we need to go state of the are both in the inspection program, designed program, the type of materials we are using for the long term performance that you mentioned. those are the things we need to concentrate on. asset management, preventative >> those are the very well thought out and pragmatic recommendations that you have made. to go back to a point i have raised earlier, in our future of transportation, we require state d.o.t.'s to bid up six year investment plans stressing the categories of federal aid into

four formula programs with more flexibility within those four formulas. in the exchange, states require -- are required to develop annual benchmarks of performance, and annual reports so that there is transparency and clarity about what states are planning to do. increased federal funding we will provide. within that structure that i just described, to require states -- this is what we have proposed? to require states to certify, and have addressed the bridge needs or the surface transportation repair needs,

this would be in our first category. and have fully addressed everything they have set forth in their plan. and then have flexibility to address such things as capacity out of that state of good repair category of funding. what is your reaction to that? >> the devil is in the details. the states are not opposed to performance plans. it would be interesting to see what levels or performance targets people are setting out there and is there sufficient funding based on where the system is right now to meet that goal?

as any new program -- getting it up and running and getting the kinks out, consistency across the country, the implementation of that would be a concern we would have initially. >> what we have today is a revenue-sharing program. the federal government collects the taxes. it distributes those dollars to the states. said,ate d.o.t.'s have give us the money and we will do the job. now we are saying we will give you the money, but give us a plan first. be accountable to our public and to the national public. through the council, which reestablished in this bill, to establish a national program. that does not mean that virginia roads are built to the same

standards as minnesota roads or to mexico rose where the chargers go to 115 degrees. hours go to 80 below zero once in awhile. and the snow and the assault loading or the melting materials. there are all of these variations in geography, geology and travel use that we have to account for. nonetheless, there should be a national program, not just a revenue-sharing, distribution program. where we give states flexibility, as we have seen with the brick program, they ship the dollars out of the program and then complained to the congress -- we need more money for bridges when they are

transferring half of the money out of the program to use it or other purposes. that does not resonate well here. yes, there are a lot of details. we have them all available. we will send them to you by e- mail, the provisions of our restructuring of the surface transportation program. we would love to have your comments on it. madam chair, thank you and all the members of the panel for your responses in your contributions today. we will continue this inquiry over the coming weeks and months. >> thank you, mr. chairman for your clarity on some of these issues that are key to us. i am cementing a question for the record regarding the train route that goes to delivery of

goods to the rest of the nation. there are bridges that will be utilized on the train route. are they in need of critical repair? the chairman brought up that issue. it is important to start some dialogue on that. with that, i believe this adjourns this meeting. we thank the witnesses for their eloquent testimony and for their being with us today. this meeting is now adjourned. >> there are 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors at the weekend on book tv.

today we debate the size and role of government on "after word." our guest says darpa is america 's great gift idea factory. for a complete listing of to -- of these -- of this weekend's programs, go to book tv. >> admiral thad allen says the efforts to plug the bp oil spill will happen the week after the labor day. >> -- and to brief us on what lies ahead.

please join me in welcoming admiral thad allen. [applause] >> thank you. good morning, but. what i thought i would do this morning is give you an update of what is going on out at the wellhead. i would like to paint a picture of what is going on out there. it is complicated. as we get closer to removing the blowout preventer and shifting to pluck and abandonment, a lot of other equities are having to be considered, including the investigation into the event on the wall itself. the equities of the department of justice and so forth. if i could give you the status of where we are at this morning and tell you where we are going in the future. right now, we are halfway through what we are calling an ambient pressure test. we are doing a lot of pressure tests on the oil well. what we are trying to

understand is that at a static position, when the well is filled with sea water that is the same density of the water outside, is there any change in pressure that would indicate there are any hydrocarbons leaking from the plug well. there was cement put in the well during the static kill. is there anything that would indicate we are having a problem with well and that with the? i ask bp to give me a procedure that would allow us to put a drill pipe down into the blowout preventer with a camera on it to conduct what we are calling a fishing experiment. the fishing experiment has ascertain the existence, location of the drill pipe or any pieces of the drill pipe that might remain in the blowout preventer. when we cut the riser pipe, we

were concerned that there might be a pipe in their or two pipes. we might have to ban them together to put the spool in there. we know there is a pipe in their or two pieces of pipe. before we replaced the blowout preventer, we want to be sure that there is pipe there and what is the location. we want to know exactly how seat it. the second part will be to ascertain the condition and if there is a single pipe or to sections of pikpipe. the work on this to date has been extensive. it has involved a science team led by dr. steven chu.

a team has been involved with the experiment. we have contacted the fbi because we want to preserve evidence is there are implications for the criminal and civil them in -- litigation and that we are prepared to preserve that evidence. this is going to become material by a joint and by anyion team actions by the department of justice. as we stand here this morning, the ambient pressure in the oil well is 2001 hundred 89 pounds per square inch. that has not buried since the test started. -- 2189 pounds per square inch.

we are taking tests. they have stopped doing the things they have been doing and they will be prepared to lift the blowout preventer when we decide to move forward on that. the second really well as a plug in the well called a rotation packer set. they are displacing the riser with sea water. that is one of the final preparations to pull out the blowout preventer. development driller 3 is standing by. they are at 3 1/2 feet away from

the macondo well. they have been there for a number of days. they will stay there until we give them the go-ahead. we will give the order to proceed killing the well. the wizen -- the reason we are replacing the blowout preventer is that we want to prevent the rest of pressure rising up. -- the risk of pressure rising hydrocarbons be tw released into the gulf. that was critical to the decision to replace the block preventer before we finish killing the well. what we finished pumping in the

mud, that will be the final step in killing the oil well. i had been asked repeatedly by the media what is the timeline. as you can see, this is conditions based. as each step is successful, it allows us to proceed with the next step. we should be able to execute the bottom killed by the week after labor day. i cannot tell you when until the execution of the removal of the blowout preventer. a change in temperature would indicate a product was moving around that was up a higher temperature. librations would indicate potential movement. we do visual checks daily to make sure they are -- there are

no visual anomalies. we are doing seismic runs and acoustic runs across the area to continue to take slices of the formation. if you can imagine mri slices. they get us a continual means to compare the baseline formation to see if there are any anomalies like hydrocarbons moving into the formation. that would tell us there is something wrong with the integrity in the oil well. so far, those vital signs have been maintained constantly. we are prepared to finish the ambient test and the fishing test moving forward. i appreciate the patience of the media. there has been some frustration with the inability to give hard dates. we are down to the end of this process. i think an overabundance of caution is indicated. we do not want to make a mistake in the last several days of this

operation. want a stake in the heart of this oil well. this has been buried delivered. i want to thank secretary chu. they have been drawing in different opinions and they have reached out to the competitors of bp in the industry. we have had a lot of content of diversity being brought to bear with this problem. let me make a couple of comments about the overall response and i will be glad to take your questions. today marks for months into the event. we are not done. no one has declared mission complete. this will be a longstanding effort, especially around the marshes and around mississippi sound. we still have tar balls and oil

to be dealt with. this is not over. we are in a transition. we have been able to control the source of the hydrocarbons since the 15th of july. the gulf has been set for that long without any oil being spilled into it. we are in a process of transitioning. looking at a long-term recovery process from the marshes, we are actively negotiating with the parish presence in the louisiana and the states of mississippi, alabama, and florida. how clean is clean? how are we going to check off these beaches? when do we know that is good enough and they do not require any more treatment? we will create checklists in -- in conjunction with local authorities. we will decide how clean is clean. knowing that if the beaches and marches -- marshes are re-oiled

, we will return and start the process all over again. we'll have a seamless transition into the recovery phase of this. the secretary has been passed -- tasked with creating a report that will submitted in september. the exit criteria for me includes that that report has been submitted, there has -- there is a successful organization in terms of structure and a leader of that structure has been identified. we will move from a national incident command to a regional incident command. a couple of thoughts as we stand here on the 20th of august, four

months into the sea beds. this is the largest oil spill in u.s. history. it has been problematic in terms of its scope and the challenges we face. it was never a large monolithic spill. has been literally a collection of thousands of patches of oil. they were under different winds and current conditions. some went east, north and south. we had to create a resources management scheme. it required us to significantly and freeze ourskimming and -- our skimming and booming capabilities. early in this response, we could count on about 300 skimmers.

there was the emergency rule making that was done that allowed us to move equipment from other parts of the country to her. here. i do not think we should this come up at that this is the largest public participation in a national event in the history of this country. an unprecedented number of volunteers have been involved. looking forward, we need to understand that we will never do a large-scale response in this country that does not include public participation. we need to plan on that. one of the largest responsibilities we had was to accept the vessels of opportunity and put them into proper use where they can be effected. if you can imagine, and looking militia. they can with compassion, resources, and commitment.

the challenge was that they showed up with passion, commitment, and resources. some of them had a musket and some of them had a knife. we had large boats with sophisticated radio commitment and we had boats without motors. getting those into some kind of task force operation was a challenge. we got that done. one of the key aspects of being able to improve our effectiveness on the water was to take control of the air space on the gulf and come up with an aerospace plant. we restricted all the aircraft movements. i did that after a discussion with the chief of staff of the air force and a general at the u.s. northern command. they assisted us greatly and they set up a command center next to the command center for norad. we brought a lot of

sophisticated department of defense technology, institutional knowledge, and competency to bear on the problem. we had our ability to use natural assets. i cannot over -- i cannot overstate the helpfulness of the national agencies. while this response to a while to build up steam, and i know there were concerns early on about the quality of the response and the magnitude, i can tell you there were things that have been done in this is thought that have never been done. we are setting precedent. it would be adding a crime to a crime if we did not learn from this and take these lessons to roll back into future response planning and how we approach in the incidence of national

significance in the country. i will take any questions you have for me. >> raise your hands and we will get to you. >> thank you, admiral allen were coming to the press club today. you talked about the decision to replace the current la blowout preventer to preserve it for investigations. -- the current blowout preventer to preserve it for investigations. you refer to it as the black box in this case. so much has gone up through the blowout preventer and was pumped into the blowout preventer during that junk ill -- kill. i am wonder what is left for investigators to look at? is it damage to beyond the point of usefulness? >> any material condition of

that blowout preventer that can be looked at and understood will be valuable will be full with. the preservation of the blowout preventer is not the main reason we are removing it first. the reason we are removing its first is that a low of prevent and the capping stack constitute a system that may not withstand the pressure. this is a risk mitigation measures. it would have to be removed anyway under the direction of the subpoena issued by the joint investigations team. we are complying with all of those. it is just earlier in the process to mitigate risk. >> i remind you to please state your name and affiliation before you ask your question. >> that you, admiral. i am a from a local ng.

some of the scientists in -ball- involved have been speaking to oil masses suspended within the water, on. there are various assessments of these. i wonder if you could address this and elaborate on it further and how you think it might turn out. >> i would be glad to do that. let me start with what i think it's my role in all of this. there are many in the scientific community looking at the impact of oil. we need everybody helping to solve this problem and creating a robust picture of the gulf. let me tell you how we got to the oil budget from where i sit as the national incident commander. from the start, there was a concern about what a low -- flow

rate was. there were estimates by a lot of people. 1,000 barrels a day. 5,000 barrels a day. i empaneled a team under the national incident command. that was head of the person who is head of the national geological survey. we separated any slower rate -- any flow rate estimates from bp. we got opinions from around the world. we went through a series of estimates that led us to conclude that we believe it probably started out a little over 60,000. as the reservoir got -- as a reservoir dropped down, it was probably 83,000 barrels per day.

we needed to understand how much oil we were dealing with. that logically leads you to the total amount of oil released and an estimate of what actually occurred. we believe that is now 4.9 million barrels over the life of the ban. p that is -- that is plus or minus 10%. as i have told a press on several occasions, if we do not have a number that is a problem. if we have any number, it is a credibility problem. so let's talk about numbers. let's talk about assumptions. i am a simple sailor so i will keep this the way i understand it. if we have 4.9 million gallons. barrels, i am sorry.

let's take what we know. we know we took about 827,000 barrels out of that well and took it up to tankers and sent it ashore. that is a matter of record. we can measure that. did burning and skimming and we use dispersants. in the case of dispersants, how much oil was dispersed into the water. when you disperse oil, it does not go away. it is dispersed into smaller particles that biodegrade more quickly. there are scientific estimates. there are a lot of people who had been working on this for a long time on how fast oil evaporates. we know that from burning and skimming, you get to estimates on the effectiveness of this

person. you can make estimates. you can move some the certain to the less certain. if you at all that up and you fall or -- solve for x, you get 26%. is that the right into? base on that set up assumptions, that is what we arrived at. if you come out with a different set of assumptions, some people said remove what you produce because that never hit the water. none of them are wrong. they are all consequential. they need to be considered. as a simple sailor, a i say say calm down and look at the data.

what is left is a 26% of the 4.9 million barrels. is that completely accurate? it is based on the estimates as the fight in the oil budgets could establish a base line to get a better number moving forward. that does not sound very scientific. >> you mentioned a bad it was more difficult because you had more than one spill. >> i have turned it hundreds of thousands of patches of oil. >> is that the result of the dispersants? would it have been easier, especially earlier in the spill, if you had one stream of oil coming out and you used freighters to scoop it all up? >> i did it is a fair question.

let's talk about that a little bit. first of all, i would separate dispersants from skimming and burning. those things remove the oil. this precedent accelerate the by biodegredation-- biog of the oil. after this is done, and we can sit down and look at a way to trade up these methods, that is a good question. just before the oil well was passed, i held a meeting with lisa jackson and others. i said there are some implications about how we are trading of skimming capabilities and burning capability and dispersants as relates to the overall fate of

the oil. we should not lose the chance to say, if you are a field commander -- a field commander has never been faced with a decision of this magnitude. we have a record of those interventions and some of the facts of those interventions. it is a legitimate line of inquiry to take a look at that as we go through the assessment of the spill. how can you put tools in the hands of commanders in the future to allow them to say, if i have these three choices, i will get the best effect out of this one. they all operate differently in different environments. there are times when the water will not allow you to skim or burned. the water that has some water -- it water has some energy in it, it increases the dispersant effectiveness. you can mix them into the water rather than putting them on top of the what to win it is -- when

it is calm. dealing with 100,000 patches of oil when they come ashore and having a localized effect that you can deal with -- that is a tough choice to make. what we have are hundreds of miles of coastline that have been impacted, but none that have been overwhelmed by millions of gallons of oil in one location. is that good or bad? in the long run, we will find out we were able to minimize the effect on the coastline by having hundred the thousands of patches that by having a monolithic oil spill. i am in speaking rhetorically as someone who has been doing this for 30 years. was that responsive? >> i work for german television.

