6.18 The Committee recalled that MEPC 54 noted resolution A/RES/60/30 of the UN General Assembly inviting IMO to review MARPOL Annex V, in consultation with relevant organizations and bodies, and to assess its effectiveness in addressing sea-based sources of marine debris.

　

6.19 The Committee recalled also that it was suggested at the same session that a review of MARPOL Annex V should also take into account the recommendations of the Joint London Convention/MEPC Correspondence Group when clarifying boundary issues between MARPOL 73/78 and the London Convention and Protocol, as this particularly addressed the discharge of garbage under MARPOL Annex V. The Committee noted that the report of the Joint London Convention/MEPC Correspondence Group would be considered under agenda item 11.

　

6.20 The Committee recalled, finally, that, in conclusion, MEPC 54 (MEPC 54/21, paragraphs 11.27.1 and .2):

　

6.21 The Committee had before it three documents responding to this invitation: MEPC 55/6/3 (Norway), MEPC 55/6/4 (New Zealand) and MEPC 55/6/7 (BIMCO).

　

6.22 Norway, in document MEPC 55/6/3, proposed the review of the discharge requirements for cargo residues from dry bulk cargos in the context of the review of MARPOL Annex V and the Guidelines for its implementation. Cargo residues should be considered both in the "wet" condition (wash water) and in the "dry" condition and a series of criteria, such as turbidity; sedimentation; biological oxygen demand; toxicity; long term effects; and floating properties were to be taken into account.

　

6.23 New Zealand, in document MEPC 55/6/4, showed concern about the problem posed by garbage mixed with packaging material such as plasticized cardboard blister packs which now seemed to be insufficiently regulated. New Zealand proposed a double approach: amendment of Annex V regulation 3(1)(a) by including an additional paragraph mentioning waste comprising dangerous goods listed in the IMDG Code; and approval of a Unified Interpretation to the effect that the term "plastics" should include plasticized cardboard blister packs.

　

6.24 The Committee noted document MEPC 55/6/7 (BIMCO) providing further comments and proposals on the problem of cargo residues under MARPOL Annex V. In the view of BIMCO, an amendment of the "Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V" by including a new Garbage Type entitled "Cargo hold washing water containing cargo residues from dry cargoes" would clarify the issue.

　

6.25 The Committee, having noted that there was support for the proposals by Norway, New Zealand and BIMCO, agreed that they would provide a good basis for starting the review of MARPOL Annex V.

　

　

6.26 The Committee agreed to establish an intersessional correspondence group under the leadership of Canada^* and, with a view to dealing with the review of MARPOL Annex V in a holistic way, instructed it to:

　

　

6.27 The Committee considered documents 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 to different requirements of the Revised MARPOL Annex I and Annex IV.

　

6.28 In introducing document MEPC 55/6/2, Marshall Islands drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that, in the revised MARPOL Annex I, regulation 38 on Reception facilities seemed to have omitted to mention the obligation to provide reception facilities in respect of oily residues from cargo areas of oil tankers, which, on the other hand, was provided in the current Annex I parallel regulation 12(2)(e) by referencing regulation 9. In the view of the co-sponsors, mention of regulation 34 on discharge requirements from cargo areas of oil tankers should also be included in regulation 38.2.5 of the revised Annex I (which now only referenced regulation 15 on discharge requirements of oil or oily mixtures except cargo residues) to make it crystal clear that reception facilities for residues from cargo areas of oil tankers must also be provided and, in this respect, the text of a draft amendment to the revised MARPOL Annex I regulation 38.2.5 was included in the document.

　

6.29 Following discussion, the Committee agreed with the proposal by Marshall Islands and INTERTANKO as contained in document MEPC 55/6/2, approved the proposed amendment to regulation 38.2.5 of the revised MARPOL Annex I, as set out in annex 16, and invited the Secretary-General to circulate it in accordance with the MARPOL amendment procedures for consideration with a view to adoption at MEPC 56. The Committee instructed the Secretariat to issue MEPC.1/Circ.541 so that the proposed amendment be brought to the attention of Member Governments, port Authorities and industry, pending its entry into force.

　

6.30 The Committee noted document MEPC 55/6/5 (IACS) inviting the Committee to concur with their criteria for assessing compliance with the requirements set out in regulation 37.4 of the Revised MARPOL Annex I, which reads:

　

6.31 The Committee concurred with the views expressed by IACS and agreed that the following criteria met the principles, including those relevant to liability issues, and expectations under which regulation 37.4 of the revised MARPOL Annex I had been developed:

　

6.32 In document MEPC 55/6/8, IACS informed the Committee about their own Interpretation MPC 86 which provided criteria for the implementation of regulation 10.1 of MARPOL Annex IV, to the effect that all ships subject to Annex IV, irrespective of size and whether or not fitted with a sewage treatment plant or sewage holding tank, shall be provided with a pipeline and the relevant shore connection flange for discharging sewage to port reception facilities.

　

6.33 The Committee endorsed the above interpretation by IACS and approved it as Unified Interpretation of the requirements of regulation 10.1 of MARPOL Annex IV, set out at annex 17.

　

6.34 Australia, in document MEPC 55/6/9, proposed that the definition of "en route" in regulation 1.6 of the revised MARPOL Annex II should also apply to the revised Annex I. This understanding would now be necessary as the 12-nautical mile minimum distance from nearest coast, as a restriction for discharges of oily residues from machinery spaces of ships, was removed from regulation 9 of the current Annex I and, consequently, did not appear either in equivalent regulation 15 of the revised Annex I. Thus the lack of a definition of "en route" in the revised Annex I might be interpreted as allowing discharges where the ship is under way but without a minimum distance requirement from nearest land. In the view of Australia, the ship should be "at sea", which would have the effect of banning discharges within port areas or internal waters. In addition, the term "at sea" should be further clarified, for the purposes of the revised Annex I, by qualifying it with the expression "outside internal waters".

　

6.35 Following debate, the Committee agreed to the following Unified Interpretation, set out at annex 18, for the term "en route" for regulation 15.2.1 of Revised MARPOL Annex I as:

　

　

6.36 The Committee noted with appreciation document MEPC 55/INF.8 (Denmark) on Incinerators for disposal of oil residues, which brought the attention of the Committee to the fact that incinerators' capacity (in litres per hour) varies within a range because it depends on the composition of the sludge fed into it. In consequence, the quantity of burned sludge per hour recorded in the ORB may exceed the nominal capacity stated in the IOPP Certificate Supplement (f.i., where the sludge's water content is high) and this might lead to suspicions from port State control officers that part of the sludge registered as burnt in the ORB has been disposed of in some other way, illegally.