will be buried as required for safety. In shallower water, as the pipeline approaches the beach it will be buried for complete protection. Prior to installation, the pipe is wrapped with a corrosion resistant coating and encased in concrete for added weight and mechanical protection. After installation, corrosion of the line is prevented by cathodic protection. The assembly process utilizes the best techniques of welding available and is completely X-rayed and the joints coated with corrosion resistant coating prior to leaving the barge. After the line is completed, it is pressure tested and "pigged" to make sure that it is entirely satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

Locating a tanker terminal offshore, away from the more congested existing docks, has a number of inherent advantages. One of the most important is the reduced traffic problems. Locating the terminal ogshore allows use of the largest tankers available. This minimizes the number of ships required, thereby reducing the chance of accidents. Ogshore terminals have had a very good safety record. As far as we know there have been no major spills resulting from loading or unloading operations from an offshore terminal.

From an engineering and construction standpoint, an offshore tanker terminal is entirely feasible and presents no hazards or undue difficulties. To be able to unload tankers at the rapid rate required for economical operation, a large and expensive facility will be required. Construction of this facility would certainly be a major engineering effort. However, the existing U.S. construction industry has the capability to design and construct an entirely adequate facility.

From an operational standpoint, an offshore tanker terminal is also entirely feasible. Built into the system would be both manual and automatic controls and safeguards to prevent accidents and to minimize problems should malfunctions occur. Offshore tanker terminals have been safely operated in remote areas throughout the world. Certainly, it would be possible to operate a similar system in the U.S. continental area where more is known concerning the operating conditions. Naturally, there will be periods of bad weather at any location where offshore operations cannot take place. In this event, a tanker approaching the berth will be unable to moor or a tanker already at berth, unloading, will have to terminate operations and move out of position until more favorable weather returns. The offshore petroleum industry has certainly developed the capability required to safely plan, construct and operate a facility of this type.

STATEMENT OF THE LABOR-Management MARITIME COMMITTEE

The Labor-Management Maritime Committee whose membership includes steamship lines in both the liner and tanker trade and maritime unions, both seagoing and shoreside, supports the general purposes of S. 1751, a bill which would amend the Outer Continental Shelflands Act and authorize and regulate the construction and operation of deepwater port facilities. S. 1751 appears substantially, if not rather completely, identical to H.R. 7501, both bills, in essence, having the fundamental purpose of enabling the construction of large scale offshore structures, including deepwater terminals and the environmental protection essential to such construction.

It is obvious that this nation must strike a proper balance between the urgent need on the one hand to protect the natural resources of the sea from pollution and other impairment and, on the other hand, to provide the vital energy resources upon which the very survival of the United States economy so essentially depends.

We note that the bill as drafted places primary responsibility with the Secretary of the Interior for programs authorized in the legislation, while our position would place such responsibility with the Secretary of the Interior, specifically with respect to the environmental aspects and their coordination as between all agencies of Government. We would favor placing the transportation and construction responsibilities with the Secretary of Commerce.

Since domestic and international commerce involved with energy supply and the need for environmental protection are so intrinsically related, there must, of course, be the utmost cooperation between such agencies. Consultatory and othr cooperative relationships are directly provided in the legislative proposals, including the responsibilities of the United States Coast Guard in navigational matters. Certainly, we would hold that agency coordination and coop

eration outweigh the actual determination of where the program administration is lodged. However, as indicated above, we would favor and support modification of the bill to lodge purely non-environmental responsibilities with the Secretary of Commerce. Such a lodging of authority in areas involving transportation factors connected with seaborne cargo transport is in consonance with earlier action by the Congress when maritime affairs were left with the Department of Commerce rather than with the Department of Transportation. Clearance of environmental problems between the several agencies involved with such matters can still be lodged in the Department of the Interior as an overall coordinating agency, if desired.

We note the Department of Transportation, through the Office of Pipeline Safety, has responsibility for insuring the reliability of pipeline systems from deepwater port terminals, not only to the shore but to the refineries and the consumer. The Department has many other items of interest, including the U.S. Coast Guard aspects. In fact, so many agencies are involved and so much legislation has been enacted on environmental subjects that the President is considering a new Cabinet Department of Energy and Natural Resources to handl such programs. We would feel that overall coordination of environmental relationships might well be lodged in the Department of the Interior or, if established, such new department, without disturbing the Department of Commerce responsibilities as provided in H.R. 5091 in the House of Repre sentatives.

