|
6 INTERPRETATIONS AND AMENDMENTS OF MARPOL 73/78 AND RELATED INSTRUMENTS
6.1 The Committee had before it 13 substantive documents and one information document and agreed to deal with them, by grouping together those addressing the same or related issues, in the following order:
.1 MEPC 55/6 (Dominica), MEPC 55/6/1 (Denmark), MEPC 55/6/6 (BIMCO), MEPC 55/6/10 (India), MEPC 55/6/11 (Sweden), and MEPC 55/6/12 (INTERTANKO and INTERCARGO), all dealing with matters related to implementation of and compliance with the discharge requirements of the Revised MARPOL Annex I;
.2 MEPC 55/6/3 (Norway), MEPC 55/6/4 (New Zealand) and MEPC 54/6/7 (BIMCO) on matters related with the review of MARPOL Annex V;
.3 MEPC 54/6/2 (Marshall Islands and INTERTANKO), MEPC 54/6/5 (IACS), MEPC 54/6/8 (IACS) and MEPC 54/6/9 (Australia) with several proposals for clarification, interpretation or amendment of different requirements in the Revised MARPOL Annex I and Annex IV; and
.4 MEPC 54/INF.8 (Denmark) providing information on shipboard incinerator capacity.
DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS IN THE REVISED MARPOL ANNEX I
6.2 The Committee noted that the first group of documents to be addressed responded to the Committee's outcome at MEPC 54 after consideration of document MEPC 54/14 by India. In that document, India had pointed at the serious operational problems affecting waste oil management in machinery spaces of ships. It was recalled that MEPC 54, in concluding the debate (MEPC 54/21, paragraph 14.8):
".1 endorsed the views of India that inadequacy of oil pollution prevention equipment, in particular oily bilge separators, is a serious problem;
.2 agreed to invite Member Governments and industry to provide concrete proposals, including draft MEPC circulars or proposed amendments to existing instruments, to a future session of the Committee in order to address this important matter; and
.3 urged all Parties to the MARPOL Convention, especially port States, to fulfil their obligations under MARPOL by providing adequate reception facilities."
6.3 The Committee expressed appreciation to India for its important contribution that had spurred a fruitful debate in the Committee which hopefully would bring important changes in the legislative and implementation aspects related to prevention of operational oil pollution from ships.
6.4 The Committee agreed to hold a general debate on the various proposals and best way forward on how to address them once all six documents had been introduced.
Electronic means to control oil discharges from ships
6.5 Dominica, in document MEPC 55/6, focused mainly on combating illegal discharges of oil into the marine environment. However, it stressed that surveillance and enforcement constitute heavy burdens for developing countries lying close to busy shipping lanes and proposed that modern electronic means, such as an Electronic Oil Discharge Monitoring System (EODMS), be used to replace part of the "pen and ink" current Oil Record Book (ORB). These electronic facilities must be tamper-proof and capable of recording all operations related to oily water operations (machinery spaces and cargo) regulated in MARPOL Annex I and the whole system could be integrated with the Long-Range Identification and Tracking System (LRIT) currently under development.
6.6 In addition, Dominica suggested that regulations 17 and 36 (ORB Parts I and II, respectively) of the revised MARPOL Annex I should be amended in this respect as well as related survey and IOPP certificate provisions, as required.
Improvement of the handling of oil residues and bilge water in relation to MARPOL Annex I and Annex VI
6.7 Denmark, in document MEPC 55/6/1, proposed a comprehensive overhaul of the regulations and related guidelines concerning handling of oil residues and oily bilge water. In the view of Denmark, the zero tolerance approach to MARPOL violations adopted by maritime authorities worldwide had made seafarers and shipping companies vulnerable to criminal prosecutions. In this environment, all efforts should be made to ensure that MARPOL provisions were clear (including definitions of key concepts in the regulations which are now absent) so that the requirements could be easily translated into actual operational practice aboard ships. The following concrete regulatory measures put forward by Denmark were, in synthesis:
- develop clear definitions for oil residues (sludge) and bilge water holding tanks;
- develop unified interpretations on how letter codes (A to H) in the ORB should be used;
- amendments to the IOPP Certificate, Forms A (ships other than oil tankers) and B (oil tankers);
- develop supplementary Guidelines concerning approval of bilge and sludge handling systems; and
- update the "Revised Guidelines for systems for handling oily wastes in machinery spaces of ships" approved at MEPC 54 (MEPC.1/Circ.511).
The Committee noted that, in its document, Denmark provided the texts of proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex I and related instruments in connection with the above.
Comments on the proposals by Dominica and Denmark
6.8 BIMCO, in document MEPC 55/6/6, whilst supporting the main thrust in Denmark's document, proposed improvement of the oily water separator system, including the engine room bilge water holding tank. Its proposal included an improvement of the performance test described in resolution MEPC.107(49) by using more realistic fluids and making the tests longer (8-12 hours instead of 2.5 hours). It was suggested, in addition, that bilge holding tanks should not be double bottom tanks but, ideally, deep tanks which provide a better oil/water separation capability.
