2010/06/03 at 1:38 am | In reply to raffaello alvau.
Submit a Technology Solution
Submit inquiry form page –
These are two of the places that I noticed on the Deepwater Horizon response incident sites – and the BP page about the oil spill has a place on the right hand side of the page for suggestions also.
Please do send it along to them. I’m sure there are other contact points too. For businesses that are interested in offering business prepared, business-oriented solutions (in a business already – but I’m not sure if that’s completely necessary) – the main people deciding much of what is being used and available are these folks not found at any of the above sites for suggestions – but they are looking for subcontractors and new products should probably go to them to be considered. That group is the Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) – I’m unsure there exact process for proposals and other businesses to be added to what they have available to bring to bear on the spill and the containment, the protection systems to keep oil out of areas and the cleanup – but I am sure they have some way to accept proposals and add other businesses beyond those they’ve already screened before the event.
Their website is here –
Good luck – I also know states, local parishes and counties along the coast, cities, associations such as those for fishermen and tourism, small towns and other coastal associations are also looking for solutions they can bring to bear on the situation. But, the Marine Spill Response Corporation is the best chance for a business to be included or for a novel product which has a business model to promote it.
Thanks so much for your comment –
As I said, good luck with it and I mean that honestly –
(response to a comment on my blog about where to go to offer solutions, suggestions – and I include products that could help solve the problems caused by the spill in the Gulf of Mexico)
From this page in the Marine Spill Response Corporation Site –
MSRC was formed in 1990 to offer spill response services and mitigate damage to the environment. These services are available to organizations, including those involved in the handling and transport of oil and other substances. The capabilities of MSRC are also intended to help members of the Marine Preservation Association (MPA) satisfy their facility and vessel response planning requirements mandated by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA-90). OPA-90 requires that those who transport petroleum and petroleum products in U.S. coastal waters ensure by contract the resources necessary to respond to a “worst case discharge” to the “maximum extent practicable.”
MSRC offers response capability intended to help satisfy the following response planning requirements:
- Worst Case Discharge;
- Maximum Most Probable Discharge;
- Average Most Probable Discharge (as arranged, if requested);
- Shallow Water Response Capability; and
- Shoreline Protection and Cleanup;
MSRC offers these services in the “Oceans”, “Inland”, and “Rivers and Canals” operating environments on the U.S. East, Gulf and West coasts, the U.S. Caribbean and the Hawaiian Islands. Today’s MSRC also offers in situ burn and dispersants services as well as international and hazardous materials spill response on a case by case basis. In 1999, MSRC added services in response to non-spill emergencies, such as hurricanes, floods, fires, and other disasters.
To provide these services, MSRC relies on its extensive inventory of owned response equipment. This equipment is dedicated to spill response, and is stored and maintained at MSRC’s equipment pre-position sites across the US. MSRC’s capabilities are augmented by a network of over 100 participants in the Spill Team Area Responders (“STARs”) program, an affiliation of environmental response contractors located at over 200 locations throughout the country.
In addition to the need for “hard” response equipment, an effective spill response effort is successful only when proper attention is directed to the human element of spill response. This “softer” side of response capability includes personnel training, subcontractor training, communications, and equipment maintenance and repair programs. MSRC tests all aspects of response through an internal Quality Assurance program incorporating MSRC funded drills and inspections.
My Note –
What it means is that those aligned with this group get to participate in the oil spill cleanup before any and all local resources are used. They also serve as a clearinghouse for the products used and those that are neglected and excluded from the available assets.
This is the group behind the Marine Spill Response Corporation –
By clicking on the top bar word –
You’ll find the logos of all the large oil corporations as members.
If you click on the word from the top bar –
You’ll find a list of directors including the top one in the list for America –
BP man – Robert Baldwin
Their officers are listed at the bottom of the list –
T.F. Plummer, Chairman
Brett Drewry, President, CEO and Secretary
Leon Crites, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
From the Marine Spill Response Corporation site –
The Eastern and Southern regions of MSRC have merged into one known as the Atlantic/Gulf Region. The regional office is located in Houston, Texas. The information in MSRC’s website does not reflect this change due to other website development. For additional information, please contact Judith Roos at firstname.lastname@example.org or (703) 326-5617.
This is under the tab or link on the left side bar for
(from) retrieved on June 2, 2010
My Note –
I think that BP and their incident response commander, Mike Ulster – you can see that on their website at BP – and the BP attorneys are demanding that all the spill coordination and response go through the Marine Spill Response Corporation because they claim as a result of it being on the original MMS documents for satisfying the plan for a response legally. Now, it looks like that has become the bottleneck organization who is handling all of it badly or it can’t be done whatsoever. They are backed by the oil industry members as seen above at this site – listed as their backers –
In every practical sense, if the Marine Spill Response Corporation does a bad job, and ineffective job or a poor job, they get paid anyway – but it also means that any products to be used or available for use – must go through them and every subcontractor from those who put together the first “top hat” upside down funnel system to the one they are using now – and any boats, workers, cleanup crews, continuing use of the same flimsy booms that aren’t worth a damn – is going through them and directly from them or not at all.
BP and their army of attorneys and executives and incident command group are apparently – just from what I can see – both running interference for that process through the Marine Spill Response Corporation to be used and also insisting on it being the legal representative for coordinating the response and products, etc. brought to bear on it. That has been 90% of the problem from just what I can see from here and the paperwork filed with the MMS as a oil spill incident plan is being used to demand legally that they do it this way and continue to have it done this way.
That is wrong.
This method was evidently not prepared for a spill of this magnitude. They have no vested interest in the well-being of the Gulf of Mexico, the coastal cities nor of the United States. That is not how they were set up. They were set up to satisfy the minimum legal requirements being placed on the oil industry and oil shippers and others in the oil companion businesses. They had a minimum plan as the fine print of the laws and regulations allowed. And, when better products or methods were available – they had no incentive to include them – not only in the US but elsewhere and in other incidents where they are called to be the only resource for emergency response.
I just have to add this here – it is so nifty – we don’t even need damn BP –
Too nifty –
I need one of these.
Yep, maybe three of them.
Maybe four, in different colors.
Get me an extension cord.
|MPA was established independent of MSRC to oversee broad policy issues affecting its members’ industries generally, including funding objectives for spill response capabilities and the mechanisms by which the MPA membership will share in the cost of such funding. MSRC provides independent spill response resources and capability based on the funding received from MPA. While the two organizations operate independently, well established communication is on-going between the two entities. Members of MPA deal directly with MPA with respect to overall membership and funding issues and, as customers of MSRC, deal directly with MSRC regarding all operational and technical aspects associated with spill response.
Further information on membership in MPA can be obtained by contacting:
|Marine Spill Response Corporation
220 Spring Street – Suite 500
Herndon, Virginia 20170
Phone: (703) 326-5617
|Marine Preservation Association
8777 N. Gainey Center Drive, Suite 165
Scottsdale, AZ 85258Phone: (480) 991-5500
Fax: (480) 991-6085
Representative Markey just now on AC360 – (CNN) was explaining that BP will be fined based on the barrels released in the spill. Well, that certainly explains why they’ve been fudging the numbers at every turn and doing all they can do to hinder the precise measurements of those amounts of crude oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.
So, attorneys are running their decisions and actions – and public relations firms along with those attorneys are running what they allow people to see or bar them from seeing.
And the Marine Spill Response Corporation with its Marine Preservation Association who runs it is determining every solution and product and contractor and asset and vessel and subcontractor and operation that is occurring or absolutely prevented from participating in the oil spill containment, the oil well capping, the dispersants and dispersant choice along with delivery of dispersants by air and undersea at the well, the containment booms in use and their placement, cleanup crews, boats being used or denied access, and every thing else – including putting people out there with their heads over the petroleum crude oil in the grasses of the marsh cleaning it blade by blade with “paper towels” without breathing protection whatsoever.
And, they are the ones denying access to a multitude of solutions, contractors with solutions, options, products, products that might work, denying provisions of protective breathing gear and chemical splash protection goggles to subcontractors they’ve hired – and they are also the ones – (at the Marine Spill Response Corporation and Marine Preservation Association filled with oil company members running it) – that aren’t paying the fishermen and charter boats that have gone out to help for over the last fifteen days of holding up those payments and are the same ones not using local resources until after all of their list of contractors have been given work for those BP funds that are being spent.
Contact them at the Marine Preservation Association – but better yet, I think it would be worth finding where they are getting their power at the Minerals Management Service and who is running interference for them there –
Marine Preservation Association –
8777 N. Gainey Center Drive
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Telephone – (480) 991-5500
FAX – (480) 991-6085
Email – email@example.com
Marine Spill Response Corporation –
220 Spring Street
Herndon, Virginia 20170
Telephone – (703) 326-5600
FAX – (703) 326-5660
Email – firstname.lastname@example.org
(found here – )
under the tab – Contact Us
by the way – on the Marine Spill Response Corporation site – there are a few places to contact them but they are few and far between and hard to find – but they must have a command center operating somewhere that is interacting with their contractors and the MMS. So, I’m going to go find them on MMS and see if their paperwork is listed there somewhere – and I bet it is. But, it may be hard to find. I’ll go see.
