74 



Senator Hollings. I don't think they have, either. I talked with 

 them about 10 days ago and they said it would take several weeks to 

 complete them and they have yet to submit them. I just wondered 

 whether they had. 



Now, with respect to that State, and all of the other States, I will 

 ask you an obvious question, but it has been raised, really, by the 

 Governor and the General Assembly of South Carolina, that this new 

 procedure is being stacked solely against South Carolina. 



AVliat is your comment ? 



Secretary Hickel. That is not true. We took similar action in 

 Toledo, Ohio, with four major steel mills last September. But these 

 were ah-eady in existence. There is a uniqueness here due to the fact 

 that what we h^ive done up until this time was move against activi- 

 ties already in operation. This is a new plant ; thus it is different from 

 the other category, in that we are pointing out the problem before it 

 happens. 



That is unique, but our action was not taken just because the plant 

 is to be in South Carolina, It is in your State ; it could have been in 

 another State. We would take the same action. 



Senator HoLLiNCis. What you are saying is any chemical plant of a 

 similar nature that would be established along the coastal zone in an 

 estuary area, you would take the same action. 



Secretary Hickel. We would. We asked for the same kind of 

 cooperation in the construction of a chemical plant in the Kenai 

 Peninsula at the time I was Governor, to try to work out a minor 

 problem before it became a maj or problem. 



Senator Rollings. I see. Well, again getting right to the point, if 

 that plant started moving and went up to North Carolina, the Depart- 

 ment of Interior would hound dog them there, too, as they have done 

 in South Carolina. 



Secretary Hickel. That is right. We would liave to do the same 

 thing; that is, point out the problem of what it will do if you do 

 construct the plant. 



If I might make this statement, Mr. Chairman, we received 45,000 

 signatures from your State thanking us for those actions, especially 

 from the fishermen. 



Senator Hollings. I take this question to be objective and certainly 

 legitimate in that I think I saw you on TV meeting the shrimp 

 trawler. Captain Dave. And the 45,000 signatures, which has also 

 been brought into question as to whether or not they were authentic, 

 but that wouldn't be appropriate now before this committee. 



Secretary Hickel. I didn't check them out. 



Senator Hollings. What about the dredging? They also raise a 

 question that now you have gotten into dredging. Have you categori- 

 cally stated you can't change the channel in any way ? And dredging 

 is going to change the channel. It would technically, I guess, pollute 

 to a certain extent. 



What is the policy now of the Department in that respect ? 



Secretary Hickel. I wouldn't want to say categorically that any 

 dredging might destroy the marine beds. As I recall in our initial 

 briefing on the problem, we thought that the plant could be built with- 

 out^ the dredging that they were contemplating. It is these kinds of 

 decisions that we are trying to arrive at. 