we heard about reports of a command who said dispersants are still used in the gulf of mexico. is this right? >> no. >> thank you. i believe our last dispersants use -- and i will check if i am wrong -- i think it was the 19th of july or before. that is the range. our on the 15th -- form the 15th to the 19th. >> can you respond to the and not about the deepsea plume? >> i talked on the phone about it last night. this is based on my understanding.

what they found an underwater mist of fine particles. a scholarly report was released on their findings and how they did that for comments by the scientific community. we knew that they had located that. we dispatched no boats looking for hydrocarbons in the water, -- noaa boats looking for hydrocarbons in the water. while we understand there are differences in density and anomalies that can be found out there, locating these things in perpetuity and tracking them is an ephemeral task. while that was likely bear -- i am not questioning their measurement or debate the -- our real challenge is trying to measure the gulf right now for hydrocarbons out there and trying to understand what is

going on. last week, i signed a directive for the coordinator in your list to take a directive that know what -- noaa had generated to bring in research institutions and vessels operating out of research institutions to try to better understand the gulf combine all the information we have out there. i am not qualified to speak on the science. from an operational standpoint, that would be my view. >> moving forward, what is your most difficult task left in the cleanup and trying to wrap up the entire spill response? >> obviously, it is trying to kill the well paid after that is done -- trying to kill the oil well. after that is done, making sure

that we do not have hydrocarbons' the release. we have the western end of mississippi sound and some areas in alabama. we may ultimately resort to natural flushing, which is sometimes the best way to free the oil. one of the things you may not want to do is go in and clean it up mechanically. you may do more harm to the marshes by creating a way to get in there. this lead us to a phased approach that takes us out of response to recover. one of the hardest questions we will have, which is being negotiated this week, is in the

marsh area, how clean is clean? that is the challenge of moving forward. we will move into natural resource damage assessment. that will be a significant undertaking. the trustees have started to move on that. they will engage the state and local government and fat -- tribal entities. bp is liable for all that moving forward. right now, we are focused on finishing the cleanup. was that responsive? >> i was just wondering. you see a lot of images and coming out of bp up the aircraft they are using. one of the aircraft was one built in the 1940's. why haven't we heard about the

the use of unmanned air vehicles? they have been used at the oil well. why not for tracking oil? >> we have used all manner of aircraft and surveillance systems. we have had everything out there from civil air patrols. we had a canadian and an icelandic pair of dash 8's. national space intelligence agency has been terrific. i hope i am getting the acronym right. it is a measure of receptivity off of the top of the water. we tried to estimate the amount of oil on top of the water. will reflect this in that water does. we flew a few predator missions.

there are some issues with the altitude access and control of the aerospace. -- air space before week -- before we took control of the airspace. we had eight near misses before we took control of the airspace. >> i want to return to the 26% of the that is the estimate. you are aware of the study that came out earlier this week that said you cannot count the dispersed oil as gone. or for that matter of the oil that evaporated pick it is in the atmosphere. we do not know what kind of an impact that will have. can you respond to that? >> if you create a different set of assumptions, that gives you a

different body of water and that gives you a different result. it is all important. >> even allowing for that, a dispersed oil is still in the water in tiny droplets. you said you cannot -- they say you cannot count that as being removed. >> i think we all understand that. there was no intent to say it was not out there somewhere. all i am saying is that it's the take a set of assumptions, it takes you to a certain number. we know dispersed oil will remain at some point until it is degraded. but it will be great at some point. >> i have two questions. what is with respect of looking

forward and the regional task for a -- force and identifying how clean is clean? what would be your guidance for these regional areas in times of defining how clean is clean? do you go when independent -- do you go with independent academics? what would have been most helpful to know before this incident and how will that affect future plans? >> let me separate what i would call the response operation for long-term recovery. we are talking with the local government and the parish precedent -- presidents now.

what level of preparedness do we need from the end of hurricane season until next spring? what do we need to come back and respond its oil comes a short six months or one year from now. if they come across some buried oil, what do we want to do about that. this is about a transition that allows us to say when we start demobilizing equipment, what should remain? we are negotiating that in great detail with the parish presidents. we are going to be able to respond in there is re-oiling. we will come back and hold bp accountable for the cleanup when

we find it. what is the long-term impact from the long-term response to the long-term assessment and recovery? that is the long-term assessment model from the 1990's. that is where the long-term implications -- when they get dispersed to a certain point, it is not a clean-up issue. it is the long-term impact on the environment. how do we measure that? what are the mitigating measures you would take to do that? how does bpa compensate the nation and the people in the gulf. it is almost a tactical decision. when did you say we are going to pull back and for this purpose, this section of beach is done until we get an indication that we have to come back? >> having that response is

helpful. i guess i am trying to determine what qualifies as a measurable effect that qualifies -- that requires a response. is there going to be a scientific formula? >> there will be a transition plan that will be signed by the federal on scene coordinator. to the extent that we need something at the parish level, -- pensacola is largely beaches. another one is largely marshes. we will take that into account in the transition plan. if there is no oil come ashore in x amount of days and we cannot add any more about you if we go into the marshes, this is

all we are going to do for physical removal. we are point to stand back and do surveillance. let's take the equipment and put it here. you slowly change your readiness posture. we are saying there are no more intervenes is that can be done. i was subject to bring the equipment that if there is additional oil that shows up? >> it is about this plume that you spoke about. i understand you have been helped by a warm water in breaking down the oil. cold water is a different thing. how worrisome when it beat if it is actually true that this plume is not breaking down in cold water? >> i think your question is how fast does it break down?

higher temperatures the great faster. we need to find out if there is oil out there and where it is. that goes back to the order i signed last friday trying to unify all of the monitoring efforts that are going on right now with noaa and all elements of the federal government and reaching out to all the academic institutions. we will put together a metaphorical mri of the gulf testing for hydrocarbons in the water carbon - watcher -- water column. it is going to be important tactically in the near term. noaa ships have gone out looking for plumes. they are difficult to locate because they move around.

it is hard to do that unless you do not by the effort. that is hard to do, but we are doing that right now. when we realize we had a flow rate of 53,000 barrels per day, with wit to bp -- we went to bp and we said you need to build a system that can accommodate 53,000 barrels per day. you need to build a recovery system that can produce that much. at that point, we were at 25,000 barrels a day. that was the maximum we are -- we were getting out of the systems we had. we said we want the system to be redundant and we want the capacity to be over what we need. the peak came back with a system

that could -- bp came back with a system that could remove 63,000 barrels per day. there would be for basso's brought in to receive that. the oil would be shuttled a short period -- shuttle ashore. we wanted to still be able to produce a low rate -- flow rate is one of those legs was not working. it was probably two-thirds of the way done. we had a a whether -- weather window. we decided to do and integrity

test. we did it and it worked. if that had not worked, we would have gone to the plan moving forward. >> what is your guidance for future spill prevention? >> that is an excellent question. somewhere in the late 1980's or early nineties, we went from platforms in the water with a space that went into the ground to being able to remotely drilled from the bottom of the sea. once they did that everything went deep. there were two implications associated with that.

when we go back and look at it, we will find that the oil pollution act of 1990 should have been called to the tanker pollution act. some tidbits of better responsibility for companies carry oil, the slow response plans -- in the gulf of mexico, the drilling systems when to the bottom. all of that oil is recovered by pipelines that take it back to shore and transported someplace else. if you have a problem in an oil well and you are trying to recover the oil and you cannot catch it from the piping systems, that system of production does not help you contain it. what bp has to do to create a containment system to give us

the redundancy and the capacity, they had to get pieces of production capability from different parts of the world. the first thing they did was they brought in a floating production platforms and shuttle tankers. if you go to scott and, you will find shuttle tankers coming in and transferring it ashore. to do that, they have to have the capability to be dynamically positioned. instead of having an end in room and a rudder, you have to have computer controls that allow you to take gps information. the ship tells you what to do. they only build them on certain tankers in the shuffle trade because it is so expensive. they brought those production platform tankers and brought

them ashore. we installed vertical riser pipes. they have a flexible coupling that comes out of the well and a pipe that floats above the surface. is another hose that goes into the production unit. that is how they produce oil awful the west coast of africa. the ultimate solution in and elevator line is off of the gulf of mexico. what bp create it was a production system for well contain it with this incident that could be the foundation to look at response systems in the future containment as part of a reassessment for response plans and how to mitigate risk in the

future for oil production. i have exhausted all i know on that subject. >> i know you have mentioned numerous coast guard resources and d.o.d. resources being deployed to the gulf of mexico. in this area, the naval district of washington since some skimmers down that way. i was wondering if you can give us an idea of how much those skimmers or used and how helpful they were. but as my grandfather when say, like mules.them lik, the skimming issue is significant from a larger context. >> large databases acted in pollution control capability. al bases have large

pollution control capabilities. they are contained in the virginia. the naval supervisor has skimming capability. we needed to go to facilities outside the gulf and have them move skimming capability there. the problem was that those skimmers are required as a result of their own response plan. legally, they are liable for not being able to respond to a spill if that equipment is not there. we had to go through and emitted as the rulemaking process to issue an emergency rule to let the response requirement or loosen them so that that equipment could be taken to the gulf. we still have a remaining problem. that was state and local requirements. that was the liability for

companies and officers at naval bases if there was a spill while that equipment was not there. you will see a serious discussion about how we have to handle this in the future, how this relates to state law, and liability concerns for companies or naval officers to be able to move this equipment. the equipment was -- the equipment was put to good use. the skimmers were helpful to us. >> i am two questions for us -- i have two questions for you. can you please assess for us how cooperative bp has been? as we approach the hurricane season, if a category 4 or 5

comes running through the gulf, how secure is what is in place now? >> those are good questions. the oil pollution act of 1990 designated in law a term called irresponsible party. it did not exist in law before then. it now exists in law and regulation. it is part of a national contingency plan. the doctrine with all in oil spill response is guided by that legislation and the national contingency plan. they call it four -- for inland oil spills. the responsible party pays. they are designated in writing. we have designated bp and

transocean as response will parties. they are responsible for damage assessment, cleaning, and mitigation. they also made a decision in the law. this is public policy passed by congress pay we would create a -- if you have a response plan for a new facility or that so, you would say my response plan is this. to address that oil spill, i have these resources standing by to do that. bp had that as their worst case scenario. as of the oil spill pollution act of 1990, we would qualify spill response and a responsible party would pay.

that is exactly what happened in this oil spill. i will tell you this, i believe there has been a social and a political nullification of the law. it is hard for the public to understand that a responsible party that is clearly responsible for the event itself can be corporative in the response to the oil spill. as a matter of fact, since 1990, that is how we have conducted oil spill response in this country. if the responsible party is going to pay, somebody has to write the check. if they are writing the check, they have to be in your command center. you have to tell them that they have to bring in some people's toboom rate the. it is impossible not to be coal located and be able to do that.

bp's cooperation in this response have -- has been met with universal approval -- universal disapproval. ultimately, there are going to be civil or criminal penalties coming down the line. my goal is to create unity of effort. it is impossible to do that without collaboration with the

ndp. you can call it trust, cooperation, collaboration. the current response model assumes the responsible party will work with the federal on- scene coordinator to achieve unity of effort and effective response. it has been challenging to great that unity of effort -- to create that unity of effort, given the attitude of the public. that does not change the reality on-scene, that the instrumentality by which we can effect this is through bp. there is a cap to what the government can spend. once we reach that cap, we're pretty much of the business. bp has no cap. they also have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. they have to book liabilities on their balance sheet. they have to do it as ec filings.

they are not relieved of that. that intermixing of responsibilities create a complex set of relationships that are not well understood. i think, moving forward, as a look at how to do this in the future, we shouldn't vet the issue of what occurred -- should get the issue -- vet the issue of what the response will party is so that we do not have to go through this again. -- the responsible party is so that we do not have to go through this again. >> having done what you have asked with alacrity? -- have made on what you asked with -- have they done what you asked with alacrity? >> i have given them orders and they have even taken care of. i have mentioned this before.

bp is a very large oil- production and exploration company. when it comes to the petroleum industry, they are wholesale. their corporate capabilities and competencies' are aimed at exploration and production of oil and energy. if you look at the things that need to be done during a spill, not at the wellhead -- at the wellhead, they did an extraordinary feat in bringing these technologies from the north sea and angola and putting them together. it was non-recurring investment. we should consider this for the future. when you start paying claims -- a legal responsibility of the third -- of the party -- and you hire a third-party contractor, it is difficult to specify an outsource empathy and compassion. their ability to connect one-on-

one with the public -- when you insert a third-party in between -- when you have corporate values, it gets attenuated. as i told mr. dudley and everybody else, blends -- the lens by which the public measures the response is not necessarily the well head. it is the compassion and the empathy shown toward the people involved in this, including things like a vessel of opportunity and so forth. it is difficult, if you do not have that, to translate that into a third-party contractor response. moving forward, we need to understand the role of the responsible party. we need to understand what we expect them to do. beyond that, we have moved, since the exxon valdez, to the expectation that we will have the whole of government respond to include things like long-term medical health monitoring --

things that are not presently allowed under the oil spill liability trust fund for me to spend money on. we have to define the government's involvement and duty. we have redefined the social contract about what you do in this response. during hurricane katrina, when i worked as the principal federal peoplel, we would find to get to emergency housing. anytime you had more than 10 people, you needed a bunch of other people to take care of that. it got a very complicated. we had to figure out the whole of government response. the oil pollution act of 1994 " pollution response -- we need better clarity moving forward. that is probably along your answer then you were looking for. -- a longer answer than you were looking for.

we thought that we would be able to avoid going to the larger production system if that could hold. that meant we could leave the well and intended it in the case of a hurricane. if we had gone to the four risers, producing 80,000 barrels per day, we would have had redundancy, but we would have had to abandon the site during the hurricane and would have had a discharge again. the meteorologist all agreed that we have a window where we could accelerate putting couldstack on. -- putting that stack on. we took a bold step. i directed bp to submit a plan. the original plan for the containment system was given to us on the 21st of june. we said we would accelerate it and tried to but the capping stacked on. sometimes we have been delayed

by weather. the fact that we were able to get it on early and shot in the well, stop the flow of hydrocarbons, it gave us the hope that we would survive without any impact on the gulf. >> thank you for joining us today. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> there are 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on "booktv." today, a debate on the size and role of government in the 21st century. then, a discussion of the defense advanced research project agency is america's -- as america's biggest idea factory. then, a discussion on the history of mouth -- of malaria and why it kills so many people every year.

