195 



tion of an instnimeut to that effect with the Organization. Included in the 

 Articles are issues such as applications, powers of contracting states, enforce- 

 ment, reservations, amendments, and deposit and registration. With respect to 

 the issue of enforcement, the present draft has been developed along the lines 

 of flag state enforcement. The United States, however, has gone on record sup- 

 porting the concept of port state enforcement as well. 



As one might expect, the bulk of the draft is vested within the second main 

 subdivision ; namely, the technical annexes and their ai)pendices. Annex I with 

 its three chapters and three appendices pertain,s to Regulations for the Preven- 

 tion of Pollution by Oil. Annex II governs noxious substances other than oil 

 while Annex III speaks to harmful substances in packaged form, cargo con- 

 tainers, or portable tanks. Annexes IV and V cover the subjects of sewage and 

 garbage respectively. 



Probably the most far reaching portions of the technical annexes are contained 

 within Annexes I and II. Moreover, these are the annexes which in the interest 

 of protection of the marine environment directly affect standards for design, 

 construction, and alteration of vessels carrying oil or other hazardous polluting 

 substances in bulk. These matters directly reflect those of Title II of the Ports 

 and Waterway Safety Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-340) which had its inception within 

 this very Subcommittee of the United States Senate. The major issues which no 

 doubt are of interest here today and which are contained within Annex I pertain 

 to the definition of oil (Regulation 1), the control of the discharge of oil 

 (Regulation 9). and segregated ballast oil workers (Regulations 11 and 13), 

 In terms of the definition of oil, the United States has favored what is referred 

 to as the "broad definition" of oil. That is, an all encompassing definition wlueh 

 is in concert with tliat contained within the Federal Water Pollution Control 

 Act, as amended. The 1951 Convention spoke only to persistent oil such as crude 

 oil and lube oil. We were also confronted with a minority viewpoint at the lasi 

 prejiaratory session in London to consider a definition which would differentiate 

 between persistant and non-persistent oils or "black" and "white" oils if yon 

 will. In conjniiction with this proposal is the concept that given this two-category 

 definition of oil, one must then postulate dual design criteria and dual opera- 

 tional discharge standards for the two-categories of oil respectively within the 

 Convention. 



Regulation 9 which is the control of discharge of oil is at least in essence, 

 the 1969 anieiulments to the 1954 Convention. In fact, however, it in the majority 

 text requires that new tankers of 1(K),()00 deadweight or more be limited to a 

 total quantity of cargo discharged to 1/30.000 versus a figure of 1/15,000. If 

 these fractional limitations strike you as small let me put them in persi)ective 

 for you. A letter of intent was rtn-ently signed for a 700,000 tons deadweight 

 tanker to be built overseas. One fifteenth thousandth of that deadweight is 47 

 long tons per voyage or approximately 14,100 gallons of oil. 



In addition to the total discharge per voyage limitation, some delegations 

 among which was the United States, voiced a minority view at the last prepara- 

 tory ses.sion that the minimum distance from land .specified be increased from 

 50 to 100 nautical miles and that the instantaneous rate of discharge of oil 

 content be limited to 30 litres per nautical mile versus the existing figure of 60. 



With regard to segregated ballast on oil tankers, paragraph 11(2) of the 

 existing draft text makes this feature mandatory only on tankers in excess of 

 150.000 tons deadweight and on combination carriers in excess of 1(X),000 tons 

 deadweight. Moreover, Regulation 13 does not prescribe the manner in which 

 this segregated ballast capacity is to be achieved. Several delegations, including 

 the United States, did favor specifying double bottom construction from both 

 the view points of an anti-pollution measure in the event of grounding and their 

 favorable cost differential per quantity of oil pollution abated. It would be 

 presumptuous of me to predict the final outcome of this issue at the October 

 Conference. I daresay it is one of the most controversial. 



Paramount to the issue of segregated ballast are the questions of datesot 

 application and the size limitations to which it would apply. The present draft of 

 the Convention speaks of building contracts on or after 1 January 1978 or delivery 

 on or after 1 January 1981. We of the United States delegation expressed our view 

 at the preparatory session that these dates were inconsistent with the very 

 objectives of the Conference as stated in Assembly Resolution A.237(VII) and 

 Recommendation 92 of the Stockholm Conference. Our specific suggestion to 

 the preparatory session was to substitute the dates 1 January 1976 audi January 

 1979 resi)ectively as being more appropriate. Moreover, those dates would be 

 in consonance with our own national legislation in the form of P.;L. 92-34!Q. 



