Tags

, , , , , , , ,

BP won’t change dispersant used in oil spill — for now

By the CNN Wire Staff
May 22, 2010 11:07 p.m. EDT

(CNN) — BP plans to continue using a controversial subsea dispersant to break up a plume of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, saying that the leading alternative could pose a risk over the long term, the EPA indicated Saturday.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • EPA says it “will continue to work over the next 48 hours to ensure BP is complying”
  • BP maintains “Corexit was the best and most appropriate choice”

The EPA issued a directive on Thursday, ordering BP to find, within 24 hours, a less toxic but equally effective chemical than its current product, Corexit 9500 — and one that is available in sufficient quantities. The directive also gave the company 72 hours to stop applying it to the undersea gusher.

Corexit has been rated more toxic and less effective than many others on the list of 18 EPA-approved dispersants, according to testimony at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

The EPA released BP’s response to the mandate on Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/22/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1

***

My Note –

What BP is saying is that they are not going to do one thing differently and whatcha gonna do about it? And, they’ve got their Republican guard dogs started attacking anything that might be done to hold BP accountable, as is shown in the video segment that appears on this CNN page.

So, what I’m going to do is start looking up the products, oils, gasoline derivative products, motor oils, diesel and kerosene products made by BP, find the clients of TransOcean, and of Halliburton. Then, I will make a choice to simply buy something else from someone else. As much as it seems that won’t make any difference, I’ll feel better about it and that means something to me.

If I find a plastic product or packaging that has been made with the products that have come from BP = I won’t buy it, I’ll personally embargo every single product that I find which has had any money going to that sorry irresponsible corporate tyrant. And, that is one thing I can definitely do.

And, I’ll let everyone I know understand exactly which products those are that feed the BP revenue streams – and any company that is doing business with the TransOcean and Halliburton groups. I can make a choice. And, one thing I don’t have to do is to continue supporting any of these violent, abrasive, corporate psychotics that care none for the human race, our planet, our nation and our needs.

That is a fact. I don’t have to be a part of feeding that any more, and I won’t be a part of giving any money I have to them. There is a chance that if I have anything to say about it, my family members will stay away from those stocks as well – because there is no sense supporting any company that is that nightmarish and sadistic.

They say, absolute power corrupts absolutely – obviously it has corrupted the bunch who have been running the oil industry and the bunch up in Wall Street without a doubt. It is a shame, too.

And, the one thing that can most assuredly stop them forever is to make gasoline and petroleum based fuel products obsolete. Maybe, I can’t do that yet. But someone can or all of us together can starting today. That is what I vote for – making the use of gasoline and diesel fuels for transportation obsolete right now today and to fix the disaster they have created in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere permanently and positively without regard for what they think we should do about it.

They’ve had their turn. Now is our turn. And, they don’t know why they’re messin’ with – to put it mildly. The American people are something beyond what the oil executives could begin to imagine in their isolated fortresses. We have among us abilities and power – that they don’t even have recorded in the histories they read. So, that’s what I’m going to work on doing. Let’s me and you and our neighbors, and our friends, at every measure combine to make a national effort of explaining it to these companies in the only terms they can understand – that of power, status and money. I wouldn’t want to be them.

– cricketdiane

***

And, by the way – they can be fined for everyday they have been polluting the environment in the Gulf of Mexico. They should have to pay to relocate every family, every town, every school along the Gulf Coast because they have made it genuinely uninhabitable. If you think I’m joking or being outrageous about it – check the information about petroleum on the EPA and OSHA sites, on the NIST and ASTM sites.

There is nothing healthy about petroleum and raw crude oil and the toxic dispersants they’ve been using. There is nothing healthy about the air, the fumes, the toxins they are sending across the coastal cities and towns. There is nothing = not one thing healthy about the particulate matter from the controlled burns and the methane gas burnoffs they have been doing which also is heading across the communities inland.

And, there damn sure isn’t anything healthy that will be along those shores and coastlines with the first storms that come when they come driving it up over whatever is in its path. That is the truth of it. And, I can prove it – you can prove it for yourself – scientists and medical research has already proven it and all of this is well-known, not hidden.


BP should be required to relocate every coastal town and person affected by their spill, be fined for every single day they have dumped petroleum sludge into the Gulf of Mexico and their leases should be subordinated. There isn’t enough money in the whole world that’s worth what they’ve done. They can’t replace one human being they’ve already killed. They can’t restore the health of the people and children they are endangering now. They can’t replace one dolphin or porpoise or turtle or squid or tuna or marsh or coast that they have killed or destroyed already.

They can’t fix what they’ve destroyed in the Gulf Coast waters and they obviously have had over 400 of the best engineers in the petroleum industry and countless experts working 24 hours a day over the past month without being able or willing to do one thing other than what they were already going to do and they continue to say so at every stage of this ongoing nightmare.

Their executives lied under oath to our Congress and Senate. They’ve lied to reporters, journalists, engineers independently studying the problem, to the scientists studying the problem and to the American people – who are their customers. It is our money they are using to drill those wells, it is our money that they are using to pay to clean it up, it is our resources they are harvesting from the Gulf and from Alaska and elsewhere – and they are not the only game in town.

When I saw that the Petroleum Institute, the trade group for the petroleum industry and the Society of Petroleum Engineers didn’t have one thing to say about the biggest oil disaster thus far in the history of mankind – it occurred to me that there is something very wrong with this industry. It was like watching Goldman Sachs man, Blankfein explain to us across America that he was doing God’s work when he shorted the same stocks, mortgage products and mortgage backed securities products while telling their clients to buy them because they were sure to go up in value. And, in the minds of every one of the oil industry people, including their executives and their industry professional and trade organizations – they seem to believe the same thing even while handing out death and destruction every where they go.

These are the same people that wasted countless years refusing to take the lead out of the gasoline so that every American child could play in the dirt next to their driveway with massive amounts of lead in it for several generations. They are the same people who fought against exhaust emissions standards, against electric trolleys and undermined subsidies, programs, tax incentives and funding for every single project involving mass transportation choices from buses to major metropolitan subway systems.

They are also the same people and companies that go up every fifteen minutes on the price of gasoline and diesel fuel at the pumps when the speculators are playing with the oil futures even when those prices don’t drive their industry and then fail to bring the price down for weeks, days, and months after that same barrel price has dropped over half what it was. They are the same people who have robbed every state and the US Department of the Interior absolutely blind with trading virtually nothing for something of profitable value and they are the same ones who have spent trillions of dollars lobbying and having attorneys fight against any single increase in safety or reasonable requirement instead of spending the thousands of dollars it would take to just do them.

And, they are the same people who still put chemicals into our air from the exhaust emissions of their products which make our children ill, our air unhealthy to take a walk almost anywhere in any city in America, and who have given us a list of cancers which all of us are likely to endure in our lifetimes whether we do anything else carcinogenic or not. They have had the ears and minds of our Congressional members, they have been running our Senate, they have run the stock market straight to hell on more than one occasion, they have manipulated, lied, connived and stolen from our country and every single nation on earth.

They have killed and maimed without regard for human life, nor for the people in their employ, nor for the people in the communities surrounding their operations. In the history of our nation, and in the history of the world – there have been very few as sadistic and as arrogant as these petroleum insiders and their corporate activities. And, the Republicans who are running bird dog for them, attacking at their demand and enjoying that special relationship with them are a kind of evil that there is a name to describe.

There was note on the tv news one day, when the investigative hearings about the stock market debacle were happening, about the plays in the stock markets being made by the Senators and Congressional members. I didn’t ever think about that they could be owners and shareholders with something to gain or lose personally from holding these instruments or playing them with shorts or whatever other strategies they or their brokers and financial managers might choose.

