Senate Hearing, 111TH Congress - Harnessing Small Business Innovation: Navigating The Evaluation Process For Gulf Coast Oil Cleanup Proposals

S. HRG.
1111123
HARNESSING SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION:

NAVIGATING THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR
GULF COAST OIL CLEANUP PROPOSALS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND

ENTREPRENEURSHIP
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JUNE 17, 2010
Printed for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
(
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON
73969 PDF
2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 5011
Sfmt 5011
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chair

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking Member
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
CARL LEVIN, Michigan
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
EVAN BAYH, Indiana
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
KAY HAGAN, North Carolina
DONALD R. CRAVINS, JR., Democratic Staff Director
WALLACE K. HSUEH, Republican Staff Director
(II)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
C O N T E N T S
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., Chair, and a U.S. Senator from Louisiana ..................
Snowe, Hon. Olympia J., Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from Maine ....
Vitter, Hon. David, a U.S. Senator from Louisiana ..............................................
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, a U.S. Senator from New Hampshire ............................
1
6
8
8
WITNESSES
Rabago, Rear Admiral Ronald, Assistant Commandant For Acquisition &
Chief Acquisition Officer, Acquisition Directorate, U.S. Coast Guard ............
Anastas, Paul, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...............................................
Smith, Eric N., Associate Director, Tulane Energy Institute, Tulane University .........................................................................................................................
Koons, Dan, C.I.Agent Solutions, Accompanied By Dan Parker, Found and
Chief Executive Officer, C.I.Agent Solutions .....................................................
Baird, Heather E., Vice President, Corporate Communications, Microsorb Environmental Products, Inc. ..................................................................................
Mitchelmore, Carys L., Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science ......................................................................
Costner, Kevin, Founder, Costner Industries (CINC), and Co-Founder/Partner, Ocean Therapy Solutions, Westpac Resources ...........................................
ALPHABETICAL LISTING
AND
(III)
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00003
18
38
45
95
100
122
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Anastas, Paul, Ph.D.

Testimony ..........................................................................................................
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Responses to post-hearing questions from Members .....................................
Baird, Heather E.
Testimony ..........................................................................................................
Response to post-hearing questions from Members .......................................
Costner, Kevin
Testimony ..........................................................................................................
de Crecy, Eudes
Diamond, Charles M.
Green Blue Environmental
Fact sheets ........................................................................................................
Remediation Strategy, Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill ...................................
Koons, Dan
Testimony ..........................................................................................................
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L.
Opening statement ...........................................................................................
Two-page document ..........................................................................................
Mitchell, Chip
Letter .................................................................................................................
VerDate Nov 24 2008
11
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
18
20
167
95
98
173
122
125
192
201
210
229
234
45
48
180
1
4
218
IV
Page
Mitchelmore, Carys L.
Testimony ..........................................................................................................
Pryor Hon. Mark L.
Rabago, Rear Admiral Ronald
Testimony ..........................................................................................................
Smith, Eric N.
Testimony ..........................................................................................................
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne
Snowe, Hon. Olympia J.
EPA document ..................................................................................................
Vitter, Hon. David
Wicker, Hon. Roger
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
100
102
197
11
14
146
38
40
8
10
6
142
8
198
HARNESSING SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION:

NAVIGATING THE EVALUATION PROCESS
FOR GULF COAST OIL CLEANUP PROPOSALS
THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010
UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in Room
SDG50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu
(chair of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Landrieu, Levin, Pryor, Cardin, Shaheen,
Hagan, Snowe, and Vitter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU,
CHAIR, AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Chair LANDRIEU. I would like to call the hearing to order this

morning, and I want to thank the members who are here and those
that have indicated that they will be coming. This is of great interest to our Committee.
I want to begin by saying that the hearing is entitled Harnessing Small Business Innovation: Navigating the Evaluation
Process for the Gulf Coast Oil Cleanup Proposals. As the title indicates, we are here today to examine the process for evaluating
cleanup proposals from the devastating national disaster which
began on April 20th, which continues, unfortunately, until this day,
and which will go on, even more unfortunately, for many months,
if not years ahead in the Gulf of Mexico.
There are a number of very important issues the Deepwater Horizon disaster has triggered at this hearing. This is the second
hearing this Committee has conducted on this topic, and we will be
hosting and sponsoring more in the days, weeks and months ahead.
On May 27th, this Committee held a hearing to investigate the
claims process. How is that working or not working for small businesses directly and indirectly affected by this disaster? To those
small businesses, I will say, as I have been saying for weeks here
in Washington and at home along the Gulf, if your business made
$50,000 last year, or you or your business, and you did not make
any money this year, BP is going to write you a check for $50,000.
If you made $1 million last year in your business and you cannot
make money this year or next year, BP is going to write you a $2
(1)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
2
million check. This Committee is going to do its part to make sure
that that claims process works.
Now we are turning our attention to another important issue affecting small business. As I have said before, in Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, our business owners were up to their chins in
water. Now because of this disaster, these same business owners
find themselves up to their knees in oil. We want to find out how
small businesses right there on the Gulf Coast and around the nation, with technology and innovation that can help clean up this oil,
keep it off of our beaches and out of our marshes. How can we get
these ideas, these new technologies and these new innovations deployed to the Gulf of Mexico?
Todays hearing will cover the Federal evaluation process for
technologies which can assist in cleaning up the oil. It is my hope
that together we can find ways to improve the overall process and
better understand how many businesses that have reached out to
help the Gulf Coast region can play a role in the cleanup as we
move forward.
To accomplish that end, we have two panels before us. I will introduce them in a minute. Our first panel includes Federal officials
who are playing a key role in reviewing and awarding contracts to
businesses with cleanup proposals: Rear Admiral Ronald Rabago
with the United States Coast Guard and Dr. Paul Anastas with the
Environmental Protection Agency. We hope you will be able to let
small businesses here in the audience and listening to these proceedings through radio, television and the Internet understand a
little bit better how they might make their proposals known to you.
Since we know there is always room for improvement, we hope you
will be able to tell us what has been working, what is not working,
and what we can do together to streamline this process.
For our second panel, I would like to welcome some of our own
small business owners and university officials that are on the front
line. Some of them have had some limited success in contacting BP
and the Coast Guard. Still others are trying to navigate what they
think is a too confusing process, and we want to hear from them.
As Chairman of this Committee, with the help of my Ranking
Memberand able help, I might say, we have tried to make this
a place where the voices of small business can be heard across
sometimes the roar of partisanship and sometimes the roar of big
business. We want small business to have a voice here in Washington, and that is what this hearing is about.
Our goal is not to spotlight one technology over another or to pretend that there is a silver bullet that will immediately reverse
what is happening. The most recent data from the Flow Rate Technical Group estimates as much as 60,000 barrels of oilthat is 2.5
million gallonsis gushing from this well every day. Our goal is to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency in contracting with the
Government to get this oil cleaned up and out of the water, the
ocean, and the marshes as soon as possible. We are not here to
highlight any single business but, rather, to learn from the businesses that have been able to succeed in their efforts or not succeed
to see what we can do to make it better.
From the restaurants, distributors, and suppliers in every corner
of the world that rely on the seafood that comes from the Gulf, this
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
3
is very important. As such, every idea, every business, large or
small, must have the opportunity to provide input on how to clean
up the oil, and I should say credible businesses and credible technologies. We are trying to preserve the way of life for more than
27,000 direct jobs in the Louisiana seafood industry alone that depend on industries along the Gulf Coast.
This is not the first time that you are hearing from the Small
Business Committee. As I said, we have had hearings in the past,
and we intend to do so in the future.
In the spirit of transparency, as I conclude this brief opening
statement, I have asked my staff to put togetherand I hope they
will put it up for reviewa two-page document that we suggest
could be helpful to small businesses who want to submit a product
or an idea for the Unified Command or BP. Instructions to fill out
the form as well as the website to submit this information have
been put into a single place. These forms will be available following
the hearing today on our website.
[The document follows:]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
Insert offset folio 1 here 73969.001
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
6
Lastly, I would like everybody to check the Unified Command
website regularly for the most up-to-date information. I thank the
members of this Committee who have contributed to this hearing
for their ideas about this document that is being circulated as I
speak, and we hope this hearing will give us some ideas about how
to move forward.
I am going to turn it over to Senator Snowe for an opening statement. Senator Snowe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, RANKING
MEMBER, AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Chair Landrieu, for holding what is

a very critical hearing today on what is undoubtedly the worst environmental disaster in the history of this nation. Words cannot express how devastating this calamity is to the Gulf Coast, especially
the families of the 11 workers who lost their lives when the rig exploded on April 20th.
As Ranking Member of both this Committee and the Commerce
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
I believe that indisputably it is the size of the spill that must dictate our response to this disaster and how we mitigate its horrific
effects.
With 2.5 million gallons of oil hemorrhaging into the Gulf every
day, equivalent to an Exxon Valdez size spill every 4 to 5 days and
oil now reaching the coastlines of Alabama and Florida, it is clear
that the Federal Government is failing to deploy and bring to bear
the equipment and technology this disaster demands.
Indeed, in a letter to the President 2 weeks ago, I urged that he
seize the reins of crisis response from BP and establish a single
point of Federal accountability for approving new and innovative
technologies and methodologies to protect the oceans, bays, beaches, and wetlands that sustain the Gulf Coast economy and nurture
an entire way of life now in jeopardy of being lost, because the Federal Government is the only entity, in stark contrast to BP, whose
sole responsibility is to the public interest of the American people.
Yet, regrettably, we have witnessed little evidence that the tempo
of the response has been meaningfully accelerated, and serious
questions remain about the clarity and the effectiveness of the
chain of command. Indeed, as the small businesses here today will
testify, they often continue to find themselves ensnared in the bureaucratic quagmire as a result of a process with no unified approach for evaluating and improving their entrepreneurial solutions to this unparalleled catastrophe.
Rather inexplicably, a dual-track system remains in place with
BP vetting some ideas while the Federal Government examines
others, and that is a recipe for inefficiency and inconsistency with
the results that some new and unverified ideas are expedited for
implementation while other proven technologies may be overlooked,
delayed, or erroneously dismissed.
So on our first panel, I expect Coast Guard Rear Admiral Ronald
Rabago and Dr. Paul Anastas of the Environmental Protection
Agency to provide details of the Interagency Alternative Technology Assessment Program, and in particular why it was not fully
operational until June 4th. Six weeks after the initial explosion oc-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
7
curred, why is it that of the 1,600 to 1,700 concepts submitted, I
understand not one idea has yet to be accepted and why the Federal program continues to operate parallel with another system BP
has already established to review new technologies which itself has
resulted in the implementation of just 10 to 15 new devices or response strategies out of the more than 90,000 ideas received?
Which leads us to our second panel, where we will have testimony from some of the creators of these ideas, including Dan
Parker of C.I.Agent Solutions, Heather Baird of MicroSorb Environmental Products, and Kevin Costner of Ocean Therapy Solutions. All three will discuss how businesses with the alternative
technologies are confronted with needless roadblocks resulting from
a dysfunctional process. We will also hear from two academics, Professor Eric Smith of Tulane University and Dr. Carys Mitchelmore
of the University of Maryland, who have extensive experience in oil
spills and specific technologies used to combat them. We appreciate
all of you taking the time to appear before our Committee today.
We have an obligation to determine why proven technologies, like
those produced by Ms. Bairds company, which BP itself has used
in the past, have been languishing in warehouses for nearly 2
months since the spill began, despite their potential contributions
to the response effort. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Coast Guard took just 10 days to approve the application of Corexit, despite the fact that it is a dispersant chemical
of dubious toxicity, which has never been used before in such quantities, and it has never been employed beneath the ocean surface,
never mind at a depth of nearly a mile. Yet despite the reality that
the environmental ramifications of this strategy had never been
studied, BP was permitted to apply in some cases more than 15,000
gallons per day. This double standard of approval is made all the
more disconcerting by the revelation in the Houston Chronicle that
this dispersant is produced by a company with corporate ties to BP.
So exactly how is it that BP successfully convinced EPA to approve
this toxic solution, but small businesses with non-toxic containment
and remediation solutions are subjected to months of meticulous review?
So today it is crucial that we ascertain just exactly why we have
two parallel approval processes, one for BP and one for the Federal
Government, and what possible advantage could that provide.
Moreover, precisely what testing did the EPA and the Coast Guard
conduct prior to allowing the subsea application of dispersants in
the first place? And how is it that American small businesses are
now being subjected to a process that appears to lack any semblance of standardization or consistency that will allow us to effectively and efficiently protect our invaluable natural resources?
It is, frankly, inconceivable that 20 years have elapsed since the
Exxon Valdez disaster with no detectable enhancement of our ability to attack a spill of any magnitude. It would now be unconscionable to continue to shackle the kind of innovation that could allow
us to rise to the Herculean challenge before us.
It is, therefore, paramount that the Federal Government finally
begin to move with due urgency that has been conspicuously lacking because ultimately we have an obligation to leave no stone
unturned in instituting a thoroughly timely and rational process to
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
8
fast-track the review of all technologies and methodologies that
have the potential to contain and to stem the flow of oil and to
mitigate the damage already inflicted.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you. I am going to ask Senator Vitter
and Senator Shaheen for a very brief opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing. This is a very important topic. From the very beginning, I, like
you and others, underscored the need to reach out to and involve
small business, and there is a need still to do that in at least two
different ways: first of all, to harness technological solutions and
innovative ideas out there that are not being implemented now;
and, secondly, to involve local Louisiana small business in the
cleanup effort as a way of mitigating the economic hit they are
clearly taking. I talked to BP about this early on, and I talked to
the Federal agencies and the Coast Guard about this early on.
Unfortunately, I think that has largely fallen on deaf ears. I can
tell you from personal experience, when we direct folks to the supposedly high-level contacts we were given or even when we used
those supposedly high-level contacts, including me personally sending something from my BlackBerrywhich I have not done often
but on a few select occasionsit seems to go into a black hole. We
get little more usually than an automated response and no significant follow-up. So that is really disappointing.
In closing, let me say, Madam Chair, I am also concerned, as I
know you are, by the enormous hit small business is facing by the
drilling moratorium. That, if it holds, will cost us more jobs than
the oil spill itself. Even in shallow water, where the Administration
is saying there is no moratorium, I can tell you from talking to
small business affected, there is a de facto moratorium right now
because the Administration is not prepared to take new permit applications under their new rules yet. Until they clarify that and
until they do, there is a de facto moratorium in shallow water
which is costing additional jobs.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, I cannot
stay, but I will follow up with these witnesses and these issues.
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
Senator Shaheen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding

this hearing this morning. I look forward to hearing from our panelists about how we can make sure that we do everything possible
to bring the best technologies and innovations that are happening
across this country to bear on this horrible disaster. I have heard
from small businesses and scientists in New Hampshire who have
ideas about what we can do to clean up the spill. So we want to
make sure that we hear from you all about how we can be more
effective, and I will submit the remainder of my statement for the
record. Thank you.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
9
[The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen follows:]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
10
11
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator.
Let me begin with our first panel. We have Rear Admiral Ronald
Rabago, who currently serves as Assistant Commandant for Acquisition and Chief Acquisition Officer for the U.S. Coast Guard. Before he served in that position, he was a graduate of the academy.
He has also held, obviously, a variety of different positions with the
Coast Guard, and we are interested to hear your testimony this
morning.
Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator for EPA, prior to your
nomination, you were the Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering and the Teresa and John Heinz Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for Yale University. You have
an extraordinary background in that area, and we are happy to
have you today.
Let us begin with you, Admiral.
BAGO, ASSISTANT
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL RONALD RA
COMMANDANT FOR ACQUISITION & CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICER, ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE, U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral RA BAGO. Good morning, Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Rear Admiral Ron
Rabago, the Coast Guards Assistant Commandant for Acquisition,
which includes our research and development program. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
process by which the public, including small businesses, can propose their ideas for oil spill cleanup on the Gulf Coast.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA 90, gives the Coast Guard
broad responsibilities and authorities for oil spill prevention and
response on U.S. navigable waters. This includes conducting research, in coordination with other agencies, on innovative oil spillrelated technology. Part of my duties are to oversee the Coast
Guards sole Research and Development Center in New London,
Connecticut, which through OPA 90 receives annual funding for oil
spill research. In past years, our research in partnership with other
agencies and entities has focused in four areas: prevention, spill response planning, spill response planning, spill detection, and oil
containment and recovery.
This complex oil spill in the Gulf demands a whole of Government response. We are currently receiving thousands of ideas and
proposals from the public, many of them being submitted by small
businesses who want to help. In order to best evaluate and respond
to these innovative offers of technology assistance, the Coast
Guard, at the request of the Federal on-scene coordinator and the
National Incident Commander, established the Interagency Alternative Technology Assessment Program, or IATAP, on May 18th.
Because of the scope and magnitude of the response required, we
needed to speed up the pace at which potentially good ideas were
being evaluated. We also wanted to make sure that all ideas were
looked at in a fair and consistent way. Almost immediately, the
IATAP began to receive proposals of all sorts, and we began to
standardize and simplify the process.
On the 4th of June, IATAP issued a Broad Agency Announcement, or BAA, on the Federal Business Opportunities website calling for submission of technical white papers describing proposed
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
12
technology solutions. The BAA process provides a structured way
to receive submissions and seeks proposals in five categories: oil
sensing; wellhead control and submerged response; traditional oil
spill response technologies; alternative oil spill response technologies; and oil spill damage assessment and restoration.
The BAA process is open to all sources, and the Coast Guard welcomes and recognizes the value of novel, highly innovative solutions from small businesses, individuals, and other non-traditional
sources, such as nonprofits and academic institutions. Our R&D
center is also processing submissions received via phone and e-mail
prior to the stand-up of the BAA process.
With this structured process, once an idea is received, the offeror
is sent an immediate receipt of acknowledgment and a tracking
number. Our R&D center performs initial triage to determine what
category the idea falls into. These categories are: not applicable for
this particular event; meriting further evaluation to determine its
viability; or showing immediate and exceptional promise.
If an idea has obvious and potentially immediate benefit, it is
forwarded, along with the evaluation teams recommendation, to
the Federal on-scene coordinator who, based on operational need,
will determine whether to procure and use the technology. Ideas
that appear to have benefit but cannot be verified through an initial review process must undergo more detailed evaluation, which
can be led by any one of our Government partners under the
IATAP as appropriate for the proposed technology. Our partners include the EPA, NOAA, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of
Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Minerals Management Service. For example, a white paper on new dispersant technology would be best evaluated by experts at EPA.
It is important to note that the BAA is not a competition. Each
submission is evaluated on its own scientific and technical merits,
potential efficacy, and deployability. The timelines associated with
the more detailed second-level evaluation will depend on the complexity of the idea, but the IATAP is working to process all ideas
as rapidly as possible.
As of late yesterday, we had received nearly 1,300 submissions
from the BAA process. Additionally, we received 620 submissions
prior to the issuance of the BAA. Already, 628 submissions from
before and after the BAA have gone through screening and are
under evaluation; 114 are being screened as I speak. The remainder has just entered the screening process. One proposal for skimmer technology has already been forwarded to the Federal on-scene
coordinator for potential use, and five additional potential solutions
will be forwarded shortly.
This oil spill requires the largest environmental disaster response in our history, and we need good ideas from all sources to
fight the battle. The Coast Guard understands the value of the Nations small businesses. Notably, in fiscal year 2009, we awarded 46
percent, or $1.1 billion, of our total contracting dollars to small
businesses. We know that small businesses are in many ways the
engines of innovation. The BAA methodology we are using is a well
defined, consistent, fair, and Government-managed process to solicit, screen, and evaluate all spill technologies. All proposals are
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
13
thoroughly but expeditiously evaluated to ensure that the technology can contribute to the effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
answering any questions and ask that my full written statement be
submitted for the record.
Chair LANDRIEU. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Rabago follows:]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
14
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
15
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
16
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
17
18
Chair LANDRIEU. Doctor.
STATEMENT OF PAUL ANASTAS, PH.D., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dr. ANASTAS. Good morning, Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Snowe. Thank you for the opportunity this morning to appear
before you. I am Paul Anastas, the Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. I appreciate this opportunity to testify about
EPAs role in encouraging and engaging small business innovation
for the Gulf Coast oil spill response.
As all of you know very well, the ongoing release of oil in the
Gulf of Mexico is a continuing tragedy. The loss of human lives and
livelihoods and the unprecedented damage to the Gulf region have
made this environmental disaster one of the gravest in U.S. history. I am deeply humbled by these events and, like you, am committed to helping and addressing the increasing number of challenges that are left in the wake of these events.
The scope of EPAs response to the BP oil spill is wide. In coordination with Federal, State, and local partners, EPA has mobilized
its breadth of resources and expertise in response to the emergency. We have engaged the Emergency Operations Center in EPA
headquarters and continue to provide support for a wide range of
issues, including air and water monitoring, data interpretation, and
much more. But we are here today to focus specifically on efforts
to engage the small business community in developing innovative
technologies and ideas that may be applied to this disaster.
From the earliest days of this event, EPA recognized that good
ideas are not exclusively tied to Federal agencies or large corporations; that the public, including the small business community, is
an invaluable resource for creativity and innovations that must be
tapped.
Within days of the oil rig collapse, EPA developed and deployed
a website portal, epa.gov/bpspill/techsolution, for the submission
and rapid review of innovative and environmentally safe technological solutions that could be applied to the spill. Ideas poured in
by the hundreds. Today we have received over 2,100 submissions
spanning a range of categories from surface water containment to
cleanup to air monitoring and detection to landfall cleanup and
wildlife protection.
The technological solution site is an important complement to the
Administrations
oil
spill
response
web
page,
DeepwaterHorizonsreponse.com, and that website has already received tens of thousands of suggestions across the spectrum of topics.
EPAs review process begins with putting submissions into technology categories. Then EPA technical experts carefully evaluate
each submission and transmit them to relevant partners for further
evaluation, testing, and potential deployment. Solutions relevant to
stanching the flow of oil at the wellhead, for example, are forwarded to the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command and BP.
Those relevant to surface cleanup are certainly sent to the Coast
Guard, and those regarding dispersants are processed by our Na-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
19
tional Contingency Plan team. Our process is similar to that followed by the other Federal agencies.
In the interest of more efficient use of Federal resources, the U.S.
Coast Guard Research and Development Center, as you just heard,
has established the IATAP process which was stood up on June
4th. EPA is now working closely collaborating with the IATAP
partner agencies to channel ideas through a single streamlined
process that my colleague, Admiral Rabago, has elaborated on further.
It is important to recognize that our 2,100 submissions to date
represent a broad cross section of the American public. We have reviewed ideas from self-identified entrepreneurs, homemakers, scientists, engineers, small and large businesses, and studentsall of
whom share one common element: they have been compelled to action on a deeply human level. So in addition to the importance of
our submission website as a mechanism for sharing technological
solutions, I want to emphasize that it also serves as a venue for
people to engage, contribute, and be heard. The passion that is
woven in throughout the submissions should not be discounted.
Whether it is the potato farmer who suggested harvesting equipment to clean up tar balls on the beach or the automobile mechanic
who proposed using a green cleaning solution to wash oil from
wildlife, each submitter has conveyed a profound desire to use their
skills and to save the national treasure that is the Gulf Coast. Our
website and now the IATAP mechanism gives these citizens a voice
and an opportunity to respond to the tragedy that has affected us
all.
At this time I welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Anastas follows:]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
20
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
21
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
22
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
23
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
24
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
25
26
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, and we have many questions, let
me assure you. We will go through a first round of questioning. I
would like to acknowledge Senator Hagan who has joined us, and
we really appreciate her interest and support.
Let me begin with you, Admiral, because there seems to be some
confusion about the numbers of submittals, and I want to ask if
you could verify for the record today. You mentioned in your testimony that the Government has received 1,300 submissions; 70
have completed the initial screening process. To your knowledge,
are those numbers accurate? And how many have actually been deployed, any of the new technologies deployed to date?
Admiral RA BAGO. Yes, maam. We have received nearly 1,300
through the BAA process, which was initiated on June 4th. But
prior to that, we received over 600 that came in via e-mail and by
telephone, and those are also being processed.
Chair LANDRIEU. So you have a total of 1,900.
Admiral RA BAGO. Approximately 1,900, yes, maam. And of those,
we have already processed, initial screeningover 600 of those
have been looked at, 114 are currently being screened, and those
that have already been screened into the evaluation process are
being looked at either by the Coast Guard or our interagency partners.
Chair LANDRIEU. Okay, because it is very important. Your testimony indicated some different numbers, and it is very important
to get these numbers, you know, a snapshot for today, for this
hearing. Can you confirm how many proposals BP has received?
We understand it is 35,000. Is that your understanding?
Admiral RA BAGO. I looked at their website myself yesterday. I
saw that they had over 94,000 items in their website, but they are
not all proposals. They are comments, they are a variety of things,
which makes it part of the difficulty for them to have gone through
and looked at it.
There are items in there that are submitted. They look like they
are from businesses. I was able to only look through a few of them.
It is a difficult process to get into the website, but we do have full
access, and I have asked my team to go through what they see
there and make sure that the submissions that we have within our
BAA process match or that those people who have submitted things
prior, we get them into our process.
Chair LANDRIEU. Now, you just testifiedI thought I heard you
say that you have full access to the BP submissions.
Admiral RA BAGO. Correct. We can see their website, and I did
look at it myself yesterday.
Chair LANDRIEU. And you can get detailed information from BP
whenever you want it about the status of their review process?
Admiral RA BAGO. There are some status reports on it, but there
is just a lot of information. They are not necessarily all submittals.
Some are just ideas, some are just comments. It is a lot of information, and we are going to start to go look through it and see which
ones are actually proposals that could be acted upon.
Chair LANDRIEU. Okay. Of all these thousands of proposals that
have been submitted to either the Government or to BP, have any
today been deployed?
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
27
Admiral RA BAGO. We have not from the BAA process actually deployed, although I have submitted an idea to the Federal on-scene
coordinator for their consideration. Their operational commander
