131 



Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A number of modifications have been 

 made in the proposed substitute which are responsive to the concerns I expressed in 

 my previous letters to Senator Jackson regarding two earlier versions of the bill. I 

 appreciate the movement away from provisions which would greatly obstruct or 

 prevent oil and gas exploration on the North Atlantic Continental Shelf. 



The bill as now written, however, adds nothing to authorities which are already 

 in place or activities that are already underway. A Biological Task Force identical 

 to the one in the bill was established in October of last year and has been meeting 

 regularly. The Task Force has developed a program of monitoring and research 

 which directly tracks the provisions of the bill, and has formally recommended it to 

 this Department where it is under expedited review for funding. Decisions on 

 permit conditions for the controlled discharge of drill muds and cuttings under the 

 Clean Water Act are being made regularly in frontier areas by EPA. Neither EPA 

 nor Interior is allowing any activity on the OCS which presents foreseeable signifi- 

 cant adverse impacts to fisheries or any other resources. 



To be frank, I can see' no purpose served by passage of this legislation. But I can 

 see considerable risk if it is reported by the Energy Committee. 



First, it greatly enhances the prospects for floor action on the Commerce Commit- 

 tee bill, with its rigid zero-discharge requirement, which the Administration and I 

 strongly oppose as tantamount to an exclusion of oil and gas exploration on Georges 

 Bank. 



Second, any new legislative guidance at this point will greatly upset the painstak- 

 ing progress we have made toward a reconciliation of interests in the North Atlan- 

 tic, a process which has involved intense interagency and Federal-State negotiations 

 and a long-running lawsuit which was initiated in January 1978 and is just now 

 approaching a new round of trial activity this fall. 



Third, it will set a precedent for special regionally-based legislation which will 

 seriously threaten the reliability and even-handedness of the national program 

 established by Congress under the OCS Lands Act, as amended. 



I ask that you allow the progress we are making in the North Atlantic to proceed 

 without the uncertainty, dislocation, and renewed contention that would accompany 

 passage of this legislation. I also ask that you allow us to continue implementation 

 of the OCS Lands Act as the operative statute crafted by your committee to assure 

 environmentally sound operations everjTvhere on the OCS. 

 Sincerely, 



Cecil D. Andrus, 



Secretary. 



Mr. Studds. Let me also for the record read in an exchange from 

 the earlier hearing this year of this subcommittee on precisely this 

 subject. The question of whether or not important information is 

 proprietary and withheld. I quote my question to EPA's own scien- 

 tist Dr. Richards: 



What do we know about the composition of these animals (drilling muds)? 



Dr. Richards. The problem is not so much what we know, but what we do not 

 know. Drilling fluid is a complex mixture of mixtures. The ingredients include a 

 wide variety of chemicals. The problem is some of them appear to be proprietary. 

 The American Petroleum Institute's component listing states that fact. Another 

 problem is that these mixtures appear to undergo transformations downhole. We 

 know some of the things that go into the drilling fluids, but we do not know them 

 all. Drilling fluid components contain contaminants — they are not pure chemicals — 

 they are complex mixtures of industrial grade chemicals. Only the trade names of 

 most chemicals are known. The problem is: in order to do predictive toxicology and 

 predict what effect, these things would have on organisms, we really need more 

 information on the chemical analysis. 



Dr. Parsons (NOAA). I agree with Dr. Richards' statement also. In my review of 

 permit applications, there is often mention of additives used in the drilling mud, but 

 usually very little indication of what they are or what their concentration may be. I 

 have before me a list of 15 categories of drilling fluid additives commonly used: 

 lubricants, flocculants, bactericides, et cetera. I have no idea of what chemicals are 

 found in these additives nor what their toxicities are. This information is not 

 provided in drilling permits. 



So the scientists do not seem to agree with your characterization. 



Ms. CoMPTON. Well, since April we have begun taking a new look 



at the way we are approaching permitting these facilities and one 



