Page images


Senator BEALL. Putting the question another way, nothing in the Convention impairs the ability of our country to take action regarding pollution of waters under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the Ports and Waterways Safety Act?

Mr. TRAIN. That is correct.

You may wish to ask Admiral Bender more detail about that. That certainly is correct.

Senator BEALL. Senator Stevens.

Mr. Train. I might say since the CG is present, in general with respect to technical aspects of the Convention you probably would find them your best source of information.

Senator STEVENS. I am delighted to see you here with representatives of the Soviet Union. When a member of the staff and I visited the Ministry of Fisheries in Moscow they were very gracious to us and permitted us to have open access to their procedures.

I have a question about the double bottom. As I am sure you would expect, that question arises. As I understand it, the U.S. position was rejected.

Mr. TRAIN. That is correct.

Senator STEVENS. Is this rejected as a requirement of international law? I note your statement saying there was nothing positive or negative regarding the rights of states to set more stringent standards within their jurisdiction. Was there anything at all that has not been said regarding the decision on the double bottoms such as might affect tankers within the U.S. coastal waters? Mr. TRAIN. Nothing whatsoever.

You may wish to address that further with other witnesses but I think that is a secure statement. While I was not present in the technical committee where most of this discussion took place, I think it is fair to say that there is a very strong difference of opinion with the United States on the subject of double bottoms. Not simply from the standpoint of the additional costs involved, but I gathered real differences of opinion as to effectiveness of double bottoms as a means for reducing accidental discharges.

There were those who feel, for example, that with double bottoms if a ship goes on a reef and the double bottom is breached and fills with water, even though this is not mixing with oil and there may be no discharge of oil at that point, the ship will settle more positively, if that is the phrase, upon the reef and be that much more difficult to get off. It may

well be that the use of the double bottom in such cases could be a detriment rather than an advantage in terms of protecting the seas.

These were some of the kinds of questions raised.

We certainly maintained the right if we wish to require double bottoms within our own coastal waters as to U.S. flagships moving between U.S. ports. There is absolutely no restriction whatsoever in that respect.

The extent to which we would have a right to require such strict construction standards on the vessels of other flag states entering our waters would have to be determined under international law. But this Convention makes absolutely no change in that respect. It adds nothing and subtracts nothing from our ability to enact regulations of this kind.

Senator STEVENS. In behalf of the chairman I offered the amendment to the Alaska Pipeline bill which was just passed which requires tankers carrying Alaskan oil to comply with the maximum standards.

My understanding is that the proposed regulations would require double bottoms, which as I understand it, is the maximum requirement that they prescribe.

I want to make certain that we do retain control to determine the standards that will affect our flagships plying between ports in the United States.

Mr. Train. Absolutely. And there is very definitely nothing in this convention which would make any change in our ability to do so.

Senator STEVENS. I have to go to another committee, but I wanted to say if the chairman will defer to me again here, having attended the Law of the Sea Conference and heard the people who were interested in IMCO tell the Law of the Sea Conference they should not do anything about particular subjects because they were coming up in the IMCO Conference, I am somewhat concerned now when I hear that the IMCO Conference has decided the resolution of some of the thorny issues should be left to the Law of the Sea Conference.

I wonder if we are not being treated a little like the white rat. Just going round and round in circles on some of these questions. What is the definition of "within its jurisdiction” in your statement regarding the question of punishing and prohibiting violations within the jurisdictions. That begs the question, right?

Mr. TRAIN. Yes, it does and it does so intentionally. We reached the same general solution of this question at the Ocean Ďumping Convention Conference in London a year ago.

The determination of the extent of national jurisdiction is probably the basic question before the Law of the Sea Conference. It is the U.S. position that that is the proper forum for determining this issue.

We had a great deal of discussion of this at the recent London Conference, but it rapidly became plain why the question should be put off to the Law of the Sea Conference. Many of the delegations had no law of the sea expert within their delegation. Presumably they could have had, but much of the dialog indicated quite clearly that this was not the place to achieve a sound, rational resolution of law of the sea issues.

Also, there are a lot of countries who were not at that convention who would be represented at the Law of the Sea Conference which will, I am sure, be truly a global conference.

We did have some 78 countries as I recall at London, but there are still a good many countries not present who would be interested in law of the sea issues.

Senator STEVENS. Was there any commitment made on the part of the United States that we would not unilaterally extend our jurisdiction?

Mr. TRAIN. We made no commitment of that sort whatever.

Senator STEVENS. Canada has extended their pollution control to 100 miles; ours would be 12; so we have the incongruous situation that the ships bearing Middle East oil coming into the ports of the United States are going to have to comply with less stringent standards than the tankers carrying Alaskan oil coming into the west coast waters.

I am interested in this from the point of view of cost. I think we are putting an extra cost on domestic oil that we do not place on foreign oil, thereby subsidizing foreign oil to come into our ports. Mr. TRAIN. I am not sure I follow

that, Senator. Senator STEVENS. For instance, the question of discharge, the question of sewage treatment facilities on board ship, the question of double bottoms. All of these things you can quantify, in terms of dollars, what it will cost to comply with U.S. standards in U.S. jurisdiction.

But if the foreign vessels do not have to comply, obviously they have a subsidy.

Mr. Train. Of course, this is one of the reasons for the U.S. interest in a convention of this sort. I think we recognize and expect that the United States would tend to set pretty high standards itself and it has. We have been concerned over the competitive problem. It is our desire or interest in achieving as much uniformity of standards and operating rules around the world that has led us to push for this convention.

Senator STEVENS. I understand. I congratulate you and I am not critical.

Mr. Train. I think this helps. It does not solve your problem, but it is a definite step in the right direction.

Senator STEVENS. One last question. I placed with the chairman's cooperation, a provision in one of the bills that authorizes the Coast Guard to prohíbit a tanker from offloading petroleum products if it does not have safety equipment on board to prevent discharge, whatever the Coast Guard standards are.

Is there anything in this that prevents us from having stricter standards within our jurisdiction?

Mr. TRAIN. Absolutely not.

Senator STEVENS. If a foreign vessel elects to come within our jurisdiction, would it have to comply with our standards?

Mr. TRAIN. Let me answer it this way: There is nothing in this Convention which affects our right to impose standards on that foreign vessel.

As I indicated, this was left by the convention to international law. The question is not what this convention, or how this convention affects that right, rather the question is what right exists insofar as international law is concerned.

Again I do not consider myself really very expert in this area, but I can conceive that certain kinds of restrictions would be so burdensome as to constitute an unreasonable interference with the freedom of navigation on the high seas. It seems to me, at least arguably, that there may well be some kinds of standards, which if unilaterally applied by the coastal state to the vessels of another nation's flag vessel entering the coastal state's waters, could be considered in contravention of international law.

I just cannot answer the question in any specific sense.

Senator STEVENS. I had been of the opinion that while freedom of navigation, the right to free passage, is one thing, the right to offload imported products into this Nation is something that is subject to our control.

I hope we can maintain that position because I think that is our last resort as far as safety equipment on board these vessels is concerned.

I am also quite concerned that again the net result is that we are going back to the law of the sea, which I am not too satisfied is going to proceed as rapidly as some of your IMCO Conferences have been proceeding.

Mr. TRAIN. I think that is probably the surest thing you have ever said, Senator.

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Bernard Oxman I mentioned earlier from the State Department, who was one of our alternate representatives at the London Conference. He is an assistant legal advisor to the State Department. He is an expert on the law of the sea questions. I think it might be a good idea if he had an opportunity to briefly address some of these questions, Senator Stevens, in order to insure that the record is correct.

Senator STEVENS. I would be pleased to have that done. I just suggested to the Chairman, because we have both conflicting schedules that we put it on the record. We would appreciate it.

Senator BEALL. We would appreciate if you would file an expansion of that subject in the record.

Mr. Oxman. Thank you.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Train. Thank you.
Senator BEALL. We have additional questions for you, Mr. Train.
Mr. Train. I would be happy to respond in writing.
Senator BEALL. Thank you for bringing your visitors with you.

Mr. Train. I am sure they enjoyed it very much. One of the reasons I was anxious to have them come was that when I was in Moscow a year ago I was invited to attend the opening session of the Supreme Soviet which I found exceedingly educational and very interesting. I am glad to, in part at least, return the same kind of opportunity.

Senator BEALL. We are happy you did. Thank you. And thank you, gentlemen.

[The questions and answers follow:]

Thank you.

QUESTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE ANSWERS THERETO Question 1. The Conference did not agree on requiring double bottoms on new tanker8. Does the Coast Guard have any estimate of the likely amount of oil pollution which might result because of this failure to agree?

Answer. The Coast Guard estimates that a double bottom with an approximate height of one-fifteenth of the vessel's beam would have effectively prevented the breaching of the inner bottom (i.e., cargo tank) in about 90% of grounding accidents where the bottom plating was ruptured. It must also be borne in mind, however, that present conventional single skin construction was at least 75% effective in preventing plating rupture. In other words, one of every four known groundings resulted in a pollution incident. Many groundings go unreported because, aside from “dished” hull plating, no injury or pollution occurs. Of the estimated worldwide 220,000 tons of oil pollution attributed to tanker accidents of all types annually, the average amount from groundings is less than 50,000 tons per year. Therefore, if double bottoms of sufficient height were universally installed, outflows of approximately 45,000 tons per year could perhaps be prevented.

Since double bottoms cannot be practicably retrofitted to existing tankers, no immediate savings in outflow from grounding casualties could be expected. Deliv

[blocks in formation]

eries of newly ordered double bottom tankers, resulting from the imposition of a double bottom requirement, could not be reasonably expected before 1978. Present world order books show a large backlog of orders for new tankers to be delivered prior to 1978. This is clearly sufficient to handle world oil transportation needs well into the 1980's and perhaps the early 1990's if crude oil production does not meet earlier projections. Thus, there will be a sharp tapering off of new tanker deliveries toward the end of this decade, and the residual benefits of double bottoms would not be felt before the middle 1980's.

The imposition of traffic management schemes within our waters to cover all vessels, both new and the large existing fleet, can be expected to yield greater dividends with respect to reduction of accidental oil pollution. Furthermore, they can be implemented in a shorter time frame than double bottom construction features. Double bottoms were proposed as a possible design feature because separation by barrier and/or space are physically correct strategies for reducing the significance of casualties. These type measures have been adopted in other maritime applications and are encouraged in this Convention; however, the Conference did not agree to them on a mandatory basis for oil tankers. The Coast Guard will be monitoring the effectiveness of the provisions of this new pollution Convention. We will be invoking additional operating controls on oil tankers appropriate to the ports and waterways being served. The double bottom remains a factor to be revived should there be, in the future, sufficient reason.

Question 2. How much more expensive, in terms of capital construction costs and required freight rate, would it be for a vessel being built with a segregated ballast capability to also incorporate a double bottom?

Answer. A range of cost/price increase for both segregated ballast capability and segregated ballast capability with double bottoms is given in the following table:

[blocks in formation]

1 Indicates percent increase based on price rather than cost. 2 Base ship was 86,000 dwt with segregated ballast and was redesigned to 89,000 segregated ballas with double bottom

There is not a wide variation in percentage increase of capital cost for incorporation of double bottoms into a segregated ballast tanker. According to studies, which is the only way costs can be derived for slips not actually built, the range of capital cost increase will vary inversely with vessel deadweight within a narrow band of 5% to 11%. There is, however, a sharp distinction between cost increases and price increases. Actual costs of constructed vessels are jealously guarded for competitive reasons and are normally released only when self serving. Construction prices are usually readily available but use of these figures must be tempered by judgment of the shipbuilder's motivation to bid on any particular contract. Many factors influence a shipbuilder's desire for a contract. Among these are short and long-range management policy and goals, available financing arrangements, availability of building berth, accommodation of favored customers, and availability of qualified workmen. With these factors in mind one can better appreciate the wide variation in prices between Bethlehem Steel and National Steel Shipbuilding Company.

Question 3. Could you provide information om the number of tankers now being built in the United States, or are contracted to be built by December 31, 1973. How many of these vessels are intended for use in the Alaska trade?

« PreviousContinue »