204 



and handy size are currently being constructed in tlie United States to meet 

 this requirement. Moreover, from an environmental point of view, because load- 

 on-top operations may not be able to be engaged in on smaller tankers, because 

 they may be relatively ineffective, and because smaller tankers tend to carry 

 cargoes with higher toxicity, segregated ballast and double bottoms are an 

 environmental necessity for these vessels. 



Not only do we believe that the segregated ballast/double bottom standard 

 should be imposed on all ships, but we believe that the Convention should provide 

 for application of this standard as soon as possible after entry in force. As 

 you are aware, under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, regulations protect- 

 ing U.S. coastal waters are required to be in effect by .January 1, 1976. Yet the 

 present cut-off dates for compliance with new standards in the Convention are 

 in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Not only do these cut-off dates fail to meet 

 the objective of eliminating operational pollution by 1980 at the latest, but as 

 a practical matter, they create a substantial likelihood that the requirements 

 will be ineffective until virtually the year 2000. A recent survey by the Federal 

 Maritime Administration shows that, as of .January 1. 1973. there were .'">:>3 oil 

 carrying vessels on order or under construction throughout the world, including 

 276 tankers over 175,000 dwt; and, that the world tanker fleet contained an 

 additional 7.TO tankers, including about 2.30 supertankers, all built within the 

 last four years. The survey also shows that virtually none of these tankers will 

 incorporate double bottoms or a segregated ballast capacity. It is common 

 knowledge that a w^orldwide shipbuilding boom is underway in order to meet 

 .skyrocketing demands for imported petroleum. If the applicable dates in the 

 Convention are put off to 1980, it is likely that a substantial part of the capacity 

 needed to serve world needs in the 1980-|2000 period will be constructed prior 

 to such time, and thus the entire purpose of the Convention will be undercut. 

 We believe that the United States must advocate adoption of the earliest po.ssible 

 completion dates to triggc application of the Convention's design and con- 

 struction standards. 



III. THE CONVENTION MUST PROVIDE FOR MANDATORY ENFORCEMENT OF ITS PROVISION.S 



Discharge and design standards will only be effective if they are enforceable. 

 Indeed, the Convention is needed in part because of the failure of the Interna- 

 tional Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil. 11>">4, to 

 provide for adequate enforcement mechanisms. If the Contracting States are 

 given full discretion to enforce or to decline to enforce the provisions of the 

 Convention, or if they are not required to inve.stigate alleged violations, the 

 environmental protective purposes of the Convention will be substantially under- 

 cut. As it now .stands, much of the language contains in the Fifth Draft is in the- 

 alternative, providing for either permi.ssive or mandatory enforcement of various 

 provisions of the Convention. We believe that it is essential that the T'^nited 

 States press for inclusion of the mandatory language and for the vesting of 

 power to prohibit discharges, investigate casualties or .suspected violations, 

 and punish violators in both "flag states" and "port states." 



A very brief summary of some of the provisions in which these issues a rise- 

 will. I believe, help the Committee to understand the problem and our views 

 of what the United States position .should be. For example. Article 4 of the 

 Convention spells out the penalties and jurisdictional criteria to be applied 

 whenever a violation of the Convention occurs. This provi-sion provides for 

 prohibition of discharges of harmful substances in violation of the ("Convention 

 under the law of the flag state and under the law of any other Contracting- 

 State when the discharge occurs within its "territorial .seas." Leaving enforct*- 

 ability to the "flag" states, especially if the flag is one of convenience, f.c, 

 Liberia or Panama, would virtually guarantee that the Convention would not 

 be fully enforced. Such a provision, therefore, is of paramount importance to the 

 effectiveness of the Convention. To work well, however, it must, in effect, oper- 

 ate automatically. Language in one alternative now provides that proceedings 

 must be brought if there is suflicient (•viden(-(' to do so. There is substJtntial 

 opposition to this alternative language, but we believe that if Contracting States 

 merely have an option to prosecute then there will be no assurance whatsoever 

 that the Convention will he enforced, and every effort must be made to opi>ise 

 a watering down of this enforcement mechanism. 



Control over ships regulated by the Convention is also essential to effective- 

 implementation. Thus, stringent action should be required when it is determined 



