Daily Comet (LA): Safety of Oil-Spill Dispersants under Fire

The Government Accountability Project and the Louisiana Action Network claim they have obtained a manual from the cleanup’s Vessel of Opportunity program. The document, they say, contradicts safety assurances offered by both BP and Nalco Energy Services, the company that made the Corexit dispersant used in the spill cleanup.

The critics also claim that the manuals were pulled from worksites as workers began to develop symptoms listed in health warnings.

“One of our goals is to hear from the government their explanation for the discrepancy between the apparent hazards and health risks from the cleanup and their statements that it was safe,” said Shanna Devine, an investigator for the accountability project. “If it’s as dangerous as we’re seeing reported here, we’re hoping BP and the government would ban further use of this dispersant.”

The organizations say their queries will not affect the fate of a recent oil-spill litigation settlement, which could make thousands eligible for health claims as a result of the spill. The details of the settlement negotiated last month will not be released until it is filed in court, which could happen in the coming weeks.

BP officials declined to comment on the organizations’ specific accusations.

But spokesman Tom Mueller said in a statement that the company worked in close coordination with government agencies “to manage potential health risks posed by response activities such as the application of dispersants.”

Information regarding the safe handling and use of dispersants was provided in mandatory training courses and in safety messages broadcast to response workers, Mueller said. It was also provided in Material Safety Data Sheets and in various safety manuals provided to workers over the course of the response.

“Dispersant application was conducted according to manufacturer’s guidelines for safe handling, with the approval and observation of the USCG, and under their strict rules and limitations,” Mueller said. “In addition, workers at potential risk for chemical exposure were provided with appropriate personal protective equipment.”

BP has exchanged letters with the advocacy organizations and has offered to host a sit-down meeting with the groups, but it has not yet confirmed or denied that the manual is identical to those used on the boats or addressed the Corexit concerns.

Marylee Orr, executive director at the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, said she is more interested in answers than a meeting.

“We haven’t gotten some answers to some of our questions,” she said. “We want to make corporations transparent. They say they want to be, so we’re giving them that opportunity.”

Devine’s organization is working with workers involved directly in the cleanup, as well as Gulf residents who have fallen ill from alleged chemical exposure.

“A living hell”

Scott Porter was a scientific diver for EcoRigs, who continued working in the Gulf after the spill. In the summer of 2010, he said, he experienced chest pains and cramps after diving. Other divers in his crew began bleeding from their noses and eyes months later. They had nausea, diarrhea, stomach cramps and suffered from dizziness and confusion. The also developed a rash from exposure to the water.

“The skin itch was one of the most chronic problems. We’d get these hard cysts under the skin. They look like pimples, but they wouldn’t pop,” Porter said. “It felt like my skin was crawling.”

The divers were not alone. After working on a boat as part of the Vessels of Opportunity oil-spill cleanup program for three months, Jorey Danos of Chackbay, developed boils on his back and neck. At 31, he suddenly needed a cane to help him walk. He said he also became paranoid and irritable. He started bringing a gun with him when he accompanied his children to their bus stop.

“I’m the creator of stuck stupid,” said Danos, referring to a trance-like stupor the groups say afflicts many exposed to the oil, dispersants or fumes.

Darla Rooks, a shrimper from Port Sulphur, developed it, too. She said she would drive back from the grocery store and sit in the car.

“My husband would come home and say ‘Where have you been?’ and I wouldn’t know. And he would find the groceries in the back seat, and say, ‘This milk is warm. How long have you been sitting here?’ And we’d figure out it had been hours,” she said. “It was like I had Alzheimer’s, I was sitting there like a zombie.”

Rooks and her husband had gone shrimping in Fort Bayou Pass in May 2010. He shook out the net to prove it was empty, and some water splashed on her.

“It stung like a jelly,” she said. Soon she found herself curled up in the fetal position, shaking with pain. “I thought I was going to die right there on my boat,” she said.

Her symptoms got worse. She would bleed from her nose, ears and breasts, and urinated blood, she said. She developed a limp.

The health problems of those exposed to the chemicals in the Gulf are real, according to Dr. Mike Robichaux of Raceland, who said he has treated about 90 patients with a “detoxification” method with results he has described as “miraculous.”

“The problem wasn’t that y’all weren’t sick, but no one’s a complainer here.”

The divers, Danos and Rooks all went through the treatment. Patients are prescribed a high dosage of Niacin, a drug traditionally used to lower cholesterol. They are also put on a strict regimen of exercise and must sit in a sauna for what adds up to several hours each day.

“What’s happened to us is the chemicals get attached to fat, and the body is unable to remove them due to a lack of enzymes,” Robichaux said. “The Niacin sheers off the fats and the chemicals in them, and then we get you to sweat the stuff out.” Robichaux, who underwent the treatment himself, said many patients report that they emit a diesel-like smell when they sweat during treatment, and some have seen a black substance coming off on their towels after they shower.

Rooks’ limp went away, and her attention span came back. Danos’ mental and physical health improved, but he says he’s afraid to go to Grand Isle, because he doesn’t want to see a relapse.

“I don’t sugarcoat anything,” he said. “It was a living hell.”

Porter said his health has greatly improved since the treatment, but he has developed contact dermatitis, and his rash flares up every time he comes in contact with diesel or when he goes diving, even in a dry suit. After years of diving in the Gulf, he is thinking of moving to Alaska or somewhere else, just so he can continue his career.

What is responsible?

When the divers developed their strange symptoms in the fall of 2010, they had their blood tested, and analysis showed high levels of ethyl benzene and xylene. Danos said his blood test revealed high levels of benzene as well.

Robichaux said he couldn’t comment on which chemical was the likely cause of the spill.

“It’s impossible to say if they got sick from the chemicals, the Corexit, the Louisiana light crude, or a combination of them,” he said.

Porter, who also works for the Louisiana University Marine Consortium, said the harmful solvents are found in both oil and the dispersant, but that the Corexit releases the compounds faster.

“It’s like shredding a thousand-page book into confetti. It makes it get carried away faster, but it’s also everywhere,” he said. “I understand why they use dispersant, I just wish they would find a safer way.”

According to the manual obtained by the Government Accountability Project, the safety sheet for Corexit is listed as causing many of the health symptoms Robichaux has treated. The warnings included mild to moderate skin irritation and possible kidney or liver damage. Excessive exposure “may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects.”

Calls to Nalco Energy Services, the company that makes Corexit, were not returned. However, Mani Ramesh, Nalco’s chief technology officer, has said on numerous occasions that the dispersant is safe. In 2010, he told the Scientific American that chemicals like butanedioic acid and sorbitan, which are found in Corexit are “very safe” and “are used in day-to-day life—in mouthwash, toothpaste, ice cream, pickles.”

In 2010, BP spokesman Jon Pack told the New York Times that Corexit had been “rigorously tested” and EPA approve after critics said less toxic dispersants were available.

“I’m not sure about the others,” Pack said. “This has been used by a number of major companies as an effective, low-toxicity dispersant.”

But Orr says that interviews with Gulf coast residents and cleanup workers, as well as BP’s own internal documents, prove that is not the case.

“They’re going to use the way they responded to this oil spill as a model for other spills, and I don’t want history to repeat itself. We already went through that after Alaska,” she said of the 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker spill. “I think the dispersant is a terrible thing to put into a body of water. At least, we’re finding it is.

“It’s not over for the Gulf coast, and it’s not over for the ecosystem or the people. And even if it was, we want to learn the lessons from what happened to us.”