260 



Former Secretary of Commerce Maurice H. Stans is reported to have said, 

 "You are interfering with the prosperity and security of America." How did he 

 become involved, and what was your response to that statement of his? I don't 

 remember his using precisely those words. He did ask about my loyalty to our 

 region and to our country. He stressed that we needed to have energy in America, 

 we needed to have petroleum coming in, we needed to have a good merchant 

 marine. And therefore we needed ports that could take the big, new, deep-draft 

 vessels. I told him yes, I agreed that some of those things were important. But it 

 was equally important to have some of the open environment we have in Dela- 

 ware. That was vital to the people. And we ought to put that on the scales along 

 with these other factors to decide which was going to get priority. 



Were yo uable to get him to change his mind when you met with him in Wash- 

 ington? No. When I first went to see him, he wanted to convince me to drop the 

 entire idea of excluding refineries, basic steel mills, and basic pulp mills. I made 

 it clear that the whole objective was to be sure we didn't have those enterprises 

 in this area. That was the whole purpose of the bill. When I lift he said, "Let 

 me ask one thing of you ; don't exclude the offshore [coal and iron ore] unload- 

 ing stations." I told him that I would think about it. And I did. And I decided 

 that we ought to exclude those things, too. 



Can you imagine a time within the next four years when you might change 

 your mind about offshore oil terminals and a pipeline running to refineries on the 

 coast? Right now I can't. But I'm willing to listen. We have a committee study- 

 ing how we can move oil that goes up our bay and river more safely. The practice 

 now is for large and medium-sized vessels to come a few miles into the mouth 

 of the bay to get into some deep water and away from the rough seas. They then 

 partially unload onto barges. When the tanker's draft is small enough, the 

 lightened tanker and the barges move up the bay and river to the refineries. 

 That's a hazardous operation. Any day we might have a major oil spill and we're 

 worried about it. I'm sure the committee will consider such things as an offshore 

 unloading station with a pipeline. They also will consider what, in my opinion, 

 might be a reasonable solution — that is, to have a boom [a floating ring] around 

 the area so that until the transfer onto barges is completed the entire procedure 

 is enclosed. Then if a spill occurs, it can be cleaned up before the vessels move 

 out. And traffic might be restricted only to barges moving up the bay and river. 

 They move under the control of a tug and can be manipulated and handled much 

 more safely. That's just one of several possibilities that could avoid a pipeline 

 running up the river and bay. 



How would you propose that the country meet its energy demands as projected 

 for the next decade? I think moving to nuclear plants is the way to do it. Nuclear 

 power plants will be the most economical ones and, in my opinion, the ones that 

 will contribute the least pollution — less pollution, at least, than using fuel oil. 



The problem of getting rid of the radioactive waste products has not been 

 solved yet, has it? The magnitude of that problem, in my opinion, is less than 

 the problem of the sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide that is coming out of the 

 stacks now in our present fossil-fueled power plants. Much of the radioactive 

 waste can be reprocessed and some of the material reused. I believe that putting 

 nuclear plants off the coast, as the Public Service Commission of New Jersey is 

 now investigating, has a lot of merit. Thermal pollution is one of the key prob- 

 lems. A lot of heat is generated in a nuclear plant and a lot of water is needed 

 to cool it. If you go out several miles off the coast where there is a tremendous 

 quantity of water moving back and forth, thennal pollution should be an insig- 

 nificant problem. Then all you need to run to the shore is an electric cable. 



Does the state of Delaware at the moment have any control over reckless devel- 

 ment of its coastal area for the purpose of tourism and recreation? Do you have 

 any way of seeing that your coast doesn't become a solid line of motels and 

 hot-dog stands? We certainly don't want that to happen. Local zoning has the 

 responsibility for that. So far they've done a pretty good job in Delaware com- 

 pared to some of the other states. The local Chambers of Commerce are very, 

 very diligent in setting up their own guidelines to be sure they don't ruin a good 

 things. But we have no state authority to stop somebody from puting up a hot-dog 

 stand where it shouldn't be. 



In your opinion, is there some cutoff point in population growth and industrial 

 development of any kind beyond which Delaware should not go? I don't have 

 any quantitative target but I have a qualitative concern. It is that we should not 

 endeavor to win some record for building up the population of Delaware. I think 

 that much of what makes our state attractive is dependent upon our not having 

 too many people living here. I think it's important that we provide jobs and 