So I’ve gone here to the Minerals Management Site and using their search engine on site – I put in these terms –
OPA 90 Deepwater Horizon
(from the part of the Oil Pollution Act – section 90 which requires legally that a plan be made that satisfies specific requirements as found on the MPAZ site – under the MSRC tab – “Because of that, membership in MPA satisfies many of the obligations for an oil spill response plan, as mandate by OPA 90.”)
which yields this –
Results 1-3 of about 3 for ‘OPA 90 Deepwater Horizon’
The Oil Pollution Act The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA or OPA 90) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq .) is … or other than a pipeline or deepwater port … stratigraphically important horizons in …
In our 90-day finding for this petition (73 FR 28080), we organized potential threats … where waters transition from saturated to unsaturated is called the saturation horizon …
… Office of National Marine Sanctuaries OPA Oil Pollution Act PCB … priority management needs over a 15-year planning horizon … submersibles have established the presence of deepwater …
Aside from this one saying its security certificate was invalid –
it goes to this and one thing I noticed right off is that it is for the entire exploratory offshore drilling of new leases in the deeper waters offshore – and one statement mentions why things are like they are now -that caught my attention –
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
The OCSLA of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), as amended, established Federal jurisdiction over submerged lands on the OCS seaward of State boundaries. The Act, as amended, provides guidelines for implementing an OCS oil and gas exploration and development program.
The basic goals of the Act include the following:
• to establish policies and procedures for managing the oil and natural gas resources of the OCS that are intended to result in expedited exploration and development of the OCS in order to achieve national economic and energy policy goals, assure national security, reduce dependence on foreign sources, and maintain a favorable balance of payments in world trade;
My Note –
Therefore, at some point an “expedited exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands – OCS” was put into place. That word expedited means they intended to cut corners in preference to the interests of the oil companies and drilling companies and oil industry generally.
Let me see what else –
It also means that when President Obama and his team opened up the previously assigned and planned offshore leases to auction and those leases were made – then the entire operation of MMS expediting their exploration drilling kicked into high gear based on the policies they already had in place.
Under the OCSLA, the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for the administration of mineral exploration and development of the OCS. Within the Department of the Interior, the MMS is charged with the responsibility of managing and regulating the development of OCS oil and gas resources in
accordance with the provisions of the OCSLA. The MMS operating regulations are in Chapter 30, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 250 (30 CFR 250); 30 CFR 251; and 30 CFR 254.
Under Section 20 of the OCSLA, the Secretary shall “. . . conduct such additional studies to establish environmental information as he deems necessary and shall monitor the human, marine, and coastal environments of such area or region in a manner designed to provide time-series and data trend information which can be used for comparison with any previously collected data for the purpose of identifying any significant changes in the quality and productivity of such environments, for establishing trends in the area studied and monitored, and for designing experiments to identify the causes of such changes.”
Through the Environmental Studies Program (ESP), the MMS conducts studies designed to provide information on the current status of resources of concern and notable changes, if any, resulting from OCS Program activities.
In addition, the OCSLA provides a statutory foundation for coordination with the affected States and, to a more limited extent, local governments. At each step of the procedures that lead to lease issuance, participation from the affected States and other interested parties is encouraged and sought.
My Note –
I’m watching an ad for the Mississippi Gulf Coast just now during the show “Toxic America” on CNN being re-broadcast right now. I’ve seen a lot of those for the different Gulf Coast areas. And, I keep thinking they need to add that you can fill up your car with the crude oil washing up on the beach and not have to pay over $3.00 a gallon for gas.
There was a lady on the news earlier whose child had been swimming in the Gulf waters of Alabama where now there is oil spinning around in it and oil clods of thick blobs and goops on the shore. That mother told the child to keep his mouth closed while he was swimming in it.
Nobody even told them it is dangerous to that child and to those parents for that matter. Nope, because the money is too important. And, after bringing people out to clean the sand, the oil – petroleum – hydrocarbons – crude oil and toxic dispersants that have been put in that water as well – are still going to be in that ocean water. I’m sorry they did it that way. I really am ashamed that they made those choices for oil drilling to be more important than people and to decide not to tell people the truth about what could happen.
But, now – to not tell people the truth is totally unacceptable – it is more than a shame – it is criminal to mislead people about the dangers of it. I don’t care if the EPA and NIH and OSHA is now saying there is no danger – when I or anyone can look up the considerable number of documents on their sites which say it is dangerous and anyone with any common sense – who has ever handled gasoline or any petroleum derived product knows not to sniff it, not to be exposed to it for long, not to get it on the skin or in the eyes.
The fact that these agencies are now saying it poses no danger to workers and those who would come to vacation and swim in the waters with it are something I don’t recognize as credentialed and responsible federal agencies acting with people’s health and well-being first on their list of priorities.
Their own documents and others from around the world – prove that petroleum and the COREXIT dispersants are all dangerous and cause serious health hazards with even small exposures presenting certain risks.
Would that mother mind having a child that had been blinded by those products getting in his eyes and possibly having sores irritating him from where the oil was on his feet and hands and body?
Does she mind that he was breathing fumes from it on that beach, in those winds coming from the Gulf of Mexico and might develop some asthma or breathing difficulties during their “vacation” which will prevent all of them from enjoying their vacation?
The workers who are being sent out without breathing respirators and eye protection – are being sent without it by those whose best goals are to protect us – not to protect the interests of the oil industry. Even the Marine Spill Response Corporation is legally and civilly liable for misleading those who they’ve sent out without these protections knowing that the spill contains oil, petroleum, derivatives of petroleum, toxic dispersants, crude oil, and all of the other crap that was already there in the Gulf of Mexico that it is now combining with to produce an absolute chemical stew.
Now, how is it they (over at BP and the Marine Spill Response Corporation) are hiding behind the skirts of MMS and whatever legally required hoopla they had initially filed and using it to bamboozle the very bright folks of a multitude of US federal government agencies?
Oh by the way – there was just an interview with Lisa Jackson who heads up the EPA on the Toxic America show with Dr. Sanjay Gupta – and she stated that she isn’t a medical doctor but rather an engineer – she probably isn’t a chemist either. Now, that does explain a lot.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) provides a national policy that encourages “productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man . . . .”
The NEPA requires that all Federal agencies use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to protection of the human environment; this approach will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences in any planning and decisionmaking that may have an impact upon the environment.
The NEPA also requires the preparation of a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. This EIS must address any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources involved in the project.
In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) established uniform guidelines for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR 1500 to 1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.
“Scoping” is used to identify the scope and significance of important environmental issues associated with a proposed Federal action through coordination with Federal, State, and local agencies; the public; and any interested individual or organization prior to the development of an impact statement. The process is also intended to identify and eliminate, from further detailed study, issues that are not significant or that have been covered by prior environmental review.
(read the identify and eliminate from further detailed study – part – their intention was exclusionary rather inclusive and comprehensive, my note)
The Marine Mammal Protection Act
Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Secretary of Commerce is responsible for all cetaceans and pinnipeds, except walruses; authority for implementing
the Act is delegated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries), formerly known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for walruses, polar bears, sea otters, manatees, and dugongs; authority is delegated to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Act established the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals to provide oversight and advice to the responsible regulatory agencies on all Federal actions bearing upon the conservation and protection of marine mammals.
The MMPA established a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. The MMPA defines “take” to mean “to harass, harm, shoot, wound, trap, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to engage in any such conduct (including actions that induce stress, adversely impact critical habitat, or result in adverse secondary or cumulative impacts).”
Harassment is the most common form of taking associated with OCS Program activities. The moratorium may be waived when the affected species or population stock is within its optimum sustainable population range and will not be disadvantaged by an authorized taking (e.g., will not be reduced below its maximum net productivity level, which is the lower limit of the optimum sustainable population range).
The Act directs that the Secretary, upon request, authorize the unintentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to activities other than commercial fishing (e.g., offshore oil and gas exploration and development) when, after notice and opportunity for public comment, the Secretary finds that the total of such taking during the 5-year (or less) period will have a negligible impact on the affected species.
The MMPA also specifies that the Secretary shall withdraw, or suspend, permission to take marine mammals incidental to oil and gas and other activities if, after notice and opportunity for public comment, the Secretary finds (1) that the applicable regulations regarding methods of taking, monitoring, or reporting are not being complied with or (2) the taking is, or may be, having more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stock.
In 1994, a subparagraph (D) was added to the MMPA to simplify the process for obtaining “small take” exemptions when unintentional taking incidental to activities such as offshore oil and gas development is by harassment only. Specifically, incidental take (IT) by harassment can now be authorized by permit for periods of up to one year (as opposed to the lengthy regulation/Letter of Authorization process that was formerly in effect). The new language also sets a 120-day time limit for processing harassment IT authorizations.
In October 1995, NOAA Fisheries issued regulations (50 CFR 228) authorizing and governing the taking of bottlenose and spotted dolphins incidental to the explosive removal of oil and gas drilling and production structures in State waters and on the Gulf OCS for a period of five years (Federal Register, 1995a).
