World Bunkering > News > Summer 2010 > Legal Eagle

Intertanko has reacted strongly to a move by Italian port Trieste to fine vessels using fuels with a sulphur content exceeding 0.1% by mass with effect from 3 March 2010. Many owners and others in the shipping industry had assumed that there was some sort of period of grace before EU port state control authorities would enforce EU Directive 2005/33/EC. However, IBIA had warned the industry in early February that this was not the case.

IBIA chief executive Ian Adams said then: “We have heard various rumours, including one which suggests that the deadline for implementation of the EU directive has been postponed by six months. Nothing could be further from the truth. The directive came into force on January 1, and applies to all ships operating to EU ports. Ships are not exempt on the ground that the fuel changeover is unsafe because modifications have not been made to its boilers, or to the ship itself. Clearly in such cases the expectation is not that the ship should engage in an unsafe practice but simply that it will not berth. Similarly, there is no automatic dispensation for ships which have made arrangements to carry out the necessary modifications but have not yet implemented them.”

He added that although the European Commission has signalled its awareness of the potential dangers associated with the switch-over to low-sulphur fuel while in port, and has recommended to member states that they enforce the regulations with a degree of flexibility for a transitional period in those cases where there is detailed evidence of the existence of an approved plan for vessel and/or boiler modification, the directive had nevertheless come into force and EU member states were obliged to enforce it.

It is now clear that Trieste is taking a tough line on the issue. Intertanko says the port has stated that offenders will be prosecuted with fine of between E5,000 and 150,000, usually 30,000 for the first offence. There will be no further exemptions allowed and those that had been granted have now been cancelled.

Intertanko claims: “This means that ship and port safety may be sacrificed purely in order to generate local harbour funds.” The tanker industry body notes that Trieste Port does go on to say that a reduction of the fine may be requested according to the European Recommendation (2009/1020/EU of 21.12.2009) within 30 days from the notification of fine, showing evidence of steps taken by shipoperator, class and boiler manufacturer to complete the work of enabling the vessel to burn fuel according to the EU Directive.

However, Intertanko cautions, once a fine reduction application has been submitted, Trieste Port points out that the supporting documents are subject to evaluation by the officer on duty. If the evidence produced is considered insufficient to merit a reduction of the fine to the minimum, then the fine could rise to the maximum set by law – E50,000.

Moreover, if a vessel which has been fined calls at Trieste again without being in compliance with the EU Directive in question, the vessel, its owner/operator and its master will be banned from entering all Italian ports.

In Intertanko’s view, ships which are not yet modified to use 0.1% sulphur MGO, and which do not receive permission to consume low-sulphur HFO in their boilers, have three possible courses of action, all of which penalise the owner/operator for headlining safety:

• they may choose to use 0.1% MGO and do their utmost to manage the associated risks;
• they may emphasise safety and use low-sulphur HFO in their boilers but face prosecution and fines;
• they may simply refuse to call at Trieste until modifications have been completed.

In its advice, IBIA said that “the expectation is not that the ship should engage in an unsafe practice but simply that it will not berth”.