Louisiana Weekly Publishes Great Overview of BP's Dispersant Disaster

[mhatrw]

http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php?viewStory=2862

... Weeks into BP's Gulf spill, scientists questioned the company's decision to use dispersants on a wide scale and in particular its choice of COREXIT. On its own, COREXIT 9500 can be four times as toxic as oil, according to product evaluations. And of 18 dispersants approved earlier by EPA, twelve were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than COREXIT, EPA data show. Kendall said he was very concerned that EPA hadn't assessed risks to the Gulf earlier from BP's massive dispersant use. And in contrast with EPA statements, he is particularly worried about underwater injections. "LC 50 studies have shown that COREXIT is toxic to young marine and other aquatic life," he noted. In toxicology language, a Lethal Concentration 50 rating means that a chemical can kill at least 50 percent of a sample population.

Marianne Cufone, fish program director at Food & Water Watch in Washington, DC, said "COREXIT in studies was shown to be twice as harmful to shrimp as an alternate dispersant called Dispersit," produced by Polychemical Corp. in New York. That's problematic for the huge Gulf shrimp industry, she noted. Meanwhile, according to test results compiled by the EPA, seven alternative dispersants are less toxic to shrimp than COREXIT and at least 14 alternatives are less toxic to fish. Cufone noted that Dispersit is about twice as effective in breaking oil down as COREXIT and is also far less toxic. If dispersants must be used in the Gulf spill, choosing the right one makes a big difference because "the dose makes the poison," Kendall said "We're watching the biggest ecological, toxicology experiment in our nation's history," he stated. "Underwater pools of oil have formed that are 20 miles long. And the mixture of chemicals-oil, dispersants and residue from setting oil on fire-presents new threats to the sea bottom, the shore, marshes and the air." ...

An experiment conducted in the late 1990's by Nyman and other LSU researchers on soil from many of the state's tidal freshwater marshes found that dispersants mixed with oil reaching marsh soils were more toxic to fish, crustaceans and benthic invertebrates than undispersed oil for months after arriving in the soil. Benthic invertebrates are small, growing organisms that live at the bottom of the marsh. Nyman said "it appeared in our experiments that COREXIT 9500 was toxic to microbes in the marsh soil that eat the oil." And in another experiment with salt marsh soils, Dr. Nyman found that dispersed oil biodegrades, or was eaten by oil microbes, much more slowly than non-dispersed oil. ...

A concoction of oil and dispersants is already hovering over corral beds, like the Pinnacles south of Louisiana. And Kendall said the mixture is getting into the Loop Current, which heads to south Florida-where ancient corral reefs could be devastated. With hurricane season approaching, the presence of chemicals in Gulf Coast waters frightens him. Winds from a big storm will push the dispersed oil mixture around, and that could be catastrophic for the salt-and-fresh or brackish-water balance of Lake Pontchartrain, he warned. The lake has only recently been judged safe again for swimming after industrial and farm waste was brought under control. ... Lanctot said the use of "dispersants in the Gulf is a huge, unplanned and not very well-controlled experiment." He added that it's anybody's guess how dispersants will effect the Gulf ecosystem as it tries to recover after the oil well is plugged.

[peacetalksforall]

1. They need two major lawsuits filed on behalf of Gaia . How risk taking not endangered inbeciles

ruined a part of our beautiful earth by people who do not care about anything except their salaries, bonuses, retirement packages, perks and avoiding US lawas.

[Paper Roses]

2. Probably the cheapest of all the dispersants available to them.

This story goes from bad to worse. I will never willingly buy gas at a BP station. Is there any other product they are involved with that I can also Not buy?

My simple protest will make no difference to BP but there are no options for individual citizens.

[nashville_brook]

3. When it's a extinction level event you're planning, don't just exit -- Corexit.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. Planning an extinction level event sounds right. No reason not to drill, baby, drill in the GoM

after their planned extinction level event has completed.


Evil greedy bastards!

[Catherina]

4. I can't even fathom their level of depravity n/t

[BeFree]

5. The EPA stopped this

And then they turned around and ok'd it.

Was reading the product safety sheet and it said Corexit should not be used on surface waters.
I kid you not.

[dgibby]

8. EPA is as useless as tits on a boar hog,

as is the rest of the corporate owned and operated Govt.

[BeFree]

9. An ex-EPA crime investigator was on fauxnews

He said that the DoJ investigation was late... about 40 days late.

Lots of lost evidence and maybe some collusion going on. Said the EPA should have been investigating, or at least involved. Claimed he worked the Exxon case.

So.........I'm sitting here thinking... 4o days after the crime and no charges have been filed? How about 60? What the hell are they waiting on?

