Menu:
Filepath: Intertanko / News Desk / Press Releases / Year 2010 / Trieste fines move threatens ship and port safety. Wednesday, September 08 2010



Forgot password?

Issues
Air emission/Annex VI
Air emission/GHGs
Bunkers
Chemical
Environment
Clarifying China’s marine pollution regulations effective from 1 March 2010 Seventh annual shipping industry Tripartite meeting in Beijing IMO acts on marine noise pollution and ship strikes on whales Whale and Cetacean Conservation USCG Environmental Awareness Sewage Regulations VECS (Vapour Emission Control Systems) Environmental Projects Environmental Organisations Environmental Bulletins IMO Meeting Papers North American Issues Pollution Prevention Air Emission Antifouling paints Reception Facilities Ballast water
Human Element
Insurance
Legal and Documentary
Anti-trust/Competition Law Case Summaries
Achilleas – House of Lords gives certainty on damages for late redelivery Acina - Shelltime 4 Afrapearl – Court of Appeal reverses first instance decision 'Alaska' - New York Arbitration 'Alsternstern' - The more hazardous the cargo, the more difficult to show seaworthiness Ambor/Once (the) - time charter - last voyage - Shelltime 4, Clause 19 considered Aniara - Charterers may cancel if tendering improper Archimidis – decision of the English High Court and Court of Appeal Asbatankvoy Clause 8 - New York arbitration Cape Horn - guarantee on behalf of charterers’ holding company Count (the) - High Court - safe port warranty Diamond Park and Emerald Park – vetting issues discussed Doric Pride – vessel detained by U.S. authorities Elli and Frixos – decision of the English High Court Front Commander - Court of Appeal decision Golden Victory - House of Lords - assessment of damages Halki - Arbitration Clause - Construction - Application for stay of proceedings Halki - Case law update - Court of Appeal decision 'Happy Day' - Allows owners' appeal and restores the award of the arbitrators 'Happy Day' - Glencore Grain Limited v Flacker Shipping Limited Happy Day - NOR 'Hill Harmony' - Court of Appeal upholds High Court decision on master's right to choose the route Hill Harmony - House of Lords - Master cannot ignore charterer's order on to the route to be taken - Court of Appeal Kriti Akti – Court of Appeal affirms High Court decision – Shelltime 3 – length of charter Li Hai – withdrawal from hire Liepaya - Recent English case law: Failure to give adequate notice of redelivery Loss not in parties’ contemplation Marika M - Whether vessel off-hire during period of repair Masters can decide route – recent decision of the English High Court Motis Exports - Court of Appeal upholder High Court decision - forged Bill of Lading New York arbitration decision – Asbatankvoy – foreseeability Nikmary - English Court of Appeal decision Obo Venture - Claims Clause Panalpine - What if English law had applied ? Paragon – unenforceable penalty for late redelivery Peter Schmidt - Asbtatankvoy - Validity of NOR Peter Schmidt - Demurrage/laytime recent case law English Commercial Court Protank Orinoco - Cargo Retention Clause Ruhr Ore - Recent New York Arbitration decision - lightering/crew rest periods Sabrewing - Demurrage Time Bar Clauses Seaflower - High Court - Rights of cancellation under vetting clause Stolt Spur - Vessel under multiple charters Voltaz - Whether demurrage claim time barred
Charter Party Advice Charter Party forms Charterers Clause EU Ship Source Pollution Directive litigation INTERTANKO Chartering Publications INTERTANKO Model Clauses INTERTANKO’s Freight and Demurrage Information Pool Law of the Sea: the challenge of unilateral measures v. uniform rules London Arbitration New ‘At A Glance’ Guide to pollution legislation Questions & Answers - various charterparties Tanker Chartering Seminars Useful links Washington State litigation
Marine safety
Navigation
Phase out
Piracy
Ports and Terminals
Research and Projects
SECA
Security
Abbreviations related to security Access of public authorities, emergency response and pilots Common approach by Round Table partners Company Security Officers (CSOs) – guidelines on training and certification Compliance on 1 July 2004 Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) Crew Visas Declaration of Security (DOS) European Union Excessive terminal and crew restrictions Global integrated shipping information (GISIS) database IMO guidance for implementation of the ISPS Code Interface with FPSO/FSUs Interim certification INTERTANKO involved in piracy awareness training initiative in the Philippines INTERTANKO Model Clauses INTERTANKO Security Bulletin INTERTANKO to share security information with U.S. Coast Guard ISPS Code requirements for exercises Joint industry feedback form on maritime security Joint industry submissions to MSC79 Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) Maritime Security into STCW Minimum requirements for the issue of certificates of proficiency for SSOs Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars (NVICS) North American Issues Obligation to notify flag states when exercising control and compliance measures Seafarers’ Identity Documents (SIDS) Security cost reflected in the 2006 Worldscale schedule Security included in STCW Convention Ship Security Alert System (SSAS) Ship security officer (SSO) Shore leave and access to ships Special Purpose Ships (SPS) Submission of vessel/facility security plan under MTSA Suppression of Unlawful Acts (SUA) – new protocols adopted The final rule Timely ISPS Code compliance U.S. standardises ID requirements for officials accessing vessels or facilities US ports - security status USCG USCG releases Port Security Advisory on port facility security in Haiti Voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and port facilities Voluntary self-assessment checklist for Companies and CSOs
Technical
IACS CSR tracking database goes on line Protective coatings of dedicated seawater ballast tanks required in all types of ships and double-sided skin spaces of bulk carriers Means of Access INTERTANKO Model Clauses Technical Projects IMO Meeting Papers USCG INTERTANKO/OCIMF/Class Discussions North American Issues Bunkering - general Bunker Alerts Air Emissions Tank Level and Pressure Monitoring (TLPM) Systems Tanker Specification Awareness Guide Transparency Protection of Bunker Tanks FPSOs and FSUs - MARPOL Annex I Requirements Goal Based Standards Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) Newbuilding Standards: Extended guarantee/net-scantlings/corrosion margins Generic vs. ship specific corrosion allowances for existing ships Coating on cargo tanks
TOTS - An Introduction & Frequently Asked Questions
Vetting & Port State Control
Worldscale
 
