HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA JOE BARTON, TEXAS
CHAIRMAN RANKING MEMBER
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
2125 RAYBURN H0usE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 205′I 5-611 5
Majority (202) 225-2927
Minority (202) 225-3641
May 17, 2010

The Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator
U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson,
I write to request information regarding the use of dispersants to mitigate the effects of the catastrophic release of millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico following the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. While the estimates of the amount of oil released daily has increased significantly since the explosion and remains under question, what is certain is that the inability of BP to quickly stop the leak is leading to an environmental catastrophe, placing fragile ecosystems, wildlife and the region’s economy in peril. The release
of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico could be an unprecedented, large and aggressive experiment on our oceans.

It requires careful oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other appropriate federal agencies. As a measure to mitigate the impact of the oil spill, the EPA recently granted BP authorization to use chemical dispersants, which are a detergent-like brew of solvents, surfactants and other compounds that break down oil into tiny particles that then scatter and sink into the sea. To date, over half a million gallons of dispersants have been used in the Gulf of Mexico. Just two days ago, the EPA and US Coast Guard authorized BP to apply these dispersants at the site of the leak, over one mile below the ocean surface, a practice that has never been authorized before.

The information regarding the chemical composition, efficacy and toxicity of the dispersants currently being used is scarce. Additionally, recent articles (l) have raised questions regarding both the relative safety and efficacy of the dispersant selected for use by BP, suggesting that other Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup,

Greenwire, May 13, 2010, Spills llls Could be Found
Under the Water, Wall Street Joumal (online), May 17, 2010

formulations may have been more suited for use in the Gulf of Mexico. In light of the volume of oil that has spewed into the Gulf of Mexico and the apparent inability of BP to quickly stop its flow, I understand that other mitigating options must be explored in order to keep as much oil as possible from reaching land. However, I am concemed about the risks and consequences, and in order to understand better what actions the EPA is taking in this area, I ask that you respond to the following questions:

l. It is my understanding that the main dispersants applied so far are from a product line called Corexit, some of which had their approval rescinded in Britain more than a decade ago, because laboratory tests found them harmful to sea life that inhabits rocky shores.

a. How did EPA ensure that this dispersant’s toxicity to aquatic life was evaluated?

b. Was its toxicity to mollusks and other sea life that inhabit the Gulf of Mexico coast evaluated, and if so, what were the results? If not, why not?

c. If EPA relied on toxicity studies for coastal morphologies different from that of the Gulf Coast, what was done to evaluate the applicability of those studies for the use of the dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico environment?

d. Was the toxicity to other subsurface aquatic life evaluated? If so, please provide details, and if not, why not?

2. How is EPA tracking the volume of dispersants being used both in both surface and subsurface applications? How does EPA plan to determine whether their use causes harm to the aquatic ecosystem they come into contact with?

3. Is EPA fully aware of all chemical constituents contained within the two formulations of Corexit dispersants currently being used? If so, please provide a list of each such
constituent.

4. Did EPA ensure that tests were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the 18 dispersants it has approved for use? What were the results of the tests?

a. Did EPA rank the dispersants in terms of efficacy (in dispersing the sort of crude oil that is spewing into the Gulf of Mexico) and toxicity (to the sort of aquatic life contained in the Gulf of Mexico), as was asserted by the May 13 2010 article in Greenwire?3

If so, please provide this ranking. If not, why not?
b. Does EPA instruct entities who wish to use dispersants to use the most effective and least toxic dispersants in a particular operation? If so, then did EPA instruct BP to use Corexit? If not, does EPA lack the authority to prescribe the use of specific formulations?

c. Does EPA expect users of dispersants to themselves examine the safety and efficacy data that is applicable to the conditions of intended use and select the least toxic and most effective approved formulation?

2 http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/protecting/pollution/documents/approval_approved_products.pdf

3 Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup, Greenwire, May 13, 2010

d. Please provide copies of all documents, emails and other correspondence related to BP’s use of dispersants in response to the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

5. How do water temperature and pressure effect the degradation of dispersants?

a. Will the fact that the water temperatrue at the Deepwater Horizon leak is just above freezing affect the time it takes for the molecules to be degraded? If so, please elaborate.

b. Have studies been performed to assess the efficacy or toxicity of the compounds at freezing temperatures? What are the results of these studies?

c. How does the high pressure at the depth of the leaking wellhead affect where chemical dispersants and oil molecules spread in the water column? Does high pressure also affect the rate of degradation of oil and chemical molecules, and if so, how?

6. What information has EPA collected about the long-term effects of dispersants accumulating in sediment at the bottom of the ocean floor? Please provide these materials to me. If such information has been collected, then why did EPA approve their use at the ocean floor? What effect could the accumulation of large volumes of dispersants on
the ocean floor have on bottom-feeding organisms such as shrimp?

7. Has EPA determined whether chemical dispersants can accumulate in the tissue of fish and other aquatic life (including plants and un-hatched eggs) in the same or similar animals other toxic materials such as mercury? If so, please provide documentation regarding what accumulations are likely, including materials regarding the implications for human health if the fish are consumed. If not, why not?

8. Did EPA consider a variety of scenarios for the interaction ofthe dispersants with the oil plume when applied at the depth of the Deepwater Horizon leak? If not, why not? Did any scenarios considered include the formation of large underwater plumes at various depths, as appears to have occurred based on a preliminary scientific investigation as reported Sunday?4 If so, please provide all related documents.

How does EPA plan on monitoring the long-tenn effect that these chemical dispersants have on aquatic life in the Gulf of Mexico?

9. Is EPA aware of the ecological impacts of simultaneously using different formulations of dispersants (sic) the mitigation efforts? Does the combination of chemicals change the toxicity or efficacy of the dispersant? If so, please provide documentation.

10. Given the start of the Atlantic hurricane season on June l, did EPA consider the impact of the dispersants on marine life in a rapidly mixed water column should a hurricane develop in the Gulf of Mexico? If so, what did EPA determine? If not, why not?

ll. EPA has stated that although it has approved the use of chemical dispersants on surface and subsurface applications it “reserves the right to halt the use of chemical dispersants at

* Giant Plumes of Oil Forming Under the Gulf] The New York Times, May I6, 2010

any time if new data show more serious environmental harm is occurring.” How is EPA monitoring environmental harm? What metrics or other problems does EPA consider to nbe cause for halting use of chemical dispersants?

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in responding to this request. Should you have any questions, please have your staff contact Dr. Michal Freedhoff of the Subcommittee staff or Dr. Avenel Joseph of my staff at 202-225-2836.

Sincerely,
Edward J. Markey
Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Enviroment

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee

The Honorable Joe Barton
Ranking Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee

The Honorable Fred Upton
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

Free TV : Ustream

Resource:  PBS News Hour – UStream Live Video Feed: 

Hydrogen Sulfide

CAS ID #: 007783-06-4

Hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) occurs naturally in crude petroleum, natural gas, volcanic gases, and hot springs. It can also result from bacterial breakdown of organic matter. It is also produced by human and animal wastes. Bacteria found in your mouth and gastrointestinal tract produce hydrogen sulfide from bacteria decomposing materials that contain vegetable or animal proteins. Hydrogen sulfide can also result from industrial activities, such as food processing, coke ovens, kraft paper mills, tanneries, and petroleum refineries.

Hyrogen sulfide is a flammable, colorless gas with a characteristic odor of rotten eggs. It is commonly known as hydrosulfuric acid, sewer gas, and stink damp. People can smell it at low levels.

These videos are accessible at:  http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam/

Tony Hayward continued to testify on the role of BP in the Gulf of Mexico offshore oil rig explosion and oil spill. Questions from members focused on the scope of the accident, causes of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, BP’s poor safety record over the past several years, the company’s commitment to cleanup efforts, and documents.

Tony Hayward continued to testify on the role of BP in the Gulf of Mexico offshore oil rig explosion and oil spill. Questions from members focused on the scope of the accident, causes of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, BP’s poor safety record over the past several years, the company’s commitment to cleanup efforts, and documents which showed the company had disregarded safety concerns at the oil rig site and had cut corners to save money.

Part I

Part II

Committee members and Tony Hayward made opening statements about the role of BP in the Gulf of Mexico offshore oil rig explosion and oil spill. Members criticized the company and focused on BP documents which showed the company had disregarded safety concerns at the oil rig site and had cut corners to save money. Representative Barton, however, apologized to BP for the White House “shakedown” in which BP agreed to set aside $20 billion for damage claims. In his remarks Mr. Hayward offered his condolences to the families and friends of the 11 people who died in the explosion and apologized to the American people for the incident.

Tony Hayward testified on the role of BP in the Gulf of Mexico offshore oil rig explosion and oil spill. Questions from members focused on the scope of the accident, causes of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, BP’s poor safety record over the past several years, the company’s commitment to cleanup efforts, and documents which Tony Hayward testified on the role of BP in the Gulf of Mexico offshore oil rig explosion and oil spill. Questions from members focused on the scope of the accident, causes of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, BP’s poor safety record over the past several years, the company’s commitment to cleanup efforts, and documents which showed the company had disregarded safety concerns at the oil rig site and had cut corners to save money.

