|
11.33 Panama indicated that, if this were to be allowed, it would appear as if IMO were condoning such actions, which would be unacceptable. However, Panama indicated that it was uncomfortable with the nominal surplus of tonnage indicated by the INTERTANKO study. In order to provide a pragmatic means of ensuring that sufficient tonnage would be available in 2007, whilst ensuring that the environment is protected from accidental pollution by vegetable oils, Panama proposed that the invocation of regulation 2(7) should be restricted to the use of IBC Code Type 3 Chemical/NLS tankers arranged with double hull, complying with the dimensions of IBC Code Type 2 Chemical tankers, as an alternative for the transport of vegetable oils under MARPOL Annex II. It was recognized that this option would only be used where it is demonstrated that there is a shortage of tonnage available to transport an identified vegetable oil.
11.34 The Committee recognized that, under regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I, single hull tankers were being phased out and so it would be inappropriate to allow such ships to transport vegetable oils.
11.35 Having agreed that no further study was necessary and recognizing that the above proposals by the Netherlands and Panama might alleviate any potential problems, the Committee approved the criteria for assigning Ship Types based on pollution criteria as part of the revised IBC Code. However, Malaysia, the Philippines and the United States reserved their positions on this issue.
11.36 Having noted these proposals, the Chairman allowed time for informal discussions to take place between the delegations of Panama and those governments which had reserved their positions on this issue to see if the proposals could alleviate the situation sufficiently to allow the reservations to be withdrawn.
11.37 Following these informal discussions, Panama reported that a meeting had taken place between the Philippines and Malaysia, with assistance from IPTA and INTERTANKO and whilst it was not possible for the governments involved to give a definitive response, they indicated that the proposals might go some way to alleviate their concerns. However, they might be able to indicate as to whether their reservations could be withdrawn at MEPC 52.
11.38 However, the Committee agreed that, on the understanding that those single hull ships being phased out under MARPOL Annex I would not be allowed to transport vegetable oils once the revised MARPOL Annex II comes into force, then where it can be demonstrated that there is a shortage of space for the transport of identified vegetable oils, regulation 4.1 might be invoked to overcome this problem.
11.39 The Chairman encouraged those delegations which had made reservations to consider whether this would allow them to withdraw their reservations at MEPC 52.
11.40 In considering the proposed amendments to the IBC Code, the Committee noted the concerns expressed by IACS in MEPC 51/11/5 regarding the item to remove column m (materials of construction) from the revised IBC Code. IACS indicated that responsibility for ensuring that the cargo is compatible with the materials of construction was being put on the
shippers and ship operators. IACS argued that IMO should continue to maintain a database of such information in order to avoid disputes between shipbuilders and ship owners. However, if this were not to happen, then IACS proposed six points, which should be incorporated into Chapter 6 of the IBC Code.
11.41 The Committee recognized that the problem of defining appropriate materials of construction had been discussed in detail by ESPH, and it was concluded that it is very complex and extremely difficult to develop meaningful criteria. In addition, the Committee was informed that ship owners tended to ignore column m of the IBC Code and preferred to do their own testing in order to ensure that no damage would be done to the ship as a result of transporting a particular cargo.
11.42 However, the Committee agreed that this was primarily a safety issue, which should be put to MSC for its consideration.
11.43 Whilst agreeing that obsolete MEPC circulars could be omitted from the next publication of the IBC Code, the Committee recognized that MSC should be invited to consider the request to delete any MSC circulars.
11.44 Notwithstanding these points, the Committee agreed that the existing column letters in Chapter 17 of the Code should be kept to avoid confusion, whilst recognizing that some columns might become redundant.
11.45 The Committee agreed that further amendments to the IBC Code should not delay the entry into force of the consequential amendments as a result of the revised MARPOL Annex II later than 1 January 2007.
11.46 The Committee agreed that Chapter 19 of the IBC Code could be deleted as incineration of liquid chemical wastes at sea was no longer permitted.
11.47 In order to facilitate the maintenance of the IBC Code and to provide a means of keeping relevant, associated documents in the same binder, the Committee agreed that the next edition of the IBC Code should be in A4 loose-leaf format.
