DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

National Institute for Occupational 

 Safety and Health 

Robert A. Taft Laboratories 

4676 Columbia Parkway 

Cincinnati OH 45226-1998 

1A‐1

June 23, 2010

HETA 2010‐0115

Fred Tremmel

Deepwater Horizon ICP

1597 Highway 311

Houma, LA 70395

Dear Mr. Tremmel:

On May 28, 2010, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a

request from BP for a health hazard evaluation (HHE). The request asked NIOSH to evaluate

potential exposures and health effects among workers involved in Deepwater Horizon

Response activities. NIOSH sent an initial team of HHE investigators on June 2, 2010, followed

by additional teams. To date, 14 HHE investigators have been on‐scene; the investigation is

continuing.

This letter is the first in a series of interim reports. As this information is cleared for posting, we

will make it available on the NIOSH website (www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe). When all field activity

and data analyses are complete we will compile the interim reports into a final report.  

This report (Interim Report #1) includes several discrete components of our investigation. For

each, we provide background, describe our methods, report the findings, and provide

conclusions and, where appropriate, interim recommendations. The components included in

this report are as follows:

• 1A – Evaluation of May 26, 2010, Hospitalization of Seven Fishermen

• 1B – Evaluation of June 4‐5, 2010 M/V International Peace/MV Warrior Dispersant

Mission

   
A1‐2

Thank you for your cooperation with this evaluation. If you have any questions, please do not

hesitate to contact me at 513.841.4382 or atepper@cdc.gov.

Sincerely yours,

Allison Tepper, PhD

Chief

Hazard Evaluations and Technical

   Assistance Branch

Division of Surveillance, Hazard

   Evaluations and Field Studies

2 Enclosures

cc:   

Mr. David Dutton, BP

Mr. Mark Saperstein, BP

Dr. Richard Heron, BP

Dr. Kevin O’Shea, BP

Mr. Charles Huber, Manager, Dispersant Operations

LT John Kaser, USCG

Mr. Clint Guidry, LA Shrimp Association

Ms. Cindy Coe, OSHA

Dr. Raoul Ratard, LA DHHS

Mr. Brock Lamont, CDC
1B‐1

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Health Hazard Evaluation of Deepwater Horizon Response Workers

HETA 2010­0115

Interim Report #1A

Evaluation of May 26, 2010, Hospitalization of Seven Fishermen

Sources of Information

• Hospital records from West Jefferson Medical Center (WJMC), Marrero, Louisiana

• BP Healthcare Provider Reporting Forms completed by nurse case managers

• OSHA preliminary Incident Report of Fishermen Evacuated Near Grand Isle Shipyard

• USCG investigator’s report of the investigation of fishermen evacuated near Grand Isle Shipyard

• Preliminary Investigation of Vessel of Opportunity Worker Exposure Incident Occurring on May

26, 2010, by Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health (CTEH)

• Interview with captains of fishing vessels from Task Forces 1, 2, 3, and 4 by CTEH toxicologist

• NIOSH medical officer interviews with CTEH and OSHA investigators and nurse case managers

Summary

Initial investigations focused on exposure to dispersant based on patient reports. OSHA and CTEH

reviewed dispersant application records from May 26, 2010; the patients’ vessels were approximately

40‐60 miles from the area of dispersant use. When oil was observed by the fishermen, the description

was most consistent with emulsified crude oil, which, according to the CTEH report, does not contain

free dispersant. All but one of the hospitalized fishermen reported extremely unpleasant odors. The

reported odors included “concentrated soap” and “bad Clorox” as well as unspecified “chemical” odors.

One patient reported a “pinesol” taste. The sources of the unpleasant odors or taste could not be

determined by investigators after the event. Captains of vessels from Task Forces 1, 2, 3, and 4 reported

to a CTEH toxicologist that the symptoms began after Pentene Clean had been substituted for the usual

citrus‐based cleaner but this could not be confirmed in the review of other reports and records. Several

of the patients had reported symptoms 3 to 7 days before hospitalization and one reported symptoms

approximately 20 days before hospitalization. The most frequent signs and symptoms reported by the

hospitalized fishermen were headache, upper respiratory irritation or congestion, nausea, elevated self‐

monitored blood pressure, fatigue, and chest pain or pressure. Two of the fishermen were hospitalized

for evaluation of potentially serious medical problems that are common in the United States. The rest

were hospitalized for observation because of their reported exposure to chemicals. Six patients were

discharged within 1 day of admission; one was discharged after an additional day of testing.

Conclusions  

Given the various descriptions and unspecified sources of the reported odors, the uncertain timing of

the symptoms in relation to use of the substitute cleaner, and symptoms that could be related to a

variety of causes, it is unlikely that a single specific trigger for the reported symptoms can be
1B‐2

determined. Dispersant use appears unlikely to be the source of the symptoms based on the

information reviewed by NIOSH investigators. The symptoms were more likely to have been aggravated

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

Interim Recommendations

BP should:

• Assure implementation of pre‐placement medical screening to assess response workers’

fitness for duty

• Provide training for response workers on the different types and appearances of oil they

may encounter during the course of their duties, and provide regular communication to

workers about the response activities in their area of operation

  

• Facilitate the reporting and investigation of the medical disposition of workers sent to

hospitals by working with established systems (e.g., local healthcare providers and state and

local health departments)

• Provide resources and assistance to continuing medical education programs to raise local

physicians’ awareness of occupational health issues related to occupational hazards in the

oil industry (including spill response), particularly emphasizing the importance of a detailed

exposure history.
1B‐1

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Health Hazard Evaluation of Deepwater Horizon Response Workers

