, to presume these rebranded dispersants can be safely used for oil spill response – so oil drilling can continue unabated. They claim the absence of available or relevant data, regarding health impacts to humans and wildlife, means the products are safe to use.

The oil-chemical industry’s Machines all play by the same glitchy program that reformulates known toxic products into allegedly safe ones. With dispersants, reformulation led to rebranded versions of recombined ingredients. With plasticizer additives in children’s toys and baby bottles, reformulation led to structurally related, chemical alternatives under the same product brand. In the latter case, there are endless structural iterations of, for example, the deadly phthalates and BPA that were banned in the European Union, the U.S. and other countries. These reiterations are all presumed safe until proven otherwise – which, they usually are, but this takes years and resources to do. (https://echochildren.org/)

The dispersant manufacturers didn’t bother with alternatives for the common toxic ingredients. All three “new” dispersants contain the same common deadly ingredients in Corexit. They are rebrands – knockoffs – of the deadly Corexit. Based on the available and anticipated data, these Corexit rebrands cannot be presumed safe.

So Why Do We Persist?

Because we choose to.

ALERT wishes to acknowledge today – the 16^th memorial of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil disaster – the hundreds of families across the Gulf Coast and beyond who have lost loved ones or watched them suffer from life-diminishing diseases initiated by exposure to this toxic oil-chemical disaster. We honor the lives of those who passed quickly, like the 11 workers who died in the oil rig explosion, and those who died slowly over the years like oil spill response contractor Frank Stewart. We honor those who presently suffer, like Lori Bosarge, from the deadly reach of this disaster.

We hope OSHA ends this glitch and releases us all from limbo at Mobil Ave. OSHA just needs to take the Red Pill, so they can see the human consequences of all the available data that we supplied in our noncompliance complaint. Those studies are literally based on tens of thousands of human lives and stories. Based on this insight, OSHA can find, as we did, that the dispersant manufacturers are in noncompliance with the Hazard Communication standard. By forcing the manufacturers to admit the potential deadly consequences of their rebranded products, states and decision-makers like the U.S. Coast Guard just might decide not to use these products for oil spill response. Then again, there’s the choice: the red or the blue pill?

In solidarity,
Riki Ott

P.S. In case you are wondering, the Sentinels in this analogy are the mindless, heartless squids that swarm to protect the Machines, also known as the Wealth Defense Industry or the Corporate Defense Industry – the swarm of lawyers, consultants, accountants, and more who get paid millions to shield their clients’ trillions.

September 22, 2025 –– Oil and chemical disasters cause real harm to people. The problem is that the suite of symptoms expressed as early warning indicators of oil-chemical exposures are not considered evidence of harm by scientists and courts until waaaay after the exposure occurred – far too late to trigger action to mitigate the harm while it is occurring.

ALERT aims to cinch real harm and evidence of harm with action. This blog is about our most recent effort to use post-disaster evidence to mitigate harm by enforcing right-to-know laws. It also introduces our new work to use real-time evidence of harm to trigger action that would mitigate long-term health impacts.

In early September, ALERT received a one-page reply from OSHA to our 79-page noncompliance complaint that requested fines and penalties against four dispersant manufacturers for multiple violations of right-to-know laws. The evidence of adverse human health impacts to multiple body systems in humans and animals from key ingredients and the mixture as-a-whole for the original Corexit was irrefutable. Since the three Corexit knockoffs contained the same key ingredients as the original Corexit, it is reasonable to anticipate that the mixtures would cause similar harm as the original product. Yet, the manufacturers failed to anticipate such harm in their safety data sheets that EPA relies on as gospel when deciding whether a product should be listed for use in oil spill response. So, EPA concludes since there’s no evidence of real harm, there’s no problem, right? Subsequently, it listed the new Corexit knockoffs for use.

I read OSHA’s letter with trepidation. After a lengthy acknowledgement of our complaint, OSHA ended with: “This is an interim response to your letter. Based on our preliminary assessment of the evidence provided in your letter, OSHA plans to conduct an inquiry to request that the manufacturers review this matter and respond to OSHA.” I was flabbergasted!

This means there are two possible outcomes of the OSHA inquiry.

