Navigating Emission Control Areas: Operational, Legal, and U. S. Enforcement Risks of MARPOL Annex VI’ s Low Sulphur Fuel Requirements( continued from page 2)
system to be fully purged of all fuel oil exceeding the applicable sulphur limit before entering an ECA. Outside of ECAs, most ships that do not have scrubbers fitted primarily operate on very low sulphur fuel oil to meet the 0.50 percent global sulphur requirement. Upon approaching a designated ECA, such vessels undergo fuel switching to meet the more stringent emission requirements within the ECA of 0.1 percent sulphur content. Upon leaving the ECA, this process is essentially reversed.
The use of different fuel types has in more and more cases led to operational and safety challenges, which has inevitably translated into heightened legal and enforcement risks.
Vessels fitted with scrubbers must also comply with local port state discharge prohibitions or other requirements for scrubber washwater, such as the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’ s Vessel General Permit or other state discharge regulations in the United States, such as California, where the use of scrubbers is not permitted.
Operational Risks— ECA Transits The process of switching from higher sulphur fuels to lower sulphur fuels, and vice versa, must be undertaken with meticulous attention to detail by crew, following clear, standardized procedures to avoid operational failures.
Fuel changeovers, while necessary for regulatory compliance, pose safety considerations. The process typically involves a series of operations, including adjusting fuel systems, purging lines, and ensuring compatibility between the fuels. These challenges are well known, including the potential for fuel contamination, failure to properly control the temperature and viscosity of the marine fuel during transition, potential EGCS malfunction, and human error, among others. Experience has shown that these challenges, under some circumstances, can lead to loss of propulsion, loss of electrical power, engine damage, and other operational disruptions and mishaps.
Legal Risks Under U. S. Law— Reporting and Compliance When these challenges materialize into operational disruptions or other incidents, this inevitably triggers a variety of potential reporting requirements, particularly in the United States, and the attendant significant legal risks of not reporting when required by law to do so. In addition, any non-compliance with low sulphur fuel standards— and failure to maintain accurate records in connection with these and related emissions requirements— can also result in civil or criminal penalties under applicable U. S. law.
Key reporting requirements for owners and operators of vessels, and their crews, when calling on U. S. ports include:
• Marine Casualty Reporting: Depending on the facts and circumstances, failure of or damage to ship’ s equipment, loss of propulsion, loss of electrical power, or other similar occurrence associated with fuel changeovers and ECA compliance may be considered a reportable“ marine casualty” under 46 CFR § 4.05-1.
• Hazardous Condition Reporting: Apart from the marine casualty reporting requirement, depending on the facts and circumstances, such incidents and occurrences could also potentially be considered a reportable“ hazardous condition” under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act(“ PWSA”). A“ hazardous condition” is defined in 33 CFR § 160.2020 as“ any condition that may adversely affect the safety of any vessel, bridge, structure, or shore area or the environmental quality of any port, harbor, or navigable waterway of the United States. It may, but need not, involve collision, allision, fire, explosion, grounding, leaking, damage, injury or illness of a person aboard, or manning-shortage.”
Determining whether a particular incident qualifies as a reportable“ marine casualty” and / or“ hazardous condition” under U. S. law is a fact- specific determination. This evaluation is influenced by the nature and severity of the incident, its location, the conditions, the circumstances surrounding it, and various other relevant factors. The U. S. Coast Guard issued guidance on marine casualty and other reporting requirements in Navigation and Vessel
3 • MAINBRACE