[mhatrw]

7. Excerpts From Dr. Nancy E. Kinner's May 19th Testimony To Congress

http://www.crrc.unh.edu/news/kinner_house_testimony.pdf

The Gulf of Mexico Contingency Plan allows dispersant use, without preauthorization, a minimum distance of 3 nautical miles from the shore and a water depth of at least 33 feet. As of May 18th, 2010 an unprecedented 590,000 gallons of chemical dispersant have been applied to the oil on the surface of the Gulf. Responders are also experimenting with injecting dispersants into the oil as it is being released from the damaged riser pipe ~5,000 feet below the surface. Beginning on May 3rd, a series of trial injections began and 3,000 gallons of dispersant were injected into the oil plume at a depth of approximately 5,000 feet. Visual observations indicate this was successful in reducing the volume of oil reaching the surface. US EPA and USCG recently approved the use of dispersants in the subsurface by the damaged riser pipe. The Deepwater Horizon blowout marks the largest volume of dispersants ever used, domestically and internationally. . While dispersants have proven to be successful at reducing oiling of shorelines, numerous questions remain regarding the fate of the dispersed oil and the chemical dispersant. Application of dispersants at this depth is unprecedented, and the fate and potential effects have never been investigated. ...

Little is known about the long-term fate of dispersed oil. The National Research Council (NRC) published two studies in 1989 and 2005 reviewing the state of dispersant use and knowledge in the United States. Both reports indicated there was a lack of understanding on the fate and potential impacts of large quantities of dispersed oil. ...

Biodegradation is often cited as the most likely fate of dispersed oil, however, little research has been done on the likelihood of this scenario. Biodegradation, while potentially able to completely degrade the oil, is a complex and often misunderstood process. The majority of the studies that have examined biodegradation of dispersed oil have focused on droplets in the mixed layer, and found that biodegradation was often incomplete (i.e., some compounds remained), and significant degradation took weeks to months to occur (Harayama, 2004; Stewart et al., 1993; Lindstrom et al., 1999). No research has been done on the potential for biodegradation of dispersed oil at depths approaching those of the Deepwater Horizon, and the high pressures and different microbial communities at this depth may severely restrict or prevent any biodegradationfrom occurring. ...

Many marine biota, including copepods, shrimp, and oysters, feed on microplankton and other very small organisms that are similar in size to some dispersed oil droplets (0.1 to 1 mm), and it is possible that these organisms may consume smaller dispersed oil droplets (Gyllenberg, 1981; Andrews and Floodgate, 1974). These smaller organisms are the foundation of the marine food web, and reduced body weight, population, or mortality may occur. In addition, the oil can bioaccumulate, impacting larger species, including commercially important species such as shellfish, tuna, and shrimp. Many organisms in aquatic environments transfer dissolved gasses via special organs (i.e., gills) that can lead to increased exposure to dissolved chemicals through absorption (Barnett and Toews, 1978). While difficult to quantify, the large surface area to volume ratio of oil droplets will result in rapid dissolution of soluble chemicals, and potential exposure to biota. ...

The major gaps in dispersant knowledge arise in the link between the fate of dispersed oil and the biological endpoints. The key question that remains unanswered is: What is the most likely fate of the dispersed oil and dispersant in the marine environment? In 2009, CRRC held an R&D needs workshop that brought together members of the oil spill community and stakeholders to identify the top research needs to enhance spill response. Not surprisingly, understanding long-term fate of chemically dispersed oil was a top research priority. The Deepwater Horizon incident response has used significantly more dispersants than any other spill in U.S. history. The endpoint and effects from this huge quantity of dispersed oil cannot be confidently predicted because of lack of understanding of the potential pathways and effects. ...

However, when winds and storms created waves and currents preventing booming, skimming and burning, the method of choice became application of chemical dispersants. With more than 590,000 gallons delivered by aircraft and now with approved injection at 5,000 feet, the oil is not reaching shorelines, but is submerged in the water. The concerted effort by responders to prevent oil from reaching the marshes and beaches has to date prevented some of the images many associate with the Exxon Valdez, including oiled birds, sea otters, as well as blackened shorelines and huge floating oil slicks. Questions abound as to whether the worst is yet to come, and if there will there be long term effects of dispersing millions of gallons of oil, and if so, how fast will the natural resources rebound.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that anyone knows the answers to these questions. As data is collected by scientists to determine the amount of oil contamination in the water at various depths, we can begin to predict what the potential impacts may be. The basic risk equation is: Chemical Exposure ? Toxicological Response. Exposure is a function of the rate of uptake by the organism, the concentration of the contaminant, the duration of the exposure, and the bioavailability, absorption and metabolic reaction related to the contaminant. The toxicity can be acute (lethal) or chronic (affecting growth, reproduction, behavior or population level parameters). There have been scientific studies done that examine some constituents of oil and mimic certain environmental exposures, but there is a relatively limited database and some of it does not withstand the rigors of peer-review. None of it addresses the magnitude and extent of exposure that the Deepwater Horizon spill represents.

[amborin]

10. K&R