But, I do know that somewhere there is a trail of paperwork that expresses what each one of our elected representatives own and exactly what every one of our agency members own in stocks, bonds, portfolios, derivative products, treasury notes, oil industry stocks, bonds and whatever else. Somewhere there is a record of it and whether I can find it or not – somebody can and somebody definitely will – as well as listing every leased property or sale of property that was purchased from a Senator or Congressman by the oil industry, etc.

Those things will be found, I don’t doubt that at all. What I do doubt is that any of it makes any difference to any of them. That is why the Republican jackass was on the CNN tape I watched a few minutes ago representing the interests of the oil companies and attacking any idea of a commission to understand the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico that is unfolding before us. He is untouchable.

The BP shareholders, executives and board of directors members and their inside supporters in Washington and Wall Street are untouchable. They are unaccountable, not held responsible, and expect to suffer absolutely no personal consequences from their actions and mis-actions, poor decisions and sadistic choices, nor from the lies they’ve told and the damages they have caused. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from continuing to do it the way they have been doing it – in their estimations of it and they know they are untouchable.

I say they are not, but I can see why they would think that way. It has been that way as long as they remember and in the course of the history of their company even from its inception, especially in the case of BP, they have always caused suffering to people and not been held accountable. What would be any different today?

my other note –

cricketdiane, 05-23-10

&

Although I feel so small and insignificant compared to BP – I am reminded that it only takes one mosquito to bring an army to its knees and be its utter undoing.” – cd9

***

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2226640420100523?type=marketsNews

WRAPUP 1-US environment chief to visit Gulf, spill spreads

My Note –

Don’t even think this is a wrap-up no matter what Reuters says – this thing is only just beginning.

– cricketdiane

***

By Matthew Bigg

VENICE, La., May 23 (Reuters) – The top U.S. environmental official was to visit the Gulf Coast on Sunday as energy giant BP Plc (BP.L) scrambled to contain a widening oil spill.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson planned to return to the Gulf to monitor the EPA’s response, while Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was to travel to the BP Command Center in Houston to get an update from the federal science team working on the problem.

The two Cabinet members’ missions underscore the rising political and economic stakes for the Obama administration in dealing with the environmental disaster, which grows worse as oil gushes from a ruptured well on the sea floor.

Salazar was also to address the media the day after U.S. President Barack Obama blamed the spill on “a breakdown of responsibility” at BP. Obama also unveiled a commission to investigate the disaster.

(etc.)

WRAPUP 1-US environment chief to visit Gulf, spill spreads

Sun May 23, 2010 1:19am EDT

* Obama says future offshore drilling depends on safety

* EPA chief to visit Gulf; interior secretary due in Texas

By Matthew Bigg

VENICE, La., May 23 (Reuters) – The top U.S. environmental official was to visit the Gulf Coast on Sunday as energy giant BP Plc (BP.L) scrambled to contain a widening oil spill.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson planned to return to the Gulf to monitor the EPA’s response, while Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was to travel to the BP Command Center in Houston to get an update from the federal science team working on the problem.

The two Cabinet members’ missions underscore the rising political and economic stakes for the Obama administration in dealing with the environmental disaster, which grows worse as oil gushes from a ruptured well on the sea floor.

Salazar was also to address the media the day after U.S. President Barack Obama blamed the spill on “a breakdown of responsibility” at BP. Obama also unveiled a commission to investigate the disaster.

TAKE A LOOK on the spill [ID:nSPILL]

INSIDER TV: link.reuters.com/wuw64k

Graphic: link.reuters.com/ken64k

While also promising to hold Washington accountable for proper oversight of the industry, Obama ramped up pressure on companies linked to the spill: BP, Halliburton (HAL.N) and Transocean Ltd (RIG.N)

“First and foremost, what led to this disaster was a breakdown of responsibility on the part of BP and perhaps others, including Transocean and Halliburton,” Obama said in his toughest remarks yet on companies linked to the spill.

“And we will continue to hold the relevant companies accountable,” he said.

( . . . )

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2226640420100523?type=marketsNews

My Note –

We have had “assurances” from the oil industry along every path they’ve taken to tell us it is safe. The problem is – they were obviously lying about the real facts and the real risks and the real liabilities. Out of 4,000 oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico and the 30,000 oil wells operating in the United States and in our offshore waters – all it takes is one to be an ecological and human disaster of the scale unequaled by any other disaster and longer ranging than any other disaster in the history of man.

Those assurances are not enough anymore. We have the results of those assurances in the Gulf of Mexico right now. And, I still want to know who those BP executives answer to that are more powerful to them and more frightening to them than the power of our Congress that they felt obligated and free to tell lies and half-truths, to be evasive and intentionally misleading, to show contempt for and to break their oath when they testified about the oil spill. I want to know who holds such strings of power in these men’s lives that they would risk going to jail and being personally fined for doing so?

I guess the Rio Tinto executives had to learn it the hard way – I guess the BP, TransOcean and Halliburton group of executives will have to learn it the same way. There is a question of who holds that much sway and power over these men, though. Maybe they thought it was alright to lie to the American people, but they lied to the regulating agencies of our government, to Congress and to the Senate along with countless fairy tales they told the press and the international communities.

And, I was thinking about that playbook of what to do when a corporate disaster happens or in this case, when an explosion and oil leak involving the company’s products and actions creates a disaster – are the plays used by Exxon during the Prince William Sound disaster being taught as the model way to handle these events? Are the methods of cleanup known to not work very well, the only ones on their menu because they have never intended to do even one thing any differently. Which, I would say wouldn’t have mattered only if there never was a major disaster where those methods had to work and to actually perform as claimed.

Is the Gulf of Mexico, just one big swamp in some remote corner of the world to these oil executives because the entire globe and its finest places are their playgrounds and everyone wherever they go throughout the world treats them with the respect awarded kings while serving them the finest of everything at their whim or call? Is it because every governor, every Senator, every Congressman and Cabinet member gush to meet them as if hearing the words of God uttered from their expertise and inside track on the oil industry providing our nation’s magic facility to move each one in their own little personal transportation device at will? Is that the awesome power they have that makes every leader in the world grovel at their feet and hunger for the goodwill of their corporation?

Hmmmm………..

– cricketdiane, 05-23-10

***

Well, let’s see.

http://www.epa.gov/

May 22, 2010

EPA mulls barring BP from government contracts

Environmental Protection Agency officials are debating whether to stop British Petroleum from receiving government contracts, ProPublica reports.

The energy giant paid tens of millions of dollars in fines during the past 10 years and has been implicated in four instances of criminal misconduct, according to ProPublica.

(etc.)

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/epa-weighs-barring-bp-from-getting-government-contracts/1

My Note –

Aside from the other products, including chemical products I’m not going to buy if they are in any way using anything from BP, I’m thinking about the ads they run in various journals, publications, magazines, cable stations and on specific programs on tv and I think I’ll just stop buying any of those places that advertise this company as well. That will make me feel better too. If I don’t put up with it personally, I’ll just feel better so that’s one thing I am going to make a conscious effort to do. When I see an advertisement for BP on a show – I’ll make a note, change the channel and simply stop watching that program anymore. I can do that. And, every magazine, journal, website, or other media outlet where I see their ads – I’ll make sure and keep those sources out of anything I write, out of anything I suggest anyone else check out and make sure to make a note of it and never go to that site or that journal again.

