CNN "American Morning" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

CHETRY: Well, BP and the Coast Guard are coming under fire this morning after a congressional committee released a stunning report on the use of chemical dispersants in the Gulf. The Coast Guard apparently approved 74 exemptions, allowing BP to use the chemicals during a seven-week span, and that was after the EPA said that the chemicals had to be used sparingly.

BP admits pouring 1.8 million gallons of dispersant into the ocean. That's the number that's being disputed by our next guest, Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who said that what BP has done amounts to a carpet-bombing of the Gulf.

Thanks for joining us this morning, Congressman.

REP. ED MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Thanks. Thank you for having me on.

CHETRY: You know, and even when we were down there back on day 37, all of us were raising questions about just what exactly -- how much they knew about the effect and impact of these dispersants. Now, we are 1.8 million gallons. That's what they're saying at this point -- it could be far more. And you likened it to carpet bombing.

But the stuff was approved by the EPA, they said it was OK to use. What are your biggest concerns about it?

MARKEY: Well, the EPA actually said that dispersants, these chemicals, should be used when spraying the surface of the ocean only in rare instances. What it turns out happened is that BP, for all intents and purposes, sprayed just about every single day. And on some days, they did so in quantities which were far in excess of anything that reports that they were giving to the Coast Guard indicated that they were using.

CHETRY: Right. I mean, I understand what you're saying, that there are concerns, and there were concerns at the time. A lot of people were asking, do we know the impact of using all the dispersants. It's never been used in this quantity before. We've never -- you know, we have no real testing on the long-term impact.

But it was deemed by the EPA, as well as others, that this was the best thing going. I mean, there were many other, right, lists and lists of possible dispersants. They determined that Corexit worked the best with the least amount of harm, and they knew they were using it in huge quantities because they've never seen oil spilled in these types of quantities.

MARKEY: Well -- you know, the EPA, in fact, was concerned about the impact that this could have upon workers. They were concerned about the impact that these chemicals could have upon marine life in the Gulf of Mexico.

But the EPA ultimately was not the agency that decided whether or not these chemicals were sent into the ocean or onto the ocean's surface. That was a decision made by the Coast Guard. And so, even though there was an agreement in late May that the EPA led, that it would be used only rarely as the weeks and months went by, it turned out that it was used on an almost daily basis, and that's why we have to insure that the internal bleeding on the inside of this ocean floor is monitored very closely to make sure that we understand what the ramifications are of having this unprecedented scientific experiment be conducted.

CHETRY: All right. Retired admiral Thad Allen who oversaw the federal response and is still overseeing the federal response to the oil spill said yesterday, that he was quote, "he was satisfied with the amounts of dispersant used to clean up the disaster. He still maintains that crews used them only when needed and he is standing by the quantity of the dispersants used.

Your thoughts?

MARKEY: Again, they were used on an almost daily basis. They were used even though the EPA said they should be used rarely, not on a daily basis, and my concern is that they were used in greater quantities than even the government indicated that BP should be permitted to use them. So all of this just creates a warning sign that we should be monitoring very carefully this now under water toxic stew that was created by shooting these chemicals into an already toxic material, the oil, which was in the Gulf of Mexico.

CHETRY: And an EPA spokesman, just to get their comment in here as well, they said, "The agency believes it has been an essential tool in mitigating the spill's impact, preventing millions of gallons of oil from doing even more damage to sensitive marshes, wetlands and beaches and the economy of the Gulf Coast. So I'm just wondering could you deal with the crude in its cohesive form making its way to the wetlands, marshes and other areas of the Gulf?

MARKEY: Well, the EPA said the use of the chemicals under water that is shooting at the oil is coming right out of the well was five times more effective than spraying it onto the ocean's surface, which is why in terms of using dispersants on the ocean surface, the EPA said that there should be a much more conservative use of these chemicals.

You have to divide the question between dispersants under the water and dispersants on the surface of the water. The surface use of them sets up worker exposure and it also creates risks that were greater than that which were being created by using them under the water. So it is two different questions. And on the question of surface use, the EPA said that it should be used only rarely. I'm using the words of the EPA.

CHETRY: No, I understand your concerns. And I know that many other people have them as well. You know, now we are seeing some of the waters open up to commercial fishing, as well as, recreational fishing, we have seen some of these beaches open, do you feel confident we know just how safe it is, not only to eat the wildlife seafood out of those waters, but also just to be in them?

MARKEY: Well again, one of the concerns of the EPA was that because these are toxic material that is were sent into the ocean, that there has to be very careful inspection of all of the marine life if it is going to be consumed by human beings. So the FDA and the EPA, NOAA, they have constructed a very strong monitoring system. And as they clear each area, I think we should have some confidence. But at the same time, we should understand that vast areas are still suffering from this internal bleeding of the toxic chemicals and oil that have been put into the ocean by BP.

CHETRY: Well, hopefully we'll get more answers about that and we'll be working with scientists to try to figure out exactly what the long-term impact is because it still is, as you said, pretty much unknown at this point. Congressman Ed Markey from Massachusetts, thank you so much for joining us this morning.

MARKEY: Thank you for having me.

ROBERTS: More trouble for the Democratic party. Congresswoman Maxine Waters has chosen to go through an ethics trial like the one lined up for Charlie Rangel for her accused role or alleged role in helping to steer federal funds to a bank that might have constituted a conflict of interest. The charges and what they might mean for November's elections coming right up, 20 minutes after the hour.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source