for more information, visit bill lebooktv.org. >> government officials testified that most of the oil has been cleaned up. this acknowledgement comes after a university of georgia report refuted the government's findings. representatives from the national association -- noaa, fda, and the epa testified before the house energy and commerce subcommittee looking into the amount of oil spilled and the safety of gulf coast seafood. later, louisiana shrimpers and environmentalists say that gulf coast shrimp is safe to eat. >> he has been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. one of the best words you can use is "revision." whether it is cancer, hiv, or

some other illness. a battery of modern cures can reduce the disease to lower, perhaps even undetectable, levels. even in remission, there is unease that the disease could return and pestering, inevitable scientific and medical questions arise, where did it go? could it come back? right now, we are in a similar state in this environmental disaster. after many trials and several false starts, bp finally created a system to cap and seal the well. oil has not come from the mcconnell well -- macondo well for about one month. we are no longer at the bleeding stage. a tourniquet has been applied. we're told we may need to wait for the final procedure -- the

relief well -- until september. just like a patient in remission, we have reached a more stable stage of health. to say it is capped is tantamount to a cure would be false confidence. like unseen internal bleeding, the oil persisting in the gulf poses continued risks. today, we're here to ask listing questions about this spill as a patient or doctor would of the disease. where did it go? could it come back? according to the most recent estimates, 4.9 million barrels of oil spewed from bp's well over the course of this 100-day to usher -- 100-day gusher. some was captured, some was

dispersed. at least 1.3 million barrels still remain unaccounted for in the water and the marshes of the gulf. an amount to five times larger than was spilled during the entire exxon valdez disaster. just as we are worried about rogue weapons sold on the black market and their harm to the public, we must be vigilant about the rogue oil harming the public, putting a black mark on gulf seafood, or on a golf tourism. in addition to the oil, millions of gallons of dispersant chemicals have been used in unprecedented ways. the fda told me that they had determined that the dispersants have all low potential to accumulate in seafood -- a low

potential to accumulate in seafood and do not pose a cigna didn't health risk through human consumption. -- pose a significant health risk through human consumption. the fda knows little about the long-term impact that the compounds could have on marine life. they do not know how the presence of oil and as persons may influence the concentration of other -- of oil and dispersants may influence the concentration of other chemicals. the work done by the fda, noaa, ind epa will be critical an ensuring that shell fish and seafood from the gulf coast are safe to eat. where do we go from here? where should monitoring and

cleanup efforts be focused in this new chapter of recovery and restoration? are the clouds of coryell suspended below the ocean's surface -- clouds of oil suspended below the ocean's surface safe? will these uses up oxygen in the water and potentially asphyxiate areas of the gulf? what impact will be awhile, methane, and chemical dispersants have on marine life -- will the oil, nothing, and chemical dispersants have on marine life? will the seafood be safe to eat today and in the future? american family is one the only oil -- families want the only oil on their seafood to be that

used for cooking. the treatment of the region from this disaster has only just begun. did have a successful, continued response to this spill, we need to do three things going forward. one, monitor the health of the water, wetlands, while life, and people. two, maintain the pressure on bp and others to continue the recovery and restoration process. three, muster the attention to our entire country on solving the economic and environmental challenges from our continued dependence on oil, especially for in a while. we have an extremely distinguished group of witnesses appearing before us today. that it is the middle of the summer.

we know that many people have gone away. however, the oil has not gone away. it is important for the gulf of mexico residents to know that the attention on this issue has not gone away. dr. bill lair is a senior .cientist at noaa we thank you for being here. whenever you feel comfortable, please began. >> thank you, chairman. clucked time you turn on your

microphone? >> it should be on. thank you, chairman and members of the subcommittee. i would like to discuss the critical role that noah -- noaa serv steering oil spills. -- service during the oil spills. scientific experts have been assisting with response from the first day. this support has includedaily trajectories of the spilled oil, whether data for sho and long-term forecast, special

forecast for cleanup operations, the satellite imagery and performed a real time observations to help verify this bill location and movement. in addition, scitists provide expertise and assistance regarding sea turtles, marine mammals, and other protected resources. we also coordinated with the federal and state and responsible rties to conduct natural resource damage assessments, which is a process that quantifies the total lossesnd develops restoration projects and compensate the public for their losses. have also participated in a number of enter agency's expert team spirit this include the group estimated the size of the spell. -- the spell. a joint effort with the department of interior, the coast guard, and other outside experts to develop an oil budget

calculated to estimate the fate of the spilled oil. there's been a lot of discussion on this, so let me get into a few details. according to what our experts for able to determine, the oil that was billed to be divided up into four basic categories. abt one-quarter of its was either recover directly, was burned,r was skimmed on the surface. another quarter was either a vast -- evaporated or dissolved. another quarter remained out there. -- remained out there for cleanup purpos. another quarter was dispersed into the water. part of that was through national -- natural dispersants. dispersants were only used where oil was present on the surface

or applied at the wellhead on the seafloor. a total of 1.8 million gallons of dispersants were used. these dispersant -- the effects are being monitored by noaa. over 2000 water samples he been collected in the deep waters of the gulf. we have analyzed for component of the dispersants. only one dispersant component was detected in a sample that was close to the well head. in addition, the epa is monitoring surface water samples near the shoreline. my colleague from the epa can discuss that. to ensure the safety of fishermen and consumers, we prohibited recreational fishing in certain areas of the gulf of mexico because of the spill. now that the wellhead is capped,

scientists are going back into the spill area and taking seafood samples to determine which areas are safe for fishing. areas only reopened to fishing and only after the seafood passes rigorous testing. every seafood sample has passed chemical testing for contamination of oil dispersant. no unsafe levels of contamination have been found. we began reopening portions of the closed areas. thank you for allowing me to

testify today. i am happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you very much. our next witness is mr. donald kramer. he is the deputy director of the office of crude safety at the u.s. food andrug administration, where he is responsible for the administration of the fda seafood policy. he has been with the fda since 1977. you may proceed. >> good afternoon. >> move that microphone a little closer. >> good afternoon. i am donald kramer, acting deputy director. with me is a senior adviser to the chief scientist at the fda office of the commission.

>> a little bit closer. >> we appreciate the opportunity to disss the role in ensuring the safety of seafood harvested from the gulf of mexico in the wake of the deepwater horizon oil spill. fda has bn active an integral part of the federal government's comprehensive coordinated multi agency program to ensure that seafood from the gulf of mexico is free from contamination as a result of the oil spill. this program is important for the fisheries industry, whi needs to be able to sell its products with competence. fda is working closely with the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, the epa, other federal agencies, and state authorities in the gulf region. i would like to note the high level of cooperation that fda has experienced among these agcies, both at the leadership level and among the technical and scientific staff the carry out the research, testing, an

analysis needed to fulfill our respective missions. the federal government is taking a multipronged approach to ensure that markets seafood from the gulf of mexico is not a contaminant as a result of the oil spill. these measures include a precautionary closure is a fisheries, the surveillance and testing of seafood products, and a heightened emphasis on fda has analysis and critical control regulations. fda, in conjunction with the gulf states, have developed a stct protocol for reopening the fisheries. we're also planning for additional research. the primary provider of controls for protecting the public from pontially contaminated seafood is the closure of fishing areas that have been or are likely to be affected by the oil spill.

immediately after the oil spill, at the worked with the states to ensure that the appropriate closures were put in place. these closures aren't -- these closures are enforced by wildlife officials as well as the u.s. coast guard. the second element of our approach is a heightened emphasis on the fda is longstanding program for seafood. processor obligated to ideify hazards are reasonably likely to occur and institute preventive controls to address them. the framework of our seafood program is proving its value in the context of this extraordinary public health challenge. of the past several weeks, the fda has conducted more than 300 inspections of seafood processors in the gulf region. to verify that their implementing controls to ensure that they receive fish harvested only from waters in which fishing is permitted. the third element is a verification that the other controls are working properly. this is the analysis of a

variety of seafood samples that have been commercially harvested from gulf waters. we are testing for hydrocarbons , the primary contaminants of concern and oil. we have so far tested in about 500 animals, including crabs and oysters from open state waters. the result of all samples have shown levels well below the level of concern, usually by a factor of 100 or 1000. the same levels outsourcing before the oil spill. with respect -- the same levels that were seen before the oil spil we look to close approximation to establish a single agreed upon protocol for opening to ensure the safety of seafood harvested from these waters. hundreds of protocols -- they will not reopen until all oil from this bill is no longer present in quantities that could

contaminates seafood. a scientifically valid sampling plan is agreed upon. all samples from the area successfully pass both chemical and sensory analysis. exrts examiner's check the oder and appearance of raw seafood and a taste and odor of oked seafood. samples that passed sensory testing are sent for chemical testing for oil but allow scientists to conclusively determine whether contaminants are present in the fish or shellfish. the results of all chemical analyses have shown ph levels to be well below the level of concern. again, by a factor of 102,000. -- 100o 1000.

reopenings are likely in the coming weeks. with respect to thempac of dispersant's use in the gulf on seafood safety,he current scientist -- signed indicates a low risk that these dispersants will concentrate in seafood. they're unlikely to present a food safety concern. epa ta confirm that dispersants are not present at the technical levels and the overwhelming numbe of samples taken. however, i have an abundance of caution and in order to gather additional information, we are condting additional studies to reaffirm the dispersants do not accumulate in tissues of fish and shellfish. the fda will continue to study the long-term impact of chemical disturbed -- chemical dispersant on seafood safety. i see that i have exceeded my time, so i will forgo my concluding comments. >> you may continue, sir. >> the safety of consumers is

our highest priority. the responsibility we take very seriously. in close coordination with federal and state agencies, we have been proactive and monitoring this disaster, planning for its impact, and mobilizing our personnel and facilities to take the steps needed to ensure a safe food supply. the protocols and approaches are protectingmerican consumers while minimizing the negative impact on gold seafood processors. thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. kramer. our next witness is dr. paul announced this -- dr. paul. he is the assistant administrator for epa's office of research and development. he has conducted groundbreaking research on the design and manufacturers and use of environmentally friendly

chemicals. we welcome you. please began. if you could turn on your microphone. >> thank you, chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to testify on the import issue of dispersants and the use in the ndp to deep water crisis. we've now passed a rigid day 120 of the bp oil spill tragedy. -- daily 120 of the bp oil's the tragedy. we are relieved that the well is currently sealed. the hope and expect that this will continue to be the case. at the president has said, this tragedy does not end with a ceiling of the well. we're committed to the long-term recovery and the restoration of the gulf coast, one of our most precious ecosystems. in addition to our

responsibilities, epa continues to rigorously monitored the air, water, and sediments for the presence of dispersants and crude oil components that could have an impa on how -- on the environment. these are posted on our website and publicly available. the dispersed oil mixes with the water and is deleted -- diluted. are --esponsibly -- we the decision to use dispersants as part of a larger oil spill response is not one that epa took lightly. when considering dispersants, we're faced with environmental trade-offs. the potential long-term effects on aquatic life are still largely unknown. bp has used over 1.8 million

gallons of dispersants, a volume never before used in the united states. because of our aggressive monitoring, we know that are monitoring data overwhelmingly confirms that dispersants are not present at levels of detection. we investigate the validity of the detectio of the more than 2000 samples and a nearly 1000 epa generated samples, there been only two detections above the detection limit. these were immediately investigated. oxygen in the water is not being depleted to dangerous levels. given the unprecedented nature of this bill, epa director of bp to identify less toxic

dispersants. when the company failed to provide this information, the epa decided to conduct this testing independently. epa conducted a toxicity test to determine legal levels. first, we tested each of the dispersant alone. we tested mixtures of the oil with each of these eight dispersants. these species are widely considered to be representative of those found in the gulf. they were tested during a juvenile live stage when organisms are most sensitive to poland's. the tests were conducted over a range of concentrations, including those much greater than what aquatic life is expected to encounter in the gulf. the testing delivered three

important results. all of the eight dispersants were tested alone to be categorized as slightly toxic to practically non-toxic. dolon was generally moderately toxic. the oil alone was generally moderately toxic. all of these results indicate that the eight dispersants' tested possessed roughly similar toxicities. all this data is important, i want to emphasize the continued monitoring is absolutely necessary. decreased oxygen levels, increased toxicity to small organisms. we have not seen oxygen levels approach concerning levels. we have seen no excessive mortality. more needs to be done, we see that the dispersants have work to help keep oil off of our precious shorelines and away from sensitive coastal

ecosystems. the crisis has made -- additional research is needed. congress hasecently appropriated the epa $2 million for a long-term study on the impact of dispersants. we will also for their research efforts to include innovative approaches to spill remediation and to address transport and effects of the dispersants. epa will continue to monitor, identify, public health concerns. epa is committed to protecting the gulf coast communities from the adverse environmental effects of the deepwater horizon oil spill. we will persist in askinghe hard questions until we more

fully understand the long-term effects of the bp oil spill. we will conduct investigations requed. epa is fully committed to working with the people of the gulf, our federal partners, the scientific community, toward debt recovery of the gulf of mexico a the restoration of its prious ecosystem. i welcome any questions. >> thank you. the chair will now recognize himself for a period it of asking questions. intended or not, i think the reaction to the oil budget reports that was released last week is one of relief. people want to believe that everything is ok. i think this report on the way it is being discussed is giving

many people a false sense of confidence regarding the state of the gulf. overconfident breeds complacency and complacency is what got us into this situation in the first place. how much oil was actually discharged into the gulf? can you turn on your microphone, please? >> the best estimate of the combined efforts of the department of energy national laboratories, the best estimate would be 4.1 million barrels, plus or minus 10%. >> it would be 4.1 million barrels. >> that was actually discharged into the environment. there were 8,000 barrels released -- capture directly.

