EPA Releases First Round of Toxicity Testing Data on Oil Dispersants Used in Gulf
Today, I had the opportunity to call in to a press conference held in Washington D.C., given by Dr. Paul Anastas, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development. The first round of toxicity testing data has been released today. Testing is ongoing, and the EPA plans to continue press briefings as more information becomes available.
Here are my notes from the conference, including both statements made by Paul Anastas, and questions asked by news outlets, and the responses from the EPA.
On May 22, the Environmental Prptection Agency (EPA) directed BP to analyze potential alternative dispersants for toxicity and effectiveness. BP reported to the EPA that they were unable to find a dispersant that is less toxic than Corexit 9500, the product currently in use. Following that, the EPA began its own scientific research into eight dispersant products on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule (NCP-PS).
The EPA said the decision made to use dispersants to mitigate the spill was difficult, but “suited to the situation. If we’re going to make a decision to use them, we constantly asked the question and we use the one that causes the least harm to humans and the environment.” Efficacy and toxicity were both considered when making the decision.
Since the spill, and BP’s cleanup efforts began, the EPA has forced BP to disclose the ingredients in the dispersants that they are useing, and has limited the daily amount of dispersants used. The volume of dispersants being used in the Gulf today has dropped by 70% from its peak usage by BP, according to the EPA.
One of the considerations in using the dispersants was the fact that oil was determined to be more toxic than the dispersants, because it contains benzene, toluene, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and other known toxins. Additionally, oil presents a physical hazard as well. The physical hazards can be seen in pictures of pelicans, and other animals being harmed directly by the oil.
Dispersants are also toxic, of course, but were described as being “slightly toxic and some practically non-toxic,” according to Anastas. ”The data we are presenting today say that this is not the same hazard as we are seeing in the oil.”
The EPA, when comparing different dispersants has determined from these preliminary, round one tests that “all are roughly equal in toxicity and all are less toxic than oil.” Corexit 9500, the dispersant being used now proved to be slightly less toxic to small fish, and that another dispersant studied (JD2000) is slightly less toxic to shrimp. The dispersant was tested on the inland silverside fish, and shrimp that are indigenous to the northern Gulf of Mexico. The dispersant was not tested on oysters or crabs. “We are testing the toxicity in a wide range of concentrations from extremely low levels to much more concentrated exposures. In the overall range they are similar as a group.” Later the statement was made that JD2000 did show a ‘statistically significant differece’ although apparently not large enough to warrant changing its use. No direct reason was given for not seeking the use of JD2000 rather than Corexit.
The EPA states that the testing they have done and the modeling results show dispersants alone “are not as a class showing any types of significant concerns for endocrine dysfunction effects that were raised earlier.” No specifics were asked or offered about the toxicity of dispersants “as a group” or “as a class” versus the toxicity of individual types of dispersant.
At this time the EPA is making no recommendations to BP to change dispersants, and feels that additional testing is required. They are running tests right now to determine the toxicity of the oil itself, and of the oil in combination with a variety of dispersants. “This is first round of testing, and we need to move on and test the toxicity of combinations. The toxicity of dispersant alone is one useful set of data we need to look at but it’s also crucial to recognize we need to get this other data from the two together.”
Additional testing is ongoing, and the EPA expects to move as rapidly as possible with the intention of completing the next round of testing before August.
The dispersants being used are expected to biodegrade in a matter of “weeks or months” partly depending upon the temperature of the surrounding water. The dispersant on the surface that has contact with sunlight and warmer surface temperatures will degrade faster than dispersant in the water column or on the sea floor where temperatures are colder.
The byproducts that will remain after the dispersant has degraded have not been tested for toxicity, but future tests will focus on this.
Other mitigation such as skimming and in situ burning continue, in addition to the use of dispersants, but the EPA is clear that “oil is enemy #1 in this crisis.”
Anastas was asked by a Louisiana newspaper about any data concerning dispersants settling on the Gulf floor, and how that might affect oyster beds. “The key point is that data has not shown concentration of dispersants persisting in the water column. This is an important question to focus on but data has not shown that is taking place.” It was unclear to me whether they had studied the issue and found that dispersants were NOT settling on the sea floor, or whether the “data has not shown it is taking place” because it hasn’t actually been studied yet.
Anastas said that the EPA and NOAA are conducting sampling data. “All data we have seen of water and air, has not shown that there is the presence of dispersant constituents in the water, and not seen any in the air. We are seeing no data that would suggest that there are dispersants persisting in the water column.”
Existing toxicity tests on dispersants have been done and are required by law to be included on the “national contingency plan” for disasters. Because of the potential of “inter-laboratory discrepencies or variability,” the EPA is verifying, through their own testing confirmation of the independent results. When asked if it was true that there was no maxiumum toxicity levels which would prevent a dispersant from being placed on the “national contingency plan” Dr.Anasas said
We recognize that this tragedy at the scale it is has raised important questions about how these previous regulations need to be revisited, to better prepare us in the future. We have lots to do as we come through this event in looking at the way these have been structured.
