U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–445 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 111–1240 

FEDERAL RESPONSE TO THE RECENT OIL SPILL 

IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 18, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 18, 2010 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 71 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 75 

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 80 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 83 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 87 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 90 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 95 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 101 

WITNESSES 

Jackson, Hon. Lisa, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ..... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 13 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 17 

Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin ............................ 18 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse ...................... 19 

Sutley, Hon. Nancy, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality .......................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 30 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 33 

Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior .......................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 52 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 60 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 66 

Neffenger, Peter V., Rear Admiral, Deputy National Incident Commander, 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response, U.S. Coast Guard ............................... 112 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 115 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 123 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 141 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 146 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 156 

Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ................ 158 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 160 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 163 

Fernandez, Hon. John, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, Economic Development Administration ............................................... 168 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 170 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 178 

(1) 

FEDERAL RESPONSE TO THE RECENT OIL 

SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (Chairman of the full Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Baucus, Voinovich, Carper, Lautenberg, Alexander, Vitter, Cardin, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, 

Barrasso, and Udall. 

Senator BOXER. Good afternoon. I believe we have our witness; 

I want to say Senator Salazar, Interior Secretary Salazar should be 

here shortly. 

We are going to have a little bit of a difficult start to the hearing 

because we have a vote scheduled, a couple of votes. I am going to 

tag team with Senator Cardin on this going back and forth. But 

what we want to do is we have all decided that we are going to 

forego any opening statements and each of us have 10 minutes to 

question, because we feel that is the key issue. And we just want 

to get your statements out there, and then we have a lot of questions. 

So why don’t we start with Hon. Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency. We will move to Hon. Nancy Sutley, 

Council on Environmental Quality. 

Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify about 

EPA’s role in responding to the BP Deepwater Horizon rig explosion. 

As we all know, efforts by BP to stop the oil release continue. 

While there is no perfect solution to the environmental disaster 

that the Gulf of Mexico is facing right now, EPA is committed to 

protecting our communities, the natural environment, and human 

health. That commitment covers both the risk from the spill itself 

as well as any concerns resulting from the response to the spill. 

Let me begin by recognizing the extraordinary effort put in by 

our responders. These are people that have maintained their re-
2 

solve in the face of often overwhelming challenges. They have gone 

above and beyond, and we certainly owe them a debt of gratitude. 

In the last 3 weeks EPA has dispatched more than 120 staff scientists, engineers, and contractors to Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 

and Mississippi to perform rigorous testing and monitoring of air 

and water quality. We are tracking any possible adverse impacts 

stemming from controlled burning of surface oil, possible chemicals 

rising from the oil itself, and any issues caused by the use of 

dispersants. 

We are working with State officials, with local university scientists, and other Federal agencies to get the best available data, 

share that data in a timely fashion and to ensure proper response 

for the Gulf Coast people and their environment. At the President’s 

direction, I have personally traveled to the region—the region I 

grew up in and still consider my home—twice over the past weeks 

to personally oversee EPA’s efforts and to meet with the local community to ensure that their questions and concerns are addressed. 

For weeks, EPA responders have been monitoring air pollutants, 

including particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, and total volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, from the oil in the Gulf as well as from 

the controlled burning of oil. These pollutants could pose a health 

risk to local communities, and this monitoring is essential to ensure that communities are protected as BP takes direct response 

actions. 

EPA is also monitoring water quality by conducting surface 

water testing along the Gulf Coast, both in areas that have been 

impacted and those not yet affected. All of this information is being 

made public as quickly as we can compile it. We have been posting 

regular updates to our Web page, www.epa.gov/bpspill, which has 

been a critical resource since the beginning of this event. 

A primary concern is to ensure the safe application of chemical 

dispersants. Oil dispersants are chemicals applied to the spilled oil 

to break down the oil into small droplets below the surface. Ideally 

the dispersed oil mixes into the water column and is rapidly diluted. Bacteria and other microscopic organisms then act to degrade the oil within the droplets. 

However, in the use of dispersants we are faced with environmental tradeoffs. We know that surface use of dispersants decreases the environmental risk to shorelines and organisms at the 

surface, and we know that dispersants break down over weeks, 

rather than remaining for several years as untreated oil might. 

But we are also deeply concerned about the things we don’t 

know. The long-term effects on aquatic life are still unknown, and 

we must make sure that the dispersants that are used are as nontoxic as possible. We are working with manufacturers, with BP, 

and with others to get less toxic dispersants to the response site 

as quickly as possible. 

EPA has previously authorized use of several dispersant chemicals under the National Contingency Plan. In order to be placed on 

this list, each dispersant chemical must undergo a toxicity and effectiveness test. However, I am increasingly concerned that EPA 

can and should do more. 

As we emerge from this response, I commit to reviewing the regulations regarding dispersant registration and listing. I commit to 
3 

sharing the results of that review with this Committee and working to tighten the law if it is necessary in order to ensure protection of human health and the environment. 

On Friday, EPA and the on-scene coordinator authorized the application of dispersant under water at the source of the leak. The 

goal of this novel approach is to break up and degrade the oil before it reaches the water’s surface and comes closer to our shorelines, our estuaries, and our nurseries for fishing. Based on our 

testing this can be done by using less dispersant than is necessary 

on the surface. But let me be clear that EPA reserves the right to 

halt the usage of sub-surface dispersant if we conclude that at any 

time the impact to the environment outweighs the benefits of dispersing the oil. 

As with our other monitoring initiatives, EPA and the Coast 

Guard have instituted a publicly available monitoring plan for subsurface dispersant application to understand impacts to the environment. This data will come to EPA once a day. 

EPA is also preparing to support any necessary shore line assessment and clean up. EPA, in coordination with the States, will continue to provide information to both workers and the public about 

test results as well as assisting communities with potential debris 

disposal and hazardous waste issues. 

Madam Chairman, as a New Orleans native I know first-hand 

the importance of the natural environment to the economy, the 

health, and the culture of the Gulf Coast. As I mentioned, since the 

accident I have been to the region twice. I have listened to people 

in numerous town halls from Venice, Louisiana, to Waveland, Mississippi, and other communities in between. I have learned in those 

meetings that the people of the Gulf Coast are eager to be part of 

this response. They also want to be informed, and where possible, 

empowered to improve their situation on their own. 

We have a great deal of rebuilding to do, both in material terms 

and in terms of restoring this community’s trust that Government 

can and will protect them in a time of need. This is one of those 

times. I urge that we do everything within our power to ensure a 

strong recovery and future for the Gulf Coast. 

EPA will continue to fully support the U.S. Coast Guard and 

play a robust role in monitoring and responding to potential public 

health and environmental concerns. As local communities assess 

the impact on their economies, EPA, in partnership with other Federal, State, and local agencies, will provide all assets to assist in 

the recovery. 

At this time, I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

We will go to Hon. Nancy Sutley. 

The Secretary of the Interior has joined us, and we are so glad. 

I know you have been working non-stop, but we are just really glad 

to have you here. 

We will proceed to Hon. Nancy Sutley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY SUTLEY, CHAIR, COUNCIL ON 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Ms. SUTLEY. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Inhofe, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and ask that my written testimony be included in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Ms. SUTLEY. Thank you. 

Before I move to discuss the National Environmental Policy Act, 

I want to express my condolences to the families of the 11 workers 

who lost their lives in the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater 

Horizon. I also want to stress that the Administration is committed 

to aggressively responding to the environmental crisis in the Gulf 

and to protecting the lives and livelihoods of the people of the region. 

Last week the President sent Congress a legislative proposal that 

would enable the Federal Government to speed assistance if the 

spill gets worse and if the responsible parties are not paying claims 

quickly and fairly. The Administration looks forward to working 

with Congress to implement the proposal. 

The President is also forming an independent bipartisan commission to look at improvements to offshore drilling infrastructure and 

related measures to better protect workers and the environment. 

Today I will focus on NEPA and how it relates to agency actions. 

President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act into 

law in 1970, and in 1978 the Council on Environmental Quality 

issued regulations implementing the procedural provisions of 

NEPA that apply to all Federal agencies. Every agency in the Federal Government has an affirmative obligation to comply with 

NEPA. 

Agencies establish their NEPA implementing procedures, which 

tailor the CEQ requirements to a specific agency’s authorities and 

decisionmaking processes. CEQ provides assistance in this process, 

and an agency’s NEPA procedures are not finalized until CEQ determines that they are in conformity with NEPA and CEQ regulations. 

In February 2010 the Administration moved to update NEPA 

practices. CEQ released draft guidance that will assist Federal 

agencies to meet the goals of NEPA, enhance public involvement, 

increase transparency, and ease implementation. This draft guidance specifically addresses categorical exclusions, or CEs which 

have been used since the 1970s. Agencies can establish CEs when 

experience shows that certain groups of activities are unlikely to 

have significant environmental effects. 

In recent years, the expansion of the number and range of activities categorically excluded combined with the extensive use of categorical exclusions and limited opportunity for public involvement 
23 

in CE applications have underscored the need for additional guidance. In the proposed guidance, CEQ has made it clear that it will 

increase its review of agencies’ use of CEs. 

When it comes to oil and gas development, the Minerals Management Service is required to apply NEPA to drilling decisions on the 

Outer Continental Shelf. Specifically in the case of the Gulf of Mexico leases, the Minerals Management Service prepared several 

NEPA analyses. In April 2007 MMS prepared a broad programmatic environmental impact statement on the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, which includes the 5- 

year lease plan. 

Also in April 2007, MMS prepared an environmental impact 

statement for the Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas sales in the western and central planning areas. In October 2007 MMS completed 

another environmental assessment tiered off of the multi-sale EIS 

for the central Gulf of Mexico’s lease sale 206. This is the sale in 

which the lease was issued for the location that includes the Deepwater Horizon well. 

In addition, MMS approved BP’s development operations based 

on a programmatic environmental assessment that MMS prepared 

in 2002. In the decision to approve the exploration plan that included the Deepwater Horizon well, MMS applied its existing categorical exclusion review process. 

The categorical exclusion that was used by MMS for Deepwater 

Horizon was established more than 20 years ago. Under the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act, MMS has 30 days to complete its environmental review and act on the exploration plan. In the legislation we sent up, the Administration seeks to change that timeline 

to a minimum of 90 days. 

Last week CEQ and the Department of the Interior announced 

a review of MMS’s NEPA procedures. This review is to ensure that 

NEPA is being applied in a rigorous way that meets its intent, and 

we expect it to be completed by mid-June. 

In closing, Federal agencies have an affirmative obligation to 

comply with NEPA, and the Administration is committed to making sure that agencies meet this obligation. The Deepwater Horizon 

event reminds us of the need for a thorough environmental review 

of offshore oil and gas drilling projects, and I am committed to 

working with the Department of Interior to ensure the application 

of NEPA in a manner that meets the goals of the Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sutley follows:] 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Salazar, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe and distinguished Senators and members of 

this Committee, my former colleagues. 

I thought I would first just give you a quick update on what is 

going on with respect to the efforts to stop the flow of oil in the 

Gulf of Mexico from this horrific tragedy. From day one, there has 

been an effort to move forward with flow mitigation, with flow stoppage, and ultimately with sealing the well strategies. Let me just 

take a second and speak about those things because I think they 

are matters of interest to the members of this Committee. 

First with respect to flow mitigation, whether it was the dome 

that was tried last week or the current insertion tube that is in 

there, it has been recognized that those are simply Band-Aids that 

will contain some of the oil but probably will not contain all of the 

oil. In fact, it won’t contain all of the oil. 

The current flow mitigation strategy which is underway is the 

riser insertion tube. You have seen a lot about it on television and 

newspaper reports. As of this morning the collection from the riser 

insertion tube is somewhere between 1,500 barrels per day to 2,000 

barrels per day. It is being ramped up every 2 hours, approximately, and the hope is that additional oil will be captured through 

this flow mitigation strategy. 

Second, and more effectively, will be the efforts to essentially kill 

the well. There have been three different approaches which BP and 

the group of scientists that have been examining the way of killing 

the well have been looking at over the last several weeks. They 

have now come to a conclusion that the best way forward, given the 

diagnostics that have been done, is to move forward with the dynamic kill of the well. The so-called dynamic kill of the well is essentially killing the well through the insertion of mud. That procedure, according to the latest schedule, is for this Sunday. 

So hopefully those efforts will contain the oil. They will stop the 

flow of oil and then move forward to what will be the ultimate demise of this well, and that is through the construction of the relief 

wells. There are two relief wells that are being drilled. Just in case 

something goes wrong with the first one, there is redundancy in all 

these procedures. So the second relief well, then, that has to be 

drilled would be used to seal the well. 

That is the permanent solution. That solution is probably something that will not happen until August. And so hence the importance of both the flow mitigation and the full stoppage efforts that 

are underway. 

Second, let me just make a comment about the comprehensive response that the President ordered from the beginning on this effort. 

It has been a comprehensive command and control effort on the 

part of the U.S. Government. In that effort, EPA Administrator 

Lisa Jackson, Nancy Sutley and many others have been involved, 

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and our National 

Incident Commander Thad Allen and many others. 
39 

It is a directive that the President has given to all of us that we 

shall not rest until we have this matter resolved. And I can guarantee you that none of us are resting. It has been relentless 18- 

hour days, 7 days a week, and we will continue this effort until we 

get the problem resolved. 

An illustration of the muscle that is going into this effort today, 

and in terms of the effectiveness of the response plan that had 

been put into place that is being actuated can be told in a simple 

set of numbers: 20,000 people, an army that essentially is combating the oil spill on the Gulf Coast today; over 750 vessels that 

are out there, ships from some of the most sophisticated ships in 

the world, the skimming ships, the other vessels that have been 

commissioned to move forward with this effort. 

In a word, nothing really is being spared to move forward and 

to resolve this issue, and that is the directive that we have from 

the President. 

The third point I want to make, there have been other hearings 

that have been held here in the Congress. There will be many more 

hearings in the future. The President has been clear. There is responsibility to go around with respect to this major environmental 

disaster that has happened. That collective responsibility should 

lead us to do two things. First, fix the problem that we find ourselves in in the Gulf of Mexico today. And second of all, make sure 

that this never happens again. That should be our collective responsibility. 

Instead of doing the finger pointing that sometimes happens 

when you get into these kinds of incidents, my own view is that 

it is a matter of collective responsibility. It is a responsibility which 

we assume at the Department of Interior and its Minerals Management Services for a job that we believe can in fact be done better. 

We have been working hard on a reform agenda which many of 

you are aware of for renewable energy, to new safety measures, to 

additional inspectors, and a whole host of other things. But that reform agenda is not yet complete. There is a lot more to go, and obviously this incident solidifies the conclusion that the reformation 

that needed to happen at MMS will in fact happen. 

Second, it is not just about the executive branch. It is also about 

the U.S. Congress. I had the honor of being a Member of this distinguished body and friends with the members of this Committee. 

The national framework which we are operating on, which is part 

of the National Energy Program with respect to development of oil 

and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf is one that has been forthcoming over the last 40 years. 

There are parts of the congressional requirements and the congressional effort here which you have to assume responsibility for. 

A couple of quick examples. First, the President’s package which he 

sent to Congress a few days ago would require MMS to have more 

than just the 30 days, which now is required to act on expiration 

plans, is a good step forward. There are many other measures I am 

certain that this body will be considering to make oil and gas production more safe. 

Among some of those that I would urge this Committee, working 

along with Senator Bingaman’s and Senator Murkowski’s Committee on Energy, is to move forward with the enactment of com-
40 

prehensive organic legislation for the Minerals Management Service. It is to me, frankly, a troublesome reality that we find ourselves in in 2010, where you have an agency with the responsibilities of the Minerals Management Service without an organic act 

of this Congress. It exists by virtue of secretarial order that was 

signed now some 30 years ago. An agency that has the responsibility of getting $13 billion on average a year for the American taxpayer-owned property that helps fund the operations of this Government needs to have a higher stature. 

An agency with 1,700 people that has the responsibility for protecting our oceans and for developing energy resources, both conventional and renewable energy resources, needs to have a higher 

stature, and so the organic legislation that I am hopeful this Congress considers is something that we are looking forward to. 

Third, as we speak about collective responsibility it is important 

to note that from day one BP, under the laws of the United States 

and our initiatives within the U.S. Government, is the responsible 

party. That is what the law says. That is what the lease requires. 

They are responsible for stopping the leak. They are responsible for 

containing the oil on the ocean. They are responsible for protecting 

our beaches and our coastal areas and our ecological resources. And 

they are responsible as well for paying whatever damages occur 

from this incident to the environment of the Gulf Coast. And in addition to that, responsible for compensating those who will be 

harmed from this incident. 

They have confirmed that that is their responsibility. They will 

not hide behind the Oil Act pollution liability limitations, but will 

assume that responsibility, and they have confirmed that in a letter to Secretary Napolitano and me which we received just a few 

days ago. 

Beyond BP and the collective responsibility here, there are other 

companies that certainly will be part of the investigations and 

which will be held accountable for whatever action those facts show 

us they should be held accountable for, but they will include Cameron, the manufacturer of the blowout prevention valve; Halliburton, the cementing company; Transocean, the owner of the rig; 

and many others that will be involved. 

Fourth, what I would say, when we think about collective responsibility, I look at each of the members of this Committee with 

whom I have worked, and we have talked about national security 

for the United States of America. We have talked about energy security for the United States of America. I know Senator Voinovich 

has said it is one of his huge legacy issues. 

There is a statement here to be made from this awful tragedy in 

the Gulf Coast, and that is we need to move forward with a new 

energy frontier. Yes, oil and gas will be a part of our future. The 

President has said from day one that a comprehensive energy plan 

is something that we need, but we need to bring other streams of 

energy into the security part of our country. 

And if I may, Madam Chairman, just a couple of other quick 

points. With respect to Interior reform of the Minerals Management Services, we have done a cleaning house of this agency from 

day one. There have been people who have been let go. There have 

been people who have been referred for prosecution. And we will 
41 

continue on that vein as we move forward with these investigations. 

We have eliminated the Royalty-in-Kind Program because we felt 

that that was an area in the agency that was subject to fraud and 

abuse. We have beefed up enforcement, including in the budgets 

that this Congress has approved. And we are separating the functions of MMS between those relating to revenue and those related 

to safety and enforcement, and there will be some additional announcements of that that will be made later on. 

