Meeting to discuss the Mercury Reduction Plan
Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 from 1-3 at the Craven Cooperative Extension w/ DENR and the NC Division of Water Quality in New Bern to discuss the mercury reduction plan. Public invited to ask questions and provide input.
‘Animalcules’ and the Poison of Mercury
Reposted from Coastal Review Online
By Andy Wood
Last of two parts
Just when you thought it was safe to play in the swamp, along comes news about the state’s new mercury study that reminds you that something’s happening out there that we need to think about and work to correct.
I’ve spent much of my life exploring swamps and other aquatic realms and in that time I have come to know a great many interesting plants and animals. While alligators, eagles and other so-called “glamorous megafauna” grab headlines and dominate conservation efforts, I have long been attracted to the smaller beings in the world we share. Tiny crustaceans including dot-sized copepods, daphnia and even mosquito larvae are the things I seek, before I start looking for fishes, frogs, turtles or birds.
I could be equally charmed by protozoans and bacteria, since they inhabit every sample of pond water I examine, but the hand lens I carry can’t discern these tiniest of beings. Bacteria inhabit every ecosystem we have examined, and even though daily life functions require a diverse collection of bacteria inhabiting our body, these “animalcules” as they were first called, are rarely celebrated.
Bacterial activity drives entire ecosystems. Some kinds break down carbon compounds – the remains of once-living organisms– while others are chemical converters, nitrogen cycling for example. Some bacteria cycle chemicals as a metabolic activity required to expel wastes from their cell structure. As an example of this is found in coastal areas, where hydrogen sulfide, a waste product of sulfate-reducing bacteria, can be smelled when carbon-based organic sediments are exposed during low tide. The rotten egg smell is essentially the exhalations of marsh bacteria reducing carbon compounds.
While sulfate bacteria are processing organic compounds in sediments they may also bind up various chemicals, including mercury deposited from the atmosphere. The bacteria don’t necessarily seek out mercury, they simply encounter it. To rid themselves of this unneeded material, bacteria employ metabolic processing to convert the mercury to methylmercury, a chemical compound that bacteria can expel.
Mercury is a naturally-occurring element in the environment, though rarely in high concentrations. The mercury in thermometers and electronic switches is a highly refined product extracted from mercury-containing ores. While elemental mercury is a hazardous material, a more nuanced form, known as methylmercury (CH3Hg), is far more insidious, hazardous, and unfortunately, inside each member of every community across the globe.
Mercury can be found wafting through the atmosphere attached to a water droplet, or adhered to a dust particle. Atmospheric mercury can originate from a volcano, but since we can’t do much about volcanoes, we focus on the mercury pollution generated by burning coal, manufacturing cement from limestone, incinerating medical and other wastes and processing various metals. Atmospheric mercury released from industrial smokestacks may stay aloft for thousands of miles before falling to earth, most likely landing in water.
In its elemental state mercury is unhealthy to higher forms of life, but methylmercury is even more insidious and harmful. Animals exposed to methylmercury, especially during early development stages, may suffer severe neurological damage and other health problems that inhibit full function and vigor. Adult animals are also at risk from methylmercury and none more than aquatic predators high up the food chain.
In the 1980s largemouth bass in North Carolina were included in a mercury advisory that warned people to limit consumption of this fish. The reason for the warning, still in place today, has everything to do with a process called biomagnification. Biomagnification refers to a natural concentration of compounds especially in the tissues of animals that are part of a complex food pyramid.
Picture a pyramid divided by horizontal layers, with each layer representing a step in a food chain. At the bottom of the pyramid we find primary producers known as plants. In the layer above plants are plant eaters. The next layers up are eaters of plant eaters and above them are eaters of eaters of plant eaters, and so-on to the top of the food pyramid; represented in this example by largemouth bass.
Mercury originating from coal combustion is deposited in sediments supporting the base of the food pyramid. Sulfate-reducing bacteria exposed to mercury convert it to methylmercury in order to rid themselves of the metal. Because it accumulates in muscle tissue in the “eat and be eaten” food pyramid, methylmercury is transferred from one organism to the next, magnifying with each level climbed. In this way methylmercury adhered to tiny copepods, daphnia and even mosquito larvae is passed to small fishes including mosquitofish and young sunfish. These in turn are eaten by slightly larger fishes that in their turn are eaten by still bigger fishes including bass, catfish, bowfin and others. This chain of events involving other players is also happening in the world’s ocean; hence the mercury advisories for tuna, swordfish and other so-called apex predators.
The study of methylmercury and its “lifecycle” is interesting and fraught with alarming revelations too important to ignore. So too is the study of the politics involved in regulating the discharge of mercury, the precursor to methylmercury.
When I hear complaints from industry members about the harm regulations put on their business, I am reminded of something a chemical plant manager shared with me many years ago. He said the chemical industry thrives best when it sees pollution as wasted product, and missed profit. In short, environmental protections are conservative measures that support best business practices. And when businesses behave well, communities thrive. It does not work the other way around.
Conservation educators often position a glamorous wild predator to illustrate the apex animal in a food pyramid, be it a shark, lion or bear. In truth, the top of the pyramid is reserved for but one species, and it is us. For this reason, it is in the interest of everyone that we put aside distracting arguments about economic well being and focus instead on the health of the ecosystems that support our economy.
This story is provided courtesy of Coastal Review Online, the daily news and feature service of the N.C. Coastal Federation. http://www.nccoast.org/Article.aspx?k=e10f40af-81e1-430d-919c-e41339936c9a#.T7ux3Hvyc-g.facebook
State Tries to Grapple with Mercury
Reposted from Coastal Review Online
By Wade Rawlins
First of two parts
State environmental officials say the state needs to reduce mercury levels by 67 percent by 2016 to protect North Carolina’s waters from mercury contamination, make fish safe to eat and ultimately lift the fish consumption advisories.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin and reduction efforts are already underway. Unfortunately much of the mercury that contaminates the state’s rivers, lakes and coastal waters comes from power plants and sources in other states and even other countries, state officials say.
“It’s an issue that needs to be addressed,” said Kathy Stecker of the N.C. Division of Water Quality. “It’s a global problem. It’s not just a North Carolina problem. But that doesn’t mean we can’t start to work on it.”
The state currently lists all water bodies in the state as contaminated by mercury. The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources is drafting a plan to quantify sources of mercury such as power plants and sewage treatment plants and propose steps to reduce mercury in North Carolina waterways. Having such a plan will make it easier to press other states that contribute to North Carolina’s pollution problem to cut mercury pollution, officials say.
As part of the process, state officials are developing an estimate of the maximum daily amount of mercury that waters may absorb without contaminating fish and posing a threat to humans. It’s known as a total maximum daily load, or TMDL, and it sets a target for reducing mercury. A public meeting is scheduled Wednesday in New Bern on the plan.
Coast Most Affected
“We see in Eastern North Carolina some of the highest mercury levels in the nation,” said Derek Aday, an ecologist at N.C State University who has done research on mercury deposition and affected fish. “It’s really variable from water system to system.”
Aday said the eastern portion of the state tends to have swamps and peaty, acidic soils that promote the formation of methylmercury, the toxic form that can build up in the tissue of fish and wildlife.
People in coastal North Carolina are exposed to mercury primarily by eating fish that contain methylmercury, a neurotoxin and can damage developing fetuses. Statewide health advisories warn about limiting consumption or avoiding certain species of freshwater and ocean fish that commonly have high levels of mercury.
The advisories warn that women of childbearing age, pregnant women and nursing mothers should avoid eating certain types of fish known to be high in mercury. Other people should limit consumption of these types of fish to no more than one meal a week.
Fish species vary greatly in the amounts of mercury they contain. The amount of mercury in fish depends on what the fish eat and how long they live. As a rule of thumb, longer-lived and larger predator fish, which devour smaller fish, typically accumulate higher levels of mercury in their tissues. Among saltwater fish listed as high in mercury are cobia, grouper, gag, king mackerel, greater amberjack, orange roughy, Spanish mackerel, shark, swordfish and albacore tuna.
Fish With High Levels
In recently published research, Aday and colleagues tested mercury levels in six commonly consumed fish caught by commercial and recreational fishermen in North Carolina. They found that king mackerel had the highest mercury concentrations. Grouper and wahoo also had high levels, while mahi mahi and triggerfish had the lowest levels.
Tests also have revealed high levels of mercury in freshwater fish such as black crappie caught east of Interstate 95 and in blackfish, catfish, chain pickerel and yellow fish caught east of Interstate 85, according to N.C. Department of Health and Human Services.
While largemouth bass caught throughout North Carolina have shown high levels of mercury, most of the high mercury concentrations occur in the eastern part of the state in the Cape Fear, Pasquotank, Lumber and Tar-Pamlico river basins. The highest mercury concentrations have been found in largemouth bass in the Lumber River basin.
If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approves the state’s mercury reduction plan, it could affect private industries that operate their own wastewater treatment plants —some of which have high levels of mercury in treated wastewater. They would be required to develop plans to minimize the discharge of mercury. But wastewater plants represent only about 2 percent of the overall mercury released in the state.
“There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding that we are only targeting wastewater plants,” Stecker said. “The reduction we are looking for is the same reduction as from the other source we identify. We are not asking them to get any more of a reduction than their fair share. “
Coal Burning and Mercury
Most of the mercury getting into the water and fish comes from airborne emissions. When power plants burn coal to generate electricity, the combustion releases mercury into the air. Coal-burning power plants are the largest source of mercury in the United States, according to the EPA. They account for more than half of mercury emissions.
Mercury in the air eventually settles into bodies of water or on land, where rain can wash it into the water. Microorganisms in the soil convert the mercury into methylmercury, a toxic form that builds up in fish and shellfish.
According to the state, power plants, steel mills and incinerators spewed approximately 5,300 pounds of mercury into the air in North Carolina in 2002, a year used as a baseline for measuring mercury. Two-thirds of the mercury came from coal-burning power plants operated by Duke Energy and Progress Energy.
Tom Mather, a spokesman for the N.C. Division of Air Quality, said the state anticipates additional reductions in mercury from the closure of some smaller coal burning plants and tighter federal regulations on industrial boilers. Mather said state computer estimates that only 16 percent of the mercury in the state comes from power plants and factories within the state. Most of the airborne mercury wafts into the state on wind currents blown from other states and even other countries.
“We’ve done a lot to reduce mercury emissions in North Carolina, and we expect further reductions,” Mather said. “But there is only so much we can do here if only 16 percent of our mercury is coming from sources within North Carolina.”
The Division of Air Quality has drawn up a list of options for achieving additional cuts in mercury air emissions. They include:
- Filing a legal petition to seek reductions in mercury emission from utilities outside North Carolina
- Setting a cap on statewide mercury emissions
- Reviewing industrial facilities’ pollution control technologies that would increase mercury emissions on a case-by-case basis
This story is provided courtesy of Coastal Review Online, the daily news and feature service of the N.C. Coastal Federation. http://www.nccoast.org/Article.aspx?k=43c83f96-0a62-4388-97e3-b6677333f371
Brain damage caused by hydrogen sulfide – American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Brain Damage Caused by Hydrogen Sulfide: A Follow-Up Study of Six Patients
by Bjarrn Tvedt, MA, Knut Skyberg, MD, Olaf Aaserud, MD, Anund Hobbesland, MD, and Tove Mathiesen, MA
Published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Abstract
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) poisoning involves a risk of hypoxic brain damage. Six patients who lost consciousness due to H2S poisoning are described. The symptoms varied from anosmia in the patient with the shortest but highest exposure to delayed neurological deterioration in the patient with the longest exposure. The two patients with the most serious symptoms developed pulmonary edema, which may have prolonged the hypoxia. The patients were reexaminated 5 years or more after the poisoning. The five patients who had been unconscious in H2S atmosphere for from 5 to 15-20 min showed persisting impairment at neurological and neuropsychological re-examination. Memory and motor function were most affected. One patient was seriously demented. Recent reports of large groups of H2S-poisoned workers probably underestimate the risk of sequelae, due to the inclusion of cases with exposure of short duration and lack of follow-up.
…..
Above abstract available from the US National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1867221.
Full document available from the California State University website: http://www.csun.edu/~dorsogna/byron/H2Snew.pdf.
Basics of Landfill Gas (discusses human olfactory sensitivity to hydrogen sulfide)
Published by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle)
…..
Hydrogen Sulfide and Sulfides:
Sulfides are naturally occurring gasses that often give a landfill gas mixture its rotten egg smell. Sulfides
can cause unpleasant odors even at very low concentrations. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless, flammable
gas and is one of the most common sulfides responsible for landfill odors. Some people can smell
hydrogen sulfide (individual’s odor threshold) at concentrations as low as 0.5 parts per billion (ppb).
However, the odor threshold can vary significantly among individuals based on the olfactory sensitivity of
the person. For many compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, there is a wide variability in published odor
thresholds (refer to Table 1). Odors alone cannot be relied upon as providing an early warning for
elevated concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. “At concentrations around 100 ppm,” (parts per million)
“no odor is detected due to a loss of olfactory sensation, resulting in loss of warning properties at lethal
levels.” (Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)). Hydrogen sulfide is more dense than air, and
therefore, more likely to pool at lower elevations under still conditions, depending upon topography.
……..
Above paragraph is an excerpt from Appendix A – Basics of Landfill Gas (Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Hydrogen Sulfide and Sulfides): http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/laws/lfgasapp.pdf
The full document is Control of Odorous Gas at Massachusetts Landfills (http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/laws/lfgaspol.pdf) published on the website of the
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Toxicological Profile for Hydrogen Sulfide – U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
July 2006
(The document introduction “Public Health Statement” is shown below. The Table of Contents and a link to the full 253-page document are listed further down.)
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
This public health statement tells you about hydrogen sulfide and the effects of exposure to it.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies the most serious hazardous waste sites in
the nation. These sites are then placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) and are targeted for
long-term federal clean-up activities. Hydrogen sulfide has been found in at least 35 of the
1,689 current or former NPL sites. Although the total number of NPL sites evaluated for this
substance is not known, the possibility exists that the number of sites at which hydrogen sulfide
is found may increase in the future as more sites are evaluated. This information is important
because these sites may be sources of exposure and exposure to this substance may harm you.
When a substance is released either from a large area, such as an industrial plant, or from a
container, such as a drum or bottle, it enters the environment. Such a release does not always
lead to exposure. You can be exposed to a substance only when you come in contact with it.
You may be exposed by breathing, eating, or drinking the substance, or by skin contact.
If you are exposed to hydrogen sulfide, many factors will determine whether you will be harmed.
These factors include the dose (how much), the duration (how long), and how you come in
contact with it. You must also consider any other chemicals you are exposed to and your age,
sex, diet, family traits, lifestyle, and state of health.
…..
