 |
||||
|
IMO moves on tanker phase outs ... and more The MEPC also took care of other business that included designation of MARPOL special areas and particularly sensitive areas and the adoption of amendments to IMO treaties and instruments After Erika The working group identified three categories of tankers;
The draft revision sets out two alternative phase-out schemes. Both schemes would see Category 1 vessels phased-out progressively between January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2007, depending on their year of delivery. Under both schemes, Category 2 tankers built in 1986 or earlier would be phased out after their 25th year of operation . Under Alternative A, though, Category 2 ships built after 1986 would be phased out between 2012 and 2015, while under Alternative B they would be phased out between 2012 and 2017. For Category 3 tankers, both schemes would progressively phase out of tankers built in or before 1987 between 2003 and 2013. Under Alternative A, ships built after 1987 would be phased out between 2013 and 2015. Under Alternative B, they would be phased out between 2013 and 2017. The working group also agreed that continued operation of Category 2 oil tankers beyond 2010 should only be permitted to high quality ships which had been subject to a Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS).
It was stressed that the introduction of a CAS should not undermine the Enhanced Survey Programme (ESP) system under resolution A. 744 (18) and that the scheme would assume that vessels should pass their ESPs. An Intersessional Working Group, from January 31 to February 2, 2001, will address the Condition Assessment Scheme in detail. There was general agreement at the meeting that phasing-out of single-hull tankers should be seen as just one of several measures needed to help eliminate sub-standard tankers. The working group drew up a preliminary list of topics to be considered in this regard. The MEPC invited the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) to establish a working group at MSC 73, in November, to examine the measures listed and, initially, separate the list into maritime safety and environmentally related issues. MSC would also request the technical sub-committees BLG 6, FSI 9 and DE 44 to develop relevant issues further and to report to MEPC and MSC with a proposed implementation plan. Most delegations greeted the proposed revision of regulation 13G with a cautious welcome.The delegation of the United States, however, reserved its position on the draft text, stating that it had hoped a position closer to that of OPA 90) would be reached. Most observers believe, though, that what the MEPC has come up with will be enough to head off the possibility of unilateral action by the European Union. R&D forum in 2002 to address high-density oil spills In a related development, the MEPC agreed to hold a Research and Development Forum in March 2002 which will focus primarily on response to spills of high-density oil. France will host the forum, which will be the third R&D Forum sponsored by IMO. High-density fuel oils, or heavy fuel oil, such as that carried by the Erika, are among the most difficult and most costly to deal with when spilled because of their highly persistent nature and the damage they cause to the marine environment. |
||||
Responding to European concerns following the Erika incident, IMO has taken the first, formal step towards an accelerated phasing-out of single-hull oil tankers. The 45th session of MEPC 45 approved a working group report on proposed amendments to the MARPOL 73/78 convention. This sets the stage for adoption of a revised regulation 13G of MARPOL at the next meeting of the committee, MEPC 46, in April 2001.