Immediate Effects from Inipol EAP22

The first week of August Bioremediation Application Technician Don Moeller (Valdez, AK) logged a textbook case of chemical poisoning from dermal exposure to Inipol. 

 

Moeller noted in his journal, 

(which was subsequently copied and distributed), on 1 August 1989:

 "(spray) packs are leaking and breaking down a lot. 

Seems that the pump or pump gasket is breaking down only." 

A little later that day, he noted: "my rain gear fell apart, so was removed. I worked about two hours around chemical in only a TyVec suit and legs were exposed." He noted a "burning and funny taste left in mouth while using steamer to clean up spilled chemical. Spilled chemical that was cleaned up was placed in Rubber Maid garbage cans that broke apart when trying to move them." 

On 2 August: "more packs have broken down." 

On 3 August: "sprayers that have motors are doing great. Guys are doing well, but two have said their throats are sore." 

On 4 August: "failed UA (urinary analysis) again. Medic is pulling me from beach." Later that day at a meeting: "Exxon's Richard Becker said again the same (thing) that John Messinger told us about the chemical-no hazard to us. Just wear the right gear* (Moeller 1989).

Ten days later on August 14, a beach crew in Seldovia was examined by local doctors when 4 of the 21 workers reported headaches, skin rashes, blisters, and nausea after exposure to an Inipol-treated beach (Spence 8/24/89). Blood work for at least 1 of the 8 workers tested revealed butoxyethanol, an active ingredient in Inipol, in his bloodstream. At a town meeting on the incident, Exxon's doctor downplayed the health risks, stating that butoxyethanol "is in a lot of compounds on the shelves" and sold as cleaning agents (Spence 8/31/89; McDowell 1989). 

However, Seldovia doctor Larry Reynolds warned, "We're within a generation of Agent Oranges.

There are no good studies to see what things do to you on a long-term basis" (Spence 8/31/89; McDowell 1989). 

State inspectors with the Department of Labor stated the Seldovia incident was a violation of right-to-know provisions in the Hazard Communication Standard, which was part of state code (Spence 8/31/89).

Say workers

What went wrong 

  • The 2-butoxyethanol was too strong in the Inipol EAP 22 - 10-12% by weight  (maybe even more - who knows)

  • The young men (men only selected for this job) had too much exposure - long 16-18 hour days; 30-45 days straight

  • No one used it properly;  it was not diluted, but used full strength & then heated - no proper dispensing equipment or instructions; this was a never used before product.  Field tested and lab tested simultaneously

  • Class B personal protective equipment did not protect them from the chemicals they were applying

Just wear the right gear* (Moeller 1989)

 - Maybe it would help if Exxon/VECO provided it?

These were the non-union workers

Is it OK to experiment on young, non union workers who are trusting 

and counting on their employer to do what's right?

They were poisoned - with a known poison

Check out this Photo Story

 

Where is this log now?  During court proceedings, 2002 in LA, Exxon got the court to 'seal it away'  

...although Exxon did not produce the blood work done on Donnie Moeller in those days, per court order.

Maybe Donnie Moeller can reverse this, & get his log back... and also the pictures he had of the threads disintegrating in their 'rain suits' from the Inipol EAP 22.  The court did discover that Inipol EAP 22 was an Exxon-owned product.

Of the 3 plaintiffs, one is now deceased  

 

 

If you took 11,000 people at random who were alive in 1989 and the same age bracket as those of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill cleanup workers (mostly 18-38)

 ...  you would likely find a much higher percentage of them that are now deceased in the EVOS group

July 5, 2003

Back