Mr. CLARK. Captain, I congratulate you on a very fine statement. And not only that, but your wholehearted support of the bill.

Captain SIMENSTAD. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CLARK. We do appreciate it very much.

Captain SIMENSTAD. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Mailliard?

Mr. MAILLIARD. Well I, also, Captain, want to say that I appreciate the very constructive statement. And am I correct that the paragraph which refers to pilots in this bill, which is section 2, subparagraph 5, doesn't give you any particular problems?

Captain SIMENSTAD. No, sir. Fully support that just in its present form.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Really, it's simply to fill a gap where the State hasn't exercised its authority.

Captain SIMENSTAD. Right. We are in full agreement.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. McCloskey?

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. No questions.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

Captain SIMENSTAD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. Just before our next witness, I want to say how much I appreciate having Bill Mailliard here with us. And I am very happy that you are on our committee, and we hope you will be there a long, long time.

Our next witness is Capt. William Caldwell, vice president of the International Masters, Mates and Pilots. Captain you may proceed. STATEMENT OF CAPT. WILLIAM CALDWELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS

Captain CALDWELL. I am William Caldwell, executive vice president of the International Masters, Mates and Pilots. And although I had requested to make a statement in front of this committee on H.R. 8140. Later I had our office has made available certain reports and records what we feel that we should define further before making an official statement for the international organization. And I wish to withdraw the request to make a statement at this time. But I assure the committee that our international organization will make a strong statement and make many useful recommendations in regards to this legislation because safety and the welfare of our international organization members go hand in hand.

Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Captain. The record will be open for the next 10 days. So I hope that by that time you will be able to get your recommendations in to us.

Captain CALDWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. Can you tell us if you favor the bill at this time? Captain CALDWELL. Yes; I feel that our organization will take a strong positive position on the useful recommendations. But we would like to refine our position further because we are speaking for the international organization, about 11,000 members.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Captain.

Our next witness is Capt. Robert Durkin, vice president, Pacific Division, M.M. & P. Good to have you with us, Captain.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. ROBERT DURKIN, VICE PRESIDENT, PACIFIC DIVISION, MASTERS, MATES & PILOTS

Captain DURKIN. Mr. Chairman, actually Captain Caldwell has already spoken what would be my position. We are working in coordination with our international office. As I told Congressman Mailliard telephonically yesterday, I do believe there are certain definitions to be made, and I didn't get a chance. I think, with your permission, if Mr. Sharood could possibly take some notes on some questions I want to jot down and take up with our international office. Would that be permissible?

Mr. CLARK. Very well. That can be done.

Captain DURKIN. Anytime any bill has your name on it, along with Chairman Garmatz, and the other side of the aisle, Congressmen Pelly and Mailliard, it has a great headstart with the I.M.M. & P. Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, and we do appreciate those remarks.

The next witness is Capt. Don Fuller, Local 40, M.M. & P.

Capt. FULLER. Mr. Congressmen, Mr. Chairman, my statements will be concurrent with the international as I am preparing a coordination with Captain Durkin and Captain Caldwell.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much. We do appreciate that.

Next is Mr. James Penrod and Miss Julia Hillis of the Sierra Club. We do appreciate both of you coming and we know that your talk this morning and your questions will no doubt be on ecology and what this bill does to it, or doesn't do to it. Both of you may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. PENROD ON BEHALF OF THE SIERRA CLUB, ACCOMPANIED BY JULIA HILLIS

Mr. PENROD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I think that we may be running out of time to present the long statement that I prepared. We have many specific suggestions for the improvement of this bill. I have submitted a written statement to the counsel of the committee, and I hope that the statement will be published in the record in toto.

Mr. CLARK. If there are no objections, the statement will be put into the record at this point, and you may proceed with your remarks.

