183 



from a vessel and the vessel is en route ; there are not yet in the state 

 oi' the art accurate devices to measure the parts per million. 



Now, if the restriction is that no more than 60 liters can be discharged 

 over a mile when the vessel is in process, it seems to those who designed 

 this that that is an adequate safeguard providing it is at least 50 miles 

 from shore. Sixty liters per mile, spread over a nautical mile, is so 

 minimal that the sea would have a very ready toleration for it, and 

 would never hnd its way to the shores of any land area, as a danger to 

 the environment or esthetics or marine life. 



Senator Stevens. Salmon spend about 3 weeks of their total life in 

 the waters of Alaska and the rest of the time they are out on the high 

 seas. They are anadromous fish. In order to protect them for those 3 

 weeks, we have put very stringent standards in terms of Alaskan 

 waters, but all they are saying to me is that Japanese tankers that are 

 the tankers that are taking oil to Japan, can spread mile after mile 

 after mile of oil over the salmon when they mature on the high seas, 

 but when they come home, it is 10 parts per million. 



I think the world is crazy. The area that is of concern to the fisheries 

 of the world is the high seas. I have never seen it spelled out the way 

 your statement does in terms of parts per million, but it is really veiy 

 far from being a sufficient standard as far as I am concerned, and I 

 think that we are going to have to take this up with our colleagues that 

 follow you. 



]\Ir. Reynolds. I think. Senator Stevens, with great respect, this 

 is one observation that would be relevant, and that is that one of the 

 criteria of the convention is that no more than 1/150 thousandth of the 

 capacity of the vessel can be discharged. I have a hypotlietical picture 

 of a tanker going out spewing out oil over its entire voyage, and that 

 is unrealistic. I say that with respect. 



I have no doubt that there are obscene violators of any standards. 



Senator Ste\t.xs. On a 150,000-ton tanker, you are going to allow 

 them to spill 10 tons, and in Alaska we are talking about spilling a 

 barrel a day in an operation of 2 million barrels a day. 



Mr. Reynolds. I think it is magnificent that Alaska is doing it, and 

 American industry is eager to cooperate. I am sure the waters of 

 Alaska will improve while the Valdez process is going on, rather than 

 degrading, because I am sure that in the construction of tankers and 

 reception facilities, all will see to it that those waters are cleaned up, 

 rather than degraded. 



Senator Stevens. I agree. I want my friends from Maine to realize 

 that the 900 tankers per year that come into Portland, Maine, are 

 going somewhere and discharging oil somewhere. 



Thank you, very much. 



Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Chairman, those familiar with the upcoming 

 Marine Pollution Conference scheduled for October 1973 by the In- 

 tergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) may 

 be aware that the expected result is a new convention to replace the 

 1954 Oil Pollution Convention. 



Major additional steps toward the no-discharge goal are anticipated, 

 pnmarily through the adoption of tanker construction standards. 



One might well ask why rush ahead with the 1969 and 1971 amend- 

 ments Avhen they will be superseded by the new convention? The 

 answer is simple : These amendments are long overdue and they assure 



26-2S2 — 74 IH 