Regions
Asia
Europe
North America
 
Benchmarking
Vessel Inspection Questionnaire (VIQ)
TMSA2
Crew & Officer Retention
Lost Time Indicator (LTI)
 
Databases
Confidential Accident Reporting Platform (CARP)
Human Element Landscape Database
Inspection Feedback Databases
Port Information
Questionnaire 88
STS Database
Terminal Vetting Reports & Terminal Satisfaction Sheets
 
Various
Annual Events
Committees, councils and regional panels
IMO submisssions
Intertanko Presentations
Intranet (Staff Only)
Maritime Industry Knowledge Centre
Poseidon Challenge
Tanker Issues A-Z
Weekly NEWS
 
 
Mail present page to a friend Print present page

Trieste fines move threatens ship and port safety.
Published: 03 March 2010 15:27
Updated: 03 March 2010 15:29

The Port of Trieste has advised that, with effect from 3 March 2010, vessels using fuels with a sulphur content exceeding 0.10% by mass (in contravention of EU Directive 2005/33/EC) will be prosecuted with fine of between Euros 15,000 and 150,000 (usually 30,000 for the first offence). Exemption to the law will not be granted anymore and all eventual special authorisations issued in the past are cancelled, it states.

 

This means that ship and port safety may be sacrificed purely in order to generate local harbour funds.

 

Trieste Port does go on to say that a reduction of the fine may be requested according to the European Recommendation (2009/1020/EU of 21.12.2009) within 30 days from the notification of fine, showing evidence of steps taken by ship operator, class and boiler manufacturer to complete the work enabling the vessel to burn fuel according to the EU Directive.

 

However once a fine reduction application has been submitted, Trieste Port points out that the supporting documents are subject to evaluation by the officer on duty; if this evidence is considered insufficient to merit a reduction of the fine to the minimum, then the fine could rise to the maximum set by law - Euros 150,000.

 

Moreover, if a vessel which has been fined calls Trieste again without being in compliance with the EU Directive in question, the vessel, its owner/operator and its master will be banned from entering all Italian ports.

 

Ships which are not yet modified to use 0.1% sulphur MGO, and which do not receive permission to consume low sulphur HFO in their boilers, have three possible courses of action, all of which penalise the owner/operator for headlining safety:

·          either they may choose to use 0.1% MGO and do their outmost to manage the associated risks;

·          or they may emphasise safety and use low sulphur HFO in their boilers but face prosecution and fines;

·          or they may simply refuse to call at Trieste until modifications have been completed.

 

For some ships a switch from HFO to MGO in the boilers without having performed the necessary modifications is considered significantly less safe than the alternative of using low sulphur HFO. Boiler manufacturers and class have explicitly rejected any liability for the consumption of MGO in the boilers in cases where they have indicated that there is a need for modification.

 

Many of these modifications have not yet been completed due to the slow response from the boiler manufacturers. This is something that is out of the control of ship owners and operators, many of whom initiated the modifications process almost a year ago after having been misled by earlier advice from boiler manufacturers that their boilers work safely on distillate fuels – advice that has since been retracted **.

 

The safe operation of ships, and the safety of their crews and cargoes, should not be put at risk by the need to generate cash for port authorities. INTERTANKO trusts that information supplied by ships with the modification process underway will be considered in the light of the EC Recommendation which recognises that there may be operational problems and safety risks associated with the use of the required fuels in ships that have not undergone technical adaptations, and which invites EU Member States to consider the existence of detailed evidence of the steps taken by ships to ensure safe compliance with the Directive.

 

INTERTANKO has sent a letter inviting the Harbour Master Office to revisit their strict and unexpected decision.

 

Further information is available on INTERTANKO’s website – click here 

 

** Additional background information:

 

The ship owner's obligation in this case is to seek and follow the boiler manufacturer’s advice. Until the beginning of 2009, all boiler manufacturers had the same answer - "No problem, our systems can safely work with low sulphur distillates". The same (mis)information was also given to the regulators, which prevented the EU from seeing the need to call a technical meeting.

 

INTERTANKO and other ship owner associations had been asking for a technical meeting since 2003, with the request repeated in 2006 and 2008. Then at the beginning of 2009, ship operators started to ask  the boiler manufacturers to guarantee their systems as fit for the purpose of safe compliance with this provision - and things started to change. In the end the technical meeting only took place in October 2009 – just months before the EU Regulation on 0.1% sulphur fuels at berth entered into force on 1 January 2010.

 


Search
Quick search
Advertisement