5629
OOOR77109
REPORT OF SUBGROUP B
ON REVIEW OF
s
s'
THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
30 APRIL 1977
Enclosure (1)
-------
-------
Report of Subgroup B
on Review of
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
INTRODUCTION
In connection with the Fifth Year Review of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement of 1972 (GLWQA), Subgroup B was designated to conduct
the review of Vessel Design, Annex 3; Vessel Wastes, Annex 4; and Shipping
Sources, Annex 5. Four work groups were established to conduct appropriate
reviews.
Two separate two-day meetings were held in Cleveland, Ohio on
3, 4 March 1977 and 25, 26 April 1977. Each group reviewed the "Joint
Canadian/United States Coast Guard Report of Progress Toward Achievement
of the Goals Established by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1972 - February 1976. " This report, jointly developed by similar
work groups in Ottawa on 28, 29 January 1976, was used as a ready
reference which was revised and updated in the light of new or additional
information developed during the review sessions.
Three Great Lakes states participated directly in the 3, 4 March 1977
discussions and a communication was received from one State during the
25, 26 April 1977 discussions. A public workshop was held in Cleveland,
Ohio on 25 April 1977. Although only two interested parties participated,
the views expressed were completely in agreement with previously expressed
concerns.
The discussions of the applicable portions of Article V, GLWQA and
Annexes 3, 4, and 5 which follow lead to the consolidated recommended
revisions shown in enclosure (3).
-------
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
1. The Annex 3 recommended revisions are generally made to take into
consideration changes in various laws and regulations which more
definitively recognize the increased concerns of the potential of pollution
from shipping sources.
2. Several states and public interest groups are strongly opposed to the
provisions of Annex 4 which allow the discharge of sewage from vessels.
No major recommended changes are made since the current language of
the Annex 4 is broad enough to permit necessary restrictions.
3. The Annex 5 recommended revisions stress the periodic conduct
and reporting of reviews, the establishment of priorities for needed
studies, the specific assignment of responsibility for studies with established
completion dates.
-------
DISCUSSION
4
/
1. Vessel Design, Construction and Operation (reference Annex 3)
Title of Annex should be changed to "Oil and Hazardous Polluting
Substances from Vessels" to bring it in line with other annexes.
(A) Definitions (ref. annex 3 par. 1 & 2)
Definition of tanker changed to mean a vessel designed for the
carriage of liquid cargo in bulk.
Even with the change, the definitions as used in the laws and
regulations of both Parties are fully compatible with definitions in
the reference paragraphs.
Minor differences between the definition used by the two Parties
do exist, for example, the term "tank vessel" is used in U.S.A. regula-
tions to designate both bulk oil and bulk chemical carriers, whereas
in Canadian regulations the differentiation is made. The expression
"harmful quantity of oil" is not employed in either the Canada Shipping
Act or Regulations. As the discharge of oil or oily mixtures from ships
is prohibited, the need to use this expression does not arise. U.S.A.
regulations use the same definition for "harmful quantity of oil" as
the Agreement.
Depending on outcome of EPA/USCG discussions, discharge from
approved oil process equipment of 15 ppm of oil or less will not be
considered a harmful quantity even if a sheen is present. If so, the
U.S. regulation wording will be changed which will put it in conflict with
the Agreement definition. Changing the Agreement definition will not be
incompatible with the Canadian Shipping Act or Regulations as they prohibit
-------
the discharge of oil. There may be incompatibility with Canada's
intentions, however.
(B) General Principles (Annex 3 para. 3)
Editorial change in paragraph 3b to add "of the vessel" after ' ' '
"person in charge".
Both Parties have addressed themselves to the principles con-
tained in the reference paragraph. Both Parties have regulations pro-
hibiting the discharge of oil, oily mixtures and hazardous polluting
substances from ships. In accordance with the Canada Shipping Act, the
term pollutant is used in place of hazardous polluting substances. Under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act the term hazardous substance
is employed.
At such time as the Annex required by Article V, l(i) of the
Agreement is complete and a list of hazardous polluting substances
identified, both Parties will take the appropriate action to apply the
principles of this paragraph of the Agreement to the substances so
listed.
With regard to the reporting of discharges to designated officials
as reference in subparagraph 3(b) of Annex 3 both Parties have fully
implemented this provision through legislation and regulations.
(C) Programs (ref. Annex 3 para. 4)
Paragraph 4 has been retitled Oil and rewritten to take into
account substantive changes proposed by the working group which was
worked into the basic format of the Agreement. It is proposed as follows:
3. Oil - The programs and measures to be adopted for the
prevention of discharges of harmful quantities of oil shall include the
-------
following:
^
(a) fCompatible regulations for design, construction,
and operation of vessels based on the following
principles:
(i) each tanker shall have a suitable means
of containing on board cargo oil spills
caused by loading and unloading operations;
(ii) each vessel shall have a suitable means of
containing on board fuel oil spills caused
by loading and unloading operations, in-
cluding those from tank vents and overflow
pipes;
(iii)each vessel shall have a capability of re-
taining on board oily wastes accumulated
during vessel operation;
(iv) each vessel shall be capable of off-loading
contained oily wastes to a reception facility;
(v) tankers shall be provided with a means for
rapidly and safely stopping the flow of cargo
oil during loading and unloading operations in
the event of an emergency;
(vi) suitable deck lighting shall be provided to
illuminate all cargo and fuel handling areas
if the loading and unloading operations occur
at night;
-------
(vii) hose assemblies used aboard vessels for oil
*
' loading and unloading shall be suitably
designed, marked, and inspected to minimize the
possibility of failure;
(viii) oil loading and unloading systems shall be
designed, marked, and inspected to minimize
the possibility of failure.
(b) Programs to ensure that merchant vessel personnel are
trained in all functions involved in the use, handling,
and stowage of oil and in procedures for abatement of
oil pollution.
(D) Paragraph 5 has been retitled Hazardous Polluting Substances
and rewritten for the same reason as paragraph A. It is proposed as
follows:
4. Hazardous Polluting Substances - The programs and measures
to be adopted for the prevention of discharges of hazardous polluting
substances shall provide for -
(a) Compatible regulations for the design, construction
and operation of tankers using as a guide the Code
for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying
Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk as established through
the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
Organization (IMCO). Additionally -
(i) each tanker shall have a suitable means of
containing on board cargo hazardous polluting
substances spills caused by loading and un-
loading operations ;
-------
(ii) each vessel shall have a capability of
4
f retaining on -board hazardous polluting
y
substances wastes accumlated during vessel
operation;
(iii) each vessel shall be capable of off-loading
contained hazardous polluting substances
wastes to a reception facility;
(iv) tankers shall be provided with a means of
rapidly and safely stopping the flow of
cargo hazardous polluting substances during
loading and unloading operations in the event
of an emergency; *-hd
(v) tankers shall be provided with suitable deck
lighting to illuminate all cargo handling
areas if the loading and unloading operations
occur at nightjf
(b) identification of vessels carrying cargoes of
hazardous polluting substances in bulk, containers
and package form;
(c) identification in vessel manifests of all hazardous
polluting substances carried as cargo;
(d) procedures for notification to the appropriate agency
by the owner, master or agent of a vessel of all
hazardous polluting substances carried as cargo in
the vessel;
-------
(e) programs to ensure that merchant vessel pers&nnel
i
are trained in all functions involved in the use,
handling and stowage of hazardous polluting sub-
stances and in procedures for abatement of hazardous
polluting substances pollution.
The United States Pollution Prevention Vessel and Oil Transfer
Facilities regulations are fully compatible with the programs and measures
under the reference paragraph. These regulations are being amended to
reflect numerous comments and field experiences showing that certain
changes should be made.
The Canadian Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations are presently
compatible with the programs and measures regarding oil transfer, loading
and off-loading systems, hose assemblies and the means for rapidly and
safely stopping the flow of oil during transfer operations. Regarding
the provisions of subparagraph 4(c) dealing with the training of merchant
vessel personnel, pollution prevention procedures and regulations are
now being incorporated into the syllabuses for certificates of competency
as master and mate. A knowledge of the handling procedures for oil
cargoes has been included in these syllabuses for many years. A proposed
amendment to the Canadian Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations has been
drafted in order to cover the items contained in proposed clauses 4(a)
(i)-(viii) of Annex 3.
