Technical and Operational for Bulk Carriers 2

INTERCARGO

International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners

Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers March 2006 Issue One

Photograph front cover courtesy of Bocimar

INTERCARGO

Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

March 2006 Issue One

INTERCARGO International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners

Acknowledgement INTERCARGO is grateful to the Members of its Safety, Technical and Environmental Committee (CASTEC) for contribution in the drafting process of this publication. Appreciation also goes to the INTERTANKO Safety, Technical and Environmental Committee (ISTEC) for the comments and suggestions received. The valuable information from the following source is unique and relevant to many common interest issues: http://www.intertanko.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright owner. Applications for the copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publisher. © INTERCARGO 2006 Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this publication is correct, neither the authors nor INTERCARGO can accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions or any consequences resulting therefrom. No reliance should be placed on the information contained in this publication without independent verification.

www.intercargo.org

INTERCARGO St Clare House, 30-33 Minories, London EC3N 1DD Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7977 7030 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7977 7031 Email: [email protected]

Contents

Page Air Pollution Prevention - MARPOL Annex VI………….

5

Ballast Water Management………………………………

12

Bunkers - MARPOL Annex VI and EU Directive ………

8

Cargoes - Dangerous…………………………………….

30

Cargoes - Direct Reduced Iron…………………………..

32

Cargoes - Petcoke………………………………………..

19

Cold Ironing………………………………………………..

10

Emergency Towing……………………………………….

33

Entry into Force ………………………………………….

1

IACS Common Structural Rules………………………...

28

Lifeboats……………………………………………………

9

MARPOL Special Areas………………………………….

27

Oily Water Separators ……………………………………

40

Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas………………………..

9

Pilotage - Denmark ………………………………………

34

Reception Facilities - Baltic………………………………

21

Ship Recycling…………………………………………….

37

Index of Abbreviations…………………………………….

42

INTERCARGO International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners

FOREWORD It gives me great pleasure to be associated with Intercargo’s initiative to publish a summary of regulatory developments and other useful guidance designed to promote safety in the bulk carrier sector. Many countless hours have been spent in developing Regulations and Conventions, both nationally and in the main international fora of the IMO and IACS. “Best practice” examples are increasingly being communicated to industry through international and national shipping associations. Although the result of this regulation and self-regulation has seen a markedly safer bulk carrier industry, re-emphasising these new developments will undoubtedly increase the knowledge base of the dry bulk supply chain. This document, which will be published regularly after the introduction of significant developments at both IMO and IACS, is equally commended to Technical Departments and those providing commercial and strategic direction in the industry as a means of understanding the interlinking nature of issues. I commend the foresight in producing a published record suitable for the bulk carrier sector and look forward to the issuance of future editions.

March 2006

Tom Allan Former Chairman of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee

INTERCARGO


Entry into Force - Index of New Requirements to be Implemented

The index contains currently available requirements and regulations relevant to bulk carriers with entry into force dates from 19 May 2005 to 1 Jan 2009. It will be updated periodically with new items of requirements and regulations when they are adopted and their entry into force dates are fixed.

19 May 2005: entry into force 1.1 MARPOL Annex VI: Air Pollution Prevention.

The dry bulk cargo residue will be treated as garbage. The residue and cargo hold wash water should be treated carefully in accordance with the relevant national, regional and international requirements and regulations. Relevant information: Intercargo Guide on compliance with MARPOL Annex V. Contact [email protected] for more information.

Relevant information: 1 Jan 2006: entry into force Circular IMO MEPC/Circ.472 on Guidelines for Port State Control under MARPOL Annex VI (Resolution MEPC.129(53)). It is available for download from http://www.imo.org/home.asp. Intercargo Guide on C125 ompliance with MARPOL Annex VI - Air pollution prevention. Contact [email protected] for the full text of an up to date version. 22 Jul 2005: entry into force 2.1 Resolution MEPC.130(53) - Guidelines for On-Board Exhaust Gas-SOx Cleaning Systems. Contact [email protected] for the source of the document.

1 Aug 2005: entry into force 3.1 Revised MARPOL Annex IV on Regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships, adopted by Resolution MEPC.115(51). Contact [email protected] for the source of the document. Annex IV may cause difficulties for ships without a holding tank in certain ports, such as in Korea and the Black Sea region. IMO may develop relevant port State control guidelines for the implementation of Annex IV in the future. 3.2 MARPOL Annex V: Amendments to MARPOL Annex V on “cargo residues” to the Form of the Garbage Record Book contained in the Appendix to MARPOL Annex V on Regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships, adopted by Resolution MEPC.116(51). Contact [email protected] for the source of the document.

4.1 Amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 concerning means of access for inspections within spaces in the cargo area of oil tankers and bulk carriers, adopted by Resolution MSC.151(78). Contact [email protected] for the sources of the document. 4.2 Amendments to the Technical Provisions for Means of Access for Inspections, adopted by Resolution MSC.158(78). Contact [email protected] for the source of the document. Relevant information: IACS Unified Interpretations (UI) SC 191for the application of amended SOLAS regulation II-1/3-6 (Resolution MSC.151(78)) and revised Technical Provisions for Means of Access for Inspections (Resolution MSC.158(78)). Contact [email protected] for the source of the document. 4.3 Revised NAVTEX Manual. The relevant circular MSC/Circ.1122 on the Revised NAVTEX Manual is available for download from http://www.imo.org/ home.asp. 4.4 Early implementation and guidance on safety during abandon ship drills using lifeboats and the Guidelines for simulated launching of free-fall lifeboats. MSC 79 urged Member Governments to give effect to the amendment to SOLAS regulation III/19.3.3.3, adopted by Resolution MSC.152(78), prior to 1 July 2006 (which is the amendment’s entry into force date) and approved MSC circular MSC/Circ.1127 on Early Implementation of Amendment to SOLAS Regulation

March 2006 Issue One ■ 1

INTERCARGO

III/19.3.3.3 adopted by Resolution MSC.152 (78). Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MSC.152(78). The relevant circular MSC/Circ.1127 is available for download from http://www.imo.org/ home.asp.

1 Jul 2006: entry into force 5.1. Amendments to SOLAS Chapter III, adopted by Resolution MSC.152(78). Refer to 4.4 above. Resolution MSC.152(78) adopted amendments to: - Chapter III Life-Saving Appliances and Arrangements in: Regulation 19 - Emergency training and drills Regulation 20 - Operational readiness, maintenance and inspections Regulation 32 - Personal life-saving appliances (An immersion suit shall be provided for every person on board the ship). - CHAPTER IV Radiocommunications in: Regulation 15 - Maintenance requirements. 5.2 Amendments to SOLAS Chapter XII (Additional Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers). Contact [email protected] for the source of the revised Ch XII. In relation to the entry into force of the revised Ch XII, the following Resolutions have the same entry into force date: Resolution MSC.168(79) - Standards and Criteria for Side Structures of Bulk Carriers of Single-Side Skin Construction; and Resolution MSC.169(79) - Standards for Owners’ Inspection and Maintenance of Bulk Carrier Hatch Covers. Contact [email protected] for the source of the MSC.169(79) and MSC.168(79). Relevant circulars (effective when issued and available for download from http://www.imo.org/home.asp): Circular MSC/Circ.1135 on As-Built Construction Drawings to Be Maintained On Board the Ship and Ashore, 15 December 2004; Circular MSC/Circ.1143 on Guidelines on Early Assessment of Hull Damage and Possible Need for Abandonment of Bulk Carriers; and

2 ■



Circular MSC/Circ.1145 on Precautionary Advice to Masters When Undertaking Ballast Water Exchange Operations. 5.3 The adopted amendments to SOLAS chapters II-1, by Resolution MSC.170(79). Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MSC.170(79) and the amendments. The amendments were made in: • Regulation 2 - Definitions of bulk carrier; • Regulation 18 - Construction and initial tests of watertight doors, sidescuttles, etc., in passenger ships and cargo ships; and • Regulation 45 - Precautions against shock, fire and other hazards of electrical origin 5.4 Amendment to SOLAS Chapter III (Life-Saving Appliances and Arrangements) The following new paragraph 1.8 is added after the existing paragraph 1.7: “1.8 Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph 1.1, bulk carriers as defined in regulation IX/1.6 constructed on or after 1 July 2006 shall comply with the requirements of paragraph 1.2.”. 5.5 Amendments to Chapter V (Safety of Navigation) In paragraph 2.5 of Regulation 19 (Carriage requirements for shipborne navigational systems and equipment), the existing text of subparagraph .1 is replaced by the following: “.1 a gyro compass, or other means, to determine and display their heading by shipborne non-magnetic means, being clearly readable by the helmsman at the main steering position. These means shall also transmit heading information for input to the equipment referred in paragraphs 2.3.2, 2.4 and 2.5.5;” The following new paragraph 2, regulation 20 (Voyage data recorders) is added after existing paragraph 1: “2 To assist in casualty investigations, cargo ships, when engaged on international voyages, shall be fitted with a VDR which may be a simplified voyage data recorder (S-VDR) as follows: .1 in the case of cargo ships of 20,000 gross tonnage and upwards constructed before 1 July 2002, at the first scheduled dry-docking after 1 July 2006 but not later than 1 July 2009; .2 in the case of cargo ships of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 20,000 gross tonnage con-

INTERCARGO


structed before 1 July 2002, at the first scheduled drydocking after 1 July 2007 but not later than 1 July 2010; and

were adopted by Resolution MSC.194(80). Contact [email protected] for the source of annex 1 to Resolution MSC.194(80). The amendments are in:

.3 Administrations may exempt cargo ships from the application of the requirements of subparagraphs .1 and .2 when such ships will be taken permanently out of service within two years after the implementation date specified in subparagraphs .1 and .2 above.”

Regulation 3-2: Corrosion prevention of seawater ballast tanks in oil tankers and bulk carriers (This regulation applies to oil tankers and bulk carriers constructed on or after 1 July 1998);

5.6. Unified interpretation of SOLAS Chapter XII MSC 80 agreed to the need to provide ship designers with interpretations of the revised SOLAS chapter XII, before its entry into force. At its twenty-fourth regular session of the IMO Assembly (A24), the unified interpretations of the regulations 6.5.1 & 6.5.3 were adopted. IMO circular SLS.14/Circ.250 with the unified interpretations is available for download from http://www.imo.org/home.asp. Note: The IACS Common Structural Rules will be implemented to tankers and bulk carriers contracted for construction on or after 1st April 2006. IACS believe that the objective of removing competition on scantlings for each ship type has been achieved. The IACS Council also endorsed a long-term harmonisation plan between the tanker and bulk carrier rule sets at its meeting in Dec 2005.

Regulation 3-7: The amendment includes Construction drawings maintained on board and ashore; Regulation 3-8: Towing and mooring equipment; and Regulation 23-3: Water level detectors on single hold cargo ships other than bulk carriers. 7.2 Amendments to the Guidelines on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections during Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (Resolution A.744(18), as amended) by Resolution MSC.197(80). Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MSC.197(80). 7.3 The revised MARPOL Annex II, as adopted by Resolution MEPC.118(52), is expected to enter into force on 1 January 2007. Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MEPC.118(52).

22 Nov 2006: amendment of entry into force

1 Jan 2008: amendment of entry into force

6.1 Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI and the NOx Technical Code by Resolution MEPC.132(53). Contact [email protected] for the source of the Resolution MEPC.132(53).

8.1 Under the terms of the ASF Convention (International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships ), by 1 January 2008 (effective date), ships shall either:

Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI are the introduction of the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (HSSC) and the introduction of the North Sea as a new SOx Emission Control Area (SECA), (Regulation 14(3) (a)). 6.2 Amendments to the revised Survey Guidelines under the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (Resolution A.948(23)) for the purpose of MARPOL Annex VI by Resolution MEPC.128(53). The Resolution MEPC.128(53) was adopted on 22 July 2005. IMO invited Governments to apply the Guidelines, as soon as possible. Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MEPC.128(53).

From 1 January 2007: amendment of entry into force 7.1 Amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 parts A-1 and C. The amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 parts A-1 and C

(a) not bear such compounds on their hulls or external parts or surfaces; or (b) bear a coating that forms a barrier to such compounds leaching from the underlying noncompliant anti-fouling systems.

