U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

77–909 2013

THE BP OIL SPILL: HUMAN EXPOSURE AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 10, 2010 

Serial No. 111–132 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

ELIOT ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, opening statement ................................................... 1 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 3 

Hon. Charlie Melancon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, opening statement ................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 5 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

Hon. Mike Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 50 

WITNESSES

Chris Reddy, Ph.D., Associate Scientist, Department of Marine and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution ........................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Edward J. Trapido, Sc.D., FACE, Associate Dean for Research, Professor 

and Wendell Gauthier Chair of Cancer Epidemiology, LSU Health Sciences 

Center, New Orleans, School of Public Health .................................................. 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Gina Solomon, MD, MPH, EPA Science Advisory Board, Senior Scientist, 

National Resources Defense Council, Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, Associate Director 

of the UCSF Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit ......................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE BP OIL SPILL: HUMAN EXPOSURE AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE 

THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:54 p.m., in Room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Butterfield, Melancon, Matsui, 

McNerney, Dingell, Capps, Gonzalez, Ross, Matheson, Barrow, 

Waxman (ex officio), Upton, Stearns, Burgess, and Scalise. 

Staff Present: Phil Barnett, Staff Director; Bruce Wolpe, Senior 

Advisor; Greg Dotson, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; 

Jackie Cohen, Counsel; Michal Freedhoff, Counsel; Melissa 

Cheatham, Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Special 

Assistant; Peter Kethcham-Colwill, Special Assistant; Karen Lightfoot, Communications Director, Senior Policy Advisor; Elizabeth 

Letter, Special Assistant; Mitchell Smiley, Special Assistant; Aaron 

Cutler, Minority Counsel; Audrea Spring, Minority Professional 

Staff; and Garrett Golding, Minority Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Good afternoon. 

We apologize to all of you who have been waiting. We just had 

nine roll calls on the floor of the House of Representatives. And it 

did lead to a delay in the Members’ ability to arrive so that we 

could have this very important discussion. 

It has been 52 days since the BP Deepwater Horizon drilling rig 

began spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, creating a manmade environmental catastrophe of a magnitude never before encountered 

in this country. A few weeks ago, I led a congressional delegation 

to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We flew over the disaster 

and witnessed the streams of oil that stretch as far as the eye can 

see and saw the billows of smoke from the burning oil rising hundreds of feet above the sea surface. This past weekend, I returned 

and saw the stain of BP’s oil on the cane in the marshland. 

Every day, as this oil encroaches on our wetlands and our estuaries, we all sense the doom facing the countless species that live 

both above and below the surface. Oil has made its way onto the 

beaches and marshes of four coastal States. Dispersants are being 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

used in unprecedented quantities and at depths never before attempted. Methane and other gases spew from the gaping wound BP 

has inflicted on the ocean floor, mixing with the oil and dispersants 

to create a toxic stew of chemicals. 

Hundreds of animals, fish, birds, turtles, dolphins and other species have already been found dead. We have also heard reports that 

there may be clouds of subsurface oil that pose an insidious threat 

to deepsea coral and other marine life, oil that will not make its 

presence known by the clear signs of tar balls or oiled birds but 

which could nevertheless harm generations of aquatic life. 

As these enormous toxic clouds drift through the ocean, naturally 

occurring bacteria that eat the oil and gas will also consume the 

oxygen needed by other marine plants and sea life. So in addition 

to slowly being poisoned by the toxic stew, marine plants and animals are therefore also being faced with death by asphyxiation. 

Large portions of the food chain of the Gulf region may be at risk 

of annihilation. 

The impacts of this calamity do not end in the water or on the 

shores. The crude oil and burning operations have left the air in 

the regions closest to the incident thick with a mixture of chemicals 

that have been tied to acute health problems, such as headaches, 

dizziness, nausea and respiratory irritation. These chemicals have 

also been linked to the development of cancer and other chronic 

diseases. 

In addition, there is increasing concern that seafood from the 

Gulf is being contaminated with petroleum products and other 

chemicals, putting human health in the direct line of fire and tugging at the Gulf region’s already sensitive economy. 

After 6 weeks of failed junk shots and top kills and endless television images of ineffective skimmers and booms, BP has finally 

admitted the truth: There was no viable response plan because BP 

did not invest the time or resources and, therefore, didn’t have the 

tools. Its response plan included walruses and seals and sensitive 

biological species in the Gulf of Mexico, where they do not exist. It 

listed as its experts some who were long deceased and phone numbers for offices that did not exist. It claimed that there would be 

almost no impacts associated with a worst-case release of 10 times 

as much oil as we now face. 

It is clear that we cannot trust BP to assess or address anything. 

Today we have before us experts who have been in the Gulf studying this bill and who can share with us the ecological and human 

health impacts that BP’s oil will have. I look forward to hearing 

this important testimony, but first I would like to recognize my distinguished colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There is no question, no question at all, that every one of us is 

outraged and heartbroken by the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf 

that left 11 dead and has spread an unknown quantity of oil into 

the sea. It is truly a very tragic event for our entire Nation. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

As I have said many times, it needs to be made crystal clear to 

everyone involved that the polluter will pay, and the American taxpayers should not and will not be on the hook for the cost of this 

accident, both economic and environmental. 

And as someone who grew up along the shore of Lake Michigan, 

I understand firsthand the economic and environmental importance 

of protecting our natural resources. As the oil continues to gush at 

an untold rate, I am looking forward to hearing the testimony 

today to learn more about the impact of the spill on human and 

environmental health and what the future may hold. 

While it is imperative that we produce oil and natural gas domestically to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, we must do so 

in a responsible manner to ensure that we do not compromise the 

integrity of our natural resources. 

Just as Lake Michigan provides the very foundation of our livelihood and economy in the Midwest, so does the Gulf of Mexico for 

the States that surround it. 

Our health and the health of future generations depends upon 

our ability to wisely manage our ecosystems. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, the chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for recognizing me and for holding this hearing. 

We are looking at this issue from so many different perspectives. 

Our committee has jurisdiction over energy and over oil and gas 

extraction. 

But we cannot avert our eyes to what is happening right now in 

the Gulf of Mexico. The tragic consequences are on so many different levels. This oil spill by most estimates has now surpassed 

even the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989. To date, millions of gallons of 

oil have flowed into the Gulf of Mexico with no end in sight until 

the end of August. 

It is too early to tell the full extent of the environmental and 

human health impact of this spill. That is why I am glad we are 

holding this hearing because we need to understand that: Nothing 

like this has ever happened before. A spill of this magnitude under 

these circumstances is unprecedented. 

We can, however, anticipate some of the likely effects. And that 

is why it is so important we are having the hearing. And we are 

looking forward to the testimony of the witnesses. 

It is too obvious the spill will have serious environmental consequences. We have seen the devastating pictures of coated shoreline, oiled wildlife. We are hearing about the possible plumes of oil 

under the surface of the ocean, threatening entire underwater ecosystems. 

What we don’t know is the long-term environmental impact of oil 

as it settles into the ocean floor, into the marsh ecosystems and as 

its chemicals move into the ocean food chain. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

The health impacts of the spill could also be extremely serious. 

We know that crude oil contains many substances known to be 

toxic to people, including the chemicals known commonly as BTEX 

chemicals. These chemicals can cause short-term acute health effects, such as headaches, nausea. We have already heard reports 

from people that are suffering those consequences. We know that 

they also have been shown to cause cancer and other long-term 

neurologic and reproductive damage. 

We are going to have consequences from this spill for decades. 

So it is important now that we start understanding the problem 

and preparing for those consequences. And I think that it is appropriate that we have three experts who can help us understand the 

likely impacts of the spill. I look forward to their testimony. I hope 

your work will prepare us for the inevitable impacts of this catastrophe. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE MELANCON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for holding this hearing today and for starting the 

discussion on what impact this environmental catastrophe is having and will have on the residents of the Gulf Coast, including families I represent in the Third District of Louisiana. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses for coming today, but I 

would like to give a special thanks to Dr. Trapido, from New Orleans, for participating today. 

Thank you, Doctor. 

I remain concerned about the physical and mental health of the 

workers, volunteers and the residents of Louisiana’s Third District 

and, for that matter, of all of the State of Louisiana. 

I believe no one knows for certain the long-term health effects 

that face the people of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast. And I worry 

about these people every day. We need to protect them at all costs 

and ensure that their health remains a top priority, even after the 

leak is stopped. 

We have learned from Katrina that the end of the immediate disaster doesn’t mean the end of the response. Respiratory problems 

linked to formaldehyde in trailers and mental health issues that 

still linger in our communities are constant reminders that the unanticipated impacts of a disaster may last for years or even decades 

to come. 

In disaster response, the best way forward isn’t always in black 

and white. So we should be erring on the side of caution and taking 

every opportunity to make certain that the health and safety of the 

Gulf Coast residents is a priority. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today’s hearing. 

I would like to also thank the witnesses for being with us today. 

In the 6 weeks since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion, an estimated 500 million to 1.1 million barrels of crude oil has poured 

into the Gulf of Mexico. Recent reports of the dozens, including 

residents in the coastal areas, cleanup workers and those providing 

relief aid, who have been hospitalized with health problems should 

raise concerns about the short- and long-term health effects associated with sustained exposure to the chemicals contained in crude 

oil which are known carcinogens to humans. 

As we continue our ongoing efforts to stop this spill, hold those 

responsible accountable and ensure that the natural resources 

along the Gulf Coast are protected and restored, it will also be important to have a regional and national endeavor to assess the 

health impact. 

It is still unclear as to how this environmental disaster will affect the deepsea ecosystem. But it is critical that we carefully review the previous assessments made by scientists about past oil 

spills to prepare our continuing response. 

Beyond all of the undersea environmental consequences, the oil 

has already begun to seep into the coastal wetlands besieged by 

overdevelopment, pollution, and the lingering damage of Hurricane 

Katrina. 

This catastrophe also underscores the need to look beyond oil 

production and consumption and invest in clean energy alternatives to help save our health as well as our environment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentlelady. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the witnesses for coming here today. 

An absolute tragedy and disaster. We need to pray for the people 

that live in the affected areas and work for their betterment. 

But now that the disaster is unfolding, we need to get some sort 

of quantitative idea of the results of the spill. So some of the questions I am going to be asking are, what is the habitat damage? 

How bad is it? How permanent is it? How many species are lost? 

What fraction of the species are lost? And should we expect longterm health consequences for humans that live in the area? And 

what are the quantifications of that? Should we accept settlements 

from BP, or should we hold off and try and get an assessment? 

Those are the things I think we need to try to understand here 

today. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the chairman emeritus of the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You are most courteous, and I thank you for holding the hearing 

today. Your commitment on this issue is both evident and commended. 

We are now on day 52 of the biggest oil spill in history. More 

than 2.19 million feet of containment boom, 2.46 million feet of 

solid boom have been deployed to try and contain the spill. 

God alone knows how much oil has actually spilled, and nobody 

knows when it is going to stop. We do not know what all is going 

to come of this. 

We suspect that more than 1.09 million gallons of dispersant 

have been deployed, although we do not know the environmental 

and health effects of that dispersant and how they might affect us 

or the future of the area. 

We also know that there have been more than 125 controlled 

burns conducted, which have removed more than 3.2 million gallons of oil from the open water. But we don’t know at what cost 

to the folks who are working on the cleanup. 

We know, Mr. Chairman, that more than 32 percent of the 

waters of the Gulf of Mexico have been closed to fishing, which, in 

addition to oil and gas drilling, is the lifeblood of the Gulf region. 

We don’t know how long these waters will be closed to fishing, but 

I suspect that it will be longer than any of us expect or any of us 

would like. 

Frankly, we have to find out what has happened, and we cannot 

allow a spill like this to ever again happen. In order to ensure that, 

we must get to the bottom of what has happened. 

It is equally important, however, that we know the consequences 

not only of the spill but what we have done to control it. 

I look forward to hearing some insights on these matters from 

our witnesses. The information they can provide will be important 

as we look at the long-term effects and costs, health, environmental 

and monetary of this tragedy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the chairman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I will waive. 

Mr. MARKEY. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is certainly important that we fully understand the potential 

health effects that could result from inhalation or other contact 

with oil, oil vapors, or chemicals. While I appreciate the topic of our 

hearing today, it is critically important that we continue to focus 

on the cause of this disaster and ways to stop the oil from inundating the coastlines of the Gulf. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

Each week, when I return home to my constituents, I hear stories of anger and frustration with the lack of effort on the ground 

by both BP and this administration to stop the leak and contain 

the oil. The efforts are not working. 

BP and the administration seem to be dragging their feet, allowing bureaucratic red tape to impede progress and ignoring ideas on 

ways we can fight the Gulf oil. 

It took over 3 weeks for the administration to even approve the 

sand-berm plan that State engineers submitted as a method of protecting our valuable marshlands. These kind of delays are simply 

unacceptable. 

There are many people around my State and the country who 

have submitted ideas to BP and the Federal Government with potential ideas on how to stop the leak and protect our fragile coastal 

ecosystems. You have heard ideas ranging from hay to supertankers to collect the oil and control the ever growing flow in the 

Gulf. 

Unfortunately, these ideas have seemingly gone into a black hole 

and have not been implemented. There is more than enough oil in 

the Gulf of Mexico to test all of these ideas being submitted. And 

if a plan works, you do more of it. And if it doesn’t work, you toss 

that one aside. 

Frankly, I, along with the people of Louisiana, have had enough 

and are sick and tired of the excuses that we continue to be given 

by BP and the Obama Administration. 

While the President likes to publicly claim that he has been in 

charge of the situation from day one, we continue to see examples 

of BP being put in charge of decisions on the ground that they have 

no business being responsible for. 

