[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE BP OIL SPILL: HUMAN EXPOSURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 10, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-132
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-909 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri
GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
JAY INSLEE, Washington TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
JIM MATHESON, Utah STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JAY INSLEE, Washington FRED UPTON, Michigan
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BARON HILL, Indiana JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
DORIS O. MATSUI, California STEVE BUYER, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
PETER WELCH, Vermont SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ELIOT ENGEL, New York
GENE GREEN, Texas
LOIS CAPPS, California
JANE HARMAN, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
JIM MATHESON, Utah
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachussetts, opening statement.............. 1
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 2
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 3
Hon. Charlie Melancon, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana, opening statement.......................... 4
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 5
Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, opening statement................................. 6
Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, opening statement................................ 6
Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, opening statement.................................. 8
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 9
Hon. Mike Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Arkansas, opening statement.................................... 9
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 50
Witnesses
Chris Reddy, Ph.D., Associate Scientist, Department of Marine and
Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution............. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Edward J. Trapido, Sc.D., FACE, Associate Dean for Research,
Professor and Wendell Gauthier Chair of Cancer Epidemiology,
LSU Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, School of Public
Health......................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Gina Solomon, MD, MPH, EPA Science Advisory Board, Senior
Scientist, National Resources Defense Council, Associate
Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California
at San Francisco, Associate Director of the UCSF Pediatric
Environmental Health Specialty Unit............................ 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
THE BP OIL SPILL: HUMAN EXPOSURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:54 p.m., in
Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Markey, Butterfield, Melancon,
Matsui, McNerney, Dingell, Capps, Gonzalez, Ross, Matheson,
Barrow, Waxman (ex officio), Upton, Stearns, Burgess, and
Scalise.
Staff Present: Phil Barnett, Staff Director; Bruce Wolpe,
Senior Advisor; Greg Dotson, Chief Counsel, Energy and
Environment; Jackie Cohen, Counsel; Michal Freedhoff, Counsel;
Melissa Cheatham, Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman,
Special Assistant; Peter Kethcham-Colwill, Special Assistant;
Karen Lightfoot, Communications Director, Senior Policy
Advisor; Elizabeth Letter, Special Assistant; Mitchell Smiley,
Special Assistant; Aaron Cutler, Minority Counsel; Audrea
Spring, Minority Professional Staff; and Garrett Golding,
Minority Legislative Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Good afternoon.
We apologize to all of you who have been waiting. We just
had nine roll calls on the floor of the House of
Representatives. And it did lead to a delay in the Members'
ability to arrive so that we could have this very important
discussion.
It has been 52 days since the BP Deepwater Horizon drilling
rig began spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, creating a
manmade environmental catastrophe of a magnitude never before
encountered in this country. A few weeks ago, I led a
congressional delegation to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. We flew over the disaster and witnessed the streams of
oil that stretch as far as the eye can see and saw the billows
of smoke from the burning oil rising hundreds of feet above the
sea surface. This past weekend, I returned and saw the stain of
BP's oil on the cane in the marshland.
Every day, as this oil encroaches on our wetlands and our
estuaries, we all sense the doom facing the countless species
that live both above and below the surface. Oil has made its
way onto the beaches and marshes of four coastal States.
Dispersants are being used in unprecedented quantities and at
depths never before attempted. Methane and other gases spew
from the gaping wound BP has inflicted on the ocean floor,
mixing with the oil and dispersants to create a toxic stew of
chemicals.
Hundreds of animals, fish, birds, turtles, dolphins and
other species have already been found dead. We have also heard
reports that there may be clouds of subsurface oil that pose an
insidious threat to deepsea coral and other marine life, oil
that will not make its presence known by the clear signs of tar
balls or oiled birds but which could nevertheless harm
generations of aquatic life.
As these enormous toxic clouds drift through the ocean,
naturally occurring bacteria that eat the oil and gas will also
consume the oxygen needed by other marine plants and sea life.
So in addition to slowly being poisoned by the toxic stew,
marine plants and animals are therefore also being faced with
death by asphyxiation. Large portions of the food chain of the
Gulf region may be at risk of annihilation.
The impacts of this calamity do not end in the water or on
the shores. The crude oil and burning operations have left the
air in the regions closest to the incident thick with a mixture
of chemicals that have been tied to acute health problems, such
as headaches, dizziness, nausea and respiratory irritation.
These chemicals have also been linked to the development of
cancer and other chronic diseases.
In addition, there is increasing concern that seafood from
the Gulf is being contaminated with petroleum products and
other chemicals, putting human health in the direct line of
fire and tugging at the Gulf region's already sensitive
economy.
After 6 weeks of failed junk shots and top kills and
endless television images of ineffective skimmers and booms, BP
has finally admitted the truth: There was no viable response
plan because BP did not invest the time or resources and,
therefore, didn't have the tools. Its response plan included
walruses and seals and sensitive biological species in the Gulf
of Mexico, where they do not exist. It listed as its experts
some who were long deceased and phone numbers for offices that
did not exist. It claimed that there would be almost no impacts
associated with a worst-case release of 10 times as much oil as
we now face.
It is clear that we cannot trust BP to assess or address
anything. Today we have before us experts who have been in the
Gulf studying this bill and who can share with us the
ecological and human health impacts that BP's oil will have. I
look forward to hearing this important testimony, but first I
would like to recognize my distinguished colleague, the ranking
member, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is no question, no question at all, that every one of
us is outraged and heartbroken by the disastrous oil spill in
the Gulf that left 11 dead and has spread an unknown quantity
of oil into the sea. It is truly a very tragic event for our
entire Nation.
As I have said many times, it needs to be made crystal
clear to everyone involved that the polluter will pay, and the
American taxpayers should not and will not be on the hook for
the cost of this accident, both economic and environmental.
And as someone who grew up along the shore of Lake
Michigan, I understand firsthand the economic and environmental
importance of protecting our natural resources. As the oil
continues to gush at an untold rate, I am looking forward to
hearing the testimony today to learn more about the impact of
the spill on human and environmental health and what the future
may hold.
While it is imperative that we produce oil and natural gas
domestically to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, we must
do so in a responsible manner to ensure that we do not
compromise the integrity of our natural resources.
Just as Lake Michigan provides the very foundation of our
livelihood and economy in the Midwest, so does the Gulf of
Mexico for the States that surround it.
Our health and the health of future generations depends
upon our ability to wisely manage our ecosystems.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Markey. Great. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, the
chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for recognizing me and for holding this hearing.
We are looking at this issue from so many different
perspectives. Our committee has jurisdiction over energy and
over oil and gas extraction.
But we cannot avert our eyes to what is happening right now
in the Gulf of Mexico. The tragic consequences are on so many
different levels. This oil spill by most estimates has now
surpassed even the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989. To date,
millions of gallons of oil have flowed into the Gulf of Mexico
with no end in sight until the end of August.
It is too early to tell the full extent of the
environmental and human health impact of this spill. That is
why I am glad we are holding this hearing because we need to
understand that: Nothing like this has ever happened before. A
spill of this magnitude under these circumstances is
unprecedented.
We can, however, anticipate some of the likely effects. And
that is why it is so important we are having the hearing. And
we are looking forward to the testimony of the witnesses.
It is too obvious the spill will have serious environmental
consequences. We have seen the devastating pictures of coated
shoreline, oiled wildlife. We are hearing about the possible
plumes of oil under the surface of the ocean, threatening
entire underwater ecosystems.
What we don't know is the long-term environmental impact of
oil as it settles into the ocean floor, into the marsh
ecosystems and as its chemicals move into the ocean food chain.
The health impacts of the spill could also be extremely
serious. We know that crude oil contains many substances known
to be toxic to people, including the chemicals known commonly
as BTEX chemicals. These chemicals can cause short-term acute
health effects, such as headaches, nausea. We have already
heard reports from people that are suffering those
consequences. We know that they also have been shown to cause
cancer and other long-term neurologic and reproductive damage.
We are going to have consequences from this spill for
decades. So it is important now that we start understanding the
problem and preparing for those consequences. And I think that
it is appropriate that we have three experts who can help us
understand the likely impacts of the spill. I look forward to
their testimony. I hope your work will prepare us for the
inevitable impacts of this catastrophe. Thank you.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Melancon, for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE MELANCON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Melancon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for holding this hearing today and for starting
the discussion on what impact this environmental catastrophe is
having and will have on the residents of the Gulf Coast,
including families I represent in the Third District of
Louisiana.
I would like to thank all the witnesses for coming today,
but I would like to give a special thanks to Dr. Trapido, from
New Orleans, for participating today.
Thank you, Doctor.
I remain concerned about the physical and mental health of
the workers, volunteers and the residents of Louisiana's Third
District and, for that matter, of all of the State of
Louisiana.
I believe no one knows for certain the long-term health
effects that face the people of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast.
And I worry about these people every day. We need to protect
them at all costs and ensure that their health remains a top
priority, even after the leak is stopped.
We have learned from Katrina that the end of the immediate
disaster doesn't mean the end of the response. Respiratory
problems linked to formaldehyde in trailers and mental health
issues that still linger in our communities are constant
reminders that the unanticipated impacts of a disaster may last
for years or even decades to come.
In disaster response, the best way forward isn't always in
black and white. So we should be erring on the side of caution
and taking every opportunity to make certain that the health
and safety of the Gulf Coast residents is a priority.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Markey. We thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Matsui.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's
hearing.
I would like to also thank the witnesses for being with us
today.
In the 6 weeks since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion,
an estimated 500 million to 1.1 million barrels of crude oil
has poured into the Gulf of Mexico. Recent reports of the
dozens, including residents in the coastal areas, cleanup
workers and those providing relief aid, who have been
hospitalized with health problems should raise concerns about
the short- and long-term health effects associated with
sustained exposure to the chemicals contained in crude oil
which are known carcinogens to humans.
As we continue our ongoing efforts to stop this spill, hold
those responsible accountable and ensure that the natural
resources along the Gulf Coast are protected and restored, it
will also be important to have a regional and national endeavor
to assess the health impact.
It is still unclear as to how this environmental disaster
will affect the deepsea ecosystem. But it is critical that we
carefully review the previous assessments made by scientists
about past oil spills to prepare our continuing response.
Beyond all of the undersea environmental consequences, the
oil has already begun to seep into the coastal wetlands
besieged by overdevelopment, pollution, and the lingering
damage of Hurricane Katrina.
This catastrophe also underscores the need to look beyond
oil production and consumption and invest in clean energy
alternatives to help save our health as well as our
environment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Markey. We thank the gentlelady.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney.
Mr. McNerney, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the witnesses for coming here today.
An absolute tragedy and disaster. We need to pray for the
people that live in the affected areas and work for their
betterment.
But now that the disaster is unfolding, we need to get some
sort of quantitative idea of the results of the spill. So some
of the questions I am going to be asking are, what is the
habitat damage? How bad is it? How permanent is it? How many
species are lost? What fraction of the species are lost? And
should we expect long-term health consequences for humans that
live in the area? And what are the quantifications of that?
Should we accept settlements from BP, or should we hold off and
try and get an assessment?
Those are the things I think we need to try to understand
here today.
I yield back.
Mr. Markey. We thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the chairman emeritus of the full
committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You are most courteous, and I thank you for holding the
hearing today. Your commitment on this issue is both evident
and commended.
We are now on day 52 of the biggest oil spill in history.
More than 2.19 million feet of containment boom, 2.46 million
feet of solid boom have been deployed to try and contain the
spill.
God alone knows how much oil has actually spilled, and
nobody knows when it is going to stop. We do not know what all
is going to come of this.
We suspect that more than 1.09 million gallons of
dispersant have been deployed, although we do not know the
environmental and health effects of that dispersant and how
they might affect us or the future of the area.
We also know that there have been more than 125 controlled
burns conducted, which have removed more than 3.2 million
gallons of oil from the open water. But we don't know at what
cost to the folks who are working on the cleanup.
We know, Mr. Chairman, that more than 32 percent of the
waters of the Gulf of Mexico have been closed to fishing,
which, in addition to oil and gas drilling, is the lifeblood of
the Gulf region. We don't know how long these waters will be
closed to fishing, but I suspect that it will be longer than
any of us expect or any of us would like.
Frankly, we have to find out what has happened, and we
cannot allow a spill like this to ever again happen. In order
to ensure that, we must get to the bottom of what has happened.
It is equally important, however, that we know the
consequences not only of the spill but what we have done to
control it.
I look forward to hearing some insights on these matters
from our witnesses. The information they can provide will be
important as we look at the long-term effects and costs,
health, environmental and monetary of this tragedy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Markey. We thank the chairman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess.
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, I will waive.
Mr. Markey. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Scalise.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is certainly important that we fully understand the
potential health effects that could result from inhalation or
other contact with oil, oil vapors, or chemicals. While I
appreciate the topic of our hearing today, it is critically
important that we continue to focus on the cause of this
disaster and ways to stop the oil from inundating the
coastlines of the Gulf.
Each week, when I return home to my constituents, I hear
stories of anger and frustration with the lack of effort on the
ground by both BP and this administration to stop the leak and
contain the oil. The efforts are not working.
BP and the administration seem to be dragging their feet,
allowing bureaucratic red tape to impede progress and ignoring
ideas on ways we can fight the Gulf oil.
It took over 3 weeks for the administration to even approve
the sand-berm plan that State engineers submitted as a method
of protecting our valuable marshlands. These kind of delays are
simply unacceptable.
There are many people around my State and the country who
have submitted ideas to BP and the Federal Government with
potential ideas on how to stop the leak and protect our fragile
coastal ecosystems. You have heard ideas ranging from hay to
supertankers to collect the oil and control the ever growing
flow in the Gulf.
Unfortunately, these ideas have seemingly gone into a black
hole and have not been implemented. There is more than enough
oil in the Gulf of Mexico to test all of these ideas being
submitted. And if a plan works, you do more of it. And if it
doesn't work, you toss that one aside.
Frankly, I, along with the people of Louisiana, have had
enough and are sick and tired of the excuses that we continue
to be given by BP and the Obama Administration.
While the President likes to publicly claim that he has
been in charge of the situation from day one, we continue to
see examples of BP being put in charge of decisions on the
ground that they have no business being responsible for.
BP should not be the gatekeeper on the ground when our
local officials are looking to go get boom.
They shouldn't be the ones that determine which beaches are
cleaned up.
The President has got to recognize his role under the law
and start acting.
The claims process for small businesses that are losing
their livelihoods is backlogged, and it has to be improved for
our fishermen and the other industries that support and are
affected by this spill.
BP needs to be focused on finding ways to stop the oil from
coming out of the well, and the President must step up his
efforts to take control of the situation when it comes to
protecting our marshlands from the oil.
Also, we are beginning to hear more reports about arguments
between rig workers over when to remove drilling mud from the
drill pipe during the well-capping process. During a hearing of
this committee on May 12th, I explicitly asked BP and
Transocean whether there was a heated disagreement on board the
rig just before the explosion regarding the process of
displacement and removing mud. Both companies denied knowledge
of these arguments, and yet we continue to hear report after
report that there was a major disagreement about this process
prior to the explosion. We need to get more answers for a lot
of these questions, and hopefully, we will get some today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Markey. Thank you.
I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs.
Capps.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
increasingly important hearing.
Each day it is becoming increasingly evident that BP's oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico is not only an environmental and
economic disaster but a human health crisis as well. Fishermen
working on the cleanup have become ill after working long hours
near waters fouled with oil and dispersant, reporting nausea,
dizziness, headaches and chest pains. These local fishermen and
shrimpers not formally trained in how to work with hazardous
chemicals and must rely on BP for impromptu training and
provision of necessary protective equipment.
However, an internal Department of Labor memo has described
significant deficiencies in BP's handling of worker safety
issues, warning that there has been a general systemic failure
from BP to ensure the safety and health of the responders.
Last month, I wrote to BP with Health Subcommittee Chairman
Pallone urging BP to take the necessary steps it was clearly
not doing to ensure the health and safety of the workers and
volunteers cleaning up their giant mess. Not surprisingly, BP
never responded. But the reports of worker illness and lack of
protective gear persist.
And shockingly, according to a recent report by McClatchy
News Service, BP's own offshore air monitoring plan allows
workers to remain in areas where harmful vapors are up to four
times higher than accepted practice to prevent an explosion.
BP has made clear that they are incapable of making the
protection of the public's health their priority. When it comes
to public and worker health, there is no reason to believe that
BP has the expertise, the resources, or the incentives to
really address the issues involved.
That is why I have written the Obama Administration urging
them to relieve BP of their role in the public health response;
instead leverage the good work that the administration is
already doing in public health protection across agencies in a
coordinated way.
The fishermen and shrimpers working to clean up BP's mess
must be protected now to ensure their health and safety long
into the future.
As a public health nurse who lived through the 1969 spill
in Santa Barbara, I know the damage wrought by an oil spill can
continue to haunt the public's health long into the future.
While I hope we hear more today about the acute health problems
associated with exposure to oil and dispersants and the
detergents used to clean it up, I hope we can also discuss some
the long-term effects, health effects that can come from this
exposure. We must move the public health consequences from BP's
disaster out of the shadows and into the forefront of our
conversations.
BP's oil spill has already caused enough economic and
environmental damage to the Gulf Coast. We must now do all that
we can to protect human health from any potential long-term
effects.
I yield back.
Mr. Markey. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Stearns.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Ranking
Member Upton for calling, as many pointed out, a very crucial
and important hearing on the environmental impact of the oil
spill and the methods chosen by the administration to address
it.
I think it goes without saying that the Deepwater Horizon
discharge of oil is unprecedented in American history, and it
has resulted, obviously, in devastating damage to the economic,
environmental and social interests of every community in the
Gulf Coast and the Nation as a whole. And we don't know the
impact across this country yet.
My home State of Florida has the most densely populated
coastline in the United States. This spill threatens the
beaches on which people live and on which our hospitality and
tourism depends and on which are commercial and recreation
boating, fishing and diving industries also depend. Florida is
home to 84 percent of the Nation's coral reef ecosystems that
contribute over 7 billion in direct economic activity and
71,000 jobs to Florida's economy annually.
We must use all available resources and the brightest minds
in this country to stop this spill and determine the impact it
will have on the environment and the people who work and reside
near the Gulf of Mexico.
So I, again, urge my colleagues to listen carefully to our
witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony.
Mr. Markey. We thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Chairman Markey, for holding today's
hearing to examine the health and environmental effects of this
spill.
I first want to express my frustration, my disappointment
that we are on day 52 of this environmental disaster and BP has
still not developed a clear path forward to stop the leak or to
clean up the oil that has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico
for almost 2 months now. That is why I believe this
administration and our government must do more to hold BP
accountable.
This preventible accident is a wake-up call for the oil and
gas companies and the government agencies that regulate them.
We must take this opportunity to not only examine our safety
standards in deepwater drilling but to also examine how this
spill is affecting our wildlife, ecosystems and the health of
all those individuals affected by the spill, as well as its
cleanup.
And we can never, never forget those who died in the
explosion, nor the families they leave behind.
I also want to thank the experts who have come before this
subcommittee today to testify about the health effects this
disaster is causing, and I look forward to discussing ways that
we can mitigate these harmful effects.
After weeks of oil still pouring into the Gulf, it is clear
that the procedures were not in place or did not work
effectively to prevent this disaster. And it is clear BP was
not prepared to respond to such an event.
Additionally, I am hopeful we can find the best possible
solutions to guarantee that the health and environmental
effects caused by the spill are properly addressed. Our natural
resources, including our beaches, wetlands and wildlife, are
what set the States affected by this spill apart from the rest
of the country. I am hopeful that this tragic event and this
hearing can be a learning experience to ensure that these
important habitats and wildlife are preserved, restored, and
protected for generations to come.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Markey. We thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Barrow.
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will waive an opening.
Mr. Markey. The chair does not see any other members
seeking recognition to make an opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF CHRIS REDDY, PH.D., ASSOCIATE SCIENTIST,
DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND GEOCHEMISTRY, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC
INSTITUTION; EDWARD J. TRAPIDO, SC.D., FACE, ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR
RESEARCH, PROFESSOR AND WENDELL GAUTHIER CHAIR OF CANCER
EPIDEMIOLOGY, LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, NEW ORLEANS, SCHOOL
OF PUBLIC HEALTH; AND GINA SOLOMON, MD, MPH, EPA SCIENCE
ADVISORY BOARD, SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL, ASSOCIATE CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN FRANCISCO, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
OF THE UCSF PEDIATRIC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALTY UNIT
Mr. Markey. We will turn to our very distinguished panel.
Our first witness, Chris Reddy, is a marine chemist, and he
is director of the Coastal Ocean Institute at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Reddy studies the impact of oil
spills and other contaminants on marine ecosystems, with a
focus on how contaminants disperse and decay over time.
We welcome you, Dr. Reddy.
Whenever you are ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS REDDY, Ph.D.
Mr. Reddy. Good afternoon, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member
Upton and other members of the subcommittee.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about the
British Petroleum spill. As you had said, I study oil spills. I
am particularly interested in how nature responds to these
uninvited guests. And I am currently or have studied oil spills
that occurred in 1969, 1974, 1996, several in 2007, natural oil
seeps off the coast of Santa Barbara and now currently the
British Petroleum spill. And next week, I will be leaving for a
12-day cruise funded by the National Science Foundation to
investigate any oil that exists on the subsurface.
Today I am going to speak briefly about dispersants and
what has occurred in this spill in the last 52 days. When
responders act on an oil spill, their ultimate goal is to
reduce damages. And there are many ways that they have in their
toolbox, anywhere from mechanically removing the oil to in situ
burning or using dispersants. Dispersants are one of these
toolboxes. They are often used after, when mechanical
opportunities are not available, dispersants can be used when
the weather is not as favorable than when there is mechanical
activities--mechanical approaches are not available.
Simply, dispersants are used to break up large pieces of
oil into smaller droplets. The theory is that these large
amounts of oil can affect the coastal areas and also wildlife
that would be impacted with the surface. Breaking up produces
small droplets of oil that get pushed below the sea surface,
just a little bit below the sea surface. So it is not a removal
of the oil per se, but more of a removing from one compartment
to the other. From sitting on the surface of the oil, this is
traditionally to putting small droplets below the surface. And
ideally, those small droplets can get diluted and then broken
down naturally under a term collectively we call weathering.
Dispersants can carry their own risks, and there are
significant tradeoffs in using them. If they are not used
properly or effectively, then we are actually adding more
chemicals to a problem that already exists in terms of an oil
spill.
In actuality, if they do work effectively, they also carry
their own risks because we are adding chemicals below the sea
surface--in this case, traditionally, when we add them right on
top of the sea surface, we are exposing organisms to oil that
live beneath the surface. So there is a large tradeoff.
We have to consider, when they use these dispersants, do
they want to reduce the damages that may happen because oil is
sitting on the surface? Or do we want to--when we traditionally
use them, or do we want to potentially expose with these small
little droplets that you make anything that is living right
below the sea surface?
They have been used in the Gulf of Mexico multiple times.
They have been considered a success. Right now there are two
dispersants being used, Corexit 9500 and 9527. As of yesterday,
there have been about a million gallons used. About 800,000
have been sprayed from the surface. About 330,000 have been
injected at the wellhead.
While the amount of oil still continues to be difficult to
constrain, we are looking at about 2 percent--I have picked 50
million gallons that have spilled. If that is the case, then 2
percent of the dispersants have been added to the total amount
of oil that has spilled.
When you consider that the United States has not had an oil
spill greater than 1 million gallons in the last 20 years, then
the release of 1 million gallons of dispersants makes this an
unprecedented response to an oil spill. So we have an
unprecedented oil spill, and we also have an unprecedented use
of dispersants.
To communicate a little bit more about dispersants, I would
like to comment on the executive summary of a recent report
that was released, entitled ``Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Use
Meeting Report.'' This was held a couple of weeks ago at
Louisiana State University. There were approximately 50
scientists from academia, the Federal Government, industry,
other countries as well. And collectively, they made a series
of conclusions.
I think the most important one to read today is their
statement here, which is, ``It is the consensus of this group
that up to this point, use of dispersants and the effects of
dispersing oil into the water column has generally been less
environmentally harmful than allowing the oil to migrate on the
surface into the sensitive wetlands and near shore coastal
habitats.''
After reviewing this report and other studies on
dispersants, I tend to agree with this finding. I am
considerably more comfortable about using dispersants on the
surface of the ocean, where we have added about 700,000
gallons.
I am going to reserve my judgment about the success and
efficacy and potential damages of the 300,000 gallons that have
been injected at the wellhead at the subsurface. This has never
been done before, and I am waiting to see data that exists,
water samples that would have been collected before and after
the usage of these dispersants, before we can fully appreciate
whether or not dispersants used on the subsurface have been
effective or actually caused negative damages.
It is noteworthy that there was a review about dispersant
usage--or a book on dispersants by the National Research
Council in 2005, and there was no discussion about deepwater
usage of dispersants.
In summary, the response and release of dispersants, though
I suppose unprecedented, experts have recently concluded that
the usage of them has been worthwhile. And my most important
end point is that it is important that we continue to study
this oil spill right now. This oil spill is a crime scene. We
need to collect as much data as possible. Not only to be able
to understand the impacts of this oil spill right now, but also
use it as a scientific tool to study future spills. I thank you
for allowing me to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reddy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.004
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Doctor, very much.
Our next witness is Edward Trapido. He is associate dean
for research and Wendell Gauthier Chair for Cancer Epidemiology
at the Louisiana State University School of Public Health. He
is responsible for coordinating the entire research effort of
the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center related
to the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill.
Dr. Trapido's research focuses on cancer incidence and
prevention in humans.
We welcome you, Doctor. Whenever you are ready, please
begin.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. TRAPIDO, SC.D., FACE
Mr. Trapido. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member
Upton, and distinguished Congressmen and women.
Let me begin by saying that I am a cancer epidemiologist
working in public health, by training and by experience. I am
also a resident of Orleans Parish, and I live three blocks away
from the Mississippi River. So this has direct bearing on my
life as well as the lives of countless other people in
Louisiana and in the other Gulf Coast States for the moment.
Prior studies of the effects of oil spills have been cross-
sectional in nature. What I mean by that is they, at one point
in time, classified people as to their disease and as to their
exposures. There haven't been follow-up studies. There haven't
been what we call cohort studies which have followed people who
have been exposed to the oil spill over a period of years.
You might say, well, why is that important? As a cancer
epidemiologist, I can tell you that cancer is a disease of long
latency, meaning it takes up to 20 or 30 years for cancers to
be clinically detectible after exposures have occurred. It
doesn't always take this long. Sometimes it is quicker. If
people already have some pre-existing condition that they may
have inherited or are smokers or have been exposed
occupationally before, then this might be the key that drives
them to a much quicker diagnosis.
Looking at this as a potential public health crisis, there
are reasons to be concerned. The oil contains benzene,
benzopyrene, arsenic compounds, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. And all of these are classified as Class I
carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer,
which is part of the United Nations.
In addition to that, these chemicals can enter the food
chain, and we don't know the long-term consequences of that in
terms of cancer because, as I say, long-term studies have not
been done.
It also clearly increases stress, and you have to realize
that we have got parishes in southeast Louisiana that, in the
last 5 years, have already had three hurricanes, and now they
are having to be exposed to this and are losing their
livelihoods. So the amount of stress is incredible, and the
likelihood that will result in the some short- and long-term
effect is unquestionable.
There are genotoxic and endocrine effects associated with
these chemicals. And we know from the literature that these
chemicals can result in acute myeloid leukemia, multiple
myeloma, lung cancer, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
So it is not just the population--it is not just the people
who have been on the oil rigs. It is not just the first
responders. It is not just the health workers and the people
involved in cleanup. It is the communities.
It is the communities that are around the parishes and so
what we have--and within the communities, we have got pregnant
women. We have got young children. There are some very
vulnerable groups, especially vulnerable groups, that have to
be studied and have to be followed for years.
We need to have unexposed people, and there certainly are.
I don't want to say there will be cancer in 20 years. That is
why we need to study this. We suspect, we have reasons to be
concerned. But we don't know for sure that there will be excess
cancers, but there is enough to make us feel that it is worth
studying.
What we need is fast access. We have all said in one way or
another, this is day 52, and yet we haven't been able to go in,
interview people, get biological samples, get specimens from
the oil, from the dispersants, from the water, from the air.
And time is of great importance in terms of measuring exposure.
We need to get in. We need to be able to collect this
information and to begin to follow up people. We have, for
cancer at least, a robust way of capturing all cancers that
occur in the United States and in Louisiana. It is because
there is a tumor registry funded by the National Cancer
Institute. In other States, it is either CDC or NCI that fund
these.
However, we don't have a robust surveillance system for
other conditions that may result over the course of time from
the oil spill, and we desperately need to have that in place.
And then let me just add one more point. We are now in
hurricane season. We think we know where the oil spill will go
in the absence of a hurricane. We know the Gulf Coast always
ends up getting a tropical storm or hurricane, some of them
severe. So everything I have said remains the same, except we
really don't know yet what the target population will be.
We need buy-in from the community. We need to have
confidentiality issues addressed because people may be afraid
to talk, that it will interfere with their careers, that it
will interfere with their ability to get economic benefits or
health benefits or their legal rights. And we need to not pull
these resources from helping the communities and from other
important research.
So, just by way of summary, I want to say that there is a
potential public health crisis awaiting us. We see the acute
effects. We need to be measuring the long-term effects. Now is
the time to get in and have access. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trapido follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.008
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Doctor, very much.
Our final witness is Dr. Gina Solomon, who is a senior
scientist in the health and environmental program of the
National Resources Defense Council and is a specialist in adult
internal medicine, preventive medicine and occupational and
environmental medicine. She also serves as an associate
clinical professor of medicine at the University of California
at San Francisco, where she is the director of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine Residency Program and associate director
of Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit.
We welcome you, Dr. Solomon.
STATEMENT OF GINA SOLOMON, MD, MPH
Dr. Solomon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee. I am very happy to be here to talk about this
very important topic today.
And I am very happy to see that this subcommittee is
recognizing that the BP Gulf oil disaster is not just a problem
for wildlife and ecosystems but also very much a problem for
human health. I have been down in the Gulf Coast over the past
few weeks talking with fishermen, workers, community residents,
all along the coast of Louisiana.
And I have been reviewing available data from BP, EPA and
other agencies, and I am quite concerned about both immediate
short-term and also longer-term health issues in this area.
The three main health concerns that I have identified are
air quality, direct skin contact and toxicity from the oil, and
the concerns about seafood contamination.
On the air quality issue, according to the National Academy
of Sciences, an estimated 40 to 70 percent of the oil that
bubbles to the surface evaporates, and the evaporated oil
creates a vapor that blows with the wind. Depending on the
temperature and wind direction, it can blow into areas where
people are working or onto the coastline and affect local
residents. The vapor phase contains volatile organic compounds,
chemicals such as benzene and toluene, which are of significant
health concerns. Benzene is known to cause cancer in humans.
Toluene is a neurotoxic chemical.
It also contains semi-volatile organic compounds, such as
naphthalene, which is classified by the National Toxicology
Program as reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans. It
also contains a hydrogen sulfite gas, which comes off of the
oil, which is neurotoxic and also a powerful respiratory
irritant.
And other issues are happening as part of the cleanup. Oil
is being burned off, which creates particulate matter, which is
both toxic to the cardiac and respiratory systems and
contributes to premature death. And dispersant chemicals, as we
all know, are being applied in unprecedented amounts. And these
chemicals are insufficiently studied but have been linked to
nose and eye irritation and headaches and vomiting.
The greatest risks are to the workers that are out there,
closest to the oil and the dispersants. These workers have not
been provided with respirators, and that is a significant
health concern to many people.
BP has released finally some air-monitoring data. The air-
monitoring data, in my opinion, are of insufficient but also
somewhat disconcerting because there are elevated levels as
documented by BP of both benzene and 2-butoxyethanol, which is
one of the dispersant chemicals, over the level that the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health considers
to be safe. The NIOSH level is set for an 8-hour work day. Of
course, as we all know, these guys who are doing the clean up
out there are really 24 hours a day.
In addition, EPA has actually been doing an admirable job
of monitoring air quality along the shoreline. That has
actually helped to reassure myself and some of the community
residents that the air quality is actually not as bad as feared
in many of the shoreline areas. But there are still some
disconcerting increases, short-term elevations in air quality
concentrations that could certainly explain many of the odor
complaints and even many of the health complaints that we are
hearing from community residents.
The other thing I am concerned about is skin contact
because we have photographs of workers doing clean up on the
beaches without gloves or adequate protective suits. We have
photographs of children swimming in oil contaminated areas and
people touching tar balls with their bare hands. These
chemicals can cause dermatitis, folliculitis and have been
linked to skin cancer over the long term. So there needs to be
more public awareness and outreach about those issues.
On the seafood safety issue, just briefly, nearly 20
percent of the Gulf is now already closed to fishing. Plumes
are still spreading. And there is a near-term need for a
clearer process for making sure that the nutritious fish,
shellfish and shrimp are available in the U.S., but that that
food supply is protected. And there needs to be a clearly laid
out process for the public about who is in charge there and to
make sure that oil-tainted seafood doesn't get onto the market.
But in the longer term, there are going to be issues about
setting criteria for reopening areas or new closures. Those
need to be clearly set, and the metals and some of the PAHs in
the oil have not even begun to bioaccumulate yet. They will
become a much bigger problem in the future.
I want to thank you very much for allowing me to speak here
today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Solomon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.019
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Dr. Solomon, very much.
The chair will recognize himself for a round of questions.
Dr. Trapido, you said that you are being denied access to
the water, to the samples, which you need in order to make the
early evaluations. Could you talk a little bit about that? And
who is denying you access?
Mr. Trapido. I don't mean to say that I have personally
been denied access. I mean that we need to be able to go in a
systematic way of getting logs of people, names of people who
have been on the vessels, speak to the people on the vessels,
speak to the cleanup workers, the first responders.
Mr. Markey. So when you say ``we,'' you mean no one is
being denied access?
Mr. Trapido. That is right.
Mr. Markey. And who is making that decision that there is
no access to these people who have been exposed to these
chemicals? Who is making that decision?
Mr. Trapido. I am not sure, to be honest. I just know that
when we have made attempts to get lists of individuals, get
rosters, we have been told that they are not available at this
point.
Mr. Markey. Will you work with our committee?
Mr. Trapido. Absolutely.
Mr. Markey. Tell us what you need, and then we will ensure
that you get access to the information you need because you do
believe it is critical as to what is going to occur inevitably,
in your opinion, in the long term.
Thank you for that.
Dr. Solomon, do you believe there is a problem with regard
to access to the information which you need in order to be able
to make these early samplings to be able to identify long-term
health risks?
Dr. Solomon. I do believe there is a serious problem, and
the problem extends to data on monitoring. We have been pushing
for 2 months now for BP to release data on air monitoring. We
finally got a little bit this week, but it is by no means
sufficient.
We have been pushing for more data on what is actually in
the oil itself that is coming up. What is the fraction of
benzene? And obviously, the dispersants have been a huge
problem with the products that were being used were not being
publicly disclosed.
Mr. Markey. If you will work with the committee to identify
the information you need, we will make sure that we use the
power of this committee to ensure that you and others like you
gain access to that information at this critical, still
relatively early, point in the process, given the long-term
health concerns.
It is BP's spill. But it is America's ocean. And it is the
American people who are going to be exposed to the
consequences, especially the people who live in Louisiana and
in the Gulf.
Dr. Reddy, 2 days ago NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco
confirmed that plumes of oil have been found as far as 3,300
feet below the surface, stating we have always known that there
is oil under the surface. Yet, just a few weeks ago BP's CEO,
Tony Hayward, stated that all the oil is on the surface; there
aren't any plumes. And yesterday BP's COO, Doug Suttles, denied
it again. Do you agree that oil, gas and dispersants could be
suspended in plumes or clouds thousands of feet below the
surface of the ocean?
Mr. Reddy. Yes, Mr. Chairperson. I have seen that
analytical data from the samples that were collected as part of
Dr. Lubchenco's press release. And it appears to be quite
sound, and it was done in the highest quality. So I believe
that there is subsurface oil in the region.
Mr. Markey. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Solomon, it is my
understanding that naturally occurring bacteria eat some oil
and gas, and as they do that, they also use up oxygen that is
needed for plants and animals. When this happens deep in the
ocean, there is no way to quickly replace the oxygen that is
used.
Dr. Reddy, is it possible that this process could reduce
the oxygen to levels that cause marine plants and animals to
die in certain areas?
Mr. Reddy. There is no doubt that microbes are eating the
oil. In fact, some of my colleagues who are finding oil in
subsurface are doing it by looking for minima amounts of
oxygen. So they are actually not finding the oil when they are
trying to sample it. They are using, the best way is to see
where there is the least amount of oxygen.
Whether or not the microbes will be able to have the
capacity to eat all the oil to a point where there is no oxygen
is not known. But clearly, any oxygen below what should be
there is less than ideal. And you are correct; it will be
difficult for oxygen to get replaced from water at depths of
3,300 feet.
Mr. Markey. And, Dr. Solomon and Dr. Reddy, is it also
possible that the oil, the gas and dispersants contained in
these plumes could poison the marine plants and animals that
are exposed to them?
Dr. Solomon.
Dr. Solomon. Yes, it is, in my opinion, highly likely that
any living thing that is exposed to high enough concentrations,
obviously if it is oil and dispersant mixtures, are very likely
to be poisoned.
The other question that is also important is that many of
these creatures will be damaged but may not die and, over time,
may accumulate chemicals in their bodies. And in particular,
the heavy metals in the PAHs are chemicals that may not kill
the fish and other marine organisms outright but will have
long-term health effects on the health of the marine ecosystem
and also on anyone who consumes seafood.
Mr. Markey. Let me ask, finally, to the two of you, so I
would ask both Dr. Solomon and Dr. Reddy this. We are only just
starting to characterize these plumes. We don't know how many
there are or how far or how deep they extend in the ocean. Is
it possible that entire generations of species needed to
sustain the food chain in the Gulf of Mexico could be
annihilated by this spill in some locations?
Dr. Reddy.
Mr. Reddy. I would reserve making any types of long-term
comments until I see more data. There is a significant effort
out in the ocean right now collecting samples to characterize
this region, and I hope to do so next week.
I think when we have a greater grasp on the distribution of
oil out there, then we can start to get a feeling. It is most
important for us to grasp that it is the dose makes the poison
and that the presence of oil alone--although never is ever
good--has to be put into play before we kind of get an idea or
a snapshot of the long-term impacts. But certainly the presence
below the sea surface is less than ideal.
Mr. Markey. Dr. Solomon.
Dr. Solomon. This is not as close to my area of expertise,
because I am not an expert on the marine ecosystem.
But on the toxicology front, these chemicals are present,
obviously, unfortunately, in quite high concentrations and are
widespread in the Gulf, and there are many endangered species
in the Gulf of Mexico that are at high risk. And many of them
are ones that my understanding is they don't travel that far,
so they may not be able to get away. So we will likely be
seeing major impacts on the ecosystem and also on fisheries for
a very, very long time to come, I am afraid.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Dr. Solomon.
My time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Upton.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Reddy, walk us through what your analysis is on what
should have happened with the use of the dispersant Corexit?
Should that have been approved, or should the letter have come
back and told BP not to go ahead with it?
Mr. Reddy. Well, they have to get permission from the
Federal on-scene coordinator in order for them to move forward
I believe.
Mr. Upton. It was on the list of 12 originally, right, was
it not? I think they had 12 substances, and that was one.
Mr. Reddy. There were two that were used. In fact,
yesterday they disclosed the full formulations of both of them,
which will be quite useful for us to understand and measure and
look for these dispersants.
If you don't know what you are looking for, it is very hard
to measure it.
The decisions to use dispersants is very difficult, and
there--this is a total--there is no win-win here. You have
nature, which doesn't take direction well, and you have oil,
which is an uncontrollable beast, and you have to make
decisions about using them. The on-site people decided to use
them and are continuing to use them under their best judgment.
Mr. Upton. How quickly does it work? I mean, we have seen--
--
Mr. Reddy. It is pretty quick. If you have seen any of
those pictures where--I mean, if you drop some Dawn detergent
on a sheen of oil, you can see it break open. In theory, the
beginnings of that idea, concept. So it is relatively rapid in
that respect.
Mr. Upton. In your opinion, does it work as well under
water as it does at the surface or----
Mr. Reddy. I reserve judgment about the success of using
the dispersants underneath the sea surface, one, because it has
never been done before. So it is, again, this term
unprecedented becomes a little laborious, but nevertheless, we
have used 300,000 gallons of dispersant below with about 50
million gallons of oil. So, whether it was worth it, effective,
and whether there were any damages, we have to see what type of
data that has--the samples were collected when they were doing
this, and the data is streaming out, slowly but surely. Because
it takes some time for analysis to come through. I look forward
to looking at that data, and I can get back to you about what I
think are the outcomes of that.
Mr. Upton. I look forward to that. And, too, as we think
about the hurricane season, which in essence could be upon us,
what are your thoughts in terms of what is going to happen,
based on the chemicals that have been used up to this point,
the failure to stop the flow? What is going to happen?
Mr. Reddy. It just makes things--at this point, we have so
many things out of our control for ourselves in terms that the
oil continues to flow. It is difficult to corral all this oil.
And now that it is showing at the subsurface, you have another
factor. The hurricane factor is just something that we just
can't even comprehend. It may not make a big impact. It may
make a large one. Ideally, it just doesn't happen.
Mr. Upton. What should be happening with all these
different underwater plumes that have been reported? What is
the best way to deal with that?
Mr. Reddy. There is nothing you can do. I would believe----
Mr. Upton. Or if you put Corexit down below and broke it up
and sent it to----
Mr. Reddy. It already is dispersed. So the Corexit, most of
those plumes are the result of either natural dispersion--you
know, you have to think about this oil coming out of this
wellhead, and it is pretty violent. So it is breaking up some
portion of them into small droplets, which I think is a source
of these subsurface plumes.
Unfortunately, at 3,300 feet below the surface, if this
plume and perhaps others like that, there is really not much
you can do to do about that. What we hope for them is to
continue that nature acts upon them and breaks them down and,
with time, that they get diluted until they become a signal
which is not as damaging.
Mr. Upton. Is there any sense they are beginning to
migrate?
Mr. Reddy. There are a variety of research vessels that
have been vectored and are collecting samples as we speak, and
I hope to do the same next week. And I think at some point we
will be able to start to have kind of a three-dimensional image
of how these plumes are at one point and then how they migrate,
and then also how the oil changes with time. With time, oil
weathers; and in fact, what is somewhat comforting is that some
of the more dangerous chemicals can also be broken down by
nature, and so there is some comfort that this will happen.
Mr. Upton. Have you been able to date from some of the
early flow, from 45 to 50 days ago, to where we are at 52 days
in terms of any progress breaking up based on what chemicals
might have been used or dispersants? Is there any marked
progress?
Mr. Reddy. No, not at the time. I have looked and analyzed
samples that were collected about 50 miles away from the spill
zone, and they have been significantly weathered either by some
of the more harmful chemicals that have been spoken about by my
colleagues, and either have been evaporated away or they have
been washed into the water column. At this time I haven't had
an opportunity to closely look at the samples. But the oil has
changed a lot since it spilled. But trying to put a time as to
how old one sample is relative to the other is quite difficult.
Mr. Upton. I yield back.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Trapido, how long do you believe that people that are
exposed to the vapors, to the physical contact, the food
contamination, how long should they be monitored? Is there an
effective way to tell when that monitoring is done or should be
concluded?
Mr. Trapido. My sense is that individuals need to be
monitored for at least 20 years, perhaps longer. Now, although
that sounds like an impossibility, let me assure you that there
are a large number of cohorts studied that are going on for
that length of time. They only become more valuable over the
duration of time.
You know, if we have a woman who is pregnant and gives
birth to a child, we have to follow that child as that child
grows up. And there is no magic moment when we say, oK, we are
done, there can't be any more damage. So that, in essence, it
is following people for what we consider to be an average
latency period of about 20 years. I think you would feel fairly
safe at that point that you had seen the bulk of anything that
would develop in excess. We know what rates of cancer are
expected to occur in any population, so we should be able to
detect increases above those expected rates over the course of
time.
Mr. McNerney. So basically what you are saying is that we
need to hold BP accountable for health monitoring
responsibilities for a good 20 years.
Mr. Trapido. That would be a fair rewording of my thoughts
for sure.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Dr. Reddy, I am going to follow up a little bit on one of
the chairman's questions about the permanent damage and decline
and extinction of the food chain in the Gulf there. And I know
you don't have an answer to that, but, again, how long will it
take for us to understand what those effects are and how
permanent they are, just to get some idea of what is involved
here?
Mr. Reddy. I think, as you mentioned, it will be difficult
to predict at this time. I think what will happen is perhaps in
the next 4 to 8 months, when there is sufficient data that has
been collected and evaluated, groups of interdisciplinary
scientists will be able to get perhaps the first kind of views
about how long and potentially the damages that have occurred.
At this point, you know, it is so difficult to constrain
the damages. What we see only on TV is perhaps only just a
small snapshot. And so we have to do a really strong case of
bookkeeping and accounting of what has happened, and also how
things may have changed in the cellular, molecular level, and
with that we can start to get an idea.
As much as I would like to give you an answer, I think
perhaps in the next 6 to 8 months a team of experts will be
able to give a better idea.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Trapido, what are the most
effective steps that we can take to prevent long-term health
impacts to people that are in the vicinity--the workers, the
residents?
Mr. Trapido. That is a very good question, and I wish there
were a very easy answer to that. I think people, number one,
need to take care of their already--the risks they can control.
There is a good chance, for example, that tobacco use will
compound the effects. There are things with exercise and diet
that people have to do. But beyond that, we need to look at
stress, and those that can be addressed now. We need to have a
surveillance system in place that can begin to monitor early
signs of potential problems.
I mean, if somebody has been exposed at this point, there
is not much we can do other than observe them. And we can look
for the diagnoses that we know about, but this is unprecedented
in--sorry to use that again. This is unprecedented in terms of
the particular exposures to length of time that the people are
being exposed to it.
I can only say that I worked--I was the NCI representative
to the workers after 9/11 to follow up the New York City
workers. And once people had been exposed, it was very
difficult to know what to tell people to do, because people
obviously get concerned and they start to have symptoms. But
what needed to be done there was to have a good surveillance
system. And, fortunately, there was great collaboration from
all the groups, from the communities, from the unions. There
was not a BP equivalent in that case.
So what we need to do is to begin to monitor them, to
interview them, to deal with their current problems of stress,
because stress will only increase their likelihood of
developing these conditions, and to have them manage the
cancer-related risk factors that they can now manage.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I guess, Mr. Chairman, we have our
work ahead of us in putting those systems in place. I yield
back.
Mr. Markey. I thank the gentleman very much.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from the State of
California, Mrs. Capps.
Mrs. Capps. Today, the Center for American Progress
released a report calling for the administration to take total
control of the public health response away from BP. In this
report, they note that the evidence is very clear that we
cannot afford to leave any part of this important response to
the very corporation that caused the problem in the first
place.
A couple short brief questions to ask you, Dr. Solomon,
just for the record.
Dr. Solomon, do you trust BP to handle the public health
response and adequately protect the cleanup workers?
Dr. Solomon. No. I don't trust BP to protect the cleanup
workers or handle the public health response.
Mrs. Capps. In your opinion, who should be in charge of the
public health response?
Dr. Solomon. The public health response could be guided by
a consortium of Federal agencies, with a leader. So EPA has
been doing an excellent job and has been constantly improving,
and people from CDC and NIHS have also been very involved and
they are quite capable.
Mrs. Capps. So from within the government?
Dr. Solomon. Absolutely.
Mrs. Capps. I want to just continue with you one more
question. According to BP's offshore monitoring plan, workers
are allowed to stay in an area when vapors are at a level four
times higher than the accepted practice to prevent an
explosion.
Should we be concerned that workers will be exposed to very
high levels of toxins from a public health perspective? You did
mention this in your remarks, but I would like to give you a
chance to go further into it if you would, please. These
workers are often working more than 8 hours a day out in harsh
conditions, not typically even measured for laboratory tests.
Dr. Solomon. The BP sampling plan and the data that were
released this week gave us a little window of information into
what is going on out there in the water, and it was a
disturbing one.
First of all, in the sampling plan, the plan focuses on
workers on stationary rigs and on large vessels. And as you
know, many of these large vessels are multiple stories high;
the workers are not right at water level.
The smaller boats were referred to in the sampling plan
only obliquely as ``other vessels,'' and were deemed reduced
priority, which means that there really wasn't an effort or
anything within the BP sampling plant to monitor for the health
and safety of the people on the fishing boats. And there is an
estimated 1,500 people out there on these fishing boats that
are much closer to water level and therefore right in the thick
of things, literally. And as you yourself have pointed out, the
workers have not been provided with respirators.
The levels of concentration to chemicals that BP is
tolerating are quite high, both for explosive potential and
also for toxicity, and are ones that may perhaps be legal under
some of the outdated OSHA standards, but are certainly not safe
for the workers.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
Dr. Trapido, it was very disheartening to hear that long-
term epidemiological studies on the human health effects of oil
spill exposure seem to be nonexistent. I will let you verify
whether or not--you are nodding.
Mr. Trapido. That is absolutely the case.
Mrs. Capps. I heard you clearly.
One of the keys to this sort of study, as you mentioned, is
to start enrolling people in the study and taking exposure
measurements as soon as possible. Do you know what kind of
monitoring and surveillance is currently underway?
Mr. Trapido. There is no systematic monitoring, as far as I
can tell. There are reports of people going to local doctors
and clinics for acute effects, but there is not a systematic
process in place. And so what we get is anecdotal data, and it
is hard to make conclusions based on those.
And my sense, although this is a sense partially from the
media, is that people are a little bit afraid to publicly come
forward and state that they have a problem for fear that they
may lose their employment, they may lose their income. And so
we have got to be able to assure the workers and the residents
that if they need help for this, health care, that they can get
it without fear of reprisal or loss of their legal rights.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. Just one quick follow-up. Do you
know, has BP created any kind of registry to track who is even
being deployed to do the cleanup work, those whom they are
hiring?
Mr. Trapido. If they have, I have not been made aware of
it. I do not believe there is, but I would suspect that they
know. They must have a roster of everybody who has been on any
of the vessels they have either owned or hired workers for.
Mrs. Capps. And you would find that information very
important.
Mr. Trapido. Absolutely.
Mrs. Capps. And these would be the people you would like to
see examined.
Mr. Trapido. Among the groups.
Mrs. Capps. Among the groups for sure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Markey. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, is
recognized.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let
me thank the witnesses for their testimony today.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to the question of
dispersants, because I think this is a very important issue. It
provides an example of the weakness in our chemical regulatory
scheme.
BP chose to use two dispersants, as I am told, COREXIT 9500
and 9527, which have not been determined to be safe. In fact,
the ingredients in those two dispersants were not revealed
until last week. Nalco, the manufacturer of the chemicals, had
claimed that the ingredient list was proprietary, and only
waived that claim this week in response to pressure from our
EPA.
We have seen these types of claims before for other
chemicals regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. We
know that chemical companies are overclaiming confidentiality,
and that EPA is trying to do a better job of policing those
claims. It is disturbing that EPA did not have the power to
release this information, and that the public had to wait for
the manufacturer to waive the claim. The Commerce Trade and
Consumer Protection Subcommittee has been examining this issue
in the context of TSCA reform. So I would like to ask our
witnesses just a few questions to get a sense of whether the
confidentiality claims surrounding these dispersants are
business as usual in the chemical industry.
Let me start with you, Dr. Solomon. Does it surprise you
that the manufacturer claimed that the ingredient list was
proprietary?
Dr. Solomon. No. It doesn't surprise me at all. In fact, as
a physician, I am frequently in a situation where I am seeing
patients exposed to various products or chemicals in their
workplace or other environments; and when I try to get
information about the ingredients of those products in order to
counsel my patient, I am told that the list is proprietary. I
am unable to get the information.
Mr. Butterfield. Well, have you now reviewed the list of
ingredients that the EPA published this week?
Dr. Solomon. Yes, I have.
Mr. Butterfield. Would you say that the list is easy to
understand and comprehend to the layperson? Or is it really
just something that scientists could use to analyze the safety
of these chemicals?
Dr. Solomon. The information would be very difficult or
impossible for the layperson to understand, but it would be
very useful to scientists.
Mr. Butterfield. So the people that were really kept in the
dark about the ingredient lists are scientists, like you, who
can make an assessment regarding the safety of these
ingredients. Right or wrong?
Dr. Solomon. That is correct. Though, of course, the role
of the scientist is then to communicate the information to the
general public and others.
Mr. Butterfield. Well, I am told that BP selected these
particular dispersants from a list of approved dispersants. EPA
has looked at the efficacy and toxicity of the chemicals, but
has never determined that they are safe. In fact, we found out
very quickly that there are safer alternatives.
Dr. Solomon, let me ask you this. As someone who has worked
on chemical policy and studied hazardous chemicals, does it
surprise you that the safety of these dispersants has not been
determined?
Dr. Solomon. No. That doesn't surprise me at all. In fact,
many--most chemicals that are on the market today have never
been fully tested for their toxicity to humans or the
environment.
Mr. Butterfield. Do you think that companies like BP or
scientists like yourself have enough information available to
effectively evaluate the safety of these chemicals or their
alternatives?
Dr. Solomon. No. I don't believe that scientists or
physicians or the general public have the information that we
need in order to assess safety of chemicals.
Mr. Butterfield. Let me try this one. As a scientist, are
you concerned that BP has been using large amounts of these
chemicals without a determination that they are safe and
without sharing the ingredient list?
Dr. Solomon. Yes. I am very concerned that these chemicals
are being applied by workers who are not necessarily being
adequately protected, and they are drifting potentially into
inhabited areas.
Mr. Butterfield. That is not good. Do you think that our
chemical regulations are sufficient to ensure that we know the
risk of the chemicals that we use?
Dr. Solomon. No. I don't believe that the current
regulations do that.
Mr. Butterfield. Well, I have got about 50 seconds. Dr.
Trapido, let me try you for just a moment. As you stated
earlier, exposure is time-dependent, and the residents of
communities affected by air and water contamination from the
spill will need to be monitored, you said, over several years
in order to obtain a full understanding of the effects of the
oil spill on the health of the affected communities.
In your opinion, sir, what organization or organizations
should oversee the long-term study of the residents of those
affected? And how should this effort be coordinated?
Mr. Trapido. I think this effort needs to come out of HHS,
and then they can decide whether it belongs to CDC or NIH or
CNS. But all these require a fair amount of scrutiny. I would
prefer to see it there than in the regulatory agencies, because
the regulatory agencies can provide information to the
scientists in HHS.
But I want to make a statement that the affected
communities need to have a voice in this. We actually learn a
lot from our parish presidents about what is really going on
versus what we may hear on the nightly news. And so I think
that while the government needs to play a role, and an
important role, in managing and making sure that the science is
sound and that it is not affected by the fact that BP may be
actually supplying the funds for it, I think it is very
important that the communities have a voice in this. And
ultimately, you know, we are all here to serve the communities.
Mr. Butterfield. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your
indulgence. This is pretty serious stuff, and I thank you for
convening this hearing today. And we want to assure you and the
American people that we are going to fulfill our
responsibility. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, is recognized.
Dr . Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
being out of the room during part of the hearing.
Director Solomon, let me just be sure that I understand
correctly. Now, you reviewed the EPA monitoring being done down
in the Gulf region; is that correct?
Dr. Solomon. The EPA monitoring? Yes.
Dr . Burgess. And if I understand correctly, the EPA's
assessment is that, with regard to the dispersants, there were
no long-term health effects at issue?
Dr. Solomon. The EPA has just begun to do some monitoring
for some of the dispersant chemicals. So far, they have mostly
been focused on the vapors that come off of the oil itself.
Dr . Burgess. We heard testimony from Dr. Wilma Subra on
Monday in Chalmette. And maybe she was talking about the off-
gassing or the out-gassing of the vapors, but my impression was
from her that the EPA said that there was--at present levels,
there was no danger.
Dr. Solomon. The EPA has said that they think that there is
a very low likelihood of long-term health effects from the
levels that have been measured so far.
Mr. Burgess. Is there more the EPA could be doing about
this?
Dr. Solomon. Yes. Quite a few things that the EPA could be
doing better. Some of them, the EPA has been responsive to
community concerns and has made some changes in their sampling
efforts and their public communication, but there is still more
that can be done.
Mr. Burgess. Such as?
Dr. Solomon. EPA has only recently begun to respond to odor
complaints, but they have not yet actually had community
meetings to collect information from community residents.
Mr. Burgess. I don't mean to interrupt you. Do you know if
they have made canisters available to people in those
communities to collect air samples at the time the odors are
present?
Dr. Solomon. No. My understanding is that community members
don't have canisters. EPA is the only entity deploying those.
Mr. Burgess. I can see where that would be a problem. I am
sorry. Continue.
Dr. Solomon. In addition, there is more need for
meteorological monitoring and modeling of where the air plumes
may be going. We have heard about the need to model where the
subsurface plumes are going, but we also need to know where the
wind is blowing, and then target sampling to those areas along
the coastline. Right now, that is not happening as well as it
should be. And in addition, it would be very helpful to provide
publicly any information about exactly where the dispersants
are being applied offshore. This would help also with
predicting where they might go.
Mr. Burgess. Could I ask you a question about that? The
dispersants at one time were being placed subsea; but with the
collection apparatus on top, they can no longer do that. Is
that correct? Those dispersants are not being used currently,
are they?
Dr. Solomon. My understanding is that there is still
subsurface application going on as well as surface application
of dispersants.
Mr. Burgess. But the surface application is aerials, so
that those flight patterns should be known to someone; is that
correct?
Dr. Solomon. Exactly. So the aerial application of
dispersants is the one that could generate air contaminants
that could pose a hazard to local communities.
Mr. Burgess. Well, you and Mr. Butterfield were talking
about alternatives, safer dispersants than the ones that are
being used currently. Do you know if there are any available
that are safer?
Dr. Solomon. Well, I was pleased to see that one of the
dispersants is being used in lesser quantities or perhaps has
been fully phased out at this point, and that was the one that
contained a chemical called 2-Butoxyethanol that was the most
significant health concern. At this time, my understanding is
that COREXIT 9500 does not contain that chemical of concern.
And so although there are still questions about the efficacy
and whether this is in fact the best way to go, the health
concerns have greatly decreased with that switch.
Mr. Burgess. But is there another dispersant that is
available in scalable amounts that would be necessary to manage
a leak of this size? Is there really anything else out there
off the shelf?
Dr. Solomon. BP responded to EPA's request to find an
alternative dispersant with a memo that was interesting because
it highlighted the data gaps on all of the dispersants. In
fact, the BP memo contained a table of all of the different
dispersants. And then there was a row in the table that was
supposed to list the persistence, bioaccumulation and chronic
effects of each of these dispersants. And each cell in the
table was filled with the same words: proprietary mixture. In
other words, there wasn't information that would allow at least
independent scientists to confirm whether there really is a
safer alternative or not. And so that information----
Mr. Burgess. So we just don't know.
Dr. Trapido, let me ask you a question. You discussed the
importance of registries. Your background is in cancer; is that
correct?
Mr. Trapido. That is right.
Mr. Burgess. The cancer registry that was set up years ago
has provided valuable data. I believe you also in your
testimony talked about lacking registries for other chronic
diseases, particularly respiratory illnesses. So could you give
us just very briefly some of the importance of the registries
and their roles in the assessment of health hazards?
Mr. Trapido. Certainly. Population-based registries record
information on every diagnosed case of a particular illness in
a defined geographic area. And so then we can link those back
to the people who we have in the--who we have been following,
who either may be first responders, who may be people along the
shore in the communities, and link those back and make
connections there. But the point is that we need to be looking
at some of the early symptoms that might occur, some early
respiratory problems that might be indicative of further
scrutiny for the development----
Mr. Burgess. Longer-term problems. My time is going to be
up here, so quickly. We just went through a fairly intense and
brutal markup of a bill dealing with 9/11 first responders in
this committee. I can't help but feel that there are perhaps
some similarities in the two situations. Perhaps the right
things weren't done at Ground Zero after 9/11, and should we
have learned some lessons with this disaster and our approach
to it.
So right now, what is the involvement of the CDC in
monitoring and assisting with the health assessments? Are they
on board?
Mr. Trapido. My impression is that--I have not seen a lot
of their presence. I don't want to say it is not there, but I
have not seen a lot of CDC's presence in the community. I don't
know if they are doing surveillance, I suspect that they are.
But that is about all that I know.
Mr. Burgess. Because if there are these long-term problems,
one of the obligations of the people who caused this disaster
would be to set up a trust fund so that the taxpayers are not
then the ones that are looked to to provide the health benefits
that people may need over a longer term period of time. That is
my concern. And I am afraid if we don't manage things
appropriately at this end, then 8 or 9 years later, which is
where we were with the 9/11 stuff just 2 or 3 weeks ago, it
becomes very, very difficult in retrospect to sort stuff out.
Mr. Trapido. I think that is absolutely right. One of the
problems that HHS has is the ability to respond very, very
quickly to events like this. On infectious outbreaks they are
very good. And some of these kinds of outbreaks--not outbreaks,
occurrences, it is harder because the mechanisms are just not
there for quick response. And so that I think this identifies
an area that needs further investigation.
Mr. Burgess. We do have a hearing in our Subcommittee on
Health next week. Too bad Mr. Waxman is gone. I would ask him
if we could invite Secretary Sebelius to be with us that
afternoon, but maybe we will submit that in writing. So thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Markey. We thank the gentleman very much.
I have one final question, if I may, to Dr. Reddy and Dr.
Solomon.
During BP's failed top-kill procedure, they injected 30,000
barrels of drilling mud into the well, hoping to clog it up and
stop the leak. As we all saw on the spill cam, much of that
drilling mud found its way out and into the ocean floor,
coating anything in its path. But drilling mud isn't just dirt;
it is actually made of synthetic oils and chemicals whose
identities are kept secret.
Do you think that BP should immediately disclose all of the
chemicals used in its drilling mud so that the scientific
community can best assess the potential impacts? Mr. Reddy.
Mr. Reddy. Yes. Actually, I actually spent most of
yesterday trying to investigate what the composition was of the
drilling muds used, and I was unsuccessful.
Mr. Markey. Why were you unsuccessful?
Mr. Reddy. I couldn't find it. I looked on the Web and I
was unsuccessful.
Mr. Markey. Would you like us to get you access to that
information?
Mr. Reddy. I think it would be scientifically, and also in
terms of the response, important.
Mr. Markey. It is hard to investigate something that you do
not have the evidence in front of you.
Mr. Reddy. You are absolutely correct.
Mr. Markey. Even we non-scientists know that. CSI New York
helps us to see how important it is to get that information
into your hands. Dr. Solomon?
Dr. Solomon. When I looked into the composition of the
drilling muds and drilling fluids, I hit the same kind of data
gaps that Dr. Reddy described. I did find a little bit of data
suggesting heavy metal contamination of some of these drilling
muds, and that raised my level of interest and concern quite a
bit higher and it made me think that we really do need to
gather the scientific information on the composition of these.
Mr. Markey. BP should release immediately the chemicals
that are included in that drilling mud so that there can be a
complete, immediate, scientific analysis of what those
chemicals are and what the potential harm is not only to ocean
animals and fauna, but also potentially to human beings. And
one--and I can recognize members if they would like. But one
other--no. I can end it right there, and I think I will end it
right there. But thank you very much for your help.
Dr. Burgess.
Mr. Burgess. May I just ask a follow-up question along that
line? Does not OSHA or the EPA require that there at least be a
posting of the components of that drilling mud if there is a
Hazmat application, if there is an accident, and whether it be
fire personnel or Coast Guard personnel need to respond? Are
there not requirements that the contents of--again, they don't
have to give the proprietary formula, but at least the
contents, the potential hazards, be on display or be
retrievable by someone?
Mr. Reddy. I would defer.
Dr. Solomon. I would be happy to try to answer that
question. There is a requirement that companies provide
material safety data sheets, MSDSs, on chemicals that are
handled by workers. And the drilling muds I would imagine would
fall into that category. The problem with these MSDSs is that
they do not actually have to list the ingredients. They do have
to list the acute toxicity of the chemical. And so that would
be useful and important for someone who is actually directly
exposed to it.
My concern with the drilling muds is actually less a worker
health issue than an ecosystem health issue if these were
discharged into the ocean, and we don't quite know what is in
them and whether there is a potential for material that could
end up in the food chain. But it is a good point that there is
at least some minimal information available through material
safety data sheets.
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, I would just request that we try
to get those MSDS sheets from BP, or whoever was involved, and
at least have that as a starting point.
Mr. Markey. We will work with the gentleman to be able to
obtain that information.
We thank each of you for your testimony today. It is very
helpful, very timely. If there is other information which you
think our committee should know of, please let us help you help
the people in the Gulf.
With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909A.022