Worker Safety and Health: NIOSH Perspectives from the Deepwater Horizon Response

Margaret M. Kitt, MD, MPH

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

To assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women

Occupational Safety and Health

Regulation/Enforcement Department of Labor (DOL) Research/Recommendations Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Deepwater Horizon Disaster

April 20, 2010 drilling rig exploded, caught fire, sank Explosion killed 11 platform workers Well capped on July 15 after releasing about 4.9 million barrels of oil

DWHOilRig

ExplosionandFire

Sinking

PopulationsofConcern

NIOSH Activities
Rostering Technical Guidance and Communication Health Surveillance Toxicity Testing Health Hazard Evaluations (HHEs)

This was a resource intensive effort for NIOSH with 106 staff deployed to the field and close to 250 staff involved in total

Rostering
Lesson Learned from the WTC: need to have to have a prospective roster of response workers For DWH, NIOSH rostered over 55,000 workers Staging areas and training sites Paper-based and web-based BP employees, contractors, federal and state employees, volunteers
RosteringWorkers inLA

Deepwater Horizon Response Worker Rostering

Florida-major-road-map.gif

Paper & Electronic Records

As of 10-1-10 10-

Targeted Workers BP Staff BP Contractors Volunteers Federal State & Local Male Female Asian Hispanic Black All Others

Percentage 81% 19% 2% 9% 38% 52%

Total Collected:

55,512

NIOSH and OSHA Collaboration

Source of Occupational Data

BP/Unified Command incident safety data
A collaborative effort between NIOSH, Unified Command, and the BP safety team NIOSH and HHS involved in development of Safety Incident report forms used in the field by Safety officials Data abstracted into electronic format by BP Used to produce:
Internal daily reports to the UC Periodic reports to stakeholders, including the public (CDC website)

InjuryReporting (NIOSHanalysisofBPdata)

IllnessReporting (NIOSHanalysisofBPdata)

LocationofIllness

Toxicity Testing

Dispersant generation system, animal exposure chamber and computer controls CorexitdrumdeliveredfromNalco

Toxicity Testing
Acute animal testing (mice) conducted on:
Dispersant (Nalco Corexit 9500A) Crude Oil from the source (sample from well head obtained May 23rd) Dispersant/crude oil mixture

Inhalation studies
Measured pulmonary, cardiovascular, and CNS endpoints

Dermal studies
Assessed hypersensitivity and immune-mediated responses

BP Requested Health Hazard Evaluations: Six Work Categories

On Shore Evaluations: Beach clean-Up Wildlife rehabilitation Equipment decontamination and waste stream management Off Shore Evaluations: Source Control In-situ burns Booming, skimming, dispersant operations

HHEstaffat sourcecontrol

A NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation

Worksite epidemiologic / industrial hygiene investigation in response to a request from either 3 employees, an employer, or union Determine whether harmful exposures, processes, or conditions exist OR cause injuries or illnesses Process involves employees at every step No cost to the employer, employees, etc. Addresses all workplace hazards

DWH HHEs Included

Industrial hygiene monitoring Observational assessments of work activities Health symptom surveys Recommendations for each site examined

The Dispersant Vessel: Evaluated Dispersant Use: The InternationalVessel The Dispersant Peace

There was concern that the dispersant was causing many of the health symptoms that people were reporting

Special Dispersant Vessel: on this boat, scientists evaluated the efficacy of the dispersant breaking up the oil

Large containers of dispersant connected to hoses

Hoses connected to a hollow boom through which dispersant is sprayed into the water

Nozzles

50 gallons of Corexit 9500A Dispersantapplied tosurfaceoil

Dispersant Breaking up the Oil on the Surface of the Gulf

Note the PPE* use Of the Dispersant Applicator:

Impermeable suit with hood, gloves, cartridge respirator, goggles, steel-toed boots, life vest

PPE=personalprotectiveequipment

Measurement Results on the Dispersant Vessels

All samples* were at non-detectable or low concentrations well below occupational exposure limits (OELs)

*Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 2-butoxyethanol, benzene, ethanol, ethyl benzene, naphthalene, toluene, CO, H2S, dipropylene glycols, mercury, total hydrocarbons

In-Situ Burns

A pair of shrimping trawlers towed 300 feet of boom trailing and capturing floating oil, until it was about 3 mm thick

The oil would be lit by an igniter

InSituSurfaceOilBurns

Measurement Results at the In-Situ Burn

Samples* were either non-detectable or well below Occupational Exposure Levels Carbon monoxide peak exposure was above NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit ceiling limit; occurred when the gasoline powered engines idling
*VOCs, 2-butoxyethanol, benzene, ethanol, ethyl benzene, naphthalene, toluene, H2S, dipropylene glycols, mercury, total hydrocarbons

InSituSurfaceOilBurns
Recommendations and observations: Use of portable direct-reading CO monitors Decrease engine running time Minimal opportunity for dermal exposures except during maintenance of boom, use of gloves necessary Safety protocols during ignitions were not fully complied with, use of flame-retardant coveralls and leather gloves necessary Continuous wearing of respirators not warranted, escape respirators may be an option Reduce or quit smoking!!

HHE Evaluation at the Source

The Source above the leaking well on the ocean floor, at the time of the NIOSH HHE

DDII: Thereliefwell

DiscovererEnterprise: Vesselcapturing leakingoil

Source Workers on Vessels

Risk of exposure to contaminants from oil: Proximity to the source of the oil Enclosed spaces Flares created possible exposures to combustion by products

However, these were full time oil rig workers, and their exposure to oil was not novel

Measurement Results at the Source

Low concentrations of VOCs were detected on both vessels Samples* were all well below OELs

*VOCs, propylene glycol ethers, sulfides, PAHs, CO, H2S, toluene, naphthalene, limonene, ethyl benzene, 2 -butoxyethanol

NIOSH Recommendations at the Source

No need for routine respirator use, but make respirators immediately available for uncontrolled situations Attend to Heat Stress Management Plan Consider a special emphasis follow-up with regard to Employee Assistance Program service, due to stress reported on DDII

Evaluated Oil Skimming Operations

The skimmer was put in the water by crane, skimmed the surface and transported oil to the barrel tanks on the vessel.

Measurement Results on the Skimmer

Chemical constituent concentrations were all well below OELs Potential for skin contact with oil while placing and removing skimmer from water & during cleaning activities on deck, but adequate PPE used No symptoms were reported by workers

Evaluated Barge Vacuuming of Oil

Lack of fall protection: workers bending at 8 ft ledge Musculoskeletal risk: from continuous bending Noise risk: from vacuum - lack of hearing protection

Shore Workers

Recommendations for Wildlife Cleaners

Follow heat stress management plans Minimize skin and mucus membrane exposures Follow ergonomic recommendations (adjustable tables, stools, kneeling pads) Provide adequate staffing for work tasks using work rotation schedules

Industrial Hygiene Measurement Results for On-Shore Sites

None of the individuals chemical exposures exceeded any OEL and majority were nondetects Workers around pressure washers likely to have exposures above NIOSH noise REL

43

On-Shore Worker Recommendations

Minimize contact with oil through work practices and PPE Follow heat stress management plan, including the role PPE may add to heat stress risk Improve design of tools for beach cleaning Address hearing protection and conservation Maintain routine reporting of illnesses and injuries Pre-placement medical evaluations of workers

Assessing Job Stress Issues among DWH Response Workers

Conducted focus groups (August 2010) Objective:
Understand factors that contribute to job stress during emergency response Make recommendations to improve working conditions

DWH Focus Group Participants

Safety Professionals operating out of Venice, LA Hired as contractors by BP to oversee crews on Vessels of Opportunity Familiar with day-to-day operations

DWH Focus Group Participants

Worked closely with crews on health and safety issues Eyes and ears of the off-shore cleanup crews During focus groups, participants were asked to report their own thoughts and experiences, as well as what they were observing among crews 46 of 48 Safety Professionals participated (96%) Median age 46 years (18-62) 89% male Median of 60 days at the spill (6-120)

Summary of Job Stressors

Heat (intensified by PPE) Availability of food and living arrangements Fatigue Job insecurity Communication issues Under utilized knowledge and skills

Impact on Family Life

Being away from family for long periods Inability to address emergencies or other problems at home Unreliable cell phone and internet service Work schedules made it difficult to contact families during the day Evacuation concerns

Coping with Job Stress

Limited options for entertainment or recreation Distraction Social camaraderie Alcohol & drug use

Recommendations
In addition to providing and encouraging use of EAP* for mental health and stress issues, organize work to help reduce stress at the group level Consult with experts in emergency response on work organization issues Examine food availability commensurate with length and timing of work shifts and physical workloads
*Employee Assistance Programs

Recommendations
Expand communication network to ensure all workers have access to daily information Schedules, weather conditions, and changes in roles or expectations More needs to be understood about how to properly communicate with workers about the transient nature of emergency response Provide response workers with messages about what is being done to provide a healthy and safe temporary living environment, and have hot-lines etc. for workers to report concerns

Recommendations
Establish communication centers where workers have access to landlines and highspeed internet connections Evaluate scheduling requirements and allow for sufficient rest between shifts Conduct pre-placement screening of all response workers, including background checks, and medical evaluations to determine fitness for duty

Recommendations
Ensure response workers receive adequate job training before reporting for duty During training, emphasize the importance of self-care, including nutrition, hydration, and sleep Provide off-hours entertainment and socialization activities, as well as a site for meditation or religious services Establish a safe mechanism for workers to inform management about needed changes in work organization

General Response Observations

Collaborative effort with OSHA, Unified Area Command, USCG, State and Local Health Depts, etc. worked very well All potential workplace exposures important -- heat, noise, ergonomics, stress, diesel/gasoline engine exhaust , CO Not just the obvious ones: --oil, dispersant, cleaning chemicals While quantitative sampling results are important, qualitative observations made by experienced OSH experts vital for a comprehensive assessment for this kind of disaster Transparency and fast turnaround of results was key

Whatcanthisresponseteachusabouthow Companies,FederalAgencies,Stateand Locals,andNGOsworktogetherinadisaster?

Contact information: Margaret M. Kitt ajy8@cdc.gov

The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.