The Casualty of the Oil Tanker Erika

MG 3110 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN SHIPPING Professor: Dr. Iliana Christodoulou-Varotsi 25/4/2012
ID NUMBER: 116233

Table of Contents

Introduction.......3 Main body/ Question 1..3 Question 2......7 Question 3..8 Conclusion...10 Reference list...11

Introduction

Throughout this project, I will be referring to the casualty of the Maltese oil tanker Erika that broke in two parts and sank on December the 12th 1999, remaining in history as one of the most catastrophic maritime accidents due to the major oil spill that polluted at least 400 kilometers of shoreline causing a major devastation to the natural environment. Furthermore, I will identify, describe and assess the regulations and rules that apply to this enormous casualty, in addition to analyzing and evaluating the problems that arose from it. Lastly, I will propose and evaluate measures that if have not been already taken, should be taken to avoid similar accidents.

Main Body

1. Identify, describe, and assess the regulations applicable to the incident under consideration.

When the 25-year old single hull oil tanker Erika flying a Maltese flag, broke in two on December the12th 1999, 40 miles off the coast of Brittany, France, at least 19.800 tones of heavy fuel oil were spilled, causing a massive damage to the environment. Before the Erika accident, measures to ensure safety at sea did exist, but were not that strict. More specifically, with the goal of battling marine pollution, the

4 IMO (International Maritime Organization) had put together a series of conventions such as the International MARPOL convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships that was implemented in 1973. (Europa, 2007) The most important aspect of this convention was/is the protection of the environment and in order for this to be achieved several measures should be taken. Such measures included, the gradual phasing-out of single hull oil tankers and their replacement by double hull tankers or tankers of equivalent design, also more thorough inspections on the condition of old vessels should be done. (Europa, 2007) In addition, traffic separation systems had already been implemented in areas that shipping was more concentrated, in order to avoid collisions between ships. Regardless of these measures, it seemed that the IMOs work was not enough to ensure maritime safety due to the fact that they lacked a control mechanism to supervise the way the rules were applied throughout the world. Consequently, the European Council asked the Commission to come up with proposals that would help reduce the oil pollution at sea. Around mid-90s the Council introduced an organization at Community level that would help ensure strict application of international conventions and implementation of measures, along with the ratification of several other important instruments. Such instruments include, Directive 95/21/EC on port state control, which deals with inspections and contains specific requirements for inspections of oil tankers, also Council Directive 94/57/EC which contains standards and rules on ship inspections, furthermore Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 which establishes a committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS) and adjusts the Regulations on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships and lastly Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities. (Europa, 2007)

5 Coming back to the Erika casualty, the investigations that were performed on the accident from the French Government and the Maltese maritime authorities, demonstrated that the age of the vessel, corrosion, insufficient maintenance and inadequate inspections were all strong contributing factors to the structural failure of the ship. (IMO) After this, it was self-evident that the existing regulatory framework regarding marine safety and prevention of marine pollution was not enough and stricter measures needed to be put forward. Therefore, in March 2000, the first set of measures called the ERIKA I package that was the European Commissions reaction to the incident was introduced and according to the book Maritime Safety Law and Policies of the European Union and the United States of America: Antagonism or Synergy? included three series of measures related to Port State control, the activities of classification societies and the phasing-out of single hull oil tankers. (Christodoulou-Varotsi, 2009, p. 34) Then there was the ERIKA II package,

another set of measures that introduced a Community traffic monitoring and information system for vessels, as well as a European Maritime Safety Agency for the prevention of maritime casualties. The Erika II package also included a proposal for the setting up of European Pollution Damage Compensation Fund but eventually they did not proceed with it. Later on, in 2005 the ERIKA III package was presented that would contain proposals for new European legislation and adjustments to the existing ones. (Christodoulou-Varotsi, 2009) Continuing, the response of the IMO to the Erika accident was also significant. The IMO speeded up the process of the phasing-out of single hull tankers with a very strict timetable for both pre-MARPOL and MARPOL single hull tankers, (regulation 20 in the revised Annex 1, entered into force January 1 2007, MARPOL 73/78) which is a development of high significance. (IMO) More specifically, In October 2000, the IMO adopted amendments to raise by 50% the

6 limits of compensation payable to victims of pollution by oil from oil tankers under the CLC Convention and the IOPC Fund, also in December of the same year the IMOs maritime safety committee adopted amendments to the guidelines on the enhanced program of inspections during surveys of bulk carriers and oil tankers and in addition IMO took action on several other operational matters based on a list of measures aimed at enhancing safety and minimizing the risk of oil pollution. (IMO) Another IMO International Convention that pre-existed the Erika incident, is the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS, 1974) which contains specific requirements for tankers such as, more strict fire safety provision than other dry bulk vessels and it seems that while all of Erikas crew were rescued, the ship did not comply with such requirements as its safety equipment had been found to be in very bad shape. (Pamborides, 1999, p. 85) (Corrosion Doctors) All the above conventions and mesaures/regulations apply to the specific case. Both the actions of The EC and the IMO are very critical to securing maritime safety, but the problem is that they should exist before the actual incident happened. Out of what I have read so far about the Erika case, Erika suffered a structural problem which happened due to corrosion of the 25-year old tanker, which is something that under normal circumstances should have been foreseen during surveys/inspections and that, poses a lot of questions to Erikas classification society (RINA) that performed the surveys. Whatever the case, when the accident happened the measures regarding the prevention of marine pollution and generally the surveys and inspections that took place were insufficient and it is unacceptable that it took such a huge ecological devastation to trigger new and stricter regulations that would not allow such disasters to take place, instead of them existing all along.