A further amendment to these Regulations is now being prepared
in order to require that a licensed operator be in attendance on unmanned
oil barges when oil transfer operations are in progress.
Although knowledge of cargo handling procedures has been a part of
-------
U. S. Merchant Officer License requirements for years, the Coast Guard
4
has drafted new standards for the qualifications of Tankerman. These
proposed Tankerman regulations require specific qualifications standards
which will encompass experience, firefighting training, formal classroom
training and examinations for all persons who serve as the person in
charge of a transfer or tank cleaning, including those licensed officers
who are now considered qualified on the basis of holding a license.
Additionally, they will provide for recertification at 5 year intervals.
The standards were published as a proposed rule on 25 April 1977.
Since July 1973 all applicants for U. S. Merchant Marine License
and certificates have been required to demonstrate their knowledge of
pollution laws and regulations, procedures for discharge containment
and cleanup and methods for disposal of sludge and waste material from
cargo and fueling operations.
Additionally, a manual for Safe Handling of Inflammable and Com-
bustible Liquids and other Hazardous Products has recently been revised
for use as a guide for those persons involved in the transport or transfer
of these products.
At such time as the Annex required by Article V, l(i) of the
Agreement is complete and a list of hazardous polluting substances is
Identified, both Parties will take appropriate action to apply the
programs listed in paragraph 5.
(E) Additional Measures
Amended to read:
^. Additional Measures shall be taken as necessary by both
Parties to ensure the provision of adequate facilities for the reception
9
-------
and treatment of oil and hazardous polluting substances waste-from all
s
vessels. /
Title 46, United States Code of Federal Regulations, applies re-
quirements which, with the exception of the provisions contained in
subparagraph 5(a) of Annex 3 (proposed 5(b)), are fully compatible with
the reference paragraph.
In Canada, the proposed Chemical Carrier (Steamship) Regulations
were drafted and circulated to the industry and other interested agencies
for comment. A second draft of the proposed Regulations has now been
drafted and is now being examined for legal form and draughtmanship.
This second draft will eventually be circulated for further comment.
In addition to the .provisions of the IMCO Code for the Construction and
Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, the proposed
Regulations would also specify the procedures to be followed when
dangerous chemical cargoes are being loaded and unloaded. All dangerous
chemical cargoes carried would have to be identified on the ship's
manifest and information on the nature of the cargo would also have to
be carried on board.
All ships passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway are now required
to notify the Seaway Authority in order to identify cargoes carried,
however no specific provision has been made with respect to the placarding
provisions proposed in subparagraphs 5(a) and 5(b) of Annex 3.
Definite pros and cons exist regarding the placarding of vessels
and both Parties feel that this subject warrants continuing study.
(F) Article 5(e) (iv) should be amended to reference Annexes 3
and 4.
10
-------
2. Control of Vessel Waste Discharges
(A) Definitions (ref Annex 4, paragraph 1)
i • „
It is recommended the definition of "garbage be reviewed
and that consideration be given to replacing it with the definition
in Annex V of 1973 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (i.e., "garbage" means all kinds of victual, domestic, and
operational waste, excluding fresh fish and parts thereof, generated
during the normal operation of the ship and liable .to be disposed of
continuously or periodically, except those substances that are defined
or listed elsewhere in the Agreement). This meaning encompasses the
intent of the present one in the Agreement without becoming at all
restrictive. It would also and appropriately, bring the Agreement more
into concert with another international accord. The definitions used
in the laws of both Parties parallel those in this Annex with the
exception that neither Party addresses "waste water". Additionally, the
two definitions of "sewage" do not include animal waste or fecal material
from hospital facilities, although disposal of these for disease
prevention is covered by both Parties in other regulations.
(B) Compatible Regulations (ref Annex 4, para 2)
It is recommended that the phrase "within one year from the
entry into force of the Agreement" be deleted, as it is no longer
applicable.
(i) Garbage
The United States Refuse Act and the Canadian Garbage Pollution
Prevention Regulations both prohibit the discharge of garbage
from vessels.
