238 



barrels to be contained in any center tank. It is oljvious, therefore, that the com- 

 plete loss of cjirgo from a single tank meeting these size limitations could be 

 environmentally disastrous. In terms of prevention of accidental pollution, re- 

 duction in tank size would necessarily reduce the amount of outflow from any 

 single tank and thereby provide sul)stantial environmental protection. The federal 

 Maritime Administration recently estimated, in its final environmentiil impact 

 statement on its tanker construction program, at p. VI-57, that cutting tank sizes 

 by one half on a 265,000 DAVT tanker could yield a reduction of about 60 cubic 

 metres per year, or 12%, in accidental pollution. 



Regulation 25 bis. — We support inclusion of provisions, such as those suggested 

 in Footnote 52. which would require on-shore and on-board equipment capable of 

 transferring cargo from compartments in the case of accidents to oil tankers. 

 Such requirements necessarily would contribute to the reduction of the scoix> 

 of any oil spill resulting from tanker casualties. Consideration might also be 

 given to requiring spill containment equipment to be available for such 

 emergencies. 



RegiUation 26.— As noted above, see page 18, supra, we believe that stationary 

 ships should be covered by the Convention, and that the brackets surrounding 

 this provision should be removed. As with other "ships", however, discharges 

 should be the lov\'est technologically feasible and not cause environmental dam- 

 age. We thus question application of the clean ballast standard (subparagraph 

 1(a)). We further believe IMCO, not the Administration, should establish ap- 

 I)ropriate equipment specifications (paragraph 6). Finally, we believe that the 

 metric ton limitation on reporting (paragraph 12) should be deleted — all dis- 

 charges should be reported, as with other ships. 



ANNEX II 



Regulation 1, paras. 1 and 4- — As stated in our Fourth Draft Comments at 

 p. 20, we believe that gas carriers should be regulated under this Annex. Al- 

 though paragraph 29 of document PCMP/8, 7 IMareh 1973, p. 9, indicates that it 

 was the general feeling of the preparatory meeting that the hazard to which 

 liquified noxious substances in bulk mainly related was air j)ollution rather than 

 dirfctly to water pollution, and therefore regulation in the present Convention 

 was not "appropriate", the more relevant consideration is that it makes sense 

 to regulate ship-generated pollution, of whatever nature, in a single, compre- 

 Iiensive Convention which establishes discharge and design standards. LXCr 

 carriers, in particular, do pose significant safety and environmental hazards, and 

 thus should be regulated, to the extent possible, in the same manner as other 

 vessels carrying potentially harmful substances. 



Regulation 2. para. 1. — As noted above, see page 25, -wpra, we support the 

 suggestion in Footnote 1 that the term "stationary ships" be improved. 



Regulation S, paras. 2 and S. — We recommend that Appendix I to Annex II 

 include specific procedures for the tests to be used in determining whether a 

 substance meets the guidelines for categorization. We further urge that the 

 bracketed language in para. 3 be included in the final Convention — to protect the 

 environment it is .safest to assume that chemicals whose properties are relatively 

 unknown are harmful rather than benign. 



Regulation 5. — As noted above with regard to Annex I, Regulation 9. the en- 

 vironmental justification for stated discharge levels must be made plain. A dis- 

 charge level should only be established when it can be shown that a lower level 

 is not technologically feasil)le and that discharges at the stated levels will not 

 <»ause significant environmental damage. General limitations on chemical dis- 

 charges are especially diflScult since each substance may have a different degree 

 of dilution, solubility, dispersion, volatility, etc., under varying circumstances 

 and .«:ince the environmental effects of any chemicals are unknown. As with oil, 

 the goal must be the complete elimination of operational discharges. 



In order to achieve fullest possible protection of the oceans, we would support 

 as well the suggestion in Footnote 5 that coastal states be i^ermitted to impose 

 more stringent discharge limitations. 



Regulation of Fourth Draft. — This Regulation, which provided for establish- 

 ment of api">endices to contain lists of marine resources requiring further pro- 

 tection from discharges and of water quality criteria for protection of the marine 

 environment, has been deleted from the Fifth Draft. Our Fourth Draft Com- 

 ments recommended, at p. 21. that this regulation be included in the body of the 

 Convention and apply to oil, sewage, and garbage as well as to the noxious sub- 

 stances of Annex II. This recommendation still appears appropriate. 



