Every month or so, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) has a press release on a conviction of or guilty plea by a ship or owner on a MARPOL Annex I (oil pollution) violation.
As I stated previously, the US DoJ uses fraudulent oil record book (ORB) entries to lay criminal charges against the officers of the ship and the company. In the most recent press release DoJ state that the ship did not maintain the Annex I required ORB accurately, at least between 2006 and 2009. Whereas in Canada pollution charges are based on pollution, as detected by satellite, plane or other observation, a ship visiting US ports can be charged for pollution based on the inaccurate ORB entries, regardless of where or when they were made. The criminal act is in the presentation of the fraudulent entries in the ORB to the port state control officer.
If fraudulent ORB entries are found and pollution suspected, there is the fine, potential jail for the officers, the fleet is put on a 3 year probation and the company is required to implement an Environmental Compliance Plan (ECP) with annual audit of 75% of the fleet.
In the old FRAM filter commercial the mechanic said "you can pay me now, or pay me later", meaning that it costs to replace a filter but it costs more to repair the engine. Similarly here; yes, an ECP costs money, but the better housekeeping practices it instills do reduce operating costs. On the other hand, muddling along without an ECP carries the risk of deteriorating shipboard practices which may ultimately result in Annex I violations.
The US DoJ suggests that a vigorously implemented ECP can shield the corporation from criminal charges and the related fines.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Canada's ECA Limits
The North American ECA will come into force in 2012. This designation will apply to the Canadian economic exclusion zone, south of the Arctic Waters. The IMO designation will apply therefore to the external waters and the internal waters of Canada. The Canadian inland waters are not included part of the IMO designation. Canada has yet to decide on how the ECA will apply on the inland waters, particularly how non-convention ships will be regulated on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.
One question needing clarification is, where is the border line for the inland waters? In the oil pollution regulations Canadian inland waters start at the western tip of Anticosti Island. In the old sewage regulations, IMO compliant marine sanitation devices could be used in the waters east of the first Lock of the Seaway, i.e. into the Port of Montreal. I would expect that Canada uses the oil pollution regulation limit, i.e. the western tip of Anticosti Island, for the designation of the internal waters under the ECA.
For the Canadian inland waters, Canada asked for comments by May 31, 2010 from the shipping industry. Transport Canada has on the table 3 options on how to implement an ECA in the inland waters
Here is the conundrum for the domestic fleet. In the ECA zone all vessels are required to burn ECA compliant fuel. MARPOL Annex VI does not allow for vessel or fleet averaging of the sulfur content, the fuel burnt must meet the ECA prescribed S-limit. Therefore, a domestic vessel sailing to a port outside the inland waters of Canada will need to burn fuel with less than 1.00% S-content with the introduction of the ECA, then starting 2015 they will have to burn fuel with not more than 0.10%.
This means, that after 2012, any domestic, non-convention vessel needs to comply with the ECA fuel requirements on domestic voyages, which extend beyond the inland water limit - unless Canada waves the ECA requirements for the domestic fleet.
One question needing clarification is, where is the border line for the inland waters? In the oil pollution regulations Canadian inland waters start at the western tip of Anticosti Island. In the old sewage regulations, IMO compliant marine sanitation devices could be used in the waters east of the first Lock of the Seaway, i.e. into the Port of Montreal. I would expect that Canada uses the oil pollution regulation limit, i.e. the western tip of Anticosti Island, for the designation of the internal waters under the ECA.
For the Canadian inland waters, Canada asked for comments by May 31, 2010 from the shipping industry. Transport Canada has on the table 3 options on how to implement an ECA in the inland waters
Here is the conundrum for the domestic fleet. In the ECA zone all vessels are required to burn ECA compliant fuel. MARPOL Annex VI does not allow for vessel or fleet averaging of the sulfur content, the fuel burnt must meet the ECA prescribed S-limit. Therefore, a domestic vessel sailing to a port outside the inland waters of Canada will need to burn fuel with less than 1.00% S-content with the introduction of the ECA, then starting 2015 they will have to burn fuel with not more than 0.10%.
This means, that after 2012, any domestic, non-convention vessel needs to comply with the ECA fuel requirements on domestic voyages, which extend beyond the inland water limit - unless Canada waves the ECA requirements for the domestic fleet.
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Ballast Water Countdown
IMO, with BWM.1/Circ.15, as updated on their WebSite today, advised that Brazil had ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast water and Sediments, 2004. With this signature there are now 24 Contracting States to the Convention, representing approx. 23.29% of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping.
The convention will enter into force 12 months after the date on which at least 30 states, representing 35% of the world's gross tonnage have signed on. It seems the convention will come into force, pretty well as was indicated at the last CMAC meeting.
Canadian shipowners might want to consider the possibility, that Ballast Water regulations might apply to domestic shipping, eventually as well; as was suggested at the CMAC meeting.
The convention will enter into force 12 months after the date on which at least 30 states, representing 35% of the world's gross tonnage have signed on. It seems the convention will come into force, pretty well as was indicated at the last CMAC meeting.
Canadian shipowners might want to consider the possibility, that Ballast Water regulations might apply to domestic shipping, eventually as well; as was suggested at the CMAC meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
