January 14, 1977
Page 1284
OIL TANKER INCIDENTS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, we are all aware, I am sure, of the many recent incidents along our coast involving oil tankers, incidents with results varying from the inestimably disastrous, as with the Argo Merchant off Nantucket, to narrow escapes in the Delaware River. These events have created a renewed and heightened concern by the public and the Congress that we act promptly and meaningfully to deal with the problem.
I was happy to be able to contribute my thoughts regarding our approach to these problems in a hearing of the Administrative Practices Subcommittee chaired by Senator KENNEDY immediately after the Argo tragedy. I would like to share the statement I made at that time with my colleagues and request unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REMARKS BY SENATOR MUSKIE
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to add my comments to the proceedings here today.
I congratulate you for your prompt action in scheduling this hearing to review the capabilities and actions of the federal government in responding to the tragic oil spill off Nantucket, which threatens to despoil the beaches and waters of both our states and to disrupt and destroy our marine resources to an as yet undetermined extent. The immediate consequences of this disaster can be seen in the oil soaked gulls and ducks struggling to shore and in the traces of oil already appearing on some beaches. But we may never fully appreciate the long range consequences of the tons of oil globules sinking into some of the richest fishing grounds in the Atlantic to continue mixing for the foreseeable future with the basic microscopic nutrients vital to marine life. This toxic mixture may pose the greatest threat to Maine fishermen from the long range damage to herring spawning grounds.
It is difficult in the midst of massive disaster such as this to chart a reliable course out of the immediate confusion and difficulties in a direction which will avoid future reoccurrence but it appears to me that we need to explore four basic approaches.
1. We have to assure that the full resources of federal, state and local governments are brought to bear on the immediate problem of limiting the extent of the disaster.
2. An immediate investigation should be conducted to determine the direct consequences of the spill to our fishing industry and to our coastal communities to assess the potential damage and identify the need for assistance.
3. We should launch a long range intensive study of the total consequences of this type of spill on maritime ecosystems to help us as we continue to shape energy policy which will necessarily involve difficult judgments about the risks of oil spills and discharges into our oceans.
4. We should recognize the inadequacy of present international regulation and proceed to establish U.S. jurisdiction over pollution in the area of most direct concern to the United States — the 200 mile zone off our shores. And make clear to polluters that they will be held accountable for their activities within that zone.
This tragedy occurring 28 miles off our shores dramatically affects our interests and demonstrates again the inadequacy of limiting our attentions to the contiguous zone from 3 to 12 miles. It exposes the need for an adequate Law of the Sea Treaty which recognizes that pollution control is as vital an area of international concern as navigation and economic exploitation. And the failure of the Law of the Sea Negotiations to seriously consider pollution control suggests that we in the United States should proceed to establish our own pollution control zone beyond the twelve mile contiguous zone to protect our vital coastal interests and hopefully stimulate international actions addressing the global aspects of this problem.
In that regard I introduced, in March of 1975, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, to extend U.S. vessel pollution control of jurisdiction 200 miles from shore.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 and the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 affirm our country's jurisdiction over pollution from vessels in our territorial seas, which presently extend 3 miles to 12 from our coastline.
The Ports and Waterways Safety Act mandates the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate design and construction standards with which all vessels of certain cargoes must comply for the purposes of reducing the pollution of our territorial seas and our coastline.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act gives the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency authority to establish liability and penalty limits for discharges of oil and hazardous substances into the navigable waters of the United States. It also gives the Environmental Protection Agency authority to establish standards of performance for vessels to control the discharge of sewage into the navigable waters of the United States.
The bill which I introduced would extend these same jurisdictions to a limit of 200 miles. It would continue to require the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations to achieve the objectives of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, and it would require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to set limits of liability for discharges of oil and hazardous substances and standards of performance controlling the discharge of sewage from vessels in the 200 mile zone, just as he presently has that responsibility out to the 3-12 mile limit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
It is ironic that at the international level, we are still applying 19th century navigational standards and cargo safety principles to the 20th century maritime industry with its massive tankers and ultra hazardous cargoes. The technology to achieve improved control is available and we can rapidly improve navigation and cargo safety practices in the maritime trade to the high standards we have applied to airborne commerce if we recognize the urgency of the need and make a real commitment.
Pollution of our coastal waters, our coastline, and the oceans from myriad sources continues at an accelerated rate. There is no need to detail the increasing threat that oil pollution from vessels poses to the marine coastal environments of this Nation. The significance of this threat is underscored by a study of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which recently found that "oil globules — in massive proportions — infect nearly 700,000 square miles of blue water from Cape Cod to the Caribbean Sea".
The spill you are examining today will add thousands of tons of additional oil globules to that grim scene on our sea beds. The waters surrounding the United States and the U.S. coastline continue to be polluted by discharges of oil, hazardous substances, and sewage from vessels, creating substantial hazards to the resources of the marine and coastal environments including fish, shellfish, wildlife, marine and coastal ecosystems, and recreation and scenic values.
The spill off Nantucket is less than one week old but it is already a matter of history and we will never be able to fully exert the consequences. I encourage the Coast Guard and other involved agencies to continue their efforts to control the dispersion of this oil and encourage them to proceed with all their vigor. No resource should be spared in mitigating the damage.
Our next real task now is to launch an immediate intensive study of the oil discharged from the ARGO, to trace its dispersion, evaluate its immediate and potential interaction with sea water and try to anticipate the impact of the spill on the marine life and coast lines in the area. Our fishermen and coastal residents have an immediate interest in knowing to what extent a spill of these proportions will disrupt their day to day fishing activities. We have reports already of some vessels and gear encountering problems with the slick and shellfish smeared with viscous oil which has settled to the bottom, but we know far too little about the varying reactions of different marine life forms and know far too little about the character of the spill to give our fishermen adequate advice or reassurances as to the immediate future of their industry or to determine what type of assistance might be appropriate. Our coastal communities likewise are anxious about the potential damage to beaches and coastal marine activities. We have an obligation to provide the best possible information to both those groups, and that clearly requires a commitment of resources by the federal government through the Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration.
Along with an intensive evaluation of the immediate consequences for our fishing industry and coastal communities we should seize this occasion to conduct an intensive study of the long range ecological consequences of this type of spill on marine life systems. The spill from the ARGO is now the largest in United States history but our growing dependence on oil tankers and the general inadequacy of regulation in the tanker transport industry suggest that it may not hold that dubious distinction for long. The debate over controls will be given new impetus by this disaster but unless we gain from this occurrence a more solid understanding of the total consequences of oil spills in our oceans that debate may flounder without achieving a consensus for meaningful actions.
The Coast Guard, EPA and NOAA should commit all available resources to this task and be prepared to advise Congress of additional resources which might be necessary in this undertaking.
I have today written to EPA Administrator Russell Train, to request that this process be commenced immediately. A copy of that letter is attached for the record.
The appropriate total response to avoid future occurrences needs greater definition but it seems clear that we have to exert jurisdiction over the areas of greatest potential harm to our coastal interests and that is perhaps best defined as our continental shelf or for simplicity a 200 mile coastal zone. We have to make clear immediately to those who despoil our waters in this area that they will be held accountable for the full extent of damages to all the interests concerned. I believe the 200 mile pollution control legislation which I introduced in the last Congress gives us this necessary first step.
The legislation did not gain broad support in the last Congress, but I will be introducing a similar bill in the 95th Congress and expect that incidents such as the spill we now face will add impetus to the review and enactment of this proposal. I urge you to join me in supporting that legislation.