DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future of Dispersant Use in Spill Response in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future of Dispersant Use in Spill Response in the United States The Future of Dispersant Use in Oil Spill Response Initiative March 22, 2012 Coastal Response Research Center Research Planning Incorporated National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Response Research Center 1 FOREWORD The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the primary scientific adviser to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and a trustee for the Nation’s marine natural resources. In support of these responsibilities, NOAA conducted an evaluation of the observations and science conducted during the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) spill to build a foundation for planning and decision making in future spills, identify key information gaps and develop a research plan for closing the gaps. This initiative included academic and agency scientists and stakeholders to collect and evaluate the available scientific evidence concerning both surface and subsurface application of dispersants during the DWH emergency response. To broaden this initiative it is being organized and coordinated under the Interagency Coordinating Committee for Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR), established under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC), a partnership between the University of New Hampshire and NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration (ORR), and Research Planning, Incorporated (RPI) are partnering with NOAA to coordinate and carry out this project. Contained in this report are: an overview of the information synthesis; expert white papers on dispersant efficacy and effectiveness, degradation of dispersants and dispersed oil, physical transport and chemical behavior of dispersed oil, biological effects of dispersants and dispersed oil on surface and deep ocean species, dispersants and seafood safety, dispersants and human health, and dispersants and risk communication; an independent chemical analysis on the COREXIT dispersants used during the DWH spill; and the outcomes of the workshop. If you have any comments about the initiative or this report, please contact us. This effort is part of NOAA ORR’s on-going activities to improve oil spill response and restoration in the aftermath of Deepwater Horizon and support preparedness for future spills. Sincerely, Nancy E. Kinner, Ph.D. Doug Helton UNH Co-Director Incident Operations Coordinator Professor of Civil/Environmental Engineering NOAA Office of Response and Restoration 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword 1 I. Introduction 5 II. Overall Project Process 8 II a. White Papers 8 II b. Chemical Analysis of COREXIT 9 II c. Workshop Process 10 II d. Report and Recommendations 10 III. Chemical Analysis of COREXIT Report 11 IV. Topic Chapters 11 IV a. Dispersant Efficacy and Effectiveness 12 IV b. Degradation of Dispersants and Dispersed Oil 17 IV c. Physical Transport and Chemical Behavior of Dispersed 21 Oil IV d. Biological Effects of Dispersants and Dispersed Oil on 24 Surface and Deep Ocean Species IV e. Dispersants and Seafood Safety 30 IV f. Dispersants and Human Health 34 IV g. Dispersants and Risk Communication and 38 Public/Media/Political Perspectives V. Synthesis, Next Steps, Recommendations 43 Appendices: 1. Unabridged White Papers a. Dispersant Efficacy and Effectiveness b. Degradation of Dispersants and Dispersed Oil c. Physical Transport and Chemical Behavior of Dispersed Oil d. Biological Effects of Dispersants and Dispersed Oil on Surface and Deep Ocean Species e. Dispersant and Seafood Safety f. Dispersants and Human Health g. Dispersants and Risk Communication and Public/Media/Political Perspectives 2. Workshop Participant List 3. Workshop Agenda 4. Notes taken during Workshop 3 I. Introduction The explosion and subsequent blowout of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) offshore drilling rig on 20 April 2010 led to the largest oil spill in United States history and the second largest in the world, with the release of approximately 200 million gallons of light crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. In response to this Spill of National Significance, oil response strategies, including the use of chemical dispersants, were put in place to reduce the amount surface oil reaching shoreline habitats and to minimize impacts to the local biological communities. At the time of the spill, eight oil dispersants were listed on the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, only one dispersant brand (COREXIT; Nalco; Naperville, Il) had sufficient stocks and production capabilities to support a spill of this magnitude. Although the contingency plan for the Gulf of Mexico (EPA Regions 4 and 6) pre- authorized the use of several pre-approved product formulations, COREXIT 9527A and COREXIT 9500A were the dispersants of choice. During the DWH response, surface and subsurface operations applied approximately 1,744,152 gallons of dispersants over 84 days. Dispersants were applied at the surface for 61 days (22 April-19 July 2010), and injected at the source (subsurface) for 68 days (30 April-15 July 2010) (Figure 1). Although COREXIT 9500A and COREXIT 9527A were used in the response, the later comprised only 22% (214,669 gallons) of the total dispersant volume, which was only applied at the surface. Daily application volumes averaged 15,949 gallons per day (min- max: 125-56,220) for surface applications, and 11,342 gallons per day (min-max: 2,100- 20,655) for subsurface applications. At a targeted application rate of 5 gallons per acre (1:20 dispersant to oil ratio (DOR) to achieve effective dispersion), surface applications used 56% (972,880 gallons) of the total dispersant volume over an operating area of ~18,000 square miles. Aircraft