Reports to meetings

During the meeting cycle 2005/2006, the Contracting Parties reported at their meetings on the significant incidents that they handled during that period. The summaries of these reports can be found here.

Extract from the Summary Record of BONN 2006 (BONN 06/13/1)

U864

Norway reported on the problems resulting from a U-boat sunk in its waters during World War II. The U864 had been sunk on 9 February 1945 on the west coast of Norway , near Mongstad. The wreck was lying in two parts in about 150 metres of water. Research in the archives had shown that it was carrying 65 tonnes of mercury, packed in bottles containing about 50kg each. The wreck had been located in 2003 by the KV Tyr. Tests had been carried out for contamination of the sediment and fish in the vicinity. Some contamination had been identified, but it was well below the normal limits above which concentrations of mercury cause concern. In 2005, a firm of consultants (Geoconsult) had been commissioned to examine the wreck and options for action. One bottle of mercury had been recovered from outside the wreck. It had been in good condition. In 2006, further work had been carried out to see whether it would be possible to remove the mercury-containing bottles from the wreck and bring them to the surface. Unfortunately, the wreck had shown signs of movement. If it did move, there was a risk that it would slide down into a nearby canyon, 60 metres deeper. This option had therefore been ruled out. This left the options of bringing the whole wreck to the surface with its cargo still inside, or capping the wreck with inert material. The two options were now being intensively studied, as there had been considerable media interest in the wreck and the pollution that it threatened.

Lebanon

The EC reported on the actions taken to assist Lebanon with marine oil spills during the recent war. The Lebanese Minister of the Environment had sought help from the EU Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC). The MIC activated the satellite charter “space and major disasters” to obtain satellite images of the area and worked also on the basis of satellite images analysed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC). The request had been for both equipment and experts. By 9 August 2006, a team of Danish experts seconded to the MIC had been deployed to the Lebanon . Two further teams had replaced these in sequence up to 30 September 2006. Norway had provided equipment, and this had been the first on site. Finland , France , Germany , Italy , Spain and Sweden had also been involved. Given the involvement of other organisations, a lot of coordination had been needed. The European Commission had further adopted on 30 August an exceptional programme complement of €10 million to the MEDA 2006 assistance programme for Lebanon . During the next EGEMP meeting on 17 and 18 October 2006, a specific day will be devoted to the monitoring activities of the Lebanon pollution.

In subsequent discussion, the following main points were made:

1. Norway commented that the value of BONN training was shown by the fact that the Danish teams had had no problems in using the Norwegian equipment;

2. France had received requests for assistance from REMPEC and the Government of Lebanon. During the military operations, the French Government set up a cell of expertise through REMPEC. This was organised by CEDRE. Once the fighting had stopped, France sent a team of experts and some equipment to coordinate the clean-up operations and to train the teams;

3. the UK said that they had evaluated the request to the MIC and had been considering sending aerial surveillance aircraft. However, problems over ensuring the insurance of the crew had prevented this;

4. Sweden said that initially they had had to review the question of insurance of personnel to be sent. Although the question had been solved, this is an example of the type of national problem that could be of interest to discuss generally, in order to find out how it had been dealt with by the various ministries. The EU “lessons to be learned” meeting might be a good forum for this;

5. questions were asked about the way in which the various national organisations had financed their involvement. Norway said that equipment donated to Lebanon was funded by a special budget established for this purpose. The total sum was NOK 10 000 000 including the transportation of the equipment to Lebanon . Germany said that they had drawn on their ordinary funds. Denmark said that the deployment of experts had been financed within the normal state budget by a transfer to the Ministry of Defence from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs special emergency budget. France said that the finance had come from the normal budgets of the various Ministries. The EC said that the MIC experts had been financed from a special budget. Sweden said that the action taken was financed by the authorities involved, but that if the cost had been higher, there was the possibility to have finance from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

6. France said that the main problem had been in obtaining an overall picture. The pollution was happening in a war zone, and this made a general survey extremely difficult. The EC confirmed that establishing the overall picture had been difficult. It would have been helpful to have had a preliminary mission to work out what was needed. This sort of question would be considered by the evaluation meeting.

Maritime Lady

Germany reported on the sinking of the MV Maritime Lady on 5 December 2005. The Maritime Lady (80 metres, carrying 1805 tonnes of fertiliser) had been leaving Hamburg for the North Sea, when she was in collision with the Arctic Ocean (133 metres) coming out of the Kiel Canal. The Maritime Lady had sunk in 15 minutes. The crew had been successfully rescued. Although the water police had been guarding the site of the wreck, an hour and a half later the Sunny Blossom had collided with the wreck and run aground. Half-an-hour later the CCME (Havariekommando) had taken over control. The CCME tug Neuwerk had secured the wrecked Maritime Lady. This had been necessary because the vessel, although capsized and grounded, was still partly floating and swinging with the tide. On 6 December the owners of the Maritime Lady had renounced ownership. On 8 December, the CCME had let a contract for the removal and disposal of the vessel: the contract was a comprehensive one covering all aspects. On 12 December, the vessel had been lifted and towed into dock at Cuxhaven . With the aid of seagoing crane-catamaran and sheerlegs, the vessel had been righted on 15 December, and work started on removing the bunkers. Some oil escaped, which caused considerable local concern because of Cuxhaven ’s tourist industry. The oil had been contained by booms, but there had been problems at the harbour mouth because the tidal current ran at 3 – 5 knots. By 17 December, the work had been completed and the vessel removed – only 11 days after the incident.

UK incidents

The UK gave a short report on a number of incidents:

1. in the last year, there had only been 25 incidents in the UK pollution control zone, and only 8 of these had required the Representative of the Secretary of State (SOSREP) to intervene with directions to a ship;

2. the Calypso was a cruise vessel that had broken down in May 2006 in the English Channel . It had been taken into tow by the Anglo-French ETV;

3. the Ece was a cargo vessel carrying phosphoric acid (for fertiliser) which had sunk to the north of the Cotentin peninsula. The incident had been managed by the French. Concern had been expressed about the effects of the fertiliser on the marine environment. Two surveys had been carried out by Plymouth Marine Laboratory and the Southampton Oceanographic Centre. These had shown that there had been rapid dilution of the material, and no change in pH could be observed. This had been confirmed by the use of sampling from a vessel of occasion (the ferry Pride of Bilbao ) which passed regularly more or less over the site of the wreck and had towed automatic sampling gear. France said that the Manche Plan had worked well;

4. the Skagen and the Samskip Courier had collided off the east coast of England . The former had been towed into harbour at Hull . It had subsequently sunk in its berth. The cargo had been removed, and the vessel successfully re-floated;

5. the UK was in the process of letting a contract for a consultancy to survey potentially polluting wrecks in the whole of the UK marine pollution control zone. This would be a joint project between the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It would be mainly a desk study.

Extract from the Summary Record of OTSOPA 2006 (OTSOPA 06/13/1)

France

Ece

On the night of 30 to 31 January 2006, the Maltese bulk carrier the General Grot Rowecki, transporting 26,000 tonnes of phosphates from Safi in Morocco to Police in Poland, collided with the Marshall Islands chemical tanker the Ece en route from Casablanca in Morocco to Ghent in Belgium (OTSOPA 06/7/1).

The accident occurred 50 nautical miles (90 km) west of Cherbourg , near the Casquet Traffic Separation Scheme in international waters. The Ece, transporting 10,000 tonnes of phosphoric acid, developed a leak and a significant list. The regional marine rescue coordination centre (CROSS-Jobourg) coordinated the crew rescue operation, in collaboration with the British Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The 22 crew members were safely evacuated to Guernsey . The tug boat the Abeille Liberté was sent to the scene of the accident.

A pollution risk analysis was carried out. In addition to the cargo, according to information provided by the ship owner, there were 70 tonnes of propulsion fuel (IFO 180), 20 tonnes of marine diesel and 20 tonnes of lubricating oil onboard. The General Grot Rowecki, whose bluff bow was slightly damaged, was able to continue her journey.

The assessment teams did not note any pollution. The Ece showed a 25° stabilized list to port and was no longer operating. When the assessment had been completed, the vessel was taken in tow by the tug the Abeille Liberté, bound for the port of Le Havre . In the course of towing, the Ece sank 70 m deep 50 nautical miles west of the point of The Hague. The wreck lies in international waters, on the continental shelf of the United Kingdom , in the French exclusive economic zone and the French pollution response zone. The Manche Plan was activated the day the Ece sank (1 February) and worked perfectly between France and Great Britain .