As to other most specific items of consideration, we do not favor giving State the sole determination as to the existence of deepwater transport facilities opposite their shores. First of all, such deepwater facilities would be located beyond the waters controlled by States of the United States, the latter either by treaty, inernaional agreements or law of the sea. The projected locations, estimated at some 15 to 25 miles from shore, are thus beyond the general three-mile international understandings, as well as the twelve-mile fishing right boundaries. Such matters involved with international waters are logically within the Federal scope rather than the States. It has been aptly pointed out, however, that without State cooperation and consent, the operation of offshore deep water facilities would be greatly hindered, if not made impossible. Refusal to permit counterpart shoreside facilities, commensurate with deep water terminal needs, would tend to nullify the entire operation, as would excessively rigid administration of State land-use programs. We are firmly of the belief that the very crucial elements of our energy crisis will ultimately force a Federal-State so-called "detente" in dealing with both environmental protection and energy supply. This will ultimately be true out of sheer necessity.

We are vigorously opposed to granting the States the right of "veto of superport plans." State review as a part of the process of Federal-State consideration, and undelstanding is essential but this should not involve a State veto right.

It is as unthinkable for over-developed environmental considerations to destroy our economy as it is to permit our economic and industrial conduct to destroy our environment. In either case, human life is jeopardized and a proper intelligent balance most certainly must be achieved. It is equally unthinkable that States in coastal areas where energy needs are the most acute, would deny the development of deep water tanker facilities off their shores, thus expecting other States to solve oil import energy needs by permitting deep water facility construction off their own shores. Unfortunately, there are bills presently introduced in the Congress which might well facilitate such a turn of events.

It is recalled that some of the States opposed a bill to transport a percentage of oil in U.S. flag ships and killed that legislation in 1972. Putting these two positions back-to-back would mean carrying imported oil for such States in foreign ships to ports other than their own, while relying on such processes to supply energy to some of the most volatile blackout and brownout areas in the United States.

We think this is inconsistent with the energy needs of such States and, therefore, we oppose all legislative proposals intended to minimize or even forbid the construction of deep water tanker terminals off the Atlantic Ocean shores.

In this connection, a Department of Transportation witness has testified that "construction of superports is economically justified in the North Atlantic

region, while on the Gulf and Pacific Coasts such construction would be economically justified only if the volume of crude import increased substantially." Thus, the North Atlantic area, where oil and petroleum product import needs are most acute. is more resistant to their construction-a condition which must of necessity change if we are to meet our energy needs. The extent to which present land-use guidelines or problems under the Coastal Managemnt Act can be met by superport construction, opposite existing refineries, is in question. Where such is not possible, something has to give in the way of other locations, for America must meet her energy crisis soon and on a practical basis.

In the Administration's testimony presented before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee by the Honorable Russell E. Train, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, six major points are set forth. We shall deal with them in order.

1. The Administration holds, as in the case of H.R. 1751, that the Department of Interior provides the best "authority to protect" the environment. This may be true with respect purely to aspects of environmental protection. We do not agree that this holds with respect to deep water terminal construction. In addition to (1) overall Department of Commerce responsibility in the field of trade and ocean transportation, (2) the water-borne transport responsibilities currently lodged in the Maritime Administration within the Department of Commerce, and (3) the close working relationship between "such agencies and the U.S. Coast Guard in the Department of Transportation", it is pertinent to point out that NOAA is also lodged within the Department of Commerce. This agency is deeply involved with both transportation and environmental protection and, as such, can provide invaluable assistance for coordination between urgent deep water port needs and environmental facets associated therewith. In this regard, we would support the provisions of the House bill (H.R. 5091), placing the overall authority for superport construction with the Secretary of Commerce but requiring, at the same time, the closest coordination with all affected environmental agencies and particularly the Department of Interior. This latter Department may well be used as an overall coordinating agency for all non-construction, non-operational and non-navigational aspects.

