I hope that this discussion will be considered in a final decision, whose effect will reach far beyond this area.

Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Dr. Blumer.

I take it that you regard the pollution risk of an oil refinery at Machiasport to be a major risk, affecting not only the waters adjacent to Machiasport, but to the entire Gulf of Maine?

Dr. BLUMER. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. In your testimony you spoke of the severe measures that were taken at Milford Haven, which you describe as a large and modern British oil port, to protect against risk of oil pollution. Are you in a position to detail those preventive measures or to compare them to those suggested by Dr. Means in his testimony earlier? Dr. BLUMER. The paper has been published and as a result of the closeness of a national park area a conservation board has been set up that is controlling and keeping track of the amount of pollution appearing. In spite of this, the pollution appearing is degrading the environment.

Senator MUSKIE. With reference to this, do the sources of the information of what has been done at Milford Haven appear herewith? Dr. BLUMER. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. Could you refer to a particular reference?

Dr. BLUMER. There are two references-supplement to volume 2 of Field Studies by the Field Studies Council. There is a paper by Arthur and another one by G. Dudley.

Senator MUSKIE. Your testimony is important because I expect it is the most complete and thorough analysis of the dangers of oil pollution that we will be able to receive and hear and it is important to underline.

What you have said here is that when an oil slick takes place, as it did in Falmouth Harbor-was it in the harbor?

Dr. BLUMER. It was offshore.

Senator MUSKIE. It was offshore-that not only does it have an immediate unfavorable impact upon the environment, but you say also that even when it disappears from the surface, that it sinks to the bottom and its damage there may be even more extensive. In other words, the damage is directly related to the surface.

More than that, you say that over time it spreads on the bottom and that it is persistent to a point that you have not yet identified. Is it your judgment that the damage has no terminal point in terms

of the immediate environment?

Dr. BLUMER. The degradation of the oil in the environment is now evident. There are several types of environments in which degradation is extremely slow. One is within the organisms. Apparently the oil that has been taken up by organisms with their food inadvertently is incorporated into the body foot and is thereby removed from the normal degradation mechanism and appears to survive for the lifetime of the organism.

Another area is the oxygen-free bottom sediment and especially the sediment in the marshes. It is one of the key facts of organic geochemistry that oil could not have been formed if the hydrocarbons and the related substances had not survived for millions of years in

oxygen-free sediments at the bottom of the sea. And this is the picture that we now see especially in the marshes and in oxygen-free offshore bottom environment. The oil does not escape and we are not clear yet how it can be removed, probably by a gradual reoxygenation of the surface of the sediment, as it is settled again by borrowing organisms that rework the sediment.

That will lead to a gradual degradation of the oil and eventually the oil will again disappear.

Senator MUSKIE. Now the testimony you have given confronts any area like this with choices. What does it mean for the planet as a whole? Was it a Woods Hole study that gave us some figures, and I am sure they are available from some source, about the extent to which oil has been discharged into the ocean environment as a whole, the amounts involved and what this means for the planet as a whole? Could you give us any picture of this that would be useful?

Dr. BLUMER. Our technology depends upon oil, the kind of society or civilization that we have developed. I believe that the scientific work on the worldwide effect of oil pollution is just now in progress and that we have no clear-cut picture yet. We have probably some of the best information in the West Falmouth area, because we have put a great emphasis on the bottom organisms which cannot move.

If you study fish in an area where you have oil pollution like Santa Barbara or the Gulf of Mexico, the fish move and it is very difficult to say for how long they have been in contact with the oil. Another area where I think a similar effect is being noted is the Caspian Sea in Russia where there is a great deal of oil production and with that, oil pollution. The Russians have published figures for the extent of oil pollution and they have seen that within the last few years the productivity of phytoplankton (the floating algae that are the primary source of marine life) is decreasing very drastically and most heavily in the most polluted area, in the area where oil production is abundant.

So it is studies like these that lead us to think that on a worldwide basis we may face serious problems. How large the problem is we cannot really guess yet.

Senator MUSKIE. If I could project what you said this morning, as a layman, I would say that what is involved is the very survival of the planet. Is that your judgment?

I know you are a scientist and don't like to get involved in the kind of guesswork that we politicians tend to indulge in.

Dr. BLUMER. First of all, the survival of the productive regions of the ocean which I have said are very small in comparison to the vast extent of the ocean. It is within these areas that a great deal of the oil pollution, dredging, sewage disposal and so on changes the environment. Man is putting great hope upon the expectation to feed the growing population and to derive food proteins from the ocean. There is a danger that we may seriously damage this expected har

vest.

It has been said that acquaculture in Puget Sound in Washington could produce a shellfish crop which would be equal in value to the total U.S. fish crop at the present time. At the same time in this area and in many other areas there is a pressure from pollution, not only

oil pollution but many other kinds of pollution, and I feel that these two things should be weighed against each other and that we should come to the point where we should decide we want one or the other. Senator MUSKIE. We have been told that there is on the Outer Continental Shelf as much oil as we have discovered on land in the United States. Since the drilling in these areas causes real danger, what would be your recommendation to keep tabs on the proceedings, and explore for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf in the light of such danger?

Dr. BLUMER. Three scientists of Woods Hole, including myself, have recently testified before Senator Hart's subcommittee on the effects of offshore oil production and worldwide oil transportation. We feel that there are many steps that can be taken to recover oil while minimizing the risks; minimize the number of wells, optimize the spacing; do not drill in tectonically active regions. It is better to tap new reservoirs at a slower rate because the risk is proportionate to the number of wells being drilled.

Senator MUSKIE. Would you have an opinion as to the relative dangers for this area of the coast from the refinery proposed at Machiasport as compared to the Canadian refineries which were referred to this morning, the offshore drilling off the Nova Scotia coast and the movement of tankers off the Maine coast. Could you compare the relative dangers?

Dr. BLUMER. I think this is rather difficult because the parameters are in a state of flux. The tanker design is changing. Instead of the older design of the tankers, we are getting more and more tankers which are able to use the load on the top technique which can reduce pollution and even though this is not the final solution, it is an improvement, and further improvements may come along.

At least in the long run over many years oil transport will become safer than it is now. And production and port operations are changing so that I would probably not venture a guess which is the

most serious.

Senator MUSKIE. One final question: Your study of the West Falmouth spill involved a single spill of 650 tons. How do you compare the damage resulting from that kind of single spill with a series of smaller spills that accumulate over a year, which might total 650 tons? Is there a comparison here that is of any use?

Dr. BLUMER. There is no known comparison study of an area where you have a continued slow influx of oil, but we know that the bottom ecologies of areas like Milford Haven, Boston Harbor, the Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay have changed vastly. These are areas where you have many small spills appearing over a long-term period.

Senator MUSKIE. Of course we have Casco Bay in Maine, which is now subject to a great deal of exposure to tanker traffic. Do you have any opinion with respect to the damage that has been created there over the years by the routine oil spills?

Dr. BLUMER. I'm afraid not.

Senator MUSKIE. I would like to express my appreciation to you, Dr. Blumer, for coming up to Machiasport to testify. I think that your testimony has been most illuminating to me and, I suspect, to

what would be a large television audience and the audience here, and I am most grateful.

Dr. BLUMER. Thank you, Senator.

(A biographical sketch of Dr. Blumer, together with a list of references follows:)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF DR. MAX BLUMER

Dr. Blumer was born in Switzerland and received his education at the University of Basel, Switzerland (Ph.D. 1949). He became a U. S. citizen in 1964. He has been associated with industry (CIBA, Limited, and Shell Development Company) and with academic institutions (University of Minnesota, Scripps Institution of Oceanography). He has been at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution since 1959.

He is a member of the American Chemical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has served on a FWPCA Panel on the Evaluation of the Toxicity of Detergents and a U. S. Coast Guard-National Academy of Sciences Panel on Pollution Monitoring.

Dr. Blumer is author of numerous scientific papers. His research interests and experience lie in the field of organic geochemistry, chemical oceanography and oil pollution. He has worked on the origin of petroleum, the chemical analysis of petroleum, the origin and the long term fate of organic compounds, especially hydrocarbons, in the sea and in the marine food chain.

Dr. Blumer acknowledges long term support of his work in these areas by the Office of Naval Research, by the National Science Foundation and by the Federal Water Quality Administration.

REFERENCES

Arthur, D. R., "The Biological Problems of Littoral Pollution by Oil and Emulsifiers-a Summing up." pp. 159-164, Suppl. to Vol. 2 of Field Studies, Field Studies Council, London (1968).

Blumer, M., Sass, J. and Souza, G., "Hydrocarbon Pollution of Edible Shellfish by an Oil Spill", Marine Biology, 5, 195-202 (1970).

Blumer, M., Souza, G., and Sass, J., "Hydrocarbon Pollution of Edible Shellfish by an Oil Spill," Unpublished Manuscript, WHOI Ref. No. 70-1, 14 pp., Jan. 1970.

Carruthers, W., Stewart, H. N. M. and Watkins, D. A. M., “1, 2-Benzanthracene Derivatives in a Kuwait Mineral Oil," Nature, 213, 691-692 (1967).

Cook, J. W., Carruthers, W. and Woodhouse, D. L., "Carcinogenicity of Mineral Oil Fractions," Brit. Med. Bull., 14, 132-135 (1958).

Dudley, G., "The Problem of Oil Population in a Major Oil Port," Field Study Council, Suppl. Vol. 2, 21 (1968).

Eckart, R. E., "Cancer Prevention in the Petroleum Industry," Int. J. Cancer, 3, 656-661 (1967).

Eglinton, G., "Organic Geochemistry," in: G. Eglinton and M. T. J. Murphy, Organic Geochemistry, Springer, Berlin and New York (1969).

Graef, W. and Winter, Ch., "3, 4 Benzpyren in Erdoel," Arch. Hyg., 152/4, 289-293 (1968).

Hampson, G. R. and Sanders, H. L., "Local Oil Spill," Oceanus, 15, 8-10 (1969). Sanders, H. and Hampson, G. R., "Benthic Ecology", in: Summary of Investigations Conducted in 1969, Unpublished Manuscript, Reference 70-11, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, (1970).

Wilber, Ch. G., The Biological Aspects of Water Pollution, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, Ill. (1969).

(The following information was received from the director of the Oil Research Unit, Milford Haven Harbour, United Kingdom for inclusion in the record at this point :)

53-513 0-71

OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH UNIT, ORIELTON FIELD CENTRE, Pembroke, South Wales, United Kingdom, November 23, 1970.

HON. EDMUND MUSKIE,

U.S. Senate,

Old Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: Recently, the testimony of Dr. Max Blumer of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution of Massachusetts before your Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution hearings (held in Machiasport, Maine, on September 8 and 9, 1970) was brought to my attention. I am writing to you because Dr. Blumer has quoted our oil spill statistics here in Milford Haven Harbour inaccurately, greatly exaggerating the volumes of oil spilled annually. I know that your Subcommittee is vitally interested in the subject of water pollution from oil spills in major oil ports, as well as in spills or pollution emanating from the operation of refineries. As Director of the Oil Poliution Research Unit of the Field Studies Council at Orielton, near Milford Haven, I have worked closely with the Milford Haven Conservancy Board and with the Harbourmaster, Captain G. Dudley. Captain Dudley publishes a report of our experience each year, including a table which shows the approximate volume, the causes and sources of oil spills. In addition, we maintain an independent record of the number of spills in the harbour.

In his testimony before your Subcommittee, Dr. Blumer cited Captain Dudley as the original source for his statistics. Unfortunately, however, he exaggerated the volume of spills in Milford Haven in the year 1966 by 50 times. I am not sure how Dr. Blumer arrived at his figures, since we think the table presented by Captain Dudley is rather straightforward and easy to understand.

In his testimony, Dr. Blumer indicated that the volume of oil spills in Milford Haven in 1966 was 2,900 tons. Actually, we have not had nearly this volume of oil spills in our entire ten-year history as a major oil port. Indeed, the actual volume spilled in 1966 was only 69 tons. In our worst year, Dr. Blumer's figures were too great by a factor of 10; in our average year, Dr. Blumer's figures were too high by a factor of 50; and in 1969, Dr. Blumer's figures were too high by a factor of 100.

I am attaching a copy of a letter to me from Captain Dudley which states further the total volume of spills in each of the last four years. As you can see from this letter, the volume of oil spilled has been going down during the past two years, although we are handling larger volumes each year. (When considering the number of spills in Milford Haven, it is important to stress that each and every spill, however small, is reported, and many of them would not be thought worthy of recording in other British ports. Therefore, if our figures seem high when compared with other port's figures, this is due to the completeness of the records.)

It might interest you to know that Milford Haven is the largest oil port in the United Kingdom. It is located on the West Coast of South Wales in an area of outstanding natural beauty, with a significant part of the shore of the Haven within the Pembrokeshire National Park. In 1969, we handled approximately 40 million tons of crude oil and oil products, which is equivalent to about 800,000 barrels daily. During the year, we had a total of 58 oil spills. ranging from 1 gallon up to as much as 1 ton. This includes all spills-from vessels, docks, shore installations, Royal Navy installations, and a large oilburning power plant.

The difference between our actual experience and the 2,900 ton figure used by Dr. Blumer in his testimony and attributed to Captain Dudley is so great that both he and I felt I should write this note to set the record straight. I was particularly disturbed because, after citing the inaccurate figure, Dr. Blumer then proceeded to generalize from this figure in predicting how much oil would be spilled if an oil port was established at Machiasport. He concluded that a 100,000 barrels daily refinery at Machiasport would result in spills of some 10 barrels daily. Based on our most recent experience, we would estimate the volume of spill at such a plant to be somewhere between 25 and 35 barrels per year. Actually, a new, modern plant should be able to improve upon our experience and perhaps cut the volume of spills down to between 15 and 18 barrels per year.