LONDON GROUP OF PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOCIATIONS New York, N.Y., July 20, 1971. Re Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments (Committee Print, July, 1971) Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: As you know, we represent the "London Group" of Protection and Indemnity Associations, composed of the owners and operators of approximately 75% of the world's ocean-going vessel tonnage. The members of each Association mutually agree to indemnify each other, through the medium of their particular Association, against legal liabilities arising out of the ownership and operation of their vessels, including liability for pollution damage caused by discharges of oil and other substances. The Committee's Staff has requested the views of the Associations with respect to the insurability of certain provisions contained in the Committee Print entitled "Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments", which became available on July 2, 1971. We welcome the opportunity afforded to us to set forth the Associations' views in this regard. Firstly, the Associations would continue to provide insurance to their members against the liabilities imposed by the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, if it were amended so as to include "hazardous substances", along with oil, subject to the same limits-$100 per ton or $14 million, whichever was the lesser-and upon the same basis of liability and subject to the same defenses as are presently set forth in the Act. To this extent the Associations would be willing to stipulate with the Federal Maritime Commission that all certificates of insurance previously issued by them as evidence of financial responsibility under the Act should be deemed amended to include hazardous substances as well as oil. There would seem to be no point in requiring the Maritime Commission and the industry to re-incur the monumental expense of reissuing and approving the thousands of such certificates already issued, when the same goal could be accomplished by a simple stipulation. Secondly, the provisions in the Committee Print with respect to hazardous polluting substances incapable of removal (introducing unlimited liability to third parties as well as liability to the United States Government for socalled liquidated damages which are actually fines or penalties) would be uninsurable as they stand. Under the general maritime law a shipowner who is at fault for the discharge of oil or other polluting substances is now liable to third parties for their actual damages, subject to possible limitation under the Limitation of Liability Statute, 46 U.S.C. §§ 183-86, and such liability is presently insured by the Associations. If the Subcommittee considers that a need exists for any special provisions with respect to damages for the discharge of certain extra-hazardous polluting substances, it is questionable whether the specialized carriage of such commodities, requiring extra special precautions, could properly be the subject of general shipowners' mutual liability insurance, since only a very limited number of shipowners would carry them. The Associations whom we represent anticipate that such liabilities would then have to be excluded in the same way as the rules of all of the Protection and Indemnity Association forming the London Group already exclude liabilities for the carriage of hazardous nuclear substances. Under the proposed amendments to the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, any shipowner carrying such extra hazardous polluting substances would then have to require the shipper of such substances to provide indemnity and/or insurance and any evidence of financial responsibility that the amendments might require. The Federal Maritime Commission cer tificates issued by the Associations would thus continue to be confined to clean-up costs under Section 11 (f), extended to those hazardous polluting substances that are capable of removal in the ordinary way, but excluding liability for third party damages resulting from the discharge of certain extra-hazardous substances which are incapable of removal. Thirdly, as stated by Mr. Peter Miller and the undersigned at the June 30th conference with the Committee Staff, the Associations forming the London Group are made up of shipowners who mutually insure one another, and they therefore can and do insure against liability for fines and penalties imposed on them because of faults of their masters and crews, provided they are reasonable in amount. Thus, the Associations presently insure against liability for the fines and penalties now provided for in the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 On the other hand, it is obvious that the Associations could not cover fines or penalties relating to those substances of the extra-hazardous variety, when in no event would they be able to cover civil liabilities with respect to such substances. In short, they could simply insure against fines and penalties relating to those hazardous polluting substances in respect of which they would be affording coverage against civil liability for damages, again provided they were for reasonable