has to make the decision of how to use the technology in the fight,
specifically geographically where, and then how to employ it with
the forces that they have under their control.
Chair LANDRIEU. So you are testifying that you have submitted
one proposal to basically the front line to date.
Admiral RA BAGO. Correct.
Chair LANDRIEU. And that you are making your best efforts to
try to speed up that process.
Admiral RA BAGO. Yes, maam. We want to speed it up.
We want to get those ideas there.
Chair LANDRIEU. When companies submit these ideas, you said
that they have six different areas that they are evaluated by. There
are three different agencies. EPA does dispersants, Incident Commander does wellhead capping, and the Coast Guard does the
cleanup piece. Are businesses told within a reasonable amount of
time, a few days, what category they are being evaluated in? Explain a little bit about that process for those that would be interested.
Admiral RA BAGO. As soon as they submit it, it is followed up.
They are given a tracking number and an acknowledgment that
their idea has been received. The idea comes in the form of a filledout form along with an attached three-page white paper that describes their proposal.
That product then is evaluated by our Research and Development Center. It is screened. It is an initial screening to categorize
it, to put it in one of the categories, and then to decide who best
to evaluate it. In some cases it is the Coast Guard. In some cases
it is EPA. In other cases it may be NOAA that is evaluating it. And
that is done through the interagency process, the IATAP process,
and they are tracked. There are a number of people working not
only within the Coast Guard but in the rest of the interagency to
process these ideas, evaluate them, and determine whether they
can be used in the particulardown in the Gulf. And those ideas
that have merit will be given to the Federal on-scene coordinator.
Chair LANDRIEU. Do you know how many responses the Coast
Guard can handle in a given day, either in-house with your reviewers or contractors that you have employed?
Admiral RA BAGO. I do not have a specific number, but it is not
just what the Coast Guard can handle, because half of my Research and Development Center is currently working on this particular issue and processing the ideas. But it is not just the Research and Development Center because they get to reach back
into academia, into federally funded research and development centers, and a variety of other sources, including our own Department
of Science and Technology. There are a number of sources they can
reach into to ask for help for evaluation. Then, of course, there is
the interagency so that if an idea can be evaluated by multiple
agencies, we will do that as well. The whole goal is to quickly get
a response back to the offeror that we have received their idea,
next to tell them that their idea is under consideration. We may
have interactions with them because oftentimes they may not have
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
28
enough information and we will have questions. We have begun
that process as part of the evaluation, and then we will act on it
once the technology has been evaluated and it looks to be useful
in the Gulf. The goal is to get the technology into the Gulf.
Chair LANDRIEU. Okay. You also may want to, just as a suggestion, maybe give a special express line to proposals that come in
from elected officials that are on the front line down in the Gulf,
whether it is parish presidents or the Governors along the Gulf
Coast. You know, they are there every day. They are hearing, they
are listeningnot that those, you know, should be expedited without the proper review, but you may want to just consider opening
up an avenue for some of these elected officials who are down there
and have been every day for the 58 days.
Does the Coast Guard have the ability to issue a contract immediately if a silver bullet white paper comes across your desk? I
mean, if one can be identified, do you have a process in place to
expedite it given the urgency of the situation?
Admiral RA BAGO. Yes, we do. We have the ability to use funds
to do some research at the level of the evaluation process, and then
the Federal on-scene commander has access to funds, and obviously
the responsible party has funds that can be applied to acquiring
the technology and deploying it.
Chair LANDRIEU. All right. One question for you, Doctor, and
then I will turn it over to Senator Snowe. It is my understanding
that for certain types of technology such as dispersants, the EPAs
approval is almost essential for their deployment. There has been
a lot of controversy about these dispersants. So would you give just
a minute to review your testimony about how quickly you all can
decide whether these are safe or not? Are you, under current EPA
rules, allowed to test these dispersants in the open ocean? I understand that that is not even possible now because you cannotand
if I am wrong, please correct meput oil into the ocean for the
testing, you have to do that in a laboratory setting, which may not
reflect the magnitude of what we are dealing with. Could you comment on that, please?
Dr. ANASTAS. Yes. The current mechanism to get dispersants approved is outlined under subpart (j) of the statute, which requires
a certain number of tests be conducted. One is for efficacy, to make
sure that the dispersant functions. The other is to have toxicity
testing for aquatic toxicitythis is specifically on mysid shrimp
and silverside fishto assure acute toxicity levels are appropriate.
That is required to be submitted to the Agency before approval and
inclusion on the National Contingency Plan list of dispersants.
Further testing to be conducted by the Agency, you are absolutely right, Senator, that currently the testing for dispersants is
not done in the open ocean. It is done in a laboratory setting.
Chair LANDRIEU. Well, I think it is important for this record to
reflect that Canada and Norway conduct controlled oil spills to test
different cleanup technologies. In the past, MMS has participated
in one of the Norwegian tests. The United States, though, on the
other hand, under current law does not conduct controlled spills,
and it is not legal at the current time. So I think we have got to
really reevaluate some of these processes if we are going to try to
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
29
lead the world in deepwater ocean technology. But we will continue
that line of questioning. Let me turn it over to Senator Snowe.
Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Chair Landrieu. Just to follow up on
that question, Dr. Anastas, exactly what did EPA tell BP with the
use of these dispersants, especially the subsea applications?
Dr. ANASTAS. The subsea application of the dispersants was
something that was reviewed and approved by the EPA in a very
limited capacity. So it did give approval for small amounts to proceed. Part of the reason for that is, one, in the initial testing, the
several initial tests, it had shown to be effective in dispersing the
oil at the subsea. And, secondly, it is effective at a far lower level,
far lower quantity than surface application. And so the Agency did
give approval for initial use of subsea application of the
dispersants.
Senator SNOWE. And what about surface dispersants. What did
EPA tell BP?
Dr. ANASTAS. The Agency is not required to give approval for
that because the current blends allow for application of approved
dispersants in this situation on the surface.
Senator SNOWE. So EPA did not send a letter to BP to stop using
surface dispersants?
Dr. ANASTAS. Subsequent to the initial application on the surface, the EPA did seek to minimize the use of dispersants, minimize the quantity of dispersants being applied on the surface and
sub-surface.
Senator SNOWE. As you know, there is considerable concern
among local officials in terms of using these dispersants. Are you
aware of that?
Dr. ANASTAS. I am aware that there is concern that many have
expressed about the quantity of dispersants used, which is why the
Administrator made it clear that she wants to minimize the use of
dispersants to the most effective level.
Senator SNOWE. If we have not tested them, why would we be
using them in the subsea below the surface, and at these depths
and in these quantities? Why would we be doing that?
Dr. ANASTAS. The EPA has received testing data on all substances on the National Contingency Plan approved list. We do
have testing data both on the efficacy and on the toxicity of all
dispersants, including the dispersants that we
Senator SNOWE. In terms of these quantities, 15,000 gallons a
day?
Dr. ANASTAS. This is absolutely unprecedented in terms of the
quantity of oil being released into the Gulf and in terms of the
quantity that is being released
Senator SNOWE. I know. I am speaking of the 15,000 gallons,
though. We have never approved that.
Dr. ANASTAS. These dispersants have never been used at the
subsea.
Senator SNOWE. But there has been no testing at the subsea applications. Is that correct? I would just like to know.
Dr. ANASTAS. Correct. The only testing that was done is in preparation forin this event.
Senator SNOWE. Well, as I mentioned earlier, there is considerable concern about the use of these dispersants and with local offi-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
30
cials saying, Why dont we stop spraying dispersants? It has literally sunk to the bottom, coating the bay. I want somebody to tell
me why these dispersants are not doing what they said they are
going to do, and I want somebody to tell me why we do not stop
spraying dispersants? These local officials obviously are very concerned.
Dr. ANASTAS. I guess I would like to address that. I think that
anytime we are putting formulations and substances into the
ocean, we have to do that very thoughtfully. There are toxic chemicals that are going into the environment, and they are constituents
of the oil. We are looking at benzene, toluene, xylene, ethyl benzene
that are going in in tremendous quantities. The dispersants that
are being used are to make those constituents and the hydrocarbons more digestible to the microbes and to make them be able
to degrade far faster. And all of the data suggests that the oil will
degrade far faster with the application of these dispersants.
So while I think we have to do it with utmost concern and constant monitoring and sampling, I do think that that was the underlying reason.
Senator SNOWE. In the process, Admiral Rabago, and as well for
you, Dr. Anastas, I am still not understanding why we have two
parallel procedures between the Federal Government and BP.
There is an imperative here that it is in the national public interest given the catastrophe at hand. So wouldnt it be crucial for the
Government to amass the resources to deploy all of the equipment
and the personnel necessary to contain the spread of this oil and
to mitigate and remediate this spill? My concern is it seems to be
a very bureaucratic process right now. Not to say to expedite and
to make hasty decisions but, rather, I am not clear what good ideas
that are going to BP come to your attention. And why is it that BP
would be dictating ultimately what would be a good idea. Their interests are not necessarily in our public interest. Obviously, we
have a concern about making sure that we can do everything we
can to develop an approach that is going to move very quickly to
deploy the resources and to contain the spread and dispersal of this
oil so it does not contaminate the marshes and the wetlands and
reach into the shores in Alabama now and potentially Florida.
So this is the question as to why we developed two procedures,
because I do not understand how these decisions intersect. Why
arent you the one in charge, why dont we have one individual in
charge to oversee all of the ideas that are submitted to BP as well
as to the Government so we have a uniform, synchronized process
that is moving in tandem so that we, the United States Government on behalf of the American people, make the decisions, dictate
the direction, make the approval of technologies and remediation
efforts that are solely in our public interest?
Admiral RA BAGO. That is our goal, maam, to do exactly that. We
want one process, and that is why we built the system that we
have with the Broad Agency Announcement to be able to pull those
in. We also have to look back at what occurred previous to that,
which is what I am doing, taking a look at the ideas that were submitted from all places and make sure that they get put in and that
we get the right kind of technical information to be able to evaluate
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
31
them, and if they have merit, get them into the fight as quickly as
possible.
Senator SNOWE. Well, let me understand this. If there is an idea
that has been submitted to BP and it is not submitted to the Government, to you, and they reject that idea for whatever reasons, it
may well be a good idea. Maybe it is too costly. Maybe they have
not given it the attention it deserves. How would that come to your
attention?
Admiral RA BAGO. We are in the process of taking a look at all
the information that was submitted to BP and make sure that
those ideas that have been submitted, that are proposals for solutions for the situation in the Gulf are processed and we talk to
those individuals and get them to submit the information required
for us to conduct a thorough evaluation of them.
Senator SNOWE. So all the ideas submitted to BP are also reviewed, all of the ones that are submitted to BP are reviewed by
you?
Admiral RA BAGO. Not yet. We just have gotten full access to their
database. We have begun to look at the information that is in
there. Not all of the information, those 94,000 items, are proposals.
We have to kind of go through that information, find the things
that are proposals, and begin to do things with that. We have
begun that process.
Senator SNOWE. How many people are assigned to you?
Admiral RA BAGO. In dealing with this particular issue, in terms
of my Research and Development Center, I have 86 people in New
London, Connecticut; another 15 in Washington, D.C., that are
doing that. And half of those people right now are involved directly
in the review of these ideas. But, again, they are not justthey are
not the only ones doing that. They are reaching back into academia, federally funded research and development centers, and a
variety of other sources, including working with our interagency
partners, to get these ideas processed as quickly as possible.
Senator SNOWE. It hardly sounds a sufficient amount of personnel for the task at hand.
Admiral RA BAGO. That is why we want to reach back in and access the whole of academia and the other research and development centers and a variety of other sources. There are a lot of people that we are going to bring
Senator SNOWE. Well, all I can say is there is a time factor involved here.
Admiral RA BAGO. Yes, maam.
Senator SNOWE. I mean, that is the point. And I think that is the
frustration that people are facing and seeing and witnessing and
what is happening with the dispersal of the oil. We should have
pre-positionedas the Coast Guard does remarkably and did in
Hurricane Katrina, as many assets as possible for the worst-case
scenario. And once it was underway, all of the assets and all of the
boomers and skimmers and other equipment and the personnel
should have been deployed to the coastlines all through the Gulf
to make sure that we could do everything to contain the spread of
oil before it reached the shores.
Admiral RA BAGO. Yes, maam.
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator Snowe.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
32
Senator Shaheen.
Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Last week, Secretary Chu announced that data about the oil spill
is available now online through the Department of Energys
website, and it includes schematics, pressure tests, diagnostic results, that sort of thing. And this is obviously critical information
for anybody who is working on innovative technologies that might
help address the spill.
I continue to hear, however, from independent scientists, from
small businesses, from engineers about the lack of information and
transparency about what is happening in the Gulf.
Admiral, you have mentioned your website that is available for
