227 



provides that evidence, based upon an oil content monitorin? arrangement, that 

 oil content of effluent does not exceed "[15]" ppm is conclusive of the question 

 that ballast is "clean", while Regulation 9 to Annex I establishes elaborate 

 discharge limitations based upon instantaneous rates of discharge per nautical 

 mile (Regulation 9(l)(a)(iv») and total quantity discharged as a percentage 

 of cargo (Regulation 9(l)(a)(v)). 



The environmental basis for these limitations, as well as for the "visible 

 trace" clean ballast standard in Regulation 1(16), is far from clear and, as 

 proposed, they are unacceptable. Indeed, they do little more than codify existing 

 outflow standards which are already met through utilization of load-on-top 

 procedures (currently employed on 7o9r of existing tonnage). For example, if 

 the Convention were to permit the discliarge of l/30.000th of the cargo of a 

 300,000 dead weight ton 'supertanker"' (as is now proposed), this would mean 

 that almost 10 tons of oil could be discharged per voyage, and, assuming 40% 

 ballast, the effluent could contain 100 ppm of oil. As noted above, severe environ- 

 mental damage can result from very low concentrations of aromatic derivative 

 compounds in sea water. Moreover, permitting any discharge at all adds to the 

 increasing accumulations of oil in the oceans. It has recently been reported by 

 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that "oil gloluiles . . . iii 

 massive proportions infect nearly 700.0(10 square miles of blue water from Cape 

 Cod to the Caribbean Sea." Mar Mop Red Flafj Report {Xo. 1), Fish Larvae 

 Found in Ettvironmcnt Contaminated vith Oil and Flastie (January IS. 1973). 

 If seaborne imports of oil to the United States and Western Europe increase, 

 and if oil tanker numbers and traffic increase, as both government and industry 

 project, the environmental degradation from oil pollution resulting from vessels 

 and their operations will increase proportionately: "Not only will the proba- 

 bility of accidents increase . . . but pollution of the marine environment from 

 normal tanker operations . . . are [sic] also likely to increase." S. Rep. No. 

 92-841, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 22 (1972). Thus, even with relatively low discharge 

 standards, adverse environmental effects may result and the accumulation of 

 oil in the oceans will continue to grow. 



As noted aI>ove, the ob.lective of the Convention is the "complete elimination 

 of willful and intentional pollution of the s;.a by oil ... to be achieved by 

 1975, if possible. . . ." Thus, the Convention should adopt, if ix)ssible, a "no 

 discharge" standard. Requiring segregated ballast capacity (see subparagraph 

 [iii] below) can essentially achieve this goal, and there thus seems little reason 

 for less absolute standards. In any event. l)efore any proposed discharge stand- 

 ards could be supported, they must be justified environmentally, i.e., the damage 

 to the marine environment produced at visible sheen, 15 ppm, and GO liter per 

 mile discharge limitations must be set forth and asses.sed. And, the Convention 

 should only establish discharge criteria which meet the following two condi- 

 tions: (1) conclusive evidence shows that it is not technologically feasible to 

 reduce discharges belowthose levels, and (2) conclusive evidence demonstrates 

 that discharges at such levels are not harmful within the meaning of Article 2, 

 para. 3. The figures in brackets in Regulation 1(10) and Regulation 9 referring 

 to parts per million dischai-ges. ship sizes, rates of discharge, and nautical miles 

 from shore, are not supported by any meaningful evidence indicating that they 

 meet these conditions. 



(iii) The Environmental Keeessiti/ for Prompt Adoption of the ^egrefjated 

 Ballast and Double Bottom Requirements — As mentioned above, meaningful 

 discharge limitations must be buttressed by stringent design and construction 

 standards. The interweaving of Regulations 11, 13, 15 and 20 of Annex I is thu.s 

 critical. A requirement that oil carrying vessels possess the capability of carrying 

 .sufficient ballast for normal operations without recourse to cargo tanks (Regula- 

 tion 11(1) (a). Regulation 11(2) and Regulation 13) is without doubt the most 

 effective means for reducing damage to the marine environment from normal 

 ballasting operation.s. The segregated ballast approach is effective because it 

 eliminates the need to mix oil and water, and to wash cargo tanks to hold ballast 

 which may be clean enough to discharge at a loading port. Moreover, there can 

 be no question as to the environmental .soundness of using a double bottom 

 (with a height of B/15) (Footnote 33 (i) to Annex I) to achieve part of the 

 required segregated ballast capacity. Double bottoms would protect against acci- 

 dental discharge caused by grounding incidents — the most common cause of 

 tanker casualty — and the redistribution of hull strength resulting from incor- 

 poration of a double bottom will reduce or at least delay breaking caused by 

 stranding, thereby reducing the frequency of catastrojihic spills. Double bottoms 

 are abso likely to reduce operational pollution in at least two ways: (a) the 



