Interferry to lobby MEPC on Baltic pollution and EEDI
Using its consultative status at the IMO, trade association Interferry is lobbying the Marine Environment Protection Committee’s 60th session in London (March 22-26) on two controversial issues, sewage discharges in the Baltic Sea and the impact of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) on ro-ro cargo vessels.
The Baltic Sea issue is being raised in a joint submission with the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), where Interferry is an associate member, and the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA). They are contesting a proposal by the nine member states of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) to designate the Baltic as a Special Area for the prevention of sewage pollution, which includes new criteria for the removal of nutrients from passenger ship discharges.
The three organisations say they recognise that the Baltic Sea is suffering significant damage from nutrients but claim that the main cause is run-off from over-fertilised agricultural land, with shipping contributing only 0.036% in nitrates and 0.35% in phosphates to the Baltic’s annual nutrient loading. Adding that the passenger sector contributes just a fraction of the shipping total, they complain that a vital part of the industry, carrying 89.5 million passengers a year in the area, is being disproportionately targeted before allowing enough time to assess agreed voluntary measures.
The submission also points out that the proposal imposes no requirement for adequate port reception facilities to be available for passenger ships, with only two Baltic ports offering sufficient capacity. In addition, it argues that HELCOM’s call for an entirely new discharge standard is unrealistic because existing advanced wastewater treatment systems cannot meet the proposed nutrient targets and manufacturers have indicated it will take at least three years to develop the required technology.
On the EEDI issue, designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships, Interferry is involved in three submissions reflecting widespread concerns that the proposals need refinement so that ro-ro vessels are not unfairly penalised for the specific power arrangements required in short sea as opposed to deep sea operations.
One submission, in association with the ICS, CLIA and IACS, drafts guidelines for the validation of electric power tables, which would replace the suggested standard format to take account of the intended operation of an individual ship.
Another paper, submitted together with the Community of European Shipyards’ Associations, comments on trial calculations for the three subgroups of ro-ro cargo ships, i.e. vehicle carriers, volume carriers and weight carriers. It argues that only vehicle carriers can be compared with standard ship types such as bulk carriers, tankers and container vessels in that they also operate mainly on international trans-ocean routes with relatively uniform design criteria and speed.
The conclusion is that the EEDI does not reflect the efficiency of the other subgroups, so a clear definition of design categories is important to avoid any hybrid ships which could be adapted for more than one group with varying baselines.
Finally, in a solo submission, Interferry calls for the wider application of power correction factor fj to enable enhanced safety features such as redundant propulsion systems, which it stresses are crucial in coping with loss of power and steering, “the two most common underlying technical failures in ship accidents”.
The paper notes that factor fj has so far only been applied to the surplus main engine power installed on ice-classed ships but should be permitted, not penalised, whenever required by passenger ship safety requirements such as Safe Return to Port.