small business. Dr. Anastas, you have mentioned the website
through EPA. How are all of these sites being coordinated? Does
the Unified Command have plans to make more information available for those peopleboth for the public and for those people who
might be working on potential technologies to address the oil spill
cleanup? How can we make sure there is as much information
available as possible? And to your knowledge, is there critical information that is being withheld for any reason? So I have given you
about four questions, and, Admiral, I think maybe if you would
start.
Admiral RA BAGO. Yes, maam. As far as providing access to information, I know that the information group that is associated with
the National Incident Command does put out a good deal of information. We also have received as part of our BAA process not only
proposals but questions about how either companies or individuals
can help, and we respond to those queries as well.
There is a tremendous amount of information flow. Our website
is one place to do that. There are multiple sources of information.
Our website that we have through the Federal Business Opportunities website is a gateway for individuals to submit those ideas that
they believe will bring innovation and solutions to the problem in
the Gulf.
So that is our methodology for getting that information. We
evaluate it and we answer back, which was not occurring before.
We do answer back everybody that submits something, and we are
evaluating it and tracking it. So we are working to make the information flow more transparent all the time and more responsive to
those that submit suggestions and ideas.
Senator SHAHEEN. And is there any information, to your knowledge, that is being withheld from the public about what is happening?
Admiral RA BAGO. No, maam. I am not aware of any at all.
Senator SHAHEEN. Doctor.
Dr. ANASTAS. Transparency has been at the center of our data
generation/collection efforts. One of the things that the agency has
done from early on is strive to get all of the data that we are collecting, which is considerable, other agencies are generating significant data as well, on our sampling data, our air data, our monitoring data, in as rapid a fashion as we receive it, and it iswe
receive it. We make sure that it is correct. It goes immediately up
on our main website for everybody to see. So this is something that
is extremely important, and I agree with you.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
33
Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Chair Landrieu asked a question
that I am not surethat if it got an answer, I missed it. That is,
of the suggestions and ideas that have been reviewed by the various entities involved, are there any that are actually being put to
use right now in response to the spill? And can you explain very
briefly what those are?
Admiral RA BAGO. Recently, we did submit one to the Federal onscene coordinator. It is not yet being used. I know that some of the
ideas were submitted earlier to the responsible party, and they did
employ those with the oversight of the Federal on-scene coordinator. And there are some new technologies that have been deployed into the Gulf.
For the Coast Guard and for the interagency process that we
have started, we have not yet brought a technology and had it actually be applied, but that is coming soon. We have a number of
ideas that are working their way through, and some of them are
very good ideas, and we expect to get them to the Federal on-scene
coordinator soon.
Senator SHAHEEN. Dr. Anastas, is there anything that the EPA
has heard or seen that has been put to use?
Dr. ANASTAS. The way that the Agency works is by bringing in
these innovative ideas, having a team that taps into all of the
broad expertise in the agency, identifies those which have the potential to be effective and environmentally safe and ensure that
they are forwarded to the proper people responsible for deployment
and implementation. So it is a screening and evaluation process to
make sure it gets into the right hands for decisionmaking.
Senator SHAHEEN. So you might not know if they actually got put
to use? Is that what you are saying?
Dr. ANASTAS. That is correct.
Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you.
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator.
If the Senators do not mind, Senator Levin has joined us. He is
actually chairing an Armed Services hearing right now, and so he
slipped out momentarily to come over, and I would like to recognize
him now. And I want to say before he speaks, as the leader of the
defense committee, the Armed Services Committee, which I had the
pleasure to serve on for 4 years, he has been an outstanding leader
on bringing new technology to the battlefield, actually listening to
the soldiers on the battlefield. I think his experience and his expertise in this area, as a member of this Committee, can help us because in many ways this is a battlefield out in the Gulf, and I
thank you for attending the hearing and will recognize you now.
Senator LEVIN. Madam Chairman, thank you so much for that.
Thank you for your extraordinary and determined, tenacious leadership on this issue.
I have just a couple questions before I get to a technology question, which I will get to. And if this question has been asked and
answered, forgive me. I am trying to get a feel as to how much
equipment of various typesand I will go through itis needed
and how much is there. Okay?
Admiral, let me ask you, about how much boom do we have down
there?
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
34
Admiral RA BAGO. We have two kinds of boom that we are tracking: the mechanical boom that basically provides a boundary, and
we have over 2 million feet of that boom deployed. We also have
sorbent boom which floats on the water and absorbs oil, and there
is over 3 million feet of that boom deployed. They are procuring
more of it.
Senator LEVIN. Well, that is what I want to find out. How much
of that do you need? Is that half of what we need? A third of what
we need? What is it?
Admiral RA BAGO. I will have to get back the exact answer, but
I know that we are going to continue to need more. Especially if
the weather turns there and there are losses in the wear and tear
of existing boom, we are going to need to replace it.
Senator LEVIN. Do we have half of what we need?
Admiral RA BAGO. I will have to get back exactly. I do not have
that information.
Senator LEVIN. How about skimmers? Do we have half of the
skimmers we need?
Admiral RA BAGO. We need more skimmers.
Senator LEVIN. Do we have half of what we need?
Admiral RA BAGO. I will have to get back to you on the specific
figure, but we do need more.
Senator LEVIN. How many barges do we need? Do we have half
the barges we need?
Admiral RA BAGO. We need more barges to be able to hold the oil.
Senator LEVIN. And you do not know what percentage we have
of what we need.
Admiral RA BAGO. I know we have over 8,000 vessels
Senator LEVIN. No, but in terms of the percentage of what we
need, do you have a figure on that for barges?
Admiral RA BAGO. I will get back to you for the record on that,
sir.
Senator LEVIN. Okay. Same thing with tankers, same thing with
dispersants, same thing with trainers.
Someone like me is frustrated. I can just try to imagine what
folks who live there are going throughI try to imagine, just to get
a feel as to what resources are there compared to what the need
is, and not just as a human being impacted. I happen to be familiar
with a company in my home state which is a major player in the
cleanup business. It is called Marine Pollution Control. They are
one of the biggestthey happen, technically, to be a small business, by the way. But they are still one of the major players in the
world in cleanup. They have made dozens and dozens and dozens,
over a hundred phone calls. They go all over the world to clean up.
They were part of the Exxon Valdez cleanup, and I think they
havehad half of the boom which they have offered has been used.
And, by the way, I am not trying to tout this company. If you have
everything you need down there, great. Okay? I am not here trying
to promote a Michigan company, even though they are a fabulous
company. That is not my purpose. I am here to try to understand
why, if you have less than you need, isnt one of the major companieswhy arent all of the companies responded to?
Now, they have got 14 tankers, this company, 14 tankers, each
of which can hold thousands of gallons. None have been called. Two
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
35
barges, neither have been called. Four skimmers, none being called
upon. They have got still 5,000 feet of boom. I think half of the
boom that they have has been called for and that is it. But all the
other capabilities that they have are just waiting to be called upon.
I do not get it, and this is something I know personally because
of the presence of this company. It happens to be in my hometown,
not just in my home state. So I just would urge youokay? There
may be dozens of companies like them. There may be hundreds of
companies like them. For them not to feel like, hey, to get responses to the hundreds of inquiries that they literally have made
and to get three responses and to have half of one of the things
they can provide called upon and that is it is totally unacceptable
to me.
They also haveand here is a technology, and I know this is the
focus of the hearing, and forgive me if I have gone astray, but it
is something I have been wanting to ask for a long time. They have
a technology. It is a submersible submarine. It is still in development, but it has been used effectively under some circumstances.
It has been offered. Just let them know, yes or no. They need an
answer. It can go down 200 feet. It cannot get to the 5,000-foot
level, but what it can do probably is clean up the bottom up to a
200-foot level, which is going to be very important. Okay?
My experience with the hometown company tells me something
is wrong here in terms of coordination, and it is very discouraging
to me personally, and I would appreciate the answers to those
questions, Admiral.
I thank the Chairman for letting me intervene here, perhaps out
of turn.
Chair LANDRIEU. No, thank you, Senator, and you are always
welcome, and I know that you have got to get back in just a moment to the Armed Services Committee.
But I do think that the Senator has expressed a general frustration on behalf of businesses across the country that feel like they
have very relevant technologies and they want just an opportunity
to showcase what they can do, particularly when they see night
after night, day after day, the situation seeming to get worse as opposed to better. So I know that you all are scrambling. We ask you
just to scramble a little harder, organize a little better.
I would like to recognize Senator Cardin. We are in our first line
of questioning, Senator, if you have any questions before we go to
our second panel, or brief comments.
Thank you, Senator Levin.
Senator CARDIN. Senator Landrieu, Chairman Landrieu, thank
you very much, and let me justand to Senator Snowe, we very
much appreciate this hearing.
I was down in the Gulf, as you know, last Friday and had a
chance to be with Admiral Watson, whofirst of all, let me say, I
know you all are working 24/7. I know that you are working as
hard as you can. You are as frustrated as everyone is as to the unprecedented spill that is taking place. The fact that you have oil
on the surface but then it disperses and shows up on our shorelines
in a very challenging way.
We had a chance to see the operations by a lot of small companies, putting out booms and doing the skimming and doing every-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
36
thing they could to protect the Louisiana coast. But, unfortunately,
we also saw the results of oil on the shore, on sensitive marshes
and islands, and saw the inability to hold accountable the contractors to maintain the booms that were critically important to protect
the sensitive shorelines.
I again want to just point out that Admiral Watson I think took
action as a result of that, and that is exactly what we were intending, and I know that corrective measures have been put in place,
and that is what we need.
I guess my point is that you are in charge. This is the Governments responsibility to respond to the spill. Now, the cost is going
to be paid by BP and its affiliates. We know that. But the chain
of command is ours, and, therefore, it is up to us to engage the talent of this nation and, if necessary, internationally to figure out
how we can minimize the damage being caused to the Gulf and
other regions.
That requires us to use the ingenuity of small companies. That
is where the talent is in this country to find ways to innovate and
take care of new challenges. We find that we get more innovation,
more of our new discoveries come from the small companies of this
nation. I guess my plea to you is that we have to be much more
effective in energizing that asset that this nation has.
I have talked to some of the small business owners down in the
Gulf, I have talked to small business owners around the nation
who have said, look, you know, we would like to get involved. So
I do underscore the points that the members of this Committee
have made that it is not BPs responsibility, it is our responsibility
to respond to this challenge. BP is going to pay the cost. We know
that. But I think it is incumbent upon us to figure out how we can
energize the talent of this nation to confront this challenge, to minimize the damage, and we know the damage is going to be severe,
but to minimize it the best that we can. And every day that we
lose, the devastation is going to be much worse. And every part of
this nation is going to feel it. I know my own area in Maryland,
we have a lot of migratory wildlife that visits the Gulf of Mexico.
We do not know if they will be returning to our area. So we all
have a stake in this.
Thank you, madam Chair.
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you.
Yes, Senator Snowe wants one final question. Then we are going
to move to our second panel.
Senator SNOWE. For clarification, Dr. Anastas, on this whole
issue of Corexit, so that we understand, on May 26th EPA sent a
letter, did they not, issuing a directive to BP to stop using a surface
dispersant, the Corexit, and limit the subsea to 15,000 gallons? Is
that correct? And since then, as I understand it, 185,000 gallons of
surface dispersant has been applied on 14 separate days, and on
4 days more than 15,000 gallons have been applied subsea. So why
hasnt this practice stopped?
Dr. ANASTAS. The Administrator has communicated with BP to
minimize the use of dispersants wherever possible and to seek approval when the amount of dispersant goes above a certain level.
Senator SNOWE. Well, that is on the subsea, but not for surface.
I am not understanding the stop and the minimizing. It is either
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
37
stopping entirely the use of it or minimizing it, and EPA asked for
stopping it. So that is what I am not clear on, because there have
been a number of questions raised on this issue.
Dr. ANASTAS. The National Contingency Plan allows for application of approved dispersants.
Senator SNOWE. In particular, Corexit?
Dr. ANASTAS. Any approved dispersant. It does not need to be
Corexit. The Administrator did express, the Agency did express
concerns about ensuring that the dispersant used would be the
least toxic as possible, and what is happening in real time is the
Agency is engaged in the science to find out if there are any alternative dispersants that are less toxic.
Senator SNOWE. Well, it is my understanding that EPA issued a
directive to BP to stop using it, the surface dispersant, and limit
the subsea. So obviously we need to get a clarification on this question.
Dr. ANASTAS. The directive was to identify a less toxic dispersant
or explain why it could not identify a less toxic dispersant. They
did not identify a less toxic dispersant, and so EPA is engaged currently in the science of determining if there are any other
dispersants that would have reduced toxicity.
Senator SNOWE. So in the meantime, BP can continue the use of
the surface dispersant?
Dr. ANASTAS. With the understanding that the use of dispersant
will be minimized.
Senator SNOWE. Thank you.
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator Snowe, and to try to end
this first panel on a slightly more positive note, we did receive an
e-mail from a 12-year-old Louisiana-based environmental remediation service company that said for several weeks they were unable
to get any response. They finally got their product submitted, and
just last week, they sent this information to one of our PTAC contacts that they received verbal approval from BP accepting this
technology to start their application today.
So we have one company that sent a positive e-mail, but there
are thousands still waiting, and that is what this hearing is about.
So I thank you all. We have much more information to pursue
from you. I know that you are going to stay here in the room to
hear from the second panel at my request, so thank you and we
will move to the second panel.
If the second panel would come forward. Eric Smith serves as the
Associate Director of Tulane Energy Institute. He is also a Clinical
Finance Professor in the Freeman Business School at Tulane. He
has extensive background in business development and energy and
created and teaches the mandatory course that lead to an energy
specialist certificate at Tulane. We are glad, Doctor, to have you
here.
Dan Parker is from Kentucky. Mr. Parker founded C.I.Agent Solutions. He served as President and Member of the Board of Directors of that company. He was successful in getting the C.I.Agent
listed on the EPAs National Contingency Plan. We look forward to
his testimony today.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
38
Heather Baird serves as Vice President of Corporate Communications for MicroSorb Environmental Products that I understand is
being considered as we speak.
Also, Dr. Carys Mitchelmore is currently an Associate Professor
at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science,
the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. Dr. Mitchelmore earned her
Ph.D. from the University of Birmingham, and she has a great deal
of expertise to share with us on this subject.
And, finally, we have Mr. Kevin Costner, who, along with his
brother, in 1995 purchased Ocean Therapy Solutions, a company
developing a oil separation machine. We are very pleased to have
Mr. Costner with us. He has been spending a lot of time down in
the Gulf Coast, as all of you have been focused on this issue, and
we look forward to your testimony this morning.
Lets begin with you, Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF ERIC N. SMITH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
TULANE ENERGY INSTITUTE, TULANE UNIVERSITY
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair LANDRIEU. And if you would press your talk button and
speak right into the microphone, please.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Snowe,
and members of the Committee for inviting me to testify this morning on what I think has become a very significant issue.
I would like to speak about this problem associated with the current spill response in the U.S. Gulf and the apparent inability of
the company and agencies involved to provide timely responses to
the thousands of suggestions being generated by concerned citizens
and small businesses.
There are two corollary problems here. One is small businesses
typically lack the commercial recognition to gain attention and access to relevant Federal agencies that provide funding to advance
improvements in prevention and response technologies. The second
issue, the specifics, BP, the MMS, and the Coast Guard are practically constrained to dealing with known quantities when setting
up supply chains to approve and transact business with potential
suppliers. Companies or individuals without existing commercial
relationships find it difficult to establish credibility in normal
times. During an emergency it is even more difficult.
The solution perhaps that we suggest is the establishment of an
independent third-party team to screen proposals and to respond
either positively or negatively to all suggestions. This national
clearinghouse would use existing faculty at universities having the
requisite skill sets and prior experience in navigating company supply chains and Federal-State agencies and to efficiently screen suggestions, separate the wheat from the chaff, and provide concise information to relevant agencies and companies so that they can
make logical investment and purchase decisions.
Tulane and other universities have experience with screening
proposals, assisting those with real potential and enhancing their
ability to elicit contracts for Federal research funding. Our team at
Tulane already includes experts in both conventional and renewable energy resources, energy economics, medicine, public health,
environmental studies, and biomolecular research. Moreover, we
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
39
have a reputation for public outreach in times of crisis as a result
of our university-wide efforts surrounding the response to Hurricane Katrina.
We also have been successful in developing research partnerships
between Government and universities in Louisiana that extend beyond Tulanes boundaries through CPERC, a consortium of Louisiana-based schools that partner on specific research projects. Because Tulane is the only private university in the group, we have
the flexibility to respond more quickly to emergency situations and
to then bring other schools into the team.
Having a good product idea is only half the battle. We all know
that the balance of commercialization involves the sometimes arcane activities of establishing intellectual property rights, establishing overall economic and financial viabilityin a word, writing
the business plan, getting it submitted. Essentially we propose to
establish this clearinghouse using existing infrastructure and communication links where new ideas can be screened, grants formulated, and new businesses incubated. Those ideas that are too early
or in our view non-starters will still receive a thoughtful letter outlining the reasons for their rejection. Our overarching goal is to
break up the logjam of proposals reaching the agencies participating in the spill response and to make sure the good ideas that
are currently buried in this deluge of paper see the light of day in
a timely manner. We believe that Tulane University is suited to
provide that service.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
40
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
41
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
42
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
43
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
44
45
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you. Mr. Parker. Please pull the microphone as close to your mouth as possible. If you all could push a
little bit over to give him more space.
Mr. PARKER. I am going to defer to Dan Koons, who is the author
of the paper, and then I will take all the questions.
Chair LANDRIEU. Okay.
STATEMENT OF DAN KOONS, C.I.AGENT SOLUTIONS, ACCOMPANIED BY DAN PARKER, FOUND AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, C.I.AGENT SOLUTIONS
Mr. KOONS. Madam Chair, distinguished members, I appear before the Committee to testify on behalf of the thousands of U.S.
citizens that have presented ideas and offered alternative technologies to assist in the ongoing spill. The alternative technology
I am here to testify concerns the use of solidifiers, C.I.Agent.
C.I.Agent Solutions is a small, Kentucky-based company. C.I.Agent
is a proprietary blend of U.S. food-grade polymers which are nontoxic, non-corrosive, non-carcinogenic, non-hazardous, and they are
typically used to manufacture food or medical devices such as IV
bags, surgical gloves, and syringes.
C.I.Agent polymers have been listed as a solidifier on the NCP
Product Schedule since early 1994. The hydrocarbons, once solidified by C.I.Agent, are 100 percent recyclable. They can be used as
fuel, as raw materials for asphalt, plastic, and rubber.
C.I.Agent Solutions personnel have regularly attended RRT
meetings across the Nation for the past 10 years trying to get the
regulatory community to examine, study, and recognize the effectiveness of using C.I.Agent solidifiers as an alternative method of
oil spill cleanup. Our case studies actually show that using
solidifiers will reduce the environmental impact, the cost of cleanup
on average of 50 to 80 percent.
This brings me to the reason we believe that alternative technologies are being shut out of this current spill. The reason does
not lie at any single entitynot with BP, not with the U.S. Coast
Guard, not with the Federal or State agencies currently working on
the spill. In fact, every one of these groups is fully engaged in following their prescribed duties as set forth in the National Incident
Management System. The NIMS was created in 2003 in order to
have a consistent nationwide template to follow in the event of a
national crisis.
We do have national response teams, regional response teams,
area and local response teams on site, and they are all following
their respective playbooks. However, vendors have had very little
access or opportunity to bring technology forward. Vendors are not
permitted to attend the national response team meetings. Vendors
do attend, observe, and occasionally participate in the RRT meetings.
The system does not encourage or promote active research of new
technology. It simply is not a priority. New technology stands on
the sidelines while everybody dutiful follows an outdated playbook.
The following are examples of technology proffered by C.I.Agent
Solutions over the last 40 days:
On April 26th, BP did deploy C.I.Agents to Houma, Louisiana, to
consult on shoreline protection.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
46
On the 31st, we undergone the contract on Dauphin Island to
protect the nesting habitat on the north shore.
On May 12th, BP made a request to use C.I.Agent at the wellhead. The request was assigned to an ARTES Committee, which is
an alternative response tool evaluation system committee. We have
yet to be asked to participate in the ARTES process as required
under the ARTES protocols and even after a number of written requests to the committee, still no response.
On the 20th of May, C.I.Agent Solutions brought in from our
Australia group a marine engineer along with a complete advanced
system to apply and recover solidifiers. The ARTES committee was
provided information, PowerPoints. Still no response.
The C.I.Agent Solutions cannon is currently being used in Australia on oil spills, for vessel hull cleaning, and shoreline cleanup.
All the agencies recognized the value of these systems but have
yet been unable to adopt them. We brought a water-testing device,
offered four of them free to agencies, both State and local. The
C.L.A.M. actually monitors water levels 100 times greater than the
present methodology. But in every case, the agencies told us the
value of the system was really something they could use, but it was
outside the protocols and they could not use it.
The final road block prohibiting the new technology, it seems to
me, is in the response industry itself. We have met with the chief
executives of nearly every response agency in the Nation over the
last 10 years trying to get them to adopt solidifiers as part of their
response capabilities. Without exception, we have been told that
they know our technology works, but they are not going to use it
until someone makes them because they sell labor.
In 2005, after Hurricane Katrina,, C.I.Agent
Chair LANDRIEU. Because of what? You are going to have to
Mr. KOONS. I am sorry.
Chair LANDRIEU. They are not going to use it because of what?
Mr. KOONS. They sell labor, not solutions.
Chair LANDRIEU. Okay.
Mr. KOONS. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina, C.I.Agent was brought
to Bayou Le Batre by the U.S. Coast Guard Gulf strike team to
clean up pockets of oil. We were asked to leave by the response
companies, being told that our methodologies was too quick, so we
left.
In 2008, we were brought in for the Mississippi oil spill, a barge
and tanker spill. This was by the U.S. Coast Guard and the barge
owner. Again, the responsible OSRO refused to use our technology,
actually saying that they are not going to use solidifiers because
they were making too much money.
In 2010, we presented an option of using beach cleaning equipment to remove tar balls from the current spill. The equipment we
proposed $3,400 a day, takes the place of 300 laborers. The daily
cost of laborers is $108,000 per shift.
These are just examples of technology that have been brought to
bear, and because the response companies and their involvement at
the level of control within the NIMS program, the new technology
is just simply not being applied.
Chair LANDRIEU. You are going to have to wrap up, if you would.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
47
Mr. KOONS. Okay. In conclusion, it is my belief that the consequences unfolding before us in the Gulf today are exposing a
weakness in the National Incident Command System, and our National Response Strategy actually inhibits the introduction of new
technology. The model must be changed. Technologies have to be
given an opportunity to prove that they are efficient and more costeffective than solutions now currently being employed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Koons follows:]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
48
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
49
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
50
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
51
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
52
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
53
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
54
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
55
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
56
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
57
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
58
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
59
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
60
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
61
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
62
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
63
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
64
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
65
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
66
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
67
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
68
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
69
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
70
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
71
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
72
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
73
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
74
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
75
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
76
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
77
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
78
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
79
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
80
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
81
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
82
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
83
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
84
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
85
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
86
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
87
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
88
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
89
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
90
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
91
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
92
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
93
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
94
95
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you.
Ms. Baird.
STATEMENT OF HEATHER E. BAIRD, VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS, MICROSORB ENVIRONMENTAL
PRODUCTS, INC.
Ms. BAIRD. Good morning. My name is Heather Baird, and I am

the Vice President of Corporate Communications for MicroSorb Environmental Products of Norwell, Massachusetts. I would like to
thank the Committee for allowing me today to testify.
My company has a microbial technologya powerful consortium
of oil-eating microbes. Our microbes have been proven successful
many times beginning when the tanker Mega Borg exploded in the
Gulf of Mexico in 1990 off the coast of Texas. BP has utilized our
microbes in 2001 to remediate oil contamination in Lake Michigan.
Further, we just concluded a scalable lab test conducted through an
independent third party demonstrating that within 24 hours, our
microbes were able to destroy over 90 percent of the crude oil in
a Gulf of Mexico water sample which was taken from the vicinity
of Grand Isle, Louisiana, in late May 2001. Today our microbes are
still not being utilized to save the Gulf Coast despite being highly
efficacious, proven successful, non-toxic and non-pathogenic.
First I would like to give you a little bit of background. Wherever
there is a natural oil seepage from the earth, nature has placed oildegrading microbes. These microbes use the oil as a food source,
breaking it down into water, carbon dioxide, and fatty acids, rendering the substance harmless.
While nature is able to clean up after itself, it takes a lot of time,
and the problem is mankind now puts far more hydrocarbon pollution into the environment than nature can remove in the amount
of time that man wants to allow. Science has devised ways of
speeding up nature, and it is from this advancement that our company was born. MicroSorb Microbes are also known by our formulation name: The Oppenheimer Formulanamed after the pioneer in
bioaugmentation, Dr. Carl Oppenheimer. It is a proprietary blend
of natures most powerful oil-eating microbes, harvested from some
of the most extreme and oil-prone environments around the globe.
With over 100 billion microbes per gram, our formula ensures rapid
remediation. And since our microbes are cultivated on Texas sweet
crude oil and Gulf of Mexico seawater as their food source, they are
ideally suited for the Deepwater Horizon spill. Additionally, some
of our microbes are aerobic and some are anaerobic. This means
that they can function in oxygen-rich areas as well as oxygen-depleted zones. These microbes work in open water, as well as in sensitive areas such as marshlands, wetlands, and beaches. Application is simple. It is highly cost effective, especially when compared
against absorbents and skimmers and boom technologies. And once
applied, there is no excavation required, no costly disposal, nothing
to pick up and nothing left behind. Once the oil runs out, the microbes die, returning either to natural concentration levels or safely
consumed by other aquatic organisms.
Our formula is on the EPA National Contingency Product Plan
Schedule. It was the first microbial formulation to be listed and has
been listed since 1991. This fact, combined with the proven success
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
96
of this product, clearly makes it a smart addition to this cleanup
solution. However, understanding who makes the decision to deploy
has been a significant challenge to our firm.
Our President, Bill Baird, an engineer by trade, has been on the
Gulf Coast for many weeks now, meeting with elected officials from
Plaquemines Parish all the way to the Florida Keys. I have
watched as he has tirelessly dispensed free advice to officials from
city planners to Governors. And to give you an idea, we have met
on scene with incident command in Florida; Mobile, Alabama; Governors offices; the EPA; the DEP from Florida, Mississippi, and
Louisiana; mayors offices in four different states; the Coast Guard;
the Department of Homeland Security; and city officials too numerous to count.
I personally have been on Capitol Hill meeting with Senators
and their teams from the affected states, and it is important for the
Committee to understand we have put all other business on hold
chasing down all of these stakeholders at our own expense. We
have gained alignment from each of these parties, who we believed
were the decisionmakers, since they are the true stakeholders.
At each one of these touch points, we were told that our product
is needed and should be deployed. However, these encouraging
statements are quickly followed up with the caveat that BP holds
the checkbook. Then we are inevitably told that we will be passed
along to someones contact or a committee within the BP system,
and then we wait. As recently as this week, we were told to sign
up on the Deepwater Horizon website, which naturally we have
done. The American public believes that the Government is making
these decisions, but our experience has been very different. The decisionmaker to us is clear; without BP sign-off, we remain sidelined. But how do you break through to BP amidst the millions of
proposals, with a website being the only means of contact?
So why is BP not employing bioaugmentation as part of its arsenal to clean the spill? According to EPA Publication 640/k-93/002:
The United States is the world leader in field implementation of
bioremediation, an attractive alternative to conventional methods
of cleaning up persistent hazardous wastes in the environment.
This was published in 1994. This has not been our experience with
regards to this crisis.
We believe one reason why is the EPA states that bioaugmentation now is typically used as a polishing step, and that bioaugmentation solutions have been classified as alternative technologies, used only after all the oil has been reclaimed.
We have found that Japan has done the most comprehensive scientific research to date on the use of bioaugmentation in open
water, and I respectfully refer the Committee to the studies submitted as evidence detailing how bioaugmentation is superior to
natural attenuation. Naturally, time constraints do not allow me to
explain in detail their methodology. However, I can tell you that
remediation with our formula has been superior. There are additional studies that have been done over the last decade that
Chair LANDRIEU. Twenty seconds, please.
Ms. BAIRD. Thank you.
So what can we conclude from this? We can conclude without
question that the resources currently deployed for the battle are in-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
97
sufficient to the task at hand. However, the necessary technology
does, in fact, exist. It is ready. It is scalable. It is highly efficacious,
and it has been proven over and over again. I hope this Committee
can help businesses like MicroSorb determine constructive paths
forward with the appropriate stakeholders represented.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baird follows:]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
98
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
99
100
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Ms. Baird, for that beautiful testimony. That is exactly why we are here today.
Dr. Mitchelmore.
STATEMENT OF CARYS L. MITCHELMORE, PH.D., ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Dr. MITCHELMORE. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of

the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss scientific
issues concerning dispersant use. I am Carys Mitchelmore. I am an
aquatic toxicologist and have been researching the impact of pollutants, including oil and dispersants, for over 15 years.
My testimony today will focus on some effects and uncertainties
regarding dispersant use. Related to this, I would like to stress two
major points.
First, significant data gaps in understanding the impacts of
dispersants and dispersed oil exist, particularly with subsea application.
Second, limited toxicological data is available to assess the use
of alternate dispersants. The use of dispersants is a complex and
controversial subject. They are examples of known pollutants purposely added to the marine environment. Dispersants are often proprietary mixtures containing solvents, surfactants, and other additives. They are used to redirect an oil slick by breaking it up into
small droplets that move down into the water, spreading in three
dimensions. They do not remove oil. They simply alter its chemical
and physical properties, changing where it goes, where it ends up,
and its potential effects. Sub-surface application keeps the oil in
the water, preventing it from coming to the surface.
With the Deepwater Horizon leak, dispersants are used to protect organisms from contacting the surface slick and to protect sensitive shorelines and wetlands from oil coming ashore. This protection is an environmental tradeoff at the expense of organisms in
the water column and potentially those on the sea floor.
As highlighted at a recent dispersant workshop, toxicity must be
considered when a decision is made to apply chemical dispersants.
Toxicity data based on short duration exposures and the risk of
death to organisms are those most often used to assess how toxic
a chemical is. Indeed, the EPAs National Contingency Plan Product Schedule listing suitable dispersants for use on oil spills details
such test data, which is provided by the dispersant manufacturer.
Dispersant toxicity depends on the specific dispersant and species under study. Recent reports have concluded that it is what the
dispersants do to the oil that often drives toxicity rather than the
inherent toxicity of the dispersant itself. However, it would be beneficial if dispersant toxicity could be further reduced. The correct
formulations are stockpiled throughout the USA and are the ones
currently used in the Deepwater Horizon leak.
Recently, EPA directed BP to use a less toxic dispersant of similar or more effectiveness than Corexit. Fourteen dispersants are
listed on the product schedule. Given EPAs maximum toxicity
guidelines for the dispersant mixed with number 2 fuel oil, only
three of these listed products would be appropriate for use.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
101
Other toxicological tests are also presented for each dispersant.
Of concern is the wide variation in the toxicity values reported for
the number 2 fuel oil alone and the reference toxicant between
dispersants using the same test species. A reference toxicant is a
toxic chemical that is used to demonstrate that the tests are performed correctly and that the data is scientifically robust and defensible. Similar toxicity values for the same reference toxicant
should be obtained, irrespective of who carried out the tests.
However, toxicity values for the reference toxicant differ by orders of magnitude, up to nearly 300-fold for the different
dispersants. These discrepancies bring into question the accuracy
and reliability of the tests.
I believe it would be beneficial for the dispersant manufacturers,
especially those small businesses who have limited funds available
for toxicity tests, to have their products screened cost effectively
and, more importantly, accurately by an independent toxicity testing center.
At the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science,
a similar testing center has been in place since early 2000. The Alliance for Coastal Technologies program is a NOAA-funded initiative that acts as an independent test bed for aquatic sensor technologies and involves numerous partner facilities across the U.S.
A similar type of program would be of benefit for current and future dispersant manufacturers. Each dispersant would be evaluated by three independent and EPA-certified testing laboratories. A
federally or industry-funded center could provide this testing at no
cost to dispersant manufacturers.
I also recommend a workshop precedes these tests, reevaluating
an updating the test methods, including additional tests. Chronic
and sediment toxicity tests would be beneficial to understanding
potential long-term effects of dispersant use.
Chair LANDRIEU. Twenty seconds.
Dr. MITCHELMORE. In summary, Madam Chair and fellow Senators, the recent spill in the Gulf has brought us into uncharted
territories, given the volume and duration of dispersant use and its
novel application to the seabed. With more information we can be
better prepared to deal with such disasters. Increased knowledge
translates to better solutions, and we need that knowledge now.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mitchelmore follows:]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
102
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
103
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
104
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
105
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
106
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
107
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
108
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
109
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
110
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
111
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
112
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
113
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
114
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
115
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
116
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
117
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
118
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
119
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
120
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
121
122
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you very much.
Mr. Costner.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN COSTNER, FOUNDER, COSTNER INDUSTRIES (CINC), AND CO-FOUNDER, OCEAN THERAPY SOLUTIONS, WESTPAC RESOURCES
Mr. COSTNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the

Committee. Thank you for inviting me.
We are here today because there are now some 60,000 barrels of
oil gushing into the Gulf every 24 hours, with no end in sight. We
are here today because a carefully crafted plan designed by the oil
industry and rubber-stamped by the MMS claimed it could handle
spills of up to 250,000 barrels a day, but turned out not to be a
plan at all. We are all here, and now the whole world is watching
as America fumbles its way through the greatest environmental
disaster in history, and I find myself here because 17 years ago I
thought I could play a part in this reoccurring nightmare.
I have come here with a technology that was developed for this
very moment we find ourselves in as a people, as a nation, as a
neighbor to every country that shares the precious Gulf of Mexico.
I am a private entrepreneur, a dreamer, if you will, who saw a
problem and committed to a big idea. I took a technology from the
Department of Energy in 1993. It was about 6 inches tall. It was
developed to separate metals. But what if? What if we could take
that little idea, this little machine and scale it up to separate large
volumes of oil from water? I believe that we could manufacture and
deploy a rugged and portable machine under these harsh conditions. We would create five different sizes, with the largest being
able to up to 200 gallons per minute with both oil and water outputs at 99.9 percent purity.
In 2 years, the dream moved from research and development to
a commercially viable product ready to be deployed anywhere in
the world. This was done without the help of outside investors or
Government grants. The price tag would be over $20 million, and
I would pay it. The need was clear: An industry that would operate
year-round, 24 hours a day, in or near any body of water at depths
and complexities that our modern oil industry are working in is
going to experience spills. They are going to experience spills on a
daily basis, large or small, accidental or otherwise, reported or not.
I started a business without a guarantee of a market, but clearly
there is a market out there. Did I expect the oil industry to open
its arms when I presented an oil-water separator, a solution to
their single greatest liability? Yes. Did I expect leaders here and
abroad to recognize the importance of protection where we profit?
Yes, I did. But I was wrong. The list of Government agencies, foreign and domestic oil companies who saw our technology more than
a decade ago reads like a Whos Who of those who needed it, those
who should have been looking for it, and probably more to the
point, those who should have been developing it themselves.
So what was the problem? Was it too small? Was it too portable?
Was there already something like it in the big plan? I do not know.
My big idea has been sitting quietly for 10 years in a modest Nevada facility. Then 2 days ago, I got a call from Doug Suttles, COO
of exploration and production for BP. He was pleased. He was ex-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
123
cited. He told me that the machine worked. He told me that it was
working against the dispersants, that it was handling the variations of oil mixtures and thickness present in the Gulf. He ordered
32 machines and told me that this represented the beginning of us
working together, not only for this spill but for going forward, and
that we would have a legitimate response in the future.
I am proud that this technology can be part of the solution for
the Gulf. Am I proud that this technology can be part of the solution in the Gulf? Yes. To a certain extent, to be completely honest,
I feel vindicated. I think that perhaps I will call my mother.
But this is not a Hollywood ending for me. The path to arrive at
this moment was steep and formidable. That is why I have been
called to testify before this Committee, to explain why 21st century
technology has sat idly on the shelf for 10 years when it could have
been deployed as a first, most efficient responder to mitigate the
Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.
The business of oil spill cleanup is not pretty. It is not sexy. Safety never is. It is not a profit center. It is perfectly clear that the
oil companies have not invested in cleanup technology to match
their 21st century appetite in operations.
In the last 2 weeks, my company began an exciting collaboration
with Edison Schwest, the largest oil servicer in the Gulf. We are
in the final stages of engineering emergency response ships that
would be staged strategically throughout the Gulf, with the ability
to be on site within 2 hours of an incident.
I know my time has run out, but I would ask this Committee and
the members and the Chair that I have waited 17 years to be here.
I talk kind of slow, and I make long movies.
[Laughter.]
Chair LANDRIEU. Go ahead. You can have 2 minutes. Go right
ahead, Mr. Costner.
Mr. COSTNER. Thank you. Thank you.
Together we are fashioning a more comprehensive plan that we
would like to present before the lifting of the moratorium. It would
fundamentally change the worlds approach to oil spill recovery, but
we have not stopped there. Ocean Therapy Solutions continues to
push the envelope of progress, once again footing the bill for the
R&D without help from industry or Government. I believe there
are other small companies out there in the private sector just like
us. How do we let them in? How do we create an environment that
fosters and encourages investment in critical technologies? I leave
that to this body, but you should know that negotiating your way
as a small business through the bureaucratic maze that presently
exists is like playing a video game that no one can master. It is
like trying to get to the next level that does not exist.
For me, advancing the technology for oil spill cleanup was a
dream, not a business. It was not about improving my margins. I
was not trying to even stay in the black. We were about trying to
do something more. If we can find oil thousands of feet in the
ground at depths that boggle the mind, then surely we have the
technology to clean up our own mess, to find through photo imaging the giant black clouds of oil hidden, raging like death in the
Gulf, posed to land on our beaches or escape to the Atlantic.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
124
Without a doubt, the oil industry has the resources to create
ships to hunt these down and drain their killing capacity. They
have the technology and intellect to take this head on. We can all
be about something more.
I can see that these spills are our collective problem, but they are
not our collective responsibility. The economic burden falls squarely
on the oil industry. For them to get over the bar of safety and pay
the price is not too much to ask. It is not too much to ask for them
to have to put in place the safeguards, the redundancies, and muster the sheer will to thrown an overwhelming response at the problem now and in the inevitable future. Anything less is dangerous,
unacceptable, and the American people deserve better.
We have a special moment in time. We have to get this right.
Forty thousand men and women in the oil industry are out of work
through no fault of their own. Fishermen have been sidelined.
Service industries are paralyzed. Families that have survived on
the plentiful resources of the Gulf do not know the quality of life
that now awaits them.
I would ask this Committee to consider the multidimensional role
that this technology can play in safeguarding the water and putting people back to work. The oil industry does not have the time
to evolve a plan. They have to act. This is an absolute tool. It creates inefficiency where there are no efficiencies. It represents a legitimate response to accidents that are going to happen, and it
clears a path to lift the moratorium, if that is what the country
wants.
We are in a fight to protect our jobs, our way of life, and an ecosystem that cannot protect itself. We can put Americans back to
work and bring an entire industry into the 21st century of oil spill
response. It is important to remember that when there is a spill
anywhere, we suffer everywhere. Our machine represents a common ground, a common sense, and an absolute reality that we can
and must protect those resources that we all share.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costner follows:]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
125
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
126
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
127
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
128
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
129
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
130
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
131
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
132
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
133
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
134
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
135
136
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you very much, Mr. Costner. You have
been a hero on the screen, and let me say you are being a hero
right now in real life, and we, particularly those of us along the
Gulf Coast, so appreciate your balanced approach, your ability to
represent not just your own company but thousands of businesses
that, as Ms. Baird said, have been extraordinarily frustrated knowing they may have the solutions, but not being called on. I really
sincerely appreciate the extraordinary effort that you are making,
and others.
Let me ask you this: You described this to me previously, but I
would like you to describe publicly what happened when you went
some 10 years ago to the offshore oil expo in Houston. Could you
talk about that experience when you were excited about your machine and who you presented it to and what happened?
Mr. COSTNER. Well, we had started by introducing the machine
to all the oil companies, to the Coast Guard, to all the different
agencies responsible for protecting the waters and got kind of the
silent treatment. We then began to go to the expos where there
these are demonstrations where all the equipment that is designed
to actually protect us in oil spillsbooms and fancy helicopters and
things like thatall occur. But the idea that there was some machine that would actually take the oil out of the water, I did not
see anything.
A very interesting story happened. My partner, John
Houghtaling, actually went to Billy Nungesser in New Orleans at
one point and said, I want to say something to you. I kind of have
a crazy idea. It is an actor with kind of a magic machine. And
Billy Nungesser said, Wait. Do not say a no word. He said, Before I was a politician, I was an oil man, and I saw that machine
in Houston, and I know it works. Would you please call him for
me?
So I have been to the agencies, and it is in my written testimony
who I have been to. And it is a process, and so is life. And I have
lived it, and I thank you for bringing the light of day to my company by inviting me here.
Chair LANDRIEU. Well, and it should not be that hard for any
company. Ms. Baird, I would like you to testify just briefly about
your first experience, which was not just a few weeks ago, or your
companys first experience with trying to present to the Federal
Government a technology that might work even before this spill.
Do you want to add anything to your testimony about that?
Ms. BAIRD. I think that the thing to understand about our microbial solution is that the first open water applicationthis was back
in 1990 when the tanker Mega Borg exploded off theabout 57
miles off the coast of Galveston. And it was at that point that the
State of Texas really kept a close eye on us and watched as we
were able to remediate damage in the Gulf from crude oil back
then. It was at that point that we were placed on the EPA contingency product plan and have remained there ever since.
I think that the challenge that we faced is understanding which
Government officials we should be meeting with. We, too, have
been with Billy Nungesser down in Plaquemines Parish, and we
have been with so many other fantastic and supportive Government agencies since then. I really think that everyone feels as
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
137
though their hands are tied and no one wants to spend constituent
tax dollars, you know, with the hope that BP is going to pay back.
And I think that that has been one of the challenges that we have
faced.
Chair LANDRIEU. We have got to break through that barrier.
Mr. Parker, you represent a small business. I want to give you
an opportunity. There was some lengthy testimony so you do not
have to repeat it, but on the comment of when you first approached
the Federal Government with technologyand you have several
technologies, so you can pick just one. Why dont you think they
have accepted some of the things that you have presented to them?
Mr. PARKER. We started 12 years ago with the Federal Government going to RRT meetings. I think that their agenda issometimes what we do is not as important to them. You know, when the
Space Shuttle Columbia went down, these RRTs have to deal with
those things. When Katrina came through, they have to deal with
it. Sometimes oil spills just are not priorities. And we have tried
for 12 years to get pre-authorization. We have successfully gotten
pre-authorization in three of the regions: the Caribbean, Region 3,
Region 4, and recently since this bill, Region 6. But they have so
much on their plate, and unfortunately, the folks that have to
make the decision may not want to make that decision because
they have to sign a document. And when they sign those documents, they are liable for those decisions. And they have put us
through hell to try to get these technologies out.
We have been one of the few vendors that have been successful
at a lot of cost and a lot of time away from home and just a lot
of struggles. But they are good folks. They just have a lot on their
plates, and we do not know the reasons why we are not at the NRT
level with all of technologies. Why do we have to go to each individual RRT meeting two times a year, 13 different ones, and spend
money just to preach the same story every time? I do not know the
answers.
Chair LANDRIEU. Okay. I am going to recognize Senator Snowe
in a minute, but my final comment is really for you, Admiral. Unfortunately, I am now a veteran of disasters, representing a state
that has been hit now by two extraordinary disasters. We were just
recovering from Katrina and Rita. And what I witnessed close up
in this contractor response, sometimes contractorsnot all, but
many of them are interested in making money in the wake of a disaster as opposed to serving the public. I can appreciate private
businesses efforts to make profit. But if these small businesses
have to go to contractors who, on the one hand, could make lots of
money using old technology that does not work or make a lot less
money using new technologies that do work, what do you think
they might do?
The American people deserve a Government that will fight for
them, regardless of whether a profit is to be made or not. I sure
hope the Coast Guard can step up to this job.
Senator Snowe.
Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank
all of you for your testimony here today. Sorry for the incredible
hardships that you have confronted along the way in terms of getting your technologies or your products approved during this monu-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
138
mental time in our nations history. I think that is what is so tragic
about all of this. I think most critically now is how best to remedy
the situation that we find ourselves in, either procedurally or otherwise, to make sure that your technologies, your products get the
attention that they deserve, and certainly at a time in which we
should be maximizing the level of urgency in terms of delivering
the resources necessary.
So let me start with you, Mr. Smith, from your vantage point as
an academic, and you are very familiar with the previous efforts.
I find it stunningI think we all dothat since Exxon Valdez we
have failed to shape a contingency plan under any scenario, let
alone a worst-case scenario. Regrettably, BP submitted a plan, its
exploration plan of the worst-case scenario being 162,000 gallons a
day. Obviously it is now up to 2.4 million gallons a day, so it is
an Exxon Valdez every 4 days. So here we are.
What would you recommend? From your position what can we do
here and now? I want to go down the line here, because it is really
important for us. It is an emergency, and it is urgent. We feel the
desperationof course, the Chair, who lives there in Louisiana, but
I know every American is just wanting to do something. What can
we do in Congress either to revamp this processbecause clearly
there is no single, synchronized, streamlined process that needs to
be developed so that these technologies and products get the attention of the United States Government. I do not expect to relegate
or subjugate the responsibilities in our public interest to a company. They have got their own objectives and goals. We have ours,
which is the national interest. And that is what we have to deliver
now.
Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Well, I think you have hit the nail on the head there.
Before I was an academic, I spent 30-odd years in this industry,
sometimes trying to sell new ideas to oil companies, sometimes on
the buy side. But the major issue is one of credibility. You have got
a long supply chain to support any of these drilling efforts. This
field, if it had been successfully developed, would have cost upwards of $2 billion to bring online. People trust certain suppliers.
They have prior experience, precedent with those suppliers. And it
is extremely hard, as I said, during normal times to bring a new
supplier into the chain. During an emergency it is virtually impossible.
What I think the Government could do in a case like this is to
sort of short-circuit that system and perhaps screen these ideas
quickly, find the ones that were winners, and get those publicly
supported so that when there is a list of 14 suppliers, it is not just
a matter of picking Nalco because that is the one you have always
picked. There is more direction, more focus. I rarely end up defending the EPA, but I would say that in the case of the issue you had
raised about Corexit, BP did write a response to that directive to
Lisa Jackson, and in that response the comment was, It is great.
We would love to use the other material. There is just simply not
enough supply to do anything with.
Another thing the Government could do is say, well, this is a
supply item that we should have available. It does not have to sit
in the Government inventory. I mean, the skimmers you were talk-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
139
ing about earlier, and Senator Levin was talking about, those
pieces of equipment exist because the NRC was created at the
strong suggestion of the Federal Government after one of the earlier spills. The reason we had 28 skimmers available was because
they were directed to be built and financed by the oil companies.
Senator SNOWE. I think that is something that we have to do in
the future and having a contingency with a warehouse with certain
products and technologies available to deploy.
Mr. SMITH. I think that is absolutely correct.
Senator SNOWE. Mr. Parker, from your experience? I know you
have been approved, as you mentioned, in four regions. Is that correct?
Mr. PARKER. Yes, maam.
Senator SNOWE. Regional response areas?
Mr. PARKER. Yes.
Senator SNOWE. So not Louisiana, but Alabama
Mr. PARKER. Well, Louisiana just recently
Senator SNOWE. Just recently.
Mr. PARKER. Just recently. It usually has taken us about 7 years
per region consecutively. It should not take that long. I mean, it
is a very simple product. It has been proven. It has been around
since 1994, so it should not have to happen. The things that we feel
that need to be done, you are right, there is a document called the
Selection Guide that was written by Region 3 and Region 4 and the
Coast Guard which does look at all these products, which they do
examine and they put them through the ARTES process. I think
some funding to revamp the Selection Guide and make it a living
document more so than it is today would help because these are
scientists that actually know what they are doing, and they can
take these 23,000 products and put them through the testing that
they need to be put through, improve them, and publish their performances and whether they are good or bad. It is a great document. It is available to everyone online, and I think that should be
brought back to life, especially in light of what has happened today.
Senator SNOWE. Those are good suggestions. Thank you.
Ms. Baird, from your difficult situation, I would like to also ask
you how much have you spent so far in trying to get, you know,
your product approved.
Ms. BAIRD. Just in the last 59 days, thousands and thousands of
dollars in travel expenses, expenditures, phones, you know, we average probably 80 phone calls a day per executive team member.
The biggest problem is the time required to chase down each person. I mean, as you can probably attest, just to get through to each
Senator takes so many levels of discussion with so many other
stakeholders. You cannot even imagine the kind of time this has
required of our firm, and this, of coursewe have ceased all other
business in an attempt to do what we know is the right thing to
do.
And think about this: We are on the EPA list and we are approved by most Gulf Coast states, and we are going through this.
I cannot imagine someone with an innovative idea that is not already on these lists.
So I think I agree with the points that this panel has made,
which is that there really should be some sort of a fast-track ap-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
140
proach so that, you know, people that have gone through this vetting process are not left just out by themselves.
Senator SNOWE. Excellent. Excellent suggestion. Sorry you are
going through it. I can only imagine the difficulty in all that.
Dr. Mitchelmore.
Dr. MITCHELMORE. Thank you. For companies to have their
dispersants considered, obviously they need to have toxicology tests
so that they would be considered as suitable dispersants. However,
we need to make sure that these tests are scientifically robust and
that the companies are not going to testing facilities that are not
giving them accurate and reliable and defensible data. And these
tests should also be expanded to include other tests that may be
able to give us some better information as to the longer-term effects of using dispersants and dispersed oil.
And, indeed, in the whole realm of looking at the effects of dispersed oil, numerous recommendations were made by the National
Research Council in 1989. I was on the panel in 2005 that also
looked at these dispersant issues. And it was surprising that even
16 years after the first report, some of the same recommendations
regarding toxicity issues and other issues pertinent to dispersant
use were still being recommended even with that 16-year data gap.
So I would like to highlight that the recommendations in both of
the NRC reports are actually looked at and future opportunities
are made to be able to address these basic uncertainties and data
gaps concerning dispersant use.
Senator SNOWE. Thank you, because I know there are extensive
knowledge gaps, as you suggested and recommend in that report.
Mr. Costner, I know you were rejected around 45 times by various Federal agencies over the coursewas it 17 years or the last
10 years?
Mr. COSTNER. I stand by all those numbers.
[Laughter.]
You know, I would like to say that I do not know how to solve
that problem of committees. I do not work very well in committees.
I work well with others, but I am not sure.
I would say that my company over the last months has spent
well over $1 million holding our breath to get that phone call that
I did not think would ever come.
What I would recommend, if I could, what I would demand, if I
could, and I can do neither, so what I would begwhat I would beg
the leaders in this country and the oil industry together would be,
before you lift the moratorium, before you do that, to please have
cleanup technology in place or at least on a way in a specific time
that is designed to meet and match with full force the worst-case
scenario that can be presented to us.
Senator SNOWE. Great idea. Absolutely right on point. All of you,
thank you. That is absolutely right, each of you, and I thank you.
Madam Chair, I would like to submit for the record from the
EPA, in fact, on the surface application dispersant, they did send
a directive on May 26th that BP shall eliminate the surface application of dispersants.
Thank you.
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you. That will be submitted to the
record.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
141
Senator SNOWE. Thank you all.
[The information follows:]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
142
143
Chair LANDRIEU. They have just called a vote, so we are going
to have to wrap up this hearing, and I thank you. But on one final
point, I want to ask the panelists to submit for the recordand you
will receive this in writing from us, and the Coast Guard as well.
Are the five categories clear enough and appropriate enoughone,
oil-sensing improvements to response detection; two, oil well control and submerged oil response; three, traditional oil spill response; four, alternative oil spill response; five, oil spill damage assessment. If I were a small business and had a technology as described, I am not sure what category I would apply to. This could
potentially be a first step. Get these categories clear, get them
transparent, expedite the process so that the best technologies in
America and around the world can be applied to a war that is
being waged every day in the Gulf Coast.
The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
(145)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
146
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
147
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
148
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
149
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
150
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
151
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
152
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
153
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
154
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
155
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
156
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
157
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
158
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
159
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
160
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
161
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
162
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
163
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
164
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
165
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
166
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
167
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
168
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
169
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
170
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
171
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
172
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
173
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
174
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
175
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
176
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
177
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
178
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
179
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
180
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
181
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
182
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
183
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
184
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
185
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
186
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
187
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
188
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
189
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
190
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
191
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
192
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
193
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
194
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00199
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
195
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
196
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
197
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
198
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
199
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
200
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
201
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
202
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
203
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
204
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
205
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
206
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
207
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
208
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
209
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
210
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
211
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
212
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00217
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
213
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00218
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
214
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00219
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
215
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00220
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
216
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00221
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
217
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00222
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
218
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
219
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00224
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
220
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00225
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
221
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00226
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
222
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00227
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
223
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00228
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
224
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00229
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
225
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00230
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
226
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00231
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
227
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00232
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
228
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00233
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
229
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00234
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
230
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00235
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
231
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00236
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
232
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00237
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
233
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00238
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
234
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00239
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
235
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00240
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
236
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00241
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
237
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00242
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
238
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00243
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
239
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00244
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
240
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00245
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
241
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00246
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
242
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00247
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
243
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00248
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
244
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00249
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
245
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00250
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
246
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00251
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
247
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00252
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6601
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT
248
249
VerDate Nov 24 2008
14:43 May 02, 2012
Jkt 073969
PO 00000
Frm 00253
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6611
C:\DOCS\73969.TXT
DPROCT

Senate Hearing, 111TH Congress - Harnessing Small Business Innovation: Navigating The Evaluation Process For Gulf Coast Oil Cleanup Proposals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senate Hearing, 111TH Congress - Harnessing Small Business Innovation: Navigating The Evaluation Process For Gulf Coast Oil Cleanup Proposals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senate Hearing, 111TH Congress - Harnessing Small Business Innovation: Navigating The Evaluation Process For Gulf Coast Oil Cleanup Proposals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S. HRG.

HARNESSING SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION:

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND

JUNE 17, 2010

Printed for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

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

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chair

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

14:43 May 02, 2012

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Anastas, Paul, Ph.D.

VerDate Nov 24 2008

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

HARNESSING SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION:

UNITED STATES SENATE,

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

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

Insert offset folio 1 here 73969.001

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

Insert offset folio 2 here 73969.002

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

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

Insert offset folio 3 here 73969.003

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012

Insert offset folio 4 here 73969.004

VerDate Nov 24 2008

14:43 May 02, 2012