1 (Simultaneous discussion.) 



2 DR. BOTHNER: I hope you have some evidence for that, because I 



3 sure do not. Do some things jump right to your mind? 



4 DR. GRASSLE: Can we say "could be?" Actually--no, I do not. I 



5 am just responding to the comment. It was a major point that everyone 



6 agreed on. 



7 Maybe, from what you are saying, it certainly should be "could be" 



8 or should we leave it out? 



9 DR. KRAEUTER: I think John may have been the source of that. 



10 John Teal was thinking about microbial breakdown. I think he was the 



11 source of that. Maybe we could call him up and ask him. 



12 DR. GRASSLE: At the very least it should be "could" instead of 



13 "would." 



14 MR. VILD: The real language is "it may be substantial." 



15 DR. GRASSLE: "Could" is a little short. 



16 DR. KRAEUTER: We ought to check with John on that and see if we 



17 can get it. I think he is the source. 



18 DR. VALENTINE: Have we finished with that part? 



19 DR. GRASSLE: Yes. 



20 DR. VALENTINE: Getting back to page 25d, where we were talking 



21 about benthic impacts, didn't we have a discussion about the 



22 unlikelihood of oil spill material getting to the bottom? Where is 



23 that? 



24 It seemed to me we had a long discussion about the fact that most 



25 of the stuff from blowouts and oil spills was going to be confined to 



26 the surface layers. 



27 MR. VILD: That was in the morning discussion. 



28 (Simultaneous discussion.) 



29 DR. VALENTINE: Should that be included in that to kind of to 



30 support the contention that benthic impacts—or to state that benthic 



31 impacts are unlikely? 



32 MR. BOURNE: Sort of offsetting that, as I remember, was--maybe 



33 that was where this came from--was the statement that, compared with the 



404 



