The government command for the BP oil disaster announced last night its “interim guidance” for recovery worker health and safety, including the (limited) use of respirators. The report was actually released by OSHA and NIOSH, the CDC’s workplace safety group, almost one week ago.
More than 28,000 people signed Firedoglake’s petition to BP, OSHA, and Incident Commander Thad Allen in the last two weeks demanding BP recovery workers have access to the right kind of respirators and safety training, in response to hundreds of reports of sick workers in the Gulf. As I wrote when we launched our campaign:
The government agency responsible for overseeing worker safety – the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) – says that their tests showed respirators aren’t yet required for cleanup workers in the Gulf. While OSHA is still studying the air quality in the Gulf, it should be no coincidence that dozens of people working around BP’s oil disaster are falling ill with symptoms of chemical exposure to oil.
OSHA’s since walked back that stance. These new recommendations are a mixed bag for workers, though; the government’s announcement emphasized that most workers don’t need respirators because their air quality tests don’t show dangerous levels.
Based on air monitoring data collected to date, exposures to hydrocarbons, dispersants and other hazardous chemicals are below established occupational exposure limits. In most situations that have been examined to date, mandatory wearing of respirators is not required.
Air monitoring as it’s currently performed won’t be a reliable way to completely protect workers. But for most workers, air monitoring will be the only determinant of whether they should have respirators. Now, many workers, including beach recovery crews, probably don’t need respirators on a regular basis. But with only 15-20 OSHA employees assigned at any given time, there’s a relatively small part of the massive operation that can be monitored at any given time. All other air monitoring data comes from CTEH, a company contracted by BP to measure air quality and worker safety hazards that has a history of underreporting and otherwise covering for oil companies.
OSHA and NIOSH recommend frequent respiratory use for people on ships near the well, as well as anyone involved with burning oil. As you get further from the source well, and fresh oil, their recommended respiratory usage gradually drops. According to the report, weathered oil – oil that has been exposed to the sun and elements – is less toxic than fresh crude oil, and therefore respiratory use isn’t required.
But the recommendations are based almost exclusively on the toxicity of oil, with little impact from chemical dispersants being sprays from the sky and at the bottom of the ocean. Of the tens of millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, very few are pure crude oil. The vast majority of oil is contaminated with Corexit, BP’s petroleum-based chemical dispersant. Even OSHA and NIOSH admit they have no idea how toxic dispersants are to humans.
In addition, there is an incomplete understanding about the human health toxicity associated with the use of large amounts of dispersant, about the toxicity of the mixed exposure to large amounts of crude oil, dispersants and combustion products together and the cumulative effect of such exposures occurring over a long duration.
Despite not understanding how toxic dispersants are to humans, OSHA falls short of ensuring maximum protection for people coming into contact with dispersants or dispersed oil. While the recommendations call for skin and eye protection for people applying dispersants, respiratory protection is required only as a last resort. Here’s what is recommended for anyone who’s not at the well or burning oil.

Some vessels operating off-shore engage in deployment of containment and sorbent booms, skimming operations to remove oil from the water, and dispersant application. These vessels are not involved in burning nor are they located in close proximity to in-situ burning. Generally, these vessels have contact with oil that has weathered, and, as such, does not emit significant amounts of VOCs. Respiratory protection generally will not be necessary as symptoms/health effects are not expected to occur in this setting. Dermal protection is needed.
There’s a disconnect for me between not knowing the toxicity of dispersants and not requiring abundant protection. To the credit of OSHA and NIOSH, workers near the most crude and oil vapors at the well will be required to wear respirators quite frequently, if not constantly. Respirators will also be required for anyone coming in contact with oil vapors from high pressure washing or similar treatment of oil. (Vapors from high pressure hoses were one of the biggest health hazards for Exxon Valdez recovery workers.)
No matter the recommendations, neither OSHA nor NIOSH have the resources to adequately test and monitor the region. What’s required is active surveillance of as many workers as possible to determine health risks. One option suggested to me by an expert was to assign an expert to each recovery crew. Unfortunately, little to no surveillance is happening because of how strapped the agencies are. During a Congressional hearing, OSHA administrator David Michels adamantly turned down an offer to expand his agency’s authority to offshore rigs and workers.
We can’t trust BP’s monitoring. People are getting sick despite air quality monitoring. These recommendations are an OK first step, but we have a ways to go to make sure every worker has the maximum protection they need.