And the final point, just to bring the members of the Committee 

up to speed in a comprehensive way relative to investigations that 

are underway, the President’s commission will be the kind of commission that we saw during Challenger and Three Mile Island. And 

through that kind of commission, you will also see other investigations that will inform the work of that commission. 

I want to make two quick points, if I may, and I know I am running a little beyond my time. 

Senator BOXER. The problem is we have a vote starting momentarily. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Let me then just be very quick. With the Three 

Mile Island Commission, you will recall there were two reactors on 

which shut down for 6 months, and you know what the rest of that 

legacy was. With respect to the Challenger Commission, there was 

a 2 and a half year delay with respect to the Space Shuttle Program. 

We have three investigations that are already underway with 

Coast Guard and MMS trying to get to the root cause of the accident. We have a National Academy of Engineering investigation 

which we have initiated. And we have an investigation which I 

have directed from the Inspector General as well. Those investigations will all lead to the Presidential Commission, which will then 

get us the findings and the lessons learned so that we know the 

truth. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

So each of us is going to have 10 minutes to use as we wish, either a statement, or a statement and questions, or just questions. 

As many of you know, some of us have been seeking releases of 

the video of this spill. And at our hearing last week, we asked BP. 

Essentially, BP said, oh, we have sent this all to the Incident Command over at the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard informed us that 

wasn’t the fact, and the Coast Guard was very much in favor of 

getting all of the hard drives and getting all this material. They 

were just getting streaming video. 

So this morning, we got a breakthrough. BP agreed to release all 

the video of the spill. And I want to show a video clip of one of 

these interim technologies that was discussed here today, the insertion tube. And before you put it on, I think the thing to look for 

here is that this insertion tube may be capturing some oil, but it 

is not capturing most. And you will be shocked. As a matter of fact, 

I was nervous about showing it because I said, are you sure? And 

my chief of staff said, yes, we have this from BP showing the RITT, 

which is the riser insertion tubing and the dispersement tools in 

operation. So if you can show that. 

[Video] 

Senator BOXER. See it? Look. There is the oil after the insertion 

tube. And at the bottom it looks like a little flame. That is the dispersant at work down there. 

So I just felt it was important for us to note that this interim 

step, if you look at the other picture of before they put it in, you 

can’t really tell the difference that much. So it is an interim step. 

It is not doing what a lot of us were hoping that it would do. 

And we are getting all these records tomorrow, Mr. Secretary, 

and we will get them to everybody because it is so important to us 

on this Committee on both sides. We want to make sure that scientists who are quite objective and have nothing else on their agenda can take a look at this and let us know what are the true volumes. And as we move forward to other fixes we want to see 

whether they are really doing the job. 

Secretary Salazar, yesterday I sent a letter to the Attorney General with several other Senators from this Committee asking that 

he investigate whether BP has violated any criminal or civil laws 

in its actions related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. And I want 

to show all three of you some of the statements that they made. 

This is what was on their initial permit request: ‘‘In the event 

of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely 

to have an impact based on the industry-wide standards for using 

proven equipment and technology for such responses.’’ And they 

also said, ‘‘Due to the distance to shore, 48 miles, and the response 

capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected.’’ 

And then after the spill occurred, this is what they said, after 

they assured us that they had all the equipment necessary: ‘‘All the 

techniques being attempted or evaluated to contain the flow of oil 

on the sea bed involve significant uncertainties because they have 

not been tested in these conditions before.’’ This is stunning. This 

is the before and after statements that it is as if they were written 

in different worlds and different realities. 
70 

And so I wanted to ask you. You have announced that you are 

going to have an investigation, which I hope I speak for everybody, 

I think it is totally appropriate. I am very supportive of it. But I 

feel that the Justice Department ought to take a look to see whether false statements were made. 

Do you support the Justice Department taking a look at this? I 

would start with Lisa Jackson. 

Ms. JACKSON. I would certainly defer to the Attorney General, 

who is a lawyer, and I am certainly not one, as to whether they 

meet the standards for criminality in the case. Certainly, investigations are warranted. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Let me respond to that, if I may, Chairman Boxer. 

The fact of the matter is that the investigations that are underway, 

including the Presidential Commission, when the facts are known, 

the truth shall be known as well, and whatever actions have to be 

taken will be taken. Whatever the level of culpability is with respect to civil liability, or wherever the facts take us, that is the action that the Federal Government will take. We will hold those accountable under the law. 

At this point in time, Chairman Boxer and members of the Committee, there are many facts which are still unknown. And it will 

be time before we are able to get to the bottom of all of this, but 

I can assure you that from the President’s point of view and my 

point of view having been involved in helping direct this effort, one, 

transparency is important, which relates to your video and getting 

whatever information available to you. 

And second of all, accountability. So accountability will be there 

in whatever shape it will take. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Ms. Sutley. 

Ms. SUTLEY. I would just agree with the comments of my colleagues that it is important that we go where the facts take us and 

look into both the causes and the implications of the actions that 

were taken and take appropriate action. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I just want to reiterate, I am going to push 

hard on a DOJ investigation because I know what was said. What 

was said is we can handle this. And what was said after it was essentially we can’t handle this. And if you believe that people are 

supposed to tell the truth on a permit in a situation like this where 

so much is at stake, so I am going to push separately for a DOJ 

investigation. 

And I think, Administrator Jackson, you are right. We will see. 

Because the other investigation is a little bit different than this. 

This is about what people are saying on their permit applications 

and what they really have in their backpack, so to speak, to deal 

with this once it happens. 

And so I am very glad that the President is doing this commission. I don’t want to understate how pleased I am at that. I am also 

very pleased that, Mr. Secretary, you have cleaned house over 

there. I assume there is more to be done, but I am also very 

pleased that you talked about a separate agency to look at safety 

as opposed to an agency that is pushing the drilling. 

I am a little concerned—and I know I was talking to Senator 

Voinovich about this. He was using some examples. I don’t want 
71 

to take his point of view and try to express it. He will do that on 

his own. 

But are you concerned that if we just have an agency within 

MMS, rather than outside MMS, that you are going to really crack 

this culture of the good old boys, and girls, I assume, I don’t know 

if there are any girls over there, just taking each other out to dinner and this cozy relationship, if you have it within the MMS? 

Mr. SALAZAR. I am confident that we will be able to address the 

problem, Chairwoman. The first thing that we did when we came 

in was to deal with a new code of ethics that we have installed in 

MMS. We have done away with programs like the Royalty-in-Kind 

Program and other measures. 

We have just begun our efforts. There is a lot more to be done, 

and we will get it done to make sure that the Government operates 

in a manner that we can all be proud of and that is doing its job. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am going to ask one more time. Will you 

consider a separate entity outside of MMS, as opposed to a safety 

agency located within MMS? It gives me a little bit of concern. You 

have the safety people around the corner from the other folks, and 

again, I don’t know whether we are playing into this all too cozy 

relationship. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam Chairwoman Boxer, we have done a lot to 

reorganize this agency. We will be announcing some more reorganization efforts in the days ahead with respect to MMS. Many of 

the issues that you raise will be taken into account in that reorganization. But in addition to that, as I said earlier, the responsibility 

is a broadly shared one, and I think it is important for this Congress to also put together organic legislation for this agency that 

conducts such an important set of functions for the United States. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, well, I look forward to sharing that. From 

my perspective, I think it is important. This is an ongoing nightmare, and if ever we are going to reform, it is now because it is 

fresh in people’s minds. And I would feel so much more confident, 

as I do with other issues in the Federal Government when we have 

a true independent check and balance. And so I look forward to 

working with you on that. 

With that, I will call on Senator Inhofe, and I think you will have 

time to go through your statement. 

Senator INHOFE. And then we will vote. The vote has started, 

and then we will come back. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, for the benefit of the panel, a vote has started. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Let me first of all say what I said on the floor 

yesterday. I was very complimentary of President Obama, as well 

as you, Administrator Jackson, in the way you have handled this. 

I was very proud of the President when he said, ‘‘The most important order of business is to stop the leak and we need to stop it 

as soon as possible.’’ He went on to say, ‘‘We must contain this spill 

and protect the Gulf Coast and the people who live there.’’ And he 

went on to say, ‘‘mitigate the damage caused by the spill.’’ 
72 

We all agree with that. And what I was going to say in an opening statement, but I will paraphrase it now, I think we should be 

very careful not to allow people to take this to advance a personal 

agenda. I happened to be around 20 years ago when the Exxon 

Valdez happened. In fact, I was in the House and serving on the 

Transportation Committee. And several people at that time made 

the public statement, actually these are some of the extremist environmentalists who said we are going to parlay this into stopping 

all drilling on the North Slope. 

My response was this is mostly a transportation accident, and if 

you stop it, that would make us more dependent upon foreign oil. 

Therefore, transportation would increase and the likelihood would 

increase of something else like this. 

And I am seeing some of the same things happening today, and 

I just hope that we could all guard against this and keep in mind 

that we have something to do. That is clean this mess up and do 

all we can to make sure it doesn’t happen again. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

It might come as a surprise to some people in this room, but I want to commend 

President Obama for his speech on the oil spill last Friday. He didn’t waste time 

pointing fingers, assigning blame, or issuing irresponsible statements against domestic energy production. He said what I’ve said from the very start. Let me quote 

him. The ‘‘most important order of business,’’ he said, ‘‘is to stop the leak . . . and 

we need to stop it as soon as possible.’’ 

The President went on to say that we must ‘‘contain the spill and protect the Gulf 

Coast and the people who live there.’’ Again, that’s exactly what we should be doing. 

He also mentioned the need to ‘‘mitigate the damage caused by the spill’’ and to put 

in place ‘‘every necessary safeguard and protection so that a tragedy like this oil 

spill does not happen again.’’ 

This is very similar to what I said at our last hearing on the spill. I said that 

we need to: • Mitigate and contain the environmental impacts; • Provide assistance to the Gulf’s commercial and recreational fishing industries; 

and • Investigate the causes so we can prevent a disaster of this kind from happening 

again. 

Administrator Jackson, I have great respect for you—and I was pleased with what 

you said recently about the spill. You said we need a thoughtful response to ensure 

this doesn’t happen again. You said the focus must be on stopping the oil spill and 

helping the people affected. I couldn’t agree more. 

I also appreciate your hard work, along with the Coast Guard and NOAA, in approving the testing on the subsea use of dispersants. The early results are encouraging. I also support your diligence in monitoring to ensure that the use of 

dispersants is effective and environmentally sound. 

Based on what I’ve seen thus far, we have agreement on what needs to get done, 

and I hope we can agree on the path forward. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that this 

spill has occasioned some fatally misguided legislation, which will make us more dependent on foreign oil. 

This Committee exercises primary jurisdiction over the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) 

of 1990. Senator Menendez’s bill, S. 3305, would amend the OPA. He may not know 

it, but his bill is a big help for big oil companies, such as BP, and for foreign and 

state-owned oil companies. 

S. 3305 would make offshore production for small- and medium-sized independent 

producers economically infeasible—they would be forced out of the Gulf. We can’t 

forget that the independents produce 63 percent of the Gulf’s natural gas and 36 

percent of its oil. If S. 3305 became law, their business would be swallowed up by 

the likes of BP and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. How would that 

help address the spill? How would that lessen our dependence on foreign oil? 

We experienced something like this in 1989 with the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Remember that that incident was different from what are dealing with now. Exxon 
73 

Valdez was the name of the tanker that crashed in Prince William Sound. It was 

a transportation accident. 

I was on the House Transportation Committee at the time. Much to my dismay, 

environmental groups politicized the accident; they exploited it to achieve their goal 

of shutting down domestic oil production. Of course, the irony is that we are more 

dependent on foreign oil. Companies moved their operations overseas. What’s more, 

we now have more tankers coming to port, which increases our risk of oil spills. 

Yesterday, President Obama announced plans to establish an independent commission to comprehensively investigate the causes of this spill. Madam Chairman, 

let’s address the urgent needs of the moment. And then, after that, when we have 

all the facts, we can draft the appropriate response, one that will protect the environment and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We can do both, and I hope we 

will do both. 

Senator INHOFE. Administrator Jackson, first of all, thank you 

for your availability. I did bother you a few times, and each time 

I called you down there, you were in a different State on the coast 

meeting with different people. So I know you are on the job. 

I was going to ask you something about dispersants, but I think 

you covered it pretty well in your opening statement, except for one 

thing, and that is in terms of the toxicity of the dispersants as compared to the toxicity of the oil itself. Do you have any comments 

you could make about that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, Senator. In general the toxicity of the 

dispersants is far less than the toxicity of the crude oil itself. And 

in general they are shorter-lived in the environment than oil alone. 

Senator INHOFE. So it would actually be less, but also more temporary. This is not what some of the things that have come out 

through the media, and I appreciate that. 

Ms. JACKSON. I think the only unknown here is that there are 

very large unprecedented volumes of dispersants being used both 

at the surface, and of course now this sub-sea injection is a totally 

new technology. 

Senator INHOFE. Right, right. The other thing I was going to ask 

you about, more to my benefit than anyone else’s, we have been 

hearing a lot of talk about a large orange plume under the ocean 

surface approaching the loop current. The EPA and NOAA have 

confirmed whether this plume is related to the oil spill. What more 

can you tell us about the big orange plume that we have been hearing about? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I would certainly defer to NOAA, whose 

job is to predict where this dispersed oil will move. The concern I 

had was on Sunday when we had an article in the New York Times 

that said that there was a dispersed plume of oil, and there was 

at least the implication that dispersants were to blame for it, and 

in fact sub-sea dispersants. 

And on Sunday afternoon at 4 o’clock Jane Lubchenco and I got 

on the phone with the scientists on the Pelican research ship, and 

they don’t yet have the data to show whether all or most of what 

they are seeing as anomalies are indeed oil. Certainly, some of 

them are likely to be, but they are waiting for that data. 

There was a lot of talk about dissolved oxygen, and in fact their 

dissolved oxygen numbers are not uncharacteristic of what you 

would expect to find. They said to me when I asked them that they 

hadn’t seen any dissolved oxygen levels that were of concern. 

And they also said quite clearly when I asked them that they 

had no data to show that this was due to dispersant use. It could 
74 

be natural dispersion of oil. Oil is going to disperse in the atmosphere. So there is so much we don’t know at this point. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

And Secretary Salazar, in what was going to be my opening 

statement, yesterday we talked about the Menendez bill on the 

floor of the Senate. I actually took the position of President Obama 

in that for us to right now raise these limits as they are trying to 

do in Senate bill 3305, I felt at that time that that is premature, 

as the President stated also. That if we do that, there are other unintended consequences, and we don’t know. Later on we may have 

a better idea as to what level of liability should be set in terms of 

the change. 

Now, one of the things that is of interest to me colloquially, and 

I will read a paragraph out of this letter. This letter is from the 

Executive Vice President of the Alliant Insurance Group. We have 

a similar one from Lloyds of London. They said, ‘‘If the liability cap 

is increased to levels we understand are under consideration, in 

our view only major oil companies and NOCs,’’ that is the national 

oil companies, ‘‘will be financially strong enough to continue current exploration and development efforts.’’ 

Our analysis of this is it would be the five majors, plus perhaps 

NOCs of Venezuela, China. I guess the question I would ask of you, 

do you think that is good? Do you think that is healthy? And have 

you given it thought to limits of liability at this time? Or do you 

think it is premature? 

Mr. SALAZAR. The President has sent a request to the Congress 

to lift the amounts on the liability limitation. What that exact 

amount should be should take into consideration the kinds of facts 

that you are alluding to here, Senator Inhofe. 

And so that is why the Administration will engage with the Congress and will figure out where the appropriate limit should be set. 

That is why there was not a specific number that was sent forth. 

Second, if I may, there has been a lot of questions about the BP 

responsibility here and the liability limitation. In our view, and BP 

has confirmed this in writing, that liability limitation does not 

apply to this incident because BP has affirmatively stated and has 

memorialized in writing that they will pay for all damages resulting from this incident. 

Senator INHOFE. Last night, I saw the rerun, in fact I saw it 

three times, of Mike Williams on 60 Minutes. I am sure all of you 

saw that. He had some pretty shocking things to say and conclusions in terms of who was at fault, why it was, and all that. 

I would like to ask all three of you if you have any thoughts 

about the testimony of Mike Williams as it was portrayed on 60 

Minutes, starting with you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I did not watch it because I have been working on 

the Gulf incident non-stop, so I did not watch it. 

Senator INHOFE. This is the Gulf incident we are talking about. 

Mr. SALAZAR. But I did not watch the 60 Minutes program. But 

I will say this, the reality of it is, Senator Inhofe, that there are 

many facts that will see the light of day as these investigations 

move forward. Anyone who has the responsibility for not having 

done what they said they were going to do, whether that is the private companies that were involved, including BP and others, or 
75 

whether it was people in the public sector, they will be held accountable. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

For the other two, just for the record, if you would give your response, I would appreciate it very much. 

I am going to go vote. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN [presiding]. As has been pointed out, there is a 

vote currently on the Senate floor. There is another vote following, 

so I voted early in order to keep the hearing going. 

So with that in mind, I don’t take it personally that I don’t have 

too many of my colleagues to hear my questioning. 

Mr. SALAZAR. It is the first time I have seen you in your position 

as Chairman, Chairman Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. I appreciate that, former Senator 

Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. But you are alone. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me thank all three of you, though, for your 

service, and thank you for being here. I know that these are extremely difficult days, and the inadequacy of the regulatory process 

for approving drilling sites pre-dates the Obama administration. So 

I fully understand that, but you have the responsibility to set into 

motion the type of changes that will correct this failed system. 

And I say that because we had a hearing, and we went over it 

with the BP oil executive and the others that were related to what 

happened at Deepwater Horizon. And the Department of Interior 

needs adequate information in order to judge the applications that 

are being filed. 

And when you look at BP’s exploration plan that was filed for the 

Deepwater Horizon, it said that—and this was the basis, as I understand it, for the Department granting an environmental exception—BP said the ‘‘unlikely event of an oil spill as having little risk 

of contact or impact to the coastline or associated environmental 

resources.’’ 

