|
10.3 Outcome of BLG 8
10.3.1 Introduction
10.3.1.1 It was noted that the eighth session of the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases had been held from 24 to 28 March 2003 and that 19 action points had been identified for consideration by the Committee. The discussion and conclusions reached on each of these items are summarized in the following paragraphs.
10.3.2 MEPC resolution on Tripartite agreements
10.3.2.1 The Committee recalled that it had instructed BLG to develop a draft resolution to overcome the problem of arranging tripartite agreements with countries, which do not report their contact details to IMO for inclusion in MEPC.2 circulars.
10.3.2.2 Having considered the text developed by BLG 8, the Committee adopted the MEPC resolution on Tripartite agreements by resolution MEPC.109(49) as shown in annex 15.
10.3.3 Guidelines associated with Annex I to MARPOL 73/78
10.3.3.1 The Committee adopted the Revised Interim Guidelines for the approval of the alternative methods of design of oil tankers under regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, by resolution MEPC.110(49), as set out in annex 16, recognizing that these Guidelines were to be used in conjunction with the current Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. However, the United States reserved its position with regard to this issue.
10.3.3.2 In addition, the Committee endorsed the recommendation, from BLG 8, to instruct the Secretariat to prepare a draft MEPC resolution on Guidelines for the approval of the alternative methods of design of oil tankers under regulation 37 of the revised Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 for adoption together with the revised Annex I, recognizing that these guidelines would eventually replace the ones approved for the current Annex I.
10.3.3.3 The Committee approved, in principle, the draft MEPC resolution on Explanatory Notes on matters related to the accidental oil outflow performance for MARPOL regulation I/21 (BLG 8/18, annex 4) with a view to adoption together with the revised MARPOL Annex I at a future session, recognizing that the cross-references would need to be checked by the Secretariat.
10.3.3.4 The Committee approved, in principle, the draft revised MARPOL Annex I (BLG 8/18, annex 5) and agreed to its circulation to IMO Members and Contracting Governments to the 1973 MARPOL Convention in accordance with article 16 of the Convention after final approval by MEPC 51, taking into account the developments expected at MEPC 50 on the proposed amendments to Annex I relating to the phase-out of single-hull oil tankers.
10.3.3.5 However, in supporting the approval of the revised Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, Norway indicated that the revised requirements for accidental oil outflow performance (regulation I/21) were neither intended to strengthen the requirements nor lead to the phase-out of existing and environmentally friendly ship designs. However, the result has been a strengthening of the requirements for accidental oil outflow performance, which will have consequences for ship designs such as OBO carriers.
10.3.3.6 It was noted that the BLG Sub-Committee developed a compromise solution for OBO carriers (adjusted Om factor) which Norway accepted although it had proposed further technical adjustments.
10.3.3.7 Norway indicated that, most likely, the traditional OBO design would be phased out because of the new requirements in regulation 21, though new OBO designs might be constructed. However, if the consequence is a phase-out of the OBO design as such, Norway indicated that it would deeply regret this and would have to address this issue to the Committee in an appropriate way.
10.3.4 Animal/Vegetable/Fish oils
10.3.4.1 The Committee noted the discussion on matters related to the trade of vegetable oils and the pollution categorization systems.
10.3.5 Database of products subject to the IBC Code
10.3.5.1 The Committee agreed in principle, subject to MSC's concurrent decision, that data associated with the lists of substances subject to MARPOL Annex II could be provided, in a format suitable for uploading into databases. In doing so, it was recognized that this request had been made to facilitate interested parties ability to upload relevant chemical data into their databases to reflect changes to the carriage requirements of such products. However, recognizing that this might have cost implications, instructed the Secretariat to provide details of this aspect to future sessions of both MSC and MEPC.
10.3.6 Dates on the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification
10.3.6.1 Recognizing the previous decision that certificates issued under the HSSC should be endorsed with the words "Completion date of survey on which the certificate is based: dd/mm/yy", the Committee agreed that wherever a date is requested in a form or a certificate, the format "dd/mm/yyyy" should be used, noting that this specifies four digits for the year. In reaching this decision the Committee recognized that this would avoid any potential confusion.
10.3.7 Pollution Categorization System
10.3.7.1 The Committee noted that it had been requested to consider the finalized texts for the 3-category and the 5-category versions of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II and take action as appropriate. However, it was agreed to defer discussion on this issue to later in the agenda.
10.3.8 Amendments to the IBC Code
10.3.8.1 Recognizing that the issue was primarily for MSC, the Committee noted the outcome of matters related to the draft amendments to the IBC and IGC Codes on electrical installations.
10.3.9 Unified Interpretations related to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78
10.3.9.1 The Committee approved the draft amendments to the Unified Interpretations to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 relevant to FPSOs and FSUs (BLG 8/18, annex 12). In taking this action, the Committee recognized that these Unified Interpretations applied to the existing regulation 21 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 and the same text would apply to regulation 37 of the revised version. The Committee noted that the Unified Interpretations relevant to FPSOs and FSUs had already been included in the revised text of the Unified Interpretations of the revised MARPOL Annex I (BLG 8/18, annex 5).
10.3.10 FPSOs and FSUs
10.3.10.1 The Committee approved the draft MEPC circular on Guidelines for the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs (BLG 8/18, paragraph 8.12 and annex 13) and instructed the Secretariat to issue it as MEPC/Circ.406 having, first, agreed on the following editorial amendments:
In box I(8) on page 4 of annex 13 to BLG 8/18, the following words were deleted:
.1 "Not generally applicable" (line 1);
.2 "not" (penultimate word in line 2);
.3 "Similarly" (line 3).
10.3.10.2 However, the United States indicated that it reserved its position regarding the application of double-hull recommendations in the Guidelines to FPSOs and FSUs.
10.3.10.3 In this connection, the Committee noted the submission from ISO (MEPC 49/10/6) which addressed the ISO standards for floating structures and stationkeeping and described three ISO standards relating to offshore structures.
10.3.10.4 Recognizing that similar guidelines would be needed for the revised Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, the Committee instructed the Secretariat to prepare a draft MEPC resolution on Guidelines for the application of the revised MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs, with a view to adoption together with the revised MARPOL Annex I.
10.3.11 Safety Data Sheets
10.3.11.1 The Committee noted that MSC 77 had adopted resolution MSC.150(77) on Recommendation for material safety data sheets for MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel.
10.3.12 Oil tagging system
10.3.12.1 The Committee noted that it had been requested to consider the Sub-Committee's course of action on matters related to oil tagging systems and take action as appropriate.
10.3.12.2 The Committee noted that no document had been submitted to BLG 8 on this issue and that the United Kingdom had indicated that research on this matter would not be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. As a result, the Committee agreed with the proposals from BLG to keep the issue in its work programme but to deal with related information documents under "Any other business".
10.3.13 Ship Recycling
10.3.13.1 The Committee recalled that this issue had been discussed under agenda item 3 (Ship Recycling).
10.3.14 Work Programme and Provisional Agenda
10.3.14.1 Having noted that it was requested to approve, subject to MSC's concurrent decision, the proposed revised work programme of the Sub-Committee and provisional agenda for BLG 9, the Committee agreed to consider this issue under agenda item 19.
10.3.15 Intersessional meeting of the ESPH Working Group
10.3.15.1 Recognizing the large amount of work still to be done by the ESPH Working Group, the Committee approved the holding of an intersessional meeting of the ESPH Working Group in 2004 and noted that MSC 77 had done the same.
10.3.16 Approval of the report in general
10.3.16.1 Having considered all the important issues arising from the report of BLG 8, the Committee approved the report of the Sub-Committee in general.
10.4 Matters related to the revision of Annex II to MARPOL 73/78
10.4.1 The Committee noted that it was being invited to consider the finalized texts for the 3-category and the 5-category versions of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II and take action as appropriate.
10.4.2 It was also noted that there were six submissions (MEPC 49/10, MEPC 49/10/Corr.1, MEPC 49/10/1, MEPC 49/10/5, MEPC 49/10/7 and MEPC 19/10/10) addressing this issue. However, these submissions were neither introduced nor discussed for the reasons identified hereunder.
10.4.3 Having noted the submissions addressing this issue, the Committee was informed that the Chairman had recognized the divergence of opinion regarding the choice of Pollution Categorization System to be incorporated into the revised Annex II to MARPOL 73/78 and so had invited a small group of experts to investigate ways of reaching a compromise solution and formulate a compromise to be circulated as a proposal by the Chairman. The Chairman's proposal was presented to the Committee as document MEPC 49/WP.9.
10.4.4 The Committee noted that the Chairman had identified a number of key issues associated with the Categorization Systems, which should serve as a basis for finding a compromise to the issue.
Compromise proposal
10.4.5 A 4-Category System could be used providing that products assigned to the fourth Category are shown to be harmless by all of the properties evaluated by GESAMP/EHS.
10.4.5.1 In this context, there was a difference of opinion between the experts regarding column A1 (bioaccumulation) of the GESAMP Hazard Profile (GHP). Some experts considered that an EHS rating of <3 should be regarded as non-bioaccumulating whilst others preferred to use a rating of 0 only.
