COMPARISON OF CERTAIN MAJOR FEATURES OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS FOR PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS 1973 1. All tankers over 150 gross tons. 2. All other ships over 400 gross tons including novel craft and fixed and floating platforms. 1. Speedier method for Annexes and appendices via IMCO Committee and tacit acceptance 1. Survey at 5 yr intervals and at intermediate (midperiod) intervals. 2. Equipment must be approved administration (monitors, filters, separators, interference 3. Administration issues Certificate attesting to compliance by its ships, which certificate 1. Includes all petroleum oils except petrochemicals (which are regulated by annex 11) Definition of oil.. term does not appear in the 1973 convenDischarge criteria in prohibited zones (this criterion). tion which uses a distance from land 1. 2. Prohibits discharges by all ships in concentrations in excess of 1. 100 parts per million within the prohibited zones. Prohibited zone generally 50 miles or greater from nearest land 2. for tankers. Prohibited zone applies to other ships unless proceeding to a port not provided with adequate reception facilities. zones. Discharge criteria outside of the prohibited 1. No restriction on discharges from a ship less than 20,000 gross 1. tons. Vessels over 20,000 gross tons are limited to discharges whose concentrations are 100 parts per million or less, unless when in the opinion of the master, circumstances make it unreasonable or impractical tor etain the higher concentrated slops on board. Prohibits discharges which leave visible traces unless it can be established by installed Tankers must meet all the following conditions: (a) Ship is proceeding en route. (b) Discharge is limited to 60 I per mile instantaneous rate. (c) Total quantity discharged is limited to 1/15,000 of cargo last carried for existing tankers and 1/30,000 of cargo last carrier for new tankers. (d) Tanker bilges, except pump rooms, shall be treated same as other ships. 2. Other ships must meet all of the following conditions: (a) Ship is proceeding en route. (b) Oil content of the effluent must not exceed 100 parts per million. 1. Requires that the monitoring and control system be in operation and a permanent record 2. Retention of oil on board (LOT) is mandatory for all tankers. 3. Mandatory installation of effluent monitor and control system, provision of slop tanks, 4. Other ships require sludge tank installations, oil water separator and/or filters dependent 1. Expanded provision to undertake to insure availability and adequacy at oil loading ports, 1. Expands requirements to provide entries for more specific operations and in greater 1. Establishes damage assumptions and methods of calculation of the amount of hypo- 2. Establishes tank arrangement and size limitations for the cargo tanks of tankers. 3. Establishes subdivision and damage stability criteria to be applied to tankers to increase 1. Annex II details mandatory requirements for construction of chemical tankers and dis- 2. Annex III contains regulations for the prevention of pollution by harmful substances 3. Annex IV contains regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships. Admiral BENDER. The conference, in making these strides, recognized that until the new convention enters into force, the only effective multilateral agreement on pollution prevention is the 1954 convention. A resolution was adopted by the conference urging nations to ratify the amendments to the 1954 convention. I hope the Senate will expeditiously give advice and consent to the 1971 amendments to the 1954 convention pertaining to the Great Barrier Reef and tank size limitations, as they will significantly enhance protection of the environment. While implementing legislation has already been enacted, Public Law 93-119, the statute has no effect with respect to these matters until the amendments come into force. United States ratification at an early date would encourage other nations to follow suit, thus hastening the day when the amendments and our domestic legislation will be implemented. The Marine Pollution Convention is but one of a family of international agreements, some presently in force, which taken as a whole represent a comprehensive approach to the international regulation of shipping for the preservation of human life, the protection of property, the prevention of pollution, and the adequate compensation of the victims of marine casualties and pollution incidents. These agreements are interrelated and should be viewed as constituting parts of an integrated whole. I am mindful of the congressional directive contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act calling upon the executive branch to reach agreements with other nations with a view toward upgrading international environmental protection laws. This 1973 convention is an agreement which fulfills that mandate to a substantial degree. With this general insight into the broad and comprehensive nature of the 1973 convention, I will now turn to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, and its relationship to the convention. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, section 7(C) of title II of that Act provides for analyzing international marine environmental protection agreements with a view toward the establishment of consonant domestic rules and regulations. We must now analyze this convention, which will in all probability become the internationally accepted standard for the prevention of pollution from ships, and determine whether and to what degree it provides for the protection of U.S. waters. In conducting this analysis we should note that the conference, recognizing that the new convention deals with the problem of accidental pollution only to a limited extent, adopted a resolution recommending that the International Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) continue its work with a high priority on the development of measures for the minimization of accidental spillages. This resolution specifically cites measures regarding safe navigational procedures and traffic separation schemes, watchkeeping practices and the training and certification of seamen, provision of modern navigational and communications equipment, operational procedures during cargo transfer, maneuverability and controllability of large ships, and construction and equipment of ships carrying oil or noxious substances. This resolution, in effect, shapes the work program of the technical committees of IMCO for the immediate future. It is important to note that the 1973 convention contains provisions for accelerated amendment procedures for technical annexes, a fea ture not included in the 1954 convention. This feature will facilitate the timely adoption of the work product of the IMCO technical committees with respect to the measures contemplated by the resolution just described. If we identify regulatory provisions of the convention which are not fully adequate, the implementation of multilateral decisions through the rapid amendment process may well be the preferred method of attaining adequacy, in lieu of acting unilaterally. In adjudging the sufficiency of the Convention in respect to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, it must be recognized that unilateral action presents intrinsic dangers. We should avoid unilateral action which would result unnecessarily in economic disadvantage to the U.S. Merchant Marine. We should avoid unilateral action which would impede the ratification of the Convention by other nations. And we should avoid any unilateral action which would encourage the proliferation of differing regulatory schemes imposed by individual nations. It was a central article of faith at the Conference-that which you referred to earlier as article 8, sir-in abandoning inclusion of an article formally limiting unilateral action, that all nations would act responsibly in substantial conformance with the Convention provisions. Because of the recognition by other nations of the operative thrust of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, any actions by the United States will be followed with great interest by other governments in formulating their policies with respect to ratification of the Convention and possible measures in response to U.S. unilateral action. If standards are imposed on only U.S.-flag vessels stricter than those standards adopted internationally, serious inequities could arise when U.S. vessels call in U.S. ports alongside foreign vessels engaged in the same trade but not subject to the same regulatory contraints. Furthermore, such an approach would not enhance the protection of the marine environment in any effective way, since the majority of seagoing vessels entering U.S. ports are under foreign flag. At this time it is our hope that we can accept the Convention as being consistent with the interests of the United States, with the implementation of additional vessel operational controls, where necessary, to meet unique environmental demands. Examples of such operational controls are improved traffic management, mandatory use of sufficient tugs, and improved navigation systems. In closing. Mr. Chairman, in our preparatory work for the Conference, and during the Conference deliberations, we tried to provide for all the varying interests of the United States in an international agreement that would also satisfy the particular requirements of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. In the course of negotiations, however, it was, of course, necessary to recognize the particular problems of other nations. Now we must assess the Convention in the light of U.S. interests and requirements. The questions which must now be studied are: Does the Convention provide the proper balance between the environmental and economic interests of the United States? If it does not, is unilateral action necessary, or should we seek and will we be satisfied with appropriate amendments to the Convention through the new rapid amendment procedure? I will plan to report back to you on this matter prior to the initiation of proposed rulemaking procedures and subsequent public hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Either I or my colleagues, if there are any questions, will be pleased to answer them. Senator BEALL. Thank you, Admiral. Do you think that it would be necessary to have any further implementing legislation expanding the Ports and Waterways Act in order to implement the provisions of this Convention? Admiral BENDER. I feel the Ports and Waterways Act, in a way, anticipated the Convention. It is a reverse of the normal process where a convention needs to have enabling legislation. In this case the Ports and Waterways Act is quite complete. This is not to say that there may not be the need for some conforming amendments of a relatively minor nature, which we will determine after a thorough analysis. It is clear that some other statutes, such as the amended 1960 Oil Pollution Act, will have to be modified. Senator BEALL. You think the existence of the act was of assistance in getting the Convention to act in the way they did? The awareness of our act playing a role? Admiral BENDER. I daresay it was. Certainly we did distribute, as the law requires, our advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and of course the existence of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act was well known. Therefore, I have no doubt that the existence of that act did serve to influence several of the delegations present favorably in regard to the position that we had taken. Senator BEALL. Do you think that you presently have the administrative capability of implementing the construction standards called for in the Alaskan pipeline legislation for ships engaged in trade by the prescribed date in 1974? Admiral BENDER. In general terms, we have the capability, Mr. Chairman. I must confess that the date, July 1. 1974, to have these regulations implemented by that time, poses a bit of a problem to us. The timespan is short but we intend to comply with the law. Senator BEALL. I have no other questions. Other members of the committee may have some questions and the staff may have some and we will submit those in writing and ask for answers in writing if you would. Admiral BENDER. Yes, fine. Senator BEALL. I would like to congratulate you, Admiral Benkert, and Captain Bell, for the job you did in London. I noticed you started early in the morning and worked long into the evening all week long. I was impressed with this kind of zeal and enthusiasm for the job. I think that we now see the product of this kind of labor and we are happy for it. I congratulate you for a job well done. Admiral BENDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my behalf I wish to congratulate them, also. They did indeed do a good job. Senator BEALL. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] |