That I can do, along with encouraging anyone I am with to get their gasoline somewhere else and let anyone and everyone know where the different products have received part of their raw stock from BP or their partners. And, I am definitely not only never buying their stock nor supporting their stocks in anything I encourage anyone to do, I am also going to make sure and let people know that they have stocks from BP in their portfolios, pension funds, pension plans or anywhere else I find them and I will find them. If those account managers invest my family’s money in BP, they are going to hear about it and change it to something else. There is no sense in an organization as big as BP and as rich being as shitty as they have been.

I would hope that our government contracts do not go to BP or any of the products their rawstock has been used to create. There are other things just as good, if not better and there is no reason any of our national dollars needs to go to them anymore. In fact, when I find the subsidies and tax incentives they have been getting in every state where they operate and from every agency and department of our Federal government, I am going to let our Congressional and State leaders know of it, along with Party leadership and State Congressional Legislators. Then, if they do continue giving those incentives to BP, they can be held accountable for it come election time. The base of their electorate have a right to know what kinds of horrendous crap they’re supporting while they are in office. The public has a right to know. We are American citizens and we are the stewards as citizens of the world for this debacle. They aren’t getting away with it anymore and at least in my life, and in my choices, I can do some things about it to stop supporting them.

The other thing that I am going to do is to find the information that explains the health risks of staying in the Gulf Coast states where this spill is generating its fumes and toxins around the seashore and through the air of the cities and towns along our coastal areas. I can take the time to do that and publish it here. If people don’t want to leave from there, I don’t blame them – but it won’t be because they don’t know any better. And, whether people have “accepted” a settlement already from BP or not – they need to get an attorney because that “settlement” isn’t going to be anywhere near enough and BP knows it from their expert previous experiences of doing this to other communities and other people around the world. So, I would say they lied to the people who they conned into accepting those settlements, including by approaching them in a time of ignorance and duress, misleading them and lying to them along with knowingly and intentionally swindling them. It is against the law.

Now, let me see what else I can find.

– cricketdiane

***

I am at the EPA site – I put the terms –

petroleum fumes into their search window on their site and you can follow along if you like

Here is part of what I found –

National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse Natich Data Base Report On State, Local and EPA Air Toxics Activities, Final

1989 Air–Pollution–Research–United States

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000MM2J.txt

***

EPA | Envirofacts | EMCI

04-10-2009 ASPHALT (PETROLEUM) FUMES… ASPHALT FUMES… EMCI ASPHALT (PETROLEUM) FUMES.

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/emci/chemref/8052424.html (HTML)

***

NATICH Database Report On State, Local, And EPA Air Toxics Activities

1992Air pollution; Toxic substances; Research projects; National government; Local government; State government; Chemical compounds; Pollution regulations; Risk assessment; Public health; Exposure; Toxicity; Air pollution standards; Permits; Air pollution sources; Listings; Data bases; National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000H35H.txt

***

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Section 313: Guidance for Petroleum Bulk Storage Facilities, Version 1.0
1997 Waste minimization ; Pollution prevention ; Petroleum industry and trade

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=20001D4L.txt

***

My Note –

I had put a search into my other computer while I was doing this and that using these terms – (in Google)

petroleum health

and among the entries, I found this one

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs123.html

and on the underlined link in the text – I clicked on this –

Toxicological Profile for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)

which took me to this page with the information about the toxins and poisonous fumes present in petroleum –

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123.html

note – I’m watching the NatGeo show about J.Edgar Hoover and his secret files – pretty amazing how totally beyond the law the FBI was and maybe, still is – I don’t know. It is pretty bizarre stuff though on this show and every bit of it true. They didn’t care.

It said that Hoover had gained a reputation as a bully – gee, maybe its always been that way. A blackmailer as the top of the FBI doing domestic surveillance and espionage. Figures.

– cricketdiane

Anyway, here is the information from the cdc site and then I’ll find the ones in the EPA group, if I have to go find my own dos about it. Those are on both my computers and shouldn’t be as hard to find as the EPA search is to use. By the way, most of the time, I don’t use the onsite windows for searches on American government agency sites anyway – because they are notoriously difficult to get pertinent and appropriate results. I don’t know why that is, but I noticed it one time when looking up dams and flood control levees on the GAO site among a number of other agency sites. It was impossible so I started using Google searches instead to find the same things. Occasionally, I get a good search on the website’s internal search window, but not commonly.

Here is the document with some of it  –

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c2.pdf

Keep in mind that throughout this document and likely elsewhere that you might want to find this information – on the CDC, the Department of the Interior, the EPA and possibly some other locations – the documents and information are possibly found with this – (TPH) which stands for TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS –

I don’t think it is like that on the OSHA sites, the ASTM and the NIST sites.

– cricketdiane

***

So, from this page – (keeping in mind that everywhere it says TPH it means Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons which I may write out.)

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c2.pdf
Despite the large number of hydrocarbons found in petroleum products and the widespread nature of petroleum use and contamination, only a relatively small number of the compounds are well characterized for toxicity. The health effects of some fractions can be well characterized, based on their components or representative compounds (e.g., light aromatic fraction BTEX-benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes). However, heavier (TPH) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon fractions have far fewer well characterized compounds.
Systemic and carcinogenic effects are known to be associated with petroleum hydrocarbons, but ATSDR does not
develop health guidance values for carcinogenic end points (ATSDR 1996b). See Chapter 6 for further discussion of the ATSDR approaches and the approaches of other groups (MADEP, TPHCWG, and ASTM).

***

My Note –

From the last paragraph, believe it or not. Apparently there is another discussion elsewhere because I found it when the previous documents I made from about five years ago and three years ago were made. I might have to just go find them.

Here is another one –

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c5.pdf

(TPH) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon has been identified in 34 of the 1,519 current or former EPA National Priorities List (NPL) hazardous waste sites (ATSDR 1998a).

My note –

This seems odd now doesn’t it –

“Raw petroleum and refined petroleum products used as fuels or lubricants are generally excluded at the national level from the cradle-to-grave record-keeping associated with recognized toxics such as heavy metals or chlorinated solvents.”

“With an eye to the availability of petroleum as a source of energy, petroleum production is tracked by the federal government as well as industry trade associations. Statistics are available for wellhead production as well as for production of major bulk fuel types from domestic refineries. These primary production statistics have been summarized in Chapter 4.”

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c5.pdf

The movement of raw petroleum to automobile fuel tanks or fuel oil boilers is part of a complex bulk
product distribution and storage system, providing many opportunities for accidents, spills, leaks, and
losses from simple volatilization. Consistent national statistics are lacking for many stages in the
overall oil distribution and storage system. The main exceptions involve larger leaks and spills,
especially spills in coastal areas or on larger navigable rivers.
Data for the period from 1984 through 1993 (API 1996) show that most data reported to the U.S.
Coast Guard occurred in inland bodies of water: rivers, lakes, and points on bays or estuaries. Spills
from large ocean-going tankers and large spills in general (more than 1,000 gallons) are relatively

infrequent, never more than 5% of the total number of reported spills in a year. The average number
of spills during the 1984-93 period was just under 6,000 spills. The numbers in any given year can
vary enormously, with a maximum of just under 9,600 spills reported in 1991.

pp. 59 – 60

***

Within the broad reporting categories of vessels (tankers and barges) and facilities (pipelines, tanks
batteries, and other onshore facilities) in the period 1984-1993, numbers of reported spill incidents
were roughly equivalent: 42,000 incidents from vessels and 38,000 from facilities. Over this period,
the vessels spilled a much larger cumulative amount of oil: 45 million gallons from vessels versus
15 million gallons for facilities. Major incidents can dominate these totals. Two vessel spills account
for around one-third of the vessel totals.

