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

73–969 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 111–1123 

HARNESSING SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION: 

NAVIGATING THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR 

GULF COAST OIL CLEANUP PROPOSALS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND 

ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 17, 2010 

Printed for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chair 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking Member 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KAY HAGAN, North Carolina 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

DONALD R. CRAVINS, JR., Democratic Staff Director 

WALLACE K. HSUEH, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page 

Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., Chair, and a U.S. Senator from Louisiana .................. 1 

Snowe, Hon. Olympia J., Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from Maine .... 6 

Vitter, Hon. David, a U.S. Senator from Louisiana .............................................. 8 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, a U.S. Senator from New Hampshire ............................ 8 

WITNESSES

Ra ́bago, Rear Admiral Ronald, Assistant Commandant For Acquisition & 

Chief Acquisition Officer, Acquisition Directorate, U.S. Coast Guard ............ 11 

Anastas, Paul, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ............................................... 18 

Smith, Eric N., Associate Director, Tulane Energy Institute, Tulane University ......................................................................................................................... 38 

Koons, Dan, C.I.Agent Solutions, Accompanied By Dan Parker, Found and 

Chief Executive Officer, C.I.Agent Solutions ..................................................... 45 

Baird, Heather E., Vice President, Corporate Communications, Microsorb Environmental Products, Inc. .................................................................................. 95 

Mitchelmore, Carys L., Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Maryland 

Center for Environmental Science ...................................................................... 100 

Costner, Kevin, Founder, Costner Industries (CINC), and Co-Founder/Partner, Ocean Therapy Solutions, Westpac Resources ........................................... 122 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Anastas, Paul, Ph.D. 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Responses to post-hearing questions from Members ..................................... 167 

Baird, Heather E. 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 95 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98 

Response to post-hearing questions from Members ....................................... 173 

Costner, Kevin 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 122 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 125 

Response to post-hearing questions from Members ....................................... 192 

de Cre ́cy, Eudes 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 201 

Diamond, Charles M. 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 210 

Green Blue Environmental 

Fact sheets ........................................................................................................ 229 

Remediation Strategy, Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill ................................... 234 

Koons, Dan 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Response to post-hearing questions from Members ....................................... 180 

Landrieu, Hon. Mary L. 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Two-page document .......................................................................................... 4 

Mitchell, Chip 

Letter ................................................................................................................. 218 

Page

IV 

Mitchelmore, Carys L. 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 100 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 102 

Pryor Hon. Mark L. 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 197 

Ra ́bago, Rear Admiral Ronald 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Response to post-hearing questions from Members ....................................... 146 

Smith, Eric N. 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Snowe, Hon. Olympia J. 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 6 

EPA document .................................................................................................. 142 

Vitter, Hon. David 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 8 

Wicker, Hon. Roger 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 198 

(1) 

HARNESSING SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION: 

NAVIGATING THE EVALUATION PROCESS 

FOR GULF COAST OIL CLEANUP PROPOSALS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

SD–G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu 

(chair of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Landrieu, Levin, Pryor, Cardin, Shaheen, 

Hagan, Snowe, and Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, 

CHAIR, AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Chair LANDRIEU. I would like to call the hearing to order this 

morning, and I want to thank the members who are here and those 

that have indicated that they will be coming. This is of great interest to our Committee. 

I want to begin by saying that the hearing is entitled ‘‘Harnessing Small Business Innovation: Navigating the Evaluation 

Process for the Gulf Coast Oil Cleanup Proposals.’’ As the title indicates, we are here today to examine the process for evaluating 

cleanup proposals from the devastating national disaster which 

began on April 20th, which continues, unfortunately, until this day, 

and which will go on, even more unfortunately, for many months, 

if not years ahead in the Gulf of Mexico. 

There are a number of very important issues the Deepwater Horizon disaster has triggered at this hearing. This is the second 

hearing this Committee has conducted on this topic, and we will be 

hosting and sponsoring more in the days, weeks and months ahead. 

On May 27th, this Committee held a hearing to investigate the 

claims process. How is that working or not working for small businesses directly and indirectly affected by this disaster? To those 

small businesses, I will say, as I have been saying for weeks here 

in Washington and at home along the Gulf, if your business made 

$50,000 last year, or you or your business, and you did not make 

any money this year, BP is going to write you a check for $50,000. 

If you made $1 million last year in your business and you cannot 

make money this year or next year, BP is going to write you a $2 

2 

million check. This Committee is going to do its part to make sure 

that that claims process works. 

Now we are turning our attention to another important issue affecting small business. As I have said before, in Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, our business owners were up to their chins in 

water. Now because of this disaster, these same business owners 

find themselves up to their knees in oil. We want to find out how 

small businesses right there on the Gulf Coast and around the nation, with technology and innovation that can help clean up this oil, 

keep it off of our beaches and out of our marshes. How can we get 

these ideas, these new technologies and these new innovations deployed to the Gulf of Mexico? 

Today’s hearing will cover the Federal evaluation process for 

technologies which can assist in cleaning up the oil. It is my hope 

that together we can find ways to improve the overall process and 

better understand how many businesses that have reached out to 

help the Gulf Coast region can play a role in the cleanup as we 

move forward. 

To accomplish that end, we have two panels before us. I will introduce them in a minute. Our first panel includes Federal officials 

who are playing a key role in reviewing and awarding contracts to 

businesses with cleanup proposals: Rear Admiral Ronald Ra ́bago 

with the United States Coast Guard and Dr. Paul Anastas with the 

Environmental Protection Agency. We hope you will be able to let 

small businesses here in the audience and listening to these proceedings through radio, television and the Internet understand a 

little bit better how they might make their proposals known to you. 

Since we know there is always room for improvement, we hope you 

will be able to tell us what has been working, what is not working, 

and what we can do together to streamline this process. 

For our second panel, I would like to welcome some of our own 

small business owners and university officials that are on the front 

line. Some of them have had some limited success in contacting BP 

and the Coast Guard. Still others are trying to navigate what they 

think is a too confusing process, and we want to hear from them. 

As Chairman of this Committee, with the help of my Ranking 

Member—and able help, I might say, we have tried to make this 

a place where the voices of small business can be heard across 

sometimes the roar of partisanship and sometimes the roar of big 

business. We want small business to have a voice here in Washington, and that is what this hearing is about. 

Our goal is not to spotlight one technology over another or to pretend that there is a silver bullet that will immediately reverse 

what is happening. The most recent data from the Flow Rate Technical Group estimates as much as 60,000 barrels of oil—that is 2.5 

million gallons—is gushing from this well every day. Our goal is to 

improve the effectiveness and efficiency in contracting with the 

Government to get this oil cleaned up and out of the water, the 

ocean, and the marshes as soon as possible. We are not here to 

highlight any single business but, rather, to learn from the businesses that have been able to succeed in their efforts or not succeed 

to see what we can do to make it better. 

From the restaurants, distributors, and suppliers in every corner 

of the world that rely on the seafood that comes from the Gulf, this 

3 

is very important. As such, every idea, every business, large or 

small, must have the opportunity to provide input on how to clean 

up the oil, and I should say credible businesses and credible technologies. We are trying to preserve the way of life for more than 

27,000 direct jobs in the Louisiana seafood industry alone that depend on industries along the Gulf Coast. 

This is not the first time that you are hearing from the Small 

Business Committee. As I said, we have had hearings in the past, 

and we intend to do so in the future. 

In the spirit of transparency, as I conclude this brief opening 

statement, I have asked my staff to put together—and I hope they 

will put it up for review—a two-page document that we suggest 

could be helpful to small businesses who want to submit a product 

or an idea for the Unified Command or BP. Instructions to fill out 

the form as well as the website to submit this information have 

been put into a single place. These forms will be available following 

the hearing today on our website. 

[The document follows:] 

4 


Insert offset folio 1 here 73969.001
5 


Insert offset folio 2 here 73969.002
6 

Lastly, I would like everybody to check the Unified Command 

website regularly for the most up-to-date information. I thank the 

members of this Committee who have contributed to this hearing 

for their ideas about this document that is being circulated as I 

speak, and we hope this hearing will give us some ideas about how 

to move forward. 

I am going to turn it over to Senator Snowe for an opening statement. Senator Snowe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, RANKING 

MEMBER, AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Chair Landrieu, for holding what is 

a very critical hearing today on what is undoubtedly the worst environmental disaster in the history of this nation. Words cannot express how devastating this calamity is to the Gulf Coast, especially 

the families of the 11 workers who lost their lives when the rig exploded on April 20th. 

As Ranking Member of both this Committee and the Commerce 

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, 

I believe that indisputably it is the size of the spill that must dictate our response to this disaster and how we mitigate its horrific 

effects. 

With 2.5 million gallons of oil hemorrhaging into the Gulf every 

day, equivalent to an Exxon Valdez size spill every 4 to 5 days and 

oil now reaching the coastlines of Alabama and Florida, it is clear 

that the Federal Government is failing to deploy and bring to bear 

the equipment and technology this disaster demands. 

Indeed, in a letter to the President 2 weeks ago, I urged that he 

seize the reins of crisis response from BP and establish a single 

point of Federal accountability for approving new and innovative 

technologies and methodologies to protect the oceans, bays, beaches, and wetlands that sustain the Gulf Coast economy and nurture 

an entire way of life now in jeopardy of being lost, because the Federal Government is the only entity, in stark contrast to BP, whose 

sole responsibility is to the public interest of the American people. 

Yet, regrettably, we have witnessed little evidence that the tempo 

of the response has been meaningfully accelerated, and serious 

questions remain about the clarity and the effectiveness of the 

chain of command. Indeed, as the small businesses here today will 

testify, they often continue to find themselves ensnared in the bureaucratic quagmire as a result of a process with no unified approach for evaluating and improving their entrepreneurial solutions to this unparalleled catastrophe. 

Rather inexplicably, a dual-track system remains in place with 

BP vetting some ideas while the Federal Government examines 

others, and that is a recipe for inefficiency and inconsistency with 

the results that some new and unverified ideas are expedited for 

implementation while other proven technologies may be overlooked, 

delayed, or erroneously dismissed. 

So on our first panel, I expect Coast Guard Rear Admiral Ronald 

Ra ́bago and Dr. Paul Anastas of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to provide details of the Interagency Alternative Technology Assessment Program, and in particular why it was not fully 

operational until June 4th. Six weeks after the initial explosion ocVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:43 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073969 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73969.TXT DPROCT
7 

curred, why is it that of the 1,600 to 1,700 concepts submitted, I 

understand not one idea has yet to be accepted and why the Federal program continues to operate parallel with another system BP 

has already established to review new technologies which itself has 

resulted in the implementation of just 10 to 15 new devices or response strategies out of the more than 90,000 ideas received? 

Which leads us to our second panel, where we will have testimony from some of the creators of these ideas, including Dan 

Parker of C.I.Agent Solutions, Heather Baird of MicroSorb Environmental Products, and Kevin Costner of Ocean Therapy Solutions. All three will discuss how businesses with the alternative 

technologies are confronted with needless roadblocks resulting from 

a dysfunctional process. We will also hear from two academics, Professor Eric Smith of Tulane University and Dr. Carys Mitchelmore 

of the University of Maryland, who have extensive experience in oil 

spills and specific technologies used to combat them. We appreciate 

all of you taking the time to appear before our Committee today. 

We have an obligation to determine why proven technologies, like 

those produced by Ms. Baird’s company, which BP itself has used 

in the past, have been languishing in warehouses for nearly 2 

months since the spill began, despite their potential contributions 

to the response effort. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection 

Agency and the Coast Guard took just 10 days to approve the application of Corexit, despite the fact that it is a dispersant chemical 

of dubious toxicity, which has never been used before in such quantities, and it has never been employed beneath the ocean surface, 

never mind at a depth of nearly a mile. Yet despite the reality that 

the environmental ramifications of this strategy had never been 

studied, BP was permitted to apply in some cases more than 15,000 

gallons per day. This double standard of approval is made all the 

more disconcerting by the revelation in the Houston Chronicle that 

this dispersant is produced by a company with corporate ties to BP. 

So exactly how is it that BP successfully convinced EPA to approve 

this toxic solution, but small businesses with non-toxic containment 

and remediation solutions are subjected to months of meticulous review? 

So today it is crucial that we ascertain just exactly why we have 

two parallel approval processes, one for BP and one for the Federal 

Government, and what possible advantage could that provide. 

Moreover, precisely what testing did the EPA and the Coast Guard 

conduct prior to allowing the subsea application of dispersants in 

the first place? And how is it that American small businesses are 

now being subjected to a process that appears to lack any semblance of standardization or consistency that will allow us to effectively and efficiently protect our invaluable natural resources? 

It is, frankly, inconceivable that 20 years have elapsed since the 

Exxon Valdez disaster with no detectable enhancement of our ability to attack a spill of any magnitude. It would now be unconscionable to continue to shackle the kind of innovation that could allow 

us to rise to the Herculean challenge before us. 

It is, therefore, paramount that the Federal Government finally 

begin to move with due urgency that has been conspicuously lacking because ultimately we have an obligation to leave no stone 

unturned in instituting a thoroughly timely and rational process to 

8 

fast-track the review of all technologies and methodologies that 

have the potential to contain and to stem the flow of oil and to 

mitigate the damage already inflicted. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you. I am going to ask Senator Vitter 

and Senator Shaheen for a very brief opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing. This is a very important topic. From the very beginning, I, like 

you and others, underscored the need to reach out to and involve 

small business, and there is a need still to do that in at least two 

different ways: first of all, to harness technological solutions and 

innovative ideas out there that are not being implemented now; 

and, secondly, to involve local Louisiana small business in the 

cleanup effort as a way of mitigating the economic hit they are 

clearly taking. I talked to BP about this early on, and I talked to 

the Federal agencies and the Coast Guard about this early on. 

Unfortunately, I think that has largely fallen on deaf ears. I can 

tell you from personal experience, when we direct folks to the supposedly high-level contacts we were given or even when we used 

those supposedly high-level contacts, including me personally sending something from my BlackBerry—which I have not done often 

but on a few select occasions—it seems to go into a black hole. We 

get little more usually than an automated response and no significant follow-up. So that is really disappointing. 

In closing, let me say, Madam Chair, I am also concerned, as I 

know you are, by the enormous hit small business is facing by the 

drilling moratorium. That, if it holds, will cost us more jobs than 

the oil spill itself. Even in shallow water, where the Administration 

is saying there is no moratorium, I can tell you from talking to 

small business affected, there is a de facto moratorium right now 

because the Administration is not prepared to take new permit applications under their new rules yet. Until they clarify that and 

until they do, there is a de facto moratorium in shallow water 

which is costing additional jobs. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, I cannot 

stay, but I will follow up with these witnesses and these issues. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

Senator Shaheen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding 

this hearing this morning. I look forward to hearing from our panelists about how we can make sure that we do everything possible 

to bring the best technologies and innovations that are happening 

across this country to bear on this horrible disaster. I have heard 

from small businesses and scientists in New Hampshire who have 

ideas about what we can do to clean up the spill. So we want to 

make sure that we hear from you all about how we can be more 

effective, and I will submit the remainder of my statement for the 

record. Thank you. 

9 

[The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen follows:] 

10 


Insert offset folio 3 here 73969.003
11 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator. 

Let me begin with our first panel. We have Rear Admiral Ronald 

Ra ́bago, who currently serves as Assistant Commandant for Acquisition and Chief Acquisition Officer for the U.S. Coast Guard. Before he served in that position, he was a graduate of the academy. 

He has also held, obviously, a variety of different positions with the 

Coast Guard, and we are interested to hear your testimony this 

morning. 

Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator for EPA, prior to your 

nomination, you were the Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering and the Teresa and John Heinz Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for Yale University. You have 

an extraordinary background in that area, and we are happy to 

have you today. 

Let us begin with you, Admiral. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL RONALD RA ́ BAGO, ASSISTANT 

COMMANDANT FOR ACQUISITION & CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICER, ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE, U.S. COAST GUARD 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Good morning, Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Rear Admiral Ron 

Ra ́bago, the Coast Guard’s Assistant Commandant for Acquisition, 

which includes our research and development program. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 

process by which the public, including small businesses, can propose their ideas for oil spill cleanup on the Gulf Coast. 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA 90, gives the Coast Guard 

broad responsibilities and authorities for oil spill prevention and 

response on U.S. navigable waters. This includes conducting research, in coordination with other agencies, on innovative oil spillrelated technology. Part of my duties are to oversee the Coast 

Guard’s sole Research and Development Center in New London, 

Connecticut, which through OPA 90 receives annual funding for oil 

spill research. In past years, our research in partnership with other 

agencies and entities has focused in four areas: prevention, spill response planning, spill response planning, spill detection, and oil 

containment and recovery. 

This complex oil spill in the Gulf demands a whole of Government response. We are currently receiving thousands of ideas and 

proposals from the public, many of them being submitted by small 

businesses who want to help. In order to best evaluate and respond 

to these innovative offers of technology assistance, the Coast 

Guard, at the request of the Federal on-scene coordinator and the 

National Incident Commander, established the Interagency Alternative Technology Assessment Program, or IATAP, on May 18th. 

Because of the scope and magnitude of the response required, we 

needed to speed up the pace at which potentially good ideas were 

being evaluated. We also wanted to make sure that all ideas were 

looked at in a fair and consistent way. Almost immediately, the 

IATAP began to receive proposals of all sorts, and we began to 

standardize and simplify the process. 

On the 4th of June, IATAP issued a Broad Agency Announcement, or BAA, on the Federal Business Opportunities website calling for submission of technical white papers describing proposed 

12 

technology solutions. The BAA process provides a structured way 

to receive submissions and seeks proposals in five categories: oil 

sensing; wellhead control and submerged response; traditional oil 

spill response technologies; alternative oil spill response technologies; and oil spill damage assessment and restoration. 

The BAA process is open to all sources, and the Coast Guard welcomes and recognizes the value of novel, highly innovative solutions from small businesses, individuals, and other non-traditional 

sources, such as nonprofits and academic institutions. Our R&D 

center is also processing submissions received via phone and e-mail 

prior to the stand-up of the BAA process. 

With this structured process, once an idea is received, the offeror 

is sent an immediate receipt of acknowledgment and a tracking 

number. Our R&D center performs initial triage to determine what 

category the idea falls into. These categories are: not applicable for 

this particular event; meriting further evaluation to determine its 

viability; or showing immediate and exceptional promise. 

If an idea has obvious and potentially immediate benefit, it is 

forwarded, along with the evaluation team’s recommendation, to 

the Federal on-scene coordinator who, based on operational need, 

will determine whether to procure and use the technology. Ideas 

that appear to have benefit but cannot be verified through an initial review process must undergo more detailed evaluation, which 

can be led by any one of our Government partners under the 

IATAP as appropriate for the proposed technology. Our partners include the EPA, NOAA, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of 

Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Minerals Management Service. For example, a white paper on new dispersant technology would be best evaluated by experts at EPA. 

It is important to note that the BAA is not a competition. Each 

submission is evaluated on its own scientific and technical merits, 

potential efficacy, and deployability. The timelines associated with 

the more detailed second-level evaluation will depend on the complexity of the idea, but the IATAP is working to process all ideas 

as rapidly as possible. 

As of late yesterday, we had received nearly 1,300 submissions 

from the BAA process. Additionally, we received 620 submissions 

prior to the issuance of the BAA. Already, 628 submissions from 

before and after the BAA have gone through screening and are 

under evaluation; 114 are being screened as I speak. The remainder has just entered the screening process. One proposal for skimmer technology has already been forwarded to the Federal on-scene 

coordinator for potential use, and five additional potential solutions 

will be forwarded shortly. 

This oil spill requires the largest environmental disaster response in our history, and we need good ideas from all sources to 

fight the battle. The Coast Guard understands the value of the Nation’s small businesses. Notably, in fiscal year 2009, we awarded 46 

percent, or $1.1 billion, of our total contracting dollars to small 

businesses. We know that small businesses are in many ways the 

engines of innovation. The BAA methodology we are using is a well 

defined, consistent, fair, and Government-managed process to solicit, screen, and evaluate all spill technologies. All proposals are 

13 

thoroughly but expeditiously evaluated to ensure that the technology can contribute to the effort. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to 

answering any questions and ask that my full written statement be 

submitted for the record. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Ra ́bago follows:] 

14 


Insert offset folio 4 here 73969.004
15 


Insert offset folio 5 here 73969.005
16 


Insert offset folio 6 here 73969.006
17 


Insert offset folio 7 here 73969.007
18 

Chair LANDRIEU. Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL ANASTAS, PH.D., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Dr. ANASTAS. Good morning, Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Snowe. Thank you for the opportunity this morning to appear 

before you. I am Paul Anastas, the Assistant Administrator for the 

Office of Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. I appreciate this opportunity to testify about 

EPA’s role in encouraging and engaging small business innovation 

for the Gulf Coast oil spill response. 

As all of you know very well, the ongoing release of oil in the 

Gulf of Mexico is a continuing tragedy. The loss of human lives and 

livelihoods and the unprecedented damage to the Gulf region have 

made this environmental disaster one of the gravest in U.S. history. I am deeply humbled by these events and, like you, am committed to helping and addressing the increasing number of challenges that are left in the wake of these events. 

The scope of EPA’s response to the BP oil spill is wide. In coordination with Federal, State, and local partners, EPA has mobilized 

its breadth of resources and expertise in response to the emergency. We have engaged the Emergency Operations Center in EPA 

headquarters and continue to provide support for a wide range of 

issues, including air and water monitoring, data interpretation, and 

much more. But we are here today to focus specifically on efforts 

to engage the small business community in developing innovative 

technologies and ideas that may be applied to this disaster. 

From the earliest days of this event, EPA recognized that good 

ideas are not exclusively tied to Federal agencies or large corporations; that the public, including the small business community, is 

an invaluable resource for creativity and innovations that must be 

tapped. 

Within days of the oil rig collapse, EPA developed and deployed 

a website portal, epa.gov/bpspill/techsolution, for the submission 

and rapid review of innovative and environmentally safe technological solutions that could be applied to the spill. Ideas poured in 

by the hundreds. Today we have received over 2,100 submissions 

spanning a range of categories from surface water containment to 

cleanup to air monitoring and detection to landfall cleanup and 

wildlife protection. 

The technological solution site is an important complement to the 

Administration’s oil spill response web page, 

DeepwaterHorizonsreponse.com, and that website has already received tens of thousands of suggestions across the spectrum of topics. 

EPA’s review process begins with putting submissions into technology categories. Then EPA technical experts carefully evaluate 

each submission and transmit them to relevant partners for further 

evaluation, testing, and potential deployment. Solutions relevant to 

stanching the flow of oil at the wellhead, for example, are forwarded to the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command and BP. 

Those relevant to surface cleanup are certainly sent to the Coast 

Guard, and those regarding dispersants are processed by our NaVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:43 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073969 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73969.TXT DPROCT
19 

tional Contingency Plan team. Our process is similar to that followed by the other Federal agencies. 

In the interest of more efficient use of Federal resources, the U.S. 

Coast Guard Research and Development Center, as you just heard, 

has established the IATAP process which was stood up on June 

4th. EPA is now working closely collaborating with the IATAP 

partner agencies to channel ideas through a single streamlined 

process that my colleague, Admiral Ra ́bago, has elaborated on further. 

It is important to recognize that our 2,100 submissions to date 

represent a broad cross section of the American public. We have reviewed ideas from self-identified entrepreneurs, homemakers, scientists, engineers, small and large businesses, and students—all of 

whom share one common element: they have been compelled to action on a deeply human level. So in addition to the importance of 

our submission website as a mechanism for sharing technological 

solutions, I want to emphasize that it also serves as a venue for 

people to engage, contribute, and be heard. The passion that is 

woven in throughout the submissions should not be discounted. 

Whether it is the potato farmer who suggested harvesting equipment to clean up tar balls on the beach or the automobile mechanic 

who proposed using a green cleaning solution to wash oil from 

wildlife, each submitter has conveyed a profound desire to use their 

skills and to save the national treasure that is the Gulf Coast. Our 

website and now the IATAP mechanism gives these citizens a voice 

and an opportunity to respond to the tragedy that has affected us 

all. 

At this time I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Anastas follows:] 

20 


Insert offset folio 8 here 73969.008
21 


Insert offset folio 9 here 73969.009
22 


Insert offset folio 10 here 73969.010
23 


Insert offset folio 11 here 73969.011
24 


Insert offset folio 12 here 73969.012
25 


Insert offset folio 13 here 73969.013
26 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, and we have many questions, let 

me assure you. We will go through a first round of questioning. I 

would like to acknowledge Senator Hagan who has joined us, and 

we really appreciate her interest and support. 

Let me begin with you, Admiral, because there seems to be some 

confusion about the numbers of submittals, and I want to ask if 

you could verify for the record today. You mentioned in your testimony that the Government has received 1,300 submissions; 70 

have completed the initial screening process. To your knowledge, 

are those numbers accurate? And how many have actually been deployed, any of the new technologies deployed to date? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Yes, ma’am. We have received nearly 1,300 

through the BAA process, which was initiated on June 4th. But 

prior to that, we received over 600 that came in via e-mail and by 

telephone, and those are also being processed. 

Chair LANDRIEU. So you have a total of 1,900. 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Approximately 1,900, yes, ma’am. And of those, 

we have already processed, initial screening—over 600 of those 

have been looked at, 114 are currently being screened, and those 

that have already been screened into the evaluation process are 

being looked at either by the Coast Guard or our interagency partners. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Okay, because it is very important. Your testimony indicated some different numbers, and it is very important 

to get these numbers, you know, a snapshot for today, for this 

hearing. Can you confirm how many proposals BP has received? 

