[Senate Hearing 111-1240]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1240
FEDERAL RESPONSE TO THE RECENT OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 18, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-445 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 18, 2010
OPENING STATEMENTS
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 71
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 75
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 80
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 83
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 87
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 90
Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico....... 95
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 101
WITNESSES
Jackson, Hon. Lisa, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 13
Senator Carper........................................... 17
Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin....... 18
Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse.... 19
Sutley, Hon. Nancy, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality...... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 30
Senator Carper........................................... 33
Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior.... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 52
Senator Carper........................................... 60
Senator Cardin........................................... 66
Neffenger, Peter V., Rear Admiral, Deputy National Incident
Commander, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response, U.S. Coast
Guard.......................................................... 112
Prepared statement........................................... 115
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 123
Senator Carper........................................... 141
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 146
Senator Inhofe........................................... 156
Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works)......................................................... 158
Prepared statement........................................... 160
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 163
Fernandez, Hon. John, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Economic Development, Economic Development Administration...... 168
Prepared statement........................................... 170
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 178
FEDERAL RESPONSE TO THE RECENT OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room 106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(Chairman of the full Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Baucus, Voinovich, Carper,
Lautenberg, Alexander, Vitter, Cardin, Klobuchar, Whitehouse,
Barrasso, and Udall.
Senator Boxer. Good afternoon. I believe we have our
witness; I want to say Senator Salazar, Interior Secretary
Salazar should be here shortly.
We are going to have a little bit of a difficult start to
the hearing because we have a vote scheduled, a couple of
votes. I am going to tag team with Senator Cardin on this going
back and forth. But what we want to do is we have all decided
that we are going to forego any opening statements and each of
us have 10 minutes to question, because we feel that is the key
issue. And we just want to get your statements out there, and
then we have a lot of questions.
So why don't we start with Hon. Lisa Jackson of the
Environmental Protection Agency. We will move to Hon. Nancy
Sutley, Council on Environmental Quality.
Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and
members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify
about EPA's role in responding to the BP Deepwater Horizon rig
explosion.
As we all know, efforts by BP to stop the oil release
continue. While there is no perfect solution to the
environmental disaster that the Gulf of Mexico is facing right
now, EPA is committed to protecting our communities, the
natural environment, and human health. That commitment covers
both the risk from the spill itself as well as any concerns
resulting from the response to the spill.
Let me begin by recognizing the extraordinary effort put in
by our responders. These are people that have maintained their
resolve in the face of often overwhelming challenges. They have
gone above and beyond, and we certainly owe them a debt of
gratitude.
In the last 3 weeks EPA has dispatched more than 120 staff
scientists, engineers, and contractors to Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, and Mississippi to perform rigorous testing and
monitoring of air and water quality. We are tracking any
possible adverse impacts stemming from controlled burning of
surface oil, possible chemicals rising from the oil itself, and
any issues caused by the use of dispersants.
We are working with State officials, with local university
scientists, and other Federal agencies to get the best
available data, share that data in a timely fashion and to
ensure proper response for the Gulf Coast people and their
environment. At the President's direction, I have personally
traveled to the region--the region I grew up in and still
consider my home--twice over the past weeks to personally
oversee EPA's efforts and to meet with the local community to
ensure that their questions and concerns are addressed.
For weeks, EPA responders have been monitoring air
pollutants, including particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, and
total volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, from the oil in the
Gulf as well as from the controlled burning of oil. These
pollutants could pose a health risk to local communities, and
this monitoring is essential to ensure that communities are
protected as BP takes direct response actions.
EPA is also monitoring water quality by conducting surface
water testing along the Gulf Coast, both in areas that have
been impacted and those not yet affected. All of this
information is being made public as quickly as we can compile
it. We have been posting regular updates to our Web page,
www.epa.gov/bpspill, which has been a critical resource since
the beginning of this event.
A primary concern is to ensure the safe application of
chemical dispersants. Oil dispersants are chemicals applied to
the spilled oil to break down the oil into small droplets below
the surface. Ideally the dispersed oil mixes into the water
column and is rapidly diluted. Bacteria and other microscopic
organisms then act to degrade the oil within the droplets.
However, in the use of dispersants we are faced with
environmental tradeoffs. We know that surface use of
dispersants decreases the environmental risk to shorelines and
organisms at the surface, and we know that dispersants break
down over weeks, rather than remaining for several years as
untreated oil might.
But we are also deeply concerned about the things we don't
know. The long-term effects on aquatic life are still unknown,
and we must make sure that the dispersants that are used are as
non-toxic as possible. We are working with manufacturers, with
BP, and with others to get less toxic dispersants to the
response site as quickly as possible.
EPA has previously authorized use of several dispersant
chemicals under the National Contingency Plan. In order to be
placed on this list, each dispersant chemical must undergo a
toxicity and effectiveness test. However, I am increasingly
concerned that EPA can and should do more.
As we emerge from this response, I commit to reviewing the
regulations regarding dispersant registration and listing. I
commit to sharing the results of that review with this
Committee and working to tighten the law if it is necessary in
order to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
On Friday, EPA and the on-scene coordinator authorized the
application of dispersant under water at the source of the
leak. The goal of this novel approach is to break up and
degrade the oil before it reaches the water's surface and comes
closer to our shorelines, our estuaries, and our nurseries for
fishing. Based on our testing this can be done by using less
dispersant than is necessary on the surface. But let me be
clear that EPA reserves the right to halt the usage of sub-
surface dispersant if we conclude that at any time the impact
to the environment outweighs the benefits of dispersing the
oil.
As with our other monitoring initiatives, EPA and the Coast
Guard have instituted a publicly available monitoring plan for
sub-surface dispersant application to understand impacts to the
environment. This data will come to EPA once a day.
EPA is also preparing to support any necessary shore line
assessment and clean up. EPA, in coordination with the States,
will continue to provide information to both workers and the
public about test results as well as assisting communities with
potential debris disposal and hazardous waste issues.
Madam Chairman, as a New Orleans native I know first-hand
the importance of the natural environment to the economy, the
health, and the culture of the Gulf Coast. As I mentioned,
since the accident I have been to the region twice. I have
listened to people in numerous town halls from Venice,
Louisiana, to Waveland, Mississippi, and other communities in
between. I have learned in those meetings that the people of
the Gulf Coast are eager to be part of this response. They also
want to be informed, and where possible, empowered to improve
their situation on their own.
We have a great deal of rebuilding to do, both in material
terms and in terms of restoring this community's trust that
Government can and will protect them in a time of need. This is
one of those times. I urge that we do everything within our
power to ensure a strong recovery and future for the Gulf
Coast.
EPA will continue to fully support the U.S. Coast Guard and
play a robust role in monitoring and responding to potential
public health and environmental concerns. As local communities
assess the impact on their economies, EPA, in partnership with
other Federal, State, and local agencies, will provide all
assets to assist in the recovery.
At this time, I welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
We will go to Hon. Nancy Sutley.
The Secretary of the Interior has joined us, and we are so
glad. I know you have been working non-stop, but we are just
really glad to have you here.
We will proceed to Hon. Nancy Sutley.
STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY SUTLEY, CHAIR, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
Inhofe, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today and ask that my written testimony
be included in the record.
Senator Boxer. Without objection.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you.
Before I move to discuss the National Environmental Policy
Act, I want to express my condolences to the families of the 11
workers who lost their lives in the explosion and sinking of
the Deepwater Horizon. I also want to stress that the
Administration is committed to aggressively responding to the
environmental crisis in the Gulf and to protecting the lives
and livelihoods of the people of the region.
Last week the President sent Congress a legislative
proposal that would enable the Federal Government to speed
assistance if the spill gets worse and if the responsible
parties are not paying claims quickly and fairly. The
Administration looks forward to working with Congress to
implement the proposal.
The President is also forming an independent bipartisan
commission to look at improvements to offshore drilling
infrastructure and related measures to better protect workers
and the environment.
Today I will focus on NEPA and how it relates to agency
actions. President Nixon signed the National Environmental
Policy Act into law in 1970, and in 1978 the Council on
Environmental Quality issued regulations implementing the
procedural provisions of NEPA that apply to all Federal
agencies. Every agency in the Federal Government has an
affirmative obligation to comply with NEPA.
Agencies establish their NEPA implementing procedures,
which tailor the CEQ requirements to a specific agency's
authorities and decisionmaking processes. CEQ provides
assistance in this process, and an agency's NEPA procedures are
not finalized until CEQ determines that they are in conformity
with NEPA and CEQ regulations.
In February 2010 the Administration moved to update NEPA
practices. CEQ released draft guidance that will assist Federal
agencies to meet the goals of NEPA, enhance public involvement,
increase transparency, and ease implementation. This draft
guidance specifically addresses categorical exclusions, or CEs
which have been used since the 1970s. Agencies can establish
CEs when experience shows that certain groups of activities are
unlikely to have significant environmental effects.
In recent years, the expansion of the number and range of
activities categorically excluded combined with the extensive
use of categorical exclusions and limited opportunity for
public involvement in CE applications have underscored the need
for additional guidance. In the proposed guidance, CEQ has made
it clear that it will increase its review of agencies' use of
CEs.
When it comes to oil and gas development, the Minerals
Management Service is required to apply NEPA to drilling
decisions on the Outer Continental Shelf. Specifically in the
case of the Gulf of Mexico leases, the Minerals Management
Service prepared several NEPA analyses. In April 2007 MMS
prepared a broad programmatic environmental impact statement on
the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, which
includes the 5-year lease plan.
Also in April 2007, MMS prepared an environmental impact
statement for the Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas sales in the
western and central planning areas. In October 2007 MMS
completed another environmental assessment tiered off of the
multi-sale EIS for the central Gulf of Mexico's lease sale 206.
This is the sale in which the lease was issued for the location
that includes the Deepwater Horizon well.
In addition, MMS approved BP's development operations based
on a programmatic environmental assessment that MMS prepared in
2002. In the decision to approve the exploration plan that
included the Deepwater Horizon well, MMS applied its existing
categorical exclusion review process.
The categorical exclusion that was used by MMS for
Deepwater Horizon was established more than 20 years ago. Under
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, MMS has 30 days to
complete its environmental review and act on the exploration
plan. In the legislation we sent up, the Administration seeks
to change that timeline to a minimum of 90 days.
Last week CEQ and the Department of the Interior announced
a review of MMS's NEPA procedures. This review is to ensure
that NEPA is being applied in a rigorous way that meets its
intent, and we expect it to be completed by mid-June.
In closing, Federal agencies have an affirmative obligation
to comply with NEPA, and the Administration is committed to
making sure that agencies meet this obligation. The Deepwater
Horizon event reminds us of the need for a thorough
environmental review of offshore oil and gas drilling projects,
and I am committed to working with the Department of Interior
to ensure the application of NEPA in a manner that meets the
goals of the Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sutley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Secretary Salazar, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer and
Ranking Member Inhofe and distinguished Senators and members of
this Committee, my former colleagues.
I thought I would first just give you a quick update on
what is going on with respect to the efforts to stop the flow
of oil in the Gulf of Mexico from this horrific tragedy. From
day one, there has been an effort to move forward with flow
mitigation, with flow stoppage, and ultimately with sealing the
well strategies. Let me just take a second and speak about
those things because I think they are matters of interest to
the members of this Committee.
First with respect to flow mitigation, whether it was the
dome that was tried last week or the current insertion tube
that is in there, it has been recognized that those are simply
Band-Aids that will contain some of the oil but probably will
not contain all of the oil. In fact, it won't contain all of
the oil.
The current flow mitigation strategy which is underway is
the riser insertion tube. You have seen a lot about it on
television and newspaper reports. As of this morning the
collection from the riser insertion tube is somewhere between
1,500 barrels per day to 2,000 barrels per day. It is being
ramped up every 2 hours, approximately, and the hope is that
additional oil will be captured through this flow mitigation
strategy.
Second, and more effectively, will be the efforts to
essentially kill the well. There have been three different
approaches which BP and the group of scientists that have been
examining the way of killing the well have been looking at over
the last several weeks. They have now come to a conclusion that
the best way forward, given the diagnostics that have been
done, is to move forward with the dynamic kill of the well. The
so-called dynamic kill of the well is essentially killing the
well through the insertion of mud. That procedure, according to
the latest schedule, is for this Sunday.
So hopefully those efforts will contain the oil. They will
stop the flow of oil and then move forward to what will be the
ultimate demise of this well, and that is through the
construction of the relief wells. There are two relief wells
that are being drilled. Just in case something goes wrong with
the first one, there is redundancy in all these procedures. So
the second relief well, then, that has to be drilled would be
used to seal the well.
That is the permanent solution. That solution is probably
something that will not happen until August. And so hence the
importance of both the flow mitigation and the full stoppage
efforts that are underway.
Second, let me just make a comment about the comprehensive
response that the President ordered from the beginning on this
effort. It has been a comprehensive command and control effort
on the part of the U.S. Government. In that effort, EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson, Nancy Sutley and many others have
been involved, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
and our National Incident Commander Thad Allen and many others.
It is a directive that the President has given to all of us
that we shall not rest until we have this matter resolved. And
I can guarantee you that none of us are resting. It has been
relentless 18-hour days, 7 days a week, and we will continue
this effort until we get the problem resolved.
An illustration of the muscle that is going into this
effort today, and in terms of the effectiveness of the response
plan that had been put into place that is being actuated can be
told in a simple set of numbers: 20,000 people, an army that
essentially is combating the oil spill on the Gulf Coast today;
over 750 vessels that are out there, ships from some of the
most sophisticated ships in the world, the skimming ships, the
other vessels that have been commissioned to move forward with
this effort.
In a word, nothing really is being spared to move forward
and to resolve this issue, and that is the directive that we
have from the President.
The third point I want to make, there have been other
hearings that have been held here in the Congress. There will
be many more hearings in the future. The President has been
clear. There is responsibility to go around with respect to
this major environmental disaster that has happened. That
collective responsibility should lead us to do two things.
First, fix the problem that we find ourselves in in the Gulf of
Mexico today. And second of all, make sure that this never
happens again. That should be our collective responsibility.
Instead of doing the finger pointing that sometimes happens
when you get into these kinds of incidents, my own view is that
it is a matter of collective responsibility. It is a
responsibility which we assume at the Department of Interior
and its Minerals Management Services for a job that we believe
can in fact be done better.
We have been working hard on a reform agenda which many of
you are aware of for renewable energy, to new safety measures,
to additional inspectors, and a whole host of other things. But
that reform agenda is not yet complete. There is a lot more to
go, and obviously this incident solidifies the conclusion that
the reformation that needed to happen at MMS will in fact
happen.
Second, it is not just about the executive branch. It is
also about the U.S. Congress. I had the honor of being a Member
of this distinguished body and friends with the members of this
Committee. The national framework which we are operating on,
which is part of the National Energy Program with respect to
development of oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf is
one that has been forthcoming over the last 40 years.
There are parts of the congressional requirements and the
congressional effort here which you have to assume
responsibility for. A couple of quick examples. First, the
President's package which he sent to Congress a few days ago
would require MMS to have more than just the 30 days, which now
is required to act on expiration plans, is a good step forward.
There are many other measures I am certain that this body will
be considering to make oil and gas production more safe.
Among some of those that I would urge this Committee,
working along with Senator Bingaman's and Senator Murkowski's
Committee on Energy, is to move forward with the enactment of
comprehensive organic legislation for the Minerals Management
Service. It is to me, frankly, a troublesome reality that we
find ourselves in in 2010, where you have an agency with the
responsibilities of the Minerals Management Service without an
organic act of this Congress. It exists by virtue of
secretarial order that was signed now some 30 years ago. An
agency that has the responsibility of getting $13 billion on
average a year for the American taxpayer-owned property that
helps fund the operations of this Government needs to have a
higher stature.
An agency with 1,700 people that has the responsibility for
protecting our oceans and for developing energy resources, both
conventional and renewable energy resources, needs to have a
higher stature, and so the organic legislation that I am
hopeful this Congress considers is something that we are
looking forward to.
Third, as we speak about collective responsibility it is
important to note that from day one BP, under the laws of the
United States and our initiatives within the U.S. Government,
is the responsible party. That is what the law says. That is
what the lease requires. They are responsible for stopping the
leak. They are responsible for containing the oil on the ocean.
They are responsible for protecting our beaches and our coastal
areas and our ecological resources. And they are responsible as
well for paying whatever damages occur from this incident to
the environment of the Gulf Coast. And in addition to that,
responsible for compensating those who will be harmed from this
incident.
They have confirmed that that is their responsibility. They
will not hide behind the Oil Act pollution liability
limitations, but will assume that responsibility, and they have
confirmed that in a letter to Secretary Napolitano and me which
we received just a few days ago.
Beyond BP and the collective responsibility here, there are
other companies that certainly will be part of the
investigations and which will be held accountable for whatever
action those facts show us they should be held accountable for,
but they will include Cameron, the manufacturer of the blowout
prevention valve; Halliburton, the cementing company;
Transocean, the owner of the rig; and many others that will be
involved.
Fourth, what I would say, when we think about collective
responsibility, I look at each of the members of this Committee
with whom I have worked, and we have talked about national
security for the United States of America. We have talked about
energy security for the United States of America. I know
Senator Voinovich has said it is one of his huge legacy issues.
There is a statement here to be made from this awful
tragedy in the Gulf Coast, and that is we need to move forward
with a new energy frontier. Yes, oil and gas will be a part of
our future. The President has said from day one that a
comprehensive energy plan is something that we need, but we
need to bring other streams of energy into the security part of
our country.
And if I may, Madam Chairman, just a couple of other quick
points. With respect to Interior reform of the Minerals
Management Services, we have done a cleaning house of this
agency from day one. There have been people who have been let
go. There have been people who have been referred for
prosecution. And we will continue on that vein as we move
forward with these investigations.
We have eliminated the Royalty-in-Kind Program because we
felt that that was an area in the agency that was subject to
fraud and abuse. We have beefed up enforcement, including in
the budgets that this Congress has approved. And we are
separating the functions of MMS between those relating to
revenue and those related to safety and enforcement, and there
will be some additional announcements of that that will be made
later on.
And the final point, just to bring the members of the
Committee up to speed in a comprehensive way relative to
investigations that are underway, the President's commission
will be the kind of commission that we saw during Challenger
and Three Mile Island. And through that kind of commission, you
will also see other investigations that will inform the work of
that commission.
I want to make two quick points, if I may, and I know I am
running a little beyond my time.
Senator Boxer. The problem is we have a vote starting
momentarily.
Mr. Salazar. Let me then just be very quick. With the Three
Mile Island Commission, you will recall there were two reactors
on which shut down for 6 months, and you know what the rest of
that legacy was. With respect to the Challenger Commission,
there was a 2 and a half year delay with respect to the Space
Shuttle Program.
We have three investigations that are already underway with
Coast Guard and MMS trying to get to the root cause of the
accident. We have a National Academy of Engineering
investigation which we have initiated. And we have an
investigation which I have directed from the Inspector General
as well. Those investigations will all lead to the Presidential
Commission, which will then get us the findings and the lessons
learned so that we know the truth.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
So each of us is going to have 10 minutes to use as we
wish, either a statement, or a statement and questions, or just
questions.
As many of you know, some of us have been seeking releases
of the video of this spill. And at our hearing last week, we
asked BP. Essentially, BP said, oh, we have sent this all to
the Incident Command over at the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard
informed us that wasn't the fact, and the Coast Guard was very
much in favor of getting all of the hard drives and getting all
this material. They were just getting streaming video.
So this morning, we got a breakthrough. BP agreed to
release all the video of the spill. And I want to show a video
clip of one of these interim technologies that was discussed
here today, the insertion tube. And before you put it on, I
think the thing to look for here is that this insertion tube
may be capturing some oil, but it is not capturing most. And
you will be shocked. As a matter of fact, I was nervous about
showing it because I said, are you sure? And my chief of staff
said, yes, we have this from BP showing the RITT, which is the
riser insertion tubing and the dispersement tools in operation.
So if you can show that.
[Video]
Senator Boxer. See it? Look. There is the oil after the
insertion tube. And at the bottom it looks like a little flame.
That is the dispersant at work down there.
So I just felt it was important for us to note that this
interim step, if you look at the other picture of before they
put it in, you can't really tell the difference that much. So
it is an interim step. It is not doing what a lot of us were
hoping that it would do.
And we are getting all these records tomorrow, Mr.
Secretary, and we will get them to everybody because it is so
important to us on this Committee on both sides. We want to
make sure that scientists who are quite objective and have
nothing else on their agenda can take a look at this and let us
know what are the true volumes. And as we move forward to other
fixes we want to see whether they are really doing the job.
Secretary Salazar, yesterday I sent a letter to the
Attorney General with several other Senators from this
Committee asking that he investigate whether BP has violated
any criminal or civil laws in its actions related to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. And I want to show all three of
you some of the statements that they made.
This is what was on their initial permit request: ``In the
event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it
is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry-wide
standards for using proven equipment and technology for such
responses.'' And they also said, ``Due to the distance to
shore, 48 miles, and the response capabilities that would be
implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected.''
And then after the spill occurred, this is what they said,
after they assured us that they had all the equipment
necessary: ``All the techniques being attempted or evaluated to
contain the flow of oil on the sea bed involve significant
uncertainties because they have not been tested in these
conditions before.'' This is stunning. This is the before and
after statements that it is as if they were written in
different worlds and different realities.
And so I wanted to ask you. You have announced that you are
going to have an investigation, which I hope I speak for
everybody, I think it is totally appropriate. I am very
supportive of it. But I feel that the Justice Department ought
to take a look to see whether false statements were made.
Do you support the Justice Department taking a look at
this? I would start with Lisa Jackson.
Ms. Jackson. I would certainly defer to the Attorney
General, who is a lawyer, and I am certainly not one, as to
whether they meet the standards for criminality in the case.
Certainly, investigations are warranted.
Mr. Salazar. Let me respond to that, if I may, Chairman
Boxer. The fact of the matter is that the investigations that
are underway, including the Presidential Commission, when the
facts are known, the truth shall be known as well, and whatever
actions have to be taken will be taken. Whatever the level of
culpability is with respect to civil liability, or wherever the
facts take us, that is the action that the Federal Government
will take. We will hold those accountable under the law.
At this point in time, Chairman Boxer and members of the
Committee, there are many facts which are still unknown. And it
will be time before we are able to get to the bottom of all of
this, but I can assure you that from the President's point of
view and my point of view having been involved in helping
direct this effort, one, transparency is important, which
relates to your video and getting whatever information
available to you.
And second of all, accountability. So accountability will
be there in whatever shape it will take.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Ms. Sutley.
Ms. Sutley. I would just agree with the comments of my
colleagues that it is important that we go where the facts take
us and look into both the causes and the implications of the
actions that were taken and take appropriate action.
Senator Boxer. OK. I just want to reiterate, I am going to
push hard on a DOJ investigation because I know what was said.
What was said is we can handle this. And what was said after it
was essentially we can't handle this. And if you believe that
people are supposed to tell the truth on a permit in a
situation like this where so much is at stake, so I am going to
push separately for a DOJ investigation.
And I think, Administrator Jackson, you are right. We will
see. Because the other investigation is a little bit different
than this. This is about what people are saying on their permit
applications and what they really have in their backpack, so to
speak, to deal with this once it happens.
And so I am very glad that the President is doing this
commission. I don't want to understate how pleased I am at
that. I am also very pleased that, Mr. Secretary, you have
cleaned house over there. I assume there is more to be done,
but I am also very pleased that you talked about a separate
agency to look at safety as opposed to an agency that is
pushing the drilling.
I am a little concerned--and I know I was talking to
Senator Voinovich about this. He was using some examples. I
don't want to take his point of view and try to express it. He
will do that on his own.
But are you concerned that if we just have an agency within
MMS, rather than outside MMS, that you are going to really
crack this culture of the good old boys, and girls, I assume, I
don't know if there are any girls over there, just taking each
other out to dinner and this cozy relationship, if you have it
within the MMS?
Mr. Salazar. I am confident that we will be able to address
the problem, Chairwoman. The first thing that we did when we
came in was to deal with a new code of ethics that we have
installed in MMS. We have done away with programs like the
Royalty-in-Kind Program and other measures.
We have just begun our efforts. There is a lot more to be
done, and we will get it done to make sure that the Government
operates in a manner that we can all be proud of and that is
doing its job.
Senator Boxer. Well, I am going to ask one more time. Will
you consider a separate entity outside of MMS, as opposed to a
safety agency located within MMS? It gives me a little bit of
concern. You have the safety people around the corner from the
other folks, and again, I don't know whether we are playing
into this all too cozy relationship.
Mr. Salazar. Madam Chairwoman Boxer, we have done a lot to
reorganize this agency. We will be announcing some more
reorganization efforts in the days ahead with respect to MMS.
Many of the issues that you raise will be taken into account in
that reorganization. But in addition to that, as I said
earlier, the responsibility is a broadly shared one, and I
think it is important for this Congress to also put together
organic legislation for this agency that conducts such an
important set of functions for the United States.
Senator Boxer. Yes, well, I look forward to sharing that.
From my perspective, I think it is important. This is an
ongoing nightmare, and if ever we are going to reform, it is
now because it is fresh in people's minds. And I would feel so
much more confident, as I do with other issues in the Federal
Government when we have a true independent check and balance.
And so I look forward to working with you on that.
With that, I will call on Senator Inhofe, and I think you
will have time to go through your statement.
Senator Inhofe. And then we will vote. The vote has
started, and then we will come back.
Senator Boxer. Yes, for the benefit of the panel, a vote
has started.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Let me first of all say what I said on the
floor yesterday. I was very complimentary of President Obama,
as well as you, Administrator Jackson, in the way you have
handled this. I was very proud of the President when he said,
``The most important order of business is to stop the leak and
we need to stop it as soon as possible.'' He went on to say,
``We must contain this spill and protect the Gulf Coast and the
people who live there.'' And he went on to say, ``mitigate the
damage caused by the spill.''
We all agree with that. And what I was going to say in an
opening statement, but I will paraphrase it now, I think we
should be very careful not to allow people to take this to
advance a personal agenda. I happened to be around 20 years ago
when the Exxon Valdez happened. In fact, I was in the House and
serving on the Transportation Committee. And several people at
that time made the public statement, actually these are some of
the extremist environmentalists who said we are going to parlay
this into stopping all drilling on the North Slope.
My response was this is mostly a transportation accident,
and if you stop it, that would make us more dependent upon
foreign oil. Therefore, transportation would increase and the
likelihood would increase of something else like this.
And I am seeing some of the same things happening today,
and I just hope that we could all guard against this and keep
in mind that we have something to do. That is clean this mess
up and do all we can to make sure it doesn't happen again.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
It might come as a surprise to some people in this room,
but I want to commend President Obama for his speech on the oil
spill last Friday. He didn't waste time pointing fingers,
assigning blame, or issuing irresponsible statements against
domestic energy production. He said what I've said from the
very start. Let me quote him. The ``most important order of
business,'' he said, ``is to stop the leak . . . and we need to
stop it as soon as possible.''
The President went on to say that we must ``contain the
spill and protect the Gulf Coast and the people who live
there.'' Again, that's exactly what we should be doing. He also
mentioned the need to ``mitigate the damage caused by the
spill'' and to put in place ``every necessary safeguard and
protection so that a tragedy like this oil spill does not
happen again.''
This is very similar to what I said at our last hearing on
the spill. I said that we need to:
Mitigate and contain the environmental impacts;
Provide assistance to the Gulf's commercial and
recreational fishing industries; and
Investigate the causes so we can prevent a disaster of
this kind from happening again.
Administrator Jackson, I have great respect for you--and I
was pleased with what you said recently about the spill. You
said we need a thoughtful response to ensure this doesn't
happen again. You said the focus must be on stopping the oil
spill and helping the people affected. I couldn't agree more.
I also appreciate your hard work, along with the Coast
Guard and NOAA, in approving the testing on the subsea use of
dispersants. The early results are encouraging. I also support
your diligence in monitoring to ensure that the use of
dispersants is effective and environmentally sound.
Based on what I've seen thus far, we have agreement on what
needs to get done, and I hope we can agree on the path forward.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that this spill has occasioned some
fatally misguided legislation, which will make us more
dependent on foreign oil.
This Committee exercises primary jurisdiction over the Oil
Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990. Senator Menendez's bill, S. 3305,
would amend the OPA. He may not know it, but his bill is a big
help for big oil companies, such as BP, and for foreign and
state-owned oil companies.
S. 3305 would make offshore production for small- and
medium-sized independent producers economically infeasible--
they would be forced out of the Gulf. We can't forget that the
independents produce 63 percent of the Gulf's natural gas and
36 percent of its oil. If S. 3305 became law, their business
would be swallowed up by the likes of BP and the China National
Offshore Oil Corporation. How would that help address the
spill? How would that lessen our dependence on foreign oil?
We experienced something like this in 1989 with the Exxon
Valdez oil spill. Remember that that incident was different
from what are dealing with now. Exxon Valdez was the name of
the tanker that crashed in Prince William Sound. It was a
transportation accident.
I was on the House Transportation Committee at the time.
Much to my dismay, environmental groups politicized the
accident; they exploited it to achieve their goal of shutting
down domestic oil production. Of course, the irony is that we
are more dependent on foreign oil. Companies moved their
operations overseas. What's more, we now have more tankers
coming to port, which increases our risk of oil spills.
Yesterday, President Obama announced plans to establish an
independent commission to comprehensively investigate the
causes of this spill. Madam Chairman, let's address the urgent
needs of the moment. And then, after that, when we have all the
facts, we can draft the appropriate response, one that will
protect the environment and lessen our dependence on foreign
oil. We can do both, and I hope we will do both.
Senator Inhofe. Administrator Jackson, first of all, thank
you for your availability. I did bother you a few times, and
each time I called you down there, you were in a different
State on the coast meeting with different people. So I know you
are on the job.
I was going to ask you something about dispersants, but I
think you covered it pretty well in your opening statement,
except for one thing, and that is in terms of the toxicity of
the dispersants as compared to the toxicity of the oil itself.
Do you have any comments you could make about that?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, Senator. In general the toxicity of
the dispersants is far less than the toxicity of the crude oil
itself. And in general they are shorter-lived in the
environment than oil alone.
Senator Inhofe. So it would actually be less, but also more
temporary. This is not what some of the things that have come
out through the media, and I appreciate that.
Ms. Jackson. I think the only unknown here is that there
are very large unprecedented volumes of dispersants being used
both at the surface, and of course now this sub-sea injection
is a totally new technology.
Senator Inhofe. Right, right. The other thing I was going
to ask you about, more to my benefit than anyone else's, we
have been hearing a lot of talk about a large orange plume
under the ocean surface approaching the loop current. The EPA
and NOAA have confirmed whether this plume is related to the
oil spill. What more can you tell us about the big orange plume
that we have been hearing about?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I would certainly defer to NOAA,
whose job is to predict where this dispersed oil will move. The
concern I had was on Sunday when we had an article in the New
York Times that said that there was a dispersed plume of oil,
and there was at least the implication that dispersants were to
blame for it, and in fact sub-sea dispersants.
And on Sunday afternoon at 4 o'clock Jane Lubchenco and I
got on the phone with the scientists on the Pelican research
ship, and they don't yet have the data to show whether all or
most of what they are seeing as anomalies are indeed oil.
Certainly, some of them are likely to be, but they are waiting
for that data.
There was a lot of talk about dissolved oxygen, and in fact
their dissolved oxygen numbers are not uncharacteristic of what
you would expect to find. They said to me when I asked them
that they hadn't seen any dissolved oxygen levels that were of
concern.
And they also said quite clearly when I asked them that
they had no data to show that this was due to dispersant use.
It could be natural dispersion of oil. Oil is going to disperse
in the atmosphere. So there is so much we don't know at this
point.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
And Secretary Salazar, in what was going to be my opening
statement, yesterday we talked about the Menendez bill on the
floor of the Senate. I actually took the position of President
Obama in that for us to right now raise these limits as they
are trying to do in Senate bill 3305, I felt at that time that
that is premature, as the President stated also. That if we do
that, there are other unintended consequences, and we don't
know. Later on we may have a better idea as to what level of
liability should be set in terms of the change.
Now, one of the things that is of interest to me
colloquially, and I will read a paragraph out of this letter.
This letter is from the Executive Vice President of the Alliant
Insurance Group. We have a similar one from Lloyds of London.
They said, ``If the liability cap is increased to levels we
understand are under consideration, in our view only major oil
companies and NOCs,'' that is the national oil companies,
``will be financially strong enough to continue current
exploration and development efforts.''
Our analysis of this is it would be the five majors, plus
perhaps NOCs of Venezuela, China. I guess the question I would
ask of you, do you think that is good? Do you think that is
healthy? And have you given it thought to limits of liability
at this time? Or do you think it is premature?
Mr. Salazar. The President has sent a request to the
Congress to lift the amounts on the liability limitation. What
that exact amount should be should take into consideration the
kinds of facts that you are alluding to here, Senator Inhofe.
And so that is why the Administration will engage with the
Congress and will figure out where the appropriate limit should
be set. That is why there was not a specific number that was
sent forth.
Second, if I may, there has been a lot of questions about
the BP responsibility here and the liability limitation. In our
view, and BP has confirmed this in writing, that liability
limitation does not apply to this incident because BP has
affirmatively stated and has memorialized in writing that they
will pay for all damages resulting from this incident.
Senator Inhofe. Last night, I saw the rerun, in fact I saw
it three times, of Mike Williams on 60 Minutes. I am sure all
of you saw that. He had some pretty shocking things to say and
conclusions in terms of who was at fault, why it was, and all
that.
I would like to ask all three of you if you have any
thoughts about the testimony of Mike Williams as it was
portrayed on 60 Minutes, starting with you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Salazar. I did not watch it because I have been working
on the Gulf incident non-stop, so I did not watch it.
Senator Inhofe. This is the Gulf incident we are talking
about.
Mr. Salazar. But I did not watch the 60 Minutes program.
But I will say this, the reality of it is, Senator Inhofe, that
there are many facts that will see the light of day as these
investigations move forward. Anyone who has the responsibility
for not having done what they said they were going to do,
whether that is the private companies that were involved,
including BP and others, or whether it was people in the public
sector, they will be held accountable.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
For the other two, just for the record, if you would give
your response, I would appreciate it very much.
I am going to go vote.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin [presiding]. As has been pointed out, there
is a vote currently on the Senate floor. There is another vote
following, so I voted early in order to keep the hearing going.
So with that in mind, I don't take it personally that I
don't have too many of my colleagues to hear my questioning.
Mr. Salazar. It is the first time I have seen you in your
position as Chairman, Chairman Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Right. I appreciate that, former Senator
Salazar.
Mr. Salazar. But you are alone.
Senator Cardin. Let me thank all three of you, though, for
your service, and thank you for being here. I know that these
are extremely difficult days, and the inadequacy of the
regulatory process for approving drilling sites pre-dates the
Obama administration. So I fully understand that, but you have
the responsibility to set into motion the type of changes that
will correct this failed system.
And I say that because we had a hearing, and we went over
it with the BP oil executive and the others that were related
to what happened at Deepwater Horizon. And the Department of
Interior needs adequate information in order to judge the
applications that are being filed.
And when you look at BP's exploration plan that was filed
for the Deepwater Horizon, it said that--and this was the
basis, as I understand it, for the Department granting an
environmental exception--BP said the ``unlikely event of an oil
spill as having little risk of contact or impact to the
coastline or associated environmental resources.''
Little chance, virtually no impact on the coastline, and
they noted proven response technologies, citing the blowout
preventer, which they claim was basically fail safe for this
particular episode, when in reality the Minerals Management
Services shows that the blowout preventers had failed or
otherwise played a role in at least 14 accidents.
So I guess my first point is, the application that was
filed that was the basis for the environmental exception was
hard to understand how the regulators would have accepted that
because it is so far from reality.
Second, when you take a look as to what is going on now, it
has me concerned that the Department of Interior might be
granting further environmental waivers based upon the same
process that gave us the failed results in the Deepwater
Horizon.
So I hope that the review process is different today. The
Department of Interior needs adequate staff to do an
independent review. And Mr. Secretary, we welcome your thoughts
as to whether you have adequate resources, and we certainly
want you to rely upon other Federal agencies that are more
expert on the environmental impact in making your
recommendations as to whether permits are granted in the
future. There have been reports that drilling permits without
NOAA were granted without the NOAA impact or ecological impact.
So I think this Committee is going to be interested in
finding out what changes are being placed in practice now to
make sure we don't have another disaster and that the
regulatory process has learned from this experience and has put
in place a process that will protect us in the future.
No. 2, the Government has a responsibility to make sure
that we have an independent assessment of the damages caused by
the leak. I say that because BP originally said there was 1,000
gallons. Then they changed it to 5,000 gallons. Now you are
saying we are capturing 1,500 to 2,000 gallons. So is that 40
percent, or do we know how much of the leak is actually coming
out? I know that there has been a great deal of press accounts
as to the methodology used by BP Oil in assessing the amount of
leak. There have been those who have said that the process that
was used is not really the right process to use for a leak of
this magnitude.
And they said that if this estimate was given, it should be
a range, not a single point estimate, and they just came up
with 5,000. And as you know, we need to know an accurate
account if we are going to be able to assess the impact to the
environment and what we should do to mitigate the impact if we
don't have an accurate assessment.
And quite frankly, BP lacks credibility on this. I know
that Woods Hole experts have been willing to go to the site and
do a more scientific estimate that would not detract at all
from BP Oil's efforts to stop the leak, which is certainly
their first priority, and we don't want them to be distracted.
But we have independent scientists who are prepared to give us
that information. It seems to me that we as a Government have
the responsibility to know.
I also appreciate Secretary Jackson's point as to the
dispersant agents. I agree with you. That is the lesser evil
right now, at least that is what we believe it is, but it is
still causing damage, including the release of so much
dispersants, and No. 2, the oil still stays there. It just
doesn't come to the surface and it does cause dead zones in the
ocean. So we still have problems. And we have a responsibility
to fully understand that as part of the process.
So I want to get to one specific question to Secretary
Salazar, and it deals with the current expansion of sites. When
the President announced that he was going to protect the north
Atlantic, the Pacific, and parts of Alaska because of their
environmental sensitivity, as you know, I took exception to
that. And I took exception to that mainly because of the area
that I represent, the mid-Atlantic.
I quite frankly didn't understand this. The 2006 MMS
assessment as to the amount of oil and gas in the mid-Atlantic
was between 26 days and 52 days for our Nation's use in oil; 1
to 4 months in natural gas. In the Lease Sale 220, the Virginia
site, which is under active consideration, it is 1 week of oil
for our Nation and that is located 60 miles from Assateague
Island, and 50 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay.
So I guess my first question to you, Mr. Secretary, is I
hope that you are reconsidering because I listen to you. And I
was very much motivated by your, and I think this is an exact
quote, saying that there are ``protecting places that are too
special to drill.'' And you said the Pacific. You said the
north Atlantic.
Well, I am going to invite you to the Chesapeake Bay,
because I can tell you the way that currents run off the mid-
Atlantic, the way the wind blows, any oil spill will affect the
Chesapeake Bay, which from President Reagan to President Obama
has been declared to be a national treasure. The Ramsar
Convention has said it is a body of water of international
significance.
So I would hope that you are reconsidering the
classification of the areas that you have opened for new
exploration, where there is not currently drilling, and I
certainly urge you to do that.
Mr. Salazar. If I may, Chairman Cardin, respond to a few of
your questions.
First, with respect to the NEPA analysis in your opening
statement, I think Director Sutley went through the very
extensive NEPA analysis that has been performed with respect to
the Gulf and with respect to this particular lease sale. It has
been expansive.
Second, you asked the question about limitations. There are
limitations, including the 30-day requirement which says by
law, by this Congress, signed off as a national framework of
these United States, that MMS must approve an exploration plan
within 30 days from the day it is submitted. And so that is one
of those opportunities of responsibility that we hope that the
Congress helps us with in terms of changing the law with
respect to that 30-day requirement.
Three, additional resources to enhance inspections at
Minerals Management Service. We welcome those. We have
requested those in our budgets for 2010, 2011. The President's
submission to the Congress in the last week has also requested
additional resources for those inspection measures to take
place.
Fourth, relative to safety issues on the well prevention
mechanisms and moving forward with that, there will be a set of
comprehensive recommendations will be delivered to the
President at his direction by the end of this month. I think
you will find those very informative.
Fifth, with respect to the amount of oil, it is very
difficult in this environment to actually grasp how much oil is
being leaked. It has been a very difficult process, but we are
not relying on what BP is telling us. We have our own
independent responsibility to go and do that. And so even as we
speak today, NOAA, along with the United States Geological
Survey, along with Admiral Allen who is working on this issue,
are coming up with an oil budget to basically be able to
determine how much oil has been spilled, how much has been
cleaned up, and that information will be important to this
Committee. It will be important to the executive branch as we
deal with issues such as natural resources damages.
Senator Cardin. When will that information be made
available, do you know?
Mr. Salazar. Yes, they are working on it very hard. I can
just tell you right now that there are planes flying over the
oil slick doing the kind of analysis that will allow the
quantification of the oil not only on the surface, but also
that that may be below the surface. So these efforts are
extensive, and they will be correct, and the conclusions will
be correct.
The final point you raised has to do with the Atlantic and
Virginia Lease Sale 220. Let me just say, we went through a
very extensive process. You might remember when I came on board
as Secretary of Interior that there had been a proposal to open
up all of the Atlantic, most of the Pacific, all of Alaska,
everything else within the Gulf Coast.
What we did is I called a time out under very significant
criticism from the oil and gas industry and others about what
we were doing. That was because we wanted to make sure that
when we finished the process that we would have gone through a
thoughtful analysis that came up with the best way forward.
Specifically with respect to the Atlantic, the information
on what is out in the Atlantic is very old, more than 30 years
old. So this Congress may have been waging a war about Atlantic
resources without knowing at all what it is that we are waging
a war about. And so the seismic efforts that are underway in
the Atlantic are something that we are looking at with respect
to moving forward into the future. The Virginia resale plan
itself, though, Senator Cardin, it is still more process
underway with respect to that Virginia lease sale, including
dealing with issues that we know from the Department of
Defense.
So there will be more that will be coming from that, but I
will assure you of this, that the President has made it very
clear, and I have made it very clear as well, that we will not
move forward unless we can be absolutely safe with respect to
the future of OCS oil and gas production.
Senator Cardin. Well, I appreciate that statement, and I am
going to come back to it in a moment. But you still haven't
quite answered to me, and I am against drilling off the
Pacific. And I am against the North Atlantic drilling. So let
me make it clear, I have enjoyed both of those coastlines and
know how precious they are. Don't get me wrong.
But I am still puzzled as to why you believe they are
environmentally so sensitive that no drilling can take place,
whereas the Chesapeake Bay, which is truly a unique treasure
not only of our Nation, but an international treasure that
happens to be located in the mid-Atlantic, how you could
recommend using the too sensitive to drill standard, how you
could recommend that we even look at the mid-Atlantic?
Mr. Salazar. Let me answer the question. First, let me say
that on the Chesapeake Bay, we all agree with you that it is a
crown jewel of our Nation and Administrator Jackson, Nancy
Sutley and myself, Secretary Vilsack, have been moving forward
with hopefully what will be a new beginning for the Chesapeake
Bay, but they can speak more about that.
Senator Cardin. I am very much in support of that.
Mr. Salazar. But let me answer your question specifically
to the Virginia lease sale. One of the legal factors that I
must consider as Secretary of Interior is what the positions of
the States are vis-a-vis drilling in the Outer Continental
Shelf. You know well, Senator Cardin, as I do, that the
Governor of Virginia and the law of the State of Virginia
contemplate that there will be oil and gas drilling 50 miles
off the shore of Virginia. The two Senators of that State who
sit with you in this body have that same position. That is a
factor for us to consider as we move forward, and that is why
that lease sale was included in that announcement.
Senator Cardin. I would just point out, though, as Senator
Kerry and Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham have looked at
this issue, they understand the impact on surrounding States. A
spill in lease sale site 220, if we had a spill there, is very
likely it would affect the Maryland coastline. So it is not
fair to say this is a Virginia decision. It affects Maryland.
And I think that we are going to revisit this, and I can assure
you that this issue is going to continue to be raised. And I am
all for an energy policy that makes sense, but I am not for
going in an area that has such little potential with such high
risk. And I just for the life of me cannot understand.
You didn't say that California didn't want drilling, and
that is why you didn't use California. You said there are some
areas that are too sensitive to drill. That is your language,
not my language. And I find it somewhat offensive to the
Chesapeake Bay and the State I represent for us to be
considered less worthy for protection than the West Coast of
the United States or the north Atlantic.
Now, let me just see if I understand your position on the
moratorium on new site areas. Are you committed to suspending
any new offshore oil or gas development until structural,
procedural and quality problems with the environmental review
and permitting process for offshore oil and gas activities have
been fixed and agency employees have been properly trained on
the new procedures?
Mr. Salazar. First, Senator Cardin, the President has been
very clear. He has directed us to develop a report to him on
safety measures. Those will be done by the end of the month.
And that will inform our decisions about how we will move
forward.
Second of all, with respect to the moratorium, it is widely
misunderstood, but it was the Congress and the prior
Administration that lifted the moratorium in the face of
foreign $5 gas prices just a few years ago. And so the only
place that is currently under moratorium legally in the United
States is the area in the eastern Gulf off of Florida.
Senator Cardin. I understand the legal, but it was my
understanding that the President has ordered that there will be
no new exploration sites until the review has been done as a
result of this current spill. Am I wrong in that?
Mr. Salazar. The President's order, they just put it in the
most simple of terms, is we have hit the pause button as is the
correct and appropriate thing to do. Until we get those reports
up to the President at the end of the month, we will not be
making further decisions.
Senator Cardin. All right. So my question is, how do you
start or move off the pause button? The release of a report
could bring out structural problems in the review process. Are
you telling us now that all it takes is this report to be
issued, and then all of a sudden we are going to be getting new
sites that are going to be permitted for drilling, even though
we don't have an adequate system in place?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Cardin, I would just have to tell you
that the report that will be delivered to the President will be
one that I am proud of, one that I will stand behind. The
President and I will take into consideration the information
that is set forth in that report. So my suggestion to you is
stay tuned.
Senator Cardin. Or get some congressional action here to
give you clearer direction.
I understand your position, but that doesn't give us
comfort here. Making it as clear as I possibly can be, I am
against drilling off the mid-Atlantic, and I am going to do
everything I can to prevent drilling off the mid-Atlantic. So
that is not going to come as a surprise to you.
But from the point of view of where new drill sites should
be located, I would hope at least there is a process in place
before you move forward, so the public and the drilling
companies and all of us understand what protections are in
place before you issue new permits.
I would hope it is more than just receiving a report, but
instituting the changes that are necessary to prevent this type
of catastrophe from happening again. And I very much appreciate
the fact that you are there, and I know that you will do the
right thing, and I hope part of that is taking the mid-Atlantic
off the table.
With that, let me turn the gavel back to our Chairman so I
can go vote. I know you are disappointed about that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer [presiding]. They are waiting for you,
Senator.
Mr. Salazar. He is a great Chairman, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Yes, I know, and I am fortunate I have
wonderful, wonderful reinforcements here if I have to leave.
Senator Voinovich, the floor is yours for 10 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
First of all, I appreciate the witnesses' being here, and I
can tell, Mr. Salazar, that you are under a lot of pressure.
You look tired, and thank you for being here.
Mr. Salazar. I don't feel tired. I feel confident, and I
feel resolute in what we are doing.
Senator Voinovich. Great. As Secretary of the Interior, you
are in charge of the MMS, which oversees the activities in the
Gulf of Mexico. I watched 60 Minutes on Sunday, and there were
three people that talked: Mike Williams; Transocean's Chief
Electronics Technician on Deepwater Horizon, Professor Bob Bea
of U.C. Berkeley; and Ken Abbott, a former engineer at BP.
In the interview Mr. Williams, who worked for Transocean,
describes three possible technological failures that occurred
leading up to the disaster: damage to the rubber gasket, called
an annular, at the mouth of the blowout preventer; a device on
the ocean floor that is supposed to prevent an uncontrolled
surge of pressure reaching the oil rig; a hydraulic leak; and
an unreliable control pod that may have prevented the emergency
disconnect from kicking in that should have severed the pipe
leading from the out valve to the oil rig.
He also described a chain of command problem where he
claims that they were pressured by BP to move forward with it.
Professor Bea of Berkeley, I think you made reference to
this, he did Katrina. He did the space shuttle Columbia
disaster. He argued that damage to the annular was of
significant concern and that it prevented rig operators from
correctly gauging the amount of pressure that had built up
inside the well. He stated that standard operating procedure is
when control pods fail it should be immediately replaced.
And then Mr. Abbott, he worked for BP, managed the
engineering drawings for BP. He claims that 89 percent of
engineering drawings had not been inspected or approved by BP
engineers and that 95 percent of the welding plans have never
been approved. This is supposedly backed up by BP internal
mail.
The question I have is, what kind of regulation does MMS
have? I worked for 10 years on the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, and we have it now. We have the Davis-Besse
problem, and we have unbelievable changes. But they take 3
years to go through to look at all of the stuff that is
necessary in terms of building a new nuclear reactor, a new
facility. And the question is, what kind of inspection do you
have? How many people from your shop were on the rig? How many
of your people oversee the plans to make sure that they are
complied with?
I cannot believe that with this kind of a rig--you know, we
had Three Mile Island. It cost $1 billion to fix it. We didn't
lose 11 people. We lost 11 people on this rig. And only God
knows what the ecological damage is going to be here. Quite
frankly, it could be a lot more than any Three Mile Island
problem.
I think that this is significant. There are people out
there, environmental groups now that say we have to stop doing
this. Well, the fact of the matter is we have to continue to do
this, but the issue is how do you do the job? And from my point
of view, the agency did not do the job.
How many people do you have working for the agency? What
are their competencies? How many did you have a year ago or 2
years ago? Then there is another one that they talked about,
the Atlantis, that one of the witnesses or one of the people
said that that is a disaster ready to occur.
So I am just wondering what the devil does MMS do? And
ought now we look at maybe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
look at the kind of approval that needs to be made in terms of
the gizmos that they use, they have to prove that; the design
of the facility; the safety things that are in place and so on.
Mr. Salazar. Senator Voinovich, we will make sure that the
United States of America, including this Congress and the
agencies in the executive branch learn every lesson to be
learned from this incident. That I can promise you.
I did not watch the 60 Minutes episode that you refer to,
but the fact of the matter is that I do know that there are
1,000 different stories out there about what happened and what
the facts were. We will learn the truth. The Presidential
Commission, along with the other investigations that are
underway, will be able to pinpoint it.
Senator Voinovich. Our problem always around here is
something happens, and we spend all our time going back over it
rather than saying here we are today, and what do we need to go
forward. We have Davis-Besse. It was a problem. They changed
the whole operation in terms of inspection, in terms of the
people that were on at the facilities. The NRC changed the way
they did things. Businesses changed things.
What I want to know is what kind of an organization are we
going to put together so that this kind of thing doesn't happen
and we can assure the public that if we do another one of
these, which I think we need to do, the same thing is not going
to happen again.
Mr. Salazar. The answer to that, Senator Voinovich, is that
it will happen, and it is going to happen through two ways.
First, we are taking action within the executive branch to make
sure that this problem never occurs again. Second, this
Congress needs to take some action to support some of the
efforts that we will be undertaking to make sure that this
incident doesn't happen again.
Senator Voinovich. For example, did you have anybody on the
rig? Was anybody from MMS on the rig?
Mr. Salazar. No one was on the rig that day of the
explosion, but the facts are whether it is 60 Minutes or any
other anecdotes or comments or stories that you are hearing
here, there is a lot more to this investigation, much of which
is yet to be uncovered.
Senator Voinovich. Why wasn't somebody from MMS on that rig
24 hours a day overseeing what they were doing to make sure
that they were doing this according to what they were supposed
to be doing? Why didn't you have somebody on there?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Voinovich, we have, as I recall, 62
Inspectors in the Outer Continental Shelf. We have overseen and
have had over 36,000 wells alone drilled in the Gulf of Mexico.
There is a significant and robust enforcement and inspection
mechanism.
The question I think is an appropriate one relative to can
it be done better. The answer to that is yes. How we do that,
we will be doing our own reorganization, much of which we have
been working on very hard since I became Secretary of Interior,
but there will be more to do.
The proposal that is in front of you asks for additional
inspectors so that the job can be enhanced. The budget, which
is before you for 2011, did the same thing a long time ago.
Safety measures that were supposed to be enhanced have been
proposed multiple times over the years. Some of them have been
adopted. The National Academy of Engineers, which is the
equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences, we brought them
on in September of last year to put forward for us what were
the safety measures so they would not----
Senator Voinovich. I am running out of time. I would
suggest to you that you or somebody in your shop get together
with the NRC to find out how they go about doing their work and
the kind of regime that they have in place to see how much of
that kind of thing is relevant to what you are doing.
Second of all, we have another example of where we have
asked an agency to do a job, having the right people with the
right knowledge and skills at the right place at the right
time, and we haven't given you the wherewithal for you to do
your job.
You are going to be asking for more people, but the fact is
that too often what we do around here--and Lisa, the same thing
in your shop--how many people do you need to get the job done?
So I am saying I think those things will do more to give the
public comfort than to go back and spend, and I mean we ought
to hold these people responsible. We ought to fine them or
whatever should be done.
But the real issue is how do we go forward? And if we don't
go forward the right way, we are going to have another
situation like we had with Three Mile Island where nothing got
done in the nuclear area, and the rest of the world took the
leadership in this area, and we lost out.
I think we need to go forward, but we can't go forward
unless you have a new protocol and you have the people that you
need. Twenty-four hours a day, I would have somebody on that
thing, or two people, to get the job done.
Mr. Salazar. If I may, Senator Voinovich, first, you will
have a report to the President by the end of the month, which
will set out some interim measures, and there will be a lot
more coming from that.
Two, we are not afraid of science. We are not afraid of the
best technology. And so Marcia McNutt, who is the head of USGS
and who is one of the best scientists in the world, along with
Steven Chu and the Energy Labs are helping us in terms of
dealing with the immediate problem in the Gulf. But I also have
asked them to help us in terms of dealing with safety measures.
So we are on the case, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. And last but not least, I
sent you a letter on April 19th in regard to leases and so
forth. I know you have been busy, but I certainly would like to
have somebody look at my letter and get back to me with the
answers.
Mr. Salazar. Will do, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for
convening this hearing.
Thank you to our witnesses.
A few weeks ago I saw first-hand the oil slick covering the
Gulf of Mexico. As everyone who has seen it knows, it is worse
than what you see on TV, and that on TV you may just see one
shot, but you see when you are there the miles and miles of
orange.
We met with Mr. Strickland. Secretary Salazar, he was very
helpful. It was clear to me, as you noted at the beginning of
your testimony, Secretary Jackson, that people are working as
hard as they can.
But last week in this room we listened to the leaders of
BP, Transocean, and Halliburton testify about how each of their
companies may not be at fault for this disaster. It reminded me
of a group of kids who knock a baseball through a neighbor's
window, and then they are all pointing at each other.
We all know that the consequences of this action go far
beyond repairing a window. The lives of 11 families cannot be
repaired. The lives of thousands of families on the Gulf Coast
have already been turned upside down. A month after this
disaster we still don't know how much oil is spewing from the
sea bed. Recent estimates range from a few thousand barrels per
day to as much as 70,000 barrels per day.
I know that your offices and your staffs have been focused
on this terrible tragedy, but I also know that when these
tragedies occur, people want answers. I know this from my
former job as Prosecutor. I know you know that as well,
Secretary Salazar, from your work as Attorney General.
The American people first want to know how and when the
disaster will end. And second they want to know how we will
prevent from ever happening again. And finally they want the
responsible parties to be held accountable and to ensure that
the victims' families and the American taxpayers are
compensated.
At our hearing last week there were many questions posed to
the companies that went unanswered. I am hopeful that we can
get some answers today.
I am pleased that the President has called for the creation
of an independent panel along the lines of the Three Mile
Island Commission and the Space Shuttle Challenger Commission,
and I am glad that it will be made up of experts.
Today, I specifically look forward to hearing from my
questions as well as others about how bad the leak is right
now, what the plan is to finally stop the leak, what the
Federal Government is doing to prevent future disasters like
this, specifically related to polluter liability. And then
finally I would like to know how you are preparing to enforce
our existing laws.
So my first question will be to you, Secretary Salazar. You
recently announced proposals to reform the Minerals Management
Service, which includes separating the inspection arm of MMS
with the royalty collection arm of the agency. You also called
for increased funding for the inspections.
Although BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, among others,
should be held responsible for the oil tragedy, I agree with
the President's statements and your statements, including what
you made here today, that our Government officials should also
be held accountable in terms of how we are going to make this
work for the taxpayers today and in the future.
In addition to the reforms that you have suggested in
splitting the agency, have you reviewed the staff in place at
MMS? I know there was a change made yesterday. Have you
reviewed the staff to make sure we have the right people in
place to implement your reforms? And which of the reforms that
you have proposed are being implemented today as opposed to
being implemented later by Congress?
Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Let me first say
that you are correct in your framing this as a collective
responsibility because it is a responsibility, yes, first, of
the companies, BP and others involved, but there is also
responsibility to be shared with the Federal Government, with
the executive branch, the Department of Interior, my
department, and MMS, as well as with this U.S. Congress and the
national legal framework that has been created with respected
to the OCS.
There is much work to be done, including the creation of
organic legislation for an agency that has such a robust and
important mission for the United States of America. We have
announced many reforms over the last 16 months, ranging from
ethics reforms, ending the Royalty-in-Kind Program, to
separating the revenue functions from the inspection and
enforcement functions of MMS and the Department of Interior.
We are not resting there. Our work will continue, and in
the days ahead you will see additional reforms that will be
announced relative to the organization.
Senator Klobuchar. And that includes looking at the
staffing of the organization?
Mr. Salazar. I would say there are 1,700 people, Senator
Klobuchar, within MMS. About half of them are involved in the
revenue collection program at MMS. Within those 1,700 people, I
would say most of them are good people. They are good public
servants, just like you, and just like all of the other public
employees that we do have.
But just like with any other organization, there are bad
apples. In this particular agency, which I inherited, you know
the well publicized sex and drug scandal where people were
prosecuted, people who were fired and let go. We have tried to
take that out, as Justice Warren would say in one of his famous
decisions, root and branch. But it is a difficult process.
To the extent that there are those kinds of ethical lapses
that are going on, we will make sure that we root them out. We
have the Inspector General already as part of the coherent
investigations that we are making, looking specifically at
personnel issues within MMS.
Senator Klobuchar. Are you going to look at the revolving
door issue of people who are too close with the oil industry?
Mr. Salazar. That has been clearly one thing that has been
going on from day one. There are prohibitions that have been
put into place with respect to the revolving door. I think we
are in much better shape today than we were 16 months ago. It
doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement, and to the
extent there are major changes that have to be made and minor
changes, we will not turn away any good idea.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Secretary Jackson, could you give us some idea of after
nearly a month when you think the leaks will be plugged and if
there are barriers that are preventing the quickest and most
effective solutions here?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, I am happy to, Senator, although I would
probably defer to Ken. MMS's responsibility is also
operationally now dealing with wellhead, and EPA is focused
more on the environmental impacts and trying to at least get
data to begin to document and answer questions about public
health and environmental impacts over time.
But I think we heard Secretary Salazar earlier say that in
addition to the riser insertion, which has been done, the next
step will be this top-kill approach. My understanding is that
is over the next several weeks. Is it, Ken? Projected data for
the kill is Saturday and Sunday, May 22 through May 23.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Do you understand--and maybe this is
more in your area. If it is Secretary Salazar's, that is fine.
How much oil is really gushing out? And why don't we know that?
Ms. Jackson. I think I would agree with you that we do not
know it at this time. I think that the initial estimates were
made based on images and on scenarios that turned out over time
to be changing at best. I think that it is an important piece
of information for us to have, if not right this second,
certainly going forward because it will shape, I am sure,
damage assessments if nothing else.
Mr. Salazar. If I may just add to that, because it is an
ongoing effort, and it is a very important question which
several Senators have already raised, to have an independent
and truthful number relative to what has come out of this pipe.
It is something that we take very seriously. That is why a
number of agencies, including the United States Geological
Survey, NOAA, as well as outside scientists have been working
on trying to come up with something that we can have confidence
in in terms of a number.
Senator Klobuchar. Chair Sutley, in your testimony you
state that the MMS applied an existing categorical exclusion
review process for the Deepwater Horizon project. This
exclusion for Deepwater Horizon was established more than 20
years ago. Are you aware of how many existing projects MMS
applied the same categorical exclusion to? And are you working
with other department heads to ensure the projects that
received a categorical exclusion are indeed safe?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator. As I said in my testimony,
my understanding is that MMS applied an existing categorical
exclusion. These are widely used throughout the Government, and
they are intended to be used in circumstances where we have a
lot of experience with activities and we know that they are
likely to have little or no significant environmental effect
either individually or cumulatively.
We are working closely with the Department of Interior
supporting the MMS reform efforts.
Senator Klobuchar. But you don't know how many other
projects got this exclusion?
Ms. Sutley. I do not know.
Senator Klobuchar. Do you think we should be reviewing them
now that we see that this wasn't safe?
Ms. Sutley. We announced on Friday that with the Department
of Interior we would be reviewing MMS's NEPA procedures,
including their use of categorical exclusions. As I said
earlier in my testimony we proposed in February to update our
guidance to the agencies about the use of categorical
exclusions to ensure that agencies are applying them in the
proper way, that agencies are reviewing their own use of
categorical exclusions, and that CEQ would review agencies' use
of categorical exclusions.
Senator Klobuchar. I see my time is up, but thank you.
Clearly, something went wrong here and the process has to
change.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
I just wanted to let people know what is happening. The
order of questioners is as follows. We are going to go to
Senator Alexander next, and then Lautenberg, then Barrasso,
then Udall, then Vitter, then Whitehouse.
And Senator Lautenberg and I have to go together to a very
important meeting, so we are going to leave together. I have
asked Senator Whitehouse if he would take the Chair. So
Senator, as soon as we leave, if you would take the Chair.
So we will proceed with Senator Alexander.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I know this
has been a very busy and difficult time for the three of you,
and I thank you for your time today.
I want to talk first--or discuss with you first--a little
bit about putting all this in perspective. It is difficult to
put a tragedy in perspective. I was thinking of a terrible
airplane crash with many people killed. That happens in the
United States, unfortunately. And what do we do? We immediately
have highly professional people go see if we can find out what
went wrong, what we can do to prevent it again, and we have
come up with a number of safety improvements, and we have black
boxes and other things to try to find out things.
But one thing we don't do is we don't ground all the
airplanes. We don't stop flying because that would be I think
about 1.6 million Americans a day fly, and it would bring our
country to a halt if we stopped flying.
I think it is important--and I believe the President has
tried to do this--is the first job in putting this into
perspective is to help Americans to understand just how much we
rely on oil from the Gulf. If my figures are about right about
30 percent of all the oil that we produce in the United States
comes from the Gulf region. You mentioned a few minutes ago
that there were more than 30,000 wells.
We haven't talked much about it, but our natural gas comes
from there as well. It is hard to drill for oil without finding
natural gas or drill for natural gas without finding oil. About
25 percent of all our natural gas comes from wells in the Gulf
of Mexico, and we produce almost all the gas that we use. So
that is an even more important part of what we use than oil.
So isn't it true, Mr. Secretary, that as terrible as the
tragedy is, that unless we want $14, $16, $18, $20 a gallon
gasoline, that it is not realistic to think that we would
actually stop drilling for oil and natural gas in the Gulf of
Mexico in the foreseeable future?
Mr. Salazar. The answer to that is, you are correct,
Senator Alexander, and that is why the President's reaction to
this has been one of thoughtfulness and being calm and not
making decisions in the eye of the storm. That is when you make
bad decisions. And so his direction to us is to move forward
with developing the kind of information on safety and on
environmental protection and being thoughtful relative to how
we move forward on the OCS.
Senator Alexander. I appreciate his leadership in that way,
and I appreciate the tone of his leadership.
The second aspect of perspective, it seems to me, and you
mentioned this a little bit, as others have, what can we do
instead in terms of alternative forms of energy? I have heard
people say we need more wind. We need more solar. We need more
biomass. I hope we do use more biomass. I would like to get the
cost of solar cut by a factor of four, as Dr. Chu has
suggested, so we can actually use it in a competitive way on
rooftops across the country. I am less enthusiastic about wind
turbines than you are, but we have discussed that many times.
The truth is that we don't need wind. We don't need solar.
We don't need biomass to reduce our oil use because we don't
need extra electricity to run electric cars. Mr. Sandalow, who
is in the Department of Energy, has said that we could
electrify half our cars and trucks in America without building
one new power plant of any kind simply by plugging our electric
cars and trucks in at night and using this vast amount of
unused electricity we have.
Now, the President has been very strong on electric cars
and trucks, and there is bipartisan support for that in the
Congress. Wouldn't an important part of putting this into
perspective be for you and the President and others to say of
the clear alternative we have, the best alternative we have for
reducing oil over the next 15 or 20 years is to have as a goal
electrifying half our cars and trucks? That is a very ambitious
goal.
Even if we did that, we would still be using about 12
million barrels of petroleum products a day, but it would cut
by a third the amount of oil that we are using and greatly
reduce the foreign oil we use. Isn't this an opportunity to
encourage more use of electric cars and trucks as the most
viable option for reducing oil?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Alexander, you know well the President
has spoken many times about the need for a comprehensive energy
program. In that comprehensive energy program, electric cars
and the new technology that is unfolding here in the United
States have been very much a robust part of that, which he and
Secretary Chu have championed, along with the portfolio of
energy resources that will move our economy and will move the
energy needs of the Nation.
The exact number in terms of electrical cars, I don't have
an answer to you on that, but I am sure that we get back to you
on exactly what it is that the Department of Energy is
projecting is going to happen in that arena.
Senator Alexander. I appreciate your answer, and it is
properly diplomatic, befitting a Secretary, but I guess what I
am trying to do is discourage the talk that if we just build
more windmills, we can reduce the use of oil because it doesn't
have anything to do with our use of oil when in fact we have
plenty of electricity for electric cars and trucks, which is
our best option, and the President is a chief proponent of
electric cars and trucks. I would like to encourage him to push
it more.
I would like to shift to one other area which has come up,
in the time I have remaining. I remember when I was a young
Governor, I had a cabinet meeting, and we wanted to pass a bill
in the legislature. I said, well, we all agree with this.
Everybody agreed. We went out and came back the next week, and
nothing had happened.
I said this obviously isn't going to work. So we put one
person, as we said, on the flagpole. We called him Granny
Hinton. He was on the flagpole. He came back the next week. The
bill had been passed because he was accountable.
I thought about that the other day when Captain Bill
Ostendorff testified. He is a former Navy sub commander. He is
one of the President's appointees to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, one of several very good appointments the President
has made. He testified that 4 of his 11 commanding officers
were disciplined at some point in their career for a problem
with their nuclear reactors in the Navy subs.
Now, no one has ever died in a Navy sub. People have been
living on top of nuclear reactors since the 1950s. I suspect
one reason is the word accountability. If there is a problem
with the reactor, the answer to the question of who is on the
flagpole, is it is the captain's problem. He can't buck it to
anybody else.
We watched several people from industry suggesting that
others from industry were responsible for the oil spill. We
have 14 agencies in the Federal Government who have something
to do with oil drilling and regulation.
So I am wondering, isn't there a lesson perhaps to learn
from the nuclear industry, and particularly from the nuclear
Navy about accountability as we go forward? We have the answer
to the question of who is going to pay. It sounds like BP is
going to pay. They are the responsible party. But on the
whodunnit question, I mean who did it, who is on the flagpole
for that, it seems to me that we don't have an answer to the
question of who is on the flagpole when there is an oil spill
or an oil gush at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.
Would you agree with that? And would you think that that
might be a good direction for the investigation and the
commission's work to help us identify an answer to the question
of who is on the flagpole for an oil spill or oil gush?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Alexander, let me say three things.
First, I think there is a lot to learn from the nuclear world
relative to safety issues here, which is part of the reason why
Secretary Chu has been so involved with us as we look at safety
measures that we will be recommending to the President.
Second, the facts here still need to be known. And once the
facts are known, we will look at the range of civil as well as
criminal culpability that may have in fact be inherent in this
incident. No one will be spared. That includes Government
officials. So that will be something that will be looked at,
and that is why there is such an inherent importance in what
the President has done in pulling together a Presidential
Commission so that we can get to the bottom of the story.
Third, there will be significant reform, some of which we
will take on and have been taking on within the executive
branch, and new organizations that address some of the issues
which Chairman Boxer alluded to in her statements and in her
questioning.
But there also will be an opportunity for this Congress to
help us figure out how we move forward to achieve the goals
which I heard Senator Klobuchar and others speak about, and
that is to fix a problem and prevent the problem from ever
happening again.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. If I could take my last 10
seconds, I think we know who is on the flagpole for paying the
bill for the oil spill. That is BP. That is in the law. I think
we know who is on the flagpole if there is a problem with a
nuclear reactor in the Navy. It is the captain. I think we
don't know who is on the flagpole for the next oil spill, and I
think that would be the very best way to do this. That would be
better, knowing who is on the flagpole, than this idea of
collective responsibility.
Mr. Salazar. If I may just on responsibility, because I
think one of the things that in the heat of the moment there
also is a huge effort that is underway in the Gulf. I can tell
you what this Congress has done with respect to homeland
security and the processes that are set out there. You have a
very massive program that is underway to protect the Gulf and
to deal with this problem, which is being led by the National
Incident Commander under a National Unified Command that has
20,000 people out on the ground. It has 700 vessels out trying
to deal with the spill. It has this massive effort undersea.
So it is clear with respect to the oil spill response
responsibility for that lies within the law. But I do agree
with you, Senator Alexander, much in the same way as other
commissions you and I have talked about, that there are
tremendous lessons to be learned here organizationally.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
I want to present part of my statement just to say thank
you for conducting this hearing. We have been through several
hearings, and we keep finding out that we are disappointed in
responses from the oil companies. But we are here to discuss
the Federal response to the tragedy, and it is crystal clear
what the Federal response ought to be: bring dangerous offshore
drilling pursuit to an end. Should we say no more special
favors and special treatments given to big oil. And it should
end up here with our search for reliable, sustainable sources
of energy and not take our eye off the ball.
