121 



the components in drill muds, we are not aware of all of their 

 chemical composition because to a certain extent that is proprie- 

 tory data held in confidence by the industry. Inasmuch as we have 

 studies done they do not answer questions on either short- or long- 

 range effects with regard to the possible toxicity of the content of 

 these materials. Let me quote for you. In those hearings I asked 

 this question of the scientists. I said: 



In summary, if each of you were asked the general question, given the state of our 

 knowledge at this time, as you understand it, of the effects both short term and long 

 term on the marine environment of drill fluids, can you as scientists tell me the 

 effects are such to cause serious concern — or do our studies indicate that while 

 there may be some effects, they are not of sufficient magnitude to give us pause as 

 we proceed? 



Mr. HiGHT. At this time, we do not have the information that shows really that 

 they are that harmful. 



Mr. Studds. We do not have the information that they are harmful? 



Mr. HiGHT. Yes. 



Mr. Studds. Do we have the information that shows that they are not harmful? 



Mr. HiGHT. We do, I think. 



Mr. Studds. Mr. Burke? 



Mr. Burke. From what we know now, just right now, there are effects of dis- 

 charge of drilling fluids. They are short term. They are localized. I do not know 

 whether it is a cause for concern. I do not know whether the long-term implications 

 of these materials being introduced into the environment are a matter for concern. 



Mr. Studds. That was the Bureau of Land Management. Dr. 

 Richards from the EPA said in response to that question, "We have 

 inadequate information for making a hazard assessment. The inad- 

 equacy lies in the lack of understanding of the exposure of animals, 

 particularly in these specific niches that I mentioned like the 

 benthic communities." 



Dr. Bolton said, "I would be very hesitant with the current state 

 of knowledge to make any endorsement of general discharge of 

 drilling muds, particularly in sensitive areas of the Outer Conti- 

 nental Shelf." 



Three of its scientists, three different agencies, saying we simply 

 do not know. Let me quote to you from Research Highlights, 1979 

 from your own agency study done last year by the EPA on this 

 very subject in the Gulf of Mexico. I am reading from your own 

 publication which I gather is a summary of the research of the 

 agency last year. It says: 



The research findings in this project and from the various scientific literature 

 show that drilling fluid is ten times more toxic than industrial effluents such as 

 untreated wastes from oil refineries or pulp mills. Carcinogens are discharged 

 during drilling operations. Drilling compounds thought to be insoluable and there- 

 fore biologically unavailable are, instead, activitely taken up by marine organisms. 

 Chemicals normally discharged are capable of accumulating in marine organisms. 

 Chemicals discharged persist for years in sea bottom sediments. A wide variety of 

 organisms that normally live on the sea floor cannot grow on sediments contaminat- 

 ed by drilling fluids. Effects of chemicals on coral may be delayed for a year before 

 they can be observed. 



I still quote from EPA's own publication: 



These findings do not answer all the environmental questions about the effects of 

 oil and gas drilling. The effects of different chemical mixtures on different marine 

 species still need to be determined to fulfill the data needs of future discharge 

 permits. 



That is from the Environmental Protection Agency. Once again 

 let me read you the law. "In any event where insufficient informa- 

 tion exists on any proposed discharge to make a reasonable judg- 



