Clearing the Air: An Analysis of Air Emissions from the ...

Texas Southern UniversityFrom the SelectedWorks of Earthea Nance, PhD (StanfordUniversity, 2004)

2014

Clearing the Air: An Analysis of AirEmissions from the DeepwaterHorizon Oil SpillEarthea Nance, Texas Southern UniversityBeverly Wright

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/nanceea/17/

http://www.tsu.edu

https://works.bepress.com/nanceea/

https://works.bepress.com/nanceea/

https://works.bepress.com/nanceea/17/

An Analysis of Air Emissions from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Bl Protection Agency. (2014). Deep

South Center for Environmental Justice, Dillard University.

Deep South Center for Environmental Justice Dillard University

Page 2 of 33

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary 3

2. Introduction 4

3. H ealth-Based A ir Pollution Standards 9

3.1 National Standards for Criteria Air Pollutants 10

3.2 National Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 11

3.3 Greenhouse Gases 12 4. Methodology 12

5. Background Contaminant L evels in Louisiana 14

5.1 Criteria Air Pollutant Levels 16

5.2 Hazardous Air Pollutant Levels 18

6. C riteria A ir Pollutants Released During the D W H Oil Spill 19

6.1 Data Analysis 20

6.2 Results 23

7. Hazardous A ir Pollutants Released During the D W H Oil Spill 24

7.1 Data Analysis 25

7.2 Results 28

8. F indings 30

8.1 Public Health Impacts 31

8.2 Comparison with Agency Findings 34

9. Delivering the Research Results to Impacted Communities 36

9.1 Translation of Research Results 37

9.2 Design and Delivery of Community Training Materials 39

10. Conclusions and Recommendations 40

11. References 44

12. Appendices

A. Analyzed Criteria Air Pollutant Data (on disk) 46

B. Analyzed Hazardous Air Pollutant Data (on disk) 47

C. Presentation Slides Presented to Impacted Communities 65

D. Education and Training Materials Delivered to Impacted Communities 70

E. Results of the Community Training Evaluations 75


Page 3 of 33

1 Executive Summary All available ambient air quality data gathered during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was reviewed, and a total of 127,188 samples of particulate matter and benzene were evaluated in detail. Ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter were generally higher during the oil spill than during the previous year and exceeded the Clean Air Act 12 ug/m3 standard in all of the Southeast Louisiana parishes studied (Jefferson, LaFourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and Terrebonne). Similarly, ambient concentrations of benzene were generally higher during the oil spill than during the previous year and exceeded the Clean Air Act 10-in-a-million risk guideline in all of the parishes studied. These findings provide a basis for concluding that ambient air quality for particulate matter and benzene did not meet public health standards during the oil spill. These findings contrast with the findings of NOAA, BP, and the CDC, which reported that ambient air concentrations during the spill were similar to outine urban air concentrations and that there were Ambient air concentrations that exceed health-based Clean Air Act standards should be a concern. The research results were translated into a set of community training materials that were delivered to residents in the impacted parishes. Evaluations were consistently positive and

F igure 1. Study area.


Page 4 of 33

2 Introduction

The objective of this project was to enhance community understanding of air pollution impacts from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The target communities were the Southeast Louisiana Parishes of Jefferson, LaFourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and Terrebonne (see Figure 1). An estimated 210 million gallons of crude oil was released during the spill, and 1.84 million gallons of Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A dispersant were used experimentally in the largest chemical application in US history. A total of 411 in-situ oil burns removed 5% of the oil. Overall, 68,000 square miles and 16,000 miles of coastline were impacted by oil, and 8000 large animals were found dead within 6 months. One 400-mile long coast were polluted, and BP ultimately owed approximately $56 billion in fines, costs, and settlements. Oil is still washing ashore today. A brief timeline of the oil spill disaster is presented in Figure 2.

F igure 2. O il Spill T imeline.


Page 5 of 33

Oil spill cleanup workers reported eye, nose and throat irritation; respiratory problems; blood in urine, vomit and rectal bleeding; seizures; nausea and violent vomiting episodes that last for hours; skin irritation, burning and lesions; short-term memory loss and confusion; liver and kidney damage; central nervous system effects and nervous system damage; hypertension; and miscarriages (Juhasz, 2012).

Residents reported bleeding ears, nose bleeds, early start of menstruation among girls, abdominal pain, bloody urine, heart palpitations, hyper-allergic reactions to processed food and common household cleaning or petroleum-based products, hypertension, inability to withstand exposure to sun, kidney damage, liver damage, migraines, multiple chemical sensitivity, neurological damage resulting in memory loss, rapid weight loss, respiratory system damage, nervous system damage, seizures, skin irritation, burning, lesions, sudden inability to move or speak for sustained periods, temporary paralysis, and vomiting episodes (Devine and Devine, 2013).

Medical doctors at UCSF and NRDC health from inhalation or dermal contact with the oil and dispersant chemicals, and indirect threats to seafood safety and mental health. Physicians should be familiar with health effects from oil spills to appropriately advise, diagnose, and treat patients who live and work along the Gulf Coast or wher (Solomon and Janssen, 2010).

Four sources of air pollutants were attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Middlebrook, et al, 2011):

1. Hydrocarbons evaporating from the oil; 2. Smoke from deliberate burning of the oil slick; 3. Combustion products from the flaring of recovered natural gas; and 4. Ship and boat emissions from the recovery and cleanup operations.

Oil-related contaminants include benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOx), formaldehyde, mercury (Hg), and hydrogen fluoride (HF). Dispersant-related contaminants include 2-butoxyethanol, dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, propylene glycol, organic sulfonate, sorbitan, butanedioic acid, petroleum distillates, and others. Combustion and burning-related

nitrous oxides, and carbon monoxide (CO). The health effects of each of these contaminants are summarized in Table 1.

The use of Corexit dispersant was controversial because of its known toxicity, its unknown environmental effects, and because less-toxic alternatives were available. While it was mostly (58%) sprayed from air, 1.9 million gallons were also applied 5,000 feet underwater at the wellhead to emulsify the crude oil into smaller, suspended droplets. Scientists determined that the use of dispersant made the oil 52 times more toxic and increased the bioavailability of toxins to marine life, resulting in contaminated and deformed fish, shrimps, crabs, etc.


Page 6 of 33

Burning the oil was controversial because of the additional air pollution it caused. Over a 9-week period, BP and the US Coast Guard conducted 411 burns ranging from 20 minutes to 12 hours each and from one to 17 burns per day. Overall, 300,000 barrels of oil was burned (5% of the oil spilled); and 1,805 tons (4% of the oil burned) of soot was emitted at higher altitudes than typical ship emissions. The soot contained nearly all black carbon with a larger average particle size than typical (see Figures 3 and 4). Black carbon particles cause human health effects on the ground and warming effects in the atmosphere. Typical soot particles are up to 1 micron in diameter, small enough to lodge deeply in human lungs and cause serious heart and lung impacts. Larger soot particles of up to 2.5 microns are also hazardous. At higher altitudes the soot could potentially remain in the atmosphere longer and travel further distances, causing mostly atmospheric damage; but because the particles were larger and heavier, they could fall to the ground sooner over a larger area, causing mostly human health damage. (Perring, et al, 2011; Middlebrook, et al, 2011 and 2012; Oil Spill Solutions, n.d.).

F igure 3. Controlled burns on June 18, 2010.


Page 7 of 33

Table 1. H ealth E ffects from Exposure to O il Emissions, Dispersants, and Burning.

Contaminant Health E ffects Benzene Causes leukemia and aplastic anemia; vomiting, convulsions,

irregular heartbeat, dizziness; eye, skin, and lung irritation; headaches, tremors, confusion, unconsciousness, and instant death at high levels.

Polycyclic A romatic

Causes lung, skin, and bladder cancer.

Volatile O rganic Compounds (V O Cs)

Contributes to ozone formation, causes headaches & nausea; eye, nose, throat, & skin irritation; drowsiness, dizziness, joint pains, peripheral numbness, and euphoria; liver and kidney damage, and cancer.

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Causes nausea, tearing, headaches, bronchial constriction, fatigue, irritability, memory loss, dizziness, unconsciousness, and instant death at high levels.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrous Oxides (N O x)

Contributes to air born particulates; cause lung disease, respiratory illness, and lung cancer.

M ercury (Hg) A neurotoxin.

Hydrogen F luoride (H F) Causes severe lung damage, lung disease, and instant death at high levels.

Dispersants: 2-butoxyethanol, dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, propylene glycol, organic sulfonate, sorbitan, butanedioic acid, petroleum distillates, and others.

Short-term health impacts include acute respiratory problems, skin rashes/burns, eye irritation, cardiovascular impacts, gastrointestinal impacts, short-term memory loss.

Long-term health impacts include cancer, decreased lung function, liver damage, and kidney damage.

Particulate M atter (PM) Causes premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms.

Polycyclic A romatic

Causes lung, skin, and bladder cancer.

Nitrous Oxides (N O x) Contributes to air born particulates; and cause lung disease, respiratory illness, and lung cancer.

Carbon Monoxide (C O). Reduces the ability of blood to bring oxygen to body cells and tissues.


Page 8 of 33

F igure 4. Microscopic pollution particles. For comparison, a typical human hair is 60 um.

3 H ealth-Based A ir Pollution Standards

3.1 National Standards for C riteria A ir Pollutants

Criteria air pollutants (the main contributors to smog ) are known to cause respiratory irritation and inflammation, wheezing, coughing and throat irritation, breathing problems, asthma attacks, chest tightness, shortness of breath, reduced mental alertness, vision problems, dizziness, long term, respiratory illness, damage to the nervous system, brain, heart, and other organs, unconsciousness, and death. The six criteria pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act are: particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb). The federal Clean Air Act has established health-based standards for each of these pollutants. These standards are summarized in the Table 2.

3.2 National Standards for Hazardous A ir Pollutants (A ir Toxics) Hazardous air pollutants (also known as air toxics ) include volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), chemicals used as pesticides and herbicides, inorganic chemicals, diesel soot, benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), manganese, nickel, lead, and radionuclides. They are known or suspected to cause serious health problems including cancer, nerve damage, respiratory irritation, and reproductive and developmental effects. Air toxics come from a variety of sources including vehicle and industrial emissions; solvents and pesticides; and wood burning. Air toxics are a particular threat to vulnerable populations such as persons with pre-existing diseases,


Page 9 of 33

Table 2. National Ambient A ir Quality Standards (N A A QS).

C riteria Pollutant T ime Primary Standard* L imit

Carbon Monoxide (C O) 8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded

more than once per year. 1-hour 35 ppm

L ead (Pb) 3-month average 0.15 µg/m3 Not to be exceeded.

Nitrogen Dioxide (N O2) 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged

over 3 years

Annual 53 ppb Annual mean

Ozone (O3) 8-hour 0.075 ppm Annual 4th highest daily maximum, averaged over 3 years

Particle Pollution

PM2.5 Annual 12 µg/m3 Annual mean, averaged

over 3 years

24-hour 35 µg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

PM10 24-hour 150 µg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-hour 75 ppb 99th percentile, averaged over 3 years

Source: EPA NAAQS Standards, http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. * Excludes non-by volume, parts per billion (ppb) by volume, and micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3).

the very young, or the very old. Many low income neighborhoods are disproportionally exposed to air toxics because of their proximity to highways and transportation hubs, heavy industry, and area sources such as dry cleaners and auto-body shops. There are no federal standards for ambient concentrations of air toxics. According to the Clean Air Act, states are primarily responsible for ensuring that polluting industries install the right pollution control equipment to reduce emissions at the source. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has established standards for over 200 air toxics. A sample of these standards is presented in Table 3.


Page 10 of 33

Table 3. Louisiana Ambient A ir Standards for Selected Hazardous Pollutants (A ir Toxics).

Hazardous Pollutant C AS Number T ime Ambient

Standard

Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 Annual mean 1.47 µg/m3

7440-38-2 Annual mean 0.02 µg/m3



- 111-44-4 Annual mean 0.30 µg/m3

- 106-99-0 Annual mean 0.92 µg/m3


- - 3268-87-9 Annual mean .003 µg/m3

51207-31-9 Annual mean .003 µg/m3



- 106-93-4 Annual mean 0.45 µg/m3



Formaldehyde 50-00-0 Annual mean 7.69 µg/m3 Source: Louisiana Administrative Code Title 33, Environmental Quality, Part III Air, pages 313-314, March 2014. Available at http://www.doa. louisiana.gov/osr/LAC/lac33.htm.

3.3 G reenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are known or suspected to cause global climate change (i.e., atmospheric heating). Naturally occurring greenhouse gases are CO2, CH4, N2O, H2O, and O3. Human-made greenhouse gases are CO2, CH4, N2O, CHF3, SF6, HFCs, PFCs, and CFCs. Each greenhouse gras contains carbon, which in excess triggers the greenhouse effect. An EPA study confirms that warmer atmospheric temperatures and increased sunny days will negatively impact


Page 11 of 33

human health and well-being in numerous ways, including increased ground-level ozone pollution. Major sources of GHGs are the energy, manufacturing, forestry, and agricultural sectors. There are currently no federal standards for carbon or greenhouse gases.

Air emissions from spilled oil, burning oil, and dispersants likely emitted significant greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These emissions are mostly unmeasured but can be roughly calculated based on the total amount of oil that floated to the surface, the total amount of dispersant sprayed into the air, and the total amount of oil burned. However, because GHGs are currently unregulated no systematic sampling was conducted. Despite their importance, these contaminants are outside the scope of the current study and will not be included in the analysis. It is recommended that GHG emissions be monitored in future disasters so that potential impacts can be determined.

4 M ethodology

This study utilized a very simple methodology: compare air quality during the oil spill to background levels and to health-based standards. The methodology was divided into phase one, air pollutant analysis, and phase two, air toxic analysis. Phase one started with an analysis of existing (or background) air quality using EPA data on six criteria air pollutants, summarized as the Air Quality Index (AQI). Values above 100 on the Air Quality Index indicate unhealthy air. Air Quality Index results for the 6-parish area were depicted in color-coded maps to represent the number of days the 2009 AQI exceeded 100 for each parish. This map served as the baseline map against which air quality during the 2010 oil spill was compared. The maps were designed for ease of interpretation by the impacted communities.

The next step of phase one was to identify the most practical air pollutant to study based on the criteria in Table 4. (The resources available for conducting the study were not sufficient to examine all pollutants). Once the air pollutant was identified, a short-term and long-term analysis of the pollutant was performed. In the short-term analysis, oil spill air data for the selected pollutant were used to prepare a Microsoft Excel worksheet to count the number of days the selected pollutant exceeded healthy Air Quality Index levels for each parish, without counting duplicate readings at the many emergency monitors that were installed. This step was often complicated, depending on the total number of data points, the number of different databases evaluated, the need to reorganize the data files and purge unusable data, and the need to manage variation in the number of monitoring points, detection limits, types of samples, etc. The final results were displayed in a color-coded map that was compared to the baseline map. Long-term analysis of the selected air pollutant involved identifying oil spill air data that were relevant for long-term analysis (i.e., months of consistent sampling), developing a Microsoft Excel worksheet to calculate the overall average concentration, and preparing a graph that


Page 12 of 33

showed the overall average concentration of the selected pollutant compared to long-term Clean Air Act standards, for each parish.

Particulate matter (PM) was selected as the air pollutant for study because it was a significant pollutant emitted from the oil spill: 1,323 tons of soot particles were emitted from controlled burns, and 11,244 tons of secondary aerosol particles were created from evaporating hydrocarbons. A significant amount of PM data were gathered during the oil spill across the 6-parish region. PM is one of only two pollutants that pose the greatest threat to human health in the US the other is ground-level ozone (airnow.com). Also, clear, health-based PM standards and past PM data exist for comparison. Therefore, PM meets all of the selection criteria in Table 4. Comparing oil spill PM levels to Air Quality Index standards for short-term PM required calculations of 24-hour averages for stationary PM data and 24-point moving averages for mobile PM data. This methodology was developed during the course of the analysis in order to make full use of the large amount of data that were available.

Phase two started with a review of existing (or background) air toxic concentrations and cancer risk based on EPA data Assessment (NATA). EPA identifies benzene as the leading air toxic driving cancer risk throughout the United States. Benzene also met all of the criteria in Table 4 and was the most logical and practical air toxic for analysis in this study. The air toxic baseline map was comprised of NATA cancer risk results for benzene in the 6-parish area, presented in a color-coded map of cancer risk per million people. The next step of phase two was to develop Microsoft Excel worksheets to calculate overall average benzene concentrations, convert these to cancer risk levels, then plot the results onto color-coded maps for comparison against the baseline map. In the final step, benzene concentration data from the oil spill were used to prepare a graph that showed average concentration compared to several relevant health-based guidelines, for each parish (see Table 5). Determining which guidelines were relevant was challenging because there is no federal ambient benzene standard and there were many different guidelines covering a wide range of risk.


Page 13 of 33

Table 4. C riteria for Selecting a Specific A ir Pollutant/Air Toxic for Study.

Selection C riter ia

The air pollutant/air toxic must have been a significant contaminant emitted during the oil spill based on:

Previous knowledge about significant contaminants from other oil spills; Data on the amount of contaminants emitted during the BP oil spill; and Identification by EPA as an important contaminant.

A significant amount of usable data on the air pollutant/air toxic must have been gathered during the oil spill across the 6-parish region, based on:

Data for all six parishes; Short-term data; Long-term data; Relatively high number of usable data points.

Clear, health-based standards as well as past data on the air pollutant/air toxic must exist for comparison, including:

EPA Clean Air Act standards and guidelines; Guidelines from other agencies (e.g., ATSDR, Cal-EPA, NIOSH, LA TCEQ, etc.) Background data; and Recommended screening levels.

Table 5. Standards, Guidelines, and Risk L evels for Benzene in Ambient A ir .

Standard, Guideline, or Risk L evel ug/m3 Cancer Risk

World Health Organization Ambient Guideline 0.02 0.15 x 10-6

Clean Air Act Acceptable Cancer Risk Level 0.13 1 x 10-6

EPA Regional Cancer Screening Level 0.312 2 x 10-6

Clean Air Act High Cancer Risk Level 1.3 10 x 10-6

Louisiana State Ambient Standard 12 92 x 10-6

Clean Air Act Unacceptable Risk Level 13 100 x 10-6

EPA 1-year Oil Spill Screening Level 20 154 x 10-6


Page 14 of 33

5 Background Contaminant L evels in Louisiana Figure 5 presents the background Air Quality Index levels for Southeast Louisiana parishes compared to the region and the US. All locations exceeded the AQI limit of 100 for unhealthy air on at least one day in 2009, indicating that background air pollutants were too high. St. Bernard Parish was excessively high, having exceeded an AQI of 100 on 93 days in 2009 (this was driven primarily by high SO2 levels, for which the parish has been declared in non-attainment).

Figure 6 presents monitoring results for just fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for 2009 in St. Bernard Parish, LaFourche Parish, and Jefferson Parish. All readings were far below the NAAQS 24-hour standard of 35 ug/m3.

Figure 7 is a map version of Figure 5. St. Bernard Parish is colored red because of its very high frequency of AQI exceedances (93 days, or 25.5% of the year) in the year prior to the oil spill, mostly due to sulfur dioxide (SO2). As mentioned previously, this level is among the highest in the country and has resulted in St. Bernard becoming a non-attainment zone for SO2.


Page 15 of 33

Short-Term Particulate Matter Concentrations in 2009

F igure 5.

F igure 6.


Page 16 of 33

Plaquemines Parish is colored white because there was no air monitoring station in the parish and thus data on background air quality was not available. The remaining parishes had fairly good (0-4 days) background air quality in terms of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) primary pollutants, represented by the Air Quality Index. Figure 7 also shows the location of permanent monitoring stations for meeting the Clean Air Act standards presented previously in Table 2. Terrebonne, LaFourche, St. Bernard, and Orleans Parishes each had one station located in the main city. Jefferson Parish had two monitoring stations and Plaquemines Parish did not have a monitoring station. Without a monitoring station, it is not possible to determine if background ambient air quality met Clear Air Act standards.

Background air quality in terms of air toxics is presented in Figure 8 as the degree of benzene cancer risk per parish in 2005, the last year National Air Toxic Assessment data was available. The leading air toxics across the 6-parish area were benzene and formaldehyde. The map shows average cancer risk caused by airborne benzene only. Orleans Parish had the highest risk, Orleans (18-in-a-million) and Jefferson (8-in-a-million) were both above the state average of 6.8-in-a-million, and the remaining parishes ranged from 3- to 5-in-a-million. The state ambient standard for benzene (12 ug/m3) corresponds to a cancer risk of 92-in-a-million (see Table 5). Therefore, background benzene levels in all six parishes met the state standard. But according to the EPA (2005) and the City of Houston (2008), only a little bit more benzene (13 ug/m3) corresponds to the end of the Clean Air Act cancer risk range, which is 100-in-a-million (see Table 5). This means that the state standard is two orders of magnitude above the Clean Air Act low risk limit of 1-in-a-million (0.13 ug/m3), and one order of magnitude above the Clean Air Act high risk limit of 10-in-a-million (1.3 ug/m3). The background benzene levels are also approximately one order of magnitude above the Clean Air Act low risk limit.

To summarize, overall background particulate matter (PM) appears to meet Clean Air Act standards for all six parishes. St. Bernard exceeded Clean Air Act standards significantly, but this was for SO2, not particulate matter. To determine public health impacts from PM released during the oil spill, the study criteria will be increased short- and long-term concentrations that clearly exceed the Clean Air Act standards and that violate the standards at much higher frequency than background (at least 5 times more frequently). Slightly higher concentrations and somewhat more frequent exceedances would not be conclusive.

With regard to background benzene, the levels exceeded the Clean Air Act health-protective cancer risk level in all six parishes, with Orleans and Jefferson exceeding by the standard by approximately one order of magnitude and the remaining parishes exceeding the standard by up to half an order of magnitude. All of the existing background levels are unhealthy and present an increased cancer risk. To determine excess public health impacts beyond background due to benzene released during the oil spill, the study criteria will be further increases in cancer risk at much higher levels than background (at least a 1/2 order of magnitude increase, i.e., 5 times more risk). Because neither the state benzene standard nor the EPA screening level are health protective, they cannot be used to assess potential health impacts.


Page 17 of 33

F igure 7.

Sources: Data by EPA (http://www.epa.gov/airdata) and LDEQ (http://www.deq.louisiana.gov),

analysis by Earthea Nance, map by Angel Torres.


Page 18 of 33

Cancer Risk per Parish in 2009 (from Benzene)

Sources: Data by EPA (http://epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/), analysis by Earthea Nance, map by Angel Torres. F igure 8.


Page 19 of 33

6 C riter ia A ir Pollutants Released During the D W H Oil Spill 6.1 Data Analysis

Over one million measurements of ambient air were gathered during the oil spill. Worker exposure measurements gathered by the CDC, OSHA, USCG, and BP, as well as atmospheric measurements gathered by NOAA were available but were not the subject of this study, which was ambient air. EPA and BP established independent ambient air programs that involved air monitoring and air sampling. Monitoring made use of direct-read equipment that was either stationary or mobile (i.e., mounted on a vehicle). Sampling involved taking a volume of air and sending it to a laboratory for analysis. BP and EPA each had stationary and mobile devices, and each took both grab and time-weighted readings. Grab readings were either random grab samples or random readings. While literally millions of samples and readings were taken during and after the spill, tens of thousands of data points were unusable for this study because of crude equipment that could not detect pollutants at levels comparable to health-based standards. This problem was mostly found with the BP data. It must also be stated that all of the data gathered from stationary and mobile emergency monitors because the equipment used did not meet Clean Air Act requirements. Only the permanent monitoring stations (described previously) meet the regulatory criteria for monitoring equipment. For the purposes of this study, valid data gathered during the spill will be compared to Clean Air Act standards and to regulatory data gathered at the permanent monitoring stations in order to assess the possibility of public health impacts.

A wide range of ambient air sampling and monitoring was carried out during the oil spill; however, the data were still limited in terms of what could be used for comparison against Clean Air Act standards. To be comparable, some data had to be continuous or hourly, while other data could be taken on a daily or periodic basis. Figures 9 and 10 show the locations of emergency stationary monitors and sampling sites as well as the routes of mobile monitoring vehicles used during the oil spill. All of the stations and routes in Figure 9 are from the EPA monitoring program; and all of the routes in Figure 10 are from the BP monitoring program. As the figures show, BP took many more samples over a much larger area than EPA, and after review these data were found to be valid. Short-term PM2.5 concentrations during the oil spill were

(N=1,144). Short-term PM10 data (N=19,881). Long-term PM2.5 data (N=869). From what was available, this was the best combination of valid datasets that could be used to assess particulate matter levels during the spill.

6.2 Results

Figure 11 presents the results of the analysis of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) data during the oil spill. Comparing these levels to the background AQI levels in Figure 7 (and ignoring St. Bernard) reveals a sharp increase from a range of 0-4 AQI exceedance days for the year before


Page 20 of 33

EPA Stationary and Mobile Monitoring Sites

F igure 9. Sources: Data by EPA (www.epa.gov/bpspill), analysis by Earthea Nance, map by Angel Torres.


Page 21 of 33

BP Mobile Monitoring Sites

Sources: Data by BP (http://www.bp.com), analysis by Earthea Nance, map by Angel Torres.

F igure 10.

F igure 10.


Page 22 of 33

Figure 11



Page 23 of 33

F igure 12.

Sources: Data by EPA (www.epa.gov/bpspill), analysis by Earthea Nance, map by Angel Torres.


Page 24 of 33

the oil spill to 24-46 AQI exceedance days during the oil spill. This represents increases ranging from 10-45 times higher and indicates an unequivocal escalation of ambient particulate matter that is consistent with the oil spill.

Figure 12 presents the results of the analysis of coarse particulate matter (PM10) data during the oil spill. Comparing these levels to the background AQI levels in Figure 7 (and ignoring St. Bernard) reveals no measurable change. The range varies from 0-4 AQI exceedance days for the year before the oil spill and from 0-2 AQI exceedance days during the oil spill. The available data do not show an increase in coarse particulate matter, at diameters up to 10 microns. This provides a basis for concluding that particles in the finer range of the spectrum contributed more to air quality impacts during the oil spill.

7 Hazardous A ir Pollutants Released During the D W H Oil Spill

7.1 Data Analysis

In assessing benzene, over 7,700 samples gathered by BP were found to be unusable because the instrument detection level was higher than the cancer screening level. Consequently, only benzene data from the EPA was used the study, which consisted of mobile data (N=2,981) and station data (N=1,052). Figure 13 shows the locations of these stationary monitors and mobile monitoring routes. From what was available, these were the best valid datasets that could be used to assess benzene levels during the spill.

7.2 Results

Figures 14 and 15 present the results of the analysis of benzene data during the oil spill. Comparing these levels to the background benzene cancer risk levels in Figure 8 reveals a sharp increase from a range of 3- to 18-in-a-million before the oil spill to 20- to 57-in-a-million during the oil spill. This represents a one order of magnitude increase in risk and a 2-19 times increase in concentration, which indicate an unequivocal escalation of ambient benzene that is consistent with the oil spill. These results provide a basis for concluding that benzene concentrations went from the low end of the cancer risk range (1 10 in a million) to the high end of that range (10-100 in a million), a significant qualitative difference. The EPA one-year benzene screening level of 20 ug/m3 (i.e., 154-in-a-million cancer risk, see Table 5) was established just for the oil spill as a level above which action would be taken. Despite significant increases in benzene during the spill, all of the parishes still met the EPA screening level. Unfortunately, this screening level is not protective of health and cannot be used to assess potential health impacts. Curiously, neither the State nor the EPA offered standards that would protect public health against cancer risk. Without an effective benzene standard or guideline directly applicable to the oil spill, this study used distance from the benzene unit (i.e., 1 x 10-6) low risk level for benzene, which is 0.13 ug/m3, as a health-based reference level for evaluating potential health impacts. Figure 14 also shows the high risk level, the state standard, and the EPA screening level.


Page 25 of 33

EPA Stationary and Mobile Monitoring Sites

F igure 6.



Page 26 of 33

Benzene Levels Compared to Cancer Risk Guidelines

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Conc

entra

tion,

ug/

m3

Year

Jefferson LaFourche Orleans Plaquemines St.Bernard Terrebonne

Source Data: www.epa.gov/NATA F igure 14 .

Low Cancer Risk

State Standard

EPA Screening Level

High Cancer Risk


Page 27 of 33



Page 28 of 33

8 F indings

8.1 Public H ealth Impacts

The analysis found many more days of unhealthy air due to higher levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Clean Air Act standards for PM2.5 represent a threshold above which public health impacts are statistically certain. During the oil spill, PM2.5 standards were exceeded a combined 206 days (56% of the year). Significant increases in fine particulate matter concentrations above C lean A ir Act standards, and the sharp rise in frequency of A Q I exceedances provide convincing evidence that PM2.5 levels were high enough to cause adverse health effects during the oil spill.

The analysis also found more overall cancer risk due to higher levels of benzene in all of the

benzene cancer risk in the 6-parish region (18-in-a-million), during the oil spill Plaquemines had the highest benzene cancer risk (57-in-a-million). According to the Clean Air Act there is no safe level of benzene; all levels of benzene in the air cause health impacts. During the oil spill, benzene levels exceeded 50-in-a-million cancer risk in one parish, 30-in-a-million cancer risk in three parishes, and 20-in-a-million risk in the remaining parish for which data was available.

The study was limited in several ways. First, the analysis made only rough estimates of cancer risk based on the data that were available. There were not enough resources to conduct fate and transport modeling or to analyze human exposures, so the actual risk faced by the population is unknown. Further, the study does not address cumulative risk from contaminated air, water, soil, and fish. The cancer risk estimates presented in this study were only for the benzene fraction of cancer risk due to air pollution. Prior to the oil spill, the benzene risk fraction ranged from 10-28% in the 6 parishes, and during the oil spill the benzene fraction increased dramatically to 40-72%, meaning that more of the air pollution cancer risk was coming from benzene during the spill. The increased benzene fraction, combined with the dramatically increased benzene concentrations and cancer risk levels far exceeding C lean A ir Act guidelines provide convincing evidence that benzene levels were high enough to cause adverse health effects during the oil spill.

These findings are at odds with the published findings of several federal agencies and BP. The next section directly compares the findings of this study with quotes from those agencies.

8.2 Comparison with Agency F indings

Table 6 summarizes the findings of several federal agencies and BP with regard to the public health implications of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The NOAA report compares ambient air

This


Page 29 of 33

Table 6. H ealth Impact F indings f rom Federal Agencies and BP.

Source Quotes

N O A A (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/groups/

csd7/measurements/2010gulf/GulfReport.pdf)

Near the coast of Alabama, oxygenated VOCs were somewhat

concentrations were much less than what has been observed in flights over urban areas. (page 3) On 8 June the background Gulf air south of Louisiana was

relatively clean with all [V O C] species close to thei r seasonal background concentrations. (page 3) On June 8 the

directly over the oil slick were comparable to those observed in US urban air . (page 3) Near the Gulf Coast, aerosol concentrations were similar to

typical PM 2.5 (page 4)

BP (http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/gulf-

of-mexico-restoration/deepwater-horizon-accident-and-response/health-and-safety-in-

the-response-effort.html)

reach the surface, virtually all of the results collected from the air were well below the regulatory and voluntary occupational exposure limits set to protect workers in the oil and gas industry. A small number of higher measurements were found in the near shore and beach areas, believed to have been mostly attr ibutable to unusual, non-recurrent events such as marine

conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident and response. A signature of volatile organic compounds and a possible polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons signature were detected that were transported into the Mississippi area during the beginning of the oil spill. The data also indicated that after 15 May 2010, when the subsurface application of dispersants began, these compounds dropped down in concentration to routine urban air concentrations

C D C (http://emergency.cdc.gov/

gulfoilspill2010/2010gulfoilspill/ health_surveillance.asp)

respiratory symptoms, nausea, and headache in people who had possible oil exposures. Surveillance reveals no trends of public health concern related to the oil spill

EPA (http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/epa.html)

from burning oil. If elevated levels of harmful air pollution were detected, EPA was prepared to take any and all appropriate

l data, including air quality and water samples, are

validated. The data are meant to identify potential r isks to publ Source: epa.gov

approach to describing the public health implications of the oil spill does not differentiate between heavily polluted urban areas like Los Angeles and relatively clean urban areas like


Page 30 of 33

Miami. The comparison does not differentiate between urban areas with specific types of pollution (e.g., long-term PM, short-term PM, Ozone). urban areas that are not already heavily polluted; most clean cities are medium-sized (American Lung Association, 2013). Knowing this, it appears the NOAA report is comparing the oil spill air to the dirtiest cities instead of to health-based standards. The comparison is faulty because the Southeast Louisiana parishes do not represent a major urban area. Except for Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, much of the area is rural. a federal scientific agency.

statement to be true, the comparison must be to heavily polluted urban areas, which is a faulty and imprecise comparison for the same reasons stated above. The BP report compares ambient concentrations to worker exposure limits that are intentionally set much higher than ambient standards involving the general public. This also is a false comparison. Finally, the report attempts to dismiss the high concentrations by explaining them away as the result of one-time

specifying the exact dates and locations of marine vessel fuel leaks. Instead, its report is shockingly imprecise.

finding is based on state reports of emergency room visits, poison control center calls, and urgent care visits. Media accounts and anecdotal evidence at the time revealed residents were reporting illness and health complaints related to the oil spill (New York Times, 2010); however, most of the attention was on the serious health impacts being observed in oil spill workers, many of whom were local residents whose livelihoods had been destroyed by the spill. Moreover, paying for a hospital visit may not have been an option for residents who, for an unknown period of time, were unable to earn their normal income because of the oil spill, had little cash, no health insurance, and no sick time. The resident health complaints detailed on page 5 of this report point to the seriousness of public health impacts during the spill; however, they do not give an indication of the extent of impact. Nevertheless, it is possible that the hospital visits counted by the State of Louisiana and the CDC were not representative of the broader health impacts on residents. Unfortunately, the CDC report did not offer any details about its criteria for concluding that there was no public health concern.

The Journal of the American Medical Association published an article in August of 2010 that identified four main health hazards associated with the oil spill: (1) vapors from oil chemicals and dispersants in the air, (2) skin damage from direct contact with tar balls or contaminated water, (3) potential cancer or other long-term health risks from consumption of contaminated seafood, and (4) mental health problems of depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior due to stress (Solomon and Janssen, 2010). The imprecision of the s statement about no public health concern makes it impossible to discuss which of these four hazards had more impact on Southeast Louisiana residents.


Page 31 of 33

that the agency was gathering and analyzing da

describe its own air data in great detail, specifying the exact dates and locations of peak concentrations and trends. Like the other reports describe above, the EPA report is staggeringly imprecise.

Based on this review, the impacted population in Southeast Louisiana received little or no information from formal sources about the public health implications of the oil spill. The next section describes the community training and outreach program that was the next phase of this project.

Conclusions and Recommendations This study analyzed ambient air data for particulate matter and benzene and found unambiguously elevated and sustained levels that exceeded health-based standards during the oil spill. The pollutant levels were high enough to cause broad public health impacts. These findings were delivered to residents from the impacted parishes during a series of community meetings. Based on the evaluations, the trainings were highly successful. This study concludes with two policy recommendations: improve disaster planning and improve risk communication. Improved disaster planning would involve pre-selecting better monitoring equipment (to prevent the gathering of unusable data) and pre-selecting the appropriate cancer screening level (to avoid use of standards that are not health protective). Better disaster planning also would involve expanding the monitoring program to include exposure monitoring and greenhouse gas monitoring. Better risk communication would entail communicating real-time risk to the public (and to workers) during the disaster, enhancing ackground risk before the disaster, and avoiding the production of imprecise reports about public health impacts.


Page 32 of 33

References Air Now. Air Quality Index (AQI) A Guide to Air Quality and Your Health. Available at

http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi.

American Lung Association, State of the Air 2013. Available at http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/city-rankings/cleanest-cities.html.

Available at http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/gulf-of-mexico-restoration/deepwater-horizon-accident-and-response/health-and-safety-in-the-response-effort.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at http://emergency.cdc.gov/gulfoilspill 2010/2010gulfoilspill/ health_surveillance.asp.

Risk Concentration Levels

Survey Finds Broad Anxiety Among Gulf Residents New York Times, August 2, 2010. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03gulf.html?src=mv&_r=0.

Devine, Shanna and Tom Devine. Deadly Dispersants in the Gulf: Are Public Health and Environmental Tragedies the New Norm for Oil Spill Cleanups? Government Accountability Project, April 19, 2013. Available at http://www.whistleblower.org/ program-areas/public-health/corexit.

Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.

Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, EPA/630/P-03/001F, March 2005.

Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/epa.html.

Environmental Protection Agency, "Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone," 2009.

Environmental Protection Agency, "Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone," 2009.

Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, EPA/630/P-03/001F, March 2005.

Juhasz, Antonia. vestigation: Two Years After the BP Spill, A Hidden Health Crisis Festers The Nation, May 7, 2012. Available at http://www.thenation.com/article/167461/ investigation-two-years-after-bp-spill-hidden-health-crisis-festers.

Kirby, Davis, 25, 2013. Available at http://www.huffingtonpost

.com/2013/04/25/ corexit-bp-oil-dispersant_n_3157080.html.


Page 33 of 33

Krisberg, Kim. , 40(6):1-8, August 2010. Available at http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org/content/40/6/1.1.full.

Louisiana Administrative Code Title 33, Environmental Quality, Part III Air, pages 313-314, March 2014. Available at http://www.doa. louisiana.gov/osr/LAC/lac33.htm.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition, 2011.

Middlebrook AM, Murphy DM, Ahmadov R, Atlas EL, Bahreini R, Blake DR, Brioude J, de

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(50):20280-5.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2011, September 21). Study on emissions from BP/Deepwater Horizon controlled burns completed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 16, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920163314.htm.

http://www.oilspillsolutions.org/controlledburning.htm, accessed on February 21, 2014.

Perring. A. E., J. P. Schwarz, J. R. Spackman, R. Bahreini, J. A. de Gouw, R. S. Gao, J. S. Holloway, D. A. Lack, J. M. Langridge, J. Peischl, A. M. Middlebrook, T. B. Ryerson, C. Warneke, L. A. Watts, D. W. Fahey. Characteristics of Black Carbon Aerosol from a Surface Oil Burn During the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Geophysical Research Letters, 2011; 38 (17) DOI: 10.1029/2011GL048356. Available at

NOAA WP-3D Airborne Chemical Laboratory Flights of 8 and 10 June 2010, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010. Available at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/groups/csd7/measurements/2010gulf/GulfReport.pdf.

Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill Journal of the American Medical Association. August 2010. Available at http://business-humanrights.org/en/usa-journal-of-american-medical-association-publishes-commentary-on-health-effects-of-gulf-oil-spill#c54576

Clearing the Air: An Analysis of Air Emissions from the ...

Documents

Transcript of Clearing the Air: An Analysis of Air Emissions from the ...