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

77–912 2013

HHS ACTIONS TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS 

HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE BP OIL SPILL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 16, 2010 

Serial No. 111–135 

( 

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 HEALTH

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia, 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

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. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement .................................................................................. 10 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 12 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 12 

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 14 

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

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 20 

Hon. Donna M. Christensen, a Representative in Congress from the Virgin 

Islands, opening statement ................................................................................. 21 

Hon. John P. Sarbanes, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Maryland, opening statement ............................................................................. 21 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 22 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 23 

Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 24 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 25 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 26 

Hon. Betty Sutton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 27 

Hon. Bruce L. Braley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 27 

Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 97 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 99 

WITNESSES

Lisa Kaplowitz, M.D., M.S.H.A., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services ........................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 103 

John Howard, M.D., M.P.H., J.D., LL.M., Director, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ...... 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 109 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

Aubrey Miller, M.D., M.P.H., Senior Medical Advisor, National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health ....................... 61 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 118 

Michael Taylor, J.D., Deputy Commissioner for Foods, U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 125 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

HHS ACTIONS TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS 

HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE BP OIL SPILL 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2010 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Pallone Jr. 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Pallone, Dingell, Eshoo, 

Green, DeGette, Capps, Schakowsky, Ross, Barrow, Christensen, 

Castor, Sarbanes, Space, Sutton, Braley, Waxman (ex officio), Markey, Shimkus, Whitfield, Pitts, Murphy of Pennsylvania, Burgess, 

Blackburn, Gingrey, and Barton (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ruth Katz, Chief Public Health Counsel; Naomi 

Seiler, Counsel; Katie Campbell, Professional Staff Member; Allison 

Corr, Special Assistant; Eric Flamm, FDA Detailee; Camille Sealy, 

Public Health Analyst; Andrew Bindman, Fellow; Tim Westmoreland, Consulting Counsel; Melissa Cheatham, Professional Staff 

Member; Karen Lightfoot, Communications Director, Senior Policy 

Advisor; Elizabeth Letter, Special Assistant; Jen Berenholz, Deputy 

Clerk; Mitchell Smiley, Special Assistant; Ronald Allen, Staff Assistant; Clay Alspach, Counsel, Health; and Ryan Long, Chief 

Counsel, Health. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Call the meeting of the House subcommittee to 

order, and today we are having a hearing on HHS’s or the Department of Health and Human Services actions to identify and address the health effects of the BP oil spill, and I will recognize myself initially for an opening statement. 

The purpose of the hearing is to hear basically from the Department about the critical actions it is taking to identify and address 

the health effects related to the Deepwater Horizon spill. As we all 

know, that tragedy occurred on April 20. It has been devastating 

for the people living in the Coastal States and has captured the 

concern and sympathy of everyone across the Nation. 

There is no question that we have a human health problem. Concerns associated with both short-term and long-term exposure to 

oil. Health experts have warned of health complications such as severe skin irritation, nausea, fatigue, headaches, throat and eye irriVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:26 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077912 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A912.XXX A912

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

tation, not to mention the significant depression and anxiety which 

often accompanies this type of crisis. 

Studies of people exposed to the Prestige Oil Spill off the coast 

of Spain in 2002, show that they suffered from respiratory complications several years after the exposure, breathing in volatile organic compounds, including benzene, can cause acute toxicity and 

could potentially result in serious, long-term health effects like cancer, neurological, and reproductive harm. 

And we also have to ensure rigorous monitoring of dispersants 

being used to be sure that they have no adverse effects on human 

health for those workers and volunteers on the front lines of the 

cleanup. 

Under the direction of the National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen, and in coordination with the other key federal, 

state, and local agencies, HHS has worked swiftly to identify and 

disseminate resources on the ground level. 

Today we will hear about the work they are doing on health surveillance, worker training, food safety, and epidemiological studies 

from the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences. This discussion should give us a stronger sense of the 

challenges these agencies are facing, the success they have had so 

far, and how we can expect HHS to further engage as new information becomes available. 

I think the crisis requires, as they say, all decks or all hands on 

deck, and swift information sharing to protect the workers and the 

community members living near the coastal waters. And I should 

add that no member of our full Committee of Energy and Commerce has been more committed to this effort than the gentleman 

from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, and we have appreciated him keeping us informed of the local perspective. 

Finally, I want to note that I am pleased that Secretary Sebelius 

has contracted a public meeting with the Institute of Medicine in 

New Orleans next week to convene an independent panel of scientific experts on human health exposure. The information we will 

glean from that meeting will undoubtedly provide even more expertise to help better execute the recovery effort. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 8 77912A.001
4 

Mr. PALLONE. And now I would recognize Mr. Shimkus, who just 

mentioned that we are here 2 days in a row. I don’t know why that 

is true, but I am not objecting to it. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, that is good because I have in the audience my legislative assistant’s family, Mr. 

Sarley there up front. They can’t really figure out what he does for 

a job, so they decided to come to a hearing to figure that out, and 

I don’t know once they are done whether they will walk away 

thinking he really has a job, but we appreciate you all being here. 

I am not going to pick on the healthcare law today, Chairman. 

We are just going to move on this hearing and some of the important things that we need to address. I would also say that we are 

fortunate in this committee to have two Louisianans and our own 

Steve Scalise has also been very involved and engaged on this bill 

and its effect for jobs, the economy, health, and all the things that 

we have dealt with. So shout out to both those guys. 

Thank you for this hearing. I would like to welcome our witnesses and look forward to your testimony. We all know about the 

event on April 20, the loss of lives. We had the hearing yesterday 

on the—with the executives of massive spill and now, you know, we 

are focused on capping, recovery, payment, and but you are to talk 

about long-term effects or what they would be and what we know 

and what we don’t know and how do we get good information. So 

that is the importance of this hearing. 

I also am very happy that we have the FDA here today because, 

of course, one of the things we have worked with is on food safety, 

and we are going to have to watch this closely. We know it is already affecting the livelihood of the folks who use that as their livelihood, and there will be concern, and so where concern is merited 

and we want to have a safe food supply, we need to protect the consumers. Where there may not be and we can let these people return in certain areas to their livelihood, we want to do that. So we 

always focus or I always focus on our using real science, you know, 

and trying to keep away from the emotionalism that occurs in an 

event so that we can do our due diligence and in that way protect 

public health but also allow people to do the job that they have 

done for generations in some areas. 

So appreciate you being . Appreciate all the testimony. I look forward to it, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 11 77912A.002
6 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 12 77912A.003
7 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 13 77912A.004
8 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 14 77912A.005
9 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. 

Next is the gentlewoman From California, Ms. Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important 

hearing, and welcome to the witnesses. I am going to waive reading 

my spectacular opening statement and save my time for questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 77912A.006
11 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 77912A.007
12 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, and all opening statements can be submitted for the record. 

Next is the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the 

Administration for making available to us witnesses from FDA, 

from NIOSH, CDC, from the National Institute of Environmental 

Health Services, NIH, and from ASPR. 

What happened on April 20 at—on the Deepwater Horizon, the 

resulting oil spill is a tragedy, and our thoughts and prayers are 

with the families of loved ones, the 11 people who died on the rig 

that day. Lives and livelihoods were destroyed along with ecosystems, although the environment is not the focus of this particular subcommittee. 

I am struck by just how little we know about the long-term and 

even short-term effects of the oil spill on human health. While 

there have been oil spills before, none of them match the size and 

scope of this spill, and—or the particular conditions in which it occurred. We have people coming into contact with the oil, with 

dispersants, with other chemicals directly such as the responders 

involved here as they are trying to stop the flow of oil and clean 

up the water and the shorelines. 

Others are facing psychological trauma as their livelihoods, fishing and tourism and numerous others have been severely injured 

or destroyed, and it is possible that if we are not careful contaminated seafood could sicken or kill people who live hundreds or even 

thousands of miles away from that Gulf. 

This is a massive disaster, and the agencies in front of us today 

are all part of a massive federal response. I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses, and I thank you and yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Pitts. 

The gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, and thank you for 

chairing the hearing yesterday. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was an important 

hearing, as is this hearing. 

As President Obama said in his address to the Nation last night, 

this marks the greatest environmental disaster America has ever 

known. I am afraid it also has the potential to become one of the 

worst public health disasters America has ever known if we are not 

careful. 

It has been almost 9 years now since the September 11 attacks 

on the World Trade Center, and we are still seeing repercussions 

in the form of health effects on first responders and residents who 

were exposed in the aftermath. The only group for which we have 

baseline health measures is the firefighters, and we are still, 9 

years later, working to cobble together data on impacted populations. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

We need to learn from our mistakes. We need to establish a registry of workers, volunteers, and residents, capture their baseline 

health status, and follow that and their offspring over the long 

term. The gaps in the research in human health effects of oil spills 

and the use of dispersants are unconscionable. 

I understand that such gaps exist because there has never been 

a need for such data, but that is not an excuse for not taking every 

step possible now to ensure that we collect and monitor relevant 

data. We also need to make sure of making assumptions, that we 

don’t make assumptions without evidence to back them up. 

For example, there is a big assumption that because oil on the 

surface is dangerous and likely to wash up on shore, it is better 

to use dispersants to push the oil below the water surface. But we 

do not know what the impact on marine life will be or whether the 

combination of oil and dispersants is more toxic than either one 

alone. 

And in addition, we need to ensure that the National Institutes 

of Health has the resources necessary to quickly ramp us research 

into the health effects of these oil and dispersants. 

Similarly, we need to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have the 

resources they need to move forward with monitoring the contamination of seafood, as well as for implementing surveillance system 

and long-term monitoring of the health effects of both workers and 

residents. 

I was aghast to learn that although there is a rostering system 

in place to capture information about workers who have, may have 

been exposed to oil and dispersants, we have nothing in place to 

monitor unofficial volunteers or local residents. 

And, Mr. Chairman, when the Oversight Investigations Committee was in the Gulf last week, we were horrified to hear from 

residents that while there is protective equipment on these boats, 

many of them are being told by BP and its subcontractors not to 

use the protective equipment for other reasons. 

If there is one thing we should have learned from September 11 

is that we need to have worker protections and health protections 

for everybody involved in this cleanup, and we also need to figure 

out what is happening to the residents and everybody else down 

there. Otherwise, we are going—as you said, Mr. Chairman, we are 

going to be seeing health effects for generations to come. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. You know, if I could just—if you could 

just—well, I guess your time is out, but I just wanted to say I remember vividly after 9/11 how, you know, the BP Administration 

then, who is my former governor, you know, made all these statements about how everything was so great and, you know, there 

wasn’t a problem for the air pollution, and then we got all the devastating impact later. 

So you have to be very careful about, you know, what representations we make as agency or elected officials when it comes to 

health impacts. 

Next I would recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Murphy. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY OF PENNSYLVANIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Exhibit A. Picture of a BP gas station. Some of you may have 

seen this in the media. I love the sign that they posted next to the 

tank. It says, ‘‘Warning. Do not leave pumps unattended. You are 

responsible for spills.’’ 

And so we are here today dealing with the same thing today on 

health effects. We have seen a lot of pictures of animals tragically 

affected by this catastrophic, economic disaster, but let us not forget the human element. 

This committee recently passed legislation to provide healthcare 

monitoring for first responders as the Chairman just mentioned 

from a national tragedy of a different kind, the 9/11 terrorist attack. Now we are dealing with a different sort and one that we 

have to make sure that we are going to track and monitor for a 

long time. 

We have several things. One, the direct effects of the oil on residents, the indirect effects that also may come from food from the 

region, and other products that may have been in the region and 

contaminated by the oil. 

Two, the effects of chemical dispersants, the 30,000 plus workers 

and volunteers, and now the President has ordered 17,000 soldiers 

into the area, who themselves may face increased risks because of 

their exposure to chemicals involved, including the oil. 

It is essential that this committee take a number of actions such 

as calling upon the Department of Health and Human Services to 

immediately establish some studies and monitoring of those involved exposed to these chemicals. 

Two, the Department of Defense also needs to take account of 

initial evaluations and monitoring of any soldier who is down 

there. 

Three, I believe we should be pushing for NIH to immediately 

move forward on establishing some longitudinal studies and to 

monitor those really over the next couple of decades, and of course, 

the Department of Agriculture is going to need to also monitor this 

as well. 

We do need baseline medical exams for anybody going to this region, and we need to establish those immediately. We need to get 

those on electronic medical records and track this. So much of what 

people are being exposed to we simply do not know the medical effects. We also do not know the psychological effects, and it is important we monitor those as well. 

