Air Quality Data for Gulf Workers: More Worrisome Findings
Posted July 8, 2010 in Health and the Environment
Just two days ago, I cautiously applauded the decision by the Unified Command to tell BP to provide respirators to some Gulf workers. In that blog, I also summarized the BP air quality data available at the time.
Just hours later, BP released new data on air quality for the entire month of June. Here's a summary of the new information. In a nutshell, the data indicate that there are still air quality concerns, especially for offshore workers. In fact, some air quality problems may actually be worsening. Unfortunately there's not enough information in these reports to know if the new limited respiratory protection guidelines will protect these workers, since BP doesn’t specify where or when the elevated levels were measured.
The BP report indicates that the data are from personal air monitors. That means that workers were actually wearing monitors, and the results represent the air that somebody out there was actually breathing on a given day.
Main Results:
1) New, more sensitive benzene monitoring equipment found levels that exceed the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) safety level of 0.1 ppm in 3 samples taken offshore, 6 samples taken near-shore, and 1 sample on the beach.
2) Monitoring data are now available on an expanded list of oil pollutants including toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. All of which were detected frequently in the air monitored offshore. Whether the levels are a hazard is debatable (see below for details).
3) There were big increases - sometimes more than doubling - in the number of samples with elevated levels of total hydrocarbons and 2-butoxyethanol taken offshore in the month of June. Workers are continuing to be exposed to these pollutants as this disaster continues into a third month.
More detailed summary of offshore sampling:
- · Nearly 63% (1118 out of 1780) samples had detectable levels of hydrocarbons and 11% (203 out of 1780) had levels greater than 10 ppm. 10 samples exceed 100 ppm which in a previous monitoring summary was labeled as the action limit. This label has been removed in the most recent summary document. No information is given on where these samples, or the 13 found to be between 50 and 100 ppm, were taken.
- · 59 (3.3%) of samples had detectable levels of benzene with measurements up to 0.5 ppm. 3 samples exceeded the NIOSH Recommended Exposure Level (REL) of 0.1 ppm.
- · 21% (186 out of 893) of samples had detectable levels of 2-Butoxyethanol with measurements up to 10 ppm. This range encompasses the NIOSH REL of 5 ppm. The NIOSH REL was not mentioned in the BP document; instead, the document only cites the OSHA standard for 2-Butoxyethanol of 50 ppm. In a prior blog I explained why the OSHA standards are not adequate to protect health.
- · 18% of samples had detectable levels of benzene; 15% of samples had detectable levels of Ethylbenzene; 23% of samples had detectable levels of Xylene. None of these levels exceed workplace safety levels, but they may (the method isn’t sensitive enough to know for sure) exceed acute exposure guidelines for the general public by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) which are much lower than the workplace values. The ATSDR levels (unlike the NIOSH and OSHA levels) are designed to protect people from 24-hour a day exposure, which is what the workers out there are experiencing.
I’m glad that BP is doing more personal exposure monitoring, and these results are somewhat reassuring for the beach workers, but I still have concerns about some of the air quality issues offshore. I hope BP provides more information about where and when their samples were taken, and moves quickly to implement respiratory protection as they were directed to do last week.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Beach — Jul 9 2010 12:59 PM
Where along the beach was the testing done?
Richard Colley — Jul 10 2010 01:28 AM
In a recent CNN news report, it was noted that, in addition to crude oil, natural gas was also coming out of the wellhead. That mixture being emitted into salty gulf waters and coming to the surface is not going to lessen until the well is totally capped. I don't remember my chemistry very well, but if the tarballs on gulf coast beaches have been formed from this mixture, then there has been quite a lot of chemical change going on for a considerable time now. Considering the tremendous volume of the mixture, the fumes cannot be dispersed quickly into the air. Little wonder that dangerous gasses are still being detected. The overall impact on the entire ecosystem has yet to be revealed. We need to know more about the negative impacts because BP is not being forthcoming.
Eieen Senn — Jul 10 2010 03:22 PM
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
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.
Dutch — Jul 11 2010 12:07 AM
Gina, consider this,The oil that under the tremendous pressure of 5,000 ft. of water after being released from even greater pressure under the shelf, was immediately mixed with dispersant. Never even done in a lab before now. The oil we see on the surface is at best only 10-25% of what has left that wellhead. The layers of clouds in the gulf still have never been exposed to sealevel atmospheric pressures and temperatures. All of the chemicals that you mention are still contained under pressure in these clouds. They take about 48 hrs. to evaporate off once they hit the surface. As these clouds move in the Gulf and are pushed into the shallower waters along the beaches, bays, and marshes, the natural agitation of the wave action will cause them to be rapidly released as air is added to the gas saturated water. What then? Will a slight onshore breeze be enough to disapate them quickly enough to avoid creating the same dead zones they are already creating in the water column? None of the computer models forecasted oil going to Galveston, or Lake Ponchatrain. No one is testing samples taken from anywhere other than the surface, unless it is a research vessel far offshore. When the first people start seeing symtoms on the beach, how many will be affected before air monitors are put in place and the test results come back? Do you really think BP will cop to this? I don't think so. Look and revisit the webpages that cover testing that took place after the American Trader pulled it's own anchor through its bow. BP had the opportunity to gather mutitudes of information after that spill. What is out there because of it will amaze you. Most of the people that care the most where so young that they don't even remember that one. Bp knows exactly what they are doing, and being forth coming with the American Public is one of the lowest priorities on the list. On the bright side, I heard a rumor that BP is now offering to give $5,000.00 to anyone wanting to move away from the fumes, for me that just doesn't quite cover fifty years of wonderful memories, and depriving my children the experience of growing up on ,"The Most Beautiful Beaches in the World".