Before the Deepwater Horizon oil crisis in the Gulf of Mexico occurred on  April 20, 2010, the Gulf was already in serious trouble.  According to the Website  Microbial Life  the Gulf is home to one of the planet’s largest ocean “dead zones” — over 6,000 square miles of dead water where fish can’t even survive.

Created by Monica Bruckner, Montana State University

Show description

Hide

The Missisippi River dead zone is overloaded with nutrients from upstream sources. This photo shows the color change between the hypoxic (brown) and oxygen-rich (blue) waters. Photo courtesy of NOAA.

What is the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone?

The Gulf of Mexico dead zone is an area of hypoxic (link to USGS definition) (less than 2 ppm dissolved oxygen) waters at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Its area varies in size, but can cover up to 6,000-7,000 square miles. The zone occurs between the inner and mid-continental shelf in the northern Gulf of Mexico, beginning at the Mississippi River delta and extending westward to the upper Texas coast.

Show description

Hide

The Gulf of Mexico dead zone varies in size annually, but may extend from the Louisiana/Alabama coast to the westernmost Texas coast. Photo courtesy of NOAA.

Where Are the Dead Zones?

Dead zones can be found worldwide (link to NASA dead zone page). The Gulf of Mexico dead zone is one of the largest in the world. Marine dead zones can be found in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, off the coast of Oregon, and in the Chesapeake Bay. Dead zones may also be found in lakes, such as Lake Erie.

What Causes the Dead Zone?

The dead zone is caused by nutrient enrichment from the Mississippi River, particularly nitrogen and phosphorous. Watersheds within the Mississippi River Basin drain much of the United States, from Montana to Pennsylvania and extending southward along the Mississippi River. Most of the nitrogen input comes from major farming states in the Mississippi River Valley, including Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Nitrogen and phosphorous enter the river through upstream runoff of fertilizers, soil erosion, animal wastes, and sewage. In a natural system, these nutrients aren’t significant factors in algae growth because they are depleted in the soil by plants. However, with anthropogenically increased nitrogen and phosphorus input, algae growth is no longer limited. Consequently, algal blooms develop, the food chain is altered, and dissolved oxygen in the area is depleted. The size of the dead zone fluctuates seasonally, as it is exacerbated by farming practices. It is also affected by weather events such as flooding (more info) and hurricanes.

Show description

Hide

Satellite image of the northern Gulf of Mexico/Mississippi Delta showing hypoxic coastal water (light blue). This color change is due to excessive nutrients being washed into the sea. Source: Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC, January 2003.

What Are the Effects?

Nutrient overloading and algal blooms lead to eutrophication (link to USGS definition), which has been shown to reduce benthic (link to definition) biomass and biodiversity. Hypoxic water supports fewer organisms and has been linked to massive fish kills in the Black Sea and Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf of Mexico is a major source area for the seafood industry. The Gulf supplies 72% of U.S. harvested shrimp, 66% of harvested oysters, and 16% of commercial fish (Potash and Phosphate Institutes of the U.S. and Canada, 1999). Consequently, if the hypoxic zone continues or worsens, fishermen and coastal state economies will be greatly impacted.

Show description

When production increases in an ecosystem, organic matter, such as algal cells and fecal pellets, increases. This situation can lead to hypoxia when decaying bottom organic matter depletes oxygen and water stratification blocks oxygen replenishment. Upwelling oxygen-rich water or destruction of the stratification can alleviate this problem. Diagram courtesy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

What Can be Done to Remediate the Problem?

The key to minimizing the Gulf dead zone is to address it at the source. Solutions include:

These solutions are relatively simple to implement and would significantly reduce the input of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Gulf of Mexico. A similar approach has been used successfully in the Great Lakes’ recovery from eutrophication.

The government is also funding efforts to restore wetlands along the Gulf coast to naturally filter the water before it enters the Gulf.

Dead Zone Collections

General Collection Resources such as news articles, web sites, and reference pages provide a comprehensive array of information about dead zones- in the Gulf of Mexico and worldwide!

Advanced Collection: Compiled for professionals and advanced learners, this dead zone collection includes resources such as journal articles, academic reviews, and surveys.

For Educators: This dead zone collection includes activities, assignments, and reading materials created specifically for educators.

Additional Resources