Close this Advertisement

EPA Testing Says Corexit No More Toxic than Other Dispersants

  • Aug 03, 2010

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Aug. 2 released peer-reviewed results from the second phase of its independent toxicity testing on mixtures of eight oil dispersants with Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil.

The results indicate that the eight dispersants tested have similar toxicities to one another when mixed with Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil. These results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gulf, Corexit 9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other available alternatives. The results also indicate that dispersant-oil mixtures are generally no more toxic to the aquatic test species than oil alone.

“EPA has committed to following the science at every stage of this response ─ that’s why we required BP to launch a rigorous dispersant monitoring program, why we directed BP to analyze potential alternatives and why EPA undertook this independent analysis of dispersant products,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We have said all along that the use of dispersant presents environmental tradeoffs, which is why we took steps to ensure other response efforts were prioritized above dispersant use and to dramatically cut dispersant use. Dispersant use virtually ended when the cap was placed on the well and its use dropped 72 percent from peak volumes following the joint EPA-U.S. Coast Guard directive to BP in late May.”

The standard acute toxicity tests were conducted on juvenile shrimp and small fish that are found in the gulf and are commonly used in toxicity testing. The tests were conducted on mixtures of Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil and eight different dispersant products found on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule – Dispersit SPC 1000, Nokomis 3-F4, Nokomis 3-AA, ZI-400, SAFRON Gold, Sea Brat #4, Corexit 9500 A and JD 2000. The same eight dispersants were used during EPA’s first round of independent toxicity testing.

All eight dispersants were found to be less toxic than the dispersant-oil mixture to both test species. Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil was more toxic to mysid shrimp than the eight dispersants when tested alone. Oil alone had similar toxicity to mysid shrimp as the dispersant-oil mixtures, with exception of the mixture of Nokomis 3-AA and oil, which was found to be more toxic than oil.

While there has been virtually no dispersant use since the well was capped on July 15 – only 200 gallons total applied on July 19 – EPA’s environmental monitoring continues.

Comments

Fri, Aug 6, 2010 CJ

Why is everything the government's fault? The EPA did not say that the dispersant was safe. They said it was no more or less toxic than any of the alternative dispersants available now (with maybe the exception of this Renew product mentioned). If the US had listen to former President Carter back in the 70's we probably would not be looking at this situation now. Instead of complaining, provide some positive alternatives to using oil and support "Green Energy". Green energy is going to be the key manufacturing growth in the US if we can just stop pointing fingers.

Thu, Aug 5, 2010 lilfox Sarasota, FL

The noise you hear in the background is coming from the disciples who want the spill disaster hysteria to continue for several months and years. The truth is that the dispersants have done what they are supposed to do. Why are not the disciples concerned about the jillions of barrels of water being discharged from household washing machines daily around the world, which eventually ends up in every sewage treatment plant, and then returned to us as reclaimed water in one form or another. Mother nature throughout the Gulf of Mexico is doing something similar with nature's own sewage treatment plant. Seventy (70%) percent of the earth is covered by water. The BP spill amounts to less than 0.000000000000001% of the earth's surface water. Mother nature is cleaning herself like a cat licking her paws in the sunshine. lilfox

Thu, Aug 5, 2010 KD

IF it is so OK let the EPA run this as there drinking water. From this point forward use them as the test bait. I also enjoy reading comments from govt. agents that tell you it's no different than your household cleaners. Please drink more of whats under your kitchen sink so we don't have to read your dribble anymore. BP and our inept govt. have allowed an environmental disaster to take place so that more money would be spent for the pleasure of bechtal and halliburton. HELL isn't far away for any of them. We have killed the Gulf out of our own greed and self worthlessness.

Wed, Aug 4, 2010 Ted Sosnicki Phoenix, AZ.

This article was truly funny, but in a sad way as it shows how miss led the EPA actually is. If Corexit 9500A is so safe, then let’s see someone from the EPA, BP or any other entity of the government put some of this into a glass and sip on it. The MSDS alone states it is hazardous. The EPA should know that there is and has been a 100% completely safe alternative as they were one of the many agencies that this alternative was tested by. The product is called Renew and it was tested by the federal and California EPA in 2007. Renew has been also tested by the NSF in 2008 and by the USDA in 1997. Renew is even safe enough to drink if you so desire without any harmful side effects. Renew has even been proven absolutely effective in eliminating oil as it was used after the first Gulf War to clean up the spilled oil from all the wells that were damaged, and then all the military equipment returning to the US. Other than being totally safe and natural, the only difference between Renew and Corexit is that Renew will eliminate the oil, turning it into environmentally safe and beneficial components; Corexit removes the oxygen from the oil and water making the oil heaver, thus it sinks to the bottom of the ocean or balls up in large looms. The nice thing is Renew could still be used along the coast to reverse the damaging effects from the oil and Corexit.

Wed, Aug 4, 2010 Kim C. Kristoff Phoenix, AZ

The Corexit is a dispersant. It is not required to be non-toxic and neither are other dispersants. The poit of the required action is to drive oil into the water column vertically. The EPA is certainly reflecting the NCP parameters correctly. They are antique and were not intended to reflect the modern notion ofr toxicology in an aquatic environment. Surface Washing Agents, on the other hand are historically less toxic and are more appropriate for this particular application. The remaining escaped oil is mostly lying below the surface and will continue to inhibit and kill marine life for decades to come and the EPA is fully mindful of this as is the Coast Guard and BP.

Wed, Aug 4, 2010

Excellent... Lets begin dumping our house cleaning products and oil byproducts into the Gulf, because the EPA said it's less damaging than the crude that was spilled! According to the manufacturer, it's not a problem adding more chemicals and oil to the mix: http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/4297.htm http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/4279.htm

Wed, Aug 4, 2010

The toxicity lies in the oil The key ingredient in the dispersant, 2-butoxyethanol, decomposes in a couple of days and does not bio-accumulate. It is used in well known window cleaners and other household cleaning products.

Wed, Aug 4, 2010 jec

EPA needs to provide the DATA not words..such as "less or more toxic". And provide the data as to HOW toxic to humans, and if the materials will bioaccumulate.For test subjects, might be good to test on the EPA officials as subjects.or BP,..or the White House..or the USCG..as they say there is no danger from the oil/disperants in the Gulf of Mexico.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above