11.48 Recognizing that it is not always obvious whether the assigned Ship Type is due to safety or pollution reasons in the current version of the IBC Code, the Committee agreed that, in the revised IBC Code, if the revised Ship Type, based on pollution criteria:
.1 is higher than the existing one, then the revised Ship Type will be assigned; or
.2 is lower than the existing one, then the existing Ship Type will be assigned unless it can be demonstrated that the existing Ship Type is not due to safety considerations.
11.49 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 49, it had instructed the ESPH Working Group to give its opinion on some issues related to the possible future work of the GESAMP/EHS Working Group. Having considered the views of the Working Group, as reported in paragraph 11.2.5 of MEPC 51/11, the Committee concurred with them.
11.50 Recognizing that the ESPH Working Group still had a considerable amount of work to do in association with the entry into force of MARPOL Annex II, the Committee agreed that the Group should meet from 30 August to 3 September 2004. However, it was recognized that MEPC 51 might instruct it to undertake further work than anticipated so that a second intersessional meeting might be necessary. As a result, it was agreed to consider this issue further under agenda item 20 (see paragraph 20.14).
11.51 The Committee noted that, in paragraph 7.1.5 of MEPC 51/11, the ESPH Group had agreed to delete two n.o.s. entries and one specific entry associated with vegetable oils. The Chairman of the Group informed the Committee that these entries had been developed in the 1970's to assist the industry but that many inappropriate products had been shipped under these entries which, if properly declared, would have been Pollution Category B. So, the reason the Group agreed to delete these entries was to prevent the continuation of this situation and to ensure that the revised IBC Code would be robust.
11.52 However, the United States expressed the concern that the ESPH report did not request the Committee to take action on this issue. As a result, the Committee agreed to consider this issue at MEPC 52.
Establishment of a Drafting Group on the IBC Code
11.53 Having considered the ESPH report and the associated submissions related to the IBC Code, the Committee established a Drafting Group, under the chairmanship of Mrs. M. Tiemens-Idzinga, to make the final editorial amendments to the IBC Code so that it could be approved at MEPC 51 with a view to adoption at MEPC 52.
11.54 The Drafting Group was instructed to:
.1 taking into account decisions made by the Committee, consider those issues affecting the revision of the IBC Code;
.2 check the cross-references in the text for accuracy;
.3 make any editorial amendments deemed appropriate; and
.4 submit a written report to the Committee on Thursday, which should include the revised text of the IBC Code for approval.
Report of the Drafting Group on the revised IBC Code
11.55 The Chairman of the Drafting Group presented her report (MEPC 51/WP.13) and indicated that the Group had carried out its instructions and produced a clean text for consideration by the Committee. However, the Committee's attention was drawn to seven specific issues identified in paragraph 3.2 of MEPC 51/WP.13.
11.56 Based on the report of the Drafting Group, the Committee:
.1 agreed that the various references to 'should' should be replaced by 'shall' as the IBC Code is mandatory under both SOLAS and MARPOL and instructed the Secretariat to check the last sentence of regulation 10.1 of Chapter VII of SOLAS to see if it is really necessary;
.2 noted that chapter 11 of the revised Code includes safety issues, which are subject to Chapter II-2 of SOLAS and that these will be the subject of future amendments;
.3 noted that the text of chapter 6 is expected to be the subject of consideration by MSC 78 and so was put in square brackets;
.4 noted that the decisions of MSC, with regard to chapter 6, might have an impact on paragraphs 15.5.1.2 and 15.5.2.3, which identify specific requirements in this respect for the carriage of hydrogen peroxide, and instructed the Secretariat to make any necessary changes in response to the decisions of MSC in this respect;
.5 agreed that Chapters 17 and 18 of the IBC Code were not included and instructed the Secretariat to include them before circulation of the final text;
.6 noted that the Index to Chapters 17 and 18 of the Code had been moved to the position of Chapter 19 to replace the original Chapter 19 which the Committee had decided to delete;
.7 noted that the paragraphs in Chapter 21 would need to be renumbered in line with the other chapters before circulation of the final text and instructed the Secretariat to undertake this work prior to circulation of the text;
.8 approved the text of the revised IBC Code, as shown in annex 10, and requested the Secretary-General to circulate it with a view to adoption by MEPC 52. In addition, the Committee invited MSC 78 to consider the revised IBC Code with a view to its approval and eventual adoption in accordance with the provisions of the SOLAS Convention. MSC 78 was also invited to provide comments on the revised IBC Code to MEPC 52 so that the views of MSC 78 can be reflected by MEPC 52 when adopting the revised Code;
.9 agreed that the text of the revised IBC Code to be adopted by the MEPC and MSC should be identical; and
.10 instructed the Secretariat to:
.1 include the three entries for vegetable oils, identified in paragraph 7.1.3 of MEPC 51/11, in square brackets in chapters 17 or 18 of the IBC Code, as appropriate, for further consideration by MEPC 52;
.2 check whether paragraph 1.5.4.4 of the revised IBC Code is obsolete and, if so, delete it and renumber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly;
.3 amend the Model form of the International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk in line with the HSSC Code; and
.4 prepare a revised draft version of the BCH Code, in line with the revised IBC Code for consideration by ESPH and BLG prior to submitting it to a future session of the MEPC for approval.
12 FOLLOW-UP TO THE REVISED MARPOL ANNEX I AND ANNEX II
12.1 The Committee recalled that, during MEPC 49, the sequence of events associated with the implementation of the revised MARPOL Annex I and Annex II had been discussed. As a result, it agreed to add this agenda item in order to consider any appropriate developments associated with these two Annexes.
Amendments to MARPOL Annex I adopted by MEPC 50
12.2 The Committee noted the following points as outlined in documents MEPC 51/12 and MEPC 51/12/Corr.1:
.1 MEPC 49 approved, in principle, the draft revised text for MARPOL Annex I with a view to incorporating any amendments resulting from MEPC 50 prior to obtaining its final approval during MEPC 51 and its adoption during MEPC 52;
.2 MEPC 50 adopted amendments to regulation 13G, a new regulation 13H and the consequential amendments to the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) and the IOPP Certificate Supplement (Form B) which are expected to enter into force on 5 April 2005;
.3 in addition, MEPC 50 approved a new Unified Interpretation to regulation 13G(3)(b) concerning the definition of a Category 2 oil tanker;
.4 in order to incorporate the amended regulation 13G and the new regulation 13H of the existing MARPOL Annex I into the revised Annex I, Members are requested to note that:
.1 regulation 20 of the revised Annex I is the amended regulation 13G of the existing Annex I;
.2 regulation 35, titled "Part D - Requirements for the carriage of certain oils" has been inserted in the revised Annex I to reflect the new regulation 13H of the existing Annex I;
.3 the new Unified Interpretation concerning the definition of Category 2 oil tankers is inserted as number 33 in the Unified Interpretations;
.4 amendments to the Unified Interpretation 4.1.1 are included as new sub-paragraphs 5 and 6 of Unified Interpretation 26.1 of the revised Annex I; and
.5 subsequent regulations of the revised Annex I and its Unified Interpretations need to be renumbered accordingly.
12.3 Having considered the above points, the Committee agreed to instructed the Secretariat to incorporate the amended regulation 13G, new regulation 13H, new regulation 13I and amended regulation 26 (see paragraph 10.19) and other consequential amendments into the revised MARPOL Annex I and requested the Secretary-General to circulate the revised Annex I so that it could be adopted by MEPC 52. The text of the revised MARPOL Annex I is contained in annex 11.
12.4 The Committee agreed to a suggestion by Japan that the new regulation 13H in the current Annex I should be renumbered as regulation 21 after regulation 20, which is the amended regulation 13G of the current Annex I.
12.5 The United States stated that, since it reserved its position on regulations 13F and 13G of the current Annex I, it would reserve its position on the equivalent regulations in the revised Annex I.
12.6 However, in order that the United States would be able to consider becoming a Party to the equivalent regulation in the revised Annex I of the new regulation 13H in the current Annex I, the Committee agreed to include a similar text in the operative paragraphs of the MEPC resolution on the adoption of the revised Annex I, which would allow separate consideration of each regulation by Parties pursuant to article 16(2)(f)(ii) of the MARPOL Convention.
Review of the Guidelines under MARPOL Annex I
12.7 The Committee noted that the Secretariat had identified those Guidelines, referred to in the 2002 consolidated edition of MARPOL Annex I, and had made proposals for the possible actions to be taken as a result of the revised MARPOL Annex I (MEPC 51/12/2).
12.8 The Committee also noted that, whilst MEPC 51/12/2 had identified the Guidelines associated with MARPOL Annex I, there was also a considerable number of associated MEPC resolutions and circulars containing cross references to the existing regulations of MARPOL Annex I, which due to the restructuring of the revised Annex I, would no longer be correct.
12.9 In order to ensure the smooth and unhindered implementation of all these resolutions, guidelines and circulars when the revised Annex I enters into force, and avoiding at the same time an unnecessary heavy work burden, the Committee agreed to take the following actions:
.1 resolutions, guidelines and circulars associated with the Annex I would not be revised with the sole purpose of bringing the cross-references in line with the new regulation numbering system under the revised Annex I;
.2 these resolutions, guidelines and circulars would be revised, only if they contained outdated provisions which need to be updated in line with the recent amendments to Annex I or which need adaptation to technical progress;
.3 the Secretariat was instructed to prepare a draft MEPC circular for consideration at the next session, which would provide cross-reference lists between the "old" and the "new" regulations and vice versa;
.4 the Secretariat was also instructed to check and correct the cross references of CAS; and
.5 Member States were invited to submit proposals with regard to the action mentioned in .2 above. These submissions would be considered either by the Committee itself, under the agenda item "Follow up to the revised Annex I and Annex II", or forwarded to the BLG Sub-Committee for consideration, as appropriate.
Comments on the new renumbered regulation 35 "Prevention of oil pollution from oil tankers carrying heavy grade oil as cargo"
12.10 IACS expressed concern in its submission (MEPC 51/12/3) about the incongruence of the regulations related to the double hull requirements for oil tankers of 600 to 5,000 tons deadweight carrying heavy grade oil. IACS argued that for a ship fitted with double bottom and double sides in accordance with regulation 35.4.2, regulation 19.6.2 should be interpreted to allow oils other than heavy-grade oils to be carried in side tanks if the ship is fitted with cargo tanks not exceeding 700m3 capacity.
12.11 After consideration, the Committee agreed with the following Unified Interpretation to regulation 19.6.2 of the revised MARPOL Annex I (see annex 12):
33 Definition of double side wing tanks
Regulation 19.6.2 33.1 Wing tanks required for the protection of the entire cargo tank length by regulation 19.6.2, for the purpose of compliance with regulation 35.4.2, can be used as cargo tanks for the carriage of oil other than heavy grade oils when the ship is provided with cargo tanks so arranged that the capacity of each cargo tank does not exceed 700 m3.
Identification of the Guidelines, which might require updating as a result of the revised MARPOL Annex II
12.12 The Committee noted that the Secretariat had identified those Guidelines referred to in the 2002 consolidated edition of MARPOL Annex II, and had made proposals for the possible actions to be taken as a result of the revised MARPOL Annex II (MEPC 51/12/1).
12.13 In this context, the Committee noted that the proposed actions fell into the following three types:
.1 incorporation of guidelines into MEPC/Circ.265 (Guidelines for the provisional assessment of liquids transported in bulk), which is currently being revised by the ESPH Working Group;
.2 no action required for various reasons; and
.3 amendments of cross-references to the revised MARPOL Annex II.
12.14 As a result, the Committee instructed the ESPH Working Group to undertake the actions proposed in the annex to MEPC 51/12/1 and report the results to BLG 9, the outcome of which should be submitted to MEPC 53 for consideration.
|