Although other hearings have received a lot of media attention 

because they have the CEOs of oil companies around, this hearing 

and this committee and this jurisdiction of health is critically important because this committee will be monitoring this issue for the 

next couple of decades. We will clean up the beaches, we will reestablish some of those areas, but we have to remember that the 

human toll of this is going to be longstanding, and it is important 

that the work we do today and the information received from this 

very astute panel is one that helps establish what we need to be 

doing in that direction. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

With that I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. 

Yield to our full committee chairman, 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. Pallone. Thank you for 

holding today’s hearing on the Department of Health and Human 

Services’ critically important role in assessing the health effects of 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

It has been nearly 2 months since this tragedy took place, killed 

11 people, injured 15 others, it is doing an enormous amount of 

damage to the environment and to the economy of people in the 

Gulf. Our committee has been very involved in oversight on this 

issue. Tomorrow we are going to hear from—directly from the BP 

CEO Tony Hayward. 

Today’s hearing, although it is looking at a different aspect of the 

spill and underscores one reason why our focus is so comprehensive 

and so important, this oil spill has the potential to directly impact 

for years to come the health and wellbeing of millions of people 

who live and work in or near the Gulf area. I hope to get from our 

witnesses their examination of the potential health risks for cleanup workers, many of whom can no longer engage in their primary 

livelihoods, learn about how the spill may touch the broader population living near the Gulf, risks that may include respiratory complications, headaches, throat, eye irritation, rashes and skin problems, nausea, fatigue, and heat exhaustion. The possibility of more 

serious long-term illnesses has also been under study. 

We need to hear from people in the Department of Health and 

Human Services to assess these potential risks and address whatever health problems do materialize, that working with each other, 

the different agencies, with other departments, with state and local 

governments on surveillance mechanisms, food safety controls, 

worker training programs, epidemiological studies. Unfortunately, 

I suspect their efforts will be needed for a long time to come. 

Yesterday in testimony before this subcommittee Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute of Health, committed $10 

million for research on the health effects of the oil spill. This is exactly the type of initiative that needs to be undertaken now, and 

I commend NIH for its efforts. 

I know our own activities regarding this disaster will continue 

for as long as necessary and appropriate. Indeed, as the primary 

committee in the House for overseeing the Department of Health 

and Human Services we are committed to ensuring that HHS lives 

up to its responsibility and most especially to its mandate to protect the public health. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the hearing. I thank 

our witnesses for testifying and being here today. I look forward to 

their testimony and working with them in the future. 

Yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 77912A.008
17 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 77912A.009
18 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 77912A.010
19 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 77912A.011
20 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Waxman. 

The gentlewoman from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Welcome to all of you, and Mr. Chairman, 

thank you for the hearing, and I am pleased that we are going to 

take some time and look at the potential health effects of the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf. 

It has—and having been down there to the Gulf, I know that it 

has greatly impacted the livelihoods and the health of workers, volunteers, and nearby communities that have not seen this type disaster before. We appreciate the significant effort by the agencies 

that are before us today to keep those involved safe through coordinated efforts focused on preventative measures such as worker 

training, seafood sampling, and closing hazardous waters. 

Everybody knows that we are seeing the 63,000 barrels a day 

going into the ocean, and t seems to be no reprieve unfortunately, 

or resolution in sight. The fishing restrictions and the lack of tourism during the busiest time of year for this region is really devastating the economy, and it is changing the livelihoods forever. It 

truly is a sad situation. 

Furthermore, the drilling moratorium in the region has only exacerbated the financial issues that families in this region are experiencing. For many families the moratorium has made it impossible 

to maintain the type lifestyle they had prior to the spill. 

That said, we must stay vigilant on this issue and monitor it 

closely, focusing not just on the physical health but also the mental 

health. At this stage immediate care must be sought and documented for all workers who become ill during the cleanup efforts 

going forward. The Administration must work with all stakeholders 

to ensure that necessary safety measures are in place to protect the 

workers and the coastline communities. The spill isn’t over, and we 

can’t yet examine the lasting health effects, but the Administration 

can take proactive steps to protect communities, public health, and 

workers throughout the course of the spill. 

Thank the Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Ms. Blackburn. 

Next I would yield to our Chairman Emeritus, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. I 

commend you for holding this hearing. I ask unanimous consent 

that my excellent opening statement be included in the record for 

the reading of all who will, I am sure, enjoy it much. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell was unavailable at the 

time of printing.] 

Mr. PALLONE. Without objection, so ordered, and all of the opening statements will be submitted for those who desire to enter 

them. 

Next is—we will go to our—is she there? Lois is not there. Next 

is the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Christensen. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Shimkus, for holding this 

hearing. There are some of us who have been asking over and over 

about the health effects of this disaster, and the answers have 

often been as unsatisfying as the prior promises of protection of the 

workers have been empty until recently. 

So we welcome this opportunity to discuss one aspect of the BP 

oil spill that has not gotten much public attention, the health effects and the actions that the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services has and plans to take. 

We have heard some of the health impacts that were the result 

of similar, but smaller it turns out, catastrophic accident in Alaska 

just over 2 decades ago as well as some others, but it still seems 

that the long-term effects are unclear. 

So I want to thank today’s witnesses for joining us to provide an 

update on the efforts that each of your respective agencies is undertaking to help tackle this horrific disaster and protect the 

health and wellbeing, not only of the workers but residents in the 

affected communities. I hope that we will hear what experience 

your agencies might have had in the past with oil spills and what 

institutional memory remains that is informing your responses 

today. 

I also hope that we will hear more coordination from you with 

this—among yourselves and with state and local agencies that we 

have heard from other monitoring and responding agencies. We 

have already lost 11 lives that should not have been lost. We have 

to do everything we can to address the health needs of those they 

left behind, as well as the workers and the residents of the area. 

As we know from Katrina and other natural assaults on the region, the Gulf Area is home to many vulnerable population groups, 

and so I am especially interested in hearing how the affected communities’ most vulnerable residents who likely already had underaddressed health and healthcare needs before the spill, factor into 

your outreach of protection and response. 

Again, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing and thank 

the Chair and Ranking Member for holding this hearing. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Mr. Sarbanes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. SARBANES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this 

meeting. There are so many different narratives that are unfolding 

with respect to this catastrophe, and they are unfolding in stages. 

There was, obviously, the initial loss of life, of the spill itself, which 

continues every minute of every day, the assault on the coast in 

terms of the effects on wildlife and the marshlands and the other 

impact, the underwater plumes. That is another narrative that is 

underway. The loss of industries, fishing, shrimping, tourism, and 

then, of course, the health effects, which is what we are to speak 

of today. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

In all of these narratives, most of them are potentially unending 

narratives. I mean, they are going to go on for decades and decades. It is really impossible to overstate the impact this catastrophe is going to have on our country, and we are really just at 

the very beginning of our understanding of all of the ramifications 

of this, but we do have to begin to build a record. We have to begin 

to try to understand what this is meaning, and that is part of what 

this hearing is designed to do. 

So I thank you for convening it, and I yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow. 

The gentleman waives. 

Next is the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. The Oversight and Investigations 

Committee went down to Chalmette, Louisiana, for a hearing, and 

we heard testimony from Wilma Subra from the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and I wanted to tell you a little bit 

about her testimony if you hadn’t seen it about some of the problems with health. 

First of all, they hired a lot of the fishermen who were—who are 

out of work, and initially they were required to sign an agreement 

that seriously compromised—I am reading now from—‘‘that seriously compromised their existing and future rights and potential 

legal claims. A judge thought that was overbroad, and BP entered 

into a stipulated judgment that removed that.’’ 

But then this organization, a private organization, began distributing protective gear to the fishermen to utilize during cleanup activities, half-face respiratories with organic cartridges, goggles, 

gloves, and sleeve protectors. She later said that they were encouraged not to use those. 

In fact, at one point as I recall, she said in the Q & A that heat 

stress was the reason and that some—I don’t know if it was HHS 

or someone from the government of Louisiana agreed with that and 

so they were afraid to use those respirators, and she said the fishermen were reluctant to report their health systems for fear that 

they would lose their jobs and initially the women were, their 

wives were expressing concern, but then they stopped speaking out, 

‘‘for fear their husbands would lose their jobs.’’ 

The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospital stated that oil 

cleanup workers, ‘‘should avoid skin contact in oral cavity or nasal 

passage, exposure to oil spill products using appropriate clothing, 

respiratory protection, gloves, and boots.’’ But she continued 

throughout her testimony to say that there was not the proper 

training, that that equipment was, in fact, not provided. The 

shrimpers have not been provided with the appropriate protective 

gear. The oily skimmers and pads are being pulled into the shrimp 

boats by the boat crews with bare hands and no protective gear. 

On May 26 a number of workers became ill on the job, transported 

to the hospital. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

So we have lots of testimony now that these things are going on. 

The President said in his speech yesterday that 30,000 personnel 

were there, that he has authorized the deployment of 17,000 National Guard, then there are volunteers who are working down 

there. I think we do have a tremendous responsibility to avoid the 

situation that followed 9/11, and there is every potential for that 

happening. 

So I am very glad that you are today, looking forward to your 

testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

I yield to our Vice-Chairman, Ms. 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 hearing. 

While much focus has been on addressing BP’s oil spill as an economic and environmental crisis, which it certainly is, I think it is 

incredibly important that you all and we all are today to discuss 

the public health crisis that is unfolding in front of us. 

First off, I want to commend the Obama Administration for the 

important, life-saving public health response efforts that it has undertaken already. I think that your testimony today will show the 

many ways that your agencies are actively involved in the process. 

But reports of workers becoming ill from their involvement in the 

oil spill cleanup still persist. It is not only the workers who are suffering, the health of residents and I fear even tourists, may be also 

affected long into the future due to contaminated beaches and 

shorelines. 

Cleanup workers, often local fishermen and shrimpers, are not 

formally trained to work with toxic chemicals and currently rely on 

BP for training and provision of necessary protective equipment. 

However, according to an internal Department of Labor memo, 

there has been a general systemic failure from BP to ensure the 

safety and health of the responders, and numerous media reports 

of minimal training from BP and photographs of workers without 

protective gear, this documents that these workers are not being 

protected. 

BP has made clear that they are incapable of making the protection of the public health their priority. It lacks the expertise, the 

resources, or incentives to really address the public health and 

worker safety issues resulting from this spill. 

That is why I have written to the Obama Administration, urging 

it to relieve BP of their role in the public health response and instead leverage the good work that you all are already doing to protect the public’s health. 

One area I do feel needs to be addressed is the coordination of 

these efforts. There is a unique tragedy that we are experiencing 

now, and as such requires a unique, multi-disciplinary response to 

health protections. While you all represent the numerous departments within HHS responding to BP’s spill, other agencies like 

OSHA, NOAA, and the EPA also have a role to play in protecting 

the health and safety of Gulf workers and communities. What is 

done now to protect the health and safety of workers and communities will have impacts long into the future. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

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

Santa Barbara, I know that the damage brought by an oil spill can 

continue to haunt the public’s health, and while I hope that we 

hear more today about the work being done by HHS to protect 

these groups in the short term from acute health problems associated with exposure to oil and the dispersants and detergents used 

to clean it up, I hope we can also discuss what research can be 

done to learn from this disaster so that future generations can be 

better protected. 

I know you all would agree that nothing is more important than 

protecting the health of the oil spill workers and Gulf Coast communities. If BP will not take the necessary steps to protect the 

public’s health, then the Federal Government must increase its coordinated efforts to protect the health and safety of oil spill workers and the Gulf communities. I know that you and your administrations share this concern. 

I look forward to hearing your testimony and working with you 

to achieve this important goal. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Ms. Capps. 

The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Castor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for calling this 

hearing, and I want to thank our agency experts. You all have been 

very proactive, and we need your continued help, but I have to say 

that I am very angry that we are at this point. 

I am reflecting the frustration of my fellow Floridians and Gulf 

Coast residents who have been dealing with this BP disaster for 

weeks and weeks and the anxiety that there is no end in sight. 

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, the BP disaster confirmed our 

worst fears about the risks associated with offshore oil drilling in 

the near places that rely upon tourism and fishing to drive our 

economies and our small businesses. 

I am deeply concerned about the devastating impacts of the BP 

disaster, not just to Florida tourism and fishing but also the potential health effects on workers, volunteer responders, and people living in the Gulf communities. 

I would like to thank President Obama and my colleagues who 

have all been pressing BP to set aside a significant amount to address the economic and environmental impacts because it was announced just a little while ago that BP will, indeed, put up $20 billion. 

The question is will that fund include—give us the ability to address the physical harm to people and the public health. The taxpayers certainly should not be on the hook for this. 

I do appreciate FDA and NOAA releasing a statement on Monday about the efforts underway to ensure that the seafood from the 

Gulf is safe to eat and notices that the public should not be concerned about seafood in the stores, and thank you also to CDC for 

announcing that tar balls washing up on Florida’s panhandle 

beaches are not harmful, and by the way, you know, just a small 

part of the panhandle is suffering the effects of oil. The rest of FlorVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:26 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077912 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A912.XXX A912

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

ida is pristine waters and is open for business, and we need you 

to continue with your vacations with summer. 

But the reality is that many families remain frightened and uncertain about what to believe, and there are conflicting stories in 

the news about the health effects of the disaster. Most experts 

state that brief contact with crude oil is not harmful, however, 

some other scientists say that evidence exists that many of the 

compounds in crude oil are dangerous. Toxicologists explain that 

cleanup workers, many of whom are out-of-worker fishermen participating in the Vessels of Opportunity Program, could face problems with breathing and coordination and increased risks of cancer. 

So give us the best data you have and tell us how we protect our 

hardworking folks. 

Furthermore, while EPA has directed BP to reduce dispersants 

application by 75 percent, we know that BP early on failed to use 

a less toxic dispersant and 1.1 million gallons of Corexit have already gone into the Gulf of Mexico and is a threat to public health. 

What is the real story here, and what do we have to do to monitor 

it in the near term and in the long term? Because we know that 

Corexit does pose a health, human health risk and is even tied to 

lingering health concerns from the Exxon Valdez. 

So the people we represent deserve answers. We certainly can’t 

rely on BP to put the public’s health needs ahead of their business 

interests and corporate damage control. We need your help. We 

have got to make sure they have got the right protective gear, and 

they are getting the best expert advice available. We are relying on 

you, and we are your partners in making sure this information is 

disseminated. 

So thank you very much. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

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, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing 

to examine how the Department of Health and Human Services, 

HHS, is responding to the public health risks associated with the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill, now the worst environmental disaster 

in our Nation’s history. 

I first want to express my continued frustration and disappointment that we are on day 58 of this environmental disaster, and BP 

still does not have a concrete plan to stop the leak or clean up the 

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

months now. 

What we do know is that the nearly or up to 60,000 barrels of 

oil a day that is being released every day into the Gulf is hurting 

and killing hundreds of thousands of species of animals. 

What we do know is that this disaster is destroying one of the 

most sensitive ecosystems in the world on which many people depend. 

What we don’t yet know is the total extent of this damage. What 

we don’t yet know is how this spill will affect the health and safety 

of the people who live and work in the Gulf Coast region or those 

vigorously working to clean it up. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

We cannot properly move forward until we know how bad of a 

situation we are facing, and that is the point of today’s hearing. 

Last night President Obama announced that he will be directing 

BP to establish an independently-administered account to help pay 

for the spill-related cleanup and economic damage claims. This is 

only one of many needed steps in moving forward towards addressing this terrible tragedy. 

T are many lessons and hopefully forthcoming solutions to be 

learned from this preventable disaster that started back in April. 

Sadly, the impact of this catastrophe is one that will ultimately 

need to be measured not in weeks and months but in years. We 

must take this opportunity to not only examine our safety standards in deepwater drilling but to also examine how this spill is affecting both the short-term and long-term health of all those living 

and working in the affected region. 

I look forward today to discussing ways we can mitigate these 

harmful effects. I want to thank the witnesses who have come before the subcommittee today to testify about the efforts being taken 

by our government to evaluate and help those who are and will be 

physically, emotionally, and economically impacted by this disaster. 

Our government must do more to hold BP and other oil companies accountable for careless offshore drilling practices and the resulting harm they cause. We must ensure the most advanced technologies and safety procedures are in place so that we never face 

this situation again. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Ross. 

Next is the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing 

on HHS’s efforts to address the known and potential health effects 

of the BP oil spill in the Gulf. 

The Gulf of Mexico is in the midst of dealing with an incident 

that is tragedy like we have never seen, and my thoughts and 

prayers go out to the families and communities affected by this terrible accident. Energy and Commerce Committee has held several 

hearings in our Energy and Oversight Investigation Subcommittee 

on the topic, and I believe it is crucial we begin to examine and 

prepare for the potential health effects of the oil spill in the Gulf. 

Today we are focused on how the spill might impact the local 

communities on the coast as well as the workers who are working 

diligently to clean up the spill day in and day out. Approximately 

13,000 cleanup workers have been employed by BP or its contractors, and more than 1,800 federal employees have been directly involved in cleanup operations over four states. The health and welfare of these affected communities and workers are a priority for 

me, and I know my colleagues on this committee, and I appreciate 

our looking into the issue today. 

I understand from the testimony we will hear today that knowledge of the potential risks from the BP oil spill comes from scientific studies following the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska and 

other major oil spills around the world. The potential health risks 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

are primarily due to inhaling toxic vapors, physical contact with 

the oil through skin or ingestion, and psychological stress in confronting the devastation. 

I appreciate our committee looking into this and hopefully hearings will ensure that our government is doing everything in its 

power to protect the health of individuals who reside in the affected 

areas and especially those that are directly involved in the cleanup. 

And, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing, 

and I yield back my time. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Green. 

I yield now to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Sutton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your 

holding this hearing today. 

Everyone on this committee is familiar with the health effects 

that continue to afflict the first responders and others who were 

present at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and during the recovery 

operations there. Not long ago this committee passed a 9/11 Health 

Bill to help those who were hurt, and we all remember it was a 

federal agency, the EPA, who said that the dust around the World 

Trade Center in the days after 9/11 was safe to breathe. 

Volunteers and workers were told it was safe to be at ground 

zero and that it was safe to work there, but we sadly know now 

that that was not true. We now know 9 years later that people who 

worked and lived near ground zero suffer from a variety of health 

problems, ranging from respiratory illnesses to mental health disorders. And as we sit here today facing another tragedy, this one 

caused by BP, we must make sure that the mistakes that were 

made in the days and the weeks after September 11 are not made 

now. 

Every worker, every volunteer, every resident, and every person 

who comes in contact with this spill needs to be protected. We must 

act to ensure that they are safe to the best of our ability. 

BP’s own documents which are posted on the Investigative Journalism website, Pro Publica, show that between April 22 and June 

10 485 of their workers have been injured. Already the Louisiana 

Department of Health is reporting 109 illnesses in spill workers 

after exposure to oil or dispersants. And sadly there will be more 

to come. 

This oil spill is a tragedy on so many levels, and we must do all 

that we can to prevent the spill from damaging the public’s health 

for years and years to come. 

I thank the witnesses for being today, and I look forward to hearing about what HHS is doing to prevent a damaging outcome in 

the days and the years ahead. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Ms. Sutton. 

Next is the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Braley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. BRALEY. Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are having this hearing, because it is a good opportunity to talk about the health imVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:26 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077912 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A912.XXX A912

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

pacts of the BP oil disaster on the responders, those living and 

working in the affected communities, and in our food chain. It is 

hard to recognize the true impact of this devastating release of oil 

until you have seen it with your own eyes and smelled it with your 

own nose. 

And back in Iowa when I was growing up and we didn’t have a 

lot of entertainment, we would have people come over to our house, 

and we would show them slides of things we had been doing in our 

lives, so I am going to show you some slides of my trip last week 

to the Gulf Coast. 

This is a shot from Venice, Louisiana, at the mouth of the Mississippi River, which is vital to my State because it is the scene of 

the southwest passage where a lot of the grain that is produced in 

the mid west enters the Gulf Stream of commerce. And those are 

ships that were leased by BP that used to be involved in the fishing industry. They are sitting there on a very rainy day. 

We went out on a cargo plane after our field hearing and had the 

opportunity to sit there with the end gate open and fly over miles 

and miles of the delta and miles and miles of open water with 

plumes of oil, and this shot is taken out the back, and you can see 

one of the relief vessels right there in the lower right-hand corner, 

and then this is a shot that shows you those plumes of oil on the 

water. You can also see little ribbons that look like underway fire, 

which is where the dispersal chemicals were interacting with the 

oil below the surface. It literally looked like ribbons of fire. 

And this is another shot of the same plume. This is, again, flying 

right over where the relief wells are being drilled. You can see the 

drilling ship and the plume ships that are around it, and that is 

a more close-up shot. You can actually see the burn off coming 

right off of the ship that is drilling the relief well. 

One of the things that I can’t show you is the immense stench 

coming off the water with that hatch open from the oil coming off 

the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. That is what these relief workers 

and the people living in these communities are dealing with on a 

daily basis. 

This is a picture of the plane we flew in with the Admiral for the 

Coast Guard, who is leading the response effort on the ground. 

This is a picture from our field hearing where we heard from two 

of the widows who lost their husbands when that Deepwater Horizon rig exploded. Fittingly, you will see a picture of Andrew Jackson on a horse behind us because that is the same location where 

the Battle of New Orleans was fought. 

But this picture to me captures the challenge we face, because 

no one appreciates the enormous mass of the Mississippi Delta 

when the Mississippi empties in the Gulf of Mexico. So you see 

some of the waterways that are part of the delta, you see the enormous land mass that is interfacing with the water that is all exposed to this oil release. And that is why until you have flown 

those massive miles that are affected by this disaster, it is impossible to really comprehend what we are going to do to solve this 

problem. 

So I look forward to your testimony, and I look forward to working with you as we try to restore some sanity to what is going on 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Braley. I think that concludes our 

members’ statements, and so I will now turn to our witnesses, and 

I want to welcome our panel. Let me introduce each of them. 

On my left is Dr. Lisa Kaplowitz, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response with HHS, and next to her is Dr. John 

Howard, Director of the National Institute of Occupational Safety 

and Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And 

then we have Dr. Aubrey Miller, who is the Senior Medical Advisor 

for the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences with 

the National Institutes of Health, and finally is Mr. Michael Taylor, who is the Deputy Commissioner for Foods with the FDA. 

And I want to welcome all of you. Thank you for being here. You 

know we have 5-minute opening statements become part of the 

record, and you may submit additional written comments afterwards if you would like. 

We will begin with Dr. Kaplowitz. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENTS OF LISA KAPLOWITZ, M.D., M.S.H.A., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; JOHN 

HOWARD, M.D., M.P.H., J.D., LL.M., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; AUBREY 

MILLER, M.D., M.P.H., SENIOR MEDICAL ADVISOR, NATIONAL 

INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH; AND MICHAEL TAYLOR, 

J.D., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR FOODS, U.S. FOOD AND 

DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

STATEMENT OF LISA KAPLOWITZ 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Thank you. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. PALLONE. I don’t know if that is on. Is the green light on? 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. I have to move it closer. 

Mr. PALLONE. Oh, yes. Move it closer. That works. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. The green light is on. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thanks. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Shimkus, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today about our public health and medical efforts in response to the Deepwater oil spill disaster. I commend 

this subcommittee for its leadership in holding today’s hearing and 

share your sense of urgency on this important issue. 

On behalf of the Department I would like to extend my sympathies to the families of those who lost their lives in this disaster, 

to those who were injured and to those whose way of life has been 

changed for years to come. The impacts of this disaster must be 

considered in the timeframe of not weeks and months but years. 

Oil can remain toxic in the environment for many years, and we 

do not know the impact it could have on human health over the 

long term. 

As the agency responsible for coordinating HHS preparedness 

and response efforts, ASPR chairs a twice-weekly policy call with 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

other HHS agencies involved in the Gulf response, including the 

NIH, CDC, FDA, ACS, SAMSA, and other offices within HHS as 

well as the Secretary’s Chief of Staff.These calls assure that HHS 

response efforts are coordinated among all agencies and office. 

ASPR also provided direct support and is providing direct support to the oil spill through the National Disaster Medical System. 

From the time of the announcement of the explosion and fire, 

ASPR’s regional emergency coordinators in the Gulf Coast areas 

were in close communication with each State’s Emergency Coordinator, the State Departments of Health, and the Association of 

State and Territorial Health Officials, HHS liaison officers deployed to the unified area command team in Robert, Louisiana, to 

the incident command centers in Houma, Louisiana, and Mobile, 

Alabama, and to the National Incident Command Center at the 

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC. 

On May 31, HHS, in coordination with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, set up a mobile medical unit in Venice, Louisiana, to provide triage and basic care for responders and 

residents concerned about health effects of the oil spill. The medical unit screens workers and citizens for exposure and refers those 

who require further care to local healthcare providers or hospitals. 

Our goal is to support the local community and fill in any gaps 

that may be there, not to displace local providers. As of today the 

NDMS Medical Unit has seen over 140 patients since opening. 

Thus far some patient conditions, such as heat stroke, have been 

consistent with any response effort in the area. 

In total about 38 percent have been treated for acute respiratory 

conditions, another 27 plus patient encounters have been for dermatologic eye or gastrointestinal problems, as well as a number of 

individuals who have been treated for injuries. 

The Department is also directing attention and resources to address the behavioral health issues arising from the oil spill. Our experience and research from previous disasters, including the Exxon 

Valdez spill, allow us to anticipate and prepare for potential behavioral health needs such as anxiety, depression, and other adverse 

emotional and psychological effects. 

To date the Department’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Agency has engaged in supporting state and local efforts 

to assess and meet the behavioral health needs of residents of the 

Gulf States and workers responding to this environmental disaster. 

In addition, since the information available to inform decision 

making related to the human health impacts is inconclusive, Secretary Sebelius has asked the Institute of Medicine to convene an 

independent panel of scientific experts at a public workshop, exploring a broad range of health issues related to the oil spill. From 

heat exhaustion and other occupational hazards to exposure to oil 

and dispersants. This workshop will be next week on June 22 and 

23 in New Orleans. 

In conclusion, I want to assure the subcommittee that our office, 

along with our sister agencies within the Department and the administration as a whole, are taking the public health and medical 

consequences of the oil spill disaster very seriously and are implementing a comprehensive strategy to monitor and address any public health and medical issues that may arise. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kaplowitz follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 77912A.012
33 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 77912A.013
34 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 77912A.014
35 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 77912A.015
36 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 77912A.016
37 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 77912A.017
38 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 77912A.018
39 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 77912A.019
40 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 77912A.020
41 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 77912A.021
42 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 77912A.022
43 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 77912A.023
44 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Dr. Kaplowitz. 

Dr. Howard. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HOWARD 

Dr. HOWARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Shimkus and other members of the committee. I am here to provide you an update on CDC’s activities in the Deepwater Horizon 

response. 

Following the fire and explosion on April 20, CDC immediately 

activated its Emergency Response Center to coordinate response 

activities across the agency. CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health leads the incident command and works closely with 

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to respond to potential health threats to the public, workers, and volunteers from the disaster. 

As of today CDC has 170 staff involved in the response including 

17 staff deployed to the Gulf Coast States. Throughout this response CDC has been coordinating our efforts with other operating 

divisions of HHS and with the Coast Guard, OSHA, EPA, and most 

importantly with State Health Departments in the Gulf States. 

The response hazards to the public primarily include skin and 

respiratory irritation to various chemicals contained in the crude 

oil and in the oil dispersants. Skin contact should be avoided, and 

any area that has come in contact with oil should be washed thoroughly. Eye, nose, and throat irritation can occur from closer contact with crude oil. Those with asthma or chronic lung disease may 

be more sensitive than others to very low levels of hydrocarbons 

and even they and others can be sensitive to levels of hydrocarbons 

that are far below measurable levels. 

People who have questions about potential health effects related 

to the oil may visit our website for more information. We have information for residents, for professional healthcare professionals, 

for workers and volunteers. 

CDC in partnership with state and local health departments is 

tracking symptoms and health complaints that could be associated 

with the oil spill. Health surveillance and populations near the 

Gulf is being done through three mechanisms. 

First, we are collecting data from 60 poison control centers 

throughout the Gulf Region. Second, we are collecting data from 

the bio-sense surveillance system, which includes 86 healthcare facilities, clinical laboratories, hospital systems, ambulatory care centers throughout the area to detect any increase in illnesses or other 

health effects. 

Third, we are analyzing surveillance data that is being collected 

by State Health Departments in the Gulf, which are monitoring potential health effects related to the oil spill. We posted initial results from these collaborative surveillance activities on our website, 

and we update those routinely. 

CDC is also evaluating air, data from air, sediment, and water 

samples in the Gulf, looking for any indication of contaminants at 

levels that would pose a threat to public health. After EPA’s public 

release of the chemical components of the dispersants being used 

in the response, CDC has completed a preliminary review of the 

toxicity of these dispersant components and has concluded that the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

substances of greatest concern to human health are being monitored by EPA. 

NIOSH is doing three major activities and is working together 

with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. First, we 

are rostering all workers and volunteers included in the response 

by means of a voluntary questionnaire. To date we have rostered 

13,000 workers, and we hope to continue that process to get all of 

the workers and volunteers. 

Second, NIOSH is analyzing data from all sources for worker 

symptoms, health complaints, work-related injuries or incidents so 

that we can recommend interventions to prevent future injuries 

and illnesses. Third, NIOSH is conducting a Health Hazard Evaluation of reported illnesses among workers involved in offshore 

cleanup operations as requested by BP on May 28. Finally, as response activities proceed, CDC is working to protect the health and 

safety of workers, volunteers, and residents in the affected areas of 

the Gulf State, and as we learn more we will update our recommendations. 

I thank you for your continued support, and I am pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Howard follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 77912A.024
47 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 77912A.025
48 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 77912A.026
49 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 77912A.027
50 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 77912A.028
51 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 77912A.029
52 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 77912A.030
53 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 77912A.031
54 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 77912A.032
55 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 77912A.033
56 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 77912A.034
57 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 77912A.035
58 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 77912A.036
59 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 77912A.037
60 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 77912A.038
61 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Dr. Howard. 

Dr. Miller, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF AUBREY MILLER 

Dr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Shimkus, and the rest of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity 

to provide information about the activities undertaken by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, in response to the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. My name is 

Aubrey Miller. I am Senior Medical Advisor to the Director of 

NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program. 

While extensive data exists on the effects of oil spills in wildlife 

and ecosystems, the effects on human health from these exposures 

have not been well studied. Experts agree that the potential for 

human health hazards exist since both crude oil and chemicals 

being used to fight the spill contain harmful substances. 

Yet understanding and quantifying these effects requires further 

study. A recent review article which looked at 34 publications concerning the health effects related to past oil spill, past tanker oil 

spills made clear that there is very little data concerning exposed 

individuals and only for a handful of these incidents. 

Historically, the workers involved in such cleanups have reported 

the highest levels of exposure and most acute symptoms. The reporting of higher levels of lower respiratory track symptoms was 

observed in fishermen who have participated in the cleanup following the Prestige tanker accident off the coast of Spain. 

A few studies have looked at psychological effects of spills both 

among workers and in affected communities. Follow-up studies of 

affected populations from the Exxon Valdez spill, for example, reported higher levels of anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression. Such research findings remind us of the importance of keeping longer-term, less-obvious sequel in mind, not 

just the immediate toxicity affects when considering the overall 

health impact of this type of disaster. 

Now, turning our attention to the Gulf oil spill response, our program director was on site within days of the platform explosion. 

NIH—an NIEHS team have been a continuous presence in Louisiana and have been working with the National Incident Command officials, as well as local and state officials, academic institutions, and other federal agencies to provide technical assistance for 

worker safety training related to the oil spill through NIEHS’s 

Worker Training Education Program. 

The NIEHS Superfund Worker Training Program has provided 

safety training to emergency responders and hazardous materials 

workforce for the last 23 years. For other emergency responses 

such as the World Trade Center attack and now the oil spill, 

NIEHS was able to provide nearly immediate assistance to help 

protect workers. 

Three different levels of training for oil spill workers have been 

developed and supported by NIEHS; 40-hour training course on 

hazardous waste operations and emergency response, a short 2- 

and 4-hour training courses on safety and health awareness, developed together with OSHA, and as of June 10, BP reports that it 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

has trained approximately 30,500 people using NIEHS worker safety training materials. 

Additionally, more than 5,000 pocket-sized booklets titled, ‘‘Safety and Health Awareness for Oil Spill Cleanup Workers,’’ have 

been distributed to instructors, safety officials, frontline responders, participants in the BP Vessels of Opportunity Program, and 

beach workers in the Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team. These 

booklets have been printed in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. 

Here is an example of one. NIEHS has helped support and facilitate interagency coordination to protect the workers and the public 

affected by this disaster. 

To help assess the response to this oil spill crisis on June 1, 

NIEHS in cooperation with the Coast Guard and BP, facilitated a 

multi-agency public health assessment of the oil spill responders in 

the Louisiana area to determine the need for any additional medical support and additional mobile medical units. 

In addition, NIEHS has helped formed and is collating the interagency work crew, the Interagency Oil Spill Health Monitoring Researchers’ Work Group. Within this work group NIEHS is focused 

directly on identifying all the relevant human health and 

toxicologic information to help inform our current actions and drive 

research efforts. 

Two, to develop new tools to gather information about the adverse health effects stemming from the oil spill, both in the short 

term and long term, and three, engaging additional stakeholders to 

work with us in these efforts that produce the best processes, products, and outcomes. 

Lastly, NIH is exploring a variety of different funding mechanisms and programs to carry out important research related to this 

particular disaster and the people whose health may be affected. 

We expect a number of researchers to apply immediately for our 

time-sensitive awards. Proposals are accepted each month, reviewed, and funded within 3 months, and as you noted, Mr. Chairman, that—NIH Director, Mr. Collins, has recently appropriated 

$10 million for additional research along these lines. These studies 

should prove useful information for some of our unanswered questions. 

One of the most important takeaway messages from our current 

and ongoing review of the science regarding human health effects 

of oil spill disasters is that there is a clear need for additional 

health monitoring and research to underpin our public health decisions. As the situation in the Gulf of Mexico continues to unfold, 

NIEHS will stay engaged, both as a committed partner in research, 

on the health effects of these exposures on workers and the affected 

communities, and our efforts to keep cleanup workers safe. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Miller follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 77912A.039
64 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 77912A.040
65 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 77912A.041
66 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 77912A.042
67 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 77912A.043
68 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Dr. Miller. 

Mr. Taylor. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL TAYLOR 

Mr. TAYLOR. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Shimkus, and other members of the committee. I appreciate the 

chance to talk today about FDA’s activities with respect to the food 

safety aspects of the Gulf oil spill. 

FDA is an integral part of the Federal Government’s comprehensive, multi-agency program to protect the safety of seafood from the 

Gulf of Mexico. This program is important for consumers who need 

to know their food is untainted and for the seafood industry, which 

needs to be able to sell its products with confidence. 

FDA is working closely with NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency, our HHS colleagues here, and state authorities on a 

multi-pronged approach to ensure the safety of seafood from the 

Gulf of Mexico. The measures we are taking begin with the precautionary closure of fisheries and are backed up by surveillance 

and testing of seafood products and continued enforcement of 

FDA’s Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points or HACCP regulations. 

The FDA and NOAA are also working together to develop protocols for reopening closed fisheries in the Gulf in a manner that ensures the safety of product from those areas. 

Based on these protective measures and the best available 

science, we are confident that Gulf of Mexico seafood in the market 

today is safe to eat. 

The primary preventative measure for protecting the public from 

potentially contaminated seafood is, of course, the closure by NOAA 

of fishing areas in the Gulf that had been or are likely to be affected by the oil spill. NOAA acted swiftly after the spill to close 

affected waters, and NOAA has been able to stay ahead of the spill 

with its closures by anticipating the movement of the oil spill and 

by including 5-mile buffer zones around the affected areas. FDA is 

working closely with both NOAA and the states to ensure that appropriate closures are in place. 

To verify the effectiveness of the closures in protecting the safety 

of seafood, NOAA and FDA are collecting and testing a variety of 

types of seafood samples, including fin fish, shrimp, crabs, and 

shellfish. FDA’s sampling is taking place at Gulf Coast Seafood 

Processors and is targeting oysters, crabs, and shrimp which could 

retain contaminants longer than fin fish. This sampling will provide verification that the closures are working and that seafood on 

the market is safe to eat. 

As an extra measure of protection to compliment the closures 

and testing, FDA is stepping up inspections of seafood processors 

under our seafood HACCP regulation. HACCP is a system of preventative controls under which seafood processors are required to 

identify and control potential food safety hazards in their operations. We have just reissued existing guidance to Gulf Coast seafood processors explaining how they can meet their obligation 

under the HACCP regulation to ensure they are not receiving fish 

from waters that are closed by federal or state authorities. The 

agency will be inspecting these facilities to verify compliance. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

Finally, FDA and NOAA are working closely with states on a 

protocol for determining when closed waters can be reopened. 

Under the protocol waters impacted by oil will not reopen until oil 

from the spill is no longer observable and seafood samples from the 

area successfully pass both century analysis by trained screeners 

and chemical analysis to verify the oil products are not present at 

harmful levels. 