My Note –
I think that means its okay for them to kill, explode or poison dolphins for a period of five years – incidental to oil and gas drilling and production structures in State waters and on the Gulf Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico.
Now that’s just nasty and against every international law that exists and in antithesis of a multitude of other federal regulations that protect wildlife.
So I need to find the detailed EIS required by the NEPA – alrighty then.
But, first – I’m going to take a break for little while because this use of our federal government and its agencies is just too shitty to think about and it needs some coordinated thought reaching back to about 1991 when the thrust started for putting this in place – or maybe prior to that. Who were the legislators responsible for this mucked up crap?
Growl and growl again. That is just plain wrong.
Be back in a bit.
What is HSEES?
The Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance (HSEES) system was established by ATSDR to collect and analyze information about acute releases of hazardous substances and threatened releases that result in a public health action such as an evacuation. The goal of HSEES is to reduce the morbidity (injury) and mortality (death) that result from hazardous substances events, which are experienced by first responders, employees, and the general public.
What states currently participate in HSEES?
Fourteen state health departments currently have cooperative agreements with ATSDR to participate in HSEES: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Frequently Asked Questions About Contaminants Found at Hazardous Waste Sites
2008 ToxProfiles CD ROM
– Request a copy
The ATSDR ToxFAQs™ is a series of summaries about hazardous substances developed by the ATSDR Division of Toxicology. Information for this series is excerpted from the ATSDR Toxicological Profiles and Public Health Statements. Each fact sheet serves as a quick and easy to understand guide. Answers are provided to the most frequently asked questions (FAQs) about exposure to hazardous substances found around hazardous waste sites and the effects of exposure on human health.
Each ToxFAQs™ is available in both the standard HTML format below or in the PDF format which provides the familiar two page print version widely used at community meetings and distributed via our mailing list. This PDF format requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which can be downloaded free from the Adobe web site.
Where can I get more information?
You can get further information on our web site about all the ATSDR Toxicological Profiles and how they are developed. You can also get a longer version of these ToxFAQs™ , called the Public Health Statements, from the Public Health Statements (PHS) home page as well as from each of the ToxFAQs™ links below.
What else can ATSDR do?
ATSDR can tell you where to find occupational and environmental health clinics. Specialists in these clinics can recognize, evaluate, and treat illnesses resulting from exposure to hazardous substances. You can also contact your community or state health or environmental quality department if you have any more questions or concerns.
How do I contact ATSDR?
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine
1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-32
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 1- 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348
- 1,3-Butadiene | 1,3-Butadieno
- 2,3-Benzofuran | 2,3-Benzofurano
- 2-Butanone | 2-Butanona
- 2-Butoxyethanol | 2-Butoxietanol
- Barium | Bario
- Benzene | Benceno
- Benzidine | Bencidina
- Beryllium | Berilio
- Bis(2-chloroethyl) Ether | Éter bis(2-cloroetílico)
- Bis(chloromethyl) Ether | Éter bis(clorometílico)
- Blister Agents HN-1HN-2HN-3 Nitrogen Mustards | Mostazas de Nitrógeno
(HN-1, HN-2, HN-3)
- Blister Agents: Lewisite (L), Mustard-Lewisite Mixture (HL) | Lewisita (L), Mezcla de Mostaza-Lewisita (HL)
- Blister Agents: Sulfur Mustard Agent H/HD, Sulfur Mustard Agent HT | Mostaza de
Azufre (H/HD, HT)
- Boron | Boro
- Bromodichloromethane | Bromodiclorometano
- Bromoform & Dibromochloromethane | Bromoformo y Dibromoclorometano
- Calcium Hypochlorite/Sodium Hypochlorite | Hipoclorito de Calcio/Hipoclorito de Sodio
- Carbon Disulfide | Sulfuro de Carbono
- Carbon Tetrachloride | Tetracloruro de Carbono
- Cesium | Cesio
- Chlordane | Clordano
- Chlorfenvinphos | Clofenvinfos
- Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) | Dibenzo-p-dioxinas policloradas (DDPCs)
- Chlorine | Cloro
- Chlorine Dioxide & Chlorite | Dióxido de Cloro y Clorito
- Chlorobenzene | Clorobenceno
- Chlorodibenzofurans (CDFs) | Dibenzofuranos policlorados (DFPC)
- Chloroethane | Cloroetano
- Chloroform | Cloroformo
- Chlorophenols | Clorofenoles
- Chromium | Cromo
- Cobalt | Cobalto
- Copper | Cobre
- Crotonaldehyde | CrotonaldehÃdo
- Cyanide | Cianuro
- 1,1-Dichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethane
- 1,1-Dichloroethene | 1,1-Dicloroeteno
- 1,2 Dibromoethane | 1,2-Dibromoetano
- 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-cloropropano
- 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dicloroetano
- 1,2-Dichloroethene | 1,2-Dichloroethene
- 1,2-Dichloropropane | 1,2-Dicloropropano
- 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine | 1,2-Diphenylhydrazin
- 1,3 Dichloropropenes | 1,3 Dicloropropenos
- 1,3 Dinitrobenzene & 1,3,5 Trinitrobenzene | 1,3-Dinitrobenceno (1,3-DNB) y 1,3,5-Trinitrobenceno (1,3,5-TNB)
- 1,4-Dioxane | 1,4-Dioxano
- 2,4- & 2,6-Dinitrotoluene | 2,4-Dinitrotolueno y 2,6-Dinitrotolueno
- 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine | 3,3′-Diclorobencidina
- DDT, DDE, DDD | DDT, DDE y DDD
- DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide)
- Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) | Di(2-etilhexil) ftalato (DEHP)
- Di-n-butyl Phtalate | Di-n-Butil Ftalato
- Di-n-octylphthalate (DNOP) | Di-n-octilftalato (DNOP)
- Diazinon | Diazinon
- Diborane | Diborano
- Dichlorobenzenes | Diclorobencenos
- Dichlorvos | Dichlorvos
- Diethyl phthalate | Dietil ftalato
- Diisopropyl Methylphosphonate (DIMP) | Diisopropyl Methylphosphonate (DIMP)
- Dinitrocresols | Dinitrocresoles
- Dinitrophenols | Dinitrofenoles
- Disulfoton | Disulfotón
- n-Hexane | n-Hexano
- 2-Hexanone | 2-Hexanona
- Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide | Heptacloro/Epóxido de Heptacloro
- Hexachlorobenzene | Hexaclorobenceno
- Hexachlorobutadiene | Hexaclorobutadieno
- Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) | Hexaclorociclohexano
- Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCPD) | Hexaclorociclopentadieno (HCCPD)
- Hexachloroethane | Hexacloroetano
- Hexamethylene Diisocyanate (HDI) | Diisocianato de Hexametileno (HDI)
- HMX (Octogen) | HMX
- Hydraulic Fluids | Fluidos hidráulicos
- Hydrazines | Hidracinas
- Hydrogen Chloride | Cloruro de hidrógeno
- Hydrogen Peroxide
- Hydrogen Sulfide | Ácido Sulfhídrico
- 4,4′-Methylenebis(2-Chloroaniline)(MBOCA) | 4,4′-Metilenbis-(2-cloroanilina) (MBOCA)
- 4,4′-Methylenedianiline | 4,4′-Metilendianilina
- Malathion | Malatión
- Manganese | Manganeso
- Mercury | Mercurio
- Methoxychlor | Metoxicloro
- Methyl Isocyanate | Metil Isocianato
- Methyl Mercaptan | Metil mercaptano
- Methyl Parathion | Metilparatión
- Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Éter metil tert-butílico (MTBE)
- Methylene Chloride | Cloruro de Metileno
- Mirex & Chlordecone | Mirex y clordecona
- n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine | n-nitrosodi-n-propilamina
- n-Nitrosodimethylamine | n-nitrosodimetilamina
- n-Nitrosodiphenylamine | n-nitrosodifenilamina
- Naphthalene, 1-Methylnapthalene, 2-Methylnapthalen | Naftalina, 1-metilnaftalina, 2-metilnaftalina
- Nerve Agents (GA, GB, GD, VX) | Agentes neurotóxicos (GA, GB, GD, VX)
- Nickel | Níquel
- Nitrobenzene | Nitrobenceno
- Nitrogen Oxides | Óxidos de Nitrógeno
- Nitrophenols | Nitrofenoles
- Pentachlorophenol | Pentaclorofenol
- Perchlorates | Percloratos
- Phenol | Fenol
- Phosgene Oxime | Oxima de fosgeno
- Phosphine | Fosfina
- Plutonium | Plutonio
- Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs) | Bifenilos Polibromados
- Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) | Éteres de Bifenilos Polibromados
- Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) | Bifenilos Policlorados (BPCs)
- Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | Hidrocarburos aromáticos policíclicos (HAP)
- Propylene Glycol
- Pyrethrins-and-Pyrethroids | Piretrinas y Piretroides
- Pyridine | Piridina
- Selenium | Selenio
- Selenium Hexafluoride | Hexafluoruro de selenio
- Silver | Plata
- Sodium Hydroxide | Hidróxido de sodio
- Stoddard Solvent | Solvente Stoddard
- Strontium | Estroncio
- Styrene | Estireno
- Sulfur Dioxide
- Sulfur Mustard | Mostaza de Azufre
- Sulfur Trioxide & Sulfuric Acid | Anhídrido sulfúrico y Ácido sulfúrico
- Synthetic Vitreous Fibers | Fibras Vítreas Sintéticas
- 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,1-Tricloroetano
- 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
- 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Tricloroetano
- 1,2,3 Trichloropropane | 1,2,3-Tricloropropano
- 1,3,5 Trinitrobenzene & 1,3 Dinitrobenzene | 1,3,5-Trinitrobenceno (1,3,5-TNB) y 1,3-Dinitrobenceno (1,3-DNB)
- 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) | Trinitrotolueno (TNT)
- Tetrachloroethylene (PERC) | Tetracloroetileno
- Tetryl | Tetril (2,4,6-trinitrofenil-N-metilnitramina)
- Thallium | Talio
- Thorium | Torio
- Tin and Compounds | Estaño y Compuestos de Estaño
- Titanium Tetrachloride | Tetracloruro de titanio
- Toluene | Tolueno
- Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) | Hidrocarburos totales de petróleo
- Toxaphene | Toxafeno
- Trichloroethylene (TCE) | Tricloroetileno
- Tungsten | Tungsteno
Back to MMS document –
OPA 90 Deepwater Horizon (and others in the Gulf of Mexico probably)
To ensure that OCS activities adhere to the MMPA, the MMS has conducted studies to identify possible associations between cetaceans and high-use areas of the northern Gulf of Mexico. For example, MMS and the Biological Resources Division (BRD) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) funded the “GulfCet” (Gulf cetaceans) Program, which was conducted jointly by Texas A&M University at Galveston and NOAA Fisheries. The purpose of GulfCet was to determine the distribution and abundance of cetaceans along the continental slope in the northern Gulf of Mexico and to help MMS assess the potential effects of deepwater oil and gas exploration and production on marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico.
