225 



herein, on behalf of five national, environmental organizations— the Environ- 

 mental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Parks 

 and Conservation Association. Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club — our 

 comments on the Final Draft text of the proposed International Convention for 

 the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (the "Convention" or the "Fifth 

 Draft"). A number of these same comments were expressed in our letter to you, 

 dated Januarv 26, 1973 (the "Fourth Draft Comments'"), regarding the Fourth 

 Draft of the Convention, and are included here again for ease of reference. We 

 urge the Committee, nonetheless, to read the comments submitted below together 

 with the Fourth Draft Comments in order to have the benefit of the full scope, 

 of our views. 



From the viewpoint of our clients, ship-generated oil pollution is clearly the"- 

 most important environmental problem treated in the Convention. More than 

 45% of the annual 5 million tons of oil injected into the oceans from all sources- 

 can be attrilmted to ship operations, including operations of tankers, tank bargeS' 

 and non-oil carrying vessels. If, as is expected, waterborne imports of petroleuuj 

 products to the world's industrial nations grow, the amounts of oil pollution will 

 tend to grow proportionately unless positive international action is taken now. 

 The threats of oil pollution, of course, are not just those associated with massive 

 spills engendered by tanker accidents such as that of the Torrey (Janmn, but also 

 result simply from the normal ballasting, deballasting and tank cleaning opera- 

 tions of oil tankers, which account for approximately 70% of tanker-generated 

 pollution. 



The Convention has the potential for substantially reducing the risks of pollu- 

 tion by oil and other harmful substances. In theory, its purpose, as expressed in 

 the Preamble, and as expressed in Resolution A. 237 (VII) adopted by the IMCO 

 Assembly on October 12, 1971. is to achieve "the complete elimination of inten- 

 tional pollution by oil and other harmful substances and the minimization of 

 accidental discharge of such substances," by 1975, if possible, but definitely by 

 1980. However, if it is to achieve this goal it must provide for stringent and 

 broadly applicable international standards. Most importantly, we believe that, 

 if tbe Convention is to be acceptable to the environmental community, it must 

 establish discharge criteria for polluting substances, reinforced by strict design 

 and construction standards, which will work a real and substantial improvement 

 in the marine environment. As presently proposed, however, the Convention 

 appears to do little more than codify existing commercial standards among the 

 major maritime nations, provides no incentive to improve such standards, and 

 ofi'ers insufficient environmental protection. 



With respect to ship-generated oil pollution, there is no question that the 

 means are available to eliminate the intentional discharge problem. Unfortunate- 

 ly, they are not reflected adequately in the Fifth Draft of the Convention. We 

 believe that, from an environmental standpoint, imposition of a uniform, no- 

 discharge standard for all types of oil, accomplished through the requirement of 

 incorporation of a segregated ballast/double bottom system, is a fundamental 

 requirement for an effective Convention. 



in addition to the fundamental need for adequate discharge and design stand- 

 ard.s, there are two other basic areas of concern which we have about the final 

 Convention. If the Convention fails to establish adequate enforcement mecha- 

 nisms or to provide for broad application of its provisions, its ultimate impact 

 on reducing pollution of the oceans Will be severely limited. Thus, the Conven- 

 tion must (1) provide for mandatory enforcement of the discharge and design and 

 construction standards which it establishes and (2) provide for comprehensive 

 regulation of shiji-generated pollution, applying to the widest possible number of 

 states, kinds of vessels and variations of situations. 



Finally, there are a number of specific provisions in the Convention or its 

 Annexes which we siipport or oppose or with respect to which we have sugges- 

 tions for improvement, requests for clarificatiion or questions as to meaning. 

 These detailed points are set forth below after a discussion of the more general 

 issues raised by the Convention. i 



1 We note at the outset that, although tanker casualties result in approximately 18% 

 of tanker-jrenerated oil disohartres. neither the Convention nor other international agree- 

 ments presently in force mandate the incorporation of collision avoidance and nianenvera- 

 bility features which niisht aid in redncinsr accidental pollution caused by such incidents. 

 Design innovations such as controllable pitch propellers, bow and/or stern thrusters and 

 twin screws/twin rudders can substantially Increase maneuverability, thereby decreasing 

 the risk of accident, especially in narrow, crowded and shallow ship channels, while auto- 

 matic collision avoidance radar plotting systems may further reduce such risks. We 

 therefore believe that the United States should take tlie lead in stimulating development of 

 International agreement in this area as so')n us possible. 



