55
accidents that might occur in those waters in either of those two
cities?
Mr. McAULIFFE. That is correct, Mr. Lent, to the extent that lia-
bility can be shown to rest with the Commission because of the ac-
tions of our employee, namely the pilot or someone of that nature.
For if an accident occurring in the harbor should be attributed to,
let us say, the Japanese tugboat, then obviously the Commission
would not be at fault.
Mr. LENT. So if there is no one from the Commission aboard the
vessel, pilot or otherwise, there is no question there is no liability
on the part of the Commission, is there?
Mr. McAULIFFE. That is correct, Mr. Lent.
Mr. LENT. So if there is someone from the Commission aboard a
vessel and an accident occurs, then it is possible that the Commis-
sion might be liable but only if there is negligence demonstrated on
the part of the personnel of the Commission?
Mr. McAULIFFE. That is substantially correct, Mr. Lent. There
are other reasons than negligence as it is defined in the law. A
judgment call, let us say, on the part of a pilot that would not nec-
essarily be negligent but would be perhaps an unwise decision at
the point; there are many reasons for accruing fault.
In the case of the harbor movements that you mentioned, our
pilot does have operational control of the ship because that ship is
moving out of or into canal waters and we must maintain control.
That is the reason that our pilots are aboard and in control.
Mr. LENT. Thank you for that. That helps me.
The legislative proposal forwarded to Congress pursuant to
Public Law 96-70 in October 1981 proposed that the Commission
may require as a condition of transit of the canal that vessels
obtain insurance or otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility
sufficient in amount to provide reasonable indemnification for
damages resulting from acts or omissions of such vessels when
passing through the canal.
Would enactment of this provision reduce the amount set aside
in reserve for accidents; and if so, by approximately how much?
Mr. McAULIFFE. In my opinion, Mr. Lent, if that were the case,
that would not necessarily reduce the amount of tolls.
Mr. LENT. Approximately what percentage, if you know, of the
accident reserve is set aside to pay for cleanup of oil pollution
damage?
Mr. GIANELLI. I don't think there is any specific amount set aside
for that purpose, Mr. Lent.
Mr. LENT. Would an oil tanker traversing the canal carry insur-
ance to cover oil pollution cleanup costs? Would a tanker be re-
quired to carry that sort of insurance?
Mr. GIANELLI. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, since the enact-
ment of the treaty, is that they are not required to carry insurance
to cover cleanup costs resulting from any spillage that might occur.
Mr. LENT. I think we ought to check into that, because it seems
to me if a tanker spills, there ought to be responsibility on the part
of the tanker.
Mr. GIANELLI. I think the situation is, as I understand it from
counsel, with whom we have just been talking on the subject, that
is prior to the effective date of the treaty, there were certain re-