HETA 2010­0115

Interim Report #1B

Evaluation of June 4­5, 2010 M/V International Peace/MV Warrior Dispersant

Mission

Introduction

NIOSH investigators conducted industrial hygiene surveys, health symptom surveys, and medical

interviews during a small scale dispersant mission involving two motor vessels, International Peace (IP)

and Warrior, on June 4 and 5, 2010. Prior to the April 20, 2010 well site explosion, these vessels

transferred personnel and equipment to oil rigs and platforms. During this mission, the personnel on the

IP applied dispersant to the water surface from the deck of the vessel and personnel on the Warrior

monitored the dispersed oil under the surface using fluorometry and collected water samples. Personnel

on both vessels included crew and contract personnel from Oil Spill Response Limited (OSR) and the U.S.

Coast Guard (USCG). Other personnel from NIOSH, the Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health

(CTEH), and Battelle also were present.

When applying dispersant from the IP, all non essential personnel remained in the cabin. The one

contract employee who remained on deck wore disposable coveralls, nitrile gloves, steel toe boots,

safety goggles, a hardhat, a personal floatation device, and a half‐mask air purifying respirator with

organic vapor cartridges. The coveralls and nitrile gloves were discarded after use.  

When conducting fluorometry and collecting water samples on the Warrior, USCG personnel wore cloth

coveralls, nitrile gloves, steel toe boots, hardhats, safety glasses, and personal floatation devices. During

fluorometry (a method for characterizing the oil slick and the efficacy of the dispersant), a flow‐through

fluorometer was lowered into the water to provide direct readings. These readings were recorded on a

laptop before and after dispersants were applied. The USCG  also collected water samples at various

depths (e.g., 1 and 10 meters) using pole‐mounted collection bottles. The water samples (a mixture of

oil, water, and occasionally dispersants) were capped and saved for chemical analysis. After fluorometry

and water sample collection, USCG personnel cleaned/decontaminated the collection equipment and

rope lines with a standard hand‐held garden‐type sprayer and cleaning solution.  

Evaluation  

NIOSH investigators conducted personal breathing zone (PBZ) and area air sampling on the IP and

Warrior on June 4 and 5, 2010. During various activities including preparing for dispersion, active

dispersion, and fluorometry, short term and longer term air samples were collected. Longer term

samples also were collected while travelling to the oil slick. The short term samples are intended to

represent exposure during specific work tasks and the longer term samples more closely represent full‐

shift occupational exposures.
1B‐2

  

On June 4, 2010, no dispersants were applied so these air samples represent exposures in the vicinity of

oil contaminated waters during dispersion preparation and routine activities (cleaning, etc.). On June 5,

2010, an OSR employee on the IP applied 50 gallons of Corexit® EC9500A dispersant (Nalco, Naperville,

Illinois) using a mechanical delivery system. Afterwards, an additional aerial release of 125 gallons of this

dispersant occurred from a support aircraft. Both applications required approval of the USCG since

routine use of dispersant from vessels and aircraft had been suspended at the time of this NIOSH

evaluation. Standard protocols were followed, as relayed to NIOSH personnel by USCG personnel on the

vessels. This included relocating the vessels at least one nautical mile upwind of the release and waiting

30 minutes before re‐entering the area.

To evaluate the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NIOSH investigators used integrated air

sampling with a variety of sampling media, including multi‐sorbent thermal desorption tubes followed

by thermal desorption/gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry (NIOSH Method 2549); Summa canisters

analyzed for selected contaminants by gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry (EPA Method TO‐15);

and activated charcoal tubes [EPA 1999; NIOSH 2010]. Results of the thermal desorption tubes and

Summa canister area air samples were used to select specific VOCs for quantitation on PBZ and area air

samples collected using charcoal tubes. Other chemicals measured in PBZ or area air samples using

integrated air sampling techniques included propylene glycol (a component of the dispersant), diesel

exhaust, mercury (a possible component of crude oil), and the benzene soluble fraction of total

particulate samples. Direct reading measurements were made for carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen

sulfide (H2S). The sampling and analytical methods used are provided in Tables 2–5.  

Because of concerns about acute health effects that have been reported with use of the dispersant,

NIOSH medical officers conducted medical interviews and health surveys at the time of exposure

monitoring by NIOSH industrial hygienists on two vessels involved in applying or monitoring dispersant.

The workers were asked to report symptoms they experienced during this specific mission. All 10 crew,

USCG members, and contractors on the IP were asked to complete a brief symptom survey within 30

minutes to 1 hour after dispersant application. Three to four hours later, each participant was

interviewed about changes in their symptoms.

On the Warrior, seven contractors and USCG personnal involved in monitoring the water for dispersant

(using fluorometry) were interviewed about symptoms within 30 minutes to 1 hour after aerial

application. Three to four hours later, they completed the symptom survey. Personnel on the Warrior

who were not involved in water dispersant monitoring (e.g., the cook) did not complete the survey.

Results

Table 1 contains a summary of the relevant occupational exposure limits (OELs) for this evaluation.

Volatile Organic Compounds

On June 4, 2010, two long term area air samples and one short term sample were collected using

Summa canisters. On June 5, 2010, two longer term area air samples and three shorter term samples

were collected using Summa canisters. Individual VOC concentrations were well below applicable OELs.

Acrolein was identified in the highest concentration relative to the OELs; however, the maximum levels

were only 1% to 4% of full‐shift, short term, or ceiling OELs. Concentrations of benzene and ethanol
1B‐3

were between 0.1% and 1% of their OELs. All other VOCs that were evaluated were at concentrations

less than 0.1% of the OELs or were not detected.

On June 4, 2010, two thermal desorption tube air samples were collected to screen for VOCs and on

June 5, 2010, three thermal desorption tubes samples were collected. The screening samples collected

on June 5, 2010 contained a wider variety of substances than those collected on the previous day when

no dispersant was applied. On June 5, 2010, various C6 to C18 hydrocarbons (straight and branched

alkanes) were found; some samples also contained naphthalene, benzene, alcohols (ethanol and

isopropyl alcohol), limonene, 2‐butoxyethanol, dipropylene glycol butyl ether isomers, and other

substances.

Based on the results of the Summa canisters and thermal tube screening samples, the PBZ and area

charcoal tube air samples were quantitated for acetone, benzene, ethanol, ethylbenzene,  isopropyl

alcohol, limonene, naphthalene, toluene, total hydrocarbons (THC) (as hexane), and xylenes. Results are

shown in Tables 2–5. All air concentrations were well below the relevant OELs. In PBZ samples on the

Warrior (Tables 3 and 5), only limonene and THC were present above the minimum quantifiable

concentrations. Ethanol was present in the highest concentration at 5.6 parts per million (ppm) in one

air sample taken on June 4, 2010 in the IP cabin. Ethanol and limonene are ingredients in cleaning

agents, which might explain their presence in the air samples. Even on an additive basis, for any given

exposure period, the mixtures of chemicals measured in the air are a fraction (<10%) of the acceptable

levels. Total hydrocarbon concentrations were all less than 10 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3

).

Although there is no OEL specifically for THCs, OELs for petroleum distillates and kerosene (two mixtures

containing a similar range of hydrocarbons as was found on the initial thermal tube air samples) are 350

mg/m3 as a work‐shift time weighted average as shown in Table 1.  

A second set of charcoal tube air samples was quantitated for 2‐butoxyethanol, dipropylene glycol butyl

ether, and dipropylene glycol methyl ether. The concentrations of 2‐butoxyethanol in five area air

samples collected on June 4 and 5, 2010, were all below 0.01 ppm, well below the most protective OEL

of 5 ppm. Dipropylene glycol butyl ether was detected on three samples at low concentrations. One

sample had breakthrough indicating that more than 10% of the mass of dipropylene glycol butyl ether

was present on the back section of the tube. Thus, the reported concentration may be underestimated.

Dipropylene glycol methyl ether was not present on any of the air samples.

Propylene Glycol

Propylene glycol, a component of the dispersant, was detected in low concentrations on three of four

air samples collected on the IP (which applied dispersant), but not on the two samples collected on the

Warrior (which did not apply dispersant), as shown in Tables 2, 4, and 5. Both the IP and the Warrior

were positioned at least one nautical mile from the aerial application on June 5 (following standard

USCG protocol). The concentrations of propylene glycol measured on June 4, 2010, might have been

associated with dispersant preparations made by the crew, because dispersant was not applied until

June 5, 2010. The propylene glycol concentrations ranged up to 0.17 mg/m3

, below the OEL of 10

mg/m3

, with the highest concentration measured on the person involved in the dispersal on the IP. It

should be noted, however, that this PBZ sample (and two area samples) contained more than 10% of the

mass of propylene glycol on the back section of the XAD‐7 sorbent tube, indicating significant

breakthrough. The reported concentrations may be underestimated. Breakthrough may be a result of

the high relative humidity in the environment, as this is a potential problem with this type of sampling

media.  
1B‐4

Diesel Exhaust

Emissions from diesel engines used to power the vessels are complex mixtures of gases and particulates.

NIOSH uses elemental carbon (EC) as a surrogate index of exposure because the sampling and analytical

method for EC is very sensitive, and a high percentage of diesel particulate (80‐90%) is EC. In

comparison, tobacco smoke particulate (a potential interference when measuring diesel exhaust) is

composed primarily of organic carbon (OC). Although OSHA and NIOSH have established OELs for some

of the individual components of diesel exhaust (i.e., nitrogen dioxide, CO), neither agency has

established an OEL for EC. However, the California Department of Health Services’ Hazard Evaluation

System & Information Service (HESIS) guideline for diesel exhaust particles (measured as EC) is 20

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) for an 8‐hour TWA. As shown in Tables 2, 4, and 5, EC

concentrations during response tasks ranged from 2.6 to 6.2 μg/m3

, below the HESIS guideline.

Furthermore, diesel exhaust was not a substantial part of these sample results because the ratio of EC to

total carbon (the sum of EC + OC) ranged from 6.7% to 19%, well below the expected 60% to 80% of EC

to total carbon typically reported in diesel exhaust.  

Mercury

No mercury was detected on three area air samples collected on June 5, 2010 as shown in Tables 4 and

5. The minimum detectable concentrations ranged up to 0.00007 mg/m3

, well below the most

protective OEL of 0.025 mg/m3

.

Benzene Soluble Total Particulate Fraction

Three PBZ and one area air sample were collected for total particulates with the particulate fraction

analyzed for benzene soluble components (to separate out contributions from substances like salts from

the sea water) as an indicator of oil mist exposures (Tables 2, 4, and 5). None of the samples contained

detectable concentrations of benzene soluble particulates.  

Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen Sulfide

Tables 2–5 include a summary of the direct reading measurements for CO and H2S.  Carbon monoxide, a

component of incomplete combustion, possibly from the diesel engines, was monitored for

approximately 6 to 8 hours on the IP and Warrior decks on June 4 and June 5, 2010. Area concentrations

of CO ranged up to 13 ppm, with TWAs all less than 5 ppm, well below OELs. Hydrogen sulfide was not

detected on two long term samples (approximately 6 and 8 hours) collected on the deck of the IP on

June 4 and 5, 2010.  

Health Symptom Surveys and Medical Interviews

Seventeen persons on the two vessels (10 from IP and 7 from Warrior) completed the symptom survey.

Demographically, the workers on the two vessels were similar (Table 6). Reported symptoms, grouped

by type, are presented in Table 7. This table includes symptoms for workers surveyed on the two vessels

and a comparison group of workers recruited at the Venice Field Operations Branch and the Venice

Commanders’ Camp who reported that they had not worked on boats and had no exposures to oil,

dispersant, cleaner, or other chemicals.

Very few workers on either vessel reported upper or lower respiratory, gastrointestinal,

musculoskeletal, or psychological symptoms; or injuries. Some workers on the Warrior reported

constitutional (i.e., headaches and fatigue) and skin symptoms. Those on the IP reported very few
1B‐5

symptoms. On the IP, only 1 person, who used personal protective equipment, was on deck during

dispersant activities; the others were in the enclosed vessel cabin.

The symptoms reported by personnel on the Warrior were similar to those reported by the comparison

group (Table 7).

Summary

Very few symptoms were reported by personnel on the IP, where the dispersant operator was using

personal protective equipment and others on the vessel were in the cabin. Personnel working on the

deck of the Warrior had more constitutional and skin symptoms than those on the IP. Their symptoms

were similar to surveyed response workers not exposed to chemical hazards, but because the sample of

exposed workers was very small it is not possible to make statistical comparisons between the groups. It

also is not appropriate to generalize these findings to workers on other vessels due to the specialized

nature of this mission. Some reported symptoms might have been related to a combination of several

factors, including heat and humidity, sun exposure, and contact with water contaminated with the

oil/dispersant mix. Although PBZ and area air concentrations of the measured contaminants measured

were all well below OELs, NIOSH investigators did observe the potential for dermal contact with the

dispersant while preparing for dispersion and during active dispersion from the vessel.  

Because of the potential for inhalation and dermal contact with the dispersant, NIOSH investigators

recommend the protective steps observed during this evaluation be continued. This includes keeping

non‐essential personnel inside the cabin and using  respiratory protection, eye protection, coveralls, and

nitrile gloves for those on the deck during dispersant application. Personnel conducting fluorometry and

water sampling and preparing for dispersion should continue to wear cloth coveralls, eye protection,

and nitrile gloves along with other needed safety equipment when handling the dispersant. If the

widespread use of aerial or vessel release of dispersant resumes or usage patterns change, NIOSH

investigators recommend that additional monitoring be performed using integrated air sampling

methods in addition to the direct reading measurements. With regard to propylene glycol monitoring,

NIOSH investigators recommend that future monitoring using XAD‐7 media include the collection of two

sorbent tubes in series until further work can be done to identify the cause of breakthrough in these

samples.  

References

ACGIH [2010]. 2010 TLVs® and BEIs®: threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents

and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists.

AIHA [2009]. AIHA 2009 Emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) & workplace environmental

exposure levels (WEEL) handbook. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.

CDHS [2002]. Health Hazard Advisory: Diesel Engine Exhaust. Oakland, CA:

California Department of Health Services, Hazard Evaluation System & Information Service.

[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/hesis/Documents/diesel.pdf] Date accessed: June 2010.
1B‐6

CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Office of the

Federal Register.  

EPA [1999]. Compendium Method TO‐15: Determination Of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) In Air

Collected In Specially‐Prepared Canisters and Analyzed By Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry

(GC/MS), Second Edition. Center for Environmental Research Information,  Office of Research and

Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH

[http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/airtox/to‐15r.pdf]. Date accessed: June 2010.

NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety

and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005‐149. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/]. Date accessed: June

2010.

NIOSH [2010]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati,

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94‐113 (August

1994); 1st Supplement Publication 96‐135, 2nd Supplement Publication 98‐119, 3rd Supplement

Publication 2003‐154. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam].
1B‐7

Table 1. Occupational exposure limits for substances evaluated during the June 4–5, 2010

dispersant mission

Chemical NIOSH REL* OSHA PEL† ACGIH TLV‡ AIHA WEEL§

Acetone 250 ppm

TWA¶

1000 ppm TWA 500 ppm TWA

750 ppm

STEL**

N/A††

Acrolein 0.1 ppm TWA

0.3 ppm STEL

0.1 ppm TWA 0.1 ppm Ceiling N/A

Benzene 0.1 ppm TWA

1 ppm STEL

1 ppm TWA

5 ppm STEL

0.5 ppm Action

Level

0.5 ppm TWA

2.5 ppm STEL

N/A

Benzene‐soluble fraction of total

particulate

N/A N/A 0.5 mg/m3

TWA††

N/A

2‐Butoxyethanol 5 ppm TWA 50 ppm TWA 20 ppm TWA N/A

Carbon monoxide 35 ppm TWA

200 ppm

Ceiling

50 ppm TWA 25 ppm TWA N/A

Dipropylene glycol butyl ether N/A N/A N/A N/A

Dipropylene glycol methyl ether 100 ppm TWA

150 ppm STEL

100 ppm TWA 100 ppm TWA

150 ppm STEL

N/A

Diesel exhaust (as elemental

carbon)‡‡

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Ethanol 1000 ppm TWA

1900 mg/m3

1000 ppm TWA 1000 ppm STEL N/A

Ethyl benzene 100 ppm TWA

(435 mg/m3

)