Little chance, virtually no impact on the coastline, and they 

noted proven response technologies, citing the blowout preventer, 

which they claim was basically fail safe for this particular episode, 

when in reality the Minerals Management Services shows that the 

blowout preventers had failed or otherwise played a role in at least 

14 accidents. 

So I guess my first point is, the application that was filed that 

was the basis for the environmental exception was hard to understand how the regulators would have accepted that because it is so 

far from reality. 

Second, when you take a look as to what is going on now, it has 

me concerned that the Department of Interior might be granting 

further environmental waivers based upon the same process that 

gave us the failed results in the Deepwater Horizon. 

So I hope that the review process is different today. The Department of Interior needs adequate staff to do an independent review. 

And Mr. Secretary, we welcome your thoughts as to whether you 

have adequate resources, and we certainly want you to rely upon 
76 

other Federal agencies that are more expert on the environmental 

impact in making your recommendations as to whether permits are 

granted in the future. There have been reports that drilling permits without NOAA were granted without the NOAA impact or ecological impact. 

So I think this Committee is going to be interested in finding out 

what changes are being placed in practice now to make sure we 

don’t have another disaster and that the regulatory process has 

learned from this experience and has put in place a process that 

will protect us in the future. 

No. 2, the Government has a responsibility to make sure that we 

have an independent assessment of the damages caused by the 

leak. I say that because BP originally said there was 1,000 gallons. 

Then they changed it to 5,000 gallons. Now you are saying we are 

capturing 1,500 to 2,000 gallons. So is that 40 percent, or do we 

know how much of the leak is actually coming out? I know that 

there has been a great deal of press accounts as to the methodology 

used by BP Oil in assessing the amount of leak. There have been 

those who have said that the process that was used is not really 

the right process to use for a leak of this magnitude. 

And they said that if this estimate was given, it should be a 

range, not a single point estimate, and they just came up with 

5,000. And as you know, we need to know an accurate account if 

we are going to be able to assess the impact to the environment 

and what we should do to mitigate the impact if we don’t have an 

accurate assessment. 

And quite frankly, BP lacks credibility on this. I know that 

Woods Hole experts have been willing to go to the site and do a 

more scientific estimate that would not detract at all from BP Oil’s 

efforts to stop the leak, which is certainly their first priority, and 

we don’t want them to be distracted. But we have independent scientists who are prepared to give us that information. It seems to 

me that we as a Government have the responsibility to know. 

I also appreciate Secretary Jackson’s point as to the dispersant 

agents. I agree with you. That is the lesser evil right now, at least 

that is what we believe it is, but it is still causing damage, including the release of so much dispersants, and No. 2, the oil still stays 

there. It just doesn’t come to the surface and it does cause dead 

zones in the ocean. So we still have problems. And we have a responsibility to fully understand that as part of the process. 

So I want to get to one specific question to Secretary Salazar, 

and it deals with the current expansion of sites. When the President announced that he was going to protect the north Atlantic, the 

Pacific, and parts of Alaska because of their environmental sensitivity, as you know, I took exception to that. And I took exception 

to that mainly because of the area that I represent, the mid-Atlantic. 

I quite frankly didn’t understand this. The 2006 MMS assessment as to the amount of oil and gas in the mid-Atlantic was between 26 days and 52 days for our Nation’s use in oil; 1 to 4 

months in natural gas. In the Lease Sale 220, the Virginia site, 

which is under active consideration, it is 1 week of oil for our Nation and that is located 60 miles from Assateague Island, and 50 

miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. 
77 

So I guess my first question to you, Mr. Secretary, is I hope that 

you are reconsidering because I listen to you. And I was very much 

motivated by your, and I think this is an exact quote, saying that 

there are ‘‘protecting places that are too special to drill.’’ And you 

said the Pacific. You said the north Atlantic. 

Well, I am going to invite you to the Chesapeake Bay, because 

I can tell you the way that currents run off the mid-Atlantic, the 

way the wind blows, any oil spill will affect the Chesapeake Bay, 

which from President Reagan to President Obama has been declared to be a national treasure. The Ramsar Convention has said 

it is a body of water of international significance. 

So I would hope that you are reconsidering the classification of 

the areas that you have opened for new exploration, where there 

is not currently drilling, and I certainly urge you to do that. 

Mr. SALAZAR. If I may, Chairman Cardin, respond to a few of 

your questions. 

First, with respect to the NEPA analysis in your opening statement, I think Director Sutley went through the very extensive 

NEPA analysis that has been performed with respect to the Gulf 

and with respect to this particular lease sale. It has been expansive. 

Second, you asked the question about limitations. There are limitations, including the 30-day requirement which says by law, by 

this Congress, signed off as a national framework of these United 

States, that MMS must approve an exploration plan within 30 days 

from the day it is submitted. And so that is one of those opportunities of responsibility that we hope that the Congress helps us with 

in terms of changing the law with respect to that 30-day requirement. 

Three, additional resources to enhance inspections at Minerals 

Management Service. We welcome those. We have requested those 

in our budgets for 2010, 2011. The President’s submission to the 

Congress in the last week has also requested additional resources 

for those inspection measures to take place. 

Fourth, relative to safety issues on the well prevention mechanisms and moving forward with that, there will be a set of comprehensive recommendations will be delivered to the President at 

his direction by the end of this month. I think you will find those 

very informative. 

Fifth, with respect to the amount of oil, it is very difficult in this 

environment to actually grasp how much oil is being leaked. It has 

been a very difficult process, but we are not relying on what BP 

is telling us. We have our own independent responsibility to go and 

do that. And so even as we speak today, NOAA, along with the 

United States Geological Survey, along with Admiral Allen who is 

working on this issue, are coming up with an oil budget to basically 

be able to determine how much oil has been spilled, how much has 

been cleaned up, and that information will be important to this 

Committee. It will be important to the executive branch as we deal 

with issues such as natural resources damages. 

Senator CARDIN. When will that information be made available, 

do you know? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, they are working on it very hard. I can just 

tell you right now that there are planes flying over the oil slick 
78 

doing the kind of analysis that will allow the quantification of the 

oil not only on the surface, but also that that may be below the surface. So these efforts are extensive, and they will be correct, and 

the conclusions will be correct. 

The final point you raised has to do with the Atlantic and Virginia Lease Sale 220. Let me just say, we went through a very extensive process. You might remember when I came on board as 

Secretary of Interior that there had been a proposal to open up all 

of the Atlantic, most of the Pacific, all of Alaska, everything else 

within the Gulf Coast. 

What we did is I called a time out under very significant criticism from the oil and gas industry and others about what we were 

doing. That was because we wanted to make sure that when we 

finished the process that we would have gone through a thoughtful 

analysis that came up with the best way forward. 

Specifically with respect to the Atlantic, the information on what 

is out in the Atlantic is very old, more than 30 years old. So this 

Congress may have been waging a war about Atlantic resources 

without knowing at all what it is that we are waging a war about. 

And so the seismic efforts that are underway in the Atlantic are 

something that we are looking at with respect to moving forward 

into the future. The Virginia resale plan itself, though, Senator 

Cardin, it is still more process underway with respect to that Virginia lease sale, including dealing with issues that we know from 

the Department of Defense. 

So there will be more that will be coming from that, but I will 

assure you of this, that the President has made it very clear, and 

I have made it very clear as well, that we will not move forward 

unless we can be absolutely safe with respect to the future of OCS 

oil and gas production. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I appreciate that statement, and I am 

going to come back to it in a moment. But you still haven’t quite 

answered to me, and I am against drilling off the Pacific. And I am 

against the North Atlantic drilling. So let me make it clear, I have 

enjoyed both of those coastlines and know how precious they are. 

Don’t get me wrong. 

But I am still puzzled as to why you believe they are environmentally so sensitive that no drilling can take place, whereas the 

Chesapeake Bay, which is truly a unique treasure not only of our 

Nation, but an international treasure that happens to be located in 

the mid-Atlantic, how you could recommend using the too sensitive 

to drill standard, how you could recommend that we even look at 

the mid-Atlantic? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Let me answer the question. First, let me say that 

on the Chesapeake Bay, we all agree with you that it is a crown 

jewel of our Nation and Administrator Jackson, Nancy Sutley and 

myself, Secretary Vilsack, have been moving forward with hopefully what will be a new beginning for the Chesapeake Bay, but 

they can speak more about that. 

Senator CARDIN. I am very much in support of that. 

Mr. SALAZAR. But let me answer your question specifically to the 

Virginia lease sale. One of the legal factors that I must consider 

as Secretary of Interior is what the positions of the States are visa`-vis drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. You know well, Sen-
79 

ator Cardin, as I do, that the Governor of Virginia and the law of 

the State of Virginia contemplate that there will be oil and gas 

drilling 50 miles off the shore of Virginia. The two Senators of that 

State who sit with you in this body have that same position. That 

is a factor for us to consider as we move forward, and that is why 

that lease sale was included in that announcement. 

Senator CARDIN. I would just point out, though, as Senator Kerry 

and Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham have looked at this 

issue, they understand the impact on surrounding States. A spill 

in lease sale site 220, if we had a spill there, is very likely it would 

affect the Maryland coastline. So it is not fair to say this is a Virginia decision. It affects Maryland. And I think that we are going 

to revisit this, and I can assure you that this issue is going to continue to be raised. And I am all for an energy policy that makes 

sense, but I am not for going in an area that has such little potential with such high risk. And I just for the life of me cannot understand. 

You didn’t say that California didn’t want drilling, and that is 

why you didn’t use California. You said there are some areas that 

are too sensitive to drill. That is your language, not my language. 

And I find it somewhat offensive to the Chesapeake Bay and the 

State I represent for us to be considered less worthy for protection 

than the West Coast of the United States or the north Atlantic. 

Now, let me just see if I understand your position on the moratorium on new site areas. Are you committed to suspending any new 

offshore oil or gas development until structural, procedural and 

quality problems with the environmental review and permitting 

process for offshore oil and gas activities have been fixed and agency employees have been properly trained on the new procedures? 

Mr. SALAZAR. First, Senator Cardin, the President has been very 

clear. He has directed us to develop a report to him on safety measures. Those will be done by the end of the month. And that will 

inform our decisions about how we will move forward. 

Second of all, with respect to the moratorium, it is widely misunderstood, but it was the Congress and the prior Administration 

that lifted the moratorium in the face of foreign $5 gas prices just 

a few years ago. And so the only place that is currently under moratorium legally in the United States is the area in the eastern Gulf 

off of Florida. 

Senator CARDIN. I understand the legal, but it was my understanding that the President has ordered that there will be no new 

exploration sites until the review has been done as a result of this 

current spill. Am I wrong in that? 

Mr. SALAZAR. The President’s order, they just put it in the most 

simple of terms, is we have hit the pause button as is the correct 

and appropriate thing to do. Until we get those reports up to the 

President at the end of the month, we will not be making further 

decisions. 

Senator CARDIN. All right. So my question is, how do you start 

or move off the pause button? The release of a report could bring 

out structural problems in the review process. Are you telling us 

now that all it takes is this report to be issued, and then all of a 

sudden we are going to be getting new sites that are going to be 
80 

permitted for drilling, even though we don’t have an adequate system in place? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Cardin, I would just have to tell you that 

the report that will be delivered to the President will be one that 

I am proud of, one that I will stand behind. The President and I 

will take into consideration the information that is set forth in that 

report. So my suggestion to you is stay tuned. 

Senator CARDIN. Or get some congressional action here to give 

you clearer direction. 

I understand your position, but that doesn’t give us comfort here. 

Making it as clear as I possibly can be, I am against drilling off 

the mid-Atlantic, and I am going to do everything I can to prevent 

drilling off the mid-Atlantic. So that is not going to come as a surprise to you. 

But from the point of view of where new drill sites should be located, I would hope at least there is a process in place before you 

move forward, so the public and the drilling companies and all of 

us understand what protections are in place before you issue new 

permits. 

I would hope it is more than just receiving a report, but instituting the changes that are necessary to prevent this type of catastrophe from happening again. And I very much appreciate the fact 

that you are there, and I know that you will do the right thing, and 

I hope part of that is taking the mid-Atlantic off the table. 

With that, let me turn the gavel back to our Chairman so I can 

go vote. I know you are disappointed about that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER [presiding]. They are waiting for you, Senator. 

Mr. SALAZAR. He is a great Chairman, Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, I know, and I am fortunate I have wonderful, wonderful reinforcements here if I have to leave. 

Senator Voinovich, the floor is yours for 10 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

First of all, I appreciate the witnesses’ being here, and I can tell, 

Mr. Salazar, that you are under a lot of pressure. You look tired, 

and thank you for being here. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I don’t feel tired. I feel confident, and I feel resolute in what we are doing. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Great. As Secretary of the Interior, you are 

in charge of the MMS, which oversees the activities in the Gulf of 

Mexico. I watched 60 Minutes on Sunday, and there were three 

people that talked: Mike Williams; Transocean’s Chief Electronics 

Technician on Deepwater Horizon, Professor Bob Bea of U.C. 

Berkeley; and Ken Abbott, a former engineer at BP. 

In the interview Mr. Williams, who worked for Transocean, describes three possible technological failures that occurred leading 

up to the disaster: damage to the rubber gasket, called an annular, 

at the mouth of the blowout preventer; a device on the ocean floor 

that is supposed to prevent an uncontrolled surge of pressure 

reaching the oil rig; a hydraulic leak; and an unreliable control pod 

that may have prevented the emergency disconnect from kicking in 
81 

that should have severed the pipe leading from the out valve to the 

oil rig. 

He also described a chain of command problem where he claims 

that they were pressured by BP to move forward with it. 

Professor Bea of Berkeley, I think you made reference to this, he 

did Katrina. He did the space shuttle Columbia disaster. He argued 

that damage to the annular was of significant concern and that it 

prevented rig operators from correctly gauging the amount of pressure that had built up inside the well. He stated that standard operating procedure is when control pods fail it should be immediately replaced. 

And then Mr. Abbott, he worked for BP, managed the engineering drawings for BP. He claims that 89 percent of engineering 

drawings had not been inspected or approved by BP engineers and 

that 95 percent of the welding plans have never been approved. 

This is supposedly backed up by BP internal mail. 

The question I have is, what kind of regulation does MMS have? 

I worked for 10 years on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 

we have it now. We have the Davis-Besse problem, and we have 

unbelievable changes. But they take 3 years to go through to look 

at all of the stuff that is necessary in terms of building a new nuclear reactor, a new facility. And the question is, what kind of inspection do you have? How many people from your shop were on 

the rig? How many of your people oversee the plans to make sure 

that they are complied with? 

I cannot believe that with this kind of a rig—you know, we had 

Three Mile Island. It cost $1 billion to fix it. We didn’t lose 11 people. We lost 11 people on this rig. And only God knows what the 

ecological damage is going to be here. Quite frankly, it could be a 

lot more than any Three Mile Island problem. 

I think that this is significant. There are people out there, environmental groups now that say we have to stop doing this. Well, 

the fact of the matter is we have to continue to do this, but the 

issue is how do you do the job? And from my point of view, the 

agency did not do the job. 

How many people do you have working for the agency? What are 

their competencies? How many did you have a year ago or 2 years 

ago? Then there is another one that they talked about, the 

Atlantis, that one of the witnesses or one of the people said that 

that is a disaster ready to occur. 

So I am just wondering what the devil does MMS do? And ought 

now we look at maybe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to look 

at the kind of approval that needs to be made in terms of the gizmos that they use, they have to prove that; the design of the facility; the safety things that are in place and so on. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Voinovich, we will make sure that the 

United States of America, including this Congress and the agencies 

in the executive branch learn every lesson to be learned from this 

incident. That I can promise you. 

I did not watch the 60 Minutes episode that you refer to, but the 

fact of the matter is that I do know that there are 1,000 different 

stories out there about what happened and what the facts were. 

We will learn the truth. The Presidential Commission, along with 
82 

the other investigations that are underway, will be able to pinpoint 

it. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Our problem always around here is something happens, and we spend all our time going back over it rather 

than saying here we are today, and what do we need to go forward. 

We have Davis-Besse. It was a problem. They changed the whole 

operation in terms of inspection, in terms of the people that were 

on at the facilities. The NRC changed the way they did things. 

Businesses changed things. 

What I want to know is what kind of an organization are we 

going to put together so that this kind of thing doesn’t happen and 

we can assure the public that if we do another one of these, which 

I think we need to do, the same thing is not going to happen again. 

Mr. SALAZAR. The answer to that, Senator Voinovich, is that it 

will happen, and it is going to happen through two ways. First, we 

are taking action within the executive branch to make sure that 

this problem never occurs again. Second, this Congress needs to 

take some action to support some of the efforts that we will be undertaking to make sure that this incident doesn’t happen again. 

Senator VOINOVICH. For example, did you have anybody on the 

rig? Was anybody from MMS on the rig? 

Mr. SALAZAR. No one was on the rig that day of the explosion, 

but the facts are whether it is 60 Minutes or any other anecdotes 

or comments or stories that you are hearing here, there is a lot 

more to this investigation, much of which is yet to be uncovered. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Why wasn’t somebody from MMS on that rig 

24 hours a day overseeing what they were doing to make sure that 

they were doing this according to what they were supposed to be 

doing? Why didn’t you have somebody on there? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Voinovich, we have, as I recall, 62 Inspectors in the Outer Continental Shelf. We have overseen and have 

had over 36,000 wells alone drilled in the Gulf of Mexico. There is 

a significant and robust enforcement and inspection mechanism. 

The question I think is an appropriate one relative to can it be 

done better. The answer to that is yes. How we do that, we will 

be doing our own reorganization, much of which we have been 

working on very hard since I became Secretary of Interior, but 

there will be more to do. 

The proposal that is in front of you asks for additional inspectors 

so that the job can be enhanced. The budget, which is before you 

for 2011, did the same thing a long time ago. Safety measures that 

were supposed to be enhanced have been proposed multiple times 

over the years. Some of them have been adopted. The National 

Academy of Engineers, which is the equivalent of the National 

Academy of Sciences, we brought them on in September of last year 

to put forward for us what were the safety measures so they would 

not—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. I am running out of time. I would suggest 

to you that you or somebody in your shop get together with the 

NRC to find out how they go about doing their work and the kind 

of regime that they have in place to see how much of that kind of 

thing is relevant to what you are doing. 

Second of all, we have another example of where we have asked 

an agency to do a job, having the right people with the right knowl-
83 

edge and skills at the right place at the right time, and we haven’t 

given you the wherewithal for you to do your job. 

You are going to be asking for more people, but the fact is that 

too often what we do around here—and Lisa, the same thing in 

your shop—how many people do you need to get the job done? So 

I am saying I think those things will do more to give the public 

comfort than to go back and spend, and I mean we ought to hold 

these people responsible. We ought to fine them or whatever should 

be done. 

But the real issue is how do we go forward? And if we don’t go 

forward the right way, we are going to have another situation like 

we had with Three Mile Island where nothing got done in the nuclear area, and the rest of the world took the leadership in this 

area, and we lost out. 

I think we need to go forward, but we can’t go forward unless 

you have a new protocol and you have the people that you need. 

Twenty-four hours a day, I would have somebody on that thing, or 

two people, to get the job done. 

Mr. SALAZAR. If I may, Senator Voinovich, first, you will have a 

report to the President by the end of the month, which will set out 

some interim measures, and there will be a lot more coming from 

that. 

Two, we are not afraid of science. We are not afraid of the best 

technology. And so Marcia McNutt, who is the head of USGS and 

who is one of the best scientists in the world, along with Steven 

Chu and the Energy Labs are helping us in terms of dealing with 

the immediate problem in the Gulf. But I also have asked them to 

help us in terms of dealing with safety measures. So we are on the 

case, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. And last but not least, I sent you 

a letter on April 19th in regard to leases and so forth. I know you 

have been busy, but I certainly would like to have somebody look 

at my letter and get back to me with the answers. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Will do, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you 

for convening this hearing. 

Thank you to our witnesses. 

A few weeks ago I saw first-hand the oil slick covering the Gulf 

of Mexico. As everyone who has seen it knows, it is worse than 

what you see on TV, and that on TV you may just see one shot, 

but you see when you are there the miles and miles of orange. 

We met with Mr. Strickland. Secretary Salazar, he was very 

helpful. It was clear to me, as you noted at the beginning of your 

testimony, Secretary Jackson, that people are working as hard as 

they can. 

But last week in this room we listened to the leaders of BP, 

Transocean, and Halliburton testify about how each of their companies may not be at fault for this disaster. It reminded me of a 
84 

group of kids who knock a baseball through a neighbor’s window, 

and then they are all pointing at each other. 

We all know that the consequences of this action go far beyond 

repairing a window. The lives of 11 families cannot be repaired. 

The lives of thousands of families on the Gulf Coast have already 

been turned upside down. A month after this disaster we still don’t 

know how much oil is spewing from the sea bed. Recent estimates 

range from a few thousand barrels per day to as much as 70,000 

barrels per day. 

I know that your offices and your staffs have been focused on 

this terrible tragedy, but I also know that when these tragedies 

occur, people want answers. I know this from my former job as 

Prosecutor. I know you know that as well, Secretary Salazar, from 

your work as Attorney General. 

The American people first want to know how and when the disaster will end. And second they want to know how we will prevent 

from ever happening again. And finally they want the responsible 

parties to be held accountable and to ensure that the victims’ families and the American taxpayers are compensated. 

At our hearing last week there were many questions posed to the 

companies that went unanswered. I am hopeful that we can get 

some answers today. 

I am pleased that the President has called for the creation of an 

independent panel along the lines of the Three Mile Island Commission and the Space Shuttle Challenger Commission, and I am 

glad that it will be made up of experts. 

Today, I specifically look forward to hearing from my questions 

as well as others about how bad the leak is right now, what the 

plan is to finally stop the leak, what the Federal Government is 

doing to prevent future disasters like this, specifically related to 

polluter liability. And then finally I would like to know how you 

are preparing to enforce our existing laws. 

So my first question will be to you, Secretary Salazar. You recently announced proposals to reform the Minerals Management 

Service, which includes separating the inspection arm of MMS with 

the royalty collection arm of the agency. You also called for increased funding for the inspections. 

Although BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, among others, should 

be held responsible for the oil tragedy, I agree with the President’s 

statements and your statements, including what you made here 

today, that our Government officials should also be held accountable in terms of how we are going to make this work for the taxpayers today and in the future. 

In addition to the reforms that you have suggested in splitting 

the agency, have you reviewed the staff in place at MMS? I know 

there was a change made yesterday. Have you reviewed the staff 

to make sure we have the right people in place to implement your 

reforms? And which of the reforms that you have proposed are 

being implemented today as opposed to being implemented later by 

Congress? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Let me first say 

that you are correct in your framing this as a collective responsibility because it is a responsibility, yes, first, of the companies, BP 

and others involved, but there is also responsibility to be shared 
85 

with the Federal Government, with the executive branch, the Department of Interior, my department, and MMS, as well as with 

this U.S. Congress and the national legal framework that has been 

created with respected to the OCS. 

There is much work to be done, including the creation of organic 

legislation for an agency that has such a robust and important mission for the United States of America. We have announced many 

reforms over the last 16 months, ranging from ethics reforms, ending the Royalty-in-Kind Program, to separating the revenue functions from the inspection and enforcement functions of MMS and 

the Department of Interior. 

We are not resting there. Our work will continue, and in the 

days ahead you will see additional reforms that will be announced 

relative to the organization. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And that includes looking at the staffing of 

the organization? 

Mr. SALAZAR. I would say there are 1,700 people, Senator 

Klobuchar, within MMS. About half of them are involved in the 

revenue collection program at MMS. Within those 1,700 people, I 

would say most of them are good people. They are good public servants, just like you, and just like all of the other public employees 

that we do have. 

But just like with any other organization, there are bad apples. 

In this particular agency, which I inherited, you know the well 

publicized sex and drug scandal where people were prosecuted, people who were fired and let go. We have tried to take that out, as 

Justice Warren would say in one of his famous decisions, root and 

branch. But it is a difficult process. 

To the extent that there are those kinds of ethical lapses that are 

going on, we will make sure that we root them out. We have the 

Inspector General already as part of the coherent investigations 

that we are making, looking specifically at personnel issues within 

MMS. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Are you going to look at the revolving door 

issue of people who are too close with the oil industry? 

Mr. SALAZAR. That has been clearly one thing that has been 

going on from day one. There are prohibitions that have been put 

into place with respect to the revolving door. I think we are in 

much better shape today than we were 16 months ago. It doesn’t 

mean that there isn’t room for improvement, and to the extent 

there are major changes that have to be made and minor changes, 

we will not turn away any good idea. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Secretary Jackson, could you give us some idea of after nearly a 

month when you think the leaks will be plugged and if there are 

barriers that are preventing the quickest and most effective solutions here? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I am happy to, Senator, although I would 

probably defer to Ken. MMS’s responsibility is also operationally 

now dealing with wellhead, and EPA is focused more on the environmental impacts and trying to at least get data to begin to document and answer questions about public health and environmental 

impacts over time. 
86 

But I think we heard Secretary Salazar earlier say that in addition to the riser insertion, which has been done, the next step will 

be this top-kill approach. My understanding is that is over the next 

several weeks. Is it, Ken? Projected data for the kill is Saturday 

and Sunday, May 22 through May 23. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Do you understand—and maybe this is 

more in your area. If it is Secretary Salazar’s, that is fine. How 

much oil is really gushing out? And why don’t we know that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think I would agree with you that we do not 

know it at this time. I think that the initial estimates were made 

based on images and on scenarios that turned out over time to be 

changing at best. I think that it is an important piece of information for us to have, if not right this second, certainly going forward 

because it will shape, I am sure, damage assessments if nothing 

else. 

Mr. SALAZAR. If I may just add to that, because it is an ongoing 

effort, and it is a very important question which several Senators 

have already raised, to have an independent and truthful number 

relative to what has come out of this pipe. It is something that we 

take very seriously. That is why a number of agencies, including 

the United States Geological Survey, NOAA, as well as outside scientists have been working on trying to come up with something 

that we can have confidence in in terms of a number. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Chair Sutley, in your testimony you state 

that the MMS applied an existing categorical exclusion review 

process for the Deepwater Horizon project. This exclusion for Deepwater Horizon was established more than 20 years ago. Are you 

aware of how many existing projects MMS applied the same categorical exclusion to? And are you working with other department 

heads to ensure the projects that received a categorical exclusion 

are indeed safe? 

Ms. SUTLEY. Thank you, Senator. As I said in my testimony, my 

understanding is that MMS applied an existing categorical exclusion. These are widely used throughout the Government, and they 

are intended to be used in circumstances where we have a lot of 

experience with activities and we know that they are likely to have 

little or no significant environmental effect either individually or 

cumulatively. 

We are working closely with the Department of Interior supporting the MMS reform efforts. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But you don’t know how many other 

projects got this exclusion? 

Ms. SUTLEY. I do not know. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you think we should be reviewing them 

now that we see that this wasn’t safe? 

Ms. SUTLEY. We announced on Friday that with the Department 

of Interior we would be reviewing MMS’s NEPA procedures, including their use of categorical exclusions. As I said earlier in my testimony we proposed in February to update our guidance to the agencies about the use of categorical exclusions to ensure that agencies 

are applying them in the proper way, that agencies are reviewing 

their own use of categorical exclusions, and that CEQ would review 

agencies’ use of categorical exclusions. 
87 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I see my time is up, but thank you. Clearly, 

something went wrong here and the process has to change. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

I just wanted to let people know what is happening. The order 

of questioners is as follows. We are going to go to Senator Alexander next, and then Lautenberg, then Barrasso, then Udall, then 

Vitter, then Whitehouse. 

And Senator Lautenberg and I have to go together to a very important meeting, so we are going to leave together. I have asked 

Senator Whitehouse if he would take the Chair. So Senator, as 

soon as we leave, if you would take the Chair. 

So we will proceed with Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I know this has 

been a very busy and difficult time for the three of you, and I 

thank you for your time today. 

I want to talk first—or discuss with you first—a little bit about 

putting all this in perspective. It is difficult to put a tragedy in perspective. I was thinking of a terrible airplane crash with many people killed. That happens in the United States, unfortunately. And 

what do we do? We immediately have highly professional people go 

see if we can find out what went wrong, what we can do to prevent 

it again, and we have come up with a number of safety improvements, and we have black boxes and other things to try to find out 

things. 

But one thing we don’t do is we don’t ground all the airplanes. 

We don’t stop flying because that would be I think about 1.6 million Americans a day fly, and it would bring our country to a halt 

if we stopped flying. 

I think it is important—and I believe the President has tried to 

do this—is the first job in putting this into perspective is to help 

Americans to understand just how much we rely on oil from the 

Gulf. If my figures are about right about 30 percent of all the oil 

that we produce in the United States comes from the Gulf region. 

You mentioned a few minutes ago that there were more than 

30,000 wells. 

We haven’t talked much about it, but our natural gas comes from 

there as well. It is hard to drill for oil without finding natural gas 

or drill for natural gas without finding oil. About 25 percent of all 

our natural gas comes from wells in the Gulf of Mexico, and we 

produce almost all the gas that we use. So that is an even more 

important part of what we use than oil. 

So isn’t it true, Mr. Secretary, that as terrible as the tragedy is, 

that unless we want $14, $16, $18, $20 a gallon gasoline, that it 

is not realistic to think that we would actually stop drilling for oil 

and natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico in the foreseeable future? 

Mr. SALAZAR. The answer to that is, you are correct, Senator Alexander, and that is why the President’s reaction to this has been 

one of thoughtfulness and being calm and not making decisions in 

the eye of the storm. That is when you make bad decisions. And 
88 

so his direction to us is to move forward with developing the kind 

of information on safety and on environmental protection and being 

thoughtful relative to how we move forward on the OCS. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I appreciate his leadership in that way, and 

I appreciate the tone of his leadership. 

The second aspect of perspective, it seems to me, and you mentioned this a little bit, as others have, what can we do instead in 

terms of alternative forms of energy? I have heard people say we 

need more wind. We need more solar. We need more biomass. I 

hope we do use more biomass. I would like to get the cost of solar 

cut by a factor of four, as Dr. Chu has suggested, so we can actually use it in a competitive way on rooftops across the country. I 

am less enthusiastic about wind turbines than you are, but we 

have discussed that many times. 

The truth is that we don’t need wind. We don’t need solar. We 

don’t need biomass to reduce our oil use because we don’t need 

extra electricity to run electric cars. Mr. Sandalow, who is in the 

Department of Energy, has said that we could electrify half our 

cars and trucks in America without building one new power plant 

of any kind simply by plugging our electric cars and trucks in at 

night and using this vast amount of unused electricity we have. 

Now, the President has been very strong on electric cars and 

trucks, and there is bipartisan support for that in the Congress. 

Wouldn’t an important part of putting this into perspective be for 

you and the President and others to say of the clear alternative we 

have, the best alternative we have for reducing oil over the next 

15 or 20 years is to have as a goal electrifying half our cars and 

trucks? That is a very ambitious goal. 

Even if we did that, we would still be using about 12 million barrels of petroleum products a day, but it would cut by a third the 

amount of oil that we are using and greatly reduce the foreign oil 

we use. Isn’t this an opportunity to encourage more use of electric 

cars and trucks as the most viable option for reducing oil? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Alexander, you know well the President 

has spoken many times about the need for a comprehensive energy 

program. In that comprehensive energy program, electric cars and 

the new technology that is unfolding here in the United States 

have been very much a robust part of that, which he and Secretary 

Chu have championed, along with the portfolio of energy resources 

that will move our economy and will move the energy needs of the 

Nation. 

The exact number in terms of electrical cars, I don’t have an answer to you on that, but I am sure that we get back to you on exactly what it is that the Department of Energy is projecting is 

going to happen in that arena. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I appreciate your answer, and it is properly 

diplomatic, befitting a Secretary, but I guess what I am trying to 

do is discourage the talk that if we just build more windmills, we 

can reduce the use of oil because it doesn’t have anything to do 

with our use of oil when in fact we have plenty of electricity for 

electric cars and trucks, which is our best option, and the President 

is a chief proponent of electric cars and trucks. I would like to encourage him to push it more. 
89 

I would like to shift to one other area which has come up, in the 

time I have remaining. I remember when I was a young Governor, 

I had a cabinet meeting, and we wanted to pass a bill in the legislature. I said, well, we all agree with this. Everybody agreed. We 

went out and came back the next week, and nothing had happened. 

I said this obviously isn’t going to work. So we put one person, 

as we said, on the flagpole. We called him Granny Hinton. He was 

on the flagpole. He came back the next week. The bill had been 

passed because he was accountable. 

I thought about that the other day when Captain Bill Ostendorff 

testified. He is a former Navy sub commander. He is one of the 

President’s appointees to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, one 

of several very good appointments the President has made. He testified that 4 of his 11 commanding officers were disciplined at some 

point in their career for a problem with their nuclear reactors in 

the Navy subs. 

Now, no one has ever died in a Navy sub. People have been living on top of nuclear reactors since the 1950s. I suspect one reason 

is the word accountability. If there is a problem with the reactor, 

the answer to the question of who is on the flagpole, is it is the 

captain’s problem. He can’t buck it to anybody else. 

We watched several people from industry suggesting that others 

from industry were responsible for the oil spill. We have 14 agencies in the Federal Government who have something to do with oil 

drilling and regulation. 

So I am wondering, isn’t there a lesson perhaps to learn from the 

nuclear industry, and particularly from the nuclear Navy about accountability as we go forward? We have the answer to the question 

of who is going to pay. It sounds like BP is going to pay. They are 

the responsible party. But on the whodunnit question, I mean who 

did it, who is on the flagpole for that, it seems to me that we don’t 

have an answer to the question of who is on the flagpole when 

there is an oil spill or an oil gush at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Would you agree with that? And would you think that that might 

be a good direction for the investigation and the commission’s work 

to help us identify an answer to the question of who is on the flagpole for an oil spill or oil gush? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Alexander, let me say three things. First, 

I think there is a lot to learn from the nuclear world relative to 

safety issues here, which is part of the reason why Secretary Chu 

has been so involved with us as we look at safety measures that 

we will be recommending to the President. 

Second, the facts here still need to be known. And once the facts 

are known, we will look at the range of civil as well as criminal 

culpability that may have in fact be inherent in this incident. No 

one will be spared. That includes Government officials. So that will 

be something that will be looked at, and that is why there is such 

an inherent importance in what the President has done in pulling 

together a Presidential Commission so that we can get to the bottom of the story. 

Third, there will be significant reform, some of which we will 

take on and have been taking on within the executive branch, and 
90 

new organizations that address some of the issues which Chairman 

Boxer alluded to in her statements and in her questioning. 

But there also will be an opportunity for this Congress to help 

us figure out how we move forward to achieve the goals which I 

heard Senator Klobuchar and others speak about, and that is to fix 

a problem and prevent the problem from ever happening again. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. If I could take my last 10 seconds, I think we know who is on the flagpole for paying the bill 

for the oil spill. That is BP. That is in the law. I think we know 

who is on the flagpole if there is a problem with a nuclear reactor 

in the Navy. It is the captain. I think we don’t know who is on the 

flagpole for the next oil spill, and I think that would be the very 

best way to do this. That would be better, knowing who is on the 

flagpole, than this idea of collective responsibility. 

Mr. SALAZAR. If I may just on responsibility, because I think one 

of the things that in the heat of the moment there also is a huge 

effort that is underway in the Gulf. I can tell you what this Congress has done with respect to homeland security and the processes 

that are set out there. You have a very massive program that is 

underway to protect the Gulf and to deal with this problem, which 

is being led by the National Incident Commander under a National 

Unified Command that has 20,000 people out on the ground. It has 

700 vessels out trying to deal with the spill. It has this massive effort undersea. 

So it is clear with respect to the oil spill response responsibility 

for that lies within the law. But I do agree with you, Senator Alexander, much in the same way as other commissions you and I have 

talked about, that there are tremendous lessons to be learned here 

organizationally. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

I want to present part of my statement just to say thank you for 

conducting this hearing. We have been through several hearings, 

and we keep finding out that we are disappointed in responses 

from the oil companies. But we are here to discuss the Federal response to the tragedy, and it is crystal clear what the Federal response ought to be: bring dangerous offshore drilling pursuit to an 

end. Should we say no more special favors and special treatments 

given to big oil. And it should end up here with our search for reliable, sustainable sources of energy and not take our eye off the 

ball. 

I introduced a piece of legislation, the Beyond Petroleum Act, to 

move us in the right direction, and that is to charge a fee on offshore drilling leases and generate nearly $2 billion a year. Even 

that is a drop in the bucket for oil companies that made more than 

$23 billion in profit in just the first quarter of this year and still 

want to duck their responsibilities. 

These funds should be directly invested in research and development of next generation engines, clean and safe fuels, tools and in-
91 

novative approaches to transportation. We also need to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill that focuses on clean energy 

jobs, at reducing pollution, and protecting our vibrant coastal 

economies from the menace of offshore drilling. These should be 

our priorities as we look to the future. 

Let’s be clear. Big oil doesn’t deserve our trust. We all saw that 

sad spectacle last week. At Senate hearings oil company executives 

were so determined to dodge responsibility, they almost broke their 

fingers pointing at one another. They were bobbing and weaving 

and dodging and pointing to the other guy. 

That is why I joined with Senator Menendez and Senator Nelson 

to end the big oil bailouts by raising the liability cap for all companies, from a piddling $75 million to $10 billion. And we hear arguments about companies that can’t afford it. If they make a big mistake, they owe a big bill, and they are going to have to pay it somehow, either they or their insurance companies. They shouldn’t be 

excused. 

But we are not going to rest until every last cent of the Administration’s response is paid for by the oil companies. You called for 

that, Mr. Secretary, and we salute that. So we can’t continue to 

gamble with these precious resources by allowing more offshore 

drilling. 

What I want to confirm here now is the fact that NOAA has accused the M.M. Service of a pattern of understanding the likelihood 

and potential consequences of a major spill in the Gulf and the frequency of spills that have already occurred there. NOAA points out 

that several or your Department’s conclusions on oil impacts ‘‘directly conflict with studies of major spills.’’ 

Why did Interior continue to push for an expansion of offshore 

drilling even though there was a question raised by NOAA scientists who found major flaws in the analysis? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

Let me just say that we—before we got to the end of March announcement on the future of the OCS—took into account the comments and input that we received from many different places. It 

was in fact in part because of comments, not principally from 

NOAA, but from others like the Coast Guard and others, that you 

do not have the five lease sales that were planned to be taking 

place in the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and 

in Bristol Bay. 

We counseled them. We said that Bristol Bay ought to move forward with some kind of permanent protection. We said that with 

respect to Chukchi and Beaufort that the oil spill response capabilities and other science that we needed to have before allowing the 

development to take place there was something that required us to 

cancel those leases. And so those were canceled. We did the same 

thing with respect to the Pacific because of a whole host of issues 

in the Pacific. 

So we did take into account comments and information that we 

received from organizations like NOAA. More importantly, however, let me also say that if I ever hear that one of the employees 

of the MMS is essentially throwing science under the bus, heads 

will roll because that would not be appropriate for people who work 

within the Department of Interior. 
92 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You have called for a pause in new drilling 

permits until a complete investigation of the cause of the Gulf spill 

is done. Even if we identify the cause of this spill, will that information really allow you to guarantee that another massive oil spill 

will not threaten our coast? The executives who appeared before us 

in the hearing last week said they would not guarantee that there 

couldn’t be another spill like the one that they have had. 

Mr. Secretary, I can’t imagine that we would permit anything to 

take place, at least I hope not, that might cause a spill something 

like the ones that we have or any of them. I think we ought to 

avoid oil spills at any price because when they spill they seem to 

get worse and worse and worse in their intensity. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Just two quick things. Nothing in life is risk-free, 

and no development ever in the OCS—whether it is for wind power 

or whether it is for oil and gas—will be completely risk-free. Those 

are the facts of life. 

Two, there are significant safety enhancements which I am sure 

will be put on the table as we move forward with the safety reviews. The report to the President from my Department is due at 

the end of May. There will be additional information after that 

time as well. And so we will move forward to having a regime 

which is a much safer regime than we have had in the past. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Secretary, should these spills that we 

have seen demand a halt to all new drilling, shift to an all hands 

on deck policy in an effort to develop and deploy technologies that 

will end our dependence on oil and fossil fuels, and especially doing 

business with those who are not friends of ours but are involved 

in a conspiracy to take advantage of us? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Lautenberg, I think you and members of 

this Committee have been working very hard on moving us forward 

with a new energy future for the United States of America. The 

President has been pushing hard for a comprehensive energy plan. 

This incident in the Gulf Coast I think is another clarion call as 

to why we need to move forward in that direction. 

But we should also be very frank with ourselves in this Committee and in this country that we are dependent on oil and gas, 

and our economy is dependent on oil and gas, whether it is New 

Jersey or whether it is California. And how we incorporate those 

fossil fuels in what is a new energy economy and in transition is 

something that we are going to have to do. 

So we need to be balanced about it, and that is why the comprehensive nature of an energy approach that deals with energy 

independence and the national security issues that are at stake, 

the economic security of the country, and the environmental security of the country from the dangers of pollution that come from the 

emissions are something that we need to deal with. 

Part of the shared responsibility here, Senator Lautenberg, ought 

to be not to kick those issues on down the road for another Congress or another time. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I want to thank each one of you for your 

excellent testimony. I would ask, Administrator Jackson, are you 

concerned that the EPA has such a small, almost nonexistent role 

in our Government’s action on oil drilling off our coast? 
93 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I wouldn’t say it is nonexistent, but I am 

concerned with what I see in terms of our role, even in our performance of the role we have. We have a very important role on 

preparedness, and we have a very important role under the National Contingency Plan on response. And even though we aren’t in 

the lead, I will be the first to say that I believe my staff are working very hard, but that we will learn lessons from this entire incident, which is far from over, that will I think possibly mean we 

need some changes, possibly in the law, certainly in the regulations. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How about on a longer-term solution, 

should oil companies play a part in more funding on the research 

and development of new technologies that get us, to use BP’s own 

expression, ‘‘beyond petroleum’’ ? 

Ms. JACKSON. I certainly think that there is a need. The one 

thing I have taken away so far is that the ability to get this oil out 

of the ground has far surpassed our ability to respond to the worst 

case scenario. And so for us, I am concerned. Dispersants has been 

an issue. I spent the better part of the last 3 weeks working on it, 

and I am amazed at how little science there is on that issue for 

something that is such a primary tool in this response. 

So we are on the ground trying to minimize and make the best 

decisions we can, but there are a range of issues that I think even 

if you look at the petroleum response itself and the cleanup response, haven’t moved along. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And I remind our colleague from Tennessee that we do stop flying when we know that there is imminent danger, whether it is volcano ash or whether it was an attack 

on our financial center by others. We stop flying, and what we 

ought to do is stop drilling. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, tell us what you really think. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator Whitehouse, if you would do me the 

honor of taking the seat here. We are going to continue hearing 

from, in this order, Barrasso, Udall, Vitter, and Whitehouse. And 

I would ask if you would stay and run this hearing. We then will 

hear from the Coast Guard, the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

for Civil Works, and the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development. 

And so, Senator Barrasso, I look forward to reading about your 

comments. Why don’t you wait until it all calms down. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. And I want to thank everybody on the panel. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [presiding]. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Jackson, Senator Boxer showed a video early on with that 

new deep-sea straw in place. I am still trying to quantify the level 

of this. In the first week that this happened, it was thought it was 

about 1,000 barrels a day. Then it was up to about 5,000 barrels. 

Now some scientists are saying possibly 25,000 barrels a day. Secretary Salazar mentioned the possibility that this straw is about 

1,500 to 2,000 barrels possibly. 
94 

But looking at that, if that straw is in place, taking 1,500 to 

2,000 barrels out, that made me think that maybe our estimate of 

5,000 barrels may be low because it looks like still massive 

amounts are spewing forth. 

Is that how you looked at it, too? Or any of you? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think Secretary Salazar is probably more qualified than I to speak on that. I will say that the agency within the 

Government that has most of the expertise on estimating the release is NOAA. And so that is the only reason I am not going to 

take the question. 

Mr. SALAZAR. The only thing I would say, Senator Barrasso, is 

this is an ongoing operation, and this Committee should know that 

the emergency nature that we are in means that we are relentless 

and not resting and trying to stop the problem at the source. 

I think the video that you saw is actually a video before the 

operationalization of the riser insertion tube had been inserted, but 

it was ramped up through the day and overnight. And so the 

amount of oil which is currently being captured is at approximately 

the 2,000 barrel a day number. This is an evolving situation that 

will take place through not only tonight but also through tomorrow. 

At the end of the day what is more important than the optics of 

the visual are an independent quantification of the amount of oil 

that has flown from this well. That is something which is of the 

highest order of importance to the National Incident Commander 

and to all of the agencies that are involved, NOAA, EPA, USGS 

and others. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Following up on some of the other discussion about the fact that 

over about a quarter of America’s oil production comes from the 

Gulf, and with the nationwide halt of permits for new exploration, 

we need to get the energy from somewhere. So I want to visit a little bit about some of the things that are going on onshore. 

We have seen in Wyoming that investment in energy development on public lands in the West has dropped precipitously. In Wyoming revenues paid by private companies to the Bureau of Land 

Management for oil and gas, bonus bids, rental fees, were down 

from $93 million to $10 million between 2008 and 2009; significant 

loss of revenue both to the country and to our State. Capital investment has shifted away from the Rocky Mountains, but we need to 

get the energy from somewhere. 

So I am concerned that the Administration’s onshore policies are 

going to hurt rural economies in the West and leave Americans 

even more vulnerable to higher gas prices. 

The Governor of Wyoming has said the proposed changes in onshore potentially hand significant control over oil and gas exploration, development, and production to the whims of those that profess—and these are his words—‘‘a nowhere, not ever philosophy to 

surface disturbance of any kind.’’ 

So my question to you is with regard to onshore leasing reforms. 

Were there any economic analyses performed on onshore leasings? 

Did you consult with State and local officials before finalizing the 

reforms? And in light of what has happened in the Gulf, are you 

thinking about reconsidering the changes to onshore in light of 

what we are dealing with offshore? 
95 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Barrasso, there has been significant consultation with the Western Governors and the States and others 

concerning the onshore leasing reforms. But let me say that they 

have been part of the reform agenda from day one. It has met the 

same kind of resistance that we have met with the reform agenda 

on the Outer Continental Shelf and MMS. 

At the advent of my administration I canceled 77 leases that had 

been issued in the State of Utah. Well, I did it because we wanted 

to do it right and protect the environment and protect our national 

parks. We issued instruction memoranda that went out to redo the 

way categorical exclusions are done on the onshore. 

That is part of the reform agenda to make sure that we are doing 

it right, drilling in the right places, but also providing certainty to 

the industry. The onshore, as I have shared with you in the past, 

Senator Barrasso, the issues had become so difficult in allowing 

leases to go forward that most of them were being protested before 

they even got to the lease stage. 

So what we have done under the leadership of Director Abbey 

and Assistant Secretary Wilma Lewis is to move forward with a 

kind of proactive planning process that hopefully will provide certainty and will make sure the right environmental analysis is in 

place, and that we avoid the litigation that occurs when you don’t 

follow those kind of processes. 

Senator BARRASSO. It has been my impression, Mr. Secretary, 

that the reforms were undertaken really without going through the 

regulatory process. I know the Governor of Wyoming wrote you a 

5-page letter in response to your proposal. So I would be interested 

to seeing how you addressed his concerns ultimately. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your comments, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse. 

And thank you to all the panel here today. 

While the exact details of this manmade disaster are still unknown, a few things have become clear. Industry told Congress and 

the public we could rely on them for safety. Now, the era of selfregulation is over for the offshore oil industry. MMS, EPA, the 

Coast Guard, and the Council on Environmental Quality need to 

move swiftly to put responsible regulation in place. 

Another thing that we know, blowout preventers are not and 

never were a fail-safe. They are a last ditch measure when the well 

has had a major failure. The failure on the Deepwater Horizon was 

not unique. The record shows they often fail. 

As a result, we need solid regulatory standards to prevent operators from cutting corners on well control. Producers want to drill 

fast and move fast to save time and money, and Secretary Salazar, 

you know that behavior very well. Safety requires carefulness instead. Time is money on an offshore oil rig, and there is always an 

incentive to put profit over safety. This is a classic case for strong 

regulation. 
96 

And so I guess this is a question to the whole panel, but Secretary Salazar focusing on you, and first of all let me say I have 

confidence that you are pushing BP as hard as you can to stop the 

spill and protect ecosystems. What I am wondering is the timeline. 

We have so many, as has been mentioned in the hearing, of the 

studies that are going on and investigations that are going on. And 

now the President has a comprehensive commission. 

Could you talk a little bit about the time table on how you see 

putting regulations in place, when this is going to happen? Because 

it is clear from the questioning here that we have a significant 

number of oil wells that are out there and that are operating. We 

don’t know how many this could happen to tomorrow. 

So I think it is important that we get a regulatory hold on this. 

So please, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. Let me just 

answer that I think there are matters that will happen sequentially here. There have been numerous reforms which we have already initiated within the Department of Interior and MMS. Those 

will continue even in this week and the weeks ahead. 

No. 2, at the end of this month, the President will receive the report on safety recommendations. We are working very hard with 

scientists and experts to come up with the best report. The President will make announcements on how we will move forward on 

that. 

And then third, the longer-term investigations, they will be overseen by the Presidential Commission which he has announced and 

he will appoint the members of, and into that commission will flow 

the investigations that are underway, including the root cause investigation that is being conducted by the Coast Guard and MMS, 

with an oversight panel, the investigations and reports from the 

National Academy of Engineering, the investigations which I have 

ordered through the Inspector General, and other investigations 

that may be out there. 

But they should all be funneled into one place so in a similar 

vein that happened in the commission related to the Challenger, 

there will be a report, first of all, about what happened so the 

whole truth and nothing but the truth is told. And second that the 

lessons learned are the best lessons that can be learned from this 

horrific tragedy. 

Senator UDALL. One of the things that has hit me in a way in 

the past in terms of regulations is if you look at MMS and you ask 

how do they promulgate regulations, many offshore regulations 

originate at the American Petroleum Institute and then are reviewed by MMS. 

Will MMS take more control over this process in the future, as 

you see it? And how is that going to work? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Udall, the input that comes in comes not 

only from API but also from a whole number of professional organizations and scientific organizations. But ultimately it is the responsibility of MMS as an independent body to decide what those regulations should be. 

I expect that you are going to be seeing significant changes to 

some of those regulations based on the review that is being conducted and based on some of the information that I have been 
97 

gathering as I have gone to visit blowout prevention manufacturers 

and the like. 

So this is a time of change, and I think it will be positive change. 

It will help us move forward with the right kind of safety measures 

in place with respect to development of oil and gas. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. I hope that all of you together move 

forward sooner rather than later in terms of getting some good 

solid regulations in place. 

Administrator Jackson, you used the term in your testimony here 

when you were referring to dispersants, when you were answering 

a question, amazed how little science there is on dispersants. The 

New York Times reported that the dispersants being used in the 

Gulf were banned in Britain. Is that correct? And if so, do we have 

any alternatives? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct, but if I may I would just like to 

get a little bit more information because we had looked into that. 

There were tests done in Britain called rocky shore tests, and it appears from what we have learned so far that the reason for the ban 

had less to do with inherent toxicity and more to do with the nearshore impacts on certain clams and their ability to adhere to the 

rocky shores. We are still looking into it, but I think the answer 

would be yes, perhaps for different reasons and certainly in a different application than here. 

Senator UDALL. How did we get ourselves in a position where we 

know so little about the science of dispersants? What do you expect 

we will be doing in the future in terms of dispersants, the science 

tackling these kinds of oil spills with these kinds of technologies? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, just so I can be clear. There is certainly some 

science on dispersants. I don’t want to dismiss good work that has 

been done. But in this incident so far an unprecedented volume of 

dispersants have been used in the Gulf of Mexico. And I think 

what that means is that lacking any other tools during this time 

when the release is continued there has been a real reliance on 

them, maybe more so than anyone ever thought would happen. 

And I think that the science hasn’t continued along to show 

whether or not we are having a potential impact. There is nothing 

to indicate that, Senator. If I thought there were, we would stop 

it immediately. I have been very hesitant to take it out of the tool 

kit altogether, but I think long-term impacts to ensure that this 

stuff does not bioaccumulate, we have no data that shows it does. 

The MSDS says it doesn’t. 

There have been some valid questions raised about the impact on 

the water column and the fate in transport. What happens to these 

dispersed particles? Do they really biodegrade quickly, or do they 

take a long time? And I think that is fair ground for research. 

Senator UDALL. When you said it doesn’t bioaccumulate, was 

that the MSDS? Could you tell me what the acronym is? 

Ms. JACKSON. So sorry, Senator. MSDS stands for material safety data sheet. If you look on the Deepwater Horizon response.com 

Web site, that is one of the things that are posted for both the 

Corexit products that have been used. 

Senator UDALL. If we find that the use of dispersants has had 

a damaging impact on natural resources, would BP be responsible 

for those damages as well, based on your understanding or Sec-
98 

retary Salazar’s understanding with them, or Nancy Sutley’s understanding? 

Ms. JACKSON. My understanding is the response itself and the 

actions that are taken are part of the liability and part of the assessment that will be done. So just again, no one has ever argued 

that dispersants don’t have an impact. We believe it lessens the impact to the marshes, which are so ecologically and economically important, but they are not without any impact. And so that would 

certainly be part of a damage assessment, I would think. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. 

Secretary Salazar, I don’t know if you have any final thoughts 

on that, with just a couple of seconds left here. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I don’t have anything to add. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank you for chairing 

this hearing and being so instrumental. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

your ongoing work. 

I have been here as well as at a Commerce Committee hearing 

on the oil spill. I serve on that committee, too. So trying to bridge 

that divide, I am going to focus on exactly the same five questions 

and points I also focused on there. 

The first is under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Administration 

can and should in appropriate circumstances declare a fisheries 

failure, a disaster regarding fisheries when there is a God-caused 

or a man-caused event with a significant negative impact on fisheries. 

I have asked for that declaration. The Governor of Louisiana has 

asked for that declaration. This is obviously a huge event impacting fisheries. Why hasn’t that been declared, and when will it be? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Let me just say that is a matter which the National Incident Commander would have under his review. I don’t 

have the answer to that today, Senator Vitter, and I don’t know 

that Nancy or Lisa do either. We will be happy to get back to you 

on that. 

Senator VITTER. If anyone on the second panel could answer 

that, or if you could get a written response as quickly as possible 

from the appropriate Administration official, I would appreciate it. 

Again, the point is simple. This is obviously a historic event with 

a big negative impact on fisheries. If this doesn’t qualify, I don’t 

know what does. And this would help trigger some immediate help 

to folks in the fisheries sector. BP will ultimately pay the bill, but 

timing is everything, and this can hasten some help to that sector. 

Second, and it is sort of similar, under OPA, the Oil Pollution 

Act, section 2713(f) doesn’t simply allow—it mandates for the President to set up a loan program for fishermen and fishery dependent 

businesses. In fact, I will read it to you: ‘‘The President shall establish a loan program under the fund,’’ that is the trust fund, the 

OPA trust fund, ‘‘to provide interim assistance to fishermen and 

aquiculture producer claimants during the claims procedure.’’ 

Again, I have asked for that specifically. Why hasn’t that happened, and when can we expect that to happen? 
99 

Mr. SALAZAR. Again, I think that is a question for the National 

Incident Commander, and I would be happy to look into it and get 

back to you. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Thank you. 

Again, the point is similar. BP is going to pay the bill. BP is on 

the hook for economic damages. That is not a debate. But this can 

help provide immediate assistance to fishermen and folks in that 

sector, as can the disaster declaration because, as you know, paying those claims is going to take some amount of time, so this can 

be done more immediately. 

Third point is about a boom and other related supplies. I will direct that to the second panel and the Coast Guard Admiral because 

I am going to have to leave. According to the initial metrics, Louisiana was being shortchanged boom, quite frankly, as a ratio of 

mile of boom to mile of vulnerable coast, while Mississippi and Alabama were getting a ratio of something like 1 mile of boom to every 

1.8 miles of vulnerable coastline. Louisiana was on a different planet, getting about 1 mile of boom to over 10 miles of vulnerable 

coastline. 

I have sent a letter about this to Admiral Allen. I have talked 

to Admiral Allen three times. I believe that is moving in the right 

direction. I thank him for that, but my question for the appropriate 

panelist, perhaps on the second panel, from the Coast Guard would 

be what is the update on that, and when will that disparity be completely resolved. 

Fourth question, again, is probably for the second panel, and I 

apologize. I am going to have to leave. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I like this line of questioning, Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Right. 

Mr. SALAZAR. It is for the second panel. 

Senator VITTER. Right. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. The State of Louisiana and local parishes have 

made a proposal to do emergency dredging and use the dredged 

material to build up the barrier islands and to plug certain gaps 

that have grown in some of the barrier islands. I know Administrator Jackson is somewhat familiar with the proposal. 

Obviously, time is of the essence, and so I wanted an update on 

the Administration’s response to that proposal so it can get underway. And I would invite the Administrator to make any comments, 

and then on the second panel Assistant Secretary Darcy I know 

can respond to that. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I think the second panel and the Federal onscene coordinator and of course the Admiral from the Coast Guard 

are ultimately going to have to make judgments regarding feasibility and efficacy. I would simply say that the environmental community for a long time has been trying to rebuild the coastline 

down there, and barrier islands are certainly an important part of 

that. 

The question that lies before the Commander and the Incident 

Commander will be the efficacy of that approach to deal with this 

particular emergency. That is going to have everything to do with 

time and ability to get it done. But I will defer to Jo-Ellen, I am 
100 

sorry, the Assistant Secretary and the Admiral for their comments 

as well. 

Senator VITTER. OK. You are certainly right. Timing is the big 

issue, and this request has been out there for a week or more. So 

I look forward to that answer from the Assistant Secretary and encourage a concrete decision as soon as possible because timing is 

huge. 

The fifth and final point is for the Interior Secretary. Mr. Secretary, this goes to Senator Barrasso’s question and some others. 

Many people I talk to are confused because this pipe is now hooked 

up, because we are now collecting some of the product, maybe 20 

percent through that. Many people I speak to have the same reaction I do, which is that should be a major step forward in better 

calculating the amount of the flow, not that it can be done precisely 

now, but it should be a big tool so that you would think we can 

have a much better calculation than we could have 4 days ago. 

Is that correct? And if so, when are we going to get that more 

precise calculation? 

Mr. SALAZAR. It is absolutely correct, Senator Vitter, that that 

will give us a better sense of what has been flowing out. In addition to that, there are a whole variety of efforts that are underway 

to try to get a more precise and independent determination as to 

what these numbers are, because right now they are all over the 

place. The number that had been used was I think the best-considered number at 5,000 barrels per day. Whether it is more, whether 

it is less, we will have I think a lot more information on that as 

the week goes on. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Do you have a more precise timeframe? The 

pipe has been hooked up for several days, so as a layman, admittedly not an engineer, I would have thought we would have more 

precise estimates by now. But what is your timeframe for that? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Vitter, what is happening in fact as we 

speak here is that the pressures are being adjusted. As the pressures are adjusted to bring up the production, they have to be very 

careful so that they don’t essentially blow up this process and have 

to go back to the beginning or to essentially annihilate what is this 

very essential mitigation measure. 

And so there are a number of things that could happen if that 

is not done right, including you could have the stream of petroleum 

that is coming up essentially form hydrates if seawater is allowed 

to go in there. So it is a very delicate process, and that is why they 

are taking their time to wrap it up by adjusting the pressures generally about every 2 hours, which then increases the flow. 

When they will get to maximum containment under this mitigation flow regime, I still don’t know. I asked exactly the same very 

question of Andy Inglis, who is the executive at BP in charge of the 

whole operation this morning, and we still don’t know. But there 

will be a lot more information I would expect over the next couple 

of days. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Just to clarify, part of my question is a little different, even though we are not at maximum capture right 

now, and I will wrap up. Even though we are not at maximum 

product capture right now I would have thought connecting the 
101 

pipe would give us a much better guesstimate of the flow even now. 

Is it not doing that? 

Mr. SALAZAR. I wasn’t sure of the timing of the video that was 

shown here, but there is still product that is escaping. It is not controlling 100 percent of the leak, nor will it at the end. But as the 

process ramps up to a higher level of production, it will give us a 

much better sense of the numbers. 

What I will say, Senator Vitter, and to all the members of this 

Committee, is that you have the best engineering and science 

minds of the entire globe that are focused in on this problem. It 

includes the leadership of Secretary Chu and the Department of 

Energy and the National Labs and the Department of Commerce 

and NOAA and USGS. 

Dr. Marcia McNutt, who I think is one of the most renowned 

ocean marine scientists in the world, has actually been at Houston 

watching exactly what is going on. It is part of pulling together a 

group of the leadership of the scientific community to help address 

some of these issues which you are raising. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Baucus. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we are gathered for one reason, and that is we need to answers to the question what went wrong. Eleven people lost their 

lives. Oil is gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf Coast economies are at risk. Environmental damage will be severe. 

I have supported offshore oil and gas development for many 

years, and I expect to continue to do so. But with that support 

comes responsibility to ensure that people are safe, our communities are protected, and our natural resources preserved. 

The catastrophic consequences of this incident compel us to 

pause, to evaluate what happened, and to make corrections so this 

does not happen again. 

A few key questions come to mind. First, the response. Have appropriate actions been taken, and are they continuing to stop the 

spill and mitigate the damage to the environment and the economy? 

Second, the cause. What exactly happened? Was this human 

error, equipment failure, or both? Was there failure to plan for the 

worst case scenario? Were appropriate environmental reviews conducted? Were adequate preparations made for rapid response in 

the event of an incident? 

Third, are there systemic changes we need to make to be sure 

this never happens again? Is there an appropriate level of redundancy in the safety systems on these offshore rigs, given the potential for damage? Are the Federal safety environmental requirements for offshore drilling adequate, and are they being followed? 

One item I would like to highlight on this last point. I understand that under current regulations a full environmental assessment may be avoided at a particular site unless a project has the 

potential to harm things like ‘‘parks, recreation or refuge lands and 

wetlands.’’ 
102 

In Montana these words have very clear meaning that brings to 

mind places like the North Fork of the Flathead River, Glacier National Park in northwestern Montana. We have higher expectations 

for these lands already in protected status. Given the nature of the 

resources in the Gulf, I cannot understand why a more detailed environmental review was not conducted that might have led to extra 

precautions. 

The true impact of this ever growing disaster on the people of the 

Gulf Coast, the economy, and our Nation’s natural resources will 

emerge over time. It is our responsibility to make sure that as we 

move forward with offshore oil and gas developments we are doing 

so with the utmost care to preclude this type of catastrophe. 

I very much look forward to a hearing from the Committee. We 

have a long ways to go yet in order to get to the bottom of this. 

Mr. Secretary, I have a question for you. We are both from the 

West. When we see the words park, wilderness areas, or wildlife 

refuge, we know what they mean. They mean places like Glacier 

National Park or the North Fork of the Flathead River which you 

and I visited last year. 

These words also mean the six refuges in the Gulf or the Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary. When these resources are 

present MMS regulations require environmental assessments that 

preclude the use of a categoric exclusion to avoid environmental review. With the Deepwater Horizon case exactly the opposite occurred. Why then was a categorical exclusion used at this site, and 

what is MMS doing to ensure that our most special places are protected? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator, Chairman Baucus, let me just say first, as 

I alluded to earlier in the testimony, the response here has been 

robust. The President has directed us to make sure that we do not 

rest until we get this problem solved. To the cause, the Commission, especially the Presidential Commission will get us down to 

the root causes of what happened here and will answer the question that you had in your opening comment. 

Systemic changes, some of those we will move forward with, and 

we have moved forward with some of those over the last year, and 

we will continue to move forward with them now. But also as the 

lessons learned emerge, we will be moving forward with additional 

systemic changes. 

On the EISs and what happened here relative to the refuges, I 

will have Nancy Sutley comment, if she will in just a minute, on 

the environmental reviews that do happen. But I will say this— 

there are 40 units of very spectacular areas in the entire Gulf 

Coast. They include 33 National Wildlife Refuges and seven units 

of the National Park System. That is an agenda of protection that 

I take as seriously as I do Glacier National Park. 

We will, as we investigate what happened here, make sure that 

we understand whether or not there were shortcuts that were 

taken that should not have been taken. I think on the environmental categorical exclusion on the exploration plan itself, there is, 

as I have understood it, a 30-day mandate under our national 

framework for approval of those plans. And so that is what has 

driven a number of the categorical exclusions that have been given 

over time in the Gulf. 
103 

But Director Sutley actually is very eloquent on this subject, so 

she should probably respond to that specific one. 

Senator BAUCUS. So there is the question, why was the categorical exclusion provided for in this case given the sensitivity of the 

area? Well, that is the basic question, which would preclude a 

deeper environmental assessment. 

Ms. SUTLEY. Thank you, Senator. We know something needs to 

be done here. We have announced with the Department of Interior 

a review of the environmental review process at MMS so we can 

get answers to exactly those questions. 

We will also propose to strengthen the guidance that we give to 

agencies with respect to their use of categorical exclusions, clarifying when they should use them, requiring them to review them, 

requiring CEQ to review the use of categorical exclusions. 

But as the Secretary alluded to, one of the real constraints that 

MMS faces is this 30-day requirement to act on permits within 30 

days. And so in the legislation that we sent up here last week, we 

have asked to extend that to 90 days to ensure that there is adequate time to do a thorough environmental analysis when it is required. 

Senator BAUCUS. What is the 30 days? Is that a statutory requirement? 

Ms. SUTLEY. My understanding is that it is. 

Mr. SALAZAR. It is a statutory requirement that I understand has 

been in place since 1978 that MMS has to respond with a decision 

on an exploration plan within 30 days from its submission. 

Senator BAUCUS. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it has 

to be, maybe it does, a categorical exclusion, does it? 

Mr. SALAZAR. There are a number of environmental reviews that 

take place before you get to the point of actually granting a permit 

to drill a particular well. They include the very extensive environmental impact statements in preparing an Outer Continental Shelf 

plan. They include another environmental impact statement with 

respect to a particular lease sale. And then additional environmental analysis that occurs. 

At the point in the window of this process where the company 

submits an exploration plan, there is a requirement, as I understand it, that says that the exploration plan must be approved or 

disapproved within 30 days. 

We have asked for that to be changed in the submission by the 

President on legislative changes. There will be other things like 

that that will be looked at. But I think, Chairman Baucus, if I may, 

the most important thing that is going on here is that it is time 

to learn from this tragedy. Director Sutley, along with our Department, along with Administrator Jackson and others, will take a 

look at these environmental reviews, and whatever changes need 

to be made, they will be made. 

Senator BAUCUS. I understand that. It sort of baffles me, frankly, 

that based on what I know at this point. There does not seem to 

be redundancy plans. There does not seem to be testing, particularly a mile down, of some of these procedures, like the preventer, 

at that depth. 

And just lots of questions that come to my mind. I am just curious. It just seems that they were not looked at adequately in ad-
104 

vance. I know this is hindsight, but it is baffling to me the degree 

to which there is almost a cavalier attitude by the Government in 

its failure to protect resources here. 

If I might change subjects here, my time is about to expire. 

Administrator Jackson, thanks for all the work that you do. As 

you recall I wrote you a letter recently regarding clean up at Libby, 

Montana. And I asked you to affirm a series of commitments related to public involvement in the cleanup process and updating 

records of decisions upon completion of a risk assessment. I just 

wondered if you could confirm that EPA will take the actions outlined in my letter by May 12 of this year. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, your letter was dated May 12, Senator, and 

I do have it and I am happy to affirm those commitments that staff 

have made and will also get you a written response to your letter. 

Senator BAUCUS. I thank you. And just while we are here, I also 

want to just thank you and Secretary Sebelius and the Administration for the declaration of public health urgency. It has made a 

huge difference to those people in that part of our State. So I just 

want to thank you on their behalf. 

Ms. JACKSON. And I am still looking to visit with you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Good. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. It is always nice to see you. Thank you for coming today. Thank you for bringing with you Secretary Salazar and 

Administrator Jackson. We miss one of you very much here in the 

U.S. Senate. It is nice that you come back from time to time and 

still try to play a constructive role at reaching out to all sides and 

working through these difficult issues. 

My first question is for our old colleague, Secretary Salazar. First 

of all, let me say, this question could be for any of you. 

A week or so ago we had a number of witnesses from the industry. I think from the folks from BP and the other witnesses from 

the industry side. And one of the questions I asked to our senior 

witness from BP was about their willingness to really pay the 

piper, for their willingness to cover the costs that were being incurred. 

I believe under current law they have a $75 million obligation beyond which they can ask that we tap this fund that is now grown 

to about $1.7 billion. I think under current law, as I understand 

it, about $1 billion of that can be used per incident. I think there 

has been a proposal to lift that $1 billion to $1.5 billion. 

The witness from BP, again a very senior member of their team, 

responded that they had no interest or intention to foisting any of 

this obligation off onto the taxpayers. This was something they 

wanted to pay for with their dime beyond the $75 million they are 

good for. I even understood him to say they weren’t interested in 

taking money out of the $1.7 billion trust fund. 

We have asked GAO to look at this to make sure that what we 

are hearing from the witness and witnesses from BP actually is 

credible. 

Let me just ask, what have you been told by BP or other liable 

parties in terms of picking up the tab, making sure we make whole 
105 

those who need to be made whole without putting the taxpayers on 

the hook? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Carper, thank you for your hard work in 

the U.S. Senate on behalf of Delaware and the country. 

Let me just say that we have had multiple meetings with the 

senior executives of BP, including Tony Hayward, on the issue of 

liability and what they will pay for. It has included meetings with 

Secretary Napolitano and me, Director Browner of the White 

House, and others. They have communicated to us, first orally, that 

was in fact the case that they were going to pay for all of the consequences of this incident, including damages and compensation for 

businesses and people who will be affected. 

We asked them to put that in writing in a letter that Secretary 

Napolitano and I sent to BP. They have done so, and it comports 

with the statement, as you have understood it, that they are not 

going to access the oil spill fund, nor will they take advantage of 

the $75 million liability cap that is in the statute right now. 

Senator CARPER. Great. Thank you. 

Ms. Jackson, do you or Ms. Sutley have a different view? Feel 

free to speak. 

I see you don’t. That is good. 

A question, if I could, for our Administrator, Lisa Jackson. We 

know that the impacts of this oil spill on our ocean and our ecosystem may well be devastating. We hope not, but they may well 

be. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear 

Safety here in the Senate, I am also concerned about the impact 

on air quality that may emanate from this spill. 

My question is: Has EPA found thus far that the spill is causing 

impairments in air quality? And second, what is EPA doing to protect workers who are cleaning up this spill from breathing harmful 

air? 

Ms. JACKSON. EPA has been sampling since fairly early on. It 

was actually the day that BP started the in situ burning of the oil 

that was on the surface that EPA began air sampling. We have gotten more robust over time. I aspire that we will continue to improve. 

We have made a second commitment, which is anything that we 

sample, any sampling results we get, we will put them up on our 

Web site. We have been doing that, although admittedly I wish we 

could do it faster, but we think data integrity is very important. 

Here is the basics of what we know. So far, we can get quicker 

data when we look at big indicators, total particulate matter, which 

is important when you are looking at a fire. We haven’t seen elevations in those levels into zones that would be a problem for public health. That is based on sampling that we do on the shoreline 

as well as near the incident. 

We look at total volatile organics, because that would be the stuff 

that would be likely to volatilize into the air. There have been numerous reports of odors, some reports of irritation. What we found 

is that while total VOC levels are within levels that we would consider to be protective of human health, we have not yet reviewed 

individual volatile organic contaminant data. We need about 2 

weeks’ worth of data for the scientists to be able to speak with any 

clarity on that issue. 
106 

I think it is probably due to a large extent to the sheen and the 

wave action in a pretty active Gulf that from very early on there 

was some supposition that there could be an aerosol forming. As 

you know, an aerosol can be very irritating, at the least, to your 

lungs. If you ever spray a can, and then try to walk through it, that 

can really irritate you. We have seen incidents like that. 

We have also measured for hydrogen sulfide, and we have seen 

some hits, but we have seen them only at certain monitors. So 

when you monitor along the shoreline, you may see them one place 

but not another. So that leads us to wonder whether it is related 

directly to the spill or perhaps some other issues in the marsh. 

They haven’t been particularly high levels, but they are certainly 

higher than, if you will, background. 

So there is a lot more data coming in. We have a plane in the 

air. We have two mobile labs out front. But I am trying to be very 

careful not to overstate what we know, but my commitment has 

been to people when I talk to them that we are going to get the 

data, and we are going to give it to you. And we are going to give 

it to you in a way that is responsible and hopefully that will add 

to the knowledge of what we are learning about this spill. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. It sounds like you are on it. As a 

Vietnam veteran, I remember all too well the exposure not just to 

folks in Vietnam, but to our military personnel, the exposure to 

Agent Orange and the unanticipated consequence of health damages really to both groups. I think we are all more recently mindful 

of the exposure of the men and women who were involved in the 

clean up and searching for survivors in the ruins of the Twin Towers on 9/11 and the health impairments that a number of them 

have. Let’s just keep that in mind. It sounds like you are as we go 

forward. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. You did ask about workers, 

and of course that is a Department of Labor, Occupational Safety 

and Health, OSHA. We all know OSHA. We have heard from several people their concerns, though, and OSHA has really stepped 

up their presence down in the area of the paid volunteers, if you 

will, the fishermen and vessels of opportunity that have been 

pressed into service on boom. 

I know the other concern has been whether the dispersants, 

which are applied aerially, are any concern. We have added now 

to our suite of chemicals looking for those constituents in the 

dispersants that are most likely to be volatile, recognizing that 

they are not particularly volatile mixtures to start with. 

So we will have some information. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

And one last question for Mr. Secretary, if I could. Last week, 

you announced your intention to restructure MMS in order to establish a separate and independent safety environmental enforcement entity for oil drilling. I believe currently that the Minerals 

Management Service collects energy revenues on behalf of American taxpayers and enforces laws and regulations that apply to offshore energy operations. Is that a basically correct division of 

labor? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Yes. 
107 

Senator CARPER. OK. My understanding is that MMS is already 

partially separated. The Royalties Division is mainly in Denver, 

and the Regulatory Division, I am told, is mainly in New Orleans. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. SALAZAR. That is generally correct. 

Senator CARPER. OK. How do you see your reorganization changing the status quo? Have you thought that far down the road? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Carper, the reform effort that we have had 

underway throughout the Department has included MMS from day 

one, and that has included the elimination of programs like the 

Royalty-in-Kind Program, the institution of a new ethics code, investigations that ultimately have been referred over to the U.S. Attorney, a number of different things like that that have been an effort on our part to bring competence and trust in the functioning 

of MMS. 

Our work is not yet finished. In the days ahead there will be additional orders that we will issue with respect to the restructuring 

of MMS. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. Something you and 

I are very much interested in is alternative energy. If I could just 

ask one last quick follow up on the same point with Secretary 

Salazar. Where do you see the alternative energy permitting folks 

ending up in this reorganization? Have you thought that far down 

the line? 

Mr. SALAZAR. We have indeed. There will be a continuing significant effort on our part to capture energy in the ocean that is renewable energy. As you well know, the State of Delaware, along 

with the State of Rhode Island, are two of the key leaders in the 

Atlantic. We have formed an Atlantic Consortium with respect to 

offshore wind. We have developed the regulations with respect to 

that. 

I expect that even in the weeks ahead, even as we deal with this 

turmoil down in the Gulf, you will be seeing additional information 

with respect to the efforts on the offshore wind related specifically 

to the Atlantic. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks so much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

And thank you to all the witnesses for being here. We are down 

to the bitter end of your time here. I wanted to ask a number of 

questions. The first has to do with a statement made by 

Transocean’s lawyers, who have said that strengthened regulations 

are not needed because companies have the financial incentive to 

do this kind of job right. 

That is the Greenspan rule. That is exactly the theory that Alan 

Greenspan used to justify deregulation of the financial regulatory 

structure that we had. We saw the destruction that ensued from 

that. Please assure me that you are not buying into this theory 

that under certain circumstances there may be a financial disincentive to a company from having a disaster means that the Government doesn’t need to do any regulation to prevent that disaster 

from happening. 
108 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Whitehouse, I very much agree with your 

position, and I think that kind of a statement from Transocean is 

wrong. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate it. 

In terms of MMS’s role, I have seen news reports saying that 

they were highly encouraging companies to take certain steps, but 

not requiring them to; that they issue guidelines and recommendations but that their provisions weren’t mandatory. If a regular 

American is trying to electric work on their house, and they need 

to have the electrical inspector come and sign off on what they did 

or didn’t do, they are subject to pretty clear requirements. You 

have either done it right, or you haven’t. 

Why is it that for something that is so complicated and so dangerous as this offshore drilling that the similar level of 

mandatoriness that you and I have to face with the electrical inspector in our homes doesn’t apply to these giant industries? What 

is with regulation by suggestion? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Whitehouse, the MMS has a comprehensive regulatory program that has been in place and is the creature 

of 40 years of development. It is under that regime that some 

36,000 wells in the Gulf alone have been constructed without this 

kind of an incident. Many of the rules at MMS are in fact mandatory. 

Now, that doesn’t mean that these rules are what they ought to 

be. I would imagine that one of the things that you will see in the 

coming report to the President on safety issues has to do with significant enhancements. 

I have seen the blowout prevention mechanisms. They are required on wells. They are not the first line of defense. There are 

other lines of defense. It is first the mud in the well, and that is 

never supposed to happen, and there are a whole bunch of shutoffs 

with respect to blowout preventions. This particular BOP program 

had a number of different closures that were supposed to take 

place. Lots of things probably happened that kept them from closing in and stopping the flow. 

We will learn a lot from what happened here, and that is why 

the President’s Commission and the investigations are so important so we can get to the root causes and so that we can learn all 

the lessons that can be learned from this horrible tragedy. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate that. I am delighted that the 

President made that decision. As you know, Congresswoman Capps 

on the House side and me on the Senate side have filed legislation 

to push that to happen. I think the President’s choice obviously 

was the right one. 

In terms of the culture at MMS, we have seen horrifying stories. 

We have seen regulation by suggestion, I call it. I haven’t seen that 

in any other regulatory environment I have ever been in. On the 

other hand, it is a big organization. You see it, although only for 

a brief period of time now, more closely than I do. To what extent 

is this a captive regulator where, to use your earlier phrase, really 

root and branch changes need to be made? And to what extent is 

this a legitimate, honest regulator that has only pockets of malfeasance or nonfeasance? What is your view of the scope of the problem within MMS? 
109 

Mr. SALAZAR. Let me say first there are 1,700 employees at 

MMS, and today I would say most of them, the very, very vast majority of them, are good public servants doing their job, collecting 

$13 billion for the taxpayers of America; helping produce the energy which you and I consume and the constituents of Rhode Island and Colorado consume every day. 

So I am proud of the work that they do, but I also recognize that 

there are pockets of problems, and we have taken them on, including with appropriate personnel actions, and whenever necessary, 

referrals for other more significant sanctions under the law. That 

has continued and will continue unabated into the future. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you think an adequate spirit of skepticism about the assertions of the industry it is intended to regulate exist within the agency? Or do you think they are willing to 

more or less take what they are told? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Whitehouse, the reform agenda which we 

have tried to put into the Department of the Interior has not come 

without any cost. There was an exchange between myself and industry where I said the days of them treating the Federal domain 

as essentially part of a candy store were over. We have made it 

clear that those days of the prior Administration are over. 

So those changes are changes that we have implemented from 

the very beginning of my coming into the Department of the Interior. It has come at the cost of significant criticism, including members of this Committee and the Senate. But it is the right agenda 

that we are on, the agenda of reform. It is an agenda which is not 

yet complete, and that is why we will not rest until we get it done 

and we achieve the President’s goal of having the highest safety 

possible with respect to any development in the Outer Continental 

Shelf. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If you look for a minute at the categorical 

exclusion question, which I know has been touched on a few times 

already, under the 2004 changes to your NEPA manual, National 

Environmental Protection Act manual, the categorical exclusion 

from the full blown NEPA process for approval of an offshore lease 

or unit exploration in the central or western Gulf of Mexico provides a number of exemptions: No. 1, in areas of high seismic risk 

or seismicity, relatively untested deep water, or remote areas; two, 

within the boundary or near the boundary of a proposed or established wildlife refuge or area of high biological sensitivity; three, in 

areas of hazardous natural bottom conditions. I don’t know if the 

natural bottom conditions were there; four, utilizing new or unusual technology. 

The press is full of reports about the novelty of using this technology at this depth; the use for the first time of nitrogen cement 

instead of regular cement; the use of the device of displacement of 

the mud before the plugs were in; and obviously they went into a 

scramble mode once things really went wrong and they had to 

begin to try to address the spill because clearly it was being made 

up as they went along at that point: trying the dome, no; ice crystals, that didn’t work; what are going to do next, try the straw, no; 

well, I guess that is working; maybe we will try the relief wells. 

It looks like a very ad hoc effort. And when I look at these exemptions from the requirement, here we were in very deep water. 
110 

I don’t know how near we were to the boundaries of a wildlife refuge or areas of high biological sensitivity, but clearly there would 

seem to be elements of new and unusual technology being used 

here, particularly at this depth. 

Do you feel that the decision that was made to go ahead with the 

categorical exclusion, when these exemptions seem to me rather 

plainly to apply, was taken correctly and in good faith? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Whitehouse, there has been significant environmental review, including environmental impact statements 

that have been conducted with respect to this activity in the Gulf 

of Mexico. It is an area where we know a lot about the environment. We know a lot about the infrastructure that is there. 

The question of the categorical exclusions in part relates to the 

congressionally mandated 30-day requirement that MMS has to approve or disapprove an exploration plan. But it is an appropriate 

area for questions, and that is why Director Sutley and Interior are 

leading a review of all these environmental issues. I would, with 

your indulgence, ask her to comment on the review of all these environmental issues at MMS. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would be delighted. Just to sort of provoke the conversation a little further, here is BP’s Chief Executive 

Officer, Tony Hayward, saying this is the first time the industry 

has had to confront this issue in this water depth, and there is a 

lot of real-time learning going on; BP’s release that the Chairman 

showed earlier, that significant uncertainties exist because they 

have not been tested in these conditions before; and now you have 

a new or unusual technology exemption to the categorical exclusion, and everybody is running around saying his is new, this is 

unusual. 

Why was that not apparent back when the categorical exclusion 

was being issued? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Let me just say, Senator Whitehouse, those are 

from 2004. That was a long time ago, a different Administration. 

We are taking a new look at that. We have been taking a new look 

at a lot of different things. But importantly, the effort that Director 

Sutley and I have underway to look at all these environmental 

issues is very important. So I think it would be appropriate for her 

to comment. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No, and I don’t mean to suggest that any 

of you three individually had any responsibility for that. I mean, 

if these technologies are new and unusual now, think how new and 

unusual they were years ago when this application was being considered. There is the new and unusual exemption right in the middle. There is the deep water exemption right in the middle of it. 

Who was watching to oversee that determination? 

It is hard for me to see that that is a determination that could 

have been made in good faith back then. So I hope you will look 

back and take a look at the extent to which there might have been 

improper or undue influence in the early stages of this approval to 

allow this to go through the categorical exclusion, given those very 

clear exemptions that seem to be plainly pertinent. 

Chairman Sutley. 

Ms. SUTLEY. Thank you, Senator. The Secretary is exactly right. 

We intend to do something about this. We are engaged in this re-
111 

view of MMS’s NEPA procedures and their environmental review 

procedures, recognizing that there is an expanding use of categorical exclusions across the Government. We proposed in February to 

update our guidance with respect to categorical exclusions, including the requirement that agencies review their own use of categorical exclusions and that CEQ will do, as we are launching with the 

Department of Interior review not only MMS’s overall NEPA procedures, but the use of categorical exclusions. So we think there are 

definitely areas for improvement in the application of categorical 

exclusions. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. I appreciate that. 

My time has expired, and even though I am not inconveniencing 

any other Senators, because we are here now alone, I am inconveniencing the three of you, so I will conclude. But I am glad that you 

are taking such a serious look at it. Just from what I have seen 

in the newspapers, we read about dead batteries in the control pod; 

test parts in the blowout preventer instead of the reel rams; even 

the reel rams not able to actually shear the pipe the way they are 

supposed to at joints; hydraulic leaks that preexisted all of this; 

pressure readings that were missed. 

And on the Government side, inspections missed, warnings ignored, regulation by recommendation, I call it. I don’t envy you 

having to go back and clean this up. I know the problems predated 

your arrival, but I really think it is important that you do that. I 

would urge you to take a particular look at what this means for 

Arctic drilling. Because if it is this hard to clean this up in the relatively benign conditions of the Gulf of Mexico, good luck trying to 

implement this sort of a clean up in Arctic oceans. 

Thank you all very much for being here. I appreciate your testimony and will take a 2-minute recess to allow the second panel to 

come forward. I am very grateful for your service. I know you have 

put in enormously long hours and put in a wonderful effort on this. 

Secretary Salazar, as a former colleague of yours here, I am just 

always very proud of you. So keep up the good work. Thank you. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[Recess.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The hearing will come back to order. 

I am delighted to welcome panel two. In addition to being very 

distinguished, they are also very patient. I think I will read 

everybody’s introductions, and then we will go through the statements one after another. 

Admiral Peter F. Neffenger of the United States Coast Guard is 

the Deputy National Incident Commander for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. The Coast Guard is responsible for the response and clean up of oil spills in coastal waters under the Clean 

Water Act, Oil Pollution Act and the National Contingency Plan. 

The Coast Guard is also a co-lead, along with the Minerals Management Service, in the ongoing investigation into the causes of the 

explosion and spill. 

Jo-Ellen Darcy is Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which Ms. Darcy oversees, is responsible for maintaining navigation on the river systems 

and waterways along the Gulf Coast, some of which could be affected by the spill. The Corps will also have responsibility for re-
112 

viewing Louisiana’s proposal to construct barrier islands in coastal 

waters to prevent the oil spill from reaching coastal wetlands. 

John Fernandez is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development. The Economic Development Administration, 

which he oversees, will play a role in assisting Gulf Coast communities in coping with impacts to local economies as a result of the 

oil spill. The EDA has a proven track record in helping communities recover after disasters, and we look forward to hearing how 

EDA can assist in the wake of this spill. 

I will call first on Admiral Neffenger. Let me just tell you how 

grateful I am for the work that the Coast Guard has done in this 

particular instance. I think both as active participants in the response and as regulators and questioners of other agencies has 

been in the best traditions of the Coast Guard. I, for one, remember 

the North Cape-Scandia incident off of Rhode Island and the extraordinary heroism of the Coast Guard folks who made very hazardous rescues that night and brought everyone to safety in really 

appalling weather conditions. So I just wanted to take that moment 

to thank you for what an impressive and professional organization 

you are a part of. 

Admiral. 

STATEMENT OF PETER V. NEFFENGER, REAR ADMIRAL, DEPUTY NATIONAL INCIDENT COMMANDER, DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL RESPONSE, U.S. COAST GUARD 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for those kind comments about the men and women of the Coast 

Guard. And thank you for the opportunity to testify today about 

the ongoing response and investigation into the explosion and subsequent oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon incident. 

I have written comments that I will provide for the record and 

make a brief opening statement. 

On the evening of April 20, 2010, the Coast Guard and other 

mariners immediately responded to the explosion and fire which 

engulfed the Deepwater Horizon. Within the first few hours, 115 of 

the 126 crewmembers aboard the rig were rescued, with the Coast 

Guard medically evacuating 17 of those most seriously injured. 

Eleven crew members remain missing despite intensive multi-day 

search efforts, and our deepest sympathies remain with their families and friends as they cope with their losses. 

On the morning of April 22rd the Deepwater Horizon sank in 

5,000 feet of water, resulting in a major oil spill from the continuous release of oil and gas from an open wellhead riser and drill 

pipe. The complexity of this event is unprecedented. With the spill 

emanating at a depth of 5,000 feet of water we are operating in 

inner-space where there is no human access, and we must depend 

upon remotely operated vehicles and tools with which extensive efforts continue to stem the flow and secure the source of the spill. 

To meet this challenge, organizations at the local, regional and 

national level immediately initiated a massive response. This has 

been led regionally by the Federal on-scene coordinator, Rear Admiral Mary Landry, nationally by Admiral Thad Allen, to whom I 

am the Deputy National Incident Commander, and Secretary 
113 

Napolitano as the principal Federal official under the authority 

given her by HSPD–5. 

On the day the rig sank the President convened a principals 

meeting to direct that the whole of Government be brought to bear 

on this effort, working closely with State and local government authorities. The National Contingency Plan provides the organizational structure and the operational framework to implement the 

family of response plans that are developed and exercised in advance of a spill such as this. 

Unified commands consisting of Federal, State and local authorities, the responsible party, and oil spill removal organizations and 

other key stakeholders were established within the Gulf region to 

coordinate and direct the response operations. These unified commands implement the area contingency plans, which include response strategies and organizational responsibilities previously 

agreed upon by stakeholders for the anticipated most probable and 

worst case oil spills. 

These plans prioritize cleanup sites and protection areas for 

booming and pre-staging of other resources. The projections of spill 

trajectory based on forecasted winds, currents, and sea states require continued tactical flexibility as we move stocks and booms 

around and such and direct resources accordingly. 