1 Jan 2009: amendment of entry into force 9.1 Amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 parts A, B and B-1, II-2, VI, IX, XI-1, XI-2. The amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 parts A, B and B-1, II-2, VI, IX, XI-1, XI-2 were adopted by Resolution MSC.194 (80). Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MSC.194(80). The reasons for the entry into force date: As the revised SOLAS chapter II-1 introduces a fundamental change to the way ships are designed and would have a significant effect on March 2006 Issue One ■ 3

INTERCARGO


shipbuilders and ship operators, there is a need for sufficient time before the revised chapter II-1 enters into force in order that shipbuilders and ship operators can develop and optimize new designs before such entry into force; and

10.2 circular MSC/Circ.1142 - MEPC/Circ.425 on Marking the ship’s plans, manuals and other documents with the IMO ship identification number. The circular is available for download from http:// www.imo.org/home.asp.

The time period between the adoption of amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 and their entry into force should be sufficient for the DE SubCommittee to deal with consequential amendments to SOLAS chapter III, in particular to SOLAS regulation III/21.1.2, so that the draft amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 under consideration at this session and proposed amendments to SOLAS chapter III, when developed by the DE Sub-Committee and adopted by MSC, could enter into force simultaneously.

10.3 Resolution MSC.200(80)- Amendments to the revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances. Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MSC.200(80).

9.2 Annex 2 to Resolution MSC.198(80) - Amendments to the Format and Guidelines for the Maintenance of the Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR). Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MSC.198 (80). The amendments require the use of Registered Owner ID Number and Company ID Number. 9.3 Resolution MSC.194(80) - Amendments to SOLAS Ch XI-1include a new regulation 3-1 Company and Registered Owner ID number. Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MSC.194(80). 9.4 Resolution MSC.195(80) - Amendments to ISM Code: Company Identification Number to be added in the DOC and SMC Certificates. Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MSC.195(80). 9.5 Resolution MSC.196(80)- Amendment to ISPS Code: Company identification number to be added in the Ship Security Certificates. Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MSC.196(80).

Voluntary requirements 10.1 Resolution MSC.160(78) on “Adoption of the IMO unique company and registered owner identification number scheme” requires voluntary implementation before the requirements are made mandatory from 1 Jan 2009. Contact [email protected] for the source of Resolution MSC.160(78). MSC 78 adopted the IMO unique company and registered owner identification number scheme for implementation on a voluntary basis. The Resolution recommends Governments concerned to voluntarily implement the scheme as far as is practicable, and to inform IMO of measures taken in this respect.

Governments are recommended to apply the amendments to the Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)), when testing life-saving appliances. IMO Circulars (available for download from http:// www.imo.org/home.asp): MSC/Circ.1140 - MEPC/Circ.424 on Transfer of ships between States. Amendments to the FAL/MEPC/MSC circular FAL/Circ.90 - MEPC Circ.368 - MSC Circ.946 on list of certificates and documents to be carried on board ships. MEPC/Circ.472 on Guidelines for Port State Control under MARPOL Annex VI (Resolution MEPC.129(53)). MEPC/Circ.469 on Revised consolidated format for reporting alleged inadequacy of port reception facilities - an effort to improve the rate of reporting of alleged reception facility inadequacies so that the problem can be tackled more effectively. MSC/Circ.1108 on Guidelines for assessing the longitudinal strength of bulk carriers during loading, unloading and ballast water exchange. MSC/Circ.1114 on Guidelines for periodic testing of immersion suit and anti-exposure suit seams and closures. MSC/Circ.1115 on Prevention of accidents in high free-fall launching of lifeboats. MSC/Circ.1117 on Guidance for checking the structure of bulk carriers. STCW.7/Circ.14 on Guidance for masters on keeping a safe anchor watch. SN/Circ.245 on Amendments to the Guidelines for the installation of a shipborne automatic identification system (AIS) (SN/Circ.227). MSC/Circ.1145 on Precautionary advice to masters when undertaking ballast water exchange operations. MSC/Circ.1159 on Guidelines on the provision of stability-related information for bulk carriers. MSC/Circ.1119 on Ship/Terminal Interface Improvement for Bulk Carriers. MSC/Circ.1135 on As-Built Construction Drawings to Be Maintained On Board the Ship and Ashore, 15 December 2004.

******** 4 ■


INTERCARGO


Air Pollution Prevention - Guide on Compliance with MARPOL Annex VI

1. Background MARPOL Annex VI was adopted in 1997 and entered into force on 19 May 2005. In the 8 years since the adoption of Annex VI, there have been significant technical advances in the control of harmful emissions from diesel engines, including marine engines. Since 2000, virtually all new ship engines have met or exceeded Annex VI requirements for nitrogen oxides (NOx). There has been an MEPC project on monitoring the worldwide average of sulphur content of residual fuel oil ever since MEPC 45 (2-6 Oct 2000). The information of the project for 2004 as provided by the Netherlands (MEPC 53/4) has the conclusion that the three year (2002-2004) rolling average can be established as 2.67%, which is identical to the previous three years average. Subsequent to the entry into force of MARPOL Annex VI regulating emissions from ships, MEPC 53 agreed to delegate to the IMO Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquid and Gases (BLG) the revision of MARPOL Annex VI by April 2006 with the aim of reducing further the limits. The preliminary indications at MEPC 53 are that all current emissions limits would be subject to revision and, in addition, it is proposed that elements like Particulate Matters (PM) be added to the convention. The revision process would also aim to bring greater clarification through amendments to the current provisions, particularly to the NOx Technical Code. 2. Areas of possible difficulties and problems 2.1) What Masters are required to do. Vessels must retain the bunker sample for minimum of 1 year. The BDN (Bunker Delivery Note) must be retained on board for 3 years. If the vessel’s flag is a signatory State of MARPOL Annex VI, the vessel must comply with Annex VI regardless of where they purchase their fuel. Ship’s Master is to comply with: I. Regulation 14(1), which states that the sulphur content of any fuel used on board shall not exceed 4.5% m/m (mass of sulphur per mass of fuel); II. Regulation 14(4), which requires ships to demon-

strate that while the ship is passing through a SOx emission control area (SECA) it is either: (4) (a) using fuel which has a sulphur content not exceeding 1.5% m/m, or (4) (b) using an approved exhaust gas cleaning device or any other technological method which ensures that the total emission of sulphur oxide from the ship does not exceed 6.0 g SOx/kW h; III. Regulation 14(6) for those ships using separate fuels to comply with Reg14(4)(a) records must be kept on the completion of any fuel change-over procedure when entering and leaving a SECA to verify compliance. The records shall include the date, time and position of the ship when the fuel change-over is complete. It shall also record the quantity of the low sulphur fuel in each tank; IV. Regulation 18(4), which states that the ship is to retain the BDN, readily available for inspection, on board the ship for a minimum of 3 years; V. Regulation 18(6), which states that the Annex VI sample is to be retained under the ship’s control until the fuel is substantially consumed, but in any case for a period of not less than 12 months from the time of delivery; and VI. Resolution MEPC.96(47), which requires that the ship’s master should develop and maintain a system to keep track of the retained samples. 2.2) Bunker delivery notes and fuel samples. MEPC 53 endorsed that “it was clear that a ship, which has on board only non compliant fuels, would be asked to obtain compliant bunker fuels before leaving port.” As raised at the last Intercargo Safety, Technical and Environmental Committee (CASTEC) meeting in June 2005 in Hong Kong and the Follow-up Action No. 12 (FUA 12) , members are concerned about what will happen if the ship could not get the required sample and relevant documentation when receiving PSC inspection at ports of the 20 or so signatory States of MARPOL Annex VI. MEPC 53 recognized that Annex VI places requirements on ship owners in respect of bunker delivery notes and representative samples of the fuel delivered. If the country of fuel oil supply is not a Party to the 1997 Protocol, then the required bunker delivery note or the representative sample may not be available. It also noted the concern about problems relating to ships that cannot obtain the appropriate documentation - the bunker delivery note and the representative sample(s) of fuel delivered, when bunkering in ports and terminals under the jurisdiction of non-


INTERCARGO

Party States to MARPOL Annex VI. Suppliers are to comply with: I. Regulation 18(7) (b), which states that the supplier is to provide a compliant BDN and a representative sample of the fuel oil delieved. This sample is to be used solely for determination of compliance with Annex VI by port state authorities; II. Resolution MEPC.96 (47) Guidelines for the sampling of the fuel oil, which requires that the IMO sample should be taken at the receiving ship’s bunker inlet manifold according to specified procedures; and III. Regulation 18 (1) (a) & (b), which requires the fuel to be of a specified quality. Suppliers need to be registered with the appropriate Authorities and are required to provide a mandatory sample. This is to be taken by either a: I. continuous drip sampler, II. time proportional automatic sampler, or III. flow proportional automatic sampler. The sample should be taken at the receiving vessel’s manifold in accordance with resolution MEPC.96(47). It must be a minimum of 400ml. The sample will be accompanied by a Bunker Deliver Note (BDN). The supplier is required to retain a copy of BDN’s for 3 years. 2.3) PSC Guidelines under Annex VI. MEPC 53 noted that a number of bunker providers operating under the jurisdiction of a MARPOL Annex VI non-Party State are issuing a “Bunker Certificate of Compliance” to receiving ships, in order to provide them with documentation of the fuel oil on board, in case the ship should be subject to port State control in the port of call under the jurisdiction of a MARPOL Annex VI Party. MEPC 53 confirmed that according to the application of regulations 14 and 18 of MARPOL Annex VI, it is the ship which is responsible for documenting compliance. Having considered the issue, MEPC 53 agreed that a Bunker Certificate of Compliance could not replace appropriate documentation issued by a bunker provider operating under the jurisdiction of a Party to MARPOL Annex VI. It was also agreed that it was at the discretion of the port State control Authority of a MARPOL Annex VI Party whether to accept the Certificate of Compliance or not and to take appropriate action. The IMO Secretariat has received many enquiries from both receivers and suppliers of bunker fuel oil. In response to the enquiries, the Secretariat has informed them that the issue is considered as a commercial issue

6 ■



between the supplier and the receiver, and that according to MARPOL Annex VI, the ship is responsible for documentation of the fuel oil quality on board and used. MEPC 53 agreed to urge countries, which are not Parties to MARPOL Annex VI, to institute relevant measures in order that ships are provided with the necessary bunker delivery note and representative samples of the fuel oil delivered. With regard to ships flying the flags of non signatory States to MARPOL Annex VI, those ships may have obtained a certification or document of compliance by a Classification Society, MEPC 53 noted that para 3.3 of the draft PSC Guidelines for MARPOL Annex VI stipulates that “……, the PSCO may take such documentation into account in the evaluation of the ship”. Paragraphs relating to the above Bunker Delivery Note issue in the PSC Guidelines are: Chapter 2: 2.1.1.8 any notification to the ship’s flag Administration issued by the master and the officers in charge of the bunkering operation crew together with any available commercial documentation relevant to noncompliant bunker delivery. 2.1.4bis In the case where the bunker delivery note or the representative sample as required by regulation 18 of this Annex presented to the ship are not in compliance with the relevant requirements, the master or the officers in charge of the bunkering operation should have documented that through a Notification to the ship’s Flag Administration with copies to the port authority under whose jurisdiction the ship did not receive the required documentation pursuant to the bunkering operation and to the bunker deliverer. A copy should be retained onboard the ship, together with any available commercial documentation, for the subsequent scrutiny of port State control. 2.3.2.3 the sulphur content of any fuel oil being used on board exceeds 4.5% m/m. 2.4) Letter of Protest. In event that either the BDN or the statutory sample, or both, have been found to be non-compliant, a Letter of Protest (LOP) should be issued in accordance with the ship’s standing instructions. It is recommended that the ship’s flag administration is consulted as to whether they have any procedural requirements for LOP. If no standing instructions exist then it is recommended that 4 or more copies of the LOP may be issued. One to the supplier, one to the port State Authority overseeing

INTERCARGO

the registration of the suppliers, another for the ship’s record and you may consider sending a further LOP to the ship’s Flag Administration. Issuing of the LOP will demonstrate the ship’s understanding of Annex VI requirements putting the onus on the supplier in the event that a port State Authority challenges any non-compliance identified. 2.5) Options to comply with Annex VI. I. II. III. IV. V.