The studies included systematic aerial and shipboard (visual and acoustic) surveys, behavioral observations, and photo-identification of individual sperm whales. During 1991-1994, the GulfCet I study examined seasonal and geographic distribution of cetaceans along the continental slope in the north-central and western Gulf (Davis andFargion, 1996). GulfCet II (1996-1997) was designed, in part, to determine the distribution and abundance of whales and dolphins in the Eastern Gulf, an area of potential oil and gas exploration and production (Davis et al., 2000).
Another component of GulfCet II was to conduct focal studies specifically designed to address whale and dolphin associations with habitats (physical environment and available prey). The GulfCet Program demonstrated that whales and dolphins are not sighted randomly throughout the northern Gulf. Cetacean distribution is influenced by both bottom depth and by the presence of mesoscale hydrographic features.
pp. 1-7 and 1-8
Since 1986, the MMS, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, operators, and removal contractors have been following strict NOAA Fisheries requirements in order to avoid the incidental taking of marine mammals and to prevent adverse impacts to endangered sea turtles. Regulations allowing for the incidental taking of coastal dolphin species by harassment (Subpart M of 50 CFR 216) expired in November 2000. The MMS and NOAA Fisheries are working to develop improved measures to minimize the take of marine mammals and endangered or threatened species as a result of removing OCS structures using explosives. During the interim period while new Subpart M regulations are being formalized, OCS lessees and operators are required to follow, at a minimum, the mandatory mitigation measures set forth in the expired Subpart M regulations.
pp, 1-7 middle of the page
(link pdf above)
My Note –
Obviously in the above list of chemicals that are known hazards from the ASTDR – you won’t find petroleum or crude oil – but gasoline is there as is kerosene and many of the chemicals that make up petroleum listed individually and heating oil among others.
Also this – it probably gives more power than is being utilized to halt BP’s continued damage of the environment and the animals that live there –
The Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) of 1973, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), establishes a national policy designed to protect and conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA is administered by FWS and NOAA Fisheries.
Section 7 of the ESA governs interagency cooperation and consultation. Under Section 7, MMS formally consults with NOAA Fisheries and FWS to ensure that activities in the OCS under MMS jurisdiction do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species and/or result in adverse modification or destruction of their critical habitat.
The results of these consultations are presented as a Biological Opinion (BO).
The FWS and NOAA Fisheries make recommendations on the modification of oil and gas operations to minimize adverse impacts, although it remains the responsibility of MMS to ensure that proposed OCS activities do not impact threatened and endangered species. If an unauthorized taking occurs, or if the authorized level of incidental take (as described in the previous section) is exceeded, reinitiation of formal consultation is required.
The MMS Environmental Studies Program (Chapter 1.6) complies with the ESA’s intent of conserving endangered or threatened species by contracting research on sea turtles and cetaceans.
My Note –
37% of the Gulf of Mexico is now closed to fishing. And there is obviously a known jeopardizing of the continued existence of threatened and endangered species which have definitely resulted from an adverse modification and destruction of their critical habitat because of the BP’s failure to follow very basic, reasonable common sense safety measures operating their drilling operation and commercial activities including those involved in that aftermath of the event.
From the ASTDR – although gasoline in the retail form is derived from crude oil petroleum – it has many of the same characteristics – and health hazards, as does jet fuel and kerosene and fuel oil and heating oil among others, my note.
This fact sheet is one in a series of summaries about hazardous substances and their health effects. This information is important because this substance may harm you. The effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depend on the dose, the duration, how you are exposed, personal traits and habits, and whether other chemicals are present.
SUMMARY: Exposure to automotive gasoline most likely occurs from breathing its vapor at a service station while filling a car’s fuel tank. At high levels, automotive gasoline is irritating to the lungs when breathed in and irritating to the lining of the stomach when swallowed. Exposure to high levels may also cause harmful effects to the nervous system. Automotive gasoline has been found in at least 23 of the 1,430 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have not classified automotive gasoline for carcinogenicity. Automotive gasoline is currently undergoing review by the EPA for cancer classification.
Some laboratory animals that breathed high concentrations of unleaded gasoline vapors continuously for 2 years developed liver and kidney tumors. However, there is no evidence that exposure to gasoline causes cancer in humans.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1996. Managing Hazardous Materials Incidents. Volume III – Medical Management Guidelines for Acute Chemical Exposures: Automotive Gasoline. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1995. Toxicological Profile for automotive gasoline. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
SUMMARY: Fuel oils are liquid mixtures produced from petroleum, and their use mostly involves burning them as fuels. Drinking or breathing fuel oils may cause nausea or nervous system effects. However, exposure under normal use conditions is not likely to be harmful. Fuel oils have been found in at least 26 of the 1,430 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Fuel oils are produced by different petroleum refining processes, depending on their intended uses. Fuel oils may be used as fuel for engines, lamps, heaters, furnaces, and stoves, or as solvents.
Some commonly found fuel oils include kerosene, diesel fuel, jet fuel, range oil, and home heating oil. These fuel oils differ from one another by their hydrocarbon compositions, boiling point ranges, chemical additives, and uses.
How might I be exposed to fuel oils?
- Using a home kerosene heater or stove, or using fuel oils at work.
- Breathing air in home or building basements that has been contaminated with fuel oil vapors entering from the soil.
- Drinking or swimming in water that has been contaminated with fuel oils from a spill or a leaking underground storage tank.
- Touching soil contaminated with fuel oils.
- Using fuel oils to wash paint or grease from skin or equipment.
How can fuel oils affect my health?
Little information is available about the health effects that may be caused by fuel oils. People who use kerosene stoves for cooking do not seem to have any health problems related to their exposure.
Breathing some fuel oils for short periods may cause nausea, eye irritation, increased blood pressure, headache, light-headedness, loss of appetite, poor coordination, and difficulty concentrating. Breathing diesel fuel vapors for long periods may cause kidney damage and lower your blood’s ability to clot.
Drinking small amounts of kerosene may cause vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, stomach swelling and cramps, drowsiness, restlessness, painful breathing, irritability, and unconsciousness. Drinking large amounts of kerosene may cause convulsions, coma, or death. Skin contact with kerosene for short periods may cause itchy, red, sore, or peeling skin.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1995. Toxicological Profile for fuel oils. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
from ATSDR – CDC –
Ethylbenzene – It is naturally found in coal tar and petroleum
Ethylbenzene is a colorless liquid found in a number of products including gasoline and paints. Breathing very high levels can cause dizziness and throat and eye irritation. Breathing lower levels has resulted in hearing effects and kidney damage in animals. Ethylbenzene has been found in at least 829 of 1,689 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
What is ethylbenzene?
Ethylbenzene is a colorless, flammable liquid that smells like gasoline.
It is naturally found in coal tar and petroleum and is also found in manufactured products such as inks, pesticides, and paints.
Ethylbenzene is used primarily to make another chemical, styrene. Other uses include as a solvent, in fuels, and to make other chemicals.
What happens to ethylbenzene when it enters the environment?
- Ethylbenzene moves easily into the air from water and soil.
- It takes about 3 days for ethylbenzene to be broken down in air into other chemicals.
- In surface water, ethylbenzene breaks down by reacting with other chemicals found naturally in water.