2. Our second point is similar to the first but, as in the Council of Environmental Quality testimony, addresses itself to the question of "broad-basedness" of authoritative agency responsibility.

The provisions of S. 1751 contend that deep water port development deals with important energy and land-use issues as well and that, therefore, a broader-based agency is preferable; namely, the Department of the Interior. While recognizing that the Department of Interior is deeply involved with domestic energy supply, including oil drilling on the outer continental shelf, we still fear that, taken in the broad context, greater emphasis might be placed on pure environmental matters than energy transportation, particularly in the foreign import supply area. It would be against the national interest if attention to the former became so all-possessing that great detriment to the jatter would ensue. Certainly the Department of Interior could only be "broader-based" principally with regard to environment. It would certainly appear that the Department of Commerce would be immeasurably "broader-based” in transport and deep sea terminal construction-the specific purpose of the legislation. We believe, therefore, that the Administration's contention on overall "broad-basedness" has its limitations.

3. The Administration has questioned the one-time nature of a certification as provided in the House bill (H.R. 5091). It seems to argue for a continuing licensing and regulatory approach. If this has merit. legislation could be so amended later by placing any such related responsibilities, in addition to licensing, in the Department of Commerce. However, we would point out that continuing surveillance of the operation would result under the penalty exaction provisions of the House legislative proposal as currently proposed therein.

4. The Administration holds that "stiff and criminal penalties for violation of the condition of the license" should be established. Certainly penalties for such violations are warranted. H.R. 5091, to which we testified in the House of Representatives, provides strict civil penalties. If further penalties are later deemed in order, legislation could easily be so amended. We, therefore. see no justification in lodging authority with the Department of Interior due merely to differences in penalty assessment as between H.R. 5091, Senate Bill S. 1751 and H.R. 7501.

5. The bill, S. 1751, "provides for revocation or suspension of a deep water port facility license." We would prefer penalty assessment sufficient to protect against environmental impairment rather than license revocation, although some provision for the latter may be necessary under severe conditions of violation or environmental disregard. Realistically, no one will invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a deep water termina! facility where revocation becomes an easy matter solely in the hands of purely environmentally-oriented officialdom. We would prefer a continuing inspection service carried on by the Department of Commerce in cooperation with other environmental agencies, with wording in the Committee report that stiffer penalties may be proposed for enactment if experience shows it necessary to insure further compliance with environmental requirements.

6. The Administration points out that H.R. 5091 is silent on pipelines that bring the oil to shore. We believe that bill may have purposely omitted this reference since presently this function would appear to be lodged in the Office of Pipeline Safety in the Department of Transportation. Final legislative enactment could well speak to this relationship and responsibility.

Lastly, we would point out that deep water terminal facilities are most essential to help relieve tanker-port congestion. With energy imports expected to more than double by 1985 or sooner, the port traffic in oil and petroleum products could become massive indeed, with correspondingly augmented accident and spill incidents. Even with an appreciable number of deep water terminal ports in operation, such incidents will undoubtedly lead to greater navigational regulation due to the further development of the smaller tanker shuttle service between regular U.S. ports and the non-contiguous foreign port refineries from Newfoundland to the Caribbean. Without the deep water terminals, oil from the Near East and other supply areas would require smaller oil transport tankers in much greater number, which would, in turn, make both the import of oil more difficult and the hazards to the environment more precarious. It is, therefore, most urgent that legislation to authorize and promote offshore deep water terminals be passed at an earlier date. We fully realize that these legislative proposals were introducd for the purpose of initiating hearings leading to required enactments governing the subject of energy imports and that amendments will undoubtedly be required as a result of such hearings as are held. We would recommend to the Committee that in so doing, the following items condensed into three essential points be sustained: 1. A proper division between the authorities in the field of environmental protection on the one hand and transport energy on the other. In this regard, we favor the transportation and construction features lodged with the Department of Commerce, with proper liaison with the Department of Transportation, including its U.S. Coast Guard responsibilities. On the other hand, we would not oppose lodging overall environmental protection coordination with the Department of Interior. We do oppose the single agency proposal of S. 1751. 2. A full review between Federal and State authorities on each project proposal to ensure that full consideration be given to the programs, responsibilities, and desires of the affected States but without veto authority lodged at the State level.

3. A certification for deep water terminal development, requiring surveillance for compliance associated with reasonable penalties, but not subjected to such regulatory rigidity as to create any continuing imminence of cancellation, as such a condition would only serve as a deterrent to investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities so necessary to our national energy survival. We thank the Committee for the opportunity of making this statement of our position on the subject legislative proposal and commend the Committee for its foresight in moving forward on a timely basis with legislative proposals to meet the urgent energy needs of this country.

STATEMENT CF J. M. CALJOON, NATIONAL MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL Asso

CIATION

My name is Jesse M. Calhoon. I am the National President of Marine Engineeds Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO. MEBA is a labor organization engaged in representing marine engineers employed aboard ocean-going and other vessels for purposes of collective bargaining.

We are aware of the inability of United States ports to handle large vessels. Most United States ports do not have the facilities or natural harbors to permit the entry of the deep draft large size tankers and other vessels now being

constructed all over the world. Thus, we recognize the need for facilities such as the Deepwater Ports facilities provided for in this proposed statute.

Thus, we support the objectives of this legislation. We agree with the proposition that the Secretary of Interior shal license the construction of such deep water port terminals with due regard for avoiding interference with international navigation and for minimizing any adverse environmental effects. But we are concerned with the effect of this legislation upon the rights of United States seamen and the rights of labor organizations, such as ours, which represent persons employed aboard American flag vessels. The proposed statute could have a serious effect in these areas and this subject ought to be considered by Congress before this legislation is finally enacted.

For example, a United States seaman on foreign articles cannot leave a vessel in a foreign port, but may obtain a discharge when the vessel reaches an American port. Are these deepwater port facilities constructed and operated by United States citizens considered a foreign port for such purpose? I submit that they should not be so considered and that the legislation should so provide. American seamen should be permitted to obtain a discharge when an American flag vessel terminates a voyage at such a deepwater port facility. More serious problems are raised by this legislation in the labor relations area. Are these deepwater port facilities considered to be United States territory for purposes of the application of the National Labor Relations Act or for purposes of the application of other federal labor legislation? Does the National Labor Relations Act apply to employees permanently stationed on such deepwater port facilities?

Moreover, suppose MEBA has a labor dispute with a ship owner and seeks to picket his vessel. Can we exercise our legal right to picket such a vessel at one of the deepwater port facilities? Do the ordinary rules of law concerning the picketing of the vessel apply to such picketing at a deepwater port facility? We do not believe that this legislation should insulate deepwater port facilities from the normal application of our American labor laws. The National Labor Relations Act, and all other applicable United States labor legislation, should apply to such sites. Congress should specifically make clear its intentions in this regard and avoid any future contention that these sites are exempt from the reach of United States labor unions.

We are naturally concerned with protecting the rights of MEBA to organize and to engage in legitimate labor activities among employees at such deepwater port facilities. We are also interested in maintaining our constitutionally protected right to picket and engage in other protected concerted activities at such deepwater sites.

Thus, we submit that Congress should specifically protect these rights of labor organizations at such deepwater port facilities. We believe that such protection should be contained in the statute itself. I suggest that the protection of such rights be specifically incorporated in the criteria to be considered by the Secretary of the Interior in Section 103(b) of the statute. The legislative history should clearly and definitely provide that it is the intention of Congress to have all applicable U.S. legislation govern and regulate labor relations and labor union activity at such deepwater port facilities.

Only in this fashion, we subunit, can this improvement in our maritime facilities be accomplished in a manner consistent with the statutory rights guaranteed to American seamen and to the labor organizations representing them. The purposes of this statute are desirable, but the rights of American maritime labor organizations and of American seamen should not be ignored or disregarded.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT CHITWOOD, SEADOCK SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL

INTRODUCTION

The proposed SEADOCK facilities include offshore crude oil unloading terminals, a pipeline system with marine and onshore segments for moving the oil to shore, offshore pumping and operating platforms and an onshore storage terminal.

SEADOCK will be designed, operated and maintained in a manner to minimize the possibility of oil spills. Comprehensive facilities will be included to prevent oil spills and to quickly detect and limit the extent of any spills which do occur. Operating and maintenance procedures will be established to insure continued safe operations.