2. Analyze and critically evaluate the problems, which arise from the abovementioned case.

When Erika broke in two and sank 60 nautical miles off the French coast of Britanny, about 19.800 tonnes of heavy fuel oil from the overall 31.000 that the tanker was carrying, were spilled polluting 400 kilometers of shoreline. Consequently, the impact on the local natural environment and economy was enormous. The magnitude of the environmental catastrophe was huge, considering that despite the rescue operations that took place, between 80.000 and 150.000 seabirds were killed due to the oil spill. (Cadiou, 2004) The birds wings were covered in thick black oil and therefore they were unable to fly and died of poisoning. (BBC NEWS, 2000) As a result of the massive environmental impact from the oil spill, the local economy was largely affected too and as a result, there was a large number of compensation claims. Significant coastal fisheries, marine culture and tourism resources were largely affected resulting in the reduction of incomes from tourism, as well as the incomes from fishing, not to mention the fact that certain sea products such as crabs and oysters could not be traded anymore due to prohibition. (Corrosion Doctors) In addition, salt production areas that exist there were significantly affected by the oil pollution. (ITOPF) We can therefore conclude that the local populations were severely damaged both environmentally and economically and would take many years to recover from such a disaster. Obviously, the Erika incident brought to the surface

8 the problem of maritime safety and the fact that there was lack of strict measures and regulations that would prevent such severe accidents from happening. This casualty, acted as a wake up call both to the IMO and more importantly to the European Commission, who as I explained above introduced new and more effective legislation in order to avoid such disasters in the future. The point is, that the Erika oil spill was one of the worst ecological catastrophes in the history of Europe affecting not only the environment, but also the lives of so many people. Of course, in cases like Erikas oil spill the costs of the clean-up operations were enormous, as it is mentioned in the case it was estimated at 46 million Euros. Lastly, it is only logical that the respective parties that were involved in the Erika incident such as the owner of the vessel Giussepe Savarese, the charterer TotalFina, the vessels classification society Rina and other parties suffered the consequences (penalties). (SSY Consultancy & Research Ltd., 2001)

3. Propose and evaluate measures with the aim of avoiding similar incidents.

As I already mentioned in the case, the Erika casualty was the cause for new legislation and regulations regarding maritime safety and prevention of marine pollution to be introduced. The proposals that were made and the measures that were taken after the accident should have been enforced strictly long before the accident took place, since it is widely known that especially tanker vessels can cause severe pollution to the marine environment if something goes wrong. Firstly, the phasing-

9 out of single hull tankers should have been started and completed within a much smaller period of time than it was scheduled. This is not for the reason that a double hull vessel would prevent the accident from happening, but if an accident did happen it reduces the chances that the oil would be spilled and consequently reduces the chances of pollution. So, it is a necessity for tanker vessels that carry such hazardous cargoes to be double hulled. Secondly and most importantly, inspections and surveys on ships should be made stringently and following word by word the regulations that exist. It is unacceptable and I will admit terrifying, to think that classification societies whose job is to perform surveys on vessels and according to their findings they consider if the vessels are seaworthy and cargo worthy to perform voyages, cannot make the right judgment on whether a vessel can perform a certain voyage. In the Erika case, the tanker was obviously not seaworthy, it was old, and it was found that it had severe corrosion, but nonetheless it was considered as safe and was allowed to perform voyages. The measures that should be taken in order for classification societies to perform their job in a strictly precise way need to be tough, in addition to having more stringent quality standards, so that even vessels that are registered under Flags of Convenience that have very low quality standards, cannot disregard them. Lastly, with regard to port state control the inspections that are performed should become more thorough especially to vessels that are of a certain age and have a history of deficiencies or detentions.

10 Conclusion

In conclusion, after having performed a thorough research on the case of the Erika oil spill, I hope that after such a huge impact that it had both on the environment and local society and economy, cases like this will not happen again, since now the regulations that exist and the measures that have been taken-as I explained in the first question-are much more strict, leaving no choice to the respective parties involved but to follow them even if it costs more, rather than looking for the cheapest solution and end up destroying the environment and other peoples lives.

1995 words

11

References list

1) BBC NEWS. (2000, 1 5). Oil spill damage worsens. Retrieved 4 18, 2012, from BBC NEWS: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/592378.stm 2) Cadiou, B. (2004). Ecological impact of the "Erika" oil spill: Determination of the geographic origin of the affected common guillemots. Aquatic Living Resources . 3) Christodoulou-Varotsi, I. (2009). Maritime Safety Law and Policies of the European Union and the United States of America: Antagonism or Synergy? BerlinHeidelberg: Springer. 4) Corrosion Doctors. (n.d.). Environmental Catastrophe: Sinking of the Erika. Retrieved 4 18, 2012, from Corrosion Doctors: corrosion-

doctors.org/Pollution/erika.htm 5) Europa. (2007, 9 5). Maritime safety: Erika I package. Retrieved 4 17, 2012, from europa.eu: europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport/waterborne_transport/124230_en.htm 6) IMO. (n.d.). Tanker safety. Retrieved 4 17, 2012, from International Maritime Organization: www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_id=155#7 7) ITOPF. (n.d.). ITOPF- Information services- Data & Statistics- Case HistoriesErika. Retrieved 4 18, 2012, from THE INTERNATIONAL TANKER OWNERS POLLUTION FEDERATION LIMITED: www.itopf.com/information-services/dataand-statistics/case-histories/elist.html 8) Pamborides, G. (1999). INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LAW Legislation and Enforcement. Athens, Greece: Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers and Kluwer Law International.

12 9) SSY Consultancy & Research Ltd. (2001). The cost to users of substandard shipping.