366 



The secondary effects of oil pollution are also very important. Animals that 

 migrate into the area even after the initial contamination has disappeared can 

 be affected by the oil. Residual oil in plants and animals consumed liy these 

 animals can "be very harmful. Biological concentratitm, the concentrating of a 

 substance as it is pas.sed up the food chain, can affect animals that are related 

 to the contaminated area only through the food chain. Studies have found that 

 hydrocarbons, once incorporated into a particular marine organism, are stable 

 and may pass through many members of the marine food chain without altera- 

 tion [6]. Marine mammals are also affected by oil pollution. Furred seals and 

 otters lose critical insulation and buoyancy when oil coats their fur. All marine 

 mammals are affected by the destruction of their food sources due to oil pollution 

 damage. 



Some ecologists have speculated that oil discharges into the oceans may ulti- 

 mately affect human health through the possible buildup of toxic and carcinogenic 

 substances due to biological concentration in fish and shellfish [6]. This occurs 

 when the contaminated flesh is eaten by a human or other high life form. 



Oil pollution is a .serious threat to the beauty and usefulness of coastal areas. 

 Serious property damage and interference with commercial and recreational 

 activities could occur if oil from a distressed vessel reaches the shoreline. Esthetic 

 damage to the coastline due to oil contamination causes a reduction of the recrea- 

 tional value of the area.. This can cause a severe economic loss to the tourism 

 business in the area. Many accidents have occurred, one being the Torrey Canyon 

 disaster, which resulted in widespread damage to the esthetic, economic and 

 recreational areas of the English and French coastlines. $16 million worth 

 of property damage claims were submitted, $7.5 million of which were settled. 



IV. EVIRON MENTAL IMPACT OF THE BILL 



The quantity of oil being shipped by tank vessels has increased rapidly and this 

 rapid increase is expected to continue. In 1971. 1.5 million tons of petroleum prod- 

 ucts were shipped, 600 million tons of which were commerce of the United States 

 [7]. In 1980 the United States oil consumption over the 1970 figure is expected to 

 increase by forty percent [8]. Studies of oil discharges in 1969-1970 due to vessel 

 casualties show that 70 percent of all oil discharges occur outside of harbor 

 areas [9]. During this study, Keith and Porricelli determined that 215.000 tons 

 of oil enter the sea i>ev year due to tanker casualties. This oil affects the entire 

 marine ecosystem. If the United States can intervene in cases of marine casualty 

 where oil threatens our coastline, some of the oil could be prevented from entering 

 the marine environment. The proposed bill will help to reduce the quantity of oil 

 discharged into the marine environment. 



The overall increase in petroleum imports, combined with the shift in sources 

 of supply, dictate a large increase in the tanker capacity necessary to meet the 

 United States 1980 energy requirements. The Maritime Administration projects 

 that 320 tankers, working full time, will be required to carry the 1980 U. S. i>etro- 

 leum trade. This is an increase of 108 ships over the 1971 fleet of 212 [10]. In 

 1972 the U. S. Coast Guard reported nine oil discharging casualties in the con- 

 tigious zone and high seas off the United States coasts. This is in contrast to 1971 

 figures where only one such discharge occurred. The number of casualties per 

 vessel is not an accurate figure for predicting the number of discharges per year. 

 The increased amount of tanker traffic in the future will increase the probability 

 of casualty discharges. The provisions of this bill would be applicable in many 

 of these cases. 



Neither the convention nor the bill directly regulates the carriage of oil at sea 

 or the .safety and construction standards of tankers and other vessel.s. The.se are 

 covered by other laws and conventions. Neither is meant to take the place of 

 comprehensive and effective international controls over activities likely to cause 

 marine oil pollution. However, the bill has the potential to reduce oil pollution 

 of United States coastlines by enabling the United Staates to take whatever 

 action it deems necessary to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate a threat of oil pollu- 

 tion resulting from a maritime accident on the high seas. 



With the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas 

 in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, there will be no question whether the govern- 

 ment has the autliority to act. The proposed bill will delegate the authority to 

 The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is oiK^rating. Tliis 

 authority will permit a speedy resjwnse which is often necessarj- to eliminate or 

 reduce pollution. The money for this action will come from the revolving fund, 

 established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The existence of legal 



