Pollution prevention The role of the shipmaster

Captain Harry Gale board and presence of adequate reception auditing to ensure compliance. MNI facilities in port. There are important A shipping industry guidance leaflet on ecological reasons to try to reduce these the use of OWS notes that companies Technical Manager operational discharges, especially in coastal should establish a realistic operating waters and areas of international importance budget for environmental compliance; for the conservation of wildlife. However, to provide meaningful and targeted training make this effective the motivation and in environmental awareness and Marpol Shipmasters are coming under empowerment of ships’ staff to comply with compliance; recognise the value of open increased pressure to comply with the regulations is essential. communication with the crew and reward environmental requirements and Port state control and other authorities compliance; and address potential non- pollution regulations. Regulations are now seen to be vigorously pursuing compliance (see p6). on waste from ships now include violations of pollution regulations. As a Such guidelines address issues of oil and sludge from bilges, cargo result, companies and seafarers need to specific training on relevant Marpol waste, garbage, air emissions and realise that the authorities will detect even requirements, including supplementary ballast water. Engagement the most minor violations of Marpol. Millions training, documentation and establish between an owner, who may have of dollars in fines are being levied and both formal policy documents and procedures an excellent safety management company and seafarers can be liable to on Marpol compliance and training. But system (SMS) with high level criminal prosecution and imprisonment. It is are these guidelines being implemented? commitment to the environment, thus incumbent on companies to make their Are masters actually empowered by and ship’s staff can be a long seafarers fully aware of the consequences of companies’ SMS policies, or is the ISM tortuous trail. The owners may be any illegal practices. Because it is critical to Code perceived as owners complying with in one country, the managers in a company’s financial risk, company the regulations – and woe betide any another, manning agents in a third management must send a firm message to master who causes extra expenditure in and training provided by a their seagoing personnel that non- the pursuit of the policies in the Code? company elsewhere. compliance with Marpol is not an option, This article will address the issue of how How are the master and crew particularly as coverage by P&I clubs is shipmasters view the compliance of to cope with this disassociation, limited to that of accidental discharge. For shipping companies with these guidelines on ships which may have been example, a fine imposed for bypassing the and regulations, and how masters and built and designed with equipment OWS would not be covered by the P&I Club crew need to be empowered to comply. now outdated? as it would be a violation of the provisions This article has been compiled regarding construction, adaptation and Background with the support of the Institute’s equipment under Marpol. Most importantly, In the US, the Vessel Pollution Initiative SeaGoing Correspondence Group. companies should provide resources and (Environment and Natural Resources

t the request of the Marine Environment Protection SeaGoing Email Committee (MEPC) of the IMO, SGCG Correspondence A Group the Joint Group of Experts on the The Institute’s Papers and Technical Committee Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) in their report No 75 operates an email correspondence group, the SeaGoing (2007) estimated that of all sources of marine Correspondence Group (SGCG). Members who are currently pollution, 12 per cent could be attributed to active officers, and who would like to make a difference by vessel operations and that 68 per cent of that offering their professional views, are asked to give feedback on amount could be attributed to fuel oil sludge a variety of technical and operational issues, typically between from vessels. This equates to about 186,000 five and 10 times a year. If you think you can contribute to this tonnes a year. Operational discharges of oil professional forum, please contact David Patraiko for more from ships depend on several factors including level of maintenance of ship and details at [email protected] engines; presence of oily water separator Past topics have included navigation technology, routeing, (OWS) and other equipment; training and moorings, Colregs, training fatigue – and pollution. vigilance of ship’s staff; storage capability on 10 Seaways October 2007 Feature Division of the Department of Justice Prosecutions [DOJ]) is an ongoing, concentrated effort In recent cases, high fines have been levied to prosecute those who illegally discharge on shipping companies, and ships’ staff pollutants from ships into the oceans, have been fined and even sentenced to coastal waters and inland waterways. terms in prison. There are 15 US Federal pollution laws In December 2005, the crew of the MSC under which prosecution can be pursued, Elena used a ‘magic pipe’ to bypass the including OPA90, Clean Water Act, Ocean OWS. Owners were fined US $10.5 million Dumping Act and the Migratory Bird Act. and the chief engineer was sentenced to Between 1995 and 2005, the DOJ two months in prison. In April 2006, the prosecuted 30 criminal cases involving ▲ Oily water separator owners of the Magellan Phoenix were intentional discharge of oil, 21 since 2002 fined US $350,000 on one charge of failing and has levied fines of US $130 million to maintain accurate records and the chief since 1998. As Pierre Olney writes in his article in this issue (see pp 7-9): ‘The DOJ engineer was sentenced to one year and does not excuse companies for the acts of one day in prison. In the same month, a € crew members who deliberately disobey French court imposed a fine of 800,000 on company policies and the law. It considers the captain and owners of Maersk such misconduct as a failure of Barcelona as a result of an oil slick off the management to provide the oversight and French coast. The owners maintained the resources necessary to ensure compliance spill was accidental and the result of faulty with environmental regulations (p8)’. The OWS, but this defence was not accepted: if ▲ Master’s nightmare – sheen of oil next to the ship view is that if a pollution incident occurs the OWS is faulty it should not have been then the SMS procedures are not working. used. In May 2007 the Nobel Fortuna was The Assistant Attorney General for fined CAN $45,000 for illegal discharge of Environmental and Natural Resources pollutant and failure to report the incident. Division noted in the prosecution of The amount of pollutant discharged was Norwegian Cruise Line in 2002, ‘The sad estimated at 5.5 litres – which equates to fact remains that the practice of dumping over CAN $8000 a litre. waste oil and maintaining false log books It is not just oil pollution – garbage and has proved to be commonplace in the sewage dumping from ships are now being maritime and cruise ship industry’. prosecuted just as heavily and growing The perception is that some shipping enforcement of air emissions and ballast ▲ Evidence of bypassing companies are just paying lip-service to water violations will only add to mariners’ the regulations and not committing workload. In May 2005 the owners and training and budget resources to waste master of the chemical tanker Bow de Jin management. This view by the US Coast were fined AUS $15,000 for dumping one Guard influences the prosecution of plastic bag of garbage. And in November violations and results in high fines and 2005 the owners of the fishing vessel penalties on mariners and owners. Other Lynden II were fined £2,000 for dumping governments are pursuing non- garbage into the North Sea. This was for a compliances vigorously and, under the new first offence, the maximum for this offence European Directive on Ship Source is £25,000. Pollution 2005/35/EC, any discharge of polluting substances is to be regarded as a prosecutable infringement (see pp14-16). Non-compliance From the preamble to the Directive, ‘The Research conducted into the reasons of required dissuasive effects can only be non-compliance with environmental achieved through the introduction of regulations found several main causes. penalties applying to any person who This research included comments received causes or contributes to marine pollution’. from officers in the Institute’s SeaGoing ▲ Discharge to overboard A maritime industry coalition has Correspondence Group (SGCG) and challenged the Directive and the European published reports from the DOJ, US Coast Court of Justice is expected to make a Guard, Maritime and Coastguard Agency ruling before the end of 2007 (see (UK), Transport Canada and Australian Nautelex, in Seaways April 2007). In Maritime Safety Authority. The most another development, the European common reasons for non-compliance are: Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), under its ■ 1. Poor maintenance of equipment – CleanSeaNet programme, provides a particularly on older vessels where the European operational system for oil slick OWS is not capable of coping with the detection based on satellite-sourced emulsions and oil quality encountered images. today. Some OWS and associated ▲ ‘Magic pipe’ ready to connect Seaways October 2007 11 Feature equipment were designed for the pre-1992 the-art ships and equipment, even some regulations where the discharge Extract from OWS advice from well-trained crews operate anti-pollution requirement was below 100 parts per shipping industry systems inefficiently. Masters would like to million (ppm). The perception is that with ● Focus on action to be taken by see training in various scenarios that poorer quality fuel and the many diverse managers and operators to create spells out what the owners expect ships’ substances which now end up in the bilges, culture of awareness of, and officers to do in relation to specific the OWS and equipment is operating to compliance with, environmental rules, environmental/pollution situations. standards (discharge requirement below within the company and its seagoing 2. Adequate resources. Shipmasters staff. 