|
3 DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES IN SUPPORT OF THE DRAFT LEGAL INSTRUMENT
3.1 The Working Group recalled that, at MEPC 48, it identified the following issues, in priority order, for guidelines to be developed in support of the draft convention:
.1 guidelines for the design, construction and operation of ships that use Ballast Water Exchange directed to shipping companies and mariners; an outline and material for these guidelines was available;
.2 guidelines for approval of ballast water treatment systems (type testing);
.3 guidelines supporting coastal States when considering additional measures under B-3.2 and Section C of the Regulations; and
.4 guidelines on ballast water sampling/inspections on board ships by port State Administrations.
Development of Guidelines on Ballast Water Exchange (BWE)/Guidelines for the Development of Ballast Water Management Plans (BWMP)
3.2 The Working Group developed a list of contents for the Guidelines on Ballast Water Exchange, required under Regulation E-1, and drawing on various submissions made to the Committee, including MEPC 45/2/1 by IACS, MEPC 48/2/2 by Australia and the United Kingdom, MEPC 48/2/7 by IACS, MEPC 48/2/12 by ICS, and IMO Resolution A.868(20).
3.3 The Working Group also prepared an outline for the Guidelines for the Development of Ballast Water Management Plans, required under Regulation B-1, listing chapters, headings and items for elaboration for final text.
3.4 The Working Group considered the merits of combining both guidelines from the start, as much of the required information would be similar. It was, however, agreed to first develop the guidelines separately and consider their combination into a single set of guidelines at a later stage.
3.5 Both the list of contents of the BWE Guidelines and the outline for the BWMP Guidelines are shown in annex 4 to this report. Delegations were invited to submit contributions for the further development of these Guidelines to MEPC 49.
Development of Guidelines for Type Approval of Ballast Water Treatment Systems
3.6 The Working Group developed an outline for the Guidelines for Type Approval of Ballast Water Treatment Systems, as shown in annex 5 to this report. The purpose of these Guidelines would be to set a standard for type approval certificate issuance.
3.7 The delegation of the Netherlands offered to co-ordinate contributions to these Guidelines from delegations during the intersessional period, with the aim of presenting a further developed text to MEPC 49. Any contributions should be directed to Mr. Frans Tjallingii in the Netherlands at f.j.tjallingii@dnz.rws.minvenw.nl. The Working Group noted that these Guidelines should eventually be adopted at the Diplomatic Conference in 2004.
Preparation of Guidelines on Developing Additional Measures as Specified in Section C of the Regulations: Special Requirements in Certain Areas
3.8 The Working Group developed an outline for the Guidelines on Developing Additional Measures as Specified in Section C of the Regulations, as shown in annex 6 to this report.
3.9 The delegation of Australia offered to act as lead country in the intersessional period with the aim of presenting a further developed text of these guidelines to MEPC 49. Delegations were invited to submit their contributions to Mr. Michael Wilson in Australia at Michael.Wilson@affa.gov.au. The Working Group noted that these Guidelines should eventually be adopted at the Diplomatic Conference in 2004.
Development of Guidelines on Ballast Water Sampling/Inspections on board ships by port State Administrations
3.10 The Working Group noted that the Guidelines on Ballast Water Sampling etc. were required under Article 10 (Inspection of Ships) of the Convention. Delegations were invited to provide an input to MEPC 49 to further the development of these guidelines2.
3.11 The Working Group noted that these Guidelines should include the element of "split-sampling" when samples of ballast water were taken for inspection purposes, similar to the procedures established under the MARPOL 73/78 Convention.
Development of guidance for selection and use of biocides to control marine organisms in ballast water
3.12 The observer from CEFIC introduced initial guidance for the selection of biocides when used for ballast water treatment, which she had announced during MEPC 47 (MEPC-IBWWG 2/3). Based on the lessons learned from typical biocides such as TBTs, CEFIC felt that stringent criteria for the selection of chemicals would be essential to ensure that residues and metabolites of treatment chemicals were environmentally neutral and would not present any toxicological hazard when discharged with ballast water.
3.13 The observer suggested that the "Hazard Profiles", which GESAMP had developed, should be used as a starting point for future guidelines in this regard. She presented a brief summary of the relevant columns of the Revised GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure for Chemical Substances Carried by Ships3. The MARPOL Categorization system was closely related to the GESAMP Hazard Profiles and might also serve to define standards for ballast water treatment with chemicals.
3.14 Taking into account that effective ballast water treatment required chemicals will be classified as environmentally hazardous substances according to GESAMP and OECD Globally Harmonized System (GHS) criteria, the recommended approach would be to look at the fate of substances used for ballast water treatment. If expert judgement based on the values given in the GESAMP Hazard Profile indicated that the (marine) environment would not be put at risk, competent authorities would be given a sound method for the approval of chemicals offered for ballast water treatment.
