Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 19 Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 10 (29 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   12 comments

General News

Mikulski Slams EPA on Dispersants: "Tighten Up So We Don't Screw Up"

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Valuable 5   Must Read 4   News 2  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 7/16/10

Become a Fan
  (38 fans)
- Advertisement -

Co-written with Dr. Martin J. Dudziak

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) asked EPA head, Lisa Jackson, if dispersants could become the "Agent Orange of the Gulf," and then opened the door to the possibility that Mikulski will subpoena the manufacturer, Nalco Holding Co. at a future date. The maker of Corexit 9500 refused to attend the Senate Appropriations science subcommittee hearing on Thursday.

This flash video was removed for security reasons
Head of EPA grilled on dispersant use - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

Mikulski began mildly, saying "I am sorry they did not come," but by the end of her blistering questioning of Jackson, it was clear that the Senator was like a pit-bull with a bone and was not going to let Jackson's deference to "lawyers" ride, adding "we don't have time for a lot of in-house bureaucratic vetting or screwing around."

It sounded like someone was finally in charge besides Joint Unified Command's NOAA, the Coast Guard, BP and the EPA. "We need to tighten up so we don't screw up," Mikulski charged.

This was the same day that BP had hopefully capped the wellhead that began spewing anywhere from 60-100,000 barrels of oil a day since April 20. BP has used more than 1.8 million gallons of dispersant in the Gulf since the catastrophe began in April; angering environmentalists, scientists and Gulf Coast residents over the potential for long-term public health consequences.

Jackson looked worse than an oiled pelican in Barataria Bay as she tried to extricate herself from Mikulski's sticky questions. The Senator from Maryland demanded to know why Jackson did not know the extent or limits of her authority as head of the EPA to order that BP stop the use of Corexit. In response to a direct question from Mikulski as to whether she, Jackson, could ban or limit the use of dispersants, or whether Admiral Thad Allen has the ultimate authority, Jackson hedged, blinked and said it was "a matter of untested law," adding "I would not know, I am not an attorney."

- Advertisement -

"You are the head of the EPA. That is the question you needed to know from day one, Ms. Jackson... because look everyone at this table we are coastal residents, we love our coast Guard... but the Coast Guard are not scientists they are under the Department of Homeland Security.

And Gulf Coast residents do not feel secure."

Even as the news spreads that the latest cap over the Deepwater Horizon (Macando) well is functioning and that no more crude oil and other hydrocarbons are spilling into the Gulf waters, a seething storm of uncertainty remains. No one knows the consequences of exposure to the dispersants discussed in Mikulski's hearing, as well as hydrocarbon-dispersant combinations that are in the water, air, and soil; affecting the living inhabitants of the Gulf region, including the human population.

There is some data being collected about some of the better known VOCs (volatile organic carbons) and compounds that are classified as "IDLH" -- Immediate Danger to Life and Health. The EPA released a new database on the popular document-sharing network Socrata this week.

It amounts to an unfathomable morass of confusion, contradiction, and omission that is nearly impossible to navigate. What do all these numbers mean, and what are the real consequences for not only people who are living in the Gulf coastal regions but for visitors, transient relief and cleanup workers, and people who are either "just passing through" ( traveling I-10 from Florida to Texas) or living miles inland? How should people interpret tables of the parts-per-million and parts-per-billion for compounds and chemicals that accompanies the oil spread from the Gulf oil disaster?

In the case of chemical exposure related to the BP catastrophe, there is a scarcity of reliable information. The sampling that has taken place has been in very limited scope as to location and time. Secondly, a massive but also uncertain amount of hydrocarbon mixtures derived from the crude oil, the released gases, and the mixtures resulting from heavy dispersant use remain in the Gulf and also within inland waterways, including estuaries and bodies such as Lake Pontchartrain.

- Advertisement -

No one knows the total amounts of crude oil and related compounds that have been released from beneath the seafloor, and scientists can only make rough estimates about how much of that material is in a form that can be pushed inland through storm action. For many of the more dangerous chemicals, it is hard to predict what types of levels we will see and for how long they will continue.

As far as "acceptable" exposure levels are concerned, we are left with comparisons. We can look at numbers derived on the Gulf and say they may be higher or lower than what is permissible for exposure at a gas pump, or higher or lower than numbers permissible for BP workers on the rigs, on cleanup, or in their offices, but it is all numbers that have no relation to each other. OSHA numbers are higher than the NIOSH limits and EPA numbers target specific locations and don't take atmospheric conditions, or distance from the main source, into account. It is hit or miss sampling, and hit or miss evaluations by the regulatory agencies that were put in place to protect us.

What matters to the health of humans and many other species, including almost everything that is considered to be part of the human food chain, including vegetables, fruits, and dairy products, is the type of exposure, the duration and repetition of exposure, and also the biological conditions of the exposed person, animal or plant. The condition of a person's lungs and cardiovascular system make a difference in how one can react and be affected.

An enormous number of factors can determine the level of reaction to exposure -- whether that reaction be chronic and lifespan-reducing conditions, a passing ailment with no long-term effects, or simply a bad smell, a bad taste, and no ill effects.

To make a simple analogy, it is a bit like how one can get certain effects from alcoholic beverages when wide awake vs. when tired or stressed vs. in combination with other drugs such as barbiturates or anti-depressants.

Next Page  1  |  2

Georgianne Nienaber is an investigative environmental and political writer. She lives in rural northern Minnesota, New Orleans and South Florida. Her articles have appeared in The Society of Professional Journalists' Online Quill (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Dian Fossey and the Gorilla Killings

Should the World Boycott the Beijing Olympics? The Horrific Story of the Falun Gong

Haiti Watch: Disease Threatens Infants and No Plans to Stop It

"Sticks in Vaginas:" This Is What a Massacre Looks Like

Fox-Owned National Geographic Uses Gorillas as Cover for Exploitation of Congo

Baghdad on the Bayou Redux: Tab Benoit Interview


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
8 people are discussing this page, with 12 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

America needs so many more Barbara Mikulskis ! Sh... by patricia win on Friday, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:41:16 PM
...and Ms. Mikulski is our rep, and we're proud of... by Paul from Potomac on Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 at 12:58:15 PM
If al Qaeda was running around with an atomizer of... by Mac McKinney on Friday, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:05:08 PM
or more, we need to Fix EPA so it has the teeth to... by Rob Kall on Friday, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:08:46 PM
I think we should listen carefully to the testimon... by Georgianne Nienaber on Saturday, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:32:22 AM
She appears not only incompetent, but unable to to... by Aurora on Saturday, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:55:24 PM
It is terrifying how BLIND people are being on thi... by Zeeva International on Saturday, Jul 17, 2010 at 1:18:46 AM
There is little question that the use of dispersan... by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) on Saturday, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:33:52 AM
"BP has used more than 1.8 million gallons of dis... by Aurora on Saturday, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:25:37 PM
Anyone still thinking that BP may freely release t... by Aurora on Saturday, Jul 17, 2010 at 1:37:23 PM
I was asked this question last week -- here was my... by Paul from Potomac on Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:03:27 PM