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

78–129 2013

THE BP OIL SPILL: ACCOUNTING FOR THE 

SPILLED OIL AND ENSURING THE SAFETY OF 

SEAFOOD FROM THE GULF 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

AUGUST 19, 2010 

Serial No. 111–152 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD 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 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD 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 P. 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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

WITNESSES

Bill Lehr, Senior Scientist, Office of Response and Restoration, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ......................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Donald Kraemer, Acting Deputy Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration; Accompanied by Vicki SeyfertMargolis, Senior Advisor to the Chief Scientist, FDA’s Office of the Commissioner ..................................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, 

Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Ian MacDonald, Professor, Department of Oceanography, Florida State University ................................................................................................................... 66 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Dean Blanchard, President, Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc. ................................. 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

Acy Cooper, Jr., Vice President, Louisiana Seafood Association ......................... 78 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80 

Mike Voisin, Chief Executive Officer, Motivatit Seafood, LLC ............................ 82 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85 

Lisa Suatoni, Senior Scientist, Oceans Program, Natural Resources Defense 

Council .................................................................................................................. 88 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE BP OIL SPILL: ACCOUNTING FOR THE 

SPILLED OIL AND ENSURING THE SAFETY 

OF SEAFOOD FROM THE GULF 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:39 a.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Markey 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Member present: Representative Markey. 

Staff present: Bruce Wolpe, Senior Advisor; Melissa Cheatham, 

Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Special Assistant; 

Lindsay Vidal, Special Assistant; Jen Berenholz, Deputy Clerk; Andrea Spring, Minority Professional Staff; Mary Neumayr, Minority 

Counsel; Garrett Golding, Minority Legislative Analyst; and Lyn 

Walker. 

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

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. 

For anyone who has been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, one of the best words you can hear is ‘‘remission,’’ whether 

it is cancer, HIV or some other illness. A battery of modern cures 

can reduce the disease to lower, perhaps even to undetectable levels. Yet even in remission, there is often unease that the disease 

could return and the pestering inevitable scientific and metaphysical questions arise: Where did it go? Could it come back? 

Right now, we are in a similar state in this environmental disaster. After many trials and several false starts, BP finally created 

a system to cap and seal the well. Oil has not come from the 

Macondo well for about a month. We are no longer at the bleeding 

stage. A tourniquet has been applied to the well, and now we are 

told we may need to wait for the final procedure, the relief well, 

until September. 

And so just like a patient in remission, we have reached a more 

stable stage of health with this bill. To say the well is capped is 

tantamount to a cure would be false confidence. Like unseen internal bleeding in a trauma patient, the veiled oil persisting in the 

Gulf poses continued risks. Today, we are here to ask the same 

questions about this spill as a patient or a doctor would of a disease: Where did it go, and could it come back? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

According to the most recent estimates, 4.9 million barrels of oil 

spewed from BP’s well over the course of this 100-day gusher. Of 

that oil, some was captured, some was dispersed and some evaporated or naturally dispersed. Yet, at least 1.3 million barrels still 

remain unaccounted for in the waters and marshes of the Gulf, an 

amount five times larger than was spilled during the entire Exxon 

Valdez disaster. 

Just as we are worried about rogue weapons sold on the black 

market harming the public, we must be vigilant about rogue oil 

from this disaster harming the public, putting a black mark on 

Gulf seafood or Gulf tourism. 

In addition to all the oil, millions of gallons of dispersant chemicals have been used in unprecedented ways. Just a few weeks ago, 

FDA told me that they had determined that dispersants have a low 

potential to accumulate in seafood and do not pose a significant 

public health risk through human consumption. While this news is 

welcome, it addresses only the issue of short-term toxicity. The 

FDA knows little about the long-term impacts that these compounds will have on marine life, nor do they know how the presence of oil and dispersants may influence the concentration of other 

toxic compounds in seafood species. 

We have yet to see the full picture of hazards posed by this spill. 

The work done by the FDA, NOAA and EPA will be critical in ensuring that fish and shellfish from the Gulf is safe to eat for years 

to come. 

And so we will ask today: where do we go from here? Where 

should monitoring and cleanup efforts be focused in this new chapter of recovery and restoration? Are the clouds of oil suspended 

below the ocean’s surface still a concern? What about the plumes 

of methane gas? Where have these plumes gone and will microbes 

consuming methane use up oxygen in the water, potentially asphyxiating areas of the Gulf? What impact will all the oil, methane 

and the chemical dispersants have on marine life in the Gulf and 

on Gulf seafood supply in the years ahead? Is seafood from the Gulf 

safe to eat today? Will it be safe to eat in the future? American 

families want the only oil in their seafood to be cooking oil. 

Ending BP’s gusher in the Gulf does not, by itself, cure the harm 

that has been done. The treatment of the region from this disaster 

has only just begun. 

To have a successful, continued response to this spill, we need to 

do three things going forward: One: monitor the health of the 

waters, wetlands, wildlife and people of the Gulf. Two: maintain 

the pressure on BP and others to continue the recovery and restoration process. And three: muster the attention of our entire 

country on solving the economic and environmental challenges 

from our continued dependence on oil, especially foreign oil. 

We have an extremely distinguished group of witnesses appearing before us today. We appreciate the fact that it is the middle of 

the summer. We know that many people have gone away. However, 

the oil has not gone away, and it is important for the Gulf of Mexico residents to know that the attention on this issue has not gone 

away. That is why we are having this hearing today. 

So let us turn to our first witness, Dr. Bill Lehr. He is a Senior 

Scientist in the Emergency Response Division of NOAA, where he 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

leads the spill response group. He has been active in spill research 

and response for more than 15 years. We thank you, Dr. Lehr, for 

being here. Whenever you feel comfortable, please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF BILL LEHR, SENIOR SCIENTIST, OFFICE OF 

RESPONSE AND RESTORATION, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; DONALD KRAEMER, ACTING 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY VICKI SEYFERT–MARGOLIS, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE CHIEF SCIENTIST, FDA’S OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER; AND PAUL ANASTAS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

STATEMENT OF BILL LEHR 

Mr. LEHR. Thank you, Chairman Markey and members of the 

subcommittee for this—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Could you turn on your mic? 

Mr. LEHR. It should be on. There we go. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. LEHR. Thank you again, Chairman Markey and members of 

the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify here for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s role in the recent 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. I would like to discuss the 

critical roles that NOAA services during oil spills and their importance to their contributions to protect and restore natural resources, communities and economies affected by this recent terrible 

event in the Gulf of Mexico. 

NOAA’s scientific experts have been assisting with response from 

the first day both on scene and through our headquarters and regional offices. NOAA’s support has included daily trajectories of the 

spilled oil, weather data for short- and long-term forecasts, special 

forecasts for cleanup operations such as the in situ burning. NOAA 

experts analyze the satellite imagery and also perform real-time 

observations to help verify the spill location and movement. In addition, NOAA scientists are providing expertise and assistance regarding sea turtles, marine mammals and other protected resources such as corals. NOAA is also coordinating with the federal 

and States co-trustees and responsible parties to conduct natural 

resource damage assessment which is a process that quantifies the 

total losses and develops restoration projects that compensate the 

public for their losses. 

NOAA has also participated in a number of interagency expert 

teams. These include the Flow Rate Technical Group that estimated the size of the spill that you referred to, and also a joint effort with NOAA, the Department of Interior, the Coast Guard, the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology and other outside 

experts to develop an oil budget calculator to estimate for response 

purposes the fate of the spilled oil. 

Now, there has been a lot of discussion on this budget, so let me 

get into a little detail on it. Basically, according to what our experts were able to determine, the oil that was spilled could be divided up into four basic categories. About one-quarter of it was eiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:36 Apr 03, 2013 Jkt 078129 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A129.XXX A129

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

ther recovered directly, was burned in situ or was skimmed on the 

surface. Another quarter either evaporated or dissolved into the 

water column, and another quarter, as you mentioned before several times, the size of the Exxon Valdez remains out there for 

cleanup purposes, and then another quarter was dispersed into the 

water column. 

Now, part of that was through natural dispersion and other was 

through the use of dispersants. Dispersants for the Deepwater Horizon spill were only used where oil was present on the surface or 

they were applied at the wellhead on the sea floor. A total of 1.8 

million gallons of dispersants were used. The effects of the 

dispersants are being monitored by NOAA, also the dispersed oil. 

There are over 2,000 water samples that have been collected in the 

deep waters of the Gulf. As well as analyzing for oil, they have also 

analyzed for components of the dispersants and thus far only one 

dispersant component, propylene glycol, was detected in a sample 

that was close to the wellhead. 

In addition, EPA is monitoring surface water samples for the 

presence of dispersant components near the shoreline, and my colleague from EPA can discuss that. 

Finally, to ensure the safety of fishermen and consumers, NOAA 

prohibited commercial and recreational fishing in certain areas of 

the Gulf of Mexico because of the spill. Now that the wellhead is 

capped and new oil is no longer flowing in the Gulf, NOAA scientists are going back into the spill area taking seafood samples to 

determine which areas are safe for fishing. An area is only reopened to fishing if visible oil is no longer present in the area and 

only after the seafood passes rigorous sensory and chemical testing. 

To date, every seafood sample from reopened waters or outside the 

closed area has passed sensory and chemical testing for contamination of oil dispersant. No unsafe levels of contamination of the seafood have been found. NOAA has begun to reopen portions of the 

closed area but only after being assured that the fish products 

within the closed area meet the Food and Drug Administration’s 

standards for public health and wholesomeness. 

To conclude, the attention at this point is focused on evaluating 

fisheries for reopening, shoreline cleanup, monitoring of subsurface 

oil both near shore and in deepwater, and conducting natural resource damage assessments with our co-trustees. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today, and I am happy to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lehr follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 78129A.001

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

BILL LEHR, PH.D 

SENIOR SCIENTIST 

OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RESTORA TIONNA TIONAL OCEAN SERVICE 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

HEARING ON 

THE BP OIL SPILL: ACCOUNTING FOR THE SPILLED OIL AND ENSURING THE 

SAFETY OF SEAFOOD FROM THE GULF 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

August 19, 2010 

Thank you, Chainllan Markey and Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportnnity to testiry 

on the Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 

role in the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. My name is Bill Lehr and I am a Senior 

Scientist with the Emergency Response Division of the OtTice of Response and Restoration 

within NOAA's National Ocean Service. T appreciate the opportunity to discuss the critical roles 

NOAA serves during oil spills and the importance of our contributions to protect and restore the 

natural resources, communities, and economics affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. 

NOAA's mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment. NOAA also 

conserves and manages coastal and marine resources to meet our Nation's economic, social, and 

environmental needs. As a natural resource trustee, NOAA is one of the federal agencies 

responsible for protecting, assessing, and restoring the public's coastal natural resources when 

they are harmed by oil spills. As such, the entire agency continues to be deeply concerned about 

the immediate and long-term environmental, economic, and social impacts to the Gulf Coast and 

the Nation from this spill. NOAA has worked since the first day of this spill to reduce impacts on 

the Gulf Coast and will continue to do so uutil the oil is cleaned up, natural resource injuries are 

assessed, and restoration is complete. 

My testimony today will discuss NOAA's role in the Administration's Deepwater Horizon 

response including NOAA's role in the use of dispersants as a countermeasure to mitigate the 

impacts of the spill; NOAA's role in the development of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget 

Report; and NOAA's role in testing and ensuring seafood safety. 

NOAA'S ROLES DURING OIL SPILLS 

NOAA has three critical roles mandated by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the 

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP): 
6 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 78129A.002

I. During the emergency response, NOAA serves as a conduit for scientific information to the 

Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC). For example, NOAA provides trajectory predictions 

for spilled oil, conducts overflight observations of oil on water, identifies highly valued or 

sensitive environmental areas, and conducts shoreline surveys to determine clean-up 

priorities. 

2. As a natural resource trustee, NOAA conducts a Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

(NRDA) jointly with co-trustees to assess and restore natural resources injured by the oil 

spill. NRDA also assesses the lost uses of those resources, such as recreational fishing, and 

swimming, with the goal of implementing restoration projects to address these losses. 

3. Finally, NOAA represents the Department of Commerce in spill response preparedness and 

decision-making activities through the National Response Team and the Regional Response 

Teams (RRT). 

Response 

For a coastal oil spill, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is the FOSC and has the primary 

responsibility for managing response and clean-up activities in the coastal zone. During an oil 

spill, NOAA's Scientific Support Coordinators deliver technical and scientific support to the 

USCG. NOAA's Scientific Support Coordinators are located around the country in USCG 

Districts, ready to respond around the clock to any emergencies involving the release of oil or 

hazardous substances into the environment. Currently, NOAA has deployed all of its Scientific 

Support Coordinators from throughout the country to work on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill. Although this left a vulnerability in other regions, priority had to be assigned to responding 

to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. 

With over thirty years of experience and using state-of-the-art technology, NOAA continues to 

serve the Nation by providing its expertise and a suite of products and services critical for 

making science-based decisions. Examples include trajectory forecasts on the movement and 

behavior of spilled oil, overflight observations, spot weather forecasts, emergency coastal survey 

and nautical charting capabilities, aerial and satellite imagery, and real-timc coastal ocean 

observation data. Federal, state, and local entities look to NOAA for assistance, experience, 

local pcrspective, and scientific knowledge. NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration was 

called upon for scientific support 200 times in 2009. 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

Stewardship of the Nation's natural resources is shared among several federal agencies, states, 

and tribal trustees. NOAA, acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, is the lead federal 

trustee for many of the Nation's coastal and marine resources, and is authorized by the Oil 

Pollution Act to recover damages on behalf of the public for injuries to trust resources resulting 

from an oil spill. Regulations promulgated by NOAA under the Oil Pollution Act ask for 

compensation in the form of restoration of the injured resources, and appropriate compensation is 

determined through the NRDA process. Since the enactment of OPA, NOAA, together with 

other federal, state, and tribal co-trustees, has recovered approximately $500 million for 

restoration of natural resources injured by releases of oil or hazardous substances, as well as 

injuries to national marine sanctuary resources, including vessel groundings. 

2 
7 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 78129A.003

National and Regional Response Teams 

The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, more commonly called 

the NCP, is the federal govcrnrncnt's blueprint for responding to both oil spills and hazardous 

substance releases. A key purpose of the NCP is to develop a national response capability and 

promote overall coordination among the hierarchy of responders and contingency plans. NOAA 

represents the Department of Commerce on the National Response Team and Regional Response 

Teams (RRT), which develop policies on dispersant use, best clean-up practices and 

communications, and ensures access to science-related resources, data, and expertise during 

responses to oil spills. 

NOAA'S ROLE IN THE DEEPWATER HORIZON RESPONSE 

NOAA's scientific experts have been assisting with the response from the first day of the BP 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill, both on-scene and through our headquarters and regional offices. 

NOAA's support has included daily trajectories of the spilled oil, weather data to support short 

aud long range forecasts, and hourly localized 'spot' forecasts to determine the use of weather 

dependent mitigation techniques such as oil bums and chemical dispersant applications. NOAA 

uses satellite imagery and real-time observational data on the tides and currents to predict and 

verify oil spill location and movement. To ensure the safety of fishermen and consumer seafood 

safety, NOAA scientists arc in the spill area taking water and seafood samples, and NOAA has 

put tisheries closures in place to maintain consumer confidence in the safety of consuming 

seafood from the Gulf of Mexico region. In addition, NOAA experts are providing expertise and 

assistance regarding sea turtles, marine mammals, and other protected resources such as corals. 

At the onset of this oil spill, NOAA quickly mobilized staff from its Damage Assessment 

Remediation and Restoration Program to begin coordinating with federal and state co-trustees 

and responsible parties to collect a variety of data that are critical to help inform the NRDA. 

NOAA is coordinating the NRDA dTort with the Department oftbe Interior (another federal cotrustee), as well as co-trustees in five states and representatives for at least one responsible party, 

BP. NOAA and the co-trustees are currently gathering data on resources such as fish, shellfish, 

birds, and turtles, and mammals; their supporting habitats such as wetlands, beaches, and corals; 

and human uses of affected resources, such as tishing and recreational uses across the Gulf of 

Mexico. The trustees will then quantify the total losses and develop restoration projects that 

compensate the public for their losses. 

THE USE OF DISPERSANTS 

The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill is a stark reminder that large oil spills still occur, and that 

we must rebuild and maintain our response capacity. When an oil spill occurs, there are no good 

outcomes. Once oil has spilled, responders use a variety of oil spill countermeasures to reduce 

the adverse effects of spilled oil on the environment. The goal of the Unified Command is to 

minimize the environmental damage and speed recovery of injured resources. The overall 

response strategy is to maximize recovery and removal of the oil being released while 

minimizing any collateral damage that might be caused by the response itself. This philosophy 

involves making difficult decisions, often seeking the best way forward among imperfect 

options. Dispersants served as an important tool to reduce the impacts of oil on sensitive 

wetlands, beaches and marshes. 

3 
8 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 78129A.004

For the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Unified Command's response posture has been to 

fight the spill offshore and reduce the amount of oil that comes ashore, using a variety of 

countermeasures including subsurface recovery, booming, skimming, burning, and chemical 

dispersants, No single response method is 100 percent effective, and each has its own "window 

of opportunity" determined by the density and state of the oil and weather and sea state 

conditions, Changing environmental conditions require the Unified Command to consider all 

available response options and select the best that can be used at the time, Given the enormous 

volume and geographic extent of the spill, the response has been remarkably successful in 

reducing shoreline impacts, 

Spill response often involves a series of environmental trade-offs, The overall goal is to use the 

response tools and techniques that will minimize the overall environmental damage from the oiL 

The use of dispersants is an environmental trade-off bcnvcen impacts within the water column, 

on the sea surface (birds, mammals, and turtles in slicks) and on the shore, Dispersants do not 

remove the oil from the environment, but applying chemical dispersants does speed up 

biodegradation of the oiL When a decision is made to use dispersants, the decision maker is 

acting to reduce the amount of oil on the surface where it may affect birds, mammals, and turtles, 

and to reduce impacts to the coastline, in exchange for increasing the amount of oil in the water 

column off shore, While the etIects of dispersants on some water column biota have been 

studied, the effects of dispersants and dispersed oil below the surface on wildlife such as diving 

birds, marine mammals, and sea turtles are not as well known as they arc in fish, 

Dispersants were only used where oil was present and were applied at the water surface and at 

the wellhead on the seafloor. A total of I ,8 million gallons of dispersants were used, For 

comparison, that is one one-hundredth of the volume of oil that leaked into the Gulf of Mexico, 

which itself consists of approximately 640 quadrillion gallons of seawater. Dispersants are 

designed to dilute and biodegrade quickly, Water sampling in the Gulf of Mexico by NOAA is 

showing evidence of biodegradation in the 2,195 water samples collected in the deep waters of 

the Gulf. These samples were analyzed for components of dispersants and only one of the 2195 

samples taken to date showed a dispersant component, propylene glycol, above the detectable 

limit Furthermore, this dispersant concentration is well below the level of concern for human 

health, This one sample was taken close to the wellhead on June 3, well-over two months ago, 

Subsequent to this date, over a thousand samples have been taken and none have detected 

dispersants, Dispersants were last applied in the Gulf of Mexico on July 19th 

NOAA does not have a regulatory role in approving dispersant products, but NOAA has three 

main roles in respect to dispersant use: as a trustee agency on the RRT, NOAA must approve any 

prcauthorization for the use of dispersants in that region; again, as a trustee agency on the RRT, 

NOAA must be consulted with by the FOSC on any incident-specific use of dispersants within 

the region; and NOAA participates in monitoring for the efficacy of dispersants via the Special 

Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies (SMART) program, NOAA's Scientific Support 

Team is designated as a special team in the NCP and provides a broad array of scientific services 

to the response, including recommendations to the FOSC on the appropriate use of dispersants, 

NOAA is also a member of the SMART program, an interagency, cooperatively designed 

program to monitor the efticacy of dispersant and ill situ burning operations, SMART relies on 

small, highly mobile tcams that collect real-time data using portable, rugged, and easy-to-use 

4 
9 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 78129A.005

instruments during dispersant and in situ burning operations. Data are channeled to the Unified 

Command to help address critical questions. NOAA also uses SMART data to inform 24, 48 and 

72 hour oil fate and trajectory models as dispersants can affect the behavior of the spilled oil. 

Under section3!! of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

required to prepare and maintain a schedule of dispersants and other mitigating devices and 

substances that may be used in carrying out the NCP. The NCP requires RRTs, in which NOAA 

participates, and Area Committees to plan in the advance of spills for the use or non-usc of 

dispersants, to ensure that the tradeoff decisions between water column and surface/shoreline 

impacts are deliberated. As the FOSC for this spill response, the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible 

for authorizing the use of the specific dispersant used trom the NCP Product Schedule where the 

use is pre-authorized. If the usc of the dispersant is not preauthorized, the FOSC must receive 

the concurrence of the EPA representative to the RRT and consult with the DOC and DOl NRTs 

when practicable. Because ofthe unprecedented nature of the dispersant operatious, the 

monitoring and constraints on application volumes and methodologies are being closely 

managed. In particular, EPA has specified effectiveness and impact monitoring plans, 

application parameters, and action thresholds. Any changes to specific Deepwater Horizon 

dispersant plans require the concurrence of EPA and other RRT decision agencies, including 

NOAA, under the NCP. 

The Gulf coast is home to coastal wetlands and marshes that arc biologically productive and 

ecologically important to nesting waterfowl, sea tultles, fisheries, and essential fish habitat. The 

Gulf of Mexico region's ecological communities are essential to sustaining local economies, 

recreational experiences, and overall quality oflife. Although it may not be readily apparent, use 

of dispersants offshore and in deep water, reduced the amount of oil reaching the shoreline, 

reducing the amount of shoreline cleanup that will be required, and helping to reduce recovery 

time of injured nearshore resources. Without the use of dispersants, thc shoreline impacts along 

the Gulf coast from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill would have been greater. 

OIL BUDGET REPORT 

On August 4,2010, NOAA and other Federal agencies released a report titled the "BP 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget: What Happened to the Oil?" The National Incident Command 

(NIC) assembled a number of interagency expert scientific teams to estimate the quantity of BP 

Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of that oil. The expertise 

of government scientists serving on these teams is complemented by nongovernmental and 

governmental specialists that reviewed the calculations and conclusions. One team, led by 

Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia 

McNutt, estimated the flow rates and the total volume of oil released from the BP Deepwater 

Horizon well. On August 2, 2010, they estimated that a total of 4. 9 million barrels of oil, with an 

uncertainty of plus or minus 10%, had becn released into the Gulf of Mexico. A second 

interagency team, led by the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA developed a tool called the Oil 

Budget Calculator to estimate the disposition of the oil. Thc calculator uses the 4.9 million barrel 

estimate as its input and uses both direct measurements and the best currently available scientific 

estimates. The interagency scientific report builds upon the calculator and snmmarizes what can 

5 
10 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 78129A.006

be said about the disposition of the oil to date. Over 25 government and independent seientists 

contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods. 

It is estimated that burning, skimming, and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one 

quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally 

evaporated or dissolved, and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or 

as a result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. The residual amount - just 

over one quarter (26%) is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar 

balls, has washed ashore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Oil in the residual and dispersed 

categories is in the process of being degraded. These estimates will continue to be refined as 

additional infornmtion becomes available. 

It should be noted that even 26%, the estimated residual amount of oil remaining from the BP 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill is still a substantial amount of oil (over 1 million barrels or 42 

million gallons); nearly 4 times the total amount that was released during the EXXON VALDEZ 

spill. This is not a trivial amount and will require a significant effort on the part of the 

Responsible Party and the Federal government to monitor the fate and effects of this residual oil 

and to recover whatever is available to be recovered. 

Explanation of Report Findings 

Unified Command Response Efforts: 

Response efforts were successful in addressing 33% of the spilled oil. This includes oil that was 

captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe inscrtion tube and lop hat systems (17%), 

bnrning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning and 

skimming remove the oil from the water, while chemically dispersed oil remains in the water 

until it is biodegraded, as discussed below. 

Dispersion: 

Based on estimates, 16% of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 8% was 

dispersed by the application of chemical dispersants on and below the surface. Natural dispersion 

occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water column, 

which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 

'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns abont the diameter of a 

human hair. Oil droplets that are this small arc neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water 

column where they then begin to biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into 

small droplets to keep it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and makes it more readily 

available for biodegradation. Chemical dispersants were applied at the snrface and below the 

surface; therefore, the chcmically dispersed oil cnded up both deep in the water column and just 

below the snrfacc. Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in 

the water colnmn and at the surface. 

The naturally dispersed oil and some of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained wellbelow the surface in diffuse clouds where it began to dissipate further and biodegrade. Previous 

analyses havc shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3,300 and 4,300 feet in 

very low concentrations (parts per million or less), moving in the direction of known ocean 

6 
11 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 78129A.007

currents and decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group 

Report 1 and 2, Oil that was chemically 

dispersed at the surface moved into the top 20 feet of the water column where it mixed with 

surrounding waters and began to biodegrade. 

Evaporation and Dissolution: 

It is estimated that 25% of the oil volume quickly and naturally evaporated or dissolved into the 

water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based on scientific research and 

observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon event. 

Dissolution is different from dispersion. Dissolution is the process by which individual 

hydrocarbon molecules from the oil separate and dissolve into the water just as sugar can be 

dissolved in water. Dispersion is the process by which larger volumes of oil are broken down 

into smaller droplets of oil. 

Residual: 

After accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated (i.e., recovery 

operations, dispersion, and evaporation and dissolution), an estimated 26% is unaccounted for. 

This figure is a combination of categories all of which are difficult to measure or estimate. It 

includes oil still on or just helow the surface in the form of light sheen or tar balls, oil that has 

washed ashore or been collected from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments 

and may resurface through time. This oil has also begun to degrade through natural processes. 

Biodegradation: 

Both dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade naturally. 

While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early 

observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists indicate that the oil 

from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, 

DOE and academia are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate. It is well known 

that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of 

Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and 

the fact that oil regularly enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps. 

The oil budget calculator is intended to present the best information available on the fate of 

spilled oil at this time. Some of tile components were measured, and some of them were 

estimated. Each clement of the budget has some level of uncertainty associated with it, although 

it is difficult to characterize this uncertainty due to the nature of the estimations. The output is 

intended primarily to help inform the response on the fate of the oil, and secondarily to help the 

public understand the fate of the oil. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional 

information becomes available. A comprehensive technical report on the oil budget will be 

released by the NIC in the coming weeks. 

Continued monitoring and research: 

As NOAA Administrator, Dr. Lubchcnco, has stated, "It is important to remember that dilute 

does not meau benign." NOAA and our federal and research partners will continue to quantify 

and track oil that remains in the system to understand its fate and impacts. Additional research 

7 
12 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 78129A.008

efforts arc currently being planned to further understand the fate, transport, and impact of the oil 

and response efforts. The federal government will continue to report activities, results, and data 

to the public on a regular basis. Updates and infonnation can be found at 

==='-""===="'-'., and data from the response and monitoring ean be found at 

NOAA'S ROLE IN ENSURING SEAFOOD SAFETY 

To ensure the safety of fishennen and consumers, NOAA prohibited commercial and 

recreational fishing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico because of the BP Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill. The closures have been primarily a precautionary measure to ensure public health, 

safety. and consumer confidence in Gulf seafood. To identify areas where closures were needed, 

NOAA used a comhination of computer modeling and daily overflights. Computer models 

produced trajectory maps of where the oil was likely to be in 24, 48, and 72-hour time frames 

based upon weather, satellite imagery, ocean buoy data, and ocean currents. This trajectory was 

ground-tmthed by daily overflights to verify the actual extent of the oil. The data were reviewed 

each morning by NOAA to detennine whether modifications were necessary for the closure 

boundaries. The areas closed to fishing in the Gulf included a five nautical mile buffer zone 

around the known location of oil. This was a precautionary measure to further ensure seafood 

products being caught arc not contaminated because fish move in an out of the closure areas. 