We understand it is 35,000. Is that your understanding? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. I looked at their website myself yesterday. I 

saw that they had over 94,000 items in their website, but they are 

not all proposals. They are comments, they are a variety of things, 

which makes it part of the difficulty for them to have gone through 

and looked at it. 

There are items in there that are submitted. They look like they 

are from businesses. I was able to only look through a few of them. 

It is a difficult process to get into the website, but we do have full 

access, and I have asked my team to go through what they see 

there and make sure that the submissions that we have within our 

BAA process match or that those people who have submitted things 

prior, we get them into our process. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Now, you just testified—I thought I heard you 

say that you have full access to the BP submissions. 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Correct. We can see their website, and I did 

look at it myself yesterday. 

Chair LANDRIEU. And you can get detailed information from BP 

whenever you want it about the status of their review process? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. There are some status reports on it, but there 

is just a lot of information. They are not necessarily all submittals. 

Some are just ideas, some are just comments. It is a lot of information, and we are going to start to go look through it and see which 

ones are actually proposals that could be acted upon. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Okay. Of all these thousands of proposals that 

have been submitted to either the Government or to BP, have any 

today been deployed? 

27 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. We have not from the BAA process actually deployed, although I have submitted an idea to the Federal on-scene 

coordinator for their consideration. Their operational commander 

has to make the decision of how to use the technology in the fight, 

specifically geographically where, and then how to employ it with 

the forces that they have under their control. 

Chair LANDRIEU. So you are testifying that you have submitted 

one proposal to basically the front line to date. 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Correct. 

Chair LANDRIEU. And that you are making your best efforts to 

try to speed up that process. 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Yes, ma’am. We want to speed it up. 

We want to get those ideas there. 

Chair LANDRIEU. When companies submit these ideas, you said 

that they have six different areas that they are evaluated by. There 

are three different agencies. EPA does dispersants, Incident Commander does wellhead capping, and the Coast Guard does the 

cleanup piece. Are businesses told within a reasonable amount of 

time, a few days, what category they are being evaluated in? Explain a little bit about that process for those that would be interested. 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. As soon as they submit it, it is followed up. 

They are given a tracking number and an acknowledgment that 

their idea has been received. The idea comes in the form of a filledout form along with an attached three-page white paper that describes their proposal. 

That product then is evaluated by our Research and Development Center. It is screened. It is an initial screening to categorize 

it, to put it in one of the categories, and then to decide who best 

to evaluate it. In some cases it is the Coast Guard. In some cases 

it is EPA. In other cases it may be NOAA that is evaluating it. And 

that is done through the interagency process, the IATAP process, 

and they are tracked. There are a number of people working not 

only within the Coast Guard but in the rest of the interagency to 

process these ideas, evaluate them, and determine whether they 

can be used in the particular—down in the Gulf. And those ideas 

that have merit will be given to the Federal on-scene coordinator. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Do you know how many responses the Coast 

Guard can handle in a given day, either in-house with your reviewers or contractors that you have employed? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. I do not have a specific number, but it is not 

just what the Coast Guard can handle, because half of my Research and Development Center is currently working on this particular issue and processing the ideas. But it is not just the Research and Development Center because they get to reach back 

into academia, into federally funded research and development centers, and a variety of other sources, including our own Department 

of Science and Technology. There are a number of sources they can 

reach into to ask for help for evaluation. Then, of course, there is 

the interagency so that if an idea can be evaluated by multiple 

agencies, we will do that as well. The whole goal is to quickly get 

a response back to the offeror that we have received their idea, 

next to tell them that their idea is under consideration. We may 

have interactions with them because oftentimes they may not have 

28 

enough information and we will have questions. We have begun 

that process as part of the evaluation, and then we will act on it 

once the technology has been evaluated and it looks to be useful 

in the Gulf. The goal is to get the technology into the Gulf. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Okay. You also may want to, just as a suggestion, maybe give a special express line to proposals that come in 

from elected officials that are on the front line down in the Gulf, 

whether it is parish presidents or the Governors along the Gulf 

Coast. You know, they are there every day. They are hearing, they 

are listening—not that those, you know, should be expedited without the proper review, but you may want to just consider opening 

up an avenue for some of these elected officials who are down there 

and have been every day for the 58 days. 

Does the Coast Guard have the ability to issue a contract immediately if a silver bullet white paper comes across your desk? I 

mean, if one can be identified, do you have a process in place to 

expedite it given the urgency of the situation? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Yes, we do. We have the ability to use funds 

to do some research at the level of the evaluation process, and then 

the Federal on-scene commander has access to funds, and obviously 

the responsible party has funds that can be applied to acquiring 

the technology and deploying it. 

Chair LANDRIEU. All right. One question for you, Doctor, and 

then I will turn it over to Senator Snowe. It is my understanding 

that for certain types of technology such as dispersants, the EPA’s 

approval is almost essential for their deployment. There has been 

a lot of controversy about these dispersants. So would you give just 

a minute to review your testimony about how quickly you all can 

decide whether these are safe or not? Are you, under current EPA 

rules, allowed to test these dispersants in the open ocean? I understand that that is not even possible now because you cannot—and 

if I am wrong, please correct me—put oil into the ocean for the 

testing, you have to do that in a laboratory setting, which may not 

reflect the magnitude of what we are dealing with. Could you comment on that, please? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Yes. The current mechanism to get dispersants approved is outlined under subpart (j) of the statute, which requires 

a certain number of tests be conducted. One is for efficacy, to make 

sure that the dispersant functions. The other is to have toxicity 

testing for aquatic toxicity—this is specifically on mysid shrimp 

and silverside fish—to assure acute toxicity levels are appropriate. 

That is required to be submitted to the Agency before approval and 

inclusion on the National Contingency Plan list of dispersants. 

Further testing to be conducted by the Agency, you are absolutely right, Senator, that currently the testing for dispersants is 

not done in the open ocean. It is done in a laboratory setting. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Well, I think it is important for this record to 

reflect that Canada and Norway conduct controlled oil spills to test 

different cleanup technologies. In the past, MMS has participated 

in one of the Norwegian tests. The United States, though, on the 

other hand, under current law does not conduct controlled spills, 

and it is not legal at the current time. So I think we have got to 

really reevaluate some of these processes if we are going to try to 

29 

lead the world in deepwater ocean technology. But we will continue 

that line of questioning. Let me turn it over to Senator Snowe. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Chair Landrieu. Just to follow up on 

that question, Dr. Anastas, exactly what did EPA tell BP with the 

use of these dispersants, especially the subsea applications? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The subsea application of the dispersants was 

something that was reviewed and approved by the EPA in a very 

limited capacity. So it did give approval for small amounts to proceed. Part of the reason for that is, one, in the initial testing, the 

several initial tests, it had shown to be effective in dispersing the 

oil at the subsea. And, secondly, it is effective at a far lower level, 

far lower quantity than surface application. And so the Agency did 

give approval for initial use of subsea application of the 

dispersants. 

Senator SNOWE. And what about surface dispersants. What did 

EPA tell BP? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The Agency is not required to give approval for 

that because the current blends allow for application of approved 

dispersants in this situation on the surface. 

Senator SNOWE. So EPA did not send a letter to BP to stop using 

surface dispersants? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Subsequent to the initial application on the surface, the EPA did seek to minimize the use of dispersants, minimize the quantity of dispersants being applied on the surface and 

sub-surface. 

Senator SNOWE. As you know, there is considerable concern 

among local officials in terms of using these dispersants. Are you 

aware of that? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I am aware that there is concern that many have 

expressed about the quantity of dispersants used, which is why the 

Administrator made it clear that she wants to minimize the use of 

dispersants to the most effective level. 

Senator SNOWE. If we have not tested them, why would we be 

using them in the subsea below the surface, and at these depths 

and in these quantities? Why would we be doing that? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The EPA has received testing data on all substances on the National Contingency Plan approved list. We do 

have testing data both on the efficacy and on the toxicity of all 

dispersants, including the dispersants that we—— 

Senator SNOWE. In terms of these quantities, 15,000 gallons a 

day? 

Dr. ANASTAS. This is absolutely unprecedented in terms of the 

quantity of oil being released into the Gulf and in terms of the 

quantity that is being released—— 

Senator SNOWE. I know. I am speaking of the 15,000 gallons, 

though. We have never approved that. 

Dr. ANASTAS. These dispersants have never been used at the 

subsea. 

Senator SNOWE. But there has been no testing at the subsea applications. Is that correct? I would just like to know. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Correct. The only testing that was done is in preparation for—in this event. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, as I mentioned earlier, there is considerable concern about the use of these dispersants and with local offiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:43 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073969 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73969.TXT DPROCT
30 

cials saying, ‘‘Why don’t we stop spraying dispersants? It has literally sunk to the bottom, coating the bay.’’ I want somebody to tell 

me why these dispersants are not doing what they said they are 

going to do, and I want somebody to tell me why we do not stop 

spraying dispersants? These local officials obviously are very concerned. 

Dr. ANASTAS. I guess I would like to address that. I think that 

anytime we are putting formulations and substances into the 

ocean, we have to do that very thoughtfully. There are toxic chemicals that are going into the environment, and they are constituents 

of the oil. We are looking at benzene, toluene, xylene, ethyl benzene 

that are going in in tremendous quantities. The dispersants that 

are being used are to make those constituents and the hydrocarbons more digestible to the microbes and to make them be able 

to degrade far faster. And all of the data suggests that the oil will 

degrade far faster with the application of these dispersants. 

So while I think we have to do it with utmost concern and constant monitoring and sampling, I do think that that was the underlying reason. 

Senator SNOWE. In the process, Admiral Ra ́bago, and as well for 

you, Dr. Anastas, I am still not understanding why we have two 

parallel procedures between the Federal Government and BP. 

There is an imperative here that it is in the national public interest given the catastrophe at hand. So wouldn’t it be crucial for the 

Government to amass the resources to deploy all of the equipment 

and the personnel necessary to contain the spread of this oil and 

to mitigate and remediate this spill? My concern is it seems to be 

a very bureaucratic process right now. Not to say to expedite and 

to make hasty decisions but, rather, I am not clear what good ideas 

that are going to BP come to your attention. And why is it that BP 

would be dictating ultimately what would be a good idea. Their interests are not necessarily in our public interest. Obviously, we 

have a concern about making sure that we can do everything we 

can to develop an approach that is going to move very quickly to 

deploy the resources and to contain the spread and dispersal of this 

oil so it does not contaminate the marshes and the wetlands and 

reach into the shores in Alabama now and potentially Florida. 

So this is the question as to why we developed two procedures, 

because I do not understand how these decisions intersect. Why 

aren’t you the one in charge, why don’t we have one individual in 

charge to oversee all of the ideas that are submitted to BP as well 

as to the Government so we have a uniform, synchronized process 

that is moving in tandem so that we, the United States Government on behalf of the American people, make the decisions, dictate 

the direction, make the approval of technologies and remediation 

efforts that are solely in our public interest? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. That is our goal, ma’am, to do exactly that. We 

want one process, and that is why we built the system that we 

have with the Broad Agency Announcement to be able to pull those 

in. We also have to look back at what occurred previous to that, 

which is what I am doing, taking a look at the ideas that were submitted from all places and make sure that they get put in and that 

we get the right kind of technical information to be able to evaluate 

31 

them, and if they have merit, get them into the fight as quickly as 

possible. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, let me understand this. If there is an idea 

that has been submitted to BP and it is not submitted to the Government, to you, and they reject that idea for whatever reasons, it 

may well be a good idea. Maybe it is too costly. Maybe they have 

not given it the attention it deserves. How would that come to your 

attention? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. We are in the process of taking a look at all 

the information that was submitted to BP and make sure that 

those ideas that have been submitted, that are proposals for solutions for the situation in the Gulf are processed and we talk to 

those individuals and get them to submit the information required 

for us to conduct a thorough evaluation of them. 

Senator SNOWE. So all the ideas submitted to BP are also reviewed, all of the ones that are submitted to BP are reviewed by 

you? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Not yet. We just have gotten full access to their 

database. We have begun to look at the information that is in 

there. Not all of the information, those 94,000 items, are proposals. 

We have to kind of go through that information, find the things 

that are proposals, and begin to do things with that. We have 

begun that process. 

Senator SNOWE. How many people are assigned to you? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. In dealing with this particular issue, in terms 

of my Research and Development Center, I have 86 people in New 

London, Connecticut; another 15 in Washington, D.C., that are 

doing that. And half of those people right now are involved directly 

in the review of these ideas. But, again, they are not just—they are 

not the only ones doing that. They are reaching back into academia, federally funded research and development centers, and a 

variety of other sources, including working with our interagency 

partners, to get these ideas processed as quickly as possible. 

