172 



Some were supported by a majority of those expressing an opinion 

 at the preparatory meeting in February; others were modified; still 

 others gained only minority support. 



Let me summarize these proposals with the thought that Admiral 

 Benkert of the Coast Guard will cover them in greater detail. 



First, the U.S. delegation has proposed expanding the definition of 

 oil from the 1954 definition of "persistent oils'' to all oils, including the 

 lighter, "nonpersistent" petroleum products, such as gasoline or kero- 

 sene, as well as vegetable and mineral oils. 



Seaborne transport of highly toxic refined products is on the rise, 

 and the U.S. proposal tracks with EPA's definition of oil under the 

 Federal AVater Pollution Control Act. 



The U.S. proposal to include all petroleum products in the defini- 

 tion of oil gained majority support in February. However, substantial 

 opposition still exists and the fifth draft contains a minority proposal 

 that would establish two different categories within the broad defini- 

 tion of oil — in essence distinguishing between the persistent, or "black" 

 oils and the nonpersistent or "white" oils. 



Should the minority proposal prevail in October, there will un- 

 doubtedly be efforts to key operational discharge and ship construc- 

 tion regulations to the tw^o categories. The opinion behind the minor- 

 ity proposal is that the white oils are less hazardous to the environ- 

 ment and should be subjected to less rigorous standards. 



In the U.S. view, these oils are often likely to be more toxic than 

 crude or black oils and merit at least as stringent regulation. 



Second, recognizing that control over existing ships must be in the 

 form of operational restrictions, the United States has proposed even 

 tighter limitations on international discharges than those in the 1969 

 amendments. 



These proposals, supported by only a minority in February, would 

 extend the prohibited zone from 50 to 100 miles from land and tighten 

 the instantaneous rate of discharge from 60 liters per mile to 30 liters 

 per mile. 



Most significantly, tankers over 100,000 deadweight tons would 

 be limited to a total oil discharge of 1/30,000 of their cargo as opposed 

 to 1/15,000 in the 1969 amendments. 



Third, because of the inherent problems in enforcing operational 

 performance standards, the United States has strongly advocated 

 mandatory design and construction requirements for new ships which 

 would avoid the need to put ballast water into cargo tanks. This 

 means providing new ships with segregated ballast — the capacity to 

 use separate tanks for ballast. 



Studies conducted by the United States show that the most cost- 

 effective means for providing segregated ballast in new tankers is 

 through the use of double bottoms. Double bottoms minimize the out- 

 flow of oil from groundings, which cause four times more pollution 

 per incident than collisions. 



Segregated ballast and double bottoms are sure to be one of the most 

 controvereial technical issues involved in the October conference. 



The Preparatory Committee voted in favor of mandatory segregated 

 ballast, but only on tankers greater than 150.000 deadweight tons — 

 too high a cutoff, in the U.S. view. In fact, it is very much too high a 

 cutoff, in our view. 



