70 



now relative to the coastal zone, and specificallj', the BASF plant, now 

 that you put South Carolina on notice? 



Will you elaborate on that so we can see where we are headed with 

 these bills. I will be coming back to your testimony, "The purpose of 

 the administration's legislation is not to impose Federal regulation,"' 

 but then you say we will have guidelines. 



Well, we at the State level know there is no more effective regulation 

 or more constrictive Federal statute than a Federal guideline. So that 

 is what I have in mind. Under what authority did you act in the BASF 

 case in South Carolina ? 



Secretary Hickel. Thank you. 

 I will try to answer all of those questions. 



First, I am sure Secretary Udall was speaking for his administra- 

 tion, not this one, because we had taken action before he made that 

 statement on April 22. As far as the Gulf of Mexico is concerned, the 

 problem was not that the regulations were there. It is the fact they were 

 not adhering to those regulations, and it becomes impossible to prevent 

 all accidents willingly or otherwise from happening. 



If I might make a comparison, we ha^'e laws, yet we have to have 

 policemen to see to it the laws are not broken. What happened in the 

 gulf was a disregard for those regulations tliat were there, so con- 

 sequently it appeared to be a willful disregard, and they were of a 

 character and a number that we felt we had to recommend a grand 

 jury investigation. 



We have taken, I think, a hard line since we came in, as in the Santa 

 Barbara pollution spill, where we recommended absolute liability 

 without fault. Consequently, that standard has been accepted by the 

 industry. 



As to the problem in South Carolina related to the BASF plants : 

 it was a case of doing what you have recommended many times — 

 trying to alleviate a minor problem before it becomes a major one. 

 Basically, in our letter to that plant we said if it appeared that they 

 were going in the direction where they would pollute the shrimpbeds 

 and oysterbeds, we would have to take action. It was merely alerting 

 them to the fact that unless the pollution problems that v/e antici- 

 pated were taken care of in the design, that we would opposite it. 



We are not trying to stop economic development. In fact, economic 

 development is to be commended. We think as these plants — regardless 

 of where they are in America — are being planned, that we should 

 desig-n them with the idea of avoiding the creation of environmental 

 problems. This is to avoid necessity of obtaining an injunction in 

 cases where pollution problems arose after the plants commenced 

 operating. 



Senator Hollings. Yes ; you talked about submitting plans. Is that 

 the general procedure? Let's talk of the past administration and up 

 until recently. 



Now everyone has become pollution conscious. But the Department 

 of Interior more or less turned over to the States — some used the ex- 

 pression abdicated its authority to the States. And as long as the 

 States didn't bother them, they didn't bother the States. 



Is that the policy today or what is the policy with respect of the 

 Department of the Interior with respect to enforcing the pollution law ? 

 Secretary Hickel. Not necessarily. Let me explain the action we 

 have taken. 