NOAA has taken a conservative approach on closures in order to ensure public health and safety. 

Now that the wellhead is capped and new oil is no longer flowing into the Gulf from the spill 

site, NOAA scientists are in the spill area taking seafood samples to detcnnine which areas are 

safe for fishing. An area is only re-opened to fishing if visible oil is no longer present in the area 

and only after the seafood passes rigorous sensory and chemical testing. To date. every seafood 

sample from reopened waters or outside the closed area has passed sensory and chemical testing 

for contamination of oil and dispersant. No unsafe levels of contamination in seafood have been 

found. 

NOAA has begun to reopen portions of the closed areas, but only after being assured that fish 

products within the closed area meet the Food and Drug Administration standards for public 

health and wholesomeness. NOAA has re-opened a total of more than 31,000 square miles of 

Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico after conducting sensory and chemical analysis offish in 

these areas. On July 22, NOAA re-opened 26,388 square miles of water to commercial and 

recreational fishing and another 5,144 square miles on August 10,2010. The current fishery 

closed area in the Gulf of Mexico totals 52.395 square miles or approximately 22% of the Gulf 

of Mexico Exclusive Economic Zone; this is down from 84,101 square miles and approximately 

37% of the Federal waters of the GulfEEZ, which was the size of the closed area at its peak on 

July 12.2010. NOAA is confident that commercial and recreational fishing activities can safely 

occur in the areas that were re-opened or never closed and that the fish harvested from the open 

areas arc safe to consume. 

NOAA's overall sampling strategy for Federal waters is based on oil density data over time 

within the fisheries closed area. The entire Federal closed area will eventually undergo the 

process for sampling and testing in accordance with the re-opening protocol. Our overall 

8 
13 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 78129A.009

strategy for sampling focuses tirst on areas least oiled and that are now not oiled as the top 

candidates for re-opening. The heaviest oiled areas are nearest the wellhead toward the center of 

the closed area. The heavily oiled areas will be more densely sampled than the more lightly 

oiled areas toward the outside of the closed area. NOAA assigned smaller areas in a grid-like 

pattern across the closed area and sampling stations within the grids. Samples are collected 

within the grids at sampling stations using a methodical, scientific approach beginning with the 

outermost grids working inward. The target species collected at each station are determined in 

advance as representative of the fish and shrimp species targeted by commercial and recreational 

fishers in the area. 

To tcst the samples once collected, NOAA, in conjunction with the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), EPA, and the Gulf States agreed to a fe-opening protocol that contains 

several criteria that must be met before fishing can occur in waters that were previously closed to 

fishing. These criteria include: 

1. Low thrcat of exposnre -- Threat of exposure will be based on past observations and 

the status of thc spill and conditions. 

2. Evaluatiou of oil movement - Confirmation that the closure area is free of sheen on 

the surface by visual observation and/or aerial reconnaissance, or the presence of oil in 

the water column through visnal observation or water testing. 

3. Assessment of seafood contamination by sensory testing Determination that the 

seafood is free from contamination through tissue collection and sensory testing. All 

specimens must pass scnsOlY testing. 

4. Assessment of seafood contamination by chemical analyses Chemical analyses are 

perfornled on samples that pass sensory assessment to confirm that polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbon (P AH) concentrations are below the applicable FDA levels of concern for 

human health. 

Sensory testing is performed by a team of NOAA and FDA expclt assessors assembled from 

around the country at the NOAA National Seafood Inspection Laboratory in Pascagoula, 

Mississippi. Sensory testing is a proven technique and conducted in a carefully controlled statcof-the-art facility. Once a sample collected by NOAA from Federal waters passes sensory 

testing, the sample is sent to undergo chemical testing at NOAA's Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center in Scattle, Washington. At the lab, a team of chemists prepare and analyze the samples to 

detect the level of PAH compounds from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the tissue of a 

single fish or a group of fish collected at one location. The results are compared to the levels of 

P AH compounds of significant public health concern specified in the re-opening protocol. 

Similarly, samples collected in State waters undergo chemical analysis, this analysis is 

pcrfornled by FDA chemists at FDA laboratories and state laboratories that arc part of the Food 

Emergency Response Network (FERN). The decision to distribute the workload in this way with 

NOAA conducting chemical analysis of Federal waters samples and FDA for State waters 

samples is indicative of the strong partnership between Federal and State agencies. 

9 
14 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 78129A.010

To further ensure that fishermen and consumers can have confidence in seafood from open Gulf 

waters, NOAA and FDA have expanded the sensory testing procedures. Sensory experts are 

trained to detcct a combination of oil and dispersant, dispersant alone, and to note anything that 

is generally abnoilllal. Even though we do not expect dispersants to be present where oil is not, 

the expanded training for sensory allalysts to detect dispersant alone is to increase surveillance 

and confidence in the process. 

In addition, cnrrent modeling data on the individual components of the dispersants indicate that 

the dispersant used in the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill may degrade rapidly and is unlikely to 

build up, or bioaccumulate, in the flesh of the fish. This is primarily based upon the assessment 

of their physical properties, which indicate dispersant compounds do not penetrate the gills or 

bodies of the fish, and therefore will not be concentrated in the edible tissues of seafood. Out of 

an abundance of caution, and in order to gathcr additional information, further research on the 

effects of dispersant use on seafood safety is ongoing. 

CONCLUSION 

As the response to this oil spill continues, the Unified Command will continually reevaluate our 

response strategies, actions, and planning. NOAA will continue to provide scientific support to 

the Unified Command. At this point, our attention is focused on evaluating fisheries for 

reopening, shoreline cleanup, and monitoring for subsurface oil, both nearshore and in deep 

water. NOAA also continues to work with our federal and state co-trustees on the NRDA, and to 

promote long-term regional restoration eftarts. I would like to assure you that we will not relcnt 

in our efforts to protect the livelihoods of Gulf Coast residents and mitigate the environmental 

impacts 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. 

10 
15 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Donald Kraemer. He is the Deputy Director of the Office of Food Safety at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, where he is responsible for the administration of the 

FDA’s seafood policy. He has been with the FDA since 1977. You 

may proceed, Mr. Kraemer. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD KRAEMER 

Mr. KRAEMER. Good afternoon, Chairman Markey and members 

of the subcommittee. I am Donald Kraemer, Acting Deputy Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration. With me is Dr. Vicki SeyfertMargolis, Senior Advisor to the Chief Scientist at FDA’s Office of 

the Commissioner. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss FDA’s 

role in ensuring the safety of seafood harvested from the Gulf of 

Mexico in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

FDA is an active and integral part of the federal government’s 

comprehensive, coordinated, multi-agency program to ensure that 

seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is free from contamination as a result of the oil spill. This program is important not only for consumers who need to know that food is safe but also for the fisheries 

industry, which needs to be able to sell its product with confidence. 

FDA is working closely with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, other federal agencies and state authorities in the Gulf region. I would like 

to note the high level of cooperation that FDA has experienced 

among these agencies both at the leadership and among the technical and scientific staffs that carry out the research, testing and 

analysis needed to fulfill our respective missions. 

The federal government is taking a multi-pronged approach to 

ensure that marketed seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is not contaminated as a result of the oil spill. These measures include the 

precautionary closure of fisheries, the surveillance and testing of 

seafood products and a heightened emphasis on FDA’s Hazard 

Analysis and Critical Control Point, or HACCP, regulations. Beyond our ongoing work to ensure that currently marketed seafood 

is safe, FDA in conjunction with NOAA and the Gulf States have 

developed a strict protocol for reopening closed fisheries in a manner that will ensure the safety of seafood from these previously 

closed areas. We are also planning for additional research into potential hazards to the food supply presented by crude oil and dispersant chemicals. 

The primary preventative controls for protecting the public from 

potentially contaminated seafood is the closure of fishing areas that 

have been or are likely to be affected by the oil spill. Immediately 

after the oil spill, FDA worked with NOAA and the States to ensure that the appropriate closures were put in place. These closures 

are enforced by federal and State wildlife officials as well as the 

U.S. Coast Guard. 

The second element of our approach is a heightened emphasis on 

FDA’s longstanding HACCP program for seafood in which processors are obligated to identify hazards that are reasonably likely 

to occur and institute preventive controls to address them. The 

framework of our seafood HACCP program is proving its value in 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

the context of this extraordinary public health challenge. Over the 

past several weeks, FDA has conducted more than 300 inspections 

of seafood processors in the Gulf region to verify that they are implementing controls to ensure that they receive fish harvested only 

from waters in which fishing is permitted. 

The third element is a verification that the other controls are 

working properly. This is the analysis of a variety of seafood samples that have been commercially harvested from Gulf waters. We 

are testing for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH, the primary contaminants of concern in oil. FDA has so far tested for 

PAH in about 500 animals comprising a variety of seafood including shrimp, crab and oysters from open State waters. The results 

of all samples have shown PAH levels well below the levels of concern, usually by a factor of 100 to 1,000, essentially the same levels 

as were seen before the oil spill. 

With respect to the reopening of closed waters, FDA, NOAA and 

EPA worked in close cooperation with agencies in the five Gulf 

States to establish a single agreed-upon protocol for reopening to 

ensure the safety of seafood harvested from these waters. Under 

the protocol, waters impacted by oil will not reopen until, one, all 

oil from the spill is no longer present in quantities or forms that 

could contaminate seafood; two, a scientifically valid sampling plan 

is agreed upon; and three, all samples from the area successfully 

pass both sensory and chemical analysis to ensure that they contain no harmful oil residues. 

In our sensory analyses, expert examiners check the odor and appearance of raw seafood and the taste and odor of cooked seafood. 

Samples that pass sensory testing are sent for chemical analysis 

for oil which allows scientists to conclusively determine whether 

PAH contaminants are present in the fish or shellfish tissue that 

could be consumed. To date, all samples have passed sensory testing for oil or dispersants and the results of all chemical analyses 

have shown PAH levels to be well below the levels of concern, 

again by a factor of 100 to 1,000. To date, Alabama, Louisiana, 

Florida and Mississippi have reopened some portions of their coastal waters to recreational and commercial fishing with concurrence 

from FDA that the criteria under the joint reopening protocol have 

been met. Additional reopenings are likely in the coming weeks. 

Finally, with respect to the impact of dispersants used in the 

Gulf on seafood safety, the current science indicates a low risk that 

these dispersants will bioconcentrate in seafood and they are therefore unlikely to present a food safety concern. Further, NOAA and 

EPA data confirm that dispersants are not present at detectable 

levels in the overwhelming number of water samples taken. However, out of an abundance of caution and in order to gather additional information, NOAA and FDA are conducting additional studies to reaffirm that dispersants do not accumulate in tissues of fish 

and shellfish. FDA will continue to study the long-term impacts of 

chemical dispersants on seafood safety and we will take any new 

relevant information into account and adjust our protocols accordingly. 

I see that I have exceeded my time, so I will forego my concluding comments. 

Mr. MARKEY. You may continue, sir. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

Mr. KRAEMER. Thank you. 

Then to conclude, Mr. Chairman, the safety of consumers is 

FDA’s highest priority and a responsibility we take very seriously. 

In close coordination with federal and State agencies, we have been 

proactive in monitoring this disaster, planning for its impacts and 

mobilizing our personnel and facilities to take the steps needed to 

ensure safe food supply. The protocols and approaches we have implemented are protecting American consumers while minimizing 

the negative impact on Gulf seafood processors. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kraemer follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 78129A.011

HEALTH AND lIUMAN SERVICES 

STATEMENT OF 

DONALD W. KRAEMER 

ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

Public Health Service 

CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION 

U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HEARING ON 

DEEPWATER HORIZON 011, SPILL 

AUGUST 19,2010 

RELEASE ONLY UPON DELIVERY 
19 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 78129A.012

INTRODUCTION 

Chainnan Markey and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Donald Kraemer, Acting 

Deputy Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency), an agency of the Department of Health and 

Human Services. Accompanying me is Dr. Vicki Seyfert-Margolis, Senior Advisor to 

the Chief Scientist, in FDA's Office of the Commissioner. We apprcciate the opportunity 

to discuss FDA's role in ensuring the safety of seafood harvested from waters in the Gulf 

of Mexico in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

FDA is an active and integral part of the federal government's comprehensive, 

coordinated, multiagency program to ensure that seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is free 

from contamination as a result of the oil spill. This program is important not only for 

consumers who need to know their food is safe, but also for the fisheries industry, which 

needs to be able to sell its products with confidence. 

FDA is working closely with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) at the Department of Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

as well as other federal agencies and state authorities in the regions affected by the oil 

spill. We want to stress the high level of cooperation that we have experienced among 

these agencies, both at the leadership level and between the technical and scientific statTs 

that carry out the research, testing and analysis needed to fulfill our statutory mandates. 

We are taking a multipronged approach to ensure that marketed seafood from the Gulf of 

Mexico is not contaminated as a result of the oil spill. These measures include the 
20 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 78129A.013

precautionary closure of fisheries, surveillance and testing of seafood products, and a 

renewed emphasis on FDA's Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) 

regulations. Beyond our ongoing work to ensure that currently marketed seafood is safe, 

the Agency, in conjunction with NOAA and the Gulf states, has developed a strict 

protocol for re-opening closed Gulf fisheries in a manner that helps to ensure the safety 

of product from those areas. We are also platming for additional research into potential 

hazards to the food supply presented by erude oil and dispersant chemicals. 

CLOSURES 

The primary preventative control for proteeting the public from potentially contaminated 

seafood is the closure of fishing areas in the Gulfthat have been or are likely to be 

affected by the oil spill. NOAA has the authority to close federal waters to commercial 

and recreational fishing, and states have the authority to close waters within their state 

jurisdictional limits. Immediately aftcr the oil spill began, FDA worked with NOAA and 

the states to ensure that appropriate closures were put in place and to define the 

conditions under which waters that were closed could re-open. 

On May 2,2010, NOAA closed to fishing a portion of Gulf waters (3 percent of the Gulf 

of Mexico Exclusive Economic Zone) that were known to be affected by oil, either on the 

surface or below the surface, as well as areas projected to be atfected by oil within 72 

hours and a five-nautical-mile safety zone around those areas. As the oil spill evolved, 

NOAA continued to revise the closed area, which now covers 52,395 miles (or 22 

percent) of the federal waters in the Gulf-down from 35 percent at its height. 

2 
21 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 78129A.014

SURVEILLANCE 

Both FDA and NOAA are analyzing a variety of seafood samples, including finfish and 

shellfish, that have been commercially harvested from Gulfwaters for polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), the primary contaminants of concern in oil. This 

sampling is intended to provide verification that seafood on the market is not 

contaminated from the spill. 

FDA has so far tested for PAH in about 500 animals of a variety of commercially 

harvested seafood, including shrimp, crab, and oysters, from open state waters. These 

species, if exposed, are likely to retain P AH contaminants longer than finfish. 

The specimens arc composited together, so that like species from the same location are 

analyzed as one unit, for a total of 47 analyses in the case of FDA samples. The results 

of all samples have shown P AH levcls well below the levels of concern, usually by a 

factor of 100 to 1,000 below those levels, essentially at the same levels as were seen 

before the spill. 

At the outset of the oil spill, the existing referenee test for P AH took five to seven days to 

obtain results. Given the urgent need for testing large numbers of seafood samples as 

quickly as possible for surveillance testing and to make timely re-opening determinations, 

FDA worked aggressively to develop an alternative test that is reliable, accurate, and 

efficient. This new testing method reduced the time needed for analysis from more than a 

week down to about 48 hours. This rapid test is highly accurate, however, if P AH is 

3 
22 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 78129A.015

detected or if results are inconclusive, samples will undergo testing using the traditional 

confirmatory test. However, if P AH is deteeted below the established level of concern, 

the results can be used immediately to make decisions regarding the re-opening of waters. 

FDA operates a mandatory HACCP program for seafood, in which processors are 

obligated to identify hazards that arc reasonably Iikcly to occur and institute preventive 

controls to address them. The framework of our seafood HACCP program is proving its 

value in the context of this extraordinary public health challcnge. These science-based 

regulations, issued in 1997, initiated a landmark program to increase the margin of safety 

that U.S. consumers already enjoyed and reduce seafood-related illnesses to the lowest 

possible levels. 

Over the past several weeks, FDA has conducted more than 300 inspections of seafood 

processors in the Gulf region to verify that they arc implementing controls to ensure that 

they receive tish harvested only from waters from which harvesting is permitted. 

FDA reminded seafood processors of their HACCP obligations related to environmental 

contaminants, such as oil, in a letter to the industry dated June 14, and we will assess 

compliance with those obligations with an additional round of inspections. Additional 

inspections will be performed as processors that had temporarily closed due to lack of 

product begin to re-open in the coming weeks. 

4 
23 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 78129A.016

TESTING FOR RE-OPENING 

FDA, NOAA, and EPA worked in close cooperation with state agencies in Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas to establish a single, agrced-upon protocol for 

re-opening closed fishing waters. The protocol scts the health standard for what seafood 

in the Gulf is considered safe to consume, including quantitative limits for P AH. Under 

the protocol, waters impacted by oil will not re-open until: 1) oil from the spill is no 

longer present in quantities or forms that could contaminate seafood; 2) a sampling plan 

is agreed upon that idcntifics the numbers, types, and locations of seafood samples that 

will be collectcd from the arca to ensure that any contamination that may be present is 

detected; and 3) all samples from the area succcssfully pass both sensory and chemical 

analysis to ensure that they contain no harmful oil products. 

Testing involves two steps-sensory (organoleptic) analysis by trained screeners for the 

presence of petroleum as well as dispersant residues, and chemical analysis of fish and 

shellfish for P AH. Sensory screeners, a cadre of analysts who have years oftraining and 

cxperience performing carefully controlled organoleptic testing of seafood for a variety 

of contaminants, were "calibrated" against a sample of oil, dispersant, and seawater 

mixture collected near the well head, as well as a sample of dispersant alone. Sensory 

experts check the scent and appearance of raw seafood, and the taste and scent of cooked 

seafood. Samples that pass sensory testing are sent for chemical analysis of oil, which 

allows scientists to conclusively determine whether P All contaminants are present in tlsh 

or shellfish tissue that would be consumed, and if so, at what level. 

5 
24 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 78129A.017

Seafood samples from federal waters are being collected by NOAA. Samples eoHeeted 

in state waters for fe-opening purposes are being collected by state personnel. All 

sensory analyses are being perfonned at the NOAA laboratory in Mississippi, using a 

combined team of FDA and NOAA screeners. FDA is utilizing the resources of its 

laboratories in Arkansas and Cincinnati, and state Food Emergency Response Network 

laboratories in Conneeticnt and Minnesota, to perform the necessary analyses of samples 

collected in state waters. Samples collected by NOAA from federal waters are analyzed 

by NOAA laboratories. To date, all samples have passed sensory testing for oil or 

dispersants and, as with the surveillance sampling, the results of all chemical analyses 

have shown P AH levels well below the levels of concern, usually by a factor of 100 to 

1,000 below those levcls, essentially at the same levels as were seen before the spill. 

RE-OPENINGS 

NOAA has jurisdiction over the re-opening of federal waters and to date has re-opened 

two large sectors of the federal waters. A third area has samples pending analysis. 

FDA is working closely with the states to facilitate the re-opening of closed state waters 

when the evidence indicates it is safe to do so. The states of Alabama. Louisiana, Florida 

and Mississippi have re-opened closed portions of their coastal waters to recreational and 

commercial fishing with concurrence from FDA that the criteria under the joint reopening protocol have been met. Additional re-openings are likely in the coming weeks. 

To ensure that an appropriate, representative sampling of seafood is collectcd, FDA first 

approves a state's sampling plan for each area to be fe-opened. After approval of the 

6 
25 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 78129A.018

plan, samples are collectcd by statc agencies and tested by FDA. Upon completion of 

testing, if the results demonstrate that contaminants are below the levels of concern, FDA 

informs the state, which then rc-opens the tishery in question. We are confident that 

these steps ensure that state waters are appropriately re-opened, and that commercial and 

recreational harvest can be safely resumed. 

As of August 18, nine areas designated by states in their jurisdictional waters have been 

re-opened to harvesting of certain seafood specics, after FDA testing showed that all 

samples were negative for the presence of oil and dispersants. Nine morc--in some stage 

of sampling and testing-arc likely to re-open in the ncar future. The status of these state 

areas is listed in the attached Addendum. 

ADDITIONAL TESTING AND RESEARCH 

The current science indicates there is a low risk that dispersants will bioaccumulate in 

seafood and are, thcrefore, unlikcly to present a food safety concern. Further, analysis of 

more than 2,500 sea water samples from throughout the Gulf by NOAA and EPA have 

shown only one sample with detectable levels of dispersant compounds, and these were 

located close to the wellhead, not in areas presently open for seafood harvest. However, 

out of an abundance of caution, and in order to gather additional infonnation, NOAA and 

FDA are conducting additional studies to reaffinn that dispersants do not accumulate in 

tissues of fish and shellfish. FDA is refining its ability to test for dispersants by working 

with NOAA to develop a practical and efficient chemical test for dispersants in edible 

portions of seafood that can be deploycd in federal and state labs to provide rapid yet 

7 
26 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 78129A.019

reliable results. FDA will continue to study the long-term impacts of chemical 

dispersants on food safety. We will take any new, relevant information into account and 

adjust our protocols accordingly. 

Additionally, FDA, in partnership with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, has begun to plan for testing of important toxicological endpoints, biological 

activities, and tissue targets for crude oil, dispersant chemicals, and related mixtures that 

are appearing in the Gult: The agencies will conduct studies to include literature 

evaluations, analytical chemistry activities, and biological, toxicological and toxicity 

pathway screens to inform and extend our understanding of the hazards preseuted by 

these complex materials. 

CONCLUSION 

The safety of consumers is FDA's highest priority and a responsibility we are taking very 

seriously. In close coordination with other federal and state agencies, we have been 

proactive in monitoring this disaster, planning for its impacts, and mobilizing our 

personnel and facilities to continue to take the steps needed to ensure a safe food supply. 

Now, in the midst of responding to these unprecedented events, we can see the results of 

our approach. Gulfwaters are being fe-opened only as the seafood harvested from those 

areas is demonstrated to be free of contamination as a result of the oil spill. The 

protocols and approaches we have developed, in cooperation with our federal and state 

8 
27 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 78129A.020

partners, arc protecting the American people, while minimizing the negative impact on 

Gulf seafood producers and exporters. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss FDA's activities with regard to seafood safety. 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

9 
28 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 78129A.021

Addendum 

Alabama 

State Waters Re-openings in the 

Gulf of Mexico as of August 18,2010 

• Mississippi Sound, upland out to Dauphin Island--re-opened for finfish and shrimp 

on August 8, 2010; 

• Lower Mobile Bay to state/federal boundary---re-opened for finfish on August 16; 

samples of shrimp passed sensory testing and are undergoing chemical testing; 

• Mississippi Sound, upland out to Dauphin Island--crabs are undergoing sensory 

testing; 

• Lower Mobile Bay to state/federal boundary-crabs are undergoing sensory testing_ 

Florida 

• Western end of state waters offPensacola-re-opened for finfish fishing on July 

31; cleared to re-open for commercial harvest of shrimp on August 13. 

LOllsiana 

• Mississippi Delta to Mississippi State Line-fe-opened for finfish and shrimp on 

July 29; 

• Barataria Bay and vicinity-fe-opened for shrimp and finfish on August 14; 

• Terreboune and Timbalier Bays and vicinity-re-opened for shrimp and finfish on 

August 14; 

10 
29 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 78129A.022

• Mississippi Delta to Mississippi State Line--crabs passed sensory testing; 

• Mississippi Sound-Cabbage Reef, Bay BoundreauiChristmas Camp Lake, and 

Lake Maiehais/Lake Fortuna-partial re-opening for oysters. 

Mississippi 

• Mississippi Sound-re-opened for finfish and shrimp on July 30; 

• Barrier Islands out to federal waters-re-opened for finfish and shrimp on 

August 6; 

• Mississippi Sound-oysters passed sensory testing and are undergoing chemical 

analysis; 

• All of Mississippi Sound and Barrier Islands out to federal waters-crabs passed 

sensory testing and are undergoing chemical analysis. 

11 
30 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Kraemer, very much. 

Our next witness is Dr. Paul Anastas. Dr. Anastas is the Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development 

and the EPA Science Advisory. He has conducted groundbreaking 

research on the design, manufacture and use of environmentally 

friendly chemicals. We welcome you, Doctor. Whenever you feel 

comfortable, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL ANASTAS 

Mr. ANASTAS. Thank you, Chairman Markey. I appreciate the opportunity here to testify on the important issue of dispersants and 

their use in the BP Deepwater Horizon crisis. 

We have now passed day 120 of the BP oil spill tragedy, a tragedy that resulted in loss of life, livelihoods, and put the Gulf Coast 

ecosystem in peril. We are relieved that the well is currently sealed 

and that dispersant use has been reduced to zero. We hope and expect that this will continue to be the case. 

As the President has said, this tragedy does not end with the 

sealing of the well. The President and EPA are committed to the 

long-term recovery and the restoration of the Gulf Coast, one of our 

most precious ecosystems. In addition to its other responsibilities 

with oil spill response, EPA continues to rigorously monitor the air, 

water and sediments for the presence of dispersants and crude oil 

components that could have an impact on health or the environment. These data are posted on EPA’s Web site and are publicly 

available. 

EPA has a role in the use of dispersants, which are chemicals 

that are applied to the oil to break it down into small particles. The 

dispersed oil mixes with the water column and is diluted and degraded by bacteria and other microscopic bacteria. Specifically, 

EPA is responsible for managing the product schedule of 

dispersants available in the oil spill response. 

The decision to use dispersants as part of a larger oil spill response is not one that EPA took lightly. When considering dispersant use, we are faced with environmental tradeoffs. The potential 

long-term effects on aquatic life are still largely unknown, and BP 

has used over 1.8 million gallons of dispersant in a volume never 

before used in the United States, but because of our aggressive and 

constant monitoring, what we do know right now is this: our monitoring data overwhelmingly confirm modeling results that 

dispersants are not present at levels of detection per our method. 

For the rare anomaly, we investigate to either confirm or disprove 

the validity of a detection. To put this in context, of the more than 

2,000 NOAA-generated samples and the nearly 1,000 EPA-generated samples, there have been only two detections above the 

method detection limit. These were immediately investigated, and 

our monitoring continues. Our monitoring results also show that 

oxygen in the water is not being depleted to dangerous levels. 

Now, given the unprecedented nature of the spill, the EPA directed BP to identify less-toxic alternative dispersants. When the 

company failed to provide this information, EPA decided to conduct 

this testing independently in a rigorous, peer-reviewed manner. 

Specifically, EPA conducted acute toxicity tests to determine lethal 

concentrations of eight available dispersants. First, we tested each 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

of the eight dispersants alone. Then we tested the Louisiana sweet 

crude oil alone. And finally, we tested mixtures of the oil with each 

of these eight dispersants. These standard tests screen species 

called mysid shrimp and silverside fish to determine the relative 

hazard of each of the dispersants. These two species are widely 

considered to be representative of those found in the Gulf and were 

tested during a juvenile life stage when organisms are most sensitive to pollutant stress. The tests were conducted over a range of 

concentrations including those much greater than what aquatic life 

is generally expected to encounter in the Gulf. 

EPA’s testing delivered three important results. One, all of the 

eight dispersants when tested alone could be categorized as slightly 

toxic to practically nontoxic. Two, the oil alone was generally moderately toxic. Three, mixtures of oil and each of the eight 

dispersants were no more toxic than the oil alone in these tests. All 

of these results indicate that the eight dispersants tested possess 

roughly the similar acute toxicities. 

While these data are important, I want to emphasize that continued monitoring is absolutely necessary. EPA has directed BP to 

monitor for indicators of environmental stress like decreased oxygen levels and increased toxicity to small organisms called rotifers. 

To date, we have not seen dissolved oxygen levels approach levels 

of concern to aquatic life. We have also seen no excessive mortality 

in rotifers. While more work needs to be done, we see that the 

dispersants have worked to help keep oil off of our precious shorelines and away from sensitive coastal ecosystems. 

The crisis has made it evident, that additional research is needed. Congress has recently appropriated EPA $2 million to begin a 

long-term study on the impacts of dispersants. These funds will 

support research on the short- and long-term environmental and 

human health impacts associated with the oil spill and dispersant 

use. We will also further our research efforts to include innovative 

approaches to spill remediation and to address the mechanisms of 

environmental fate, transport and effects of the dispersants. EPA 

will continue to take science-based approaches to dispersant use. 

We will continue monitoring, identifying and responding to public 

health and environmental concerns. In coordination with our federal, State and local partners, EPA is committed to protecting Gulf 

Coast communities from the adverse environmental effects of the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

In conclusion, we will persist in asking the hard questions until 

we more fully understand the long-term effects of the BP oil spill 

and conduct the investigations required to enable the Gulf’s longterm recovery. EPA is fully committed to working with the people 

of the Gulf, our federal partners, the scientific community and 

NGOs toward the recovery of the Gulf of Mexico and the restoration of its precious ecosystem. 

At this time I welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anastas follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 78129A.023

TESTIMONY OF 

PAUL ANASTAS, PhD 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE 

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

August 19,2010 

Chairman Markey, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on the role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the use of dispersants 

in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. My testimony today will provide an overview of 

EPA's role and activities in the affected Gulf Coast region following the April 20, 2010 

Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill. I will also discuss EPA's latest findings on 

the toxicity of dispersants used in the Gulf that were released earlier this month. 

Oil Spill Response 

The National Contingency Plan (NCP) is the federal government's blueprint for 

responding to both oil spills and hazardous substance releases. Additionally, it provides the 

federal government with a framework for notification, communication, and responsibility for oil 

spill response. Under the NCP, the EPA or the United States Coast Guard (USCG) provide 

federal On-Scene Coordinators (FOSCs) for the inland and coastal zones, respectively, to direct 

or oversee responses to oil spills. The exact lines between the inland and coastal zones are 

determined by Regional Response Teams (RRTs) and established by Memoranda of Agreement 
33 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 78129A.024

(MOAs) between regional EPA and USCG offices. USCG is the FOSC for the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill response. 

Other federal agencies with related authorities and expertise may be called upon to 

support the FOSC. The NCP established the National Response Team (NRT), comprised of 

fifteen federal agencies, to assist responders by formulating policies, providing information, 

technical advice, and access to resources and equipment for preparedness and response to oil 

spills and hazardous substance releases. EPA serves as chair of the NRT and the USCG serves 

as vice-chair. 

In addition to the NRT, there are thirteen RRTs, one for each of EPA's ten regional 

offices and one each for Alaska, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. RRTs are co-chaired by 

each EPA Region and its USCG counterpart. The RRTs are also comprised of representatives 

from other federal agencies and state representation, and frequently assist the FOSCs who lead 

spill response efforts. The RRTs help OSCs in their spill response decision making, and can help 

identify and mobilize specialized resources. For example, through the RRT, the FOSC can 

request and receive assistance on natural resource issues from the Department of the Interior 

(DO I), the Department of Commerce, and the States, or borrow specialized equipment from the 

Department of Defense or other agencies. Involvement of the RR T in these response decisions 

and activities helps ensure efficient agency coordination while providing the FOSC with the 

assistance necessary to conduct successful spill response actions. 

Under the NCP, authority to use dispersants rests with the FOSC but requires 

concurrence of certain RRT members. For example, RRT representatives from EPA, DOl, the 

Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and 

the states with jurisdiction over the navigable waters under consideration may pre-authorize 

2 
34 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 78129A.025

application of approved dispersant products so that the FOSC can authorize dispersant use 

without obtaining further concurrences. The USCG also serves as NRT chair for this specific 

incident under the NCP and since the Spill of National Significance designation under the Oil 

Pollution Act (OP A). 

EPA is also responsible for maintaining the NCP Product Schedule, which lists chemical 

and biological products available for federal OSCs to use in spill response and cleanup efforts. 

Due to the unique nature of each spill, and the potential range of impacts to natural resources, 

FOSCs help determine which products, if any, should be used in a particular spill response. If 

the application of a product is pre-authorized by the RRT, then the FOSC may decide to use the 

product in a particular response. If the product application does not have pre-authorization from 

the RRT, then the FOSC must obtain concurrence from the EPA representative and the 

representatives of states with jurisdiction over the navigable waters under threat. In addition, the 

FOSC must consult with representatives of 001 and NOAA, as natural resource trustee agencies 

before authorizing incident-specific use of a dispersant. 

Use of Oil Dispersants in the Gulf 

In order to ensure consensus on the use of dispersant, the USCG, as the Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator, in consultation with EPA, 001, NOAA, and the State of Louisiana, authorized BP 

to apply dispersants on the water surface to mitigate the shoreline impacts on fisheries, nurseries, 

wetlands and other sensitive environments. Dispersants contain a mixture of chemicals, that, 

when applied directly to the spilled oil, can disperse oil into smaller drops that mix vertically and 

horizontally in the water column. Microscopic organisms are then able to act rapidly to degrade 

oil within the droplets. While dispersant use on the surface was preapproved for the Gulf: the 

3 
35 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 78129A.026

RRT did activate and confirm the use for the surface and convened again in consultation with the 

NRT to assist the FOSC in making the determination for the sub-surface application of 

dispersant. 

The application of dispersant is part of a broader environmental response strategy to 

minimize environmental impacts. The spill management strategies, practices, and technologies 

that have been implemented include containment, mechanical removal techniques (booming and 

skimming operations), in-situ burning, and dispersant use. Environmental tradeoffs are 

associated with the widespread use of large quantities of dispersarit. However, dispersants are 

generally less toxic than oil; they reduce risks to shorelines, and degrade quickly over several 

days to weeks, according to modeling results. To be clear, dispersants were only used where oil 

was present. 

In addition, the use of dispersants at the source of the leak represents a novel approach to 

addressing the significant environmental threat posed by the spill. Due to the unprecedented 

nature of this event in which oil was continuing to spill into the Gulf from the wellhead, the 

USCG, as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, in consultation with an activation of the full RRT 

and EPA, approved subsurface dispersant application. This approval was contingent on rigorous, 

constant monitoring for potential environmental effects, as recommended by EPA. Subsurface 

use of the dispersant is believed to have been effective at reducing the amount of oil reaching the 

surface and has also resulted in significant reductions in total amount of dispersants used. 

On May 10, 2010, EPA and USCG issued a directive requiring BP to implement a 

monitoring and assessment plan for both subsurface and surface applications of dispersants. 

Additionally, on May 26,2010, EPA and USCG directed BP to significantly decrease the overall 

4 
36 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 78129A.027

volume of dispersant used. In the month following the directive, the total volume of dispersants 

used fell by 75% from their peak Jevels. 

We have now passed the 100th day of the oil spill tragedy. We are relieved that the well 

was capped and sealed on July 15 and that no dispersant has been applied since July 19. We 

hope and expect that this will continue to be the case. However, this tragedy does not end with 

the sealing of the well. The President and the EPA are committed to the long-term recovery and 

restoration of the Gulf Coast, one of our most precious ecosystems. EPA continues to rigorously 

monitor the air, water, and sediments for the presence of dispersants and crude oil components 

that could have an impact on health or the environment. All monitoring information and data are 

posted on EPA's website at: http://www.epa.govibpspill/. 

According to NOAA's subsurface data, out of more than 2000 water samples that were 

analyzed for dispersant constituents propylene glycol and 2-butoxy ethanol, only one station had 

a positive occurrence for propylene glycol from a sample collected close to the wellhead. 

Additional monitoring and testing is ongoing and all data will be properly reviewed through the 

quality assurance process. 

EPA Releases Toxicity Testing Data for Eight Oil Dispersants 

Because of the unprecedented volumes of dispersant being used in this spill, Addendum 2 

to the May 10,2010 directive required BP to determine whether a less toxic, equally effective 

product was available. When the company failed to provide this information, EPA began its own 

scientific testing of eight dispersant products on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule 

to confirm the accuracy of the data being provided by the manufacturers and to make the best 

informed decision on appropriate dispersant use. As part of an overall assessment ofBP's use of 

5 
37 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 78129A.028

Corexit 9500A, EPA conducted toxicity tests with mysid shrimp and silverside fish to ensure that 

the response proceeded in a cautious and protective manner in determining the relative hazard of 

pollutants. 

EPA initiated testing to ensure that decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of 

Mexico continued to be grounded in the best available science and data. This includes screening 

tests to assess cytotoxicity (cell death), endocrine activity, and acute toxicity of eight available 

dispersants. In vitro assays were used to test the degree to which these eight dispersants are toxic 

to various types of mammalian cells. EPA also tested the potential for each dispersant to exhibit 

endocrine activity because some of the dispersants include nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE). NPE 

breaks down in the environment to nonylphenol (NP), a substance that could potentially cause 

endocrine disruption. On June 30, 2010, EPA released the results of the initial round of toxicity 

testing that showed that two dispersants showed a weak signal in one of the four estrogen 

receptor (ER) assays, but integrating over all of the ER and androgen receptor (AR) results these 

data do not indicate that any of the eight dispersants display biologically significant endocrine 

activity via the androgen or estrogen signaling pathways. None of the dispersants triggered cell 

death at the concentrations of dispersants expected in the Gulf. 

EPA also conducted acute toxicity tests on mysid shrimp and silverside fish to determine 

lethal concentrations of the eight dispersants alone, the Louisiana Sweet Crude oil alone, and a 

mixture of the Louisiana Sweet Crude oil with each of the eight dispersants. These are coastal 

species found in the Gulf and were tested during a juvenile life stage, when organisms are even 

more sensitive to pollutant stress. These phase 1 results demonstrate that the dispersants, when 

tested alone, displayed roughly the same toxicities (slightly toxic to practically non-toxic). JD2000 and COREXIT 9500 were generally less toxic to small fish and JD-2000 and SAF-RON 

6 
38 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 78129A.029

Gold were less toxic to the mysid shrimp. Test results are posted at: 

The results from the second phase 

of testing, released on August 2,2010, demonstrate that for all eight dispersants in both test 

species, the dispersant alone was less toxic than the dispersant-oil mixture. The dispersant-oil 

mixtures can be generally categorized in the moderately toxic range. Oil alone was found to be 

more toxic to mysid shrimp than the eight dispersants when tested alone (and data for the 

silverside fish was inconclusive and are being re-tested with oil alone). Tests on oil alone had 

similar toxieity to mysid shrimp as the tests on dispersant-oil mixtures, with the exception of the 

mixture of Nokomis 3-AA and oil, which was found to be more toxic. 

Results indicate that the eight dispersants, when tested alone and in combination with oil, 

are similar to one another. This confirms that the dispersant used in response to the Gulf oil 

spill, Corexit 9500A, is generally no more or less toxic than the other available and tested 

alternatives. 

These externally peer reviewed results are publicly available on EPA's website at: 

http://www.epa.govihpspillidispersants-testinll:.html. 

These tests were designed to determine toxicity effects so that a relative comparison 

could be made. They were conducted over a range of concentrations, including those much 

greater than what aquatic life is expected to encounter in the Gulf. While these data are 

important, to date, for subsurface monitoring, we have not seen dissolved oxygen levels 

approach levels of concern to aquatic life and no excessive mortality in rotifers. 

While more needs to be done, we see that the dispersants are working to help keep oil 

away from our precious shorelines and away from sensitive coastal ecosystems. We also know 

7 
39 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 78129A.030

that the dispersants are less toxic than the oil released into the Gulf. To date, EPA monitoring 

has not found dispersant chemicals near coasts or wetlands. These results are posted at: 

http://wvllw.epa.gov/bpspill/water.html. EPA will continue its environmental monitoring to 

identify any changes in conditions that could have an impact on human health or the 

environment. 

Regarding the safety of seafood from the Gulf, while FDA has the lead for seafood safety 

issues, I want to simply mention that to date, every seafood sample from reopened waters has 

passed sensory testing for contamination with oil and dispersant. Modeling data on the individual 

components of the dispersant indicate that the dispersants used to combat the oil spill break 

down rapidly and become highly dispersed in Gulfwaters. Science, to date, also indicates that 

dispersants do not accumulate in seafood. Thus, all our evidence shows that seafood from the 

reopened Gulf waters is safe to eat. 

Research and Development 

This crisis has made it evident that additional research is needed. The Administration 

requested supplemental funds for dispersant research associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill which this Congress approved with the passage of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

2010. EPA will engage academic institutions and other federal agencies, such as NOAA and 

DOl, who have the knowledge and expertise to supplement EPA's efforts. The additional $2.0 

million requested by the President and approved by Congress will support research on the short 

and long-term environmental and human health effects associated with oil spill response 

technologies and dispersant use, and will further our research efforts to include innovative 

approaches to spill remediation. EPA in concert with our federal partners, will pursue an 

8 
40 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 78129A.031

aggressive research agenda to address the mechanisms of environmental fate, effects, and 

transport of dispersants. 

Summary and Conclusions 

EPA will continue to provide full support to the USCG and the Unified Command and 

will continue to take a science-based approach to dispersant use. We will continue monitoring, 

identifying, and responding to potential public health and environmental concerns, including 

waste management and beach cleanup. In coordination with our federal, state, and local partners, 

EPA is committed to protecting Gulf Coast communities from the adverse environmental effects 

ofthe Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

We will persist in asking the hard questions until we more fully understand the long-term 

effects of the Gulf oil spill and conduct the investigations required to enable the Gulfs recovery. 

We have taken nothing for granted. EPA has constantly questioned, verified, and validated 

decisions with monitoring, analysis, and use of the best available science and data. 

EPA is fully committed to working with the people of the Gulf Coast, our federal 

partners, the scientific community and NGOs toward the recovery of the Gulf of Mexico and the 

restoration of its precious ecosystem. At this time, I welcome any questions you may have. 

9 
41 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 78129A.032

Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and 

Development 

Science Advisor to the EPA 

Paul Anastas, Ph.D. is the Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) and the Science Advisor to the Agency. Known widely as the 

"Father of Green Chemistry" for his groundbreaking research on the design, manufacture, 

and use of minimally-toxic, environmentally-friendly chemicals, Dr. Anastas has an 

extensive record of leadership in government, academia, and the private sector. At the 

time he was nominated by President Obarna to lead ORD, Dr. Anastas was the Director 

of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering, and the inaugural Teresa and 

H. John Heinz III Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for the Environment at Yale 

University'S School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Prior to joining the Yale 

faculty, Dr. Anastas was the founding Director of the Green Chemistry Institute, 

headquartered at the American Chemical Society in Washington, D.C. From 1999 to 

2004 he worked at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

concluding his service there as the assistant director for the environment. Dr. Anastas 

began his career as a staff chemist at EPA, where he rose to the positions of chief of the 

Industrial Chemistry Branch, and director of the U.s. Green Chemistry Program. It was 

during his work at EPA that Dr. Anastas coined the term "green chemistry." 

Trained as a synthetic organic chemist, Dr. Anastas' research interests have focused on 

the design of safer chemicals, bio-based polymers, and new methodologies of chemical 

synthesis that are more efficient and less hazardous to the environment. A leading writer 

on the subjects of sustainability, green chemistry, and green engineering, he has 

published ten books, including "Benign by Design," Designing Safer Polymers," "Green 

Engineering" and his seminal work with co-author John Warner, "Green Chemistry: 

Theory and Practice." 

Dr. Anastas has been recognized for his pioneering work with a host of awards and 

accolades including the Vice President's Hammer Award, the Joseph Seifter Award for 

Scientific Excellence, the Nolan Sommer Award for Distinguished Contributions to 

Chemistry, the Greek Chemical Society Award for Contributions to Chemistry, the 

Inaugural Canadian Green Chemistry Award, a Scientific American 50 Award for Policy 

Innovation, the John Jeyes Award from the Royal Society of Chemistry, and an Annual 

Leadership in Science A ward from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents. He was a 

Special Professor at the University ofNottingharn and an Honorary Professor at Queens 

University in Belfast where he was also was awarded an Honorary Doctorate. 

Dr. Anastas earned his B.S. from the University of Massachusetls at Boston and his M.A. 

and Ph.D. in chemistry from Brandeis University. 
42 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Anastas, very much. 

The Chair will now recognize himself for a period of asking questions. 

Dr. Lehr, intended or not, I think the reaction to the oil budget 

report that was released last week is one of relief. People want to 

believe that everything is OK, and I think this report and the way 

it is being discussed is giving many people a false sense of confidence regarding the state of the Gulf. Overconfidence breeds complacency and complacency is what got us into this situation in the 

first place. Dr. Lehr, how much oil was actually discharged into the 

Gulf? 

Mr. LEHR. By the best estimates of the combined efforts of the 

FRTG plus the Department of Energy National Laboratories, the 

best estimate to date would be 4.1 million barrels plus or minus 

10 percent. 

Mr. MARKEY. So it would be 4.1 million barrels discharged? 

Mr. LEHR. That were actually discharged into the environment. 

There was 800,000 barrels that was released from the wellhead but 

was captured directly and pumped up above. 

Mr. MARKEY. So is the 800,000 included in the oil budget baseline? 

Mr. LEHR. The oil budget baseline follows closely the form that 

is established by the Incident Command System Situation Unit for 

preparing categories of where to record the oil, and for the purpose 

of response, that would be the standard procedure, so we follow the 

standard procedure, and yes, that is included in that budget for response. 

Mr. MARKEY. But that oil went directly into ships on the—— 

Mr. LEHR. That is correct. 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. Surface and never was in the water at 

all. Is that correct? 

Mr. LEHR. That is correct. 

Mr. MARKEY. The 800,000 barrels. So there were 4.1 million barrels that were actually discharged into the water? 

Mr. LEHR. That is correct. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, out of the 4.1 million barrels discharged, how 

many barrels are still in the Gulf or on its shores in some form? 

Mr. LEHR. Probably about three-fourths would still be, roughly, 

I would say. To go through the calculations that we have, the only 

oil that you would say that is actually removed from the environment would be that 800,000 plus the amount that was burned. The 

stuff that evaporated into the atmosphere is still in the environment, the stuff that is dissolved into the water column, the amount 

that dispersed into the water column as droplets plus the amount 

that was on the sheen on the surface or in small tar balls, so in 

that case, I would say most of that is still in the environment. It 

is not available for response, which was the purpose of the oil 

budget numbers. You cannot do any recovery operation on oil that 

is evaporated or is dissolved into the water column. 

Mr. MARKEY. So even according to the calculations of the oil 

budget, the report that was released last week, between 60 and 90 

percent of the discharged oil, that is, the oil that actually went into 

the ocean, remains in the Gulf of Mexico, and that would be between 2.45 and 3.675 million barrels. Is that accurate? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

Mr. LEHR. I would have to do the calculations here in my head, 

but when you were including your numbers there, I mean, the oil 

that evaporated, which was a substantial amount, whether it is 

still in the Gulf of Mexico, I don’t know. You would have to look 

at how it was transported by the wind. So I think you would want 

to stick with just the amount that would be in the water column 

or on the shoreline, and that would be the amount that we estimated as being naturally dispersed or chemically dispersed, and 

the amounts that are on the shoreline. Now, some of that has been 

recovered on the shoreline as well and the amount that has been 

dispersed is biodegrading. We still are working to determine the 

rate. So again, the numbers that we put in the budget calculator 

for response purposes, to answer the question about what is the 

fate of it in the long term, that is a different question. That is for 

the damage assessment. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Lehr, I am interested in understanding how BP 

has performed in terms of removing spilled oil from the Gulf before 

it hits land. What percentage of the oil that was spilled into the 

Gulf was actually removed from the ocean? I am talking about 

burning and skimming and actually removing the oil from the ecosystem. That is, of the—— 

Mr. LEHR. Of course, you want—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me say it. Of the 4.1 million barrels of oil that 

actually went into the ocean, what percent was removed by BP? 

Mr. LEHR. I would have to redo these calculations since these 

were based on the 4.9 million as opposed to—— 

Mr. MARKEY. But—— 

Mr. LEHR. Are you talking about—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Actually the only issue I think that the American 

people are concerned about is the 4.1 million barrels that actually 

went into the ocean, so it is important for us to discuss that issue 

and separate it from the oil that just went directly into the ships 

and never was in the ocean at all, because that is where the concern is, and people should have a very good understanding of what 

percentage of that oil has been removed thus far. So do you have 

a number or—— 

Mr. LEHR. You would have to take the ratio of 4.9 divided by 4.1 

and then multiply that by these fractions that we have down here 

for—— 

Mr. MARKEY. So if you could use your own chart, Dr. Lehr, and 

break that down in a way that could help us to understand of the 

4.1 million barrels, how much BP did—— 

Mr. LEHR. So if you take the 5 percent that was burned and multiply that by the ratio of 4.9 to 4.1, and I must admit, in the era 

of pocket calculators, I can’t do that math in my head. And then 

if you take the amount that was skimmed, 3 percent, and multiply 

that by 4.9, by 4.1—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, are you using 4.9 or 4.1 as you are doing this? 

Mr. LEHR. No, you asked me to use it with the new ratio. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, 4.1. 

Mr. LEHR. Then I have to multiply those numbers by that ratio. 

I could get a calculator and see what that ratio is. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you have assistants here with you? Has anyone 

accompanied you here this morning, Dr. Lehr? Could one of your 

assistants do that? 

Mr. LEHR. I have got a calculator here. I need to multiply by 1.2 

times each of those percentages, so roughly the burn would then 

roughly be 6 percent, and the skimmed would be 4 percent, roughly. 

Mr. MARKEY. So between the skimming and the burning, 10 percent of the 4.1 million barrels would have been removed from the 

ocean, leaving 90 percent unaccounted for? 

Mr. LEHR. Well, there would also be whatever was recovered on 

the shoreline, which we didn’t—— 

Mr. MARKEY. No, that is what I am saying. In the arithmetic we 

are doing right now, so the burning is 6 percent, the skimming is 

4 percent? 

Mr. LEHR. Right. 

Mr. MARKEY. So let us continue then with the arithmetic. What 

else—— 

Mr. LEHR. OK. So then you had whatever was captured in the 

residual, and we have not quantified that quantity and how much 

of that as they do the beach recovery and so on. So I can’t give you 

the numbers on that. We were again looking at it for response purposes. 

Mr. MARKEY. So again, let us recapitulate here for a second. Six 

percent was burned, 4 percent skimmed, and an unknown amount 

was collected on the beaches. Is that correct? 

Mr. LEHR. Right. 

Mr. MARKEY. And can you tell us the reason that has not been 

calculated yet? 

Mr. LEHR. It was mixed in with—you know, you don’t pick up 

just oil on the beaches. You pick up oil and debris and there is a 

question of trying to separate that out. It is not a simple process. 

Mr. MARKEY. Has there been even a range that has been put together in terms of some estimate of how much oil that might represent? 

Mr. LEHR. There may have been. I am not aware. But I could get 

back to you and get that answer to you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill in 

1989, both the Government Accountability Office and the Office of 

Technology Assessment published reports looking at the capacity to 

recover oil after a major spill. They found that given technologies 

available at that time, we could really only recover 10 to 15 percent 

of the spilled oil. So it seems to me that BP’s oil recovery effort 

comes in on the low effort of what was achievable 21 years ago. 

You seem to have come in at the number of approximately 10 percent plus whatever was on the beaches, but still within that range 

of 10 to 15 percent that was determined to be recoverable after the 

Exxon Valdez spill. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. LEHR. Yes. I mean, in terms of the actual oil on those categories. Now, there was of course in this case the unusual event 

of a large amount of natural dispersion and the addition of large 

amounts, a record amount, as far as I’m aware, of chemical 

dispersants, and that is considered a type of response. So one 

would have to say, how do you weigh that, so—— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

Mr. MARKEY. I understand, but I am just—— 

Mr. LEHR. In terms of the standard mechanical and, you know, 

burn operations, beach recovery, I would say yes, this was about 

average for what we have seen from major spills. 

Mr. MARKEY. I am just trying, if I could, Doctor, I am just trying 

to divide the question so that the public can understand what it is 

that we are talking about. So in terms of just recoverable oil, it is 

somewhere in the range of 10 percent? 

Mr. LEHR. And in my mind, that is not a passing grade, only 10 

percent of 4.1 million barrels actually having been recovered. I 

think we all saw this coming, and with all of BP’s talk about using 

golf balls, nylons and hair to clean up the spilled oil, I think it is 

important that even using a 21-year-old grading system that BP 

has done a very poor job in cleaning up the Gulf. 

So Dr. Lehr, throughout the entire BP saga, I have pushed for 

BP and the Unified Command to make this process as transparent 

as possible. The way I see it, the more people we have independently analyzing and verifying the data and information associated 

with the spill, the better and more informed our response decisions 

will be. 

With regard to the oil budget, is this something NOAA does as 

part of the operational response to a major oil spill? 

Mr. LEHR. The oil budget is a traditional part of a response. As 

I mentioned before, there’s a special form that’s filled out as part 

of the situation unit in the Incident Command System. The standard procedures for that use, amongst other things, a model that 

was developed by NOAA but also they used some other techniques 

such as observers estimating the size of the spill. In the case of this 

spill, because it was so large, because it went on for so long and 

in particular because it was occurring at a mile underneath the 

water surface, it was necessary to develop the special tool, which 

is what we did with the budget calculator. Now, I have noticed in 

the press that this is called the NOAA budget calculator. I would 

like to receive credit for that but one thing in science that you have 

to do is to recognize the contributions of other, and so this really 

was a joint effort of both government agencies and the outside experts in the field to develop this tool. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, Doctor, is there an established methodology 

for making the oil budget calculations? 

Mr. LEHR. There is a standard form that you would calculate to 

divide the budget into, but in terms—and there is a normal procedure that we had to modify because of the circumstances for the 

spill. 

Mr. MARKEY. In the case of the Deepwater Horizon spill, how 

long has NOAA been calculating an oil budget to guide the response efforts from the Unified Command? 

Mr. LEHR. In terms of the Incident Command, we started working I believe in either June, starting to work on the development 

of the tool, and were providing guidance for some time in July for 

the Incident Command. 

Mr. MARKEY. So has NOAA been using the established methodology for calculating an oil budget in this case? 

Mr. LEHR. I am going to have to ask for clarification, what you 

mean by—we did use the standard procedures for estimating oil for 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

each of the techniques based on methods that had been used in the 

past but were modified. Let me give you an example. In calculating 

dispersion, natural dispersion, this is based on looking at something called the energy dissipation rate that is due to breaking 

waves. Now, we of course obviously in the case here, we had a 

plume that was subsurface. We didn’t have breaking waves but we 

did have an energy dissipation rate and we had to then employ 

some of the experts that worked on the FRTG to help us calculate 

that energy dissipation rate so we could get a new estimate for natural dispersion. 

In the case of evaporation, we have some standard models for estimating the evaporation of Louisiana sweet crude. It is in our oil 

library database. But that is for spills that happen at the surface, 

and the spills that are coming from a mile deep, there is dissolution that occurs before it gets to the surface. Many of the same 

molecules that would evaporate on the surface become dissolved in 

the water so we had to modify that to handle those cases. So it was 

the standard procedures, and to the extent that we had to modify 

them for the specific instances that happened in this spill. 

Mr. MARKEY. Can I ask, has NOAA made available the background data and formulas that were used to reach conclusions on 

what happened to the spilled oil? 

Mr. LEHR. In terms of the—one component in terms of the flow 

rate, there have been reports on that. In terms of the oil budget 

calculator, which is what I assume that you are referring to, this 

was an oil spill emergency, not an oil spill experiment. When we 

put together the team, our priority was to get an answer as quickly 

as possible to the Incident Command. Now, the technical documentation is being written and will be peer reviewed. It will be 

long. It will be boring. It will be filled with graphs and charts and 

all the references and the passive voices that are typical of such reports, and I assure you, it will bore everybody except for those 

handful of us who actually like to do oil spill science, but I noticed 

that some of our academic friends have asked us for this. 

For our younger friends, I would suggest that patience in this 

case is a virtue. In an emergency, you first get the answer. You do 

not tell Admiral Allen that he has to wait 3 months while your report goes through peer review, but that will come. We welcome people’s comments on it. I would encourage the new people who are 

coming into the field from nontraditional areas of this to stay interested in it. We like to welcome the new blood, but you are going 

to have to wait a little bit for that report to get out. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I appreciate the desire to complete a full peer 

review, Doctor, but you have already issued four pages of findings 

and a 10-page supplement that explains some of the calculations in 

greater detail. If much of this oil budget is standard procedure for 

NOAA in response to an oil spill, why can’t that information be 

made available sooner, especially given the historic issues that 

many independent scientists have voiced regarding the conclusions 

of this report? 

Mr. LEHR. Well, I would say this. I would prefer, and I think all 

the scientists would prefer that because the questions now are on 

a different time frame and we move from the response to damage 

assessment, that it is better to take the time to do it right. Now, 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

yes, some of the methods are standard but some of them had to be 

modified, as I mentioned in my testimony, in terms of the evaporations calculations and the natural dispersion. We are doing a 

thorough literature survey because again our understanding is, this 

report is going to be looked at not only by oil spill scientists who 

have been doing this for 20 years, in many cases are contributing 

to the report, but by other scientists who are coming to this, this 

is their first major spill event, so we wanted to provide a complete 

document here that will answer all their questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me ask this. Will NOAA agree to make available to the public the citations of the scientific literature, formulas 

or actual algorithms that would allow independent scientists to 

evaluate the report’s findings? 

Mr. LEHR. Of course. 

Mr. MARKEY. Will you release that now? 

Mr. LEHR. It is still being compiled. 

Mr. MARKEY. You have already released a report last week. 

Could you give us for the public consumption the citations of the 

scientific literature, formulas or actual algorithms that you used in 

creating your oil budget? 

Mr. LEHR. All that—first of all, and again, I am going to come 

back to this. This is not a NOAA product, this is a product of a 

joint effort, and the—— 

Mr. MARKEY. What we are trying to do, Doctor, is to get at the 

methodology so that we understand what was used in order to 

produce your initial oil budget. You are saying that it has to be reviewed for some time in order to determine whether or not you got 

it right and so in order, I think, to ensure that we have this done 

in a time frame that provides the information to the residents of 

the Gulf of Mexico, that you release these algorithms, you release 

the scientific literature that you relied upon so that there can be 

independent eyes, independent judgments that are also allowed in 

real time to be able to make judgments as to whether or not the 

formula which was used was the correct one to be used, given the 

consequences to the public if that formula was not constructed accurately. In other words, would you support making that information available to the public, speaking for NOAA? 

Mr. LEHR. For NOAA—and I would assume that all the experts 

that contributed will also be releasing this information. That’s 

what the purpose of the report is. Representative Markey, what we 

are doing in this case is going through the standard procedure 

which is done for a scientific report. We get the experts. They all 

contribute to the report. We send it back to them for them to look 

at to make sure that we have got their comments and their opinions and their assessments correct and then we send it out, as you 

say, to independent scientists. That is what a peer review is. We 

sent it out to people, and we will welcome recommendations for 

peer review. 

Mr. MARKEY. But when will that happen, Doctor? 

Mr. LEHR. Excuse me? 

Mr. MARKEY. What is the time frame for that to happen? 

Mr. LEHR. Well, it has been delayed by a week, because I am 

having to come here, but we are hoping to get it out within 2 

months. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

Mr. MARKEY. Two months? That is not timely enough, Doctor. 

That is the problem. That is what we are trying to get at right 

here. We are trying to telescope the time frame that it will take 

in order to get that information into the hands of independent scientists. 

So you don’t want to make all of the data and models available 

but you have given us conclusions that result from these models of 

the data. You then say you don’t want to make the models and 

data available to outside scientists because you are still having everything peer reviewed post release of your budget report. That is 

to me unacceptable. We need to have that information. The report 

that you released last week received international attention. There 

are many people who are making decisions based upon that report. 

So it is important right now, Dr. Lehr, for that information then 

to be made public so that not only is it being peer reviewed in the 

regular process but because of the real-life consequences for the 

lives of the people in the Gulf of Mexico and outside of the Gulf 

of Mexico, because of the toxic nature of the material in the Gulf, 

that that information be made public. There is too long of a gap 

that is going to elapse under the process that you have adopted. 

The real issue here is that the public has a right to know right 

now what is going on in the Gulf of Mexico, and your report should 

be analyzed by others right now so that we are sure we got it right, 

because if your numbers are wrong, 2 months from now could be 

too late in terms of the remedial recommendations which are made 

to the public, to the fishing industry, to the consuming public in 

terms of the consequences for their families. So I ask again for you 

to release that information, that data. 

The flow rate team estimated that 4.9 million barrels of oil 

flowed from the Deepwater Horizon well. The uncertainty of this 

estimate is plus or minus 10 percent, as you said. Does NOAA have 

certainty with regard to the figures for the estimates of what happened to all 4.9 million barrels? What is the best and worst case 

estimate for the residual oil that remains in the Gulf? 

Mr. LEHR. We have—we do, as part of the calculator, do have the 

estimates of uncertainty for each of the various processes, so, for 

example, in terms of the burn, there are some ASTM standards for 

the burn rate that were applied to the spill. It gives us a high degree of confidence. We have very low uncertainty for the estimates 

for that. For evaporation and dissolution, again, we have taken 

samples and matched them up with models from both NOAA, from 

Environment Canada and from a large research organization in the 

European Union, and those results match closely so we are fairly 

confident on those values. 

Now, when we get into the dispersed oil, the uncertainty becomes 

larger, particularly for the use of the chemical dispersants subsurface, which is a new experience to us, and we were very conservative there. Now, we employed the expertise of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who has brought in some very 

excellent statisticians to calculate the net uncertainties on it. That 

is given in those extra pages that I believe you were given there, 

but that will also be in the final report, and Representative Markey, I will commit today to do whatever I can to speed up the report. I appreciate the concern on it. I hope that you and the public 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

and the other academics appreciate that because of the importance, 

because of the points that you just stressed, we want to make sure 

that it is done right, and that is why I am making sure that we 

brought in the experts and—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Here is the thing, Doctor. You shouldn’t have released it until you knew it was right because so much is going to 

depend upon that release, and if you are not confident that it is 

right, then it should not have been released because it basically 

sent a signal with regard to how much of the problem remains, and 

that is really something that is obviously of great concern to people 

who live in the Gulf. They don’t want to be forgotten. They don’t 

want this to be downplayed or lowballed, which is in some quarters 

what has happened since that report was released. So I think it is 

important, since it has been released, to be examined right now so 

that we can be sure that those numbers were accurate and independent scientists can quickly look at the formulas and corroborate 

or question, but it should not be something that is done in a boring 

academic setting over a prolonged period of time. It is something 

that has to be done in a dynamic setting in real time because of 

the resources that may need to be dedicated to this problem to ensure that it is remediated in a shorter period of time than otherwise if your estimates are inaccurate, so that is critical, and from 

a political perspective, the longer the time that elapses is the lower 

the political pressure and the public attention will be there to ensure that the resources are brought to the problem. And so we have 

to make sure that we do this in a timely fashion so that unlike the 

Exxon Valdez spill, we actually do something in real time so that 

everything that can be learned about it is learned about it, and you 

agree, Doctor, that the amount of oil which is still in the Gulf of 

Mexico and unaccounted for is at least five times the size of the 

Exxon Valdez spill? You do agree with that? 

Mr. LEHR. Well, I agree that this is—and I also note that NOAA 

is taking a lead role in monitoring the oil that is out there. We will 

continue to do that. I don’t think the report should be interpreted 

as saying that somehow this spill is over with. 

Mr. MARKEY. No, it is not that it is over with, but there was an 

optimistic spin in some quarters that was placed upon that report, 

and since that is happening in real time, then the independent 

evaluation of that report must happen in real time because if it is 

wrong, then many opportunities for a calibrated response to the defects in the report will have been lost and so that is why it is important for you to surrender this information now to independent 

scientists. 

So according to NOAA’s oil budget, 408,792 barrels of oil were 

chemically dispersed out of a total of 4.1 million barrels, approximately 9 percent of the total oil in the Gulf of Mexico. This means 

that 43,900 barrels of dispersant were needed to get rid of 408,792 

barrels of oil. This means that one barrel of dispersant dispersed 

just over nine barrels of oil, yet according to your budget documentation, a dispersant-to-oil ratio of one to 20 is considered successful. Dr. Lehr, it seems to me that the ratio used in this disaster 

of one to nine would not be successful by NOAA’s own definition. 

Would you agree with that? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

Mr. LEHR. What we did for—and this is an area that we had the 

hardest time calculating, was the effectiveness of the chemical dispersant. The dispersant that was applied subsurface, what we 

called ideal conditions. We made sure—I mean, the dispersant was 

being injected into the oil so it was making direct contact. It was 

a very turbulent flow regime there. So this would be the ideal conditions for dispersant operations. We asked the people who make 

a living applying dispersants what they thought would be the effectiveness and they had numbers as high as 30 or 40 to one ratio. 

We looked at the literature, and the oil industry literature suggested that a successful operation was 20 to one, so we decided to 

be conservative and say we will go with the 20 to one. We may very 

well have underestimated the effectiveness of that subsurface dispersant. 

Now, at the surface where a lot of the dispersant was applied, 

they were applying on oil which had partially weathered and had 

partially emulsified. The viscosity was high, and according to past 

spills, dispersants would have been not as effective, but there was 

a study that was done by SINTEF, a research group out of Norway, 

with this emulsified oil using these dispersants that said that it 

was showing some effectiveness, plus there were some observations 

on scene by NOAA personnel and Coast Guard personnel that suggested that the surface operations were being at least partially effective. So what we did was to scale down what we would estimate 

would be the effectiveness of the surface operation. I believe we estimated it would be like four or five barrels per amount of dispersant sprayed and that would take into account that some of the dispersant did not interact with the oil. You don’t always hit the oil. 

And secondly, the fact that the oil had emulsified to such an extent 

that it was more difficult to disperse and to form the small droplets 

that are necessary for the oil to disperse in the water column. 

Mr. MARKEY. So Dr. Anastas, according to the budget documentation of dispersant-to-oil ratio, one to 20 is considered successful but this was a ratio which was one to nine. Do you believe that 

that constitutes a successful application of dispersant? 

Mr. ANASTAS. I think my colleague, Dr. Lehr, noted the significant uncertainty in the estimates of dispersion. All of the evidence, 

all of the monitoring that was conducted in an ongoing way that 

was required by EPA during the application, especially the subsurface application of the dispersant, showed effectiveness. We ensured through fluorescent spectrophotometry that particles were 

being formed. This was a high-energy system. We have reason to 

believe and evidence shows that it was an effective and relatively 

efficient—— 

Mr. MARKEY. So given your own numbers and your own analysis, 

how successful would you say that it was? 

Mr. ANASTAS. Well, I don’t think that there is a way to measure 

the ratio between chemically dispersed and biologically dispersed 

oil, so I don’t think we can have precise numbers. I do think the 

estimates, as Dr. Lehr noted, whether it is 20, 30 or 40 to one in 

terms of a ratio would be more potentially in the ballpark. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, dispersed doesn’t mean exactly the same 

thing as gone, does it? 

Mr. ANASTAS. No, it does not. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

Mr. MARKEY. For example, if I put a spoonful of sugar in my iced 

tea and stir it, the sugar is dispersed. You can’t see it. But if I then 

drink the iced tea, it still tastes sweet because the sugar is still 

there. The sugar is dispersed but it is present. Isn’t that somewhat 

analogous to the situation we face in the Gulf with this dispersed 

oil as well? 

Mr. ANASTAS. Not exactly. The sugar dissolves in solution. Dispersant means that it is being broken up into small particles, the 

whole purpose of which is to make them more ingestible and digestible by the microbes because the only time that oil actually 

goes away is when it is degraded. Now, that degradation can happen through biological processes. It can happen through physical 

processes. Physical processes, when it is broken down by the water 

itself, is called hydrolysis. When it is broken down by temperature, 

it is called thermolysis. When it is broken down by light, it is called 

photolysis. These degradation processes all combine and the whole 

purpose of the dispersant is to make it more accessible to these 

degradation processes. 

Mr. MARKEY. What is the time frame for that process to take 

place? How do you measure that in terms of the actual amount of 

oil that is as a result more subject to being consumed because the 

dispersant has been released? How can you measure that over such 

a vast area? 

Mr. ANASTAS. There have been studies done even by the EPA 

and its partners, and part of the rationale for applying dispersants 

is because we have seen rates of degradation increase by as much 

as 50 percent with the use of dispersants. 

Mr. MARKEY. Did you say 15 or 50? 

Mr. ANASTAS. Five zero, 50 percent, over those untreated. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Dr. Lehr, government scientists have now estimated that 4.9 million barrels of oil escaped from the BP Macondo well but that number does not include the methane that also came out of the well, 

much of which entered the Gulf of Mexico. Although the impacts 

of methane are not well understood as that of oil is understood, we 

know that it has the potential to cause harm when released at such 

significant levels above the natural seepage of methane in the Gulf. 

As part of the natural resources damage assessment and associated 

restoration plan, will NOAA be looking at the impact of the release 

of methane from the BP well? 

Mr. LEHR. In terms of the effect, I would believe the NOAA folks 

would take that into consideration for sure. Now, I am not part of 

the damage assessment team. We have a different group that does 

that. And the oil budget calculator did not take it into account because it was an oil budget calculator. There is no response to dissolved gases that you can’t put skimmers out and so on. So that 

is why it wasn’t in the report that you saw. But in terms of the 

damage assessment, certainly you would take into account all the 

hydrocarbons that were released and what effects they would have 

on the environment. 

Mr. MARKEY. Just a few weeks ago in response to a letter I 

wrote, FDA explained that while it does not presently monitor for 

dispersant chemicals in the issue of seafood, the agency is working 

closely with NOAA to conduct further studies to determine if disVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:36 Apr 03, 2013 Jkt 078129 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A129.XXX A129

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

persant chemicals or their metabolites can bioconcentrate in the 

flesh of seafood species. Mr. Kraemer, what is the status of these 

studies? 

Mr. KRAEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer this question 

to Dr. Margolis. 

Mr. MARKEY. Could you identify yourself for the record, Doctor? 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. Dr. Vicki Seyfert-Margolis. 

Mr. MARKEY. And what is your title, please? 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. I am the Senior Advisor for Science Innovation and Policy in the Office of the Commissioner of Food and 

Drug Administration. 

We have been working with NOAA on developing chemical methodologies for the detection of one of the major components of dispersant, which is dioctyl sulfosuccinate sodium salt, or DOSS. This 

component is about 20 percent of the total Corexit dispersant 

which was applied in the Gulf. Essentially what we have done is 

two series of studies where we are exposing crabs and fish in tanks 

in controlled settings to DOSS at 100 parts per million, which is 

an effective concentration of 20 parts per million of the DOSS. We 

then do exposure 24 hours with subsequent washouts in clean saltwater for 24, 48 and 72 hours and then assess the concentration 

of DOSS in the hepatopancreas or liver as well as the muscle tissue. We have preliminary data to date suggesting that there is not 

any bioconcentration of DOSS in the hepatopancreas or in the muscle tissue of crabs. 

Mr. MARKEY. Could you explain what DOSS is so that the public 

who is watching can understand what that is? 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. Sure. DOSS is a detergent, essentially a 

detergent-like compound that is actually found in a variety of products including a number of over-the-counter products. It is used to 

help disperse the oil but it is generally an inert nontoxic substance, 

and there have been significant studies on toxicity of DOSS demonstrating a lack of toxicity of this particular component of Corexit. 

Mr. MARKEY. Please continue. 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. So essentially we conducted these tank 

studies and we found no evidence to date of bioconcentration of 

DOSS in the crabs and some shrimp that have been tested so far. 

We are still actively assessing these samples in the controlled setting, and additionally we are able to go back to all of the retrospective samples which were collected because this particular component is present in the fraction or extract that we made for monitoring PAH for the reopenings. 

Mr. MARKEY. What about the other components of Corexit in addition to DOSS? Have you done the analysis of the other components of Corexit, this chemical that was shot into the ocean in 

order to determine the toxicity of those components? 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. We have not. We have started with this 

as a marker for DOSS because it is one of the principal components 

of the Corexit and therefore will be very readily detectable so it essentially serves as a marker for the dispersant. 

Mr. MARKEY. What is the time frame that you are going to use 

in order to do an analysis of the other components in Corexit to determine whether or not there is a toxicity, there is a danger that 

could attach to it if human beings consumed that chemical? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. Some of the other components that are 

present in Corexit such as the petroleum distillates would be found 

in our PAH analysis as well, so it would be difficult to distinguish 

those from petroleum distillates in the oil itself. We are not currently looking at any of the other components of Corexit. 

Mr. MARKEY. You are—can you repeat that? 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. We are not currently doing tests on the 

other components of Corexit right now because we wanted to establish the methodologies using the principal, one of the principal 

components which we felt we could detect readily as a first step. 

Mr. MARKEY. How long will it take you before you actually conduct experiments on the other components? 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. I can’t speak to that because it is not 

clear whether or not we have the methodologies in hand to detect 

all those at the present time. 

Mr. MARKEY. So if you find DOSS in your seafood samples, then 

what? 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. Then we would consider that as something that we would need to go back and reevaluate the samples 

for a possible presence of dispersant. 

Mr. MARKEY. Are there potentially other components in Corexit 

that are known to be toxic? 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. There are a number of components of 

Corexit. I think the EPA could probably speak better to toxicity 

studies that have been done on the various components of Corexit. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Anastas, are there other components in Corexit 

that have been known to be very toxic? 

Mr. ANASTAS. I guess I would first start off by saying that the 

testing that we conducted, that the Administrator ordered conducted, was on Corexit itself. So of course when you are looking at 

the entire formulation, all of the components and their contributions to toxicity would be considered, and it is important to look at 

the formulation as a whole. So the toxicity results that I reported 

in my opening statement—— 

Mr. MARKEY. So are you saying that as a result, that there is no 

point in even bothering to examine the other components in Corexit 

because you have already studied Corexit? 

Mr. ANASTAS. No, I am saying that when you do toxicity studies 

on the Corexit as a whole, you are in essence doing toxicity studies 

on the components. 

Mr. MARKEY. And what I am asking, as a result, if I can go back 

to the FDA, does that mean that there is no reason to do any further studies of these materials, even though some of them are 

known to be toxic? 

Mr. KRAEMER. Mr. Chairman, FDA, first of all, is fully aware of 

what are the components of Corexit, and we have looked at each 

one of these for toxicity, and as you are aware, in our response to 

your letter to the agency, each of these components are low toxicity 

to humans. I think we have to separate here the distinction between toxicity to marine animals as I think was the concern that 

EPA was suggesting from toxicity to humans if it is present in the 

flesh of the fish, so of course FDA’s concern is the latter toxicity 

to humans if it in the flesh of the fish. We have looked at each of 

these components of Corexit and they are all very common houseVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:36 Apr 03, 2013 Jkt 078129 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A129.XXX A129

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

hold constituents so they are in things such as lip gloss and toothpaste and a variety of over-the-counter drugs, so they have been 

approved for use for consumption by people. These are components 

that FDA reviews for food additive purposes, also reviews—— 

Mr. MARKEY. You have yet to put in place, though, a test in 

order to determine whether or not any of these components are in 

the fish. Is that correct? You have only done a study so far on the 

DOSS as a marker but not on these other chemicals. So as you are 

sitting here as the FDA and representing the public’s interest in 

determining whether or not these fish are safe to eat, it is without 

having completed the study in terms of these actual component 

chemicals inside of the fish. Is that correct? 

Mr. KRAEMER. I would to, if you don’t mind, put that question 

in the context of what we have done, and I do intend to answer 

your question specifically, but the first question that FDA wanted 

to answer with respect to dispersants is whether the constituents 

of or the components of the Corexit, what do we know about those 

and what do we know about whether, one, they can get into the 

flesh of the fish, and two, if they were in there, what would be the 

risk to humans. The answer to all of these is that they have a very 

low potential to get into the flesh of fish. That doesn’t mean they 

won’t get in at any level, it means that they have a low likelihood 

of getting into the fish and are highly unlikely to accumulate at 

levels above what is in the environment, which we believe is comforting. 

The second question as I mentioned is, do the components, are 

they toxic in and of themselves, and as I said, we are aware of all 

of these components and they have common uses in products that 

either intentionally consumed, or as in the case of lip gloss, do get 

consumed as a matter of course because of the way they are used, 

and these components have approval levels in each of those uses, 

and those levels are much higher than the levels that under any 

circumstance you could imagine would end up in the flesh of the 

fish. So it is true that we have decided that in the case of DOSS 

in particular, at least as a starting place, we are looking to see 

whether—we want to confirm in a definitive study what we already 

believe we know the answer to, and that is, that is unlikely to bioconcentrate, and as Dr. Margolis put forward a minute ago, the 

studies, although just underway at the current way, but the preliminary information is very suggestive that they will not bioconcentrate, so again confirming what we believe we already knew. It 

is a reasonable question to ask if we can look at the other components. I think that is something that we ought to do. 

Mr. MARKEY. Just so I can understand, Doctor, so right now in 

the parts of the Gulf that have been reopened for fishing, you have 

okayed the consumption of that food, those fish, even though you 

haven’t completed testing on the component parts of Corexit but 

with the belief that it does not accumulate in fish at a level that 

would pose a danger to the public as they consume that fish. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. KRAEMER. It is correct to an extent, but what I would like 

to clarify is that we are doing some analysis of the fish. This is 

through the sensory testing that I mentioned earlier. And to give 

you an understanding there, these are experts who are trained. I 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

think there is a misunderstanding by many about the nature of 

this test. Quite frankly, these are folks who go through significant 

training. Not every one of them can get through that training and 

demonstrate the skill to be able to pick up different odors, but the 

panels that we have in place on the Gulf Coast now, these are both 

NOAA and FDA people working together, are truly expert, and 

they have been calibrated against the standard of seawater, oil and 

dispersant that was collected at the well site so they can detect 

that combined odor. They were also calibrated specifically against 

the odor of dispersant, which has a much milder odor but still detectable, and so all of the samples that we are using for reopening 

of waters have been run through this analysis. We recognize that 

there is more comfort in having a chemical test, and that is the 

reason that we have engaged with NOAA in the development of the 

chemical test for the DOSS component. We believe it is highly unlikely that dispersant will be present by itself but there is certainly 

the possibility that it could, so that is the purpose for the develop 

of that test capability. 

But again, I don’t want to suggest that we lightly came to the 

conclusion that the components of Corexit are unlikely to accumulate and if they did are nontoxic. There is an extensive body of 

science around all of these components which FDA has looked into. 

So as we have said and made public statements, we are confident 

that based on the current science, the likelihood for bioconcentration in fish is very low, and should it occur, the toxicity of those 

components would be very low. The studies that we are talking 

about are really there because of the unprecedented nature of this 

spill. We want to be able to assure the public that we have a test 

but we don’t believe there is any risk to the fish that is caused as 

a result of the fish that are already on the market. 

Mr. MARKEY. In the same letter, FDA stated that it defers to 

EPA to determine if dispersant and oil residues can accumulate in 

aquatic plants and eggs. Dr. Anastas, can oil and dispersant bioconcentrate in fish eggs? 

Mr. ANASTAS. The properties of oil and the degree to which it dissolves in fat can allow oil to in principle enter into fat tissues and 

potentially enter those biological systems. All of the models that we 

have done on the dispersants would certainly suggest that we 

would not see the dispersants entering into and bioaccumulating 

and biomagnifying in the way that oil may. 

Mr. MARKEY. Is it possible that a fish may be caught and test 

clean in the adult tissues but contain eggs that have high levels 

of these toxic chemicals? 

Mr. ANASTAS. I am not aware of a mechanism by which that 

could occur. 

Mr. MARKEY. You believe that it could occur? 

Mr. ANASTAS. No, I am not aware—— 

Mr. MARKEY. You are not aware? 

Mr. ANASTAS [continuing]. Of a mechanism by which that could 

occur. 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you believe that further testing on eggs meant 

for human consumption be performed to ensure that all fish products on the market are safe? 

Mr. ANASTAS. I am sorry. If you could repeat that, please? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

Mr. MARKEY. Should further testing on eggs meant for human 

consumption be performed to ensure that all fish products on the 

market are safe? 

Mr. ANASTAS. I would defer to my FDA colleagues on that. I 

would have to say that the more data that we have, the more sampling we have to verify this is always good, that we need to rely 

on the data and the data needs to drive us. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Lehr, how do FDA and NOAA ensure that fish 

that were located in oiled waters and were contaminated with toxic 

chemicals from the oil have not been swimming to areas that have 

been cleared for fishing? 

Mr. LEHR. I mean, the presumption here is that when you take 

it, the fish is guilty until proven innocent, so to speak. So when 

they do their sampling, the fish has to—you don’t assume that it 

is cleared. You assume that it has to pass the tasting test, and 

then only then if it passes those does it then go to the laboratories 

of NOAA for the testing for the PAHs. So I would say that in the 

case here that we have that that we would take that into account. 

However, to be on the safe side, there is a five-mile buffer between 

the area where the places would be open or have not been closed 

in the first place and where oil has appeared so—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Are you—— 

Mr. LEHR. You would have to be an athletic fish. 

Mr. MARKEY. Are you right now engaging in intensive testing 

where the oil is still present in large quantities? Are you doing 

testing there? 

Mr. LEHR. The testing for the fish is being done in areas where 

the oil is no longer present on the surface. 

Mr. MARKEY. Where the oil is—— 

Mr. LEHR. It is in the areas where either oil was never present 

or in areas where it hasn’t been present for some time. Then they 

do the sampling. And then of course, every sample has turned out 

to be negative. They never detected any PAHs in the fish. 

Mr. MARKEY. And I am just going to use a hypothetical, and I 

don’t know how accurate this is but let us just use it as a hypothetical, that the bluefin tuna, which is ultimately caught off of 

Georges Bank off of New England does spawn down in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Let us say just for the sake of the discussion and only for 

the sake of the discussion that some of that spawning is going on 

right now inside of the much more oiled area of the Gulf. We know 

that those fish are ultimately going to migrate up off the coast of 

New England. What is the testing for that fish or other fish that 

is going on inside of the oiled area that will ensure that it is safe 

when it finally reaches the part of the ocean where that fish or any 

fish is caught? 

Mr. LEHR. I think I am going to defer that question to experts 

that can answer that better than I can right now. 

Mr. MARKEY. Is there someone here who can do that for us? Can 

you move up to the microphone, please, and identify yourself? 

Mr. GRAY. Chairman Markey, I am John Gray. I am the legislative affairs person. We don’t have a person from the fisheries service here. We had one witness and it was going to be Mr. Lehr, so 

we can get those answers to you but we don’t have that person 

here. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

Mr. MARKEY. I think that is an important issue to be resolved 

in people’s minds because it just seems, I think, to someone that 

thinks about the fishing industry that these are not stationary or 

territorial entities in many instances. We are seeing sharks all up 

and down the coastline of New England and they don’t seem to 

limit themselves just to a 5-mile radius right now, and just to say 

don’t worry about it a few miles further away, that the sharks only 

stay within a 5-mile radius doesn’t seem as though that would be 

the kind of warning that the public would think was sufficient in 

order to guarantee the safety of their families. So I think this is 

important information for us to have and the more that it can be 

put in very simple terms for the public, I think the better it will 

be for the fishing industry and for the consuming public. 

Mr. Kraemer, you are seeking recognition? 

Mr. KRAEMER. Yes. I would just like to respond a bit on that. I 

think there are several answers to that question or several pieces 

of the answer to that question. The NOAA testing has included 

testing outside of the closed areas, and the purpose of that testing 

was to look for whether or not—first of all, to determine whether 

or not the closures were sufficiently protective, so this 5-nauticalmile buffer zone that was put around it we believe is sufficiently 

protective. The question, though comes, was it sufficiently protective. So testing was performed outside the area in which the closures were. Beyond that, both NOAA and FDA have done market 

sampling, so this is fish that were commercially harvested certainly 

in open waters so samples were collected there, and we believe we 

would have picked up any indication that there were fish that had 

higher than expected levels. And then finally, especially true for 

finfish, they clear the PAHs very rapidly from their body, usually 

within a matter of days. So a scenario of a fish that contaminated 

in the Gulf making it up to New England I think is highly improbable and we don’t believe that that would be something that consumers should be worried about. 

Mr. MARKEY. Are you actually testing for that, though, given the 

unprecedented underwater experiment—— 

Mr. KRAEMER. We are testing Gulf product, that is, product that 

has been commercially harvested in the Gulf and that is currently 

being marketed, so we are testing that product, and again, it is not 

showing levels of PAHs above the background levels that were 

there before the spill occurred. So we believe that the fish coming 

out of the Gulf do not have levels that are of concern. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Kraemer, is the FDA monitoring seafood recovered from the Gulf for the presence of heavy metals present in 

crude oil? 

Mr. KRAEMER. We are not, no, but there is a NOAA program, the 

Mussel Watch program, that it is a bit of a misnomer in the Gulf 

in that it is not mussels that are being tested, it is oysters, but 

these are what we would call a sentinel species in that they are 

the species that is most likely to absorb contaminants including 

heavy metals, the most likely to hang onto that within their flesh 

and also the species most likely to bioconcentrate, that is, have it 

at levels above what would be in the environment. So this program 

has been in place for decades in the Gulf so we have a very solid— 

well, in fact, nationwide—so we have a very solid background level. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

We know what the levels of these contaminants are. It includes any 

of the heavy metals, for example, that you would be concerned 

about. 

Mr. MARKEY. But are you monitoring for it right now? 

Mr. KRAEMER. I would defer to NOAA to answer what has been 

done on this but I wanted to mention that FDA has not but the 

NOAA program we believe is a good sentinel program. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me go to NOAA then because it is my understanding that compounds like mercury, arsenic and other heavy 

metals that are present in crude oil have the ability to accumulate 

in the tissues of fish in levels that may cause harm particularly to 

pregnant women and children. Has the FDA or NOAA here examined seafood for the presence of heavy metals? Dr. Lehr. 

Mr. LEHR. There is some monitoring that is being done as part 

of the Mussel Watch program in the area. Again, I am going to 

defer to my colleagues to answer that correctly, and we will get 

back to you with an answer to that. 

Mr. MARKEY. So Mr. Kraemer, back over here at FDA, you don’t 

screen for heavy metals. You think that NOAA may but the witness today does not know the answer to that question. 

Mr. KRAEMER. I hate to speak for NOAA in this regard but it is 

our understanding that NOAA has collected a sampling run, if you 

will, from one end of the Gulf to the other where they would normally collect for the Mussel Watch but that the results are not yet 

back, so we don’t have analyses of them. We do not expect to see 

an increase based on this spill but certainly those results will be 

confirmatory of that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, Mr. Kraemer, I wrote a letter to the FDA on 

this issue of heavy metals 6 weeks ago and I have yet to receive 

an answer from the FDA. 

Mr. KRAEMER. And I apologize for that, Mr. Chairman. I would 

be happy to respond to those questions at this time. 

Mr. MARKEY. I would not have asked the question if I did not believe that it was important. I mean, heavy metals obviously have 

a danger that attaches to them and to have this kind of regulatory 

black hole be created here today between the FDA and NOAA in 

terms of knowing what the response is to testing for heavy metals 

in this fish which we know can accumulate in fish is something 

that obviously should have been identified within the last 6 weeks 

since I wrote the letter. When can I expect that response from the 

FDA? 

Mr. KRAEMER. In a matter of days. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Kraemer, very much. 

Dr. Lehr, how does FDA and NOAA ensure that fish that were 

located in oiled waters and were contaminated with toxic chemicals 

from the oil are not then swimming to other areas? I am sorry. I 

have already asked that question. 

Let me move on to the FDA and NOAA. You have agreed on a 

protocol to examine when closed federal harvest waters can be reopened. That protocol relies heavily on surveillance tests and sampling that generate data about the concentration of particular contaminants found in seafood. It is my understanding that there have 

been fishery reopenings in State waters within 3 miles of the coastline of Louisiana and Mississippi. Does NOAA and FDA have acVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:36 Apr 03, 2013 Jkt 078129 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A129.XXX A129

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

cess to the data that is used to drive the reopening decisions in 

State waters within 3 miles of the coastline of Mississippi and Louisiana? Mr. Kraemer. 

Mr. KRAEMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The answer is yes. The 

protocol that was developed jointly by FDA, NOAA and EPA along 

with the five Gulf Coast States calls for the States to provide that 

data to FDA and NOAA. I should say that for reopening purposes, 

the States are acting under their own authority, as I think you 

know. 

Mr. MARKEY. What role does the FDA and NOAA have in the 

opening and closing of State waters? 

Mr. KRAEMER. When the State has made a decision that they 

would like to reopen a portion of their waters for a particular fishery, for example, for finfish or for shrimp, they develop a sampling 

protocol or plan, and that identifies how many of each of the species and where they are going to be located that they intend to collect. FDA and NOAA review that proposal and either concur with 

it or make recommendations for changes, and at that point the 

State then goes out and collects those samples and submits them 

to the NOAA laboratory in Pascagoula, Mississippi, which is where 

the sensory testing that I described a minute ago is performed. If 

a sample passes the sensory testing, then it is submitted to a 

chemical laboratory, and this is where the samples split. If it is federal waters, which isn’t the question you raised, the sample would 

go to a NOAA laboratory. If it is a State waters, then the sample 

is handled by FDA or one of the State laboratories that we have 

under contract, and that is where we perform the analysis for PAH. 

The sensory analysis, as I mentioned, is for odors indicative of oil 

as well as odors that are indicative of oil contamination—I am 

sorry, of dispersant contamination. 

Mr. MARKEY. So can the FDA and NOAA state unequivocally 

that fish caught in the State waters are safe to eat? Can you state 

that unequivocally? 

Mr. KRAEMER. FDA has expressed confidence in the fish that are 

commercially marketed from the Gulf Coast, and as I said, we—I 

didn’t mention that the sample results then come back to FDA and 

NOAA for review and FDA then provides its concurrence to the 

State before the State reopens. So we are aware of the state of the 

oiling in that area and we are aware of the levels of the results of 

the analytical tests before the water is reopened by the State. So 

yes, we are able to vouch for the safety of those fish with respect 

to the contamination from the spill. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Lehr, do you agree with that? Do you agree 

that the federal government is able to vouch unequivocally that the 

fish caught in State waters are safe to eat as well as federal 

waters? 

Mr. LEHR. I would say that the fish caught is meeting all the 

standards that were developed by FDA and NOAA. 

Mr. MARKEY. And what about noncommercial fishing? Recreational fishing is a major tourism sector in the Gulf. Can we be 

sure that those fish are safe to eat as well? Mr. Kraemer. 

Mr. KRAEMER. FDA is directly responsible for recreational catch 

but I can tell you that again the States again exercise that control 

except in federal waters where NOAA exercises that control. But 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

the States have implemented closures for recreational catch that 

mirror the closures that they have for commercial catch. So the 

safety of the recreational catch should be at the same level as commercial. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Kraemer. 

Dr. Anastas, with regard to the use of dispersants, Dr. Suatoni 

of the Natural Resources Defense Council says in her testimony 

that ‘‘it would be unwise to draw conclusions about the safety of 

this unprecedented application of chemical dispersants from two 

laboratory experiments and field observations.’’ Do you agree or 

disagree with that statement? 

Mr. ANASTAS. I think it is important to follow the data. 

Mr. MARKEY. Excuse me? 

Mr. ANASTAS. I think it is important to follow the data, and what 

that means is that we look at the data and what that data tells 

us but never remain satisfied. That is why we have ongoing monitoring programs. That is why we will always continue to ask the 

tough questions. That is why we are looking to have an ongoing 

long-term research plan so we do understand not only the current 

situation but the long-term effects. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Kraemer, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, are one of the 

most concerning compounds present in oil because of their significant health impacts. However, these compounds are also very 

quickly metabolized in aquatic species, particularly in certain types 

of fish. It is my understanding that polyaromatic hydrocarbons are 

often metabolized into products that are retained in the flesh and 

can be more toxic than the parent compounds. In the market surveillance, is the FDA examining the metabolites of PAHs in the analytical sampling tests? 

Mr. KRAEMER. It is my understanding that what we are looking 

for is specific PAHs and not any metabolites of those PAHs. So I 

think the short answer is no. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Seyfert. 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. I think there is two points of clarification I would like to add, Chairman Markey, to go back to your 

question on heavy metals, which I would like to get to. To clarify 

on the metabolite issue, we have been engaging some experts in 

academia to discuss just this. I have had several conversations 

with Dr. Overton at LSU about their experiences with PAHs and 

metabolites that may be derived from those but we are not currently testing for those, but I do want to add that to date we 

haven’t found any level. In fact, almost every test that we have 

conducted on the fish and shrimp that have been collected to date 

and other seafood has been completely negative, below our limit of 

detection for the PAHs themselves, if not very, very low levels as 

Mr. Kraemer stated, a thousand times below what would one—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Have you been looking at fish that are right now 

inside the oiled areas? 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. No. 

Mr. MARKEY. I think that that is important for people, and I 

would recommend to you that you do some testing there. I think 

it is important for the public to know that inside the oiled area you 

are also doing testing because people will be concerned that there 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

could be some migration outside of that oiled area subsequently, especially if the fish then move to areas where they are traditionally 

caught that might not be there in that area and that might not be 

this month or next month or the month after but some point in the 

future I think it would be very helpful if you would do some of that 

testing as well just so that we can see what happens in the most 

concentrated area as opposed to where you are now testing, and I 

think that is important information. I actually think it is important 

information going forward long term. We should know what happens to fish where the oil is most dense at this time. Doctor. 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. Just one more point of clarification on I 

think this point which is very well taken and your points on heavy 

metals. We are also engaging with NIH and other scientists to develop long-term toxicity studies. I think those are incredibly important in terms of looking at potential for accumulation of heavy metals and toxicities that may derive from that. And again, I would 

add that we do think that the surveillance through the Mussel 

Watch program is an incredibly important first line of defense but 

that there are active discussions about long-term toxicity studies 

and we will be engaging in these studies for years to come. 

Mr. MARKEY. Again, I would think that it would be important to 

begin those studies right now by going to the most potentially toxic 

areas and finding the samples now that are then used as your 

baseline, and I think that is long term going to be something that 

a lot of people wished was there in significant quantities in order 

to match off about what is then found at the periphery, so I would 

recommend to you that you do that. 

And again, let me ask the question again. Do you plan to test for 

metabolites? 

Ms. SEYFERT-MARGOLIS. I think this is part of our ongoing discussions with NIH. In fact, there is a meeting happening right now 

with several of the agencies and long-term toxicity studies and the 

design of those is one of the points under discussion. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Kraemer, there has been much criticism of the seafood sampling plan, particularly about the method of risk assessment. It is 

my understanding that the level of contamination with PAHs that 

is considered safe does not take into account vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children, and this is because 

the assumptions made in the plan calculate safe levels based on an 

average adult male body weight of 176 pounds. Has the FDA produced guidelines to ensure that children and pregnant women are 

adequately protected from contaminants that may be present in 

seafood? 

Mr. KRAEMER. I think the short response to that is that we believe that the levels of concern that we established for the reopening protocol are quite conservative and will be sufficiently protective for all populations but we also acknowledge that these are valuable comments and we are committed to looking again at the calculation of the levels of concern to make any judgments about 

whether we need to modify the levels that we have established for 

the reopening. I would like to point out, though, that again as we 

mentioned before, the levels that we are finding in fish flesh are 

essentially at levels that they would have been at before the spill. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

So whether or not the values would change, we are not seeing levels that should be of concern for children or pregnant women. 

Mr. MARKEY. And I appreciate the conclusion which you reach, 

but as you know, for 100 years, almost all medical research was 

done on the prototypical 176-pound male and only in the 1990s 

under pressure from the women’s movement that independent research that dealt with the unique nature of women and children 

begin to be introduced. So the very fact that the classic 176-pound 

male is still used here is something that I think you should reexamine in terms of whether or not that is sufficient to deal with the 

more vulnerable population which are women and children in this 

particular instance. The extrapolation of all of these lessons over 

to women and children I think is something is probably not outdated and this may be one of the last remaining models that continues to stay on the books as the exclusive means by which such 

a measurement is in fact made of the risk to human beings. 

Mr. Kraemer, if an analytical test conducted by NOAA indicates 

that contaminated seafood has been found that was harvested from 

open waters, how does NOAA communicate this to FDA and what 

is the feedback method to stop others from fishing in the same 

place? 

Mr. KRAEMER. Well, we have communications with NOAA at a 

number of levels so we communicate at the senior leadership level, 

we communicate through the National Incident Command process 

and we also communicate on multiple daily calls between all three 

agencies at the staff, scientific and technical levels, so any one of 

those routes could be used to move that information. Fortunately, 

we haven’t had to deal with that information yet, but if it were to 

occur, we would immediately investigate, and that investigation 

would be to look at the analytical results, confirm that they in fact 

show that the product is what FDA would call adulterated and if 

we found in fact that it did reach that level of concern, either we 

or the State would act through our authorities to remove that product from the market, and also to reevaluate the adequacy of the 

closure that is in place. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Dr. Lehr, last Friday Admiral Allen issued a directive for a coordinated integrated system of ocean monitoring involving federal, 

State and academic monitoring efforts to detect remaining submerged oil in the Gulf. Can you tell us more about this effort and 

why this directive was necessary at this time? Was this coordination not occurring over the past 4 months? 

Mr. LEHR. Coordination in terms of tracking the subsurface oil 

has been happening since the beginning of the spill. In fact, early 

on in the spill, we went out and made arrangements with the experts who are experts in, for example, well blowouts from the Carson University, provided us their information of how the oil would 

act. We also made arrangements with SINTEF, which has a subsurface model that we could track the oil and now we have brought 

in our own models that are tracking it as well, tied in with all the 

detailed sampling that is being done. Now, I think the directive 

now of course other groups and other agencies have been doing it 

and the idea is to now bring them all together as a coordinated approach. I think that is a good idea. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

Mr. MARKEY. Are you saying that this is nothing more than a 

continuation of what has been going on all along? 

Mr. KRAEMER. I would say this—— 

Mr. MARKEY. And I guess I would ask, why was a new directive 

necessary if this was something that is nothing more than a continuing effort? 

Mr. KRAEMER. I think what the admiral is stressing is that we 

are focusing now on the subsurface oil with the surface problem 

being removed and bring in extra resources to do that. Many of the 

folks at NOAA that I know of who are doing the surface trajectory 

have now been transferred to working on the subsurface trajectory 

collection, so I think to say it is a redirection as the problem has 

evolved and leave it at that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. What do we know about the dispersed 

oil and dispersant that is on the ocean floor? What species are affected there and how does that impact the food chain? Dr. Anastas. 

Mr. ANASTAS. I think you are asking an extremely important 

question. There are issues that we are looking to in real time develop research plans in the immediate and the longer term to fully 

understand what the oil is doing. I do refer back to the opening 

statements about we are not detecting dispersants in any concentrations to the limits of our methods of detection, so we are not 

seeing the presence of those substances. 

Mr. MARKEY. So are you saying you are not seeing dispersants 

and oil collecting on the ocean floor at this time? 

Mr. ANASTAS. In the thousands of samples that have been run, 

we are not detecting dispersants, the dispersant constituents on 

the ocean floor at this time. We have not seen a hit of dispersants 

at this time. We have the one hit that was referred to in NOAA, 

the one hit that was referred to at EPA in EPA testing. But the 

question that you asked about the oil on the ocean floor, we have 

seen some reports in the media that have talked about the oil on 

the ocean floor. This is something that as we look to ensure we understand the long-term effects, that this is exactly one of the questions that we need to investigate and find out, either confirm or 

disprove the presence of this oil and also to understand the impacts 

of this oil. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Why don’t we do this? Why don’t we hear from each one of you 

in reverse order of your opening testimony so that you can tell us 

what it is that you want the American public to understand about 

the state of the Gulf of Mexico at this particular point in time? We 

will begin with you, Dr. Anastas. 

Mr. ANASTAS. Thank you very much. I think the single message 

that Administrator Jackson has sent is that we need to be vigilant 

on understanding what the nature of the problems are, the immediate term and the long term, and that monitoring is crucial, that 

this crisis is not over, that the monitoring will continue, the work 

will continue, the research will continue into the long term, and 

getting that understanding not only to inform our decisions but to 

make sure that we get it to the American public as quickly as possible is one of our primary goals in accomplishing our mission of 

protecting human health and the environment. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. Thank you, Dr. Anastas, and thank you for 

your work on this issue. 

Mr. Kraemer. 

Mr. KRAEMER. Thank you. The question that we are very often 

asked in FDA is, what should a consumer do to make sure that 

their next meal of Gulf seafood is safe, and the answer I like to 

give to that and I would like to respond here is that they needn’t 

do anything. That is FDA’s job. And we take that job very seriously. We are confident that the program that FDA has put together along with our colleagues in the federal and State governments is sufficiently protective and that they need not take any 

steps to protect themselves from the seafood, that it is essentially 

at the same level of safety as it was before the spill. Having said 

that, we recognize that this is an unprecedented event, and our 

looking at the long-term safety of this source of food is something 

that we can’t overlook, and I think we have mentioned here a few 

ideas of things that we do need to look at into long-term studies, 

the development of methods that can detect contaminants that we 

presently can’t detect, and we think those are positive steps to providing further assurance to the public. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Kraemer, very much. 

And Dr. Lehr. 

Mr. LEHR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get to my closing, 

I want to correct one thing. I am a good scientist but perhaps a 

bad impromptu speaker, and so one of the things that you brought 

up was to suggest that this calculator was not involving independent scientists. The independent scientists contributed to the 

development of the calculator and independent scientists, very 

qualified scientists, will be the ones who are doing the reviewing 

of it. The field of oil spill science I like to say is so small that we 

could have a meeting in a ballroom and still have plenty of room 

to dance, and we have been able to tap many of the biggest names 

in that field for both the review and for the development. So I 

would like to stress that, particularly since there are other folks 

who this is their first big spill and they are coming in and perhaps 

don’t have the background in this area. 

Now, for my other comment, as my colleagues have said, this is 

a continuing operation. The spill is far from over. We are beginning 

in a new phase, and NOAA and all the other agencies will be involved in this, and for those of us who are spill experts, we get paid 

for doing this but what I would like to think and people don’t get 

enough credit to, when we went to develop our tools both in terms 

of the flow rate calculations and in terms of this budget calculation, 

we went out to many of the independent academics and other experts, and in many cases they were not being paid any compensation. I have not yet had a single instance where any of those folks 

have refused to work on any of the projects and the requests that 

we have done. So if there is a silver lining in the terrible event of 

the spill, it is the extent to which the American people are willing 

to volunteer their efforts at both the highest expertise levels down 

to the fellows who are volunteering to come out and clean up the 

beaches. Such tragedies do bring out the best in our country and 

I think that that is something that should be more brought forward 

perhaps. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Lehr, and again, thank all of you 

for your work. 

The point that I was making earlier was that in terms of the 

study that was released last week, first you gave the answer and 

now you are going to be showing your work, but in a peer-reviewed 

way, and that is the opposite of the way in which a study of that 

magnitude would be released, and all I am saying is that given the 

way that this has unfolded, that it is important that everyone including independent scientists who may not have participated in 

your creation of these models can see the assumptions upon which 

they were based now, given the fact that the peer review is going 

on right now but the science experiment in the Gulf of Mexico is 

occurring in real time so that there can be a real capacity to have 

all questions asked and answered not months from now as part of 

a boring academic exercise sometime next year but right now when 

concern is at its highest. 

So again, I restate my request to you that you provide that information to independent scientists who are not part of your study so 

that there can be a fresh set of eyes and minds that are applied 

to it because the consequences are great if you are wrong. If you 

are wrong, the consequences could be great. So let us just err on 

the side of safety. Let us have that information be given to the rest 

of the scientific community given the way in which that record was 

put together. 

So we thank you, Dr. Lehr, and again, in no way do we want to 

say anything other than we thank you for the work which you have 

done thus far. It is an exceedingly difficult working environment. 

It is unprecedented what has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. We 

have this hearing principally because the public has a right to 

know, that there should not be a 6-week period, a month-and-a-half 

period where Congress has not been working on this issue, given 

the fact that it is our responsibility to make sure that the public 

interest in all aspects is protected. 

So we thank you, and we ask you perhaps to make yourself available to return again to answer additional questions because this is 

something that obviously is going to affect the Gulf of Mexico for 

months and years to come. With the thanks of the committee, we 

appreciate your contribution. 

Before we hear from our next set of witnesses, for the record, the 

subcommittee invited the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries to participate in this hearing. The Louisiana Department 

of Wildlife and Fisheries makes the decisions regarding opening or 

closing of fisheries in State waters affected by the spill and has 

been working in consultation with the FDA regarding opening and 

closing of fisheries. Although nobody from the department was able 

to attend, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries submitted a statement for the record which I ask unanimous consent 

to move into the record at this time. Without objection, so ordered. 

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

Mr. MARKEY. I would also like to move into the record a statement from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

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


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

Mr. MARKEY. We will now move to hear from our witnesses, and 

we ask those witnesses to please move up to the witness table. 

Welcome back to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. 

Let me begin by making a unanimous consent request that all 

members be allowed to submit statements for the record and any 

questions which they would like to submit to the witnesses who are 

testifying here today. Without objection, so ordered. 

Our next witness is Dr. Ian MacDonald. Dr. MacDonald is a Professor of Biological Oceanography at Florida State University. His 

research uses satellite imaging to locate natural oil releases on the 

ocean surface. We thank you for coming, Dr. MacDonald. Whenever 

you feel comfortable, please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF IAN MACDONALD, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF OCEANOGRAPHY, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY; 

DEAN BLANCHARD, PRESIDENT, DEAN BLANCHARD SEAFOOD, INC.; ACY COOPER, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, LOUISIANA 

SEAFOOD ASSOCIATION; MIKE VOISIN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, MOTIVATIT SEAFOOD, LLC; AND LISA SUATONI, 

SENIOR SCIENTIST, OCEANS PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

STATEMENT OF IAN MACDONALD 

Mr. MACDONALD. Well, I am a Professor of Oceanography at 

Florida State University. Today, however, I am speaking solely on 

my own findings, and I wanted to say before I embark on technical 

discussions that I have 30 years of professional and private experience traveling around, cruising on, diving to the bottom of the Gulf 

of Mexico, and I deeply and fiercely love this ocean and its people 

and I thank you for your exemplary service during this catastrophe. 

I would like to comment briefly with a critique on the NOAA oil 

budget report which we discussed earlier. I feel that this report 

was misleading, and although it presents science, it was done by 

very competent scientists without any citation to the scientific literature. Without the algorithms, without the formulas and the actual budget that are referred to, it is impossible for someone reading this report to check the numbers that are there, and we have 

concern about those numbers. 

So as I think you very ably demonstrated in your examination, 

we really can only account for 10 percent of the oil that was discharged, that 4.1 million barrels that was discharged through burning and skimming. The balance of the oil remained in the environment. There may have been some 10 percent that evaporated into 

the atmosphere that is gone from the ocean but the balance is still 

in the ocean. The question is, how is it partitioned between the 

water column and the floating material that will have sunk to the 

bottom or become buried on the beaches, and this partitioning 

which was done or this separation into categories which was done 

by the oil budget is really pretty theoretical at this point. We need 

to check on that. There are findings that are coming out that I 

think will cause this into question. 

But let us just take this 26 percent, this 1.3 million barrels. As 

you say, this is five times the Exxon Valdez release. This oil has 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

already degraded, has already evaporated and emulsified. It is 

going to be very resistant to further biodegradation. This oil is 

going to be in the environment for a long time. I think that the imprint of the BP release, the discharge, will be detectable in the Gulf 

of Mexico environment for the rest of my life, and for the record, 

I am 58 years old, so there is a lot of oil. It is not gone and it is 

not going away quickly. 

I would also like to comment on an aspect of the spill that hasn’t 

received a lot of attention and that is the methane gas. All of the 

numbers about the release, the discharge have been presented in 

volumes of oil, barrels of oil. If, however, we calculate, we know 

that the Macondo field well was very rich in gas and we have good 

numbers on that from the Flow Rate Technical Group. If we take 

those numbers and we present all the discharge in terms of units 

of mass equivalents or barrel of oil equivalents, it turns out that 

the oil plus the gas is equal to 1.5 times the oil alone. In other 

words, if we conclude that there are 4.1 million barrels of oil released, the actual discharge in barrel of oil equivalents is in excess 

of 6 million barrels. Because this oil, this material was released at 

the bottom of the ocean, it transited the ocean. Some of it, much 

of it perhaps still remains in the ocean so I would contend that for 

the purposes of the Oil Pollution Act, this was a discharge and this 

total pollutant load should be included in our assessment of how 

far this spill went down. 

I would also like to comment on the so-called resilience of the 

Gulf of Mexico. Now, a fair reading of the report indicates that this 

90 percent, this huge volume of oil represents a massive dose of hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. There has been some 

talk about the resilience of the Gulf of Mexico. My concern, my first 

concern is not for a whole-scale die-off but for a depression, some 

decrease, 10 percent, 15 percent of the productivity and the biodiversity of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. Now, this might be—if 

we had a 10 percent decrease, this might be very difficult to demonstrate scientifically. It might be even harder to prove in a court 

of law. Nonetheless, if we sustain this impact over many years, it 

would be a severe affect. 

My greatest concern, however, is that some of the damage will 

be so severe that we may have tipping point effects that will overwhelm the resilience of the ecosystem, and this unfortunately has 

been the case, has been the scientific result looking at Prince William Sound in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill. We need to hope 

that this won’t happen. We need to do more than hope. We need 

to watch very carefully, and I have drafted as part of my submission here a list of species that I think we should be watching closely. These include some of the big species, the shrimp, the tuna and 

so forth, but they also include more humble members of the ecosystem such as fiddler crabs, the Coquina clams that are so abundant on the beaches. We need to be watching these populations 

through time, not just next year but for years to come, because it 

may take several years to notice the impact. A healthy environment has to support the species that depend on the healthy environment. If we watch those species, we will know they go. Is my 

time up? OK. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. MacDonald follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 78129A.033

for Environment Honse Snbcommittee: 

Thursday, 19 August 2010, 10:00 AM -- Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building 

The BP Oil Spill: Accounting for the Spilled Oil and Ensuring the Safety Seafood from the Gulf 

My name is Ian MacDonald. Thank you for inviting me to testify for your committee. I am a professor of 

oceanography at Florida State University and a member of the steering committee for the Florida Oil 

Spill Academic Task Force. You have my CV. I have conferred extensively with colleagues on the matters 

before this committee; however, my testimony today is solely on my own opinions and findings. I will 

confine my remarks to questions of the extent and effects of the oil and oil/dispersant contamination 

from the BP spill on the environment including marine life. Could I also testify, before I embark on 

technical discussion, that I have spent 30 years of professional and private life travelling around, cruising 

on, and diving to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. I deeply, fiercely love this ocean and its people. 

I would first offer a critique of the report titled "BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget: What happened to 

the oil?" that was authored by NOAA and the 001. 

I believe this report is misleading and raises more questions than it answers. It purports to explain what 

happened to the oil discharged from the broken well and what the effect of that oil could be on the Gulf 

of Mexico environment. The findings are summarized in a single pie-diagram, which lists several 

categories of oil, each as an exact percentage of the total oil released. This graphic is misleading 

because it mixes very different categories together and makes sweeping and largely unsupported 

arguments about the fate of each category in the Gulf of Mexico environment. 

First of all, the chart includes as part of the total, oil pumped into tankers from the various caps and 

other tools, oil which was never discharged into the ocean. This inflates the total amount by 17% and 

gives the impression that the clean-up efforts were more effective than they actually were. The press 

has widely reported variations of Carol Browner's statementl that "more than three quarters of the oil is 

gone." This statement does not stand up to scrutiny. The report discusses oil "released from the welL" 

The difference in meaning of the terms "released," meaning oil that came out of the well, and 

"discharged," meaning oil that escaped into the environment under the definitions of the Oil Pollution 

Act (OPAl of 1990, blurs the distinction between oil that can harm the environment going forward and 

oil that posed no such threat once it was pumped into waiting tankers. In all of my following statement, 

I recalculate percentages based on the discharged amount. 

The total volume of discharged oil was slightly more than 4.1 million barrels. Ofthis, the NOAA report 

cites data from the Unified Command Response Effort indicating that 6% was burned and an additional 

4 % was skimmed. Thus, only 10% of the oil in the ocean was actually removed from the ocean. The 

response effort has dispersant application records suggesting that chemical dispersion broke down an 

additional 10% of the oil, thereby allowing it to become diluted in the ocean. These data account for 

only 20% of the discharged oil. Fully 90% of the discharge was not removed from the marine 

1 Carol Browner, Wednesday, August 4th, 2010 in NBC's "Today Show." 

1 
69 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 78129A.034

environment by human agency; a fraction; perhaps 10%, will have evaporated into the air. The balance 

remains in the marine and coastal ecosystem even if it has changed form and become less visible. 

Explanation for the fate of almost 90% of the discharge (3.3 million barrels) has been based solely on a 

theoretical model, which the report calis an "Oil Budget Calculator" composed of "scientific estimation" 

and "algorithms." There appear to be no samples or measurement to support these claims. My strong 

criticism is that neither the report nor its on-line references' provides any citations of scientific 

literature, formulas, or actual algorithms that would allow an independent reviewer to determine where 

these numbers actually come from. In short, it is impossible to check the calculations of this crucial 

report. So when the report claims that 26% of the released oil (31% of the discharge) is residual, i.e. still 

present in the ocean or its soils and still harmful to the environment, we realiy cannot check whether 

this number should actually be 36% or 19%. The committee should note that this residual estimate of 

1.3 million barrels is 5 times the discharge from the MV EXXON VALDEZ, so a shift of percentage points 

would be significant. 

Finally, for the oil still in the ocean, the report makes the claim that the oil in all its forms in the ocean "is 

biodegrading quickly." It is my testimony to this committee that science simply does not know how 

quickly or slowly oil will degrade either in surface waters or in the deep waters of the Gulf. Preliminary 

evidence suggests that oxygen depletion has been minimal compared with the quantities of oil and gas 

discharged, which would indicate a slow rate of degradation. The residual oil that has resisted 

dispersion and evaporation will be very persistent. Judging from past spills in the Gulf, this material will 

remain potentially harmful for decades. 1 expect the hydrocarbon imprint of the BP discharge will be 

detectable in the marine environment for the rest of my life. The oil is not gone and is not going away 

anytime soon. 

I would like to comment briefly on an aspect of the discharge that has received scant attention from 

the Unified Command, namely the magnitude of the gas discharged by the BP spill. 

The Macondo Field product contained a high proportion of hydrocarbon gas, i.e. methane, ethane, 

propane, butane, pentane, etc. Indeed the enormous pressure of this gas in the reservoir and certainly 

its explosive properties contributed greatly to the tragedy of the DEEPWATER HORIZON. However, all 

the reports of the pollutant load discharged from the well have been issued in barrels--a unit of liquid 

volume--and have ignored the gas. In fact, if calculated in equivalent units of weight (mass) or energy 

(barrel of oil equivalents), the magnitude of the oil plus the gas is equal to 1.5 X the oil alone. In other 

words, it is my testimony that if 4.1 million barrels of oil were discharged, the total discharge in barrel of 

oil eqUivalents (oil plus gas) was actually over 6 million barrels. 

The Unified Command has made no mention of this gas, but it should not be ignored. Because the 

discharge occurred at 5000 ft depth, all the material rising toward the surface or drifting in subsurface 

plumes is in the ocean for hours, days, or months and can have a significant chemical and biological 

effect. So the hydrocarbon gas meets the OPA definition of "discharged." The hydrocarbon gas is highly 

2 
70 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 78129A.035

soluble in the deep, cold waters of the Gulf. Based on previous measurements,3 much of the gas 

released at depth will dissolve before it reaches the surface. Microbes degrading this material will 

compete for nutrients (like oxygen) with those attacking oil and will significantly affect the overall 

degradation process held to be so important by NOAA and 001. Fish exposed to concentrated methane 

have exhibited mortality and neurological damage. The hydrocarbon gas was a major component of the 

total pollution load discharged from the BP well. 

My next comment concerns the so-called "resilience" of the Gulf of Mexico. 

As a fair reading of the Oil Budget Report affirms, the northeastern Gulf of Mexico received a massive 

dose of hydrocarbon. Hundreds of miles of shoreline in four states were oiled, shoreline that includes 

numerous distinct habitats, each with its individual value and vulnerability. The seabed, crucial for 

oyster, shrimp, and crab fisheries, as well as for its indispensible roles in nutrient recycling and marine 

food webs, has been sprinkled with tar-balls over thousands of square miles. Buried oil impacts seafloor 

life and is readily exhumed by storms and potentially by upwelling to cause more damage to the coast. 

The oceanic surface, the zone of plankton production that drives the food web of the entire system, has 

endured months of volatile organic toxins from the floating oil. Some species could swim below the 

worst effects. Other species, including whales, sea turtles, flying fish, sargassum communities, and the 

larvae of many recently spawned species to name a few, were trapped in the zone of greatest exposure. 

This total insult was not delivered to a vibrant and healthy ocean, rather to marine and coastal 

ecosystems already greatly stressed by serious existing problems. let us not overlook the hypoxic dead 

zone, the fishing closures for shrimp and fin fish due to declining stocks, and the accumulated effects of 

coastal development and runoff. The Gulf can and will rebound, but how much and how fast it does so 

will take years to determine. In many cases, we do not know how the impact will occur because the 

experiments have not been carried out. For many species, the impact could be occurring at every life 

stage. Consider reef fish that have complex life cycles. Eggs and larvae could be hit at the surface by oil; 

those that survive to reach coastal estuarine nursery habitats could be hit again because oil entered 

coastal marshes and seagrass beds; and the adults in their benthic existence could have oil components 

magnified through trophic webs as they eat species that have taken in oil in the diet. This could have 

indirect effects on their fecundity (number of eggs they produce) and on their general condition and 

ability to survive. 

My immediate concern is for a decline in the productivity and diversity in broad sectors of the 

ecosystem. As a percent of the total--say lO%--this effect might be difficult to demonstrate 

scientifically, and perhaps even harder to prove in court. The sustained impact over years, particularly if 

added to already stressed systems, could be severe. My greatest concern is that portions of the 

ecosystem may experience "tipping point" effects that overwhelm resiliency. This has been the 

3 Leifer, j, and I. R MacDonald (2003). "Dynamics of the gas flux from shallow gas hydrate deposits: interaction between oily 

hydrate bubbles and the oceanic environment." Earth and Planetary Science Letters 21 (3-4): 411-421. 

Solomon, E A., M. Kastner, et aL (2009). ~Considerab!e methane fluxes to the atmosphere from hydrocarbon seeps in the Gulf of 

Mexico." Nature Geoscience 2(8): 561-565. 

3 
71 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 78129A.036

scientific result in Prince William Sound4 after EXXON VALDEZ. And it is consistent with observations 

after the Gulf Ixtoc blowout. We can hope that mitigating factors --depth, distance from shore, dilution, 

a light oil product, etc. will mitigate the impact. It is not enough to hope however; we have to watch 

with utmost scrutiny and respond quickly wherever there is the chance of mitigation. 

I suggest that we monitor a set of key indicator species and habitats of special concern. By focusing on 

individual species, we have the chance of verifying damage, or hopefully sustained recovery. In 

consultation with colleagues from the Florida Oil Spill Academic Task Force, the National Wildlife 

Federation, and elsewhere, I have compiled a preliminary list of watch species and habitats--appended 

to my testimony. I will not read it here, I would ask this be entered into the record, and I ask my 

learned colleagues at NOAA, NMFS, FWS, and other agencies to please consider this approach. 

My final comment concerns the debt we owe to our Gulf of Mexico. 

Consider the three points I just made: that the majority of the oil persists in the environment, that the 

gaseous fraction of discharge has not been adequately addressed, and that the ecological impact will 

take years to assess and mitigate. It is clear that the sincere and strenuous efforts of our responders 

barely have made a dent in cleaning up the ecological impacts created by BP's exploded well. The Gulf 

of Mexico system has been required to dispose of some 3.7 million barrels of oil and an additional 1.8 

million barrel-of-oil-equivalents of gas. The circumstances of discharge--deep in the ocean, far from 

land--spreads the impact over an unprecedented geographic extent of the ocean basin. As noted, this 

cannot happen without lasting damage. We are making Mother Nature clean up our big mess and she is 

suffering for it. 

Over the past three months, the people of the region, and of the entire country, have undergone a 

traumatizing sympathetic reaction to the Gulf's suffering. Now that the acute phase appears to have 

passed, what have we learned? Even though it is unthinkable to imagine a Gulf of Mexico without her 

oystermen, shrimpers, beach-goers, boaters, and recreational fishermen, this culture and way of life will 

not continue unless the Gulf is restored to health and placed on a path toward rejuvenation. 

How should this be done? Much as I sympathize with the economic hardship caused by the BP 

discharge and desire that restitution be paid, a big part--the biggest part--of our response must put the 

Gulf herself first in line for repayment. A massive and unfaltering effort must be launched to restore, 

understand, and sustain the coastal and marine ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico in perpetuity. What I 

mean are the coastal wetland restoration plans already formulated in Louisiana, but stalled for lack of 

funds. I mean the creation of extensive marine protected areas to preserve marine biodiversity, which 

will require public education and enforcement. I mean mitigation of farming practices in the Mid West 

that burden the Mississippi River with excessive nutrients. I mean regulation and subsidies to treat 

residential sewage in coastal development. The list is very long and the costs are high and recurring. 

4 Peterson. C. H., S. D. Rice, et al. (2003). "Long-Term Ecosystem Response to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill." Science 302(5653): 

2082-2086. 

4 
72 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 78129A.037

Fortunately, we do have visionary leadership in this regard in the U.S. Congress. I am speaking of the 

bipartisan legislationS proposed by Senators Snowe and Whitehouse and supported by Florida's Senator 

Nelson that would create a permanent Ocean Endowment to protect, conserve, restore, and understand 

the Nation's oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. This endowment would be funded by criminal fines and 

fees on the offshore industry. The need and the way forward could not be more clear. Certainly the 

House and Senate and hopefully the two parties can work together for this worthy legislation. You will 

be joined by massive support from the people of the Gulf of Mexico region. 

55.3641 National Endowment for the Oceans Act 

5 
73 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 78129A.038

Draft list and habitats that could serve as indicators 

of marine and coastal ",,..,,,,,,,,1-,,,,, health, 

Oceanic species--

• Tuna-- Three important species are blue fin, yellow fin, black fin. The adults will have 

been able to avoid concentrations of oil, but the larvae will be vulnerable. Our baseline 

knowledge of population levels are poor. Yellowfins are a hugely important recreational 

species and changes in landings may give a c1uc--next ycar! Blue fin tuna arc already 

severely stressed by fishing pressure. 

• Sea turtles--Three species of sea turtles are critically endangered, two are endangered, 

and one is vulnerahle and there have been a number of reported moralities. 

• Sperm whales--also a vulnerable species. One confimlCd mortality--thc area of the major 

concentration of the spill corresponds to the normal summer feeding grounds of a 

resident sperm whale population in the Gulf of approximately 200. It will be crucial to 

evaluate this population post spill. 

• Other cetaceans--pilot whales (status unknown), spinner dolphin (status unknown), even 

orcas (status unknown). 

• Sargassum communities--this comprises the diverse assemblage of fish and invertebrates 

associated with floating masses of sargassum plants. 

Forage Species 

• Flying t1sh--a particularly vulnerable species because they live in the upper most layer of 

the water where the floating oil was concentrated and where they roed on plankton. They 

are an important forage species for larger sport fish, including mackerel, tuna, swordtlsh, 

marlin, dolphins, porpoises. 

• Mcnhaden tIIter fceders, critical forage species for many economically important 

fishes. Also the third largest t1shcry in the country with catch going into industry and 

livestock fced. 

Coastal species 

• BroWl1 pclicans--a previously threatened species with rookeries badly hit. 

• Bird species including gannets (which live offshore and "monitor" those conditions) and 

oyster catchers Saltrnarshcs--I'm very worried about the channel edges that got oiled. If 

there is a die back of the oiled edge, the result would be that the channels arc dilated--

even a 5-10% dilation would potentially have a huge impact on wetland hydrography. 

• Coquina (Donax)--bivalves living in oiled bcach sands. Important burrowers. 

• Fiddler crabs, mole crabs, ghost crabs--vital for aerating the soils. All burrowers are very 

important for keeping the sand aerated. Bnrrowing will be inhibited by buried oil. And 

lack of aeration will tend to preserve buried oil. A vicious circle. 

• Marsh periwinkle (Littoraria irrorata) are very abundant grazers who might be impacted 

by buried oil. 

• All three species of commercial shrimp (Penaeus) occur in coastal waters and may be 

impacted by oil on the seabed. 

6 
74 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 78129A.039

Plankton 

The oceanic and coastal plankton need to be closely monitored using satellite methods 

and direct sampling. This is the base of the food chain and it is also potentially the 

source of hamlful algal blooms that can affect human health. 

Microbial community 

The bacterial assemblage that breaks down oil could be a sensitive indicator of residual 

oil in the cnvironmcnt--cven if the oil is not directly detectable. The disappearance of oil 

degrading microbes might thcn indicatc completc disappearance of oil. 

Shelf-edge and Slope species 

• Any of the offshore habitat engineers in these habitats could bc important indicator 

species because they serve as the tocus for community development and biological 

diversity and because they actively manipulate the sediment, contributing significantly to 

the three-dimensional architecture of the seabed. These would include things like red 

grouper on the shelf edge which creates holes roughly 15 ft across and 3-6 ft deep 

(density in gulf of mexico -250/km2) ; tilefish on the slope because of the pueblo-like 

burrows they create (density in gulf of mexico 600-1600Ikm2) 

• Sharks, which arc top-level predators and comprise many threatened species 

Deep Sea Corals 

Cold-water corals arc widely distributed throughout the Gulf of Mexico 

While there is tremendous 

need to know more about the distribution and composition of these deep-water communities (the 

structure), it is also essential that we gain greater understanding of their function in telms of 

ecosystem services and their response to the presence of dispersants/oil combinations and oil 

alone. 

Across Dcpth Strata 

Sponges and soft corals provide a suite of ecosystem services, including filtering water, 

nutrient cycling, providing nursery habitat and shelter for a diverse group of fishes, shrimps, 

crabs, etc. We know little about their distribution, composition and function in most sites from 

inshore to the deep sea. 

7 
75 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, it is, but you will have time during the question-and-answer period to elaborate. 

Our next witness is Mr. Dean Blanchard. He is the President 

and sole owner of Dean Blanchard Seafood located in Grand Isle, 

Louisiana. Dean Blanchard Seafood is the largest dockside shrimp 

broker in the United States and the third largest in the world. 

Thank you for coming, Mr. Blanchard. Whenever you feel ready, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF DEAN BLANCHARD 

Mr. BLANCHARD. Yes. Thank you for having us, Chairman. 

I want to say, we visit your State regularly, and gosh, it reminds 

me of Grand Isle. 

We are here today to talk about seafood safety, and we have a 

few concerns, and basically I have taken a moment to outline a few 

of my major concerns as an independent seafood business owner of 

Grand Isle regarding the effects of the BP oil spill. 

If a seafood product is put onto the market and is later determined to have made the consumer ill because of oil and/or dispersant contamination, who will be determined to be the responsible 

party? That is one of our major concerns right now because we are 

having trouble getting product liability insurance. I have been responsible for moving, it is just a guess, but I believe in my lifetime 

about 300 million pounds of shrimp, and I have never seen anyone 

get sick. You know, we are born in this business. Pretty much everyone in the seafood business is born and raised in it. You don’t 

just decide one day I am going to be a seafood business guy. So we 

have good people in our business and we know the shrimp, you 

know, and I am hoping that will keep the public safe. We are testing our shrimp. We are checking it. I won’t put nothing on the market that I won’t eat myself. I stayed about 2 weeks without eating 

shrimp, and I felt like I was going to die and I decided I was going 

to start eating it again because it was so good. But that is one of 

our major concerns is, who is going to be responsible. I have a feeling that if I get sued I am going to be the one paying the bill. 

Another concern we got, our commercial shrimpers and fishermen are hesitant to fuel up their boats, buy ice and oil and salt 

because they believe that the open waters will be closed once more, 

or that they will find oil-contaminated seafood which they know I 

will not buy and they are going to have to dispose of it. It is difficult for an out-of-work fisherman to pay for these expenses without the confidence in the government, who dictates the openings 

and closures, and without the confidence in BP’s press releases 

which state that virtually all of the recoverable oil has been recovered. 

You know, if you go out shrimping right now and you watch to 

catch oil, they can go catch oil. But if you want to catch good 

shrimp, you can catch good shrimp also. So, you know, I told every 

fisherman, you know, when you bring me the product, it is going 

to be scrutinized 10 times more than it has ever been before, so if 

you think anything is wrong, don’t bring it to me. I will not buy 

it. I will not take the chance of getting sued or getting someone 

sick. You know, the last thing I ever want is for somebody to say 

I got them sick or a pregnant woman, you know, that would be 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

hard to live with, so we are taking extra precautions to make sure 

that doesn’t happen. 

You know, we are having, like I said, a difficult time locating insurance companies who will sell us insurance, and that is—you 

know, what I am scared of is not somebody actually getting sick, 

I am scared of someone trying to make money off of this, you know. 

That is the scary part, you know. 

Basically in summary, we in the seafood industry have very little 

trust in the government, you know. When I try to sell seafood, I 

tell them, I say well, the government said they did thousands of 

tests and everything is all right, and they say is that the same government that said only 1,000 barrels a day was leaking out the 

well, and I say well, it is the same government but it is a different 

branch. 

So that is some of the problems we are having and we appreciate 

with the help of people like you that maybe we will get down to 

the bottom of it, but I firmly believe that all the seafood I have 

seen so far is safe. I eat seafood probably six, seven times a week. 

I haven’t had any problems with the seafood. So we are hoping that 

the government is doing the right job and making sure everybody 

is safe and maybe we can all get through this one day. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blanchard follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 78129A.040

DEAN BLANCHARD SEAFOOD, INC. 

195 CYPRESS LANE 

Edward J. Markey 

Chairman 

P.O. BOX 1 

GRAND ISLE, LA. 70358 

985-787-3464 

July 17, 2010 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Dear Sir: 

I have taken a moment to outline the major concerns I have as an independent 

seafood business owner from Grand Isle, La., regarding the effects of the BP oil 

spill. 

1) If a seafood product is put onto the market and is later determined to have 

made the consumer ill because of oil and/or dispersant contamination, who will be 

determined to be the responsible party? 

2) Our commercial shrimpers and fishermen are hesitant to fuel up their boats, 

buy ice and oil and salt because they believe that the open waters will soon be 

closed once more, or that they will find oil contaminated seafood which will have 

to be disposed of. It is difficult for an out of work fisherman to pay for these 

expenses without the confidence in the government, who dictates the openings 

and closures and without the confidence in BP's press releases which state that 

virtually all of the "recoverable" oil has been "recovered". 

3) Regarding public perception of our seafood in the Gulf of Mexico: The public 

sees portions open to fishing and shrimping as well as portions closed to fishing 

and shrimping. They ask me why this is if all the seafood is deemed safe to eat. 

Also they are concerned with the food chain, for example, commercial harvesting 

of crabs and oysters in most areas are still prohibited. If a crab dies, fish feed off 

of it. Whatever killed that crab has now been consumed by the fish, and so it goes 

on. 

4) We are having a difficult time locating insurance companies who will sell 

product liability insurance on Gulf seafood to us. We have never had product 

liability insurance before because there was never a need for it. 

5) In summary, we in the seafood industry have very little trust in our government 

and we feel as though our government has done more to help BP than it has to 

help the impacted businesses and people of the Gulf Coast. We want to know 

what you can do to change this perception. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Dean P. Blanchard 

President 

Dean P. Blanchard Seafood, Inc. 
78 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Blanchard, very much, and thank 

you for being here today. 

Our next witness is Mr. Acy Cooper, Jr. He is a fisherman from 

Plaquemines Parish and the Vice President of the Louisiana 

Shrimpers Association. He is the owner of the commercial shrimp 

boat the Lacy K, and we thank you for coming, Mr. Cooper. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF ACY COOPER, JR. 

Mr. COOPER. I would just like to talk a little bit about the damages done to our community. 

This oil spill, we have oil on the bottom of our waterways. We 

have reports of numerous fish kills. We know the oil is there. 

NOAA keeps saying that the oil is not there. Everybody said it is 

not there. We know it is there. I worked in one part of this particular bay for 2 months and we wear hazmat suits, we wear 

gloves, we taped up. They said oil is not there. When they got rid 

of me the last day I was working for BP, I found oil is on the bottom. I reported it to the Coast Guard, reported it to BP, brought 

them up there, showed them it was there. 

This has catastrophic effects on our community, our industry, our 

way of life. We do not need to let this lay because BP is going to 

step out of here and they are trying to get out of here now. We 

need to make sure we stop on top of things because if we let them 

leave now, we are going to be in deep trouble. Everybody says it 

is over with. They want to paint a picture that in a perfect world 

it would be. Right now, as you have seen this morning, 90 percent 

of the oil is still there, and that is one thing we are definitely 

scared of. The places that we do have that is clean, we know it is 

clean, like they were just stating. We are worried about when it 

comes in tomorrow or the day after tomorrow that we can’t fish 

there anymore. 

The main thing is that we monitor the fish areas that are clean. 

Let us work in the fish areas that are clean. Where it is not clean, 

we can just stay away from it. Our fishermen are not going to come 

in and sell anything that is bad. We want to make sure what we 

put on the market is good. That is one of the main things that we 

discussed. We have meetings on our own and we do discuss this. 

Now, we need to make sure that BP stays in place for as long 

as it needs to be because we see right now that they are trying to 

move out and they are trying to go. We don’t need to let them leave 

now. Finish the job they started. They did it. They need to clean 

it up. Like Dean said, if we get somebody sick, it is going to come 

back on us. The process of having a dockside waiver saying that 

we caught them in open areas in the marsh, they are making us 

sign waivers that we caught them in open marsh. Now, who are 

we going to make responsible for that? Is BP going to step up and 

be responsible for what we have to do? I signed it for Dean. He 

signed it for the processors. Who signs for us? So we are going to 

wind up with the burden of having to take the brunt of this. We 

can’t make any money. 

It opened on August 16, the season. I went out. Normally I would 

catch a couple thousand pounds to 10,000 pounds. I caught 500 

pounds of shrimp at $1.25. Those same shrimp last season was 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

around $2, $2.25. They went down $1. Now, if I can’t get the price 

for my shrimp and I can’t catch them, how am I going to survive? 

I have been doing this for 35 years. My father is 74 years old. He 

still does it. My sons do it. Hopefully their sons will do it, hopefully. I don’t see any future in it. With the prices and everything 

that is going on now, we may not have a future. Who is going to 

be liable for that? BP needs to step up and make sure they pay us 

for what they have done, keep this industry going. Our docks can’t 

afford to keep going. What happens if they go out? One link is broken in this chain and we lose our industry. This is something we 

have been doing all our lives. Who do we go to then? 

I just want to make sure they understand that we are not happy 

with what is going on right now. They said the oil is gone. It is 

not gone. It is on the bottom. We can take you and show you. I 

brought the Coast Guard, I brought BP and showed them. You stir 

the bottom up and oil comes up. So whoever said it is gone, as you 

heard today, they said 75 percent was gone before, 90 percent is 

still there and it is going to come into our shores eventually somewhere, if not in Louisiana, somewhere else. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 78129A.041

Testimony for the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

August 16, 2010 

My name is Acy J. Cooper, Jr. I am a commercial fisherman from Venice, Louisiana-Plaquemines 

Parish-Ground Zero. I am also the Vice President of Louisiana Shrimpers Association, a state 

wide organization that represents shrimpers throughout our state. 

I would like to speak about the extent and effects of oil contamination due to the Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill. 

The extent of the damage is wide spread. Oil is on the bottom of our water ways and our 

seafood estuaries. We have reports of numerous fish kills which include different species of 

marine life. Some include Menhaden redfish, shark, turtles and many more. We have also seen 

a large number of birds being contaminated by the oil in our waters. Some are rescued and 

rehabilitated but some are not so lucky. We have reports of dead birds in our community and in 

our waterways that do not have evidence of oil contamination; the cause of death is unknown 

to me. 

This oil spill has had a catastrophic effect to our community's environment. Our way of life and 

our industry has been greatly crippled. The total impact of this may not be known for many 

years. On Monday August 16, 2010 our commercial shrimping season in Louisiana began. 

Normally on opening day the average fisherman would bring in catches of a couple of thousand 

pounds. Today my catch was 500 pounds. This was a bad turnout. The exact reason is unknown 

to me. In my opinion this decrease is due to the waters being contaminated by oil and 

dispersants. The Shrimp Industry in the state of Louisiana employs 14,000 people and was a 

$1.4 billion dollar industry. I do not think it will be so successful in the years to come. 

I worked on the cleanup job through BP for the past 3 months. I was laid off so that other 

fishermen could have an opportunity to work and be compensated. In my last week of working 

with BP, I found oil on the water bottoms in bays. (The same water ways that were opened 

today for commercial shrimping.) I reported this find to the Coast Guard on the day that it was 

found and was told by them that it was not oil. It took me 3 days to have someone listen to my 

plea about this oil in this area. To this day I do not believe that this bay was skimmed or that 

the oil was cleaned up. We need our coast guard, our government officials and BP to take a 

more extensive approach to cleaning oil that is lying on the water bottoms. The dispersants that 

were used on this oil has caused it to sink and is making its way into our inland shores 

undetected. 

The "VOO" (Vessel of Opportunity) program is a great program. It gives our fishermen a way to 

work and not depend on government handouts. It also gives us a way to help in the oil 

recovery efforts. There are many flaws in this program. But most are caused by contractors that 

do not know anything about our water ways or our coast or how to clean up or prevent oil from 

entering. Fishermen have to accept jobs with the VOO program when cailed. The future of the 

industry is so unknown that we cannot rely on the fishing industry alone. The openings and 

closures may mean that we fish today but are unemployed again tomorrow. The fishermen that 
81 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 78129A.042

did not get an opportunity with the VOO program may not survive through our winter months. 

If they cannot survive this year, how will they get through future years? Stress, depression, 

abuse, suicides will be greater than ever. Our community is already seeing friends fighting 

against friends and families being divided because of this disaster. 

I am worried about the affects of dispersants on our seafood and our marine life. Presently 

there is not testing being done for the dispersant corexit contamination to our seafood. I would 

like you to force the issues that a test to be developed and used for this. We do not want one 

bit of contaminated seafood to enter our markets. This would finish off our market for our 

seafood that has already been tarnished if not destroyed. 

I agree with the opening and closing of the Louisiana waters to commercial fishermen when 

these waters have positive oil sightings. Again we do not want contaminated seafood to get 

into our market. But I also believe that testing in inshore waters have not been extensive 

enough. 

I would like to ask that our Federal Government and Federal Agencies stay close and on top of 

all issues and affects on safety and recovery to our coast and waterways. It seems like BP Oil is 

trying to down size the present and future affects of this catastrophe. 

Another issue that I have is that oil spill workers in our fishing areas must wear hazmat 

protective clothing and gloves to be in these areas. These are the same areas that we are being 

allowed to harvest and sell seafood from. Does this make sense to you? It does not to me. 

We have had meetings to plan recovery from this disaster. How can we plan to recover when 

we do not and will not know the extent of the damage for years to come? This is the largest oil 

spill in America's history and everyone wants to paint a picture that it's all fine today. In reality 

the battle has just begun for our Fishing Industry and our wetlands. We as an Industry have a 

long way to go and may never come out of it. 

Acy J. Cooper, Jr. 

42941 Hwy 23 

Venice, La. 70091 

2 
82 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. And just so you know, the 

reason that we are having this hearing is that BP knows that we 

are not going away. We are going to stay on them until they do the 

job. We know that BP did not stand for Be Prepared. Right from 

the very first day when they said there was 1,000 barrels per day 

all the way until today, they never had a plan put in place to deal 

with something like this, and we just can’t allow them to believe 

that the coast is clear, that they can retreat without having to pay 

for everything that they are responsible for. 

Mr. COOPER. Let me say one more thing. You heard them talking 

earlier about 5-mile bumpers. Where I found the oil, the season 

was open in that area this last—the 16th. It was open where I 

found the oil at. And they are talking about giving a tradeoff, a 

tradeoff for the dispersants, and the only tradeoff that we feel they 

gave to is our industry because when you sink it like that, we can’t 

see it coming in. Our shrimp and fish, they are all bottom feeders. 

That is where it went, to the bottom. So it is deeply concerning for 

us where it is out there coming in on our bottoms. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. 

Now we will hear from Mr. Mike Voisin. He is the Chief Executive Officer of Motivatit Seafood, and oyster processing plant in 

Houma, Louisiana, a family-owned business. The Voisin family has 

been involved in the seafood industry since 1770. Mr. Voisin also 

serves on the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, the 

Louisiana Oyster Dealers Association and the Louisiana Oyster 

Taskforce. We welcome you, Mr. Voisin. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE VOISIN 

Mr. VOISIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. The 

opportunity to come before you is a pleasure today, and thank you 

for this opportunity. 

Mr. MARKEY. And may I also say that in Congress there are two 

places that everyone thinks has a very funny accent, and one of 

them is Louisiana and the other one is from Boston, so this is a 

gathering of those. The other 48 States, they all think they speak 

plain English but we know that our accents are the authentic ones, 

so welcome. 

Mr. VOISIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our company has an oyster farm in south Louisiana that comprises about 10,000 acres of water bottoms. We produce anywhere 

from 45 to 75 million oysters annually, and on the bottom we always have 2- to 3-year classes of oysters or 135 to 225 million oysters on the water bottom at any time. 

In addition to running my family business, you mentioned my relationship with the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission of Louisiana 

as a member. I am also past chairman of the National Fisheries 

Institute. 

Louisiana is second only to Alaska in total seafood landings. In 

2008, our commercial fishermen harvested 11⁄4 billion pounds of 

seafood, which represented nearly $660 million in dockside value. 

Meanwhile, 3.2 million recreational fishermen along our shoes took 

to the water, completing a total of 24 million fishing trips. 

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is clearly an ecological and 

human tragedy that will surely affect not only the fragile habitats 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

where fish and shellfish are harvested, but the very core of the 

community that brings these iconic delicacies from the waters of 

the Gulf to the tables of America. That culture and those Americans need your support during these challenging times. 

The seafood community has been actively engaged with both 

state and federal officials as they closely monitor the Gulf waters 

and only now begin to reopen those waters. We have worked closely 

with NOAA, the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Department 

of Health and Hospitals and other groups including the Environmental Protection Agency as well. 

We strongly supported the precautionary closures at the outset 

of this tragic event in order to ensure consumers continue to have 

access to seafood maintained with the level of quality and safety 

expected in the Gulf of Mexico. And now, as we did then, we support regulators as they reopen those same waters and continue 

their ongoing efforts to protect consumers. 

We agree that closing harvest waters which could be exposed to 

oil was the best way to protect the public because this prevented 

potentially contaminated seafood from entering the marketplace. 

Closures made with the intent to ensure seafood was as safe as 

possible were balanced with not closing any fishing areas unnecessarily. And as a testament to that system, we know now that no 

contaminated product has made its way into the market. 

Waters are reopened only when oil from the spill is no longer 

present and the seafood samples from the area successfully pass 

chemical testing. Sensory analysis testing is a heavily established, 

verifiable and highly scientific way to detect contamination. That 

testing continues aggressively as well. In fact, FDA has collected 

5,658 specimens, as well as NOAA, that all of these samples have 

been 100 to 1,000 times below the threshold levels for any margin 

of safety relating to any human health concern. 

The Gulf seafood community applauds the Administration for 

taking the lead on the coordination of a comprehensive multi-government agency response and we appreciate the collaborative efforts of NOAA, FDA, EPA and the State authorities including the 

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. We are pleased 

that the State agencies are working closely with the federal government and we are thoroughly confident that every necessary step is 

being taken to ensure the continued safety of seafood sourced from 

the Gulf. After thousands of tests, the public should not be concerned about the safety of Gulf seafood. We have all seen media reports raising questions about that same seafood, which stand in 

contrast to all the federal and State testing we have seen. It is absolutely critical to the Gulf seafood community that a consistent 

and precise message continues to be delivered to the consumers 

who may unnecessarily shy away from this otherwise very healthy 

product. 

The Gulf of Mexico has 600 square surface miles of water, and 

during the 100 days or so of this event, the Mississippi River carried 1,600,000,000 plus gallons of water into that Gulf of Mexico. 

We know it is 5,000 feet deep, probably more like 10,000 to 13,000 

feet deep. There is a lot of water out there. We have corresponded 

with doctors, MDs, and we have spoken to scientists. We have educated ourselves and understand that the demonstrable risk from 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

dispersants is negligible and we hope further studies will be able 

to help consumers better understand that challenge. 

I would like to thank you and the Administration for all the efforts that are you are putting forth to make sure that we continue 

to do the right things relating to this seafood concern. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Voisin follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 78129A.043

Testimony of Mike Voisin 

CEO, Motivatit Seafood, LLC 

House Energy and Commerce - Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Hearing 

entitled "The BP Oil Spill: Accounting for the Spilled Oil and Ensuring the Safety 

of Seafood from the Gulf." 

Thursday, August 19, 2010 

Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the 

Subcommittee today about the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the safety of 

seafood sourced from the Gulf of Mexico. 

I am a seventh generation oyster farmer and processor located in Houma, Louisiana. Our 

farm comprises approximately 10,000 acres of water bottoms in coastal Louisiana which 

produce between 15 million and 25 million pounds of in-shell oysters annually. This 

represents 45 million to 75 million individual oysters each year. Since our oysters can 

take anywhere from 2 to 4 years to grow to harvest size, our farm may contain anywhere 

from 135 million to 225 million individual oysters at anyone time. 

In addition to running my family business, I am also active in many government 

organizations along the Gulf and South Atlantic region and serve on the Louisiana 

Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. I am also the former Chairman of the National 

Fisheries Institute, which is the nation's leading advocacy organization for the seafood 

industry. 

Louisiana is second only to Alaska in total seafood landings. Gulf seafood has been 

culturally important for hundreds of years to the people of Louisiana and our coastal 

communities. While we lead the nation in crawfish, shrimp, and oyster production, we 

also have a wealth of fresh and saltwater finfish that has made our state one of the largest 

commercial and recreational fisheries in America. In 2008, our commercial fishermen 

harvested 1.27 billion pounds of seafood from the Gulf, which reprcsents nearly $660 

million in dock side value alone. Meanwhile, 3.2 million recreational fishermen along 

our shores took to the water completing a total of 24 million fishing trips. 

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is clearly an ecological and human tragedy that will 

surely effect not only the fragile habitats where fish and shellfish are harvested, but the 

very core of the community that brings these iconic delicacies from the waters of the Gulf 

to the tables of America. The Gulf community is one built not only on the bounty of pure 

waters, but on the backs of small business men and women whose families, like mine, 

emigrated to the shores of Louisiana, called by the sea and a culture like no other in this 

country. 

That culture and those Americans need your support during these challenging times. 

Fishermen, shrimpers and oystermen who have harvested safe healthy seafood from the 

Gulf for generations have been severely economically impacted by the precautionary 

closures of State and federal waters along parts of the coast. The seafood community has 

been actively engaged with both state and federal officials as they closely monitor the 

Gulf waters and only now begin to reopen those waters. We have worked closely with 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (DWF) on monitoring the opening and closing of 

fishing areas. 
86 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 78129A.044

We strongl y supported the precautionary closures at the outset of this tragic event in 

order to ensure consumers continue to have access to seafood maintained with the level 

of quality and safety expected from the Gulf. And now, as we did then, we support 

regulators as they reopen the waters and continue their ongoing efforts to protect 

consumers. 

We agree that closing harvest waters which could be exposed to oil was the best way to 

protect the public because this prevented potentially contaminated seafood from entering 

the marketplace. Closures made with the intent to ensure seafood was as safe as possible 

were balanced with not closing any fishing areas unnecessarily. And as a testament to 

that system, we know now that no contaminated product has made its way into the 

market. 

Waters are reopened only when oil from the spill is no longer present and the seafood 

samples from the area successfully pass chemical testing. Areas considered for 

reopening must be free of oil before seafood testing even begins. NOAA follows a strict 

reopening protocol in which they work in collaboration with the Food and Dmg 

Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Gulf States 

to take product samples from an area that is designated to be reopened. The product 

samples are then turned over to scientists like the ones at NOAA's National Seafood 

Inspection Laboratory in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The product is logged, dissected and 

divided into parts that are sent for sensory analysis and chemical analysis testing. A 

panel of seven experts from NOAA and FDA perform a sensory analysis test; in order for 

a sample to pass, five of the seven experts must give the ok. If three out of the five 

panelists say no, then the fish fails or the sample fails and the area from which the fish 

was caught will not be reopencd. 

Sensory analysis testing is a heavily established, verifiable and highly scientific way to 

detect contamination. The testing consists of a raw odor evaluation, a cooked odor 

evaluation and a cooked flavor evaluation the product must pass all three of these 

evaluations. If the product fails the sensory analysis testing, then testing is ended and the 

source area will not be reopened. If the product passes the sensory analysis testing, it 

then goes on to the next step where a chemical analysis is performed. 

The samples for the chemical analysis for federal openings are sent to NOAA's 

Northwest Fishery Science Center in Seattle, Washington and the state samples are sent 

to a FDA laboratory. At these labs, samples are tested for the complex mixture of 

components of cmde oil called hydrocarbons. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 

are of greatest concern because they are most likely to accumulate in seafood tissue and, 

in very high concentrations, may pose a health threat to people who eat seafood often 

over several years. In order for a sample to pass the chemical analysis, any chemicals 

detected by the laboratory must be below established "levels of concern," or exposure 

levels that may cause health problems. Scientists will test for 12 different polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons and the sample must be below the agreed upon threshold for all 

12 in order for it to pass. 

NOAA and the FDA have collected 5,658 specimens, and NOAA reports that all of its 

samples have been at least 100 to 1,000 times below the threshold "level of concern," so 

these samples are not just passing - they are passing with a huge margin of safety. As for 

the sensory tests, there were only seven hits out of all the fish inspected where a person 

thought they smelled oil or tasted oil, and every single seafood sample from reopened 

waters has passed the necessary screening done by FDA and NOAA. 
87 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 78129A.045

NOAA has the authority to close federal waters to fishing, and states have the authority to 

close waters within their jurisdiction. NOAA is closely monitoring the surface and 

subsurface movement of oil and has the ability to expand closed areas, as do states. We 

support state and federal regnlators acting to re-close areas should they find evidence that 

reopened zones have been in contact with previously undetected oil. 

The Gulf seafood community applauds the Administration for taking the lead on 

coordination of a comprehensive multi-government agency response effort and we 

appreciate the collaborative efforts of NOAA, FDA, EPA and the state authorities 

including the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH.) We are pleased that 

the state agencies are working closely with the federal government and we are thoroughly 

confident that every necessary step is being taken to ensure the continued safety of 

seafood sourced from the Gulf. 

Species found in the Gulf do not recognize federal Of state waters and pass freely from 

one to the other. That is why the testing being done by federal regulators is so important 

in concert with the testing being done by regional regulators like the Louisiana 

Department of Health and Hospitals. To date, Louisiana scientists have collected 

htmdreds of sample batches that represent thousands of individual fish and shellfish from 

Lake Pontchrutrain to Cameron Parish, even collecting samples already harvested at 

seafood wholesale and processing facilities. Like their federal brethrcn they too, time 

and again, find clean safe seafood. 

After thousands of tests, the public should not be concerned about the safety of Gulf 

seafood. We've all seen media reports raising qnestions abont the safety of Gulf seafood, 

which stand in contrast to all the federal and state testing we have seen. It is absolutely 

critical to the gulf seafood community that a consistent and precise message continues to 

be delivered or consumers may unnecessarily shy away from this healthy product. 

Throughout this crisis there has been a tremendous amount of finger pointing associated 

with the response. I am pleased to be able to report that, when it comes to food safety and 

public health, there are no fingers being pointed at federal aud state regulators. With 

refreshing speed and undeniable dedication, myriad branches of government have come 

together to protect consumers and help us protect our way of life. We are grateful for that 

and have confidence that as these agencies collaborate in their further investigation of 

dispersants they will apply the same perseverance. 

We have corresponded with PhD's, we have met with MD's, and we have spoken to 

scientists. We have educated ourselves and understand that the demonstrable risk from 

dispersants is negligible and we hope further studies will be able to help consumers 

understand this. 

I would again like to thank the Administration, the FDA, EPA, NOAA and local 

regulators for all they have done. And I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to 

address the importance of this issue. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 
88 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Voisin, very much, and we thank 

the members from the Louisiana delegation, Mr. Melancon and Mr. 

Scalise, for their work in helping to make sure that we keep BP 

accountable and the government accountable to ensure that the innocent victims of this continue to be protected. 

Our next witness is Dr. Lisa Suatoni. She is the Senior Scientist 

in the Oceans Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

She earned her PhD in ecology and environmental evolutionary biology from Yale University. We welcome you, Dr. Suatoni. 

STATEMENT OF LISA SUATONI 

Ms. SUATONI. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

Mr. Chairman, recent communications by the federal government 

on the oil spill have been optimistic. We are hearing that pieces of 

the puzzle are falling together, that the picture looks better than 

many of us had feared and that we have turned the corner. However, previous experience from other oil spills tells us that we are 

only at the beginning stages of this event from an ecological perspective, that the story is necessarily complex and many unanswered questions remain. 

In my testimony today, I will focus on three recent actions from 

the federal government that have raised concerns. First, the concerns, the tradeoffs associated with the use of dispersants. As we 

heard from Dr. Anastas today, the EPA conducted recent toxicological studies on the dispersants Corexit and we heard that 

Corexit had equal toxicity to other dispersants, that Corexit had 

much lower toxicity than the oil itself and that the Corexit-oil mixture had about equal toxicity to the oil, at least to two test species. 

However, with the release of these findings, the federal government 

concluded that the picture is becoming clearer, that the use of 

Corexit was an important tool in this response. Well, it may be 

tempting to conclude that use of dispersants was a wise decision 

in this oil spill, we think that conclusion is premature. As you already mentioned today, we think it is unwise to form that conclusion on the basis of two toxicological studies and observations in 

the field that Corexit is at exceedingly low concentrations. As you 

pointed out, you raised many important additional questions today 

and there are additional ones too. 

For example, what proportion of the oil that would otherwise 

have ended up on the coast didn’t because of the use of 

dispersants? Where is the chemically dispersed oil? Is it encountering vulnerable benthic ecosystems on the shallow shelf or in 

deep ocean canyons? Is the chemically dispersed oil more able to 

get into the food chain than the oil alone? Is it getting into the food 

chain? Is it possible for the dispersant to biomagnify in the food 

chain? These are all outstanding questions. It is clear that the use 

of chemical dispersants is a tradeoff but it is not at all clear that 

we understand what tradeoff we have made. 

On the remaining oil in the environment, we have already heard 

a critique from Dr. MacDonald about the federal oil budget, and 

NRDC agrees with him, the assertion that 75 percent of the oil is 

no longer in the environment is an overinterpretation of the data 

and misleading. Because of the uncertainty associated with the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

rate of biodegradation of the oil, we really don’t know how much 

oil remains in the environment. This needs to be directly measured. 

If you do a more direct interpretation of the federal oil budget, it 

reveals that 50 percent of the oil may remain in the environment. 

That is over 100 million gallons, or nine times the Exxon Valdez 

spill. That is a lot of oil. 

In addition, the federal oil budget appears to be a preliminary 

budget that was perhaps prematurely released. It was released before peer review. It was released without any discussion of the precision associated with those estimates. It is a partial tally of the 

hydrocarbons in the environment. Again, as we have heard today, 

it didn’t contain methane, which scientists believe comprised half 

of the total hydrocarbons that went into the environment. And it 

was a partial analysis of the fate of the oil. For example, it didn’t 

provide estimates of how much oil went into an oil slick or what 

proportion of the oil made it to the coast or what proportion of the 

oil is now on the sea floor. As presented, the federal oil budget was 

a partial snapshot of the oil in time. It doesn’t directly address 

where the oil was, where it is going and how long it will remain 

in the environment, and it of course didn’t address the ecological 

impacts. To fully understand the risk of the remaining oil or the 

impacts to the environment, this picture needs to be filled out and 

the oil budget needs to be refined. 

Relating to the safety of seafood, recent statements from the federal government made today in fact assure Americans that the 

open fishing grounds and the seafood in the market have no oil in 

them and present no health hazard whatsoever. Again, many important questions remain. My colleague, Dr. Gina Solomon, who is 

in the health program at NRDC, highlights three primary concerns 

that we have. 

First, much of the data in the contamination of the Gulf seafood 

are not publicly available so scientists cannot independently review 

the findings. NOAA has released data on fewer than 100 of the 

samples out of thousands that they say they have, and only on 

finfish, not on shrimp. Data from the State waters has not yet been 

released. Second, the seafood monitoring that is currently being 

done may not be adequate in terms of sample size and in terms of 

failure to monitor heavy metals, which you discussed today, and 

the dispersants. Third, assumptions using the FDA risk assessment fail to adequately account for exposure to polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons to vulnerable populations, mainly developing fetuses, 

young children, and subsistence fishing communities, and that is 

largely because of the assumptions you already raised about the 

weight of adult males. 

In conclusion, the Gulf oil disaster represents the largest oil spill 

in U.S. history. We understand that the government wants to turn 

the corner and wants to signal that the Gulf is on its way to recovery. However, the facts simply do not bear that out. This is still 

a huge amount of oil in the environment. No matter how you interpret the federal oil budget, everyone agrees with that. It does a disserve to the Gulf region and to the public at large to diminish the 

problem that this oil presents to the health of Americans and the 

ecosystems of the Gulf of Mexico. The government needs to take 

the time to do a careful study to assess the fate and the effects of 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

this spill and greater transparency is warranted. In the end, we believe that this follow-through is the only thing that will keep this 

catastrophe from being such a big disaster. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Suatoni follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 78129A.046

August 19, 2010 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Hearing on 

"The BP Oil Spill: Accounting for the Spilled Oil and Ensuring the Safety of Seafood from the Gulf' 

Testimony of lisa Suatoni, Senior Scientist, Oceans Program, Natural Resources Defense Council 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am a Senior Scientist with the Oceans Program at the 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). My testimony is presented on behalf ofNRDC, a 

national environmental organization with over a million members and online activists, dedicated 

to the protection ofthe earth - its people, plants and animals and the natural systems on which all 

life depends. 

Recently communications about the oil spill from the federal govemment have been optimistic. 

We are hearing that pieces of the puzzle are falling into place, that the picture looks better than 

many had feared, that we have "tumed the comer." 

However, previous research on oil spills tells us that we are at the beginning stages of this event, 

that the story is necessarily complex, that many crucial questions remain unanswered. 

In my testimony today, I will focus on three recent actions by the govemment that have raised 

conccm. 

Trade-off associated with dispersants 

The recent EPA laboratory studies on the toxicity of chemical dispersants found that the 

dispersant Corexit is less toxic than the oil released and that the dispersant/oil mixture has 

roughly the same toxicity as the oil itself. 
92 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 78129A.047

With the release of these findings the federal govemment concluded that "the picture is 

becoming clearer" that dispersants were an "important tool in this response:,j 

While it may be tempting to conclude that the usc of dispersants during this oil spill was a good 

idea, this conclusion is premature, It would be unwise to draw conclusions about the safety of 

this unprecedented application of chemical dispersants from two laboratory experiments and 

field observations that the dispersants are slIccessfully dispersing the oiL 

Many important questions remain: 

What estimated proportion of the oil that would otherwise likely end up on the coast was 

redirected to the open water? What organisms and ecosystems have been exposed to the 

chemically dispersed oil? Is the chemically dispersed oil encountering vulnerable benthic 

ecosystems by settling onto the shallow shelf or into deep ocean canyons" Is the chemically 

dispersed oil -- or arc the dispersants - getting into the food chain? ls there the potential for them 

to get into the food chain? What arc the public health implications of exposure to dispersants by 

the response workers? 

It is clear that the usc of chemical dispersants is a tradeoff but it's not at all clear that we fully 

nnderstand the tradeoff we made yet 

Oil Budget 

A few weeks ago, an oil budget by the National Incident Command was released under the 

banner that 75% of the oil has been "taken care of by mother nature."" Exact percentages of the 

oil had been removed, evaporated, or dispersed wcre presented, 

In actuality, nothing in the report suggests that 75% of the oil is gone, Given the lack of 

infonllation about the rate of biodegradation, it is not clear what traction of the oil remains in the 

1 Paul Anastas, Monday, August 2, 2010 in press conference on phase II EPA dispersant test results 

2 Carol Browner, Wednesday, August 4, 2010 in NBC's "Today Show." 
93 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 78129A.048

ocean. Dispersed oil is not the same as disappeared oil. A more direct interpretation of the 

federal government's analysis shows that up to 50% of the oil may remain in the environment. 

This is a lot of oil- over 100 million gallons - or the equivalent of nine Exxon Valdez spills. 

[n addition, the federal oil budget was a partial tally of the hydrocarhons released into the 

environment (it did not include methane, which can also cause ecological harm) and an 

incomplete assessment of the fate of the oiL 

Many important questions remain: 

What is the location and the tine of the methane (which appears to equal the amount of oil 

released into the environment)? Where did the dispersed oil go? What is the rate of 

biodegradation of the oil in the water'! What proportion of oil went to the coast or is on the 

bottom? 

The released oil budget represents a 'snapshot' of the oil, in a moment in time. It docs not 

directly address where the oil has heen, where it is going, and how long it will remain in the 

system (or, importantly, the ecological impacts throughout). To fully understand the risks of the 

remaining oil and the extent of the damage, we need this picture to be filled in and this oil bndget 

to be refined. 

Seafood Safety 

Recent statements by the federal government assure Americans that open fishing grollnds and 

seafood in markets arc free from oil and pose no risk to consumer safety. 

However, many important questions and concerns remain. These include: 

I. Much of the data on contamination in Gulf seafood arc not publicly available, so scientists 

cannot independently review the findings. NOAA has released data on less than 100 samples out 
94 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 78129A.049

of thousands that they say they have, and only on finfish, not shrimp. Data from state waters 

have not been released. 

2. The seafood monitoring that is currently being done may not be adequate, in terms of small 

sample sizes and the failure to monitor for toxic metals and dispersants. 

3. Assumptions used in the FDA risk assessment fail to adequately account for exposure of 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to vulnerable populations, such as the developing 

fetus, young children, and subsistence fishing communities. 

4. Due to lack of public transparency, questions remain about the scientific basis by which states 

are making decisions on reopening fishing area. For example, is subsurface oil (in the water or 

on the bottom) being taken into consideration? 

The Gulf oil disaster represents the largest oil spill in U.S. history. We understand that the 

government wants to tnrn a comer and signal that the Gulf is on the road to recovery. However, 

the facts simply do not bear this out. 

There is still a huge amount of oil still in the ecosystem. Even accepting the government's 

characterization that 75% is gone, then there would be as much as 50 million gallons in the 

system, almost 5 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill. If the dispersed oil is included in that 

remaining fraction, the amount is potentially 100 million gallons. 

It does a disservice to the Gulfregion and to the public at large to minimize the problem that this 

amount of oil can cause. Recent research results suggest that there is reason to be concerned and 

that subsurface oil is doing harm. 

The government needs to take the time to do careful shldy and assessment of the fate and effects 

of the spill on humans and wildlife before drawing broad conclusions. And, greater transparency 

is warranted. In the end, it's the follow-through that will make this catastrophe less of a disaster. 
95 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Doctor, very much. 

Now we will turn to questions from the committee, and I will 

begin with you, Dr. MacDonald. 

I think that there is a lot of concern about how far the oil and 

methane from the spill has spread in the Gulf, how long it will remain and what harm it could cause. I know that these questions 

are areas of active research for you and for the broader academic 

community. Can you give us a brief overview of what academic scientists are finding in that regard? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Well, this week and today in fact we have seen 

the release of a number of careful studies, one by the University 

of South Florida reporting on results from a recent research cruise 

with the research ship Weather Bird, a careful study of the oil 

budget by a scientist at the University of Georgia in Athens, and 

today the release of a major paper published in Science by Richard 

Camilli and colleagues. These reports collectively show different aspects of the spread of the oil and its related compounds that raise 

major concerns. The Camilli report documents the—and this is the 

best science that I have seen yet out of this process. The Camilli 

report documents the spread of compounds called BTEX, and these 

are the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and the ones of greatest 

concerns, these are benzenes, xylene, toluene and so forth. These 

are the most toxic components of the oil, and they track a very 

large plume of this material spreading to the south and the southwest of the spill. 

Now, I will note that in that report, they document that some 6 

to 7 percent—I believe those numbers are correct—of the BTEX released from the well, the total discharge was included in that 

plume. This plume is at 1,100 meters. If that BTEX is a tracer on 

the total amount of oil released and entrained into these deepwater 

layers, that suggests that we don’t know very well what happened 

to the balance, and in fact, the upper layers of the ocean including 

the surface of the ocean may have received a bigger dose of oil than 

we are presently worried about. 

We do know from my work and other work that has been done 

that the oil spread over an area of many thousands of square kilometers, and as it degraded, as it emulsified and sank, it rained 

down particles of oil, and this oil became more concentrated as it 

reached the coast so we now have a very widespread amount of oil 

that is scattered in layers, and this is what the findings from the 

Weather Bird documented. They took core samples going towards 

Panama City and they found oil on the bottom everywhere. Now, 

just sampling with a core, that suggests that either you are very 

unlucky or there is a lot of oil on the bottom, and the Georgia study 

confirmed many of the points that have been made in this hearing. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Great. Thank you. 

While this hearing was ongoing, the Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institute released a study, and it is a snapshot from the middle of 

June, and what they found was a plume of oil from the well at 

least 22 miles long, 1.2 miles wide and 650 feet high at a depth 

of 3,000 feet below the surface in the Gulf, and contrary to government oil budget report that said dispersed oil is biodegrading 

quickly, Woods Hole scientists found that microbes are degrading 

the plume relatively slowly, in the words of Woods Hole. That 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

means that the oil is persisting for longer periods than expected. 

They don’t know how toxic it is or if it poses a threat, and unlike 

some other researchers, they did not find areas of severe oxygen 

depletion, that is dead zones. They explained this discrepancy because of their use of an older lab-based technique rather than the 

use of modern sensors which can give oxygen readings that are too 

low when the sensors are coated with oil. So I just wanted to put 

that on the record. 

Mr. Cooper, how many years have you been shrimping? 

Mr. COOPER. Thirty-five years myself. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, have you been out shrimping recently? 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir, on the 16th of August it opened up and I 

went that day. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, did you see anything different or unusual in 

terms of the waters or the shrimp? 

Mr. COOPER. Not in the area I went, which we didn’t have a 

whole lot of concentration of oil come in, it was a clean area, so no, 

at that point I didn’t. I just didn’t have enough shrimp. It wasn’t 

there. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Suatoni, would you like to comment on that in 

terms of the long-term impact? 

Ms. SUATONI. Well, we are concerned primarily with regard to 

the shrimp and the presence of the subsurface oil, and that, as Mr. 

Cooper said, oil is present in open grounds and that there may be 

more exposure. The marine invertebrates do not process polycystic 

aromatic hydrocarbons as quickly as food fish so we think there 

needs to be special care taken with the sampling of invertebrates. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. MacDonald, would you like to comment? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Well, I think that the survival of the Gulf seafood industry requires the survival of seafood, and we have to be 

concerned. I mean, this is anecdotal. This is one fishing trip and 

I am sure you have gone out before, Mr. Cooper, and not caught 

as many fish as you wanted to. 

Mr. COOPER. Correct. 

Mr. MACDONALD. So this one event doesn’t tell us the whole 

story. But the fishermen, however healthy the seafood is, if they 

can’t catch it because there has been a lot of some year classes, 

then all of the protection and the vigilance of the FDA is not going 

to sustain the Gulf seafood industry because it won’t be there. So 

that is my concern. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Cooper, are you going to go out shrimping 

again soon? 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. What is your plan right now? 

Mr. COOPER. When I get back home, I will be back in the water. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Great. Now, Mr. Cooper, are you convinced 

that there is no oil in the areas open to shrimping? 

Mr. COOPER. Like I told you earlier, one spot where I did find 

the oil was, they say a 5-mile bumper zone. It wasn’t 5 miles that 

one of the bays I did find oil in. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, in your opinion, is there any way that NOAA 

or the FDA can be sure that there is no oil in the water where 

shrimping is taking place? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

Mr. COOPER. I found it the last day when I was working with BP 

over 2 months in the same area, and it just so happened, one of 

my last days that I worked, we found it. I called the Coast Guard 

and BP and had them come out there and I had to bring it to their 

attention. The Coast Guard wouldn’t come. Finally, I caught one 

that was in the bay and brought him over there and showed him, 

so I went to a town hall meeting and I brought it before them and 

invited them all to come see what I found, and they did come, the 

commander of the Coast Guard and BP came with me and I did 

show them in this bay, disturb the bottom and the oil comes to the 

top, and they say it is unrecoverable oil but still yet this opened 

this bay up for trawling. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, Mr. Blanchard, some have suggested that 

people raising concerns about the quality of seafood simply want to 

continue to collect checks from BP. Can you deal with that issue 

for us just so we can understand what is going on down in the Gulf 

in terms of the relationship between this program to pay the fishermen who need to be paid and again an incentive to get back out 

there as soon as you can, everything is OK. So how should we be 

viewing this tension? 

Mr. BLANCHARD. Well, I told BP from the very beginning that 

they was going about it the wrong way. What we asked them to 

do was to help the fishermen and give them an incentive to go back 

fishing. If they would have left the fishermen fish, even though 

they had to go further away from their home, even though they 

would have to go to different fishing grounds, well, pay them for 

that. Give them an incentive to go out. Then it would have kept 

the market going, you know. But BP took the approach that they 

were going to do a PR program and put all the shrimpers to work 

for them, but in my opinion, BP never tried to pick up the oil. They 

have never tried to pick up the oil. I have talked to hundreds of 

boats that said they found oil, contacted BP and BP told them not 

to try to pick it up and go the other way, and this has been going 

on for a hundred and some days. I have lived through this. 

Mr. MARKEY. Why do you think that is the attitude of BP? 

Mr. BLANCHARD. It was cheaper to sink it. Out of sight, out of 

mind and out of here. That is the approach BP took, you know. 

But as far as going back to seafood testing, all the seafood right 

now is probably being tested more than any other product in the 

world, you know. I don’t believe beef or pork or any seafood in the 

world—we get seafood from foreign countries that personally 

wouldn’t eat. It’s probably being grown in a sewer, and the FDA 

checks 1 to 2 percent out of it, and out of the 1 to 2 percent they 

check, 40 percent to 60 percent is no good, it is rejected. So, you 

know, that is one thing I wanted to bring up. All the seafood right 

now is being tested probably more than any product in the world, 

so hopefully they are doing their job and they are doing it right. 

What I would like to see is for one time before I die is somebody 

that works for the government be held accountable for something. 

Whoever is testing it, whatever agency is testing it, they ought to 

come out and give us a paper and say we guarantee this product 

is good, and if something goes wrong, they will be held accountable, 

not us. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, you know that is why we are having this 

hearing. You know that is what is happening here today. We are 

sending a very strong signal to those who are responsible that—— 

Mr. BLANCHARD. Well, that is what I would like to see. 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. They are representing to the American 

people that this is safe. 

Mr. BLANCHARD. I think if they would be held accountable, people would have more trust in the government agencies. But, you 

know, there are certain government agencies that are responsible 

for this oil spill when nobody is being held accountable. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, you know, we are going along beginning with 

the Minerals Management Service—— 

Mr. BLANCHARD. That is what I would start with. 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. And there are a lot of people there who 

are going to be made accountable, and we are going to move 

through this entire process. We are not going away. We are going 

to make sure that all of the lessons that can be extracted from 

what happened are learned and implemented in order to protect 

the public. 

Mr. Cooper, in your testimony, you indicated that BP required 

you to wear a hazmat suit when you went out into the waters. How 

long ago was that? 

Mr. COOPER. Oh, 2 weeks ago. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now you are being told to head back out into the 

same waters without any additional protection. Is that correct? 

Mr. COOPER. And that is very troubling, yes, it is. 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you think that you are being asked to work in 

an unsafe environment? 

Mr. COOPER. Not necessarily. Some of the areas, they didn’t have 

the oil, so I don’t see in those areas that it is unsafe, but in some 

of the areas, yes, it is unsafe. If they are going to make us wear 

hazmat suits and tape up and take hazmat training, how can you 

send fishermen back out again? But some of the areas, yes, the oil 

never came, no, it is not there. Some of these guys had to take 

these jobs instead of fishing, and I know there is a big controversy 

in Louisiana right now. A bunch of people wants the fishermen to 

go back to work. We only have limited areas to fish. They want to 

put them back into the waters and make them go to work but then 

they are paying us lower prices, with high fuel prices. The price is 

not there. We don’t have the area to work. So these guys have to 

do it. But the opening and closing of the seasons with wildlife and 

fisheries, they pretty much had to do what they had to do, and if 

it means going out there and working for BP to make a living, well, 

so be it. That is what they had to do. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, in your testimony, you indicated a smaller 

than normal size catch this week. Have you noticed any other 

changes to the shrimp or to the fish, the color, the size, the spots, 

the smells? 

Mr. COOPER. Not in this area, no, sir. This area was a clean area. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Voisin, would you like to inject your thoughts at this point? 

Mr. VOISIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that 

there are two small areas in south Louisiana that have been oiled, 

and that is the Barataria system where Mr. Cooper actually harVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:36 Apr 03, 2013 Jkt 078129 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A129.XXX A129

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

vests and Mr. Blanchard has his dock, and then out at the mouth 

of the river, Pasalutra. We have 7,500 miles of shoreline in south 

Louisiana if you go in and out every bayou and every bay and lake. 

Only about 400 miles of those were oiled. It happens to significantly be where Mr. Blanchard and Mr. Cooper are located. Seafood from throughout Louisiana is safe. It is wholesome. And while 

there can be questions raised—— 

Mr. MARKEY. You are saying that the seafood which is being sold 

is safe but there are many areas where if it was caught and sold 

it would not be safe. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. VOISIN. No, the seafood—— 

Mr. MARKEY. You are saying all seafood caught anywhere off of 

the coastline of Louisiana is now safe? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. VOISIN. All the seafood caught off the coastline of Louisiana 

is now safe and that is put into the commercial market. Yes, sir. 

Eighty-seven percent of our State is currently open to the harvest 

of seafood. That occurred last week as a result of the intensive testing and protocols. And I know we have talked a lot about protocols 

today and about the dispersant testing and oil testing. Looking at 

the risk assessment based on the protocol, Mr. Chairman, I took a 

look at it, and in terms of oysters, oysters are consumed at about 

a quarter a pound per capita consumption. In the risk assessment, 

they used a number between 9 and 10 pounds per capita consumption on an annual basis, and they figured that exposure at 5 years, 

so they are exceeding the per capita consumption by 40 times and 

they exposure by 5 years, and they are looking at the risk of illness 

at one in 10,000, which is traditionally looked at as one in either 

100,000 or one in a million, so that is being magnified significantly, 

and we are meeting by 100 to 1,000 fold all of the criteria in the 

reopening protocols. 

Mr. MARKEY. So I just wanted to again clarify. You are not represented that in the areas, the federal waters that are now closed, 

that it is safe to eat the fish that is caught in those areas. You are 

not saying that? 

Mr. VOISIN. I did not say that, sir. In the open waters where fish 

are being harvested and commercially sold, I would feed it to my 

kids, my wife, and we do eat it often, yes, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. But in those other areas, you would not feed that 

fish to your family, in the waters are now closed? 

Mr. VOISIN. In the waters that are closed, we can’t. I mean, we 

can’t harvest from those—— 

Mr. MARKEY. That is what I am saying. 

Mr. VOISIN. So the bottom line is, that as they do the reopening 

and go through the protocol, absolutely I would feed that to my 

family. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me get back to you, Mr. Cooper. Can you give 

us a comment? And then you, Mr. Blanchard. 

Mr. COOPER. Would I eat the shrimp? We have been eating them. 

I have been eating them. Not in the areas that are closed, no, I 

haven’t eaten them, but the ones I caught, I did eat. I will eat 

them. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Blanchard. 

Mr. BLANCHARD. I definitely eat them. I don’t think there is any 

difference on what is open and what is closed. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Great. Thank you. 

Dr. MacDonald, could you comment here, and divide the question 

here first in terms of what you believe is safe and what is not safe 

and how the American people should be viewing this. 

Mr. MACDONALD. Well, I would certainly eat them too, and perhaps I can have the occasion sometime. I will say that my concern 

remains the productivity, not the safety. I think that we have to 

have a productive Gulf, and the 350-mile statistic is heartening, 

that it could have been worse. But as you move offshore, you get 

a lot of areas that have got oil on the bottom, you know, further 

out, and as you go to the east, we see a lot of oil off Mississippi, 

Alabama and Florida, my State. In those areas when people go offshore and take samples, they are finding this buried oil and they 

are finding this buried oil in the beaches and they are finding this 

oil in the marshes, and that 350 miles did get a lot, and the edges 

of these marshes where the marsh grasses were oiled, my concern 

is that, you know, if it dies back 10 percent or 5 percent, that opens 

up, that dilates these channels. It makes them wider. That means 

the flow of water through is greater. That means the loss of wetland is greater. We have a tremendous amount of work to do to restore the Gulf of Mexico. We had a lot to do before all this and now 

we have a whole bunch more. 

So my concern is the ecosystem and the productivity. I believe in 

the fishermen and the FDA and protecting our safety. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Suatoni, you have heard the comments on this 

question. Can you add yours as well? 

Ms. SUATONI. I would like to emphasize, build on what Dr. MacDonald said, but emphasize that long-term monitoring is imperative. What we learned from the Exxon Valdez spill was that oil 

that gets into the coast and into low-oxygen zone stays toxic in its 

kind of full toxic form for decades, and any time it gets disturbed 

or it rains, it can seep into the environment, and these near-coastal 

fisheries, I think it is important that they continue to monitor for 

the exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metals over 

the long term. 

Mr. MARKEY. Can I ask this, Dr. Suatoni? Was there anything 

that was of concern to you that you heard on the opening panel 

from the government officials? What is it that stuck out that you 

think needs more attention? 

Ms. SUATONI. A few things stuck out. One was that they are only 

now developing tests to examine whether or not dispersants bioaccumulate. That seems to be something that we should have 

known since dispersants are a common tool in oil spill response. 

Another thing that you know we are concerned about is that the 

risk assessment used by the FDA is not adequately conservative for 

specific vulnerable populations. It was reassuring to hear that they 

are open to reconsidering that margin of safety. And I would say 

with regards to seafood, those were the two primary concerns. 

Mr. MARKEY. Was there anything of concern, Mr. Voisin, that 

you heard in the opening testimony that you would like us to continue to focus on? 

Mr. VOISIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would say that I 

stated earlier in response to Dr. Suatoni that I feel that the risk 

assessment that deals with the protocol for reopening basically are 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

much more conservative than there should be any concern related 

to. I think they have gone way beyond what would be conservative 

to the nth degree, and I described that a moment ago in my answer 

to you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Even though you heard concerns about heavy metals and other issues, that is not of concern to you? 

Mr. VOISIN. Having spent countless hours talking to PhDs as 

well as doctors relating to this and the metabolization of all of 

these things through finfish and shellfish, I personally think that 

there is no concern relating to those, although there is a concern 

and we should be concerned—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Even though there have never been any studies on 

this subject, you still have no concern? 

Mr. VOISIN. I personally do not, no, sir, given the—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you have concerns, Mr. MacDonald? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Regarding the government report? 

Mr. MARKEY. About any aspect of this including the testing for 

heavy metals and the other issues that seem to still be unresolved. 

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes. My concern is for the coastal and marine 

ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico. I am concerned that I have not 

yet heard from NOAA their plan for monitoring the continued 

health of this ecosystem and I think that when we look at the oil 

spill budget, it is unmistakable that an enormous dose of oil was 

given and really putting it simply, Mother Nature is being made 

to clean up our big mess, and I think Mother Nature suffers for it. 

I think that we need to endow a permanent fund for the restoration, the understanding and the sustenance of the Gulf of Mexico 

coastal and marine ecosystem in perpetuity, and I don’t hear that 

coming from NOAA and I would like to hear that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. 

Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Voisin, everyone wants the Gulf 

seafood industry to rebound from the BP disaster. Your industry 

did not cause this mess. Your industry, your business and livelihoods were harmed by the spill. What would each of you ask the 

federal government to do to help establish the safety of Gulf seafood and to help reassure the consuming public about the safety of 

Gulf seafood? You heard the questions that I posed to the government panel that appeared here earlier about the need for additional tests to be done to help address some of the issues that have 

not yet been definitely addressed such as the metabolites of the oil, 

the effect of dispersants, heavy metals and long-term impacts that 

this disaster could have on the quality and productivity of seafood 

in the Gulf. Do you agree that those should be priorities and what 

other issues would you like the government to address? 

Mr. BLANCHARD. Well, what I didn’t like what I heard about the 

government, it looked like they were just checking the open places. 

If it would be me, I would go to the worst place and check that first 

and then see what I am looking at, you know. It looked like every 

time you listened to the government, they would say we just 

checked the open places. Well, why don’t we check the closed place 

and see why it is closed, you know? Nobody seems to be checking 

that. And, you know, we have been severely harmed by this. I call 

them bad people, BP. You know, since this happened in this 100- 

some days, I got my secretary to look at the bills we paid. We paid 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

$488,000 in bills, and I received $165,000 in payments from BP, 

and, you know, it reminds me, I heard the President said that he 

wasn’t going to let our cash flow be interrupted, but if I don’t have 

$323,000 to pay my bills, I am out of business. You know, why is 

nobody holding BP accountable to come in and make it right what 

they have done to us? 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I will tell you one thing. This committee 

wants to work with you, Mr. Blanchard. We want to make sure 

that BP stands for ‘‘bills paid.’’ 

Mr. BLANCHARD. Yes, that sounds better. 

Mr. MARKEY. And that includes your bills. So let us work together on that and make sure your bills are paid but other people’s 

bills as well. Thank you. 

Mr. BLANCHARD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Cooper? 

Mr. COOPER. Just to make sure they keep long-term testing and 

they just don’t forget about it, and one other issue as far as what 

is going on in the Gulf now with the Vessel of Opportunity. They 

are trying to take the money that we made working with BP off 

our claims, and that is not fair for the fishermen that went out 

there and did the job. We were cleaning their mess, and now they 

are going to hold us, our claims towards that money, and that is 

not fair for what we just did. We went out there. We put our lives 

on the line. We cleaned their mess up and now they are going to 

take it against our claims, and that is totally wrong. For BP to 

even think about doing something like this is uncalled for because 

we did a job and we expect to get paid for the job that we did. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Voisin. 

Mr. VOISIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that long-term 

testing is critical to the Gulf and the survival of the Gulf. I believe 

that the State of Louisiana—I know that the State of Louisiana 

has requested $457 million from BP for a 20-year testing program. 

We have not approved it yet but it is needed to continue to monitor 

the health of our species, the viability of its reproductive cycles. 

But more importantly, one of our great challenges is the brand 

of the Gulf of Mexico. The brand of Gulf seafood has taken the 

greatest hit in the history of my seven generations of family that 

have plied the waters of south Louisiana. People need to understand there may be questions but there are no questions about 

what is in the market today, that there may be questions about 

fishing areas that are closed, and we should ask those questions, 

but that product that is in the market today is wholesome and safe 

based on tremendously conservative science and we need to convince those American people. Customers at restaurants are now instead of ordering oysters on the half shell, very close to my heart, 

shrimp cocktails, they are saying instead of having that as an appetizer, I will have chicken wings, and instead of having that 

grouper as my main course, I will have a steak. We need to overcome that. A hundred-plus days of oil gushing in the bottom righthand corner of the TV screen has branded us as something other 

than we are. We have a challenge. We will meet that challenge. 

However, the challenge is in a very small part of the whole Gulf 

of Mexico. We need to look at the whole. It is 200 million gallons 

of oil that has escaped from this situation. We need to deal with 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
103 

it. We are blessed in the Gulf of Mexico with having the microbes 

that will eat oil. That was not the case in relationship to the 

Valdez incident where they don’t have the warm water. We are 

cursed with that warm water and that warm water as well. 

Mr. MARKEY. Would you like to see more testing in the areas 

that have the heaviest concentration of oil right now? Would you 

like to see that implemented now so that we will have that information in the long term going forward, Mr. Voisin? 

Mr. VOISIN. I think it is happening, Representative Markey. I believe that that is happening. Could more—more is better. I think 

NOAA—— 

Mr. MARKEY. We heard on the opening panel that there was no 

intensive program to do that right now. You would like to see that 

kind of intensive program right now? 

Mr. VOISIN. I would support that, and I have been on conference 

calls with NOAA where they have reported they are doing testing 

in the closed areas. I have been on conference calls with the FDA 

as well. Now, that is what they have indicated on those conference 

calls, that they have done testing of seafood products in those 

areas. They have done oil plume testing and they have indicated 

that they are continuing to do that. Today, I forget the guy from 

NOAA—— 

Mr. MARKEY. So you want them right now to be testing the fish 

inside of the closed areas? You want that to happen? 

Mr. VOISIN. I believe, Mr. Markey, they are. Yes, I do want it. 

Mr. MARKEY. But if they are not doing it right now, you believe 

it is important for them to test the fish inside of the most oiled 

areas right now? 

Mr. VOISIN. Absolutely, yes, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. Absolutely? 

Mr. VOISIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Great. That helps us a lot. 

So let us do this. Why don’t we ask each one of you to give us 

your closing thoughts in reverse order of the opening statements so 

that we have a sense of what it is that you want us to retain, to 

focus on, as we are going forward in the Congressional oversight 

of this greatest of all environmental calamities. So we will begin 

with you, Dr. Suatoni. 

Ms. SUATONI. Thank you. NRDC is concerned with the recent 

tone of the communications and analyses coming out of the federal 

government. There is a desire to rush to judgment, to turn the corner and accelerate the analysis of the impacts the oil has had on 

the ecosystem, and it is of great concern. According to the Oil Pollution Act, the federal government is required to fully and fairly assess the impacts of the oil spill, and we hope that they take the 

time and do the necessary comprehensive study that is required to 

get that done. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Voisin. 

Mr. VOISIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Gulf of Mexico 

States, the State of Louisiana that I live in, have been challenged 

in the last 5 years by five major events, this spill being the most 

recent significant event. We will be scarred but we will not be broken as a result of this. The seafood community is a viable commuVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:36 Apr 03, 2013 Jkt 078129 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A129.XXX A129

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

nity. My family left France under exile orders in the 1770s, went 

to Canada and was kicked out of Canada. So far we have not been 

kicked out of Louisiana and hopefully that won’t occur. We will be 

resilient. 

You know, people aren’t really interested necessarily in the 

rough seas that you have but whether or not you bring the ship 

in, and we are going to be about, and I hope the federal government continues its effort and doubles if appropriate and needed to 

bring that ship in and that is safe seafood of clean and healthy 

Gulf Coast. We will have scars from this just like I do from different accidents and challenges in my life but I am viable. The Gulf 

is a viable place to live. The seafood is wholesome and safe. It is 

harvested from the Gulf of Mexico and we want Americans to know 

that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Voisin. 

Mr. Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. Long-term testing on the oil, testing on the Corexit 

and also testing on our harvest and whether it is has been depleted 

or not, a stock assessment to see what is happening to our fisheries 

because the last season that just opened, it really opened your eyes 

and said what is going to happen, so that is some of the things that 

we would like to see, testing on the Corexit for sure, no doubt, and 

the oil for long term. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Blanchard. 

Mr. BLANCHARD. Yes. Thank you. Well, basically for 28 years of 

my life I have had a product that has always been known as the 

best because it was the best, and I would just like the perception 

of the American public to know it is the best again, you know. You 

know, in our business, we don’t work 9 to 5, we work 5 to 9, you 

know. We work 7 days a week. It is my life. I guess I will say it 

like Tony Hayward: I pretty much want my life back. You know, 

I want my life back. They took everything that I worked for all 

these years and one company doesn’t know what they are doing or 

cut too many corners and put me out of business, I mean, just ruined my whole life, and nobody is being held responsible but me, 

and I didn’t do anything wrong. I mean, I am just so confused. I 

go to work like I always do. I walk around in circles, don’t know 

what to do. I mean, until it happens to you, you know, until you 

live through what we are living through, you know, it just—I don’t 

know what is going to happen, you know. Every night I go to sleep, 

I can’t sleep. I lay down in my bed. I know how many squares I 

got on the ceiling, you know. 

You know, I just hope that the government makes BP clean everything up and everything returns back to normal and the American public has confidence that the seafood that we are going to 

buy, we are not going to sell them anything I wouldn’t eat myself, 

and the last thing we want to do is get anybody sick and we will 

do the best that we can and make sure everything is all right. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Blanchard. 

And to you and Mr. Cooper, we thank you for coming here today. 

We know that you are individuals who have a tremendous amount 

at stake here, and just so you know, if at any point tomorrow, next 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

week, next month, that you can just dial our number here on the 

committee to help you personally with your own family situations 

as you are going forward, and we will give you the number to call 

as soon as this hearing is done just so that you know that there 

is someone who will be behind you. 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARKEY. It takes a lot of courage for you guys to be here 

today and we appreciate that. 

Dr. MacDonald. 

Mr. MACDONALD. BP is going to have to pay a fine, Mr. Chairman, a big fine, and my concern is that that fine will be dedicated 

to restoring the Gulf of Mexico, not disappear into a treasury somewhere, and I hope that the houses of Congress can work together 

and the parties can work together to guarantee that the money 

that is paid here goes into permanent restoration projects. I am 

talking about restoring marshes. I am talking about marine protected areas where they are needed. I am talking about better enforcement of coastal runoff. Those are all things that have to happen to make our Gulf whole again. That is what we all want. If 

you all will do that, you will have massive support from the people 

of the Gulf of Mexico. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. MacDonald, very much. And I 

would also like to add, Dr. MacDonald, that the House of Representatives just 3 weeks ago did adopt one of your recommendations to the oil spill response bill that we passed on the House 

Floor to create a new trust fund for oceans so that funds raised 

from drilling in our oceans will also go towards protecting and improving our oceans. The Senate has said that they will take up the 

legislation when they return in September. That is always problematic, dealing with the Senate, but we did in the House of Representatives take your recommendation and implement it, and 

hopefully the same will be true in the Senate so that it can go to 

President Obama’s desk. 

What we have learned today is that the oil is not gone. The oil 

remaining in the Gulf waters or washed up on the floor is equivalent to 10 Exxon Valdez-size spills and could be much more. Most 

of the Gulf has been reopened to fishing but the industry is not in 

the clear. Long-term impacts on stocks remain unknown. If one 

contaminated catch makes it to market and makes people sick, 

then the reputation and the credibility of one of America’s most important fisheries will be in jeopardy. 

So we must engage this issue with continued caution and vigilance is necessary. We have seen some premature celebration. Dispersed oil is not the same as oil which has disappeared. Data, formulas, algorithms need to be made public so that independent scientists can verify the conclusions that are now shaping the debate 

on what to do now. We need to test the fishing stocks in the closed 

fishing areas now so that we understand what is going on now. 

That will help us in the future to protect the fishermen, to protect 

the consumers of fish in our country, but we must spend the money 

now so that in the future there are no questions that are 

unexamined, that we ensure that the compensation is given to 

those who will need it for as long as possible until we make everything as safe as is possible. All of that is in my opinion going to 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
106 

be something that this committee and the American people will 

need to be vigilant to ensure is put in place so that the people in 

the Gulf of Mexico at the end of the day are made completely 

whole. 

BP in my opinion will try to walk away as fast as they can. BP 

lowballed the size of the spill in the first week saying it was 1,000 

barrels. Then they said it was 5,000 barrels. They knew in the first 

week that it was a huge spill. It turns out to be between 53,000 

and 63,000 barrels per day. That is not 1,000 barrels. That challenged the level of response in those first weeks, in those first 

months because of the misleading information. People were less 

vigilant than they would have been. The response was less intense 

than it would have been if we understood the magnitude. We must 

continue that level of vigilance. We must assume that we need to 

use all of our resources to understand what is going on right now 

so that in the future there can be the proper protections which are 

put in place and that the proper compensation is given to all of 

those whose lives have been adversely affected by what has happened. 

So while BP might be spending tens of millions of dollars on 

their television commercials saying that they are on the job, even 

today we identified many questions which have yet to be answered 

in a satisfactory fashion and we need to make sure that they are 

for the long-term wellbeing of the residents of the Gulf. 

We thank you all for being here today and we hope to be able 

to stay in close contact with you. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING