Woodshole Oceanographic Institute 

Reports on Dispersants

January 26,2011

Read peer reviewed report

_____________________________________

Questions Remain About The Use Of Dispersants

August 10, 2010

Destin Log reports on possible use of dispersants

______________________________________________

USCG Defends Use Of Dispersants While Questions Remain

July 31-Aug 1, 2010

USCG grants exemptions for use of dispersants

______________________________________________

US Hearing on Dispersants-July 14, 2010

SYNOPSIS OF U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE HEARING ON USING DISPURSANTS IN BP GULF OIL SPILL

On Wednesday, July 14, 2010, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce and Science held a hearing on the use of dispersants in the Gulf oil spill with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Dr. Larry Robison, Assistant Commerce Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of NOAA. Here is a synopsis of some of the key points made during the hearing:

·      Senate Committee Chair, Barbara Mikulski wanted to know what we know and what we don’t know about the impact on people and marine life.

·      As of the hearing date, BP had used 1.8 million gallons of dispersant-over 1 million in the air and 735,000 subsurface.

·      Lisa Jackson indicated the amount of dispersant used and its use below the surface in “unprecedented”. The Exxon Valdez used 4,000 gallons of dispersant. She indicated the long-term effects were “unknown”. She stated the USCG makes the final decision on the use of dispersants and that the decision involved an “environmental trade-off” of a known toxic, oil, vs. an unkown, the Corexit dispersant. She indicated BP had asked to apply the dispersants below the surface of the water.

·      She stated BP was required to perform regular “monitoring” of the dispersant use.

·      She indicated current water sampling tests had found no “significant” environmental impacts “so far” and that no dispersant had been found in water samples taken near shore.

·      On May 26, 2010, she recommended a limit of 15,000 gallons per day and that no further aerial spraying would be allowed. There was a concern on the toxicity to fish and other species on or near the surface of the water. (NOTE: On July 11th, BP asked for a one day exemption to allow dispersants up to 20,000 gallons.  The USCG gave the approval. This fact was not a part of the hearing. A list of the BP requests for exemptions, including a request for an exemption from  the prohibition  on aerial spraying,  can be found at the following website: http://app.restorethegulf.gov/posted/2931/070810.780039.PDF)

·      Jackson said after this event, they need to “re-visit” the use of dispersants, conduct long-term studies and find alternatives to reduce dispersant use. She acknowledged people want the oil to be collected on the surface, not dispersed under water.

·      Chairperson Mikulski was very concerned about the EPA’s role in the oil spill cleanup. She could not understand how the EPA could give a directive to BP and BP could choose to ignore it. She indicated the “Unified Command” seemed to be operating more like a committee. She wanted to know who was in charge of what. Jackson explained the role of the EPA was to “assist” the USCG but that the USCG made the calls. She indicated NOAA was a “scientific advisor” to the USCG. Mikulski asked the extent of her “authority” and she indicated that was a legal question and she would need to consult with her attorney. Mikulski felt that in a matter of public health exposure, the EPA should have the authority to direct use or prohibit use of any product with potential negative impacts, that such matters were not within the expertise and function of the USCG.

·      Mikulski indicated NALCO, the manufacturer of the two dispersants used, was invited to testify but declined.

·      Dr. Robinson of NOAA indicated their strategy was to fight the oil offshore. Dispersants were part of that fight. He acknowledged dispersants can be effective but do have a “trade off of collateral impacts.”

·      He said there has been research for 30 years but there are gaps in the research for the long-term impacts on marine life. He said the dispersants degrade faster than oil-the concentration and duration of using them is the key to surface impacts. He said there was no data on their toxicity to deep-sea marine life. There has been some surface and subsurface “modeling” which shows the dispersant degenerates as it moves from the wellhead.

·      NOAA has analyzed seafood and has not found any that has a concentration beyond FDA and EPA guidelines.

·      He indicated they need funds to do research on the short term and long term implications of  above- surface and below- surface applicaton of dispersants

·      NOAA will continue to monitor and re-evaluate the use of dispersants.

·      Mikulski asked Jackson why, if they claim the dispersants are “safe” did they direct BP to stop using them and find a less toxic alternative. Jackson indicated the EPA was becoming concerned about the volume of dispersants being used. She said the “science was unknown” and that their choice was to stop them completely or allow their use in moderation. BP was using 70,000 gallons a day. She said they were asked to use no more than 15,000 gallons per day and that aerial spraying be a last resort.

·      Mikuslki wanted to know what research needed to be done on seafood. Robinson indicated they need to develop a “seafood safety protocol” to test for oil and by-products of oil. NOAA only tests seafood beyond 3 miles of shore. Within 3 miles, the safety is within the FDA and State’s jurisdiction.

·      Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska pointed out that fish don’t know the 3-mile limit. She said many of these issues were the same as in the Exxon Valdez. Twenty years later we are asking the same questions. How much research has the EPA done on dispersants in the last 20 years?

·      Lisa Jackson responded there has been significant research but not enough. She said there is enough evidence to be concerned with dispersants being used near shore so they are not allowed within 3 miles of shore. She said they need  time to degrade and that would be a problem with close in use.

·      Senator Murkowski wanted to know how much research had been done on the impact according to the volume of dispersants applied to an area. Jackson said there had been no research on the volume applied sub sea.

·      Murkowski asked about international research on these issue. Jackson said there was some but not much.

·      Senator Frank Latenberg indicated he would be proposing a bill on dispersants (Safe Dispersant Act) that would require testing and complete disclosure on chemical components before use. Lisa Jackson said a law requiring testing and disclosure would give EPA transparency they don’t have now by law. Latenberg asked how the EPA could direct BP to stop using a dispersant and BP refuse? He wanted to know whether the EPA could force BP to comply with its directives.

·      Jackson said BP wants to use the dispersants and when EPA directed them to stop using the Corexit they tried to throw the concerns to all of the dispersants. She said they could order BP to stop using dispersants or switch dispersants. She pointed out that BP had not sprayed in 5 to 6 days after she directed them not to spray. She said they have to make judgment calls “on the fly” as the situation changes.  (NOTE: Some contradiction in testimony here. Earlier she said USCG had the command authority. Also, since the directive from EPA not to use aerial spraying except in limited circumstances where justified, BP has sent many letters to the USCG saying they needed to continue spraying. They were allowed to spray. Those letters can be found at  “RestoreTheGulf.gov” )  Jackson acknowledged they need to move to a less toxic dispersant.

·      NOAA told the committee the President wants to allocate 2 million for research into dispersants.

·      Mikuslki wanted to know whether dispersants are banned in other countries. (The ban of Corexit in England was clarified. England bans Corexit for coastal use because it interferes with the ability of certain mollusks to adhere to the rocks). Jackson said she did not know how other countries handle dispersants. Mikuslki asked Jackson and Robison to provide a list of what NATO and other allies do with regard to dispersants. She said they need to have a “sense of urgency” about this issue.

·      Senator Murkowski from Alaska asked whether they have detected any problems with seafood. Robinson said they test for oil and dispersed oil. They do not test for by-products of dispersants or the dispersants themselves. Says the FDA is not testing for the dispersants either-they are focusing on oil.

·      Murkowski asked how people could know the seafood is safe. Robinson said there is evidence the dispersants biodegrade quickly but he cannot say there are no traces in seafood.

·      Senator Murkowski said we must consider the impact to the fisheries. If we are not testing for dispersants in seafood we need to do it ASAP.

·      Lisa Jackson said the EPA had shared the formula for the dispersants with NOAA and the FDA even though it is confidential. She says they looked at the “bioaccumulation potential”. The dispersant is petroleum based and has other chemicals, which can pollute. She says there have been no field studies, just modeling which showed the dispersants do not “stick around”. She said they are less toxic than oil, that the oil in the dispersant is the most likely ingredient to “stick around”.

·      Murkowski said public concern needs proof of safety of the seafood. The agency needs to unequivocally state it , is safe and risk free.

·       Ken Cook, President of the Environmental Working Group   testified. His statements can be found on the website: www.ewg.org/kid-safe-chemicals-act-blog 

·       Anne Rolfes of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade also made some comments. A copy of her statement can be found on the following website: /www.labucketbrigade.org under the “News/Events” section.

·       Chairperson Murkowski agreed that independent research was important. She felt the universities and other independent sources should be utilized. There was some discussion that BP should pay for the research but it should be done independently.

·      It was pointed out that BP gave 500 million for research in the Gulf but BP must approve the project.

·      Senator Murkowski closed by pointing out that in the past, the government had assured people a product was safe (Agent Orange, DDT) or that the chemicals in the working area were not a hazard, (911), and that years later people got sick. She wants the EPA to immediately find out its legal authority, review research on dispersants from around the world. She wants the Executive Brach to get more involved for seafood and worker safety. She stated repeatedly throughout the hearing that the matter of dispersants should be viewed with a “sense of urgency”.

·      The committee will re-convene in the future

________________________________________________

History of Dispersants Update: Results of SWCC research as of  July 15, 2010

·      Shortly after the Deepwater Horizon blow out, the EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard approved the use of two dispersant products from its products approval list. (the “NCP Product Schedule”) The two dispersants are: Corexit 9500A and Corexit 9527A

·      Corexit 9527A contains two particularly toxic chemicals- 2-butoxyethanol. BP was allowed to use it until the supply ran out, around May 10, 2010. They are now using Corexit 9500A.

·      The function of the dispersants is to breakdown the oil into tiny particles which then “scatter and sink into the sea”.  (See Congressman Markey letter to EPA on SWCC website and Nalco info below)

·      When placing products on its approved list, the EPA relies on the applicant’s test submissions. The EPA has certain test requirements which are under challenge as being inadequate for the current use by toxicologist, Dr. Riki Ott. (the “ shaking flask” procedure) The EPA does not conduct any independent testing to determine the safety of the product before its inclusion on the approved list. Once listed, according to Dr. Riki Ott, there is not a procedure for de-listing the product. The EPA does claim the right to withdraw its approval of the use of a particular dispersant if science indicates the “dispersant method” has negative impacts on the environment that outweigh its benefits. It is unclear whether the product, however, would stay on the list.

In response to pressure from certain members of Congress as well as various state officials in the impacted states and other scientists and the public, the EPA has begun testing Corexit 9500. There is more on this testing further down in this update.

·      Elected officials, independent scientists and the public repeatedly asked for a list of the components of the Corexit products. A partial list was made public with certain chemicals being withheld as being “proprietary”. Under public pressure, the EPA finally released the complete chemical composition of both dispersants. They are:

     The components of COREXIT 9500 and 9527 are:

CAS Registry Number

Chemical Name

57-55-6

1,2-Propanediol

111-76-2

Ethanol, 2-butoxy-*

577-11-7

Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)

1338-43-8

Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate

9005-65-6

Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.

9005-70-3

Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs

29911-28-2

2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-

64742-47-8

Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light

*Note: This chemical component (Ethanol, 2-butoxy-) is not included in the composition of Corexit 9500.

·      The dispersants have been applied in the air and under the water at the source of the leak. The dispersant pipe was visible in the video of the gushing oil.

·      The quantity of dispersant being sprayed and its application under water  has not been done before. At the time the EPA approved its use in quantity and application procedure, there had been no testing of the short term or long term toxicity to marine life and people.

·      Congressman Markey and independent scientists begin raising an alarm about the dispersants and their impact and the lack of testing. (See Markey letter on SWCC website)

·      According to the EPA, “as the dispersant is used underwater, BP is required to do constant, scientifically rigorous monitoring so EPA scientists may determine the dispersant’s effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health”.  (EPA website)

·      We are trying to obtain copies of  BP’s “scientifically rigorous monitoring” of the effectiveness and impact of the dispersant.

