Industrial Hygiene in the BP Oil Spill Event: What's Public and What We Should Learn From the EventThomas Grumbles, CIHSenior ConsultantCardno ENTRIXCalifornia Industrial Hygiene CouncilDecember 6, 2010

Chronology

April 20th 2010 the event began July 15th the well was capped September 19th the well was permanently sealed BP staff, contractors, governmental and industry employees and

volunteers are still at sites providing ongoing response The most “public” emergency response event to date

Scope Of Work

At the peak of activity– 47,848 workers

– 8,044 vessels

– 123 aircraft  

September 20– 25,200 workers

– 2,600 vessels

– dozens of aircraft

Federal response led by the U.S. Coast Guard under the National Contingency Plan– Spill of National Significance designation

OSHA Activity thru 10/1/10

OSHA averaged over 146 professionals throughout the Gulf Region during the event

OSHA staff made over 4,266 site visits to– vessels of opportunity, – staging areas,– decontamination sites, – Offshore and onshore clean up activities

The Agency developed a sampling protocol and strategy and has taken samples resulting in over 5,731 exposure assessments (exposure assessments )

To date, no air sampling by OSHA has detected any hazardous chemical at levels of concern. (Spill Home Page)

All OSHA results are posted (sampling results )

OSHA Sampling Strategy What hazards to evaluate in an event like this? Most of the cleanup workers are exposed to “weathered oil”,

– more volatile substances have evaporated Potential health effects from inhaling other non oil chemicals

– oil dispersants, cleaning agents, and others are an ongoing concern Among the many hazards workers face--such as falls, drowning, fatigue, sharp

objects and animal bites--the number one health concern was heat stress– more than 700 incidents reported by 8/16

OSHA devised a systematic approach to assess hazards and created a Sampling Strategy to characterize and document hazards of commonly observed work activities.

“OSHA is also analyzing the "soup" of crude oil, oil by-products, dispersants, and any other material to determine what hazards the mixture might present workers as they respond to and cleanup the oil spill”

OSHA Sampling StrategySummary of Air Sampling

Oil

Media Analyte(s) Sampling time and flow rate Method

SKC 575-002 Passive Sampler or charcoal tube

Benzene, cyclohexane, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene,

trimethylbenzes

4 hour for SKC 575-002,

4 hour at 0.05 L/min for charcoal tube

OSHA Method 7OSHA Method 111

OSHA Method 1002OSHA Method 1005

Charcoal tube Petroleum distillates 4 hour at 0.05 L/min OSHA Method 48

ULTRA I Passive Sampler containing Tenax TA

Heavy aliphatics and aromatics Minimum of 4 hours, maximum of 16 hours

OSHA Maries Project Study

Assay Technology ChemDisk Aldehyde Monitor

Formaldehyde 4 hour (TWA) OSHA Method 1007

OSHA Sampling StrategyDispersants

Media Analyte(s) Sampling time and flow rate Method

SKC 575-002 Passive Sampler or charcoal tube

2-butoxyethanol 4 hour for SKC 575-002,

4 hour at 0.05 L/min for charcoal tube

 

OSHA Method 83 (must be separate sample from other

analytes due to different extracting solvent)

OVS-7 tube Propylene glycol 2 hour at 1 L/min OSHA Method PV2051

Acid Gases/Mist

Media Analyte(s) Sampling time and flow rate Method

Silica Gel Tube with pre-filter Acid Gases and Mists 0.2 L/Min for eight hours OSHA Method ID-165SG

APPLICABLE OEL’S

OSHA recognizes that most of its PELs are outdated and inadequate measures of worker safety.

Crude oil is a complex mixture of chemical constituents that are not easily addressed by exposure limits for individual substances.

In characterizing worker exposure OSHA instead relies on more up-to-date recommended protective limits set by organizations such as NIOSH, ACGIH, and AIHA, not on the older, less protective PELS.

Results of air monitoring are compared to the lowest known OEL for the listed contaminant for purposes of risk assessment and protective equipment recommendations.

