226 



1. GENERAL COMMENTS 



(a) The Convention must imppove uniform, meaningful discharge limitations 

 ami stringent design and construetiou standards. 



The fundamental requirement of an effective Convention is the establishment 

 of meaningful, uniform discharge criteria and stringent design and construction 

 standards to guarantee that these criteria are met. Discharge limitations and 

 design standards are intimately related. A discharge limitation may be little 

 more than a pious platitude unless it is reinforced by technologically sound hard- 

 ware. Reliance on procedures, such as the load-on-top procedure, for example, 

 which depends upon such factors as crew skill and diligence, weather condi- 

 tions, product type and voyage length, is sim])ly no substitute in most cases for 

 a structural solution, such as that obtained by segregated ballast capacity, to 

 tlie discharge problem. For the same reasons, it is imperative that the choice 

 of means to achieve discharge limita'tions not be left open to the Contracting 

 States but be mandated by the Convention itsi'lf. With regard to oil pollution in 

 particular — the most significant element of ocean pollution and the major focus 

 of the Convention — ^it is essential to impose (1) a uniform discharge limitation 

 for all types of oil, (2) a no-discharge limitation, and i3) a structural «()lution 

 to the discharge problem, i.e., imposition of a segregated ballast/double bottom 

 requirement. 



(i) One Bischargc Standard for Oil. — The Convention as now drafted provides 

 for a single discharge standard for "oil or oily mixtures", which are broadly 

 defined in Regulation 1, para. 1, of Annex I. to include "petroleum in any form". 

 However, there is substantial pressure, as suggested by Footnote Kii) to Annex 

 I. to establish a dual standard, with "persistent" or blacli oils presumably being 

 subject to more sringent controls than "non-persistent" or white oils. This pro- 

 posal is environmentally unacceptable. Although white oils may evaporate faster 

 than black oils (but not in turbulent waters), and although their discharge may 

 not always have the same visible effects as the discharge of black oils, i.e., 

 fouling oif fishing nets, deposits on beaches, coating of birds and wildlife. Q\r., 

 the effects of white oil discharges may be subtler and ultimately more harmful 

 for the environment, since these oils, which contain a higher percentage of 

 aromatic and aromatic derivative compounds than crude oils, will have greater 

 toxic effects on marine biota. 



The higher toxicity of white as opposed to black cargoes has recently been 

 docimiented in the final environmental impact statement, released on May 80, 

 3073. by the federal Maritime Administration regarding its tanker construction 

 program at pp. IV-^2 through IV-51. and IV-103 through IV-lOi. This impact 

 •statement reveals that aromatic fractions, many of which are water soluble, are 

 ■often quite toxic to marine organisms at extremely low levels of concentration. 

 I.e.. toxic effects on larvae may occur with concentrations as low as 0.1 ppm. 

 Moreover, concentrations of these hydrocarbons in a range of 10 to 100 ppm 

 may cause behavioral pattern changes, while incorporation of such hydrocarbons 

 in tissues of marine organisms, and thus into the food web. has potential public 

 health implications for humans. In general, as is stated by the comment of 

 Professor Stephen Moore of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at pp. 

 <5-210. 217 of this impa<^t statement, "substances containing higher concentra- 

 tions of these lower boiling aromatics are likely to cause greater biolodcal 

 damage, e.g.. refined products such as no. 2 fuel oil. can be expected to have a 

 much greater impact than most crude oils, other things l>eing equal." 



The dangers associated with discharges of white oils are underscored by two 

 further factors. First, white oils are ordinarily primarily carried in coastwise 

 trades near sensitive bays, estuaries and coastal breeding grounds. Tlius. merely 

 as a result of trade routes, their discharge will tend to produce serious deleterious 

 effects. Second, because th(w are more water soluble, discharges of ballast water 

 and from oil water separators will contain significant concentrations of poten- 

 tially toxic matorinls." In sum. given the current state of knowledge about the 

 effects of oil pollution on the marine environment, establishment of a dual 

 discharge standard would he wholly unwarranted. 



(ii) MeaviiifffKl Di.^chargc Criteria. — Any discharge limitations established 

 nnder the ''Convention must be the best attainnbl" with existing technology. In 

 Annex T, tlie critical limitations are contained in Regulation, para. 16, which 



2 This lattpr point Is of pnrtlriilnr slsrnlflrnnrp \vlth rpcrnrd to tliP pfrpetivoTiP!:s of lond-oii- 

 top pqnimnpnt (spp dlscnssion uifrn. ot S), ntid It undprseorps thp Inpffpotivpness of this 

 alternative for pollution prevention as compared to a segregated ballast system. 