NOAA and FDA will work to reopen previously-closed areas as 

quickly as possible in order to minimize the impact of closures on 

fishermen and coastal communities, while protecting public health. 

Mr. Chairman, we are all indebted to the scientists and frontline 

food safety specialists in our agencies and in state governments 

along the Gulf for their diligent and ongoing responses to this catastrophic oil spill. On their behalf I appreciate the opportunity to 

discuss their activities with you, and I look forward to questions 

that you and the committee may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 77912A.044
71 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 77912A.045
72 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 77912A.046
73 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 77912A.047
74 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 77912A.048
75 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Taylor, and now that you have finished your statements we will turn to questions from the members, 

and I will start with myself. 

And I am going to start with Dr. Howard. Dr. Howard, we know 

that thousands of workers are participating in the recovery efforts 

to clean up the BP oil spill, and clearly your primary goal is to ensure worker safety and have an accurate record of where workers 

are stationed in the Gulf. 

Can you explain NIOSH’s role in monitoring these response 

workers who are participating in the recovery through rostering? 

And I know that there is a difference between ID’ing workers 

through a roster as opposed to a registry, so I guess my question 

is does this rostering contain enough information to follow up with 

people should a more-detailed health registry become necessary? 

And just generally, what kind of outreach have you done to reach 

the largest number of workers, and how many have you been able 

to ID so far? 

Dr. HOWARD. I think the simplest way to describe the difference 

between rostering and registering or between a roster and a registry is that a roster is a list. It is a list of workers. A registry is 

active management of those workers in terms of accessing their exposure profile, the health effects that they may be feeling, and following them through time. 

So the first step in a registry may, indeed, be collecting the 

names and demographic information of workers that you would 

then put into a registry. So it is a foundational step. It is the first 

step that we are taking. 

So it does not ever preclude a registry from actually happening. 

Mr. PALLONE. And what kind of outreach have you done to reach 

the workers, and how many have you been able to ID so far? 

Dr. HOWARD. We have been able to roster nearly 13,000, and we 

do it in three ways. The first way that we started out a few weeks 

ago was by going to the actual sites where the workers are working. We are still doing that because we are not capturing everyone 

in the second method, which is as they come into a training center, 

before they are assigned for any cleanup work, we roster them at 

that time. There we are capturing nearly all of the workers who 

are coming in for training. 

Then the third method which we have been asked by both other 

government agencies like Coast Guard and EPA and BP workers 

themselves, is if we could do some web-based rostering. So we are 

developing a program that they can go onto the web. So those are 

the three methods; going out and finding them ourselves, two, 

rostering them in the training centers, and three, web-based 

rostering. 

Mr. PALLONE. And what other plans are there in the future to 

document health problems, either by—either for workers or people 

in the community, too? 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, there is a lot going on in this area in terms 

of surveillance, looking at all of these systems that are in place 

now. I mentioned three different ways. 

One is through poison control centers. People call in, they complain or they ask information about a particular health issue. So 

we are looking at 60 poison control centers in the Gulf area, scanVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:26 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077912 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A912.XXX A912

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

ning all of their calls to see whether there is any oil-related issues, 

people complaining about eye, throat irritation, I smell hydro-carbon odors, et cetera. 

The bio-sense program, which surveys healthcare facilities, then 

looks at what is the reason that somebody came into a healthcare 

facility. Was it because I had eye and throat irritation because I 

went to an area in which I was involved in cleanup, could be a 

worker, or I was a resident. I went to a beach area, for instance. 

In the third activity we are looking at State Health Departments 

both—Louisiana and Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida do an excellent job in their State Health Departments at collecting information about health complaints, people that are going to seek medical 

attention. 

And what is interesting about that lately is that we have seen 

about four, 500 calls if you add up all of those calls, and they are 

all on our website, on the CDC website. If you look at that, about 

75 percent of them are coming from workers. Only about 25 percent are coming from residents. So the proportion is obviously 

workers. There are, as you know, many millions of people who live 

in the Gulf area, so we are not seeing a large number of calls now, 

but we are monitoring, and what we are doing now is then looking 

at the types of information that we are getting, both from a call 

as well as an appearance in a healthcare facility. Then comparing 

that to the 3 years previously as a way of looking at a baseline. 

Are we seeing more throat and eye irritation, more cough comes in? 

We are trying to compare the last 3 years to what we are seeing 

now. 

Mr. PALLONE. Okay. I was going to maybe just quickly, Mr. Taylor, this idea with the FDA assessing whether the oil or the 

dispersants bio-accumulate in seafood, would you explain that to 

me? I mean, do the components in crude oil bio-accumulate in fish 

and other seafood, and do we need to be concerned about that in 

this, you know, with this crisis? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, if fish are exposed to oil, it will be present. 

It can be bio-concentrated, bio-accumulated in the fish, in the edible portion of the fish, and this is why, of course, the primary preventive measure is to close waters and not take fish from waters 

that are contaminated with oil so they won’t be so exposed. 

Dispersants, compounds of dispersants are different. They are 

water soluble. They don’t have the same ability to bio-concentrate, 

which is another important part of the analysis there, but, again, 

the primary preventive is to keep fish that we are going to put in 

the marketplace away from—not take fish that are affected by the 

oil in the first place. 

Mr. PALLONE. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Howard and Mr. 

Taylor, is the fish on our store shelves safe? Or the seafood? 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, I am going to defer to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No. Don’t defer because you have in your testimony, I think, a statement to that fact. 

Dr. HOWARD. Yeah. I would say yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. We are confident about the safety, as I have testified, of the seafood that is in the market, Mr. Shimkus. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you very much. 

Back to Dr. Howard, I understand that you are conducting 

health hazard evaluation report illnesses, and you have been given 

medical reports for seven previous hospitalized fishermen to assist 

in their evaluation. When do you think this evaluation will be complete? 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, we certainly hope it is going to be complete 

by the beginning of next week, because we want to talk about it 

at the Institute of Medicine meeting in New Orleans. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great, and this was a great discussion between the 

Chairman and the difference between rostering and a registry, and 

I think that is an important line to continue to move down. How— 

first you have a roster and then maybe that moves to a registry. 

How do you ensure that if your—you mentioned in your opening 

statement about people who might have asthma or chronic pulmonary activity, they would be more susceptible. 

So in this process how do you do things? How do you get an appropriate baseline of their health conditions prior to, and then how 

would you do an evaluation of—if there is degradation in years 

based upon normal health decline or an impact on something like 

this? 

Dr. HOWARD. I think the easiest answer would be comparison between the baseline that you have collected and then the assessment that you are doing after the exposure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But you are going to have to get health data from 

their healthcare professional previous to this event. 

Dr. HOWARD. And as Dr. Miller referred to in these previous 

studies what has happened is questionnaires have been filled out 

by individuals who are workers or residents in these previous 

spills, and then you assess what their level of symptomatology was 

before and then you assess it after the exposure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you are getting it from the person who may be 

ill and may be more ill, not a healthcare professional that does an 

evaluation of their health status. 

This is the same type of issue that we deal with in pre-existing 

conditions on VA issues, healthcare issues, how do you identify this 

issue was based upon service duty or service connected or not. 

Dr. HOWARD. Certainly self-identified issues in a questionnaire 

have to be corroborated or should be corroborated in a better study 

with actual medical data, either a previous medical information 

that that individual’s healthcare provider had in a previous record, 

so you want to look at that, and as it was referred to before in the 

9/11 situation, we have previous annual physicals for firefighters, 

so we have a baseline for them and then we look at them post-exposure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you, and because you went on that 

line, do you currently run a program that provides treatment and 

monitoring of health conditions for first responders to the World 

Trade Center attack? 

Dr. HOWARD. Yes. Our Department—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, and my time is quick, so I want to continue to move. 

Dr. Miller, based upon what I have read weatherized oil has lost 

most of its volatile organic compound. What is happening to these? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

Dr. MILLER. The volatile organic compounds? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. 

Dr. MILLER. They are evaporating off into the atmosphere. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So they are evaporating. 

Dr. MILLER. That is correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. A lot of the testimony or the experiences we are 

citing is based upon like the Exxon Valdez or the Spanish tanker 

that broke up on—this is different because it is a mile under the 

top of the ocean, there is a lot of pressure. 

Does pressure have a different characteristic that is making this 

do something different than just the evaluation of crude oil itself 

washing on the shore? 

Dr. MILLER. I don’t have any specific information on how the 

pressure affects it per se, but we are doing measurements, and 

EPA is doing measurements to actually see what is in the actual 

atmosphere. So part of it is this weathering process of the crude 

and as it comes toward land or it moves around and is exposed to 

sunlight, et cetera, and gets to the atmosphere. Then these volatile 

organics do come off, as well as some other compounds tend to 

break down in the weathering process as well. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And my last question and my time is almost up. 

Could the oil and dispersant mix to form a compound that creates 

a unique human health risk that would not exist with just the oil 

or the dispersant alone? 

Dr. MILLER. Now, that is an area of uncertainty, and it is a potential concern for us, what is the effect of the oil and dispersant 

together. Is it—it could work two ways. One, it could lessen the effect, or it could also increase the effect, and that is something we 

need to look at. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Eshoo, has 8 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for your expertise, for your testimony, and for the work that 

you are doing. 

Several news reports have stated that BP has told its workers 

that they don’t need to use a respirator for the cleanup efforts, and 

the company is only releasing limited test results to tamper down 

public worries. 

So I would like to start out by asking you if in your opinion do 

you believe that BP is doing everything it can to protect the health 

of the cleanup workers? 

Now, in our staff background notes it is noted that there are over 

13,000 cleanup workers that are employed by BP or its contractors. 

So this is a large group of people. So that is my first question. 

And my second having to do with this is have you been given access to BP’s test results, and if so, could additional information 

from BP help you make more informed decisions? 

I don’t know who wants to take this but—— 

Dr. HOWARD. I would be happy to. 

Ms. ESHOO. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. HOWARD. Excellent questions. You know, I think that from 

the perspective of the data that we have, you know, oftentimes we 

don’t know what we don’t have. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

Ms. ESHOO. That is why I am asking. 

Dr. HOWARD. That is the most serious issue. What I know we 

don’t have, and we have asked BP for is an actual list of the 13,000 

workers. 

Ms. ESHOO. And when was that request made? 

Dr. HOWARD. We made that request several times in the last couple weeks. 

Ms. ESHOO. And no response? 

Dr. HOWARD. We have yet to receive it. So we are anxious to receive that, because we would like to correlate it with our roster to 

make sure that we are capturing everybody, and for those folks 

that we do not have, we would like to go out and find them so we 

can put them on the roster. 

Ms. ESHOO. How many are rostered right now? 

Dr. HOWARD. Right now there are 13,000 rostered. We believe 

that—— 

Ms. ESHOO. So you know—— 

Dr. HOWARD [continuing]. It may be 15 or 20,000. 

Ms. ESHOO. Wow. Does anyone else want to comment on that? 

On funding, we know that—well, the President announced today 

that there will be an escrow account that taxpayers will not pick 

up a dime of the cost of this catastrophe, have any of you been reimbursed for your work so far? Or is still—— 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, Secretary Sebelius wrote the BP Chairman 

saying that she expected all of our work in support of the response 

to be reimbursed. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, we all expect that. I just wondered if there is 

any attempt to—— 

Dr. HOWARD. We are keeping track of it. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Reimburse. Okay. 

Dr. HOWARD. We are keeping track. 

Ms. ESHOO. Let us know when the check arrives. 

On the dispersants, oil is not obviously the only health concern. 

The manufacturer of Corexit, the dispersant being used to clean up 

the oil, warns against contact with eyes, skin, obviously the lungs. 

This product is somewhat volatile, and it is critical for cleanup 

workers and volunteers to wear personal protection equipment 

when applying the dispersant or working near where it has been 

applied. 

Can you tell us what steps you are taking to ensure that the 

dispersants will not pose a threat for the workers or the nearby 

communities? 

Dr. HOWARD. From the health and safety perspective, we are not 

fans of dispersants. There was aerial spraying of dispersants up 

until about 2 to 3 weeks ago. That resulted or was correlated with 

the illness that the nine fishermen had that we are investigating. 

Now, dispersant is only being applied I am to understand in a 

sub-surface manner. Okay? So aerial spraying really puts it in all 

sorts of exposure zones that we do not think is safe, so we are delighted that the application of dispersant is only sub-surface. 

Ms. ESHOO. Uh-huh, and when it is sub-surface, there isn’t anything that reaches the surface, so there isn’t any concern there? 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, that is unclear. We really don’t know, and 

certainly those workers that are operating at the source where the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

oil and water column are coming up mixed with dispersant, those 

workers may be at risk. 

