WASHINGTON — In the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Environmental Protection Agency admits it was unprepared and unaware of potential threats caused by the use of dispersants to break up oil and prevent it from reaching shore.
“We need more research,” said Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA. “We need more information on all dispersants, and that is not only a BP problem. That is something that I believe needs to come out of this issue.”
Jackson, appearing before a Senate panel on Thursday, was grilled by lawmakers on why the agency had not done more to protect against this kind of crisis.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., the chair of the committee, questioned Jackson and Larry Robinson, assistant secretary of commerce for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
What seemed most alarming to the senators was the lack of understanding into the use and effectiveness of dispersants, despite the use of a similar response more than 21 years ago in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in the Exxon Valdez spill. They seemed surprised that not much progress into the use of dispersants seems to have been made since then, especially since 1.8 millions gallons have been used to battle the oil so far.
“There’s an old expression about what you [don’t] know can[‘t] hurt you,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. “Here, what I come away with is what we don’t know can hurt us. And we’ve got to step up to this and do our work in advance and not be relying on catch-up to find out whether or not these dispersants, the chemicals therein, are threatening to human health and the environment.
Jackson also seemed unclear on what authority the EPA has over BP. She said she was unsure it she could stop BP from using dispersants altogether to break up the oil.
“I think it is a matter of untested law as to whether EPA — there is no permit that EPA has given to allow use of these dispersants,” Jackson said. “So I would not know.”
When pressed by Mikulski, Jackson relented and said, “I believe I do, but I do want my lawyers to get you a answer.”
NOAA and EPA were effectively hoping the dispersants were relatively safe. But Lautenberg wants to be sure: He announced that he will soon introduce the Safe Dispersants Act. The bill aims to require long-term testing and approval of all chemicals used in dispersants to battle future oil spills.
“It’s very obvious that the law ought to be changed to give the public the right to know about health and environmental effects of chemicals in the dispersants,” Lautenberg said.
Robinson agreed long-term study and testing is critical to knowing exactly what impact these dispersants are having on the environment.
“We are just as concerned about the [lack of knowledge],” Robinson said. “And we really welcome the opportunity to begin a more comprehensive research program into the long-term impacts of dispersants in these and other systems.”
However, once again demonstrating the lack of preparedness at the EPA and the NOAA, Robinson said he was unaware of regulations by other countries regarding the use of dispersants. He said he was interested in learning about other countries’ regulations, but just had yet to find out.
“Dr. Robinson, I want you more than interested,” Mikulski said. “Sir, I need NOAA on the edge of their chair. I need a sense of urgency here. We’re going to fund the research. We have a sense of urgency. We need you to have that urgency.”
Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, echoed the dangers of dispersants.
“We have been engaged in a scientific experiment,” Cook said. “No good options. Not much good news. We basically have entered into this with a complete lack of preparedness. This is an unnatural catastrophe. We didn’t plan for it. And as a consequence, we don’t have basic answers. We walked into this almost completely blind, almost completely unprepared to understand the impact of the use of these dispersants on human beings, the marine environment and the long-term health of the Gulf and beyond.”
As far as what the near future is for the use for dispersants, there is much uncertainty on what to do.
“Use a little less?” asked Cook. “Maybe that’s the right call. Stop it all together? Maybe that’s the right call. But we just don’t know. We’re in the
emergency room. And what we’re essentially asking right now is, are the methods we’re using to treat the patient — should we study them more or should we treat the patient?”