Senator SNOWE. It hardly sounds a sufficient amount of personnel for the task at hand. 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. That is why we want to reach back in and access the whole of academia and the other research and development centers and a variety of other sources. There are a lot of people that we are going to bring—— 

Senator SNOWE. Well, all I can say is there is a time factor involved here. 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator SNOWE. I mean, that is the point. And I think that is the 

frustration that people are facing and seeing and witnessing and 

what is happening with the dispersal of the oil. We should have 

pre-positioned—as the Coast Guard does remarkably and did in 

Hurricane Katrina, as many assets as possible for the worst-case 

scenario. And once it was underway, all of the assets and all of the 

boomers and skimmers and other equipment and the personnel 

should have been deployed to the coastlines all through the Gulf 

to make sure that we could do everything to contain the spread of 

oil before it reached the shores. 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Yes, ma’am. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator Snowe. 

32 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Last week, Secretary Chu announced that data about the oil spill 

is available now online through the Department of Energy’s 

website, and it includes schematics, pressure tests, diagnostic results, that sort of thing. And this is obviously critical information 

for anybody who is working on innovative technologies that might 

help address the spill. 

I continue to hear, however, from independent scientists, from 

small businesses, from engineers about the lack of information and 

transparency about what is happening in the Gulf. 

Admiral, you have mentioned your website that is available for 

small business. Dr. Anastas, you have mentioned the website 

through EPA. How are all of these sites being coordinated? Does 

the Unified Command have plans to make more information available for those people—both for the public and for those people who 

might be working on potential technologies to address the oil spill 

cleanup? How can we make sure there is as much information 

available as possible? And to your knowledge, is there critical information that is being withheld for any reason? So I have given you 

about four questions, and, Admiral, I think maybe if you would 

start. 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Yes, ma’am. As far as providing access to information, I know that the information group that is associated with 

the National Incident Command does put out a good deal of information. We also have received as part of our BAA process not only 

proposals but questions about how either companies or individuals 

can help, and we respond to those queries as well. 

There is a tremendous amount of information flow. Our website 

is one place to do that. There are multiple sources of information. 

Our website that we have through the Federal Business Opportunities website is a gateway for individuals to submit those ideas that 

they believe will bring innovation and solutions to the problem in 

the Gulf. 

So that is our methodology for getting that information. We 

evaluate it and we answer back, which was not occurring before. 

We do answer back everybody that submits something, and we are 

evaluating it and tracking it. So we are working to make the information flow more transparent all the time and more responsive to 

those that submit suggestions and ideas. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And is there any information, to your knowledge, that is being withheld from the public about what is happening? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. No, ma’am. I am not aware of any at all. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Doctor. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Transparency has been at the center of our data 

generation/collection efforts. One of the things that the agency has 

done from early on is strive to get all of the data that we are collecting, which is considerable, other agencies are generating significant data as well, on our sampling data, our air data, our monitoring data, in as rapid a fashion as we receive it, and it is—we 

receive it. We make sure that it is correct. It goes immediately up 

on our main website for everybody to see. So this is something that 

is extremely important, and I agree with you. 

33 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Chair Landrieu asked a question 

that I am not sure—that if it got an answer, I missed it. That is, 

of the suggestions and ideas that have been reviewed by the various entities involved, are there any that are actually being put to 

use right now in response to the spill? And can you explain very 

briefly what those are? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. Recently, we did submit one to the Federal onscene coordinator. It is not yet being used. I know that some of the 

ideas were submitted earlier to the responsible party, and they did 

employ those with the oversight of the Federal on-scene coordinator. And there are some new technologies that have been deployed into the Gulf. 

For the Coast Guard and for the interagency process that we 

have started, we have not yet brought a technology and had it actually be applied, but that is coming soon. We have a number of 

ideas that are working their way through, and some of them are 

very good ideas, and we expect to get them to the Federal on-scene 

coordinator soon. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Dr. Anastas, is there anything that the EPA 

has heard or seen that has been put to use? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The way that the Agency works is by bringing in 

these innovative ideas, having a team that taps into all of the 

broad expertise in the agency, identifies those which have the potential to be effective and environmentally safe and ensure that 

they are forwarded to the proper people responsible for deployment 

and implementation. So it is a screening and evaluation process to 

make sure it gets into the right hands for decisionmaking. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So you might not know if they actually got put 

to use? Is that what you are saying? 

Dr. ANASTAS. That is correct. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator. 

If the Senators do not mind, Senator Levin has joined us. He is 

actually chairing an Armed Services hearing right now, and so he 

slipped out momentarily to come over, and I would like to recognize 

him now. And I want to say before he speaks, as the leader of the 

defense committee, the Armed Services Committee, which I had the 

pleasure to serve on for 4 years, he has been an outstanding leader 

on bringing new technology to the battlefield, actually listening to 

the soldiers on the battlefield. I think his experience and his expertise in this area, as a member of this Committee, can help us because in many ways this is a battlefield out in the Gulf, and I 

thank you for attending the hearing and will recognize you now. 

Senator LEVIN. Madam Chairman, thank you so much for that. 

Thank you for your extraordinary and determined, tenacious leadership on this issue. 

I have just a couple questions before I get to a technology question, which I will get to. And if this question has been asked and 

answered, forgive me. I am trying to get a feel as to how much 

equipment of various types—and I will go through it—is needed 

and how much is there. Okay? 

Admiral, let me ask you, about how much boom do we have down 

there? 

34 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. We have two kinds of boom that we are tracking: the mechanical boom that basically provides a boundary, and 

we have over 2 million feet of that boom deployed. We also have 

sorbent boom which floats on the water and absorbs oil, and there 

is over 3 million feet of that boom deployed. They are procuring 

more of it. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, that is what I want to find out. How much 

of that do you need? Is that half of what we need? A third of what 

we need? What is it? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. I will have to get back the exact answer, but 

I know that we are going to continue to need more. Especially if 

the weather turns there and there are losses in the wear and tear 

of existing boom, we are going to need to replace it. 

Senator LEVIN. Do we have half of what we need? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. I will have to get back exactly. I do not have 

that information. 

Senator LEVIN. How about skimmers? Do we have half of the 

skimmers we need? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. We need more skimmers. 

Senator LEVIN. Do we have half of what we need? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. I will have to get back to you on the specific 

figure, but we do need more. 

Senator LEVIN. How many barges do we need? Do we have half 

the barges we need? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. We need more barges to be able to hold the oil. 

Senator LEVIN. And you do not know what percentage we have 

of what we need. 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. I know we have over 8,000 vessels—— 

Senator LEVIN. No, but in terms of the percentage of what we 

need, do you have a figure on that for barges? 

Admiral RA ́ BAGO. I will get back to you for the record on that, 

sir. 

Senator LEVIN. Okay. Same thing with tankers, same thing with 

dispersants, same thing with trainers. 

Someone like me is frustrated. I can just try to imagine what 

folks who live there are going through—I try to imagine, just to get 

a feel as to what resources are there compared to what the need 

is, and not just as a human being impacted. I happen to be familiar 

with a company in my home state which is a major player in the 

cleanup business. It is called Marine Pollution Control. They are 

one of the biggest—they happen, technically, to be a small business, by the way. But they are still one of the major players in the 

world in cleanup. They have made dozens and dozens and dozens, 

over a hundred phone calls. They go all over the world to clean up. 

They were part of the Exxon Valdez cleanup, and I think they 

have—had half of the boom which they have offered has been used. 

And, by the way, I am not trying to tout this company. If you have 

everything you need down there, great. Okay? I am not here trying 

to promote a Michigan company, even though they are a fabulous 

company. That is not my purpose. I am here to try to understand 

why, if you have less than you need, isn’t one of the major companies—why aren’t all of the companies responded to? 

Now, they have got 14 tankers, this company, 14 tankers, each 

of which can hold thousands of gallons. None have been called. Two 

35 

barges, neither have been called. Four skimmers, none being called 

upon. They have got still 5,000 feet of boom. I think half of the 

boom that they have has been called for and that is it. But all the 

other capabilities that they have are just waiting to be called upon. 

I do not get it, and this is something I know personally because 

of the presence of this company. It happens to be in my hometown, 

not just in my home state. So I just would urge you—okay? There 

may be dozens of companies like them. There may be hundreds of 

companies like them. For them not to feel like, hey, to get responses to the hundreds of inquiries that they literally have made 

and to get three responses and to have half of one of the things 

they can provide called upon and that is it is totally unacceptable 

to me. 

They also have—and here is a technology, and I know this is the 

focus of the hearing, and forgive me if I have gone astray, but it 

is something I have been wanting to ask for a long time. They have 

a technology. It is a submersible submarine. It is still in development, but it has been used effectively under some circumstances. 

It has been offered. Just let them know, yes or no. They need an 

answer. It can go down 200 feet. It cannot get to the 5,000-foot 

level, but what it can do probably is clean up the bottom up to a 

200-foot level, which is going to be very important. Okay? 

My experience with the hometown company tells me something 

is wrong here in terms of coordination, and it is very discouraging 

to me personally, and I would appreciate the answers to those 

questions, Admiral. 

I thank the Chairman for letting me intervene here, perhaps out 

of turn. 

Chair LANDRIEU. No, thank you, Senator, and you are always 

welcome, and I know that you have got to get back in just a moment to the Armed Services Committee. 

But I do think that the Senator has expressed a general frustration on behalf of businesses across the country that feel like they 

have very relevant technologies and they want just an opportunity 

to showcase what they can do, particularly when they see night 

after night, day after day, the situation seeming to get worse as opposed to better. So I know that you all are scrambling. We ask you 

just to scramble a little harder, organize a little better. 

I would like to recognize Senator Cardin. We are in our first line 

of questioning, Senator, if you have any questions before we go to 

our second panel, or brief comments. 

Thank you, Senator Levin. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Landrieu, Chairman Landrieu, thank 

you very much, and let me just—and to Senator Snowe, we very 

much appreciate this hearing. 

I was down in the Gulf, as you know, last Friday and had a 

chance to be with Admiral Watson, who—first of all, let me say, I 

know you all are working 24/7. I know that you are working as 

hard as you can. You are as frustrated as everyone is as to the unprecedented spill that is taking place. The fact that you have oil 

on the surface but then it disperses and shows up on our shorelines 

in a very challenging way. 

We had a chance to see the operations by a lot of small companies, putting out booms and doing the skimming and doing everyVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:43 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073969 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73969.TXT DPROCT
36 

thing they could to protect the Louisiana coast. But, unfortunately, 

we also saw the results of oil on the shore, on sensitive marshes 

and islands, and saw the inability to hold accountable the contractors to maintain the booms that were critically important to protect 

the sensitive shorelines. 

I again want to just point out that Admiral Watson I think took 

action as a result of that, and that is exactly what we were intending, and I know that corrective measures have been put in place, 

and that is what we need. 

I guess my point is that you are in charge. This is the Government’s responsibility to respond to the spill. Now, the cost is going 

to be paid by BP and its affiliates. We know that. But the chain 

of command is ours, and, therefore, it is up to us to engage the talent of this nation and, if necessary, internationally to figure out 

how we can minimize the damage being caused to the Gulf and 

other regions. 

That requires us to use the ingenuity of small companies. That 

is where the talent is in this country to find ways to innovate and 

take care of new challenges. We find that we get more innovation, 

more of our new discoveries come from the small companies of this 

nation. I guess my plea to you is that we have to be much more 

effective in energizing that asset that this nation has. 

I have talked to some of the small business owners down in the 

Gulf, I have talked to small business owners around the nation 

who have said, look, you know, we would like to get involved. So 

I do underscore the points that the members of this Committee 

have made that it is not BP’s responsibility, it is our responsibility 

to respond to this challenge. BP is going to pay the cost. We know 

that. But I think it is incumbent upon us to figure out how we can 

energize the talent of this nation to confront this challenge, to minimize the damage, and we know the damage is going to be severe, 

but to minimize it the best that we can. And every day that we 

lose, the devastation is going to be much worse. And every part of 

this nation is going to feel it. I know my own area in Maryland, 

we have a lot of migratory wildlife that visits the Gulf of Mexico. 

We do not know if they will be returning to our area. So we all 

have a stake in this. 

Thank you, madam Chair. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Yes, Senator Snowe wants one final question. Then we are going 

to move to our second panel. 

Senator SNOWE. For clarification, Dr. Anastas, on this whole 

issue of Corexit, so that we understand, on May 26th EPA sent a 

letter, did they not, issuing a directive to BP to stop using a surface 

dispersant, the Corexit, and limit the subsea to 15,000 gallons? Is 

that correct? And since then, as I understand it, 185,000 gallons of 

surface dispersant has been applied on 14 separate days, and on 

4 days more than 15,000 gallons have been applied subsea. So why 

hasn’t this practice stopped? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The Administrator has communicated with BP to 

minimize the use of dispersants wherever possible and to seek approval when the amount of dispersant goes above a certain level. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, that is on the subsea, but not for surface. 

I am not understanding the stop and the minimizing. It is either 

37 

stopping entirely the use of it or minimizing it, and EPA asked for 

stopping it. So that is what I am not clear on, because there have 

been a number of questions raised on this issue. 

