nically feasible there will be no problem incorporating this into our ships, new constructionwise. However, there is a real economic problem as you realize, in our existing ships. This is where the real problem is. Senator SPONG. Thank you. Thank you, Colonel. Colonel MEYER. Yes, sir. Senator SPONG. I have no further questions. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Spong and Senator Boggs. We may submit additional questions to you, Colonel Meyer and General Koisch. (Subsequently, several questions were submitted to the witnesses. The questions and the answers thereto are as follows:) Question. The Corps presently conditions its permits. To what extent has this resulted in water quality compliance by permittees? Answer. The general condition included in permits for water quality control is as follows: "That the permittee shall comply promptly with any regulations, conditions, or instructions affecting the work hereby authorized if and when issued by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and/or the State water pollution agency having jurisdiction to abate or prevent water pollution. Such regulations, conditions or instructions in effect or prescribed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration or State agency are hereby made a condition of this permit." The immediate supervision of work under Department of the Army permits rests with our District Engineers. Apparently permittees are complying with this condition since, except in one recent instance, action at the Washington level to require compliance with the water quality condition has not been necessary. The one exception which was brought to our attention recently involved dredging and filling in Tampa Bay, Florida, and the method being used resulted in high turbidity in the waterway. In that case, the contractor revised his method of operation to resolve this problem. Question. What procedures are utilized to determine compliance or noncompliance? Answer. The Corps of Engineers considers that the establishment of sampling procedures to enforce State and/or Federal standards and the subsequent proof of violations of the regulations or standards are the responsibility of the State agency having jurisdiction over water pollution or the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Question. What procedure is followed if the permittee is found to be violating the conditions of his permit? Answer. District Engineers are required to supervise all work authorized under permits to insure that the work is conducted and executed in conformity with the approved plans and conditions of the permit. If there is noncompliance with the conditions of the permit, the State agency having jurisdiction over water pollution or the FWPCA should first attempt to enforce the condition by requiring the permittee to comply voluntarily therewith. Failing in this respect, the matter should be presented to the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, with supportable evidence, for consideration of the initiation of criminal or injunctive action through the Department of Justice. Question. At the Subcommittee's hearing in Santa Barbara question was raised regarding the role of the Corps of Engineers in considering permits for construction of platforms in the Outer Continental Shelf. Colonel Pehrson (pronounced Pearson) stated that the Corps considered only the navigational and national defense aspects of the platforms and relied upon the Department of the Interior for all information. In private conversation Colonel Pehrson indicated that the Corps coordinated Interior comments with U.S. Geological Survey. While this may have been realistic in the first year following leasing, it seems that future permits should be more carefully considered on the basis of risk associated with Geological information which may later develop, new pollution information and other ecological considerations. Please comment. Answer. In view of the broad and comprehensive regulatory authority granted the Department of the Interior by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and of the fact that the Act speaks in terms of extending to the Outer Continental Shelf the authority of the Secretary of the Army to prevent obstructions to navigation, the Corps of Enginers considers it inappropriate and unnecessary for the Department of the Army to impose permit conditions relating to drilling operations and possible oil spillage, as long as these questions are covered under the leasing procedure. Such regulations are normally prescribed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land Management, and were in the Santa Barbara situation. The Corps of Engineers considers that these leasing and operating regulations adequately cover such matters as safety and oil pollution abatement. Senator MUSKIE. We are under time pressure this morning, or otherwise we might pursue some points. There are no great substantive points but we would like to have the record as complete as possible, as Senator Spong indicated on that problem. Colonel MEYER. Very well, sir. I can leave for the record that portion of the annual report. The whole report would clutter the record and you might want to include it in another portion of the hearings. Senator MUSKIE. Is there anything in the report that would be of particular comfort to Senator Spong? Colonel MEYER. Yes, sir; I was going to say I could leave that portion which deals specifically with this for the record. It covers everything that the Navy and the Department plans to do in this area. Senator SPONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Colonel. Colonel MEYER. Yes, sir. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, gentlemen. The subcommittee will now recess until March 10 at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, March 10, 1969.) WATER POLLUTION-1969 MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1969 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Muskie, Bayh, Cranston, Boggs, Cooper, and Dole. Staff present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director; Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk (minority); Leon G. Billings and Richard D. Grundy, professional staff members. Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order. Today the subcommittee will conclude its hearings on S. 7 and S. 544, both of which are comparable to last year's Water Quality Improvement Act and similar to each other. Our witnesses this morning include the American Petroleum Institute and the AFL-CIO Maritime Committee, both of whom are specifically interested in the pending legislation. Also the subcommittee has invited former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall in order that certain questions about the Santa Barbara spill can be set in better perspective. Because of the urgency of this legislation, the need for adequate Federal authority to deal with spills, the need to deal with major oil discharges and the need to establish uniformity for sewage discharges from vessels, I hope the committee can move swiftly to report the legislation out. So we will look to our witnesses this morning to wrap it up for us. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Peter N. Gammelgard, vice president for environmental affairs, for the American Petroleum Institute. STATEMENT OF PETER N. GAMMELGARD, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, ACCOMPANIED BY EVERETT S. CHECKET, GENERAL MANAGER, MARINE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, MOBIL OIL CORP., AND MEMBER, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE'S GENERAL COMMITTEE, DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. GAMMELGARD. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am accompanied by Mr. Everett S. Checket, who appeared before this committee on February 4 and explained to you the tanker program. (1225) I think he would like to open this morning by giving a brief résumé of what he presented before the committee on the fourth, at which time you recall the committee did not have time for any questions, and you asked him to come back. Senator MUSKIE. Fine. STATEMENT OF EVERETT S. CHECKET 1 Mr. CHECKET. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Everett S. Checket. I am general manager of the Marine Transportation Department of Mobil Oil Corp., as well as a member of the American Petroleum Institute's general committee, division of transportation, and it is in the latter capacity that I am appearing here today to cover the highlights of the testimony given previously and submitted for the record. I would like to first say that we generally support this legislation. We believe that legislation should be enacted that would strengthen the laws to protect the Nation's harbors, rivers, and coastline. In fact, and I will touch on that in a moment, certain members of the industry have instituted some voluntary action designed to encourage swift action in removing an oil spill. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY Of importance from our viewpoint in considering the legislation is one provision dealing with financial capability. Now, I know the present bills provide for a study of this area, but we strongly recommend that provisions requiring demonstration of financial capability for every vessel entering the harbors of the United States or transporting along the coast be included in the bill. Without such a provision, we can foresee a variety of circumstances where it would be impossible for the Secretary of the Interior to recover the costs of oil removal from the party that caused the spill. We believe that the public interest will not be fully protected unless legislation establishing a shipowner's obligation to remove an oil spill also provides a constant and reliable guarantee that the shipowner will have sufficient funds; in other words, that he demonstrates financial capability. This can be done in many ways. We would think that every shipowner coming into the ports of the United States could demonstrate his financial capability either by submitting a certificate of insurance, including one issued by a mutual assurance association; by giving evidence of a deposit of sufficient funds within the United States; demonstration of having sufficient assets in the United States; or some other method acceptable to the Secretary. Effects on small vessel operators Senator MUSKIE. In the example that you pose at the top of page 3 of your statement you suggest that: "A small vessel operator with limited overall assets could be virtually bankrupted as a result of an accident resulting in pollution." 1 Earlier testimony by Mr. Checket appears at p. 179, part 1. |