At the national level, virtually the only other regulatory program that provides broad-based statistics on petroleum product releases to the environment is EPA’s (leaking) Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program. In 1994, there were over a million underground storage tanks on more than 300,000 identified UST sites; about 91% of these involve tanks at gasoline stations, truck stops, vehicle repair shops, or convenience stores selling gasoline or diesel fuel (EPA 1998c). There were at least 119,000 confirmed instances of underground releases of gasoline or similar petroleum bulk fuels to soils or groundwater, with the total number of sites needing remediation likely to climb to over 176,000 by the turn of the century (EPA 1994a). While tests to confirm contamination may involve (TPH) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons or tests for surrogates of specific chemicals such as benzene, the UST program does not attempt to make detailed estimates of releases to environmental media.

pp. 60 and 65

(my note, Table  5 – 4 is a good one – )

I’m printing it off my other computer so I can type it in here.

– cricketdiane

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c5.pdf

***

EPA Chemical Profiles – 1988 document –

Introductory Information and Full Profiles

The Emergency Planning And Community Right To Know Act Of 1986 Extremely Hazardous Substances Listed Under Title 3 Section 302 Chemical Profiles

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20015W4I.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1986%20Thru%201990&Docs=&Query=740R88101%20petroleum%20fumes&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=3&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=pubnumber^%22740R88101%22&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=pubnumber&IntQFieldOp=1&ExtQFieldOp=1&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A\ZYFILES\INDEX%20DATA\86THRU90\TXT0000015\20015W4I.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h|-&MaximumDocuments=10&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p|f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=3

A profile is provided for each chemical on the list of extremely hazardous substances. Profiles are presented in ascending order of Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry numbers. ( . . . )

The CAS number was used to search the automated Toxicology Data Base (TDB) or Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) from the National Library of Medicine (NLM). If available, TDB/HSDB files were retrieved. Approximately 65 percent of the chemicals were listed in the TDB/HSDB files. For these chemicals, the TDB/HSDB files provided the main source of information for the profiles.

All data obtained from the TDB/HSDB were indicated by an asterisk (*) followed by a reference to the TDB/HSDB citation, (e.g., (*Merck 1976). For those chemicals without a TDB/HSDB file, a limited number of standard reference materials were searched. Such references are cited by author, year, and page number. A master list of references, including the secondary references cited in TDB/HSDB, has been prepared and may be found in the Reference Section of this document. The abbreviations used in the profiles have been defined in a master list and may be found in the Abbreviation Section. Medical terms not commonly used have been included in a Glossary Section. Dorland’s Medical Dictionary (1974) was used to provide most of the definitions in the Glossary.

If information was not available for a specific compound but the chemical could be categorized, then general information about the chemical category was included. Such information is indicated, for example, by the notation “Non-Specific   – – Oranophosphorus Pesticide” or “Non-Specific Poisonous solid, n.o.s.”.

pp. 4

Chemical Toxicology Profiles - EPA document - 1988 - pp. 5

Chemical Toxicology Profiles - EPA document - 1988 - pp. 5

The Emergency Planning And Community Right To Know Act Of 1986 Extremely Hazardous Substances Listed Under Title 3 Section 302 Chemical Profiles -  EPA - 1988 - pp. 6

The Emergency Planning And Community Right To Know Act Of 1986 Extremely Hazardous Substances Listed Under Title 3 Section 302 Chemical Profiles - EPA - 1988 - pp. 6 of 1804 pages


The Emergency Planning And Community Right To Know Act Of 1986 Extremely Hazardous Substances Listed Under Title 3 Section 302 Chemical Profiles

***

Doyle (1994) estimates the total amount of leakage or spillage related to petroleum product
production, processing, and distribution to end users at around 134 million barrels per year (see
Table 5-5); different estimation approaches could lead to slightly different total figures.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c5.pdf

***

from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and from the news about it –

A band of oil runs the entire 7-mile length of the beach. A mile away, connected by two passes, is an unprotected state marine sanctuary, Strassmann reports.

Oil now stains 53 miles of coastal Louisiana, and more hits land every day.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/21/national/main6506986.shtml

***

“As we’ve reported, Corexit was also used after the Exxon Valdez disaster [8] and was later linked with human health problems including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. One of the two Corexit products also contains a compound that, in high doses, is associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems [9].”

http://www.propublica.org/ion/blog/item/In-Gulf-Spill-BP-Using-Dispersants-Banned-in-UK

My Note –

And that’s because for some reason BP, other oil industry companies, the EPA, the Unified Command, the physicians, the environmental scientists and the oil company executives believe that people along the Gulf Coast, the specialists in the area, the response teams in the area, the future swimmers in the Gulf Coast waters, the fish and marine animals, birds and people on the oil rigs and boats and that might ever be tourists in these areas, deserve to endure headaches, vomiting, and reproductive problems, liver damage, kidney damage, blood disorders, nervous system disorders and respiratory damage.

– cricketdiane

***

Oil as thick as ‘chocolate syrup’

While we were out there, my nose and the back of my throat began to burn as I inhaled the putrid-smelling air.
–Eileen Romero, a CNN iReporter touring Louisiana’s Chandeleur Islands on Tuesday

http://us.cnn.com/2010/US/05/19/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=Sbin

***

“Everything that that blanket of oil has covered today will die,” parish President Billy Nungesser said.

“Imagine [this oil] on top of a turtle or on top of a frog,” he said as he held a stalk of reed that coated his hands in oil.

http://us.cnn.com/2010/US/05/19/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=Sbin

***

For surface water, the relatively low density of many petroleum fractions can pose some major short term concerns, especially for fish and wildlife. Many petroleum fractions float in water and form thin surface films (Jordan and Payne 1980; Mackay 1984).

Gasoline, diesel, or other common fuel oils when spilled to water quickly spread out into a film 0.1 millimeter or less in thickness. This means that a very small amount of oil can create a film over a very large area of water surface.

While natural physical and biological weathering processes will dissipate or degrade such oil slicks in time frames ranging from days to a few weeks, there is considerable short-term opportunity for damage to water fowl, aquatic mammals, fish, and other aquatic organisms.

For inland waters, large oil spills may force shutdowns in surface water withdrawals for public drinking water supplies until the surface slicks have dissipated (Clark et al. 1990).

Where the spilled petroleum washes up onto beaches or shorelines, there may be short-term damage to fish and wildlife as well as impacts to recreational use of shoreline or riparian areas for human swimming or fishing.

Some heavier petroleum fractions, including the chemicals called PAHs found in motor oils or as byproducts of combustion, show neutral buoyancy or may be heavier than water. Such components can accumulate in substrates.

This can lead to stresses for benthic organisms, shellfish, or bottom feeding fish. PAHs or “tarballs” formed when lighter oil fractions combine with suspended sediment or algae can have a serious impact on a water body’s use for commercial fishing or shellfishing and its value for recreational swimming or sports fishing.

(pp. 67)

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c5.pdf

Since petroleum products are complex mixtures of hundreds of compounds, the compounds characterized by relatively high vapor pressures tend to volatilize and enter the vapor phase. The exact composition of these vapors depends on the composition of the original product. Using gasoline as an example, compounds such as butane, propane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene are preferentially volatilized (Bauman 1988).

Because volatility represents transfer of the compound from the product or liquid phase to the air phase, it is expected that the concentration of that compound in the product or liquid phase will decrease as the concentration in the air phase increases.

Since petroleum products are complex mixtures of hundreds of compounds, the compounds characterized by relatively high vapor pressures tend to volatilize and enter the vapor phase. The exact composition of these vapors depends on the composition of the original product. Using gasoline as an example, compounds such as butane, propane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene are preferentially volatilized (Bauman 1988).

