233 



aotivities-^miglit appropriately be left to regulation in a future of tlie sea 

 regime which would comprehensively conti'ol offshore development, nonetheless 

 there seems little reason not to regulate now the "operational" discharges from 

 such equipment in the same manner as those from oil tankers or other conven- 

 tional carriers. This is all the more important because the regulation of such 

 discharges by any future law of the sea regime is speculative at best at this time. 

 Regulation of all ocean equipment in a single Convention whose focus is the 

 prevention of pollution (and not promotion of development) simply makes good 

 sense. If the law of the sea regime ultimately establishes rules covering dis- 

 charges from offshore exploitation vehicles and such rules are preferable to the 

 ones in the Convention, then, of course, the law of the sea rules can merely 

 supersede the Convention.' 



(iii) Application to Ships in All Trades. — The Convention should apply to all 

 sliips, regardless of the trades in which they are engaged. Regulation 5 of Annex 

 I. now provides that only ships which are engaged on "international voyages" 

 shall be issued International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificates. This is an 

 undue limitation on the certification requirement. Ships which engage in coast- 

 wise trade but which travel in international waters should also be subject to the 

 certification requirement. Indeed, ships which engage in short voyages and enter 

 many harbor areas during their lives present substantial threats of oil pollution 

 at lea?-t equal to those posed by ships which engaue in the long haul tirades. 

 Higher accidental risks are associated with frequent entry into narrow, shallow 

 and crowded harbor areas, and operational discharges from tank ships in the 

 coastwise trades, insofar as such discharges are made near to biologically sensi- 

 tive bays and estuaries, pose grave environmental hazards, especially in light of 

 the fact that such vessels tend to carry white oils of high toxicity. 



For the same reasons, we strongly oppose the suggestion in Footnote 20 to 

 Annex I that the mileage limitations on discharge not apply to ships engaged 

 in coastal voyages and the suggestion made in Footnote 31 to Annex I that 

 segregated ballast capacity for ships trading within "[150]" miles between oil 

 loading and oil delivering terminals should be left open to the option of the Ad- 

 ministration. The analysis set forth above militates strongly in favor of segre- 

 gated ballast and strict discharge limitations on ships engaging in short voy- 

 ages, and exemption of sucli ships from the segregated ballast and discharge 

 rc'Jiuirements would substantially weaken the Convention's pollution control 

 objectives. 



(iv) Application to Military Vessels. — Not only must the Convention apply to 

 various kinds of ships in various trades, it must also apply to vessels with mili- 

 tary as well as civilian missions. Military vessels represent a substantial portion 

 of the world's fleet. Because of their generally large crews, they pose particularly 

 difficult sewage and waste problems. Moreover, many such vessels are tankers 

 equipped to carry fuels and other petroleum products. For example, the United 

 States Navy, through the Military Sealift Command, has recently procured nine 

 24,000 ton vessels to carry jet fuels and diesel oils to serve the needs of the 

 military. These are not warships, and they are intended for use in commercial 

 operations after a period of service to the military. They have neither segregated 

 ballast nor double bottoms. It is obvious that ships such as these can and should 

 be subject to the provisions of the Convention, and we object now, as we did in 

 our Fourth Draft Comments, to the inclusion, in Article 3, para. 2, of a broad- 

 scale exemption for military vessels. We urge adoption of the original proposal 

 of the United States in the Ocean Dumping negotiations which would have left 

 military vessels immune from the enforcement powers of foreign countries but 

 subject to the regulatory requirements of the Convention.'' 



(v) No Suspension in Time of War. — Provision for suspension in case of war 

 is not made in the present Convention,' although its insei'tion has been suggested 

 in Footnote 43. We reiterate the views expressed in the Fourth Draft Comments 

 at p. 12 that such an Article is not needed, and should not be included in the 

 final Convention. As drafted, it would literally allow for suspension of the Con- 



" If fixed anfl floating platforms, drill ships and the like are to be rearulated In the Pnn- 

 vention. the meaning of the exclusion of the release of harmful snbetaiipes relotpfl to off- 

 shore exploitation from the definition of "discharge" In article 2, para. 4(b) (ii), sho-.i'l be 

 clarifed to indicate that, even if mining or drilling activities per se are nnroc-ulntpd, opera- 

 tional discharges from equipment engaging in such activities are covered by the Convention. 

 The phrasp "directly arising from" in the cited subparagraph is too vague to do the job 



' If the Convention must exempt military vessels, then, at the very least, we recommend 

 that the narrowest acceptable formula be chosen ; footnote 8 appears to be a start in the 

 right direction. 