BP should not be the gatekeeper on the ground when our local 

officials are looking to go get boom. 

They shouldn’t be the ones that determine which beaches are 

cleaned up. 

The President has got to recognize his role under the law and 

start acting. 

The claims process for small businesses that are losing their livelihoods is backlogged, and it has to be improved for our fishermen 

and the other industries that support and are affected by this spill. 

BP needs to be focused on finding ways to stop the oil from coming out of the well, and the President must step up his efforts to 

take control of the situation when it comes to protecting our 

marshlands from the oil. 

Also, we are beginning to hear more reports about arguments between rig workers over when to remove drilling mud from the drill 

pipe during the well-capping process. During a hearing of this committee on May 12th, I explicitly asked BP and Transocean whether 

there was a heated disagreement on board the rig just before the 

explosion regarding the process of displacement and removing mud. 

Both companies denied knowledge of these arguments, and yet we 

continue to hear report after report that there was a major disagreement about this process prior to the explosion. We need to get 

more answers for a lot of these questions, and hopefully, we will 

get some today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this increasingly important hearing. 

Each day it is becoming increasingly evident that BP’s oil spill 

in the Gulf of Mexico is not only an environmental and economic 

disaster but a human health crisis as well. Fishermen working on 

the cleanup have become ill after working long hours near waters 

fouled with oil and dispersant, reporting nausea, dizziness, headaches and chest pains. These local fishermen and shrimpers not 

formally trained in how to work with hazardous chemicals and 

must rely on BP for impromptu training and provision of necessary 

protective equipment. 

However, an internal Department of Labor memo has described 

significant deficiencies in BP’s handling of worker safety issues, 

warning that there has been a general systemic failure from BP to 

ensure the safety and health of the responders. 

Last month, I wrote to BP with Health Subcommittee Chairman 

Pallone urging BP to take the necessary steps it was clearly not 

doing to ensure the health and safety of the workers and volunteers cleaning up their giant mess. Not surprisingly, BP never responded. But the reports of worker illness and lack of protective 

gear persist. 

And shockingly, according to a recent report by McClatchy News 

Service, BP’s own offshore air monitoring plan allows workers to 

remain in areas where harmful vapors are up to four times higher 

than accepted practice to prevent an explosion. 

BP has made clear that they are incapable of making the protection of the public’s health their priority. When it comes to public 

and worker health, there is no reason to believe that BP has the 

expertise, the resources, or the incentives to really address the 

issues involved. 

That is why I have written the Obama Administration urging 

them to relieve BP of their role in the public health response; instead leverage the good work that the administration is already 

doing in public health protection across agencies in a coordinated 

way. 

The fishermen and shrimpers working to clean up BP’s mess 

must be protected now to ensure their health and safety long into 

the future. 

As a public health nurse who lived through the 1969 spill in 

Santa Barbara, I know the damage wrought by an oil spill can continue to haunt the public’s health long into the future. While I hope 

we hear more today about the acute health problems associated 

with exposure to oil and dispersants and the detergents used to 

clean it up, I hope we can also discuss some the long-term effects, 

health effects that can come from this exposure. We must move the 

public health consequences from BP’s disaster out of the shadows 

and into the forefront of our conversations. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

BP’s oil spill has already caused enough economic and environmental damage to the Gulf Coast. We must now do all that we can 

to protect human health from any potential long-term effects. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Ranking 

Member Upton for calling, as many pointed out, a very crucial and 

important hearing on the environmental impact of the oil spill and 

the methods chosen by the administration to address it. 

I think it goes without saying that the Deepwater Horizon discharge of oil is unprecedented in American history, and it has resulted, obviously, in devastating damage to the economic, environmental and social interests of every community in the Gulf Coast 

and the Nation as a whole. And we don’t know the impact across 

this country yet. 

My home State of Florida has the most densely populated coastline in the United States. This spill threatens the beaches on which 

people live and on which our hospitality and tourism depends and 

on which are commercial and recreation boating, fishing and diving 

industries also depend. Florida is home to 84 percent of the Nation’s coral reef ecosystems that contribute over 7 billion in direct 

economic activity and 71,000 jobs to Florida’s economy annually. 

We must use all available resources and the brightest minds in 

this country to stop this spill and determine the impact it will have 

on the environment and the people who work and reside near the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

So I, again, urge my colleagues to listen carefully to our witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Chairman Markey, for holding today’s 

hearing to examine the health and environmental effects of this 

spill. 

I first want to express my frustration, my disappointment that 

we are on day 52 of this environmental disaster and BP has still 

not developed a clear path forward to stop the leak or to clean up 

the oil that has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for almost 2 

months now. That is why I believe this administration and our government must do more to hold BP accountable. 

This preventible accident is a wake-up call for the oil and gas 

companies and the government agencies that regulate them. We 

must take this opportunity to not only examine our safety standards in deepwater drilling but to also examine how this spill is affecting our wildlife, ecosystems and the health of all those individuals affected by the spill, as well as its cleanup. 

And we can never, never forget those who died in the explosion, 

nor the families they leave behind. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

I also want to thank the experts who have come before this subcommittee today to testify about the health effects this disaster is 

causing, and I look forward to discussing ways that we can mitigate these harmful effects. 

After weeks of oil still pouring into the Gulf, it is clear that the 

procedures were not in place or did not work effectively to prevent 

this disaster. And it is clear BP was not prepared to respond to 

such an event. 

Additionally, I am hopeful we can find the best possible solutions 

to guarantee that the health and environmental effects caused by 

the spill are properly addressed. Our natural resources, including 

our beaches, wetlands and wildlife, are what set the States affected 

by this spill apart from the rest of the country. I am hopeful that 

this tragic event and this hearing can be a learning experience to 

ensure that these important habitats and wildlife are preserved, restored, and protected for generations to come. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will waive an opening. 

Mr. MARKEY. The chair does not see any other members seeking 

recognition to make an opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF CHRIS REDDY, PH.D., ASSOCIATE SCIENTIST, 

DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND GEOCHEMISTRY, WOODS 

HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION; EDWARD J. TRAPIDO, 

SC.D., FACE, ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR RESEARCH, PROFESSOR 

AND WENDELL GAUTHIER CHAIR OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, NEW ORLEANS, 

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH; AND GINA SOLOMON, MD, 

MPH, EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD, SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, ASSOCIATE 

CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE AT THE UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN FRANCISCO, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 

OF THE UCSF PEDIATRIC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALTY UNIT 

Mr. MARKEY. We will turn to our very distinguished panel. 

Our first witness, Chris Reddy, is a marine chemist, and he is 

director of the Coastal Ocean Institute at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Reddy studies the impact of oil spills and 

other contaminants on marine ecosystems, with a focus on how 

contaminants disperse and decay over time. 

We welcome you, Dr. Reddy. 

Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS REDDY, Ph.D. 

Mr. REDDY. Good afternoon, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Upton and other members of the subcommittee. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about the British 

Petroleum spill. As you had said, I study oil spills. I am particularly interested in how nature responds to these uninvited guests. 

And I am currently or have studied oil spills that occurred in 1969, 

1974, 1996, several in 2007, natural oil seeps off the coast of Santa 

Barbara and now currently the British Petroleum spill. And next 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

week, I will be leaving for a 12-day cruise funded by the National 

Science Foundation to investigate any oil that exists on the subsurface. 

Today I am going to speak briefly about dispersants and what 

has occurred in this spill in the last 52 days. When responders act 

on an oil spill, their ultimate goal is to reduce damages. And there 

are many ways that they have in their toolbox, anywhere from mechanically removing the oil to in situ burning or using dispersants. 

Dispersants are one of these toolboxes. They are often used after, 

when mechanical opportunities are not available, dispersants can 

be used when the weather is not as favorable than when there is 

mechanical activities—mechanical approaches are not available. 

Simply, dispersants are used to break up large pieces of oil into 

smaller droplets. The theory is that these large amounts of oil can 

affect the coastal areas and also wildlife that would be impacted 

with the surface. Breaking up produces small droplets of oil that 

get pushed below the sea surface, just a little bit below the sea surface. So it is not a removal of the oil per se, but more of a removing 

from one compartment to the other. From sitting on the surface of 

the oil, this is traditionally to putting small droplets below the surface. And ideally, those small droplets can get diluted and then broken down naturally under a term collectively we call weathering. 

Dispersants can carry their own risks, and there are significant 

tradeoffs in using them. If they are not used properly or effectively, 

then we are actually adding more chemicals to a problem that already exists in terms of an oil spill. 

In actuality, if they do work effectively, they also carry their own 

risks because we are adding chemicals below the sea surface—in 

this case, traditionally, when we add them right on top of the sea 

surface, we are exposing organisms to oil that live beneath the surface. So there is a large tradeoff. 

We have to consider, when they use these dispersants, do they 

want to reduce the damages that may happen because oil is sitting 

on the surface? Or do we want to—when we traditionally use them, 

or do we want to potentially expose with these small little droplets 

that you make anything that is living right below the sea surface? 

They have been used in the Gulf of Mexico multiple times. They 

have been considered a success. Right now there are two 

dispersants being used, Corexit 9500 and 9527. As of yesterday, 

there have been about a million gallons used. About 800,000 have 

been sprayed from the surface. About 330,000 have been injected 

at the wellhead. 

While the amount of oil still continues to be difficult to constrain, 

we are looking at about 2 percent—I have picked 50 million gallons 

that have spilled. If that is the case, then 2 percent of the 

dispersants have been added to the total amount of oil that has 

spilled. 

When you consider that the United States has not had an oil 

spill greater than 1 million gallons in the last 20 years, then the 

release of 1 million gallons of dispersants makes this an unprecedented response to an oil spill. So we have an unprecedented oil 

spill, and we also have an unprecedented use of dispersants. 

To communicate a little bit more about dispersants, I would like 

to comment on the executive summary of a recent report that was 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

released, entitled ‘‘Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Use Meeting Report.’’ This was held a couple of weeks ago at Louisiana State University. There were approximately 50 scientists from academia, the 

Federal Government, industry, other countries as well. And collectively, they made a series of conclusions. 

I think the most important one to read today is their statement 

here, which is, ‘‘It is the consensus of this group that up to this 

point, use of dispersants and the effects of dispersing oil into the 

water column has generally been less environmentally harmful 

than allowing the oil to migrate on the surface into the sensitive 

wetlands and near shore coastal habitats.’’ 

After reviewing this report and other studies on dispersants, I 

tend to agree with this finding. I am considerably more comfortable 

about using dispersants on the surface of the ocean, where we have 

added about 700,000 gallons. 

I am going to reserve my judgment about the success and efficacy 

and potential damages of the 300,000 gallons that have been injected at the wellhead at the subsurface. This has never been done 

before, and I am waiting to see data that exists, water samples 

that would have been collected before and after the usage of these 

dispersants, before we can fully appreciate whether or not 

dispersants used on the subsurface have been effective or actually 

caused negative damages. 

It is noteworthy that there was a review about dispersant 

usage—or a book on dispersants by the National Research Council 

in 2005, and there was no discussion about deepwater usage of 

dispersants. 

In summary, the response and release of dispersants, though I 

suppose unprecedented, experts have recently concluded that the 

usage of them has been worthwhile. And my most important end 

point is that it is important that we continue to study this oil spill 

right now. This oil spill is a crime scene. We need to collect as 

much data as possible. Not only to be able to understand the impacts of this oil spill right now, but also use it as a scientific tool 

to study future spills. I thank you for allowing me to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reddy follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 77909A.001

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF 

CHRISTOPHER M. REDDY, Ph.D. 

WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION* 

HEARING ON 

"The BP Oil Spill: Human Exposure and Environmental Fate" 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2123 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING. 

JUNE 10th, 2010; 2pm EST 

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton, and members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the British Petroleum 

(BP) Oil Spill. My nanle is Christopher Reddy, and I am a scientist at the Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, MA, principally investigating marine 

pollution. I have published >85 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and several book 

chapters on this and related subjects. I have studied or am currently studying the 

aftermaths of oil spills that occurred in 1969, 1974, 1996,2003,2007, and 2007 as well 

as natural oil seeps off the coast of Santa Barbara, CA and more recently the BP spill. I 

am leaving for a 12-day research cruise on June 17, 2010 to quantify and characterize oil 

below the sea surface in the Gulf of Mexico. 

For today's hearing, I will provide a brief overview on the environmental chemistry of oil 

spills and then some comments on dispersants used by BP. 

Petroleum composition and environmental chemistry 

Petroleum or crude oil is a complex mixture of comp01mds formed from organic debris 

acted on by geologic processes over millions of yearsl. Refineries convert crude oil into 

different products, such as gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, etc. 

The thousands of molecules that compose a crude oil or a refined product can have 

widely different properties, which dictate their fate in the environment. Each compound 

has it own tendency or likelihood to evaporate, dissolve in water, be eaten by microbes, 

or degraded by sunlight. These processes, collectively called weathering, can act on oil 

immediately, changing its composition dramatically. For example, I collected and 

analyzed oiled grasses approximately 50 miles away from the Gulf spill zone several 

weeks ago and found that evaporation and/or dissolution had already acted on the oil. 

* The views expressed here are my own. 
14 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 77909A.002

All oil spills are different, and comparisons from one to another should be done 

carefulll. Just as a particular compound can be weathered differently, so can it have its 

own toxic effects, at its own schedule of toxicity. Recovery from oil spills in the 

environment can also vary temporally, spatially, and at the individual- and communitywide level. 