The ship is not intending to operate in a SECA. All fuel on board is not to exceed the global sulphur maximum of 4.5% m/m. All heavy fuel oil (HFO) carried on board is to be less than 1.5% sulphur content. Dual fuel operation <1.5% & <4.5% HFO – changeover procedures apply. Alternative technological method – specify. Strategy for handling national boundary emission regulations, such as those imposed by the EU and USA.

3. CO2 index - MEPC Circular 471 In 1997 IMO adopted a resolution on CO2 emissions from ships, requesting to consider what CO2 reduction strategies would be feasible for ships. Resolution A.963(23) on IMO policies and practices related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships was adopted, which requests the MEPC to develop a greenhouse gas emission index for ships, and guidelines for application of that index. As urged by the Assembly, MEPC 53 approved circular MEPC/Circ.471 on Interim Guidelines for Voluntary Ship CO2 Emission Indexing for Use in Trials. The most common equation used, and that which has found its way into the CO2 Guidelines is expressed as: Index = Fuel consumed x Carbon content / mass cargo x distance The objective of these guidelines is to provide the users with guidance on achieving the targets set by IMO Assembly Resolution A.963 (23).


mittee (CASTEC) is carrying out a project of data collection and analysis, in order to report their experiences back to MEPC 58 (October 2008), using the following form: NAME AND TYPE OF SHIP: Fuel consumption (FC) at Voyage or time period sea and in port in tonnes data

V o y Fuel a type g ( ) e 1 2

Fuel type ( )

Fuel type ( )

Cargo (tonnes or units)

Distance (NM)

3 4 CO2 Index reporting sheet Fuel type includes: Diesel/Gasoil, light fuel oil (LFO), Heavy fuel oil (HFO). 4. Guidelines for On-Board Exhaust Gas (SOx) Cleaning Systems MEPC 53 adopted the Guidelines for On-Board Exhaust Gas (SOx) Cleaning Systems (EGCS-SOx). It also endorsed the view that small engines such as lifeboat engines and emergency generators would rarely, if ever, be run on high sulphur fuel and therefore will not be subject to exhaust gas scrubbing. At present it would also be inappropriate to standardize connections for delivering scrubber wash water to shore-based reception facilities due to the variety of dimensions used, differing needs of different ship types and inadequate experience to date in using such a system. MEPC will address the issue of exhaust wash water discharges with more specific recommendations and criteria relevant to EGCS-SOx wash water discharges in the near future as amendments to the Guidelines. 5. References

The guidelines present the concept of an index for the energy efficiency of a ship in operation, limited to an expression of efficiency expressed in way of CO2 emitted per unit of transport work. The guidelines are intended to monitor the efficiency of ship operation. They should be used to establish a common approach for trials on the voluntary CO2 emission indexing, which will enable shipowners to evaluate the performance of their fleet with regard to CO2 emissions. As the amount of CO2 emitted from a ship is directly related to the consumption of bunker fuel oil, the CO2 indexing will also provide useful information on a ship’s performance with regard to fuel efficiency.

1). MEPC/Circ 472 - PSC Guidelines under Annex VI. 2). MEPC/Circ 471 - Interim Guidelines for Voluntary Ship CO2 Emission Index for Use in Trial. 3). Resolution MEPC.128(53) Adopted on 22 July 2005 Amendments to the Revised Survey Guidelines under the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (Resolution A.948(23)) For The Purpose of MARPOL Annex VI. 4). Resolution MECP.130(53) Guidelines for On-Board Exhaust GasSox Cleaning Systems. 5). Lloyd’s Register “Marine Fuel Sulphur Record Book for the control of sulphur oxide emissions” Contact [email protected] for the sources of the above circulars.

The Intercargo Technical, Safety and Environmental Com-


INTERCARGO


Bunkers - MARPOL Annex VI and EU Directive

1.

The differences between IMO MARPOL Annex VI and the EU Sulphur Directive

In July 2005 the European Union (EU) adopted significant amendments to the EU Directive 1999/32, now amended by the EU Sulphur Directive (2005/33). These amendments have largely aligned the EU Sulphur Directive with the IMO MARPOL Annex VI requirements. However there are still a few important differences: (1) Differing dates for the commencement of the North Sea/English Channel Sulphur Emissions Control Area (SECA). North Sea/English Channel becoming a SECA. According to IMO, the North Sea/English Channel will become a SECA (i.e. where fuels with a maximum sulphur content of 1.5% must be used) on 21 November 2007, while the interpretation given by the EU Commission to their own Sulphur Directive is: "In the North Sea and English Channel SECA, operators of all ships other than passenger vessels should comply with the 1.5% sx.ulphur fuel limit from 11 August 2007." (Passenger ships must, however, comply with the 1.5% sulphur fuel limit from 11 August 2006 whilst on regular services in European waters.) We have no doubt that EU Member States will implement this requirement within their 12 nautical mile territorial zone, which according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is under their jurisdiction. But while the EU can enforce this requirement in its own territorial waters (12 miles), we cannot clarify whether they could legally monitor enforcement in international waters. However, bearing in mind that the difference between the IMO and EU enforcement dates for ships (other than passenger ships) is only 3 months and 10 days, we cannot foresee that this discrepancy would create too much of a problem as long as ship operators take it into account when trading in the North Sea/ English Channel at this time. (2) Requirements that ships use very low sulphur content fuels while "at berth". Use of very low sulphur fuels Before these amendments, the EU Sulphur Directive required that all marine gas oils (MGO) and marine diesel

8 ■


oils (MDO) used by ships in intra-European voyages and when in EU ports should have a maximum sulphur content of 0.2%. The lack of supply of these oils has created a number of problems and since the original EU Sulphur Directive did not cover residual fuels, many ships have been forced to use exclusively intermediate fuel oil (IFO) and heavy fuel oil (HFO) when in Europe. The amendments have changed the situation and address all marine fuel oils but with one significant change: from 11 August 2006, the 0.2% sulphur limit will apply ONLY to DMA and DMX grade marine gas oils (MGOs) but no longer to DMB and DMC grade marine diesel oils (MDOs), which are commonly used by sea-going ships. As the ISO specification of grade DMB is close to the specification of grade DMA (the differences being in order to allow for the bunkering of DMA through a contaminated bunkering hose), one could assume that if MGOs are not available, the ship could use grade DMB for a short period of time and avoid the problem of non-compliance due to lack of supply. It should also be aware that from 1 January 2010, when ships are at berth they will be required to use only fuels with a 0.1% sulphur content. 2 EU Sulphur Directive - What do the provisions on marine distillate fuels (MDO & MGO) mean in practice? There are different provisions in Article 4 of EU Directive 1999/32 and the new Articles 4a and 4b of 2005/33 which relate to marine gas oils (MGO) and marine diesel oils (MDO). Confusion can arise here because the new directive is an amending proposal which has to be read in conjunction with the original directive. The following clarifications are proposed: · Until 10 August 2006, the existing 0.2% sulphur limit continues to apply to all marine distillates used in EU territory waters, including ships in territorial seas and on inland waterways, but excluding ships in the territory waters of Greece, the French DOM-TOM, Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands. The term used in the directive is “marine gas oil” but the definition includes all marine distillates under ISO 8217: DMA, DMB, DMC and DMX grades, i.e. also including marine diesel oils;

INTERCARGO

· From 11 August 2006 until 31 December 2007, the 0.2% sulphur limit now applies only to marine gas oils used in EU territory waters with a viscosity or density falling within the ranges of viscosity or density defined for DMX and DMA grades under ISO 8217. The exemption for Greece and the outermost regions continues to apply. For DMB and DMC grade marine diesel oils the 0.2% sulphur limit in EU territory waters is dropped, and a less stringent limit of 1.5% sulphur is introduced with respect to fuels placed on the market in EU Member States’ territory. This is to allow the use of marine diesel oils to comply with the SOx Emission Control Areas, in case supplies of 1.5% S heavy fuel oil are insufficient; · From 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2009, a 0.1% sulphur limit applies to marine gas oils used in EU territory with a viscosity or density falling within the ranges of viscosity or density defined for DMX and DMA grades under ISO 8217. The exemption for Greece and the outermost regions continues to apply; and · From 1 January 2010, the provisions originating from Directive 1999/32 and relating to the use of marine gas oils in EU territory waters (described above) are now deleted. Instead a 0.1% sulphur limit is introduced for marine gas oils placed on the market in EU Member States’ territory, and a 0.1% sulphur limit starts to apply to all types of marine fuel used by ships at berth in EU ports and by inland waterway vessels. This applies to any use of the fuel e.g. in auxiliary engines, main engines and boilers. There are the following exemptions: for ships which spend less than 2 hours at berth according to published timetables, for hybrid sea-river vessels while they are at sea, and for ships which switch off all engines and use shore-side electricity. The outermost regions continue to be exempt from this provision, but Greece does not, apart from a 2-year derogation for 16 named Greek vessels until 2012.

**********


Lifeboats - Measures to prevent accidents IMO produced the following documents with measures to prevent life-boat accidents:

•

MSC/Circ 1049 Accidents with Lifeboats MSC/Circ 1093 Guidelines for Periodic Servicing and Maintenance of Lifeboats, Launching Appliances and On-Load Release Gear • MSC/Circ.1136 Guidance on Safety During Abandon Ship Drills using Lifeboats • MSC/Circ.1137 Guidelines for Simulated Launching of Free-Fall Lifeboats • Resolution MSC.152(78) Adoption of Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, As Amended

**************** Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas The following Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSA) have been designated: • the Great Barrier Reef, Australia (designated a PSSA in 1990); • the Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago in Cuba (1997); • Malpelo Island, Colombia (2002); • the sea around the Florida Keys, United States (2002); • the Wadden Sea, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands (2002); • Paracas National Reserve, Peru (2003); • Western European Waters (2004); • Extension of the existing Great Barrier Reef PSSA to include the Torres Strait (proposed by Australia and Papua New Guinea) (2005); • Canary Islands, Spain (2005); • the Galapagos Archipelago, Ecuador (2005); and • the Baltic Sea area, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden (2005).


INTERCARGO


Cold Ironing

1. Introduction There are reports on the feasibility studies in the US about cold ironing to meet environmental concerns. Coldironing refers to shutting down auxiliary engines on ships while in port and connecting to electrical power supplied at the dock, thus eliminating virtually all emissions from a ship while it is in port. (Cold-ironing is also referred to as “shore power” and alternative maritime power). The term “cold-ironing” comes from the act of dry-docking a vessel, which involves shutting down all on-board combustion, resulting in the vessel going “cold.” Without cold-ironing, auxiliary engines run continuously while a ship is docked, or “hotelled,” at a berth to power lighting, ventilation, pumps, communication, and other onboard equipment. Ships can hotel for several hours or several days. There are no effective standards for electrical connection to shoreside power, and wide variations in the electrical infrastructures of both ships and ports. Ships which can connect in the US cannot easily do so in Europe (and vice versa). Controls are likely to apply primarily to regular visitors. Some examples are: Cruise Ships in Alaska: Cruise lines now use shoreside power when alongside. Princess Cruise Lines, based in Santa Clarita, California, has spent over $4.5 million to enable its big cruise ships to accept local power in Juneau, the capital of Alaska. New terminal in Los Angeles: The port was sued by a local community who was not adequately consulted before a new terminal went ahead. A settlement required ships at the terminal to use shoreside power. BP in Los Angeles: With the port paying for the shoreside installation, BP has also invested to allow its tankers, bringing oil from Alaska, to use shoreside power while unloading. It makes clear this is voluntary, and it has no legal obligation to do so. The costs, complications and additional shoreside emissions appear to make it unattractive as a general solution without significant change in both ship and shore electrical technologies. (Source: The USA & Shipping Emissions) In order for a ship to “cold iron”, it must be equipped to do so and the terminal at which it is docked must be equipped to provide power to the ship.

According to Princess Cruise Lines, the cost of purchased power of some 100,000 kWh per day somewhat exceeds the cost of diesel fuel that would be consumed if the ship's generators were operated in port. However, if new legislation further reduces the emission level in ports, ships may be offered an option to use shore power instead of using different types of fuel and related installations to balance the added cost with a contribution to protecting the environment. Modifying a ship to accept cold ironing costs more than $500,000 per vessel. Currently, the cruise line is implementing cold ironing at its docks in Seattle. A major Chinese line has also begun implementing cold ironing for its freighters that dock in Long Beach, California, which is known for its concerns about air pollution (source http://www.copper.org/resources/ cutopics/Ct98/ports_pollution.html). This approach is especially concerning for the tanker industry. There are obvious safety issues when connecting to the mains ashore. Other issues cover the availability of large amounts of power needed for tankers. Attention should also be paid to the type of energy plant that will be required to deliver this electricity (quite possibly coal based in U.S.), and the location of the power plant in relation to densely inhabitated areas. Therefore an immediate question is what is the real gain from the introduction of cold ironing by burning more coal. 2. New development At the last meeting of the Inter-Industry Shipping and Ports Contact Group (IISPCG) on 15 Nov 2005, IAPH (International Association of Ports and Harbours) reported the progress of cold ironing in the US. Los Angeles and Long Beach ports are considering introducing AMP (alternative marine power) but only for the hotelling operation, i.e. only providing shore electricity to ships for crew living on board, not for operational needs. It was also reported at the meeting that the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) is in the process of developing standards but using different vocabulary from those used by shipping.

3. Comments from Members Based on current information and initial comments from CASTEC members, we have the following summary: •

10 ■


It is extremely important NOT to underestimate

INTERCARGO

what it takes to “shut a ship down” these days and accordingly arrangements should, at all costs, allow for parallel running of the shore supply and ship’s power plant. The relevance of this increases with the decrease in expected stay alongside. Matching of power supplies will be an issue. •

•

•

•

It is difficult to make the changeover between ship and shore power supplies without power interruptions, however short. This imposes extra costs and safety precautions to a great deal of the sensitive electronic equipment upon which modern ships depend Heating is a service normally provided by the boiler. Electric heating is not really practical (the average or typical 30kW~40kW heaters for domestic services found are often inadequate) and the power required for the machinery heating services would be impractically large. What will be a much more significant problem is if the requirement is also to shut down the boiler. Owners would then be faced with all the problems of keeping the main engine and the fuel at the correct temperature and supplying hot water and heat for the accommodation for which on most ships the boiler is required. If the boiler cannot be used then significant expense will be involved. The power demands are large in comparison with other port uses. The approach of cold ironing is capable of handling the ships normal power requirements excluding that required for the deck cranes, which would require to be fitted with individual power supply points.


Cold ironing is only one of the tools to locally reduce air pollution from ships in ports and can be effective in some special cases, depending on local circumstances and sensitivity of the local environment. It is often difficult to adapt the ship to shore connection. The cables are bulky, safety critical, and need special handling, especially for ships of different lengths and sizes and shifting in berth. Intercargo would like to see uniform measures and requirements to tackle the emission problem. If the IMO development is directed to low sulphur fuel on board and shipping has purchased expensive fuel with the installation of additional storage tanks and handling systems, another regime following a different approach would undermine the implementation of the IMO requirements. It is noted that the issue is not a high priority for bulk carriers compared to cruise ships, tankers and container ships. However, it is realised that participation in the joint industry initiative may be necessary: • • • • • •

To monitor closely the progress in the US on cold ironing; To provide feedback and comments of the bulk carrier sector to the process; To influence the standard being developed by ISO; To bring the issue to IMO when necessary to reduce the negative impact on shipping; To influence the early practice and protect and balance ships interests (high cost and long term consequences); and To exchange views with other industry partners.

Intercargo would encourage safety assessments for bulk carriers and feasibility studies for bulk carrier terminals with moving loading/unloading facilities.

4. Industry position The environmental benefit achieved depends on a number of factors, such as the time the vessel is berthed at the quay, the fuel used, the performance of the engines and so on. The relative benefit of electricity supply from the shore depends on how the electricity is produced. If the shore power is generated by coal other than wind power, analysis may come out with a different view.

**********

The total cost for onboard generation of electricity will depend on the design of the ship’s power supply system and the fuel used (the fuel prices vary largely over time and by fuel quality). The total cost will also depend on costs for investments and maintenance (the investment costs will vary with the type of engine (two/four stroke, engine brand, size etc), age and running hours per year).


INTERCARGO


Ballast Water Management

1. Background The Ballast Water Management Convention (BWM Convention) was adopted in 2004 and is expected to enter into force in 2009 (a summary of BWM Convention is at annex I to this document). Relevant technologies of ballast water management have been developing since 2004. IMO will use the evaluation methodology to conduct a technology review covering aspects of safety, environmental acceptability, practicability, cost-effectiveness and biological effectiveness. By noting that the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships (February 2004) had adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention), MEPC 51 in April 2004 considered the requirements under the BWM Convention and approved a work programme for the development of guidelines for the uniform implementation of the BWM Convention. MEPC 52 in October 2004 finalized the “Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems” ( also referred to as G8) and approved the “Procedure for approval of active substances” (G9), with a view to adoption at MEPC 53 in July 2005. MEPC 52 also agreed on a set of recommendations for the conduct of a review of the ballast water management technologies, as required by regulation D-5 of the BWM Convention, and invited IMO Member States and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s, Intercargo being one of NGO’s) to submit relevant information to MEPC 53 to facilitate the review. MEPC 53 made significant progress on the development of guidelines called for under the BWM Convention and adopted 5 sets of Guidelines. 2. Up-to-date Progress There are 14 sets of Guidelines to be developed by MEPC in order to implement the BWM Convention. At MEPC 53 the following 5 sets of Guidelines have been adopted by MEPC Resolutions. Contact [email protected] for information of the resolutions and the Guidelines. 1)

Guidelines for Ballast Water Management Equivalent Compliance (G3), adopted by Resolution MEPC.123(53); Guidelines for Ballast Water Management and the Development of Ballast Water Management Plans (G4), adopted by Resolution MEPC.127

2)

12 ■


(53); 3) Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange (G6), adopted by Resolution MEPC.124(53); 4) Guidelines for the Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8), adopted by Resolution MEPC.125(53); and 5) Procedure for the Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems that make use of Active Substances (G9), adopted by Resolution MEPC.126(53). Substantial work was undertaken on the remaining 9 sets of guidelines, all of which will be completed by the end of 2006. Contact [email protected] for the information of the Programme for Development of the Guidelines for Uniform Implementation of the BWM Convention. 3. Technology available Categories of technology include filtration, ultraviolet radiation (UV), oxidation, ultrasonic, non-oxidizing chemical biocides, heat, and deoxygenation processes, as well as combinations (usually with an initial filtration step) in multi-stage systems. . Some systems presented used more than one technology. On reviewing some 14 different types of systems (detailed in annex II to this document) MEPC 53 agreed that for the time being there was no need to review the implementation dates as set out in the Convention. However, not enough information has been provided to firmly conclude on cost effectiveness. It should also be noted that no systems had been fully tested on board before MEPC 53. MEPC 53 agreed that it would undertake a second review at its 55th meeting in October 2006 (MEPC 55) to assess the progress made on the technologies reviewed at its 53rd session. There is a growing concern that sufficient capability will not be available in time to produce and install the systems on all the vessels mandated to use them. 4. When type approved systems will be available The program for a (G8) type approval (not using active substances) could potentially range from 8 months for land-based and shipboard testing in parallel and to up to 2 years if difficulties are encountered. 1) A G8 process might be achievable within the following dates:

INTERCARGO

•

Systems that do not use Active Substances: Landbased test facilities available: February 2006;

•

Earliest type approval using parallel ship and landbased testing: October 2006. However, it is questionable whether any operator would consider the installation of a test system without the confidence given by an extensive land-based test; or

•

Type approval assuming difficulties encountered: February 2008

2) A combined G8 & G9 approval for a system that used active substances would have to follow the (G9) process and assuming that data for an Active Substance was available at the earliest opportunity, then a combined (G8)/(G9) process might be achievable within the following dates: •

Systems that use Active Substances: Consideration by the Technical Group December 2005; Basic approval at MEPC 54 March 2006;

•

Earliest (G8) completion using parallel land and ship testing: January 2007. Earliest final approval at MEPC 56: July 2007; or

•

(G8) completion assuming difficulties encountered: May 2008. Final approval assuming difficulties encountered, at MEPC 58: October 2008.


by heating may need to be cooled to less than 10 deg C above ambient to minimize any environmental impact. 5). Systems with filters on up-take and/or discharge should ensure that any residual waste discharged by back-flushing may only be discharged at the point of origin. The capabilities of filters may impose a limit on achievable flow rate. 6). The size range of the systems onboard varies between systems and between flow rates for the same system. 7). Systems that include an in-tank treatment stage may introduce a minimum voyage time and may not be practicable for voyages of short duration. The minimum voyage time may be of the order of 24 to 48 hours. 8). There was not enough information at MEPC 53 to come to any firm conclusions about likely costs. 6. Annexes Annex I Summary of the Ballast Water Management Convention; and Annex II Summary of the technologies presented at MEPC 53. ***********

5. Advice to Members 1). No equipment should be permanently installed before it is type approved, during which full consideration should be given to the issues of safety, environmental risks and practicality. 2). The calibration or consistency of manufacture is also an important area of concern. There are uncertainties with regards to maintenance, robustness, design-life and calibration of the system. Owners should consider extending guarantees and/or warranties for maintenance cover since the system may have not been life-cycle tested. 3). Storage facilities should be given appropriate design consideration for systems that use Active Substances, since it is possible for ships to store and carry large quantities of potentially hazardous and toxic chemicals for use in ballast treatment systems. Investigation should be made to check whether some technologies may have other waste products from the Active Substances used on board. Residual chemicals may be produced when using non-active substance treatment systems. 4). The ballast water that has been subject to treatment


INTERCARGO


Annex I Summary of the Ballast Water Management Convention The new Ballast Water Convention has been adopted and will enter into force when 30 States representing 35% of the world’s gross tonnage become signatories. All ships including submersibles, floating craft/platforms, FSUs and FPSOs) are to manage their ballast water in accordance with an approved Ballast Water Management Plan and record such management in a Ballast Water Record Book in accordance with the provisions of the Convention based on the following implementation schedule: •

•

D1 = Ballast Water Exchange (95% volumetric exchange) or pumping through three times the volume of each tank; D2 = Ballast Water Treatment systems approved by the Administration which treat ballast water to an efficacy of: ∗ not more than 10 viable organisms per m3 >50 micrometers in minimum dimension; and ∗ not more than 10 viable organisms per millilitre < 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and >10 micrometers in minimum dimension.

Indicator Microbe concentrations shall not exceed: a) toxicogenic vibrio cholerae: 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 millilitres or 1 cfu per gram of zooplankton samples; b) Escherichia coli: 250 cfu per 100 millilitres; and c) Intestinal Enterococci: 100 cfu per 100 millilitres

Ballast CapacConstruction Date ity (m3)

14 ■

<2009

Ballast Water Exchange is to take place as follows: 1. at least 200 nm from the nearest land and in more than 200 m water depth; 2. at least 50 nm from the nearest land and in more than 200 m water depth; or 3. in the event throughout the intended route the sea area does not afford the above characteristics, in a sea area designated by the port State. All ships > 400gt (except floating platforms, FSUs and FPSOs) are to be surveyed (initial, annual, intermediate, and renewal) and certificated (not exceeding 5 years). States may establish additional ballast water management measures for ships to meet, based on Guidelines which remain to be developed. The MEPC shall undertake a review of the Ballast Water Standards no later than 2006 and is to include an assessment of the technologies available that achieve the standard.

2015

<2009 >2009

> 5000

<2012

> 5000

>2012

2016

D1 or D2

>2009

> 1500 < 5000


Major Conversion: change of ballast capacity of 15%; change of ship type; projected life is extended by 10 years; or ballast system modification except for replacement-in-kind or modifications needed to carry out ballast water exchange.

First, Intermediate or Renewal Survey , which ever occurs first after anniversary date of delivery in the year indicated below 2009 - 2014

<1500

Construction Date: keel laying date; 50 tons or 1% of structural material – whichever is less; or major conversion.

2017 D2

D2 D1 or D2

D2 D2 D1 or D2

D2 D2


Does not use active substances

An active substance (Chlorine dioxide) is used, to be generated on board the ship from its subcomponents. The active substance is generated onboard

Heat water to 3840 degrees Celsius for a period of time in order to be effective. Limited by length of voyage and ballast capacity.

This system uses filtration on uptake with a secondary chemical treatment of ballast water with Chlorine dioxide.

a) mechanical separation (filtration) and b) generation of an active substance

No.1 (Heat Method in document MEPC 53/2/15)

No.2 (Filtration and Chlorine Dioxide Treatment Method in document MEPC 53/2/15)

No. 3 (Mechanical Separation and Disinfection in document MEPC 53/2/11)

Available for all ship types and all ship sizes due to the modular system design

Constrained by a ballasting rate of 2,500 cubic meters per hour due to filtration

Between 50 and 5000 cubic meters per hour. Space requirements should not be significant.

Anticipated size range

Will be commercially available in the near future (end of 2006).

Not undergone shipboard trials

Tested on a dry bulk carrier, 141,475 dwt travelling between Japan and Australia.

State of development

Designed in a modular fashion no upper limit in the flow rate

Chlorine dioxide is widely used in municipal water treatment.

The system provides a level of simplicity, which for practical purposes is desirable in a shipboard system.

Positive results for eliminating viable organisms. has not been undertaken in relation to the D-2 standard or the G8 guidelines The testing undertaken has provided positive results; however testing has not been undertaken in relation to the D-2 standard or the G8 guidelines. Pilot tests have been carried out under worst case conditions in river. Standard D-2 can be met for organisms >50 µm and organisms <50 and >=10 µm.

Other relevant information

Extent of testing

Operation does not require consumables. However, cleaning chemicals and spare parts replacements are needed.

Cost information


Note: Technologies 8, 10 and 13 are not included as they are duplicates of other technologies already submitted.

Active substances used

Description

Technology

Annex II Summary of the technologies presented at MEPC53

INTERCARGO

16 ■


Tested on land with a flow rate of 200 and 500 cubic meters per hour. Size 4.8 and 14.8 square meters.

The system makes use of an active substance PERACLEAN® Ocean, which is a readily biodegradable and chlorinefree. The system uses an active substance. Produces no special risks for the environment. No special risk for health or onboard safety.

A first step mechanical separation (hydro cyclone and 50µm filtration) and a second step treatment with an oxidizing agent.

First step filtration (mesh size 50 µm) and a second step disinfection based on electrochemicalactivation

No. 5 (Physical Separation and Disinfection in document MEPC 53/2/11)

No. 6 (Filtration and Disinfection in document MEPC 53/2/11)

5 square meter size for a flow rate of 300 cubic meters per hour.

For ships with a ballast water flow rate up to 250 cubic meters per hour. It requires approx. 5 square meters.

The active substance needs to be dosed directly into the ballast water

A first step filtration, second step UV-radiation and third step disinfection

No. 4 (Filtration and UV in document MEPC 53/2/11)



Description

Technology

INTERCARGO

Results in relation to D-2 from onboard testing are not available at present. Installed on a container vessel (1.100 TEU) since May 2005. No influence to the normal ballast water operation. It starts and stops automatically with the common ballast operation.

Installation cost cannot be assessed at the present. Costs for operation are anticipated at 0.30 US$ per treated m³ of ballast water. Estimated operation costs for 1000 m³ of treated ballast water are between 4 € to 10 €.

Consumables are required on a very limited scale. Costs for maintenance and consumables are below 10k US$ annually. Due to the modular design system, components can be placed in different locations within the ship. Larger flow rates can be treated by using multiple systems in parallel. No constraint resulting from the voyage length. The treated water should be retained for a minimum of 24 hours. The system can be designed for a ballast water flow rate up to 5000 m³/h and should be world wide commercially available in summer 2006.

Pilot tests have been carried out and did not meet the D-2 Standard completely. The insufficient filtration rate for larger organisms needs the use of active substances to meet the D-2 standard Reached or even exceeded the D-2 standard

Cost information


Extent of testing

Fully developed and ready for shipboard testing in accordance with G8.




Not using Active Substances.

Uses nitrogen injected into a steam-plume established in the flow in the ballast pipe line following filtration through a 50 micrometer mechanical automatically back flushing filter. Electrochemical disinfection uses various active substances produced from electrolysis of sea water.

No. 9 (Filtration, Dual Pulsed Shock Wave/ Supersaturation and Oxygen Deprivation in document MEPC 53/2/16)

Active substances are not added to the system but produced during electrolysis of sea water, attacking simultaneously an organism or organisms for disinfection so that a synergy effect can be expected.

The system does not utilize active substances. No safety hazard for the ship or the crew running and operating the system.

The method of treating ballast water with a lowpressure loss separator and UV.

No.7 (Filtration and UV Radiation in document MEPC 53/2/16)

No.11 (Electrochemical Disinfection in document MEPC 53/2/31)


Description

Technology

INTERCARGO

Electrochemical reactor module, dimension (mm) 840 W x 740 D x 2700 H. Rectifier dimension (mm) 1400 W x 1300 D x 2350 H.

A 300 cubic meter system is approximately 1.5 square meters in size. Expected lifetime of 3000 running hours


Land-based pilot test with ballast water flow rate of 60 cubic meter is being conducted.

Installed on board a total of 7 ships; 5 retrofits and 2 new builds. The first installation since May 2000. There are no environmental concerns.


Undergone laboratory tests, landbased test and is currently evaluated in a shipboard situation.

The current version has not been tested under the current D-2 standards and G8 testing guidelines.

Extent of testing

There are no waste streams that have to be disposed of and require special concern during the system operation.

Comprises a compressor and membranes for nitrogen production, only the filter, injection and cavitation components need to be installed.


The capital cost including installation is expected to be in the range of 160K - 170K US$ for new vessel with 1500 m3/hr ballast pump and 180K - 200K US$ for an existing vessel.

Cost information


18 ■


All equipment and tanks housed in a standard 20 foot long shipping container. Target flow rate capability is 1,000 -10,000 cubic meters per hour.

Uses Active substance ClO2. Its storage and handling are not a concern because it is generated on board. Design dose is 5 mg/L ClO2 with 24-hour incubation.

No.14 (Chlorine Dioxide in document MEPC 53/2/14

A area of 3 square meters for equipment is required to treat 500 cubic meters per hour.

No substances are added and no residuals are created.

Automatically black-flushing filter for removal of large particles and the AOT unit producing hydroxyl radicals in breaking down micro-organisms and bacteria. Based on a chlorine dioxide (ClO2) generator which produces a treatment solution from sulphuric acid and sodium chlorate/hydrogen peroxide.

No.12 (Filtration and Advanced Oxidation in document MEPC 53/2/6)



Description

Technology

INTERCARGO

Currently undergoing full-sized shipboard tests on a 11,000 cubic meter ballast water capacity container ship with a ballast flow rate of 2,500 cubic meters per hour.

A full-scale prototype has since September 2003 been installed on board a transoceanic car carrier.


Vendor reports that the design dose achieves treatment meeting IMO D-2 standard concentrations. Shipboard tests to validate at full scale are underway.

Compliance with the D-2 standard should be achieved. Fullscale land-based tests according to G8 are yet to be tested.

Extent of testing

Power consumption depends on the amount of ballast water to be treated, e.g. 500 cubic meters per hour requires 15 kW.


Capital for equipment and installation: $300K to $450K; technical support including materials: 50K - 100K US$ per year.

Operational costs including power consumption and consumables about 0.015US$/ m3 treated ballast water.

Cost information


INTERCARGO


Cargoes - Petcoke - Guide on disposal of petcoke residue and cargo hold wash water

1. Background

with these requirements by completion of log books, oil record books, incinerator logs and records of port discharges.

Due to the entry into force of the amendments to MARPOL Annex V on 1 Aug 2005, cargo residues become “garbage” under the amended Annex V.

2. Operational experience

After carrying green delayed petcoke, subsequent cleaning will remove both the residues and the residual footprint (the paint pigment) left behind. The cargo residue has polluting properties which leave a sheen on the surface, therefore it needs a port reception facility to collect it. The water cleaning operations may use chemicals/ detergents to remove the "footprint". The resultant wash water then needs special attention. The wash water may be contaminated by oil, or hydrocarbons and may trigger application of regulation 3(2), or 5(2) of Annex V which states that "when the garbage is mixed with other discharges having different disposal or discharge requirements the more stringent requirements shall apply". If a bulk carrier is within special areas (as defined within MARPOL Annex V) or within port limits (this definition to be determined by the port authority regarding how far out to sea this goes), the wash water cannot be discharged overboard. Even if the ship is out of the special areas, but the chemicals/detergents of the wash water do not break down the oily deposit and prevent the 'sheen' from occurring and/or the chemicals/detergents are not the ones as approved by IMO, the wash water is still not allowed to be discharged overboard. Ships turn to adequate port reception facilities for assistance, which are required by MARPOL as statutory obligation of ports. Without proper port reception facilities to receive the cargo residues, a ship may not be able to physically present itself with clean holds to back load at a port or terminal within one of the Special Areas. Intercargo is aware that it is not easy for a ship to clean for loading after a discharge in either North West Europe or the Mediterranean. The PSC inspectors may quickly become aware of the issue. MARPOL Annex I contains limits on the amount of oil which ships can legitimately discharge into the sea. Where discharge from bilge tanks is permitted it is a requirement that an Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control System together with Oil Filtering equipment (Oily Water Separator) be fitted so as to ensure that the oil content of any discharge does not exceed the maximum permitted under Annex I (15ppm). Any residue or sludge should then either be incinerated or discharged into port reception facilities. Owners are required to ensure compliance

2.1 Experts contacted The following members and organisations were contacted for advice: Intercargo membership: Anglo-Eastern Ship Management (Hong Kong) Ltd. COSCO UK Bocimar, Belgium IMC Singapore Kristen Marine S.A. Greece Oceanbulk Maritime S.A. Greece Pacific Basin UK Thomas Miller Ltd Unisea Shipping Ltd Wallem Shipmanagement Ltd, Hong Kong Others: Experts from Intertanko Thenamaris Ships Management Inc. Greece Strømme ASA, Norway 2.2 Advice received MEPC circular MEPC.2/Circ.8 issued in Dec 2002 indicates the restriction on the types of detergents used in washing under Para. 3.4 Cleaning additives as: “1.8.2 When small amounts of detergents are added to water in order to facilitate tank washing, no detergents containing pollution category A components should be used except those components that are readily biodegradable and present in a total concentration of less than 10%.” No restrictions additional to those already applicable to the tank due to the previous cargo should apply (amendments to the Standards for Procedures and Arrangements for the Discharge of Noxious Liquid Substances, implemented as of 1 July 1996). The IMO BLG Sub-Committee evaluated a list of cleaning additives and found it to meet the requirements of paragraph 1.8.2. Annex 12 of the MEPC.2/ Circ.8 details the consolidated list. Cargo residues: Having a similar property is fuel sludge, petcoke should be collected by a shore facility. Owners’ best proposal is to get the cargo receiver and


INTERCARGO


is not approved under the above class and its use should be avoided. The disposal has to go through standard discharge and monitoring equipment if available.

receiving terminal involved as early as possible for their preparation and arrangement to deal with the cargo residues. Cargo hold washing: It is normal that after discharging of petcoke there are always some dark foot prints left behind on the bulkheads of cargo holds. These are normally cleaned with bridgeable cleaning agents which remove these stains and any oily content or sheen which is then emulsified into a harmless solution and is discharged as normal and won’t invoke Marpol Annex I.

6). For dry petcoke EDGE or Enviromate 2000 is usually recommended. Edge or Enviromate 2000 would be the product of choice if a spray on application is going to be used. EDGE is recommended when stubborn stains are a problem.

Procedure to wash cargo holds after discharge: US Practice: 1) Sweep tank (Very Important to Thoroughly Sweep Out); 2) High pressure water wash if possible with warm water (50 to 60 deg C); 3) Manual spray at 100 to 150 liters of cleaner per 1000 cubic meters of tank space or tank cleaning machine; 4) Let soak 45 to 60 minutes maximum; and 5) High pressure water wash. Chemicals for different types of petcoke 1) Only products listed under IMO MEPC.2/CIRC.8 can be used and disposed of at sea for cargo tank cleaning when cargo residue slops are permitted to be disposed at sea. It is suggested to check with the manufactures for a Certificate of Compliance of the products to meet the requirements of MEPC.2/Circ.8. 2) The cleaning products EDGE, Enviromate 2000 and DREW TC at Sea have been evaluated by IMO bulk liquid and gases (BLG) working group on the evaluation of safety and pollution hazard of chemical (ESPH) and found to meet the requirement of Paragraph 1.8.2 of Procedures and arrangement standards and is listed on IMO MEPC.2/CIRC.8. 3) OSD/LT is an oil spill dispersant used to breakdown sheen and TYPE 1 approved by the UK environmental and food council. 4) Cleaning chemical Aqutuff from Unitor was evaluated through IMO’s BCH Working Group on the Evaluation of Safety and Pollution Hazards of Chemicals and found to meet their requirements of paragraph 1.8.2 of the P&A Standards. 5). For oily petcoke Solvent cleaning is required. Drew TC Sea or TC #4 can be applied or used through a tank cleaning machine, combigun or maxigun. If De-odoring is required then use Drew EDGE. The product TC#4 is not listed under this category and

20 ■


A vessel may not discharge wash water of any kind from her bilge tank(s) directly into the sea. Any wash products that may form a sheen (shiny translucent film) in the water or contain chemicals, oil, hydrocarbons or any other product unfriendly to the aquatic life environment, cannot be disposed overboard in US waters. The procedures call for the secure transfer of the wash water or of any other liquid type to be disposed into special holding tanks (frac tanks). Once the wash water has been transferred into the holding tanks a tank transportation company would thereafter transport the tank content to an approved (EPA agency) facility for final disposal. All the disposals are governed by federal, state and local environmental control regulation. • 3. References (contact [email protected] for the information of them): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Summary of the amendments to MARPOL Annex V. Introduction of Petcoke. Garbage management plans - MEPC/Circ.317. Provisional categorization of liquid substances, IMO MEPC.2/ Circ.8, Dec 2002. Research project - Precautions when fixed for Green Delayed Petcoke, Strømme AS, Nesveien 15, PO Box 31 N-1305 Haslum, Norway. Cleaning Manual for bulk carriers, Strømme AS. Solutions to petcoke problems, Strømme AS. Solving hold cleaning problems in vessels transporting petcoke, Strømme AS. Pollution Prevention Equipment Required By Marpol 73/78.

INTERCARGO


Reception Facilities - Baltic - Introduction of its no-special-fee System

1.

INTRODUCTION of the Baltic Strategy

Main Components of the Baltic Strategy

•

Port reception facilities: Over 210 port reception facilities in the Baltic Area • Notification: 24 hours in advance • Mandatory delivery: obligation to deliver to a port reception facility before leaving • ”No-special-fee”: Ports charge the reception costs as part of their harbour fee, irrespective of delivery of any waste or not and irrespective of amounts • Promotion of sound waste management on board and on shore • Information and awareness raising • Control and enforcement: aerial surveillance supported by satellite observations The Baltic Sea area has been designated as a special area under Annexes I, II and V. Prohibitions and restrictions on any discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances and garbage have been introduced by the Baltic Sea States. The Baltic Sea area comprises the Baltic Sea proper, plus the Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Finland, and the entrance to the Baltic Sea bounded by the parallel of the Skaw in the Skagerrak at 57°44.43'N, with a total area of about 370,000 km². The Helsinki Commission has approved the Strategy for Port Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Wastes and Associated Issues, also known as the Baltic Strategy, which comprises a set of measures and regulations with the main goals to ensure ships' compliance with global and regional discharge regulations and to eliminate illegal discharges into the sea of all wastes from all ships. In addition, regulations concerning the discharge of sewage into the sea and the prohibition of incineration of ship-generated wastes in the territorial seas of the Baltic Sea States have been adopted by the Contracting Parties to the HELSINKI CONVENTION (refer to the attached Introduction to the Convention). There is also a general ban on dumping and incineration of other wastes, not incidental to or derived from the normal operation of

ships, in the entire Baltic Sea area. Source: http://www.helcom.fi (GRID Arendal)

The HELCOM Recommendation 26/1on “Application of the no-special-fee system to ship-generated wastes in the Baltic Sea area” was adopted on 2 March. It recommends that the Governments of the Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention apply the attached Guidelines for the establishment of a harmonised "nospecial-fee" system for the operation of reception facilities in their ports as of 1 January 2000 for shipgenerated wastes covered by Annex I (oily wastes from machinery spaces) of MARPOL 73/78 and as of 1 January 2006 for wastes covered by Annex IV (sewage) and Annex V (garbage) of MARPOL 73/78. “No-special-fee” for the reception of ship-generated waste means that the ports charge the reception and treatment costs to all ships calling as part of their harbour fee, irrespective of whether a certain ship delivers any waste or not and irrespective of amounts discharged. In addition, they have a mandatory commitment for ships to deliver all their wastes to port reception facilities before leaving port. The "no-special-fee" system has the dual purpose of encouraging ships to deliver waste ashore thus avoiding undesirable waste streams between ports and encouraging a sound sharing of the waste burden. This


INTERCARGO

means that fees covering the cost of the reception, handling and final disposal of ship-generated wastes are included in the harbour fee and otherwise charged to the ship, irrespective of whether any wastes are actually delivered. Over 210 port reception facilities are provided in ports located around the Baltic Sea. Additionally, the Baltic Sea States have agreed that by 1 January 2001 ships bound for or leaving a port of a Baltic Sea State and carrying dangerous or polluting goods, must report on the substances to the competent authority of that Baltic Sea State. Some Baltic Sea States have already made this reporting requirement obligatory under their national law. CHAIN of responsibility The responsibility for avoiding discharges of oil or other harmful substances rests not only with the master and his crew but also with the charterer, the ship-owner and the ports. The charterer should include in the Charter Party a clause stating his policy on pollution prevention compliance. The ship-owner should ensure sound management in safety and pollution prevention, as required by the International Safety Management Code for certain categories of ships. Ports should be prepared to accept tank cleaning slops, or cargo that has been mixed with retained residues. Notes: 10 Contracting Parties (9 Baltic Sea coastal States and the European Community) HELCOM: the Helsinki Commission, Governing body of the Convention . HELCOM MARITIME: the Maritime Group of the Helsinki Commission

Attachments: 1. Introduction to the Helsinki Convention. 2. Application of the “No-Special-Fee System” to ShipGenerated Wastes in the Baltic Sea Area.

******** Attachment 1 Introduction to the Helsinki Convention (source: http://www.helcom.fi/) Growing awareness that national measures alone are not sufficient to protect this highly sensitive marine environment led the Baltic Sea States to adopt the HELSINKI

22 ■



CONVENTION, which was signed in 1974 and came into force in 1980. The 1974 Convention was the first international agreement worldwide to take into account all aspects of marine environment protection. The Convention aims to prevent pollution from ships (including dumping), pollution from land-based sources, and pollution resulting from the exploration and exploitation of the seabed and its subsoil. The Convention also regulates the co-operation to respond to marine pollution by oil and other harmful substances. A new Convention was signed in 1992 in order to extend, strengthen and modernize the legal regime for the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area. The 1992 HELSINKI CONVENTION entered into force on 17 January 2000. The Convention text and HELCOM Recommendations can be found in the internet, see www.helcom.fi. The discharge regulations are as follows: Oil Any discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the Baltic Sea area is prohibited. Oil means petroleum in any form including crude oil, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse and refined products. The prohibition applies not only to discharges from the cargo tanks of oil tankers but equally to discharges from the machinery spaces of any ship. Only if the oil content in the effluent does not exceed 15 parts per million can a discharge be permitted. The oil filtering equipment must be provided with arrangements that ensure that any discharge of oil or oily mixtures is automatically stopped when the oil content in the effluent exceeds 15 parts per million. Since 1 January 2002 ships of less than 400 tons gross tonnage, flying the flag of a Baltic Sea State, should also comply with the adopted guidelines concerning holding tanks/oily water separating or filtering equipment. Finland has prohibited the use of bilge water separators in her inland waterways and in the territorial waters, within an area of 4 nautical miles from the nearest land. Noxious liquid substances carried in bulk Within the Baltic Sea area there is a prohibition on discharges from tanks that have contained Category A or B substances, specified by IMO’s International Bulk Chemical Code, which categorizes noxious liquid substances carried in bulk as A, B, C or D according to their magnitude of harm to the marine environment if discharged. Tanks having contained Category A or B substances must be pre-washed and the resultant tank washings must be delivered to a reception facility. This is either to ensure a certain concentration of the substance in the

INTERCARGO

effluent or a certain concentration of the substance in the wake astern of the ship. The same applies to tanks that have contained high-viscosity or solidifying Category C substances. The eventual discharge into the sea must comply with provisions on the speed of the ship, discharge below the waterline, distance from the nearest land and depth of water. For discharges from tanks that have contained other Category C substances there are provisions on the concentration of the substance in the wake astern of the ship, maximum quantity of cargo to be discharged, speed of the ship, distance from the nearest land, discharge below the waterline and depth of water. Likewise provisions on concentration of the mixtures to be discharged, speed of the ship and distance from the nearest land apply to discharges from tanks that have contained Category D substances. The discharge into the sea of noxious liquid substances, which have not been categorized, provisionally assessed or evaluated, or of ballast water, tank washings, or other residues or mixtures containing such substances, is prohibited. Sewage For ships flying the flag of a Baltic Sea State it is prohibited to discharge sewage within 12 nautical miles of the nearest land. This prohibition also applies to all other ships in the territorial seas of the Baltic Sea States. However, sewage that has been comminuted and disinfected using an approved system may be discharged at distances greater than 3 nautical miles from the nearest land. In any case, when discharging from a sewage holding tank, the discharge must be at a moderate rate and the ship must be proceeding en route at a minimum speed of 4 knots. Only if an approved sewage treatment plant is used onboard can discharge take place at any distance from the nearest land. For ships, flying the flag of a Baltic Sea State, certified to carry more than 50 persons and engaged in international voyages in the Baltic Sea area, regulations on Surveys and Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificates also apply. Garbage Discharge of garbage in the Baltic Sea area is prohibited. However, food wastes may be discharged, but in any case not less than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. Fuel oil quality In the Baltic Sea area ship-owners are encouraged to use marine fuel oils with as low sulphur content as possible, but not exceeding 1.5% m/m (mass/mass) by weight. Alternatively, exhaust gas treatment systems, proven to


cause no harm to the marine environment, may be used. The Baltic Sea States have also agreed to take actions to reduce and finally prohibit the use of ozone-depleting substances on board ships flying the flag of a Baltic Sea State. When Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78 on “Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships” enters into force on 20 May 2005 the Baltic Sea area will obtain the status of a SOx emission control area requiring that on and after 20 May 2006 all ships navigating in the area use fuel oil with a sulphur content not exceeding 1.5% m/m or an exhaust gas cleaning system or any other technical method reducing the total emissions of sulphur oxides from ships. In accordance with Annex VI deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances will be prohibited. Prohibition of incineration Incineration means the deliberate combustion of wastes or other matter at sea for the purpose of their thermal destruction, excluding activities incidental to the normal operation of ships or other man-made structures. Incineration, except for incineration of ship-generated wastes, is prohibited throughout the Baltic Sea area. However, incineration of wastes deriving from the normal operation of the ship is also prohibited in the territorial seas of the Baltic Sea States. Prohibition of dumping Dumping means any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from ships, or any deliberate disposal from ships at sea. The prohibition of dumping does not apply to the disposal of dredged materials at sea, provided specific provisions are complied with. Dumping is prohibited throughout the Baltic Sea area. Mandatory delivery of wastes at port reception facilities All ships, with some exceptions, are under an obligation to deliver to a port reception facility, before leaving the port, their ship-generated wastes and cargo residues that cannot be legally discharged under the global International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), or under the HELSINKI CONVENTION. Availability of port reception facilities To enable ships to deliver their ship-generated wastes and cargo residues, over 210 port reception facilities are pro-


INTERCARGO


vided in ports located around the Baltic Sea area. Notification of the intended use of port reception facilities To ensure the use and efficiency of the port reception facilities, an information sheet must be forwarded to the next port of call 24 hours in advance of the intended use of a port reception facility. The sheet must include the following information: the capacity of the waste storage tanks/bins on board; the amounts of wastes delivered at the last port of call and the estimated amounts of wastes to be delivered at the next port of call. The notification can also be accomplished electronically via the Baltic Ports Waste Information System. The “no-special-fee” system According to the “no-special-fee” system, a fee covering the cost of reception, handling and final disposal of shipgenerated wastes is levied on the ship irrespective of whether or not ship-generated wastes are actually delivered. The fee is included in the harbour fee or otherwise charged to the ship. Detection and prosecution of offenders of antipollution regulations The Baltic Sea States place high priority on the elimination of violations of anti-pollution regulations, and on the conviction of any offenders. Various actions have been taken to this end.

