Bahrain- 2nd March 2010

Capt. Howard Snaith Master Mariner. FNI. Director Marine, Ports, Terminal, Environment & Chemical Section

INTERTANKO

Paris MoU PSC Familiarisation Course(Part 1) April 2011

An INTRODUCTION TO INTERTANKO& Our Work program

Capt. Howard N. Snaith FNIDirector Marine Ports Terminal Chemical Environmental & Security Section

Who Is INTERTANKO?

““International Association of Independent Tanker OwnersInternational Association of Independent Tanker Owners””

Formed in 1970:Formed in 1970:

We represent:We represent:250+ Members; 3,400+ Tankers; 270+ Million DWT; Members in 40+ countries

INTERTANKOINTERTANKO’’s objectives: s objectives: Safe Transport, Cleaner Seas & Free CompetitionSafe Transport, Cleaner Seas & Free Competition

Our members objectives:Our members objectives:••ZERO DetentionsZERO Detentions••ZERO PollutionZERO Pollution••ZERO FatalitiesZERO Fatalities

MORE THAN 75% OF THE WORLDS INDEPENDENT OIL & CHEMICAL TANKER MORE THAN 75% OF THE WORLDS INDEPENDENT OIL & CHEMICAL TANKER FLEETFLEET

We are all in the Chain of Responsibility

Port State ControlPort State Control

INTERTANKO membership by type of tankerBy number

Chemical - 10.0 m dwt

Chemical/oil - 24.1 mdwt

Product - 36.6 mdwt

Crude - 205.2 m dwt

Gas- 4.9 m dwt

Special

0 42 84 126 168 210

Special

Gas

Chemical

Chem/oil

PT

Crude

By m dwt

Annual General Meeting

Council

Associate Members Committee

Bunker Sub-Committee

Chemical Tanker Committee (CTC)

Chemical Tanker Sub-Committee Americas

Human Element in Shipping Committee

Documentary Committee

Environmental Committee

Insurance & Legal Committee

Executive Committee

INTERTANKO Safety, Technical and Environmental Committee (ISTEC)

IT Committee

Offshore Tanker Committee (Former Shuttle Tanker Committee)

Short Sea Tanker Group

Vetting Committee

Worldscale Committee

ASIAN REGIONAL PANEL

HELLENIC MEDITERRANEAN PANEL

EUROPEAN PANEL

LATIN AMERICAN PANEL

NORTH AMERICAN PANEL

Q-Quest Sub-Committee

Management Committee

Shipowner Issues Sub-Committee

Committee & Panel

Structure

14 Committees5 Regional Panels

INTERTANKO – Overview

Tanker Incidents and accidental pollution Includes all tankers types and sizes

Number incidentsNumber incidents

Source: INTERTANKO, based on data from LMIU, ITOPF + othersSource: INTERTANKO, based on data from LMIU, ITOPF + others

‘‘000 000 tonnestonnes pollutionpollution

0

210

420

630

840

105078 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

0

120

240

360

480

600

Misc/Unknown Fire/ExplHull & MachineryGrounded Coll/ContactOil pollution

2011 projection based on 59 days

110 incidents in 2010 (44%) involve chemical or chemical/oil tankers

The Sub-Committee• Focus – Americas

• About 15 members

• Meets two times a year

• Usually in the USA

• Works with WG’s to complete projects

• Works closely with the USCG and other trade bodies in the US

The Committee• Focus – Worldwide

• About 20 Members

• Meets two times a year

• Eastern and Western Hemispheres

• Forms WG to undertake and complete projects

The Chemical Tanker Committee and Sub-Committee

IBC - Prevention of accidental pollution

IBC Code includes 3 different Ship TypesShip Type 1:

– Double side min B/5 / Double bottom min B/15 (incl. well/lim. 6 m)– Max 1 250 m3 in each cargo tank– Any L: 2 compartment standard

