Testimony to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies by Anne Rolfes, Founding Director of LABB
Anne Rolfes Testimony to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies July 15, 2010
My name is Anne Rolfes and I am the Founding Director of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a non profit environmental health and justice organization. Since 1999 I have collaborated with communities impacted by the petrochemical industry, spending much of that time in neighborhoods right across the street from refineries. This time has given me insight into how the oil industry conducts itself in this region. I am also familiar with the state and federal regulatory agencies vested with the responsibility to safeguard our health and our environment.
In April of 2010, 47 people were killed because of this nation’s reliance on fossil fuels. Seven workers at Tesoro Corp‘s refinery in Washington state, 29 miners in West Virginia and 11 people on BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico. While the subject of this hearing is limited to dispersants used in the wake of the BP Oil Disaster, it is important to recognize the human costs of this country’s addiction to fossil fuels. The tragic events of April 2010 should be our pivot point from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
All of the information detailed here has been documented since April 20, 2010 during time spent in the impacted coastal communities of Louisiana. In some cases the press has documented the problem. I encourage Senators and their staff to go to the Gulf Coast, not as a Congressional entourage with VIP status, but as ordinary citizens looking for information. By being on the ground without fanfare, our representatives can learn the truth.
Given the lack of information about dispersants, there should be no assurances of safety by any party, especially the EPA, NOAA, other government bodies or BP. There is no scientific basis for such statements. I have seen a knee jerk response over the years to tell the public that they are safe. In the case of this terrible spill, no one has any information on which to base such claims that disperants are completely safe and so such claims should not be made.
I am concerned about the effect the lack of information about dispersants has on NOAA’s ability to track and test for them. How, for instance, is NOAA going to track dispersants through the currents and water column, especially below the surface? What long-term effects will these dispersants have on sea life and up the food chain? How can the federal government ask these questions when they can’t even get and/or share basic safety information about the dispersants being used? What about the long-term health effects to the people being exposed to the dispersants?
Application of Dispersants
Attached to this testimony are the three patents available for Corexit. The recommended ratio of application is one part dispersant for every 12 parts oil. This ratio has not changed even if the patent name holder has.
The following account comes from attendance at a community forum in Thibodaux, Louisiana on Thursday, July 8th by my co worker Callie Casstevens. These forums are now common in south Louisiana and presumably along the Gulf Coast. The forums are supposed to be information fairs, with tables representing federal and state agencies as well as private contractors. What follows is an excerpt from Ms. Casstevens blog about the forum:
“Moving to the third table, test tubes filled with dispersant were front and center, with small computers showing planes flying over the Gulf dropping the dispersant. I pulled the patent out and asked, “The patent states the dispersant is supposed to be distributed 1 part for every 12 parts oil, but since we have never known how much oil has been coming out/spilling, how do you know you’re appropriately applying it?” The woman laughed, and stated she would let her co-worker handle the question. The man was from the UK, it was in fact his plane we were watching on the computer screen dropping the dispersant onto the ocean’s surface. His name was Andrew Nicoll, the advocacy manager for the Oil Spill Response and East Asia Response Limited Company, (OSRL). He stated that they had special aerial measurements, taking into consideration the area/density and then applied it.”
BP’s estimate of the amount of oil released has been on the low end of the spectrum and is constantly changing. BP’s Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles has in fact, stated that understanding the flow rate does not matter. Since BP, then, has potentially no sound basis for understanding how much oil is leaking, how are they to apply the dispersant responsibly?
Ms. Casstevens conversation continued. “Curiosity led me to ask why the UK banned the dispersant. In response he said that it failed the LC 50 test for the shore. That led me to question why the UK shore is any different than our shore. He said, ’It’s not reaching your shore.’ I then showed him pictures of Corexit slime that lines the shores of many beaches in the south. He stated it was not Corexit, simply sea foam. My last question to him was, “So, why is it used in the United States, is it because we have weak regulations?” He said, “Yes…..I mean no, I mean, the UK has very rigid standards.” Health Impacts
Time and again I have heard fears of chemical exposure categorized as effects from the heat. It is very hot in Louisiana at this time of year, but health assessments are not based on examinations of the patients but instead on opinion. Ms. Casstevens’ continues.
“The media has misinformed people, the issue is not with the chemicals but with the heat, it’s hot out there.” This is what I heard consistently at the community meeting in Thibodaux, Louisiana yesterday.
The health and safety table had smiling faces … and the first thing I noticed was every single flyer on their table described the symptoms of heat stress, nothing about the dangers of being exposed to the oil, dispersant 9527 or Corexit 9500. Nothing.”
According to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Jim Rachwal at the same forum, “all of the injuries claimed are a result of heat or pre-existing condition.”
The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals are monitoring the health complaints. Their information, unavailable at the community forums, but available on their website, reports the following.
“There have been 227 reports of health complaints believed to be related to exposure to pollutants from the oil spill. One hundred ninety-three (193) reports came from among workers and 34 from among the general population. Seventeen (17) individuals had short hospitalizations. Most frequently reported symptoms include headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and upper respiratory irritation. The general population complaints were related to odors, and symptoms were considered mostly mild.”
On Thursday, June 2nd my co workers Anna Hrybyk and Shannon Dosemagan spoke to a nurse who was staffing the medical tent within the BP zone in Grand Isle, Louisiana. This nurse was part of the official parish response that was advertised as the place that workers and others should go to if they experience health problems from the spill. The nurse was incredibly frustrated. She had arrived on the scene to treat medical emergencies, and her equipment included IV’s, suture stitching materials and more. She reported that she was told she could only offer aspirin and band aids. She reported that BP is running its own Emergency Medical Service and that the sickest people are being taken there and avoiding the parish emergency center.
Ms. Hrybyk recently returned to the medical tent, and stated that contract clean up workers are required to be treated by BP’s own contracted out EMS area, not the public response team. Her account is below:
“Two weeks ago (6/24), I returned to the BP worker compound in Grand Isle looking to get more information on what types of health issues workers were being treated for.
All oil clean-up workers under contract with BP must go to a privately contracted CARE EMS. While we were standing in the West Jefferson Medical Center (WJMC) tent, a BP clean-up contractor came in about a worker who had open sores and blisters on his hands and forearms after having come into contact with the water. The doctor that saw him wanted this worker to be treated by the West Jeff staff, presumably because of their excellent reputation. However, much to the nurse’s discontent, she was bound by the protocol to refer the worker to the BP EMS even though his doctor referred him to the WJMC. According to her, contractors who know and trust the work of the WJMC are “livid” about this BP imposed protocol.
BP’s CARE EMS area is heavily guarded but we managed to speak with the EMTs on duty. They said they were creating detailed incident reports for every worker they see and those are getting sent to the Houma Unified Command Center. I have been chasing the Head Nurse at the Houma Command Center for weeks trying to get those reports. I am now going to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Coast Guard for their reports on worker health incidents.”
A pharmacist in Port Sulphur told me that use of asthma and respiratory medications – both over the counter and prescription – are up 10% from this time last year. One clean up worker walked in the door and bought all of the medication off the shelf to share with his co-workers.
BP’s Monitoring
BP insists that its air samples have shown no problems, but this is at odds with workers’ experiences of falling ill after breathing in chemicals. It is also at odds with news reports about hospitalized workers.
One of the most troubling aspects of BP’s monitoring is that it has contracted with a notorious firm called the Center for Environmental and Toxicological Health. This firm is the go-to firm for companies responsible for environmental disasters. “The private contractor hired by BP PLC as the primary monitor of offshore workers in the Gulf of Mexico is no stranger to environmental calamity. After a million gallons of oil spilled on a Louisiana town in 2005, after a flood of toxic coal ash smothered central Tennessee in 2008 and after defective Chinese drywall began plaguing Florida homeowners, the same firm was on the scene -- saying everything was fine.” More information about CTEH is included in the attachments.
More investigation is needed to determine how much of EPA’s sampling is reliant on CTEH. They share office space. It is not in the public’s interest for CTEH to be a partner in protecting the public. According to the Coast Guard’s Jim Rachwal from the forum in Thibodaux, “CTEH does a couple thousand samples compared to the USCG which does a few hundred. Unified command shares a trailer.”
