Advertisement

Oil Pollution: Sustainable Ships and Shipping

  • Nikolaos P. VentikosEmail author
  • Konstantinos Louzis
  • Panagiotis Sotiralis
Chapter

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to highlight the most significant attributes ofoil pollution in the context of the sustainable shipping. The chapter presents the current legislative framework for the environmental protection against oil pollution and depicts the utility of the implementation of risk control options (RCOs). Furthermore, the measures of containment of the oil pollution cost are illustrated along with the incorporation of the Environmental Risk Evaluation Criteria in IMO’s Formal Safety Assessment. Finally, the chapter discusses feasible ways of achieving a sustainable future without undermining the environmental integrity.

Abbreviations

ALARP

As Low As Reasonably Practicable

AMVER

Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue System

CAF

Cost of Averting a Fatality

CATS

Cost of Averting a Tonne of Spilt oil

COW

Crude oil washing

CV

Contingent Valuation

DWT

Deadweight

ECDIS

Electronic Chart Display and Information System

ENC

Electronic Navigation Chart

EU

European Union

FSA

Formal Safety Assessment

GT

Gross tonnage

HEA

Habitat Equivalent Analysis

ICAF

Implied Cost of Averting a Fatality

IMO

International Maritime Organization

IOPCF

International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds

ITOPF

International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited

MARPOL

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

MEPC

Marine Environment Protection Committee

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OILPOL

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by oil

OPA

Oil Pollution Act

OPRC

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation

OSIR

Oil Spill Intelligence Report

P&I

Protection and indemnity

PDF

Probability density function

RCOs

Risk control options

SOLAS

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

UK

United Kingdom

UN

United Nations

USA

United States of America

VHL

Value of Human Life

References

  1. Afenyo, M., Veitch, B., & Khan, F. (2016). A state-of-the-art review of fate and transport of oil spills in open and ice-covered water. Ocean Engineering, 119, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, K. et al. (2016). Shipping and the environment. In Shipping and the environment: Improving environmental performance in marine transportation (pp. 3–27).Google Scholar
  3. Anyanova, E. (2012). Oil pollution and international marine environmental law. In Sustainable development – Authoritative and leading edge content for environmental management (pp. 29–54).Google Scholar
  4. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: Report of the world commission on environment and development, United Nations Commission.Google Scholar
  5. Burgherr, P. (2007). In-depth analysis of accidental oil spills from tankers in the context of global spill trends from all sources. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 140(1–2), 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butricks, T. (2014). Progress since the Exxon Valdez oil spill?, Cornell University, ROPER Center for Public Opinion Research. Available at: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/progress-since-the-exxon-valdez-oil-spill/
  7. Carson, R. T., et al. (2003). Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental and Resource Economics, 25, 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chatzinikolaou, S. D., & Ventikos, N. P. (2011). Sustainable maritime transport: An operational definition. In Sustainable maritime transportation and exploitation of sea resources (IMAM 2011) (pp. 931–939).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CMA-CGM. (2017). Preserving oceans and their biodiversity. Available at: https://www.cma-cgm.com/the-group/corporate-social-responsibility/environment/sea-biodiversity-protection
  10. Desvousges, W. H., et al. (2018). Habitat and resource equivalency analysis: A critical assessment. Ecological Economics, 143, 74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Devanney, J. W., & Stewart, J. R. (1974). A bayesian approach to oil spill statistics. In New England Section Meeting of SNAME. p. 85.Google Scholar
  12. Dunford, R. W., & Freeman, M. L. (2001). A statistical model for estimating natural resource damages from oil spills. In International Oil Spill Conference (pp. 225–229).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunford, R. W., Ginn, T. C., & Desvousges, W. H. (2004). The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EMSA. (2012). EU states claims management guidelines: Claims arising due to maritime pollution incidents.Google Scholar
  15. Etkin, D. S. (1999a). Estimating cleanup costs for oil spills. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, 1999(1), 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etkin, D. S. (1999b). Estimating cleanup costs for oil spills. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, 1999(1), 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etkin, D. S. (2000). Worldwide analysis of marine oil spill cleanup cost factors, Arctic and Marine Oil spill Program Technical Seminar, (June), p. 14.Google Scholar
