[Senate Hearing 111-1238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1238
EPA'S ROLE IN PROTECTING OCEAN HEALTH
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 11, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-443 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Oversight
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
officio) officio)
------
Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
TOM UDALL, New Mexico LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio)
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 11, 2010
OPENING STATEMENTS
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 1
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 3
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 153
WITNESSES
Stoner, Nancy, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency........................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 29
Senator Inhofe........................................... 33
Jones, Jim, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 40
Payne, Roger, Founder and President, Ocean Alliance.............. 46
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 51
Senator Inhofe........................................... 53
Mitchelmore, Carys, Associate Professor, University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory..................................................... 56
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse... 74
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 75
Waterston, Sam, Board of Directors, Oceana....................... 78
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse... 121
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 121
Everett, John T., President, Ocean Associates, Inc............... 123
Prepared statement........................................... 126
Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse... 141
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 142
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter to Senators Maria Cantwell and Olympia Snowe from the
Alaska Trollers Association et al., April 17, 2010............. 154
Commentary: Climate Change and the Integrity of Science, Science
magazine, May 7, 2010.......................................... 161
EPA'S ROLE IN PROTECTING OCEAN HEALTH
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sheldon
Whitehouse (Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight)
presiding.
Present: Senators Whitehouse, Cardin, Barrasso, and Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. The hearing will come to order.
I am delighted to be here with Senator Cardin, who is the
Co-Chair of this hearing from his Subcommittee, and Senator
Barrasso who is the Ranking Member on my Subcommittee. We are
all here today to discuss an issue that is too frequently
overlooked, considering its importance to our collective well
being, and that is the health of our oceans.
The oceans cover more than three-quarters of our globe and
contain at least 70 percent of the Earth's biomass with
potentially millions of species still to be discovered. The
oceans sustain us with food, support human livelihoods, and for
those of us who have had the opportunity to spend time around
and on the oceans, they spark inspiration and wonder.
Largely out of our sight, they play a critical role in
balancing our Earth's ecosystems, but the oceans are under
great stress from a variety of sources. Today, we will look at
just two of the many changes affecting our oceans: the level of
toxic chemicals we have released into our marine environment
and the growing threat of ocean acidification.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the massive oil
spill taking place now in the Gulf of Mexico and extend
condolences to the families of the crew members who died in the
initial explosion. I applaud the Obama administration's rapid
and comprehensive emergency response to what could become the
largest ecological disaster this country has ever seen.
However, a consideration of the damage that we are steadily
wreaking on our oceans, even outside this present disaster, is
long overdue.
Today, I am pleased to have witnesses from the
Environmental Protection Agency with us to discuss their
agency's role in addressing the threat to our oceans posed by
acidification and chemical poisoning. Mr. Jim Jones is here
from the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention, and Ms. Nancy Stoner is representing the Office of
Water.
Thank you both for being here today.
Our second panel I will properly introduce later, is a very
distinguished panel of scientists and advocates who have
devoted themselves to understanding and protecting our oceans
worldwide.
Our oceans are the Earth's largest carbon sink. Over 30
percent of mankind's total carbon dioxide emissions between
1800 and 1995 have been absorbed by the ocean. But as our
oceans absorb increasing quantities of carbon dioxide, it is
basic chemistry that forces the changes in systems that allow
our marine fauna and flora to be functional and productive.
As the ecosystem changes, as the chemistry changes, the pH
level of the ocean drops, and the water becomes more and more
acidic. Even slight changes in ocean acidity can cause major
disruptions to sea life to the point where marine mollusk
larvae cannot form their shells; coral reefs bleach and die;
and critical plankton cannot multiply. Since plankton formed
the base of the oceanic food chain and coral reefs are critical
nursery habitat for much marine life, ocean acidification could
cause an unprecedented and unpredictable collapse of our ocean
ecosystems.
The National Academy of Sciences recently reported that the
rate of change in ocean pH is faster now than at any point in
the last 800,000 years. We do not yet know if species will be
able to adapt quickly enough to survive this type of shift in
their environment. Certainly, it is hard for species to survive
in an environment that dissolves them.
The second health threat we will be discussing today is the
ever growing level of toxic chemicals in the marine
environment. Even the remotest parts of the ocean now feel the
touch of our industrialized society. Polar bears and seals in
the Arctic and birds in the Galapagos, animals that would
naturally come in contact with humans, all now contain traces
of manmade flame retardants, PCBs and pesticides. We will hear
today about an incredible voyage that documented contaminant
levels in whales, including poisons referred to as persistent,
bioaccumulative toxins, or PBTs.
Since much of humankind sustains itself on the ocean's
protein, we need to pay close attention to these accumulating
toxics and the sentinel species that show the harm.
While these chemicals can serve important purposes in our
society, we must be alert to and protect ourselves against
unintended harms as grave as these portend. For too long, we
have taken our oceans for granted. We dump trash in the ocean,
permit sewage to overflow across our coastal beaches into
coastal waters, and allow toxic runoff to flow into our seas.
Our unchecked carbon pollution absorbed by the ocean
compounds the harm with changes to the very chemistry of the
ocean ecosystem. I am pleased that the Environmental Protection
Agency has recognized these threats and is working
cooperatively with other Federal agencies to address them. The
Obama administration has helped with the establishment of its
Ocean Policy Task Force, which for the first time in our
Nation's history is looking comprehensively at the myriad uses
and threats to our oceans.
I look forward to working with the Administration and with
my colleagues on these efforts.
Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased to be with you today for this first hearing this year
of the Subcommittee on Oversight, along with the Subcommittee
on Water.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today because,
of course, ocean health is vitally important, and we need to
develop effective responses and tailored solutions to meet the
challenges that all of us face.
With regard to ocean health and ocean acidification, I have
concerns, Mr. Chairman; we must guard against using current
laws as they were never intended to be used. A recent article
on March 12 in the New York Times was entitled, Some See Clean
Water Act Settlement Opening New Path To Greenhouse Gas Curbs.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to put that article
from the New York Times in the record.
Senator Whitehouse. Without objection.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The referenced article was not received at time of print.]
Senator Barrasso. The article goes on to state that the EPA
reached a deal with the Center for Biological Diversity to
``begin a rulemaking aimed at helping States identify and
address acidic coastal waters.'' The Times states that the
effort could lead to the first Clean Water Act effort to
protect acidifying marine waters, a move the Center for
Biological Diversity sees leading to restrictions on carbon
dioxide emissions. A spokesman for the Center for Biologic
Diversity was quoted as saying ``if we can use every tool in
the box, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, new climate
legislation and State efforts to address it,'' meaning climate
change, he says, ``all those things are important.''
I think, Mr. Chairman, that statement highlights the goal
of these groups to regulate everything Americans do from
heating their homes to driving their kids to school. And to me
this presents considerable risk to millions of good paying jobs
in the energy and manufacturing sectors of our Nation. I worry
that this is another attempt to enact a climate change regime
without one single vote of this Congress.
So we should not use the Clean Water Act to regulate
climate change, just as I believe we should not use the Clean
Air Act, NEPA, the Endangered Species Act or any secretarial
order from the Secretary of Interior to regulate climate
change.
Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to enact true preemption, as
Senator Voinovich has proposed to do. Take all these proposals
to regulate climate change through regulation off of the table,
and then let us decide our clean energy future with a vote of
this Congress, a future where we make energy as clean as we
can, as fast as we can, without raising prices for American
families, while providing for a strong economy and more jobs.
Mr. Chairman, we have a number of issues that remain on the
table with regarding to holding oversight hearings in the
future. There are multiple topics that need to be explored by
this Committee. So I look forward to future oversight hearings
to address these topics.
As you and I have discussed, Mr. Chairman, as a result of
the tragedy of the oil spill in the Gulf, our full Committee
will be meeting here this afternoon with a hearing. I am also
on the Energy Committee, and we have a full committee meeting
this morning to also ask questions and look into that.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you and look forward to
the testimony.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Cardin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Chairman Whitehouse, thank you very much.
When you represent the State of Rhode Island or the State of
Maryland, you understand how important our oceans are. I thank
you very much for holding this hearing.
You have been planning this hearing for some time, so I
first want to acknowledge your patience and perseverance in
bringing us to this, and bringing together I think just an
excellent two panels of experts in this area that I think can
help us try to understand what we need to do in the oceans.
It was Joseph Conrad who wrote in The Heart of Darkness,
``There is nothing mysterious to a seaman unless it be the sea
itself.'' And I think that speaks to it. We don't see the
pollution. We don't see the damage that we are causing to our
oceans. It is a vast area that is mysterious to all of us.
But the two issues that you raised in your opening
statement, ocean acidification and toxic chemicals, are having
a major impact on the quality of our oceans and I would say our
way of life. I think it is important that we establish a
hearing record, as we will today, as to the impact of both of
these areas.
On ocean acidification, I just really want to mention the
Chesapeake Bay for one moment, if I might. The Chesapeake Bay
today, we all know that the issues concerning global climate
change and the impact it is having on our sea grasses, our sea
level increases, the warming of the ocean itself, all that
having an impact on the health of the Chesapeake Bay and on the
importance of that to our economy and to our way of life.
Let me just talk about the oyster for one moment. The
oyster is critically important to cleansing the bay. As you
know, it serves in the ecosystem as an extremely valuable
commodity. It is not only its economic impact as a crop, but it
is also its impact as a cleansing agent in the bay.
Well, we are 1 percent of our historical level of oysters
in the bay. And we believe one of the reasons is the increase
acidification, because it affects the development of the oyster
itself, its shell. So this is an issue that we need to deal
with.
I would give you just one example. In regards to the toxic
elements, you have listed several that are critically
important. I would just like to add one more because I think it
is relevant to your introduction, that we have to note what is
happening in the Gulf of Mexico today. It is clearly going to
have an incredible impact on the Gulf and on the Atlantic
Ocean.
And one of the toxins that are being now put into the bay,
because we have no choice, is the dispersing agents. We have no
choice because we have to prevent the oil from coming to the
surface and perhaps getting into the currents or getting onto
the beaches and destroying wetlands and destroying wildlife
that is critically important to our environment. But instead we
are putting a different toxic in, a dispersing agent that we
don't exactly know what it is going to cause. But we do know
that it has an impact.
We also know that the oil will then end up on the ocean
bottom. It doesn't disappear. It just disperses to the bottom.
What impact will that have on our environment?
So today America's energy policy continues to rely on fuels
that endanger our air, our seas and enrich our enemies. Mother
Nature will continue on no matter decisions we make or what
energy policy we adopt. But I think the challenge to us is will
we still have vibrant fisheries and beautiful beaches? And that
is an issue that I think should be of concern to all of us.
Will we still have healthy wetlands and bird populations? Will
our economy as well as our environment suffer irreparable harm?
We are talking about jobs. We are talking about the economic
impact that a clean ocean has on our ability to drive our
economies.
And will the world that we pass on to our children and
grandchildren have all the wonders that we experienced in our
childhood? These are the challenges we have.
Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Protection Agency has a
critical role to play in helping fill the gaps in our knowledge
and in protecting the oceans from harm. I look forward to
hearing from today's witnesses as we develop I hope a strategy
to deal with these issues.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my entire statement be made
part of the record, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
Senator Whitehouse. Without objection, it will be.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin was not received
at time of print.]
Senator Whitehouse. We will turn to Ms. Stoner.
Welcome. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF NANCY STONER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Stoner. Good morning, Chairman Whitehouse and Chairman
Cardin. I am Nancy Stoner, Deputy Assistant Administrator of
the Office of Water at the U.S. EPA. With me today is Jim
Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention. We thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today about EPA's role in
protecting ocean health, especially as it relates to ocean
acidification and persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals,
or PBTs.
The National Research Council of the National Academies
recently reported that ocean chemistry is changing at an
unprecedented rate and magnitude due to human made carbon
dioxide emissions, but we don't yet fully understand the
specifics of how changes occur, the scope of what is affected,
what the effects mean, and what actions might help to prevent,
abate or control them.
Similarly, we know that toxics adversely affect the water,
sediment and living organisms of the marine environment, but we
don't yet fully understand how most chemicals, individually or
collectively, affect organisms or ecosystems or how the
degraded or metabolized products of those pollutants affect the
same.
Ocean acidification refers to the decrease in pH of the
Earth's oceans caused by the absorption of carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere. The National Research Council has concluded
that ``Unless anthropogenic CO2 emissions are
substantially curbed or atmospheric CO2 is
controlled by some other means, the average pH of the ocean
will continue to fall.''
EPA already is taking action to regulate and control the
root cause of ocean acidification, fossil fuel CO2
emissions that are also the main driver of climate change. As
you are aware, EPA recently concluded under the Clean Air Act
that these greenhouse gases endanger the public health and
welfare of current and future generations.
Research over the last 10 years indicates that the
implications of CO2 absorption for oceans and
coastal marine ecosystems are potentially very serious. Marine
calcifiers, including corals and shellfish, depend on calcium
carbonate to produce and maintain their shells, skeletons and
other protective structures. Ocean acidification reduces
calcification to create such structures and increases
dissolution of them. These organisms then have less energy
available for feeding, escaping predators and reproduction,
leading to decreased survival.
Many of these creatures form the basis of ocean food webs
and provide us with extensive resources and vital ecosystem
services. For example, a NOAA-supported study in 2003 estimated
that Florida reefs have a capitalized value of more than $7.6
billion per year. EPA and other Federal agencies are engaged in
a variety of research and monitoring efforts that contribute to
our understanding of the effects of ocean acidification.
For example, EPA is working to value reef services,
focusing on recreation, tourism, fisheries, shoreline
protection, marine natural products and ecological integrity.
EPA recently published a Federal Register notice seeking
comments on how to address ocean acidification under the Clean
Water Act Impaired Waters Program. This notice included a
request for recommendations on developing total maximum daily
loads or pollution budgets for waters impaired by ocean
acidification. EPA will complete a memorandum by November of
this year that describes how the agency will approach ocean
acidification under this program.
Also, after reviewing a wide range of information, EPA
recently decided against revising the marine pH criterion for
aquatic life under the Clean Water Act. This decision was based
on the fact that in most coastal regions, the data that are
available to characterize daily and seasonal variability are so
limited that short-term trends in carbon system parameters and
pH cannot be determined.
I will now turn it over to my colleague, Jim Jones, who
will address toxic chemicals in the marine environment.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stoner follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT OF JIM JONES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE
OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Nancy.
And thank you, Chairman Whitehouse and Chairman Cardin.
I am Jim Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at EPA. Our
office is responsible for implementing the Toxic Substances
Control Act, or TSCA, as well as the pesticide laws FIFRA and
the FFDCA. We also implement the Pollution Prevention Act.
As you know, persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, or
PBTs, are long lasting substances that build up in the food
chain, and at certain exposure levels may be harmful to human
health and the environment. They do not readily break down, so
when they are released to the environment they remain
essentially unaltered for months or years.
With continued use and release, PBTs buildup in sediments
and soil. Their concentrations increase as they go up the food
chain from sediment to aquatic insects to fish, for example. It
is this concentration in the food chain which under certain
circumstances can cause adverse effects in humans or wildlife.
As part of Administrator Jackson's comprehensive effort to
strengthen EPA's chemical management program and assure the
safety of chemicals, EPA has released five action plans which
outline a range of actions under TSCA that the agency intends
to take to address concerns with these chemicals. Three of
these action plans for PBT chemicals: short-chain chlorinated
paraffins, or SCCPs; perfluorinated chemicals; and
polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PPDEs as they are commonly
known. SCCPs and PPDEs are known to be found in marine mammals.
Taking action under TSCA has proven to be very difficult.
The agency has the burden of demonstrating risk. Requiring
manufacturers to generate data is time consuming and
inefficient. The statute creates legal and procedural hurdles
that have stymied the agency from taking quick and effective
regulatory action. For these reasons, the Administration
believes it is important to work together with Congress and all
interested stakeholders to quickly modernize and strengthen the
tools available in TSCA to increase the American public's
confidence that chemicals used in commerce are safe.
Last September the agency released a set of essential
principles for reform of chemicals management legislation to
help inform these discussions, and we look forward to working
with Congress on updating TSCA.
Thank you for the opportunity to describe EPA's role in
protecting ocean health. We ask that our full written statement
be made a part of the record of this hearing, and we would be
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Whitehouse. Without objection, the statement will
be made part of the record.
I appreciate it. I thank you very much for being here.
Ms. Stoner, where do you think would be the most helpful
places that EPA could do or support research to begin to better
identify the acidification trends and the likely effects of
those trends on the marine ecosystem?
Ms. Stoner. Senator, the EPA is engaged in research now
with the Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification. So
we are coordinating our research with a variety of Federal
agencies. We are currently working on a research plan for the
Federal Government as a whole that will enable us to ensure
that we target those efforts to where we can achieve the most.
We are looking both at what is happening in the water in terms
of ocean acidification and changes in chemistry.
We are also looking at how that change in chemistry affects
a variety of different kinds of organisms, including coral and
looking at coral reefs and shellfish. As you noted in your
opening remarks, there are significant concerns about shell
formation associated with the ocean chemistry changes
associated with ocean acidification.
Senator Whitehouse. Let me show a photograph that we have
of a shell over 45 days of exposure to the surface sea water at
pH levels that are expected in 2100, perhaps my children's
lifetimes if not mine. And obviously that shell is degrading
and dissolving pretty rapidly, and it makes it very challenging
for that species to live, again, in an environment in which it
is soluble.
And to the extent that some of these species are basic
bottom of the food chain core species for the rest of the
marine ecosystem, it portends potentially very significant
adverse results. Are you fully comfortable and confident that
responding to that is something that is within EPA's
jurisdiction, even though there may not be an immediate human
health effect?
Ms. Stoner. Senator, as I mentioned, we are looking closely
at those issues. The two related points, the saturation rate of
calcium carbonate minerals and then the dissolution of the
shell, both weaken the shell, and we are looking at both of
those now.
We have not yet developed a plan for how to address this.
We are actually looking at how individual species as well as
populations are affected, and as the National Academy referred
to it, who the winners and losers might be; how it might affect
the ecosystem as a whole.
So we are in the process of developing our approach and our
plan based on acquiring the best science.
Senator Whitehouse. But you are comfortable that the EPA's
current statutory authority allows it to consider these kinds
of harms in its analysis of what parts of the environment need
to be protected. You don't feel a jurisdictional gap when you
are dealing with this?
Ms. Stoner. The jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act goes
out to 3 miles. So we actually don't have jurisdiction out in
the middle of the ocean to address this. And the tools that we
have under the Clean Water Act don't necessarily reach all of
the sources.
Senator Whitehouse. How about the Clean Air Act?
Ms. Stoner. Yes, sir. I am talking about the Clean Water
Act.
Senator Whitehouse. I know.
Ms. Stoner. Right.
Senator Whitehouse. Let me ask you, that takes you out 3
miles. Where does the Clean Air Act take you, if it turns out
that there is damage being done as a result of emissions that
you regulate?
Ms. Stoner. Right, yes, sir. And so the main source is
carbon dioxide emissions which we are working to regulate under
the Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act does not directly enable
us to do that, although it would enable us to identify that as
the source of the problem, for example in a pollution budget or
total maximum daily load.
Some of our experience with mercury pollution is
instructive here. That, again, is a water related problem, a
fish tissue problem, but it comes mostly from air emissions.
Senator Whitehouse. And Mr. Jones, let me ask you a similar
question. Very often when we have hearings about TSCA, the
targeted species is humankind, and that is our constant and
primary target. But when you do see the kind of information
that Dr. Payne will be providing later, and I think you have
seen it in his pre-filed testimony about the extent to which
marine mammals have been poisoned by regulated chemicals that
have gotten out into the oceans and concentrated in them at the
top of the food chain.
Do you have any restrictions in EPA's ability to take
action off of that evidence in terms of putting regulatory
restrictions on various chemicals? Can you make regulatory
decisions based on that information?
Mr. Jones. That information can be considered in our
regulatory determinations. As we have stated before to this
Committee, TSCA is a difficult statute to operate within.
However, while we are working with Congress to reform TSCA, we
are pursuing assessment and regulation of several persistent
bioaccumulative toxins, in particular the ones that I mentioned
here earlier that have direct impact that we know as it relates
to the marine environment, the short chain chlorinated
paraffins and the PBDEs.
So we are considering their impact on the marine
environment. One of the other action plans that we are looking
at, bisphenol-A is related to its aquatic impacts, particular
in estuarine environments.
So, it is an area that we do focus on, and we are going to
try to use the tools that we have to protect not only the
terrestrial environment and human health, but also the marine
environment.
Senator Whitehouse. Very good.
Senator Cardin.
And I would like to welcome Senator Udall who has joined
us.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
And let me thank our witnesses for their testimony.
I guess I want to start with I strongly support EPA using
the authorities it has under both the Clean Water Act and Clean
Air Act to deal with the pollutants entering our ocean and the
impact it has on not only the environment, but I think public
safety and public health. So I strongly support that.
My question is, and Ms. Stoner, in your original statement
you say you don't fully understand, which I understand that you
don't fully understand the impact here.
How do we improve the research that is being done? What
tools do we need so that you have the scientific information
necessary to support the regulatory efforts that you are
making? You are going to be challenged every step of the way.
What do we need to do in order to get the best science to make
the right judgments?
I want to make sure that the regulatory framework is the
most effective framework, not just because we know there is a
problem and want to do something about it, but we have the
scientific information to support that and the remedies and
regulations that you are seeking are aimed at reducing the
problem.
Ms. Stoner. Thank you, Senator. Of course, we are doing the
best we can with the resources we have, in coordination with
the other Federal agencies. There are additional research
needs. This is a worldwide problem, of course, and there are
coral reefs in various places in the U.S. and Puerto Rico,
Florida, Hawaii and so forth that studying those reefs in
particular could be helpful in how they are being affected.
There are lots of different kinds of species and
populations that are affected, crustaceans and mollusks, for
example. And there is lots of additional science that could be
done that could help inform these decisions.
Senator Cardin. I just urge you to let us know if you need
additional tools from Congress in order to be able to deal with
the scientific information necessary. We understand this is
international, but the United States has to be in the
leadership here. Other countries are doing a much more
aggressive job than we are doing, so I think we could learn
from each other. But if there additional tools you need from
Congress, I think we need to know that in order to support your
decisions.
Mr. Jones, let me go to the issue I raised in my opening
statement, the use of these dispersants to deal with the tragic
accident in the Gulf of Mexico. Dispersants have been used in
the past. EPA has been asked for its judgment on that and has
given, I believe, an OK, recognizing the relative risk. There
is a risk involved in whatever we do, and you try to minimize
that.
Can you, though, tell us the process EPA went through to
allow the dispersants to be used? And what risk factors are
present in the use of the dispersants?
Mr. Jones. Yes, Senator, thank you. Let me first say that
the agency's response to this and basically any other emergency
along these lines is directly managed by the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. My colleague Nancy and I are in
offices that provide support to that office and we have been
communicating with them. So we are generally aware of the
agency's response to the BP oil spill, but we may lack some of
the specificity.
So with that preface, let me say that the first thing is
that before any dispersants can be used in this context, it has
to be on an approved list in our national contingency plan,
which is a statutorily created plan that governs the use of
remediation approach such as the use of dispersants. So the
chemical being used in this context had already been approved
for that purpose.
To get on to that list, the agency needs two kinds of
information: information with respect to its efficacy--will it
do what it is supposed to do, in this case disperse the oil?
Second, marine related hazard data is required. So the chemical
that is being used right now had both demonstrated
effectiveness as well as the appropriate toxicity data for use
on the surface of the ocean.
There has been an interest in pursuing whether or not this
chemical may be effective below surface, and in that context
the agency has authorized the manufacturer to test it for that
purpose. So we have authorized just three tests to see whether
or not it meets these two criteria: Is it effective at
dispersing the oil? And what is the toxicity in that context?
We have made it clear that we will not authorize the use in a
sub-surface context until successful tests have been completed.
Senator Cardin. But it is toxic? It is a toxic?
Mr. Jones. The chemicals that are being used have toxicity
associated with them. And I think as the agency has tried to be
very clear, this is about an environmental tradeoff that we are
making.
Senator Cardin. And I support that. I am not challenging
that. But we need to know the damage that is being caused as a
result of the choice that has been made. It may be less damage
than otherwise would have been caused, but it is creating a
different set of factors. And I think it is important that we
understand that, and that the public understands that.
One of the concerns I have is that by dispersing, it won't
be seen as much, and therefore the public might think damage
hasn't been done. But in reality damage has been done. It has
been done to the water quality as a result of the toxins being
placed in the ocean. And second, the oil still is there. It is
not being eliminated. It goes to the ocean bottom, as I
understand, which has its own set of problems.
Mr. Jones. That is correct, Senator. I think the agency is
trying to do its best to make sure people understand this is
about an environmental trade off that is being made. Damage has
been done. That is absolutely correct.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
I first of all want to thank Chairman Whitehouse and
Chairman Cardin for their effort. They, as I have observed
here, have been real champions on this issue. I know Senator
Whitehouse has additional spurring effort from the home front.
His wife is a Ph.D. scientist in this area. I have been on
trips with him where I have learned a lot from her. I hope that
she is watching today and seeing that you are doing a good job
here, Sheldon, on this front.
Let me first of all follow up a little bit on what Senator
Cardin asked about. When you talk about research, I think the
first issue is do you have any idea how much we are doing in
this area in dollar amount across the Federal Government to
look specifically at the acid buildup in the ocean?
Ms. Stoner. Senator, I know that EPA's budget for 2009 for
research on ocean acidification was about $2 million.
Senator Udall. Which isn't much, right?
Ms. Stoner. It is a relatively small amount. This is a new
area of research area for us, but that is what we are doing in
2010. I don't have handy the budget for the entire Federal
Government. We can get back to you.
Senator Udall. OK. That would be great. That would be
great.
Do you have any numbers on the worldwide effort? Is there
any cooperative effort in terms of sharing research, pooling
money, trying to do that? One of the reasons I ask that is I
think it is so important when we get into these scientific
issues that we share he science and that we build the consensus
through sharing the science. And I am wondering, either one of
you, what is happening there on that front?
Ms. Stoner. Senator, first of all, I got the number on the
Federal budget for direct monitoring, which is $1.426 million
in 2008 and $1.289 million in 2009.
Senator Udall. And that is specifically targeted to the
buildup of CO2 and acidification of the ocean?
Ms. Stoner. Yes, sir. It is direct monitoring of ocean
chemistry and biological impacts associated with ocean
acidification. And that is EPA, the Marine Minerals Service,
NASA, NOAA, NSF, and USGS. And we are all working together
through the Ocean Acidification Task Force. We are also
coordinating with other research entities across the world
through that effort.
So it is a coordinated effort. It is a new effort under the
new law. So we are developing a research plan now.
Senator Udall. On these countries that are cooperating
around the world, is there participation by most of them? Or is
this just the countries that are on the ocean? What can you say
about that?
Ms. Stoner. My guess is that coastal and ocean countries
are more involved, but I don't know the full extent.
Senator Udall. Yes. Now, you also mention in your testimony
the global nature of the toxic chemicals that are released into
the oceans and the need for ratification of global treaties
such as the Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty, the POPs
Treaty as it is known. Can you describe some of the specific
chemicals that these global treaties look to curb on a global
basis?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. I will answer that. Many of the
original chemicals that were listed on the treaty are
chemicals, for example, the organochlorine pesticides which
have largely been regulated in the United States. Well, they
have been totally regulated in the United States.
Some of the more recent additions to the list include
chemicals that are on our list of action plans, such as the
short chain chlorinated paraffins and the PBDEs. So we are
beginning to see chemicals being listed without the U.S.
participation in those treaties, which have yet to be fully
evaluated and regulated in this country.
Senator Udall. So what you all are urging is that we ratify
these treaties and move forward with the countries around the
world, and that we are slow to do that at this point.
Mr. Jones. That is correct. There are problems with not
being at the table, one, because there may be very important
uses that we would like to see maintained because they are very
important to the country, and so our voice is not being heard
there. Also it is not allowing us to be global leaders on the
issues of those chemicals for which we think quick action is
necessary.
Senator Udall. Thank you both for your testimony. Very good
panel, and once again, I appreciate the hard work of the two
Chairmen on this.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Udall.
I thank the members of this panel for coming forward. I
think you have heard from all of us a cheering and enthusiastic
response to your work. As Senator Cardin suggested, if you feel
you need additional resources or authorities, we would be only
too delighted to hear from you about how to supplement both of
those. Thank you very much.
We will excuse this panel and take a 2-minute recess while
we call up the next panel and get people squared away.
[Recess.]
Senator Whitehouse. All right, I think what we will do,
first of all, we will come back to order.
I think what I will do is I will introduce each witness and
ask them to give their opening statements, and the hold
questions until all four statements have been given, and then
we can have more open season, more robust discussion.
So I will begin just going across the panel here with Dr.
Roger Payne. He is the Founder and the President of Ocean
Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the
preservation of whales and all marine life. Many of us remember
his discovery that humpback whales sing to one another, and the
LP, if that doesn't date me too badly, that resulted from that
discovery.
Dr. Payne has led over 100 expeditions to all oceans and
studied every species of large whale in the wild. He pioneered
many of the benign research techniques now used throughout the
world to study free swimming whales, and has trained many of
the current leaders in whale research. He publishes technical
articles and writes for general audiences. In one of this three
articles in National Geographic magazine contained a record of
whale sounds for which 10.5 million copies were printed, still
the largest single print order in the history of the recording
industry.
His publications include the book Among Whales and three
recordings, Songs of the Humpback Whale, the best selling
natural history recording ever released; Deep Voices; and with
musician Paul Winter, Whales Alive. He is a writer and
presented for television documentaries and co-writer and co-
director of the IMAX film Whales.
Payne's honors and awards include a knighthood in the
Netherlands, a MacArthur Fellowship, the similar Lyndhurst
Prize Fellowship, and the Joseph Wood Krutch Medal of the
Humane Society of the U.S.
We are delighted to have him here, and thank you for your
testimony. It is also a banner day because today he is
announcing and releasing the report of his latest study. So
thank you, Roger Payne.
STATEMENT OF ROGER PAYNE, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, OCEAN ALLIANCE
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
The oceans are downhill from everything on land, and that
means that everything that can be moved by wind or water
eventually ends up in the sea where ocean currents then spread
it around the world. Some of the most insidious things that
reach the sea are the chemicals humans synthesize, and through
use release into the environment.
Such compounds have such unmemorable names as
polychlorinated biphenyls, polybrominated diphenyl ethers,
dioxins, furans, phthalates, bisphenol-A and so on.
Collectively, these chemicals threaten our future. Other
contaminants have more familiar names like chromium, mercury
and lead.
Eighteen years ago I wanted to know how extensive oceanic
contamination had become, and I decided that my institute
should establish a global baseline for many pollutants by
measuring their worldwide concentrations in sperm whales. We
chose sperm whales because they occur worldwide and live about
as high on food pyramids as humans do. Seeing how badly sperm
whales are poisoned tells you how badly you are likely to be
poisoned.
To this end, we conducted the voyage of the Odyssey, a 5-
year circumnavigation of the globe during which we collected
955 samples from sperm whales, giving us the first worldwide
sample set from a single species, the first trip to measure how
badly polluted all oceans are with synthetic chemicals and
toxic metals.
Our samples contained some of the highest levels of
pollutants ever found in any free ranging animal. The very
highest readings were from whales that we sampled in some of
the remotest regions of the world. In short, the oceans are
polluted to a far worse degree than anyone had imagined.
For the moment, consider just one of the many pollutants we
studied, chromium. The film Erin Brockovich was about chromium
poisoning. Chromium is a known human carcinogen with the
ability to break and destroy DNA. With our partner, Dr. John
Wise at the University of Southern Maine, we found levels of
chromium in sperm whale skin tissue that are on a par with
chromium levels found in the lungs of industrial workers who
died of chromium induced cancer, workers with decades of
exposure to chromium from working in factories that made
chromium compounds. Our results show that whales are
experiencing similar, even higher levels of exposure.
We also tested the effects of chromium on sperm whale cells
grown in laboratory, and found that chromium damages whale DNA
just as it does human DNA, suggesting that chromium poses
problems to whales that are growing and developing. The most
polluted whales lived in waters around Kiribati in the Central
Pacific, about as far as you can get from industrialization and
big agriculture on this planet.
This whale contained a concentration of chromium 183 times
higher than is needed to break chromosomes. In short, we have a
major pollution problem. We are poisoning the entire ocean
ecosystem. We cannot afford any longer to expect the ocean to
be able to take what we are putting into it. We are poisoning
and chemically sterilizing the marine world.
Seafood is the principal source of animal protein for over
1 billion people. If we keep polluting, humanity will
eventually lose access to a key food resource. The prospect of
over 1 billion people losing their principal source of meat
because it has become too contaminated with pollutants for safe
consumption will be one of the most serious public health
crises humanity has ever faced.
In spite of the obvious seriousness of this problem, it is
not on any government's radar. Before Ocean Alliance circled
the globe sampling sperm whales, no one had measured how
polluted ocean life had become globally. However, if we address
this problem vigorously, it is not too late.
We offer the following policy recommendations. One, we need
global legislation to stop industries from discarding harmful
substances into the sea or the air, which simply carries them
into the sea.
Two, we need to thoroughly test chemicals for safety.
According to a major report released last Thursday by the
President's Cancer Panel, a top policy voice on cancer, ``Only
a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the
United States have been tested for safety. Many known or
suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.''
Three, when we have evidence that chemicals damage
wildlife, we need to apply the precautionary principle and get
them out of circulation for the sake both of the wildlife and
of humans that are most at risk, children and fetuses.
Four, we need to allocate funds specifically aimed at
studying and reducing ocean pollution. There are next to no
Federal funds available to measure ocean pollutant levels. The
usual Federal agencies don't fund such studies, and most of the
EPA funds are expended internally on its own projects, which is
very important, but so are the projects folks like us would do
if we could find funding for them.
What is needed is a specific setaside, specific
allocations. It is crucial to stop the flow of toxic
contaminants into the sea. It is easier to stop than global
warming, but no less important.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Payne follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Dr. Payne.
Senator Cardin will introduce our next witness.
Senator Cardin. Let me introduce Dr. Mitchelmore. She joins
us today from the University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science at the Chesapeake Biological Lab. Dr.
Mitchelmore is an internationally recognized expert in aquatic
technology, and her research experience includes investigating
a broad array of toxics and their effects. Much of her research
is directed at understanding the fate and effects of oil,
dispersed oil, and oil dispersants.
I am happy to be here to shed light on the impacts toxics
are having on our coastal and marine ecosystems and to have her
insight as we begin to investigate the impacts of the BP oil
spill and clean up.
I welcome Dr. Mitchelmore to our Committee.
STATEMENT OF CARYS MITCHELMORE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY
OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, CHESAPEAKE
BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY
Ms. Mitchelmore. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Cardin, Chairman Whitehouse and
members of the Subcommittees. I am Carys Mitchelmore. I was
asked today to provide insight into a few examples of the
critical issues we face concerning pollution in our coastal and
marine environments.
I have been researching the impacts of pollutants on
aquatic organisms for 15 years. There is irrefutable scientific
evidence that our coastlines and oceans are being inundated
with pollutants. Related to this, I would like to stress three
major points, using two case studies, to illustrate these
issues.
First, limited toxicity data exists for many chemicals.
Second, there are multiple sublethal ways in which
contaminants can negatively affect organisms.
Third, chemicals impact and alter delicate food webs.
Since the industrial revolution tens of thousands of
chemical pollutants have been released into the environment,
ultimately making their way into the oceans. Through
bioaccumulation and biomagnification, high levels of these
chemicals are found in the bodies of coastal and oceanic
organisms, even those remote from direct pollution sources. If
these organisms are being polluted, so are we. They are
sentinels of our own health.
New chemicals are entering the marketplace daily, many with
unknown or unpredicted environmental risks. Often very few
toxicological evaluations are carried out before their use.
Many formulations are proprietary, so predicting their
potential effects is difficult. Chemicals that do end up
showing environmental harm are removed from the market, yet the
damage has already been done. Furthermore, they can persist in
sediments, contaminating organisms for years to come.
For example, the persistent bioaccumulative and toxic flame
retardants, PBDEs, have recently been phased out. However,
their effects will be felt for years to come. Fire retardants
are important. They save lives, and so alternatives are being
developed and used. But are these PBDE replacements any less
toxic? We simply can't tell. Limited toxicological information
for these proprietary products is available. In testing some of
these alternative formulations, my laboratory has found that
they bioaccumulate in fish, cause DNA damage, and are
transformed into unknown chemicals.
Perhaps it is time that we become more proactive and
precautionary before releasing new products. We are constantly
unraveling even for historic chemicals new and more subtle
sublethal ways that they can influence a species' survival. For
example, contaminants can depress an organism's immune system,
making them vulnerable to infections. Organisms expend energy
trying to remove contaminants from their bodies. This directs
energy away from normal process. Repercussions of this include
reduced growth, low quantities of offspring, or ultimately even
death.
Aquatic organisms have highly developed nervous, sensory
and behavioral systems that are important for timing of
migration, mating, finding food and predator avoidance.
Chemical contaminants have been shown to affect these
processes. Chemicals affect food webs. They biomagnify up the
food chain. If contaminants kill species at the base of the
food chain, then higher trophic level organisms, including
ourselves, will struggle to find food.
Unfortunate recent events in the Gulf have once again
brought to the forefront issues pertaining to the impacts of
dispersants and dispersed oil. What will the environmental
consequences be of dispersant application? Currently, this is
impossible to predict for many reasons.
First, the sheer volume applied and continued use of
dispersants is unprecedented. Additionally, dispersants are
usually only applied to surface slicks.
Second, dispersants contain mixtures, including proprietary
chemical components and limited toxicological data is
available. Specifically, there is a lack of studies addressing
the potential long-term effects of dispersants and dispersed
oil in organisms. What are the sublethal effects? Will there be
delayed effects? How are organisms even exposed? Do dispersants
make the oil more bio-available?
My research exposing corals to low levels of Corexit 9500
and dispersed oil demonstrated sublethal behavioral effects.
There was a narcotic response resulting in the cessation of
coral pulsing. Corals bleached. Ulcers were formed. And the
tissues simply started to break down. Low dose, short-term
exposures led to delayed effects and significant reductions in
growth rates.
If we had more information, we may be better prepared to
deal with such disasters. Increased knowledge translates to
better solutions. The more data and oil spill responder has
regarding these effects, particularly on sensitive species of
interest, allows them to better decide upon the appropriate
trade off decisions to make.
In summary, Chairman Cardin, Chairman Whitehouse and fellow
Senators, new chemicals and formulations are released daily for
which we have very little or no environmental toxicity data
for. Multiple mixtures exist and chemicals interact in
unpredictable ways. We are constantly unraveling even for
historic chemicals new and more subtle sublethal ways in which
detrimental effects occur.
Chemicals directly or indirectly can alter the fine balance
of food webs, alter ecosystem services, and the overall health
of the ocean. Pollutant impacts our global economies, food
sources, recreational activities, and even the sensitivity of
our coastlines to erosion. Pollution cannot simply be treated
as out of sight, out of mind, or that the solution to pollution
is dilution.
We are beginning to lose the memory of what an unimpacted
coastline and ocean looks like, and that needs to change.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mitchelmore follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Dr. Mitchelmore.
Our next witness is Mr. Sam Waterston, who is widely known
for his long running role as lawyer Jack McCoy in the
television series Law and Order and his Academy Award-nominated
portrayal of Sydney Schanberg in The Killing Fields.
He is here, however, as a member of the Board of Directors
for Oceana, an international non-profit organization focused on
ocean conservation. It is an organization based here in
Washington, DC, that works to protect and restore the world's
oceans, with staff located in Alaska, California, New York,
Oregon and Massachusetts, as well as international offices in
Brussels, Madrid, Belize City and Santiago. The organization
has more than 300,000 members and supporters from all 50 States
and from countries all around the globe.
Explaining his work with Oceana, Mr. Waterston has written,
``I have loved the ocean all my life. As a New Englander, I
have seen the nasty effects of fisheries collapses on the life
of seaside towns. Scientists now warn us that unless we do
something, the world is on a path to global fishery collapses
by mid-century, a calamity of mind boggling proportions we can
still avert. The time to act is now, which is why I am very
happy to be working with an organization as effective as
Oceana.''
And as a Rhode Islander, I am proud to note that he learned
his love of the sea in his boyhood and summers at Matunuck.
So we are delighted to have you with us, Mr. Waterston;
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF SAM WATERSTON, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OCEANA
Mr. Waterston. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Chairman Cardin.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on ocean
acidification. I am honored to be here before your
Subcommittees to talk about an issue that frightens me.
Acidification of our oceans is an impending environmental
crisis that we must stop before it catalyzes the crash of ocean
food webs and the end of ocean ecosystems as we know them.
Before I talk about ocean acidification, I would be remiss
not to mention the deepwater drilling disaster in the Gulf of
Mexico. Our thoughts and prayers are all with the families of
the 11 missing workers, and I hope for a speedy recovery of all
those that were injured.
As of today, at least 4 million gallons have spilled into
the Gulf of Mexico. The leaks have not been stopped, and oil
continues to gush into our oceans and flood our coastlines.
Until this leak is stopped, oil will continue to harm life both
in the ocean and on the shore. We need to end all new offshore
drilling, including for exploration.
The Gulf tragedy was created by an exploratory well, and we
can now see that even exploration poses serious risks to the
marine environment and coastal economies.
Now, on to the reason you invited me, ocean acidification.
Oceana, an international ocean conservation organization that
works to protect and restore the oceans, is an organization
that I believe in enough that I serve on its Board of
Directors. Through my work with Oceana, I have been privileged
to learn of the most recent science and data on our oceans, a
lot of which you have been hearing about today.
I have learned that an impending crisis is barreling toward
us, acidification of our oceans. The burning of fossil fuels is
increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, and
this is leading to global climate change. The carbon dioxide
level in the atmosphere is currently nearly 40 percent greater
than pre-industrial levels. At 387 parts per million now, it is
up more than one-third of the levels that existed before the
industrial revolution.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have not reached this
amount in at least 800,000 years, and the 800,000 year figure
only refers to the amount of time that we are able to measure
with ice cores, and it may have been a much, much longer time.
The oceans for the last 250 years have been a great sink,
absorbing much of the carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere
through the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation,
moderating and masking its global impact and returning bounty
until now.
While the oceans have been providing us this great service,
they have been part of the solution to the climate change
problem, but that important task is making them sick. Ocean
acidification is a concrete and immediate reason to cap and
reduce carbon dioxide emissions into our atmosphere. There is
no other way to stop it, and the only way to reduce
CO2 is to shift from fossil fuels to a clean energy
economy.
If we continue on current trends, levels are likely to
double pre-industrial levels by the middle of this century. If
this occurs, scientists predict that we will see major changes
to coral and other shell forming species and that if we
continue business as usual, we will likely cause a mass
extinction of corals by the middle to end of this century due
to the combined threats of rising acidity and increasing
temperatures.
I am not talking about far into the future. It is a
reality, and it is happening as we speak. Some corals on the
Great Barrier Reef already have reduced growth rates by 14
percent, and similar reductions in growth rates are being seen
on reefs in Thailand and the Caribbean, and shellfish
hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest have seen massive die-offs
of juvenile oysters called spats. This is just an early warning
sign in a story that we don't want to see through to the end.
The carbon dioxide that is absorbed by the seas combines
with seawater to create an acid which changes the acidity of
the oceans, and that causes serious mischief for all the kinds
of sea life, beginning with corals and including swimming
snails, my favorite little animal, the pteropod, and continuing
on through shellfish. A chain reaction begins.
Why does this matter? Because animals like pteropods form
the base of the food web. Whales and salmon need pteropods for
dinner. Fish need coral for habitat. As with any unwanted chain
reaction, the thing to avoid reaching is critical mass, where
the problem outruns any effort to control it.
This particular chain reaction isn't getting the right kind
of attention. And with 1 billion people relying on the oceans
for their primary source of animal protein, a collapse of the
ocean food web would have major and dire consequences for
humans.
What can we do? We must cap and reduce carbon dioxide
emissions, period. It is simple chemistry. The more carbon
dioxide absorbed by the oceans, the more acidic our oceans will
become. Congress already recognized the importance of this
issue and passed the Federal Oceans Acidification Research and
Monitoring Act as a first step to focus Federal agencies on how
acidification will impact our oceans and coastal communities.
This program needs to be fully funded and implemented.
Congress also needs to preserve the Environmental
Protection Agency's authority to address and regulate carbon
dioxide. And we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels and
shift to clean renewable energy.
To start, we need to end all new offshore drilling now. The
risk to coastal communities and our oceans is too great, and
accidents clearly do happen. But at the end of the day, the
only way we have any hope to address ocean acidification is to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Regardless of whether you
think the climate is changing or whether or when or at what
speed it will impact the United States, carbon dioxide is
impacting our oceans now. It is occurring. It is simple
chemistry, and Congress needs to step in and do something about
it.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waterston follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Waterston.
Our final witness on the panel is John T. Everett. Dr.
Everett is the President of Ocean Associates, a company that
provides consulting services on oceans and fisheries policy and
sustainability, ecosystem and fisheries relationships, and
global climate change and its impacts at the global and local
level on fisheries and oceans.
He worked 31 years in 13 positions in NOAA, National
Marines Fisheries Service, as a researcher, analyst and manager
in fisheries and oceans programs, until recently holding the
post of Chief of the NOAA Fisheries Division of Research. He
has chaired or co-chaired several scientific analyses by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has served on the
National Academy of Sciences Panel on Ecosystem Indicators of
Climate Change. Since its inception in 1999, Dr. Everett has
also been Manager and Chief Editor of the U.N. Atlas of the
Oceans.
We are delighted to have him here.
Dr. Everett.
STATEMENT OF JOHN T. EVERETT, PRESIDENT,
OCEAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mr. Everett. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me. My views are mine alone. My approach
is a product of my education and work for NOAA and IPCC that
you have already reviewed.
I am also president of Ocean Associates, as you said, which
is an oceans and fisheries consulting firm with 70 people in
six States. I have a Web site, www.ClimateChangeFacts.info to
share information.
The Gulf oil spill and President's Cancer Panel point out
the immediate threats to our sea life and ourselves from oil or
chemicals. But the oil damage will eventually heal. Better
procedures will be employed, and this oil will be recycled and
assimilated.
The flow of chemical materials into our waters is another
matter. There are too many insidious contaminants causing
genetic harm and poisoning our marine birds, turtles and
mammals and seafood. EPA's focus should be to stop this flow
and clean it up.
I respect the view of Mr. Waterston. He is not alone.
However, I have some different views. If CO2
increases beyond this century, there might be changes in the
mix of marine plants and animals, but it will mostly leave
humans without impact. In contrast, contaminants create only
losers.
My statement on acidification focuses on marine life's
ability to make shells and whether there will be less to eat at
the base of the food chain. These concerns are from scientists
who believe the IPCC scenarios of the early 1990s will
dangerously increase acidification. Other scientists believe
these scenarios are obsolete since the rising fuel cost is
slowing usage, CO2 shows no acceleration, and the
Earth's ability to absorb it has not diminished.
With all the hype, many people are afraid of the acid in
the oceans. Oceans are not acidic except in natural cases such
as volcanic events, in some parts of estuaries in late summer
and in very deep waters. We are talking about an increase in
acidity of two times. In contrast, a puddle of rainwater or
handful of snow is over 100 times more acidic than the oceans.
Many lakes are 10 or more times acidic, and 70 percent of
Maine's are actually acidic, yet they teem with many of the
kinds of life that are in the oceans. Lake research shows that
acidity is unrelated to productivity. These are important
clues.
Americans will not dissolve when they jump in the water,
just as when they jump in a lake in Maine. And seafood is safe
to eat. It may be hard to believe, but many people are really
concerned about the acid.
Four factors shape my views. First, research shows pluses
and minuses among shelled plants and animals. Ries found that
crabs, shrimp and lobsters build more shell with elevated
CO2. Some other shelled animals and algae increase
shell growth at moderate levels, but slower at higher levels,
while hard clams and corals slowed shell formation at very high
levels. Soft clams and oysters slowed much sooner, while
mussels did not change at any level.
None of the shells dissolved until the highest levels, but
grew slower at very high CO2. Miller found shells of
other oyster species increased along with CO2, and
shells of other animals did not dissolve. Iglesias-Rodriguez
found major growth benefits to an important shelled algae,
essentially a plant.
Second, the Earth has been this route before. The oceans
have been far warmer, colder and more acidic than is projected.
Marine life endured CO2 many times higher and
temperatures that put tropical plants at the poles or covered
our land by thick ice. The memory of these events is in the
genes of all surviving species.
Virtually all ecological niches have always been filled. If
there were no corals, clams, oysters or shelled plankton when
CO2 was double or triple, I would be concerned. The
opposite is true. If we examine mass extinctions, we find they
were not caused by double or triple CO2, if it had
anything to with extinctions at all.
Third, IPCC found no observational evidence of ocean
changes from acidification. And well designed research suggests
that organisms' responses will be variable and complex. How
individual organisms will respond is not known.
Last, contrary to all the information, natural oceanic
changes are greater and faster than those projected. Warming,
cooling and pH changes are a fact of life, whether over a few
years in an El Nino, over decades as in the Pacific
oscillation, or over a few hours in a burst of upwelling or a
storm that brings cold acidic rainwater to an estuary or
shallow coral reef.
Despite severe and rapid changes, the biology adapts
rapidly. The .01 change in pH since 1750 and the 1 degree
Fahrenheit rise since 1860 are but noise in this rapidly
changing system. Whether changes occur over days or millennia,
some species flourish while others diminish.
I see no overall acidification harm to marine fisheries,
mammals, turtles or other animals. More research is needed to
determine how the response of individual organisms will
reverberate throughout food webs and ecosystems. The real and
immediate threat lies in the chemicals that flow down our
rivers.
Second, we need to improve oil drilling and transport so
disaster cannot happen. It may be as simple as increasing
redundancy of valves, hulls, navigation traffic controllers or
captains. As my daughter said, ``Dad, ocean acidification is
not a problem for the oysters. They will all be dead from the
oil.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Everett follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Dr. Everett.
I wanted to begin with two photographs from Rhode Island.
This first photograph was taken in South Kingstown this
weekend, a whale washed ashore along the shoreline. And this
whale washed ashore in Narragansett in 2008.
Dr. Payne, based on your research, what can you guess, and
I know you don't know specifically about these exact whales
themselves, based on the extent of the contamination that you
are finding, what is your guess as to what the status is of
these whale bodies in terms of their toxicity?
Mr. Payne. I am not sure of the species. I am sorry. I
can't see the pictures very well, but my guess would be that
when you find a single animal----
Senator Whitehouse. A minke whale on your right and a
humpback on your left.
Mr. Payne. Oh, that is a humpback. I couldn't see. OK. My
guess would be that when you find a single whale stranded like
that, it is less likely to be some event that would be caused,
for example, by red tide or something of that nature. But I
would imagine that if you looked at any of these whales, the
minke whale on the right, of course, feeds on a lot of fish.
Most people think it is only on smaller species. If you get up
to a species which is feeding very high on a food chain, you
end up with higher concentrations.
I just want to give a quick example. If you had a pound of
swordfish sitting in your plate, and you were about to eat it,
the question is how many pounds did it take of diatoms at the
bottom to make that pound of swordfish? Well, swordfish, or at
least many of them, live at as much as the sixth level of a
food chain, so that means you get a multiplication times 10 six
times over. So 10 times 10 times 10 times 10 times 10 times 10
times 10. That is a million.
So the question is answered by, it is a million pounds of
diatoms to make that one pound of swordfish on your plate. A
million pounds is 500 tons. Five hundred tons is 50 10-ton
truckloads. So now you park 50 10-ton trucks in a row and you
tie your liver to one end of it, and you detoxify all of the 50
10-ton loads of these diatoms with your liver. And what's what
you do when you eat a pound of swordfish, like it or not.
And what happens to these substances, they remain in your
body. And if you have a pound tomorrow, you end up with higher
concentrations. These are long lived animals, both of them, so
the result is that they undoubtedly have high concentrations of
a series of chemicals in their body. Whether that is what put
them on the beach, I don't know. It could have been, but I
don't know.
Senator Whitehouse. I am not suggesting that is the reason,
but I think your evidence shows that no matter where you go,
whales that feed at the top of the food chain carry enormous
loads of toxins in their bodies, even in the farthest corners
of the globe.
Mr. Payne. Absolutely right.
Senator Whitehouse. How does that fact that whales are
mammals, since they lactate, bear on this problem?
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Yes, that tenderest of all mammalian
acts, a mother nursing her babe, actually what she is doing is
dumping her lifetime's accumulation of fat soluble PBTs or POPs
into her babe. And the result is that the infant is no longer a
sort of pure creature. It starts with its mother's toxic load.
It adds a lifetime of its own toxic load and dumps the double
dose into its baby, which receives a lifetime of its own toxic
dose and dumps a triple load into its baby.
Humans can avoid that bullet by in fact feeding formula to
their infants. That is not an option for a whale. The result is
that if you go long enough with these substances which last for
longer than the lifetimes of whales, you can expect actually
extinction of species that eat high on food chains.
Senator Whitehouse. So it bioaccumulates not only in the
body of an individual whale as it continues to swim and eat and
age, it will also bioaccumulate in the species because
lactation passes it on to the next generation in an upward
ratchet of poisoning.
Mr. Payne. Right. That is true. Any animal that you eat
high on a food chain is going to give you these extraordinarily
high concentrations of contaminants.
Senator Whitehouse. And how do flame retardants get there?
Mr. Payne. I wish we had our data on flame retardants from
the trip around the world. We expect it this week sometime. It
just hasn't come in, the analyses. But they are also climbing
food chains, and one would expect them to be therefore
contributing problems to humanity. I think it is over 90
percent of human females have flame retardants in their bodies.
And of course, part of the problem is when you lie on a
bed. Flame retardants, as you know, as used in all sorts of
fabrics for preventing fires, and a good thing to prevent
fires. But when you lie with your head on a pillow which is
soaked in it, or the foam of the pillow is, you are actually
breathing all night in these substances. And therefore, you are
loading your system with them.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Wow. This has been a fascinating panel, but
this has me now wondering in talking to my wife about finding
out the seafood we eat, what part of the food chain they
consumed, which is not on our labels. It is something that just
has us all thinking about it.
The more you realize the depth of information we have and
we don't have about the risk factors in the oceans, it really
does point out two facts. First, what Mr. Waterston said, and
that is prevention would be the best course here. Global
climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, that needs to be
dealt with so that acidification is at least slowed down. That
is issue No. 1.
No. 2, stopping further exploration of oil offshore would
be No. 2.
And Dr. Everett, I appreciate the comment you said about
redundancy, but let me just remind you that the oil rig in the
Gulf of Mexico had redundancies in it as far as the shut-off
valves, several redundancies in it. And the risk factor was
considered to be minimal that it didn't require extra scrutiny
on the regulators.
So stopping further exploration is clearly in our best
interest. It is in our best interest for an energy policy, as
well as for an environmental policy.
And if you want to speculate on this, fine, but I think
about what would have happened if we would have had the
comparable amount of oil spill 50 miles off the coast of Rhode
Island or 50 miles off the coast of Maryland. For those of you
who say that cannot happen, let me remind you that site 220 is
50 miles off the coast of Maryland. And there were plans to
start that as early as 2011 or 2012.
Now, that is not going to happen as a result of what
happened in the Gulf of Mexico, but it could have happened. And
if would have had redundancies, I am sure, in its process, but
there could have been a spill of comparable number. What I find
surprising is that the Gulf of Mexico spill if it lasts for
another month, it will surpass Exxon Valdez. And Exxon Valdez
was number 34 on the all-time list of spills. So there have
been horrific spills that are having generational impacts on
the quality of our oceans.
I don't even want to think about the impact it would have
on the Chesapeake Bay. I still worry about if the Gulf of
Mexico spill gets into the currents it could very well come up
the East Coast of the United States. We don't know. We don't
have that.
So I guess my first question, if any of you would care to
respond, is I am not satisfied we have enough information. I
really worry about these dispersants that are being used, not
that we have any choice, because I am not sure we have any
choice, but to try it.
We never tried using a dispersant at such a depth, to try
to disperse the oil before it hits the surface, and that is
what they are trying to do, and EPA is very frank with us
saying we don't know whether it can work. And second, we don't
know the impact it has on our environment.
Am I right to be concerned that we might be hiding the true
damage done to our environment from this spill in an effort to
mitigate it, but then not to let the public know exactly what
damage has been caused as a result of the use of these oil
dispersants?
Any of you care to speculate on that?
Ms. Mitchelmore. Sure. I can chime in and add to what I
said earlier. It is going to be a while before we know the
potential environmental effects of the dispersants. As I
mentioned earlier, there are unprecedented volumes of this
dispersant that are being applied in the Gulf right now. And in
addition, the way that the dispersant is being used potentially
under consideration. Dispersants are usually applied on the
surface oil slicks, and they are approved for open ocean use
because of the huge volume, for example, that they dilute into.
They are pre-approved for use in open oceans, in waters greater
than 10 meters depth, more than 3 nautical miles from the
shore, for example, because of the dilution effect.
So by putting this right on the seabed, it is unknown, for
example, what the consequences of that be. First of all, with
any dispersant application, effectiveness has to be determined.
Not all oil can be dispersed. It depends on temperature,
weather parameters. But ultimately, we are taking a normal top-
down approach to potentially looking from the bottom up now.
That seabed, as it is so deep, wouldn't have been potentially
exposed to a dispersed oil reaching those depths. It would have
gone sideways and diluted out, but of course there is this
continued oil and this continued dispersant use to consider as
well.
Senator Whitehouse. I know that Mr. Waterston has to leave,
and before he does I just wanted to ask him for a closing
comment by him. We are a terrestrial species. We focus a great
deal of our attention on the land, the earth around us. We call
our planet Earth, even though it is far more water than it is
earth. We talk about climate change and global warming, but the
worst effect for humankind of the carbon pollution of our
planet may very well prove to be ocean acidification.
What can we do? And from our perspective, let me add one
final point, we see reports coming back from far away oceans
where most of us never have the chance to go. Dr. Payne brings
them back from the remote corners of the globe. Scientists go
out and sample and bring them back from the remote corners of
the globe. And they are our news source. They are our
reporters, our scouts, our sentries as to what is happening to
this great resource of ours.
Then we come to Washington and big industries go right to
work, as they are in the climate change debate, saying don't
worry; that is just science; there is some doubt, attacking the
process, attacking the people, doing everything they can to
maintain their economic status as exploiters of the resource;
in the case of climate change, free polluters at all of our
expense.
What is your advice to us on how we can best try to get
more attention paid by our terrestrial bi-ped species to these
oceans so that we are better attuned to hear their warnings
before it is too late?
Mr. Waterston. It is a huge question, and I don't have a
ready answer except to say that we need to change our minds to
recognize the obvious fact that life emerged from the sea, and
it depends on the sea. And that there is no escaping the fact
that what we do to the oceans comes back to bite us.
Oceana's contention all along--its reason for being,
really--is to argue that we are taking too much good stuff out
and putting too much bad stuff into the oceans and that it is
having an immediate effect on life as we know it, the life that
we enjoy, on jobs, and on food that a billion of us depend on.
By the way, the United States is one of the countries that
will be most impacted by a drop in the availability of seafood
because we eat so much of it. So this is an immediate issue for
us. And making the connection is all our job, but it sounds to
me as if you are way ahead of me in expertise. So I am glad to
be here to be able to point at this, and I think it is high
time we all paid more attention.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you for being here. I understand
you have scheduling requirements, and it is 11:30.
Mr. Waterston. I do.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Let me thank the entire panel. I found this
very, very helpful.
Dr. Everett, I had a question for you, but you might have
answered it in your last sentence. In preparation for today's
hearing, I was very intrigued with your daughter's quote that
you ended the testimony with, the quote that said, ``Ocean
acidification is not a problem for the oysters. They will all
be dead.''
But then in your verbal presentation, you said from oil. I
don't know whether that was in her quote or not, and I will
give you a chance to clarify.
Mr. Everett. I wanted to be clear why they would be dead,
and she was talking about them being oil covered, and they
would die from the oil.
Senator Cardin. Because my point and the question I would
at least put for the record is that the oyster issue is a very
sensitive issue for all of us because we are doing everything
we can to get the oyster back. And by the way, we are making
progress in Maryland. I heard in Rhode Island you are also
making progress.
We are seeing some very positive signs of the programs that
we have in place and the work that we are doing that we are
seeing a larger oyster crop. It is very tentative and we are
working very hard. It is not the Asian oyster. This is going to
be native in the Chesapeake Bay.
But there are multiple problems here. Acidification is a
problem. The sediments that are going into the bay are
problems. But if we say that one isn't causing the reductions,
we will never get to an answer. We have to deal with all these
issues, including acidification. We know it is not good.
So I guess my point is that I think your testimonies here
point out, first, we need more science. We need better
information. And I know it is difficult because the oceans are
so vast. We need better information.
I think, Dr. Payne, your examples that you brought back is
very, very valuable to us, and we thank you for that. The
principal responsibility rests with governments. Unfortunately,
the oceans are multi-jurisdictional so there is not one
country. It is an international responsibility to deal with the
science, and we need to have a level of understanding so that
we have a coordinated strategy.
We are starting to get there today on global climate
change, and that is good. And the United States, I think, will
take on leadership which was lacking during the last 8 years. I
think we will be in the forefront under President Obama and
this Administration, but we need to do the same thing with the
oceans.
What I take out of this hearing is that we need to have a
stronger international leadership to deal with the complexities
of what is happening in our oceans. And the sooner the better
because this multiplies quickly. And if you don't get a handle
on it, it is going to be more challenging for the future.
Mr. Chairman, this hearing was Senator Whitehouse's
recommendation that we start to develop a record here in this
Committee and this Senate and this Congress on this issue
because it is going to be with us, and we need to develop a
strategy. I just want to compliment our Chairman for bringing
you all together.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, thank you, Chairman Cardin. It
has been such a pleasure to work with you and your office in
preparing this hearing. It has been a true team collaborative
effort. And as I mentioned earlier to the witnesses, there is a
bit of a rivalry between the two of us as to who has the more
oceanic ocean State, but that did not prevent us from working
well on this, and he has been a great friend.
I have just a few additional questions before the hearing
concludes. I would like to ask Drs. Mitchelmore and Everett to
comment a little bit on the chemical pollution that is flowing
into the oceans.
You had a rather stunning phrase in your testimony, Dr.
Mitchelmore, where you said that the potential for a ``toxic
soup of unknown effects which cannot be predicted even if the
individual chemical constituents are known,'' as a result of
the multiplicity of chemicals that flow into the sea.
And Dr. Everett, you said the ``flow of chemicals materials
into our waters is another matter. There are too many insidious
contaminants entering our estuaries causing genetic harm and
poisoning our birds, turtles and seafood. These contaminants,''
you continue, ``create only losers and directly impact us as
well.''
I would be interested in hearing first from Dr. Everett and
then from Dr. Mitchelmore a little bit on the extent to which
the interaction between multiple chemicals creates an
independent condition or an independent risk aside from the one
single chemical. We usually tests things chemical by chemical.
If you could comment on that, if that is an area you have
looked at, I would appreciate it. And then to have Dr.
Mitchelmore fill in a little bit more on her testimony.
Mr. Everett. I am particularly sensitive to the chemicals.
I grew up as a commercial fisherman, and even after having my
master's degree I continued fishing. I was in the Fairhaven,
Massachusetts, side of the New Bedford Harbor, which is a
Superfund site. So we knew well what was in all the products
out there and that they didn't stay where they were. They
didn't die of old age. And we knew that there was something
really bad about this stuff.
It is all, I think, throughout the different chemicals,
they interact. If there is something that attacks the liver,
there might be something attacking some genetics. And it all
goes together. There is no one cause in any of this. And it is
important to get them stopped. I think that this is the real
harm, and there are a lot of people who are very concerned
about it, and legitimately so, as we heard.
That is one part of everyone's testimony that I will agree
with.
Senator Whitehouse. So the toxic soup notion of either
chemical interactions working against the environment or its
effects on a particular creature accumulating from one chemical
harming them here to one chemical harming them there, it is a
very real problem.
Mr. Everett. Yes. I worked in the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and one of the last things I did was getting together
the status of the marine habitats. The report is called Our
Living Oceans. I worked on that as a contractor after I left
the Fisheries Service. It is a very important document, and I
am concerned about the contaminants through all aspects of the
life passing on genetic defects and everything. It is not good
stuff.
Senator Whitehouse. And you agree with Dr. Payne that some
of these contaminants will not only bioaccumulate in the
individual creature, but for mammals through lactation they
will poison the next generation in an increasing cycle of
chemical loading?
Mr. Everett. We know that when the infant is growing that
it is not good to be giving them contaminants. Not only will
they accumulate, but they will cause damage from the first
moment.
Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Mitchelmore.
Ms. Mitchelmore. Thank you, Senator. Those are excellent
questions.
We know very well that chemicals can interact with each
other, and sometimes that is in unknown ways. We have learned
this from the medical field, for example, when we go to the
doctors and the pharmacist. They carefully check interactions
between different prescriptions, especially if you are taking
more than one item.
In some cases, for example, taking drug A with drug B can
result in negative consequences. The combination may even be
fatal. And yet if you took those drug A and drug B singly and
at different times, using exactly the same dose, you would have
no adverse effect.
Well, this phenomenon is called synergism, and this analogy
holds true for the organisms that are now being exposed to a
barrage of multiple contaminants in the coastal and ocean
systems.
And chemicals not only interact with other chemicals, they
also interact with environmental parameters. For example,
temperature can potentiate the effect of a chemical either by
direct chemical means or by the temperature impact on that
organism and how that organism can now deal with that chemical.
And another point is that many chemicals actually look
similar to a lot of natural chemicals that are within us. And
this is one of the highlights for a lot of these emerging
contaminants of concern right now. Many of them look just like
our natural thyroid hormones. And so unsurprisingly, they are
affecting the thyroid hormone system, and that is critical for
development, and especially in the young.
You brought up about the maternal transfer issue. And it is
really critical for these young organisms. They haven't got the
fully developed systems that can break down these chemicals
that we have in our bodies. And so these young are very
sensitive often to these chemicals.
The maternal transfer is not just through breast milk. It
is also through placental transfer, and it is particularly
critical for other higher trophic level organisms like reptiles
that put all of their fat reserves which contain these
persistent chemicals into the yolk which their developing
embryo are exposed to.
Senator Whitehouse. So it works for eggs as well as for
lactation in the same way.
Ms. Mitchelmore. Yes, very high levels of PCBs, PBDEs have
been found in reptile eggs.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Dr. Payne, looking at the variety of whale species that you
have studied for many, many years, what is the general
prognosis for our big marine mammals? Does it differ species by
species? Are there some that are you think quite safe in this
environment compared to others that at very grave risk? And
what do we need to be prepared for if we don't change our ways?
Mr. Payne. If you are looking at the various species, any
toothed whale is likely to be eating higher on the food chain
than at least some of the baleen whales. But everybody seems to
think that baleen whales feed just on krill or on plankton,
that which would be lower on food chains, but no. Minke whales,
for instance, feed on huge quantities of fish, and Japan has
exhausted itself trying to demonstrate that to the rest of the
world in its false argument that these minke whales are
actually out-fishing humans for fish. The examples they have
come up with are completely unconvincing.
But the other species, for instance, fin whales are in
Norway called by a name which translates out to herring whale,
because in fact they eat so much fish. So those animals that
eat fish are high on food chains.
And what is the future for all of them? I think it is
extinction. When I first made this suggestion about 8 or 10
years ago, I received a great deal of criticism, particularly
from a fellow I have worked with over the years who later came
to me and apologized and said I'm sorry; no, it is right; there
is no other way out.
And I don't think there is unless we do something about it.
And if we don't do something about it, we will ultimately put
ourselves out of business in terms of being able to sell fish
from the sea. They will be too polluted to sell.
So I think it is an incredibly important issue, and as I
say, you could make a fairly tight suggestion that it was the
biggest public health issue humanity has ever faced. A billion
people will be affected directly by it since they get their
principal source of animal protein from fish or from seafood.
And that is a number about five times greater than the entire
number of people whose lives were shortened by plague. So you
think--it is probably a big problem.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
A vote has begun, so I will conclude this hearing. I want
to thank all of the witnesses. It has been extremely helpful. I
want to just briefly thank Brad and Kata and Anna Marie of my
staff who went to a lot of work to put this hearing together.
I think it is particularly important for EPA to be alert to
the damage that both carbon pollution and chemical pollution
are likely causing or are causing in our oceans. And I think it
is equally important that the Environment and Public Works
Committee be alert to that and attuned to it, and that it be an
important part of this Committee's focus.
So today was for me an important hearing because it brought
this issue before our Committee through the two Subcommittees,
through Senator Cardin's Subcommittee and mine, in a way that I
hope will be lasting for the reasons that Dr. Payne has said,
and in fact Dr. Everett an Dr. Mitchelmore as well. We are at
grave risk of the chemical contamination to our oceans and the
seafood and species contained therein.
So I will keep the hearing open for an additional week for
any materials that anybody wishes to submit for the record of
this hearing. I will take the opportunity to ask a few
questions for the record of the witnesses, and hope that you
can get back with us. My staff will send them directly to you.
I am the only one here so I don't have to sign off with
anyone. I will just call the hearing to an end, but I am very,
very grateful to all of the witnesses for how helpful they are
and look forward to working with you further.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m. the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Good morning. We are here today to examine EPA's work to
monitor and reduce environmental risks to our marine and
coastal ecosystems. This subject is particularly timely given
the challenges we currently face in responding to the oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico, though I will save most of my comments
on that terrible event for the hearing this Committee is
conducting this afternoon. I look forward to hearing more about
EPA's work to protect ocean health as well as the private-
public partnerships that exist to understand and reduce risks
to this important ecosystem.
Our oceans are a precious resource, and we should take
appropriate steps to ensure they are protected. Though I hail
from Oklahoma, I have a particular personal interest in the
ocean and coasts.
We know that many things affect the health of oceans and
coastlines--in some cases, human activities, and in some cases,
natural processes. So, one of the most important things I hope
to learn today is the state of the science on oceans. I hope
the witnesses will discuss what we really do, and perhaps most
important do not know about oceans. Fully understanding all the
circumstances that impact ocean health will help us make
informed decisions about how to better protect these important
natural resources as well as the communities and economies that
depend on them.
We will hear today about how certain toxins affect oceans.
Much has been done already to minimize and mitigate the most
potent of these toxins, so I hope that the witnesses will
acknowledge and make recommendations building on this progress.
We will also discuss the concept of ocean acidification.
Without question, the pH of oceans impacts the creatures that
live there. But there is scientific uncertainty as to whether,
in general, oceans are actually becoming more acidic, and if
so, what that means and what is the cause. We must be certain
that we have a full picture of all the outside sources and
natural cycles that affect the balance of the ocean.
To help us understand the full picture, we will hear from
Dr. John Everett, a former scientist with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, who's now a consultant on ocean
issues, about his studies that suggest the oceans will remain
alkaline even as they absorb more carbon dioxide. I look
forward to his testimony and his broader points that open
minded research is needed to keep this issue in perspective.
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Additional material submitted by Ocean Alliance and
Transocean Holdings, LLC, is available in the Committee files.
[all]