|
Steve,
Interesting article. Thanks for posting and responding. I have very limited time this week to dig into this .
It seems to me that the Globe is jumping the gun stating the regulations are too loose when the cause of the incident has yet to be determined. It may have nothing to do with "loose" regulations. Keep in mind that even the larger ships that require annual inspections only require a dry docking and hull inspection every five years. The annual is more a machinery and safety inspection. They also don't mention the classification requirements that also must be met. I don't know what they are for tugs and barges, so I don't want to speculate.
I would also say that barges are prefered to manned vessels not just "in part because the former are cheaper to operate and face fewer regulations" but because they are smaller therefore they draw less water and dredging all these environmentally sensitive areas deeper is not required, and if there is a spill, which there was in this case, the impacts are hopefully not as large.
I would also like to say that the tug companies have training programs for becoming captains. It is in their best interest to have them trained and not have incidents like these. I agree with the article that new requirements and regulations are created because of these incidents, like OPA 90 which is being revised (with more requirements - not less) late this year / early next year.
|