- Ethylbenzene can move through soil into groundwater
- In soil, it is broken down by bacteria. (eventually, my note)
How can ethylbenzene affect my health?
Exposure to high levels of ethylbenzene in air for short periods can cause eye and throat irritation. Exposure to higher levels can result in dizziness.
Irreversible damage to the inner ear and hearing has been observed in animals exposed to relatively low concentrations of ethylbenzene for several days to weeks.
Exposure to relatively low concentrations of ethylbenzene in air for several months to years causes kidney damage in animals.
How likely is ethylbenzene to cause cancer?
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that ethylbenzene is a possible human carcinogen.
How does ethylbenzene affect children?
There are no studies evaluating the effects of ethylbenzene exposure on children or immature animals. It is likely that children would have the same health effects as adults. We do not know whether children would be more sensitive than adults to the effects of ethylbenzene.
We do not know if ethylbenzene will cause birth defects in humans. Minor birth defects and low birth weight have occurred in newborn animals whose mothers were exposed to ethylbenzene in air during pregnancy.
Is there a medical test to show whether I’ve been exposed to ethylbenzene?
Ethylbenzene is found in the blood, urine, breath, and some body tissues of exposed people. The most common way to test for ethylbenzene is in the urine. This test measures substances formed by the breakdown of ethylbenzene. Because these substances leave the body very quickly, this test needs to be done within a few hours after exposure occurs.
These tests can show you were exposed to ethylbenzene, but cannot predict the kind of health effects that might occur. (tests must be done very quickly after exposure, and specifically be looking for the secondary breakdown chemicals from the ethylbenzene – or it won’t be any good to show exposure and it isn’t much good to show exposure levels – my note)
Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?
The EPA has determined that exposure to ethylbenzene in drinking water at concentrations of 30 ppm for 1 day or 3 ppm for 10 days is not expected to cause any adverse effects in a child. (but see above information about health hazards known for this chemical – so this and the one below are misleading, my note).
The EPA has determined that lifetime exposure to 0.7 ppm ethylbenzene is not expected to cause any adverse effects. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) has limited workers’ exposure to an average of 100 ppm for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek. (does that mean over the course of a lifetime distributed in micro amounts over a long course of time – not sniffing concentrated fumes? – my note)
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Toxicological Profile for Ethylbenzene. (Draft for Public Comment). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
|doi:10.1016/S0269-8579(86)80030-2 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Copyright © 1987 Published by Elsevier Inc.
|Cited By in Scopus (10)|
|Permissions & Reprints|
Over the last two decades, the use of chemical dispersants as a countermeasure to oil spills at sea has become accepted worldwide. The recent development of more efficient and less toxic dispersants has renewed interest for basic studies on dispersant improvement and on the fate of dispersed oil in seawater. This work reports interfacial tensions and the effectiveness in oil dispersion of many synthetic, commercially available surfactants when used alone and in various blends. The results are discussed in terms of the local structure of the oil-water interface. The maximum efficiency is reached when the surfactant molecules have a structure compatibility and can form stable arrangements at the interface. An improved knowledge of interfacial phenomena responsible for the oil dispersion helps in formulating better dispersants by guiding a judicious combination of surfactants in appropriate proportions.
ToxFAQs™ for 2-Hexanone
|This fact sheet answers the most frequently asked health questions about 2-hexanone. For more information, you may call the ATSDR Information Center at 1-888-422-8737. This fact sheet is one in a series of summaries about hazardous substances and their health effects. This information is important because this substance may harm you. The effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depend on the dose, the duration, how you are exposed, personal traits and habits, and whether other chemicals are present.|
|back to top|
|What is 2-hexanone?|
|2-Hexanone is also known as methyl n-butyl ketone, MBK, or propyl acetone. It is a clear, colorless liquid with a sharp odor. It dissolves very easily in water, and can evaporate easily into the air as a vapor.It was used in the past in paint and paint thinner, to make other chemical substances, and to dissolve oils and waxes.
It is no longer made or used in the United States because it has harmful health effects. It is formed as a waste product resulting from industrial activities such as making wood pulp and producing gas from coal, and in oil shale operations.
|back to top|
|What happens to 2-hexanone when it enters the environment?|
|back to top|
|How might I be exposed to 2-hexanone?|
|back to top|
|How can 2-hexanone affect my health?|
|Breathing 2-hexanone can harm your nervous system. Workers who were exposed to 2-hexanone in the air for almost a year felt weakness, numbness, and tingling in the skin of the hands and feet.
Similar effects were seen in different animals that ate or breathed high levels of 2-hexanone.
In one study, pregnant rats that breathed 2-hexanone did not gain as much weight during their pregnancy, had fewer babies, and had babies that were smaller and less active than the rats that were not exposed.
We do not know if breathing 2-hexanone affects human reproduction or causes birth defects.
We do not know whether touching or ingesting 2-hexanone would affect your health. Animal studies have shown that ingesting high levels of 2-hexanone harms the nervous system. Also, animals that ingested 2-hexanone experienced decreased body weight and effects on reproduction.
|back to top|
|How likely is 2-hexanone to cause cancer?|
|The Department of Health and Human Services has not classified 2-hexanone as to human carcinogenicity.
Also, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not classified 2-hexanone as to human carcinogenicity.
There is no information available on the potential carcinogenic effects of 2-hexanone in people or in experimental animals.
|back to top|
|Is there a medical test to show whether I’ve been exposed to 2-hexanone?|
|Several tests are available to tell whether you have been exposed to 2-hexanone. These tests can measure the levels of 2-hexanone, or its breakdown products, in your blood or urine. This test only tells you if you have been exposed and cannot predict whether your health will be affected.
These tests are not routinely performed at your doctor’s office, but your doctor can take blood or urine samples and send them to a testing laboratory.
|back to top|
|Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?|
|The Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) has set a limit for exposure of workers to an average level of 100 parts of 2-hexanone per million parts of air (ppm) for an 8-hour workday over a 40-hour workweek.
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommends an exposure limit of 5 ppm for an 8-hour workday over a 40-hour workweek in workplace air.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that workers be exposed to no more than an average of 1 ppm for up to a 10-hour workday over a 40-hour workweek.
|back to top|
|Carcinogenicity: Ability to cause cancer.
Gasification: Conversion of coal to gas.
Ingesting: Taking food or drink into your body.
ppm: Parts per million.
|back to top|
|Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992. Toxicological Profile for 2-hexanone. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.|
|back to top|
|Where can I get more information?|
|ATSDR can tell you where to find occupational and environmental health clinics. Their specialists can recognize, evaluate, and treat illnesses resulting from exposure to hazardous substances. You can also contact your community or state health or environmental quality department if you have any more questions or concerns.
For more information, contact:
by C Brochu – 1987 – Cited by 9 – Related articles
Jun 6, 2005 … 883sulfur content 2. 28 w/whexanes insoluble fraction 22.0 w/wviscosity ….. It shouldbe mentioned that the commercial dispersant Corexit 9550 was … the surfactants were dissolved in cyclo-hexanone in the proportion …
(the above info listing)
Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines
The Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CSeQGs) protect aquatic organisms that live in or on the sediment that forms on the bottom of lakes and rivers. Good quality sediment provides habitat and food for aquatic life. Many toxic chemicals entering lakes and rivers end up in the sediment. Some of these substances may leave the sediment, returning to the water or entering the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration –
Sediment Quality Guidelines
Through its National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program, NOAA generates considerable amounts of chemical data on sediments. Without national criteria or other widely-applicable numerical tools, NOAA scientists found it difficult to estimate the possible toxicological significance of chemical concentrations in sediments. Thus, numerical sediment quality guidelines were developed as informal, interpretive tools for the NS&T Program.
The guidelines were initially intended for use by NOAA scientists in ranking areas that warranted further detailed study on the actual occurrence of adverse effects such as toxicity. Also, they were intended for use in ranking chemicals that might be of potential concern. In many regional surveys of sediment toxicity performed throughout North America, NOAA has used the guidelines to compare the degree of contamination among sub-regions, and to identify chemicals elevated in concentration above the guidelines that were also associated with measures of adverse effects.
The guidelines were not promulgated as regulatory criteria or standards. They were not intended as cleanup or remediation targets, as discharge attainment targets, as pass-fail criteria for dredged material disposal
decisions or any other regulatory purpose. Rather, they were intended as informal (non-regulatory) guidelines for use in interpreting chemical data from analyses of sediments.
USEPA Sediment Quality Guidelines
USEPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for widespread pollutants from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards.
Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.
Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The Clean Air Act requires periodic review of the science upon which the standards are based and the standards themselves. EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called “criteria” pollutants.
WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Europe
This publication includes an introduction on the nature of the guidelines and the methodology used to establish guideline values for a number of air pollutants. In addition, it describes the various aspects that need to be considered by national or local authorities when guidelines are transformed into legally binding standards.
For the pollutants addressed, the sections on “Health risk evaluation” and “Guidelines” describe the most relevant considerations that have led to the recommended guideline values. For detailed information on exposure and on the potential health effects of the reviewed pollutants, the reader is referred
to the Regional Office’s web-site, where the background documents on the individual air pollutants can be accessed.