3.15 The observer proposed to use the following Hazard Profile for further consideration of candidate chemicals:
| GESAMP Hazard Profile |
Desired Range of Ballast
Water Chemicals |
GESAMP Hazard
Profile |
| A 1: Bioaccumulation |
Log Pow <1 |
0 |
| A 2: Biodegradation |
Readily biodegradable |
R |
| B 1: Acute Aquatic Toxicity |
1 - 10 mg/l to 0.1 - 1 mg/l |
3 - 4 |
| B 2: Chronic Aquatic Toxicity |
NOEC 0.1 - 1mg/l to >1 mg/l |
0 - 1 |
| D 3: Long term human health effects |
|
No Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, Reprotoxic properties |
| E 2: Physical chemical properties |
None |
- |
|
3.16 Whilst this proposed GESAMP Hazard Profile might describe the properties of a chemical before it was added to the ballast water, some values or ranges would be unacceptable if significant amounts of these substances were released into the marine environment. The criterion that a substance is readily biodegradable (70% in 28 days) needed to be further qualified by demonstrating complete mineralization within a shorter period. Further criteria would be necessary as described in the submission by CEFIC.
3.17 Several delegations expressed their appreciation for these proposals but indicated that further consideration would be necessary.
3.18 In commenting on the proposals by CEFIC, the observers from IUCN and FOEI noted that:
.1 the toxicity assessment routines CEFIC proposed had only limited potential for the purpose of assessing eco-toxicity of ballast water, if they serve that purpose at all;
.2 limitations existed of traditional toxicity testing as described in CEFIC's submission;
.3 few of the conditions chosen for the traditional toxicity assessment suites, referred to by CEFIC, were also applicable to ballast water tanks, e.g., light would be absent and there would be a lack of oxygen, which would be enhanced by the decaying detritus resulting from ballast water treatment; and
.4 the vast quantities of ballast water discharged pointed to a reconsideration of employment of chemicals in ballast water treatment.
These observers, therefore, made a plea to restrict secondary ballast water treatment systems to only considering such compounds that have proven to be viable in sustaining living systems.
4 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
4.1 The delegation of Australia informed the Working Group of a major project in Australia to develop a pilot plant for treating ships' ballast water (MEPC-IBWWG 2/4). Trials would be conducted in both tropical and temperate ports and under more controlled conditions at James Cook University in Townsville, North Queensland, Australia. The pilot plant would be built in a 20 foot shipping container, for ease of transport, using a number of treatment methods that could be combined and evaluated individually. The plant would be evaluated using prepared mixtures of cultured organisms as well as raw port waters and the results submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication. This project was intended to accelerate the testing and implementation of ship based ballast water treatment systems. Further information could be obtained by contacting Mr. Steve Hillman in Australia at: steve.hillman@jcu.edu.au.
4.2 The delegation of Brazil informed the Working Group of the preliminary results of a second study carried out in Brazil concerning the efficiency of Ballast Water Exchange. These results had been obtained from testing Ballast Water Exchange using the dilution method, the sequential method and the flow-through method, conducted under realistic conditions on board a tanker. The results were very promising and showed a high efficiency of Ballast Water Exchange. Ballast Water Exchange should, therefore, not be phased out as a tool for Ballast Water Management in the long-term. The delegation indicated that additional studies would be carried out to establish short-term standards for compliance verification and address both environmental and public health concerns. The full report of this study would be submitted to MEPC 49.
4.3 The Working Group noted with great sadness the sudden death on Tuesday, 4 March 2003, of Mr. Tomas Moll (Netherlands). Mr. Moll, who represented the Royal Association of Netherlands, Ship owners (KVNR) in the Dutch delegation, was a familiar figure in the Ballast Water Working Group, having been involved in its work from the early 1990s. He regarded himself as the "green conscience" of the KVNR and had often indicated looking forward to seeing the successful conclusion of the Convention at the Diplomatic Conference. The Working Group expressed its sympathy with the Netherlands' delegation and requested it to convey its sadness to Mr. Moll's family.
5 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT TO MEPC 49
The report of the Second Intersessional Meeting of the MEPC Ballast Water Working Group was adopted at the final day of the Meeting, Friday, 7 March 2003.
6 ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMITTEE
The Committee is invited to:
.1 approve this report, in general, as a basis for further consideration; and
.2 carry out an article-by-article review of the draft Convention contained in annex 2 to this report.
1 Appendix II, Form of IOPP Certificate.
2 During MEPC 47, the Working Group referred this action to the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation (FSI) for development at a later stage when the draft convention had advanced further (MEPC 48/2, paragraph 7.3). It was suggested that such guidelines might be considered as a review of Resolution A.787(19) concerning Procedures for Port State Control. Such a review might be combined with the review of this resolution as mentioned in the footnote to the AFS Convention, Annex 4, "Surveys and Certification Requirements for Anti-fouling Systems", Regulation 1. The NOx Technical Code might offer other source material for this review.
3 This revised evaluation procedure is described in GESAMP Reports and Studies No.64, which can be obtained from the Secretariat.
|
