U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

76–583 2012

COMBATING THE BP OIL SPILL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 27, 2010 

Serial No. 111–128 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

ELIOT ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 4 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 13 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 14 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 15 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 16 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 16 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 17 

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 18 

Hon. Mary Bono Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 19 

Hon. Jane Harman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 19 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 20 

Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement ................................................................................... 21 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 22 

Hon. Charlie Melancon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, opening statement ................................................................................... 30 

WITNESSES

Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works); accompanied 

by Terrence ‘‘Rock’’ Salt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army . 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Larry Robinson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA ........................................................................................................ 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

David J. Hayes, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior .......................... 67 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Rear Admiral James Watson, Deputy, Unified Area Command, United States 

Coast Guard .......................................................................................................... 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 151 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

BP interim report, dated May 24, 2010 ................................................................. 101 

Letter of May 24, 2010, from Mr. Burgess to United States Army Corps 

of Engineers .......................................................................................................... 149 

Letter of May 26, 2010, from Mr. Burgess to the White House .......................... 150 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

COMBATING THE BP OIL SPILL 

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:09 p.m., in Room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Inslee, Butterfield, Melancon, 

McNerney, Dingell, Green, Capps, Harman, Baldwin, Matheson, 

Barrow, Waxman (ex officio), Upton, Stearns, Shimkus, Blunt, 

Pitts, Bono Mack, Sullivan, Burgess, Scalisle, Griffith, and Barton. 

Also Present: Representative Castor. 

Staff Present: Phil Barnett, Staff Director; Bruce Wolpe, Senior 

Advisor; Greg Dotson, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; 

Joel Beauvais, Counsel; Michal Freedhoff, Counsel; Melissa 

Cheatham, Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Special 

Assistant; Meredith Fuchs, Chief Investigative Counsel; Karen 

Lightfoot, Communications Director, Senior Policy Advisor; Elizabeth Letter, Special Assistant; Jen Berenholz, Deputy Clerk; Mitchell Smiley, Special Assistant; Mary Neumayr, Minority Counsel; 

Aaron Cutler, Minority Counsel; Peter Spencer, Minority Professional Staff Member; Andrea Spring, Minority Professional Staff 

Member; and Garrett Golding, Minority Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Good afternoon. It is day 38 of the BP oil spill disaster. Over these 38 days, BP has misled the public on the amount 

of oil spewing into the ocean. They waited until day 23 to release 

a 30-second clip of the oil spill. They waited until day 31 to release 

a live feed of the spill. They continued to use dispersants that EPA 

has directed them to replace. And while we all hope that the top 

kill is successful, it is one of several untested strategies to address 

oil leaks at this depth, signaling BP’s utter lack of preparedness. 

Through BP’s obfuscation of the truth, the Federal Government 

has been working to determine the impacts of the spill and to mitigate the damage done to our environment, economy, and coastal 

communities. This is BP’s spill, but it is America’s ocean. 

After the initial explosion of the oil rig on April 20, the Coast 

Guard was first on the scene for a search and rescue operation that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

saved the lives of 115 workers. The administration immediately established a command center. 

A day after the explosion, the Coast Guard, EPA, and the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and Homeland Security joined 

State and local groups to coordinate resources and oversee BP’s response. 

Within a week, Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Salazar 

signed on to an order for a joint investigation to determine the 

causes of this disaster. 

Homeland Security designated this event as a spill of national 

significance to fully leverage resources for the Federal Government’s response. 

The Department of Commerce declared a fishery disaster in the 

Gulf to mobilize assistance to fishermen and fishing communities. 

NOAA has taken a lead role in evaluating the impacts of oil on 

marine resources and advising cleanup efforts. 

EPA has been monitoring air quality and has directed BP to use 

less toxic and more effective dispersants. 

However, in addition to the spill under the sea surface, we are 

also confronting the spillover from the Bush administration. This 

culture was established during the Bush administration when it 

compromised the Minerals Management Service, or MMS, responsible for offshore drilling oversight. 

On Tuesday, the Department of Interior released a report detailing how during the Bush administration MMS personnel routinely 

accepted expensive gifts from the very people they were supposed 

to be regulating. The Obama administration has responded with a 

plan to fundamentally restructure the MMS into separate entities 

for leasing, safety, and revenue collection, with independent missions to strengthen oversight of offshore energy operations. Any 

changes in MMS personnel will not change their dedication to effective oversight of our energy resources. 

Congress has also been working to determine the causes and consequences of this disaster, holding the companies involved accountable. BP, Halliburton, and Transocean have been questioned about 

the events leading to the accident. Chairman Waxman and Chairman Stupak are leading that investigation, and they will get to the 

bottom of what efforts were actually taken to stop the leak and attempts to clean up the mess. 

Ocean experts have testified to the effects of the oil on marine 

ecosystems. I sought and succeeded in making BP’s live feed from 

the ocean floor available to the public, working with members of 

this committee. 

For years, the oil industry told us an oil spill was impossible. 

Then they said stopping the leak is mission impossible. It is clear 

that BP was unprepared for this. 

America is looking to the administration to provide oversight and 

to prevent this from ever happening again. There has been an impressive Federal response. To date, the Federal Government has 

deployed 1,300 vessels, over 1.85 million feet of containment boom, 

and directed 22,000 Federal employees to work on the BP oil spill. 

As this work continues, we must realize that we cannot drill our 

way to energy independence. We have 2 percent of the world’s oil 

reserves, 5 percent of the world’s population, and we consume 25 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

percent of the world’s oil on a daily basis. The BP oil disaster is 

another reminder that we must move to a clean energy future, 

buoyed by increased fuel economy, wind, solar, hydropower, and efficiency and other technologies that can help us in the long run to 

avoid this ever happening again. 

Let me turn now and recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate you calling this hearing today. 

We are all outraged and saddened by the disastrous oil spill in 

the Gulf that left 11 dead and has spread untold barrels of oil into 

the sea. It is a very, very tragic event for our country. I would hope 

to see more hearings from this committee so that we can get answers and the companies involved—from both the administration 

as well as the companies involved about what happened, how we 

can fix it, and how we can ensure that a disaster like this cannot 

and does not happen again. 

It is not time for knee-jerk policy reactions but for answers. We 

must first determine what caused the accident and how we can 

prevent similar accidents from happening in the future. 

Second, we need to make sure, crystal clear to all involved, that 

the polluter will pay. The American taxpayers should not be on the 

hook for a dime for the cost of this accident. 

I was a member of the Conference Committee for the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. There is no doubt in my mind that the President 

and his administration have both the authority and the obligation 

to take control of the crisis. Clearly, from where we stand today, 

it has not happened. 

The spill from the Deepwater Horizon rig a month ago is the first 

major spill since enactment of the 1990 law. The Oil Pollution Act 

gives the President the authority to oversee the cleanup managed 

by the responsible party or federalize the efforts. It is the obligation of this committee and the Congress to scrutinize what procedures were taken by BP and the Obama administration and how 

these actions or inactions led to the mess that we see today. Hindsight is 20/20, but lessons can be learned and applied in the future. 

The Coast Guard has been charged with a Herculean task. However, I am concerned that the delays of the administration have set 

them up for failure. For example, it was 9 days after the accident 

before the administration tapped the Department of Defense to assist by deploying needed equipment to combat the spill site a mile 

underneath the water surface. 

I am also particularly interested in the Coast Guard’s delay of 

initiating the controlled burn of the surface oil immediately after 

the spill occurred. It appears that there could have been a delay 

in using that tactic because of air pollution concerns. 

Was EPA involved in that decision or the delay? Did CO2 or climate change concerns play a role in that decision? 

Additionally, why were chemical dispersants that make oil less 

harmful to the environment not fully used from the onset? Again, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

was this due to environmental concerns that may not have been 

warranted in that instance? 

Unfortunately, this is not the first safety or environmental problem that we have seen from BP. Clearly, they were not prepared 

to deal with a leak 5,000 feet below the sea. There is plenty of 

blame to go around, but as The Washington Post indicated this 

week, you cannot plug a well with regulation, speeches, or paper. 

There has not ever been a disaster like this in the 30 years that 

they have been drilling in the deep water or the Gulf. After such 

a stellar safety record, you would start to think that things like 

this could not happen. 

While we can’t turn our back on offshore drilling, we need to do 

a much better job and be prepared for the future. We need to do 

what we can to prevent this from ever happening again and, at the 

same time, be prepared for the worst. I look forward to the testimony and interaction. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is now 5 weeks since the Deepwater Horizon disaster; and each day brings more discouraging 

news of the devastating impact this oil spill is causing to the economy, to the environment, and the people of the Gulf Coast region. 

Each day we are learning more about the cascade of mistakes and 

misjudgments that caused this catastrophe. 

On Tuesday, May 25, committee staff received a briefing from BP 

officials, including the Group Vice President For Safety and Operations and the leader of BP’s internal investigation. BP shared 

with the committee a 48-page document summarizing the company’s interim incident investigation, and I ask that this document 

be made part of the hearing record. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WAXMAN. We learned a great deal from that presentation 

about BP’s preliminary observations of possible causes of the blowout and explosion at the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf 

of Mexico. We summarized this in a memorandum that Chairman 

Stupak and I released on Tuesday. 

What we are now learning is that BP’s investigation appears to 

omit key issues. There have been several reports today concerning 

questionable well design choices made by BP, including the decisions to use a type of casing that could allow gas to flow up the 

annular space to the wellhead to limit the number of spacers centering the casing, despite objections by Halliburton, and to curtail 

the length of time that drilling fluids were circulating to clean gas 

out of the well. Yet none of these issues were mentioned by BP 

when they briefed our staff. That raises the possibility that BP’s 

internal investigation is not examining the consequences of BP’s 

own decisions and conduct. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

Our investigation is examining all potential causes of the blowout, including the responsibility of BP. That is why we are sending 

a letter to BP today seeking more information on these issues. 

I want to thank Chairmen Markey and Stupak for their leadership in this investigation. The committee’s first hearing was held 

by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on May 12 

where Chairman Stupak revealed new information about problems 

with the blowout preventer. Chairman Markey has led the way in 

Congress in investigating the amount of oil coming from the well 

and providing video feeds of the leak. 

Our next hearing will be a field hearing by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee in Chalmette, Louisiana, on Monday, 

June 7, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., where we will explore some of the impacts of this oil spill. We will continue a broad and aggressive investigation throughout the month of June. 

I pray that the efforts today will seal up this well and stop the 

damage that is being done. But that can’t be the end of it. We have 

got to make sure that this kind of disaster never happens again 

and we know what went wrong so we can hold the proper parties 

responsible. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, 

Mr. Barton from Texas. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I thank you and 

Chairman Waxman for asking our witnesses to come today and 

holding this hearing at this important time. 

As we speak, it is unclear whether the so-called top kill procedure has been successful, but it does appear that it has been at 

least partially successful, and hopefully we will know by the end 

of the day that it has been totally successful. 

No one can bring back the 11 individuals who lost their lives on 

the drilling rig back in April. We can’t put the oil that has been 

spilled back into the reservoir, but perhaps, if we work together, 

we can find out what caused the problem, what can be done to fix 

the problem right now, and what can be done to prevent it in the 

future. 

I am disappointed with the President’s decision today to stop 

drilling in the deep Gulf and in Alaska. I think putting our drilling 

programs in those areas in a deep freeze is exactly the wrong approach. All we are going to do is cause unemployment and cause 

the price of oil to go up, which is going to hurt our economy even 

more, and we are already hurting with almost 10 percent unemployment. So I think that the President has made a decision that 

will come back to hurt this country. 

I want to make one thing perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman. Under 

current law, the President is in charge of this cleanup. This accident occurred in the Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico outside 

the State limits. We have a law that makes the President in charge 

from day one. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

I do think the President made the right decision to put British 

Petroleum in charge of day-to-day decision making under the supervision of the Coast Guard, the EPA, the MMS, and other Federal agencies. It is BP’s responsibility. They are the primary owners of the well, and I don’t second-guess that decision at all. 

But, make no mistake, there has not been one decision that I am 

aware of, unless some of the panelists tell us so today, that BP or 

Halliburton, Transocean or Cameron has made that wasn’t acknowledged by Federal officials and wasn’t approved by Federal officials. 

And, again, it is real easy to sit up here on the podium, Mr. 

Chairman, and second-guess. I went down to Louisiana with you 

and others of this committee and went to the command site and 

then went out and overflew the accident site. It is tough to be there 

and have to make decisions on what to do when there is no easy, 

obvious answer. So I don’t think it is fair to second-guess some of 

the decisions that have been made. 

But I think it is fair, if you are going to try to pin the blame on 

somebody, as President Truman said, ‘‘The buck stops here.’’ And 

under current Federal law, the President of the United States is 

ultimately in charge. 

It is not BP that has not given the OK to build the berms down 

in the State of Louisiana that the Corps of Engineers until today 

had been sitting on for a month. That was not a BP decision. 

It is not a BP decision to be using one dispersant and then be 

told by the EPA to use another and then be told again to go back 

and use the other dispersant. In fact, while it was a BP recommendation to use dispersants to try to keep the oil under the 

surface, that in itself I understand could be a controversial decision. That was a decision that was ultimately approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this committee, under the leadership 

of Mr. Stupak and yourself and Mr. Waxman, with the help from 

Dr. Burgess and Mr. Upton and myself, have conducted a fair investigation. 

My position on this is pretty straightforward. Let’s stop the spill, 

and hopefully today we will accomplish that. Let’s soon clean up 

the damage. And I know everybody is trying to do that. Let’s conduct a fair, fact-based investigation and, based on that, decide what 

policies need to be changed, what best practice procedures need to 

be changed to prevent a situation like this from happening in the 

future. 

If we do that, Mr. Chairman, while this, again, is a tragic accident, 11 people have lost their lives, hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil have been spilled into the Gulf, our ecology has been impacted, our economy has been impacted, if we learn from this, 

though, we can hopefully prevent it from happening in the future. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 76583A.001
8 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 76583A.002
9 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 76583A.003
10 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 76583A.004
11 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 76583A.005
12 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 76583A.006
13 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Barton. 

At this time, the chair recognizes the chairman emeritus of the 

committee, Mr. Dingell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you; and thank you for holding this important hearing today. 

The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing 

a couple of weeks ago where we heard from BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and Cameron. Today, we have the administration officials. 

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for having the administration officials here today. Their testimony and their answers to questions 

are equally critical in terms of finding out what went wrong and 

why and what to do about it. 

To our witnesses, thank you for being here today. 

Mr. Chairman, as I have mentioned in previous hearings, I have 

been a supporter of offshore oil and drilling; and I must say that 

the oil companies are making this support increasingly difficult. I 

have tried to support this when it was right and in compliance 

with our environmental laws and hoped that it was for many years. 

I come from Michigan, and we are a manufacturing State, and 

domestic manufacturers need domestic energy sources. Domestic oil 

and gas drilling is as much a part of a comprehensive energy policy 

as anything else and can reduce our dependence on foreign energy 

sources and increase our manufacturing competitiveness. 

On the other side of that, Mr. Chairman, I am an avid conservationist. I wrote many of our cornerstone environmental laws. That 

includes the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered 

Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. These laws 

are a little like my children. I protected them for years and intend 

to do so as long as I am able. I have observed that they do not appear to have been properly enforced by the administration, nor do 

I see that they have been properly carried out by the oil companies. 

Balancing these views is challenging. Today, I am forced to come 

to a difficult conclusion. We need to establish a complete moratorium on all leasing and all drilling activities until it is established 

that all of it is done and is being done in full compliance with the 

environmental laws and with full attention to safety and to avoiding the kind of disastrous spills that we are seeing going down in 

the Gulf. And so full compliance with the environmental laws has 

to be the responsibility of the oil companies but also of the administration; and I refer very specifically to NEPA, which appears to 

have been significantly disregarded, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

I don’t believe that new regulation is necessary at this time. 

Quite frankly, because we have our current environmental laws in 

place for a long time, it is my belief that if they had been properly 

followed we would probably not be in the mess in which we currently now find ourselves. 

And the fact is that NEPA and the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act are good laws that work when properly enforced, but they were 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

set aside for BP Deepwater Horizon in behavior that is unacceptable by our government. 

I am extremely dismayed, disappointed, and just plain angry 

about the process or lack thereof used by the Minerals Management Service. Drilling at any cost seems to be the modus operandi. 

Cash bonuses have been handed out for meeting deadlines for offshore leasing. Broad exemptions from environmental laws have 

been made, including in the case of Deepwater Horizon, and scientists have been ignored. 

After everything we have learned over the years about BP, I 

might expect this kind of behavior from them but not from the Federal Government. I would note we have from time to time seen BP 

before this committee and its investigative committees to talk 

about the failure in terms of wells on pipelines, major spills and 

explosions; and always we were promised that BP would do better. 

They have not. 

I do appreciate and do commend the administration’s efforts to 

reform the way we do oil and gas leasing, but I am not sure that 

is enough. Very frankly, we need a timeout. We need to be taking 

stock of what is wrong with the system, what we are not doing 

right, what we can do better, how we didn’t comply with the laws, 

and how we are going to make sure that our laws are being complied with. The stakes are too high to do otherwise. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I regret that Mr. Markey, the chairman of the subcommittee, is 

not here. I would like to answer his opening statement where he 

said the Bush administration is at fault for this. I think that is, 

obviously, a stretch. 

If you read any of the air pollution act, which I am going to read 

to you, the Clean Water Act section 311(c)(1)(A), the President 

shall ensure effective and immediate removal of a discharge and 

mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of discharge of oil 

or a hazardous substance. 

So the President is involved here. He is responsible. If there is 

any problem, it is he and the U.S. Coast Guard who report to him. 

Now, Mr. Markey went on to say there was an impressive Federal response. Well, it is not enough. And, in fact, even as we speak 

here this afternoon, officials in Louisiana are still waiting—still 

waiting for the Federal Government to provide millions of feet in 

boom to approve an emergency permit to fully—not partially—implement their plan to dredge and build a new barrier island to prevent even more oil from reaching their marshes and wetlands. 

Mr. Chairman, Saudi Arabia had an oil spill in the Gulf. It was 

many, many times this; and they used their ships and barges to 

vacuum up the spill. In fact, there are many countries around the 

world who have volunteered with the State Department, including 

Canada, France, Germany, and others, the United Kingdom, to 

help with the idea of providing technical expertise, booms, chemical 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

dispersants, oil pumps, skimmers, and wildlife treatment; and none 

of that has been accepted by this administration. The vast majority 

of assistance has not been utilized. 

The blunt fact is, the administration is on the watch. It is their 

responsibility. Everybody knew that the Minerals Management 

Service was not effective. There were so many inspectors’ reports 

about this. It should have been reformed, and it should have been 

done on the President’s watch, and certainly he has responsibility 

for this. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time, the chair will recognize the gentleman from the 

State of Washington, Mr. Inslee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Well, I am shocked that the Republicans are blaming this disaster on Barack Obama. It is shocking to me that that could happen. And I guess maybe I shouldn’t be shocked, but I am. 

It is sort of like H. Rap Brown, who I think coined the phrase 

‘‘burn baby burn.’’ He didn’t blame the government for the arson; 

and those who pushed the ‘‘drill baby drill’’ positions as the solution to our energy woes, it seems to me, ought not to be blaming 

the government for this particular tragedy. 

There are legitimate issues about everyone’s performance, and it 

is appropriate to look at everyone’s performance. But it wasn’t 

Barack Obama’s decision not to use 20 centralizers on the rig 

which, in fact, the BP people thought should be used and only used 

six. So that they didn’t have any centralizers. Centralizers are the 

things that keep the pipe centered in the well board so you don’t 

get voids in the cement. And the BP staff said, well, you should use 

20. Well, somebody delivered the wrong ones to them, so they only 

used six, and they didn’t have any in the cement area above the 

hydrocarbon area. That wasn’t Barack Obama’s decision. 

It wasn’t Barack Obama’s decision to use a casing system that 

created higher risks of a blowout in order to save some dollars. 

That was British Petroleum’s decision. 

It wasn’t Barack Obama’s decision to have a dead battery in the 

blowout provider. It was someone, either BP or one of the other 

subcontractors, had and didn’t tighten up the valve so you had a 

hydraulic leak. 

So I think we are going to find we need to have, yes, greater 

oversight over this industry. But I will tell you, Lamar McKay, who 

was just down at our Natural Resources Committee, looked a little 

sheepish trying to explain why British Petroleum didn’t use the 

centralizers that they thought they should use. And he wasn’t 

blaming it on Barack Obama. 

So I think it would be helpful to really focus on what really happened here, and I look forward to the testimony. 

And, by the way, just one comment. Administrator Jackson, we 

are not going to let people take away your authority to prevent all 

the invisible oil spills that are going on from carbon dioxide making 

our oceans acidic either. We are going to keep that authority. 

Thank you. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Shimkus from Illinois. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Now, Mr. Inslee, I was telling Administrator Jackson how nice I was going to be today; and you go rile me up. Because we could go into the climate debate, which I don’t want to 

do. But I do want to talk about the impending issues. So we are 

pleased to have you all here. 

I will direct some questions on the dispersant issue and just getting clarification. A lot of us have been informed now. We are trying to gather information. And I will talk about the type being 

used, how it is certified, questions made that it is not good and 

then the need for it. And I will go in that direction. 

I think there is some valid concern about, when we have an 

emergency—responding in an emergency situation, the marshes 

are being polluted, we do have some delay from the locals who 

want to protect their marshes by the permitting process. I think we 

should be able to expedite that. 

And I think there will be some emotions on all sides. These locals 

want to do all they can, and there is some delay on the local elected 

officials and their ability to do everything they want to do. 

But we are all in this together. This is a huge undertaking. No 

one is happy about it. 

I am a ‘‘drill baby drill,’’ and I still believe that is important to 

our national energy security. Three thousand drilling operations in 

the Gulf. Katrina went by, no effect. We just can’t be Pollyannish 

about our energy needs. I am one that will also continue to talk 

about our energy security and national security needs. 

Thank you all for coming. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you Mr. Shimkus. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. 

The Gulf of Mexico is in the midst of an incident that is a tragedy we have never seen, and my thoughts and prayers go out to 

the families and communities affected by this terrible incident. 

I appreciate the administration being here to answer our questions. I know your colleagues are diligently working to stop that 

leak. 

While I agree that we should look at how effective our government response has been, certainly look at the adequacy of BP’s response plans, I believe that our efforts should focus at this time 

mainly on plugging the well instead of casting blame. 

We are certain to continue hearings on this issue for months to 

come. There is no doubt the eventual lessons learned from Deepwater Horizon spill will impact on how our offshore resources are 

obtained. The industry should provide an accurate response plan 

for every rig; and, conversely, MMS should have adequate oversight to ensure that these response plans are adequate. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

Having said that, I want to caution my colleagues against rushing through any legislative proposal that adversely affects our ability to develop domestic resources, for example, automatically raising the liability cap to $10 billion when maybe a BP or a major 

company could afford that, but so much of the Gulf of Mexico is 

produced by independents who don’t have the capitalization of the 

majors. 

These proposals should be thoroughly vetted by the committees 

of jurisdiction. Our energy resources are vital to our national security, economic growth of our country; and our country requires a 

safe and effective and steady development of its offshore oil and 

gas resources. 

I have been on this committee since 1997, and I remember about 

3 years ago we were all lamenting $4 a gallon gas. If we continue 

the prohibition against deep water or even shallow water production, you can guarantee it that we will be back to $4 a gallon gas, 

and we won’t be able to blame Saudi Arabia for it. 

Thank you for the work you are doing, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back my time. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Green. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this 

hearing. 

I want to begin my comments today also by expressing my deepest regrets to the family members and friends who have lost their 

loved ones. 

This is a tragic event. Not only have lives been lost but an unknown amount of oil has been leaked into the ocean, causing great 

damage and horrible effects, some of which we know now and some 

of which will take years to discover. 

In the wake of this event, questions regarding the cause of the 

explosion and leak have naturally arisen, along with questions on 

the appropriateness of the response from BP and the administration. Particularly, I am eager to hear from our witnesses today regarding whether or not sufficient response plans were put to work 

in order before the incident occurred and, if they were, whether or 

not they are currently working. 

It seems to me that the Federal response has been not only disjointed but confusing and frustrating for those on the ground trying 

to bring relief. A prime example would be the EPA’s convoluted instructions regarding the use of dispersants. 

In addition, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said on Monday 

that, quote, we have been frustrated with the disjointed effort to 

date that has too often meant too little, too late for the oil hitting 

our coast, end quote. This is incredibly disappointing. 

As I have said, this is a tragic event. We need to make sure due 

diligence is done in investigating the causes and the appropriateness of the response in the aftermath. However, we need to make 

sure the response of this body and the administration is prudent, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

one that still encourages our country’s energy security and independence. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for your testimonies in advance. 

Thirty-eight days after BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and 

killed 11 workers, 15 to 40 million gallons of toxic crude oil have 

spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. The oil from the slick now equals 

the size of South Carolina, has soiled more than 100 miles of Louisiana’s coastline. Fishermen working on the cleanup have become 

ill after working long hours near waters fouled with oil and 

dispersants, reporting nausea, dizziness, headaches, and chest 

pains. It has gotten so bad that yesterday the unified command recalled the vessels operating in Breton Sound after crew members 

reported health problems. 

Today I, along with Health Subcommittee Chairman Pallone, 

wrote to BP, urging the company to take the necessary steps that 

it apparently is not now doing to ensure the health and safety of 

the workers and volunteers who are cleaning up this giant mess. 

Quite frankly, it is an outrage that this company, which made 

$16 billion in profits last year, has such a terrible record on safety 

for the drilling itself and for the workers who are trying to clean 

up the mess; and that is why it is so important that the Federal 

Government is bringing every resource necessary to put a stop to 

this catastrophe. 

Last week, the President established an independent commission 

which was modeled on legislation I introduced with Chairman Markey to investigate the cause, the response, and the impact of BP’s 

spill. Earlier today, he announced tougher safety requirements for 

offshore drilling and a stronger inspections regime; and he took 

steps to ban new deep water wells for 6 months, cancelled exploratory drilling in Alaska, and cancelled a proposed lease sale off of 

Virginia’s coast. 

Mr. Chairman, this whole tragedy brings into stark relief what 

many of us have been saying for years and which the chairman, in 

his opening remarks, said as well. We need to end our addiction 

to fossil fuels. My only hope now is that perhaps there is some 

measure of good that can come out of the sickening sights of toxic 

sludge in Louisiana’s wetlands, the oil slick on the open ocean, the 

underwater toxic plumes that continue to kill marine life, wildlife, 

and birds at an alarming clip. Finally freeing ourselves from this 

costly addiction would be a fitting tribute to the terrible tragedy 

being borne by the people of Louisiana and the Gulf. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, Mrs. Capps. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Bono 

Mack. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by also 

sending my condolences to the families of the 11 brave men who 

lost their lives as a result of this tragic accident. 

I also appreciate very much the time of our witnesses to be here 

with us today to discuss the issues related to the massive spill off 

of Louisiana’s coast. 

I know that today’s hearing will delve into the details of who 

knew what and when they knew it, which we must examine, yet 

we seem to be spending so much time pointing fingers and playing 

politics, which is exactly what has the American people frustrated 

beyond belief. 

What we have in front of us is a disaster that has extreme environmental and economic effects. Millions of Gulf Coast residents 

wake up every morning knowing that they are providing the food 

on our plates and the gasoline to power our vehicles. Yet I am extremely frustrated to see both BP and politicians, plus, truthfully, 

this entire town, continue to point fingers and play a game of 

gotcha instead of collaboratively and aggressively seeking solutions 

and taking action. 

We cannot afford more bureaucratic barriers to addressing the 

need to cap the well as well as lessen the spill’s effects. The excuses have been many, and the press excuses even more numerous. 

But today we need to get clear answers about the levels of preparation for the deep water drilling taking place in this region and the 

clear path forward for cleanup operations of this epic disaster. The 

fact is, wasting time, playing politics, and placing blame on past actions when confronted with this national emergency is, frankly, insulting to the hardworking people of the Gulf region. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank our witnesses; and I 

yield back the balance of my time. I look forward to the testimony 

out of our panel. Thank you. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentlelady. 

We will now recognize another gentlelady from California, the 

third in a row, Ms. Harman. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We plan to take this 

committee over very soon. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Please don’t ask unanimous consent for that. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. HARMAN. No, I was just stating our intention. 

As Chairman Markey said in his opening remarks, quote, this is 

BP’s spill, but it is America’s ocean. 

That ocean touches my district, which hugs almost 20 miles of 

California coastline. I have always opposed drilling off the coast of 

California and have cast 20 votes—more than 20 votes against offshore drilling over my eight terms in Congress, including a vote 

against the 2006 Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. 

Further, I am an original cosponsor of the Garamendi bill that 

seeks to ban all drilling off the entire west coast. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

The events of the last month have only reinforced my opposition. 

Like millions of Americans, I have watched the days mount and 

the strategies fail. The crude oil gushing from BP’s blown well is 

now threatening Florida’s Atlantic coast and when it gets into the 

Gulf stream could potentially spread thousands of miles. 

There is a Washington lesson and a national lesson here. For the 

Washington lesson, we have to dramatically ramp up government 

oversight of drilling activities and end the sweetheart relationship 

between MMS and industry. President Obama was right to force 

the resignation earlier today of the MMS director, who obviously is 

not before us now. And he and Secretary Salazar and everyone on 

today’s panel all must do more, as we must. 

The national lesson is that America’s insatiable thirst for oil 

must be stemmed. It is dirty, poses major environmental risks, and 

when we buy it from abroad, it enriches our enemies. We must 

seize this moment to end our crippling dependence on oil. Enough 

is more than enough. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

I believe Dr. Burgess is next. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have heard a number of things today. We are going to hear 

a number of things from our witnesses, and I am anxious to do so. 

Again, I will just reiterate some of the questions that came up 

in earlier hearings that we have had. Particularly I am glad we do 

have a representative from the Minerals Management Service. 

The application that was submitted for the Deepwater Horizon 

drilling permit in March of 2009 raises some serious issues. 

A section 2.7 blowout scenario, a scenario for a potential blowout 

of the well from which BP would expect to have the highest volume 

of liquid hydrocarbons, is not required for the operations proposed 

in this exploration plan. 

Section 2.3, BP Exploration Production, Inc. does not propose to 

utilize new techniques or unusual technologies for these operations 

or drilling in 5,000 feet of water, going down 18,000 feet. That does 

sound new and unusual to me. 

Section 14.2, in the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting 

in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on industrywide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such 

responses. 

Implementation of BP’s regional oil spill response plan, which address available equipment and personnel techniques and recovery 

and removal of the oil spill. 

Why was this application—I mean, shame on BP, shame on BP 

for submitting an application that was so scant on details. But why 

was an application like this ever accepted in the first place? 

And we have heard other people in their opening statements 

make comments about folks around the country that are concerned 

about this and want to help. I did two town halls on Saturday, 

town halls in north Texas. A fellow brought in this contraption and 

showed it to me. That is basically a coke bottle that has been cut 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

in half. He has got this thing filled with what looked like sawdust, 

but it was some sort of polypropylene material that he has. And, 

apparently, it has another Federal use, so it is something that has 

already been approved by the EPA. 

He poured a bottle of gunk like Ed Markey had in here the other 

day, poured the bottle of gunk in the top, and you could see down 

in the bottom of the mayonnaise jar—his equipment was not very 

sophisticated—it looks like clear water is coming out. 

This individual had been trying to get some recognition of his 

technique. There are people like this all over the country that are 

willing to help. They want to help clean up their coastline. Governor Jindal wants to help the coastline, and he has been prevented by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. It is time to relax those standards and give him the 

authority that he needs to do what needs to be done. 

I will yield back. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentleman. 

At this time, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from Wisconsin, 

Ms. Baldwin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just came from a hearing at the Judiciary Committee on the BP 

oil spill and liability issues where we heard from Keith Jones, the 

father of one of the men who lost his life. We also heard from two 

survivors from the explosion. And I daresay there wasn’t a dry eye 

in the audience as the three of them testified. 

Like so many of my colleagues and my fellow Wisconsinites and 

all Americans, I am really angry about the oil spill in the Gulf of 

Mexico and sad and angry about the loss of life. I am horrified by 

the negligence and the conflicts of interest that have been revealed 

and exhibited leading up to this tragedy, and I am furious that for 

over a month oil has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, endangering lives and livelihoods and our precious ecosystem with no end 

in sight. 

There are several aspects of this crisis that are particularly troublesome: the conflicts of interests at the Minerals Management 

Service, which allowed the agency to oversee the safety of offshore 

drilling while simultaneously collecting royalties from the companies they were overseeing, and this is unacceptable. We have heard 

the reports of staff members of the agency repeatedly accepting 

tickets to events and lunches and other gifts from industry. 

Equally disturbing is that BP has used unprecedented volumes 

of chemical dispersants to break up the oil offshore that we now 

learn could further imperil the mammals and fish and birds and 

turtles that inhabit the Gulf region. And despite EPA belatedly 

telling BP to limit use of this product, the company has continued 

to do so. 

The situation in the Gulf appears to be one of a company continuously believing that it is above the law, ignoring warning signs, 

shortcutting proper procedure, failing to properly plan for a disaster, and putting profits over other considerations. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

Mr. Chairman, this spill is a tragic reminder that we must 

rethink our Nation’s energy policy and move toward a post-petroleum economy. 

I thank our witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit this into the 

record. It is a statement from the U.S. Travel Association about 

combating the BP oil spill. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. 

Yesterday, we paid respects to the 11 men who lost their lives 

in the explosion of the rig, and our prayers go out to them and 

their families. And I know some of the families are here today. I 

hope to have the opportunity to meet with them. 

I hope the top kill is successful today, and we may not know that 

for a few days, but we can’t forget that more than a month’s worth 

of oil has already spilled into the Gulf and is moving its way into 

our marshes, and that is something we are going to have to be 

working for a long time to clean up that mess. 

But today the President held a press conference where he said 

that he has been in charge from day one, and I have just got to 

disagree. If this has been his top priority, if he has been in charge 

from day one, then why is it that it took more than 16 days to get 

an answer from our Governor and our local officials who submitted 

a plan to protect the marsh from the oil? 

They submitted this plan more than 2 weeks ago before any oil 

was in the marsh. It sat on bureaucratic desks, didn’t go anywhere. 

If all hands were on deck, the President would have rolled up his 

sleeves day one when the Governor submitted that plan and say, 

we are going to figure out a way to get this done and to give you 

the Federal permit, so y’all can go and protect your marsh. 

It didn’t happen. It didn’t happen for over 2 weeks, and now we 

are hearing from the Governor’s office that the plan that might 

have been approved today only covers about 2 percent of the Governor’s plan. That is just not acceptable. We are trying to protect 

our marsh right now; and if the President has got a better plan, 

put it on the table. But we haven’t seen them come up with any 

plan to protect our marsh. We have put one on the table for over 

2 weeks, and nothing from the President. That is inexcusable. 

If all hands were on deck, then why is it that on Sunday—on 

Sunday as oil was coming into our marsh in Grand Isle I heard reports from officials who said the boom-laying beats were sitting at 

the dock. They weren’t putting out boom. They were sitting at the 

dock instead of putting out the boom as oil is coming into our 

marsh. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

That is not all hands on deck. That is not a top priority of the 

President. If he is in charge, as the law says that he should be 

under the Oil Pollution Act, that should have never happened. 

So I am glad that today he acknowledged that some mistakes 

were made, but we don’t have time for the mistakes and the excuses. We need action. And when he comes down tomorrow—and 

I know he won’t share with our delegation where he is going or 

what he is doing, but I hope he meets with those local officials, and 

I hope he finally solves these problems instead of all of the red tape 

and all of the excuses that we are getting. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Scalise. 

Before proceeding, it has come to my attention that one of our 

scheduled witnesses, Ms. Jo-Ellen Darcy, is going to have to leave 

at 1500, 3:00 this afternoon. So we are going to allow you to be excused in just a moment. But thank you very much for your willingness to come. 

I am told that your deputy, Mr. Terrence ‘‘Rock’’ Salt, will be 

available to answer any questions. But we thank you for your service. We thank you for your willingness to come today. 

I will say for the record that Ms. Darcy is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, a position that supervises the 

Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program. The Army Corps 

of Engineers is an environmental preservation and restoration 

agency that regulates activities in the Nation’s wetlands. That is 

a very honorable position, and we thank you for all that you do. 

All right. Without objection, we might go ahead and recognize 

you for your 5 minutes. I am told that that may be in order. Let 

me consult with the ranking member just a moment. 

Mr. UPTON. I just wanted to ask, too, for all members, we ask 

unanimous consent that their opening statements might be put 

into the record at this point, too. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Without objection. 

Do you consent to the witnesses’ testimony being given at this 

time? 

The witness is recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS), ACCOMPANIED BY TERRENCE ‘‘ROCK’’ SALT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you Congressman Butterfield, and I want to 

thank all members of the subcommittee for inviting me here today. 

My name is Jo-Ellen Darcy. I am the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Civil Works; and I am joined by ‘‘Rock’’ Salt who is my 

Principal Deputy, who will come up here when I finish delivering 

this testimony. 

And I ask that my written statement be submitted for the record 

in full, because I will summarize here for you. 

In the midst of the response to the tragic Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill, the Corps of Engineers continues to provide reliable navigation on the river systems and waterways along the Gulf Coast as 

it maintains vigilant monitoring and assessment of the oil impacts. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

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. 

The Corps has also reviewed and provided input to an interim 

EPA region six oil solidifier policy and supports its implementation. 

Currently, the oil spill is not affecting dredging operations or 

navigation in any rivers or waterways along the Gulf. There have 

been no incidents of deep draft vessels getting oil on their hulls as 

they approach the southwest pass on the Mississippi River. 

The U.S. Coast Guard, working with navigation interests, has established cleaning stations in the lower Mississippi River to clean 

those vessels before they proceed up the river to the New Orleans 

district as well as similarly this was done after the 2009 Mississippi River 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 has 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 possible deviations from the statutory 70/30 split at 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 the Old River Control Structure would have minimal influence on the movement of the oil in the Mississippi River Delta. 

Due to the extreme flooding on the Tennessee and the Cumberland Basins earlier this month, Mississippi River discharges 

below New Orleans will nearly double. Even with these forecasted 

increases in discharge, we do not anticipate increased flows that 

would allow opening the Bonnet Carre Spillway to reduce the oil 

from entering the Mississippi Sound area. 

With respect to the smaller freshwater diversion structures, 

those are currently operating near design capacity, and the modeling again suggests that this may help slow the movement of the 

oil into the project marshes from the marsh and the open water 

boundaries in the immediate vicinity of these structures. Our team 

continues to evaluate other water management scenarios to determine if they will help address the oil spill issues. 

The Corps’ Engineering Research and Development Center is 

also working with the United States Geological Survey program to 

collect and analyze baseline sediment samples in the wetlands and 

the navigation areas. These pre-oil spill samples will provide critical comparisons to post-emergency sediments that will be required 

for efforts to continue with Louisiana coastal restoration through 

the beneficial uses of dredged material. 

I would like to update my written testimony based on actions 

taken today. 

The Corps of Engineers has proffered a permit to the State of 

Louisiana which grants partial approval for Louisiana’s barrier isVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:30 Feb 11, 2013 Jkt 076583 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A583.XXX A583

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

land project proposal, covering the State’s original request and includes six different areas. Once this permit is finalized, the State 

would be authorized to construct the barrier islands as long as this 

construction meets the terms and the conditions established in the 

Corps permit. The conditions in the permit respond to all issues 

and concerns raised by the other Federal agencies. 

Additionally, the Corps has issued a total of 12 permits using our 

emergency authorities throughout the Gulf. There are seven additional permits that are still pending. 

Seven people have been deployed from our research lab to support the Fish and Wildlife Service natural resource damage assessment activities. Activities include but are not limited to providing 

expert NRDA strategy development, development of bird injury 

study plans, global positioning systems collection and integration of 

field data, primary GIS and mapping support. 

Our research lab stands ready to assist in the development of a 

common operating plan for the multi-agency oil spill response. As 

the Department of Army lead for environmental restoration research and development, our research lab is prepared to assist in 

formulating and implementing strategies for long-term monitoring 

and remediation of wetlands and barrier islands areas affected by 

the oil spill. Our research lab is also prepared to provide analysis 

for the eventual remediation of contaminated barrier sediment and 

material removal and ecological restoration. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman; and, again, thank 

you for having us. I apologize for having to leave, but Mr. Salt will 

be here. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Darcy follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 76583A.007
27 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 76583A.008
28 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 76583A.009
29 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 76583A.010
30 

Mr. MARKEY [presiding]. We very much appreciate your ability to 

be here, and we also appreciate the responsibilities which you are 

discharging simultaneously in the Gulf. So we thank you for being 

here. And when your assistant sits at that table, then we will I 

think still be able to get the expert advice from your agency. Thank 

you. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the chair. 

I am more interested in hearing from the witnesses than I am 

from hearing from me, so I will waive an opening. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE MELANCON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having the hearing today. I thank the witnesses for attending. 

First, I would like to say to those that want a political posture, 

having been through Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, and now the oil 

spill, I am sick of it. I would appreciate it if y’all would respect the 

people and the people of the State of Louisiana, the people that 

died in this accident. 

It has not been fun for 5 years in south Louisiana. The press reported today that even using the most conservative estimates that 

the new flow rate estimates on the leak have grown to nearly 19 

million gallons over the past 5 weeks, surpassing the size of the 

1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. 

Having flown over this disaster this past week, I can tell you personally that the scale and the scope of this disaster is greater than 

one can ever imagine. My constituents in St. Bernard, 

Plaquemines, Jefferson, Terrebonne, and Lafourche and those that 

have not yet been impacted are watching this slow-motion tragedy 

unfold in front of them; and, as of today, there is still no absolute 

assurance that this leak will be brought under control in the near 

future. 

I am heartened to hear initial reports that the top kill effort appears to temporarily have stopped the flow of oil and gas into the 

Gulf, and I hope and pray that these efforts as they continue lead 

to a permanent solution. 

The response to this leak has consumed a tremendous number of 

resources and much manpower since the rig first sank weeks ago. 

I have been in constant contact with the administration and first 

responders on the ground. I have also reached out to local officials 

in my district to take inventory of their response needs, booms, vessels, whatever, and work towards providing these resources as best 

I can. 

And while I know this hearing today is to discuss the current response to the leak, I would like to remind my colleagues and the 

distinguished panel of witnesses today that the recovery phase is 

just as critical as the response phase. Our culture is threatened, 

our coastal economy is threatened, and everything that I know and 

love is at risk. Even though this marsh lies along coastal Louisiana, these are America’s wetlands. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

I just wish to submit the rest of my statement for the record. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

Every member of our committee and every American is praying 

for the people of Louisiana and the people of the Gulf. It is just an 

unimaginable tragedy. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Griffith. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I appreciate Congressman Melancon’s feelings and deep emotion. 

I grew up in south Louisiana, on Big and Little Alabama, 

Atchafalaya Basin, the wetlands and spent a lot of my youth in the 

canals down there. And I can tell you that it is heartbreaking, 

heartbreaking to lose the lives of the young men from that area 

whose culture was working on the rigs. And if there is blame to go 

around, I think it will be many, many people who will accept responsibility ultimately. 

I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for calling this important hearing today and the witnesses for taking the 

time to come. 

I was upset, however, to hear the announcement this morning 

that the administration has chosen to cancel the western Gulf and 

Virginia lease sales. 

The American Petroleum Institute estimates that from the time 

a lease is sold, it is 3.5 years before drilling begins; and if successful, it is 6 years before any production takes plays. 

As we learn from these tragedies, these cancellations do not reflect the stated President’s view that we must have oil and gas production in our energy portfolio that we can produce safely. Canceling these leases does not protect us, and it actually is nondiscriminating in that we are punishing companies that have an 

exemplary safety record. We must remember, too, that the Deep 

Horizon oil—Deepwater Horizon rig had drilled over 70 successful 

wells. 

As we learn the outcome of the many investigations that are taking place, it is vital that we learn lessons from this incident so that 

we can keep our workers and environment safe to produce our valuable oil and gas. 

We must also question the effectiveness of the response on the 

Federal side as the reports come out stating that this may be the 

Nation’s biggest oil spill. Has the bureaucracy been unable to facilitate a quick response? Reports from the ground say it is not clear 

who is in charge, which leads to chaos. As we see changes in drilling plans and officials suddenly resigning, it seems that there are 

unknown facts surrounding the oversight of this project both before 

and after the explosion. 

And thank you both, and all, for coming. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Butterfield. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for convening this very important hearing. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony today. 

I think I am sort of like Mr. Barrow, Mr. Chairman, I am eagerly 

looking forward to the testimony of the witnesses. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

One thing for sure, there is so much we don’t know about this 

tragedy. And what complicates the tragedy is that we are not getting much help from BP or Halliburton or from Transocean. And 

perhaps the witnesses’ testimony today will be enlightening on this 

very important subject. 

In time, though, we will find out what happened, or the courts 

will find the facts and will report them to the American people. It 

is absolutely clear that more should have been done to prevent this 

disaster. 

Over the past 30 years, the oil industry has used some of the 

most advanced technologies to drill in increasingly deeper waters. 

The rapid ingenuity that allows us to drill miles under the ocean 

floor may have outpaced the commitment to safety. We really don’t 

know the extent of this still. I am looking forward to discovering 

the true facts of this matter and to report them to the American 

people. 

And so the President is right. I happen to agree with the President. He made a very wise decision today, and I support the President entirely. 

Thank you, witnesses, for your testimony. I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Chairman Markey. 

Thank you for holding this hearing today on combating the BP 

oil spill and examining the Federal response to the disaster. 

I am interested in learning from our witnesses their thoughts on 

what went wrong and their ideas moving forward to prevent this 

from ever happening again. 

I am disappointed that no one from the Mineral Management 

Services is here to testify on their role in response to this effort. 

Given their integral role of the Federal oversight in offshore drilling operations, it is critically important to hear the MMS’s point 

of view directly and to get their take on what safety lapses occurred and if any regulatory breakdowns happened that may have 

contributed to this terrible accident. 

We still have work to do to uncover exactly what went wrong. 

There are many questions that will be asked today on ongoing efforts to contain the leak, whether the Federal response plans were 

in place prior to the incident and whether those response plans had 

been inadequate in light of the ecological disaster. 

I commend the brave men and women who are working day and 

night to stop the leak and to protect the shoreline in the Gulf region. This is a challenge of epic proportions, and it is the job of this 

committee to conduct a fact-based investigation into the disaster to 

find out what went wrong and how we can prevent it from ever 

happening again. I look forward to getting to the bottom of this 

tragedy and finding solutions to it. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

This disaster and tragedy has been a sobering lesson. Technology 

exists to bring great benefit but also, if not properly overseen, can 

cause great damage. 

Our responsibility now in this body is to provide all the resources 

at our disposal to stop the leakage and to help the people that are 

impacted. 

But next, we need to expose the facts about the causes of the 

leak and implement whatever is necessary to prevent this from 

happening again. 

I intend to pursue those responsibilities with vigor. But beyond 

that, this morning, along with Chairman Markey, Anna Eshoo, 

Judy Biggert, and myself, we introduced the Electric Drive Vehicle 

Deployment Act of 2010. We need to move aggressively to make our 

vehicles more efficient so we can reduce this country’s overwhelming demand for oil. I invite all my colleagues to support this 

initiative. I thank the panel for your participation in this effort. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Blunt. 

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening statement. 

Mr. MARKEY. The chair does not see any other members who are 

looking for recognition at this time. 

STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; THE 

HONORABLE LARRY ROBINSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NOAA; THE 

HONORABLE DAVID J. HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND REAR ADMIRAL JAMES 

WATSON, DEPUTY, UNIFIED AREA COMMAND, UNITED 

STATES COAST GUARD 

Mr. MARKEY. So we will turn to our first witness, who is Lisa 

Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Before becoming the EPA administrator, she served as the commissioner of the State Department of Environmental Protection in 

New Jersey. She is a former New Orleans resident who graduated 

summa cum laude from Tulane University and earned a masters 

degree in chemical engineering from Princeton University. 

We welcome you, Administrator Jackson. Whenever you are 

ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LISA P. JACKSON 

Ms. JACKSON. Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton, 

Chairman Emeritus Dingell, 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. First, let me join you all in 

expressing my condolences to the families of those who have lost 

their lives in the explosion. We owe them our very best. 

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

environmental disaster that the Gulf of Mexico is facing right now 

certainly has no easy answers, EPA is committed to doing its job: 

Protecting communities, the natural environment, and human 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

health from the spill itself, as well as any concerns resulting from 

the response to the spill. 

Since the crisis began, EPA has had nearly 200 staff working on 

the emergency response, from scientists, engineers, contractors, 

and others, in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi. We are 

performing rigorous testing and monitoring of air and water quality, and we are sharing that data with the public every day. I have 

personally traveled to the region, the region I grew up in and still 

consider my home, several times over the past week. 

For nearly a month, EPA has been monitoring the air and water 

for pollutants which could pose a health risk to communities. This 

monitoring is essential to ensure that communities are protected as 

we respond to the BP spill. All of this information is being made 

public at EPA.gov/BPspill, as quickly as we can compile it. 

One of our top priorities is the safe application of chemical 

dispersants. Oil spill dispersants are chemicals applied to the 

spilled oil to break down the oil into small drops below the surface. 

Ideally, the dispersed oil mixes into the water column and is rapidly diluted and degraded by bacteria and other microscopic organisms. 

We know that dispersants are generally less toxic than oil. They 

decrease the risk to the shoreline and to organisms at the surface, 

and they biodegrade over weeks, not years, as oil would. But in the 

use of dispersants, we are faced with environmental tradeoffs. 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. To date, BP has used 850,000 gallons of dispersant, a volume never used before in this country. 

Since this crisis began, EPA has not only demanded, but has ordered, with the full force of law, that dispersants must be limited 

in use, in volume, and toxicity. 

EPA was first asked by BP on April 30 to authorize unlimited 

use of dispersants in a novel manner, underwater, at the source of 

the leak. The goal of their approach was to break up and degrade 

the oil before it reached the water’s surface and came closer to our 

shorelines, our estuaries, and our nurseries. EPA demanded scientific data from the company to prove that such use of the 

dispersants was indeed effective. After that data showed that this 

approach was effective, EPA required the implementation of a rigorous monitoring system to ensure that underwater application 

would continue to be effective and would also track measurable environmental impacts, if any. 

Two weeks later, on May 14th, after the system was in place, 

EPA conditionally granted authorization for use after it was made 

clear to the company and to the public that EPA reserved to use 

the right to halt the use of subsurface dispersant if we concluded 

that at any time the impact to the environment outweighed the 

benefit of disbursing the oil. EPA will also continue to push BP to 

switch to less toxic alternatives due to the volumes of dispersant 

being used and the lengthening period of this crisis. 

Mr. Chairman, we are not satisfied that BP has done an extensive enough analysis of other dispersant options, and it appears 

that BP seems more interested in defending their initial decisions 

than analyzing possible better options. That is why, on May 21, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

EPA, along with the Coast Guard, ordered BP to evaluate alternative dispersants. We continue to hold BP to this requirement, 

and I have further committed EPA’s best scientists to independently evaluate alternative dispersants as well as verifying BP’s 

science. 

And this week, on May 26, along with the Coast Guard, we have 

instructed BP to significantly scale back the subsurface use of 

dispersants to only what is needed to be effective. And we have ordered BP to halt use of surface dispersants unless they get prior 

approval from the Federal on-scene coordinator. 

That order has yielded results: Four days ago, the total use of 

dispersants on a daily basis was 70,000 gallons; yesterday, it was 

less than 12,000 gallons. 

Mr. Chairman, we are in a position with no perfect solution. As 

we emerge from this response, I commit to revisiting the regulations surrounding EPA’s response, particularly regarding dispersant registration under the National Contingency Plan. I also commit to sharing the results with this committee and working with 

you to tighten the underlying laws, as necessary. As a New Orleans 

native, I know firsthand the importance of the natural environment 

to the economy, the health, and the culture of the Gulf Coast. 

As I mentioned, this month since the accident, I have been to the 

region three times. 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 

want to be informed and, where possible, empowered to improve 

their own 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. And, of course, I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 76583A.011
37 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 76583A.012
38 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 76583A.013
39 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 76583A.014
40 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 76583A.015
41 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 76583A.016
42 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 76583A.017
43 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 76583A.018
44 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 76583A.019
45 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 76583A.020
46 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Administrator Jackson. 

Our next witness is Dr. Larry Robinson. 

He is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Dr. Robinson guides policy and program direction for NOAA’s 

conservation protection and resource management priorities. 

Upon being confirmed for the position on May 7, 2010, Dr. Robinson went to the Gulf Coast to help coordinate NOAA’s scientific resources throughout the region. Prior to his appointment, Dr. Robinson was the vice president for research and a professor at Florida 

A&M University. 

Whenever you are ready, Mr. Robinson. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LARRY ROBINSON 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Upton, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to 

testify on the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s role in response to the BP Deep Horizon oil spill. 

I wish to begin by letting the families of the 11 people who lost 

their lives in the explosion and sinking of the Deep Horizon know 

that we think of them every day. The 12,800 employees of NOAA 

working in the Gulf of Mexico and those around the country send 

our deepest condolences. 

Because you already have my written testimony, I would like to 

simply summarize NOAA’s role in the oil spill response and then 

provide a short update on NOAA’s latest efforts. 

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the 

earth’s environment, and conserve and manage coastal and marine 

resources to meet our Nation’s economic, social, and environmental 

needs. NOAA is also a natural resource trustee, and is one of the 

Federal agencies responsible for protecting and restoring the coastal natural resources when they are affected by oil spills. As such, 

the entire agency is deeply concerned about the immediate and 

long-term environmental, economic, and social impacts of the Gulf 

Coast and the Nation as a whole as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

NOAA is the Nation’s scientific resource for the unified command 

and is responsible for coordinated scientific, weather, and biological 

response services. NOAA’s experts have been assisting with the response from the very beginning of this spill. Offices throughout the 

agency have been mobilized, and hundreds of NOAA personnel are 

dedicating themselves to assist. 

Over the past few weeks, NOAA has provided 24/7 scientific support to the U.S. Coast Guard in its role as Federal on-scene coordinator both on scene and through our Seattle operation center. This 

NOAA-wide effort support includes data of the trajectories of the 

oil spill, information management, overflight observations, and 

management, weather and river flow forecast, shoreline, and resource risk assessment, and oceanographic modeling support. 

Now, a few specifics on seven activities of which NOAA has responsibility. NOAA’s oceanographers continue to release updated 

oil spill trajectory maps showing the predicted trajectory of the oil 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

spill. These maps help inform shoreline operations, placement of 

booms, and oil recovery efforts at the surface. 

NOAA’s current forecast show offshore winds through Saturday 

morning with magnitudes of 6 to 12 knots. Yesterday’s overflights 

observed significant amounts of oil offshore around the Mississippi 

Delta and near the Southern Chandeleur Islands. Although offshore winds may eventually lead to a reprieve in new shoreline impacts, the Mississippi Delta west of Timberlier Bay, Breton Sound, 

and the Chandeleur Islands continue to be threatened by shoreline 

contacts during NOAA’s current forecast period of 72 hours. 

The loop current. We continue to track the small amounts of oil 

that was detrained in the loop current late last week. Most of that 

surface oil is now caught in a counterclockwise eddy on the northern side of the loop current. And because the top of the loop current 

has now pinched off, any oil that was in the loop current will most 

likely be retained in the Gulf and not routed to the Florida strait 

or the Gulf current. 

Flow rate. NOAA’s scientists are part of the National Incident 

Command’s flow rate technical group, which is designed to support 

the response and inform the public by providing scientifically validated information about the amount of oil flowing from the leaking 

well, while ensuring the vital efforts to cap the leak are not impeded. 

Fisheries disaster declaration. On May 24, Commerce Secretary 

Gary Locke determined that there has been a fishery disaster in 

the Gulf of Mexico due to the economic impact on commercial and 

recreational fisheries from the ongoing Deep Horizon oil spill. The 

affected area includes the State of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Secretary Locke made the determination under section 

312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The declaration was made in 

response to requests from Louisiana and Mississippi based on the 

loss of access to many commercial fisheries and the existing and 

anticipated environmental damage from this unprecedented event. 

Fisheries closure and seafood safety. This past Tuesday, NOAA’s 

National Marine Fishery Service modified the boundaries of the 

fisheries closed areas based upon the latest oil spill trajectories. 

The modified area increased the closed area to 54,096 square miles. 

This represents 22.4 percent of the Gulf of Mexico’s exclusive economic zone. NOAA is sampling seafood inside and outside of the 

closed areas and working with the FDA to ensure that seafood is 

not contaminated and to guide decisions about when closed areas 

can be reopened. 

Natural resource damage assessment. NOAA is coordinating the 

natural resource damage assessment effort with the Department of 

the Interior as a Federal co-trustee, as well as co-trustees in five 

States and representatives of at least one responsible party, British 

Petroleum. The focus currently is to assemble existing data on resources and their habitat, and collect baseline or pre-spill impact 

data. Data on all resources and habitat are also being collected. 

Number seven. Social and environmental impact. NOAA is aggressively working with other agencies and non-Federal scientists 

to understand where oil is on the surface and below the surface 

and to evaluate the environmental impacts of both the spill and 

any associated mitigation efforts. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

To close, I would like to assure you that we will not relent in our 

efforts to protect the livelihoods of Gulf Coast residents and mitigate the environmental impact of this spill. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on NOAA’s response efforts. 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 76583A.021
50 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 76583A.022
51 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 76583A.023
52 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 76583A.024
53 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 76583A.025
54 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 76583A.026
55 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 76583A.027
56 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 76583A.028
57 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 76583A.029
58 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Robinson. 

Our next witness is Mr. David Hayes. He is the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Mr. Hayes served as 

counselor to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Deputy Secretary 

of the Interior during the Clinton administration. 

I understand that you will have to leave at 4:00 to attend to spill 

response matters, Mr. Hayes. So please begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID J. HAYES 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, also Ranking Member 

Upton, and members of the subcommittee. I will give a few oral remarks to accompany the written testimony from the Department. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 76583A.030
60 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 76583A.031
61 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 76583A.032
62 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 76583A.033
63 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 76583A.034
64 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 76583A.035
65 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 76583A.036
66 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 76583A.037
67 

Mr. HAYES. We have been, as you would imagine, extraordinarily 

busy here on this matter since day one. The morning after the accident, I went down to the Gulf and was the first administration person working with Admiral Landry on setting up the command center. We have been working every day since then virtually 24/7 with 

several streams of work, obviously working to plug the leak. 

Secretary Salazar has been in Houston four times. Dr. Marcia 

McNutt, the director of the U.S. Geological Survey, has been in 

Houston for most of the last three weeks working with Secretary 

Chu and the directors of the National Labs to provide Federal oversight and direction in connection with those high-tech activities. 

Thirdly, we have been very active on the response effort side. 

The Department of the Interior has more than 600 personnel mobilized in the four command centers in the Gulf region, including 

some of our highest-ranking folks. Jon Jarvis, the director of the 

National Park Service, is our lead in the Mobile, Alabama, office, 

by way of example. 

We have significant assets in the area. We have 40 National 

Park units and/or National Wildlife Refuge units in the area. And 

we are leading a lot of the natural response efforts on the natural 

resource damage response efforts. 

We also have been doing some special science projects. As Dr. 

Robinson referred to, there has been a Flow Rate Task Force established, and Dr. Marcia McNutt has led that task force, our director 

of USGS. And she provided a briefing earlier today that updated 

and provided independent governmental estimates of the flow rate 

coming out of the leaks. 

More broadly, I will just mention a couple of other important aspects of what we have been doing. Obviously, because of our jurisdiction over the Minerals Management Service, we have been deeply involved in addressing the safety issues that have arisen in connection with this disaster. We have started our own investigation, 

working with the United States Coast Guard. Secretary Salazar 

also commissioned an independent investigation by the National 

Academy of Engineering, which is under way. 

Today, we submitted to the President a 30-day safety report that 

he requested, suggesting interim additional measures to increase 

the safety for offshore drilling. And, as you know, the President accepted that report and took a number of steps to ensure that we 

would not have additional problems until we could fully implement 

those safety requirements and also get the benefit of the input of 

the Presidential commission that he established and which is now 

under way. 

We also, of course, have been undertaking broader reform efforts 

at the MMS. As you know, we have taken reform efforts with the 

Royalty-in-Kind Program and, most recently, have reorganized the 

MMS to separate out the enforcement function from the permitting 

function, and also to separate out the revenue function, which collects an average of $13 billion per year. 

I will leave it with that, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Hayes, very much. 

Our next witness, Mr. Salt, is the principal deputy secretary of 

the Army. He provides policy for the Army Corps of Engineers. AsVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:30 Feb 11, 2013 Jkt 076583 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A583.XXX A583

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

sistant Secretary Darcy delivered the Army Corps prepared testimony, so Mr. Salt will be there to answer questions moving forward. 

Our next witness is Rear Admiral James Watson. 

Rear Admiral Watson assumed duties as deputy commander of 

the United States Coast Guard Atlantic Area Command in April of 

2010. Prior to that, he served as the Atlantic area’s first director 

of operations. 

Rear Admiral Watson graduated from the Coast Guard Academy 

in 1978 with a degree in marine engineering, and he additionally 

has masters degrees in mechanical engineering, naval architecture, 

and strategic studies. 

When you are ready, Admiral, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL JAMES WATSON 

Admiral WATSON. Good afternoon, Chairman Markey, Representative Upton, distinguished members of the committee. 

First, I want to say that this is an incident that is a tragic incident for the people of South Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and 

even parts of Florida. 

I have been down there, and we are terrifically sensitive to the 

impacts that this has on them, and particularly also the people 

who have lost their loved ones on the Deepwater Horizon. 

Since the night of the explosion, Federal, State, and local authorities and the responsible parties, BP and Transocean, have 

been working around the clock to secure the leak and mitigate environmental damages. My role as the deputy Federal on-scene coordinator is to support Rear Admiral Mary Landry, the Eighth Coast 

Guard District Commander. We will carry out our national policy 

and direction, and have oversight of all response operations as directed by the National Contingency Plan. 

The Deepwater Horizon explosion on the night of April 20 set off 

an unfortunate chain of events. The event began as a search-andrescue case, and within the first few hours of the explosion, 115 of 

the 126 crew members were safely recovered. After 3 days of continuous searching, the Coast Guard suspended the search for the 

11 missing crew members. My deepest sympathies are for the families and friends of the Deepwater Horizon crew who lost their lives 

in the line of duty. 

A massive oil spill response followed the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon, unprecedented in its scope, complexity, and indeterminate nature, the spill has required an extraordinary unified response across all levels of government, industry, and the communities of the five Gulf Coast States. 

A federally-led incident command was quickly established to coordinate this massive operation. Employing lessons learned from 

the Exxon Valdez, the Cosco Busan, spill of national significant exercises, and through the implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990, the response community galvanized their efforts under a 

common framework provided by the National Contingency Plan. 

This framework, developed over the last two decades, enables us 

to respond to these catastrophes in a way that leverages the 

strengths of private industry under the leadership of a Federal onscene coordinator. In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

we integrate the best of Federal, State, and local resources alongside the best and brightest of industry, academia, and the public 

in a unity of effort to protect our natural resources, livelihoods, and 

the security of the Nation. 

From the President down, the Federal Government has taken an 

‘‘all hands on deck’’ approach from the moment the explosion occurred, including the designation as a ‘‘spill of national significance,’’ with Admiral Thad Allen as the national incident commander. 

From the start, our objectives have remained constant and clear: 

Stop the leak, fight the spill offshore, protect environmentally sensitive areas, and mitigate the effects on the environment, the economy, and the local communities. 

Despite several aggressive measures, including the top hat and 

the riser insertion tube, engineers have been unable to stop the 

flow of oil. Today, we eagerly await the outcome of the top kill. We 

continue to monitor the progress in operation, which is expected to 

take 3 to 4 days. 

In parallel, BP is drilling relief wells from two additional rigs. I 

meet personally with BP’s chief of operations officer, and I know 

their drilling contractors are working around the clock to secure 

the source of the oil. 

While we are working permanently to secure the leak, we are attacking the spill as far offshore as possible. As the oil moves from 

one large slick to multiple ribbons of oil, we continue to deploy traditional removal methods. These include in situ burning, skimming, and pre-approved surface dispersants. 

The magnitude of this spill has required us to look at nontraditional mitigation strategies. Subsurface dispersants and satellite 

imagery are just a few of the innovative technologies responders 

are using offshore. Near shore, almost 2 million feet of hard boom 

has been deployed, according to environmentally and economically 

sensitive areas, as outlined in local area contingency plans. This includes different types of booms and other nonconventional barriers 

methods, including National Guard deployment of Hesco barriers 

in Mississippi and sandbags in Louisiana. 

As oil reaches the shoreline, we will continue to be aggressive in 

monitoring BP’s contractors and launching coordinated Federal and 

State actions. We require BP to obtain and deploy whatever resources are necessary, including new technologies, to ensure we are 

doing everything we can to protect the shoreline environmental 

sensitive areas in the Gulf region. 

Mitigating the effects of this spill extend beyond environmental 

impacts and include damages to surrounding communities who depend so heavily on the Gulf of Mexico for their livelihood. The fishermen and small business owners are anxious to do whatever they 

can. Recognizing the desire of so many to help and support the 

local economies, the unified command has established a volunteer 

and vessel of opportunity program to maximize the opportunities 

available to the local communities to support response and cleanup 

operations. 

Although the incident remains under investigation by a joint 

Minerals Management Service and Coast Guard Marine Board of 

Investigation, it may be months before we fully understand what 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

caused the explosion. However, the spill has heightened the need 

for building resiliency into our Nation’s critical infrastructure so we 

are better prepared to respond to system failures and prevent spills 

of national significance from occurring in the future. 

Our response to this historic spill is far from over, but I want to 

reassure you, the entire responsive community is fully committed 

and will continue to aggressively pursue all available options to 

mitigate the environmental and economic impacts of the spill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Watson follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 76583A.038
72 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 76583A.039
73 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 76583A.040
74 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 76583A.041
75 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 76583A.042
76 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 76583A.043
77 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 76583A.044
78 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 76583A.045
79 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Admiral Watson, very much. 

The chair will now recognize himself for a round of questions. 

Deputy Secretary Hayes and Admiral Watson, this is BP’s oil 

spill. BP hired Transocean to drill the well. BP hired Halliburton 

to cement the wellbore. BP owns the equipment necessary to stop 

the oil leak and has sole responsibility to stop the leak and pay for 

the cleanup cost. But BP gave deflated estimates about the flow 

rate, how much oil was actually going out into the ocean on a daily 

basis, couldn’t provide a live feed of its efforts to the public for over 

a month after the explosion, and has not yet stopped the leak. 

What oversight authorities of the Federal Government have been 

engaged to ensure BP gets the job done? 

Admiral Watson. 

Admiral WATSON. Sir, as soon as the oil spill response started, 

we have had a designated Federal on-scene coordinator who is responsible for that oversight. BP was given a letter that made that 

very clear, and the organization was established. All of the activities involving the response have been under the oversight and direction of the Federal on-scene coordinator. 

As the incident grew larger and larger, we expanded that organization from a local incident command to an area command, and finally to a national incident command with the commandant of the 

Coast Guard, Admiral Thad Allen, in charge. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Administrator Jackson and Rear Admiral Watson, yesterday the 

Coast Guard ordered all ships participating in the BP oil spill 

cleanup to cease operations after crew members on three boats reported health problems. Since the start of this spill, EPA has been 

stating that the oil spewing under the sea is harmful to human and 

animal health. 

Such illness is nothing new. Following the Exxon Valdez spill in 

1989, Exxon reported 6,722 cases of upper respiratory infection 

from workers participating in the cleanup. Yet, BP spokesman Graham McEwen said this past Tuesday that he was unaware of any 

health complaints amongst cleanup workers. And fishermen working on cleanup are saying they weren’t provided with protective 

equipment. 

Did BP consult with the EPA or the Coast Guard on the health 

effects of deploying volunteers? 

Admiral WATSON. We have at each of our incident command 

posts and at the area a safety officer. And our plans, our daily 

plans are updated according to the changing conditions of which 

these workers are exposed. 

One of our highest concerns has been for the workers actually 

over the well, which caused the explosion in the first place, from 

the volatile organic compounds. As we hire contractors, we ensure 

that they are in compliance with the OSHA standards for working 

in these conditions, and volunteers are given specific training and 

equipment for the conditions that they would be volunteering to 

participate in. 

For the fishing vessels, there is one set of training requirements; 

for the shore-side people, there is another. And then there is the 

wildlife people. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you think that these reported symptoms experienced by people involved in the cleanup efforts could be a result of 

exposure to the chemical dispersants? 

Admiral WATSON. Sir, I can’t comment on that specifically. But 

I know that the unified command is responding to those and making changes when we determine what it actually is that is being 

reported. 

Mr. MARKEY. How is the EPA going to evaluate the long-term 

public health concerns associated with the use of dispersants, including the ingestion of contaminated seafood? 

Ms. JACKSON. Chairman, we will first rely on data. That data is 

a collected now. Primarily along the shoreline, air data is being collected along the shoreline in conjunction with the States, and also 

with two roving labs. We call them our TAGA vehicles, and also by 

the ASPECT aircraft, which is able to take air samples, especially 

during surface burning operations. 

EPA is monitoring for particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, specifically compounds that would tend to cause odor from 

oil, BTX, benzene toluene, xylene. And we have added those components that are most volatile in the dispersant. We are just getting 

that data in. We haven’t seen any dispersant chemicals, but we 

have seen elevated levels of some of those volatile organic compounds. We have also seen occasionally elevated levels of hydrogen 

sulfites, which we are monitoring for. 

There is more and more data added every day, and I think it is 

EPA’s job to assess both any short-term impacts—we haven’t seen 

numbers that give us concern. We did have one volatile spike in 

the last few days and a hydrogen sulfite spike at one location—and 

then interpret for the people of the Gulf Coast what that means. 

Right now, if you go on our Web site, it says that what you smell 

probably can make you nauseous, give you a headache, irritate you. 

So the first thing to do is if you are not participating in the cleanup 

or response is to remove yourself, because some people are quite 

susceptible to that. When I was there, it didn’t bother me, but I am 

notorious for not being able to smell. 

If you are a worker, then we refer—whether we are getting those 

complaints from the workers themselves or NGOs—those complaints to OSHA, which is part of the unified command, because 

worker protection and safety is their responsibility. We are not 

doing as much monitoring out over the wellhead itself. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like each of you to give me what your estimate is of your 

cost thus far to the agency and what you might think it will be for 

the foreseeable future. Obviously, a ballpark figure is sufficient. 

Ms. JACKSON. I will go. To date, EPA has spent approximately 

$6.7 million. Of that, we spent about $5.2 million in the regions in 

reimbursable funds and approximately $1.5 million in headquarters. 

Mr. UPTON. And what do you anticipate for the next 30 to 60 

days or so? 

Ms. JACKSON. Double it. You know. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Robinson? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you. NOAA has expended $4.6 million on Deepwater to date. This includes $2.9 million in reimbursable 

funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and $1.7 million in 

recurring activities. I don’t have the benefit of an estimate of what 

those expenses might be within the next 30 days. We will make 

that calculation and get back to you. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Hayes? 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Upton, our estimate to date is about $8 million. 

That is fresh from a House Appropriations hearing this morning. 

About 60 percent of that we believe will be directly reimbursable 

under agreement with the Coast Guard from BP. Some of the balance of that will not be. So that is our estimate at this point. And 

like Dr. Robinson, we can try to project forward, but that is pretty 

speculative. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Salt, you get the added importance, I guess, of 

if we go ahead with these permits that have been approved, you 

all may be doing some extensive work there as well. So what are 

your estimated costs? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, I don’t have a good answer to that. The Corps’ 

work so far has been on providing certain technical analysis, particularly the hydrologic analysis, as Secretary Darcy testified, with 

respect to options managing the Mississippi River. And then with 

respect to our regulatory effort the bulk of our future efforts will 

be in the monitoring part of that. It is not expected that we would 

do any of the work. At this time, it is not expected that we would 

do any of the work with respect to those permits. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Watson? 

Admiral WATSON. My estimate is about $19 million at this time. 

I have to say, though, that one of the things that I am responsible for in my position as the deputy Federal on-scene coordinator 

is management of the ceiling of the emergency fund under the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund. It is a portion of the overall trust fund 

that we use for responding to emergencies. And we provide funding 

to other Federal agencies, State agencies. We use that fund to hire 

contractors directly. It is not used for damage costs or claims. 

That fund, when I was down there just a couple days ago, was 

up to $85 million total. And that is—when you are in a Federal response, that is the number that you are managing. As opposed 

to—— 

Mr. UPTON. My clock is running here fast. I want to get in a couple more questions. So as you all look at your costs thus far and 

going ahead, I would imagine that all of you will be seeking full 

reimbursement from BP. 

Is there any argument to that statement? 

Good. All five are unanimous. 

Ms. Jackson, you indicated that you have done rigorous testing, 

sharing the data, particularly of the subsurface disbursements. Did 

they work? Are they working? Is that the reason why it has been 

reduced from 70,000 gallons to 12,000 gallons, because they are 

working? Because, based on what I have seen, there is not a lot 

that is working. 

So tell me how they are working if in fact you are reducing the 

flow by a considerable amount. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Upton. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

One of the reasons that BP first requested the ability to use the 

dispersants in the subseas, something that has never been done as 

far as we can tell, anywhere in the world, is that they claim they 

can use much less dispersant and still be much more effective. And 

that is exactly what we are seeing right now. They use about—of 

the amount I told you, the 12,000, they used 11,110 gallons in the 

subsurface; they used 1,029 at the surface. The day before that, 

they used 200 at the surface. 

Mr. UPTON. 200,000 or 200 gallons? 

Ms. JACKSON. 200 gallons. The Coast Guard would rather, at the 

surface, use surface burning whenever possible. Surface burning 

obviously depends on the wind, and of course skimming and other 

collection operations. 

You asked about the monitoring that we do in the subsurface. 

There are three basic pieces of data that are reviewed every night 

by a team of Federal scientists. The first is particle size. The smaller particle size is a measure of dispersion, if you will. The second 

is dissolved oxygen. There has been lots of concern that there 

would be too little oxygen in the system. And when that happens, 

the system becomes hypoxic and creatures die, to put it mildly. And 

the third is a toxicity test, which is done on a critter called rotifer. 

And those tests were agreed to by a panel of scientists because we 

can get them back quickly. And right now, we are seeing usually 

above 90 percent survivability when we expose this creature to the 

oil dispersant water mixture. I think we have had one or two samples maybe in the high 80 percent survivability. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the chairman emeritus of the committee, 

Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

This question for the witness from the Coast Guard and from the 

Army. 

Louisiana has proposed building a chain of sand barriers along 

the Louisiana coast to prevent oil from the coastal wetlands. The 

plan has not yet been approved. Why, and when? 

Admiral WATSON. There is a consideration that the Federal onscene coordinator uses in a proposal like this, and it is primarily: 

How effective is it going to be? Is it the most effective thing in the 

tradeoffs? 

Mr. DINGELL. By the time you decide that, I have a notion that 

the oil will be well into the wetlands. How long is it going to take 

to come to this decision? 

Admiral WATSON. First of all, we have to get a reading from the 

Corps and the other agencies as to whether it is going to be more 

hazardous to the environment than it would be if you didn’t do it. 

Then, secondly, we have to make a determination if it is going to 

be effective stopping the oil. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, which agency down there has responsibility 

for the environmental impact? It is the Department of the Interior, 

is it not? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, you did not require the environmental impact 

for the particular—impact statement for the particular well that we 

are talking about in the spill. Is that correct? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. There is a legal restraint. 

Mr. DINGELL. Let me continue, please, because I only have a certain amount of time. 

Why did you not have an environmental impact statement? Each 

drilling undertaking is different, and each part of that of the tract 

on which you had the general environmental impact statement is 

different, and the equipment is all different. Why was there not an 

environmental impact statement on that? 

Mr. HAYES. The administration has asked the Congress to 

change the law under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The 

Department is required to process an exploration plan and permit 

within 30 days. 

Mr. DINGELL. Let me ask you about 30 days; I want to hear 

about that later. But the environment, the National Environmental 

Policy Act is still in force. It requires you, wherever there is going 

to be a significant environmental impact, to file one of these environmental impact statements. Why was that not filed here? 

Mr. HAYES. CEQ has a categorical exclusion for this activity that 

they—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Why did that do that? 

Mr. HAYES. They did that in 1986. The chair has started to review that—— 

Mr. DINGELL. What year did they do it in? 

Mr. HAYES. 1986. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. Now, explain to me, if you please, why I am 

hearing about the risks of drilling or failure to drill properly and 

I am not hearing anything about the steps that the agencies have 

taken to ensure that good drilling practices are followed? 

Mr. HAYES. Congressman, the Minerals Management Service 

spends about $30 million a year on an inspection program, has 66 

full-time inspectors. We are doing a stem-to-stern evaluation, however, of whether that enforcement mechanism where they check 

against the prescriptive requirements and the regulations is adequate or not. And that is going to be an important outcome, I 

think, of the investigation that has started and the Presidential 

commission that has been established. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, you tell me that you are required to come to 

a decision within 30 days on these permits. Is that in the statute? 

Mr. HAYES. It is in the statute. 

Mr. DINGELL. Do you have any authority to waive or to extend 

that? 

Mr. HAYES. No authority, unfortunately. It is a shell. And legal 

counsel, since this law was passed in 1978, have said there is no 

authority to extend it. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. Now, MMS has granted 27 categorical 

exemptions to oil and gas companies. Would you submit to the committee the list of the categorical exemptions that you have given 

and why those categorical exemptions have been given in each instance, please. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the record stay 

open so that can be received. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, I note that you have given categorical exemptions to a well at 4,000 feet deep. Here, you gave one at 5,000 feet. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

And you now have one that I note is given to Anadarko Petroleum 

for a plan that will be for a drilling undertaking that will be more 

than 9,000 feet. Why are these given? And explain why they are 

a, quote, category of actions which do not individually and cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for 

which, therefore, neither an environmental impact assessment nor 

an environmental impact statement is required. 

And I am quoting from the actions of the agency. Please explain 

that. 

Mr. HAYES. Congressman, I would have to look at those specific 

examples. They have been—those are preceded by two environmental impact statements, one in connection with a 5-year plan 

under which those leases were granted, and then a second environmental statement was prepared for each specific lease sale under 

the 5-year plan. 

You raised a very important point, though. And Chairman Sutley 

and Secretary Salazar 10 days ago suggested a top-to-bottom review of the NEPA approach taken by the Minerals Management 

Service. 

Mr. DINGELL. Can you make a bald statement that every action 

that was taken by the drillers in each of these cases conformed in 

full to the environmental impact statement and to the permit? 

Mr. HAYES. I personally cannot. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit for the record a statement that 

you can or cannot; and, if so, why? 

Mr. HAYES. Certainly. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Markey. 

The first thing I want to establish is chain of command. 

Admiral Watson, when I was in Louisiana with Chairman Markey several weeks ago, the top Federal official on site was an admiral named Mary Landry. Is she still the top Federal official on site? 

Admiral WATSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. Who does she report to? 

Admiral WATSON. She reports to Admiral Thad Allen. 

Mr. BARTON. And who does he report to? 

Admiral WATSON. He reports to Secretary Napolitano. 

Mr. BARTON. And who does she report to? 

Admiral WATSON. The President. 

Mr. BARTON. So that is the chain of command? 

Admiral WATSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. The President, Napolitano, Admiral Allen, and the 

Admiral Landry? 

Admiral WATSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. Is there any private representative on site that 

doesn’t have to report to Admiral Landry? 

Admiral WATSON. There is a requirement under the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990 that we have a unified command and that the Federal 

on-scene coordinator is the person with the 51 percent vote. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

Now, we do have a unified command in which we have a State 

on-scene coordinator, so the States are well represented, as well as 

a coordinator from the responsible party. 

Mr. BARTON. The point that I am trying to get across, the British 

Petroleum representatives, the Halliburton representatives, the 

Cameron representatives, the Transocean representatives, any 

other contractor that works for a private company, they have an 

independent chain of command through their companies, but they 

have to work with Admiral Landry or her designee; they cannot act 

independently. Is that not correct? 

Admiral WATSON. That is correct. The COO of BP is in our command center. He is right next to Mary Landry. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, I want to go to Administrator Jackson. 

We have talked quite a bit, and you mentioned in your testimony 

the dispersant issue. And I want to say right off the front, that I 

think that is a judgment call, and I think EPA has made the right 

judgment. I think it is the right judgment to try to use these 

dispersants to try to keep the oil under water as opposed to letting 

it get on the top of the water where it would wash onshore and 

could foul up the beaches and the marshlands. 

So I am not negative at all about the decision to use dispersants. 

And I understand some of your testimony about the qualitative differences on how much to use. I think the least you can use, the better. I am not second-guessing that. 

My question is, as the administrator of EPA, has British Petroleum received approval before using dispersant? And have they 

ever used dispersants in a way that EPA specifically disapproved 

of? 

Ms. JACKSON. The answer to your first question is they have 

been—they were approved, pre-approved through the Federal onscene coordinator’s regional response plan that use of dispersants 

at the surface, as long as it was on the EPA product schedule, was 

allowable for surface applications. So that is yes. I believe you said, 

were they approved? Yes, throughout the—by the FOSC ultimately, 

but in conjunction with the ROT. 

They specifically requested approval to use it in the subsurface 

and received that, I believe it was, May 14. The date is in my testimony, my oral and written testimony. 

And then you asked if at any time their application of 

dispersants has been in violation of an order. I would say the closest that we got to that was Sunday night when my concern was 

that we had already approved use of subsea dispersants. All the 

testing and science was showing that it was working, and yet the 

amount of spraying at the surface kept going up. And the conversation that I had with Admiral Landry, and then she brought in 

Mr.—I am sorry, I don’t remember his name. His first name is 

David. I am sorry—was that we wanted to see that go down. Their 

initial response was that they didn’t understand that. But they did 

come around. And we have seen the amounts go down, as I mentioned in my testimony. 

Mr. BARTON. Again, there can be honest differences of opinion 

about just the fact that you use dispersant or not, about the qualitative differences. But in terms of the policy, they have gotten approval before beginning and they have—while they have had difVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:30 Feb 11, 2013 Jkt 076583 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A583.XXX A583

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

ferences of opinion, they have not continued to do something that 

EPA or the on-site Federal official Admiral Landry didn’t approve 

of. That’s a true statement. 

Ms. JACKSON. It is. The one piece of color I add to that, sir, is 

just that we—at this point I do not feel like I have the science to 

say with certainty that they are using the least toxic dispersant out 

there. So we are getting that science. It will take time. 

Mr. BARTON. I understand that. 

Know my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

I have two more questions. One is for the representatives of the 

Corps of Engineers. 

I want to know why in God’s name Louisiana hasn’t gotten approval to begin to build these berms. They have been waiting for 

over a month. Why would you not assign responsibility to the Governor of Louisiana, and tell them to do what they can to protect 

their marshland? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, we actually received the permit request on May 

11. We quickly coordinated that request, went back to the State. 

They agreed that they needed to modify the request based on some 

issues that were developed. We took their modified request, and we 

have been working with that. 

One of the main issues is the time it would take to do it. The 

State’s request, you can think of it as 19 increments of berm. We 

just coordinated an analysis of how long it would take to construct 

the shortest, and it was 5 months. Part of the analysis then is, how 

much of this is it reasonable to permit under the emergency provisions? The Jacksonville district commander proffered that to the 

Governor. 

Mr. BARTON. So basically you have sat on your bottom for a 

month, and nothing—and I think you got some permitted today. 

Isn’t that correct? Six sections got permitted. And in the meantime, 

the oil is in the marshland. Even if it didn’t work—— 

Mr. SALT. Sir, my math is 13 days. But, yes, in that process of 

trying to sort—I mean, the question really is, is it more harm than 

good to throw up a berm for over 100 miles along the coast? 

Mr. BARTON. And so the Corps’ judgment is it is more harm. 

Mr. SALT. There is a part of that proposal that is beneficial. That 

is the part that it worked through with the State and others. I am 

not sure that—the State hasn’t accepted the offer yet, but that was 

offered. 

Mr. BARTON. If the Corps had given approval immediately, could 

not some of the oil that had gotten in, has been able to infiltrate 

into the marshland, would it not have been prevented from getting 

into the marshland? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, I honestly don’t think so. We are talking about 

large berms. And to achieve some of the benefits you are talking 

about, like I said, to complete the shortest of the berms, the Corps’ 

estimate was 5 months. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, maybe if Louisianans did it, it might not take 

5 months. 

Mr. SALT. Even if we accept those kinds of proficiencies, sir, I 

think—the Corps was trying and is trying and is committed to 

try—— 

Mr. BARTON. I encourage you to try to harder. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

I thank the chair’s discretion. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And, Mr. Hayes, we know that you have an important meeting. 

Obviously, because of your responsibilities, you have to go there 

right now. So we thank you for coming here today. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to respond to any further questions for the record. 

Mr. STEARNS. Point of information, Mr. Chairman, is it possible 

that someone from MMS could be here as his replacement? Since 

we do have a hearing and we are in Congress, we would like to 

have somebody here; and many of us still want to ask him questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. I don’t know that there is anyone designated by the 

Secretary to replace Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. We do not have anyone else here. 

Mr. STEARNS. Can he possibly wait for one series of questions? 

Mr. MARKEY. Again, I know that they are part of the spill response team, and Mr. Hayes is responsible for it, and I just don’t 

want our hearing to interfere with his ability to participate in the 

important decisions which are being made right now. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank each of our 

panelists. It has been a very arduous process, both down in the 

Gulf and here answering questions. 

Workers and volunteers and local residents are at risk as we 

speak here for a host of negative health affects. Just yesterday, the 

unified command recalled fishing vessels working on the spill due 

to workers’ experience of nausea, dizziness, headaches, and chest 

pain. Previous spills have shown that more serious health problems 

may arise over time. 

Administrator Jackson, according to an L.A. Times interview 

with some fishermen working on the results of the spill yesterday— 

or the interview was yesterday—while they were told not to touch 

the oil in their training, they weren’t provided with any protective 

equipment by BP. Instead, they wore leather boots, regular clothes 

on the boat to work the spill. 

When asked what BP told them, the fishermen responded that 

they—meaning the BP officials—told us if we ran into oil it wasn’t 

supposed to bother us. 

Do you think that BP has done enough to protect the health of 

the oil spill responders in the Gulf Coast communities? 

Ms. JACKSON. Based on that story, no, ma’am. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Just for the record, I was at a hearing earlier today 

with the CEO of BP, and I asked the same question, and I didn’t 

get any response. So it seems to me that, while BP does have some 

technical expertise and experience in drilling, when it comes to 

public and worker health there is no reason that we should assume 

that BP has the expertise, the willingness to use its resources or 

incentives to really address the issues that are involved here. 

Now EPA is already taking steps to protect the health of workers 

in communities, as you mentioned in your opening remarks. You 

are collecting data, you are doing monitoring and surveillance, but 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

are there some other ways that EPA is communicating about 

health risks to the public? 

Ms. JACKSON. The primary means that we use are for those who 

have Internet access we put up information to help communities. 

It is a right to know. A basic tenet of environmental protection is 

that people have the right to know. We do that in conjunction with 

our partners and with the command. 

We also have put up a translation in Vietnamese. So that there 

is access to not everything but some information, particularly that 

related to human health. 

We continue to get data. We have had a series of public meetings, and we have been fortunate enough to be joined with our 

partners. Often, the Coast Guard, NOAA, Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife are there to answer questions. 

Just as your particular issue we would normally refer that to 

OSHA. Dr. David Michaels I believe has been very adamant about 

the need for OSHA to stand up and be very available through the 

unified command for any questions related to work, specifically to 

worker health. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

I am assuming EPA is also translating—while you are translating literally to other languages, but as data is being collected, 

as this ongoing process occurs, you will use this. Do you use any 

other methods as well to keep the local communities and workers 

and volunteers apprised of new data as it comes along? 

Ms. JACKSON. Oh, absolutely. We are trying everything we know 

to help the communities understand what we do. Just the other 

day when I was out there, we had NGOs who were particularly 

concerned about odor complaints ride along in our mobile lab so 

they can understand and tell us where they might want us to go 

to focus on information. 

It is a continual process, and it is one that we do under the direction of the Coast Guard. They have been very supportive of any efforts EPA makes to bring in and inform the local community. 

Of course, since I am from Louisiana at least and the Gulf Coast 

region for sure, that I think nothing could be more important. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And, also, to follow up even more, you mentioned 

OSHA and you talked about collaboration with the Coast Guard. 

Are there other agencies as well that should be involving in some 

of these public health responses. 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly when it comes to seafood safety, it is the 

Food and Drug Administration, along with any partnership with 

NOAA, because NOAA is collecting so much data out there. 

I believe either today or yesterday EPA was asked by NOAA to 

join some of their deep sea cruises. We generally don’t do a lot of 

sampling out in the deep sea. That is NOAA’s responsibility. But 

there is good cooperation there. And we are working very closely 

with our Federal partners to ensure that all data is getting up on 

the Web. EPA has a bit of experience in that regard as well. 

Mrs. CAPPS. You know, earlier this week, this full Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, we held a markup for a bill that will provide necessary health care to 9/11 responders—if you can believe 

this many years after that—who continue to face negative health 

consequences when their heroic work after the Twin Towers fell. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

Responders to this oil spill, including local shrimpers and fishermen and volunteers and community residents, shouldn’t be choosing to save the life of the Gulf region, which they definitely want 

to participate in doing, while having the choice then to put their 

own health and lives at risk. And this time I hope we can, as I am 

encouraging to continue doing what you are doing and even expand 

it, all of these agencies here, that we don’t find ourselves in the 

same position 10 years from now that we did before. 

Ms. JACKSON. I thank you. 

I just want to acknowledge the Coast Guard’s very strong precautionary action yesterday when there was the first sign of complaint. It is very warm down there. That oil is light crude, sweet 

light crude. It does volatilize, and it can have effects on folks, even 

folks in the Gulf. We think we are pretty tough as it is. And so I 

could not emphasize more strongly, although it is out of my lane 

per se, that proper protective equipment, erring on the side of precaution is extremely important for anybody down there. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I know that I have run out of time. If there were 

more time or maybe you can submit for the written record, Admiral 

Watson or any others that wish to submit some statements about 

this fact. 

Admiral WATSON. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

I just want to emphasize that safety is the first thing that we 

discuss at every one of our meetings; and, of course, we are reactive 

immediately if we find there is a concern. I have been in personal 

discussions with Dr. Michaels, and OSHA is a very much a part 

of our team. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. MCNERNEY [presiding]. At this point, the chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Stearns. The order we 

had when we started with the opening statements is when the 

gavel drops by seniority, and he was here when the gavel dropped. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. The chair recognizes Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. And I thank the gentleman, Mr. Shimkus. 

Admiral Watson, recently, the press secretary for the President, 

Robert Gibbs, indicated, ‘‘There’s nothing that we think can and 

should be done that isn’t being done, nothing.’’ He was pretty emphatic about that. And I guess the question for you is, in your 

present position, do you think absolutely everything is being done 

that possibly could be done to clean up this oil spill? 

Admiral WATSON. Sir, I was sent down there to do everything 

that could be done. My assignment was to be—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Oh, I understand your assignment, Admiral. 

Admiral WATSON. I really feel like I have done my duty. 

Mr. STEARNS. Have you done everything possible that could be 

done to clean this oil spill, in your best opinion? 

Admiral WATSON. Personally and from my perspective inside the 

organization, yes, sir. 

Mr. STEARNS. Now, ABC ran a news story yesterday in which 

they interviewed a lot of the small fishermen. They say, we have 

boats. We are ready to go out and skim off the oil to help out. Why 

aren’t all those unemployed fishermen—why aren’t you using a lot 

of their boats to help out? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

Admiral WATSON. Sir, I think we have over 500 fishing vessels. 

I think the number is closer to 600. They are—— 

Mr. STEARNS. They showed boats after boats on ABC, and they 

interviewed these individuals. 

Admiral WATSON. Well, I just know that we have accepted vessels of opportunity from all the fishing vessel communities. We 

have given them the training, the equipment, and we have deployed them, and they are being used to recover. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, you heard Ranking Member Barton indicate 

that Governor Jindal has asked for approval to put these oil spill 

booms out and hasn’t got it. And he has also got partial approval 

for building the berms. Why wasn’t that done earlier if you think 

everything has been done that has been done? Why haven’t you 

given the approval for the Governor on the oil spill booms? 

Admiral WATSON. Sir, on the berms, that is a tactic that hasn’t 

been used before. We need to know—— 

Mr. STEARNS. No, let’s take the first one, the booms. He has been 

asking that for some time. 

Admiral WATSON. Oh, booms. There is 1.8 million feet of booms 

out. We have put booms down to the maximum level of effort possible, and there is—— 

Mr. STEARNS. He has indicated in a press conference yesterday, 

the Federal Government—he wants them to approve millions of 

feet of boom, and he is waiting for their approval, and he hasn’t 

got it. This is the Governor. So you are saying you have approved 

everything and you are not going to approve more? 

Admiral WATSON. We are still flowing booms in as fast as we can 

into the State of Louisiana. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK, well, I am just telling you what the Governor 

says. 

Now it is also reported there are lots of countries who want to 

help out. They want to send their ships over here. They want to 

provide research, technical expertise, oil pumps, skimmers, wildlife 

treatment. All these countries have listed, and yet it doesn’t appear 

to be—I mean, you have had Mexico, maybe one other country. 

Why haven’t you accepted help and support and assistance from all 

these other countries? I think there were 15 countries that were 

cited. 

Admiral WATSON. Yes, sir. I can’t address each one of those, but 

we do have State Department in our organization, and we are 

using the presence of BP around the world to access those resources. We are flying Canadian aircraft. We are using booms from 

the Middle East and from Europe. 

Mr. STEARNS. It was also reported that Holland has a ship and 

a mechanism to take up 80 percent of the oil by skimming it. Did 

you know about that? 

Admiral WATSON. We do have—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Have you contacted Holland to see what the process is they have in place? 

Admiral WATSON. We have a dedicated group of engineers that 

are working with proposals like that, sir. I can’t speak to that specifically. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK, it has been 5 weeks. It seems like from day 

1 if you would had boats out there to take off the skim and oil 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

pumps and skimmers, this expertise would have delayed hitting 

the shores of Louisiana. Don’t you agree with that, that you should 

have had on day 1 somebody out there doing that? 

Admiral WATSON. Sir, we responded on day 1 with everything 

that we had. This equipment takes time to flow in, and these novel 

things need to be evaluated before—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, how about day 21? Day 21, you did nothing. 

There was no skimmer boats out there. There was nothing being 

done. And I don’t see any foreign countries out there that you have 

approved coming in. And, you know, the Governor now has for 2 

weeks been asking for you to give waivers. Why didn’t you do it 

earlier for the oil spill booms? 

Admiral WATSON. We have a total of 1,500 vessels, sir. I am not 

sure which ones you are referring to that we don’t have working. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, the first couple weeks you weren’t out skimming the oil at the site. You weren’t trying to contain the oil. The 

oil was—I was out there. I saw it. I was on a Coast Guard aircraft. 

It was flowing everywhere. And you could see it come up. It was 

emulsified orange. Everywhere you looked, you saw it. And there 

was—nobody was skimming it up, nothing. This was about 3 weeks 

ago. 

So for you to sit here and tell me, Admiral, that you have done 

everything possible and let this thing hit the Louisiana shore, you 

have to take some culpability here; and you have to stand up and 

say, we could have done more. You can’t go with the administration 

that keeps saying, oh, yes, we have done everything possible. Because it is clear you haven’t. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. 

At this point, the chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

First of all, I would like to ask if there are any known methods 

out there—maybe Mr. Salt can answer this or Administrator Jackson could answer this—that would be effective in protecting the 

marshes. Are building dirt walls effective or putting human hair 

booms? Is there anything out there that would be effective? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, I believe we are trying everything we know to try. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I mean, is there any method that is known 

that would be effective, whether or not you are using it, whether 

or not you are deploying it? Getting oil, to prevent oil from coming 

ashore, is there anything out there that can prevent that? 

I know that the oil is dispersed in the water. It is not just on 

the surface. So it is a difficult problem. Is there any known technique or method that would be effective in this, in this situation? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, beyond what is being tried right now, no, sir, I 

don’t know anything more. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Ms. Jackson. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, as we heard the Admiral say, we are using all 

the methods that are typically used. I have almost every day someone who e-mails me with an idea of some sort. There have been so 

many that there was a technical group put together under the leadership of the command to try to evaluate them. It is very, very difficult, sir, to do science on the fly right when you are in the middle 

of something of this magnitude and not do harm. One of the concerns is that in our rush to want to do something we want to make 

sure we are not making the bad situation worse in the long term. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Rear Admiral, looking in the mirror a little bit now, is there anything that the United States government could have done that 

would have been more effective, taking control of the administration of this, or any administrative or technical thing that we could 

have done that the United States government could have done that 

would have been more effective? 

Admiral WATSON. My personal feeling is that once this manifests 

itself with all of that oil coming up onto the surface—we did have 

weather conditions that did provide—that did force us to retreat on 

occasion. I think that from what we could have done differently it 

could have been in the time since drilling has moved outward we 

could have changed our readiness and increased our planning factors for this kind of a spill. We have contingency plans. They are 

really based on worse-case scenarios that aren’t as worse as this 

one is, and that would have potentially changed our resources that 

were available when the event occurred. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. In your opinion, would it have been hurtful or 

more effective to take control of this from BP? In other words, my 

understanding is that BP is running the show with oversight of the 

Federal Government. Would it have been more effective for the 

Federal Government to take control and to give direction to the 

various players? 

Admiral WATSON. Well, let me just explain the type of control 

that we have over BP. 

First of all, they are required to have a contingency plan. They 

are required to have oil spill response contractors and other contractors to respond to the type of incident that they might have. 

And then when the incident occurs, they have to become a part of 

the organization. If we find that they are nonresponsive, then we 

would begin to give them more direct orders. But in this particular 

case we have been working this response as a unified command, 

and we found that the resources that BP has been able to bring 

have been valuable, and there have been no circumstances that I 

have observed where they have not complied with the plan of the 

day for the oil spill response. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

I am going to yield my time back and recognize—is it your 

turn—the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not trying to manage time, but I appreciate that. 

Obviously, thank you all for coming. Again, we wouldn’t wish 

this on anybody. This is what we have, and I know there is a lot 

of frustration. I think part of the frustration is we are the representatives of the people. I know the folks in Louisiana are frustrated. The whole country is really frustrated. 

With new technology today, we see every ‘‘gee whiz dang’’ solution that can save this thing, from putting straw on the thing and 

soaking it up—that was one that went around last week. And, you 

know, Kevin Costner is going down there to get his little whirlybird 

thing down there to help. People want to help. They see all these 

things. 

I think the other part of the frustration—you know, if I was Governor of Louisiana, I would just do it. I would just do it and suffer 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

the consequences. The court of public opinion he wins by trying to 

save his marshes. I wouldn’t wait for the Federal Government. But 

I am not the Governor of Louisiana, so I guess I don’t have to make 

that call. 

Administrator Jackson, I said I would be very kind, and I am 

going to be. What is the name of dispersant that we are talking 

about? 

Ms. JACKSON. COREXIT. There are two different formulations, 

COREXIT 9527A and 9500A. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Are they both being used, or is one over the other? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, they both have been used. I think the only 

one that is currently being used is 9500A. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You mentioned some type of list. Can you explain 

for me that list? And the 9500, is that on that list? 

Ms. JACKSON. 9500 is on the product schedule which is authorized and listed in the national contingency plan. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So this 9500 is what is being used. The only kind 

of different thing about this is there has been approval for it to be 

dispersed deep, right at the spill. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, the novel application is this injection right as 

the spill was coming up. That stopped yesterday, actually, as they 

initiated the top kill operation. I don’t think it is happening right 

now. 

The other novel thing is the volume use. It is usually used over 

a shorter period of time. So there are certainly U.S. record volumes 

used here. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And so then on this—so it is usually dispersed on 

surface, and this is new. And so could part of this—I give credit 

to Chairman Markey. This whole debate of how much is being 

spilled is very important. I sat through people taking pictures and 

trying to do the flow diagrams, and I had some thermal fluids at 

my military school that I attended. 

If we had a lower projection of what was being released and then 

this dispersant was being used volumetrically in proportion to what 

we thought it was, would that not make the case that that is why 

we have probably some more surface appearance versus, you 

know—could that have been a reason, you think? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am not sure I understand the question. 

Certainly when you use a dispersant as I understand it at the 

surface you have to set your nozzles to a certain rate of application. 

And one of the important things is making sure you are not wasting it, if you will, accidentally spraying it or having it drift over 

open water. It is not going to do any good. And one of the big lessons that we will learn, frankly, on the fly here with this subsea 

application is maybe we found a tool that could be used in future, 

God forbid, accidents. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Could be used positively. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. If we continue to believe that this is a much 

more effective way to get at the problem, this means you can use 

less of the chemical. And we are seeing issues. Now the one thing 

that people are pointing out is that there is no data on the longterm fate of this material, this dispersed material, so we are going 

to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So we don’t know if it is biodegradable or stuff. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

Ms. JACKSON. It is biodegradable. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Is there a time line for that? 

Ms. JACKSON. There is a French study and some other work that 

has been done that says within a month it biodegrades. What is a 

little unusual is that is assuming surface application, and we are 

in 5,000 feet of water here. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And you mentioned France. I guess the French use 

this or other countries use of this, especially use the 9500 one. I 

mean, is that commonly used around the world? 

Ms. JACKSON. Let me get the answer back to you on the record 

on that. There has been some back and forth about a British ban. 

The British don’t use COREXIT in their rocky—in their shallower 

water, and they are testing it in deeper water. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Again, thank you for all you do, all hands on deck. 

We have got to get this solved. Hopefully, we were successful today. 

I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for having to 

run in and out, but we also have other committees and issues. I 

appreciate our panel being here. 

I represent a very urban district in Houston. We have the Houston ship channel, and so we wouldn’t be there without the Coast 

Guard. And needing dispersant—just recently, we had two ships 

collide in the upper channel, and we had the booms, and nothing 

on comparison of what is going on now. So our experience is in 

much smaller spills, and we are literally finding out what we can 

do on these huge spills, and we never had one before. 

In fact, a lot of the technology we have today—I was a State legislator in 1979 when the well exploded in the Bay of Campeche, 

and we saw oil on the Texas coast, and it was much more tragic 

than what we are seeing now. But, again, I don’t want to see that 

or this or anything. 

I appreciate the panel being here. I know the Department of Interior left, and I had some concern about the—and I know the 

President just announced the expansion or the 6 months on drilling 

in deep water or floating rigs; and there are a lot of Members, including on this committee, who have some concern about the shallow water which is a thousand foot or less. So I have some concern 

to make sure that can continue. Because, actually, we need the 

natural gas safely produced. 

Let me talk about dispersants. Because, Madam Administrator, 

again, we are making history. We have never had to disperse this 

much, and we have never had the underwater plumes that are so 

deep, I guess. Because, again, a ship channel, even where it was 

at, it wasn’t 45 foot. So it was very small compared to what we are 

experiencing. 

Correct? It is—from what I understand, it biodegrades rapidly 

and does not bioaccumulate. And does it not include any known 

carcinogens or endocrine disrupters? Ms. Jackson, is that information that you can share with us? 

Ms. JACKSON. There is testing that I have asked my scientists to 

do. It will take about a week to look specifically at endocrine 

disrupters. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

Listen, it is a chemical, sir, so it has a toxicity to it. It is less 

toxic than oil, but it is—it has toxicity. 

