242 



Section 6 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1961, 33 U.S.C. 1005, states simply that 

 any person who violates any provision of that chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor 

 and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment. S. 1067 con- 

 tinues this form of i>enalty, although it increases the amount of the possible fine 

 and adds a provision for a civil penalty for a willful or negligent discharge of 

 oil or oily mixture. 



The effect of the proposed legislation is that if a licensed engineer causes or 

 permits the discharge of oil (absent a finding of certain exonerating emergency 

 conditions) he is guilty of a crime despite the fact that he may be wholly without 

 fault, despite the fact that the equipment aboard the vessel may be latently defec- 

 tive, unreliable or obsolescent and despite the fact that the engineer may take all 

 reasonable steps to prevent oil discharge. 



Section 2 (b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1961 defines the term "discharge" to 

 mean "any discharge or escape howsoever caused". This broad or encompassing 

 definition would seem to cover any kind of escape of oil or an oily mixture, as 

 those terms are defined by S. 1067, from a vessel. Thus, even if a discharge is 

 caused by factors beyond the control of the licensed engineer, by faulty equipment 

 or for any reason, the licensed engineer may be subject to both a civil and crim- 

 inal penalty. 



It must be emphasized that all American flag vessels are deliberately designed 

 to discharge oil under normal operations. The construction and design of most 

 American flag vessels has bpen a]»prove<l by T'liited States Goveninicnt regulatory 

 agencies and their design and operation makes some discharge of oil unavoidable 

 even though the slilp's licensed marine engineers and other officers will not even 

 know that oil is being discharged. 



All vessels use lube oil in their engines. Such lube oil is cooled by sea water 

 passing around the tubes in which the oil is contained. The pressure of the oil 

 is maintained at a higher level than that of the sea water so that if there is a leak 

 in the tube, oil will be di-^charged into the ocean together with the sea water in- 

 stead of the alternative of having sea water enter the engine. Moreover, on some 

 vessels oil is carried in the double bottom and this oil can overflow when the ship 

 goes from one water temperature to another. 



These factors are inherent in the design of all ships. The result of S. 1067 

 could be that a ship operating in normal fashion, if its construction has been 

 approved by the regulatory agencies, may spill oil without the knowledge of its 

 licensed officers. Yet the result of such spillage could be that the licensed marine 

 engineers would be subject to civil or criminal penalties and also to a possible 

 loss of their license under Coast Guard procedures. 



I think it critically important to point out to this Committee that marine engi- 

 neers aboard oceangoing vessels are licensed by the United States Coast Guard 

 and must be so licensed in order to serve in such a position. The Coast Guard has 

 the authority to proceed against a licensed marine engineer and to take away or 

 suspend his license for any conduct which is either contrary to Coast Guard 

 regulations or which violates the licensed officer's obligations. In fact Section 7 

 of the Oil PoUution Act of 1961, 33 USC 1006, provides that the Coast Guard may 

 suspend or revoke a license issued to a licensed oflScer who is found to have 

 violated the provisions of the statute. 



The continuation of the right to impose upon licensed marine engineers civil 

 and criminal penalties under the statute subjects them to double jeopardy. They 

 are subject to the increased penalties provided in S. 1067 and they are subject to 

 the loss of their license by virtue of charges brought against them by the Coast 

 Guard. Thus, it is possible that a licensed marine engineer may, through no fault 

 of his own, but because of the discharge of oil or oily mixture, be subjected to civil 

 and criminal penalties as well as to the loss of his license with the consequent loss 

 of employment. 



The license of a marine engineer is legally indispensable to his employment as 

 such. The temporary or permanent revocation of that license prevents him from 

 serving as a marine engineer. What appalls me is the very thought that thp career 

 of a licensed marine engineer, with an otherwise splendid background of accom- 

 plishment and achievement in the American Mirchant Marine, cor.ld be de .troyed 

 because of the discharge of oil or oily mixture which resulted from no fault of 

 his or from circumstances beyond his control. 



In two recent iiieces of legislation, the Congress of the United States, in an 

 effort to control the i»ollution of navigable waters by the discharge of oil or haz- 

 ardous substances has seen fit not to inuiose individunl and personal liability 

 upon licensed engineers or other ofllicers. The Water Quality Improvement Act of 