>> is the 8 million -- is the 800,000 included in the oil budget baseline? >> the old budget baseline follows cloly the form -- the oil budget baseline follows closely to the situation unit for preparing categories and for theurpose response, that would be the standard procedure. that is included in that budget response. >> that will lead directly into ships and was never any water at all? >> that is correct. >> there were 4.1 million barrels that were captured discharge into the water. >> that is correct. >> out of the 4.1 million barrels discharged, how many barrels are still in the gulf

war on its shores in some form? >> probably about three-fourths -- to go through the calculations that we have, the only oil that you woulday that it is removed from the environment would be that 800,000 plus the amount that was burned. the stock that at -- evaporated into the atmosphere is still in the environment. plus the amount that was on the surface or in small tar balls. in that case, most of that is still in the environment. it is not available for response. that was the purpose of the oil budget numbers. you cannot do any recovery

>> even according to the calculations of the oil budget report that was released last week, between 60%-90% of the discharge oil, which actually went into the ocean, remains in the gulf of mexico, and that would be between 2.45 million barrels and 3.67 5 million barrels? >> i would have do the calculations. when your including your numbers there, the oil that evaporated, which was a substantial amount, whether it is still in the gulf of mexico, we would have to look at how it was transported by the wind. i think you would want to stick with the amount that would be in the water column along the shoreline, and that would be the amount that we estimated as

naturally dispersed or chemically dispersed, and the amount on the shoreline. me of it has been recovered on the shoreline as well, and the amount that has been disbursed is bio-degrading. we are still working to determine the rate. the numbers that we have put in the budget calculator for response purposes, to answer the question, about the fate long term, that is a different question, th is more with damage assessment. >> i am interested in understanding how bp has perford in terms of removing spilled oil from the gulf before it hits land. what percentage of the oil that was spilled into the gulf was actually removed from the ocean? i am talking about burning and skimming and actually removing oil from that echoes system -- from the ecosystem.

let me state it -- of the 4.1 million barrs of oil that actually went into the ocean, what percent was moved -- removed by bp? >> i would have to redo the calculations, because these were based on the 4.9 million. >> actually, the only issue that the american people are concerned about is the 4.1 million barrels that actually went into the ocean. it is important for us to discuss that issue and separate it from the oil that would directly into the ships and was never in t ocean at all, because that is where the concern is. people should have a very good understanding of what percentage of that oil has been removed

thus far. do you have a number? >> you'd have to take the ratio of 4.9 million, divide it by 4.1 million, and multiplied it by the fractions. >> if you could use your own chart, dr. lehr, and break that down in a way that could help us to understand of the 4.1 million barrels how much bp did it? >> if you take the 5% that was burned and multiplied that by the ratio of 4.9 million, i must admit in the era of public -- pocket calculators, i cannot do that in my head. when you take the amount that was scammed, will supply that by 4.1. >> are you using 4.9 or 4.1? >> you asked me to use it with the new rio.

>> 4. numbers by that ratio. i could get a calculator and see what that te is. >> the ehab assistance with you? has anyone accompanying you this morning? could one of your assistance do that? >> i have a calculator here. >> roughly, the bird would be 6%. and the skimmed wod-be 4%.

>> so between the skimming and the burning, 10% of the 4.1 million barrels would have been removed from the ocean? leave a 90% unaccounted for? -- leaving 90% unaccounted for? >> there would also be what is on the shoreli recovered. >> with the arithmetic that we're doing now, the burning is 6%, the scheming is 4%. let us continue with the arithmetic. what else? >> in your have whatever was captured and the residual, and we have not quantified how much of that as they do the beach recovery and so on. i cannot give the numbers on that. we were looking for response purposes.

>> so, again, but recapitulate for a second. 6% was burned, 4% skimmed, and an unknown amount was collected on the beaches, correct? >> right. >> can you tell us the reason that has not been calculated yet? >> it was mixed i you don't just pick up oil, you pick up oil and debris, and it is separating that out. it is not a simple process. >> is there a range in terms of some estimate of how much oil that might represent? >> there may have been, but i am not aware of it. i cld get back to you with that answer. >> in the wake of the exxon valdez spill in 1989, the government accountability office and technology assessment

published reports looking at the capacity to recover oil after a major spill. they found, given technologies available at that time, we could really only recover 10%-15% of the spilled oil. so it seems to me that bp's oil recovery effort comes in on the low effort of what was achievable 21 years ago. you seem to have come in at the number of approximately 10%, plus whatever was on the beaches, but still within that range of 10%-15% that was determined to be recoverable after the exxon valdez spill. would you agree? >> in terms of those categories. of course, ithis case, there was the unusual event of a large

amount of natural dispersant and the additional large amounts, the record amount as far as i'm aware of chemical dispersants. that is considered a type of response. one would have to say, how do you weigh that -- >> i understand. >> in terms of the standard mechanical and burn off and beach recovery, this was about average for what we have seen. >> i am just trying to devise the question so that the public can understand what it is we're talking about. so in terms of recovery of oil, it is somewhere in the range of 10%. >> yes. >> in my mind, that is not a passing grade, only 10% of the 4.1 million barrels having been recovered. i think we all saw this coming, and with all of bp's talked about using golf balls, nylon,

and here to clean up the spilled oil, it is important that even using a 21-year-old grading system, bp has done a very poor job of cleaning up the gulf. dr. lehr, throughout the entire sock back, i have pushed for bp and the unified command to make this process as transparent as possible -- throughout the entire dp saga, i have pushed for bp and unified command to make this process as transparent as possible. we're trying to make the better and more reform response decisions. with regard to the boil budget, is this something noaa does as part of the operational response to a major o spill? >> but will budget is a traditional part of a response. there is a special form that is filled out as part of the

situation in unit in the command system. the staard procedures for that use, amongst other things, a model developed by noaa, but also uses other techniques, such as observers estimating the size of the spill. in the case of this spill, because it was so large, because it went on so long, and in particular because it was occurring at a mile under the water's surface, it was necessary to develop a special tool, which is what we did with the budget calculator. now, i have noticed in the press this is called a noaa budget calculator. i would like to receive credit for that, but inside you have to recognize the contribution of othe, and this was a joint effort, both government agencies and the outside experts in the field that developed this tool. >> is there an established methodology for making the oil

budget calculations? >> there is a standard form that you to calculate to divide the budget into, and there is a normal procedure that we had to modify because of the circumstances of this spill. >> in the case of the deepwater horizon spill, how long has noa been calculating and will budget to guide the response efforts from unified command? >> in terms of the incident command, we start working early, i believe in either june, starting to work on the development of the tool. and we were providing guidance for some time in july for the incident command. >> has noaa been using the

established methodology for calculating and oil budget in this case? -- an oil budget in this case? >> i will have to ask clarification by what you mean. we used the standard procedures for estimating oil for each of the techniques, based on methods that had been used in the past but were modified. let me give you an example. in calculating dispersion, natural dispersion, this is based on looking at something called the energy dissipation rate, due to breaking waves. in the case here, we had a plume that was below the surface. we did not have breaking waves, but we had the energy dissipation rate. we then had to employ some of the experts that work on the frtg to calculate that for a new estimate for natural dispersion.

in the case of the evaporation, we have some standard models for estimating the evaporation of louisiana sweet crude. it is in our library data base, but that is for spills that happen at the circus. -- that happen at the surface. when ty are a mile deep, many of the molecules that would evaporate at the surface dissolve in water and we have to modify to analyze those cases. it was the standard procedures, to the extent that we had to modify for the specific instances that happened with this spill. >> can i ask, has noaa made available about the background data and formulas that were used to reach what happened to the spilled oil? >> in terms of the one

component, in terms of the flow rate, there are reports that were released on that. in terms of the oil budget calculated, which is what i assume you are referring to, this was an oil spill emergency, not an oil spill experiment. when we took it -- when we put together the team, our priority was to get an answer as quickly asossible for the command. the technical documentation is being written, and will be reviewed. it will be long, it will be boring, it will be filled with graphs and charts and all the references and passive voice that are filled with all of the reports, and it will bore everyone except the handful of us who like these, but some of our academic friends have asked us for this. i would suggest patients in this

se is a virtue. in an emergency, you first get the answer. you don't tell admiral allen that he has to wait for his report until it goes through peer review, but we welcome people comments on it. i'd encourage the new people coming into the field, from the non-traditional areas of this, to stay interested. we would like to welcome them, but you'll have to wait a little bit for that report to get out. >> i appreciate the desire to complete a full peer review dr., but you have already issued four pages of findings and a 10-page supplementhat explains some of the calculations in greater detail. if much of this oil budget is standard procedure for noaa in response to an oil spill, why can't that information be made

avlable sooner? especially given the historic issues that many independent scientists have voiced regarding the conclusions of this report? >> well, i would say this -- i would prefer, and i think all the scientists would prefer, that because the emergency and questions now are different time frame, and we have moved from the response to the assessment, that it is better to take the time to do it right. now, some of the methods are standard, but some have to be modified, as i mentioned in my testimony, in terms of the evaporation calculations and natural aspersion. we're doing a thorough survey.ure al we understand this will be looked at by oil spill scientists who have been doing

this for 20 years and are contributing to the report but by other scientists who are cong to this as their first major spill at that. we want to provide a complete document that will answer all of their questions. >> let me ask you this, will noaa agreed to me available to the public the citations of the scientific lerature formalist, or actual algorithms -- literature formulas or actual algorithms that will allow them to evaluate theeport's findings? >> of course. >> will you really is that now. -- will you release that now? >> it is still being proposed. >> you have already released a report last week. could you give us, for the public consumption, the citations of the scientific literature former los rigid formulas or actual algorithms that used and creating your oil

budget? >> first of all, again, i will come back to this, this is not a noaa product, this is a product of joint efforts. >> what we're trying to do, doctor, is to get at the methodology so that we understand what was it used in order to produce your initial oil budget. you are saying that it has to be reviewed for some time in order to determine whether or not you got it right. so in order, i think, to ensure that we have this done in a time frame that provides the information to the residence of the gulf of mexico, that you

released these algorithms, if yorelease the scientific terature that you relied upon, -- that you released the scientific literature that you relied upon, so there can be independent judgments and real- time to be able to make judgments as to whether or not the formula which was used was the correct one to be used, given the consequences to the public if that formula w not constructed accurately. in other words, would you support making tha information available to the public? speaking for noaa? >> for noaa, and i would assume all the experts that contributed also release this information. that is the purpose of the report.

the representative, what we're doing in this case is going through the standard procedure which is done for a scientific report. we get the experts, they all contribute to the report. we send back to them for them to look at, picture we have eir comments and opinions and assessments correct, and then we send it out to independent scientists. that is what a peer review is. we send it out to people and we welcome recommendations. >> when will that happen? >> what is that? >> what is the time frame for that to happen? >> well, it has been delayed by a week because i had to come here, but we're hoping to get it out within two months. >> two months. yes, that is not timely enough, doctor, that is the problem. we're trying to tell people the time frame in order to get the information into the hands of independent scientists.

all ofdon't want to make the data and models available, but you have given us conclusions that result from these models of the data. you then say that he did not want to make the models and data available to outside scitists because you are still having everything peer reviewed, post release of your budget report. that is, to me, not acceptable. we need to have that information. the report that you released last week received international attention. there are many people who are making decisio based upon that report. so it is important right now, dr.ehr, for that information to be made public so that not only is it being peer review in the regular process, but because of the real-life consequences

for the lives of the people in the gulf of mexico and outside the gulf of mexico, because of the toxic nature of the material in the gulf, that that information be made public. there is too long of a gap that will collapse -- that will elapse under the process you have adopted. the real issue here is that the public has a right to know right now what is going on in the gulf of mexico. and your report should be analyzed by others right now. so that we are sure that we got it right. because if the numbers are wrong, two months from now could be too late in terms of the remedial recommendions which are made to the public,o the fishing industry, to the

consuming public in terms of the consequences for their families. so i asked, again, for you to release that information, that data. the team estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil from deepwater horizon well. the uncertainty of this estimate is plus or minus 10%, as you said. does noaa have certainty with regard to the figures of the estimates of what happened to all 4.9 billion baht. 4.9 million barrels? what is the best and worst case estimate for the residual oil that remains in the gulf? >> we do as part of the calculator have the estimates of

uncertainty for each of the various processes. for example, in terms of the burn, there are some standards for the burn rate that were applied to this bill that give us a high degree of confidence, and we have very low uncertainty for the estimate of that. for a back operation and dissolution, -- for evaporation and dissolution, we have taken samples from noaa fr the environment of canada and from a large research organization in the european union, and those results matched closely, so we have a fairly good confidence on most values. when we get into the dispersed oil, the uncertainty becomes larger, particularly for the use of the chemical dispersants below the surface, which is a new experience to us. were very conservative there, but we have a large ma

rgin. standards and technology has brought an excellent statisticians to calculate the net uncertainty. that is given in the extra pages that you were given. that will also be the final report. and i will commit today to do whatever i can to speed up the report. i appreciate the concern. i hope that you and public and the other academics appreciate that because of the importance, because of the points you stressed, we want to make sure is done right. that is why i am making sure -- >> here is the thing, doctor, you should not have released it until you knew it was right, because so much is going to depend upon that release. if you are not confident it is right, it should not have been released. because it basically sent a signal with regard to how much

of the problem remains. that is really something that is obviously of great concern to people in the gulf. they don't want to be forgotten. they don't want this to be downplayed or low balled, which in se quarters what has happened since the report was released. i think it is important, since it has been released, to be examined right now so that we can be sure that those numbers were accurate, and independent scientists can quickly look at the formulas and corroborate or question. but it should not be something that is done in a boring academic setting over a prolonged time. it is something that has to be done in a dynamic setting in real time because of the resources that may need to be dedicated to this problem to ensure that it is remedial it in

a shorter time than otherwise, if your estimates are not accurate. so that is critical. from a political perspective, the longer the time that elaes is the lower the political pressure and the public attention to be there to ensure the resources are brought to the problem. so we have to make sure we do this in a timely fashion so that unlike the exxon valdez spill, we actually do somhing in real time so that everything that can be learned about it is learned about it. and you, you agree, dr. that the amount of oil that is still in the gulf of mexico and not accounted for is at least five times the size of the exxon valdez spill. you agree with that? >> i agree, and i would also note that noaa is taking a lead

role in monitoring the oil that is out there. we will continue to do that. i don't think the report, it should not be interpreted as saying that this spill is somehow over with. >> it is not that it is over with, but there was an optimistic spin in some quarters that was placed upon that report. and since that is happening in real time, then the independent evaluation of that report must happen in real time. because if it is wrong, many opportunities for a calibrated response to the defects in the report will have been lost. so that is why it is important for you to surrender this information now two independent scientists. so according to noaa's will budget, 408,792 barrels of oil

were chemically dispersed out of a total of 4.1 million barrs. approximately 9% of the total oil in the gulf of mexico. this means that 43,0009 -- 43 ,900 barrels of dispersant were needed to get rid of just over 408,000 barrels of oil. this means that barrel of dispersant dispersed justver 9 barrels of oil, yet according to your budget documentation, a dispersant will ratio of 120 is considered successful. dr. lehr, it seems to me the ratio used in this disaster of one-to-9 would not bsuccessful

by noaa's own definition. would you agree with that? >> this is an area where we had the hardest time calculating was the effectiveness of the chemical dispersant. the dispersant that was applied below the surface or but we would call ideal conditions. we would make sure that the dispersant was injected to the oil so it made direct contact. this would be the ideal conditions for dispersant operations. we asked the people who make a living applying dispersants what they tught would be an effective number, and they had numbers as high as 30 to 40-1 ratios. the oil industry literature suggested 20-to-1.