Dr. ANASTAS. The National Contingency Plan allows for application of approved dispersants. 

Senator SNOWE. In particular, Corexit? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Any approved dispersant. It does not need to be 

Corexit. The Administrator did express, the Agency did express 

concerns about ensuring that the dispersant used would be the 

least toxic as possible, and what is happening in real time is the 

Agency is engaged in the science to find out if there are any alternative dispersants that are less toxic. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, it is my understanding that EPA issued a 

directive to BP to stop using it, the surface dispersant, and limit 

the subsea. So obviously we need to get a clarification on this question. 

Dr. ANASTAS. The directive was to identify a less toxic dispersant 

or explain why it could not identify a less toxic dispersant. They 

did not identify a less toxic dispersant, and so EPA is engaged currently in the science of determining if there are any other 

dispersants that would have reduced toxicity. 

Senator SNOWE. So in the meantime, BP can continue the use of 

the surface dispersant? 

Dr. ANASTAS. With the understanding that the use of dispersant 

will be minimized. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator Snowe, and to try to end 

this first panel on a slightly more positive note, we did receive an 

e-mail from a 12-year-old Louisiana-based environmental remediation service company that said for several weeks they were unable 

to get any response. They finally got their product submitted, and 

just last week, they sent this information to one of our PTAC contacts that they received verbal approval from BP accepting this 

technology to start their application today. 

So we have one company that sent a positive e-mail, but there 

are thousands still waiting, and that is what this hearing is about. 

So I thank you all. We have much more information to pursue 

from you. I know that you are going to stay here in the room to 

hear from the second panel at my request, so thank you and we 

will move to the second panel. 

If the second panel would come forward. Eric Smith serves as the 

Associate Director of Tulane Energy Institute. He is also a Clinical 

Finance Professor in the Freeman Business School at Tulane. He 

has extensive background in business development and energy and 

created and teaches the mandatory course that lead to an energy 

specialist certificate at Tulane. We are glad, Doctor, to have you 

here. 

Dan Parker is from Kentucky. Mr. Parker founded C.I.Agent Solutions. He served as President and Member of the Board of Directors of that company. He was successful in getting the C.I.Agent 

listed on the EPA’s National Contingency Plan. We look forward to 

his testimony today. 

38 

Heather Baird serves as Vice President of Corporate Communications for MicroSorb Environmental Products that I understand is 

being considered as we speak. 

Also, Dr. Carys Mitchelmore is currently an Associate Professor 

at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, 

the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. Dr. Mitchelmore earned her 

Ph.D. from the University of Birmingham, and she has a great deal 

of expertise to share with us on this subject. 

And, finally, we have Mr. Kevin Costner, who, along with his 

brother, in 1995 purchased Ocean Therapy Solutions, a company 

developing a oil separation machine. We are very pleased to have 

Mr. Costner with us. He has been spending a lot of time down in 

the Gulf Coast, as all of you have been focused on this issue, and 

we look forward to your testimony this morning. 

Let’s begin with you, Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC N. SMITH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

TULANE ENERGY INSTITUTE, TULANE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chair LANDRIEU. And if you would press your ‘‘talk’’ button and 

speak right into the microphone, please. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Snowe, 

and members of the Committee for inviting me to testify this morning on what I think has become a very significant issue. 

I would like to speak about this problem associated with the current spill response in the U.S. Gulf and the apparent inability of 

the company and agencies involved to provide timely responses to 

the thousands of suggestions being generated by concerned citizens 

and small businesses. 

There are two corollary problems here. One is small businesses 

typically lack the commercial recognition to gain attention and access to relevant Federal agencies that provide funding to advance 

improvements in prevention and response technologies. The second 

issue, the specifics, BP, the MMS, and the Coast Guard are practically constrained to dealing with known quantities when setting 

up supply chains to approve and transact business with potential 

suppliers. Companies or individuals without existing commercial 

relationships find it difficult to establish credibility in normal 

times. During an emergency it is even more difficult. 

The solution perhaps that we suggest is the establishment of an 

independent third-party team to screen proposals and to respond 

either positively or negatively to all suggestions. This national 

clearinghouse would use existing faculty at universities having the 

requisite skill sets and prior experience in navigating company supply chains and Federal-State agencies and to efficiently screen suggestions, separate the wheat from the chaff, and provide concise information to relevant agencies and companies so that they can 

make logical investment and purchase decisions. 

Tulane and other universities have experience with screening 

proposals, assisting those with real potential and enhancing their 

ability to elicit contracts for Federal research funding. Our team at 

Tulane already includes experts in both conventional and renewable energy resources, energy economics, medicine, public health, 

environmental studies, and biomolecular research. Moreover, we 

39 

have a reputation for public outreach in times of crisis as a result 

of our university-wide efforts surrounding the response to Hurricane Katrina. 

We also have been successful in developing research partnerships 

between Government and universities in Louisiana that extend beyond Tulane’s boundaries through CPERC, a consortium of Louisiana-based schools that partner on specific research projects. Because Tulane is the only private university in the group, we have 

the flexibility to respond more quickly to emergency situations and 

to then bring other schools into the team. 

Having a good product idea is only half the battle. We all know 

that the balance of commercialization involves the sometimes arcane activities of establishing intellectual property rights, establishing overall economic and financial viability—in a word, writing 

the business plan, getting it submitted. Essentially we propose to 

establish this clearinghouse using existing infrastructure and communication links where new ideas can be screened, grants formulated, and new businesses incubated. Those ideas that are too early 

or in our view non-starters will still receive a thoughtful letter outlining the reasons for their rejection. Our overarching goal is to 

break up the logjam of proposals reaching the agencies participating in the spill response and to make sure the good ideas that 

are currently buried in this deluge of paper see the light of day in 

a timely manner. We believe that Tulane University is suited to 

provide that service. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

40 


Insert offset folio 14 here 73969.014
41 


Insert offset folio 15 here 73969.015
42 


Insert offset folio 16 here 73969.016
43 


Insert offset folio 17 here 73969.017
44 


Insert offset folio 18 here 73969.018
45 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you. Mr. Parker. Please pull the microphone as close to your mouth as possible. If you all could push a 

little bit over to give him more space. 

Mr. PARKER. I am going to defer to Dan Koons, who is the author 

of the paper, and then I will take all the questions. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Okay. 

STATEMENT OF DAN KOONS, C.I.AGENT SOLUTIONS, ACCOMPANIED BY DAN PARKER, FOUND AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, C.I.AGENT SOLUTIONS 

Mr. KOONS. Madam Chair, distinguished members, I appear before the Committee to testify on behalf of the thousands of U.S. 

citizens that have presented ideas and offered alternative technologies to assist in the ongoing spill. The alternative technology 

I am here to testify concerns the use of solidifiers, C.I.Agent. 

C.I.Agent Solutions is a small, Kentucky-based company. C.I.Agent 

is a proprietary blend of U.S. food-grade polymers which are nontoxic, non-corrosive, non-carcinogenic, non-hazardous, and they are 

typically used to manufacture food or medical devices such as IV 

bags, surgical gloves, and syringes. 

C.I.Agent polymers have been listed as a solidifier on the NCP 

Product Schedule since early 1994. The hydrocarbons, once solidified by C.I.Agent, are 100 percent recyclable. They can be used as 

fuel, as raw materials for asphalt, plastic, and rubber. 

C.I.Agent Solutions personnel have regularly attended RRT 

meetings across the Nation for the past 10 years trying to get the 

regulatory community to examine, study, and recognize the effectiveness of using C.I.Agent solidifiers as an alternative method of 

oil spill cleanup. Our case studies actually show that using 

solidifiers will reduce the environmental impact, the cost of cleanup 

on average of 50 to 80 percent. 

This brings me to the reason we believe that alternative technologies are being shut out of this current spill. The reason does 

not lie at any single entity—not with BP, not with the U.S. Coast 

Guard, not with the Federal or State agencies currently working on 

the spill. In fact, every one of these groups is fully engaged in following their prescribed duties as set forth in the National Incident 

Management System. The NIMS was created in 2003 in order to 

have a consistent nationwide template to follow in the event of a 

national crisis. 

We do have national response teams, regional response teams, 

area and local response teams on site, and they are all following 

their respective playbooks. However, vendors have had very little 

access or opportunity to bring technology forward. Vendors are not 

permitted to attend the national response team meetings. Vendors 

do attend, observe, and occasionally participate in the RRT meetings. 

The system does not encourage or promote active research of new 

technology. It simply is not a priority. New technology stands on 

the sidelines while everybody dutiful follows an outdated playbook. 

The following are examples of technology proffered by C.I.Agent 

Solutions over the last 40 days: 

On April 26th, BP did deploy C.I.Agents to Houma, Louisiana, to 

consult on shoreline protection. 

46 

On the 31st, we undergone the contract on Dauphin Island to 

protect the nesting habitat on the north shore. 

On May 12th, BP made a request to use C.I.Agent at the wellhead. The request was assigned to an ARTES Committee, which is 

an alternative response tool evaluation system committee. We have 

yet to be asked to participate in the ARTES process as required 

under the ARTES protocols and even after a number of written requests to the committee, still no response. 

On the 20th of May, C.I.Agent Solutions brought in from our 

Australia group a marine engineer along with a complete advanced 

system to apply and recover solidifiers. The ARTES committee was 

provided information, PowerPoints. Still no response. 

The C.I.Agent Solutions’ cannon is currently being used in Australia on oil spills, for vessel hull cleaning, and shoreline cleanup. 

All the agencies recognized the value of these systems but have 

yet been unable to adopt them. We brought a water-testing device, 

offered four of them free to agencies, both State and local. The 

C.L.A.M. actually monitors water levels 100 times greater than the 

present methodology. But in every case, the agencies told us the 

value of the system was really something they could use, but it was 

outside the protocols and they could not use it. 

The final road block prohibiting the new technology, it seems to 

me, is in the response industry itself. We have met with the chief 

executives of nearly every response agency in the Nation over the 

last 10 years trying to get them to adopt solidifiers as part of their 

response capabilities. Without exception, we have been told that 

they know our technology works, but they are not going to use it 

until someone makes them because they sell labor. 

In 2005, after Hurricane Katrina,, C.I.Agent—— 

Chair LANDRIEU. Because of what? You are going to have to—— 

Mr. KOONS. I am sorry. 

Chair LANDRIEU. They are not going to use it because of what? 

Mr. KOONS. They sell labor, not solutions. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Okay. 

Mr. KOONS. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina, C.I.Agent was brought 

to Bayou Le Batre by the U.S. Coast Guard Gulf strike team to 

clean up pockets of oil. We were asked to leave by the response 

companies, being told that our methodologies was too quick, so we 

left. 

In 2008, we were brought in for the Mississippi oil spill, a barge 

and tanker spill. This was by the U.S. Coast Guard and the barge 

owner. Again, the responsible OSRO refused to use our technology, 

actually saying that they are not going to use solidifiers because 

they were making too much money. 

In 2010, we presented an option of using beach cleaning equipment to remove tar balls from the current spill. The equipment we 

proposed $3,400 a day, takes the place of 300 laborers. The daily 

cost of laborers is $108,000 per shift. 

These are just examples of technology that have been brought to 

bear, and because the response companies and their involvement at 

the level of control within the NIMS program, the new technology 

is just simply not being applied. 

Chair LANDRIEU. You are going to have to wrap up, if you would. 

47 

Mr. KOONS. Okay. In conclusion, it is my belief that the consequences unfolding before us in the Gulf today are exposing a 

weakness in the National Incident Command System, and our National Response Strategy actually inhibits the introduction of new 

technology. The model must be changed. Technologies have to be 

given an opportunity to prove that they are efficient and more costeffective than solutions now currently being employed. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Koons follows:] 

48 


Insert offset folio 19 here 73969.019
49 


Insert offset folio 20 here 73969.020
50 


Insert offset folio 21 here 73969.021
51 


Insert offset folio 22 here 73969.022
52 


Insert offset folio 23 here 73969.023
53 


Insert offset folio 24 here 73969.024
54 


Insert offset folio 25 here 73969.025
55 


Insert offset folio 26 here 73969.026
56 


Insert offset folio 27 here 73969.027
57 


Insert offset folio 28 here 73969.028
58 


Insert offset folio 29 here 73969.029
59 


Insert offset folio 30 here 73969.030
60 


Insert offset folio 31 here 73969.031
61 


Insert offset folio 32 here 73969.032
62 


Insert offset folio 33 here 73969.033
63 


Insert offset folio 34 here 73969.034
64 


Insert offset folio 35 here 73969.035
65 


Insert offset folio 36 here 73969.036
66 


Insert offset folio 37 here 73969.037
67 


Insert offset folio 38 here 73969.038
68 


Insert offset folio 39 here 73969.039
69 


Insert offset folio 40 here 73969.040
70 


Insert offset folio 41 here 73969.041
71 


Insert offset folio 42 here 73969.042
72 


Insert offset folio 43 here 73969.043
73 


Insert offset folio 44 here 73969.044
74 


Insert offset folio 45 here 73969.045
75 


Insert offset folio 46 here 73969.046
76 


Insert offset folio 47 here 73969.047
77 


Insert offset folio 48 here 73969.048
78 


Insert offset folio 49 here 73969.049
79 


Insert offset folio 50 here 73969.050
80 


Insert offset folio 51 here 73969.051
81 


Insert offset folio 52 here 73969.052
82 


Insert offset folio 53 here 73969.053
83 


Insert offset folio 54 here 73969.054
84 


Insert offset folio 55 here 73969.055
85 


Insert offset folio 56 here 73969.056
86 


Insert offset folio 57 here 73969.057
87 


Insert offset folio 58 here 73969.058
88 


Insert offset folio 59 here 73969.059
89 


Insert offset folio 60 here 73969.060
90 


Insert offset folio 61 here 73969.061
91 


Insert offset folio 62 here 73969.062
92 


Insert offset folio 63 here 73969.063
93 


Insert offset folio 64 here 73969.064
94 


Insert offset folio 65 here 73969.065
95 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Ms. Baird. 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER E. BAIRD, VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS, MICROSORB ENVIRONMENTAL 

PRODUCTS, INC. 

Ms. BAIRD. Good morning. My name is Heather Baird, and I am 

the Vice President of Corporate Communications for MicroSorb Environmental Products of Norwell, Massachusetts. I would like to 

thank the Committee for allowing me today to testify. 

My company has a microbial technology—a powerful consortium 

of oil-eating microbes. Our microbes have been proven successful 

many times beginning when the tanker Mega Borg exploded in the 

Gulf of Mexico in 1990 off the coast of Texas. BP has utilized our 

microbes in 2001 to remediate oil contamination in Lake Michigan. 

Further, we just concluded a scalable lab test conducted through an 

independent third party demonstrating that within 24 hours, our 

microbes were able to destroy over 90 percent of the crude oil in 

a Gulf of Mexico water sample which was taken from the vicinity 

of Grand Isle, Louisiana, in late May 2001. Today our microbes are 

still not being utilized to save the Gulf Coast despite being highly 

efficacious, proven successful, non-toxic and non-pathogenic. 

First I would like to give you a little bit of background. Wherever 

there is a natural oil seepage from the earth, nature has placed oildegrading microbes. These microbes use the oil as a food source, 

breaking it down into water, carbon dioxide, and fatty acids, rendering the substance harmless. 

While nature is able to clean up after itself, it takes a lot of time, 

and the problem is mankind now puts far more hydrocarbon pollution into the environment than nature can remove in the amount 

of time that man wants to allow. Science has devised ways of 

speeding up nature, and it is from this advancement that our company was born. MicroSorb Microbes are also known by our formulation name: The Oppenheimer Formula—named after the pioneer in 

bioaugmentation, Dr. Carl Oppenheimer. It is a proprietary blend 

of nature’s most powerful oil-eating microbes, harvested from some 

of the most extreme and oil-prone environments around the globe. 

With over 100 billion microbes per gram, our formula ensures rapid 

remediation. And since our microbes are cultivated on Texas sweet 

crude oil and Gulf of Mexico seawater as their food source, they are 

ideally suited for the Deepwater Horizon spill. Additionally, some 

of our microbes are aerobic and some are anaerobic. This means 

that they can function in oxygen-rich areas as well as oxygen-depleted zones. These microbes work in open water, as well as in sensitive areas such as marshlands, wetlands, and beaches. Application is simple. It is highly cost effective, especially when compared 

against absorbents and skimmers and boom technologies. And once 

applied, there is no excavation required, no costly disposal, nothing 

to pick up and nothing left behind. Once the oil runs out, the microbes die, returning either to natural concentration levels or safely 

consumed by other aquatic organisms. 

Our formula is on the EPA National Contingency Product Plan 

Schedule. It was the first microbial formulation to be listed and has 

been listed since 1991. This fact, combined with the proven success 

96 

of this product, clearly makes it a smart addition to this cleanup 

solution. However, understanding who makes the decision to deploy 

has been a significant challenge to our firm. 

Our President, Bill Baird, an engineer by trade, has been on the 

Gulf Coast for many weeks now, meeting with elected officials from 

Plaquemines Parish all the way to the Florida Keys. I have 

watched as he has tirelessly dispensed free advice to officials from 

city planners to Governors. And to give you an idea, we have met 

on scene with incident command in Florida; Mobile, Alabama; Governors’ offices; the EPA; the DEP from Florida, Mississippi, and 

Louisiana; mayors’ offices in four different states; the Coast Guard; 

the Department of Homeland Security; and city officials too numerous to count. 

I personally have been on Capitol Hill meeting with Senators 

and their teams from the affected states, and it is important for the 

Committee to understand we have put all other business on hold 

chasing down all of these stakeholders at our own expense. We 

have gained alignment from each of these parties, who we believed 

were the decisionmakers, since they are the true stakeholders. 

At each one of these touch points, we were told that our product 

is needed and should be deployed. However, these encouraging 

statements are quickly followed up with the caveat that BP holds 

the checkbook. Then we are inevitably told that we will be ‘‘passed 

along’’ to someone’s contact or a committee within the BP system, 

and then we wait. As recently as this week, we were told to sign 

up on the Deepwater Horizon website, which naturally we have 

done. The American public believes that the Government is making 

these decisions, but our experience has been very different. The decisionmaker to us is clear; without BP sign-off, we remain sidelined. But how do you break through to BP amidst the millions of 

proposals, with a website being the only means of contact? 

So why is BP not employing bioaugmentation as part of its arsenal to clean the spill? According to EPA Publication 640/k-93/002: 

‘‘The United States is the world leader in field implementation of 

bioremediation, an attractive alternative to conventional methods 

of cleaning up persistent hazardous wastes in the environment.’’ 

This was published in 1994. This has not been our experience with 

regards to this crisis. 

We believe one reason why is the EPA states that bioaugmentation now is typically used as a polishing step, and that bioaugmentation solutions have been classified as alternative technologies, used only after all the oil has been reclaimed. 

We have found that Japan has done the most comprehensive scientific research to date on the use of bioaugmentation in open 

water, and I respectfully refer the Committee to the studies submitted as evidence detailing how bioaugmentation is superior to 

natural attenuation. Naturally, time constraints do not allow me to 

explain in detail their methodology. However, I can tell you that 

remediation with our formula has been superior. There are additional studies that have been done over the last decade that—— 

Chair LANDRIEU. Twenty seconds, please. 

Ms. BAIRD. Thank you. 

So what can we conclude from this? We can conclude without 

question that the resources currently deployed for the battle are inVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:43 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073969 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73969.TXT DPROCT
97 

sufficient to the task at hand. However, the necessary technology 

does, in fact, exist. It is ready. It is scalable. It is highly efficacious, 

and it has been proven over and over again. I hope this Committee 

can help businesses like MicroSorb determine constructive paths 

forward with the appropriate stakeholders represented. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Baird follows:] 

98 


Insert offset folio 66 here 73969.066
99 


Insert offset folio 67 here 73969.067
100 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Ms. Baird, for that beautiful testimony. That is exactly why we are here today. 

Dr. Mitchelmore. 

STATEMENT OF CARYS L. MITCHELMORE, PH.D., ASSOCIATE 

PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 

Dr. MITCHELMORE. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of 

the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss scientific 

issues concerning dispersant use. I am Carys Mitchelmore. I am an 

aquatic toxicologist and have been researching the impact of pollutants, including oil and dispersants, for over 15 years. 

My testimony today will focus on some effects and uncertainties 

regarding dispersant use. Related to this, I would like to stress two 

major points. 

First, significant data gaps in understanding the impacts of 

dispersants and dispersed oil exist, particularly with subsea application. 

Second, limited toxicological data is available to assess the use 

of alternate dispersants. The use of dispersants is a complex and 

controversial subject. They are examples of known pollutants purposely added to the marine environment. Dispersants are often proprietary mixtures containing solvents, surfactants, and other additives. They are used to redirect an oil slick by breaking it up into 

small droplets that move down into the water, spreading in three 

dimensions. They do not remove oil. They simply alter its chemical 

and physical properties, changing where it goes, where it ends up, 

and its potential effects. Sub-surface application keeps the oil in 

the water, preventing it from coming to the surface. 

With the Deepwater Horizon leak, dispersants are used to protect organisms from contacting the surface slick and to protect sensitive shorelines and wetlands from oil coming ashore. This protection is an environmental tradeoff at the expense of organisms in 

the water column and potentially those on the sea floor. 

As highlighted at a recent dispersant workshop, toxicity must be 

considered when a decision is made to apply chemical dispersants. 

Toxicity data based on short duration exposures and the risk of 

death to organisms are those most often used to assess how toxic 

a chemical is. Indeed, the EPA’s National Contingency Plan Product Schedule listing suitable dispersants for use on oil spills details 

such test data, which is provided by the dispersant manufacturer. 

Dispersant toxicity depends on the specific dispersant and species under study. Recent reports have concluded that it is what the 

dispersants do to the oil that often drives toxicity rather than the 

inherent toxicity of the dispersant itself. However, it would be beneficial if dispersant toxicity could be further reduced. The correct 

formulations are stockpiled throughout the USA and are the ones 

currently used in the Deepwater Horizon leak. 

Recently, EPA directed BP to use a less toxic dispersant of similar or more effectiveness than Corexit. Fourteen dispersants are 

listed on the product schedule. Given EPA’s maximum toxicity 

guidelines for the dispersant mixed with number 2 fuel oil, only 

three of these listed products would be appropriate for use. 

101 

Other toxicological tests are also presented for each dispersant. 

Of concern is the wide variation in the toxicity values reported for 

the number 2 fuel oil alone and the reference toxicant between 

dispersants using the same test species. A reference toxicant is a 

toxic chemical that is used to demonstrate that the tests are performed correctly and that the data is scientifically robust and defensible. Similar toxicity values for the same reference toxicant 

should be obtained, irrespective of who carried out the tests. 

However, toxicity values for the reference toxicant differ by orders of magnitude, up to nearly 300-fold for the different 

dispersants. These discrepancies bring into question the accuracy 

and reliability of the tests. 

I believe it would be beneficial for the dispersant manufacturers, 

especially those small businesses who have limited funds available 

for toxicity tests, to have their products screened cost effectively 

and, more importantly, accurately by an independent toxicity testing center. 

At the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, 

a similar testing center has been in place since early 2000. The Alliance for Coastal Technologies program is a NOAA-funded initiative that acts as an independent test bed for aquatic sensor technologies and involves numerous partner facilities across the U.S. 

A similar type of program would be of benefit for current and future dispersant manufacturers. Each dispersant would be evaluated by three independent and EPA-certified testing laboratories. A 

federally or industry-funded center could provide this testing at no 

cost to dispersant manufacturers. 

I also recommend a workshop precedes these tests, reevaluating 

an updating the test methods, including additional tests. Chronic 

and sediment toxicity tests would be beneficial to understanding 

potential long-term effects of dispersant use. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Twenty seconds. 

Dr. MITCHELMORE. In summary, Madam Chair and fellow Senators, the recent spill in the Gulf has brought us into uncharted 

territories, given the volume and duration of dispersant use and its 

novel application to the seabed. With more information we can be 

better prepared to deal with such disasters. Increased knowledge 

translates to better solutions, and we need that knowledge now. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mitchelmore follows:] 

102 


Insert offset folio 68 here 73969.068
103 


Insert offset folio 69 here 73969.069
104 


Insert offset folio 70 here 73969.070
105 


Insert offset folio 71 here 73969.071
106 


Insert offset folio 72 here 73969.072
107 


Insert offset folio 73 here 73969.073
108 


Insert offset folio 74 here 73969.074
109 


Insert offset folio 75 here 73969.075
110 


Insert offset folio 76 here 73969.076
111 


Insert offset folio 77 here 73969.077
112 


Insert offset folio 78 here 73969.078
113 


Insert offset folio 79 here 73969.079
114 


Insert offset folio 80 here 73969.080
115 


Insert offset folio 81 here 73969.081
116 


Insert offset folio 82 here 73969.082
117 


Insert offset folio 83 here 73969.083
118 


Insert offset folio 84 here 73969.084
119 


Insert offset folio 85 here 73969.085
120 


Insert offset folio 86 here 73969.086
121 


Insert offset folio 87 here 73969.087
122 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Costner. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN COSTNER, FOUNDER, COSTNER INDUSTRIES (CINC), AND CO-FOUNDER, OCEAN THERAPY SOLUTIONS, WESTPAC RESOURCES 

Mr. COSTNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the 

Committee. Thank you for inviting me. 

We are here today because there are now some 60,000 barrels of 

oil gushing into the Gulf every 24 hours, with no end in sight. We 

are here today because a carefully crafted plan designed by the oil 

industry and rubber-stamped by the MMS claimed it could handle 

spills of up to 250,000 barrels a day, but turned out not to be a 

plan at all. We are all here, and now the whole world is watching 

as America fumbles its way through the greatest environmental 

disaster in history, and I find myself here because 17 years ago I 

thought I could play a part in this reoccurring nightmare. 

I have come here with a technology that was developed for this 

very moment we find ourselves in as a people, as a nation, as a 

neighbor to every country that shares the precious Gulf of Mexico. 

I am a private entrepreneur, a dreamer, if you will, who saw a 

problem and committed to a big idea. I took a technology from the 

Department of Energy in 1993. It was about 6 inches tall. It was 

developed to separate metals. But what if? What if we could take 

that little idea, this little machine and scale it up to separate large 

volumes of oil from water? I believe that we could manufacture and 

deploy a rugged and portable machine under these harsh conditions. We would create five different sizes, with the largest being 

able to up to 200 gallons per minute with both oil and water outputs at 99.9 percent purity. 

In 2 years, the dream moved from research and development to 

a commercially viable product ready to be deployed anywhere in 

the world. This was done without the help of outside investors or 

Government grants. The price tag would be over $20 million, and 

I would pay it. The need was clear: An industry that would operate 

year-round, 24 hours a day, in or near any body of water at depths 

and complexities that our modern oil industry are working in is 

going to experience spills. They are going to experience spills on a 

daily basis, large or small, accidental or otherwise, reported or not. 

I started a business without a guarantee of a market, but clearly 

there is a market out there. Did I expect the oil industry to open 

its arms when I presented an oil-water separator, a solution to 

their single greatest liability? Yes. Did I expect leaders here and 

abroad to recognize the importance of protection where we profit? 

Yes, I did. But I was wrong. The list of Government agencies, foreign and domestic oil companies who saw our technology more than 

a decade ago reads like a Who’s Who of those who needed it, those 

who should have been looking for it, and probably more to the 

point, those who should have been developing it themselves. 

So what was the problem? Was it too small? Was it too portable? 

Was there already something like it in the big plan? I do not know. 

My big idea has been sitting quietly for 10 years in a modest Nevada facility. Then 2 days ago, I got a call from Doug Suttles, COO 

of exploration and production for BP. He was pleased. He was exVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:43 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073969 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73969.TXT DPROCT
123 

cited. He told me that the machine worked. He told me that it was 

working against the dispersants, that it was handling the variations of oil mixtures and thickness present in the Gulf. He ordered 

32 machines and told me that this represented the beginning of us 

working together, not only for this spill but for going forward, and 

that we would have a legitimate response in the future. 

I am proud that this technology can be part of the solution for 

the Gulf. Am I proud that this technology can be part of the solution in the Gulf? Yes. To a certain extent, to be completely honest, 

I feel vindicated. I think that perhaps I will call my mother. 

But this is not a Hollywood ending for me. The path to arrive at 

this moment was steep and formidable. That is why I have been 

called to testify before this Committee, to explain why 21st century 

technology has sat idly on the shelf for 10 years when it could have 

been deployed as a first, most efficient responder to mitigate the 

Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. 

The business of oil spill cleanup is not pretty. It is not sexy. Safety never is. It is not a profit center. It is perfectly clear that the 

oil companies have not invested in cleanup technology to match 

their 21st century appetite in operations. 

In the last 2 weeks, my company began an exciting collaboration 

with Edison Schwest, the largest oil servicer in the Gulf. We are 

in the final stages of engineering emergency response ships that 

would be staged strategically throughout the Gulf, with the ability 

to be on site within 2 hours of an incident. 

I know my time has run out, but I would ask this Committee and 

the members and the Chair that I have waited 17 years to be here. 

I talk kind of slow, and I make long movies. 

[Laughter.] 

Chair LANDRIEU. Go ahead. You can have 2 minutes. Go right 

ahead, Mr. Costner. 

Mr. COSTNER. Thank you. Thank you. 

Together we are fashioning a more comprehensive plan that we 

would like to present before the lifting of the moratorium. It would 

fundamentally change the world’s approach to oil spill recovery, but 

we have not stopped there. Ocean Therapy Solutions continues to 

push the envelope of progress, once again footing the bill for the 

R&D without help from industry or Government. I believe there 

are other small companies out there in the private sector just like 

us. How do we let them in? How do we create an environment that 

fosters and encourages investment in critical technologies? I leave 

that to this body, but you should know that negotiating your way 

as a small business through the bureaucratic maze that presently 

exists is like playing a video game that no one can master. It is 

like trying to get to the next level that does not exist. 

For me, advancing the technology for oil spill cleanup was a 

dream, not a business. It was not about improving my margins. I 

was not trying to even stay in the black. We were about trying to 

do something more. If we can find oil thousands of feet in the 

ground at depths that boggle the mind, then surely we have the 

technology to clean up our own mess, to find through photo imaging the giant black clouds of oil hidden, raging like death in the 

Gulf, posed to land on our beaches or escape to the Atlantic. 

124 

Without a doubt, the oil industry has the resources to create 

ships to hunt these down and drain their killing capacity. They 

have the technology and intellect to take this head on. We can all 

be about something more. 

I can see that these spills are our collective problem, but they are 

not our collective responsibility. The economic burden falls squarely 

on the oil industry. For them to get over the bar of safety and pay 

the price is not too much to ask. It is not too much to ask for them 

to have to put in place the safeguards, the redundancies, and muster the sheer will to thrown an overwhelming response at the problem now and in the inevitable future. Anything less is dangerous, 

unacceptable, and the American people deserve better. 

We have a special moment in time. We have to get this right. 

Forty thousand men and women in the oil industry are out of work 

through no fault of their own. Fishermen have been sidelined. 

Service industries are paralyzed. Families that have survived on 

the plentiful resources of the Gulf do not know the quality of life 

that now awaits them. 

I would ask this Committee to consider the multidimensional role 

that this technology can play in safeguarding the water and putting people back to work. The oil industry does not have the time 

to evolve a plan. They have to act. This is an absolute tool. It creates inefficiency where there are no efficiencies. It represents a legitimate response to accidents that are going to happen, and it 

clears a path to lift the moratorium, if that is what the country 

wants. 

We are in a fight to protect our jobs, our way of life, and an ecosystem that cannot protect itself. We can put Americans back to 

work and bring an entire industry into the 21st century of oil spill 

response. It is important to remember that when there is a spill 

anywhere, we suffer everywhere. Our machine represents a common ground, a common sense, and an absolute reality that we can 

and must protect those resources that we all share. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costner follows:] 

125 


Insert offset folio 88 here 73969.088
126 


Insert offset folio 89 here 73969.089
127 


Insert offset folio 90 here 73969.090
128 


Insert offset folio 91 here 73969.091
129 


Insert offset folio 92 here 73969.092
130 


Insert offset folio 93 here 73969.093
131 


Insert offset folio 94 here 73969.094
132 


Insert offset folio 95 here 73969.095
133 


Insert offset folio 96 here 73969.096
134 


Insert offset folio 97 here 73969.097
135 


Insert offset folio 98 here 73969.098
136 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you very much, Mr. Costner. You have 

been a hero on the screen, and let me say you are being a hero 

right now in real life, and we, particularly those of us along the 

Gulf Coast, so appreciate your balanced approach, your ability to 

represent not just your own company but thousands of businesses 

that, as Ms. Baird said, have been extraordinarily frustrated knowing they may have the solutions, but not being called on. I really 

sincerely appreciate the extraordinary effort that you are making, 

and others. 

Let me ask you this: You described this to me previously, but I 

would like you to describe publicly what happened when you went 

some 10 years ago to the offshore oil expo in Houston. Could you 

talk about that experience when you were excited about your machine and who you presented it to and what happened? 

Mr. COSTNER. Well, we had started by introducing the machine 

to all the oil companies, to the Coast Guard, to all the different 

agencies responsible for protecting the waters and got kind of the 

silent treatment. We then began to go to the expos where there— 

these are demonstrations where all the equipment that is designed 

to actually protect us in oil spills—booms and fancy helicopters and 

things like that—all occur. But the idea that there was some machine that would actually take the oil out of the water, I did not 

see anything. 

A very interesting story happened. My partner, John 

Houghtaling, actually went to Billy Nungesser in New Orleans at 

one point and said, ‘‘I want to say something to you. I kind of have 

a crazy idea. It is an actor with kind of a magic machine.’’ And 

Billy Nungesser said, ‘‘Wait. Do not say a no word.’’ He said, ‘‘Before I was a politician, I was an oil man, and I saw that machine 

in Houston, and I know it works. Would you please call him for 

me?’’ 

So I have been to the agencies, and it is in my written testimony 

who I have been to. And it is a process, and so is life. And I have 

lived it, and I thank you for bringing the light of day to my company by inviting me here. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Well, and it should not be that hard for any 

company. Ms. Baird, I would like you to testify just briefly about 

your first experience, which was not just a few weeks ago, or your 

company’s first experience with trying to present to the Federal 

Government a technology that might work even before this spill. 

Do you want to add anything to your testimony about that? 

Ms. BAIRD. I think that the thing to understand about our microbial solution is that the first open water application—this was back 

in 1990 when the tanker Mega Borg exploded off the—about 57 

miles off the coast of Galveston. And it was at that point that the 

State of Texas really kept a close eye on us and watched as we 

were able to remediate damage in the Gulf from crude oil back 

then. It was at that point that we were placed on the EPA contingency product plan and have remained there ever since. 

I think that the challenge that we faced is understanding which 

Government officials we should be meeting with. We, too, have 

been with Billy Nungesser down in Plaquemines Parish, and we 

have been with so many other fantastic and supportive Government agencies since then. I really think that everyone feels as 

137 

though their hands are tied and no one wants to spend constituent 

tax dollars, you know, with the hope that BP is going to pay back. 

And I think that that has been one of the challenges that we have 

faced. 

Chair LANDRIEU. We have got to break through that barrier. 

Mr. Parker, you represent a small business. I want to give you 

an opportunity. There was some lengthy testimony so you do not 

have to repeat it, but on the comment of when you first approached 

the Federal Government with technology—and you have several 

technologies, so you can pick just one. Why don’t you think they 

have accepted some of the things that you have presented to them? 

Mr. PARKER. We started 12 years ago with the Federal Government going to RRT meetings. I think that their agenda is—sometimes what we do is not as important to them. You know, when the 

Space Shuttle Columbia went down, these RRTs have to deal with 

those things. When Katrina came through, they have to deal with 

it. Sometimes oil spills just are not priorities. And we have tried 

for 12 years to get pre-authorization. We have successfully gotten 

pre-authorization in three of the regions: the Caribbean, Region 3, 

Region 4, and recently since this bill, Region 6. But they have so 

much on their plate, and unfortunately, the folks that have to 

make the decision may not want to make that decision because 

they have to sign a document. And when they sign those documents, they are liable for those decisions. And they have put us 

through hell to try to get these technologies out. 

We have been one of the few vendors that have been successful 

at a lot of cost and a lot of time away from home and just a lot 

of struggles. But they are good folks. They just have a lot on their 

plates, and we do not know the reasons why we are not at the NRT 

level with all of technologies. Why do we have to go to each individual RRT meeting two times a year, 13 different ones, and spend 

money just to preach the same story every time? I do not know the 

answers. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Okay. I am going to recognize Senator Snowe 

in a minute, but my final comment is really for you, Admiral. Unfortunately, I am now a veteran of disasters, representing a state 

that has been hit now by two extraordinary disasters. We were just 

recovering from Katrina and Rita. And what I witnessed close up 

in this contractor response, sometimes contractors—not all, but 

many of them are interested in making money in the wake of a disaster as opposed to serving the public. I can appreciate private 

businesses’ efforts to make profit. But if these small businesses 

have to go to contractors who, on the one hand, could make lots of 

money using old technology that does not work or make a lot less 

money using new technologies that do work, what do you think 

they might do? 

The American people deserve a Government that will fight for 

them, regardless of whether a profit is to be made or not. I sure 

hope the Coast Guard can step up to this job. 

Senator Snowe. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank 

all of you for your testimony here today. Sorry for the incredible 

hardships that you have confronted along the way in terms of getting your technologies or your products approved during this monuVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:43 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073969 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73969.TXT DPROCT
138 

mental time in our nation’s history. I think that is what is so tragic 

about all of this. I think most critically now is how best to remedy 

the situation that we find ourselves in, either procedurally or otherwise, to make sure that your technologies, your products get the 

attention that they deserve, and certainly at a time in which we 

should be maximizing the level of urgency in terms of delivering 

the resources necessary. 

So let me start with you, Mr. Smith, from your vantage point as 

an academic, and you are very familiar with the previous efforts. 

I find it stunning—I think we all do—that since Exxon Valdez we 

have failed to shape a contingency plan under any scenario, let 

alone a worst-case scenario. Regrettably, BP submitted a plan, its 

exploration plan of the worst-case scenario being 162,000 gallons a 

day. Obviously it is now up to 2.4 million gallons a day, so it is 

an Exxon Valdez every 4 days. So here we are. 

What would you recommend? From your position what can we do 

here and now? I want to go down the line here, because it is really 

important for us. It is an emergency, and it is urgent. We feel the 

desperation—of course, the Chair, who lives there in Louisiana, but 

I know every American is just wanting to do something. What can 

we do in Congress either to revamp this process—because clearly 

there is no single, synchronized, streamlined process that needs to 

be developed so that these technologies and products get the attention of the United States Government. I do not expect to relegate 

or subjugate the responsibilities in our public interest to a company. They have got their own objectives and goals. We have ours, 

which is the national interest. And that is what we have to deliver 

now. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I think you have hit the nail on the head there. 

Before I was an academic, I spent 30-odd years in this industry, 

sometimes trying to sell new ideas to oil companies, sometimes on 

the buy side. But the major issue is one of credibility. You have got 

a long supply chain to support any of these drilling efforts. This 

field, if it had been successfully developed, would have cost upwards of $2 billion to bring online. People trust certain suppliers. 

They have prior experience, precedent with those suppliers. And it 

is extremely hard, as I said, during normal times to bring a new 

supplier into the chain. During an emergency it is virtually impossible. 

What I think the Government could do in a case like this is to 

sort of short-circuit that system and perhaps screen these ideas 

quickly, find the ones that were winners, and get those publicly 

supported so that when there is a list of 14 suppliers, it is not just 

a matter of picking Nalco because that is the one you have always 

picked. There is more direction, more focus. I rarely end up defending the EPA, but I would say that in the case of the issue you had 

raised about Corexit, BP did write a response to that directive to 

Lisa Jackson, and in that response the comment was, ‘‘It is great. 

We would love to use the other material. There is just simply not 

enough supply to do anything with.’’ 

Another thing the Government could do is say, well, this is a 

supply item that we should have available. It does not have to sit 

in the Government inventory. I mean, the skimmers you were talkVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:43 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073969 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73969.TXT DPROCT
139 

ing about earlier, and Senator Levin was talking about, those 

pieces of equipment exist because the NRC was created at the 

strong suggestion of the Federal Government after one of the earlier spills. The reason we had 28 skimmers available was because 

they were directed to be built and financed by the oil companies. 

Senator SNOWE. I think that is something that we have to do in 

the future and having a contingency with a warehouse with certain 

products and technologies available to deploy. 

Mr. SMITH. I think that is absolutely correct. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Parker, from your experience? I know you 

have been approved, as you mentioned, in four regions. Is that correct? 

Mr. PARKER. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator SNOWE. Regional response areas? 

Mr. PARKER. Yes. 

Senator SNOWE. So not Louisiana, but Alabama—— 

Mr. PARKER. Well, Louisiana just recently—— 

Senator SNOWE. Just recently. 

Mr. PARKER. Just recently. It usually has taken us about 7 years 

per region consecutively. It should not take that long. I mean, it 

is a very simple product. It has been proven. It has been around 

since 1994, so it should not have to happen. The things that we feel 

that need to be done, you are right, there is a document called the 

Selection Guide that was written by Region 3 and Region 4 and the 

Coast Guard which does look at all these products, which they do 

examine and they put them through the ARTES process. I think 

some funding to revamp the Selection Guide and make it a living 

document more so than it is today would help because these are 

scientists that actually know what they are doing, and they can 

take these 23,000 products and put them through the testing that 

they need to be put through, improve them, and publish their performances and whether they are good or bad. It is a great document. It is available to everyone online, and I think that should be 

brought back to life, especially in light of what has happened today. 

Senator SNOWE. Those are good suggestions. Thank you. 

Ms. Baird, from your difficult situation, I would like to also ask 

you how much have you spent so far in trying to get, you know, 

your product approved. 

Ms. BAIRD. Just in the last 59 days, thousands and thousands of 

dollars in travel expenses, expenditures, phones, you know, we average probably 80 phone calls a day per executive team member. 

The biggest problem is the time required to chase down each person. I mean, as you can probably attest, just to get through to each 

Senator takes so many levels of discussion with so many other 

stakeholders. You cannot even imagine the kind of time this has 

required of our firm, and this, of course—we have ceased all other 

business in an attempt to do what we know is the right thing to 

do. 

And think about this: We are on the EPA list and we are approved by most Gulf Coast states, and we are going through this. 

I cannot imagine someone with an innovative idea that is not already on these lists. 

So I think I agree with the points that this panel has made, 

which is that there really should be some sort of a fast-track apVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:43 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073969 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73969.TXT DPROCT
140 

proach so that, you know, people that have gone through this vetting process are not left just out by themselves. 

Senator SNOWE. Excellent. Excellent suggestion. Sorry you are 

going through it. I can only imagine the difficulty in all that. 

Dr. Mitchelmore. 

Dr. MITCHELMORE. Thank you. For companies to have their 

dispersants considered, obviously they need to have toxicology tests 

so that they would be considered as suitable dispersants. However, 

we need to make sure that these tests are scientifically robust and 

that the companies are not going to testing facilities that are not 

giving them accurate and reliable and defensible data. And these 

tests should also be expanded to include other tests that may be 

able to give us some better information as to the longer-term effects of using dispersants and dispersed oil. 

And, indeed, in the whole realm of looking at the effects of dispersed oil, numerous recommendations were made by the National 

Research Council in 1989. I was on the panel in 2005 that also 

looked at these dispersant issues. And it was surprising that even 

16 years after the first report, some of the same recommendations 

regarding toxicity issues and other issues pertinent to dispersant 

use were still being recommended even with that 16-year data gap. 

So I would like to highlight that the recommendations in both of 

the NRC reports are actually looked at and future opportunities 

are made to be able to address these basic uncertainties and data 

gaps concerning dispersant use. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, because I know there are extensive 

knowledge gaps, as you suggested and recommend in that report. 

Mr. Costner, I know you were rejected around 45 times by various Federal agencies over the course—was it 17 years or the last 

10 years? 

Mr. COSTNER. I stand by all those numbers. 

[Laughter.] 

You know, I would like to say that I do not know how to solve 

that problem of committees. I do not work very well in committees. 

I work well with others, but I am not sure. 

I would say that my company over the last months has spent 

well over $1 million holding our breath to get that phone call that 

I did not think would ever come. 

What I would recommend, if I could, what I would demand, if I 

could, and I can do neither, so what I would beg—what I would beg 

the leaders in this country and the oil industry together would be, 

before you lift the moratorium, before you do that, to please have 

cleanup technology in place or at least on a way in a specific time 

that is designed to meet and match with full force the worst-case 

scenario that can be presented to us. 

Senator SNOWE. Great idea. Absolutely right on point. All of you, 

thank you. That is absolutely right, each of you, and I thank you. 

Madam Chair, I would like to submit for the record from the 

EPA, in fact, on the surface application dispersant, they did send 

a directive on May 26th that BP shall eliminate the surface application of dispersants. 

Thank you. 

Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you. That will be submitted to the 

record. 

141 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you all. 

[The information follows:] 

142 


Insert offset folio 99 here 73969.099
143 

Chair LANDRIEU. They have just called a vote, so we are going 

to have to wrap up this hearing, and I thank you. But on one final 

point, I want to ask the panelists to submit for the record—and you 

will receive this in writing from us, and the Coast Guard as well. 

Are the five categories clear enough and appropriate enough—one, 

oil-sensing improvements to response detection; two, oil well control and submerged oil response; three, traditional oil spill response; four, alternative oil spill response; five, oil spill damage assessment. If I were a small business and had a technology as described, I am not sure what category I would apply to. This could 

potentially be a first step. Get these categories clear, get them 

transparent, expedite the process so that the best technologies in 

America and around the world can be applied to a war that is 

being waged every day in the Gulf Coast. 

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(145) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

146 


Insert offset folio 100 here 73969.100
147 


Insert offset folio 101 here 73969.101
148 


Insert offset folio 102 here 73969.102
149 


Insert offset folio 103 here 73969.103
150 


Insert offset folio 104 here 73969.104
151 


Insert offset folio 105 here 73969.105
152 


Insert offset folio 106 here 73969.106
153 


Insert offset folio 107 here 73969.107
154 


Insert offset folio 108 here 73969.108
155 


Insert offset folio 109 here 73969.109
156 


Insert offset folio 110 here 73969.110
157 


Insert offset folio 111 here 73969.111
158 


Insert offset folio 112 here 73969.112
159 


Insert offset folio 113 here 73969.113
160 


Insert offset folio 114 here 73969.114
161 


Insert offset folio 115 here 73969.115
162 


Insert offset folio 116 here 73969.116
163 


Insert offset folio 117 here 73969.117
164 


Insert offset folio 118 here 73969.118
165 


Insert offset folio 119 here 73969.119
166 


Insert offset folio 120 here 73969.120
167 


Insert offset folio 121 here 73969.121
168 


Insert offset folio 122 here 73969.122
169 


Insert offset folio 123 here 73969.123
170 


Insert offset folio 124 here 73969.124
171 


Insert offset folio 125 here 73969.125
172 


Insert offset folio 126 here 73969.126
173 


Insert offset folio 127 here 73969.127
174 


Insert offset folio 128 here 73969.128
175 


Insert offset folio 129 here 73969.129
176 


Insert offset folio 130 here 73969.130
177 


Insert offset folio 131 here 73969.131
178 


Insert offset folio 132 here 73969.132
179 


Insert offset folio 133 here 73969.133
180 


Insert offset folio 134 here 73969.134
181 


Insert offset folio 135 here 73969.135
182 


Insert offset folio 136 here 73969.136
183 


Insert offset folio 137 here 73969.137
184 


Insert offset folio 138 here 73969.138
185 


Insert offset folio 139 here 73969.139
186 


Insert offset folio 140 here 73969.140
187 


Insert offset folio 141 here 73969.141
188 


Insert offset folio 142 here 73969.142
189 


Insert offset folio 143 here 73969.143
190 


Insert offset folio 144 here 73969.144
191 


Insert offset folio 145 here 73969.145
192 


Insert offset folio 146 here 73969.146
193 


Insert offset folio 147 here 73969.147
194 


Insert offset folio 148 here 73969.148
195 


Insert offset folio 149 here 73969.149
196 


Insert offset folio 150 here 73969.150
197 


Insert offset folio 151 here 73969.151
198 


Insert offset folio 152 here 73969.152
199 


Insert offset folio 153 here 73969.153
200 


Insert offset folio 154 here 73969.154
201 


Insert offset folio 155 here 73969.155
202 


Insert offset folio 156 here 73969.156
203 


Insert offset folio 157 here 73969.157
204 


Insert offset folio 158 here 73969.158
205 


Insert offset folio 159 here 73969.159
206 


Insert offset folio 160 here 73969.160
207 


Insert offset folio 161 here 73969.161
208 


Insert offset folio 162 here 73969.162
209 


Insert offset folio 163 here 73969.163
210 


Insert offset folio 164 here 73969.164
211 


Insert offset folio 165 here 73969.165
212 


Insert offset folio 166 here 73969.166
213 


Insert offset folio 167 here 73969.167
214 


Insert offset folio 168 here 73969.168
215 


Insert offset folio 169 here 73969.169
216 


Insert offset folio 170 here 73969.170
217 


Insert offset folio 171 here 73969.171
218 


Insert offset folio 172 here 73969.172
219 


Insert offset folio 173 here 73969.173
220 


Insert offset folio 174 here 73969.174
221 


Insert offset folio 175 here 73969.175
222 


Insert offset folio 176 here 73969.176
223 


Insert offset folio 177 here 73969.177
224 


Insert offset folio 178 here 73969.178
225 


Insert offset folio 179 here 73969.179
226 


Insert offset folio 180 here 73969.180
227 


Insert offset folio 181 here 73969.181
228 


Insert offset folio 182 here 73969.182
229 


Insert offset folio 183 here 73969.183
230 


Insert offset folio 184 here 73969.184
231 


Insert offset folio 185 here 73969.185
232 


Insert offset folio 186 here 73969.186
233 


Insert offset folio 187 here 73969.187
234 


Insert offset folio 188 here 73969.188
235 


Insert offset folio 189 here 73969.189
236 


Insert offset folio 190 here 73969.190
237 


Insert offset folio 191 here 73969.191
238 


Insert offset folio 192 here 73969.192
239 


Insert offset folio 193 here 73969.193
240 


Insert offset folio 194 here 73969.194
241 


Insert offset folio 195 here 73969.195
242 


Insert offset folio 196 here 73969.196
243 


Insert offset folio 197 here 73969.197
244 


Insert offset folio 198 here 73969.198
245 


Insert offset folio 199 here 73969.199
246 


Insert offset folio 200 here 73969.200
247 


Insert offset folio 201 here 73969.201
248 


Insert offset folio 202 here 73969.202
249 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 203 here 73969.203