125 ppm STEL

100 ppm TWA 100 ppm TWA

125 ppm STEL

20 ppm TWA‐

proposed

N/A

Hydrogen sulfide 10 ppm Ceiling 20 ppm Ceiling

50 ppm Peak

1 ppm TWA

5 ppm STEL

N/A

Isopropyl Alcohol 400 ppm TWA

500 ppm STEL

400 ppm TWA 200 ppm TWA

400 ppm STEL

N/A

Limonene N/A N/A N/A 30 ppm

Mercury 0.05 mg/m3

TWA

0.1 mg/m3

Ceiling

0.025 mg/m3

TWA

N/A

Naphthalene 10 ppm TWA

(50 mg/m3

)

15 ppm STEL

10 ppm TWA 10 ppm TWA

15 ppm STEL

N/A

Propylene glycol N/A N/A N/A 10 mg/m3

   
1B‐8

Table 1. Occupational exposure limits for substances evaluated during the June 4–5, 2010

dispersant mission (continued)

Chemical NIOSH REL* OSHA PEL† ACGIH TLV‡ AIHA WEEL§

Total Hydrocarbons 350 mg/m3

TWA

1800 mg/m3

Ceiling

(Petroleum

Distillates)

2000 mg/m3

TWA

(Petroleum

Distillates)

200 mg/m3

TWA

(Kerosene as

total

hydrocarbon

vapor)

N/A

Toluene 100 ppm TWA

150 ppm STEL

200 ppm TWA

300 ppm

Ceiling

500 ppm Peak

20 ppm TWA N/A

Xylene 100 ppm TWA

150 ppm STEL

100 ppm TWA 100 ppm TWA

150 ppm STEL

N/A

*National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended exposure limit (REL) [NIOSH 2005]

†Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) [29 CFR 1910]

‡American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists® (ACGIH) threshold limit value® (TLV) [ACGIH 2010]

§American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Workplace Environmental Exposure Level (WEEL) [AIHA 2009]

¶TWA = time weighted average

**STEL = short term exposure limit

††N/A = not applicable

††This OEL is for asphalt (bitumen) fume as benzene‐soluble aerosol but was considered appropriate because this

sampling was intended to differentiate between petroleum associated particulate and background particulate.

‡‡California Department of Health Services’ Hazard Evaluation System & Information Service (HESIS) guideline for diesel

exhaust particles (measured as elemental carbon [EC]) is 20 μg/m3 for an 8‐hour TWA [CDHS 2002]

   
1B‐9

Table 2. Personal breathing zone and area air concentrations for substances measured on June 4, 2010 on The

International Peace

Activity/Location Substance

Sampling

Information

Sample Concentration*† Time

(min)

Volume

(Liters)

‡

No Dispersant Applied—Personal Breathing Zone Air Samples

Dispersant prep Benzene soluble fraction 27 54.0 <1 mg/m3

Dispersant prep Propylene glycol   27 53.8 0.099 mg/m3§

No Dispersant Applied—Area Air Samples 

Deck Acetone 61 12.2 (0.052 ppm)

Deck Acetone 379 75.9 (0.011 ppm)

Cabin Acetone 330 66.1 0.083 ppm

Deck Benzene 61 12.2 <0.005 ppm

Deck Benzene 379 75.9 <0.0008 ppm

Cabin Benzene 330 66.1 (0.0018 ppm)

Deck Benzene soluble fraction   50 101 <0.6 mg/m3

Deck 2‐Butoxyethanol   50 10.0 (0.0043 ppm)

Deck 2‐Butoxyethanol   379 76.0 0.0030 ppm

Deck Carbon monoxide   343 N/A Range: 0–3 ppm; Avg: 0.1 ppm

Deck Diesel exhaust 351 706 EC: 2.6 μg/m3; OC: (35 μg/m3)

Deck Dipropylene glycol butyl ether   50 10.0 <0.05 mg/m3

Deck Dipropylene glycol butyl ether   379 76.0 (0.0020 mg/m3)

Deck Dipropylene glycol methyl ether   50 10.0 <0.03 mg/m3

Deck Dipropylene glycol methyl ether   379 76.0 <0.004 mg/m3

Deck Ethanol 61 12.2 (3.8 ppm)

Deck Ethanol 379 75.9 (0.50 ppm)

Cabin Ethanol 330 66.1 5.6 ppm

Deck Ethylbenzene   61 12.2 <0.004 ppm

Deck Ethylbenzene   379 75.9 (0.0011 ppm)

Cabin Ethylbenzene   330 66.1 0.0052 ppm

Deck Hydrogen sulfide 343 N/A 0 ppm

Deck Isopropyl alcohol 61 12.2 (0.080 ppm)

Deck Isopropyl alcohol 379 75.9 (0.013 ppm)

Cabin Isopropyl alcohol 330 66.1 0.15 ppm

Deck Limonene 61 12.2 0.016 ppm

Deck Limonene 379 75.9 0.0033 ppm

Cabin Limonene 330 66.1 0.035 ppm

Deck Naphthalene   61 12.2 <0.003 ppm

Deck Naphthalene 379 75.9 <0.0005 ppm

Cabin Naphthalene 330 66.1 (0.0052 ppm)