10.4.5.2 The Chairman instructed the Secretariat to check those products currently evaluated by EHS and the Secretariat found out that there was no difference in the list of products with a 0 or <3 rating in column A1, which would be assigned to the fourth Category. These are shown below:
| PSN |
A1 |
A2 |
B1 |
B2 |
C1 |
C2 |
C3 |
D1 |
D2 |
D3 |
E1 |
E2 |
E3 |
| Apple juice |
0 |
R |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
NI |
D |
0 |
| Clay slurry |
0 |
Inorg |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
S |
0 |
| Coal slurry |
0 |
Inorg |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
S |
0 |
| Dextrose solution |
0 |
R |
0 |
NI |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
(0) |
|
0 |
D |
0 |
| Glucose solution |
0 |
R |
0 |
NI |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
(0) |
|
0 |
D |
0 |
| Kaolin slurry |
0 |
Inorg |
0 |
NI |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
S |
0 |
| Molasses |
0 |
R |
0 |
NI |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
D |
0 |
| Water |
0 |
Inorg |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
D |
0 |
|
10.4.5.3 There was an opinion that this could be a definitive list of substances which are proven not to exhibit any harmful effects on the marine environment and should not be added to once the revised Annex II to MARPOL 73/78 had been agreed.
10.4.5.4 There was another opinion that molasses should be transferred to Category Z as experience had shown that it tended to produce a sticky slick, even though it was evaluated as a Dissolver.
10.4.6 There is no need to include the currently defined Special Areas in the revised text of Annex II to MARPOL 73/78 with the exception of the Antarctic Area.
10.4.7 Floaters and Persistent Floaters should be assigned to Category Y.
10.4.7.1 The Chairman took note that Vegetable Oil interests had expressed concern that allocating such products to Category Y might cause economic problems (increase in freight rates) and a lack of available chemical tankers on certain routes.
10.4.7.2 However, as the Chairman had no specific details provided to him to question the statistics previously considered by the Committee, he suggested to continue to allocate floaters to Category Y, in accordance with the Precautionary Approach, whilst recognizing that, should detailed justifications be submitted to IMO, consideration might be given to finding ways to overcome such difficulties.
10.4.8 Keep the 12-mile discharge limit for Category Z products and modify the waiver for domestic trade to include trade between countries where transport between them stayed within the 12-mile limit country providing that no third party was affected.
10.4.9 The pre-wash requirement and subsequent need for reception facilities, for some products (primarily vegetable oils) allocated to Category Y might be overcome by either:
.1 allowing the unloading temperature to be increased so that the viscosity fell below the definition of High Viscosity; or
.2 raising the definition of High Viscosity such that the big movers would not meet the criteria providing that this could be justified on scientific grounds.
10.4.10 The 75 litres stripping limit for Category Z products should remain for new ships.
10.4.10.1 Whilst recognizing that Category Y and Z were not differentiated by this criterion, it was agreed that there was sufficient differentiation due to:
.1 the requirement for all Category Y products to be transported on IMO Ship Types; and
.2 the requirement for High Viscosity and Solidifying Substances in Category Y products to require a mandatory pre-wash.
10.4.11 The Chairman considered that, if these compromises could be accepted, a revised text, based on the current 3-Category version of Annex II should be rewritten to include them, since this was regarded as the simplest version to adapt.
10.4.12 Consideration should be given to referring to the fourth Category as "Other Substances (OS)" or some such similar name.
Discussion
10.4.13 In addressing some of the opinions expressed by the informal group of experts related to the specific points of the compromise proposal, the Committee agreed that:
.1 the products assigned to the fourth Category (referred to by the expert group as "OS") should not be defined as a definitive list, limited to those products currently identified as meeting the criteria, but should be open to any other products which are also found to meet the criteria;
.2 as concerns were still being expressed regarding the potential impact this compromise might have on sections of industry, any detailed justifications associated with difficulties which might be encountered as a result of the compromise package would be given due consideration with a view to trying to find a solution.
10.4.14 During the discussions, the Republic of Korea expressed the wish to have a period of grace for some ships involved in the trade of certain cargoes.
10.4.15 In response, the Chairman replied that such a proposal would not be accepted by the majority and could threaten the viability of the compromise. The Chairman pointed out that regulations 2(7)(a) and 2(7)(b) provide for an exemption which parties could use for their own ships and, in the Chairman's opinion, with which the Committee agreed, this option should suffice for those paties wishing to have a period of grace for existing ships.
10.4.16 Having considered all of the points of the compromise proposal in detail, the Committee approved the revised text of Annex II for the 4-Category system prepared on the basis of the proposed 3-Category version including the compromise proposal described above, which is set out at annex 17. However, the United States and the Republic of Korea reserved their position on this issue at this time.
10.4.17 Taking into account the present work to revise MARPOL Annex I Regulation 13G, the Committee envisaged that the revised MARPOL Annex I would need to be modified at MEPC 51 to incorporate the outcome of the December extra session. The revised Annex I would be circulated after MEPC 51 under the amendment procedure with a view to its adoption by MEPC 52 in late 2004 so that the new Annex I would come into force in 2006.
10.4.18 The revised Annex II was approved for circulation with a view to adoption in 2004 and, recognizing that the revised Annex I and Annex II relate to each other, the Committee agreed that the date of entry into force of Annex II should be arranged to be the same as the date of entry into force of Annex I.
|
