284 



the proposed facility; (2) the Administrator has forwarded such reix)rt to the 

 Governor of each adjacent coastal State which might be adversely affected by 

 pollution from such facility ; and (3) each such Governor has filed an approval of 

 Such proposal with the Administrator. Any Governor who does not, within ninety 

 (90) days after receiving a report pursuant to this subsection, file an approval of 

 the proposal in such reix)i-t shall be considered for the purpose of this subsection 

 to have approved suvch proposal." 



Mr. BoGGS. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that will 

 assure our coastal States a meaningful role in the location and design 

 of any offsliore oil transfer station that might be constructed to serve 

 the so-called "supertankers." 



The amendment would add a new subsection (e) on page 24 of the 

 bill. The new subsection would be at the end of section 314, "Inter- 

 agency Coordination and Cooperation." 



Jl number of Federal, State, and other studies are currently mider- 

 way to evaluate the need and potential sites for one or more major bulk 

 cargo transfer stations. Such stations will be needed if the United 

 States is to receive the economies of scale offered by supertankers, 

 whether transporting oil or other bulk commodities. 



Present harbors, I am told, cannot handle such vessels because the 

 channels simply cannot be dredged to a sufficient depth. The solution 

 may involve offshore terminals, wJiere tlie supertankers could pump 

 their cargo into storage tanks. From those tanlvs the oil could be piped 

 ashore in underwater pipelines, or transferred to barges or smaller 

 tankers. 



The Maritime Administration, through a contract with Soros 

 Associates, is in the process of evaluating the feasibility of such 

 offshore terminals, as well as possible sites for such terminals. This 

 study, I understand, is to be made j^ublic in a month or two. 



At the same time, the Army Corps of Engineers is undertaking, 

 Under Senate resolution, similar studies, one of which covers the 

 coast from Maine to Virginia. 



In any case, it is expected that the Federal studies may recommend 

 sites outside the 3-mile territorial limit of the United States. Such 

 sites, of course, would place these facilities in the contiguous zone, or 

 in international waters on the Continental Shelf. If that were so, 

 of course, the facility would be outside the jurisdiction of the neigh- 

 boring States. 



Yet, the coastal zones of these neighboring States could be severely 

 and adversely affected by pollution that might come from such an 

 offshore facility. 



While such a pollution discharge would be subject to the cleanup 

 provisions of the existing Federal Water Pollution Control Act, this 

 might be insufficient protection for the coastal States. Rather than 

 protecting a State and its coastal zone subsequent to a discharge. I 

 believe it is important that the affected States play a meaningful 

 role in the plan to construct such a facility. 



And such a facility will be of mammoth proportions. It will, of 

 course, cover many acres of the ocean. It may permanently affect tidal 

 currents and the quality of fisheries within the coastal zone of the 

 State. ^ ^ 



The amendment I am offering today would require that any Federal 

 agency constructing, leasing, or issuing a permit for the construction 

 of such facilities must obtain the concurrence of the Governor or 