11
-------
(iij Waste Water
Both Parties consider waste water to be a low priority item at
/
this time. A study as to the composition of ship's waste water
has been conducted in Canada and is presently being evaluated.
(iii) Sewage
In accordance with the United States Marine Sanitation Device
Standard and the Canadian Great Lakes Sewage Pollution Prevention
Regulations, each Party considers that the principles embodied in
their regulations are fully compatible with the provisions of the
Agreement. However the provisions of the legislation of the
Parties create a significant problem in that the United States
legislation allows for State no-discharge programs. This has been
highlighted by the U.S. EPA determination that adequate facilities
for the pump-out and treatment of vessel sewage from all vessels
are reasonably available in Michigan waters and Wisconsin waters,
except Lake Superior, the Mississippi River and the Norther 80
miles of the St Croix River, thereby permitting them to prohibit
the discharge of sewage (treated or untreated) from all vessels into
their waters. This could have the effect of prohibiting the use
of continuous flow-through treatment devices as provided for in
the Canadian regulations, with certain U. S. designated waters
normally used by Great Lakes shipping (U.S., Canadian and foreign-
^
flag ships). Minnesota has an application pending for, similar
determination in her waters and other States may follow suit.
Canadian officials are concerned with regard to the environmental,
economic and practical impact of this action on Canadian shipping
trade and water quality standards. It should be noted that in
Canadian Great Lakes waters, the Boating Regulations of the
12
-------
Province of Ontario covering those waters prohibit the discharge
of sewage (treated or untreated) from pleasure craft.
the states' rationale for no discharge, stated by Michigan in a letter
dated April 1, 1977 from the National Resources Commission to the
Department of States is based on the mobility of the vessels, the areas
frequented by the vessels, and the difficulty of adequate onboard
maintenance and operation of the waste treatment or control facilities.
In other words, although some presently certified USCG flow-through
MSDs provide satisfactory treatment of sewage under laboratory conditions,
the states feel that the MSDs will not function reliably on vessels for
any length of time, that the vessels are too mobile to permit any meaning-
ful monitoring of effluents, and that the vessels often travel in areas
where inadequately treated discharges may affect domestic or municipal
water intakes.
The April 1 letter also stated the Commission's disappointment
over the promulgation of rules by Canada permitting the discharge of
treated sewage from vessels on the Great Lakes.
Further, the Commission fully intends to prohibit the discharge of
sewage (treated or untreated) from vessels into Michigan waters, in a
reasonable manner, pursuant to the authority granted to Michigan by the
EPA under Section 312(f)(3) P.L. 92-500 (FWPCA).
However, a suit by the Lake Carriers Association has, effectively,
enjoined Michigan from exercising their authority to prohibit sewage
discharges. The Lake Carriers have concerns similar to those expressed
by Canadian officials. David Buchanan, at a public workshop held on April
25, 1977 in Cleveland, express the Lake Carriers concerns as follows:
- Most municipal treatment facilities that would handle the pump out
from vessel sewage holding tanks have only primary treatment, while
the treatment systems on the lake carriers use very nearly
13
-------
secondary treatment.
- The municipal treatment facilities discharge in much greater
amounts in concentrated areas.
- Accordingly, flow through treatment by a Type II MSD is consider-
ably better for the environment than nordischarge (at least for
the present).
- Further, holding tanks take away from precious cargo capacity and
take valuable time for pumping out.
At the same workshop, James 0. Cowden, representing Great Lakes
Tomorrow, made a statement that, among other things, supports the state
position of no-discharge of vessel sewage, and for the same reasons -
vessel mobility and difficulty of adequate onboard maintenance and operation
of devices.
A letter from the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, dated April 11, 1977, also strongly supports the sewage
discharge prohibition.
In an earlier meeting in Cleveland, on March 3-4 1977, a representative
of the State of Ohio expressed support of the sewage discharge prohibition,
but felt states would probably accept adequate treatment, at least for a
time, except that they don't feel 50 or 150 mg/1 of suspended solids is
adequate.
(C) Critical Use Areas and Containment Devices
(reference Annex 4, paragraphs 3 and 4)
Both Parties have taken these provisions into account in existing and
proposed regulations. It was also noted that the Joint SLSA/SLSDC
Regulations contain provisions for containment devices in critical use
areas of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The SLSA and SLSDC have indicated
informally, that they feel flow-through treatment devices, meeting at
least USCG Type II standards, should be permitted on vessels
14
-------
in the Seaway.
(D) Reception Facilities (new paragraph)
It is recommended a new para 5 be added as follows:
to
The Parties shall take action as necessary,ensure the
provision of adequate facilities for the reception and
treatment of garbage, waste water,and sewage from all
vessels.
3. Safe and Efficient Handling of Shipboard Generated Wastes
(reference Article V l(e) (iv))
United States statutes and regulations provide for the safe
and efficient handling of shipboard generated wastes including oil,
•garbage, sewage and hazardous substances, when hazardous substances
are designated. Waste water is not addressed for the reasons set
forth in 2(B) (ii) above. The United States considers the provision
of shoreside reception facilities for all shipboard generated wastes
to be the responsibility of industry and state and local governments.
In Canada, provisions to ensure the safe and efficient handling
of oil, either as cargo or bunder fuel, are now covered by Part III
of the Oil Pollution Preventing Regulations. Part V of the proposed
Chemical Carrier (Steamship) Regulations contain similar provisions
with respect to the dangerous chemicals covered.
With respect to shore reception facilities for sewage, studies
have been conducted by Environment Canada in order to assess the need
for developing systems for the collection, treatment and/or disposal
of sewage at major Canadian ports, to determine design considerations
and to ascertain the economic impact.
Shore receiption facilities for the disposal of garbage have now
been provided in Canadian ports, either by the harbour authority on
15
-------
a "user-pay" basis or by the shipping industry.
Recommendations in 1 and 2 establish a new requirement for both
y
/ •
parties to take necessary action to provide reception facilities
for all wastes from all vessels.
16
-------
4.Studies of Pollution from Shipping Sources
(references Article V l(e) (iii) and Annex 5)
(A) Traffic Routes for Navigational Purposes
(reference Annex 5, subparagraph Kb))
It was agreed by the Canadian Coast Guard and the U. S. Coast Guard
that the initial step in formalizing the system of traffic routes on
•the Great Lakes would be for each administration to officially recognize
the long standing Great Lakes Separate Courses recommended by the Lake
Carriers Association and the Dominion Marine Association. Both the
D. S. A. and Canada did this by issuing Notices to Mariners requesting
all mariners to strictly observe these routes. This action formalized
the Separate Courses which are printed on all Great Lakes charts. This
formalized routing system is periodically reviewed and new tracks are
developed and tracks are shifted where necessary to reflect changes in
trade patterns. This form of review and study is considered adequate
and efficient for the present.
Rules of passing are already dealt with in the Rules of the Road
for the Great Lakes, as is speed. Further, speed restrictions have been
imposed where necessary to promote safety or to reduce bank erosion.
Oaring ice conditions that affect the maneuverability of vessels,
individual ship routing is provided where necessary and appropriate.
Both Coast Guards are holding discussions with all sectors of the marine
industry with a view to revising the Rules 'of the Road for the Great Lakes
•o as to ensure compatibility with the revised international rules contained
in the 1972 Convention. These Rules take into account technological develop-
ment and are a significant improvement on the 1960 Rules. Specific rules
for the conduct of ships in and near traffic separation schemes are pro-
vided in these new Rules. 17
-------
By revising the Great Lakes Rules, the benefits of the modernized
international rules can be applied to the Great Lakes. However, those
special Great Lakes provisions which provide a yet higher degree of safety
will be retained.
(B) Traffic Control
(reference Annex 5, subparagraph l(c))
Canadian and United States officials consider that various levels or
degrees of Vessel Traffic Management should be implemented in the Great
Lakes. These range from a basic safety information system to a shore-to-
bridge system whereby real-time information on ship movements is available
through the use of shore-based surveillance equipment. No progress has
been made since January 1976 regarding discussions to develop a technical
plan for cooperative Canada/U. S. Vessel Traffic Control in waters of
mutual interest. This technical plan, along with implementing domestic
legislation in the United States, is required to provide a basis for
developing full-time traffic control, where warranted.
1) Upper Lakes (above Long Point, Lake Erie)
The primary means of communications for navigation, vessel safety and
traffic control on the Great Lakes is VHF-FM. The United States Coast Guard
provides VHF-FM coverage for the United States waters of all Great Lakes;
United States commercial coast stations also provide extensive coverage.
Both systems provide compatible information to transiting vessels regarding
weather, conditions of the waterways, status of aids to navigation and
unusual hazards to navigation. All vessels transiting the Great Lakes
are encouraged to have communication equipment with suitable frequency
coverage to receive this information. In addition, the Canadian Coast
Guard Marine Information Centre at Sarnia receives voluntary reports from
18
-------
vessels at various Calling-in-points which permit the monitoring of vessel
movements, thus facilitating pilot dispatch, icebreaker utilization and
the investigation of overdue vessels. The United States Coast Guard
monitors vessel movements only during the winter navigation season except
as discussed below.
The United States Coast Guard maintains a full-time operations centre
at its Great Lakes headquarters in Cleveland. During 1976, the Canadian
Coast Guard established a full-time marine information centre at its
Central Region Headquarters in Toronto. Included in the diverse duties of
these two centres is the responsibility to relay and disseminate all
information pertinent to the safe navigation of vessels including the status
of aids to navigation, condition of waterways, requests for assistance, marine
emergencies and casualties, pollution incidents, weather, unusual h<*zaids
to navigation and any other factors relevant to safe and efficient vessel
navigation. The Canadian Coast Guard and the United States Coast Guard
maintain a continuing dialogue to improve these services.
The United States Coast Guard operates a manned Vessel Traffic Service
in the St. Marys River. The traffic Control Centre at Sault Ste. Marie
is served by VHF-FM communications and surveillance bv closed-circuit
television, manned lookout and speed monitoring equipment. The United
States Coast Guard considers this the most critical waterway under its
cognizance on the Great Lakes.
Research and Development projects to update the capabilities of the
St. Marys River Vessel Traffic Service include the replacement of the
•anned lookout by visibility monitoring equipment and the installation
of magnetic detectors to indicate the passage of vessels at key locations.
19
-------
Vessel Traffic has been gradually increasing in the Detroit/St. Clair
River systems since 1970. Both the United States Coast Gur.rd and Canadian
Coast Guard agree that traffic control is warranted now and that the level
of control will have to be increased as traffic volume and vessel size
increase. Joint speed regulations are in effect and speed monitoring
is conducted to promote safe navigation and to protect shore property and
waterway improvements. A contingency plan (deposited with IJC) for
traffic control in emergencies has been developed between our respective
local organizations. The contingency plan provides for the United States
Coast Guard to control traffic in Detroit River and for the Canadian
Coast Guard to control traffic in the St. Clair River. United States
Coast Guard studies indicate that a manned Vessel Traffic Service in the
Detroit River is of lesser importance than services for other national
waterways (including the St. Marys River). Two factors make navigation
of the St. Clair River especially hazardous, however, and the Canadian
Coast Guard plans to implement a manned Vessel Traffic Service there as
soon as funds are available. One hazardous factor in the St. Clair River
is the fast currents near the Blue Water Bridge caused by higher than
normal water levels in Lake Huron. A mandatory no passing zone and
security calls mitigate this hazard to some extent. The second hazardous
factor is shoaling in the St. Clair Cutoff Channel. The channel
width at the project depth of 27 feet has narrowed to less than 400 feet
as maintenance dredging by the Canadian Department of Public Works
has been forestalled because of difficulty in finding suitable disposal
areas for the resulting mercury contaminated dredge spoils. Both the
Canadian Coast Guard and the United States Coast Guard are concerned about
the danger to vessels and the marine environment fj.om possible collisions
or groundings due to these channel restrictions. Currently, the danger
20
-------
is reduced, to sore extent, thru the use of voluntary security calls
and reporting. There is no authority for local, mandatory regulations
to control traffic in this area because the shoaling is not considered
to be of a temporary, emergency nature.
In summary, both the Canadian Coast Guard and the United States
Coast Guard are continuously evaluating the need for traffic control
measures and are attempting to provide or improve manned Vessel Traffic
Services in the restricted connecting waters of the Great Lakes.