Need for Long-Term Health and Environmental Monitoring
According to the EPA, the effects of dispersant use are unknown. Given this lack of certainty, robust monitoring of Gulf Coast residents’ health and environment should begin now. The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals has begun monitoring, but their effort is small. The health care systems of the Gulf Coast do not have the capacity to diagnose and treat people with chemical exposure. The region needs to be fortified with experts in toxicology. Where monitoring is necessary, local people should be employed to carry it out.
Seafood Safety
Monitoring is also necessary to determine if oil and dispersant is in our seafood. There will be intense pressure from every corner – from our governor, local parish presidents and likely our Congressional delegation – to re open fishing waters and claim that everything is fine. But public health concerns should prevail and a robust, protective and transparent monitoring system should be put in place.
Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA is to be commended for their responsiveness and inclusion of NGO’s like mine. Best practices for disaster response emphasize that resilience happens best when locals are supported, and Administrator Jackson has done that. She has also been very forthright that the EPA does not know much about dispersants and that they are having to do science on the fly. Since EPA is monitoring for dispersants, these comments are in regard to that monitoring. Most of these comments are in regard to air since that is my area of expertise.
These recommendations for improvement are made in a spirit of gratitude for the EPA’s collaborative spirit thus far.
The EPA has repeatedly stated and put in writing that air sampling data for this time of year is consistent with the normal range of air quality. The EPA has no data from years’ past, however, to back up this claim.
The fixed monitoring sites have not been selected based on the best locations for public health but rather for factors of convenience, like an available source of power. The agency continues to use limited data to extrapolate to a broad region. Although the EPA is doing more monitoring now than has ever been done in this part of the country, this is a reflection on the sorry state of air monitoring along the Gulf Coast rather than on any particularly comprehensive sampling measures. Given the relatively limited scope of the sampling, data should not be used for general characterizations. If the EPA does not have the data then they should simply state that fact.
The EPA has a response number on its web site with the purported goal of responding to odor complaints from the public. The public, however, does not know about this program. The EPA needs to publicize this number.
The EPA is now saying that air quality levels in some coastal regions may be harmful for sensitive groups. This is a welcome assessment. For the first two months the agency was engaging in unfortunate knee jerk assurances of safety that had no basis in data.
The EPA data for all media – water, air and sediment – is too hard to understand. Making this data comprehensible to the average citizen is admittedly a tall order, but the staff tasked with this job could do a much better job.
When I approached the EPA table at a community forum in LaRose Louisiana, I was greeted by an EPA employee who immediately told me, before I could even ask a question, that “all we are getting is non detect.” An ordinary person would never understand what this meant. I knew that he was characterizing EPA’s sampling results. I also knew that it wasn’t true.
One of the problems with any kind of responsive monitoring – be it the response team or EPA’s Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyst (TAGA) truck – is that it is unlikely to capture the complaint that was originally filed. Even in the best scenario a response team will like take a couple of hours to arrive. EPA needs to embrace a new model of participatory research and train local Gulf Coast residents to use sampling equipment. Many of the people impacted by the spill are comfortable using equipment, and it makes sense to put them to work as samplers. This model would provide much better results than the current regimen of response teams.
Based on 11 years of experience with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), we have no confidence that the agency is capable of taking any steps to protect people or the environment. This agency should be invested with as little responsibility as possible. We are pleased that EPA seems to be taking the lead in the response and that should continue.
BP Control
Of clean up crews
Many of the residents of the coastal communities are afraid to speak out on these issues for fear of repercussion, including loss of employment from BP. This fear has been voiced repeatedly to me and to my co workers since April 20. There is word that workers are required to sign a gag order, though I have not seen one.
Some workers have been required to sign an agreement not to talk to anyone about the impacts that they have witnessed. When this issue was raised in a town hall meeting with BP, they replied that this is not their fault, that the agreement is the subcontractors’ policy. BP has the power to negotiate whatever it wants in its subcontracts; this clause should be removed.
I spent time with a Vietnamese woman in Plaquemines Parish. She has been hired as a translator by BP. She told me that fishermen line up twice a week in hopes of receiving one of the 100 food vouchers distributed by Catholic Charities. The line begins forming as early as 3 am. I asked if we might talk to people in line one morning and she told me that no one would talk for fear of losing their jobs with BP. So intense is the pressure that people will not even speak under the shroud of anonymity.