Mr. GREEN. I can understand your response to Congressman 

Shimkus. You see the planes flying over and, you know, it is kind 

of like trying to put out a forest fire. Once you put the dispersant 

out, it is going in open water as well as water that has the plume 

or the oil on the surface. 

Are there any other alternatives other than COREXIT and the 

secondary one that can be used and what are the availability of alternatives other than that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I believe there are 14 or 15 different 

dispersants listed on the national contingency plan product schedule. The way the area response plan reads, potentially any of them 

could have been used. 

The concern became that, as this thing has become a longer-term 

release, whether or not the original decision to use COREXIT 

might not be looked at again, whether there was something less 

toxic out there. BP has not identified anything less toxic. My belief 

is that there is more science needed on that, and so we are going 

to do it. 

Mr. GREEN. Our concern is the secondary, you know, but is that 

particular dispersant—has it improved the situation of the oil spill 

in the Gulf of Mexico? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, it is a tough tradeoff, but I believe it has been 

a useful tool. Again, as I understand it from the Coast Guard, the 

FOSC would rather use burning and booming. Surface dispersant 

application is really her last choice, because it is inefficient. 

The subsurface method certainly bears further study for potential options in the future. But I think we owe it to everyone—especially when I go down there and I talk to shrimpers and others, 

there is a lot of concern. And, right now, I can’t give them all the 

answers they would like about whether or not this dispersant is in 

the water. So we are taking the samples. We have gotten some 

very, very limited water samples back; and so far we don’t see any 

of the constituents from the dispersant in the water. But we will 

get another 60, 70 samples back in the next few days. 

Mr. GREEN. Any other panelist on the dispersants? 

Admiral WATSON. Congressman, I would just add dispersants 

have been in our inventory to respond to oil spills for a long time, 

20 years. We have never used this much, but over those years I 

think we have found them effective, and they have been effective 

in this particular spill particularly. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Green. 

The votes have been called. There is about 12 minutes left, so I 

ask the remaining members to be mindful that there are three 

members that wish to speak. 

At this point, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

They will hold votes for us. This is important. 

Administrator Jackson, oil, is it biodegradable? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, oil does biodegrade. It takes a while. 

Mr. BURGESS. By what action does it do that? Does it oxidize, 

does sunlight change it, or do bacteria digest it? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

Ms. JACKSON. Bacteria under aerobic conditions digests oil, sir. 

Mr. BURGESS. What research has been undertaken by EPA to investigate the ability to use normal occurring bacteria to deal with 

an oil spill? 

Ms. JACKSON. There are products listed on the national contingency plan schedule that are—I forget the name for them, but they 

are considered to be aids to biodegradation. That is different than 

dispersants. So there is some work authorized under the NCP for 

the EPA to evaluate and potentially list them as tools that can be 

used in response. 

Mr. BURGESS. Exxon Valdez, some people felt that some of the 

mitigation efforts were actually as harmful or more harmful to the 

shoreline than was the oil itself. Given that information, has EPA 

been actively engaged in any research with any university or academic arrangement to try to develop these bacterial digesters? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, EPA wouldn’t necessarily develop them. That 

is the innovation and ingenuity of the American people, sir. But 

EPA does have a lab. I believe we partner with Environment Canada up in Nova Scotia to look at—— 

Mr. BURGESS. How many of these are you evaluating? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I don’t have an answer for you on what we are 

evaluating right this second. 

What I mean to say, as part of our regulatory responsibilities, we 

would have to list these—— 

Mr. BURGESS. We have to go fast, because he has a quick gavel. 

We have been very fortunate since Exxon Valdez—and Mr. Green 

mentioned the Gulf of Campeche. We have been very fortunate 

with oil spills, but we have got a lot of activity in the Gulf. We 

have driven our exploration out to deeper and deeper levels because we put so many areas off limits and yet we still demanded 

the energy. So, with that in mind, would it have not been prudent 

for the Environmental Protection Agency to have opened this up, 

request for proposals, to have people bring in their products and 

understand better how to deal with these problems up front. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I think EPA relied on the oil industry and, 

in this case, specifically BP, who said that this would not happen. 

So that is why we are—— 

Mr. BURGESS. That is a real troubling aspect. I realize we lost 

our Department of Interior person, and we fired the MMS person, 

but this application is—I mean, it is a scandal in and of itself, and 

it is not just EPA but from a regulatory standpoint. Yes, shame on 

BP for turning this in. 

A scenario for potential blowup of the well, which BP would expect to have the highest volume of liquid hydrocarbons, is not required for the operations proposed in this exploration plan. Well, 

that is bad judgment on BP’s part, but the agency in charge of regulating and approving, it is really bad judgment on their part. 

It seems like the EPA really should be more forward leaning in 

this regard. We do have a lot of activity going on in the Gulf of 

Mexico. The President did outline a plan for other areas to be open 

for exploration. We have been very lucky not to have spills, but 

spills are going to happen. Maybe not of this magnitude again in 

our lifetimes, but spills are going to happen. And it does seem to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

be prudent that the EPA would take a forward-leaning role in this 

regard. The industry to be sure. 

Now the injection of this dispersant at 5,000 feet under water, 

whose idea was that? 

Ms. JACKSON. The request to do the injection came from BP. 

And, sir, I just want to make sure—I know you know this, but 

many in the room may not realize that EPA does not review drilling applications. So I think you should get a response from them. 

Mr. BURGESS. I would love it if they were here, but we were denied that opportunity, as you saw. They left before those of us on 

the lower ends of the dais got a chance to question, and they fired 

the other lady this morning. So that was unfortunate for us. 

It just seems like after all this time—we have heard it in this 

committee, and we have heard it on television, on Rachel Maddow 

last night, the anxiety of people because we have not developed 

these contingencies. And maybe it is not EPA’s place to do that, but 

it seems like EPA would have an ongoing, forward-looking strategy 

to deal with spills as they occur. 

Let me ask you a question. Are we going to—is this going to 

eliminate deep water drilling in the Gulf? We have got a 6-month 

moratorium the President proposed today. Is deep water drilling in 

the Gulf over? 

Ms. JACKSON. Oh, I don’t have a crystal ball, sir. 

Mr. BURGESS. Is this the Three Mile Island for deep water drilling in the Gulf? No deep water drilling, no nuclear, with hydrologic 

fracturing prohibitions that are being—we heard in this committee 

just yesterday, are we going to have anything left as far as producing energy for the American people that is of an American origin? Are we going to lock everything off? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I don’t have a crystal ball, but I would refer 

to what the President said today, which is that until he can assure 

this can be done safely—first, let’s remember 11 people died here 

and then that it can be done safely so that the States around the 

Gulf Coast, all of whom use it for varying purposes, including energy production, can feel certain that their interests are protected. 

I think he said he believes we need to have more time to make sure 

we understand exactly what happened here. 

Mr. BURGESS. I don’t disagree with that. If it is to be done safely, 

though, the applications must be followed to the letter. 

Mr. MARKEY [presiding]. We have to go back to Mr. Scalise. I 

give you 3 minutes, Mr. Scalise. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to get in as 

much as we can. 

I know Mr. Barton talked about the chain of command. I have 

got a real interest in what that command chain of command really 

was. Because when I read the Oil Pollution Act it is very clear the 

President is the one who is directly responsible for ensuring effective and immediate removal of the discharge. 

For too long, especially in the first few weeks but even still 

today, our local officials are still being sent through BP to get approval for various things that they are trying to do to protect the 

marsh and the coast. And so I will throw it out to whoever will answer this question—I guess the Coast Guard, since technically we 

were told the Coast Guard is in charge. Why is BP still in charge 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

of certain recovery operations? I can understand if they are dealing 

with the well, but why are they dealing with things that have nothing to do with the well? 

Admiral WATSON. The Coast Guard Federal On-Scene Coordinator is responsible for the response, sir. And if there is any other 

activities that go on outside of that organization under the Federal 

On-Scene Coordinator, those things can be done; and the recourse 

for compensation for those is back to the responsible party. So I 

think we may be seeing some of those independent activities and 

when—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, let me be specific, because my time is short. 

What about boom, the boats that are supposed to lay out boom? 

We were told our local fishermen were going to be hired to go do 

that. Many fishermen say they have not gotten any involvement in 

this. 

This is what really irritated me. On Sunday in Jefferson Parish, 

the parish where I live, the Homeland Security chief told me that 

they actually went out and found 50 boats sitting idle at the dock 

that were contracted out to be laying boom. This is a day that oil 

is permeating into our marsh, and yet the boats that were employed to go put out boom were sitting idle at the dock. They went 

and commandeered a few of themselves to go put out the boom on 

their own. Why did you all let this happen? 

Admiral WATSON. I can’t explain that particular situation. 

Mr. SCALISE. Who was in charge of that situation? 

Admiral WATSON. We have a staging director. 

Mr. SCALISE. Coast Guard? BP? 

Admiral WATSON. This is a unified command, specifically—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Somebody is in charge. The President said today 

that he is in charge. Is the President in charge of boom? 

Admiral WATSON. The President has put Admiral Allen in 

charge. Admiral Allen has Admiral Mary Landry report to him on 

a daily basis, twice daily. 

Mr. SCALISE. So who signs the contract? I am trying to get an 

answer. I have got 30 seconds left. You are running my clock out. 

I want to know who was in charge of putting out the boom and 

who let those boats sit idle at the dock on Sunday of this past week 

when you had oil coming into our marsh? Who did it? Can you tell 

me? 

Admiral WATSON. I can’t tell you the specific person—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Nobody wants to accept the responsibility for this. 

You know why we are frustrated right now? We are seeing the 

passing of the buck. Who did it? Who let that happen? 

Admiral WATSON. The person on the ground who was responsible 

for that—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Who is going to be held accountable? Give me a 

name. Give me a name. 

Admiral WATSON. I don’t know. 

Mr. SCALISE. Who can give me that? 

Admiral WATSON. Well, I can get back to you, sir, if I know the 

location. 

Mr. SCALISE. Inexcusable. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

Let me move on then, because, again, that is inexcusable as an 

answer. That should not have happened. If the President was all 

hands on deck, that wouldn’t have happened. 

Let’s talk about the Governor’s plan, and I will ask the Corps of 

Engineers, Mr. Salt. We are being told that what was approved 

that the President announced today was only 2 percent of Governor’s plan that he submitted. And in fact if it was done 2 weeks 

ago they would have laid out already 10 miles of protected barrier 

in front of the marsh that is now inundated with oil. Why didn’t 

the President get everybody in a room or did he get everybody in 

a room and say we are rolling up our sleeves and we are not leaving until this problem is solved 2 weeks ago when this was submitted? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, we wouldn’t agree with those numbers. 

Mr. SCALISE. Was everybody brought in the room by the President to say let’s solve the problem or did they let 2 weeks go by 

where people went around—I have reports from the Corps and others where they are talking about doing an environmental study on 

this while the environment is being destroyed. That is ludicrous. 

Mr. SALT. Sir, all of this is under emergency protocols. I would 

be happy to talk to you more after the hearing, if you would like. 

Mr. SCALISE. I want answers on this. Because this is going on 

right now. We are not talking about let’s study this after the fact. 

This is happening right now. Sunday, the boats were sitting at the 

dock while oil was coming into the marsh. There is no excuse for 

that. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired, and the gentleman did have 5 minutes. 

The gentlelady from Florida, I can just recognize her very briefly; 

and I apologize. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Pictures of the oil from the BP disaster washing up in Louisiana 

are horrendous, but I am very concerned about the pollution that 

we cannot see. In Gulf waters, in places where marine life has been 

abundant, marine scientists are reporting today that they have detected a wide area of elevated levels of dissolved hydrocarbons 

throughout the water column. This follows on what the LSU pelican found a couple of weeks ago. 

The highest concentrations are in the recesses of the Gulf of 

Mexico about 35 kilometers northeast of the disaster site south of 

Mobile, Alabama. Part of this area is known as the De Soto Canyon, which a deep valley that cuts through the Continental Shelf 

south of the Florida panhandle. It is an upwelling of very nutrientrich Gulf waters, where marine life is abundant and plentiful, our 

fisheries interact and produce enormous amounts of marine life. 

This pollution can’t be seen from the surface, but it is a severe 

threat to habitat and marine life, nonetheless. It is going to get 

into the food web, our marine scientists say. 

I am very concerned that NOAA doesn’t have the tools to do the 

monitoring. I think what I have heard from scientists is over the 

past decade are data gathering and monitoring capabilities have 

been severely degraded, and I know NOAA is relying on a lot of 

the university and academic research institutions. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

What are your plans to build back the capability to do this longterm data analysis that we are going to need? Do you understand 

the impact of this disaster? What is your plan for being able to 

monitor and survey the subsurface oils and impacts of the toxic nature of this disaster? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Ms. Castor. 

As you know, we have been looking at both surface and subsurface oil. In fact, as you know, we are utilizing academic as well 

as our own resources in this effort, in particular the Weatherbird 

from the University of South Florida. We have seen from some of 

that data—from some of those monitoring data that indicate that 

part per million levels of oil are at the subsurface. 

Mr. MARKEY. To the gentlelady—and I apologize to her. There is 

no time left on the roll call on the House floor, and I apologize to 

you, but—— 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will look forward to 

visiting with NOAA and EPA. 

Mr. MARKEY. And I do apologize to her for that. 

I have members who sent a request that a statement from U.S. 

Travel Associates be included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask unanimous consent that letters from Steve Scalise and myself to Lieutenant General Robert Antwerpen and to Barack Obama regarding allowing 

the Governor of Louisiana to build the sand berms be included in 

the record. 

I ask the record be held open for 5 days for written questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, it will be included in the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank all of you for being here. We know that 

you are very busy and thank you for your service to our country 

and the work you are doing in this very difficult circumstance. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 76583A.046
102 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 76583A.047
103 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 76583A.048
104 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 76583A.049
105 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 76583A.050
106 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 76583A.051
107 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 76583A.052
108 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 76583A.053
109 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 76583A.054
110 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 76583A.055
111 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 76583A.056
112 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 76583A.057
113 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 76583A.058
114 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 76583A.059
115 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 76583A.060
116 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 76583A.061
117 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 76583A.062
118 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 76583A.063
119 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 76583A.064
120 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 76583A.065
121 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 76583A.066
122 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 76583A.067
123 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 76583A.068
124 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 76583A.069
125 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 76583A.070
126 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 76583A.071
127 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 76583A.072
128 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 76583A.073
129 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 76583A.074
130 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 76583A.075
131 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 76583A.076
132 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 76583A.077
133 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 76583A.078
134 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 76583A.079
135 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 76583A.080
136 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 76583A.081
137 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 76583A.082
138 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 76583A.083
139 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 76583A.084
140 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 76583A.085
141 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 76583A.086
142 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 76583A.087
143 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 76583A.088
144 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 76583A.089
145 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 76583A.090
146 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 76583A.091
147 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 76583A.092
148 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 76583A.093
149 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 76583A.094
150 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 76583A.095
151 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 76583A.096
152 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 76583A.097