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. PENROD ON BEHALF OF THE SIERRA CLUB, ACCOMPANIED BY JULIA HILLIS

My name is James N. Penrod. I am here on behalf of the Sierra Club. My address is 556 Commercial Street, San Francisco, California. I am a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a large part of my legal background has been in the area of admiralty and maritime law. I am accompanied by Miss Julia Hillis, also an attorney, from the Sierra Club offices, 1050 Mills Tower, 220 Bush Street, San Francisco, California.

The Sierra Club should not need extensive introduction. It is a growing conservation organization of approximately 130,000 members throughout the United States. We have long been interested in bringing man's on-rushing technology and civilization into harmony with his basic life-support processes and environment. The problems, which involve man's very survival, are milti-faceted and project over land, sea and air. The bill presently under consideration, if passed

with the following suggestions and vigorously implemented, should constitute a major first step-and I wish to stress that it is only a first step-in the ultimate preservation of one of man's most important resources: the sea.

Rather than discussing the overall problems of the world rush for energy in general and oil in particular, I will confine my remarks to the legislation presently being considered by this committee. Before I make any specific comments, however, I would like to say that, in general, the Sierra Club believes Federal action to be most desirable and effective. First, local action creates the problem of confusion with Federal law. Second, local action encounters the well-known and basic "commerce clause" problems with the Federal Constitution. Third, local action raises serious problems involving interport competition. For example, the adoption of stringent rules by the San Francisco-Oakland-Bay Area complex would probably divert substantial cargoes to Los Angeles. The adoption of stringent rules by California would probably divert substantial cargoes to the Northwest ports. Adoption of stringent rules by the West Coast states together would probably divert substantial cargoes to the Gulf and East Coasts (It is well known that many cargoes destined for the Central United States move through West Coast ports because of special "overland rates." If increased anti-pollution costs neutralized these special rates, the cargoes could easily shift to the Gulf-Mississippi complex of ports or even to the East Coast). The effect of these diversions of cargo on the local economy in terms of maritime labor, maritime industries, trucking, rail. banking and other related economic areas are obvious and could be substantial. National, uniform Federal action, therefore, would seem to be the best means of dealing with the problem.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON H.R. 8149

We would urge that the purpose of the bill be expanded to read as follows: "To promote the safety and protect the environmental quality of ports, harbors, waterfront areas, and navigable waters of the United States." This would make it clear that environmental protection was one of the ultimate purposes of the Act.

We would urge that Section 2, line 9, be expanded to read "waters, the reresources therein, and shore areas immediately adjacent to those waters, etc." This would make it clear that the Act is intended to protect the land bordering on the protected waters.

We approve the broad grants of authority to the Coast Guard contained in Section 2. And we realize that legislation in this field must necessarily be of the enabling type leaving specific implementation to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's past record of conservatism with such statutes, however, gives us cause for concern. Though we must ultimately rely on the Coast Guard for effective effective implementation of this legislation, the Act could and should requirenot just permit-effective action. Accordingly, we suggest that the way "may" in line 2 Page 2 be changed to "shall."

At line 3 on page 2, we would suggest a reorganization of the general materials of the Act so as to provide four major sections. The first section would include all provisions relating to control of the actual movement of vessels, and handling of cargoes on water and immediately adjacent land. The second section would include all provisions pertaining to the inspection, certification and regulation of equipment, structures and other facilities used for transporting, transferring and storing cargoes. The third section would provide penalties for violation of the Act and the Government's investigation and enforcement powers. The fourth section would contain definitions of certain terms used in the Act and any necessary qualifying and coordinating provisions. More specifically, the first section should include the provisions now set forth in Section 2 (1), 2 (2), 2 (3) (i)–(iv), 2 (4), 2 (5), 2 (6), and 2 (8). The second section should include the provisions now set forth in Section 2 (7) and 2 (9). The third section should include the provisions now set forth in Section 4, Section 6, 7 and Section 8. The fourth section should include the provisions now set forth in Section 3 (a), 3 (b), 3 (c) and Section 5, plus some additional definitions.

