DOCSLIB.ORG

Pollution Prevention the Role of the Shipmaster

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pollution Prevention the Role of the Shipmaster 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prevention of Pollution By
    A selection of articles previously Prevention of published by Gard AS pollution by oil 2 © Gard AS, December 2013 3 Contents Introduction 5 Shipping industry guidance on the use of Oily Water Separators Ensuring compliance with MARPOL 6 Clearing of shore pipelines following cargo operations at terminals 8 US Pollution - California Certificates of Financial Responsibility (COFR) Requirements 10 Australian Pollution Law – Oil Pollution Indemnity Clause for Penalties and Fines 11 Limitation of liability for pollution clean-up costs in China 13 The silent sentinels – Increased use of remote marine pollution sensors 15 New Greek marine pollution legislation 17 New wine from old wineskins? - Current efforts to retrieve oil from sunken vessels 19 Australia toughens pollution laws 21 New Pollution Regulations in China - FAQs II 22 Charterers’ pollution liability in Brazil 24 Perfecting pollution prevention? - The State of Washington enacts a new statute 26 The state of environmental crime enforcement in the US 27 US law – Criminal prosecutions of MARPOL violations 32 ICS/ISF guidance on environmental compliance 34 Oil and water don’t mix 35 Environmental Crime – Myths and Reality 36 Oily water separation and discharge: Risk of oil pollution versus vessel’s safety 37 The finer points of oil pollution 40 US Coast Guard formal policy on voluntary disclosure of MARPOL violations 43 Oily water separator bypass in the US - The tables are turned 44 US law - MARPOL violations in the US 45 Environmental crime - Oily water discharge off the East Coast of Canada 46 Pollution - The hard line taken by the French criminal courts on oil discharge from ships 47 Disclaimer The information contained in this publication is compiled from material previously published by Gard AS and is provided for general information purposes only.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Oil in Water Monitoring & Discharge
    Guide to oil in water monitoring & discharge www.rivertrace.com 1 Introduction While the intention of MARPOL Annex VI aimed at reducing air pollution from ships’ engines is laudable, with the benefit of hindsight it can be seen that regulating for different exhaust components at different times and in different ways has complicated matters more than was probably necessary. For each component regulated, new technologies have been developed but all are expensive and sometimes also require additional power thus increasing CO2 emissions or else they are seen as somehow cheating the intention of the regulation by moving the emission from air to sea. This latter is particularly true of washwater and more especially from exhaust gas cleaning systems or wet scrubbers used for removing SOx from the exhaust stream of vessels burning fuels containing levels of sulphur above those permitted under MARPOL Annex VI. The Exhaust Gas Recirculation method of reducing NOx emissions also involves washwater treatment and is now being seen as problematic also. This guide looks at the subject of washwater and examines some of the major issues. www.rivertrace.com GUIDE TO OIL IN WATER MONITORING & DISCHARGE | 2 What is 01 washwater? An explanation of how wet scrubbers and EGR systems work with particular regard to the production of washwater. The chapter will look at the composition of washwater and the polluting components as well as the scientific dispute as to its effects upon the environment. When fuels are burned in a marine engine, numerous chemical reactions take place in the combustion chamber as the chemicals in the fuel and the upper cylinder lubricant (in a low- speed two-stroke engine) combine with the gases in the inlet air during combustion.
    [Show full text]
  • From “Magic Pipe”
    WILL “MAGIC FUEL” BE THE NEXT “MAGIC PIPE”? ALASKAN FEDERAL EMISSIONS CONTROL AREA LAWSUIT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT INDUSTRY EXPOSURE UNDER NEW RULES highlights the processes employed by the federal government in applying and enforcing Introduction and Background international standards in areas that extend beyond U.S. territorial waters. Regardless of In a lawsuit that raises unique the outcome of the case, two things are very questions about international and federal law, clear: (1) increasingly stricter air emissions the State of Alaska is seeking an injunction requirements for ships, in some shape or form, against the Federal government which, if are here to stay, and (2) the Federal granted, would prevent Federal agencies from government is serious about enforcing them. enforcing an offshore segment of the newly As a matter of fact, the first known U.S. created North American Emissions Control citation for ECA related deficiencies occurred Area (ECA). The case, which is the first of its in early February of this year, when a kind involving new international standards Panamanian flagged bulk carrier was issued and corresponding U.S. laws that came into two operational deficiencies in New Orleans effect in August 2012, argues that by the U.S. Coast Guard. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Coast Guard’s Port State Control Report, the regulations requiring ships transiting the area vessel had compliant fuel onboard, but failed of the ECA off of Alaska’s coast to burn lower to use it while operating in the North sulfur fuel will have the practical effect of an American ECA, and both the Master and additional corporate tax on the shipping and Chief Engineer were not familiar with the tourism industries so vital to Alaska’s operation of Annex VI related equipment and economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilge Water Management and Pollution
    LOSS PREVENTION BRIEFING FOR NORTH MEMBERS SHIPS / MARCH 2014 Bilge Water Management & Pollution Contents Introduction Introduction .................................................................... 1 Pollution fines for the illegal discharge of oil contaminated Oil Pollution Cases in the USA ........................................ 2 bilge water continue to occur, particularly so when violations arise or are uncovered in the United States. Shipboard Bilge Water Management .............................. 2 If a vessel is found to be in violation of legislation such as Bilge Water ..................................................................... 2 the US Clean Water Act or the US Act to Prevent Pollution Bilge Water Treatment .................................................... 3 from Ships, then fines can total several million US dollars and crew members Oil Water Separators ....................................................... 3 can find them Oil Content Monitors ....................................................... 4 sentenced to prison Oil Record Book ............................................................. 5 terms. Violators may face the equally serious Illegal Practices ............................................................... 5 and additional charges Methods of Detection ..................................................... 7 of obstruction of Culture of Compliance .................................................... 7 justice. Owners may also be subject to a Whistle-blowing .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Max1 Studies Final Report
    November 13, 2015 MAX1 STUDIES FINAL REPORT I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 2 II. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 4 III. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 5 IV. MARPOL REGULATIONS OVERVIEW........................................................................................................ 6 V. PROJECT EXECUTION AND DESIGN ........................................................................................................ 9 VI. PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 13 VII. MAX1 CHRONOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 14 VIII. MAX1 SURVEY KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 36 IX. MAX1 CONFERENCE ................................................................................................................................... 48 X. WIKIPEDIA UPDATES .................................................................................................................................. 49 XI.
