held that the provisions of the Refuse Act were ap- 
plicable to oil discharge despite the oil company’s 
contention that a commercially valuable petroleum 
product should not be considered refuse.*° In inter- 
preting the term refuse as employed in Section 13 
of the Rivers and Harbors Act, Justice Douglas, 
speaking for the Court, stated that:** 
“Oil is oil and whether useable or not by 
industrial standards it has the same dele- 
terious effects on waterways. In either 
case, its presence in our rivers and harbors 
is both a menace to navigation and a pol- 
lutant. This seems to be the administra- 
tive construction of Section 13, ...” 
mn Cat trhto cat herp ce RNG. 
This judicial interpretation made the Refuse Act a 
major legal instrument in the battle against water 
pollution in the United States and a primary statu- 
tory authority for many Coast Guard environmental 
protection activities. 
Before the 1966 ruling on the Refuse Act, the 
principal statutory foundation for Coast Guard pol- 
lution abatement activities was the Oil Pollution Act 
of 1961, which implemented the 1954 International 
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the 
Sea by Oil. Although this convention had come into 
force in 1958,°? the United States did not become a 
party to the convention until the 1961 Oil Pollution 
Act was passed. Under the provisions of this act and 
the convention, limits were imposed on the quantity 
of oil and oily mixtures allowed to be discharged in 
zones extending 50 miles from land. Subsequent 
amendments to the 1961 Oil Pollution Act have 
tightened and extended these restrictions, and today 
U.S. requirements under this law are more stringent 
than requirements under the 1954 Convention. The 
current law is, however, consistent with various 
amendments to the convention which are now pend- 
ing ratification by enough nations to bring them into 
force.”3 
In addition to the oil discharge standards con- 
tained in the law, this statute now also includes 
standards governing tank size and configuration for 
new U.S. tankers. These standards are intended to 
limit the quantity of oil outflow in the event of an 
accident and are consistent with international stand- 
20 U.S. vs. Standard Oil Company, 384 U.S. 225, 86 Sup. Ct. 
1427, (1966). 
21 Ibid, p. 1428. 
22 Implementation of the original convention required agree- 
ment by a minimum cf 10 governments, at least 5 of which 
were required to have not less than 500,000 gross tons of regis- 
tered tanker tonnage. This requirement was met in 1958. 
°3 Amendments to the 1961 Oil Pollution Act will not be 
activated until both the 1969 and 1971 Amendments to the 1954 
Convention are ratified by the U.S. Senate. The 1969 Amend- 
ments to the 1954 Convention came into force, however, on 
January 20, 1978, and although not yet ratified by the United 
States, the Coast Guard has implemented the provisions of the 
1969 Amendment through regulations issued under authority of 
the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. 
ards contained in a 1971 amendment to the 1954 
Convention which is also now pending ratification. 
As the lead agency in implementing U.S. marine 
transportation laws passed pursuant to international 
safety and pollution abatement conventions, the 
Coast Guard plays a major technical role in all inter- 
national negotiations relating to these agreements 
Two other laws which provide extensive authority 
for current Coast Guard programs in the area of 
environmental protection were enacted in 1972. The 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 
of 1972 represent perhaps the most far-reaching 
action yet taken by the Federal Government to con- 
front the entire range of problems associated with 
water pollution. These amendments address not only 
the problem of pollution prevention but the problems 
of cleanup and Itability as well. 
Among its other provisions, the 1972 Water Pol- 
Jution Control Act expressly prohibits the discharge 
“. . of oil or hazardous substances into or upon the 
navigable waters of the United States, adjoining 
shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the con- 
tiguous zone . . .”** In addition, it authorizes the 
promulgation of regulations requiring the installation 
of certain pollution prevention equipment on mer- 
chant vessels; authorizes the Federal Government to 
undertake cleanup operations after a polluting spill; 
authorizes the establishment of a $35 million re- 
volving fund to be used for cleanup; requires the 
promulgation of a national oil pollution contingency 
plan; establishes criminal penalties for those who 
have knowledge of and fail to report an unauthor- 
ized discharge: and places unlimited liability on those 
responsible for a spill where willful negligence or 
misconduct can be proved. In cases other than those 
involving willful negligence or misconduct and where 
the incident cannot be attributed to an act of God, 
war, or negligence on the part of the government or 
a third party, liability limits are specified. However, 
commercial interests using these waterways must 
maintain evidence of financial responsibility up to 
these liability limits with the Federal Government.” 
In addition to the numerous provisions affecting 
the authority of the Coast Guard, the 1972 Water 
Pollution Control Act has also affected various other 
Federal agencies. For example, the Corps of En- 
gineers Refuse Permitting program, carried out 
under the 1899 Refuse Act, was, for the most part, 
transferred to the (era eeu rete 
by this legislation. The Corps, however, retained 
responsibility for issuing permits for the disposal of 
dredge and fill material and retained a residual re- 
EE en En 
24 An Act to Amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
Public Law 92-500, October 18, 1972. 85 Stat. 48. 
25 %t should be noted that certain provisions of the 1972 
Water Poilution Control Act had actually previously been en- 
acted in 1970 with passage of the Water Quality Improvement 
Act. The 1972 Act incorporated these earlier provisions and ex- 
panded and modified overall Federal water pollution authority. 
V-13 
