
Christine Millner, Environmental Scientist with CTEH (Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health) collects water and air samples from the Gulf of Mexico waters off Shell Beach, LA. (photo: BP America via flickr Creative Commons)
CTEH is the company contracted by BP to monitor air levels as they related to recovery worker safety in the Gulf of Mexico. The firm, which has a sordid history of covering up corporate environmental disasters, just released new data with BP yesterday that shows disturbing levels of toxic dispersants in 20% of offshore recovery workers and 15% of near-shore workers. But these just aren’t any toxic dispersants. It’s the same chemical blamed for chronic health problems in Exxon Valdez recovery workers that is now poisoning at least one-fifth of BP’s offshore recovery workers. Elana Schor reports for Greenwire:
In an under-the-radar release of new test results for its Gulf of Mexico oil spill workers, BP PLC is reporting potentially hazardous exposures to a now-discontinued dispersant chemical — a substance blamed for contributing to chronic health problems after the Exxon Valdez cleanup — among more than 20 percent of offshore responders. [...]
The new BP summary, including results up to June 29, show a broad majority of workers testing below exposure limits set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
But the Valdez-linked chemical 2-butoxyethanol was detected at levels up to 10 parts per million (ppm) in more than 20 percent of offshore responders and 15 percent of those near shore. The NIOSH standard for 2-butoxyethanol, which lacks the force of law but is considered more health-protective than the higher OSHA limit, is 5 ppm.
Data from Louisiana Office of Public Health compiled by Firedoglake shows that almost half of workers reporting illnesses were working offshore. Their symptoms include headaches, nausea, vomiting, sore throat, coughing, shortness of breath, and irritation of the nose and eyes - symptoms consistent with of exposure to 2-butoxyethanol.
Of course, while CTEH and BP included the health limits for every other chemical they measured, they conveniently forgot to include that helpful information for its measurements for 2-butoxyethanol.
OSHA’s standard for exposure to this toxic chemical is 50 parts per million for a 40-hour work week, while NIOSH, part of the CDC, suggests a toxicity limit of just 5 parts per million. CTEH and BP’s data showed 20% of offshore workers and 15% of near-shore workers had levels of this toxic chemical at 10 parts per million.
When I spoke with Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Jordan Barab, earlier this week, Barab told me that OSHA hasn’t ”found anything approaching the minimum levels” of toxic components of dispersants for the “most of up to date limits.” I asked the Department of Labor to clarify this morning if this included 2-butoxyethanol, but have not yet received a response.
The danger with OSHA’s level is that it is based on a work week – however, many recovery workers, particularly those working offshore, are around the toxic chemicals almost 24/7. Workers on boats, rigs drilling relief wells, and others miles off shore have constant exposure. Many others who aren’t deep offshore still live and work near or on the water, and have near constant exposure to toxic chemicals in the air for more than 40 hours per week.
But OSHA isn’t responsible for offshore workers. The agency’s jurisdiction ends 3 miles offshore, far away from the offshore workers most affected by exposure to dispersants. OSHA tells me that NIOSH is observing and monitoring offshore, with the Coast Guard in charge of enforcement. But CTEH apparently has primary responsibility for worker safety monitoring data offshore.
So what’s next? It seems to be that CTEH and BP’s exclusion of toxic limits for 2-butoxyethanol is an omission consistent with CTEH’s track record of covering up for corporate disasters. It’s clear that this toxic chemical that caused so much pain for Exxon Valdez recovery workers needs to be taken with the utmost concern by the federal government. Levels of this chemical need to be considered in any health and safety protections for recovery workers, including respirators, at NIOSH’s limits. There also needs to be a government agency officially charged with protecting the safety of offshore workers that doesn’t rely on CTEH. There’s no reason to do anything less when the health and safety of recovery workers are at stake.
Finally, CTEH’s data has been long in coming; while CTEH claims to send data to the government on a daily basis, this is the first public release of data since early June. The government needs to whip BP and CTEH in line to provide real time information about toxicity in order to do everything possibly to protect recovery workers. If that means CTEH needs to go, then they need to go.



41 Comments









Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Work in Progress
That’s damning. I know alot around here might consider me a BP fan due to my OSHA defending, but this is bad. Thanks for the reporting.
Really good reporting Michael. This should go far.
A man from OSHA was on Washington Journal this morning and said the workers were suffering from heat exhaustion. Government still covering up for big business.
How is it that workers tested in late June are still showing 2 butoxyethanol exposure? From the MSDS you link in the post, we have this:
Recall that Corexit 9527 is up to 60% 2 butoxyethanol, but BP claims they stopped using it early in the spill response.
Granted, 2 butoxyethanol in the water doesn’t evaporate or break down as quickly:
So it could stick around a while in water, but I don’t see how the workers are inhaling it from the water.
