bechtelScience

=__**FACTORS IN THE MATRIX THAT SHAPED POST-DISASTER SCIENCE**__=



= __ Introduction __ =

On April 20th, 2010 a large methane explosion happened on the Deepwater Horizon, the oil rig drilling at the Macondo Prospect. This oil rig was being operated by the British Petroleum Corporation, a multi-national oil production company. Thirty six hours later the oil rig sank, leaving behind a large hole at the wellhead, roughly 5000 feet below the surface of the ocean. This hole gushed around 6,000 barrels of oil per day for 3 months before it was capped. It is estimated that a total of nearly 5 million barrels of crude oil were released into the gulf by this spill, making it the worst environmental disaster to occur on United States territory. The government made it clear from the start that BP was responsible for this catastrophe and would be in charge of remediation. The company eventually accepted this and began cleaning up the oil using several different methods including skimmer ships, floating containment booms, anchored barriers, and sand-filled barricades along shorelines. The number one strategy employed by the company, however, was to apply oil dispersants to the spill.

Oil dispersants are chemical compounds that bind to oil molecules allowing them to mix with water. This process works in a manner similar to that of dish soap which removes oily food products from dishes. The difference is the chemical composition of the dispersant molecule and how it breaks down. For a more detailed explanation, refer to the figure below.

The result of this process is that instead of leaving oil to float on the top of the ocean it is distributed down through the water column. There are several reasons that dispersants are used so often to mediate the effects of oil spills and are a major part of the US government’s National Contingency Plan for oil spills. First, surface oil is very harmful to marine mammals, which typically spend most of their time at the surface. This includes sea birds and otters; animals dependent on the air water interface for survival. On the other hand, dispersing the water down through the water column affects other parts of the ecosystem more, such as plankton, fish, and bottom dwellers. These species are an indispensable part of the ocean ecosystem. Another benefit to using oil dispersants is that they distribute the oil throughout the water so that it is less likely to be carried onto shore where it is hazardous to terrestrial wildlife. This has caused huge problems following the Exxon-Valdez and other spills. According the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration “Both dispersants and dispersed oil particles are toxic to some marine organisms… In any particular situation, the decision to use dispersants involves balancing the potential advantages of dispersant use--removing oil from the water surface and avoiding some shoreline impacts--with the potential disadvantages, such as impacts to plankton or other water column organisms” (NOAA 2009). Lastly, dispersing the oil throughout the water column makes it less visible. Instead of being able to track the spill from above, scientists must now travel beneath the ocean’s surface to track the oil. This is arguably the main reason that BP has used such an enormous volume of oil dispersants on the spill. If the spill is out of sight, then it will likely be out of mind to most of the public.

= __ Corexit __ =

The dispersant of choice for BP is a product named Corexit EC9500A. This is one of 18 approved dispersants listed in the US National Contingency Plan for oil spill remediation. Another part of this list is Corexit EC9527A, the predecessor to Corexit 9500, which is often mistaken to be the same chemical. There is a huge controversy over why this dispersant was chosen for use on the spill, primarily due to the fact that BP has financial ties to the producer of Corexit, the Nalco Corporation. According to the BP webpage, however, “When the incident occurred, Corexit was the only dispersant on the NCP product schedule that was available immediately in the quantities needed to respond to the spill” (BP 2010). This is the same reason that BP refused to consider using other dispersants when specifically asked by the government. Both Nalco and BP advertise this chemical as non-toxic and safe for the environment, but many scientists still show concern. One reason for this is that the product Corexit 9527 has been shown to cause severe health problems both for humans and wildlife. This is one of the main dispersants used following the Exxon-Valdez spill, where there have been many cases of diminished health for workers cleaning up the spill. The primary source of this problem is one of its constituents known as 2-butoxyethanol. The high level of toxicity can be well seen from the information about the chemical on the NCP site. Cyanide, mercury, lead, arsenic, and chlorinated hydrocarbons were all found in the dispersant for example. Corexit 9500, on the other hand does not contain 2-butoxyethanol or any of the other compounds found during NCP testing, except for arsenic.