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) –
Hazardous Substance Release and
Health Effects Database
HazDat, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s
Hazardous Substance Release/Health Effects Database, is the
scientific and administrative database developed to provide access to
information on the release of hazardous substances from Superfund
sites or from emergency events and on the effects of hazardous
substances on the health of human populations. The following
information is included in HazDat: site characteristics, activities and
site events, contaminants found, contaminant media and maximum
concentration levels, impact on population, community health
concerns, ATSDR public health threat categorization, ATSDR
recommendations, environmental fate of hazardous substances,
exposure routes, and physical hazards at the site/event. In addition,
HazDat contains substance-specific information such as the ATSDR
Priority List of Hazardous Substances, health effects by route and
duration of exposure, metabolites, interactions of substances,
susceptible populations, and biomarkers of exposure and effects.
HazDat also contains data from the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
database, including site CERCLIS number, site description,
latitude/longitude, operable units, and additional site information.
Contains the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances listing
over 38,000 industrial chemicals that are on the non-confidential
ATSDR Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) section 104 (i), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), requires
ATSDR and the EPA to prepare a list, in order of priority, of
substances that are most commonly found at facilities on the
National Priorities List (NPL) and which are determined to pose the
most significant potential threat to human health due to their known
or suspected toxicity and potential for human exposure at these NPL
sites. CERCLA also requires this list to be revised periodically to
reflect additional information on hazardous substances.
ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) [42 U.S.C. 9604 et seq.], as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) [Pub. L.
99-499], requires that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) develop jointly with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), in order of priority, a list of hazardous
substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA
National Priorities List (NPL) (42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(2)); prepare
toxicological profiles for each substance included on the priority list
of hazardous substances, and to ascertain significant human exposure
levels (SHELs) for hazardous substances in the environment, and the
associated acute, subacute, and chronic health effects (42 U.S.C.
9604(i)(3)); and assure the initiation of a research program to fill
identified data needs associated with the substances (42 U.S.C.
The ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) were developed as an initial response to the mandate. Following discussions with scientists within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the EPA, ATSDR chose to adopt a practice similar to that of the EPA’s Reference Dose (RfD) and Reference Concentration (RfC) for deriving substance-specific health guidance levels for non-neoplastic endpoints.
An MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. These substance-specific estimates, which are intended to serve as screening levels, are used by ATSDR health assessors and other responders to identify contaminants and potential health effects that may be of concern at hazardous waste sites. It is important to note that MRLs are not intended to define clean-up or action levels for ATSDR or other Agencies.
Environment Canada’s National
Pollutant Release Inventory
The National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) is the only
legislated, nation-wide, publicly-accessible inventory of its type in
Canada. It is a database of information on annual releases to air,
water, land and disposal or recycling from all sectors – industrial,
government, commercial and others.
European Chemicals Bureau
The European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) is the focal point for data
and the assessment procedure on dangerous chemicals.
European Environment Agency –
Star Database (Guidelines for Soil,
Water Nature and Air)
‘STAR’ stands for Sustainability Targets and Reference value. The
STAR database is an inventory of current environmental policy
targets and sustainability reference values (SRVs) which apply in the
EU, in a range of countries in the European Free Trade Association
(EFTA), in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), and in the Newly
Independent States (NIS).
IPCS INCHEM – Chemical Safety Information from Intergovernmental Organizations
IPCS INCHEM is a means of rapid access to internationally peer
reviewed information on chemicals commonly used throughout the
world, which may also occur as contaminants in the environment and
food. It consolidates information from a number of
intergovernmental organizations whose goal it is to assist in the
sound management of chemicals.
National Pollutant Inventory
The NPI now holds emission data for close to 3400 facilities, 33
airsheds and 32 water catchments around Australia. Emissions are
estimated for industrial facilities across Australia, and for diffuse
sources such as transport and domestic activities in airsheds, and
agriculture in water catchments.
NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical
The NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards is intended as a
source of general industrial hygiene information for workers,
employers, and occupational health professionals. The Pocket Guide
presents key information and data in abbreviated tabular form for
677 chemicals or substance groupings (e.g. manganese compounds,
tellurium compounds, inorganic tin compounds, etc.) that are found
in the work environment. The industrial hygiene information found
in the Pocket Guide should help users recognise and control
occupational chemical hazards. The chemicals or substances
contained in this revision include all substances for which the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has
recommended exposure limits (RELs) and those with permissible
exposure limits (PELs) as found in the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) General Industry Air Contaminants
Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000).
UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs – Chemical Defra’s chemicals pages are a source of information on what the Government is doing to protect the environment, and consequently, Information
human health, from the risks posed by exposure to hazardous
chemicals. At the same time, the Government aims to maximise the
important socio-economic benefits that we rely on chemicals for.
Whether a chemical represents a hazard or not depends on its
scientific properties. Defra’s job is to manage the risks relating to
such hazards, that is, the chances of a hazard leading to the harm of
humans or the environment.
USEPA Numeric Criteria – Water
Quality Standards Database
The report includes: Priority Pollutant, EPA Freshwater CMC, EPA
Freshwater CCC, EPA Saltwater CMC, EPA Saltwater CCC, EPA
Water and Organism, EPA Organism Only, Pollutant Unit, and
USEPA Ecotox Database
The ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) is a source for locating
single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. ECOTOX was created and is maintained by the U.S.EPA,
Office of Research and Development (ORD), and the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory’s (NHEERL’s) Mid-Continent Ecology Division.
USEPA Integrated Risk Information
IRIS is a database of human health effects that may result from
exposure to various substances found in the environment. IRIS was initially developed for EPA staff in response to a growing demand
for consistent information on chemical substances for use in risk
assessments, decision-making and regulatory activities. The
information in IRIS is intended for those without extensive training
in toxicology, but with some knowledge of health sciences.
USGS Acute Toxicity Database
The following database summarises the results from aquatic acute toxicity tests conducted by the USGS CERC located in Columbia, Missouri. The acute toxicity test provides a relative starting point for hazard assessment of contaminants and is required for federal
chemical registration programs such as the Federal Insecticide
Fungicide Rodenticide Act (PL 80-104) as amended by the Federal
Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 136-136y)
and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (PL 94-469).
USGS National Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program Database
The National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (NCBP) was
established to document trends in the occurrence of persistent toxic
chemicals that may threaten fish and wildlife resources. Begun in
the early 1960s as part of the National Pesticide Monitoring Program,
the NCBP has expanded its initial focus on persistent organochlorine
insecticides to include industrial chemicals, herbicides, and
potentially toxic elemental contaminants.
The program also provides necessary feedback to the regulatory process by documenting the success (or failure) of regulatory actions related to environmental contaminants. The NCBP provides a nationwide source of material that is searched analytically for the occurrence of new or previously
undetected environmental contaminants to provide information on emerging problems and for the development of new and improved analytical methods.
Through its archival function, the NCBP also provides a means for retrospective analyses and documentation of historical trends for newly identified environmental contaminants. Information from this historical program has also provided an impetus for developing a revised and expanded monitoring program (Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends BEST), which was transferred to USGS in 1996.
From their glossary – a few of the terms –
The ability of a substance to cause severe biological harm or death
soon after a single exposure or dose. Also, any poisonous effect
resulting from a single short-term exposure to a toxic substance.
Acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR)
The ratio of the acute toxicity to chronic toxicity of a chemical or sample that can be used to predict acute toxicity from chronic data and vice-versa.
Example: LC50 = 100 μg/l and Chronic Value = 5 μg/l, ACR = 20.
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) Estimate of the amount of a substance in food or drinking water, expressed on a body mass basis (usually mg/kg body weight), which can be ingested daily over a lifetime by humans without appreciable health risk.
Assessment Factor (AF)
Method of dividing the lowest toxicity value by an assessment factor,
the magnitude of which is based on the number, character and quality
of the available toxicity data. The more data, and the more realistic
they are, the lower the magnitude of the assessment factor. Typical
assessment factors used are 10, 100 and 1,000. The aim of such
methods is to protect all species from lifetime exposures to toxicants.
This type of approach is used by a variety of countries including
Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands
and South Africa and the OECD has recommended it.
A process by which there is a net accumulation of a chemical directly
from water into aquatic organisms resulting from simultaneous
uptake (e.g. by gill or epithelial tissue) and elimination.
A cumulative increase in the concentration of a persistent substance
in successively higher trophic levels of the food chain. The process
by which the concentration of a substance increases in different
organisms at higher levels in the food chain. For example, if another
organism eats an organism, these substances move up the food chain
and become more concentrated at each step.
Plants, animals, including humans, fungi or bacteria.
A long-term toxic effect produced in an organism by a toxicant, a
substance or a mixture of substances.
The impairment of water, sediments, plants, or animals by chemicals
or bacteria to such a degree that it creates a hazard to public and
environmental health through poisoning, bioconcentration
(bioaccumulation), or the spread of disease. Contamination can be
naturally occurring or manmade.
Statements of the conditions presumed to support or protect the
designated use or uses of an environment. Criteria may be narrative
A prescribed tolerance that must be met to ensure that a CCP
effectively controls a potential health hazard; a criterion that separates
acceptability from unacceptability (Codex Alimentarius).
