Installing Inert Gas on Chemical Tankers

The prospect of installing inert gas systems onsmaller chemical tankers came that bit closerfollowing a meeting of an IMO sub-committeeduring the middle of February*.The IMO had previously decided that the proposals regarding inert gasshould be dealt with first in relation to new vessels and depending onthe outcome of those talks, the possibility of requirements for existingvessels might be discussed.

A working group dealing with the issue at the recent FP 53 subcommitteemeeting concluded to the principle of requiring new oiltankers of below 20,000 dwt and new chemical tankers to apply inertgas systems.Although the working group’s mandate was only to discuss the issuein relation to new ships, Norway made it clear that they wished topursue what they referred to as the "product-based approach", in otherwords that inert gas systems should be applied to all vessels carryinglow flash cargoes regardless of age or size. Vocal support was given tothis approach in the Plenary by a number of other delegations,including Bahamas, Sweden, OCIMF and Intertanko.

While it was clear that, at least at this session, no reference could bemade to existing vessels, the proponents of this "product-basedapproach" tried to get at least one principle of it enshrined, by pushingfor there to be no lower size limit for the fitting of inert gas equipment,in other words that the requirement should apply to all new SOLAStankers (that is from 500 gt upward).No justificationThis was strongly opposed by a number of delegations, most notablyJapan.

Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) studies had been carried outinto the inert gas issue by both Japan and Norway, and while on mostissues these two studies reached completely different conclusions, bothdemonstrated that according to the principles of FSA there was nojustification for requiring inert gas to be applied to vessels of less than8,000 dwt.Norway dismissed this conclusion, claiming that it had only beenreached as a result of under-reporting of casualties and continued topress for inert gas to be applied to smaller vessels. Japan, however,argued that there should be a lower limit of 8,000 dwt. No agreementwas reached on this and discussions will continue at the next session ofthe sub-committee.

Raise awarenessThe International Parcel Tankers’ Association (IPTA)/InternationalChamber of Shipping (ICS) submissions to the sub-committee hadsought to raise awareness of issues that need to be taken intoconsideration in respect of the application of Nitrogen inert gas tochemical tankers, such as the potential increased risk of in-tankasphyxiation incidents; the complex operational demands placed onchemical tankers, which are very different from those of oil tankers;possible increases in vessels' port time and subsequent increases in portcongestion; and the increase in fuel use with associated increasedemissions.While some argued that none of these issues were of any significance,it was finally acknowledged that the benefits of inert gas need to beweighed against the potential downsides. The sub-committee report alsorecognised that it may not be appropriate simply to transpose the currentregulations for oil tankers over to chemical tankers and it might benecessary to develop a separate SOLAS regulation.

OppositionThis was opposed by the Bahamas, Norway, Intertanko and OCIMF,who supported the same carriage requirements for both oil andchemical tankers.There is still a lot more work to be done in hammering out the detailsand it has been agreed that two more sessions of the FP sub-committeewill be needed to complete this work.This issue is on the programme for the IPTA/Navigate conferencebeing held on 10-11th March, and we would expect to see a livelydebate.*Tanker Operator is indebted to IPTA’s Janet Strode forsupplying this appraisal of the recent meeting. The prosand cons will be covered in a future issue of TankerOperator, following the conference.

Source: Tanker Operator