Would you want this corexit chemical dumped in our Alaska waters...  ?
Exxon didn't test the chemicals before using them during oil spill cleanup ...
& probably know they are no good even now, so why 'practice on Alaska?"
 
...and what workers would be needed ?
& what gear would they be provided? 
Will this damage more workers' lives?
 
no bioremediating or biodegrading at 4 degrees C & lower...
This is well known in chemical and bioremediation circles...
 
So  WHY are they dumping chemicals (& wanting to dump more chemicals) that will be held in suspended animation with all their deadly effects... into Alaska waters .... ? 
 
such as the herring ran into in 1993 ?
The scientists didn't know what was in the chemicals or they would have likely concluded what I did:
www.valdezlink.com/inipol/no.htm
Corexit?
Horrors...
http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/corexit.htm

A theory on what is happening to the steller sea lion population decline since 1950s is that there is probably a correlation as to what countries that border their ocean currents are dumping into the waters... biologists could take a fat biopsy of the animals & send it to a lab that specifically tests for residual chemicals in their system.

See proposed plan below.

 
RE:  Board of Directors approved letter going out to MMS now:
December  9, 2002

Ms. R.M. “Johnnie” Burton

Director

U.S. Minerals Management Service

1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.   20240

 
Re:   PWS-RCAC's Nov. 4, 2002 letter to MMS regarding the Joint Industry Project to evaluate the effectiveness of dispersants in cold water at Ohmsett
Dear Ms. Burton:
 
The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (PWS-RCAC) is an independent non-profit corporation whose mission is to promote environmentally safe operation of the Valdez Marine Terminal and associated tankers.  Our work is guided by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90) and our contract with Alyeska Pipeline Service Company.  PWS-RCAC's 18 member organizations are communities in the region affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, as well as commercial fishing, aquaculture, Native, recreation, tourism and environmental groups.
 
On November 4, 2002 PWS-RCAC sent the attached letter to Joseph Mullin of the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) concerning the above referenced Ohmsett demonstration.  Since we have not heard back from Mr. Mullin, we are writing to again express our concerns. 
 
The PWS-RCAC is a unique organization in that Federal agencies are charged with consulting us on “all permits, site specific regulations, and other matters governing the activities and actions of the terminal facilities which affect or may affect the vicinity of the terminal facilities.”  OPA 90 also directs the PWS-RCAC to “review relevant scientific work undertaken on behalf of any government entity relating to the terminal facilities or crude oil tankers.” 
 
Because the proposed joint industry study at Ohmsett may have direct bearing on the local decisions regarding dispersant use, our November letter to Mr. Mullin (attached),  requested that PWS-RCAC be consulted on the methodologies of any MMS dispersant research applicable to our region.  If this demonstration proceeds, PWS-RCAC will undertake a thorough review including the provisions within OPA90.  This review will form the basis for a public information effort to correct any overly broad Exxon/MMS claims such as what appeared in the Spring/Summer 2002 Ohmsett newsletter (attached).
 
PWS-RCAC recently spoke to the Alaska Regional Response Team (ARRT) at its November 15, 2002 meeting.  Our presentation included a request that stakeholders join us in developing a credible wave tank test based on mutually acceptable scientific protocols.  Our proposal was well received and the ARRT is reconvening its Science and Technology Work Group to address both this issue as well as the short and long-term toxicity of dispersants in Alaskan waters, especially Corexit 9527.  As we stated previously, we would certainly welcome and encourage the participation of MMS in such a work group.
 
PWSRCAC has three major problems with the Ohmsett dispersant demonstration as follows:
 

1)   the demonstration avoids any consideration of the physical characteristics of oil slicks in cold water that may prohibit successful dispersion;

2)   the oil is not weathered in place on the test waters in real time; and

3)   the water has not been changed between test runs.

We repeat our previous recommendation that MMS postpone its Phase II Ohmsett demonstration * until after the Alaska Regional Response Team has completed developing dispersant testing protocols.  We question the reasoning behind the Ohmsett Phase II demonstration and think that it is unwise and counterproductive to proceed at this time.  If this demonstration proceeds as currently planned, it will lead to decreased confidence in dispersants use in Alaska.   PWSRCAC requests that MMS join with us and the ARRT in working together to better understand how to effectively use dispersants in Alaskan waters.
 
 
We would appreciate your response at your earliest convenience, but we ask that you reply no later than December 16, 2002.  If you have any questions, please contact me or PWS-RCAC staff member Lisa Ka'aihue at 907/277-7222 or kaaihue@pwsrcac.org.  toll free 800-478-7221 See, March, 2002 test in New Jersey  *
 
Sincerely,
 
John S. Devens, Ph. D.
Executive Director
 
 
Attachments:    1)   November 4, 2002 letter from PWS-RCAC to Joseph Mullins, MMS
 
2)       Page 6 of the Spring/Summer 2002 Ohmsett Newsletter
 
3)       RCAC Observer Report of the March 2002 Ohmsett dispersant testing
 

cc:           Doug Mutter, DOI

                Carl Laughtenberger, EPA

                Mary Goolie, EPA

                Jim Clark, ExxonMobil

                Jeff Mach, ADEC

                Doug Lentsch, CISPRI

                CDR Spence Wood, USCG

                CDR Mark Swanson, USCG MSO Valdez

                Catherine Berg, USF&WS

                John Whitney, NOAA

                Dr. Robert Pavia, NOAA

                Walter Cox, OSRI

                Susan Saupe, CIRCAC

                Tom Colby, ATC/RPG

 

*  All dispersants should be banned, what good do they do? 

They just ad poison to the oil;

they make a bad situation worse. 

Lobby to ban all use of dispersants!

Are more lives being compromised, in addition to damage to the environment?

From the study of Inipol EAP 22, I conclude dispersants should NEVER be used;

they came into vogue based on false premises...

& all we do is ad poison to our waters...

in the end, the natural storms clean the oil spill residue...

 anything man does is little more than making a bad situation worse.

 

 

But, if someone is making money...

even if Exxon is making money on 'cleaning up its own disasters'

... maybe they'll just keep on doing what they want to do?  

- 'Mother Margaret'

 

This is a supplemental page of this website:  www.valdezlink.com/inipol