amounts. The example given verbally at the June 30th conference was a penalty of not less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000 for the discharge of an unremovable hazards polluting substance, other than one of so extra-hazardous a nature as to be altogether beyond the scope of mutual shipowners' protection and indemnity insurance. Again, we wish to express our appreciation for the opportunity to set forth the views of the London Group. If there is any further information you would like from us, please do not hesitate to let us know. Yours very truly, NICHOLAS J. HEALY, Attorneys for the London Group of Protection and Indemnity Associations. M & T CHEMICALS INC. (Subsidiary of American Can Company) Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, M & T CHEMICALS INC., Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: The proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, on which your subcommittee is working, recently came to our attention. On page 26 of the working paper released on July 1, 1971, tin is listed among heavy metals designated for severe prohibition. As a company that has been involved in the recovery and recycle of tin from waste sources since 1908, we have accumulated detailed information on the presence of tin in water, soils, plants and animal organisms. We also have a great deal of scientific information on the toxicology and safety of tin as well as on its fate in the environment. Practically all of this data points to tin as an exceedingly safe and innocuous element. It clearly does not belong with the other heavy metals and we are wondering how it got onto the list of prohibited metals. Indeed, tin chemicals are well known food additives which have been duly registered with the Food and Drug Administration at which time their safety had to be demonstrated. In order to assist your subcommittee in making some judgments in this area, we have reviewed and reported on the pertinent scientific and technical information relating to tin in the environment. A copy of this report by M. K. Moran entitled, The Environmental and Public Health Aspects of Tin is attached. We request that this report be included in the proceedings of your subcommittee. After reviewing the environmental implication of the report, we trust that your subcommittee will see fit to delete tin from the prohibited list. Should your subcommittee desire further information we will be most pleased to cooperate with you and to supply you with additional data which you may require. Sincerely yours, Attachment. ALEXANDER Ross, Technical Director. THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH ASPECTS OF TIN PREPARED BY MARGUERITE K. MORAN, MANAGER, TECHNICAL A. Levels of Naturally-Occurring Tin in the B. Possible Conversion of Tin in the Environ- C. Regulatory Controls or Recommended Controls PAGE .1 II. Tin in Food and Drugs.... .5 A. Long-Time Use of Tin Cans for Food ..5 III. B. Government Approval for the Use of C. Reports on the Therapeutic Applications Effects of Tin in the Animal Organism. ..8 .8 12 .12 B. Studies on the Toxicology and Biochemistry .13 A. Levels of Naturally-Occurring Tin in the Environment Tin is present, and has been present for centuries in soils (mainly as cassiterite), and in waters, with no indication that its presence is harmful to life. It also occurs in sizable amounts in the air of industrialized American cities, again with no adverse reports. Data on the levels of naturally-occurring tin in the environment are not so extensive as for some of the other metals. In telephone conversations with Dr. John V. Lagerwerff (2.8.71), Soil Scientist at the USDA Soil and Water Conservation Research Division in Beltsville, Maryland and in a subsequent conversation with Mrs. Helen Nace, a scientist at the United States Geological Survey, they indicated that there is no interest in tin due to its non-toxic and innocuous nature. Consequently, large scale studies have not been carried out, as with mercury. The best current reviews on the geochemistry of tin have been written by Hamaguchi et al (35, 36) and by Wallihan (99). The levels of tin in plants and marine organisms are also reported by Hamaguchi. Although analytical data are not extensive for the tin content in soils, the orders of magnitude are indicated. Millman (49) found tin concentrations in soils in southwest England as high as 250 ppm.; Laycock (45) found 1.3 to 3 ppm. in tea soils of Nyasaland; Prince (62) found concentrations of 1 to 11 ppm. in various New Jersey soils; Sarosiek and Klys (74) found 0.0481% tin in the agricultural soils and 0.0051% in natural soils in Poland; Fontana and Alfieri (33) found 10 - 25 ppm. in soils in the Piacenza district in Italy; Chao-Luen Fang et al (17) found an average of 6 ppm. in 360 soil samples in Northeast China and Mongolia; Allison and Gaddum (1) found no tin in 54 cultivated soils from Florida and 52 samples of soil from other states (Sn was probably present but at levels below the spectrographic sensitivity for the wavelength region employed); Mitchell (51) found up to 200 ppm. in soils from Northeast Scotland; Pinta and Ollat (61) found an average of 6 ppm. Sn in five tropical soils. |