Decision framework or
A series of steps for tailoring guideline trigger values to a specific site
or region and for assessing water quality by considering the local or
regional environmental factors that will modify the effect of the
particular water quality parameter. The decision frameworks or trees
begin with the simplest steps and finish with the most difficult and
Environmental Concern Level
ECLs are derived for chemicals for which there is no trigger value but
should only be used as working levels until more data can be obtained
or the guidelines can be independently derived.
Particular values or uses of the environment that are important for a
healthy ecosystem or for public benefit, welfare, safety or health and
that require protection from the effects of pollution, waste discharges
and deposits. Several environmental values may be designated for a
specific water body.
Contact of a chemical, physical or biological agent with the outer
boundary of an organism, e.g. inhalation, ingestion or dermal contact.
The estimation (qualitative or quantitative) of the magnitude,
frequency, duration, route and extent of exposure to one or more
National Chemical Reference Guide – Standards in the Australian Environment
ToxFAQs™ for Hydrazine, 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine and 1,2-Dimethylhydrazine
This fact sheet answers the most frequently asked health questions about hydrazines. For more information, you may call the ATSDR Information Center at 1-888-422-8737. This fact sheet is one in a series of summaries about hazardous substances and their health effects. This information is important because this substance may harm you. The effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depend on the dose, the duration, how you are exposed, personal traits and habits, and whether other chemicals are present.
Hydrazines are colorless liquids that are used in rocket fuels, chemical manufacturing, and as boiler water treatments. Exposure to hydrazines may cause nervous system effects, as well as liver and kidney damage. Hydrazines have been found in at least 8 of the 1,416 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
What are hydrazines?
Hydrazines are clear, colorless liquids with an ammonia-like odor. There are many kinds of hydrazine compounds, including hydrazine, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, and 1,2-dimethylhydrazine. Small amounts of hydrazine occur naturally in plants. Most hydrazines are manufactured for use as rocket propellants and fuels, boiler water treatments, chemical reactants, medicines, and in cancer research. Hydrazines are highly reactive and easily catch fire.
What happens to hydrazines when they enter the environment?
- Hydrazines can be released into the environment during their production or use, or from accidental spills.
- Hydrazines easily evaporate to the air, where they are broken down by reactions within minutes or hours.
- Hydrazines can also dissolve in water, where they usually break down into less toxic compounds within a few weeks.
- Hydrazines may build up in some fish living in contaminated water, but are not expected to remain at high levels over long periods of time.
- In soil, hydrazines may stick to particles and be changed within a few days to less harmful compounds.
How might I be exposed to hydrazines?
- Breathing contaminated air in or near a facility that makes, processes, or uses hydrazines.
- Eating fish contaminated with hydrazines.
- Drinking or swimming in water that has been contaminated with hydrazines.
- Touching soil contaminated with hydrazines, such as near some military bases or hazardous waste sites.
- Breathing cigarette smoke indirectly or using tobacco products may expose you to small amounts of hydrazine or 1,1-dimethylhydrazine.
- Working in greenhouses where the chemical Alar is used may result in your being exposed to small amounts of 1,2-dimethylhydrazine.
How can hydrazines affect my health?
Breathing hydrazines for short periods may cause coughing and irritation of the throat and lungs, convulsions, tremors, or seizures. Breathing hydrazines for long periods may cause liver and kidney damage, as well as serious effects on reproductive organs.
Eating or drinking small amounts of hydrazines may cause nausea, vomiting, uncontrolled shaking, inflammation of the nerves, drowsiness, or coma.
How likely is hydrazines to cause cancer?
Tumors have been seen in many organs of animals that were exposed to hydrazines by ingestion or breathing, but most tumors have been found in the lungs, blood vessels, or colon. 1,2-Dimethylhydrazine has caused colon cancer in laboratory animals following a single exposure.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that hydrazine and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine are known carcinogens.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that hydrazine, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, and 1,2-dimethylhydrazine are possible human carcinogens.
The EPA has determined that hydrazine, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, and 1,2-dimethylhydrazine are probable human carcinogens.
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) currently lists hydrazine and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine as suspected carcinogens, but has recently recommended that the listing of hydrazine be changed to that of animal carcinogen, not likely to cause cancer to people under normal exposure conditions.
Is there a medical test to show whether I’ve been exposed to hydrazines?
There are tests available to detect the presence of hydrazines or their breakdown products in the blood, urine, and feces. These tests must be done soon after exposure, before the compounds are broken down and eliminated from the body. These tests aren’t available at most doctors’ offices, but can be done at special laboratories that have the right equipment. These tests cannot be used to tell how much hydrazines you were exposed to or if any health effects will occur.
Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that the levels of hydrazine and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine in workplace air not exceed 0.03 and 0.6 parts of compound per million parts of air (0.03-0.6 ppm), respectively, for a 2-hour period.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits the amount of hydrazine and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine in workplace air to 1 and 0.5 ppm, respectively, for an 8-hour workday.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ruled that hydrazine cannot be added to water used for making steam which will contact food.
The EPA requires that spills or accidental releases into the environment of 1 pound or more of hydrazine or 1,2-dimethylhydrazine, or more than 10 pounds of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine be reported to the EPA.
Carcinogen: A substance with the ability to cause cancer.
CAS: Chemical Abstracts Service.
Evaporate: To change into a vapor or gas.
Ingest: To eat or drink something.
ppm: Parts per million.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for Hydrazines. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
More from the ATSDR – about petroleum – crude oil hydrocarbons – crude oil and derivatives that have the same toxic and hazardous similarities due to being made from petroleum crude oil –
SUMMARY: JP-4 and JP-7 are liquid mixtures produced from petroleum and used by the U.S. Air Force as aircraft fuels. Breathing large amounts of the vapors from these fuels may cause nausea and nervous system effects. JP-4 has been found in at least 4 of the 1,430 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). JP-7 has not been found at any sites.
What are jet fuels JP-4 and JP-7?
Jet fuels JP-4 and JP-7 (jet propellant-4 and jet propellant-7) are flammable, colorless to straw-colored liquid mixtures that come from crude petroleum. They smell like kerosene. Jet fuels are blends of other chemicals made according to U.S. Air Force standards for use as aircraft fuels.
Although JP-4 and JP-7 are liquids at room temperature, they also evaporate easily.
How might I be exposed to jet fuels JP-4 and JP-7?
- Exposure to JP-4 occurs primarily in workers who manufacture, transport, or use jet fuels.
- Exposure to JP-4 is most likely to occur through skin contact or breathing contaminated air.
- You may be exposed to JP-4 by breathing some of the chemicals that evaporate from a spill or leak site.
- You may also be exposed through drinking or swimming in water that has been contaminated with JP-4, or from touching soil contaminated from a spill or leak.
- There is no information about how individuals may be exposed to JP-7, but it is reasonable to assume that you could be exposed in the same ways as for JP-4.
How can jet fuels JP-4 and JP-7 affect my health?
Little information is available about the health effects that may be caused by JP-4 and JP-7. Inhaling large amounts of JP-4 vapor may cause painful breathing and a feeling of suffocation, as well as headache, dizziness, nausea, depression, anxiety, memory loss, and irritability.
Animal studies have shown that inhaling extremely large amounts of JP-4 or JP-7 vapor does not cause death. However, animals breathing high levels of JP-4 vapor for short periods exhibited poor coordination and convulsions. A depressed activity level has been seen in animals breathing low levels of JP-4 vapor. Other effects seen in animals breathing JP-4 or JP-7 vapor have been skin and eye irritation, changes in liver cells, and decreased numbers of white blood cells.
We do not know whether JP-4 or JP-7 can cause birth defects or if they affect reproduction in people.
Is there a medical test to show whether I’ve been exposed to jet fuels JP-4 and JP-7?
There is no medical test that shows if you have been exposed to JP-4 and JP-7. Tests are available to determine if some of the chemicals commonly found in jet fuels are in your blood. However, the presence of these chemicals in blood may not necessarily mean that you have been exposed to JP-4 or JP-7.
Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set an exposure limit of 500 parts of petroleum distillates per million parts of air (500 ppm) for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek.
The Air Force Office of Safety and Health (AFOSH) has set an exposure limit of 400 ppm petroleum distillates for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that average workplace air levels not exceed 350 milligrams of petroleum distillates per cubic meter of air (350 mg/mÂ³) for a 40-hour workweek.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) lists JP-4 and JP-7 as hazardous materials and, therefore, regulates their transportation.
CAS: Chemical Abstracts Service.
Evaporate: To change into a vapor or a gas.
Milligram: One thousandth of a gram.
ppm: Parts per million.
Sediment: Mud and debris that have settled to the bottom of a body of water.
ReferencesAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1995. Toxicological Profile for jet fuels JP-4 and JP-7. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
My Note –
The Clean Air Act
The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA required Federal promulgation of national primary and secondary standards. The primary NAAQS standards are to protect public health; the secondary standards are to protect public welfare. Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sets limits on how much of a pollutant can be in the air anywhere in the United States.
