Page 14: of Marine News Magazine (June 2016)

13 15

INSIGHTS is certainly needed in the oil spill response ? eld. Unlike ? rmed governmental “derivative” immunity for respond- other industries, however, there is not the same economic ers. Unfortunately, the decision did not go far enough be- incentive to invest capital in response resource R&D be- cause many responses do not have the right circumstances cause the predictable return on investment is simply not for derivative immunity to apply. Thus, there is still a need there. No one knows when the next big spill will happen. to tighten up OPA 90’s responder immunity protection

Thus, advancements in the oil spill response industry are and unless that occurs, I certainly would think twice before likely to come from technologies that have other uses be- responding with dispersants. yond just oil recovery. A great example is drones. Drones

Ballast Water Treatment is coming to a head here in have become readily available and already have a role to the United States. Bring us up to speed.

play in oil spill response in both detecting and tracking oil.

I expect that similar technology advances will also eventu- Just to be clear, the Coast Guard’s position does not ally lead to more ef? cient skimming systems. disqualify UV systems as opposed to biocides. The Coast

Guard’s position that the organisms must be “dead” rather

BIMCO and the International Spill Control Organiza- than “non-viable” means that the large ? ow UV systems will tion (ISCO) have begun work to develop a standard simply be too energy intensive to operate cost effectively. contract for the hire of spill response services and

I still think there will be 2,000m3/hr and less UV systems equipment. Do you support this sort of effort?

that could be an option, even under the Coast Guard’s cur-

BIMCO is certainly on the right track in trying to de- rent interpretation. I am aware that a number of UV man- velop an agreement that fairly apportions risks between the ufacturers believe Congress will change the wording of the parties on critical issues such as payment terms, liability U.S. law to allow the non-viable Most Probable Number and insurance. This type of standard agreement could save (MPN) testing method used in the IMO regulations to be valuable time at the critical early stages of a response. As we used here in the U.S. I do not see that happening. In fact, know, this issue was addressed in OPA 90 in that potential it reminds me of the early days of OPA 90 when the P&I responsible parties must have a contract arranged prior to Clubs refused to issue Certi? cates of Financial Responsi- conducting oil operations in the U.S. Thus, although there bility (COFR), thinking the U.S. regulators would back is more of a need for this type of standard contract outside down. Those of us who are old enough to remember know the U.S., BIMCO should still keep in mind lessons we that the regulators did not back down and an entire sub have learned here in the U.S. while drafting the agreement. insurance industry of specialty COFR providers formed to

The SCAA has reached out to BIMCO and offered their ? ll the regulatory need. Although the regulatory need was assistance. I hope BIMCO takes them up on the offer. satis? ed, it occurred at a tremendous, and probably un- necessary, cost to vessel owners. Hopefully, we can avoid a

The new OPA 90 NPREP (Drill & Exercise) require- repeat of that situation.

ments promise signi? cant changes. SMFF providers now have a greater obligation and there will be more Should shipping ? rms install BWT systems in the ab- unannounced drills. Tell us about the new rules. sence of Coast Guard approved systems?

Like many other positive initiatives, over time, compla- At the recent MEPC 69 meeting in April, rather than cency can take hold and that is what is occurring in the drill receiving some clari? cations, the uncertainty continues and and exercise arena. Today, many drills that were intended to it continues on some very critical issues such as whether to really test the responsible parties, their spill managers and allow existing vessels to continue to use ballast water ex-

OSROs have become more of a seminar. In that seminar change and how to address “early movers” who have in- format, few real time decisions are made and people and stalled systems that met the original IMO G8 Guidelines, resources are not truly tested. There clearly was a need to but may not meet the new Guidelines or the Coast Guard refresh the OPA 90 NPREP requirements and the new regulations. Hopefully, we will know more after the MEPC

SMFF regulations were a good catalyst for doing it now. 70 meeting in October, but vessel owners should not wait

That’s the good news. The bad news is that these drills will until then to take action. I don’t recommend installing a become more expensive and time consuming under the system before we know more on the IMO regulations and new requirements. Further, the timing is somewhat unfor- systems receive Coast Guard approval. Some operators are tunate since both the oil & gas industry and non-tanker taking steps to be prepared to move quickly once that oc- shipping sector are in no mood for increased costs with low curs including: determining which type of system is best for oil prices and charter rates. their vessels, ensuring there is suf? cient space to install the system, retaining engineering and installation resources,

Lately, there has been some progress on Responder and requesting an extension from the USCG and a new immunity. Give us a report on what’s next.

MARPOL Annex 1 IOPP Certi? cate. Preparing a struc-

There was a recent decision in the Macondo litigation tured plan for ballast water compliance by making mini- that was favorable to the cleanup companies because it con- mal commitments today will be good insurance against the

June 2016 14 MN

MN June16 Layout 1-17.indd 14 MN June16 Layout 1-17.indd 14 5/17/2016 11:21:51 AM5/17/2016 11:21:51 AM