1

2

3

4

10

11

a report in addition to any other report required by this Act, on measures taken toward implementing the purpose and intent of this Act, including, but not limited to, (1) the progress and problems associated with developing comprehensive plans, including river basin 5 plans under section 305; (2) a summary of actions taken and results 6 achieved in the field of water pollution control research, experiments, 7 studies, and related matters by the Administrator and other Federal 8 agencies and by other persons and agencies under Federal grants or 9 contracts; (3) the progress and problems associated with the development of water quality standards and effluent requirements and recommended control techniques; (4) the status of State water quality 12 standards, including a detailed summary of the progress obtained as 13 compared to that planned under State plans for implementation, 14 maintenance, and enforcement of water quality standards; (5) the 15 identification and status of enforcement actions pending or completed 16 under such Act during the preceding year; (6) the status of State, 17 interstate, and local pollution control programs established pursuant 18 to, and assisted by, this Act; (7) a summary of the results of a survey to be taken by the Administrator annually to determine the efficiency 20 of the operation and maintenance of treatment works constructed with 21 grants under this Act, as compared to the efficiency planned when such 22 grant was made; and (8) all reports and recommendations made by the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board."

19

23

28

24 (b) The Administrator, in cooperation with State water pollution 25 control agencies and other water pollution control planning agencies, 26 shall make (1) a detailed estimate of the cost of carrying out the pro27 vision of this Act; (2) a comprehensive study of the economic impact on affected units of government of the cost of installation of treatment 29 facilities; and (3) a comprehensive analysis of the national requirements for and the cost of treating municipal, industrial, and other 31 e uent to attain such water quality standards as established pursuant 32 to this Act or applicable State law. The Administrator shall submit 33 such detailed estimate and such comprehensive study of such cost 34 to the Congress no later than January 10, 1968, such study to be up35 dated each year thereafter."

30

36

37

APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 27. Title V of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as 38 added by this Act is further amended to add a new Section 515 as 39 follows:

40

41

"SEC. 515. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act, other than sections 105, 106, 207, and 311, $- for the

42 fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $

43 June 30, 1973, $

for the fiscal year ending

46

for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and

for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975."

SHORT TITLE

SEC. 28. Section 27 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is 47 redesignated as Section 516.

INDUSTRY

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MERCHANT SHIPPING

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MERCHANT SHIPPING,
Washington, D.C., August 2, 1971.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Committee on Public Works,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: The American Institute of Merchant Shipping which represents a large majority of the active American Merchant Marine, wishes to comment on provisions in the Senate Public Committee Print entitled “Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments," released on July 2, 1971.

SECTION 17, OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE CONTROL

AIMS is concerned with Section 17 which would establish unlimited liability for damages to third parties resulting from vessel discharges of unremovable hazardous polluting substances and of unlimited liquidated damages to the Federal Government for the same type of discharge. The maritime insurance industry has informed us that this provision is uninsurable.

The American Water Quality Insurance Syndicate, composed of 27 American insurance companies, was created to provide insurance coverage against those liabilities imposed upon ship owners by the Federal Water Quality Act of 1970. We are informed that it will neither insure against discharges of unremovable hazardous polluting substances nor will it insure against fines or penalties for such discharges.

The Protection and Indemnity Associations which provide mutual indemnification for many of AIMS' members, have informed us that they categories polluting substances either as hazardous or extra-hazardous without any regard to whether or not they can be removed from the water. On this basis, the Protection and Indemnity Associations are reviewing currently those substances which are covered in their policies to consider whether or not to exclude coverage of all extra-hazardous substances in the same manner in which they already exclude liabilities for the carriage of hazardous nuclear substances.

If the water carrier's insurance will no longer cover the liabilities for unremovable or extra-hazardous substances, the water carrier would have to require the shipper of the substance to provide indemnity and/or insurance and any evidence of financial responsibility that the law might require. From both a legal and praetical point of view, it is impossible for either the carrier or shipper to insure unlimited liability or to show other evidence of unlimited financial responsibility. The effect of enacting such an uninsurable liability provision, for all practical purposes, would be the cessation of transportation of such substances by water. Indeed, if this is the Committee's intent it could more appropriately be accomplished by direct action prohibiting their carriage. The Committee could begin a course of direct action by naming those unremovable hazardous substances it would ban from water transportation, and by amending the proposed legislation to require the Coast Guard to conduct a study of the feasibility and impact of direct prohibition of carriage of such substances. The study could analyze what effect a ban on these substances from water transportation would have on the national defense, on the health and welfare of the public when deprived of such products and on the economy and employment.

The Coast Guard also might inquire into not only the safety of alternative modes of transportation, but also the increased cost factor of transporting the banned products by other modes. The study might reveal that the safest, most economic method of transporting certain highly essential but unremovable hazardous products is by water carriage.

If this be so, the Coast Guard should also include in such a study the feasibility of implementing a government plan to cover the liability for carriage of these unremovable hazardous products. Since the private insurance market is unable to provide coverage, and since vessel and cargo owners cannot realistically assume unlimited liability, there should be no objections to an alternative plan under which the government establishes a liability coverage plan on much the same basis under which it assumed liability for the carriage of hazardous nuclear substances.

The Committee, by naming the substances it proposes to ban, and by conducting a study of the impact of such a ban, and implementing it on a timetable if it is feasible, could sufficiently forewarn those industries and other consumers of the forthcoming consequences-loss of employment and income-and availability of critically needed substances.

SECTION 19, CONTROL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS

With respect to Section 19 which establishes time periods for vessel owners to comply with installing marine sanitation devices on newly constructed vessels and existing vessels, we believe the following elements are necessary to develop a realistic law with which vessel owners can comply:

1. The Federal Water Pollution Control law now provides a latitude of two years for installing the devices on new vessels and give years for retrofitting devices on existing vessels. It is a realistic and practical provision which by all means should remain in the law and is understood and accepted by the maritime industry.

2. Section 19, page 35, lines 41 through 47, now proposes that even though a vessel marine sanitation device initially complies with the standards under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, that it is subject to comply with any subsequent advanced standards within five years after they are adopted.

AIMS recommends deletion of this provision from the Committee Print on the basis that such a requirement is overly stringent and would be economically wasteful. We estimate it will cost an average of $55,000 per self-propelled ocean going vessel to bring each such vessel into compliance with the initially proposed marine sanitation device standards. This figure does not include a much larger cost resulting from loss of operating time during retrofit of devices on existing vessels.

AIMS recommends that the law should be amended to assure that compliance with the initial standard shall make the marine sanitation device adequate for the life of the vessel or the life of the device. To require vessel marine sanitation devices to comply with new advanced standards before the devices have outlived their usefulness is a wasted cost in scarce investment capital funds drastically needed to keep the American merchant marine viable and competitive. 3. Finally, states should be pre-empted outright from enacting laws and adopting water quality standards with respect to vessels in interstate and foreign commerce. There is considerable constitutional authority to support such a position. Practically, such a pre-emption would eliminate the present development of a proliferation of confusing state laws and resulting wasteful litigation.

We appreciate this opportunity to set forth our views and if we can provide any additional information or assistance, please do not hesitate to call upon

us.

Sincerely,

JAMES J. REYNOLDS,

Attachment.

President.

- 1

AIMS RECOMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO SENATE PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE PRINT, SECTION 17, IN RE SECTION 11 OF
THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

On pages 32 and 33 of the Committee Print, Section 17,
the first paragraph of subsection (C) should be deleted
and appropriate language substituted directing the Coast
Guard to study the feasibility of directly prohibiting
from transportation by water certain unremovable hazardous
substances named by the Committee.

16

17

Sec. 17. (a) Section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
18 redesignated as section 312.

19

(b) Section 312, as redesignated, is further amended

40

"(B) The Administrator shall include in any designation under
41 subparagraph (A) of this subsection a determination whether any
42 such designated hazardous substance is subject to removal under this
43 section.

AIMS RECOMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO SENATE PUBLIC
WOLKS CMITTEE PRINT, SECTION 19, IN RE SECTION 13
OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

On page 35 of the Committee Print, Section 19, lines 41 through 47 now require that any vessel marine sanitation device which initially complies with the standards adopted under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act must also recomply with any subsequent advanced standards within five years following their adoption.

29

30

-2

CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTING SUBSTANCES

SEC. 18. Section 12 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
31 is repealed.

32

CONTROL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS