hrvatski registar brodova okruŽnica - naslovna · 2011-10-03 · zahtjeva na preinake tankera s...
TRANSCRIPT
HRVATSKI REGISTAR BRODOVA
OKRUŽNICA
QF-K-05 2003-03
Naslov: Oznaka: Izmjena:
IZVJEŠTAJ SA SJEDNICE KOMITETA ZA ZAŠTITU POMORSKOGOKOLIŠA MEPC 62 QC-T-256 0
Ključne riječi:
MEPC 62
Pripremio: Ocijenio: Odobrio: Vrijedi od: Stranica:
TS / V. Barač TSv / N. VulićTr / G. Begović D / Z. Zulim 2011-10-01 1 / 4
Okružnica u svezi: Prestaje vrijediti okružnica:
- novih i postojećih brodova
-
Područje primjene:
D Uq Ar/AA AF AO Tr TB TS TE Kr/KN KI Fr/F Cr/C
RI PU ML ST ZD ŠI KO SK ZG RV
Primjena izvan HRB-a:
- MMPI- Udruga Mare Nostrum- Brodogradilišta: Uljanik, 3. Maj, Kraljevica, Brodosplit, Brodotrogir
1. OPĆE NAPOMENEOvom okružnicom daje se pregled rada Komiteta za zaštitu pomorskog okoliša na 62. sjednici održanoj od 11. do15. srpnja 2011. u Londonu.Izvještaj s MEPC 62 nalazi se u IMO dokumentu oznake MEPC 62/24.
2. OPASNI MORSKI ORGANIZMI U BALASTNOJ VODI- Komitet je prema preporuci GESAMP-BWWG dao osnovno odobrenje sustavima za obradu balastnih voda
“Erma First” Grčka (ciklonska separacija + elektroliza), “Blue Seas” Singapur (filtracija + elektroliza),“Peraclean Ocean” Japan (dezinfekcija s peroctenom kiselinom), “JFE Ballast Ace” Japan (filtracija +dezinfekcija s Na hipokloritom), “GEA Ballast Master” Njemačka (filtracija + elektroliza i dezinfekcija s Nahipokloritom), “Blue World” Singapur (filtracija + elektroliza), “Neo-Purimar” Republika Koreja (filtracija +elektroliza i dezinfekcija s Na hipokloritom).
- Komitet je prema preporuci GESAMP-BWWG dao završno odobrenje sustavima za obradu balastnih voda “HiBallast” Republika Koreja (filtracija + elektroliza), “Purimar” Republika Koreja (filtracija + elektroliza).
- Komitet se složio da se izda BWM.2/Circ.29/Rev.1 s tumačenjem da brodovi izgrađeni za vrijeme i nakon 2009.godine, ali prije 2012. godine, s kapacitetom balastnih voda od 5000 m3 i više moraju udovoljavati D-2standardu ne kasnije od prvog međupregleda ili obnovnog pregleda, što dospijeva prije, nakon godišnjiceisporuke broda u 2016. godini.
- Komitet je odobrio BWM.2/Circ.32 s tumačenjem da se voda koja se nalazi u teretnom prostoru jaružala-klapetene smatra balastnom vodom.
- Grupa za pregled tehnologija za obradu balastnih voda zaključila je da za brodove s kapacitetom balastnih vodaod 5000 m3 i više, usprkos poteškoća za neke tipove brodova, postoji dovoljan broj odobrenih tehnologija.Na MEPC 63 će se ponovno osnovati grupa za pregled tehnologija jer se očekuje postizanje uvjeta za stupanjena snagu BWM Konvencije.
HRVATSKI REGISTAR BRODOVA OKRUŽNICA
Izmjena: Naslov: Stranica: Oznaka:
0 IZVJEŠTAJ SA SJEDNICE KOMITETA ZA ZAŠTITUPOMORSKOG OKOLIŠA MEPC 62 2 / 4 QC-T-256
QF-K-05 2003-03
3. RECIKLIRANJE BRODOVA
- Komitet je prihvatio Upute za izradu plana za recikliranje brodova (Rezolucija MEPC.196(62)) i izmjenu Uputaza izradu popisa opasnih materijala (Rezolucija MEPC.197(62)).
- Rad na Uputama za sigurno i za okoliš neškodljivo recikliranje brodova i Uputama za ovlašćivanje rezalištabrodova nastavit će se na dopisnoj grupi koja će o svom radu izvijestiti na sjednici MEPC 63.Također će na dopisnoj grupi započeti rad na Uputama za pregled i potvrđivanje prema Hong Kong Konvenciji iUputama za pregled brodova prema Hong Kong Konvenciji.
4. SPREČAVANJE ONEČIŠĆENJA ZRAKA S BRODOVA
- Komitet je odobrio izmjene NOx tehničkog kodeksa kojima se omogućuje potvrđivanje diesel motora premashemi B (primjenjivo za velike diesel motore s ugrađenim SCR sustavom), u cilju prihvaćanja na MEPC 63.
- Komitet je prihvatio Upute vezano uz primjenu NOx tehničkog kodeksa na diesel motore s ugrađenim SCRsustavom (Rezolucija MEPC.198(62)).
- Komitet je prihvatio Upute za uređaje za prihvat vezano uz MARPOL, Prilog VI (Rezolucija MEPC.199(62)).
5. SMANJENJE ISPUŠTANJA STAKLENIČKIH PLINOVA (GHG) S BRODOVA
- Komitet se složio s radnim programom na tehničkim i radnim mjerama za energetsku učinkovitost brodova, kojise nalazi u Prilogu 1, MEPC 62/WP.15.
- Komitet se složio da se u izračunu EEDI za kontejnerske brodove uzima kapacitet 70% DWT.
6. RAZMATRANJE I PRIHVAĆANJE IZMJENA NA OBAVEZNE INSTRUMENTE
- Komitet je prihvatio izmjene MARPOL, Prilog IV - Sprečavanje onečišćenja sanitarnim otpadnim vodama(Rezolucija MEPC.200(62)). Ovim izmjenama uvodi se pojam posebnog područja u kojem su obavezne posebnemjere za sprečavanje onečišćenja mora sanitarnim otpadnim vodama.Područje Baltičkog mora proglašeno je posebnim područjem vezano uz MARPOL, Prilog IV.Zahtjevi za ispuštanje sanitarnih otpadnih voda u more ostaju isti kao do sada za sve brodove, osim za putničkebrodove kad plove unutar posebnog područja.Novi putnički brod je putnički brod kojemu je ugovor o izgradnji potpisan, ili kojemu je kobilica postavljena 1.siječnja 2016. godine ili kasnije, ili koji je isporučen 2 godine ili više nakon 1. siječnja 2016. godine.Ispuštanje sanitarnih otpadnih voda u more s putničkih brodova kad plove unutar posebnog područja jezabranjeno za nove putničke brodove od 1. siječnja 2016. godine, a za postojeće putničke brodove od 1. siječnja2018. godine.Ispuštanje sanitarnih otpadnih voda u more s putničkih brodova kad plove unutar posebnog područja jedozvoljeno ako putnički brod ima ugrađen tipno odobren uređaj za obradu sanitarnih otpadnih voda premaUputama za primjenu normi za ispuštanje i ispitivanje rada uređaja za obradu sanitarnih otpadnih voda čijiprijedlog teksta mora biti dovršen 2012. godine i prihvaćen MEPC rezolucijom.Luke u posebnom području u koje uplovljavaju putnički brodovi moraju imati uređaje za prihvat sanitarnihotpadnih voda.
- Komitet je prihvatio izmjene MARPOL, Prilog V – Sprečavanje onečišćenja smećem (RezolucijaMEPC.201(62)). Navedene izmjene stupit će na snagu 1. siječnja 2013. godine.Ovom izmjenom uvedena je opća zabrana odlaganja smeća s brodova u more osim u određenim slučajevima.Izvan posebnih područja dopušteno je odlaganje ostataka hrane u more na udaljenosti više od 12 nm odnajbližeg kopna, odnosno više od 3 nm od najbližeg kopna ukoliko su ostaci hrane usitnjeni, ostataka tereta kojine sadrže štetne tvari u more na udaljenosti više od 12 nm od najbližeg kopna. Odlaganje životinjskih trupladopušteno je na što je moguće većoj udaljenosti od najbližeg kopna, uzimajući u obzir IMO uputstva.Unutar posebnih područja dopušteno je odlaganje u more usitnjenih ostataka hrane na udaljenosti više od 12 nmod najbližeg kopna, ostataka tereta sadržanih u vodi za pranje skladišta koji ne sadrže štetne tvari, ako brod naputovanju između dvije luke ne napušta posebno područje i u tim lukama ne postoje odgovarajući uređaji zaprihvat, na udaljenosti više od 12 nm od najbližeg kopna.
HRVATSKI REGISTAR BRODOVA OKRUŽNICA
Izmjena: Naslov: Stranica: Oznaka:
0 IZVJEŠTAJ SA SJEDNICE KOMITETA ZA ZAŠTITUPOMORSKOG OKOLIŠA MEPC 62 3 / 4 QC-T-256
QF-K-05 2003-03
Dopušteno je odlaganje u more sredstava za čišćenje i dodataka sadržanih u vodi za pranje palube i vanjskihpovršina, koji nisu škodljivi za okoliš.Obaveza postavljanja plakata s uputama za odlaganje smeća, postojanja plana za rukovanje smećem i vođenjaKnjige o smeću uvodi se za nepomične i plutajuće platforme.Obaveza za plan za rukovanje smećem proširuje se na sve brodove bruto tonaže od 100 GT i više.U Knjizi o smeću uvode se nove kategorije smeća:- domaćinski otpad (papir, krpe, staklo, metal, boce, posuđe i sl.)- ulje za kuhanje- radni otpad (otpad od redovnog održavanja ili radnji na brodu, otpadni materijal od učvršćenja i rukovanja s
teretom, sredstva za čišćenje i dodaci)- životinjska trupla- ribarski alati
- Komitet je prihvatio izmjene MARPOL, Prilog VI, proglašenje US Karipskog mora kao ECA, RezolucijaMEPC.202(62).
- Komitet je prihvatio izmjene MARPOL, Prilog VI – Sprečavanje onečišćenja zraka, pravila za energetskuučinkovitost brodova, Rezolucija MEPC.203(62). Vidi okružnicu QC-T-255.
7. TUMAČENJA I IZMJENE KONVENCIJE MARPOL I INSTRUMENATA KOJI SE NANJU ODNOSE
- Komitet je odobrio prijedlog teksta izmjena MARPOL, Prilog I, II, IV, V i VI, vezano uz regionalne dogovoreza uređaje za prihvat, u cilju prihvaćanja na MEPC 63.
- Komitet se složio s osnivanjem i radnim programom dopisne grupe za dovršetak rada na prijedlogu tekstaizmijenjenih uputa za primjenu MARPOL, Prilog V i prijedlogu teksta izmijenjenih uputa za izradu Plana zarukovanje smećem.
- Komitet se složio da se Pravilo 12.2.2 iz MARPOL, Prilog I ne primjenjuje na brodove isporučene prije 1.siječnja 2014. godine i s tumačenjem da je dopušteno povezivanje cjevovoda za ispuštanje iz tanka taloga icjevovoda kaljuže na zajednički cjevovod prema palubnom priključku za iskrcaj.Navedeno je izdano kao MEPC.1/Circ.753.
- Manje izmjene u uputama za bilježenje radova u Knjizi o uljima, Dio I, izdane su kao MEPC.1/Circ.736/Rev.1.- Popis usuglašenih tumačenja na Konvenciju MARPOL prihvaćenih od MEPC 45 do MEPC 62 sadržan je u
MEPC.1/Circ.754.
8. IZVJEŠTAJI PODKOMITETA
- Komitet je odobrio MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.10 o usuglašenim tumačenjima na primjenu MARPOL, SOLAS i LLzahtjeva na preinake tankera s jednostrukom oplatom u tankere s dvostrukom oplatom ili u brodove za prijevozrasutog tereta.
- Komitet je prihvatio Rezoluciju MEPC.205(62) o Uputama i specifikacijama za dodatnu opremu kodunaprjeđivanja Rezolucije MEPC.60(33). Dodatna oprema poboljšava sposobnost obrade uljnih emulzija čimese postiže jednakovrijednost kaljužnog separatora s kaljužnim separatorom odobrenim prema RezolucijiMEPC.107(49). Navedene upute nemaju obaveznu primjenu na ugrađenu opremu za filtriranje ulja odobrenuRezolucijom MEPC.60(33).
- Komitet je odobrio MEPC.1/Circ.759 vezano uz Upute za brodski plan za sprečavanje zagađivanja uljnimostacima iz strojarnice. Navedene upute namijenjene su kao pomoć brodarima pri izradi brodskog plana, kojipodržava ciljeve zaštite okoliša iz ISM Kodeksa i sadrži mjere za pravilno skladištenje, obradu i odstranjivanjeuljnih ostataka u skladu s propisima.
- Komitet je odobrio izmjene Uputa za sustave za rukovanje uljnim ostacima u prostoru strojeva na brodovima,sadržane u MEPC.1/Circ.760.
- Komitet je odobrio Upute za prijevoz mješavina ulja i bio-goriva, sadržane u MEPC.1/Circ.761.
HRVATSKI REGISTAR BRODOVA OKRUŽNICA
Izmjena: Naslov: Stranica: Oznaka:
0 IZVJEŠTAJ SA SJEDNICE KOMITETA ZA ZAŠTITUPOMORSKOG OKOLIŠA MEPC 62 4 / 4 QC-T-256
QF-K-05 2003-03
- Komitet je odobrio Upute za stupnjevanje sustava za obradu balastnih voda, koje uključuju zahtjeve kodpromjena na uređaju radi većeg ili manjeg kapaciteta obrade u odnosu na osnovni uređaj i sadržane su uBWM.2/Circ.33.
- Komitet je prihvatio Rezoluciju MEPC.206(62) vezano uz Postupak za odobrenje drugih načina upravljanjabalastnim vodama u skladu s Pravilom B-3.7 iz BWM Konvencije.
- Komitet je prihvatio Rezoluciju MEPC.207(62) vezano uz Upute za nadzor i upravljanje brodskim sustavimaprotiv obrastanja radi smanjenja prijenosa opasnih morskih organizama.
- Komitet je prihvatio Rezoluciju MEPC.208(62) vezano uz Upute za pregled sustava protiv obrastanja nabrodovima.
- Komitet se složio s mišljenjem DSC podkomiteta da u slučaju oštećenja tereta koji se prevozi u upakiranomobliku, nastali otpad spada pod primjenu MARPOL, Prilog V.
9. PROCJENA SIGURNOSTI
- Komitet se složio s prijedlogom novog dodatka u IMO FSA uputama, koji uključuje kriterije za procjenu rizikaza okoliš, i uputio ga na razmatranje MSC Komitetu.
10. RADNI PROGRAM KOMITETA I POMOĆNIH TIJELA
- Komitet se složio s uključenjem nove točke u radni program DE podkomiteta vezano uz izmjenu RezolucijeMEPC. 76(40) – Specifikacija za brodske spaljivače otpadaka, u cilju primjene rezolucije na brodske spaljivačeotpadaka većih kapaciteta (od 3000 kW do 5000 kW).
Razmatranje točaka 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 i 23 iz dnevnog reda odgođeno je za MEPC 63.
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
E
MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE 62nd session Agenda item 24
MEPC 62/2426 July 2011
Original: ENGLISH
REPORT OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE
ON ITS SIXTY-SECOND SESSION
Section Paragraph Nos. Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 – 1.12 6
2 HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER 2.1 – 2.36 10
3 RECYCLING OF SHIPS 3.1 – 3.10 17
4 PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS 4.1 – 4.56 22
5 REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS 5.1 – 5.46 31
6 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MANDATORY INSTRUMENTS 6.1 – 6.117 40
7 INTERPRETATIONS OF, AND AMENDMENTS TO,
MARPOL AND RELATED INSTRUMENTS 7.1 – 7.27 58
8 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPRC CONVENTION AND THE OPRC-HNS PROTOCOL AND RELEVANT CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS 8.1 – 8.4 62
9 IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF SPECIAL
AREAS AND PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS 9.1 – 9.13 63
10 INADEQUACY OF RECEPTION FACILITIES 10.1 66
11 REPORTS OF SUB-COMMITTEES 11.1 – 11.38 66
12 WORK OF OTHER BODIES 12.1 – 12.15 73
13 STATUS OF CONVENTIONS 13.1 75
14 HARMFUL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS FOR SHIPS 14.1 75
15 PROMOTION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF MARPOL AND RELATED INSTRUMENTS 15.1 76
MEPC 62/24 Page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Section Paragraph Nos. Page No.
16 TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION SUB-PROGRAMME FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 16.1 76
17 ROLE OF THE HUMAN ELEMENT 17.1 76
18 FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT 18.1 – 18.11 76
19 NOISE FROM COMMERCIAL SHIPPING AND ITS
ADVERSE IMPACTS ON MARINE LIFE 19.1 78
20 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE COMMITTEE AND SUBSIDIARY BODIES 20.1 – 20.24 78
21 APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEES' GUIDELINES 21.1 – 21.6 82
22 ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND
VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR 2012 22.1 – 22.2 82
23 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 23.1 82
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX 1 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF BRAZIL ON THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA AND THE PROPOSED TIMETABLE
ANNEX 2 RESOLUTION MEPC.196(62) – 2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHIP RECYCLING PLAN ANNEX 3 RESOLUTION MEPC.197(62) – 2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ANNEX 4 INTERVENTIONS BY THE DELEGATION OF NORWAY ON FUEL OIL
QUALITY ANNEX 5 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE NOx TECHNICAL CODE 2008 ANNEX 6 RESOLUTION MEPC.198(62) – 2011 GUIDELINES ADDRESSING
ADDITIONAL ASPECTS TO THE NOx TECHNICAL CODE 2008 WITH REGARD TO PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO MARINE DIESEL ENGINES FITTED WITH SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR) SYSTEMS
ANNEX 7 RESOLUTION MEPC.199(62) – 2011 GUIDELINES FOR RECEPTION
FACILITIES UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI ANNEX 8 STATEMENTS BY THE DELEGATIONS OF BRAZIL, INDIA, PERU AND
POLAND ON MATTERS OF PRINCIPLE OR POLICY CONCERNING REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS
MEPC 62/24 Page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 9 WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES FOR SHIPS
ANNEX 10 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE
WORKING GROUP ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES FOR SHIPS ANNEX 11 STATEMENT BY THE OBSERVER OF CESA DURING THE DEBATE ON
GHG ISSUES ANNEX 12 RESOLUTION MEPC.200(62) – AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE
PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973 (SPECIAL AREA PROVISIONS AND THE DESIGNATION OF THE BALTIC SEA AS A SPECIAL AREA UNDER MARPOL ANNEX IV)
ANNEX 13 RESOLUTION MEPC.201(62) – AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE
PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973 (REVISED MARPOL ANNEX V)
ANNEX 14 RESOLUTION MEPC.202(62) – AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE
PROTOCOL OF 1997 TO AMEND THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973, AS MODIFIED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING THERETO (DESIGNATION OF THE UNITED STATES CARIBBEAN SEA EMISSION CONTROL AREA AND EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN SHIPS OPERATING IN THE NORTH AMERICAN EMISSION CONTROL AREA AND THE UNITED STATES CARIBBEAN SEA EMISSION CONTROL AREA UNDER REGULATIONS 13 AND 14 AND APPENDIX VII OF MARPOL ANNEX VI)
ANNEX 15 OUTLINE FOR A DRAFT MEPC RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO THE
DESIGNATION OF THE BALTIC SEA AS A SPECIAL AREA UNDER MARPOL ANNEX IV
ANNEX 16 MEPC CIRCULAR ON THE DATE OF TAKING EFFECT OF THE
AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS 13 AND 14 OF MARPOL ANNEX VI ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION MEPC.202(62)
ANNEX 17 STATEMENTS BY THE DELEGATIONS OF BRAZIL, INDIA, AUSTRALIA
AND CHILE ON THE CIRCULATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI
ANNEX 18 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF SWEDEN ON THE RO-RO
SEGMENT AND THE PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION ON THE FUTURE WORK OF THE ORGANIZATION PERTAINING TO MARPOL ANNEX VI
ANNEX 19 RESOLUTION MEPC.203(62) – AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE
PROTOCOL OF 1997 TO AMEND THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973, AS MODIFIED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING THERETO (INCLUSION OF REGULATIONS ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR SHIPS IN MARPOL ANNEX VI)
MEPC 62/24 Page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 20 STATEMENTS BY THE DELEGATIONS OF BRAZIL, CHINA, INDIA, SAUDI ARABIA AND THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA AND THE OBSERVERS OF THE PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT AND CLEAN SHIPPING COALITION AFTER THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI
ANNEX 21 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEXES I, II, IV, V AND VI ON
REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PORT RECEPTION FACILITIES ANNEX 22 RESOLUTION MEPC.204(62) – DESIGNATION OF THE STRAIT OF
BONIFACIO AS A PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREA ANNEX 23 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF SINGAPORE ON PROCEDURES
IN ASSESSING PSSA APPLICATIONS ANNEX 24 RESOLUTION MEPC.205(62) – 2011 GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR ADD-ON EQUIPMENT FOR UPGRADING RESOLUTION MEPC.60(33)-COMPLIANT OIL FILTERING EQUIPMENT
ANNEX 25 RESOLUTION MEPC.206(62) – PROCEDURE FOR APPROVING OTHER
METHODS OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION B-3.7 OF THE BWM CONVENTION
ANNEX 26 RESOLUTION MEPC.207(62) – 2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE CONTROL
AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS' BIOFOULING TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSFER OF INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES
ANNEX 27 RESOLUTION MEPC.208(62) – 2011 GUIDELINES FOR INSPECTION OF
ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS ON SHIPS ANNEX 28 DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON PROCEDURES FOR PORT
STATE CONTROL, 2011 ANNEX 29 DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON SURVEY GUIDELINES UNDER THE
HARMONIZED SYSTEM OF SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION (HSSC), 2011 ANNEX 30 DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON THE CODE FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY IMO INSTRUMENTS, 2011 ANNEX 31 FSA ENVIRONMENTAL RISK EVALUATION CRITERIA: AMENDMENTS
TO THE FSA GUIDELINES – A PROPOSED NEW APPENDIX ANNEX 32 BIENNIAL AGENDA FOR THE BLG SUB-COMMITTEE AND PROVISIONAL
AGENDA FOR BLG 16 ANNEX 33 BIENNIAL AGENDA FOR THE FSI SUB-COMMITTEE AND PROVISIONAL
AGENDA FOR FSI 20 ANNEX 34 ITEMS IN BIENNIAL AGENDAS OF THE DE, DSC, NAV AND STW
SUB-COMMITTEES RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ANNEX 35 STATUS OF THE PLANNED OUTPUTS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
THE 2010-2011 BIENNIUM
MEPC 62/24 Page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 36 PROPOSALS BY THE COMMITTEE FOR THE HIGH-LEVEL ACTION PLAN OF THE ORGANIZATION AND PRIORITIES FOR THE 2012-2013 BIENNIUM
ANNEX 37 ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AGENDAS FOR MEPC 63, MEPC 64
AND MEPC 65
MEPC 62/24 Page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The sixty-second session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee was held at IMO Headquarters from 11 to 15 July 2011 under the chairmanship of Mr. Andreas Chrysostomou (Cyprus). The Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Captain Manuel Nogueira (Spain), was also present. 1.2 The session was attended by delegations from the following Members of IMO:
ALGERIA ANGOLA ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA ARGENTINA AUSTRALIA BAHAMAS BANGLADESH BELGIUM BELIZE BRAZIL BULGARIA CAMEROON CANADA CHILE CHINA COLOMBIA COMOROS COOK ISLANDS CROATIA CUBA CYPRUS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA DENMARK DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ECUADOR EGYPT ESTONIA FINLAND FRANCE GERMANY GHANA GREECE HONDURAS HUNGARY ICELAND INDIA INDONESIA IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF) IRELAND ISRAEL ITALY JAMAICA JAPAN KIRIBATI
KUWAIT LATVIA LIBERIA LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA LITHUANIA LUXEMBOURG MALAYSIA MALTA MARSHALL ISLANDS MEXICO MONACO MOROCCO NETHERLANDS NEW ZEALAND NIGERIA NORWAY OMAN PANAMA PAPUA NEW GUINEA PERU PHILIPPINES POLAND PORTUGAL QATAR REPUBLIC OF KOREA ROMANIA RUSSIAN FEDERATION SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES SAUDI ARABIA SERBIA SINGAPORE SLOVENIA SOUTH AFRICA SPAIN SRI LANKA SWEDEN SWITZERLAND SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC THAILAND TURKEY TUVALU UKRAINE UNITED KINGDOM
MEPC 62/24 Page 7
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
UNITED STATES VANUATU
VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF)
the following Associate Members of IMO:
HONG KONG, CHINA MACAO, CHINA
by representatives from the following UN Programmes, UN Specialized Agencies and other UN Entities:
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP) WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION (WMO) INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION (ILO) FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO) UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC) UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (UNIDO) THE REGIONAL MARINE POLLUTION EMERGENCY RESPONSE CENTRE FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA (REMPEC)
by observers from the following intergovernmental organizations:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUNDS (IOPC FUNDS) MARITIME ORGANIZATION FOR WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA (MOWCA) INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE EXPLORATION OF THE SEA (ICES) REGIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT (ROPME) PACIFIC REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (SPREP) COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC (OSPAR COMMISSION) INTERNATIONAL MOBILE SATELLITE ORGANIZATION (IMSO) INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL POLICE ORGANIZATION (INTERPOL) REGIONAL ORGANIIZATION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE RED SEA AND THE GULF OF ADEN (PERSGA)
and by observers from the following non-governmental organizations in consultative status:
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING (ICS) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION (ISO) INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MARINE INSURANCE (IUMI) COMITÉ INTERNATIONAL RADIO-MARITIME (CIRM) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PORTS AND HARBORS (IAPH) BIMCO INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES (IACS) EUROPEAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL (CEFIC) OIL COMPANIES INTERNATIONAL MARINE FORUM (OCIMF) INTERNATIONAL MARITIME PILOTS' ASSOCIATION (IMPA) FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL (FOEI) INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MARINE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS (ICOMIA) INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF SHIPMASTERS' ASSOCIATIONS (IFSMA) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS (OGP) COMMUNITY OF EUROPEAN SHIPYARDS' ASSOCIATIONS (CESA)
MEPC 62/24 Page 8
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT TANKER OWNERS (INTERTANKO) INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF P & I ASSOCIATIONS (P & I CLUBS) INTERNATIONAL TANKER OWNERS POLLUTION FEDERATION LIMITED (ITOPF) THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE (IUCN) ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION OF THE SEA (ACOPS) SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL GAS TANKER AND TERMINAL OPERATORS LIMITED (SIGTTO) CRUISE LINES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION (CLIA) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRY CARGO SHIPOWNERS (INTERCARGO) WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE (WWF) ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN MANUFACTURERS OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (EUROMOT) INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION (IPIECA) THE INSTITUTE OF MARINE ENGINEERING, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (IMarEST) INTERNATIONAL SHIP MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION (INTERMANAGER) INTERNATIONAL PARCEL TANKERS ASSOCIATION (IPTA) INTERNATIONAL SAILING FEDERATION (ISAF) THE INTERNATIONAL MARINE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION (IMCA) WORLD NUCLEAR TRANSPORT INSTITUTE (WNTI) INTERNATIONAL HARBOUR MASTERS' ASSOCIATION (IHMA) INTERNATIONAL BULK TERMINALS ASSOCIATION (IBTA) INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN MARITIME ASSOCIATION (ICMA) THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS (RINA) INTERFERRY INTERNATIONAL TOWING TANK CONFERENCE (ITTC) INTERNATIONAL BUNKER INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (IBIA) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARITIME UNIVERSITIES (IAMU) INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT WORKERS' FEDERATION (ITF) INTERNATIONAL PAINT AND PRINTING INK COUNCIL (IPPIC) INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE (IFAW) INTERNATIONAL SPILL CONTROL ORGANIZATION (ISCO) WORLD SHIPPING COUNCIL (WSC) NACE INTERNATIONAL THE NAUTICAL INSTITUTE (NI) PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT CLEAN SHIPPING COALITION (CSC) SUPERYACHT BUILDERS ASSOCIATION (SYBAss)
1.3 The Chairman of the Council, Mr. Jeffrey G. Lantz (United States), and the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG), Mr. Sveinung Oftedal (Norway), were also present. The Secretary-General's opening address 1.4 The Secretary-General welcomed participants and delivered his opening address, which is reproduced, in full, in document MEPC 62/INF.41.
MEPC 62/24 Page 9
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Chairman's remarks 1.5 The Chairman thanked the Secretary-General for his opening address and stated that the Secretary-General's advice and requests would be given every consideration in the deliberations of the Committee, in particular his appeal to all Members to work together to achieve consensus on the issue of energy efficiency for ships. Adoption of the agenda and provisional timetable 1.6 The Committee adopted the agenda as contained in document MEPC 62/1. The agenda, as adopted, with a list of documents considered under each agenda item, is set out in document MEPC 62/INF.42. 1.7 In considering the provisional timetable contained in annex 2 to document MEPC 62/1/1, the Chairman, with a view to conducting the work of the Committee in a more efficient manner, proposed an order of discussion in a revised provisional timetable, including a proposal to consider the documents submitted under item 6 in two parts:
Part I: referred to as "item 6.1", was to consider, separately, the draft amendments to MARPOL Annex IV (Designation of the Baltic Sea as a Special Area); Annex V (Revised Annex V); and Annex VI (Designation of the United States Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area and other related matters); and
Part II: referred to as "item 6.2", was to consider the draft amendments to
MARPOL Annex VI (Mandatory technical and operational measures on energy efficiency for ships); and this "item 6.2" was to be considered after items 4 and 5.
1.8 The delegation of Brazil proposed in a statement that all documents related to greenhouse gas (GHG) issues under agenda item 6 should be considered by a working group under agenda item 5 which addresses reduction of GHG emissions from ships. As requested, the statement is set out in annex 1. A number of delegations expressed support for the proposal by the delegation of Brazil. 1.9 A number of other delegations expressed support for an intervention by the delegation of Norway, advocating that the documents which had been submitted under agenda item 6 were intended as proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex VI on energy efficiency of ships or comments thereon and, therefore, they should be considered under item 6. 1.10 The Chairman clarified that items 4 and 5 would be addressed prior to item 6 and that all technical and policy issues on GHG emissions from ships would therefore be addressed before actual consideration of the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex VI on energy efficiency of ships, at which time a decision would be taken on the nature of the group to be established. He also clarified that, if any delegations wished their submission under item 6 to be considered under item 5, that could be accommodated when the latter agenda item was being considered. 1.11 The Committee, having noted the above clarifications, reached agreement on the revised provisional timetable proposed by the Chairman, bearing in mind that the timetable was subject to adjustments depending on the progress made each day. Credentials 1.12 The Committee noted that credentials of the delegations attending the session were in due and proper order.
MEPC 62/24 Page 10
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
2 HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER 2.1 The Committee recalled that the "International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004" (BWM Convention) had been open for accession by any State since 31 May 2005 and noted that two more States (Islamic Republic of Iran and Malaysia) had acceded to the Convention since the last MEPC session, which brought the number of contracting Governments to 28, representing 26.37% of the world's merchant fleet tonnage. The Committee urged the other Member States to ratify the Convention at their earliest possible opportunity. REPORTS OF THE FIFTEENTH, SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH MEETINGS OF THE GESAMP-BWWG 2.2 The Committee noted that the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth meetings of the GESAMP-BWWG were held from 13 to 17 December 2010, from 28 February to 4 March 2011 and from 2 to 6 May 2011, respectively, at IMO Headquarters, under the chairmanship of Mr. Jan Linders. During the three meetings, the GESAMP-BWWG had reviewed a total of 11 proposals for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of Active Substances, submitted by Germany, Greece, Japan (three proposals), Republic of Korea (four proposals) and Singapore (two proposals). Basic Approval 2.3 The Committee, having considered the recommendations contained in annexes 5 and 6 of the "Report of the fifteenth meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG" (MEPC 62/2/11), the recommendations contained in annexes 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the "Report of the sixteenth meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG" (MEPC 62/2/12) as well as the recommendations contained in annex 7 of the "Report of the seventeenth meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG" (MEPC 62/2/18), agreed to grant Basic Approval to:
.1 ERMA FIRST Ballast Water Management System, proposed by Greece in document MEPC 61/2/11;
.2 BlueSeas Ballast Water Management System, proposed by Singapore in
document MEPC 61/2/12; .3 Ballast Water Management System with PERACLEAN® OCEAN
(SKY-SYSTEM®), proposed by Japan in document MEPC 62/2; .4 JFE BallastAce Ballast Water Management System that makes use of
NEO-CHLOR MARINETM, proposed by Japan in document MEPC 62/2/1; .5 GEA Westfalia Separator BallastMaster Ballast Water Management
System, proposed by Germany in document MEPC 62/2/2; .6 BlueWorld Ballast Water Management System, proposed by Singapore in
document MEPC 62/2/3; and .7 Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (SHI) Ballast Water Management
System (Neo-Purimar™), proposed by the Republic of Korea in document MEPC 62/2/7.
2.4 The Committee then invited the Administrations of Germany, Greece, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Singapore to take into account all the recommendations made in the aforementioned reports of the GESAMP-BWWG during the further development of the systems.
MEPC 62/24 Page 11
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Final Approval 2.5 The Committee, having considered the recommendations contained in annexes 5 and 6 of the report of the seventeenth meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG (MEPC 61/2/18) agreed to grant Final Approval to:
.1 HHI Ballast Water Management System HiBallast (Filter Version), proposed by the Republic of Korea in document MEPC 62/2/5; and
.2 Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (SHI) Ballast Water Management
System (Purimar™), proposed by the Republic of Korea in document MEPC 62/2/6.
2.6 Having noted that the initial application for Final Approval of Purimar™ Ballast Water Management System was submitted by Techwin Eco Co., Ltd., which was subsequently acquired by Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., the Committee agreed with the request of the Republic of Korea to reflect these changes in the report. 2.7 The Committee then invited the Administration of the Republic of Korea to verify that all the recommendations made in the report of the seventeenth meeting, annexes 5 and 6, are fully addressed prior to the issuance of Type Approval Certificates. 2.8 Having examined the recommendations contained in annex 4 of the report of the fifteenth meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG (MEPC 62/2/11) and annex 4 of the report of the seventeenth meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG (MEPC 62/2/18), the Committee did not agree to grant Final Approval to Special Pipe Hybrid Ballast Water Management System combined with PERACLEAN® Ocean (SPO-SYSTEM) proposed by Japan in document MEPC 61/2/10 and to AquaStarTM Ballast Water Management System proposed by the Republic of Korea in document MEPC 62/2/4 for the reasons given in annexes 4 of the above reports. 2.9 Following an intervention by the United States with regard to situations when incomplete information on proposals for approval of ballast water management systems was submitted to MEPC, the Committee instructed the Ballast Water Review Group (BWRG) to consider mechanisms for providing all relevant information in the non-confidential submissions related to such proposals. Future meetings of the GESAMP-BWWG 2.10 The Committee noted that 11 submissions for either Basic or Final Approval had been received by the deadline of 17 December 2010. Despite the efforts made by the GESAMP-BWWG and the Secretariat, due to the limited time between the above deadline and MEPC 62, the Group could only meet twice (GESAMP-BWWG 16 and GESAMP-BWWG 17) and was able to evaluate only the first eight proposals for approval in the chronological order of their submission. The Committee noted with appreciation that, with a view to facilitating the consideration of as many ballast water management systems as possible and in anticipation of a similar workload for the year 2012, the GESAMP-BWWG had agreed to hold an extraordinary meeting (GESAMP-BWWG 18), scheduled from 5 to 9 September 2011, to evaluate the remaining three proposals described in documents MEPC 62/2/8 (Republic of Korea), MEPC 62/2/9 (Japan) and MEPC 62/2/10 (Germany), the outcome of which would be reported to MEPC 63. 2.11 The Committee also noted that the next regular meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG (i.e. the nineteenth meeting) had been tentatively scheduled from 31 October to 4 November 2011 and invited Members to submit their proposals for approval
MEPC 62/24 Page 12
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
(application dossiers) and the non-confidential description of their ballast water management systems to MEPC 63, as soon as possible but not later than 2 September 2011. 2.12 The Committee further noted that, recognizing the possibility that more than four proposals may be submitted for review by the Group and approval by MEPC 63, the GESAMP-BWWG had expressed its availability to have an additional meeting, in December 2011/January 2012, to accommodate as many proposals as possible provided that all necessary conditions for organizing such a meeting are met (MEPC 62/2/18, section 3 of the report of the seventeenth meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG). Other matters emanating from the GESAMP-BWWG meetings 2.13 Having received the recommendations of the GESAMP-BWWG regarding the optimization of the evaluation of the proposals for approval, the Committee agreed to:
.1 request the applicants and the submitting Administrations to provide the full data set, in accordance with the Methodology for information gathering and conduct of work of the GESAMP-BWWG, to avoid difficult and time consuming communication with the applicants during the meeting of the Group;
.2 request the applicants/Administrations to make available publicly, the data
related to safety and environmental protection, including physical/chemical properties, environmental fate and toxicity in accordance with the provision contained in paragraph 8.1.1 of Procedure (G9) regarding the information which should not be considered confidential; and
.3 encourage the applicants/Administrations to provide complete electronic
versions (CD-ROM or pen drive) of the entire application dossier to facilitate enhanced efficiency of the evaluation process.
2.14 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61 agreed to extend the "trial period" for the face-to-face meetings between the GESAMP-BWWG and Administrations/applicants, which were to take place at least during two sessions of the GESAMP-BWWG, with a view to gaining sufficient experience. This extension of the trial was to include an entire MEPC intersessional period to ensure that face-to-face meetings are available to all applicants in that period. 2.15 The Committee noted that, at the request of the Administration of Japan, a meeting with the representatives of the manufacturer of Special Pipe Hybrid Ballast Water Management System combined with PERACLEAN® Ocean (SPO-SYSTEM) was organized on 15 December 2010. Having examined the conclusions of the Group, the Committee noted that the discussions largely reiterated the information already provided by e-mail in the written response to the Group's questions and concurred with the Group's view that the already existing system of written communication with the applicants by e-mail, which has been tested during the last five years, is more effective, ensures accurate record keeping, allows for detailed and documented response from the applicants and avoids unnecessary delays/disruptions in the work of the Group. 2.16 Following an intervention by the delegation of Germany, which pointed out that the trial period was supposed to cover two face-to-face meetings during the sessions of the GESAMP-BWWG, the Committee agreed to extend the trial period.
MEPC 62/24 Page 13
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS RELATED TO THE EVALUATION AND APPROVAL OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 2.17 The Committee recalled that MEPC 60 agreed with the recommendation of the GESAMP-BWWG to hold a third stocktaking workshop to continue the development of adequate "tools" to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of its work and noted that the workshop was held at IMO Headquarters, London, from 4 to 6 April 2011, under the chairmanship of Mr. Jan Linders. 2.18 The Committee noted the outcome of the Third Stocktaking Workshop contained in document MEPC 62/2/14 (Secretariat) and endorsed the proposal of the Group to conduct yearly stocktaking meetings without the pressure of having to review the proposals for approval of ballast water management systems. 2.19 The Committee noted with appreciation the information provided in document MEPC 62/INF.19 (Germany) regarding a proposal for a harmonized Emission Scenario Document (ESD) on ballast water discharge. 2.20 The Committee noted the information contained in documents MEPC 61/INF.5 (Secretariat) and MEPC 61/2/20 (CEFIC), deferred to this session by MEPC 61, as well as MEPC 62/2/20 (CEFIC) and MEPC 62/INF.40 (Secretariat) updating the information in the former documents relating to administrative and financial aspects of the GESAMP-BWWG activities and proposals designed to increase the efficiency of the Group and promote the ratification, entry into force, implementation and enforcement of the BWM Convention. 2.21 In this regard, the Committee noted that the proposals related to the Group's efficiency had been superseded by the information contained in document MEPC 62/INF.40 and concluded by recommending that the Secretary-General establishes a trust fund using US$300,000 from the unspent balance of funds deriving from the GESAMP-BWWG fee income, to provide technical assistance to developing countries on the BWM Convention for the purposes indicated above. The Committee also noted that the Secretariat would, in accordance with its usual practices, communicate with relevant Administrations seeking their concurrence with the establishment of the aforementioned trust fund. 2.22 Noting that, in accordance with the IMO Convention, matters related to the Organization's finances were for the Council to consider, the Chairman closed this subject to future discussion, with the Committee considering the related technical co-operation issues under the appropriate agenda item. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BWM CONVENTION 2.23 Having considered document MEPC 62/2/13 (Belgium and the Netherlands) providing information regarding hopper dredgers and the interpretation of the co-sponsors concerning the water present in the hopper area, the Committee concurred with the conclusions contained in this document and agreed that water present in the hopper area is not considered ballast water and instructed the BWRG to prepare a draft BWM circular to reflect this decision. 2.24 Following consideration of document MEPC 62/2/15 (WWF, IUCN and CSC) expressing concern with regard to the fact that the rate of bioinvasions continues to increase at alarming rates and urging responsible flag States to adhere to their international commitments to both protect the planet and to ensure a cleaner shipping industry, the Committee reiterated the invitation to flag States – indeed all Member States – that have not yet ratified the BWM Convention to do so at their earliest convenience.
MEPC 62/24 Page 14
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
2.25 Having considered document MEPC 62/2/16 (IACS) regarding the application schedule of the D-2 standard for ships described in regulation B-3.4 of the BWM Convention and the comments made by the delegation of the United States supported by Germany, the Committee instructed the BWRG to consider the interpretation on the application schedule of the D-2 standard provided by IACS and agree on the draft text to expand on circular BWM.2/Circ.29 to include ships described in paragraph 4 of regulation B-3 of the BWM Convention. 2.26 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 62/2/19 (IACS) proposing a correction to the Guidelines on design and construction to facilitate sediment control on ships (G12) and the comments provided by ICS, instructed the BWRG to review the corrections proposed by IACS and advise on the necessary changes. 2.27 The Committee noted with appreciation the information contained in document MEPC 62/INF.31 (IMarEST) on logistics of compliance assessment and enforcement of the Ballast Water Management Convention. REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF BALLAST WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOCUSING ON LARGER SHIPS 2.28 The Committee recalled that, in anticipation of the possible entry into force of the BWM Convention in 2012, MEPC 61 agreed that a new review of ballast water treatment technologies, focused on larger ships (with ballast water capacity of 5,000 cubic metres or more, in particular those with higher flow rate) would be necessary and decided to re-establish the BWRG at this session. 2.29 Following consideration of document MEPC 62/2/17 (ICS) regarding the supply of ballast water management systems to new and existing ships, the Committee agreed to:
.1 urge the ballast water management systems manufacturers to provide solutions for suitable type-approved systems to be installed on larger ships; and
.2 request the Review Group to discuss the challenges related to specialist
ship types described in document MEPC 61/2/13 (the Netherlands) and advise the Committee accordingly.
2.30 Having considered document MEPC 62/2/21 (United Kingdom) commenting on document MEPC 62/2/17 and providing an update on available ballast water technologies, the Committee agreed to refer this document to the BWRG for detailed consideration when conducting its review. 2.31 The Committee noted with appreciation the information regarding type approved ballast water management systems contained in the following documents:
.1 MEPC 62/INF.14 (Norway) on the Type Approval of the PureBallast 2.0 and PureBallast 2.0 Ex Ballast Water Management Systems;
.2 MEPC 62/INF.15 (Norway) on the Type Approval of the OceanSaver®
Ballast Water Management System; .3 MEPC 62/INF.18 (South Africa) on the Type Approval of the Resource
Ballast Technologies System (Cavitation combined with ozone and sodium hypochlorite treatment);
MEPC 62/24 Page 15
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.4 MEPC 62/INF.25 (Japan) on the Type Approval of the JFE Ballast Water Management System (JFE BallastAce);
.5 MEPC 62/INF.28 (China) on the Type Approval of the Blue Ocean Shield
Ballast Water Management System; .6 MEPC 62/INF.29 (China) on the Type Approval of the BalClorTM Ballast
Water Management System; and .7 MEPC 62/INF.30 (China) on the Type Approval of the BSKYTM Ballast
Water Management System, and instructed the Review Group to take it into consideration when conducting its review. 2.32 Following an intervention by ICS with regard to changes made to already approved ballast water management systems and their implications on implementation of the Procedure (G9), the Committee agreed to instruct the BWRG to review the information provided in document MEPC 62/INF.15 (Norway) and evaluate possible implications. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BALLAST WATER REVIEW GROUP 2.33 The Committee agreed to establish the Ballast Water Review Group with the following terms of reference:
"Taking into consideration comments made in plenary, the Ballast Water Review Group is instructed to:
.1 prepare a draft BWM circular to reflect the decision of the Committee with
regard to the water present in the hopper area of hopper dredgers; .2 consider the interpretation on the application schedule of the D-2 standard
provided by IACS in document MEPC 62/2/16 and agree on the draft text to expand on circular BWM.2/Circ.29 to include ships described in paragraph 4 of regulation B-3;
.3 consider the corrections proposed by IACS in document MEPC 62/2/19 and
the comments by ICS and advise the Committee on the necessary changes;
.4 discuss the challenges related to implementation of the BWM Convention
to specialist ship types and advise the Committee accordingly; .5 consider the mechanisms for providing all relevant information in the
non-confidential documents relating to proposals for approval of BWMS; .6 consider the information related to the development of ballast water
treatment technologies taking into account the information contained in documents MEPC 62/2/17 (ICS), MEPC 62/2/21 (United Kingdom), MEPC 62/INF.14 and MEPC 62/INF.15 (Norway), MEPC 62/INF.18 (South Africa), MEPC 62/INF.25 (Japan) and MEPC 62/INF.28, MEPC 62/INF.29 and MEPC 62/INF.30 (China) and identify the current status of these technologies;
MEPC 62/24 Page 16
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.7 review the information provided in document MEPC 62/INF.15 (Norway) and evaluate the further implications for the implementation of the Procedure (G9);
.8 determine the availability of ballast water treatment technologies for large
ships and advise the Committee accordingly; and .9 submit a written report on the review conducted, including its findings and
recommendations, to plenary on Thursday, 14 July 2011." CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE BALLAST WATER REVIEW GROUP 2.34 Upon receipt of the report of the Ballast Water Review Group (MEPC 62/WP.8), the Committee approved the report in general and took action as follows (paragraph numbers are those of document MEPC 62/WP.8):
.1 approved a draft circular, which clarifies that the provisions of the BWM Convention are not applicable to the water in the hopper area of hopper dredgers, and instructed the Secretariat to disseminate this information as BWM/Circ.32 (paragraph 4 and annex);
.2 instructed the Secretariat to expand on circular BWM.2/Circ.29 (to be
disseminated as BWM.2/Circ.29/Rev.1) by adding a new paragraph, as indicated in paragraph 6 of document MEPC 62/WP.8 (paragraph 6);
.3 agreed with the changes to Guidelines (G12) proposed by the BWRG and
instructed the Secretariat to replace the old text and to prepare a new draft resolution for consideration and adoption by MEPC 63 (paragraph 8);
.4 noted the information provided by the Netherlands and the Marshall Islands
with regard to the implementation of the BWM Convention to specialist ship types and reiterated the invitation to Members and observers to propose practical solutions to the challenges identified at MEPC 61 (paragraph 10);
.5 urged proponents seeking approval of BWMS that use Active Substances
to thoroughly observe the provisions of paragraph 8.1.1 of Procedure (G9) and advised them that failure to provide the non-confidential information could result in Member States having insufficient data to approve the proposals when requested by the Committee (paragraphs 11 and 12);
.6 noted the recommendation of the BWRG that INF documents be used in
conjunction with proposals for approval to ensure that all safety and environmental protection data is made available (paragraph 13);
.7 encouraged Member States to make use of the provision contained in
paragraph 8.1.2.6 of Procedure (G9), especially with regard to incomplete or missing data in the non-confidential information regarding proposals for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of Active Substances, to assist the proponents in this respect (paragraph 14);
.8 noted that, despite some difficulties, ballast water treatment technologies
are available for certain types of vessels with high capacity and high flow rate and are currently being fitted on board some ships (paragraph 20);
MEPC 62/24 Page 17
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.9 urged Member States and industry representatives to provide criteria and data to MEPC 63 in order to allow an informed and focused review of the availability of the ballast water management technology at a later stage (paragraph 21);
.10 agreed that a review be conducted once the Convention achieves its
ratification requirements and before it enters into force (paragraph 22); .11 noted that in the specific case described in document MEPC 62/INF.15,
Procedure (G9) was duly observed (paragraph 24); and .12 agreed to re-establish the Review Group at MEPC 63 in accordance with
the provisions of regulation D-5.1 of the BWM Convention (paragraph 25). 2.35 Following an intervention by the delegation of the United States, the Committee agreed with the editorial changes proposed for the new paragraph to expand on circular BWM.2/Circ.29 mentioned in subparagraph 2.34.2 above. 2.36 The Committee thanked the Chairman and the members of the BWRG for their hard work. 3 RECYCLING OF SHIPS 3.1 The Committee noted that the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 (the Hong Kong Convention) had been signed subject to ratification by France, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey and Saint Kitts and Nevis. The Committee encouraged countries to ratify the Convention. 3.2 The Committee recalled that, since the adoption of the Hong Kong Convention, MEPC 59 had adopted the "Guidelines for the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials". Thereafter, MEPC 60 had agreed that the guidelines on ship recycling facilities, on the Ship Recycling Plan, and on the authorization of the ship recycling facilities should be developed in parallel, in view of the close interrelationships between them. MEPC 60, MEPC 61 and the Correspondence Group on Ship Recycling Guidelines, that was established by both sessions of the Committee, had made progress in the development of the three guidelines, with a view to their adoption at MEPC 62. Planning of the work 3.3 The Committee had for its consideration 15 documents submitted under the item, including two information documents, covering the following issues:
.1 There were five submissions addressing the three guidelines currently under development. Three of these submissions, forming the report of the Correspondence Group, were submitted by the Group's coordinator, Japan (MEPC 62/3, MEPC 62/3/1, MEPC 62/3/2). The remaining two submissions proposed amendments to the draft text of the "Guidelines for safe and environmentally sound ship recycling". In its submission (MEPC 62/3/4), France proposed text to ensure that the list of Hazardous Materials, to be addressed in the Ship Recycling Facility Plan, was more closely aligned to the text used in the "Guidelines for the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials". Also, France and IACS, in their joint submission (MEPC 62/3/11), proposed specific amendments to the section on safe-for-entry procedures, to take into account the work completed by
MEPC 62/24 Page 18
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
DSC 15, which was considered by MSC 89 which, in turn, approved a draft Assembly resolution on "Adoption of the Revised Recommendations for entering enclosed spaces aboard ships" for submission to the twenty-seventh session of the Assembly for adoption.
.2 There were six submissions proposing amendments to the "Guidelines for
the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials", adopted by resolution MEPC.179(59). China (MEPC 62/3/6) proposed three additional entries of potentially hazardous goods in Table C of appendix 1, and two editorial corrections in appendix 5 of the guidelines. IACS (MEPC 62/3/8) and China (MEPC 62/3/12) proposed that, as had been agreed at MEPC 61, the Committee should consider the definition of uniform testing methods within the guidelines, so that test results are comparable internationally. Both submissions proposed specific text to introduce definitive testing. China (MEPC 62/3/7) and ICS and industry co-sponsors (MEPC 62/3/10) recalled the pressing need for the development of threshold values and exemptions applicable to the materials that are to be listed in Inventories of Hazardous Materials. This was of specific relevance to sampling procedures, to the Ship Recycling Plan, and to the Convention's implementation and control procedures. China, in its submission, proposed specific threshold levels for certain hazardous materials, while ICS and industry co-sponsors provided lists of threshold values based on a provisional analysis and suggested the need for further substantive and expert work. Finally, IACS (MEPC 62/3/9) highlighted what it considered to be an unintentional drafting error in the guidelines, which could create serious consequences when compiling inventories, and proposed a simple textual amendment to address the problem. The Committee noted that many shipowners were already providing their ships with inventories of hazardous materials and that the early and voluntary implementation of the "Guidelines for the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials" had provided valuable experience, as was indicated by the six submissions to this session. The Committee was therefore invited to reflect the experience gained so far into appropriate amendments to the guidelines.
.3 There were two submissions on other matters. The Republic of Korea
(MEPC 62/3/3) provided an analysis of the elements to be included in the future development of a guidance document on the delegation by Competent Authorities to recognized organizations for the authorization of ship recycling facilities. That information would be particularly useful when the Committee would commence the development of the guidance document. The Committee also noted that the FSI Sub-Committee was developing a Code for recognized organizations which would provide a consolidated instrument (including resolutions A.739(18) and A.789(19)) containing criteria for assessing and authorizing recognized organizations. The draft RO Code should be completed at FSI 20 and submitted to MSC 90 and MEPC 64. The second submission was by China (MEPC 62/3/5) who had identified that the text of the Hong Kong Convention required a definition for the term "similar stage of construction", and also that an inconsistency in the text of Appendix 5 needed to be corrected. As the Convention could not be amended until it entered into force, the Committee thanked China and suggested that its proposals would be discussed at the appropriate time in the future. For the interim period, it was suggested that China could consider proposing to the
MEPC 62/24 Page 19
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Working Group on Guidelines for Ship Recycling that the missing definition could be addressed as an amendment to the Inventory Guidelines, while the identified inconsistency in Appendix 5 of the Convention could possibly be addressed in the Authorization Guidelines.
.4 Finally, there were two information documents. The first one, by the
Secretariat (MEPC 62/INF.13), was intended to assist the Committee and other stakeholders to reach a better understanding of the conditions for the Convention's entry into force. The document presented the compilation of published ship recycling volume data that will be used by the Depositary for determining the entry-into-force condition on ship recycling volume, in accordance with resolution MEPC.178(59). The second document, by the World Bank (MEPC 62/INF.27), invited the Committee to note its report "Ship Breaking and Recycling Industry in Bangladesh and Pakistan", which examined the productivity, competitiveness, economics, and environmental performance of the ship recycling industry in Bangladesh and Pakistan. The report explained that both countries faced considerable infrastructural needs and concerted efforts were required to achieve adequate institutional capacity and enforcement. The World Bank had concluded that achieving compliance with the Hong Kong Convention would be possible through a strong public-private partnership and with adequate technical and investment assistance.
3.4 On a proposal by the Chairman, the Committee agreed to present and discuss in plenary only the reports of the Correspondence Group, while the remaining documents would be introduced in and considered by the Working Group. Development of the guidelines 3.5 In considering the reports of the intersessional Correspondence Group (MEPC 62/3, MEPC 62/3/1 and MEPC 62/3/2), the Committee thanked Japan for its continuing contribution as coordinator of the Group and all the members of the Group for their excellent work. Furthermore, the Committee noted that some of the Group's work took place in the aftermath of Japan's devastating earthquake and tsunami of March 2011, and expressed its sincere appreciation to the Chairman of the Group and his colleagues who persisted in completing their task in very difficult circumstances. 3.6 The Committee agreed to establish a working group to consider the reports of the intersessional Correspondence Group as a basis for the further development of the "Guidelines for safe and environmentally sound ship recycling", the "Guidelines for the development of the Ship Recycling Plan" and the "Guidelines on the authorization of the ship recycling facilities". The Working Group was requested to ensure that the guidelines would: (1) be user-friendly; (2) not be overly complicated; (3) create no overlaps or conflicts with other guidelines or the Hong Kong Convention; and (4) not go beyond the scope of the Hong Kong Convention. The Committee also agreed to instruct the Working Group to develop draft amendments to the "Guidelines for the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials", as adopted by resolution MEPC.179(59), with a view to their adoption at MEPC 62, taking into account the comments and proposals in the submissions to this session. Establishment of the Working Group on Guidelines for Ship Recycling 3.7 Having considered the above issues, the Committee established the Working Group on Guidelines for Ship Recycling under the chairmanship of Dr. Claude Wohrer (France) with the following Terms of Reference:
MEPC 62/24 Page 20
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
"Taking into account comments, proposals and decisions made in plenary, the Working Group on Guidelines for Ship Recycling is instructed to:
.1 further develop the draft "Guidelines for safe and environmentally sound
ship recycling" with a view to their adoption at MEPC 62, using as a basis the text contained in document MEPC 62/3 and taking into account the comments and proposals in documents MEPC 62/3/4 and MEPC 62/3/11;
.2 further develop the draft "Guidelines for the development of the Ship
Recycling Plan" with a view to their adoption at MEPC 62, using as a basis the text contained in document MEPC 62/3/1;
.3 further develop the draft "Guidelines for the authorization of Ship Recycling
Facilities" with a view to their adoption at MEPC 62, using as a basis the text contained in document MEPC 62/3/2;
.4 develop draft amendments to the "Guidelines for the development of the
Inventory of Hazardous Materials", as adopted by resolution MEPC.179(59), with a view to their adoption at MEPC 62, taking into account the comments and proposals in documents MEPC 62/3/6, MEPC 62/3/7, MEPC 62/3/8, MEPC 62/3/9, MEPC 62/3/10 and MEPC 62/3/12;
.5 consider and recommend if an intersessional correspondence group on
ship recycling guidelines should be established; and, if so, develop draft terms of reference for the group; and
.6 submit a written report to plenary on Thursday, 14 July 2011."
Report of the Working Group on Guidelines for Ship Recycling 3.8 The Committee considered and approved the report of the Working Group (MEPC 62/WP.9) in general and, in particular (paragraph and annex numbers are those of document MEPC 62/WP.9):
.1 noted the progress made by the Group on the development of the draft "Guidelines for safe and environmentally sound ship recycling" (paragraphs 4 to 9 and annex 1);
.2 adopted the "2011 Guidelines for the development of the Ship Recycling
Plan" by resolution MEPC.196(62), as set out in annex 2, as the guidelines had been finalized and agreed by the Group (paragraphs 10 to 17), and revoked MEPC/Circ.419, of 12 November 2004, on "Guidelines for the development of the Ship Recycling Plan", as their contents have been superseded by the 2011 guidelines;
.3 noted the progress made by the Group on the development of the
draft "Guidelines for the authorization of Ship Recycling Facilities" (paragraphs 18 to 24 and annex 3);
.4 adopted the "2011 Guidelines for the development of the Inventory of
Hazardous Materials" by resolution MEPC.197(62), as set out in annex 3, as the guidelines had been finalized and agreed by the Group (paragraphs 25 to 28); and
MEPC 62/24 Page 21
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.5 agreed to the re-establishment of the intersessional Correspondence Group on Ship Recycling Guidelines, under the coordination of Japan1 and approved the terms of reference for the Group as follows:
"On the basis of the outcome of MEPC 62 and the report of the Working Group (MEPC 62/WP.9), the Correspondence Group on Ship Recycling Guidelines is instructed to:
.1 further develop and, if possible, finalize the draft text of the
"Guidelines for safe and environmentally sound ship recycling", based on the text contained in annex 1 to document MEPC 62/WP.9, taking into account documents MEPC 62/3/4 and MEPC 62/3/11, with a view to their adoption at MEPC 63;
.2 further develop and, if possible, finalize the draft text of the
"Guidelines for the authorization of Ship Recycling Facilities", based on the text contained in annex 3 to document MEPC 62/WP.9, with a view to their adoption at MEPC 63;
.3 if possible, commence the development of the draft text of the
"Guidelines for survey and certification under the Hong Kong Convention", taking into account documents MEPC 55/3/6, MEPC 56/3/3, MEPC 56/3/7 and MEPC 56/3/11;
.4 if possible, commence the development of the draft text of the
"Guidelines for inspection of ships under the Hong Kong Convention"; and
.5 report the outcome of its deliberations to MEPC 63."
3.9 The delegation of France stated that, whilst welcoming the adoption of the two guidelines, it would have preferred to have adopted the "Guidelines for the development of the Ship Recycling Plan" as interim guidelines, because they are linked to the requirements of the draft "Guidelines for safe and environmentally sound ship recycling", and of the draft "Guidelines for the authorization of Ship Recycling Facilities", neither of which were ready for adoption at the sixty-second session, and also because there had been no experience from the implementation of the "Guidelines for the development of the Ship Recycling Plan". However, the delegation of France acknowledged that the issue had been discussed by the Working Group which had agreed not to recommend the adoption of interim guidelines, in order to avoid confusion to stakeholders and also because the guidelines would, in any case, remain under review. 3.10 The Committee thanked the Chairman and the members of the Working Group for their hard work.
1 Coordinator:
Mr. Shinichiro OTSUBO Director for International Regulations Safety Standards Division Maritime Bureau Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Tel: +81-3-5253-8636 Fax: +81-3-5253-1644 E-mail: [email protected]
MEPC 62/24 Page 22
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4 PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS Order of discussions 4.1 The Committee noted that, under this agenda item, relevant parts of document MEPC 62/11/1 on the outcome of FSI 19 and document MEPC 62/11/2 on the outcome of BLG 15 should be considered. Three documents under agenda item 7 concerning MARPOL Annex VI (MEPC 62/7/6, MEPC 62/7/7 and MEPC 62/7/8) and two documents under agenda item 11 concerning SCR Guidelines (MEPC 62/11/5 and MEPC 62/11/8) should also be considered under this agenda item. 4.2 To facilitate consideration of the item, the Committee agreed to the following order of discussion and grouping of documents:
.1 Outcome of BLG 15: Relevant parts of MEPC 62/11/2 (paragraphs 2.18 to 2.24) by the Secretariat;
Fuel oil quality: MEPC 62/4/4 by Norway and INTERTANKO, MEPC 62/4/11 and MEPC 62/4/12 by Norway;
Emissions of Black Carbon from international shipping: MEPC 62/4/3 by UNECE, MEPC 62/4/16 by CSC, FOEI, Pacific Environment and WWF, MEPC 62/4/10 by Norway, MEPC 62/4/18 by Republic of Korea;
Review of the status of the technological developments to implement Tier III NOx standards (regulation 13.10 of MARPOL Annex VI): MEPC 62/4/9 by the Secretariat, MEPC 62/4/2 by ICOMIA, MEPC 62/4/20 by the United States; SCR guidelines and possible amendments to the NOx Technical Code 2008: MEPC 62/4/13 by the United States and Ireland, MEPC 62/4/14 and MEPC 62/4/15 by China, MEPC 62/11/5 by Germany, MEPC 62/11/8 by IACS;
.2 Outcome of FSI 19:
Relevant parts of MEPC 62/11/1 (paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9) by the Secretariat;
.3 Provisions for shipboard incineration under regulation 16 of MARPOL Annex VI: MEPC 62/7/7 by the Russian Federation, MEPC 62/7/6 by IACS;
.4 Notifications under MARPOL Annex VI:
MEPC 62/4/1 by the Secretariat, MEPC 62/7/8 by IACS;
.5 Report of the Correspondence Group on Assessment of Availability of Fuel
Oil under MARPOL Annex VI: MEPC 62/4/5 and MEPC 62/INF.9 by the United States, MEPC 62/4/21 by ICS;
MEPC 62/24 Page 23
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.6 Provisions for sulphur oxides and particulate matter under regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI: MEPC 62/4/17 by ICS, MEPC 62/4/20 by the United States, MEPC 62/4 by the Secretariat; and
.7 Other air pollution issues.
Outcome of BLG 15 4.3 The Committee recalled that the BLG Sub-Committee was instructed to update and develop guidelines and to consider the need for further guidance on several issues relating to the implementation of MARPOL Annex VI and the NOx Technical Code 2008. Fuel oil quality 4.4 The Committee recalled also that MEPC 61 considered the revised specification of marine fuels ISO 8217:2010, taking into account issues regarding fuel oil characteristics and parameters addressing air quality, ship safety, engine performance and crew health. MEPC 61 agreed that relevant documents, as well as comments raised, should be further considered in detail by BLG 15. 4.5 The Committee noted that BLG 15 considered these issues in detail and concluded that more information and data were required to enable appropriate consideration on matters related to the revised specification of marine fuels (ISO 8217:2010), the limit of hydrogen sulphide (H2S), as well as the need and design of a possible new mechanism for quality control of marine fuels. 4.6 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/4/4 (Norway and INTERTANKO) providing follow-up information from proposals to BLG 15 (BLG 15/11/4) on the impact of bunker quality problems reported by ships and identifying, as examples, some such instances during recent years. 4.7 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/4/11 (Norway) proposing that the Bunker Delivery Note (BDN) should be expanded to include additional fuel parameters that ISO, in document MEPC 59/4/3, considered relevant to seafarers' health, safety of the ship and air emissions. 4.8 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/4/12 (Norway) proposing that the 2009 Guidelines for sampling of fuel oil for determination of compliance with the revised MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.182(59)) should be amended to include guidelines for sampling of fuel oil from tanks, due to the fact that, in some port State controls, fuel samples are taken directly from the ship's tanks in order to verify the actual fuel used on board the ship. The document suggested that the verification of a tank sample should always be accompanied by a verification test of the MARPOL sample to confirm that the fuel delivered and the fuel in the tanks are of the same origin/source. 4.9 The Committee exchanged views on the fuel oil specification and the need for additional quality control prior to delivery to ships. The majority of delegations was of the view that there was no need to introduce any additional parameters into the mandatory Bunker Delivery Note, as this would be a duplication of effort. The delegation of Norway made three interventions during the debate related to fuel oil quality. As requested, the interventions are set out in annex 4.
MEPC 62/24 Page 24
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4.10 The Committee noted that there was a need to establish separate procedures for sampling fuel oil being used on board ships to verify compliance with the provisions of regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI. 4.11 The Marshall Islands expressed its objection to specify regulation 14 in the Terms of Reference to the BLG Sub-Committee in this regard, based on the understanding that direct sampling from fuel oil tanks is not specified as a means to determine compliance with MARPOL Annex VI. 4.12 The Committee agreed to develop an appropriate procedure for sampling of fuel oil for port State control and flag State inspection. However, it did not agree to the proposal for a verification test of a tank sample to be accompanied by a verification test of the MARPOL sample. 4.13 The Committee noted that there remained concerns related to fuel oil sampling which the Committee needed to address, and agreed that the matter should be re-considered by the BLG Sub-Committee. It instructed the Working Group to develop draft Terms of Reference for BLG with 2012 as the target completion year for this work. Emissions of Black Carbon from international shipping 4.14 The Committee recalled that, since MEPC 58, it had considered documents providing summaries and analyses of various approaches to reduce emissions of climate forcing agents from international shipping, which included information on the impact of Black Carbon. 4.15 The Committee recalled also that MEPC 60 held a debate on whether separate actions were needed to reduce shipping emissions of Black Carbon in the Arctic region and how this should relate to the general work on prevention of air pollution from ships under MARPOL Annex VI and the Organization's work on energy efficiency of ships. 4.16 The Committee recalled further that MEPC 61 agreed to invite interested delegations and observers to submit concrete proposals with specific measures to BLG 15. 4.17 The Committee noted that BLG 15, having considered relevant documents, requested the Committee to provide clearer instructions on how the matter of Black Carbon should be addressed. 4.18 The Committee noted also that several documents had been submitted for its consideration on emissions of Black Carbon from international shipping and, specifically, proposals for the development of a work plan to address the issue. 4.19 A number of delegations considered that there was a need for further scientific information before considering a work plan for this issue, and that the compelling need for the Organization to address the issue had not been established. A number of other delegations stated that the Committee had already agreed to address the reduction of emissions of Black Carbon and that the work plan proposed by Norway in document MEPC 62/4/10 was an appropriate way forward. In supporting the work plan, some delegations felt it should be limited to considering the impact of Black Carbon emissions in the Arctic. Also, a number of delegations reasoned that it was premature to consider the development of regulatory measures. 4.20 The Committee agreed to a work plan for the BLG Sub-Committee for consideration of the impact on the Arctic of emissions of Black Carbon from international shipping as follows:
MEPC 62/24 Page 25
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.1 develop a definition for Black Carbon emissions from international shipping; .2 consider measurement methods for Black Carbon and identify the most
appropriate method for measuring Black Carbon emissions from international shipping;
.3 investigate appropriate control measures to reduce the impact of Black
Carbon emissions from international shipping; and .4 submit a final report to MEPC 65, where the Committee should agree on
the appropriate action(s). 4.21 The Committee noted the additional information provided in documents MEPC 62/4/3 by UNECE, MEPC 62/4/16 by CSC, FOEI, Pacific Environment and WWF, MEPC 62/4/18 by the Republic of Korea, MEPC 62/INF.32 and MEPC 62/INF.33 by Clean Shipping Coalition and instructed the BLG Sub-Committee to consider them further, as necessary, under the terms of the agreed work plan. Review of the status of the technological developments to implement the Tier III NOx standards (MARPOL Annex VI, regulation 13.10) 4.22 The Committee recalled that BLG 15 requested the Secretariat to prepare a document outlining the requirements of the Tier III NOX review (BLG 15/19, paragraph 11.54) and submit the document to this session of the Committee in order to progress the review process. 4.23 The Committee considered the draft Terms of Reference as prepared by the Secretariat in document MEPC 62/4/9, comments on the same in document MEPC 62/4/20 by the United States and document MEPC 62/4/2 by ICOMIA. 4.24 The Committee agreed to establish a correspondence group under the coordination of the United States2, rather than an expert group, to review the status of the technological developments to implement the Tier III NOx emissions standard with the following Terms of Reference:
"1 The Correspondence Group (NOx-CG) is instructed to review the status of technological developments to implement the Tier III NOx emissions standards as required under regulation 13.10 of MARPOL Annex VI and shall:
.1 consider the matter, including deliberation of what information and data are pertinent for the review and how that information and data should be collated and analysed;
.2 using this data and any other information, consider the status of
technological developments to implement the standards set forth in regulation 13.5.1.1 of MARPOL Annex VI, with a view to reporting on the following:
2 Coordinator:
Mr. Michael J. Samulski United States Environmental Protection Agency Tel: +1 734 214 4532 E-mail: [email protected]
MEPC 62/24 Page 26
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.1 range of technologies (engine fitting, material, appliance, apparatus, other procedures, alternative fuels or compliance methods) that may be used to comply with the Tier III NOx standards;
.2 the current use of these technologies on marine diesel
vessels with a view towards characterizing the introduction and demonstration of these technologies in real world applications;
.3 progress of engine and after-treatment manufacturers
towards developing such technology and expectations for bringing Tier III NOx technologies fully to market by 2016;
.4 identification of any sub-sets of marine diesel engines
where there will not be technologies available to comply with the Tier III standards;
.5 where relevant, the global availability of consumable
products used by a certain technology to reduce emissions to the required standard in Tier III, including supply chain issues, e.g., restrictions on import, export and sale;
.6 where relevant, the storage on board ship of consumable
products used by a certain technology to reduce emissions to the required standard in Tier III, including handling as well as crew health and safety issues;
.3 recommend whether the effective date in regulation 13.5.1.1 of
MARPOL Annex VI should be retained or, if adjustment is needed, reasoning behind that adjustment; and
.4 provide an interim report to MEPC 64 and submit a final report to
MEPC 65 in 2013." SCR guidelines and possible amendments to the NOx Technical Code 2008 4.25 The Committee recalled that BLG 15 agreed on the need to amend the NOx Technical Code 2008 (NTC 2008) to provide more flexibility in the survey and certification process of large marine diesel engines fitted with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems (Scheme B). BLG 15 developed draft amendments to the NTC 2008 (annex 7 to document BLG 15/19) and draft Guidelines addressing additional aspects to the NOx Technical Code 2008 with regard to particular requirements related to marine diesel engines fitted with SCR systems (annex 8 to document BLG 15/19). 4.26 The Committee recalled also that BLG 15 did not conclude on whether to retain or delete paragraph 7.7 of the draft SCR Guidelines, but agreed to invite MEPC 62 to decide. 4.27 The Committee considered comments on the draft amendments to the NTC 2008 and the draft SCR Guidelines in documents MEPC 62/4/13 (United States and Ireland), MEPC 62/4/14 (China), MEPC 62/4/15 (China), MEPC 62/11/5 (Germany) and MEPC 62/11/8 (IACS), and in particular, whether the aforementioned paragraph 7.7 should be retained or deleted.
MEPC 62/24 Page 27
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4.28 After an exchange of views, the Committee agreed to retain paragraph 7.7 of the draft SCR guidelines, and to forward the draft guidelines to the Working Group for finalization with a view to adoption at this session. The Committee noted that, in addition to the provisions for verification under the NTC 2008, the retention of paragraph 7.7 may require the development of specific guidance for in-service verification of the combined engine/NOx-reducing device. The Committee also agreed to forward the draft amendments to the NTC 2008, to allow for scheme B, to the Working Group for finalization with a view to approval at this session. Guidelines for reception facilities under MARPOL Annex VI 4.29 The Committee recalled that BLG 15 developed draft Guidelines for reception facilities under MARPOL Annex VI, set out in annex 9 to document BLG 15/19, and agreed to forward the draft Guidelines for reception facilities to the Working Group for finalization, with a view to approval at this session. Outcome of FSI 19 4.30 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61 requested the FSI Sub-Committee to update MEPC.1/Circ.718 on the revised form of supplement to the IAPP Certificate, taking into account the "Guidance on the timing of replacement of existing certificates by certificates issued after entry into force of amendments to certificates in IMO instruments" (MSC-MEPC.5/Circ.6). FSI 19 developed a draft MEPC circular on the revised form of supplement to the IAPP Certificate to amend MEPC.1/Circ.718, as set out in annex 5 to document FSI 19/19. 4.31 The Committee approved the draft MEPC circular on the revised form of supplement to the IAPP Certificate to amend MEPC.1/Circ.718 (FSI 19/19/Add.1, annex 5) and requested the Secretariat to issue it as MEPC.1/Circ.757. 4.32 The Committee noted paragraph 2.8 of document MEPC 62/11/1 on the perceived port State control problem regarding the first issuance of an IAPP Certificate to a new building, prior to the ship having received any bunkers and, consequently, when not being in possession of the required bunker delivery notes. The Committee agreed to invite interested delegations and observers to submit proposals to MEPC 63 on how the perceived problem should be addressed. Provisions for shipboard incineration under regulation 16 of MARPOL Annex VI 4.33 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/7/7 (Russian Federation) proposing amendments to regulation 16.4 of MARPOL Annex VI with regard to the incineration of sewage sludge and sludge oil in main plants. 4.34 The majority of delegations was of the view that there was no compelling need to amend regulation 16.4 of MARPOL Annex VI and the Committee agreed to take no action on the proposal. 4.35 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/7/6 (IACS) raising matters related to fire protection of incinerator spaces and waste stowage spaces, and proposing that the matter should be referred to the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC). 4.36 The Committee agreed to forward the document to the Sub-Committee on Fire Protection for consideration with a view to advising both MSC and MEPC as to whether the survey and certification of fire protection of incinerator spaces and waste stowage spaces should fall under SOLAS or MARPOL.
MEPC 62/24 Page 28
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Notifications to the Organization under MARPOL Annex VI Development of a GISIS module for MARPOL Annex VI 4.37 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/4/1 (Secretariat) presenting a draft GISIS module developed by the Secretariat as a possible portal for Parties to MARPOL Annex VI to make mandatory notifications to the Organization and to provide easy access to this information for the shipping industry. 4.38 The Committee noted the availability of the GISIS module for MARPOL Annex VI notifications and considered whether notification via GISIS fulfilled the requirements under MARPOL Annex VI on Contracting Parties' obligations to notify the Organization, and, once notified via GISIS, whether the requirement under MARPOL Annex VI for the Organization to transmit the information received to all Member States is fulfilled. 4.39 The Committee noted that the matter of notifications via GISIS will be considered in detail at the next session of the FSI Sub-Committee, when it will also consider the relevant issues raised in document MEPC 62/4/1, as applicable, for other conventions.
Notification of approved method under regulations 13.7.1 and 13.7.2 4.40 The Committee noted that MEPC.1/Circ.738 on certification of an approved method for certain MAN B&W S70MC engines was issued on 19 October 2010, and that MEPC.1/Circ.743 for certain WÄRTSILÄ RTA engines was issued on 17 February 2011. 4.41 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/7/8 (IACS) emphasizing that the information contained in these circulars was considered insufficient for implementing the relevant survey and proposing a clarification of the information to be included in the relevant IMO circular notifying the certification of an approved method. 4.42 In response to the above, the delegations of Denmark and Germany agreed to provide further information for clarification. However, both stated that MEPC.1/Circ.738 and MEPC.1/Circ.743 should neither be withdrawn, as proposed in document MEPC 62/7/8, nor put on hold, as the approval and notification procedures are in full compliance with MARPOL Annex VI and the applicable requirements of NTC 2008, and thus valid. Future applications for an approved method should be dealt with in the same manner taking into account the request for some additional procedural information. 4.43 The Committee agreed to forward the document to the Working Group for further consideration with a view to identifying the information required in the notification. Report of the Correspondence Group on Assessment of Availability of Fuel Oil under MARPOL Annex VI 4.44 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61 established a Correspondence Group on Assessment of Availability of Fuel Oil under MARPOL Annex VI to develop the methodology to be used in the review required under regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI (MEPC 61/24, paragraph 4.30). 4.45 The Committee recalled also that a number of delegations at MEPC 61 expressed the view that it was premature to initiate the review at that stage, and that 2015 or 2016 would be the appropriate time to start considering the methodology for a review to be completed by 2018.
MEPC 62/24 Page 29
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4.46 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/4/5 (United States) providing the report on the work of the Correspondence Group, including a summary of discussions, remaining issues, and a draft methodology framework. The Correspondence Group invited the Committee to consider a draft methodology framework set out at annex, and the information provided in document MEPC 62/INF.9. 4.47 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/4/21 (ICS) providing comments on document MEPC 62/4/5 on the need for early validation and refinement of the fuel availability model. 4.48 A number of delegations supported the proposal by ICS to undertake an early validation of the proposed fuel availability draft methodology by carrying out a preliminary study to provide fuel availability scenarios. However other delegations were of the view that to carry out such a preliminary study at this early stage, using 0.1% sulphur content supplied for use in Emission Control Areas, risked not leading to an effective validation of the draft methodology for global fuel oil supply as the scope of such a validation study would be, by definition, limited to those ECAs and so not a global validation. Further, it was considered that an assessment of the methodology after the 1 January 2015 implementation date for the 0.1% standard would enable the experiences gained after that date to be used in further development of the methodology for the global review. 4.49 Having noted the views expressed, the Committee agreed to defer the consideration of this matter and invite further submissions to its next session on the proposed draft methodology and related timetable for detailed consideration and action, as appropriate. Provisions for sulphur oxides and particulate matter under regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI 4.50 The Committee noted the following documents relating to sulphur provisions in marine fuel under regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI:
.1 MEPC 62/4 (Secretariat) on the outcome of the monitoring of the worldwide average sulphur content of marine fuel oils supplied for use on board ship through 2010. The monitoring reports sulphur content in distillate fuels for the first time, which shows that 72.06% of distillate fuels is below 0.1% sulphur content.
.2 MEPC 62/4/17 (ICS) on the potential impacts of the revised MARPOL
Annex VI regulations in the North Sea and Baltic Sea Sulphur Emission Control Areas through the implementation of the 0.1% sulphur requirement in 2015, which quantifies the potential volume of modal shift with respect to German operators and ports; and
.3 MEPC 62/4/19 (United States) on information with respect to published
studies of the potential impacts of MARPOL Annex VI fuel sulphur requirements that apply in designated Emission Control Areas, commenting on document MEPC 62/4/17.
Other air pollution issues 4.51 The Committee noted document MEPC 62/INF.8 (Republic of Korea) on the reduction of time for Engine Shop Test and the subsequent economic and environmental effects.
MEPC 62/24 Page 30
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Ozone-depleting substances and coordination with UNEP 4.52 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61 requested the Secretariat to continue liaising with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and its Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol (the Ozone Secretariat) on the correct procedures for purchasing of HCFCs in foreign ports. 4.53 The Committee noted that the Secretariat continued liaising with the Ozone Secretariat and made presentations on regulation 12 of MARPOL Annex VI at regional UNEP meetings in the Caribbean area and the Asia and Pacific Islands countries to promote a more detailed understanding of the Montreal Protocol and MARPOL Annex VI regulations. 4.54 The Committee agreed to request the Secretariat to continue liaising with the Ozone Secretariat and, if appropriate, to prepare a draft MEPC circular for consideration at its next session to facilitate the Committee's deliberation of the issue. Establishment of the Working Group on Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships 4.55 The Committee agreed to establish the Working Group on Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships with the following Terms of Reference:
"The Working Group on Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships is instructed, taking into account relevant documents as well as comments and decisions made in plenary, to:
.1 develop draft Terms of Reference for the BLG Sub-Committee's work on amendments to guidelines for the sampling of fuel oil used on board ships for one session only;
.2 finalize draft amendments to the NOx Technical Code to allow
certification under scheme B, with a view to approval at this session; .3 finalize the draft Guidelines addressing additional aspects to the
NOx Technical Code 2008 with regard to particular requirements related to marine diesel engines fitted with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, with a view to adoption at this session;
.4 finalize draft Guidelines for reception facilities under MARPOL
Annex VI, with a view to adoption at this session; .5 identify information to be included in the notification of an
approved method under regulations 13.7.1 and 13.7.2 of MARPOL Annex VI; and
.6 submit a written report to plenary on Thursday, 14 July 2011."
Action taken on the report of the Working Group 4.56 Having received and considered the report of the Working Group (MEPC 62/WP.10), the Committee approved it in general and, in particular (paragraph numbers are those of document MEPC 62/WP.10):
.1 endorsed the Terms of Reference for the BLG Sub-Committee's work on development of guidelines on the sampling procedure for fuel oil being used on board ships (paragraph 3.5);
MEPC 62/24 Page 31
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.2 approved, with a view to circulation for subsequent adoption at its next session, the draft amendments to the NOx Technical Code 2008 to allow certification under scheme B (paragraph 4.3), as set out in annex 5;
.3 instructed the BLG Sub-Committee to consider the use of continuous
NOx monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the Tier III NOx emission limit (regulation 13.5.1) for two sessions (paragraph 5.5);
.4 instructed the BLG Sub-Committee to consider procedures to certify gas
fuelled engines, where engines operated solely on gas fuels are used to comply with Tier III NOx emission limits (paragraph 5.7);
.5 adopted the 2011 Guidelines addressing additional aspects of the
NOx Technical Code 2008 with regard to particular requirements related to marine diesel engines fitted with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems (paragraph 5.11), by resolution MEPC.198(62), as set out in annex 6;
.6 adopted the 2011 Guidelines for reception facilities under MARPOL Annex VI
(paragraph 6.2), by resolution MEPC.199(62), as set out in annex 7; .7 noted that the notifiers of approved methods under regulations 13.7.1
and 13.7.2 of MARPOL Annex VI, disseminated by MEPC.1/Circ.738 and MEPC.1/Circ.743, agreed to provide additional guidance and information, as necessary, to identify engines which shall comply (paragraph 7.4); and
.8 instructed the BLG Sub-Committee to develop guidelines or a circular
(whichever is deemed more appropriate) covering the information to be submitted as part of the required notification from an Administration to IMO in respect of the approval of an Approved Method (paragraph 7.6).
5 REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS 5.1 The Committee recalled that significant progress had been made at its last session on all three building blocks in the Organization's GHG work, namely on technical, operational and market-based reduction measures. MEPC 61, having noted the necessity to develop appropriate inclusive working arrangements for further consideration of Market-Based Measures, agreed to hold an intersessional meeting dedicated to further progress on Market-Based Measures. With regard to technical and operational measures, MEPC 61 held extensive discussions and developed draft regulatory text for requirements of the EEDI and the SEEMP. MEPC 61, taking into account the need for further improvement of relevant Guidelines relating to the EEDI and the SEEMP, agreed to establish a correspondence group on energy efficiency measures for ships. Order of discussion 5.2 As suggested by the Chairman, the Committee agreed on the following order of discussions under this agenda item:
.1 guidelines related to the EEDI and SEEMP;
.2 other GHG issues;
.3 establishment of and Terms of Reference for the Working Group;
.4 policy and principles;
.5 market-based measures;
.6 UNFCCC matters; and
.7 reduction target for international shipping.
MEPC 62/24 Page 32
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
5.3 Having initially debated, on a renewed proposal by the delegation of Brazil, whether all GHG related documents under agenda item 6 should be considered under agenda item 5 and referred to a working group on energy efficiency, the Chairman recalled his statement under agenda item 1 that a decision on the nature of the group would be taken, following consideration in plenary of items 5 and 6. The delegations of Brazil, India, Peru and Poland made statements on matters of principle or policy concerning the reduction of GHG emissions from ships. As requested, the statements are set out in annex 8. Guidelines related to the EEDI and SEEMP 5.4 The Committee noted that, as agreed in principle at MEPC 61, a working group on GHG related issues would be re-established at this session under the Chairmanship of Mr. Koichi Yoshida (Japan). Technical documents to be considered by the Working Group 5.5 The Committee agreed that none of the technical documents would be introduced in plenary and would instead be referred directly to the Working Group following a brief debate in plenary, limited to providing the necessary instructions to the Working Group, and that the documents related to the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) and the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) would be considered first by the Working Group. The Committee noted that several documents submitted under agenda item 6 made comments on and proposed amendments to the guidelines on EEDI and should therefore also be forwarded to the Working Group for further consideration. Outcome of the Correspondence Group 5.6 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61 developed draft Guidelines for the calculation of reference lines and draft Guidelines on survey and certification of the EEDI. However, due to time constraints, MEPC 61 could not consider the draft Guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained EEDI for new ships and the draft Guidelines for development of a ship energy efficiency management plan. MEPC 61 agreed therefore to establish a correspondence group on energy efficiency measures for ships for further development of the remaining guidelines and its future work plan. 5.7 The Committee considered documents MEPC 62/5/4 and MEPC 62/5/18 (Japan) providing the report of the Correspondence Group on Energy Efficiency Measures for Ships. The Group had developed further the draft Guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained EEDI for new ships and the draft Guidelines for the development of a SEEMP. The Group had also developed a draft work plan with timetable for the development of 1) EEDI frameworks for ship types and sizes, as well as propulsion systems not covered by the current EEDI requirements, and 2) remaining EEDI and SEEMP guidelines to be developed. 5.8 The Committee expressed its appreciation for the significant work undertaken by the Correspondence Group. 5.9 The Committee approved the report in general and instructed the Working Group to further improve the draft guidelines and further develop the draft work plan with a time schedule for future progress on technical and operational measures for ships.
MEPC 62/24 Page 33
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Calculation method of the EEDI 5.10 The Committee noted document MEPC 62/5/6 (Greece) proposing that the EEDI formula could be improved by calculating it at a specified speed, depending on ship type and size, to ensure optimization of ship design for energy efficiency, and should be re-addressed, especially if an MBM proposal that is linked to the EEDI is considered further. 5.11 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/5/24 (Republic of Korea) proposing that, in the case of container ships, the EEDI should be calculated using 80% DWT capacity of a ship, instead of 65% DWT, in order to reflect the actual loading condition of container ships, and the relevant part of the draft Guidelines and reference values should be modified accordingly. 5.12 The observer delegation of the World Shipping Council (WSC) highlighted that WSC had undertaken extensive data collection of load factors of the global container shipping fleet, which indicated that the mean load factor for container ships is 71%. Therefore, the appropriate figure for the container ship capacity factor should be 70%. A number of delegations supported this position, noting that they had made similar findings in their investigations into the matter. 5.13 Some delegations considered that document MEPC 62/5/24 provided further evidence to demonstrate that the EEDI formula was not sufficiently developed and that it was premature for mandatory application. Other delegations considered the amendment of the container ship capacity factor from 65% to 70% to be fine tuning of the EEDI calculation formula only and a reasonable incremental amendment based on the most recent experience and data. 5.14 The Committee agreed that the EEDI value for container ships could be calculated using 70% DWT. The Committee instructed the Working Group on Energy Efficiency Measures for Ships to consider whether the capacity factor for container ships should therefore remain at 65% DWT or 70% DWT, and to amend relevant draft guidelines accordingly. 5.15 The Committee noted that, in agreeing to the amended capacity factor for container ships, along with other possible amendments made at the session, this would result in a consequential amendment to the reference line, and the parameters a and c, and would affect both the draft regulatory text and the guidelines. Other GHG issues Safety issues related to the EEDI – propulsion power and adverse weather conditions 5.16 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61 held a debate on safety issues related to the EEDI, such as the possibility of under-powered ships and, to avoid any adverse effects on safety, agreed to insert a provision in the draft regulatory text stating that "the installed power shall not be less than the propulsion power needed to maintain the manoeuvrability of the ship under adverse conditions as defined in the guidelines". In this context, IACS had informed that it would develop and submit a first draft of such guidelines to this session for further consideration. 5.17 The Committee considered documents MEPC 62/5/19 and MEPC 62/INF.21 (BIMCO, CESA, IACS, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and WSC) presenting draft interim guidelines to determine whether available propulsion power is sufficient to enable safe manoeuvring in adverse weather conditions in the context of the EEDI framework. To facilitate an early implementation, the co-sponsors suggested a simplified assessment in the first phase.
MEPC 62/24 Page 34
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
5.18 The Committee agreed that the draft regulatory text and associated guidelines should ensure that the safety concerns raised are satisfactorily taken into account. The Committee instructed the Working Group, in principle, to further develop the draft interim guidelines on propulsion power and safe manoeuvring in adverse weather conditions, using the annex to document MEPC 62/5/19 as a basis. Marginal abatement costs and cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency measures 5.19 The Committee noted that identification of possible abatement technologies and assessment of their reduction potential, as well as calculation of their cost-effectiveness and identification of constraints and barriers to implementation of such technologies, were all vital elements for the Committee to be able to continue to base its decisions on sound science. 5.20 The Committee expressed appreciation to IMarEST for providing valuable information in documents MEPC 62/5/2 and MEPC 62/INF.7, containing an updated study on the economics and cost-effectiveness of technical and operational measures. 5.21 Recognizing that document MEPC 62/INF.7 could be a useful document for the industry as a tool in decision-making on what technologies or operational measures to employ, the Committee agreed to instruct the Working Group to use the information in the updated IMarEST Study in document MEPC 62/INF.7 in its work. It also agreed to publish document MEPC 62/INF.7 on the IMO website as a useful background document. Matters related to the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) 5.22 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61 noted document MEPC 61/5/29 (Republic of Korea) on the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) and agreed to defer it to a future session as EEOI was not reviewed at MEPC 61. In this regard, the Russian Federation had submitted document MEPC 62/5/11 to this session, with a proposal on the calculation procedure for the EEOI. 5.23 The Committee agreed to forward the two documents to the Working Group and to instruct it to further consider the EEOI guidelines. Model course for energy efficient operation of ships 5.24 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61 noted the development of an IMO model course on the ship energy efficiency management plan, through an MoU with the World Maritime University (WMU). The course would contribute to IMO's environmental protection and capacity building goals set out in resolutions A.947(23) and A.998(25), by promulgating industry's "best practices" to promote energy efficiency and to build awareness and capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping. 5.25 The Committee agreed to forward documents MEPC 62/5/29 and MEPC 62/INF.39 (Secretariat), providing information on the development of a draft IMO model course for energy efficiency operation of ships prepared by WMU, to the Working Group. 5.26 The Committee agreed to instruct the Working Group to review the draft model course and provide comments. Information documents 5.27 The Committee noted the following information documents and instructed the Working Group to take them into account in its deliberations, as appropriate:
MEPC 62/24 Page 35
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
MEPC 62/INF.10 OCIMF Example of a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan
MEPC 62/INF.12 OCIMF Project to develop a SEEMP using a
structured methodology and the resulting improvement in Energy Efficiency
MEPC 62/INF.16 Cruise Lines
International Association (CLIA)
Consideration of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for New Cruise Ships
MEPC 62/INF.23 United
Kingdom Potential additional energy efficiency benefits arising from advanced fluoropolymer foul release coatings
MEPC 62/INF.34 Germany Global Wind Specification along the Main
Global Shipping Routes to be applied in the EEDI Calculation of Wind Propulsion Systems
MEPC 62/INF.35 Germany Calculation Method to be applied in the
EEDI Calculation of Wind Propulsion Systems
MEPC 62/INF.37 Japan Detail treatment of innovative energy
efficiency technologies for calculation of the Attained EEDI
Establishment of and Terms of Reference for the Working Group on Energy Efficiency Measures for Ships 5.28 The Committee noted that the working group established at this session should address various matters related to GHG emissions from ships. The Committee agreed to establish it under the chairmanship of Mr. Koichi Yoshida of Japan. The Working Group should be instructed to consider matters related to technical and operational measures. 5.29 The delegation of China made reference to its submission MEPC 62/6/16, requesting that it be considered under agenda item 5. The delegation of Norway, supported by a number of other delegations, emphasized that as the document contained comments and proposals related to the circulated draft amendments, it should be considered under agenda item 6. The Committee agreed to address relevant parts of the document under both agenda items. 5.30 Having decided, following consideration of both parts of agenda item 6, to convene a working group and a drafting group on energy efficiency matters (see paragraph 6.82), the Committee established the Working Group on Energy Efficiency Measures for Ships with the following reduced Terms of Reference:
.1 develop a draft work plan with time schedule for future progress on technical and operational measures for ships not covered by the current EEDI framework, using the annex to document MEPC 62/5/18 as a basis;
MEPC 62/24 Page 36
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.2 consider to incorporate the cubic capacity correction factor for chemical tankers as proposed in document MEPC 62/6/13 (IPTA) into the draft guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained EEDI for new ships;
.3 review the draft IMO Model Course for energy efficient operation of ships
set out in documents MEPC 62/5/29 and MEPC 62/INF.39 and provide comments to the WMU; and
.4 submit a written report to plenary on Thursday, 14 July 2011.
Action taken on the report of the Working Group 5.31 The Committee, having received the report of the Working Group (MEPC 62/WP.15), noted the following amendments to the document:
.1 Paragraph 4.2 is replaced by the following:
"The Group agreed to integrate the correction factor into the EEDI calculation guidelines, and doing so would enhance credibility and confidence in the EEDI formula. However, the Group considered that the correction factor presented in document MEPC 62/6/13 would require fine tuning."
.2 Paragraph 4.3 is deleted. .3 Paragraph 6.5 is replaced by the following:
"The Group noted that the guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power and speed to enable safe manoeuvring in adverse weather conditions should be developed in a relatively short time, since the guidelines are referred to in the regulatory framework of the EEDI as being voluntary."
.4 Paragraphs 8.1.2 and 8.1.4 are replaced by the following:
".2 endorse the agreement of the Group that cubic capacity correction factor for chemical tankers should be included in the guidelines on EEDI calculation (paragraph 4.2);
.4 endorse the draft work plan for further development of technical
and operational measures for ships, as set out in annex 1 (paragraph 6.7);".
5.32 Having considered the report of the Working Group, the Committee approved it in general and, in particular (paragraph numbers are those of document MEPC 62/WP.15, as amended):
.1 invited interested delegations to provide practical information and examples of the energy efficient operation of ships to the Secretariat by 31 August 2011 for inclusion in the IMO Model Course (paragraph 3.3);
.2 endorsed the agreement of the Group that cubic capacity correction factor
for chemical tankers should be included in the guidelines on EEDI calculation (paragraph 4.2);
.3 endorsed the view of the Group that the 70% DWT capacity is to be used
for container ships in EEDI calculation (paragraph 5.3);
MEPC 62/24 Page 37
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.4 endorsed the work plan and schedule for further development of technical and operational measures for ships, as set out in annex 9 (paragraph 6.7); and
.5 agreed to the holding of an intersessional meeting of the Working Group on
Energy Efficiency Measures for Ships with the terms of reference, as set out in annex 10 (paragraph 7.3).
5.33 The Committee expressed its appreciation for the significant work undertaken by the Working Group. Policy and principles 5.34 The Committee considered the following documents on different policy and principle aspects, and on whether the Organization should focus on the technical and operational measures only or continue to pursue all the three elements called for in Assembly resolution A.963(23):
MEPC 62/INF.2 Secretariat Ministerial declaration on global environment and energy in transport
MEPC 62/INF.6 Republic of
Korea Results of the fourth Seoul International Maritime Forum
MEPC 62/5/9 Turkey Turkey's position on GHG emission issues MEPC 62/5/10 China, Saudi
Arabia and South Africa
Comments on Proposed Mandatory Energy Efficiency Regulation
MEPC 62/5/13 Bahamas Mandatory CO2 emission cut targets
through technical and operational measures MEPC 62/5/20 Brazil Considerations on technical and
operational measures to reduce GHG emissions from ships
MEPC 62/5/28 Panama Comments on the report of the third
Intersessional Meeting of the Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from ships
MEPC 62/5/27 India Possible incompatibility between WTO
Rules and an MBM for international shipping
5.35 As suggested by the Chairman, the Committee agreed on the following order of discussions:
.1 information documents on GHG issues;
.2 general views on IMO's GHG Work – policy and principles; and
.3 relation with WTO Rules (to be considered together with other documents on market-based measures).
MEPC 62/24 Page 38
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Information documents on GHG Issues 5.36 The Committee noted the Ministerial declaration on global environment and energy in transport in document MEPC 62/INF.2 by the Secretariat. 5.37 The Committee also noted the results of the fourth Seoul International Maritime Forum in document MEPC 62/INF.6 by the Republic of Korea. General views on IMO's GHG Work – policy and principles 5.38 The Committee recalled that an extensive exchange of views on different policy and principle questions had taken place at previous sessions, and more recently also at the third intersessional meeting of the Working Group on GHG Emissions from Ships (GHG-WG 3). 5.39 The Committee considered documents MEPC 62/5/9, MEPC 62/5/10, MEPC 62/5/13, MEPC 62/5/20 and MEPC 62/5/28 and held an extensive exchange of views on the matters raised therein, noting that many of the issues had already been discussed in depth at earlier sessions, in particular those concerning the obligations assumed by Parties to Annex I of the UNFCCC under the global climate change negotiations; the reconciliation of the principles of "no more favourable treatment" and CBDR; the need to provide for capacity-building, technology transfer, financial assistance and impact assessments relating to the energy efficiency measures, the appropriate legal instrument for the introduction of technical, operational and market-based measures; and the need to further develop such measures before their approval and adoption. 5.40 Many delegations expressed interest in the Bahamas proposal and their wish that the proposal should be further developed and considered in the future. Nevertheless, a number of delegations also raised concerns noting that the proposal did not address the CBDR principle, nor technical co-operation and capacity-building. Questions concerning cost effectiveness, the additional administrative burden, the net reductions and the verification feasibility were also raised. 5.41 The Committee noted the statement by the observer of CESA during the debate on GHG issues. As requested, the statement is set out in annex 11. 5.42 In concluding that debate, the Committee invited the Bahamas to further develop its proposal set out in document MEPC 62/5/13 and to submit the refined version to a future session, so as to enable the Committee to assess the proposal's feasibility and effectiveness and to consider whether it may serve as an alternative to an MBM or be used as an interim solution. 5.43 The Committee also decided to consider, under agenda item 6, paragraphs 14 and 15 of document MEPC 62/5/10. Market-Based Measures 5.44 Due to time constraints, the Committee could not consider Market-Based Measures and agreed to defer the consideration of the following documents to MEPC 63: MEPC 62/5/1 Secretariat Report of the third Intersessional Meeting of
the working group on greenhouse gas emissions from ships
MEPC 62/5/7 Greece MBM proposals: A way ahead
MEPC 62/24 Page 39
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
MEPC 62/5/8 United States Efficiency improvements within the international marine sector
MEPC 62/5/13 Bahamas Mandatory CO2 emission cut targets
through technical and operational measures MEPC 62/5/14 WWF Ensuring no net incidence on developing
countries from a global maritime MBM MEPC 62/5/15 Germany Possible uses of revenues generated by an
Emissions Trading System MEPC 62/5/27 India Possible incompatibility between WTO
Rules and a market-based measure for international shipping
MEPC 62/5/33 Cyprus,
Denmark, Marshall Islands, Liberia, Nigeria, Republic of Korea and IPTA
Strengths and weaknesses
MEPC 62/5/34 France The possible use of revenues generated by
an Emissions Trading System UNFCCC matters 5.45 Due to time constraints, the Committee could not consider UNFCCC matters and agreed to defer the consideration of the following documents to MEPC 63: MEPC 62/5 Secretariat Outcome of the United Nations Climate
Change Conference held in Cancún, Mexico from 29 November to 10 December 2010
MEPC 62/5/Add.1 Secretariat Outcome of the United Nations Climate
Change Talks held in Bonn, Germany from 6 to 17 June 2011
MEPC 62/INF.3 Secretariat High-level Advisory Group of the United
Nations Secretary-General on Climate Change Financing
Reduction target for international shipping 5.46 Due to time constraints, the Committee could not consider a reduction target for international shipping and agreed to defer its consideration of the matter to MEPC 63, taking into account the following documents:
MEPC 60/4/23 Norway Alternative emission caps for shipping in 2020 and 2030
MEPC 60/4/28 WSC Emission "Caps" and Reduction Targets
MEPC 62/24 Page 40
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
6 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MANDATORY INSTRUMENTS
GENERAL 6.1 The Committee recalled that, under item 1, it agreed to a proposal by the Chairman to consider the submissions under this item in two parts: Part I and Part II (see paragraph 1.7). PART I 6.2 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 61, it had approved, with a view to adoption at this session, draft amendments to:
.1 MARPOL Annex IV (Designation of the Baltic Sea as a Special Area) (MEPC 61/24, paragraph 7.35 and annex 13);
.2 MARPOL Annex V (Revised MARPOL Annex V) (MEPC 61/24,
paragraph 7.22.1 and annex 11); and .3 MARPOL Annex VI (Amendments to regulations 13 and 14 and
Appendix VII in relation to the designation of the United States Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area and other related matters (MEPC 61/24 and MEPC 61/24/Corr.1, paragraphs 4.34 and 4.36 and annex 2).
6.3 The Committee noted that the texts of the above-mentioned approved amendments were circulated by the Secretary-General on 2 November 2010, under cover of Circular letter No.3118, in accordance with the provisions of article 16(2)(a) of the MARPOL Convention. 6.4 The Committee also recalled that MEPC 61 had agreed, in principle, that a drafting group would be established at this session to make any editorial changes to the draft amendments, as necessary, before adoption by the Committee. Amendments to MARPOL Annex IV 6.5 The Committee noted that the proposed amendments as approved by MEPC 61, together with the draft MEPC resolution on their adoption, were set out in document MEPC 62/6, prepared by the Secretariat. 6.6 The Committee considered comments on the proposed amendments by CLIA (MEPC 62/6/25), aimed at separation of the text creating the concept of Special Areas from the text establishing the Baltic Sea Special Area, and noted information on the ongoing activities of the Baltic Sea States, under the Helsinki Commission, to promote their joint efforts to upgrade the sewage reception facilities in major passenger ports in the Baltic Sea (MEPC 62/INF.20). 6.7 The Committee also agreed to consider, under this agenda item, a proposal by IACS concerning a perceived incoherence within the text of MARPOL Annex IV, unrelated to the proposed amendments, originally tabled under item 7 of the agenda (MEPC 62/7/5). IACS proposed minor corrections. 6.8 The Committee noted that, in the currently proposed amendments to Annex IV, the discharge of sewage within a special area would be prohibited under regulation 11.3 for new passenger ships on, or after 1 January 2013, and for existing passenger ships on, or after 1 January 2018.
MEPC 62/24 Page 41
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
6.9 The delegation of Finland, on behalf of the Baltic Sea States, proposed to relax the application deadline for new passenger ships to 1 January 2016, subject to regulation 12bis, subparagraph 2, while keeping the deadline for existing passenger ships at 1 January 2018, but now also subject to regulation 12bis, subparagraph 2. A corresponding relaxation was proposed for the deadlines under the proposed regulation 1.7ter concerning the application to new-build passenger ships. 6.10 Several delegations expressed their support for the "package" proposed by Finland. 6.11 The Committee noted the concerns of some delegations that the technical standards for sewage treatment equipment had yet to be established to meet the proposed discharge requirements under regulation 11.3 and that, without these, treatment equipment for use on board ships might not be available in time before the special area provisions for the Baltic Sea area would enter into force. Other delegations disagreed, referring to the ongoing work in the DE Sub-Committee on the development of revised guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants, due for completion in 2012, and trusting that adequate equipment would become available in time, certainly with the package of relaxed application deadlines, as proposed by the Baltic Sea States. 6.12 Concerns were also expressed at the pace of provision of port reception facilities for sewage from ships: there should be a balance between the provision by Parties of adequate port reception facilities and the availability of technical standards and sewage treatment equipment on board ships. 6.13 It was concluded that the issue of the relaxed deadlines and the comments by IACS should be included in the amendments and that the Drafting Group would have the flexibility of addressing the issue of the technical equipment standards, either in the regulations or in a draft MEPC resolution. 6.14 With the above-mentioned instructions, the Committee agreed to refer the draft amendments to the Drafting Group for editorial review. Amendments to MARPOL Annex V (Revised MARPOL Annex V) 6.15 The Committee noted that the proposed amendments, as approved by MEPC 61, and the draft MEPC resolution on their adoption, were set out in document MEPC 62/6/1 by the Secretariat. 6.16 The Committee agreed that the plenary debate should aim at providing the Drafting Group with necessary instructions to enable it to do its work and that the following six documents commenting on the proposed amendments should be introduced in plenary:
.1 MEPC 62/6/6 (Australia) – Revised MARPOL Annex V, animal carcasses and the London Convention/Protocol;
.2 MEPC 62/6/10 (Netherlands) – Revision of MARPOL Annex V (substantive
comments only); .3 MEPC 62/6/11 (Secretariat) – Outcomes of the joint session of the
LC/LP Scientific Groups in relation to management of spoilt cargoes; .4 MEPC 62/6/17 (United States) – Comments on draft amendments to
MARPOL Annex V (substantive comments only);
MEPC 62/24 Page 42
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.5 MEPC 62/6/18 (ICS, BIMCO and INTERCARGO) – Comments on proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex V; and
.6 MEPC 62/6/22 (CSC) Issues arising from the Committee's work on the
revision of MARPOL Annex V. 6.17 The Committee also agreed that the documents listed below were to be considered directly by the Drafting Group:
.1 MEPC 62/6/8 (United States) – Editorial comments on draft amendments to MARPOL Annex V;
.2 MEPC 62/6/10 (Netherlands) – Revision of MARPOL Annex V (editorial
comments); and .3 MEPC 62/6/17 (United States) – Comments on draft amendments to
MARPOL Annex V (editorial comments). 6.18 The Committee considered the proposal by Australia not to specify in Annex V, regulation 4.1.4, a mortality rate for livestock carried on board as cargo using a percentage to activate a trigger to the London Convention and Protocol regime (MEPC 62/6/6). Instead, the term "mass mortalities" should be introduced, to be accompanied by guidance in the Annex V guidelines, which the delegation had suggested in a separate document (MEPC 62/7/2), on the detail and procedures for reporting circumstances of mass mortalities and for determining measures to be taken, including where LC/LP approvals should be sought. 6.19 The Committee also considered the suggestion of the Australian delegation that it may be impractical for some voyages to implement the requirement for discharges to take place beyond 100 nautical miles from the nearest land, as such situations could create an unacceptable threat to human health and safety. The delegation therefore proposed to include a new paragraph 5 to regulation 7 excepting the discharge of animal carcasses where the retention might present a health risk, suggesting that such discharges shall not occur within 12 nautical miles of the nearest land, and that it must be ensured that the carcass will sink immediately. Also, the discharges shall be subject to the approval of the coastal State. Finally, as the revised Annex V now recognized animal carcasses as garbage, the mortalities that gradually occur during a voyage would fall under the Annex V discharge requirements and, therefore, Australia noted that the LC/LP guidance on management of spoilt cargoes (LC-LP.1/Circ.30) should be reviewed following the adoption of the revised MARPOL Annex V. 6.20 The Committee considered proposals by the Netherlands (MEPC 62/6/10):
.1 to re-categorize garbage into three categories as follows: "food wastes"; "cargo residues" and "all garbage except food wastes and cargo residues";
.2 not to create a relaxation of the current requirement in regulation 5(5)(b) of
Annex V by which administrations "shall ensure that all ships …, before entering the Antarctic area, have sufficient capacity on board for the retention of all garbage while operating in the area". In the approved text of draft regulation 6.2.2 this provision had been relaxed to read: "sufficient capacity on board for the retention of garbage prohibited for discharge"; and
.3 to clarify which items fall within the scope of "introduced avian products"
and what is covered under the expression "poultry and poultry parts".
MEPC 62/24 Page 43
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
6.21 The Committee considered a report by the Secretariat on the outcomes of deliberations by the LC/LP Scientific Groups on the issue of spoilt cargoes, based on the 12 responses received to questionnaire LC-LP.1/Circ.41, distributed in November 2010, asking LC/LP Parties and maritime administrations to assist in defining the management of spoilt cargoes in light of the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex V (MEPC 62/6/11). The results showed that the occurrences of spoilt cargo were neither routine nor predictable and that high mortality events in shipping livestock were rare. The technical basis of the proposed 2% threshold level in regulation 4.1.4, distinguishing between the Annex V discharge requirements and the LC/LP dumping requirements, was unclear and seemed to be based on animal management practices rather than ship operating procedures or impacts on the marine environment. In line with the proposals by Australia (MEPC 62/6/6) and the United States (MEPC 62/6/17) the Scientific Groups expressed the view that the revised MARPOL Annex V guidelines may be more appropriate to further elaborate on death rates that are routine and should therefore be covered under Annex V. It was noted that only limited information is available on industry practices with respect to disposal of small quantities of cargo that routinely spoil or die during a voyage, including that of animal carcasses. It would therefore be very helpful to continue efforts to collect additional information, e.g., through the Garbage Record Books, contacts with P&I Clubs and dumping permits, etc., as part of the ongoing information exchange on this boundary issue between LC/LP and MARPOL Annex V. Finally, once the revised MARPOL Annex V had been adopted, it would be logical for the LC/LP Parties to consider the implications of the new requirements and what adjustment might be needed to the joint spoilt cargo guidance of 2009 (LC-LP.1/Circ.30 and MEPC.1/Circ.688). 6.22 The Committee considered the proposal by the United States to revise regulation 4.1.4, in line with the proposals in this respect by Australia and the LC/LP Scientific Groups, but also suggesting that fish that die during live transport as cargo should be regarded as "animal carcasses" (MEPC 62/6/17). The delegation therefore proposed revising regulation 4.1.4 to read as follows:
"For animal carcasses, including terrestrial and aquatic species, discharge shall occur as far from the nearest land as possible, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization."
6.23 The Committee considered amendments proposed by ICS, BIMCO and INTERCARGO to resolve the ambiguity concerning cargo hold washing agents as the present text was not clear on whether cargo hold cleaning agents should be considered as garbage or not (MEPC 62/6/18). It was proposed to include cargo hold cleaning agents on the same basis as cleaning agents used for deck washing and that their discharge should be permitted. 6.24 The proponents also mentioned the practical difficulties that the "en route" provisions of the current text create for the discharge of washing agents within Special Areas. The way regulation 6 is drafted implied that, to wash decks and external surfaces with cleaning agents, the ship must be "en route" when in a Special Area. This would mean that decks cannot be washed in ports within Special Areas, which is required before departing port for practical, safety and health reasons. This issue had been discussed and accepted in the Annex V Working Group during MEPC 61, and it was proposed that regulation 6.1.3 should be numbered as 6.2 to remove the "en route" provision. 6.25 The observer from CSC acknowledged that considerable progress had been made during the review of Annex V and welcomed the move towards a "general prohibition" of the discharge of garbage from ships. However, he raised a number of issues associated with the enforcement of the revised Annex V that might undermine its effectiveness at reducing ship-source garbage (MEPC 62/6/22).
MEPC 62/24 Page 44
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
6.26 In the ensuing discussion, the delegation of Australia indicated that the language provided by the United States for the proposed regulation 4.1.4 (see paragraph 6.22 above) offered a good compromise and withdrew its proposal. Some delegations did not support the discharge of cargo hold cleaning agents as "garbage". 6.27 The Committee considered that it would only be feasible to complete the revised MARPOL Annex V at this session, if the substantive comments and proposals received could be reviewed by a working group: further postponement of the adoption of the revised Annex V was deemed inappropriate. It was therefore agreed that, although the Committees' Guidelines on the organization and method of work did not allow for an extra working group, the Drafting Group should become a working group, but only for the final review of MARPOL Annex V. 6.28 The Committee agreed to refer the draft amendments, as well as the comments to the drafting/working group for review. Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (Designation of the United States Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area and other related matters) 6.29 The Committee recalled that MEPC 60 adopted, by resolution MEPC.190(60), amendments to MARPOL Annex VI to designate the North American Emission Control Area, which was to enter into force on 1 August 2011. 6.30 The Committee also recalled that MEPC 61 considered and approved amendments to MARPOL Annex VI with a view to adoption, at this session, to designate the United States Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area, as given in the annex to document MEPC 62/6/2, together with the draft MEPC resolution on their adoption, (MEPC 61/24 and MEPC 61/24/Corr.1, paragraphs 4.34 and 4.36, and annex 2). 6.31 In this regard, the Committee noted that, once adopted, the United States Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area would be added in paragraph 3 of regulation 14, and that the existing subparagraphs should be re-numbered as a result, leading also to a consequential amendment to ensure correct cross-referencing in paragraph 7 of regulation 14. 6.32 The delegation of Japan raised the issue that if the amendments on the United States Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area were adopted at this session, a twelve month "grace period" would apply under regulation 14.7 of MARPOL Annex VI. During that period ships operating in that ECA would be exempt from several requirements under this regulation. The delegation also raised the same issue regarding the North American ECA which is already designated in the regulation and proposed that the application should be clarified in the regulations and that an MEPC circular should be prepared announcing the date of taking effect of this ECA so as to avoid any ambiguity. The delegation of the United States supported this proposal. 6.33 The observer from IACS proposed to insert the new regulation 14.8 as regulation 14.4.4, in order to avoid unnecessary cross-referencing. 6.34 The Committee agreed to refer the draft amendments, as well as the above-mentioned proposals to the Drafting Group for editorial review. Establishment of the Drafting Group on Amendments to Mandatory Instruments (Part I) 6.35 The Committee established the Drafting Group on Amendments to Mandatory Instruments (Part I), under the chairmanship of Mr. Zafrul Alam (Singapore), to deal with the draft amendments deliberated so far, with the following Terms of Reference:
MEPC 62/24 Page 45
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Using documents MEPC 62/6, MEPC 62/6/1, and MEPC 62/6/2 as a basis, and taking into account the relevant submissions under this agenda item, document MEPC 62/7/5, any comments and proposals and the decisions made in plenary, the Drafting Group is instructed to: .1 review and finalize the texts of proposed amendments to:
.1 MARPOL Annex IV (Designation of the Baltic Sea as a Special Area); and
.2 MARPOL Annex VI (Designation of the United States Caribbean
Sea Emission Control Area and other related matters); .2 review and finalize two draft MEPC resolutions for adoption of the two sets
of amendments to MARPOL Annex IV and Annex VI, respectively; .3 upon completion of the above-mentioned tasks, the Drafting Group shall
continue as working group to review and finalize the text for the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex V, together with an accompanying draft MEPC resolution for adoption;
.4 develop an MEPC circular on the date of taking effect of the proposed
amendments to regulation 13 and 14 of MARPOL Annex VI, when adopted; and
.5 submit a written report to the plenary on Thursday, 14 July 2011.
Report of the Drafting Group and action taken by the Committee (Part I) 6.36 The Committee noted, in the report of the Drafting Group (MEPC 62/WP.11), that:
.1 with regard to the proposed new regulation 12bis.1.1 in MARPOL Annex IV on reception facilities for passenger ships in special areas, the Drafting Group could not reach agreement on whether all ports should provide sewage reception facilities, analogous to similar special areas requirements of other MARPOL Annexes. Those delegations objecting to inclusion of the word "all" did so on grounds of unreasonable cost implications. Consequently, the word "all" had been kept in brackets for decision by the Committee;
.2 the Working Group agreed not to create a relaxation of the current
requirement in regulation 5(5)(b) of Annex V by which administrations "shall ensure that all ships …, before entering the Antarctic area, have sufficient capacity on board for the retention of all garbage while operating in the area". Consequently, the phrase "garbage prohibited for discharge" in the text approved by MEPC 61 was deleted in draft regulation 6.3.2;
.3 the Working Group considered a proposal to include in regulation 6.1.2.3
(inadequacy of port reception facilities for garbage in special areas) a cross-reference to regulation 8.2 on the mandatory reporting of such inadequacies. The proponents argued that without reporting, the lack of such facilities would continue. Although some delegations expressed concern about the lack of adequate port reception facilities in special areas for the reception of cargo residues, the Working Group agreed not to include a cross-reference; and
MEPC 62/24 Page 46
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.4 the Working Group agreed to recommend that guidance should be developed for new entries made in the final text of the proposed amendments, where appropriate, as part of the current review of the Guidelines for the Implementation of MARPOL Annex V.
6.37 Having considered the report of the Drafting Group, the Committee approved it in general and, in particular:
.1 agreed that the text of MARPOL Annex IV, new regulation 12bis.1.1 regarding reception facilities for passenger ships in special areas should read: "facilities for the reception of sewage should be provided in ports and terminals which are in a special area and which are used by passenger ships; ...";
.2 adopted, by resolution MEPC.200(62), amendments to the Annex of the
Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (Special Area Provisions and the Designation of the Baltic Sea as a Special Area under MARPOL Annex IV), as set out in annex 12;
.3 adopted, by resolution MEPC.201(62), amendments to the Annex of the
Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (Revised MARPOL Annex V), as set out in annex 13;
.4 endorsed the recommendation that guidance should be developed for new
entries made in the final text of the amendments, where appropriate, as part of the current review of the Guidelines for the Implementation of MARPOL Annex V;
.5 adopted, by resolution MEPC.202(62), amendments to the Annex of the
Protocol of 1997 to amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (Designation of the United States Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area and exemption of certain ships operating in the North American Emission Control Area and the United States Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area under regulations 13 and 14 and Appendix VII of MARPOL Annex VI), as set out in annex 14;
.6 instructed the Secretariat to check the amendments carefully for any
editorial omissions and, if necessary, insert these in the final text of the amendments;
.7 endorsed the recommendation that the co-ordinates of the United States
Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area should be included in an MEPC circular (MEPC.1/Circ.755), together with a map;
.8 approved the outline for a draft MEPC resolution in relation to the
designation of the Baltic Sea as a Special Area under MARPOL Annex IV, as set out in annex 15 for further development with a view to adoption at MEPC 63; and
.9 approved the MEPC circular on the date of taking effect of the amendments
to regulations 13 and 14 of MARPOL Annex VI adopted by resolution MEPC.202(62), as set out in annex 16 and requested the Secretariat to distribute it as MEPC.1/Circ.756 as soon as possible.
MEPC 62/24 Page 47
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
PART II Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (Mandatory technical and operational measures on energy efficiency for ships) 6.38 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61 considered draft regulations on energy efficiency for ships for mandatory application of the EEDI and SEEMP by inclusion of such regulations in MARPOL Annex VI. 6.39 The Committee also recalled that MEPC 61 considered the legal form of the draft regulations and that MEPC 60 had agreed by majority that MARPOL Annex VI was the appropriate vehicle for enacting mandatory energy efficiency requirements for ships (MEPC 60/22, paragraph 4.34). A number of delegations supported the inclusion of the energy efficiency measures in MARPOL Annex VI, while a number of other delegations opposed this as they maintained the view that MARPOL Annex VI was not the appropriate legal instrument to regulate energy efficiency measures. MEPC 61 came to no conclusion on this issue. 6.40 The Committee noted that the Secretary-General received, on 17 November 2010, a request to circulate the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex VI from the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Liberia, Norway and the United Kingdom in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of the MARPOL Convention and that, consequently, the proposed amendments were circulated by the Secretary-General, in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of the MARPOL Convention, under cover of Circular letter No.3128 of 24 November 2010. Circulation of the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex VI 6.41 The Committee noted document MEPC 62/6/9 in which India queried Circular letter No.3128. India did not share the understanding that the provisions of article 16(2)(a) of the MARPOL Convention had been met, thus enabling IMO to circulate the proposed amendments. The delegation also argued that Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties had not been adhered to by the Parties requesting the circulation and that IMO's "non-discriminatory approach" and the principle of "no more favourable treatment" of ships contradicted the fundamental principles of UNFCCC. The delegation proposed that IMO should not deliberate on any mandatory application of measures to reduce GHG emissions from ships until the issue was further deliberated under UNFCCC. 6.42 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/6/15 by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Ecuador, India, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa and Venezuela, which argued that the draft amendments circulated at the request of nine Parties to MARPOL Annex VI by Circular letter No.3128 had not been circulated in line with the basic amendment procedure of MARPOL as the Circular letter had been circulated without prior approval by the Committee of the proposed amendments contained therein. The co-sponsors noted that all amendments to the MARPOL Convention so far had first been approved in accordance with article 16(2)(b) and questioned why the Organization, at this particular instance, decided to apply the provisions of articles 16(2)(b) and 16(2)(d) on adoption at the same session of the Committee. Further, the co-sponsors considered that only article 16(2)(b) should be applied at this stage to ensure consistency with the customary procedure of IMO. 6.43 In response to document MEPC 62/6/15, the Legal Office of the IMO Secretariat clarified the procedure for amendments to MARPOL Annex VI as set out in article 16(2) paragraphs (a) to (d) of MARPOL and noted that the "approval" stage was not a formal procedural step under article 16 but only a customary practice which, however, was not
MEPC 62/24 Page 48
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
consistent throughout the Organization. It was further clarified that under article 16(2) any Party may propose an amendment and the Secretary-General was required – without the exercise of discretion – to circulate that amendment for consideration by the appropriate body of the Organization. Therefore, the Legal Office was of the view that no step of procedural or legal nature had been neglected and Circular letter No.3128 consequently fully complied with the terms of the MARPOL Convention. 6.44 Regarding the differences between the proposed amendments as prepared by the Working Group at MEPC 61 and the version circulated by Circular letter No.3128 and submitted to the Committee in document MEPC 62/6/3, the Legal Office noted that the circulated and submitted version was only a reformatted version of that developed by the MEPC 61 Working Group and that, as explained in document MEPC 62/6/5, the modifications were only made to enable the draft text to fit with the current version of MARPOL Annex VI. Further, the changes were of a minor editorial nature and did not result in a new set of amendments from those developed by the Working Group at MEPC 61. Consequently, this did not constitute suitable grounds for preventing the Committee from considering the proposals with a view to their adoption. 6.45 Concerning the consideration (article 16(2)(b)) and adoption (article 16(2)(d)) of the proposed amendments at the same session of the Committee, the Legal Office noted that the Committee's right to consider the proposed amendments had not been curtailed. The Committee had to, as a practical and legal matter, take up the proposal for 'consideration' before it could move to a position where the adoption procedure could take place under article 16(2)(d). 6.46 The delegation of Brazil, supported by others, recognized the right of a Party to MARPOL Annex VI to submit any proposal for amendments to the Convention, for consideration by the appropriate body of the Organization, but questioned the intended course of action to approve and adopt the proposed amendments in one single session of the Committee. As requested, the full statement is set out in annex 17. 6.47 The Legal Office clarified that it was only a common practice but not a legal rule that proposed amendments to MARPOL were considered and adopted at different sessions of the Committee and referred to a precedent within the Marine Environment Protection Committee. The Secretariat further informed of similar precedents within the Facilitation and Legal Committees. 6.48 The delegation of China raised further questions to the Legal Office for clarification on the appropriateness of the proposed amendments properly belonging in the framework of MARPOL Annex VI and on the meaning of "the Organization" in article 16(2)(b). 6.49 In reply to the first question by the delegation of China, the Legal Office referred the Committee to article 16(7) of the MARPOL Convention, which sets out a two-part test to assess the appropriateness of a proposed amendment and concluded that both parts of the test were satisfied in this instance. On the second point, the Legal Office was of the view that "the Organization" meant the IMO Secretariat as only the IMO Secretariat could circulate proposed amendments. The Secretary-General shed further light on the latter issue, noting that the meaning of paragraph (b) could be confusing due to the fact that, at the time of drafting paragraph (b), MEPC had yet to be established. In the equivalent amendment provisions under the SOLAS Convention, which had been draft after MSC had been established, the requirement was for proposed and circulated amendments to be submitted to "the Maritime Safety Committee of the Organization for consideration" (SOLAS article VIII(b((ii)). Accordingly, MARPOL article 16(2)(b) might, in light of the foregoing provision of SOLAS, be interpreted to mean that any amendment proposed and circulated shall be
MEPC 62/24 Page 49
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
submitted to an appropriate IMO body, in this case MEPC, for consideration by the Member States of the Organization*. 6.50 The Committee noted an intervention by the delegation of Norway where it referred to further examples of proposed amendments to IMO instruments that had been circulated without prior approval. 6.51 A number of delegations concurred with the findings of the Legal Office that the proposed amendments had been circulated in accordance with the amendment procedure and were in favour of considering the proposed amendments further. 6.52 Some other delegations did not share the legal opinion given by the Legal Office and expressed concerns about the proposed amendments being insufficiently mature, not reflecting the CBDR principle, which should be adhered to in all actions to address climate change, and about the legitimacy, though not the legality, of not following the customary procedure. 6.53 Following a lengthy debate, the Committee agreed by majority that the circulation of the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex VI had been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the MARPOL Convention. 6.54 A number of delegations made statements on the circulation of the draft proposed amendments. As requested, the statements are also set out in annex 17. Discussion of the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI 6.55 Noting that an informal group convened by the Chairman was holding consultations with a view to seeking consensus among Member States on the proposed energy efficiency regulations, and that the Committee had yet to decide on the possible establishment of working and/or drafting groups under agenda items 5 and 6, the Committee considered:
.1 the proposed draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI to include regulations on energy efficiency for ships, as set out in document MEPC 62/6/3 by the Secretariat;
.2 some explanations to the proposed amendments set out in document
MEPC 62/6/3, as presented in document MEPC 62/6/5 by Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Liberia, Norway and the United Kingdom; and
.3 a set of draft MEPC resolutions proposed by Japan and the Marshall
Islands in document MEPC 62/6/7 that were intended to further clarify the purposes of the draft amendments to Annex VI on energy efficiency for ships, strengthen the implementation of the new regulations, and expedite future work relating to energy efficiency measures. If acceptable, these additional resolutions could be adopted together with the amendments themselves.
6.56 The Committee noted that some delegations could not support further consideration of the proposed draft amendments in their current format.
* It may be noted that the Assembly, through resolution A.297(VIII), established MEPC and, through
resolution A.296(VIII), designated "the Marine Environment Protection Committee as the appropriate body referred to in Article 16 of the Convention …" (i.e. the MARPOL Convention).
MEPC 62/24 Page 50
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
6.57 The delegation of Sweden made a statement in which it thanked Japan and the Marshall Islands for their submission MEPC 62/6/7 and supported the adoption of the annexed draft resolutions as well as preparing additional text. As requested, the statement is set out in annex 18. Application of the proposed energy efficiency regulations 6.58 The Committee recalled that at MEPC 61 a number of delegations had expressed the view that the energy efficiency regulations could be phased-in for ships built in some countries over a certain period of time (MEPC 61/24, paragraph 5.47). It was also recalled that the Committee, under agenda item 5, had agreed to consider the proposal by China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa in relation to a phase-in of application of the proposed draft regulations for developing countries, as set out in document MEPC 62/5/10, paragraph 14. 6.59 The Committee noted that the latter proponents desired that the draft regulatory text should fully reflect the views put forward by developing country delegations at MEPC 61. 6.60 In this context, the Committee also considered document MEPC 62/6/21 by Singapore, proposing some refinements to the draft regulations in document MEPC 62/6/3, intended as a compromise solution. 6.61 A large number of delegations supported the compromise proposal by Singapore and expressed interest in further consideration of how it could be incorporated in the draft regulatory text. Most delegations taking the floor on the matter welcomed the proposal as a good basis for finding a compromise that could be agreed by consensus and expressed willingness to engage in further discussions. A number of delegations expressed concerns over the proposed possibility for port States to deny ships port entry based on whether they comply with the EEDI or not. Also, a number of delegations reasoned that the time period of four years was excessive and should be shortened, in particular if the port entry condition clause was not included. Other delegations argued that the four years period was too short and should be extended to seven or eight years, while still others argued that the time period for which a waiver could be issued should be set by each individual Party. 6.62 The Committee agreed that the proposal by Singapore provided scope for a compromise agreement as it contained elements around which a consensus could be built. However, many delegations considered that some elements could not be considered for inclusion as part of a final compromise package. Accordingly, the Committee also agreed to continue working on the compromise text in the informal group convened by the MEPC Chairman with a view to reaching consensus on the regulatory text. Capacity building, technical assistance and transfer of technology 6.63 The Committee recalled that at MEPC 61 a number of delegations had expressed the view that text on capacity building and transfer of technology should be included in the energy efficiency regulations. Consequently, the Committee noted several proposals in relation to this matter, in documents submitted to the session and proposed from the floor. 6.64 The Committee agreed that capacity building, technical assistance and transfer of technology were important elements in a future comprehensive regulatory framework to promote energy efficiency in international shipping. It agreed to continue considering the issue in relation with further development and refinement of the draft regulatory text and associated resolutions.
MEPC 62/24 Page 51
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Review provision for the status of technological developments 6.65 The Committee recalled that draft regulation 21.5 of the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex VI provided for a review provision at the beginning of phase 1, stipulating that the Organization "shall review the status of technological developments and, if proven necessary, adjust the time periods and reduction rates set out in Phases 2 and 3." 6.66 The Committee considered several, interrelated proposals concerning review provisions, as follows:
.1 the proposal by Japan and the Marshall Islands in annex 2 to document MEPC 62/6/7 which would mandate that the first review process related to Phase 1 should start at the time of adoption of the amendments and should focus on small ships and ships designed for routes that call at ports that are remote, isolated or without the facilities comparable to those in developed nations;
.2 the proposal by the Netherlands related to review process 1, regarding
consideration of the applicable requirements for the small ship segment (MEPC 62/6/14). The proposal encouraged industry organizations to submit proposals (as review process 1) to resolve the high scatter and the low square of the regression factor R2 for this segment, which could form part of the proposed work plan and schedule for technical and operational measures for ships, as proposed in document MEPC 62/5/18; and
.3 the ICS comments seeking to ensure that, during the later phases of
application, due account should be taken of experience gained during earlier phases and proposing to include an additional review at the midpoint of Phase 2 on the requirements for Phase 3 (MEPC 62/6/24).
6.67 The Committee noted that Vanuatu considered that the scope of the review process was not broad enough to ameliorate some of the concerns expressed in the shipping community about the proposed calculation method(s) and not just the timing of the phases or the reduction rates (MEPC 62/6/23). Issues related to specific ship types 6.68 The Committee considered comments and proposals on the draft regulations for specific ship types, as shown in paragraphs 6.69 to 6.78 below. Bulk carriers, tankers and container ships 6.69 With regard to this category of ships, the Committee considered:
.1 a proposal by China to reduce the reduction requirements for bulk carriers and tankers and separate them in three size categories, compared to the current two with smaller reductions for the largest and smallest ships (MEPC 62/6/16); and
.2 a proposal by Greece to reduce the EEDI reduction factors "X" for tankers
and bulk carriers (paragraphs 8, 9.1 and 9.3), especially those of larger sizes, and increase the EEDI reduction factors for large container ships (paragraphs 8 and 9.3), using available statistical analyses and results of relevant studies (MEPC 62/6/19).
MEPC 62/24 Page 52
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
6.70 The Committee noted that the review provision in the draft amendments would enable further consideration of issues, including ship safety, and proposals to amend Table 1 of the draft amendments provided in the documents and, as such, Table 1 should not be amended at this stage. The Committee agreed that the above proposals would be included in the review process (review process 1). General cargo ships 6.71 The Committee noted the concerns and proposals by CESA regarding the large scatter and poor correlation of the reference line values for general cargo ships due to the inclusion of highly specialized tonnage under the definition of general cargo ships (MEPC 62/6/12, paragraphs 3 to 7, 9 and 10 and MEPC 62/INF.17). 6.72 The Committee reconfirmed that specialized tonnage should be excluded from the application of the EEDI. Chemical tankers 6.73 The Committee considered a proposal by IPTA to introduce a cubic capacity correction factor for chemical tankers, due to their particular design features into the EEDI formula. This would reflect concerns in relation to chemical/parcel tankers that were similar to those expressed for combination carriers, namely, that specific design features could lead to these ships being penalized under the current EEDI formula (MEPC 62/6/13). 6.74 The Committee noted that a correction factor for chemical tankers would be incorporated into the calculation guidelines and so agreed to forward document MEPC 62/6/13 (IPTA) to the Working Group established under agenda item 5 with a view to considering inclusion of a correction factor for chemical tankers in the guidelines. Gas carriers 6.75 The Committee considered the proposal by SIGTTO in document MEPC 62/6/20 that gas carriers should be divided into two specific categories when calculating the EEDI, as follows:
.1 ships which utilize conventional liquid fuels (HFO, MDO etc.) as primary fuel. This category should cover all LPG and LNG ships and those LNG ships which employ slow speed diesel propulsion systems running on HFO; and
.2 ships which use boil-off gas and/or vaporized LNG as primary fuel.
This category should be based on the reference line derived from the analysis of Dual Fuel Diesel Electric (DFDE) vessels, in the capacity range of 75,000 – 95,000 dwt (MEPC 62/6/20).
6.76 The Committee noted that the review provision in the draft amendments would enable further consideration of the issues raised by SIGTTO. The Committee agreed to forward document MEPC 62/6/20 to the Working Group for consideration of gas carriers when considering the EEDI calculation method for ships having diesel-electric propulsion, turbine propulsion, hybrid propulsion, dual fuel engines and other propulsion systems as part of the draft work plan. Ro-ro ships 6.77 The Committee considered the proposal by CESA to either amend or delete draft regulations 2.34 and 2.35 that provide definitions for ro-ro ships (MEPC 62/6/12, paragraph 8 and MEPC 62/INF.17).
MEPC 62/24 Page 53
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
6.78 The Committee agreed to amend the references to ro-ro ships within the draft regulatory text and instructed the Drafting Group, should it be established, accordingly. Drafting issues 6.79 The Committee agreed that the documents listed below were to be considered directly by the Drafting Group, should it be established:
.1 MEPC 62/6/5 (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan Liberia, Norway and United Kingdom) – Proposed draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI; and
.2 MEPC 62/6/26 (Germany) – Rectification of drafting omissions of draft
amendments to regulations on energy efficiency for ships of MARPOL Annex VI (EEDI).
Establishment of groups 6.80 Having completed its preliminary consideration of Part II of agenda item 6, the Committee then debated the establishment of working and/or drafting groups on energy efficiency matters. In this regard, a number of delegations continued to express the view, as also reported under agenda items 1 and 5 (see paragraphs 1.7-1.11, 5.5 and 5.28-5.29), that the proposed draft amendments should be considered by a working group with a view to their further development and possible approval at this session. In their view, the draft amendments were premature and needed considerable further work before they could be considered for adoption. Some delegations reasoned that adoption should not be considered before all supporting guidelines were also ready for adoption so they could be considered as a package. Other delegations argued that Part II of agenda item 62 should not be addressed at this session. 6.81 A number of other delegations maintained the view that the Drafting Group should consider the circulated draft amendments as well as documents providing comments or further proposals for refinement and additions. 6.82 The Committee agreed by majority that the circulated draft amendments and related documents should be considered by a Drafting Group (Part II), for editorial refinement of the regulatory text on energy efficiency and with a view to adoption at this session, while further consultations aimed at achieving consensus should continue in the informal group convened by the Chairman. Further, the Committee also agreed to establish a Working Group, under agenda item 5, on Energy Efficiency Measures for Ships (see paragraph 5.30). Work of the Drafting Group on amendments to mandatory instruments (Part II) – first part 6.83 The Committee agreed to refer the aforementioned drafting work to the Drafting Group on amendments to mandatory instruments (Part II), under the chairmanship of Dr. Phillip Belcher (Bahamas), with the following Terms of Reference:
.1 review and finalize the specific paragraphs of document MEPC 62/6/3 referenced in documents MEPC 62/6/5, MEPC 62/6/12 and MEPC 62/6/26 referred to it by the plenary for the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (inclusion of regulations on energy efficiency for ships); and
.2 submit a written report to plenary on Friday, 15 July 2011.
MEPC 62/24 Page 54
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Action taken on the report of the Drafting Group (Part II) – first part 6.84 As instructed by the Committee the Drafting Group submitted its first report as document MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1. 6.85 The Committee noted that the Drafting Group had worked strictly in compliance with its Terms of Reference and that the specific paragraphs referred to it by the plenary had been finalized, as detailed in the annex to document MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1, and further noted that the Group did not work on any other issues which had not been referred to it. 6.86 The Committee noted that, with respect to the editorial amendments proposed in document MEPC 62/6/26 (Germany), the Group had identified some consequential amendments to the definitions. Accordingly, the Group finalized the definitions. Similarly, when reviewing the issue of major conversions, a consequential minor amendment was identified within regulation 5. The Group agreed to this minor editorial change. 6.87 The Committee noted that two issues relating to document MEPC 62/6/5 (Australia et al.) were highlighted:
.1 in relation to issue 14 Equivalence, the Group was of the view that there was no need for a direct reference to be made to regulation 21 as regulation 4 implicitly allowed for such equivalences, to the extent applicable; and
.2 with regard to issue 15 Clarification of the term "substantially", the Group
believed that it did not have enough guidance from the plenary for it to progress this item.
6.88 Having received and considered document MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1 the Committee approved it in general. 6.89 The Committee recalled that the informal group convened by the Chairman was continuing its efforts to build consensus on energy efficiency matters and was developing further text on capacity-building and technology transfer in order to reach a general agreement on the draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI on inclusion of a new chapter 4 on energy efficiency for ships. Informal group on consideration and adoption of amendments to mandatory instruments 6.90 The Committee noted that the outcome of the informal group was submitted by the Chairman for consideration by the Committee in document MEPC 62/WP.16, which provided amended text for a draft regulation on technical co-operation and transfer of technology, and draft text on application with possible deferment for parties which may require additional time for implementation of the proposed energy efficiency measures. 6.91 All delegations that intervened in the ensuing debate expressed their admiration for the Chairman's strenuous efforts to bring all Members together and produce a text on the basis of which consensus might be reached. In this respect, while some delegations considered that additional amendments and clarifications were required before adoption of the proposed text could be further considered, other delegations were of the view that the text presented by the Chairman was the most delicate of compromises and should be considered as the final text for adoption.
MEPC 62/24 Page 55
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
6.92 The Secretary-General congratulated the Chairman and delegations for their hard work and statesmanlike attitude in drafting the text in document MEPC 62/WP.16. Recalling his opening remarks appealing to all Members to compromise, and noting that every word, phrase, sentence and paragraph of the proposed text had been carefully crafted on the basis of concessions made by all engaged in the consultations, he commended the text to the Committee as it represented a well-balanced outcome that was workable in today's shipping reality and which also preserved the universality of IMO's regulations and the unity of its membership. 6.93 In turn, the Chairman thanked the Committee for its trust in his leadership on the issue and highlighted that the text on capacity-building had been based on corresponding regulatory text existing in other IMO conventions, which had nevertheless been improved and strengthened, while the text on application had been based on the proposal of Singapore (MEPC 62/6/21) but without the wording on denial of entry. He, therefore, also commended the text to Members while further consultations continued on related matters. 6.94 The Committee agreed by majority that the draft text provided in document MEPC 62/WP.16 should be considered further by the Drafting Group and that work in the informal group convened by the Chairman should continue with a view to developing a draft MEPC resolution on capacity-building, technical assistance and transfer of technology, which could be adopted together with the amendments as a package. Establishment of and Terms of Reference for the Drafting Group on Amendments to Mandatory Instruments (Part II) – second part 6.95 Having considered document MEPC 62/WP.16 the Committee agreed to refer the aforementioned text to the Drafting Group on amendments to mandatory instruments (Part II), again under the chairmanship of Dr. Phillip Belcher (Bahamas), with the following Terms of Reference:
"using MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1 as a basis, make the following changes: .1 include the issues raised by Vanuatu in document MEPC 62/6/23 and ICS
in document MEPC 62/6/24 on the review period; .2 delete the insertion made in MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1 in draft regulation 19.4
as proposed in document MEPC 62/6/12 by CESA; and .3 insert the paragraphs of MEPC 62/WP.16 into the draft proposed
amendments set out in the annex to MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1." Action taken on the report of the Drafting Group (Part II) – second part 6.96 As instructed by the Committee, the Drafting Group submitted the second, consolidated, part of its report as document MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1/Rev.1. 6.97 The Committee noted that the Group had been working strictly in compliance with its Terms of Reference and had finalized the specific paragraphs referred to it by the plenary, as detailed in the annex to document MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1/Rev.1, and further noted that the Group did not address any other issues which had not been referred to it. 6.98 The Committee noted that the group, having discussed the text contained within document MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1, agreed that no changes should be made to how the phased dates (on or after X years and X months) are referenced in draft regulations 19.1, 19.2, 19.3
MEPC 62/24 Page 56
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
and 19.4, and further noted that the Secretariat should be requested to amend the text by inserting a calendar date at a later stage. Outcome of informal group on a draft resolution on capacity-building and technical assistance 6.99 The Chairman presented orally the outcome of the work of the informal group undertaken on Friday, 15 July on developing a draft MEPC resolution on capacity building, technical assistance and transfer of technology. He stated that good progress was made but that it had not been possible to finalize a draft resolution by consensus as there were several issues where divergence could not be overcome. The Committee noted that there was no time to continue considering the draft MEPC resolution at this session. 6.100 A number of delegations expressed disappointment over the lack of a final outcome on the draft MEPC resolution and argued that, without a complete package, they opposed to continue consideration of the draft amendments. 6.101 The Committee noted that the Chairman would further develop the draft MEPC resolution on capacity building, technical assistance and transfer of technology based on input from delegations during this session and would submit it, with a view to further consideration and final adoption, at MEPC 63. Adoption of the draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI on inclusion of a new chapter 4 on energy efficiency of ships 6.102 Having considered the second part of the report of the Drafting Group set out in document MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1/Rev.1, the Committee considered whether the proposed draft amendments should be adopted at this session. 6.103 The overwhelming majority of the delegations taking the floor on the issue supported adoption, at this session, of the text set out in the annex to MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1/Rev.1 as they argued that the measures had been under development for several years and were well matured both as technical regulations and as regulatory text. However, a number of delegations opposed adoption at this session as the draft MEPC resolution on capacity building, technical assistance and transfer of technology was not ready for adoption and argued that work should continue with a view to reaching consensus on a total package. 6.104 A number of delegations wanted to continue consideration of the draft text in the Drafting Group as they wanted to see a link between the deferment clause in subparagraphs 4 to 6 of regulation 19 and the capacity building regulations set out in draft regulation 23. Other delegations supported the amendments but reasoned that they should not be adopted at this session but be considered further at MEPC 63, with a view to adoption at that session together with the MEPC resolution on capacity building and the associated guidelines. 6.105 One delegation expressed the view that the amendments should be forwarded to the Subsidiary Body for Technological and Scientific Advice of the UNFCCC for its review and input prior to further consideration by the Committee. 6.106 Some delegations were of the view that the proposed draft amendments still did not reflect sufficiently the concerns of developing countries, specifically in relation to technology transfer and the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR), and so should not be adopted at this session to enable further consideration at MEPC 63. However, many other delegations were of the view that IMO, as a sovereign body, should be respected. The proposed draft amendments reflected,
MEPC 62/24 Page 57
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
in their view, a delicate compromise of the views of both sides that following additional drafting amendments made during the session, it reflected the concerns expressed by most delegations, including those of developing countries, and should be adopted at this session. 6.107 Following an extensive discussion, the Chairman invited the Committee to adopt the draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI to include regulations on energy efficiency for ships as contained in annex to document MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1/Rev.1. 6.108 The majority of delegations that responded to the Chairman's invitation supported adoption. However, the delegation of Saudi Arabia requested that a vote be held on adoption of the aforementioned draft amendments and the delegation of Brazil requested that, in accordance with Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the Marine Environment Protection Committee, the vote be undertaken by a roll-call. 6.109 The Chairman confirmed that only Parties to MARPOL Annex VI attending MEPC 62 were eligible to vote. The IMO Legal Office confirmed that 59 of the 64 Parties to MARPOL Annex VI were registered to attend MEPC 62. In accordance with Rule 29 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure, the Chairman drew by lot the name of Slovenia, which would be the first Party to vote, followed by other Parties in alphabetical order in English. 6.110 The Committee noted the outcome of the roll-call vote as follows: Yes: 49 Parties: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belgium,
Belize, Bulgaria, Canada, Cook Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu
No: 5 Parties: Brazil, Chile, China, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
Abstain: 2 Parties: Jamaica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Not present in the room: 3 Parties: Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kenya, Syrian Arab Republic
6.111 As a consequence, the Chairman declared that the Committee had formally adopted the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI incorporating, within that Annex, a new chapter 4 on regulation on energy efficiency for ships. 6.112 The Committee requested the Secretariat to undertake an editorial review of the amendments, incorporate any conforming changes that may be necessary and complete the text based on the outcome of the Drafting Group and relevant decisions by the Committee. 6.113 Having previously considered the draft resolution given in the annex to document MEPC 62/6/3, and noting an intervention by the delegation of China, the Committee agreed to adopt the amendments using the draft resolution given in annex 1 to document MEPC 62/6/7 (Japan and Marshall Islands). In this respect, the Chairman reiterated his commitment to develop for the next session a draft MEPC resolution on technology transfer and the development of alternative technologies to enable all Member States to meet the challenge of climate change.
MEPC 62/24 Page 58
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
6.114 The amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, as adopted by the Committee through resolution MEPC.203(62), are set out in annex 19. 6.115 A number of delegations made statements following adoption of the amendments, noting the view that, among other matters, the principle of CBDR should be reflected in all actions taken to combat climate change. The observers of the Pacific Environment and the Clean Shipping Coalition also made statements. As requested, the statements are set out in annex 20. 6.116 The Committee also requested the Secretariat to finalize the draft guidelines for calculation of reference lines for use with the Energy Efficiency Design Index (MEPC 62/6/4, annex 2) and submit them to MEPC 63 with a view to their final adoption. 6.117 The Committee expressed its appreciation to Mr. Zafrul Alam (Singapore) and Dr. Phillip Belcher (Bahamas) for their leadership and excellent work, and to the members of the Drafting Group for the meticulous work done. 7 INTERPRETATIONS OF, AND AMENDMENTS TO, MARPOL AND RELATED
INSTRUMENTS 7.1 The Committee noted that 13 documents had been submitted under this agenda item. 7.2 The Committee also noted that documents MEPC 62/7/6 (IACS), MEPC 62/7/7 (Russian Federation) and MEPC 62/7/8 (IACS), dealing with matters related to MARPOL Annex VI, had been considered under agenda item 4 – Prevention of air pollution from ships; and that document MEPC 62/7/5 (IACS), concerning a perceived incoherency in MARPOL Annex IV, had been considered under agenda item 6 – Consideration and adoption of amendments to mandatory instruments. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEXES I, II, IV, V AND VI ON REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR RECEPTION FACILITIES 7.3 The Committee recalled that MEPC 60, having considered documents MEPC 60/6/4 (Australia and SPREP) proposing amendments to MARPOL Annexes I and II and MEPC 60/6/12 (United States) commenting on the former, had encouraged interested delegations and observers to resolve the outstanding issues and submit a joint document with draft amendments to MARPOL Annexes I, II, IV, V and VI, institutionalizing regional arrangements for reception facilities and draft guidelines for establishing those arrangements. The Committee further recalled that MEPC 60 had acknowledged that any regional arrangements were intended only for specific regions of the world, especially Small Island Developing States, and that this understanding should be clearly stated in the draft amendments or guidelines. 7.4 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/7 (Australia and SPREP) proposing amendments to MARPOL Annexes I, II, IV, V and VI to allow Small Island Developing States to satisfy MARPOL's requirements for port reception facilities through regional arrangements, together with draft Guidelines for the development of a Regional Reception Facilities Plan, including provisions for their adoption by the MEPC. 7.5 The Committee noted that the United States, in document MEPC 62/7/10, reiterated its support for the concept of regional arrangements for port reception facilities, which should be institutionalized within each of the pertinent MARPOL Annexes. However, the United States was of the view that the concept should not be restricted to Small Island Developing States
MEPC 62/24 Page 59
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
but that all States should be eligible to enter into a regional arrangement on the basis of circumstances of practical difficulty. The United States believed that IMO should not undertake to approve or disapprove regional arrangements and that the preferred alternative is a required notification to IMO by the States in the region when they have taken into account the guidance of the Organization and are prepared to implement the regional arrangement. 7.6 A large number of delegations supported the proposal by Australia and SPREP, while a number of other delegations shared the view of the United States that all States should be eligible to enter into a regional arrangement on the basis of circumstances of practical difficulty. Some delegations expressed concerns on practical difficulties that ships may face, including a possible need for deviation from their commercial route; and that MARPOL Annex II pre-wash requirements at the port of unloading was not adequately addressed in the proposed amendments. 7.7 After discussion, the Committee approved draft amendments to MARPOL Annexes I, II, IV, V and VI on regional arrangements for port reception facilities, set out in annex 21, for circulation, with a view to adoption at MEPC 63. 7.8 Recognizing that the approved amendments to Annex V refer to the existing text of Annex V, the Committee instructed the Secretariat to make necessary adjustments for the approved amendments to fit in the newly adopted revised Annex V. 7.9 The delegation of the United States reserved its position with regard to the Committee's decision to circulate the proposed amendments, and with respect to their limitation to Small Island Developing States. 7.10 The Committee invited Australia and other interested delegations to continue the work on the proposed Guidelines for developing a Regional Reception Facilities Plan and submit a revised version of the Guidelines to MEPC 63, with a view to adoption. 7.11 Following a suggestion by the delegation of Bahamas, the Committee invited the interested delegations and Secretariat to provide information to MEPC 63 on the administrative burdens, as well as any other economic impact, deriving from these proposed amendments, taking into account the outcome of C 105 in this respect. DEVELOPMENT OF ASSOCIATED GUIDELINES TO THE REVISED MARPOL ANNEX V 7.12 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61, having approved draft amendments to MARPOL Annex V with a view to adoption at MEPC 62, had established an intersessional Correspondence Group under the coordination of the United Kingdom to initiate a review of the Guidelines for the implementation of Annex V of MARPOL and the Guidelines for the development of garbage management plans. 7.13 The delegation of the United Kingdom, as coordinator of the Correspondence Group, introduced document MEPC 62/7/1 on the outcome of the Group's work in the intersessional period. The Committee noted that the Group had made significant progress in reviewing the Guidelines and had identified several issues requiring further consideration, as listed in paragraphs 11 to 18 of document MEPC 62/7/1. 7.14 The Committee also considered document MEPC 62/7/2 (Australia) providing a draft text, addressing the disposal of animal carcasses at sea, to be incorporated as part of the revised Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V.
MEPC 62/24 Page 60
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
7.15 The Committee agreed to re-establish the Correspondence Group, under the coordination of the United Kingdom3, with the following Terms of Reference:
.1 further develop the draft revised Guidelines for the implementation of the revised MARPOL Annex V, taking into account the discussions and comments made in the plenary;
.2 further develop the draft revised Guidelines for the development of garbage
management plans to be part of the revised Guidelines for the implementation of the revised MARPOL Annex V; and
.3 submit a written report to MEPC 63.
7.16 Following a suggestion by the delegation of the Netherlands, the Committee instructed the DSC Sub-Committee to consider the issue of discharging of cargo residues, as referred to in regulation 4.1.3 of the revised MARPOL Annex V, and in particular what constitutes harmful to the marine environment, under a new output for the 2012-2013 biennium "Development of criteria for the evaluation of environmentally hazardous solid bulk cargoes in relation to the revised MARPOL Annex V", with a target completion year of 2012. The Committee noted the intention of the delegation of the Netherlands to submit a relevant document to the Sub-Committee. 7.17 In this connection, the Committee also instructed the BLG Sub-Committee to consider the issue of discharge of cleaning agents or additives in deck washing water, as referred to in regulations 4.2 and 6.2 of the revised MARPOL Annex V, and advise it accordingly. MATTERS RELATED TO MARPOL ANNEX I Regulation 12 of MARPOL Annex I and its associated unified interpretations 7.18 The Committee considered document MEPC 62/7/3 (Hong Kong, China and IACS), seeking clarification on the scope of application of regulation 12 of MARPOL Annex I as amended by resolution MEPC.187(59) and the associated MARPOL Unified Interpretations (UIs) contained in document MEPC 61/24, annex 14. 7.19 The Committee noted the view of the co-sponsors that the most significant revision of regulation 12 of MARPOL Annex I and the associated UIs, from the perspective of system design, was that it no longer contains the provision (first sentence of the "past" MARPOL UI 17.1.3) to allow for an interconnection between the sludge tank discharge piping and bilge-water piping using common piping leading to the standard discharge connection. The co-sponsors further pointed out that this unintentional omission would require ships to have completely separate standard discharge connections and piping leading to that connection.
3 Coordinator:
Miss Lorraine Weller Maritime and Coastguard Agency Bay 2/08 Spring Place 105 Commercial Road Southampton, SO15 1EG Tel: +44 (0) 23 8032 9503 E-mail: [email protected]
MEPC 62/24 Page 61
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
7.20 Following discussion, the Committee agreed that regulation 12.2.2 of MARPOL Annex I should not be retroactively applied to ships delivered before 1 January 2014* (see note in subparagraph 2), and to the following amendments to the Unified Interpretations to regulations 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4, as contained in document MEPC 61/24, annex 14, allowing for an interconnection between the sludge tank discharge piping and bilge-water piping using common piping leading to the standard discharge connection:
.1 the existing Unified Interpretation to regulation 12.2 should read as an interpretation to regulation 12.2.1; and
.2 a new Unified Interpretation to regulation 12.2.2 is added as follows:
Regulation 12.2.2 – Sludge tank discharge piping There should be no interconnections between the sludge tank discharge piping and bilge-water piping other than possible common piping leading to the standard discharge connection referred to in regulation 13.
For ships delivered before 1 January 2014*, existing arrangements where the oil residue (sludge) tank(s) have discharge connections to oily bilge water holding tank(s), tank top or oily water separator may be accepted. _______________ * Ship delivered before 1 January 2014 means a ship:
.1 for which the building contract is placed before 1 January 2011; or
.2 in the absence of a building contract, the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of construction before 1 January 2012; or
.3 the delivery of which is before 1 January 2014. 7.21 The Committee instructed the Secretariat to issue MEPC.1/Circ.753 on the above revised Unified Interpretations. 7.22 The Committee, in endorsing the view of IACS that while the revised Unified Interpretation to regulation 12.2 could serve as interim guidance, options should be explored to formalize the interpretation, including possible amendments to regulation 12 of MARPOL Annex I, invited IACS and interested delegations to provide their considerations and comments to MEPC 63. Guidance for the recording of operations in the Oil Record Book Part I 7.23 The Committee, having recalled that MEPC 61 had approved the "Guidance for the recording of operations in the Oil Record Book Part I – Machinery space operations (all ships)" (MEPC.1/Circ.736), considered and agreed to a number of minor corrections proposed by Denmark, et al. (MEPC 62/7/4) and India (MEPC 62/7/12, paragraph 3), and subsequently instructed the Secretariat to issue MEPC.1/Circ.736/Rev.1. Amendments to the Revised Guidelines and Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers 7.24 The Committee considered a proposal by the Russian Federation (MEPC 62/7/9) to delete all the references to "oil-like substances" in the "Revised Guidelines and Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers" (resolution MEPC.108(49)). The delegation of the Russian Federation pointed out that, as a consequence of the entry into force of revised MARPOL Annex II, substances are no longer to be classified as "oil-like substances".
MEPC 62/24 Page 62
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
7.25 The delegation of the United Kingdom, supported by others, in concurring with the existence of inconsistencies in the Guidelines, nevertheless suggested that the BLG Sub-Committee should consider the issue further, in light of the newly approved MEPC.1/Circ.761 on Guidelines for the carriage of blends of petroleum oil and bio-fuels (paragraph 11.21.5). 7.26 Consequently, the Committee instructed the BLG Sub-Committee to consider the issue and advise it accordingly. PROPOSAL FOR CIRCULATION OF UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MARPOL CONVENTION 7.27 The Committee, having considered the proposal by the Republic of Korea (MEPC 62/7/11), agreed that future Unified Interpretations (UIs) to regulations under MARPOL Annexes should be circulated by MEPC circulars, and as annexes to the Committee's reports, with a view to facilitating their dissemination. The Committee also instructed the Secretariat to issue MEPC.1/Circ.754 on the list of UIs of the MARPOL Convention adopted since MEPC 45, as contained in the annex to document MEPC 62/7/11. 8 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPRC CONVENTION AND THE OPRC-HNS
PROTOCOL AND RELEVANT CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS 8.1 The Committee, due to time constraints, agreed to postpone consideration of all documents submitted under this item until its next session in February/March 2012, with the exception of the Report of the twelfth meeting of the OPRC-HNS Technical Group (MEPC 62/WP.14). Report of the twelfth meeting of the OPRC-HNS Technical Group 8.2 The Committee noted that the twelfth meeting of the OPRC-HNS Technical Group was held from 4 to 8 July 2011 under the chairmanship of Mr. Alexander von Buxhoeveden (Sweden), and that the report of the Group was issued under the symbol MEPC 62/WP.14. 8.3 The Committee approved the report in general and, in particular:
.1 noted the progress made by the Group in updating the IMO dispersant
guidelines; .2 noted the progress made by the Group on the Operational guidelines on
sunken and submerged oil assessment and removal techniques; .3 endorsed the Group's view with regard to the topic of potentially polluting
wrecks and its agreement to treat this subject independently from its work on the development of guidelines for sunken and submerged oil and to further assess the matter at TG 13;
.4 invited Member States to submit information on wrecks of interest to future
meetings of the Group; .5 noted the discussions on the safe operation and performance standards of
oil pollution combating equipment (OPCE) and endorsed the Group's decision to confine this work to the safe operation of OPCE;
MEPC 62/24 Page 63
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.6 endorsed the Group's participation in reviewing and updating the OPRC model training courses, levels 1 to 3, to be undertaken by the Secretariat, having recognized that the information contained therein is dated and the look and feel of the courses required modernization;
.7 continued to urge delegations to submit information on HNS pollution
incidents to be included in the summary of incidents and to submit relevant information to further expand the inventory of information resources on OPRC/HNS-related matters;
.8 noted the Secretariat's ongoing support to the Triennial Oil Spill Conference
Series; .9 noted the actions taken by the IMO Secretariat, in collaboration with other
UN agencies, in responding to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Facility incident in the aftermath of the recent tsunami in Japan, in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Radiation Emergency Management Plan of the International Organizations (JPlan);
.10 endorsed the Group's intention to postpone its work on oil spill response in
ice and snow, in light of similar work being undertaken by the petroleum industry, in order to benefit from that work and avoid duplication of effort;
.11 noted the preliminary results of the prioritization exercise for items of
high-priority work related to HNS and oil and concurred with the Group's proposal to analyse the information in more depth, with a view to providing a more comprehensive assessment at MEPC 64;
.12 approved the planned outputs and provisional agenda of the thirteenth
meeting of the OPRC-HNS Technical Group and the exceptional request to schedule that meeting during the week following MEPC 63, to allow delegations to participate in Interspill, the IMO-sponsored European oil spill conference that would take place the week following the proposed scheduling of TG 13; and
.13 welcomed the re-election of Mr. Alexander von Buxhoeveden (Sweden) as
Chairman and Mr. Woo-Rack Suh (Republic of Korea) as Vice-Chairman of the OPRC-HNS Technical Group, both for the year 2012.
8.4 The Committee also noted the statement made by the International Spill Control Organization (ISCO) with regard to its efforts, at the general level, to improve oil spill response and, more specifically, as they related to the defence of those contractors involved in the Deepwater Horizon incident, and the invitation by ISCO to environmental NGOs to participate in this work. 9 IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF SPECIAL AREAS AND
PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS Designation of the Strait of Bonifacio as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) 9.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61 had approved, in principle, the Strait of Bonifacio PSSA, subject to a review by the PSSA Technical Group, which had been proposed by France and Italy, and had requested the NAV Sub-Committee to consider the Associated Protective Measures (APMs).
MEPC 62/24 Page 64
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
9.2 In considering document MEPC 62/9/1 (Secretariat), which reported on the outcome of NAV 57 on the matter, the Committee noted that the Sub-Committee had considered the information provided by the proponents in relation to the effective implementation date of the proposed APM and approved the proposed "Recommendation on navigation through the Strait of Bonifacio" as the APM for "the Strait of Bonifacio PSSA". The Committee also noted that the approval and implementation date of the APM for the PSSA, as set out in the annex of document MEPC 62/9/1, are subject to the decision of MSC 90 in May 2012. 9.3 The Committee, having considered the outcome of NAV 57, and the comments made in plenary, decided to establish an informal Technical Group on PSSAs to review the information provided and to advise the Committee for action as appropriate. Designation of the Saba Bank as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area 9.4 The Committee considered the proposal submitted by the Netherlands (MEPC 62/9) to designate the Saba Bank as a PSSA in accordance with the Revised PSSA Guidelines (resolution A.982(24)). 9.5 The delegation of the Netherlands, during introduction of its proposal, made the following points:
.1 the proposed marine area to be designated lies entirely within the EEZ of the Caribbean island of Saba and aims to protect the fragile coral reef ecosystems, sea turtle foraging areas and important spawning and fishing grounds which currently suffer from international shipping that pass through the area. It is a unique and highly significant area for the entire Caribbean region being one of the largest atolls in the world, measuring 1,850 km2 (above the 50 m depth contour); and
.2 the proposal includes the establishment of two APMs within the PSSA,
as follows:
.1 an "Area to be Avoided" for ships exceeding 300 GT aimed at reducing the risk of collisions with fishing boats, physical damage and pollution from groundings and operational and accidental discharges and the loss of so-called ghost traps; and
.2 a "mandatory no anchoring area", which would significantly
prevent and reduce the destruction of living corals and other benthic organisms from merchant ships' anchors and chains.
9.6 The Committee, having noted that the two APMs were intended to prevent damage to the atoll ecosystem and its related ecosystems from merchant shipping activities, referred the proposal to the informal Technical Group for review and to advise the Committee on any action to be taken, as appropriate. Instructions to the informal Technical Group on PSSAs 9.7 The Committee established the informal Technical Group, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Paul Nelson (Australia), and instructed it to:
.1 review the proposal by France and Italy to designate the Strait of Bonifacio as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (MEPC 61/9; MEPC 61/INF.26 and MEPC 62/9/1)), taking into account comments from plenary, with a view to assessing whether it meets the provisions of the Revised PSSA Guidelines
MEPC 62/24 Page 65
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
(resolution A.982(24)) and whether all the information required by the Guidance Document for Submission of PSSA Proposals to IMO (MEPC.1/Circ.510) has been provided; if satisfied, prepare a draft MEPC resolution with a view to designating the "Strait of Bonifacio PSSA";
.2 review the proposal by the Netherlands for the designation of the Saba Bank
as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (MEPC 62/9) with a view to assessing whether it meets the provisions of the Revised PSSA Guidelines (resolution A.982(24)) and whether all the information required by the Guidance Document for Submission of PSSA Proposals to IMO (MEPC.1/Circ.510) has been provided; and advise the Committee on any action to be taken, as appropriate; and
.3 provide a written report, including recommendations, to plenary on
Thursday, 14 July 2011. Report of the informal Technical Group on PSSAs 9.8 The Committee, having considered the report of the informal Technical Group (MEPC 62/WP.12), as introduced by its Chairman Mr. Paul Nelson (Australia), approved it in general and, in particular:
.1 agreed that the proposal by France and Italy (MEPC 61/9, MEPC 61/INF.26, MEPC 62/9/1, NAV 57/3/8) met the requirements of the Revised PSSA Guidelines (resolution A.982(24)) and adopted resolution MEPC.204(62), as set out in annex 22 on the designation of the Strait of Bonifacio as a PSSA; and
.2 agreed that the proposal by the Netherlands met the requirements of the
Revised PSSA Guidelines (resolution A.982(24)) and approved, in principle, the designation of the Saba Bank as a PSSA; and noted that the Netherlands would submit detailed proposals for the APMs to the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation, which would provide recommendations to the Committee with a view to final designation of the PSSA at MEPC 64 in October 2012.
9.9 The Committee, having noted the Group's advice for submitting PSSA proposals in the future, reminded Member Governments that they should provide:
.1 where appropriate, information about the ecological linkages between terrestrial species and ecosystems and the marine environment, as well as the threat posed to terrestrial species and ecosystems by shipping activities. This would enable the Technical Group to have a scientific basis to consider whether or not the criteria for the designation of PSSAs had been satisfied;
.2 clear supporting documentation to establish that at least one of the criteria
exists throughout the entire proposed area, though the same criterion need not be present throughout the entire area; and
.3 supporting documents where the proposed area is deemed to be under
threat from shipping activities due to hydrodynamic conditions (for example prevailing currents, wind direction). This scientific justification is crucial since the size and coverage of the PSSA would depend on the PSSA designation criteria being satisfied.
MEPC 62/24 Page 66
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
9.10 The Committee also reminded Member Governments that full details of the legal basis of any proposed APMs, whether or not the APMs relate to an existing IMO measure, should be provided in all proposals. In this regard, applications should identify the legal basis and should include information on the consistency of the APM with the legal instrument under which the APM is proposed. 9.11 The Committee emphasized the need to ensure that applications that identify a new APM must append a draft of the proposal that is to be submitted to the appropriate Sub-Committee or Committee. 9.12 The delegation of Singapore noted that some procedures in assessing the Strait of Bonifacio PSSA application did not follow the sequence as set out in the Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of PSSAs and highlighted that the procedures in assessing the Strait of Bonifacio PSSA application should not be regarded as a precedent for future PSSA applications. Singapore also emphasized the principle that all PSSA applications must follow the guidelines and procedures that have been adopted by IMO. As requested, the statement of Singapore is set out in annex 23. 9.13 The Committee thanked Mr. Nelson (Australia) and the members of the Group for the excellent work they had carried out. 10 INADEQUACY OF RECEPTION FACILITIES 10.1 The Committee, due to time constraints, agreed to postpone consideration of all documents submitted under this item until its next session in February/March 2012. 11 REPORTS OF SUB-COMMITTEES Outcome of DE 54 11.1 The Committee noted that the fifty-fourth session of the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE 54) had been held from 25 to 29 October 2010 and its report on that session had been circulated under the symbol DE 54/23. The matters of interest to the Committee's work were set out in document MEPC 62/11 (Secretariat). 11.2 The Committee approved the report of DE 54 concerning the work of the MEPC in general and took action as indicated in the ensuing paragraphs. Interpretation on application of SOLAS, MARPOL and Load Line requirements for major conversions of oil tankers 11.3 The Committee approved, following the concurrent decision taken by MSC 89 and endorsing the subsequent comments provided by NAV 57 concerning navigation bridge visibility (see paragraphs 11.37 and 11.38), the draft MSC-MEPC circular on Unified interpretations on the application of SOLAS, MARPOL and Load Line requirements to conversions of single-hull tankers to double-hull tankers or bulk carriers (DE 54/23, annex 4) and instructed the Secretariat to issue this as MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.10. 11.4 In relation to this circular, IACS proposed that as MSC.1/Circ.1284 contains interpretations of SOLAS regulations II-1/1.3 and II-1/3-6, which are now included in the new circular, MSC.1/Circ.1284 should be revoked. The Committee agreed with the principle to revoke MSC.1/Circ.1284 but noted that this matter needed to be referred back to the MSC for consideration.
MEPC 62/24 Page 67
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Noise from commercial shipping and its adverse impacts on marine life 11.5 The Committee noted the decision of DE 54 to postpone the consideration of the issue of noise from commercial shipping and its adverse impacts on marine life to DE 55. This had been necessary as the time interval from when MEPC 61 had referred the matter to DE 54 was rather short and delegations were therefore unable to consult with their experts in order to generate comments in time for DE 54. Test standards for type approval of add-on equipment 11.6 The Committee adopted, by resolution MEPC.205(62), the 2011 Guidelines and specifications for add-on equipment for upgrading resolution MEPC.60(33)-compliant oil filtering equipment, as set out in annex 24 and endorsed the view of DE 54 that these Guidelines and specifications should not apply retroactively. Measures to promote Integrated Bilge Water Treatment Systems 11.7 The Committee noted that DE 54 had decided to further consider the issue of promotion of integrated bilge water treatment systems (IBTS) at DE 55. Guidelines for a shipboard oil waste pollution prevention plan 11.8 The Committee approved the draft MEPC circular on Guidelines for a shipboard oily waste pollution prevention plan (DE 54/23, annex 9) and instructed the Secretariat to issue this as MEPC.1/Circ.759. Manually operated alternatives in the event of pollution prevention equipment malfunctions 11.9 In relation to the concerns raised at DE 54 regarding the juridical status, i.e. mandatory or recommendatory, of resolution MEPC.108(49) on Revised guidelines and specifications for oil discharge monitoring and control systems for oil tankers, the Committee, noting that a full evaluation of this topic was necessary, decided, due to time constraints, to postpone discussion on this item until its next session (MEPC 63). 11.10 Similarly, the Committee also decided to postpone discussions on the draft MEPC resolution (DE 54/23, annex 10) on Amendments to the Revised guidelines and specifications for oil discharge monitoring and control systems for oil tankers (resolution MEPC.108(49)) until MEPC 63. Completed work items 11.11 The Committee, noted that the work on Test standards for type approval of add-on equipment and Guidelines for a shipboard oil waste pollution prevention plan, had now been completed and that, accordingly, these two items should be deleted from the work programme of the Sub-Committee. With respect to the work on Manually operated alternatives in the event of pollution prevention equipment malfunction, as noted in paragraphs 11.9 and 11.10, consideration of this item was deferred by the Committee until its next session. Outcome of DE 55 11.12 The Committee noted that the fifty-fifth session of the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE 55) had been held from 21 to 25 March 2011 and its report on that session had been circulated under the symbol DE 55/22. The matters of interest to the Committee's work were set out in documents MEPC 62/11/4 and MEPC 62/11/4/Add.1 (Secretariat).
MEPC 62/24 Page 68
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
11.13 The Committee approved the report of DE 55 concerning the work of the MEPC in general and took action as indicated in the ensuing paragraphs. Development of a mandatory code for ships operating in polar waters 11.14 The Committee noted the decision of the Sub-Committee to develop an environmental protection chapter in the draft Polar Code. With respect to the decisions taken by the Sub-Committee with regard to various environmental aspects of the Code and also the consideration of documents MEPC 62/11/4/Add.1 and MEPC 62/11/6 relating to this item, the Committee decided, due to time constraints, to postpone discussions until its next session (MEPC 63). Protection against noise from commercial shipping and its adverse impact on marine life 11.15 The Committee considered establishing a new output on the DE Sub-Committee's biennial agenda to develop technical guidelines to address the issue of noise from commercial shipping and its adverse impacts on marine life and noted the support for this action as presented in document MEPC 62/11/10 (United States). The Committee further noted that, on this issue, there is already a planned output for the Committee, set out in resolution A.1012(26) (see output 7.1.2.4). Accordingly, the Committee instructed the DE Sub-Committee to address this issue, which would remain active as a distinct item on the Committee's agenda. Measures to promote integrated bilge water treatment systems 11.16 The Committee approved the draft amendments to the 2008 Revised Guidelines for systems for handling oily wastes in machinery spaces of ships incorporating guidance notes for IBTS (MEPC.1/Circ.642, as amended by MEPC.1/Circ.676) and the associated draft MEPC circular (DE 55/22, annex 16) and instructed the Secretariat to issue this as MEPC.1/Circ.760. Revision of resolution MEPC.159(55) 11.17 The Committee noted the progress made on the revision of the Revised Guidelines on Implementation of Effluent Standards and Performance Tests for Sewage Treatment Plants (resolution MEPC.159(55)). Outcome of BLG 15 11.18 The Committee noted that the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquid and Gases (BLG 15) had held its fifteenth session from 7 to 11 February 2011 and its report on that session had been circulated under the symbol BLG 15/19. The matters of interest to the Committee's work were set out in document MEPC 62/11/2 (Secretariat). 11.19 The Committee also noted that, in line with normal practice, the outcome of BLG 15 on matters related to MARPOL Annex VI (paragraphs 2.18 to 2.24 of document MEPC 62/11/2) had been addressed under agenda item 4. 11.20 With respect to the remaining actions (reflected in paragraph 2 of document MEPC 62/11/2), which BLG 15 had requested the Committee to address, the Committee approved the report of BLG 15 in general and took action as indicated in the ensuing paragraphs.
MEPC 62/24 Page 69
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Work related to the ESPH Working Group 11.21 The Committee noted, as requested, the various actions taken by BLG 15 and, in particular:
.1 approved in general the actions taken by the Sub-Committee following consideration of the report of ESPH 16;
.2 endorsed, noting MSC 89's concurrent decision, the issuance of
BLG.1/Circ.32 on Carriage conditions and special requirements assigned for Mixed C4, which will be included as a new entry into the IGC Code;
.3 endorsed, noting MSC 89's concurrent decision, the issuance of
BLG.1/Circ.33 on Decisions on the categorization and classification of products;
.4 approved, noting MSC 89's concurrent decision, the timeline for the
preparation of amendments to chapters 17, 18 and 19 of the IBC Code; .5 approved the 2011 Guidelines for the carriage of blends of petroleum oil
and bio-fuels (BLG 15/19, annex 2) and instructed the Secretariat to issue this as MEPC.1/Circ.761 and agreed that the current interim guidance on the carriage of blends of petroleum oil and bio-fuels should remain in effect until 1 September 2011. Additionally, it was agreed that all bio-fuel/ petroleum oil blends previously assessed under interim tripartite measures should now be reviewed by the ESPH Working Group with a view to checking their compliance with the new guidelines;
.6 approved, noting MSC 89's concurrent decision, the holding of an
intersessional meeting of the ESPH Working Group in 2012; and .7 deleted the item on Application of the requirements for the carriage of
bio-fuels and bio-fuel blends from the agenda of BLG as the work had been completed.
11.22 The Committee also:
Development of guidelines and other documents for uniform implementation of the 2004 BWM Convention
.1 adopted, by resolution MEPC.206(62), the Procedure for approving other
methods of ballast water management in accordance with regulation B-3.7 of the BWM Convention, as set out in annex 25;
.2 approved the Guidance on Scaling of ballast water management systems
(BLG 15/19, annex 5) and instructed the Secretariat to issue this as BWM.2/Circ.33;
.3 noted the progress made on the development of a draft BWM circular on
Ballast water sampling and analysis;
MEPC 62/24 Page 70
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Development of international measures for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species through bio-fouling of ships .4 adopted, by resolution MEPC.207(62), the 2011 Guidelines for the control
and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species, as set out in annex 26;
Biennial agenda and provisional agenda for BLG 16 .5 approved, noting MSC 89's concurrent decision, the biennial agenda of the
Sub-Committee for the 2012-2013 biennium and the outputs to be placed on the Committee's own biennial agenda which are under the purview of the Sub-Committee (see also paragraph 20.8);
.6 approved, noting MSC 89's concurrent decision, the draft provisional
agenda for BLG 16; .7 noted the report on the status of the Sub-Committee's planned outputs in
the High-level Action Plan for the current biennium; and .8 agreed on the urgent matters emanating from BLG 16 to be reported to
MEPC 63 in relation to:
.1 evaluation of safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of consequential amendments; and
.2 development of Guidelines and other documents for uniform
implementation of the 2004 BWM Convention. Outcome of FSI 19 11.23 The Committee noted that the nineteenth session of the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation (FSI 19) had been held from 21 to 25 February 2011 and its report on that session had been circulated under the symbol FSI 19/19. The matters of interest to the Committee's work were set out in document MEPC 62/11/1 (Secretariat). 11.24 The Committee approved the report of FSI 19 in general and took action on the specific points listed for decision in paragraph 2 of document MEPC 62/11/1 as indicated in the ensuing paragraphs. Mandatory reports under MARPOL 11.25 The Committee noted that mandatory reports required under MARPOL for 2009 were submitted by just over one quarter of the Parties, and urged all Parties to MARPOL to submit mandatory reports in accordance with MEPC/Circ.318. Additionally, the Committee endorsed the actions taken to improve the GISIS module on port reception facilities. Review of the guidelines for inspection of anti-fouling systems on ships 11.26 The Committee adopted, by resolution MEPC.208(62), the 2011 Guidelines for inspection of anti-fouling systems on ships, as set out in annex 27 and, noting the completion of this work, agreed to delete this item from the Sub-Committee's agenda.
MEPC 62/24 Page 71
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Harmonization of Port State Control activities 11.27 The Committee approved, noting MSC's concurrent decision, Procedures for Port State Control, 2011 and an associated draft Assembly resolution, for submission to the Assembly for adoption at its twenty-seventh session, as set out in annex 28. 11.28 The Committee also approved, noting MSC's concurrent decision, the further development of the Guidelines for port State control officers related to the ISM Code in co-operation with the Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group on the Human Element. 11.29 The Committee noted the decision taken on the further development of the Guidelines for port State control under the 2004 BWM Convention. Review of the survey guidelines under the HSSC 11.30 In considering the perceived port State control problem regarding the first issuance of an IAPP Certificate to a newbuild, prior to the ship having received any bunkers and consequently not being in possession of the required bunker delivery notes, and also the approval of a draft MEPC circular on the Revised form of supplement to the International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate, to amend MEPC.1/Circ.718, the Committee noted that these action points had already been covered under agenda item 4 (see paragraphs 4.31 and 4.32). 11.31 The Committee approved, noting MSC's concurrent decision, draft Survey Guidelines under the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (HSSC), 2011, as consolidated by the Secretariat, and the associated draft Assembly resolution for submission to the Assembly for adoption at its twenty-seventh session, as set out in annex 29. Review of the Code for the implementation of mandatory IMO instruments and the development of a Code for recognized organizations 11.32 In considering document MEPC 62/11/9 (United States), which proposed deletion of the square brackets around text proposed by the United States aiming to clarify that in both the draft IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code) and the Recognized Organizations Code (RO Code), a regulatory regime only applies between the flag State and the recognized organization it has authorized, the Committee agreed, noting that a concurrent conclusion had been reached at MSC 89, to delete the square brackets around the proposed text in both draft instruments and keep the text*. Subsequently, the Committee:
.1 approved, noting MSC's concurrent decision, the revised Code for the implementation of mandatory IMO instruments in its mandatory form, renamed as "IMO Instruments Implementation Code (IIIC)", for submission to the Assembly at an appropriate session, for adoption;
.2 noted the considerations and rationale for the process of making the
IMO Instruments Implementation Code and auditing mandatory; .3 approved, noting MSC's concurrent decision, the draft Code for the
implementation of mandatory IMO instruments, 2011, as consolidated by the Secretariat, and the associated draft Assembly resolution for submission, as set out in annex 30, through the Council at its twenty-sixth extraordinary session, to the Assembly at its twenty-seventh session for adoption;
* The Committee noted that several reservations had been entered by some Member States with regard to
the decision of MSC 89 on the two draft instruments (see MSC 89/25, paragraph 12.17).
MEPC 62/24 Page 72
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.4 extended, noting MSC's concurrent decision, the target completion date of the output on the development of a Code for Recognized Organizations (RO Code) to the year 2012; and
.5 noted the request to the Secretariat to prepare the draft text of a relevant
instrument to adopt the RO Code and draft amendments to existing instruments to make the Code mandatory, and to give future consideration of the time period to be set between the adoption of the Code and the entry into force of the regulations mandating that RO Code.
Biennial agenda and provisional agenda for FSI 20 11.33 The Committee approved the Sub-Committee's draft 2012-2013 biennial agenda and provisional agenda for FSI 20 (see also paragraph 20.10) and noted the status of planned outputs of the High-level Action Plan of the Organization and priorities for the 2010-2011 biennium relevant to the Sub-Committee. Outcome of STW 42 11.34 The Committee noted that the forty-second session of the Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW 42) had been held from 24 to 28 January 2011 and its report on that session had been circulated under the symbol STW 42/14. In considering the report, the Committee noted the following points in relation to the validation of model courses:
.1 the Sub-Committee had considered document STW 42/3/2 submitted by the Netherlands which provided detailed information on a draft model course on marine environmental awareness;
.2 the Sub-Committee had validated the model course, as amended by a
drafting group, and instructed the Secretariat to finalize and publish it as soon as possible; and
.3 the Sub-Committee had recalled that the validation of model courses meant
that it found no grounds to object to their contents. In doing so, the Sub-Committee did not approve the document and it could not therefore be regarded as an official interpretation of the Convention.
Outcome of DSC 15 11.35 The Committee noted that the fifteenth session of the Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers had been held from 13 to 17 September 2010 and its report on that session had been circulated under the symbol DSC 15/18. 11.36 The Committee noted the outcome of the Sub-Committee's consideration of matters related to waste reception facilities for goods subject to MARPOL Annex III and, in particular, endorsed the view that amendments to MARPOL Annex III are not considered necessary, taking into account that when packaged cargoes are damaged, they no longer fall within the definition of packaged cargo and, therefore, could be treated as residues or wastes, which are covered under MARPOL Annex V.
MEPC 62/24 Page 73
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Outcome of NAV 57 11.37 The Committee noted that the fifty-seventh session of the Sub-Committee on Navigation (NAV 57) was held from 6 to 10 June 2011 and its report on that session will be circulated under the symbol NAV 57/15. An urgent matter arising from this meeting concerned the Unified Interpretations on the application of SOLAS, MARPOL and Load Line requirements to conversions of single-hull tankers to double-hull tankers or bulk carriers/ore carriers, as reported in document MEPC 62/11/11 (Secretariat). NAV 57 had been requested to comment on a draft MSC-MEPC circular on this subject and, subsequently, part of the draft circular, as set out in document DE 54/23, annex 4 (paragraph 9 of appendix 1), had been reviewed, resulting in the following amended text:
"Regulation 22 Navigation bridge visibility For single-hull oil tanker conversion into double-hull oil tanker or bulk carrier, the level of visibility possessed by the ship prior to the conversion at the ballast loading condition should be maintained after the conversion. Where a conversion involves the modification of structural arrangements used to establish minimum bridge visibility, the provisions of SOLAS regulation V/22 should apply."
11.38 After consideration, the Committee approved the modification for inclusion in the MSC-MEPC circular on Unified interpretations on the application of SOLAS, MARPOL and Load Line requirements to conversions of single-hull tankers to double-hull tankers or bulk carriers, as noted earlier (see paragraph 11.3). 12 WORK OF OTHER BODIES Outcome of FAL 36 12.1 The Committee noted that the thirty-sixth session of the Facilitation Committee (FAL 36) was held from 6 to 10 September 2010 and its report had been circulated under the symbol FAL 36/17. The outcome of FAL 36, relevant to the work of the Committee, was summarized in documents MEPC 62/12 and MEPC 62/12/Add.1. 12.2 The Committee noted, in general, the outcome of FAL 36 on all issues of relevance to it and agreed to take FAL's action into account, as appropriate, under the relevant items of its agenda. 12.3 The Committee considered two specific actions as presented in document MEPC 62/12 and:
.1 concurred with the action taken by MSC 88 and approved the proposed amendments to the draft revised list of certificates and documents required to be carried on board ships; and
.2 decided to defer, due to time constraints, consideration of the proposal that
future revisions of the list of certificates and documents required to be carried on board ships should be initiated by the MSC on a regular basis.
12.4 In considering document MEPC 62/12/Add.1, the Committee approved the inclusion of additional entries concerning MARPOL Annex VI and the NOx Technical Code in the revised list of certificates and documents required to be carried on board ships, as set out in the annex to that document.
MEPC 62/24 Page 74
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Outcome of C 105 12.5 The Committee noted that the 105th session of the Council (C 105) was held from 1 to 5 November 2010, its summary of decisions was issued under the symbol C 105/D and matters of interest to the Committee were summarized in document MEPC 62/12/2, including the Council's decisions concerning the report of MEPC 61; the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme; relations with non-governmental organizations; and the report on the status of conventions and other multilateral instruments. 12.6 As regards the report of MEPC 61 to the Council, the Committee noted that the Council had endorsed:
.1 the Committee's proposals on activities, priorities and plan of meeting weeks of the two Committees and their subsidiary bodies for the 2012-2013 biennium, for inclusion in the Secretary-General's relevant budget proposals, which MSC 88 had concurred with;
.2 the Committee's approval of planned intersessional meetings in 2011; and .3 the unplanned output "Revision of resolution MEPC.159(55)" approved by
the Committee for the DE Sub-Committee. 12.7 The Committee also noted that the Council had decided to transmit the report of MEPC 61 to the twenty-seventh session of the Assembly with its comments and recommendations, in accordance with Article 21(b) of the IMO Convention. Outcome of MSC 88 12.8 The Committee noted that the eighty-eighth session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 88) was held from 24 November to 3 December 2010 and its report was circulated under the symbol MSC 88/26 and Adds.1 and 2. The outcome of MSC 88, relevant to the work of the Committee, was summarized in document MEPC 62/12/1. 12.9 The Committee noted, in general, the outcome of MSC 88 on all issues of relevance to the Committee and agreed to take MSC's action into account, as appropriate, under the relevant items of its agenda. 12.10 The Committee also noted that MSC 88 concurred with the decisions of MEPC 61 on the following topics:
.1 endorsement of the decisions of FSI 18 regarding the pursuance of the current analysis for future consolidated audit summary reports (CASRs), as well as those of the root causes of the findings, after a more substantial number of audits have been carried out, in order to make recommendations on all relevant matters and, in particular, for capacity-building or technical assistance, and for advising the Council accordingly; and
.2 the view of FSI 18 on the time frame and schedule of its activities to
institutionalize the IMO Member State Audit Scheme, in particular the envisaged sequence of the work of the FSI Sub-Committee to meet the 2015 deadline for making the audit scheme mandatory.
MEPC 62/24 Page 75
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Outcome of MSC 89 12.11 The Committee noted that the eighty-ninth session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 89) was held from 11 to 20 May 2011 and its report was circulated under the symbol MSC 89/25 and Adds. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The outcome of MSC 89, relevant to the work of the Committee, was summarized in document MEPC 62/12/3. 12.12 The Committee noted, in general, the outcome of MSC 89 on all issues of relevance to the Committee and agreed to take MSC's action into account, as appropriate, under the relevant items of its agenda. 12.13 The Committee agreed to consider the outcome of MSC 89 on Formal Safety Assessment (FSA); work programmes and provisional agendas of subsidiary bodies; and the application of the Committees' Guidelines under agenda items 18, 20 and 21, respectively. The Committee also agreed to consider the report of the Chairmen's meeting (13 May 2011), together with the action of MSC 89 on the matter, under agenda item 21. 12.14 The Committee also noted the following information, and actions taken by MSC 89, which are of interest to it:
.1 progress made by the DE Sub-Committee in the development of a mandatory Polar Code (see also agenda item 11);
.2 approval of the draft Assembly resolution on adoption of the International
Code on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections during Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, 2011 (2011 ESP Code) for submission to the twenty-seventh session of the Assembly for adoption; and
.3 GISIS presently consists of 26 modules, which have been developed or are
in the process of development, for the collection, processing and sharing of shipping-related data.
12.15 The Committee further noted the agreement, in principle, of MSC 89, subject to the concurrent decision of MEPC 62, to entrust a leading and coordinating role for the implementation of the Organization's strategy to address the human element to the STW Sub-Committee and to include in the 2012-2013 biennial agenda of the STW Sub-Committee and in the provisional agenda for STW 43, a planned output on the "Role of the human element" as an ongoing output. In considering this action, a number of delegations indicated that a detailed discussion on this item was required but, in view of time constraints and noting that agenda item 17 on the Role of human element was postponed, it was agreed that this matter should be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee (MEPC 63). 13 STATUS OF CONVENTIONS 13.1 The Committee, due to time constraints, agreed to postpone consideration of all documents submitted under this item until its next session in February/March 2012. 14 HARMFUL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS FOR SHIPS 14.1 The Committee, due to time constraints, agreed to postpone consideration of all documents submitted under this item until its next session in February/March 2012.
MEPC 62/24 Page 76
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
15 PROMOTION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF MARPOL AND RELATED INSTRUMENTS
15.1 The Committee, due to time constraints, agreed to postpone consideration of all documents submitted under this item until its next session in February/March 2012. 16 TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION SUB-PROGRAMME FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 16.1 The Committee, due to time constraints, agreed to postpone consideration of all documents submitted under this item until its next session in February/March 2012. 17 ROLE OF THE HUMAN ELEMENT 17.1 The Committee, due to time constraints, agreed to postpone consideration of all documents submitted under this item until its next session in February/March 2012. 18 FORMAL SAFETY ASSSESSMENT 18.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 56, in July 2007, had noted that the one matter that needed consideration within the context of the Formal Safety Assessment Guidelines relevant to its work was the draft Environmental Risk Evaluation Criteria. It was recognized that there was a need to carry out a more in-depth analysis of the proposed environmental risk evaluation criteria for the purpose of the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) before inclusion of such criteria in the IMO FSA Guidelines (MSC/Circ.1023-MEPC/Circ.392, as consolidated in MSC 83/INF.2). 18.2 The Committee also recalled that while progress had been made on this subject since MEPC 56 through work carried out by correspondence, MEPC 60, noting that further work was needed on the subject, had established a Working Group on Environmental Risk Evaluation Criteria within the framework of the FSA methodology. In approving the report of the Working Group, MEPC 60 had noted that progress had been made in determining a CATS criterion (Cost of Averting a Tonne of Oil Spilled) based on a non-linear volume dependent function, and urged Member Governments/organizations to verify and adjust, as necessary, the proposed regression formula and to submit the data for each cost component and the results of the analysis for consideration by the Committee. 18.3 The Committee further recalled that MEPC 61, when considering the submissions at that session, had noted that the contributions originated from the same four Member States and had agreed that data from other Administrations were needed if the Committee was to make well founded decisions. Member Governments/organizations were urged to provide information, particularly on the cost of oil spills, to ensure that any derived oil spill cost function is representative of oil spill data. MEPC 61 had also agreed to establish a working group at MEPC 62, with a view to concluding the work. MSC was invited to note the progress to date and the timelines to finalize this work. 18.4 The Committee noted that six documents were submitted under this agenda item: MEPC 62/18 and MEPC 62/18/1 (Greece); MEPC 62/18/2 (Japan); and MEPC 62/18/3, MEPC 62/18/4 and MEPC 62/INF.24 (Germany, Japan and the United States). On a proposal by the Chairman, the Committee agreed that the documents be introduced in the working group to be established, recognizing that the outcome of the group would be reported to plenary for its consideration.
MEPC 62/24 Page 77
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Establishment of the Working Group 18.5 The Committee established the Working Group on Environmental Risk Evaluation Criteria under the chairmanship of Professor Harilaos N. Psaraftis (Greece) with the following Terms of Reference:
Using documents MEPC 62/18, MEPC 62/18/1, MEPC 62/18/2, MEPC 62/18/3, MEPC 62/18/4 and MEPC 62/INF.24 as a basis, and taking into account any other information and comments, the Working Group was instructed to: .1 finalize in Step 4 of the FSA an appropriate volume-dependent CATS
global threshold scale or function for ascertaining if a specific Risk Control Option (RCO) is cost-effective, including its integration within the FSA methodology;
.2 recommend a way of combining environmental and safety criteria for those
RCOs that affect both environmental and fatality risk; .3 conclude on an appropriate risk matrix or index for environmental criteria; .4 recommend an appropriate ALARP region and F-N diagram, including an
appropriate value for the slope of the F-N curve; and .5 submit a written report to plenary on Thursday, 14 July 2011.
18.6 In releasing the Working Group, the Committee reminded the Group that while much effort had been made over the last three years to progress the work on environmental risk evaluation criteria, conclusion of this work was earmarked for 2011, as established in the High-level Action Plan of the Organization, and, therefore, every effort should be made to adhere to this timeline, given that these criteria were slated for inclusion in the IMO FSA Guidelines. Report of the Working Group on Environmental Risk Evaluation Criteria 18.7 The Committee considered and approved the report of the Working Group (MEPC 62/WP.13) in general and, in particular:
.1 endorsed the consolidated oil spill database and requested the Secretariat to arrange to make it publicly available;
.2 endorsed the approach on an appropriate volume-dependent CATS global
threshold function for ascertaining if a specific Risk Control Option (RCO) is cost-effective, including the cost functions proposed and its integration within the FSA methodology;
.3 endorsed the proposal on how to combine environmental and safety criteria
for RCOs that reduce environmental and safety risk; .4 endorsed the proposal on how to proceed on the ALARP region and
F-N curves; .5 invited the Maritime Safety Committee to consider the outcome of the work
on environmental risk evaluation criteria, and in particular, to incorporate the criteria set out in annex 31 into the FSA Guidelines; and
MEPC 62/24 Page 78
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.6 agreed that the work on the development of environmental risk evaluation criteria within the framework of the FSA Guidelines is completed and this item can be deleted from the agenda of MEPC 63 and the High-level Action Plan of the Organization.
18.8 Referring to paragraph 35 of the report of the Working Group, the delegations of Brazil and China reserved their position with regard to the procedures for drafting the annex to the report of the Working Group since, in their opinion, when the draft report was presented to the Group for its consideration, it was only to be subjected to minor editorial changes and the establishment of a sub-group/splinter group to develop such an annex was not in keeping with the methods of work of the Organization. Furthermore, it was their view that the preparation of a text for incorporation in the FSA Guidelines went beyond the terms of reference of the Group. The delegations of Brazil and China noted that they would be willing to lift their reservation should the Committee agree to establish a correspondence group to analyse the annex for incorporation in the FSA Guidelines. 18.9 The Chairman of the Working Group explained that the text produced for the annex was drafted by a splinter group open to all members of the Working Group, and that the subsequent text was circulated to the entire Working Group, and thereafter thoroughly discussed and reviewed by it. In doing so, all members of the Working Group had the opportunity to participate in the drafting and to discuss and review the text. 18.10 The delegation of Norway, in supporting the working procedures of the Group and the explanation given by the Chairman, emphasized that, in its view, there had not been a deviation from the procedures, nor from the Terms of Reference given to the Group. 18.11 Following an intervention by the delegation of Denmark, the Committee noted that the review of an FSA study on crude oil tankers was still pending (MEPC 58/17/2 and MEPC 58/INF.2), and, with the conclusion of the work on Environmental Risk Evaluation Criteria (EREC), the Committee agreed to invite MSC to forward the study to its FSA Experts Group for consideration. 19 NOISE FROM COMMERCIAL SHIPPING AND ITS ADVERSE IMPACTS ON
MARINE LIFE 19.1 The Committee, due to time constraints, agreed to postpone consideration of all documents submitted under this item until its next session in February/March 2012. 20 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE COMMITTEE AND SUBSIDIARY BODIES Revision of the Standard specification for shipboard incinerators (resolution MEPC.76(40)) 20.1 The Committee noted the proposal by Denmark (MEPC 62/20) to revise resolution MEPC.76(40), as amended by resolution MEPC.93(45), to take into consideration whether an upper limit of the incinerator capacity (presently 1,500 kW) is needed at all or whether to extend the scope of the resolution to apply to incinerators with capacities of up to 3,000-5,000 kW, for inclusion as a new planned output of the DE Sub-Committee for the 2012-2013 biennium. 20.2 In accordance with paragraph 2.20 of the Committees' Guidelines (MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.2), the Chairman made a preliminary assessment (MEPC 62/WP.7, annex 1) on the proposed new planned output by Denmark. The Chairman's assessment showed that the criteria for general acceptance provided in paragraph 2.10 of the Committees' Guidelines had been met.
MEPC 62/24 Page 79
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
20.3 The Committee, having considered the proposal, approved its inclusion as a new planned output in the 2012-2013 biennial agenda of the DE Sub-Committee and in the provisional agenda of DE 56 (13-17 February 2012) entitled "Revision of the Standard specification for shipboard incinerators (resolution MEPC 76(40))" with a target completion year of 2012. Guidelines on International Offers of Assistance 20.4 The Committee noted the proposal by the United States (MEPC 62/20/1) to develop an internationally accepted guidance for International Offers of Assistance in response to a marine oil pollution incident, for inclusion as a new planned output of the OPRC-HNS Technical Group for the 2012-2013 biennium. 20.5 In accordance with paragraph 2.20 of the Committees' Guidelines (MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.2), the Chairman made a preliminary assessment (MEPC 62/WP.7, annex 2) on the proposed planned output by the United States. The Chairman's assessment showed that the criteria for general acceptance provided in paragraph 2.10 of the Committees' Guidelines had been met. 20.6 The Committee, having considered the proposal, approved its inclusion as a new planned output in the 2012-2013 biennial agenda of the OPRC-HNS Technical Group to develop an internationally accepted guidance for International Offers of Assistance in response to a marine oil pollution incident with a target completion year of 2012. Biennial agenda of the BLG Sub-Committee 20.7 The Committee noted that the 2012-2013 biennial agenda of the BLG Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda for BLG 16 were approved by MSC 89, including the new agenda item on "Development of a Code for the transport and handling of limited amounts of hazardous and noxious liquid substances in bulk in offshore support vessels", which was approved by MEPC 61, as set out in document MSC 89/25, annexes 32 and 33. 20.8 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 62/WP.3, annex 1, also approved the biennial agenda of the BLG Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda for BLG 16, and requested the Secretariat to inform MSC accordingly. The biennial agenda of the BLG Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda for BLG 16, as approved, are set out in annex 32. Biennial agenda of the FSI Sub-Committee 20.9 The Committee noted that the 2012-2013 biennial agenda of the FSI Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda for FSI 20 were approved by MSC 89, including a new agenda item on "Co-operation with FAO: preparation and holding of the third session of the IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU fishing and related matters", which was approved by MEPC 61, as set out in document MSC 89/25, annexes 32 and 33. 20.10 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 62/WP.3, annex 2, also approved the biennial agenda of the FSI Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda for FSI 20, and requested the Secretariat to inform MSC accordingly. The biennial agenda of the FSI Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda for FSI 20, as approved, are set out in annex 33.
MEPC 62/24 Page 80
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Items in the biennial agendas of the DE, DSC, NAV and STW Sub-Committees relating to environmental issues 20.11 The Committee noted that MSC 89 revised and approved the 2012-2013 biennial agendas of the DE, DSC, NAV and STW Sub-Committees (MSC 89/25, paragraphs 22.7, 22.21, 22.28 and 22.42 and annex 32). 20.12 The Committee also noted that MSC 89 agreed to include, in the 2012-2013 biennial agenda of the STW Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda for STW 43, a planned output on "Enhancing the efficiency and user-friendliness of the ISM Code", with a target completion year of 2013 for consideration under the prospective ongoing output and agenda item on "Role of human element" (MEPC 62/12/3, paragraph 33). 20.13 As indicated in paragraph 7.16 above, the Committee also approved the inclusion in the 2012-2013 biennial agenda of the DSC Sub-Committee of a new output entitled "Development of criteria for the evaluation of environmentally hazardous solid bulk cargoes in relation to the revised MARPOL Annex V", with a target completion year of 2012. 20.14 Having considered document MEPC 62/WP.2, the Committee approved the items related to environmental issues in the biennial agendas of the DE, DSC, NAV and STW Sub-Committees, and requested the Secretariat to inform MSC accordingly. The items related to environmental issues in the revised planned outputs of the DE, DSC, NAV and STW Sub-Committees are set out in annex 34. Status of planned outputs of the Committee for the 2010-2011 biennium 20.15 The Committee recalled that, in accordance with paragraph 9.1 of the Guidelines on the application of the Strategic Plan and the High-level Action Plan of the Organization (resolution A.1013(26)), the reports on the status of the planned outputs included in the High-level Action Plan and priorities for the 2010-2011 biennium (resolution A.1012(26)) should be annexed to the report of each session of the sub-committees and the committees and to the biennial report of the Council to the Assembly and that such reports should separately identify unplanned outputs accepted for inclusion in the biennial agendas. 20.16 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 62/WP.5 on the status of planned outputs of the Committee for the 2010-2011 biennium containing the items related to the work of the Committee and relevant sub-committees listed in resolution A.1012(26), endorsed the status of planned outputs for the current biennium, which was since updated by the Secretariat to take into account the outcome of MEPC 62, as set out in annex 35. Proposals by the Committee for the High-level Action Plan of the Organization and priorities for the 2012-2013 biennium 20.17 The Committee recalled that, in the context of resolution A.1011(26) on Strategic Plan for the Organization (for the six-year period 2010 to 2015) and resolution A.1012(26), MEPC 61 agreed to prepare its proposal for the High-level Action Plan for the 2012-2013 biennium for submission to C/ES.26. 20.18 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 62/WP.6 on such proposals for the MEPC, in the form of modifications to those for the 2010-2011 biennium and as revised by MSC 89, approved the proposals for the High-level Action Plan of the Organization and priorities for the 2012-1023 biennium relevant to the Committee, as set out in annex 36, for submission to C/ES.26 and requested the Secretariat to update the annexed proposals, taking into account the outcome of MEPC 62 before submission to C/ES.26.
MEPC 62/24 Page 81
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Items to be included in the draft agendas of MEPC 63, MEPC 64 and MEPC 65 20.19 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 62/WP.4, and taking into account the decisions made at this session, approved the items to be included in the agendas for MEPC 63, MEPC 64 and MEPC 65, as set out in annex 37, and requested the Secretariat to inform MSC accordingly. Dates for MEPC 63, MEPC 64 and MEPC 65 20.20 The Committee noted that MEPC 63 would be held from 27 February to 2 March 2012 and that MEPC 64 is tentatively scheduled from 1 to 5 October 2012, whilst the dates for MEPC 65 in 2013 are not yet known. Working/review/drafting groups at MEPC 63 20.21 The Committee agreed, in principle, to establish the following working/review/ drafting groups at MEPC 63:
.1 Working Group on Air Pollution and Energy Efficiency; .2 Working Group on Guidelines for Ship Recycling; .3 Drafting Group on Amendments to Mandatory Instruments; and .4 Ballast Water Review Group.
Correspondence Groups 20.22 The Committee agreed to establish the following intersessional correspondence groups, which would report to MEPC 63 (unless otherwise specified):
.1 Correspondence Group on ship recycling guidelines; .2 Correspondence Group on reviewing the status of the technological
developments to implement Tier III NOx standards; and .3 Correspondence Group on reviewing the guidelines for the implementation
of Annex V of MARPOL. Intersessional meetings 20.23 The Committee noted that MSC 89 concurred with the approval by MEPC 61 of the seventeenth meeting of the ESPH Working Group, which will take place from 24 to 28 October 2011 (MEPC 62/12/3, paragraph 34). 20.24 The Committee approved the holding of the following intersessional meetings:
.1 OPRC/HNS Technical Group to be held in the week after MEPC 63 in March 2012, which should report to MEPC 64;
.2 ESPH Working Group to be held in 2012; and .3 Working Group on Energy Efficiency Measures for Ships.
MEPC 62/24 Page 82
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
21 APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEES' GUIDELINES 21.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 61 considered and approved, in principle, a revised text of the Committees' Guidelines, including amendments in accordance with the decision of C 104 concerning translation of bulky documents, which is contained in annex 22 to document MEPC 61/24. 21.2 The Committee noted that MSC 88 concurred, in principle, with the approval of MEPC 61 concerning the revised text of the Committees' Guidelines and noted further that MSC 88 considered the draft amendments on human element principles prepared by the Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group on the Human Element for inclusion in the Committees' Guidelines with a view to final approval at MSC 89. 21.3 The Committee noted that MSC 89 considered and approved in general the report of the 2011 Chairmen's meeting (MSC 89/WP.10), held on 13 May 2011, which had considered issues related to the revised Committees' Guidelines; the drafting of amendments to IMO instruments, including the development of a methodology for establishing the scope of application of amendments to certain chapters of the SOLAS Convention; reducing administrative burdens, as invited by the Council at its 105th session; and the application of the Organization's Risk Management Framework, as invited by the fifth session of the Council Risk Review, Management and Reporting Working Group (CWGRM 5). Approval of the draft revised Committees' Guidelines 21.4 The Committee noted that MSC 89 approved, subject to concurrent decision of MEPC 62, further revisions to the Committees' Guidelines in time for completion of the Migration Plan relating to the Guidelines on the application of the Strategic Plan and the High-level Action Plan of the Organization during the current biennium. 21.5 The Committee concurred with the decision of MSC 89 on approval of the further revised Committees' Guidelines (MSC 89/25, annex 31) and requested the Secretariat to issue them as MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.4 as soon as possible. Release of the Committees' Guidelines on the IMO website 21.6 As regards the request to release the Committees' Guidelines on IMO's website, the Committee concurred with the decision of MSC 89 that there was no need for such action, as the Committees' Guidelines can always be consulted on and downloaded from IMODOCS. 22 ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR 2012 22.1 In accordance with rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee unanimously re-elected Mr. Andreas Chrysostomou (Cyprus), by acclamation, as Chairman for 2012. 22.2 The Committee, noting the unavailability of Captain Manuel Nogueira (Spain) for re-election as its Vice-Chairman for 2012, agreed to conduct the election at its next session in February/March 2012. The Committee expressed appreciation to Captain Nogueira for his services to its work and to the Organization. 23 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 23.1 The Committee, due to time constraints, agreed to postpone consideration of all documents submitted under this item until its next session in February/March 2012.
***
MEPC 62/24 Annex 1, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 1
STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF BRAZIL ON THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA AND THE PROPOSED TIMETABLE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you, good morning to all. Before approving the provisional agenda, Brazil would like to request that all documents related to the reduction of GHG emissions from ships that were submitted under agenda item 6.2 be considered under agenda item 5. Document MEPC 62/6/3, which presents an amendment proposal containing mandatory technical and operational measures under MARPOL Annex VI, constitutes a new draft proposal that needs to be subject to a first examination by the Committee under agenda item 5 before consideration under agenda item 6. The amendment proposal differs from what was prepared by the Working Group on GHG at MEPC 61. From what is contained in the report of MEPC 61(MEPC 61/24), and according to the practice of this Organization and to the rules for amendments to the MARPOL Convention and its Annexes, the proposal must be referred to consideration by Parties, before it can be considered for adoption by the Committee under agenda item 6. This first consideration should be undertaken under item 5 of the provisional agenda, which refers to the reduction of GHG emissions from ships. Brazil would like to note that more than 70 documents on GHG emissions from ships were submitted for consideration by the Committee, which is a clear indication that this issue is still premature for approval. It is, thus, essential that the amendment proposal and related documents be considered by a working group to be established under agenda item 5. This would also enable the Committee to address the technical, economic and technological uncertainties and the calculation issues related to the EEDI and SEEMP, before it considers approving the proposed amendments. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, Brazil requests that this statement be reflected in the final report of this Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
***
MEPC 62/24 Annex 2, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 2
RESOLUTION MEPC.196(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHIP RECYCLING PLAN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, RECALLING ALSO that the International Conference on the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships held in May 2009 adopted the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 (the Hong Kong Convention) together with six Conference resolutions, NOTING that regulation 9 of the Annex to the Hong Kong Convention requires that a ship-specific Ship Recycling Plan shall be developed by the Ship Recycling Facility(ies) prior to any recycling of a ship, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization, BEARING IN MIND that the International Conference on the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, in its resolution 4, invited the Organization to develop Guidelines for global, uniform and effective implementation and enforcement of the relevant requirements of the Convention as a matter of urgency, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its sixty-second session, the draft 2011 Guidelines for the development of the ship recycling plan, developed by the Working Group on Guidelines for Ship Recycling, 1. ADOPTS the 2011 Guidelines for the development of the ship recycling plan, as set out in the annex to this resolution; 2. INVITES Governments to bring the Guidelines to the attention of shipowners, ship operators and ship recycling facilities and to encourage their application as soon as possible; and to apply them when the Hong Kong Convention becomes applicable to them; and 3. REQUESTS the Committee to keep the Guidelines under review.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 2, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX
2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHIP RECYCLING PLAN (SRP) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives of the guidelines 1.2 Approach of the guidelines
2 DEFINITIONS 3 GENERAL
3.1 Review of ship-specific information 3.2 Comparison of ship-specific information with the Ship Recycling Facility
Plan (SRFP) and/or Document of Authorization to conduct Ship Recycling (DASR)
4 FRAMEWORK OF SRP
4.1 Pre-arrival elements 4.2 Arrival of ship 4.3 Management of Hazardous Materials 4.4 Safe-for-entry and Safe-for-hot-work procedures 4.5 Dismantling sequence 4.6 Other necessary elements 4.7 Attaching a copy of DASR
5 VERIFICATION OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY APPROVAL APPENDIX Sample cover page - Ship Recycling Plan, Summary of information of ship
and Ship Recycling Facility
MEPC 62/24 Annex 2, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objectives of the guidelines These guidelines provide stakeholders, particularly Ship Recycling Facilities, with recommendations for the development of a Ship Recycling Plan (SRP) in accordance with the requirements of the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 (hereafter referred to as "the Convention"). It should be noted that regulation 9 of the annex to the Convention requires the Ship Recycling Facility to develop a ship-specific SRP, taking these guidelines into account. These guidelines should be used primarily by Ship Recycling Facilities, taking into account information provided by the shipowner. Competent Authorities and Administrations may also find merit in these guidelines with respect to the approval process and implementation of the Convention. 1.2 Approach of the guidelines Regulation 9 of the Annex to the Convention requires Ship Recycling Facilities to prepare a ship-specific SRP. These guidelines are separated into two parts: general guidance on information that should be gathered and reviewed by the Ship Recycling Facility in order to develop the SRP (section 3: General) and guidance for the recommended content of a ship-specific SRP (section 4: Framework of SRP). 2 DEFINITIONS The terms used in these guidelines have the same meaning as those defined in the Convention and in the Guidelines for Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling ("Facility Guidelines"). The following additional definition applies to these guidelines only: "The ship" means the particular ship which a Ship Recycling Facility is going to recycle, and for which an SRP is required. 3 GENERAL The Convention requires that the SRP should be explicitly or tacitly approved by the Competent Authority and verified as properly reflecting the information contained in the Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM) during the final survey before issuance of an International Ready for Recycling Certificate. Preparation of the SRP should therefore begin well before the ship arrives at the Ship Recycling Facility. As regards the languages of the SRP, in accordance with regulation 9.2 of the annex to the Convention, the shipowner may ask the Administration whether it is acceptable for the Ship Recycling Facility to use a language other than English, French or Spanish, and convey the decision of the Administration to the Ship Recycling Facility accordingly. 3.1 Review of ship-specific information For each ship that is to be recycled, the Ship Recycling Facility should, in accordance with regulation 8.4 of the Annex to the Convention, cooperate with the shipowner in order to prepare a SRP that incorporates all relevant information about the ship that may affect its safe and environmentally sound recycling.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 2, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
The IHM is essential to the Ship Recycling Facility for planning and executing the removal and management of Hazardous Materials. The Ship Recycling Facility should obtain the completed IHM, including Part II and Part III, taking into account possible variations resulting from the ship's subsequent operations. Examples of ship-specific information that is useful to the Ship Recycling Facility when developing a SRP include finished drawings and final specifications such as: general arrangement, capacity plan, shell expansion plan, fire control plan, trim and stability calculation, and light weight distribution or calculation table. Also the following may provide useful information: midship section, construction profile (including longitudinal sections, deck, inner bottom and deckhouse), longitudinal and transverse bulkhead principal transverse sections, fore and aft construction, superstructures, accommodation plan, hydrostatic curve or table, deck piping system, general arrangement of ventilators and air ducts, painting scheme, joiner works, engine room arrangement (if appropriate) and bilge piping system of pump room, pump room arrangement, engine room piping diagram, ballast piping and cargo piping diagram and manufacturers' finished drawings of major equipment. Such information could be useful in planning the ship recycling sequence in its entirety. 3.2 Comparison of ship-specific information with the Ship Recycling Facility Plan
(SRFP) and/or Document of Authorization to conduct Ship Recycling (DASR) For each ship to be recycled, the ship-specific information obtained from the shipowner should be evaluated in the context of the capabilities and limitations specified in the Ship Recycling Facility Plan (SRFP) and/or Document of Authorization to conduct Ship Recycling (DASR). The SRP will need to address any ship-specific considerations that are not covered in the SRFP or that will require special procedures. 4 FRAMEWORK OF SRP The responsibility for developing a comprehensive SRP rests with the Ship Recycling Facility, although development of the SRP is a cooperative effort between the Ship Recycling Facility and the shipowner. The Ship Recycling Facility is best placed to understand and describe the methods and procedures that it uses in its recycling operations and it has knowledge of the available facilities and capabilities for the safe and environmentally sound management of all Hazardous Materials and wastes generated during recycling, of the skills and capabilities of its workforce and the availability of local support services, and of the relevant national laws and regulations that apply to the facility and its activities, including the activities which it is approved to perform under its DASR. A sample cover page for the SRP is included in the appendix. The body of the SRP should include a more detailed narrative of the ship-specific recycling elements. The SRP should describe how the Ship Recycling Facility will recycle the specific ship in a safe and environmentally sound manner, covering the recycling process steps and their sequence over the entire process. Any processes or procedures that deviate from the SRFP and are specific to the ship should be described in detail in the SRP. Where more than one Ship Recycling Facility is used, SRPs should be prepared separately, in principle, by each of the Facilities involved, according to their respective duties and indicate the order in which the activities will occur. 4.1 Pre-arrival elements The SRP should include a description of any specific preparatory work that should be carried out. The SRP should clarify whether and to what extent any preparatory work – such as
MEPC 62/24 Annex 2, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
pre-treatment, identification of potential hazards and removal of stores – will take place at a location other than the Ship Recycling Facility identified in the SRP. The extent to which such preparatory work will be covered in the SRP will depend upon the capability of the authorized Ship Recycling Facility and the scope of the agreement with the shipowner. In the case of a tanker, the ship should arrive at the Ship Recycling Facility with cargo tanks and pump room(s) in a condition that is ready for certification as Safe-for-entry, or Safe-for-hot work, or both. The Ship Recycling Facility should plan appropriately for the ship's arrival. The SRP should include the location where the ship will be placed during recycling operations and a concise plan for the arrival and safe placement of the specific ship to be recycled. 4.2 Arrival of ship The SRP should describe the procedures that the Ship Recycling Facility will follow to conduct a walk-through (on-board check) of the vessel in an effort to identify any potential environmental or safety issues. The Ship Recycling Facility should verify whether safe access and egress have been provided for and that the SRP is in place throughout the ship recycling process. It is recommended that the Ship Recycling Facility should mark the location of the known Hazardous Materials. Any specific items or locations on board whose hazardous characteristics are uncertain should be marked for additional sampling as necessary. 4.3 Management of Hazardous Materials The SRP should include information on how the type and amount of Hazardous Materials will be managed, as required by regulation 9.3 of the Convention and specify the facility's approach for managing each Hazardous Material. Special attention should be paid to the types and quantities of Hazardous Materials on the ship. If ship-specific conditions require deviation from normal practices for managing Hazardous Materials, the appropriate ship-specific measures should be described in detail in the SRP. In order to avoid confusion, it is recommended that the SRP should use the same nomenclature and identification scheme as those included in the IHM. The SRP should also contain additional information on the management of Hazardous Materials as required in Appendix 5 of the Convention (also known as the DASR). Specifically, the SRP should describe where the Hazardous Materials are to be processed or disposed of if the operation is not being conducted at the Ship Recycling Facility. The SRP should state that the removal of Hazardous Materials will be undertaken by responsible personnel who are trained and authorized to do so. 4.4 Safe-for-entry and Safe-for-hot-work procedures Regulation 9 of the Convention requires the SRP to include information concerning the establishment, maintenance and monitoring of Safe-for-entry and Safe-for-hot-work procedures. The Ship Recycling Facility is encouraged to review the Facility Guidelines, as they contain specific technical recommendations to address these important safety issues. While the SRFP will describe general procedures on how the Ship Recycling Facility will achieve safe atmospheric conditions during the ship recycling process, the SRP should describe in detail how Safe-for-entry and Safe-for-hot-work procedures will be implemented on the specific ship, taking account of such features as its structure, configuration, and previous cargo.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 2, page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4.5 Dismantling sequence An important component of the dismantling sequence is the removal of Hazardous Materials to the maximum extent practicable prior to and during cutting activities. Depending on a number of factors, including the age of the ship and the quantity of Hazardous Materials present, it may be impossible to remove all Hazardous Materials prior to the start of cutting activities. The SRP should include a dismantling sequence that is ship-specific and takes into account the cutting operations and locations of Hazardous Materials. 4.6 Other necessary elements In addition to the elements described above, the SRP should include any ship specific processes and/or procedures that will be necessary to recycle the ship and that are not fully covered in the SRFP. For example, a Ship Recycling Facility may need to use additional workers or subcontractors, or they may need additional equipment to deal with unique aspects of the ship. Such ship-specific processes/procedures may take into account the technical guidance manual to be developed by the Organization. 4.7 Attaching a copy of DASR The Ship Recycling Facility should attach a copy of the DASR to the SRP. 5 VERIFICATION OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY APPROVAL Article 16.6 of the Convention stipulates that a State shall declare whether it requires tacit or explicit approval of the SRP before a ship may be recycled. The Ship Recycling Facility should be familiar with the procedures implemented by the Competent Authority for approval of the SRP. The Competent Authority's approval process will, at a minimum, include written acknowledgement of receipt of the SRP and may include further written documentation of approval or denial for the ship-specific recycling. The written acknowledgement and/or documentation of approval should be appended to the SRP immediately upon availability and made available to appropriate authorities and stakeholders as necessary.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 2, page 7
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
APPENDIX
SAMPLE COVER PAGE
Ship Recycling Plan Summary of information on ship and Ship Recycling Facility
This Ship Recycling Plan was developed in accordance with the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 (the Convention). Ship information Name of ship Distinctive number or letters Port of registry Gross tonnage IMO number Name and address of shipowner IMO-registered owner identification number
IMO company identification number
Telephone number E-mail address Ship Recycling Facility information Name of Ship Recycling Facility Distinctive Recycling Company identity No.
Full address of Ship Recycling Facility
Primary contact person Telephone number E-mail address Name, address and contact information of ownership company
Working language(s) Projected schedule for ship recycling Date of ship arrival at Ship Recycling Facility Date of commencement of ship recycling Date of Completion of ship recycling Date of completion of sale/disposal of all components
………………………… …………………………………………………………………………… (Date) (Signature of Ship Recycling Facility owner/operator)
***
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 3
RESOLUTION MEPC.197(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, RECALLING ALSO that the International Conference on the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships held in May 2009 adopted the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 (the Hong Kong Convention) together with six Conference resolutions, NOTING that regulations 5.1 and 5.2 of the Annex to the Hong Kong Convention require that ships shall have on board an Inventory of Hazardous Materials which shall be prepared and verified taking into account Guidelines, including any threshold values and exemptions contained in those Guidelines, developed by the Organization, NOTING ALSO resolution MEPC.179(59) by which the Committee adopted the Guidelines for the development of the inventory of Hazardous Materials, NOTING FURTHER that, by resolution MEPC.179(59), the Committee resolved to keep the Guidelines under review, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its sixty-second session, the recommendation made by the Working Group on Guidelines for Ship Recycling, 1. ADOPTS the 2011 Guidelines for the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials as set out in the Annex to this resolution; 2. INVITES Member Governments to apply the 2011 Guidelines as soon as possible, or when the Convention becomes applicable to them; 3. AGREES to keep the 2011 Guidelines for the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials under review in the light of experience gained; 4. REVOKES the Guidelines adopted by resolution MEPC.179(59).
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX
2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1 Introduction 1.1 Objectives of the Guidelines These Guidelines provide recommendations for developing the Inventory of Hazardous Materials (hereinafter referred to as "the Inventory") to assist compliance with regulation 5 (Inventory of Hazardous Materials) of the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"). 1.2 Application of the Guidelines These Guidelines have been developed to provide relevant stakeholders (e.g., shipbuilders, equipment suppliers, repairers, shipowners and ship management companies) with the essential requirements for practical and logical development of the Inventory. 1.3 Objectives of the Inventory The objectives of the Inventory are to provide ship-specific information on the actual Hazardous Materials present on board, in order to protect health and safety and to prevent environmental pollution at Ship Recycling Facilities. This information will be used by the Ship Recycling Facilities in order to decide how to manage the types and amounts of materials identified in the Inventory of Hazardous Materials (regulation 9). 2 Definitions The terms used in these Guidelines have the same meaning as those defined in the Convention, with the following additional definitions which apply to these Guidelines only. "Homogeneous material" means a material of uniform composition throughout that cannot be mechanically disjointed into different materials, meaning that the materials cannot, in principle, be separated by mechanical actions such as unscrewing, cutting, crushing, grinding and abrasive processes. "Product" means machinery, equipment, materials and applied coatings on board a ship. "Supplier" means a company which provides products; which may be a manufacturer, trader or agency. "Supply chain" means the series of entities involved in the supply and purchase of materials and goods, from raw materials to final product. "Threshold level" is defined as the concentration value in homogeneous materials.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
3 Requirements for the Inventory 3.1 Scope of the Inventory The Inventory consists of:
Part I: Materials contained in ship structure or equipment; Part II: Operationally generated wastes; and Part III: Stores.
3.2 Materials to be listed in the Inventory Appendix 1 of the Guidelines, "Items to be listed in the Inventory of Hazardous Materials", provides information on the Hazardous Materials that may be found on board a ship. Materials set out in appendix 1 should be listed in the Inventory. Each item in appendix 1 of these Guidelines is classified under "Table A", "Table B", "Table C" or "Table D" according to its properties:
.1 Table A comprises the materials listed in appendix 1 of the Convention; .2 Table B comprises the materials listed in appendix 2 of the Convention; .3 Table C (Potentially hazardous items) comprises items which are
potentially hazardous to the environment and human health at Ship Recycling Facilities; and
.4 Table D (Regular Consumable Goods potentially containing Hazardous
Materials) comprises goods which are not integral to a ship and are unlikely to be dismantled or treated at a Ship Recycling Facility.
Table A and Table B correspond to Part I of the Inventory. Table C corresponds to Parts II and III and Table D corresponds to Part III. 3.3 Materials not required to be listed in the Inventory Materials listed in Table B that are inherent in solid metals or metal alloys, provided they are used in general construction, such as hull, superstructure, pipes, or housings for equipment and machinery are not required to be listed in the Inventory. 3.4 Standard format of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials The Inventory should be developed on the basis of the standard format set out in appendix 2 of these Guidelines: "Standard format of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials". Examples of how to complete the Inventory are provided for guidance purposes only. 4 Requirements for development of the Inventory 4.1 Development of Part I of the Inventory for new ships 4.1.1 Part I of the Inventory for new ships should be developed at the design and construction stage.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4.1.2 Checking of materials listed in Table A During the development of the Inventory (Part I), the presence of materials listed in Table A of appendix 1 should be checked and confirmed; the quantity and location of Table A materials should be listed in Part I of the Inventory. If such materials are used in compliance with the Convention, they should be listed in Part I of the Inventory. Any spare parts containing materials listed in Table A are required to be listed in Part III of the Inventory. 4.1.3 Checking of materials listed in Table B If materials listed in Table B of appendix 1 are present in products above the threshold levels provided in Table B, the quantity and location of the products and the contents of the materials present in them should be listed in Part I of the Inventory. Any spare parts containing materials listed in Table B are required to be listed in Part III of the Inventory. 4.1.4 Process for checking of materials The checking of materials as provided in paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 above should be based on the "Material Declaration" furnished by the suppliers in the shipbuilding supply chain (e.g., equipment suppliers, parts suppliers, material suppliers). 4.2 Development of Part I of the Inventory for existing ships In order to achieve comparable results for existing ships with respect to Part I of the Inventory, the following procedure should be followed. The procedure is based on the following steps:
.1 collection of necessary information; .2 assessment of collected information; .3 preparation of visual/sampling check plan; .4 onboard visual check and sampling check; and .5 preparation of Part I of the Inventory and related documentation.
The determination of Hazardous Materials present on board existing ships should, as far as practicable, be conducted as prescribed for new ships, including the procedures described in section 6 and 7 of these Guidelines. Alternatively the procedures described in subsection 4.2 may be applied for existing ships, but these procedures should not be used for any new installation resulting from the conversion or repair of existing ships after the initial preparation of the Inventory. The procedures described in subsection 4.2 should be carried out by the shipowner, who may draw upon expert assistance. Such an expert or expert party should not be the same as the person or organization authorized by the Administration to approve the Inventory. Please refer to appendix 4: "Flow diagram for developing Part I of the Inventory for existing ships"; and appendix 5: "Typical example of development process for Part I of the Inventory for existing ships".
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4.2.1 Collection of necessary information (Step 1) The shipowner should identify, research, request, and procure all reasonably available documentation regarding the ship. Information that will be useful includes maintenance, conversion, and repair documents; certificates, manuals, ship's plans, drawings, and technical specifications; product information data sheets (such as Material Declarations); and hazardous material inventories or recycling information from sister ships. Potential sources of information could include previous shipowners, the ship builder, historical societies, classification society records, and ship recycling facilities with experience working with similar ships. 4.2.2 Assessment of collected information (Step 2) The information collected in Step 1 above should be assessed. The assessment should cover all materials listed in Table A of appendix 1; materials listed in Table B should be listed as far as practicable. The results of the assessment should be reflected in the visual/sampling check plan. 4.2.3 Preparation of visual/sampling check plan (Step 3) To specify the materials listed in appendix 1 of these Guidelines a visual/sampling check plan should be prepared taking into account the collated information and any appropriate expertise. The visual/sampling check plan based on the following three lists:
- List of equipment, system and/or area for visual check (any equipment, system and/or area specified regarding the presence of the materials listed in appendix 1 by document analysis should be entered in the List of equipment, system and/or area for visual check);
- List of equipment, system and/or area for sampling check (any equipment,
system and/or area which cannot be specified regarding the presence of the materials listed in appendix 1 by document or visual analysis should be entered in the List of equipment, system and/or area as requiring sampling check. A sampling check is the taking of samples to identify the presence or absence of Hazardous Material contained in the equipment, systems, and/or areas, by suitable and generally accepted methods such as laboratory analysis); and
- List of equipment, system and/or area classed as "potentially containing
Hazardous Material" (any equipment, system and/or area which cannot be specified regarding the presence of the materials listed in appendix 1 by document analysis may be entered in the List of equipment, system and/or area classed as "potentially containing Hazardous Material" without the sampling check. The prerequisite for this classification is a comprehensible justification such as the impossibility of conducting sampling without compromising the safety of the ship and its operational efficiency).
Visual/sampling checkpoints should be all points where:
- the presence of materials to be considered for the Inventory Part I as listed in appendix 1 is likely;
- the documentation is not specific; or - materials of uncertain composition were used.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4.2.4 Onboard visual/sampling check (Step 4) The onboard visual/sampling check should be carried out in accordance with the visual/sampling check plan. When a sampling check is carried out, samples should be taken and the sample points should be clearly marked on the ship plan and the sample results referenced. Materials of the same kind may be sampled in a representative manner. Such materials are to be checked to ensure that they are of the same kind. The sampling check should be carried out drawing upon expert assistance. Any uncertainty regarding the presence of Hazardous Materials should be clarified by a visual/sampling check. Checkpoints should be documented in the ship's plan and may be supported by photographs. If the equipment, system and/or area of the ship are not accessible for a visual check or sampling check, they should be classified as "potentially containing Hazardous Material". The prerequisite for such classification should be the same prerequisite as in section 4.2.3. Any equipment, system and/or area classed as "potentially containing Hazardous Material" may be investigated or subjected to a sampling check at the request of the shipowner during a later survey (e.g., during repair, refit or conversion). 4.2.5 Preparation of Part I of the Inventory and related documentation (Step 5) If any equipment, system and/or area is classed as either "containing Hazardous Material" or "potentially containing Hazardous Material", their approximate quantity and location should be listed in Part I of the Inventory. These two categories should be indicated separately in the remarks column of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials. 4.2.6 Testing methods Samples may be tested by a variety of methods. "Indicative" or "field tests" may be used when:
the likelihood of a hazard is high; the test is expected to indicate that the hazard exists; and the sample is being tested by "specific testing" to show that the hazard is
present. Indicative or field tests are quick, inexpensive and useful onboard the ship or on site, but they cannot be accurately reproduced or repeated, and cannot identify the hazard specifically, and therefore cannot be relied upon except as "indicators". In all other cases, and in order to avoid dispute, "specific testing" should be used. Specific tests are repeatable, reliable and can demonstrate definitively whether a hazard exists or not. They will also provide a known type of the hazard. The methods indicated are found qualitative and quantitative appropriate and only testing methods to the same effect can be used. Specific tests are to be carried out by a suitably accredited laboratory, working to international standards† or equivalent, which will provide a written report that can be relied upon by all parties. Specific test methods for appendix 1 materials are provided in appendix 9. † For example ISO 17025.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 7
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4.2.7 Diagram of the location of Hazardous Materials on board a ship Preparation of a diagram showing the location of the materials listed in Table A is recommended in order to help Ship Recycling Facilities gain a visual understanding of the Inventory. 4.3 Maintaining and updating Part I of the Inventory during operations 4.3.1 Part I of the Inventory should be appropriately maintained and updated, especially after any repair or conversion or sale of a ship. 4.3.2 Updating of Part I of the Inventory in the event of new installation If any machinery or equipment is added to, removed or replaced or the hull coating is renewed, Part I of the Inventory should be updated according to the requirements for new ships as stipulated in subsections 4.1.2 to 4.1.4. Updating is not required if identical parts or coatings are installed or applied. 4.3.3 Continuity of Part I of the Inventory Part I of the Inventory should belong to the ship and the continuity and conformity of the information it contains should be confirmed, especially if the flag, owner or operator of the ship changes. 4.4 Development of Part II of the Inventory (operationally generated waste) 4.4.1 Once the decision to recycle a ship has been taken, Part II of the Inventory should be developed before the final survey, taking into account that a ship destined to be recycled shall conduct operations in the period prior to entering the Ship Recycling Facility in a manner that minimizes the amount of cargo residues, fuel oil and wastes remaining on board (regulation 8.2). 4.4.2 Operationally generated wastes to be listed in the Inventory If the wastes listed in Part II of the Inventory provided in "Table C (Potentially hazardous items)" of appendix 1 are intended for delivery with the ship to a Ship Recycling Facility, the quantity of the operationally generated wastes should be estimated and their approximate quantities and locations should be listed in Part II of the Inventory. 4.5 Development of Part III of the Inventory (stores) 4.5.1 Once the decision to recycle has been taken, Part III of the Inventory should be developed before the final survey, taking into account the fact that a ship destined to be recycled shall minimize the wastes remaining on board (regulation 8.2). Each item listed in Part III should correspond to the ship's operations during its last voyage. 4.5.2 Stores to be listed in the Inventory If the stores to be listed in Part III of the Inventory provided in Table C of appendix 1 are to be delivered with the ship to a Ship Recycling Facility, the unit (e.g., capacity of cans and cylinders), quantity and location of the stores should be listed in Part III of the Inventory.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 8
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4.5.3 Liquids and gases sealed in ship's machinery and equipment to be listed in the Inventory If any liquids and gases listed in Table C of appendix 1 are integral in machinery and equipment on board a ship, their approximate quantity and location should be listed in Part III of the Inventory. However, small amounts of lubricating oil, anti-seize compounds and grease which are applied to or injected into machinery and equipment to maintain normal performance do not fall within the scope of this provision. For subsequent completion of Part III of the Inventory during the recycling preparation processes, the quantity of liquids and gases listed in Table C of appendix 1 required for normal operation, including the related pipe system volumes, should be prepared and documented at the design and construction stage. This information belongs to the ship, and continuity of this information should be maintained if the flag, owner or operator of the ship changes. 4.5.4 Regular consumable goods to be listed in the Inventory Regular consumable goods, as provided in Table D of appendix 1should not be listed in Part I or Part II but should be listed in Part III of the Inventory if they are to be delivered with the ship to a Ship Recycling Facility. A general description including the name of item (e.g., TV set), manufacturer, quantity and location should be entered in Part III of the Inventory. The check on materials provided for in paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of the Guidelines does not apply to regular consumable goods. 4.6 Description of location of Hazardous Materials on board The locations of Hazardous Materials on board should be described and identified using the name of location (e.g., second floor of Engine-room, Bridge DK, APT, No.1 Cargo Tank, Frame number) given in the plans (e.g., General Arrangement, Fire and Safety Plan, Machinery Arrangement or Tank Arrangement). 4.7 Description of approximate quantity of Hazardous Materials In order to identify the approximate quantity of Hazardous Materials, the standard unit used for the of Hazardous Materials should be kg, unless other units (e.g., m3 for materials of liquid or gases, m2 for materials used in floors or walls) are considered more appropriate. An approximate quantity should be rounded up to at least two significant figures. 5 Requirements for ascertaining the conformity of the Inventory 5.1 Design and construction stage The conformity of Part I of the Inventory at the design and construction stage should be ascertained by reference to the collected "Supplier's Declaration of Conformity" described in section 7 and the related "Material Declarations" collected from suppliers. 5.2 Operational stage Shipowners should implement the following measures in order to ensure the conformity of Part I of the Inventory:
.1 designate a person as responsible for maintaining and updating the Inventory (the designated person may be employed ashore or on board);
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 9
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.2 the designated person, in order to implement subsection 4.3.2, should establish and supervise a system to ensure the necessary updating of the Inventory in the event of new installation;
.3 to maintain the Inventory including dates of changes or new deleted entries
and the signature of the designated person; and .4 provide related documents as required for the survey or sale of the ship.
6 Material Declaration 6.1 General Suppliers to the shipbuilding industry should identify and declare whether or not the materials listed in Table A or Table B are present above the threshold level specified in appendix 1 of these Guidelines. However, this provision does not apply to chemicals which do not constitute a part of the finished product. 6.2 Information required in the declaration At a minimum the following information is required in the Material Declaration:
.1 date of declaration; .2 Material Declaration identification number; .3 supplier's name; .4 product name (common product name or name used by manufacturer); .5 product number (for identification by manufacturer); .6 declaration of whether or not the materials listed in Table A and Table B of
appendix 1 of these Guidelines are present in the product above the threshold level stipulated in appendix 1 of these Guidelines; and
.7 mass of each constituent material listed in Table A and/or Table B of
appendix 1 of these Guidelines if present above threshold level. An example of a Material Declaration is shown in appendix 6. 7 Supplier's Declaration of Conformity 7.1 Purpose and scope The purpose of the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity is to provide assurance that the related Material Declaration conforms to section 6.2, and to identify the responsible entity. The Supplier's Declaration of Conformity remains valid as long as the products are present on board.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 10
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
The supplier compiling the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity should establish a company policy‡. The company policy on the management of the chemical substances in products which the supplier manufactures or sells should cover:
.a Compliance with law:
The regulations and requirements governing the management of chemical substances in products should be clearly described in documents which should be kept and maintained; and
.b Obtaining of information on chemical substance content:
In procuring raw materials for components and products, suppliers should be selected following an evaluation, and the information on the chemical substances they supply should be obtained.
7.2 Contents and format The Supplier's Declaration of Conformity should contain the following:
.1 unique identification number; .2 name and contact address of the issuer; .3 identification of the subject of the Declaration of Conformity (e.g., name,
type, model number, and/or other relevant supplementary information); .4 statement of conformity; .5 date and place of issue; and .6 signature (or equivalent sign of validation), name and function of the
authorized person(s) acting on behalf of the issuer. An example of the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity is shown in appendix 7. 8 List of appendices
Appendix 1: Items to be listed in the Inventory of Hazardous Materials Appendix 2: Standard format of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials Appendix 3: Example of the development process for Part I of the Inventory for
new ships Appendix 4: Flow diagram for developing Part I of the Inventory for existing
ships Appendix 5: Example of the development process for Part I of the Inventory for
existing ships
‡ A recognized quality management system may be utilized.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 11
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Appendix 6: Form of Material Declaration Appendix 7: Form of Supplier's Declaration of Conformity Appendix 8: Examples of Table A and Table B materials of appendix 1 with
CAS-numbers Appendix 9: Specific test methods
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 12
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
APPENDIX 1
ITEMS TO BE LISTED IN THE INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
TABLE A* Materials listed in appendix 1 of the Annex to the Convention
No. Materials Inventory Threshold
level Part I Part II Part III
A-1 Asbestos x no threshold level
A-2 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) x no threshold level
A-3 Ozone Depleting Substances
CFCs x
no threshold level
Halons x Other fully halogenated CFCs x Carbon tetrachloride x 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform) x Hydrochlorofluorocarbons x Hydrobromofluorocarbons x Methyl bromide x Bromochloromethane x
A-4 Anti-fouling systems containing organotin
compounds as a biocide
x
2500 mg total tin/kg
TABLE B* Materials listed in appendix 2 of the Annex to the Convention
No. Materials Inventory
Threshold level Part I Part II Part III
B-1 Cadmium and cadmium compounds x 100 mg/kg
B-2 Hexavalent chromium and hexavalent chromium compounds x 1,000 mg/kg
B-3 Lead and lead compounds x 1,000 mg/kg
B-4 Mercury and mercury compounds x 1,000 mg/kg
B-5 Polybrominated biphenyl (PBBs) x 1,000 mg/kg
B-6 Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) x 1,000 mg/kg
B-7 Polychlorinated naphthalenes (more than 3 chlorine atoms) x no threshold level
B-8 Radioactive substances x no threshold level§
B-9 Certain shortchain chlorinated paraffins (Alkanes, C10-C13, chloro) x 1%
* For materials in this Table with no threshold level, quantities occurring as unintentional trace contaminants
should not be listed in Material Declarations and in the Inventory. § However, note that, in order to identify amounts of radioactive substances which could be exempted from
the need for regulatory control, "exemption criteria" were established in the IAEA Safety Standards (Safety Series No.115, International Basic Safety Standards for the Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources, Schedule I, p. 81-89; Vienna, 1996. IAEA is currently in the process of updating IAEA Safety Series No.115). For practical purposes, the IAEA defined values (e.g., "exemption levels") that could be considered as "thresholds" below which the substances could be automatically exempted from any control without further consideration. National Regulatory Authorities normally establish exemption levels for radioactive sources and other radioactive materials.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 13
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
TABLE C Potentially hazardous items
No. Properties Goods Inventory
Part I Part II Part III
C-1
Liquid
Oiliness
Kerosene x
C-2 White spirit x
C-3 Lubricating oil x
C-4 Hydraulic oil x
C-5
Anti-seize compounds x
C-6 Fuel additive x
C-7 Engine coolant additives x
C-8 Antifreeze fluids x
C-9 Boiler and feed water treatment and test re-agents x
C-10 De-ioniser regenerating chemicals x C-11 Evaporator dosing and descaling acids x
C-12 Paint stabilizers/rust stabilizers x C-13 Solvents/thinners x C-14 Paints x
C-15 Chemical refrigerants x
C-16 Battery electrolyte x
C-17 Alcohol, methylated spirits x
C-18
Gas
Explosives/ inflammables
Acetylene x
C-19 Propane x
C-20 Butane x
C-21 Oxygen x
C-22
Green House Gases
CO2 x
C-23 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) x
C-24 Methane x
C-25 Hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs) x
C-27 Nitrous oxide(N2O) x
C-28 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) x
C-29
Liquid
Oiliness
Bunkers: fuel oil x
C-30 Grease x
C-31 Waste oil (sludge) x
C-32 Bilge and/or waste water generated by the after-treatment systems fitted on machineries x
C-33 Oily liquid cargo tank residues x
C-34
Ballast water x
C-35 Raw sewage x
C-36 Treated sewage x
C-37 Non-oily liquid cargo residues x
C-38 Gas Explosibility/ inflammability Fuel gas x
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 14
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
TABLE C Potentially hazardous items
No. Properties Goods Inventory
Part I Part II Part III
C-39
Solid
Dry cargo residues x C-40 Medical waste/infectious waste x C-41 Incinerator ash2) x
C-42 Garbage2) x
C-43 Fuel tank residues x
C-45 Oily solid cargo tank residues x
C-45 Oily or chemical contaminated rags x
C-46 Batteries (incl. lead acid batteries) x
C-47 Pesticides/insecticide sprays x
C-48 Extinguishers x
C-49 Chemical cleaner (incl. electrical equipment cleaner, carbon remover) x
C-50 Detergent/bleacher (could be a liquid) x
C-51 Miscellaneous medicines x
C-52 Fire fighting clothing and Personal protective equipment x
C-53 Dry tank residues x
C-54 Cargo residues x
C-55 Spare parts which contain materials listed in Table A or Table B x
2) Definition of garbage is identical to that in MARPOL Annex V. However, incinerator ash is classified
separately because it may include hazardous substances or heavy metals. TABLE D Regular consumable goods potentially containing Hazardous Materials
No. Properties Example Inventory
Part I Part II Part III
D-1 Domestic and accommodation appliances
Computers, refrigerators, printers, scanners, television sets, radio sets, video cameras, video recorders, telephones, consumer batteries, fluorescent lamps, filament bulbs, lamps
x
This Table does not include ship-specific equipment integral to ship operations, which has to be listed in
Part I of the Inventory.
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 3
, pag
e 15
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
.doc
APP
END
IX 2
STA
ND
AR
D F
OR
MA
T O
F TH
E IN
VEN
TOR
Y O
F H
AZA
RD
OU
S M
ATE
RIA
LS
Pa
rt I
HA
ZAR
DO
US
MA
TER
IALS
CO
NTA
INED
IN T
HE
SHIP
'S S
TRU
CTU
RE
AN
D E
QU
IPM
ENT
I-1
Pa
ints
and
coa
ting
syst
ems
cont
aini
ng m
ater
ials
list
ed in
Tab
le A
and
Tab
le B
of a
ppen
dix
1 of
the
Gui
delin
es
N
o.
App
licat
ion
of p
aint
N
ame
of p
aint
Lo
catio
n M
ater
ials
(c
lass
ifica
tion
in
appe
ndix
1)
App
rox.
qua
ntity
R
emar
ks
1
Ant
i-dru
mm
ing
com
poun
d P
rimer
, xx
Co.
, xx
prim
er #
300
Hul
l par
t Le
ad
35.0
0 kg
2
Anti-
foul
ing
xx C
o., x
x co
at #
100
Und
erw
ater
pa
rts
TBT
120.
00
kg
I-2
Eq
uipm
ent a
nd m
achi
nery
con
tain
ing
mat
eria
ls li
sted
in T
able
A a
nd T
able
B o
f app
endi
x 1
of th
e G
uide
lines
N
o.
Nam
e of
equ
ipm
ent a
nd m
achi
nery
Lo
catio
n M
ater
ials
(c
lass
ifica
tion
in
appe
ndix
1)
Par
ts w
here
use
dAp
prox
. qu
antit
y R
emar
ks
1
Switc
h bo
ard
Eng
ine
cont
rol r
oom
C
adm
ium
H
ousi
ng c
oatin
g 0.
02
kg
M
ercu
ry
Hea
t gau
ge
<0.0
1kg
less
than
0.0
1kg
2
Die
sel e
ngin
e, x
x C
o., x
x #1
50
Eng
ine
room
C
adm
ium
B
earin
g 0.
02
kg
3
Die
sel e
ngin
e, x
x C
o., x
x #2
00
Eng
ine-
room
C
adm
ium
B
earin
g 0.
01
kgR
evis
ed b
y XX
X on
Oct
. XX,
20
08
4
Die
sel g
ener
ator
(x 3
) E
ngin
e-ro
om
Lead
In
gred
ient
of
copp
er
com
poun
ds
0.01
kg
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 3
, pag
e 16
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24.d
oc
I-3
Stru
ctur
e an
d hu
ll co
ntai
ning
mat
eria
ls li
sted
in T
able
A a
nd T
able
B o
f app
endi
x 1
of th
e G
uide
lines
No.
N
ame
of s
truct
ural
ele
men
t Lo
catio
n M
ater
ials
(c
lass
ifica
tion
in a
ppen
dix
1)
Par
ts
whe
re
used
Appr
ox.
quan
tity
Rem
arks
1 W
all p
anel
A
ccom
mod
atio
n A
sbes
tos
Insu
latio
n 2,
500.
00
kg
2 W
all i
nsul
atio
n E
ngin
e co
ntro
l ro
om
Lead
P
erfo
rate
d pl
ate
0.01
kg
cove
r for
insu
latio
n m
ater
ial
Asb
esto
s In
sula
tion
25.0
0 kg
unde
r per
fora
ted
plat
es
3
Pa
rt II
OPE
RA
TIO
NA
LLY
GEN
ERA
TED
WA
STE
N
o.
Loca
tion1)
N
ame
of it
em (c
lass
ifica
tion
in a
ppen
dix
1) a
nd d
etai
l (if
any
) of t
he it
em
Appr
ox.
quan
tity
Rem
arks
1
Gar
bage
lock
er
Gar
bage
(foo
d w
aste
) 35
.00
kg
2
Bilg
e ta
nk
Bilg
ewat
er
15.0
0 m
3
3
No.
1 ca
rgo
hold
D
ry c
argo
resi
dues
(iro
n or
e)
110.
00
kg
4
No.
2 ca
rgo
hold
W
aste
oil
(slu
dge)
(cru
de)
120.
00
kg
5
No.
1 ba
llast
tank
Ba
llast
wat
er
2,50
0.00
m
3
S
edim
ents
25
0.00
kg
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 3
, pag
e 17
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
.doc
Part
III
STO
RES
III-1
St
ores
N
o.
Loca
tion1)
N
ame
of it
em (c
lass
ifica
tion
in
appe
ndix
1)
Uni
t qu
antit
y Fi
gure
Ap
prox
. qu
antit
y R
emar
ks2)
1
No.
1 fu
el o
il ta
nk
Fuel
oil
(hea
vy fu
el o
il)
--
10
0.00
m
3
2
CO
2 roo
m
CO
2 10
0.00
kg
50
bottl
es5,
000.
00
kg
3
Wor
ksho
p P
ropa
ne
20.0
0 kg
10
pcs
200.
00
kg
4
Med
icin
e lo
cker
M
isce
llane
ous
med
icin
es
--
-
Det
ails
are
sho
wn
in th
e at
tach
ed li
st.
5
Pai
nt s
tore
s P
aint
, xx
Co.
, #60
0 20
.00
kg5
pcs
100.
00
kgC
adm
ium
con
tain
ing.
III
-2
Liqu
ids
seal
ed in
shi
p's
mac
hine
ry a
nd e
quip
men
t
N
o.
Type
of l
iqui
ds
(cla
ssifi
catio
n in
ap
pend
ix 1
) N
ame
of m
achi
nery
or e
quip
men
t Lo
catio
n Ap
prox
. qu
antit
y R
emar
ks
1
Hyd
raul
ic o
il D
eck
cran
e hy
drau
lic o
il sy
stem
U
pper
dec
k 15
.00
m3
D
eck
mac
hine
ry h
ydra
ulic
oil
syst
emU
pper
dec
k an
d bo
sun
stor
e 20
0.00
m
3
S
teer
ing
gear
hyd
raul
ic o
il sy
stem
St
eerin
g ge
ar
room
0.
55
m3
2
Lubr
icat
ing
oil
Mai
n en
gine
sys
tem
E
ngin
e-ro
om
0.45
m
3
3
Boi
ler w
ater
trea
tmen
t B
oile
r En
gine
-room
0.
20
m3
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 3
, pag
e 18
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24.d
oc
III-3
G
ases
sea
led
in s
hip'
s m
achi
nery
and
equ
ipm
ent
No.
Ty
pe o
f gas
es
(cla
ssifi
catio
n in
ap
pend
ix 1
) N
ame
of m
achi
nery
or e
quip
men
t Lo
catio
n Ap
prox
. qu
antit
y R
emar
ks
1 H
FC
AC
sys
tem
A
C ro
om
100.
00
kg
2 H
FC
Ref
riger
ated
pro
visi
on c
ham
ber
mac
hine
A
C ro
om
50.0
0 kg
III-4
R
egul
ar c
onsu
mab
le g
oods
pot
entia
lly c
onta
inin
g H
azar
dous
Mat
eria
ls
No.
Lo
catio
n1)
Nam
e of
item
Q
uant
ity
Rem
arks
1 Ac
com
mod
atio
n R
efrig
erat
ors
1
2 Ac
com
mod
atio
n P
erso
nal c
ompu
ters
2
1)
Th
e lo
catio
n of
a P
art I
I or P
art I
II ite
m s
houl
d be
ent
ered
in o
rder
bas
ed o
n its
loca
tion,
from
a lo
wer
leve
l to
an u
pper
leve
l and
from
a fo
re p
art t
o an
aft
part.
The
loca
tion
of P
art I
item
s is
reco
mm
ende
d to
be
desc
ribed
sim
ilarly
, as
far a
s pr
actic
able
. 2)
In
col
umn
"Rem
arks
" for
Par
t III
item
s, if
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ials
are
inte
grat
ed in
pro
duct
s, th
e ap
prox
imat
e am
ount
of t
he c
onte
nts
shou
ld b
e sh
own
as fa
r as
poss
ible
.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 19
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
APPENDIX 3
EXAMPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR PART I OF THE INVENTORY FOR NEW SHIPS
1 Objective of the typical example This example has been developed to give guidance and to facilitate understanding of the development process for Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials for new ships. 2 Development flow for Part I of the Inventory Part I of the Inventory should be developed using the following 3 steps. However, the order of these steps is flexible and can be changed depending on the schedule of shipbuilding:
.1 collection of Hazardous Materials information;
.2 utilization of Hazardous Materials information; and
.3 preparation of the Inventory (by filling out standard format). 3 Collection of Hazardous Materials information 3.1 Data collection process for Hazardous Materials Materials Declaration (MD) and Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) for products from suppliers (tier 1 suppliers) should be requested and collected by the shipbuilding yard. Tier 1 suppliers may request from their suppliers (tier 2 suppliers) the relevant information if they cannot develop the MD based on the information available. Thus the collection of data on Hazardous Materials may involve the entire shipbuilding supply chain (Figure 1).
Figure 1 – Process of MD (and SDoC) collection showing involvement of supply
chain
Request
Submit
Equipment supplier (tier 2)
Shipbuilder
List List
Request
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
Equipment supplier (tier 1)
Submit
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 20
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
3.2 Declaration of Hazardous Materials Suppliers should declare whether or not the Hazardous Materials listed in Table A and Table B in the MD are present in concentrations above the threshold levels specified for each "homogeneous material" in a product. 3.2.1 Materials listed in Table A If one or more materials listed in Table A are found to be present in concentrations above the specified threshold level according to the MD, the products which contain these materials shall not be installed on a ship. However, if the materials are used in a product in accordance with an exemption specified by the Convention (e.g., new installations containing hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) before 1 January 2020), the product should be listed in the Inventory. 3.2.2 Materials listed in Table B If one or more materials listed in Table B are found to be present in concentrations above the specified threshold level according to the MD, the products should be listed in the Inventory. 3.3 Example of "Homogeneous Materials" Figure 2 shows an example of four homogeneous materials which constitute a cable. In this case, sheath, intervention, insulator and conductor are all individual homogeneous materials.
Figure 2 – Example of Homogeneous Materials (cable)
4 Utilization of Hazardous Materials information Products which contain Hazardous Materials in concentrations above the specified threshold levels should be clearly identified in the MD. The approximate quantity of the Hazardous Materials should be calculated if the mass data for Hazardous Materials are declared in the MD using a unit which cannot be directly utilized in the Inventory. 5 Preparation of Inventory (by filling out standard format) The information received for the Inventory, as contained in Table A and Table B of appendix 1of these Guidelines, ought to be structured and utilized according to the following categorization for Part I of the Inventory:
1.1 Paints and coating systems; 1.2 Equipment and machinery; and 1.3 Structure and hull.
Sheath(PVC)
Intervention(paper)
Insulator(rubber)
Conductor(copper)
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 21
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
5.1 "Name of equipment and machinery" column 5.1.1 Equipment and machinery The name of each equipment or machinery should be entered in this column. If more than one Hazardous Material is present in the equipment or machinery, the row relating to that equipment or machinery should be appropriately divided such that all of the Hazardous Materials contained in the piece of equipment or machinery are entered. If more than one item of equipment or machinery is situated in one location, both name and quantity of the equipment or machinery should be entered in the column. For identical common or mass-produced items, such as bolts, nuts and valves, there is no need to list each item individually. An example is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Example showing more than one item of equipment or machinery situated in one location
No. Name of equipment and machinery Location
Materials (classification in appendix 1)
Parts where used Approx. quantity Remarks
Main engine Engine-room
Lead Piston pin bush 0.75 kg
Mercury Thermometer charge air temperature
0.01 kg
Diesel generator (x 3) Engine-room Mercury Thermometer 0.03
5.1.2 Pipes and cables The names of pipes and of systems, including electric cables, which are often situated in more than one compartment of a ship, should be described using the name of the system concerned. A reference to the compartments where these systems are located is not necessary as long as the system is clearly identified and properly named. 5.2 "Approximate quantity" column The standard unit for approximate quantity of solid Hazardous Materials should be kg. If the Hazardous Materials are liquids or gases, the standard unit should be either m3 or kg. An approximate quantity should be rounded up to at least two significant figures. If the Hazardous Material is less than 10 g, the description of the quantity should read "<0.01 kg".
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 22
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Table 2 – Example of a switchboard
No. Name of equipment and machinery Location
Materials (classification in appendix 1)
Parts where used Approx. quantity Remarks
Switchboard Engine control room
Cadmium Housing coating 0.02 kg
Mercury Heat gauge <0.01 kg less than 0.01 kg
5.3 "Location" column 5.3.1 Example of a location list It is recommended to prepare a location list which covers all compartments of a ship based on the ship's plans (e.g., General Arrangement, Engine-room Arrangement, Accommodation and Tank Plan) and on other documentation on board, including certificates or spare parts' lists. The description of the location should be based on a location such as a deck or room to enable easy identification. The name of the location should correspond to the ship's plans so as to ensure consistency between the Inventory and the ship's plans. Examples of names of locations are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 – Examples of location names
(A) Primary classification (B) Secondary classification (C) Name of location All over the ship Hull part Fore part Bosun store … Cargo part No.1 Cargo Hold/Tank No.1 Garage deck … Tank part Fore Peak Tank No.1 WBT No.1 FOT … Aft Peak Tank Aft part Steering Gear Room Emergency Fire Pump Space … Superstructure Accommodation Compass deck Nav. Bridge deck … Wheel House Engine Control Room Cargo Control Room … Deck house Deck House …
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 23
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
(A) Primary classification (B) Secondary classification (C) Name of location Machinery part Engine-room Engine-room Main Floor 2nd Floor … Generator Space/Room Purifier Space/Room Shaft Space/Room Engine Casing Funnel Engine Control Room … Pump-room Pump-room … Exterior part Superstructure Superstructure Upper deck Upper deck Hull shell Hull shell bottom under waterline … 5.3.2 Description of location of pipes and electrical systems Locations of pipes and systems, including electrical systems and cables situated in more than one compartment of a ship, should be described for each system concerned. If they are situated in a number of compartments, the most practical of the following two options should be used:
a) listing of all components in the column; or b) description of the location of the system using an expression such as those
shown under "primary classification" and "secondary classification" in Table 3. A typical description of a pipe system is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 – Example of description of a pipe system
No. Name of equipment and machinery Location
Materials (classification in appendix 1)
Parts where used
Approx. quantity Remarks
Ballast water system
Engine-room, Hold parts
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 3
, pag
e 24
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24.d
oc
APP
END
IX 4
FLO
W D
IAG
RA
M F
OR
DEV
ELO
PIN
G P
AR
T I O
F TH
E IN
VEN
TOR
Y FO
R E
XIST
ING
SH
IPS
Col
lect
ion
of n
eces
sary
info
rmat
ion
Ana
lysi
s an
dD
efin
ition
of s
cope
of a
sses
smen
t
Can
you
reco
gniz
ew
hat i
t con
tain
s b y
docu
men
tan
alys
is?
NO
YES
Can
you
ex
empt
sam
plin
g an
alys
isac
cord
ing
to a
crite
rion?
Onb
oard
vis
ual c
heck
, sam
plin
g ch
eck
Was
vis
ual
chec
king
/sam
plin
g ac
tual
ly p
ossi
ble?
Doe
sit
cont
ain
Haz
ardo
usM
ater
ial?
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
*4
*5
NO
draw
ings
, tec
hnic
al s
peci
ficat
ions
and
info
rmat
ion
from
sis
ter a
nd/o
rsi
mila
r shi
ps.
*1
*3
*4 :
Sam
plin
g C
heck
. Thi
s m
eans
sam
plin
g an
d id
entif
icat
ion
of
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ial c
onta
ined
in th
e eq
uipm
ent,
syst
ems,
and
/or
area
s, b
yla
bora
tory
ana
lysi
s. T
he s
ampl
ing
chec
ksh
ould
be
appl
ied
whe
re th
e pr
esen
ce o
f Pro
hibi
ted
and
Res
trict
ed H
azar
dous
Mat
eria
lis
ass
umed
but
can
not b
e re
cogn
ized
by
anal
ysis
of t
he a
vaila
ble
docu
men
tatio
n.
*3 :
Equi
pmen
t, sy
stem
and
/or a
reas
whi
ch c
anno
t be
spec
ified
as
cont
aini
ng m
ater
ials
liste
d in
app
endi
x 1
of th
ese
guid
elin
es o
n th
e ba
sis
of d
ocum
ents
can
be
liste
d in
the
List
of e
quip
men
t, sy
stem
an
d/or
are
a cl
asse
d as
w
ithou
t the
sam
plin
g ch
eck.
The
pre
requ
isite
for t
his
clas
sific
atio
n is
a
com
preh
ensi
ble
just
ifica
tion
of th
e co
nclu
sion
, suc
h as
the
impo
ssib
ility
to c
ondu
ct s
ampl
ings
with
out c
ompr
omis
ing
ship
saf
ety
and
oper
atio
nal e
ffici
ency
.
*5 :
Whe
n eq
uipm
ent,
syst
ems
and/
or a
reas
of a
shi
p ar
e no
t ac
cess
ible
for v
isua
l che
ck o
r sam
plin
g ch
eck,
this
equ
ipm
ent,
syst
eman
d/or
are
a is
cla
ssifi
ed a
s "p
oten
tially
con
tain
ing
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ial".
Vis
ual
chec
k pl
anS
ampl
ing
chec
k pl
an
Pre
para
tion
of v
isua
l/sam
plin
g ch
eck
p lan
*2 :
The
asse
ssm
ent s
houl
d co
ver a
ll m
ater
ials
list
ed in
Tab
le A
of
App
endi
x 1
of th
e G
uide
line;
the
mat
eria
ls li
sted
in T
able
B s
houl
d be
liste
d as
far a
s pr
actic
able
.It
is im
poss
ible
to a
sses
s al
l equ
ipm
ent a
nd a
reas
incl
udin
g th
ose
whi
ch a
re a
ssum
ed n
ot to
con
tain
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ials
des
crib
ed
abov
e.U
sing
ana
lysi
s of
ava
ilabl
e do
cum
ents
bas
ed o
n kn
owle
dge
and
expe
rienc
e, it
mus
t be
mad
e cl
ear w
hich
equ
ipm
ent a
nd/o
r are
a sh
ould
be
incl
uded
in th
e sc
ope
of th
e as
sess
men
t.
*2
(Con
firm
by
visu
al
chec
k)
(Con
firm
by
sam
plin
g ch
eck)
List
of e
quip
men
t, sy
stem
and
/or
area
pot
entia
lly c
onta
inin
gH
azar
dous
Mat
eria
l
Equ
ipm
ent,
syst
em
and/
or a
rea
clas
sed
as c
onta
inin
g H
azar
dous
Mat
eria
l
Equ
ipm
ent,
syst
eman
d/or
are
a cl
asse
d as
po
tent
ially
con
tain
ing
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ial
Ste
p1
Ste
p2
Ste
p3
Ste
p4
Ste
p5
List
ing
not
nece
ssar
y
*1 :
Doc
umen
ts m
ay in
clud
e an
y ce
rtific
ates
, m
anua
ls, s
hip'
s pl
ans
"pot
entia
lly c
onta
inin
g H
azar
dous
Mat
eria
l"
Pre
para
tion
of In
vent
ory
Par
t I
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 25
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
APPENDIX 5
EXAMPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR PART I OF THE INVENTORY FOR EXISTING SHIPS
1 Introduction In order to develop Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials for existing ships, documents of the individual ship as well as the knowledge and experience of specialist personnel (experts) is required. An example of the development process for Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials for existing ships is useful to understand the basic steps as laid out in the Guidelines and to ensure a unified application. However, attention should be paid to variations in different types of ships1). Compilation of Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Material for existing ships involves the following 5 steps which are described in paragraph 4.2 and appendix 4 of these Guidelines.
Step 1: Collection of necessary information; Step 2: Assessment of collected information; Step 3: Preparation of visual/sampling check plan; Step 4: Onboard visual/sampling check; and Step 5: Preparation of Part I of the Inventory and related documentation.
___________ 1) The example of a 28,000 gross tonnage bulk carrier constructed in 1985 is used in this appendix. 2 Step 1: Collection of necessary information 2.1 Sighting of available documents A practical first step is to collect detailed documents for the ship. The shipowner should try to collate documents normally retained onboard the ship or by the shipping company as well as relevant documents that the shipyard, manufacturers, or classification society may have. The following documents should be used when available:
Ship's specification General Arrangement Machinery Arrangement Spare Parts and Tools List Piping Arrangement Accommodation Plan Fire Control Plan Fire Protection Plan Insulation Plan (Hull and Machinery) International Anti-Fouling System Certificate Related manuals and drawings Information from other inventories and/or sister or similar ships, machinery, equipment, materials and coatings Results of previous visual/sampling checks and other analysis
If the ship has undergone conversions or major repair work, it is necessary to identify as far as possible the modifications from the initial design and specification of the ship.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 26
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
2.2 Indicative list It is impossible to check all equipment, systems, and/or areas on board the ship to determine the presence or absence of Hazardous Materials. The total number of parts on board may exceed several thousand. In order to take a practical approach, an "Indicative list" should be prepared that identifies the equipment, system, and/or area on board that is presumed to contain Hazardous Materials. Field interviews with the shipyard and suppliers may be necessary to prepare such lists. A typical example of an "Indicative list" is shown below: 2.2.1 Materials to be checked and documented Hazardous Materials, as identified in appendix 1 of these Guidelines, should be listed in Part I of the Inventory for existing ships. Appendix 1 of the Guidelines contains all the materials concerned. Table A shows those which are required to be listed and Table B shows those which should be listed as far as practical. 2.2.2 Materials listed in Table A Table A lists the following four materials:
Asbestos Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Ozone depleting substances Anti-fouling systems containing organotin compounds as a biocide
2.2.2.1 Asbestos Field interviews were conducted with over 200 Japanese shipyards and suppliers regarding the use of asbestos in production. "Indicative lists" for asbestos developed on the basis of this research are shown below: Structure and/or equipment Component Propeller shafting Packing with low pressure hydraulic piping flange
Packing with casing Clutch Brake lining Synthetic stern tubes
Diesel engine Packing with piping flange Lagging material for fuel pipe Lagging material for exhaust pipe Lagging material turbocharger
Turbine engine Lagging material for casing Packing with flange of piping and valve for steam line, exhaust line and drain line Lagging material for piping and valve of steam line, exhaust line and drain line
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 27
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Structure and/or equipment Component Boiler Insulation in combustion chamber
Packing for casing door Lagging material for exhaust pipe Gasket for manhole Gasket for hand hole Gas shield packing for soot blower and other hole Packing with flange of piping and valve for steam line, exhaust line, fuel line and drain line Lagging material for piping and valve of steam line, exhaust line, fuel line and drain line
Exhaust gas economizer Packing for casing door Packing with manhole Packing with hand hole Gas shield packing for soot blower Packing with flange of piping and valve for steam line, exhaust line, fuel line and drain line Lagging material for piping and valve of steam line, exhaust line, fuel line and drain line
Incinerator Packing for casing door Packing with manhole Packing with hand hole Lagging material for exhaust pipe
Auxiliary machinery (pump, compressor, oil purifier, crane)
Packing for casing door and valve Gland packing Brake lining
Heat exchanger Packing with casing Gland packing for valve Lagging material and insulation
Valve Gland packing with valve, sheet packing with piping flange Gasket with flange of high pressure and/or high temperature
Pipe, duct Lagging material and insulation Tank (fuel tank, hot water, tank, condenser), other equipments (fuel strainer, lubricant oil strainer)
Lagging material and insulation
Electric equipment Insulation material Airborne asbestos Wall, ceiling Ceiling, floor and wall in accommodation area
Ceiling, floor, wall
Fire door Packing, construction and insulation of the fire door Inert gas system Packing for casing, etc. Air-conditioning system Sheet packing, lagging material for piping and flexible
joint
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 28
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Structure and/or equipment Component Miscellaneous Ropes
Thermal insulating materials Fire shields/fire proofing Space/duct insulation Electrical cable materials Brake linings Floor tiles/deck underlay Steam/water/vent flange gaskets Adhesives/mastics/fillers Sound damping Moulded plastic products Sealing putty Shaft/valve packing Electrical bulkhead penetration packing Circuit breaker arc chutes Pipe hanger inserts Weld shop protectors/burn covers Fire-fighting blankets/clothing/equipment Concrete ballast
2.2.2.2 Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) Worldwide restriction of PCBs began on 17 May 2004 as a result of the implementation of the Stockholm Convention, which aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic pollutants. In Japan, domestic control began in 1973, with the prohibition of all activities relating to the production, use and import of PCBs. Japanese suppliers can provide accurate information concerning their products. The "Indicative list" of PCBs has been developed as shown below:
Equipment Component of equipment Transformer Insulating oil Condenser Insulating oil Fuel heater Heating medium Electric cable Covering, insulating tape Lubricating oil Heat oil Thermometers, sensors, indicators Rubber/felt gaskets Rubber hose Plastic foam insulation Thermal insulating materials Voltage regulators Switches/reclosers/bushings Electromagnets Adhesives/tapes Surface contamination of machinery Oil-based paint Caulking Rubber isolation mounts Pipe hangers
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 29
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Equipment Component of equipment Light ballasts (component within fluorescent light fixtures)
Plasticizers Felt under septum plates on top of hull bottom
2.2.2.3 Ozone depleting substances The "Indicative list" for Ozone depleting substances is shown below. Ozone depleting substances have been controlled according to the Montreal Protocol and MARPOL Convention. Although almost all substances have been banned since 1996, HCFC can still be used until 2020. Materials Component of equipment Period for use of ODS in Japan CFCs (R11, R12) Refrigerant for refrigerators Until 1996 CFCs Urethane formed material Until 1996
Blowing agent for insulation of LNG carriers
Until 1996
Halons Extinguishing agent Until 1994 Other fully halogenated CFCs
The possibility of usage in ships is low
Until 1996
Carbon tetrachloride The possibility of usage in ships is low
Until 1996
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform)
The possibility of usage in ships is low
Until 1996
HCFC (R22, R141b) Refrigerant for refrigerating machine
It is possible to use it until 2020
HBFC The possibility of usage in ships is low
Until 1996
Methyl bromide The possibility of usage in ships is low
Until 2005
2.2.2.4 Organotin compounds Organotin compounds include Tributyl tins (TBT), Triphenyl tins (TPT) and Tributyl tin oxide (TBTO). Organotin compounds have been used as anti-fouling paint on ships' bottoms and the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships (AFS Convention) stipulates that all ships shall not apply or re-apply organotin compounds after 1 January 2003, and that, after 1 January 2008, all ships shall either not bear such compounds on their hulls or shall bear a coating that forms a barrier preventing such compounds from leaching into the sea. The above-mentioned dates may have been extended by permission of the Administration bearing in mind that the AFS Convention entered into force on 17 September 2008. 2.2.3 Materials listed in Table B For existing ships it is not obligatory for materials listed in Table B to be listed in Part I of the Inventory. However, if they can be identified in a practical way, they should be listed in the Inventory, because the information will be used to support ship recycling processes. The Indicative list of materials listed in Table B is shown below:
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 30
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Materials Component of equipment Cadmium and cadmium compounds Nickel-cadmium battery, plating film, bearing Hexavalent chromium compounds Plating film Mercury and mercury compounds Fluorescent light, mercury lamp, mercury cell,
liquid-level switch, gyro compass, thermometer, measuring tool, manganese cell, pressure sensors, light fittings, electrical switches, fire detectors
Lead and lead compounds Lead-acid storage battery, corrosion-resistant primer, solder (almost all electric appliances contain solder), paints, preservative coatings, cable insulation, lead ballast, generators
Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) Non-flammable plastics Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE)
Non-flammable plastics
Polychlorinated naphthalenes Paint, lubricating oil Radioactive substances Fluorescent paint, ionic type smoke detector, level
gauge Certain shortchain chlorinated paraffins Non-flammable plastics 3 Step 2: Assessment of collected information Preparation of a checklist is an efficient method for developing the Inventory for existing ships in order to clarify the results of each step. Based on collected information including the "Indicative list" mentioned in Step 1, all equipment, systems, and/or areas onboard assumed to contain Hazardous Materials listed in Tables A and B should be included in the checklist. Each listed equipment, system, and/or area on board should be analysed and assessed for its Hazardous Materials content. The existence and volume of Hazardous Materials may be judged and calculated from the Spare parts and tools list and the Maker's drawings. The existence of asbestos contained in floors, ceilings and walls may be identified from Fire Protection Plans, while the existence of TBT in coatings can be identified from the International Anti-Fouling System Certificate, Coating scheme and the History of Paint.
Example of weight calculation
No. Hazardous Materials
Location/Equipment/ Component
Reference Calculation
1.1-2 TBT Flat bottom/paint History of coatings 1.2-1 Asbestos Main engine/
Exh. pipe packing Spare parts and tools list
250 g x 14 sheet = 3.50 kg
1.2-3 HCFC Ref. provision plant Maker's drawings 20 kg x 1 cylinder = 20 kg 1.2-4 Lead Batteries Maker's drawings 6 kg x 16 unit = 96 kg 1.3-1 Asbestos Engine-room ceiling Accommodation
plan
When a component or coating is determined to contain Hazardous Materials, a "Y" should be entered in the column for "Result of document analysis" in the checklist, to denote "Contained". Likewise, when an item is determined not to contain Hazardous Materials, the entry "N" should be made in the column to denote "Not contained". When a determination cannot be made as to the Hazardous Materials content, the column should be completed with the entry "Unknown".
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 3
, pag
e 31
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
.doc
Che
cklis
t (St
ep 2
)
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 32
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4 Step 3: Preparation of visual/sampling check plan Each item classified as "Contained" or "Not contained" in Step 2 should be subjected to a visual check on board, and the entry "V" should be made in the "Check procedure" column to denote "Visual check". For each item categorized as "unknown", a decision should be made as to whether to apply a sampling check. However, any item categorized as "unknown" may be classed as "potentially containing Hazardous Material" provided comprehensive justification is given, or if it can be assumed that there will be little or no effect on disassembly as a unit and later ship recycling and disposal operations. For example, in the following checklist, in order to carry out a sampling check for "Packing with aux. boiler" the shipowner needs to disassemble the auxiliary boiler in a repair yard. The costs of this check are significantly higher than the later disposal costs at a Ship Recycling Facility. In this case, therefore, the classification as "potentially containing Hazardous Material" is justifiable.
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 3
, pag
e 33
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
.doc
Che
cklis
t (St
ep 3
)
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 34
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Before any visual/sampling check on board is conducted, a "visual/sampling check plan" should be prepared. An example of such a plan is shown below. To prevent any incidents during the visual/sampling check, a schedule should be established to eliminate interference with other ongoing work on board. To prevent potential exposure to Hazardous Materials during the visual/sampling check, safety precautions should be in place on board. For example, sampling of potential asbestos containing materials could release fibres into the atmosphere. Therefore, appropriate personnel safety and containment procedures should be implemented prior to sampling. Items listed in the visual/sampling check should be arranged in sequence so that the onboard check is conducted in a structured manner (e.g., from a lower level to an upper level and from a fore part to an aft part).
Example of visual/sampling check plan
Name of ship XXXXXXXXXX IMO Number XXXXXXXXXX Gross Tonnage 28,000 GT L x B x D xxx.xx × xx.xx × xx.xx m Date of delivery dd.mm.1987 Shipowner XXXXXXXXXX Contact point (Tel.,Fax, E-mail, address)
XXXXXXXXXX Tel: XXXX-XXXX Fax: XXXX-XXXX E-mail: [email protected]
Check schedule Visual check dd, mm, 20XX Sampling check dd, mm, 20XX
Site of check XX shipyard, No. Dock In charge of check XXXX XXXX Check engineer XXXX XXXX, YYYY YYYY, ZZZZ ZZZZ Sampling engineer Person with specialized knowledge of sampling Sampling method and anti-scattering measure for asbestos
Wet the sampling location prior to cutting and allow it to harden after cutting to prevent scatter.
Notes: Workers performing sampling activities shall wear protective equipment.
Sampling of fragments of paints Paints suspected to contain TBT should be collected and analysed from load line, directly under bilge keel and flat bottom near amidships.
Laboratory QQQQ QQQQ Chemical analysis method Method by ISO/DIS 22262-1 Bulk materials--Part 1:
Sampling and qualitative determination of asbestos in commercial bulk materials and ISO/CD 22262-2 Bulk materials – Part 2: Quantitative determination of asbestos by gravimetric and microscopic methods. ICP Luminous analysis (TBT)
Location of visual/sampling check Refer to lists for visual/sampling check
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 35
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Listing for equipment, system and/or area for visual check See attached "Analysis and definition of scope of investigation for sample ship"
List of equipment, system and/or area for sampling check
Location Equipment, machinery and/or zone
Name of parts Materials
Result of doc. checking
Upper Deck Back deck ceilings Engine-room ceiling
Asbestos Unknown
Engine-room Exhaust gas pipe Insulation Asbestos Unknown Engine-room Pipe/flange Gasket Asbestos Unknown Refer to attached "Analysis and definition of scope of investigation for sample ship" and "Location plan of Hazardous Materials for sample ship"
List of equipment, system and/or area classed as PCHM
Location Equipment, machinery and/or zone Name of part Material
Result of doc. checking
Floor Propeller cap Gasket Asbestos PCHM Engine-room Air operated shut-off
valve Gland packing
Asbestos PCHM
Refer to attached "Analysis and definition of scope of investigation for sample ship" and "Location plan of Hazardous Materials for sample ship"
This plan is established in accordance with the Guidelines for the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials
Document check date/place dd, mm, 20XX at XX Lines Co. Ltd.
Preparation date of plan dd. mm, 20XX
Prepared by XXXX XXXX
Tel. YYYY-YYYY
E-Mail [email protected]
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 36
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
5 Step 4: Onboard visual/sampling check The visual/sampling check should be conducted according to the plan. Check points should be marked in the ship's plan or recorded with photographs. A person taking samples should be protected by the appropriate safety equipment relevant to the suspected type of hazardous materials encountered. Appropriate safety precautions should also be in place for passengers, crewmembers and other persons on board, to minimize the potential exposure to hazardous materials. Safety precautions could include the posting of signs or other verbal or written notification for personnel to avoid such areas during sampling. The personnel taking samples should ensure compliance with relevant national regulations. The results of visual/sampling checks should be recorded in the checklist. Any equipment, systems and/or areas of the ship that cannot be accessed for checks should be classified as "potentially containing Hazardous Material". In this case, the entry in the "Result of check" column should be "PCHM". 6 Step 5: Preparation of Part I of the Inventory and related documentation 6.1 Development of Part I of the Inventory The results of the check and the estimated quantity of Hazardous Materials should be recorded on the checklist. Part I of the Inventory should be developed with reference to the checklist. 6.2 Development of location diagram of Hazardous Materials With respect to Part I of the Inventory, the development of a location diagram of Hazardous Materials is recommended in order to help the Ship Recycling Facility gain a visual understanding of the Inventory.
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 3
, pag
e 37
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
.doc
Che
cklis
t (St
ep 4
and
Ste
p 5)
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 3
, pag
e 38
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24.d
oc
Exam
ple
of th
e In
vent
ory
for e
xist
ing
ship
s
Inve
ntor
y of
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ials
fo
r "Sa
mpl
e Sh
ip"
P
artic
ular
s of
the
"Sam
ple
Shi
p"
D
istin
ctiv
e nu
mbe
r or l
ette
rs
XX
XX
NN
N
Por
t of r
egis
try
Por
t of W
orld
Ty
pe o
f ves
sel
Bul
k ca
rrie
r G
ross
Ton
nage
28
,000
GT
IMO
num
ber
Nam
e of
shi
pbui
lder
N
NN
NN
NN
xx
Shi
pbui
ldin
g C
o. L
td
Nam
e of
shi
pow
ner
yy M
ariti
me
SA
D
ate
of d
eliv
ery
MM
/DD
/198
8
This
inve
ntor
y w
as d
evel
oped
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e G
uide
lines
for t
he d
evel
opm
ent o
f the
Inve
ntor
y of
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ials
.
Atta
chm
ent:
1:
Inve
ntor
y of
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ials
2:
A
sses
smen
t of c
olle
cted
info
rmat
ion
3:
Loca
tion
diag
ram
of H
azar
dous
Mat
eria
ls
*
Pre
pare
d by
XY
Z (N
ame
& a
ddre
ss)(
mm
/dd/
20X
X)
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 3
, pag
e 39
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
.doc
Inve
ntor
y of
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ials
: "Sa
mpl
e Sh
ip"
Pa
rt I
HA
ZAR
DO
US
MA
TER
IALS
CO
NTA
INED
IN T
HE
SHIP
'S S
TRU
CTU
RE
AN
D E
QU
IPM
ENT
I-1
Pa
ints
and
coa
ting
syst
ems
cont
aini
ng m
ater
ials
list
ed in
Tab
le A
and
Tab
le B
of a
ppen
dix
1 of
the
Gui
delin
es
N
o . Ap
plic
atio
n of
pai
nt
Nam
e of
pai
nt
Loca
tion
*1
Mat
eria
ls
(cla
ssifi
catio
n in
ap
pend
ix 1
) A
ppro
x. q
uant
ity
Rem
arks
1
AF
pain
t U
nkno
wn
pain
ts
Flat
bot
tom
TB
T 60
.00
kg
Con
firm
ed b
y sa
mpl
ing
2
3
I-2
Eq
uipm
ent a
nd m
achi
nery
con
tain
ing
mat
eria
ls li
sted
in T
able
A a
nd T
able
B o
f app
endi
x 1
of th
e G
uide
lines
N
o . N
ame
of e
quip
men
t and
mac
hine
ry
Loca
tion
*1
Mat
eria
ls
(cla
ssifi
catio
n in
ap
pend
ix 1
) P
arts
whe
re u
sed
Appr
ox.
quan
tity
Rem
arks
1
Mai
n en
gine
Lo
wer
floo
r As
best
os
Exh.
pip
e pa
ckin
g 3.
50kg
2
Aux.
boi
ler
3rd
deck
As
best
os
Unk
now
n pa
ckin
g 10
.00
kg
PCH
M (p
oten
tially
co
ntai
ning
Haz
ardo
us
Mat
eria
l)
3 P
ipin
g/fla
nge
Eng
ine-
room
A
sbes
tos
Pac
king
50
.00
kg
PC
HM
4 R
ef. p
rovi
sion
pla
nt
2nd
deck
H
CFC
R
efrig
eran
t (R
22)
20.0
0kg
5
Bat
terie
s N
avig
. Brid
ge d
eck
Lead
96.0
0 kg
I-3
St
ruct
ure
and
hull
cont
aini
ng m
ater
ials
list
ed in
Tab
le A
and
Tab
le B
of a
ppen
dix
1 of
the
Gui
delin
es
N
o . N
ame
of s
truct
ural
ele
men
t Lo
catio
n *1
M
ater
ials
(c
lass
ifica
tion
in
appe
ndix
1)
Par
ts w
here
use
dAp
prox
. qu
antit
y R
emar
ks
1
Back
dec
k ce
iling
U
pper
dec
k
Asbe
stos
E
ngin
e-ro
om
ceilin
g (A
cla
ss)
3.80
kg
C
onfir
med
by
sam
plin
g
2
3
*1Ea
ch it
em s
houl
d be
ent
ered
in o
rder
bas
ed o
n its
loca
tion,
from
a lo
wer
leve
l to
an u
pper
leve
l and
from
a fo
re p
art t
o an
aft
part.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 40
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Example of location diagram of Hazardous Materials
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 41
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
APPENDIX 6
FORM OF MATERIAL DECLARATION
<Date of declaration>
Date
<MD ID number> <Supplier (respondent) information> MD- ID-No. Company name
Division name
<Other information> Address
Remark 1 Contact person
Remark 2 Telephone number
Remark 3 Fax number
E-mail address
SDoC ID no.:
<Product information>
Product name Product number Delivered unit
Product information Amount Unit
<Materials information> Piece kg m m3 litre
Unit Yes No g
This materials information shows the amount of hazardous materials contained in 1 (unit: piece, kg, m, m2, m3, etc) of the product.
Table Material name Threshold level
Presentabove threshold
level If yes,
material mass If yes, information on where it is used
Yes / No Mass Unit
Table A
(materials listed in
appendix 1 of the
Convention)
Asbestos Asbestos no threshold level
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
no threshold level
Ozone depleting substance
Chlorofluorocaobons (CFCs)
no threshold level
Halons Other fully halogenated CFCs
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Hydrochlorofluorocaobons
Hydrobromofluorocaobons
Methyl bromide
Bromochloromethane Anti-fouling
systems containing organotin
compounds as a biocide
2,500 mg total tin/kg
Table Material name Threshold level
Presentabove threshold
level If yes,
material mass If yes, information on where it is used
Yes / No Mass Unit
Table B
(materials listed in
appendix 2 of the
Convention)
Cadmium and cadmium compounds 100 mg/kg
Hexavalent chromium and hexavalent chromium compounds 1,000 mg/kg
Lead and lead compounds 1,000 mg/kg
Mercury and mercury compounds 1,000 mg/kg
Polybrominated biphenyl (PBBs) 1,000 mg/kg
Polybrominated dephenyl ethers (PBDEs) 1,000 mg/kg
Polychloronaphthalenes (Cl >= 3) no threshold level
Radioactive substances no threshold level
Certain shortchain chlorinated paraffins 1%
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 42
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
APPENDIX 7
FORM OF SUPPLIER'S DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY
Supplier's Declaration of Conformity for Material Declaration management
1) Identification number: __________
2) Issuer's name: Issuer's address: 3) Object(s) of the declaration:
4) The object(s) of the declaration described above is in conformity with the following documents Document No.: Title: Edition/date of issue 5)
6) Additional information
Signed for and on behalf of:
(Place and date of issue)
7)
(Name, function) (Signature)
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 43
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
APPENDIX 8
EXAMPLES OF TABLE A AND TABLE B MATERIALS OF APPENDIX 1 WITH CAS NUMBERS
*This list is developed with reference to Joint Industry Guide No.101.
* This list is not exhaustive; it represents examples of chemicals with known CAS numbers and may require periodical updating.
Table Material Category Substances CAS Numbers
Table A (materials listed in
appendix 1 of the
Convention) Asbestos
Asbestos 1332-21-4 Actinolite 77536-66-4 Amosite (Grunerite) 12172-73-5 Anthophyllite 77536-67-5 Chrysotile 12001-29-5 Crocidolite 12001-28-4 Tremolite 77536-68-6
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Polychlorinated biphenyls 1336-36-3 Aroclor 12767-79-2 Chlorodiphenyl (Aroclor 1260) 11096-82-5 Kanechlor 500 27323-18-8 Aroclor 1254 11097-69-1
Ozone depleting substances/ isomers (they may contain isomers that are not listed here)
Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC11) 75-69-4 Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC12) 75-71-8 Chlorotrifluoromethane (CFC 13) 75-72-9 Pentachlorofluoroethane (CFC 111) 354-56-3 Tetrachlorodifluoroethane (CFC 112) 76-12-0 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC 113) 354-58-5 1,1,2 Trichloro-1,2,2 trifluoroethane 76-13-1 Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC 114) 76-14-2 Monochloropentafluoroethane (CFC 115) 76-15-3
Heptachlorofluoropropane (CFC 211) 422-78-6 135401-87-5
Hexachlorodifluoropropane (CFC 212) 3182-26-1
Pentachlorotrifluoropropane (CFC 213) 2354-06-5 134237-31-3
Tetrachlorotetrafluoropropane (CFC 214) 1,1,1,3-Tetrachlorotetrafluoropropane
29255-31-0 2268-46-4
Trichloropentafluoropropane (CFC 215) 1,1,1-Trichloropentafluoropropane 1,2,3-Trichloropentafluoropropane
1599-41-3 4259-43-2 76-17-5
Dichlorohexafluoropropane (CFC 216) 661-97-2 Monochloroheptafluoropropane (CFC 217) 422-86-6 Bromochlorodifluoromethane (Halon 1211) 353-59-3 Bromotrifluoromethane (Halon 1301) 75-63-8 Dibromotetrafluoroethane (Halon 2402) 124-73-2 Carbon tetrachloride (Tetrachloromethane) 56-23-5 1,1,1, - Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) and its isomers except 1,1,2-trichloroethane 71-55-6
Bromomethane (Methyl bromide) 74-83-9 Bromodifluoromethane and isomers (HBFC’s) 1511-62-2 Dichlorofluoromethane (HCFC 21) 75-43-4 Chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC 22) 75-45-6 Chlorofluoromethane (HCFC 31) 593-70-4 Tetrachlorofluoroethane (HCFC 121) 1,1,1,2-tetrachloro-2-fluoroethane (HCFC 121a) 1,1,2,2-tetracloro-1-fluoroethane
134237-32-4 354-11-0 354-14-3
Trichlorodifluoroethane (HCFC 122) 1,2,2-trichloro-1,1-difluoroethane
41834-16-6 354-21-2
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 44
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
*This list is developed with reference to Joint Industry Guide No.101. * This list is not exhaustive; it represents examples of chemicals with known CAS numbers and may require
periodical updating.
Table Material Category Substances CAS Numbers Dichlorotrifluoroethane(HCFC 123) Dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane 2,2-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluroethane 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluroethane (HCFC-123a) 1,1-dichloro-1,2,2-trifluroethane (HCFC-123b) 2,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluroethane (HCFC-123b)
34077-87-7 90454-18-5 306-83-2 354-23-4 812-04-4 812-04-4
Chlorotetrafluoroethane (HCFC 124) 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane 1-chloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC 124a)
63938-10-3 2837-89-0 354-25-6
Trichlorofluoroethane (HCFC 131) 1-Fluoro-1,2,2-trichloroethane 1,1,1-trichloro-2-fluoroethane (HCFC131b)
27154-33-2; (134237-34-6) 359-28-4 811-95-0
Dichlorodifluoroethane (HCFC 132) 1,2-dichloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC 132b) 1,1-dichloro-1,2-difluoroethane (HFCF 132c) 1,1-dichloro-2,2-difluoroethane 1,2-dichloro-1,2-difluoroethane
25915-78-0 1649-08-7 1842-05-3 471-43-2 431-06-1
Chlorotrifluoroethane (HCFC 133) 1-chloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HCFC-133a)
1330-45-6 1330-45-6 75-88-7
Dichlorofluoroethane(HCFC 141) 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b) 1,2-dichloro-1-fluoroethane
1717-00-6; (25167-88-8) 1717-00-6 430-57-9
Chlorodifluoroethane (HCFC 142) 1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC142b) 1-chloro-1,2-difluoroethane (HCFC142a)
25497-29-4 75-68-3 25497-29-4
Hexachlorofluoropropane (HCFC 221) 134237-35-7 Pentachlorodifluoropropane (HCFC 222) 134237-36-8 Tetrachlorotrifluropropane (HCFC 223) 134237-37-9 Trichlorotetrafluoropropane (HCFC 224) 134237-38-0 Dichloropentafluoropropane, (Ethyne, fluoro-) (HCFC 225) 127564-92-5; (2713-09-9) 2,2-Dichloro-1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane(HCFC 225aa) 128903-21-9 2,3-Dichloro-1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC 225ba) 422-48-0 1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC 225bb) 422-44-6 3,3-Dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC 225ca) 422-56-0 1,3-Dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC 225cb) 507-55-1 1,1-Dichloro-1,2,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane(HCFC 225cc) 13474-88-9 1,2-Dichloro-1,1,3,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC 225da) 431-86-7 1,3-Dichloro-1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC 225ea) 136013-79-1 1,1-Dichloro-1,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropane(HCFC 225eb) 111512-56-2 Chlorohexafluoropropane (HCFC 226) 134308-72-8 Pentachlorofluoropropane (HCFC 231) 134190-48-0 Tetrachlorodifluoropropane (HCFC 232) 134237-39-1 Trichlorotrifluoropropane (HCFC 233) 134237-40-4 1,1,1-Trichloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropane 7125-83-9 Dichlorotetrafluoropropane (HCFC 234) 127564-83-4 Chloropentafluoropropane (HCFC 235) 134237-41-5 1-Chloro-1,1,3,3,3-pentafluoropropane 460-92-4 Tetrachlorofluoropropane (HCFC 241) 134190-49-1 Trichlorodifluoropropane (HCFC 242) 134237-42-6 Dichlorotrifluoropropane (HCFC 243) 1,1-dichloro-1,2,2-trifluoropropane 2,3-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoropropane 3,3-Dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoropropane
134237-43-7 7125-99-7 338-75-0 460-69-5
Chlorotetrafluoropropane (HCFC 244) 134190-50-4 3-chloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoropropane 679-85-6
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 45
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
*This list is developed with reference to Joint Industry Guide No.101. * This list is not exhaustive; it represents examples of chemicals with known CAS numbers and may require
periodical updating.
Table Material Category Substances CAS Numbers Trichlorofluoropropane (HCFC 251) 134190-51-5 1,1,3-trichloro-1-fluoropropane 818-99-5 Dichlorodifluoropropane (HCFC 252) 134190-52-6 Chlorotrifluoropropane (HCFC 253) 134237-44-8 3-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoropropane (HCFC 253fb) 460-35-5 Dichlorofluoropropane (HCFC 261) 134237-45-9 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoropropane 7799-56-6 Chlorodifluoropropane (HCFC 262) 134190-53-7 2-chloro-1,3-difluoropropane 102738-79-4 Chlorofluoropropane (HCFC 271) 134190-54-8 2-chloro-2-fluoropropane 420-44-0
Organotin compounds (tributyl tin, triphenyl tin, tributyl tin oxide)
Bis(tri-n-butyltin) oxide 56-35-9 Triphenyltin N,N'-dimethyldithiocarbamate 1803-12-9 Triphenyltin fluoride 379-52-2 Triphenyltin acetate 900-95-8 Triphenyltin chloride 639-58-7 Triphenyltin hydroxide 76-87-9 Triphenyltin fatty acid salts (C=9-11) 47672-31-1 Triphenyltin chloroacetate 7094-94-2 Tributyltin methacrylate 2155-70-6 Bis(tributyltin) fumarate 6454-35-9 Tributyltin fluoride 1983-10-4 Bis(tributyltin) 2,3-dibromosuccinate 31732-71-5 Tributyltin acetate 56-36-0 Tributyltin laurate 3090-36-6 Bis(tributyltin) phthalate 4782-29-0 Copolymer of alkyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate and tributyltin methacrylate(alkyl; C=8) -
Tributyltin sulfamate 6517-25-5 Bis(tributyltin) maleate 14275-57-1 Tributyltin chloride 1461-22-9 Mixture of tributyltin cyclopentanecarboxylate and its analogs (Tributyltin naphthenate) -
Mixture of tributyltin 1,2,3,4,4a, 4b, 5,6,10,10adecahydro-7-isopropyl-1, 4a-dimethyl-1-phenanthlenecarboxylate and its analogs (Tributyltin rosin salt)
-
Other tributyl tins & triphenyl tins -
Table B (Materials listed in
appendix 2 of the
Convention)
Cadmium/ cadmium compounds
Cadmium 7440-43-9 Cadmium oxide 1306-19-0 Cadmium sulfide 1306-23-6 Cadmium chloride 10108-64-2 Cadmium sulfate 10124-36-4 Other cadmium compounds -
Chromium VI compounds
Chromium (VI) oxide 1333-82-0 Barium chromate 10294-40-3 Calcium chromate 13765-19-0 Chromium trioxide 1333-82-0 Lead (II) chromate 7758-97-6 Sodium chromate 7775-11-3 Sodium dichromate 10588-01-9 Strontium chromate 7789-06-2 Potassium dichromate 7778-50-9 Potassium chromate 7789-00-6 Zinc chromate 13530-65-9 Other hexavalent chromium compounds -
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 46
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
*This list is developed with reference to Joint Industry Guide No.101. * This list is not exhaustive; it represents examples of chemicals with known CAS numbers and may require
periodical updating.
Table Material Category Substances CAS Numbers
Lead/lead compounds
Lead 7439-92-1 Lead (II) sulfate 7446-14-2 Lead (II) carbonate 598-63-0 Lead hydrocarbonate 1319-46-6 Lead acetate 301-04-2 Lead (II) acetate, trihydrate 6080-56-4 Lead phosphate 7446-27-7 Lead selenide 12069-00-0 Lead (IV) oxide 1309-60-0 Lead (II,IV) oxide 1314-41-6 Lead (II) sulfide 1314-87-0 Lead (II) oxide 1317-36-8 Lead (II) carbonate basic 1319-46-6 Lead hydroxidcarbonate 1344-36-1 Lead (II) phosphate 7446-27-7 Lead (II) chromate 7758-97-6 Lead (II) titanate 12060-00-3 Lead sulfate, sulphuric acid, lead salt 15739-80-7 Lead sulphate, tribasic 12202-17-4 Lead stearate 1072-35-1 Other lead compounds -
Mercury/ mercury compounds
Mercury 7439-97-6 Mercuric chloride 33631-63-9 Mercury (II) chloride 7487-94-7 Mercuric sulfate 7783-35-9 Mercuric nitrate 10045-94-0 Mercuric (II) oxide 21908-53-2 Mercuric sulfide 1344-48-5 Other mercury compounds -
Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
Bromobiphenyl and its ethers
2052-07-5 (2-Bromobiphenyl) 2113-57-7 (3-Bromobiphenyl 92-66-0 (4-Bromobiphenyl) 101-55-3 (ether)
Decabromobiphenyl and its ethers 13654-09-6 1163-19-5 (ether)
Dibromobiphenyl and its ethers 92-86-4 2050-47-7 (ether)
Heptabromobiphenylether 68928-80-3
Hexabromobiphenyl and its ethers
59080-40-9 36355-01-8 (hexabromo-1,1’-biphenyl) 67774-32-7 (Firemaster FF-1) 36483-60-0 (ether)
Nonabromobiphenylether 63936-56-1
Octabromobiphenyl and its ethers 61288-13-9 32536-52-0 (ether)
Pentabromobidphenyl ether (note: commercially available PeBDPO is a complex reaction mixture containing a variety of brominated diphenyloxides.
32534-81-9 (CAS number used for commercial grades of PeBDPO)
Polybrominated biphenyls 59536-65-1
Tetrabromobiphenyl and its ethers 40088-45-7 40088-47-9 (ether)
Tribromobiphenyl ether 49690-94-0 Polychlorinated naphthalenes
Polychlorinated naphthalenes 70776-03-3 Other polychlorinated naphthalenes -
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 47
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
*This list is developed with reference to Joint Industry Guide No.101. * This list is not exhaustive; it represents examples of chemicals with known CAS numbers and may require
periodical updating.
Table Material Category Substances CAS Numbers
Radioactive substances
Uranium - Plutonium - Radon - Americium - Thorium - Cesium 7440-46-2 Strontium 7440-24-6 Other radioactive substances -
Certain shortchain chlorinated paraffins (with carbon length of 10-13 atoms)
Chlorinated paraffins (C10-13) 85535-84-8
Other short chain chlorinated paraffins -
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 48
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
APPENDIX 9
SPECIFIC TEST METHODS 1 Asbestos Types to test for: as per resolution MEPC.179(59); Actinolite CAS 77536-66-4 Amosite (Grunerite) CAS 12172-73-5 Anthophyllite CAS 77536-67-5 Chrysotile CAS 12001-29-5 Crocidolite CAS 12001-28-4 Asbestos Tremolite CAS 77536-68-6. Specific testing techniques: Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM), electron microscope techniques and/or X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) as applicable. Specific reporting information: The presence/no presence of asbestos, indicate the concentration range, and state the type when necessary.
Notes:
.1 The suggested three kinds of testing techniques are most commonly used methods when analysing asbestos and each of them has its limitation. Laboratories should choose the most suitable methods to determine, and in most cases, two or more techniques should be utilized together.
.2 The quantification of asbestos is difficult at this stage, although the XRD
technique is applicable. Only a few laboratories conduct the quantification rather than the qualification, especially when a precise number is required. Considering the demand from the operators and ship recycling parties, the precise concentration is not strictly required. Thereby, the concentration range is recommended to report, and the recommended range division according to standard VDI 3866 is as follows:
Asbestos not detected Traces of asbestos detected Asbestos content approx. 1% to 15% by mass Asbestos content approx. 15% to 40% by mass Asbestos content greater than 40% by mass
Results that specified more precisely must be provided with a reasoned statement on the uncertainty.
.3 As to the asbestos types, to distinguish all six different types is time
consuming and in some cases not feasible by current techniques; while on the practical side, the treatment of different types of asbestos is the same. Therefore, it is suggested to report the type when necessary.
2 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Note: there are 209 different congeners (forms) of PCB of it is impracticable to test for all. Various organizations have developed lists of PCBs to test for as indicators. In this instance two alternative approaches are recommended. Method 1 identifies the seven congeners used by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Method 2 identifies 19 congeners and 7 types of aroclor (PCB mixtures commonly found in solid shipboard materials containing PCBs). Laboratories should be familiar with the requirements and consequences for each of these lists.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 49
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Types to test for: Method 1: ICES7 congeners (28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153, 180). Method 2: 19 congeners and 7 types of aroclor, using the US EPA 8082a test. Specific testing technique: GC-MS (congener specific) or GC-ECD or GC-ELCD for applicable mixtures such as aroclors. Note: standard samples must be used for each type. Sample Preparation: It is important to properly prepare PCB samples prior to testing. For solid materials (cables, rubber, paint, etc.), it is especially critical to select the proper extraction procedure in order to release PCBs since they are chemically bound within the product. Specific reporting information: PCB congener, ppm per congener in sample, and for Method 2, ppm per aroclor in sample should also be reported. Notes:
1 Certain field or indicator tests are suitable for detecting PCBs in liquids or surfaces. However, there are currently no such tests that can accurately identify PCBs in solid shipboard materials. It is also noted that many of these tests rely on the identification of free chlorine ions and are thus highly susceptible to chlorine contamination and false readings in a marine environment where all surfaces are highly contaminated with chlorine ions from the sea water and atmosphere.
2 Several congeners are tested for as "indicator" congeners. They are used
because their presence often indicates the likelihood of other congeners in greater quantities (many PCBs are mixes, many mixes use a limited number of PCBs in small quantities, therefore the presence of these small quantities indicates the potential for a mix containing far higher quantities of other PCBs).
3 Many reports refer to "total PCB", which is often a scaled figure to
represent likely total PCBs based on the sample and the common ratios of PCB mixes. Where this is done the exact scaling technique must be stated, and is for information only and does not form part of the specific technique.
3 Ozone Depleting Substances Types to test for: as per appendix 8 of these guidelines all the listed CFCs, Halons, HCFCs and other listed substance as required by Montreal Protocol. Specific testing technique: Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS), coupled Electron Capture Detectors (GC-ECD) and Electrolytic Conductivity Detectors (GC-ELCD). Specific reporting information: Type and concentration of ODS. 4 Anti-fouling systems containing organotin compounds as a biocide Types to test for: Anti-fouling compounds and systems regulated under Annex I to the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 (AFS Convention), including: Tributyl tins (TBT), Triphenyl tins (TPT) and Tributyl tin oxide (TBTO).
MEPC 62/24 Annex 3, page 50
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Specific testing technique: As per resolution MEPC.104(49) (Guidelines for Brief Sampling of Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships), adopted 18 July 2003, using ICPOES, ICP, AAS, XRF, GC-MS as applicable. Specific reporting information: Type and concentration of organotin compound. Note: For "field" or "indicative" testing it may be acceptable to simply identify presence of tin, due to the expected good documentation on anti fouling systems.
***
MEPC 62/24 Annex 4, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 4
INTERVENTIONS BY THE DELEGATION OF NORWAY ON FUEL OIL QUALITY Introduction of document MEPC 62/4/4 The Committee may recall that at its last session, Norway and INTERTANKO submitted a document MEPC 61/4/7 suggesting an urgent need for a stricter monitoring and enforcement of certain provisions of regulations 14 and 18 of MARPOL Annex VI. In brief, it called for a stricter control on bunkers delivered to ships. The Committee forwarded the document to BLG 15 for further consideration. In addition, Norway and INTERTANKO submitted at BLG 15, an additional document (BLG 15/11/4) with more concrete suggestions how we believe stricter monitoring can be achieved. As a result of extensive discussions, BLG 15 required that more information and data be supplied to enable appropriate consideration (paragraph 11.32 of document BLG 15/19). In document MEPC 62/4/4, Norway and INTERTANKO submitted data and the consequences on ships of problematic bunker supply for the recent years. This data was collected from two bunker testing laboratories and probably represents the status for roughly 50% of all bunker deliveries that are tested by shipowners worldwide. As an overview from one of the laboratories, and based upon the analysis of more than 100,000 bunker samples or bunkering events, the receiving vessels have reported that on 1,468 occasions they have had machinery problems as a result of using the fuels as supplied. When extrapolated to the total, this would represent a figure of approximately 1.4% of all bunkering worldwide but many experts and many ship operators say these figures are only the tip of the iceberg as many incidents remain unreported or not further investigated. Annexes 1 and 2 to this document supply examples of a selection of incidents related to poor quality bunkers that exposed ships and crew to unsafe situations. I wish to invite the Committee to note the significant number of cases of chemical contaminants in bunkers delivered to ships and the significant number of damages caused to ships' installations by bunkers which are definitely off the specifications in ISO 8217:2005. The data presented provides information on the type of fuel, be it regular HFO or low sulphur content HFO or even MDO/MGO. The data also provides information on the flags of ships involved and the ports from where these contaminated and poor quality bunkers have been delivered. Mr. Chairman, this document presents real facts as reported by ships where safety was put in jeopardy by the bunkers delivered to them. We would hope that the flags and the port authorities mentioned in these reports would not ignore these facts and would have an interest to safeguard the safety of ships under their flag and the safety of the ships calling at their ports and along their countries' coastlines. Mr. Chairman, these incidents and the risks to which ships are exposed due to poor quality bunkers delivered to them have prompted Norway and INTERTANKO to suggest actions aimed at an improved enforcement of the current MARPOL Annex VI regulations, particularly 18.1, 18.9.4 and 18.9.6. We will therefore invite the Committee to consider this additional data when discussing the report from BLG 15 (BLG 15/19) regarding the need of proper enforcement of the current MARPOL Annex VI requirements on fuel oil quality and the need for further improvement of the IMO regulatory regime on fuel oil quality, and take appropriate action.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 4, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Introduction of document MEPC 62/4/11 I have been sailing as an engineer and worked as technical superintendent for several years, and can tell you from my experience that fuel is vital for the safe operation of a ship. I believe that other people with experience as engine staff can say the same. This experience and the number of stories we, the engine staff, can tell on fuels and operation of engines is one of the reasons why I firmly can say: It is time for the IMO to act on the issue of fuel oil quality. MEPC 57 agreed to request ISO to make recommendations regarding fuel oil characteristics and parameters addressing air quality, ship safety, engine performance and crew health, taking into account the listing in annex 1 to document MEPC 59/4/3 (ISO). Appendix V of MARPOL Annex VI requires the Bunker Delivery Note to contain only two appropriate parameters, namely the density of the bunker and its sulphur content as well as a general declaration by the supplier that the fuel is in conformity with the applicable paragraphs of regulations 14 and 18 of MARPOL Annex VI. SOLAS regulation II-2/4.2.1.1 requires that the fuel used on board shall have a flashpoint of not less than 60°C. This parameter is not included in the BDN requirements in Appendix V of MARPOL Annex VI As a follow-up of the response from ISO in document MEPC 59/4/3 as well as the report from BLG 15, (BLG 15/19), Norway believe that the Committee should initiate a process to address key parameters in an IMO context. We have in our document to the 59th session of the Committee proposed which additional fuel oil parameters should be addressed by the IMO because of their relevance to seafarers' health, safety of the ship and air emissions that have an impact on the safety of the ship and the health of its crew. In light of the incidents caused by low fuel oil quality it is now time for the Committee to initiate a process aiming at appropriate action on this important issue. Introduction of document MEPC 62/4/12 At BLG 10, Norway addressed, in paragraphs 61 to 64 of document BLG 10/14/2, the need for unified guidelines for sampling of fuel oil from fuel oil tanks during Port State Control. This issue Sir, is still remaining and in order to facilitate uniform enforcement during port state control, we propose that resolution MEPC.182(59), the 2009 Guidelines for the sampling of fuel oil for determination of compliance with the revised MARPOL Annex VI, is amended to include guidelines for representative sampling of the fuel oil in use from fuel oil tanks as set forth in our document BLG 10/14/2 and now reiterated in document MEPC 62/4/12.
***
MEPC 62/24 Annex 5, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 5
DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE NOX TECHNICAL CODE 2008 1 Existing paragraph 2.2.4 is replaced as follows:
"2.2.4 Engines not pre-certified on a test bed
.1 There are engines which, due to their size, construction and delivery schedule, cannot be pre-certified on a test bed. In such cases, the engine manufacturer, shipowner or shipbuilder shall make application to the Administration requesting an on board test (see 2.1.2.2). The applicant must demonstrate to the Administration that the on board test fully meets all of the requirements of a test-bed procedure as specified in chapter 5 of this Code. In no case shall an allowance be granted for possible deviations of measurements if an initial survey is carried out on board a ship without any valid pre-certification test. For engines undergoing an on board certification test, in order to be issued with an EIAPP Certificate, the same procedures apply as if the engine had been pre-certified on a test bed, subject to the limitations given in paragraph 2.2.4.2.
.2 This pre-certification survey procedure may be accepted for an
Individual Engine or for an Engine Group represented by the Parent Engine only, but it shall not be accepted for an Engine Family certification."
2 Paragraph 2.2.5.1 is amended as follows:
".1 Where a NOx reducing device is to be included within the EIAPP certification, it must be recognized as a component of the engine, and its presence shall be recorded in the engine's Technical File. The engine shall be tested with the NOx-reducing device fitted unless, due to technical and practical reasons, the combined testing is not appropriate and the procedures specified in paragraph 2.2.4.1 cannot be applied, subject to approval by the Administration. In the latter case the applicable test procedure shall be performed and the combined engine/NOx-reducing device shall be approved and pre-certified by the Administration taking into account guidelines developed by the Organization*. However, this pre-certification is subject to the limitations given in paragraph 2.2.4.2."
***
* Refer to the 2011 Guidelines addressing additional aspects to the NOx Technical Code 2008 with regard to
particular requirements related to marine diesel engines fitted with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, adopted by resolution MEPC.198(62).
MEPC 62/24 Annex 6, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 6
RESOLUTION MEPC.198(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
2011 GUIDELINES ADDRESSING ADDITIONAL ASPECTS TO THE NOx TECHNICAL CODE 2008 WITH REGARD TO PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO MARINE
DIESEL ENGINES FITTED WITH SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR) SYSTEMS THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, RECALLING ALSO that, at its fifty-eighth session, the Committee adopted, by resolution MEPC.176(58), a revised MARPOL Annex VI (hereinafter referred to as "MARPOL Annex VI") and, by resolution MEPC.177(58), a revised Technical Code on Control of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines (hereinafter referred to as "the NOx Technical Code 2008"), NOTING regulation 13 of MARPOL Annex VI which makes the NOx Technical Code 2008 mandatory under that Annex, NOTING ALSO that the use of NOx-reducing devices is envisaged in the NOx Technical Code 2008 and that selective catalytic reduction systems (hereinafter referred to as "SCR systems") are such NOx-reducing devices for compliance with the Tier III NOx limit, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its sixty-second session, the guidelines addressing additional aspects to the NOx Technical Code 2008 with regard to particular requirements related to marine diesel engines fitted with SCR systems, developed by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its fifteenth session, 1. ADOPTS the 2011 Guidelines addressing additional aspects to the NOx Technical Code 2008 with regard to particular requirements related to marine diesel engines fitted with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Systems, as set out at annex to the present resolution; 2. INVITES Administrations to take the annexed Guidelines into account when certifying engines fitted with SCR systems; 3. REQUESTS Parties to MARPOL Annex VI and other Member Governments to bring the annexed Guidelines related to the NOx Technical Code to the attention of shipowners, ship operators, shipbuilders, marine diesel engine manufacturers, and any other interested groups; and 4. AGREES to keep these Guidelines under review in light of the experience gained.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 6, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX
2011 GUIDELINES ADDRESSING ADDITIONAL ASPECTS TO THE NOx TECHNICAL CODE 2008 WITH REGARD TO PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO MARINE
DIESEL ENGINES FITTED WITH SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR) SYSTEMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2 GENERAL
2.1 Purpose 2.2 Application 2.3 Definitions
3 PRE-CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE
3.1 General 3.2 Technical File and on board NOx verification procedures 3.3 Measures to minimize reductant slip 3.4 Pre-certification procedure 3.5 EIAPP certificate
4 FAMILY AND GROUP CONCEPTS FOR ENGINE SYSTEMS FITTED WITH SCR 5 TEST PROCEDURES FOR SCHEME A
5.1 General 5.2 Calculation of gaseous emissions
6 TEST PROCEDURES FOR SCHEME B
6.1 General 6.2 Verification test procedures for an engine 6.3 Test procedures for SCR chambers 6.4 Calculation of the specific emission 6.5 Test report to be submitted to the Administration
7 ON BOARD CONFIRMATION TEST FOR SCHEME B
MEPC 62/24 Annex 6, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The use of NOx-reducing devices is envisaged in the NOx Technical Code 2008 (NTC 2008) as given in section 2.2.5 and a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system is one of such devices. 1.2 NTC 2008 contains two ways for pre-certification of engine systems fitted with NOx-reducing devices:
.1 engine fitted with SCR: Approval in accordance with paragraph 2.2.5.1 of the NTC 2008. Test according to chapter 5 of the NTC 2008; and
.2 the simplified measurement method in accordance with section 6.3 of the
NTC 2008 as regulated in paragraph 2.2.5.2 (Primary failure case) of the NTC 2008.
1.3 According to paragraph 2.2.5.1 of the NTC 2008 the engine system fitted with SCR should be tested on a test bed (Scheme A). Where that is not appropriate, given reasons as outlined under paragraph 3.1.1 of these guidelines; the provisions of Scheme B as set out in these guidelines should be applied. 1.4 Administrations are invited to take these guidelines into account when certifying engines fitted with SCR. 2 GENERAL 2.1 Purpose 2.1.1 The purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance in addition to the requirements of the NTC 2008 for design, testing, surveys and certification of marine diesel engines fitted with an SCR system to ensure its compliance with the requirements of regulation 13 of MARPOL Annex VI. 2.2 Application 2.2.1 These guidelines apply to marine diesel engines fitted with SCR for compliance with regulation 13 of MARPOL Annex VI. 2.3 Definitions 2.3.1 Unless provided otherwise, the terms in these guidelines have the same meaning as the terms defined in regulation 2 of MARPOL Annex VI and in section 1.3 of the NTC 2008. 2.3.2 "Engine system fitted with SCR" means a system consisting of a marine diesel engine, an SCR chamber and a reductant injection system. When a control device on NOx-reducing performance is provided, it is also regarded as a part of the system. 2.3.3 "Catalyst block" means a block of certain dimension through which exhaust gas passes and which contains catalyst composition on its inside surface to reduce NOx from exhaust gas. 2.3.4 "SCR chamber" means an integrated unit, which contains the catalyst block(s), and into which flows exhaust gas and reductant.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 6, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
2.3.5 "Reductant injection system" means a system, which consists of the pump(s) to supply reductant to the nozzle(s), the nozzle(s) spraying reductant into the exhaust gas stream and control device(s) of the spray. 2.3.6 "AV (area velocity) value" means a value of the exhaust gas flow rate passing through the catalyst blocks (m3/h) per total active surface area of the catalyst blocks in the SCR chamber (m2). Therefore, unit of AV value is (m/h). The exhaust gas flow volume is the volume defined at 0°C and 101.3 kPa. 2.3.7 "SV (space velocity) value" means a value of the exhaust gas flow rate passing through the catalyst block(s) (m3/h) per total volume of the catalyst block(s) in the SCR chamber (m3). Therefore, unit of SV value is (1/h). The exhaust gas flow volume is the volume defined at 0°C and 101.3 kPa. 2.3.8 "Total volume of the catalyst block" means the volume (m3) based on outer dimensions of the catalyst block. 2.3.9 "LV (linear velocity) value" means a value of the exhaust gas flow rate passing through the catalyst blocks (m3/h) per catalyst block's section (m2) in a normal direction of exhaust gas flow. Therefore, unit of LV value is (m/h). The exhaust gas flow volume is the volume defined at 0°C and 101.3 kPa. 2.3.10 "Block section" means the cross-sectional area (m2) of the catalyst block based on the outer dimensions. 2.3.11 "NOx reduction rate " means a value deriving from the following formula. Unit of is (%):
100)(
inlet
outletinlet
ccc
Where:
inletc is NOx concentration (ppm) as measured at the inlet of the SCR chamber;
outletc is NOx concentration (ppm) as measured at the outlet of the
SCR chamber.
3 PRE-CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE 3.1 General 3.1.1 Engine systems fitted with SCR should be certified in accordance with chapter 2 of the NTC 2008. In cases where combined engine/SCR systems can neither be tested on a test bed due to their size, construction and other restrictions nor an on board test can be performed fully complying with the requirements of chapter 5 of the NTC 2008 the procedures provided by Scheme B of these guidelines should be applied. 3.1.2 The applicant for certification should be the entity responsible for the complete system "Engine system fitted with SCR", e.g., the engine manufacturer. 3.1.3 The applicant should supply all necessary documentation, including the Technical File for the complete system, a description of the required on board NOx verification procedure and, where applicable, the description of the confirmation test procedure.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 6, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
3.2 Technical File and on board NOx verification procedures 3.2.1 In addition to the information supplied in paragraph 3.1.3 of these guidelines and items in section 2.4 of the NTC 2008, engine systems fitted with SCR should include the following information in its Technical File:
.1 reductant: component/type and concentration; .2 reductant injection system including critical dimensions and supply volume; .3 design features of SCR specific components in the exhaust duct from the
engine exhaust manifold to the SCR chamber; .4 catalyst block specification and arrangement in the SCR chamber; .5 inlet parameters including allowable exhaust gas temperature (maximum
and minimum) at the inlet of the SCR chamber; .6 cross-unit parameters: allowable pressure loss ( p) between inlet and
outlet of SCR chamber and in the exhaust duct caused by SCR components;
.7 aspects related to the fuel oil quality resulting in continued compliance of
the engine with the applicable NOx emission limit; .8 factors related to the deterioration rate of SCR performance, e.g., exchange
condition for SCR blocks and recommended exchange time of SCR blocks; .9 controlling arrangements and settings of the SCR, e.g., model, specification
of control device; .10 measures to minimize reductant slip; .11 parameter check method as the verification procedure: with regard to the
application of the parameter check method, requirements given in paragraph 2.3.6 of the NTC 2008 and guidance given in appendix VII, paragraph 2 of the NTC 2008 should be taken into account in assessing the adequacy of a proposed procedure with analysers meeting or exceeding the requirements of appendix III of the NTC 2008; and
.12 any other parameter(s) specified by the manufacturer.
3.3 Measures to minimize reductant slip 3.3.1 When SCR uses urea solution, ammonia solution or ammonia gas as reductant, measures to prevent reductant slip should be provided to avoid the supply of an excessive amount of reductant in the system. The reductant injection system should be designed to prevent emissions of any harmful substance from the system. 3.4 Pre-certification procedure 3.4.1 Test and pre-certification of an engine system fitted with SCR should be conducted either by Scheme A (as given in section 5 of these guidelines), or by Scheme B (as given in sections 6 and 7 of these guidelines), as appropriate.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 6, page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
3.5 EIAPP certificate 3.5.1 An Engine International Air Pollution Prevention (EIAPP) Certificate (see appendix I of the NTC 2008) should be issued by the Administration after approval of the Technical File. 3.5.2 When an applicant chooses the Scheme B for pre-certification, the IAPP initial survey should not be completed until the on board initial confirmation test provides compliant results. The applicant remains the responsible entity until final acceptance of the system. 4 FAMILY AND GROUP CONCEPTS FOR ENGINE SYSTEMS FITTED WITH SCR 4.1 Requirements in chapter 4 of the NTC 2008 apply equally to engine systems fitted with SCR. 5 TEST PROCEDURES FOR SCHEME A 5.1 General 5.1.1 A test for a combined system of an engine fitted with an SCR in Scheme A is to ensure compliance with the applicable NOx emission limits of MARPOL Annex VI, as required. The test bed measurement procedures of chapter 5 of the NTC 2008 should apply. 5.2 Calculation of gaseous emissions 5.2.1 The calculation method in section 5.12 of the NTC 2008 is also applied to engine systems fitted with SCR. No allowance is made for the reductant solution injected into the exhaust gas stream in respect of its effect on exhaust gas mass flow rate calculation (appendix VI) or dry/wet correction factor (equation (11), paragraph 5.12.3.2.2 of the NTC 2008). The NOx correction factor for humidity and temperature (equations (16) or (17), paragraphs 5.12.4.5 and 5.12.4.6, respectively, of the NTC 2008) should not be applied. 5.2.2 For an engine system fitted with SCR, the following parameters should be measured and recorded in the engine test report in accordance with section 5.10 of the NTC 2008:
.1 injection rate of reductant at each load point (kg/h); .2 exhaust gas temperature at the inlet and outlet of the SCR chamber (°C); .3 pressure loss (kPa): it is necessary to measure the pressure at inlet and at
outlet of the SCR chamber and to calculate pressure loss p. If the manufacturer sets an allowable limit of p, it should be confirmed; and
.4 other parameter(s) as specified by the Administration.
6 TEST PROCEDURES FOR SCHEME B 6.1 General 6.1.1 A test for an engine system fitted with SCR in Scheme B is to ensure that the system complies with the applicable NOx emission limits in MARPOL Annex VI, as required. The test procedures in Scheme B are as follows:
.1 an engine is tested to obtain the NOx emission value (g/kWh) in accordance with paragraph 6.2.1 of these guidelines;
MEPC 62/24 Annex 6, page 7
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.2 the SCR NOx reduction rate may be calculated by modelling tools, taking into account geometrical reference conditions, chemical NOx conversion models as well as other parameters to be considered;
.3 an SCR chamber, not necessarily to full scale, is to be tested in accordance
with section 6.3 of these guidelines in order to generate data for the calculation model as that used in paragraph 6.1.1.2 of these guidelines;
.4 the NOx emission from the engine system fitted with SCR, which is
calculated in accordance with section 6.4 of these guidelines using the NOx emission value from the engine and the NOx reduction rate of SCR chamber. At this point the Technical File will be completed and this NOx emission value will be entered into the supplement of the EIAPP certificate; and
.5 the NOx emission performance of the engine combined with the SCR is
verified by a confirmation test in accordance with the procedure in paragraph 7.5 of these guidelines.
6.2 Verification test procedures for an engine 6.2.1 The purpose of the test of an engine is to establish the emission values for use in section 6.4 of these guidelines. These measurements should be in accordance with chapter 5 of the NTC 2008. 6.2.2 Paragraph 5.9.8.1 of the NTC 2008 requires engine conditions to be measured at each mode point, for an engine system. This equally applies in the case of an engine fitted with SCR. Additionally, exhaust gas temperature at the intended inlet of the SCR chamber should be determined and recorded in the test report as required by section 5.10 of the NTC 2008. 6.3 Test procedures for SCR chambers 6.3.1 General 6.3.1.1 The SCR chamber for validation testing may be either a full scale SCR chamber or a scaled version. A SCR chamber should demonstrate the reduction in NOx concentrations (ppm) expected in exhaust gas measured in section 6.2 of these guidelines. Therefore, NOx reduction rate of the SCR chamber should be determined for each individual mode point. Where undertaken on a scaled version of the SCR chamber the scaling process should be validated to the satisfaction of the Administration. 6.3.2 Test conditions at each mode point 6.3.2.1 Exhaust gas, catalyst, reductant and an injection system should satisfy the following conditions at each mode point:
.1 Exhaust gas flow Exhaust gas flow rate for the test should be scaled accordingly to account for the dimension of the catalyst model.
.2 Exhaust gas component
Exhaust gas for the test should either be diesel engine exhaust gas or simulated gas.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 6, page 8
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Where diesel exhaust gas is used it should correspond, in terms of concentrations, to the exhaust gas in section 6.2 of these guidelines, in terms of NOx, O2, CO2, H2O, and SO2 (±5% of the required concentration for each emission species). Where simulated gas is used it should correspond, in terms of concentrations, to the exhaust gas in section 6.2 of these guidelines, in terms of NO, NO2, O2, CO2, H2O, and SO2 (±5% of the required concentration for each emission species) balance N2.
.3 Exhaust gas temperature
The temperature of exhaust gas used for the test should correspond to the temperatures obtained from testing in section 6.2 of these guidelines, ensuring that the SCR chamber is activated at every load point, other than as provided for by 3.1.4 of the NTC 2008, and that no ammonia bisulphate formation, or reductant destruction, takes place.
.4 Catalyst blocks and AV,SV value
The catalyst blocks used in the test should be representative of the catalyst blocks to be used in the SCR chamber in service. AV,SV or LV value should, in the case of full scale tests, be within a range of ±20% of the required value as obtained in testing from section 6.2 of these guidelines. In the case of scaled tests it should correspond to the above.
.5 Reductant
The reductant concentration should be representative of the reductant concentration in the exhaust gas during actual operation.
6.3.3 Stability for measurement 6.3.3.1 All measurements should be recorded after they have stabilized. 6.3.4 List of data to be derived from the model 6.3.4.1 Operating data which is to be given in the Technical File should be derived from the modelling process or otherwise justified. 6.3.4.2 Exhaust gas analysers should be in accordance with appendix III and appendix IV of the NTC 2008 or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Administration. 6.3.5 Test report for SCR chamber 6.3.5.1 Data recorded under paragraph 6.3.1.1 of these guidelines should be recorded in the test report as required by section 5.10 of the NTC 2008. 6.4 Calculation of the specific emission 6.4.1 The NOx emission value of the engine system fitted with SCR should be calculated as follows:
ni
i F
Fni
i mgasix
i
ii
WP
Wq
1 i
1100100
gas
MEPC 62/24 Annex 6, page 9
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Where: i = NOx reduction rate (%) derived in accordance with section 6.3
of these guidelines;
imgasq = Mass flow of NOx gas measured in accordance with section 6.2 of these guidelines;
iF
W = Weighting factor;
iP = Measured power at individual mode points in accordance
with section 6.2 of these guidelines. The weighting factors and number of modes (n) used in
above calculation shall be according to the provisions of section 3.2 of the NTC 2008.
6.4.2 The NOx emission value (g/kWh) calculated in accordance with paragraph 6.4.1 of these guidelines should be compared to the applicable emission limit. This emission value is entered into 1.9.6 of the Supplement to the EIAPP certificate (appendix I of the NTC 2008). 6.5 Test report to be submitted to the Administration 6.5.1 The test report referenced under paragraphs 6.2.2 and 6.3.5.1 of these guidelines, together with the data from section 6.4 of these guidelines should be consolidated into the overall documentation to be submitted to the Administration. 7 ON BOARD CONFIRMATION TEST FOR SCHEME B 7.1 After installation on board of an engine system fitted with SCR and before entry into service an initial confirmation test should be performed on board. 7.2 The engine system fitted with the SCR should be verified as corresponding to the description given in the Technical File. 7.3 The confirmation test should be undertaken as close as possible to 25%, 50% and 75% of rated power, independent of test cycle. 7.4 At each mode point of the confirmation test the operating values as given in the Technical File should be verified. 7.5 NOx emission concentrations should be measured at the inlet and outlet of the SCR chamber. The NOx reduction rate should be calculated. Both values should either be dry or wet. The value obtained for NOx reduction rate should be compared to the initial confirmation test required value at each mode point as given in the Technical File. Reduction efficiency values obtained at each of the test points should not be less than the corresponding values as given in the Technical File by more than 5%. 7.6 The NOx analyser should meet the requirements of chapter 5 of the NTC 2008. 7.7 When an engine system fitted with SCR is in a group defined in chapter 4 of these guidelines, the confirmation test should be conducted only for the parent engine system of the group.
***
MEPC 62/24 Annex 7, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 7
RESOLUTION MEPC.199(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
2011 GUIDELINES FOR RECEPTION FACILITIES UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, RECALLING ALSO that, at its fifty-eighth session, the Committee adopted, by resolution MEPC.176(58), a revised MARPOL Annex VI (hereinafter referred to as "MARPOL Annex VI") which includes mandatory provisions that Ozone Depleting Substances and equipment containing such substances be delivered to appropriate reception facilities when removed from ships, NOTING that regulation 17 of MARPOL Annex VI specifies two types of wastes for which Parties must ensure the provision of reception facilities for ships calling at their ports, NOTING ALSO that adequate MARPOL Annex VI reception facilities shall meet the needs of ships calling at a port or terminal without causing undue delay, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its sixty-second session, the 2011 Guidelines for reception facilities under MARPOL Annex VI, developed by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its fifteenth session, 1. ADOPTS the 2011 Guidelines for reception facilities under MARPOL Annex VI, as set out at annex to the present resolution; 2. INVITES Administrations to take the annexed Guidelines into account when developing and enacting national laws which give force to and implement provisions set forth in regulation 17 of MARPOL Annex VI; 3. REQUESTS the Parties to MARPOL Annex VI and other Member Governments to bring the annexed Guidelines to the attention of port and terminal operators and ship repair and ship recycling facilities, and any other interested groups; and 4. AGREES to keep these Guidelines under review in light of the experience gained.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 7, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX
2011 GUIDELINES FOR RECEPTION FACILITIES UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The main objectives of these Guidelines are to:
.1 assist Governments in developing and enacting domestic laws which give force to and implement provisions set forth in regulation 17, Reception Facilities, of MARPOL Annex VI;
.2 assist port and terminal operators and ship repair ports, and ship recycling
facilities in assessing the need for and providing adequate reception facilities for Ozone Depletion Substances (ODS) and equipment containing ODS; and
.3 assist port and terminal operators in assessing the need for, and providing
adequate reception facilities for exhaust gas cleaning residues. 1.2 Adequate MARPOL Annex VI reception facilities shall meet the needs of ships calling at a port or terminal without causing undue delay. 1.3 MARPOL Annex VI, regulation 17 specifies two types of wastes that Parties must ensure the provision of reception facilities for ships calling at their ports:
.1 Ozone Depleting Substances are those defined in MARPOL Annex VI, regulation 2.16; and
.2 Exhaust gas cleaning residues are ship-generated residues that may range
from liquid to solid. 2 DEFINITIONS With reference to regulation 17 of MARPOL Annex VI: 2.1 Remotely located port or terminal means a port or terminal as informed to the Organization under regulation 17.2 of MARPOL Annex VI. 2.2 Manage and process means actions related to the collection, storage, transport, treatment and disposal of ODS and/or exhaust gas cleaning residues such that they are rendered in a safe and environmentally benign condition in accordance with best available practices. 2.3 Appropriate action means those actions taken by informed Parties to communicate to ships under their control that the advised ports cannot handle certain ODS and/or exhaust gas cleaning residues and those actions ships will need to take necessary to manage or process those substances in an alternative manner. Such alternatives could include arranging for collection before or after visiting the affected port, and in the latter case, ensuring adequate on board storage exists for those substances. 2.4 EGCS residues are a product of the water treatment process. The residue can be formed and removed from the water with different treatment techniques. Such residues contain sulphates, ash/soot, metals and hydrocarbons removed from the water.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 7, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
2.5 ODS and equipment containing ODS are as defined in regulation 2.16 and equipment as referred to in regulation 12.4. 3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MARPOL ANNEX VI RECEPTION FACILITIES 3.1 Treatment and disposal of ODS and EGCS residues Taking into consideration its own local and national environmental laws and regulations as well as applicable international regulations and treaties, a Party should adopt strategies for collection, storage, transport, treatment and disposal of ODS and EGCS residues. Strategies for managing MARPOL Annex VI wastes should be safe and environmentally benign and based on industry best practices and best available technologies, and taking into account the local infrastructure. Parties are highly encouraged to make regular updates to the availability of Annex VI reception facilities in the Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) at: http://gisis.imo.org/Public/. 3.2 Composition of EGCS residues Residues may contain sulphates, ash/soot, metals and hydrocarbons removed from the wash water. Specifically it may contain sulphite salts (CaSOx) and may also include other metal sulphites (NaSOx and KSOx) and metal oxides and including Vanadium (V), Nickel (Ni), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al), Iron (Fe), and Silicon (Si). 3.3 Training/certification of personnel Taking into consideration its own local and national laws and regulations Parties should ensure that personnel who process ODS have been properly trained in all personal protective measures to ensure safe handling of such materials and prevent the release of ODS to the atmosphere. Administrations should develop a certification system whereby letters or certificates are issued to qualified shore side personnel attesting to proper training for handling ODS and equipment containing ODS and operating disposal equipment. Such equipment should comply with rigorous standards for operation and be certified and/or approved. 3.4 Sufficient capacity for the throughput of trade and the likely volumes to be handled Parties should undertake to evaluate the types and capacities of ships using their ports and terminals to determine the quantities of ODS and EGCS residues likely to be generated. Parties should ensure that ports and terminals have the capacity to collect and store, if necessary, ODS and EGCS residues from any and all ships that use its ports terminals. If capacity from several ports or terminals, including remotely located ports or terminals, is to be pooled then a Party should ensure that the capacity of such a pooled resource is sufficient for all facilities using it. 3.5 Provision of documentation for custody transfer from ship to reception facility The Organization published MEPC.1/Circ.671, A Guide to Good Practice for Port Reception Facility Providers and Users. This user friendly guidance includes Appendix 2, MEPC.1/Circ.644, Advance Notification Form (ANF); and MEPC.1/Circ.645 Waste Delivery Receipt (WDR). These standard forms may be used by ship masters and port reception facility operators to document the transfer of wastes by type and quantity from ships to shore side reception facilities. When providing advanced notification to a port or terminal that Annex VI reception facilities will be required, the ANF may be used. Where reception facility operators are required to provide to the ship a receipt for ODS and/or EGCS residues, the WDR may be used.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 7, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE WHEN MARPOL ANNEX VI RECEPTION FACILITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE
4.1 Where reception facilities are not provided Parties must notify the Organization in the event that a port or terminal cannot provide ODS or EGCS residue reception facilities. In addition Parties must notify the Organization where such facilities are, alternatively, provided. Parties are highly encouraged to make regular updates to the availability of Annex VI reception facilities in the Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) at: http://gisis.imo.org/Public/. Parties that inform the Organization of ports that cannot accept ODS or EGCS residues are encouraged to provide an explanation as to the specific reasons that necessitate such notification. 4.2 Use of regional/bi-lateral agreements The concept of regional arrangements is encouraged as a possible alternative for ensuring adequacy of reception facilities. Parties could enter into a regional or bi-lateral arrangement with other Parties in a region that would provide reception facilities to ships travelling in the region. It has been recognized by the Organization that waste management planning on a regional basis and the establishment of regional arrangements can provide an alternative solution for ensuring that ships do not have an incentive to discharge waste into the environment, including the atmosphere, and that ports and terminals within a region can meet the requirements of regulation 17 of MARPOL Annex VI. 4.3 Alternative facilities (required to be reported in accordance with regulation 17.2) A Party shall report to the Organization when any alternative arrangement is made by a port or terminal to provide ODS or EGCS residue reception facilities. Additionally, a Party shall report to the Organization where such adequate reception facilities are provided. 4.4 Criteria for those alternative measures for reception facilities Criteria for those alternative measures for reception facilities should take into consideration the capacities required to meet the needs of ships calling in their region and without causing undue delay. 4.5 Alternative reception facilities Alternative reception facilities should have an environmentally acceptable method for processing/handling MARPOL Annex VI wastes as outlined in paragraph 5.1. 5 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPS USING PORTS WHERE RECEPTION
FACILITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE 5.1 Voyage planning and on board storage Voyage planning should be part of any waste management planning strategy. Masters of ships should ensure that there is adequate on board capacity for storage of all ODS and EGCS residues that may be generated during the course of voyages which include visits to ports or terminals where reception facilities are not available.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 7, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
5.2 Notifications (according to regulation 17.3) The Guide to Good Practice for Port Reception Facility Providers and Users (MEPC.1/Circ.671) contains Appendix 1 Revised Consolidated Format for Reporting Alleged Inadequacy of Port Reception Facilities. This standard form may be used by ship masters to report MARPOL Annex VI reception facility inadequacy to the Organization and to the port State through their own flag State Administration.
***
MEPC 62/24 Annex 8, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 8
STATEMENTS BY THE DELEGATIONS OF BRAZIL, INDIA, PERU AND POLAND ON MATTERS OF PRINCIPLE OR POLICY CONCERNING
REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS Statement by the delegation of Brazil Brazil supports the establishment of a working group to discuss energy efficiency measures for ships. This is an important and sensitive issue that should be very carefully dealt with by this Committee. Brazil would like to reiterate that there are several outstanding technical, economic, and technological uncertainties and technical issues still pending related to document MEPC 62/6/3. Many of those uncertainties and technical issues are raised in documents submitted under agenda item 5. Moreover, document MEPC 62/6/3 proposes the mandatory application of EEDI and SEEMP, and should thus be treated together with all other documents related to EEDI and SEEMP. It is the position of Brazil that EEDI and SEEMP should be treated in a package, by a single working group, with terms of reference to include the discussion of both documents under item 5 and documents under the provisional item 6.2. Brazil believes it is premature to consider the proposed amendments on energy efficiency in a drafting group. Brazil is of the position that this amendment proposal and related documents should be referred to a working group before it can be considered by a drafting group. In order to maximize our precious time during this week, Brazil would like to reiterate our proposal that a separate group is established to discuss air pollution, while another working group should be established to consider all issues related to GHG emissions reductions from ships and energy efficiency measures. The terms of reference for such a working group on energy efficiency measures for ships should include all documents submitted under agenda item 5, as well as document MEPC 62/6/3 and related documents that were provisionally included under item 6.2. Statement by the delegation of India We appreciate the importance given by the International Maritime Organization and the Secretary General to the issue of GHG which we see as a serious threat faced by the earth and humankind. At the same time, we also note that international shipping activity account for less than 3% of the overall GHG emissions. To circulate the proposed amendments to MARPOL VI despite there being no consensus or approval by MEPC, defeats the very foundation of international relations and cooperation that binds the multilateral institutional practice and the culture of collectivism, as cornerstones of peace and progress. One of the key objectives of the IMO Committees is to ensure maximum possible participation of all Member States and organizations with observer status in its work and its subsidiary bodies. Further, as per Article 16(2) (d), an adoption of the amendments by a majority of two thirds of the Parties to the Convention present and voting, excludes those who are not yet Parties to the Convention, though not necessarily averse to ratifying it, is rather improper, particularly leading to eliminating some Member States who have actively participated in relevant debates in previous sessions of MEPC. As we see only 65 States have ratified the MARPOL Annex VI, dealing with the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 8, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
In order to ratify the Convention, each Party is required to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Convention and as such, some take more than the others. Concerns have been raised by the Parties in their submissions with respect to the EEDI formula. One of the documents clearly states that shipbuilders have proven their competitive edge in producing the most advanced and fuel efficient ships world-wide, and they are still concerned about the lack of maturity of the EEDI concept regarding complex type issues. Other document has raised the issue of specialized ships that are extremely efficient in their particular trades, could ultimately lead to an increase in emissions. Further, EEDI concept has too many limitations and flaws which while trying to achieve reduction on CO2 emission can actually lead to having nil or even negative impact which has been already been researched and projected. It is our firm opinion that such a serious and important issue is being dealt with in a very superficial manner without taking into any account the fact that over the last few decades ship designers have been toiling to have most efficient engines developed, and instead of further utilizing such experts advise and finding proper solutions a flawed proposal with a lot of pitfalls on technical front as well as without a proper study of the implications of this on reliability and safety of navigation is being brought to the table. We are very sure that IMO does not want to see Vessels with badly degraded manoeuvrability and poor heavy weather performance or higher number of Vessels to fulfil trade needs just to fulfil the requirements of EEDI. We are yet to ascertain the implication of adopting EEDI, regardless of vessels type and size, on their sea going characteristics. We feel IMO is losing sight of its actual objective of ensuring safe and secure shipping and in this instance unnecessarily treading onto an area of technicality which is best dealt with by experts in that field and by proposing EEDI exposing international shipping to a proposal which has the potential for extremely damaging consequences. Mr. Chairman, by taking this opportunity, I would like to reiterate the India's position on this issue:
.1 Technical and operational Measures: we support the initiative for energy efficiency measures as long as it is voluntary at this stage, and all parameters are worked out.
.2 We do not support Market Based Measures, as the WTO compatibility of
the MBM proposals needs to be examined in all their aspects before any further discussion on this issue.
India would reiterate that the specific proposal to include legislative measures as a part of MARPOL Convention in Annex VI is not the correct legal procedure. Details will be made available while introducing India's submission, document MEPC 62/6/9. Further, we would like to emphasize that whatever measure is adopted by the Committee and by the organization should adhere to the principle of the UNFCCC and of the Kyoto Protocol. India will not accept any legally binding commitment at this stage. During the just concluded Bonn Climate Change Talks, no consensus on international shipping and aviation bunker fuel could be reached. Mr. Chairman, as you may be aware; six options have been proposed during the Bonn talks, for the bunker fuels. This clearly shows that there is no consensus among the Parties. It will be prudent to await the outcome of COP 17 and allow MEPC 63 to discuss the entire issue.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 8, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
In case, we reach no consensus on the Mandatory application of the technical measures by Friday, and the route of voting is to be adopted, Mr. Chairman, this will set a precedent, and the working of IMO which so far, has been through the consensus, may bring in unnecessary division between the Annex I and Non Annex I Parties. Statement by the delegation of Peru Peru is a country highly vulnerable to the harmful effects of climate change, and so the Peruvian Government is fully engaged in the multilateral efforts to achieve a binding, enterprising and effective agreement which corresponds to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. Consistent with this position, Peru believes that global mitigation efforts should be undertaken mainly by the developed countries, while the developing countries adapt their societies and economies to climate change. While Peru welcomes the incorporation of future new technical and operational measures to reduce CO2 levels within the IMO regulatory framework, it considers that the procedure put forward by a group of countries to incorporate new mandatory measures through amendment of MARPOL Annex VI constitutes a hasty proposal which does not help to advance the collective efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in the maritime sector. It has widened the division in the Organization and ignores other features of the negotiation of a global and fair agreement that incorporates technology transfer and the creation of capacity. Peru considers that the proposed legal procedure is not sound, leaves aside fundamental aspects of the negotiation of a global agreement, such as recognition of differing development levels and capacities, and, lastly, seeks to make EEDI approval subject to decision by a group of countries – those that accede to Annex VI. Let us recall that not all Member States agree that Annex VI is the appropriate tool, given that all of us who are party to the MARPOL Convention want to be part of the decision-making process. Consequently, the current proposal has accentuated divisions at IMO and does not appear to enjoy the necessary support, which will make it more difficult for new technical and operational measures to be implemented by developing countries. Statement by the delegation of Poland At the outset of discussion on this agenda item let us express and reiterate the commitment of Poland to further work, in cooperation with other Parties here at the IMO, towards a meaningful progress on technical, operational and Market-Based Measures for new and existing ships to reduce GHG emissions from international maritime transport. The external pressure and expectations of the international community on the IMO are clearly visible, and are obviously understandable. Much work has been already done, but IMO is expected now to produce a regulatory frame for the reduction of emission from shipping. It is apparent that the market based measures need some further discussion before being incorporated into IMO's regulatory framework; on the other hand - the agreement on the technical and operational ways of emission reduction, namely: the EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index) and SEEMP (Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan), is within the reach of arm. In view of this delegation it would be most appropriate to focus the Committee's efforts on this issue and to finalize the work on EEDI, so that the respective amendments be adopted at this session. It will be a good message to the international community that IMO is really progressing, and delivering, its contribution to the world's efforts towards GHG reduction and climate change mitigation. Mr. Chairman, this statement only presents the general view of this delegation and we may have some specific comments to certain documents on this agenda item, once they are presented.
***
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 9
, pag
e 1
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
.doc
AN
NEX
9
W
OR
K P
LAN
AN
D S
CH
EDU
LE F
OR
FU
RTH
ER D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
OF
TEC
HN
ICA
L A
ND
OPE
RA
TON
AL
MEA
SUR
ES F
OR
SH
IPS
1 EE
DI f
ram
ewor
k fo
r shi
p ty
pes
and
size
s, a
nd p
ropu
lsio
n sy
stem
s no
t cov
ered
by
the
curr
ent E
EDI r
equi
rem
ents
ME
PC
ses
sion
: M
EP
C 6
2 M
EP
C 6
3 M
EP
C 6
4 M
EP
C 6
5 M
EP
C 6
6 M
EP
C 6
7 M
EP
C 6
8 M
EP
C 6
9
Dat
e (fo
r 201
2 to
201
6, th
e da
tes
are
tent
ativ
e) :
July
201
1 Fe
brua
ry
2012
O
ctob
er 2
012
[Jul
y 20
13]
[Mar
ch 2
014]
[Oct
ober
20
14]
[Jul
y 20
15]
[Mar
ch 2
016]
Def
initi
on o
f ro-
ro c
argo
shi
p an
d ve
hicl
e ca
rrier
Reg
ulat
ory
fram
ewor
ks
(refe
renc
e lin
es
and
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
s) fo
r:
- pa
ssen
ger s
hips
-
ro-r
o ca
rgo
ship
s -
ro-r
o pa
ssen
ger s
hips
Con
side
ratio
n of
EED
I ca
lcul
atio
n m
etho
d fo
r sh
ips
havi
ng
dies
el
elec
tric
prop
ulsi
on,
turb
ine
prop
ulsi
on,
hybr
id
prop
ulsi
on a
nd o
ther
pro
puls
ion
syst
ems
or d
ual f
uel s
yste
ms
Review process
Rev
iew
of a
pplic
able
requ
irem
ents
for s
mal
l shi
p se
gmen
ts
with
lin
ear
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
s in
re
gula
tion
21 (r
evie
w p
roce
ss 1
)
Rev
iew
of
EED
I fo
r la
rger
siz
e se
gmen
t of
oil
tank
ers
and
bulk
car
riers
Rev
iew
of
te
chno
logi
cal
deve
lopm
ents
an
d ad
just
the
tim
e pe
riod
and
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
s se
t ou
t in
Phas
es 2
and
3 (r
evie
w p
roce
ss 2
)
Fina
lizat
ion
Fina
lizat
ion
Fina
lizat
ion
Ado
ptio
n
Fina
lizat
ion
Ado
ptio
n
Ado
ptio
n
Fina
lizat
ion
ME
PC
62/
24
Ann
ex 9
, pag
e 2
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
.doc
2 R
emai
ning
EED
I and
SEE
MP
rela
ted
guid
elin
es to
be
deve
lope
d
ME
PC
ses
sion
: M
EP
C 6
2 M
EP
C 6
3 M
EP
C 6
4 M
EP
C 6
5 M
EP
C 6
6 M
EP
C 6
7
Dat
e (fo
r 201
2, 2
013,
201
4 an
d 20
15, t
he d
ates
are
tent
ativ
e) :
July
201
1 Fe
brua
ry 2
012
Oct
ober
201
2 [J
uly
2013
] [M
arch
201
4]
[Oct
ober
201
4]
Gui
delin
es o
n sh
ip s
peci
fic v
olun
tary
stru
ctur
al e
nhan
cem
ent
to
incr
ease
saf
ety
of a
shi
p (tw
o se
ssio
ns a
fter
rece
ivin
g pr
opos
al;
time
sche
dule
sho
wn
in
right
is th
e ea
rlies
t pos
sibi
lity
)
Con
side
ratio
n of
CO
2 aba
tem
ent t
echn
olog
ies
(Con
vers
ion
fact
ors/
Gui
delin
es)
(thre
e se
ssio
ns a
fter
rece
ivin
g pr
opos
al;
time
sche
dule
sho
wn
in
right
is th
e ea
rlies
t pos
sibi
lity)
Con
side
ratio
n of
G
uide
lines
on
pr
opul
sion
po
wer
ne
eded
to
m
aint
ain
the
man
oeuv
rabi
lity
of th
e sh
ip u
nder
adv
erse
con
ditio
ns
Iden
tific
atio
n an
d de
velo
pmen
t of
oth
er g
uide
lines
or
supp
ortin
g do
cum
ents
for t
echn
ical
and
ope
ratio
nal m
easu
res
**
*
Fina
lizat
ion
Fina
lizat
ion
Fina
lizat
ion
MEPC 62/24 Annex 10, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 10
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES FOR SHIPS
The second Intersessional Meeting of the Working Group on Energy Efficiency Measures for Ships (EE-WG 2) is instructed, taking into account all relevant documents, to:
.1 further improve the following Guidelines, with a view to finalization at MEPC 63:
.1 draft Guidelines on the method of calculation of the Energy
Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships; .2 draft Guidelines for the development of a Ship Energy Efficiency
Management Plan (SEEMP); .3 draft Guidelines on Survey and Certification of the EEDI; .4 draft interim Guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power
and speed to enable safe manoeuvring in adverse weather conditions;
.2 consider developing EEDI frameworks for other ship types and propulsion
systems not covered by the draft Guidelines on the method of calculation of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships;
.3 identify the necessity of other Guidelines or supporting documents for
technical and operational measures; .4 consider EEDI for larger size segments of tankers and bulk carriers; .5 consider improvement of the guidelines on the Ship Energy Efficiency
Operational Indicator (EEOI) (MEPC.1/Circ.684); and .6 submit a written report to MEPC 63.
***
MEPC 62/24 Annex 11, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 11
STATEMENT BY THE OBSERVER OF CESA DURING THE DEBATE ON GHG ISSUES
Statement by the observer of CESA on document MEPC 62/5/10 (China et al.) With this intervention the European shipbuilders and ship repairers would like to comment technological aspects of MEPC 62/5/10, in particular the proposal of China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa regarding technology transfer contained in paragraphs 9, 15 and 16. Although CESA would like express the willingness of the shipbuilding industry to contribute to the principles of technical co-operation, design transparency and technology transfer in order to contribute to the shared search for solutions to the major challenges, including climate change, we have to voice grave concern regarding the draft regulation [x]. The wording proposed in the second and third sentence will not promote technical assistance and capacity building, nor will it facilitate the development of energy efficiency enhancing technology. Due to the provision to send all new ship designs and EEDI reducing technology into the public domain combined with the complete absence of any provisions ensuring the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) this regulation, if adopted, would in fact terminate all industry investments into research and innovation necessary to develop CO2 reduction options beyond slow steaming and other operational measures. In modern shipping both environment protection and competitiveness of the shipbuilding industry depend on the continuous development of the state of the art in naval architecture and advanced emission reduction technology. This win-win situation for regulators as well as for producers of high-tech ships and marine equipment should be maintained through a high level of IPR protection. If sensitive design data have to be disclosed they will fall victim to product piracy inhibiting any return of investment. Unrestricted design transparency without protective measures for the knowledge assets would jeopardise the incentive and financial means to innovate. This is not capacity building, but destruction of industrial know-how. Are IMO flag states willing to transfer the burden of technological development to state owned research institutes alone and to exclusively finance innovation from public sources? Therefore any IMO activities on technology transfer, in particular the work of an Ad Hoc Capacity-building Needs Analysis Group as proposed in paragraph 16, should be firmly based on internationally agreed IPR principles and accompanied by concrete, appropriate and effective protective measures in line with the strategic goals of the World Intellectual Property Organization and in intensive collaboration all stakeholders including WIPO as the responsible UN special agency. Such a working group could also analyse the maritime meaning of the term "developing countries" and "capacity building" in light of the fact that China has increased its ship production by 1500% since 2000 recently becoming the shipbuilding nation number 1.
"Regulation [x] – Promotion of Technical Assistance and Capacity Building: In order to promote the reduction of GHG emissions from international shipping, transparency of technology shall be increased in the implementation of technical measures of the EEDI. All new ship designs and technology which reduce the attained EEDI value of a ship shall be open to the public. Developed countries shall transfer their technology and provide financial support to developing countries for their capacity building so as to enhance their ability to satisfy these new requirements."
***
MEPC 62/24 Annex 12, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 12
RESOLUTION MEPC.200(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF
POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973
(Special Area Provisions and the Designation of the Baltic Sea as a Special Area under MARPOL Annex IV)
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, NOTING article 16 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "1973 Convention") and article VI of the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "1978 Protocol") which together specify the amendment procedure of the 1978 Protocol and confer upon the appropriate body of the Organization the function of considering and adopting amendments to the 1973 Convention, as modified by the 1978 Protocol (MARPOL 73/78), HAVING CONSIDERED draft amendments to Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78, 1. ADOPTS, in accordance with article 16(2)(d) of the 1973 Convention, the amendments to Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78, the text of which is set out at annex to the present resolution; 2. DETERMINES, in accordance with article 16(2)(f)(iii) of the 1973 Convention, that the amendments shall be deemed to have been accepted on 1 July 2012 unless, prior to that date, not less than one third of the Parties or Parties the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant fleet, have communicated to the Organization their objection to the amendments; 3. INVITES the Parties to note that, in accordance with article 16(2)(g)(ii) of the 1973 Convention, the said amendments shall enter into force on 1 January 2013 upon their acceptance in accordance with paragraph 2 above; 4. REQUESTS the Secretary-General, in conformity with article 16(2)(e) of the 1973 Convention, to transmit to all Parties to MARPOL 73/78 certified copies of the present resolution and the text of the amendments contained in the Annex; 5. REQUESTS FURTHER the Secretary-General to transmit to the Members of the Organization which are not Parties to MARPOL 73/78 copies of the present resolution and its Annex.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 12, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX
AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX IV 1 New paragraphs 5bis, 7bis, and 7ter are added to regulation 1:
"5bis Special area means a sea area where for recognized technical reasons in relation to its oceanographical and ecological condition and to the particular character of its traffic the adoption of special mandatory methods for the prevention of sea pollution by sewage is required.
The special areas are:
.1 the Baltic Sea area as defined in regulation 1.11.2 of Annex I; and .2 any other sea area designated by the Organization in accordance
with criteria and procedures for designation of special areas with respect to prevention of pollution by sewage from ships1.
7bis A passenger means every person other than:
.1 the master and the members of the crew or other persons
employed or engaged in any capacity on board a ship on the business of that ship; and
.2 a child under one year of age.
7ter A passenger ship means a ship which carries more than twelve passengers.
For the application of regulation 11.3, a new passenger ship is a passenger 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 in a similar stage of construction, on or after 1 January 2016; or
.2 the delivery of which is two years or more after 1 January 2016.
An existing passenger ship is a passenger ship which is not a new passenger ship."
2 New paragraph 2 is added to regulation 9:
"2 By derogation from paragraph 1, every passenger ship which, in accordance with regulation 2, is required to comply with the provisions of this Annex, and for which regulation 11.3 applies while in a special area, shall be equipped with one of the following sewage systems:
1 Refer to Assembly resolution A.927(22), Guidelines for the designation of special areas under
MARPOL 73/78 and guidelines for the identification and designation of particularly sensitive sea areas.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 12, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.1 a sewage treatment plant which shall be of a type approved by the Administration, taking into account the standards and test methods developed by the Organization,2 or
.2 a holding tank of the capacity to the satisfaction of the
Administration for the retention of all sewage, having regard to the operation of the ship, the number of persons on board and other relevant factors. The holding tank shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Administration and shall have a means to indicate visually the amount of its contents."
3 Regulation 11 is replaced by the following:
Regulation 11 Discharge of sewage
"A Discharge of sewage from ships other than passenger ships in all areas and discharge of sewage from passenger ships outside special areas
1 Subject to the provisions of regulation 3 of this Annex, the discharge of sewage into the sea is prohibited, except when:
.1 the ship is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using
a system approved by the Administration in accordance with regulation 9.1.2 of this Annex at a distance of more than 3 nautical miles from the nearest land, or sewage which is not comminuted or disinfected at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land, provided that, in any case, the sewage that has been stored in holding tanks, or sewage originating from spaces containing living animals, shall not be discharged instantaneously but at a moderate rate when the ship is en route and proceeding at not less than 4 knots; the rate of discharge shall be approved by the Administration based upon standards developed by the Organization3; or
.2 the ship has in operation an approved sewage treatment plant which
has been certified by the Administration to meet the operational requirements referred to in regulation 9.1.1 of this Annex, and the effluent shall not produce visible floating solids nor cause discoloration of the surrounding water.
2 The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply to ships operating in the waters under the jurisdiction of a State and visiting ships from other States while they are in these waters and are discharging sewage in accordance with such less stringent requirements as may be imposed by such State.
2 Refer to the [draft 2012] Guidelines on Implementation of Effluent Standards and Performance Tests for
Sewage Treatment Plants adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the Organization by [resolution MEPC….].
3 Refer to the Recommendation on standards for the rate of discharge of untreated sewage from ships adopted by the Marine Environmental Protection Committee of the Organization by resolution MEPC.157(55).
MEPC 62/24 Annex 12, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
B Discharge of sewage from passenger ships within a special area 3 Subject to the provisions of regulation 3 of this Annex, the discharge of sewage from a passenger ship within a special area shall be prohibited:
a) for new passenger ships on, or after 1 January 2016, subject to
regulation 12bis, subparagraph 2; and
b) for existing passenger ships on, or after 1 January 2018, subject to regulation 12bis, subparagraph 2,
except when the following conditions are satisfied:
the ship has in operation an approved sewage treatment plant which has been certified by the Administration to meet the operational requirements referred to in regulation 9.2.1 of this Annex, and the effluent shall not produce visible floating solids nor cause discoloration of the surrounding water.
C General requirements 4 When the sewage is mixed with wastes or waste water covered by other Annexes of MARPOL, the requirements of those Annexes shall be complied with in addition to the requirements of this Annex."
4 New regulation 12bis is added as follows:
"12bis Reception facilities for passenger ships in Special Areas .1 Each Party, the coastline of which borders a special area, undertakes to
ensure that:
.1 facilities for the reception of sewage are provided in ports and terminals which are in a special area and which are used by passenger ships;
.2 the facilities are adequate to meet the needs of those passenger
ships; and .3 the facilities are operated so as not to cause undue delay to those
passenger ships. .2 The Government of each Party concerned shall notify the Organization of
the measures taken pursuant to subparagraph .1 of this regulation. Upon receipt of sufficient notifications in accordance with subparagraph .1 the Organization shall establish a date from which the requirements of regulation 11.3 in respect of the area in question shall take effect. The Organization shall notify all Parties of the date so established no less than twelve months in advance of that date. Until the date so established, ships while navigating in the special area shall comply with the requirements of regulation 11.1 of this Annex."
MEPC 62/24 Annex 12, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
AMENDMENTS TO THE FORM OF INTERNATIONAL SEWAGE POLLUTION PREVENTION CERTIFICATE
1 The following text is added under the heading "Particulars of ship":
Type of ship for the application of regulation 11.3:* New/Existing passenger ship Ship other than a passenger ship
2 Amend paragraph *1.1. to read as follows:
*1.1. Description of the sewage treatment plant:
Type of sewage treatment plant .................................................................... Name of manufacturer ................................................................................... The sewage treatment plant is certified by the Administration to meet the effluent standards as provided for in resolution MEPC.2(VI). The sewage treatment plant is certified by the Administration to meet the effluent standards as provided for in resolution MEPC.159(55). The sewage treatment plant is certified by the Administration to meet the effluent standards as provided for in [resolution MEPC.…]. §
***
* Delete as appropriate. § The number of the MEPC resolution will be inserted when the standards have been adopted by the MEPC
at a future session.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 13
RESOLUTION MEPC.201(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF
POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973
(Revised MARPOL Annex V) THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, NOTING article 16 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "1973 Convention") and article VI of the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "1978 Protocol") which together specify the amendment procedure of the 1978 Protocol and confer upon the appropriate body of the Organization the function of considering and adopting amendments to the 1973 Convention, as modified by the 1978 Protocol (MARPOL 73/78), HAVING CONSIDERED draft amendments to Annex V of MARPOL 73/78, 1. ADOPTS, in accordance with article 16(2)(d) of the 1973 Convention, the amendments to Annex V of MARPOL 73/78, the text of which is set out at annex to the present resolution; 2. DETERMINES, in accordance with article 16(2)(f)(iii) of the 1973 Convention, that the amendments shall be deemed to have been accepted on 1 July 2012 unless, prior to that date, not less than one third of the Parties or Parties the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant fleet, have communicated to the Organization their objection to the amendments; 3. INVITES the Parties to note that, in accordance with article 16(2)(g)(ii) of the 1973 Convention, the said amendments shall enter into force on 1 January 2013 upon their acceptance in accordance with paragraph 2 above; 4. REQUESTS the Secretary-General, in conformity with article 16(2)(e) of the 1973 Convention, to transmit to all Parties to MARPOL 73/78 certified copies of the present resolution and the text of the amendments contained in the Annex; 5. REQUESTS FURTHER the Secretary-General to transmit to the Members of the Organization which are not Parties to MARPOL 73/78 copies of the present resolution and its Annex.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX
REVISED MARPOL ANNEX V
REGULATIONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION BY GARBAGE FROM SHIPS Regulation 1 Definitions For the purposes of this Annex: 1 Animal carcasses means the bodies of any animals that are carried on board as
cargo and that die or are euthanized during the voyage. 2 Cargo residues means the remnants of any cargo which are not covered by other
Annexes to the present Convention and which remain on the deck or in holds following loading or unloading, including loading and unloading excess or spillage, whether in wet or dry condition or entrained in wash water but does not include cargo dust remaining on the deck after sweeping or dust on the external surfaces of the ship.
3 Cooking oil means any type of edible oil or animal fat used or intended to be used
for the preparation or cooking of food, but does not include the food itself that is prepared using these oils.
4 Domestic wastes means all types of wastes not covered by other Annexes that are
generated in the accommodation spaces on board the ship. Domestic wastes does not include grey water.
5 En route means that the ship is underway at sea on a course or courses, including
deviation from the shortest direct route, which as far as practicable for navigational purposes, will cause any discharge to be spread over as great an area of the sea as is reasonable and practicable.
6 Fishing gear means any physical device or part thereof or combination of items that
may be placed on or in the water or on the sea-bed with the intended purpose of capturing, or controlling for subsequent capture or harvesting, marine or fresh water organisms.
7 Fixed or floating platforms means fixed or floating structures located at sea which
are engaged in the exploration, exploitation or associated offshore processing of sea-bed mineral resources.
8 Food wastes means any spoiled or unspoiled food substances and includes fruits,
vegetables, dairy products, poultry, meat products and food scraps generated aboard ship.
9 Garbage means all kinds of food wastes, domestic wastes and operational wastes,
all plastics, cargo residues, cooking oil, fishing gear, and animal carcasses generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically except those substances which are defined or listed in other Annexes to the present Convention. Garbage does not include fresh fish and parts thereof generated as a result of fishing activities undertaken during the voyage, or as a result of aquaculture activities which involve the transport of fish
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
including shellfish for placement in the aquaculture facility and the transport of harvested fish including shellfish from such facilities to shore for processing.
10 Incinerator ashes means ash and clinkers resulting from shipboard incinerators used
for the incineration of garbage. 11 Nearest land. The term "from the nearest land" means from the baseline from which
the territorial sea of the territory in question is established in accordance with international law, except that, for the purposes of the present Annex, ''from the nearest land'' off the north-eastern coast of Australia shall mean from a line drawn from a point on the coast of Australia in:
latitude 11°00 S, longitude 142°08 E to a point in latitude 10°35 S, longitude 141°55 E, thence to a point latitude 10°00 S, longitude 142°00 E, thence to a point latitude 09°10 S, longitude 143°52 E, thence to a point latitude 09°00 S, longitude 144°30 E, thence to a point latitude 10°41 S, longitude 145°00 E, thence to a point latitude 13°00 S, longitude 145°00 E, thence to a point latitude 15°00 S, longitude 146°00 E, thence to a point latitude 17°30 S, longitude 147°00 E, thence to a point latitude 21°00 S, longitude 152°55 E, thence to a point latitude 24°30 S, longitude 154°00 E, thence to a point on the coast of Australia in latitude 24°42 S, longitude 153°15 E.
12 Operational wastes means all solid wastes (including slurries) not covered by other
Annexes that are collected on board during normal maintenance or operations of a ship, or used for cargo stowage and handling. Operational wastes also includes cleaning agents and additives contained in cargo hold and external wash water. Operational wastes does not include grey water, bilge water, or other similar discharges essential to the operation of a ship, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization.
13 Plastic means a solid material which contains as an essential ingredient one or more
high molecular mass polymers and which is formed (shaped) during either manufacture of the polymer or the fabrication into a finished product by heat and/or pressure. Plastics have material properties ranging from hard and brittle to soft and elastic. For the purposes of this annex, "all plastics" means all garbage that consists of or includes plastic in any form, including synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, plastic garbage bags and incinerator ashes from plastic products.
14 Special area means a sea area where for recognized technical reasons in relation to
its oceanographic and ecological condition and to the particular character of its traffic the adoption of special mandatory methods for the prevention of sea pollution by garbage is required.
For the purposes of this Annex the special areas are the Mediterranean Sea area, the Baltic Sea area, the Black Sea area, the Red Sea area, the Gulfs area, the North Sea area, the Antarctic area and the Wider Caribbean Region, which are defined as follows:
.1 The Mediterranean Sea area means the Mediterranean Sea proper including the gulfs and seas therein with the boundary between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea constituted by the 41º N parallel and bounded to the west by the Straits of Gibraltar at the meridian 5°36 W.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.2 The Baltic Sea area means the Baltic Sea proper with the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland and the entrance to the Baltic Sea bounded by the parallel of the Skaw in the Skagerrak at 57º 44.8 N.
.3 The Black Sea area means the Black Sea proper with the boundary between
the Mediterranean and the Black Sea constituted by the parallel 41º N.
.4 The Red Sea area means the Red Sea proper including the Gulfs of Suez and Aqaba bounded at the south by the rhumb line between Ras si Ane (12º 28.5 N, 43º 19.6 E) and Husn Murad (12º 40.4 N, 43º 30.2 E).
.5 The Gulfs area means the sea area located north-west of the rhumb line
between Ras al Hadd (22º 30 N, 59º 48 E) and Ras al Fasteh (25º 04 N, 61º 25 E).
.6 The North Sea area means the North Sea proper including seas therein
with the boundary between:
.1 the North Sea southwards of latitude 62º N and eastwards of longitude 4º W;
.2 the Skagerrak, the southern limit of which is determined east of the
Skaw by latitude 57º 44.8 N; and .3 the English Channel and its approaches eastwards of longitude 5º W
and northwards of latitude 48º 30 N. .7 The Antarctic area means the sea area south of latitude 60º S. .8 The Wider Caribbean Region means the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea
proper including the bays and seas therein and that portion of the Atlantic Ocean within the boundary constituted by the 30° N parallel from Florida eastward to 77°30 W meridian, thence a rhumb line to the intersection of 20° N parallel and 59° W meridian, thence a rhumb line to the intersection of 7°20' N parallel and 50° W meridian, thence a rhumb line drawn southwesterly to the eastern boundary of French Guiana.
Regulation 2 Application Unless expressly provided otherwise, the provisions of this Annex shall apply to all ships. Regulation 3 General prohibition on discharge of garbage into the sea 1 Discharge of all garbage into the sea is prohibited, except as provided otherwise in regulations 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this Annex. 2 Except as provided in regulation 7 of this Annex, discharge into the sea of all plastics, including but not limited to synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, plastic garbage bags and incinerator ashes from plastic products is prohibited. 3 Except as provided in regulation 7 of this Annex, the discharge into the sea of cooking oil is prohibited.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Regulation 4 Discharge of garbage outside special areas 1 Subject to the provisions of regulations 5, 6, and 7 of this Annex, discharge of the following garbage into the sea outside special areas shall only be permitted while the ship is en route and as far as practicable from the nearest land, but in any case not less than:
.1 3 nautical miles from the nearest land for food wastes which have been passed through a comminuter or grinder. Such comminuted or ground food wastes shall be capable of passing through a screen with openings no greater than 25 mm.
.2 12 nautical miles from the nearest land for food wastes that have not been
treated in accordance with subparagraph .1 above. .3 12 nautical miles from the nearest land for cargo residues that cannot be
recovered using commonly available methods for unloading. These cargo residues shall not contain any substances classified as harmful to the marine environment, taking into account guidelines developed by the Organization.
.4 For animal carcasses, discharge shall occur as far from the nearest land as
possible, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization. 2 Cleaning agents or additives contained in cargo hold, deck and external surfaces wash water may be discharged into the sea, but these substances must not be harmful to the marine environment, taking into account guidelines developed by the Organization. 3 When garbage is mixed with or contaminated by other substances prohibited from discharge or having different discharge requirements, the more stringent requirements shall apply. Regulation 5 Special requirements for discharge of garbage from fixed or floating platforms 1 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this regulation, the discharge into the sea of any garbage is prohibited from fixed or floating platforms and from all other ships when alongside or within 500 m of such platforms. 2 Food wastes may be discharged into the sea from fixed or floating platforms located more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land and from all other ships when alongside or within 500 m of such platforms, but only when the wastes have been passed through a comminuter or grinder. Such comminuted or ground food wastes shall be capable of passing through a screen with openings no greater than 25 mm. Regulation 6 Discharge of garbage within special areas 1 Discharge of the following garbage into the sea within special areas shall only be permitted while the ship is en route and as follows:
.1 Discharge into the sea of food wastes as far as practicable from the nearest land, but not less than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land or the nearest ice shelf. Food wastes shall be comminuted or ground and shall be capable
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
of passing through a screen with openings no greater than 25 mm. Food wastes shall not be contaminated by any other garbage type. Discharge of introduced avian products, including poultry and poultry parts, is not permitted in the Antarctic area unless it has been treated to be made sterile.
.2 Discharge of cargo residues that cannot be recovered using commonly
available methods for unloading, where all the following conditions are satisfied:
.1 Cargo residues, cleaning agents or additives, contained in hold
washing water do not include any substances classified as harmful to the marine environment, taking into account guidelines developed by the Organization;
.2 Both the port of departure and the next port of destination are
within the special area and the ship will not transit outside the special area between those ports;
.3 No adequate reception facilities are available at those ports taking
into account guidelines developed by the Organization; and .4 Where the conditions of subparagraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of this
paragraph have been fulfilled, discharge of cargo hold washing water containing residues shall be made as far as practicable from the nearest land or the nearest ice shelf and not less than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land or the nearest ice shelf.
2 Cleaning agents or additives contained in deck and external surfaces wash water may be discharged into the sea, but only if these substances are not harmful to the marine environment, taking into account guidelines developed by the Organization. 3 The following rules (in addition to the rules in paragraph 1 of this regulation) apply with respect to the Antarctic area:
.1 Each Party at whose ports ships depart en route to or arrive from the Antarctic area undertakes to ensure that as soon as practicable adequate facilities are provided for the reception of all garbage from all ships, without causing undue delay, and according to the needs of the ships using them.
.2 Each Party shall ensure that all ships entitled to fly its flag, before entering
the Antarctic area, have sufficient capacity on board for the retention of all garbage, while operating in the area and have concluded arrangements to discharge such garbage at a reception facility after leaving the area.
4 When garbage is mixed with or contaminated by other substances prohibited from discharge or having different discharge requirements, the more stringent requirements shall apply.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 7
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Regulation 7 Exceptions 1 Regulations 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Annex shall not apply to:
.1 The discharge of garbage from a ship necessary for the purpose of
securing the safety of a ship and those on board or saving life at sea; or .2 The accidental loss of garbage resulting from damage to a ship or its
equipment, provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken before and after the occurrence of the damage, to prevent or minimize the accidental loss; or
.3 The accidental loss of fishing gear from a ship provided that all reasonable
precautions have been taken to prevent such loss; or .4 The discharge of fishing gear from a ship for the protection of the marine
environment or for the safety of that ship or its crew. 2 Exception of en route:
.1 The en route requirements of regulations 4 and 6 shall not apply to the discharge of food wastes where it is clear the retention on board of these food wastes presents an imminent health risk to the people on board.
Regulation 8 Reception facilities 1 Each Party undertakes to ensure the provision of adequate facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of garbage without causing undue delay to ships, and according to the needs of the ships using them. 2 Each Party shall notify the Organization for transmission to the Contracting Parties concerned of all cases where the facilities provided under this regulation are alleged to be inadequate. 3 Reception facilities within special areas
.1 Each Party, the coastline of which borders a special area, undertakes to ensure that as soon as possible, in all ports and terminals within the special area, adequate reception facilities are provided, taking into account the needs of ships operating in these areas.
.2 Each Party concerned shall notify the Organization of the measures taken
pursuant to subparagraph 3.1 of this regulation. Upon receipt of sufficient notifications the Organization shall establish a date from which the requirements of regulation 6 of this Annex in respect of the area in question are to take effect. The Organization shall notify all Parties of the date so established no less than twelve months in advance of that date. Until the date so established, ships that are navigating in a special area shall comply with the requirements of regulation 4 of this Annex as regards discharges outside special areas.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 8
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
Regulation 9 Port State control on operational requirements1
1 A ship when in a port or an offshore terminal of another Party is subject to inspection by officers duly authorized by such Party concerning operational requirements under this Annex, where there are clear grounds for believing that the master or crew are not familiar with essential shipboard procedures relating to the prevention of pollution by garbage. 2 In the circumstances given in paragraph 1 of this regulation, the Party shall take such steps as will ensure that the ship shall not sail until the situation has been brought to order in accordance with the requirements of this Annex. 3 Procedures relating to the port State control prescribed in article 5 of the present Convention shall apply to this regulation. 4 Nothing in this regulation shall be construed to limit the rights and obligations of a Party carrying out control over operational requirements specifically provided for in the present Convention. Regulation 10 Placards, garbage management plans2 and garbage record-keeping 1 .1 Every ship of 12 m or more in length overall and fixed or floating platforms
shall display placards which notify the crew and passengers of the discharge requirements of regulations 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Annex, as applicable.
.2 The placards shall be written in the working language of the ship's crew
and, for ships engaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties to the Convention, shall also be in English, French or Spanish.
2 Every ship of 100 gross tonnage and above, and every ship which is certified to carry 15 or more persons, and fixed or floating platforms shall carry a garbage management plan which the crew shall follow. This plan shall provide written procedures for minimizing, collecting, storing, processing and disposing of garbage, including the use of the equipment on board. It shall also designate the person or persons in charge of carrying out the plan. Such a plan shall be based on the guidelines developed by the Organization2 and written in the working language of the crew. 3 Every ship of 400 gross tonnage and above and every ship which is certified to carry 15 or more persons engaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of another Party to the Convention and every fixed or floating platform shall be provided with a Garbage Record Book. The Garbage Record Book, whether as a part of the ship's official log-book or otherwise, shall be in the form specified in the appendix to this Annex:
1 Refer to the Procedures for port State control adopted by the Organization by resolution A.787(19) and
amended by A.882(21); see IMO sales publication IA650E. 2 Refer to the Guidelines for the development of garbage management plans adopted by the Marine
Environment Protection Committee of the Organization by resolution MEPC.71(38); see MEPC/Circ.317 and IMO sales publication IA656E.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 9
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
.1 Each discharge into the sea or to a reception facility, or a completed incineration, shall be promptly recorded in the Garbage Record Book and signed for on the date of the discharge or incineration by the officer in charge. Each completed page of the Garbage Record Book shall be signed by the master of the ship. The entries in the Garbage Record Book shall be at least in English, French or Spanish. Where the entries are also made in an official language of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, the entries in that language shall prevail in case of a dispute or discrepancy;
.2 The entry for each discharge or incineration shall include date and time,
position of the ship, category of the garbage and the estimated amount discharged or incinerated;
.3 The Garbage Record Book shall be kept on board the ship or the fixed or
floating platform, and in such a place as to be readily available for inspection at all reasonable times. This document shall be preserved for a period of at least two years from the date of the last entry made in it;
.4 In the event of any discharge or accidental loss referred to in regulation 7 of
this Annex an entry shall be made in the Garbage Record Book, or in the case of any ship of less than 400 gross tonnage, an entry shall be made in the ship's official log-book, of the location, circumstances of, and the reasons for the discharge or loss, details of the items discharged or lost, and the reasonable precautions taken to prevent or minimize such discharge or accidental loss.
4 The Administration may waive the requirements for Garbage Record Books for:
.1 Any ship engaged on voyages of one (1) hour or less in duration which is certified to carry 15 or more persons; or
.2 Fixed or floating platforms.
5 The competent authority of the Government of a Party to the Convention may inspect the Garbage Record Books or ship's official log–book on board any ship to which this regulation applies while the ship is in its ports or offshore terminals and may make a copy of any entry in those books, and may require the master of the ship to certify that the copy is a true copy of such an entry. Any copy so made, which has been certified by the master of the ship as a true copy of an entry in the ship's Garbage Record Book or ship's official log-book, shall be admissible in any judicial proceedings as evidence of the facts stated in the entry. The inspection of a Garbage Record Book or ship's official log-book and the taking of a certified copy by the competent authority under this paragraph shall be performed as expeditiously as possible without causing the ship to be unduly delayed. 6 The accidental loss or discharge of fishing gear as provided for in regulations 7.1.3 and 7.1.3bis which poses a significant threat to the marine environment or navigation shall be reported to the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, and, where the loss or discharge occurs within waters subject to the jurisdiction of a coastal State, also to that coastal State.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 10
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
APPENDIX
FORM OF GARBAGE RECORD BOOK Name of ship: _______________________ Distinctive number or letters: _______________________ IMO No.: _______________________ Period:_____________ From: _____________ To: _____________ 1 Introduction In accordance with regulation 10 of Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL), a record is to be kept of each discharge operation or completed incineration. This includes discharges into the sea, to reception facilities, or to other ships, as well as the accidental loss of garbage. 2 Garbage and garbage management Garbage means all kinds of food wastes, domestic wastes and operational wastes, all plastics, cargo residues, cooking oil, fishing gear, and animal carcasses generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically except those substances which are defined or listed in other Annexes to the present Convention. Garbage does not include fresh fish and parts thereof generated as a result of fishing activities undertaken during the voyage, or as a result of aquaculture activities which involve the transport of fish including shellfish for placement in the aquaculture facility and the transport of harvested fish including shellfish from such facilities to shore for processing. The Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V of MARPOL3 should also be referred to for relevant information. 3 Description of the garbage Garbage is to be grouped into categories for the purposes of the Garbage Record Book (or ship's official log-book) as follows:
A Plastics B Food wastes C Domestic Wastes D Cooking Oil E Incinerator ashes F Operational wastes
3 Refer to the Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78, as amended by resolutions.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 11
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
G Cargo residues H Animal Carcass(es) I Fishing Gear4
4 Entries in the Garbage Record Book 4.1 Entries in the Garbage Record Book shall be made on each of the following occasions:
4.1.1 When garbage is discharged to a reception facility5 ashore or to other ships:
.1 Date and time of discharge .2 Port or facility, or name of ship .3 Categories of garbage discharged .4 Estimated amount discharged for each category in cubic metres .5 Signature of officer in charge of the operation.
4.1.2 When garbage is incinerated:
.1 Date and time of start and stop of incineration
.2 Position of the ship (latitude and longitude) at the start and stop of incineration
.3 Categories of garbage incinerated
.4 Estimated amount incinerated in cubic metres
.5 Signature of the officer in charge of the operation.
4.1.3 When garbage is discharged into the sea in accordance with regulations 4, 5 or 6 of Annex V of MARPOL:
.1 Date and time of discharge .2 Position of the ship (latitude and longitude). Note: for cargo
residue discharges, include discharge start and stop positions. .3 Category of garbage discharged .4 Estimated amount discharged for each category in cubic metres .5 Signature of the officer in charge of the operation.
4.1.4 Accidental or other exceptional discharges or loss of garbage into the sea, including in accordance with regulation 7 of Annex V of MARPOL:
.1 Date and time of occurrence .2 Port or position of the ship at time of occurrence (latitude,
longitude and water depth if known) .3 Categories of garbage discharged or lost .4 Estimated amount for each category in cubic metres .5 The reason for the discharge or loss and general remarks.
4 Refer to Guidelines to be developed by the Organization. 5 Ship's masters should obtain from the operator of the reception facilities, which includes barges and
trucks, a receipt or certificate specifying the estimated amount of garbage transferred. The receipts or certificates must be kept together with the Garbage Record Book.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 13, page 12
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4.2 Amount of garbage The amount of garbage on board should be estimated in cubic metres, if possible separately according to category. The Garbage Record Book contains many references to estimated amount of garbage. It is recognized that the accuracy of estimating amounts of garbage is left to interpretation. Volume estimates will differ before and after processing. Some processing procedures may not allow for a usable estimate of volume, e.g., the continuous processing of food waste. Such factors should be taken into consideration when making and interpreting entries made in a record.
RECORD OF GARBAGE DISCHARGES Ship's name: _______________________ Distinctive No., or letters: _______________________ IMO No.: ____________ Garbage categories: A. Plastics B. Food wastes C. Domestic wastes (e.g., paper products, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery, etc.) D. Cooking oil E. Incinerator Ashes F. Operational wastes G. Cargo residues H. Animal Carcass(es) I. Fishing gear NEW TABLE LAYOUT AS BELOW: Date/Time
Position of the Ship/Remarks
(e.g., accidental loss)
Category Estimated Amount
Discharged or
Incinerated
To Sea
To Reception
Facility
Incineration Certification/ Signature
Master's signature:______________ Date: ____________________
***
MEPC 62/24 Annex 14, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 14
RESOLUTION MEPC.202(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE PROTOCOL OF 1997 TO AMEND THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973, AS MODIFIED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING THERETO
(Designation of the United States Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area and
exemption of certain ships operating in the North American Emission Control Area and the United States Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area
under regulations 13 and 14 and Appendix VII of MARPOL Annex VI) THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, NOTING article 16 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "1973 Convention"), article VI of the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "1978 Protocol") and article 4 of the Protocol of 1997 to amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (hereinafter referred to as the "1997 Protocol"), which together specify the amendment procedure of the 1997 Protocol and confer upon the appropriate body of the Organization the function of considering and adopting amendments to the 1973 Convention, as modified by the 1978 and 1997 Protocols, NOTING ALSO that, by the 1997 Protocol, Annex VI entitled Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships was added to the 1973 Convention (hereinafter referred to as "Annex VI"), NOTING FURTHER that the revised Annex VI was adopted by resolution MEPC.176(58) and entered into force on 1 July 2010, HAVING CONSIDERED draft amendments to the revised Annex VI, 1. ADOPTS, in accordance with article 16(2)(d) of the 1973 Convention, the amendments to Annex VI, the text of which is set out at annex to the present resolution; 2. DETERMINES, in accordance with article 16(2)(f)(iii) of the 1973 Convention, that the amendments shall be deemed to have been accepted on 1 July 2012, unless prior to that date, not less than one third of the Parties or Parties the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant fleet, have communicated to the Organization their objection to the amendments; 3. INVITES the Parties to note that, in accordance with article 16(2)(g)(ii) of the 1973 Convention, the said amendments shall enter into force on 1 January 2013 upon their acceptance in accordance with paragraph 2 above;
MEPC 62/24 Annex 14, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4. REQUESTS the Secretary-General, in conformity with article 16(2)(e) of the 1973 Convention, to transmit to all Parties to the 1973 Convention, as modified by the 1978 and 1997 Protocols, certified copies of the present resolution and the text of the amendments contained in the Annex; 5. REQUESTS FURTHER the Secretary-General to transmit to the Members of the Organization which are not Parties to the 1973 Convention, as modified by the 1978 and 1997 Protocols, copies of the present resolution and its Annex.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 14, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX
AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS 13 AND 14 AND APPENDIX VII OF THE REVISED MARPOL ANNEX VI
1 Paragraph 6 of regulation 13 is replaced by the following:
"6 For the purpose of this regulation, emission control areas shall be:
.1 the North American area, which means the area described by the coordinates provided in Appendix VII to this Annex;
.2 the United States Caribbean Sea area, which means the area
described by the coordinates provided in Appendix VII to this Annex; and
.3 any other sea area, including any port area, designated by the
Organization in accordance with the criteria and procedures set forth in Appendix III to this Annex."
2 Paragraph 7.3 of regulation 13 is amended to read as follows:
"7.3 With regard to a marine diesel engine with a power output of more than 5,000 kW and a per cylinder displacement at or above 90 litres installed on a ship constructed on or after 1 January 1990 but prior to 1 January 2000, the International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate shall, for a marine diesel engine to which paragraph 7.1 of this regulation applies, indicate that either an approved method has been applied pursuant to paragraph 7.1.1 of this regulation or the engine has been certified pursuant to paragraph 7.1.2 of this regulation or that an approved method does not yet exist or is not yet commercially available as described in paragraph 7.2 of this regulation."
3 Paragraph 3 of regulation 14 is replaced by the following:
"3 For the purpose of this regulation, emission control areas shall include:
.1 the Baltic Sea area as defined in regulation 1.11.2 of Annex I and the North Sea area as defined in regulation 1.12.6 of Annex V;
.2 the North American area as described by the coordinates provided
in Appendix VII to this Annex; .3 the United States Caribbean Sea area as described by the
coordinates provided in Appendix VII to this Annex; and .4 any other sea area, including any port area, designated by the
Organization in accordance with the criteria and procedures set forth in Appendix III to this Annex."
MEPC 62/24 Annex 14, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
4 A new subparagraph 4 is added to paragraph 4 of regulation 14 to read as follows:
".4 Prior to 1 January 2020, the sulphur content of fuel oil referred to in paragraph 4 of this regulation shall not apply to ships operating in the North American area or the United States Caribbean Sea area defined in paragraph 3, built on or before 1 August 2011 that are powered by propulsion boilers that were not originally designed for continued operation on marine distillate fuel or natural gas."
5 Paragraph 7 of regulation 14 is replaced by the following:
"7 During the first twelve months immediately following entry into force of an amendment designating a specific emission control area under paragraph 3 of this regulation, ships operating in that emission control area are exempt from the requirements in paragraphs 4 and 6 of this regulation and from the requirements of paragraph 5 of this regulation insofar as they relate to paragraph 4 of this regulation1."
1 The 12 month exemption provided by paragraph 7 will apply for the North American emission control area
until 1 August 2012. The 12 month exemption provided by paragraph 7 will apply for the United States Caribbean Sea emission control area until 1 January 2014.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 14, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
6 Appendix VII is amended as follows:
"Appendix VII Emission Control Areas (regulation 13.6 and regulation 14.3)
.1 The boundaries of emission control areas designated under regulations 13.6 and 14.3, other than the Baltic Sea and the North Sea areas, are set forth in this appendix.
.2 (Existing text for the North American area) .3 The United States Caribbean Sea area includes:
.1 the sea area located off the Atlantic and Caribbean coasts of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, enclosed by geodesic lines connecting the following coordinates:
"
***
POINT LATITUDE LONGITUDE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
17º 18 37 N. 19º 11 14 N. 19º 30 28 N. 19º 12 25 N. 18º 45 13 N. 18º 41 14 N. 18º 29 22 N. 18º 27 35 N. 18º 25 21 N. 18º 24 30 N. 18º 23 51 N. 18º 23 42 N. 18º 23 36 N. 18º 23 48 N. 18º 24 11 N. 18º 24 28 N. 18º 24 18 N. 18º 23 13 N. 18º 22 37 N. 18º 22 39 N. 18º 22 42 N. 18º 22 37 N. 18º 22 39 N. 18º 22 30 N. 18º 22 25 N. 18º 22 26 N. 18º 22 15 N.
67º 32 14 W. 67º 26 45 W. 65º 16 48 W. 65º 6 8 W. 65º 0 22 W. 64º 59 33 W. 64º 53 51 W. 64º 53 22 W. 64º 52 39 W. 64º 52 19 W. 64º 51 50 W. 64º 51 23 W. 64º 50 17 W. 64º 49 41 W. 64º 49 0 W. 64º 47 57 W. 64º 47 1 W. 64º 46 37 W. 64º 45 20 W. 64º 44 42 W. 64º 44 36 W. 64º 44 24 W. 64º 43 42 W. 64º 43 36 W. 64º 42 58 W. 64º 42 28 W. 64º 42 3 W.
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
18º 22 22 N. 18º 21 57 N. 18º 21 51 N. 18º 21 22 N. 18º 20 39 N. 18º 19 15 N. 18º 19 7 N. 18º 17 23 N. 18º 16 43 N. 18º 11 33 N. 18º 3 2 N. 18º 2 56 N. 18º 2 51 N. 18º 2 30 N. 18º 2 31 N. 18º 2 3 N. 18º 0 12 N. 17º 59 58 N. 17º 58 47 N. 17º 57 51 N. 17º 56 38 N. 17º 39 40 N. 17º 37 8 N. 17º 30 21 N. 17º 11 36 N. 17º 4 60 N. 16º 59 49 N. 17º 18 37 N.
64º 38 23 W. 64º 40 60 W. 64º 40 15 W. 64º 38 16 W. 64º 38 33 W. 64º 38 14 W. 64º 38 16 W. 64º 39 38 W. 64º 39 41 W. 64º 38 58 W. 64º 38 3 W. 64º 29 35 W. 64º 27 2 W. 64º 21 8 W. 64º 20 8 W. 64º 15 57 W. 64º 2 29 W. 64º 1 4 W. 63º 57 1 W. 63º 53 54 W. 63º 53 21 W. 63º 54 53 W. 63º 55 10 W. 63º 55 56 W. 63º 57 57 W. 63º 58 41 W. 63º 59 18 W. 67º 32 14 W.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 15, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 15
OUTLINE FOR A DRAFT MEPC RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE BALTIC SEA AS A SPECIAL AREA UNDER MARPOL ANNEX IV*
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, … RECALLING that passenger ships which, in accordance with MARPOL Annex IV regulation 2, are required to comply with the provisions of MARPOL Annex IV, whilst in a special area, shall be equipped with either a sewage treatment plant or a holding tank, RECALLING also the ongoing work in the DE Sub-Committee on the development of the revised guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants which is due to be finalized during 2012, RECALLING further the need for adequate, cost-effective technical means to be developed so as to make it possible for the shipping industry to comply with the discharge standards of regulation 11.3 of MARPOL Annex IV, BEING CONSCIOUS of the importance of the availability of adequate technical means so as to make it possible to comply with the discharge standards under MARPOL Annex IV, HAVING CONSIDERED the amendments to MARPOL Annex IV, 1. RECOGNIZES the urgent need to develop adequate, cost-effective technical means to assist the shipping industry to comply with the discharge requirements of regulation 11.3 of MARPOL Annex IV for special areas; 2. CALLS for the development, without delay, of proven technical onboard equipment to make it possible to meet the discharge standards under regulation 11.3 of MARPOL Annex IV; 3. UNDERTAKES to keep under review the progress made in this respect at the DE Sub-Committee.
***
* To be further developed with a view to adoption at MEPC 63.
MEPC 62/24 Annex 16, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24.doc
ANNEX 16
MEPC CIRCULAR*
ON THE DATE OF TAKING EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS 13 AND 14 OF MARPOL ANNEX VI ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION MEPC.202(62)
1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its sixtieth session (March 2010), adopted the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, by resolution MEPC.190(60), to designate the North American area as an emission control area for nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter. MEPC 61 agreed that these amendments shall enter into force on 1 August 2011. 2 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its sixty-second session (July 2011), adopted the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, by resolution MEPC.202(62), to designate the United States Caribbean Sea area as an emission control area for nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter. MEPC 62 agreed that these amendments shall enter into force on 1 January 2013, upon their acceptance in accordance with article 16 of the Convention. 3 Regulation 14.7 of MARPOL Annex VI specifies that "During the first twelve months immediately following entry into force of an amendment designating a specific emission control area under paragraph 3 of this regulation, ships operating in that emission control area are exempt from the requirements in paragraph 4 and 6 of this regulation and from the requirements of paragraph 5 of this regulation insofar as they relate to paragraph 4 of this regulation". 4 In accordance with regulation 14.7, the requirement for the North American area as an emission control area under regulation 14 shall take effect on 1 August 2012, and for the United States Caribbean Sea area shall take effect on 1 January 2014. 5 Noting that the effective dates for such areas have not been specified in the adopted text of regulation 14.3, MEPC 62 requested the issuance of a circular announcing these dates in order to avoid any ambiguity. 6 Recognizing that the said amendments to regulation 14.3 of MARPOL Annex VI will enter into force in accordance with the amendment procedure as prescribed in article 16(2)(d) of the MARPOL Convention, MEPC 62 urged Member Governments to take early action before the amendments come into force. 7 Member Governments are invited to bring this circular to the attention of their Administrations, relevant shipping organizations, recognized organizations, shipping companies and other stakeholders concerned.
***
(Annexes 17 to 37 to the report are contained in document MEPC 62/24/Add.1)
___________
* Distributed as MEPC.1/Circ.756.
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
E
MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE 62nd session Agenda item 24
MEPC 62/24/Add.126 July 2011
Original: ENGLISH
REPORT OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE ON ITS SIXTY-SECOND SESSION
Attached are annexes 17 to 37 to the report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its sixty-second session (MEPC 62/24).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX 17 STATEMENTS BY THE DELEGATIONS OF BRAZIL, INDIA, AUSTRALIA AND CHILE ON THE CIRCULATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI
ANNEX 18 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF SWEDEN ON THE RO-RO
SEGMENT AND THE PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION ON THE FUTURE WORK OF THE ORGANIZATION PERTAINING TO MARPOL ANNEX VI
ANNEX 19 RESOLUTION MEPC.203(62) – AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE
PROTOCOL OF 1997 TO AMEND THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973, AS MODIFIED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING THERETO (INCLUSION OF REGULATIONS ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR SHIPS IN MARPOL ANNEX VI)
ANNEX 20 STATEMENTS BY THE DELEGATIONS OF BRAZIL, CHINA, INDIA,
SAUDI ARABIA AND THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA AND THE OBSERVERS OF THE PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT AND CLEAN SHIPPING COALITION AFTER THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI
ANNEX 21 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEXES I, II, IV, V AND VI ON
REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PORT RECEPTION FACILITIES ANNEX 22 RESOLUTION MEPC.204(62) – DESIGNATION OF THE STRAIT OF
BONIFACIO AS A PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREA ANNEX 23 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF SINGAPORE ON PROCEDURES
IN ASSESSING PSSA APPLICATIONS ANNEX 24 RESOLUTION MEPC.205(62) – 2011 GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR ADD-ON EQUIPMENT FOR UPGRADING RESOLUTION MEPC.60(33)-COMPLIANT OIL FILTERING EQUIPMENT
ANNEX 25 RESOLUTION MEPC.206(62) – PROCEDURE FOR APPROVING OTHER
METHODS OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION B-3.7 OF THE BWM CONVENTION
ANNEX 26 RESOLUTION MEPC.207(62) – 2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE CONTROL
AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS' BIOFOULING TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSFER OF INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES
ANNEX 27 RESOLUTION MEPC.208(62) – 2011 GUIDELINES FOR INSPECTION OF
ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS ON SHIPS ANNEX 28 DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON PROCEDURES FOR PORT
STATE CONTROL, 2011 ANNEX 29 DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON SURVEY GUIDELINES UNDER THE
HARMONIZED SYSTEM OF SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION (HSSC), 2011
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 30 DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON THE CODE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY IMO INSTRUMENTS, 2011
ANNEX 31 FSA ENVIRONMENTAL RISK EVALUATION CRITERIA: AMENDMENTS
TO THE FSA GUIDELINES – A PROPOSED NEW APPENDIX ANNEX 32 BIENNIAL AGENDA FOR THE BLG SUB-COMMITTEE AND PROVISIONAL
AGENDA FOR BLG 16 ANNEX 33 BIENNIAL AGENDA FOR THE FSI SUB-COMMITTEE AND PROVISIONAL
AGENDA FOR FSI 20 ANNEX 34 ITEMS IN BIENNIAL AGENDAS OF THE DE, DSC, NAV AND STW
SUB-COMMITTEES RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ANNEX 35 STATUS OF THE PLANNED OUTPUTS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
THE 2010-2011 BIENNIUM ANNEX 36 PROPOSALS BY THE COMMITTEE FOR THE HIGH-LEVEL ACTION
PLAN OF THE ORGANIZATION AND PRIORITIES FOR THE 2012-2013 BIENNIUM
ANNEX 37 ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AGENDAS FOR MEPC 63, MEPC 64
AND MEPC 65
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 17, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 17
STATEMENTS BY THE DELEGATIONS OF BRAZIL, INDIA, AUSTRALIA AND CHILE ON THE CIRCULATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI
Statement by the delegation of Brazil Through the submission of document MEPC 62/6/15 by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Ecuador, India, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa and Venezuela, the co-sponsors comment on document MEPC 62/6/3 submitted by the Secretariat, which sets out the text of the proposed draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, as submitted by nine Parties to said Annex. Paragraph 3 of that document states that MEPC 61 noted the intention of the delegation of Norway to request that the Secretary-General circulated the proposed draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI as prepared by the working group. However, the proposed draft amendments, presented by the Secretariat as an Annex to the afore-mentioned document and circulated at the request of nine Parties to MARPOL Annex VI under cover of Circular letter No.3128, are in fact not the draft amendments as prepared by the Working Group at MEPC 61 (annex 1 to document MEPC 61/WP.10), but new draft amendments as prepared by the said Parties, and for the first time submitted to IMO Member States, and Parties to the MARPOL Convention which are not Members of IMO, on pink paper. In this respect, the long-established procedure of the Organization is to circulate proposed amendments printed on pink paper, as an indication that such amendments have previously been approved for adoption by the Committee. Since the amendments proposed by the said Parties, and circulated according to Article 16(2)(a), have neither been approved, nor have they been considered as yet by the Organization, there are no logical grounds, nor any indication of such in Article 16(2)(a), why they should have been circulated on pink paper. Furthermore, Article 16(2)(b) of the Convention states that "any amendment proposed and circulated as above shall be submitted to an appropriate body by the Organization for consideration". However, document MEPC 62/6/3 by the Secretariat submits the draft amendments together with a draft MEPC resolution for their adoption. Should this procedure be correct, surely Article 16(2)(b) should read: "any amendment proposed and circulated as above shall be submitted to an appropriate body by the Organization for consideration and adoption". There is no doubt that all the amendments to the MARPOL Convention, approved and adopted by the Organization, have followed the procedures specified in Article 16 of the Convention. The co-sponsors thus do not comprehend why the Organization, at this particular instance, decided to apply the provisions of Articles 16(2)(b) and 16(2)(d) at the same session of the Committee. It is our firm understanding that Article 16(2)(d) should not be applied at this stage consistent with the customary procedure of the Organization. Therefore, the co-sponsors cannot endorse the action requested of the Committee in document MEPC 62/6/3. It is also against this background, and in view of the fact that the Committee is expected at this session to continue its work on the development of technical, operational and Market-Based Measures for the reduction of GHG emissions from ships (MEPC 62/1/1, annex 1, paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3), that the co-sponsors deem it appropriate to refer the proposed draft amendments for consideration under agenda item 5, where a Working Group is expected to be established.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 17, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Statement by the delegation of India The document MEPC 62/6/9 by India discusses Circular letter No.3128 dated 24 November 2010, circulated by the Secretary-General in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of the MARPOL Convention. This document also discusses the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 31, and proposes that IMO should not deliberate on any mandatory application of measures to reduce GHG emissions from ships. It may not be quite compatible to rely on the argument of "no more favourable treatment" to detract from the specific commitments of Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to address the challenge of climate change. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so. The Kyoto Protocol should be read in furtherance to and in line with UNFCCC from which it derives, particularly, in observing the preamble of the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC's fundamental object and purpose, which clearly enshrines the doctrine of CBDR. Therefore it is evident, that the provisions in Article 31, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, requiring that a treaty should be (i) interpreted in good faith and (ii) in the light of its objective and purpose, and that (iii) for the purpose of interpretation both the annex and the preamble of the treaty should be taken into consideration. This has not been adhered by those Governments requesting the circulation for making amendments in MARPOL Annex VI. The argument used by a number of delegations in the debates that IMO's "non-discriminatory approach" and the principle of "no more favourable treatment" can be made applicable in this particular case, contradicts the fundamentals of UNFCCC. As said earlier, the Convention and the Protocol form an inseparable body of principles, rules and regulations that should be read and interpreted in unison. Therefore, when interpreting provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, the IMO should have taken into consideration its preamble, which recalls UNFCCC, and in particular the pursuit of the Convention's ultimate objective (Article 2) and guiding principles (Article 3). Sadly, this does not appear to have been done. As the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties obviously calls for appreciating the broadest possible perspective to be taken into account in cases where interpretation of an international treaty is necessary for resolving any matter under the same treaty, India is constrained to oppose the proposal of making amendments to MARPOL Annex VI related to GHG, as it cannot be construed as "amendments". India does not share the understanding that the provisions of Article 16(2) (a) of MARPOL has been met, thus enabling the IMO to circulate the proposed amendments. On the contrary, India believes that the Organization has not formally considered the proposed "amendments", any more than, taking cognizance of the views expressed by a select few Countries. In order to enable formal consideration by the Organization, it is imperative to take appropriate note of the outcome of MEPC 61, which established that there was no consensus among the delegations on the mandatory application of the GHG issues.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 17, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
India's reasoning is based on IMO's customary practice that only proposed amendments that have been approved by a Committee may be circulated for consideration with a view to adoption at a succeeding session of the Committee considering the proposed amendments. Second statement by the delegation of Brazil As regards the circulation of the proposed amendments, Brazil would like to make clear that we do not question the right of a Party to MARPOL Annex VI to submit any proposal of amendment to the Convention, for consideration of an appropriate body of the Organization. This right is clearly set out in its Articles 16(2)(a) and 16(2)(b). However, we do question the intended course of action as regards the approval and adoption of the proposed amendments to MARPOL Convention in one single session of the Committee, which in our view is not only unjustified but also unprecedented in this Organization. As far as we are aware, and we stand to be corrected, there has just been one comparable case in the past, namely the amendments proposed by 15 EU countries to regulations 13G and 27 of MARPOL Annex I. Again, there is no question as to the fact that the proposal strictly followed the procedures set out in Article 16, and yet, at that instance, the proposed amendments were submitted to MEPC 49, and approved at that session, but adopted only at MEPC 50. Having said that, we also note that a significant number of documents have been submitted presenting new proposals or concerns pertaining to the draft regulations on energy efficiency for ships, although in principle only simple drafting issues should be addressed under this agenda item. In particular, we would like to highlight the well founded concerns expressed by Vanuatu in document MEPC 62/6/23, and those of China in document MEPC 62/6/16, amongst several others. Therefore, given the considerable amount of work still pending as regards uncertainties and information gaps on the use of technical and operational measures to reduce GHG emission from ships, it is clear that the issue is still a long way from being finalized, thus the intended adoption of the proposed amendments at this session is neither recommended nor feasible. Statement by the delegation of Australia I would like to start by indicating this delegation's agreement with your summing up of this issue prior to our break. I would next like to thank the Director of Legal Affairs, the Secretary-General and our colleagues from Norway and Japan. They have brought those of us new to this house up to speed, and given us sound grounds for concluding that the proposed amendments have been brought to this meeting consistent with procedure, and that the amendments themselves fall within the scope of the provisions of MARPOL. From this strong basis we can then turn to the substance of the proposed amendments. They are the product of the co-sponsors extensive consultations. They are not the preferred formulation of the co-sponsors but do capture a common ground amongst many countries. We are encouraged by the statements from our colleagues, most recently South Africa, that they want to engage in a discussion of the proposals. Let us turn to the issues they have raised.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 17, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
We have heard that we must respect the principle of CBDR. That is a guiding principle of another international body. While we respect that body, we must remember that we are an independent sovereign body. We have our own principles – most importantly the principle to operate on the basis of universal rules applying without discrimination to all ships. This principle was shaped to reflect the nature of our work and must be respected. Aside from the fact that CBDR is not a principle of this house, it is also not compatible with the outcome we are trying to achieve. Differentiating between which flag States would apply the proposed measures would undermine the very environmental goal we are pursuing through the proposed amendments. In terms of the detail of the proposed amendments, countries' interventions seem to coalesce around two main areas – outstanding technical issues and uncertainties; and the need for more time in order to implement the proposed measures. Regarding the outstanding technical issues and uncertainties, we recognise they exist. We are confident that those issues that need to be resolved before the proposed amendments can be adopted can be resolved at this meeting. The other issues should still be addressed and can be the subject of a forward work programme. Perfection is always attractive but we must make sure that perfection is not the enemy of the good. Regarding the need for more time, we are interested in hearing more about the substance of what needs to be done during this time. We have heard from the shipping industry that they are ready to implement the proposed amendments. Consequently, we are keen to understand why further time is needed by certain countries to implement the amendments. Mr. Chair, we believe our proposed amendments are strong and reflect the views of many countries. Nevertheless, we are ready to heed the call of our Secretary-General and consider further revisions to the proposal in the interests of retaining a united house and preserving its spirit. In closing, we would like to recall that another delegation said we should consider the repercussions of the proposed amendments. Indeed, this is an important point. What are the repercussions? This delegation hopes that the repercussions will be two-fold:
.1 Action by the international shipping industry to contribute to the global effort to reduce greenhouse gases. Such collective effort is critical to avoiding the dangerous climate change that threatens us all, in particular the most vulnerable amongst us from small island developing states and least developed countries.
.2 Delivery of our regulatory mandate relating to the environment and maintenance of international shipping as the most environmentally sustainable mode of transport.
Third statement by the delegation of Brazil Brazil would like to thank Dr. Balkin for the view expressed. In this respect we would like to make some comments. This delegation reiterates that, as far as the MEPC Committee is concerned, the only comparable case in the past was the mentioned amendments proposed by 15 EU countries to regulations 13G and 27 of MARPOL Annex I. Dr. Balkin expressed the view that "this is only one example" – but we beg to differ – this is the only example, as there is no other
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 17, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
regarding MEPC. And again, even in this particular and only precedent, approval and adoption did not occur at the same session of this Committee. Dr. Balkin also referred to past procedure of approval and adoption of amendments to the MARPOL Convention as "just a practice". Nevertheless, we trust that all amendments to the Convention have so far strictly followed the procedures set out in Article 16. As for the information provided by the delegation of Norway, we are of the view that, apart from the fact that it is not related to the MEPC, the amendments were also either consequential, reflecting decisions already approved and adopted previously; emergential, as in the case of an accident with a ship where the reasons were identified and amendments quickly made to the Convention in order to prevent similar cases in the future; or editorial. There is usually general agreement to these amendments. As for the present amendments to Annex VI:
.1 they are neither consequential, nor emergential or editorial;
.2 there has been no previous agreement to them, either by the MEPC or any subsidiary body;
.3 there are still evident technical uncertainties and information gaps relating to the use of technical and operational measures to include GHG emissions from ships; and
.4 there is no consensus. In brief, Mr. Chairman, this Committee has never before approved and adopted amendments to the MARPOL Convention at the same session. Therefore, we question the unprecedented and dangerous nature of the procedure being followed at this time, particularly on an important issue which does not have the consensus of the Parties at all. Last but not least, this is a discussion that all Parties to the Convention and not only those to Annex VI should take part in, as we are discussing procedures, not the amendments themselves, at this stage. Statement by the delegation of Chile Our delegation is grateful for the work of those countries that have developed proposals and discussion points with respect to future amendments to the MARPOL Convention, and also for the explanations provided by Dr. Balkin. As co-sponsors of document MEPC 62/6/15 we would like to bring the following general considerations before the plenary concerning the content of document MEPC 62/6/3 submitted by the Secretariat: Chile understands the urgent need to maximize energy efficiency in the international maritime industry. Its awareness of the problem is such that the Chilean fleet has voluntarily implemented strict measures, not only to reduce gas emissions but also out of the need to reach our commercial partners' more remote markets and ports by employing competitive standards and in a sustainable manner. We firmly believe it is advisable to continue the progress made towards implementing a package of measures that can enhance energy efficiency as a contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 17, page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Our country believes that the amendments submitted in document MEPC 62/6/3, although clearly aimed at optimizing ships' energy efficiency, require more time and more thorough consideration in order to understand their real significance for our fleets in the future and the economic impact they will have, especially for the developing countries. Likewise, our delegation considers that the regulations in the Energy Efficiency Design Index for ships are not sufficiently mature to be incorporated as an amendment to MARPOL Annex VI, the more so as, for this session, a number of comments and concerns have been put forward which need to be clarified before those regulations can be adopted. In this regard, we wish to make the following specific comments regarding the development of technical and operational measures affecting global maritime transport: The Chilean view is that the industry's efforts should be focused on continuing to develop, jointly and consensually, these amendments together with their technical and operational guidelines and recommendations, so that in the near future we will be able to understand the package of proposed amendments more clearly and accurately before IMO finally adopts them. We believe it important to consider incorporating in the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI a commitment by the developed countries to provide technical cooperation on these aspects, as well as capacity building that will enable all Member States to proceed in a more fair and impartial manner. Our country needs to clarify what the future impact and/or benefits for the industry will be once these measures are applied. In this regard the amendments contained in the above-mentioned Secretariat document do not yet provide sufficient certainty to permit a clear opinion to be expressed, and the operational measures have not yet been settled, as demonstrated by regulation 22 of the draft amendments. In short, the draft amendments and their related documents must be fully endorsed by the Committee before they can be adopted. From the operational viewpoint, we believe that whatever future emission reduction measures are adopted, there should be no speed limits imposed on ships and no attempt to incentivize speed reductions, as such a measure would have a particularly negative effect on those countries that are in an unfavourable geographical position in relation to the major world markets. We wish to make clear that we are not intrinsically opposed to the amendment of MARPOL Annex VI, but we would certainly wish to see resolved those aspects that remain unclear in the current package of amendments, before they are approved. Accordingly, we wish to state our determination to move forward on this issue, and we request the Committee to seek consensus among the Members of this Organization, so that together we can go on to achieve measures that are right for the industry, for the countries that are less developed economically, and for the environment as a whole.
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 18, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 18
STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF SWEDEN ON THE RO-RO SEGMENT AND THE PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION ON THE FUTURE WORK OF THE ORGANIZATION
PERTAINING TO MARPOL ANNEX VI Sweden would like to thank Japan and the Marshall Islands for their paper and the work they have done to prepare a set of draft resolutions that could be adopted together with possible adoption of the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI. We support these drafts to serve as the basis for such resolutions when we reach that point. However, we do have a comment and a proposal to add some text to annex four of that document – a proposal for a resolution on the future work of the organization pertaining to MARPOL Annex VI. Since the very start of the work of developing EEDI, Sweden has worked actively to find a solution to include the ro-ro segment. The problem of applying the methodology that sets EEDI reference lines to this segment has been recognized – and that problem is the very reason the proposed regulation does not include any reduction rates for ro-ro ships. I want to be clear that Sweden wants the ro-ro segment to be included in the framework and we wholeheartedly support a firm commitment to include these ships. However, as it has been acknowledged that the methodology in the regulation makes it difficult to define a required EEDI for ro-ro ships, we have to allow the consideration of alternative methodologies when firm requirements are to be included for these ships. With this background, Sweden strongly supports the adoption of a resolution on the future work of the organization pertaining to MARPOL Annex VI, as proposed in MEPC 62/6/7 annex 4 that includes firm commitments to develop, with a view to adopt, a set of requirements for ships defined in regulations 2.32 to 2.36. However, in order to allow alternative, more effective methodologies to be considered, we propose to include some words in operative paragraph 1 of the proposed resolution. After the text "including the establishment of appropriate EEDI reference lines and EEDI reduction factors" we propose to include "or equivalent (energy efficiency) instruments". This amendment would not affect the commitment or mandatory reductions for these ships – it would only recognize the difficulty of applying the methodology that is currently in the regulation. Again, the fact that the application of the methodology to certain ship types is difficult and has unjust consequences is the very reason they have been omitted at this stage.
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 19
RESOLUTION MEPC.203(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE PROTOCOL OF 1997 TO AMEND THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973, AS MODIFIED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING THERETO
(Inclusion of regulations on energy efficiency for ships in MARPOL Annex VI)
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, NOTING article 16 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "1973 Convention"), article VI of the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "1978 Protocol") and article 4 of the Protocol of 1997 to amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (hereinafter referred to as the "1997 Protocol"), which together specify the amendment procedure of the 1997 Protocol and confer upon the appropriate body of the Organization the function of considering and adopting amendments to the 1973 Convention, as modified by the 1978 and 1997 Protocols, NOTING ALSO that, by the 1997 Protocol, Annex VI entitled Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships was added to the 1973 Convention (hereinafter referred to as "Annex VI"), NOTING FURTHER that the revised Annex VI was adopted by resolution MEPC.176(58) and entered into force on 1 July 2010, RECOGNIZING that the amendments to Annex VI and inclusion of a new chapter 4 intend to improve energy efficiency for ships through a set of technical performance standards, which would result in reduction of emissions of any substances that originate from fuel oil and its combustion process, including those already controlled by Annex VI, RECOGNIZING ALSO that adoption of the amendments to Annex VI in no way prejudges the negotiations held in other international fora, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), nor affect the positions of the countries that participate in such negotiation, HAVING CONSIDERED draft amendments to the revised Annex VI for inclusion of regulations on energy efficiency for ships, 1. ADOPTS, in accordance with article 16(2)(d) of the 1973 Convention, the amendments to Annex VI, the text of which is set out in the annex to the present resolution;
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
2. DETERMINES, in accordance with article 16(2)(f)(iii) of the 1973 Convention, that the amendments shall be deemed to have been accepted on 1 July 2012, unless prior to that date, not less than one third of the Parties or Parties the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant fleet, have communicated to the Organization their objection to the amendments; 3. INVITES the Parties to note that, in accordance with article 16(2)(g)(ii) of the 1973 Convention, the said amendments shall enter into force on 1 January 2013 upon their acceptance in accordance with paragraph 2 above; 4. REQUESTS the Secretary-General, in conformity with article 16(2)(e) of the 1973 Convention, to transmit to all Parties to the 1973 Convention, as modified by the 1978 and 1997 Protocols, certified copies of the present resolution and the text of the amendments contained in the Annex; 5. REQUESTS FURTHER the Secretary-General to transmit to the Members of the Organization which are not Parties to the 1973 Convention, as modified by the 1978 and 1997 Protocols, copies of the present resolution and its Annex; and 6. INVITES the Parties to MARPOL Annex VI and other Member Governments to bring the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI to the attention of shipowners, ship operators, shipbuilders, ship designers, marine diesel engine and equipment manufacturers as well as any other interested groups.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX
AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI ON REGULATIONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS BY INCLUSION OF NEW REGULATIONS ON
ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR SHIPS
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL Regulation 1 Application 1 The regulation is amended as follows:
"The provisions of this Annex shall apply to all ships, except where expressly provided otherwise in regulations 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of this Annex."
Regulation 2
Definitions 2 Paragraph 21 is amended as follows:
"21 Tanker in relation to regulation 15 means an oil tanker as defined in regulation 1 of Annex I or a chemical tanker as defined in regulation 1 of Annex II of the present Convention."
3 The following is added at the end of regulation 2:
"For the purpose of chapter 4: 22 "Existing ship" means a ship which is not a new ship. 23 "New ship" means a ship:
.1 for which the building contract is placed on or after 1 January 2013; or
.2 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 1 July 2013; or
.3 the delivery of which is on or after 1 July 2015.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
24 "Major Conversion" means in relation to chapter 4 a conversion of a ship:
.1 which substantially alters the dimensions, carrying capacity or engine power of the ship; or
.2 which changes the type of the ship; or
.3 the intent of which in the opinion of the Administration is
substantially to prolong the life of the ship; or
.4 which otherwise so alters the ship that, if it were a new ship, it would become subject to relevant provisions of the present Convention not applicable to it as an existing ship; or
.5 which substantially alters the energy efficiency of the ship and
includes any modifications that could cause the ship to exceed the applicable required EEDI as set out in regulation 21.
25 "Bulk carrier" means a ship which is intended primarily to carry dry cargo in bulk, including such types as ore carriers as defined in SOLAS chapter XII, regulation 1, but excluding combination carriers. 26 "Gas carrier" means a cargo ship constructed or adapted and used for the carriage in bulk of any liquefied gas. 27 "Tanker" in relation to chapter 4 means an oil tanker as defined in MARPOL Annex I, regulation 1 or a chemical tanker or an NLS tanker as defined in MARPOL Annex II, regulation 1. 28 "Container ship" means a ship designed exclusively for the carriage of containers in holds and on deck. 29 "General cargo ship" means a ship with a multi-deck or single deck hull designed primarily for the carriage of general cargo. This definition excludes specialized dry cargo ships, which are not included in the calculation of reference lines for general cargo ships, namely livestock carrier, barge carrier, heavy load carrier, yacht carrier, nuclear fuel carrier. 30 "Refrigerated cargo carrier" means a ship designed exclusively for the carriage of refrigerated cargoes in holds. 31 "Combination carrier" means a ship designed to load 100% deadweight with both liquid and dry cargo in bulk. 32 "Passenger ship" means a ship which carries more than 12 passengers. 33 "Ro-ro cargo ship (vehicle carrier)" means a multi deck roll-on-roll-off cargo ship designed for the carriage of empty cars and trucks. 34 "Ro-ro cargo ship" means a ship designed for the carriage of roll-on-roll-off cargo transportation units. 35 "Ro-ro passenger ship" means a passenger ship with roll-on-roll-off cargo spaces.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
36 "Attained EEDI" is the EEDI value achieved by an individual ship in accordance with regulation 20 of chapter 4. 37 "Required EEDI" is the maximum value of attained EEDI that is allowed by regulation 21 of chapter 4 for the specific ship type and size."
CHAPTER 2
SURVEY, CERTIFICATION AND MEANS OF CONTROL Regulation 5
Surveys 4 Paragraph 1 is amended as follows:
"1 Every ship of 400 gross tonnage and above and every fixed and floating drilling rig and other platforms shall to ensure compliance with chapter 3 be subject to the surveys specified below:
.1 An initial survey before the ship is put into service or before the certificate required under regulation 6 of this Annex is issued for the first time. This survey shall be such as to ensure that the equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material fully comply with the applicable requirements of chapter 3;
.2 A renewal survey at intervals specified by the Administration, but
not exceeding five years, except where regulation 9.2, 9.5, 9.6 or 9.7 of this Annex is applicable. The renewal survey shall be such as to ensure that the equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material fully comply with applicable requirements of chapter 3;
.3 An intermediate survey within three months before or after the
second anniversary date or within three months before or after the third anniversary date of the certificate which shall take the place of one of the annual surveys specified in paragraph 1.4 of this regulation. The intermediate survey shall be such as to ensure that the equipment and arrangements fully comply with the applicable requirements of chapter 3 and are in good working order. Such intermediate surveys shall be endorsed on the IAPP Certificate issued under regulation 6 or 7 of this Annex;
.4 An annual survey within three months before or after each
anniversary date of the certificate, including a general inspection of the equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material referred to in paragraph 1.1 of this regulation to ensure that they have been maintained in accordance with paragraph 5 of this regulation and that they remain satisfactory for the service for which the ship is intended. Such annual surveys shall be endorsed on the IAPP Certificate issued under regulation 6 or 7 of this Annex; and
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
.5 An additional survey either general or partial, according to the circumstances, shall be made whenever any important repairs or renewals are made as prescribed in paragraph 5 of this regulation or after a repair resulting from investigations prescribed in paragraph 6 of this regulation. The survey shall be such as to ensure that the necessary repairs or renewals have been effectively made, that the material and workmanship of such repairs or renewals are in all respects satisfactory and that the ship complies in all respects with the requirements of chapter 3."
5 Paragraph 2 is amended as follows:
"2 In the case of ships of less than 400 gross tonnage, the Administration may establish appropriate measures in order to ensure that the applicable provisions of chapter 3 are complied with."
6 A new paragraph 4 is added after existing paragraph 3 as follows: "4 Ships to which chapter 4 applies shall also be subject to the surveys specified below, taking into account Guidelines adopted by the Organization1:
.1 An initial survey before a new ship is put in service and before the International Energy Efficiency Certificate is issued. The survey shall verify that the ship's attained EEDI is in accordance with the requirements in chapter 4, and that the SEEMP required by regulation 22 is on board;
.2 A general or partial survey, according to the circumstances, after
a major conversion of a ship to which this regulation applies. The survey shall ensure that the attained EEDI is recalculated as necessary and meets the requirement of regulation 21, with the reduction factor applicable to the ship type and size of the converted ship in the phase corresponding to the date of contract or keel laying or delivery determined for the original ship in accordance with regulation 2.23;
.3 In cases where the major conversion of a new or existing ship is so
extensive that the ship is regarded by the Administration as a newly constructed ship, the Administration shall determine the necessity of an initial survey on attained EEDI. Such a survey, if determined necessary, shall ensure that the attained EEDI is calculated and meets the requirement of regulation 21, with the reduction factor applicable corresponding to the ship type and size of the converted ship at the date of the contract of the conversion, or in the absence of a contract, the commencement date of the conversion. The survey shall also verify that the SEEMP required by regulation 22 is on board; and
.4 For existing ships, the verification of the requirement to have a
SEEMP on board according to regulation 22 shall take place at the first intermediate or renewal survey identified in paragraph 1 of this regulation, whichever is the first, on or after 1 January 2013."
1 Refer to Guidelines on Survey and Certification of the Energy Efficiency Design Index.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 7
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
7 Paragraph 4 is renumbered paragraph 5. 8 Paragraph 5 is renumbered paragraph 6. Regulation 6
Issue or endorsement of a Certificate 9 The heading is amended as follows:
"Issue or endorsement of Certificates" 10 The following sub-heading is added at the beginning of the regulation:
"International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate" 11 Paragraph 2 is amended as follows:
"2 A ship constructed before the date Annex VI enters into force for that particular ship's Administration, shall be issued with an International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate in accordance with paragraph 1 of this regulation no later than the first scheduled dry-docking after the date of such entry into force, but in no case later than three years after this date."
12 The following is added at the end of the regulation:
"International Energy Efficiency Certificate 4 An International Energy Efficiency Certificate for the ship shall be issued after a survey in accordance with the provisions of regulation 5.4 to any ship of 400 gross tonnage and above before that ship may engage in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties. 5 The certificate shall be issued or endorsed either by the Administration or any organization duly authorized by it2. In every case, the Administration assumes full responsibility for the certificate."
Regulation 7 Issue of a Certificate by another Party 13 Paragraph 1 is amended as follows:
"1 A Party may, at the request of the Administration, cause a ship to be surveyed and, if satisfied that the applicable provisions of this Annex are complied with, shall issue or authorize the issuance of an International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate or an International Energy Efficiency Certificate to the ship,
2 Refer to the Guidelines for the authorization of organizations acting on behalf of the Administration,
adopted by the Organization by resolution A.739(18), as may be amended by the Organization, and the Specifications on the survey and certification functions of recognized organizations acting on behalf of the Administration, adopted by the Organization by resolution A.789(19), as may be amended by the Organization.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 8
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
and where appropriate, endorse or authorize the endorsement of such certificates on the ship, in accordance with this Annex."
14 Paragraph 4 is amended as follows:
"4 No International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate or International Energy Efficiency Certificate shall be issued to a ship which is entitled to fly the flag of a State which is not a Party."
Regulation 8 Form of Certificate 15 The heading is amended as follows:
"Form of Certificates" 16 The following subheading is added, and the existing regulation is renumbered as
paragraph 1: "International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate" 17 The following new paragraph 2 is added at the end of the regulation: "International Energy Efficiency Certificate
2 The International Energy Efficiency Certificate shall be drawn up in a form corresponding to the model given in appendix VIII to this Annex and shall be at least in English, French or Spanish. If an official language of the issuing Party is also used, this shall prevail in case of a dispute or discrepancy."
Regulation 9 Duration and Validity of Certificate 18 The heading is amended as follows: "Duration and Validity of Certificates" 19 The following subheading is added at the beginning of the regulation:
"International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate" 20 The following is added at the end of the regulation:
"International Energy Efficiency Certificate
10 The International Energy Efficiency Certificate shall be valid throughout the life of the ship subject to the provisions of paragraph 11 below.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 9
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
11 An International Energy Efficiency Certificate issued under this Annex shall cease to be valid in any of the following cases:
.1 if the ship is withdrawn from service or if a new certificate is issued
following major conversion of the ship; or .2 upon transfer of the ship to the flag of another State. A new
certificate shall only be issued when the Government issuing the new certificate is fully satisfied that the ship is in compliance with the requirements of chapter 4. In the case of a transfer between Parties, if requested within three months after the transfer has taken place, the Government of the Party whose flag the ship was formerly entitled to fly shall, as soon as possible, transmit to the Administration copies of the certificate carried by the ship before the transfer and, if available, copies of the relevant survey reports."
Regulation 10 Port State Control on Operational Requirements 21 A new paragraph 5 is added at the end of the regulation as follows:
"5 In relation to chapter 4, any port State inspection shall be limited to verifying, when appropriate, that there is a valid International Energy Efficiency Certificate on board, in accordance with article 5 of the Convention."
22 A new chapter 4 is added at the end of the Annex as follows:
"CHAPTER 4
REGULATIONS ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR SHIPS Regulation 19 Application 1 This chapter shall apply to all ships of 400 gross tonnage and above. 2 The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
.1 ships solely engaged in voyages within waters subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the State the flag of which the ship is entitled to fly. However, each Party should ensure, by the adoption of appropriate measures, that such ships are constructed and act in a manner consistent with chapter 4, so far as is reasonable and practicable.
3 Regulation 20 and regulation 21 shall not apply to ships which have diesel-electric propulsion, turbine propulsion or hybrid propulsion systems. 4 Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this regulation, the Administration may waive the requirement for a ship of 400 gross tonnage and above from complying with regulation 20 and regulation 21.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 10
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
5 The provision of paragraph 4 of this regulation shall not apply to ships of 400 gross tonnage and above:
.1 for which the building contract is placed on or after 1 January 2017; or
.2 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 1 July 2017; or
.3 the delivery of which is on or after 1 July 2019; or .4 in cases of a major conversion of a new or existing ship, as
defined in regulation 2.24, on or after 1 January 2017, and in which regulation 5.4.2 and regulation 5.4.3 of chapter 2 apply.
6 The Administration of a Party to the present Convention which allows application of paragraph 4, or suspends, withdraws or declines the application of that paragraph, to a ship entitled to fly its flag shall forthwith communicate to the Organization for circulation to the Parties to the present Protocol particulars thereof, for their information. Regulation 20 Attained Energy Efficiency Design Index (Attained EEDI) 1 The attained EEDI shall be calculated for:
.1 each new ship; .2 each new ship which has undergone a major conversion; and .3 each new or existing ship which has undergone a major
conversion, that is so extensive that the ship is regarded by the Administration as a newly constructed ship
which falls into one or more of the categories in regulations 2.25 to 2.35. The attained EEDI shall be specific to each ship and shall indicate the estimated performance of the ship in terms of energy efficiency, and be accompanied by the EEDI technical file that contains the information necessary for the calculation of the attained EEDI and that shows the process of calculation. The attained EEDI shall be verified, based on the EEDI technical file, either by the Administration or by any organization3 duly authorized by it. 2 The attained EEDI shall be calculated taking into account guidelines4 developed by the Organization.
3 Refer to the Guidelines for the authorization of organizations acting on behalf of the Administration,
adopted by the Organization by resolution A.739(18), as may be amended by the Organization, and the Specifications on the survey and certification functions of recognized organizations acting on behalf of the Administration, adopted by the Organization by resolution A.789(19), as may be amended by the Organization.
4 Guidelines on the method of calculation of the Energy Efficiency Design Index for new ships.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 11
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Regulation 21 Required EEDI 1 For each:
.1 new ship; .2 new ship which has undergone a major conversion; and .3 new or existing ship which has undergone a major conversion that
is so extensive that the ship is regarded by the Administration as a newly constructed ship
which falls into one of the categories defined in regulation 2.25 to 2.31 and to which this chapter is applicable, the attained EEDI shall be as follows:
Attained EEDI Required EEDI = (1-X/100) × Reference line value where X is the reduction factor specified in Table 1 for the required EEDI compared to the EEDI Reference line.
2 For each new and existing ship that has undergone a major conversion which is so extensive that the ship is regarded by the Administration as a newly constructed ship, the attained EEDI shall be calculated and meet the requirement of paragraph 21.1 with the reduction factor applicable corresponding to the ship type and size of the converted ship at the date of the contract of the conversion, or in the absence of a contract, the commencement date of the conversion. Table 1. Reduction factors (in percentage) for the EEDI relative to the EEDI
Reference line
Ship Type Size Phase 0
1 Jan 2013 –31 Dec 2014
Phase 1 1 Jan 2015 –31 Dec 2019
Phase 2 1 Jan 2020 – 31 Dec 2024
Phase 3 1 Jan 2025
and onwards
Bulk carrier
20,000 DWT and above 0 10 20 30
10,000 – 20,000 DWT n/a 0-10* 0-20* 0-30*
Gas carrier
10,000 DWT and above 0 10 20 30
2,000 – 10,000 DWT n/a 0-10* 0-20* 0-30*
Tanker
20,000 DWT and above 0 10 20 30
4,000 – 20,000 DWT n/a 0-10* 0-20* 0-30*
Container ship
15,000 DWT and above 0 10 20 30
10,000 – 15,000 DWT n/a 0-10* 0-20* 0-30*
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 12
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Ship Type Size Phase 0
1 Jan 2013 –31 Dec 2014
Phase 1 1 Jan 2015 –31 Dec 2019
Phase 2 1 Jan 2020 – 31 Dec 2024
Phase 3 1 Jan 2025
and onwards
General Cargo ships
15,000 DWT and above 0 10 15 30
3,000 – 15,000 DWT n/a 0-10* 0-15* 0-30*
Refrigerated cargo carrier
5,000 DWT and above 0 10 15 30
3,000 – 5,000 DWT n/a 0-10* 0-15* 0-30*
Combination carrier
20,000 DWT and above 0 10 20 30
4,000 – 20,000 DWT n/a 0-10* 0-20* 0-30*
* Reduction factor to be linearly interpolated between the two values dependent
upon vessel size. The lower value of the reduction factor is to be applied to the smaller ship size.
n/a means that no required EEDI applies. 3 The Reference line values shall be calculated as follows:
Reference line value = a ×b -c where a, b and c are the parameters given in Table 2.
Table 2. Parameters for determination of reference values for the different
ship types Ship type defined in regulation 2 a b c 2.25 Bulk carrier 961.79 DWT of the ship 0.477 2.26 Gas carrier 1120.00 DWT of the ship 0.456 2.27 Tanker 1218.80 DWT of the ship 0.488 2.28 Container ship 174.22 DWT of the ship 0.201 2.29 General cargo ship 107.48 DWT of the ship 0.216 2.30 Refrigerated cargo carrier 227.01 DWT of the ship 0.244 2.31 Combination carrier 1219.00 DWT of the ship 0.488 4 If the design of a ship allows it to fall into more than one of the above ship type definitions, the required EEDI for the ship shall be the most stringent (the lowest) required EEDI. 5 For each ship to which this regulation applies, the installed propulsion power shall not be less than the propulsion power needed to maintain the manoeuvrability of the ship under adverse conditions as defined in the guidelines to be developed by the Organization. 6 At the beginning of Phase 1 and at the midpoint of Phase 2, the Organization shall review the status of technological developments and, if proven necessary, amend the time periods, the EEDI reference line parameters for relevant ship types and reduction rates set out in this regulation.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 13
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Regulation 22 Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) 1 Each ship shall keep on board a ship specific Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP). This may form part of the ship's Safety Management System (SMS). 2 The SEEMP shall be developed taking into account guidelines adopted by the Organization. Regulation 23 Promotion of technical co-operation and transfer of technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships 1 Administrations shall, in co-operation with the Organization and other international bodies, promote and provide, as appropriate, support directly or through the Organization to States, especially developing States, that request technical assistance. 2 The Administration of a Party shall co-operate actively with other Parties, subject to its national laws, regulations and policies, to promote the development and transfer of technology and exchange of information to States which request technical assistance, particularly developing States, in respect of the implementation of measures to fulfil the requirements of chapter 4 of this annex, in particular regulations 19.4 to 19.6."
23 A new appendix VIII is added at the end of the Annex as follows:
"APPENDIX VIII
Form of International Energy Efficiency (IEE) Certificate
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CERTIFICATE Issued under the provisions of the Protocol of 1997, as amended by resolution MEPC.203(62), to amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 related thereto (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention") under the authority of the Government of: ...................................................................................................................................................
(Full designation of the Party) by ...............................................................................................................................................
(Full designation of the competent person or organization authorized under the provisions of the Convention)
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 14
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Particulars of ship5 Name of ship ............................................................................................................................. Distinctive number or letters ...................................................................................................... Port of registry ........................................................................................................................... Gross tonnage ........................................................................................................................... IMO Number6 ............................................................................................................................ THIS IS TO CERTIFY: 1 That the ship has been surveyed in accordance with regulation 5.4 of Annex VI of
the Convention; and 2 That the survey shows that the ship complies with the applicable requirements in
regulation 20, regulation 21 and regulation 22. Completion date of survey on which this Certificate is based: ........................... (dd/mm/yyyy) Issued at ....................................................................................................................................
(Place of issue of certificate) (dd/mm/yyyy): ............................................. ................................................................ (Date of issue) (Signature of duly authorized official
issuing the certificate)
(Seal or stamp of the authority, as appropriate)
5 Alternatively, the particulars of the ship may be placed horizontally in boxes. 6 In accordance with IMO ship identification number scheme, adopted by the Organization by
resolution A.600(15).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 15
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Supplement to the International Energy Efficiency Certificate (IEE Certificate)
RECORD OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY Notes: 1 This Record shall be permanently attached to the IEE Certificate. The IEE
Certificate shall be available on board the ship at all times. 2 The Record shall be at least in English, French or Spanish. If an official language of
the issuing Party is also used, this shall prevail in case of a dispute or discrepancy. 3 Entries in boxes shall be made by inserting either: a cross (x) for the answers "yes"
and "applicable"; or a dash (-) for the answers "no" and "not applicable", as appropriate.
4 Unless otherwise stated, regulations mentioned in this Record refer to regulations in
Annex VI of the Convention, and resolutions or circulars refer to those adopted by the International Maritime Organization.
1 Particulars of ship 1.1 Name of ship ............................................................................................................... 1.2 IMO number ................................................................................................................ 1.3 Date of building contract .............................................................................................. 1.4 Gross tonnage ............................................................................................................. 1.5 Deadweight ................................................................................................................. 1.6 Type of ship* ................................................................................................................ 2 Propulsion system 2.1 Diesel propulsion .............................................................................................. 2.2 Diesel-electric propulsion ................................................................................. 2.3 Turbine propulsion ............................................................................................ 2.4 Hybrid propulsion ............................................................................................. 2.5 Propulsion system other than any of the above ...............................................
* Insert ship type in accordance with definitions specified in regulation 2. Ships falling into more than one of
the ship types defined in regulation 2 should be considered as being the ship type with the most stringent (the lowest) required EEDI. If ship does not fall into the ship types defined in regulation 2, insert "Ship other than any of the ship type defined in regulation 2".
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 16
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
3 Attained Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) 3.1 The Attained EEDI in accordance with regulation 20.1 is calculated based on the
information contained in the EEDI technical file which also shows the process of calculating the Attained EEDI. …. ............................................................................. The Attained EEDI is: ................. grams-CO2/tonne-mile
3.2 The Attained EEDI is not calculated as: 3.2.1 the ship is exempt under regulation 20.1 as it is not a new ship as defined in
regulation 2.23 ......................................................................................................... 3.2.2 the type of propulsion system is exempt in accordance with regulation 19.3 …. ...... 3.2.3 the requirement of regulation 20 is waived by the ship's Administration in
accordance with regulation 19.4 .............................................................................. 3.2.4 the type of ship is exempt in accordance with regulation 20.1 ................................ 4 Required EEDI 4.1 Required EEDI is: ................. grams-CO2/tonne-mile 4.2 The required EEDI is not applicable as: 4.2.1 the ship is exempt under regulation 21.1 as it is not a new ship as defined in
regulation 2.23 ......................................................................................................... 4.2.2 the type of propulsion system is exempt in accordance with regulation 19.3 …. ..... 4.2.3 the requirement of regulation 21 is waived by the ship's Administration in
accordance with regulation 19.4 .............................................................................. 4.2.4 the type of ship is exempt in accordance with regulation 21.1 …. ............................ 4.2.5 the ship's capacity is below the minimum capacity threshold in Table 1 of
regulation 21.2 …. .................................................................................................... 5 Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan 5.1 The ship is provided with a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) in
compliance with regulation 22 ................................................................................. 6 EEDI technical file 6.1 The IEE Certificate is accompanied by the EEDI technical file in compliance with
regulation 20.1 ......................................................................................................... 6.2 The EEDI technical file identification/verification number ............................................ 6.3 The EEDI technical file verification date ......................................................................
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 19, page 17
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that this Record is correct in all respects. Issued at ....................................................................................................................................
(Place of issue of the Record) (dd/mm/yyyy): ....................................... ......................................................................... (Date of issue) (Signature of duly authorized official
issuing the Record)
(Seal or stamp of the authority, as appropriate)"
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 20, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 20
STATEMENTS BY THE DELEGATIONS OF BRAZIL, CHINA, INDIA, SAUDI ARABIA AND THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA AND THE OBSERVERS OF
THE PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT AND CLEAN SHIPPING COALITION AFTER THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI
Statement by the delegation of Brazil As raised by this delegation, the procedure of approval and adoption at the same session in unprecedented in this Committee. This may be due to the fact that relevant issues discussed by MEPC need to be thoroughly analysed and matured, and not considered in a hasty manner. The adoption of the amendments to Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention completely disregards the pending technical, technological and economic uncertainties, particularly as regards the potential impacts on developing countries. The provisions and principles of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol have not been properly addressed, and we consider that we cannot possibly adopt measures on climate change, which do not comply with those provisions and principles. We have been presented with no assurances as to technology transfer, as the negotiations implied a package deal so as to ensure balance, which clearly did not happen. We have heard several mentions to "compromise" and "good faith", and yet have constantly been presented with inflexibility. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, Brazil is regrettably forced to reserve its position as regards the adoption of said amendments at this session and request that this statement be included in the final report of the Committee. Statement by the delegation of China The Chinese delegation appreciates the effort of IMO in addressing the issue of climate change from the international shipping. But we have to express our regret for the failure of not reflecting the common but differentiated responsibility principle in a full and objective manner in the MARPOL Annex VI amendments concerning energy efficiency requirements. Mr. Chairman, the Chinese delegation would like to take this opportunity to reiterate our position as follows:
.1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol constitute the fundamental basis and main channel for international cooperation in addressing the issue of climate change, and the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility it established becomes the basic principle for international community to commonly address climate change, therefore, should be strictly abided by. This is not only the consistent position of China, but also the one upheld by many developing countries.
.2 The effort by the international shipping community in addressing the issue
of climate change is an integral part of the international cooperation, which should not only take into account the uniqueness and common practice of the international shipping, but also comply with the common but differentiated responsibility principle.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 20, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
.3 The following serious concerns were still exist during the discussion and adoption of the MARPOL Annex VI amendments, therefore, the Chinese delegation would like to make a reservation and oppose the adoption of the amendments.
Firstly, the EEDI formula is not yet mature. Though following many years of discussions, a considerable number of technical issues have not been properly resolved in the EEDI regulations. As demonstrated in many submissions to this session of the MEPC, agreements have not been reached on important technical issues including the baseline, ship types, reduction factors and verification etc., therefore further studies are needed. If these issues could not be properly addressed, the implementation of the EEDI regulations will have adverse impact on the international shipping. Secondly, the amendments do not reflect the common but differentiated responsibility principle, and violate the common understanding and core principle of the international community in addressing the issue of climate change. This will impact and impede IMO to make further contribution to the GHG issue in the future. This will also constitute a bad precedence for the international community, adversely impacting the correct direction for international cooperation within the UNFCCC. Lastly, there are largely divergent views regarding whether or not the amendments should be included in MARPOL Annexes, and adopted at this session of the MEPC. Moreover, the specific articles in the amendments are also under disputes. Despite of this fact, the amendments were adopted in the absence of consensus, which has resulted in the division among the IMO Member States. In the light of the above, the Chinese delegation opposes the adoption of this amendment and in no position to acknowledge and accept the amendment. In conclusion, this delegation believes that IMO will continue the discussion of the GHG issue in the successive session of the MEPC, we hope that IMO and Member States spare no effort to look for solutions to reflect the common but differentiated responsibility principle, in particular on matters relating to the technology transfer, capacity building and financial support to the developing countries by the developed countries. In its future discussions on market-based measures, China hopes that IMO will duly consider the common but differentiated responsibility principle, so that this principle would be fully reflected in its market-based measures. Statement by the delegation of India The Indian delegation shares the sentiments expressed by the delegation of China, especially regarding the requirement of applicability of CBDR principle. In particular, India would like to regret the adoption of amendment to MARPOL Annex VI through a vote, even though India is not yet a Party to the Convention. The urgency of adopting the amendments at this session is not understood, especially when several developing countries have voiced their reservations on several aspects of the amendments including the EEDI formula which is not mature for adoption, and also for getting the mandates from the respective Government. It may also be worthwhile to draw the attention of the Committee to the Doha Round of negotiations at the WTO which have not yet concluded since last 10 years, where efforts are continuing for consensus building. The procedure adopted by the MEPC will set a wrong precedence not only for the IMO but also in other multilateral organizations.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 20, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Statement by the delegation of Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia would like to associate itself with the statement of China and would like to highlight the reason for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's rejection of the amendment included in document MEPC 62/WP.11/Add.1/Rev.1 dated 15 July 2011, which can be summarized as follows:
.1 there are issues with the maturity of the EEDI; .2 the inconsistency of the amendment with the main purpose of
MARPOL 73/78 Convention. The convention was for the prevention of pollution into the marine environment. Greenhouse gases are not classified by the UN as pollutants;
.3 lack of a mechanism to ensure measurable, reportable and verifiable
technology transfer to developing county parties; and .4 the absence of reference to the principle of CBDR.
Finally, it unfortunate that the IMO has chosen not to follow the example of ICAO to adopt matters dealing with climate change by consensus and using the principles of the UNFCCC, especially the principle of CBDR. Statement by the delegation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Our delegation thanks all countries and you in particular for the time and effort dedicated to tackling the complexities relating to the adoption of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI. However, in view of the result reached, which has clearly been characterized by a lack of consensus, we express our reservations concerning the decision adopted, being still of the opinion that there are insufficient references or elements in the approved texts that are conducive to the principles continuously maintained and defended by our country, namely the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and recognition of the Kyoto proposals in keeping with the spirit of progress already been achieved in the context of negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Through this statement, we are echoing the views expressed by the delegations of Brazil, China, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, India and Cuba, among others, and we request that our reservation is recorded in the report of the meeting. Statement by the observer of the Pacific Environment This is Pacific Environment's first intervention, so we would like to thank the IMO, MEPC and its distinguished delegates for welcoming our participation as well as congratulate you Mr. Chairman on your re-election. Currently, Arctic Indigenous peoples are on the front lines of climate change. Indigenous peoples are faced with problems such as receding sea ice which will bring increased shipping into our traditional waters. Greenhouse gases and air emissions will only continue to compound the already devastating impacts of climate change. For example, due to the reduction in sea ice Indigenous hunters are being forced to go further and further off shore to gain access to traditional foods, increasing the risks tremendously. Two months ago in New York more than 1400 Indigenous people gathered at the 10th session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples Issues where there was much discussion on the implementation of the Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 20, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
The final report from the meeting was released last week and included in the final recommendations was a call on the IMO to implement the UN DRIP and to begin including Indigenous participation in these important proceedings which will have a great impact on Indigenous Peoples globally. We cannot deny the dangers of climate change on Indigenous Peoples and their human rights. Climate change threatens traditional food systems and ability to practice spiritual ceremonies, forces removals from traditional home lands and territories, and creates disproportionate health impacts on Indigenous Peoples. I myself am from a traditional Indigenous village located in the Arctic. In our traditional language there is not a way to separate the word environment from the word peoples – it is one in the same. Indigenous cultures are inextricably linked with the oceans and the environment. Distinguished delegates, I call upon us to remember in our future deliberations over the next year, that we ourselves are not the owners of the oceans but instead we are the guardians of it, hopefully keeping it safe not only for ourselves but for future generations to come. Statement by the observer of the Clean Shipping Coalition The EEDI is about setting energy efficiency standards for a leading global industry which will reduce long-term costs and environmental impacts. When setting fuel efficiency standards in other transport modes, industry has invariably resisted vehemently. To its great credit, the shipping industry is largely onboard with the EEDI. Ironically, the difficulty here has not been with industry, nor has any lack of technology been a problem, nor has it been about differences in levels of development between developed and developing countries - ships built in developing countries are some of the most advanced and innovative. Rather the difficulty has been about the political positions of some in other UN forums, and the misconception of others that consensus on its own is a worthy objective. These concerns, regrettably, have seriously undermined the effectiveness of the world's first globally binding climate change initiative. During the almost 7 year phase-in period of EEDI, shipping GHG emissions, by the Organization's own estimates, will have almost doubled to 6% of global emissions. Environmental NGOs supported this process from the beginning in the belief that the potential for improvements in ship efficiency is significant particularly as many measures can be taken at zero or low cost to industry. Those possibilities risk being set aside with this decision. If there is a rush to have all new ships take advantage of the waiver by flagging them with obliging registries, this will have enormous implications for the administration of all sorts of IMO rules and conventions, endangering both the environment and seafarer safety. The CSC therefore calls on all enlightened ship-owners to put the question of delay aside and implement immediately the EEDI as good business sense and sound environmental practice. We call on the European Union to embrace the EEDI as an effective instrument to complement other measures it is now considering. We call on shippers, the logistics industry and harbours to use the EEDI when taking decisions on chartering and when setting port dues. Mr. Chairman, as difficult as today's decision seems to have been, it is only IMOs' first step to address shipping's climate change impact. A package of additional market-based and operational measures such as emissions trading, a levy, speed limits and mandatory cuts is urgently needed to properly address the rapidly growing emissions from shipping. This work on existing ships is almost in its 15th year and needs to be accelerated urgently.
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 21, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 21
DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEXES I, II, IV, V AND VI ON REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PORT RECEPTION FACILITIES
1 New paragraphs 3bis and 4bis are added to regulation 38 of Annex I:
3bis Small Island Developing States may satisfy the requirements in paragraph 2 through regional arrangements. Parties participating in a regional arrangement shall develop a Regional Reception Facilities Plan, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization.
The Government of each Party participating in the arrangement shall notify the Organization for circulation to the Parties of the present Convention:
.1 how the Regional Reception Facilities Plan takes into account the Guidelines; .2 particulars of the identified Regional Ships Waste Reception Centres; and .3 particulars of those ports with only limited facilities.
4bis Small Island Developing States may satisfy the requirements in paragraph 4 through regional arrangements. Parties participating in a regional arrangement shall develop a Regional Reception Facilities Plan, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization.
The Government of each Party participating in the arrangement shall notify the Organization for circulation to the Parties of the present Convention:
.1 how the Regional Reception Facilities Plan takes into account the Guidelines; .2 particulars of the identified Regional Ships Waste Reception Centres; and .3 particulars of those ports with only limited facilities.
2 New paragraph 4bis is added to regulation 18 of Annex II:
4bis Small Island Developing States may satisfy the requirements in paragraphs 1 to 4 through regional arrangements. Parties participating in a regional arrangement shall develop a Regional Reception Facilities Plan, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization.
The Government of each Party participating in the arrangement shall notify the Organization for circulation to the Parties of the present Convention:
.1 how the Regional Reception Facilities Plan takes into account the Guidelines; .2 particulars of the identified Regional Ships Waste Reception Centres; and .3 particulars of those ports with only limited facilities.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 21, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
3 New paragraph 2bis is added to regulation 12 of Annex IV:
2bis Small Island Developing States may satisfy the requirements in paragraph 1 through regional arrangements. Parties participating in a regional arrangement shall develop a Regional Reception Facilities Plan, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization.
The Government of each Party participating in the arrangement shall notify the Organization for circulation to the Parties of the present Convention:
.1 how the Regional Reception Facilities Plan takes into account the Guidelines;
.2 particulars of the identified Regional Ships Waste Reception Centres; and
.3 particulars of those ports with only limited facilities.
4 New paragraphs 2bis and 3.2bis are added to regulation 8 of Annex V1:
2bis Small Island Developing States may satisfy the requirements in paragraph 4a through regional arrangements. Parties participating in a regional arrangement shall develop a Regional Reception Facilities Plan, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization.
The Government of each Party participating in the Arrangement shall notify the Organization for circulation to the Parties of the present Convention:
.1 how the Regional Reception Facilities Plan takes into account the Guidelines;
.2 particulars of the identified Regional Ships Waste Reception Centres; and
.3 particulars of those ports with only limited facilities.
3.2bis Small Island Developing States may satisfy the requirements in paragraph 1 through regional arrangements. Parties participating in a regional arrangement shall develop a Regional Reception Facilities Plan, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization.
The Government of each Party participating in the arrangement shall notify the Organization for circulation to the Parties of the present Convention:
.1 how the Regional Reception Facilities Plan takes into account the Guidelines; .2 particulars of the identified Regional Ships Waste Reception Centres; and .3 particulars of those ports with only limited facilities.
1 Text of revised Annex V adopted by resolution MEPC.201(62).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 21, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
5 New paragraph 1bis is added to regulation 17 of Annex VI:
1bis Small Island Developing States may satisfy the requirements in paragraph 1 through regional arrangements. Parties participating in a regional arrangement shall develop a Regional Reception Facilities Plan, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization.
The Government of each Party participating in the arrangement shall notify the Organization for circulation to the Parties of the present Convention:
.1 how the Regional Reception Facilities Plan takes into account the Guidelines;
.2 particulars of the identified Regional Ships Waste Reception Centres; and
.3 particulars of those ports with only limited facilities.
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 22
RESOLUTION MEPC.204(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
DESIGNATION OF THE STRAIT OF BONIFACIO AS A PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREA
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, BEING AWARE of the ecological, socio-economic and scientific attributes of the Strait of Bonifacio, as well as its vulnerability to damage by international shipping activities and the steps taken by France and Italy to address that vulnerability, NOTING the Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas adopted by resolution A.982(24) (PSSA Guidelines) and the Revised Guidance Document for Submission of PSSA Proposals to IMO set forth in MEPC.1/Circ.510, HAVING CONSIDERED the proposal made by the Governments of France and Italy that the Strait of Bonifacio be designated as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area, HAVING AGREED that the criteria for the identification and designation of a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area provided in resolution A.982(24) are fulfilled for the Strait of Bonifacio, HAVING NOTED that the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation, at its fifty-seventh session, approved the Recommendation on navigation through the Strait of Bonifacio as an associated protective measure for the application of the Strait of Bonifacio as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area aiming at improving the safety of navigation and the protection of the marine environment, 1. DESIGNATES the Strait of Bonifacio described in annex 1 as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area pending the final adoption of the associated protective measure for the PSSA, as set out in annex 2 to document NAV 57/15; 2. INVITES Member Governments to recognize the ecological, socio-economic, and scientific attributes of the area, set forth in annex 2, as well as its vulnerability to damage by international shipping activities, as described in annex 3; and 3. FURTHER INVITES Member Governments to note the associated protective measure established to address the area's vulnerability, the details of which are contained in annex 4, which is expected to enter into force following final adoption on a date to be circulated by the Organization to all Member Government, and request ships flying their flag that they act in accordance with such measures.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE STRAIT OF BONIFACIO PSSA* Description of the Particularly Sensitive Sea Area for the Strait of Bonifacio To avoid the risk of damage from ship groundings and pollution damage by international shipping activities and the destruction and degradation of this unique, diverse, and significant habitats and ecosystem, mariners should exercise extreme care when navigating in the area bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions which is designated as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area:
To the north: a line linking point 41° 45' 00" N – 008° 01' 48" E to point 41° 45' 00" N – 009° 48' 30" E passing the French coast (Cap Muro to the west and Anse de Tarcu to the east);
On the western side: a line linking points 41° 45' 00" N – 008° 01' 48" E;
41° 06' 36" N – 008° 01' 48" E and 40° 58' 00" N – 008° 12' 00" E on the Italian coast; and
On the eastern side, a line linking points 41° 45' 00" N – 009° 48' 30" E;
40° 41' 08" N – 009° 48' 30" E and 40° 45' 56" N – 009° 41' 42" E on the Italian coast to the south.
The Particularly Sensitive Sea Area is bounded by the points A, B, C, D, E, and F as set out in the chartlet below.
* The text in this annex is taken from the submission by France and Italy contained in documents
MEPC 61/9 and MEPC 61/INF.26.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
CHARTLET
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 2
ECOLOGICAL, SOCIO-ECONOMIC, AND SCIENTIFIC ATTRIBUTES OF THE STRAIT OF BONIFACIO PSSA*
1 Ecological criteria 1.1 The ecological significance of the Strait of Bonifacio region was internationally recognized when it was granted the status of specially protected area of Mediterranean importance (SPAMI) at the sixteenth session of the Conference of Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution, which took place from 3 to 5 November 2009 in Marrakesh. 1.2 The ecological significance of the French part of the Strait of Bonifacio is recognized by a number of official listings involving a total of 104,000 ha of mainly marine environment:
- Listing as a nature reserve by a decree of 23 September 1999 (80,000 ha); - Listing as a Natura 2000 site, these being a network of European Union areas
which, owing to their great environmental value, need the protection of States:
- a special protection area under directive No. 79/409/EEC (Birds), "Lavezzi Islands, Strait of Bonifacio", covering 98, 941 ha, designated by inter-ministerial decree of 30 October 2008;
- three sites of Community importance under directive 92/43/EEC (Habitat)
concerning the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora:
Strait of Bonifacio, Monk Islands (94, 612 ha); Cerbical Islands and coastal strip (3,698 ha); Pertusato/Bonifacio plateau and Lavezzi Islands (6,071 ha).
1.3 The ecological significance of the Italian part of the Strait of Bonifacio is recognized by several listings, as follows:
The La Maddalena archipelago national park, by decree of the President of the Republic dated 17 May 1996, covering 5,100 ha on land and 15,046 ha at sea; The Asinara national park, by decree of the President of the Republic dated 13 October 2002, covering 5,170 ha on land; The Isola Asinara protected marine area, by ministerial decree of 12 August 2002, covering 10,732 ha at sea; The Tavolara Punta Coda Cavallo protected marine area, by ministerial decree of 12 December 1997, amended by ministerial decree of 28 November 2001, covering 15,357 ha;
* The text in this annex is taken from the submission by France and Italy contained in documents
MEPC 61/9 and MEPC 61/INF.26.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Listings of Natura 2000 sites, as follows:
Six special protection areas under directive No. 79/409/EEC (Birds):
Isola Asinara (9,669 ha) Isola Piana – Golfo dell'Asinara (399 ha) Stagno di Pilo, Casaraccio e Saline di Stintino (1,290 ha) Arcipelago La Maddalena (20,955 ha) Isole del Nord-Est tra Capo Ceraso e Stagno di San Teodoro (18,174 ha) Capo Figari, Cala Sabina, Punta Canigione e Isola Figarolo (4,053 ha)
Twelve sites of Community significance under directive No. 92/43/EEC (Habitat), in connection with the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora:
Coste e Isolette a Nord Ovest della Sardegna (3, 731 ha) Isola Asinara (9,669 ha) Isola Piana (510 ha) Stagno di Pilo e di Casaraccio (1,879 ha) Stagno e ginepreto di Platamona (1,618 ha) Foci del Coghinas (2, 267 ha) Isola Rossa – Costa Paradiso (5,409 ha) Monte Russu (1,971 ha) Capo Testa (1,217 ha) Arcipelago La Maddalena (20,955 ha) Isola Tavolara, Molara e Molarotto (3,764 ha) Capo Figari e Isola Figarolo (851 ha).
1.4 The European Commission approved the above-mentioned list of sites of Community importance by its decision of 22 December 2009 in relation to the Mediterranean biogeographical region enforceable under Directive No. 92/43/EEC. 1.5 The following information is taken from the declaration forms of the Natura 2000 sites mentioned above and from the biological evaluation of the Strait of Bonifacio nature reserve for the 2007-2011 management plan. 1.6 This sector is also covered by the Pelagos Agreement for the Creation of a Mediterranean Sanctuary for Marine Mammals, signed in Rome on 25 November 1999 by France, Italy and the Principality of Monaco. The aim of the agreement is to maintain a level of conservation beneficial to marine mammal populations, and to that end monitor the cetacean populations, strengthen the application of the existing external legislation for certain types of fishing and to reduce pollution, regulate the numbers of tourists who come to observe cetaceans, and improve the information provided for the public. The bottlenose dolphin is a regular visitor to the edges of this area. 1.7 The exceptional ecological wealth of the area comprises a wide range of marine environments, including:
- inclines and rocky shallows harbouring varied fauna and flora; - well preserved Posidonia beds; - near Figari, a rare estuary system in which areas emerge at low tide on the
island.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
1.8 Species and habitats whose rarity or significance are recognized at national, Community or international level find the environmental conditions ideal here. Uniqueness or rarity 1.9 The Strait of Bonifacio area contains 37 per cent of species of Mediterranean importance (SPAMI Annex II and III, Barcelona Convention). The flora includes some 15 endemic species (Corsican or Corsican-Sardinian or Corsican/Sardinian/ Balearic), with one endemic to the island of Lavezzu. 1.10 The area contains between 40 and 50 per cent of the sites for Silene velutina, a small endemic flower whose distribution is limited to the extreme south of Corsica and the north of Sardinia. Another protected plant belonging to the first rank in terms of floral heritage is Limonium lambinonii, which is endemic to Lavezzu island. 1.11 The leatherback turtle has not been seen here since the 1960s, but the loggerhead turtle has been spotted more regularly in the Strait of Bonifacio in the past decade. In October 2001 its nests were even discovered on the beaches of Palombaggia, south of the Cerbicale archipelago. 1.12 While the alga Goniolothon byssoides is difficult not to notice, sightings are very rare. It appears to be vulnerable, given the small number of sites where it can be found. Also, its pads detach very easily, making it highly vulnerable to trampling by fishermen and swimmers (Boudouresque et al., 1990). Verlaque (1991) noted its presence around the Lavezzi Islands. Critical habitat 1.13 This area offers great potential for the conservation of a large number of nationally important habitats and species. Certain species (the European shag, the giant limpet Patella ferruginea) are present in numbers which provide the nucleus of genetically stable populations that may be considered source populations capable of providing the starting point for colonization (natural or artificial) of potential habitats, to differing degrees, depending on the manner in which the larvae and individual representatives of those species are distributed. This area of the Strait of Bonifacio is thus of vital importance for declining populations or small sub-populations of species. For example, conservation of the national gene pool of threatened meta-populations of species such as the giant limpet could allow it to be reintroduced into areas of the Mediterranean where it is now extinct. 1.14 The care of this area is also very important to marine avifauna. This is a major site for the European shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis aristotelis) and for sizeable numbers of Cory's shearwater (Calonectris diomedea). The Strait of Bonifacio is also a main point for the passage, roosting and feeding of the Yelkouan shearwater. The whole area is a feeding ground for these species. 1.15 The European shag population does not exceed 10,000 pairs across the whole of its small area of distribution in the Mediterranean. The Strait of Bonifacio has high priority in the conservation of this species. In 2001, the nesting population of the Strait of Bonifacio represented more than 50 per cent of the French population and 7 per cent of the world population. The main problems for this species are disturbance to nesting sites, accidental capture during small-scale fishing and the disappearance of habitats owing to the expansion of tourism.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 7
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
1.16 The nesting population of Cory's shearwater accounts for 40 per cent of the national nesting total. With 345 pairs, the Lavezzu island colony is the most numerous in France. This species is on the decline owing to the introduction of allocthonous species (dogs, cats and rats), the removal of eggs from certain colonies and the development of tourism, which disturbs colonies and destroys habitat. 1.17 With around 200 nesting pairs within the perimeter of the area, the population of the highly unobtrusive storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus) represents around one third of the French Mediterranean population and between 15 and 18 per cent of the French population including Atlantic birds. Europe's smallest marine bird (15 cm) is in steep decline in the Mediterranean, mainly owing to the introduction of predators such as the black rat (Rattus rattus). The colonies are now highly localized and concentrated, making them very vulnerable. Dependency 1.18 The main ecosystems of the Strait of Bonifacio area, whether deep-sea or coastal, are closely interconnected: pelagic open-water systems, gulfs, intertidal zone, supralittoral environments, islets and lagoons. 1.19 Being an open system, the marine environment does not experience fragmentation of habitats to the same degree as the land environment. In the Strait of Bonifacio the long-protected areas of the Lavezzi, the fish confinement areas and the decreed biotopes of the Monk and Bruzzi islands shelter balanced populations which embrace all age-groups and assure the reproduction of larvae (fish, crustaceans, ...) and their diffusion to more recently established nature reserves. Plankton production and the gathering of animal larvae condition the introduction of both marine and littoral trophic chains. By virtue of its geographical position and the existence of violent currents which facilitate larva distribution, the Strait of Bonifacio could play a not inconsiderable role in coastal fishing management in the north-western Mediterranean. 1.20 While the plankton-eating organisms are an indispensable resource for large pelagic species, seriolae and tuna, not to mention cetaceans (particularly bottlenose dolphins), they are also attractive to the marine birds present (European shag, Cory's shearwater, seagulls). Representativeness 1.21 Beds of Posidonia oceanica, high-priority protected habitats, are widely represented. A Posidonia bed is a very valuable ecosystem from the biodiversity point of view, and is also very important to fishing, coastal protection and the enrichment of certain other coastal ecosystems. It is an excellent indicator of the overall quality of the natural environment. In many parts of the Mediterranean, it has been seriously affected by human activities, and some beds are in serious decline. Beds of Posidonia oceanica are characteristic of the infralittoral stage in the Mediterranean. Those in the Strait of Bonifacio area cover more than 5,000 ha and are in excellent condition. They play a leading role in the area's productivity and provide sites for breeding, spawning and raising young. 1.22 The alga Lithophyllum lichenoides found in belts in the intertidal zone is included in annex I of the "Habitat" directive. This species is well represented along the battered granite and limestone coasts of the Strait of Bonifacio. The oldest and largest belts are found along the cliffs at Bonifacio and in the Lavezzi Islands.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 8
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
1.23 Like other algae typical of sheltered sites in the infralittoral stage, certain types of Cystoseira have become rare because its habitat is suffering from pollution or eutrophication or has been destroyed by coastal management. Overgrazing by sea urchins, whose predators have been partially eliminated by man, also has to be taken into account. The Cystoseira are very well represented in the strait and certain species such as C. Funkii are seen on rare occasions at near-surface depths (Ballesteros & Pineda, 2003). Diversity 1.24 The number of species recorded to date in the Strait of Bonifacio is 1,745. Among the 977 species of fauna are 18 mammals, 165 birds, seven reptiles, two amphibians, 187 fish, 11 protochordates, 13 echinoderms, 262 insects, 11 arachnids, six bryozoans, 103 crustaceans, 143 molluscs, seven annelids, 23 cnidarians and 19 spongarians. 1.25 Considering the faunistic taxons as a whole, it should be noted that:
- Twenty-three animal species are of Community significance. Care of this area is particularly important for two amphibians (Discoglossus sardus and Hylaarborea sarda), the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), chiroptera, marine molluscs, the fish Aphanius fasciatus, the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta, the gecko Phyllodactylus europaeus, the lizards Podarcis tiliguerta and Lacertabedriagae and the snake Coluber viridiflavus. Among the animal species of Community significance whose capture in natural surroundings and cultivation can be managed, only the red coral Corallium rubrum, can be and is being cultivated;
- Seventy-seven taxons are listed in the "Birds" directive (all annexes combined).
Among these birds are 16 species nesting in the area (including 10 from annex I), 24 regular migrants, 30 occasional migrants and five accidental migrants;
- The taxons strictly protected under the Berne Convention (annex II) amount
to 139, with 70 other species being considered as protected species whose exploitation must be regulated (annex III);
- Three migratory species are in danger of extinction, namely the Audouin's gull
Larus audouinii and the loggerhead and leatherback turtles Caretta caretta and Demochelys coriacea, which require strict protection under annex I of the Bonn Convention. Sixty-seven other species (reptiles, mammals and birds) are considered to be in a poor state of conservation under that convention. All these species are also listed under the Berne Convention;
- Thirty-seven rare species are listed in the three annexes of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Washington Convention), for example the peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus, the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta, the bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncates, and Hermann's Tortoise (Testudo hermanii);
- Thirty-three species are identified as endangered or threatened under the
Barcelona Protocol concerning specially protected areas of Mediterranean importance (SPAMI) (annex II) and 14 as requiring control over their exploitation. These species are also listed in the annexes to the Berne Convention. Among the exploited species, we note two large fish: the swordfish Xiphias gladius and the red tuna Thunnus thynnus;
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 9
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
- There are 148 wildlife taxons protected at national level, of which the great majority comprises birds (121 species). Nineteen of these nest in the Strait of Bonifacio area. Thirteen mammals present are protected at national level: seven cetaceans, four bats, the hedgehog Ericeanus europeus italicus and the weasel Mustella nivalis corsicana. Also protected are four land reptiles, two amphibians, two marine turtles and one fish, namely the Mediterranean shad (Alosa fallax nilotica). Among the marine species the needle-spined sea urchin Centrostephanus longispinus, the Mediterranean slipper lobster Scyllarides latus, the pen shell Pinna nobilis and the limpet Patella ferruginea are protected;
- In the context of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red
List, the leatherback turtle Demochelys coriacea, observed only a few times in the past 50 years, is classified as critically endangered and four species, the fin whale Balaenoptera physalus, the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta, the dusky grouper Epinephelus marginatus and the common seabream Pagrus pagrus, as endangered. Nine species are considered vulnerable, i.e. as facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. These include the gecko Phyllodactus europaeus, the long-fingered bat Myotis capaccini and certain threatened cartilaginous fish: the great white shark Carcharodon carcharias, the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus, the manta ray Mobula mobular, the liver-oil shark Galeorhinus galeus, and the angel shark Squatina squatina. Lastly, the status of 161 species is considered to be of concern (10 mammals, 143 birds, one amphibian, two reptiles and four fish);
- Seventy species feature in the red lists of the French Natural History Museum in
Paris. The endangered species number 13 including the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta and the Mediterranean slipper lobster Scyllarides latus. The following are considered to be vulnerable in France: the pen shell Pinna nobilis, the limpet Patella ferruginea, the brown meagre Sciaena umbra and the nursehound Scyliorhinus stellaris.
1.26 Among the floral taxons:
- Eight are included in annex I of the Berne Convention, including Silene velutina and Posidonia oceanica;
- Five algae are also included in SPAMI Annex III;
- Fifteen plant species are protected at national level, including 12 terrestrial species. The marine species include Posidonia oceanica and another marine phanerogam, namely the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa, which is also well represented in the Strait of Bonifacio;
- Four species are considered to be vulnerable by the IUCN: Helicodiceros
muscivorus, Drimia fugax, Nananthea perpusilla and Silene velutina. They all enjoy protected status.
1.27 The diversity and complementarity found among the various littoral ecological compartments can be considered a major asset for this area. There are around fifty elementary habitats, with ecosystems ranging from coastal scrub to salt grass and from lagoons to the depths of the circalittoral zone.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 10
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
1.28 The coastal, littoral and salty habitats, such as the mobile and fixed dunes of the Mediterranean shores where Crucianella maritima is found, and halophilous scrub, conceal all the floral taxons of major heritage importance. 1.29 At sea, the major "reefs" type of habitat brings together rocky habitats of the mediolitteral zone as well as all the fauna and flora of the intertidal zone. Biocoenoses of photophilous algae and coral are also integrated into this major type of habitat. All the types of gorgonia, cystoseira and the large bryozoans are also important elements of the area's rich heritage and require special protection against the impact of underwater activities and of global changes relating to rise in sea temperature. Productivity 1.30 The large expanse of sea and strong currents, as well as the richness of the fish stocks, widely recognized by Mediterranean ichthyologists, give this protected marine area a major role in the dispersion of larvae throughout the western Mediterranean. That role is essential for the threatened species in a good state of preservation in the Strait of Bonifacio, such as the dusky grouper Epinephelus marginatus, but also for other species of importance in the heritage and fishing contexts. Spawning or breeding grounds 1.31 The waters of the lagoon habitats (Pisciu Cane, Testarella and Ventilègne), rich in nutritive salts carried from the drainage basins across which they pass, stimulate the growth of lagoon phytoplankton. These lagoons nourish and shelter many marine species. The dense plant growth, adapted to the complementary influences of sea and land, is home to many aquatic and avian species. These biotopes provide ideal shelter for nesting and reproduction and are an important source of food. Yellow-legged gulls, grey herons, little egrets and even young ospreys are regularly observed there. The mosaic of vegetation and the presence of smooth stretches of standing water make it possible for certain wintering or migrating anatidae to come here on an irregular basis (mallard ducks, pintails, Northern shovellers, common teals and garganeys ...), as well as migrating shorebirds (common snipes, jack snipes, sandpipers, black-tailed godwits, little stints). Mallards, moorhens and water rails occasionally nest on Testarella lake. As mentioned above, the Posidonia beds play a major role in the area's productivity and provide areas for breeding, spawning and the raising of young. Fragility 1.32 Many habitats are important, in terms of heritage, by virtue of their representativity in the Mediterranean context and the direct and indirect threats they face. 1.33 For 15,000 years man has been exerting his influence as an integral part of the ecological system of the Strait of Bonifacio. Man-induced factors (sample-captures, alteration or destruction of habitat, disturbances, introduction of species...), whether old or more recent, direct or indirect, are exerting an increasing impact as methods of navigation and sampling techniques evolve. Those factors are responsible for the disappearance of the monk seal (Monachus monachus) and the reduced populations of the limpet Patella ferruginea, a process which has been affecting that mollusc since prehistoric times, and the grouper Epinephelus marginatus for 30 years. 1.34 It is also quite clear that climate change, especially the increases in air and sea temperatures, as well as fishing activities across the Mediterranean, is exerting an ever increasing influence on the overall functioning of the Strait of Bonifacio.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 11
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
1.35 Increase in seawater temperature triggers significant changes in the ways that pelagic communities (tropicalization of plankton production) or benthic communities function in the north-west Mediterranean. It benefits tropical species, such as the yellowmouth barracuda Sphyraena viridensis, to the detriment of certain Mediterranean species that cannot support the rise in temperature. In this regard, the spectacular rise in mortality rates since 1998 among gorgonias is cause for concern. 1.36 Man-induced activities also generate cascade effects. Such occurrences may be confined to the territory of a protected marine area or affect its periphery. Thus, the destabilization of Posidonia oceanica owing to increased numbers of unregulated anchorages or sediment erosion is leading to a reduction in the populations of species associated with this habitat, in particular the pen shell Pinna nobilis. Failure to manage household waste and the existence of open-air public landfill sites for over 30 years have brought about an increase in the population of yellow-legged gulls (Larus cachinnans) and a serious deterioration in the micro-insular systems of southern Corsica (destabilization of vegetation by the action of nitro-phosphates on floristic corteges, and inter-species competition between the very rare Audouin's gull (Larus audouinii) and the yellow-legged gull, to the latter's advantage). 1.37 Waste from purification plants undergoing repair is also likely to affect the existing habitats. Large-scale recreational use of the location also produces effluent and larger waste products, particularly plastic bags, which become mixed in with schools of jellyfish and are then consumed by loggerhead turtles and bottlenose dolphins, causing obstruction of their digestive systems. 1.38 The habitat known as "silty sands in sheltered areas (Mediterranean) biocoenosis" in the large creeks and shallow bays of Lavezzi, Cavallu, Ventilegne, Santa Manza, Porto Novo and Rondinara remain under the influence of the nutrients and pollutants which arrive from the drainage basins, bringing the risk of hypoxia or anoxia owing to the low water renewal rate. This habitat can also prove to be a good indicator of anthropization level in the drainage basins themselves. 1.39 The habitats of submerged or semi-submerged sea caves are extremely sensitive to the impact of man. The Sdragonato cave and undersea caves used in diving are areas of particular sensitivity. 1.40 In France, the belts of Lithophyllum lichenoides have receded in polluted areas. The situation of the algal limestone belts, like that of L. Lichenoides at the mediolittoral level, and their porous structure, makes these formations highly vulnerable to surface pollution by effluents, oily film on the water and other agents. The loss of even a little salinity in the water prevents them from forming. There could also be a threat from phosphate ions and detergents (LABOREL, unpublished, in Boudouresque et al., 1990). A belt appears to take an exceptionally long time to build up (several centuries) and it is imperative to protect the existing ones (Boudouresque et al., 1990). 2 Scientific and educational criteria 2.1 Baseline for monitoring studies 2.1.1 In considering the importance of preserving the habitats and meta-populations mentioned above, their vulnerability must be assessed with caution. Long-term observation of reliable scientific indicators will help distinguish between natural cycles and genuine man-induced disturbances.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 12
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
2.1.2 This area can also play a role in the transfer of ecological engineering in relation to sustainable resource management. The length of time that protection measures have been in place in southern Corsica, differences in regulations and hence in the pressures from fishing activities inside this protected area in Corsica and in Sardinia, the conservation of reference areas (areas of strict protection) and finally the long-standing acquisition of reliable scientific data are factors which can be used in establishing sustainable development models for Mediterranean coastal areas.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 13
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 3
VULNERABILITY TO DAMAGE BY INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING ACTIVITIES* 1 Natural factors 1.1 Hydrographical 1.1.1 The hydrographical conditions in the Strait of Bonifacio are strongly influenced by the region's landscape and climate. In particular, there are frequent very strong currents (3-4 knots) largely determined by the winds. These strong currents have already, on two occasions, caused the South Lavezzi signalling buoy to shift. They derive from cyclonic and anti-cyclonic conditions and are responsible for surface changes among the Tyrrhenian and Algero-Provencal water masses. Movements originating in the Atlantic and Tyrrhenian systems, being less subject to the vagaries of the weather where water masses of permanent density are concerned, also affect the bathymetric layer between 50 and 100 m. This situation explains (Romano, 2004), at least for surface waters, the existence of strong currents, especially as the strait between Corsica and Sardinia is characterized by a rise in depths. 1.1.2 The tides are semidiurnal with diurnal inequality, with a tidal range of less than 0.5 m. 1.2 Meteorological 1.2.1 Having a sub-humid Mediterranean climate, with temperate winters, the Strait of Bonifacio region is also particularly windy. Data recorded by the Pertusato semaphore station on the Bonifacio plateau show that the wind blows on 328 days per year (171 days of wind >16 m/s or 57.6 km/h). There is high frequency of winds of a speed faster than 8 m/s, almost exclusively from two directions: west (280°) and east (80°). 1.2.2 Given the hydrographical, topographical and meteorological conditions (shoals, strong winds and currents), the major risk to the Strait of Bonifacio area relates to accidental pollution from all forms of navigation in the Strait itself (several merchant ships have sunk in the past 30 years), and also on its periphery. The risk of collision with a bottlenose dolphin is also a threat identified by the Pelagos sanctuary for Mediterranean marine mammals. 2 Vessel Traffic characteristics 2.1 In 2009, Bonifacio Trafic (the Franco-Italian service) received 2,984 mandatory ship reports. Among them were 180 abnormalities (breaches of IMO Assembly resolution A.766(18)) of which 108 were for transport of dangerous goods, amounting to 147,013 tonnes (141,867 tonnes in 2008). The offences included 55 cases of sending a mandatory report after entering the system, 19 relating to ships found to be following a route that was not recommended (down by 33% on 2008) and 108 relating to ships carrying dangerous goods (+9%).
* The text in this annex is taken from the submission by France and Italy contained in documents
MEPC 61/9 and MEPC 61/INF.26.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 14
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
2.2 In 2009 a total of 157 ships carrying dangerous goods passed through the Strait of Bonifacio:
- 70 container ships; - 61 ro-ro ships; - 13 bulk carriers; - five chemical carriers; - three oil tankers; - three gas tankers; - two ferries.
2.3 The 2,984 vessels which navigated in the Strait of Bonifacio in 2009 were distributed as follows:
European Union Italy 831; France 371; Malta 251; Netherlands 152; Portugal 78; United Kingdom 67; Cyprus 50. Non-EU Turkey 100; Antigua 183; Bahamas 165; Panama 143.
2.4 The status that the Strait of Bonifacio enjoys as an international strait and the provisions of IMO resolution A.766(18) contribute to making it, although it is apart from the major shipping routes (3,000 ships per year) and its dangerousness is well known, an area in which the coastal authorities are confined to the role of spectator, waiting for a maritime accident to happen.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 15
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 4
ASSOCIATED PROTECTIVE MEASURE FOR THE STRAIT OF BONIFACIO PSSA Description of the Area The Strait of Bonifacio separates the Italian island of Sardinia from the French island of Corsica; they are only 11 km apart. The Strait takes its name from Bonifacio, the southernmost town of Corsica. It enables passage from the Sea of Sardinia in the west to the Tyrrhenian Sea in the east. Its width varies from eight to ten nautical miles and its maximum depth is 100 m. At the eastern end lies the Italian archipelago of La Maddalena, and Cavallo island and the Lavezzi Islands, belonging to France. This is a sensitive area for navigation. In the northern part of the Strait, ships have to avoid the reefs of Perduto and the Lavezzi Islands, while in the south lie the Sardinian islands of Razzoli and Persa. Navigation is possible along a narrow three-mile wide stretch and ships are asked to take a recommended route wide just over one mile. Recommendation on navigation through the Strait of Bonifacio* 1 Use of ships' routeing Vessels navigating in the Strait shall exercise full diligence and regard for the requirements of the existing recommended two-way route in the Strait of Bonifacio. Due to the narrowness of the Strait, masters of vessels shall ensure that an appropriate monitoring of the ship's route is done on board in order to avoid groundings and collisions. 2 Ship reporting and navigation information Ships of 300 GT and over entering the Strait shall participate in the mandatory ship reporting system (BONIFREP) established by the competent authorities as described in IMO's publication on Ships' Routeing (Section G I/8). 3 Pilotage Masters of vessels passing through the Strait are recommended to avail themselves of the services of a qualified pilot. 3.1 Categories of ships concerned Ships for which the IMO Assembly recommends in its resolution A.766(18) of 17 November 1993 to Governments to prohibit or at least strongly discourage the transit in the Strait of Bonifacio: laden oil tankers and ships carrying dangerous chemicals or substances in bulk, as listed in the annex to resolution MEPC.49(31) adopted on 4 July 1991.
* The text on this APM is directly taken from document NAV 57/15, annex 2.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 16
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
3.2 Description of the applicable procedure for requesting a pilot Vessels wishing to order a Bonifacio Strait pilot should, as much as possible, send by e-mail or by fax the following information to the service named "Bonifacio Strait pilotage":
- ship's name and call sign; - type of vessel and gross tonnage; - draught; - destination port/name and address of the local agent; - boarding position and ETA.
24 hours prior to arrival, vessels should inform or confirm their ETA to the head office of the Bonifacio Strait pilotage service. Once on Bonifacio Strait road, vessels should confirm their ETA 2 hours prior to arrival calling "Bonifacio Traffic" on VHF 10. 3.3 Description of the pilotage service The pilotage area covers the Strait and its approaches. Usually the vessels entering the Strait board their pilots out of the "BONIFREP" zone. The boarding positions are the following (WGS 84):
Eastern boarding position: 41° 24 .80 N 009° 30 .00 E; Western boarding position: 41° 17 .28 N 008° 58 .50 E.
4.1 Relevant rules and regulations in force in the area The Strait of Bonifacio falls into the category of "Straits used for international navigation" regulated by the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" (UNCLOS) better known as the Montego Bay Convention (10 December 1982). The maritime traffic is represented mainly by merchant ships that cross the Strait along east-west direction (several dozens of ships per day). Considering the traffic that occurs in the direction north-south, it concerns mainly passenger ships (approximately ten daily connections) is very intense and growing during the summer, especially between Bonifacio (Corsica) and Santa Teresa di Gallura (Sardinia). In addition, there are about 5,000 pleasure craft crossing this area during the summer season. Regulation applied to navigation on the Strait of Bonifacio is based on resolution A.766(18) adopted in 1993 by IMO. This text urges ships carrying hazardous materials to avoid along this seaway. It has been complemented by circulars of IMO SN/Circ.198 and 201 (26 May 1998) concerning "routeing measures other than traffic separation schemes" and "mandatory ship reporting systems" applicable to the Bouches of Bonifacio from 1 December 1998 at 00:00 a.m. France and Italy have implemented these provisions through the establishment of the rule "Bonifacio Trafic", that represents a more restrictive device; inasmuch as the French and Italian ships carrying hazardous materials are banned entirely from transit of the "Bouches of Bonifacio".
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 17
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
For this reason, in 1993, both Italy, with the Decree of 26 February 1993 of the Italian Ministry of Merchant Marine, and France, by ordinance of 15 February of the Prefecture of Toulon, have banned the transit of tankers flying Italian or French flag that carrying hydrocarbons and other hazardous and noxious substances, as defined by international conventions in force in both countries1. On the basis of these decrees, the prohibition of navigation in the Strait does not apply to merchant ships flying flags of third countries and to Italian and French ships empty or those that carry different cargoes, which, even if properly ballasted, however represent an environmental risk factor in case of accident for the presence of fuel in their tanks. This ban has led to a reduction of marine traffic, but at the same time, it leaves the possible passage of ships flying other flags and often these ships are in unsafe conditions (especially the lack of double hull or similar technologies) and poor maintenance. Moreover, the arrêté n° 84/98 of 3 November 1998 of the Prefecture Maritime of Toulon2 (amended by the arrêté 56/2003 of the Prefecture Maritime of Toulon) disciplines the navigation in the Strait of Bonifacio to prevent accidental episodes of marine pollution. It institutes areas of caution at the extreme of bearings recommended double sense of movement, and the creation of the system of monitoring of ships from a radius of 20 miles from the Strait of Bonifacio. In parallel, the Decree of Italian Ministry of Transport and Navigation on the organization of traffic in the Bonifacio's Strait establishes the same procedures contained in the Decree n° 84/98. Furthermore, a technical agreement between Italy and France to implement the reporting system of the ships in the Bouches of Bonifacio (Bonifacio Trafic) was signed in Rome on 3 June 1999. Moreover, in order to restrict dangerous maritime traffic through Bonifacio Strait, it was drawn up in Italy the "Accordo volontario per l'attuazione di una serie di interventi finalizzati al conseguimento di più elevati standard di sicurezza ambientale in materia di trasporti marittimi di sostanze pericolose" (Voluntary agreement to carrying out a series of interventions aimed at the achievement of higher security environmental standards concerning the maritime transport of dangerous substances), signed by the Italian Ministry of the Environment, Land and Sea, by the Italian Ministry of Transportation and Navigation, by Confindustria, by Assoporti, by some environmental organizations and by unions (Rome, 1 June 2001).
Inter alia, the sixth article of the agreement foresaw the commitment by companies to use from 1 July 2001 ships carrying dangerous substances listed in Annexes I and II of MARPOL 73/78 solely based on contracts that explicitly exclude the transit in the Strait of Bonifacio, against a number of other compensations by government, including the engagement in an international venue for the encouragement of a PSSA in the Strait of Bonifacio.
1 Particularly, the Decree n°1/93 (signed in Toulon on 15 February 1993) of the Prefecture maritime de la
Mediterranée, applicable only to French ships, prohibits in the Bouches of Bonifacio the circulation of tankers that carrying hydrocarbon and ships carrying hazardous or toxic materials. The annex of the Decree lists the hydrocarbons and the substances in question, in reference to the MARPOL Convention. At the same time, the Decree of the Italian merchant marine of 26 February 1993 prohibits the movement of Italian tanker carrying hydrocarbon and ships carrying hazardous or toxic materials.
2 Arrêté Prefectoral n. 84/94 del 3 novembre 1998 della Prefettura Marittima di Tolone – "Réglementant la navigation dans le Strait of Bonifacio en vue de prévenir les pollution marines accidentelles".
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 18
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Particularly, the sixth article of the Voluntary Agreement provides that:
"6.1 – Confindustria and the interested industrial sectors undertake to promote immediately the insertion in the charter party for the use of ships carrying dangerous substances listed in Annexes I and II of MARPOL 73/78 of clauses that expressly exclude the transit in the Strait of Bonifacio. 6.2 – From 1 July 2001, Confindustria and the interested industrial sectors, also on behalf of firms and associated companies, undertake to use ships carrying dangerous substances listed in Annexes I and II of MARPOL 73/78 solely based on contracts that explicitly exclude the transit in the Strait of Bonifacio 6.3 – The government engages to act in all EU and international venues to achieve the elimination of dangerous substances traffic in the Strait of Bonifacio, starting by defining by IMO the Strait of Bonifacio as Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA). Moreover, the government engages to promote every type of voluntary adherence of the EU member and candidate states to the above-mentioned elimination of dangerous substances traffic in the Strait of Bonifacio."
In the end, by the Decree of the Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transport of 29 July 2008 "definition of the control of maritime traffic area in the Bouches of Bonifacio and activation of the relevant control centre at the Harbour Office of La Maddalena", was activated the centre VTS (Vessel Traffic Services) of the Bouches of Bonifacio, whose international name is "Bonifacio Trafic" and whose headquarters is located at the area Guardia Vecchia, under the authority of the Harbour Office – Coast Guard of La Maddalena. Existing routeing measures and mandatory systems are set out in the chartlet, below.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 22, page 19
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
CHART OF THE EXISTING ROUTEING MEASURES AND MANDATORY SHIP REPORTING SYSTEM
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 23, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 23
STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF SINGAPORE ON PROCEDURES IN ASSESSING PSSA APPLICATIONS
This delegation would like to express appreciation to France and Italy for their constructive efforts in addressing our concerns. We further commend the efforts of the Technical Group in examining the PSSA applications to ensure that all relevant criteria were satisfied. We note that some procedures in assessing the Strait of Bonifacio PSSA application did not follow the sequence as set out in the Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of PSSAs. There is a logic to the sequence provided in the revised guidelines for proper consideration of PSSA applications. This sequence should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure the integrity of the process and to give proper effect to the guidelines. This delegation would like to emphasize the principle that all PSSA applications must follow the guidelines and procedures that have been adopted by the IMO. We would also like to state for the record that the procedures in assessing the Strait of Bonifacio PSSA application should not be regarded as a precedent for future PSSA applications.
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 24
RESOLUTION MEPC.205(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
2011 GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADD-ON EQUIPMENT FOR UPGRADING RESOLUTION MEPC.60(33)-COMPLIANT OIL FILTERING EQUIPMENT
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Committee, NOTING resolution MEPC.107(49), adopted on 18 July 2003, by which the Marine Environment Protection Committee adopted, at its forty-ninth session, the current revised Guidelines and Specifications for Pollution Prevention Equipment for Machinery Space Bilges of Ships and invited Governments to adopt and apply them to the maximum possible extent which they found reasonable and practicable and to report to the Organization the results of such application, NOTING FURTHER the provisions of regulation 14.6 of Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL), in which reference is made to the above-mentioned revised Guidelines and Specifications, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its sixty-second session, the Guidelines and Specifications for add-on equipment for upgrading resolution MEPC.60(33)-compliant oil filtering equipment, developed by the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment, 1. ADOPTS the 2011 Guidelines and Specifications for add-on equipment for upgrading resolution MEPC.60(33)-compliant oil filtering equipment, the text of which is set out in the annex to this resolution; 2. INVITES Governments to:
(a) consider the Guidelines and Specifications and encourage their application so that add-on equipment voluntarily installed on board ships to upgrade existing oil filtering equipment compliant with the provisions of the revised Guidelines and Specifications for Pollution Prevention Equipment for Machinery Space Bilges of Ships adopted by resolution MEPC.60(33) meets these Guidelines and Specifications for add-on equipment; and
(b) provide the Organization with information on experience gained from their
application and, in particular, on successful testing of equipment against the Specifications;
3. REQUESTS the Secretariat, on the basis of information received, to maintain and update a list of approved equipment and to make it available through the Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS); 4. FURTHER INVITES Governments to issue an appropriate "Certificate of type approval" as referred to in paragraph 4.2.1 of the Specifications and to recognize such certificates issued under the authority of other Governments as having the same validity as certificates issued by them.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX
2011 GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADD-ON EQUIPMENT FOR UP-GRADING RESOLUTION MEPC.60(33)-COMPLIANT
OIL FILTERING EQUIPMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1.2 Scope 1.3 Up-grading options
2 DEFINITIONS 3 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 4 SPECIFICATION FOR TYPE APPROVAL TESTING OF ADD-ON EQUIPMENT
4.1 Testing requirements 4.2 Approval and certification procedures
5 INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS ANNEX – TEST AND PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TYPE APPROVAL
OF ADD-ON EQUIPMENT FOR UPGRADING RESOLUTION MEPC.60(33)-COMPLIANT OIL FILTERING EQUIPMENT
PART 1 – ADD-ON EQUIPMENT TO BE FITTED TO SPECIFIC OIL FILTERING
EQUIPMENT APPROVED UNDER RESOLUTION MEPC.60(33) PART 2 – ADD-ON EQUIPMENT TO BE FITTED TO ANY OIL FILTERING
EQUIPMENT PART 3 – DOCUMENTATION OF APPROVAL Appendix 1 – Certificate of type approval for add-on equipment Appendix 2 – Test data and results of tests conducted on add-on equipment in
accordance with Part 1 or 2 of the annex to the 2011 Guidelines contained in resolution MEPC.205(62)
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General 1.1.1 In 2003, the Marine Environment Protection Committee adopted the Revised guidelines and specifications for pollution prevention equipment for machinery space bilges of ships (resolution MEPC.107(49)). The main purpose of this revision of the specifications of oil filtering equipment was to improve their capability of treating emulsified oil. 1.1.2 The present Guidelines have been developed to provide further assistance for upgrading systems installed on board ships prior to 1 January 2005, and of which oil filtering equipment was approved under resolution MEPC.60(33). 1.1.3 It has been recognized that the best measure to prevent pollution resulting from oily bilge water is installation of Integrated Bilge Water Treatment System (IBTS) in accordance with MEPC.1/Circ.642 as may be amended. IBTS prevents generation of oily bilge water. Although it may not be easy or practicable to fit complete IBTS on existing ships, pre-cleaning of oily bilge water, e.g., provision of a primary tank between bilge wells and bilge tank, should be seriously considered in order to remove impurities in bilge through surfacing or sedimentation, which is an effective way of preventing clogging of bilge separators. 1.2 Scope These guidelines apply to add-on post-treatment equipment for resolution MEPC.60(33)-compliant oil filtering equipment in order to improve their capabilities of treating emulsified oil so that emulsion-breaking performance of oily bilge separators to be achieved by installation of add-on equipment could be equivalent to that of resolution MEPC.107(49)-compliant equipment. 1.3 Up–grading options Equipment for upgrading existing oil filtering equipment are the following two types:
.1 equipment which could upgrade specific make of oil filtering equipment. Such equipment should be tested in accordance with Part 1 of the test specifications contained in the annex hereto, connected to a resolution MEPC.60(33) oil filtering equipment and type approved for use in conjunction with that specific make of oil filtering equipment tested, subject to: 1) environmental testing contained in Part 3 of the annex to resolution MEPC.107(49) and 2) the limiting conditions of the certification of the upgraded equipment.
.2 equipment which could upgrade any make of resolution
MEPC.60(33)-compliant oil filtering equipment. Such equipment should be tested in accordance with Part 2 of the test specifications contained in the annex hereto and type approved for use in conjunction with any make of oil filtering equipment, subject to: 1) environmental testing contained in Part 3 of the annex to resolution MEPC.107(49) and 2) the limiting conditions of the certification of the upgraded equipment.
2 DEFINITIONS Unless otherwise specified, definitions of the terms used in the Revised guidelines and specifications for pollution prevention equipment for machinery space bilges of ships (resolution MEPC.107(49)) apply to these Guidelines.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
3 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 3.1 The add-on equipment should be strongly constructed and suitable for shipboard use, bearing in mind its intended location on the ship. 3.2 It should, if intended to be fitted in locations where flammable atmospheres may be present, comply with the relevant safety regulations for such spaces. Any electrical equipment which forms part of the add-on equipment should be based in a non-hazardous area, or should be certified by the Administration as safe for use in a hazardous area. Any moving parts which are fitted in hazardous areas should be arranged so as to avoid the formation of static electricity. 3.3 The add-on equipment should be so designed that it functions automatically in conjunction with the existing equipment. 3.4 The add-on equipment should require the minimum of attention to bring it into operation. In the case of equipment used for engine room bilges, there should be no need for any adjustment to valves and other equipment to bring the add-on equipment into operation. The equipment should be capable of operating for at least 24 hours of normal duty without attention. 3.5 It should be understood that the complete type approval with the test fluid C should be performed without interruption to attend, clean or maintain the bilge water separator. This test would be regarded as a simulation of the 24 hours of unattended operation not requiring any crew attention. 3.6 It should be understood that the 15 ppm bilge separator should operate continuously and automatically without any interruptions. It should be assured that back flushing if performed during the certification test does not cause:
.1 dilution of the test fluid C, or .2 dilution of the test sample sent to the laboratory for analysis.
3.7 If input flow of test fluid C is interrupted during the performance of the test it should be assured that the total quantities of test fluid C processed automatically are not less than the nominal flow of the tested equipment multiplied by the specified test duration of 150 minutes (2.5 hours). While all the time, the tested equipment operates continuously and automatically without human intervention. 3.8 The continuous and automatic operation should apply to the performance tests with the test fluid C according to the test result diagrams in the appendix to appendix 1 of resolution MEPC.107(49) as it relates to test fluid C. However, if due to the separation process any interruption in feeding the test fluid with nominal flow rate, e.g., for back flushing, is deemed necessary, the time for these interruptions should be added to the required time of the test step which was interrupted during the performance test. While all the time, the tested equipment operates continuously and automatically without human intervention. 3.9 All working parts of the add-on equipment which are liable to wear or to damage should be easily accessible for maintenance.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
4 SPECIFICATION FOR TYPE APPROVAL TESTING OF ADD-ON EQUIPMENT 4.1 Testing requirements 4.1.1 The production model of add-on equipment, for which the approval will apply, should be identical to the equipment, type-tested in accordance with the performance and test specifications contained in part 1 or 2 of the annex to these Guidelines. The equipment should also be type-tested in accordance with the specifications for environmental testing contained in part 3 of the annex to resolution MEPC.107(49). 4.1.2 Where a range of add-on equipment of the same design, but of different capacities, requires certification in accordance with these specifications, the Administration may accept tests in two capacities within the range, in lieu of tests on every size, providing that the two tests actually performed are from the lowest quarter and highest quarter of the range. 4.2 Approval and certification procedures Add-on equipment which in every respect fulfils the provisions of these Guidelines may be approved by the Administration for fitting on board ships. The approval should take the form of a certificate of type approval specifying the main particulars of the apparatus and any limiting conditions on its usage necessary to ensure its proper performance. Such certificate should be issued in the format shown in part 3 of the annex. 5 INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS 5.1 Before installation of add-on equipment, it is important to ascertain that the existing oil filtering equipment is well maintained and in good working condition and that the rated capacity match that of add-on equipment. 5.2 The add-on equipment should be installed between the existing oil filtering equipment and the sampling point provided for inspection purposes on board ship. 5.3 The add-on equipment should be fitted with a permanently attached plate giving any operational or installation limits considered necessary by the manufacturer or by the Administration. 5.4 A vessel fitted with an add-on equipment should, at all times, have on board a copy of the operating and maintenance manuals. 5.5 For inspection purposes on board ship, a sampling point should be provided in a vertical section of the water effluent piping as close as is practicable to the 15 ppm bilge separator and add-on equipment outlet. Re-circulating facilities should be provided, after and adjacent to the overboard outlet of the stopping device to enable the 15 ppm bilge separator system, including the 15 ppm bilge alarm and the automatic stopping device where fitted, to be tested with the overboard discharge closed. 5.6 Where fitted, the bilge alarm should be approved according to resolution MEPC.107(49).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX
TEST AND PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TYPE APPROVAL OF ADD-ON EQUIPMENT FOR UPGRADING RESOLUTION MEPC.60(33)-COMPLIANT
OIL FILTERING EQUIPMENT
PART 1
ADD-ON EQUIPMENT TO BE FITTED TO SPECIFIC OIL FILTERING EQUIPMENT APPROVED UNDER RESOLUTION MEPC.60(33)
1 General 1.1 These test and performance specifications for type approval relate to add-on equipment for oil filtering equipment type approved in accordance with resolution MEPC.60(33) (hereinafter referred to as "oil filtering equipment"). In addition, the electrical and electronic systems of the add-on equipment should be tested in accordance with the specifications for environmental testing contained in part 3 of resolution MEPC.107(49). 1.2 The test of add-on equipment should be carried out in combination with oil filtering equipment to which add-on equipment being tested is intended to be added on. 2 Test specifications 2.1 These specifications relate to add-on equipment for oil filtering equipment. A set of oil filtering equipment and add-on equipment should be capable of producing an effluent for discharge to the sea containing not more than 15 ppm of oil, when 3,000 ppm oil in water emulsions are fed. 2.2 The test rig must be so constructed as to include not only oil filtering equipment and add-on equipment, but also the pumps, valves, pipes and fittings as shown in figure 1:
.1 for the testing of oil filtering equipment having no integral pump, the centrifugal pump "A" (figure 1) is used to feed oil filtering equipment with valves 2 and 4 open, and valve 3 closed. The rate of flow from the centrifugal pump "A" is matched to the design throughput of oil filtering equipment by adjustment of the centrifugal pump's discharge valve;
.2 a centrifugal pump "B" should be fitted to re-circulate the test fluid "C" in the
tank to ensure that the test fluid "C" is maintained in a stable condition throughout the testing;
.3 to ensure a good mix of the test fluid and the water, a conditioning pipe as
specified in paragraph 2.4 should be fitted immediately before oil filtering equipment;
.4 other valves, flow meters and sample points should be fitted to the test rig
as shown in figure 1; and .5 the pipe work should be designed for a maximum liquid velocity
of 3 metres/second.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 7
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Figure 1 – Test rig 2.3 Tests should be performed using test fluid "C" as defined in resolution MEPC.107(49). 2.4 If oil filtering equipment includes an integrated feed pump, oil filtering equipment and add-on equipment should be tested with that pump supplying the required quantity of test fluid and water to oil filtering equipment at its rated capacity. If oil filtering equipment is to be fed by the ship's pumps, then the unit will be tested by supplying the required quantity of test fluid and water mixture to the inlet of a centrifugal pump operating at not less than 1,000 rpm (see dotted line in figure 1). This pump should have a delivery capacity of not less than 1.1 times the rated capacity of oil filtering equipment at the delivery pressure required for the test. If a centrifugal pump is used, the excess pump capacity should be controlled by a throttle valve on the discharge side of the pump. In all cases, to ensure uniform conditions, the piping arrangements immediately prior to oil filtering equipment should be such that the influent to oil filtering equipment should have a Reynolds number of not less than 10,000 as calculated in fresh water, a liquid velocity of not less than 1 metre per second and the length of the supply pipe from the point of test fluid injection to oil filtering equipment should have a length not less than 20 times its diameter. A mixture inlet sampling point and a thermometer pocket should be provided near oil filtering equipment inlet and an outlet sampling point and observation window should be provided on the discharge pipe.
Sample point
Sample point Sample point Sample point
Filtering
PEffluent
Water (clean water)
Centrifugal pump B
Centrifugal pump A
V1 V2
V3
V4
V5
FM
FM
Flowmeter
Conditioning pipe
Observation window
P
Test fluid "C"
EquipmentAdd-on
Equipment
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 8
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Figure 2 Diagram of sampling arrangements A Distance A, not greater than 400 mm B Distance B, sufficient to insert sampling bottle C Dimension C, straight length should not be less than 60 mm D Dimension D, pipe thickness should not be greater than 2 mm E Detail E, chisel-edged chamfer (30 )
2.5 In order to approach isokinetic sampling – i.e. the sample enters the sampling pipe at stream velocity – the sampling arrangement should be as shown in figure 2 and, if a cock is fitted, free flow should be effected for at least one minute before any sample is taken. The sampling points should be in pipes running vertically. 2.6 In the case of oil filtering equipment and add-on equipment depending essentially on gravity, the feed to the system of the test water and test fluid mixture should be maintained at a temperature not greater than 40ºC, and heating and cooling coils should be provided where necessary. The water shall have a density of not more than 1.015 at 20ºC. In other forms of separation where the dependence of separation efficiency on temperature is not established, tests should be carried out over a range of influent temperatures representing the normal shipboard operating range of 10ºC to 40ºC or should be taken at a temperature in this range where the separation efficiency is known to be worst. 2.7 In those cases where, for oil filtering equipment and add-on equipment, it is necessary to heat water up to a given temperature and to supply heat to maintain that temperature, the tests should be carried out at the given temperature.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 9
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
2.8 The tests with test fluid "C" should be carried out as follows:
.1 prior to the test with test fluid "C", oil filtering equipment and add-on equipment should be filled up with water (density of not more than 1.015 at 20ºC);
.2 oil filtering equipment and add-on equipment should be fed with a mixture
composed of 6% test fluid "C" and 94% water to have emulsified oil content of 3,000 ppm in the test water until steady conditions have been established. Steady conditions are assumed to be the conditions established after pumping through oil filtering equipment and add-on equipment a quantity of test fluid "C"/water mixture not less than twice the volume of oil filtering and add-on equipment; and
.3 the test should then proceed for 2.5 h. Samples should be taken at the
effluent outlet at 50 minutes and 100 minutes after conditioning. At the end of this test, an air cock should be opened on the suction side of the pump and, if necessary, the test fluid "C" and water valves should be slowly closed together, and a sample taken at the effluent discharge as the flow ceases (this point can be checked from the observation window).
2.9 Sampling should be carried out as shown in figure 2 so that the sample taken will suitably represent the fluid issuing from the effluent outlet of add-on equipment. 2.10 Samples should be taken in accordance with ISO 9377–2:2000. The sample is to be extracted on the same day of collection, and be sealed and labelled in the presence of a representative of the national authority and arrangements should be made for analysis as soon as possible and in any case within seven days, provided the samples are being kept between 2ºC and 6ºC at laboratories approved by the Administration. 2.11 The oil content of the samples should be determined in accordance with part 4 of the annex to resolution MEPC.107(49). 2.12 When accurate and reliable oil content meters are fitted at inlet and outlet of add-on equipment, one sample at inlet and outlet taken during each test will be considered sufficient if they verify, to within ±10%, the meter readings noted at the same instant.
PART 2
ADD-ON EQUIPMENT TO BE FITTED TO ANY OIL FILTERING EQUIPMENT 3 General These test and performance specifications for type approval relate to add-on equipment for any oil filtering equipment type-approved in accordance with resolution MEPC.60(33). In addition, the electrical and electronic systems of the add-on equipment should be tested in accordance with the specifications for environmental testing contained in part 3 of resolution MEPC.107(49). 4 Test specifications 4.1 These specifications relate to add-on equipment. The add-on equipment should be capable of producing an effluent for discharge to the sea containing not more than 15 ppm of oil when 3,000 ppm oil in water emulsions are fed.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 10
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
4.2 The test rig must be so constructed as to include not only add-on equipment but also the pumps, valves, pipes and fittings as shown in figure 3:
.1 for the testing centrifugal pump "A" (figure 3) is used to feed the add-on equipment. The rate of flow from the centrifugal pump "A" is matched to the design throughput of the add-on equipment by the adjustment of the centrifugal pump's discharge valve;
.2 a centrifugal pump "B" should be fitted to re-circulate the test fluid C in the
tank to ensure that the test fluid C is maintained in a stable condition throughput the testing;
.3 to ensure a good mix of the test fluid and the water, a conditioning pipe as
specified in paragraph 4.4 should be fitted immediately before add-on equipment;
.4 other valves, flow meters and sample points should be fitted to the test rig
as shown in figure 3; and .5 the pipe work should be designed for a maximum liquid velocity
of 3 metres/second. 4.3 Tests should be performed using test fluid "C" as defined in resolution MEPC.107(49). 4.4 The add-on equipment is tested by supplying the required quantity of test fluid and water mixture to the inlet by a centrifugal pump operating at not less than 1,000 rpm. This pump should have a delivery capacity of not less than 1.1 times the rated capacity of add-on equipment at the delivery pressure required for the test. The excess pump capacity should be controlled by a throttle valve on the discharge side of the pump. In all cases, to ensure uniform conditions, the piping arrangements immediately prior to add-on equipment should be such that the influent to add-on equipment should have a Reynolds number of not less than 10,000 as calculated in fresh water, a liquid velocity of not less than 1 metre per second and the length of the supply pipe from the point of test fluid injection to add-on equipment should have a length not less than 20 times its diameter. A mixture inlet sampling point and a thermometer pocket should be provided near add-on equipment inlet and an outlet sampling point and observation window should be provided on the discharge pipe. 4.5 In order to approach isokinetic sampling – i.e. the sample enters the sampling pipe at stream velocity – the sampling arrangement should be as shown in figure 2 and, if a cock is fitted, free flow should be affected for at least one minute before any sample is taken. The sampling points should be in pipes running vertically.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 11
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Figure 3 – Test rig 4.6 In the case of add-on equipment depending essentially on gravity, the feed to the add-on equipment of the test water and test fluid mixture should be maintained at a temperature not greater than 40ºC, and heating and cooling coils should be provided where necessary. The water should have a density of not more than 1.015 at 20ºC. In other forms of separation where the dependence of separation efficiency on temperature is not established, tests should be carried out over a range of influent temperatures representing the normal shipboard operating range of 10ºC to 40ºC or should be taken at a temperature in this range where the separation efficiency is known to be worst. 4.7 In those cases where, for add-on equipment, it is necessary to heat water up to a given temperature and to supply heat to maintain that temperature, the tests should be carried out at the given temperature. 4.8 The tests with test fluid "C" should be carried out as follows:
.1 prior to the test with test fluid "C", add-on equipment should be filled up with water (density of not more than 1.015 at 20ºC);
.2 add-on equipment should be fed with a mixture composed of 6% test
fluid "C" and 94% water to have emulsified oil content of 3,000 ppm in the test water until steady conditions have been established. Steady conditions are assumed to be the conditions established after pumping through add-on equipment a quantity of test fluid "C"/water mixture not less than twice the volume of add-on equipment; and
.3 the test should then proceed for 2.5 h. Samples should be taken at the
effluent outlet at 50 minutes and 100 minutes after conditioning. At the end of this test, an air cock should be opened on the suction side of the pump and, if necessary, the test fluid "C" and water valves should be slowly closed together, and a sample taken at the effluent discharge as the flow ceases (this point can be checked from the observation window).
Sample point
Sample point Sample point
Sample point
P
Effluent
Water (clean water)
Centrifugal pump B
Centrifugal pump A
V1
V5
FM
FM
Flow meter
Conditioning pipe
Observation window
P
Test fluid "C"
Add-on Equipment
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 12
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
4.9 Sampling should be carried out as shown in figure 2 so that the sample taken will suitably represent the fluid issuing from the effluent outlet of add-on equipment. 4.10 Samples should be taken in accordance with ISO 9377–2:2000. The sample is to be extracted on the same day of collection, and be sealed and labelled in the presence of a representative of the national authority and arrangements should be made for analysis as soon as possible and in any case within seven days, provided the samples are being kept between 2ºC and 6ºC at laboratories approved by the Administration. 4.11 The oil content of the samples should be determined in accordance with part 4 of the annex to resolution MEPC.107(49). 4.12 When accurate and reliable oil content meters are fitted at inlet and outlet of add-on equipment, one sample at inlet and outlet taken during each test will be considered sufficient if they verify, to within ±10%, the meter readings noted at the same instant.
PART 3
DOCUMENTATION OF APPROVAL 5.1 Satisfactory compliance with all the test requirements enumerated in part 1 or 2 of this annex should be shown in the certificate of type approval issued by the Administration in the format specified in paragraph 5.2 below. An Administration may issue a certificate of type approval based on separate testing or on testing already carried out under supervision by another Administration. 5.2 A certificate of type approval should be in the format shown in the appendix to this annex. The Certificate should identify the type and model of the add-on equipment to which it applies and identify equipment assembly drawings, duly dated. Each drawing should bear the model specification numbers or equivalent identification details. The certificate should include the full performance test protocol on which it is based. If a certificate of type approval is issued by an Administration based on a certificate previously issued by another Administration, the certificate should identify the Administration which conducted the test on add-on equipment and a copy of the original test results should be attached to it.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 13
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Appendix 1
Certificate of type approval for add-on equipment
Name of Administration This is to certify that the add-on equipment listed below has been examined and tested in accordance with the requirements of the specifications of the annex to the 2011 Guidelines contained in resolution MEPC.205(62). This certificate is valid only for add-on equipment referred to below. Add-on equipment supplied by ................................................................................................................................................... Under type and model designation ............................................................................................ and incorporating:
*Add-on equipment manufactured by .......................................................................... to specification/assembly drawing No ................................................................. date *Coalescer/Absorbent/Membrane/Filter manufactured by ............................................ to specification/assembly drawing No ......................................................................... *Control equipment manufactured by .......................................................................... to specification/assembly drawing No ................................................................. date *Other means ............................................................................................................... to specification/assembly drawing No .........................................................................
*For installation on oil filtering equipment supplied by ................................................................................................................................................... Under type and model designation ............................................................................................ Maximum throughput of system ……… m3/h ___ Limiting conditions imposed ................................ Test date and results attached in the appendix. Official stamp Signed ..................................................................
Administration of .................................................. Date this .......... day of .............................. 20 .....
* Delete as appropriate.
BADGE OR
CIPHER
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 14
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Appendix 2
Test data and results of tests conducted on add-on equipment in accordance with Part 1 or 2 of the annex to the 2011 Guidelines contained in resolution MEPC.205(62)
Add-on equipment submitted by ................................................................................................................................................... Test location .............................................................................................................................. Method of sample analysis ........................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................... Samples analysed by ................................................................................................................ Environmental testing of the electrical and electronic sections of the add-on equipment has been carried out in accordance with part 3 of the annex to the 2011 Guidelines contained in resolution MEPC.205(62). The equipment functioned satisfactorily on completion of each test specified on the environmental test protocol. ................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................... Test fluid .C.
Surfactant – documentary evidence* Iron oxides – documentary evidence*
______________________________________________________________________ Test water
Density at 20ºC
Solid matter present ______________________________________________________________________ Test temperatures
Ambient ºC Test fluid .C. ºC
Test water ºC
______________________________________________________________________ Diagram of test rig attached Diagram of sampling arrangement attached * Certificate or laboratory analysis.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 24, page 15
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
TEST RESULTS (IN PPM) AND TEST PROCEDURES Test fluid C
1 2 3 Influent Effluent
Signed ………………………………… Date ………………………………… Official stamp (Official stamp or equivalent identification and the date of approval to be placed on all pages of the test protocol.)
***
Condi- tioning
Vm 150 Time 2Ve (mins)
Air
cock
ope
n flo
w c
ease
s
Efficiency test6% Test Fluid C
9 (1.2.11)
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 25, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 25
RESOLUTION MEPC.206(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
PROCEDURE FOR APPROVING OTHER METHODS OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION B-3.7
OF THE BWM CONVENTION THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, RECALLING ALSO the adoption by the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships, held at the Organization's Headquarters in 2004, of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (hereinafter "the BWM Convention"), RECALLING FURTHER that regulation A-2 of the BWM Convention requires that discharge of ballast water shell only be conducted through ballast water management in accordance with the provisions of the Annex to the Convention, NOTING that regulation B-3.7 of the BWM Convention permits the use of "Other Methods" of ballast water management to achieve at least the same level of protection to the environment, human health, property or resources as described in regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5, RECOGNIZING that such "Other Methods" should take into account safety considerations relating to the ship and the crew, environmental acceptability, practicality, cost-effectiveness, economics and biological effectiveness and should be approved in principle by the Marine Environment Protection Committee, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its sixty-second session, the draft Procedure for approving Other Methods of ballast water management in accordance with regulation B-3.7 of the BWM Convention, developed by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its fifteenth session, 1. ADOPTS the Procedure for approving Other Methods of ballast water management in accordance with regulation B-3.7 of the BWM Convention, as set out in the annex to the present resolution; 2. INVITES Administrations to apply the annexed Procedure as soon as possible, or when the Convention becomes applicable to them; 3. URGES Member States to bring the annexed Procedure to the attention of shipowners, shipbuilders and manufacturers of ballast water management systems, as well as any other parties concerned; and 4. AGREES to keep the Procedure under review.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 25, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX
PROCEDURE FOR APPROVING OTHER METHODS OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
REGULATION B-3.7 OF THE BWM CONVENTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Regulation B-3.7 of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (the BWM Convention) permits the use of Other Methods of ballast water management to achieve at least the same level of protection to the environment, human health, property or resources as described in regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5, and approved in principle by the MEPC. 1.2 Those developing Other Methods should also take into account: safety considerations relating to the ship and the crew; environmental acceptability (i.e. not causing greater environmental impacts than they solve); practicality (i.e. compatibility with ship design and operations); cost-effectiveness and economics; and biological effectiveness. 1.3 The Procedure for approving Other Methods of ballast water management in accordance with regulation B-3.7 of the BWM Convention (hereafter referred to as "the Procedure"), aims at providing criteria for the evaluation and approval of Other Methods of ballast water management (hereafter referred to as "Other Methods"). 1.4 This Procedure has been developed to ensure that these Other Methods provide at least the same level of protection to the environment, human health, property or resources as those methods permitted under regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5. 1.5 Other Methods of ballast water management are to be approved in principle by the Committee prior to approval of an Other Method by the Administration. 1.6 Systems based on an Other Method where Active Substances and Preparations are added to the ballast water, or are generated on board ships by the system, should also be subject to the approval by the Committee in accordance with the Procedure for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of Active Substances (G9). 1.7 All shipboard systems based on an Other Method will also have to gain Type Approval or Prototype Approval, as appropriate, under the Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8), or Guidelines for approval of prototype ballast water treatment technologies (G10). 1.8 Where an Other Method cannot be type approved due to the nature of the method, the Administration should recommend to the Committee an appropriate method of recognition or certification. 1.9 The environmental impacts of any chemical by-products and/or physical effects formed by an Other Method will also have to be evaluated by the Administration during the approval process, with respect to safety to the environment. 1.10 The Procedure identifies the information to be provided, identifies the responsible parties for providing such information and outlines the approval processes required by the Committee.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 25, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
1.11 The use of Other Methods of ballast water management should be consistent with the objectives of the Convention – "to prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the risks to the environment, human health, property and resources arising from the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediments, as well as to avoid unwanted side effects from that control, and to encourage developments in related knowledge and technology". Depending on the new technology used in the Other Method, verifications for approval could be different from those specified in paragraph 1.7 but keep the same level of protection. 1.12 Other Methods using organisms are not within the scope of this Procedure. 2 PURPOSE 2.1 The Procedure aims to ensure that any Other Methods approved provide an equivalent level of protection to the standards contained in the BWM Convention. The Procedure will be kept under review and updated by the Committee in light of the experience gained during its application and as the state of knowledge and technology may require. 2.2 The purpose of the Procedure is to:
.1 provide a uniform interpretation and application of the requirements for the approval of Other Methods permitted under regulation B-3.7;
.2 ensure that Other Methods approved by an Administration are capable of at
least achieving equivalence to the level of protection provided by the standards of the BWM Convention with respect to the prevention of the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens as required by regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5;
.3 assist in determining the information necessary for the approval in principle
of Other Methods under regulation B-3.7 of the BWM Convention and identify the roles and responsibilities in providing such information;
.4 assist Administrations in conducting the approval of an Other Method; .5 provide guidance to manufacturers, shipowners and other interested parties
involved in determining the suitability of an Other Method to meet the requirements of the BWM Convention; and
.6 provide the approval process used by the Committee.
3 DEFINITIONS 3.1 For the purposes of this Procedure, the definitions in the Convention apply and:
.1 Method means a process developed and designed to reduce the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms through ships' ballast water to meet the requirements specified under regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5 of the BWM Convention.
.2 Other Method means an alternative to a Method defined in
paragraph 3.1.1 above, which provides a level of protection equivalent to the requirements specified in regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5 of the BWM Convention.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 25, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
4 APPLICABILITY 4.1 The Procedure applies to all Administrations, Parties to the BWM Convention and other IMO Member States, seeking approval in principle for an Other Method under regulation B-3.7 or assessing or granting approval for such Other Methods. This Procedure is also for the use of the Committee when considering approval in principle. 4.2 Equipment manufacturers wanting to seek approval for an Other Method should also consult this Procedure. 4.3 Ballast water management methods subject to regulation A-4.1 of the BWM Convention are not subject to this procedure or to regulation B-3.7. 5 APPLICATION TO THE COMMITTEE FOR APPROVAL IN PRINCIPLE OF AN
OTHER METHOD 5.1 The information provided to support the application for approval in principle should be complete, of sufficient quality and in accordance with this Procedure. 5.2 The applicant for approval in principle of an Other Method should provide independently validated and/or operational proof that the Other Method being submitted:
.1 provides a level of protection at least equivalent to that provided by the requirements specified in regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5 of the BWM Convention; and
.2 is capable of providing a consistent level of protection at all times in all
environments/locations. Equivalence and benchmark criteria for an application for approval in principle of an Other Method 5.3 Applications for Other Methods should contain a fully developed independently validated approach for assessing the level of protection provided by that Other Method against the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens and its equivalence to the requirements in regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5 of the BWM Convention and the additional requirements outlined in this Procedure, as appropriate. A possible starting point for such an approach could be a comparison of the level of protection ensured by ballast water management in compliance with regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5 and the level of protection ensured by the Other Method if used on comparable ships. 5.4 Other Methods should demonstrate by risk assessment, independently validated physical and biological modelling, operational testing of this modelling and full-scale operational testing, where applicable, that the Other Method is capable of meeting at all times a level of protection that is at least equivalent to the level of protection with respect to the prevention of the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens via discharge of ballast water compared to existing requirements. The risk assessment should be at least to the same level of rigour as stipulated in Guidelines (G7). 5.5 Applications for Other Methods should specify the benchmark against which the performance of any systems based on that particular Other Method can be measured. The benchmark would:
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 25, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
.1 enable a transparent comparison by the Committee of the level of protection provided by the Other Method with that provided by the requirements in regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5 of the BWM Convention;
.2 be measurable and able to be evaluated for approval (similar to the
requirements of the Convention, i.e. D-1 being a process evaluation, while D-2 is a measurable performance standard);
.3 be verifiable by port and flag States through sampling, records or other
processes (to be properly defined, listed and technically explained/clarified, in the pertinent application, in terms of proposed verifications for flag State or port State control inspections to be carried out on board);
.4 need to be contained in the application, agreed by the Committee and then
be used for consideration of approval through compliance testing by Port State Control;
.5 provide an assurance that systems based on an Other Method are providing
the same level of protection for the environment as the Other Method that has received the approval in principle from the Committee; and
.6 be based on a recognized international standard, where appropriate, so
long as they can be proved as equivalent to the existing requirements. 5.6 An Other Method may provide the same level of protection for the environment, human health, property or resources where:
.1 the ballasting and de-ballasting process does not transfer harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens; or
.2 the ballast water discharge contains no harmful aquatic organisms and
pathogens. Sampling protocol criteria for an application for approval in principle of an Other Method 5.7 The application for an Other Method should contain a ballast water sampling and analysis protocol that should be consistent with the Guidelines for ballast water sampling (G2). Ship and personnel safety criteria for an application for approval in principle of an Other Method 5.8 The application should include a Formal Safety Assessment or a Safety Case to ensure that the Other Method or system based on an Other Method is safe for installation on board ship and any risks to the ship's crew resulting from the system are identified and adequately addressed. This Formal Safety Assessment or Safety Case should be consistent with part 3 of the annex to the Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8) and approved by the Administration. 6 SUBMISSION PROCESS 6.1 The applicant should evaluate the Other Method against the benchmark according to a protocol that is approved by an Administration. 6.2 The applicant should then prepare an application for the Other Method and submit it to the Member State concerned.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 25, page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
6.3 The Administration should review the application to ensure it is satisfactory (i.e. contains all of the information that is required and the information provided is of a sufficient standard to enable a decision to be made by the Committee). If the application is satisfactory, the Member State should submit a proposal for approval in principle to the Committee taking into account the deadlines prior to the MEPC at which approval in principle is to be sought. 6.4 When in session, the Committee should decide if the proposal is acceptable for consideration by the Committee and set the time frame for the evaluation of the proposal as follows:
.1 the Committee may commission an independent review of the risk assessment method, data and assumptions in order to ensure that a scientifically rigorous analysis has been conducted. The review should be undertaken by independent experts with ecological, aquatic biology, ship design and operation, and risk assessment expertise; and
.2 the reviewers' report should be in written form and circulated to the Parties,
Members of the Organization, the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies, intergovernmental organizations having agreements with the Organization and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Organization, prior to its consideration by the Committee.
6.5 All proprietary data should be treated as confidential by the Committee, the competent authorities involved, and the independent reviewers, if any. However, all information related to safety and environmental protection, including physical/chemical properties and data on environmental fate and toxicity, should be treated as non-confidential. 6.6 The Committee should evaluate the application for approval in principle of an Other Method in accordance with this Procedure. 7 ASSESSMENT OF EQUIVALENCE 7.1 The Committee should review the benchmarks detailed in the application and, as appropriate, take them into account when assessing equivalence to the level of protection for the environment, human health, property or resources as provided for in regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5. 7.2 Other Methods designed to provide at least an equivalent level of protection with respect to the prevention of the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens via discharge of ballast water should demonstrate by risk assessment, independently validated physical and biological modelling, operational testing of this modelling and full-scale operational testing, where applicable, that the Other Method is capable of meeting a level of protection at all times that is, at least equivalent to, or better than, the applicable requirements contained in the BWM Convention. 7.3 Risk assessment is the logical process for assigning the likelihood and consequences of specific events, such as entry, establishment or spread of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens in situations where a direct comparison of application benchmarks with the D-1 and D-2 standards is not possible. 7.4 In undertaking risk assessment to consider and evaluate the equivalence of an Other Method with the existing standards, the risk assessment principles outlined in the Guidelines for risk assessment under regulation A-4 of the BWM Convention (G7) should be carefully applied. The lack of full scientific certainty should be carefully considered in the decision-making process.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 25, page 7
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Equivalence with the D-1 standard 7.5 Other Methods designed to provide equivalence to the D-1 standard can be used only until the ship type, under the BWM Convention, is required to comply with the D-2 standard (unless the system proves it can also provide equivalence to the D-2 standard):
.1 these methods should demonstrate through risk assessment, independently validated physical and biological modelling, operational testing of this modelling and full-scale operational testing of systems based on Other Methods, where applicable, that the Other Method is capable of meeting at all times a level of protection that is, at least equivalent to, or better than, regulation D-1 of the BWM Convention;
.2 if there is a question about the environmental impact of an Other Method
during its development, such approval should be split in the same way as it is in Procedure (G9). That is, Other Methods should be approved by the Administration and Committee based on independently validated data prior to being tested at sea; and
.3 the relevant water quality parameters (e.g., suspended solids, salinity,
oxygen concentration, particulate organic matter) should be reasonably the same in the incoming as well as in the outflowing water.
Equivalence with the D-2 standard 7.6 Other Methods designed to provide equivalence to the D-2 standard should demonstrate through risk assessment, independently validated physical and biological modelling, operational testing of this modelling and full-scale operational testing of systems based on Other Methods, where applicable, that the Other Method is capable of meeting at all times a level of protection that is at least equivalent to, or better than, regulation D-2 of the BWM Convention, as follows:
.1 where appropriate, benchmarks should be based on recognized international standards as long as they can be proven to provide an equivalent level of protection to the D-2 standard;
.2 the description of the main characteristics of the ballast water as well as the
absence/presence of harmful aquatic organisms is to be supported by independent verification; and
.3 onboard test results, equipment specification and quality assurance should
be available. 8 APPROVAL 8.1 The approval takes place in two steps:
.1 an approval in principle of the Other Method following review and evaluation by the Committee (regulation B-3.7); and
.2 an approval of the Other Method in a manner analogous to Guidelines (G8)
and (G10), by the Administration.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 25, page 8
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Assessment for approval in principle 8.2 The application for approval in principle should be assessed by the Committee to ascertain whether:
.1 the application for approval in principle is complete, of sufficient quality, and in accordance with this Procedure;
.2 the Other Method does not cause any unacceptable adverse effects to
environment, human health, property or resources;
.3 the Other Method does not contravene other regulations in the BWM Convention, or any other convention or code applicable to the ship type;
.4 the Other Method ensures at least the same level of protection to the
environment, human health, property or resources as those methods permitted under regulations B-3.1 to B-3.5; and
.5 the Procedure for approval set out by the Administration is appropriate.
8.3 The application should not be granted approval in principle when there is absence of information or significant uncertainty. 8.4 The Committee should decide whether to approve in principle the proposal, introduce any modifications thereto, if appropriate, taking into account the reviewers' report. 8.5 The Administration that submitted the application to the Committee should inform in writing the applicant about the decision made with regard to the Other Method. Approval by the Administration 8.6 An Other Method, having received approval in principle from the Committee, is to be approved by an Administration. 8.7 A shipboard system may need to be assessed for Type Approval. 8.8 The Administration should evaluate an Other Method for safety to the environment, human health, property, or resources. 9 NOTIFICATION OF APPROVAL 9.1 The Committee will record the approval in principle of Other Methods and circulate the list once a year including the following information:
- the document reference of the approval in principle of the Other Method by the Committee;
- name and brief description of the Other Method; - name of ballast water management system that makes use of the Other Method
if appropriate; - date of approval;
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 25, page 9
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
- name of applicant; - the benchmark that the Other Method is designed to meet, and the methods of
assessing compliance to this benchmark; - copies of or access routes to test reports, test methods, etc.
(as resolution MEPC.175(58)); and - any other specifications, if necessary.
9.2 Administrations, when approving an Other Method should report to the Committee in a manner consistent with resolution MEPC.175(58) "Information reporting on Type Approved ballast water management systems". 10 MODIFICATION 10.1 The holder of an Other Method approval should report any modifications to the Administration. 10.2 Any modifications to an approved Other Method should be re-evaluated in accordance with this Procedure. 11 WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL 11.1 The Committee may withdraw any approval in principle in the following circumstances:
.1 if the Other Method or system based on an Other Method no longer conforms to requirements due to amendments of the BWM Convention;
.2 if any data or test records differ materially from data relied upon at the time
of approval and are deemed not to satisfy the approval criteria;
.3 if a request for withdrawal of approval is made by the Administration on behalf of the holder of an Other Method approval; and
.4 if unreasonable harm to environment, human health, property or resources
is determined to have been caused by an approved Other Method. 11.2 The decision to withdraw an approval in principle should specify all necessary further details, including the date upon which the withdrawal takes effect. 12 USE ON SHIPS 12.1 Ships using an Other Method under regulation B-3.7 of the BWM Convention, to meet their obligations under this Convention, can only do so once the Other Method has been approved in principle by the Committee and has been approved by an Administration.
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 26
RESOLUTION MEPC.207(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS' BIOFOULING TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSFER OF INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38 of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee relating to any matter within the scope of the Organization concerned with the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships, RECALLING ALSO that Member States of the International Maritime Organization made a clear commitment to minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species by shipping in adopting the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004, RECALLING FURTHER that studies have shown biofouling on ships to be an important means of transferring invasive aquatic species which, if established in new ecosystems, may pose threats to the environment, human health, property and resources, NOTING the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, and that the transfer and introduction of aquatic invasive species through ships' biofouling threatens the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, NOTING ALSO that implementing practices to control and manage ships' biofouling can greatly assist in reducing the risk of the transfer of invasive aquatic species, NOTING FURTHER that this issue, being of worldwide concern, demands a globally consistent approach to the management of biofouling, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its sixty-second session, the draft Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species, developed by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases, 1. ADOPTS the 2011 Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species, as set out in the annex to the present resolution; 2. REQUESTS Member States to take urgent action in applying these Guidelines, including the dissemination thereof to the shipping industry and other interested parties, taking these Guidelines into account when adopting measures to minimize the risk of introducing invasive aquatic species via biofouling, and reporting to the MEPC on any experience gained in their implementation; and 3. AGREES to keep these Guidelines under review in light of the experience gained.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX
2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS' BIOFOULING TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSFER OF INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2 DEFINITIONS 3 APPLICATION 4 OBJECTIVES 5 BIOFOULING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RECORD BOOK Biofouling Management Plan Biofouling Record Book 6 ANTI-FOULING SYSTEM INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE Choosing the anti-fouling system Installing, re-installing, or repairing the anti-fouling system Procedures for ship maintenance and recycling facilities 7 IN-WATER INSPECTION, CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE In-water inspection of ships In-water cleaning and maintenance 8 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 9 DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION 10 TRAINING AND EDUCATION 11 OTHER MEASURES 12 FUTURE WORK Research needs Independent information needs APPENDIX 1 BIOFOULING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RECORD BOOK
– Format and content of Biofouling Management Plan APPENDIX 2 BIOFOULING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RECORD BOOK
– Biofouling Record Book Form
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 In the adoption of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (BWM Convention), Member States of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) made a clear commitment to minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species by shipping. Studies have shown that biofouling can also be a significant vector for the transfer of invasive aquatic species. Biofouling on ships entering the waters of States may result in the establishment of invasive aquatic species which may pose threats to human, animal and plant life, economic and cultural activities and the aquatic environment. 1.2 While the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 (AFS Convention) addresses anti-fouling systems on ships, its focus is on the prevention of adverse impacts from the use of anti-fouling systems and the biocides they may contain, rather than preventing the transfer of invasive aquatic species. 1.3 The potential for invasive aquatic species transferred through biofouling to cause harm has been recognized by the IMO, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), several UNEP Regional Seas Conventions (e.g., Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC), and the Secretariat of the Pacific Region Environmental Program (SPREP). 1.4 All ships have some degree of biofouling, even those which may have been recently cleaned or had a new application of an anti-fouling coating system. Studies have shown that the biofouling process begins within the first few hours of a ship's immersion in water. The biofouling that may be found on a ship is influenced by a range of factors, such as follows:
.1 design and construction, particularly the number, location and design of niche areas;
.2 specific operating profile, including factors such as operating speeds, ratio
of time underway compared with time alongside, moored or at anchor, and where the ship is located when not in use (e.g., open anchorage or estuarine port);
.3 places visited and trading routes; and .4 maintenance history, including: the type, age and condition of any
anti-fouling coating system, installation and operation of anti-fouling systems and dry-docking/slipping and hull cleaning practices.
1.5 Implementing practices to control and manage biofouling can greatly assist in reducing the risk of the transfer of invasive aquatic species. Such management practices can also improve a ship's hydrodynamic performance and can be effective tools in enhancing energy efficiency and reducing air emissions from ships. This concept has been identified by the IMO in the "Guidance for the development of a ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP)" (MEPC.1/Circ.683). 1.6 These Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species (hereafter "the Guidelines") are intended to provide a globally consistent approach to the management of biofouling. As scientific and technological advances are made, the Guidelines will be refined to enable the risk to be more adequately addressed. Port States, flag States, coastal States and other parties that can assist in mitigating the problems associated with biofouling should exercise due diligence to implement the Guidelines to the maximum extent possible.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
2 DEFINITIONS 2.1 For the purposes of these Guidelines, the following definitions apply: AFS Convention means the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, 2001. Anti-fouling coating system means the combination of all component coatings, surface treatments (including primer, sealer, binder, anti-corrosive and anti-fouling coatings) or other surface treatments, used on a ship to control or prevent attachment of unwanted aquatic organisms. Anti-fouling system means a coating, paint, surface treatment, surface, or device that is used on a ship to control or prevent attachment of unwanted organisms. Biofouling means the accumulation of aquatic organisms such as micro-organisms, plants, and animals on surfaces and structures immersed in or exposed to the aquatic environment. Biofouling can include microfouling and macrofouling (see below). In-water cleaning means the physical removal of biofouling from a ship while in the water. Invasive aquatic species means a species which may pose threats to human, animal and plant life, economic and cultural activities and the aquatic environment. Marine Growth Prevention System (MGPS) means an anti-fouling system used for the prevention of biofouling accumulation in internal seawater cooling systems and sea chests and can include the use of anodes, injection systems and electrolysis. Member States means States that are Members of the International Maritime Organization. Macrofouling means large, distinct multicellular organisms visible to the human eye such as barnacles, tubeworms, or fronds of algae. Microfouling means microscopic organisms including bacteria and diatoms and the slimy substances that they produce. Biofouling comprised of only microfouling is commonly referred to as a slime layer. Niche areas mean areas on a ship that may be more susceptible to biofouling due to different hydrodynamic forces, susceptibility to coating system wear or damage, or being inadequately, or not, painted, e.g., sea chests, bow thrusters, propeller shafts, inlet gratings, dry-dock support strips, etc. Organization means the International Maritime Organization. Port State authority means any official or organization authorized by the Government of a port State to verify the compliance and enforcement of standards and regulations relevant to the implementation of national and international shipping control measures. Ship means a vessel of any type whatsoever operating in the aquatic environment and includes hydrofoil boats, air-cushion vehicles, submersibles, floating craft, fixed or floating platforms, floating storage units (FSUs) and floating production storage and off-loading units (FPSOs).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
States means coastal, port or Member States as appropriate. Treatment means a process which may use a mechanical, physical, chemical or biological method to remove or render sterile, invasive or potentially invasive aquatic species fouling a ship. 3 APPLICATION 3.1 The Guidelines are intended to provide useful recommendations on general measures to minimize the risks associated with biofouling for all types of ships and are directed to States, shipmasters, operators and owners, shipbuilders, ship cleaning and maintenance operators, port authorities, ship repair, dry-docking and recycling facilities, ship designers, classification societies, anti-fouling paint manufacturers and suppliers and any other interested parties. A State should determine the extent that the Guidelines are applied within that particular State. 3.2 A separate guidance document, based on these Guidelines, provides advice relevant to owners and/or operators of recreational craft less than 24 metres in length, using terminology appropriate for that sector. 3.3 States should inform the Organization of any relevant biofouling regulations, management requirements or restrictions they are applying to international shipping. 4 OBJECTIVES 4.1 The objectives of these Guidelines are to provide practical guidance to States, ship masters, operators and owners, shipbuilders, ship repair, dry-docking and recycling facilities, ship cleaning and maintenance operators, ship designers, classification societies, anti-fouling paint manufacturers and suppliers and any other interested parties, on measures to minimize the risk of transferring invasive aquatic species from ships' biofouling. It is important that biofouling management procedures be effective as well as environmentally safe, practical, designed to minimize costs and delays to the ship, and based upon these Guidelines whenever possible. 4.2 To minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species, a ship should implement biofouling management practices, including the use of anti-fouling systems and other operational management practices to reduce the development of biofouling. The intent of such practices is to keep the ship's submerged surfaces, and internal seawater cooling systems, as free of biofouling as practical. A ship following this guidance and minimizing macrofouling would have a reduced potential for transferring invasive aquatic species via biofouling. 4.3 The management measures outlined within these Guidelines are intended to complement current maintenance practices carried out within the industry. 5 BIOFOULING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RECORD BOOK 5.1 Implementation of an effective biofouling management regime is critical for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species. The biofouling management measures to be undertaken on a ship should be outlined in a biofouling management plan, and records of biofouling management practices kept in a biofouling record book, as outlined below.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Biofouling Management Plan 5.2 It is recommended that every ship should have a biofouling management plan. The intent of the plan should be to provide effective procedures for biofouling management. An example of a Biofouling Management Plan is outlined in appendix 1 of these Guidelines. The Biofouling Management Plan may be a stand-alone document, or integrated in part or fully, into the existing ships' operational and procedural manuals and/or planned maintenance system. 5.3 The biofouling management plan should be specific to each ship and included in the ship's operational documentation. Such a plan should address, among other things, the following:
.1 relevant parts of these Guidelines; .2 details of the anti-fouling systems and operational practices or treatments
used, including those for niche areas; .3 hull locations susceptible to biofouling, schedule of planned inspections,
repairs, maintenance and renewal of anti-fouling systems; .4 details of the recommended operating conditions suitable for the chosen
anti-fouling systems and operational practices; .5 details relevant for the safety of the crew, including details on the
anti-fouling system(s) used; and .6 details of the documentation required to verify any treatments recorded in
the Biofouling Record Book as outlined in appendix 2. 5.4 The biofouling management plan should be updated as necessary. Biofouling Record Book 5.5 It is recommended that a Biofouling Record Book is maintained for each ship. The book should record details of all inspections and biofouling management measures undertaken on the ship. This is to assist the shipowner and operator to evaluate the efficacy of the specific anti-fouling systems and operational practices on the ship in particular, and of the biofouling management plan in general. The record book could also assist interested State authorities to quickly and efficiently assess the potential biofouling risk of the ship, and thus minimize delays to ship operations. The Biofouling Record Book may be a stand-alone document, or integrated in part, or fully, into the existing ships' operational and procedural manuals and/or planned maintenance system. 5.6 It is recommended that the Biofouling Record Book be retained on the ship for the life of the ship. 5.7 Information that should be recorded in a Biofouling Record Book includes the following:
.1 details of the anti-fouling systems and operational practices used (where appropriate as recorded in the Anti-fouling System Certificate), where and when installed, areas of the ship coated, its maintenance and, where applicable, its operation;
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 7
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
.2 dates and location of dry-dockings/slippings, including the date the ship was re-floated, and any measures taken to remove biofouling or to renew or repair the anti-fouling system;
.3 the date and location of in-water inspections, the results of that inspection
and any corrective action taken to deal with observed biofouling; .4 the dates and details of inspection and maintenance of internal seawater
cooling systems, the results of these inspections, and any corrective action taken to deal with observed biofouling and any reported blockages; and
.5 details of when the ship has been operating outside its normal operating
profile including any details of when the ship was laid-up or inactive for extended periods of time.
5.8 An example of a Biofouling Record Book and information to be recorded is included as appendix 2 to these Guidelines. 6 ANTI-FOULING SYSTEM INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE 6.1 Anti-fouling systems and operational practices are the primary means of biofouling prevention and control for existing ships' submerged surfaces, including the hull and niche areas. An anti-fouling system can be a coating system applied to exposed surfaces, biofouling resistant materials used for piping and other unpainted components, marine growth prevention systems (MGPSs) for sea chests and internal seawater cooling systems, or other innovative measures to control biofouling. 6.2 The anti-fouling system used should comply with the AFS Convention, where necessary. Choosing the anti-fouling system 6.3 Different anti-fouling systems are designed for different ship operating profiles so it is essential that ship operators, designers and builders obtain appropriate technical advice to ensure an appropriate system is applied or installed. If an appropriate anti-fouling system is not applied, biofouling accumulation increases. 6.4 Some factors to consider when choosing an anti-fouling system include the following:
.1 planned periods between dry-docking – including any mandatory requirements for ships survey;
.2 ship speed – different anti-fouling systems are designed to optimize
anti-fouling performance for specific ship speeds; .3 operating profile – patterns of use, trade routes and activity levels, including
periods of inactivity, influence the rate of biofouling accumulation; .4 ship type and construction; and .5 any legal requirements for the sale and use of the anti-fouling systems.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 8
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
6.5 Consideration should also be given to the need for tailored, differential installation of anti-fouling coating systems for different areas of the ship to match the required performance and longevity of the coating with the expected wear, abrasion and water flow rates in specific areas, such as the bow, rudder, or internal seawater cooling systems and sea chest interiors. Installing, re-installing, or repairing the anti-fouling system 6.6 Whether installing, re-installing or repairing the anti-fouling system, care should be taken in surface preparation to ensure all biofouling residues, flaking paint, or other surface contamination is completely removed, particularly in niche areas, to facilitate good adhesion and durability of the anti-fouling system. 6.7 For sea chests the following should be considered when installing, re-installing, or repairing their anti-fouling systems:
.1 inlet grates and the internal surfaces of sea chests should be protected by an anti-fouling coating system that is suitable for the flow conditions of seawater over the grate and through the sea chest;
.2 care should be taken in surface preparation and application of any
anti-fouling coating system to ensure adequate adhesion and coating thickness. Particular attention should be paid to the corners and edges of sea chests, blowout pipes, holding brackets and the bars of grates. Grates may require a major refurbishment type of surface preparation at each dry-docking to ensure coating durability; and
.3 the installation of MGPSs is encouraged to assist in treating the sea chest
and internal seawater piping as part of the biofouling management plan. A careful evaluation of the consequential effects of MGPSs should be made before installation, including potential effects on the ship and/or the environment and the existence of regulations affecting the use of MGPSs.
6.8 Other niche areas can also be particularly susceptible to biofouling growth. Management measures for niche areas are outlined below.
.1 Dry-docking support strips – Positions of dry-docking blocks and supports should be varied at each dry-docking, or alternative arrangements made to ensure that areas under blocks are painted with anti-fouling, at least at alternate dry-dockings. These areas should receive a major refurbishment type of surface preparation and be coated at each dry-docking that they are accessible. Where it is not possible to alternate the position of dry-docking support strips, e.g., in critical weight bearing areas such as under the engine-room, these areas should be specially considered and managed by other means, e.g., the application of specialized coatings or procedures.
.2 Bow and stern thrusters – The body and area around bow, stern and any
other thrusters prone to coating damage, should be routinely maintained at dry-dockings. Particular attention should be paid to any free flooding spaces which may exist around the thruster tunnel. The housings/recesses, and retractable fittings such as stabilizers and thruster bodies, should have an anti-fouling coating system of adequate thickness for optimal effectiveness.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 9
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
.3 Edges and weld joints – Exposed edges on the hull, such as around bilge keels and scoops, and weld joints, should be faired and coated to ensure adequate coating thickness to optimize system effectiveness.
.4 Rudder hinges and stabilizer fin apertures – Recesses within rudder
hinges and behind stabilizer fins need to be carefully and effectively cleaned and re-coated at maintenance dry-dockings. Rudders and stabilizer fins should be moved through their full range of motion during the coating process to ensure that all surfaces are correctly coated to the specification of the anti-fouling system. Rudders, rudder fittings and the hull areas around them should also be adequately coated to withstand the increased wear rates experienced in these areas.
.5 Propeller and shaft – Propellers and immersed propeller shafts should be
coated with fouling release coatings where possible and appropriate, to maintain efficiency and enable self-cleaning, so that the need for regular in-water cleaning and polishing is minimized.
.6 Stern tube seal assemblies and the internal surfaces of rope guards – Exposed sections of stern tube seal assemblies and the internal surfaces of rope guards should be carefully painted with anti-fouling coating systems appropriate to the degree of water movement over and around these surfaces.
.7 Cathodic protection (CP) anodes – Niche areas for biofouling can be
minimized if: anodes are flush-fitted to the hull; a rubber backing pad is inserted between the anode and the hull; or the gap is caulked. Caulking the gap will make the seam or joint watertight. If not flush-fitted, the hull surface under the anode and the anode strap should be coated with an anti-fouling coating system suitable for low water flow to prevent biofouling accumulation. If anodes are attached by bolts recessed into the anode surface, the recess should be caulked to remove a potential niche.
.8 Pitot tubes – Where retractable pitot tubes are fitted, the housing should
be internally coated with an anti-fouling coating system suitable for static conditions.
.9 Sea inlet pipes and overboard discharges – Anti-fouling coating systems
should be applied inside the pipe opening and accessible internal areas. The anti-corrosive or primer coating selected should be appropriate to the specific pipe material if this material is different to the hull. Care should be taken in surface preparation and coating application to ensure good adhesion and coating thickness.
Procedures for ship maintenance and recycling facilities 6.9 Ship maintenance and recycling facilities should adopt measures (consistent with applicable national and local laws and regulations) to ensure that viable biofouling organisms or chemical and physical pollutants are not released into the local aquatic environment. These measures include the following:
.1 capturing biological material to minimize the risk of organism survival and establishment and other impacts of biological material being released into the aquatic environment;
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 10
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
.2 treating and/or disposing of captured biological material in an environmentally appropriate manner;
.3 scheduling of ships' arrival and departure at cleaning and maintenance
facilities and at locations where ships are moored while waiting for cleaning and maintenance to minimize the risk of fouled ships contaminating other ships and the surrounding environment;
.4 removing biofouling from all underwater surfaces of a ship when in
dry-dock, including niche areas; and .5 lowering or extending retractable equipment such as stabilizers, thrusters,
transducers and similar when a ship is in dry-dock or slipped, to permit access for the removal of biofouling from the equipment and its housing.
7 IN-WATER INSPECTION, CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE 7.1 Despite the use of effective anti-fouling systems and operational practices, undesirable amounts of biofouling may still accumulate during the intended lifetime of the anti-fouling system. To maintain a ship as free of biofouling as practical, it may be advisable for the ship to undertake in-water inspection, cleaning and maintenance. In-water inspection of ships 7.2 In-water inspection can be a useful and flexible means to inspect the condition of anti-fouling systems and the biofouling status of a ship. In-water inspections should be undertaken periodically as a general means of routine surveillance, augmented by specific inspections as necessary to address any situations of elevated risk. Specific occasions when an in-water inspection may be appropriate, include the following:
.1 before and after any planned period of inactivity or significant or unforeseen change to the ship's operating profile;
.2 prior to undertaking in-water cleaning to determine the presence of known or
suspected invasive aquatic species or other species of concern on the ship; .3 after a known or suspected marine pest or other species of concern is
discovered in a ship's internal seawater cooling systems; and .4 following damage to, or premature failure of, the anti-fouling system.
7.3 It is recommended that ship operators identify niche areas on the ship that may accumulate biofouling to enable these areas to be effectively targeted during inspections. Areas may include the following:
- propeller thrusters and propulsion units; - sea chests; - rudder stock and hinge; - stabilizer fin apertures; - rope guards, stern tube seals and propeller shafts;
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 11
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
- cathodic protection anodes; - anchor chain and chain lockers; - free flood spaces inherent to the ships' design; - sea chest and thruster tunnel grates; - echo sounders and velocity probes; - overboard discharge outlets and sea inlets; and - areas prone to anti-fouling coating system damage or grounding (e.g., areas of
the hull damaged by fenders when alongside, leading edges of bilge keels and propeller shaft "y" frames).
7.4 Dive and remotely operated vehicle (ROV) surveys can be practical options for in-water inspections although they do have limitations regarding visibility and available dive time compared with the area to be inspected, and difficulties with effectively accessing many biofouling prone niches. Such surveys should be undertaken by persons who are suitably qualified and experienced and familiar with biofouling and associated invasive aquatic species risks and the safety risks relating to in-water surveys. Regulatory authorities may have recommended or accredited biofouling inspection divers. In-water cleaning and maintenance 7.5 In-water cleaning can be an important part of biofouling management. In-water cleaning can also introduce different degrees of environmental risk, depending on the nature of biofouling (i.e. microfouling versus macrofouling), the amount of anti-fouling coating system residue released and the biocidal content of the anti-fouling coating system. Relative to macrofouling, microfouling can be removed with gentler techniques that minimize degradation of the anti-fouling coating system and/or biocide release. Microfouling removal may enhance a ship's hull efficiency, reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It is, therefore, recommended that the ship's hull is cleaned when practical by soft methods if significant microfouling occurs. In-water cleaning can also reduce the risk of spreading invasive aquatic species by preventing macrofouling accumulation. 7.6 It may be appropriate for States to conduct a risk assessment to evaluate the risk of in-water cleaning activities and minimize potential threats to their environment, property and resources. Risk assessment factors could include the following:
.1 biological risk of the biofouling organisms being removed from the ship (including viability of the biofouling organisms or the ability to capture biofouling material);
.2 factors that may influence biofouling accumulation, such as changes to the
operating profile of the ship; .3 geographical area that was the source of the biofouling on the ship,
if known; and .4 toxic effects related to substances within the anti-fouling coating system
that could be released during the cleaning activity, and any subsequent damage to the anti-fouling coating system.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 12
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
7.7 Personnel proposing to undertake in-water cleaning should be aware of any regulations or requirements for the conduct of in-water cleaning, including any regulations regarding the discharge of chemicals into the marine environment and the location of sensitive areas (such as marine protected areas and ballast water exchange areas). Where significant macrofouling growth is detected, it should be removed or treated (if this can be done without damaging the anti-fouling system) in accordance with such regulations. Where available, appropriate technology should be used to minimize the release of both anti-fouling coating or paint debris, and viable adult, juvenile, or reproductive stages of macrofouling organisms. The collected material should be disposed of in a manner which does not pose a risk to the aquatic environment. 7.8 For immersed areas coated with biocidal anti-fouling coatings, cleaning techniques should be used that minimize release of biocide into the environment. Cleaning heavily fouled anti-fouling coating systems can not only generate biofouling debris, but prematurely depletes the anti-fouling coating system and may create a pulse of biocide that can harm the local environment and may impact on future applications by the port authority for the disposal of dredge spoil. Depleted anti-fouling coating systems on hulls will rapidly re-foul. In-water cleaning or scrubbing of hulls for the purpose of delaying dry-dockings beyond the specified service life of the coating is, therefore, not recommended. 7.9 Immersed areas coated with biocide-free anti-fouling coating systems may require regular in-water cleaning as part of planned maintenance to maintain hull efficiency and minimize the risk of transferring invasive aquatic species. Cleaning techniques should be used which do not damage the coating and impair its function. 7.10 Any maintenance or repair activities should take care not to impede future in-service cleaning and/or maintenance, e.g., care should be taken to ensure sea chest grates do not become welded shut during repair work. 7.11 Care should be taken to ensure that any MGPSs installed are operating effectively to prevent accumulation of biofouling. 7.12 Regular polishing of uncoated propellers to maintain operational efficiency will also minimize macrofouling accumulation. Uncoated propeller shafts may require cleaning at the same time as the propeller. As a ship's routine propeller polishing will involve the use of divers, it is recommended that this opportunity is taken to assess sea chests, and other similar areas, for macrofouling. 7.13 Internal seawater cooling systems need to be regularly monitored to ensure effective biofouling control is maintained. Seawater cooling systems that operate while the ship is in port may be vulnerable to biofouling accumulation, and should be closely monitored. If seawater cooling systems become fouled, they should be appropriately treated. Any discharge of treated water from internal seawater cooling systems should be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations. 8 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 8.1 Initial ship design and construction offers the most comprehensive, effective and durable means by which to minimize ship biofouling risks. In the design and construction of a ship, or when a ship is being significantly altered, the following should be taken into consideration:
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 13
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
.1 Small niches and sheltered areas should be excluded from the ship as far as practical, e.g., flush mounting pipes in sea chests. Where not practical, these should be designed so that they may be easily accessed for inspection, cleaning and application of anti-fouling measures.
.2 Rounding and/or bevelling of corners, gratings and protrusions to promote
more effective coverage of anti-fouling coating systems, and hinging of gratings to enable diver access.
.3 Providing the capacity to blank off the sea chest and other areas, such as
moon pools, floodable docks and other free flood spaces, for treatment and/or cleaning.
8.2 Internal seawater cooling systems should be designed and made of appropriate material to minimize biofouling and constructed with a minimum of bends, kinks and flanges in seawater piping. 8.3 To avoid creation of avoidable niches while ensuring effective safety and operation of the ship, where practical, particular attention should be given to avoidance of unfilled gaps in all skin fittings and the detailed design of the items as follows:
.1 sea chests – minimize size and number, and use smooth surfaces to maximize flow efficiency, fit MGPS, and steam or hot water cleaning systems, grills and their opening arrangements designed for in-water inspection and maintenance;
.2 retractable fittings and equipment – avoid external reinforcement (such as
stiffeners) where possible, design for in-water inspection and maintenance; .3 tunnel thrusters – tunnels to be above light water line or accessible to
divers, grills and their opening arrangements designed for in-water inspection, maintenance and operation;
.4 sponsons and hull blisters – use fully enclosed in preference to free
flooding types, with access provisions made for in-water inspection, cleaning and maintenance;
.5 stern tube seal assemblies and rope guards – design for in-water
inspection, cleaning and maintenance; and .6 immersible and seabed equipment – ensure facilities for equipment
washdown during retrieval and enclosed washdown areas for cleaning of equipment on board, if necessary, are provided.
9 DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION 9.1 States are encouraged to maintain and exchange information relevant to these Guidelines through the Organization. Accordingly, States are encouraged to provide the Organization with the information related to the management of biofouling as follows:
.1 copies of current regional, national and local laws, regulations, standards, exemptions or guidelines;
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 14
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
.2 technical and research information, including any studies on the impact and control of invasive aquatic species in ships' biofouling, and on the efficacy and practicality of environmentally protective in-water cleaning technologies;
.3 education materials such as CD's, DVD's or printed materials; and .4 the location of and the terms of use for cleaning and maintenance services
and facilities for ships and equipment that comply with these Guidelines. 9.2 State authorities should provide ships with timely, clear and concise information on biofouling management measures and treatment requirements that are being applied to shipping and ensure these are widely distributed. Shipowners and operators should endeavour to become familiar with all requirements related to biofouling by requesting such information from their port or shipping agents or competent authorities (i.e. State authorities). State authorities should also provide ships with any available information on particular invasive aquatic species that may be present in a port and could attach to a ship as biofouling (e.g., if a particular species of concern is spawning) in a timely manner. 9.3 Organizations or shipping agents representing shipowners and operators should be familiar with the requirements of State authorities with respect to biofouling management and treatment procedures, including information that will be needed to obtain entry clearance. Verification and detailed information concerning State requirements should be obtained by the ship prior to arrival. 9.4 To monitor the effectiveness of these Guidelines, States, as part of the evaluation process could provide to the Organization details of records describing reasons why ships could not apply these Guidelines, e.g., design, construction or operation of a ship, particularly from the view point of ships' safety, or lack of information concerning the Guidelines. 10 TRAINING AND EDUCATION 10.1 Training for ships' masters and crews, in-water cleaning or maintenance facility operators and those surveying or inspecting ships as appropriate should include instructions on the application of biofouling management and treatment procedures, based upon the information contained in these Guidelines. Instruction should also be provided on the following:
.1 maintenance of appropriate records and logs; .2 impacts of invasive aquatic species from ships' biofouling; .3 benefits to the ship of managing biofouling and the threats posed by not
applying management procedures; .4 biofouling management measures and associated safety procedures; and .5 relevant health and safety issues.
10.2 States and industry organizations should ensure that relevant marine training organizations are aware of these Guidelines and include this in their syllabuses as appropriate.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 15
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
11 OTHER MEASURES 11.1 To the extent practical, States and port authorities should aim to ensure smooth flow of ships going in and out of their ports to avoid keeping ships waiting offshore so that anti-fouling systems can operate as effectively as possible. 11.2 States may apply other measures on ships within their jurisdiction for the purpose of providing additional protection for their marine environment, or in emergency situations. In managing emergency situations for biofouling, States should consider the guidance document for ballast water emergency situations (BWM.2/Circ.17). 11.3 States should take into account these Guidelines when developing other measures and/or restrictions for managing ships' biofouling. 11.4 Where other measures are being applied, States should notify the Organization of the specific requirements, with supporting documentation, for dissemination to other States and non-governmental agencies where appropriate. 11.5 The application of other measures by States should not place the safety of the ship and crew at risk. 12 FUTURE WORK Research needs 12.1 States and other interested parties should encourage and support research into, and development of technologies for:
.1 minimizing and/or managing both macrofouling and microfouling particularly in niche areas (e.g., new or different anti-fouling systems and different designs for niche areas to minimize biofouling);
.2 in-water cleaning that ensures effective management of the anti-fouling
system, biofouling and other contaminants, including effective capture of biological material;
.3 comprehensive methods for assessing the risks associated with in-water
cleaning; .4 shipboard monitoring and detection of biofouling; .5 reducing the macrofouling risk posed by the dry-docking support strips,
(e.g., alternative keel block designs that leave less uncoated hull area); .6 the geographic distribution of biofouling invasive aquatic species; and .7 the rapid response to invasive aquatic species incursions, including
diagnostic tools and eradication methods. 12.2 Potential operational benefits of such technologies should also be highlighted and relevant information provided to the Organization.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 16
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Independent information needs 12.3 Summaries are needed of the different types of anti-fouling systems and other biofouling management measures currently available, how they work and their performance under different operating conditions and situations. This information could assist shipowners and operators when making decisions about the most appropriate coatings and coating systems for their ship type and activity.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 17
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
APPENDIX 1
BIOFOULING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RECORD BOOK
Format and content of Biofouling Management Plan The following information should be considered when developing a Biofouling Management Plan (the Plan). It is important that the Plan be specific to each ship. The Plan may be a stand-alone document or integrated in part or full in the ships' operational and procedures manuals and/or planned maintenance systems. INTRODUCTION This section should contain a brief introduction for the ship's crew, explaining the need for biofouling management, and the importance of accurate record keeping. The Plan should state that it is to be available for viewing on request by a port State authority and should be written in the working language of the crew. SHIP PARTICULARS At least the following details should be included:
- Ship's name. - Flag. - Port of registry. - Gross tonnage. - Registration number (i.e. IMO number and/or other registration numbers,
if applicable). - Regulation Length. - Beam. - Ship type (as classified by Lloyds Register – see Table 1). - International call sign and Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 18
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Table 1: Ship types, as classified by Lloyd's Register anchor handling fire fighting tug/supply dredger lighthouse/tender roll on roll off
anchor handling tug drill platform Liquid Natural Gas Carrier salvage tug
anchor handling tug/supply drill ship
Liquid Petroleum Gas Carrier
seismographic research
asphalt tanker ferry livestock semi-sub heavy lift vessel
barge fire fighting tug meteorological research suction dredger
bulk carrier fire fighting tug/supply
naval auxiliary tanker supply
bulk carrier with container capacity fish carrier naval vessel support
bulk cement carrier fish factory oceanographic research
tank barge
bulk ore carrier fishery protection offshore safety tanker (unspecified)
bunkering tanker fishing (general) passenger (cruise) trailing suction
hopper dredger
cable ship floating gas production
passenger roll on roll off
training
chemical tanker floating production tanker
patrol ship trawler (all types)
combined bulk and oil carrier
floating storage tanker pipe layer
tug
combined chemical and oil tanker
fully cellular containership
pollution control vessel tug/supply
combined LNG and LPG Gas Carrier general cargo pontoon vehicle carrier combined ore and oil carrier
general cargo with container capacity
product tanker whaler
crane barge grab dredger pusher tug wood-chip carrier crane ship hopper barge reefer yacht crude oil tanker hopper dredger research cutter suction dredger icebreaker research/supply ship
diving support landing craft roll on roll off with container capacity
INDEX A table of contents should be included. PURPOSE The purpose of the Plan is to outline measures for the control and management of ships' biofouling in accordance with the Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species (the Guidelines). It provides operational guidance for the planning and actions required for ships' biofouling management.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 19
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
DESCRIPTION OF THE ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS The Plan should describe the anti-fouling systems in place for different parts of the ship, including as follows:
- type(s) of anti-fouling coating systems applied; - details of where anti-fouling systems are and are not applied or installed; - manufacturer and product names of all coatings or products used in the
anti-fouling coating systems; and - anti-fouling system specifications (including dry film thickness for coatings,
dosing and frequency for MGPSs, etc.) together with the expected effective life, operating conditions required for coatings to be effective, cleaning requirements and any other specifications relevant for paint performance.
Previous reports on the performance of the ship's anti-fouling systems should be included, if applicable, and the AFS certificate or statement of compliance or other documentation should also be referenced, as appropriate. DESCRIPTION OF OPERATING PROFILE The Plan should describe the ship's operating profile that has determined the performance specifications of the ship's anti-fouling systems and operational practices, including:
- typical operating speeds; - periods underway at sea compared with periods berthed, anchored or moored; - typical operating areas or trading routes; and - planned duration between dry-dockings/slippings.
DESCRIPTION OF AREAS ON THE SHIP SUSCEPTIBLE TO BIOFOULING The Plan should identify the hull areas, niche areas and seawater cooling systems on the ship that are particularly susceptible to biofouling and describe the management actions required for each area. It should also describe the actions to be taken if the ship is operating outside of the desired operating profile, or if excessive unexpected biofouling is observed, and any other actions that can be taken to minimize the accumulation of biofouling on the ship. Table 1 provides an example of an action plan.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 20
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Table 2: Biofouling management action plan Areas of the ship which are particularly susceptible to biofouling
Management actions required for each area (e.g., inspections, cleaning, repairs and maintenance)
Management actions to be undertaken if ship operates outside its usual operating profile
External hull surfaces: - Vertical sides - Flats - Boottop - Bow dome - Transom
Hull appendages and fittings: - Bilge keels - A-brackets - Stabilizer fins - CP anodes
Steering and propulsion: - Propeller - Propeller shaft - Stern tube seal - Anchor chain - Chain locker - Rope guard - Rudder - Bow/Stern thrusters
- Propeller - Thruster body - Tunnel
- Tunnel grates
Seawater intakes and internal seawater cooling systems: - Engine cooling system - Sea chests (identify number and position) - Sea chest grate - Internal pipework and heat exchanger - Fire-fighting system - Ballast uptake system - Auxiliary services system
A diagram of the ship should be included in the Plan to identify the location of those areas of the ship that are particularly susceptible to biofouling (including access points in the internal seawater cooling systems). If necessary these should show both side and bottom views of the ship.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 21
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ANTI-FOULING SYSTEM This section should contain a detailed description of the operation and maintenance of the anti-fouling system(s) used, including schedule(s) of activities and step-by-step operational procedures. Timing of operational and maintenance activities This section should stipulate the schedule of planned inspections, repairs, maintenance and renewal of the anti-fouling systems. In-water cleaning and maintenance procedures This section should set out planned maintenance procedures (other than for on board treatment processes) that need to be completed between dry-docking events to minimize biofouling. This should include routine cleaning or other treatments. Details should be provided on the treatment/cleaning to be conducted, the specification of any equipment required, details of the areas to which each specific treatment/cleaning is to be applied, step-by-step operational procedures where relevant and any other details relevant to the processes (e.g., chemicals required for treatment, any discharge standards). Operation of onboard treatment processes This section should provide specific advice about MGPS fitted, internal seawater cooling systems covered by the system and any not covered, and the associated maintenance and inspection schedule and procedures. This would include information such as when each MGPS is run, for how long and any cleaning/maintenance requirements of the system once use is finished. This section should also include advice for ship operators on procedures for biofouling management if the MGPS is temporarily out of operation. SAFETY PROCEDURES FOR THE SHIP AND THE CREW Details of specific operational or safety restrictions, including those associated with the management system that affects the ship and/or the crew. Details of specific safety procedures to be followed during ship inspections. DISPOSAL OF BIOLOGICAL WASTE This section should contain procedures for the disposal of biological waste generated by treatment or cleaning processes when the cleaning is conducted by, or under the direct supervision of, the shipowner, master or crew. RECORDING REQUIREMENTS This section should contain details of the types of documentation to be kept to verify the operations and treatments to be recorded in the Biofouling Record Book as outlined in appendix 2. CREW TRAINING AND FAMILIARIZATION This section should contain information on the provision of crew training and familiarization.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 22
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
APPENDIX 2
BIOFOULING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RECORD BOOK
Biofouling Record Book Form
2011 Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species
Period From: ….…………………… To: ............................................ Name of Ship ........................................................................................ Registration number* ............................................................................ Gross tonnage ...................................................................................... Flag ......................................................................................................
* Registration number = IMO number and/or other registration numbers. The ship is provided with a Biofouling Management Plan Diagram of ship indicating underwater hull form (showing both side and bottom views of the ship, if necessary) and recognized biofouling niches: 1 Introduction The Guidelines recommend that a Biofouling Record Book is maintained for each ship, in which should be recorded the details of all inspections and biofouling management measures undertaken on the ship. 2 Entries in the Biofouling Record Book The following information should be recorded in the Biofouling Record Book: 2.1 After each dry-docking:
a. Date and location that the ship was dry-docked. b. Date that ship was re-floated. c. Any hull cleaning that was performed while dry-docked, including areas
cleaned, method used for cleaning and the location of dry-dock support blocks.
d. Any anti-fouling coating system, including patch repairs, that was applied
while dry-docked. Detail the type of anti-fouling coating system, the area and locations it was applied to, the coating thickness achieved and any surface preparation work undertaken (e.g., complete removal of underlying anti-fouling coating system or application of new anti-fouling coating system over the top of existing anti-fouling coating system).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 23
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
e. Name, position and signature of the person in charge of the activity for the ship.
2.2 When the hull area, fittings, niches and voids below the waterline have been
inspected by divers:
a. Date and location of ship when dive surveyed and reason for survey. b. Area or side of the ship surveyed. c. General observations with regard to biofouling (i.e. extent of biofouling and
predominant biofouling types, e.g., mussels, barnacles, tubeworms, algae and slime).
d. What action was taken, if any, to remove or otherwise treat biofouling. e. Any supporting evidence of the actions taken (e.g., report from the
classification society or contractor, photographs and receipts). f. Name, position, signature of the person in charge of the activity.
2.3 When the hull area, fittings, niches and voids below the waterline have been
cleaned by divers:
a. Date and location of ship when cleaning/treatment occurred. b. Hull areas, fittings, niches and voids cleaned/treated. c. Methods of cleaning or treatment used. d. General observations with regard to biofouling (i.e. extent of biofouling and
predominant biofouling types, e.g., mussels, barnacles, tubeworms, algae and slime).
e. Any supporting evidence of the actions taken (e.g., report from the
classification society or contractor, photographs and receipts). f. Records of permits required to undertake in-water cleaning if applicable. g. Name, position and signature of the person in charge of the activity.
2.4 When the internal seawater cooling systems have been inspected and cleaned or
treated:
a. Date and location of ship when inspection and/or cleaning occurred. b. General observations with regard to biofouling of internal seawater cooling
systems (i.e. extent of biofouling and predominant biofouling types, e.g., mussels, barnacles, tubeworms, algae, slime).
c. Any cleaning or treatment undertaken. d. Methods of cleaning or treatment used.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 24
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
e. Any supporting evidence of the actions taken (e.g., report from the classification society or contractor, photographs and receipts).
f. Name, position and signature of the person in charge of the activity.
2.5 For ships with a MGPS fitted:
a. Records of operation and maintenance (such as regularly monitoring the electrical and mechanical functions of the systems).
b. Any instances when the system was not operating in accordance with the
biofouling management plan. 2.6 Periods of time when the ship was laid up/inactive for an extended period of time:
a. Date and location where ship was laid up. b. Date when ship returned to normal operations. c. Maintenance action taken prior to and following the period laid up. d. Precautions taken to prevent biofouling accumulation (e.g., sea chests
blanked off). 2.7 Periods of time when ship operating outside its normal operating profile:
a. Duration and dates when ship not operating in accordance with its normal operating profile.
b. Reason for departure from normal operating profile (e.g., unexpected
maintenance required). 2.8 Details of official inspection or review of ship biofouling risk (for ships arriving
internationally, if applicable):
a. Date and location of ship when inspection or review occurred. b. Port State authority conducting the inspection/review and details of
procedures followed or protocol adhered to and inspector/s involved. c. Result of inspection/review. d. Name, position, signature of the person in charge of the activity for the ship.
2.9 Any additional observations and general remarks:
a. Since the ship was last cleaned, has the ship spent periods of time in locations that may significantly affect biofouling accumulation (e.g., fresh water, high latitude (Arctic and Antarctic) or tropical ports).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 26, page 25
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Record of Biofouling Management Actions
SAMPLE BIOFOULING RECORD BOOK PAGE Name of Ship: ....................................................................................... Registration number: ............................................................................
Date Item
(number) Record of management actions Signature of officers
in charge
Signature of master …………………………...……
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 27
RESOLUTION MEPC.208(62)
Adopted on 15 July 2011
2011 GUIDELINES FOR INSPECTION OF ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS ON SHIPS THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, RECALLING ALSO that the International Conference on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems for Ships, 2001, held in October 2001, adopted the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 (the AFS Convention) together with four Conference resolutions, RECALLING FURTHER that Article 11 of the AFS Convention prescribes that ships to which this Convention applies may, in any port, shipyard, or offshore terminal of a Party, be inspected by officers authorized by that Party for the purpose of determining whether the ship is in compliance with this Convention, NOTING that Article 3(3) of the AFS Convention prescribes that Parties to this Convention shall apply the requirements of this Convention as may be necessary to ensure that no more favourable treatment is given to ships of non-Parties to this Convention, NOTING ALSO resolution MEPC.105(49) by which the Committee adopted the Guidelines for inspection of anti-fouling systems on ship on 18 July 2003, NOTING FURTHER that by resolution MEPC.105(49), the Committee resolved to keep the 2003 Guidelines under review in the light of experience gained, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its sixty-second session, the draft 2011 Guidelines for inspection of anti-fouling systems on ships developed by the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation at its nineteenth session, 1. ADOPTS the 2011 Guidelines for inspection of anti- fouling systems on ships, as set out in the annex to this resolution; 2. INVITES Governments to apply the 2011 Guidelines when exercising port State control inspections; 3. RECOMMENDS that the 2011 Guidelines be adopted as amendments to resolution A.787(19) on Procedures for port State control, as amended; 4. AGREES to keep the 2011 Guidelines under review in the light of experience gained; and 5. REVOKES the Guidelines adopted by resolution MEPC.105(49).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX
2011 GUIDELINES FOR INSPECTION OF ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS ON SHIPS 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The right of the port State to conduct inspections of anti-fouling systems on ships is in Article 11 of the AFS Convention. The guidelines for conducting these inspections are described below. 1.2 Ships of 400 gross tonnage and above engaged in international voyages (excluding fixed or floating platforms, FSUs and FPSOs) will be required to undergo an initial survey before the ship is put into service or before the International Anti-fouling System Certificate (IAFS) is issued for the first time; and a survey should be carried out when the anti-fouling systems are changed or replaced. 1.3 Ships of 24 metres in length or more but less than 400 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages (excluding fixed or floating platforms, FSUs and FPSOs) will have to carry a Declaration on Anti-fouling Systems signed by the owner or authorized agent. Such declaration shall be accompanied by appropriate documentation (such as a paint receipt or a contractor invoice) or contain appropriate endorsement. 2 INITIAL INSPECTION 2.1 Ships required to carry an IAFS Certificate or Declaration on Anti-Fouling
Systems (Parties of the AFS Convention) 2.1.1 The PSCO should check the validity of the IAFS Certificate or Declaration on Anti-Fouling Systems, and the attached Record of Anti-Fouling Systems, if appropriate. 2.1.2 The only practical way to apply paint to the ship's bottom (underwater part) is in a dry dock. This means that the date of application of paint on the IAFS Certificate should be checked by comparing the period of dry-docking with the date on the certificate. 2.1.3 If the paint has been applied during a scheduled dry-dock period, it has to be registered in the ship's logbook (in order to be legal). Furthermore, this scheduled dry-docking can be verified by the endorsement date on the (statutory) Safety Construction Certificate (SOLAS, regulation I/10). 2.1.4 In case of an unscheduled dry-dock period, it could be verified by the registration in the ship's logbook (in order to be legal). 2.1.5 It can be additionally verified by the endorsement date on the (Class) Hull Certificate, the dates on the Manufacturer's Declaration or by confirmation of the shipyard. 2.1.6 The IAFS Certificate includes a series of tick boxes indicating:
.1 if an anti-fouling system controlled under Annex 1 of the AFS Convention has or has not been applied, removed or been covered with a sealer coat;
.2 if an anti-fouling system controlled under Annex 1 of the AFS Convention
was applied on the ship prior to 1 January 2003 or a later date if specified by the Administration; and
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
.3 if an anti-fouling system controlled under Annex 1 of the AFS Convention was applied on the ship on/after 1 January 2003 or a later date if specified by the Administration.
2.1.7 Particular attention should be given to verifying that the survey for issuance of the current IAFS Certificate matches the dry-dock period listed in the ship's log(s) and that only one tick box is marked. 2.1.8 The Record of Anti-Fouling Systems should be attached to the IAFS Certificate and be up to date. The most recent record should agree with the tick box on the front of the IAFS Certificate. 2.2 Ships of non-Parties to the AFS Convention 2.2.1 Ships of non-Parties to the AFS Convention are not entitled to be issued with an IAFS Certificate. Therefore the PSCO should ask for documentation that contains the same information as in an IAFS Certificate and take this into account in determining compliance with the requirements. 2.2.2 If the existing anti-fouling system is declared not to be controlled under Annex 1 of the Convention, without being documented by an International Anti-Fouling System Certificate, verification should be carried out to confirm that the anti-fouling system complies with the requirements of the Convention. This verification may be based on sampling and/or testing and/or reliable documentation, as deemed necessary, based on experience gained and the existing circumstances. Documentation for verification could be, e.g., MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheets), or similar, a declaration of compliance from the anti-fouling system manufacturer, invoices from the shipyard and/or the anti-fouling system manufacturer. 2.2.3 Ships of non-Parties may have Statements of Compliance issued in order to comply with regional requirements, for example, Regulation (EC) 782/2003 as amended by Regulation (EC) 536/2008, which could be considered as providing sufficient evidence of compliance. 2.2.4 In all other aspects the PSCO should be guided by the procedures for ships required to carry an IAFS Certificate. 2.2.5 The PSCO should ensure that no more favourable treatment is applied to ships of non-Parties to the AFS Convention. 3 MORE DETAILED INSPECTION 3.1 Clear ground 3.1.1 A more detailed inspection may be carried out when there has been clear grounds to believe that the ship does not substantially meet the requirements of the AFS Convention. Clear grounds for a more detailed inspection may be when:
.1 the ship is from a flag of a non-Party to the Convention and there is no AFS documentation;
.2 the ship is from a flag of a Party to the Convention but there is no valid
IAFS Certificate; .3 the painting date shown on the IAFS Certificate does not match the
dry-dock period of the ship;
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 4
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
.4 the ship's hull shows excessive patches of different paints; and .5 the IAFS Certificate is not properly completed.
3.1.2 If the IAFS Certificate is not properly completed, the following questions may be pertinent:
.1 "When was the ship's anti-fouling system last applied?";
.2 "If the anti-fouling system is controlled under Annex 1 to the AFS Convention and was removed, what was the name of the facility and date of the work performed?";
.3 "If the anti-fouling system is controlled under Annex 1 of the AFS Convention
and has been covered by a sealer coat, what was the name of the facility and date applied?";
.4 "What is the name of the anti-fouling/sealer products and the manufacturer
or distributor for the existing anti-fouling system?"; and
.5 "If the current anti-fouling system was changed from the previous system, what was the type of anti-fouling system and name of the previous manufacturer or distributor?".
3.2 Sampling 3.2.1 A more detailed inspection may include sampling and analysis of the ship's anti-fouling system, if necessary, to establish whether or not the ship complies with the AFS Convention. Such sampling and analysis may involve the use of laboratories and detailed scientific testing procedures. 3.2.2 If sampling is carried out, the time to process the samples cannot be used as a reason to delay the ship. 3.2.3 Any decision to carry out sampling should be subject to practical feasibility or to constraints relating to the safety of persons, the ship or the port (see appendix 1 for sampling procedures; an AFS Inspection Report template for sampling and analysis is attached to the Guidelines). 3.3 Action taken under the AFS Convention Detention 3.3.1 The port State could decide to detain the ship following detection of deficiencies during an inspection on board. 3.3.2 Detention could be appropriate in any of the following cases:
.1 certification is invalid or missing;
.2 the ship admits it does not comply (thereby removing the need to prove by sampling); and
.3 sampling proves it is non-compliant within the ports jurisdiction.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 5
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
3.3.3 Further action would depend on whether the problem is with the certification or the anti-fouling system itself. 3.3.4 If there are no facilities in the port of detention to bring the ship into compliance, the port State could allow the ship to sail to another port to bring the anti-fouling system into compliance. This would require an agreement of that port. Dismissal 3.3.5 The port State could dismiss the ship, meaning that the port State demands that the ship leaves port – for example if the ship chooses not to bring the AFS into compliance but the port State is concerned that the ship is leaching tributyltin (TBTs) into its waters. 3.3.6 Dismissal could be appropriate if the ship admits it does not comply or sampling proves it is non-compliant while the ship is still in port. Since this would also be a detainable deficiency the PSCO can detain first and require rectification before release. However, there may not be available facilities for rectification in the port of detention. In this case the port State could allow the ship to sail to another port to bring the anti-fouling system into compliance. This could require agreement of that port. 3.3.7 Dismissal could be appropriate in any of the following cases:
.1 certification is invalid or missing;
.2 the ship admits it does not comply (thereby removing the need to collect proof by sampling; and
.3 sampling proves that the ship is non-compliant within the ports jurisdiction.
3.3.8 In these cases the ship will probably already have been detained. However, detention does not force the ship to bring the AFS into compliance (only if it wants to depart). In such a situation the port State may be concerned that the ship is leaching TBTs while it remains in its waters. Exclusion 3.3.9 The port State could decide to exclude the ship to prevent it entering its waters. Exclusion could be appropriate if sampling proves that the ship is non-compliant but the results have been obtained after it has sailed or after it has been dismissed. 3.3.10 Exclusion could be appropriate if sampling proves that the ship is non-compliant but the results have been obtained after it has sailed or after it has been dismissed. Article 11(3) of the AFS Convention only mentions that the "party carrying out the inspection" may take such steps. This means that, if a port State excludes a ship, the exclusion cannot be automatically applied by other port States. 3.3.11 In accordance with Procedures for Port State Control (resolution A.787(19), as amended), where deficiencies cannot be remedied at the port of inspection, the PSCO may allow the ship to proceed to another port, subject to any appropriate conditions determined. In such circumstances, the PSCO should ensure that the competent authority of the next port of call and the flag State are notified.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 6
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Reporting to flag State 3.3.12 Article 11(3) of the AFS Convention requires that when a ship is detained, dismissed or excluded from a port for violation of the Convention, the Party taking such action shall immediately inform the flag Administration of the ship and any Recognized Organization which has issued a relevant certificate. 4 AFS REPORT TO FLAG STATE IN RESPONSE TO ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS 4.1 Article 11(4) of the AFS Convention allows Parties to inspect ships at the request of another Party, if sufficient evidence that the ship is operating or has operated in violation of the Convention is provided. Article 12(2) permits port States conducting the inspection to send the Administration (flag State) of the ship concerned any information and evidence it has that a violation has occurred. Information sent to the flag State is often inadequate for a prosecution. The following paragraphs detail the sort of information needed. 4.2 The report to the authorities of the port or coastal State should include as much as possible the information listed in section 3. The information in the report should be supported by facts which, when considered as a whole, would lead the port or coastal State to believe a contravention had occurred. 4.3 The report should be supplemented by documents such as:
.1 the port State report on deficiencies;
.2 a statement by the PSCO, including his rank and organization, about the suspected non-conforming anti-fouling system. In addition to the information required in section 3, the statement should include the grounds the PSCO had for carrying out a more detailed inspection;
.3 a statement about any sampling of the anti-fouling system including:
.1 the ship's location;
.2 where the sample was taken from the hull, including the vertical
distance from the boot topping;
.3 the time of sampling;
.4 person(s) taking the samples; and
.5 receipts identifying the persons having custody and receiving transfer of the samples;
.4 reports of the analyses of any samples including:
.1 the results of the analyses;
.2 the method employed;
.3 reference to or copies of scientific documentation attesting the
accuracy and validity of the method employed;
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 7
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
.4 the names of persons performing the analyses and their experience; and
.5 a description of the quality assurance measures of the analyses;
.5 statements of persons questioned;
.6 statements of witnesses;
.7 photographs of the hull and sample areas; and
.8 a copy of the IAFS Certificate, including copies of relevant pages of the
Record of Anti-fouling Systems, log books, MSDS or similar, declaration of compliance from the anti-fouling system manufacturer, invoices from the shipyard and other dry dock records pertaining to the anti-fouling system.
4.4 All observations, photographs and documentation should be supported by a signed verification of their authenticity. All certifications, authentications or verifications should be in accordance with the laws of the State preparing them. All statements should be signed and dated by the person making them, with their name printed clearly above or below the signature. 4.5 The reports referred to under paragraphs 2 and 3 of this section should be sent to the flag State. If the coastal State observing the contravention and the port State carrying out the investigation on board are not the same, the port State carrying out the investigation should also send a copy of its findings to the coastal State.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 8
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
APPENDIX 1
SAMPLING Considerations related to brief sampling may be found in section 2.1 of Guidelines for brief sampling of anti-fouling systems on ships (resolution MEPC.104(49)). Any obligation to take a sample should be subject to practical feasibility or to constraints relating to the safety of persons, the ship or the port. The PSCO should consider the following:
- liaise with the ship on the location and time needed to take samples; the PSCO should verify that the time required will not unduly prevent the loading/unloading, movement or departure of the ship;
- do not expect the ship to arrange safe access but liaise with the ship over the
arrangements that the port State competent authority has made, for example boat, cherry-picker, staging, etc.;
- select sampling points covering representative areas;
- take photographs of the hull, sample areas and sampling process;
- avoid making judgements on the quality of the paint (e.g., surface, condition,
thickness, application);
- the need of inviting the ship representative's presence during brief sampling to ensure that the evidence is legally obtained;
- complete and sign the inspection report form together with the included
sampling record sheets (to be filled in by the sampler), as far as possible, and leave a copy with the ship as a proof of inspection/sampling;
- inform the next port State where the inspected ship is to call;
- agree with or advise the ship on to whom the ship's copy of the finalized
inspection report will be sent in cases when it cannot be completed in the course of the inspection; and
- ensure that receipts identifying the persons having custody and receiving
transfer of the samples accompany the samples are filled in to reflect the transfer chain of the samples. PSCOs are reminded that the procedures set in national legislation regarding custody of evidence are not affected by the regulation. These guidelines therefore do not address this issue in detail.
1 Sampling methodologies It is to the discretion of the port State to choose the sampling methodology. The Guidelines for brief sampling of anti-fouling systems on ships adopted by resolution MEPC.104(49) allow that any other scientifically recognized method of sampling and analysis of AFS controlled by the Convention than those described in the appendix to the Guidelines may be used (subject to the satisfaction of the Administration or the port State). The sampling methodology will depend, inter alia, on the surface hardness of the paint, which may vary considerably. The amount of paint mass removed may vary correspondingly.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 9
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Sampling procedures, based on the removal of paint material from the hull, require the determination of paint mass. It is important that procedures used are validated, produce unambiguous results and contain an adequate control. The competent port State authority can decide to contract specialist companies to carry out sampling. In this case the PSCO should attend the ship during the sampling procedure to ensure the liaison and arrangements mentioned above are in place. If a specialist company is not used, the port State competent authority should provide appropriate training to the PSCO in the available sampling methods and procedures and ensure that agreed procedures are followed. The following general terms should be observed:
- the PSCO should choose a number of sample points preferably covering all the representative areas of the hull, but it is desirable to have at least eight (8) sample points equally spaced down and over the length of the hull, if possible divided over PS and SB (keeping in mind that different parts of the hull may be treated with different anti-fouling systems);
- triplicate specimens of paint at each sampling point should be taken in close
proximity to each other on the hull (e.g., within 10 cm of each other);
- contamination of the samples should be avoided, which normally includes the wearing of non-sterilized non-powdered disposable gloves of suitable impervious material – e.g., nitrile rubber;
- the samples should be collected and stored in an inert container
(e.g., containers should not consist of materials containing organotins or have the capacity to absorb organotins);
- samples should be taken from an area where the surface of the anti-fouling
system is intact, clean and free of fouling;
- loose paint chips coming from detached, peeled or blistered hull areas should not be used for sampling;
- samples should not be taken from a heated or area where the paint is
otherwise softened (e.g., heavy fuel tanks); and
- the underlying layers (primers, sealers, TBT containing AFS) should not be sampled if there is no clear evidence of exposure of extended areas.
2 Validity of the sampling In order to safeguard the validity of the sampling as evidence of non-compliance, the following should be considered:
- only samples taken directly from the hull and free of possible contamination should be used;
- all samples should be stored in containers, marked and annotated on the
record sheet. This record sheet should be submitted to the Administration;
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 10
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
- the receipts identifying the persons having custody and receiving transfer of the samples should be filled in and accompany the samples to reflect the transfer chain of the samples;
- the PSCO should verify the validity of the instrument's calibration validity date
(according to the manufacturer instruction);
- in cases when a contracted specialist company is used for carrying out sampling, the PSCO should accompany its representative to verify sampling; and
- photographs of the hull, sample areas and sampling process could serve as
additional proof. It is also the case that sampling companies and/or procedures can be certified. 3 Health and safety when sampling Any obligation to take a sample should be subject to practical feasibility or any constraints relating to the safety of persons, the ship or the port. The PSCO is advised to ensure their safety taking the following points into account:
- general requirements enforced by the terminal or port authority and national health, safety and environmental policy;
- condition of the ship (ballast condition, ship's operations, mooring, anchorage,
etc.);
- surroundings (position of ship, traffic, ships movement, quay operations, barges or other floating vessels alongside);
- safety measures for the use of access equipment (platforms, cherry picker,
staging, ladders, railings, climbing harness, etc.), e.g., ISO 18001;
- weather (sea state, wind, rain, temperature, etc.); and
- precautions to avoid falling into the water between the quay and the ship. If in doubt, a lifejacket and if possible a safety line, should be worn when sampling.
Any adverse situation encountered during sampling that could endanger the safety of personnel, shall be reported to the safety coordinator. Care should be taken to avoid contact of the removed paint with the skin and the eyes, and no particles should be swallowed or come into contact with foodstuffs. Eating or drinking during sampling is prohibited and hands should be cleaned afterwards. Persons carrying out sampling should be aware that the AFS and solvents or other materials used for sampling may be harmful and appropriate precautions should be taken. Personal protection should be considered by using long sleeve solvent-resistant gloves, dust mask, safety glasses, etc. Standard (and specific, if applicable) laboratory safety procedures should be followed at all times when undertaking the sampling procedures and subsequent analysis.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 11
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
4 Conducting analyses The Guidelines for brief sampling of anti-fouling systems on ships envisage a two-stage analysis of samples for both methods presented in the appendix to the Guidelines. The first stage is a basic test, which can be carried out on site as in the case of Method 2. The second stage is carried out when the first stage results are positive. It is noted that in the IMO Guidelines, these stages are referred to as Steps 1 and 2 as in the case of Method 1. It is to the discretion of the port State competent authorities to choose which analysis methods are used. The following points are presented for port State consideration:
- approval procedure for the recognition of laboratories meeting ISO 17025 standards or other appropriate facilities should be set up by the port State competent authorities. These procedures should define the recognition criteria. Exchange of information between port States on these procedures, criteria and laboratories/facilities would be beneficial, i.e. for the purposes of exchange of best practices and possible cross-border recognition and provision of services;
- the company that undertakes the analysis and/or samples should comply with
national regulations and be independent from paint manufacturers;
- the PSCO carrying out the AFS inspection of a ship should verify the validity of the ISO 17025 certificate and/or the recognition of the laboratory;
- if more time is needed for analysis than available considering the ship's
scheduled time of departure, the PSCO shall inform the ship and report the situation to the port State competent authority. However, the time needed for analysis does not warrant undue delay of the ship; and
- PSCOs should ensure completion of the record sheets for the sampling
procedure as proof of analysis. In cases when the laboratory procedures prescribe presentation of the analyses' results in a different format, this technical report could be added to the record sheets.
5 The first-stage analysis The first-stage analysis serves to detect the total amount of tin in the AFS applied. It is to the discretion of the port State competent authority to choose the first-stage analysis methodology. However, the use of a portable X-ray fluorescence analyser (mentioned under Method 2) or any other scientifically justified method allowing the conduction of first-stage analyses on site could be considered best practice. The port State competent authority has to decide whether the first-stage analysis should be carried out by PSCOs or by contracted companies. The port State competent authority could provide PSCOs with this equipment (e.g., portable X-ray fluorescence analyser) and provide the appropriate training.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 12
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
6 The second-stage analysis The second-stage (final) analysis is used to verify whether or not the AFS system complies with the Convention requirements, i.e. whether organotin compounds are present in the AFS at a level which would act as a biocide. The port State could consider implementing only a second-stage analysis. It is to the discretion of the Authority to choose the second-stage analysis methodology. In this respect it is hereby noted that the second-stage analysis methodology for sampling Method 2 provided in the Guidelines is only tentative and "should be thoroughly reviewed by experts based on scientific evidence" (section 5.1 of Method 2). 7 Conclusions on compliance The Authority should only make conclusions on compliance based on the second-stage analysis of the sample (organotin). In case the results indicate non-compliance at that stage, there are clear grounds to take further steps. If considered necessary, more thorough sampling can be also carried out in addition or instead of brief sampling. Sampling results should be communicated as soon as possible to the vessel (as part of the inspection report) and in the case of non-compliance also to the flag State and Recognized Organization acting on behalf of the flag State if relevant. Authorities should, in accordance with section 5.2 of the Guidelines for brief sampling of anti-fouling systems on ships, develop and adopt procedures to be followed for those cases where compliance with acceptable limits or lack thereof, is unclear, considering additional sampling or other methodologies for sampling.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 13
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
FORM S/1
REPORT OF INSPECTION of a ship's anti-fouling system (AFS)
SHIP PARTICULARS
1. Name of ship : 2. IMO number :
3. Type of ship : 4. Call sign :
5. Flag of ship : 6. Gross tonnage :
7. Date keel laid / major conversion commenced :
INSPECTION PARTICULARS
8. Date & time :
9. Name of facility:
(dry-dock, quay, location )
Place & country:
11. Relevant certificate(s)
(a) title (b) issuing authority (c) dates of issue
1. IAFS Cert.
2. Record of AFS
3. Declaration of AFS
4.
12. Dry-dock period AFS applied :
13. Name of facility AFS applied :
14. Place & country AFS applied :
15. AFS samples taken : No Yes Nature of sampling : Brief Extent
17. Record sheet attached :
(country-code / IMO number / dd-mm-yy)
18. Copy to: PSCO Flag State Recognized Organization Head office Master Other:
10. Areas inspected Ship's logbook Certificates Ship's hull
16. Reason for sampling of AFS:
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 14
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
PORT STATE PARTICULARS
Reporting authority:
District office:
Address:
Telephone/Fax/
Mobile:
E-mail:
Name:
(duly authorized inspector of reporting authority)
Date: Signature:
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 15
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
FORM S/2
Record sheet for the sampling procedure for compliance with the convention in terms of the presence of organotin acting as a biocide in anti-fouling systems on ship hulls
(country-code / IMO number / dd-mm-yy)
Name of ship : IMO number :
SAMPLING PARTICULARS
1. Date & time initiated: 2. Date & time completed:
3. Name of paint manufacturer:
4. AFS product name & colour:
5. Reason for Sampling: Port State Control
Survey & Certification
Other flag Statecompliance inspection
6. Sampling Method:
7. Hull areas sampled: Port Side Starboard Side Bottom
Number of sampling
points:
13. Comments concerning sampling procedure
14. Sampling company Name
Date
Signature
RECORD NUMBER
8. Back-up samples' storage location:(e.g., Port State inspection office)
9. Photos taken of the sample points Comments:
10. Paint samples (wet) Comments:
11. First-stage analysis Comments:
12. Second-stage analysis Comments:
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 16
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
PORT STATE PARTICULARS
Reporting authority:
District office:
Address:
Telephone/ Fax/
Mobile:
E-mail:
Name:
(duly authorized inspector of reporting authority)
Date: Signature:
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 17
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
FORM S/3
RECORD NUMBER
Name of ship: IMO number: METHOD 1 ANALYSIS
1. Instrument I.D.: Calibration Expire Date:
2. Specimens "A" results total number of specimens "A" analysed:
3. No. Sample location (Frame & Distance from boot topping)
mg Sn/ kg No. Sample location (Frame & distance from boot topping)
mg Sn/ kg
1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 136 147 158 16
4. Results Number of specimens exceeding 2,500 mg/kg:
1 or more specimens exceeding 3,000 mg/kg
Yes No
Step 2 required
Compliance, NO further analysis
5. Additional comments concerning analysis of results from Specimens "A"
6. Company Name
Date
Signature
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 18
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
7. Instrument I.D.: Calibration Expire Date:
8. Specimens "B" results total number of specimens "B" analysed :
9. No. organotin (mg Sn/ kg) as
Sn
No. organotin(mg Sn/ kg) as
Sn
No. organotin (mg Sn/ kg)
as Sn
No. organotin(mg Sn/ kg)
as Sn1 5 9 13 2 6 10 14 3 7 11 15 4 8 12 16
10. Results Number of specimens exceeding 2,500 mg/kg:
1 or more specimens exceeding 3,000 mg/kg Yes No
Non-compliance assumed
Compliance assumed
11. Additional comments concerning analysis of results from Specimens "B"
12. Company Name
Date
Signature
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 19
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
FORM S/4 RECORD NUMBER
Name of ship: IMO number:
METHOD 2 FIRST-STAGE ANALYSIS
1. Instrument I.D.: Calibration Expire Date:
2. Sample location
(Frame & distance from boot topping)
SpecimenI.D.
Sample Disc
Content of Tin
(mg/ kg)
max min
Average
A A1 abrasive A2 metal A3 others Average A4 abrasive A5 metal mg/kg A6 others >2,500 mg/kg A7 abrasive >3,000 mg/kg A8 metal A9 others
B B1 abrasive B2 metal B3 others Average B4 abrasive B5 metal mg/kg B6 others >2,500 mg/kg B7 abrasive >3,000 mg/kg B8 metal B9 others
C C1 abrasive C2 metal C3 others Average C4 abrasive C5 metal mg/kg C6 others >2,500 mg/kg C7 abrasive >3,000 mg/kg C8 metal C9 others
D D1 abrasive D2 metal D3 others Average D4 abrasive D5 metal mg/kg D6 others >2,500 mg/kg D7 abrasive >3,000 mg/kg D8 metal D9 others
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 20
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
3. ResultsFirst-Stage
Analysis
samples out of are above
2,500 mg/kg
Sample(s) is (are) above 3,000 mg/kg
Compliant
Second-stage
required
4. Comments
5. Company Name
Date
Signature
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 21
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
FORM S/5 RECORD NUMBER
Name of ship: IMO number: METHOD 2 SECOND-STAGE ANALYSIS
1. Instrument ID: Calibration Expire Date:
2. Specimen used
(Specimen I.D.) Content of Tin
First-Stage (XRF Analysis)
(mg Sn/kg)
Content of Tin Second-Stage (as organotin) (mg Sn/kg)
Compliance
A >2,500mg/kg >3,000mg/kg
B >2,500mg/kg >3,000mg/kg
C >2,500mg/kg >3,000mg/kg
D >2,500mg/kg >3,000mg/kg
3. Results
Second-StageAnalysis
Samples out of are above
2,500mg (Sn)/kg (dry paint)
Sample(s) is (are) above 3,000mg(Sn)/kg (dry paint)
Compliant
NOT
Compliant
4. Comments
5. Laboratory Name
Date
Signature
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 22
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
PORT STATE PARTICULARS
Reporting authority:
District office:
Address:
Telephone/Fax/
Mobile:
E-mail:
Name:
(duly authorized inspector of reporting authority)
Date: Signature:
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 27, page 23
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
APPENDIX 2
AFS INSPECTION PROCESS
***
Initial Inspection
Inspection of IAFS Certificate/ Declaration
Clear grounds for non-compliance Stop
NO
Y E S
More Detailed Inspection
Additional documentation
Additional verification of
AFS
Sampling of AFS and/or and/or
Violation? Stop NO
Y E S
Warn, detain, dismiss, exclude
Document violation and transmit report to Administration and/or
next port
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 28, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 28
DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON PROCEDURES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL, 2011
THE ASSEMBLY, RECALLING Article 15(j) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Assembly in relation to regulations and guidelines concerning maritime safety and the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships, RECALLING ALSO resolution A.787(19) by which it adopted Procedures for port State control and resolution A.882(21) by which it adopted amendments to the Procedures for port State control as adopted by resolution A.787(19), RECALLING FURTHER that, at its twenty-first session, when adopting resolution A.882(21), it requested the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee to keep the revised Procedures under review on the basis of experiences gained from the implementation of such procedures, RECOGNIZING that efforts by port States have greatly contributed to enhanced maritime safety and security, and prevention of marine pollution, RECOGNIZING FURTHER the need for the revised Procedures to be further revised to take account of the amendments to the IMO instruments which have entered into force or become effective since the adoption of resolutions A.787(19) and A.882(21), HAVING CONSIDERED the recommendations made by the Maritime Safety Committee at its eighty-ninth session and by the Marine Environment Protection Committee at its sixty-second session, 1. ADOPTS the port State control Procedures 2011 as set out in the annex to the present resolution; 2. INVITES Governments, when exercising port State control, to implement the aforementioned procedures; 3. REQUESTS the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee to keep the Procedures under review and to amend them as necessary; 4. REVOKES resolutions A.787(19) and A.882(21).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 28, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX
PROCEDURES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL 2011
[MSC 89/25, annex 24]
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 29, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 29
DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON SURVEY GUIDELINES UNDER THE HARMONIZED SYSTEM OF SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION (HSSC), 2011
THE ASSEMBLY, RECALLING Article 15(j) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Assembly in relation to regulations and guidelines concerning maritime safety and the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships, RECALLING ALSO the adoption by:
(a) the International Conference on the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification, 1988, of the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, which, inter alia, introduced the harmonized system of survey and certification under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 and the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, respectively;
(b) resolution MEPC.39(29), of amendments to introduce the harmonized
system of survey and certification into the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the 1978 Protocol relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78);
(c) resolution MEPC.132(53), of amendments to introduce the harmonized
system of survey and certification into MARPOL Annex VI; and (d) the resolutions given below, of amendments to introduce the harmonized
system of survey and certification into:
(i) the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) (resolutions MEPC.40(29) and MSC.16(58));
(ii) the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of
Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code) (resolution MSC.17(58)); and
(iii) the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying
Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH Code) (resolutions MEPC.41(29) and MSC.18(58)),
RECALLING FURTHER that, by resolution A.1020(26), it adopted amendments to the Survey Guidelines under the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification, 2007, as adopted by resolution A.997(25), with a view to assisting Governments in the implementation of the requirements of the aforementioned instruments, RECOGNIZING the need for the Survey Guidelines to be further revised to take into account the amendments to the IMO instruments referred to above, which have entered into force or become effective since the adoption of resolution A.1020(26),
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 29, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
HAVING CONSIDERED the recommendations made by the Maritime Safety Committee, at its eighty-ninth session, and the Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its sixty-second session, 1. ADOPTS the Survey Guidelines under the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification, 2011, set out in the annex to the present resolution; 2. INVITES Governments carrying out surveys required by the relevant IMO instruments to follow the provisions of the annexed Survey Guidelines; 3. REQUESTS the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee to keep the Survey Guidelines under review and amend them as necessary; 4. REVOKES resolutions A.997(25), A.1020(26) and MEPC.180(59).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 29, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX
SURVEY GUIDELINES UNDER THE HARMONIZED SYSTEM OF SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION (HSSC), 2011
[MSC 89/25, annex 25]
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 30, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 30
DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON THE CODE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY IMO INSTRUMENTS, 2011
THE ASSEMBLY, RECALLING Article 15(j) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Assembly in relation to regulations and guidelines concerning maritime safety and the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships, RECALLING ALSO that, by resolution A.1019(26), it adopted amendments to the Code for the Implementation of Mandatory IMO Instruments, 2007, as adopted by resolution A.996(25), RECOGNIZING the need for the above Code to be further revised to take account of the amendments to the IMO instruments referred to above, which have entered into force or become effective since the adoption of resolution A.1019(26), BEING AWARE of the request of the seventh session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 7) that measures be developed to ensure that flag States give full and complete effect to the IMO and other relevant conventions to which they are party, so that the ships of all flag States meet international rules and standards, RECOGNIZING that parties to the relevant international conventions have, as part of the ratification process, accepted to fully meet their responsibilities and to discharge their obligations under the conventions and other instruments to which they are party, REAFFIRMING that States have the primary responsibility to have in place an adequate and effective system to exercise control over ships entitled to fly their flag, and to ensure that they comply with relevant international rules and regulations in respect of maritime safety, security and protection of the marine environment, REAFFIRMING ALSO that States, in their capacity as port and coastal States, have other obligations and responsibilities under applicable international law in respect of maritime safety, security and protection of the marine environment, NOTING that, while States may realize certain benefits by becoming party to instruments aiming at promoting maritime safety, security and the prevention of pollution from ships, these benefits can only be fully realized when all parties carry out their obligations as required by the instruments concerned, NOTING ALSO that the ultimate effectiveness of any instrument depends, inter alia, upon all States:
(a) becoming party to all instruments related to maritime safety, security and pollution prevention and control;
(b) implementing and enforcing such instruments fully and effectively; and (c) reporting to the Organization, as required,
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 30, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
NOTING FURTHER that, in the context of the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme, the enactment of appropriate legislation and its implementation and enforcement are the three key issues on which a Member State's performance can be measured, BEARING IN MIND that the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme contains references to the Code for the Implementation of Mandatory IMO Instruments, as appropriate; and that the Code, in addition to providing guidance for the implementation and enforcement of IMO instruments, forms the basis of the Audit Scheme, in particular concerning the identification of the auditable areas, HAVING CONSIDERED the recommendations made by the Maritime Safety Committee, at its eighty-ninth session and the Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its sixty-second session, 1. ADOPTS the Code for the Implementation of Mandatory IMO Instruments, 2011, set out in the annex to the present resolution; 2. URGES Governments of all States in their capacity as flag, port and coastal States to implement the amendments to the Code on a national basis; 3. REQUESTS the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee to keep the Code under review and, in coordination with the Council, to propose amendments thereto to the Assembly; 4. REVOKES resolutions A.996(25) and A.1019(26).
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 30, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX
CODE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY IMO INSTRUMENTS, 2011
[MSC 89/25, annex 27]
***
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 31, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 31
FSA ENVIRONMENTAL RISK EVALUATION CRITERIA: AMENDMENTS TO THE FSA GUIDELINES –
A PROPOSED NEW APPENDIX Noting that the most appropriate conversion formula to use will depend on the specific scope of each FSA to be performed, a general approach to be followed is outlined in the following suggested examples. 1. Consolidated oil spill database based on:
a. IOPCF data; b. US Data; c. Norwegian data;
Figure 1 shows the data of the consolidated oil spill database in terms of specific costs per tonne spilled (Figure 5 of document MEPC 62/INF.24). Further information with respect to the basis of the database can be found in document MEPC 62/INF.24. It should be acknowledged that the consolidated oil spill database has limitations and possible deficiencies. These are described in document MEPC 62/INF.24 and may also involve incomplete or missing data on costs or other information.
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+07
1.0E+08
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
Spill size in tonnes
Tota
l spe
cific
spi
ll co
sts
in U
S$/to
nne
US dataIOPCFNOR
Figure 1: All specific oil spill cost data in 2009 USD (spill cost per tonne).
Source: document MEPC 62/INF.24. The submitter of the FSA can amend this database with new oil spill data, however, this amendment should be properly documented. 2. Some regression formulae derived from the consolidated oil spill database are summarized in Table 1 in which V is spill size in tonnes.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 31, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
Table 1: Regression formulae derived from the consolidated database
Dataset f(V)=Total Spill Cost (TSC) (2009 US dollars)
Reference
All spills 67,275 V 0.5893 MEPC 62/INF.24 V>0.1 tonnes 42,301 V 0.7233 MEPC 62/181
FSA analysts are free to use other conversion formulae, so long as these are well documented by the data. For example, if an FSA is considering only small spills, the submitter may filter the data and perform his or her own regression analysis. 3. It is recommended that the FSA analyst use the following formula to estimate the societal oil spill costs (SC) used in the analysis:
VfFFSC yUncertaAssurancethreshold int This equation considers:
1. Assurance factor (FAssurance): allowing for society's willingness to pay to avert accidents;
2. Uncertainty factor (FUncertainty): allowing for uncertainties in the cost
information from occurred spill accidents; and
3. Volume-dependent total cost function (f(V)): representing the fact that the cost per
unit oil spilled decreases with the spill size in US$ per tonne oil spilled.
The values of both assurance and uncertainty factors should be well documented. In order to consider the large scatter, the FSA analyst may perform a regression to determine a function f(V) that covers a percentile different than 50 % and document it in the report. 4. Application in RCO evaluation The FSA analyst should perform a cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness evaluation of the RCOs identified and provide all relevant details in the report, as outlined below. 4.1 RCOs affecting oil spills only
In case an RCO affects oil spills only:
RCO is cost effective if C < SC
C = Expected cost of the RCO
SC = (Expected SC without the RCO) – (Expected SC with the RCO) = Expected benefit of the RCO
1 Updated regression made on the final consolidated dataset.
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 31, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
4.2 RCOs affecting both safety and environment In case of RCOs addressing both safety and environment the following formula is recommended: NCAF = ( C – SC) / PLL In the above,
C = Expected cost of the RCO SC = (Expected SC without the RCO) – (Expected SC with the RCO) =
Expected benefit of the RCO PLL = Expected reduction of fatalities due to the RCO
The criteria for NCAF are as per table 2 of appendix 7 of document MSC 83/INF.2. In case there is an economic benefit ( B), C should be replaced by C- B. It is also emphasized that all cost and benefit components of the cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness inequality should be shown in an FSA study for better transparency. The user is free to develop new approaches taking into account the objectives of the FSA. 5. Index for environmental criteria The table below should be inserted in Appendix 4 (paragraph 3) of the FSA Guidelines
Severity Index SI SEVERITY DEFINITION 1 Category 1 Oil spill size < 1 tonne 2 Category 2 Oil spill size between 1-10 tonnes 3 Category 3 Oil spill size between 10-100 tonnes 4 Category 4 Oil spill size between 100-1,000 tonnes 5 Category 5 Oil spill size between 1,000-10,000 tonnes 6 Category 6 Oil spill size >10,000 tonnes
***
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
32,
pag
e 1
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
AN
NEX
32
B
IEN
NIA
L A
GEN
DA
FO
R T
HE
BLG
SU
B-C
OM
MIT
TEE
AN
D P
RO
VISI
ON
AL
AG
END
A F
OR
BLG
16
SU
B-C
OM
MIT
TEE
ON
BU
LK L
IQU
IDS
AN
D G
ASE
S (B
LG)*
PLA
NN
ED O
UTP
UTS
201
2-20
13 (r
esol
utio
n A
.[…](2
7))
Pare
nt
orga
n(s)
C
oord
inat
ing
orga
n(s)
A
ssoc
iate
d or
gan(
s)
Targ
et
com
plet
ion
year
N
umbe
r**
Des
crip
tion
1.1.
2.2
Coo
pera
tion
with
IAC
S: c
onsi
dera
tion
of u
nifie
d in
terp
reta
tions
M
SC/M
EPC
BLG
O
ngoi
ng
2.0.
1.13
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: add
ition
al g
uide
lines
for
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
BW
M C
onve
ntio
n, in
clud
ing
port
Sta
te
cont
rol
MEP
C
BLG
2012
5.2.
1.3
Dev
elop
men
t of i
nter
natio
nal c
ode
of s
afet
y fo
r shi
ps u
sing
gas
es
or o
ther
low
flas
hpoi
nt fu
els
MSC
B
LG
FP, D
E
2013
5.2.
1.4
Dev
elop
men
t of r
evis
ed IG
C C
ode
MSC
B
LG
FP, D
E, S
LF,
STW
20
13
5.2.
2.9
Con
side
ratio
n of
am
endm
ents
to S
OLA
S to
man
date
enc
lose
d sp
ace
entr
y an
d re
scue
dril
ls
MSC
D
SC
B
LG
2012
7.1.
2.14
G
uida
nce
on b
io-fo
ulin
g fo
r rec
reat
iona
l cra
ft le
ss th
an 2
4 m
etre
s M
EPC
B
LG
20
12
7.1.
2.32
D
evel
opm
ent o
f a C
ode
for t
he tr
ansp
ort a
nd h
andl
ing
of li
mite
d am
ount
s of
haz
ardo
us a
nd n
oxio
us li
quid
sub
stan
ces
in b
ulk
in
offs
hore
sup
port
ves
sels
MSC
/ME
PC
BLG
D
E
2012
20
13
7.2.
2.4
Eval
uatio
n of
saf
ety
and
pollu
tion
haza
rds
of c
hem
ical
s an
d pr
epar
atio
n of
con
sequ
entia
l am
endm
ents
M
EPC
B
LG
O
ngoi
ng
*
Item
s pr
inte
d in
bol
d ha
ve b
een
sele
cted
for t
he d
raft
prov
isio
nal a
gend
a fo
r BLG
16.
**
N
umbe
rs re
fer t
o th
e pl
anne
d ou
tput
s fo
r the
201
0-20
11 b
ienn
ium
.
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
32,
pag
e 2
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
SUB
-CO
MM
ITTE
E O
N B
ULK
LIQ
UID
S A
ND
GA
SES
(BLG
)*
PLA
NN
ED O
UTP
UTS
201
2-20
13 (r
esol
utio
n A
.[…](2
7))
Pare
nt
orga
n(s)
C
oord
inat
ing
orga
n(s)
A
ssoc
iate
d or
gan(
s)
Targ
et
com
plet
ion
year
N
umbe
r**
Des
crip
tion
7.3.
1.1
Rev
iew
of r
elev
ant n
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
as
a co
nseq
uenc
e of
the
amen
ded
MA
RPO
L A
nnex
VI a
nd th
e N
Ox T
echn
ical
Cod
e M
EPC
B
LG
20
12
12.3
.1
12.1
.2.2
C
asua
lty a
naly
sis
MSC
FS
I B
LG
Ong
oing
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 32, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
SUB-COMMITTEE ON BULK LIQUIDS AND GASES (BLG) – 16TH SESSION Opening of the session 1 Adoption of the agenda 2 Decisions of other IMO bodies 3 Evaluation of safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of
consequential amendments 4 Development of guidelines and other documents for uniform implementation of
the 2004 BWM Convention 5 Development of international measures for minimizing the transfer of invasive
aquatic species through bio fouling of ships 6 Development of international code of safety for ships using gases or other low
flashpoint fuels 7 Development of revised IGC Code 8 Review of relevant non-mandatory instruments as a consequence of the amended
MARPOL Annex VI and the NOx Technical Code 9 Development of a code for the transport and handling of limited amounts of
hazardous and noxious liquid substances in bulk in offshore support vessels 10 Consideration of amendment to SOLAS to mandate enclosed space entry and
rescue drills 11 Consideration of IACS unified interpretations 12 Casualty analysis 13 Biennial agenda and provisional agenda for BLG 17 14 Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2013 15 Any other business 16 Report to the Committees
***
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
33,
pag
e 1
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
AN
NEX
33
B
IEN
NIA
L A
GEN
DA
FO
R T
HE
FSI S
UB
-CO
MM
ITTE
E A
ND
PR
OVI
SIO
NA
L A
GEN
DA
FO
R F
SI 2
0
SUB
-CO
MM
ITTE
E O
N F
LAG
STA
TE IM
PLEM
ENTA
TIO
N (F
SI)*
PLA
NN
ED O
UTP
UTS
201
2-20
13 (r
esol
utio
n A
.[...]
(27)
) Pa
rent
or
gan(
s)
Coo
rdin
atin
g or
gan(
s)
Ass
ocia
ted
orga
n(s)
Ta
rget
co
mpl
etio
n ye
ar
Num
ber**
D
escr
iptio
n
1.1.
2.1
Coo
pera
tion
with
FA
O: p
repa
ratio
n an
d ho
ldin
g of
the
third
mee
ting
of
the
Join
t FA
O/IM
O W
orki
ng G
roup
on
IUU
Fis
hing
and
Rel
ated
Mat
ters
M
SC
/ME
PC
FSI
SLF
20
13
1.1.
2.2
Coo
pera
tion
with
IAC
S: c
onsi
dera
tion
of u
nifie
d in
terp
reta
tions
M
SC
/ME
PC
FS
I O
ngoi
ng
1.1.
2.4
Dev
elop
men
t PSC
gui
delin
es o
n se
afar
ers'
hou
rs o
f res
t tak
ing
into
ac
coun
t the
Mar
itim
e La
bour
Con
vent
ion
2006
M
SC
FS
I S
TW
2013
2.0.
1.13
N
on-m
anda
tory
Inst
rum
ents
: add
ition
al g
uide
lines
for i
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
the
BW
M C
onve
ntio
n, in
clud
ing
port
Sta
te c
ontr
ol
ME
PC
FS
I
2013
2.01
.18
Dev
elop
men
t of a
Cod
e fo
r Rec
ogni
zed
Org
aniz
atio
ns
MS
C/M
EP
CFS
I
2012
2.0.
1.25
C
ompr
ehen
sive
revi
ew o
f iss
ues
rela
ted
to th
e re
spon
sibi
litie
s of
G
over
nmen
ts a
nd d
evel
opm
ent o
f mea
sure
s to
enc
oura
ge fl
ag S
tate
co
mpl
ianc
e
MS
C/M
EP
CFS
I
2013
2.0.
1.27
Su
mm
ary
repo
rts
and
anal
yses
of m
anda
tory
repo
rts
unde
r MA
RPO
L M
EP
C
FSI
O
ngoi
ng
2.0.
2.2
Rev
iew
of t
he C
ode
for i
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
man
dato
ry IM
O in
stru
men
ts
and
cons
olid
ated
aud
it su
mm
ary
repo
rts,
ado
ptio
n of
the
new
IMO
In
stru
men
ts Im
plem
enta
tion
Cod
e (II
IC) a
nd m
akin
g th
e III
Cod
e an
d au
ditin
g m
anda
tory
MS
C/M
EP
CFS
I
2013
*
Item
s pr
inte
d in
bol
d ha
ve b
een
sele
cted
for t
he d
raft
prov
isio
nal a
gend
a fo
r FS
I 20.
**
N
umbe
rs re
fer t
o th
e pl
anne
d ou
tput
s fo
r the
201
0-20
11 b
ienn
ium
.
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
33,
pag
e 2
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
SUB
-CO
MM
ITTE
E O
N F
LAG
STA
TE IM
PLEM
ENTA
TIO
N (F
SI)*
PLA
NN
ED O
UTP
UTS
201
2-20
13 (r
esol
utio
n A
.[...]
(27)
) Pa
rent
or
gan(
s)
Coo
rdin
atin
g or
gan(
s)
Ass
ocia
ted
orga
n(s)
Ta
rget
co
mpl
etio
n ye
ar
Num
ber**
D
escr
iptio
n
5.1.
2.1.
1 M
akin
g th
e pr
ovis
ions
of M
SC.1
/Circ
.120
6/R
ev.1
man
dato
ry
MS
C
DE
FS
I, N
AV
, S
TW
2012
5.1.
2.3
Mea
sure
s to
pro
tect
the
safe
ty o
f per
sons
resc
ued
at s
ea
MS
C
CO
MS
AR
FS
I/FA
L 20
12
5.2.
1.22
D
evel
opm
ent o
f a n
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ent o
n re
gula
tion
for
non-
conv
entio
n sh
ips
MS
C
FSI
20
13
5.2.
1.23
R
evie
w a
nd u
pdat
e of
the
Surv
ey G
uide
lines
und
er th
e H
SSC
and
the
anne
xes
to th
e C
ode
for t
he Im
plem
enta
tion
of M
anda
tory
IMO
In
stru
men
ts
MS
C/M
EP
CFS
I
Ong
oing
5.3.
1.6
Prom
ote
the
harm
oniz
atio
n of
por
t Sta
te c
ontr
ol a
ctiv
ities
and
col
lect
PS
C D
ata
MS
C
FSI
O
ngoi
ng
12.1
.2.1
/2
12.3
.1.1
C
olle
ctio
n an
d an
alys
is o
f cas
ualty
dat
a to
stu
dy tr
ends
and
dev
elop
kn
owle
dge
and
risk-
base
d re
com
men
datio
ns
MS
C
FSI
All
Sub
-C
omm
ittee
sO
ngoi
ng
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 33, page 3
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
SUB-COMMITTEE ON FLAG STATE IMPLEMENTATION (FSI) 20TH SESSION Opening of the session
1 Adoption of the agenda
2 Decisions of other IMO bodies
3 Responsibilities of Governments and measures to encourage flag State compliance
4 Mandatory reports under MARPOL
5 Casualty statistics and investigations
6 Harmonization of port State control activities
7 PSC Guidelines on seafarers' hours of rest and PSC guidelines in relation to the
Maritime Labour Convention, 2006
8 Development of guidelines on port State control under the 2004 BWM Convention
9 Comprehensive analysis of difficulties encountered in the implementation of IMO instruments
10 Review of the Survey Guidelines under the HSSC and the annexes to the Code for the Implementation of Mandatory IMO Instruments
11 Consideration of IACS Unified Interpretations
12 Review of the IMO Instruments Implementation Code
13 Development of a Code for Recognized Organizations
14 Measures to protect the safety of persons rescued at sea
15 Illegal unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing and related matters
16 Biennial agenda and provisional agenda for FSI 21
17 Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2013
18 Any other business
19 Report to the Committees
***
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
34,
pag
e 1
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
AN
NEX
34
IT
EMS
IN B
IEN
NIA
L A
GEN
DA
S O
F TH
E D
E, D
SC, N
AV
AN
D S
TW S
UB
-CO
MM
ITTE
ES R
ELA
TIN
G T
O E
NVI
RO
NM
ENTA
L IS
SUES
SUB
-CO
MM
ITTE
E O
N S
HIP
DES
IGN
AN
D E
QU
IPM
ENT
(DE)
PLA
NN
ED O
UTP
UTS
201
2-20
13 (r
esol
utio
n A
.[...]
(27)
) Pa
rent
or
gan(
s)
Coo
rdin
atin
gor
gan(
s)
Ass
ocia
ted
orga
n(s)
Ta
rget
co
mpl
etio
n ye
ar
Num
ber*
Des
crip
tion
NEW
R
evis
ion
of th
e st
anda
rd s
peci
ficat
ion
for s
hipb
oard
inci
nera
tors
(r
esol
utio
n M
EPC
.76(
40))
ME
PC
D
E
20
12
5.2.
1.19
D
evel
opm
ent o
f a m
anda
tory
Cod
e fo
r shi
ps o
pera
ting
in p
olar
w
ater
s M
SC
/ME
PC
D
E
20
12
7.1.
2.4
Prov
isio
ns fo
r the
redu
ctio
n of
noi
se fr
om c
omm
erci
al s
hipp
ing
and
its a
dver
se im
pact
s on
mar
ine
life
ME
PC
D
E
20
12
7.1.
2.31
R
evis
ion
of th
e R
evis
ed g
uide
lines
on
impl
emen
tatio
n of
effl
uent
st
anda
rds
and
perf
orm
ance
test
s fo
r sew
age
trea
tmen
t pla
nts
(res
olut
ion
MEP
C.1
59(5
5))
ME
PC
D
E
20
12
* N
umbe
rs re
fer t
o th
e pl
anne
d ou
tput
s fo
r the
201
0-20
11 b
ienn
ium
.
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
34,
pag
e 2
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
SUB
-CO
MM
ITTE
E O
N D
AN
GER
OU
S G
OO
DS,
SO
LID
CA
RG
OES
AN
D C
ON
TAIN
ERS
(DSC
)
PLA
NN
ED O
UTP
UTS
201
2-20
13 (r
esol
utio
n A
.[...]
(27)
) Pa
rent
or
gan(
s)
Coo
rdin
atin
gor
gan(
s)
Ass
ocia
ted
orga
n(s)
Ta
rget
co
mpl
etio
n ye
ar
Num
ber
Des
crip
tion
5.2.
3.3
Am
endm
ents
to th
e IM
SBC
Cod
e, in
clud
ing
eval
uatio
n of
pr
oper
ties
of s
olid
bul
k ca
rgoe
s M
SC
/ME
PC
D
SC
Ong
oing
NEW
D
evel
opm
ent o
f crit
eria
for t
he e
valu
atio
n of
env
ironm
enta
lly
haza
rdou
s so
lid b
ulk
carg
oes
in re
latio
n to
the
revi
sed
MA
RPO
L A
nnex
V
ME
PC
D
SC
2012
12.3
.1.3
R
epor
ts o
n in
cide
nts
invo
lvin
g da
nger
ous
good
s or
mar
ine
pollu
tant
s in
pac
kage
d fo
rm o
n bo
ard
ship
s or
in p
ort a
reas
M
SC
/ME
PC
D
SC
Ong
oing
SU
B-C
OM
MIT
TEE
ON
SA
FETY
OF
NA
VIG
ATI
ON
(NA
V)
PLA
NN
ED O
UTP
UTS
201
2-20
13 (r
esol
utio
n A
.[...]
(27)
) Pa
rent
or
gan(
s)
Coo
rdin
atin
g or
gan(
s)
Ass
ocia
ted
orga
n(s)
Ta
rget
C
ompl
etio
n Ye
ar
Num
ber
Des
crip
tion
5.2.
4.1
Rou
tein
g of
shi
ps, s
hip
repo
rtin
g an
d re
late
d m
atte
rs
MS
C/M
EP
C
NA
V
O
ngoi
ng
SU
B-C
OM
MIT
TEE
ON
TR
AIN
ING
AN
D W
ATC
HK
EEPI
NG
(STW
)
PL
AN
NED
OU
TPU
TS 2
012-
2013
(res
olut
ion
A.[.
..](2
7))
Pare
nt
orga
n(s)
C
oord
inat
ing
orga
n(s)
A
ssoc
iate
d or
gan(
s)
Targ
et
Com
plet
ion
year
N
umbe
r D
escr
iptio
n
5.4.
1 C
onsi
dera
tion
of ro
le o
f the
hum
an e
lem
ent m
atte
rs
MS
C/M
EP
C
STW
Ong
oing
***
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
35,
pag
e 1
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
AN
NEX
35
ST
ATU
S O
F TH
E PL
AN
NED
OU
TPU
TS O
F TH
E C
OM
MIT
TEE
FOR
TH
E 20
10-2
011
BIE
NN
IUM
Plan
ned
outp
ut
num
ber i
n th
e H
igh-
leve
l Act
ion
Plan
for 2
010-
2011
a
Des
crip
tion
Targ
et
com
plet
ion
year
b
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
1 c
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
2 c
Ref
eren
ces
d
1.1.
1.1
Per
man
ent a
naly
sis,
dem
onst
ratio
n an
d pr
omot
ion
of th
e lin
kage
be
twee
n a
safe
, sec
ure,
effi
cien
t and
env
ironm
enta
lly fr
iend
ly
mar
itim
e tra
nspo
rt in
frast
ruct
ure,
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f glo
bal t
rade
an
d th
e w
orld
eco
nom
y an
d th
e ac
hiev
emen
t of t
he M
DG
s
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
1.1.
2.2
Coo
pera
tion
with
IAC
S: c
onsi
dera
tion
of u
nifie
d in
terp
reta
tions
co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
1.1.
2.7
Coo
pera
tion
with
dat
a pr
ovid
ers:
pro
toco
ls o
n da
ta e
xcha
nge
with
in
tern
atio
nal,
regi
onal
and
nat
iona
l ent
ities
co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
1.1.
2.26
P
olic
y in
put/g
uida
nce
to E
nviro
nmen
t Man
agem
ent G
roup
(e
stab
lishe
d by
UN
Gen
eral
Ass
embl
y re
solu
tion
A/5
3/46
3UN
): in
ter-a
genc
y sh
arin
g of
info
rmat
ion
and
agre
emen
t on
prio
ritie
s
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
1.1.
2.27
Po
licy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e on
GES
AMP-
rela
ted
IMO
dev
elop
men
ts
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
1.1.
2.28
Po
licy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
GES
AMP-
BW W
orki
ng G
roup
: eva
luat
ion
of b
alla
st w
ater
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
1.1.
2.29
Po
licy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
GES
AMP-
EHS
Wor
king
Gro
up: e
valu
atio
n of
bul
k ch
emic
als
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
1.1.
2.30
P
olic
y in
put/g
uida
nce
to U
NFC
CC
: gre
enho
use
gas
emis
sion
s fro
m
ship
s co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
1.1.
2.31
Po
licy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
UN
Glo
bally
Har
mon
ized
Sys
tem
: cl
assi
ficat
ion
and
labe
lling
of p
rodu
cts
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
1.1.
2.32
P
olic
y in
put/g
uida
nce
to U
N-O
cean
s: in
ter-a
genc
y co
ordi
natio
n on
oc
eans
and
coa
stal
issu
es
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
1.1.
2.33
Po
licy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
UN
Reg
ular
Pro
cess
: ass
essm
ent o
f the
st
ate
of th
e m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
35,
pag
e 2
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
Plan
ned
outp
ut
num
ber i
n th
e H
igh-
leve
l Act
ion
Plan
for 2
010-
2011
a
Des
crip
tion
Targ
et
com
plet
ion
year
b
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
1 c
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
2 c
Ref
eren
ces
d
1.1.
2.42
Fo
llow
-up
to th
e 3r
d m
eetin
g of
the
Join
t ILO
/IMO
/BC
Wor
king
G
roup
on
Shi
p S
crap
ping
co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
1.3.
1.3
Iden
tific
atio
n of
PSS
As, t
akin
g in
to a
ccou
nt a
rticl
e 21
1 an
d ot
her
rela
ted
artic
les
of U
NC
LOS
(MEP
C)
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
1.3.
2.1
Con
tribu
tions
to th
e fo
llow
-up
to U
NC
ED a
nd W
SSD
co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
1.3.
3.1
Haz
ard
prof
iles
and
eval
uatio
n of
new
ly s
ubm
itted
sub
stan
ces
to b
e in
corp
orat
ed in
to th
e IB
C C
ode
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
1.3.
3.2
Appr
oval
of b
alla
st w
ater
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
2.0.
1.2
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: a
men
dmen
ts to
MAR
POL
Anne
xes
I to
VI,
incl
udin
g re
vise
d M
ARPO
L An
nex
V 20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
Rev
ised
MAR
POL
Anne
x V
adop
ted
at M
EPC
62
2.0.
1.11
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: cla
rifie
d bo
unda
ries
betw
een
MA
RPO
L an
d th
e Lo
ndon
Con
vent
ion
1972
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
2.0.
1.12
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: gui
delin
es fo
r enf
orce
men
t of
MAR
POL
Anne
x I
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
2.0.
1.13
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: gui
delin
es fo
r the
BW
M C
onve
ntio
n (u
pdat
ing
and
cons
olid
atio
n of
exi
stin
g gu
idel
ines
) co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
2.0.
1.14
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: gui
delin
es fo
r rep
lace
men
t eng
ines
not
re
quire
d to
mee
t the
Tie
r III
limit
(MAR
POL
Anne
x VI
) 20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
2.0.
1.15
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: gui
delin
es o
n th
e pr
ovis
ion
of
rece
ptio
n fa
cilit
ies
(MAR
POL
Anne
x VI
) 20
11
In p
rogr
ess
com
plet
ed
Adop
ted
by re
solu
tion
MEP
C.1
99(6
2) a
t MEP
C 6
2
2.0.
1.16
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: oth
er re
leva
nt g
uide
lines
per
tain
ing
to
equi
vale
nts
set f
orth
in re
gula
tion
4 of
MAR
POL
Anne
x VI
and
not
co
vere
d by
oth
er g
uide
lines
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
2.0.
1.17
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: gui
delin
es c
alle
d fo
r und
er
para
grap
h 2.
2.5.
6 of
the
NO
x Tec
hnic
al C
ode
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
2.0.
1.24
U
nifie
d in
terp
reta
tions
of t
he M
AR
PO
L re
gula
tions
co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
35,
pag
e 3
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
Plan
ned
outp
ut
num
ber i
n th
e H
igh-
leve
l Act
ion
Plan
for 2
010-
2011
a
Des
crip
tion
Targ
et
com
plet
ion
year
b
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
1 c
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
2 c
Ref
eren
ces
d
2.0.
1.25
Pr
omot
ion
of th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of m
anda
tory
and
non
-man
dato
ry
inst
rum
ents
co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
2.0.
1.26
R
epor
ts o
n th
e av
erag
e su
lphu
r con
tent
of r
esid
ual f
uel o
il su
pplie
d fo
r use
on
boar
d sh
ips
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
2.0.
1.27
S
umm
ary
repo
rts a
nd a
naly
ses
of m
anda
tory
repo
rts u
nder
M
ARPO
L co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
2.0.
1.29
In
terp
reta
tion
of a
pplic
atio
n of
SO
LAS,
MAR
POL
and
Load
Lin
e re
quire
men
ts fo
r maj
or c
onve
rsio
ns o
f oil
tank
ers
cont
inuo
us
In p
rogr
ess
com
plet
ed
Uni
fied
inte
rpre
tatio
n ap
prov
ed b
y M
SC 8
9 an
d M
EPC
62
2.0.
2.1
Inpu
t rel
ated
to m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t pro
tect
ion
to th
e V
olun
tary
IMO
M
embe
r Sta
te A
udit
Sche
me
and
to th
e C
ode
for t
he
impl
emen
tatio
n of
man
dato
ry IM
O in
stru
men
ts
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
2.0.
2.2
A re
vise
d C
ode
for t
he Im
plem
enta
tion
of M
anda
tory
IMO
In
stru
men
ts
2011
In
pro
gres
s co
mpl
eted
A
ppro
ved
by M
SC
89
and
MEP
C 6
2 fo
r ado
ptio
n by
A
27
2.0.
2.3
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
app
rove
d pr
opos
als
for t
he fu
rther
dev
elop
men
t of
the
Audi
t Sch
eme
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
3.1.
1.1
Gui
danc
e fo
r the
Sec
reta
riat c
once
rnin
g th
e en
viro
nmen
tal
prog
ram
mes
and
pro
ject
s to
whi
ch th
e O
rgan
izat
ion
cont
ribut
es o
r ex
ecut
es, s
uch
as G
EF, U
ND
P, U
NEP
and
Wor
ld B
ank
proj
ects
or
prog
ram
mes
, and
the
IMO
/UN
EP
foru
m o
n re
gion
al c
oope
ratio
n in
co
mba
ting
mar
ine
pollu
tion
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
3.1.
1.2
Rep
orts
on
reso
urce
mob
ilizat
ion
for,
and
on im
plem
enta
tion
of,
envi
ronm
enta
l pro
gram
mes
co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
3.1.
2.1
Gui
danc
e fo
r the
Sec
reta
riat c
once
rnin
g pa
rtner
ship
s w
ith th
e in
dust
ry (G
loba
l Ini
tiativ
e) a
imin
g at
pro
mot
ing
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
OP
RC
Con
vent
ion
and
the
OP
RC
-HN
S P
roto
col
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
35,
pag
e 4
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
Plan
ned
outp
ut
num
ber i
n th
e H
igh-
leve
l Act
ion
Plan
for 2
010-
2011
a
Des
crip
tion
Targ
et
com
plet
ion
year
b
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
1 c
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
2 c
Ref
eren
ces
d
3.4.
1.1
Gui
danc
e on
iden
tifyi
ng th
e em
ergi
ng n
eeds
of d
evel
opin
g S
tate
s,
in p
artic
ular
SID
S an
d LD
Cs
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
3.5.
1.3
Inpu
t to
the
ITC
P o
n m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t pro
tect
ion
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
3.5.
3.2
A c
apac
ity-b
uild
ing
mec
hani
sm fo
r new
mea
sure
s or
inst
rum
ents
, as
cal
led
for u
nder
reso
lutio
n A
.998
(25)
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
4.0.
2.1
Gui
danc
e on
the
esta
blis
hmen
t or f
urth
er d
evel
opm
ent o
f in
form
atio
n sy
stem
s (d
atab
ases
, web
site
s, e
tc.)
as p
art o
f the
G
loba
l Int
egra
ted
Ship
ping
Info
rmat
ion
Syst
em (G
ISIS
) pla
tform
, as
app
ropr
iate
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
4.0.
2.3
Pro
toco
ls o
n da
ta e
xcha
nge
with
oth
er in
tern
atio
nal,
regi
onal
and
na
tiona
l dat
a pr
ovid
ers
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
4.0.
5.1
Rev
ised
gui
delin
es o
n or
gani
zatio
n an
d m
etho
d of
wor
k,
as a
ppro
pria
te
2011
In
pro
gres
s co
mpl
eted
R
evis
ed G
uide
lines
ap
prov
ed b
y M
SC 8
9 an
d M
EPC
62,
issu
ed a
s M
SC-M
EPC
.1/C
irc.4
5.2.
2.2
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: i
nput
rega
rdin
g M
ARPO
L, B
WM
and
oth
er
envi
ronm
enta
l con
vent
ions
for t
he tr
aini
ng a
nd o
pera
tiona
l pr
oced
ures
for m
ariti
me
pers
onne
l
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
5.2.
3.10
M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: inp
ut re
gard
ing
MAR
POL
Anne
xes
I and
II
and
the
IBC
Cod
e fo
r the
revi
ew o
f sta
ndar
ds fo
r saf
e ha
ndlin
g an
d ca
rriag
e by
sea
of s
olid
and
liqu
id c
argo
es
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
5.2.
3.11
M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: am
endm
ents
to M
ARPO
L An
nex
III
conc
erni
ng re
view
of s
tand
ards
for s
afe
hand
ling
and
carri
age
by
sea
of s
olid
and
liqu
id c
argo
es
2011
co
mpl
eted
Rev
ised
MAR
POL
Anne
x III
ad
opte
d th
roug
h re
solu
tion
ME
PC
.193
(61)
5.3.
1.5
Non
-man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: r
evie
w o
f Gui
delin
es fo
r ins
pect
ion
of
anti-
foul
ing
syst
ems
on s
hips
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
com
plet
ed
Ado
pted
by
reso
lutio
n M
EPC
.208
(62)
at M
EPC
62
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
35,
pag
e 5
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
Plan
ned
outp
ut
num
ber i
n th
e H
igh-
leve
l Act
ion
Plan
for 2
010-
2011
a
Des
crip
tion
Targ
et
com
plet
ion
year
b
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
1 c
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
2 c
Ref
eren
ces
d
7.1.
1.1
Follo
w-u
p to
the
GES
AMP
stud
y on
"Est
imat
es o
f Oil
Ente
ring
the
Mar
ine
Envi
ronm
ent f
rom
Sea
Bas
ed A
ctiv
ities
" co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
7.1.
1.2
Tech
nica
l gui
danc
e fo
r the
Sec
reta
riat f
or th
e de
velo
pmen
t, on
the
basi
s of
repo
rting
requ
irem
ents
und
er M
ARP
OL,
OP
RC
and
the
OP
RC
-HN
S P
roto
col,
as w
ell a
s ot
her r
elev
ant s
ourc
es o
f in
form
atio
n, o
f a p
ollu
tion
inci
dent
info
rmat
ion
stru
ctur
e fo
r reg
ular
re
porti
ng to
the
FSI a
nd B
LG S
ub-C
omm
ittee
s, a
nd/o
r the
MEP
C
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
7.1.
2.1
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: f
ollo
w-u
p to
the
Hon
g Ko
ng C
onve
ntio
n on
S
hip
Rec
yclin
g, in
clud
ing
deve
lopm
ent a
nd a
dopt
ion
of a
ssoc
iate
d gu
idel
ines
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
7.1.
2.2
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: d
esig
natio
n of
Spe
cial
Are
as a
nd P
SSAs
an
d ad
optio
n of
the
ir as
soci
ated
pro
tect
ive
mea
sure
s co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
7.1.
2.3
Non
-man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: c
onso
lidat
ed g
uide
lines
on
balla
st
wat
er m
anag
emen
t 20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
7.1.
2.4
Pro
visi
ons
for t
he re
duct
ion
of n
oise
from
com
mer
cial
shi
ppin
g an
d its
adv
erse
impa
cts
on m
arin
e lif
e 20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
7.1.
2.5
App
rove
d ba
llast
wat
er m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
s co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
7.1.
2.6
Appr
oved
list
of a
ctiv
e su
bsta
nces
use
d by
bal
last
wat
er
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
7.1.
2.7
Pro
duct
ion
of a
man
ual e
ntitl
ed "B
alla
st W
ater
Man
agem
ent –
H
ow to
do
it"
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
7.1.
2.8
Hol
ding
of t
he th
ird B
WM
R&
D s
ympo
sium
20
11
com
plet
ed
H
eld
in J
anua
ry 2
010
in
Mal
mö
(Sw
eden
) in
coop
erat
ion
with
WM
U
7.1.
2.9
Pol
icie
s on
Pra
ctic
es R
elat
ed to
the
Red
uctio
n of
Gre
enho
use
Gas
E
mis
sion
s fro
m S
hips
(res
olut
ion
A.9
63(2
3)):
Shi
p C
O2 i
ndex
ing
sche
me;
CO
2 em
issi
on b
asel
ine
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
35,
pag
e 6
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
Plan
ned
outp
ut
num
ber i
n th
e H
igh-
leve
l Act
ion
Plan
for 2
010-
2011
a
Des
crip
tion
Targ
et
com
plet
ion
year
b
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
1 c
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
2 c
Ref
eren
ces
d
7.1.
2.10
M
easu
res
to p
rom
ote
the
AFS
Con
vent
ion
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
7.1.
2.11
M
anua
l on
chem
ical
pol
lutio
n to
add
ress
lega
l and
adm
inis
trativ
e as
pect
s of
HN
S in
cide
nts
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
7.1.
2.12
R
evis
ed M
anua
l on
oil p
ollu
tion,
Sec
tion
1 –
Prev
entio
n 20
11
com
plet
ed
To
be
publ
ishe
d th
roug
h th
e IM
O P
ublis
hing
Ser
vice
7.1.
2.13
G
uida
nce
on th
e ca
rriag
e of
bio
fuel
s an
d bi
ofue
l ble
nds
as c
argo
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
com
plet
ed
App
rove
d at
ME
PC
62
an
d di
ssem
inat
ed a
s M
EPC
.1/C
irc.7
61
7.1.
2.14
G
uida
nce
on tr
ansl
ocat
ion
of in
vasi
ve a
quat
ic s
peci
es th
roug
h bi
ofou
ling
of s
hips
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
com
plet
ed
Ado
pted
by
reso
lutio
n M
EPC
.207
(62)
at M
EPC
62
7.1.
2.15
G
uida
nce
docu
men
t on
the
iden
tific
atio
n an
d ob
serv
atio
n of
spi
lled
oil
2011
co
mpl
eted
To b
e pu
blis
hed
as a
Joi
nt
IMO
/IPIE
CA
publ
icat
ion
7.1.
2.16
Te
chni
cal g
uide
lines
on
sunk
en o
il as
sess
men
t and
rem
oval
te
chni
ques
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
7.1.
2.17
G
uida
nce
docu
men
t on
Inci
dent
Com
man
d S
yste
m d
urin
g oi
l re
spon
se
2011
co
mpl
eted
To b
e pu
blis
hed
thro
ugh
the
IMO
Pub
lishi
ng S
ervi
ce
7.1.
2.18
G
uida
nce
for o
il sp
ill re
spon
se in
fast
cur
rent
s 20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
7.1.
2.19
G
uide
on
Oil
Spill
Res
pons
e in
Ice
and
Snow
Con
ditio
ns
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
7.1.
2.20
U
pdat
ed IM
O D
ispe
rsan
t Gui
delin
es
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
7.1.
2.21
G
uide
line
for o
il sp
ill re
spon
se –
offs
hore
in s
itu b
urni
ng
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
7.1.
2.22
W
aste
Man
agem
ent D
ecis
ion
Sup
port
Tool
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
7.1.
2.23
G
uida
nce
on s
ensi
tivity
map
ping
for o
il sp
ill re
spon
se
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
7.1.
2.24
O
pera
tiona
l gui
de o
n th
e us
e of
sor
bent
s 20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
7.1.
2.25
P
ublic
atio
n ch
eckl
ist f
or n
ew IM
O m
anua
ls, g
uida
nce
docu
men
ts
and
train
ing
mat
eria
ls
2011
co
mpl
eted
Appr
oved
at M
EPC
60
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
35,
pag
e 7
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
Plan
ned
outp
ut
num
ber i
n th
e H
igh-
leve
l Act
ion
Plan
for 2
010-
2011
a
Des
crip
tion
Targ
et
com
plet
ion
year
b
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
1 c
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
2 c
Ref
eren
ces
d
7.1.
2.26
G
uida
nce
on o
blig
atio
ns a
nd a
ctio
ns re
quire
d by
Sta
tes
to p
repa
re
for i
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
the
OPR
C-H
NS
Prot
ocol
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
7.1.
2.27
Te
st s
tand
ards
for t
ype
appr
oval
of a
dd-o
n eq
uipm
ent
2011
In
pro
gres
s co
mpl
eted
A
dopt
ed b
y re
solu
tion
MEP
C.2
05(6
2) a
t MEP
C 6
2
7.1.
2.28
M
easu
res
to p
rom
ote
inte
grat
ed b
ilge
wat
er tr
eatm
ent s
yste
ms
2011
In
pro
gres
s co
mpl
eted
A
ppro
ved
at M
EP
C 6
2
and
diss
emin
ated
as
MEP
C.1
/Circ
.760
7.1.
2.29
G
uide
lines
for a
shi
pboa
rd o
il w
aste
pol
lutio
n pr
even
tion
plan
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
com
plet
ed
App
rove
d at
ME
PC
62
an
d di
ssem
inat
ed a
s M
EPC
.1/C
irc.7
59
7.1.
2.30
M
anua
lly o
pera
ted
alte
rnat
ives
in th
e ev
ent o
f pol
lutio
n pr
even
tion
equi
pmen
t mal
func
tions
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
7.1.
2.31
D
evel
opm
ent o
f gui
danc
e on
the
safe
ope
ratio
n an
d pe
rform
ance
st
anda
rds
of o
il po
llutio
n co
mba
ting
equi
pmen
t 20
12
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
7.1.
3.1
Rep
orts
on
inad
equa
cy o
f por
t rec
eptio
n fa
cilit
ies
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
7.1.
3.2
Follo
w-u
p to
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
Act
ion
Pla
n on
por
t rec
eptio
n fa
cilit
ies
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
7.1.
4.1
Actio
n P
lan
on p
reve
ntio
n an
d co
ntro
l of m
arin
e po
llutio
n fro
m s
mal
l cr
aft,
incl
udin
g de
velo
pmen
t of a
ppro
pria
te m
easu
res
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
7.2.
1.2
Inpu
t to
the
revi
ew o
f the
Gui
delin
es o
n th
e id
entif
icat
ion
of p
lace
s of
refu
ge w
ith re
gard
to m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t pro
tect
ion
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
7.2.
2.2
Env
ironm
enta
l asp
ects
of a
ltern
ativ
e ta
nker
des
igns
co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
7.2.
2.3
Amen
dmen
ts to
MAR
POL
Anne
x I o
n th
e us
e an
d ca
rriag
e of
hea
vy
grad
e oi
l (H
GO
) on
ship
s in
the
Ant
arct
ic a
rea
2010
co
mpl
eted
Res
olut
ion
ME
PC
.189
(60)
7.2.
2.4
Eva
luat
ion
of s
afet
y an
d po
llutio
n ha
zard
s of
che
mic
als
and
prep
arat
ion
of c
onse
quen
tial a
men
dmen
ts
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
35,
pag
e 8
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
Plan
ned
outp
ut
num
ber i
n th
e H
igh-
leve
l Act
ion
Plan
for 2
010-
2011
a
Des
crip
tion
Targ
et
com
plet
ion
year
b
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
1 c
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
2 c
Ref
eren
ces
d
7.2.
2.5
Appl
icat
ion
of re
quire
men
ts fo
r the
car
riage
of b
iofu
els
and
biof
uel
blen
ds
2011
In
pro
gres
s co
mpl
eted
A
ppro
ved
at M
EP
C 6
2
7.2.
3.1
Incr
ease
d ac
tiviti
es w
ithin
the
ITC
P re
gard
ing
the
OPR
C
Con
vent
ion
and
the
OPR
C-H
NS
Prot
ocol
co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
7.3.
1.1
Rev
iew
of n
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
as
a co
nseq
uenc
e of
the
revi
sed
MAR
POL
Anne
x VI
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
7.3.
1.2
Amen
dmen
ts to
MAR
POL
Anne
x VI
intro
duci
ng a
Nor
th A
mer
ican
EC
A 20
10
com
plet
ed
R
esol
utio
n M
EPC
.190
(60)
7.3.
2.1
Com
plet
ed w
ork
plan
to id
entif
y an
d de
velo
p m
echa
nism
s ne
eded
to
ach
ieve
the
limita
tion
or re
duct
ion
of C
O2 e
mis
sion
s fro
m
inte
rnat
iona
l shi
ppin
g
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
7.4.
1.1
Follo
w u
p to
the
upda
ted
Actio
n Pl
an o
n th
e O
rgan
izat
ion'
s st
rate
gy
to a
ddre
ss h
uman
ele
men
t (M
SC
-ME
PC
.7/C
irc.4
) co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
9.0.
1.3
Pro
visi
on o
f rec
eptio
n fa
cilit
ies
unde
r MA
RP
OL
in S
IDS
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
In p
rogr
ess
11.1
.1.1
P
erm
anen
t ana
lysi
s, d
emon
stra
tion
and
prom
otio
n of
the
linka
ge
betw
een
a sa
fe, s
ecur
e, e
ffici
ent a
nd e
nviro
nmen
tally
frie
ndly
m
ariti
me
trans
port
infra
stru
ctur
e, th
e de
velo
pmen
t of g
loba
l tra
de
and
the
wor
ld e
cono
my
and
the
achi
evem
ent o
f the
MD
Gs
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
11.1
.1.6
M
easu
res
to p
rom
ote
the
"IMO
Chi
ldre
n's
Am
bass
ador
" con
cept
, in
colla
bora
tion
with
juni
or m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t pro
tect
ion
asso
ciat
ions
w
orld
wid
e
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
12.1
.1.1
R
evis
ed F
SA
Gui
delin
es, i
nclu
ding
on
envi
ronm
enta
l ris
k cr
iteria
20
11
In p
rogr
ess
com
plet
ed
Appr
oved
at M
EPC
62.
Se
e M
EPC
62/
24/A
dd.1
, an
nex
31
12.3
.1.3
R
epor
ts o
f inc
iden
ts in
volv
ing
dang
erou
s go
ods
or m
arin
e po
lluta
nts
in p
acka
ged
form
on
boar
d sh
ips
or in
por
t are
as
2011
In
pro
gres
s In
pro
gres
s
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
35,
pag
e 9
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
Plan
ned
outp
ut
num
ber i
n th
e H
igh-
leve
l Act
ion
Plan
for 2
010-
2011
a
Des
crip
tion
Targ
et
com
plet
ion
year
b
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
1 c
Stat
us o
f ou
tput
for
Year
2 c
Ref
eren
ces
d
12.4
.1.1
G
uide
lines
and
ME
PC
circ
ular
s re
gard
ing
rais
ing
awar
enes
s of
the
"cha
in o
f res
pons
ibilit
y" c
once
pt a
mon
g al
l sta
keho
lder
s th
roug
h or
gani
zatio
ns th
at h
ave
cons
ulta
tive
stat
us
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
13.0
.2.1
G
uida
nce
for t
he S
ecre
taria
t on
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f GIS
IS a
nd o
n ac
cess
to in
form
atio
n co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
13.0
.2.2
D
atab
ases
as
part
of G
ISIS
and
oth
er m
eans
, inc
ludi
ng e
lect
roni
c on
es
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
13.0
.2.3
In
vent
ory
of in
form
atio
n, R
&D
and
bes
t pra
ctic
es re
late
d to
HN
S
prep
ared
ness
and
resp
onse
co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
13.0
.2.4
W
eb p
latfo
rm fo
r OP
RC
/HN
S-r
elat
ed in
form
atio
n co
ntin
uous
on
goin
g on
goin
g
13.0
.3.1
Im
prov
ed a
nd n
ew te
chno
logi
es a
ppro
ved
for b
alla
st w
ater
m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
s an
d re
duct
ion
of a
tmos
pher
ic p
ollu
tion
cont
inuo
us
ongo
ing
ongo
ing
13.0
.3.2
H
oldi
ng o
f the
third
BW
M R
&D
sym
posi
um
2011
co
mpl
eted
See
7.1
.2.8
abo
ve
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
35,
pag
e 10
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24-A
dd-1
.doc
NO
TES:
a
Whe
n in
divi
dual
out
put c
onta
ins
mul
tiple
del
iver
able
s, th
e fo
rmat
sho
uld
be to
repo
rt on
eac
h in
divi
dual
del
iver
able
. b
The
targ
et c
ompl
etio
n da
te s
houl
d no
t be
not i
ndic
ated
by
the
num
ber
of s
essi
ons.
It
shou
ld b
e sp
ecifi
ed b
y ye
ar, o
r in
dica
te th
at th
e ite
m is
co
ntin
uous
. c
The
entri
es u
nder
the
"Sta
tus
of o
utpu
t" co
lum
ns a
re c
ateg
oriz
ed a
s fo
llow
s:
-
"com
plet
ed" i
f it s
igni
fies
that
the
outp
ut in
que
stio
n ha
s be
en d
uly
final
ized
; -
"in p
rogr
ess"
if it
sig
nifie
s th
at th
e ex
pect
ed o
utpu
t has
bee
n pr
ogre
ssed
, of
ten
with
inte
rim o
utpu
ts (
for
exam
ple,
dra
ft am
endm
ents
or
guid
elin
es) w
hich
is e
xpec
ted
to b
e fin
aliz
ed a
nd a
ppro
ved
with
in th
e sa
me
bien
nium
; -
"ong
oing
" if i
t sig
nifie
s th
at th
e ou
tput
rela
te to
wor
k of
the
resp
ectiv
e IO
org
ans
that
is a
per
man
ent o
r con
tinuo
us ta
sk; a
nd
- "p
ostp
oned
" if
it si
gnifi
es t
hat
the
resp
ectiv
e IM
O o
rgan
has
dec
ided
to
defe
r th
e pr
oduc
tion
of r
elev
ant
outp
uts
to a
noth
er t
ime
(for e
xam
ple,
unt
il th
e re
ceip
t of c
orre
spon
ding
sub
mis
sion
s).
d
If th
e ou
tput
con
sist
s of
the
adop
tion/
appr
oval
of a
n in
stru
men
t (e.
g., r
esol
utio
n, c
ircul
ar, e
tc.),
that
inst
rum
ent s
houl
d be
cle
arly
ref
eren
ced
in
this
col
umn.
***
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 1
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
AN
NEX
36
PR
OPO
SALS
BY
THE
CO
MM
ITTE
E FO
R T
HE
HIG
H-L
EVEL
AC
TIO
N P
LAN
OF
THE
OR
GA
NIZ
ATI
ON
A
ND
PR
IOR
ITIE
S FO
R T
HE
2012
-201
3 B
IEN
NIU
M*
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
Bro
ad c
ateg
ory:
Enh
anci
ng th
e st
atus
and
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
IMO
1.
1.1
Take
the
lead
and
act
ivel
y pr
omot
e its
ro
le a
s th
e pr
imar
y in
tern
atio
nal f
orum
on
mat
ters
with
in it
s pu
rvie
w
1.1.
1.1
Not
e: P
Os
of t
he O
rgan
izat
ion
mee
ting
this
hig
h-le
vel
actio
n ar
e ta
bula
ted
in t
his
anne
x ag
ains
t the
mos
t rel
evan
t HLA
s P
erm
anen
t an
alys
is,
dem
onst
ratio
n an
d pr
omot
ion
of t
he l
inka
ge b
etw
een
a sa
fe,
secu
re,
effic
ient
and
env
ironm
enta
lly f
riend
ly m
ariti
me
trans
port
infra
stru
ctur
e, t
he d
evel
opm
ent
of
glob
al tr
ade
and
the
wor
ld e
cono
my
and
the
achi
evem
ent o
f the
MD
Gs
(Ass
embl
y, C
ounc
il, a
ll co
mm
ittee
s an
d Se
cret
aria
t) 1.
1.2
Coo
pera
te w
ith th
e U
nite
d N
atio
ns a
nd
othe
r int
erna
tiona
l bod
ies
on m
atte
rs o
f m
utua
l int
eres
t
1.1.
2.1R
C
oope
ratio
n w
ith F
AO
: pr
epar
atio
n an
d ho
ldin
g of
the
thi
rd m
eetin
g of
the
Joi
nt I
MO
/FAO
W
orki
ng G
roup
on
IUU
fish
ing
and
rela
ted
mat
ters
, inc
ludi
ng th
e ad
optio
n of
a n
ew tr
eaty
to
faci
litat
e th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of t
he t
echn
ical
pro
visi
ons
to t
he 1
993
Torre
mol
inos
Pro
toco
l (M
SC/M
EPC
) 1.
1.2.
2R
Coo
pera
tion
with
IAC
S: c
onsi
dera
tion
of u
nifie
d in
terp
reta
tions
(MSC
/ME
PC
) 1.
1.2.
3 C
oope
ratio
n w
ith
IAEA
: fo
rmal
ized
em
erge
ncy
arra
ngem
ents
fo
r re
spon
se
to
nucl
ear/
radi
olog
ical
em
erge
ncie
s fro
m s
hips
, in
clud
ing
IMO
con
tribu
tion
to t
he n
ext
vers
ion
of t
he
"Joi
nt
Rad
iatio
n E
mer
genc
y M
anag
emen
t P
lan
of
the
Inte
rnat
iona
l O
rgan
izat
ions
" (M
SC/M
EPC
) 1.
1.2.
4 C
oope
ratio
n w
ith I
LO:
deve
lopm
ent
of P
SC g
uide
lines
on
seaf
arer
s' ho
urs
of r
est
taki
ng in
to
acco
unt t
he M
ariti
me
Labo
ur C
onve
ntio
n, 2
006
(MSC
) 1.
1.2.
5 C
oope
ratio
n w
ith I
LO a
nd o
ther
s: a
ppro
ved
reco
mm
enda
tions
bas
ed o
n th
e w
ork,
if a
ny,
of
the
Join
t IM
O/IL
O A
d H
oc E
xper
t Wor
king
Gro
up o
n Fa
ir Tr
eatm
ent o
f Sea
fare
rs in
the
Even
t of
a M
ariti
me
Acci
dent
, C
MI,
and
othe
rs c
once
rnin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
the
joi
nt I
MO
/ILO
G
uide
lines
on
the
fair
treat
men
t of s
eafa
rers
and
con
sequ
entia
l fur
ther
act
ions
as
nece
ssar
y (L
EG)
1.1.
2.6
Coo
pera
tion
with
IHO
: hyd
rogr
aphi
c is
sues
(MSC
)
* St
rike-
outs
indi
cate
pro
pose
d de
letio
ns a
nd u
nder
lined
text
indi
cate
s pr
opos
ed a
dditi
ons/
revi
sion
s (R
= re
vise
d) to
the
anne
x of
reso
lutio
n A
.101
2(26
). **
N
ew n
umbe
rs w
ill b
e as
sign
ed b
y th
e C
ounc
il, in
due
cou
rse,
for t
he H
igh-
leve
l Act
ion
Plan
and
pla
nned
out
puts
for
the
2012
-201
3 bi
enni
um. N
ew p
lann
ed o
utpu
ts w
hich
cu
rrent
ly h
ave
no n
umbe
rs a
re m
arke
d as
NEW
.
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 2
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
1.1.
2.7
Coo
pera
tion
with
dat
a pr
ovid
ers:
pro
toco
ls o
n da
ta e
xcha
nge
with
inte
rnat
iona
l, re
gion
al a
nd
natio
nal e
ntiti
es (C
omm
ittee
s, a
s ap
prop
riate
/Sec
reta
riat)
1.1.
2.8
Coo
pera
tion
with
don
or in
stitu
tions
: res
ourc
e m
obiliz
atio
n fo
r ITC
P (S
ecre
taria
t) 1.
1.2.
9 C
oope
ratio
n w
ith I
CAO
: an
nual
mee
ting
of t
he J
oint
IC
AO/IM
O W
orki
ng G
roup
on
the
Har
mon
izat
ion
of
Aer
onau
tical
an
d M
ariti
me
Sea
rch
and
Res
cue
(mon
itorin
g of
SA
R
deve
lopm
ents
, co
ntin
uous
rev
iew
of
the
IAM
SAR
Man
ual a
nd d
evel
opin
g re
com
men
datio
ns
for
cons
ider
atio
n by
the
CO
MS
AR S
ub-C
omm
ittee
); re
view
of
prov
isio
ns f
or h
elic
opte
rs i
n SO
LAS
by th
e D
E Su
b-C
omm
ittee
(MSC
) 1.
1.2.
10
Coo
pera
tion
with
ITU
: co
nsid
erat
ion
of m
atte
rs r
elat
ed t
o th
e R
adio
com
mun
icat
ion
ITU
-R
Stu
dy G
roup
and
ITU
Wor
ld R
adio
com
mun
icat
ion
Con
fere
nce
(MS
C)
1.1.
2.11
R
Coo
pera
tion
with
UN
EP:
join
t in
itiat
ives
with
its
reg
iona
l se
as p
rogr
amm
e an
d its
par
tner
pr
ogra
mm
es (S
ecre
taria
t) 1.
1.2.
12
Coo
pera
tion
with
the
Join
t Ins
pect
ion
Uni
t (Se
cret
aria
t) 1.
1.2.
13
Liai
son
stat
emen
ts to
/from
IALA
: VTS
, aid
s to
nav
igat
ion,
e-n
avig
atio
n an
d AI
S m
atte
rs (M
SC)
1.1.
2.14
Li
aiso
n st
atem
ents
to/fr
om IE
C: r
adio
com
mun
icat
ions
and
saf
ety
of n
avig
atio
n (M
SC)
1.1.
2.15
Li
aiso
n st
atem
ents
to/
from
IH
O:
hydr
ogra
phic
mat
ters
and
pro
mot
ion
of E
NC
s co
verin
g va
rious
par
ts o
f the
glo
be (M
SC
) 1.
1.2.
16
Liai
son
stat
emen
ts to
/from
ILO
: sea
fare
rs' i
ssue
s (M
SC)
1.1.
2.17
Li
aiso
n st
atem
ents
to/fr
om IT
U: r
adio
com
mun
icat
ions
(MSC
) 1.
1.2.
18
Liai
son
stat
emen
ts to
/from
UN
HC
R: p
erso
ns re
scue
d at
sea
(MSC
) 1.
1.2.
19
Liai
son
stat
emen
ts to
/from
WM
O: m
eteo
rolo
gica
l iss
ues
(MSC
) 1.
1.2.
20
Polic
y in
put/g
uida
nce
to I
AEA:
dev
elop
men
t of c
arria
ge r
equi
rem
ents
for
clas
s 7
radi
oact
ive
mat
eria
l an
d de
velo
pmen
t of
gui
danc
e fo
r co
asta
l st
ates
on
emer
genc
ies
at s
ea i
nvol
ving
ra
dioa
ctiv
e m
ater
ial (
MSC
) 1.
1.2.
21
Pol
icy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
ILO
: de
velo
pmen
t of
PS
C g
uide
lines
in t
he c
onte
xt o
f th
e M
ariti
me
Labo
ur C
onve
ntio
n (M
LC),
2006
(MSC
) 1.
1.2.
22
Polic
y in
put/g
uida
nce
to IL
O/F
AO: a
ppro
val o
f the
Gui
delin
es to
ass
ist c
ompe
tent
aut
horit
ies
in th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of P
art B
of t
he C
ode
of S
afet
y fo
r fis
herm
en a
nd fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s, th
e V
olun
tary
Gui
delin
es fo
r th
e de
sign
, con
stru
ctio
n an
d eq
uipm
ent o
f sm
all f
ishi
ng v
esse
ls a
nd
the
Saf
ety
Rec
omm
enda
tions
for
deck
ed fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s of
less
than
12
met
res
in le
ngth
and
un
deck
ed fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s (M
SC)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 3
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
1.1.
2.23
Po
licy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
ISO
TC
8: d
evel
opm
ent o
f ind
ustry
con
sens
us s
tand
ards
(MSC
) 1.
1.2.
24R
Po
licy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
PSC
regi
mes
: rel
ated
IMO
dev
elop
men
ts (M
SC/M
EPC
) 1.
1.2.
25
Pol
icy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
U
N
Sub-
Com
mitt
ee
on
Dan
gero
us
Goo
ds:
harm
oniz
atio
n of
m
ultim
odal
tran
spor
t of d
ange
rous
goo
ds (M
SC)
1.1.
2.26
P
olic
y in
put/g
uida
nce
to
Env
ironm
ent
Man
agem
ent
Gro
up
(est
ablis
hed
by
UN
Gen
eral
A
ssem
bly
reso
lutio
n A
/53/
463U
N):
inte
r-ag
ency
sha
ring
of i
nfor
mat
ion
and
agre
emen
t on
pr
iorit
ies
(MEP
C/S
ecre
taria
t) 1.
1.2.
27
Polic
y in
put/g
uida
nce
on G
ESAM
P-re
late
d IM
O d
evel
opm
ents
(MEP
C)
1.1.
2.28
Po
licy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
GES
AMP-
BW W
orki
ng G
roup
: eva
luat
ion
of a
ctiv
e su
bsta
nces
use
d by
bal
last
wat
er m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
s (M
EPC
) 1.
1.2.
29
Polic
y in
put/g
uida
nce
to G
ESAM
P-EH
S W
orki
ng G
roup
: eva
luat
ion
of b
ulk
chem
ical
s (M
EPC
) 1.
1.2.
30
Pol
icy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
UN
FCC
C: g
reen
hous
e ga
s em
issi
ons
from
shi
ps (M
EPC
) 1.
1.2.
31
Pol
icy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
UN
Glo
bally
Har
mon
ized
Sys
tem
: cl
assi
ficat
ion
and
labe
lling
of
prod
ucts
(MEP
C)
1.1.
2.32
P
olic
y in
put/g
uida
nce
to U
N-O
cean
s: in
ter-
agen
cy c
oord
inat
ion
on o
cean
s an
d co
asta
l iss
ues
(MEP
C/S
ecre
taria
t) 1.
1.2.
33
Pol
icy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
UN
Reg
ular
Pro
cess
: as
sess
men
t of
the
sta
te o
f th
e m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t (M
EPC
/Sec
reta
riat)
1.1.
2.34
Po
licy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
IAE
A: f
acilit
atio
n of
the
shi
pmen
t of
cla
ss 7
rad
ioac
tive
mat
eria
ls,
incl
udin
g de
lays
and
den
ials
(FA
L)
1.1.
2.35
Po
licy
inpu
t/gui
danc
e to
UN
ECE/
UN
CEF
ACT:
trad
e fa
cilit
atio
n an
d el
ectro
nic
trans
mis
sion
of
info
rmat
ion-
rela
ted
mat
ters
(FAL
) 1.
1.2.
36
Polic
y in
put/g
uida
nce
to U
NO
DC
/WC
O: p
reve
ntio
n an
d co
ntro
l of i
llicit
drug
traf
ficki
ng (F
AL)
1.1.
2.37
P
olic
y/in
put g
uida
nce
to W
CO
: cle
aran
ce o
f shi
ps, p
erso
ns a
nd c
argo
es; a
nd s
ecur
ity o
f the
su
pply
cha
in (F
AL)
1.1.
2.38
P
olic
y an
d st
rate
gy in
put
to C
TITF
and
any
of
its 3
0 en
titie
s fo
r th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of t
he
IMO
-rela
ted
aspe
cts
of th
e U
N G
loba
l Cou
nter
-Ter
roris
m S
trate
gy (M
SC/L
EG/T
CC
/FAL
) 1.
1.2.
39
Mon
itor t
he p
rogr
ess
of th
e am
endm
ents
to IL
O M
LC 2
006
and
addr
ess
the
issu
e of
fina
ncia
l se
curit
y in
cas
e of
aba
ndon
men
t of
sea
fare
rs,
and
ship
owne
rs' r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s in
res
pect
of
cont
ract
ual c
laim
s fo
r per
sona
l inj
ury
to o
r dea
th o
f sea
fare
rs, s
houl
d it
be n
eces
sary
(LEG
)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 4
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
1.1.
2.40
Ad
vice
and
gui
danc
e on
issu
es, a
s m
ay b
e re
ques
ted,
in c
onne
ctio
n w
ith im
plem
enta
tion
of
SUA
1988
/200
5 in
the
cont
ext o
f int
erna
tiona
l effo
rts to
com
bat t
erro
rism
and
pro
lifer
atio
n of
w
eapo
ns o
f mas
s de
stru
ctio
n an
d re
late
d m
ater
ials
(LE
G)
1.1.
2.41
M
eetin
gs
and/
or
cons
ulta
tions
on
"D
eliv
erin
g as
O
ne:
UN
co
llabo
ratio
n on
te
chni
cal
coop
erat
ion
in t
he m
ariti
me
sect
or"
in r
espo
nse
to t
he "
Del
iver
ing
as O
ne"
repo
rt of
the
S
ecre
tary
G
ener
al's
H
igh-
leve
l P
anel
on
U
N
Sys
tem
-wid
e co
here
nce
in
the
area
s of
de
velo
pmen
t, hu
man
itaria
n as
sist
ance
and
env
ironm
ent (
Sec
reta
riat)
1.1.
2.42
Fo
llow
-up
to t
he 3
rd m
eetin
g of
the
Joi
nt I
LO/IM
O/B
C W
orki
ng G
roup
on
Ship
Scr
appi
ng
(MEP
C)
1.2.
1 Fu
rther
enc
oura
ge th
e ac
tive
parti
cipa
tion
of a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs to
ach
ieve
the
Org
aniz
atio
n's
mis
sion
obj
ectiv
es th
roug
h co
nsul
tatio
n an
d lia
ison
1.2.
1.1
Prot
ocol
to th
e H
NS
Con
vent
ion
adop
ted
as s
oon
as p
ossi
ble
(LEG
) 1.
2.1.
2 Jo
int
prog
ram
mes
, m
eetin
gs
and
pres
s co
nfer
ence
s w
ith
UN
an
d ot
her
inte
rnat
iona
l or
gani
zatio
ns, a
s w
ell a
s in
dust
ry a
nd c
ivil
soci
ety
inte
rest
s (S
ecre
taria
t) 1.
2.1.
3 A
gree
men
ts o
f coo
pera
tion
with
IGO
s an
d ap
prov
ed c
onsu
ltativ
e st
atus
for N
GO
s (A
ssem
bly,
C
ounc
il, S
ecre
taria
t) 1.
2.1.
4 C
oord
inat
ion
and
man
agem
ent o
f the
mul
ti-ag
ency
GES
AMP
Offi
ce (S
ecre
taria
t) 1.
2.1.
5 R
evis
ed G
uide
lines
on
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
HN
S Pr
otoc
ol t
o fa
cilit
ate
ratif
icat
ions
and
ha
rmon
ized
inte
rpre
tatio
n (L
EG
) 1.
2.1.
6 St
rate
gies
dev
elop
ed to
faci
litat
e en
try in
to fo
rce
of th
e 20
02 A
then
s Pr
otoc
ol, t
he 2
005
SUA
Pro
toco
ls a
nd th
e 20
07 N
airo
bi W
reck
Rem
oval
Con
vent
ion
(LEG
) 1.
3.1
Con
side
r iss
ues
unde
r the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
La
w o
f the
Sea
Con
vent
ion
rele
vant
to th
e ro
le o
f the
Org
aniz
atio
n
1.3.
1.1
Advi
ce a
nd g
uida
nce
prov
ided
follo
win
g re
ferr
als
from
oth
er IM
O o
rgan
s an
d M
embe
r S
tate
s (L
EG)
1.3.
1.2
Circ
ular
on
impl
icat
ions
of U
NC
LOS
for I
MO
(Sec
reta
riat)
1.3.
1.3
Iden
tific
atio
n of
PSS
As, t
akin
g in
to a
ccou
nt a
rticl
e 21
1 an
d ot
her
rela
ted
artic
les
of U
NC
LOS
(M
EPC
) 1.
3.2
Par
ticip
ate
in U
NC
SD
201
2 (R
io +
20) t
o sh
owca
se IM
O's
con
tribu
tion
to
sust
aina
ble
deve
lopm
ent t
hrou
gh it
s en
viro
nmen
tal a
nd te
chni
cal c
o-op
erat
ion
activ
ities
1.3.
2.1R
C
ontri
butio
ns to
UN
CSD
201
2 (R
io +
20)
and
its p
repa
rato
ry m
eetin
gs to
sho
w c
ase
rele
vant
w
ork
and
follo
w-u
p to
dec
isio
ns o
f the
Con
fere
nce
(ME
PC
/Sec
reta
riat)
1.3.
2.2R
C
apac
ity-b
uild
ing
follo
w-u
p ac
tion
refle
cted
in th
e IT
CP
(TC
C/M
EPC
)
1.3.
3 M
onito
r dev
elop
men
ts w
ithin
GES
AMP
and
mak
e fu
ll us
e of
the
know
ledg
e av
aila
ble
and
gain
ed
1.3.
3.1
Haz
ard
prof
iles
and
eval
uatio
n of
new
ly s
ubm
itted
sub
stan
ces
to b
e in
corp
orat
ed i
nto
the
IBC
Cod
e (M
EP
C)
1.3.
3.2
Appr
oval
of a
ctiv
e su
bsta
nces
use
d by
bal
last
wat
er m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
s (M
EPC
)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 5
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
1.3.
4 Pr
omot
e fa
cilit
atio
n m
easu
res
1.3.
4.1
Par
ticip
atio
n in
rele
vant
inte
rnat
iona
l for
ums
(Sec
reta
riat)
1.3.
4.2
FAL
mod
ule
inco
rpor
ated
in th
e pr
ogra
mm
e of
mar
itim
e se
curit
y tra
inin
g ac
tiviti
es (S
ecre
taria
t) 1.
3.4.
3 Fi
naliz
ed E
xpla
nato
ry M
anua
l to
the
FAL
Con
vent
ion
(FAL
) 1.
3.5
Har
mon
ize
IMO
inst
rum
ents
with
oth
er
rele
vant
inte
rnat
iona
l ins
trum
ents
, as
nece
ssar
y
1.3.
5.1R
H
arm
oniz
ed p
rovi
sion
s re
latin
g to
the
safe
, sec
ure
and
effic
ient
car
riage
of d
ange
rous
goo
ds
follo
win
g pa
rtici
patio
n in
th
e ac
tiviti
es
of
UN
CO
E TD
G,
GH
S an
d IA
EA
(MS
C/M
EP
C/S
ecre
taria
t) 1.
3.5.
2 D
evel
opm
ent o
f am
endm
ents
to th
e IA
MSA
R M
anua
l (M
SC)
1.3.
5.3
Har
mon
izat
ion
of S
OLA
S he
licop
ter p
rovi
sion
s w
ith IC
AO C
onve
ntio
n (M
SC)
2.0.
1 M
onito
r and
impr
ove
conv
entio
ns, e
tc.,
and
prov
ide
inte
rpre
tatio
n th
ereo
f if
requ
este
d by
Mem
ber S
tate
s
2.0.
1.1
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
2.
0.1.
2R
Ref
inem
ent o
f the
cur
rent
MAR
POL:
Ann
exes
I to
VI (
MEP
C)
2.0.
1.3
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: m
eans
for r
echa
rgin
g ai
r bot
tles
for a
ir br
eath
ing
appa
ratu
s (M
SC)
2.0.
1.4
Non
-man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
deve
lopm
ent
of g
uide
lines
for
ver
ifica
tion
of d
amag
e st
abili
ty
requ
irem
ents
for t
anke
rs (M
SC
) 2.
0.1.
5 N
on-m
anda
tory
ins
trum
ents
: de
velo
pmen
t of
gui
delin
es f
or v
erifi
catio
n of
dam
age
stab
ility
re
quire
men
ts fo
r bul
k ca
rrie
rs (M
SC
) 2.
0.1.
6 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
2.0.
1.7
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89
2.0.
1.8
Non
-man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts:
Dev
elop
men
t of
pro
visi
ons
to e
nsur
e th
e in
tegr
ity a
nd u
nifo
rm
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
1969
TM
Con
vent
ion
(MSC
) 2.
0.1.
9 N
on-m
anda
tory
in
stru
men
ts:
deve
lopm
ent
of
revi
sed
perfo
rman
ce
test
ing
and
appr
oval
st
anda
rds
for f
ire s
afet
y sy
stem
s (M
SC)
2.0.
1.10
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
2.0.
1.11
N
on-m
anda
tory
in
stru
men
ts:
clar
ified
bo
unda
ries
betw
een
MA
RP
OL
and
the
Lond
on
Con
vent
ion
1972
(MEP
C)
2.0.
1.12
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: gui
delin
es fo
r enf
orce
men
t of M
ARPO
L An
nex
I (M
EPC
) 2.
0.1.
13
Non
-man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: a
dditi
onal
gui
delin
es fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e BW
M C
onve
ntio
n,
incl
udin
g po
rt S
tate
con
trol (
ME
PC
) 2.
0.1.
14
Non
-man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
guid
elin
es f
or r
epla
cem
ent
engi
nes
not
requ
ired
to m
eet
the
Tier
III l
imit
(MAR
POL
Anne
x VI
) (M
EPC
) N
EW
R
evis
ion
of th
e st
anda
rd s
peci
ficat
ion
for s
hipb
oard
inci
nera
tors
(res
olut
ion
ME
PC
.76(
40))
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 6
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
2.0.
1.16
N
on-m
anda
tory
ins
trum
ents
: ot
her
rele
vant
gui
delin
es p
erta
inin
g to
equ
ival
ents
set
for
th i
n re
gula
tion
4 of
MAR
POL
Anne
x VI
and
not
cov
ered
by
othe
r gui
delin
es (M
EPC
) 2.
0.1.
17
Non
-man
dato
ry
inst
rum
ents
: gu
idel
ines
ca
lled
for
unde
r pa
ragr
aph
2.2.
5.6
of
the
NO
x Te
chni
cal C
ode
(MEP
C)
2.0.
1.18
D
evel
opm
ent o
f a C
ode
for R
ecog
nize
d O
rgan
izat
ions
(MS
C/M
EP
C)
2.0.
1.19
Pr
otoc
ol to
the
HN
S C
onve
ntio
n ad
opte
d as
soo
n as
pos
sibl
e (L
EG
) 2.
0.1.
20
Rev
ised
Gui
delin
es o
n im
plem
enta
tion
of t
he H
NS
Prot
ocol
to
faci
litat
e ra
tific
atio
ns a
nd
harm
oniz
ed in
terp
reta
tion
(LE
G)
2.0.
1.21
S
trate
gies
dev
elop
ed to
faci
litat
e en
try in
to fo
rce
of th
e 20
02 A
then
s Pr
otoc
ol, t
he 2
005
SUA
Pro
toco
ls, a
nd th
e 20
07 N
airo
bi W
reck
Rem
oval
Con
vent
ion
(LE
G)
2.0.
1.22
A
dvic
e an
d gu
idan
ce o
n is
sues
bro
ught
to th
e C
omm
ittee
in c
onne
ctio
n w
ith im
plem
enta
tion
of IM
O in
stru
men
ts (L
EG)
2.0.
1.23
C
onsi
dera
tion
of p
ropo
sal
to a
men
d th
e lim
its o
f lia
bilit
y of
the
Pro
toco
l of
199
6 to
the
C
onve
ntio
n on
Lim
itatio
n of
Lia
bilit
y fo
r Mar
itim
e C
laim
s, 1
976
(LLM
C 9
6), i
n ac
cord
ance
with
ar
ticle
8 o
f LLM
C 9
6 (L
EG)
2.0.
1.24
U
nifie
d in
terp
reta
tions
of t
he M
ARPO
L re
gula
tions
(MEP
C)
2.0.
1.25
C
ompr
ehen
sive
re
view
of
is
sues
re
late
d to
th
e re
spon
sibi
litie
s of
G
over
nmen
ts
and
deve
lopm
ent o
f mea
sure
s to
enc
oura
ge fl
ag S
tate
com
plia
nce
(MSC
/ME
PC
) 2.
0.1.
26
Rep
orts
on
the
aver
age
sulp
hur
cont
ent
of r
esid
ual f
uel o
il su
pplie
d fo
r us
e on
boa
rd s
hips
(M
EPC
/Sec
reta
riat)
2.0.
1.27
S
umm
ary
repo
rts a
nd a
naly
ses
of m
anda
tory
repo
rts u
nder
MA
RPO
L (M
EP
C/S
ecre
taria
t) 2.
0.1.
28
GIS
IS m
odul
e on
man
dato
ry a
nd n
on-m
anda
tory
requ
irem
ents
(Sec
reta
riat)
2.0.
1.30
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ent:
deve
lopm
ent
of u
nifie
d in
terp
reta
tions
for
cha
pter
7 o
f th
e 20
00
HSC
Cod
e (M
SC)
2.0.
1.31
M
anda
tory
in
stru
men
ts:
deve
lopm
ent
of
amen
dmen
ts
to
SO
LAS
re
gula
tion
II-1/
40.2
co
ncer
ning
gen
eral
requ
irem
ents
on
elec
trica
l ins
talla
tions
(MS
C)
2.0.
1.32
R
evis
ion
of th
e pr
ovis
ions
for h
elic
opte
r fac
ilitie
s in
SO
LAS
and
the
MO
DU
Cod
e (M
SC)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 7
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
2.0.
2 E
ncou
rage
and
sup
port
impl
emen
tatio
n of
th
e Vo
lunt
ary
IMO
Mem
ber S
tate
Aud
it S
chem
e
2.0.
2.1
Inpu
t re
late
d to
mar
ine
envi
ronm
ent
prot
ectio
n to
the
Vol
unta
ry I
MO
Mem
ber
Sta
te A
udit
Sch
eme
and
to th
e C
ode
for t
he im
plem
enta
tion
of m
anda
tory
IMO
inst
rum
ents
(ME
PC
) 2.
0.2.
2 R
evie
w o
f the
Cod
e fo
r th
e Im
plem
enta
tion
of M
anda
tory
IM
O In
stru
men
ts a
nd c
onso
lidat
ed
audi
t sum
mar
y re
ports
, ad
optio
n of
the
new
IM
O I
nstru
men
ts I
mpl
emen
tatio
n (II
I) C
ode
and
mak
ing
the
III C
ode
and
audi
ting
man
dato
ry (A
ssem
bly,
Cou
ncil,
MSC
and
MEP
C)
2.0.
2.3
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
app
rove
d pr
opos
als
for
the
furth
er d
evel
opm
ent
of t
he A
udit
Sch
eme
(Ass
embl
y, C
ounc
il, c
omm
ittee
s (a
s ap
prop
riate
), Se
cret
aria
t) 2.
0.2.
4 O
rgan
izat
ion,
del
iver
y an
d re
porti
ng o
f Sta
te a
udits
(Sec
reta
riat)
2.0.
2.5
Up
to 6
0 au
dito
rs tr
aine
d pe
r yea
r (S
ecre
taria
t) 2.
0.2.
6 C
apac
ity-b
uild
ing
aspe
cts
of th
e S
chem
e re
flect
ed in
the
ITC
P (T
CC
) 2.
0.2.
7 Im
plem
enta
tion
of p
re- a
nd p
ost-a
udit
tech
nica
l ass
ista
nce
activ
ities
(Sec
reta
riat)
2.0.
2.8
Met
hodo
logy
for t
he a
naly
sis
of c
onso
lidat
ed a
udit
sum
mar
y re
ports
(Sec
reta
riat)
2.0.
3 E
ncou
rage
the
wor
ldw
ide
prov
isio
n of
m
ariti
me
sear
ch a
nd re
scue
ser
vice
s 2.
0.3.
1 Te
chni
cal g
uida
nce
for t
he e
stab
lishm
ent o
f reg
iona
l MR
CC
s an
d M
RS
Cs
in A
frica
, sup
porte
d by
the
ISAR
Fun
d (M
SC)
2.0.
3.2
Furth
er d
evel
opm
ent
of t
he G
loba
l SA
R P
lan
for
the
prov
isio
n of
mar
itim
e S
AR
ser
vice
s,
incl
udin
g pr
oced
ures
for r
oute
ing
dist
ress
info
rmat
ion
in th
e G
MD
SS (M
SC)
2.0.
3.3
ITC
P p
rogr
amm
e im
plem
ente
d to
con
tribu
te t
o th
e w
orld
wid
e pr
ovis
ion
of m
ariti
me
SAR
se
rvic
es (S
ecre
taria
t) 2.
0.3.
4 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
2.0.
3.5
Rep
orts
on
the
Cos
pas-
Sar
sat
Sys
tem
mon
itore
d an
d th
e lis
t of
IM
O d
ocum
ents
and
pu
blic
atio
ns w
hich
sho
uld
be h
eld
by M
RC
Cs
upda
ted
(MSC
) 2.
0.3.
6 D
evel
opm
ent
of g
uide
lines
on
harm
oniz
ed a
eron
autic
al a
nd m
ariti
me
sear
ch a
nd r
escu
e pr
oced
ures
, inc
ludi
ng S
AR tr
aini
ng m
atte
rs (M
SC)
3.1.
1 P
artic
ipat
e in
env
ironm
enta
l pro
gram
mes
w
ith U
ND
P, U
NEP
, Wor
ld B
ank,
etc
. 3.
1.1.
1R
Gui
danc
e fo
r the
Sec
reta
riat c
once
rnin
g th
e en
viro
nmen
tal p
rogr
amm
es a
nd p
roje
cts
to w
hich
th
e O
rgan
izat
ion
cont
ribut
es o
r ex
ecut
es,
such
as
GE
F, U
ND
P,
UN
EP
and
Wor
ld B
ank
proj
ects
or
prog
ram
mes
, an
d th
e IM
O/U
NEP
for
um o
n re
gion
al c
oope
ratio
n to
add
ress
m
arin
e po
llutio
n (M
EPC
) 3.
1.1.
2 R
epor
ts o
n re
sour
ce m
obiliz
atio
n fo
r, an
d on
impl
emen
tatio
n of
, env
ironm
enta
l pro
gram
mes
(M
EP
C/T
CC
/Sec
reta
riat)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 8
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
3.1.
2 E
stab
lish
partn
ersh
ips
with
gov
ernm
ents
, or
gani
zatio
ns a
nd in
dust
ry to
enh
ance
the
deliv
ery
of IM
O's
cap
acity
-bui
ldin
g pr
ogra
mm
es
3.1.
2.1
Gui
danc
e fo
r th
e Se
cret
aria
t co
ncer
ning
par
tner
ship
s w
ith t
he i
ndus
try (
Glo
bal
Initi
ativ
e)
aim
ing
at p
rom
otin
g im
plem
enta
tion
of t
he O
PRC
Con
vent
ion
and
the
OPR
C-H
NS
Pro
toco
l (M
EPC
) 3.
1.2.
2 R
epor
ts o
n im
plem
enta
tion
of r
esol
utio
n A
.965
(23)
on
Dev
elop
men
t an
d im
prov
emen
t of
pa
rtner
ship
arr
ange
men
ts fo
r tec
hnic
al c
oope
ratio
n (T
CC
/Sec
reta
riat)
3.1.
3 P
rom
ote
and
stre
ngth
en p
artn
ersh
ips
with
gl
obal
mar
itim
e tra
inin
g in
stitu
tions
and
tra
inin
g pr
ogra
mm
es
3.1.
3.1
ITC
P
prog
ram
me
impl
emen
ted
on
the
enha
ncem
ent
of
mar
itim
e tra
inin
g ca
paci
ties
(Sec
reta
riat)
3.2.
1 M
obiliz
e an
d al
loca
te fi
nanc
ial o
r in-
kind
re
sour
ces
incl
udin
g th
e pr
omot
ion
of
tech
nica
l and
eco
nom
ic c
oope
ratio
n am
ong
deve
lopi
ng c
ount
ries
(TC
DC
and
EC
DC
)
3.2.
1.1
TCD
C re
flect
ed in
the
ITC
P an
d pa
rtner
ship
s (T
CC
/Sec
reta
riat)
3.2.
1.2
Rep
orts
on
the
TC F
und,
vol
unta
ry tr
ust f
unds
, cas
h co
ntrib
utio
ns a
nd in
-kin
d su
ppor
t und
er
the
ITC
P (T
CC
/Sec
reta
riat)
3.2.
2 Im
plem
ent t
he a
ppro
ved
mec
hani
sm to
en
sure
the
sust
aina
ble
finan
cing
of t
he
ITC
P
3.2.
2.1
Rev
iew
of
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
app
rove
d m
echa
nism
on
sust
aina
ble
finan
cing
of
the
ITC
P (T
CC
/Sec
reta
riat)
3.3.
1 Es
tabl
ish,
mai
ntai
n an
d pr
omot
e th
e lin
kage
bet
wee
n th
e IT
CP
and
the
MD
Gs
3.3.
1.1
Rep
orts
on
the
prom
otio
n an
d im
plem
enta
tion
of r
esol
utio
n A
.100
6(25
) on
The
Lin
kage
be
twee
n th
e In
tegr
ated
Tec
hnic
al C
o-op
erat
ion
Pro
gram
me
and
the
Mill
enni
um D
evel
opm
ent
Goa
ls (T
CC
/Sec
reta
riat)
3.4.
1 Im
plem
ent t
he a
rrang
emen
ts to
iden
tify
the
emer
ging
nee
ds o
f dev
elop
ing
Sta
tes
in g
ener
al a
nd th
e de
velo
pmen
tal n
eeds
of
SID
S an
d LD
Cs
in p
artic
ular
(s
ee H
LA 9
-1.1
)
3.4.
1.1
Gui
danc
e on
ide
ntify
ing
the
emer
ging
nee
ds o
f de
velo
ping
Sta
tes,
in
parti
cula
r S
IDS
and
LDC
s (M
EPC
) 3.
4.1.
2 R
evie
w o
f the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
arra
ngem
ents
mad
e fo
r the
iden
tifie
d em
ergi
ng n
eeds
of
deve
lopi
ng S
tate
s in
gen
eral
and
the
dev
elop
men
tal n
eeds
of
SID
S an
d LD
Cs
in p
artic
ular
(T
CC
/Sec
reta
riat)
3.4.
1.3
Appr
oved
ITC
P fo
r 20
12-2
013
refle
ctin
g th
e em
ergi
ng n
eeds
of
deve
lopi
ng c
ount
ries,
SID
S
and
LDC
s (T
CC
) 3.
5.1
Con
side
r, pr
iorit
ize
and
impl
emen
t te
chni
cal c
oope
ratio
n pr
ogra
mm
es
3.5.
1.1
Man
age
the
deliv
ery
of IM
O- a
nd d
onor
-fund
ed p
rogr
amm
es d
urin
g 20
10-2
011
(Sec
reta
riat)
3.5.
1.2
Inpu
t to
the
ITC
P on
mar
itim
e sa
fety
and
sec
urity
(MSC
) 3.
5.1.
3 In
put t
o th
e IT
CP
on m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t pro
tect
ion
(MEP
C)
3.5.
1.4
Inpu
t to
the
ITC
P on
mar
itim
e le
gisl
atio
n (L
EG)
3.5.
1.5
Inpu
t to
the
ITC
P on
faci
litat
ion
of in
tern
atio
nal m
ariti
me
traffi
c (F
AL)
3.5.
1.6
Inpu
t to
the
ITC
P on
sus
tain
able
dev
elop
men
t and
ach
ieve
men
t of t
he M
DG
s (T
CC
) 3.
5.1.
7 En
hanc
ed p
riorit
izat
ion
of th
e IT
CP
for 2
012-
2013
(TC
C/S
ecre
taria
t)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 9
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
3.5.
2 S
treng
then
the
role
of w
omen
in th
e m
ariti
me
sect
or
3.5.
2.1
Rep
orts
on
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
enh
ance
d gl
obal
pro
gram
me
for
the
inte
grat
ion
of
wom
en in
the
mar
itim
e se
ctor
, inc
ludi
ng a
revi
ew o
f the
regi
onal
ass
ocia
tions
for w
omen
in th
e m
ariti
me
and
port
sect
ors
(TC
C/S
ecre
taria
t) 3.
5.3
Dev
elop
new
mea
sure
s to
impr
ove
the
deliv
ery
of te
chni
cal a
ssis
tanc
e 3.
5.3.
1 R
epor
ts o
n ne
w a
nd c
ost-e
ffect
ive
mea
sure
s to
del
iver
tech
nica
l ass
ista
nce
(TC
C/S
ecre
taria
t)
3.5.
4 U
nder
take
regu
lar T
C im
pact
as
sess
men
ts
3.5.
4.1
Agr
eed
para
met
ers
for t
he IT
CP
Impa
ct A
sses
smen
t Exe
rcis
e co
verin
g 20
08-2
011
(TC
C)
4.0.
1 E
nsur
e th
at th
e O
rgan
izat
ion,
with
in
agre
ed a
ppro
pria
tions
, use
s its
reso
urce
s ef
ficie
ntly
and
effe
ctiv
ely
4.0.
1.1
App
rove
d ac
coun
ts a
nd a
udite
d fin
anci
al re
ports
(Ass
embl
y/C
ounc
il)
4.0.
1.2
Stre
ngth
ened
bud
geta
ry a
nd fi
nanc
ial m
anag
emen
t and
con
trol (
Secr
etar
iat)
4.0.
1.3
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
th
e re
sults
-bas
ed
budg
et
2010
-201
1 an
d fu
rther
de
velo
pmen
t of
re
sults
-bas
ed m
anag
emen
t (S
ecre
taria
t) 4.
0.1.
4 Es
tabl
ishm
ent o
f a T
radi
ng F
und
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
1.5
Effe
ctiv
e im
plem
enta
tion
of h
uman
reso
urce
s po
licie
s, ru
les
and
regu
latio
ns (S
ecre
taria
t) 4.
0.1.
6 P
olic
ies
and
prac
tices
im
plem
ente
d to
fur
ther
alig
n th
e S
ecre
taria
t's o
pera
tions
, in
clud
ing
man
agem
ent
of
the
Hea
dqua
rters
bu
ildin
g,
with
th
e "C
limat
e N
eutra
l U
N"
initi
ativ
e (S
ecre
taria
t) 4.
0.1.
7 Ap
prov
ed re
port
on IT
CP
impl
emen
tatio
n du
ring
2008
-200
9 (T
CC
) 4.
0.1.
8 In
tern
al s
yste
ms,
rul
es a
nd p
roce
dure
s de
velo
ped
for
intro
duct
ion
of I
PSAS
as
of 2
010
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
1.9
Con
tinue
d up
grad
e of
SAP
and
intro
duct
ion
of S
AP H
uman
Res
ourc
es a
nd P
ayro
ll m
odul
es
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
2 C
reat
e a
know
ledg
e an
d in
form
atio
n-ba
sed
Org
aniz
atio
n th
roug
h im
prov
ed
man
agem
ent a
nd d
isse
min
atio
n of
in
form
atio
n m
akin
g us
e of
app
ropr
iate
te
chno
logy
4.0.
2.1
Gui
danc
e on
the
est
ablis
hmen
t or
fur
ther
dev
elop
men
t of
inf
orm
atio
n sy
stem
s (d
atab
ases
, w
ebsi
tes,
etc
.) as
par
t of t
he G
loba
l Int
egra
ted
Shi
ppin
g In
form
atio
n S
yste
m (G
ISIS
) pla
tform
, as
app
ropr
iate
(all
com
mitt
ees,
as
appr
opria
te)
4.0.
2.2
Dev
elop
men
t and
man
agem
ent o
f man
dato
ry IM
O n
umbe
r sch
emes
(MSC
) 4.
0.2.
3 P
roto
cols
on
data
exc
hang
e w
ith o
ther
int
erna
tiona
l, re
gion
al a
nd n
atio
nal
data
pro
vide
rs
(all
com
mitt
ees,
as
appr
opria
te/S
ecre
taria
t) 4.
0.2.
4 Im
prov
ed IM
O, I
MO
DO
CS
and
Intra
net w
ebsi
tes
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
2.5
Incr
ease
d nu
mbe
r of e
lect
roni
c pu
blic
atio
ns (S
ecre
taria
t) N
EW
E
lect
roni
c pu
blic
atio
ns o
n pr
epar
edne
ss f
or a
nd r
espo
nse
to a
ccid
enta
l m
arin
e po
llutio
n pr
oduc
ed jo
intly
with
the
oil i
ndus
try (M
EPC
/Sec
reta
riat)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 10
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24-A
dd-1
.doc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
NE
W
Qua
rterly
ele
ctro
nic
upda
tes
of t
he S
OP
EP
/SM
PE
P l
ist
unde
r M
ARPO
L An
nexe
s I
and
II (S
ecre
taria
t) 4.
0.2.
6 Fu
rther
de
velo
pmen
t of
th
e M
ariti
me
Know
ledg
e C
entre
an
d its
in
form
atio
n se
rvic
es
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
2.7
Furth
er d
evel
opm
ent o
f IM
O D
ata
prov
idin
g sh
ippi
ng/m
ariti
me
sect
or in
form
atio
n (S
ecre
taria
t) 4.
0.2.
8 Pr
ovis
ion
of IC
T se
rvic
es to
agr
eed
avai
labi
lity
targ
ets
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
3 En
hanc
e tra
nspa
renc
y in
the
Org
aniz
atio
n's
oper
atio
ns
4.0.
3.1
Com
preh
ensi
ve, t
rans
pare
nt, d
eliv
erab
le a
nd a
ppro
ved
Stra
tegi
c P
lan,
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
n P
lan
and
resu
lts-b
ased
bud
get f
or 2
012-
2013
(Ass
embl
y/C
ounc
il/S
ecre
taria
t) 4.
0.3.
2 Fu
rther
de
velo
pmen
t of
a
data
base
on
th
e S
trate
gic
Pla
n's
perfo
rman
ce
indi
cato
rs
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
3.3
Dev
elop
men
t of a
dat
abas
e on
the
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
n P
lan
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
4 M
aint
ain
a ris
k m
anag
emen
t fra
mew
ork
4.0.
4.1R
Th
ird it
erat
ion
of th
e ris
k m
anag
emen
t pro
cess
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
4.2
Pro
posa
ls o
n ap
plyi
ng th
e R
isk
Man
agem
ent F
ram
ewor
k to
all
elem
ents
of t
he S
trate
gic
and
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
n Pl
ans
(Cou
ncil)
4.
0.5
Kee
p un
der r
evie
w w
orki
ng m
etho
ds a
nd
proc
esse
s 4.
0.5.
1 R
evis
ed g
uide
lines
on
orga
niza
tion
and
met
hod
of w
ork,
as
appr
opria
te (
Cou
ncil
and
all
com
mitt
ees)
4.
0.6
Pro
vide
inde
pend
ent a
nd e
ffect
ive
inte
rnal
ov
ersi
ght a
nd e
valu
atio
n fu
nctio
ns
4.0.
6.1
Annu
al in
tern
al a
udit
prog
ram
me
impl
emen
ted
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
6.2
Inde
pend
ent r
epor
ts o
n th
e ev
alua
tion
of tr
aini
ng a
ctiv
ities
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
7 C
oord
inat
e an
d m
onito
r the
del
iver
y of
the
Org
aniz
atio
n's
wor
k pl
ans
4.0.
7.1
Wor
k pl
ans
mon
itore
d by
the
Sec
reta
ry-G
ener
al a
nd th
e S
enio
r Man
agem
ent C
omm
ittee
and
fo
llow
-up
actio
n im
plem
ente
d (S
ecre
taria
t) 4.
0.7.
2 E
stab
lishm
ent o
f kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent a
nd k
now
ledg
e sh
arin
g m
echa
nism
s, in
par
ticul
ar
to s
uppo
rt m
onito
ring
of w
ork
plan
targ
ets
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
7.3
Sec
reta
ry-G
ener
al's
act
iviti
es c
oord
inat
ed, o
rgan
ized
and
impl
emen
ted
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
7.4
Dep
osita
ry a
nd a
ccre
dita
tion
func
tions
car
ried
out e
xped
itiou
sly
(Sec
reta
riat)
4.0.
7.5
Mee
tings
pro
gram
me
deliv
ered
thro
ugh
inte
rpre
tatio
n, tr
ansl
atio
n, w
ord
proc
essi
ng, d
ocum
ent
prod
uctio
n an
d di
ssem
inat
ion
(Sec
reta
riat)
Bro
ad c
ateg
ory:
Dev
elop
ing
and
mai
ntai
ning
a c
ompr
ehen
sive
fram
ewor
k fo
r saf
e, s
ecur
e, e
ffici
ent a
nd e
nviro
nmen
tally
sou
nd s
hipp
ing
5.1.
1 R
evie
w th
e ad
equa
cy o
f pa
ssen
ger s
hip
safe
ty p
rovi
sion
s 5.
1.1.
1 M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: de
velo
pmen
t of
per
form
ance
sta
ndar
ds f
or r
ecov
ery
syst
ems
for
all
type
s of
shi
p (M
SC)
5.1.
1.2
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 11
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
5.1.
1.3
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: d
evel
opm
ent o
f gui
delin
es o
n sa
fe r
etur
n to
por
t for
pas
seng
er s
hips
(M
SC)
5.1.
1.4
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: r
evie
w o
f fire
pro
tect
ion
requ
irem
ents
for o
n-de
ck c
argo
are
as (M
SC)
5.1.
1.5
Man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
revi
ew o
f da
mag
e st
abilit
y re
gula
tions
for
ro-
ro p
asse
nger
shi
ps
(MSC
) 5.
1.1.
6 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.1.
1.7
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.
1.1.
8 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.1.
1.9
Non
-man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: d
evel
opm
ent o
f tra
inin
g st
anda
rds
for r
ecov
ery
syst
ems
(MS
C)
5.1.
1.10
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.1.
1.11
R
ecom
men
datio
n on
eva
cuat
ion
anal
ysis
for n
ew a
nd e
xist
ing
pass
enge
r shi
ps (M
SC
) 5.
1.2
Dev
elop
men
t and
revi
ew o
f saf
e ev
acua
tion,
sur
viva
l, re
cove
ry a
nd
treat
men
t of p
eopl
e fo
llow
ing
mar
itim
e ca
sual
ties
or in
cas
e of
dis
tress
5.1.
2.1
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
t: m
akin
g th
e pr
ovis
ions
of M
SC.1
/Circ
.120
6/R
ev.1
man
dato
ry (M
SC)
5.1.
2.2
Non
-man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
t: gu
idel
ines
for
sta
ndar
diza
tion
of l
ifebo
at c
ontro
l ar
rang
emen
ts
(MSC
) 5.
1.2.
3 D
evel
opm
ent o
f mea
sure
s to
pro
tect
the
safe
ty o
f per
sons
resc
ued
at s
ea (M
SC)
5.1.
2.4
Dev
elop
men
t of a
new
fram
ewor
k of
requ
irem
ents
for l
ife-s
avin
g ap
plia
nces
(MS
C)
5.1.
3 En
hanc
e th
e sa
fety
of n
avig
atio
n in
vita
l sh
ippi
ng la
nes
5.1.
3.1
IMO
par
ticip
atio
n in
the
Co-
oper
ativ
e M
echa
nism
for
the
Stra
its o
f M
alac
ca a
nd S
inga
pore
(S
ecre
taria
t) 5.
1.3.
2 IT
CP
sup
port
for
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
Djib
outi
Cod
e of
Con
duct
con
cern
ing
the
repr
essi
on o
f pi
racy
and
arm
ed r
obbe
ry a
gain
st s
hips
in t
he w
este
rn I
ndia
n O
cean
and
the
G
ulf o
f Ade
n (T
CC
/Sec
reta
riat)
5.2.
1 Ke
ep u
nder
revi
ew th
e te
chni
cal a
nd
oper
atio
nal s
afet
y as
pect
s of
all
type
s of
sh
ips,
incl
udin
g fis
hing
ves
sels
5.2.
1.1
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts:
deve
lopm
ent
of a
men
dmen
ts t
o th
e cr
iterio
n fo
r m
axim
um a
ngle
of
heel
in tu
rns
of th
e 20
08 IS
Cod
e (M
SC)
5.2.
1.2
Man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
amen
dmen
ts t
o S
OLA
S r
elat
ed t
o th
e fir
e re
sist
ance
of
vent
ilatio
n du
cts
(MSC
) 5.
2.1.
3 M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: dev
elop
men
t of i
nter
natio
nal c
ode
of s
afet
y fo
r sh
ips
usin
g ga
ses
or
othe
r low
flas
hpoi
nt fu
els
(MSC
) 5.
2.1.
4 M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: dev
elop
men
t of r
evis
ed IG
C C
ode
(MS
C)
5.2.
1.5
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: d
evel
opm
ent o
f am
endm
ents
to S
OLA
S r
egul
atio
n II-
1/4
conc
erni
ng
subd
ivis
ion
stan
dard
s fo
r car
go s
hips
(MS
C)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 12
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24-A
dd-1
.doc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
5.2.
1.6
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: a
men
dmen
ts fo
r mea
ns o
f esc
ape
from
mac
hine
ry s
pace
s (M
SC)
5.2.
1.7
revi
ew o
f gen
eral
car
go s
hip
safe
ty (M
SC)
5.2.
1.8
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.
2.1.
9 M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: har
mon
ized
req
uire
men
ts fo
r th
e lo
catio
n of
ent
ranc
es, a
ir in
lets
and
op
enin
gs in
the
supe
rstru
ctur
es o
f tan
kers
(MSC
) 5.
2.1.
10
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: r
evie
w o
f fire
pro
tect
ion
requ
irem
ents
for o
n-de
ck c
argo
are
as (M
SC)
5.2.
1.11
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
1.12
M
anda
tory
ins
trum
ents
: re
quire
men
ts f
or s
hips
car
ryin
g hy
drog
en a
nd c
ompr
esse
d na
tura
l ga
s ve
hicl
es (M
SC)
5.2.
1.13
M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: dev
elop
men
t of s
afet
y ob
ject
ives
and
func
tiona
l req
uire
men
ts o
f the
G
uide
lines
on
alte
rnat
ive
desi
gn a
nd a
rran
gem
ents
for S
OLA
S c
hapt
ers
II-1
and
III (M
SC
) 5.
2.1.
14
Man
dato
ry
inst
rum
ents
: de
velo
pmen
t of
am
endm
ents
to
th
e LS
A
Cod
e fo
r th
erm
al
perfo
rman
ce o
f im
mer
sion
sui
ts (M
SC
) 5.
2.1.
15
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts:
deve
lopm
ent
of a
men
dmen
ts t
o th
e LS
A C
ode
for
free-
fall
lifeb
oats
w
ith fl
oat-f
ree
capa
bilit
ies
(MSC
) 5.
2.1.
16
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: d
evel
opm
ent o
f sec
ond
gene
ratio
n in
tact
sta
bilit
y cr
iteria
(MSC
) 5.
2.1.
17
Man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
revi
sion
of
SO
LAS
cha
pter
II-1
sub
divi
sion
and
dam
age
stab
ility
re
gula
tions
(MSC
) 5.
2.1.
18
Man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
deve
lopm
ent
of a
men
dmen
ts t
o SO
LAS
chap
ter
II-1
subd
ivis
ion
stan
dard
s fo
r car
go s
hips
(MS
C)
5.2.
1.19
R
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: d
evel
opm
ent o
f a m
anda
tory
Cod
e of
shi
ps o
pera
ting
in p
olar
wat
ers
(MSC
/MEP
C)
5.2.
1.20
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
1.21
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
1.22
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: de
velo
pmen
t of
a n
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ent
on r
egul
atio
ns f
or
non-
conv
entio
n sh
ips
(MS
C)
5.2.
1.23
N
on-m
anda
tory
in
stru
men
ts:
revi
ew
and
upda
te
of
the
Sur
vey
Gui
delin
es
unde
r th
e H
arm
oniz
ed S
yste
m o
f Su
rvey
and
Cer
tific
atio
n an
d th
e an
nexe
s to
the
Cod
e fo
r th
e Im
plem
enta
tion
of M
anda
tory
IMO
Inst
rum
ents
(MSC
/MEP
C)
5.2.
1.24
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
1.25
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 13
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
5.2.
1.26
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: pro
tect
ion
agai
nst n
oise
on
boar
d sh
ips
(MSC
) 5.
2.1.
27
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.
2.1.
28
Non
-man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts:
clas
sific
atio
n of
offs
hore
ind
ustry
ves
sels
and
con
side
ratio
n of
th
e ne
ed fo
r a c
ode
for o
ffsho
re c
onst
ruct
ion
supp
ort v
esse
ls (M
SC
) 5.
2.1.
29
Pro
mot
ion
of t
he i
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
res
olut
ion
A.9
25(2
2) o
n En
try i
nto
forc
e of
the
199
5 ST
CW
-F C
onve
ntio
n (M
SC)
5.2.
1.30
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
1.31
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
1.32
N
on-m
anda
tory
ins
trum
ent:
deve
lopm
ent
of g
uide
lines
for
use
of
Fibr
e R
einf
orce
d Pl
astic
(F
RP)
with
in s
hip
stru
ctur
es (M
SC)
5.2.
1.33
D
evel
opm
ent o
f gui
delin
es fo
r win
g-in
-gro
und
craf
t (M
SC
) 5.
2.1.
34
Non
-man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: d
evel
opm
ent o
f am
endm
ents
to
Par
t B o
f the
200
8 IS
Cod
e on
to
win
g an
d an
chor
han
dlin
g op
erat
ions
(MSC
) 5.
2.1.
35
Man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
revi
sion
of
test
ing
requ
irem
ents
for
life
jack
et R
TDs
in r
esol
utio
n M
SC.8
1(70
) (M
SC)
5.2.
1.36
R
evis
ion
of t
he R
ecom
men
datio
n on
con
ditio
ns f
or t
he a
ppro
val
of s
ervi
cing
sta
tions
for
in
flata
ble
life-
rafts
(res
olut
ion
A.76
1(18
)) (M
SC)
5.2.
1.37
A
men
dmen
ts t
o SO
LAS
reg
ulat
ion
II-1/
11 a
nd d
evel
opm
ent
of a
ssoc
iate
d G
uide
lines
to
ensu
re th
e ad
equa
cy o
f tes
ting
arra
ngem
ents
for w
ater
tight
com
partm
ents
(MSC
) 5.
2.2
Dev
elop
men
t and
revi
ew o
f tra
inin
g an
d w
atch
keep
ing
stan
dard
s an
d op
erat
iona
l pr
oced
ures
for m
ariti
me
pers
onne
l
5.2.
2.1
Non
-man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
deve
lopm
ent
of g
uida
nce
for
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
201
0 M
anila
Am
endm
ents
(MSC
) 5.
2.2.
2 M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: inp
ut re
gard
ing
MA
RP
OL,
BW
M a
nd o
ther
env
ironm
enta
l con
vent
ions
(M
EPC
) 5.
2.2.
3 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
2.4
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.
2.2.
5 Va
lidat
ed m
odel
trai
ning
cou
rses
(MSC
) 5.
2.2.
6 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
2.7
Rep
orts
on
unla
wfu
l pra
ctic
es a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith c
ertif
icat
es o
f com
pete
ncy
(Sec
reta
riat)
5.2.
2.8
Rep
orts
to th
e M
SC
on
info
rmat
ion
com
mun
icat
ed b
y S
TCW
Par
ties
(Sec
reta
riat)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 14
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24-A
dd-1
.doc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
5.2.
2.9
Man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
t: de
velo
pmen
t of
am
endm
ent
to S
OLA
S t
o m
anda
te e
nclo
sed
spac
e en
try a
nd re
scue
dril
ls (M
SC)
5.2.
2.10
M
anda
tory
ins
trum
ent:
deve
lopm
ent
of a
men
dmen
ts t
o th
e FS
S C
ode
for
com
mun
icat
ion
equi
pmen
t for
fire
-figh
ting
team
s (M
SC)
5.2.
2.11
P
repa
ratio
n of
gui
delin
es f
or t
he i
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
the
med
ical
sta
ndar
ds o
f th
e M
anila
am
endm
ents
(MS
C)
5.2.
3 K
eep
unde
r rev
iew
sta
ndar
ds fo
r saf
e ha
ndlin
g an
d ca
rriag
e by
sea
of s
olid
and
liq
uid
carg
oes
carr
ied
in b
ulk
and
pack
aged
form
5.2.
3.1
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: d
evel
opm
ent o
f am
endm
ents
to C
SC 1
972
and
asso
ciat
ed c
ircul
ars
(MSC
) 5.
2.3.
2 M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: Dev
elop
men
t of m
easu
res
to p
reve
nt lo
ss o
f con
tain
ers
(MSC
) 5.
2.3.
3R
Man
dato
ry
inst
rum
ents
: de
velo
pmen
t of
am
endm
ents
to
th
e IM
SB
C
Cod
e,
incl
udin
g ev
alua
tion
of p
rope
rties
of s
olid
bul
k ca
rgoe
s (M
SC
/ME
PC
) 5.
2.3.
4 M
anda
tory
ins
trum
ents
: de
velo
pmen
t of
am
endm
ents
to
the
IMD
G C
ode
and
supp
lem
ents
(M
SC)
5.2.
3.5
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: h
arm
oniz
atio
n of
the
IMD
G C
ode
with
the
UN
Rec
omm
enda
tions
on
the
Tran
spor
t of D
ange
rous
Goo
ds (M
SC)
5.2.
3.6
Man
dato
ry
inst
rum
ents
: re
view
of
fir
e pr
otec
tion
arra
ngem
ents
fo
r th
e st
owag
e of
w
ater
-reac
tive
mat
eria
ls (M
SC)
5.2.
3.7
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.
2.3.
8 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
3.9
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.
2.3.
10
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: i
nput
rega
rdin
g M
ARPO
L An
nexe
s I a
nd II
and
the
IBC
Cod
e (M
EPC
) 5.
2.3.
11R
M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: am
endm
ents
to M
ARPO
L An
nex
III a
s re
quire
d (M
EPC
) 5.
2.3.
12
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.
2.3.
13
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.
2.3.
14
Non
-man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: r
evis
ed G
uide
lines
for p
acki
ng o
f car
go tr
ansp
ort u
nits
(MSC
) 5.
2.3.
15
Non
-man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts:
Mea
sure
s to
pre
vent
fire
s an
d ex
plos
ions
on
chem
ical
tan
kers
an
d pr
oduc
t ta
nker
s un
der
20,0
00 d
eadw
eigh
t to
nnes
ope
ratin
g w
ithou
t in
ert
gas
syst
ems
(MSC
) 5.
2.3.
16
Pro
visi
ons
for
the
inst
alla
tion
of e
quip
men
t for
det
ectio
n of
rad
ioac
tive
sour
ces
or r
adio
activ
e co
ntam
inat
ed o
bjec
ts (M
SC)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 15
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
5.2.
4 Ke
ep u
nder
revi
ew m
easu
res
to im
prov
e na
viga
tiona
l saf
ety,
shi
ps' r
oute
ing,
shi
p re
porti
ng a
nd m
onito
ring
syst
ems,
ves
sel
traffi
c se
rvic
es, r
equi
rem
ents
and
st
anda
rds
for s
hipb
orne
nav
igat
iona
l aid
s an
d sy
stem
s an
d lo
ng-r
ange
trac
king
and
id
entif
icat
ion
(LR
IT).
5.2.
4.1
Man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
new
rou
tein
g m
easu
res
and
man
dato
ry s
hip
repo
rting
sys
tem
s,
incl
udin
g as
soci
ated
pro
tect
ive
mea
sure
s fo
r PSS
As (M
SC)
5.2.
4.2
Non
-man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
revi
sion
of
the
Rec
omm
enda
tion
for
the
prot
ectio
n of
the
AIS
VH
F D
ata
Link
(res
olut
ion
MSC
.140
(76)
) (M
SC)
5.2.
4.3
Man
dato
ry
inst
rum
ents
:
amen
dmen
ts
to
the
Gen
eral
P
rovi
sion
s on
Sh
ips'
R
oute
ing
(reso
lutio
n A.
572(
14),
as a
men
ded)
(MSC
) 5.
2.4.
4 N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: im
plem
enta
tion
of L
RIT
sys
tem
(Sec
reta
riat)
(MSC
) 5.
2.4.
5 N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: gui
danc
e on
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
UN
CLO
S p
rovi
sion
s vi
s-à-
vis
IMO
in
stru
men
ts (L
EG
) 5.
2.4.
6 N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: co
nsid
erat
ion
of L
RIT
mat
ters
(MSC
) 5.
2.4.
7 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
4.8
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.
2.4.
9 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
4.10
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
4.11
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: am
endm
ents
to th
e P
erfo
rman
ce s
tand
ards
for V
DR
and
S-V
DR
(M
SC)
5.2.
4.12
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
5.2.
4.13
Non
-man
dato
ry
inst
rum
ents
: de
velo
pmen
t of
po
licy
and
new
sy
mbo
ls
for
AIS
A
ids
to
Nav
igat
ion
(MSC
)5.
2.4.
14D
evel
opm
ent o
f per
form
ance
sta
ndar
ds fo
r inc
linom
eter
s (M
SC
)5.
2.4.
15P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)5.
2.5
Mon
itor a
nd e
valu
ate
the
oper
atio
n of
the
Glo
bal M
ariti
me
Dis
tress
and
Saf
ety
Syst
em (G
MD
SS)
5.2.
5.1
Prop
osed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)5.
2.5.
2N
on-m
anda
tory
in
stru
men
ts:
cons
ider
atio
n of
op
erat
iona
l an
d te
chni
cal
coor
dina
tion
prov
isio
ns o
f mar
itim
e sa
fety
info
rmat
ion
(MS
I) se
rvic
es, i
nclu
ding
dev
elop
men
t and
revi
ew o
f re
late
d do
cum
ents
(MSC
) 5.
2.5.
3N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: gu
idel
ines
on
emer
genc
y ra
dioc
omm
unic
atio
ns,
incl
udin
g fa
lse
aler
ts (M
SC
)5.
2.5.
4Fu
rther
dev
elop
men
t of t
he G
MD
SS m
aste
r pla
n on
sho
re-b
ased
faci
litie
s (M
SC)
5.2.
5.5
Con
side
ratio
n an
d de
velo
pmen
ts in
Inm
arsa
t and
Cop
sas-
Sars
at (M
SC
)5.
2.5.
6Pr
opos
ed fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.2.
5.7
Dev
elop
men
ts in
mar
itim
e ra
dioc
omm
unic
atio
n sy
stem
s an
d te
chno
logy
(MS
C)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 16
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24-A
dd-1
.doc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
5.2.
5.8
Prop
osed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)5.
2.5.
9Pr
opos
ed fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.2.
5.10
Dev
elop
men
t of m
easu
res
to a
void
fals
e di
stre
ss a
lerts
(MSC
)5.
2.5.
11S
copi
ng e
xerc
ise
to e
stab
lish
the
need
for
a r
evie
w o
f th
e el
emen
ts a
nd p
roce
dure
s of
the
G
MD
SS
(MSC
)5.
2.6
Dev
elop
men
t and
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
e-na
viga
tion
stra
tegy
5.
2.6.
1N
on-m
anda
tory
ins
trum
ents
: D
evel
opm
ent
of a
n e-
navi
gatio
n st
rate
gy i
mpl
emen
tatio
n pl
an
(MSC
) 5.
3.1
Keep
und
er re
view
and
sup
port
flag
Stat
e,
port
Stat
e an
d co
asta
l Sta
te
impl
emen
tatio
n fo
r enh
anci
ng a
nd
mon
itorin
g co
mpl
ianc
e
5.3.
1.1
Dev
elop
men
t of a
men
dmen
ts to
the
2011
ESP
Cod
e (M
SC)
5.3.
1.2
Non
-man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
revi
sed
Gui
delin
es o
n co
ntro
l an
d co
mpl
ianc
e m
easu
res
to
enha
nce
mar
itim
e se
curit
y, if
nec
essa
ry (M
SC
)5.
3.1.
3N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: re
vise
d pr
oced
ures
for
por
t S
tate
con
trol(
reso
lutio
n A.
787(
19),
as a
men
ded
by re
solu
tion
A.88
2(21
)) (M
SC)
5.3.
1.4
Non
-man
dato
ry
inst
rum
ents
: co
nsid
erat
ion
of
the
effic
acy
of
the
Con
tain
er
Insp
ectio
n Pr
ogra
mm
e (M
SC)
5.3.
1.6
Pro
mot
e th
e ha
rmon
izat
ion
of p
ort S
tate
con
trol a
ctiv
ities
and
col
lect
PSC
dat
a (M
SC)
5.3.
1.7
Met
hodo
logy
for t
he in
-dep
th a
naly
sis
of a
nnua
l PSC
repo
rt (M
SC)
5.3.
1.8
A ris
k as
sess
men
t com
paris
on b
etw
een
mar
ine
casu
altie
s an
d in
cide
nts
and
PS
C in
spec
tions
(M
SC)
5.3.
1.9
Non
-man
dato
ry in
stru
men
t: D
evel
opm
ent
of g
uida
nce
for
App
rove
d C
ontin
uous
Exa
min
atio
n Pr
ogra
mm
es (A
CEP
) (M
SC)
5.4.
1 D
evel
op a
stra
tegy
for t
he w
ork
rela
ted
to
the
role
of t
he h
uman
ele
men
t inc
ludi
ng
the
chai
n of
resp
onsi
bilit
y in
mar
itim
e sa
fety
5.4.
1.1
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
5.
4.1.
2 N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: gu
idel
ines
on
how
to
pres
ent
rele
vant
info
rmat
ion
to s
eafa
rers
(M
SC)
6.1.
1 Ke
ep u
nder
revi
ew m
easu
res
(e.g
., IS
PS
Cod
e) to
enh
ance
sec
urity
for s
hip
and
port
faci
litie
s in
clud
ing
the
ship
/por
t in
terfa
ce a
nd s
hipp
ing
lane
s of
stra
tegi
c im
porta
nce
6.1.
1.1
Non
-man
dato
ry
inst
rum
ents
: gu
idel
ines
an
d gu
idan
ce
on
the
impl
emen
tatio
n an
d in
terp
reta
tion
of S
OLA
S ch
apte
r XI-2
and
the
ISPS
Cod
e (M
SC)
6.1.
1.2
Non
-man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: m
easu
res
to e
nhan
ce th
e se
curit
y of
clo
sed
carg
o tra
nspo
rt un
its
and
of fr
eigh
t con
tain
ers
(MS
C/F
AL)
6.
1.1.
3 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 17
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
6.1.
2 Ke
ep u
nder
revi
ew th
e ad
equa
cy o
f the
le
gal f
ram
ewor
k to
sup
pres
s un
law
ful a
cts
agai
nst s
hips
and
fixe
d pl
atfo
rms
thro
ugh
the
SU
A C
onve
ntio
n an
d its
Pro
toco
l
6.1.
2.1
Advi
ce a
nd g
uida
nce
on is
sues
, as
may
be
requ
este
d, in
con
nect
ion
with
impl
emen
tatio
n of
S
UA
198
8/20
05 in
the
cont
ext o
f int
erna
tiona
l effo
rts to
com
bat t
erro
rism
and
pro
lifer
atio
n of
w
eapo
ns o
f mas
s de
stru
ctio
n an
d re
late
d m
ater
ials
(LE
G)
6.2.
1 P
rom
ulga
te in
form
atio
n on
pre
vent
ion
and
supp
ress
ion
of a
cts
of p
iracy
and
arm
ed
robb
ery
agai
nst s
hips
6.2.
1.1
Mon
thly
and
ann
ual r
epor
ts (M
SC)
6.2.
1.2
Rev
ised
gui
danc
e re
latin
g to
the
prev
entio
n of
pira
cy a
nd a
rmed
rob
bery
to r
efle
ct e
mer
ging
tre
nds
and
beha
viou
r pat
tern
s (M
SC/L
EG)
6.2.
1.3
Advi
ce a
nd g
uida
nce
to s
uppo
rt th
e re
view
of
IMO
ins
trum
ents
on
com
batin
g pi
racy
and
ar
med
robb
ery
(LEG
) 6.
2.1.
4 A
dvic
e an
d gu
idan
ce t
o su
ppor
t in
tern
atio
nal
effo
rts t
o en
sure
effe
ctiv
e pr
osec
utio
n of
pe
rpet
rato
rs (L
EG
) 6.
2.1.
5 Ad
vice
an
d gu
idan
ce
to
supp
ort
avai
labi
lity
of
info
rmat
ion
on
com
preh
ensi
ve
natio
nal
legi
slat
ion
and
judi
cial
cap
acity
-bui
ldin
g (L
EG
) 6.
2.2
Ass
ist d
evel
opin
g re
gion
s in
thei
r in
trodu
ctio
n an
d im
plem
enta
tion
of
effe
ctiv
e se
curit
y m
easu
res
and
mea
sure
s ag
ains
t pira
cy a
nd a
rmed
robb
ery
agai
nst
ship
s
6.2.
2.1
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
rela
ted
ITC
P ac
tiviti
es (S
ecre
taria
t) 6.
2.2.
2 M
odel
legi
slat
ion
on m
ariti
me
secu
rity
(Sec
reta
riat)
6.2.
2.3
Adv
ice
and
guid
ance
to
supp
ort
the
revi
ew o
f IM
O i
nstru
men
ts o
n co
mba
ting
pira
cy a
nd
arm
ed ro
bber
y (L
EG)
6.2.
2.4
Advi
ce a
nd g
uida
nce
to s
uppo
rt in
tern
atio
nal
effo
rts t
o en
sure
effe
ctiv
e pr
osec
utio
n of
pe
rpet
rato
rs (L
EG
) 6.
2.2.
5 A
dvic
e an
d gu
idan
ce
to
supp
ort
avai
labi
lity
of
info
rmat
ion
on
com
preh
ensi
ve
natio
nal
legi
slat
ion
and
judi
cial
cap
acity
-bui
ldin
g (L
EG
) 6.
3.1
Activ
ely
parti
cipa
te in
wor
k of
the
Join
t IM
O/IL
O A
d H
oc e
xper
t wor
king
gro
ups
on is
sues
rela
ted
to s
afeg
uard
ing
the
hum
an ri
ghts
of s
eafa
rers
6.3.
1.1
App
rove
d re
com
men
datio
ns b
ased
on
the
wor
k, if
any
, of
the
Join
t IM
O/IL
O A
d H
oc E
xper
t W
orki
ng G
roup
on
Fair
Trea
tmen
t of S
eafa
rers
in th
e E
vent
of a
Mar
itim
e A
ccid
ent,
CM
I, an
d ot
hers
con
cern
ing
the
appl
icat
ion
of t
he j
oint
IM
O/IL
O G
uide
lines
on
the
fair
treat
men
t of
se
afar
ers
and
cons
eque
ntia
l fur
ther
act
ions
as
nece
ssar
y (L
EG
) 6.
3.1.
2 M
onito
r the
pro
gres
s of
the
amen
dmen
ts to
ILO
MLC
200
6 an
d ad
dres
s th
e is
sue
of fi
nanc
ial
secu
rity
in c
ase
of a
band
onm
ent
of s
eafa
rers
, an
d sh
ipow
ners
' res
pons
ibilit
ies
in r
espe
ct o
f co
ntra
ctua
l cla
ims
for p
erso
nal i
njur
y to
or d
eath
of s
eafa
rers
, sho
uld
it be
nec
essa
ry (L
EG)
6.3.
2 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
6.3.
2.1
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 18
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24-A
dd-1
.doc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
7.1.
1 M
onito
r pol
lutio
n an
d ad
vers
e im
pact
on
the
mar
ine
envi
ronm
ent c
ause
d by
shi
ps
and
thei
r car
goes
7.1.
1.1
Follo
w-u
p to
the
GES
AMP
stud
y on
"Es
timat
es o
f Oil
Ente
ring
the
Mar
ine
Envi
ronm
ent f
rom
S
ea B
ased
Act
iviti
es" (
MEP
C)
7.1.
1.2
Tech
nica
l gu
idan
ce f
or t
he S
ecre
taria
t fo
r th
e de
velo
pmen
t, on
the
bas
is o
f re
porti
ng
requ
irem
ents
und
er M
AR
POL,
OPR
C a
nd th
e O
PRC
-HN
S P
roto
col,
as w
ell a
s ot
her r
elev
ant
sour
ces
of in
form
atio
n, o
f a p
ollu
tion
inci
dent
info
rmat
ion
stru
ctur
e fo
r reg
ular
repo
rting
to th
e FS
I and
BLG
Sub
-Com
mitt
ees,
and
/or t
he M
EPC
(MEP
C)
7.1.
2 Ke
ep u
nder
revi
ew m
easu
res
to re
duce
ad
vers
e im
pact
on
the
mar
ine
envi
ronm
ent b
y sh
ips
7.1.
2.1
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts: f
ollo
w-u
p to
the
Hon
g K
ong
Con
vent
ion
on S
hip
Rec
yclin
g, in
clud
ing
deve
lopm
ent a
nd a
dopt
ion
of a
ssoc
iate
d gu
idel
ines
(MEP
C)
7.1.
2.2
Man
dato
ry i
nstru
men
ts:
desi
gnat
ion
of S
peci
al A
reas
and
PSS
As a
nd a
dopt
ion
of
thei
r as
soci
ated
pro
tect
ive
mea
sure
s (M
EPC
) 7.
1.2.
4 P
rovi
sion
s fo
r th
e re
duct
ion
of n
oise
fro
m c
omm
erci
al s
hipp
ing
and
its a
dver
se im
pact
s on
m
arin
e lif
e (M
EPC
) 7.
1.2.
5 A
ppro
ved
balla
st w
ater
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms
(ME
PC)
7.1.
2.7
Pro
duct
ion
of a
man
ual e
ntitl
ed "B
alla
st W
ater
Man
agem
ent –
How
to d
o it"
(MEP
C)
7.1.
2.10
M
easu
res
to p
rom
ote
the
AFS
Con
vent
ion
(MEP
C)
7.1.
2.11
M
anua
l on
chem
ical
pol
lutio
n to
add
ress
lega
l and
adm
inis
trativ
e as
pect
s of
HN
S in
cide
nts
(MEP
C)
7.1.
2.13
G
uida
nce
on th
e ca
rriag
e of
bio
fuel
s an
d bi
ofue
l ble
nds
as c
argo
(ME
PC
) 7.
1.2.
14
Gui
danc
e on
bio
-foul
ing
for r
ecre
atio
nal c
raft
less
than
24
met
res
(MEP
C)
7.1.
2.16
Te
chni
cal g
uide
lines
on
sunk
en o
il as
sess
men
t and
rem
oval
tech
niqu
es (M
EPC
) 7.
1.2.
19
Gui
de o
n O
il Sp
ill R
espo
nse
in Ic
e an
d Sn
ow C
ondi
tions
(ME
PC)
7.1.
2.20
U
pdat
ed IM
O D
ispe
rsan
t Gui
delin
es (M
EPC
) 7.
1.2.
21
Gui
delin
e fo
r oil
spill
resp
onse
– o
ffsho
re in
situ
bur
ning
(MEP
C)
7.1.
2.26
G
uida
nce
on o
blig
atio
ns a
nd a
ctio
ns r
equi
red
by S
tate
s to
pre
pare
for
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
OPR
C-H
NS
Prot
ocol
(MEP
C)
NE
W
Dev
elop
men
t of
gui
danc
e fo
r In
tern
atio
nal O
ffers
of
Ass
ista
nce
in r
espo
nse
to a
mar
ine
oil
pollu
tion
inci
dent
(MEP
C)
NE
W
Gui
danc
e on
the
saf
e op
erat
ion
and
perfo
rman
ce s
tand
ards
of
oil
com
batin
g eq
uipm
ent
(MEP
C)
NEW
M
etho
d to
und
erta
ke e
nviro
nmen
tal r
isk
and
resp
onse
ben
efit
asse
ssm
ents
(ME
PC
)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 19
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
7.1.
2.31
R
evis
ion
of th
e re
vise
d gu
idel
ines
on
impl
emen
tatio
n of
effl
uent
sta
ndar
ds a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce
test
s fo
r sew
age
treat
men
t pla
n (r
esol
utio
n M
EP
C.1
59(5
5)) (
ME
PC
) 7.
1.2.
32
Dev
elop
men
t of a
Cod
e fo
r th
e tra
nspo
rt an
d ha
ndlin
g of
lim
ited
amou
nts
of h
azar
dous
and
no
xiou
s liq
uids
sub
stan
ces
in b
ulk
on o
ffsho
re s
uppo
rt ve
ssel
s (M
EPC
) N
EW
Dev
elop
men
t of c
riter
ia fo
r th
e ev
alua
tion
of e
nviro
nmen
tally
haz
ardo
us s
olid
bul
k ca
rgoe
s in
re
latio
n to
the
revi
sed
MAR
POL
Anne
x V
(MEP
C)
7.1.
3 M
onito
r and
kee
p un
der r
evie
w th
e pr
ovis
ion
of re
cept
ion
faci
litie
s in
por
ts
and
thei
r ade
quac
y
7.1.
3.1
Rep
orts
on
inad
equa
cy o
f por
t rec
eptio
n fa
cilit
ies
(MEP
C)
7.1.
3.2
Follo
w-u
p to
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
Actio
n Pl
an o
n po
rt re
cept
ion
faci
litie
s (M
EPC
)
7.1.
4 C
onsi
der t
he n
eed
for t
he d
evel
opm
ent o
f m
easu
res
to p
reve
nt a
nd c
ontro
l mar
ine
pollu
tion
from
sm
all c
raft
7.1.
4.1
Act
ion
Pla
n, a
s re
quire
d, o
n pr
even
tion
and
cont
rol
of m
arin
e po
llutio
n fro
m s
mal
l cr
aft,
incl
udin
g de
velo
pmen
t of a
ppro
pria
te m
easu
res
(MEP
C)
7.2.
1 Ke
ep u
nder
revi
ew th
e G
uide
lines
on
the
iden
tific
atio
n of
pla
ces
of re
fuge
7.
2.1.
1 B
i-ann
ual M
SC c
ircul
ars
on d
esig
natio
n of
mar
itim
e as
sist
ance
ser
vice
s (M
AS
) (M
SC
) 7.
2.1.
2 In
put
to t
he r
evie
w o
f th
e G
uide
lines
on
the
iden
tific
atio
n of
pla
ces
of r
efug
e w
ith r
egar
d to
m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t pro
tect
ion
(MEP
C)
7.2.
2 Ke
ep u
nder
revi
ew th
e ad
equa
cy o
f the
le
gal f
ram
ewor
k 7.
2.2.
1 Sa
fety
asp
ects
of a
ltern
ativ
e ta
nker
des
igns
ass
esse
d (M
SC
) 7.
2.2.
2 E
nviro
nmen
tal a
spec
ts o
f alte
rnat
ive
tank
er d
esig
ns (M
EP
C)
7.2.
2.4
Eva
luat
ion
of s
afet
y an
d po
llutio
n ha
zard
s of
che
mic
als
and
prep
arat
ion
of c
onse
quen
tial
amen
dmen
ts (M
EP
C)
7.2.
3 Fo
ster
coo
pera
tion
and
mut
ual a
ssis
tanc
e be
twee
n M
embe
r Sta
tes
unde
r the
pr
ovis
ions
of t
he O
PRC
Con
vent
ion
and
OP
RC
-HN
S P
roto
col
7.2.
3.1
Incr
ease
d ac
tiviti
es w
ithin
the
ITC
P re
gard
ing
the
OPR
C C
onve
ntio
n an
d th
e O
PRC
-HN
S Pr
otoc
ol (M
EPC
/TC
C/S
ecre
taria
t) 7.
2.3.
2R
Ove
rsig
ht o
f IM
O re
gion
al e
mer
genc
y re
spon
se c
entre
s (R
EMPE
C, R
EMPE
ITC
) (Se
cret
aria
t)
7.3.
1 Ke
ep u
nder
revi
ew IM
O m
easu
res
to
redu
ce a
tmos
pher
ic p
ollu
tion
7.3.
1.1
Rev
iew
of r
elev
ant n
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
as
a co
nseq
uenc
e of
the
amen
ded
MAR
PO
L An
nex
VI a
nd th
e N
Ox T
echn
ical
Cod
e (M
EP
C)
7.3.
2 C
ontin
ue to
dev
elop
app
ropr
iate
m
easu
res
to a
ddre
ss c
limat
e ch
ange
and
gl
obal
war
min
g
7.3.
2.1
Furth
er
deve
lopm
ent
of
mec
hani
sms
need
ed
to
achi
eve
the
limita
tion
or
redu
ctio
n of
C
O2 e
mis
sion
s fro
m in
tern
atio
nal s
hipp
ing
(MEP
C)
NE
W
Kee
p un
der
revi
ew I
MO
mea
sure
s an
d co
ntrib
utio
ns t
o in
tern
atio
nal
clim
ate
miti
gatio
n in
itiat
ives
and
agr
eem
ents
(inc
ludi
ng C
O2 s
eque
stra
tion
and
ocea
n fe
rtiliz
atio
n) (M
EPC
)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 20
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24-A
dd-1
.doc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
7.4.
1 D
evel
op a
stra
tegy
for t
he w
ork
rela
ted
to
the
role
of t
he h
uman
ele
men
t inc
ludi
ng
the
chai
n of
resp
onsi
bilit
y in
mar
ine
envi
ronm
ent p
rote
ctio
n
7.4.
1.1
Follo
w u
p to
the
upd
ated
Act
ion
Pla
n on
the
Org
aniz
atio
n's
stra
tegy
to
addr
ess
hum
an
elem
ent (
MSC
-MEP
C.7
/Circ
.4) (
MEP
C)
8.0.
1 Pr
omot
e w
ider
acc
epta
nce
of th
e FA
L C
onve
ntio
n an
d ad
optio
n of
mea
sure
s co
ntai
ned
ther
ein,
to a
ssis
t the
FA
L C
omm
ittee
's e
ffort
and
wor
k to
war
ds th
e un
iver
sal i
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
mea
sure
s to
fa
cilit
ate
inte
rnat
iona
l mar
itim
e tra
ffic
8.0.
1.1
Rep
orts
on
the
stat
us o
f the
FAL
Con
vent
ion
(FAL
) 8.
0.1.
2 C
ompr
ehen
sive
revi
ew o
f the
FA
L C
onve
ntio
n (F
AL)
8.
0.1.
3 R
evie
w o
f the
role
, mis
sion
, stra
tegi
c di
rect
ion
and
wor
k of
the
Faci
litat
ion
Com
mitt
ee (F
AL)
8.0.
1.4
Fina
lized
Exp
lana
tory
Man
ual t
o th
e FA
L C
onve
ntio
n (F
AL)
8.0.
2 E
nsur
e th
at a
n ap
prop
riate
bal
ance
is
mai
ntai
ned
betw
een
mea
sure
s to
en
hanc
e m
ariti
me
secu
rity
and
mea
sure
s to
faci
litat
e m
ariti
me
inte
rnat
iona
l tra
ffic
8.0.
2.1
Acce
ss p
roce
dure
s at
the
ship
/por
t int
erfa
ce fo
r pub
lic o
ffice
rs a
nd s
ervi
ce p
rovi
ders
vis
iting
a
vess
el (F
AL)
8.0.
2.2
Proc
edur
es t
o fa
cilit
ate
seaf
arer
s' a
cces
s in
and
out
of
a po
rt fa
cilit
y du
ring
shor
e le
ave,
if
nece
ssar
y (F
AL)
8.0.
2.3
Gui
danc
e on
doc
umen
tatio
n re
quire
d by
pas
seng
ers,
par
ticul
arly
tran
sit c
ruis
e pa
ssen
gers
, to
ensu
re th
eir s
moo
th fl
ow th
roug
h po
rts (F
AL)
8.0.
2.4
Pro
cedu
res
for c
argo
and
bag
gage
cle
aran
ce th
roug
h a
port
faci
lity
(FA
L)
8.0.
2.5
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
8.
0.2.
6 R
epor
ts a
nd in
form
atio
n on
ille
gal m
igra
nts
(FAL
) 8.
0.2.
7 P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
8.0.
3 E
ncou
rage
the
use
of in
form
atio
n an
d co
mm
unic
atio
n te
chno
logy
to d
rive
cont
inuo
us im
prov
emen
t and
inno
vatio
n in
th
e fa
cilit
atio
n of
mar
itim
e tra
ffic
8.0.
3.1
Fina
lized
Gui
delin
es fo
r the
use
of S
ingl
e W
indo
w (F
AL)
8.
0.3.
2 Fi
naliz
ed IM
O C
ompe
ndiu
m o
f Fac
ilitat
ion
and
Ele
ctro
nic
Bus
ines
s (F
AL)
8.
0.3.
3 In
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
sol
utio
ns (e
.g.,
elec
troni
c si
gnat
ure)
dev
elop
ed to
faci
litat
e th
e pr
oces
s of
cle
arin
g th
e sh
ip, i
ts c
argo
, pas
seng
ers
and
crew
(FAL
) 8.
0.4
Con
side
r way
s of
sys
tem
atic
ally
redu
cing
th
e ad
min
istra
tive
burd
en d
eriv
ing
from
th
e le
gisl
ativ
e pr
oces
s
8.0.
4.1
No
PO
9.0.
1 Id
entif
y an
d ad
dres
s th
e sp
ecia
l shi
ppin
g ne
eds
of S
IDS
and
LDC
s 9.
0.1.
1 R
epor
t on
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
glob
al IT
CP
pro
gram
me
on s
uppo
rt to
SID
S an
d LD
Cs
for
thei
r spe
cial
shi
ppin
g ne
eds
(TC
C/S
ecre
taria
t) 9.
0.1.
2 R
epor
t to
the
Cou
ncil
on th
e co
mm
ittee
s' c
onsi
dera
tion
of th
e sp
ecia
l shi
ppin
g ne
eds
of S
IDS
an
d LD
Cs
vis-
à-vi
s ne
w IM
O s
tand
ards
(Sec
reta
riat)
9.0.
1.3
Prov
isio
n of
rece
ptio
n fa
cilit
ies
unde
r MAR
POL
in S
IDS
(MEP
C)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 21
I:\M
EP
C\6
2\24
-Add
-1.d
oc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
10.0
.1
Furth
er d
evel
op m
easu
res
to a
pply
go
al-b
ased
sta
ndar
ds fo
r mar
itim
e sa
fety
10
.0.1
.1
Man
dato
ry in
stru
men
ts:
impl
emen
tatio
n of
goa
l-bas
ed n
ew s
hip
cons
truct
ion
stan
dard
s fo
r ta
nker
s an
d bu
lk c
arrie
rs (M
SC)
10.0
.1.2
M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: dev
elop
men
t of
goa
l-bas
ed s
hip
cons
truct
ion
stan
dard
s fo
r al
l typ
es
of s
hips
, inc
ludi
ng s
ecur
ity a
nd p
rote
ctio
n of
the
mar
ine
envi
ronm
ent (
MSC
) B
road
cat
egor
y: E
nhan
cing
the
prof
ile o
f shi
ppin
g, q
ualit
y cu
lture
and
env
ironm
enta
l con
scie
nce
11.1
.1
Rai
se a
war
enes
s of
the
role
of
inte
rnat
iona
l shi
ppin
g in
wor
ld tr
ade
and
the
glob
al e
cono
my
and
the
impo
rtanc
e of
th
e O
rgan
izat
ion'
s ro
le
11.1
.1.1
P
erm
anen
t an
alys
is,
dem
onst
ratio
n an
d pr
omot
ion
of t
he l
inka
ge b
etw
een
a sa
fe,
secu
re,
effic
ient
and
env
ironm
enta
lly f
riend
ly m
ariti
me
trans
port
infra
stru
ctur
e, t
he d
evel
opm
ent
of
glob
al tr
ade
and
the
wor
ld e
cono
my
and
the
achi
evem
ent o
f the
MD
Gs
(Ass
embl
y, C
ounc
il, a
ll co
mm
ittee
s an
d Se
cret
aria
t) 11
.1.1
.2
Spe
eche
s, m
essa
ges,
inte
rvie
ws
and
artic
les
deliv
ered
and
pub
lishe
d in
all
med
ia o
n th
e w
ork
and
adva
nces
of I
MO
and
the
ship
ping
indu
stry
(Sec
reta
riat)
11.1
.1.3
O
ther
out
reac
h ac
tiviti
es d
eliv
ered
(in
clud
ing
som
e 50
pre
ss r
elea
ses
annu
ally
) to
enh
ance
th
e im
age
of IM
O a
nd th
e in
dust
ry, a
nd p
rom
ote
IMO
's w
ork
and
the
effe
ctiv
e im
plem
enta
tion
of it
s st
anda
rds
(Sec
reta
riat)
11.1
.1.4
Tw
o W
orld
Mar
itim
e D
ay c
eleb
ratio
ns a
nd tw
o P
aral
lel E
vent
s or
gani
zed,
and
con
sequ
entia
l ac
tion
plan
s im
plem
ente
d to
pro
mot
e an
d pu
blic
ize
the
resp
ectiv
e W
orld
Mar
itim
e D
ay th
emes
(S
ecre
taria
t) 11
.1.1
.5
Win
ners
ele
cted
for
tw
o In
tern
atio
nal M
ariti
me
Priz
es a
nd t
wo
IMO
Aw
ards
for
Exc
eptio
nal
Brav
ery
at S
ea (C
ounc
il)
11.1
.1.6
M
easu
res
to p
rom
ote
the
"IMO
Chi
ldre
n's
Am
bass
ador
" co
ncep
t, in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith ju
nior
m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t pro
tect
ion
asso
ciat
ions
wor
ldw
ide
(ME
PC
) 11
.1.2
E
nhan
ce th
e im
age
of th
e ro
le o
f the
hu
man
ele
men
t in
the
cont
ext o
f the
sh
ippi
ng in
dust
ry
11.1
.2.1
Pr
omot
ion
of th
e "G
o to
Sea
!" ca
mpa
ign
(Sec
reta
riat)
11.2
.1
Act
ivel
y pr
omot
e an
d en
cour
age
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f com
mun
ity re
latio
ns
prog
ram
mes
11.2
.1.1
N
o PO
12.1
.1
Use
form
al s
afet
y as
sess
men
t tec
hniq
ues
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
echn
ical
sta
ndar
ds
12.1
.1.2
FS
A Ex
perts
' Gro
up e
stab
lishe
d to
revi
ew F
SA s
tudi
es (M
SC)
12.1
.2
Use
risk
-bas
ed to
ols
that
take
acc
ount
of
cost
s an
d th
e hu
man
ele
men
t in
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f ope
ratio
nal s
tand
ards
12.1
.2.1
C
olle
ctio
n an
d an
alys
is o
f ca
sual
ty d
ata
to id
entif
y tre
nds
and
deve
lop
know
ledg
e an
d ris
k-ba
sed
reco
mm
enda
tions
(MS
C)
ME
PC
62/
24/A
dd.1
A
nnex
36,
pag
e 22
I:\
ME
PC
\62\
24-A
dd-1
.doc
No.
**
Hig
h-le
vel A
ctio
ns (H
LAs)
N
o.**
Plan
ned
outp
uts
(PO
s) fo
r 201
2-20
13
12.1
.2.2
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
12.1
.2.3
P
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
(MS
C 8
9)
12.2
.1
Kee
p un
der r
evie
w th
e ef
fect
iven
ess
of
the
ISM
Cod
e w
ith re
gard
to s
afet
y an
d pr
otec
tion
of th
e m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t
12.2
.1.1
N
on-m
anda
tory
ins
trum
ents
: gu
idel
ines
and
ass
ocia
ted
train
ing
to a
ssis
t co
mpa
nies
and
se
afar
ers
in im
prov
ing
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
ISM
Cod
e (M
SC/M
EP
C)
12.2
.1.2
N
on-m
anda
tory
inst
rum
ents
: re
vise
d gu
idel
ines
for
Adm
inis
tratio
ns (
reso
lutio
n A
.913
(22)
) to
m
ake
them
mor
e ef
fect
ive
and
user
-frie
ndly
(MSC
/MEP
C)
12.2
.1.3
M
anda
tory
inst
rum
ent:
enha
ncin
g th
e ef
ficie
ncy
and
user
-frie
ndlin
ess
of IS
M C
ode
(MSC
/MEP
C)
12.3
.1
Und
erta
ke w
ider
col
lect
ion
and
diss
emin
atio
n of
info
rmat
ion,
ana
lyse
s an
d de
cisi
ons,
taki
ng a
ccou
nt o
f the
fin
anci
al a
nd g
over
nanc
e is
sues
12.3
.1.1
G
uida
nce
on th
e de
velo
pmen
t of G
ISIS
and
on
acce
ss to
info
rmat
ion
(MS
C/M
EPC
) 12
.3.1
.2
PSC
-rela
ted
data
col
lect
ed a
nd d
isse
min
ated
in c
oope
ratio
n w
ith P
SC re
gim
es (M
SC)
12.3
.1.3
C
onsi
dera
tion
of r
epor
ts o
f in
cide
nts
invo
lvin
g da
nger
ous
good
s or
mar
ine
pollu
tant
s in
pa
ckag
ed fo
rm o
n bo
ard
ship
s or
in p
ort a
reas
(MSC
/ME
PC
) 12
.4.1
R
aise
aw
aren
ess
of th
e "c
hain
of
resp
onsi
bilit
y" c
once
pt a
mon
g al
l st
akeh
olde
rs th
roug
h or
gani
zatio
ns th
at
have
con
sulta
tive
stat
us
12.4
.1.1
G
uide
lines
and
MEP
C c
ircul
ars
(MEP
C)
12.5
.1
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
12
.5.1
.1
Pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n (M
SC
89)
13
.0.1
S
treng
then
aw
aren
ess
of th
e ne
ed fo
r a
cont
inuo
us re
duct
ion
of th
e ad
vers
e im
pact
of s
hipp
ing
on th
e en
viro
nmen
t
13.0
.2
Prom
ote
and
enha
nce
the
avai
labi
lity
of,
and
acce
ss to
, inf
orm
atio
n re
latin
g to
en
viro
nmen
tal p
rote
ctio
n (i.
e. tr
ansp
aren
cy) a
nd, i
n pa
rticu
lar,
cons
ider
the
wid
er d
isse
min
atio
n of
in
form
atio
n, a
naly
ses
and
deci
sion
s,
taki
ng a
ccou
nt o
f the
fina
ncia
l im
plic
atio
ns
13.0
.2.1
G
uida
nce
for
the
Secr
etar
iat
on t
he d
evel
opm
ent
of G
ISIS
and
on
acce
ss t
o in
form
atio
n (M
EPC
) 13
.0.2
.2
Dat
abas
es a
s pa
rt of
GIS
IS a
nd o
ther
mea
ns,
incl
udin
g el
ectro
nic
ones
(al
l com
mitt
ees,
as
appr
opria
te/S
ecre
taria
t) 13
.0.2
.3
Mai
ntai
n an
upd
ated
web
-bas
ed in
vent
ory
of O
PR
C/H
NS
rel
ated
info
rmat
ion,
incl
udin
g R
&D
proj
ects
and
bes
t pra
ctic
es (M
EP
C)
13.0
.3
Enc
oura
ging
the
use
in s
hipp
ing
of th
e be
st a
vaila
ble
envi
ronm
enta
l tec
hnol
ogy
not e
ntai
ling
exce
ssiv
e co
sts,
in li
ne w
ith
the
goal
of s
usta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent
13.0
.3.1
Im
prov
ed a
nd n
ew t
echn
olog
ies
appr
oved
for
bal
last
wat
er m
anag
emen
t sy
stem
s an
d re
duct
ion
of a
tmos
pher
ic p
ollu
tion
(ME
PC)
**
*
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 37, page 1
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
ANNEX 37
ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AGENDAS FOR MEPC 63, MEPC 64 AND MEPC 65
No. Item MEPC 63 February/
March 2012
MEPC 64 October 2012
MEPC 65 2013
1
Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water
RG X
[RG]
X
X
2
Recycling of ships
WG X
WG X
[WG]
X
3
Air pollution and energy efficiency
WG X
WG X
[WG]
X
4
Reduction of GHG emissions from ships
X
X
X
5
Consideration and adoption of amendments to mandatory instruments
DG X
X
[X]
6
Interpretations of, and amendments to, MARPOL and related instruments
X
X
X
7
Implementation of the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol and relevant Conference resolutions
X
X
X
8
Identification and protection of Special Areas and PSSAs
X
X
X
9
Inadequacy of reception facilities
X
X
X
10
Reports of sub-committees
X
X
X
11
Work of other bodies
X
X
X
MEPC 62/24/Add.1 Annex 37, page 2
I:\MEPC\62\24-Add-1.doc
No. Item MEPC 63 February/
March 2012
MEPC 64 October 2012
MEPC 65 2013
12
Status of conventions
X
X
X
13
Harmful anti-fouling systems for ships
X
X
X
14
Promotion of implementation and enforcement of MARPOL and related instruments
X
X
X
15
Technical Co-operation for the Protection of the Marine Environment
X
X
X
16
Role of the human element
X
[X]
[X]
17
Noise from commercial shipping and its adverse impacts on marine life
X
[X]
[X]
18
Work programme of the Committee and subsidiary bodies
X
X
X
19
Application of the Committees' Guidelines
X
X
X
20
Election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman
X1
X
X
21
Any other business
X
X
X
___________
1 Election of the Vice-Chairman.