I introduced a piece of legislation, the Beyond Petroleum
Act, to move us in the right direction, and that is to charge a
fee on offshore drilling leases and generate nearly $2 billion
a year. Even that is a drop in the bucket for oil companies
that made more than $23 billion in profit in just the first
quarter of this year and still want to duck their
responsibilities.
These funds should be directly invested in research and
development of next generation engines, clean and safe fuels,
tools and innovative approaches to transportation. We also need
to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill that focuses on
clean energy jobs, at reducing pollution, and protecting our
vibrant coastal economies from the menace of offshore drilling.
These should be our priorities as we look to the future.
Let's be clear. Big oil doesn't deserve our trust. We all
saw that sad spectacle last week. At Senate hearings oil
company executives were so determined to dodge responsibility,
they almost broke their fingers pointing at one another. They
were bobbing and weaving and dodging and pointing to the other
guy.
That is why I joined with Senator Menendez and Senator
Nelson to end the big oil bailouts by raising the liability cap
for all companies, from a piddling $75 million to $10 billion.
And we hear arguments about companies that can't afford it. If
they make a big mistake, they owe a big bill, and they are
going to have to pay it somehow, either they or their insurance
companies. They shouldn't be excused.
But we are not going to rest until every last cent of the
Administration's response is paid for by the oil companies. You
called for that, Mr. Secretary, and we salute that. So we can't
continue to gamble with these precious resources by allowing
more offshore drilling.
What I want to confirm here now is the fact that NOAA has
accused the M.M. Service of a pattern of understanding the
likelihood and potential consequences of a major spill in the
Gulf and the frequency of spills that have already occurred
there. NOAA points out that several or your Department's
conclusions on oil impacts ``directly conflict with studies of
major spills.''
Why did Interior continue to push for an expansion of
offshore drilling even though there was a question raised by
NOAA scientists who found major flaws in the analysis?
Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Let me just say that we--before we got to the end of March
announcement on the future of the OCS--took into account the
comments and input that we received from many different places.
It was in fact in part because of comments, not principally
from NOAA, but from others like the Coast Guard and others,
that you do not have the five lease sales that were planned to
be taking place in the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas and in Bristol Bay.
We counseled them. We said that Bristol Bay ought to move
forward with some kind of permanent protection. We said that
with respect to Chukchi and Beaufort that the oil spill
response capabilities and other science that we needed to have
before allowing the development to take place there was
something that required us to cancel those leases. And so those
were canceled. We did the same thing with respect to the
Pacific because of a whole host of issues in the Pacific.
So we did take into account comments and information that
we received from organizations like NOAA. More importantly,
however, let me also say that if I ever hear that one of the
employees of the MMS is essentially throwing science under the
bus, heads will roll because that would not be appropriate for
people who work within the Department of Interior.
Senator Lautenberg. You have called for a pause in new
drilling permits until a complete investigation of the cause of
the Gulf spill is done. Even if we identify the cause of this
spill, will that information really allow you to guarantee that
another massive oil spill will not threaten our coast? The
executives who appeared before us in the hearing last week said
they would not guarantee that there couldn't be another spill
like the one that they have had.
Mr. Secretary, I can't imagine that we would permit
anything to take place, at least I hope not, that might cause a
spill something like the ones that we have or any of them. I
think we ought to avoid oil spills at any price because when
they spill they seem to get worse and worse and worse in their
intensity.
Mr. Salazar. Just two quick things. Nothing in life is
risk-free, and no development ever in the OCS--whether it is
for wind power or whether it is for oil and gas--will be
completely risk-free. Those are the facts of life.
Two, there are significant safety enhancements which I am
sure will be put on the table as we move forward with the
safety reviews. The report to the President from my Department
is due at the end of May. There will be additional information
after that time as well. And so we will move forward to having
a regime which is a much safer regime than we have had in the
past.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Secretary, should these spills that
we have seen demand a halt to all new drilling, shift to an all
hands on deck policy in an effort to develop and deploy
technologies that will end our dependence on oil and fossil
fuels, and especially doing business with those who are not
friends of ours but are involved in a conspiracy to take
advantage of us?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Lautenberg, I think you and members of
this Committee have been working very hard on moving us forward
with a new energy future for the United States of America. The
President has been pushing hard for a comprehensive energy
plan. This incident in the Gulf Coast I think is another
clarion call as to why we need to move forward in that
direction.
But we should also be very frank with ourselves in this
Committee and in this country that we are dependent on oil and
gas, and our economy is dependent on oil and gas, whether it is
New Jersey or whether it is California. And how we incorporate
those fossil fuels in what is a new energy economy and in
transition is something that we are going to have to do.
So we need to be balanced about it, and that is why the
comprehensive nature of an energy approach that deals with
energy independence and the national security issues that are
at stake, the economic security of the country, and the
environmental security of the country from the dangers of
pollution that come from the emissions are something that we
need to deal with.
Part of the shared responsibility here, Senator Lautenberg,
ought to be not to kick those issues on down the road for
another Congress or another time.
Senator Lautenberg. I want to thank each one of you for
your excellent testimony. I would ask, Administrator Jackson,
are you concerned that the EPA has such a small, almost
nonexistent role in our Government's action on oil drilling off
our coast?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I wouldn't say it is nonexistent, but
I am concerned with what I see in terms of our role, even in
our performance of the role we have. We have a very important
role on preparedness, and we have a very important role under
the National Contingency Plan on response. And even though we
aren't in the lead, I will be the first to say that I believe
my staff are working very hard, but that we will learn lessons
from this entire incident, which is far from over, that will I
think possibly mean we need some changes, possibly in the law,
certainly in the regulations.
Senator Lautenberg. How about on a longer-term solution,
should oil companies play a part in more funding on the
research and development of new technologies that get us, to
use BP's own expression, ``beyond petroleum'' ?
Ms. Jackson. I certainly think that there is a need. The
one thing I have taken away so far is that the ability to get
this oil out of the ground has far surpassed our ability to
respond to the worst case scenario. And so for us, I am
concerned. Dispersants has been an issue. I spent the better
part of the last 3 weeks working on it, and I am amazed at how
little science there is on that issue for something that is
such a primary tool in this response.
So we are on the ground trying to minimize and make the
best decisions we can, but there are a range of issues that I
think even if you look at the petroleum response itself and the
cleanup response, haven't moved along.
Senator Lautenberg. And I remind our colleague from
Tennessee that we do stop flying when we know that there is
imminent danger, whether it is volcano ash or whether it was an
attack on our financial center by others. We stop flying, and
what we ought to do is stop drilling.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator, tell us what you really think.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Senator Whitehouse, if you would do me the
honor of taking the seat here. We are going to continue hearing
from, in this order, Barrasso, Udall, Vitter, and Whitehouse.
And I would ask if you would stay and run this hearing. We then
will hear from the Coast Guard, the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works, and the Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Economic Development.
And so, Senator Barrasso, I look forward to reading about
your comments. Why don't you wait until it all calms down.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. And I want to thank everybody on the panel.
Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Jackson, Senator Boxer showed a video early on with
that new deep-sea straw in place. I am still trying to quantify
the level of this. In the first week that this happened, it was
thought it was about 1,000 barrels a day. Then it was up to
about 5,000 barrels. Now some scientists are saying possibly
25,000 barrels a day. Secretary Salazar mentioned the
possibility that this straw is about 1,500 to 2,000 barrels
possibly.
But looking at that, if that straw is in place, taking
1,500 to 2,000 barrels out, that made me think that maybe our
estimate of 5,000 barrels may be low because it looks like
still massive amounts are spewing forth.
Is that how you looked at it, too? Or any of you?
Ms. Jackson. I think Secretary Salazar is probably more
qualified than I to speak on that. I will say that the agency
within the Government that has most of the expertise on
estimating the release is NOAA. And so that is the only reason
I am not going to take the question.
Mr. Salazar. The only thing I would say, Senator Barrasso,
is this is an ongoing operation, and this Committee should know
that the emergency nature that we are in means that we are
relentless and not resting and trying to stop the problem at
the source.
I think the video that you saw is actually a video before
the operationalization of the riser insertion tube had been
inserted, but it was ramped up through the day and overnight.
And so the amount of oil which is currently being captured is
at approximately the 2,000 barrel a day number. This is an
evolving situation that will take place through not only
tonight but also through tomorrow.
At the end of the day what is more important than the
optics of the visual are an independent quantification of the
amount of oil that has flown from this well. That is something
which is of the highest order of importance to the National
Incident Commander and to all of the agencies that are
involved, NOAA, EPA, USGS and others.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Following up on some of the other discussion about the fact
that over about a quarter of America's oil production comes
from the Gulf, and with the nationwide halt of permits for new
exploration, we need to get the energy from somewhere. So I
want to visit a little bit about some of the things that are
going on onshore.
We have seen in Wyoming that investment in energy
development on public lands in the West has dropped
precipitously. In Wyoming revenues paid by private companies to
the Bureau of Land Management for oil and gas, bonus bids,
rental fees, were down from $93 million to $10 million between
2008 and 2009; significant loss of revenue both to the country
and to our State. Capital investment has shifted away from the
Rocky Mountains, but we need to get the energy from somewhere.
So I am concerned that the Administration's onshore
policies are going to hurt rural economies in the West and
leave Americans even more vulnerable to higher gas prices.
The Governor of Wyoming has said the proposed changes in
onshore potentially hand significant control over oil and gas
exploration, development, and production to the whims of those
that profess--and these are his words--``a nowhere, not ever
philosophy to surface disturbance of any kind.''
So my question to you is with regard to onshore leasing
reforms. Were there any economic analyses performed on onshore
leasings? Did you consult with State and local officials before
finalizing the reforms? And in light of what has happened in
the Gulf, are you thinking about reconsidering the changes to
onshore in light of what we are dealing with offshore?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Barrasso, there has been significant
consultation with the Western Governors and the States and
others concerning the onshore leasing reforms. But let me say
that they have been part of the reform agenda from day one. It
has met the same kind of resistance that we have met with the
reform agenda on the Outer Continental Shelf and MMS.
At the advent of my administration I canceled 77 leases
that had been issued in the State of Utah. Well, I did it
because we wanted to do it right and protect the environment
and protect our national parks. We issued instruction memoranda
that went out to redo the way categorical exclusions are done
on the onshore.
That is part of the reform agenda to make sure that we are
doing it right, drilling in the right places, but also
providing certainty to the industry. The onshore, as I have
shared with you in the past, Senator Barrasso, the issues had
become so difficult in allowing leases to go forward that most
of them were being protested before they even got to the lease
stage.
So what we have done under the leadership of Director Abbey
and Assistant Secretary Wilma Lewis is to move forward with a
kind of proactive planning process that hopefully will provide
certainty and will make sure the right environmental analysis
is in place, and that we avoid the litigation that occurs when
you don't follow those kind of processes.
Senator Barrasso. It has been my impression, Mr. Secretary,
that the reforms were undertaken really without going through
the regulatory process. I know the Governor of Wyoming wrote
you a 5-page letter in response to your proposal. So I would be
interested to seeing how you addressed his concerns ultimately.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate your comments, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse.
And thank you to all the panel here today.
While the exact details of this manmade disaster are still
unknown, a few things have become clear. Industry told Congress
and the public we could rely on them for safety. Now, the era
of self-regulation is over for the offshore oil industry. MMS,
EPA, the Coast Guard, and the Council on Environmental Quality
need to move swiftly to put responsible regulation in place.
Another thing that we know, blowout preventers are not and
never were a fail-safe. They are a last ditch measure when the
well has had a major failure. The failure on the Deepwater
Horizon was not unique. The record shows they often fail.
As a result, we need solid regulatory standards to prevent
operators from cutting corners on well control. Producers want
to drill fast and move fast to save time and money, and
Secretary Salazar, you know that behavior very well. Safety
requires carefulness instead. Time is money on an offshore oil
rig, and there is always an incentive to put profit over
safety. This is a classic case for strong regulation.
And so I guess this is a question to the whole panel, but
Secretary Salazar focusing on you, and first of all let me say
I have confidence that you are pushing BP as hard as you can to
stop the spill and protect ecosystems. What I am wondering is
the timeline. We have so many, as has been mentioned in the
hearing, of the studies that are going on and investigations
that are going on. And now the President has a comprehensive
commission.
Could you talk a little bit about the time table on how you
see putting regulations in place, when this is going to happen?
Because it is clear from the questioning here that we have a
significant number of oil wells that are out there and that are
operating. We don't know how many this could happen to
tomorrow.
So I think it is important that we get a regulatory hold on
this. So please, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. Let me
just answer that I think there are matters that will happen
sequentially here. There have been numerous reforms which we
have already initiated within the Department of Interior and
MMS. Those will continue even in this week and the weeks ahead.
No. 2, at the end of this month, the President will receive
the report on safety recommendations. We are working very hard
with scientists and experts to come up with the best report.
The President will make announcements on how we will move
forward on that.
And then third, the longer-term investigations, they will
be overseen by the Presidential Commission which he has
announced and he will appoint the members of, and into that
commission will flow the investigations that are underway,
including the root cause investigation that is being conducted
by the Coast Guard and MMS, with an oversight panel, the
investigations and reports from the National Academy of
Engineering, the investigations which I have ordered through
the Inspector General, and other investigations that may be out
there.
But they should all be funneled into one place so in a
similar vein that happened in the commission related to the
Challenger, there will be a report, first of all, about what
happened so the whole truth and nothing but the truth is told.
And second that the lessons learned are the best lessons that
can be learned from this horrific tragedy.
Senator Udall. One of the things that has hit me in a way
in the past in terms of regulations is if you look at MMS and
you ask how do they promulgate regulations, many offshore
regulations originate at the American Petroleum Institute and
then are reviewed by MMS.
Will MMS take more control over this process in the future,
as you see it? And how is that going to work?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Udall, the input that comes in comes
not only from API but also from a whole number of professional
organizations and scientific organizations. But ultimately it
is the responsibility of MMS as an independent body to decide
what those regulations should be.
I expect that you are going to be seeing significant
changes to some of those regulations based on the review that
is being conducted and based on some of the information that I
have been gathering as I have gone to visit blowout prevention
manufacturers and the like.
So this is a time of change, and I think it will be
positive change. It will help us move forward with the right
kind of safety measures in place with respect to development of
oil and gas.
Senator Udall. Thank you. I hope that all of you together
move forward sooner rather than later in terms of getting some
good solid regulations in place.
Administrator Jackson, you used the term in your testimony
here when you were referring to dispersants, when you were
answering a question, amazed how little science there is on
dispersants. The New York Times reported that the dispersants
being used in the Gulf were banned in Britain. Is that correct?
And if so, do we have any alternatives?
Ms. Jackson. That is correct, but if I may I would just
like to get a little bit more information because we had looked
into that. There were tests done in Britain called rocky shore
tests, and it appears from what we have learned so far that the
reason for the ban had less to do with inherent toxicity and
more to do with the near-shore impacts on certain clams and
their ability to adhere to the rocky shores. We are still
looking into it, but I think the answer would be yes, perhaps
for different reasons and certainly in a different application
than here.
Senator Udall. How did we get ourselves in a position where
we know so little about the science of dispersants? What do you
expect we will be doing in the future in terms of dispersants,
the science tackling these kinds of oil spills with these kinds
of technologies?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, just so I can be clear. There is
certainly some science on dispersants. I don't want to dismiss
good work that has been done. But in this incident so far an
unprecedented volume of dispersants have been used in the Gulf
of Mexico. And I think what that means is that lacking any
other tools during this time when the release is continued
there has been a real reliance on them, maybe more so than
anyone ever thought would happen.
And I think that the science hasn't continued along to show
whether or not we are having a potential impact. There is
nothing to indicate that, Senator. If I thought there were, we
would stop it immediately. I have been very hesitant to take it
out of the tool kit altogether, but I think long-term impacts
to ensure that this stuff does not bioaccumulate, we have no
data that shows it does. The MSDS says it doesn't.
There have been some valid questions raised about the
impact on the water column and the fate in transport. What
happens to these dispersed particles? Do they really biodegrade
quickly, or do they take a long time? And I think that is fair
ground for research.
Senator Udall. When you said it doesn't bioaccumulate, was
that the MSDS? Could you tell me what the acronym is?
Ms. Jackson. So sorry, Senator. MSDS stands for material
safety data sheet. If you look on the Deepwater Horizon
response.com Web site, that is one of the things that are
posted for both the Corexit products that have been used.
Senator Udall. If we find that the use of dispersants has
had a damaging impact on natural resources, would BP be
responsible for those damages as well, based on your
understanding or Secretary Salazar's understanding with them,
or Nancy Sutley's understanding?
Ms. Jackson. My understanding is the response itself and
the actions that are taken are part of the liability and part
of the assessment that will be done. So just again, no one has
ever argued that dispersants don't have an impact. We believe
it lessens the impact to the marshes, which are so ecologically
and economically important, but they are not without any
impact. And so that would certainly be part of a damage
assessment, I would think.
Senator Udall. Yes.
Secretary Salazar, I don't know if you have any final
thoughts on that, with just a couple of seconds left here.
Mr. Salazar. I don't have anything to add.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank you for
chairing this hearing and being so instrumental.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for your ongoing work.
I have been here as well as at a Commerce Committee hearing
on the oil spill. I serve on that committee, too. So trying to
bridge that divide, I am going to focus on exactly the same
five questions and points I also focused on there.
The first is under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
Administration can and should in appropriate circumstances
declare a fisheries failure, a disaster regarding fisheries
when there is a God-caused or a man-caused event with a
significant negative impact on fisheries.
I have asked for that declaration. The Governor of
Louisiana has asked for that declaration. This is obviously a
huge event impacting fisheries. Why hasn't that been declared,
and when will it be?