BP is the responsible party, and it is their responsibility to plan 

for and to respond with sufficient capability. They are also responsible for the clean up of the oil, remediation of all damages, and 

the restoration of impacted natural resources. They have acknowledged and accepted this responsibility, but as the Federal on-scene 

coordinator the Coast Guard is ensuring that they continue to meet 

their obligations by providing constant oversight and direction of 

their actions. 

In addition, we continue to monitor the claims process to ensure 

it is robust and fair. 

The severity, size and location, and potential impact of this 

brought Secretary Napolitano to declare it a spill of national significance. As part of that designation, Admiral Thad Allen, as I 

said, was named the National Incident Commander. The role of the 

National Incident Commander is to coordinate national policy, ensure provision of necessary resources, facilitate collaboration between Federal, State and local government, and coordinate strategic communications throughout the whole of government. 

The magnitude and location of the spill has required a combination of traditional spill response equipment and methodologies coupled with newer technologies employed in unconventional ways. 

The use of dispersant deep below the surface, remote operating vehicles to access the site and secure the source, and satellite imagery to better determine the location of oil are just a few examples 

of these. 

The efforts so far have been extensive and without precedent. As 

of today, we have recovered over 7.6 million gallons of oil-water 

mix, applied over 588,000 gallons of surface dispersant and over 

47,000 gallons of sub-sea dispersants, deployed over 1.3 million feet 

of boom, staged over 350,000 feet of boom, and have another 1.4 

million feet arriving. And as noted there are over 19,000 personnel 

and 950 vessels involved. 
114 

We understand the impacts of this spill on the local communities 

whose livelihood and quality of life depends on the health of the 

Gulf. I have personally spent the better part of the past few weeks 

in the Gulf region over-flying the spill site, visiting the various 

command posts, and observing first-hand the efforts underway. 

In closing, the National Incident Command will continuing coordinating the aggressive whole of government response to this 

spill while ensuring that BP meets their obligations. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity, and I welcome any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Neffenger follows:] 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Admiral. 

We will hold questions until the end, and we will go to Assistant 

Secretary Darcy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I want to thank you 

for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Army’s ongoing 

efforts to support the oil spill response in the Gulf and to provide 

an assessment of impacts to navigation and the ecosystem. 

In the midst of the response to this tragic Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill, the Corps of Engineers continues to provide reliable navigation on the river system and waterways along the Gulf Coast. 

In addition, the Corps has provided modeling support for river 

discharges and is offering emergency review under section 404 and 

section 10 authorities of a proposed barrier plan developed at the 

local level intended to prevent the oil from reaching the coastal 

wetlands. 

Currently the oil spill is not affecting dredging operations or 

navigation in any rivers or waterways along the Gulf. So far there 

have been no incidents of deep-draft vessels getting oil on their 

hulls as they approach the southwest pass of the Mississippi River. 

The U.S. Coast Guard, working with navigation interests, has established a clearing station in the Lower Mississippi River to clean 

those vessels before they proceed up the river to New Orleans. This 

is similar to what was done in the Mississippi River in the 2009 

oil spill. 

The Corps continues daily monitoring of any impacts to navigation and dredging operations as a result of the oil spill and maintains continued coordination with navigation interests and appropriate agencies. 

The Corps’ New Orleans District, Mississippi Valley Division, 

and the Engineer Research and Development Center Coastal and 

Hydraulic Laboratory have analyzed a number of water management conditions and possible actions to determine whether we 

could modify river flows to keep oil away from the mouth of the 

Mississippi River and wetlands on either side of the river. 

This analysis included the possible deviations from what is currently a 70-30 split at what is called the old river control structure 

between the Mississippi River and the Atchafalaya Basin. Numerical modeling analysis has shown that diverting water from the 

Atchafalaya Basin to the Mississippi River at this control structure 

would have minimal influence on the movement of the oil in the 

Mississippi River Delta region. 

Due to the extreme flooding of the Tennessee and the Cumberland Basins earlier this month, Mississippi River discharges 

below New Orleans will nearly double. However, even with these 

forecasted increases in discharges, we do not anticipate increased 

flows that would allow opening the Bonnet Carre spillway to reduce oil entering the Mississippi Sound area. 

With respect to some of our smaller freshwater diversion structures, those structures are currently operating near design capacity, and the modeling suggests that this may help slow the movement of the oil into the project marshes from the marsh and the 
159 

open water boundaries in the immediate vicinity of these structures. 

This team continues to evaluate other water management scenarios to determine if they will help address the oil spill issues. 

The Corps of Engineers’ Research and Development Center, which 

we refer to as ERDC, is also working with the U.S. Geological Survey Program to collect and analyze baseline sediment samples in 

the wetlands and in the navigation areas. These pre-oil spill samples will provide critical comparisons to post-emergency sediment 

that will be required for efforts to continue with Louisiana coastal 

restoration through the beneficial uses of dredge materials. 

On May 11, 2010, the Corps received a permit request from the 

State of Louisiana for construction of an approximately 100-milelong barrier intended to intercept the oil before it enters the 

marshes. The Corps is reviewing the permit request under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

As this request was rendered in the context of the British Petroleum oil spill, the Corps is working with the National Incident 

Commander to evaluate this request. 

In addition to ERDC’s Coastal and Hydraulic Laboratory support, seven people have been deployed from ERDC Environmental 

Laboratory to support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s natural 

resources damage assessment activities. Activities include development of bird injury study plans, global positioning systems collection, and integration of field data, as well as primary GIS and mapping support. 

As the Department of Army lead for environmental restoration, 

research and development, ERDC is prepared to assist in formulating and implementing strategies for long-term monitoring and 

remediation of wetland and barrier island areas affected by the oil 

spill. 

ERDC is also prepared to provide analysis for the eventual remediation of contaminated barrier sediment and material removal and 

ecological restoration. 

Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, and I am happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Darcy follows:] 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Darcy. 

Assistant Secretary Fernandez, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN FERNANDEZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I talk about EDA’s response to the oil spill, I, too, want 

to express our sincere condolences to the families who lost their 

family members after the explosion. I also want to say thank you 

and express our gratitude to the incredible work of all the first responders and their extraordinary efforts to actually rescue over 100 

other survivors. 

While the responsible parties, rather than EDA, will ultimately 

be responsible for the economic damage caused by this spill, EDA 

will play a role in helping the affected communities recover. 

Though not a first responder, EDA facilitates delivery of Federal 

assistance to local governments’ recovery efforts through technical 

assistance, strategic planning, and economic redevelopment grants. 

Shortly after the spill I asked our staff in the Austin and Atlanta 

Regional Offices, who are on the front line of this disaster, to reach 

out to our local partners. Regional office staff have contacted our 

network of local government partners in those affected areas to 

offer our agency’s assistance. We deployed staff throughout the region to meet with local and State leaders as well our colleagues in 

other Federal agencies. 

On May 6 Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, along with EDA 

leadership, met with local government and economic leaders in Biloxi and Pensacola. Our staff remain in regular contact with local, 

State and Federal partners. 

While in the short term EDA’s regional staff is already providing 

some technical assistance, our focus will remain on promoting longterm economic recovery and we will continue to work closely with 

affected communities long after the clean up is complete. 

Successful long-term recovery based upon well developed planning efforts can help a community not only get back to where they 

started prior to a disaster, but also develop new economic opportunities, make improvements to their infrastructure, and be better 

prepared for future disasters. 

In my written testimony I have set out some of the technical 

frameworks for EDA’s engagement in disaster recovery efforts. In 

the time I have left with my statement I would like to just provide 

a real simplified overview. 

Economic disasters, whether they are caused by forces of nature 

or if they are man-made, each bring their own unique set of challenges. Rather than pursuing a one size fits all approach EDA 

works directly with State and local leadership to develop customized responses. 

The key to EDA’s success in responding quickly and effectively 

to disasters and economic disruptions is its Economic Adjustment 

Assistance Program. This program allows for a wide range of technical assistance, strategic planning, gap financing, and infrastructure assistance. It is a complete toolbox of development tools which 

EDA can leverage. 
169 

Most importantly the Economic Adjustment Investment Program 

can select projects that are multifaceted, which allows us to develop an integrated response with a single grant application. In 

order to assist communities impacted by the oil spill, the President 

last week sent Congress a legislative package that included $5 million for EDA’s Economic Adjustment Assistance Program. 

EDA’s long involvement with communities before and after a disaster has taught us a few truths. First and foremost, the communities that emerge strongest from these catastrophic events are 

those that have a detailed strategic plan in place before the event 

ever occurred. That is a significant reason why the Obama administration is working to ensure that the Federal Government is prepared for a swift and coordinated response to future large or catastrophic disasters. Through advanced planning and strong coordination, the Federal Government can help affected communities response faster and recover more fully through new economic opportunities that will result in sustainable and economically viable 

communities. 

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for the opportunity to address 

EDA’s role in the economic disaster response. I can tell you I have 

spent the last several weeks visiting communities where EDA has 

helped in recovery efforts. I can tell you I am very proud of the 

work that the agency does in this area. 

EDA is ready and prepared to do our best to assist with the devastating impact of this oil spill in the Gulf Coast region. We certainly look forward to working with Congress to strengthen the 

Federal Government’s coordinated response, and I certainly welcome any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fernandez follows:] 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary 

Fernandez. 

Admiral Neffenger, the New York Times and others have reported that there are enormous oil plumes now in the deep waters 

of the Gulf, including one 10 miles long, 3 miles wide, and 300 feet 

thick in spots. This spill didn’t happen at the surface. It happened 

in the depths of the Gulf. We have a pretty good sense from visual 

observation of how far it has reached at the surface level. How 

good do you believe our country’s modeling is of the shape, size, 

and location of the undersea oil? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. As you know, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is the primary agency responsible for 

doing spill trajectory models and the like. They have been looking 

very carefully at that question. 

I can tell you that there is still some uncertainty as to what was 

actually seen there. Dr. Jane Lubchenco—I believe it was yesterday—issued a statement that the scientific evidence is inconclusive 

right now as to what that actually was that they have seen. 

Nonetheless there is some concern that there is an underwater 

plume that might be forming. So there is a team working on that 

right now. It is a technical team that is looking at all the data that 

we are collecting right now, as well as collecting data to determine 

really what they are seeing out there and why it might mean with 

respect to the extent of this oil spill. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So it would be not accurate to think that 

there is a sort of a 3-D model on a computer someplace that shows 

where this enormous blob of oil has traveled to under the water. 

We don’t have that kind of situational awareness as to the oil that 

is still in the water column. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Well, I think that it would be accurate to 

say that, but I would qualify it by saying that until there is some 

certainty as to what is actually being seen underwater it is difficult 

to model what it might be doing. So I would qualify it by that. It 

is not so much that there is not an accurate model but that you 

need more data to determine what that model might look like. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you have a sense of how much of the 

oil that has been spilled in this incident has stayed in the water 

column as opposed to rising to the surface and making itself more 

apparent to the human eye? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. As you know, we have dispersed oil in the 

water column as well as oil that may be naturally dispersing from 

the flow. I don’t have a good set of numbers for how much in terms 

of relative percentage would be sub-surface as opposed to on the 

surface. Again, these technical teams are looking at that data now, 

so we are bringing in not only just NOAA scientists but setting up 

a peer review process to take a look at that. These are important 

questions to answer. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Are you at the point where you know that 

it is more than half or less than half that went to the surface? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. I don’t believe I could quantify it right now, 

sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. So it is really a huge question mark 

at this point. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. It is a question mark for us at this point. 
180 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. That is a very big unknown, isn’t it? 

I read a story in The Wall Street Journal this morning that said 

that in 2004, managers of BP plc, the oil giant involved in this incident and another oil rig incident that they described in the article, 

warned in a trade journal that the company wasn’t prepared for 

the long-term, round the clock task of dealing with a deep sea spill. 

I was a little bit surprised that nobody picked up on that. You 

would think that unless this is a trade journal with no readership 

whatsoever somewhere somebody within the Coast Guard or within 

NOAA or within MMS would have been pinged to the fact that 

here was this enormous corporation with a considerable deep sea 

drilling footprint basically confessing that it is not ready to deal 

with an emergency that might ensue if something went wrong. 

Do you have any sense of why that might have been missed? 

That would seem like kind of a telltale moment. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. What I can say, Senator, is with respect to 

this spill as well as with respect to our interaction with companies 

like BP for oil spill response plans, and I will clarify that our interaction has to do with vessel spill response plans, tank vessel. So 

we deal with the shipping side of the world, if you will, so the mobile offshore units and the vessels. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you consider a floating rig to be a vessel? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. In this case, this one was. Yes. This was a 

self-propelled offshore drilling unit, so it was classified as a vessel. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But if they stand on legs, they are not. 

And if they are floating like this one, they are. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. It depends on what kind of action they are 

taking. Some rigs that stand on legs can be classified as vessels as 

well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But in any event this was a vessel. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. This was a vessel. Right. So it was required 

to have and did have a non-tank vessel response plan for response 

to a spill generated by the vessel. In this case that MODU had 

some 700,000 gallons of fuel oil and other oils on board. 

So we were satisfied that they had the response assets in place 

and the oil spill removal organization contracts in place to deal 

with a spill from that vessel should it have occurred. And that 

would be for a worst case discharge from that vessel, which would 

have been a complete loss of its fuel oil. 

I am not familiar with the article that you are mentioning, so I 

can’t really speak to what it says. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. We will follow up on that. 

The dispersants that were used were at some level approved by 

the Coast Guard as the Incident Commander, correct? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Actually the way that works is there is a 

regional response team which is co-chaired by the Coast Guard and 

EPA. This is a collection of government agencies and stakeholders 

and resource trustees that pre-approve the use of alternative technologies. In this case there was a pre-approval existing that had 

been vetted through that interagency work group for the use of 

dispersants that made that available to the Federal on-scene coordinator for use during this spill. 
181 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So who selected Corexit 9500A and 

Corexit 9527A as the dispersants? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. I would assume that that was pre-approved 

by that regional response team so they would have approved those 

types of dispersants in their pre-approval process. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you think those were the only two 

dispersants that were pre-approved? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. I can check on that for you, Senator. I don’t 

know exactly, but we can provide for the record a copy of the preapproval checklist that was provided to the FOSC. 

[The information follows:] 

The Federal On-Scene Commander, with the concurrence of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) representative to the Regional Response Team (RRT), and 

in consultation with the Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, and 

where appropriate the State and tribal representatives to the RRT, authorizes the 

responsible party to use dispersants that are listed on the National Contingency 

Plan Product Schedule. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300 subpart J, the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) approves dispersants for use in U.S. waters based on tests for toxicity and 

effectiveness. Any product listed on the schedule must meet a threshold minimum 

for effectiveness and test for and report on toxicity. No States have expressed reservations about the use of these dispersants in the past as long as the dispersant 

is employed in accordance with the Regional Response Team Dispersant-Use preauthorizations agreements established between the States and their Federal partners at the regions around the country. 

The toxicity data table at http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/ 

toxltables.htm provides toxicity data for the 18 dispersants listed. Toxicity values 

should not be interpreted as absolute values but rather relative to one another in 

a general sense. For example, an LC50 of 4.49 should not be viewed as significantly 

different from an LC50 of 5.95. But the LC50 of 4.49 can be viewed as significantly 

different from the LC50 of 42.00. Therefore, the toxicity values can be used to group 

dispersants (two or three groups of similar toxicity) but should not be used to list 

dispersants according to toxicity (1 to 20). 

All 18 products on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule are selected 

based on volume availability, specifics of the site, and concerns of the Federal OnScene Coordinator. Toxicity tests are methods for determining the impact of a chemical or an effluent on living organisms and measure the degree of response using 

commonly tested species. Many different kinds of tests can be used to identify potential toxic effects, but since toxic effects differ, comparing the toxicity of one to another may not be appropriate. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. That would be of interest, and I appreciate that. 

Mr. Fernandez, could you describe a little bit more the role of the 

Economic Development Administration in this circumstance a little 

bit more tangibly? Here is the disaster. You come in. Who do you 

first talk to? What is your goal? How do you know when you have 

succeeded? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. I can. Speaking specifically to the Gulf spill or 

generally? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Generally. We have just recently had 

flooding in Rhode Island, for instance, so make your answers germane to that as well. That would be helpful. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. I can tell you how we would respond in most 

cases, and I will use the Rhode Island one as a specific example. 

I know that representatives from our field office get engaged 

with local officials, county and municipal officials, city officials. 

There are economic development organizations that we fund to do 

long-term planning. Those economic development districts, we will 

engage with them. And what we try and do early on is have as 
182 

many conversations as we can to get a sense of what the damage 

is on the ground, what resources are in place in terms of any prior 

disaster planning or resiliency work that the community may have 

done in advance, which can accelerate the response. 

And as we collect information it really depends on whether or not 

there has been a formal trigger or not of the Stafford Act. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Assume there has been the disaster declaration. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. If the declaration has been enacted that means 

that the community can have immediate access to our existing 

EDA programs in the event that they were not otherwise eligible. 

That is an important trigger in some regards to the fisheries as 

well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. This is primarily a planning function? Or 

is this an actual relief function? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Both. What it does is that it means that if you 

are in an eligible area, or regardless of eligibility if you are in an 

area that has been triggered by Stafford, you have access to our 

implementation grants as well as planning grants. And you also 

have the ability to dispense with the traditional matching requirement, which turns out to be a big deal in most disaster recovery 

efforts. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But the ultimate function of that exercise 

is a planning process, not providing relief to particular individual 

businesses. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. There are two things that can happen. There is 

certainly the planning component. Often what we find to be the 

most important request is that we actually fund disaster relief coordinators, folks who can come into the community, work with others to help them best access not just EDA assistance, but the full 

Federal portfolio. That can be a very important immediate investment that we make through our grant dollars. 

Then certainly the planning component is important. Once those 

plans are in place, if there are specific implementation investments 

we can consider those as well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Very good. 

I see that my time has expired, and I know you have been here. 

It has been a long afternoon for all of you. I appreciate very much 

our efforts to facilitate the resolution of the Gulf spill, and again 

a particular salute to the Coast Guard. 

But to all of you, thank you very, very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. We will stay open for 2 weeks for anything anybody cares to add to the record of the hearing. 

Thank you again. 

[Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