waters. Require all vessels traversing fishing waters to have caged "screws" or propellors. 6. Make no specific agreements with the company which is known as Atlantic World Port, but insist on dealing with the actual oil company which is to build and operate the refinery. 7. Make all of these factors conditions or requirements which the oil company must sign a contract to honor and implement before we will agree to the location of the refinery here. 8. Require that all companies using the refinery facilities to refine oil or bringing oil in or out of the terminal be equally bound by all legal restrictions. 9. Require a deposit of $5,000 from the captain of any tanker entering the terminal, to be refunded only when oil is successfully handled without spillage and only after bilge tanks have been discharged into the bilge purification tanks of the terminal. All citizens of the area must adopt the businesslike attitude of "Let the public beware." We must control our own destiny and fully protect our environment regardless of what may happen concerning the refinery. Action in the areas I have mentioned is long overdue. We should start immediately. We have been dissipating our energies to some extent arguing whether or not to accept the refinery. All citizens, whether they voted "yes" or "no" on the question of the refinery, should perhaps direct their energies, not to remaining divided, but toward positive cooperative action to implement these objectives. We must not wait until we are absolutely sure of future events before we plan for them. The planning must begin now which will prepare us for any eventuality. We can shape our own destiny! The proper leadership and the necessary aggressive and intelligent planning must take place now. Senator MUSKIE. And may I say to each of those who have asked for an opportunity to speak that you are also free to supplement whatever you say orally here today by any written statement that you may like to submit for the record. This committee has to return to Washington this evening, so we have a long day ahead of us, and this is the only reason why I limit your time. So for the seven remaining witnesses, I suggest we provide a half hour, which means 4 minutes each. At the end of 4 minutes, I will tap my gavel in each case. I don't want to be arbitrary, but it is almost six, and if we are to get back, we are going to have to start before long. May I, then, invite Mr. Thomas Curtis, who has asked for an opportunity to testify, to come forward under the 4-minute rule. STATEMENT OF THOMAS CURTIS, SUMMER RESIDENT Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to testify. I will just make a few points. My name is Thomas Curtis, I am a former U.S. Government employee, now retired. I live out in Roque Bluffs, and my particular place is right across the bay from the Point of Maine, so the reason why I am testifying in part is I don't want to get up and have breakfast every morning and look at tank farms instead of the pointed firs of Maine. I have a number of good reasons, but most of them are for being against the refinery, but most of them have already been stated in clear, lucid language, and much more authoritatively than I could have. But I will just make a few suggestions to the committee, perhaps. One is: they have built an oil refinery recently in Canada. Has anyone gone up to this town in Canada to see what real benefit has come out of that development, to the local citizens? Has it really benefited them to the extent we are told that Machiasport may benefit the local people here? I also Senator MUSKIE. Would you give us the name of the town? Senator MUSKIE. Would you give us the name of the town, so that we Mr. CURTIS. I can't give you the name of the town. I read it in the newspaper, and I have forgotten it. I have heard with much interest of the very fine equipment which should be used with these refineries and the landing ports for these oil operations. Wouldn't it be true that this material would be so costly that the self-claimed benefit of lower prices for fuel oil for the citizens of Maine as well as the rest of New England would be substantially lost? And thererfore, it would not be a valid argument for approving the Machiasport operation? I would also like to suggest that notwithstanding all this very sophisticated equipment, which would prevent any spillage of oil, it overlooks the possibility of human error. Now the Torrey Canyon, as I remember reading it, was sailing along on a nice, calm sea, and it was clear, and for some reason it went around, curved around to the left and hit a rock, and then we had the Torrey Canyon. Although they will have tugs, they will have pilots, isn't it possible and I think it should be taken into consideration of a monumental human error, whereby maybe the carrier would land on the rocks? Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a comment on the claim of Washington County being a poverty-stricken area. Sure, there is unemployment, but we do find that the average income-I quote from the Machias Valley Daily News of the people in Washington County, has gone up from $4,590 per year in 1964 to $6,360 in 1968, a 38-percent increase, and on top of that, these people have a way of life that is quite attractive. They can go out to their woodlands, they can supplement their income, they can go fishing, they can go lobstering and clamming. It is, indeed, not such a desperate situation as has been often stated. And in fact-I think I will end right there. Senator MUSKIE. Oh, no; finish your sentence. Mr. CURTIS. I was just about to get through with a point: and in fact, I think we, all of us, both the local citizens and the summer residents, of which I am one, enjoy together much more than & vastly larger income in a big city. Thank you, sir. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you. May I invite you to submit any further statement you may care to make? Mr. CURTIS. Thank you very much. Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness, Mr. L. C. Kellogg-I don't know his town or affiliation. Mr. Kellogg? STATEMENT OF L. C. KELLOG Mr. KELLOGG. Mr. Chairman, Senator Boggs. Mr. Chairman, you recall perhaps in some correspondence with me on this subject, at your office-I have a substantial file over your signature. However, I am not going into detail. Senator MUSKIE. It is hard for me to focus specifically on one of a half million letters I received last year. Mr. KELLOGG. I can appreciate that. But I am going to subscribe to your friends and not take your time, if I may, but before doing that, I would like to get information to whom I may direct my thinking on this subject, that it will have perhaps equal effect of what has been related here in this room in the last 2 days. I wrote to the office of your honor on September 22, 1970, requesting time for this discussion, and I haven't yet received response to that communication. Senator MUSKIE. I don't know that my wife has heard from me since September 22, 1970. Mr. KELLOGG. I am not trying to make a point of it. Sir, the only point I am trying to make Senator MUSKIE. I will say to you: you say you want your statement to get equal attention to what has been said; if you send it in, we will print it in the record of this morning. Mr. KELLOGG. I want to get it in the record, so it will have equal attention to what has been said here, and I would like to get out of here and let you get home. Senator MUSKIE. If you will send it to me or to Senator Boggs. Senator BOGGS. If he has it prepared right now Mr. KELLOGG. No, it isn't in form to present. I would like to present it in a sensible form. Senator BOGGS. Very good. Mr. KELLOGG. So it can be understood. Senator MUSKIE. You can send it to the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. It will go directly to the committee and the staff will see that it is printed in the record. Mr. KELLOGG. Thank you very much. Senator BOGGS. Thank you. (The statement referred to together with additional correspondence follows:) STATEMENT OF LANGDON C. KELLOGG, CATHANCE LAKE, Grove, Maine HONORABLE EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. HONORABLE CHAIRMAN: This communication will refer to my appearance at the hearing before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Air & Water Pollution held at the University of Maine, Machias campus, September 8-9, 1970. With a time állottment of only four (4) minutes I requested and was granted by the committee, chaired by Senator Edmund S. Muskie, Maine, the privilege of submitting my testimony in writing, with the assurance that it would be given equal consideration as if presented orally at the meeting. I qualify as a person interested and affected by any ecological impact in the area covered by the subject hearing as a property tax-payer in Washington 53-513 0-71-46 County, Maine and as a citizen of the United States as it relates to the ownership of nearby Acadia National Park, Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, the Naval Communications Facility in Cutler, Maine and the Air Force Radar facility in Bucks Harbor, Maine. All these facilities are within a very few miles of the proposed free-trade zone and crude oil refinery in Machiasport, Maine. My qualification as a U.S. Citizen also extends to the Federal Government's interest in the off-shore waters adjacent to Eastern Maine in any Federal jurisdiction as the case may be. I object to the establishment of a free-trade zone and oil refinery at Machias port, Maine because of the potential detrimental ecological effects that will result, not only to the natural environment but to the established industries in the contiguous area. These potential ill results have been well presented and documented by other witnesses to this hearing. To those presentations I subscribe. I object to the testimony of Mr. Armand Hammer, board chairman and chief executive officer of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, who, in his prepared statement, insinuated that his corporation should be given special consideration because of some vague deal involving the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial at Campobello, Canada. His remarks in this respect were not germane to the subject at hand and were an overt attempt to use undue influence. His complete testimony should be thrown out by the committee. I object to the committee, in the instant subject, being chaired by the junior senator from Maine, Edmund S. Muskie. By his actions and pronouncements, public and private, over a period of years, he has prejudiced his position on the subject and is in no position to weigh the pros and cons of the subject objectively. On January 8, 1969 a letter from Senator Muskie's office and over his signature said, "I favor the Machiasport free-trade zone because I am confident that Maine's needs for fuel and for an unpolluted environment are com patible". On June 12, 1969 a letter from Senator Muskie's office and over his signature said, "The most significant reason for selecting Machiasport as the site of the refinery concerns the deep water port that is available there". On September 8, 1969 a letter from Senaor Muskie's office and over his signature said, "Machiasport is an ideal location because its depth allows the largest and most modern tankers to service the refinery". I object to the unequal time given to the proponents and opponents at the Machias hearing. Many, if not most, of the proponents were allotted time up to an hour or an hour and a half to present their testimony, while many, if not most, of the opponents were limited to four or five minutes. (I was allotted four minutes; hence this written testimony.) I pray that the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution vote the entire proceedings of September 8-9, 1970 on the subject of a free-trade zone and oil refinery at Machiasport, Maine null and void, based on the objections cited above; and a new hearing be scheduled at which there would be equity for all. Thank you. Sincerely, LANGDON C. KELLOGG. SEPTEMBER 29, 1970. HON. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. HONORABLE CHAIRMAN: Based on reports carried by the news media today, I wish to retract a part of the material incorporated in my written testimony submitted in connection with the hearing held by the Senate Subcommittee on Air & Water Pollution at the University of Maine, Machias campus, Sept. 8-9, 1970. Senator Muskie is reported as having said that if he had to vote on the question of an oil refinery at Machiasport, Me. at this time he would vote 'No', because he does not believe the present technology (used in oil refineries) yet exists to safeguard the natural environment'. Many of us have maintained this posture right along and applaud the senator's pronouncement. Under the circumstances I wish to retract and withdraw my testimony to the extent only that refers to Senator Muskie's former pronouncements in favor of the refinery. DEAR MR. KELLOGG: Thank you for your letter about Maine's application for a free trade zone at Machiasport. The questions you raised about the problems of industrial development in a virgin area are very important ones. Let me assure you that I am aware of them when I deal with the Machiasport proposal. As a representative of the people of Maine, it is my responsibility to satisfy their needs for fuel, as well as for clean air and fine beaches. As you know, New Englanders often suffer from fuel shortages, yet pay more for petroleum products than people in any other area. The proposed oil refinery in the free trade zone would guarantee an adequate, economical supply of oil for the region. Advanced developments in industrial design make it possible for a modern oil refinery to operate efficiently without polluting its environment. Successful operation of such a "clean" plant requires firm governmental enforcement of high anti-pollution standards. I have taken pains to see that such standards will be enforced. I favor the Machiasport free trade zone because I am confident that Maine's needs for fuel and for an unpolluted environment are compatible. Thank you again for letting me know how you feel on this issue. I hope that this exchange of views has been as helpful to you as it has been for me. Sincerely, EDMUND S. MUSKIE, U.S. Senator. U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., June 12, 1969. MR. LANDGON C. KELLOGG, DEAR MR. KELLOGG: Thank you for your most recent letter concerning the proposed refinery in Machiasport. We are all very much concerned with the problems which might arise from oil spills, and pollution from the refinery. I can assure you that everything possible is being done in the planning stages to make certain that these don't happen. And if, through some oversight, an accident does occur, plans are being made to take quick and effective corrective action. The mast significant reason for selecting Machiasport as the site of the refinery concerns the deep water port that is available there. This will be the only port in the United States capable of handling the super tankers that have drafts up to 90 feet. I am enclosing a copy of a letter from the Governor of Maine that I had inserted in the Congressional Record on May 20. I am sure that it will be of interest to you. With best wishes, I am Sincerely, EDMUND S. MUSKIE, U.S. Senator. U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., September 8, 1969. MR. LANDGON C. KELLOGG, St. Petersburg, Fla. DEAR MR. KELLOGG: Thank you for responding to my letter about the Machiasport free trade zone. I am sorry for the lengthy delay, but the volume of mail I |