This is good news, but, because it is such a new chemical there had not been any testing of the actual effects of Corexit 9500 on the environment before it was used in the Gulf. The only tests concerned its composition (which had not been officially released until after the spill), the effects of its constituents, and laboratory scale testing of how it affects oil. This is the reason that many scientists call the use of the dispersant on the Gulf a large experiment. There are a few things that we know about Corexit 9500 though. According to the NCP the dispersant is roughly 50% efficient at dispersing oil and contains an arsenic concentration of .16 parts per million (ppm). This may not be a very significant amount of arsenic, but considering that more than 1.8 million gallons of dispersant was used, (BP 2010) this amount of pollution is quite large. “Inorganic arsenic has been recognized as a human poison since ancient times… People who live near waste sites with arsenic may have an increased risk of lung cancer as well” (EOEarth, 2009). Another problem is the large amount of benzene – a well known carcinogen – in the dispersant. There are an enormous number of unknowns out in the ocean and if something causes the dispersant to break down in a different way than it is supposed to then it certainly can be dangerous. Furthermore, on the Materials Safety Data Sheet composed by the Nalco Corporation it is advised to avoid breathing the vapors or coming into physical contact with Corexit 9500. It is recommended that personnel use proper ventilation, nitrile gloves, chemical splash goggles, and protective clothing; most of which the worker is not using in the picture above (part of collage – supplied by NOAA). If exposed to the substance it is recommended to seek medical attention. Considering all of this, it is not difficult to see that this is not something we really want in our environment. So why did the EPA approve it?

= __ The EPA’s Actions __ =

The Deep Horizon oil spill took place in US regulated waters and as a result all remediation efforts are subject to its jurisdiction. The government organization responsible for this is the US Environmental Protection Agency. It is their job to oversee the cleanup effort and ensure that effects of the spill are minimized as best as possible. As a result, it is the EPA who produced the NCP and approved BP’s use of Corexit in the Gulf. In order to analyze the reason that the EPA has made the decisions it has, it is important to consider all of factors influencing the administration. One thing to consider is the enormous pressure from the public, the president, and other government officials to ensure the spill is cleaned up quickly and effectively. This kind of pressure would make it hard for any group to function. Another important thing to consider is the monetary restrictions placed on the department. The entire EPA budget is only $10,500 million per year and of this only 0.2% is devoted to oil appropriation, 7.8% is devoted to the goal of stronger enforcement, and a pitiful $55 million is committed to all toxics programs. This is an incredibly small amount of funding when compared to what the large oil corporations have to spend. As a result, the EPA’s means to conduct scientific research and regulation are fairly miniscule.

When the oil began to rush from the well head and BP approached the EPA about use of the dispersant Corexit the agency’s response was to approve the use of the chemical before beginning a quick round of dispersant testing. At this point in time the government and the BP Corporation were in a frenzy trying to solve the problem of the oil spill in any way possible. Since the dispersant was already on the NCP approved list it is not a surprise that the EPA approved its use at the time. But according the EPA’s director, Lisa Jackson, “BP has used dispersants in ways never seen before…both the amount applied –– which is approaching a world record – and in the method of application” (EPA 2010). A month after the spill, the EPA released a notice to BP that it was to research and suggest an alternate dispersant to be used that was more effective and less hazardous than Corexit 9500. “The long-term effects on aquatic life are still unknown and we must make sure that the dispersants that are used are as nontoxic as possible,” Jackson said (EPA 2010). BPs response was that there were no other dispersants available in the necessary quantities. At first the EPA rejected this response, but eventually accepted it and allowed dispersant application to continue as long as its usage was reduced and BP keep "strict monitoring" of the ecological effects of the dispersant. On June 30th the results of the first round of testing were released. The goal was to examine the toxicological effects of 8 dispersants from the NCP approved list. The test found that none of the dispersants caused significant harm to the marine organisms, but was not entirely conclusive. As a result another round to testing began, but was not finished until August 2nd. By this time, dispersant use in the Gulf had almost completely been stopped. The second round of testing was aimed at being more comprehensive than the first by testing the effects of the dispersants alone, the dispersants mixed with oil, and oil on its own to see how marine organisms were affected. The results indicated that for all eight dispersants, the dispersants alone were less toxic than the dispersant-oil mixture and oil alone was found to be equally or more toxic. As a conclusion, “These tests, coupled with EPA’s first round of dispersant tests show that dispersants are not distinguishable from one another based on the acute toxicity tests for sensitive aquatic organisms” (EPA 2010).

