|
6 INTERPRETATIONS AND AMENDMENTS OF MARPOL 73/78 AND RELATED INSTRUMENTS
6.1 Under this agenda item the Committee had before it five documents and agreed to deal with them in the following order:
.1 two documents proposing clarifications or interpretations related to MARPOL Annex I revised regulation 13G and new regulation 13H, both adopted by MEPC 50 in December 2003 (MEPC 52/6 by OCIMF and MEPC 52/6/4 by the Marshall Islands);
.2 one document with a request for clarification of CAS application as related to MARPOL Annex I regulation 13H(6)(a) (MEPC 52/6/3 by INTERTANKO);
.3 one document proposing an interpretation on the implementation of resolution MEPC.107(49) on Pollution Prevention Equipment (PPE) for Machinery Space Bilges of Ships (MEPC 52/6/2 by IACS); and
.4 one document with a proposal to amend regulation 1.1 of the revised MARPOL Annex IV (MEPC 52/6/1 by Norway).
6.2 The Committee also agreed to consider under this agenda item a document proposing an amendment to the existing MARPOL Annex I regulation 18(6) that had been submitted under Agenda item 2 on Harmful Aquatic Organisms in Ballast Water (MEPC 52/2/11 by IACS).
Clarification of definition of fuel oil in MARPOL Annex I revised regulation 13G and new regulation 13H
6.3 In introducing document MEPC 52/6, OCIMF invited the Committee to provide clarification regarding the definitions of "fuel oil" in both the revised MARPOL Annex I regulation 13G and new regulation 13H, in order to avoid the wrong types of heavy oil, such as lubricants, cat feed or feedstock, which are not included in the said fuel oil definitions, being carried in single-hull oil tankers beyond the deadline specified in regulation 13H.
6.4 The delegations participating in the debate supported in general the proposal by OCIMF and agreed that this was an important issue that merited clarification. A debate followed on whether to amend regulation 13H in order to include cat feed, feedstocks and other possible heavy grade oils within its scope, or develop a unified interpretation, or both. A discussion also took place on whether any proposed amendment should be referred to regulation 21 of the revised Annex I or to regulation 13H of the existing Annex I.
6.5 In this connection, the Committee considered document MEPC 52/WP.16 (Secretariat), which suggested that where proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex I and Annex II are submitted in the period from now on and before the expected entry into force of both Annexes on 1 January 2007, they should be considered as proposed amendments to the revised Annex I and Annex II, provided that, at the time of their adoption, the Committee ensures that their entry into force dates, in accordance with article 16 of the MARPOL Convention, occur after 1 January 2007. The Committee endorsed this view.
6.6 Following discussion the Committee agreed to send the issue to BLG 9 for consideration and report back to MEPC 53 in July 2005. The Committee agreed further that the proposed amendments should be referred to regulation 21 of the revised Annex I. It was recognized that should the amendments be approved by MEPC 53 (July 2005) and adopted by MEPC 54 (March 2006), they could enter into force in July 2007.
Phasing out of single-hull tankers under the revised regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I
6.7 In its document MEPC 52/6/4, the Marshall Islands clarified a previous submission to MEPC 51 (MEPC 51/17/3) proposing that a single-hull oil tanker that had undergone a "major conversion" resulting in the replacement of the full vessel's forebody, including the entire cargo tank section, be considered for the purpose of the revised regulation 13G, as an oil tanker delivered on the date when the major conversion was completed.
6.8 Following debate and having considered MEPC 52/WP.10, the Committee approved the Unified Interpretation to regulation 13G(4) of the existing MARPOL Annex I, which is set out at annex 5 (see also paragraph 5.54.4).
Clarification of CAS application as related to MARPOL Annex I regulation 13H(6)(a)
6.9 In document MEPC 52/6/3, INTERTANKO expressed the view that, in accordance with the wording of MARPOL Annex I regulation 13H(6)(a), an Administration may be inclined to interpret its requirements as making CAS mandatory to oil tankers, irrespective of age, carrying crude oil of density at 15℃ higher than 900 kg/m3 but lower than 945 kg/m3, beyond the dates specified in regulation 13H(4)(a). In the view of INTERTANKO this interpretation would be inconsistent with paragraph 5.1.3 of CAS whereby CAS exclusively applies to oil tankers of 15 years of age and over.
6.10 The Committee debated the issue in depth and reached the conclusion that, in drafting regulation 13H, MEPC 50 had never had the intention of making CAS mandatory to oil tankers of less than 15 years operating under regulation 13H(6)(a). The Committee instructed the Sub-Group on the revised MARPOL Annex I to develop an appropriate Unified Interpretation.
6.11 The Committee, having considered the outcome of the Sub-Group on the issue (MEPC 52/WP.10), agreed with the following Unified Interpretation to regulation 21.6.1 of the revised MARPOL Annex I (which has been included in annex 3):
"The first CAS survey shall be carried out concurrent with the first intermediate or renewal survey:
- after 5 April 2005, or
- after the date when the ship reaches 15 years of age,
whichever occurs later."
Implementation of resolution MEPC.107(49) - Revised Guidelines and Specifications for Pollution Prevention Equipment for Machinery Space Bilges of Ships
6.12 IACS, in its document MEPC 52/6/2, expressed concern on the following grounds:
.1 a possible lack of consistency between paragraph 2(a) of resolution MEPC.107(49) inviting Governments to implement the Revised Guidelines as from 1 January 2005 "in so far as is reasonable and practicable", and paragraphs 1.3.1.1 and 1.3.1.2 of the Guidelines that seem to allow that possibility for "new" installations on board existing ships, only; and
.2 the lack of equipment type-approved under the new Guidelines that could be made available for installation on board new ships from 1 January 2005 (implementation date for the Revised Guidelines).
6.13 IACS proposed to develop an MEPC Circular, or amend resolution MEPC.107(49), postponing the implementation of the requirements of the said resolution as follows:
.1 under paragraph 1.3.1.1 of the Guidelines, installations fitted on or after 1 January 2005 to ships whose keels were laid before that date, NEED NOT meet the revised Guidelines; and
.2 under paragraph 1.3.1.2 of the Guidelines, "new" installations should be interpreted as "replacement" installations and "fitted" should be interpreted as "ordered" on or after 1 January 2005, to ships whose keels were laid before 1 January 2005.
6.14 The majority of the delegations who took the floor were of the opinion that there would not be an appreciable shortage of equipment approved under the revised Guidelines on 1 January 2005. The Committee, however, agreed to the proposed interpretation in the document by IACS to the effect that paragraph 1.3.1.1 of the revised Guidelines is applicable to new building ships only if the keel is laid on or after 1 January 2005, and that paragraph 1.3.1.2 of the revised Guidelines is applicable to replacement equipment ordered on or after 1 January 2005 to ships the keel of which are laid before 1 January 2005.
6.15 The Committee instructed the Secretariat to issue MEPC/Circ.420 as soon as possible in this respect.
Proposed amendments to the revised MARPOL Annex IV
6.16 Norway, in its document MEPC 52/6/1, expressed the opinion that regulation 1.1 of the revised Annex IV must state the entry into force date of the Annex (27 September 2003) in order to avoid misunderstanding or possible confusion that could lead to ships that may be delivered between 27 September 2003 and 1 August 2005 (entry into force of the revised Annex IV) being considered as "existing ships", instead of "new ships", the latter being the correct view and interpretation.
6.17 In order to solve this perceived ambiguity, Norway proposed an amendment to regulation 1.1 of the revised Annex IV as follows:
"1 "New ship" means a ship:
.1 for which the building contract is placed, or in the absence of a building contract, the keel of which is laid, or which is at a similar stage of construction, on or after the date of entry into force of this Annex 27 September 2003; or
.2 the delivery of which is three years or more after the date of entry into force of this Annex on or after 27 September 2006."
6.18 In the debate that followed, the majority of delegations were opposed to approving amendments to regulation 1.1 of the revised MARPOL Annex IV. The Committee confirmed that 27 September 2003 was the one and only entry into force date of MARPOL Annex IV and that the revised Annex IV was an amendment to the existing Annex IV and, as such an amendment, its entry into force date was 1 August 2005. Some delegations, however, expressed some concerns as to the effects that the implementation of the revised Annex IV might cause to the shipping industry. In particular, the following points were made:
.1 if the proposal for amendment was accepted, ships of countries which were planning to accept the revised Annex IV from now until 1 August 2005 would be adversely affected because of retrospective application;
.2 careful consideration should be given to the possibility that the proposed amendment might affect other Annexes of MARPOL 73/78; and
.3 several Administrations had already provided interpretations to the issue of "existing" and "new" ships for the revised Annex.
6.19 As a result of its discussions, the Committee decided not to amend regulation 1.1 of the revised MARPOL Annex IV.
Transitory deviations from MARPOL when conducting ballast water exchange
6.20 IACS, in introducing its document MEPC 52/2/11, expressed its opinion in favour of amending regulation 18(6) of the existing MARPOL Annex I (or regulation 30.6.1 of the revised Annex I) in order to allow oil tankers at sea to discharge ballast water below the waterline by means of pumps. This method was not currently allowed under the said regulation, as gravity was the only method for discharging ballast water at sea below the waterline.
6.21 After a short discussion the Committee, recognizing that it would be advisable to obtain the views on operational matters from the experts participating in the Ballast Water Working Group prior to considering the proposed amendment, agreed to send the issue to the Group for consideration and advice.
6.22 The Committee considered the outcome of the Ballast Water Working Group on the issue which is reported under agenda item 2 (see paragraph 2.21.10).
7 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPRC CONVENTION AND THE OPRC-HNS PROTOCOL AND RELEVANT CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
IMO/UNEP Manual on Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Following Major Oil Spills
7.1 The Committee considered the document submitted by the Secretariat (MEPC 52/7) providing information on a proposal for the development of a joint IMO/UNEP Manual on Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Following Major Oil Spills and indicated its general support for the proposal and noted the concerns expressed by a number of delegations with respect to the short timeline proposed for the adoption of the manual.
7.2 Taking into account the concerns raised by New Zealand and the United States with regard to the short timeframe proposed for the development and finalization of the manual, the Chairman explained to the Committee that UNEP had originally foreseen developing the manual as a UNEP publication, and agreed to the proposal of the IMO Secretariat for its development as a joint publication with the proviso that the document be finalized and approved by MEPC 53 and published by the beginning of 2006.
7.3 Bearing in mind the timing of the next session of the OPRC/ORPC-HNS Technical Group for the week prior to MEPC 53 and the corresponding procedural difficulties that this entailed due to the MEPC document submission deadlines, and taking into account the information provided by the Chairman (paragraph 7.2), the Committee agreed exceptionally that the draft manual could be submitted to MEPC 53 as a working paper, with the additions and changes proposed by the third session of the Technical Group included in a consolidated annex, with a view to approval by the Committee at MEPC 53.
7.4 The Committee further noted that while it agreed to consider the draft manual with a view to approval at MEPC 53, it reserved the right to approach UNEP to request an extension for the work if it was felt that the quality was not of a high enough standard due to the short time allocated for its development.
7.5 The Committee thereby:
.1 requested the OPRC/OPRC-HNS Technical Group to undertake the development of the proposed IMO/UNEP Manual (see also paragraph 7.10.14);
.2 instructed the correspondence group tasked with developing the manual to take into account the comments made by India highlighting the need for the inclusion of information on bioremediation and phytoremediation in connection with restoration activities; and
.3 invited India to provide its more detailed comments directly to New Zealand, as the co-ordinator of the correspondence group.
7.6 The Committee noted, in particular, the appreciation expressed by Pakistan to the international community for its assistance during the Tasman Spirit incident and its strong support for the development of the proposed manual on natural resource damage assessment and restoration following major oil spills, as well as the revised OPRC model courses and the capacity building tools currently being developed by the OPRC/OPRC-HNS Technical Group for HNS. Pakistan correspondingly urged the Committee, and the Technical Group, to ensure that any manuals developed were simple and practical so that they could be used by the widest possible audience.
Implementation of the OPRC 90 Convention in India
7.7 The Committee noted the information on activities carried out by India for the implementation of the OPRC Convention (MEPC 52/7/1).
Adoption of NOWPAP regional contingency plan
7.8 The Committee noted the information provided by the Republic of Korea on the adoption of the NOWPAP regional oil spill contingency plan by China, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation. The Committee also noted the appreciation expressed by these delegations to the Secretariat for their support and assistance in developing the plan, and looked forward to the Secretariat's continued support in implementing the plan.
Report of the second session of the OPRC/OPRC-HNS Technical Group
7.9 The Committee noted that the second session of the OPRC/OPRC-HNS Technical Group was held from 4 to 8 October 2004 and that the Group's report was issued as document MEPC 52/WP.4.
7.10 Following the presentation of the report of the Technical Group by its Chairman, Mr. Ezio Amato (Italy), the Committee (with references to paragraphs and annexes of document MEPC 52/WP.4):
.1 took note of the progress made by the Group in developing an IMO Manual on Oil Spill Risk Evaluation and Assessment of Response Preparedness (paragraphs 2.2 to 2.6);
.2 noted the progress made by the Group in the development of a guidance document on contingency planning, hazard evaluation, assessment and reponse to marine chemical spills (paragraphs 2.7 to 2.12);
.3 took note of the current status of the Bonn Agreement Oil Appearance Code (BAOAC), based on a recent decision of the Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Bonn Agreement to continue to collect data on the application of the coding for the next two years, and requested the Group to keep the matter in abeyance, pending receipt of the report of the results of the two-year trial from the Meeting of the Bonn Agreement Contracting Parties in 2006 (paragraphs 2.13 to 2.16);
.4 considered the draft Guidelines on facilitation of response to pollution incidents, together with the draft Assembly resolution for their adoption, and approved them for submission to the twenty-fourth session of the Assembly, with any final editorial changes to be undertaken by the Secretariat, for adoption (paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 and annex 1); the text of the draft Assembly resolution is set out in annex 9;
.5 approved the Introductory, as well as Levels 1, 2 and 3 OPRC Model Training Courses; concurred with the view of the Group that a reference stating that the Exercise Clean Seas may be used as a training tool be introduced in the Courses; and instructed the Secretariat to act accordingly (paragraphs 4.3 to 4.10);
.6 concurred with the course of action taken by the Group on the development of Guidelines for accreditation or approval of OPRC training organizations and experts (paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4);
.7 noted the progress made and concurred with the course of action taken by the Group on the development of an IMO training programme for HNS incidents (paragraphs 6.2 to 6.6);
.8 noted the progress made and concurred with the course of action taken by the Group on the development of a web page to be housed on the IMO website providing information and assistance for HNS incidents (paragraphs 7.4 to 7.8);
.9 noted the action taken by the Group on the follow-up to the Third R&D Forum (paragraphs 8.3 and 8.4);
.10 noted the progress made on the development of a web page on research and development for response to oil spills to be housed on the IMO website and concurred with the course of action taken by the Group (paragraphs 8.6 to 8.11);
.11 noted the deliberations on the preliminary plans for the third IMO/UNEP Forum (paragraphs 9.2 to 9.6);
.12 in noting the progress made on the implementation of the recommendations of the second IMO/UNEP Forum, noted the request from ROPME regarding the follow-up action needed in the ROPME Region concerning wreck removal (paragraphs 9.7 to 9.10);
.13 approved the draft revised work programme of the Group and provisional agenda for TG 3 and confirmed that the next session of the Group will be convened from 11 to 15 July 2005 (paragraphs 10.1 to 10.3 and annex 2);
.14 with reference to document MEPC 52/7, approved the addition of a new work programme item on development of a Manual on Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration in Response to Large Oil Spills, and concurred with the course of action taken by the Group on this matter (paragraphs 11.1 to 11.7);
.15 approved the organization and method of work agreed by the Group (paragraphs 11.8 to 11.13);
.16 instructed the Secretariat to contact IAEA on the matter of developing emergency response arrangements to marine accidents involving radioactive materials, to follow the activities of IAEA and its committees on issues related to preparedness and response to nuclear and radioactive incidents and to report back to the OPRC/OPRC-HNS Technical Group on the matter at its third session (paragraph 11.15);
.17 took note of the recommendation by ROPME on the need for the development of a standardized contingency plan for nuclear powered ships visiting ports (paragraph 11.18), and recognizing that expertise on preparedness and response to nuclear and radioactive releases is outside the remit and expertise of the IMO committees and their subsidiary bodies, and also noting the information provided by WNTI on the outcome of the recent meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Transport Safety Standards Committee, invited those countries with an interest in this issue to participate in the work of IAEA, as the UN body responsible for developing regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials; and
.18 approved the report in general.
|