6.9 India, in document MEPC 55/6/10, welcomed the proposals by Dominica and Denmark and provided some comments of a technical nature, such as, inter alia, the convenience to furnish the oil content meter with enhanced recording capability relating to quantity of bilge water discharged, location of the ship through GPS input, continuous recording of ppm, position of the 3-way valve, etc.
6.10 In addition, India proposed to amend regulation 16 of MARPOL Annex VI in order to specify the minimum capacity for on-board incinerator as well as the upgrading to mandatory status of MEPC.1/Circ.511 (Revised Guidelines for systems for handling oily wastes in machinery spaces of ships).
6.11 Sweden, in document MEPC 55/6/11, in endorsing the proposal by Denmark (MEPC 55/6/1), suggested to include an additional item to the list of aspects that should be verified in the supplementary Guidelines concerning approval of bilge and sludge handling systems: verification by the Administration that the effluent from bilge water and oily water separator systems cannot be intentionally diluted at any point in these systems.
6.12 In the view of Sweden, the need for this addition was urgent as it was becoming more and more common that ships were "solving" their treatment problems by diluting the effluent from the bilge water separator before it reached the oil content meter in order to attain an oil content below 15ppm. In this way dilution led to discharges of harmful oil substances, without any reduction in the total quantity discharged into the sea, as in the end it was only a matter of how much water was added to the oil or emulsified oil before it was discharged overboard. The result of this method was that oil entering the marine environment was not reduced at all, thus defeating the main purpose of MARPOL Annex I.
6.13 In document MEPC 55/6/12, INTERTANKO and INTERCARGO expressed support for the holistic approach by Denmark; however, they formulated several detailed technical observations and proposed that the whole issue be referred to a technical Sub-Committee for review, where a thorough review of MEPC.1/Circ.511 and related regulations of MARPOL Annex I and Annex VI could be carried out.
Discussion of the proposals by Dominica and Denmark
6.14 Those delegations who intervened in the debate thanked Dominica and Denmark, as well as India, Sweden, BIMCO, INTERTANKO and INTERCARGO who had provided comments on the initial proposals, for their contributions aimed at improving in a holistic way the quality of the oil residue and bilge treatment systems on board ships.
6.15 In the course of the ensuing discussion, the following points were made:
.1 many delegations supported the proposals in document MEPC 55/6/1 (Denmark) whilst several amongst them provided comments as to the practicability and feasibility of some of those proposals. It was recognized, however, that the regulatory changes put forward by Denmark constituted a sound basis for further advance with the aim of preventing marine pollution from ships' operations;
.2 several delegations supported the proposal by Dominica; however, others could not agree to the EODMS intended system being integrated with the LRIT as the latter was still under development and was not intended to carry environmental applications in the short term. On this point, the Chairman clarified that indeed this was the case and recalled that MEPC 53, in discussing the possible future environmental functions of the LRIT, had agreed that it would need to be developed in such a manner that, when it would be extended to cater for environmental applications, it would be capable of easily being expanded so as to incorporate a data storage capability and capacity (MEPC 53/24, paragraph 11.41);
.3 on the issue of whether document MEPC 55/6 (Dominica) had been submitted in compliance with the requirements of the Committee's Guidelines (MSC/Circ.1099 - MEPC/Circ.405), the Chairman recalled that MEPC 54 had invited Member Governments and industry to submit concrete proposals, including proposed amendments to existing instruments, and that the proposal by Dominica responded to that invitation; however, as the proposal was not relevant for the purpose of the call for submissions made by MEPC, as stated in paragraphs 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 above, the Committee recommended Dominica to resubmit it as a proposal for a new work programme item, in accordance with the requirements of the Committee's guidelines, to a future session of the Committee;
.4 it was mentioned that the revised MARPOL Annex I, which would enter into force on 1 January 2007 after more than seven years of preparation, should be given sufficient time to assess its strengths and weaknesses before a compelling need was shown for amendments;
.5 many delegations agreed that detailed discussion on the complex technical issues that formed the core of the proposals, and comments made upon them, should be referred to a technical Sub-Committee rather than holding a debate in the Committee where only matters of policy should be dealt with.
6.16 In concluding the debate, the Committee agreed to include a high priority item on "Review of MEPC.1/Circ.511 and relevant MARPOL Annex I and Annex VI requirements" in the work programme of the DE Sub-Committee and in the provisional agenda of DE 50 with a target completion date of 2008.
6.17 The Committee agreed to request the DE Sub-Committee to take into account documents MEPC 55/6/1, MEPC 55/6/6, MEPC 55/6/10, MEPC 55/6/11 and MEPC 55/6/12, in the discussions relating to the new work programme item and invited member Governments and interested observer delegations to submit any other proposals relating to this issue to the DE Sub-Committee.
|