we decided to be conservative and go with the 20-to-1. we may have underestimated the effectiveness of the sub-surface dispersant. on the surface where the dispersant was applied, they were applying it on the oil that had partially emulsified. the viscosity was high. according to past studies, it would not have been as effective. but there was a study that was done by a rearch group at of norway with this multiplied oil using dispersants that showed some effectiveness, plus observations on seen by noaa and coast guard personnel that suggested surface operations were being at least partially affected. what we did was scaled down what we would estimate to be the effectiveness of the surface operation. i believe we estimated it would be 4 or 5 barrels of oil per

amount of dispersants parade, and that would take into account that some of the dispersant not interact with the oil, and secondly the fact the oil has emulsify tsuch an extent it was difficult to disperse into small droplets that are necessary for the oil to disperse and the water column. >> according to the budget documentation o dispersant to oil rao, -to-20 is considered successful -- 1-to-20 is considered successful, but this ratio was 1-to-9. do you believe that is a successful application? >> i think my colleague noted the significant uncertainty in the estimates of dispersion. all of the evidence, all of the monitoring that was conducted in

an ongoing wayhat was required by the epa during the application, especially of the sub-surface application of the dispersant showed effectiveness. we ensured that, through florescence pictography, the particlewere being formed. this was a high energy system. we have reason to believe and evidence shows it was effective and relatively efficient. >> given your own numbers and your own analysis, how successful wld you say it was? >> i don't think there is a way to measure the ratio between chemically dispersed and biologically dispers oil, so i don't tnk we can have precise numbers. i think that the estimates, as dr. lehr noted, whether it is 20, 30, 40-to-1 in terms of

ratio would be more potentially in the ballpark. >> dispersed does not mean exactly the same thing as gone, does it? >> it is not. >> for example, if i put a spoonful of sugar in my iced tea and store it, the sugar is dispersed, you cannot see it. but if i drink iced tea, it still tastes sweet because the sugar is still there. the sugar is dispersed, but it is present. isn't that somewhat analogous to the situation that we face in the gulf with is disbursed oil as well? >> not exactly. the sugar dissolves in solution. disbursed means it is broken up into small particles that, the whole purpose of which, is to make them more digestible and indigestible by the microbes. the only time that will actually

goes to weig is one it is degraded. the degradation can happen through biological process these, it can happen through physical process these. -- it can happen through physical prosses. when it is broken down by the water, is called hydrology. when it is done by temperature, it is phonology, broken down by light is another process. the whole puose of the dispersant is to make it more accessible. >> what is the time frame for that process to take place? how do you measure that in terms of the actual amount of oil that is as a result more subject to being consumed because this person has been released? how can you measure that over such a vast area? >> there have been studies done even by the epa and t department, and part of the

rationale for applying dispersants is it helps the rate of degradation increase by as much as 50%. >> 15% or 50%? >> 5-0, over those on treated. >> ok, thank you. government scientists have estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil escaped from the bp well, but that does not include the methane that also came out of the well. although the impact of methane is not as well understood as that of oil, we know it has the potential to cause harm when released at such significant levels above the natural seepage of methane in the gulf.

as part of the natural rources damage assessment and associative restoration plan, will noaa be looking at the impact of the release of methane from the bp well? >> in terms of the effect, i would believe that would be taken into consideration for sure. i am not part of the damage assessment team. there is a different group that does that. theil budget calculated not take into account because it wasn't well budget capulet. there is no -- because it is an oil budget calculator. that is why it was not in the report that you saw, but in terms of the damage assessment, you would certainly take into account all the hydrocarbons

thatere released and what affect it would have on the environment. >> just a few weeks ago, in response to a letter that i wrote, fta explained what it does not presently monitor -- fda explained what it does not presently monitor for this in the seafood, they are working closely with noaa to conduct further studies to determine if dispersant chemicals or their metabolites can concentrate in the flesh of seafood species. what is the status of the studies? >> mr. chairman, i would like to refer this question to dr. margolis. >> what is your title, please? for'm the senior adviser science and policy for the fda. we have been working with noaa

on developing chemical methodologies for detection of one of the major components of dispersant. this component is about 20% of the total dispersant that was applied in the gulf. but essentially what we have done is two series of studies where we are exposing craft and fish in settis to the chemical, 100 parts per million, which is comparable to at the dock. we do time exposures at 24 hours, with subsequent washout in clean salt water at 24, 48, and 72 hours and assess the concentrationf the chemical in the pancreas or liver, as well as the muscle tissue.

preliminary data suggests there is not any by a concentration -- bio concentration of the chemical. >> can you explain that chicals so that the public watching understands? >> it is a detergent, essentially, a detergent-like compound found in a variety of products, including over-the- counter medical oducts. it is used to help disperse the oil, but is generallyn art and nontoxic. there have been significant studies demonstrating a lack of toxicity with this particular component. >> please continue. >> essential we conducted the tank studies and found no evidence to date of bio- concentration of the chemical in the crabs and some shrimp that have been tested so far. we're still actively assessing

these samples and a controlled setting. additionally, we are able to go back to all of the retrospective samples that were collected because is particular component is present in the extract that we made for monitoring p.a.h. for the reopenings. >> what about the other components, in addition to doss. have you done the analysis of the other components of this chemical tt was shot into the ocean in order to determine the toxicity of those components? >> we have not. we start with this as a marker for the chemical because it is one of the principal components and therefore would be readily detectable. it essentially serves as a marker for the dispersant. >> what is the timeframe you

will use to analyze the other components to determine whether or not there is toxicity, there is a danger that could attached to it if human beings consume that chemical? >> some of the other components that are present, such as petroleum distillate, would be found in the p.a.h. analys. it would be difficult to distinguish tse from petroleum distillates and the oil itself. we are not currently looking at any of the other components. >> could you repeat that? >> we are not currently doing tests on the other components right now because we wanted to establish the methodologies using one of the principal components which we felt we could detect realy as a first that.

>> how long will it take before you actually conduct experiments on the other components? >> i cant speak to that because it is not clear whether we have the methodologies to detect all of those at the present time. >> so -- if you find dos in the seood samples, then what? >> then we would consider that as something we would need to go back and reevaluate e samples for possible presence of this person -- of dispersant. >> are there potentially other components that are known to be toxic? >> there are a number of components.

i think the epa could probably speak better to the toxicity studies that have been done on the various components of the chemical. >> are there other components that have been known to be very toxic? >> i guess i would first start off by saying that the testing that we conducted, that the administrator ordere conducted was on the chemical itself. so when you are looking at the entire formulation, all of the components and their contributions to toxicity would be considered. it is important to look at the formulation as a whole. the toxicity results and report, in my opening statement -- >> are you saying as a result, there is no point in even bothering to examine the other components case you have already studied the chemical? >> i am saying when you do toxicity studies on the

collective as a whole, you are in essence doing toxicity studies on the components. >> what i am asking, as a result, if i could go back to the fda, es that mean there is no reason to do any further study of these materials, even though some of them are known to be toxic? >> mr. chairman, fda is fully aware of what are the components of the chemical. we have looked at each one of these for toxicity, and i thi if you are aware, in response to your letter to the agency, each of these components are low toxicity to humans. we have to separate the distinction between toxicity to marine animals, as i think was the concern epa was suggesting, from toxicity to humans if it is present in the flesh of fish.

fta's concern is the latter toxicity to human -- fda's concern is the latter toxicity to humans. we have looked at the individual components, and they are all very common household constituents. there are in things such as lip gloss and toothpaste and a variety of over-the-counter drugs. so they have been approved for use and consumption by people. these a components that fda reviews for food additive purposes. >> you have yet to put in place, though, a test in order to determine whether or not any of these chemicals, many of these components are in the fish, is that correct? you have only done a study so far on dos, as a marker, but not

on these other chemicals? so as you are sitting here as the fda, representing the puic's interest in determining whether or not these fish are safe to eat, it is without having completed the study in terms of these actual component chemicals and side of the fish? is thacorrect? -- inside of the fish? is that correct? >> i would like to put that in context of what we have done. i intend to with your question specifically, but the first question that fda wanted to answer with respect to dispersants is whether the constituents of or the components of the chemical, what do we know about those and what

do we know about whether, one, it is in the flesh of the fish, and second, if they are in there, what is the risk to humans? the answer to all of these is to have a very low potential to get into the flesh of fish. that does not mean they will not getn at any level. it means they have a low likelihood of getting into the fish and are highly unlikely to accumulate at levels above what is in the environment. which we believe is comforting. the second is, the question as i mentioned,s, to the components, are they toxic in and of themselves? as i said, we are aware of all of these components, and they have common uses in produc that are either intentionally consumed or, as in the case of lip gloss, it consumed as a maer of course because of the way they are used. these components have approval levels in each of those uses.

and those levels are much higher than the levels that, under any circumstance, you could imagine would end up in the flesh of fish. so it is true we have decided in the case of dos in particular, at least as a starting place, we are looking to see whether -- we want to confirm in a definitive study what we already believe we know the answer to, and that means is unlikely to bio- concentrate, as dr. -- of the studies are very suggested that they will n bio concentrate. that is confirming what we believe we already knew. it is a reasonable question to ask if we can look of t other components. i think that is something that we ought to do.

just so i can understand, right now, in the parts of the gulf -- gulf that has been reopened for fishing, you have ok'd the consumption of that food, those fish. even though you have not completed testing on at the component parts of corexit, with the belief that it does not accumulate in the fish at a level that would pose a danger to the public as they consume that fish. is that correct? >> is correct to an extent, but what i would like to clarify is that we are doing some analysis of the fish. this is through the sensory testing that i explained, that i mentioned earlier period to

give -- mentioned earlier. to givei think there is a the nature of this test. quite frankly, these are people training. not everyone of them can get through that training and demonstrate the skills to be able to pick up different odors. buwhat we -- the panels that we have in place in and the gulf coast now are truly expert. they have be cibrated against a standard of seawater oil and a dispersant that was collected at the oil site so that they can detect that combined odor. there were also calibrated specifically against the odor of dispersant, which has a much milder older, but still deductible. -- dettable. so the standards we are using for the reopening of the waters have been run through this analysis. we recognize that there is more

comfort in having a chemical test, and that is the reason that we have engaged with noaa in the chemical test for the cost component. -- dos component. again, i do not want to suggest thate lightly came to the conclusion that the components of corexit are unlikely to accumulate, and if they did, are nontoxic. there is an extensive body of science around all of these components which fda has looked into. as we have said, and made in public statements, we are confident that based on the current science, the likelihood for by a concentration in dish

-- by a -- -- by a dash concentration in finish- is very low, and should it -- is veryntration in fish occur, theuldn' it toxicity of those components would be very low. the studies that we are talking market. >> in the same letter, fda defers to epa to determinef oil and revenues can accumulate in a product, plant and eggs. can oil and dispersant by a concentration in and fish eggs? -- bio-concentrate in and fish eggs? >> the consistency of the oil can allow oil, in principle, to enter into fat tissues and

potentially enter those biological systems. all of the models that we have done on the dispersants would suggest that we would not see the dispersant and into and -- dispersants entering into and accumulating or magnifying in a way that oilcan. >> is it possible that a fish may be caught and kept clean in the adult issues, but contain eggs that have high levels o these toxic chemicals? >> i am not aware of a mechanism by which that could occur. >> do you believe it could occur? >> no, i am not aware of a mechanism by which it could occur. >> do you believe that testing on eggs meant for human consumption could be performed to ensure that all products on thmarket for demons are safe? -- on the market are safe?

should testing on eggs meant for human consumption be performed to ensure that all fish products on the market are safe? >> i would der to my fda colleagues on that. i would have to say that a more data that we hav the more sampling that we have to verify this is always good. we need to rely on the data and data needs to drive us. >> have been the fda and noaa -- how do fda and noaa assure us that fish that were located in oil waters and contaminated with toxic chemicals have not been swimming to areas th have been cleared for fishing? >> the presumption here is that the fish is guilty until proven incent, so to speak.

when they do their sampling, you do not assume that it is clear. you assume that it has to pass the tasting test, and all the of the passes those, does it go to the -- only when it passes those does it go to the laboratory for chemical tests. that into account. however, to be on the safe side, as there is a 5 mile buffer between the area where it would be open and where it would not be closed in the first place, and where oil has appeared. >> are you right now engaging in intensive testing where the oil is still prese in large

quantities? >> of the testing of the fish is being done in areas where the oil is no longer present. it is in the areas where oil was either at never present or areas where it has not been present for some time. then they do the sampling. every sample has turned out to be negive. we have not detected any ph levels in at the fish. >> i am going to use a hypothetical, and i do not know how accurate is, but let us use it as a hypotheticalthat the bluefin tuna, which is ultimately caught off of new england,pawns down in the gulf of mexico. let us say for the sake of

discussion, and only for the sake of the discussion, that some of that spawning is going on right now inside of the much more oil the area of the gulf. -- oil the area of the gulf -- we know that those fish are ultimately going to migrate up area of the gulf off the coast of new england. what is the testing for that fish or other dish that is going on inside of the oil area that will ensure that it is safe when it finally reaches the part the ocean where that this or any fish is caught? >> i wildefer that question to experts that can answer that better than i can. >> is there someone here who can do that for us? can you move up to the microphone please and identify yourself?

