380 



Application of this tank size criterion, as sliown in tlie data, will cause a 1.7% 

 increase in RFR for a 300,000 tdw tanker and an increase of slightly less than 

 3.8% for a 500,000 tdw tanker (Oc and O,. under this bill, for a tanker of 

 500,000 tdw is 31,680 cubic meters). As is evident from the economic data, there 

 is no significant increase in RFR for vessels under 300,000 tdw, a tonnage that 

 includes all U.S. vessels afloat, luider con.struction, or planned. With the majority 

 of U.S. flag tankers under 100,000 tdw and no projected plan for any over 300,000 

 tdw, the impact of this amendment on U.S. flag vessels is minimal. 



Penalties 



In addition to the amendatory provisions of the bill which relate directly to 

 Convention changes, the other significant substantive change is in the area of 

 enforcement. The 1961 Oil Pollution Act, with minor exception, provides only 

 for criminal penalties. This bill makes substantial civil penalties also available 

 for more flexibile and effective enforcement, and at the same time substantially 

 increases the severity of criminal penalties, discouraging unlawful discharges 

 outside of U.S. territorial waters as well as within as specified by Article VI of 

 the Convention. 



3. PROBABLE ADVBXSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 



Though not effecting the complete elimination of all discharges of oil and 

 oily mixtures, enactment of this bill will cause a significant reduction in the 

 quantity of oil and oily mixture discharge being made. This result is certainly 

 not harmful. It is therefore apparent that there are no adverse effects to the 

 environment as a result of enactment of this bill. However, if the alternative of 

 ballast retention is chosen and additional reception facilities are required, there 

 will be adverse effects on the environment during both the construction and op- 

 eration phases. It is not possible to assess this impact at this time. Each facility 

 will have to be studied on an individual basis considering not only the facility 

 itself but also the surrounding use areas. 



4, ALTERNATIVES 



There are two basic alternatives to the proposed legislation. They are : 



1. No additional legislation. — Do not implement the 1969 and 1971 amend- 

 ments to the Convention. However, stricter enforcement of present legislation, 

 including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and the Oil 

 Pollution Act of 1961, as amended, both of which address themselves to the 

 control of pollution by oil, should be considered as a part of this alternative. 



One of the problems with the present legislation, and part of the reasoning 

 behind the 1969 amendment to the Convention, is the inability to enforce the 

 section of the 1961 Act prohibiting discharges of oil in water greater than 

 100 ppm. Other than collecting a sample of a disc»harge before it enters the water, 

 there is no conclusive way of determining if a discharge is an oily mixture 

 containing greater than 100 ppm of oil in water. 



Stricter enforcement of the Act in its present form would only insure that 

 vessels built before the effective date of the Act do not di.scharge oil or oily 

 mixtures greater than 100 pi)m within prohibited zones. For vessels of 20.000 

 gross tons or more, built after the effective date of the Act, stricter enforcement 

 would prevent discharges of greater than 100 ppm from being made outside of 

 prohibited zones. As mentioned earlier in the impact statement, these require- 

 ments are only discharge rate limitations and do not limit the total quantity 

 that can be discharged. 



Assuming that a practiical way existed to insure discharges were within the 

 limits of the Act, full compliance, to the greatest extent possible, would still 

 permit the introduction of a potentially unlimited quantity of oil into the world's" 

 oceans because of the lack of a finite limit on oil and oil in water discharges. Lack 

 of a means to identify discharges greater tlian 100 ppm after the di.*<cbarge enters 

 the wafer has made tlie 1961 Act in its i)resent form extremely difficult to enforce 

 and stricter enforcement almost impos.sible. 



Article XVI of the Convention sii)ecifies that an amendment may be determined 

 by the IMCO As.sembly to be of such nn imiwrtant nature that any Government 

 signatory to the Convention which does not accept the amendment within a 

 period of twelve months after the amendment comes into fon-e shall cea.se 

 to be a party to the j)resent Convention. The 1971 amendment on tank size and 

 tank arrangement is one such amendment. 