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ii
UPDATE STATEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..iii
FOREWORD …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. v
QUICK REFERENCE FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS…………………………………………………………..vii
CONTRIBUTORS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..ix
PEER REVIEW …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………xi
CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….xiii
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………xvii
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………xix
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.1 WHAT IS HYDROGEN SULFIDE?……………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 WHAT HAPPENS TO HYDROGEN SULFIDE WHEN IT ENTERS THE
ENVIRONMENT? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
1.3 HOW MIGHT I BE EXPOSED TO HYDROGEN SULFIDE? …………………………………………. 2
1.4 HOW CAN HYDROGEN SULFIDE ENTER AND LEAVE MY BODY? ………………………… 3
1.5 HOW CAN HYDROGEN SULFIDE AFFECT MY HEALTH? ……………………………………….. 4
1.6 HOW CAN HYDROGEN SULFIDE AFFECT CHILDREN?…………………………………………… 5
1.7 HOW CAN FAMILIES REDUCE THE RISK OF EXPOSURE TO HYDROGEN
SULFIDE?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
1.8 IS THERE A MEDICAL TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER I HAVE BEEN
EXPOSED TO HYDROGEN SULFIDE? ………………………………………………………………………. 6
1.9 WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MADE TO
PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH?……………………………………………………………………………………. 7
1.10 WHERE CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? …………………………………………………………….. 8
2. RELEVANCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH ……………………………………………………………………………………… 9
2.1 BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES TO HYDROGEN
SULFIDE IN THE UNITED STATES …………………………………………………………………………… 9
2.2 SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS………………………………………………………………………….. 10
2.3 MINIMAL RISK LEVELS (MRLs) …………………………………………………………………………….. 14
3. HEALTH EFFECTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
3.1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
3.2 DISCUSSION OF HEALTH EFFECTS BY ROUTE OF EXPOSURE ……………………………. 21
3.2.1 Inhalation Exposure ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
3.2.1.1 Death ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
3.2.1.2 Systemic Effects …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
3.2.1.3 Immunological and Lymphoreticular Effects……………………………………………………… 61
3.2.1.4 Neurological Effects……………………………………………………………………………………….. 62
3.2.1.5 Reproductive Effects ………………………………………………………………………………………. 68
3.2.1.6 Developmental Effects ……………………………………………………………………………………. 70
3.2.1.7 Cancer………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 71
3.2.2 Oral Exposure……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 72
3.2.2.1 Death ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 72
3.2.2.2 Systemic Effects …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 72
3.2.2.3 Immunological and Lymphoreticular Effects……………………………………………………… 73
3.2.2.4 Neurological Effects……………………………………………………………………………………….. 73
3.2.2.5 Reproductive Effects ………………………………………………………………………………………. 73
3.2.2.6 Developmental Effects ……………………………………………………………………………………. 73
3.2.2.7 Cancer………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 73
3.2.3 Dermal Exposure……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 73
3.2.3.1 Death ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 73
3.2.3.2 Systemic Effects …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 74
3.2.3.3 Immunological and Lymphoreticular Effects……………………………………………………… 74
3.2.3.4 Neurological Effects……………………………………………………………………………………….. 74
3.2.3.5 Reproductive Effects ………………………………………………………………………………………. 75
3.2.3.6 Developmental Effects ……………………………………………………………………………………. 75
3.2.3.7 Cancer………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 75
3.3 GENOTOXICITY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 75
3.4 TOXICOKINETICS………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 75
3.4.1 Absorption……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 76
3.4.1.1 Inhalation Exposure………………………………………………………………………………………… 76
3.4.1.2 Oral Exposure………………………………………………………………………………………………… 76
3.4.1.3 Dermal Exposure ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 77
3.4.2 Distribution …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 77
3.4.2.1 Inhalation Exposure………………………………………………………………………………………… 77
3.4.2.2 Oral Exposure………………………………………………………………………………………………… 79
3.4.2.3 Dermal Exposure ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 79
3.4.2.4 Other Routes of Exposure ……………………………………………………………………………….. 79
3.4.3 Metabolism…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 79
3.4.4 Elimination and Excretion……………………………………………………………………………………….. 82
3.4.4.1 Inhalation Exposure………………………………………………………………………………………… 82
3.4.4.2 Oral Exposure………………………………………………………………………………………………… 82
3.4.4.3 Dermal Exposure ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 83
3.4.5 Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK)/Pharmacodynamic (PD) Models …………. 83
3.5 MECHANISMS OF ACTION …………………………………………………………………………………….. 84
3.5.1 Pharmacokinetic Mechanisms………………………………………………………………………………….. 84
3.5.2 Mechanisms of Toxicity………………………………………………………………………………………….. 86
3.5.3 Animal-to-Human Extrapolations …………………………………………………………………………….. 88
3.6 TOXICITIES MEDIATED THROUGH THE NEUROENDOCRINE AXIS…………………….. 88
3.7 CHILDREN’S SUSCEPTIBILITY………………………………………………………………………………. 89
3.8 BIOMARKERS OF EXPOSURE AND EFFECT ………………………………………………………….. 91
3.8.1 Biomarkers Used to Identify or Quantify Exposure to Hydrogen Sulfide ………………………. 92
3.8.2 Biomarkers Used to Characterize Effects Caused by Hydrogen Sulfide ………………………… 93
3.9 INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER CHEMICALS ………………………………………………………….. 93
3.10 POPULATIONS THAT ARE UNUSUALLY SUSCEPTIBLE……………………………………….. 95
3.11 METHODS FOR REDUCING TOXIC EFFECTS…………………………………………………………. 95
3.11.1 Reducing Peak Absorption Following Exposure …………………………………………………….. 96
3.11.2 Reducing Body Burden……………………………………………………………………………………….. 97
3.11.3 Interfering with the Mechanism of Action for Toxic Effects ……………………………………. 97
3.12 ADEQUACY OF THE DATABASE……………………………………………………………………………. 98
3.12.1 Existing Information on Health Effects of Hydrogen Sulfide …………………………………… 98
3.12.2 Identification of Data Needs ………………………………………………………………………………. 100
3.12.3 Ongoing Studies……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 107
4. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL INFORMATION…………………………………………………………………… 109
4.1 CHEMICAL IDENTITY…………………………………………………………………………………………… 109
4.2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES……………………………………………………………. 109
5. PRODUCTION, IMPORT/EXPORT, USE, AND DISPOSAL…………………………………………………. 113
5.1 PRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 113
5.2 IMPORT/EXPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 113
5.3 USE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 114
5.4 DISPOSAL…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 114
6. POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE …………………………………………………………………………….. 115
6.1 OVERVIEW…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 115
6.2 RELEASES TO THE ENVIRONMENT…………………………………………………………………….. 118
6.2.1 Air …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 118
6.2.2 Water…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 119
6.2.3 Soil ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 120
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE………………………………………………………………………………………. 121
6.3.1 Transport and Partitioning……………………………………………………………………………………… 121
6.3.2 Transformation and Degradation ……………………………………………………………………………. 122
6.3.2.1 Air……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 122
6.3.2.2 Water ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 122
6.3.2.3 Sediment and Soil…………………………………………………………………………………………. 123
6.4 LEVELS MONITORED OR ESTIMATED IN THE ENVIRONMENT…………………………. 123
6.4.1 Air …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 124
6.4.2 Water…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 127
6.4.3 Sediment and Soil ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 127
6.4.4 Other Environmental Media…………………………………………………………………………………… 128
6.5 GENERAL POPULATION AND OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ………………………………. 129
6.6 EXPOSURES OF CHILDREN………………………………………………………………………………….. 131
6.7 POPULATIONS WITH POTENTIALLY HIGH EXPOSURES ……………………………………. 132
6.8 ADEQUACY OF THE DATABASE………………………………………………………………………….. 132
6.8.1 Identification of Data Needs ………………………………………………………………………………….. 133
6.8.2 Ongoing Studies …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 135
7. ANALYTICAL METHODS ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 137
7.1 BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS……………………………………………………………………………………. 137
7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES……………………………………………………………………………….. 143
7.3 ADEQUACY OF THE DATABASE………………………………………………………………………….. 151
7.3.1 Identification of Data Needs ………………………………………………………………………………….. 151
7.3.2 Ongoing Studies …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 152
8. REGULATIONS AND ADVISORIES ………………………………………………………………………………….. 153
9. REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 159
10. GLOSSARY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 201
……
Full document: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp114-p.pdf
Toxicological Review of Hydrogen Sulfide – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Link to Full Document: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/toxreviews/0061tr.pdf
…..
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS IN THE CHARACTERIZATION OF HAZARD AND DOSE RESPONSE
6.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas and has a strong odor of rotten eggs. Its primary uses include the production of elemental sulfur and sulfuric acid, the manufacture of heavy water and other chemicals, in metallurgy, and as an analytical reagent. Although quantitative data are lacking, toxicity studies suggest that H2S gas is absorbed rapidly through the lungs. Oral exposure is not likely to occur. In animals and humans, it distributes to the blood, brain, lung, heart, liver, spleen, and kidney. Oxidation is the primary metabolic pathway for H2S, with thiosulfate and sulfate as metabolites. Metabolism in laboratory animals and in humans appears to be similar. Hydrogen sulfide is excreted in the urine.
Human data pertaining to inhalation exposure (the expected route of ambient exposure) consist of a plethora of case reports and a variety of occupational epidemiological studies. Although these studies have limitations that preclude their use for quantitative risk assessment, they indicate that exposure to H2S (at high concentrations) has profound effects on the respiratory system leading to unconsciousness with attendant neurologic sequelae and, sometimes, death. An increase in cardiovascular-related deaths due, in part, to H2S exposure was reported in one occupational study.
Inhalation studies in adult rodents demonstrate sensitivity of nasal olfactory epithelium to low concentrations of H2S. The RfC is based on these lesions. Limited evidence suggests that exposure of humans to low concentrations may also cause neurologic symptoms although quantitative exposure-response data is lacking. Because of similar access of inhaled H2S to the olfactory tissues of humans, these lesions are likely of relevance to humans and a reasonable choice as a critical effect. Relevance to olfactory lesions seen in rodents to humans is also suggested by Hirsch and Zavala (1999) who reported decreased persistent olfactory function in workers exposed to hydrogen sulfide chronically. Whereas adverse nasal effects are of relevance and concern in adult human exposure scenarios, inhalation studies of perinatal or neonatal exposure in rats demonstrates abnormal cellular development in the brain as well as significant alterations in neurotransmitter levels; the toxicological significance of these findings is uncertain.
Relevant quantitative human oral toxicity data are not available and ingestion is not a likely route of exposure. An RfD based on GI disturbances in pigs consuming feed containing hydrogen sulfide was derived in the previous IRIS entry. A review of the RfD (see Section 4.2.1) indicates that the effects on which that value were based are not reproducible and probably not related to H2S. Therefore the previous RfD will be withdrawn and a new RfD will not be derived based on data base deficiencies.
The indicators of a possible effect noted in the developing brain cells of newborn rats indicate the possibility that the developing human fetus could also be at risk. The exposure levels producing these effects, however, are in the same range or somewhat higher than those producing the critical sentinel clearly adverse effect (nasal tract lesions) in adult animals, thereby ameliorating the concern that young animals (and possibly children) may be especially susceptible to the effects from relatively low-level chronic exposures to hydrogen sulfide. Other observations in the data base do indicate a possible concern regarding the susceptibility of children exposed to high levels of H2S, i.e., > 600 ppb. However, the relevance of this apparent susceptibility at environmental levels of H2S where toxicity is not likely to occur, such as the RfC value derived herein, is not at all clear.
There is no evidence indicating that H2S exposure is associated with carcinogenesis. Under the Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1999), data are inadequate for an assessment of the carcinogenic potential of hydrogen sulfide.
…..
Link to Full Document: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/toxreviews/0061tr.pdf
Hydrogen sulfide needs Hazardous Air Pollutant listing under CAA Title III – Sierra Club letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson
Nonprofit sign-on letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson
Published: March 30, 2009
Intro/Letter excerpt: (from http://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/hydrogen_sulfide_needs_hazardous_air_pollutant_listing_under_caa_title_iii)
The community, environmental, and public health organizations named below request that you formally list Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), as defined in Title III, section 112(b) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA). We assert that EPA must act to address adverse H2S impacts based on evidence of harmful exposures in numerous communities and its toxicological effects at low concentrations such as non-cancer effects and emerging evidence that H2S is a genotoxic agent, meaning it damages DNA. EPA has assessed the need to list H2S as a HAP, but no formal listing action has been taken. H2S is clearly an unlisted hazardous air pollutant.
……
(Full letter can be viewed at: http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/H2SLetterToEPA.pdf)
……
Conclusion
Public health scientists have recognized for over a decade that hydrogen sulfide is a potent neurotoxin, and chronic
exposure to low ambient levels causes irreversible damage to the brain and central nervous system. Ultra-low levels
of H2S down to 25 ppb have been associated with acute exposure causing eye irritation in community settings in the
United States, Europe and New Zealand. Now emerging scientific evidence supports H2S causes neuron death,
confirming findings by Kilburn of irreversible brain damage. The latest scientific findings suggest H2S causes DNA
damage as a genotoxic agent, which EPA can no longer ignore. The potential carcinogenic implications of H2S
demand that EPA act to protect public health.
Children are among the most susceptible to this poison gas, and EPA needs to do a more effective job of protecting
schoolchildren from H2S impacts. Today, it is unacceptable for communities to have to continue suffering the ill
effects of H2S when the technology to monitor and control H2S emissions exists. As EPA has learned in the last four
decades, environmental injustice is a significant fact of life for thousands of communities in this nation and these
residents all have a right to clean, safe air.
It’s time for the EPA to take action to formally acknowledge hydrogen sulfide’s clear toxicity at low concentrations.
As Administrator, you have CAA authority under section 112(b)(2) to act based on a pollutant that poses or may
pose “…a threat of adverse human health effects…” Health studies confirm the need for EPA to list H2S under
section 112(b) of the CAA and Title III, since routine daily exposure effects are not addressed under the accidental
release provisions in section 112(r) of the CAA, where H2S is currently regulated. However, section 112(r) is not
designed or intended to address daily exposures at sublethal concentrations, but section 112(b) can bridge this gap.
EPA, in addition, needs to require annual reporting of H2S as a toxic substance under the Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) reporting program, since H2S is not reported due to an administrative stay issued August 22, 1994 evidently
under a legal threat by the American Petroleum Institute. It’s extraordinary that industry has delayed reporting of
H2S for twenty years. EPA needs a TRI reporting threshold of 1.0 pound for H2S and not 10,000 pounds as was
originally the requirement. We request that EPA immediately lift the administrative stay on H2S and require TRI
reporting in the next TRI submission cycle. The TRI data would also help EPA compile more accurate H2S data.
Please respond to this request for EPA to take action to list H2S under section 112(b) of the CAA. Address the
EPA’s response to Neil Carman at the contact information listed below.
Respectfully yours,
Neil J. Carman, Ph.D.
Sierra Club’s Clean Air Team and the
Lone Start Chapter of the Sierra Club
1202 San Antonio St, Austin, TX 78701
Tel 512-472-1767; Fax 512-477-8526
(This letter was also sent/signed by the following organizations: National Environmental Justice and Community Partnerships Director; Citizens for Environmental Justice; Community In-Powerment and Development Association; Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund; Environmental Integrity Project; Galveston Houston Association for Smog Prevention & Mothers for Clean Air; Global Community Monitor, National Refinery Reform Campaign & National Bucket Brigade Coalition; Downwinders At Risk; Groups Allied to Stop Pollution; The People’s Advocate; Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper; Louisiana Environmental Action Network; EARTHWORKS’, and Oil & Gas Accountability Project; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Sustainable Energy & Economic Development Coalition; Citizens Against Environmental Destruction; Northeast Ohio Gas Accountability Project; Huron Environmental Activist League; Don’t Waste Arizona; Cook Inletkeeper; Protect All Children’s Environment.)
Long-term effects on the olfactory system of exposure to hydrogen sulphide
Published in the journal of “Occupational & Environmental Medicine” (http://oem.bmj.com)
Abstract (with author affiliations & other articles citing this article): http://oem.bmj.com/content/56/4/284.abstract)
Full document: http://oem.bmj.com/content/56/4/284.full.pdf+html
By Alan R Hirsch, Gilberto Zavala
Abstract
Objective—To study chronic effects of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) on cranial nerve I (nervi olfactorii), which have been only minimally described.
Methods—Chemosensations (smell and taste) were evaluated in eight men who complained of continuing dysfunction 2–3 years after the start of occupational exposure to H2S. Various bilateral (both nostrils) and unilateral (one nostril at a time) odour threshold tests with standard odorants as well as the Chicago smell test, a three odour detection and identification test and the University of Pennsylvania smell identification test, a series of 40 scratch and sniff odour identification tests were administered.
Results—Six of the eight patients showed deficits of various degrees. Two had normal scores on objective tests, but thought that they continued to have problems. H2S apparently can cause continuing, sometimes unrecognised olfactory deficits.
Conclusion—Further exploration into the extent of such problems among workers exposed to H2S is warranted.
(Occup Environ Med 1999;56:284–287)
Occupational and Environmental Medicine (OEM) is an international peer reviewed journal covering current developments in occupational and environmental health worldwide. Original contributions include: epidemiological studies of health concerns related to exposures in the workplace and the environment; human studies employing biological and genomic techniques to investigate the effects of such exposures; exposure assessment studies; evidence based research on the practice of occupational medicine, and new research methods.
Hydrogen Sulfide, Oil and Gas, and People’s Health
Document obtained from the “Energy and Resources Group” (http://erg.berkeley.edu) of The University of California, Berkeley
By Lana Skrtic
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
Master’s of Science
May 2006
Energy and Resources Group
University of California, Berkeley
Full Document: PDF File
8. Concluding Remarks
The literature on human health and hydrogen sulfide reveals serious and lasting physiological and neurological effects associated with acute exposure. The health effects of chronic exposure to lower levels of H2S, as documented in several studies, also include persistent physiological and neurological disturbances. Oil and gas facilities can be expected to accidentally and routinely emit hydrogen sulfide in concentrations that span a wide range and are associated with a variety of health effects. Academic studies, my conversations with health department staff, and available data from monitoring projects help establish that hydrogen sulfide is indeed present near oil and gas facilities.
Because people live near oil and gas sites, emissions of H2S may be routinely compromising human health. The interviews I conducted with people who live close to oil and gas facilities, as well as some research reported in the Literature Review section, provide evidence of health impacts from exposure to H2S emitted by oil and gas development. Although the anecdotal evidence from my interviews is vulnerable to criticism that other pollutants or individual health factors may be responsible for the symptoms, the reported health effects are consistent with hydrogen sulfide exposure. The fact that concentrations of H2S to which people are exposed are often not known does not imply that hydrogen sulfide is not the cause of the observed health effects. The lack of precise exposure data is, however, one area that future research should address.
……..
As I show in the Regulations and Recommendations section, at the federal level, the oil and gas industry and the paper and pulp industry have exerted their influence to prevent H2S from being included on the Clean Air Act’s Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) list, and to exempt it from reporting under the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). At the time of writing, the EPA is reviewing both decisions, which at the very least indicates that some concern exists over the lack of stricter regulation of hydrogen sulfide at the federal level. The level of regulation of hydrogen sulfide varies widely across the states that have established an ambient standard in the absence of a federal one, but again, the very existence of ambient standards suggests that hydrogen sulfide is a concern.
