lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf
9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
PHYSICAL STATE Liquid
APPEARANCE Clear Hazy Amber
ODOR Hydrocarbon
SPECIFIC GRAVITY 0.95 @ 60 °F / 15.6 °C
DENSITY 7.91 lb/gal
SOLUBILITY IN WATER Miscible
pH (100 %) 6.2
VISCOSITY 177 cps @ 32 °F / 0 °C 70 cps @ 60 °F / 15.6 °C @ 104 °F / 40 °C
VISCOSITY @ 32 °F / 0 °C @ 60 °F / 15.6 °C 22.5 cst @ 104 °F / 40 °C
POUR POINT < -71 °F / < -57 °C BOILING POINT 296 °F / 147 °C VAPOR PRESSURE 15.5 mm Hg @ 100 °F / 37.8 °C Environment, Mississippi Press »
Despite EPA order, BP continues to use toxic chemical dispersant on oil spill
By The Associated Press
May 24, 2010, 4:00PM
View full sizeIn this Tuesday, April 27, 2010 file photo, a dispersant plane passes over an oil skimmer as it cleans oil in the Gulf of Mexico near the coast of Louisiana. BP is continuing to use a toxic chemical to break up the oil spill despite an EPA order to stop its use by Sunday.WASHINGTON -- BP PLC is continuing to spray a toxic chemical dispersant to break up the Gulf oil spill, even though a deadline to stop use of the chemical has passed.
The Environmental Protection Agency directed BP last week to find an alternative to a dispersant, called Corexit 9500, that has been identified as a "moderate" human health hazard. The product can cause eye, skin or respiratory irritation with prolonged exposure.
Corexit was on a list of preapproved dispersants available to BP after the oil spill, but federal officials said much about the dispersant remains unknown.
The EPA directed BP to use a less toxic dispersant as of Sunday night. The company told the government over the weekend that no better alternative was available.
Fishermen question use of chemical dispersants in gulf oil spill, May 12, 2010
.....
No one but the Texas-based manufacturer, Nalco Energy Services, knows exactly what's in Corexit 9500, the dispersant BP has been spraying on the slick. The company says it may pose a risk for eye and skin irritations and can cause respiratory problems, but "no toxicity studies have been conducted on this product."
.....
So far, airplanes have sprayed 315,000 gallons across the gulf's surface to control the spill.
On Monday, three Louisiana officials wrote to Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive, expressing "serious concerns about the lack of information related to the use of dispersants." They said they wanted "a BP commitment that the dispersants being used to fight the oil spill will not cause irreparable short term or long term harm to our wetlands, coast, environment, marine life, wildlife or people."
Corexit 9500 has been approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, although tests indicate it can be stored in the tissue of organisms. More than half of the agent in tests wound up storing in sediment, with less absorbing into the water.
Every time EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has met with fishing groups about the spill, she has faced questions about what effect the chemicals in the dispersants might have on seafood, agency spokeswoman Andora Andy said. For now, she said, the agency is awaiting test results.
"A dispersant doesn't get rid of oil," said George Henderson, a senior scientist with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute in St. Petersburg who is the state's top science adviser on the oil spill. "It just transforms its movement."
.....
"You're making a decision to save your birds at the expense of your larval fish and shellfish population," agreed Henderson. But marine life should be able to bounce back more rapidly, he said.
That's when the dispersants are sprayed on the surface, as their manufacturer recommends. Over the past week, BP has been testing a radical approach, shooting the dispersants at the source of the leaks a mile beneath the surface, even though EPA officials say the effects of underwater use "are still widely unknown."
.....
However, Ferguson could not say how many gallons of dispersant BP has sprayed underwater.
One 2006 study found that oil droplets treated with a chemical dispersant didn't degrade nearly as fast when they were in very cold water — and the water a mile deep is just above freezing.
The shrimpers are worried that using dispersants at such a depth would guarantee that it would spread the oil droplets and dispersant on the sea floor, where shrimp larvae and other organisms could be affected.
There are no federal standards for how much dispersant could be present in seafood consumed by humans, said Nancy Thompson, director of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
.....
No one but the Texas-based manufacturer, Nalco Energy Services, knows exactly what's in Corexit 9500, the dispersant BP has been spraying on the slick. The company says it may pose a risk for eye and skin irritations and can cause respiratory problems, but "no toxicity studies have been conducted on this product."
.....
So far, airplanes have sprayed 315,000 gallons across the gulf's surface to control the spill.
On Monday, three Louisiana officials wrote to Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive, expressing "serious concerns about the lack of information related to the use of dispersants." They said they wanted "a BP commitment that the dispersants being used to fight the oil spill will not cause irreparable short term or long term harm to our wetlands, coast, environment, marine life, wildlife or people."
Corexit 9500 has been approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, although tests indicate it can be stored in the tissue of organisms. More than half of the agent in tests wound up storing in sediment, with less absorbing into the water.
Every time EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has met with fishing groups about the spill, she has faced questions about what effect the chemicals in the dispersants might have on seafood, agency spokeswoman Andora Andy said. For now, she said, the agency is awaiting test results.