   
1B‐10

Table 2. Personal breathing zone and area air concentrations for substances measured on June 4, 2010 on The

International Peace (continued)

Activity/Location Substance

Sampling

Information

Sample Concentration*† Time

(min)

Volume

(Liters)

‡

No Dispersant Applied—Area Air Samples (continued) 

Deck Propylene glycol   48 95.7 0.17 mg/m3§

Deck Total Hydrocarbons   61 12.2 3.3 mg/m3

Deck Total Hydrocarbons 379 75.9 0.80 mg/m3

Cabin Total Hydrocarbons 330 66.1 8.5 mg/m3

Deck Toluene 61 12.2 0.026 ppm

Deck Toluene 379 75.9 0.0059 ppm

Cabin Toluene 330 66.1 0.092 ppm

Deck Xylenes 61 12.2 <0.008 ppm

Deck Xylenes 379 75.9 0.0052 ppm

Cabin Xylenes 330 66.1 0.021 ppm

*Concentrations reported as “<” were not detected; the given value is the minimum detectable concentration

†Concentrations in parentheses were between the minimum detectable concentration and the minimum quantifiable concentration

(parentheses are used to point out there is more uncertainty associated with these values than values above the minimum quantifiable

concentration)

‡N/A = not applicable

§Sample had breakthrough (>10% of the mass was on the back section of the sorbent tube; concentrations may be underestimated)

Analytical methods:

Acetone, Benzene, Ethanol, Ethylbenzene, Isopropyl alcohol, Limonene, Naphthalene, Toluene, Xylene: NIOSH Manual of Analytical

Methods (NMAM) 1501 with modifications

Benzene soluble fraction: NMAM 5042

2‐Butoxyethanol: NMAM 1403 with modifications

Carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide: Direct reading, BW Technologies Ltd., Calgary, Canada

Diesel exhaust: NMAM 5040

Dipropylene glycol butyl ether: NMAM 1403 with modifications

Dipropylene glycol methyl ether: NMAM 1403 with modifications

Propylene glycol: NMAM 5523

Total hydrocarbons (as n‐hexane): NMAM 1501 with modifications  

   
1B‐11

Table 3. Personal breathing zone and area air concentrations for substances measured on June 4, 2010 on The

Warrior

Activity/Location Substance

Sampling

Information

Sample Concentration*† Time

(min)

Volume

(Liters)

‡

No Dispersant Applied—Personal Breathing Zone Air Samples

Prep for fluorometry Acetone 87 17.5 (0.053 ppm)

Prep for fluorometry Benzene 87 17.5 <0.004 ppm

Prep for fluorometry Diesel exhaust 105 210 EC: (6.2 μg/m3); OC: (72 μg/m3)

Prep for fluorometry Ethanol 87 17.5 (0.15 ppm)

Prep for fluorometry Ethylbenzene   87 17.5 <0.003 ppm

Prep for fluorometry Isopropyl alcohol 87 17.5 <0.005 ppm

Prep for fluorometry Limonene 87 17.5 <0.002 ppm

Prep for fluorometry Naphthalene   87 17.5 <0.002 ppm

Prep for fluorometry Total hydrocarbons 87 17.5 0.52 mg/m3

Prep for fluorometry Toluene 87 17.5 <0.003 ppm

Prep for fluorometry Xylenes 87 17.5 <0.003 ppm

No Dispersant Applied—Area Air Samples 

Deck Carbon monoxide   355 N/A Range: 0–7 ppm; Avg: 0.53 ppm  

*Concentrations reported as “<” were not detected; the given value is the minimum detectable concentration

†Concentrations in parentheses were between the minimum detectable concentration and the minimum quantifiable concentration

(parentheses are used to point out there is more uncertainty associated with these values than values above the minimum quantifiable

concentration)

‡N/A = not applicable

Analytical methods:

Acetone, Benzene, Ethanol, Ethylbenzene, Isopropyl alcohol, Limonene, Naphthalene, Toluene, Xylene: NMAM 1501 with

modifications

Diesel exhaust: NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM) 5040

Mercury: NMAM 6009

Total hydrocarbons (as n‐hexane): NMAM 1501 with modifications

   
1B‐12

Table 4. Personal breathing zone and area air concentrations for substances measured on June 5, 2010 on The

International Peace  

Activity / Location Substance

Sampling

Information

Sample Concentration*† Time

(min)

Volume

(Liters)

‡

Dispersant Applied by IP and Aircraft—Personal Breathing Zone Air Samples

Boat dispersal Acetone   78 15.7 <0.005 ppm

Boat dispersal Benzene   78 15.7 <0.004 ppm

Boat dispersal Benzene soluble fraction 78 156 <0.4 mg/m3

Boat dispersal Ethanol   78 15.7 (2.0 ppm)

Boat dispersal Ethylbenzene   78 15.7 <0.003 ppm

Boat dispersal Isopropyl alcohol   78 15.7 (0.11 ppm)

Boat dispersal Limonene   78 15.7 0.022 ppm

Boat dispersal Naphthalene   78 15.7 <0.002 ppm

Boat dispersal Propylene glycol   77 151 0.17 mg/m3§

Boat dispersal Toluene   78 15.7 0.074 ppm

Boat dispersal Xylenes   78 15.7 (0.011 ppm)

Boat dispersal Total hydrocarbons 78 15.7 4.0 mg/m3

Dispersant Applied by IP and Aircraft—Area Air Samples 

Deck¶ Acetone 43 8.69 <0.01 ppm

Deck Acetone 498 100 (0.0015 ppm)

Cabin Acetone 533 107 0.10 ppm

Deck¶ Benzene 43 8.69 <0.007 ppm

Deck Benzene 498 100 <0.0006 ppm

Cabin Benzene 533 107 <0.0006 ppm

Deck¶ 2‐Butoxyethanol 43 8.64 (0.0079 ppm)

Deck 2‐Butoxyethanol 498 99.9 0.0023 ppm

Deck Carbon monoxide 510 N/A   Range: 0–13 ppm; Avg: 4.2 ppm

Deck Diesel exhaust 502 994 EC: 4.1 μg/m3; OC: (30 μg/m3)

Deck¶ Dipropylene glycol butyl ether   43 8.64 0.28 mg/m3

Deck Dipropylene glycol butyl ether   498 99.9 0.11 mg/m3§

Deck¶ Dipropylene glycol methyl ether   43 8.64 <0.03 mg/m3

Deck Dipropylene glycol methyl ether   498 99.9 <0.003 mg/m3

Deck¶ Ethanol 43 8.69 (0.12 ppm)

Deck Ethanol 498 100 (0.015 ppm)

Cabin Ethanol 533 107 3.2 ppm

Deck¶ Ethylbenzene   43 8.69 <0.005 ppm

Deck Ethylbenzene   498 100 (0.00048 ppm)

Cabin Ethylbenzene   533 107 0.0050 ppm

Deck Hydrogen sulfide 510 N/A   0 ppm

Deck¶ Isopropyl alcohol 43 8.69 <0.009 ppm

Deck Isopropyl alcohol 498 100 (0.0073 ppm)
1B‐13

Table 4. Personal breathing zone and area air concentrations for substances measured on June 5, 2010 on The

International Peace (continued)

Activity / Location Substance

Sampling

Information

Sample Concentration*† Time

(min)

Volume

(Liters)

††

Dispersant Applied by IP and Aircraft—Area Air Samples (continued) 

Cabin Isopropyl alcohol 533 107 0.21 ppm

Deck¶ Limonene 43 8.69 <0.004 ppm

Deck Limonene 498 100 (0.0012 ppm)

Cabin Limonene 533 107 0.035 ppm

Deck** Mercury 66 13.3 <0.00007 mg/m3

Deck Mercury 474 94.8 <0.00001 mg/m3

Deck¶ Naphthalene   43 8.69 (0.031 ppm)

Deck Naphthalene   498 100 (0.0030 ppm)

Cabin Naphthalene   533 107 (0.0039 ppm)

Deck¶ Propylene glycol   41 80.4 (0.019 mg/m3)§

Deck** Propylene glycol   66 129 <0.007 mg/m3

Deck¶ Total Hydrocarbons 43 8.69 0.52 mg/m3

Deck Total Hydrocarbons 498 100 0.50 mg/m3

Cabin Total Hydrocarbons 533 107 8.8 mg/m3

Deck¶ Toluene 43 8.69 <0.006 ppm

Deck Toluene 498 100 0.0098 ppm

Cabin Toluene 533 107 0.18 ppm

Deck¶ Xylenes 43 8.69 <0.01 ppm

Deck Xylenes 498 100 (0.0022 ppm)

Cabin Xylenes 533 107 0.021 ppm

*Concentrations reported as “<” were not detected; the given value is the minimum detectable concentration

†Concentrations in parentheses were between the minimum detectable concentration and the minimum quantifiable concentration

(parentheses are used to point out there is more uncertainty associated with these values than values above the minimum quantifiable

concentration)

‡N/A = not applicable

§Sample had breakthrough (>10% of the mass was on the back section of the sorbent tube; concentrations may be underestimated)

¶Short term area sample collected on deck during boat dispersal  

**Short term area sample collected on deck during aerial dispersal

Analytical methods:

Acetone, Benzene, Ethanol, Ethylbenzene, Isopropyl alcohol, Limonene, Naphthalene, Toluene, Xylene: NMAM 1501 with

modifications

Benzene soluble fraction: NMAM 5042

2‐Butoxyethanol: NMAM 1403 with modifications

Carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide: Direct reading, BW Technologies Ltd., Calgary, Canada

Diesel exhaust: NMAM 5040

Dipropylene glycol butyl ether: NMAM 1403 with modifications

Dipropylene glycol methyl ether: NMAM 1403 with modifications

Mercury: NMAM 6009

Propylene glycol: NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM) 5523

Total hydrocarbons (as n‐hexane): NMAM 1501 with modifications  
1B‐14

Table 5. Personal breathing zone and area air concentrations for substances measured on June 5, 2010 on The

Warrior  

Activity/Location Substance

Sampling

Information

Sample Concentration*† Time

(min)

Volume

(Liter

††

s)

Dispersant Applied by IP and Aircraft—Personal Breathing Zone Air Samples

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Acetone 219 43.8 (0.029 ppm)

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Benzene 219 43.8 <0.001 ppm

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Benzene soluble fraction 215 430 <0.1 mg/m3

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Ethanol 219 43.8 (0.98 ppm)

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Ethylbenzene   219 43.8 <0.001 ppm

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Isopropyl alcohol 219 43.8 <0.002 ppm

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Limonene 219 43.8 0.0074 ppm

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling

Naphthalene   219 43.8 <0.0009 ppm

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Propylene glycol 218 436 <0.002 mg/m3

