Earthjustice files action to discover what's in chemical dispersant
Dispersant sprayed in Gulf of Mexico
Today, the maker of a controversial dispersant used in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill declared, "We have nothing to hide." In fact, that's the headline of a New York Times story on the dispersant.
If that were true, we at Earthjustice and our clients wouldn't have to take formal action to find out what's in the dispersant. British Petroleum, which has used more than 800,000 gallons of "Corexit" to combat its oil spill, won't reveal what is in the compound. Thus, we have been forced to send a formal Freedom of Information Act request to the Environmental Protection Agency, asking for the information.
<Update: Earthjustice Vice President of Litigation Patti Goldman notes that "Nalco put out a release trying to allay concerns about the ingredients in its dispersants, but its statement raises more concerns than it answers. First, it asserts that all of the ingredients "have been determined safe and effective by the EPA." While the Food and Drug Administration makes such determinations for drugs, the Toxics Substances Control Act is so weak that it does not require that EPA make such safety findings before chemicals are allowed on the market. That is why a diverse health, environmental, and labor coalition (including Earthjustice) are calling for an overhaul of that law. Given that EPA is not in the business of declaring chemicals safe and effective, I doubt EPA would back up Nalco's claim. Second, Nalco tries to prove that Corexit ingredients are safe by pointing to their presence in cosmetics, lotions, and stain blockers. That gives me little comfort. Cosmetics and lotions often contain phthalates, which have been associated with reproductive impacts and endocrine disruption. And some stain blockers contain ingredients classified as cancer-causing or neurotoxins.">
The FOIA seeks the identities of all chemical ingredients in the dispersants eligible for use in the Gulf spill. It also seeks all health and safety studies and data and potential adverse effects reports for the chemical ingredients in the dispersants and unredacted correspondence between BP and EPA about dispersants in connection with the Gulf spill.
We have every reason to be concerned about whether the dispersants are in and of themselves threats to the environment, and to living things, including humans. ABC News did a piece on the threat, and there is some question about whether oil cleanup workers were sickened by it. And the Times shares our concerns:
Scientists have compared BP's heavy use of dispersants in the Gulf to a massive chemistry and biology experiment, saying it is an exercise in environmental trade-offs. The chemicals break up oil that would otherwise float on the surface into tiny droplets that can sink and be consumed by fish, bacteria and microorganisms.
The consensus is that the 870,000 gallons of Corexit that have been either sprayed on the Gulf's surface or injected underwater at the broken wellhead have likely spared beaches and wetlands from an even worse oil slick, while contributing to the formation of massive, difficult-to-track oil plumes underwater that could have long-term ecological consequences.
Once upon a time, only last week, the EPA also had concerns about the dispersant and BP's use of it. The agency even ordered BP to stop using it. BP refused, and as of today, still is using it. Does EPA know something we don't? Let's find out.
Print this page
Email this page
oil spill is the worst pollution to have as it effects every one .. aquatic life get effected and lot of aquatic animals lose their life and people who eat fish can also have bad effect on health ..the most worst part is that it pollutes water to the extreme level ..Cars for sale
oil spill is the worst pollution to have as it effects every one .. aquatic life get effected and lot of aquatic animals lose their life and people who eat fish can also have bad effect on health ..the most worst part is that it pollutes water to the extreme level ..Cars for sale
looking at the flanged pipe that is to be cut off it seems that the flange could be removed with a robotic wrench. replace with a shut off valve that has two flanges top and bottom.after bottom flange is securly fastened down shut valve off and stop the flow. sesli sohbet
Ok, so BP won't utilize any of the methods suggested by different private citizens to aid in cleaning this mess up. Why don't these people and/or companies donate their products and services to the local cleanup effort? What better thing to have on your resume, or in your marketing gimmick than "used to help cleanup the gulf oil spill of 2010." I just don't understand why these companies don't just take it upon themselves to do so on the local level, I suppose it's a matter of money, because of course, money is more important than sustaining our natural habitats, and ensuring the survival of countless species of wildlife.
News reports that fellow workers were not feeling well .. here is what the data sheets say about the Disperant BP is using from the warning labels.
SAFETY DATA SHEET
PRODUCT
COREXIT® EC9527A
EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S)
(800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC
3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
**EMERGENCY OVERVIEW**
WARNING
Eye and skin irritant. Repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol may cause injury to red blood cells
(hemolysis), kidney or the liver. Harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed.
Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally. Use with adequate ventilation. Wear suitable
protective clothing. Keep container tightly closed. Flush affected area with water. Keep away from heat. Keep
away from sources of ignition - No smoking.
May evolve oxides of carbon (COx) under fire conditions.
PRIMARY ROUTES OF EXPOSURE :
Eye, Skin
HUMAN HEALTH HAZARDS - ACUTE :
EYE CONTACT :
Can cause moderate irritation.
6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
PERSONAL PRECAUTIONS :
Restrict access to area as appropriate until clean-up operations are complete. Stop or reduce any leaks if it is safe
to do so. Do not touch spilled material. Ventilate spill area if possible. Use personal protective equipment
recommended in Section 8 (Exposure Controls/Personal Protection).
METHODS FOR CLEANING UP :
SMALL SPILLS: Soak up spill with absorbent material. Place residues in a suitable, covered, properly labeled
container. Wash affected area. LARGE SPILLS: Contain liquid using absorbent material, by digging trenches or by
diking. Reclaim into recovery or salvage drums or tank truck for proper disposal. Contact an approved waste hauler
for disposal of contaminated recovered material. Dispose of material in compliance with regulations indicated in
Section 13 (Disposal Considerations).
ENVIRONMENTAL PRECAUTIONS :
Do not contaminate surface water.
7. HANDLING AND STORAGE
HANDLING :
Avoid eye and skin contact. Do not take internally. Ensure all containers are labeled. Keep the containers closed
when not in use.
STORAGE CONDITIONS :
Store the containers tightly closed.
SUITABLE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL :
Stainless Steel 316L, Hastelloy C-276, MDPE (medium density polyethylene), Nitrile, Plexiglass, Kalrez, TFE, Alfax,
Teflon, HDPE (high density polyethylene), Neoprene, Aluminum, Polypropylene, Polyethylene, Carbon Steel C1018,
Stainless Steel 304, Compatibility with Plastic Materials can vary; we therefore recommend that compatibility is
tested prior to use., FEP (encapsulated), Perfluoroelastomer, PVC
UNSUITABLE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL :
Copper, Mild steel, Brass, Nylon, Buna-N, Natural rubber, Polyurethane, Hypalon, Viton, Ethylene propylene, EPDM
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS :
Exposure guidelines have not been established for this product. Available exposure limits for the substance(s) are
shown below.
Substance(s) Category: ppm mg/m3 Non-Standard
Unit
2-Butoxyethanol ACGIH/TWA 20
OSHA Z1/PEL 50 240
OSHA Z1/Skin*
Propylene Glycol (Aerosol.) WEEL/TWA 10
* Can be absorbed through the skin.
ENGINEERING MEASURES :
General ventilation is recommended.
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION :
Where concentrations in air may exceed the limits given in this section, the use of a half face filter mask or air
supplied breathing apparatus is recommended. A suitable filter material depends on the amount and type of
chemicals being handled. Consider the use of filter type: Multi-contaminant cartridge. with a Particulate pre-filter.
In event of emergency or planned entry into unknown concentrations a positive pressure, full-facepiece SCBA
should be used. If respiratory protection is required, institute a complete respiratory protection program including
selection, fit testing, training, maintenance and inspection.
HAND PROTECTION :
Neoprene gloves Nitrile gloves Butyl gloves PVC gloves
SKIN PROTECTION :
Wear standard protective clothing.
EYE PROTECTION :
Wear chemical splash goggles.
HYGIENE RECOMMENDATIONS :
Keep an eye wash fountain available. Keep a safety shower available. If clothing is contaminated, remove clothing
and thoroughly wash the affected area. Launder contaminated clothing before reuse.
HUMAN EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION :
Based on our recommended product application and personal protective equipment, the potential human exposure
CHRONIC TOXICITY DATA :
The principal health effects following acute exposure to 2-butoxyethanol are irritation of the eyes and respiratory
tract. 2-butoxyethanol is readily absorbed through the skin. In laboratory animals exposed to 2-butoxyethanol via
inhalation, blood(hemolysis) and secondary effects on the kidney and liver have been observed. When 2-
butoxyethaol is ingested it is metabolized to butoxyacetic acid (BAA), which can cause hemolysis. BAA is rapidly
excreted in urine in animals and humans with an urinary excretion half-life of approximately 3-6 hours in humans.
Human red blood cells have been shown to be significantly less sensitive to hemolysis than those of rodents and
rabbits. These effects are transient and when exposure is discontinued, these effects subside. 2-butoxyethanol does
not cause adverse reproductive or birth effects in animals, unless exposures occur at levels high enough to induce
significant maternal toxicity.
CARCINOGENICITY :
None of the substances in this product are listed as carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP) or the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH).
HUMAN HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION :
Based on our hazard characterization, the potential human hazard is: High
SECTIONS 311 AND 312 - MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET REQUIREMENTS (40 CFR 370) :
Our hazard evaluation has found this product to be hazardous. The product should be reported under the following
indicated EPA hazard categories:
X Immediate (Acute) Health Hazard
X Delayed (Chronic) Health Hazard
X Fire Hazard
Sudden Release of Pressure Hazard
Reactive Hazard
Under SARA 311 and 312, the EPA has established threshold quantities for the reporting of hazardous chemicals.
The current thresholds are: 500 pounds or the threshold planning quantity (TPQ), whichever is lower, for extremely
hazardous substances and 10,000 pounds for all other hazardous chemicals.
