Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EPA Reports 1st Round of Toxicity Testing Data for 8 Oil Dispersants
Rigzone ^ | Wednesday, June 30, 2010 | US Environmental Protection Agency |

Posted on 06/30/2010 1:04:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

The US Environmental Protection Agency released peer reviewed results from the first round of its own independent toxicity testing on eight oil dispersants. EPA conducted testing to ensure that decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico continue to be grounded in the best available science.

EPA's results indicated that none of the eight dispersants tested, including the product in use in the Gulf, displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity. While the dispersant products alone – not mixed with oil - have roughly the same impact on aquatic life, JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 were generally less toxic to small fish and JD-2000 and SAF-RON GOLD were least toxic to mysid shrimp. While this is important information to have, additional testing is needed to further inform the use of dispersants.

"EPA is performing independent tests to determine the potential impacts of various dispersants. We will continue to conduct additional research before providing a final recommendation," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "We want to ensure that every tool is available to mitigate the impact of the BP spill and protect our fragile wetlands. But we continue to direct BP to use dispersants responsibly and in as limited an amount as possible."

EPA continues to carefully monitor BP's use of dispersant in the Gulf. Dispersants are generally less toxic than oil and can prevent some oil from impacting sensitive areas along the Gulf Coast. EPA believes BP should use as little dispersant as necessary and, on May 23, Administrator Jackson and then-Federal On-Scene Coordinator Rear Admiral Mary Landry directed BP to reduce dispersant usage by 75 percent from peak usage. EPA and the Coast Guard formalized that order in a directive to BP on May 26. Over the next month BP reduced dispersant use 68 percent from that peak.

Before directing BP to ramp down dispersant use, EPA directed BP to analyze potential alternative dispersants for toxicity and effectiveness. BP reported to EPA that they were unable to find a dispersant that is less toxic than Corexit 9500, the product currently in use. Following that, EPA began its own scientific testing of eight dispersant products on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule (NCP-PS). Those dispersant products are: Dispersit SPC 1000, Nokomis 3-F4, Nokomis 3-AA, ZI-400, SAF-RON Gold, Sea Brat #4, Corexit 9500 A and JD 2000. These results represent the first stage of that effort.

 

EPA tested these eight products for endocrine disrupting activity and potential impacts on small fish and mysid shrimp. The testing found:

 

The next phase of EPA's testing will assess the acute toxicity of multiple concentrations of Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil alone and combinations of Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil with each of the eight dispersants for two test species.

More info on the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: bp; deephorz; deepwaterhorizon; dispersants; dnamutation; energy; mutation4all; nalco2u; offshore; oil; oilspill
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 06/30/2010 1:04:27 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; BOBTHENAILER; SunkenCiv; Marine_Uncle; onyx; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; ...

fyi


2 posted on 06/30/2010 1:06:31 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Since the EPA is responsible for ecological health, then why haven’t these dispersants been tested already?


3 posted on 06/30/2010 1:11:06 PM PDT by DallasDeb (USAFA '06 Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW!.....................

4 posted on 06/30/2010 1:11:43 PM PDT by Red Badger (No, Obama's not the Antichrist. He's just some guy in the neighborhood.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
peer reviewed results from the first round of its own independent toxicity testing on eight oil dispersants.

Well we know their testing is sensitive ...they found CO2 is a pollutant....so this is likely OK!!!

Of course they don't test effect on plants....which love CO2.

5 posted on 06/30/2010 1:13:21 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
peer reviewed results from the first round of its own independent toxicity testing on eight oil dispersants.

Well we know their testing is sensitive ...they found CO2 is a pollutant....so this is likely OK!!!

Of course they don't test effect on plants....which love CO2.

6 posted on 06/30/2010 1:13:31 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Researchers Have Now Found Evidence Of Oil Contamination In Gulf's Food Chain

7 posted on 06/30/2010 1:14:25 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Article IV - Section 4 - The United States shall protect each of them against Invasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Whoops...don’t know how that happened.


8 posted on 06/30/2010 1:14:54 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb

I believe they were and this is just to show us that they’re doing something....AND PROBABLY BILLING BP some extraordinary amount.


9 posted on 06/30/2010 1:26:22 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (What)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb
Did a tiny bit of research. Testing is submitted to EPA. And for ex. Corerit 9500 is on the USE Contingency Plan Schedule.

Guess it works like the FDA.

Other countries incl. England and Canada have approved the stuff

10 posted on 06/30/2010 1:33:37 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (What)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
Related thread:

President Obama’s “Deer In Headlight” Moment

11 posted on 06/30/2010 1:45:12 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
None of the eight dispersants tested displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity.

None of the eight dispersants tested displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity.

None of the eight dispersants tested displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity.

JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 proved to be the least toxic to small fish

JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 proved to be the least toxic to small fish

JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 proved to be the least toxic to small fish

Yes...I felt it needs to be repeated and repeated and repeated for some of the screamers out there...

-----------------------------------------------------------

Or is it best to do nothing....

Did nature clean up most of the Exxon Valdez oil spill?

12 posted on 06/30/2010 1:51:03 PM PDT by EBH (Our First Right...."it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH
"None of the eight dispersants tested displayed
biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity.
"

Do you have link to the publication and data?

Was there insignificant "endocrine distrupting activity"?

Strange way to phrase this.

13 posted on 06/30/2010 2:01:07 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Article IV - Section 4 - The United States shall protect each of them against Invasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EBH
There will be much debate in the future...

Got to run...be back later....working next door,...getting louder than I care for.

14 posted on 06/30/2010 2:02:02 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb
Since the EPA is responsible for ecological health, then why haven’t these dispersants been tested already?

I think they have been, but at less concentrated levels (as would apply in surface use, rather than sub-sea injection). At least, that's what I recall reading over at The Oil Drum.

15 posted on 06/30/2010 2:07:20 PM PDT by Charles Martel ("Endeavor to persevere...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

I thought that was strange too - and why did they only focus on “endocrine”, what about neurotoxicity and other things?


16 posted on 06/30/2010 2:10:18 PM PDT by justsaynomore (The Hermantor - 2012 - www.hermancain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

It is standard EPA wording.

There is no legalese wording such as “insignificant,” but only various definitions throughout the regulations stating things to the effect of “Biologically Significant” meaning

because of the higher potential or more lasting consequences of harm

So the findings of the EPA study and their wording indicate that there is not a higher potential or lasting consequences.

Which as difficult as it might sound for some folks here ...matches the company’s MSDS.


17 posted on 06/30/2010 2:30:20 PM PDT by EBH (Our First Right...."it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Despite your handwaving assurances,
one doubts that DNA intercalation effects,
long term, were done.

One doubts all systems were tested in human infants who
will now be exposed.

Given the coverup of regulations involved to this point,
I doubt there have been any serious definitive substantive
studies examining the full range of sequelae.


18 posted on 06/30/2010 2:46:32 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Article IV - Section 4 - The United States shall protect each of them against Invasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

It is a bit interesting to see they are just starting to do tests on these eight dispersants. Our tax dollars at work./sarc


19 posted on 06/30/2010 4:48:02 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb

It was tested and approved years ago.

The concern is using it underwater and in such large quantities.


20 posted on 06/30/2010 6:39:00 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson