U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–443 PDF 2016

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 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 CoChair 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 address-
2 

ing 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, 
3 

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 
4 

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. 
5 

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 
6 

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 
7 

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:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

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 
41 

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 
42 

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 
43 

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. 
44 

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 im-
45 

portant 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 
46 

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 
47 

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. 
48 

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:] 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

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 prod-
57 

ucts 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 longterm 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 
58 

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:] 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 

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 
79 

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 preindustrial 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 
80 

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:] 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 

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 
124 

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 Nin ̃ o, 

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 
125 

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:] 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 

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 
146 

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 
147 

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 
148 

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. 
149 

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 com-
150 

ment 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. 
151 

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 
152 

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:] 
153 

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:] 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 

Additional material submitted by Ocean Alliance and Transocean 

Holdings, LLC, is available in the Committee files. 

Æ