Upload
mandi-thompson
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/6/2019 EPA Reveals Toxic Corexit Ingredients
1/5
NEWS: EPA reveals toxic Corexit ingredientsFriday, 11 June 2010 22:33 Marie Neptune and Jay Ruskin
On June 8, the EPA finally listed the ingredients of the products more than one million gallons of which BP has
poured into the Gulf of Mexico.[1] -- Blogger James Plummer noted that Corexit 9527 includes 2-butoxy-ethanol,
which according to the N.J. Dept. of Health "may be absorbed through the skin; should be handled as a
CARCINOGEN -- WITH EXTREME CAUTION; can irritate the skin and eyes with possible eye damage; can irritate
the nose and throat; can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain. can cause headache, dizziness,
lightheadedness, and passing out and may damage the liver and kidneys."[2] -- "The dispersant is widely
considered more dangerous to human health than the oil itself," Plummer said, "and several clean-up workers
exposed to the dispersant have been reported as coming down with health problems." -- "Corexit is is four times
more toxic than oil (oil is toxic at 11 ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61ppm)," said Yobie Benjamin,
who writes a blog on the website of the San Francisco Chronicle.[3] -- Writing for Wired, Brandon Keim said that
"Almost three weeks after federal orders to find less toxic chemicals to break up oil in the Gulf of Mexico, no progress
has been made."[4] ...
1.
DISPERSANTS
Environmental Protection Agency
June 2010
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#chemicals
What are the chemical components of the dispersants COREXIT 9500 and COREXIT 9527?
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.
Learn more about CAS Registry Numbers from the American Chemical Society
2.
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#chemicalshttp://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9723-news-epa-reveals-toxic-corexit-ingredients.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=http://www.ufppc.org/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3d3dy51ZnBwYy5vcmcvdXMtYS13b3JsZC1uZXdzLW1haW5tZW51LTM1Lzk3MjMtbmV3cy1lcGEtcmV2ZWFscy10b3hpYy1jb3JleGl0LWluZ3JlZGllbnRzLmh0bWw%3Dhttp://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#chemicalshttp://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#chemicals8/6/2019 EPA Reveals Toxic Corexit Ingredients
2/5
News & politics
EPA FINALLY RELEASES COREXIT INGREDIENT LIST
By James Plummer
New Orleans Political Buzz Examiner
June 11, 2010
http://www.examiner.com/x-46544-New-Orleans-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d11-EPA-finally-relases-
COREXIT-ingredient-list
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has quietly released the list of ingredients of the chemical
dispersant being pumped into the Gulf of Mexico by British Petroleum. The release came following weeks of
complaints from Congress and the public about the secrecy behind the more than one million gallons of dispersant
which has been pumped into the Gulf to date. BP is pumping 15,000 gallons a day of the patented chemical brews
known as COREXIT 9500 AND COREXIT 9527 into the Gulf of Mexico.
The ingredient list appeared on the section of the EPA website dedicated to the oil "spill" (more like a volcano) at the
bottom of the Gulf of Mexico 50 miles offshore the coast of Louisiana.
The list includes 1,2-Propanediol; 2-butoxy-ethanol; 2-sulfo-Butanedioic acid, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt
(1:1); Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate; Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.;
Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.; 2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-; and
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light.
Although some ingredients in the list had been publicly know, others, including the sodium salts were not.
Nalco, the company which manufactures COREXIT, responded by posting a list of "common day-to-day" uses of thechemicals in question. That list includes skin cream, body shampoo, emulsifier in juice, Baby bath, mouth wash, face
lotion, emulsifier in food, Body/Face lotion, tanning lotions, Wetting agent in cosmetic products, gelatin, beverages,
Household cleaning products, Air fresheners.
The independent watchdog group OMBWatch cites the New Jersey Department of Health to point out possible
dangers of one of the the ingredients. The document indicates 2-butoxy-ethanol: "may be absorbed through the
skin; should be handled as a CARCINOGEN -- WITH EXTREME CAUTION; can irritate the skin and eyes with
possible eye damage; can irritate the nose and throat; can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain. can
cause headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, and passing out and may damage the liver and kidneys."
The dispersant is widely considered more dangerous to human health than the oil itself, and several clean-up workersexposed to the dispersant have been reported as coming down with health problems.
3.
[Blog]
Hacking capitalism, carbon, politics and food
http://www.examiner.com/x-46544-New-Orleans-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d11-EPA-finally-relases-COREXIT-ingredient-listhttp://www.examiner.com/x-46544-New-Orleans-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d11-EPA-finally-relases-COREXIT-ingredient-listhttp://www.examiner.com/x-46544-New-Orleans-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d11-EPA-finally-relases-COREXIT-ingredient-listhttp://www.examiner.com/x-46544-New-Orleans-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d11-EPA-finally-relases-COREXIT-ingredient-list8/6/2019 EPA Reveals Toxic Corexit Ingredients
3/5
BP OIL SPILL COREXIT DISPERANTS SUSPECTED IN WIDESPREAD CROP DAMAGE
By Yobie Benjamin
San Francisco Chronicle
June 10, 2010
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=65552
Just when you thought the damages BP could cause was limited to beaches, marshes, oceans, people's livelihoods,
birds and marine life, there's more.
BP's favorite dispersant Corexit 9500 is being sprayed at the oil gusher on the ocean floor. Corexit is also being air
sprayed across hundreds of miles of oil slicks all across the gulf. There have been widespread reports of oil cleanup
crews reporting various injuries including respiratory distress, dizziness, and headaches.
Corexit 9500 is a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by the Nalco of Naperville, Illinois.
Corexit is is four times more toxic than oil (oil is toxic at 11 ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61ppm).
In a report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. titled "Acute
Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview," Corexit 9500 was found to be one of the most toxic
dispersal agents ever developed.
According to the Clark and George-Ares report, Corexit mixed with the higher gulf coast water temperatures becomes
even more toxic. The U.K.'s Marine Management Organization has banned Corexit so if there was a spill in the
U.K.'s North Sea, BP is banned from using Corexit.
The danger to humans can be expected. The warnings on the Corexit packaging is straightforward. Breathing in
Corexit is not recommended.
It seems like damage brought by the oil gusher has spread way beyond the ocean, coastal areas, and beaches.
Collateral damage now appears to include agricultural damage way inland Mississippi.
A mysterious "disease" has caused widespread damage to plants from weeds to farmed organic and conventionally
grown crops. There is very strong suspicion that ocean winds have blown Corexit aerosol plumes or droplets and
that dispersants have caused the unexplained widespread damage or "disease."
There is no other explanation for the crop damage. Everything points to something that has a widespread effect on
plants and crops. While no one precisely knows, all the signs point to BP's use of aerosolized Corexit brought inland
by the ocean winds or rain.
Remember acid rain? Now it seems we could have toxic dispersant rain.
4.
Wired science
NO PROGRESS ON BETTER CHEMICALS FOR OIL DISASTER CLEANUP
By Brandon Keim
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=65552http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=65552http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=655528/6/2019 EPA Reveals Toxic Corexit Ingredients
4/5
Wired
June 10, 2010
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/dispersant-confusion/
Almost three weeks after federal orders to find less toxic chemicals to break up oil in the Gulf of Mexico, no progress
has been made.
The same dispersant chemicals are still being used. BP barely tried to test an alternative, and the EPAs own testing
results on the toxicity and effectiveness of alternatives are slow in coming. Experts say the tests will only provide a
bare minimum of data, far less than theyd like for managing the unprecedented use of dispersants. Nothing is clear,
except that too little is known.
At the end of the day, youre asked to look at alternatives. Then you find that you dont know enough about
alternatives to make that decision, said Carys Mitchelmore, a University of Maryland biologist who co-authored a
2005 National Academy of Sciences dispersant report and has testified to Congress about their use during the
Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Dispersants separate oil into smaller droplets that should biodegrade quickly. They were applied to surface oil in the
gulf soon after the disaster began. Their use was unfortunate but arguably necessary: If oil broke down at sea, rather
than near shore, damage to prized coastal ecosystems could be reduced. Deep-sea animals would be sacrificed, but
the shorelines would be saved.
Many questions surround dispersant use. Theyre toxins on their own, their effects on sea life are largely
unquantified, and whether theyd work in the gulf as elsewhere is unknown. Nor had dispersants been previously
deployed in the volumes needed in the gulf. Their injection directly into the wellhead, a mile beneath the sea, is also
unprecedented. Depth and pressure and temperature might alter the interaction of dispersant and oil in unanticipated
ways.
None of these questions could be answered. The specific choice of dispersant, however, seemed a more tractable
matter, and generated controversy from the start. BP chose two formulations of Corexit, one used during the Exxon
Valdez oil spill and another developed in its aftermath. According to EPA data on other dispersants approved for
emergency use, 12 were better than Corexit at breaking down gulf oil, at least in laboratory tests. BP argued that
Corexit was far better studied than the alternatives, which is true -- but the role of former BP executive Rodney Chase
as a director of Nalco, Corexits manufacturer, raised suspicions.
With public concern growing and the amount of Corexit used approaching one million gallons -- it now stands at 1.21
million gallons -- the EPA changed course May 20. Agency officials said no damage had been seen, but the massive
quantities and many uncertainties justified finding an alternative. They gave BP 72 hours to find a less-toxic, equallyeffective alternative to Corexit.
Three days later, BP reported that no suitable alternatives existed. EPA chief Lisa Jackson called their response
insufficient, and accused the company of being more focused on defending your initial decisions than on analyzing
possible better options. She also announced that the EPA would assess dispersants on its own, and subsequently
ordered BP to cease surface dispersant use and cut subsurface use dramatically.
We said, we are going to do our own science, and also directed BP to conduct more in -depth science of their own.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/dispersant-confusion/http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/dispersant-confusion/http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/dispersant-confusion/8/6/2019 EPA Reveals Toxic Corexit Ingredients
5/5
Thats where we are at this point, said EPA deputy press secretary Brendan Gilfillan.
With Coast Guard help, BP conducted tests of some alternative dispersants -- including Dispersit, which ultimately
didnt meet the EPAs toxicity requirements -- early in May, but the results were neither released nor shared with the
EPA.
Joannie Docter, president of Globemark Resources, the manufacturer of JD 2000 -- one of five dispersants that met
the EPAs toxicity standard -- said she was told by BP on May 18 that only Corexit would be used in the gulf. At the
time, BP hadnt even tested JD 2000, which happened only after the EPAs request. BPs rejection letter says
theres not enough information, said Sinclair. They did the testing after the fact.
But though BP appears to have malingered, consideration of alternatives is tricky. Analysis so far has been based on
publicly available benchmark tests submitted to the EPA by companies seeking approval for their dispersants.
Effectiveness ratings in those tests represented laboratory reference points rather than real-world evaluation.
Toxicity measures are equally unreliable.
The data presented in the tables is a one-time toxicity test. These should be redone, said Mitchelmore. The tests
will be much more scientifically robust if theyre repeated, which is what the EPA is doing, then expanding on that and
doing further chronic toxicity tests.
Only a smattering of such information exists for dispersants other than Corexit. There have been way more toxicity
studies done on Corexit than anything else, because its the dispersant of choice, said Mitchelmore. I did all my
studies on Corexit 9500. Theres such limited funding out there to do this research. Would I would have liked to
screen six dispersants? Yes, but there wasnt money.
Meanwhile, as BP pointed out in its response to the EPA, simple tests could miss subtle but important details. For
example, some of the ingredients in a seemingly acceptable dispersant called Sea Brat #4 may degrade into
nonylphenol, an endocrine disrupter that could bioaccumulate in ever-higher concentrations up the food chain.
While BP knew the ingredients in Sea Brat #4, most dispersant formulations have been kept secret by their
manufacturers. Indeed, Nalco kept Corexits formulation under wraps and only revealed it to the EPA after extensive
negotiations. The ingredients were revealed by the EPA on June 8. Perhaps not coincidentally, on May 28 the
agency changed the Toxic Substances Control Act, giving itself power to suspend industry confidentiality claims on
chemical compounds. Knowing the identity of each chemical used should help the EPA better characterize each
dispersant.
According to Mitchelmore, acute toxicity tests take several days, and chronic toxicity tests between one and three
weeks. According to Gilfillan, We dont have a hard timeline on when test result s will be obtained. It looks like
sometime in coming days or weeks.
Even when the EPAs tests are finished, however, circumstances will limit their value. There isnt time to study long-
term effects on animals, do ecosystem analyses, or even conduct lab studies on the full range of species affected by
dispersants and dispersed oil. That data will be gathered in coming years, as results roll in from the giant laboratory
that is now the Gulf of Mexico.
The EPA is taking some important steps, but a lot of this stuff should have been done years ago, said Natural
Resources Defense Council senior scientist Gina Solomon. Its a shame that we have to wait for a crisis before
realizing the need to gather toxicity information.