For example, I have studied two diesel fuel spills that occurred in 19693 and 19964 in 

Southern New England. Both spills resulted in devastating short-term impacts. For 

example, the 1996 spill led to the deaths of 10 million lobsters, two thousand birds, and 

20 million surf clams and the closure of 200 square miles of shell fishing beds for as long 

as five months. Today, however, there are no detectable remnants of oil in or near the 

oiled region from this 1996 spill. Surprisingly, the effects of the 1969 spill persist, as 

crabs, grasses, and mussels are significantly impaired by trace amounts of weathered 

diesel at this site. 

Our best knowledge about oil spills is from the National Research Council's Oil in the 

Sea IIi .This book and its predecessors have represented the state of our knowledge about 

oil's inputs and fates as well as effects on the ocean. Another book published by the 

National Research Council entitled, Oil Spill Dispersents: Efficacy and Effects4 is an 

excellent resource on dispersants. 

Comments on dispersents used by BP 

When responding to an oil spill, the main goal is to reduce damages. Numerous tools, 

such as dispersants and skimming, can be used. 

Dispersants are deployed to "break-up" large pieces of oil into small droplets. 

Traditionally, the goal of dispersants has been to move oil from the surface of the ocean 

to below the surface. This approach attempts to reduce oil exposure or contamination 

from surface oil that could affect wildlife or coastal areas. Ideally, the dispersed oil 

droplets under the sea surface are then diluted and eventually weathered. 

However, dispersants can carry their own risks. If not deployed in a proper, effective, and 

accurate manner, adding more chemicals to an oil spill may increase damages in the area. 

If they do work, the dispersants can increase the oil concentrations below the sea surface, 

exposing undersea wildlife to greater risk. 

Hence, there are significant trade-offs to using dispersants. Historically in the Gulf of 

Mexico region, they have been used numerous times and considered a success. 

QuantifYing the extent of success relative to not using them is challenging. Oil spill 

responders are not always afforded the luxury of a true control situation, where they 

could compare the effects of the two scenarios, as one might have in the calmer setting of 

a laboratory. 

I believe two dispersants, Corexit 9500 and 9527, have been used in the Gulf. As of June 

8,2010, 790,000 gallons have been used on the surface and 331,000 gallons have been 

injected below the surface since the spill occurred. While the amount of oil released has 

2 
15 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 77909A.003

not been fully constrained, if an estimated 50 million gallons has leaked, then dispersants 

are only 2% of the volume compared to the oil released. 

However, considering that the United States has not had an oil spill greater than one 

million gallons in almost 20 years, one million gallons of dispersant is nevertheless a 

sizeable amount-perhaps qualifYing this as an unprecedented response to an oil spill. 

To communicate my views on dispersants, I would like to comment on the executive 

summary of the recently released "Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Use Meeting Report," 

which was the result of a two-day meeting on May 26 and 27, 2010 of over 50 experts 

from academia, the Federal government, Environment Canada, industry, and nongovernmental organizations5

. Among their conclusions were: 

"It is the consensus of this group that up to this point, use of dispersants 

and the effects of dispersing oil into the water column has generally been 

less environmentally harmful than allowing the oil to migrate on the surface 

into the sensitive wetlands and near shore coastal habitats ". 

After reviewing this report, I tend to agree with this finding. I am considerably more 

comfortable about the usage of dispersants on the surface, where 700,000 gallons have 

been used and it is easier to monitor. I reserve a more confident judgment on the efficacy 

and potential damages of using the dispersants in the subsurface until more data becomes 

available. Due to the novelty of injecting dispersants in the subsurface, it may be 

necessary to use laboratory and computer-based models to grasp fully this aspect of the 

oil spill response. It is noteworthy that the usage of dispersants in deepwater was not 

discussed, nor research recommended, in the executive summary of Oil Spill Dispersents: 

Efficacy and Effects (2005/. The recent availability of the formulations of Corexit 9500 

and 9527 will be useful in designing methods to analyze for these components in samples 

as well as testing and evaluating biological effects. 

After the Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Use Meeting Report was released, the chief 

technology officer ofNalco, which manufactures the Corexit dispersants, stated: 

"The use of COREXIT dispersants to break up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico 

has been widely acknowledged by government officials as a safe, effective 

and proven response. Its ingredients rapidly biodegrade. do not bioaccumulate and are commonly found in popular household products ". 

This statement is true but carries some caveats: The safety of Cor exit dispersants depends 

on how, where, and in what amounts it is used; biodegradation of these products may 

occur but not necessarily rapidly; some ingredients may be found in household products, 

but they are in considerably smaller concentrations. Regarding bioaccumulation, I picked 

one of the major compounds (30 to 60%) in Corexit 9527, butoxyethanol, and compared 

its bioaccnmulation factor to that of the pesticide DDT. While there are other variables 

3 
16 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 77909A.004

that must be considered when estimating bioaccumulation, DDT is about 40,000 times 

more likely to bioaccumulate in an organism that butuxyethanol6

. 

In summary, the response and release of dispersants in the BP oil spill is unprecedented. 

Experts have recently concluded that the usage of them has been worthwhile. However, 

detailed studies from samples collected near and around areas that have been have been 

sprayed or injected with dispersants should be considered in the full context of all 

available data. Environmental monitoring should continue for months and years to 

understand the fate of the spilled oil. 

Select references 

1. Hunt, 1M. Petroleum geochemistry and geology. New York: W.H. Freeman, cl996. 

2nd edition. 

2. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. Washington, DC: National Academies 

Press, c2003. 

3. Oil spill dispersants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, c2005. 

4. Culbertson, J.B., Valiela, I., Peacock, E.E., Reddy, C.M., Carter, A., VanderKruik, R. 

(2007) Long-tenn biological effects of petroleum: Response of fiddler crabs to oil 

in salt marsh sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 955-962 

5. Reddy, C.M., Quinn, J.O. (2001) The North Cape oil spill: hydrocarbons in Rhode 

Island coastal waters and Point Judith Pond. Marine Environmental Research 52, 

29-34. 

6. Coastal Response Research Center. 2010. Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Use Meeting 

Report. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 21 pp and appendices. May 

26 to 27, 2010; Revision 3. 

7. Detennined with software from Syracuse Research Corporation, 

http://www.srcinc.com/what-we-do/databasefonns.aspx?id=381. 

4 
17 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Doctor, very much. 

Our next witness is Edward Trapido. He is associate dean for research and Wendell Gauthier Chair for Cancer Epidemiology at the 

Louisiana State University School of Public Health. He is responsible for coordinating the entire research effort of the Louisiana 

State University Health Sciences Center related to the Deepwater 

Horizon Gulf oil spill. 

Dr. Trapido’s research focuses on cancer incidence and prevention in humans. 

We welcome you, Doctor. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. TRAPIDO, SC.D., FACE 

Mr. TRAPIDO. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Upton, and distinguished Congressmen and women. 

Let me begin by saying that I am a cancer epidemiologist working in public health, by training and by experience. I am also a 

resident of Orleans Parish, and I live three blocks away from the 

Mississippi River. So this has direct bearing on my life as well as 

the lives of countless other people in Louisiana and in the other 

Gulf Coast States for the moment. 

Prior studies of the effects of oil spills have been cross-sectional 

in nature. What I mean by that is they, at one point in time, classified people as to their disease and as to their exposures. There 

haven’t been follow-up studies. There haven’t been what we call cohort studies which have followed people who have been exposed to 

the oil spill over a period of years. 

You might say, well, why is that important? As a cancer epidemiologist, I can tell you that cancer is a disease of long latency, 

meaning it takes up to 20 or 30 years for cancers to be clinically 

detectible after exposures have occurred. It doesn’t always take this 

long. Sometimes it is quicker. If people already have some pre-existing condition that they may have inherited or are smokers or 

have been exposed occupationally before, then this might be the 

key that drives them to a much quicker diagnosis. 

Looking at this as a potential public health crisis, there are reasons to be concerned. The oil contains benzene, benzopyrene, arsenic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. And all of 

these are classified as Class I carcinogens by the International 

Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the United Nations. 

In addition to that, these chemicals can enter the food chain, and 

we don’t know the long-term consequences of that in terms of cancer because, as I say, long-term studies have not been done. 

It also clearly increases stress, and you have to realize that we 

have got parishes in southeast Louisiana that, in the last 5 years, 

have already had three hurricanes, and now they are having to be 

exposed to this and are losing their livelihoods. So the amount of 

stress is incredible, and the likelihood that will result in the some 

short- and long-term effect is unquestionable. 

There are genotoxic and endocrine effects associated with these 

chemicals. And we know from the literature that these chemicals 

can result in acute myeloid leukemia, multiple myeloma, lung cancer, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

So it is not just the population—it is not just the people who 

have been on the oil rigs. It is not just the first responders. It is 

not just the health workers and the people involved in cleanup. It 

is the communities. 

It is the communities that are around the parishes and so what 

we have—and within the communities, we have got pregnant 

women. We have got young children. There are some very vulnerable groups, especially vulnerable groups, that have to be studied 

and have to be followed for years. 

We need to have unexposed people, and there certainly are. I 

don’t want to say there will be cancer in 20 years. That is why we 

need to study this. We suspect, we have reasons to be concerned. 

But we don’t know for sure that there will be excess cancers, but 

there is enough to make us feel that it is worth studying. 

What we need is fast access. We have all said in one way or another, this is day 52, and yet we haven’t been able to go in, interview people, get biological samples, get specimens from the oil, 

from the dispersants, from the water, from the air. And time is of 

great importance in terms of measuring exposure. 

We need to get in. We need to be able to collect this information 

and to begin to follow up people. We have, for cancer at least, a 

robust way of capturing all cancers that occur in the United States 

and in Louisiana. It is because there is a tumor registry funded by 

the National Cancer Institute. In other States, it is either CDC or 

NCI that fund these. 

However, we don’t have a robust surveillance system for other 

conditions that may result over the course of time from the oil spill, 

and we desperately need to have that in place. 

And then let me just add one more point. We are now in hurricane season. We think we know where the oil spill will go in the 

absence of a hurricane. We know the Gulf Coast always ends up 

getting a tropical storm or hurricane, some of them severe. So everything I have said remains the same, except we really don’t know 

yet what the target population will be. 

We need buy-in from the community. We need to have confidentiality issues addressed because people may be afraid to talk, that 

it will interfere with their careers, that it will interfere with their 

ability to get economic benefits or health benefits or their legal 

rights. And we need to not pull these resources from helping the 

communities and from other important research. 

So, just by way of summary, I want to say that there is a potential public health crisis awaiting us. We see the acute effects. We 

need to be measuring the long-term effects. Now is the time to get 

in and have access. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trapido follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 77909A.005

Qualifications of Edward Trapido, ScD, FACE 

Edward J Trapido, ScD, FACE, is Associate Dean for Research at the Louisiana State 

University School .of Public Health, Professor and Wendell Gauthier Chair for Cancer 

Epidemiology at the LSUHSC School of Public Health, and the Deputy Director for 

Population Science at the Stanley S. Scott Cancer Center at the LSUHSC School of 

Medicine. He is also Senior Advisor to the Dean of the LSU School of Medicine, for 

Interprogram Research, which includes coordinating the entire research effort of the 

LSU Health Sciences Center related to the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill. Dr. 

Trapido is also leading the evaluation of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 

Program of Action in Cancer Therapy. Prior to joining the faculty of LSUHSC, he was 

Professor and Acting Division Director for the Department of Epidemiology and Public 

Health at the University Of Miami Miller School Of Medicine. His leadership experience 

includes appointments at the NCI as Deputy Director for International Cancer Control in 

the Office of International Affairs and as Associate Director ofthe Epidemiology and 

Genetics Research Program within the Division of Cancer Control and Population 

Sciences. In addition, he has co-chaired of the Trans-NIH Tobacco and Nicotine 

Research Interest Group and served as Senior Advisor to the Director of the 

International Agency for Research, in Lyon, France. He led the Southeast Regional 

Cancer Information Service and Florida Cancer Data System for many years. 

His degrees include a master of science in public health in parasitology from the 

University of North Carolina, and both a master and doctor of science in epidemiology 

from Harvard University. 

He directs the Louisiana Cancer Research Consortium (LCRC) Population Sciences 

research program, a joint initiative involving the Stanley S. Scott Cancer Center, the 

Tulane Cancer Center, Xavier University, and the Ochsner Health System. 

Testimony 

I have been asked to provide a risk assessment of the BP oil spill from the perspective 

of a cancer epidemiologist, which I am by training and experience. 

Unfortunately, there are essentially no long term epidemiologic studies of persons who 

have been exposed to oil spills, their clean up, the communities nearby, health care 

workers, or families of workers. Similarly, population research on the development of 

cancer when the oil, its breakdown products and dispersants enter the food chain has 

not been done. So, while there is much talk about this being an unprecedented event, in 

terms of long term epidemiologic studies providing answers as to what will happen to 

the long term health of exposed individuals, it is unprecedented. We cannot look to the 

past and know exactly what to expect. 
20 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 77909A.006

However, there can be no argument that there are cancer producing chemicals 

contained within the crude oil that has leaked into the Gulf of Mexico. The International 

Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that some fuel oils (heavy) may 

possibly cause cancer in humans. Substances found in crude oil, including benzene, 

benzo (a) pyrene, and arsenic are class 1 carCinogens, meaning they cause cancer in 

humans. Other chemicals in the oil and dispersants may be carcinogenic as well. These 

chemicals have been linked with acute myeloid leukemia (AMl) chronic lymphocytic 

leukemia (Cll), multiple myeloma, and lung cancer. In addition, the oil spill and its 

sequela have considerably raised stress levels among people in the community and the 

workers. Emerging epidemiologic evidence demonstrates an association between 

human stress, environment and adverse health effects, such as cancer 

We could speculate with some certainty where the oil will go, were it not Hurricane 

season. Planning for that possibility is an entirely separate and equally important issue, 

but that is not the topic I was asked to present information on. So, while my approach is 

largely based on the hope that the Gulf will be spared a hurricane or tropical storm, the 

cancer issues remain the same, but the potential for the community exposure to oil and 

associated chemicals increases substantially. 