Of health protections
Clean-up workers are being told by BP that they will be fired if they wear respirators to protect themselves from chemical exposure. We have heard these stories since May 14, 2010 from fishermen in Barataria, Lafitte, Grand Isle and Venice. Workers have requested respiratory gear because of the exposure happening while they work. Because BP is the employer, these fishermen will not speak out publicly for fear of losing one of the only opportunities they have at earning money.
BP has made statements detailing the health protective gear it has provided.
"We want to ensure workers' health and safety are protected, so we give them Tyvek suits, nitrile gloves, safety glasses, hard hats when working near overhead hazards, rubber boots, plus hearing protection, insect repellant, sunscreen, lip balm, personal floatation devices and steel-toe boots," Curry said.
This statement is at odds with what we are seeing on the ground. What’s more, this does not mean that all workers are consistently being provided with such equipment and does not even mention respirators.
Of great concern is a recent article in The New York Times stating that 2-butoxyethanol has been detected up to 10 parts per million (ppm) in 20% of oil clean-up workers in the Gulf. The NIOSH standard for 2-butoxyethanol is 5 ppm. That same article cites “a June 9 report on worker test results, BP confidently asserted that the health hazards of exposure to both dispersant chemicals and the components of leaking crude ‘are very low.’”
Of information
“To me that’s one of the most frightening things – BP’s control. Their brazen control of the clean up, of the disaster. Putting oil on property doesn’t give them the right to control the property. How much power do these people have?” (Terrebone Parish on June 7, 2010)
For the last two months, BP has restricted access to shoreline and marsh areas where there is oil or other apparent damage. Air traffic above the spill is also restricted. Among those prevented from accessing the sites are the media and scientists working in the public interest. Earlier this month, access became even tougher, with the Coast Guard preventing access within 20 meters.
Private security forces are hired to keep people off of public beaches. While the public does need to be protected, this protection needs to be within reason. The beach closures on Grand Isle, including Elmer’s Island, appear not to be about health protection but preventing residents, the media and others from documenting the oil spill. Security forces deny access even for organizations and institutions with trained professionals working on the spill. Going through official process to get BP approval takes days and usually does not result in access.
A May 29 piece in The Huffington Post discussed that a CBS news story said one of its reporting teams was threatened with arrest by the Coast Guard and turned back from an oiled beach at the mouth of the Mississippi River. The story said the reporters were told the denial was under "BP's rules."
The long-term impact of this short term control of information is that BP is preventing full documentation of the disaster’s impacts.
Of federal agencies
• OSHA - Workers are prevented from wearing protective gear and air quality information is absent. • EPA – BP continued to use Corexit even after the EPA asked them to change to a less toxic alternative • NOAA – BP has consistently underestimated both the amount of oil leaking from the well, the potential impacts of dispersant and the area impacted by the spill.
The following reports about dispersant and health have been submitted to the Tulane / Louisiana Bucket Brigade Oil Spill Crisis Map – www.oilspill.labucketbrigade.org. These reports have been filed by people along the Gulf Coast.
7/10/10 Burning feet after sand gets in flipflop Long Beach, MS My feet burned after sand from toxic beach in Long Beach, MS got in my shoes (this is the second report of burning after potential contact with dispersant).
7/2/10 Health Problems for my Three Year Old Son, Pass Christian, MS, health effects, livelihoods threatened My 3-year-old son was diagnosed with pneumonia on Monday morning. He was admitted to the hospital Monday afternoon and finally discharged Wednesday afternoon. He was a perfectly healthy and happy 3-year-old boy until this incident. I read that children have been susceptible to dispersant-related pneumonia. If this is true, I have a feeling that this was his problem, as he has had no significant health problems up to this point. He was in the hospital for three days, with the fourth day at home. I was, of course, by his side the entire time. Due to my being there with my son, I had to miss nearly a week of work.
6/30/10 Respirators for Workers Port Sulphur, LA The marina outside Port Sulphur yielded several insights into the BP HAZMAT classes. Two local Tankermen were interviewed regarding their experience with the BP classes. They claimed that the issues addressed in the class stressed developing differing ”stations” for cleaning yourself, undressing, sterilization etc. Washing hands and taking rests whilst working were also said to be stressed. Both Tankerman seemed concerned that respiration of toxic chemicals were not addressed during the courses. One of the men interviewed stated that when the course’s director was questioned regarding respiration of chemicals the question “was basically ignored.” “I had to wear respirators to deal with switching piping on the tanks, why are the workers in the spill not all wearing respirators?” –Oil Tankerman, Port Sulphur
6/16/10 Where does the decon water go? Grand Isle, LA Several BP security personnel patrolling the beach near zone 11 stop and remind me that I must not cross the orange barrier. I ask where and how will they dispose of the contaminated water left behind in the decon wash containers (kiddie pools) after clean up crews wash off their boots when they leave the Hot Zone (highest area of contamination). No one seems to have the answer to that question including the workers themselves.
6/14/10 Foot Burned Grand Isle, LA Health Effects, Grande Isle, LA On Grand Isle Breach I was walking and had flip flops on (we were about to change into rubber boots) taking pictures and trying to get a grasp of which way to go first...I stepped in what appeared to be sludge, it was green and smelled toxic. The small irritation I had from the flip flop tong between my toes started burning, I realized the sludge flipped onto my flip flop and my foot felt like it was on fire, like someone took a match and was holding it underneath my foot. It had actually given me what appears to be a second degree burn. the team helped me wash it off and address it asap, just a warning though, stay away from this stuff if you have ANY type of small cut or abrasion, it will and is harmful.
6/12/10 Oil Spill Clean-up worker with open sores on his hands and arms, Grand Isle, LA Supervisor for BP subcontractor reported to first aid tent that he had a worker referral from a physician to the nurses for open sores on his hands and forearms. The sores contained blood and pus. Reported that this worker is "known for safety violations" like not wearing protective gear.
[1] Associated
Press, “Seventh Person Dies from Wash State Refinery Fire,” April 24, 2010, http://www.kgw.com/news/national/92006674.html
[2] Urbina, Ian, “No
Survivors Found after West Virginia Mine Disaster,” New York Times, April 9, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/10westvirginia.html
[3]Times Picayune, Meet the Eleven Men Who
Died on the Deepwater Horizon Rig in the Gulf, May 1 2010,
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/details_on_scene_as_deepwater.html
[4] Casstevens,
Callie, “CTEH? Don’t know them. Actually, we do use their results,” July 11,
2010, Louisiana Bucket Brigade Blog, http://labucketbrigade.wordpress.com/
[5]
Hammer, David, “BP’s Doug Suttles says company threw everything at gushing oil
well,” Times Picayune, June 25, 2010,
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/bps_doug_suttles_says_company.html
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Casstevens, Callie
[8]
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/publications/pubs-378/_OilSpillSurveillance2010_06.pdf
[13] Cohen, Elizabeth, “Fisherman’s Wife Breaks the Silence,” CNN,
June 3, 2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/03/gulf.fishermans.wife/index.html?hpt=C2
[14]
Grand Isle Louisiana Town Hall Meeting, June 2, 2010
[15]
Lawrence, Grant, “Fishermen Hospitalized: BP not Allowing Clean Up Workers to
Use Respirators,” Alternet.org, May 27, 2010,http://blogs.alternet.org/grantlawrence/2010/05/27/fishermen-hospitalized-bp-not-allowing-clean-up-workers-to-use-respirators/
[16]
Hammer, David, “BP clashes with critics on Gulf of Mexico oil crisis response,”
Times Picayune, May 31, 2010,
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/post_6.html
[17] Schor, Elana
“Gulf Spill: New BP data show 20% of responders exposed to chemical that
sickened Valdez workers” The New York
Times, July 08. 2010
[18]
Brown, Matt, “Gulf Oil Spill: Media Access Being Slowly Strangled Off,” Huffington Post, May 29, 2010,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/29/gulf-oil-spill-media-access_n_594592.html
[19]
Tilove, Jonathan, “BP is Sticking with its Dispersant Choice,” Times Picayune, May 21, 2010,
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_is_sticking_with_its_disper.html
[20]
Gillis, Justin, Calculations of Gulf Spill Underestimated, Scientists Say, New York Times, May 13, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14oil.html
[1] WDSU TV New Orleans,
Plaquemines Parish: BP Underestimating Oil's Effect, June 1, 2010, http://www.wdsu.com/news/23757362/detail.html
Connect With Us: