this problem, and I think that is one of principal reasons for so many people in the area being in favor.

Senator MUSKIE. How close to the Maine coast do these tankers come, do you know?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, I do, about 8 miles out. These are easily visible from shore.

Senator MUSKIE. Are they really exposed to the navigational hazards to which tankers coming into Machiasport would be exposed? Mr. Rose. Well, they are running just outside those entrances. They are exposed to everything except actual entering and leaving the port.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, aren't there greater hazards in the area to which they are not exposed?

Mr. ROSE. Well, I think there are more hazards when you come into a harbor and dock, yes.

Senator MUSKIE. Do they move into the upper reaches of the Bay of Fundy as they move into the Canadian waters? Do they move into the upper reaches of the Bay of Fundy against the high tides? Mr. Rose. No, as far as I know they go to St. John and I believe the St. John tide is from 25 to 30 feet, something like that, but we have 12 to 13 feet.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, would a spill in St. John Harbor constitute a risk to the Maine shore?

Mr. Rose. I think so. It depends, of course, on the tides and wind conditions, but it is going to move very rapidly.

Senator MUSKIE. But it is your feeling and the feeling of others in this area that as long as there are risks relating to the Canadian oil activity, that we might just as well move ahead with that activity ourselves. Is that the point of view?

Mr. Rose. I think there is quite a lot of belief along those lines.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, let me ask maybe a hostile question on that point. Is that the way to begin dealing with that kind of a hazard? If everybody says that everybody else is doing it, we ought to do it, too?

Mr. ROSE. No, I don't believe so. I think we need to take a much more active approach than that.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, your attitude is-I gather from you and Mr. Humphries and Mr. Crandlemire as well-that the need for economic growth and development in this area is so great, and I understand that fully-I've been exposed to it myself for a quarter of a century-that you would like to feel that there is a sense of urgency about minimizing the risks from this venture because the economic benefits, you feel, are essential.

What is your impression about the economic benefits that would come to Washington County from a refinery?

Mr. Rose. I think that would be very great, not only in terms of the money, but in terms of the attitude of the people here. I think there would be a big change in thinking that there are things that can be done, there are jobs available, there are businesses that can be started, and I would hope would overcome the inertia which is sort of a byproduct of a depressed economy.

Senator MUSKIE. You're speaking about something more than direct employment by the refinery?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, am.

Senator MUSKIE. Are you speaking in terms of satellite industries to the refinery or are you simply speaking in general terms about the general economic climate?

Mr. ROSE. General economic climate.

Senator MUSKIE. You heard my questioning of Mr. Crandlemire about the industrial base of Washington County over the years. What efforts and what kinds of industries have been sought by Washington County in recent years to expand the industrial base? I know there have been economic development groups formed, committees formed, and efforts made to promote industry, to attract industry. What kinds of possibilities have been explored, and with what results?

Mr. Rose. I have only been back here about 5 years and I am not too familiar with the attempts that have been made.

Senator MUSKIE. I think it would be helpful for the record if we explored that, because there is a tendency to think, of course, that this industry really isn't the only one that is available, and I think it would be useful for the record if we understood what efforts have been made. What other kinds of industries have been sought? Have they been attracted? If not, why not? What are the economic obstacles that deter them from coming here and settling here?

I think these kinds of questions would be terribly important in order that we can have some understanding of the choices that are available to the people of this area. I know that a great many efforts have been made and my impression is with very few results in terms of new industry, new jobs, better paying jobs, and so on.

Is that impression a correct one in your judgment?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, I think that is so. It seems to me that most attempts have been to get an industry to make use of some of the raw materials here and I don't think that is too large a field.

Senator MUSKIE. What has happened to the food processing industry that would include sardines, blueberries and other agricultural products? Hasn't that shrunk over the years?

Mr. ROSE. Sardines, for instance, has shrunk greatly. This is evidently due principally to the lack of herring. The canning industry seems to have shrunk some, although by going into freezing it has changed enough so that it may not have shrunk as much as the job opportunities that it offers have shrunk.

Senator MUSKIE. I would like to ask the staff to get for the record the statistics on the rise and fall of industrial activity in Washington County, so that we can get a statistical picture of what is actually happening. I am addressing this to Mr. Rose and everybody else who could give us some more comprehensive history of the efforts that have been made in the last quarter century, for example, to attract new industry, and what the results have been, what new industries have come, what kind of employment opportunities they brought, what their income and wage levels were.

We would like to have that more detailed picture of the economic viability of this county. I think it is important to put this whole thing in the proper perspective.

(The information requested was submitted as part of Mr. John Hanson's testimony and may be found on p. 116.)

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Rose, for your testimony.

We will take a 5-minute break.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness is Dr. Gardiner C. Means of Bucks Harbor, who is chairman of the subcommittee appointed by the Governor to raise questions and develop answers associated with the environmental risks of the Machiasport project.

Dr. Means, it is a pleasure to welcome you this morning.

STATEMENT OF GARDINER C. MEANS, BUCKS HARBOR, MAINE

Dr. MEANS. Senator Muskie, I appreciate very much the opportunity to comment on the problems that we face in connection with this Machiasport project.

My name is Gardiner C. Means. I am an economist and a summer resident in this area. My wife and I own Yellowhead Island which is within two and a half miles north of Stone Island where the proposed port would be located, so we have a very active concern about pollution. I am also actively concerned with the economic development of Washington County and, therefore, am very anxious to see industry come in.

At the Portland hearings on the trade zone last year I said in my testimony that I would support the project under three conditions: 1. That the refinery was located inland so as not to impair the value of the coastline of the Machiasport peninsula ;

2. That subsequent studies established the essential safety of the proposed tanker berths; and

3. That the lease to any use of the trade zone should contain adequate provisions against air and water pollution.

The first of these conditions seems to be well on the way to being met. It is almost certain that if there is a refinery, it will be located inland, not out on the coast.

The second, the matter of safety, I will discuss later.

The third condition was accepted in principle at the time and I was made chairman of a committee to draft adequate antipollution provisions for any proposed lease.

Now I am not a professional expert on pollution. But to carry out my task as chairman I have interviewed experts in the Federal air and water agencies and experts outside these agencies. I have visited modern refineries in Puerto Rico and on Saint Croix. I have consulted with the Coast Guard; I have examined antiwater pollution equipment in the harbors of Portland and Baltimore. You might call me a semiexpert amateur.

In this testimony I shall be reporting my findings as they apply to an oilport and refinery located in a foreign trade zone in the Machias

area with the port located in Machiasport and the refinery located inland but also within the trade zone. Most of what I say will also apply to petrochemicals, but I have not specifically looked into the

matter.

I will divide up the subject of pollution into five major groups of problems:

1. Air pollution at the refinery and tank farm.

2. Water pollution at the refinery and tank farm.

3. Operating spills at the port.

4. Oil disasters like the Torrey Canyon.

5. Other sources of water pollution.

With respect to air pollution at the refinery, there seems to be little disagreement among experts that there is ample engineering know-how to prevent practically any air pollution from a modern newly built refinery of the sort proposed for this region. The cost of including the necessary equipment and operating it is not great, certainly not prohibitive.

Without proper treatment, the worst pollutant would be sulphur escaping from the smokestacks and with proper removal facilities, the recovered chemical would pay a substantial part of the cost. Other pollutants from the stack can also be controlled. Techniques. are also available for preventing the escape of noxious gases from storage tanks.

The problem in preventing air pollution is thus to require the introduction of the necessary equipment and making sure that it is properly installed and properly operated. The problem of enforcement should not be too difficult.

The first step is to establish tight emission standards, then to approve the lessees' construction plans only if engineering analysis shows that the proposed equipment will control the effluent to meet the standards; third, to inspect the equipment to make sure that it is properly installed; and finally, to check the effluent through meters and periodic checks to make sure that the standards are being met.

WATER POLLUTION AT THE REFINERY

As in the case of air pollution, there seems to be agreement among the experts that techniques are available for preventing water pollution at the refinery and tank farm and that the cost of using them is not prohibitive where a new installation is being built.

The two main sources of water pollution would be storm and washdown water, on the one hand, and process water.

There is no problem of establishing drains and a catchment to receive all the rainwater falling on the refinery area. Since this rain tends to pick up some oil or oil products, it should go into settling tanks in which oil can be skimmed off, before the water is released. Also the occasional spills around the refinery and tank farm are properly sluiced down into the drains. This water also needs to be treated before it is discharged.

Again the pollution problem is to establish the necessary standards for the effluent water, make sure that the necessary facilities for catching and treating it are properly installed and metering and periodic tests to make sure that the effluent itself meets the standards.

The other major source of possible water pollution is cooling water. In the refinery the crude is evaporated and then condensed. The condensing can be done through air-cooling and this seems to me the preferred way and would produce no water effluent.

A second method is to use cooling water which is drawn from a pond or reservoir specifically constructed for the purpose and recirculate the water. În this case, the water effluent would be minimal and high standards could and should be set both for the quantity of effluent and its quality, including its temperature.

A third method of cooling is to use cooling water directly. This would produce a large volume of hot effluent and I believe should not be allowed.

Whether the first or the second method of cooling is used, the problem of enforcement should not be great. With air cooling there is no problem of enforcement. With recirculated water cooling, the problem is to limit the volume of effluent and make sure that it meets the standards both in quality and temperature.

So much for the day-to-day operation of the refinery and tank farm. I believe both air and water pollution can and should be prevented. The costs of the necessary equipment would, of course, be borne by the licensee. The costs of enforcement and inspection would be borne by the Trade Zone Authority, but this should be allowed for in the rental charged for the use of the zone.

How far these same arrangements would be effective in the case of a petrochemical development I cannot say with certainty, but I expect that a specific investigation would lay the basis for equally effective control in that case. Certainly there would be no excuse for the New Jersey-like pollution. Antipollution technology has been advancing rapidly under public pressure and it is quite a different matter and much cheaper to design a new plant to avoid pollution than to cure an old plant.

OPERATING SPILLS AT THE PORT

Now let me turn to the problem of water pollution in the normal operation of the port itself. The most important source of possible water pollution in the normal course of operations is from oil spills. in the process of transferring oil or its products between tanker and shore. There is general agreement that from time to time oil will escape in the transfer. Someone will open the wrong valve, a defective connecting hose will burst, a hose may be uncoupled before it is adequately capped. In any routine handling of oil in existing ports, spills of this sort, usually due to human error, must be expected.

But what is new is that such spills do not need to reach the water. Now I want to repeat that: These spills do not need to reach the

water.

Much ingenuity has been exercised by designers in recent years on ways to catch spills before they become pollutants. The engineers for Atlantic-Richfield have designed a berthing arrangement and pier for giant tankers which almost eliminates the possibility that spills will reach the water.

The first characteristics of this design is that all transfer pipes or hose connecting the tanker and pier are made to cross the tanker