applied dispersants at an altitude of 50-75 feet and a speed of 150 knots. Operations were restricted to at least 3 nautical miles offshore, with most operations taking place more than 10 nautical miles offshore1. Nearly 70% of the dispersant volume was used at the surface during the first month of the response, with surface application rates diminishing, with a few exceptions, for the duration of the response. On 26 May 2010, the EPA directed a decrease in use of dispersant and the cessation of surface applications (Addendum 3 to the Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive). By the end of surface dispersant operations, 412 sorties had applied dispersants on approximately 305 square miles. Vessels, to a lesser extent, were also involved in the application of dispersants at the surface. Most of their applications concentrated within a 5 nautical mile radius around the former location of the rig at an application rate of 5-20 gallons per acre and a 1:20 DOR. The primary purpose for the vessel dispersant applications was to reduce the concentrations of volatile organic compounds and exposure to workers on the response, drilling, and containment operations near the release site. 4 4/26 5/3 5/10 5/17 5/24 5/31 6/7 6/14 6/21 6/28 7/5 7/12 7/19 Surface Corexit 9500 60000 Corexit 9527 45000 30000 15000 Dispersant volume (gallons) volume Dispersant Subsurface Corexit 9500 60000 45000 30000 15000 Dispersant volume (gallons) volume Dispersant 1800000 Total 1500000 60000 1200000 45000 900000 30000 (gallons) 600000 15000 300000 Dispersant volume(gallons) Cumulative dispersant volume dispersant Cumulative 4/26 5/10 5/24 6/7 6/21 7/5 7/19 Date Figure 1. Daily surface and subsurface dispersant application during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (top and center panels). The dashed lines represent the average surface (blue) and subsurface (dark yellow) applications. The bottom panel represents daily (bars) and cumulative (line) dispersant application totals. Injection of dispersant at the source (seafloor) was approved by the EPA on 14 May 2010 (Addendum 1 to the Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive) and remained operational for the duration of the release, except for limited periods of time. Starting on 15 May 2010, dispersants were applied at the oil release site through a wand held by a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) at an average dispersant application rate of 8.3 gallons/minute (range: 2.4-14.3 gallons/minute). With a few exceptions, these application rates were below the EPA imposed maximum rate of 15,000 gallons/day (10.4 gallons/minute) (Addendum 3 to the Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive). Based on initial estimates of oil flow rates, the proposed dispersant injection into the 5 plume was 1:20 DOR, but estimates from the available data indicate an average DOR of 1:268 (range: 1:122 to 1:1,200). A total of 771,272 gallons of dispersant were injected into the source during subsea dispersant operations. To date, the precise fate of spilled oil is unknown, including what proportion the escaping oil was chemically or naturally dispersed2. Early during the spill the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), EPA, other federal agencies, and the academic community were mobilized to locate, monitor, and analyze the behavior and distribution of surface and subsurface oil.i These efforts included the monitoring of dispersant application operations and dispersant effectiveness at the surface and at the wellhead. Samples were collected from areas near the wellhead to the coastal zone, and at depths from 5,000 feet (1,500 meters) to the water surface. Water and sediments samples were collected for chemical quantification of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), low molecular weight monoaromatics (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene(s); BTEX), dispersant constituents (propylene glycol, di-propylene
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Written Testimony of Shanna Devine Worker Health and Safety Advocate
    Written Testimony of Shanna Devine Worker Health and Safety Advocate, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee On “Mismanaging Chemical Risks: EPA’s Failure to Protect Workers” March 13, 2019 Dear Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and Members of the Subcommittee, Thank you for holding this crucial hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) failure to protect workers from chemicals risks. I serve as the worker health and safety advocate for Public Citizen, a national consumer advocacy and public interest organization with more than 500,000 members and supporters. Since 1971, Public Citizen has advocated for stronger health, safety and consumer protection measures, as well as curbs on corporate wrongdoing. I previously worked as an investigator for the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection and advocacy organization, where I led a multiyear dispersant whistleblower investigation. The investigation, which I understand is ongoing, examined worker health impacts from chemical exposure during the Deepwater Horizon disaster.i I worked firsthand with whistleblowers, and this testimony incorporates lessons learned by those brave individuals, who should be the pioneer witnesses providing a foundation for dispersant oversight. EPA’s failure to adequately regulate dispersants – toxic chemicals used in an unprecedented manner in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster – is a tragic example of the agency’s failure to protect workers under its implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which made significant amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). While this is by no means the only chemical that EPA has failed to protect workers from, several unique factors make it particularly timely for congressional oversight.
    [Show full text]
  • Genomic Insight Into the Host–Endosymbiont Relationship of Endozoicomonas Montiporae CL-33T with Its Coral Host
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 08 March 2016 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00251 Genomic Insight into the Host–Endosymbiont Relationship of Endozoicomonas montiporae CL-33T with its Coral Host Jiun-Yan Ding 1, Jia-Ho Shiu 1, Wen-Ming Chen 2, Yin-Ru Chiang 1 and Sen-Lin Tang 1* 1 Biodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan, 2 Department of Seafood Science, Laboratory of Microbiology, National Kaohsiung Marine University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan The bacterial genus Endozoicomonas was commonly detected in healthy corals in many coral-associated bacteria studies in the past decade. Although, it is likely to be a core member of coral microbiota, little is known about its ecological roles. To decipher potential interactions between bacteria and their coral hosts, we sequenced and investigated the first culturable endozoicomonal bacterium from coral, the E. montiporae CL-33T. Its genome had potential sign of ongoing genome erosion and gene exchange with its Edited by: Rekha Seshadri, host. Testosterone degradation and type III secretion system are commonly present in Department of Energy Joint Genome Endozoicomonas and may have roles to recognize and deliver effectors to their hosts. Institute, USA Moreover, genes of eukaryotic ephrin ligand B2 are present in its genome; presumably, Reviewed by: this bacterium could move into coral cells via endocytosis after binding to coral’s Eph Kathleen M. Morrow, University of New Hampshire, USA receptors. In addition, 7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine triphosphatase and isocitrate lyase Jean-Baptiste Raina, are possible type III secretion effectors that might help coral to prevent mitochondrial University of Technology Sydney, Australia dysfunction and promote gluconeogenesis, especially under stress conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Deepwater Horizon Vs. Bouchard B120
    EVALUATION OF US FEDERAL OIL SPILL POLICIES: BOUCHARD B120 AND DEEPWATER HORIZON BY: QUINN RELIHAN THESIS ADVISOR: DR. ILENE KAPLAN PURPOSE • TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE BACKGROUND, IMPACTS AND TREATMENT OF TWO MAJOR OIL SPILLS AND INVESTIGATE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND ANY NEED FOR NEW AND/OR DIFFERENT POLICIES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_regulations_in_the_United_States METHOD: IN-DEPTH CASE STUDIES BOUCHARD B120 DEEPWATER HORIZON https://www.cerc.usgs.gov/orda_docs/CaseDetails?ID=966 https://www.britannica.com/event/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill MAJOR POLICIES • OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT (OCSLA) 1953 • COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT (CGMTA) • NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP) 1968 OF 2006 • PORT AND WATERWAYS SAFETY ACT OF 1972 • PIPELINE SAFETY, REGULATORY CERTAINTY AND JOB CREATION ACT 2011 • SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE (SPCC) 1973 • RESTORE ACT 2011 • CLEAN WATER ACT 1972 • OFFSHORE PRODUCTION AND SAFETY ACT OF 2011 • PORT AND TANKER SAFETY ACT 1978 • PIONEERS ACT 2012 • CERCLA 1980 • CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT 2012 • OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND (OSLTF) 1986 • BUREAU OF SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT • OIL POLLUTION ACT (OPA) 1990 REVISIONS 2019 • TANK VESSEL AND FACILITY RESPONSE PLANS 2004 RESULTS OF CASE STUDY COMPARISON BOUCHARD B120 BOTH DEEPWATER HORIZON • LACKED PROACTIVE LEGISLATION • SIZE: 98,000 GALLONS • SIZE: ~4.9 MILLION GALLONS • LONG-TERM & SHORT-TERM EFFECTS • RESPONSIBLE PARTIES: BP, TRANSOCEAN • RESPONSIBLE PARTY: BOUCHARD
    [Show full text]
  • Defoamer Formulation Entschäumerzusammensetzung Composition Antimousse
