2C0 



a country which is a party to the Convention, the appropriate authorities of 

 that country would grant the necessary permits. 



Finally, Section 4 of the Bill amends Section 109 of the Act to take into ac- 

 count the fact that a suitable convention for the worldwide control of dumping 

 has now been concluded. The new Section 109(a) requires that the provisions 

 of the Act be construed in a manner consistent with the Convention, so that 

 United States courts and as;encies will impose controls which are at least as strict 

 as those contained in the Convention. The new Section 109 ( b ) expresses support 

 for effective international action by the United States to see that the require- 

 ments of the Convention are carried out. 



As a final point, I would like to direct the Committee's attention to one dif- 

 ference between the Convention and the domestic legislation, which has given 

 rise to several questions. I am referring to the situation in which the Conven- 

 tion prohibits in its Annex I, the dumping of a number of substances including 

 chemical and biological warfare agents and high-level radioactive wastes with 

 the exception that under emergency circumstances and after consulting certain 

 Parties a special permit may be granted. Our domestic legislation prohibits 

 under any conditions the dumping of chemical and biological warfare agents 

 and high-level radioactive wastes. As the international Convention is specifically 

 designed to be a floor above which any Contracting Party may establish more 

 strict measures, there is no conflict on this matter between the Convention 

 and our existing domestic legislation. The combination of our legislation and 

 the Convention would prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Pro- 

 tection Agency from granting permits under any conditions for the disposal of 

 chemical and' biological \>|arfare agents or high-level radioactive wastes. The 

 Administrator of EPA could grant permits for the disposal of the other sub- 

 stances listed in Annex I of the Convention only by invoking the rights granted 

 in paragraph 2 of Article V of the Convention, the emergency clause. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe I have covered the major items of inter- 

 est to the Committee and I will be most happy to respond to any of your 

 questions. 



Statement of the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Nat- 

 ural Resources Defense Council, National Parks and Conservation As- 

 sociation, AND the Sierra Club on International Regulation of Ship- 

 Generated Pollution 



Mr. Chairman, I am Eldon Greenberg of the Center for Law and Social Policy, 

 a public interest law firm. I appreciate the invitation to api>ear before the 

 Committee today to provide the advice of the Environmental Defense Fmid 

 ("EDF"). Friends of the Earth ("FOE"), the Natural Resources Defense Coun- 

 cil ("NRDC"), the National Parks and Conservation Association ("NPCA") 

 and the Sierra Club with regard to the proposed International Convention for 

 the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (the "Convention") currently 

 being prepared by the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization 

 ("IMCO"). My colleague, Richard Frank, and I have acted as counsel to the.'^e 

 groups on environmental matters in the past, and we have been asked by them 

 to coordinate the presentation of their views on the important issues of environ- 

 mental policy raised by the Convention 



TJie environmental groups which I represent are all national organizations 

 deeply concerned about the preservation and protection of the marine and coastal 

 environment. They are non-profit, membership organizations with a combined 

 niembershii» exceeding 200,0(X) persons throughout the United States. All groups, 

 further, have made substantial efforts in the past to improve the quality of ihe 

 marine and coustal environments by means of litigation, testimony, i>()licy anal- 

 ysis and educational programs. In particiular, in recent months, EDF, NPCA, 

 and NRDC have been actively i)articipating in the development of. and have 

 commented upon the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Depart- 

 ment of Commerce regarding its program to subsidize the construction of oil 

 tankers in the United States. Additionally, these organizations (a) have sub- 

 mitted comm(>nts to the Coast Guard on its proimsal to require segregated ballast 

 systems, including double bottoms, on all tankers trading in U.S. navigable 

 waters, and (b) have testified before Congress on deepwater port development 

 policy. With regard to international regulation of oil pollution, the Sierra Club. 

 EDF, and NRDC submitted comi)rehensive comments on the Fourth Draft of 

 the Convention in January of 1973. Finally, these groups have participated on 