I called the Department of Labor for comment yesterday morning about this report, but did not receive answers to my questions yet. I’ll update if I hear anything.



25 Comments









Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Work in Progress
The check is in the mail
I won’t xxx in your mouth
I’ll call you in the morning
Etc Etc Etc
I have worked with corexit in an industrial setting. Right on the side of the drums – (45gal) are large signs saying: “DO NOT USING IN A CONFINED SPACE. RESPIRATORS ARE RECOMMENED FOR ANY USAGE.”
What is OSHA missing here?
One of your other stories, via Mother Jones, pointed out that since BP is running this show they have a perfect solution that would not be available to the government. The government would have to hire people and be responsible for protecting them including their health in the future because they would be full-time employees with employment constraints. The constraints could lead to unions or other mechanisms to protect employee’s health.
BP has come up with the brilliant strategy of a daily lottery. The lottery and it’s implications for personal responsibly will almost certainly put the onus for health issues somewhere other than BP. The useless paper tiger of OSHA, much as it did for the 9/11 cleanup, will assist in making sure that the trail of cause and effect disappears.
PR/media control campaigns don’t like hazmat- and respirator-adorned workers. It’s shades of Erin Brockovich to them.
It is so simple to construct a weeklong test, using data collected on each suit filter, categorized by job description, to quantitatively decide whether a worker needs a suit or not.
Anderson Cooper is proving what everyone should know, BP and the OBAMA govt is trying cover up the entire GULF disaster.
The coast guard just made it illegal to come within 65 fee of boon and recovery ships, trying to make it hard for the media to show the disaster that is the BP oil spill
the morons have one big problem, this BP oil spill is going to last for decades, you can not keep the media out forever.
David Dayen has a fresh cross-post available: The War Supplemental: A Rundown
One of the things that should be interesting to people is that both Elena Schor of Greenwire and Gina Solomon, Senior Scientist of NCRD have both asked for complete air monitoring data from Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health (CTEH) the private contractor hired by BP to monitor the air. They have not complied. today I asked in the Mobile Incident Command Post Media Conference Call “What can you do to facilitate getting that information and methodology for the media so it can be independently vetted?” The didn’t know and referred me to another group. But he did say that what information that they provided was based on BPs contract with that group.
So the proprietary nature of the information will remain in the hands of CTEH and BP unless they decide to release it.
the ability to read
guess those wire transfer to the cayman islands accounts cleared…sigh…
Have any of you worn a resporater in 100 degree weather and high humidity? I know it looks cool and you may think they protect you, but it is really very dangerous to the worker. I have worked on many hazardous waste sites and in hazardous industrial settings. I have seen many incidents of heat stress which is a much higer risk than exposure to trace chemicals. You must always weigh all the risks of worker protection. Don’t use the risks of concentrated material to dictate the worker protection for ppb concentrations they may be exposed to. Addtionally while some of the disperseants are toxic to higher organisms, bacteria find them to be like candy. Most of them are carbohydrates and will be biodegraged ahead of the hydrocarbons in the oil.
Yes, along with the oil responsibilities are also being dispersed.
Yes I have. And the proper response is to have shorter shifts. The,” don’t worry about ppb line when you could get heat stroke” is a strawman. Dr Soloman did two stories on this. Dismissing the danger of chemicals at ppb range is reckless for several reasons not the least of which is the poor monitoring of the air. The data is also out dated. OSHA rules are based on 1960s or 1970s science.
In response to mmcmenus @ 11
Yeah I’ve worn them, and the heat factor is…painful. The comfort and ergonomic utility of respirators and hazmat gear varies in inverse proportion to its protective effectiveness ;-)
The extent of this catastrophe is such that some people will be burdened by over protection while others will be exposed to serious levels of toxins, and I think this is inevitable. There will be few -if any- before/after health screenings and IMHO subsequent exposure-related health issues will linger for decades, often stigmatized and under-accepted.
As for dispersant biodegredation, EPA currently says this:
They do mention that individual dispersant components have been shown to biodegrade “fairly rapidly”.
In any event, the actual toxicity experiments, of oil/hydrocarbons + dispersants + dissolved oxygen + water column biomes started at the end of April, and will continue for the foreseeable future. This is the Mother of All Sh*t Sandwiches.
Totally agree with you. As it stands, workers in dermal gear are on 40 minute work / 20 minute rest shifts, at least for beach cleanup worker (where respirators aren’t currently required). Adding in respirators to that mix will drastically increase heat risk, as you note, and will likely require far more people to do cleanup work where respirators are required due to downtime from wearing the respirators.
Interesting and direct quote from OSHA report
“OSHA has also sampled areas that are periodically frequented by workers but the samples are not taken from the breathing zone of workers”.
in the report benzene concentration in the air is listed as less than 20 parts million that is lot more than allowable (in part per billion). Missing in the report is Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) concentrations.
OSHA gave a green light on VOCs level to be within allowable limits. We would like to know the “allowable limits” are for emergency situations or normal conditions. The spill more than 2 months old can not be emergency anymore. Different rules (normal operating conditions) should be applied.
Until they are (many years later)
Look for liver failure and cancer clusters amongst the gulf workers, 10-15 years from now.
Thanks, Michael,for working on this all-important issue.
In the July 1, 2010 post on The Pump Handle, Impact Unclear of NIOSH/OSHA Respirator Recommendations for Gulf Clean-up Workers
http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2010/07/impact_of_nioshosha_gulf_respi.php#more,
I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the respirator recommendations, including questions on how they will be implemented and whether BP is in compliance with them. Full text of the NIOSH/OSHA respirator recommendations are included for easy reference.
EXACTLY on the data. There needs to be a complete re-study of the NIOSH TLV’s. I haven’t seen enough to convince me OSHA’s monitoring sucks. Early in the game I was kinda wary, but I haven’t seen enough investigation journalism to prove they’re doing a bad job.
In other announcements today, OSHA has proclaimed that the Titanic and Andrea Doria are unsinkable and that Dewey has defeated Harry Truman.
With “friends” like them—who needs enemies?
Respirators in high heat and humidity can be the cause of more problems than low levels of chemicals in the air–mmcmenus has a good point. As to the data that Greenwire claims that no one has seen–it is there if you know where to find it.
Any event like this has developed a sampling plan that has to be approved by the incident command. Sampling is done by standardized methods developed and approved by EPA, OSHA, NIOSH, ASTM, etc. And to say that you don’t trust BP’s monitoring because CTEH has done it means you don’t trust EPA and all the other agencies that are monitoring in the same areas.
If you want to know the truth about the monitoring by CTEH, check out their open letter to employees and the general public. CTEH’s monitoring meets government requirements and their data is being supplied to OSHA, EPA, CDC and other governmental agencies.
http://cteh.com/CTEH%20Open%20Letter-June30%202010.pdf
~~~Browser Alert: The above link is Direct-to-PDF~~~
Dear Factchecker:
Please send me your contact information at CTEH (or at the agency you work for that works for them). I would like to discuss the CTEH open letter, specifically I would like to know more details about the information that was quoted by Capps and Welsh that you/CTEH believe is “inaccurate, misleading and unsubstantiated.”
I would also like to get more specific detail about how the media can get access to not only the raw total information sent into EPA as well as the monitoring location details that were approved.
Spocko–if you are the media, you are totally incompetent at doing your own research. I found a link to the sampling plan on BP’s website. I found monitoring data on BP’s website for air, water, etc. that includes sampling location coordinates, analytical methods used and results. I found data on various local and state government websites with summaries of the data that came from CTEH. I found a Quality Assurance Sampling Plan on the EPA website that was prepared by EPA, regional EPA offices and CTEH. I found the letter that CTEH posted and it was their letter that you quoted, not me. If I hadn’t pointed it out to you, you’d still be clueless that it existed. If you are indeed media as you portray yourself, then you’ll have to go to the source to get more details of that quote. I just don’t ASSUME that everything I read is true, so I took a little time to find out what information is actually out there and considered the sources.
Nice mouth.
While you are here, perhaps you will post those links, and tell us why anything on the BP website is trustworthy.
Well gee factchecker, defensive much? And I note that you don’t bother to address my questions. Calling me incompetent because I’m asking for data beyond what you think that I don’t know is rather rude. You have no idea the depth of information I’m looking for and why I have further questions. I was assuming that you were more than simply a troll, but a professional who worked either for the company or had ties to the industry.
Your defensive nature is very telling, it falls under the category of “If the people here are for it, I’m agin it!” Now maybe I’m wrong and you are just cranky after a long day. Now if you don’t work for someone who can help me get details that AREN’T in the places where you have ASSUMED I didn’t go and know about then don’t bother to contact me.