    (19) TZZ ¥ZZ_T (11) EP 2 430 095 B1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT SPECIFICATION (45) Date of publication and mention (51) Int Cl.: of the grant of the patent: C08L 33/06 (2006.01) B01D 19/04 (2006.01) 07.03.2018 Bulletin 2018/10 (86) International application number: (21) Application number: 10720061.0 PCT/US2010/033827 (22) Date of filing: 06.05.2010 (87) International publication number: WO 2010/132262 (18.11.2010 Gazette 2010/46) (54) DEFOAMER FORMULATION ENTSCHÄUMERZUSAMMENSETZUNG COMPOSITION ANTIMOUSSE (84) Designated Contracting States: • WILSON, Robert AL AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB Marietta, GA 30060 (US) GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO • ROSENCRANCE, Scott PL PT RO SE SI SK SM TR Douglasville, GA 30135 (US) • PREVIS, David (30) Priority: 15.05.2009 US 466637 King William, VA 23086 (US) (43) Date of publication of application: (74) Representative: Potter Clarkson LLP 21.03.2012 Bulletin 2012/12 The Belgrave Centre Talbot Street (73) Proprietor: Kemira Chemicals Inc. Nottingham NG1 5GG (GB) Atlanta GA 30339 (US) (56) References cited: (72) Inventors: GB-A- 2 094 330 US-A- 5 152 925 • MARTIN, James Bonaire, GA 31005 (US) Note: Within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin, any person may give notice to the European Patent Office of opposition to that patent, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. Notice of opposition shall not be deemed to have been filed until the opposition fee has been paid.
    [Show full text]
  • Deepwater Horizon: a Preliminary Bibliography of Published Research and Expert Commentary
    1 US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Deepwater Horizon: A Preliminary Bibliography of Published Research and Expert Commentary Compiled by Chris Belter NOAA Central Library Current References Series No. 2011-01 First Issued: February 2011 Last Updated: 13 May 2014 NOAA Central Library 2 About This Bibliography This bibliography attempts to list all of the published research and expert commentary that has resulted from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It includes peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, technical reports released by scientific agencies and institutions, and editorials published in peer-reviewed journals. The peer-reviewed publications and technical reports in this bibliography are sorted into three subject categories: natural, medical, and social sciences. Data sets, fact sheets, maps, and news items not published in peer-reviewed journals are outside the scope of this bibliography. In addition to this bibliography, the NOAA Central Library has also compiled a more comprehensive bibliography on oil spills and oil spill remediation around the world entitled "Resources on Oil Spills, Response, and Restoration: A Selected Bibliography". The Library has also created the Deepwater Horizon Repository, a fully searchable public repository of data and information produced in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Note: Publications marked with a were written by at least one NOAA-affiliated author. Effective 13 May 2014, this bibliography will no longer be updated. Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Building Community Resilience to Large Oil Spills
    C O R P O R A T I O N MELISSA L. FINUCANE, AARON CLARK-GINSBERG, ANDREW M. PARKER, ALEJANDRO U. BECERRA-ORNELAS, NOREEN CLANCY, RAJEEV RAMCHAND, TIM SLACK, VANESSA PARKS, LYNSAY AYER, AMANDA F. EDELMAN, ELIZABETH L. PETRUN SAYERS, SHANTHI NATARAJ, CRAIG A. BOND, AMY E. LESEN, REGARDT J. FERREIRA, LEAH DRAKEFORD, JACQUELINE FIORE, MARGARET M. WEDEN, K. BRENT VENABLE, A. BARRIE BLACK Building Community Resilience to Large Oil Spills Findings and Recommendations from a Synthesis of Research on the Mental Health, Economic, and Community Distress Associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill rr-A409-1_cover_8.5x11_v6.indd All Pages 6/25/20 12:08 PM For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA409-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0535-7 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: Johannes Schmitt-Tegge/dpa/Alamy Live News. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous.
    [Show full text]
  • Health and the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill JSOST Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator (PI) Conference St
    Health and the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill JSOST Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator (PI) Conference St. Petersburg, FL, October 5‐6, 2010 Edward J. Trapido, Sc.D., F.A.C.E. Associate Dean for Research LSUHSC School of Public Health Professor and Wendell Gauthier Chair for Cancer Eppgyidemiology Coordinator of Gulf Oil Spill Research LSU Health Sciences Center- New Orleans Deputy Director, Stanley S . Scott Cancer Center Co-Director, Gulf Health Consortium Photo: 6/26/10 Still in Our Headlines Still In Our Community: “Art for A rt’ s S ak e” 10-02-10” (53 Barrels) Oil Analytes of Interest OSHA’ s Concerns • Benzene (crude oils high in BTEX, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene) , • Benzo(a)pyrene (a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon reproductive , formed when oil or gasoline burns), • CbCarbon diid(itidioxide (inerting a tmosp here, bypro duc tft of com bus ti)tion), • Carbon monoxide (byproduct of combustion) Ethyl benzene (high in gasoline), • Hydrogen sulfide (oils high in sulfur, decaying plants and animals), • Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) (octane booster and clean air additive for gasoline, or pure MTBE)- potentially carcinogenic in humans; carcinogenic in animals • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (occur in crude oil, and formed during burning of oil), • Sulfuric acid (byproduct of combustion of sour petroleum product), • Toluene (high BTEX crude oils), Xylenes (high BTEX crude oils). NOAA: A More Positive View • Chemical nature of the oil Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (MS252) oil is a South Louisiana sweet crude oil (crude oil is termed sweet if it is low in sulfur). MS252 oil is a complex mixture of thousands of chemical compounds.
    [Show full text]
  • The Activated Sludge Process Part 1 Revised July 2014
    Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Certification Training Module 15: The Activated Sludge Process Part 1 Revised July 2014 This course includes content developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Pa. DEP) in cooperation with the following contractors, subcontractors, or grantees: The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) Gannett Fleming, Inc. Dering Consulting Group Penn State Harrisburg Environmental Training Center MODULE 15: THE ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS - PART 1 Topical Outline Unit 1 – General Description of the Activated Sludge Process I. Definitions A. Activated Sludge B. Activated Sludge Process II. The Activated Sludge Process Description A. Organisms B. Secondary Clarification C. Activated Sludge Process Control III. Activated Sludge Plants A. Types of Plants B. Factors that Upset Plant Operation IV. Unit Review V. References Unit 2 – Aeration I. Purpose of Aeration II. Aeration Methods A. Mechanical B. Diffused III. Aeration Systems A. Mechanical Aeration Systems B. Diffused Aeration Systems Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, Department of Environmental Protection Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Training i MODULE 15: THE ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS - PART 1 IV. Safety Procedures A. Aeration Tanks and Clarifiers B. Surface Aerators C. Air Filters D. Blowers E. Air Distribution System F. Air Headers and Diffusers V. Review VI. References Unit 3 – New Plant Start-Up Procedures I. Purpose of Plant and Equipment Review A. Document Familiarization B. Equipment Familiarization II. Equipment and Structures Check A. Flow Control Gates and Valves B. Piping and Channels C. Weirs D. Froth Control System E. Air System F. Secondary Clarifier III. Process Start-Up A. Process Units B. Process Control IV. Unit Review V.
    [Show full text]
  • Labels of Pesticides Used with This Product
    Brandt® Organics Defoamer Antifoaming / Defoaming Agent KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN Principal Functioning Agents: Silica filled polydimethylsiloxane .................10% WARNING Constituents ineffective as spray adjuvant ....... 90% Total........................................... 100% PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS CA Reg. No. 48813-50022-AA HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS DIRECTIONS FOR USE WARNING: Causes serious eye irritation. Causes skin irritation. Wear protective eyewear, long sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes BRANDT ORGANICS DEFOAMER is a high quality silicone based plus socks and chemical resistant gloves made of any waterproof anti-foaming agent designed to prevent foam formation or defeat material when mixing or handling concentrate. Wash thoroughly existing foams in pesticide spray solutions. Excessive foaming with soap and water after handling and before eating, drinking, can promote inefficiency in spray activities. It may be used on chewing gum, using tobacco, or using the toilet. Remove and wash agricultural, forestry, turf and ornamental, industrial, structural contaminated clothing before reuse. and non-cropland sites. Not for aquatic use. Read and follow the precautions, restrictions and recommendations ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS on the labels of pesticides used with this product. Use according to Do not contaminate water when cleaning equipment or disposing the most restrictive label directions for each product in any tank mix. of equipment washwaters. COMPATIBILITY: BRANDT ORGANICS DEFOAMER is compatible FIRST AID with most pesticides. However, if the desired combination has Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison not been previously used, a compatibility test is recommended. control center or doctor or going for treatment. MIXING: Fill spray tank 1/2 full of water and begin agitation.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary: Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Terms