Monitoring of ambient H2S is necessary to determine exactly how much is being emitted and to clarify the link between exposure and health effects. Enough evidence of routine H2S emissions at oil and gas facilities emerges from my conversations with health department personnel, interviews with people living near oil and gas sites, several studies summarized in the Literature Review section, and state monitoring projects to merit more comprehensive monitoring. The lack of federal standards for ambient H2S levels or for emissions of H2S is one reason for sparse monitoring even at state level, since state health / environmental departments largely depend on federal funding for their projects. More routine and special project monitoring would facilitate conducting community health studies, by providing accurate exposure data that could be matched with observed health effects.
In light of the information presented here on the health effects associated with exposure to hydrogen sulfide, even though rigorous data on the dose-response relationship is lacking, it is irresponsible and callous to delay making some public policy decisions that would help protect human health.
Poison Facts: High Chemicals: Hydrogen Sulfide
Document pulled from The University of Kansas Hospital (http://www.kumed.com)
Full document: http://www.kumed.com/documents/KDHEHydrogenSulfide.pdf
Human Impairment From Living Near Confined Animal (Hog) Feeding Operations (CAFO’S)
Research Article published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/aip/565690/)
HUMAN IMPAIRMENT FROM LIVING NEAR CONFINED ANIMAL (HOG) FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFO’S)
Kaye H. Kilburn, M.D.
Ralph Edgington Professor of Internal Medicine
University of Southern California
Keck School of Medicine (ret.)
President- Neuro-test Inc.
ABSTRACT
Problem To determine whether neighbors around manure lagoons and massive hog confinement buildings who complained of offensive odors and symptoms had impaired brain and lung function.
Method We compared near hog manure neighbors of lagoons to people living beyond 3 kilometers in Ohio and to unexposed people controls in a nearby state for neurophysiological, cognitive, recall and memory functions, and pulmonary performance.
Results The 25 exposed subjects averaged 4.3 neurobehavioral abnormalities, significantly different from 2.5 for local controls and 2.3 for Tennessee controls. Exposed subjects mean forced vital capacity and expiratory volume in 1 sec. were reduced significantly compared to local and regional controls.
Conclusions Near neighbors of hog enclosures and manure lagoon gases had impaired neurobehavioral functions and pulmonary functions and these effects extended to nearby people thought to be controls. Hydrogen sulfide must be abated because people living near lagoons can not avoid rotten egg gas.
Hydrogen Sulfide: Health Effects (from “Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry” – CDC)
This 88-page document is “Chapter 3″ pulled from the “Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry” (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/index.asp) provided by the government’s “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” (http://www.cdc.gov).
3. HEALTH EFFECTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this chapter is to provide public health officials, physicians, toxicologists, and
other interested individuals and groups with an overall perspective on the toxicology of hydrogen sulfide.
It contains descriptions and evaluations of toxicological studies and epidemiological investigations and
provides conclusions, where possible, on the relevance of toxicity and toxicokinetic data to public health.
3.2 Discussion of health effects by route of exposure
3.3 Genotoxicity
3.4 Health effects in wildlife potentially relevant to human health
3.5 Toxicokinetics
3.5 Mechanisms of action
3.6 Toxicities mediated through the neuroendocrine axis
3.7 Children’s susceptibility
3.8 Biomarkers of exposure and effect
3.9 Interactions with other chemicals
3.10 Populations that are unusually susceptible
3.11 Methods for reducing toxic effects
3.12 Adequacy of the database
…..
The full chapter on Health Effects can be read online: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp114-c3.pdf.
The full Toxicological Profile for Hydrogen Sulfide (all chapters) can be referenced at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp.asp?id=389&tid=67
Health Effects and Evaluation of Human Health Risks – Air Quality Guidelines (Ch 6: Hydrogen Sulfide)
Below is an excerpt of the chapter on Hydrogen Sulfide from “Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, Second Edition” published by the World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen.
6.6 Hydrogen sulfide
Exposure evaluation
Typical symptoms and signs of hydrogen sulfide intoxication are most
often caused by relatively high concentrations in occupational exposures.
There are many occupations where there is a potential risk of hydrogen
sulfide intoxication and, according to the US National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (1), in the United States alone approximately
125 000 employees are potentially exposed to hydrogen sulfide. Low-level
concentrations can occur more or less continuously in certain industries,
such as in viscose rayon and pulp production, at oil refineries and in geothermal
energy installations.
In geothermal areas there is a risk of exposure to hydrogen sulfide for the
general population (2). The biodegradation of industrial wastes has been
reported to cause ill effects in the general population (2). An accidental
release of hydrogen sulfide into the air surrounding industrial facilities can
cause very severe effects, as at Poza Rica, Mexico, where 320 people were
hospitalized and 22 died (2). The occurrence of low-level concentrations of
hydrogen sulfide around certain industrial installations is a well known fact.
Health risk evaluation
The first noticeable effect of hydrogen sulfide at low concentrations is its
unpleasant odour. Conjunctival irritation is the next subjective symptom
and can cause so-called “gas eye” at hydrogen sulfide concentrations of 70–
140 mg/m3. Table 16 shows the established dose–effect relationships for
hydrogen sulfide.
The hazards caused by high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide are relatively
well known, but information on human exposure to very low concentrations
is scanty. Workers exposed to hydrogen sulfide concentrations
of less than 30 mg/m3 are reported to have rather diffuse neurological and
mental symptoms (4) and to show no statistically significant differences
when compared with a control group. On the other hand, changes in haem
synthesis have been reported at hydrogen sulfide concentrations of less than
7.8 mg/m3 (1.5–3 mg/m3 average) (5). It is not known whether the inhibition
is caused by the low concentrations or by the cumulative effects of
occasional peak concentrations. Most probably, at concentrations below
1.5 mg/m3 (1 ppm), even with exposure for longer periods, there are very
few detectable health hazards in the toxicological sense. The malodorous
property of hydrogen sulfide is a source of annoyance for a large proportion
of the general population at concentrations below 1.5 mg/m3, but from the
existing data it cannot be concluded whether any health effects result. The
need for epidemiological studies on possible effects of long-term, low-level
hydrogen sulfide exposure is obvious. A satisfactory biological exposure
indicator is also needed.
The full text excerpt of the chapter on Hydrogen Sulfide can be read here: AQG2ndEd_6_6Hydrogensulfide.
The full document can be read online: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf.
Carteret News Times – Top Story of 2011: Sulfur proposal
2011: TOP 10 STORIES
|
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Sunday, January 1, 2012 2:05 AM EST
One of the most controversial stories of 2011 was PCS Phosphate Co.’s plan to construct a facility to offload, store and melt solid formed sulfur at the state port here.
The project, more than a year in the works, was kept mostly secret until Coastal Area Management Act notifications sent to adjacent properties owners became public in early July. Within days, a grassroots effort was organized and, following Gov. Bev Perdue’s intervention around the end of July, the plan was scuttled.
Gov. Perdue, during a visit to the N.C. Port of Morehead City, signed an executive order mandating that all future port development plans be studied to ensure compatibility with the surrounding community. The order broadened the scope of a state study of maritime industry logistics that had begun in May.
That study is scheduled to be completed in February. Until then all port development plans are effectively on hold. But PCS is still considering its options for meetings its sulfur needs.
The secrecy of the project was maintained ostensibly to qualify it for a state Commerce Department incentive grant program called the One North Carolina Fund. That program mandates “no public discussion” of qualifying projects until an official announcement is made by the state. But many opponents and others not opposed to the plan said the secrecy was mainly to head off potential controversy seen in past port development proposals while the environmental permitting process was under way.
PCS, which operates a phosphate mine in Aurora, is the port’s largest customer, accounting for nearly 1 million tons per year or 86 percent of the Morehead City port’s total tonnage in 2010.
PCS has handled liquid sulfur at the port for decades without incident. But the global market for liquid sulfur has changed and because it is needed for the Aurora mine’s processing operations, the company seeks a new way to supply the material.
A solid sulfur handling facility is still being considered for the Morehead City port, but the Clean County Coalition, the group formed to fight the melting facility, has said it opposes any handling of solid sulfur at the port.
Meanwhile, port officials and members of the Morehead City Port Committee, a nonprofit group of individuals interested in port business, have reached out in an effort to soften the opposition. The group hosted a tour of port facilities during the fall for members of the Morehead City Planning Board, which is in the midst of a review and rewrite of port and industrial uses allowed in the city’s zoning ordinance.
And the state’s maritime strategy study has indicated that port development prospects for Morehead City and Radio Island could include new facilities for containerized cargo operations or a grain and soybean facility. But such facilities are also being studied for other State Ports Authority properties in New Hanover and Brunswick counties.
From Website: http://www.carolinacoastonline.com/articles/2012/01/01/news-times/news/doc4eff4490c707f663754085.txt
PDF file: 2012-01-01 Carteret County News Times 2011 Top 10 Stories
What Are the Hazards of Sulfur?
Source: http://www.ehow.com/info_8419894_hazards-sulfur.html
Sulfur is a chemical element that is nonmetallic. It has a pale yellow color and has no odor. Sulfur in gaseous form combines with oxygen to form sulfur oxide. Sulfur is used to make fertilizer and various types of disinfectant. It is also used in medical laboratories to test skin disease. Sulfur is, however, a hazardous element that should be handled with care.
Health Hazards
Sulfur in a gaseous state mixes with oxygen to form sulfur dioxide, which is hazardous. Inhalation of sulfur fumes causes irritation of the eyes, nose and respiratory track, which leads to headaches, dizziness and nausea. High levels of sulfur can burn the skin, and it can also cause pulmonary edema, a condition in which the lungs are filled up with fluids. Inhaling sulfur may also cause coughing, sneezing or labored breathing.
Fire Hazard
Fine dust of sulfur dispersed in the air is a potential hazard. When sulfur dust mixes with oxygen, it forms sulfur dioxide, which when ignited causes explosion. Dust suspended in air is readily ignited by fumes or static electricity and can cause destructive fires. Fires caused by sulfur are hard to put out because once they spread the presence of oxygen only serves to increase the fire.
Corrosive Hazard
Sulfur is stable and nonreactive when dry, but it is very reactive when it comes into contact with moisture. This makes it react readily with metals and many oxidizing and reducing agents when in the presence of moisture. In the presence of moisture and oxygen, it becomes sulfur dioxide, which forms an acidic and corrosive solution and thus causes corroding of metals.
Environmental Hazard
When sulfur dust comes into contact with oxygen to become sulfur dioxide, it has serious environmental hazards. It affects the living organisms around the area. Sulfur causes vascular damage in veins of the brain, the heart and the kidney. Sulfur can also cause damage to the internal enzyme systems of animals.
References
Estimation and Evaluation of Exposures from a Large Sulfur Fire in South Africa
Environmental Research Section A 81, 316}333 (1999)Article ID enrs.1999.3990, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com
by Stuart A. Batterman,*,1 Eugene Cairncross,- and Yu-Li Huang*
* Environmental and Industrial Health, University of Michigan, 109 Observatory Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109; and- Department of Physical Science, Peninsula Technikon, Box 1906, Bellville 7535, Western Cape, South Africa
Received August 28, 1998
A massive fire at a sulfur stockpile in the Western Cape Province of South Africa in December 1995 is estimated to have released over 14,000 t of sulfur dioxide (SO2) over a 20-h period. High and persistent winds greatly reduced the effectiveness of fire-fighting activities and increased the severity of impacts. Nearby urban and agricultural areas were seriously affected. Thousands of people were evacuated from the nearby town of Macassar located 2.5+4 km downwind, and at least several deaths occurred. Agricultural impacts ranged over a broad area extending to 30 km from the fire site and included severe damage to plants and some animal deaths.
This paper describes the chronology of the fire, the emergency responses, and the immediate impacts. SO2 concentrations are estimated using dispersion modeling, and predictions are evaluated using available monitoring information. Sensitivity analyses are used to test unknown or uncertain model parameters. The SO2 concentrations estimated in Macassar reached extremely dangerous levels, at times over the IDLH level (100 ppm). Predictions agree with the available but very limited monitoring data, as well as with the symptomologyof Macassar residents and plant damage patterns. Procedures to deal with the limited information and variability in this fire and similar incidents are suggested. The fire is a tragic demonstration of shortcomings in hazardous material management and emergency response.
( 1999 Academic PressKey Words: air pollution; dispersion modeling;emergency response; exposure; hazardous materials;inhalation; Are; respiratory system; sulfur dioxide.
DAQ approves revised PCS permit
BY MARK HIBBS
Published: Friday, October 21, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
NEWS-TIMES
City planners get port tour
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:06 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
The board, during its latest work session set to study the Port-Industrial (IP) and Un-offensive Industrial IU zoning districts at the city’s Municipal Building at 202 S. 8th St., reached a consensus on the idea of creating a new “Industrial” district that would eventually encompass properties now classified as IP that aren’t part of state port properties or adjacent to waterways.
“We’re looking to simplify and consolidate,” board member Gordon Thayer said during the meeting.
Earlier in the day, during a meeting in the Maritime Building at the N.C. Port of Morehead City and later on a bus tour of the port, members of the State Ports Authority’s senior management team, employees and representatives of private firms and independent contractors that do business at the port explained their responsibilities, described the cargoes handled and how the facility functions as an economic gateway to the world. But the overarching message was that the port plays a vital role as an employer in the community.
Full Story (with reader comments)
PDF file
City talks PCS plans – Minutes show discussion lacked details
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:02 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
The discussion was kept confidential at the request of a PCS employee who works at the N.C. Port of Morehead City, according to city manager Randy Martin, who also said he was aware of but hadn’t seen the environmental assessment related to the project at the time.
The minutes were released during the council’s October meeting held in the council’s chambers, upstairs in the Municipal Building at 202 S. 8th St. They revealed only that Mr. Martin told the council that an environmental assessment was under way for PCS to “expand their facilities at the state port on the mainland in Morehead City” and that Mr. Martin had been advised “that this would be a substantial investment in their current facilities and would be a positive impact in terms of jobs and a greater tax base.”
Public Notice – Clean County website to serve as a clearinghouse for information (Letter to the Editor)
Morehead City, N.C.
Oct. 7, 2011
To the Editor:
….
Clean County Coalition has developed a website that functions as a clearinghouse for information. We will post all pertinent public interest documents relating to projects in ourcounty that could affect the health and/or safety of the citizens and our environment.
….
Anyone wishing to post information about this or any other Carteret County project should feel free to contact us. We will review the documents and if we feel they are appropriate we will place them on our website. We may be reached at: cleancountycoalition@gmail.com.
….
Leigh Johnson
Clean County Coalition VP
City manager responds to PCS handling concerns
BY MARK HIBBS
Published: Friday, October 21, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
NEWS-TIMES
PCS says state required secrecy in plant proposal
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Friday, October 7, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
Speaking during the Morehead City Port Committee’s monthly meeting at the Sanitary Restaurant, general manager Steven Beckel said State Commerce Department officials “encouraged” the company’s pursuit of an incentive grant under the One NC Fund, a program that requires matching funds from a local government entity and “no public discussion” of the proposed project until an official announcement is made by the department.
“We were not trying to do anything in secret, we were just following the path that we were presented,” Mr. Beckel said during the meeting, which included a question-and-answer session with the more than 30 in attendance, including opponents of the plan.
Full Story (with reader comments)
The Summer of Sulfur Timeline
On January 7, 2011, the Eastern Carolina Council of Government (ECC) issued a letter to the town of MHC which contained an attached 3 page proposal describing, in detail, the PCS facility to be built at the MHC port. This letter included a complete project description on the sulfur melting plant. The ECC informed the town that they had until January 21 to comment on the proposal.
One week later, on January 14, 2011 Town Manager Randy Martin, Mayor Jones, City Planning Director Linda Staab, and Councilman George Ballou attended the Local Emergency Planning Committee meeting. Mayor Jones mentioned this meeting in his timeline (but failed to state that he was present at this meeting). There was discussion at this meeting of PCS’ plans to melt sulfur at the MHC port. Mayor Jones promised to, “Put the port facilities on our agenda for our next meeting to get an update.”
On May 20, 2011, Morehead City sent a letter to Brad Newland of the NC Division of Air Quality confirming that the PCS melting facility was a permitted use in the Industrial Port (IP) district. The letter mentions “melting solid sulfur to form liquid, then transferring liquid sulfur from the port to barges for transport to Aurora”. Morehead City Planning Director Linda Staab signed this letter.
In his timeline, Mayor Jones stated that on June 8, 2011, he and EDC Director Miles Stempin discussed the proposed sulfur melting facility which would receive incentives from the Dept. of Commerce. After this, a month passed with no public discussion, public hearing or public notification.
One month later, on July 8, 2011, the Carteret County New Times ran a front page story on the proposed PCS sulfur melting facility. Jet Matthews, owner of Morehead City Yacht Basin, had received a certified letter from PCS notifying him of the PCS CAMA permit application. This was the only permit notification required under state law. After digging, he found out the true scope of the project and went to the paper with the story.
On July 11, 2011, Mayor Richard Stanley of Beaufort signs a resolution opposing the Sulfur melting facility. Mayor Jones went on record opposing the facility on JULY 12.