Co-operation in investigation The Baltic Sea States are co-operating to investigate violations of anti-pollution regulations. This is particularly important when a ship violates the discharge regulations in the waters of one State, without calling at a port in that State, and proceeds to a port in another State. Thus, a Baltic Sea State can request another State to conduct a Port State Control inspection upon the ship's arrival at the next port of call, to obtain the necessary information and evidence of the suspected violation. To enhance this co-operation, the Baltic Sea States have elaborated a Baltic Legal Manual specifying the requirements for obtaining a conviction in each Baltic Sea State and Guidelines on ensuring successful convictions of offenders of anti-pollution regulations at sea. Fines The Baltic Sea States have agreed to harmonize administrative fines by deciding on a minimum level, which is intended to be preventive - discouraging the master or other person in charge of a ship from violating the anti-pollution regulations. The minimum level will prevent fines varying greatly between the Baltic Sea States, and will also avoid a situation in which it is cheaper to discharge illegally than to use port reception facilities.

Cargo, Oil and Garbage Record Books MARPOL 73/78 and the HELSINKI CONVENTION lay down a duty to keep Cargo, Oil and Garbage Record Books, and specify the operations requiring entries in the appropriate Record Books. Accurate and timely entries in Cargo, Oil and Garbage Record Books are of utmost importance to ensure compliance with the special discharge regulations. A copy of the relevant Record Book may be used in judicial proceedings as evidence of facts stated in the entry.

******** Attachment 2

Application of the “No-Special-Fee” System to ShipGenerated Wastes in the Baltic Sea Area (source: http://www.helcom.fi/)

Aerial surveillance

THE COMMISSION,

In order to prevent and detect any violation of discharge regulations, the Baltic Sea States regularly conduct aerial surveillance supported by satellite observations of their response regions and jointly survey specific parts of the Baltic Sea area. During the joint surveys a chosen traffic route is surveyed for a minimum of 24 hours by a number of aircraft from the Baltic Sea States. A joint command post manages the surveillance in close co-operation with patrol vessels, ready to take proper measures when offenders are detected.

RECALLING Article 8 of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992 (the Convention) which calls for development and application of uniform requirements for the provision of reception facilities,

24 ■


RECALLING ALSO Article 9 of the Convention stipulating a need for special measures in relation to pleasure craft, which includes the establishment of adequate reception facilities for wastes from pleasure craft,

INTERCARGO


age and Garbage to Port Reception Facilities CONSCIOUS that the "no-special-fee" system constitutes a system with the dual purpose of encouraging ships to deliver waste ashore and to avoid undesirable waste streams between ports, thereby encouraging a sound sharing of the waste burden, CONSCIOUS ALSO that the “no-special-fee” system constitutes one of the prerequisites for a substantial decrease in the number of operational and illegal discharges and thus for the prevention of pollution of the marine environment from ships,

1 Definition of the "no-special-fee" system 1.1 In this context the "no-special-fee" system is defined as a charging system where the cost of reception, handling and disposal of ship-generated wastes, originating from the normal operation of the ship, is included in the harbour fee or otherwise charged to the ship irrespective of whether wastes are delivered or not. 1.2 The "no-special-fee" system is not restricted to any specific type of ship-generated waste.

NOTING that the port authorities are responsible for providing reception facilities for wastes covered by Annex I (oil), Annex II (noxious liquid substances), Annex IV (sewage) and Annex V (garbage) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78),

2 Obligation to pay 2.1 Every sea-going ship's obligation to pay for reception, handling and disposal of oil residues, sewage and garbage is deemed to arise with the arrival of a ship in any port of the participating countries, irrespective of whether or not that particular ship will actually make use of the reception facilities, which are available there.

NOTING ALSO that the consignor in the loading port is responsible for reception arrangements for cargo related wastes covered by Annex I (oil residues from cargo tanks) of MARPOL 73/78,

2.2 The above fee covers the waste collecting, handling and processing including infrastructure and shall be distributed among ships and collected as part of or in addition to the port dues.

NOTING FURTHER that the consignee in the unloading port is responsible for reception arrangements for wastes covered by Annex II (residues of noxious liquid substances) of MARPOL 73/78,

3 Exemptions 3.1 A ship may be exempted by the competent authority from the obligation to pay, when engaged in scheduled traffic with regular and frequent port calls and it is ensured that the disposal requirements will be met on the ship’s own account.

RECOMMENDS that the Governments of the Contracting Parties apply the attached Guidelines for the establishment of a harmonised "no-special-fee" system for the operation of reception facilities in their ports as of 1 January 2000 for ship-generated wastes covered by Annex I (oily wastes from machinery spaces) of MARPOL 73/78 and as of 1 January 2006 for wastes covered by Annex IV (sewage) and Annex V (garbage) of MARPOL 73/78,

3.2 For the purpose of these Guidelines "scheduled traffic with regular and frequent port calls" means the traffic meeting the following criteria: 3.2.1 scheduled: the ship must have a published or planned list of times of departures and arrivals, between nominated ports or terminals;

TAKING NOTE of the adoption within the European Union of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues,

3.2.2 regular: for being exempted, the ship must make repeated journeys between those nominated ports or terminals; or

REQUESTS the Governments of the Contracting Parties to support or seek active co-operation with the North Sea States for the purpose of establishing a similar "nospecial-fee" system also in the North Sea Region,

3.2.3 frequent: the ship must visit the port for which the exemption applies at least once a week.

REQUESTS ALSO the Governments of the Contracting Parties to report on the implementation of this Recommendation and attached Guidelines in accordance with Article 16(1) of the Convention. Guidelines for the Establishment of a Harmonised "No-Special-Fee" System for the Delivery of Ship-Generated Oily Wastes Originating From Machinery Spaces and for the Delivery of Sew-

3.3. When a ship applies for an exemption, the competent authority of the Port State should require evidence of the ship’s scheduled traffic as well as evidence of waste management practice (contract, receipts, copy of garbage record book, oil record book etc.). The ship has to organise its waste management according to a contract and deliver its waste regularly under this arrangement in a certain port/ports. If it chooses to deliver elsewhere, a port can charge the ship according to the real costs (direct fee). 3.4. The Contracting Parties should also advise on exMarch 2006 Issue One ■ 25

INTERCARGO

emptions issued to other Port States along the scheduled route. The Contracting Parties will inform the HELCOM Secretariat of their competent authority responsible for granting exemptions from the mandatory delivery and notification requirements. 4 Basis of calculation of the no-special-fee 4.1 The waste management fee imposed on a ship should be independent of the volume of the wastes delivered to the port reception facilities. To obtain the maximum fairness in specifying the ship’s contribution to the “nospecial-fee” system the gross tonnage, as indicated in the vessel's Data Sheet, could be taken as the basis of calculation by the port. The basis of the quantity calculation of oil, garbage and sewage may depend on the type and size of the ship as well as the number of crew and passengers. 4.2 A high quality standard of the applied waste management procedures and waste processing equipment on board can also be taken into account in scaling the waste management fee, having in mind the general aim of minimisation of waste production, and the benefit of waste separation. 4.3 The waste management fee shall be fair, transparent and non-discriminatory to all ships, i.e. the size of the waste management fee shall be visible to every ship even if it is included in the harbour fee. 4.4 The waste management fees received from ships shall be used for no other purposes than: - investments in reception facilities, stationary and mobile; - operation of reception facilities; - repair and maintenance costs of such facilities; and - costs of handling, treatment and final disposal of the received wastes. 5 Avoidance of competitive distortion 5.1 To avoid competitive distortions between ports located in different sea areas, all possible efforts shall be made to achieve as soon as possible a harmonised waste management fee system for the ports in the Baltic Sea and in the North Sea Regions. 5.2 The Contracting Parties involved shall make the necessary efforts in order to implement a harmonised fee system simultaneously in the ports of the Baltic Sea as well as in the North Sea Regions. 5.3 Provisions should be made to preclude any subsidising of the waste management fee through public funds for the operation of reception facilities. 5.4 The Governments of the Contracting Parties shall exchange periodic reports on the implementation of these Guidelines in their ports, including reports on the financ-

26 ■



ing and operation of reception facilities, and evaluate such reports at the meetings of the Maritime Group of the Helsinki Commission.

********

INTERCARGO


MARPOL Special Areas

Special areas under MARPOL 73/78 are as follows: 1) Annex I: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil

der amendments to Annex VI adopted by the MEPC in July 2005, with expected entry into force in November 2006.

*********

Regulation 10 identifies the following special areas with strict controls on discharge of oily wastes:

• • • • • • • • •

Mediterranean Sea area Baltic Sea area Black Sea area Red Sea area “Gulfs” area Gulf of Aden area Antarctic area North West European Waters Oman Sea area of the Arabian Seas (from 1 January 2007)

2) Annex II: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by Noxious Liquid substances Regulation 1 identifies the following special areas with strict controls on tank washing and residue discharge procedures:

• • • 3)

Baltic Sea area Black Sea area Antarctic area Annex V: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by Garbage

Regulation 5 identifies the following special areas, in which there are strict controls on disposal of garbage:

• • • • • • • •

Mediterranean Sea area Baltic Sea area Black Sea area Red Sea area “Gulfs” area North Sea Antarctic area (south of latitude 60 degrees south) Wider Caribbean region including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea 4) Annex VI: Prevention of air pollution by ships

This annex enters into force on 19 May 2005 and establishes the Baltic Sea area as a "SOx Emission Control Areas" (SECA) with more stringent controls on sulphur emissions from ships. The North Sea was adopted as a SECA in July 2005, un-


INTERCARGO


IACS Common Structural Rules

General industry position INTERCARGO, together with the other three Round Table International Shipping Associations (BIMCO, ICS and INTERTANKO), lends its full support to IACS and its commendable work on developing Common Structural Rules (CSR) for Bulk Carriers. We believe that the broad application of the Rules by all IACS members is fundamental to the future of Class and is in the best interests of maintaining the highest standards of ship safety and quality. INTERCARGO has shown and will continue to show its commitment to work together with IACS in the harmonisation and future reviews process. As to the history, the 2nd draft of Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers was published on the JBP Website on 8th April, 2005. Large number of comments from the Industry have already reached IACS and led to the revision of the 2nd draft CSR. It shows that the IACS harmonisation process has difficulties. It is the request of the shipping industry that the IACS members should endeavour to maximise those elements of harmonisation which can be achieved before the implementation of the CSR. Both IACS and the industry have covered much ground, however the industry still has areas of concern and has requested IACS to consider them during the harmonisation process and future revisions in the review process. Uncertainties at present with the impact on the CSR The IMO is also busy with the development of Goalbased New Construction Standards (GBS), which are indirectly linked to the CSR development. Such a link will have a significant impact on the future review of the CSR. This leaves CSR with a level of uncertainty for its user. Maritime safety and environmental issues are increasingly attracting the attention of the public, who together with their governments, are demanding increasingly robust ships. These pressures alone are enough to push the development of CSR to the fullest extent of its safety margins. Shipping is driven by commercial interest. Shipowners who put more attention on the long term benefit, will respond positively to the increase of safety margins, but there are also groups of shipowners positioning themselves with the intention of relatively short term invest-

28 ■


ment in newbuildings and who are not interested in a ship’s life longer than 20 years. These are entirely legitimate concerns and interests, which will need to be accommodated within the CSR development process. There are still areas of ship design and building issues waiting for new technology to come up with new solutions or clarification. The advance of new technology will leave the CSR under continuous pressure for review and evaluation. Information flow between key stakeholders of the CSR can either promote or restrict the understanding and appreciation of the CSR. Lack of transparency or shortage of information flow will delay the process of CSR development and the review process. Shipyards and marine products manufacturers have to respond to the CSR positively. New designs under the CSR will therefore impact on their standards. The cost of absorption will be passed down to the end user, shipowners, with commercial uncertainty. The principle of CSR is to reduce the competition level between IACS Members but internal conflicts have been evidenced in the review and harmonisation of the CSR between tanker and bulk carrier and the ramification study, although recent perceived unanimity within IACS Members has been greatly welcomed by the wider shipping industry. There is always a question as to what extent the CSR incorporates the industry comments and feedback. Overall impact on shipping CSR, covering both single and double side skin bulk carriers, will come into force for ships contracted for construction on or after the 1st of April 2006, as decided by IACS Council in December 2005. From April 1, 2006, ships contracted will be subject to the new rules. According to the IACS assessment, bulk carriers, built to the new common rules, could be expected to require “5%-6%” more steel on average than ships either built or under construction that did not already comply with the Unified Requirements issued by IACS for ships contracted after July 1, 2003. This equals to a 3% rise in scantlings over a ship built to UR S25. Apart from the opportunity cost of ship new buildings between the first draft CSR available in 2004 and final

INTERCARGO


implementation in 2006, same uncertainties remain and may leave a long term impact on new ships during their 25 years of commercial life.

implement the CSR from 1 Apr 2006, the following suggestion is offered to those owners who are planning newbuildings:

On the positive side, the CSR is expected to raise the overall safety bar for new ships. It is also expected to reduce market forces on ship design and building and avoid compromise on the safety level of ships. The same set of rules across the whole design and construction sector is expected to provide the same design in term of main scantling and strength elements, which will reduce the opportunity to optimize design and new building standards.

