Initial Effects on Humans Dispensing

Inipol EAP22,

an Exxon product -Owned by Exxon with MSDS by Exxon 7-28-89

Exxon Rep was with each crew of "bioremediation workers" - Not so other products?

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 Orange.  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).