DISTANCE NOWHERE LESS THEN 760 MM

IBC - Prevention of accidental pollution

Ship Type 2: – Double side min 760 mm / Double bottom min B/15 (lim. 6 m)– Max 3 000 m3 in each cargo tank– L > 150 m: 2 compartment standard– L ≤

150 m: 2 compartment standard except for engine room bulkheads

IBC - Prevention of accidental pollution

• Ship Type 3: – Single skin– No quantity limitation for each tank– L > 225 m: 2 compartment standard– 125 m < L ≤

225 m: 2 compartment standard except for engine room

bulkheads– L ≤

125 m: 2 compartment standard except for engine room

Inert Gas

• INTERTANKO Position on Inert Gas – based on the “Product Approach”

• Following a study of fires and explosions on chemical and small oil tankers, IMO started a work programme to address this issue. Both Human Element and Operational.

• General Finding: Crew not following established procedures.

• Operationally, it is agreed at IMO that the availability of IG systems onboard will reduce the risk.

• The application of lower limits is being discussed with options of 500, 5000 & 8000 being proposed.

• INTERTANKO believes that simplifying the regulations and training together will be the long term solution that reduces such accidents.

• Issue will be discussed again at FP in July 2011 to establish lower limits.

Carriage of Antidotes

• Raised by the members of the Sub-Committee.

• Last revision of the MFAG/IMDG Code in 1998 reduced the requirement for the carriage of antidotes.

• Members believe that this has increased the risk to seafarers by removing the choice of having the antidote in an event of exposure.

• The cargoes most affected are the Cyanides, the Isocyanates and the nitrile group of cargoes.

• INTERTANKO proposed a revision of the requirements at IMO (DSC) and has been requested to provide further information and recommendations to DSC 16 in 2011.

Damage Stability• This was first raised as an Issue in 2006.

• Is being discussed at IMO primarily through the SLF Sub-Committee where various aspects of this issue will be reviewed at SLF 54 (16-20 Jan 2012):

• Identify existing IMO instruments and relevant references relating to the issue of verification of damage stability requirements.

• Identify any ambiguities in the existing requirements and consider the need for clarifications and/or recommendations for amendments to mandatory instruments.

• Draft guidelines for the verification of damage stability requirements for tankers, addressing design and operational issues.

• Consider whether demonstration of verification to third parties should be addressed in the draft guidelines and, if so, include appropriate text.

• Consider, when developing the above draft guidelines, in particular the following points:– scope of the draft guidelines;

– clarification of what is meant by loaded in accordance with an approved condition, whether any deviations are allowed and, if so, to what extent;

– methods of verification of compliance, such as stability software, stability booklet, shore assistance, KG/GM curves and conditions for use of these methods;

– clarifications of the terms and conditions for use of stability software and documentation which demonstrates that the software is appropriate for its purpose;

– advise on any other relevant issues raised in the course of the group's discussion.

Bio-fuels and Blending

• Use and transport of bio-fuels increasing.• This is an unregulated area of carriage.• Industry discussing carriage requirements and criteria.• BLG Sub-Committee has finalised carriage requirements to

be approved by MSC.• Blending of cargoes onboard during the sea passage is

prohibited. SOLAS regulation developed – to be approved at MSC.

• Renewable diesels have been included in the list of bio- fuels.

• Additional annex to MEPC.2/Circular proposed to include new bio-fuels.

• INTERTANKO to produce an industry guide on the carriage and handling of Bio-fuels.

Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan• Mandatory application after MEPC 62 (July 2011)• Charterers already referencing SEEMP (IMT MESQAC)• INTERTANKO members already implementing efficiency

measures...

Air emissions - GHGs

Air emissions - GHGs

– The new Guide for a Tanker Energy Efficiency Management Plan (TEEMP) moves forward in practical terms the IMO process to reduce actual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shipping by assisting operators to implement a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan as recommended by IMO Circular MEPC.1/Circ.683.