"A dispersant doesn't get rid of oil," said George Henderson, a senior scientist with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute in St. Petersburg who is the state's top science adviser on the oil spill. "It just transforms its movement."
.....
"You're making a decision to save your birds at the expense of your larval fish and shellfish population," agreed Henderson. But marine life should be able to bounce back more rapidly, he said.
That's when the dispersants are sprayed on the surface, as their manufacturer recommends. Over the past week, BP has been testing a radical approach, shooting the dispersants at the source of the leaks a mile beneath the surface, even though EPA officials say the effects of underwater use "are still widely unknown."
.....
However, Ferguson could not say how many gallons of dispersant BP has sprayed underwater.
One 2006 study found that oil droplets treated with a chemical dispersant didn't degrade nearly as fast when they were in very cold water — and the water a mile deep is just above freezing.
The shrimpers are worried that using dispersants at such a depth would guarantee that it would spread the oil droplets and dispersant on the sea floor, where shrimp larvae and other organisms could be affected.
There are no federal standards for how much dispersant could be present in seafood consumed by humans, said Nancy Thompson, director of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
.....
Not mentioned in the above article is this crucial fact:
From the NYT, May 5, 2010
.....
What is more, the main dispersants applied so far, from a product line called Corexit, had their approval rescinded in Britain a decade ago because laboratory tests found them harmful to sea life that inhabits rocky shores, like limpets, said Mark Kirby, a scientific adviser to the British government on the testing, use and approval of oil spill treatment options.
What is more, the main dispersants applied so far, from a product line called Corexit, had their approval rescinded in Britain a decade ago because laboratory tests found them harmful to sea life that inhabits rocky shores, like limpets, said Mark Kirby, a scientific adviser to the British government on the testing, use and approval of oil spill treatment options.
So, no one knows what untold long-term damage BP is causing in the food chain, and, ultimately to the public health, in addition to the massive oil hemorrhage itself in the Gulf. And BP sure doesn't want us to find out.
Today, the oil executives pointed fingers at each other on the Hill.
.....
BP was the exploratory well's owner and overall operator, Transocean the rig's owner and Halliburton a subcontractor that was encasing the well pipe in cement before plugging it in anticipation of future production.
.....
Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama grew frustrated grilling the executives on why engineers replaced a heavy "mud" compound in the well with much lighter sea water — thereby reducing downward pressure on the oil — when they were temporarily capping the site for future exploitation. He quoted an oil rig worker saying, "That's when the well came at us, basically."
"I'm not familiar with the individual procedure on that well," BP's McKay said.
Steven Newman, Transocean's president and CEO, and Halliburton executive Tim Probert repeatedly told Sessions they did not know how often sea water instead of the compound was used to seal Gulf wells.
"Well, you do this business, do you not?" the senator demanded. "You're under oath. I'm just asking you a simple question."
New Jersey Democrat Frank Lautenberg remarked in the day's other hearing: "The conclusion that I draw is that nobody assumes the responsibility."
(Lamar McKay, Chairman of BP America) said that a key piece of safety equipment, the aptly named blowout preventer, had failed to work and made it clear it was owned by Transocean. "That was the fail safe in case of an accident," said McKay.
But Transocean's Newman said offshore production projects "begin and end with the operator, in this case BP" and that his company's drilling job was completed three days before the explosion and there's "no reason to believe" the blowout protector mechanics failed.
And Newman wanted senators to know Halliburton was in the process of pouring cement into the pipe to plug it but the final well cap had not yet been put in place.
Halliburton's Probert said his company followed BP's drilling plan, federal regulations and industry practices.
BP was the exploratory well's owner and overall operator, Transocean the rig's owner and Halliburton a subcontractor that was encasing the well pipe in cement before plugging it in anticipation of future production.
.....
Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama grew frustrated grilling the executives on why engineers replaced a heavy "mud" compound in the well with much lighter sea water — thereby reducing downward pressure on the oil — when they were temporarily capping the site for future exploitation. He quoted an oil rig worker saying, "That's when the well came at us, basically."
"I'm not familiar with the individual procedure on that well," BP's McKay said.
Steven Newman, Transocean's president and CEO, and Halliburton executive Tim Probert repeatedly told Sessions they did not know how often sea water instead of the compound was used to seal Gulf wells.
"Well, you do this business, do you not?" the senator demanded. "You're under oath. I'm just asking you a simple question."
New Jersey Democrat Frank Lautenberg remarked in the day's other hearing: "The conclusion that I draw is that nobody assumes the responsibility."
(Lamar McKay, Chairman of BP America) said that a key piece of safety equipment, the aptly named blowout preventer, had failed to work and made it clear it was owned by Transocean. "That was the fail safe in case of an accident," said McKay.
But Transocean's Newman said offshore production projects "begin and end with the operator, in this case BP" and that his company's drilling job was completed three days before the explosion and there's "no reason to believe" the blowout protector mechanics failed.
And Newman wanted senators to know Halliburton was in the process of pouring cement into the pipe to plug it but the final well cap had not yet been put in place.
Halliburton's Probert said his company followed BP's drilling plan, federal regulations and industry practices.
These people should be strung up by their thumbs.
No comments:
Post a Comment