    [Show full text]
  • Ocean Dumping Jacquelin Uhlik I
    Why Lawyers Should NOAA what CERCLAs in our Oceans: Laws and Regulations Governing Ocean Dumping Jacquelin Uhlik I. Introduction North Carolina heavily relies on clean coastal conditions for healthy coastal communities and a robust economy. The total economic impact of the seafood industry in North Carolina was $336,537,384 in 2008,1 though this impact has been decreasing since 2000.2 The beach tourism and recreational sectors generated a total economic impact of approximately $2.5 billion in 2008.3 These two industries contribute substantially to North Carolina’s Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”), and are highly dependent on the coast. More specifically, these industries rely heavily on clean coastal water conditions.4 In light of the fact that 29% (approximately eighty- seven million people) of this nation’s population resides in coastline counties (counties bordering coastal water or territorial sea),5 it is important to understand how these laws and regulations function and influence future decision making. Part II gives a brief history of international ocean dumping regulations and their importance in the development of dumping legislation in the United States. Part III describes federal laws and regulations concerning ocean dumping. Part IV explains how federal and state regulations interact. Part V gives examples of recent instances of ocean dumping. Part VI 1 DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT, N.C. DEP’T. OF ENV’T AND NAT. RESOURCES, NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL REPORT, IV-24 (April 2011) [hereinafter NC BEACH REPORT], available at http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/BIMP/BIMP%20Section%20IV%20-%20Socio- Economic%20Value%20of%20NC%20Beaches%20and%20Inlets_Formatted.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Factual Statement
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Criminal No. ___________ ) ) Violations: ) 18 U.S.C. § 371 v. ) 18 U.S.C. § 1001 ) 33 U.S.C. § 1908(a) WALLENIUS SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. 33 C.F.R. §§ 151.25(a) & (h) ) LIMITED, ) 18 U.S.C. § 2 ) ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________) JOINT FACTUAL STATEMENT Introduction Defendant Wallenius Ship Management Pte. Ltd. (“Defendant” or “Wallenius Ship Management”) and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey and the Environmental Crimes Section of the United States Department of Justice (“the United States” or “the government”), hereby agree that this Joint Factual Statement is a true and accurate statement of the Defendant’s criminal conduct in this matter and that it provides a sufficient basis for the Defendant’s pleas of guilty to the charges contained in the Criminal Information. The Defendant’s guilty pleas are to be entered pursuant to the Plea Agreement signed and dated this same day. Defendant Wallenius Ship Management, a Singapore corporation, was the operator and manager of a fleet of approximately twelve (12) automobile transport ships or “car carriers,” registered in Singapore. Wallenius Ship Management was jointly owned by Singapore Shipping Corporation Ltd. and Wallenius Marine, AB, a Swedish corporation. The M/V Atlantic Breeze (“Atlantic Breeze”) was a 41,891 gross ton ocean-going car carrier, registered in Singapore, and identified by International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) Number 8507614. From at least as early as in or about July 2002, to in or about November 2005, the Atlantic Breeze traveled regularly to ports in Asia, Europe, the Mediterranean Region, South America, and both the east and west coasts of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Oily Water Separator (Marine) - Wikipedia Page 1 of 11
    Oily water separator (marine) - Wikipedia Page 1 of 11 Oily water separator (marine) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia An oily water separator (OWS) (marine) is a piece of equipment specific to the shipping or marine industry. It is used to separate oil and water mixtures into their separate components. This page deals exclusively oily water separators aboard marine vessels. They are found on board ships where they are used to separate oil from oily waste water such as bilge water before the waste water is discharged into the environment. These discharges of waste water must comply with the requirements laid out in Marpol 73/78.[1] For information on more general oil water separators Oily Water Separators (general). Bilge water is a near-unavoidable product of shipboard operations. Oil leaks from running machinery such as diesel generators, air compressors, and the main propulsion engine. Modern OWSs have alarms and automatic closure devices which are activated when the oil storage content of the waste water exceeds a certain limit. Contents ◾ 1 Purpose ◾ 2 Bilge content ◾ 3 Design and operation ◾ 4 Oil record book ◾ 5 History of regulations for treated water discharge ◾ 5.1 MARPOL ◾ 6 Current regulations ◾ 6.1 USA ◾ 6.2 Europe and Canada ◾ 7 Types ◾ 7.1 Gravity plate separator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oily_water_separator_(marine) 1/2/2017 Oily water separator (marine) - Wikipedia Page 2 of 11 ◾ 7.2 Electrochemical ◾ 7.3 Bioremediation ◾ 7.4 Centrifugal ◾ 8Problems ◾ 9See also ◾ 10 References Purpose The purpose of a shipboard oily water separator (OWS) is to separate oil and other contaminants that could be harmful for the oceans.
    [Show full text]