The only way to really know whether the decisions of the EPA were right is to wait and see what long term effects the dispersants have on the ocean, but there are certainly several things we can see that they should have done better. The first problem is that the EPA ever put Corexit on the NCP list of approved products, when little to no testing had been done to show it was safe. In fact, this dispersant has been banned in the UK do to its hazardous effects near rocky shores. Only 2 of the approved dispersants in the US are even allowed in the UK; Finasol OSR 51 and Seacare Ecosperse. Furthermore, both of these dispersants are more effective on South Louisiana Crude than Corexit. They certainly aren’t toxic free, but they have been tested and shown to be less harmful. Also, neither of these dispersants were used in the comparison test completed by the EPA. These tests were completed under a short timeline and with a limited budget, but they should not be considered anything remotely comprehensive. The chemicals were only even tested on two organisms; mysid shrimp and inland silverside, a small estuary fish. These two organisms certainly cannot account for the effects on plankton and other organisms deep under water. Additionally, the time period for testing was nowhere near long enough. The tests were only performed for 48 or 96 hours, but it takes at least 4 weeks for dispersants to break down under ideal conditions and oil often takes much longer. One can draw the conclusion from this that the testing was largely doctored to justify the actions of the EPA after the fact. No scientist would look at them as any sort of proof that Corexit is safe. Another problem was that the EPA allowed the application of dispersants hundreds of feet below the surface. This was very dangerous. To avoid contaminating the sea floor, most dispersant use has been restricted to the water’s surface. None of the dispersant testing to date has considered the effects that dispersants will have under the high pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Some scientists think this will slow or halt decomposition. Lastly, the EPA knew there was a problem with using Corexit when they required BP to find a new dispersant to use, but when the corporation refused, the EPA simply folded. The government's current theory of environmental regulation is to suggest action, but allow corporate actors to ultimately decide how to handle cleanup. This is what the EPA did and as a result they put the entire Ocean ecosystem at risk as well as those in the surrounding area and the rest of us, who rely upon it for food.



= __ Looking Forward __ =

There are many lessons which can be learned from the events which took place during and after the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. Most notably, we are blind and dangerous without proper scientific exploration. Paul Montagna, a professor of ecology at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi said, "Instead of creating a typical spill, where the oil goes to the surface and you can scoop it up, this stuff has been distributed throughout the water column, and that means everything, absolutely everything, is being affected" (Schoof 2010). We need to ask questions and seek answers //before// we can take action; otherwise we risk putting ourselves and the entire planet in jeopardy. This can clearly be seen from the use of dispersants on the oil spill. There had been little to no science done on the effects that the dispersants would have, especially long term, before they were used and now we have put ourselves and the planet in serious danger. It is clear that things today are not how we would have expected them to be. After studying the ocean floor marine scientist Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia said, "There's some sort of a bottleneck we have yet to identify for why this stuff doesn't seem to be degrading… It's not going to be fine by 2012” (Borenstein 2011). Hopefully this environmental tragedy won’t be in vain. There are an astounding number of new technological advancements that have been made, especially regarding energy, including the mining of oil shale, natural gas fracking, carbon sequestration, and others. We should apply the same caution when approaching these situations and be sure to have a strong scientific backing before we begin full scale production. We need to start being more careful now, before it is too late.

__ Links: __ Video on Potential Effects: [] BPs research: [] EPAs Research: []

__Resources: __ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease. "Health Effects of Arsenic." //Encyclopedia of Earth//. 24 Nov. 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .

Borenstein, Seth. "Scientist Finds Gulf Bottom Still Oily, Dead." //The Top News Headlines on Current Events from Yahoo! News//. AP, 19 Feb. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. . BP Exploration & Production Inc. "Dispersant Information." //BP Global//. BP, 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2011. .

Center for Biological Diversity. "Dispersants." //Gulf Disaster: End Offshore Drilling Now//. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. .

Marine Management Organization. "Oil Spill Treatment Products Approved for Use in the United Kingdom." //Marine Management Organization//. 20 Dec. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .

Nalco Company. "COREXIT® Technology." //Nalco.com//. Nalco, 2011. Web. 24 Feb. 2011. .

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Dispersants: A Guided Tour." //NOAA's Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration//. NOAA, 22 Oct. 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. <http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY(entry_subtopic_topic)=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=159&subtopic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=8&topic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=1>.

<span style="background: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">Schoof, Renee. "Oil Spill's Scope Threatens Gulf's Endangered Marine Life.” McClatchy, 28 May 2010. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. < [] >

<span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Dispersants | EPA Response to BP Spill in the Gulf of Mexico." //US Environmental Protection Agency//. EPA 10 Jan. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html>.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">United States Environmental Protection Agency. "FY 2010 EPA Budget in Brief." //US Environmental Protection Agency//. EPA, May 2009. Web. 1 Mar. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/budget/2010/2010bib.pdf>.

<span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">United States Environmental Protection Agency. "National Contingency Plan Product Schedule | Emergency Management." //US Environmental Protection Agency//. EPA, 09 Feb. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/ncp/product_schedule.htm>.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Statement by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson from Press Conference on Dispersant Use in the Gulf of Mexico with US Coast Guard Rear Admiral Landry." //US Environmental Protection Agency//. EPA, 24 May 2010. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants/statement-dispersant-use-may24.pdf>.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">Wang, Marian. "In Gulf Spill, BP Using Dispersants Banned in U.K." //ProPublica//. 18 May 2010. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. <http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/In-Gulf-Spill-BP-Using-Dispersants-Banned-in-UK>.

__ Pictures: __ [] [] [] [] [] )  []  []  []  []