2) Lower Lakes (below Long Point, T,ak« Erie)
Since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the St. Lawrence Seaway
Authority, SLSA (Canada), and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corpora-
tion, SLSDC (US), have operated Traffic Control Services in their respective
areas. In 1969 this service was expanded by the SLSA to include Lake
Ontario and the eastern end of Lake Erie tc Long Point. In 1974 Lake
Ontario was divided into two sectors, the easterly sector serviced by
the SLSDC, the westerly sector by SLSA. The traffic Control System is
controlled from three Traffic Control Centres; St. Lambert (Montreal,
Quebec), Massena, N.Y. and St. Catharines, Ontario. Lines of communications
and detailed procedures have been implemented to provide the necessary
liaison with Coast Guard, Search and Rescue Centres, and Marine Information
Centres.
Vessels transiting this system are required to report their presence
at a number of mandatory Calling-in-Points where they provide information
such as destination, estimated time of arrival at the next Calling-in-
Point and dangerous cargo. This information is recorded on visual plot boards
and in one case (St. Catharines) recorded in a computer-based information
and communications system.
Detailed plans are also in effect to deal with incidents resulting
/ 21
-------
in pollution.
Recently, visibility monitoring equipment has been installed for
evaluation at some locations.
During periods of winter navigation these centres coordinate closely
the use of icebreakers and expanded surveillance activity in assisting
navigation through ice restricted channels.
The extensive system of traffic control procedures, information inter-
change, communications and surveillance systems result in an efficient and
adequate traffic management system contributing to safe and expeditious
movement of vessels. However, both the SLSA and the SLSDC work together
and in cooperation with other government agencies, Coast Guards and the
shipping industry to ensure that procedures and systems continue to be
effective.
(C) Aids to Navigation System
(reference Annex 5, subparagraph l(e)}
A continuing review is conducted concerning the adequacy and
effectiveness of navigation systems operated by the United States and
Canada. The two aids to navigation systems are nearly identical with only
minor operational differences that do not lead to any confusion on the part
of the mariner. This similarity of the two systems is the result of many
years of informal exchanges and close working arrangements between the two
countries. Such exchanges will continue. At present, the existing systems
are considered efficient and effective.
While the existing systems are considered effective, it is recognized
that the future demands of navigation on the Great Lakes will require that
they be revised and updated. The feasability of year-round navigation was
demonstrated on the four upper lakes during two winter seasons, 1974 - 1975
and 1975 - 1976. To improve winter navigation, a program to replace selected
22
-------
floating aids with fixed structures has been initiated by both the United
States and Canada. The rata at which this program can be pursued is,
of course, dependent upon the resources being made available.
In Addition, an all-weather radio aid to navigation system for the
St. Marys River (mini Loran~C) ha0 been built and is now being calibrated
and verified. The system will improve navigation in the St. Marys River
and correspondingly reduce the risk of pollution from vessel groundings
and collisions. The project is experimental and, if successful, may be
extended to other areas requiring highly accurate navigation.
Similarily, completion of systems requirements for a Precise All-
Weather Navigation System for the St. Lawrence River is currently
underway. Selection and field testing of a prototype systeir. is scheduled
for 1978-79.
The United States Coast Guard ia providing general Loran-C coverage
of the entire Great Lakes. Partial coverage exists now, the coverage
will be improved in 1979, and full coverage in its final configuration will
be available in 1980. This will provide an all-weather, radio navigation
system of sufficient accuracy foi all but the connecting waterways of the
Great Lakes.
The aids to navigation systems are under continual review by the
marine industries of both countries. Annually, Canadian Coast Guard and
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority officials meet with the navigation committee
of the Dominion Marine Association for discussions on aids to navigation
natters. Similarly, the Lake Carriers Association carries on a dialogue
with the United States Coast Guard and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation.
Both Canada and the United States through their respective Coast Guard
23
-------
organizations are promoting a common buoyage system among countries in
North and South America. This common buoyage system should be based on
the basic systems and approach taken by both the Unites States and Canada.
Tha ongoing dialogue and reviews, which both countries maintain,
effectively constitute a continuing study that is adequate to recognize
and correct future shortcomings in the aids to navigation systems.
24
------- |