– INTERTANKO saw the need to move quickly to develop the TEEMP out of the IMO's outline Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), and to move forward on a practical day-to-day basis.

– It involves inter alia voyage planning; optimising machinery; hull resistance management; cargo handling; and the control of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released from the cargo.

IMO Legislative Status

•

The BWM Convention will enter into force 12 months  after ratification by 30 States, representing 35 per 

cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. 

•

Currently 27 countries representing 25.32% of world  merchant shipping tonnage

•

Implementation dates still important...

Ballast water management

Entry into force Summary of implementation dates:

Ship constructed before 2009BW capacity 1500‐5000m3 – have treatment system from first intermediate or renewal 

survey after anniversary date in 2014

BW capacity less than 1500m3 and greater than 5000m3 – have to have treatment 

system from first intermediate or renewal survey after anniversary date in 2016 (see IACS 

clarification MEPC 61)

Ship constructed in or after 2009BW capacity less than 5000m3 shall have a treatment system installed at its second 

annual survey and no later than 31/12/2011

Ship constructed after 2009 but before 2012 and with a BW capacity greater than 5000m3 shall have a treatment system from first 

intermediate or renewal survey after anniversary date in 2016 (see IACS clarification 

MEPC 61)

Ship constructed in or after 2012with a BW capacity of greater than 5000m3 shall be constructed with a BW treatment 

system

Ballast water management

The Challenges: 

•

Compliant systems for the Convention and regional legislation (i.e.  USA ‐

NY, CA x100 to x1000 beyond IMO)

–

Owner compliance with US or IMO standards•

Installation of treatment systems that have not been tried and tested

on a larger scale–

MEPC 62 Review:

•

Installation realities –

capability of industry to install systems in time 

frame (2012‐2016, ~50,000 ships)•

Contract realities – how many owners planning to install systems 

(INTERTANKO member survey)•

Integrity of type approval process (i.e., credibility of testing

laboratories•

Sampling

Ballast water management

Biofouling

•

MEPC 62 to adopt Biofouling Voluntary  Guidelines in July 2011

•

One difference to normal guidelines adopted by  IMO: verification process to review their success  – so already likely to become mandatory

•

INTERTANKO have already made substantive  comments to the draft

•

Issues:–

Problem: How to assess extent of biofouling –

difference between slime (harmless to environment)  and hard fouling (risk of invasive species)

–

The Upside: Tanker operators already keen to manage  hull fouling to improve efficiency – so already 

standard practice

LIFEBOAT RELEASE HOOKSLIFEBOAT RELEASE HOOKSLifeboat safety has been an area in which INTERTANKO has been

heavily involved over the years. Back in the year 2000, INTERTANKO was a co-author of a Lifeboat Industry Survey, which produced a wealth of information. In addition to an in-house Lifeboat Working Group, INTERTANKO are also members of the Industry Lifeboat Group (ILG). The ILG is comprised of Non-Governmental Organizations such as INTERTANKO, OCIMF, BIMCO, ICS, etc.

More recently, the ILG has been instrumental in the creation of new draft Guidelines, which will require Manufacturers to provide hooks with enhanced safety features. The ILG have been striving for hooks that will only open when requested to do so by the operating crew. Accidents involving lifeboats are all to commonplace, when the hooks have suddenly released during recovery of the lifeboat. This usually results in the lifeboat falling from great a height to the sea below, severely injuring or even killing those inside.

A significant milestone was recently achieved at the IMO's fifty-fifth session of the Ship Design & Equipment Sub-Committee.

The Working Group (which included INTERTANKO) were successful in revising the draft Guidelines for Evaluation and Replacement of Lifeboat Release and Retrieval Systems.

LIFEBOAT RELEASE HOOKSLIFEBOAT RELEASE HOOKSThe draft Guidelines will be submitted for approval to the eighty-ninth

session of the IMO's Maritime & Safety Committee, which is scheduled to meet in May.

