Table of Contents

The Casualty of the Oil Tanker ErikaMG 3110 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN SHIPPING

Professor: Dr. Iliana Christodoulou-Varotsi 25/4/2012

ID NUMBER: 116233

Introduction……………………………………………………………………….......3

Main body/ Question 1………………………………………………………………..3

Question 2…………………………………………………………………………......7

Question 3……………………………………………………………………………..8

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...10

Reference list………………………………………………………………………...11

2

Introduction

Throughout this project, I will be referring to the casualty of the Maltese oil tanker

Erika that broke in two parts and sank on December the 12th 1999, remaining in

history as one of the most catastrophic maritime accidents due to the major oil spill

that polluted at least 400 kilometers of shoreline causing a major devastation to the

natural environment. Furthermore, I will identify, describe and assess the regulations

and rules that apply to this enormous casualty, in addition to analyzing and evaluating

the problems that arose from it. Lastly, I will propose and evaluate measures that if

have not been already taken, should be taken to avoid similar accidents.

Main Body

1. Identify, describe, and assess the regulations

applicable to the incident under consideration.

When the 25-year old single hull oil tanker Erika flying a Maltese flag, broke in

two on December the12th 1999, 40 miles off the coast of Brittany, France, at least

19.800 tones of heavy fuel oil were spilled, causing a massive damage to the

environment. Before the Erika accident, measures to ensure safety at sea did exist, but

were not that strict. More specifically, with the goal of battling marine pollution, the

3

IMO (International Maritime Organization) had put together a series of conventions

such as the International MARPOL convention for the Prevention of Pollution from

Ships that was implemented in 1973. (Europa, 2007) The most important aspect of

this convention was/is the protection of the environment and in order for this to be

achieved several measures should be taken. Such measures included, the “gradual

phasing-out of single hull oil tankers and their replacement by double hull tankers or

tankers of equivalent design”, also more thorough inspections on the condition of old

vessels should be done. (Europa, 2007) In addition, traffic separation systems had

already been implemented in areas that shipping was more concentrated, in order to

avoid collisions between ships. Regardless of these measures, it seemed that the

IMO’s work was not enough to ensure maritime safety due to the fact that they lacked

a control mechanism to supervise the way the rules were applied throughout the

world. Consequently, the European Council asked the Commission to come up with

proposals that would help reduce the oil pollution at sea. Around mid-90s the Council

introduced an organization at Community level that would help ensure strict

application of international conventions and implementation of measures, along with

the ratification of several other important instruments. Such instruments include,

Directive 95/21/EC on port state control, which deals with inspections and contains

specific requirements for inspections of oil tankers, also Council Directive 94/57/EC

which contains standards and rules on ship inspections, furthermore Regulation (EC)

No 2099/2002 which establishes a committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships (COSS) and adjusts the Regulations on maritime safety and the

prevention of pollution from ships and lastly Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception

facilities. (Europa, 2007)

4

Coming back to the Erika casualty, the investigations that were performed on the

accident from the French Government and the Maltese maritime authorities,

demonstrated that “the age of the vessel, corrosion, insufficient maintenance and

inadequate inspections were all strong contributing factors to the structural failure of

the ship”. (IMO) After this, it was self-evident that the existing regulatory framework

regarding marine safety and prevention of marine pollution was not enough and

stricter measures needed to be put forward. Therefore, in March 2000, the first set of

measures called the ‘ERIKA I’ package that was the European Commission’s reaction

to the incident was introduced and according to the book Maritime Safety Law and

Policies of the European Union and the United States of America: Antagonism or

Synergy? “included three series of measures related to Port State control, the activities

of classification societies and the phasing-out of single hull oil tankers”.

(Christodoulou-Varotsi, 2009, p. 34) Then there was the ‘ERIKA II’ package,

another set of measures that introduced a Community traffic monitoring and

information system for vessels, as well as a European Maritime Safety Agency for the

prevention of maritime casualties. The Erika II package also included a proposal for

the setting up of European Pollution Damage Compensation Fund but eventually they

did not proceed with it. Later on, in 2005 the ‘ERIKA III’ package was presented that

would contain proposals for new European legislation and adjustments to the existing

ones. (Christodoulou-Varotsi, 2009) Continuing, the response of the IMO to the Erika

accident was also significant. The IMO speeded up the process of the phasing-out of

single hull tankers with a very strict timetable for both pre-MARPOL and MARPOL

single hull tankers, (regulation 20 in the revised Annex 1, entered into force January 1

2007, MARPOL 73/78) which is a development of high significance. (IMO) More

specifically, “In October 2000, the IMO adopted amendments to raise by 50% the

5

limits of compensation payable to victims of pollution by oil from oil tankers under

the CLC Convention and the IOPC Fund, also in December of the same year the

IMO’s maritime safety committee adopted amendments to the guidelines on the

enhanced program of inspections during surveys of bulk carriers and oil tankers and

in addition IMO took action on several other operational matters based on a list of

measures aimed at enhancing safety and minimizing the risk of oil pollution.” (IMO)

Another IMO International Convention that pre-existed the Erika incident, is the

Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS, 1974) which contains specific requirements for tankers

such as, more strict fire safety provision than other dry bulk vessels and it seems that

while all of Erika’s crew were rescued, the ship did not comply with such

requirements as its safety equipment had been found to be in very bad shape.

(Pamborides, 1999, p. 85) (Corrosion Doctors) All the above conventions and

mesaures/regulations apply to the specific case.

Both the actions of The EC and the IMO are very critical to securing maritime

safety, but the problem is that they should exist before the actual incident happened.

Out of what I have read so far about the Erika case, Erika suffered a structural

problem which happened due to corrosion of the 25-year old tanker, which is

something that under normal circumstances should have been foreseen during

surveys/inspections and that, poses a lot of questions to Erika’s classification society

(RINA) that performed the surveys. Whatever the case, when the accident happened

the measures regarding the prevention of marine pollution and generally the surveys

and inspections that took place were insufficient and it is unacceptable that it took

such a huge ecological devastation to trigger new and stricter regulations that would

not allow such disasters to take place, instead of them existing all along.

6

2. Analyze and critically evaluate the problems, which

arise from the above-mentioned case.

When Erika broke in two and sank 60 nautical miles off the French coast of

Britanny, about 19.800 tonnes of heavy fuel oil from the overall 31.000 that the tanker

was carrying, were spilled polluting 400 kilometers of shoreline. Consequently, the

impact on the local natural environment and economy was enormous. The magnitude

of the environmental catastrophe was huge, considering that despite the rescue

operations that took place, between 80.000 and 150.000 seabirds were killed due to

the oil spill. (Cadiou, 2004) The birds’ wings were covered in thick black oil and

therefore they were unable to fly and died of poisoning. (BBC NEWS, 2000) As a

result of the massive environmental impact from the oil spill, the local economy was

largely affected too and as a result, there was a large number of compensation claims.

Significant coastal fisheries, marine culture and tourism resources were largely

affected resulting in the reduction of incomes from tourism, as well as the incomes

from fishing, not to mention the fact that certain sea products such as crabs and

oysters could not be traded anymore due to prohibition. (Corrosion Doctors) In

addition, salt production areas that exist there were significantly affected by the oil

pollution. (ITOPF) We can therefore conclude that the local populations were

severely damaged both environmentally and economically and would take many years

to recover from such a disaster. Obviously, the Erika incident brought to the surface

7

the problem of maritime safety and the fact that there was lack of strict measures and

regulations that would prevent such severe accidents from happening. This casualty,

acted as a wake up call both to the IMO and more importantly to the European

Commission, who as I explained above introduced new and more effective legislation

in order to avoid such disasters in the future. The point is, that the Erika oil spill was

one of the worst ecological catastrophes in the history of Europe affecting not only the

environment, but also the lives of so many people. Of course, in cases like Erika’s oil

spill the costs of the clean-up operations were enormous, as it is mentioned in the case

it was estimated at 46 million Euros. Lastly, it is only logical that the respective

parties that were involved in the Erika incident such as the owner of the vessel

Giussepe Savarese, the charterer TotalFina, the vessel’s classification society Rina

and other parties suffered the consequences (penalties). (SSY Consultancy &

Research Ltd., 2001)

3. Propose and evaluate measures with the aim of

avoiding similar incidents.

As I already mentioned in the case, the Erika casualty was the cause for new

legislation and regulations regarding maritime safety and prevention of marine

pollution to be introduced. The proposals that were made and the measures that were

taken after the accident should have been enforced strictly long before the accident

took place, since it is widely known that especially tanker vessels can cause severe

8

pollution to the marine environment if something goes wrong. Firstly, the phasing-

out of single hull tankers should have been started and completed within a much

smaller period of time than it was scheduled. This is not for the reason that a double

hull vessel would prevent the accident from happening, but if an accident did happen

it reduces the chances that the oil would be spilled and consequently reduces the

chances of pollution. So, it is a necessity for tanker vessels that carry such hazardous

cargoes to be double hulled. Secondly and most importantly, inspections and surveys

on ships should be made stringently and following word by word the regulations that

exist. It is unacceptable and I will admit terrifying, to think that classification societies

whose job is to perform surveys on vessels and according to their findings they

consider if the vessels are seaworthy and cargo worthy to perform voyages, cannot

make the right judgment on whether a vessel can perform a certain voyage. In the

Erika case, the tanker was obviously not seaworthy, it was old, and it was found that it

had severe corrosion, but nonetheless it was considered as safe and was allowed to

perform voyages. The measures that should be taken in order for classification

societies to perform their job in a strictly precise way need to be tough, in addition to

having more stringent quality standards, so that even vessels that are registered under

Flags of Convenience that have very low quality standards, cannot disregard them.

Lastly, with regard to port state control the inspections that are performed should

become more thorough especially to vessels that are of a certain age and have a

history of deficiencies or detentions.

9

Conclusion

In conclusion, after having performed a thorough research on the case of the Erika

oil spill, I hope that after such a huge impact that it had both on the environment and

local society and economy, cases like this will not happen again, since now the

regulations that exist and the measures that have been taken-as I explained in the first

question-are much more strict, leaving no choice to the respective parties involved but

to follow them even if it costs more, rather than looking for the cheapest solution and

end up destroying the environment and other people’s lives.

1995 words

10

References list

1) BBC NEWS. (2000, 1 5). Oil spill damage worsens. Retrieved 4 18, 2012, from

BBC NEWS: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/592378.stm

2) Cadiou, B. (2004). Ecological impact of the "Erika" oil spill: Determination of the

geographic origin of the affected common guillemots. Aquatic Living Resources .

3) Christodoulou-Varotsi, I. (2009). Maritime Safety Law and Policies of the

European Union and the United States of America: Antagonism or Synergy? Berlin-

Heidelberg: Springer.

4) Corrosion Doctors. (n.d.). Environmental Catastrophe: Sinking of the Erika.

Retrieved 4 18, 2012, from Corrosion Doctors:

corrosion-doctors.org/Pollution/erika.htm

5) Europa. (2007, 9 5). Maritime safety: Erika I package. Retrieved 4 17, 2012, from

europa.eu:

europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport/waterborne_transport/124230_en.htm

6) IMO. (n.d.). Tanker safety. Retrieved 4 17, 2012, from International Maritime

Organization: www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_id=155#7

7) ITOPF. (n.d.). ITOPF- Information services- Data & Statistics- Case Histories-

Erika. Retrieved 4 18, 2012, from THE INTERNATIONAL TANKER OWNERS

POLLUTION FEDERATION LIMITED: www.itopf.com/information-services/data-

and-statistics/case-histories/elist.html

11

8) Pamborides, G. (1999). INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LAW Legislation and

Enforcement. Athens, Greece: Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers and Kluwer Law

International.

9) SSY Consultancy & Research Ltd. (2001). The cost to users of substandard

shipping.

12