  18. Etkin, D. S. (2001a). Comparative methodologies for estimating on-water response costs for marine oil spills. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, 2001, 1281–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etkin, D. S. (2001b) Methodologies for estimating shoreline cleanup costs. In Proceedings of 24th Arctic and Marine Oil spill Program Technical Seminar, pp. 647–670.Google Scholar
  20. Gold, E. (1998). Handbook on marine pollution (2nd ed.). Arendal: Assuranceforeningen Gard.Google Scholar
  21. Harper, J., Godon, A., & Allen, A. A. (1995). Costs associated with the cleanup of marine oil spills. In International Oil Spill Conference, 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helton, D., & Penn, T. (1999). Putting response and natural resource damage costs in perspective. In 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, 1–22.Google Scholar
  23. Hendrickx, R. (2007). Maritime oil pollution: An empirical analysis. In Shifts in compensation for environmental damage (pp. 243–260).Google Scholar
  24. Hørte, T. et al. (2007). Probabilistic methods applied to structural design and rule development. In RINA conference on Developments in Classification and International Regulations. London, UK.Google Scholar
  25. IMO. (2006a). MEPC 55/18, Formal Safety Assessment, Outcome of MSC 81, Note by the Secretariat.Google Scholar
  26. IMO. (2006b). MSC 81/INF.6, Goal-based new ship construction standards-linkage between FSA and GBS, Submitted by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS).Google Scholar
  27. IMO (2007a). MEPC 56/18/1, Formal Safety Assessment, Environmental risk evaluation criteria, Submitted by Greece.Google Scholar
  28. IMO. (2007b). MEPC 57/17, Formal Safety Assessment, Report of the Correspondence Group on Environmental Risk Evaluation Criteria, Submitted by Greece.Google Scholar
  29. IMO. (2008a). MEPC 58/17, Formal Safety Assessment, Report of the correspondence group on environmental risk evaluation criteria, Submitted by Greece, Co-ordinator of the Correspondence Group.Google Scholar
  30. IMO. (2008b). MEPC 58/INF.2, Formal Safety Assessment-FSA-crude oil tankers, Submitted by Denmark.Google Scholar
  31. IMO. (2009). MEPC 59/17, Formal Safety Assessment, Report of the Correspondence Group on Environmental Risk Evaluation Criteria, Submitted by Greece on behalf of the Coordinator of the Correspondence Group.Google Scholar
  32. IMO. (2010). MEPC 60/17/2, Formal Safety Assessment, Comments on the Correspondence Group report on Environmental Risk Evaluation Criteria, Submitted by Japan.Google Scholar
  33. IMO. (2011a). MEPC 62/18, Combining environmental and safety criteria and selection of a severity matrix, Submitted by Greece.Google Scholar
  34. IMO. (2011b). MEPC 62/18/1, Further experience with oil spill databases and upd ate of non-linear oil spill cost functions, Submitted by Greece.Google Scholar
  35. IMO. (2011c). MEPC 62/18/2, Consideration on the Environmental Risk Evaluation Criteria, Submitted by Japan.Google Scholar
  36. IMO. (2011d). MEPC 62/18/3, Consolidated dataset on oil spills and further progress made with regard to the development of a CATS value, Submitted by Germany, Japan and United States.Google Scholar
  37. IMO. (2011e). MEPC 62/18/4, Consideration on the Cost of Averting a Tonne of Oil Spilt (CATS) threshold Function, Submitted by Germany, Japan and United States.Google Scholar
  38. IMO. (2011f). MEPC 62/24, Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its sixty-second session.Google Scholar
  39. IMO. (2011g). MEPC 62/INF.24, Consolidated dataset on oil spills, Submitted by Germany, Japan and United States.Google Scholar
  40. IMO. (2013) World Maritime Day-A concept of a sustainable maritime transportation system.Google Scholar
  41. IMO. (2015). Revised Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process. London, UK.Google Scholar
  42. IMO. (2018a). Marine environment-pollution prevention-oil pollution-background. Available at: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/OilPollution/Pages/Background.aspx.
  43. IMO. (2018b). Pollution preparedness and response. Available at: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionResponse/Pages/Default.aspx.
  44. IMO. (2018c). Tanker safety – preventing accidental pollution. Available at: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Regulations/Pages/OilTankers.aspx.
  45. IOPCF. (2017). International oil pollution compensation funds: Annual Report 2017.Google Scholar
  46. ITOPF. (2018). Oil tanker spill statistics 2017, The international tanker owners pollution federation limited, (January), p. 16p.Google Scholar
  47. Jeon, C. M. (2007). Incorporating sustainability into transportation planning. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  48. Jeon, C. M., & Amekudzi, A. (2005). Addressing sustainability in transportation systems: Definitions, indicators, and metrics. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11(1), 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kontovas, C. A., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2008). Marine environment risk assessment: A survey on the disutility cost of oil spills. 2nd International Symposium on Ship Operations.Google Scholar
  50. Kontovas, C. A., Psaraftis, H. N., & Ventikos, N. P. (2010). An empirical analysis of IOPCF oil spill cost data. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(9), 1455–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kontovas, C. A., Ventikos, N. P., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2011). Estimating the consequence costs of oil spills from tankers. In SNAME 2011 Annual Meeting (pp. 1–13).Google Scholar
