Michigan: No long-term health risk from oil spill

Michigan's health agency said Wednesday there's no long-term health risk from swimming and fishing in the Kalamazoo River, the site of one of the costliest onshore oil spills in U.S. history.
AP Wire
Jun 5, 2014

 

The state Department of Community Health said it finalized its public health assessment of the July 2010 incident. A pipeline operated by Enbridge Inc. ruptured and spewed hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River in Calhoun and Kalamazoo counties.

The state said there's no long-term harm to people's health from coming into contact with chemicals in the river's surface water during wading, swimming or canoeing. But contact with oil sheen in the river may cause temporary effects such as skin irritation.

The state also said oil-related chemicals levels in fish are very low.

The 78-page assessment, dated Monday and announced Wednesday, recommended that people avoid contact with oil sheen if possible. If they do contact the sheen, they should wash their skin with soap and water.

People also were urged to follow fish consumption guidelines at www.michigan.gov/eatsafefish.

Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered Enbridge to dredge sections of the Kalamazoo River to remove sediments tainted by oil from the massive spill.

More than 800,000 gallons spewed into the river and a tributary creek after the rupture of an underground pipeline near Marshall in southwestern Michigan. Oil flowed about 35 miles before it was contained. An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board determined the rupture was caused by cracks and corrosion, and the agency faulted Enbridge for failing to take steps that might have prevented it.

Enbridge is replacing and enlarging the line, part of a $2.6 billion project to boost the flow of oil to refineries in the eastern U.S. and Canada.

Comments

dyankee

Helllooo,

Lanivan, Skyking, GH55, Mystic Michael, Freddo, Captain Obvious, BigD, Mr. Obama, Sierra Club, EPA Anyone hear-hear-hear?(echo)

Hmmm' nobody here, darn nit. Now that is just plain odd. Fascinating, when there is a teachable moment for all the good intention environmental Liberals to further their knowledge and expand their deep well horizons, they decide to all skip class.

Wait a minute (page flipping) Barry Soetoroooo! Of all times to schedule your beer summit! Unbelieeeevable! I guess this can wait until Monday.

Lanivan

Fiddle-d-d! I'm not sure what your point is, but here are just a few custom links, dedicated just to you, for you edification:

U.S. crude production climbed to a 28-year high last week as the shale boom moved the world’s biggest oil-consuming country closer to energy independence.

Output rose 78,000 barrels a day to 8.428 million, the most since October 1986, according to Energy Information Administration data. The combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has unlocked supplies from shale formations in the central U.S., including the Bakken in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in Texas. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/20...

The largest onshore oil spill in US history - Enbridge's ruptured Line 6B that released nearly 3 million liters of tar sands diluted bitumen into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan - finally has an official price tag: $1,039,000,000 USD. That's according to newly disclosed figures released by Enbridge in a Revised Application to expand another one of its pipelines, the Alberta Clipper.

The total cost, which includes clean up and remediation, was topped off with an additional $3,699,200 fine levied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). According to the docket, Enbridge violated several laws involving pipeline management, procedural manuals for operations and maintenance, public awareness, accident reporting and qualifications among others.

The spill, which went unaddressed for over 17 hours, was exacerbated by Enbridge's failed response according to the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). http://desmog.ca/2013/08/26/offi...

Coal combustion releases nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (PM), mercury, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health.[1]

Aging coal plants "grandfathered" in after passage of the Clean Air Act have been particularly linked to large quantities of harmful emissions.[4][5]

Such emissions include:

Nitrogen oxides (NOx). The release of oxides of nitrogen (nitrogen oxides and nitrogen dioxides [NO2]) reacts with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to produce ground-level ozone, the primary ingredient in smog. Nitrogen oxide also contributes to fine particulate matter, or soot. Both smog and soot are linked to a host of serious health effects. Nitrogen oxide also harms the environment, contributing to acidification of lakes and streams (acid rain).[6]

Sulfur dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide contributes to the formation of microscopic particles (particulate pollution or soot) that can be inhaled deep into the lungs and aggravate respiratory conditions such as asthma and chronic bronchitis, increasing cough and mucous secretion.[6]

Mercury (HG). Coal contains trace amounts of mercury that, when burned, enter the environment and human bodies, effecting intellectual development.[6] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index...

dyankee

My point is, this article has been posted for several days and not one word of praise for the clean up efforts and the full responsibility taken by Enbridge, Inc. All the anti-oil production haters and so called, environmentalist scream like hell when there is a spill, but remain conveniently silent with a successful cleanup.

The other point is the long term effects of an oil spill. In most all cases, effects are non-existent if the response for clean up is immediate which a majority of the time, it is. Therefore, to push solar and wind energy as a national strategy because oil & natural gas is damaging to the environment is absolutely false and a manipulation of the facts.

What is your point with all your oil production numbers?

“U.S. crude production climbed to a 28-year high last week as the shale boom moved the world’s biggest oil-consuming country closer to energy independence.”

This is already a distorted fact.(even thought you’re trying to appease me with increased oil production #’s....I appreciate the effort) The reality is, this 28 year high is due to private land production and not Federal.

Our president has done nothing to increase oil production and has done everything in his power to stop the production or expansion of oil drilling on Federal land. That’s a fact.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/1...

Lanivan

You operate under a great many myths and falsehoods; I will address your last statement for the time being.

MYTH: Conservative Media Claim Obama Has Quashed Oil Production.

Domestic crude oil production has increased over the past few years, reversing a decline that began in 1986. U.S. crude oil production increased from 5.1 million barrels per day in 2007 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2010. [Energy Information Administration, 1/23/12]

This year, Republicans are saying Obama has not done enough to promote domestic drilling, but the U.S. drilling-rig count is twice as high now as it was in 2009. With the exception of a spike in 2008, the current rig count is higher than any year since the early 1980s, according to figures compiled by WTRG Economics. [The Washington Post, 3/12/12]

In November 2011, the Obama administration announced that it "will hold 12 lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and 3 off Alaska's coast," as Bloomberg reported. [Bloomberg, 11/8/11]

Obama Has Taken A Number Of Other Steps To Increase Production. Gary Gentile, a reporter for energy information provider Platts, listed several actions the Obama administration "has taken to expand domestic energy production," including lease sales, drilling approvals, the settlement of a BP lawsuit, and the Mexico transboundary treaty, which makes certain offshore resources more accessible. [Platts, 2/24/12]

MYTH: Conservative Media Claim Obama Has Reduced Oil Production On Federal Lands.

The data in the report, which go back to 2003, show that there was indeed a large decline in oil production on federal lands and waters in 2011. But that observation belies the fact that federal lands and waters were exceptionally productive during 2010, outstripping any year's productivity during the Bush administration. Indeed, the average productivity on federal land and waters during the four Bush years, 2003-2008, was 634 million barrels per year. During the three Obama years, 2009-2011, it was 676 million barrels. During the Bush years, federal lands produced roughly 33 percent of the national output on average. During the Obama years, they produced roughly 34 percent. [Columbia Journalism Review, 3/22/12]

CRS: "Oil Production On Federal Lands Is Up Slightly In 2011 When Compared To 2007." A Congressional Research Service report stated: "On federal lands, there was also an increase in production from 2008-2009 and another increase in 2010 (258,000 b/d), then a decline in 2011. Overall, oil production on federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007." http://mediamatters.org/research...

Tri-cities realist

So as not to disappoint you... 3 million liters? Who would report volume measurements in liters to an American audience? Although the metric system has made some in-roads, we still measure and buy gasoline by the gallon, for those that aren't aware. It was an obvious attempt to report a number which exceeds a million, couldn't have done that accurately if measuring in gallons. I'm just surprised that the cost wasn't reported in Mexican pesos, that would really inflate the number!

Harry Kovaire

I agree that familiar measures are more important than inflated numbers and see that your admonishment spurred an edit to the story.

Should our friend Barry be reading, this spill amounts to over 20 million shots or 8-1/2 million long neck bottles.

Lanivan

Of course, as is your fashion, you either omit or ignore the more important dram liquid unit measurement conversion.

so irrelevant....

Tri-cities realist

Unless my math is wrong, those are some large shots (5+ ounces)! Oh wait it's Barry, he probably does shooters from a 5 gallon bucket...

Harry Kovaire

After imbibing a few Barry Shots, I must have misplaced a decimal point.

Lanivan

"Who would report volume measurements in liters...."? Why, information taken from reports of a Canadian company, of course! Enbridge is an energy delivery company based in Calgary, Alberta.

It's also the largest Canadian solar energy generation companies, and the 2nd largest wind generation companies in Canada. Yea - ya can do both! http://www.enbridge.com/Deliveri...

And, by the way, Canada's federal yearly direct energy subsidy programs is budgeted at $34 billion yearly. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/0...

....lazy nitpickers around here.....

Tri-cities realist

I wasn't the one who lazily copied and pasted...

 

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.