There are other reasons to be concerned- and these are more related to mechanism by 

which exposure to heavy oil could result in an increased cancer risk. Although I am not 

a cancer biologist or an environmental epidemiologist, there is literature to suggest that 

heavy oil is associated with immunosupression, increased chance of DNA damage, and 

contaminants may have estrogenic affects. 

Because cancer is a disease of long latency, which can take up to twenty or more years 

to develop, I do not expect to see cancers arising from exposure to chemicals in the oil 

or dispersant to be evident right away, on the whole. On the other hand, exposures to 

the chemicals in the oil may hasten the development of cancer in persons who already 

might be at higher risk, due to past environmental and personal exposures, or inherited 

genetic characteristics associated with activating carcinogens or detoxifying 

carcinogens. Not every cancer arising in these populations will be due to exposure to 

the oil spill, however we know what to expect in terms of cancer occurrence based on 

existing data from the louisiana Tumor Registry. Our task is to provide evidence of 

excess cancers that develop, which are highly likely to be associated with exposure. 

This is where public health experts predominately environmental health scientists and 

epidemiologists and prospective population studies come in. 

There are many issues that arise and challenges to designing and performing optimal 

epidemiologic studies in this environment. Particularly, we must have meaningful 

community involvement, so that their concerns about cancer and other chronic 

diseases- physical, emotional and behavioral can be addressed. 
21 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 77909A.007

Populations: We need to conduct a study of oil rig and response workers who were 

exposed to the oil and dispersant and unexposed workers. In addition, other clean up 

workers on ships, and on the shore must be included. Other first responders, including 

health care workers, need to be included. Finally, samples of individuals from the 

surrounding parishes need to be identified, with special attention to those involved in 

maritime/marine activities, and their families. Clearly, these need to be recruited in a 

manner that guarantees the confidentiality of individual, and doesn't jeopardize their 

future careers, medical care, or legal rights. 

Exposure: From my experience as the NCI representative to the World Trade Center 

follow-up of workers, it is difficult and costly to accurately measure and estimate 

exposure. However, with the addition of biomonitoring, genotoxicity studies, 

exposomics, risk assessment, we are better able to determine exposures and their 

effects, than were studies before. Exposure is time dependent, and we need to identify 

and enroll the workers, their families, and the communities now, and to collect basic 

epidemiologic, occupational, and baseline health data, as well as biological samples 

from participants. These would ideally be blood, a buccal smear, and a urine specimen. 

Oil and Chemicals. We need to get samples of the fresh and old oil- from various 

places, with and without dispersant, crude, light, and weathered, as well as what has 

been collected in the booms. These need to be collected on a periodic basis. 

Follow-Up and Outcomes. We will need to follow persons, exposed and unexposed, at 

least annually, so that we have a scientifically appropriate comparison group. This will, 

of necessity, be a long term study- perhaps extending 20 to 30 years from now. Such 

long term studies are not uncommon in other venues, and have greatly contributed to 

what we know about the causes of chronic diseases. 

We need to simultaneously coordinate our work with hospitals, doctors, and clinics in 

the area, to set up a system to monitor outcomes, and collect follow-up information and 

biologic samples. Ultimately, cancers among Louisiana residents will be reported to the 

Louisiana Tumor Registry, an NCI supported SEER registry housed at the LSU School 

of Public Health. Coordination with other cancer registries will be required for residents 

residing n other gulf coast states. However, registries for other chronic diseases (e.g. 

respiratory) do not yet exist so a robust infrastructure to enable comprehensive follow 

up is essential. 

Conclusion. There are many other issues related to design and analysis of a 

comprehensive epidemiologic study, but unfortunately there is not sufficient time to 

present them. However, to end my presentation, I would like to say that there is a 

genuine reason to have concern about cancer and other diseases of long latency 

arising from this unfortunate occurrence. In order to address the concern, we need to 

conduct appropriate population based research. We have the tools and expertise to 
22 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 77909A.008

perform such studies, and I feel strongly that all parties must act with expedience, 

thoughtfulness, and commitment to the populations of the SE United States, and not 

pull these resources from other important research, economic support, clinical care and 

support. 
23 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Doctor, very much. 

Our final witness is Dr. Gina Solomon, who is a senior scientist 

in the health and environmental program of the National Resources Defense Council and is a specialist in adult internal medicine, preventive medicine and occupational and environmental 

medicine. She also serves as an associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, where she is 

the director of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Residency Program and associate director of Pediatric Environmental 

Health Specialty Unit. 

We welcome you, Dr. Solomon. 

STATEMENT OF GINA SOLOMON, MD, MPH 

Dr. SOLOMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. I am very happy to be here to talk about this very 

important topic today. 

And I am very happy to see that this subcommittee is recognizing that the BP Gulf oil disaster is not just a problem for wildlife and ecosystems but also very much a problem for human 

health. I have been down in the Gulf Coast over the past few weeks 

talking with fishermen, workers, community residents, all along 

the coast of Louisiana. 

And I have been reviewing available data from BP, EPA and 

other agencies, and I am quite concerned about both immediate 

short-term and also longer-term health issues in this area. 

The three main health concerns that I have identified are air 

quality, direct skin contact and toxicity from the oil, and the concerns about seafood contamination. 

On the air quality issue, according to the National Academy of 

Sciences, an estimated 40 to 70 percent of the oil that bubbles to 

the surface evaporates, and the evaporated oil creates a vapor that 

blows with the wind. Depending on the temperature and wind direction, it can blow into areas where people are working or onto the 

coastline and affect local residents. The vapor phase contains volatile organic compounds, chemicals such as benzene and toluene, 

which are of significant health concerns. Benzene is known to 

cause cancer in humans. Toluene is a neurotoxic chemical. 

It also contains semi-volatile organic compounds, such as naphthalene, which is classified by the National Toxicology Program as 

reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans. It also contains 

a hydrogen sulfite gas, which comes off of the oil, which is neurotoxic and also a powerful respiratory irritant. 

And other issues are happening as part of the cleanup. Oil is 

being burned off, which creates particulate matter, which is both 

toxic to the cardiac and respiratory systems and contributes to premature death. And dispersant chemicals, as we all know, are being 

applied in unprecedented amounts. And these chemicals are insufficiently studied but have been linked to nose and eye irritation 

and headaches and vomiting. 

The greatest risks are to the workers that are out there, closest 

to the oil and the dispersants. These workers have not been provided with respirators, and that is a significant health concern to 

many people. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

BP has released finally some air-monitoring data. The air-monitoring data, in my opinion, are of insufficient but also somewhat 

disconcerting because there are elevated levels as documented by 

BP of both benzene and 2-butoxyethanol, which is one of the dispersant chemicals, over the level that the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health considers to be safe. The NIOSH 

level is set for an 8-hour work day. Of course, as we all know, these 

guys who are doing the clean up out there are really 24 hours a 

day. 

In addition, EPA has actually been doing an admirable job of 

monitoring air quality along the shoreline. That has actually 

helped to reassure myself and some of the community residents 

that the air quality is actually not as bad as feared in many of the 

shoreline areas. But there are still some disconcerting increases, 

short-term elevations in air quality concentrations that could certainly explain many of the odor complaints and even many of the 

health complaints that we are hearing from community residents. 

The other thing I am concerned about is skin contact because we 

have photographs of workers doing clean up on the beaches without 

gloves or adequate protective suits. We have photographs of children swimming in oil contaminated areas and people touching tar 

balls with their bare hands. These chemicals can cause dermatitis, 

folliculitis and have been linked to skin cancer over the long term. 

So there needs to be more public awareness and outreach about 

those issues. 

On the seafood safety issue, just briefly, nearly 20 percent of the 

Gulf is now already closed to fishing. Plumes are still spreading. 

And there is a near-term need for a clearer process for making sure 

that the nutritious fish, shellfish and shrimp are available in the 

U.S., but that that food supply is protected. And there needs to be 

a clearly laid out process for the public about who is in charge 

there and to make sure that oil-tainted seafood doesn’t get onto the 

market. 

But in the longer term, there are going to be issues about setting 

criteria for reopening areas or new closures. Those need to be clearly set, and the metals and some of the PAHs in the oil have not 

even begun to bioaccumulate yet. They will become a much bigger 

problem in the future. 

I want to thank you very much for allowing me to speak here 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Solomon follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 77909A.009

TESTIMONY OF 

GINA M. SOLOMON, M.D., M.P.H. 

SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

ASSOCIATE CLINICAL PROFESSOR, U.c. SAN FRANCISCO 

DIRECTOR, UCSF OCCUPATIONAL & ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE 

RESIDENCY PROGRAM 

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, UCSF PEDIATRIC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

SPECIALTY UNIT 

BEFORE THE U.S. CONGRESS 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

AT HEARING ENTITLED: 

THE BP OIL SPILL: HUMAN EXPOSURE AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE 

JUNE 10,2010 
26 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 77909A.010

Testimony of Gina M. Solomon, M.D., M.P.H. 6/1 0110 

Health Effects of Oil Spills: Air Quality 

Oil spills destroy ecosystems and kill wildlife, but people's health is directly affected too. 

As the disaster in the Gulf Coast continues to unfold, the local communities and workers 

must be protected. 

Oil is semi-volatile, which means that it can evaporate into the air and create a vapor that 

under some weather conditions stays near the surface - in the human breathing zone. 

A report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that: "Within a few 

days following a spill, light crude oils can lose up to 75 percent oftheir initial volume 

and medium crudes up to 40 percent."! Figure I, adapted from the NAS report, shows the 

evaporation rates of various petroleum products, including crude oil. The evaporation 

process may spare the ocean slightly, but it poses a host of hazards to anyone who 

breathes the air. 

FIGURE 1: Evaporation rates of different types of oil at 150 C (adapted from Fingas, 2000). 

Even some of the oil that does not evaporate can end up in the air. When winds whip up 

oily sea water, the spray contains tiny droplets - basically an aerosol, which is small 

enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs. We know that evaporation, and maybe also 

aerosol formation, is happening in the Gulf Coast, because people are reporting a heavy 

oily smell in the air. Ifthe oil is burned, it generates particulate matter (PM) which is an 

additional respiratory hazard. 

Crude oil contains a mixture of chemicals. The main ingredients are various 

hydrocarbons, some of which can cause cancer (eg. the PAHs or polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons); other hydrocarbons can cause skin and airway irritation. There are also 

volatile hydrocarbons called VOCs (volatile organic compounds) which can cause acute 

health symptoms as well as cancer and neurologic and reproductive harm. Specific VOCs 

that cause health concern include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX). 

Oil also can release hydrogen sulfide gas, and it contains traces of heavy metals such as 

mercury, arsenic, and lead. 

Inhalation hazards are mostly from the VOCs, hydrogen sulfide gas, and some ofthe 

semi-volatile PAHs. The heavier PAHs and the metals do not get into the air, and are 

mostly a human health hazard because oflong-term contamination offish and shellfish. 

2 
27 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 77909A.011

Testimony of Gina M. Solomon, M.D., M.P.H. 611 0110 

Health Effects of Oil Vapor Inhalation 

"I live on the Northshore of New Orleans, less than a mile from Lake 

Ponchartrain. Many of us have noticed a smell in the area and a very slight 

filminess in the air or on skin at times. !have been suffering from headaches for 

the past few weeks and have had severa! people tell me the same or that they 

have a scratchiness to their throats or eyes burning. I walked my dog the other 

day of the lakefront and came home with a pounding headache. Could the oil or 

dispersants be affecting us here?" Maria, May 19, 2010. 2 

There have been numerous reports from clean-up workers and from people in the coastal 

communities of nausea, headaches, dizziness, cough and difficulty breathing. These types 

of symptoms are what might be expected from the oil vapors. The CDC warns: 

Inhalation of fresh crude oil could result in inhalation of associated volatile 

hydrocarbons. Symptoms including headache, dizziness, confusion, nausea, or 

vomiting, may occur from breathing vapors given off by crude oil. 3 

EPA lists the health symptoms that are generally associated with VOCs as: 

Eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches, loss of coordination, nausea; damage 

to liver, kidney, and central nervous system. Some organics can cause cancer in 

animals; some are suspected or known to cause cancer in humans. Key signs or 

symptoms associated with exposure to VOCs include conjunctival irritation, nose 

and throat discomfort, headache, allergic skin reaction, dyspnea, declines in 

serum cholinesterase levels, nausea, emesis, epistaxis, fatigue, dizziness. 4 

CDC also put out a consumer fact sheet which says the following about the "smells" 

along the Gulf coast: 

People may be able to smell the oil spill from the shore. The smell is similar to 

what you can smell at a gas station. It comes from "Volatile Organic 

Compounds" (VOCs) in the oil. You can smell these VOCs at levels well below 

those that would make you sick (sic). VOCs are also in the gas you burn in your 

car every day and can include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and 

naphthalene. 

Exposure to low levels ofVOCs may cause irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and 

skin. It is possible that people with asthma may be more sensitive to the effects of 

inhaled VOCs. 

The VOC smell may give you a headache or upset stomach, so you should stay 

indoors to limit your exposure, close windows and doors, and set your air 

conditioner to a recirculation mode. The smell may become stronger if the wind 

or weather change. 5 

3 
28 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 77909A.012

Testimony of Gina M, Solomon, M,D" M,P,H. 611 0110 

I do want to add a comment about CDC's claim that people can smell VOCs at levels 

"well below those that would make you sick", Table I lists the odor thresholds and the 

toxicity levels for some of the major chemicals in crude oil vapors, It's clear that some of 

the chemicals in oil vapors are hazardous to human health at levels below those that 

trigger odor complaints, In fact, benzene is hazardous to health at levels more than 1000-

fold below the odor threshold, This is an important tact, since it is not appropriate to 

assure people that what they are smelling is not hazardous. 