SECTION 313 - LIST OF TOXIC CHEMICALS (40 CFR 372) :
This product contains the following substance(s), (with CAS # and % range) which appear(s) on the List of Toxic
Chemicals
Hazardous Substance(s) CAS NO % (w/w)
Glycol Ethers 30 - 60
STATE RIGHT TO KNOW LAWS :
The following substances are disclosed for compliance with State Right to Know Laws:
2-Butoxyethanol 111-76-2
Propylene Glycol 57-55-6
INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL CONTROL LAWS :
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) :
The substances in this preparation are listed on the Domestic Substances List (DSL), are exempt, or have been
reported in accordance with the New Substances Notification Regulations.
AUSTRALIA
All substances in this product comply with the National Industrial Chemicals Notification & Assessment Scheme
(NICNAS).
CHINA
All substances in this product comply with the Provisions on the Environmental Administration of New Chemical
Substances and are listed on the Inventory of Existing Chemical Substances China (IECSC).
EUROPE
The substance(s) in this preparation are included in or exempted from the EINECS or ELINCS inventories
Ask the Question : Why did they use Dispersants EC9500 EC9527A ?
A. It forces the oil under the surface
Q. Is that good?
A. Well that way it will not foul the beach
Q. Does that mean it just stays on the bottom in one place?
A. Well maybe unless there a currents and sometimes in small droplets but not all the time?
Q. So is crude with the mix of heavy metals in this disperant found on the EPA web site a bigger hazzard.
A. Yes , it does have glycol and the most deadly Arsnec (As) and most likely will kill fish befour they are eaten by others or even BP execs.
Q. Isn't antifreez close to this substance and will kill ?
A. Yes but we do not use it in cars but could.
Q. So lets see, the EC9500 is more toxic than Crude, and it drives the oil off the surface ?
A. Yes it does, but the oil then has a home for many years under the ocean and in the currents as well when it does wash up on the beach it is the first time it sees the light of the sun.
Q. Is that like it did in LA beaces, jumping under the surface booms.
A. Yes, good trick to get it on the beach under the artifical booms put out by humans.
Q. So why did you use it again
A. So the public could not get pictures of the surface crude, we saved them from all the scary pictures. and our PR guy likes that a lot.
Q. How did you get the USCG and EPA to allow all that PR.
A. Well back in 1990 we found got some Federal Laws that put us in charge of the USCG and we can tell them what to do and not do .
Q. Are you still able to do that
A. Yes , we told them not to release video of the spill pipe, we told congress we would turn off the video, we blocked special sonar from seeing the bad subsea crude where most of it is, we hid the fingerprint analysis of the crude for legal reasons, we made statments that only a "light sheen" was on the water, we said that EC9527A makes little droplets and all goes away some place in the big ocean by natural functions of nature.
Q. So you protect nature more than your wellhead
A. We never said that, just try to preserve it when we come up with solutions for stopping the crude outflow. upps spill.
Q. Guess that is why any of your solutions are not to drill down 8000 feet next to the well with another , pack it at the 8000 mark with explosive and bring over a mile of earth down on it.
A. Yes we have stockholders to think of. that is why we are sending prifits out of the country so they are safe if the US ever figures we do not have enough money to pay for all this, but then if we drive all the surface crude down under the dark ocean, thay can not tell how much is spilled, thus how much needs to be claned up when someone invents a way to do it.
Q Is that why you said 500,000 $ would be contributed to research in the future by BP.
A. Yes, we want to control that also.
Q. One final question-> Did the British get defeated by the American Navy so BP could come back years later and be in command of their forces.?
looking at the flanged pipe that is to be cut off it seems that the flange could be removed with a robotic wrench. replace with a shut off valve that has two flanges top and bottom.after bottom flange is securly fastened down shut valve off and stop the flow.
I don't mean to be stirring a hornets nest here, but the issue is Federal Regulations. We are looking at a 5 mile deep well, 15 miles from shore. The cost to drill there, (about $250,000.00 per day, although Chevron has a rig running at $500,000.00 per day, 30,000 feet deep,) the extreme lack of control, and just plain inability to work efficiently at this depth is a simple fact. The Federal Government has made this a requirement...
Get the drills ON LAND, where an accident takes an afternoon, and the cost is less than 1% of the cost of drilling in 5 miles of water. Florida needs to enact Federalism, pass a law, and tell the Federal Government to do its job...
We could end the issues for the country in all aspects of oil. Cost would drop to under a dollar a gallon, cleanup would be easy, thousands of jobs would be created, and we would stop sending the estimated $400,000,000,000.00 to the Middle East every year.
Instead, we drill under impossible regulation, watch China drill our oil off Cuba with a process that is thousands of times more dangerous than ours, and now we have an open well 5 miles deep. The water temp at 5 miles is between 32 and 35 degrees f...
Drill on land, and this entire issue!
I dislike the word well right now,but WELL said*
i am sorry i am not farmiliar with CAPTCHA
google oil spill syndrome
Post new comment