    Glossary September 2011 Wastewater Treatment Collection System &Terms Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 wq-wwtp8-20 Contents Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Terms A ........... 3-6 G ...... 24-25 M ..... 29-31 S ........ 42-51 B ........... 7-9 H ....... 26-27 N ....... 32-33 T ........ 52-54 C ....... 10-15 I ......... 27-28 O ...... 33-35 U ............ 54 D ....... 15-19 J ............. 28 P ....... 35-40 V ....... 55-56 E ........ 19-21 K ............ 28 Q ............ 40 W ...... 56-57 F ........ 21-24 L ............. 29 R ....... 40-42 Z ............. 57 Acknowledgement Special thanks to Ken Kerri at California State University, Sacramento, for use of the glossary that appears in his self-study training courses, “Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Collection Systems” and “Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants.” A special acknowledgement to the Water Environment Federation for the use of their wastewater glossary for some of the definitions in this manual. Contributors Kay Curtin Steve Duerre Gene Erickson Editing and Graphic Design Nancy Ellefson This document was printed on 30 percent post-consumer recycled paper manufactured without the use of elemental chlorine. 2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency | All rights reserved. Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Terms A absorption The taking up of one substance into the body of another by chemical or molecular action after the adsorbtion process. accuracy In physical measurements, it is the degree of agreement between the quantity measured and the actual quantity. It should not be confused with ‘precision,’ which denotes the reproducibility of the measurement. acid A substance that yields hydrogen ions when dissolved in water resulting in a pH of less than 7; it can react with bases and certain metals to form salts.
    [Show full text]
  • Predicting Defoamer Performance in Coating Formulations
    Predicting Defoamer Performance in Coating Formulations C. James Reader and K.T. Griffin Lai Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., 7201 Hamilton Boulevard, Allentown, PA 18195-1501 C. James Reader, [email protected], 610-481-7380 K.T. Griffin Lai, [email protected], 610-481-7069 Introduction What is the usual procedure for finding a defoamer for a new waterborne coating formulation? For many companies, the procedure appears to be as follows: try the defoamers that you currently use and know; if these don’t work then try samples in the lab, ask a colleague or friend or, maybe, ask a supplier. This approach makes good sense when working with formulations that are similar, as defoamers will usually give consistent performance in similar formulations. However, when these tried and trusted defoamers don’t work, the Chemist has the frustrating task of trying to find a suitable product from a large selection of mysterious bottles on his or her lab bench. There is a truism in England that goes “if all else fails, read the instructions”; however, defoamers don’t usually come with instructions. Wouldn’t it be nice if they did? The difficulties in finding a suitable defoamer exist because the performance of each and every defoamer is affected by the formulation it is used in; change the formulation and the defoamer performance may often change as well. Defoamer selection is also one of the last steps in readying a formulation for final use, so the rest of the formulation is already mostly decided and the defoamer has to work with this.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gulf STUDY Four Years After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
    Environmental Factor, May 2014 The GuLF STUDY four years after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill By Robin Mackar On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, releasing more than 210 million gallons of oil. NIEHS, as part of the federal government's response, provided safety training for the more than 100,000 volunteer cleanup workers and initiated the GuLF STUDY (http://www.gulfstudy.nih.gov/) (Gulf Long-term Follow-up Study) - the largest study ever conducted on the potential health effects of an oil spill. In an April 11 teleconference, Dale Sandler, Ph.D., lead researcher for the GuLF STUDY and chief of the NIEHS Epidemiology Branch, updated members of the media, the public, and study participants on the progress of the study. More than 30 reporters participated in the call, and in the days that followed, several hundred media outlets published stories about the GuLF STUDY. On April 17, Sandler presented a similar overview to NIEHS staff, at the request of David Miller, Ph.D., head of the NIEHS Laboratory of Toxicology and Pharmacology. Stay engaged, get second health exam Sandler emphasized that while much progress has been made, study participants need to stay involved over the long term. Researchers are contacting all participants to conduct telephone interviews on current health status. In addition, they are inviting participants living within 60 miles of Mobile, Ala. and New Orleans to take part in a second comprehensive health exam. NIEHS has partnered with health clinics at the University of South Alabama College of Medicine (http://www.usahealthsystem.com/com) and Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine (http://www.medschool.lsuhsc.edu/) to conduct the health exams, which will focus on neurological, respiratory, and mental health issues.
    [Show full text]