Because volatility represents transfer of the compound from the product or liquid phase to the air phase, it is expected that the concentration of that compound in the product or liquid phase will decrease as the concentration in the air phase increases.
In general, compounds having a vapor pressure in excess of 10-2 mm Hg are more likely to be present in the air phase than in the liquid phase. Compounds characterized by vapor pressures less than 10-7 mm Hg are more likely to be associated with the liquid phase. Compounds possessing vapor pressures that are less than 10-2 mm Hg, but greater than 10-7 mm Hg, will have a tendency to exist in both the air and the liquid phases (Knox 1993).

Although volatility is a function of vapor pressure, environmental factors affect the rate of volatilization. For example, high summer temperatures  enhance volatilization, particularly when soils begin to dry out. The rate of volatilization is also a function of air and soil temperature, humidity, wind speed, soil type, moisture content, oil composition, solar radiation, and thickness of the oil layer.

Volatilization of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene from gasoline contaminated soils tends to increase with decreasing moisture content (Frankenberger 1992). Bossert and Bartha (1986) indicated that n-alkanes greater than C18 exhibit no substantial volatilization at ambient temperatures; however, lighter fractions (<C18) are subject to volatilization.

The propensity for a compound to volatilize from an aqueous phase can be grossly estimated using Henry’s law, which relates vapor pressure, solubility, and molecular weight. Henry’s law constant can be estimated using these three chemical-specific parameters or it can be measured on a compound by-compound basis in the laboratory. Henry’s law constant is frequently used to assess the environmental fate of organic compounds in the subsurface. Solubility. Solubility is one of the key factors in determining compound behavior, and thus the impact, of a chemical in the environment. Solubility is expressed in terms of the number of milligrams of pure chemical that can be dissolved in one liter of water under standard conditions of 25 ºC and one atmosphere of pressure. The solubility of an organic compound determines its propensity to dissolve into water. The greater the solubility, the greater the likelihood that the chemical will dissolve into infiltrating rainwater or groundwater and migrate away from the release area.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c5.pdf

correct interpretation of data for such media as surface water, soils, or groundwater. Petroleum site contaminants, especially the types of bulk fuel products and lubricants that are the focus of this profile, are usually encountered as liquids or semi-liquid sludges. The site contaminants almost always originate as mixtures of many different hydrocarbons typical of such initial products as motor gasoline, jet fuels, or fuel oils. Frequently, there are portions of a waste site where soils or sub-soil materials have accumulated large masses of petroleum contaminants that form nonaqueous liquid systems.

The term nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPL) is often applied to such areas of heavy contamination. NAPLs propagate plumes moving away from the central mass. The NAPL complex, consisting of the central mass and plumes, usually reaches an equilibrium due to a combination of physical, chemical, and biochemical processes. TPH chemicals move into the actual soil or groundwater media from the edge of the NAPL plumes.

pp. 84

(and the page before Figure 5-2 which shows a flow chart for Risk Based Corrective Action Process Flow Chart)

Food Chain Bioaccumulation. Studies of the accidental and intentional release of gasoline and fuel oils to the aquatic environment indicate that aquatic organisms are able to bioaccumulate some TPH fractions, particularly PAHs (Air Force 1989; Farrington et al. 1982); however, depuration does occur if the source of the contamination is removed (Cox et al. 1975; Williams et al. I989). In general, the lower molecular weight aliphatics and aromatics do not bioaccumulate (Air Force 1989).

Further studies are needed to determine the biomagnification potential of the TPH fractions, particularly PAHs, up the food chain within aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Specific research needs are presented in the individual ATSDR toxicological profiles on specific hydrocarbon components such as benzene, toluene, total xylenes, and PAHs (ATSDR 1994, 1995d, 1995f, 1997a).

Research on the biomagnification of various petroleum products (e.g., gasoline, fuel oil) would not be useful because the composition of these mixtures changes rapidly in the environment. Individual chemicals present in the original mixture may bioaccumulate, but the mixture does not.

pp. 89 – 90

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c5.pdf

***

My Note –

And finally –

Exposure Levels in Humans. Workers who use petroleum products in manufacturing and those involved in their transfer may experience increased dermal and inhalation exposures to TPH.

Workers in the petroleum refining industry, particularly those involved with monitoring and servicing unit equipment, are known to have increased exposure to TPH (Runion 1988). Reliable monitoring data for levels of TPH in contaminated media could be used in combination with biomarkers to identify TPH exposure and assess the potential risk of adverse health effects in populations living near contaminated areas. This information is necessary for assessing the need to conduct health studies on these populations.

Exposure Registries. No exposure registries for TPH or petroleum products were located. This substance is not currently one of the compounds for which a subregistry has been established in the National Exposure Registry. The substance will be considered in the future when chemical selection is made for subregistries to be established. The information that is amassed in the National Exposure Registry facilitates the epidemiological research needed to assess adverse health outcomes that may be related to exposure to this substance. A registry does exist for benzene, a component of TPH.

More information on the benzene exposure registry can be found in the ATSDR toxicological profile for benzene (ATSDR 1997a).

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c5.pdf

***

530UST88004
Oh No! Petroleum Leaks And Spills What Do You Do? {UST #73}
1988 26 Pages
510Z92005
Federal Register: August 14, 1992, Part 4. 40 CFR Part 261. Deferral of Petroleum UST-Contaminated Media and Debris from RCRA Hazardous Waste Requirements: Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule (UST #121)
1992 3 Pages
530F92023
Temporary Suspension of the Toxicity Characteristic in Non-UST Petroleum-Product Cleanups Proposed
1992 2 Pages

***

YYYYYYYY

http://www.astm.org/

ASTM Committees Develop Standards for Oil Spill Response and Cleanup

ASTM Committees Develop Standards for Oil Spill Response and Cleanup

Two ASTM International technical committees are responsible for standards that are relevant to the oil spill cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico. ASTM International Committee F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Response develops and maintains standards for the performance, durability, and strength of systems and techniques that are used for oil spill response activities around the world. In addition to standards, F20 publishes Manual 34, Oil Spill Response Performance Review of Skimmers. And Committee E47 on Biological Effects and Environmental Fate develops standards focusing on the effects of physical and chemical stress on plants and animals. E47 also publishes STP 1219, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. More.

http://www.astm.org/

***

From –

Nature of Oil Spill by Material or Product 1984 - 1995

Nature of Oil Spill by Material or Product 1984 - 1995

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c5.pdf

***

Doug Suttles, the (BP) oil company’s chief operating officer, said that a tube inserted into a leaking pipe on the sea floor had captured 2,200 barrels of oil and 15 million cubic feet of natural gas in 24 hours. BP said Thursday that it was collecting 5,000 barrels a day, but Suttles said that rate was achieved only for short periods of time. He added that surges of gas meant that the mile-long tube, which is connected to a ship, was at times bringing up no oil.

“We’ve never said it produced 5,000 barrels a day. . . . I apologize if for some reason you’ve heard it that way,” Suttles said. “Yes, at some points in time, we’ve had rates as high as 5,000, but the average in the last day was 2,200.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052102403.html

(also from this story)

U.S. Coast Guard Capt. Edwin M. Stanton — who oversees the New Orleans area — admitted in Chauvin that he had not pushed BP hard enough, and that the oil company had moved too slowly in bringing floating “containment boom” to areas threatened by oil.

***

Petroleum distillates (naphtha)

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0492.html

Exposure Routes
inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact

Symptoms
irritation eyes, nose, throat; dizziness, drowsiness, headache, nausea; dry cracked skin; chemical pneumonitis (aspiration liquid)

Target Organs
Eyes, skin, respiratory system, central nervous system

***

Asphalt fumes

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0042.html

Exposure Routes
inhalation, skin absorption, skin and/or eye contact

Symptoms
irritation eyes, respiratory system; [potential occupational carcinogen]

Target Organs
Eyes, respiratory system

Cancer Site
[in animals: skin tumors]

***

Found in this list on this page –

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHA/HCPHA.asp?State=LA

(from)

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha//AndersonIslandSite/AndersonIsland%20LHC%206-17-2008.pdf

Site Description and History

The Anderson Island (AI) site consists of approximately two hundred sixty acres and is located within the city limits of Shreveport, Louisiana (appendix A, map1). Texaco operated the Texaco Inc., Shreveport Works topping plant and tank farm at Anderson Island from approximately 1911 to 1939.

The topping plant distilled fuels such as gasoline, kerosene, and diesel from crude oil. The portion of the crude remaining after extracting the fuels was shipped to another facility in Texas by pipeline.

Petroleum and petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel were transported to and from the site by rail and pipeline. Texaco dismantled the topping plant in 1940 and sold the property in 1941.

Texaco leased thirty acres of the site and continued operating the pipeline until 1945. The property owners began residential development of the property in the early 1950’s, which was essentially complete by 1980 [1].

Current land use of the AI site includes residential neighborhoods, a park, and commercial properties such as shopping centers and office complexes.

The site is bounded on the north, northwest, and southwest by six bayou segments. Measured during the July 2005 sampling event, each of the six bayous ranged from approximately 500 to 4100 feet in length and from 2.8 to six feet deep [2].

The bayous are numbered by LDEQ from 1 to 6, with number 1 being the southernmost bayou segment, and each successive number proceeding clockwise to circumscribe the site, culminating with number 6 being the bayou segment at the northeast limit of the site.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha//AndersonIslandSite/AndersonIsland%20LHC%206-17-2008.pdf

Sediment Phase I & II Investigation

A sediment Phase I Investigation (SPI) was conducted by LDEQ in July 2005 in order to evaluate site conditions in the bayou sediments and surface waters surrounding the Anderson Island site. Bayou sediments were sampled from 26 locations in bayous 1-6, and a total of six surface water samples were collected, one from each of the bayous (appendix A, map 2). All samples were analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), metals, and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Five of the sediment sample concentrations of SVOCs, specifically PAHs from bayous 1, 2 and 6 exceeded the LDEQ Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP) sediment standards.

In August 2006, LDEQ conducted a sediment Phase II Investigation (SPII), collecting an additional 11 sediment samples from three of the six bayous (1, 2, and 6) surrounding the AI site (appendix A, map 3). Samples were collected from these bayous to further evaluate PAH concentrations at these locations. Samples were submitted to the laboratory for SVOCs analysis including PAHs. Ten of the sediment sample concentrations of PAHs from bayous 1, 2 and 6 exceeded RECAP.

In August 2007, SEET completed an evaluation of the SPI and SPII data [3]. The summary results are available in the appendix, B-1.
From August 16-22, 2007, LDEQ contractors conducted a Sediment Phase II Addendum (SPIIA), collecting 25 fish tissue samples (using rod/reel and trot lines) from largemouth bass, yellow bullhead catfish and channel catfish located in bayous 1 and 2 where PAH sediment concentrations exceeded the RECAP in SPII (appendix A, map 4). In bayou 6, PAH concentrations in sediment also exceeded the RECAP in SPII, however bayou 6 was observed as being too shallow to support a fish population that would grow to sizes that humans would consume, and therefore was excluded from the SPIIA [4].

Upon collection of the samples, individual fish were weighed, retaining those with a weight of at least 0.5 pounds for representativeness of specimens likely to be potentially consumed by humans. Those fish were filleted in the field, with two fillets from each fish packed together in a plastic bag and preserved on ice for transport to the lab. The fish tissue samples were analyzed for SVOCs by US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method SW8468270 [4]. The SPII determined concentrations of specific SVOCs as constituents of concern, and therefore the SPIIA workplan was limited to analysis of the following SVOCs/PAHs by bayou:


Bayou 1:


Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P)

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Bayou 2:

Benzo(a)anthracene

B(a)P

With the exception of B(a)P and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, all of the PAH concentrations in bass and catfish from bayou 1 were below the laboratory detection limit of 0.67 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg). B(a)P was detected in nine of the eleven samples collected from bayou 1, while indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene was detected in two of the eleven (appendix B-2). Benzo(a)anthracene and B(a)P were not detected in any of the samples collected from Bayou 2.

Exposure Pathways
SEET evaluated the factors that lead to exposure in order to determine whether an individual would be exposed to PAHs detected in fish from bayou 1 at the AI site. During SEET’s evaluation of SPI and SPII sediment data in August 2007, it was concluded that the City of Shreveport Ordinance Number 148, Section 62-59, Swimming and Wading in Bayou Pierre and Old River provides legal controls to minimize the potential for exposure to the bayous at the AI site. The City of Shreveport interprets the Ordinance to prohibit swimming and wading in all of the bayous at the AI site [4].

Furthermore, as per LDEQ, there has been no current or historical evidence or observation of swimming and/or fishing in any of the bayous, as they are generally unsuitable for recreational activities. The water surface is often covered by a thick layer of algae or other aquatic vegetation and the bed of the bayou is a thick, mucky consistency, which moves and is unstable under the weight of a person. The bayous typically contain trash and debris that make it dangerous and unappealing for wading [4]; which poses a physical hazard to anyone who may enter the bayou(s).

Public Health Implications
In spite of the lack of exposure, SEET estimated the risk of adverse health effects if the public were exposed to PAHs in fish from bayou 1 at the AI site. In the evaluation of PAHs detected in bayou 1, toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) (EPA 1993a; Nisbet and LaGoy 1992) were used to weight each PAH’s toxicity relative to the toxicity of B(a)P [5]. The TEF of B(a)P is set to 1.

Multiplying the concentration of each PAH by its respective TEF produces a toxicity equivalence quotient (TEQ). Where applicable, the total TEQ at each sample location was used in this data evaluation. Furthermore, according to SEET’s current approach to evaluating fish, concentrations of contaminants which were below the method detection limit were assigned a value of zero if more than half of the samples were below the detection limit, otherwise they were assigned a value of one-half the detection limit. Due to the detection limit protocol for fish, the TEQ approach was applicable to bayou 1 catfish samples 1 and 5 only (appendix B, B-3, 4).

Because B(a)P is a probable human carcinogen, SEET calculated a lifetime excess cancer risk (LECR) for adults related to exposure to B(a)P TEQ in fish collected from bayou 1 at the AI site. This LECR is based on daily exposure during a 70 year lifetime. The LECR indicates that a worst-case scenario of maximum detected B(a)P concentration in largemouth bass of 0.0013 mg/kg presents a cancer risk of 4.1 E-06, or approximately 4 excess cancers per 1,000,000 people. This is below SEET’s acceptable cancer risk rate of 1 excess cancer per 10,000 people (1 x 10-4).

Furthermore, SEET calculated a LECR for adults using a maximum detected B(a)P concentration in catfish (from bayou 1) of 0.004 mg/kg. Results indicate an estimated cancer risk of 1.2 E-05, which is slightly below SEET’s acceptable cancer risk rate of 1 excess cancer per 10,000 people (1 x 10-4).

Although there has been no evidence of fishing in the bayous, if ingestion of largemouth bass or catfish from bayou 1 at the AI site were to occur, such ingestion poses a low risk to the public. A detailed explanation of the ATSDR/SEET evaluation process and the adult LECR exposure assumptions can be accessed in appendix B.

Child Health Considerations:
In communities faced with air, water, or food contamination, the many physical differences between children and adults demand special emphasis. Children could be at greater risk than adults from certain kinds of exposure to hazardous substances. Children play outdoors and sometimes engage in hand-to-mouth behaviors that increase their exposure potential. Children are shorter than adults; this means they breathe dust, soil, and vapors close to the ground. A child’s lower body weight and higher intake rate results in a greater dose of hazardous substance per unit of body weight. If toxic exposure levels are high enough during critical growth stages, the developing body systems of children can sustain permanent damage. Finally, children are dependent on adults for access to housing, for access to medical care, and for risk identification. Thus adults need as much information as possible to make informed decisions regarding their children’s health.

Due to the probable carcinogenic nature of B(a)P, SEET evaluated the LECR for children, using the same maximum detected B(a)P TEQ concentration (0.004 mg/kg) in catfish collected from bayou 1. The maximum detected concentration of B(a)P was observed at a level below that expected to present an unacceptable cancer risk (3.4 x 10-6). Acceptable risk represents an estimated one excess cancer in 10,000 (1 x 10-4) people exposed for a lifetime of 70 years in duration. If ingestion of fish from bayou 1 from the AI site were to occur, such contact poses a low risk to children. An explanation of the exposure assumptions for the child LECR is available in Appendix B. Furthermore, due to the stated City of Shreveport Ordinance described above deeming it unlawful to swim in the bayous and the knowledge of adherence to the advisory, there should be no exposure pathway between bayou 1 fish and the local population, including children surrounding the AI site.

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS/OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH SECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY
1450 L & A ROAD ▪ METAIRIE, LOUISIANA 70001
PHONE #: 504/219-4586 ▪ FAX #: 504/219-4582 ▪ WWW.DHH.LA.GOV
“AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER”

(etc.)

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha//AndersonIslandSite/AndersonIsland%20LHC%206-17-2008.pdf

***

My Note –

Now, if petroleum and all its parts dissipate and disappear over time, why is it that the chemical signatures of it and its parts were still in the sediments of these areas and in the tissues of fish as well in high concentrations? Hmmmm?

– cricketdiane

***

Apparently the oil industries have being allowed to regulate themselves as they harvest the rich wealth of oil reserves around the world in order to make their business profits – my note – from this article in the Washington Post –

The Associated Press
Thursday, May 20, 2010; 8:58 AM

STOCKHOLM — The U.S. government is not alone in ceding responsibility to the oil industry for the design of key safety features on offshore rigs, a trend coming under scrutiny worldwide following the deadly blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

The shift away from more heavy-handed regulation started about two decades ago and was based on the notion that oil companies best know the risks of offshore operations – and how to minimize them.

But the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20 and another platform incident in the Timor Sea off Australia last year have raised concerns that Big Oil has been given too much leeway to police itself.

( . . . )

Mexico’s state oil monopoly Pemex has struggled with safety issues related to pipelines and a shallow-water platform disaster in 2007 that killed 21 workers. But it has little exposure to the dangers of deep-water drilling because Pemex lacks technology to explore untapped resources in the Gulf of Mexico.

Britain moved away from prescriptive government regulations after a 1988 fire on the Piper Alpha platform in the North Sea killed 167 workers. It also moved oversight of safety for the offshore oil and gas industry from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive, or HSE.

“Our supervisory activity is not to inspect the steel or the hardware. It’s to inspect how the companies inspect themselves,” said Ole-Johan Faret, a spokesman for Norway’s Petroleum Safety Authority.

However, the practice of letting industry select the best safety measures is widespread. The system is referred to as “performance-based” in some countries and “goal-oriented” or “goal-setting” in others.

It comes down to granting flexibility for oil companies to select the best technology and practices to ensure safety on their offshore installations, as long as they meet the regulator’s minimum standards.

“Generally, goal-setting allows you to make improvements as technology develops without having to change the legislation,” said Robert Wine, a spokesman for BP PLC, the company that owns the ruptured well that is releasing millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. “So it makes it a more flexible way of improving standards, improving performance.”

He added that some practices and standards are stricter outside the U.S. For example, Norway requires an acoustic backup system to trigger the blowout preventer remotely with sound pulses if the regular switch fails.

“That’s also true in Brazil and off the east coast of Canada,” Holand said, adding acoustic triggers are not widely used on American rigs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052000834.html

***

My Note –

I did a search on the NIOSH site using the terms total petroleum hydrocarbons – but it was after I was into the site a ways – these are results –

http://www2a.cdc.gov/hhe/result.asp

HHE  Title

1 Health Hazard Evaluation Report, HETA-99-0196-2860, Future Aviation, Inc., Naples, Florida
2 Health hazard evaluation report: HETA-2000-0020-2793, U.S. Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, Arizona
3 Health hazard evaluation report: HETA-2001-0536-2864, crumb-rubber modified asphalt paving: occupational exposures and acute health effects
4 HHE Determination Report No. HHE-76-056-458, Herbert Malarky Roofing Co., Portland, Oregon
5 HHE Determination Report No. HHE-77-056-467, Johns-Manvill Products Corporation, Pittsburg, California
6 HHE Determination Report No. HHE-77-057-460, Johns-Manville Products Corporation, Vernon, California
7 HHE Determination Report No. HHE-79-37-684, Sterling Faucet Company, Sabraton, West Virginia, April 1980
8 HHE Determination, Report No. HHE-79-16-628, Ashland Petroleum Company, 2nd Avenue, Freedom, Pennsylvania
9 HHE Report No. HETA-83-210-1887, Roofing Construction, Houston, Texas
10 HHE Report No. HETA-83-380-1671, Roofing Sites, Dayton, Ohio
11 HHE Report No. HETA-84-044-1441, Rhinehart Tire Farm, Winchester, Virginia
12 HHE Report No. HETA-85-067-1614, Hospital Of The University Of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
13 HHE Report No. HETA-86-132-1780, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Valdez, Alaska
14 HHE report no. HETA-92-180-2246, Ohio State Auditors Office, Sharonville, Ohio
15 HHE Report No. HETA-94-0220-2526, Exxon Company USA, Houston, Texas
16 HHE Report, No. HETA-82-034-1121, McAlpin’s Department Store, Cincinnati, Ohio

<< Back to HHE Program Home Page

(from)

http://www2a.cdc.gov/hhe/result.asp

***

from that list –

HHE Report Information

Link to PDF

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/1986-0132-1780.pdf

HHE Number

HETA-86-132-1780

Title

HHE Report No. HETA-86-132-1780, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Valdez, Alaska

Author

Apol-AG; Singal-M

Abstract

In response to a request from the State of Alaska Department of Labor, a study was made of employee exposure to oil sludge and vapors during oil sludge removal and maintenance activities at the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company’s Ballast Water Treatment Facility (SIC-1311), Valdez, Alaska.

Hydrogen-sulfide (7783064) concentrations were less than 0.1 part per million (ppm) when no one was working in the ballast water tank, and 0.6ppm during work operation. Phenol (108952) concentrations were below 0.01ppm.

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations showed only detectable levels of acenaphthylene (208968), acenaphthene (83329), fluorene (86737), phenanthrene (85018), anthracene (120127), and naphthalene (91203).

Benzene (71432) concentrations in the tank ranged from 4.2 to 5.9mg/m3 with no activity in the tank and from 6.0 to 15.4mg/m3 during work; the proposed benzene standard is 1ppm.

Toluene (108883) concentrations ranged from 3 to 10ppm. Xylene (1330207) concentrations ranged from 9 to 21ppm.

Total hydrocarbons, except benzene, toluene, and xylene, showed concentrations from 371 to 1228mg/m3.