Chemical Odor Threshold NIOSH RJ<:L Shr (ppm) 

(average, ppm) 

Benzene 97 

Toluene 7.6 

Ethylbenzene 0,6 

Xylene 0.73 - 5,4 

Naphthalene 0.D38 

Hydrogen sulfide 0,02 

2-butoxyethanol 0,1 

ppm - Parts per milllon 

NIOSH =- National Institute of Occupational Sarety and Health 

REL Recommended Exposure Limit tor worker populations 

ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

MRL Minimal Risk Level for community residents 

Sources 

Odor Thresholds: 

0.1 

100 

100 

100 

10 

N/A 

5 

ATSDRMRL 

(ppm) 

0,009 

1 

10 

2 

0,0007 (Chronic) 

0.07 

6 

http://ncpis.cpa.gov/ExelZyNET.exc/2000BTT 05 .txt?Zy Ac1ionD=ZyDocument&C1ient=EPA&Index= 1991 %20Thru%20 1994& T 

File~D%3A%5CZYFll,ES%5Cli':DEX%20DATA%5C9ITHRU94%5CTX'I'%5C00000004%5C2000BHG5.txt&UserANOKi 

&MaximumDoeuments~ 1 O&Fu7.ZyDegrcc~O&lmageQuality~r I 05g 16/r 1 05g 16/x 150y 150g 16!i600&Display~p% 7Cf&DefSeekF 

Note that range for xylenes is due to isomers: ortho-, meta- and para~ xylene 

Odor Threshold for 112S: http://www.osha,gov/dts/sltc/methods/validatedll 008/l 008,html 

1':IOSH RELs: http://\\'\vw.osha.gov/web/dep!chemicaldata/ 

MRLs: http://ww.\,.atsdr.cdc.gov!mrlslmrls_lisLhtml 

The good news for the general public is that the EPA network of air monitors along the 

Gulf coast has so far mostly indicated that there is not a likelihood of long-term health 

effects, The CDC analysis of the EPA air quality data concludes: "'The levels of some of 

the pollutants that have been reported to date may cause temporary eye, nose, or throat 

irritation, nausea, or headaches, but are not thought to be high enough to cause long-term 

harm, These effects should go away when levels go down or when a person leaves the 

area. The low levels that have been found are not expected to cause long term harm,,,6 I 

have been independently reviewing the EPA air monitoring data, There are numerous 

things EPA could be doing to improve their monitoring, but overall I concur with the 

CDC and EPA conclusions that there is no reason for panic about the air quality on shore. 

I list recommendations for improving the EPA air monitoring program at the end of my 

testimony, 

4 
29 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 77909A.013

Testimony of Gina M. Solomon, M.D., M.P.H. 6110/10 

Skin Toxicity from the Oil 

Oil is irritating to the skin and can cause potentially severe skin rashes. The CDC states 

the following: 

"some people are especially sensitive to chemicals, including the hydrocarbons 

found in crude oil and petroleum products. They may have an allergic reaction, 

or develop dermatitis or a skin rash, even from brief contact with oil. In general, 

dermal contact with oil should be avoided ... . Prolonged skin contact with crude 

oil and petroleum products can cause skin elythema (reddening), edema 

(swelling), and burning. The skin effects can worsen by subsequent exposure to 

sunlight, because trace contaminants in the oil, such as the PAHs, are more toxic 

when exposed to light. Skin contact can result in defatting of the skin, increasing 

the possibility of dermatitis and secondmy skin infections. 

Some persons may be, or may become, sensitive to the crude oil. Depending on 

the amount and duration of exposure, skin contact with crude oil may be mildly to 

moderately irritating; in a sensitive individual. the skin effects may be more 

pronounced after a smaller or shorter exposure . .. 7 

People should absolutely avoid any direct skin contact with the oil. This means no 

swimming in waters that may be contaminated with oil. Reports from Mississippi have 

indicated that Governor Barbour has been encouraging people to go swimming despite 

the oil spill.s In fact. CNN reported that children were swimming in oil-contaminated 

water along the Gulf coast.9 That is a serious mistake both because of direct skin toxicity, 

and because children's skin is far more permeable to toxic chemicals that is adult skin, so 

they can absorb some chemicals into their bodies that could lead to more serious health 

effects. 

Worker Health 

"My Husband he is on site where the ai/leak working to stop the leak they have 

to wear a resperatory mask and they are eouphing and have sera thy throught 

doctor told them not to worry that there is no long term health effect once they 

are away from the job breathing the fresh air they will be fine and they will be 

breathing normal again i am very worried about my husband they are on the ship 

weeks and weeks working to stop the leak what is the risk on their long term 

health?" Maria, May 22. 2010. 10 

Over the past few weeks, fishermen who have been involved in the spill clean-up have 

begun to come forward with complaints about their health. Some clean-up workers have 

been hospitalized with respiratory problems, chest pain, nausea, and other symptoms. 

Treating physicians have diagnosed some ofthe workers with exposure to "inhaled 

irritants", such as from oil or dispersants. 

5 
30 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 77909A.014

Testimony of Gina M. Solomon, M.D., M.P.H. 6/10110 

There are also disturbing photos that have been posted on the internet and in the LA 

Times, showing clean-up workers on beaches in regular street clothes without even the 

benefit of gloves. These people are in contact with the weathered oil (as opposed to fresh 

oil bubbling up from the continuing leak). Weathered oil is considered less dangerous 

than fresh oil because the toxic vapors have dissipated, but it is not benign. Skin contact 

with even the weathered oil is very damaging, so gloves should be required. In addition, 

the oil can contaminate shoes and clothing, and could then be worn home where it could 

pose a risk to young children. 

We have received dozens of requests for respirators from fishermen involved in the clean 

up cffort. They certainly didn't get any from BP. Instead, BP officials told the fishermen 

that the air quality is fine out where they are working to clean up the oil, but they have 

not released enough of their data on air quality for me to assess whether the BP claims 

are correct or not. 

Hidden on its website, BP posted a document with no title and no author that includes a 

general summary ofthe "Offshore Personnel Sample Results" conducted between April 

28 and May 13 20 I 0 for benzene and total hydrocarbons. J I The document provides no 

information on the sampling method, the location the samples were taken, the duration or 

time of sampling, or the raw data behind the graphs. In addition, the data is classified into 

rough cut-offs that make it difficult to interpret the actual health risks. The majority of 

samples (128 out of 187) in the summary had detectable levels of total hydrocarbons and 

28 had levels greater than 10 ppm, the level of concern EPA has identified for its onshore 

monitoring of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). In contrast, the BP summary cites 

an action limit of greater than 100 ppm. II samples had detectable levels of benzene with 

measurements up to 0.5 ppm. This range encompasses the National Institute of 

Occupational Safety and Health Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) for occupational 

exposure to benzene of 0.1 ppm. From the data presented it is impossible to ascertain 

how many of the samples taken exceeded this health based value intended to prevent 

cancer. The document contained no data at all on hydrogen sulfide, naphthalene, 

dispersant chemicals, and other air pollutants that are harmful to health and that workers 

are likely to be exposed to. BP's document concluded that the monitoring data. 

"demonstratc that there are no significant exposures occurring". However, the data 

summarized in this document do not substantiate these assurances and raise significant 

questions about what the fishermen are being exposed to. 

BP should release all of their air monitoring data - or the federal government should do 

independent measurements of air quality offshore and release it to the public. Fishermen 

are falling ill. Something is in the air, and we need to know what it is. 

Dispersants 

"My son has gone through some extensive tankerman training and knows his 

chemicals and he's been asking for the MSDS's on some of the chemicals being 

lIsed to spray the oil with from the boat and having no luck recieving (sic) any 

info on any ofthe chemicals." Comment from Nickie. May 25, 2010. 12 

6 
31 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 77909A.015

Testimony of Gina M. Solomon, M.D., M.P.H. 6/10110 

Several weeks ago, the EPA told BP that it must identifY a safer and more effective 

dispersant within 24 hours, and must switch to safer dispersants within three days. This 

was a good idea for health and the environment. BP should be required to use the safest 

and most effective approaches possible, rather than the most convenient or cheapest 

products. There are dispersants that have already been approved by EPA that appear to be 

both much safer and more effective than the ones BP has chosen.1 3 

I looked into the toxicity of the Corexit 9500 and 9527 products that BP has been using, 

and had concerns, especially for worker safety and for the health of fish and marine 

mammals. The ingredients in these products - even the 2-butoxyethanol which worries 

me most - might not be a problem ifused in small amounts. But the use of over 700,000 

gallons of evcn modcstly toxic chemicals can become a serious problem. 

I'm not an expert on the pros and cons of dispersants, or on their effects on marine life. 

But I do have some expertise on human health, and I also have some common sense. One 

important principle in medicine is that you pick the drug that is the most effective and has 

the fewest side-effects to treat the disease. As hundreds of thousands of gallons of 

dispersant was poured into the Gulf; I began to wonder ifthat principle was being 

considered here. 

When BP released their responsel4 to the EPA order on dispersants, the flaws of the u.s. 

chemical safety system became clear. BP refused to switch dispersants because, among 

other reasons, they say there's not enough information about their safety. 

Tables in the BP memo contain a row that is supposed to list: "Persistence, 

bioaccumulation, and chronic effects, and endocrine disruption" for the various 

dispersants, but the boxes in that section contain the words "Proprietary mixture" for 

almost all the products. That means that the public has no access to the full ingredients 

lists of these products, or any ability to independently verify their safety. Amazingly, 

neither, apparently, does BP. 

In fact, the BP memo complains about the information gap and cites this as a reason for 

not switching to other dispersants. But the information gaps don't stop there: Major 

portions ofBP's memo have been redacted, so the public can't even review much ofBP's 

analysis of the alternatives. 

These information gaps have their root in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)'s 

broad protections for "confidential business information". It is a continuous source of 

frustration to me as a physician and an environmental scientist - I need to know what the 

hidden ingredients are in products in order to protect my patients and the public. Right 

now we definitely need to know what's in these alternative dispersants in order to 

understand the risks and trade-offs. Now is the time to require chemical manufacturers to 

disclose their trade secrets. The dispersant debacle is proof enough that it's time for 

change. 

7 
32 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 77909A.016

Testimony of Gina M. Solomon, M.D., M.P.H. 611011 0 

Seafood Contamination 

Crude oil contains traces of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and cadmium. It also 

contains large amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), some ofwhich are 

environmentally persistent. In the near term, various hydrocarbons from the oil itself will 

contaminate fish and shellfish. so there is an immediate need to assess seafood safety and 

assure that contaminated fish and shellfish do not reach people's tables. But the problem 

will not go away when the obvious oil dissipates in the water. The persistent chemicals -

the metals and PAHs - will remain in the sediments of the Gulf, and will accumulate in 

the food chain for years, and likely for decades. 

Furthennore, the drilling mud that BP used in an attempt to plug the leaking oil could 

have human health impacts through the leaching of persistent organic compounds and 

heavy metals that can also accumulate in the food chain. Information is not publicly 

available on the make-up ofthe specific drilling fluid utilized by BP; in fact, many of the 

specific chemical components of drilling fluids are not well known. IS However, some 

studies have demonstrated the potential for metals to accumulate in marine organisms 

which are harvested for local and commercial consumption. When EPA modeled 

contaminant concentrations in shrimp after the use of synthetic drilling fluids they 

projected some contamination with mercury, lead, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. 16 

Additional studies have found that drilling fluid consisting of barite and bentonite also 

has the potential to leach heavy metals into the environment.17 18 

The chemicals in the oil and the drilling mud have the potential to bioaccumulate in 

seafood and could pose a human health risk when higher trophic levels (eg. large. 

carnivorous fish such as swordfish or king mackerel) are consumed, particularly for 

populations which rely substantially on Gulf seafood as a large portion of their diet. 

Recommendations: 

Improve Response to Community Complaillis 

Oil spill-impacted communities have been experiencing odors and health complaints and 

not rcceiving adequate attention. EPA should be responding to these complaints as 

quickly as possible to conduct the appropriate monitoring and communicate the results. 

To facilitate this, EPA should dedicate a portion of the website to providing information 

on how to report a complaint, locate the results of any monitoring conducted in response 

to a complaint. and related relevant information on odors and health effects. 

Monitor Wind Patterns to Estimate l'viost Impacted Areas 

Meteorological data on wind conditions and weather patterns should be assessed to 

cvaluate the degree to which existing fixed monitoring stations are capturing the areas of 

highest impact. The results ofthis assessment should be updated regularly and posted on 

the website. In the event this modeling reveals areas of potential impact that are not 

included in the current monitoring network, EPA should develop an expanded monitoring 

plan to address these areas. 

8 
33 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 77909A.017

Testimony of Gina M. Solomon, M.D., M.P.H. 6110/10 

Obtain All Relevant Data on Pollutant Releases 

Efficient and comprehensive monitoring plans would be greatly assisted by accurate and 

complete information on the location and quantity of pollutant releases. This should 

include up-to-date monitoring ofthe spill and also all applications of dispersants. In 

particular, the location, quantity, and application method for all airborne dispersant 

applications should be reported to the public. This should include data on the chemical 

make-up ofthe crude oil, dispersant, and oil-dispersant mixture. This information can 

inform onshore air monitoring and the development of offshore buffer zones to keep 

clean-up workers and communities safe. 

Ensure Public Disclosure of All Air Monitoring Data 

All data collected on air quality, both offshore and onshore, should be made public 

regardless of where it originated. EPA is the agency best suited to be a clearinghouse for 

this data and make it available to the public. This should include information on both the 

oil-related compounds and the dispersants. It is essential that the public, and medical 

providers in particular, have access to health relevant information on all chemicals 

released into the environment. 

Require Testing and Public Release of In/i)rmatiol7 About All Dispersants Used 

Manufacturers and processors of dispersant chemicals should provide data sufficient to 

determine the potential for these chemicals or their breakdown products to persist or 

accumulate, or contribute to adverse effects on human health or the environment. 

Ingredients of dispersant products should be made publicly available for independent 

scrutiny. EPA should reassess these chemicals to assure their safety and efficacy for their 

intended uses. 

Communicate lvlonitoring Results Effectively 

Data on air quality onshore and offshore are difficult to access and poorly presented. A 

web-based clearinghouse should facilitate queries by specific location. Also, all data files 

should include enough information to enable a user to determine what was sampled, 

where it was sampled (latitude, longitude, city, county, state), when it was sampled (date 

and time) what method was used for the sample collection and analysis, and the relevant 

limits of detection. In addition, the EPA and the Coast Guard should conduct community 

forums to explain the monitoring efforts and results to community members. Such 

forums should be conducted in collaboration with local community groups and should 

include presenters from relevant agencies and outside experts. 

Protect Worker Safety and Health 

The Department of Labor should strongly enforce OSHA's Hazardous Waste Operations 

and Emergency Response standards requiring personal protective equipment, including 

respirators as required under Respiratory Protection standards. All air monitoring relevant 

to worker exposures should be publicly released, and data should be obtained in places 

where workers may be exposed to vapors from the oil. The Department of Health and 

Human Services should conduct a Health Hazard Evaluation of workers, and should 

design and conduct a health surveillance program for clean-up workers. 

9 
34 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 77909A.018

Testimony of Gina M. Solomon, M.D., M.P.H. 611 Oil 0 

BiOTA MOCIlLE 

FIGURE 2 Graphic representation CA) and detailed interactions (B) of a conceptual model for 

the fate of petroleum in the marine environment. Various modules depicted are often included 

as significant components of computer models attempting to simulate or predict behavior and 

fate of petroleum compounds. From NAS "Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, 2003. 

I Committee on Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates. and Effects. 

National Academies Press (2003) p. 90. 

2 Comment posted at: hnp//slVitchboard.nrdc.ondblogsigsolomon/the gulf oil spill human healt.html 

3 CDC. Light Crude Oil Information for Health Professionals. 

http://www.cdc.go\!nceh!oilspillilightcrudehealthprotessiol1ais.htm. May 19,2010. 

4 http://www.epa.gov/iaq!voc.html#Health Effects. 

10 
35 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 77909A.019

Testimony of Gina M. Solomon, M.D., M.P.H. 6110/10 

5 CDC. Information for Coastal Residents. htJp://www.cdc.govincchioil spilliinformation rcsidcnls.hlm#3. 

May 5, 2010. 

6 hUp:/lepa.gov/bpspill/odor.hlml, visited on June 7, 2010. 

7 http://w\vw.epa.gov/iaqivoc.html#Health Effects. 

8 EMIL Y WAGSTER PETTUS and MELINDA DESLATTE. Miss., La. govs contrast in responses to oil 

spill. May 14,2010. http://www.google.com/hostedncws/ap/articleiALegM5i a92g7.92-

206B"14YU2SVmIG6tcAD9FMffK04. 

9 http://edilion.cnn.conlivideoi data/2.0ivideo/us!20 1 OiOo/02ilok.zarella.oil.alabama.enn.hlml. 6/2/2010 

10 Comment posted at: http://switchboard.nrdc.orgiblogs/gsolonlon!thcgulfoilspilihumanhcalt.html 

11http://www.bp.com/livcassels/bp internetiuiobalbp/giobalbp uk english/in<:idenl responseSl'AGINO!lo 

cal assets/downloads peils/monitoring summary report mav20 201O.pdf 

12 http://switchboard.nrdc.orglblogslgsolomon/oil_spill_c1ean-up_ workers_get.html 

13 http://hlogs.edf:org/l}ilnotechnologv/20 1 O/06/(J6ianother-bp-!eak -%c2 %80%9 3-th i s-ti me-its-their-ry009-

gllif-ol:mexico-oil-spill-contingencv-plan/. June 7,2010. 

14 htlp:l/www.cpa.g"vibpspillidispersants/5-21 b.ll::I~sponse.pdL Mav 20, 20 I 0 

15 http://vvww.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.fracturing.php (see drilling mud additives like aluminum 

tristearate and EZ Mud) 

16 US EPA. Environmental Assessment of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 

Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids and other Non-Aqueous Drilling Fluids in the Oil and Gas Extraction Point 

Source Category. 2000. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/sbflfinalienv/finalenvpartl.pdf 

17 Neff. Jerry M. Estimation ofbioavailability of metals from drilling mud barite. 2008. Integrated 

Environmental Assessment and Management. 4(2) pp. 184-193 

18 C. Terzaghi , M Buffagni, D. Cantelli, P. Bonfanti, M. Camatini. Physical-Chemical and 

Exotoxicological Evaluation of Water Based Drilling Fluids used in Italian Off-Shore. 1998. Chemosphere, 

37(1415) pp. 2859-2871 

11 
36 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Solomon, very much. 

The chair will recognize himself for a round of questions. 

Dr. Trapido, you said that you are being denied access to the 

water, to the samples, which you need in order to make the early 

evaluations. Could you talk a little bit about that? And who is denying you access? 

Mr. TRAPIDO. I don’t mean to say that I have personally been denied access. I mean that we need to be able to go in a systematic 

way of getting logs of people, names of people who have been on 

the vessels, speak to the people on the vessels, speak to the cleanup workers, the first responders. 

Mr. MARKEY. So when you say ‘‘we,’’ you mean no one is being 

denied access? 

Mr. TRAPIDO. That is right. 

Mr. MARKEY. And who is making that decision that there is no 

access to these people who have been exposed to these chemicals? 

Who is making that decision? 

Mr. TRAPIDO. I am not sure, to be honest. I just know that when 

we have made attempts to get lists of individuals, get rosters, we 

have been told that they are not available at this point. 

Mr. MARKEY. Will you work with our committee? 

Mr. TRAPIDO. Absolutely. 

Mr. MARKEY. Tell us what you need, and then we will ensure 

that you get access to the information you need because you do believe it is critical as to what is going to occur inevitably, in your 

opinion, in the long term. 

Thank you for that. 

Dr. Solomon, do you believe there is a problem with regard to access to the information which you need in order to be able to make 

these early samplings to be able to identify long-term health risks? 

Dr. SOLOMON. I do believe there is a serious problem, and the 

problem extends to data on monitoring. We have been pushing for 

2 months now for BP to release data on air monitoring. We finally 

got a little bit this week, but it is by no means sufficient. 

We have been pushing for more data on what is actually in the 

oil itself that is coming up. What is the fraction of benzene? And 

obviously, the dispersants have been a huge problem with the products that were being used were not being publicly disclosed. 

Mr. MARKEY. If you will work with the committee to identify the 

information you need, we will make sure that we use the power of 

this committee to ensure that you and others like you gain access 

to that information at this critical, still relatively early, point in the 

process, given the long-term health concerns. 

It is BP’s spill. But it is America’s ocean. And it is the American 

people who are going to be exposed to the consequences, especially 

the people who live in Louisiana and in the Gulf. 

Dr. Reddy, 2 days ago NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco confirmed that plumes of oil have been found as far as 3,300 feet 

below the surface, stating we have always known that there is oil 

under the surface. Yet, just a few weeks ago BP’s CEO, Tony Hayward, stated that all the oil is on the surface; there aren’t any 

plumes. And yesterday BP’s COO, Doug Suttles, denied it again. 

Do you agree that oil, gas and dispersants could be suspended in 

plumes or clouds thousands of feet below the surface of the ocean? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

Mr. REDDY. Yes, Mr. Chairperson. I have seen that analytical 

data from the samples that were collected as part of Dr. 

Lubchenco’s press release. And it appears to be quite sound, and 

it was done in the highest quality. So I believe that there is subsurface oil in the region. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Solomon, it is my understanding 

that naturally occurring bacteria eat some oil and gas, and as they 

do that, they also use up oxygen that is needed for plants and animals. When this happens deep in the ocean, there is no way to 

quickly replace the oxygen that is used. 

Dr. Reddy, is it possible that this process could reduce the oxygen to levels that cause marine plants and animals to die in certain 

areas? 

Mr. REDDY. There is no doubt that microbes are eating the oil. 

In fact, some of my colleagues who are finding oil in subsurface are 

doing it by looking for minima amounts of oxygen. So they are actually not finding the oil when they are trying to sample it. They 

are using, the best way is to see where there is the least amount 

of oxygen. 

Whether or not the microbes will be able to have the capacity to 

eat all the oil to a point where there is no oxygen is not known. 

But clearly, any oxygen below what should be there is less than 

ideal. And you are correct; it will be difficult for oxygen to get replaced from water at depths of 3,300 feet. 

Mr. MARKEY. And, Dr. Solomon and Dr. Reddy, is it also possible 

that the oil, the gas and dispersants contained in these plumes 

could poison the marine plants and animals that are exposed to 

them? 

Dr. Solomon. 

Dr. SOLOMON. Yes, it is, in my opinion, highly likely that any living thing that is exposed to high enough concentrations, obviously 

if it is oil and dispersant mixtures, are very likely to be poisoned. 

The other question that is also important is that many of these 

creatures will be damaged but may not die and, over time, may accumulate chemicals in their bodies. And in particular, the heavy 

metals in the PAHs are chemicals that may not kill the fish and 

other marine organisms outright but will have long-term health effects on the health of the marine ecosystem and also on anyone 

who consumes seafood. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me ask, finally, to the two of you, so I would 

ask both Dr. Solomon and Dr. Reddy this. We are only just starting 

to characterize these plumes. We don’t know how many there are 

or how far or how deep they extend in the ocean. Is it possible that 

entire generations of species needed to sustain the food chain in 

the Gulf of Mexico could be annihilated by this spill in some locations? 

Dr. Reddy. 

Mr. REDDY. I would reserve making any types of long-term comments until I see more data. There is a significant effort out in the 

ocean right now collecting samples to characterize this region, and 

I hope to do so next week. 

I think when we have a greater grasp on the distribution of oil 

out there, then we can start to get a feeling. It is most important 

for us to grasp that it is the dose makes the poison and that the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

presence of oil alone—although never is ever good—has to be put 

into play before we kind of get an idea or a snapshot of the longterm impacts. But certainly the presence below the sea surface is 

less than ideal. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Solomon. 

Dr. SOLOMON. This is not as close to my area of expertise, because I am not an expert on the marine ecosystem. 

But on the toxicology front, these chemicals are present, obviously, unfortunately, in quite high concentrations and are widespread in the Gulf, and there are many endangered species in the 

Gulf of Mexico that are at high risk. And many of them are ones 

that my understanding is they don’t travel that far, so they may 

not be able to get away. So we will likely be seeing major impacts 

on the ecosystem and also on fisheries for a very, very long time 

to come, I am afraid. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Solomon. 

My time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Reddy, walk us through what your analysis is on what 

should have happened with the use of the dispersant Corexit? 

Should that have been approved, or should the letter have come 

back and told BP not to go ahead with it? 

Mr. REDDY. Well, they have to get permission from the Federal 

on-scene coordinator in order for them to move forward I believe. 

Mr. UPTON. It was on the list of 12 originally, right, was it not? 

I think they had 12 substances, and that was one. 

Mr. REDDY. There were two that were used. In fact, yesterday 

they disclosed the full formulations of both of them, which will be 

quite useful for us to understand and measure and look for these 

dispersants. 

If you don’t know what you are looking for, it is very hard to 

measure it. 

The decisions to use dispersants is very difficult, and there—this 

is a total—there is no win-win here. You have nature, which 

doesn’t take direction well, and you have oil, which is an uncontrollable beast, and you have to make decisions about using them. The 

on-site people decided to use them and are continuing to use them 

under their best judgment. 

Mr. UPTON. How quickly does it work? I mean, we have seen—— 

Mr. REDDY. It is pretty quick. If you have seen any of those pictures where—I mean, if you drop some Dawn detergent on a sheen 

of oil, you can see it break open. In theory, the beginnings of that 

idea, concept. So it is relatively rapid in that respect. 

Mr. UPTON. In your opinion, does it work as well under water as 

it does at the surface or—— 

Mr. REDDY. I reserve judgment about the success of using the 

dispersants underneath the sea surface, one, because it has never 

been done before. So it is, again, this term unprecedented becomes 

a little laborious, but nevertheless, we have used 300,000 gallons 

of dispersant below with about 50 million gallons of oil. So, whether it was worth it, effective, and whether there were any damages, 

we have to see what type of data that has—the samples were collected when they were doing this, and the data is streaming out, 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

slowly but surely. Because it takes some time for analysis to come 

through. I look forward to looking at that data, and I can get back 

to you about what I think are the outcomes of that. 

Mr. UPTON. I look forward to that. And, too, as we think about 

the hurricane season, which in essence could be upon us, what are 

your thoughts in terms of what is going to happen, based on the 

chemicals that have been used up to this point, the failure to stop 

the flow? What is going to happen? 

Mr. REDDY. It just makes things—at this point, we have so many 

things out of our control for ourselves in terms that the oil continues to flow. It is difficult to corral all this oil. And now that it 

is showing at the subsurface, you have another factor. The hurricane factor is just something that we just can’t even comprehend. 

It may not make a big impact. It may make a large one. Ideally, 

it just doesn’t happen. 

Mr. UPTON. What should be happening with all these different 

underwater plumes that have been reported? What is the best way 

to deal with that? 

Mr. REDDY. There is nothing you can do. I would believe—— 

Mr. UPTON. Or if you put Corexit down below and broke it up 

and sent it to—— 

Mr. REDDY. It already is dispersed. So the Corexit, most of those 

plumes are the result of either natural dispersion—you know, you 

have to think about this oil coming out of this wellhead, and it is 

pretty violent. So it is breaking up some portion of them into small 

droplets, which I think is a source of these subsurface plumes. 

Unfortunately, at 3,300 feet below the surface, if this plume and 

perhaps others like that, there is really not much you can do to do 

about that. What we hope for them is to continue that nature acts 

upon them and breaks them down and, with time, that they get diluted until they become a signal which is not as damaging. 

Mr. UPTON. Is there any sense they are beginning to migrate? 

Mr. REDDY. There are a variety of research vessels that have 

been vectored and are collecting samples as we speak, and I hope 

to do the same next week. And I think at some point we will be 

able to start to have kind of a three-dimensional image of how 

these plumes are at one point and then how they migrate, and then 

also how the oil changes with time. With time, oil weathers; and 

in fact, what is somewhat comforting is that some of the more dangerous chemicals can also be broken down by nature, and so there 

is some comfort that this will happen. 

Mr. UPTON. Have you been able to date from some of the early 

flow, from 45 to 50 days ago, to where we are at 52 days in terms 

of any progress breaking up based on what chemicals might have 

been used or dispersants? Is there any marked progress? 

Mr. REDDY. No, not at the time. I have looked and analyzed samples that were collected about 50 miles away from the spill zone, 

and they have been significantly weathered either by some of the 

more harmful chemicals that have been spoken about by my colleagues, and either have been evaporated away or they have been 

washed into the water column. At this time I haven’t had an opportunity to closely look at the samples. But the oil has changed a lot 

since it spilled. But trying to put a time as to how old one sample 

is relative to the other is quite difficult. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

Mr. UPTON. I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Trapido, how long do you believe that people that are exposed to the vapors, to the physical contact, the food contamination, how long should they be monitored? Is there an effective way 

to tell when that monitoring is done or should be concluded? 

Mr. TRAPIDO. My sense is that individuals need to be monitored 

for at least 20 years, perhaps longer. Now, although that sounds 

like an impossibility, let me assure you that there are a large number of cohorts studied that are going on for that length of time. 

They only become more valuable over the duration of time. 

You know, if we have a woman who is pregnant and gives birth 

to a child, we have to follow that child as that child grows up. And 

there is no magic moment when we say, oK, we are done, there 

can’t be any more damage. So that, in essence, it is following people for what we consider to be an average latency period of about 

20 years. I think you would feel fairly safe at that point that you 

had seen the bulk of anything that would develop in excess. We 

know what rates of cancer are expected to occur in any population, 

so we should be able to detect increases above those expected rates 

over the course of time. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So basically what you are saying is that we need 

to hold BP accountable for health monitoring responsibilities for a 

good 20 years. 

Mr. TRAPIDO. That would be a fair rewording of my thoughts for 

sure. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Dr. Reddy, I am going to follow up a little bit on one of the chairman’s questions about the permanent damage and decline and extinction of the food chain in the Gulf there. And I know you don’t 

have an answer to that, but, again, how long will it take for us to 

understand what those effects are and how permanent they are, 

just to get some idea of what is involved here? 

Mr. REDDY. I think, as you mentioned, it will be difficult to predict at this time. I think what will happen is perhaps in the next 

4 to 8 months, when there is sufficient data that has been collected 

and evaluated, groups of interdisciplinary scientists will be able to 

get perhaps the first kind of views about how long and potentially 

the damages that have occurred. 

At this point, you know, it is so difficult to constrain the damages. What we see only on TV is perhaps only just a small snapshot. And so we have to do a really strong case of bookkeeping and 

accounting of what has happened, and also how things may have 

changed in the cellular, molecular level, and with that we can start 

to get an idea. 

As much as I would like to give you an answer, I think perhaps 

in the next 6 to 8 months a team of experts will be able to give 

a better idea. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Dr. Trapido, what are the most effective steps that we can take to prevent long-term health impacts 

to people that are in the vicinity—the workers, the residents? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

Mr. TRAPIDO. That is a very good question, and I wish there were 

a very easy answer to that. I think people, number one, need to 

take care of their already—the risks they can control. There is a 

good chance, for example, that tobacco use will compound the effects. There are things with exercise and diet that people have to 

do. But beyond that, we need to look at stress, and those that can 

be addressed now. We need to have a surveillance system in place 

that can begin to monitor early signs of potential problems. 

I mean, if somebody has been exposed at this point, there is not 

much we can do other than observe them. And we can look for the 

diagnoses that we know about, but this is unprecedented in—sorry 

to use that again. This is unprecedented in terms of the particular 

exposures to length of time that the people are being exposed to it. 

I can only say that I worked—I was the NCI representative to 

the workers after 9/11 to follow up the New York City workers. 

And once people had been exposed, it was very difficult to know 

what to tell people to do, because people obviously get concerned 

and they start to have symptoms. But what needed to be done 

there was to have a good surveillance system. And, fortunately, 

there was great collaboration from all the groups, from the communities, from the unions. There was not a BP equivalent in that 

case. 

So what we need to do is to begin to monitor them, to interview 

them, to deal with their current problems of stress, because stress 

will only increase their likelihood of developing these conditions, 

and to have them manage the cancer-related risk factors that they 

can now manage. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. I guess, Mr. Chairman, we have our 

work ahead of us in putting those systems in place. I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from the State of California, 

Mrs. Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Today, the Center for American Progress released a 

report calling for the administration to take total control of the 

public health response away from BP. In this report, they note that 

the evidence is very clear that we cannot afford to leave any part 

of this important response to the very corporation that caused the 

problem in the first place. 

A couple short brief questions to ask you, Dr. Solomon, just for 

the record. 

Dr. Solomon, do you trust BP to handle the public health response and adequately protect the cleanup workers? 

Dr. SOLOMON. No. I don’t trust BP to protect the cleanup workers 

or handle the public health response. 

Mrs. CAPPS. In your opinion, who should be in charge of the public health response? 

Dr. SOLOMON. The public health response could be guided by a 

consortium of Federal agencies, with a leader. So EPA has been 

doing an excellent job and has been constantly improving, and people from CDC and NIHS have also been very involved and they are 

quite capable. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So from within the government? 

Dr. SOLOMON. Absolutely. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

Mrs. CAPPS. I want to just continue with you one more question. 

According to BP’s offshore monitoring plan, workers are allowed to 

stay in an area when vapors are at a level four times higher than 

the accepted practice to prevent an explosion. 

Should we be concerned that workers will be exposed to very 

high levels of toxins from a public health perspective? You did mention this in your remarks, but I would like to give you a chance 

to go further into it if you would, please. These workers are often 

working more than 8 hours a day out in harsh conditions, not typically even measured for laboratory tests. 

Dr. SOLOMON. The BP sampling plan and the data that were released this week gave us a little window of information into what 

is going on out there in the water, and it was a disturbing one. 

First of all, in the sampling plan, the plan focuses on workers on 

stationary rigs and on large vessels. And as you know, many of 

these large vessels are multiple stories high; the workers are not 

right at water level. 

The smaller boats were referred to in the sampling plan only obliquely as ‘‘other vessels,’’ and were deemed reduced priority, which 

means that there really wasn’t an effort or anything within the BP 

sampling plant to monitor for the health and safety of the people 

on the fishing boats. And there is an estimated 1,500 people out 

there on these fishing boats that are much closer to water level and 

therefore right in the thick of things, literally. And as you yourself 

have pointed out, the workers have not been provided with respirators. 

The levels of concentration to chemicals that BP is tolerating are 

quite high, both for explosive potential and also for toxicity, and 

are ones that may perhaps be legal under some of the outdated 

OSHA standards, but are certainly not safe for the workers. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Dr. Trapido, it was very disheartening to hear that long-term epidemiological studies on the human health effects of oil spill exposure seem to be nonexistent. I will let you verify whether or not— 

you are nodding. 

Mr. TRAPIDO. That is absolutely the case. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I heard you clearly. 

One of the keys to this sort of study, as you mentioned, is to 

start enrolling people in the study and taking exposure measurements as soon as possible. Do you know what kind of monitoring 

and surveillance is currently underway? 

Mr. TRAPIDO. There is no systematic monitoring, as far as I can 

tell. There are reports of people going to local doctors and clinics 

for acute effects, but there is not a systematic process in place. And 

so what we get is anecdotal data, and it is hard to make conclusions based on those. 

And my sense, although this is a sense partially from the media, 

is that people are a little bit afraid to publicly come forward and 

state that they have a problem for fear that they may lose their 

employment, they may lose their income. And so we have got to be 

able to assure the workers and the residents that if they need help 

for this, health care, that they can get it without fear of reprisal 

or loss of their legal rights. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Just one quick follow-up. Do you know, 

has BP created any kind of registry to track who is even being deployed to do the cleanup work, those whom they are hiring? 

Mr. TRAPIDO. If they have, I have not been made aware of it. I 

do not believe there is, but I would suspect that they know. They 

must have a roster of everybody who has been on any of the vessels 

they have either owned or hired workers for. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And you would find that information very important. 

Mr. TRAPIDO. Absolutely. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And these would be the people you would like to see 

examined. 

Mr. TRAPIDO. Among the groups. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Among the groups for sure. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, is recognized. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let 

me thank the witnesses for their testimony today. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to the question of 

dispersants, because I think this is a very important issue. It provides an example of the weakness in our chemical regulatory 

scheme. 

BP chose to use two dispersants, as I am told, COREXIT 9500 

and 9527, which have not been determined to be safe. In fact, the 

ingredients in those two dispersants were not revealed until last 

week. Nalco, the manufacturer of the chemicals, had claimed that 

the ingredient list was proprietary, and only waived that claim this 

week in response to pressure from our EPA. 

We have seen these types of claims before for other chemicals 

regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. We know that 

chemical companies are overclaiming confidentiality, and that EPA 

is trying to do a better job of policing those claims. It is disturbing 

that EPA did not have the power to release this information, and 

that the public had to wait for the manufacturer to waive the 

claim. The Commerce Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee has been examining this issue in the context of TSCA 

reform. So I would like to ask our witnesses just a few questions 

to get a sense of whether the confidentiality claims surrounding 

these dispersants are business as usual in the chemical industry. 

Let me start with you, Dr. Solomon. Does it surprise you that the 

manufacturer claimed that the ingredient list was proprietary? 

Dr. SOLOMON. No. It doesn’t surprise me at all. In fact, as a physician, I am frequently in a situation where I am seeing patients 

exposed to various products or chemicals in their workplace or 

other environments; and when I try to get information about the 

ingredients of those products in order to counsel my patient, I am 

told that the list is proprietary. I am unable to get the information. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Well, have you now reviewed the list of ingredients that the EPA published this week? 

Dr. SOLOMON. Yes, I have. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Would you say that the list is easy to understand and comprehend to the layperson? Or is it really just someVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:18 Feb 20, 2013 Jkt 077909 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A909.XXX A909

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

thing that scientists could use to analyze the safety of these chemicals? 

Dr. SOLOMON. The information would be very difficult or impossible for the layperson to understand, but it would be very useful 

to scientists. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. So the people that were really kept in the 

dark about the ingredient lists are scientists, like you, who can 

make an assessment regarding the safety of these ingredients. 

Right or wrong? 

Dr. SOLOMON. That is correct. Though, of course, the role of the 

scientist is then to communicate the information to the general 

public and others. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Well, I am told that BP selected these particular dispersants from a list of approved dispersants. EPA has 

looked at the efficacy and toxicity of the chemicals, but has never 

determined that they are safe. In fact, we found out very quickly 

that there are safer alternatives. 

Dr. Solomon, let me ask you this. As someone who has worked 

on chemical policy and studied hazardous chemicals, does it surprise you that the safety of these dispersants has not been determined? 

Dr. SOLOMON. No. That doesn’t surprise me at all. In fact, 

many—most chemicals that are on the market today have never 

been fully tested for their toxicity to humans or the environment. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Do you think that companies like BP or scientists like yourself have enough information available to effectively evaluate the safety of these chemicals or their alternatives? 

Dr. SOLOMON. No. I don’t believe that scientists or physicians or 

the general public have the information that we need in order to 

assess safety of chemicals. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me try this one. As a scientist, are you 

concerned that BP has been using large amounts of these chemicals 

without a determination that they are safe and without sharing the 

ingredient list? 

Dr. SOLOMON. Yes. I am very concerned that these chemicals are 

being applied by workers who are not necessarily being adequately 

protected, and they are drifting potentially into inhabited areas. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. That is not good. Do you think that our chemical regulations are sufficient to ensure that we know the risk of 

the chemicals that we use? 

Dr. SOLOMON. No. I don’t believe that the current regulations do 

that. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Well, I have got about 50 seconds. Dr. 

Trapido, let me try you for just a moment. As you stated earlier, 

exposure is time-dependent, and the residents of communities affected by air and water contamination from the spill will need to 

be monitored, you said, over several years in order to obtain a full 

understanding of the effects of the oil spill on the health of the affected communities. 

In your opinion, sir, what organization or organizations should 

oversee the long-term study of the residents of those affected? And 

how should this effort be coordinated? 