• Best case scenario: The manufacturers are guilty and do pay fines and penalties and must rewrite and report the truth in their technical literature such as safety data sheets.
• Worst case scenario: Claim dismissed. Business as usual. In which case, we should make it our business to take legal action.

In the best-case outcome, there would likely be ripple effects throughout the oil spill response world and beyond as “more safety data sheets are inaccurate than accurate,” according to a public health scientist with the United Auto Workers. Think consumer products, pesticides, degreasers, etc.

In the oil spill response world, this is uncharted territory. EPA might have to delist these new products, and the discontinued Corexit… but then what? Oil spill contingency plans rely on dispersant use as an option. And there’s the answer. Regional response teams, on-scene coordinators, and coastal states should just say “no” to using these contested products until this hot mess plays out with OSHA and the dispersant manufacturers.

Meanwhile, ALERT is turning its focus to the front end of this horse by taking action on something we can do now with our allies to collect real-time evidence of human health harm during an ongoing disaster. It’s called RHEA. RHEA stands for: Real Harm, Evidence, and Action. Like the goddess Rhea herself, this tool is about protecting our children – and each of us is someone’s child. It will involve real-time collection and mapping of symptom-based health impacts during exposures. It will provide something that we can act on. We will expand more on this in our next blog.

After all, as the devastated young father while holding his terminal cancer child says at the end of The Cost of Silence, a hard-hitting documentary about the real human health impacts of BP’s Deepwater Horizon: “You don’t have to be a scientist to figure it out. It’s not hard. You just have to give a shit.”

And ALERT does.

In solidarity,

June 23, 2025 ––  Today, ALERT and allies filed a noncompliance complaint with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asking the agencies to issue citations and penalties to four dispersant manufacturers for not accurately reporting the human and ecological harm from product use in their safety data sheets that are part of the right-to-know laws. Three of these products were newly listed by EPA for use in oil spill response in 2024; the fourth is Corexit 9500A, which remains listed until December 12, 2025… But…

This blog is not about the complaint. It’s about how we got to this point. Actions YOU can take TODAY to share the press release and complaint with others are at the end of this blog.

Background:

For over fifty years, dispersants have been used in oil spill response based largely on unsubstantiated theory, nothing more than platitudes, really, from the oil industry that their chemical concoctions will lessen the harm to sea life from the oil spill.

No one seriously questioned the human health impacts of dispersants or beach cleaning products until after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Then, it was only a drip – a single study on human volunteers exposed to Corexit 9527A – that didn’t lead to any policy changes. However, Exxon formulated a less toxic alternative: Corexit 9500A. But the alternative product was still toxic.

The flood of studies on dispersant impacts to human and animal health gushed out after the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. Most focused on Corexit 9500A because 9527A was a killer. Literally.

Studies conducted after the disaster found oil-dispersant mixtures caused more long-term diseases and cancers than oil alone to multiple body systems across species, including humans. The harm was linked to key ingredients in Corexit 9500A, including DOSS (dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate), Span 80, and Tween 80 – identical ingredients to those used in the three new dispersant products.

Credit: 2010 USCG CPO Patrick Kelly. BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.e cellular level.

Documented long-term harms include:

• Organ harm
• Cancers
• Respiratory and skin sensitization
• Respiratory diseases and cancers
• Neurological impairment
• Immune system dysfunction
• Endocrine disruption

Despite the plentitude of evidence, it is still proving to be an uphill battle to kick the entrenched and disproven platitudes off the playfield.

The slog is narrated on ALERT’s website. Lowlights include the February 2025 reply from U.S. EPA to deny ALERT and allies petition to remove Corexit 9500A and 9527A from the list of products that may be used in oil spill response. EPA stated that the products “will remain conditionally listed” through the transition period until December 12, 2025, when the products will be removed if no further action is taken by the manufacturer.

No further action in the U.S. is expected under the brand name “Corexit,” which was discontinued by the then manufacturer, COREXIT Environmental Solutions, a subsidiary of ChampionX, before the EPA’s new rules for truth-in-reporting went into effect. There are two “howevers.”