With respect to the specifie provisions of the Act, we strongly support the establishment of vessel traffic services and systems in congested waterways, as Section 2(1) would provide for. We understand this section (and others following) to grant the Coast Guard broad authority over vessels comparable to control systems now in use at the country's airports, under the FAA's jurisdiction. We hope such harbor systems will include continuous radar surveillance by the

center; mandatory reporting to the center by all vessels; mandatory bridge-tobridge radio communication; mandatory independent pilots; more detailed and up-to-date information dissemination; adequate equipment, in terms of amount and sophistication; and authority to completely close down ports whenever safety so requires. Possibly the Act should be more explicit in this regard and list these minimal requirements.

It is essential that compliance with the control system be made mandatory, stated in Section 2(2). The recent San Francisco Bay tanker collision and spill, partially caused by the failure of one tanker to attempt to communicate with the Advisory Radar System though it had the equipment to do so, illustrates the defects of a voluntary system. Moreover, vessels should be required to comply with instructions on movements.

We are pleased that Section 2(3) provides specifically for the control of vessel traffic in hazardous areas and under conditions of reduced visibility, adverse weather, vessel congestion, and other hazardous circumstances. We suggest that "severe tidal conditions" be added to this list of hazardous circumstances and that the word "especially" in line 12, Page 2, be deleted as difficult of interpretation. In addition to specifying control of vessel traffic in hazardous areas or under hazardous conditions, however, Section 2(3) should expressly include control over vessels carrying hazardous cargoes. Although Section 2(4) permits the Coast Guard to direct the movement of a vessel "when necessary to prevent damage to or by that vessel or her cargo "it does not seem to envision control of movement of potentially dangerous cargoes in all circumstances. We feel it is essential that hazardous cargoes be subject to control at all times, without any limiting circumstances. A further important reason for adding control of hazardous cargoes generally to Section 2(3) is that Section 2(3) specifies (while Section 2(4) does not) several means of control in Subsections (i) through (iv), which are particularly appropriate to the carriage of hazardous cargoes.

In addition to directing the Coast Guard to control traffic in hazardous areas, under hazardous conditions, and when hazardous cargoes are involved, the bill > should also contain a broad, general authorization to control vessel traffic under any circumstances which require such action in the judgment of the Coast Guard. Moreover, this general control authority should also expressly include power to use the means specified in Section 2(3)(i) through (iv). It is doubtful whether 2(4) can be read this broadly.

We are pleased to see that Section 2(3) (i) through (iv) specifies, among various means of controlling vessel traffic, the use of routing schemes, speed limitations and assigning times of entry, movement and departure. All these factors were involved in the San Francisco Bay collision, for example: both vessels were in the wrong lane for passing under the Golden Gate Bridge, and at least one was going too fast for fog conditions; and if one had been delayed ten minutes, they would not have arrived under the Bridge at the same time. Though recommended sea lanes now exist in some areas, they should be made mandatory.

We feel that the authority in 2(3) (iv) to restrict vessel operations to vessels with particular operating capabilities is especially important, though as noted above we would like to see this authority (and the others in (i) to (iv)) extended to control over movement of hazardous cargoes generally, as well as vessel control in hazardous conditions. We assume that this authority would allow the Secretary to prescribe standards governing such things as "crash stop" ability, steering ability and directional control at various speeds, and other characteristics of navigability. However, the reference to operating characteristics and capabilities should be expanded to make this power more explicit. Operating capabilities such as those listed above, of the large supertankers are now dangerously inadequate. With respect to "crash stop" ability, for instance, it takes a 200,000-ton tanker 211⁄2 miles and 21 minutes to go from full ahead to a complete stop, with engines full astern, during which time the ship cannot be steered or the speed regulated. Ships which are so difficult to maneuver should not be allowed in congested waters until their operating capabilities are improved to the point of relative safety. The scope of Section 2(5) is not perfectly clear and hopefully it will be reworded. Section 2(5) is too simple to effectively merge with the various laws of pilotage We would prefer the section to require a pilot at all times when a ship carrying hazardous cargo enters waters covered by the Act and for all other vessels when their movement is controlled pursuant to the Act. The use of pilots not only places an extra experienced person on the bridge, but also a person who is less subject to the private economic pressures of fast turnarounds or waiting longshore gangs.

Many spills occur during oil handling operations at waterfront facilities, both during servicing of vessels (e.g. loading, unloading) and during internal oil transfer operations. The Sierra Club supports action which would impose comprehensive new regulations governing the handling of oil at such facilities. Section 2(6) moves in this direction, though we feel it could be substantially improved. First, no definition of "other dangerous articles or substances" is provided. We believe that the concept of a dangerous substance should be expanded. Our suggested definition is set forth later in our proposed definitions section.

Section 2(6) is limited to oil handling on "structures" only, on or near the water. While control over the handling of oil at waterfront facilities is long overdue, there is no reason not to extend this control to operations taking place entirely on board vessels, as well. Many spills have occurred during internal oil handling operations on board. There is no other provision in the bill which would reach such on-board handling procedures, and Section 2(6) should be expanded to include vessels as well.

The Sierra Club endorses the principle of establishing "safety zones" in order to protect the waters and shores from environmental damage. Section 2 (8), though a good first step in this direction, should be expanded to include the prohibition of passage through particularly critical areas such as those especially hazardous for navigation and areas of unique ecological value or particularly susceptible to ecological harm. These special prohibitions should apply particularly to vessels with pollutant cargoes. Transit of pollutatn cargoes through coastal waters in general could be minimized, for example, by requiring wide right-angle approaches to harbors. It is doubtful that Section 2 (8) as now worded would be this broadly implemented. Secretary Volpe, in transmitting an earlier version of this bill, envisioned the use of safety zones mainly for "special occasions," such as in the area of a collision and "usually for brief periods." This. section should be reworded with the suggested environmental focus.

We now direct our attention to design and equipment requirements and inspection provisions which we envision as being grouped in one section.

We assume the reference to "size limitations" in 2 (3) (iii) would empower the Secretary to prescribe regulations limiting the size of vessels which may navigate in U.S. waters. For example, we assume that he could prohibit oil tankers carrying in excess of 200,000 d.w.t. If this is not the Committee's understanding, then we urge that the language be changed to make this power explicit. This power will become more and more significant as the size of supertankers grows, and the amount of ecological damage which a single accident could inflict correspondingly increases. The Torrey Canyon incident involved a tanker of 117,000 d.w.t. and an oil spill of over 30 million gallons. The largest tankers today are over 300,000 d.w.t. Under construction are tankers of over 500,000 d. w.t., and tankers of about one million d.w.t. are reportedly on the drawing boards.

More broadly, we feel that a comprehensive ports and waterways safety program must ultimately include comprehensive standards for vessel design, construction, equipment, operation, and maintenance, with a strong inspection and certification program. Though laws and regulations on these matters already: exist, they relate mainly to traditional safety concerns such as fire hazards.

Likewise, we believe that new standards must be developed on manning requirements and the duties and qualifications of officers and crews with respect to both navigational personnel and personnel responsible for the handling of cargo. Section 2 (2) could be substantially improved along these suggested lines. Inspection and approval procedures, provided for by Section 2(9), are essential to assure compliance with regulation. Inspection must be frequent and rigorous with rapid imposition of penalties. This section should be more explicit in requiring frequent inspections.

The third section of the Act as we envision it would include the penalties for violation of the Act and the Government's investigation and enforcement powers now set forth in Sections 4, 6, 7 and 8. We do not believe the Coast Guard would be the best body to investigate casualties since the Coast Guard, considering its responsibilities under this Act, will possibly be partially at fault as was the case in last January's San Francisco Bay spill. A completely uninterested party should conduct the investigations.

Provision should also be made for the participation of recognized conservation organizations in these investigations on behalf of the public interest. The only way to assure the protection of environmental quality, one of the purposes of this bill, is to allow public representatives to fully air the environmental issues at these investigations.