1

zone, by amending sections 83, 85, and 86 of title 14, United States Code. We consider this the preferable method of assuring uniform authority for aids to navigation requirements on offshore structures.

The provision for safety authority in subsection 306 (b) of the bill also parallels the provisions of the Outer* Continental Shelf Lands Act. We believe that the approach taken in Title I of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act provides the proper basis for the safety authority desirable for artificial offshore structures. Similarly the same safety and environmental controls should be extended to those structures on the high seas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that are now applicable to structures within the navigable waters.

Additionally, in the matter of site selection, the authority of the Secretary under S. 80 could reduce the effectiveness of the authority of this Department under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act over the movement of vessel traffic and the creation of shipping patterns in the navigable waters. cifically, the provisions of subsection 306 (a) would diminish this consideration.

For the foregoing reasons, we are opposed to enactment of S. 80 since it would create more problems than it would solve. In our view, S. 80 does not provide the necessary integrated approach to the multiple problems inherent in consideration of offshore structures.

Spe

We believe that the necessary and proper provision for offshore structures can be assessed only in the broad framework of the nation's energy resources, transportation systems, and environment. Major results of the Administration's continuing review of these related problem areas soon will be presented to the Congress in the President's message on energy.

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report for the consideration of the Committee.

Sincerely,

John W. Barnum
General Counsel

Senator HOLLINGS. With that opening statement, ladies and gentlemen, we wish to welcome as our first witness this morning the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Senator Harrison A. Williams, the chairman of our Labor and Public Welfare Committee.

Senator Williams, after delivering your testimony, you are invited to sit with the committee. I know New Jersey has an important interest in these concerns and you have shown by your legislative participation your own personal concern. We welcome you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

Senator WILLIAMS. That is very gracious. I am most appreciative. I will stay as long as my schedule permits and would certainly like to have members of my staff who work with me on this be at these very important hearings, Mr. Chairman.

1

I am certainly pleased to have this opportunity to talk with you this morning about the whole question before us and address myself to both S. 80, which is the bill you have introduced dealing with deepwater supertank ports, and also my comments in connection with a narrower but I think important part of the problem, the bill that I have introduced.

I know you will be concentrating on the environmental impacts of these proposed ports and I am encouraged that this committee and you, Mr. Chairman, are acting so early in the session on this question.

These discussions will undoubtedly involve the national energy situation. I think all of us recognize the gravity of the energy shortage that our Nation faces. We must necessarily be concerned about the existing problems in obtaining the energy that our Nation must have.

However, I submit that we must not pursue this supply of energy on an ad hoc basis with short-term goals. Solution to energy shortages must be considered as part of a comprehensive national energy policy.

We do not have such a policy. It is unfortunate that we do not. And formulating it must be one of our highest priorities.

I think the Nation can be grateful that this committee is addressing itself to that basic question, together with other committees of the Senate that have a companion responsibility.

By making energy decisions in the context of national policy we will be able to take into account the environmental repercussions of alternative solutions to the energy problem. However, I would like to address the specific aspect of the energy question before us today, the question of deepwater ports.

1

Three major Government studies on offshore supertanker ports have been conducted over the past few years to determine the feasibility, the need, and the problems and the optimum location of such facilities.

Attention is focused on supertankers because they are capable of transporting most efficiently the enormous amounts of oil imports

which projections indicate this country will require during the next decade and perhaps longer.

All three studies have concluded that if such ports are to be built, at least one should be located somewhere off New Jersey or Dela

ware.

I would like to point out, however, that at least 32 different sites off nearly every coastal State have been evaluated and sites of New Jersey, Delaware, Louisiana, and Texas have been considered accept

able.

Because New Jersey is in the center of present deepwater port plan and the citizens of New Jersey are adamantly opposed to the construction of such a facility, I have introduced S. 180.

This bill would require, first of all, that a complete report with respect to any proposed offshore facility be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Administrator of EPA is then required to forward that report to the Governor of each adjacent coastal State which might in any way be affected by the project. Those Governors would then have 90 days in which they could veto the project. If the Governor does not act, construction of the project may proceed as planned.

Originally my concern about deepwater terminals focused on the environmental threats to the sea and the shore. We know that oil is highly toxic to all forms of marine life, that current careless shipping and dumping processes have already degraded too much of our ocean environment, and that attendant threats such as ship collisions, tank or pipeline ruptures, and inadvertent discharges do exist.

These substantial problems are as of now unresolved. Regrettably, they are supplemented by the landside impacts of such a facility. It is on the land that the most severe impact will be experienced.

It is there that the enormous storage tank farms must be constructed, and it is these refineries which will spew massive levels of air and water pollution out into the environment.

The Corps of Engineers has made the first honest public attempt to describe the landside impact of a deepwater port off New Jersey. This study indicated that a port would substantially alter the character of the affected area.

These esthetic, social, economic, and environmental effects make the location of a deepwater port highly political. In my judgment the people who would be forced to live with these changes and repercussions must play an integral decisionmaking role in the approval of a specific site for a deepwater port. And for these reasons I have introduced S. 180, which clearly provides that authority.

Mr. Chairman, I am gratified that your attention and that of the Commerce Committee has been drawn to this issue.

As I understand it, your bill, S. 80, would insure that the environmental impact of a deepwater port is considered equally with the economic and technical factors in the planning, construction, and operation of these offshore facilities. I wholeheartedly support this

goal.

Specifically, S. 80 would require certification by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration prior to construction and operation of the facility. This certification would be based on NOAA's evaluation of the project in light of certain criteria which are outlined in your bill.

I was pleased to note that S. 80 discusses the basic environmental threats posed by offshore facilities, and ties the administrative approval of the project to the satisfactory resolution of those threats. I certainly applaud your efforts and leadership on this issue. However, I am hesitant about a few points in the legislation.

First, I have serious reservations about the role of any Federal agency which would oversee and evaluate the environmental impact and precautions involved in the siting of a deepwater port facility. A basic difficulty I have with this proposal is that I doubt a Federal administrator would go against the wishes of the President.

More specifically, I doubt that he would refuse to certify a port if the President told him it was his recommendation that it be constructed.

Despite this shortcoming, I do believe Federal oversight and approval is an essential part of the approval process. The other major part should be state approval.

I am also concerned that NOAA is presently an agency within the Department of Commerce, the most active and least environmentally conscious proponent of these ports.

A reading of the Maritime Administration's Soros report clearly indicates that the Maritime Administration's goal is constructing deepwater ports.

I am afraid that the environmental concern of NOAA would be at least partially compromised assuming it remains in the Department of Commerce.

In my judgment the EPA might be in a better position to make decisions on the environmental impact of offshore facilities in the ocean and on shore.

Finally, I find that S. 80 makes no mention of evaluating the landside impacts of a deepwater port, even though I do note that the landside effect was cited and discussed in your opening statement this morning.

Mr. Chairman, this is probably the most significant aspect of all the environmental questions associated with a deepwater port. Any Federal oversight or evaluation of a port's impact must address this issue.

Again, since this involves air and water pollution on land, probably the most appropriate Federal agency would be EPA.

An additional reason that compels me to press for passage of legislation to provide coastal States with veto authority over a port is that the present administration seems inclined to proceed rapidly with these facilities.

One week ago today a representative of the Corps testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and opposed my bill as unnecessary and self-defeating legislation.

Yet, as I mentioned earlier, the Corps is preparing a report which indicates that the New Jersey shore with its active resort businessin fact, the largest industry in our State is associated with the coastal resort opportunities-might be turned into a highly industrial area with the attendant demise of the beautiful resort atmosphere.

Another example is the withholding of Federal funds for the Coastal Zone Management Act. With the excellent leadership of

your committee this legislation became law last year and was expected to become a land use bill for the coastal zone. When I supported it, that is what I thought it was to be and more than welcomed it.

However, the Administration rejected this approach and instead of providing the modest amount of money which the bill called for, set money aside for implementing the National Land Use Policy and Planning Act, a bill which has yet to be considered by either the Senate or the House.

We have seen this sort of legislative approach in other situations, perhaps a little more dramatic in others, and I have seen it where I considered it almost legislative blackmail. This approach only serves to diminish the credibility of the current Administration.

Mr. Chairman, New Jersey has experienced simple and shortsighted solutions to problems before and has suffered dearly for it. I spent the weekend reviewing some of our mistakes. I speak with conviction to this point of simple and shortsighted solutions.

For all of these reasons I feel very strongly that the people of the affected states have an authoritative role in the decisionmaking process before construction of a port is initiated.

If subsequent to the establishment of a national energy policy we find that deepwater ports are essential then we must confront the specific environmental issues involved in their construction and operation. This will require careful investigation, licensing and inspection procedures along the lines spelled out so clearly in S. 80.

These issues definitely raise questions of who has jurisdiction over such facilities.

Although I question establishing NOAA as the sole. Federal agency involved in this licensing or certifying process, I certainly support your contention that a Federal agency or agencies must be actively involved in this process.

At the same time, I would hope you agree with the wisdom of providing each State the authority to disapprove such a facility if it determined that the adverse impacts on its people and communities were undesirable.

་་་

Mr. Chairman, I again commend you for addressing this issue so early in the session. And I trust we shall have the opportunity to work together on this matter, which is of great importance to so many of our people.

Senator HOLLINGS. Senator Williams, what about the constitutional question of giving a State a veto power when the Constitution provides that the authority and responsibility over the navigable waters should be vested within the Federal Government?

Senator WILLIAMS. We are dealing with areas and I have consulted with people whose professional life is more completely concerned with constitutional and legal questions-where the Federal authority does reach. Accordingly, since Federal authority does extend to these areas, then the Federal Government can delegate or share that authority with the coastal States.

I think we have already done this once. In the Submerged Lands Act, we saw Federal authority over the territorial sea clearly delegated in part to the States.