Ms. ESHOO. Are there any studies on human health effects of the 

dispersants that are being used now? 

Dr. HOWARD. No. I think as Dr. Miller pointed out, we have very 

scant information in general about oil spills. It has come from a 

few studies of oil tankers that have run aground. We have some 

information about acute irritant effects. 

Ms. ESHOO. Uh-huh. 

Dr. HOWARD. We have some information about psychological 

stress in the communities. We have practically none about chronic 

effects. 

Ms. ESHOO. Is there any such thing as a safe dispersant? 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, you are talking to a Health and Safety Director, and I am not a fan of putting more hydrocarbons in an area 

that already it has a lot of volatiles in it. I understand the reasons 

why they are being used, but from a health and safety perspective, 

I am not—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, that is what we are for today, to examine the 

health impacts. 

Does anyone else want to comment on that? Dr. Miller. 

Dr. MILLER. Yeah. Just kind of reiterating a little bit because the 

effect of the dispersants and we understand that they are, you 

know, trying to break up the oil and do things with it, but in terms 

of adding additional complexity and uncertainty for human health 

exposures and the facts is more complicated, and certainly we need 

to be monitoring what these exposures may be both at the source 

and as it moves toward other human populations to understand exactly what we are dealing with. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. Mr. Taylor, in your testimony you stated 

that current science does not suggest that dispersants bio-accumulate in seafood. We had some discussion I think from previous 

questions about this, but NOAA is conducting studies to look at 

that issue. 

Do you know when those studies will be completed? 

Mr. TAYLOR. I don’t have a precise timetable. I am told it will 

be a few months. They are doing a series of studies to really confirm what our hypothesis is and our understanding from the knowledge that we do have that these compounds do not bio-accumulate. 

We want to certainly confirm that, but—so but this will be a course 

of work over the next few months as I understand it. I would have 

to defer to them on the details. 

Ms. ESHOO. Uh-huh. Thank you. 

In terms of the chain of command, who covers for the President 

all of the various health aspects? Is it Secretary Sebelius that is 

part of the team, and you all feed into or contribute your daily doings and—— 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Well, we—— 

Ms. ESHOO. What is happening on the ground? 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ [continuing]. Certainly all report to Secretary 

Sebelius. She has been very involved. As I said, her Chief of Staff 

has been at all our meetings. We actually—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Uh-huh. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ [continuing]. Were just meeting with her today. 

The President is in charge, and Admiral Allen is the incident commander. So we work through the Incident Commander. The Secretary is responsible for the health response. 

Ms. ESHOO. It seems to me that there is—this is a very important aspect that is not being covered, and when I asked about the 

chain of command, I really don’t hear—I don’t think I have heard 

anything on TV that has either put out warnings or health reports, 

what people can access. I mean, maybe I am missing it, but I 

haven’t been aware of it, and that is why I am, you know, I raised 

the question. 

You know, this is—I think it was—one of the members said, you 

know, there are so many narratives to this. Without a question this 

is the largest environmental disaster in the history of our country, 

and it is sickening, and I think anyone that is saying that song, 

Drill, Baby, Drill, should have some second, third, and tenth 

thoughts about this. 

So I want to thank you for what you are doing and what you will 

continue to do. I wish that this wasn’t—I wish it were not the case 

that you are going to be busier and busier as a result of this catastrophe, but I think that the longest-lasting effects are the ones that 

you are—the ones that are going to be responsible to help take care 

of. 

So, thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Next is Mr. Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

your testimony. 

To follow up a little bit on Ms. Eshoo’s line of questioning, when 

we had the CEOs of the major oil companies in yesterday, I believe, 

they talked a lot about the Unified Command, and Dr. Kaplowitz, 

you were talking about Secretary Sebelius and Admiral so and so 

and so and so, but is—what is your relationship to the Unified 

Command and explain to us a little bit about the Unified Command. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Certainly. The Incident Commander is Admiral 

Allen. The two agencies that are jointly responsible for the response in my understanding are EPA and the Coast Guard, and 

certainly Secretary Napolitano is very involved since she—since the 

Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security. 

We have representation in the National Incident Command Center, DHHS. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Can I interrupt you one minute? 

When you say Incident Command, is that the same thing as—— 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. Unified Command? 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Unified Command implies there is more than 

one individual. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. So I am—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You all refer to it as Incident Command. Yesterday they kept talking about Unified Command. It is the same 

thing. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. It is the same structure. Yes. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. It is, and we have representation in the National 

Incident Command Center or the NICC, so that if any questions 

come up in terms of health issues, we are available. We are also 

available locally in the command sites within Louisiana and Alabama. There are State Health Officials that are involved in each 

of the states who also assist their governors, for example, in response, in terms of state responsibilities. 

Part of the important aspect is ongoing good communication 

among all aspects, but it is Admiral Allen who is responsible for 

the response. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But all of you represent agencies that are involved with the Incident Command. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, as far as these dispersants, Dr. 

Howard, I think you made it rather clear that you think the negative impact of dispersants would exceed any benefit by using the 

dispersants. So I am assuming that if you had the authority, you 

would just say no dispersants at all? 

Dr. HOWARD. No. I don’t have that authority. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. No, but if I you did have that authority. 

Dr. HOWARD. If I had that authority, I would say we have 

enough hydrocarbons in the exposure—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

Dr. HOWARD [continuing]. Zone and—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But does EPA—is EPA the agency that makes 

that decision? 

Dr. HOWARD. I believe so. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay, and it is my understanding that they are 

still using dispersants, but that EPA made them reduce by 25 percent what they started off using. Does that make sense? 

Dr. HOWARD. My understanding is the aerial spray of dispersant 

has ceased about 2 or 3 weeks ago, and now dispersant is only 

being applied sub-surface as the crude oil column comes through 

the water column. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, you know, another—when you have 

an event like this, obviously with your responsibilities you try to 

anticipate what may be happening, and since we have very scant 

information from the impact of spills like this, I mean, you have 

indicated that we just have a few studies from tankers that have 

leaked, the Valdez tanker, others, so forth. 

But do we have any information at all? I have been told that the 

biggest spill that ever occurred from an oil well was in 1978, in the 

Gulf, which referred to something like 1XCO2T1, and that there 

were 3.3 million barrels of oil that leaked out between June of ’78, 

and March of ’79. And I have been told that that was the biggest 

spill in the history of the country. 

Do any of you have any information at all from that spill? 

Dr. HOWARD. If it was the biggest spill, it wasn’t studied from 

the health perspective. If it was studied from the health perspective, nobody wrote it up and put it in the scientific literature. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentleman yield for—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I just want to follow up quickly on this dispersant 

issue. 

The use of dispersants are designed to push the oil not below the 

surface but above the surface so it will evaporate. That is—and the 

dispersants is not something new that we—the issue is the amount 

and using under and the pressure. This is what we use in everyday 

detergent. That is the same chemicals that we are using in dishwashing soap and stuff. That is what this dispersant is, and I think 

the issue for us is the amount, is the amount. I think that is what 

we need to focus on. 

Dr. HOWARD. There is one other attribute. The dispersant may 

contain a concentration of the surfactant that is found in dish—but 

at a much higher concentration. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Ms. DeGette. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. I want to follow up on Mr. Whitfield’s 

questions because I—my staff prepared a whole bunch of questions 

for me, which I am going to submit almost all of those for you to 

answer in writing, but what really strikes me is how it seems to 

me we are trying to do public health on the fly because we don’t 

have the data of how an oil spill like this, you know, we are resisting calling it a spill, it is such a catastrophe, will impact public 

health. 

And what strikes me is in all of your written testimony and then 

your verbal testimony today you are talking about putting together 

the worker monitoring, you are putting together the different lists 

and so on. 

But what I want to know is do we have enough data to tell people about the potential health risks and to warn them about what 

they should or shouldn’t be doing. I am wondering is there anybody 

can answer that question. 

Yes. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. I will start. First of all, you are absolutely right. 

We don’t have enough information. I wouldn’t say we are doing 

public health on the fly. I have been in public health for many 

years. We know how to do monitoring, how to do surveillance, how 

to—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yeah. That is just great, and I am glad you are 

monitoring and you are surveying, but my question is—let me 

just—Dr.—and I am not meaning to be critical of you, but when we 

were down there last week, we were talking to folks who were concerned. They didn’t know what to do. We were talking to workers 

who were saying we are being told by OSHA to wear breathing 

masks, and then we are being told by BP that the risk of heat exhaustion is such that we shouldn’t wear the breathing masks, and 

they didn’t know what to do. 

But then we received an email, we received actually a bunch of 

emails from Dr. Gina Solomon’s blog, which talked—she is of the 

National Resources Defense Council, and yeah, she testified, and 

about people who don’t know what to do, not just the workers, although we are hearing concerns from the workers. This one gal 

said, ‘‘I am pregnant and concerned about the health of my unborn 

baby. We live about a half a mile from the Mississippi Gulf Coast. 

I am concerned about the fumes that my family is breathing. Do 

you have anymore info on this or other areas to find info on it? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

You said miscarriage is possible for pregnant women. What 

stages would this be? All stages or up to a certain trimester? I also 

have two children under 5 that I am concerned about the impact 

on their development. I am seriously considering leaving the area.’’ 

Do we know what to tell people like this, and are we telling that 

to them? 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. First of all, I want to—there is a great deal we 

don’t know, and that is exactly why we are having the Institute of 

Medicine do the workshop next week. We are very concerned about 

vulnerable populations, and we have asked experts—the Institute 

of Medicine has brought in experts addressing these issues with 

children, with pregnant women. We know they are vulnerable to 

many exposures. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So, yeah. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. We don’t know in this case—and—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. So—but is the thing, and I think this is a great 

opportunity for us to get more data, but we are hoping on the other 

end that we will put regulations in place and supervisions so that 

we don’t have oil spills like this. So we will get the data for the 

next one, but my question is so you are bring the Institute of Medicine, you are bringing everybody in, that is great, but what are we 

going to tell this gal? What are we going to tell everybody else to 

do? 

Because it does no good to just collect the data if we don’t have 

something to tell them. Like Mr. Taylor saying, you know, we know 

what we are going to do with the fish. We are going to tell people 

not to fish there and not put those fish on the market. 

What are we going to tell these people who live along the Gulf 

Coast or the people who are the fishermen or the people who are 

helping remediate it? What are we going to tell them to do? And 

when? 

Dr. HOWARD. At CDC we have a website that has information 

about food, about smell, about swimming, about water, about 

drinking—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay. So if people smell the oil, what are we telling them to do from a public health perspective? 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, odors—some people are very sensitive to 

odors, and obviously we would like people to, you know, avoid if 

they are in an area in which there are a lot of odors, and certainly 

in workers’ populations they could be in those areas. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay, but like if people are smelling bad odors, 

that is because there is some substance in the air, probably oil, 

that smells. Do we have some knowledge or sense that that might 

have some adverse affect and maybe tell them to stay indoors or 

I don’t know. 

Dr. HOWARD. Exactly. That is exactly what I just said. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay. 

Dr. HOWARD. I am not trying to avoid it. You know, I think we 

should point out that the human olfactory nerve at the top of our 

nose is probably the most sensitive measure of hydrocarbons that 

we could have. A lot of the instruments that we use that find 

undetectable levels that we measure often are not as sensitive as 

our nose. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

So the nose is extremely important. If you smell hydrocarbon, try 

to get away from that area or go inside. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay, and have we told that to people? 

Mr. PALLONE. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I apologize. I am going to ask you all to supplement your answers because I think these are really important 

questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Any written questions you would like to submit. 

Sure. 

All right. We will follow up. I should mention to you that, you 

know, you will obviously receive written questions. We try to get 

them to you within the next 10 days or so. 

Next is the—is our Ranking Member, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Pallone, and I apologize if I 

ask a question that has already been asked since I have just now 

gotten here. 

Yesterday when we had the CEOs of the major oil companies, I 

asked them a question, and they weren’t very definitive, so I am 

going to ask you folks the same question. 

Is there any capability now to put some of these organisms into 

the oil spill that convert it to non-toxic substances? Some of the 

people have talked about some sort of an organism from algae or 

some of these activities like that. 

Is that advanced enough that we could use that to convert the 

oil into something that didn’t have any kind of a long-term health 

liability? 

Dr. HOWARD. I will just say that, you know, we represent the Department of Health and Human Services, so we are experts in 

human health, and so that may be something that may be more environmental or other issue. 

Dr. MILLER. I believe EPA was working on remediation efforts 

and using biologics to try to help with remediation, so probably—— 

Mr. BARTON. You all aren’t aware of any of that activity yourself? 

And I am not saying you should be. This is a health hearing, so 

I am asking a health question. 

Dr. HOWARD. I think we have read the same reports that you 

have read, but we are sure not experts in that area. 

Mr. BARTON. All right. Really that is the only question I had, Mr. 

Chairman, so I am going to yield back. Thank you for the—I think 

this is a good hearing. I would ask the Chairman a question. Why 

do we not have the EPA here? Did they not come, or you didn’t 

want them to come or—— 

Mr. PALLONE. The—you are asking a difficult question—— 

Mr. BARTON. I am not intending—— 

Mr. PALLONE [continuing]. Which delves into the realm of jurisdiction of the subcommittees. 

Mr. BARTON. Okay. Well, that is a fair answer. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. Next is the gentlewoman from California, our ViceChair. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

your testimony. It is really helpful to hear the important steps that 

the Department is taking to protect the health and safety both now 

and in the future. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

You have all described how your agency is working in cooperation with each other. If you sense a certain frustration with us, it 

is because of the sense that there might have been, and this is 

going to drive the series of questions that I hope to elicit some responses from you, before I do I just want to say at the outset you 

are doing incredibly and important work and necessary work. We 

need to learn lessons. If there isn’t enough data, we need to start 

creating data now, and I understand that from Dr. Francis Collins, 

who spoke—who addressed another of our subcommittees or this 

subcommittee yesterday. 

We need to develop a coordinated health system to respond to 

any disaster in the future, whether it is like this one, whether it 

is natural, whether it is manmade, so that we can ensure the 

health and safety of both responders and local communities and in 

any future tragedy. And I know this is not something that you 

haven’t thought about as well. 

So I am—I want to get some responses from you about how we 

can—well, let me just phrase it this way. Last week at a hearing 

environmental health experts agreed that enhanced federal coordination was needed to best respond to this disaster, and with that 

being said, you work in one of the—under one Cabinet Secretary. 

We know that a lot—some of this public health response is being 

done outside of HHS and OSHA and NOAA and there are—there 

is presence at the Gulf now by these other agencies as well. 

So in the—I have written—I will just say as a disclaimer, written 

a letter to the President cognizant that BP is not capable of dealing 

with this. They have not demonstrated their ability to deal with 

the public health of their workforce and the others that they have 

employed to help clean up the disaster. So I said, take it out from 

their responsibility, I have suggested to the President and create 

kind of a head coordinator or czar if that is a word that you—appeals to you. 

I want to know—that is behind some of the questions I am asking you. If you give me some specifics, each of you, briefly, of the 

ways that you and your Department have coordinated outside HHS 

with some other federal agencies and in a very short answer if you 

could. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. I am actually glad to answer that—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Great. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ [continuing]. Because I was on the phone today 

with the head of OSHA. OSHA actually has joined our call, even 

though HHS, they are very important, we have been in meetings 

with EPA. I know my colleagues have coordinated with NOAA because of the whole issue of fish. There has been a great deal of discussion across departments. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Okay. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Another piece that I just want to say briefly is 

the role of the state and localities is—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ [continuing]. Very important. 

Mrs. CAPPS. That was another concern is had. Are you able to 

work down that—— 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Absolutely. We have close coordination. I was 

also in communication with state health officials. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

Mrs. CAPPS. Let me drive it one step further. What is your relationship with BP as you are—or your people on the ground as you 

are dealing with them? 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. The—I will do my best. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I mean, yeah. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Our communication with BP has been through 

Incident Command. It is through the Coast Guard. We want to 

work through the appropriate channels. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Okay. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. There—I know that there are many discussions 

in terms of the payment issue, but we really try to coordinate, including our discussions with BP. So I don’t know if any of my colleagues—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Okay. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ [continuing]. Want to answer, but we work 

through Incident Command. 

Mrs. CAPPS. That was a great response. I am going to ask one 

final question, but I would like to have anybody else pick up on 

this if this seems an appropriate topic for you to explore. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, just on the food safety aspect of this, our collaboration with NOAA and the states has just been central. We are 

working towards really—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. So you already do that. 

Mr. TAYLOR [continuing]. State and federal waters. It is a seamless, you know, coordinated effort on the seafood safety side. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Okay. 

Dr. MILLER. I have an additional comment, too. With regard to 

our Worker Education Training Program that we went down and 

try to help develop content—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Is this with BP? 

Dr. MILLER. This is—this was actually—BP is the one who implements it, but it was developed with OSHA using our Coast Guard 

and Incident Command in general as a throughput in developing 

this so EPA could start to develop this and use it for the workers. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Can you guarantee that they are actually doing it? 

Do you have a way of doing that as well? 

Dr. MILLER. We don’t have that from our particular—but OSHA 

who we work with and NIOSH—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. They would. 

Dr. MILLER [continuing]. Also, they would have additional oversight and opportunity to evaluate the actual implementation of 

that. 

We also have an interagency work group now that is working on 

the surveillance issues and some of the health longitude and shortterm health issues. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Let me see if I can get an answer—I am being rude. 

I am sorry. We tend to sometimes do that, at least I get—I would 

like to—and then my time is out. I would love to have one other 

response if I could, and maybe you don’t feel comfortable saying 

this. 

Do you see a need for a little bit more coordination than you are 

able to get because of the urgency on the ground there? Would you 

like—would that be an idea that should be pursued, that I should 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

keep bugging people about, having a Chief Coordinator, if you will, 

or someone to organize? 

I—we—I find it hard to know who to turn to. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Actually, I used my—I came from the state and 

the local perspective. I have only been in my position 3 months. I 

think that things are being very well coordinated at all levels up 

and down and across government and using Incident Command is 

really the best approach to take—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, that—I suspected that—— 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ [continuing]. Gives us the—there has been an incredible amount of communication cross department. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And so would that—so Admiral Allen is the Incident 

Commander. Right? And so you believe that is the—and you all 

feel—can I get a real quick assessment from each of you? Is that 

working? Do you feel like having that one point person should be 

the way it continues? 

Just kind of answer real quick. 

Mr. TAYLOR. When the system is working well in terms of—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. You think—you feel it is working well? 

Mr. TAYLOR. From an FDA standpoint, food safety standpoint I 

think the system is working very well. 

Dr. MILLER. From NIEHS we coordinate through the Department 

and back up. So we haven’t seen a problem with respect to that. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Okay. 

Dr. HOWARD. I would say one of the issues that we would want 

our committee to look at next week is whether or not we have sufficient coordination. 

Mrs. CAPPS. What committee is that? 

Dr. HOWARD. Our Institute of Medicine Committee—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Oh, yes. 

Dr. HOWARD [continuing]. Meeting in New Orleans. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So you are going to bring this—— 

Dr. HOWARD. One of the questions that we want them—are we 

being—are we coordinated enough. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, I will be interested—will that be—okay. I will 

look for that answer then from then. Thank you very much. 

Dr. MILLER. And our issues are still getting at data and things 

like that that help NIOSH and us, you know, perform the research 

that we need, so that needs to get translated back to BP. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. I can tell you one panel includes federal, state, 

local. It is going to be a whole discussion of that aspect of coordination. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PALLONE. Ms. Christensen. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank—I 

would like to thank all of the witnesses for the work that you are 

doing. It is really appalling the lack of information on health impacts that we have not been able to accumulate over the years, 

but—and I hope we never have another spill like this, but I hope 

that the work that is being done now, should it happen, we would 

be better prepared. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

A question following up on Ms. Capps’ question. Within the 

Health Department who is in charge? Within the Department of 

Health and Human Services, who is the—— 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Within the Department of Health and Human 

Services Secretary Sebelius is—— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. She is not—— 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. I will say my boss is the Assistant Secretary for 

Preparedness and Response and is the Chief Advisor to the Secretary on emergency response issues and that is Dr.—— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And coordinates the rest of the team? 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Exactly, and that is why I am here. We do take 

this very, very seriously. We are in constant communication with 

the Secretary’s office, and you know, she is in charge. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Okay, but even within the different agencies, 

with so many agencies operating, it is really—we still need—— 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. We have twice-a-week calls. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Okay. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. They are chaired by Dr. Lorrey, Dr. Lorrey was 

on leave, I chaired them, we have pulled together all components 

of HHS, including CMS because of whole issues about healthcare 

payment issues, everything you can imagine. Agency for Children 

and Families. So everybody, every component of HHS has been either in the room or on that call, and it has worked very well in 

terms of coordinating our efforts. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Another question I guess would go to—I am 

not sure who it would go to. It might go to Dr. Howard from Centers for Disease Control. 

You—in response to another question about the information that 

is being shared with the population about what to look for and how 

to respond, you talked about it being on the website. The population, a large part of the population that we are dealing with in 

the Gulf Region don’t have access to a website. 

So what other avenues are you using to reach some of the harder-to-reach people? 

Dr. HOWARD. We are using every avenue that we can get our 

hands on, including the local and the State Health Departments. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. What about radio? 

Dr. HOWARD. Radio, TV, we are twittering, we are using all social media that we can get our hands on. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And for the public meeting, the IOM meeting, again, are all media being used to reach out? If the public is 

invited, we want the public to know about it. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. That is an excellent point. We are well aware 

this is a very diverse population, very culturally diverse, and that 

is one charge we, additional charge we have given to the IOM. We 

want to have addressed at this meeting the best way to reach out 

and to communicate with the range of populations, and we hope for 

some very good feedback from them. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Okay. A recent study apparently of beach 

cleanup workers and volunteers after an oil spill in Spain reported 

increase in DNA damage, and I believe it has been reported in 

some of the other spill workers from some of the other cleanup of 

oil spills. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

What—do we have any idea what the effects of those changes to 

DNA or to genetic make up might be, and are we planning to follow up on what we have seen with the workers and volunteers in 

this spill? 

Dr. MILLER. We have actually as part of our interagency group 

as well have connected with the research group from Spain and are 

evaluating not only their materials but we will be working with 

them closely to look at some of their results as well that may help 

inform us. 

And this will go also before the IOM and the direction in which 

we develop research. So how does this help us think this through, 

what tests do we need to do, and what are our concerns based on 

those findings? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Was any—I don’t remember that there was 

any finding from the Exxon Valdez workers and volunteers. Any 

thought about going back and checking them? Or is—— 

Dr. HOWARD. There has been some follow up of limited populations but not in the scope that there should be. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Is this damage to DNA considered serious, or 

is it something that is felt can repair itself? 

Dr. MILLER. I am not totally familiar with all the tests, but the 

tests certainly indicate that there may be a problem that is happening based on the exposure. So what they were looking at is the 

groups that had higher exposure and lower exposure and did these 

changes occur. 

So the ultimate ramifications in terms of public health or disease 

is not known at this point but certainly it is a cause for concern, 

and we will look more closely at that particular issue. 

Mr. PALLONE. The gentlewoman—— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Just so you know, we are expecting to 

have votes, so I am trying to get everybody in before. 

The next member is Ms. Castor. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Taylor, the FDA’s recent announcement said the public 

should not be concerned about the safety of seafood in stores at this 

time, but there are large areas of the Gulf of Mexico closed down. 

You know, here is the most recent map, and it is really having a 

terrible impact on our, all of our commercial fishermen and our 

charters. So many small businesses. 

But I think it is important to also emphasize there are large 

areas still open for fishing, you know. You can come right off of 

Tampa Bay and get the reef fish, grouper and snapper, fabulous. 

So you all are monitoring. You are working with NOAA on these 

closures, and I wonder if you would go through your jurisdiction 

and then explain some of the sampling that is going on as well. I 

know that is primarily NOAA’s jurisdiction, but if you would explain that, and then tell us what—how you are working with states 

to ensure that the areas are reopened on a timely—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Sure. 

Ms. CASTOR [continuing]. Basis. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Sure. There is a shared jurisdiction over all of this 

between FDA, NOAA, and the states. With respect to closing 

waters, federal waters, that is from 3 miles offshore and out, that 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

is NOAA’s jurisdiction or federal waters. The states have the authority to close the state waters, and of course, NOAA and the 

states—— 

Ms. CASTOR. Three miles? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Three miles out to the—yes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Uh-huh. 

Mr. TAYLOR. NOAA and the states work very closely on that, and 

we are in consultation as well with NOAA and the states about the 

closure of water, so we are confident collectively that these are 

ahead of the spill, they are protective, and they are ensuring the 

seafood that is then harvested and brought to market, you know, 

has been taken outside of these closed areas, and we have got that 

fundamental preventive measure in place to give us confidence. 

But, then, yes, we are doing surveillance sampling of fish that is 

coming to market. NOAA and FDA are doing that sampling, again, 

just to verify, you know, that that protective measure is working. 

