MARPOL Annex V - Garbage Discharges from Vessels


#1

You mariners probably alreaday know that MARPOL Annex V addresses the discharge of “garbage” from commercial vessels weighing in excess of 400 gross tons. “Garbage” includes dry bulk cargo residue left on the deck, hold covers and equipment. A garbage record must be maintained, just like an oil record book, to document when/where/how much garbage is discharged overboard or incinerated.

Is anyone familiar with any case where the USCG has had an enforcement action against a vessel’s owner/operator for discharge of cargo residue in US waters, or for failure to maintain a garbage record book?


#2

[QUOTE=Kuhnrod;182638]You mariners probably alreaday know that MARPOL Annex V addresses the discharge of “garbage” from commercial vessels weighing in excess of 400 gross tons. “Garbage” includes dry bulk cargo residue left on the deck, hold covers and equipment. A garbage record must be maintained, just like an oil record book, to document when/where/how much garbage is discharged overboard or incinerated.

Is anyone familiar with any case where the USCG has had an enforcement action against a vessel’s owner/operator for discharge of cargo residue in US waters, or for failure to maintain a garbage record book?

[/QUOTE]

FYI: Gross tonnage has nothing to do with weight, it is a volume measurement.

Some questions: Since MARPOL is an IMO convention and refer to GT, how is this handled for US flag vessels measured in GRT?
When in foreign territorial waters I assume they have to have a certified GT, but what if they are only trading in US territorial waters,or in international waters between two US ports, does MARPOL apply??

If so, how is it determined if the vessel is required to comply, if only GRT is measured?
Since there are so many differences as to what is measurable on different types of vessels, I believe it is hard to have a fixed conversion factor?


#3

If you all want to start being lawyers on here start doing your own legal research. Ombugee, it’s good for us to have discussions about these things, but you always seem to ask questions that can be answered by 30 seconds of using Google.


#4

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;182660]https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg2297.pdf

If you all want to start being lawyers on here start doing your own legal research. Ombugee, it’s good for us to have discussions about these things, but you always seem to ask questions that can be answered by 30 seconds of using Google.[/QUOTE]

I like to hear it “from the horses mouth” as it were. Google doesn’t give opinions, or argue with you. On here there is plenty of both.

PS> The link give all the answers, but in as boring and dry way as possible. Only interesting for Lawyers and like minded creatures.
You and others on here could have explained it in a few words and in a much clearer manner.


#5

Not an answer to your question but interesting general PSC results from 2013.

https://www.uscg.mil/msib/docs/039_13_11-5-2013.pdf

Are you trying to see what people are getting caught for dumping over the side? Or did you get caught?


#6

Here’s an older one but with some details on number of cases brought. That was before the new rules of 2013 though. Looks like passenger ships were the big violators back then.

http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/pasttest/93test/Henn3.pdf


#7

[QUOTE=ombugge;182655]FYI: Gross tonnage has nothing to do with weight, it is a volume measurement.[/QUOTE]

I’m glad at least one other person understands that. I’m usually the one that catches that but I didn’t see this post until this afternoon.


#8

[QUOTE=KPChief;182664]Not an answer to your question but interesting general PSC results from 2013.

https://www.uscg.mil/msib/docs/039_13_11-5-2013.pdf

Are you trying to see what people are getting caught for dumping over the side? Or did you get caught?[/QUOTE]

Yes very nice, but it only talk about FOREIGN ships doing bad things. My question was about American flag ships in domestic trade. Do they have to comply with MARPOL Annex V and are they being inspected and punished for violations as well?

It was also a question about how to determine which US ships have to comply, since there is the dilemma of GRT vs. GT?

You have “numerous” ATBs operating in international waters, although between US port, but the tug bit of them are not over 400 GT.(???)
Do they have to comply because the combined GT (or GRT) is way above the required limit, or is this another loophole used to avoid complying with IMO rules that everybody else is held to with a hard hand by USCG?

Just asking because I’m curious about how these things are handled in the US. I have no first hand knowledge of these things, since I haven’t been in US water for a looong time.


#9

Applies to all US vessels regardless of tonnage in one way or another. Domestically nearly everything goes ashore.

"In 1973, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships and subsequently modified it by Protocol in 1978. The Convention is widely known as MARPOL 73/78. Its objective is to limit ship-borne pollution by restricting operational pollution and reducing the possibility of accidental pollution. MARPOL specifies standards for stowing, handling, shipping, and transferring pollutant cargoes, as well as standards for discharge of ship-generated operational wastes. Acceptance of the convention by national government obliges them to make the requirements part of domestic law.

MARPOL 73/78 consists of six separate Annexes, each set out regulations covering the various sources of ship-generated pollution. Annex I and II are mandatory for all signatory nations to MARPOL while Annexes III, IV, V and VI are optional.

Currently, the U.S. is signatory to Annexes I, II, III, V and VI. Annexes I, II, V and VI have been incorporated into U.S. law by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) and implemented within 33 USC 1901 and 33 CFR 151. The U.S. incorporates Annex III by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) implemented within 46 USC 2101 and 49 CFR 171 -174 and 176. Although the U.S. has not ratified Annex IV, the U.S. has equivalent regulations for the treatment and discharge standards of shipboard sewage – the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) as amended by the Clean Water Act and implemented by 33 USC 1251 and 33 CFR 159. "


#10

33CFR regarding marpol: ‘‘ship’’ means a vessel of any type what- soever, including hydrofoils, air-cushion vehi- cles, submersibles, floating craft whether self- propelled or not, and fixed or floating plat- forms;


#11

[QUOTE=ombugge;182697]Yes very nice, but it only talk about FOREIGN ships doing bad things. My question was about American flag ships in domestic trade. Do they have to comply with MARPOL Annex V and are they being inspected and punished for violations as well?

It was also a question about how to determine which US ships have to comply, since there is the dilemma of GRT vs. GT?

You have “numerous” ATBs operating in international waters, although between US port, but the tug bit of them are not over 400 GT.(???)
Do they have to comply because the combined GT (or GRT) is way above the required limit, or is this another loophole used to avoid complying with IMO rules that everybody else is held to with a hard hand by USCG?

Just asking because I’m curious about how these things are handled in the US. I have no first hand knowledge of these things, since I haven’t been in US water for a looong time.[/QUOTE]

Hey chill out. Not everything is about you. Unlike you, who in the very first post managed to kidnap the OP’s thread by focusing in on a single word and providing a condescending if accurate tonnage lesson and simultaneously spew out your own set of questions which characteristically have nothing to do with the OP and yet manage to imply the US is somehow trying to get over on the system, yes unlike you my posts were trying to in some small way stick to the OP’s post and questions about MARPOL V enforcement actions and NOT trying to answer yours. The OP’s questions are a topic you don’t read about much at all, unless it happens to you I suspect.

The OP’s question was not limited to US flag ships. They queried with regard to “in US waters”. You seem shocked foreign ships in US waters violated US and international law with regard to MARPOL V. With the USCG PSC enforcement role it is only natural that a report of their activities as PSC would show foreign flag ship violations. That’s not sinister or a sign US flag operators are getting past the law, that is normal. Go find a USCG report about their activities as flag state administrator functions (annual inspections, spontaneous port inspections and such) and I’m sure you will find reports of US flag operators violations.

So good luck on your search for the answers to [U]your[/U] questions but the only dilemma about GRT and GT is in your head. US flag ships comply but someone else is going to have to prove it to you.


#12

[QUOTE=ombugge;182697]Yes very nice, but it only talk about FOREIGN ships doing bad things. My question was about American flag ships in domestic trade. Do they have to comply with MARPOL Annex V and are they being inspected and punished for violations as well?

It was also a question about how to determine which US ships have to comply, since there is the dilemma of GRT vs. GT?

You have “numerous” ATBs operating in international waters, although between US port, but the tug bit of them are not over 400 GT.(???)
Do they have to comply because the combined GT (or GRT) is way above the required limit, or is this another loophole used to avoid complying with IMO rules that everybody else is held to with a hard hand by USCG?

Just asking because I’m curious about how these things are handled in the US. I have no first hand knowledge of these things, since I haven’t been in US water for a looong time.[/QUOTE]

The report KP Chief linked does refer to a fishing vessel prosecuted in Alaska–certainly a US one. But yes, the blue suiters enforce this on US flag as well as foreign. 4 out of 10 cases for the period of this report: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/rc95143.pdf

international gross tons versus register gross tons only comes into play on record keeping, since no vessel may discharge not in compliance. The relevant tonnage is based only on the vessel (no combined tonnage for ATB) and largely depends on build year and if the vessel is on a foreign voyage as to which gross tons to use.

Original poster: Is this about the Great Lakes? I get the feeling you have a barge and ran afoul of cargo residue requirements.


#13

[QUOTE=KPChief;182664]Not an answer to your question but interesting general PSC results from 2013.

https://www.uscg.mil/msib/docs/039_13_11-5-2013.pdf

Are you trying to see what people are getting caught for dumping over the side? Or did you get caught?[/QUOTE]

I have witnessed and recorded several vessels discharging cargo residue into the lower Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and SW Pass.


#14

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;182728]The report KP Chief linked does refer to a fishing vessel prosecuted in Alaska–certainly a US one. But yes, the blue suiters enforce this on US flag as well as foreign. 4 out of 10 cases for the period of this report: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/rc95143.pdf

international gross tons versus register gross tons only comes into play on record keeping, since no vessel may discharge not in compliance. The relevant tonnage is based only on the vessel (no combined tonnage for ATB) and largely depends on build year and if the vessel is on a foreign voyage as to which gross tons to use.

Original poster: Is this about the Great Lakes? I get the feeling you have a barge and ran afoul of cargo residue requirements.[/QUOTE]

The activity I’m focused on is taking place in the Mississippi River in Louisiana.


#15

The USCG in Alaska appears to be more interested in garbage logs this year.


#16

The latest MARPOL amendment has entered into force:
http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/04MARPOLamendments.aspx
Are you ready and in compliance??