>> i am john l. gramm. we do not have a person from the fisheries service here. we had one witness, but we can get those answers to you. >> i think that is an important issue. >> yes. >> to be resolved in people's minds, becauset just seems to you know, to summon the things -- someone that thinks about the -- about the fishing industry, that these are not stationary or territory of -- or territorial entities in many instances. we see sharks up and down the coast of new england and they doot seem to limit themselves to a 5 mile radius. to say do not worry about it a few miles further away, the sharks only stay within a 5

mile radius, does not seem as though that would be the kind of warning that the public would think was a sufficient in order to guarantee the safety of their families. so, i think this is important information for us to have, and the more that it can be put in very simple terms for the public debt the better i think it will be for the fishing industry and -- for the public, the better i think that it will be for the fishing industry and for the public. >> i would does like to respond to that on that. -- i would just like to respond to that. i think there are several answers to that question, or several pieces to the answer to that question. noaa testing has included testing outside of the closed areas, and the purpose of that testing was to look for whether or not, first of all, to determine whether or not to the closures were insufficiently protected.

the 5 mile buffer zone that we put around, believe is sufficiently protected. teing was performed outside of the area in which closures were. beyond that, both noaa and fda have done it market sampling. this was-that was appropriately harvested in open waters -- this was fish that was appropriately harvested in open waters. we believe we would have picked up indications of a fish that had higher than expected levels. especially for fin fish, they cleared the toxins from the body very rapidly. -- a clear the toxins from the body very rapidly. -- they clear the toxins from the body very rapidly.

the gulf making it up to new england is highly improbable. we do not belie that is>> are you actually testing for that, though, given the unprecedented underwater experiment that we are experiencing? >> we are testing a product that has been commercially harvested in the gulf and that is currently being marketed. we are testing that product, and again, it is not showing levels above the levels that were there before the spill occurred. we believe that the fish coming out of the gulf do not have levels that are of concern. >> is the fda monitoring seafood recovered from the gulf for the presence of heavy metals? >> we are not, know. -- we are not, no. but there is a noaa program called a muscle watch program, because it is not monitoring

muscles, it is monitoring oysters. those that are most likely to hang onto that within their flesh and the species most likely to buy a concentrate -- bio-concentrate. this program has been in place for decades in the gulf and has been very solid nationwide. we have a solid background level to know what the level of these contaminants are, including any of the heavy metals, for example, that you would be concerned about. >> are you monitoring for it right now? >> i would defer to noaa to answer what has been done on this. fda is not, but noaa has a good central program.

>> it is my understanding the compounds like mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals that are present in crude oil have the ability to accumulate in and the tissue of fish at levels that may cause harm, particularly to pregnant women and chilen. as the fda corpus -- has the fda onoaa exam and seafood for the -- examine the -- examined seafood forhe presence of a metals? -- of metals. >> as part of the muscle watch program in the area. again, i am going to defer to my colleagues to answer that answer for that. >> so, back every year at fda, you do not screened for -- back over here at fda, you do not screen of for heavy mels, but you believe that noaa does. >> i do not want to speak for them, but i believe they have

collected a sample. the results are not yet back. we do not have an analysis of them. we do not expect to see an increase based on this bill, but certainly the result will be confirmatory of that. >> i wrote a letter to the fda on this issue of heavy metals six weeks ago and i have yet to receive an answer. >> i apologize for that, mr. chairman. i would be happy to respond to those questions at this time. >> i would not have asked the question if i did not believe it was important. heavy metals obviously have a danger attached to them. as a regulatory black ho been created today between the fda and noaa in terms of knowing what the response is to testing for having metals ended this dish, that we know can

accumulate in at this fish -- testing for heavy metals in that this fish, that we know can accumulate in this fish. when can i expect a response from the fda? >> in a matter of days. >> let me move on to the fda d noaa. you have agreed on a protocol to examine when closed waters can be reopened. the protocol relies heavily on surveillance, test and sampling that generate data about the concentration of particular of contaminants found in seafood. it is my understanding that there have been fishery reopenings in state waters

within 3 miles of the coastline of louisiana and mississippi. does noaa and fda have access to the data that is used to drive reopening decisions within state waters within 3 miles of coastline of lisiana and alabama? >> the answer is yes. the protocol that was developed jointly by fda, epa and noaa, along with the five gulf coast states, calls for the states to provide that data to fda and

noaa. for reopening purposes, the states are acting under their own authority, as i think you know. >> what role does the fda and noaa have in the opening and closing of state waters? >> when the state has made a decision that they would like to for a particular fishery, of for example, for fned fish or for shrimp, they develop a sampling protocol or pn that identifies how many of the species and where they're going to be located that they intend to collect. the fda and noaa .

review that proposal and either concur with it or make recommendations for changes. they then go out and collect samples and submit them to the laboratory where the sensory testing that i described a minute ago is performed. if the sample sses the sensy testing, then it is submitted to a chemical laboratory. this is where the samples split. if it is federal waters, which is not the question you raised, then the sample would go to a noaa laboratory. if it is a state sample, then it would go to a state laboratory that we have under contract. th is where we perform the analysis that we devise with dhs. >> can the fda and noaa state unequivocally that fish caught in a the state waters are safe to eat? can you state that unequivocally? >> fda has expressed comments in a fish that are commercially marketed from the gulf -- has expressed confidence in the fish that are commercially

marketed from the gulf coast. we are aware of the state of the oiling in that area, and we are aware of the results of the analytical tests before the water is reopened by the state. so yes, we are able to vouch for the safety of those fish with respect to the contamination from the spill. >> doctor, do you agree with that? do you agree that the federal government is able to vouch unequivocally that the fish caught in state waters are safe to eat, as well as federal

waters? >> i would say that the fish caught is meeting all ofhe standards that were developed by the fda. >> what about non-commcial fishing. recreational fishing is a major tourism ctor in the gulf. can we ensure that those fish are safe to eat as well? >> fda is not directly responsible for recreational catch, but i can tell you that the state exorcises that control, except in federal waters. the states have implemented

closures for recreational catch that mirror the closures they have for commercial catch. the safety of the recreational that should be at the same level as commercial. >> with regard to the use of dispersants, a doctor from the natural resources defense counl said in her testimony that it would be unwise to draw conclusions about the safety of this unprecedented application of chemical dispersants from two laboratory experiments and field observations. do you agree or disagree with that statement? >> i think it is important to foll the data. what that means is that we look at the data and what the data tells us, but never remain

satisfied. that is why we have an ongoing monitoring program. that is why we will always continue to ask the tough questions. that is why we are looking to have an ongoing, long-term research plan so that we do understand not only the current situation but the long-term effects. >> thank you. mr. kramer,phhs arone of the present in oil because of their significant health impacts. however, these compounds are also very quickly metabolized in aquatics species, particularly in certain types of fish. it is my understanding that they are often metabolized into products that are often retaed in the flesh and can be more toxic than apparent compound. in an of market surveillance, is the fda's monitoring the metabolized levels of phhs into the test?

>> it is my understanding that we are looking for specific phhs, and not a metabolized version. i think the short answer is no. >> i would like to add to the point of clarification. to clarify on the metabolite issue, we have an engaging some experts in academia to discuss and assist with this. i of been speaking with some people l.s.u. about their experiences with this. i do want to add that today we have not found any level -- in fact, almost every test that we have conducted on the fish and shrimp that have been collected to date, has been completely- below our limited detection -- has been completely negative, mellow our limit of detection. >> -- below oulimit of detection. >> i think that is important for people.

i would recommend that you do some testing there. and think it is important for people to know that inside the oil barrier you are also doing testing. people will be concerned that there will be migration outside of that oil area subsequently, especially if the fish move to areas where there are traditionally cost that might not be in that area, that might if you would do some of that testing as well, does so we can see what happens in the most concentrated area, as opposed to ere you arnow testing. i thk that is important information. there could be migration if fish move to an area where they are not usually. at some point in the future, a think it would be very helpful

to do some of that testing as well, just so we can see what happens in the most concentrated area, as opposed to where you are now testing. i think that is important information. that actually think it is important long term. we should know what happens to those fish where the oil is most dense at this time. >> just one more point of clarification on this point, which is very well taken, and your point on heavy metals. we are also engaging with nih and other scientists to develop long-term toxicity studies. i think those are iredibly important in terms of looking at the potential for accumulation of heavy metals and toxicity that may derive from that. again, i would add that we think the surveillance through the muscle what program is incredibly important first line

of defense, but there are active discussions about long- term toxicity studies, and we will be engaging in these studies for years to come. >> again, i think it would be important to begin those studies right now by going to the most potentially toxic areas and finding the samples now that are then used as your base ne. i think that, long term, that is going to be something people which is they're insignificant quantities in order to match that against what is found from the periphery. i would recommend to you that you do that. let me ask the question again. do you plan to test for metabolites? >> i think this is part of our

ongoing discussion with nih. in fact, there is a meeting happening right now with several of the agencieand long-term toxicity studies, and the design of those is one the points under discussion. >> thank you. mr. kramer, there has been much criticism of the seafood sampling plan, particularly about the method of risk assessment. it is my understanding that the level of contamination with pah's , which is considered safe does not taken too vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children, and this is because the assumptions within the plan calculates safe levels based on an average adult male body weight of 176 pounds. has the fda produced guidelines to ensure that children and pregnant women are adequately protected from contaminants that may be present in the seafood? >> the short response to that is that we believe that the levels of concern that we

established for the reopening protocol are quite conservative and will be sufficiently protective for all populations. we also acknledge that these are vaable comments, and we e committed to looking again at the calculation of the levels of concern to make any judgments about whether we need to modify the levels that we have estabshed for the reopening. i would like to point out that, again, as we have mentioned before, at the levels that we are findinin fish flesh are essentially at levels that they would have been at before the spill. whether or not the values will change, we are not seeing levels that should be of concern

for children or pregnant women. >> i appreciate the conclusion which you have reached, but as you know, for 100 years, almost all research was done on the prototypical 176 pound male. only in the 1990's, under pressure from the women's movement, did independent research that dealt with the unique nature of women and children began to be introduced. the fact that the classic 176 pound male is still used here is something that i think you should be examined in terms of whether or not that is sufficient to deal with the more vulnerable populations which are women and children in this particular instance. the extrapolation of all of these lessons is something that i think is probably now updated, and this may be one of the last remaining models that continues to stay on the books

as the exclusive means by which such a measurement is made of the risk to human beings. mr. kramer, an analytical test indicates that contaminated seafood has been found that was harvested from open waters, how does noaa communicate this to fda, and what is the feedback methods to stop others from fishing in a the se place? >> we have communications at the number of levels, so we communicate at the senior leadership level. we communicate through the national incident command process. we also communicate on multiple daily calls between all three agencies at the staff,

scientific and technical levels. any one of those routes could be used to move that information. fortunately, we have not had to deal with that information yet, but if it were to occur, we would immediately investigate. that investigation would be to look at the analytical results confirm that they in fact show that the product is what fda would call adulterated, and if we found that it did reach that level of concern, either we or the state would act through our authority to remove that product from the market. also, to reevaluate the adequacy of the closure that is in pce. >> thank you. doctor, last friday admiral

allen issued a directive for a coordinated integrated system of pollution monitoring, involving federal, state and academic monitoring efforts to detect remaining oil in the gulf. can you tell us about this direive and why it was necessary at this time? was this coordination not occurring over the past four months? >> the coronation in terms of tracking the subsurface oil has been happening since the beginning of this bill. -- of the spill. early on, we went out and made arrangements with experts who are experts in a well blowout at carson university. they provided us information about how the oil would act. we also made arrangements with a place that has a subsurface

model that allowed us to track the oil. we now have our own models tracking it as well. tied in with all of the detailed sampling that is being done. i think that the directive -- other independent groups and agencies have been doingt, and i think the idea is to bring them all together. >> are using this is nothing more than a continuation of what was going on -- are you saying that this is nothing more than a continuation of what was going on all along? >> i think that what the admiral is stressing is that we are focusing n on the subsurface oil with the service problem being removed. we can bring in extra resources to do that. many people i know of who were doing the surface trajectory are now being transferred t work on the subsurface trajectory. i think it is safe to say that it is a redirection as the problem has evolved. i would leave it at that.

>> thank you. what do we know about the dispersed oil and dispersant that is on the ocean floor? what species are affected there, and how does that impact the food chain? doctor? >> i think you ask an extremely important question. there are issues that we are looking to, in real time, develop research plant inhe immediate and longer-term to fully understand what the oil is doing. i do refer back to the opening statements about, we are not detecting the dispersants in any concentrations within the limits of our methods of detection. we are not seeing threats from those substances. >> are you saying you're not seeing dispersant and oil collecting on the ocean floor at this time?

>> in the thousands of samples that have been run, we are not detecting dispersants. we're not detecting the dispersant constituents on the ocean floor at this time. we had one hit that was referred to at epa from epa testing, but the question that you asked about the ocean floor having oil, we have seen reports in the media talking about oil and the ocean floor. this is something that as we look to ensure we understand the long-term effects, this is exactly what of the questions that we need to investigate and find out, either confirm or disprove the presence of this oil. also coming to understand the

impact of this oil. >> thank you. why do we not do this? why do not hear from -- why do weot hear from each one of you in the reverse order of your opening testimony, so that you can tell us what it is that you want the american public to understand about the state of the gulf of mexico at this particular point in time? we will begin with you doctor. >> thank you very much. i think the single message that administrator jackson has sent is that we need to be vigilant on understanding what the nature of the problems are, the immediate term, and theong term. monitoring is crucial. this crisis is not over.

monitoring will continue. work will continue. research will continue into the long term. getting better understanding not only for our decisions, but to make sure we get it to the american public as quickly as possible, is one of our primary goals in accomplishing our mission of human health and the environment. >> thank you for their work on this issue. mr. kramer. >> thank you. the question that we are very often asked in fda is, what should a consumer do to make

sure thatheir next meal of cold seafood is safe? -- of gulf seafood is it safe? the answer is that they do not need to do anything. that is the job of fda. and we are confident in the the program that the fda has put together. we are confident that the consumer is sufficiently protected and that they need not take any steps to protect themselves from the seafood. it is essentially at the same level of safety that it was before this bill. having said that, we recognize that this "-- before this spill. having said that, we recognize that this is an unprecedented event. looking at the long-term safety of this source of food is something that we cannot overlook. i think we have mentioned here a few ideas of things that we do need to look at into long-term studies, the development of methods that can detect contaminant that we presently cannot detect.

we think those are positive steps toward providing further assurance to the public. >> thank you very much. dr.. >> before i get to my closing, i want to get to one thing. a good scientist -- in a good scientist, but perhaps a bad impromptu speaker, one of the things you brought up was the involvement of independent scientists. independent scientists, very qualified scientists will be reviewing the data. the field of science is so small that we could have a meeng in a ballroom and still have plenty of room to dance. we would have some of the biggest names in the the field for both review and development. i want to stress that because there are people who are -- there are people who are dealing with their first big spell and perhaps do not have -- big spill and perhaps do not have the background in this area. we're beginning a new phase, and all the agencies will be involved in this. i would like to think that when we went to develop our tools, but in terms of the flow rate

calculations and in terms of other calculations, we went out to independent academics and other experts. in many cases, they were not being paid any compensation. i have not yet had a single instance where any of those people have refused to work on data projects and the requests that we have done. there is a silver lining in of the terrible event of the spill, -- when we develop our tools in regards to the tabulations, we went out to many of the independent academic and other experts and many cases, th were not being paid any compensation. i have not yet had a single instance where any of those people have refuseto work on ojects and request that we have done. there is a silver lining in the terrible event of this bill.

-- the spill. it is the steps that the american people are willing to volunteer their efforts from the highest expertise level to the people going out and cleaning up the beaches. such tragedies do bring out the best in our country, and i think that is something that should be more brought forward perhaps. >> thank you. thank you to all of you for your wo. the point that i was making earlier was that in terms of the study that was released last week, first, you gave the answer. now, you're going to be showing your work, but in a peer- reviewed way. that is the opposite of the way in which a study of that magnitude would be released. all i am saying is that given the way that this has unfolded, it is important that everyone, including indendent scientists, who may not have participated in your creation of these models, can see the assumptions upon which they were based now, given the fact that the peer review is going on right now. but the science experiment in the gulf of mexico is occurring

in real time. so that there can be a real capacity to have all questions asked and answered, not months from now, as part of a boring, academic exercise sometime next year, t right now, when concern is at its highest. so again, i make my request again to you that you provide that information to independe scientists who are not part of that study so that there can be a fresh set of eyes and minds that are applied to it, because the consequences are great if you are wrong. if you are wrong, the consequences could be great. so, let's just error on the side of safety. let us have that information be given to the rest of the scientific community, givenhe way in which that record was put together. we thank you. again, in no way do we want to say anything that we thank you

for the work which you have done thus far. it is exceedingly a difficult working environment. it is unprecedented in what has occurred in the gulf of mexico. we have this hearing principally because the public has a right to know that there should not be a six week period, a month and half period in which congress has not been working on this issue, given the right of the public to be protected in all aspects. again, thank you, and we ask that you make yourself available to return again to answer additional questions, because this is something that, obviously, is going to affect the gulf of mexico for months and years to come. we appreciate your contributions. thank you. before we hear from our next

set of witnesses, for the record, the subcommittee invited the louisiana department of wildlife and fisheries to participate in this hearing. the louisiana department of wildlife and fisries makes the decisions regarding opening or closing of fisheriein state waters affected by the spill, and has them working in

consultation with the fda regarding opening and closing of fisheries. although nobody from the department was able to attend, the louisiana department of wildlife and fisheries submitted a statement for the record, which i ask unanimous consent to move into the record at this time. without objection, so ordered. i would also like to move into the record a statement from the center for science in the public interest. without objection, so ordered. we will now move to hear from our witnesses,

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [no audio] >> welcome back to t let me begin by making a unanimous consent request that all members be allowed to submit statements for the record, and many questions which they would like to submit to the witnesses who are testifying here today. without objection, so ordered. our next witness is dr. ian macdonald. dr. mcdonald is a professional -- a professor of oceanography at florida state university. he uses satellite technology to locate natural oil releases on the ocean surface. thank you for coming dr. mcdonald. whenever you feel comfortable, please begin. >> i am a professor of oceanography at florida state university, but today i am here

of my own accord. i have 30 years of professional and private experience travelling around, cruising on, diving to the bottom of the gulf of mexico, and i deeply and fiercely loved this ocean and its people. i thank you for your exemplary service during this catastrophe. i would like to comment briefly with a critique on the noaa report that we discussed earlier. i feel that this report was misleading. although it was done by very competent scientists, without any side station to the scientific literature -- and a citation to the scientific literature, it is impossible for someone reading this report to check the numbers that are there, and we have concern about those numbers.

as i think you very ably demonstrated in your examination, we really can only account for 10% of the oil that was discharged, the four 0.1 million barrels their discharge, but to burning and scanning. the balance of the oil that may have been in the environment, there may be 10% that evaporated into the atmosphere, but the balance is still in the ocean. the question as, how does the partition that was done, the separation into categories that was done by the oil budget, is really pretty theoretical at this point. there are findings that come out and i think will be called into question. there are five times the number of barrels released as or in the exxon valdez disaster. this oil is going to be very resistant to a further by a

degradation. it is going to be in our environment for a long time. i think that the imprint of the bp release, the discharge carlo will be detectable in the gulf of mexico for the -- the discharge, will be detectable in the gulf of mexico for the rest of my life. it is not going away very quickly. i would also like to comment on an aspect of this bill that has not seeped -- aspect of the spill that has not received a lot of attention, and that is the methane gas that has been released. we know that the well was very rich in gas. we have good numbers on that from the flow rate technical group. if we take those numbers, in units of mass equivalents or

barrels of oil equivalent, it turns out that the oil plus the gas is equal to 1.5 times the oil alone. in other words, if there are 4.1 barrels of oil released, the actual discharge is in excess of 6 million barrels when you combine the gas. some of debts, much of this, still remains in the ocean. i would contend that for the purposes of the oil pollution act, this followed should be included in our assessment of how far this spill when down. -- went down. and would also like to comment on the so-called resilience of the gulf of a mexico. there has been a massive dose of hydrocarbons in the gulf of mexico ecosystem. there's been talk about the resilience of the gulf of mexico. might concern is not about a wholesale die off, but for a depression, a decrease in the

productivity and the biodiversity in the ecosystem. this might be, if we had a 10% decrease, this might be very difficult to demonstrate scientifically. it might be even harder to prove in a court of law. nonetheless, if we sustain this impact over a number of years, it would be as severe effect. my greatest concern is that some of the damage may be so severe that we may have a tipping point effect that will overwhelm the resilience of the ecosystem. this unfortunately has been the case in the sound that was affected by the exxon valdez spill. i have drafted as part of my submission here a list of species that i think we should be watching closely.

these include some of the big species, the shrimp, the tuna and so forth. they also include more humble members of the ecosystem such as the lawyer crabs, clams that are so abundant on the beaches. we need to be watching populations through time, not just next year, but for years to come. may take several years to notice the impact. a healthy environment has to support the species. if we watch those species, we will know how the gulf is doing. is my time up? >> yes, but you will have time during question and answer period to elaborate. our next witness is the president and sole owner of dina blanchard seafood -- dean blanchard seafood, the largest dockside shrimp a broker in the united states and the third largest in the world. thank you for coming. whenever you feel ready, please begin.

>> thank you for having this. i want to say that i visit your state regularly, and reminds me of grand isle. we are here to talk about seafood safety, and we have a few concerns. basically, i have taken a moment to outline a few of my concerns. as an independent seafood owner, is the seafood product is put onto the market that is later determined to have made the consumer ill because of oil and your dispersants -- and/or a dispersant contamination, the will be the responsible party? of that is our major concern right now because we are having a problem getting liability insurance. i am responsible for moving about 300 million pounds of shrimp, and i have never seen

anyone get sick. pretty much everyone in the seafood business is born and raised in it. not just decide one day i am going to be a seafood guy. we have good people in our business, and we know the shrimp. i am hoping that will keep the public's faith. i will not but nothing on the myself. i tried to stop eating shrimp, and i felt like i was going to die. i had to start eating it again. i have a feeling that if i get sued, i am going to be the one paying the bill. is another concern that we have, commercial fishermen have to fill up their boats, by ice and salt and all.

they are afraid the open waters will be closed once more, or that they will find contaminated seafood and they will have to dispose of it. it is difficult for an out of work fishermen to pay for these expenses without a confidence in the government keeps opening and closing. without that confidence, and bp's press release says that virtually all the recoverable oil has been recovered. now, you can get oil. you want to get good trip, you can catch that too. i told every fisherman that when you bring me the product, it will be scrutinized 10 times more than it has ever been before. if you think that anything is wrong, do not bring it to me. i will not buy it.

al will not take the chance of getting sued or getting someone sick. the last thing i want to see is that i got somebody's sick or a pregnant woman, that would be hard to live with. i will make sure that will not happen. we have a difficult time locating insurance companies that will sell less insurance. -- sell us insurance. i am scared of someone trying to make money off of this. that is the scary part. basically, we in the seafood industry have very little trust in the government. when i tried to sell seafood, i say that the government said that they see thousands of tests and everything is alright.

i told them that it is the same government, but it is a different branch. that is some of the problem that we have. we appreciate the help for people like you that maybe we will get down to the bottom of it. i firmly believe that all of the seafood that i have seen so far is safe. i eat seafood probably six or seven times a week. i have not had any problems with the seafood. we are hoping that the government is doing the right job and making sure that everybody is safe. maybe we can all get through this one day. thank you. >> thank you, mr. blanchard. thank you for being here today. our next witness is mr. a. c. cooper jr.. he is a fisherman and the vice

president of the louisiana trappers' association -- shrimpers association. we thank you for coming mr. cooper. whenever you are ready, please begin. >> i this want to talk a little bit about the damages done to our community. >> mr. cooper, could you move the microphone in. >> yes sir. we have reports of new mirror -- numerous fish kills. they are saying that the oil is not there. we know it is there. i work in one part of the space for two months and we wear has met chutes and gloves -- where hazardous material suits and gloves.

a reported oil to the coast guard and i brought them out there and show them that it was there. this has had a catastrophic effect on our community and our way of life. we do not need to let this late because bps or to step out and they are trying to get out now. we need to stay on top of things. if we let them leave now, we will be in deep trouble. everyone says that it is over with.

hours fishermen are not going to sell anything that is bad. -- our fishermen are not going to sell anything that is we see that bp is trying to move out. they're trying to go. we do not let them leave now. finish the job they started. they did it. they need to clean it up. sign waivers, us now do is going to be responsible for that? is bp going to be responsible? who is responsible for us?

the season opened on august 16th. i went out hoping to catch a couple thousand pounds, 10 dozen pounds. i caught 500 pounds of shrimp. if i cannot get the price for my shrimp and the can catch them -- and i cannot catch them, how my going to survive? my father used to do this. my sons do it. hopefully their sons will do it. hopefully, i do not see any future in it. with the prices and everything going on now, we may not have a future. bp needs to step up and make sure that they pay us for what is done. one link is broken in this chain and we lose our industry.

this is something we have been doing all of our lives. who do we go to then? i just want to make sure that they understand that. we are not happy with what is going on right now. they say the oil is gone. it is not gone. it is on the bottom. we can take you and show you. i brought the coast guard. i can bring bp and show them. whoever says it is gone, as you heard today, they said 75% is gone. 95% is there, and it is going to come into our shores eventually, somewhere. if it is not louisiana, somewhere else. thank you. >> thank you. just so you know, their reason we have this hearing is so the .p knows we're not going away

we know the bp does not stand for be prepared. from the start they said when bells and barrels per day. they did not have a plan for this. -- they said 1,000 barrels per day. they did not have a plan for this. they are not able to retreat without having to pay for everything for which they are responsible. >> let me say one more thing. in the area, we hear them talking about 5 mile bumpers. the area was open where i found the oil at. the talk about a trade-off, a trade-off for the dispersants. the only trait of we see is the trade-off for our industry. it went to the bottom. it is of deep concern to us about the oil coming in on the bottom. >> thank you. now we will hear from the chief

executive officer of motivated seafoods, and oyster processing plant in louisiana, a family- owned business. his family has been involved in the seafood industry since the 1770. he also serves on the louisiana wildlife and fisheries commission, the oyster dealers association, and the secret task force. we welcome you. >> thank you. good afternoon. the opportunity to come before you is a pleasure today, and thank you for this opportunity. >> may also say that in congress, there are two places that everyone thinks has a funny

accent, and one of them is louisiana, and the other is boston. this is a gathering of those. the other 48 states of think that they speak plain english, but we know that our accents are the authentic ones. thank you. >> our company has an oyster farm in louisiana that comprises about 10,000 acres. we produce anywhere from 45 million-75 million individual oysters annually. we always have 135 million-235 million oysters on the water bottom at any time. i am a past chairman of the national fisheries institute. louisiana is second only to alaska in total seafood landings. in 2008, our commercial fishermen and harvested 1.25

million pounds of seafood. meanwhile, 3.2 million recreational fishermen along our shores took to the water, completing a total of 24 million fishing trips. at the deepwater horizon oil spill is clearly an ecological tragedy that will affect not only the habitats where fish and shellfish are harvested, but also the communities that bring these delicacies from the waters of the gulf to the tables of america. we ask for your support in these challenging times. we have been actively engaged with those the state and federal officials as they worked to reopen the waters. we have worked closely with the department of wildlife and fisheries, the department of health and hospitals, and the empire metal detection -- and permanent protection agency.

-- environmental protection agency. we want people to continue to have access to seafood maintained with the level of quality expected from the gulf of mexico. as we reopen the waters and continue the ongoing effort to protect consumers, we agree that closing harvest waters which could have been exposed to oil is the best way to protect the oil. this prevented potentially contaminated seafood from entering the marketplace. closure's made with the intent to ensure the seafood was asked -- closures made with the intent to ensure the secret was as safe as possible ensure that no contaminated seafood it made its way into the market. waters were reopened only when no oil from the contaminated areas was present in testing. testing has been heavily established verified and

determined as a scientific way to detect contamination. fda has collected 5658 specimens. all of these samples have been hundreds or thousands of times below the threshold levels or any margin of safety related to any human health concern. the gulf seafood community applauds the administration for taking the lead on the coordination of the comprehensive multi-government agency response, and we appreciate the collaborative efforts of the federal and state authorities, including the louisiana department of health and hospitals. we are pleased that the state agencies are working closely with the federal government, and we are a fairly confident that every necessary step is being taken to ensure the continued safety of the steep food from the gulf. after thousands of -- of the

seafood from the gulf. after thousands of tests, the public should not be concerned about the safety of this seafood. we have seen various media reports about the safety of the seafood. it is absolutely critical to the gold see the community that a consistent and precise method continue -- message continues to be delivered to the consumers who might otherwise shy away from this very healthy product. the gulf of mexico as the 6000 square foot miles of water is 5,000 feet deep, probably more like sandell and-13,000 feet deep. 10,000 - 13,000 cdo.

we hope further studies will be able to help consumers -- feet deep. we'll that further studies will be able to help consumers understand it where we are. thank you. >> thank you, and thank you to the members from the louisiana delegation for your work in helping us keep bp and the government accountable, to ensure that the innocent victims of this continued to be protected. our next witness is dr. lee said, a senior scientist at the national resources -- a doctor

and senior scientist at the national resources defense council. we welcome you. >> thank you for this opportunity to testify. recent communications by the federal government on the oil spill have been optimistic. we are hearing the pieces of the puzzle are falling together, that the picture looks better than many others had feared and that we have turned a corner. however, previous experience from other oil spills tells us that we are only at the beginning stages of this event from an ecological perspective. the story is unnecessarily complex -- is necessarily complex, and many questions remain. first, there is a concern about the dispersants. the epa conducted a recent

toxicological studies dispersants. --heard that correct separat that corexit had equaled toxicity to the oil, at least two species. however, with the release of these findings, the federal government concluded that the picture is becoming clear, that the use of the dispersant was an important tool in the response. it may be tempting to conclude this, but we think that conclusion is premature. as you already mentioned today, we think it is unwise to form a conclusion on the basis of two toxicological studies and observations in the field that corexit is that exceedingly low

concentrations. you raised an important additional questions today and there are additional ones too. for example, what proportion of the oil that would have otherwise ended up on the the post did not because of the use of dispersants? -- on at the coast did not because of the use of dispersants? where is the oil? is it on shallow shelves or deep ocean canyons? is dispersed borel getting into the food chain? is it possible for the dispersant to buy a-magnified in the food chain? -- bio-magnified in the food chain? it is clear we have made a trade-off, but it is not clear what trade of we have made. nrdc agrees with the assertion

that 75% of the oil is no longer in the environment is an over interpretation of the data and misleading. we really do not know how much oil remains in the environment. this needs to be directly measured. if you do a more direct interpretation of the federal oil budget, it reveals that 50% of the oil may remain in the environment. that is over 100 million gallons, or nine times to the exxon valdez spill. that is a lot of oil. in addition, the federal oil budget appears to be a preliminary budget i was perhaps prematurely released. it was released before peer review. it is a partial tally of the

hydrocarbons in the environment. it did not contain methane, which scientists believe comprise half of the total of hydrocarbons that went into the environment. and, it was a partial analysis of the state of the oil. for example, it did not provide estimates of what proportion of the oil made it to the coast or what proportion is now on to the sea floor. as presented, the federal oil budget was a partial snapshot of the oil at one point in time. it does not address where the oil was, where it is going, and where and how long it will be in the environment. to fully understand the risk of the remaining oil or the impact to the environment, this picture needs to be filled out and the oil but it needs to be refined. regarding the safety of

seafood, recent statements from the federal government, made today in fact, assure americans that the seafood in the market has no oil in it and presents no health hazard whatsoever. again, many important questions remain. my colleague in the health program at nrdc highlights three primary concerns that we have. first, the date on the contamination of the seafood is not publicly available. the scientists did not independently review their findings. the samples have been on fish, not on shrimp. second, the seafood monitoring currently being done may not be adequate in terms of sample size and in terms of failure to monitor heavy metals, which was discussed today, and the

dispersants. third, the risk assessment failed to adequately account for exposure to hydrocarbons in vulnerable populations, namely pregnant women and young children. that is largely because of the assumptions you raised about the weight of adult males. in conclusion, the gulf oil disaster represents -- it is the largest oil spill in u.s. history. we understand that the government wants to turn the corner. it wants to signal that the gulf is on its way to recovery. however, the facts simply do not bear that out. there is still a huge amount of oil in the environment, no matter how you interpret the federal oil budget. everyone agrees with that. is -- it is unfair to the gulf

region and to the public at large to diminish the risk that this presents to americans and to those in the region. the government must take time to do a careful study and greater transparency is warranted. we believe that thorough follow through is the only thing that will keep this catastrophe from being such a big disaster. >> thank you very much. now we will turn to questions from the committee. i will turn to you dr. mcdonald. i think that there is a lot of concern about how far the oil and methane from the spill has spread into the gulf. how long it will remain and what harm it could cause -- i know that these questions are area of active research for you and for

the broader academic community. can you give us a brief overview of what academic scientists are finding in that regard. >> at this week, today in fact, we have seen the release of a number of careful studies. one of from the university of south florida reported on the results of the research group. a careful study of the budget was made by scientists at the university of athens. these reports collectively showed different aspects of this spread of the oil and its related compounds that raised major concerns. the best science i have seen yet out of this process documents

the spread of compounds that are hydrocarbons. these are the most toxic components of the oil. they track a plume of spreading to the south and south west of the spill. i will note that in that report they document some 6%-7% of the toxins were included in that ume. -- that pl that suggests that we do not know very well what happened to the balance. in fact, the upper layers of the ocean, including the circus of the ocean, may have received --

including the surface of the ocean, may have received a bigger dose of oil than we are presently concerned about. as the oil degraded, emulsified and sank, it rained down particles of oil. we now have a wide spread amount of oil that is scattered in layers. that is what the findings of the document are. they took core samples and they found oil on the bottom everywhere. that suggests that either they are very unlucky or there is a lot of oil on a the bottom. the georgia study confirmed many of the points that have been made in this hearing. >> thank you. while this hearing was ongoing, the oceanographic institute released a study. it is a snapshot from the middle of june.

what they found was eight plume of oil from the well at least 20 per -- a plume of oil from the well least 22 miles long and 660 feet high at a depth of 23,000 feet -- the depth of 3,000 feet below the surface in the gulf. these scientists found that microbes are degrading the blimp relatively slowly -- the plume relatively slowly. that means the oil is persisting longer than expected. they do not know how toxic it is or is it poses a threat. unlike some other researchers, they did not find areas of severe oxygen depletion, that is, and dead zones.

did they explain this discrepancy because of their use of an older lab techniques rather then the use of a moderate center is that can give oxygen readers that are too low when the centers are coated with oil. i just -- when the san stars are coated with oil. i just wanted to put that -- when the sensors are coated with oil. i just wanted to put that in the record. how long have you bennett shrimping? >> 16 years. >> heavy seen anything unusual in terms of the water or the shrimp--- have you seen anything unusual in terms of the water or the shrimp? >> i have not. >> doctor, would you like to comment on that in terms of long-term impact?

>> we are concerned primarily with regard to the shrimp and the presence of the subsurface oil. as dr. cooper said, the oil is present in the open ground and there may be more exposure. marine fish do not process hydrocarbons as quickly as fin fish. >> dr. macdonald, would you like to comment? >> i think the survival of the seafood industry requires and the survival of seafood. i am sure, mr. cooper, that you have got up before and not caught as many fish as you wanted to. >> correct. >> so this one event does not tell us the whole story.

but all of the protection and the vigilance of the fda is not going to sustain the gulf seafood industry if it is not there. that is my concern. >> mr. cooper, are you going to go out shrimping again soon? >> yes. >> what is your plan right now? >> as soon as i get back,, i will be back in the water. >> are you convinced that there is no oil in the areas open to shrimping? >> as i said, i found oil outside of the 5 miles around. >> is it your opinion that there is no way for the fda to be sure that there is no oil in the water where shipping is taking place? >> i've found it'. one of the last days i worked, we found it. i had to bring it to their

attention. i went to a town hall meeting and i brought before them and invited them all to come see what i found, and they did come, the coast guard and bp, and i did show them. they say it is done recoverable oil. -- un-recoverable oil. >> some people say that those raising concerns about the quality of seafood simply want to continue to collect checks from bp. could you talk to us about the relationship between the program to pay the fishermen who need to be paid, and the incentive to get back up there as soon as you can, everything is ok?

>> i told bp from the beginning that they was going about it the wrong way. we asked them to help the fishermen and give them an incentive to go back fishing. if they would let the fishermen fish, even though they have to go further away, did different fishing grounds, pay for that. give them an incentive to go out. then the would've kept the market going, you know? but bp kept the approach that they would put all the shrimpers to work for them. in my opinion, bp never tried to pick up the oil. they never tried to pick up the oil. i have talked to countless boats, hundreds of boats that said they contacted oil, contacted bp, and bp told them not to try to pick it up but to go the other way. >> why do think that is the attitude? >> it was cheaper to sink it.

out of sight, out of mind, out of here. that is the approach that bp took. all of the seafood right now is probably being tested more than any other product in the world. i do not believe any seafood in the world -- we get seafood from foreign fund trees -- from foreign countries bedpan -- foreign countries that, personally, i would not eat it. it is being grown in a sewer. that is one thing i wanted to bring on up. our seafood is being tested problem more than any product in the world. the plea they're doing their job and doing it right. -- hopefully they are doing their job and doing it right. i would like to see somebody held accountable.

they ought to come out and give us a paper and say we guarantee this product is good, and it's something goes wrong, they will be held accountable. >> that is what is happening here today. we're sending a very strong signal to those who are responsible that they are representing to the american people that this is saved. >> i think if they would be held accountable people would have more trust in the government agencies. but there are certain government agencies responsible for this oil spill and nobody is held accountable. >> we are going along, beginning with the minerals management -- >> that is what i would start with. >> there are a lot of people there who are going to be made accountable. we are going to move through this entire process. we are not going away. we are going to make sure that all of the lessons that can be

extradited from what happened are learned and implemented in order to protect the public. mr. cooper in your testimony you indicated that the be required you to wear a hazmat suit when you went out into the waters. how long ago was that? >> that . do you think it you are being asked to work in an unsafe environment? >> this is unsafe. yes, they will make us where has met suits. how can you send out fisherman there? in some areas, yes.

they put him back in the water, they can go to work. have the area to work. we are opening and closing the seasons. we pretty much had to do what they had to do. >> they are is smaller than normal size this week. there are other changes, aren't there changes that color the smells, the spot? >> in this area, no, sir. >> would you like to inject your

thoughts at this point? >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are two small areas in south louisiana that have will and that is where mr. cooper actually goes. we have 7,500 miles of shoreline in louisiana. only about 400 miles of those our oil. seafood from throughout louisiana is safe. it is wholesome. there can be questions, >> you are saying that the seafood which is being sold as safe but there are many areas where it is caught and sold and this is not safe. >> is this, outside of

louisiana, this is safe? >> this is put into the commercial market. 87% is currently open to the harvest of seafood. that occurred last week and it is the result of the testing protocols. we know that we talked a lot about the protocols and the oil testing. looking at the risk assessment, i took a look at it and in terms of oysters, oysters are consumed at about 1/4 pound per capita consumption. in the risk assessment, we used a number between 9 and 10 times per capita consumption on an annual basis. we figure that exposure at five years, we have the per-capita consumption by 40 times and the

exposure in five years and we're looking at the risk of illness of one intend thousands which is potentially look at it as one in either hundred thousand or one in a million. that is being magnified significantly. we are meeting by 100 to or have thousandfold all of the criteria in the reopening protocols. >> i just want to clarify. you are not representing the areas that the federal waters are now closed and it is safe to eat the fish in those areas? >> i did not say that, sir. in the open waters where they are harvested and sold, i would feed it to my kids and wife and we do eat this often. >> in those other areas, where he would not feed the fish to your family, in the waters that

are now closed. >> and the waters that are now closed, we cannot. >> the bottom line is that as they do the reopening and go through the protocol, absolutely i would see that to my family. >> can you give us a comment? >> i have been eating them. >> i would definitely eat them. i don't think there's a difference which in what is open and was closed. >> can you comment here and divide the question here for us in terms of what you believe the safe and what is not safe and tell the american people should be doing this. >> i would certainly need to them as well i have the occasion sometimes.

my concern remains the product safety -- productivity, not the safety. a three and a 50 mile statistic is part in but it could have been worse. you have some on the bottom farther out. as you go to the east, you see a lot of oil, mississippi, alabama. when is the book of short and take samples, they are finding this very well, they are finding it in the marshes, won her 50 miles did get a lot of march. the edges of these, where the draft is, my concern is that this goes back 10% or 5%, that violates these channels. that means the flow of water is greater. that means that the rest of the wetlands are greater.

we have a tremendous amount of work to restore the gulf of mexico. we had a lot to do, now we have a lot more. my concern is the productivity and the ecosystem. i believe in protecting our safety but we have heard the comments on this question. >> i would like to emphasize that long-term monitoring is imperative. what we learn from the exxon valdez is that oil that gets into the coast is toxic for decades. any time it gets disturbed, it can get into the environment. the coastal fisheries, it is important that they continue to monitor for the exposure.

>> was anything that was of concern to you that you heard on the opening panel from the government officials? what do you think needs more attention? >> a few things stuck out. one was that they are only now developing tests to determine whether this person some bioaccumulation. that is something that we should have known since their common tools in oil response. another thing that you know we are concerned about is that the risk assessment used by the fda is not adequately conservative for a specific hon. populations. it was reassuring to hear that they were open to be considering that margin of safety.

i would say with regard to seafood safety, this is a primary concern. >> is there any concern that you had in the testimony that you would like us to continue? >> thank you, mr. chairman. in response to my colleague, i feel that the risk assessment and the protocols for reopening basically are much more conservative than there should be to any concern related to. i think that this has gone way beyond what would the conservatives and i described this a moment ago in my answer. >> even though you heard concerns about heavy metals, that is not a concern? >> having spent countless hours

talking to ph d's and doctors relating to this end all of these things through shellfish, i personally think that there is no concern relating to those although we should be concerned. >> there have never been any studies on the subject, you have no concern? >> no, i do not. >> do you have concerns? >> regarding the government report, testing for heavy metals and the other issues that are unresolved to if mine concern is 40 gulf of mexico. i have not yet heard from noaa. an enormous dose of oil was given.

mother nature is being made to clean up our big mass and i think that mother nature suffers for it. i think that we need a permanent fund for the restoration, the understanding, and the sustenance of the gulf of mexico system in perpetuity and i don't hear that. i would like to hear that. >> mr. blanchard, mr. cooper, everyone, once -- they want the gulf to rebound. your industry did not cause this mess. you're likely harm some -- livelihoods were harmed. what did each of u.s. the federal government to do to help establish the safety of call seafood and to help reassure

the consuming public about the safety of call seafood. you heard the question that i posed to to the government panel that appeared here earlier about the need for additional tests to help address some of the issues that have not definitively addressed the metabolism of the oil, the effect of the long-term impacts that this disaster could have on the quality and productivity of seafoods in the gulf. do you think that those should be priorities? what did you like the government to do? >> i did not like what i heard of of the government. i would be going to the worst place and checking that first. the government says, we just

checked the open places, why don't you check the close places? no one seems to be checking? we have been severely harmed by this? since this happened, i got my secretary to look at the bills we paid, we paid $480,000 in bills and have received $165,000 in payments from bp. i heard the president say that he would not let our cash flow be interrupted. why is no one holding the be accountable to come in and make it right? >> this committee would like to work with you, we want to make sure thatbp stands for bill pay.

>> as far as what is going on in the gulf, they're trying to take the money that we made working with bp offer far claims and that is not fair for the fishermen. we are cleaning their mess. now they will hold us. that is not fair for what we have just done. now this will go against all of the claims but they did not think about doing something like this. that is not called for we expect them to do their j