On JULY 12, 2011, 122 citizens attended a Morehead City Council meeting to voice their anger, dismay, frustration, and shock over the facility and the lack of public notification. And as they say, the rest is history. Gov. Perdue made her announcement on Wed. July 27.
The ECC project description given to MHC, minutes from the Local services Planning Committee meeting, the MHC Zoning Determination Letter, and the Town of Beaufort resolution (documents referenced above) can all be seen in their original form using the links below.
Referenced Documents:
2011-01-07 Eastern Carolina Council – NC Intergovernmental Review Process Review and Comment Form
2011-01-14 Minutes – Carteret County Local Emergency Planning Committee
PCS wants plant in Aurora
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Friday, September 9, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
Representatives from PotashCorp Aurora, the company’s phosphate mining operation in Beaufort County that is the N.C. Port of Morehead City’s largest customer, presented a plan Tuesday during a Beaufort County Board of Commissioners’ meeting that would include two sulfur melters, smokestacks with scrubbing systems and associated piping to transfer molten sulfur throughout the Aurora plant site, according to the report.
The company said last week it is still considering Morehead City as a preferred option for a solid sulfur handling operation. The port has long handled sulfur in liquid form but market changes have forced PCS to seek alternative sources, of which solid formed sulfur is more economically advantageous.
……
Full Story (with reader comments)
PDF File
Technical Manual: Sulphuric Acid Plant Safety – Sulphur
Introduction
Safety in handling sulphur, whether as a solid or liquid, requires recognition of and adequate precautions against three possible dangers:
- Sulphur is a flammable substance and its vapours and dust may be explosive
- Sulphur in its molten state is a burn hazard
- Sulphur may generate hazardous amounts of hydrogen sulphide gas (H2S)
Flammability
If ignited by spark or flame, sulphur will burn in air, yielding acrid fumes of sulphur dioxide (SO2). Various investigators have reported spontaneous ignition temperatures for molten pure sulphur in still air which vary from 232°C to 260°C (450°F to 500°F). The flash point of pure sulphur, as determined by the modified Cleveland open cup method and others, has been reported by various investigators at values from 188°C to 207°C (370°F to 405°F). It is agreed that the presence of hydrocarbon impurities in the sulphur will decrease these reported values. The minimum reported value for the flash point of dark crude sulphur is 168°C (335°F).
Sulphur dust suspended in air is readily ignited by flame, static electricity or friction spark. The dust is characterized by a very low ignition point of 190°C (374°F) compared to other combustible dusts. Dust containing 25% or more elemental sulphur may be almost explosive as pure sulphur. Explosive mixtures can also be formed if sulphur is contaminated with chlorides, nitrates or other oxidizing agents. Sulphur is an excellent electrical insulator and under the right conditions will readily pick up static electricity which if discharged can be a source of ignition. The use of spark resistant tools and nonferrous conveyor parts is recommended to minimize sparks when handling solid sulphur.
Where there is a potential for dust to accumulate or be generated the area must be designated with the appropriate hazardous area classification. Electrical equipment in this area must be suitable for the hazardous area classification.
Fire Fighting
If a fire occurs in a closed tank or pit containing molten sulphur it can be extinguished by closing all vents and air inlets. However, the tank or pit may become very hot before the fire is extinguished. A more effective way to extinguish a fire is to use steam. ‘Snuffing’ steam is admitted to the vapour space of the tank and displaces the oxygen in the tank thus starving the fire of oxygen. The system must be properly engineered to ensure steam is distributed thoughout the vapour space.
Small fires in melting pits can often be extinuguished by splashing liquid sulphur to smother the fire.
Spraying water onto the fire may cause the generation of a large amount of steam as the water hits the surface of the hot sulphur. The sudden generation of steam in an enclosed space may result in overpressurization of the tank.
If a fire occurs in a bulk solid sulphur storage pile or hopper, a fine spray or fog of water is the most satisfactory fire extinguishing agent.
As a safety precaution, it is recommended that a water line with hose and fog nozzle should be located where it can be used to extinguish fires in the sulphur storage and melting areas.
Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers can also be employed in fighting sulphur fires.
Burn Hazard
Molten sulphur is typically maintained at a temperature of 140°C (284°F) so improper handling of molten sulphur may result in burns to personnel. First degree burns can result from splashes of liquid sulphur on skin or clothing. The sulphur will quickly solidify but it should not be removed. The affected area should be immerse in cold water for at least 20 minutes and the patient treated for shock. Medical attention should be obtained immediately.
Hydrogen Sulphide
Most of the world’s sulphur is produced from the treatment of sour gases found in refinery and natural gas plants. When solid sulphur is melted, a small amount of hydrogen sulphide gas may be released. Hydrogen sulphide is a toxic, as well as flammable gas.
Respiratory Protection
Sulphur is essentially non-toxic but dust respirators should be worn for the comfort of workers. In case of emergencies, breathing apparatus suitable for sulphur dioxide should be available in the area. Sulphur dioxide will be produced during a sulphur fire.
Eye/Face Protection
In areas where solid sulphur is being handled, dust tight goggles should be worn. In areas where molten sulphur is present, safety glasses with side shields should be worn. A face shield may also be necessary.
Protective Clothing
The use of fire-retardant clothing is recommended. Clothing should be kept clean and free of dust. Heat resistant gloves should be worn in molten sulphur areas.
Source: http://www.sulphuric-acid.com/techmanual/Plant_Safety/safety_sulphur.htm
PCS floats new options for sulfur at port; Phosphate company promises open talks, launches PR effort
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Sunday, September 4, 2011 2:05 AM EDT
MARK HIBBS
The company has launched a new effort to allay lingering concerns about the material’s safety. PCS, which says it needs a way to get sulfur to its Aurora mining facility, is still considering Morehead City as a preferred option for a handling operation.
Representatives from the company held separate, unannounced meetings last week in Morehead City with local government officials and members of a group formed in July to oppose the company’s now-abandoned plan to build a sulfur melting and handling facility at the N.C. Port of Morehead City. The press wasn’t invited.
Full Story online (with reader comments)
PDF File
OSHA Fact Sheet – HazardAlert: Combustible Dust Explosions
Combustible dusts are fine particles that present an explosion hazard when suspendedin air in certain conditions. A dust explosion can be catastrophic andcause employee deaths, injuries, and destruction of entire buildings. In manycombustible dust accidents, employers and employees were unaware that a hazardeven existed. It is important to determine if your company has this hazard,and if you do, you must take action now to prevent tragic consequences.
How Dust Explosions Occur
In addition to the familiar fire triangle of oxygen,heat, and fuel (the dust), dispersion of dust particlesin sufficient quantity and concentrationcan cause rapid combustion known as a deflagration.If the event is confined by an enclosuresuch as a building, room, vessel, or processequipment, the resulting pressure rise maycause an explosion. These five factors (oxygen,heat, fuel, dispersion, and confinement) areknown as the “Dust Explosion Pentagon”. If oneelement of the pentagon is missing, an explosioncannot occur.
Catastrophic Secondary Explosions
An initial (primary) explosion in processing equipment or in an area where fugitive dust has accumulated may dislodge more accumulateddust into the air, or damage a containment system(such as a duct, vessel, or collector). As a result, if ignited, the additional dust dispersedinto the air may cause one or more secondaryexplosions. These can be far more destructivethan a primary explosion due to the increased quantity and concentration of dispersed combustibledust. Many deaths in past accidents, aswell as other damage, have been caused by secondary explosions.
Industries at Risk
Combustible dust explosion hazards exist in a variety of industries, including: agriculture,chemicals, food (e.g., candy, sugar, spice, starch,flour, feed), grain, fertilizer, tobacco, plastics,wood, forest, paper, pulp, rubber, furniture, textiles,pesticides, pharmaceuticals, tire and rubber manufacturing, dyes, coal, metal processing(e.g., aluminum, chromium, iron, magnesium,and zinc), recycling operations, and fossil fuel power generation (coal).
Prevention of Dust Explosions
To identify factors that may contribute to aexplosion, OSHA recommends a thorough hazard assessment of:
• All materials handled;
• All operations conducted, including byproducts;
• All spaces (including hidden ones); and
• All potential ignition sources.
Dust Control Recommendations
• Implement a hazardous dust inspection, testing, housekeeping, and control program;
• Use proper dust collection systems and filters;
• Minimize the escape of dust from process equipmentor ventilation systems;
• Use surfaces that minimize dust accumulation and facilitate cleaning;
• Provide access to all hidden areas to permit inspection;
• Inspect for dust residues in open and hidden areasat regular intervals;
• If ignition sources are present, use cleaning methodsthat do not generate dust clouds;
• Use only vacuum cleaners approved for dust collection; and
• Locate relief valves away from dust deposits.
Ignition Control Recommendations
• Use appropriate electrical equipment and wiringmethods;
• Control static electricity, including bonding ofequipment to ground;
• Control smoking, open flames, and sparks;• Control mechanical sparks and friction;
• Use separator devices to remove foreign materialscapable of igniting combustibles from processmaterials;
• Separate heated surfaces from dusts;
• Separate heating systems from dusts;
• Select and use industrial trucks properly;
• Use cartridge activated tools properly; and
• Use an equipment preventivemaintenance program.
Injury and Damage Control Methods
• Separation of the hazard (isolate with distance);
• Segregation of the hazard (isolate with a barrier);
• Deflagration isolation/venting;
• Pressure relief venting for equipment;
• Direct vents away from work areas;
• Specialized fire suppression systems;
• Explosion protection systems;
• Spark/ember detection for suppression activation;
• Develop an emergency action plan; and
• Maintain emergency exit routes.
Full document http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/OSHAcombustibledust.pdf
Press Release – PotashCorp Meeting with Clean County Coalition
MOREHEAD CITY – A delegation from Potash Corp. met with representatives of the Clean County Coalition on Wednesday, Aug. 31, to discuss the company’s intentions at the State Port here. The two-hour discussion covered a range of issues surrounding the company’s options for transshipping and storing dry sulfur as well as Carteret County’s interest in maintaining an environment conducive to its tourism-based economy.
Representing Potash Corp’s PCS Phosphate Aurora division were Steven A. Beckel, general manager, Michelle C. Vaught, manager of public affairs, George House, outside counsel for environmental affairs, and Jason T. Sanders, an environmental consultant.
The Coalition was represented by John Nelson, president, Leigh Johnson, vice president, and several steering committee members.
Acknowledging that the company had “misjudged the public reaction” to its earlier plan to build a sulfur re-melting plant at the port, Beckel and House offered a commitment to complete transparency around the company’s intentions from now on.
They said that, of various options for meeting the Aurora operation’s sulfur needs, they favored one that would entail importing formed solid sulfur to Morehead City, storing it in a new building adjoining the present A-frame warehouses on the north side of the Port, and reloading it on barges to a re-melting plant in Aurora. No expansion would take place at the company’s Radio Island terminal.
According to PCS, the enclosed storage would be a first in an industry that typically stores sulfur in open piles.
The company and the Coalition representatives tentatively agreed on the following points:
- PCS will underwrite the cost of hiring an independent environmental analyst to evaluate the company’s plans for sulfur operations at the Morehead port. The consultant is to be selected by the Coalition subject to the company’s concurrence;
- Some local residents will have the opportunity to inspect an existing sulfur facility at the company’s expense;
- All PCS plans involving the Morehead City Port will be well-publicized and transparent, including meetings with local and state officials and various interest groups.
The PCS presentation to the Clean County Coalition was preceded by a similar meeting with some local officials and other interested persons on Tuesday. That meeting was not publicized.
For further information, contact:
John Nelson, Coalition president
Leigh Johnson, vice-president
PCS permit up for review; State document reflects pulling of sulfur plans
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Sunday, August 21, 2011 2:06 AM EDT
MARK HIBBS
As reported in the News-Times on Wednesday, PCS Phosphate Co. has applied to renew its existing air permit for its facility at the port and requested the removal of all references to sulfur melting, handling and storage that were in its application submitted earlier this year.
Full article online… (with reader comments)
PDF file (with letter to editor, PCS ad)
Planners outline new zoning study, PCS strikes all sulfur references from renewal application for air permit
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
Also on Tuesday, state regulators announced that PCS Phosphate has applied for the renewal of its state air quality construction and operation permit, requesting removal of all references to sulfur melting, handling and storage in its application submitted earlier this year.
The action basically resets permitting for PCS operations at the N.C. Port of Morehead City to cover the phosphate handling and storage activity that has long been the largest share of port business.
But all allowed uses in the IP (industrial port) district – including current operations – will be subject to review in the city’s study discussed during the planning board’s monthly meeting in the municipal building at 202 S. 8th St.
Prompted by the recent controversy over PCS Phosphate’s now abandoned plan to build a sulfur-melting and handling facility at the port, the board promised open discussions and a thorough analysis of the district with input from the public and all stakeholders and set its first work session to deal with the topic at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 30, at the same location.
Chairman Bill Taylor said the review of all allowed uses in the IP district, which includes 97 parcels covering 716 acres in three concentrated areas of the city’s jurisdiction, would be intensive and complex.
Zoning changes aren’t that difficult
By Frank Tursi, assistant director of the N.C. Coastal Federation
If the now dead sulfur smelter wasn’t to your liking, how would you like a slaughterhouse at the state port? Imagine the railroad stock cars lumbering down Arendell Street toward their mooing occupants’ final destination as T-bones and rib eyes and porterhouses. Tourists might not take to the sight readily, but PETA certainly would. It would open a branch office in Morehead City from which to stage its daily protests at the port gate.
On second thought, you say a slaughterhouse isn’t a good idea. Then how about an iron foundry, steel mill or an aluminum smelter at the port? Belching smokestacks towering over the waterfront would add a sort of industrial elegance to the skyline, don’t you think?
We can see you’re not impressed. Maybe a nitroglycerin factory at the port would be more in keeping with downtown. No smoke, unless of course something goes terribly wrong. And, then, no more downtown.
If all this sounds pretty crazy, you need to spend some time with the Morehead City zoning ordinance. We know, we know! Zoning? You’d rather get a root canal or have your mother-in-law announce she’s extending her summer visit until Christmas. But this is important stuff to the future of the town and the port. And it’s not that difficult. Really!
All of the things listed above — the slaughterhouse, the iron foundry, the munitions factory, all of it — are currently allowed at the port under Morehead City’s zoning ordinance. Other things that we suspect many would find more offensive than the sulfur smelter could also be built there.
Read more… (also contains letters to the Editor)
Council votes to drop legal case
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
MIKE SHUTAK
The action came following a lengthy closed-session discussion with the city attorney at the end of the council’s monthly meeting, during which the council heard for the first time from both sides of the debate over PCS Phosphate’s future plans for a sulfur-handling facility at the N.C. Port of Morehead City.
Speech to Morehead City Town Council – Leigh Johnson, VP of Clean County Coalition
My name is Leigh Johnson and I am Vice President of the Clean County Coalition. We thank the Mayor and Board for the opportunity to address you concerning the Town’s zoning and the proposed sulfur handling operation at the State Port.
First of all, I would like to say that we are very fond of the slogan which we see on the t-shirts in the audience tonight. We are one community and it IS all about having a healthy balance in our community which we can all enjoy. We couldn’t agree more. We also would like to make it crystal clear that we are not anti-port or anti- business. We live next to, go to church with, and are friends with the port employees living in our community. We are not out to shut the port down or see port employees lose their jobs. Conversely, we would like to see quality industries recruited and quality jobs added. We are NOT a bunch of left wing liberal, vegan, granola- eating, Birkenstock wearing tree-huggers. What we ARE is a group of concerned citizens who are interested in seeing that any business brought into our port ENHANCES, rather than detracts from, the land and water uses currently in existence in our county. We would like to see industry that adds revenue to our $258 million dollar/year tourist industry. We are business owners, nurses, doctors, lawyers, journalists, consultants, and real-estate agents, among other things.
Unlike other towns such as Charleston, Savannah, or Galveston whose ports are well-off the beaten tourist paths, our port in MHC is at the epicenter of our downtown area which is currently being revitalized. It is a stone’s throw, literally from marinas, restaurants, shops, condominiums, residential areas, churches and schools. This is a fundamental fact which CANNOT be ignored and should be the main factor considered when deciding on what projects to allow at the port. C3 was able to bring a lot of attention to the Port and PCS’s desire to forever change the appearance of our town with smokestacks and the addition of a chemical factory for importing and melting sulfur. PCS has reportedly withdrawn their plans for a melting operation. While we are happy about this, it was ALWAYS only one part of the reason for our opposition to the project.
State of NC not exempt from zoning laws; MHC could declare a moratorium on port building permits
Is the State of North Carolina exempt from zoning laws?
I don’t think so. Here’s a section of the statute that allows cities to zone land:
G.S. 160A‑392. Part applicable to buildings constructed by State and its subdivisions; exception.
All of the provisions of this Part are hereby made applicable to the erection, construction, and use of buildings by the State of North Carolina and its political subdivisions.
Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or local law or ordinance, no land owned by the State of North Carolina may be included within an overlay district or a special use or conditional use district without approval of the Council of State. (1951, c. 1203, s. 1; 1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1985, c. 607, s. 2; 2004‑199, s. 41(e); 2005‑280, s. 1.)
The statute then defines “overlay districts,” as zoning districts that overlay another district “in which additional requirements are imposed on certain properties.” Special use districts or conditional use districts are those “in which uses are permitted only upon the issuance of a special use permit or a conditional use permit and conditional zoning districts, in which site plans and individualized development conditions are imposed.”
The IP zone is none of those things. Therefore, MHC has the authority to zone the port without the Council of State’s approval.
So we all know what’s involved in order for MHC to declare a moratorium on building permits in the IP zone, here are the relevant statutory requirements:
G.S. 160A‑381. Grant of power.
(e) As provided in this subsection, cities may adopt temporary moratoria on any city development approval required by law. The duration of any moratorium shall be reasonable in light of the specific conditions that warrant imposition of the moratorium and may not exceed the period of time necessary to correct, modify, or resolve such conditions. Except in cases of imminent and substantial threat to public health or safety, before adopting an ordinance imposing a development moratorium with a duration of 60 days or any shorter period, the governing board shall hold a public hearing and shall publish a notice of the hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the area not less than seven days before the date set for the hearing. A development moratorium with a duration of 61 days or longer, and any extension of a moratorium so that the total duration is 61 days or longer, is subject to the notice and hearing requirements of G.S. 160A‑364. Absent an imminent threat to public health or safety, a development moratorium adopted pursuant to this section shall not apply to any project for which a valid building permit issued pursuant to G.S. 160A‑417 is outstanding, to any project for which a conditional use permit application or special use permit application has been accepted, to development set forth in a site‑specific or phased development plan approved pursuant to G.S. 160A‑385.1, to development for which substantial expenditures have already been made in good faith reliance on a prior valid administrative or quasi‑judicial permit or approval, or to preliminary or final subdivision plats that have been accepted for review by the city prior to the call for public hearing to adopt the moratorium. Any preliminary subdivision plat accepted for review by the city prior to the call for public hearing, if subsequently approved, shall be allowed to proceed to final plat approval without being subject to the moratorium.
Any ordinance establishing a development moratorium must expressly include at the time of adoption each of the following:
(1) A clear statement of the problems or conditions necessitating the moratorium and what courses of action, alternative to a moratorium, were considered by the city and why those alternative courses of action were not deemed adequate.
(2) A clear statement of the development approvals subject to the moratorium and how a moratorium on those approvals will address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium.
(3) An express date for termination of the moratorium and a statement setting forth why that duration is reasonably necessary to address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium.
(4) A clear statement of the actions, and the schedule for those actions, proposed to be taken by the city during the duration of the moratorium to address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium.
No moratorium may be subsequently renewed or extended for any additional period unless the city shall have taken all reasonable and feasible steps proposed to be taken by the city in its ordinance establishing the moratorium to address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium and unless new facts and conditions warrant an extension. Any ordinance renewing or extending a development moratorium must expressly include, at the time of adoption, the findings set forth in subdivisions (1) through (4) of this subsection, including what new facts or conditions warrant the extension.
Any person aggrieved by the imposition of a moratorium on development approvals required by law may apply to the appropriate division of the General Court of Justice for an order enjoining the enforcement of the moratorium, and the court shall have jurisdiction to issue that order. Actions brought pursuant to this section shall be set down for immediate hearing, and subsequent proceedings in those actions shall be accorded priority by the trial and appellate courts. In any such action, the city shall have the burden of showing compliance with the procedural requirements of this subsection.
Frank Tursi, assistant director
N.C. Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
Newport, NC 28570
252-393-8185
252-241-3505 (cell)
Become a N.C. Coastal Federation Facebook Fan
PDF File of Document: Zoning & Moratorium – Frank Tursi letter
Letter to Mayor & Town Council – Dr. John Johnson & Dr. Robert Coles
August 9, 2011
To: The Mayor and Board of The Town of Morehead City, NC
We are writing to let you know that we are vehemently opposed to any potential expansion of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan’s operations at our port, either in the form of a new sulfur melting facility or the handling of bulk dry sulfur. Tourism, residential areas and heavy industrial chemical processing cannot exist within a half mile of each other. Any decision to allow this to happen would simply fly in the face of logic.
My name is Ted Johnson. As a surgeon who has spent time in our military, I understand that sometimes our citizens must be placed in harm’s way to defend our freedom and rights as a nation, but to put the citizens of this county in harm’s way merely for the sake of allowing the port of Morehead to turn a dollar is abominable. PCS has modeled their virgin foray into sulfur melting on the ‘best case scenario’ but do you realize the catastrophe you could have on your hands if a ‘worst case scenario’ situation played out, which we all know can happen, whether it is due to equipment malfunction, operator error, or a deliberate act?
Molten sulfur has been handled here for many years without incident, but handling and melting dry sulfur is a whole different ballgame. Sulfur dust is explosive, it is irritating to the eyes, nasal passages, and respiratory system. The young and old are particularly susceptible to small concentrations of any gases. I don’t know if you are aware that there is a retirement/nursing home within a 1/2 mile of this proposed facility (Harborview).
As practicing physicians and surgeons in this town, we can tell you unequivocally that our health care infrastructure is incapable of dealing with any kind of mass casualty or mass injury situation that could possibly occur with an accident here. We are a small community hospital. The nearest Level I trauma center is in GREENVILLE, which is well over ONE HOUR AWAY. It could take hours to get enough healthcare providers into the area and/or patients out, which would undoubtedly lead to a much greater loss of life.
In our humble opinion, and that of all other healthcare providers here with whom we have spoken, these are risks that you, as a responsible individuals much less our elected officials, cannot take with our citizens. This would be reckless and irresponsible and send a strong message that profits mean more to you than people.
Our hope is that common sense will prevail. If you wish to discuss this further, please feel free to call either of us, or better yet, come to the next meeting of the Carteret County Medical Society so we can discuss the health care provider impacts of this in greater detail.
Sincerely,
Dr. John T. Johnson
General Surgeon and Partner
Carolinas Center for Surgery and the Surgical Center of Morehead City
Dr. Robert Coles
Orthopedic Surgeon and Partner;
Carolinas Center for Surgery and the Surgical Center of Morehead City
President, Carteret County Medical Society
3714 Guardian Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
252-247-2101
U.S. Geological Survey: Materials Flow of Sulfur
(from page 48)
…..
Losses during handling and shipping solid bulk sulfur have been significant in the past, although difficult to quantify. When sulfur was poured to block in the early days of the industry, the solid material was broken up and moved with bulldozers, creating a tremendous problem with fine sulfur dust. The fine particles were difficult to contain and could be blown great distances on the wind. In addition to contaminating the area adjacent to the production locations, contamination was a problem along rail lines and at port facilities. Of even more concern than the dust contamination was the hazardous nature of the sulfur dust. Finely divided sulfur presents explosive and fire hazards, and the SO2 generated by such a fire is toxic (West, 1966).48
Because of these issues, regulations were established to limit shipments of crushed and broken sulfur. Several processes have been developed to minimize the loss and lessen the hazards in handling solid sulfur. Domestically, nearly all sulfur is shipped molten, avoiding any of the dusting problems associated with bulk sulfur. If sulfur is poured to block in the U.S. Gulf Coast area, then it is mechanically broken and passed through a melter before it is shipped from the storage site in molten form. During this processing, dust is kept to a minimum by containing dust inside the outer walls of the sulfur block. Most sulfur produced in California and Washington is shipped overseas. To make this material acceptable for bulk transport, the molten sulfur is processed in forming apparatus that solidifies the sulfur into distinct particles, such as granules, pastilles, prills, and slates, that resist breakage, significantly reducing the fines problems during handling. Additional dust suppression techniques include covered conveyors systems, dust collectors, and enclosed railcar unloading facilities with water sprays. These innovations have reduced losses during handling to a minimum.
…..
Open-File Report 02-298 [4.3-MB PDF file]
Full text version [178 KB]
Contact Information
For questions about the scientific content of this report, contact Joyce Ober.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-298/index.html
Maintained by Publishing Services
Last modified: 15:40:44 Thu 13 Feb 2003
Privacy statement | General disclaimer | Accessibility
Georgia Gulf Sulfur Corporation – Safety Info
Quoted from www.georgiagulfsulfur.com/safety.htm
The Reactive Nature of Sulfur
Sulfur differs from most combustible dust by having a relatively low ignition temperature. The ignition temperature of sulfur dust clouds varies upward from approximately 190ºC. Dilutions of sulfur with inert solids are not effective in raising the ignition temperature.
Whenever the handling of sulfur creates a dust cloud, an explosion is an ever-present possibility. Besides its low ignition temperature, a dust cloud can create a static electric charge among the air-suspended sulfur particles. The static discharge can readily cause ignition.
Sulfur dust explosions occur with very rapid discharge of flame and pressure waves. When confined or other-wise restricted in a building, pressure waves can cause a great deal of damage.
Sulfur reacts violently with strong oxidizing agents, such as nitrates and chlorates. It will also undergo chemical change at moderate rates with alkalis.
Storage
Sulfur should be stored in a dry area. When it is wet, sulfur reacts to form a very weak sulfuric acid. This can eventually deteriorate bags and most other items. Use skids to prevent contact between damp floors and bags carrying sulfur.
In addition, to reduce the chance of fire and explosion, only well ventilated areas should be used for storage. Storage area doors also should be made of non-combustible material and be the type that can be easily blown out with an explosion.
Safety Precautions
Ground sulfur is essentially non-toxic through skin contact, ingestion and inhalation. However, it can irritate the skin and eyes as well as the respiratory system.
Sulfur deposited on skin can be washed away with mild soap and water. Eyes that have come into contact with sulfur dust are to be flooded with water for at least 15 minutes. This must be thorough. An inadequate attempt may actually increase the inflammation.
Do not use a boric acid solution for eye washing. Sulfur dust is an acid irritant. Since boric acid is a weak acid, it will further inflame an already acid-irritated eye. For eye and respiratory protection, breathing apparatus and dust-tight goggles should be worn.
Letter from citizen near the Port of Anacortes, Washington…opposing a sulfur facility there
Loading sulphur at Pier 2 bad for Anacortes
Posted by J.B. Smith in Letters, Community
Nov 11, 2009
The Port Commissioners should reconsider the direction the Port is taking to allow the loading of Sulfur at Pier 2.
The public process to date has been used to steer the debate and it has been said that there is little opposition to sulfur loading from the neighbors. This is not fact. The initial public meeting called hastily and with short notice, downplayed the environmental consequences of sulfur being trucked through our city center and loaded onto large cargo ships. A small demonstration loading downplayed the fact that substantial dust and smell did occur. We were told that the Port is within their rights and this is in fact their function. I ask that you read this letter and then reconsider the Port direction.
As far as I know this is the third time the Port has loaded or considered loading sulfur in Anacortes. Previously there was a load operation and it was an admitted disaster because of odor and dust, blamed mainly on the open trucks used at the time. The second time it was suggested that sulfur be stored and loaded here which was a bad idea that never got far off the ground. Now the Port is again considering sulfur shipping using the same system currently used for [petroleum] coke. Although the coke loading is vastly better than during the 1990’s it does not contain the dust completely as evidenced by the black mess that still results on Cap Sante homes. This system is also unlikely to work for sulfur because not only do you have the dust problem but odor as well. My opinion of the test load was that it did in fact have odor and dust, the two things that the public meeting said we would not have. If a small test load of a few hours duration had dust and odor issues what do you think is going to happen when 20-50k tons are loaded over a week’s period of time?
Prilled Sulfur Operation Information – Port of Anacortes, Washington
Preliminary Prilled Sulfur Operation Information
(All information below was pulled directly from www.portofanacortes.com/sulfur.shtml, the website for the Port of Anacortes.)
Oct. 22, 2009 briefing to community about plans to ship sulfur off Pier 2 (PDF 622KB)
(below is some information from the “Neighborhood Meeting Agenda” slide on “Factors to Consider:
FACTORS TO CONSIDER
- Increased truck traffic approx 4-5 ships/year
- Odor may or may not be noticeable to CapSante neighbors
- Capital cost – need to build tent or building overloader for approx $100k
- Bright yellow color – in the unlikely event of aspill, it can be identified for cleanup
Below is a short video of the first sulfur operation test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4CeE1P91J4&feature=player_embedded
View photos of the first sulfur operation test here.
Project Documents
- SEPA Checklist for Pier 2 Sulfur Shipment (PDF 315KB)
- MDNS Pier 2 Sulfur Shipment (PDF 90KB)
- The release of H2S from formed solid elementals (PDF 682KB)
- Notice of Application for construction (PDF 2.2MB)
- Potential Odor Impacts of Proposed Sulfur Loading (PDF 472KB)
- NWCAA Permit (PDF 3.7MB)
- H2S Odor Monitoring Plan (PDF 4MB)
- Dust Management Plan (PDF 225KB)
Public Comments Received on SEPA Checklist
- Comment 1 (PDF 32KB)
- Comment 2 (PDF 27KB)
- Comment 3 (PDF 928KB)
- Comment 4 (PDF 47KB)
- Comment 5 (PDF 58KB)
- Comment 6 (PDF 91KB)
- Comment 7 (PDF 27KB)
- Comment 8 (PDF 57KB)
- Comment 9 (PDF 37KB)
- Comment 10 (PDF 140KB)
- Comment 11 (PDF 333KB)
Port Responses to Comments
- Guide to Responses (PDF 37KB)
- Comments Received and Responses Given (PDF 86KB)
Sulfur & Public Safety Issues
- Prilled Sulfur Report (PDF 88KB)
- Contingency Plan for the Transportation and Maritime Ship and Barge Loading of Sulfur by Port of Anacortes (PDF 135kb)
- Letter from Fire Dept. to Mr. David Gessert, Consulting Fire Protection Engineer (PDF 97KB)
- Response from Port of Anacortes to Fire Dept. (PDF 1.3MB)
- Link to Northwest Clean Air Agency documents, public notice, and public hearing information
REMINDER: Clean County Presentation at Morehead City Town Council Meeting
- The Morehead City Town Council meets at 5:30 p.m. this Tuesday (August 9) at the Municipal Chambers, 202 S. 8th St., Morehead City.
One of the agenda items is a presentation on dry sulfur by the Clean County Coalition. The group continues to oppose any plans by PCS Phosphate/PotashCorp to handle and process dry sulfur at the Port of Morehead City.
The citizens’ group recently sent a letter to the Town Council asking for a review of the zoning ordinance pertaining to the Port-Industrial District. The Coalition believes that storage of dry sulfur at the Port should not be a “permitted use.”
The group advocates amending the ordinance to remove any permitted use that “would offend the community by excessive noise, odor, smoke, dust, airborne debris or any other objectionable characteristic, which might be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of surrounding neighborhoods and the community.”
Jerry Eborn, Chair of The Morehead City Port Committee, said that his organization is planning to attend Tuesday’s Town Council meeting to show its “support for the Morehead City Port, the jobs it has created and the economic impact it has provided to our area. We have a few people who are going to speak. We may have some T-shirts, also,” Eborn said.
New PCS Phosphates Ads in Carteret County News-Times
Two new PCS Phosphates ads in Carteret County News-Times:
2011-08-07-Carteret-County-News-Times – PCS Ads “One Essential Element” [safety] and “A Commitment to Transparency”
From “A Commitment to Transparency”:
“Some Options We’re Exploring … As we take this step back, some of the options we are exploring include:
- Building a sulfur handling and melting operation at one of several ports in states adjacent to North Carolina.
- Building a suitable facility outside the U.S. to handle formed solid sulfur and melting.
- Building a solid sulfur handling facility at the Port of Morehead City that will supply formed solid sulfur to a melting facility to be located at our facility in Aurora.”
Previous Ads:
2011-07-24 Carteret County News Times – PCS Four Page Glossy Insert “PotashCorp”
2011-07-17 Carteret County News Times – Setting the Record Straight… PCS Phosphates Full Page Ad
An economic, environmental and health disaster
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
Beaufort, N.C.
July 21, 2011
A letter to Gov. Bev Perdue:
Madam Governor:
This letter expresses my strong opposition to the proposed sulphur plant in Morehead City. I am a resident and registered voter of Beaufort, North Carolina.
For many years I worked with and traveled and dealt with the environmental disaster caused by petrochemical plants in Louisiana, Texas, the states of the Persian or Arabian Gulf and elsewhere. I have carefully observed and been involved in sulphur carriage and production, which are a residual product of that industry. I can tell you from first hand experience that the proposed sulphur plant in Morehead City will be an economic, environmental and health disaster to that city, surrounding towns, Carteret County and North Carolina.
In Port Sulphur, La., a place that derives its income from sulphur, the atmosphere is so foul that paint does not adhere to houses because of the sulphur fumes and sulphuric acid produced by them. The rate of carcinomas in the population is far greater than the national average. The number of stillborns is greater than the national average. Each of these phenomena can be traced to sulphur and its effects.
Sulphur is an insidious element which cannot and will not be controlled by the proponents of the plant in Morehead City. The specter of turning the towns of Beaufort and Morehead City into other Port Sulphurs is real, palpable and dangerous. Do you really want that to happen to a town in North Carolina?
