Comment Log Display

INTERTANKO (The International Association of Independent Tanker
Owners), is a non-profit association of independent (i.e.
non-Governmental and non-oil company owned tankers) owners from 40
countries operating approximately 4,100 oil, chemical and gas
tankers trading worldwide. INTERTANKO has made previous
contributions to this process and some will be repetitive as we
could not see being commented or taken into account. These previous
comments expressed the INTERTANKO Members concern with the lack of
safety assessment with regard to the enforcement of the Control
Measures for OGV at Berth to tankers. 

INTERTANKO comments are as follows: 

Section 93130.3 Applicability. (b) Federal requirements it
indicates that “Noting in the control measures shall be construed
to amend, repeal, modify or change any applicable federal laws or
regulations, including the USCG regulations or requirements”. The
synonyms for the word “construed” are ”interpreted, read, taken,
seen or understood”. Based on this, we do suggest that Control
Measures for OGV at Berth construe the air emissions limits
regulated under the IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI which USCG has
incorporated in the US CFRs. We understand CARB may wish to have
more stringent limits that the ones in CFRs and in the IMO MARPOL
Annex VI but this is a serious challenge to the nature of the
international legislation to ensure same applicable standards ships
can comply with at any port. No need to stress the consequences is
any States or any country setting their own and different limits.

Safety aspects – We studied the proposed amendments, we did studied
the justifications and the annexed documents. Although we
understand and do not disagree with the aim to improve the
environment in the California ports, we would strongly suggest that
such measures are efficient only if they are not impairing the
safety of the operations. We are very concerned that of lack of
assessment of the safety aspects as a consequence of the
application of the Control Measures for OGV at Berth to tankers.
There are three important safety aspects which need assessment: 

(1)	for use of shore power – responsibility and guaranty assumed by
the shore power provider for possible damages or pollution events
in case power cut or in case of insufficient/variable power
provided to tankers, particularly large tankers, during cargo
operation. 
(2)	 standards for construction and certification of capture and
control systems or other “innovative options”, whether there are
shore based but particularly if they are on board barges.
(3)	safety operational procedures when capture and control systems
or “innovative options” operate in tandem with  tankers.

The first point was raised by INTERTANKO several times but we have
not seen any response. It is of concern if such a risk, of which
degree no one has assessed so far, is ignored. 

With regard to number (2) and (3) and based on Section 93130.5 (i)
or 93130.17, we note there are no provisions to address standards
and regulations for manufacturing capture and control systems such
“innovative option”. The only requirements addressed their
capturing performance and their durability. In addition, there is
no provision or requirement for safe tandem operation of tankers
with these capture and control systems or “innovative options”. 

Availability of capture and control systems/“innovative options” –
INTERTANKO would suggest there is a need to clarify situations of
availability of such systems, including providing shore power to
tankers. If a tanker which has no means to use shore power arrives
and the systems are not available, what would be the consequence of
proceeding to berth and to cargo operations? Similarly, if a tanker
can use shore power but the level of shore power required y a large
tanker is not available to be supplied for some time, what would be
the consequences? Would the ship wait with cargo operations until
such an options becomes available? We strongly suggest such aspects
need to be clarified in due time. INTERTANKO will suggest this
question is not a pure commercial issue. Such a scenario could
create a lot of bottle necks in port activities. 

INTERTANKO appreciates the opportunity to provide its input on this
rule development. We will continue to assist to the best of our
ability and hope that CARB recognises the challenges that need to
be addressed, since, as long as the tanker is moored at-berth,
particularly during cargo operations, there is not much it can do
to control many of the associated risks indicated.

Looking forward to further dialogue.

Kind regards
Dragos Rauta
Technical Director
INTERTANKO