BP IH Activity Engaged more than 200 industrial hygienists and technicians to monitor area

and personal exposures in the identified work areas– As of 15th October 2010, approximately 70 industrial hygienists providing support to

the ongoing restoration. As of 15th October 2010, approximately 23,000 personal samples collected Personal monitoring results mostly indicate there are no significant exposures to

airborne concentrations of chemicals of interest Weathered crude also a factor in sampling strategy Source strategy different from on shore/near shore strategy

– Source Strategy ( BP Source Monitoring Strategy )– On shore strategy ( BP Onshore Monitoring Strategy )

Sampling results are published in two ways:– Summary form– Full details

On Shore and Near Shore Monitoring Area and personnel monitoring during:

– Beach clean up– Vessel decontamination– Wildlife decontamination– Skimming operations– Boom deployment and retrieval operations– Area monitoring in response to odor complaints

4 “strike teams”– PBZ for BTEX, Total hydrocarbons (THC)– Area for VOC’s, CO, LEL and Benzene

Priority is decontamination activity– General goal to sample 10% of identified groups– Professional judgment for additional monitoring

Action levels developed for taking specific control actions

Off Shore (Source) Monitoring Strategy Monitoring plan purpose:

– Protect potential downwind receptors– Protect worker health– Support safe operations with task monitoring

Area and personnel monitoring for:– VOC’s (THC)– Benzene– H2S– Oxygen– LEL– CO– PM10– SO2

Action levels developed for taking specific control actions Every vessel assigned to the source area was equipped for monitoring

BP Sampling Results Summary

Full Details

NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations

On  May  28,  2010,  NIOSH  BP requested the first health  hazard  evaluation  (HHE)

Since then multiple investigations and 8 Interim reports have been issued

Investigations included quantitative sampling and medical symptom surveys

The last Interim report was issued October 26

NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations Evaluation of the hospitalization of  7  Fishermen on May  26   Conclusion: Given the various descriptions and unspecified

sources of the reported odors, the uncertain timing of the symptoms in relation to use of a new cleaner , and symptoms that be related to a variety of causes:– it  is  unlikely  that  a  single  specific  trigger  for the reported

symptoms can be determined– Dispersant  use  appears  unlikely  to  be  the  source  of the

symptoms– symptoms  were  more  likely  to  have  been  aggravated  by

 several  contributing  factors,  including  unpleasant  odors,  heat, and fatigue.  

NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations June  4‐5  evaluation of M/V International Peace and MV

 Warrior  Dispersant  Mission  – Industrial  hygiene  surveys,  health  symptom  survey and

 medical  interviews  during  a  small  scale dispersant mission – PBZ  and  area  air  concentrations  of  the

contaminants measured  were  all  well  below  OELs– NIOSH  investigators  did  observe  the  potential  for  dermal

contact with  the  dispersant   On June 14-16 PBZ and area air concentrations of the

contaminants measured during an oil skimming mission aboard the M/V Queen Bee were below occupational exposure limits

NIOSH HHEs

June 8–10 evaluation of In-situ Oil Burns Based on sampling conducted over two days on ignition boats and

vessels towing boom during burns, NIOSH investigators found exposures for all compounds sampled to be well below applicable OELs

One exception: peak exposures to CO recorded on the vessels due to exhaust from gasoline powered engines

NIOSH HHEs

June 25 evaluation of Barge Oil Vacuuming Operations in Coup Abel Pass Louisiana was conducted

Limited activity to sample Safety and noise observations:

– For example: A few workers wore safety harnesses. The harnesses were not tied off to any structure on the barges to arrest the workers’ fall

NIOSH HHEs

June 21-25 industrial hygiene surveys and self-administered health symptom surveys aboard two vessels at the site of the oil release – Airborne concentrations for all contaminants evaluated were well below

applicable OELs

– Some increase in psychosocial symptoms, reported on one vessel

NIOSH HHEs

September evaluation of 1,899 workers at 67 work sites in Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi– Surveys and interviews

– Heat stress was the primary occupational health hazard for most shore cleaning workers

– Shore cleaning workers faced ergonomic hazards from the unique work required to clean oil residue from sandy beaches

– Use of tools that were never designed for this task

– Workers had designed “homemade” tools that were more effective than standard tools

NIOSH HHEs October evaluation and quantitative exposure assessment at two

decontamination sites in Port Fourchon, Louisiana– Heat stress was the primary occupational health hazard for most

repair/decontamination and waste management workers and was exacerbated by the use of personal protective equipment

– Where measured, airborne concentrations of measured contaminants, including 2-butoxyethanol and other glycol ethers, limonene, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylenes, total hydrocarbons, diesel exhaust, PAHs, and CO were all well below Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs)

– Exposure monitoring showed the potential for noise exposures above the NIOSH REL during pressure washing

– Repair/decontamination and waste management workers faced ergonomic hazards from unique work activities such as handling and moving booms and other equipment to be cleaned and the actions associated with operating the pressure washers

Lessons Learned

To be added