Of eight maintenance workers, five reported headache, dizziness, or nausea when working without a respirator. The authors conclude that workers were potentially exposed to benzene vapors and total hydrocarbon vapors exceeding the evaluation criteria for these substances. The authors recommend the use of respiratory protection measures to reduce exposures during work operations.

Keywords

NIOSH-Author; HETA-86-132-1780; NIOSH-Health-Hazard-Evaluation; NIOSH-Technical-Assistance-Report; Hazards-Confirmed; Region-10; Oil-vapors; Oil-refinery-workers; Petroleum-industry; Petroleum-refineries;

State
AK; OH;

(from)

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/1986-0132-1780.pdf

***

http://www2a.cdc.gov/hhe/select.asp?PjtName=2963&bFlag=0&ID=8

HHE Search Results

HHE Report Information

Link to PDF
HHE Number
HHE-79-16-628
Title
HHE Determination, Report No. HHE-79-16-628, Ashland Petroleum Company, 2nd Avenue, Freedom, Pennsylvania
Author
Chrostek-W
Abstract
Environmental air sampling was performed and nondirect medical questionnaires were administered on March 6 and 7, 1979 at Ashland Petroleum Company, (SIC-1311) Freedom, Pennsylvania to determine if employees were exposed to bauxite (1318167) dust and unknown toxic substances. The evaluation was requested by the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union Local 8-621, for the 15 potentially exposed employees. The benzene (71432) soluble fraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PPAH) measured 0.43 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/cu m) and exceeded the OSHA recommended exposure limit of 0.20mg/cu m in one of four sampling periods. Total dust particulates ranged from 1.1 to 8.5mg/cu m, lead (7439921) was undetectable, and sulfur dioxide (7446095) gas measured 3.1 micrograms/cu m. All were below their respective recommended limits of 15mg/cu m, 50 mg/cu m, and 13mg/cu m. Medical reports of acute, intermittent irritation of the eyes and mucous membranes of the upper respiratory tract, dry skin, occasional headache, sinus congestion, and wheezing with exertion were associated with increased heat and with the burning of certain products that probably contained sulfur dioxide. The authors recommend periodic vacuum cleaning of the burner house, periodic maintenance of the burner and ducts to seal leaks; a program of environmental sampling, preplacement and periodic medical examinations for exposed workers, maintaining medical records on all employees exposed for 1 or more years to sulfur dioxide, and a review of the value of the current preemployment practice of routinely recording lower back radiographs.
Keywords
NIOSH-Author; HHE-79-16-628; NIOSH-Health-Hazard-Evaluation; Region-3; Petroleum-refining; Hazards-Confirmed; Air-sampling; Unions; Medical-screening; Toxic-substances;
State
PA; OH;

***

How the Gulf of Mexico oil spill happened: a graphic presentation

By Times-Picayune Staff

May 07, 2010, 12:37PM

Over two weeks after the catastrophic explosion and fire that killed 11 workers and caused the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, details are beginning to emerge about what went wrong. This diagram helps explain what was supposed to happen, and what failed.

http://media.nola.com/news_impact/other/oil-cause-050710.pdf

(from)

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/how_the_gulf_of_mexico_oil_spi.html

***

my note –

this is the best one –

cricketdiane

***

Oil disaster brought to you by deregulation: Bob Marshall

By Bob Marshall, The Times-Picayune

May 23, 2010, 6:05AM

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/oil_disaster_brought_to_you_by.html

Watching our politicians and listening to oil industry voices during BP’s mugging of our coastal ecosystem has me repeatedly thinking of two things:

Horses out of barns, and the planet Mars.

Oil Reaches South LouisianaThe first thought is prompted by the endless parade of Louisiana politicos who can’t seem to get enough face time lately showing their concern for the potentially horrendous harm oil poses to our coastal wetlands, all the while stressing how important that habitat is to our economy, culture and future. . . .

Well, if they’re serious about that accounting, they can start by looking in the mirror.

( . . . )

I’m talking about the fervor for deregulation, the movement to eliminate federal laws that protect people and the environment.

That has been a battle cry for conservative politics for three decades. It was Ronald Reagan who famously made “get government off the backs of business,” a winning strategy. And it was George W. Bush who pushed to rewrite the rule books for energy development on public property, rolling back protections for fish, wildlife, air and water under the banner of streamlining the nation’s race for energy. That movement sought to turn 40 years of bipartisan environmental protection on its head, and it did.

Industry lobbyists and officials were appointed to key environmental positions with orders to make the environment safe for business — especially the energy business. Agencies became boosters for development, not protectors of the public trust.
Louisiana’s delegations, and most of its voters, cheered almost every step.

For our political leaders to act shocked that something like this could happen requires equal portions of gall and amnesia.

The media is now filled with testimony from whistle blowers at agencies telling how warnings of threats to the environment were down-played, ignored or tossed in the trash bin. Their bosses were only following orders.

Even after the disaster, industry promoters are saying how rare such accidents are, are talking (in almost reverential tones) about how amazing the technology for deep-ocean drilling is, often using the refrain “this is like stuff we do in space.”

That’s when I think about Mars.

You see, deep ocean drilling is much, much more dangerous and risky than the space program.

(etc.)

If Louisiana is lucky, the Deepwater Horizon will be the Three-Mile Island of deep-ocean drilling. It will be the event that demonstrates to all who sneer at environmental regulation just what’s at stake here, and the enormous danger facing our coast each and every day.

We always knew accidents would happen, but what this event teaches us is the industry has no effective way to prevent a mishap from becoming a catastrophe.
I keep hoping I will hear the shameless oil industry boosters in our congressional delegation say something like “Until this industry proves it can react quickly and effectively to cap blowouts in deep water drilling, we shouldn’t proceed.”

And maybe that will happen before we send men to Mars.

Bob Marshall is outdoors editor. He can be reached at 504-826-3539 or at bmarshall@tpmail.com.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/oil_disaster_brought_to_you_by.html

***

very nifty

taking a break for awhile.

***

View the NOAA Gulf of Mexico oil spill trajectory forecasts for Sunday through Tuesday

By Times-Picayune Staff

May 23, 2010, 7:15AM

Oil Leak CleanupRusty Costanza / The Times-PicayuneWorkers clean oil from Fourchon Beach on Saturday.

TRAJECTORY FORECAST MAPS

Twice a day NOAA releases trajectory forecast maps predicting the extent and concentration of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill expected for the next 24, 48 and 72 hours. These are the latest maps.

Saturday’s 24-hour forecast for 6:00 p.m. Sunday, May 23.

Saturday’s 48-hour forecast for 6:00 p.m. Monday, May 24.

Saturday’s 72-hour forecast for 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 25.

OFFSHORE SURFACE OIL TRAJECTORY MAPS

Once a day, NOAA releases offshore surface oil trajectory maps showing the southern extent of oil that has potentially entered the loop current, which could take it to southern Florida and the east coast.

Saturday’s 24-hour forecast for 6:00 p.m. Sunday, May 23.

Saturday’s 48-hour forecast for 6:00 p.m. Monday, May 24.

Saturday’s 72-hour forecast for 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 25.

The Field Guide to NOAA’s Oil Trajectory Maps details how the maps are created and explains the different portions of them

(from)

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/mexico_oil_spill_trajectory_fo.html

***

OR

pick a picture –

http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=i&ned=us&hl=en&topic=h&ncl=dfMQPMSYu0guHUMuBV_cdjUfp9hrM&cf=i&scoring=n

lots of photos and stories coming from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

***

also

very nifty

taking a break for awhile. definitely this time

– cricketdiane

***

Advertisements