page 13, whether or not those facilities are to be built within the traditional "jurisdiction" of the states.

Sixth, the exclusion from the legislation of offshore oil and gas drilling facilities [Section 303 (b)] is unwarranted. There is little question that the construction and operation of such facilities may pose threats to the marine and coastal environments, as well as cause secondary land side effects which are similar in nature to those related to the development of deep water port facilities. In light of the similarity in environmental effects, we see no reasonable basis for excluding offshore drilling facilities and activities from the ambit of the statute and continuing the present policy of fragmenting agency authority and review procedures, as well as shielding federal authorities now responsible for offshore minerals leasing from legitimate state and local con

cerns.

Seventh, we feel the substantive standard governing certification set forth in Section 304 (a), namely, that the structure under consideration "does not pose an unreasonable threat to the integrity of the marine environment in which it is to be located . . ." is inadequate from an environmental point of view. A standard of reasonableness may imply a mandate to balance the economic, national security and other possible reasons in favor of a proposed development against the potential threats to the environment which it poses. A more suitable standard for effectuating the stated purpose of the legislation would be whether the proposed facility is likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects. We also note in this regard that the standard presently contained in Section 304 (a), which limits the certifying authority to considering the effect of development on the marine environment "in which it is to be located.. seems unduly narrow. Depending upon current, weather and other geological and climatological conditions, the threat from a deep water port facility and its operations may be to an environment which is located at some distance from the site of the structure itself.

Eighth, we have the following comments with respect to the specific criteria set forth in Section 304 (c):

§ 304 (c) (3)-add the word "crustaceans" after "fish" and the words "plant life" after "shellfish".

§ 304 (c) (4)-substitute the following wording :

"The effect of such artificial structure on water movement, wave patterns or circulation and upon the marine bottom, nearby shorelines, beaches, harbors and channels, and upon water quality and salinity in bays and estuaries."

§ 304 (c) (6)-add "and waterborne and airborne traffic" after "weather". These wording changes are designed to provide broader converage of anticipated environmental risks.

Ninth, while generally the procedures provided for in the proposed bill represent a commendable effort to allow for public participation in the deep water port development process, most notably in the provision for public adjudicatory hearings contained in Section 304 (b), we would make several suggestions for improvements in the procedural aspects of the statute:

(a) The criteria to be established under Section 304 (c) should be established in the context of a rule-making proceeding pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act rather than through consultation "as may appear appropriate to the Secretary."

(b) As pointed out above, the provision for consultation contained in Section 304 (d) should also provide for consultation with state and local government bodies and with private organizations having special expertise.

(c) The provisions presently contained in Section 305 relating to public access to information should be broadened by providing in Section 305 (b) (1) for disclosure to affected state agencies. Similarly, Section 305 should make clear that, in addition to copies of communications, documents, reports or information received or sent by applicants, any such items recieved or sent by consulting agencies or intersted parties submitting comments should also be made available for public inspection. Lastly, the reference in Section 305 (b)

7

The threats of oil pollution posed by offshore drilling operations are substantialperhaps the most significant oil spills in U.S. waters in recent years have been associated with such operations in the Gulf of Mexico and the Santa Barbara Channel.

(4) to disclosure in orier protect their health and safety" may be too restrictive. We suggest as an alterative that provision be made for disclosure to "all interested persons". and that such disclosure be coupled with appropri ate protective provisions relating the use of the information disclosed. Under such a procedure, there would seem to be little risk that trade secrets would be revealed.

(d) Section 309 which relates to judicial enforcement of the statute should be expanded (1) to provide for suits by the Secretary to halt construction or operation of any artificial strettre if such construction or operation is being carried out in violation of certication conditions or rules and regulations issued by the Secretary and to provide for citizen enforcement in the event that the Secretary falls in a timely manner to enforce the statute. We also suggest that this legislation like other recent pollution control laws, provide for the award by the ecurt of litigation expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, where the interest of justice requires. E.g., Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Section 505-2.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we reemphasize the need to proceed with the utmost caution in assessing the need for and authorizing the development of deep water port facilities and to avoid any ecmmitments to such facilities, as well as offshore powerplants and airports, pending development of adequate information and institutional capacity to resolve the complex issues of environmental, energy and land use policy which are at stake. We believe that development of offshore port facilities, which represents a major new endeavor in the marine environment and which may pose unprecedented threats and challenges to the integrity of our coastal waters and lands, should be allowed to proceed only in the context of a comprehensive, multi-interest planning and regulatory framework for management of the coastal zone. We urge that the highest priority be assigned to vesting a single authority with overall planning and coordination responsibility for developments in the coastal zone, and to insuring that affected states, regions and the public have an effective role in the decision making process.

Senator HOLLINGS, Mr. Hill, we are going to be having votes later on this afternoon and I think, if you don't mind, if you feel up to it, we will be glad to hear from you now. If you prefer, we could come back, but I can tell you now we are going to be jumping up and down on those votes.

Mr. HILL. I would just as soon do it now.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. HILL, JR., PRESIDENT, INTERCONTINENTAL PIPELINE CO., INC.

Mr. Chairman, we have filed with the committee both a statement and a supplemental statement that I would ask be incorporated into the record. This session has gone on for some length and much of what I have to say has been said, and probably said better by others. Senator HOLLINGS. It will be included in the record and you can summarize it in any way you desire.

Mr. HILL. We asked to appear here because we thought that since we have a specific proposal which has been the subject of some comment, certainly in the local press and in the States of New Jersey and Delaware, that we might bring into focus some of the problems that are posed by the proposed legislation.

Stated very briefly, we have applied for a permit to construct a deepwater port facility off the coast of Delaware and New Jersey. That deepwater port facility would consist of a series of single buoy morrings which, in turn, would be connected via a pipeline which

would run up the Delaware Bay some 70 miles, coming ashore in what is known as the town of Greenwich in New Jersey. It is the bayside facility. It is a piece of property owned by one of the power companies in New Jersey.

That pipeline would actually be two 48-inch lines with a daily through-put capacity of roughly 2 million barrels a day. It would connect to a tank farm on shore and from that tank farm crude oil would be distributed to existing refinery facilities.

One of the things I would like to emphasize at the outset because I think it goes to one of the key concerns that has certainly been evidenced by almost everybody who has testified here during the last 2 days—that is, the landside impact of an offshore port facility. It is not our proposal to build a refinery complex. It is not our proposal to build a petrochemical complex.

It is our view that because of the location of the onshore tank farm, that nobody is going to want to build a refinery facility there, and I will come back to that if I may.

I cannot add anything here to what has been said about the energy crisis. I am not sure that even describing it as an energy crisis is a very profitable way to describe it. The fact is, that we have increasing demands for fossil fuels; and the fact is, that that increasing demand is presently being satisfied.

Imports of crude oil into the United States have increased 20 to 25 percent in each of the last 2 years and it is quite clear that they will increase to that same extent this year.

When you deal with the deepwater port facility, I think frankly that it is almost a mistake to deal with it in the context of whether or not the construction of a deepwater port goes to solve the energy crisis. Certainly, as we envision what we would propose to do, we do not envision it as solving the energy crisis. We simply envision it as a means, if you like, or a system to permit these increasing imports of crude oil; because the fact is that crude oil is being imported into this country in increasing quantities.

All that we are proposing to do is change the system by which those imports are presently being affected. The fact is, in the Delaware Bay today, one needs only to overfly it in a small airplane and you will see 100,000-ton tankers, sometimes as many as four of them, being offloaded inside the bay. Once lightened they then proceed up the Delaware River and indeed proceed out into the open ocean to the refineries in the New York area to complete discharging their

cargoes.

Senator HOLLINGS. This is the very point we were trying to make a moment ago. Actually, it might be economically and environmentally more responsible to do it that way than to rely on the already established method being used at the present time-like you say, not just to satisfy our energy needs, but to do it in a safer and more environmentally sound fashion.

Mr. HILL. I think that is so, Senator Hollings, but I made the statement that I made because I have appeared at other proceedings such as this, particularly locally in the State of New Jersey, and it seems to me the emphasis is wrong. We are really talking about doing what is now being done but doing it better, and I think that is really what we are talking about.

There is plenty of concrete information available, I think, on the operation of deepwater ports. I have been somewhat concerned-I was concerned by Senator Both yesterday stating that he really did not think that there was enough concrete information available on the operation of deepwater ports. I am aware of at least six major studies that have been done in this area in the last 3 years and, moreover, the State of Delaware itself received a report in the middle of February which was authorized by its own legislature, and the report is available, that the State of Delaware would be better off if these terminal facilities were moved outside of the bay. Indeed, the authors of that report address themselves specifically to the single buoy mooring systems, and I think the only fair reading you can make of the report is that they find them preferable from an environmental standpoint.

Once again, we are dealing with alternatives. If you continue to do what you are doing, you are simply going to clutter up the harbor. The Corps of Engineers in its much criticized reports so concludes-I cannot help but be amused sometimes when people go after the corps, and this is a great example of it. Nobody wants anything to do with any part of either one of the reports except that portion that deals with the landside effect. There is nothing else in the report that is right, apparently. I just disagree with that.

We are talking about alternatives. It is just perfectly clear and I do not think anybody has to be an engineer and I do not think you have to be an environmentalist-I think all you have to have ever done is sail a boat or run a motorboat to know that if you are going to run 600 tankers into Delaware Bay every year you are a whole lot more likely to have trouble than if you are unloading 100 tankers 36 miles out to sea. To me, that is just-there really is not much question

Senator HOLLINGS. Is that your proposal! To put a superport 36 miles out to sea?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; out of the line of sight, out of the coastal traffic zones. We are out in 120 feet of water. We can unload anything out there.

Senator HOLLINGS. And it is all joined to shore by pipelines?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; which would come up the Delaware Bay well out of the shipping lanes. We think the construction of that system, the laying of the line, is going to have a minimum environmental impact.

There are other alternatives. You can build a system that Marad has developed, but I can only say-and Lord knows, I do not purport to speak for the whole private sector-but we do not want any part of that system. That will cost in the billions.

Senator HOLLINGS. What kind of system?

Mr. HILL. They have a proposal that involves building a port roughly 8 miles off the coast of Delaware which would be connected by pipeline but the way it is constructed, they go out to the 50-foot contour and they build breakwaters which are grounded on the surface, the subsurface if you like, the ocean floor, and then inside of those breakwaters they float a fixed dock facility so that the ships would actually birth when they came in to unload.

I think just a mere description of that kind of a system, which would be marvelous but the expense of it is, to me, astronomical. I think you are clearly talking about billions of dollars and I think you are clearly talking of Federal participation in a very major level and I do not think it is necessary.

And I would like to say this, with respect to these single buoy moorings systems. I hear in all of these proceedings references to oil spills. Now, as a lawyer, I know how hard it is to prove a negative and I have said repeatedly-and we have tried to find out because we know if we are wrong somebody is going to shove it down our throats that there has never been a spill at one of these single buoy mooring systems. These things were not invented yesterday. They have been around about 15 years. There are over 100 of them presently operational throughout the world. They are operational in places like Japan, where they come as close as a mile and a half to public beach facilities. They operate them in places like the Tasmanian Sea, which is probably the roughest body of water known to man, where they keep them operational about 350 days a year.

So we are not really talking about man's first trip to the moon. We are talking about installing a system which is a pretty well tested system. It has built-in safeguards and I am not going to go into them here. They are spelled out in our statement and I think they are fairly well known throughout the trade.

But we do bring to this, it seems to me, a system-and we recognize and I want to make this clear that we are not saying to this committee and we are not saying to the State of New Jersey and we are not saying the same to various compact commissions we are going to have to deal with-this is our system and you are going to have to take it or leave it; either do it this way or not do it at all. We are not taking that position.

We are fully aware of our environmental responsibilities. Protestations of this kind coming from private industry, I know, usually are met with something of a jaundiced eye, but we are only talking in terms of enlightened self-interest. We know that unless we satisfy our environmentalist friends that we are not going to get permits. We know that the courts are available to these people, whatever the legislation is. Lord knows, Senator Stevens is more than aware of that. It almost makes a lawyer's mouth water to consider the legal fees that have been involved in the Alaska pipeline exercise. We

know that.

We also know that if we get a permit that we are going to be subject to constant supervision by a variety of agencies, such as the Coast Guard and the Corps; and when we come on shore by the various local authorities and the State authorities. So that, whether we like it or not, we are probably going to be the best environmentalists in this area.

We also know there is existing Federal legislation that deals with oil spills. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act has penalty provisions. It imposes obligations on cleanup and the like.

I would like to deal just very briefly, if I may, with this landside impact question. I have already addressed myself to what our intentions are on a very specific proposal, but I think that, once again,