This was an experimental project of Exxon's trial product, Inipol EAP 22,
overseen by Exxon.
Unquestionably EPA gave Exxon permission to use a new product experimentally *
In the end, it wasn't even a good product for its intended purpose -
though it gave the 'appearance' of success.
More of a surfactant than a fertilizer C:N:P = 62:5:1 that's bad *
and the ingredient that supplied the phosphorus put back more carbons *
Was it the dry cleaning solvent* that caused the blood and kidney damage
mentioned in the 7-28-89 Material Safety Data Sheet? *
Were the on-site workers aware of this? *
...not likely, or they would have some awareness of what could be affecting their health
... & they don't seem to
At the time, the men who applied this product had no appropriate protection? * ... considering the long hours of continuous exposure by both breathing the fumes and absorption through the skin with water facilitating, the exposure effect was greater. The gear needed per product MSDS was more than a rain suit & gloves. *
(with a density of .9 inipol EAP 22 was constituted such that it was absorbed directly into the cells.) *
So how could any worker not be overexposed?
Composition of Inipol EAP 22(not easy to find!) * in 7-28-89 was
Typical % by weight of 2-Butoxyethanol is 10-12%
All of these ingredients they state are identified as hazardous chemicals
according to the criteria of the OSHA Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200).
Also stated by the company (Exxon owned inipol EAP 22)
that this material is classified as hazardous under Federal OSHA regulation;
and the components of this product are all on the TSCA inventory list. *
NOTE: a 6.1 toxic level substance (UN Hazard Code for poisons) *
was part of the formula of the inipol EAP 22 chemical that was sprayed:
2-butoxyethanol * is the ingredient that is little known!
Concerns? OSHA Seeks Comments! *
"The human toll alone is not worth it?" Dr. John Middaugh,
Alaska State Dept of Epidemiology *
Were workers supposed to have their health monitored long term? Most Definitely! but this has not been done. Medical records of a worker's blood work/draws have not been given to them. Young non-union workers were unsuspecting of the serious health consequences nor were they aware that long term monitoring was required of VECO - VERCA - Exxon.
But considering now they won't share medical records with employees from those days, nor can they be found anywhere... results must not have been good... "Why proceed?" must be the company philosophy
Was Exxon "running the show?" * To quote an expression:
"People don't do what we expect, they do what we inspect."
Do YOU think there should still be a health study to monitor health of these workers long term? Why or why not? e-mail
"Since there are the serious health consequences for use of inipol EAP 22 with 2-butoxyethanol per its MSDS per gear provided* ... what a frightening situation...when you're young you think you can trust your employer and the money looks good not to mention you never think anything bad is going to happen to you"
To all workers - the world needs to hear YOUR story *
When the full story is told,
you may conclude Inipol EAP 22 is no good
& should be banned from future use *
That Corexit with 2-butoxyethanol is as bad or worse.
That there is no point in risking lives to clean up a spill that only nature will be able to clean up, anyway... even the oil is hazardous to one's health. Did the workers on boats have protective gear for the oil they dealt with?
You will make a difference *
Worker Contact Info *
Partial Table Of Contents
Are any barrels of inipol EAP 22
from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill cleanup days stored here?
Be careful! * PPE Level IV
Please note: any information or ideas within this website is available for you to use for the purpose of helping the "inipol guys" who sprayed chemicals & the gals who washed the gear with solvents... for any who transported the chemicals & for those who unsuspectingly came upon spills of the chemical
However, articles mentioned or reproduced may be copyrighted to their respective Companies or Authors Study began June, 2002 thru November, 2003 It led here
Copyright © 2002 - 2009 Margaret Diann Hursh
except for any previously copyrighted material, if any