Mr. TRAPIDO. I think this effort needs to come out of HHS, and 

then they can decide whether it belongs to CDC or NIH or CNS. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

But all these require a fair amount of scrutiny. I would prefer to 

see it there than in the regulatory agencies, because the regulatory 

agencies can provide information to the scientists in HHS. 

But I want to make a statement that the affected communities 

need to have a voice in this. We actually learn a lot from our parish 

presidents about what is really going on versus what we may hear 

on the nightly news. And so I think that while the government 

needs to play a role, and an important role, in managing and making sure that the science is sound and that it is not affected by the 

fact that BP may be actually supplying the funds for it, I think it 

is very important that the communities have a voice in this. And 

ultimately, you know, we are all here to serve the communities. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence. This is pretty serious stuff, and I thank you for convening 

this hearing today. And we want to assure you and the American 

people that we are going to fulfill our responsibility. Thank you. I 

yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, is recognized. 

Dr . BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 

out of the room during part of the hearing. 

Director Solomon, let me just be sure that I understand correctly. 

Now, you reviewed the EPA monitoring being done down in the 

Gulf region; is that correct? 

Dr. SOLOMON. The EPA monitoring? Yes. 

Dr . BURGESS. And if I understand correctly, the EPA’s assessment is that, with regard to the dispersants, there were no longterm health effects at issue? 

Dr. SOLOMON. The EPA has just begun to do some monitoring for 

some of the dispersant chemicals. So far, they have mostly been focused on the vapors that come off of the oil itself. 

Dr . BURGESS. We heard testimony from Dr. Wilma Subra on 

Monday in Chalmette. And maybe she was talking about the offgassing or the out-gassing of the vapors, but my impression was 

from her that the EPA said that there was—at present levels, there 

was no danger. 

Dr. SOLOMON. The EPA has said that they think that there is a 

very low likelihood of long-term health effects from the levels that 

have been measured so far. 

Mr. BURGESS. Is there more the EPA could be doing about this? 

Dr. SOLOMON. Yes. Quite a few things that the EPA could be 

doing better. Some of them, the EPA has been responsive to community concerns and has made some changes in their sampling efforts and their public communication, but there is still more that 

can be done. 

Mr. BURGESS. Such as? 

Dr. SOLOMON. EPA has only recently begun to respond to odor 

complaints, but they have not yet actually had community meetings to collect information from community residents. 

Mr. BURGESS. I don’t mean to interrupt you. Do you know if they 

have made canisters available to people in those communities to 

collect air samples at the time the odors are present? 

Dr. SOLOMON. No. My understanding is that community members don’t have canisters. EPA is the only entity deploying those. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

Mr. BURGESS. I can see where that would be a problem. I am 

sorry. Continue. 

Dr. SOLOMON. In addition, there is more need for meteorological 

monitoring and modeling of where the air plumes may be going. 

We have heard about the need to model where the subsurface 

plumes are going, but we also need to know where the wind is 

blowing, and then target sampling to those areas along the coastline. Right now, that is not happening as well as it should be. And 

in addition, it would be very helpful to provide publicly any information about exactly where the dispersants are being applied offshore. This would help also with predicting where they might go. 

Mr. BURGESS. Could I ask you a question about that? The 

dispersants at one time were being placed subsea; but with the collection apparatus on top, they can no longer do that. Is that correct? Those dispersants are not being used currently, are they? 

Dr. SOLOMON. My understanding is that there is still subsurface 

application going on as well as surface application of dispersants. 

Mr. BURGESS. But the surface application is aerials, so that those 

flight patterns should be known to someone; is that correct? 

Dr. SOLOMON. Exactly. So the aerial application of dispersants is 

the one that could generate air contaminants that could pose a hazard to local communities. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, you and Mr. Butterfield were talking about 

alternatives, safer dispersants than the ones that are being used 

currently. Do you know if there are any available that are safer? 

Dr. SOLOMON. Well, I was pleased to see that one of the 

dispersants is being used in lesser quantities or perhaps has been 

fully phased out at this point, and that was the one that contained 

a chemical called 2-Butoxyethanol that was the most significant 

health concern. At this time, my understanding is that COREXIT 

9500 does not contain that chemical of concern. And so although 

there are still questions about the efficacy and whether this is in 

fact the best way to go, the health concerns have greatly decreased 

with that switch. 

Mr. BURGESS. But is there another dispersant that is available 

in scalable amounts that would be necessary to manage a leak of 

this size? Is there really anything else out there off the shelf? 

Dr. SOLOMON. BP responded to EPA’s request to find an alternative dispersant with a memo that was interesting because it 

highlighted the data gaps on all of the dispersants. In fact, the BP 

memo contained a table of all of the different dispersants. And then 

there was a row in the table that was supposed to list the persistence, bioaccumulation and chronic effects of each of these 

dispersants. And each cell in the table was filled with the same 

words: proprietary mixture. In other words, there wasn’t information that would allow at least independent scientists to confirm 

whether there really is a safer alternative or not. And so that information—— 

Mr. BURGESS. So we just don’t know. 

Dr. Trapido, let me ask you a question. You discussed the importance of registries. Your background is in cancer; is that correct? 

Mr. TRAPIDO. That is right. 

Mr. BURGESS. The cancer registry that was set up years ago has 

provided valuable data. I believe you also in your testimony talked 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

about lacking registries for other chronic diseases, particularly respiratory illnesses. So could you give us just very briefly some of the 

importance of the registries and their roles in the assessment of 

health hazards? 

Mr. TRAPIDO. Certainly. Population-based registries record information on every diagnosed case of a particular illness in a defined 

geographic area. And so then we can link those back to the people 

who we have in the—who we have been following, who either may 

be first responders, who may be people along the shore in the communities, and link those back and make connections there. But the 

point is that we need to be looking at some of the early symptoms 

that might occur, some early respiratory problems that might be 

indicative of further scrutiny for the development—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Longer-term problems. My time is going to be up 

here, so quickly. We just went through a fairly intense and brutal 

markup of a bill dealing with 9/11 first responders in this committee. I can’t help but feel that there are perhaps some similarities in the two situations. Perhaps the right things weren’t done 

at Ground Zero after 9/11, and should we have learned some lessons with this disaster and our approach to it. 

So right now, what is the involvement of the CDC in monitoring 

and assisting with the health assessments? Are they on board? 

Mr. TRAPIDO. My impression is that—I have not seen a lot of 

their presence. I don’t want to say it is not there, but I have not 

seen a lot of CDC’s presence in the community. I don’t know if they 

are doing surveillance, I suspect that they are. But that is about 

all that I know. 

Mr. BURGESS. Because if there are these long-term problems, one 

of the obligations of the people who caused this disaster would be 

to set up a trust fund so that the taxpayers are not then the ones 

that are looked to to provide the health benefits that people may 

need over a longer term period of time. That is my concern. And 

I am afraid if we don’t manage things appropriately at this end, 

then 8 or 9 years later, which is where we were with the 9/11 stuff 

just 2 or 3 weeks ago, it becomes very, very difficult in retrospect 

to sort stuff out. 

Mr. TRAPIDO. I think that is absolutely right. One of the problems that HHS has is the ability to respond very, very quickly to 

events like this. On infectious outbreaks they are very good. And 

some of these kinds of outbreaks—not outbreaks, occurrences, it is 

harder because the mechanisms are just not there for quick response. And so that I think this identifies an area that needs further investigation. 

Mr. BURGESS. We do have a hearing in our Subcommittee on 

Health next week. Too bad Mr. Waxman is gone. I would ask him 

if we could invite Secretary Sebelius to be with us that afternoon, 

but maybe we will submit that in writing. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman very much. 

I have one final question, if I may, to Dr. Reddy and Dr. Solomon. 

During BP’s failed top-kill procedure, they injected 30,000 barrels 

of drilling mud into the well, hoping to clog it up and stop the leak. 

As we all saw on the spill cam, much of that drilling mud found 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

its way out and into the ocean floor, coating anything in its path. 

But drilling mud isn’t just dirt; it is actually made of synthetic oils 

and chemicals whose identities are kept secret. 

Do you think that BP should immediately disclose all of the 

chemicals used in its drilling mud so that the scientific community 

can best assess the potential impacts? Mr. Reddy. 

Mr. REDDY. Yes. Actually, I actually spent most of yesterday trying to investigate what the composition was of the drilling muds 

used, and I was unsuccessful. 

Mr. MARKEY. Why were you unsuccessful? 

Mr. REDDY. I couldn’t find it. I looked on the Web and I was unsuccessful. 

Mr. MARKEY. Would you like us to get you access to that information? 

Mr. REDDY. I think it would be scientifically, and also in terms 

of the response, important. 

Mr. MARKEY. It is hard to investigate something that you do not 

have the evidence in front of you. 

Mr. REDDY. You are absolutely correct. 

Mr. MARKEY. Even we non-scientists know that. CSI New York 

helps us to see how important it is to get that information into 

your hands. Dr. Solomon? 

Dr. SOLOMON. When I looked into the composition of the drilling 

muds and drilling fluids, I hit the same kind of data gaps that Dr. 

Reddy described. I did find a little bit of data suggesting heavy 

metal contamination of some of these drilling muds, and that 

raised my level of interest and concern quite a bit higher and it 

made me think that we really do need to gather the scientific information on the composition of these. 

Mr. MARKEY. BP should release immediately the chemicals that 

are included in that drilling mud so that there can be a complete, 

immediate, scientific analysis of what those chemicals are and 

what the potential harm is not only to ocean animals and fauna, 

but also potentially to human beings. And one—and I can recognize 

members if they would like. But one other—no. I can end it right 

there, and I think I will end it right there. But thank you very 

much for your help. 

Dr. Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. May I just ask a follow-up question along that 

line? Does not OSHA or the EPA require that there at least be a 

posting of the components of that drilling mud if there is a Hazmat 

application, if there is an accident, and whether it be fire personnel 

or Coast Guard personnel need to respond? Are there not requirements that the contents of—again, they don’t have to give the proprietary formula, but at least the contents, the potential hazards, 

be on display or be retrievable by someone? 

Mr. REDDY. I would defer. 

Dr. SOLOMON. I would be happy to try to answer that question. 

There is a requirement that companies provide material safety 

data sheets, MSDSs, on chemicals that are handled by workers. 

And the drilling muds I would imagine would fall into that category. The problem with these MSDSs is that they do not actually 

have to list the ingredients. They do have to list the acute toxicity 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

of the chemical. And so that would be useful and important for 

someone who is actually directly exposed to it. 

My concern with the drilling muds is actually less a worker 

health issue than an ecosystem health issue if these were discharged into the ocean, and we don’t quite know what is in them 

and whether there is a potential for material that could end up in 

the food chain. But it is a good point that there is at least some 

minimal information available through material safety data sheets. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would just request that we try to 

get those MSDS sheets from BP, or whoever was involved, and at 

least have that as a starting point. 

Mr. MARKEY. We will work with the gentleman to be able to obtain that information. 

We thank each of you for your testimony today. It is very helpful, 

very timely. If there is other information which you think our committee should know of, please let us help you help the people in the 

Gulf. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 77909A.020

Statement of the Honorable Joe Barton 

Hearing Entitled "The BP Oil Spill: Human Exposure and 

Environmental Fate" 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing today. All of 

the news from the Gulfhas not been bad, but too much has been. The 

Coast Guard seems to believe that BP will capture up to 28,000 barrels 

per day by next week, and that's very good news. Even so, this has 

turned into a far greater disaster than expected when the initial explosion 

occurred on the Deepwater Horizon rig on April 20. Since then, we 

have witnessed the future of a regional economy come into question. 

And many residents have what I think are legitimate concerns for their 

own safety and health as oil billows up from 5,000 feet below the 

surface and spreads in every direction. 

I look forward to hearing testimony from our witnesses today. I 

think it is crucial that we closely monitor these developments so 

government can make the most informed decisions possible in the midst 
51 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 77909A.021

of this disaster. For instance, if the wrong information was put out about 

contaminated fish and shrimp, what would the impact be for that 

industry and the fishermen? What if we got it wrong and consumers 

were harmed? A careful and deliberate airing of the facts regarding 

health and environmental impacts should be the focus of this hearing and 

future investigations. 

As the Obama Administration directs efforts to stop the spill and 

contain what has already been released, new questions are being asked 

in regards to the methods being employed. If questions are being raised 

on the health and environmental effects of chemical dispersants, why did 

EPA approve their use? If burning oil on the surface was initially 

explained to us to be the safest and most effective way of getting rid of 

the oil at sea, what are the new questions surrounding its effect on air 

quality? If none of the current methods are environmentally responsible, 

what should be done in their place? What would the situation look like 

if they weren't being carried out altogether? 

Finally, what do we anticipate the long-term consequences of this 

disaster might be? Although the Santa Barbara spill in 1969 killed 
52 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 77909A.022

thousands of birds and fish, the surrounding ecosystem recovered very 

quickly. Conversely, the site of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill still 

experiences diminished wildlife populations and oil is still just inches 

beneath the rocks on the shore all these years later. Does the Deepwater 

Horizon spill compare to either of these events in its long-term impact? 

As we move forward, we must get as clear a picture as possible of 

this accident so we work to prevent an event like this occurring in the 

future. It is important to look for solutions in this disaster and not rush 

to judgment. We cannot allow Deepwater Horizon to become the Three 

Mile Island of domestic energy exploration. Too many jobs and too 

many lives are at stake to simply move forward with massive shutdowns 

and cancellations of offshore operations. It should be instructive to all 

of us that even the widows ofthose who tragically lost their lives during 

the explosion support continuing offshore drilling. 

I appreciate this hearing being held and look forward to testimony 

and questions. With that, I yield the balance of my time. 

o