And so it is very much a shared enterprise. 

Ms. CASTOR. How does that take place? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, it is various ways in which the sampling is 

done. NOAA is collecting samples out, you know, in the water in 

the vicinity of the spill, and just, again, being sure that their understanding of the protectiveness of the closure is, you know, 

verified. We are collecting sample at retail—I am sorry, at processing establishments I should say, where the fish has been 

brought to be processed to go to retail, and, so, again, that is where 

we are looking at the crabs and shrimp and shellfish. 

So, again, it is a collective, coordinated effort to provide a 

verification that the system is working. 

Ms. CASTOR. And then on the reopening, I want to make sure I 

understand the criteria for reopening. You mentioned that you and 

other agencies have looked at baseline levels of oil contaminants in 

seafood from the Gulf. While this spill is obviously very severe, 

there has been a lot of drilling in the past and spills of petroleum 

product. 

Are the baseline levels of petroleum-related contaminants in seafood in the Gulf of concern to the FDA? 

Mr. TAYLOR. The baseline levels are not of concern, and, in fact, 

they are well below what would be our level of concern from a public health or safety standpoint. And so we are developing a protocol 

for reopening that would look at the levels that are of concern and 

be sure that any residues are below those levels of concern. 

So, you know, we expect over time levels will go back to baseline, 

but baseline is way below—— 

Ms. CASTOR. And if it turns out that the baseline levels are well 

within the safe range, will you wait until the levels return to the 

baseline before NOAA reopens federal water? 

Mr. TAYLOR. No. We don’t think public health requires waiting 

until we go all the way back to baseline. Again, based on our safety 

evaluation and our risk assessment, we can set levels that, you 

know, where the level of concern actually is and then be sure that 

any levels are below that. 

So we don’t need to wait until we go all the way to baseline. 

Ms. CASTOR. Okay. We had a researcher at the University of 

South Florida where they have a great consortium of all the public 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

and private universities in Florida, and they have just gotten some 

grant money from BP, thankfully, because they have been out on 

the water with their vessels, and the taxpayers, who really should 

not be paying for their research, and they are one of the partners 

for NOAA, and one of the researchers had difficulty getting a water 

sample, an oil sample from BP. 

Have you all run into any of that, any resistance from BP getting 

oil samples, water samples, or air samples? 

Mr. TAYLOR. I am not aware that from FDA’s vantage point. I 

would check, though, and be sure, but I haven’t heard those reports 

as far as FDA is concerned. 

Ms. CASTOR. Okay. 

Dr. HOWARD. We wanted to acquire some dispersant to study it. 

The manufacturer is under contract to BP to sell all of their product to BP. So we went to BP to see whether or not they would 

allow us to purchase some, and we received that assurance from 

BP through its manufacturer that we would be able to look at getting some so we could study. 

Ms. CASTOR. What is their timeframe? 

Dr. HOWARD. The timeframe for getting that permission? 

Ms. CASTOR. Or getting the actual sample. 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, we are still waiting for it, but we are hopeful. 

Mr. PALLONE. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. I am just trying to move along because I know we are going to have votes soon. 

Gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Braley. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start 

with some brief comments about terminology. Some of you used the 

word, spill, in your presentations. This is a spill. 

BP from the beginning has misled us about the volume of spill 

coming from the Gulf, and I want to talk about that because it relates to the whole problem of planning from a public health standpoint. 

The day after this release occurred we were told that no more 

than 1,000 barrels per day were coming out of that well head. On 

April 27 an outside group looking at the video monitor upgraded 

that estimate to 5,000 barrels per day, which BP contested. Then 

last week or the end of May that estimate was raised upward from 

12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day and then just this week we have 

been told that the release after the intervention occurred can be as 

great as 60,000 barrels per day. 

That is 2.5 million gallons per day, 17.6 million gallons per week, 

75 million gallons per month, and over the 57 days of this disaster, 

which is what it really is, it is 144 million gallons, and my friend, 

Mr. Whitfield, talked about this 1XCO2T1 release in Mexico, it 

wasn’t in the United States or the Continental Shelf, which was 

termed the largest accidental disaster in history of 100 to 140 million gallons. We will exceed or have exceeded that flow rate. 

So when we use the word, spill, talking about that massive 

amount of release, it does a great disservice to the people whose 

lives have been impacted by this disaster. 

And Dr. Howard, you mentioned that you were not a big fan of 

dispersants, and having spoken to people on the ground who were 

involved in those decisions, I mean, one of the problems we have 

is we are talking about balancing environmental and public health 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

interests. People who made that decision did so reluctantly, talking 

to them, because managing this immense quantity of oil from an 

environmental and ecologic standpoint is a totally separate challenge than dealing with the public health implications. 

Isn’t that true? 

Dr. HOWARD. Yes. 

Mr. BRALEY. And, you know, so you talk to the people in the 

Gulf, and they talk about this enormous water column at the site 

of the release and the trillions of gallons of water that are being 

used where these chemical dispersants are dissipating in some way 

these large plumes and slicks of oil, but the reality is you are making tough decisions about tradeoffs between how you clean this 

mess up and how it impacts the long-term commercial fishing industry and vacation industry, and then the implications for public 

health from the workers who are exposed to it. 

So I would like all of you, if you would, to comment about how 

you are struggling from a public health standpoint with dealing 

with decisions that have to be made, that could be not in the best 

interest of public health, but have very significant implications for 

environment and ecology. 

So—— 

Dr. HOWARD. I would say that what I would like is for when 

those decisions are discussed and made that a consideration at that 

time be placed on that same table for public health, both from the 

residents’ standpoint and from the workers’ standpoint. 

So all I would ask is as those very tough decisions are being 

made, talk about, factor in the public health issue. That is all I 

would ask. 

Mr. BRALEY. Dr. Miller. 

Dr. MILLER. And additionally, in terms of the toxicology that 

come with this, so if we don’t know something that we put into 

place, structure to get the information we need so we can make 

better decisions, we can understand that effects of what our actions 

are. 

Mr. BRALEY. Dr. Kaplowitz. 

Dr. KAPLOWITZ. Just to add to that, public health is at a disadvantage precisely because we don’t know. If we had the data, it 

would be easier to present the risks, and since we don’t know what 

they are, it makes it very, very difficult to counter some of the decisions that are being made. 

Mr. BRALEY. Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I think our approach to food safety very much takes 

account of both sides of the coin. I think it is our being protective 

and preventive of seafood being taken from contaminated waters is 

what permits us to say that the product on the market is safe. 

And so protecting the fisheries that are safe from the public confidence concern that would arise if we didn’t have a good protective 

system in place where the seafood is potentially contaminated. So 

I think inherently our food safety approach is taking account of 

both sides of that coin. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, I think you have done a nice job of laying out 

the toxic components of sweet crude and some of the dispersants 

and how they interact, but when you don’t know the total volume 

of this release and how that combined effect can contribute to these 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

public health considerations, I think we are all at a disadvantage, 

and I think we need to get to the bottom of that as well, and I yield 

back my time. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Braley. 

The Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee 

has joined us, and I would yield to him. Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. 

Dr. Howard, in your written testimony you state that there may 

not be health risk just because residents and workers smell toxic 

chemicals because these chemicals can be smelled at levels, ‘‘well 

below those that would make most people sick.’’ 

Last week in a hearing here to examine environmental fate and 

human exposure to oil and dispersants, at that hearing one of the 

witnesses said that she believed that it was inappropriate to not 

warn people that they could be made sick. This witness named several chemicals found in oil, including Benzene and Toluene, which 

are hazardous to human health at levels far below the odor threshold. 

Dr. Howard, would you agree that some chemicals present in 

crude oil may be hazardous to health at levels below what—where 

they can be smelled and that assuring people that they are safe 

when they smell these chemicals may not be appropriate? 

Dr. HOWARD. Yes. I would agree. 

Mr. MARKEY. Is it possible that these fumes can cause long-term 

health impacts long beyond when the symptoms of eye, nose, 

throat, and skin irritation pass? 

Dr. HOWARD. It certainly is possible. We don’t have any data to 

refute that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you think if people smell these fumes, should 

they go inside to reduce their exposure? 

Dr. HOWARD. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. If these fumes come into the home, should people 

close their windows to reduce their exposure? 

Dr. HOWARD. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Miller, do you believe that there should be a 

centralized federal agency responsible for compiling all the health 

information and surveillance data related to the BP Gulf oil disaster? 

Dr. MILLER. It needs to be done. I don’t know what the best 

agency to do it is in terms of that, but it needs to be done in a reasonable component. 

Mr. MARKEY. Which agency in your opinion should hold that responsibility? 

Dr. MILLER. Well, through HHS probably a shared collective response with regard to that. 

Mr. MARKEY. How would you then share that information with 

university and other independent, non-governmental scientists? 

Dr. MILLER. If it is developed accordingly, they should be putting 

stakeholders in the actual development up front and participate in 

the way it is implemented. 

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. The CDC website says that smelling chemicals isn’t a risk. Should that be rephrased on the CDC website? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

Dr. HOWARD. I think for most people, but there are people who 

are very sensitive to odors, and I think that would be something 

that we are looking at. 

Mr. MARKEY. Is that phrase—is it phrased that way on—— 

Dr. HOWARD. No. That is an area that we received a number of 

surveillance reports, and we are looking at that phraseology right 

now. 

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. So you believe that perhaps the warning 

should be more clear for those that might be vulnerable? 

Dr. HOWARD. Exactly. There are people who are very sensitive to 

hydrocarbon odors. 

Mr. MARKEY. And how long would it take in order to ensure that 

we have a warning that reflects the level of risk for people who 

could be vulnerable? 

Dr. HOWARD. Well, soon, very soon. 

Mr. MARKEY. Very soon. 

Dr. HOWARD. We hope to be able to finish that this week and to 

have the language on the website. 

Mr. MARKEY. So by Friday? 

Dr. HOWARD. Hopefully. 

Mr. MARKEY. We can—we would hope that you would be able to 

finish it by then. 

And one final question. Is BP sharing all the information that 

you want with regard to the health effects? 

Dr. HOWARD. You know, I had answered that question earlier. 

The answer for us in NIOSH is no. We have asked for a list of 

workers that they have hired specifically by name so we could correlate with our roster. We have yet to receive that list from them. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Miller. 

Dr. MILLER. We have not specifically asked BP for anything at 

this point, but we will be looking more toward that as we develop 

the research. 

Mr. MARKEY. Okay, but NIOSH, you have been asking, and they 

have not been fully cooperative? 

Dr. HOWARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. Is there any reason why BP would withhold healthrelated information since it would make it possible to put together 

the best response to protect the health of people in the Gulf? 

Dr. MILLER. I wouldn’t speculate on that. I would add one thing 

just for our Worker Education Training Program. They have been 

very compliant in working with us with respect to trying to provide 

information to workers. 

Mr. MARKEY. On that program. But I am more concerned about 

what I am hearing from Dr. Howard. I would say that BP continues to be more interested in its own liability than it is in the 

livability for the people in the Gulf. They should make the health 

of these residents paramount. They are responsible for the harm 

that is going to be done. They should ensure that the information 

is in the hands of public health officials so that they can do their 

job and protect them, and they should do it immediately. 

Thank you all for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, and that concludes all questioning just 

in time for votes. So I just want to remind members that they can 

submit additional questions for the record, some have already sugVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:26 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077912 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A912.XXX A912

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

gested that they would, and would like to get those to the clerk 

within the next 10 days. And then we will send them to your various offices for the panel. 

And, again, I want to thank you for being here today. Obviously 

this was very important, very informative. I—we may have to do 

additional, you know, hearings like this. We will see as we 

progress, but I thought this was very enlightening. Thank you. 

And without objection, this meeting of the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 77912A.049
98 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 77912A.050
99 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 77912A.051
100 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 77912A.052
101 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 77912A.053
102 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 77912A.054
103 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 77912A.055
104 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 77912A.056
105 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 77912A.057
106 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 77912A.058
107 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 77912A.059
108 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 77912A.060
109 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 77912A.061
110 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 77912A.062
111 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 77912A.063
112 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 77912A.064
113 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 77912A.065
114 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 77912A.066
115 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 77912A.067
116 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 77912A.068
117 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 77912A.069
118 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 77912A.070
119 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 77912A.071
120 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 77912A.072
121 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 77912A.073
122 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 77912A.074
123 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 77912A.075
124 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 77912A.076
125 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 77912A.077
126 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 77912A.078
127 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 77912A.079
128 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 77912A.080
129 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 77912A.081
130 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 77912A.082
131 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 77912A.083