The main lessons to be learned from this incident were that:

a.       international scientific and operational cooperation is needed in order to fight the threat posed by chemical pollutants;

b.       pumping fuel oil, lubricating oil and toxic chemicals (likely to create toxic clouds) is strongly recommended;

c.       controlled release of soluble non-toxic and non-bioaccumulable cargo is an acceptable option, depending on environmental sensibility;

d.       there is a real need for the authorities to have precise knowledge of products’ physicochemical characteristics.

In replying to questions made by the floor, France informed OTSOPA about some of the equipment used, in particular a small tele-operated vessel with sensors for detecting risks to the air and water from the chemicals released.

Belgium

Belgium presented information about an incident that took place on 7 March 2006 involving a Panamanian cargo vessel that left Antwerp bound for Ghent (located nearby). Instead of proceeding straight to her destination, the vessel first went to sea with the intention of discharging cargo residues at sea (the previous cargo was the fertilizer “potash”). The Belgian authorities, alerted by the strange behaviour of the vessel, refused permission for the discharge in Belgian waters. The vessel then moved on to French waters where she received the same refusal. The vessel finally obtained the permission of the UK authorities to discharge her cargo residues at a location somewhere south of Land’s End ( Cornwall ).

The legal basis for Belgium’s decision to forbid the discharge of cargo residues in the Belgian part of the North Sea is in Directive 2000/59/EC on Port Reception Facilities combined with provisions of MARPOL 73/78 - Annex V. Belgium informed the meeting of a recent amendment adding cargo residues to the list of wastes covered by the Annex V (MEPC resolution 116.51) under “garbage category 4”. The North Sea is defined as a “special area” in Annex V, and this means that the discharge of cargo residues is forbidden in the North Sea area.

Belgium pointed out the practical consequences for the operational surveillance and detection of discharges of cargo residues in the North Sea in violation of MARPOL Annex V.

In the UK ’s view, if there was no risk of environmental damage, the ship owners should also be heard. Belgium explained that this ban was only applicable to special areas under MARPOL regulations (such as the North Sea ). In Belgium ’s view the practice was against the spirit of the EC Directive on Port Reception facilities which encourages vessels to discharge their cargo and waste residues at port reception facilities rather than dumping them at sea.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands briefly reported on three incidents: the collision of the mv. Michelle with mv. Kiefernwald; the loss of over 50 containers by mv. P&O Nedloyd Mondriaan; and the loss of 6 special containers by mv Rasill. When all three incidents have been finalised, and claims settled, the Netherlands will forward a more detailed report.

In August 2005 the mv. Michelle collided with mv. Kiefernwald in the shipping lane West Friesland . This is a so-called IMO mandatory routing. As a result of the collision the mv. Michelle sank. However, the aft part (including accommodation) came to rest on the seabed while the bow remained on the sea surface. The Owners/P&I club acknowledged liability and ordered salvors to remove the bunkers and the wreck. In fact the P&I club rejected the term “wreck” as the vessel was only partly sunken. The cargo consisted of coal.

A first removal attempt failed. The Government decided to refloat the vessel by pumping air into the hull, to move the wreck outside the shipping lane and to sink her in the separation zone with the objective of ordering a total wreck removal. This was the interesting part from the legal perspective. If the Government lifted the ship and sank it in another location, and did not go on to remove the wreck, third parties might have initiated legal proceedings within the framework of the London Dumping Convention.

Another issue was the fact that the owners did not want to abandon the ship, but agreed to sell the vessel to the Government. Administrative measures were taken to remove the ship from the register in Germany and to register it in the Netherlands as “wreck of Michelle”. Wreck removal still has to be completed this summer.

On 10 February, the containership P&O Nedloyd Mondriaan lost over 50 containers north of the Wadden Islands . The containers carried many types of cargo, including shoes, and these washed over the beach of Terschelling . Later it was found through investigation that McGregor automatic container fittings had failed and opened. Again P&I club accepted responsibility and asked the Rijkswaterstaat to perform a survey to locate and identify containers that were then removed.

© Copyright Bonn Agreement 1998- - All rights Reserved