There were a couple questions regarding the fact that the EPA had seemingly asked BP to stop using the dispersant they were using, in favor of a less toxic one. Anasas reiterated that the total amount of dispersant had been cut by 70% and that they “expected BP to use the least toxic dispersant, and always be asking that question, and to minimize the use of dispersants whenever possible.”
Scientists at the EPA are monitoring and sampling on a continual basis in anticipation of the release of the results of future testing later in the summer.
For more information, visit www.epa.gov/bpspill
Pretty darn cool AKM that you were part of that call. I guess the EPA has been listening to Shannyn and reading your blog about the toxicity of the dispersant.
I am glad they are looking into this, and that they are listening to our concerns.
“…There were a couple questions regarding the fact that the EPA had seemingly asked BP to stop using the dispersant they were using, in favor of a less toxic one. Anasas reiterated that the total amount of dispersant had been cut by 70% and that they “expected BP to use the least toxic dispersant, and always be asking that question, and to minimize the use of dispersants whenever possible.”
uno, 60% of all statistics are wrong
dos,”‘expected BP..” is a loaded assumtion imho
thank you akm & shannyn.
go fran !
But who can you blame?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-29-2010/blame
kevin bacon?
I just heard something from a friend, who heard it from a stock analyst. It gave me an instant headache, from which I’ve yet to recover. I guess it’s better than having my head explode. This is it: If the relief wells are not dug in time, there’s another disaster waiting to happen. The oil (etc.) gushing out of the failed well is very hot (400-500 degrees F. perhaps), and the highly pressurized seawater above it is extremely cold (because of the depth). If/when the oil (and methane & whatever else comprises this gusher) STOPS gushing (because of the pocket running dry), it will cause a negative pressure, & the cold seawater above the wellhead will rush into the well, and evaporate instantly into steam. One cubic foot of water = approximately 20 cubic feet of steam. This could cause the failed well to blow apart. We’re already seeing environmental devastation on a scale unknown in the United States (as opposed to, say, Nigeria). Hurricanes be damned, those relief wells have GOT to be dug in time, or we are beyond f*cked.
Any oil experts out there care to weigh in? Please?
I am guessing not or it would be boiling and or exploding at the mouth of the broken pipe now where hot oil, gas and warter are comming together.
If the roof the the reservoir collapeses as the oil drains out it could release something like 2B barrels of hot oil in a short period of time and then things would get unimaginably ugly.
Does give a whole new meaning to blacked red fish. Don’t it?
the other thing to rememember is the methane is coming out in ice crystals…remember when the first cap didn’t work, becaise the ice crystals were clogging the cap ?? the oil and methane are coming out cold,,, not hot…also, whe the pressure in the well finally slacks off, the sea water will not rush in ..as the pressure coming out becomes less, it will have a slower flow until the water pressure and the oil pressure are equal…the two WILL intermingle and water will SEEP in , but not fast enough to cause any damage..of course, whe the flow is THAT slow, they darn well better be able to cap the bloody thing,,cus it will be for all intents and purposes,,empty !
Thanks, but I thought the methane formed ice crystals because of contact with the metal of the cap under ridiculously high pressure. I hope you’re right & that the stock analyst was wrong.
here’s an article on the methane hydrates…
http://news.discovery.com/earth/oil-spill-methane-hydrates.html
I saw on Olberman an interview with a drilling engineering expert in which they talked about an anonymous blogger who said pretty much what you’ve related. The Engineer said that the scenario was quite plausible and accurate in its assessments.
Very interesting.
Am sure there will be continuous tests throughout several years to also determine future levels going up the “food chain”. Will not only living in disbursement treated water but eating plankton & algae, what level of toxin can remain in the seafood that humans consume? Then how much becomes too much for a human? Or a pregnant woman?
I remember toxic chemical spills where the surviving fish had to be destroyed because the toxin levels were too high – they couldn’t be allowed to be eaten. The roe (fish eggs) also had to be destroyed. Then the entire area re-stocked.
This “spewed sludge” will be a nightmare for this country for a very long time to come.
They have to test all the different kinds of seafood. Here is a local chart for fish caught off SoCal.
http://www.healthebay.org/enlargephoto/default.asp?photo=stayhealthy_consumptionguidelines
Different fish retain different toxins in different ways. Just more stuff for BP to pay for. What a mess.
I left a comment on Shannyn’s blog about the toxicity of both the crude oil and the dispersants on July 28th, and I don’t have any question about the low toxicity of the dispersant, but the evironmental and aquatic damage from the dispersed oil should be our greatist concern, besides the effects of the oil on human and other wildlife. The dispersed oil has the high potential of coating the gills of fish causing a slow suufacation death that we will probably never realize. The other potential danger is the settled oil on the shell fish and other bottom dwelling aquatic wildlife. I see no advantages of the dispersant other than to hide the real extent of potential damage and volume of oil coming from the well.
“I see no advantages of the dispersant other than to hide the real extent of potential damage and volume of oil coming from the well.”
I agree. doubling down on poisons doesn’t make any sense. EPA need to grow a pair and start putting the hammer down on some of BP activities. (Like their private Brown shirts enforcing their made up laws.)
As much of a problem as collecting the surface oil is, it is sure a lot easier than trying to chase down under water plumes.
Granting this is not what EPA is looking at, but it seems likely that the long term damage in the Gulf waters will come for the toxic mist of oil and dispersants in the plumes. Hopefully, that chemical muck is also being studied but those plumes are much like the Black Plague passing across Europe over and over and over killing all susceptible then mutating to a more virulent form and sweeping across the continent killing all susceptible than mutating a third time…. The chemical makeup of the droplets and gobs within the plumes will morph over time into who knows what.
(Trivia. The half life of DDT is around 20 years. The half life of one of its major breakdown byproducts, which is more toxic than DDT is over 200 years. And it is sleeping snug and well protected in our soil and river and ocean sediments where it, the byproduct, is not breaking down. When it is re-exposed it is still active. We sprayed the entire world with DDT for over 20 years! Its out there just waiting to be let free.
That is why this kind of thing needs to be studied first. We just don’t know what kinds of byproducts are going to result or what “collateral” harm can occur or how long the effects might be.)
I guess another analogy would be like carpet bombing or napalm bombing or a submerged cloud of poison gas. The destructive potential in the semi coherent submerged plumes is so huge and those dissolved toxins and microscopic colloids of surfactant and oil can be washing around for year, a decade, maybe centuries. And the will remain in the Gulf’s food chain passing from bottom to top and back to the single celled organisms and back up to large predators and humans, over and over and over.
We don’t know. We didn’t make the effort to find out the dangers first.
Why do we take more care testing the effects of newly produced medicines we consume than we do the chemicals that become incorporated in the food we and other life forms consume?
That is just insane. I continue to claim the Homo sapien is really just an anthropoid sap.
DDT is still used to control malaria in parts of Africa; it’s far from ideal, but until effective, affordable methods to control malaria-carrying mosquitoes in specific areas can be found and implemented, the alternative is worse. It’s an on-going struggle and truly a “damned if you do; damned if you don’t” dilemma. [See: "South Africa: Researchers Warn Against Use of DDT" -- http://allafrica.com/stories/201004290652.html ]
I remember the ‘miracle’ of DDT and its widespread use in, on, over, and under everything. I also remember asking my mother why it was called “DDT” — she said it stood for: Drop Dead Twice. Little did either of us realize how prescient was her reply. beth.
John Wathen was just on Countdown and had incredible footage and comments. It was heartbreaking. His video was horrifying. I hope the EPA really is going to monitor this and do the right thing. The clean-up is turning out to be worse than the leak itself. The dispersant is taking away the oxygen, killing the animals and is spreading the whole mess. It is much bigger than what is being reported.
This is incredibly sad and possibly out of our control.
I watched that, too. It is just so incredibly sad, and I think it likely is very much out of control. There is just too much oil and dispersant out there to do anything less than destroy much of the life there for years to come.
As we watched Brian Williams on the news [last night, now] DH and I were wondering about the whole ‘degree’ of toxicity thingie.
He (BW) reported the dispersants were “less toxic” than the oil – as AKM also reports the EPA having said. Our question: On a scale of 1 to 1000, if oil is rated, let’s say, 1000 toxic, wouldn’t “less toxic” be anything *less than* 1000?
Somehow I don’t find the “less toxic” terribly reassuring — I’d prefer an ‘exact’ comparison/rating; my mind can understand ‘exact.’ Just saying “less toxic” gives me nothing by which I can weigh the one against the other. It’s like saying Bachmann is “less” of an idiot than is $P…well, hell, we know what an idiot $P is, saying that Bachmann is “less” of one, gives me nothing, either — with $P as the ‘ultimate’, “less than” just leaves much too wide-open a space into which Bachmann’s idiocy rating/ranking might be plotted.**
“Less toxic”? How much, *exactly*, is it “less toxic”, than? beth.
** (Personally, on a scale of 1 to 1000, I think $Ps idiocy rating is a solid, jaw-dropping 1100. Bachman’s would come in at about 895-970…Bachman doesn’t get as many points as $P because she’s not as consistently snide. Nor as shrill. Or as much of an idiot.)
I saw that flight too. It is so sad . I can’t not cry! This is why I don’t believe in god. Depressing because there is nothing I can do. I wish I could go to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, buy a wand and magic away this Voldemordic death and devastation. Then, anger coming into play since this tragedy was caused by greed, dereliction and corruption, I believe I could and would easily execute all the guilty. No, I’m not kidding. Being in Nam changed my sensibilities. So, when I go shooting next, I will begin to put faces and names on the targets andI have no doubt that with this added motivation, accuracy will improve. All these feelings and I’m not even there altho I am an honorary citizen of Key West. It’s hard to imagine what those intertwined with the sea there are feeling. Being powerless and having to watch is like having a paralytic drug and being unable to scream out or tell the doctor you’re awake as he starts to cut into you. Unimaginable.
Interesting write up. Just goes to show that the use of dispersants is a nuanced issue with many factors at play. I’m glad that the EPA has stepped in and is at least monitoring the methods that BP is employing. As we’ve (painfully) learned, time and time again the big oil companies and other similar industries will almost always take the path of least resistance in their drilling operations (and cleanup) environment be damned (yes I’m looking at you Exxon). That’s not to say that all of the players involved were to blame as I’m sure there were many in BP who were conscientious objectors to the shortcuts that were and (are?) being taken. But clearly there should be fallout for those in the top echelons of BP who encouraged and enabled the shortcuts that allowed this devastating tragedy to occur. But I digress. Thanks AKM for summarizing this teleconference.
On a side note, I thought this Doonesbury cartoon summed up the seafood situation pretty well.
Click here to see it.
Oops, I made an error in the earlier Doonesbury link. Here’s the correct one:
Doonesbury cartoon link
Since the spill, and BP’s cleanup efforts began, the EPA has forced BP to disclose the ingredients in the dispersants that they are useing, and has limited the daily amount of dispersants used. The volume of dispersants being used in the Gulf today has dropped by 70% from its peak usage by BP, according to the EPA.
So… what are the constituent chemical components that make up the dispersant? Somebody over on http://www.eschatonblog.com commented that the EPA cut a non-disclosure agreement that precludes EPA from sharing any information about what Corexit is made from with other governmental agencies. If true, this seems to me to be pretty ridiculous given that some millions of gallons of the stuff has been dumped into public waters. Really, will they say what’s in it when folks start dying from cancer 20 years from now? If this is true, our culture is really screwed up.
http://www.nalco.com/applications/corexit-technology.htm
hmmmm
They offered no toxicity research, but the basic toxicity has been known for some time,
http://www.rikiott.com/pdf/9500A%20MSDS.pdf
Propylene glycol. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/HTMLdocs/PropyleneGlycol.htm
2-butoxyethanol. http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-2_Butoxyethanol-9923187
Organic sulfonic acid salt is a generic name because of patent protection. We don’t know which salt this is and it is apparently the main ingredient. However it is know that sulfonic acid salts are toxic to one celled organisms and aquatic environments. Of course this should mean they would also be toxic to multicelled organisms. Much of the food chain will be killed off. This chemical will also probably kill off the bacteria that would break down the oil. They do not provide specific enough information for a MSDS sheet.
I’m familiar with Dr. Otts work, but that doesn’t excuse malfeasance and collusion between Federal Agencies and private companies to the determent of the public.
After all isn’t that what got us into this mess in the first place? Obama should be spanked!
I didn’t know where else to post this link, and I HATE the computer that I’m using at this very moment as my post will automatically bounce to the “needs to be approved” pile! I hope this comes through.
Some 70,000 turtle eggs to be whisked far from oil
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063000350.html?hpid=sec-nation&sid=ST2010063004842
To go along with my “Huh?” @ #10, I’m also “huh?-ing” the statement: “Anasas reiterated that the total amount of dispersant had been cut by 70%”.
Cutting something –in this case, the amount of dispersant being used– by 70% sounds magnificent!…but *what* was the starting amount?
Sure, 70% is 70%, but the remaining 30% does *not* necessarily equal a trivial amount; that 30% can *still* be quite significant. (ie – If you’re making $30,000 a year, taking a 70% pay cut leaves you with with just $9,000; if you’re pulling in 30-million dollars a year for your work, taking a 70% pay cut *still* leaves you with $9-million!)
So along with my not having an ‘exact’ measure of what “less than” (as in @ #10) is, I don’t have a *starting* value from which to figure what remains (the 30%) when they tell me: “cut by 70%”, either.
Sounds like someone is trying to pull a fast one — like someone is so staggered by what *is* still!, that they’re embarrassed (or afraid!) to divulge the ‘rest of the story.’ That’s not good. beth.
I don’t know where this would fit, so I’m putting it here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063000350.html?hpid=sec-nation
Some 70,000 turtle eggs to be whisked far from oil
Jeanne: You are the awesomest of the awesome! How lucky are we to have a blogger smart enough to jump into any situation however technical and figure it out? Darned lucky I would say! THANK YOU!!!