232 



that only one ship has passed through an area where visible traces appear within 

 a given period oi time, tlieii even if tliose traces are not seen "in the vicinity of 

 the ship or its wake", the evidence would seem to be overwhelming that such traces 

 derived from this ship. 



(c) The Convention must provide for the most comprehensive possible regula- 

 tion of ship-generated pollution. 



A final element of an effective Convention is the scope of its impact on ship- 

 generated pollution. It is obvious that unless the Convention is comprehensive 

 in scope and provides for its application to the widest possible number of states 

 and variations of situations, its ultimate impact on reducing pollution of the 

 oceans will be severely limited. Broad application, moreover, means not just that 

 the Convention must apply to a large number of states and a large variety of 

 vessels, but that it must apply without reservation and must leave open the option 

 for Contracting States to establish higher standards — to provide even greater 

 protection for the oceans— should they so desire. A number of provisions in the 

 Fiftli Draft relate to these issues of expansiveness and inclusiveness, and we urge 

 that every effort be made by the United States to secure the broadest possible 

 provisions in tlie ultimate Convention. 



(i) Higher State Utavdards. — Whether Contracting States will be able to take 

 stricter measures within their own jurisdiction regarding any matters covered 

 by the Convention is currently an open question under Article 8. It is also one 

 of the most important and deserves special emphasis. We believe that the pro- 

 visions currently contained in Article 8, para. 1. are essential to insure the broad- 

 est possible protection of the marine environment. From the United States' own 

 point of view, this flexibility to protect national waters and coastlines is even 

 more imperative. Congress, in the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (Pub. 

 L. No. 92-340, 46 U.S.C. §391a), has specifically mandated that the U.S. Coast 

 Guard establish design and construction standards for tank ships which are 

 sufficient to protect U.S. coastal waters. Similarly, the Federal Water Pollution 

 Control Act (Pub. L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311 et seq.), authorizes the En- 

 vironmental Protection Agency to set stringent discharge standards for U.S. 

 waters. It need hardly be said that procedures for reaching international agree- 

 ments are often lengthy and time consuming, that a long lead time is usually 

 needed to gain international acceptance for proposed rules, and that agreements 

 when reached, are often compromises and may not be stringent enough to meet 

 our own environmental goals. If provision for higher state standards (both as 

 regards discharge and design) is deleted from the Convention, the United 

 States might be faced with the choice of rejecting the Convention or giving up 

 its own commitment to the highest standards of environmental protection. Such 

 a choice is simply unacceptable. Article 8, para. 1, is, we believe, a sine qua non 

 to United States adherence to the Convention.^ 



(ii) Application to All Ocean Equipment — whether the Convention should ap- 

 ply to "ships" engaged in offshore drilling or mining operations is an exceedingly 

 difficult question. The definition of "ship" in Article 2, para. 5, now broadly ap- 

 plies to ocean equipment of "any type whatsoever" and includes "fixed or float- 

 ing platforms." There is substantial pressure to narrow this definition and ex- 

 clude such equipment from the Convention's coverage. While there may be some 

 valid reasons for concluding that regulation of equipment engaged in ocean ex- 

 ploration and exploitation should be left entirely to any law of the sea regime 

 which is ultimately developed, we are basically of the opinion that, at least for 

 the immediate future, operational discharges (though perhaps not developmental 

 activities) from such equipment should remain subject to the Convention. 



As offshore exploitation of the oceans' mineral resources increases, pollution 

 generated from submersibles, drill ships, and floating and fixed platforms will 

 become an increasingly serious problem. These hybrid vehicles and equipment 

 have many of the same characteristics as conventional vessels, especially as re- 

 gards the problems of disposal of wastes, sewage, garbage, .sludge and other 

 oily residues. To the extent that they ai'e mobile, their discharges in transit are 

 indistinguishable from those of other vessels. While some of the major prob- 

 lems posed by such equipment, namely discharges resulting directly from ex- 

 ploitative activity (pipeline blowouts, drill breakage, etc.) — significant oil pol- 

 luting incidents off the United States coasts in recent years have been associated 

 with drilling activities in the Gidf of Mexico and the Santa Barbara Channel 

 and approximately 2% of all oil discharged into the oceans can be traced to such 



^ It Is obvious that Article S. para. 2. Is Inconsistent with Article S, para. 1, and' we firmly 

 believe that such provision should be deleted from the final Convention. 