Having considered the need for a time limit for the replacement of lifeboat on-load release mechanisms not complying with the relevant paragraphs of the LSA Code, the Sub-Committee agreed to a date of 1 July 2019, based on a five year inspection period after 1 July 2014.

The draft Guidelines will include details on:• Modifications - A lifeboat release and retrieval system that is

determined non-compliant, may be modified to comply with the requirements of the LSA Code and the existing applicable Code, provided that the modified release and retrieval system is evaluated in accordance with these Guidelines;

• Design Review - Documentation and information for each type of lifeboat release and retrieval system should be submitted to the Administration, or recognized organization acting on its behalf, in order that an assessment can be carried out to determine compliance with the LSA Code. Any submission for testing that cannot be supported with the above mentioned information should not be eligible for testing against the requirements of the LSA Code.

LIFEBOAT RELEASE HOOKSLIFEBOAT RELEASE HOOKSIf the outcome of the design review is non-compliance with the

applicable paragraphs of the LSA Code, the lifeboat release and retrieval system should be replaced or modified to be made compliant;

• Performance Test - After a successful completion of the design review, a Performance Test should be conducted by the manufacturer for each type of lifeboat release and retrieval system for compliance with the LSA Code, using the test specified in appendix 1 to these Guidelines. The Performance Test should be witnessed by the Administration or a recognized organization acting on its behalf;

• One time follow-up Overhaul Examination - Not later than the first scheduled dry-docking after 1 July 2014, every lifeboat release and retrieval system of a type found to be compliant in respect of the existing lifeboat release and retrieval system evaluation should be subject to an overhaul examination according to annex 1, by the manufacturer or by one of their representatives;

ECDIS ISSUESECDIS ISSUESCarriage of Electronic Chart Display & Information Systems (ECDIS),

will become mandatory under SOLAS on certain types of ships engaged on international voyages, commencing on 1 July 2012.

ECDIS must be IMO compliant, namely:• Conform to the relevant performance standards;• Be provided with the minimum number of sensor connections;• Be able to operate in normal capacity even when it is connected

and supplied by an emergency source of electrical power;• The overall system includes both a primary ECDIS and an

adequate, independent back-up arrangement;• Software to be kept upgraded to read ENC’s based on the latest

version of the ENC Product Specification, and software to always conform to the latest IHO standards.

ApplicationTankers of 3000 GRT and upwards constructed on or after 1 July 2012;Tankers of 3000 GRT and upwards constructed before 1 July 2012, not

later than the first survey on or after 1 July 2015.

ECDIS ISSUESECDIS ISSUESTRAININGThe so called “Manila Amendments” to the STCW Code have

recognised the need for navigational Officers to undergo ECDIS training. The Amendments, due to enter into force on 1 January 2012, will require navigational Officers to undergo Generic and Type-Specific ECDIS training for those vessels with ECDIS installed.

Generic TrainingThe IMO have approved a standardised Model Course. The

primary objective of Model Course 1.27 is to ensure proper use and operation of ECDIS in terms of a thorough understanding and appreciation of its capabilities and limitations. Model Course 1.27 suggests a 40-hour training programme carried out over a period of five days. The Model Course is the absolute minimum for Generic training. It should be noted that certain Flag States permit Generic training to be done on board the ship, in the form of Computer Based Training (CBT).

ECDIS ISSUESECDIS ISSUESType-Specific trainingNo clear guidance given by the IMO, as to what form Type-

Specific training should take. Unlike Generic training, there is no Model Course. As a result, Flag States have differing views as to what is actually required.

One Flag State is insisting that an Officer should attend a shore- based training course for each different system he/she is expected to operate. Quite a daunting thought when you consider that there are approximately 30 manufacturers of ECDIS in existence, many of whom produce more than one type/model !!!