Mr. Salazar. Let me just say that is a matter which the
National Incident Commander would have under his review. I
don't have the answer to that today, Senator Vitter, and I
don't know that Nancy or Lisa do either. We will be happy to
get back to you on that.
Senator Vitter. If anyone on the second panel could answer
that, or if you could get a written response as quickly as
possible from the appropriate Administration official, I would
appreciate it. Again, the point is simple. This is obviously a
historic event with a big negative impact on fisheries. If this
doesn't qualify, I don't know what does. And this would help
trigger some immediate help to folks in the fisheries sector.
BP will ultimately pay the bill, but timing is everything, and
this can hasten some help to that sector.
Second, and it is sort of similar, under OPA, the Oil
Pollution Act, section 2713(f) doesn't simply allow--it
mandates for the President to set up a loan program for
fishermen and fishery dependent businesses. In fact, I will
read it to you: ``The President shall establish a loan program
under the fund,'' that is the trust fund, the OPA trust fund,
``to provide interim assistance to fishermen and aquiculture
producer claimants during the claims procedure.''
Again, I have asked for that specifically. Why hasn't that
happened, and when can we expect that to happen?
Mr. Salazar. Again, I think that is a question for the
National Incident Commander, and I would be happy to look into
it and get back to you.
Senator Vitter. OK. Thank you.
Again, the point is similar. BP is going to pay the bill.
BP is on the hook for economic damages. That is not a debate.
But this can help provide immediate assistance to fishermen and
folks in that sector, as can the disaster declaration because,
as you know, paying those claims is going to take some amount
of time, so this can be done more immediately.
Third point is about a boom and other related supplies. I
will direct that to the second panel and the Coast Guard
Admiral because I am going to have to leave. According to the
initial metrics, Louisiana was being shortchanged boom, quite
frankly, as a ratio of mile of boom to mile of vulnerable
coast, while Mississippi and Alabama were getting a ratio of
something like 1 mile of boom to every 1.8 miles of vulnerable
coastline. Louisiana was on a different planet, getting about 1
mile of boom to over 10 miles of vulnerable coastline.
I have sent a letter about this to Admiral Allen. I have
talked to Admiral Allen three times. I believe that is moving
in the right direction. I thank him for that, but my question
for the appropriate panelist, perhaps on the second panel, from
the Coast Guard would be what is the update on that, and when
will that disparity be completely resolved.
Fourth question, again, is probably for the second panel,
and I apologize. I am going to have to leave.
Mr. Salazar. I like this line of questioning, Senator
Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Right.
Mr. Salazar. It is for the second panel.
Senator Vitter. Right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Vitter. The State of Louisiana and local parishes
have made a proposal to do emergency dredging and use the
dredged material to build up the barrier islands and to plug
certain gaps that have grown in some of the barrier islands. I
know Administrator Jackson is somewhat familiar with the
proposal.
Obviously, time is of the essence, and so I wanted an
update on the Administration's response to that proposal so it
can get underway. And I would invite the Administrator to make
any comments, and then on the second panel Assistant Secretary
Darcy I know can respond to that.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, I think the second panel and the Federal
on-scene coordinator and of course the Admiral from the Coast
Guard are ultimately going to have to make judgments regarding
feasibility and efficacy. I would simply say that the
environmental community for a long time has been trying to
rebuild the coastline down there, and barrier islands are
certainly an important part of that.
The question that lies before the Commander and the
Incident Commander will be the efficacy of that approach to
deal with this particular emergency. That is going to have
everything to do with time and ability to get it done. But I
will defer to Jo-Ellen, I am sorry, the Assistant Secretary and
the Admiral for their comments as well.
Senator Vitter. OK. You are certainly right. Timing is the
big issue, and this request has been out there for a week or
more. So I look forward to that answer from the Assistant
Secretary and encourage a concrete decision as soon as possible
because timing is huge.
The fifth and final point is for the Interior Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, this goes to Senator Barrasso's question and
some others. Many people I talk to are confused because this
pipe is now hooked up, because we are now collecting some of
the product, maybe 20 percent through that. Many people I speak
to have the same reaction I do, which is that should be a major
step forward in better calculating the amount of the flow, not
that it can be done precisely now, but it should be a big tool
so that you would think we can have a much better calculation
than we could have 4 days ago.
Is that correct? And if so, when are we going to get that
more precise calculation?
Mr. Salazar. It is absolutely correct, Senator Vitter, that
that will give us a better sense of what has been flowing out.
In addition to that, there are a whole variety of efforts that
are underway to try to get a more precise and independent
determination as to what these numbers are, because right now
they are all over the place. The number that had been used was
I think the best-considered number at 5,000 barrels per day.
Whether it is more, whether it is less, we will have I think a
lot more information on that as the week goes on.
Senator Vitter. OK. Do you have a more precise timeframe?
The pipe has been hooked up for several days, so as a layman,
admittedly not an engineer, I would have thought we would have
more precise estimates by now. But what is your timeframe for
that?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Vitter, what is happening in fact as
we speak here is that the pressures are being adjusted. As the
pressures are adjusted to bring up the production, they have to
be very careful so that they don't essentially blow up this
process and have to go back to the beginning or to essentially
annihilate what is this very essential mitigation measure.
And so there are a number of things that could happen if
that is not done right, including you could have the stream of
petroleum that is coming up essentially form hydrates if
seawater is allowed to go in there. So it is a very delicate
process, and that is why they are taking their time to wrap it
up by adjusting the pressures generally about every 2 hours,
which then increases the flow.
When they will get to maximum containment under this
mitigation flow regime, I still don't know. I asked exactly the
same very question of Andy Inglis, who is the executive at BP
in charge of the whole operation this morning, and we still
don't know. But there will be a lot more information I would
expect over the next couple of days.
Senator Vitter. OK. Just to clarify, part of my question is
a little different, even though we are not at maximum capture
right now, and I will wrap up. Even though we are not at
maximum product capture right now I would have thought
connecting the pipe would give us a much better guesstimate of
the flow even now. Is it not doing that?
Mr. Salazar. I wasn't sure of the timing of the video that
was shown here, but there is still product that is escaping. It
is not controlling 100 percent of the leak, nor will it at the
end. But as the process ramps up to a higher level of
production, it will give us a much better sense of the numbers.
What I will say, Senator Vitter, and to all the members of
this Committee, is that you have the best engineering and
science minds of the entire globe that are focused in on this
problem. It includes the leadership of Secretary Chu and the
Department of Energy and the National Labs and the Department
of Commerce and NOAA and USGS.
Dr. Marcia McNutt, who I think is one of the most renowned
ocean marine scientists in the world, has actually been at
Houston watching exactly what is going on. It is part of
pulling together a group of the leadership of the scientific
community to help address some of these issues which you are
raising.
Senator Vitter. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we are gathered for one reason, and that is we need
to answers to the question what went wrong. Eleven people lost
their lives. Oil is gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf
Coast economies are at risk. Environmental damage will be
severe.
I have supported offshore oil and gas development for many
years, and I expect to continue to do so. But with that support
comes responsibility to ensure that people are safe, our
communities are protected, and our natural resources preserved.
The catastrophic consequences of this incident compel us to
pause, to evaluate what happened, and to make corrections so
this does not happen again.
A few key questions come to mind. First, the response. Have
appropriate actions been taken, and are they continuing to stop
the spill and mitigate the damage to the environment and the
economy?
Second, the cause. What exactly happened? Was this human
error, equipment failure, or both? Was there failure to plan
for the worst case scenario? Were appropriate environmental
reviews conducted? Were adequate preparations made for rapid
response in the event of an incident?
Third, are there systemic changes we need to make to be
sure this never happens again? Is there an appropriate level of
redundancy in the safety systems on these offshore rigs, given
the potential for damage? Are the Federal safety environmental
requirements for offshore drilling adequate, and are they being
followed?
One item I would like to highlight on this last point. I
understand that under current regulations a full environmental
assessment may be avoided at a particular site unless a project
has the potential to harm things like ``parks, recreation or
refuge lands and wetlands.''
In Montana these words have very clear meaning that brings
to mind places like the North Fork of the Flathead River,
Glacier National Park in northwestern Montana. We have higher
expectations for these lands already in protected status. Given
the nature of the resources in the Gulf, I cannot understand
why a more detailed environmental review was not conducted that
might have led to extra precautions.
The true impact of this ever growing disaster on the people
of the Gulf Coast, the economy, and our Nation's natural
resources will emerge over time. It is our responsibility to
make sure that as we move forward with offshore oil and gas
developments we are doing so with the utmost care to preclude
this type of catastrophe.
I very much look forward to a hearing from the Committee.
We have a long ways to go yet in order to get to the bottom of
this.
Mr. Secretary, I have a question for you. We are both from
the West. When we see the words park, wilderness areas, or
wildlife refuge, we know what they mean. They mean places like
Glacier National Park or the North Fork of the Flathead River
which you and I visited last year.
These words also mean the six refuges in the Gulf or the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. When these resources
are present MMS regulations require environmental assessments
that preclude the use of a categoric exclusion to avoid
environmental review. With the Deepwater Horizon case exactly
the opposite occurred. Why then was a categorical exclusion
used at this site, and what is MMS doing to ensure that our
most special places are protected?
Mr. Salazar. Senator, Chairman Baucus, let me just say
first, as I alluded to earlier in the testimony, the response
here has been robust. The President has directed us to make
sure that we do not rest until we get this problem solved. To
the cause, the Commission, especially the Presidential
Commission will get us down to the root causes of what happened
here and will answer the question that you had in your opening
comment.
Systemic changes, some of those we will move forward with,
and we have moved forward with some of those over the last
year, and we will continue to move forward with them now. But
also as the lessons learned emerge, we will be moving forward
with additional systemic changes.
On the EISs and what happened here relative to the refuges,
I will have Nancy Sutley comment, if she will in just a minute,
on the environmental reviews that do happen. But I will say
this--there are 40 units of very spectacular areas in the
entire Gulf Coast. They include 33 National Wildlife Refuges
and seven units of the National Park System. That is an agenda
of protection that I take as seriously as I do Glacier National
Park.
We will, as we investigate what happened here, make sure
that we understand whether or not there were shortcuts that
were taken that should not have been taken. I think on the
environmental categorical exclusion on the exploration plan
itself, there is, as I have understood it, a 30-day mandate
under our national framework for approval of those plans. And
so that is what has driven a number of the categorical
exclusions that have been given over time in the Gulf.
But Director Sutley actually is very eloquent on this
subject, so she should probably respond to that specific one.
Senator Baucus. So there is the question, why was the
categorical exclusion provided for in this case given the
sensitivity of the area? Well, that is the basic question,
which would preclude a deeper environmental assessment.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator. We know something needs to
be done here. We have announced with the Department of Interior
a review of the environmental review process at MMS so we can
get answers to exactly those questions.
We will also propose to strengthen the guidance that we
give to agencies with respect to their use of categorical
exclusions, clarifying when they should use them, requiring
them to review them, requiring CEQ to review the use of
categorical exclusions.
But as the Secretary alluded to, one of the real
constraints that MMS faces is this 30-day requirement to act on
permits within 30 days. And so in the legislation that we sent
up here last week, we have asked to extend that to 90 days to
ensure that there is adequate time to do a thorough
environmental analysis when it is required.
Senator Baucus. What is the 30 days? Is that a statutory
requirement?
Ms. Sutley. My understanding is that it is.
Mr. Salazar. It is a statutory requirement that I
understand has been in place since 1978 that MMS has to respond
with a decision on an exploration plan within 30 days from its
submission.
Senator Baucus. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it
has to be, maybe it does, a categorical exclusion, does it?
Mr. Salazar. There are a number of environmental reviews
that take place before you get to the point of actually
granting a permit to drill a particular well. They include the
very extensive environmental impact statements in preparing an
Outer Continental Shelf plan. They include another
environmental impact statement with respect to a particular
lease sale. And then additional environmental analysis that
occurs.
At the point in the window of this process where the
company submits an exploration plan, there is a requirement, as
I understand it, that says that the exploration plan must be
approved or disapproved within 30 days.
We have asked for that to be changed in the submission by
the President on legislative changes. There will be other
things like that that will be looked at. But I think, Chairman
Baucus, if I may, the most important thing that is going on
here is that it is time to learn from this tragedy. Director
Sutley, along with our Department, along with Administrator
Jackson and others, will take a look at these environmental
reviews, and whatever changes need to be made, they will be
made.
Senator Baucus. I understand that. It sort of baffles me,
frankly, that based on what I know at this point. There does
not seem to be redundancy plans. There does not seem to be
testing, particularly a mile down, of some of these procedures,
like the preventer, at that depth.
And just lots of questions that come to my mind. I am just
curious. It just seems that they were not looked at adequately
in advance. I know this is hindsight, but it is baffling to me
the degree to which there is almost a cavalier attitude by the
Government in its failure to protect resources here.
If I might change subjects here, my time is about to
expire.
Administrator Jackson, thanks for all the work that you do.
As you recall I wrote you a letter recently regarding clean up
at Libby, Montana. And I asked you to affirm a series of
commitments related to public involvement in the cleanup
process and updating records of decisions upon completion of a
risk assessment. I just wondered if you could confirm that EPA
will take the actions outlined in my letter by May 12 of this
year.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, your letter was dated May 12, Senator,
and I do have it and I am happy to affirm those commitments
that staff have made and will also get you a written response
to your letter.
Senator Baucus. I thank you. And just while we are here, I
also want to just thank you and Secretary Sebelius and the
Administration for the declaration of public health urgency. It
has made a huge difference to those people in that part of our
State. So I just want to thank you on their behalf.
Ms. Jackson. And I am still looking to visit with you.
Senator Baucus. Good. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. It is always nice to see you. Thank you for
coming today. Thank you for bringing with you Secretary Salazar
and Administrator Jackson. We miss one of you very much here in
the U.S. Senate. It is nice that you come back from time to
time and still try to play a constructive role at reaching out
to all sides and working through these difficult issues.
My first question is for our old colleague, Secretary
Salazar. First of all, let me say, this question could be for
any of you.
A week or so ago we had a number of witnesses from the
industry. I think from the folks from BP and the other
witnesses from the industry side. And one of the questions I
asked to our senior witness from BP was about their willingness
to really pay the piper, for their willingness to cover the
costs that were being incurred.
I believe under current law they have a $75 million
obligation beyond which they can ask that we tap this fund that
is now grown to about $1.7 billion. I think under current law,
as I understand it, about $1 billion of that can be used per
incident. I think there has been a proposal to lift that $1
billion to $1.5 billion.
The witness from BP, again a very senior member of their
team, responded that they had no interest or intention to
foisting any of this obligation off onto the taxpayers. This
was something they wanted to pay for with their dime beyond the
$75 million they are good for. I even understood him to say
they weren't interested in taking money out of the $1.7 billion
trust fund.
We have asked GAO to look at this to make sure that what we
are hearing from the witness and witnesses from BP actually is
credible.
Let me just ask, what have you been told by BP or other
liable parties in terms of picking up the tab, making sure we
make whole those who need to be made whole without putting the
taxpayers on the hook?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Carper, thank you for your hard work
in the U.S. Senate on behalf of Delaware and the country.
Let me just say that we have had multiple meetings with the
senior executives of BP, including Tony Hayward, on the issue
of liability and what they will pay for. It has included
meetings with Secretary Napolitano and me, Director Browner of
the White House, and others. They have communicated to us,
first orally, that was in fact the case that they were going to
pay for all of the consequences of this incident, including
damages and compensation for businesses and people who will be
affected.
We asked them to put that in writing in a letter that
Secretary Napolitano and I sent to BP. They have done so, and
it comports with the statement, as you have understood it, that
they are not going to access the oil spill fund, nor will they
take advantage of the $75 million liability cap that is in the
statute right now.
Senator Carper. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson, do you or Ms. Sutley have a different view?
Feel free to speak.
I see you don't. That is good.
A question, if I could, for our Administrator, Lisa
Jackson. We know that the impacts of this oil spill on our
ocean and our ecosystem may well be devastating. We hope not,
but they may well be. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean
Air and Nuclear Safety here in the Senate, I am also concerned
about the impact on air quality that may emanate from this
spill.
My question is: Has EPA found thus far that the spill is
causing impairments in air quality? And second, what is EPA
doing to protect workers who are cleaning up this spill from
breathing harmful air?
Ms. Jackson. EPA has been sampling since fairly early on.
It was actually the day that BP started the in situ burning of
the oil that was on the surface that EPA began air sampling. We
have gotten more robust over time. I aspire that we will
continue to improve.
We have made a second commitment, which is anything that we
sample, any sampling results we get, we will put them up on our
Web site. We have been doing that, although admittedly I wish
we could do it faster, but we think data integrity is very
important.
Here is the basics of what we know. So far, we can get
quicker data when we look at big indicators, total particulate
matter, which is important when you are looking at a fire. We
haven't seen elevations in those levels into zones that would
be a problem for public health. That is based on sampling that
we do on the shoreline as well as near the incident.
We look at total volatile organics, because that would be
the stuff that would be likely to volatilize into the air.
There have been numerous reports of odors, some reports of
irritation. What we found is that while total VOC levels are
within levels that we would consider to be protective of human
health, we have not yet reviewed individual volatile organic
contaminant data. We need about 2 weeks' worth of data for the
scientists to be able to speak with any clarity on that issue.
I think it is probably due to a large extent to the sheen
and the wave action in a pretty active Gulf that from very
early on there was some supposition that there could be an
aerosol forming. As you know, an aerosol can be very
irritating, at the least, to your lungs. If you ever spray a
can, and then try to walk through it, that can really irritate
you. We have seen incidents like that.
We have also measured for hydrogen sulfide, and we have
seen some hits, but we have seen them only at certain monitors.
So when you monitor along the shoreline, you may see them one
place but not another. So that leads us to wonder whether it is
related directly to the spill or perhaps some other issues in
the marsh. They haven't been particularly high levels, but they
are certainly higher than, if you will, background.
So there is a lot more data coming in. We have a plane in
the air. We have two mobile labs out front. But I am trying to
be very careful not to overstate what we know, but my
commitment has been to people when I talk to them that we are
going to get the data, and we are going to give it to you. And
we are going to give it to you in a way that is responsible and
hopefully that will add to the knowledge of what we are
learning about this spill.
Senator Carper. Thank you. It sounds like you are on it. As
a Vietnam veteran, I remember all too well the exposure not
just to folks in Vietnam, but to our military personnel, the
exposure to Agent Orange and the unanticipated consequence of
health damages really to both groups. I think we are all more
recently mindful of the exposure of the men and women who were
involved in the clean up and searching for survivors in the
ruins of the Twin Towers on 9/11 and the health impairments
that a number of them have. Let's just keep that in mind. It
sounds like you are as we go forward.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. You did ask about workers,
and of course that is a Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health, OSHA. We all know OSHA. We have heard from
several people their concerns, though, and OSHA has really
stepped up their presence down in the area of the paid
volunteers, if you will, the fishermen and vessels of
opportunity that have been pressed into service on boom.
I know the other concern has been whether the dispersants,
which are applied aerially, are any concern. We have added now
to our suite of chemicals looking for those constituents in the
dispersants that are most likely to be volatile, recognizing
that they are not particularly volatile mixtures to start with.
So we will have some information.
Senator Carper. Thanks.
And one last question for Mr. Secretary, if I could. Last
week, you announced your intention to restructure MMS in order
to establish a separate and independent safety environmental
enforcement entity for oil drilling. I believe currently that
the Minerals Management Service collects energy revenues on
behalf of American taxpayers and enforces laws and regulations
that apply to offshore energy operations. Is that a basically
correct division of labor?
Mr. Salazar. Yes.
Senator Carper. OK. My understanding is that MMS is already
partially separated. The Royalties Division is mainly in
Denver, and the Regulatory Division, I am told, is mainly in
New Orleans. Is that correct?
Mr. Salazar. That is generally correct.
Senator Carper. OK. How do you see your reorganization
changing the status quo? Have you thought that far down the
road?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Carper, the reform effort that we have
had underway throughout the Department has included MMS from
day one, and that has included the elimination of programs like
the Royalty-in-Kind Program, the institution of a new ethics
code, investigations that ultimately have been referred over to
the U.S. Attorney, a number of different things like that that
have been an effort on our part to bring competence and trust
in the functioning of MMS.
Our work is not yet finished. In the days ahead there will
be additional orders that we will issue with respect to the
restructuring of MMS.
Senator Carper. OK.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. Something you and
I are very much interested in is alternative energy. If I could
just ask one last quick follow up on the same point with
Secretary Salazar. Where do you see the alternative energy
permitting folks ending up in this reorganization? Have you
thought that far down the line?
Mr. Salazar. We have indeed. There will be a continuing
significant effort on our part to capture energy in the ocean
that is renewable energy. As you well know, the State of
Delaware, along with the State of Rhode Island, are two of the
key leaders in the Atlantic. We have formed an Atlantic
Consortium with respect to offshore wind. We have developed the
regulations with respect to that.
I expect that even in the weeks ahead, even as we deal with
this turmoil down in the Gulf, you will be seeing additional
information with respect to the efforts on the offshore wind
related specifically to the Atlantic.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks so much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Carper.
And thank you to all the witnesses for being here. We are
down to the bitter end of your time here. I wanted to ask a
number of questions. The first has to do with a statement made
by Transocean's lawyers, who have said that strengthened
regulations are not needed because companies have the financial
incentive to do this kind of job right.
That is the Greenspan rule. That is exactly the theory that
Alan Greenspan used to justify deregulation of the financial
regulatory structure that we had. We saw the destruction that
ensued from that. Please assure me that you are not buying into
this theory that under certain circumstances there may be a
financial disincentive to a company from having a disaster
means that the Government doesn't need to do any regulation to
prevent that disaster from happening.
Mr. Salazar. Senator Whitehouse, I very much agree with
your position, and I think that kind of a statement from
Transocean is wrong.
Senator Whitehouse. I appreciate it.
In terms of MMS's role, I have seen news reports saying
that they were highly encouraging companies to take certain
steps, but not requiring them to; that they issue guidelines
and recommendations but that their provisions weren't
mandatory. If a regular American is trying to electric work on
their house, and they need to have the electrical inspector
come and sign off on what they did or didn't do, they are
subject to pretty clear requirements. You have either done it
right, or you haven't.
Why is it that for something that is so complicated and so
dangerous as this offshore drilling that the similar level of
mandatoriness that you and I have to face with the electrical
inspector in our homes doesn't apply to these giant industries?
What is with regulation by suggestion?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Whitehouse, the MMS has a
comprehensive regulatory program that has been in place and is
the creature of 40 years of development. It is under that
regime that some 36,000 wells in the Gulf alone have been
constructed without this kind of an incident. Many of the rules
at MMS are in fact mandatory.
Now, that doesn't mean that these rules are what they ought
to be. I would imagine that one of the things that you will see
in the coming report to the President on safety issues has to
do with significant enhancements.
I have seen the blowout prevention mechanisms. They are
required on wells. They are not the first line of defense.
There are other lines of defense. It is first the mud in the
well, and that is never supposed to happen, and there are a
whole bunch of shutoffs with respect to blowout preventions.
This particular BOP program had a number of different closures
that were supposed to take place. Lots of things probably
happened that kept them from closing in and stopping the flow.
We will learn a lot from what happened here, and that is
why the President's Commission and the investigations are so
important so we can get to the root causes and so that we can
learn all the lessons that can be learned from this horrible
tragedy.
Senator Whitehouse. I appreciate that. I am delighted that
the President made that decision. As you know, Congresswoman
Capps on the House side and me on the Senate side have filed
legislation to push that to happen. I think the President's
choice obviously was the right one.
In terms of the culture at MMS, we have seen horrifying
stories. We have seen regulation by suggestion, I call it. I
haven't seen that in any other regulatory environment I have
ever been in. On the other hand, it is a big organization. You
see it, although only for a brief period of time now, more
closely than I do. To what extent is this a captive regulator
where, to use your earlier phrase, really root and branch
changes need to be made? And to what extent is this a
legitimate, honest regulator that has only pockets of
malfeasance or nonfeasance? What is your view of the scope of
the problem within MMS?
Mr. Salazar. Let me say first there are 1,700 employees at
MMS, and today I would say most of them, the very, very vast
majority of them, are good public servants doing their job,
collecting $13 billion for the taxpayers of America; helping
produce the energy which you and I consume and the constituents
of Rhode Island and Colorado consume every day.
So I am proud of the work that they do, but I also
recognize that there are pockets of problems, and we have taken
them on, including with appropriate personnel actions, and
whenever necessary, referrals for other more significant
sanctions under the law. That has continued and will continue
unabated into the future.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you think an adequate spirit of
skepticism about the assertions of the industry it is intended
to regulate exist within the agency? Or do you think they are
willing to more or less take what they are told?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Whitehouse, the reform agenda which we
have tried to put into the Department of the Interior has not
come without any cost. There was an exchange between myself and
industry where I said the days of them treating the Federal
domain as essentially part of a candy store were over. We have
made it clear that those days of the prior Administration are
over.
So those changes are changes that we have implemented from
the very beginning of my coming into the Department of the
Interior. It has come at the cost of significant criticism,
including members of this Committee and the Senate. But it is
the right agenda that we are on, the agenda of reform. It is an
agenda which is not yet complete, and that is why we will not
rest until we get it done and we achieve the President's goal
of having the highest safety possible with respect to any
development in the Outer Continental Shelf.
Senator Whitehouse. If you look for a minute at the
categorical exclusion question, which I know has been touched
on a few times already, under the 2004 changes to your NEPA
manual, National Environmental Protection Act manual, the
categorical exclusion from the full blown NEPA process for
approval of an offshore lease or unit exploration in the
central or western Gulf of Mexico provides a number of
exemptions: No. 1, in areas of high seismic risk or seismicity,
relatively untested deep water, or remote areas; two, within
the boundary or near the boundary of a proposed or established
wildlife refuge or area of high biological sensitivity; three,
in areas of hazardous natural bottom conditions. I don't know
if the natural bottom conditions were there; four, utilizing
new or unusual technology.
The press is full of reports about the novelty of using
this technology at this depth; the use for the first time of
nitrogen cement instead of regular cement; the use of the
device of displacement of the mud before the plugs were in; and
obviously they went into a scramble mode once things really
went wrong and they had to begin to try to address the spill
because clearly it was being made up as they went along at that
point: trying the dome, no; ice crystals, that didn't work;
what are going to do next, try the straw, no; well, I guess
that is working; maybe we will try the relief wells.
It looks like a very ad hoc effort. And when I look at
these exemptions from the requirement, here we were in very
deep water. I don't know how near we were to the boundaries of
a wildlife refuge or areas of high biological sensitivity, but
clearly there would seem to be elements of new and unusual
technology being used here, particularly at this depth.
Do you feel that the decision that was made to go ahead
with the categorical exclusion, when these exemptions seem to
me rather plainly to apply, was taken correctly and in good
faith?
Mr. Salazar. Senator Whitehouse, there has been significant
environmental review, including environmental impact statements
that have been conducted with respect to this activity in the
Gulf of Mexico. It is an area where we know a lot about the
environment. We know a lot about the infrastructure that is
there.
The question of the categorical exclusions in part relates
to the congressionally mandated 30-day requirement that MMS has
to approve or disapprove an exploration plan. But it is an
appropriate area for questions, and that is why Director Sutley
and Interior are leading a review of all these environmental
issues. I would, with your indulgence, ask her to comment on
the review of all these environmental issues at MMS.
Senator Whitehouse. I would be delighted. Just to sort of
provoke the conversation a little further, here is BP's Chief
Executive Officer, Tony Hayward, saying this is the first time
the industry has had to confront this issue in this water
depth, and there is a lot of real-time learning going on; BP's
release that the Chairman showed earlier, that significant
uncertainties exist because they have not been tested in these
conditions before; and now you have a new or unusual technology
exemption to the categorical exclusion, and everybody is
running around saying his is new, this is unusual.
Why was that not apparent back when the categorical
exclusion was being issued?
Mr. Salazar. Let me just say, Senator Whitehouse, those are
from 2004. That was a long time ago, a different
Administration. We are taking a new look at that. We have been
taking a new look at a lot of different things. But
importantly, the effort that Director Sutley and I have
underway to look at all these environmental issues is very
important. So I think it would be appropriate for her to
comment.
Senator Whitehouse. No, and I don't mean to suggest that
any of you three individually had any responsibility for that.
I mean, if these technologies are new and unusual now, think
how new and unusual they were years ago when this application
was being considered. There is the new and unusual exemption
right in the middle. There is the deep water exemption right in
the middle of it. Who was watching to oversee that
determination?
It is hard for me to see that that is a determination that
could have been made in good faith back then. So I hope you
will look back and take a look at the extent to which there
might have been improper or undue influence in the early stages
of this approval to allow this to go through the categorical
exclusion, given those very clear exemptions that seem to be
plainly pertinent.
Chairman Sutley.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator. The Secretary is exactly
right. We intend to do something about this. We are engaged in
this review of MMS's NEPA procedures and their environmental
review procedures, recognizing that there is an expanding use
of categorical exclusions across the Government. We proposed in
February to update our guidance with respect to categorical
exclusions, including the requirement that agencies review
their own use of categorical exclusions and that CEQ will do,
as we are launching with the Department of Interior review not
only MMS's overall NEPA procedures, but the use of categorical
exclusions. So we think there are definitely areas for
improvement in the application of categorical exclusions.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. I appreciate that.
My time has expired, and even though I am not
inconveniencing any other Senators, because we are here now
alone, I am inconveniencing the three of you, so I will
conclude. But I am glad that you are taking such a serious look
at it. Just from what I have seen in the newspapers, we read
about dead batteries in the control pod; test parts in the
blowout preventer instead of the reel rams; even the reel rams
not able to actually shear the pipe the way they are supposed
to at joints; hydraulic leaks that preexisted all of this;
pressure readings that were missed.
And on the Government side, inspections missed, warnings
ignored, regulation by recommendation, I call it. I don't envy
you having to go back and clean this up. I know the problems
predated your arrival, but I really think it is important that
you do that. I would urge you to take a particular look at what
this means for Arctic drilling. Because if it is this hard to
clean this up in the relatively benign conditions of the Gulf
of Mexico, good luck trying to implement this sort of a clean
up in Arctic oceans.
Thank you all very much for being here. I appreciate your
testimony and will take a 2-minute recess to allow the second
panel to come forward. I am very grateful for your service. I
know you have put in enormously long hours and put in a
wonderful effort on this.
Secretary Salazar, as a former colleague of yours here, I
am just always very proud of you. So keep up the good work.
Thank you.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
Senator Whitehouse. The hearing will come back to order.
I am delighted to welcome panel two. In addition to being
very distinguished, they are also very patient. I think I will
read everybody's introductions, and then we will go through the
statements one after another.
Admiral Peter F. Neffenger of the United States Coast Guard
is the Deputy National Incident Commander for the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill response. The Coast Guard is responsible for
the response and clean up of oil spills in coastal waters under
the Clean Water Act, Oil Pollution Act and the National
Contingency Plan. The Coast Guard is also a co-lead, along with
the Minerals Management Service, in the ongoing investigation
into the causes of the explosion and spill.
Jo-Ellen Darcy is Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which Ms. Darcy
oversees, is responsible for maintaining navigation on the
river systems and waterways along the Gulf Coast, some of which
could be affected by the spill. The Corps will also have
responsibility for reviewing Louisiana's proposal to construct
barrier islands in coastal waters to prevent the oil spill from
reaching coastal wetlands.
John Fernandez is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Economic Development. The Economic Development Administration,
which he oversees, will play a role in assisting Gulf Coast
communities in coping with impacts to local economies as a
result of the oil spill. The EDA has a proven track record in
helping communities recover after disasters, and we look
forward to hearing how EDA can assist in the wake of this
spill.
I will call first on Admiral Neffenger. Let me just tell
you how grateful I am for the work that the Coast Guard has
done in this particular instance. I think both as active
participants in the response and as regulators and questioners
of other agencies has been in the best traditions of the Coast
Guard. I, for one, remember the North Cape-Scandia incident off
of Rhode Island and the extraordinary heroism of the Coast
Guard folks who made very hazardous rescues that night and
brought everyone to safety in really appalling weather
conditions. So I just wanted to take that moment to thank you
for what an impressive and professional organization you are a
part of.
Admiral.
STATEMENT OF PETER V. NEFFENGER, REAR ADMIRAL, DEPUTY NATIONAL
INCIDENT COMMANDER, DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL RESPONSE, U.S.
COAST GUARD
Admiral Neffenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for those kind comments about the men and women of the Coast
Guard. And thank you for the opportunity to testify today about
the ongoing response and investigation into the explosion and
subsequent oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon incident.
I have written comments that I will provide for the record
and make a brief opening statement.
On the evening of April 20, 2010, the Coast Guard and other
mariners immediately responded to the explosion and fire which
engulfed the Deepwater Horizon. Within the first few hours, 115
of the 126 crewmembers aboard the rig were rescued, with the
Coast Guard medically evacuating 17 of those most seriously
injured. Eleven crew members remain missing despite intensive
multi-day search efforts, and our deepest sympathies remain
with their families and friends as they cope with their losses.
On the morning of April 22rd the Deepwater Horizon sank in
5,000 feet of water, resulting in a major oil spill from the
continuous release of oil and gas from an open wellhead riser
and drill pipe. The complexity of this event is unprecedented.
With the spill emanating at a depth of 5,000 feet of water we
are operating in inner-space where there is no human access,
and we must depend upon remotely operated vehicles and tools
with which extensive efforts continue to stem the flow and
secure the source of the spill.
To meet this challenge, organizations at the local,
regional and national level immediately initiated a massive
response. This has been led regionally by the Federal on-scene
coordinator, Rear Admiral Mary Landry, nationally by Admiral
Thad Allen, to whom I am the Deputy National Incident
Commander, and Secretary Napolitano as the principal Federal
official under the authority given her by HSPD-5.
On the day the rig sank the President convened a principals
meeting to direct that the whole of Government be brought to
bear on this effort, working closely with State and local
government authorities. The National Contingency Plan provides
the organizational structure and the operational framework to
implement the family of response plans that are developed and
exercised in advance of a spill such as this.
Unified commands consisting of Federal, State and local
authorities, the responsible party, and oil spill removal
organizations and other key stakeholders were established
within the Gulf region to coordinate and direct the response
operations. These unified commands implement the area
contingency plans, which include response strategies and
organizational responsibilities previously agreed upon by
stakeholders for the anticipated most probable and worst case
oil spills.
These plans prioritize cleanup sites and protection areas
for booming and pre-staging of other resources. The projections
of spill trajectory based on forecasted winds, currents, and
sea states require continued tactical flexibility as we move
stocks and booms around and such and direct resources
accordingly.
BP is the responsible party, and it is their responsibility
to plan for and to respond with sufficient capability. They are
also responsible for the clean up of the oil, remediation of
all damages, and the restoration of impacted natural resources.
They have acknowledged and accepted this responsibility, but as
the Federal on-scene coordinator the Coast Guard is ensuring
that they continue to meet their obligations by providing
constant oversight and direction of their actions.
In addition, we continue to monitor the claims process to
ensure it is robust and fair.
The severity, size and location, and potential impact of
this brought Secretary Napolitano to declare it a spill of
national significance. As part of that designation, Admiral
Thad Allen, as I said, was named the National Incident
Commander. The role of the National Incident Commander is to
coordinate national policy, ensure provision of necessary
resources, facilitate collaboration between Federal, State and
local government, and coordinate strategic communications
throughout the whole of government.
The magnitude and location of the spill has required a
combination of traditional spill response equipment and
methodologies coupled with newer technologies employed in
unconventional ways. The use of dispersant deep below the
surface, remote operating vehicles to access the site and
secure the source, and satellite imagery to better determine
the location of oil are just a few examples of these.
The efforts so far have been extensive and without
precedent. As of today, we have recovered over 7.6 million
gallons of oil-water mix, applied over 588,000 gallons of
surface dispersant and over 47,000 gallons of sub-sea
dispersants, deployed over 1.3 million feet of boom, staged
over 350,000 feet of boom, and have another 1.4 million feet
arriving. And as noted there are over 19,000 personnel and 950
vessels involved.
We understand the impacts of this spill on the local
communities whose livelihood and quality of life depends on the
health of the Gulf. I have personally spent the better part of
the past few weeks in the Gulf region over-flying the spill
site, visiting the various command posts, and observing first-
hand the efforts underway.
In closing, the National Incident Command will continuing
coordinating the aggressive whole of government response to
this spill while ensuring that BP meets their obligations.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity, and I welcome
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Neffenger follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Admiral.
We will hold questions until the end, and we will go to
Assistant Secretary Darcy.
STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I want to thank
you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Army's
ongoing efforts to support the oil spill response in the Gulf
and to provide an assessment of impacts to navigation and the
ecosystem.
In the midst of the response to this tragic Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, the Corps of Engineers continues to provide
reliable navigation on the river system and waterways along the
Gulf Coast.
In addition, the Corps has provided modeling support for
river discharges and is offering emergency review under section
404 and section 10 authorities of a proposed barrier plan
developed at the local level intended to prevent the oil from
reaching the coastal wetlands.
Currently the oil spill is not affecting dredging
operations or navigation in any rivers or waterways along the
Gulf. So far there have been no incidents of deep-draft vessels
getting oil on their hulls as they approach the southwest pass
of the Mississippi River.
The U.S. Coast Guard, working with navigation interests,
has established a clearing station in the Lower Mississippi
River to clean those vessels before they proceed up the river
to New Orleans. This is similar to what was done in the
Mississippi River in the 2009 oil spill.
The Corps continues daily monitoring of any impacts to
navigation and dredging operations as a result of the oil spill
and maintains continued coordination with navigation interests
and appropriate agencies.
The Corps' New Orleans District, Mississippi Valley
Division, and the Engineer Research and Development Center
Coastal and Hydraulic Laboratory have analyzed a number of
water management conditions and possible actions to determine
whether we could modify river flows to keep oil away from the
mouth of the Mississippi River and wetlands on either side of
the river.
This analysis included the possible deviations from what is
currently a 70-30 split at what is called the old river control
structure between the Mississippi River and the Atchafalaya
Basin. Numerical modeling analysis has shown that diverting
water from the Atchafalaya Basin to the Mississippi River at
this control structure would have minimal influence on the
movement of the oil in the Mississippi River Delta region.
Due to the extreme flooding of the Tennessee and the
Cumberland Basins earlier this month, Mississippi River
discharges below New Orleans will nearly double. However, even
with these forecasted increases in discharges, we do not
anticipate increased flows that would allow opening the Bonnet
Carre spillway to reduce oil entering the Mississippi Sound
area.
With respect to some of our smaller freshwater diversion
structures, those structures are currently operating near
design capacity, and the modeling suggests that this may help
slow the movement of the oil into the project marshes from the
marsh and the open water boundaries in the immediate vicinity
of these structures.
This team continues to evaluate other water management
scenarios to determine if they will help address the oil spill
issues. The Corps of Engineers' Research and Development
Center, which we refer to as ERDC, is also working with the
U.S. Geological Survey Program to collect and analyze baseline
sediment samples in the wetlands and in the navigation areas.
These pre-oil spill samples will provide critical comparisons
to post-emergency sediment that will be required for efforts to
continue with Louisiana coastal restoration through the
beneficial uses of dredge materials.
On May 11, 2010, the Corps received a permit request from
the State of Louisiana for construction of an approximately
100-mile-long barrier intended to intercept the oil before it
enters the marshes. The Corps is reviewing the permit request
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act.
As this request was rendered in the context of the British
Petroleum oil spill, the Corps is working with the National
Incident Commander to evaluate this request.
In addition to ERDC's Coastal and Hydraulic Laboratory
support, seven people have been deployed from ERDC
Environmental Laboratory to support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's natural resources damage assessment activities.
Activities include development of bird injury study plans,
global positioning systems collection, and integration of field
data, as well as primary GIS and mapping support.
As the Department of Army lead for environmental
restoration, research and development, ERDC is prepared to
assist in formulating and implementing strategies for long-term
monitoring and remediation of wetland and barrier island areas
affected by the oil spill.
ERDC is also prepared to provide analysis for the eventual
remediation of contaminated barrier sediment and material
removal and ecological restoration.
Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, and I am happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Darcy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Darcy.
Assistant Secretary Fernandez, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN FERNANDEZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I talk about EDA's response to the oil spill, I,
too, want to express our sincere condolences to the families
who lost their family members after the explosion. I also want
to say thank you and express our gratitude to the incredible
work of all the first responders and their extraordinary
efforts to actually rescue over 100 other survivors.
While the responsible parties, rather than EDA, will
ultimately be responsible for the economic damage caused by
this spill, EDA will play a role in helping the affected
communities recover. Though not a first responder, EDA
facilitates delivery of Federal assistance to local
governments' recovery efforts through technical assistance,
strategic planning, and economic redevelopment grants.
Shortly after the spill I asked our staff in the Austin and
Atlanta Regional Offices, who are on the front line of this
disaster, to reach out to our local partners. Regional office
staff have contacted our network of local government partners
in those affected areas to offer our agency's assistance. We
deployed staff throughout the region to meet with local and
State leaders as well our colleagues in other Federal agencies.
On May 6 Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, along with EDA
leadership, met with local government and economic leaders in
Biloxi and Pensacola. Our staff remain in regular contact with
local, State and Federal partners.
While in the short term EDA's regional staff is already
providing some technical assistance, our focus will remain on
promoting long-term economic recovery and we will continue to
work closely with affected communities long after the clean up
is complete.
Successful long-term recovery based upon well developed
planning efforts can help a community not only get back to
where they started prior to a disaster, but also develop new
economic opportunities, make improvements to their
infrastructure, and be better prepared for future disasters.
In my written testimony I have set out some of the
technical frameworks for EDA's engagement in disaster recovery
efforts. In the time I have left with my statement I would like
to just provide a real simplified overview.
Economic disasters, whether they are caused by forces of
nature or if they are man-made, each bring their own unique set
of challenges. Rather than pursuing a one size fits all
approach EDA works directly with State and local leadership to
develop customized responses.
The key to EDA's success in responding quickly and
effectively to disasters and economic disruptions is its
Economic Adjustment Assistance Program. This program allows for
a wide range of technical assistance, strategic planning, gap
financing, and infrastructure assistance. It is a complete
toolbox of development tools which EDA can leverage.
Most importantly the Economic Adjustment Investment Program
can select projects that are multifaceted, which allows us to
develop an integrated response with a single grant application.
In order to assist communities impacted by the oil spill, the
President last week sent Congress a legislative package that
included $5 million for EDA's Economic Adjustment Assistance
Program.
EDA's long involvement with communities before and after a
disaster has taught us a few truths. First and foremost, the
communities that emerge strongest from these catastrophic
events are those that have a detailed strategic plan in place
before the event ever occurred. That is a significant reason
why the Obama administration is working to ensure that the
Federal Government is prepared for a swift and coordinated
response to future large or catastrophic disasters. Through
advanced planning and strong coordination, the Federal
Government can help affected communities response faster and
recover more fully through new economic opportunities that will
result in sustainable and economically viable communities.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for the opportunity to
address EDA's role in the economic disaster response. I can
tell you I have spent the last several weeks visiting
communities where EDA has helped in recovery efforts. I can
tell you I am very proud of the work that the agency does in
this area.
EDA is ready and prepared to do our best to assist with the
devastating impact of this oil spill in the Gulf Coast region.
We certainly look forward to working with Congress to
strengthen the Federal Government's coordinated response, and I
certainly welcome any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fernandez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Assistant
Secretary Fernandez.
Admiral Neffenger, the New York Times and others have
reported that there are enormous oil plumes now in the deep
waters of the Gulf, including one 10 miles long, 3 miles wide,
and 300 feet thick in spots. This spill didn't happen at the
surface. It happened in the depths of the Gulf. We have a
pretty good sense from visual observation of how far it has
reached at the surface level. How good do you believe our
country's modeling is of the shape, size, and location of the
undersea oil?
Admiral Neffenger. As you know, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration is the primary agency responsible
for doing spill trajectory models and the like. They have been
looking very carefully at that question.
I can tell you that there is still some uncertainty as to
what was actually seen there. Dr. Jane Lubchenco--I believe it
was yesterday--issued a statement that the scientific evidence
is inconclusive right now as to what that actually was that
they have seen.
Nonetheless there is some concern that there is an
underwater plume that might be forming. So there is a team
working on that right now. It is a technical team that is
looking at all the data that we are collecting right now, as
well as collecting data to determine really what they are
seeing out there and why it might mean with respect to the
extent of this oil spill.
Senator Whitehouse. So it would be not accurate to think
that there is a sort of a 3-D model on a computer someplace
that shows where this enormous blob of oil has traveled to
under the water. We don't have that kind of situational
awareness as to the oil that is still in the water column.
Admiral Neffenger. Well, I think that it would be accurate
to say that, but I would qualify it by saying that until there
is some certainty as to what is actually being seen underwater
it is difficult to model what it might be doing. So I would
qualify it by that. It is not so much that there is not an
accurate model but that you need more data to determine what
that model might look like.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you have a sense of how much of the
oil that has been spilled in this incident has stayed in the
water column as opposed to rising to the surface and making
itself more apparent to the human eye?
Admiral Neffenger. As you know, we have dispersed oil in
the water column as well as oil that may be naturally
dispersing from the flow. I don't have a good set of numbers
for how much in terms of relative percentage would be sub-
surface as opposed to on the surface. Again, these technical
teams are looking at that data now, so we are bringing in not
only just NOAA scientists but setting up a peer review process
to take a look at that. These are important questions to
answer.
Senator Whitehouse. Are you at the point where you know
that it is more than half or less than half that went to the
surface?
Admiral Neffenger. I don't believe I could quantify it
right now, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. So it is really a huge question
mark at this point.
Admiral Neffenger. It is a question mark for us at this
point.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. That is a very big unknown, isn't
it?
I read a story in The Wall Street Journal this morning that
said that in 2004, managers of BP plc, the oil giant involved
in this incident and another oil rig incident that they
described in the article, warned in a trade journal that the
company wasn't prepared for the long-term, round the clock task
of dealing with a deep sea spill.
I was a little bit surprised that nobody picked up on that.
You would think that unless this is a trade journal with no
readership whatsoever somewhere somebody within the Coast Guard
or within NOAA or within MMS would have been pinged to the fact
that here was this enormous corporation with a considerable
deep sea drilling footprint basically confessing that it is not
ready to deal with an emergency that might ensue if something
went wrong.
Do you have any sense of why that might have been missed?
That would seem like kind of a telltale moment.
Admiral Neffenger. What I can say, Senator, is with respect
to this spill as well as with respect to our interaction with
companies like BP for oil spill response plans, and I will
clarify that our interaction has to do with vessel spill
response plans, tank vessel. So we deal with the shipping side
of the world, if you will, so the mobile offshore units and the
vessels.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you consider a floating rig to be a
vessel?
Admiral Neffenger. In this case, this one was. Yes. This
was a self-propelled offshore drilling unit, so it was
classified as a vessel.
Senator Whitehouse. But if they stand on legs, they are
not. And if they are floating like this one, they are.
Admiral Neffenger. It depends on what kind of action they
are taking. Some rigs that stand on legs can be classified as
vessels as well.
Senator Whitehouse. But in any event this was a vessel.
Admiral Neffenger. This was a vessel. Right. So it was
required to have and did have a non-tank vessel response plan
for response to a spill generated by the vessel. In this case
that MODU had some 700,000 gallons of fuel oil and other oils
on board.
So we were satisfied that they had the response assets in
place and the oil spill removal organization contracts in place
to deal with a spill from that vessel should it have occurred.
And that would be for a worst case discharge from that vessel,
which would have been a complete loss of its fuel oil.
I am not familiar with the article that you are mentioning,
so I can't really speak to what it says.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. We will follow up on that.
The dispersants that were used were at some level approved
by the Coast Guard as the Incident Commander, correct?
Admiral Neffenger. Actually the way that works is there is
a regional response team which is co-chaired by the Coast Guard
and EPA. This is a collection of government agencies and
stakeholders and resource trustees that pre-approve the use of
alternative technologies. In this case there was a pre-approval
existing that had been vetted through that interagency work
group for the use of dispersants that made that available to
the Federal on-scene coordinator for use during this spill.
Senator Whitehouse. So who selected Corexit 9500A and
Corexit 9527A as the dispersants?
Admiral Neffenger. I would assume that that was pre-
approved by that regional response team so they would have
approved those types of dispersants in their pre-approval
process.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you think those were the only two
dispersants that were pre-approved?
Admiral Neffenger. I can check on that for you, Senator. I
don't know exactly, but we can provide for the record a copy of
the pre-approval checklist that was provided to the FOSC.
[The information follows:]
The Federal On-Scene Commander, with the concurrence of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) representative to the
Regional Response Team (RRT), and in consultation with the
Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, and where
appropriate the State and tribal representatives to the RRT,
authorizes the responsible party to use dispersants that are
listed on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule.
In accordance with 40 CFR 300 subpart J, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) approves dispersants for use in U.S.
waters based on tests for toxicity and effectiveness. Any
product listed on the schedule must meet a threshold minimum
for effectiveness and test for and report on toxicity. No
States have expressed reservations about the use of these
dispersants in the past as long as the dispersant is employed
in accordance with the Regional Response Team Dispersant-Use
pre-authorizations agreements established between the States
and their Federal partners at the regions around the country.
The toxicity data table at http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/
content/ncp/tox_tables.htm provides toxicity data for the 18
dispersants listed. Toxicity values should not be interpreted
as absolute values but rather relative to one another in a
general sense. For example, an LC50 of 4.49 should not be
viewed as significantly different from an LC50 of 5.95. But the
LC50 of 4.49 can be viewed as significantly different from the
LC50 of 42.00. Therefore, the toxicity values can be used to
group dispersants (two or three groups of similar toxicity) but
should not be used to list dispersants according to toxicity (1
to 20).
All 18 products on the National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule are selected based on volume availability, specifics
of the site, and concerns of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator.
Toxicity tests are methods for determining the impact of a
chemical or an effluent on living organisms and measure the
degree of response using commonly tested species. Many
different kinds of tests can be used to identify potential
toxic effects, but since toxic effects differ, comparing the
toxicity of one to another may not be appropriate.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. That would be of interest, and I
appreciate that.
Mr. Fernandez, could you describe a little bit more the
role of the Economic Development Administration in this
circumstance a little bit more tangibly? Here is the disaster.
You come in. Who do you first talk to? What is your goal? How
do you know when you have succeeded?
Mr. Fernandez. I can. Speaking specifically to the Gulf
spill or generally?
Senator Whitehouse. Generally. We have just recently had
flooding in Rhode Island, for instance, so make your answers
germane to that as well. That would be helpful.
Mr. Fernandez. I can tell you how we would respond in most
cases, and I will use the Rhode Island one as a specific
example.
I know that representatives from our field office get
engaged with local officials, county and municipal officials,
city officials. There are economic development organizations
that we fund to do long-term planning. Those economic
development districts, we will engage with them. And what we
try and do early on is have as many conversations as we can to
get a sense of what the damage is on the ground, what resources
are in place in terms of any prior disaster planning or
resiliency work that the community may have done in advance,
which can accelerate the response.
And as we collect information it really depends on whether
or not there has been a formal trigger or not of the Stafford
Act.
Senator Whitehouse. Assume there has been the disaster
declaration.
Mr. Fernandez. If the declaration has been enacted that
means that the community can have immediate access to our
existing EDA programs in the event that they were not otherwise
eligible. That is an important trigger in some regards to the
fisheries as well.
Senator Whitehouse. This is primarily a planning function?
Or is this an actual relief function?
Mr. Fernandez. Both. What it does is that it means that if
you are in an eligible area, or regardless of eligibility if
you are in an area that has been triggered by Stafford, you
have access to our implementation grants as well as planning
grants. And you also have the ability to dispense with the
traditional matching requirement, which turns out to be a big
deal in most disaster recovery efforts.
Senator Whitehouse. But the ultimate function of that
exercise is a planning process, not providing relief to
particular individual businesses.
Mr. Fernandez. There are two things that can happen. There
is certainly the planning component. Often what we find to be
the most important request is that we actually fund disaster
relief coordinators, folks who can come into the community,
work with others to help them best access not just EDA
assistance, but the full Federal portfolio. That can be a very
important immediate investment that we make through our grant
dollars.
Then certainly the planning component is important. Once
those plans are in place, if there are specific implementation
investments we can consider those as well.
Senator Whitehouse. Very good.
I see that my time has expired, and I know you have been
here. It has been a long afternoon for all of you. I appreciate
very much our efforts to facilitate the resolution of the Gulf
spill, and again a particular salute to the Coast Guard.
But to all of you, thank you very, very much.
The hearing is adjourned. We will stay open for 2 weeks for
anything anybody cares to add to the record of the hearing.
Thank you again.
[Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]