Is Using Dispersants on the BP Gulf Oil Spill Fighting Pollution with Pollution?

Published on
by
Scientific America

Is Using Dispersants on the BP Gulf Oil Spill Fighting Pollution with Pollution?

It remains unclear what impact chemical dispersants will have on sea life--and only the massive, uncontrolled experiment being run in the Gulf of Mexico will tell

by
David Biello

AERIAL ASSAULT: Some 3.5 million liters of dispersants were applied to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, including spraying from aircraft like this U.S. Air Force C-130 on May 5. (U.S. Air Force Photo by Tech. Sgt. Adrian Cadiz)

Roughly five million liters of dispersants have now been used to break up the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico,
making this the largest use of such chemicals in U.S. history. If it
continues for 10 months, as long as Mexico's Ixtoc 1 blowout in 1979 in
the same region, the Macondo well disaster has a good chance of
achieving the largest global use of these chemicals, surpassing 10
million liters.

And there is no doubt that dispersants are toxic:
Both types of the dispersal compound COREXIT used in the Gulf so far
are capable of killing or depressing the growth of a wide range of
aquatic species, ranging from phytoplankton to fish. "It's a trade-off
decision to lessen the overall environmental impact," explained marine
biologist Jane Lubchenco, director of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), at a press conference on May 12. "When an oil spill occurs, there are no good outcomes."

The trade-off in this case is the addition of toxic chemicals in a bid to protect the marshes of Louisiana
and the beaches of Florida. But the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), for one, has become concerned about the toxicity of the
most-used dispersant at the Gulf of Mexico spill-COREXIT 9500-and
ordered BP to look at alternatives. (COREXIT 9527 was used earlier
during the spill, but it was discontinued because it was considered too
toxic.)

The problem? The EPA's industry-generated data
is unclear as to the relative toxicity of various dispersants. "If you
think the data on COREXIT is bad, try to find any decent toxicology
data on the alternatives," says toxicologist Carys Mitchelmore of the
University of Maryland's Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, who helped
write a 2005 National Research Council (NRC) report on dispersants. "I couldn't compare and contrast which one was more toxic than the other based on that."

Dispersed oil
Both COREXIT 9500 and 9527 are produced by Naperville, Ill.-based Nalco, a company better known for its water
purification work with the oil industry. "For every barrel of oil
produced, 3.5 barrels of water are produced," explains chemist Mani
Ramesh, chief technology officer for Nalco. "That needs to be treated
before it can be released. That water treatment has been a core area
for us."

But at the same time Nalco keeps busy cleaning the oil industry's
water, it also provides COREXIT, a product to minimize the impact of
any oil that spills into the water. Developed in a joint venture with
ExxonMobil, the compound is largely made at facilities in Sugarland,
Tex., and Garyville, La. The company expects to sell some $40-million
worth of COREXIT as a result of the latest spill. "What the dispersant
process enables is to prevent the oil from reaching the shore and
converts that oil to easy food for naturally occurring microbes,"
Ramesh says. "If the oil reaches the shore the decomposition rate of
oil is so low it would remain on the shore for probably 100 years."

By last week, the EPA and Nalco had both released the ingredient list for COREXIT 9500
in response to widespread public concern. Its constituents include
butanedioic acid (a wetting agent in cosmetics), sorbitan (found in
everything from baby bath to food), and petroleum distillates in
varying proportions-and it decomposes almost entirely in 28 days. "All
six [ingredients] are used in day-to-day life-in mouthwash, toothpaste,
ice cream, pickles," Ramesh argues. "We believe COREXIT 9500 is very
safe."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agrees, noting in a document for health professionals
that "the dispersants contain proven, biodegradable and low-toxicity
surfactants," which are "detergentlike" and "in low toxicity solvents."

However, those solvents-petroleum distillates-are also known animal
carcinogens, according to toxicology data, and make up 10 to 30 percent
of a given volume of COREXIT. And those same everyday products can be
deadly to wildlife. "It's the same products in Dawn dishwasher soap," Mitchelmore notes, which is being used widely to clean up oiled birds and other animals. "I wouldn't want to put a fish in Dawn dishwashing soap either. That would kill it."

As a result, the EPA ordered BP to stop spraying dispersants on the oil slick on May 26. The EPA also ordered BP to look for less toxic alternatives
on May 20, and the company responded in a letter dated that same day
that "BP continues to believe that COREXIT EC9500A is the best
alternative." The dispersant continues to be sprayed onto the ongoing
oil spill.

No alternative
One reason BP can make such claims is due to a lack of clear data on
any of the alternative dispersants. As part of the National Contingency
Plan required for offshore drilling, one of 18 EPA-approved dispersants
must be on hand to handle spilled oil. Each of those dispersants has
been preapproved for use, and each of those dispersants has been
tested-by the companies that make them-for toxicity using
representative species of estuarine shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) and fish (Menidia beryllina). Specifically, these animals are exposed to a mix of one liter of dispersant for every 10 liters of heavy fuel oil in water.

Yet, the results of those tests vary wildly, from toxic impacts
occurring at levels of just 2.6 parts per million for COREXIT to 100
ppm for another dispersant, NOKOMIS 3-F4. That suggests to experts that
the tests which showed lower toxicity may have employed heavy fuel oil
that had lost its potency. After all, volatile organic compounds in oil
evaporate quickly when exposed to air and can even wash off in water.
"These are order of magnitude differences," Mitchelmore notes. "A lot
of that can relate to how those tests were set up."

Adds Nalco toxicologist Sergio Alex Villalobos, "If the oil is aged,
then the oil loses its toxicity. Using an oil that is not very toxic,
if you disperse that oil you are going to get very favorable numbers.
Do those numbers really exist?"

EPA, for its part, did not show the best understanding of toxicological
data in making its recommendations, urging BP to use dispersants with
less than a certain cutoff of toxicity (pdf).
Of course, in toxicology the lower the concentration the more toxic a
given substance is. "They completely got that wrong," Mitchelmore says.
EPA is now undertaking its own toxicology testing of COREXIT and
Louisiana crude oil, but results are pending.

Nevertheless, just 20 ppm of COREXIT 9500-or one drop in 2.5 liters of water-inhibits growth of Skeletonema costatum,
a Gulf of Mexico diatom, according to toxicology test data presented in
the 2005 NRC report. It appears to inhibit the phytoplankton's ability
to perform photosynthesis, specifically blocking part of the
biochemistry that enables the photosystem II complex, Villalobos says. "Skeletonema seems to fall among the most sensitive ones," he says. "Like many aquatic plants, these are organisms that are resilient, that tend to come back even though you wipe them out in some cases chemically."

COREXIT is also not approved for use in U.K. waters because it fails
the so-called "limpet test". That test involves spraying the dispersant
and oil on rocks and seeing if limpets
(a type of small mollusk) can still cling to them, a test which COREXIT
and many other dispersants with slippery surfactants fail. "This is not
a product for rocky shores," Villalobos says. "These are only for open
sea waters."

Novel use
Of course, in the case of the oil spewing from BP's Macondo well in the
Gulf of Mexico, COREXIT is being used in another unapproved way. A wand
from one of the remote-operated robots
has sprayed more than 1.5 million liters of dispersants directly onto
the escaping oil and natural gas roughly 1,500 meters beneath the
ocean's surface. "I don't think anybody knows what would happen by
applying the dispersants at depth," Ramesh says. "We do not have any
knowledge that would allow us to predict what would happen."

In addition to creating subsurface plumes (and providing a rich feast for oil-eating microbes),
it remains unclear what kind of dosage of dispersed oil sea life
throughout the water column is facing. NOAA measurements show that
levels reach 100 ppm of dispersed oil in the first half-meter of water,
dropping to 12.5 ppm at 10 meters and unknown levels even deeper.
"There isn't any information on what is the environmentally relevant
level of dispersant," Mitchelmore notes. "Dispersed oils are going to
be toxic, particularly in the top 10 meters that contains all the
sensitive life stages. Anything that has sensitive membranes can be
affected by dispersants and dispersed oil."

Sunlight falling on the dispersed oil may make the problem worse through a phenomenon known as phototoxicity.
Compounds in the oil act as a catalyst to transfer some of the sun's
energy into oxygen, converting the latter to a more reactive state that
can literally burn up cells. And as fish and other sea life ingest the
dispersed oil, it can be broken down into more toxic by-products. "What
do these things break down into?" Mitchelmore says. "In toxicology it's
quite often not the original compound that's the toxic entity."

Ultimately, the problem is that too little is known about the
dispersants and the dispersed oil. "Given that this is a billion-dollar
industry, why were those data gaps not filled?" Mitchelmore asks. "The
whole issue regarding limited toxicity data-that's not just common to
dispersants, that's common to tens of thousands of chemicals we're putting out into the environment daily."

After all, it was only after decades of using bisphenol A,
polybrominated flame retardants and other chemicals that significant
concerns began to manifest. In effect, usage replaced safety testing-and
that's exactly what is happening with dispersants and the massive spill
in the Gulf. Different regulation of chemicals and the chemical
industry might forestall toxicological mysteries like those surrounding
dispersants-and their thousands of chemical cousins-in the future.

"We're using an awful lot of dispersants," said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson during the same May 12 press briefing on the chemical's
use at which NOAA's Lubchenco spoke. "This is going on longer than one
might have known on day three or four. We're still dealing with a
constant release of fresh oil and we need to continue to disperse."

More in: