389 



engaged in carrying oil. If this is the case, this point should be clarified in 

 the statement. 



The Oil Pollution Act of 1961, prohibits under certain conditions, discharge 

 of oil or oily, mixture by tankers over 150 gross tons. There does not api^ear 

 to be any restrictive provisions for vessels less than the minimum tonnage 

 noted. Although this limitation may stem from the 1954 Oil Pollution Convention 

 which the 1961 Act originally implemented, it is felt that the impact statement 

 should cite the reasons these smaller vessels are not nov^' covered inasmuch as they 

 have the same ability to discharge oil or oily wastes as the larger vessels. 



It is also felt that the prevention of pollution from general cargo vessels 

 should be addressed in more detail. Provisions should be included to prevent 

 cargo vessels or for that matter any vessel from using fuel oil tanks for ballast- 

 ing purposes. Some mention should be made of the i>ossibility of having bilges 

 oily/water holding tanks on cargo vessels to retain the oil bilge water until the 

 ves.sels can discharge the oily waste to ia shore side facility. The holding tank 

 may be considered as an alternative to discharging the bilge oil waste through 

 separators and oil content meters. 



It is understood that detection equipment for oily waste, such as oil discli;arge 

 meters measured either in parts per million or liters per mile are not presently 

 off-the-shelf hardware. If this is the case, the draft statement should discuss 

 alternate means on how the oil effluent can currently be effectively measured. 



We hope these comments will be of assistance to you in the preparation of the 

 final statement. 



Sincerely, 



Sidney R. Galler, 

 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmefital Affairs. 



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 



Water Programs Operations, 

 Washington, D.C., November 22, 1972. 



Subject : Review of draft impact statement for Amendment of the Oil Pollution 



Act, 1961 (75 Stat. 402). as ^amended. 

 Department of Transportation, 

 U.S. Coast Guard {GWEP-2/7), 

 Washington, D.C. 

 (Attention of Commander D. B. Charter, .Ir.) 



Dear Dan : EPA has reviewed subject document and offers the following 

 comments for consideration : 



GENERAL COMMENTS 



Comparative changes to the 1961 Act could be more clearly shown to the 

 reader, possibly through the use of a chart. Such a chart could reflect major oil 

 pollution prevention procedures under the provisions of the 1961 Act compared 

 to the proposed pollution prevention controls. 



While the statement presents a good narrative of existing discharge controls 

 as compared to the proposed discharge controls, it is nevertheless important to 

 show the shortcomings of the proposed discharge controls as compared to our 

 national laws and regulations, e.g., the Federal AVater Pollution Control Act 

 as amended, and the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. For example, under the 

 Act of 1961 and the proposed action, the definition of oil is essentially the same. 

 Such restricted oil definition includes only those petroleum based oils and oil 

 products classified as "persistent" in the marine environment \Aill be controlled. 

 The discharges of oils and oil products not classified as persistent will have no 

 controls on them beyond the territorial seas and the contiguous zone. Recent 

 studies have indicated that 37 percent of the intra-coastal flow of tanker traflic 

 around the continental United States is in "non-persistent" oil trade. The ex- 

 elusion of "non-persistent" oil-carrying tankers in the proposed action should be 

 discnespfl 



Consideration should be given to expanding discussion related to method'^ and 

 procedures for enforcement of the civil and criminal penalty provisions of the 

 proposed action. 



