Lower sulphur, higher risk? California Ina recent eter to vessel operators the US Coast Guard (USC) pot captain for San France has dra altention ta an increase in the number of vessels ‘experiencing propulsion losses and fuel-elsted ‘equipment flues since 1 July 2008, This was when the California Air Resources Board implemented a Sate law requiring ocean-going vessels to use lowi= sulphur marine astilates when operating within. ‘Unaatical miles ofthe state seine The ecent propulsion fares and instances of erate engine perfamance reiting a switching from higher to lower sulphur content fuels nave been most prevalent during siow-speed manoewring, The eter recognises the chaleiges face by shipowners in ‘overcoming the various design, performance and operational problems that arse from the fuel switchover, and urges owners to take proactive rmexsvres to improve ful-swtehing safety. Fk would appear ely that in the event of a major ineient in Calfeni, in which fel switehing i found to be @ contiibutary factor, the vessel procedures, ‘raining ard maintenance regimes will come under lose srutny As suc, fw-sulphut uel siten-over procedures should be comprehensive, incorporated into safety manayement and planned maintenance systems and based on equipment manufacturers recommendations ad industry best practice Further information spout USCC recemmeniatons on ‘uel suitching isreviedin te ndusty News pagesof the Cbs website werw.nepio.com/publicaions/industynews/egel/ workdwite/634/ European low limit The European Union's marine fuels iectve of 2005, hh Introduces 014 sulphrimi on all marine fuels for ships berthed at EU ports (including at anchor) needed to be enacted by member stites by 1 anary2010,Homever the Incerntional Convention forthe Prevention af Pltion from Ships (MARPOL) annex Vi requtes that 4 0.1% sulphur mit for emission contro) areas (ECA) be implemented on ‘ anvary 2018. ‘Assuch the EU directive sts Ouse the interations framework. This raises problems.as fr as wesel design ‘and moicaion sre eancered Te iementation ofthe directive wl requ that vessels ang to EU ort willbe required to cary thee grades of uel, hich many vessels will be unable ta sehieve de to ‘heireunent fue ol tank configurations, Te 0 Companies International Marine Farum and Imertanko have been active on behalf of their memes in highlighting concers in respect af these requirements. They have identifies, in partnership. with boiler manufactures ang clasifcation saci, numer of operational ad techie problems in respect of the new 0.186 limit when alongside at ports Jn particular the ational numberof evades of fue! carried increases the ehance of fuel incompatibility and may ea ta loss power to the aay engines uring cargo operation. leading toaninereased riko oils Another safety concem is the risk af 3 furnace ‘explosion due to flame failure arising out the ‘changeaver from heavy fuel ol to marine gas ol In boilers. Many boilers require mosifieation and pe1sonnel ll need to ue appropriately tnd. The boiler modifications and personnel taining wl take time and it sunkely they eas be achieved inthe sort time avaliable before the implementation of the directive ise The EU has recagised these legitimate concerns and Issued a recommendation to EU member states tht invites them hile enfocing the crectv, consider ‘the existence of detailed evidence ofthe steps Taken by ships ro ensure soe compliance with the desi Member states may consider the existence of an approved retrofit plan when assessing the degree of penalties to be applied ta non-camplying ships ‘The wording ofthe recommendation is somenhat arpbiguous ad there iho guarantee that port states will adop aunifern approach in implementing the recommendation. As such Members should check with their agents in EU states a5 to the situation prevalent that state. Farther information about boiler sofety is provided inthe ndusteyNewspagecof the Cubs website: warrepin.com/publctionsindustynens