 September 10th, 2003
- Possibly one of the least considered jobs, yet a vitally important one, in a maritime crisis is that of the salvage. "People seem to look at Salvors as undertakers," says J.Arnold Witte,
President of the American Salvage Association. "Nobody wants to think about us until they want something taken away."
When a marine oil spill or ship grounding crisis occurs, it is true that the salvage crew are not the ones who receive media attention.
Although their job in saving cargo or removing the ship is critical, traditionally the public forgets the salvage industry once the
immediate crisis is over. Someone eventually takes care of the ship, but by then all cameras have turned to other newsworthy events. The American Salvage Association (ASA) is particularly concerned with this "last-considered"
phenomenon as it pertains to environmental regulations. At the National Maritime Salvage Conference in Arlington, VA criticism has centered upon the last set of environmental
regulations due to emerge out of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 or OPA 90. The "forgotten" regulations are the U.S. Salvage and Marine Firefighting requirements (33 CFR part 155). The Salvage regulations called for in OPA 90 pertain to vessel response plans requiring ship
owners to choose a responsible salvage firm in the event of a crisis situation. Among other items, the regulations recommend vessel owners choose salvage firms with demonstrated
professional capabilities. Originally mandated by Congress for enactment by 1994, the USCG has yet to finalize the salvage provisions of OPA 90. Witte and others argue that the salvage industry needs these regulations to be passed in order
to provide their industry with governmental justification and support. The framework as outlined in the most recent rulemaking (May 2002) will insure emergency response is better
than it has been before. It will serve as a measure of professional capabilities for qualified salvage firms, they believe. Not everyone speaking at the conference agreed. Joseph Cox, President of the Chamber of
Shipping of America felt the rulemaking still had faults. He said the regulations set up a paradigm deciding who pays for an incident and he disagreed with the inflexibility of the
payment structure. He also believed it was inappropriate for the salvage regulations to apply to all ships when they were originally designed and debated for tanker vessels. Although present at the conference in abundance, USCG representatives were unable to
comment on the rulemaking. Capt. Joseph Saboe, Chief Office of Response for the USCG, said the USCG was not permitted to discuss specifics of the rulemaking until another public
proposal was issued. He did say that recent delays were due to the emphasis on maritime security and related regulations issued last July. Officially the salvage regulations status is
classified as "undetermined." Saboe would not state when or if the next rulemaking proposal would be published. In the meantime, the ASA is committed to furthering their industry through cooperative
efforts among its members and by voluntary codes of professionalism. They are sponsoring the National Maritime Salvage Conference with the intention of educating industry,
government and the public regarding the role of the marine salvor in protecting life and the marine environment. A brief summary of selected presentations are outlined below: Reports on the Current Status of Maritime Security Federal Perspective
Chet Lunnar, Office of Maritime & Land Security, Transportation Security Administration
Email: chet.lunnar@dhs.gov
Providing a Federal perspective regarding Maritime Security, Lunnar outlined the recently enacted Marine Transportation Security Act (MTSA). A direct result of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, the MTSA determines how the U.S. will combat the very serious threat that currently exists in the maritime system.
He described the National Transportation Security Plan, which deals with incident prevention, mitigation and response. It identifies weaknesses and determines key vulnerabilities. The
plan will develop risk-based responses. Lunnar mentioned a number of federal maritime initiatives including:
- Operation Safe Commerce to analyze current security
- Synergy – which establishes a seamless transportation for passengers from air to other cargo modes
- Transportation Security Cards
- Port Security Grants including US$ 170 million for 2004
"It is critical that security in one mode must be coordinated with ALL transportation modes", said Lunnar. The system must insure linkages between transportation modes are seamless
and the security is consistent throughout the entire transportation system. Port Perspective
William Nurthen, Manager Strategic Support Initiative, Port Authority of NY/NJ
Email:
wnurthen@panynj.gov Nurthern concentrated his thoughts on the ability of ports to meet security threats with  maximum effort without a loss in the logistical flow of
transportation. Hailing from the Port of NY/NJ which handles over 6,000 containers/day and moves over 10,000 people/day, he speaks from the experience of the third largest port in the U.S.
Security Challenges facing Ports include:
- Maximizing security without loss of cargo flow.
- Understanding the threats and vulnerabilities.
- Identifying who is in charge during a crisis event and the Ports responsibilities.
- Where to get funding for improvements
- Getting accurate information on vessels and cargo
- Finding new technologies for areas such as tracking cargo and identifying vessels.
Cargo security (in particular containers) will be the toughest challenge Ports will face says Nurthern. The biggest impediment to compliance is currently the lack of funding. The Port of
NY/NJ has only been granted about 10% of their funding requests since 9/11, he said. To minimally comply with the MTSA guidelines, it is expected that the Port of NY/NJ will need about US$ 32 million by July 2004.
Industry PerspectiveMargaret Doyle, Manager Chemicals, INTERTANKO Email: Margaret.doyle@intertanko.com
In contrast to Lunnar and Nurthern, Doyle discussed some of the problems that vessel owners and operators have found with the MTSA legislation and regulations. She felt that industry's most serious concerns are:
- Harmonization with international legislation – specifically she felt U.S. ports must recognize the International Flag State Certification of compliance.
- Communication – vessel operators need to know when changes in security levels have been enacted, in particular when high security levels (MARSEC level 3) have been imposed.
- MARSEC Level 3 – Doyle felt this determination will be a "logistical nightmare" especially since ship owners will be responsible to perform security services such as armed patrols and underwater surveys.
- Seafarers Identification and rights – the crews of ships in ports are being treated unfairly as terrorists.
- Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) – Doyle felt the current scheme to enact systems to automatically identify ships as they transverse the globe is flawed. It
provides limited security benefits, high cost and presents security dangers to ships if Masters are not permitted to turn off the AIS when they feel ship security is compromised.
Doyle noted a particular conundrum with the MTSA regulations and current procedures. Seafarers are the ones who will be required to perform security responsibilities around ships
in port should a high maritime security alert be enacted. Yet, these are the same crew members that continue to be denied rights such as disembarking their own vessel. How can
we rely on ship's officers and crews for protection yet habitually treat them poorly?
Additional reports to be added soon include:Wreck Removal – Federal, Environmental and Salvage Concerns
United States Salvage Regulations – USCG, Vessel Owner and Salvor's Perspectives International Salvage Regulations – The United Kingdom's SOSREP system |
