MEDICAL CONDITIONS
*********************************************************************************
THE VALDEZ CRUD: are crude oil and chemicals to blame for the health
problems of workers who cleaned up Exxon's mess?
March-April, 2003 by Susan Q. Stranahan
In May 1989, the Potter brothers--Mike, Roger, and Paul--joined 11,000 men
and women in the massive effort to clean up 10 million gallons of crude oil spilled
when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska's Prince William Sound. They worked the
shoreline for 12 hours a day, 14 days at a stretch, picking up dead wildlife,
scrubbing rocks, skimming oil off the water, and using high-pressure sprayers to treat
oil-coated beaches with solvents. At night, they were ferried to barges and Navy
vessels anchored offshore, where they would remove their oil-covered gear, shower,
and grab some sleep before heading back to the beaches the next morning. "Out there,
" Mike Potter recalls, "it was kind of like family."
Almost from the start, however, workers employed by Exxon contractors complained
of respiratory problems and flu-like symptoms, which became known as the "Valdez Crud."
"Everybody was coming down with something," says Potter. "We'd be given cough medicine.
We figured it wasn't a cold, but something to do with the oil."
State and federal officials were also concerned. Crude oil contains benzene and
other hazardous chemicals that can cause cancer, and the solvents used to remove oil
from rocks and beaches included a compound called Inipol valdezlink.com/inipol, which
is known to cause rashes, respiratory ailments, and damage to the central nervous system,
kidneys, and liver. Over the course of that summer, workers made more than 6,700 visits
to Exxon-run clinics, seeking treatment for upper-respiratory infections. By the end of
the year, state records show, more than 1,800 cleanup-crew members had filed for workers'
compensation, 264 of whom claimed respiratory ailments.
Federal investigators from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
visited Prince William Sound three times in 1989 to evaluate health hazards of the cleanup.
"Attempts to survey occupational injuries and illnesses in a systematic way were unsuccessful,
" NIOSH reported. Exxon refused to give investigators access to its medical records, and
workers were too scattered to conduct extensive interviews. Although the cleanup continued
for another two summers, the investigation into the cause of the ailments went no further.
For many workers, the health problems have worsened over the years. Today, as cleanup crews
in Spain continue to scour beaches blackened with oil from the tanker Prestige that sank last
November, environmental health activists in Alaska are working to track down and document the
health of those who took part in the Exxon cleanup. "This is a mass chemical poisoning that
Exxon has pushed under the table," says Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist with the Alaska Forum
for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit based in Valdez.
ExxonMobil says it complied with all federal and state health and environmental requirements
during the cleanup, which cost the company $2.2 billion. "The workers were all protected in the
event they may have been exposed to materials that they may have had some sensitivity, some
reaction, to," says spokesman Tom Cirigliano.
Over the years, however, the company has done what it can to deter any public scrutiny,
citing employee privacy. Because workers' ailments were diagnosed as simple colds, Exxon was
not required to report them to federal or state authorities. The company offered confidential
settlements to seven workers who filed lawsuits claiming health problems, and insisted that all
documents remain sealed in the one case that came close to trial.
George Kapolchok, an Anchorage attorney who represented two workers who received settlements,
says Exxon's legal team tried to bury the lawsuits by inundating him with motions and document
requests. "It was a procedural siege," recalls Kapolchok. As a result of its insistence on
secrecy, Exxon has succeeded in concealing even the most basic information about the cleanup
workers.
Those who treat workers exposed to petroleum say crude oil and the solvents used in the
Valdez cleanup can cause a host of long-term ailments, including brain damage, heart trouble,
memory loss, chronic fatigue, and hypersensitivity to chemicals. "We knew immediately when the
cleanup began that people would have problems," says Dr. William Rea of the Environmental Health
Center in Dallas, who has studied the effects of petroleum poisoning among refinery workers.
After the cleanup, Rea treated six Valdez workers. "They didn't get protected properly," he says.
"When I hear Exxon say there are no health effects, I say that's baloney."
More than 12 years after the cleanup, some workers are still grappling with debilitating
ailments that they suspect are linked to the chemicals they handled. Leonard Lamb, who lives
in Anchorage, spent the summer of 1990 with a container of Inipol strapped to his back as he
scrambled over rocky beaches spraying oil patches. "That stuff would eat the seals on the
backpacks," he says. "Essentially, you'd be spraying and it would be running down your back
and neck. You'd be coated with it." Lamb and his colleagues asked about the chemical. "We were
told there was absolutely nothing to worry about," he recalls. "I took their word for it."
Two years later, Lamb began feeling sick. For the past decade he has suffered from chronic
skin rashes, thyroid problems, and immune disorders. When he heard of other cleanup workers
who had fallen ill, he began to think his ailments might be connected to the Valdez spill.
"It makes sense now that I think about it," Lamb says.
Mike Potter noticed a change in his health in 1990, a year after he worked on the spill.
Potter, who lives in Haines, Alaska, had trouble remembering simple things and was constantly
tired, conditions that have worsened over the years. His brother Roger developed brown blotches
on his legs. "It's like I have a tan," he explains.
During the cleanup, their brother Paul was hospitalized after he was knocked unconscious
by the fumes from a plastic bag of oil-soaked wildlife and debris. "It was like he had been
gassed," recalls Mike. Afterward, Paul complained of memory loss, chronic fatigue, and a
heightened sensitivity to chemicals. He was gathering the names of other ailing workers and
contemplating a lawsuit when he died of a heart attack at the age of 44.
Given Exxon's refusal to cooperate, activists concede that locating former cleanup workers
will be time-consuming--and that proving the cause of their illnesses after so many years will
be extremely difficult. Pamela Miller, who is helping to track down former Exxon workers as
director of a nonprofit group called Alaska Community Action on Toxics, hopes that the health
effects of the disaster will receive renewed attention in the wake of the Prestige disaster
last fall. Cleanup supervisors in Spain were recently instructed to turn away volunteers
because of the health dangers posed by the oil.
"The oil companies know the dangers of this stuff," says Miller, as she watches reports
of cleanup workers gathering up toffee-thick oil with shovels. "Nobody provided the workers
with any protection. It's going to happen all over again."
More information on www.valdezlink.com
***********************************************************************************
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)
Excerpts for Some Hazardous Chemicals
Present during the 1989 EVOS Cleanup
Crude Oil (Exxon Shipping Company 1988)
Exposure limit for total product: Not established for total product [emphasis added].
Health studies have shown that many petroleum hydrocarbons pose potential human health risks,
which may vary from person to person. As a precaution, exposure to liquids, vapors, mists or
fumes should be minimized.
High vapor concentrations are irritating to the eyes and the respiratory tract, may cause
headaches and dizziness, are anesthetic, may cause unconsciousness, and may have other central
nervous system effects including death.
Prolonged or repeated contact with this product at warm or ambient temperatures tends to remove
skin oils, possibly leading to irritation and dermatitis.
Contact with this product at warm or ambient temperatures may cause eye irritation…
This product may contain benzene… Benzene can cause anemia and other blood diseases, including
leukemia (cancer of the blood-forming system), after prolonged or repeated exposures at high
concentrations… It has also caused fetal defects in tests on laboratory animals.
There may be a potential risk of skin cancer in humans from prolonged and repeated skin
contact with this product in the absence of good personal hygiene [emphasis added; EVOS cleanup
conditions often prevented good personal hygiene.] Minimize breathing vapors. Minimize skin contact.
Ventilate confined spaces.
Corexit 9527™ (Exxon Company, USA, 1992)
Hazardous ingredient: 2-butoxyethanol ["bue-TOX-e-ETH-an-ol"].
OSHA Hazard: eye and skin irritant, vapors irritating to eyes and respiratory tract, toxic systemic
via ingestion, inhalation and skin. May be absorbed through skin to produce hemolytic anemia and
kidney damage evidenced by paleness and possible red coloration of the urine.Vapors and/or aerosols,
which may be formed at elevated temperatures, may cause systemic effects.
Chronic effects: Overexposure by inhalation and/or dermal contact may result in damage to the
blood and kidneys.
Prevent liquid from entering sewers, watercourses, or low areas. Contain spilled liquid…
[emphasis added; Prince William Sound is a watercourse.]
************************************************************************************
Inipol EAP 22™ (Exxon Company, USA, 1989)
Hazardous ingredient: 2-butoxyethanol.
Health studies have shown that many petroleum hydrocarbons and synthetic lubricants pose
potential human health risks, which may vary from person to person. As a precaution, exposure
to liquids, vapors, mists or fumes should be minimized.
Inhalation of high vapor concentrations may have results ranging from dizziness, headache, and
respiratory irritation to unconsciousness and possibly death.
Components of this product (2-butoxyethanol) may be absorbed through the skin and could produce
blood and kidney damage. Symptoms of overexposure include paleness and red discoloration of the
urine.
Glycol ethers--persons with a history of blood and/or kidney disease should avoid exposure to
this product.
Steps to be taken in case material is released or spilled: Keep people away. Recover free product.
Minimize skin contact. Ventilate confined spaces. Keep product out of sewers and watercourses by
diking or impounding [emphasis added; Prince William Sound is a watercourse.]
************************************************************************************
Simple Green® (Sunshine Makers, Inc., 2002)
Use of product: an all purpose cleaner and degreaser…
Ingredient: 2-butoxyethanol (less than 6 percent) Note, however, that Butyl Cellosolve
[2-butoxyethanol] is only one of the raw material ingredients that undergo processing and dilution
during the manufacture Simple Green®. Upon completion of the manufacturing process, Simple Green
does not possess the occupational health risks associated with exposure to undiluted Butyl Cellosolve
[2-butoxyethanol] [emphasis in original].
Adverse effects on human health are not expected from Simple Green®, based upon twenty years of
use without reported adverse health incidence in diverse population groups, including extensive use
by inmates of U.S. federal prisons in cleaning operations. Repeated daily application to the skin
without rinsing or continuous contact of Simple Green® on the skin may lead to temporary, but
reversible, irritation.
Simple Green is a mild eye irritant; mucous membranes may become irritated by concentrate-mist.
The Simple Green® formulation presents no health hazards to the user when used according to
label directions for its intended purposes.
(Author's note: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists 2-butoxyethanol at the top of its
list of ingredients to avoid in its Janitorial Products Pollution Prevention Program. The EPA web
page states products with the listed ingredients "pose very high risks to the janitor using the
product, to building occupants, or to the environment." Comments under chronic effects for
2-butoxyethanol list reproductive and fetal damage, liver and kidney damage, and blood damage.
www.westp2net.org/janitorial/tools/haz2.htm)
************************************************************************************
2-BUTOXYETHANOL
MSDS Number: B6100 --- Effective Date: 03/15/02
Product Identification
Synonyms: Butyl cello solve; Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether
CAS No.: 111-76-2
Molecular Weight: 118.18
Chemical Formula: HOCH2CH2OC4H9 actually C6H14O2/CH3 (CH2)2CH2OCH2CH2OH
Product Codes:
J.T. Baker: D648, D649
Mallinckrodt: 2138
Potential Health Effects
Inhalation:
Causes irritation to the respiratory tract. Symptoms may include sore throat, coughing,
headache, nausea and shortness of breath. High concentrations have a narcotic effect.
Ingestion:
Causes irritation to the gastrointestinal tract. Symptoms may include nausea, vomiting
and diarrhea. Toxic! May cause systemic poisoning with symptoms paralleling those of inhalation.
Skin Contact:
May cause irritation with redness and pain. May be absorbed through the skin with possible
systemic effects.
Eye Contact:
Vapors are irritating and may produce immediate pain, redness and tearing. Splashes can
cause severe pain, stinging, swelling.
Chronic Exposure:
Prolonged or repeated exposures can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, lymphoid system,
blood and blood-forming organs.
Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions:
Persons with pre-existing skin disorders, eye problems, impaired liver, kidney, blood,
respiratory or lymphoid system function may be more susceptible to the effects of the substance.
Back to top
EXXPOSE EXXON
Back to top
CONTACTS
Back to top