• First however: One of the new dispersants listed by EPA, Dasic EcoSafe OSD (oil spill dispersant), was formulated to allow global stockpiles of the discontinued Corexit 9500A to be used as a key feedstock in its production. The full range of human and ecological harm expected from product use was not reported on the EcoSafe safety data sheet used to register the product.
• Second however: ChampionX, the parent company of former Corexit manufacturer, re-registered Corexit 9500A in the United Kingdom and Brasil in 2024 before it was acquired by Schlumberger Limited in 2025. Corexit 9500A was re-registered using a 2019 safety data sheet – the latest one available since the product was discontinued: It does not account for more recent studies concerning human health harm from product use.

Allowing use of Corexit 9500A in some countries (even under false pretenses) means Corexit 9500A by a different name, EcoSafe, could wind up being used in the U.S.

Credit: June 21, 2010. USCG Seaman Grace Baldwin A Vessel of Opportunity assists in skimming operations near Grand Isle, La.

Another lowlight was the June 2025 replies from Washington state Dept. of Labor and Industry and Dept. of Ecology to deny ALERT and allies petition for a joint rulemaking to establish and implement a worker health monitoring unit during all-hazard responses, starting with oil spills. In its reply, the Washington state OSHA encouraged us to petition federal OSHA, where “the effort that went into the [state] petition” would be rightly placed. Fair enough, but that might take a while.

Instead, we decided to file a noncompliance complaint. The move was first stalled by a run-around to retrieve what should have been a simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to EPA for the product safety data sheets for the three new dispersants listed by the agency for use in oil spill response. EPA said to ask OSHA; OSHA said to ask the manufacturers… However! OSHA had previously interpreted the hazard communication standard to mean that it did not apply to the general public, exceptions aside.

… Once the information was in-hand, it became appallingly evident why one could no longer surf search engines to find the once easy-to-get safety data sheets. All three new products are Corexit knockoffs with identical key ingredients, and all three safety data sheets are masterful subterfuges that omit knowledge of anticipated harm, based on human and ecological experience with the deadly Corexit dispersants.

In summary, all are similar products with identical key ingredients to be used for the same purpose in the same way during oil spill response. All use the same rhetoric: No available or relevant data.

Our Noncompliance Complaint

The manufacturers of these dispersants are not truthfully reporting the known or potential (anticipated) human and environmental health impacts of their products in their safety data sheets as required in worker right-to-know laws.

Our complaint calls out this practice of under-reporting harm. It demands that OSHA and EPA enforce the accuracy of content of safety data sheets and stop use of dispersants that were approved for use under these false pretenses.

This has ramifications beyond dispersants to other products: Think labelling of food, personal health care, household cleaning, industrial agriculture, and pest control products, and more). It also has international ramifications as safety data sheets are part of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling Chemicals.

Action & You:

Today, you can help make people aware that the new dispersants are likely not safe to use for oil spill response. Share the press release with your local media, relevant nonprofit organizations, state lead agency for oil spill response, and your state OSHA equivalent.

Remember – It’s all about protecting YOUR favorite stretch of coastline, emergency responders, and public health. Together.

In solidarity,

For Immediate Release – [download PDF here]

Groups File Noncompliance Complaint with OSHA and EPA for Violations of the Hazard Communication Standard for Four Oil Spill Dispersant Manufacturers

Groups claim three new dispersants are Corexit knockoffs with the same deadly effects as the discontinued Corexit products

— 

Berkeley, CA (June 23, 2025) — Earth Island Institute’s ALERT Project, Government Accountability Project, and allies filed a noncompliance complaint with the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The complaint requests the agencies issue citations and penalties to four dispersant manufacturers for not accurately reporting the detrimental harms their products can have on human and environmental health in their safety data sheets as part of right-to-know laws.

The four non-complaint companies are: COREXIT Environmental Solutions, Dasic USA LLC, TotalEnergies Petrochemicals and Refining USA, and Advanced BioCatalytics. The complaint demands that agencies enforce the content accuracy of these safety documents and stop the use of dispersants that were approved under false pretenses.

Safety data sheets are required by law as part of the information package for listing a product for use in oil spill response. EPA has listed three dispersants to-date on a new product schedule that will be published on December 12, 2025. These listings were made under EPA’s new truth-in-reporting rule regarding “impacts or potential impacts of the product to human health or the environment.”

The three new chemical dispersants — Dasic Ecosafe OSD (“EcoSafe”), Finasol OSR 52 IBC (“Finasol”), and “Accell Clean” DWD — contain the same hazardous surfactants (DOSS for dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, Span 80, and Tween 80) as Corexit^TM EC9500A, a product that was abruptly discontinued by the manufacturer before EPA’s new rules for truth-in-reporting went into effect. Two dispersants, Ecosafe and Finsasol, also contain the same known hazardous solvents (petroleum distillates, hydrotreated light) as Corexit 9500A.

ALERT Project director Dr. Riki Ott, the primary author of the noncompliance complaint, stated, “The new Corexit knockoffs contain identical key ingredients and are to be used for the same purpose in the same way during oil spill response as Corexit was. The industry even plans to use existing stockpiles of Corexit 9500A as a key feedstock for production of Ecosafe.”

Ott concluded, “It’s a no-brainer. It’s unrealistic to assume that these new products can be used safely, based on what we’ve been through with Corexit dispersants.”

Ott stated, “People have a right to know that dispersants are, by nature, deadly chemical mixtures that make oil spills even more toxic to people and animals. Dispersant manufacturers must accurately communicate the health risk to workers and the public. OSHA and EPA must enforce this right-to-know law.”

Lesley Pacey, senior environmental officer at Government Accountability Project, said, “Corexit has been proven to have deadly side effects within humans, but that won’t stop corporate greed from slapping a new label on it and sending it to a different country. The corporate shell game of rebranding these toxic chemicals under new names must not distract us from the fundamental truth that these dispersants should never be used again in our waters–or globally.”

During the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster response, unprecedented amounts of Corexit dispersants were sprayed onto the oil floating at the sea surface to break up the oil slicks. The dispersants combined with crude oil, and the resulting oil-dispersant droplets were driven underwater or into the air. Breathing or having skin contact with the fine droplets proved deadly. Studies conducted after the disaster found oil-dispersant mixtures caused more long-term diseases and cancers than oil alone to multiple body systems across species, including humans. The harm was linked to key ingredients that are used in all four of the dispersant products cited in this noncompliance complaint.

ALERT (A Locally Empowered Response Team) works with at-risk communities and allies to reduce toxic oil-chemical exposures and build a healthy energy future. ALERT Director, Dr. Riki Ott, is a leading expert on human health impacts from oil spill exposures. Ott chaired the 2023 Health and Safety Task Force chartered by Regional Response Team 10 and the Northwest Area Committee.

Government Accountability Project is the nation’s leading whistleblower protection organization. Through litigating whistleblower cases, publicizing concerns and developing legal reforms, Government Accountability Project’s mission is to protect the public interest by promoting government and corporate accountability. Founded in 1977, Government Accountability Project is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.

###

Read Lesley Pacey’s full post here. 

April 20, 2025. I remember the day, 15 years ago, when someone approached me on the Emerald Coast of the Florida Panhandle and asked if I knew anything about “DOSS.”

It was the middle of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. Some forty miles offshore and a mile under the sea surface, the blown wellhead was still gushing oil. I’d been out since dawn to photograph the beach cleanup workers and the airborne oil particles that had collected in the windward creases of folded beach umbrellas left out overnight.

I didn’t know anything about DOSS then. But I do now. DOSS was the main surfactant ingredient in the Corexit dispersants that were used at depth to try to prevent the oil from rising to the sea surface and, failing that, the dispersants were sprayed on the sea surface to try to prevent the surface oil from reaching the coast. Obviously dispersants did not work as intended, and the aerial spraying likely made things worse by aerosolizing the oil, greatly increasing area of contamination (up to 80 miles inland) and the risk of harm.

Human health and environmental consequences

DOSS is anionic, making it likely to irritate your skin and disrupt your moisture barrier, unlike the non-ionic surfactants used in cold creams and body lotions. Researcher “Rip” Kirby noticed that Corexit dispersants acted like a “built-in absorption accelerant,” making skin absorption of oil (with dispersant) rapid and highly efficient, especially for wet skin.

Photos by James Kirby III. 2010. Used with permission.

In August 2011 after a sampling trip, Kirby found that wet skin contact with weathered tar products, created from chemically-dispersed crude oil, resulted in immediate dermal absorption of the fluorescing tar product directly into wet skin. The left photo, taken under ambient light, shows no signs of contaminated skin. However, the right photo, taken under ultraviolet light, shows numerous areas where oil-dispersant mixtures had absorbed into the skin.

As for irritating the skin, one of the first post-spill lab studies found Corexit 9500A was a potent skin sensitizer and DOSS a moderate sensitizer. Sensitizers are mixtures that cause hypersensitivity (an allergic-like reaction) in the skin or respiratory system with repeated or prolonged exposure. Skin and respiratory sensitizers are classified as health hazards, unsafe at any level. Afflicted Gulf Coast residents and workers call the reoccurring, intensely itchy rash, “the suicide itch.”

Consistent with this classification, dispersant exposure in workers was linked respiratory or eye irritation (burning in the nose, throat, lungs, or eyes) at all work locations from land to offshore, regardless of airborne concentrations of oil exposure. Initial oil spill symptoms were later linked with long-term symptom-based asthma, a common hypersensitivity reaction to a respiratory sensitizer.

Beyond respiratory or skin sensitization, Corexit 9527A and DOSS interfered with early differentiation of the brain and spinal cord in mouse embryonal cells, a process critical to survival. DOSS was a major (possibly only) ingredient responsible for the observed adverse effects. Chemical substances or mixtures that are suspected of damaging or may damage fertility or the unborn child are classified as health hazards, unsafe at any level.

DOSS is also an endocrine disrupter, an obesogen that promotes weight gain by interfering with the body’s normal hormonal and metabolic processes in humans and mice. DOSS combined with Span 80 (another surfactant in Corexit dispersants) increased production of fat cells well beyond what either surfactant did alone. Further, DOSS exposure during pregnancy (in mice) led to obesity and endocrine disruption (like metabolic disorder and abnormally high levels of fat in the blood) in adult male offspring.

In cleanup workers, oil spill exposures were also linked with increased cardiovascular symptoms like chest pain, arrhythmia or irregular heartbeats and with increased risk of heart attacks and fatal coronary heart disease. Consistent with findings of endocrine disruption for DOSS, oil spill exposures in workers were also linked with increased risks for longer-term endocrine and metabolic conditions like simple goiters, weight gain, obesity, fatigue, high cholesterol (fat) in the blood, heart attack, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and other health problems.

Health impacts were more pronounced in humans and animals from exposure to oil-dispersant combined than for oil alone in studies that made such comparisons.

Why is all this important now?

Corexit dispersants include DOSS as a major surfactant ingredient. Besides the DOSS-driven harm, the dispersant mixtures were also found to cause long-term harm to the respiratory, integumentary (skin), neurological, urinary and gastrointestinal systems and trigger multiple cancer pathways. When laws changed to require reporting of human health impacts, Corexit dispersants were discontinued.

The three new dispersants currently listed for use – Dasic EcoSafe OSD, Finasol OSR 52 IBC, and Accell Clean DWD 2.0 – are mixtures of solvents and surfactants, similar to the discontinued Corexit dispersants. All three new dispersants also include DOSS and Span 80.

It is simply unrealistic to assume that these new products can be used safely, based on the deadly experience with Corexit dispersants.

What’s next?

• Learn more about the impacts of dispersants in general here.
• Follow our campaign here.
• Subscribe to our newsletter to follow the latest action.

March 24, 2025. Thirty-six years ago today, when oil from the Exxon Valdez blackened the beaches and rocky coastlines of Alaska’s pristine Prince William Sound, choices were made in industry and government that set the world on a path of using chemical dispersants for oil spill response.

A little over two years ago, just before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized new rules governing dispersant use, the manufacturer of the Corexit dispersants abruptly discontinued its product line and product sales. EPA’s revised rules require manufacturers to truthfully report known or anticipated harm to human health and wildlife from product use.

Corexit dispersants make up over 45 percent of globally stockpiled dispersant and are the predominate U.S.-stockpiled dispersants. Discontinuing the product line was an expensive decision.

Why did the manufacturer pull its toxic dispersant product lines? The correct answer determines the correct actions to best protect people and wildlife during an oil spill, so pick one:

• (a) There is irrefutable evidence that Corexit dispersants when mixed with oil do more harm than the oil alone to human responders and other exposed people, and wildlife.
• (b) This evidence must now be truthfully reported.
• (c) Corexit products would not pass EPA’s new tests designed to screen out the more toxic products.

In February, the answer became clear. The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) dispersant task force reported that the manufacturer, Corexit Environmental Solutions, a subsidiary of ChampionX, will not be re-listing or using these toxic products in the U.S.—but that Corexit 9500A has been re-registered for use in the United Kingdom and Brazil in 2024 and that France is considering it.

The answer is clearly not (a). This is the same toxic product that was linked with long-term respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological harm in humans after the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon disaster.

IOGP also reported that the old formulation of Corexit 9500A will be used as a key feedstock in the production of the “new” Ecosafe Oil Spill Dispersant (OSD). Conveniently, this would allow oil spill response organizations to recycle their current stockpiled Corexit 9500A, a “substantial investment amounting to the tens of millions of dollars into this new global product.” Recycling product for reuse as a dispersant would cost less for the oil spill response organizations, says IOGP, than costly disposal fees (for hazardous wastes). Ecosafe OSD was among the first dispersants re-listed by EPA. No known studies of Ecosafe regarding the potential harm to human health have been published.

The answer is clearly not (c). “Ecosafe” has the same toxic ingredients, notably DOSS and petroleum distillates, among others, that are known to be human health hazards, meaning that even small amounts can be harmful and cause delayed and long-term illnesses and/or cancers. EPA’s new screening tests do not screen for harm to human health.

So, the correct answer is (b). Since the product is new and has not been proven in a real-world oil spill, there are no published studies of harm to wildlife or humans from its use.

As further evidence of this ruse to dodge liability, an IOGP information paper reported, “access to much of the existing global stockpile of dispersant is subject to a requirement that the purchaser/user provide an indemnity to the manufacturer in the event of use during a spill. The terms of these indemnities are very broad and onerous for certain companies, which may preclude many from accessing much of the existing stockpiled dispersant…” The IOGP task force promises a “solution to the current requirements attached to legal indemnities for the use of some dispersants…”

EPA’s recent reply to ALERT and allies’ petition to remove Corexit dispersants in the U.S. now makes sense. EPA refused to de-list Corexit dispersants before the list with new product list is published in December because Corexit is not likely to be used in the U.S. due to liability concerns.

ALERT saw most of this coming. To counter the now realized potential for toxic products to still be listed for oil spill response, ALERT is working to require supplemental testing in all regions to ensure that a product can be used safely in waters of intended use as required by the Clean Water Act (and never enforced). With supplemental testing, federal and state decision-makers would have evidence to refuse to use products that are toxic to regional species of key ecologic, economic, and cultural significance.

ALERT is also focused on getting receptive states to require prescriptive health monitoring units for emergency response workers and the exposed public. Follow our progress by checking out our new webpages ALERT and OSHA for workers and Take Civic Action for public health.

Subscribe to our newsletter to follow the action on re-listing Corexit 9500A abroad, or recycling and reusing Corexit stockpiles in the U.S. and overseas.

In solidarity,

Sometimes we just need a little pep talk. Groundhog Day can be one of those times. This year, it got me thinking of the 1993 dark comedy film by that name, then the oil spill-related ecosystem collapse in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in 1993 four years after the Exxon Valdez wreck—dark times. These two hugely dissimilar things have taught me what to do when I’m feeling like I need a pep talk.

I have to flip the switch. Change the narrative. Work on something bigger than myself with others who share my passion. So, I decided to write ALERT’s allies about how our work together is changing the narrative and where there is a clear path forward through turbulent political seas.

Five days before the Biden Administration left office years ago in January, EPA wrote ALERT to account for our petitions and letters over 11 years (2012 to 2022) to tighten rules governing use of dispersants and other products. The 8-page letter is a tribute to the power of citizen engagement that led to a rulemaking and final rules with significant, game-changing measures to better protect people and the environment during oil spill disasters. EPA asked me to “kindly share this response with your colleagues.” EPA knows we did this together.

In response to ALERT’s 2024 petition to ban Corexit dispersants, backed by support letters from allies representing over 30 million people, EPA wrote that it was still reviewing the requests and did not have an available timeline… but lead agencies in coastal states are leery of using these discontinued products and may not approve new dispersants without supplemental testing, as requested by ALERT and allies.

In the Pacific Northwest, allies are working to require supplemental testing, as part of Best Achievable Protections for Washington State and as a model for other states. Change the narrative. In Gulf Coast states, allies are hoping to create DIY community air and health monitoring networks as part of oil spill preparation and response, building on the mobile air monitoring model developed by environmental justice leadership and supported by EPA. Imagine what is possible and built it—together.

ALERT and allies are also changing the narrative to better protect emergency responders and the exposed public during oil spills and chemical releases. A 2023 OSHA standard interpretation, in response to our request for clarification on the blanket exemption of reporting cold and flu-like symptoms, demonstrated a need to change OSHA law to ensure that potential symptoms of work-related oil-chemical exposures are recorded and reported.

Following the 2024 recommendations of the Health & Safety Task Force, chartered by Regional Response Team 10 and the Pacific Northwest Area Committee and co-chaired by ALERT’s director, ALERT and allies are now poised to move symptom-based worker health monitoring units and public health assessment units into all hazard responses through federal and state laws.

This effort is benefitting from a 25-year national consensus process, started by OSHA after 9-11, to create a comprehensive, prescriptive federal emergency response standard. In 2024, OSHA  proposed a rule that includes symptom-based health monitoring and triggers for protective action, pre- and post- incident medical evaluations, and health monitoring during incidents available to every on-site emergency worker—except it does not apply to HAZWOPER responders! But it does show the narrative is changing, and the precedent opens the door for similar protections for all hazard disaster responders.

ALERT and allies in Pacific Northwest states with OSHA-approved state plans will be initiating law changes to better protect citizen responders who are assigned to temporary task forces like the Vessel of Opportunities program or beach cleanup, using symptom-based monitoring and awareness training. We will advocate the same in the federal HAZWOPER standards when there is an opportunity to do so.

In carrying this work forward, ALERT acknowledges, honors, and thanks all those who have contributed to this effort over the decades by being part of something bigger than ourselves. In January, the emergency response community and ALERT lost an incredible ally, friend, and visionary, Lynda Zambrano who spearheaded creation of, and led as Executive Director, the Northwest Tribal Emergency Management Council and the National Tribal Emergency Management Council. Let’s ensure her legacy continues by nurturing the next generation of Native leaders and changemakers.

Forward together in solidarity,

Read study here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – [download PDF here].

The ALERT Project and Friends of San Juans to Co-Host

Oil Spill Response Public Engagement Event

On Saturday, October 26, 4:00 PM at Brickworks, oil spill veteran and activist Dr. Riki Ottwill present, “Oil Spill Response: An Opportunity for Change.” The in-person event will hopefully be livestreamed.

Dr. Ott will discuss the importance of public involvement in oil spill response planning, with a focus on the need to ban the use of outdated dispersants—chemicals used to break up oil slicks—that are no longer manufactured and have known health risks. This issue is particularly relevant in the San Juan Islands, which fall under a case-by-case dispersant use zone.

Drawing from lessons learned during the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, Dr. Ott will highlight the systemic issues in the U.S. disaster response approach. While the President’s Commission on the BP disaster recommended better public oversight, stronger health protections, and the formation of citizen advisory councils—proven effective in Alaska—these changes have not yet been implemented locally or nationwide.

Dr. Ott will be joined by Lovel Pratt, Marine Protection and Policy Director for Friends of the San Juans, to discuss how San Juan County residents can play a pivotal role in protecting coastal communities during disasters. Friends of the San Juans has been galvanizing islands residents and across the Salish Sea on proactive actions to protect the special place. Attendees will be offered ways to engage at the state and federal level.

Riki Ott founded and directs Earth Island Institute’s ALERT Project and co-chaired the 2023 Health and Safety Task Force chartered by Regional Response Team 10 and the Northwest Area Committee.

Lovel Pratt leads the Friends of the San Juans Salish Sea Protection work as the Marine Protection and Policy Director. Friends of the San Juans has protected the San Juan Islands and Salish Sea for 45 years.

###