FISH
A Toxic Debate
BP Rejects EPA Directive to Stop Using COREXIT
I n the wake of the disastrous BP oil spill off the coast of Louisiana, BP has employed
the use of COREXIT® EC9500A, a type of chemical referred to as a “dispersant,” to
break the oil down into small droplets. COREXIT was originally developed by Exxon
and is now manufactured by Nalco Holding Company,1 whose board of directors
includes a former BP executive and board member.2 On Thursday, May 20, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released data collected by BP on dispersant
toxicity. That same day, the agency directed BP to find a less toxic and more effective
dispersant to use.3 On Saturday, May 29, the agency released BP’s response, which
was submitted on the evening of Thursday, May 27.4 In that document, which contains
incomplete and redacted information, BP asserts that COREXIT EC9500A remains the
best alternative.5 As the debate between the EPA and BP continues, an increasingly
vocal group of scientists and politicians wonders why BP continues to apply the
dispersants to the oil spill.
Workers collect oily waste in Grand Isle, Louisiana, as part of the Deepwater Hori-
zon oil spill response May 31, 2010. Photo by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Fact Sheet • June 2010
Background
What are dispersants? Rather than eliminating oil from the
ocean, dispersants work like soap, breaking the oil into
smaller, less visible particles that sink to the bottom and
can be more easily consumed by bacteria. Unfortunately,
although dispersants do transfer oil away from the water’s
surface, decreasing exposure for some animals such as
seabirds, marine mammals and sea turtles, they increase
exposure deeper below the ocean’s surface as well as on
the seafloor itself, affecting fish, eggs, larvae, shrimp, corals
and oysters.6
How much dispersant has been used? As of May 26, 2010,
840,000 gallons of dispersant have been applied at the
spill site, which includes both surface and subsea applica-
tion at the source of the leak — a procedure which has
never before been used.7
What is COREXIT 9500A? COREXIT was originally de-
veloped by Exxon and comes in a variety of forms; one
version was used widely after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill.8
Because the product is protected by patent, there is little
public information about its ingredients.9 The company’s
material safety data sheet indicates that there are three haz-
ardous substances included in the product.10
How effective and how toxic is COREXIT 9500A? Of the Toxicity (LC50 values in
12 distinct non-COREXIT authorized dispersants listed in ppm)* Effectiveness (%)
the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule (NCP), 11 Menidia,
are more effective on South Louisiana crude oil than Co- Silverside Mysidopsis,
rexit 9500.11 According to Science Insider from the journal Product (1:10 Product-to-No. Fish Shrimp South Louisiana
of Science, it’s possible that Corexit could actually under- 2 Fuel Oil Ration) (96-hr) (48-hr) Crude Oil
mine the ability of some of the most effective microbes to Corexit EC9500A 2.61 3.4 54.7
break down and eat oil droplets, thus harming the ocean’s JD-2000 3.59 2.19 77.8
natural abilities to respond to the disaster.12 JD-109 3.84 3.51 91
Corexit EC9527A 4.49 6.6 63.4
The NCP includes several measurements of toxicity for Finasol OSR 52 5.4 2.37 71.6
dispersants: toxicity to silverside fish, toxicity to a type of
Seacare Ecosperse 52 5.4 2.37 71.6
shrimp, and toxicity to both of those respectively, com-
Biodispers 5.95 2.66 63
bined with fuel oil.13 There are two products — Mare Clean
Nokomis 3-AA 7.03 5.56 65.7
200 and Neos AB 3000 — that are listed as less toxic in
each category and are also more effective. There are seven Dispersit SPC 1000 7.9 8.2 105
products that are more effective and less toxic to both Seacare E.P.A. 7.9 8.2 105
shrimp and fish when combined with oil.14 BP was re- ZI-400 8.35 1.77 89.8
quired to test subsurface impacts of the dispersant.15 Water ZI-400 Oil Spill Dispersant 8.35 1.77 89.8
samples from areas treated with dispersant were applied to Saf-Ron Gold 9.25 3.04 53.8
microscopic aquatic animals called rotifers to determine SF-Gold Dispersant 9.25 3.04 53.8
impacts. One sample killed 25 percent of the rotifers, and Sea Brat #4 23 18 60.65
another, from a greater depth, killed 20 percent.16 Mare Clean 200 42 9.84 84.14
Neos AB 3000 57 25 89.8
COREXIT also poses a risk to the people exposed to it. On
Nokomis 3-F4 100 58.4 64.9
May 26, seven fishermen were hospitalized after being
exposed to dispersant during spill cleanup. The fishermen Based on information from the National Contingency Plan Product
reported vision problems, respiratory distress, low blood Schedule. *A higher number indicates lower toxicity.
pressure, and severe nose and throat irritation.17

The Debate “What is most frightening about the long-term effects

May 20, 2010: EPA directs BP to find a less toxic
dispersant
In light of concerns about dispersant toxicity, the EPA gave
BP 24 hours to find one or more products that are avail-
able in sufficient quantities, and are as effective and less
toxic. Within 72 hours of submitting this list and receiving
EPA approval, BP was expected to use the approved new
dispersants and cease use of COEXIT.18
Unfortunately, this directive was technically flawed in
several areas. First, EPA mistakenly directed BP to find a
product with “a toxicity value less than or equal to 23.00
ppm LC50 toxicity value for Menidia (silverside fish) or
18.00 ppm LC50 for Mysidopsis (shrimp).19 However, a
product with a smaller toxicity value would actually be
a more toxic product, as higher numbers indicate less
toxicity. Second, assuming this was a typo and EPA meant
“greater than” (as BP assumed in their response), this direc-
tive would be purposeless, because by these toxicity mea-
surements, COREXIT 9500 itself passes the bar.20 Third, and
most substantially, EPA has failed to explain to the public
why these two measurements are most valid. Some prod-
ucts with a relatively less acute toxicity by these indicators
have a much higher toxicity when combined with fuel oil.
It is unclear why EPA has not asked BP to use a dispersant
that is less toxic to Menidia and Mysidopsis when com-
bined with No. 2 fuel oil.
of the oil and the dispersant chemical isn’t what we
know, it is what we just don’t know.”
- Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) as quoted in “US Rep
Markey: ‘No Good Choices’ On Dispersant for Gulf Oil
Spill.” Dow Jones Newswires. May 23, 2010.
May 20, 2010: BP responds that COREXIT is the best
option
According to Douglas J. Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer,
“BP continues to believe that COREXIT EC9500A is the
best alternative.” His letter noted that COREXIT is the only
product that the company can access in sufficient quanti-
ties. Although BP does have a stockpile of 100,000 gallons
of one product, Sea Brat #4, which meets the directive’s
criteria for effectiveness and toxicity, Suttles’s letter con-
tested that this dispersant contains a small amount of a
chemical that may degrade to a nonylphenol, an endocrine
disruptor which BP asserted “may persist in the environ-
ment for a period of years.”21
May 22, 2010: BP’s response is released to the pub-
lic, with redacted information
BP and some dispersant manufacturers claimed that parts
of BP’s response contained confidential business informa-
tion. These parts were redacted from the version of the
response released to the public. The EPA urged the com-

The BP Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on May 24, 2010. Photo by NASA.
panies to voluntarily release the information, but has not
taken legal action to release it without permission.22
May 24, 2010: EPA and U.S. Coast Guard hold press
conference on dispersant use
On May 24, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson and U.S.
Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry held a press
conference on dispersant use. According to Ms. Jackson
“[Admiral Landry and I] are not satisfied that BP [has] done
an extensive enough analysis of other dispersant options.
We expect BP to keep evaluating other dispersants. BP’s
response to our directive was insufficient, and we are
concerned that BP seemed, in their response, more inter-
ested in defending their initial decisions than analyzing
possible better options.”(Emphasis added.) Ms. Jackson
also announced that the EPA will be performing scientific
verification of BP’s data and will be testing toxicity and
effectiveness of dispersants. BP was also instructed that day
to immediately scale back the overall use of dispersant.
According to Jackson, dispersant use could be ramped
down, especially on the surface, where less undispersed oil
should be present due to subsea application.23
What Should Happen Next?
The EPA only began independent evaluations of other
dispersants’ toxicity and effectiveness after May 24, and as
a result, has lost significant amounts of time. The EPA must
move forward with accurate tests as rapidly as possible and
make this information available to the public.
The EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard must also demand that
BP continues to evaluate other options.
So little is understood about dispersants, toxicity informa-
tion is incomplete, dispersant ingredients have not all been
made public, and opposition to dispersant use is mounting
in the scientific community. BP, the EPA and the U.S. Coast
Guard must work to explore and recommend alternative
mitigation methods.
The BP oil spill has caused enormous damage to the Gulf’s
marine ecosystems, which will impact shrimp, fish and
other marine animal populations for years to come. BP and
the government should be taking every measure to remove
toxicity from the ocean — not create the illusion of cleaner
waters while actually adding toxicity that will persist for
years to come.
Endnotes
1 Taylor, John. “Gulf Oil Spill: BP Trying to Hide Millions of Gallons of
Toxic Oil? BP Embraces Exxon’s Toxic Dispersant, Ignores Safer Alterna-
tive.” www.protecttheocean.com, Accessed May 7, 2010.
2 Nalco, Biography of Rodney F. Chase, Director. Available at: http://phx.
corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=182822&p=irol-govBio&ID=139045
3 EPA [Press Release]. “EPA Posts Underwater Dispersant Monitoring Data/
Under stringent plan, BP must conduct constant monitoring of dispersant
use at leak source and provide data to the government.” May 20, 2010.
4 EPA [Press Release]. “EPA Releases BP’s Response to Directive on Dis-
persants.” May 22, 2010.
5 Letter from Douglas J. Suttles to Rear Admiral Mary Landry and Samuel
Coleman. May 20, 2010. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dis-
persants.html
6 Committeee on Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants. “Oil Spill Disper-
sants: Efficacy and Effects.” National Research Council, 2005.
7 Unified Area Comand, “Current Operations and Ongoing Response,”
May 26, 2010. Available at: www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/
doc/2931/543103/ and EPA [Press Release]. “BP Must Use Less Toxic
Dispersant.” May 20, 2010.
8 Lustgarten, Abrahm. “Chemicals Meant to Break up BP Oil Spill Present
New Environmental Concerns.” ProPublica, April 30, 2010.
9 Sims, Scarlet. “Oil slick plagues local fishing industry.” NewsHerald.com
(Panama City), May 10, 2010.
10 Material Safety Data Sheet: COREXIT® 9500, NALCO. Available at:
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/539287/
11 FWW analysis of information in: Environmental Protection Agency.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
Product Schedule. May 3, 2010. Spreadsheet on file with FWW.
12 Kintisch, Eli. “Toxicity Aside, Dispersants Could Undermine Natural Oil-
Eaters.” Science Insider. May 26, 2010.
13 Environmental Protection Agency. National Oil and Hazardous Sub-
stances Pollution Contingency Plan Product Schedule. May 3, 2010.
14 FWW analysis of information in: Environmental Protection Agency.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
Product Schedule. May 3, 2010. Spreadsheet on file with FWW.
15 EPA. May 20, 2010.
16 BP. “Analysis of Sub-surface Dispersant Use,” May 15-20, 2010. Avail-
able at: www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#bpdata
17 DeSantis, John. “Fishermen sickened during oil cleanup.” DailyComet
(Lafourche: Louisiana). May 27, 2010.
18 EPA and U.S. Coast Guard. “Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Di-
rective – Addendum.” May 20, 2010. Available at: www.epa.gov/bpspill/
dispersants.html#bpdata
19 EPA and U.S. Coast Guard. “Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Di-
rective – Addendum.” May 20, 2010. Available at: www.epa.gov/bpspill/
dispersants.html#bpdata
20 Environmental Protection Agency. National Oil and Hazardous Sub-
stances Pollution Contingency Plan Product Schedule. May 3, 2010 at
15.
21 Letter from Douglas J. Suttles to Rear Admiral Mary Landry and Samuel
Coleman. May 20, 2010. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dis-
persants.html
22 EPA. May 22, 2010.
23 Jackon, Lisa P. [Press Statement]. Press conference on Dispersant Use in
the Gulf of Mexico with US Coast Guard Rear Admiral Landry. May
24, 2010.
For more information:
web: www.foodandwaterwatch.org
email: info@fwwatch.org
phone: (202) 683-2500 (DC) • (415) 293-9900 (CA)
Copyright © June 2010 Food & Water Watch