They catch on fast in South Texas.
Late last month, the industry’s PR front organization, the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council, released a little report that could have been titled, Frack Gas: Good For You Or What?, and branded with big double-thumbs up.
Only, that Houston group came along and bent those thumbs back till they broke clean off.
The San Antonio Current Blog caught on about the formaldehyde and moi got a small mention. Click on over for some useful quotes about the formaldehyde findings and a little well deserved brutality toward Titan Engineering.
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5115)
If it's vehicles making formaldehyde, then formaldehyde should be that high (or much higher!) in any city with a lot of vehicles. But, it's not the case.
What's so unique that vehicles make a lot of formaldehyde in North Texas, but not elsewhere?
It's not the vehicles, of course.
PART 1:
From BSEEC Final Report:
Doesn’t anybody read these reports? Does it take me to figure this out. 1.96ppbv is ABOVE the lkong term exposure level by .56ppbv.
“The 24-hour benzene concentration at EMR3DW was 1.96 ppbv, which is higher than the long-term
AMCV of 1.4 ppbv, but far lower than the short-term AMCV (180 ppbv). Since the preliminary
screening criteria (long-term AMCV) was exceeded, the 1.96 ppbv concentration was compared against
the 9 ppbv benzene Acute Inhalation MRL, as published by the ATSDR. In TITAN's opinion, the 1.96
ppbv concentration does not indicate a significant level of increased risk with respect to off-site ambient
air exposures, because it is well below the 9 ppbv Acute Inhalation MRL and because the NG Site is
located at the approximate center of Mercer Ranch, a 1,400 acre Encana property, where the nearest
receptor is located approximately 0.4 miles to the northwest. The EMR3DW sample location was
established to collect a maximum concentration (150 feet downwind of the tanks). Using a dispersion
rate over distance predicted by EPA’s SCREEN3 air dispersion model, at a downwind distance of 0.4
miles, the off-site 24-hour impact is estimated to drop from 1.96 ppbv at a maximum to approximately 0.5
ppbv (well below the 1.4 ppbv long-term AMCV criteria).”
Does anybody know what ESTIMATED means. I’m actually estimating that it’s going to be 2.6 ppbv.
Part 2:
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/air/memos/esl_memo_10_08.pdf
Effective immediately, the Toxicology Section (TS) recommends that the following values be used as interim Effects Screening Levels (ESLs) for carbonyl sulfide (CAS Reg. No. 463-58-1)
'untii this chemical undergoes formal ESL development under RG-442 (TCEQ 2006). These interim ESLs are 16.9 and 3.3 times higher than the previous carbonyl sulfide ESLs published on September 15,2008 ESLs List for short-term and long-term, respectively. J•Short-term* j135 flg/m.J I Long-'term I 2.6 flg/m3 * odor-based 55 ppbv 1.1 ppbv
Carbonyl sulfide is considered a category 3 gas and causes systemic adverse effect of
neurotoxicity upon short-term exposure. The proposed short-term interim ESL was based on a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 300 ppm for clinical signs and brain pathology in rats exposed to carbonyl sulfide for 6 hours (Morgan et al. 2004). The NOAEL identified from this study was used as the point of departure (POD). The POD was then adjusted by appropriate dosimetry adjustment factor and exposure duration to obtain a human equivalent POD (PODHEc,
540 ppm). The short-term reference value (ReV) of 1.8 ppm was calculated by applying a cumulative of uncertainty factor (UF) of 300 (a UFHof 10 for human variation, aUFA of 10 for interspecies extrapolation, and a UFD of 3 for uncertainty associated with an incomplete database) to the PODHEc of540 ppm. The short-termESLofO.54 ppm (540 ppbv or 1330
Ilg/m3) was set according to the ESL guidance based on the ReV of 1.8 ppm multiplied by a hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.3.
Odor-based ESL
Carbonyl sulfide is a colorless, flammable gas with a typical sulfur odor. An odor threshold of 135 Ilg/m3 reported by Nagata, et al. (2003) was selected for odor-based ESL. The odor threshold met the criteria accepted by US EPA (TCEQ 2006). Since the odor-based ESL is lower than health-based short-term ESL of 1330 Ilg/m3, the odor-based ESL of 135 Ilg/m3 or 55 ppb was selected as short-term ESL for carbonyl sulfide.
Long-term ESL
The proposed short-term interim ESL was based on an animal fertility study by Reyna and Ribelin (l987).Male rats were exposed to 0, 10, 60 or 182 ppm of carbonyl sulfide 6 hours/day, 5 days/week over a 13-week period. Only 12 of24 females mated with males exposed with 182 ppm became pregnant, compared with 20 of24 females in the 0, 10, and 60 ppm groups. A lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 182 ppm and a NOAEL of 60 ppm were identified from this study. The NOAEL of 60 ppm was selected as the POD for the derivation of long-term ESL.
I am so sick and tired, as you are probably too Sharon, of spending time uncovering the radical amount of bullshit the industry is saying.
Part II:
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/air/memos/esl_memo_10_08.pdf
Effective immediately, the Toxicology Section (TS) recommends that the following values be used as interim Effects Screening Levels (ESLs) for carbonyl sulfide (CAS Reg. No. 463-58-1)
'untii this chemical undergoes formal ESL development under RG-442 (TCEQ 2006). These interim ESLs are 16.9 and 3.3 times higher than the previous carbonyl sulfide ESLs published on September 15,2008 ESLs List for short-term and long-term, respectively. J•Short-term* j135 flg/m.J I Long-'term I 2.6 flg/m3 * odor-based 55 ppbv 1.1 ppbv
Carbonyl sulfide is considered a category 3 gas and causes systemic adverse effect of
neurotoxicity upon short-term exposure. The proposed short-term interim ESL was based on a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 300 ppm for clinical signs and brain pathology in rats exposed to carbonyl sulfide for 6 hours (Morgan et al. 2004). The NOAEL identified from this study was used as the point of departure (POD). The POD was then adjusted by appropriate dosimetry adjustment factor and exposure duration to obtain a human equivalent POD (PODHEc,
540 ppm). The short-term reference value (ReV) of 1.8 ppm was calculated by applying a cumulative of uncertainty factor (UF) of 300 (a UFHof 10 for human variation, aUFA of 10 for interspecies extrapolation, and a UFD of 3 for uncertainty associated with an incomplete database) to the PODHEc of540 ppm. The short-termESLofO.54 ppm (540 ppbv or 1330
Ilg/m3) was set according to the ESL guidance based on the ReV of 1.8 ppm multiplied by a hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.3.
Odor-based ESL
Carbonyl sulfide is a colorless, flammable gas with a typical sulfur odor. An odor threshold of 135 Ilg/m3 reported by Nagata, et al. (2003) was selected for odor-based ESL. The odor threshold met the criteria accepted by US EPA (TCEQ 2006). Since the odor-based ESL is lower than health-based short-term ESL of 1330 Ilg/m3, the odor-based ESL of 135 Ilg/m3 or 55 ppb was selected as short-term ESL for carbonyl sulfide.
Part III:
continued from TCEQ:
Long-term ESL
The proposed short-term interim ESL was based on an animal fertility study by Reyna and Ribelin (l987).Male rats were exposed to 0, 10, 60 or 182 ppm of carbonyl sulfide 6 hours/day, 5 days/week over a 13-week period. Only 12 of24 females mated with males exposed with 182 ppm became pregnant, compared with 20 of24 females in the 0, 10, and 60 ppm groups. A lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 182 ppm and a NOAEL of 60 ppm were identified from this study. The NOAEL of 60 ppm was selected as the POD for the derivation of long-term ESL.
I am so sick and tired, as you are probably too Sharon, of spending time uncovering the radical amount of bullshit the industry is saying.
From BSEEC: "As shown in Table 14, with the exception of the carbonyl sulfide concentration at QLA5DC, all 1-hour
sulfur compound concentrations were less than their respective AMCVs. The QLA5DC carbonyl sulfide
concentration of 130 ppbv is higher than the odor-based AMCV of 55 ppbv, but far below (7%) of the
1,800 ppbv health-based AMCV. Upon review of Figure 7, TITAN determined that the NG Site
operation is contributing to the ambient air concentration of carbonyl sulfide; however, it should be noted
that the QLA5DC point was located well within the property interior (estimated at 50-75 feet within the
interior), and off-site concentrations would be lower. This sampling point was re-located due to the
existence of a plant road and a sound wall immediately north of the compressor engines. In TITAN's
opinion, the carbonyl sulfide exceedance does not indicate a significant off-site exposure problem because
it's related to odor, not health effects, and the site is located in a heavy industrial area. As previously
stated, the 130 ppbv concentration is only 7% of the health-based AMCV."
Oh yea, and I am literally sick and tired from all the crap I am breathing in everyday. I used to be a vibrant athlete, now I am barely hanging on to my workouts.
Part IV: The TCEQ doesn't even test for Sulphides…
Part V.
Gotta get ready for work, my crime fighting is done until later. You should see this Excel spreadsheet I'm doing comparing TCEQ to Private Environmental Testing. The stuff is crazy. More crazy than my jack russell terrier on chocolate covered espresso beans!
Yeah, a few people have read it and I've posted about it. The whole report is a crock.
Thank you so much for reading and posting. Most people just believe the spin. They're too lazy to actually read the report.
Yea,
I guess, I'm still trying to figure out why do I have to do it? I thought that's what we paid the RRC and the TCEQ for. When do I get on payroll? I generally get paid between 35.00-75.00 per hour. Who do I bill out to: Perry, Bush, Cheney?
The people of the Eagle Ford need to be educated asap. Most of them have no idea what is about to happen.
I posted this in the wee hours after a week of long days and short nights. Please click over and read the SA Current blog post.
Notice how the Houston firm HARC has been bullied by industry so that questions are only taken in writing. how sad is that? Someone tells us the truth that will protect our health and they are persecuted for it.
Also notice that it is suggested our air could be as much as 100 times worse than the Titan study suggested.