15 ppm) they were not designed for. Ships’ report that in many cases there are no ● Investment should be made into staff are under increasing pressures just specific manpower or financial resources modern technology, upgrading of to keep the equipment operating. There is devoted to pollution requirements. Diligent existing equipment and establishing a an opinion that some managers and crews make every effort to prevent ‘realistic operating budget’ for owners consider maintenance of pollution pollution but if companies do not devote environmental compliance. control systems as being low-priority. adequate resources to best practices and Shipping Industry Guidance on ■ 2. Ergonomics. Ships are designed to maintenance, ships’ staff will find it easier the Use of Oily Water Separators carry cargo. To increase the cargo space to bypass the systems rather than comply Ensuring Compliance with Marpol for the same size vessel, modern ships are with regulations, no matter how well (first edition 2006) published by designed with smaller engine rooms and informed and trained they are. If the root Maritime International Secretariat smaller tanks to accommodate oily wastes. causes of pollution are the inadequate Services Ltd. Available at Smaller tanks reflects on the natural treatment and storage facilities on board, www.marisec.org/ows separation of water and oil, and this will companies should install equipment impact on the efficiency of the OWS to get further up the chain to reduce the amount of waste generated. the discharge requirement below 15 ppm. Extract from Marine Accident 3. Ship – shore interface. The relationship ■ 3. Company/managers SMS procedures Investigation Branch (MAIB) flyer with the designated person ashore (DPA) are seen as a ‘box-ticking’ exercise, and to shipping industry on the should be and, in the opinion of majority of any non-conformities relegated to the grounding of the Kathrin on 12 masters is, a strong relationship. Most bottom of the maintenance/repair list. February 2006 masters reported that they have regular ■ 4. Some officers still have a ‘can-do’ ● The operations manual lies at the meetings onboard ship and in the office attitude, in the belief that they are saving heart of every SMS. ashore and feel that their DPA will assist, money for the owners and asking for ● Masters and crews must be made to guide and help. Crucial to the success of an outside help reflects on their ability. understand that what the owners SMS is the idea that those most closely ■ 5. Falsifying of records. The require in writing the ISM Code is involved in its implementation should perception of shipmasters is that this actually meant, and is not simply a develop a sense of ownership of the practice is still a widespread phenomenon. means of satisfying regulation. system. This can only come from active It is linked to mounting maintenance ● The integrity and importance of participation and involvement. In this problems, equipment failures and poor SMS may also be enhanced through a regard ships’ staff should also have an design. Incorrect or mistaken entries in ‘package’ of ship visits, senior officer input into writing of policies in the SMS. logbooks are also classified as falsifying seminars and visits to company However, the MAIB report into the loss of records and will attract closer attention offices. containers on the P&O Nedlloyd Genoa in from inspectors. August 2006 noted that instructions ■ 6. Out of date practices – lack of inter- contained in SMS are often well considered departmental communication, enforcement and intentioned, but full compliance with of rank hierarchy whereby junior ranks Solutions such instructions could sometimes be obey orders without question. Complying with numerous pollution and environmental regulations is a worthy but difficult for staff to achieve in practice. ■ 7. There are also problems with onerous task. All persons, both onboard Managers, as part of their internal ISM waste reception facilities. It is a common the ship and ashore, have to work together audit, should check not only that their observation from shipmasters that services to ensure companies and their employees instructions are understood, but also that are expensive because certain countries not only comply with the regulations, but they are achievable with the manpower and ports see the waste facility regulations are seen to be proactive in their available. Senior staff from the owners and as a way of generating extra income. compliance. To achieve this they must take managers should make high profile visits Stringent shipboard practices are observed into account several factors: to ships and reassure the ship staff that to far exceed those of many ports. 1. Training. Both in-house and externally, SMS systems are in place for the good of training must be specific on the relevant all. Having well developed environmental Industry advice environmental and pollution regulations. compliance plans in place will help ensure Bulletins, reports and policy initiatives Some shipmasters in their comments the company's compliance with pollution from P&I clubs, flag states, IMO, and other pointed out there appeared to be no regulations. industry organisations provide advice to specific training targeted to complying 4. Port reception facilities. While much owners and masters regarding compliance with these requirements. However, some improved in recent years, there are large with regulations. One good example comes maritime colleges offer environmental discrepancies among countries and ports. from Marisec; another is a flyer from the training courses so these may need to be Facilities range from excellent, where Marine Accident Investigation Branch: see more widely advertised. While there are properly segregated bins for box, top right. conscientious owners invest in state-of- disposal of ships’ waste, to certain ports 12 Seaways October 2007 Feature where the facilities are non-existent or are systems to track their ship’s compliance engage in any illegal conduct in the available only at a prohibitive price. The and take remedial action to address any mistaken belief that it will benefit their perception among ships’ staff is that the problems encountered. employer. enforcement of waste management 6. Whistleblowers. Shipmasters see this In a speech at the Maritime Cyprus regulations in ports is not as severely in two ways. Those in favour of Conference in 2005, Robert Ho, president enforced as it is on board ships. Masters whistleblowing think it would wake up of Fairmont Shipping (HK) Ltd said: ‘it is see the responsibility for waste company management to the problems very easy to blame the officers and crew management as being a joint responsibility being experienced on their vessels. Others for not adhering to SMS and other with their owners/managers, who may be see it as a way for poorly paid, disgruntled operational procedures should such in a better position to arrange disposal employees to achieve undreamt of riches, equipment fail to perform. It is the easy facilities before the vessel arrives. Having through the publicity given to recent high way out…. Is it justified to place all the adequate storage space for waste is seen rewards, such as the case of the North blame on the crew, when clearly the as a problem for vessels trading between Princess. (In August 2007, four members equipment and systems on board just ports where disposal facilities are poor or of the crew were awarded US $500,000.) comply with regulations, but are not non-existent. Improvement of reception However, the recent high-profile acquittal actually equipped to do the job?…. facilities depends, at least partly, on the of Captain X Kyriakou and its owners, Shipowners are ultimately responsible and receipt of adequate information about Athenian Sea Carriers, where the jury did should universally investigate and correct alleged inadequacies. To this end, the not believe the testimonies of the the situation by enhancing the layout and MEPC has approved a format for reporting whistleblowers, may reduce the instances equipment currently on board.’ alleged inadequacies of port reception of false claims: Nautelex, August 2007. Shipowners should establish clear facilities in circular MEPC/Circular 469 of Owners and mariners should also note environmental policies and take measures July 2005. the USCG guidance for port state control to convince and motivate employees that 5. Oil record book (ORB) and garbage examinations (G-PCV policy letter 06-01) they really do wish to comply with all anti- management logs. Insist on truthful logs. which includes the following instructions pollution legislation. Control procedures Again, owners should actively train their to inspectors: and devices alone cannot guarantee seafarers to avoid making the kinds of compliance. ● Question the crew on how much waste mistakes that lead to criminal charges. Masters should be familiar with all oil and sludge is burned in the incinerator; Inspectors have become extremely company environmental policies and be ● Ask how ship disposes of sludge – knowledgeable in detecting pollution confident they are empowered to enable ashore or incineration; violations, in particular the ‘magic pipe’ them to comply with all regulations. If the ● Check for repairs or maintenance done scenario and other tricks which have master is in any doubt, he should be to the equipment – check spares for become normal over the years. However, certain he can raise the issue with the indication of maintenance; many cases are prosecuted, not on the company and be suitably empowered. This ● Crew members’ inability to successfully actual pollution infringement, but for lying is after all a prime component enshrined in operate pollution prevention equipment to federal officials through false entries in the ISM Code. may indicate the equipment is not the logbooks and cover-ups, which can A shipping company that demonstrates routinely used. easily be detected. Analysis of ORB to its ship’s staff that it is sincere and The letter contains extremely detailed records, OWS operability and OWS committed to anti-pollution regulations instructions – even the most minor non- maintenance history, comparison of ORB and environmental compliance, will ensure compliance will be thoroughly investigated. entries with bridge logbook and tank that the master has the empowerment to sounding records are all investigative tools comply and this will also avoid employed by inspectors. Conclusions unnecessary suspicion when boarded by Owners also collect this information Ship operators have the ultimate inspectors. A number of shipping through their SMS, but as it is recorded in responsibility for establishing a companies are committed to these ideals different logbooks and spreadsheets it is compliance culture within their companies, and the masters of their ships feel very not usually analysed. Owners should be and it is important that every effort is empowered in ensuring no violations proactive and have in place analytical made to ensure that their seafarers do not occur.

SHIP INSPECTION COORDINATOR, LONDON MARINE SUPERINTENDENT – TANKERS, HAMBURG Are you interested in working for a P&I Club? We are looking for a Navigating This is an ambitious ship management company which today manages more than 30 Officer or Marine Engineer to liaise with Members, inspectors and surveyors to vessels. This is an excellent opportunity for a dedicated and forward thinking person to ensure the Club’s inspection and survey requirements are fully met. You will also join a well established company offering fantastic remuneration. You must be a Master need to provide technical advice to Members, Claims Handlers and Underwriters or Chief Officer with product or chemical tanker experience. Experience working ashore as required. EU working entitlement required. Forward your CV to in a similar position is essential. Forward your CV to [email protected], quoting [email protected] quoting reference 15340. reference R15266. EU working entitlement required.

Seaways October 2007 13