Other Flag States have advised that a manufacturer’s Computer Based Training package is adequate.

Many Flag States have not yet issued any form of guidance, and would appear to be “sitting on the fence”.

We are strongly recommending our members to contact the relevant Flag State and seek guidance

ECDIS ISSUESECDIS ISSUESGeneral Concerns

• Availability of equipment – it is estimated that there are approximately 30 manufacturers of ECDIS, that have achieved, or are in the process of achieving approval.

• Financial aspects – an ECDIS with the minimum number of sensor connections is thought to cost in the region of $17000, while a top-end model with a host of additional features, could cost up to $222000. Could turn out to be an extremely costly exercise to a Shipowner with a large fleet, and to those Owners who opt to fit a second ECDIS in order to fulfil the back-up requirement.

• Availability of training establishments – experts think there could be up to half a million seafarers who would need to receive ECDIS training over the course of the next seven years.

• Doubts surrounding the ability of a Master or Officer who may have been at sea for 30 years, and has used nothing but Paper charts, to be suddenly able to make the switch-over to ECDIS.

EE--NAVIGATIONNAVIGATION

E-Navigation can be defined as being, the harmonized collection, integration, exchange, presentation and analysis of marine information onboard and ashore by electronic means to enhance berth to berth navigation and related services for safety and security at sea and protection of the marine environment.

Although the E-Navigation concept is still very much a work in progress, a large volume of work has been done to date. This has included the following points:

• Standardization of bridge design (not yet clear how this could be achieved);

• The development of S-Mode (a default setting which would show only the minimum required information) and standard operating procedures for equipment would probably be the way forward;

• Training should focus on detecting operational anomalies.

EE--NAVIGATIONNAVIGATIONHaving assessed the user needs, functions and system architecture

of e-navigation, and expecting the future development, one might predict a variety of scenarios for the personnel on board and for skills, competencies, qualifications and training needs. To illustrate the wide spectrum of possible e-navigation related developments, the two following scenarios might be of special relevance:

The navigating navigator• This is a scenario where the monitoring equipment is kept

relatively traditional on board and ashore. The navigators' own skills will still be essential to the safe navigation of the ship, and the bridge team will be the main backup to the safe functioning of the ship.

The monitoring navigator• In this scenario the data solutions and monitoring equipment are

much more sophisticated. The navigator will have to rely more heavily on automated processes, standardized and harmonized procedures and equipment. Data structures, displays and services will have to be interoperable. A main task will be to monitor the system displays and the indicators of the system's health or resilience.

EE--NAVIGATIONNAVIGATION

It has since been underlined that the navigator’s own skills would remain essential for the safe navigation of the ship, and the bridge team would be the main backup for the safe functioning of the ship. It would not be advisable to be totally reliant on systems where the navigator only monitors the system displays and the indicators of the system’s normal functionality or resilience. Increasing use of electronic navigational equipment may, however, play a greater role in improving the safety of navigation in the future.

Piracy - BMP3

• BMP – Background– BMP2 August 2009– Format -A4 document

• BMP3– June 2010– Produced Industry / Military– Target Audience – Format – PDF / Booklet– Core Advice / Guidance– Ongoing guidance - www.MSCHOA.org

BMP3 Signatories/Support

Signatories:• BIMCO• ICS• IG P&I• IMB• INTERTANKO• INTERCARGO• ISF• ITF• IPTA• JHC• JWC• OCIMF• SIGTTO

Supported by::

•EUNAVFOR•CMF•MARLO•MSCHOA•Operation Ocean Shield•NATO Shipping Centre•UKMTO

Generating “Government Will”

Launched 1st March 2011.

Full page Adverts Wall Street Journal & FT

>21,500 visits SOS website - 125 countries

+7190 letters sent to date

27% of website visitors sent a letter

Prime ministers & opposition parties

Global Viral response

Website www.SaveOurSeafarers.com

Thank you

Questions?