·      On May 20, 2010  the EPA directed BP to begin using, within 72 hours, a less toxic and more effective dispersant. EPA indicated it “took this step because BP is using this dispersant in unprecedented volumes and, last week, began using it underwater at the source of the leak – a procedure that has never been tried before. Given the unprecedented use, EPA wants to ensure BP is using the least toxic approved product” . (EPA website)

·      BP continued using the dispersants. According to news articles, the company indicated it was unable to get alternative dispersants in sufficient quantity and it had stockpiled Corexit. It also indicated it was “unable to find a dispersant that is less toxic than Corexit 9500”. (EPA website)

·       On May 23, 2010, the  EPA directed BP to reduce its use of the dispersants by “75% from “peak usage”.  BP claims they have reduced the amount of dispersant going into the water. Independent sources, e.g., CNN, have challenged that claim saying “peak usage” was a particular time when a large amount of dispersant was being used above the daily use and that using the standard of “Peak usage” amounts to a minimal reduction of usage from the prior dispersal amounts.

·      The EPA decided to do some independent testing of the products. On June 30, 2010, the EPA released its first round of toxicity testing data for 8 dispersants, including Corexit 9500. (Corexit 9527 was not tested)

·       The EPA tested the dispersants as a stand-along chemical. They indicated future  tests will examine the “acute toxicity of multiple concentrations of Louisiana Sweet Crude oil alone and combinations of Louisiana Sweet Crude oil with each of the eight dispersants for two test species”. (EPA website)

·       

     According to the EPA website, Assistant Administrator Paul Anastas reported the following: “What today’s data are showing is that, in the tests we performed, all of the dispersants are roughly equal in toxicity, and generally less toxic than oil. None of the eight dispersants tested displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity.

JD-2000 and Corexit 9500, the product currently in use, proved to be the least toxic to small fish, while JD-2000 and SAF-RON GOLD were the least toxic in the tests on mysid shrimp.

Finally, internal modeling results show that the dispersant constituents are expected to biodegrade in weeks to months, rather than remaining in the ecosystem for years as oil might.

Let me be clear about another point as well: this first round of testing studied specific effects under specific conditions. These data provide information on only some of the variables that we must consider. We are going to need more testing to get a full picture of dispersant impacts, and make any determination as to whether one product ranks better or worse than another under all of the conditions of its use”.

·      The actual testing procedures and results are on the EPA website under the title “USEPA Dispersant Toxicity Testing”. They tested in the lab using mysid shrimp and a small fish. With regard to tests on mysid shrimp, the conclusions are  as follows: “Based on comparison of LC50 values and 95% confidence intervals across the eight dispersants tested in the present study, the rank order toxicity (most to least toxic) of the dispersants to mysids was: (1) Dispersit SPC1000, (2) Nokomis 3-AA, (3) Nokomis 3-F4, Corexit 9500A, (4) ZI-400, Sea Brat #4, (5) Saf-Ron Gold, and (6) JD-2000”. (emphasis added)

       Using this toxicity classification, Corexit 9500A, Dispersit SPC1000, Nokomis-3AA, Nokomis 3-F4, Sea Brat #4 and ZI-400 would be classified as slightly toxic whereas JD-2000 and Saf-Ron Gold would be classified as practically non-toxic to mysids (Table 1).

Regarding toxicity of dispersants on the fish (inland silversides or Menidia) the results were;

Based on comparison of LC50 values and 95% confidence intervals, the rank order toxicity (most to least toxic) of the dispersants to Menidia were: (1) Disersit SPC1000, (2) Nokomis 3-F4, Nokomis 3-AA, ZI-400, (3) Saf-Ron Gold, (4) Sea Brat #4, (5) Corexit 9500A, and (6) JD-2000.

Using the EPA toxicity classification, Dispersit SPC1000 would be considered moderately toxic whereas Nokomis-3AA, Nokomis 3-F4, Saf- Ron Gold, Sea Brat #4 and ZI-400 would be classified as slightly toxic, and Corexit 9500A and JD-2000 as practically non-toxic to inland silversides.