  52. Kontovas, C. A., Ventikos, N. P., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2012). An updated analysis of IOPCF oil spill data: Estimation of the disutility cost of tanker oil spills. Sustainable maritime transportation and exploitation of sea resources – Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of the International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean, IMAM 2011, 2.Google Scholar
  53. Litman, T. (2011). Sustainability and livability-summary of definitions, goals, objectives and performance indicators, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
  54. Liu, X., & Wirtz, K. W. (2006). Total oil spill costs and compensations. Maritime Policy & Management, 33(1), 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Liu, X., & Wirtz, K. W. (2009). The economy of oil spills: Direct and indirect costs as a function of spill size. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 171(1–3), 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Loureiro, M. L., Loomis, J. B., & Vazquez, M. X. (2007). Estimating the non-market environmental damages caused by the prestige oil spill.Google Scholar
  57. Officer of the Watch. (2013). Potential costs of an offshore accident. Available at: https://officerofthewatch.com/2013/07/16/potential-costs-of-an-offshore-accident/.
  58. Olawuyi, D. S. (2012). Legal and sustainable development impacts of major oil spills. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(May), 1–15.Google Scholar
  59. Ornitz, B. E., & Champ, M. A. (2002). Oil spills first principles, oil spills first principles.Google Scholar
  60. Özçayir, O. (2004). Port state control (2nd ed.). London: LLP.Google Scholar
  61. Prendergast, D. P., & Gschwend, P. M. (2014). Assessing the performance and cost of oil spill remediation technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 78, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Psaraftis, H. N. (2008). Environmental risk evaluation criteria. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 7(2), 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Psaraftis, H. N. (2012). Formal safety assessment: An updated review. Journal of Marine Science and Technology (Japan), 17(3), 390–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Psarros, G., Skjong, R., & Vanem, E. (2011). Risk acceptance criterion for tanker oil spill risk reduction measures. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(1), 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sanguri, M. (2017). 20 important factors for oily water separator operation on ships, Marine Insight. Available at: https://www.marineinsight.com/tech/ows/20-important-factors-for-oily-water-separator-operation-on-ships/.
  66. Shahriari, M., & Frost, A. (2008). Oil spill cleanup cost estimation-developing a mathematical model for marine environment. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 86(3), 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sirkar, J., et al. (1997). A framework for assessing the environmental performance of tankers in accidental groundings and collisions. SNAME Transactions, 105, 253–295.Google Scholar
  68. Skjong, R., Vanem, E., & Endresen, Ø. (2005). Risk evaluation criteria. SAFEDOR report D 4.2.Google Scholar
  69. Thébaud, O. et al. (2005). The cost of oil pollution at sea: an analysis of the process of damage valuation and compensation following oil spills. Economic, social and environmental effects of the Prestige Oil Spill de Compostella, Santiago (pp. 187–219).Google Scholar
  70. Vanem, E. et al. (2007). Cost-effectiveness of preventing grounding with ECDIS. In 4th International conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships, ICCGS 2007. Hamburg.Google Scholar
  71. Vanem, E., et al. (2008a). Electronic chart display and information systems–navigational safety in maritime transportation. European Journal of Navigation, 6, 28–36.Google Scholar
  72. Vanem, E., Endresen, Ø., & Skjong, R. (2008b). Cost-effectiveness criteria for marine oil spill preventive measures. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 93(9), 1354–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ventikos, N. P., & Sotiropoulos, F. S. (2014). Disutility analysis of oil spills: Graphs and trends. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 81(1), 116–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ventikos, N. P., Chatzinikolaou, S. D., & Zagoraios, G. (2009) The cost of oil spill response in Greece: Analysis & Results. In 13th congress of Intl. Maritime Assoc. of Mediterranean IMAM 2009 (pp. 12–15). Istanbul.Google Scholar
  75. White, I. C., & Molloy, F. C. (2003). Factors that determine the cost of oil spills. IOSC, 2003, 1–15.Google Scholar
  76. Yamada, Y. (2009). The cost of oil spills from tankers in relation to weight of spilt oil. Marine Technology, 46(4), 10.Google Scholar
  77. Yip, T. L., Talley, W. K., & Jin, D. (2011). The effectiveness of double hulls in reducing vessel-accident oil spillage. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(11), 2427–2432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolaos P. Ventikos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Konstantinos Louzis
    • 1
  • Panagiotis Sotiralis
    • 1
  1. 1.National Technical University of Athens (NTUA)AthensGreece

Personalised recommendations