Democratic and Republicans senators from oil-rich states yesterday said they remained puzzled over U.S. EPA’s decision to temporarily ban BP PLC from new federal contracts.

The agency yesterday said it was halting the British company and its subsidiaries from new contracts, including federal oil leases and fuel sales, citing the "lack of business integrity" that led to the 2010 deadly explosion of the company's rig and massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (Greenwire, Nov. 28).

The ban follows BP's admission of criminal wrongdoing as part of a $4 billion settlement agreement with the Department of Justice, EPA said.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) yesterday afternoon said she was "scrambling" to learn more about the suspension and that her staff had placed a call to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to discuss the agency's rationale.

"I didn't have any advance notice that this was happening," she told reporters in the U.S. Capitol. "And the reason it is perplexing is BP has already entered into 50 leases with the federal government prior to today. So I can't figure out where this directive came from, what precipitated it, on what grounds it was issued."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she wanted clarity on what criteria EPA will use to lift the suspension. She said sources at BP yesterday morning seemed as puzzled as she was about the terms of the suspension and when it will be lifted.

"Is this a subjective determination by EPA where somebody sits down and says, 'OK, now you've got some business integrity because you've paid X amount of dollars in fines'?" she said. "I don't know."

Murkowski also said she wants to find out if the decision was "reasonable," given that it appeared precedent-setting.

"First things first. We need to talk to EPA and talk to BP," she said. "There's probably more to it than has been reported, and I just don't have that information yet."

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) questioned whether BP was being singled out with the suspension and suggested there may be unintended consequences because the company is a substantial fuel supplier.

"They sell the largest amount of fuel to the U.S., so I hope that's not going to now cost us a whole bunch of money because we have to find a different fuel supplier, which is possible," Begich told reporters yesterday. "I have some concerns about how [Obama administration officials] make a blanket [ban] on one company when ... many other companies that do business with us have situations that don't get harsh penalties."

Earlier yesterday, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who last fall urged the government to consider barring BP from new contracts, praised the decision as "the right thing to do."

"When someone recklessly crashes a car, their license and keys are taken away," said Markey, who is the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee. "The wreckage of BP's recklessness is still sitting at the bottom of the ocean, and this kind of time-out is an appropriate element of the suite of criminal, civil and economic punishments that BP should pay for their disaster."

The announcement came weeks after BP pleaded guilty to several criminal charges -- including 11 felony counts of manslaughter -- under an agreement reached with the Justice Department over its role in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster (Greenwire, Nov. 15).

The decision also effectively barred the company from winning federal oil and gas leases in a western Gulf sale yesterday that offered roughly 20 million acres. BP, which is the largest leaseholder and oil producer in the Gulf, snatched up $27 million worth in the last western Gulf lease sale in December 2011.

It is unclear how long BP's suspension will last. Unlike debarments -- which prohibit companies from contracting with the government for a set period of time -- suspensions are temporary actions that generally last a maximum of 18 months.

Some have speculated that yesterday's action is an attempt to pressure the company to settle on separate Clean Water Act charges that could run into the tens of billions of dollars. A civil trial is set to begin in February, unless the company strikes a deal with the Justice Department.

Reporter Nick Juliano contributed.