·      The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has stated the dispersants will NOT be used in Florida state waters. Florida jurisdictional waters extend to approximately 10.3 miles from the beach.

·      On July 14, 2010, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Science Panel held hearings on the use of the dispersants in the oil spill cleanup. A synopsis of that hearing is provided on this website.

ISSUES

1. Sinking Agents Prohibited. Subpart J, Section 300.900 et. seq. sets out the rules for the listing and use of dispersants on oil spills.  Section 300.910 (e) states that “Sinking agents shall not be authorized for application to oil discharges”.

The EPA does not refer to Corexit 9500 as “sinking” the oil. It says the dispersant “breaks up” the oil.

(See EPA Lisa Jackson Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=100818017687&topic=14483&perpage=30&post_index=1&start=0&post_id=65645&hash=2431439a4fdf38ea1e82108c9834f225)

A “sinking agent” is defined as follows:

8.6 SINKING AGENTS

Warning: The use of agents to sink the oil should never be used, since this method is irretrievable and illegal in U.S. waters.

This is a process of removing an oil slick from the surface of water by simply spreading a hydrophobic material over the oil that becomes coated with oil then sinks in the water. The process is not accepted. The mechanism of sinking and the depth to which the oil-coated material will sink are not fully known yet. These factors vary with the properties of the oil, water, and the material used, as well as prevailing climatic conditions. The oil retentive quality of the material used also can vary with time and changes in climatic conditions. This may then result in release of the attached oil, permitting it to resurface.

The effects of this method are toxic to the environment. Wildlife regulatory agencies are opposed to the use of sinking agents because this method transfers oil from the surface of the water to a depth where it may be even more harmful to the ecology of the area. The use of this method also would be relatively ineffective and too costly to use on a thin oil slick.

Nalco, the manufacturer of Corexit 9500 describes the function of its product as follows:

 

“FACT: COREXIT dispersants are made to disperse oil into the water column and not to evaporate”.  (http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/4348.htm)

In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on June 29th, Allegiance Capitol Corporation V.P. Fred McCallister claimed that BP is deliberately sinking oil with the toxic chemical disbursant Corexit, to hide the extent of the oil spill.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

According to the press release for the lawsuit, the allegations include, among others, When administered the dispersant, COREXIT 9500, attaches to the oil causing both the oil and the chemical to sink below the surface of the water eventually settling to the sea floor.

Is Corexit 500A a sinking agent? If so, its use in the Gulf is prohibited.  We will try to get an answer to this question.

2. Why is the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard allowing the continued use of Corexit 9500 when they have not completed their testing of the toxicity of the product?

3.  How much dispersant is currently being used via air and/or injection into the water compared to the average daily dispersal (not the one time, isolated peak rate) up to May 20, 2010?

__________________________________________________________________________________

 DISPERSANTS & YOUR HEALTH

What are oil spill dispersants? 

Oil spill dispersants are products that break an oil slick into small drops and stop the oil from coming back together to make a new slick. They do not remove oil from water but they do make it easier for nature to break down the oil. Broken down oil is less likely to stick to animals, rocks, and plants. 

How are oil spill dispersants used? 

Oil spill dispersants are sprayed on top of a slick from planes and ships. They can also be forced under the surface of the water to break up oil before it reaches the surface. 

What are the health threats of oil spill dispersants? 

For most people brief contact with a small amount of oil spill dispersants will do no harm.  

If your skin is exposed to dispersants for a long time, a rash and dry skin could develop. Dispersants can also irritate your eyes. 

If you breathe in dispersants for a long time or several times they can irritate your nose, throat, and lungs. 

Swallowing dispersants will cause upset stomach, vomiting, and diarrhea. 

If you are exposed to dispersants for a long time or several times they can also cause central nervous system effects; sleepiness; damage to your blood, kidney or liver; and a metallic taste in your mouth. 

How can I avoid the health threats of oil spill dispersants? 

Most people will not be exposed to enough oil spill dispersants to be affected. 

If you are working on the spill, wear nitrile or PVC gloves, coveralls, boots, and chemical splash goggles to keep dispersants off your skin and out of your eyes.  

If you breathe in dispersants, move to an area where the air is clearer. 

If you get dispersants on your skin, immediately wash with soap and water. If symptoms develop, seek medical attention. 

If you get dispersants in your eyes, flush them with water for 15 minutes. 

If you Representative Edward Markey's Letter to The EPA

 May 17, 2010, Representative Edward Markey sent a letter to the EPA outlining issues with the dispersant being sprayed and pumped in the Gulf of Mexico by BP as a response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The chemical is known generally as ”Corexit”.

 

On May 20, 2010,  BP was ordered to find a less toxic alternative within 24 hours.

As of  that date, BP had  applied 600,000 gallons of the chemical mix on the surface of the water and another 55,000 gallons some 5,000 feet below the surface at the site of the leak. Such a large use of any dispersant and its application deep underwater are unprecedented. (Source:  “McClatchy” www.mcclatchydc.com)

 

On May 24, 2010, BP's Chief Executive Doug Suttles told the EPA that Corexit "was the only dispersant that was available immediately, in sufficiently la rge quantities, to be useful at the time of the spill." He also  dismissed another option called “Seabrat”.

 

The EPA relented. As of June 1, 2010, BP continues to release Corexit into the Gulf of Mexico.

Scientists with organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund as well as Gulf fishermen continue to raise concerns over the use of Corexit in such unprecedented amounts and its toxicity to the marine environment. (Corexit is allowed to be used 3 miles offshore and in water deeper than 30 feet).

In a CNN interview, the Coast Guard assured residents in the Florida Keys that Corexit would not be used in the vicinity of the coral reefs.

 

 

 

May 17, 2010

 

The Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

 

Dear Administrator Jackson,

I write to request information regarding the use of dispersants to mitigate the effects of the catastrophic release of millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico following the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.  While the estimates of the amount of oil released daily has increased significantly since the explosion and remains under question, what is certain is that the inability of BP to quickly stop the leak is leading to an environmental catastrophe, placing fragile ecosystems, wildlife and the region’s economy in peril. The release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico could be an unprecedented, large and aggressive experiment on our oceans. It requires careful oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other appropriate federal agencies.

As a measure to mitigate the impact of the oil spill, the EPA recently granted BP authorization to use chemical dispersants, which are a detergent-like brew of solvents, surfactants and other compounds that break down oil into tiny particles that then scatter and sink into the sea. To date, over half a million gallons of dispersants have been used in the Gulf of Mexico. Just two days ago, the EPA and US Coast Guard authorized BP to apply these dispersants at the site of the leak, over one mile below the ocean surface, a practice that has never been authorized before. 

The information regarding the chemical composition, efficacy and toxicity of the dispersants currently being used is scarce. Additionally, recent articles have raised questions regarding both the relative safety and efficacy of the dispersant selected for use by BP, suggesting that other formulations may have been more suited for use in the Gulf of Mexico. In light of the volume of oil that has spewed into the Gulf of Mexico and the apparent inability of BP to quickly stop its flow, I understand that other mitigating options must be explored in order to keep as much oil as possible from reaching land.  However, I am concerned about the risks and consequences, and in order to understand better what actions the EPA is taking in this area, I ask that you respond to the following questions:

1. It is my understanding that the main dispersants applied so far are from a product line called Corexit, some of which had their approval rescinded in Britain more than a decade ago, because laboratory tests found them harmful to sea life that inhabits rocky shores. 

a. How did EPA ensure that this dispersant’s toxicity to aquatic life was evaluated? 

b. Was its toxicity to mollusks and other sea life that inhabit the Gulf of Mexico coast evaluated, and if so, what were the results?  If not, why not?

c. If EPA relied on toxicity studies for coastal morphologies different from that of the Gulf Coast, what was done to evaluate the applicability of those studies for the use of the dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico environment?

d. Was the toxicity to other subsurface aquatic life evaluated? If so, please provide details, and if not, why not?