Although the CAA is a Federal law covering the entire country, the states do much of the work to carry out the Act. The law allows individual states to have stronger pollution controls, but states are not allowed to have weaker pollution controls than those set for the whole country.
The law recognizes that it makes sense for states to take the lead in carrying out the CAA because pollution control problems often require special understanding of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc.
States may have to develop state implementation plans (SIP’s) that explain how each state will come into or remain in compliance with the CAA, as amended. The states must involve the public, through hearings and opportunities to comment, in the development of the SIP. The USEPA must approve the SIP, and if the SIP is not acceptable, USEPA can take over enforcing the CAA, as amended, in that state.
The U.S. Government, through USEPA, assists the states by providing scientific research, expert studies, engineering designs, and money to support clean air programs.
The CAA established the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to protect the quality of air in the regions of the United States where the air is cleaner than required by the NAAQS. Under the PSD program, air quality attainment areas in the United States were classified as Class I or Class II (a Class III designation was codified but no areas were classified as such). Class I areas receive the most protection.
Any new major (250 tons per year or larger) permanent source of emissions is required to receive a review by the Federal permitting agency, and the Federal permitting agency must consult with the appropriate Federal land manager prior to granting approval.
The FWS is the Federal land manager for Breton, St Marks, Okefenokee, and Chassahowitzka Class I areas. The National Park Service (NPS) is the Federal land manager for the Everglades Class I area.
The CAA, as amended, delineates jurisdiction of air quality between the USEPA and DOI. For (OCS) Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Oil Drilling and Oil Industry operations in the Gulf of Mexico, those operations east of 87.5oW. longitude are subject to USEPA air quality regulations and those west of 87.5oW. longitude are subject to MMS air quality regulations. In the (OCS) Outer Continental Shelf areas under MMS jurisdiction, the MMS regulations at 30 CFR 250 are in force.
(also it further states – which explains why the EPA is running around taking ozone measurements and saying it is safe instead of testing for the petroleum and crude oil chemical fumes known to be there – )
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) (Public Law No. 101-549)) required that MMS conduct and complete a study to evaluate impacts from the development of OCS petroleum resources in the Gulf on air quality in the ozone nonattainment areas. (Florida was not included in the study area since, at that time, the counties in the Panhandle were in compliance with the Federal ozone standard.)
That study was completed in late 1995. Based on the results of this study, the Secretary has consulted with the USEPA Administrator to determine if new requirements are needed for the OCS areas in the Gulf of Mexico that remain under MMS jurisdiction (the areas west of 87o30′W. longitude). Based on the consultation, it was determined that no new requirements are needed at this time.
The MMS air quality regulations are at 30 CFR 250 Subpart C. These regulations are based on potential impacts; as such, the farther away from shore, the larger the allowable emission rate before an air quality impact analysis is required. All OCS plans are required to include emission information and receive air quality review. The regulations allow MMS to select which OCS plans require emissions information for air quality review.
In 1994, the Gulf of Mexico Region issued a Letter to Lessees requiring operators to submit standardized emissions information with all OCS plans. This requirement is more stringent than corresponding onshore requirements because MMS applies the same exemption levels and significance levels to temporary sources as it does to permanent sources.
Under the onshore PSD regulations temporary sources are typically exempt from air quality permitting requirements. The MMS’s impact-based regulations establish a three-tier process for identifying potentially significant emission sources.
There are no screening models developed for offshore use. The only model approved by USEPA as a preferred model for modeling offshore emission sources’ impacts upon onshore areas is the Offshore and Coastal Dispersal (OCD) model developed by MMS in 1989. The OCD model is based on steady-state Gaussian assumptions.
My Note – Would somebody tell Florida Senator Nelson that the Marine Spill Response Corporation is legally required by the MMS to fulfill the contracts on this spill – and that is the disconnect. He was just on CNN – and I swear that sure does look like it is 90% of the problem.
The way it is set up legally right now and has been since that was accepted as the answer for the oil industry – the Marine Spill Response Corporation run by the Marine Preservation Association has the responsibilities to make all contracts for cleanup, for arrangements, for placement of assets including cleanup crews, containment booms, skimmers, vessels, dispersants, along wiht the choices of all these things that are to be used and the contracting of those gizmos and devices like the top hat and the other upside down funnel thing and probably whoever’s saw it was that got stuck trying to do the job.
It is possible that the incident command group headed by the Coast Guard has actually had their hands tied most of this time and even possibly, today. But, the surprise Ace in the Hole that our nation has – is the President of the United States that happens to be a capable law professional. Boy are they in for a surprise. And, around him are the finest group of educated thinking minds that know the law as well. They have been part of the legislative process and a part of the academic understanding of handling information. I know that they will find a way to break the logjams in this situation. We have an Ace in our corner and a White House team of people that I guarantee are smarter than what the oil industry is expecting.
So, if someone would explain it to Senator Nelson so he can explain it to his colleagues in Congress – and they can figure out if that is indeed the case and those people in the oil industry are bamboozling them about what can be done or what can’t because of the authority and legal rights to handle it that have already been given to the Marine Spill Response Corporation by MMS.
The other thing is that these chemicals in the petroleum and dispersants are toxic and do require proper protective breathing gear and eye protection. They need to make BP and its Marine Spill Response Corporation to provide them – it is the law and it doesn’t matter what EPA or OSHA or whoever else down there in Louisiana or elsewhere is now saying about it being safe – the fact is – these workers and others are being subjected to this over a long many hours – and every document about it from their own files and around the world say it is dangerous with known health hazards – both short term and long term. These are known facts.
On the websites about workers being exposed to these petroleum compounds now from the official government sites concerning the Deepwater Horizon response and BP – it claims there is no problem and that the workers do not need respiratory protection. And, at the briefing yesterday, the administrator from NOAA listed off all the experts they are using to define that – and what did they do – ignore all the facts they have known for years about it before this and not expect that anyone with the ability to read can read them and know they are wrong about it not being dangerous? Anyone knows not to sniff petroleum fumes for any length of time or to be subjected to those fumes for many hours of time.
To refuse to check for the known contaminants that are contained in petroleum and to take water monitoring samples that indicate there is clean appropriate unpolluted water or air in the Gulf of Mexico has to be criminal because of the life-threatening consequences of the chemicals and health hazards that are known to be there – that can be seen in many, many photos of the areas and in videos and where those smells have been reported even inland along the coasts of the Gulf.
I did see the advertisement from BP with Tony Hayward put on the tele today and it is brilliant. He does pull it off well and appears to mean what he says. I think that in a lot of ways – the information isn’t complete that is coming to him and to the people in the incident command group at BP. It cannot possibly be available to them in many respects and it could be as simple as having an outline of the oil spill as it existed yesterday on the map that is being used for the incident response today – like I noted earlier – where none of the landfalls or undersea plumes that have been found are even on the map.
And, no telling what other very basic practical things like that are happening – including the fact that placement of resources is being done by a third party in between the decision-makers and the actual event – what information are they using or do they wait for somebody to call and request something using some proper chain of command or lines of communication. I mean does – Commdr. Thad Allen of the Coast Guard have to request of BP to request of the Marine Spill Response Corporation to request their contractors to be available to do such and so somewhere (or something like that)?
There was no evidence that the executives nor the incident commander at BP, Mike Ulster – from his video comments and from Bob Dudley’s comments on air and from Doug Suttles comments on air and from Tony Hayward’s comments individually here and there – that any of them knew of many things that any of us watching the news can know and see and understand from the scientific collection of data that showed oil plumes to the finding of oil in the surf and on the sand in coastal areas farther east – Alabama, Mississippi or on whatever islands where it is being found now. I mean – maybe it is like Hurricane Katrina in one respect for sure, is that they’ve hunkered down in these rooms with charts that aren’t even showing an outline of the oil spill from today – don’t show the marshes covered in thick syrupy oil and they aren’t seeing the news coverage and photos and videos coming from the area either that are showing up around the world online and across many news stations on cable (including CNN and bloomberg and BBC America and cnbc and CBS and ABC and even on television in Germany and probably Japan.)
But, if they never see those Reuters photos and AP stories and AP photos and Getty photos and CNN videos and bloomberg interviews -etc., they aren’t going to know about the finding of oil plumes and the marshes covered in crude oil stew and the huge splats of crude oil on beaches that look like somebody dumped ten gallons of chocolate syrup but it isn’t chocolate and its probably thicker than syrup too for that matter. And, by never having gone out to any of the live places – or rather dead places now in the Gulf of Mexico – then what could the incident commander know – he can’t smell it – it isn’t giving him a headache. BP executives that have gone out to places have gone to places nearly already cleaned and likely not overwhelming with fumes from crude oil and death – not in comparison to some places where the oil is sitting.
Well, today is a rainy day in that territory an it has east driving rains and winds and currents – so it is just a matter of time now. And, the crude oil pumping out of the well is looking more like the 100,000 barrels a day mark in the video feeds that have been shown.
Oh well – I can’t fix it but I wish all those families would simply get up and go before it gets any one bit worse. Even if it were stopped today – all that oil and oil mixed with toxic dispersants are still going to be in the Gulf of Mexico and affecting people that live in towns all along the coastline for years.