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Propylene glycol 216 432 <0.002 mg/m3

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Total Hydrocarbons 219 43.8 1.3 mg/m3

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Toluene 219 43.8 (0.0018 ppm)

Fluorometry and Water

Sampling Xylenes 219 43.8 <0.002 ppm

Dispersant Applied by IP and Aircraft—Area Air Samples 

Deck 2‐Butoxyethanol 256 51.3 0.0040 ppm

Deck Carbon monoxide   343 N/A Range: 0–4 ppm; Avg: 0.24 ppm

   
1B‐15

Table 5. Personal breathing zone and area air concentrations for substances measured on June 5, 2010 on The

Warrior (continued)

Activity/Location Substance

Sampling

Information

Sample Concentration*† Time

(min)

Volume

(Liters)

††

Dispersant Applied by IP and Aircraft—Area Air Samples (continued) 

Deck Diesel exhaust 185 370 EC: 6.2 μg/m3; OC: (27 μg/m3)

Deck Dipropylene glycol butyl ether   256 51.3 <0.01 mg/m3

Deck Dipropylene glycol methyl ether   256 51.3 <0.006 mg/m3

Deck Mercury 255 50.3 <0.00002 mg/m3

*Concentrations reported as “<” were not detected; the given value is the minimum detectable concentration

†Concentrations in parentheses were between the minimum detectable concentration and the minimum quantifiable concentration

(parentheses are used to point out there is more uncertainty associated with these values than values above the minimum quantifiable

concentration)

††N/A = not applicable

Analytical methods:

Acetone, Benzene, Ethanol, Ethylbenzene, Isopropyl alcohol, Limonene, Naphthalene, Toluene, Xylene: NMAM 1501 with

modifications

Benzene soluble fraction: NMAM 5042

2‐Butoxyethanol: NMAM 1403 with modifications

Carbon monoxide: Direct reading, BW Technologies Ltd., Calgary, Canada

Diesel exhaust: NMAM 5040

Dipropylene glycol butyl ether: NMAM 1403 with modifications

Dipropylene glycol methyl ether: NMAM 1403 with modifications

Mercury: NMAM 6009

Propylene glycol: NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM) 5523

Total hydrocarbons (as n‐hexane): NMAM 1501 with modifications

   
1B‐16

Table 6. Health symptom survey—demographics by vessel

International Peace Warrior Unexposed*

Number of participants 10 7 103

Age range 22–56 27–54 18–70

Race†

     White 60% 71% 40%

     Hispanic 10% 14% 29%

     Asian 10% 0% 9%

     Black 30% 14% 19%

     Other 0% 0% 3%

Male 90% 86% 96%

Days worked oil spill 2–27 7–24 0–45

Days worked boat 2–27 2–15 0

*Participants were recruited from the Venice Field Operations Branch and the Venice Commanders’ Camp. Those who reported

that they had not worked on boats and had no exposures to oil, dispersant, cleaner, or other chemicals were included in this

group.

†The total percentage is greater than 100% because some participants reported more than one race.

   
1B‐17

Table 7. Health symptom survey—reported injuries and symptoms by vessel

   International

Peace Warrior Unexposed*

Number of participants 10† 7‡ 103

Injuries 

Scrapes or cuts 0 1 11 (11%)

Burns by fire 0 0 1 (1%)

Chemical burns 0 0 0

Bad Sunburn 0 0 8 (8%)

Constitutional symptoms  

Headaches 0 4 5 (14%)

Feeling faint, dizziness, fatigue or exhaustion, or weakness 0 3 13 (13%)

Eye and upper respiratory symptoms 

Itchy eyes 0 2 5 (5%)

Nose irritation, sinus problems, or sore throat 0 1 16 (16%)

Metallic taste 0 0 0

Lower respiratory symptoms 

Coughing 0 1 8 (8%)

Trouble breathing, short of breath, chest tightness, wheezing 0 0 4 (4%)

Cardiovascular symptoms 

Fast heart beat 0 0 1 (1%)

Chest pressure 0 1 0

Gastrointestinal symptoms 

Nausea or vomiting 1 0 3 (3%)

Stomach cramps or diarrhea 0 0 7 (7%)

Skin symptoms 

Itchy skin, red skin, or rash 0 3 8 (8%)

Musculoskeletal symptoms 

Hand, shoulder, or back pain 0 0 6 (6%)

Psychosocial symptoms 

Feeling worried or stres e

short tempered, or freq e

s d, pressured, depressed or hopeless,

u nt changes in mood 1 2 7 (7%)

Heat stress symptoms §

Any 1 4 21 (20%)

4 or more symptoms 0 1 3 (3%)

*Participants were recruited from the Venice Field Operations Branch and the Venice Commanders’ Camp. Those who reported

that they had not worked on boats and had no exposures to oil, dispersant, cleaner, or other chemicals were included in this

group.  

†The mission of the vessel International Peace was the application of dispersant to surface water. All 10 individuals on board

completed the survey forms before the application. Interviews after application confirmed that there were no changes in

survey responses. Only one person, who used personal protective equipment, was on deck during dispersant activities. All

others were in the cabin.  

‡The mission of the vessel Warrior was to collect water samples for measuring dispersant after aerial application. Only those on

deck during the mission were asked to participate. Crew members of the vessel remained in the cabin during the mission and

did not have potential for exposure. Participants completed the survey forms after their sampling activities.

§Headache, dizziness, feeling faint, fatigue or exhaustion, weakness, fast heart beat, nausea, red skin, or hot and dry skin.