2. How is EPA tracking the volume of dispersants being used both in both surface and subsurface applications?  How does EPA plan to determine whether their use causes harm to the aquatic ecosystem they come into contact with?

3. Is EPA fully aware of all chemical constituents contained within the two formulations of Corexit dispersants currently being used? If so, please provide a list of each such constituent.

4. Did EPA ensure that tests were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the 18 dispersants it has approved for use? What were the results of the tests?

a. Did EPA rank the dispersants in terms of efficacy (in dispersing the sort of crude oil that is spewing into the Gulf of Mexico) and toxicity (to the sort of aquatic life contained in the Gulf of Mexico), as was asserted by the May 13 2010 article in Greenwire?  If so, please provide this ranking. If not, why not?

b. Does EPA instruct entities who wish to use dispersants to use the most effective and least toxic dispersants in a particular operation?  If so, then did EPA instruct BP to use Corexit? If not, does EPA lack the authority to prescribe the use of specific formulations?

c. Does EPA expect users of dispersants to themselves examine the safety and efficacy data that is applicable to the conditions of intended use and select the least toxic and most effective approved formulation?

d. Please provide copies of all documents, emails and other correspondence related to BP’s use of dispersants in response to the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

5. How do water temperature and pressure effect the degradation of dispersants?

a. Will the fact that the water temperature at the Deepwater Horizon leak is just above freezing affect the time it takes for the molecules to be degraded? If so, please elaborate.

b. Have studies been performed to assess the efficacy or toxicity of the compounds at freezing temperatures? What are the results of these studies?

c. How does the high pressure at the depth of the leaking wellhead affect where chemical dispersants and oil molecules spread in the water column? Does high pressure also affect the rate of degradation of oil and chemical molecules, and if so, how?

6. What information has EPA collected about the long-term effects of dispersants accumulating in sediment at the bottom of the ocean floor? Please provide these materials to me.  If no such information has been collected, then why did EPA approve their use at the ocean floor? What effect could the accumulation of large volumes of dispersants on the ocean floor have on bottom-feeding organisms such as shrimp? 

7. Has EPA determined whether chemical dispersants can accumulate in the tissue of fish and other aquatic life (including plants and un-hatched eggs) in the same or similar manner as other toxic materials such as mercury?  If so, please provide documentation regarding what accumulations are likely, including materials regarding the implications for human health if the fish are consumed.  If not, why not? 

8. Did EPA consider a variety of scenarios for the interaction of the dispersants with the oil plume when applied at the depth of the Deepwater Horizon leak? If not, why not? Did any scenarios considered include the formation of large underwater plumes at various depths, as appears to have occurred based on a preliminary scientific investigation as reported Sunday?  If so, please provide all related documents. How does EPA plan on monitoring the long-term effect that these chemical dispersants have on aquatic life in the Gulf of Mexico?

9. Is EPA aware of the ecological impacts of simultaneously using different formulations of dispersants during the mitigation efforts? Does the combination of chemicals change the toxicity or efficacy of the dispersant? If so, please provide documentation.

10. Given the start of the Atlantic hurricane season on June 1, did EPA consider the impact of the dispersants on marine life in a rapidly mixed water column should a hurricane develop in the Gulf of Mexico? If so, what did EPA determine? If not, why not?

11. EPA has stated that although it has approved the use of chemical dispersants on surface and subsurface applications it “reserves the right to halt the use of chemical dispersants at any time if new data show more serious environmental harm is occurring.” How is EPA monitoring environmental harm? What metrics or other problems does EPA consider to be cause for halting use of chemical dispersants?

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in responding to this request.  Should you have any questions, please have your staff contact Dr. Michal Freedhoff of the Subcommittee staff or Dr. Avenel Joseph of my staff.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Markey

Chairman

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

 

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

 Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee

 The Honorable Joe Barton

 Ranking Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee

 

 The Honorable Fred Upton

 Ranking Member

 Subcommittee on Energy and Environment