The property values of Carteret County will plummet if this plant is allowed to exist. Already, on rumor only, real estate deals are failing because of the proposal. Neither Carteret County nor North Carolina can afford that.
Beaufort is the third oldest town in North Carolina and for most North Carolinians it is a jewel of which they are justly proud. To be blunt, the proposed sulphur plant would irreparably injure that jewel for the sake of 18 jobs to those not of Carteret County. It would destroy a vibrant tourism industry. It would destroy a fishery and would greatly harm if not destroy our wetlands.
The way in which the proponents have gone about placing the plant is disingenuous at best and criminal in the worst case. There is an odor about their activities, which smacks of bribery and piece-off and corruption for profit. The profits of this chemical plant in Morehead City are staggering daily. Yet none of these monies will flow to Carteret County of eastern North Carolina. This is not the way your administration does business and is not the North Carolina way.
The company propounding the sulphur plant owns a phosphate plant in Aurora. The record is clear. Because of that operation the level of the largest aquifer on the East Coast has plummeted. Where there were artesian wells there are now dry holes. Deep wells are now necessary for both commerce and personal use. The ecosystem of the surrounds of the plant has been inalterably changed because of it. The Pamlico River has been inalterably changed because of it. The owners of the plant are not good corporate stewards in Aurora and will not be in Morehead City.
I urge you to not allow the sulphur melting plant to happen by not providing over your signature grant monies from the taxpayers of this state to start a process which, if begun, will be very difficult if not impossible to turn. If your interests are truly for and of the people of this state you will not allow this plant to commence and you will use your good offices to oppose it.
With best regards,
JOHN A.C. CARTNER
M.Sc., M.B.A., LL.M., Ph.D., Ch. Eng., Master Mariner
Proctor in Admiralty (U.S.A.), FSNAME, FRINA, FINMAREST
Admitted: D.C., U.S.A.; Member of the Law Society, England & Wales
Managing Member, Cartner & Fiske, LLC/Shipmasterlaw, LLC
Florida Dept of State regulations on Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities
62-296.411 Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities. (Full Document from Florida Administrative Weekly & Florida Administrative Code)
Below is a sampling of regulations that apply ONLY to Marine Vessel Unloading: (the full Document also lists regulations with regards to rail and other handling of the hazardous dry sulfur)
(2) Solid Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities – All solid sulfur storage and handling facilities shall employ as a minimum, the following practices to minimize the emission of sulfur particulate matter into the atmosphere. Other relevant detailed requirements shall be specified, as necessary, in the permits for the facility including, where appropriate, a minimum rate or amount of moisture to be applied by water spray systems.
(a) Marine Vessel Unloading.
1. Solid sulfur unloaded from marine vessels shall only be done by:
a. A self-unloading vessel of a design approved by the Department; or
b. A tight-lipped clamshell bucket (the clamshell bucket shall be inspected daily by qualified personnel during use to assure a tight seal); or
c. A continuous unloader.
2. Solid sulfur shall not be unloaded by clam shell bucket or any approved equivalent method from marine vessels when the wind speed exceeds 18 mph for any five minute period.
3. A floating boom shall be deployed so as to contain sulfur that may be spilled in the water during the unloading process whenever a clamshell bucket or equivalent unloading method is employed. Any sulfur floating in the contained area shall be reclaimed as soon as possible after unloading, but no later than 24 hours after unloading is completed.
4. The hopper receiving solid sulfur unloaded from marine vessels shall be constructed with wind walls and a top with slots provided to enable entry and exiting of a clamshell bucket. The walls shall be constructed on at least three sides and the height of the walls shall be a minimum of 1.5 times the height of the clamshell bucket.
5. The clamshell bucket shall be positioned within the wind walls prior to discharging sulfur into the receiving hopper.
6. The clamshell bucket shall be closed completely before being withdrawn from the receiving hopper and returned to the marine vessel.
7. The hopper receiving solid sulfur unloaded from marine vessels shall be equipped with a water spray system located around the periphery of the receiving hopper. The water spray system shall contain an effective wetting agent and shall be operated continuously during all unloading or transfer operations.
8. Operational procedures approved by the Department shall be established to minimize sulfur particulate emissions from marine vessel unloading operations.
…..
PotashCorp’s “Environmental Events and Fines”
The screenshots below come directly from PotashCorp’s website: The first is from its “2009 Online Sustainability Report” on their performance with regards to the environment: http://www.potashcorp.com/media/POT_2009_OSR_Environment.pdf (page 28)
Note that when PotashCorp reports its history of “Environmental Events and Fines,” the literature states: “Environmental Events include reportable [emphasis added] quantity releases, permit excursions and spills….” What type of events are considered reportable? What about smaller amounts of daily pollution in our water and air that are not deemed to be “reportable” events? Review the post of Florida Dept of State regulations on Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities to see an example of the strict procedures that must be continuously followed to attempt to minimize (not eliminate) pollution during the daily operation of dry sulfur handling.
Also note that PotashCorp reports a “Value of environmental fines ($)” as a dollar amount. If / when “Environmental events” occur at a Carteret County facility, PotashCorp might measure the cost of such spills as a dollar amount in fines…but we as a community at the Crystal Coast would “value” the effects of such accidents using different criteria.
Below are the “Environmental Events and Fines” for 2010, pulled from PotashCorp’s website: http://www.potashcorp.com/sustainability_reports/2010/environment/performance/environmental_events_and_fines/
PCS Fined in October 2010 Ammonia Leak
Quick Quote from the Associated Press
“PCS also owns phosphate mining operations in Aurora, N.C., where 17 workers were injured in 2010 when 8,000 pounds of ammonia escaped from the facility. The State Labor Department issued Potash Corp. nine citations and fined the company $30,400 after the accident.”
–cited in Bloomberg BusinessWeek 7/20/2011
–cited in Forbes 7/20/2011
More Details
…details on citations issued against PCS Phosphate after 8,000 pounds of ammonia leaked from its Aurora plant.
PCS Fined in October 2010 Ammonia Leak
Posted: 5:37 PM Apr 22, 2010 by WITN News
There is more information about why PCS Phosphate was cited and fined by state regulators after an October ammonia leak.
The State Labor Department fined PCS Phosphate’s parent company for an accident last fall that injured 17 workers. Potash Corporation was given nine serious citations and fined $30,400 by the state. The state says 8,000 pounds of ammonia escaped after the accident in Aurora.
WITN News has obtained the citations which outline several violations the labor department said it found at the plant. They say PCS failed to correct deficiencies in the ammonia offloading arm. The state says threads were worn which resulted in the coupling coming apart and releasing the ammonia.
The company was also cited for not having established inspection criteria for the equipment, not property labeling ammonia lines and the plant’s evacuation voice alert system was “unintelligible in all locations within buildings on the plant site.”
Ten PCS employees and seven contractors were sent to the hospital after an ammonia leak at the Aurora plant in October. At the time, PCS said the leak was stopped and the ammonia was contained on the plant site. The immediate areas around the leak and areas downwind were evacuated.
The state says PCS contested the citations, so a state review commission now has jurisdiction of the case.
Full Story (with reader comments…such as the one below)
“Everybody defends PCS that works there, since well paying jobs are scarce, but nobody pollutes more, just ask anyone that spends time on the water near Aurora. I won’t let me my kids swim in the Pamlico thanks to them and agricultural run off. Phosphorous is in extreme demand, but at what cost to our people and environment? Not to mention the millions of gallons of water a day they pull out the aquifers we ALL use for our water supply.”
Previous Story:
Posted: 9:47 PM Oct 12, 2009
Ports committee speaks out, Group seeks to provide balance in sulfur controversy
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Friday, August 5, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan (PCS) Report of Production of Aurora, NC Facility
From the Company Website, Financial Information Section, August 5, 2011
In addition to production figures, this document also shows:
Greenhouse gas emissions (shown in thousands of tons), Significant air pollutants (tons), Water use (millions of gallons)
Document: potashcorp_export – Aurora NC Production
Approved Code of Practice for the Prevention of Sulphur Fires and Explosions
Published by the Occupational Safety and Health Service
Department of Labour
Wellington, New Zealand
September 1993
Full Document: sulphur fire and explosion manual (also located at http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/pdf/sulphur.pdf)
PCS Phosphate Withdrawal of Air Quality Permit
Certified Letter to Mr. Mark Hedrick, Engineer, Division of Air Quality (part of DENR) from Ross Smith, Manager, Environment and Energy, PotashCorp-Aurora (PCS Phospate Company)
Excerpt:
PCS Phosphate has voluntarily taken the decision as a company to not proceed with the sulfur melter at the Morehead City port facility. At this point, we have taken a step back and are reevaluating all of our options.
PCS Phosphate requests that DENR-DAQ remove all references to sulfur handling and melting equipment, emissions, and conditions from the air permit. The resulting air permit renewal would revert back to the previous air permit version No. 09673ROO, and we request renewal of that version of the permit.
Full Letter: pcs permit withdrawal SAURADMN0311080316290 b
State of North Carolina’s Recommendation on Boundaries For the 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
June 2, 2011
Governor Beverly Perdue
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide the State of North Carolina’s recommendation onboundaries for the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard(NAAQS). This package is in response to the promulgation of a revised primary 1-hour SO2standard by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on June 2, 2010. TheUSEPA has instructed the States to submit their recommendations for area designationboundaries by June 3, 2011. The USEPA will notify the states if they intend to modify thestates’ boundary recommendation no later than February, 2012. These notification letters fromthe USEPA will begin a 60-day period during which the States can provide additionalinformation to support their boundary recommendation. The final designations for the primary1-hour SO2 standard will be made by the USEPA by June 3, 2012 and will subsequently bepublished in the Federal Register and codified in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 CFR 81.
Full Document: NC_SO2_Boundary_Recommendation_Narrative_6-2-11
Environmental Assessment
Morehead City Bulk Handling Facility
Sulfur Melting Project
Morehead City, Carteret County, North Carolina
Administrative Action
Environmental Assessment
North Carolina State Ports Authority
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc
Document Preparation By: URS Corporation – North Carolina, December 2010
Submitted Pursuant to the North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (G.S.113A-1 et seq.)
Summary Info
- Proposed Project Description
- Summary Of Purpose And Need For Proposed Project
- Alternatives Analysis
- Summary Of Environmental Effects
- Summary Of Mitigative Measures
- Permits Required
Full Document: MHC-BHF Sulfur Project EA & EFH 12-22-10-1
Material Safety Data Sheet – Georgia Gulf Sulfur Corporation
Includes the following sections:
- Chemical Identity
- Physical Data
- Fire and Explosion Data
- Primary Hazard
- Fire
- Reactivity Data
- Health Hazards
- Signs and Symptoms of Overexposure
- Emergency and First Aid
- Precautions for Safe Handling and Use
- Explosion Hazard
- Small or Large Spills
- Protective Equipment
- DOT and Regulatory Information
Full Document: GGS sulfur MSDS
Other Georgia Sulfur links:
www.georgiagulfsulfur.com/facts.htm
www.georgiagulfsulfur.com/safety.htm
Revisions to the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Monitoring Network and Data Reporting Requirements for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
An EPA Publication, produced by:
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
June 2010
Overview
• On June 2, 2010 EPA strengthened the primary National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) toimprove public health protection
• Specifically, EPA replaced the existing annual and 24-hour primarySO2 standards with a new 1-hour SO2 standard set at 75 parts perbillion (ppb) to better protect public health by reducing people’sexposure to high short-term (5-minutes to 24 hours)concentrations of SO2
• This final standard is consistent with the recommendations of theClean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)• This final rule does not cover the secondary SO2 standard, whichEPA is reviewing separately as part of a joint review of the welfareeffects associated with deposition of SO2 and NO2 (to becompleted in 2012)
• EPA is revising the ambient air monitoring requirements forSO2. States must make necessary adjustments to theirmonitoring network to meet the new requirements by January 1,2013.
• EPA is also describing our planned hybrid approach forimplementing the new 1-hour SO2 standard. The approachwould rely on air dispersion modeling of SO2 sources andambient monitoring to determine compliance with the new standard.
• This final rule also changes the Air Quality Index to include therevised SO2 standard.
• For more information, http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/
Full Publication: epa sulfur 20100603presentation
Fact Sheet: epa sulfur rule
Includes the following sections of summary information:
- Summary of Action (Overview…shown above)
- SO2 and Public Health
- Revising the SO2 Monitoring Network
- Anticipated Approach To Implementing The New SO2 Standard
- Background
- For More Information
Environmental Compliance
Environmental Compliance
March 2008 saw the expiry of a five-year probationary period imposed upon PCS by the federal U.S.District Court as a result of its felony violation of the U.S. Clean Water Act, under which the company was fined a total of $2.0 million U.S. in 2003. The fines were a result of the PCS’s failure to identify 20 potential sources of air pollution in an air permit application. Since this significant incident, the company has reduced its total number of environmental compliance violations and penalties, and its compliance record now compares favourably with other companies in its peer group.
Tuesday, August 16 – MHC Planning Board
MHC Planning Board, Tuesday, August 16.
MHC C3 members will request zoning changes on port industrial locations and also request a moritorium on all future developments at the port until such time as new proposed zoning has been completed.
See attached letter to MHC and Press release. Again, public support for this initiative is important.
Tuesday, Aug. 9th at 5:30pm Morehead City Town Council Meeting – Clean County Coalition: Presentation on Dry Sulfur Pellets
MOREHEAD CITY TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
Clean County Coalition: Presentation on Dry Sulfur Pellets
Tuesday: August 9 – Regular Morehead City Town Board – Old police station (202 South 8th Street), 2nd floor 5:30pm
During PUBLIC COMMENT: C3 members from Morehead City will give 20 minute presentation on properties, hazards and explosive nature of dry sulfur pellets and dust.
Public is urged to attend to learn about dry sulfur and to support MHC residents in their efforts on proposed new zoning language.
Sulfur doubts still remain; Coalition seeks zoning code changes for city
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
MOREHEAD CITY — Members of the group formed to oppose PCS Phosphate’s planned construction of a sulfur-melting facility at the state port here called Tuesday for city codes to be changed to keep any dry sulfur operation away from the downtown district.
The group believes construction of a dry sulfur handling and storage facility is imminent and they think Gov. Bev Perdue’s halt last week to the planned PCS sulfur-melting project came with a 90-day moratorium on new projects.
Activists celebrate win: Coalition remains committed to address future county sulfur plans
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Sunday, July 31, 2011 2:05 AM EDT
MARK HIBBS
The group said it must continue to be involved in the public discussions of whatever plan PCS Phosphate develops as an alternative to the $95 million project originally proposed to handle, store and melt solid sulfur to be barged up the Intracoastal Waterway to its Aurora mining facility. It’s understood construction of a solid sulfur storage facility is likely to be proposed next and any handling of dry sulfur at the port is a concern, the group said.
NC gov’s Morehead City speech raises eyebrows
MOREHEAD CITY, N.C. — A spokeswoman for Gov. Beverly Perdue says the Democrat is aware of the potential for a sulfur pellet warehouse in North Carolina but did not mention it during a recent speech in Morehead City because there are no formal plans in place.
Perdue said earlier this week that PCS Phosphates was canceling plans for a sulfur melting plant, an announcement lauded by community members who had opposed it.
Before the announcement Wednesday evening, the governor’s office provided her prepared remarks to The Associated Press. A governor spokesman also verified that the information was OK to use after the speech was under way.
However, the politician did not mention that during her actual speech, leading some activists to wonder whether the governor was hiding information when she spoke.
Clean County Coalition vice president Leigh Johnson said area residents believe the original plans for the sulfur melting plant and warehouse had been cloaked in secrecy, and they are sensitive to any hint other projects may be moving ahead without public comment.
News of the planned sulfur melting plant became public last month, a year after PCS Phosphates and the ports authority began receiving permits for the project. Citizens objected, claiming the melting plant posed a threat to air and water quality and that moving dry sulfur pellets in and out of storage could cause the volatile chemical to explode.
Perdue spokeswoman Chrissy Pearson said lacking formal warehouse plans, the governor decided to not mention the warehouse in her actual speech. Pearson said the governor is aware a warehouse may be proposed and would be needed for any melting operation.
She says Perdue often diverges from prepared remarks.
PCS spokeswoman Michelle Vaught said the company is reconsidering all its plans for the Morehead City Port.
Original Story posted in the News & Observer (along with any reader comments)
State Ports Authority Plan Pulled – Perdue announces PCS abandons proposal, but Morehead City Council not taking any chances
News-Times
By Mark Hibbs
7/29/2011
Opponents of a formerly planned facility to melt sulfur at the state port here are organizing a victory celebration now that the project has been canceled, but city officials are positioned for a continuing legal battle.
Gov. Bev Perdue announced Wednesday that PCS Phosphate “voluntarily agreed to abandon” its plan to build a sulfur-melting facility at the stateport, but incorrect reports of a scaled-back solid sulfur operation at the location continued to cause alarm following her announcement.
Full Story…
PDF File (with clippings of all Articles/Editorials/Letters in the paper)
Clean County Coalition’s Statement: Gov. Perdue’s Actions Regarding the MHC State Port
July 28, 2011
Gov. Perdue’s Actions Regarding the Morehead City State Port
The Clean County Coalition salutes Gov. Beverly Perdue for her decisive action in negotiating and end to PCS Phosphate plans to build a sulfur re-melting facility and dry sulfur storage at the state port. This was to be an industrial use of the port that was fundamentally in conflict with the coastal character Morehead City, Beaufort and surrounding areas.
The Coalition worked hard over the last two weeks to persuade Gov. Perdue and other state officials that the risks and environmental effects of sulfur processing and handling would do irreparable damage to this community and its tourism-based economy. The public response included massive citizen participation as well as unanimous resolutions of opposition from the towns of Beaufort, Morehead City, Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Emerald Isle and Cape Carteret, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Council, Downtown Revitalization Committee, Crystal Coast Tourism Development Authority, Crystal Coast Hospitality Association, Carteret County Association of Realtors and the Carteret County Commissioners.
Gov. Perdue was quick to credit grassroots community action for persuading her to act. In the spirit of citizen participation, she has ordered a public review of appropriate activities at the state ports. The Clean County Coalition looks forward to playing a continuing role in this review.
Leigh Johnson and Renee Coles
Clean County Coalition
PO Box 958, Morehead City, 28557
252-241-2255
PCS “Re-Evaluating” Sulfur Pellet Storage At State Port – WITN
Story from witn.com. Updated: 8:04 PM Jul 28, 2011
PCS Phosphate says it is re-evaluating its entire sulfur project at the Morehead City State Port, including whether to store sulfur pellets.
Wednesday, Governor Beverly Perdue announced PCS had abandoned its plans to build a controversial sulfur melting plant at the port. But an Associated Press story said PCS was still going ahead with plans for sulfur pellet storage facilities at the port with bins 150 feet high. That angered many opponents who felt the governor wasn’t giving them the full story.
Thursday in Havelock Perdue told reporters she was surprised to hear there has been discussions of the pellets. She says as far as she knows there is no proposal for pellets at this point in time.
In an email to WITN News, PCS says they are now re-evaluating all of their options, including the location of the storage pellet facility. Public relations manager Michelle Vaught says they anticipate any storage facility that is eventually built would be far less than 150 feet high.
As for the Associated Press story yesterday, the AP tells WITN that the details in that report were provided by a member of the governor’s communications staff. WITN obtained that email which included several talking points about the pellets: “PCS also has a plan to bring dry sulfur pellets and store them at the port.” and “If that plan ultimately goes forward, PCS has already agreed to rework their plans to make sure that no sulfur storage building will exceed 150 feet in height.”
Meanwhile, the Clean County Coalition has apologized to the governor. “I sincerely apologize to the Governor for calling her a liar,” said coalition president John Nelson. Nelson said he received a phone call today from Perdue’s senior adviser who reassured him there were no plans to build a sulfur pellet storage facility at the port.
Beverly Perdue’s Excecutive Order No. 99: Ports and Local Economy Compatibility
WHEREAS,…… (refer to Executive Order No. 99, with seal for the full executive order)
NOW, THEREFORE, by the power vested in me as Governor by the laws and Constitution of the State of North Carolina, IT IS ORDERED:
Section 1. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall continue its study of the State’s maritime logistics. In coordination with the Governor’s Logistics Task Force and the North Carolina State Ports Authority, the Department’s study shall specifically identify activities at and uses of the Wilmington and Morehead City ports that are not incompatible with the underlying economic base and existing predominant economic sectors supported by the surrounding community.
Section 2. This Executive Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until rescinded.
Call from Bev’s Office – BIG! BIG! BIG!
A few minutes ago, I received a call from Al Delia, Governor Bev Perdue’s Senior Advisor – he said:
1. There is no plan to build a 150 ft dry sulfur pellet storage facility the port.
2. He said he knows of no plan by PCS to propose such a storage facility.
3. He said the Gov’s office was as stunned by the new outcry -prompted by news reports- that occurred last night and this morning as we were.
4. He said he cannot tell us what PCS may propose in the future – but they have been well aware of our concerns about dry sulfur pellet storage. Meaning they could propose dry storage in the future – but it will be a brand new ballgame with full input and disclosure.
5. He said, Gov Perdue has promised, and will live up to her promise of full open disclosure and public input on all future Morehead City Port projects
In light of Al Delia’s personal phone call to me, I sincerely apologize to the Governor for calling her a liar. My bad, 100%. Please forward. Based on Al’s call, I believe we can resume our celebration.
I am copying Al on this email so he can correct me if I missed anything. Please forward
Thank you Al - I am disheartened that the false info about a 150 ft storage facility sent us all into a tizzy.
John Nelson
Perdue’s Talking Points – PCS Phosphate Announcement
Below are some highlights from Perdue’s “talking points” (her speech at the port).
“I have heard the concerns and fears that focus on the risk to the environment, on the worry about safety and about the impact to the very livelihood of so many that depend on tourism in this area.”
“I have always said – even when it wasn’t popular – that permitting decisions must be made on their merits and based on sound science and detailed knowledge. But, those decisions must be made with the full knowledge and participation of the public in an open and transparent way.”
“PCS Phosphate has voluntarily agreed to abandon pursuit of the sulfur smelting operation at the Port or anywhere else in Carteret County.”
“Further, to assure that North Carolina’s Ports are good neighbors, I am today signing an Executive Order directing the Department of Transportation, the Ports Authority and the Governor’s Logistics Task Force –- as a part of the current Maritime Strategies Study being conducted –- that we make sure any future activities that take place at our ports in Morehead and Wilmington not be incompatible with the economy of the Ports’ host communities.”
Sulfur saga
NewsObserver.com
Published on Thu Jul 28 02:00:00 EDT 2011
Eastern North Carolina has had a long, productive but not always comfortable relationship with the company that wanted to intensify its operations at the Morehead City state port with a facility to melt sulfur.
Coastal outcry stops sulfur project
NewsObserver.com
Published on Thu Jul 28 02:00:00 EDT 2011
The public outcry over plans to build a sulfur melting plant on state port land near Morehead City’s waterfront has killed the project.
Gov. Perdue to make sulfur announcement
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:15 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
MOREHEAD CITY — Gov. Bev Perdue is expected to make an announcement here today regarding the proposed sulfur-melting facility at the state port.
Gov. Perdue, Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Dee Freeman, State Ports Authority CEO Thomas Eagar and other elected officials will hold a media-only press conference at 5 p.m. in the port’s main office building, according to a release from the governor’s press office.
The press office wouldn’t give any indication what the governor might say, but officials here expect the announcement to be a decision on whether plans for the facility will be allowed to move forward.
NO SULFUR PLANT; PCS plans warehouse (update)
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:16 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
Gov. Bev Perdue announced Wednesday that PCS Phosphate has “voluntarily agreed to abandon” its plan to build a sulfur-melting facility at the state port here. The governor also used the opportunity to sign an executive order “to assure the public that North Carolina ports intend to be good neighbors.”
Full story…. (with reader comments)
PDF file (with clippings of all articles/editorials/letters)
Gov Perdue to address public 7/27/11 at 4:30pm MHC Port
According to the MHC police dept., the public will be allowed to access to the port. People may gather in front of the Maritime Building on the Port’s property. After her press release, the Governor will be addressing the public. Be there by 4:00 pm!!! There has been first come, first serve parking arranged at Leeward Harbor condos and Portside Marina, adjacent to the Port’s property.
Company abandons plans to build sulfur plant in Morehead City
NewsObserver.com
Published on Wed Jul 27 17:35:00 EDT 2011
A company has withdrawn its plans to build a sulfur-melting plant at the state port in Morehead City in the face of public opposition, Gov. Bev Perdue announced this afternoon.
Sulfur processing off the table for Morehead City
NewsObersver.com
Published on Wed Jul 27 17:31:57 EDT 2011
A Canadian company has agreed to withdraw plans for a proposed sulfur-processing plant in Morehead City after Gov. Beverly Perdue intervened and agreed to help PCS Phosphates look for another site, the governor said Wednesday.
Rally the Troops – TODAY @ 4:30pm at the Port
According to port officials, Governor Beverly Perdue is scheduled to make an announcement at the port in Morehead City at 4:30 pm today. We DO NOT have the text of the announcement. We do not know what she is going to say. BUT PLEASE THERE AND BRING ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS. Wear your SULFURIOUS t-shirts, bring your signs. Pass it on!
Documents Galore on Sulfur Plant
These links are from the North Carolina Coastal Federation Website (www.nccoast.org):
Resolutions Opposing the Sulfur Facility
At present there have been resolutions written opposing the facility by: the Town of Morehead City, Beaufort, Atlantic Beach, Emerald Isle, Pine Knoll Shores, the Carteret County Commissioners, the Carteret County Economic Development Council, the Carteret County Chamber of Commerce, the Carteret County Association of Realtors, the Crystal Coast Tourism Development Authority and the Downtown Morehead City Revitalization Association.
7/27/11 – Gov Perdue Speech Success, Written Comments Indicate Deception
We regret to say that Gov. Perdue appears to have double-crossed the citizens of Carteret County. WCTI news and Carteret County News Times are reporting that the Governor announced plans for PCS phosphate to move forward with the establishment of a bulk,dry sulphur storage facility which will be no taller than 150 ft (that’s the same height as the smokestacks they were planning). We need to let Gov. Perdue know that we are extremely disappointed that she was not honest with us and that we will continue the fight. We do NOT want a noxious, hazardous chemical storage facility in downtown Morehead. You may write to her top advisor, Al Delia at al.delia@nc.gov. His number is (919)733-0409.
The link to the news article: http://www.wcti12.com/news/28685283/detail.html
Thank you for your continued support!
The Clean County Coalition Leadership Team
BIG!! Call to action TONIGHT 7/26, please email Al Delia…No PCS Expansion!!!
We implore you to take 5 minutes to craft an e-mail to Al Delia (al.delia@nc.gov), the Governor’s top advisor. Please let him know that you STRONGLY oppose the construction of a sulfur melting facility in MHC AS WELL AS the handling of dry sulfur in bulk form due to its hazardous and explosive properties.
Activate you e-mail chains across the state TONIGHT. Behind the scenes, we have been told that time is of the essence on this matter. If you don’t have time to craft your own email, may use the box which says Email the Governor on our home page, we’ve changed the letter and added Al Delia as a recipient.
NC State Port – PCS Issued Training Reference Material on Hazards and Handling of Hydrogen Sulfide
The following pages, 1-10 have been provided by concerned NC State Port – PCS workers concerned for the safety and welfare of the citizens and guests in our community. The material is copied from training given to State Port and PCS workers who in the course of their duties may be exposed to hydrogen sulfide.
Full document…
(Excerpts taken from www.georgiagulfsulfur.com/spills.htm and www.georgiagulfsulfur.com/images/GGSflaked.pdf.)
N.C. State Ports Authority/PCS Phosphate CAMA permit information
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management. Includes links to the “Draft permit application” and the “Environmental Assessment document” (NOTE: This is NOT a full Environmental Impact Study)
Past evacuations due to sulfur related accidents
Evacuations of residents or workers in cases of incidents of sulphur-handling-related accidents
As of 2005 07 24, a search of the Internet for Sulfur OR Sulphur AND Residents AND evacuated produced a search-return-list with 26,600 entries containing links to stories and articles covering incidents during which residents had to be evacuated.
When the search string was modified to include the term “fire”, the search-return-list still contained 23,000 entries.
Do the residents of Lamont County wish to make the news on account of having to be evacuated when an accident happens in connection with the handling, storing or processing of sulphur at the proposed Hazco sulphur storage facility?
Sulphur storage, -processing, -handling and -transportation pose problems and hazards that are often extremely dangerous and harmful to the environment and especially to people. The following is a tabulation of details of some sulphur-related incidents involving evacuation of people.
PCS Phosphate: Air quality permit sees light of day, stinks
By Bluegrass Blue Crab, on July 24th, 2011
We’re continuing to dig through the permits and background pertaining to the recent revelation the PCS Phosphate has nearly completed the permitting process for a new sulfur processing plant at the Morehead City Port. The most apparent environmental and health impact of sulfur processing is noxious chemical emission and a pervasive rotten egg smell from hydrogen sulfide. According to PCS Phosphate’s Environmental Assessment: “Based on assessments of the preliminary design of the project, there will be no adverse air quality impacts associated with the project.”
Plans for sulfur plant at Morehead City raise a stink
NewsObserver.com
Published Sun, Jul 24, 2011 03:47 AM
BY JAY PRICE AND MANDY LOCKE – Staff Writers
In the few weeks since it was made public, the plan for a smokestack-topped sulfur melting plant has set Carteret County abuzz with near-apocalyptic talk of government conspiracies, rotten-egg stenches and the potential of industrial explosions.
Fairy Tales and Facts and Omissions – Elisabeth Gray, Chemist
Elisabeth Gray (Chemist from Vanderbilt University) responds with factual rebuttals to erroneous (“fictional”) statements being circulated:
1. Fiction: For years, PCS Phosphate has been conducting the same operations at RadioIsland as they now propose to accomplish at the MHC state port facility.
2. Fiction: The annual emissions into the air will not be changed by the additional processesof moving and melting bulk formed solid sulfur.
3. Fiction: We already have phosphate dust. Sulfur dust is no different or worse than phosphate dust.
Omissions. The documents submitted by PCS to Air Quality seem to furnish contradictoryinformation about the operations that might be the most critical to our environment, theunloading of solid sulfur, the moving of solid sulfur from place to place and transferring solidsulfur to the melting pots.
Her detailed responses are found in the attached document: PCS July 21-Elisabeth.
Elisabeth also poses some additional questions about issues that need to be specifically addressed by PCS Phosphates:
1. Why are the oxides of nitrogen not modeled? The primary EPA standard for nitrogen dioxide established in April 2010 is 100 ppb. According to the PCS data in their environmental statement, over 121 times as many molecules of the oxides of nitrogen will be produced as molecules of sulfur dioxide.
2. How is the solid sulfur to be handled? In a closed or an open system?
3. If the system is closed, how much water/day will be used to achieve a 3% by mass of water to bulk sulfur?
4. How will this water be handled after it is sprayed on the sulfur?
5. If the system is an open one, how will the sulfur dust produced be prevented from entering the surrounding waters?
6. How will PCS dispose of this sulfur dust?
7. Will PCS fund a manned, fire station with well trained personnel in the event that a catastrophe occurs? Local capability does not exist.
8. Can we get an Environmental Impact Statement? How? Why not?
9. Is there a Hurricane Preparedness plan?
Contact Gov Purdue…ask her NOT to sign the One NC Fund letter to give PCS funding!!!
FYI- Contact Gove Perdue Now!
For the One NC Fund grant to be final Governor Perdue HAS TO SIGN A GOVERNORS LETTER. Per her office’s knowledge this has not been done as of yesterday – Wednesday. If this Governor’s letter is not signed the funding will not happen. You can verify this information at the One NC Fund guidelines page at their website.
Per the Governor’s office as of 1 pm Wednesday her office had received TWO calls about this. If she signs the Governor’s letter, PCS will have their grant money to build this plant. Please work on her to not sign this letter. It is at her discretion.
Attached is Governor Perdue’s contact information. Please contact her office now asking her NOT to sign the letter!!!
Phone Numbers: 800-662-7952, 919-733-2391…Note this mail box was full, so an email might be easier.
Secrets and Sulfur at the Morehead City Port
SouthernFriedScience.com
By Southern Fried Scientist, on July 21st, 2011
The news caught us by surprise. PCS Phospate, a division of Potash Corp. and one of the largest suppliers of fertilizer in the world is planing to build a Sulfur processing plant in Morehead City. Seemingly overnight, it had grown from a few rumors to an announcement that the final permitting and funding process was already underway.
Town Council Meeting 7/19/11 10am…please be there if you can!
Dear Clean County Coalition members,
We wanted to let you know we need people against the PCS facility to attend the MHC Town Council meeting tomorrow. If you can, please be at City Hall by 10am. The meeting is scheduled to be a closed meeting, but we want our voices heard (and think there has been enough closed session activity recently!). Some Council Members are on the fence about how they will vote, so we need you to show up and let them know we want them to change the zoning determination. If you can’t make the meeting, please call Council members on the phone and let them know.
Note: We learned today that 2 PCS project managers have moved to town and signed year leases for housing. Blueprints for the facility are available, as you saw last night, and jobs are out for bid. PCS is serious and moving forward…we NEED to rise up and take action. Get your friends involved!!
Thank you for your help!
The Clean County Coalition Leadership Team
Below are the Council members who we believe are on the fence.
John Nelson Morehead City Councilman 726-4066
Demus Thompson Morehead City Councilman 726-3977
Paul Cordova Morehead City Councilman 726-4503
Sulfur Dioxide (general info) – Wisconsin Department of Health Services
Highlights…
“Sulfur dioxide dissolves easily in water to form sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is a major component of acid rain. Acid rain can damage forests and crops, change the acidity of soils, and make lakes and streams acidic and unsuitable for fish. Sulfur dioxide also contributes to the decay of building materials and paints, including monuments and statues.”
“People who live near industrial sources of sulfur dioxide may be exposed to it in the air.”
“Short term exposure to high enough levels of SO2 can be life threatening. Generally, exposures to SO2 cause a burning sensation in the nose and throat. Also, SO2 exposure can cause difficulty breathing, including changes in the body’s ability to take a breath or breathe deeply, or take in as much air per breath. Long term exposure to sulfur dioxide can cause changes in lung function and aggravate existing heart disease. Asthmatics may be sensitive to changes in respiratory effects due to SO2 exposure at even low concentrations.”
Opponents form strategy against sulfur operation
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
MOREHEAD CITY — Opponents of a nearly finalized and formerly closed-lip plan to build a sulfur-melting facility at the state port here outlined on Tuesday a preliminary strategy to fight the project.
Grassroots Coalition Raises Stink Over Sulfur Plant
From WNCT.com
By: Jim Niedelman
Published: July 19, 2011
MOREHEAD CITY, N.C. – Hundreds of people in Carteret County have their sights set on stopping corporate giant PCS Phosphate.
They’re upset about plans to build a sulfur melting plant at Port of Morehead City. They brought their concerns to the table Tuesday night as part of a grassroots campaign that has a lot of ground to make up.
Statement at 7/18 County Commissioners’ Meeting – Dr. Andrew Kiluk, Oceanside Pediatrics
Good evening commissioners,
My name is Andrew Kiluk. I am a Morehead City resident and business owner for nearly five years. I‘m also a pediatrician with over 16 years’ experience. Normally summer is a time where we expect our children to be over the illnesses of the winter months. This summer, however, has been an anomaly. Due to the forest fires in Hampstead and Alligator River, the number of ill visits for our asthmatic patients has spiked dramatically!
A cynic might say, that the fires effect on our air quality has been good for my business, I, however, would much rather fill the summer schedule with athletic physicals and kindergarten checkups, rather than see this fragile population of asthmatic children struggle. If you’re curious as to what an asthma attack feels like, try taking a three mile run in 90 degree heat, while breathing through a straw.
One of my many concerns with the proposed sulfur melting plant at the port is directly related to the quality of our air and the health of my patients. I firmly believe that such a facility will affect our county’s air quality and subsequently our citizens’ health in a negative way.
Children have higher resting respiratory rates than adults, which increase their overall exposure to pollutants such as sulfur-dioxide. Our children are also placed at a higher risk as they tend to spend more time outside playing and exercising than adults.
There is also evidence that the pollutants being released by such a facility have been linked to cancer and sudden infant death syndrome. The exposures to the pollutants of a sulfur melting facility will be great and our children will suffer for it.
I urge the board to join the city councils of both Beaufort & Morehead City to adopt a resolution opposing the planned sulfur melting facility and explore all avenues available in preventing its construction.
Thank you for your time.
Andrew Kiluk
Oceanside Pediatrics
Email from Neal Littman, GM, Morehead City Yacht Basin
This letter from Neal Littman was also featured in The Compass News 360:
Sulfur plant hits bump
Posted Thursday, 7/21/2011
To All,
PCS thought this project was wired in advance with “key players”. PCS was good at making this project sound like an extension of their existing operations. It is NOT. It is a chemical processing facility new to North Carolina. It smells bad. There are serious health hazards. It is ugly and will have smokestacks towering twice the height of the high rise bridge. How is this good for Carteret County?
When they approached us (Morehead City Yacht Basin) several months ago it was to seek approval for extension of their barge berth on Calico Creek “to improve material handling capacity related to their phosphate business…” We tried to assist PCS in their expansion by discussing the channel limitations and the need to get input from the US Army due to their 175 foot vessels with greater beam than our pleasure boats. We met with the US Army officials, they got the US Army Corps of Engineers involved and we came to a mutual agreement as to the extent of the additional dredging that was needed. At no point during this phase of conversation did PCS mention that they really wanted to construct an industrial chemical facility immediately adjacent toMorehead City Yacht Basin. We found that out when we received on Friday, July 1st (the start of the July 4th weekend) a very cryptic notice regarding a PCS Phosphate application for modification of an existing CAMA permit. It was impossible to tell from the notice what the scope of the proposed project would be. I contacted the PCS Phosphate Senior Scientist to request a copy of the Environmental Assessment, as is our right. He emailed a copy to me. It was only then that I understood that PCS and the State Port were proposing a new industrial chemical factory. We had subsequent conversations with their Senior Scientist and the PCS Director of Environmental Compliance. Jet Matthews and I were on a conference call with the PCS officials and we learned that this process was new to PCS and new to the region and no, PCS had never operated any similar facility, but that they did have experience handling molten sulfur here at the State Port and at Aurora, NC.
Molten sulfur is a different form of sulfur than what they are proposing to process. PCS wants to purchase sulfur in its dry form and have it transported to the MC State Port in bulk cargo ships (much cheaper than buying the molten sulfur, which is commonly a by product of refining petroleum) and then convert it to its molten state. This “phase change” or change in the state of the element sulfur is what creates value for PCS. For PCS, the minimum net operating profit per ton for changing the form of sulfur from the dry state into the molten state is about $120 and may be as high as $600 per ton. Since they are building sulfur melters with a daily capacity of 5,000 tons, this gives them a potential net operating income of $600,000 per day on the low side and up to $3,000,000 per day one the upper end. This is before amortizing the cost of the chemical factory, but that can be done with a small part of the income stream generated by the sulfur chemical plant. Serious value is created by changing the state of the material. PCS will not easily give up that money. Just do a Google search for “cost of sulfur” and you will gain greater understanding about the economic incentives for PCS. They are considerable. What does Carteret County get? Nothing… Actually, worse than nothing. Bad smells, pollution, a considerable reduction in the tax base due to much lower property values.
Sulfur dust in its dry form is explosive. They will be moving it around the State Port on conveyor belts. At each “transfer point” PCS says it will provide dust control by wetting down the dry sulfur so that the dust does not build up and become explosive. Sulfur dust will be generated by every movement of the pelletized material throughout the State Port. The conveyor system cannot be made “air tight” as it has to allow for the venting of the hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide gases that are naturally formed when sulfur is in contact with oxygen. Great. Some of the sulfur smells escape to the atmosphere, no matter what they do. Some sulfuric acid is formed, no matter what they do. PCS has considerable experience with accidents causing explosions and fires from sulfur dust. Numerous examples exist at Aurora of fires caused by train wheel contact with rails that have a dusting of sulfur… The worst industrial accident in North Carolina in the last century was caused by dust at the West Pharmaceuticals factory in Kinston. Similarly, Georgia’s worst industrial accident was caused by dust in a sugar refining facility. A lot of dust will escape from the State Port. It is much finer than the dust from the wood chip operation at the State Port and we have to deal with that debris every day in Eastern Morehead City. It is a danger. How does the State Port plan to prevent explosive dust from detonating the PETN explosives that the State Port periodically has present… and has spilled? How can the State Portsegregate the fire hazards of the chemical factory and the wood chip operation? Does anybody at the State Port have a clue about protecting the neighbors and the larger community? We see no evidence of that in practice on a daily basis.
Air quality is addressed by trying to get this project in place before the US EPA implementation of much more restrictive sulfur rules (which become effective on 1/1/2013) and by gaming how the airborne pollutants are measured. To achieve the even the lower standards now required, PCS design engineers measure the air concentration of pollutants at ground level at the fence line or boundary of the property and they discharge the airborne pollutants from the top of a smokestack that is 150 feet high! The Morehead City-Beaufort High Rise Bridge is only about 75 feet high! The PCS workers will all have to wear an electronic sniffer or chemical sensor that sounds an alarm if it detects the presence of hydrogen sulfide gas (which can very quickly kill a worker). We have people sleeping on boats less than 150 feet from the boundary of the proposed industrial chemical factory. They don’t have sniffers. In the PCS plan, no one outside the boundary of the property counts. Tough. You had your chance to object. One of the more ludicrous aspects of the “scrubber and air filtration equipment to reduce air pollution is that the design standards call for meeting the discharge criteria for reducing harmful discharges beginning three hours after the start up of the chemical factory and end three hours before the factory shutdown. If the system is started and stopped once each day it means that for six hours of the operation PCS can legally exceed the permit discharge limits. The same air quality official who approved the PCS air quality permit for NC DENR told us that the State Port has in operation a very effective dust supression system for the wood chip operation, including sparyers, containment and more. We looked out the window and let him know that it was not operating today, yesterday, last week or last month and that he should come look at it. He mumbled something about not having travel money. We perhaps could relocate his desk to the boundary of the State Port property… Remember, you can smell this PCS sulfur in concentrations about 1/20th of the maximum allowable concentration they now have under the terms of the air quality permit already granted.
“This project is a great economic boon for the area and PCS is going to spend $80 million, no $85 million no, $90 million on this project.” The facts are:
(a) that the vast majority of that money flows to suppliers of specialty items and contractors from far outside Carteret County;
(b) that PCS does not pay any taxes at all to Morehead City or Carteret County (never has and will not in the future). You see, the State Port just leases the property to PCS and PCS pays “fees” to the State Port and as a State Agency the State Port pays no taxes. Local governments just have to provide emergency services, water and sewer and the rest of the taxpayers absorb the cost; and
(c) very few additional employees are needed to operate the facility. Our one business will lose more employees and contractors and vendors than PCS will be hiring due to people relocating their boats to more pleasant communities. It is easy to untie the docklines and sail away. What about all of the other businesses in the community?
(d) If this industrial chemical project is finally approved, property values in the community will plummet and vibrant downtown business will be a thing of the past. Even if the value of the PCS project was $200 million and they were going to spend half of it here in Carteret County, it would be a small fraction of the cumulative damage to the value of property in our communities. It adds nothing to and instead will take away a great deal of money from the tax base. We have already begun seeing people put their plans on hold! Please tell us how this particular “economic development project” is in any way a good thing for Carteret County!
The important elements of this proposed project are:
1. There would be significant discharges to the air of sulfur dust, the gaseous forms of sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide and lesser discharges of other toxic and non toxic gases. Significant quantities of sufuric acid are produced in this planned industrial chemical plant which will end up in the waters of our area after being airborne and causing significant increased corrosion rates, injury to flora and fauna as well as terribly complicating respiratory problems in humans.
2. The quantities of gases that PCS says they will discharge is interpreted by humans as a very nasty smell. It really is the smell of rotten eggs and worse. Noxious smells have the worst possible effect on tourism, property values and quality of life. No other factor even comes close in industrial communities.
3. There is a considerable net loss of jobs, not a net gain due to the harmful effects of the chemical factory. PCS has never before done this chemical process and cannot cite a single similar facility where this same method is used. They claim it is safe though. They have had accidents before and no mechanical system works all of the time. The last major PCS accident at the State Port was when their ship crashed into the railroad bridge in theMorehead City turning basin. The railroad bridge was out of commission for many weeks. The probabilities of an accident are quite high given the dangers involved. PCS has exactly zero experience operating this type of facility!
4. Our area depends on good water and air quality. We will lose that. For what? This PCS chemical factory is not economic development, it is an economic and ecological disaster for Carteret County.
When was the last time Beaufort and Morehead City had unanimous votes about anything? They have about this very stinky project. It is smelly, both literally and figuratively and is very close to final approval!
We have to keep trying to get people to read and understand what PCS itself has to say about its own design in the plans and environmental assessment.
Again, please let me know why this is a good idea!
Thanks,
neal
Neal Littman, General Manager
Morehead City Yacht Basin
252-659-2615 cell
252-726-6862 ofc
Air pollutants from the planned sulfur melting project
Abbreviated synopsis of the human toxic potential of the most likely air pollutants as described in the environmental assessment from the planned sulfur melting project in Morehead City, NC – James E. Gibson, Ph.D., Fats Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology the Brody School of Medicine at ECU
Citizens to meet on sulfur handling, melting facility
MOREHEAD CITY — Surprise news of a proposed sulfur facility to be built at the state port in Morehead City has been a flashback to 10 years ago for many Carteret County residents.
Citizens opposed then to the prospect of a liquefied natural gas facility being developed on port property Radio Island joined with Carteret Citizens Allied to Protect the Environment and dug in for a fight.
C-CAPE first formed to keep an ethanol plant off Radio Island and rallied again in 2001 to stop the LNG facility, an effort that proved successful more than a year later when El Paso Merchant Energy Group pulled out of a three-year option to lease the property for the project.
Now a new citizens group is rising in opposition to a sulfur handling and melting facility being proposed by PCS Phosphate.
Penobsquis’ Battle Versus PotashCorp Begins
Overview
New Brunswick community action for damages against PotashCorp
“A group of community members in Penobsquis in New Brunswick, where PotashCorp has existing and planned potash mines, has launched an action against the mine for damages relating to lost wells, subsidence, noise, light and dust pollution as well as anxiety. This action is being handled through the New Brunswick Mining Commissioner.”- Carteret County News-Times Editorial 7/17/2011
Article from MiningWatch Canada
Penobsquis’ Battle Versus PotashCorp Begins
(Sussex, NB) On Monday, March 14th, 26 residents of Penobsquis begin a two-week battle to prove Potash Corporation stole their water and ruined their lives.
Shortly after water began flooding the potash mine and PotashCorp and Corridor Resources completed rounds of seismic testing, about 60 homes in the area lost their drinking water supply. For five years, from 2004 to 2009, people in the community were supplied with water while they fought and waited for a new community water system.
Affected members of the community believe that it is ultimately the inflow of 1,300 gallons of water per minute into the Potash mine, and its subsequent removal by pipeline and trucking, that has resulted in the loss of their well water; the subsidence (the sinking of land and buildings) that is now affecting their homes; and the stress and grief they endure every day.
In true David versus Goliath fashion, the citizens will attempt to prove PotashCorp’s responsibility and seek damages for water loss, property subsidence, suffering as a result of dust, noise and light pollution, lost property values, and stress. Potash Corp continues to deny any responsibility, their lawyer challenging the group of citizens to “prove it”, at the recent prehearing in November.
“This is a tragic situation,” says Stephanie Merrill, CCNB’s Freshwater Protection Coordinator. “These residents of Penobsquis are just trying to live their lives and are now forced to pay the burden and the cost of proving a large powerful corporation has taken away their water, ruined their properties and their quality of life. The cards are stacked against them and our government has not required the company to take any responsibility”, says Merrill.
CCNB supports them, and their battle, as do many other community organizations in New Brunswick, the Atlantic Region and across Canada.
Ramsey Hart, Canada Program Coordinator at MiningWatch Canada, based in Ottawa, commends and supports the citizens of Penobsquis in their fight against PotashCorp. “The company, which is making huge profits off of public resources, must be held accountable for the social, economic and ecological impacts of its operation,” says Hart.
The Hearing starts today, Monday March 14th, and will take place the weeks of March 14 and March 28th, beginning 9am daily at the All Seasons Inn, Sussex.
The Concerned Citizens of Penobsquis are supported by:
Belledune Citizens Committee; Campaign for Pesticide Reduction; Conservation Council of New Brunswick; Falls Brook Centre; Friends of Mount Carleton Provincial Park; Grand Lake Watershed Guardians; MiningWatch Canada; PANE – for a new perspective on energy; Quality of Life Initiative; Saint John Chapter, Council of Canadians; Sierra Club Canada – Atlantic Canada Chapter; Students for Sustainability; Sustainable Energy Group (SEG) in Woodstock.
Media Contacts:
Stephanie Merrill, Freshwater Protection Coordinator, CCNB: (506) 458-8747 or (506) 261-8317
Ramsey Hart, Canada Program Coordinator, MiningWatch Canada: (613) 614-9937 or (613) 569-3439
Herman Hawthorne, Spokesperson, Concerned Citizens of Penobsquis: (506) 433-3049
More Info: A busy summer of organizing: Penobsquis residents testify at hearings and fundraise (Concerned Citizens of Penobsquis)
Challenge to PotashCorp’s Aurora water quality permit
“A coalition of conservation organizations are challenging a permit issued by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality to PotashCorp’s Aurora, North Carolina phosphate mining operation, which allows the company to expand its mining operation. The mining expansion will have a significant impact on high quality wetlands and aquatic habitat. The permit presumes the state will write new rules that accommodate the company’s ambitions.” – Carteret County News-Times Editorial 7/17/2011
Plan moves ahead for sulfur facility
NEWS-TIMES
Published: Friday, July 8, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
MARK HIBBS
MOREHEAD CITY — Jet Matthews, developer and manager of the Morehead City Yacht Basin, says his investment and the lure of the downtown district to vacationers is at risk under an N.C. State Ports Authority plan to build a sulfur handling and melting facility next to the marina.
Officials with the state port here and its largest customer PotashCorp-Aurora have kept quiet for months regarding plans that have been in the works for at least a year to build a facility at the port to unload, store and melt solid sulfur.
News-Times Articles/Editorials/Letters (PDF)
Archive of ALL Carteret County News Times Articles, Editorials & Letters related to the proposed sulfur facility. PDF file contains a bookmarked “Table of Contents” listing each article & letter, along with their sources.