The question becomes, has BP really stopped using Corexit 9527?
Perhaps it is more volatile/mobile than indicated?
When waves splash and crash — little waves or big ones — the water and everything in it is aerosolized. We pay attention to the big drops that splash on us, but there’s a lot that gets inhaled that we usually don’t notice.
Also . . .
All boats moving through water throw up a very nice amount of spray, unless you’re using a trolling motor. If you are out on deck of a moving vessel in the Gulf, you’re inhaling that spray. And if you’re out there for hours at a time, that’s a LOT of spray.
The lower the deck is to the surface of the water, the more spray you are exposed to — and boats with low decks are exactly the kind of boats that the marine rescue workers are using, so they can easily reach over the rail to pull out wildlife and water samples.
Add it all up, and it’s quite easy to see how workers are inhaling it.
I thought that was “food poisoning”. So hard to keep up with all the diversionary excuses.
In the industry there is a “golden” rule. Do not volunteer any information. So BP or OSHA or any Agency is not going to give any information unless one asks for it. It is up to people to extract such from their teeth. Best is to go through MSDS (material safety data sheet which lists all the ingredients in a dispersant or any chemical product, toxic or non) and compare what is missing. Not need to rely on OSHA.
Maybe so, but if BP is still releasing Corexit 9527, then it’s much easier to understand.
Yes, the workers have dispersants in them. After the cleanup the worked will automatically be dispersed the workers back to their homes.
It’s the last part of the clean-up plan. Correct? /s
In a hazmat suit in 90 deg weather would give anyone heat exhaustion.
They have heat exhaustion. The spokesperson didn’t say that was the sole cause of any health problems.
Misdirection by omission?
OSHA’s jurisdiction ends 3 miles offshore? *rolls eyes* Shouldn’t there be an exception to that rule for oil platforms?
Some of the symptoms of heat exhaustion include heavy sweating, paleness, muscle cramps, tiredness, weakness, dizziness, headache, nausea or vomiting, and fainting.
http://www.medicinenet.com/heat_exhaustion/article.htm
Yeah, there is some overlap in symptoms, sounds like. How convenient.
Emptywheel has a fresh cross-post up: One Percent of All Americans Will Have Lost Unemployment by Month’s End
Your article does not make that clear when you say “data showed 20% of offshore workers and 15% of near-shore workers had levels of this toxic chemical”. Personal samples, which are taken in the breathing zone of the workers, does not mean that the chemical is in the worker. It means that it was in the air around them. That is what the data is reporting–the air levels. Please get your facts straight. They even explain that in the data summary that they took area and personal samples and are reporting the personal air sampling data.
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/health_monitoring_summary_report_july.pdf
I’m sorry they are unemployed but being unemployed is still not considered a profession. We can’t go on paying people two or three years for doing nothing. If we do they will continue to do…..nothing.
Time to feel a little pain.
I think a lot of clean up workers are looking to get a piece of that $20 pie BP has put up.
The clean up workers are looking to……clean up.
LOL.
I’m so cleaver.
That’s $20 billion.
Or maybe it’s $20 trillion.
I’m not sure.
Folks lets stop pretending that BP is doing this all by ‘emselves.
The WH is involved in the “killing” of the Gulf.
They have been in control since day 1 as per the Prez.Someone needs to ask the Prez(Obama) why is it he is complicit in poisoning Americans ?
This is lethal stuff,and just like ground zero,where thousands were killed off because of all the poisons in the air,many will die in the Gulf.This is Prez is not interested in doing the right thing for the people,he is more interested in his image.This guy is dangerous folks.
The New York Times article cited states:
If – as you claim – the relevant measurements are measurements of the workers’ immediate environment, I trust your putative concern for factual accuracy has already resulted in your request to the NYT that they clarify the article Michael cited.
Yeah, I’m sure you also noticed that BP has said they won’t pay any fishermen who have been idled by the closure of fishing due to the spill unless they subject themselves to getting sick while cleaning up the mess. Heaven forbid any of these independent business should be able to make the money they would have made on the free market had BP not fouled the waters beyond use for generations to come.
What do you propose these fishermen should do for income in the future?
The section I quoted came from this article–3 paragraphs below the “NYT” quote. As to the quote he pulled from NYT, that was not a NYT article–that was a Greenwire article on the NYT website. That is where so much misinformation comes from–one blogger or website quoting another one without actually checking the facts. But I certainly intend to point it out to NYT, Greenwire etc.
The wording used in this article and the NYT article is sloppy. Stating that levels up to 10 ppm were detected in more than 20% of offshore responders, doesn’t literally mean IN them. That wouldn’t make sense – there’s no indication that they did any biological monitoring.
The actual results that factchecker linked to show that air sampling results indicate airborne concentrations of 2-butoxyethanol were between the limit of detection (LOD) and 10 ppm for 20% of the offshore workers sampled (probably based on an 8-hr time weighted average).
Decide for yourself whether you think that is good or bad, or whether you even trust those sample results, but start with the correct understanding of what is being described / presented.
Heh. Looks like I’m not alone in not believing BP stopped with Corexit 9527. From the Greenwire link in the post:
It sure would be nice if someone could find a way for the actual scientific results to be presented with full documentation of methods along with the actual data. You know, rather than a misleading bar graph prepared in the PR department where pretty colors and hiding anything potentially damaging to the client matter more than conveying real information.
This sure would be a good time for something to hit WikiLeaks…
Hey factchecker, thanks for writing. You seem pretty knowledgable about this stuff, and I’m glad you’re contributing. What’s your background? Do you have a background in this topic, or do you work for CTEH or another agency involved? Just curious.
this is eerily similar to ground zero clean up. from the NYT article:
IF it’s “in” them or not, it’s dangerous for 20% of workers to have double the exposure recommended by NIOSH. Isn’t that, at the end of the day, the problem here?
Good question. I wrote about it during a hearing a couple weeks ago. See this post for more info. I’ll have another post (this weekend?) about what OSHA plans to do.
http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2010/06/25/offshore-oil-rig-worker-safety-program-designed-by-oil-industry/
(sorry I’m late to the show, folks! was at a dr. appt until now.)
That’s basically the standard peer-review process for publishing information and probably the last thing that BP wants to do. But even if they were to provide what you ask for, it is a simple matter to avoid sampling those in closest proximity to the dispersant, sample upwind instead of down, sample long periods with known or expected low exposures, etc., thereby biasing results low.
Presumably, the OSHA and NIOSH exposure assessment is being done in an objective manner. I haven’t seen their results yet.
Not to nitpick, but all that bar graph shows is that about 20% of the offshore workers had exposures somewhere between the LOD and 10 ppm – the entire 20% might be below 5 ppm, but if that were the case the pretty chart would probably highlight that point.
This is why it’s not acceptable for BP and CTEH to release data in bar graph form.
OSHA sample results are here: http://www.osha.gov/oilspills/oil_sltc_bysite.html
Seems a bit surprising that they would all be ND given reports that there is a strong smell of oil in many places. I would ask OSHA for their air volumes and detection limits and inquire as to why every single sample seems to be ND despite anecdotal evidence of strong smells which would suggest at least detectable concentrations of something.
Maybe they are not following their noses. Or maybe only BP is allowed to sample where there is any chance of actually measuring something.
I saw a group of fishermen being interviewed last night. One said that at this time of year he would be grossing $5000 a day and BP determined that he was due $5000 a month from them. And he never got his second check.
Welcome to America.
NIOSH says strong smells are out there.
I can hear the answer coming from London right now: “Peer review? Peer review? We’re BP. We don’t have any peers.”
Completely agree with your conclusion, and appreciate your clarifications. If you happen to have the time to write about these issues in Seminal diaries, I’m sure appreciate the opportunity to learn more form you, and I’m guessing many folks at FDL would also appreciate it.
Absolutely. nsfy, we’d love to have you write a diary.
You too, factchecker. Always good to have people who know this stuff post for us.
We have known since the start of the spill and the use of dispersants, that much of Europe had banned use of them.
Our Government and our scientific community also knew the problems with dispersants, but has cow towed to BP at every turn.
The sickness from them is not just sad, but a direct effect of our Governments failure to ban the use of them.
Testimony in Congress told the truth, that BP was using them to try and hide the oil to limit it’s liability.
It also makes it much harder to clean up.
Thad Allen not only OK’ed BP to use them, but tried to tell us this was the best way to handle the spilled oil, and provided the planes to spray the stuff.
Yet we the American people will again just dismiss this with a little bitching, and let our Government and BP get away with everything they want to do.
No one will be fired, held to account, or made to really pay for the damage they caused in BP, but much less the Government we pay for.
We look at our Government as this highly holy body that we have no control over, and that is the reason we have no control over it.
Comparisons with more protective exposure limits reveal:
o 10 benzene samples above the NIOSH REL of 0.1 ppm – potentially 5 times above
o Up to 210 2-butoxy ethanol samples potentially 2 times above the NIOSH REL of 5 ppm
o Up to 267 ethyl benzene samples potentially 5 times above the proposed ACGIH TLV of 20 ppm
o Up to 463 toluene samples potentially 5 times above the ACGIH TLV of 20 ppm
179 earlier 2-butoxy ethanol samples have been removed from this data set compared to earlier BP data. That data showed 43 samples on beaches potentially double the NIOSH REL of 5 ppm
A greater percent of nearshore benzene samples are detectable than offshore.
The data is far from the “Clean Bill of Health” BP makes it out to be and clearly shows the need for respirators for some workers.