1. The CSR for bulk carriers are completely new to all yards. There will be more certainty in terms of cost, design, planning approval, and delivery date if the newbuilding contract follows existing rules prior to the introduction of CSR on 1 Apr 2006, because normal yards have years of experience using them. This will make for a cheaper newbuild vessel price. However, those with the perception to use the CSR may have a more robust, ‘forward-proofed’ ship offering the long-term benefits such as a sound second hand resale security and compliant with future IMO strengthening requirements; and

On the commercial side, heavier ships will incur higher cost of building and a burden on the original owner but will give more certainty to the second hand owners. On the negative side, all new ships with IACS member societies’ class will follow the new CSR and bear the possible cost of all uncertainties. A tiny proportion of ships of non IACS Member societies may compete with the CSR ships with the advantage of an initial low investment on newbuildings, although it is not widely anticipated that owners will overturn the many years of experience with IACS Members in favour of untried non technically competent non IACS members. The CSR may result in a higher cost for new orders. Those owners who have newbuildings shortly after 1 July 2006 may have to bear the cost of change or re-arrangement of production lines with ship yards.

2. Owners will need to check the up-to-date development in the areas of uncertainty, for an overall appreciation and understanding of the situation. Only then will they be in a position to take the decisions necessary for a satisfactory outcome.

********

New rules will also improve the design and drawing approval process. Extra resources from shipowners may need to be allocated to digest the new rules, especially to those who have new building contracts with yards around 1 July 2006. Conclusion Industry welcomes the development of the CSR with the expectation that there will be improvement on the safety level of ships. However, the influences from different interest groups internally and externally may push the CSR development into a compromise situation. In addition, there are a number of areas of uncertainty from different parts of the whole safety chain, which will load significant and different long term cost impacts on individual shipowners. CSR ships may have material differences regarding loading capacity, maintenance and operation, and ship/terminal regimes. They will need to be tested against the real sea and cargo conditions, which goes some of the way to explaining why the development process has been as time-consuming as it has been to the INTERCARGO working group and others who have contributed so extensively to the debate. With the perception that IACS will move forward and


INTERCARGO


Cargoes - Dangerous - Requirements on Ships Carrying Dangerous Cargoes

The following IMO Conventions, Resolutions, Codes, Circulars, Manuals as well as EU Directives are relevant for a ship carrying dangerous cargoes. The ships should comply with their provisions according to which type of dangerous cargoes are on board. It is also prudent for those ships to make sure whether there are additional requirements from their flag States and the visiting port States: (1)

(2)

BC Code: the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes, adopted by the IMO by resolution A.434 (XI), as subsequently amended; BCH Code: the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, adopted by the IMO by resolution A.212 (VII), as subsequently amended;

Board Ships, adopted by the IMO by resolution MSC.88(71), as subsequently amended; (11)

Cargo Securing Manual: a manual for the securing of cargo, as required by SOLAS, prepared pursuant to IMO guidelines, MSC/Circ.745, as subsequently amended;

(12)

MARPOL 73/78: the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, as subsequently amended;

(13)

MFAG: the Medical First Aid Guide for Use in Accidents Involving Dangerous Goods, MSC/ Circ. 857, as subsequently amended;

(14)

Resolution A.673 (16): the IMO Guidelines for the transport and handling of limited amounts of hazardous and noxious liquid substances in bulk in offshore support vessels. The resolution applies to all combustible substances, irrespective of whether or not they are listed in Appendix 1 of the resolution; SOLAS (Chapter VII): the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974, as subsequently amended; and

(3)

Directive 2002/59/EC: the EU Directive 2002/59/ EC establishing a Community vessel traffic and monitoring and information system and repealing Directive 93/75/EEC, as subsequently amended;

(4)

MSC Circular EmS: Emergency Response Procedures for Ships Carrying Dangerous Goods, MSC/ Circ.1025, as subsequently amended;

(15)

(5)

GC Code: the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, adopted by the IMO by resolution A.328 (IX), as subsequently amended;

(16) STCW: the International Convention for Standards, Training, Certificates and Watchkeeping 1978, as subsequently amended.

(6)

Gas Code for existing gas carriers: the Code for Existing Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, adopted by the IMO by resolution A.329 (IX), as subsequently amended;

(7)

IBC Code: the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, adopted by the IMO by resolution MSC.4(48), as subsequently amended;

(8)

IGC Code: the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, adopted by the IMO by resolution MSC.5(48), as subsequently amended;

(9)

IMDG Code: the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, adopted by the IMO by resolution A.716(17), as subsequently amended;

(10)

INF Code: the International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on

30 ■


Normally there are entry-into-force dates clearly indicating its implementation. In absence of an entry into force date, the adoption date should be complied with. Ships carrying cargoes covered by the above provisions should, to the extent they are covered by the body of legislation, keep the following documentation on board: SOLAS, Chapter VII; SOLAS, Regulation II-2/19 / Regulation II-2/54; MARPOL, Annex III; BC Code; IMDG Code; EmS; MFAG; and Directive 2002/59/EC. Packages containing dangerous goods offered for sea transport should be marked and packaged in compliance with applicable regulations, and accompanied by the necessary transport documents. Goods which do not comply with this should be refused for transport. Goods in damaged packaging should always be refused.

INTERCARGO


All ships carrying dangerous goods should have a special list, manifest or detailed stowage plan which sets out the dangerous goods on board and the location thereof. The relevant training to the ships’ crew should be made according to the requirements of the IMDG Code and STCW, and must be documented, as referred to in the IMDG Code, Volume 1, Chapter 1.3 and STCW 1995, Chapter II, Section A-II/2 including Tables, and Section B-V/c of the STCW Convention. Safety measures for dangerous packaged goods should also be in place.

********


INTERCARGO


Cargoes - Direct Reduced Iron The cargo DRI or direct reduced iron is one of the raw materials used in the production of steel by certain method. When moist, hydrogen is released. It also creates heat, which can be so extreme that the DRI glows white hot. It has been known to melt through steel plate. The hydrogen it produces in an enclosed space like the cargo holds could be ignited and causes an explosion. Before its loading, following cautions should be taken:

•

• •

Prior to shipment the DRI has to be aged for at least 72 hours or treated with an air-passivation technique, or some other equivalent method that reduces the reactivity of the material to at least the same level as the aged product would have (72 hours); It should not be loaded when it is either hot or damp; Its condition should be monitored during loading. Cargo with a temperature in excess of 65 ºC should never be loaded;

•

During loading the DRI must be protected from exposure to rain or other respiration;

•

As far as is reasonably practical, DRI should not be dropped from a height into the hold;

•

DRI, which has been exposed to wetting on an open-conveyor or elsewhere, should be rejected;

•

During loading or discharging no smoking, burning, cutting, chipping or other source of ignition should be allowed in the vicinity of the holds; and

•

Movable cargo lights, if used, must be not less than 3m from the coaming in a position where they are not likely to be broken during operations, and not over the square of the hatch.

Relevant information with requirements and reports of incidents: • IMO BC Code (the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes), as adopted by Resolution MSC.193(79);

•

IMO Circular DSC/Circ.8 on Incident reports involving dangerous cargoes;

32 ■


•

IMO Circular DSC.1/Circ.36 on Accidents involving transport of direct reduced iron (DRI) fines;

•

IMO Circular MSC/Circ.1149 on Accidents Involving Bulk Cargoes Not Specifically Listed In the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes (BC Code);

•

IMO MSC79 meeting paper on report of the explosion and subsequent sinking of M.V. Ythan carrying DRI (MSC79 12-1);

•

DSC.1/Circ.26 on Incident involving transport of zinc ingots;

•

DSC.1/Circ.27 on Explosion in a Cargo Hold Loaded With Recycled Aluminium; and

•

MSC/Circ.1146 on Lists of Solid Bulk Cargoes for Which a Fixed Gas Fire-Extinguishing System May Be Exempted or for which a Fixed Gas FireExtinguishing System Is Ineffective.

Contact [email protected] for details of the above information.

********

INTERCARGO


Emergency Towing - Progress report of New Requirements Background The DE Sub-Committee, at its forty-eighth session in Feb 2005, established an intersessional correspondence group (CG) on Mandatory emergency towing systems in ships other than tankers greater than 20,000 dwt (DE 48/25 paragraph 14.4) coordinated by Germany. The CG was instructed to prepare a revised proposal for draft SOLAS amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1, Regulation 3-4 and related guidelines as per Annex 1 and 2 of DE 48/14 for the assessment of deck equipment to be used in emergency towing, taking into account comments and proposals made in plenary, and to submit a report to DE 49 in Feb 2006. Intercargo is one member of the CG, together with Germany, Australia, Cyprus, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, ICS, IMCA, Intertanko and ISU. Work of the DE 48 CG The Correspondence Group did not make any progress but, Germany still insists on developing new regulations. The only concern so far is their suggestion that the emergency towing can be arranged without assistance by crew members. From the limited input received, it can be summarised that there is a need: • for a common understanding of certain terms used in the context of the guidelines (towing, emergency, redundant propulsion systems …), and • that there be a re-emphasis on developing and meeting functional requirements for procedures and arrangements for emergency towing. Outcome of DE 49 Intercargo agrees to the development of emergency procedures but not mandatory requirements for equipment and supports the application to new ships only. Intercargo accepts the comments: At DE 49 in Feb 2006, it has been agreed that there will not be requirements for equipment installation but only procedure requirements for new and exiting ships. The following draft amendments to regulation 3-4 of SOLAS Chapter II-1 were agreed at DE 49:

2. Emergency towing procedures on ships 2.1 Ships shall be provided with an emergency towing procedure. Such a procedure shall be carried aboard the ship for use in emergency situations and shall be based on existing arrangements and equipment available on board the ship. 2.2 The procedure shall include: .1 drawings of fore and aft deck showing possible emergency towing arrangements; .2 inventory of equipment on board that can be used for emergency towing; .3 means and methods of communication; and .4 sample procedures to facilitate the preparation for and conducting of emergency towing operations. 2.3 This regulation applies to ships, regardless of the date of construction, as follows: .1 all new ships constructed after [1 July 2008]; .2 cargo ships constructed before [1 July 2008] and above 20,000 dwt and all passenger ships not later than [1 July 2008]; and .3 cargo ships constructed before [1 July 2008] and below 20,000 dwt not later than [1 July 2010]. An intersessional correspondence group will be established to finalise the guidelines for owners/operators on the development of emergency towing procedures, and submit a report to DE50. The Co-ordinator is Dipl.-Ing Stephan P. Assheuer, [email protected]. Clarification at DE 49 1) Certificates and document required to be carried on board ships. This should be considered as a verification that such procedures are available on board, rather than an approval or verification of the content. Such availability on board could sufficiently be granted by inclusion of the emergency towing procedures in FAL.2/Circ.87 - MEPC/ Circ.426 - MSC/Circ.1151. 2). The emergency towing procedures should be added to the list of documents to be carried on board ships and that circular FAL.2/Circ.87 - MEPC/Circ.426 - MSC/ Circ.1151 should be amended accordingly.

******** March 2006 Issue One ■ 33

INTERCARGO


Pilotage - Denmark 1. Background The Danish Maritime Authority (DMA) wrote to Intercargo on 10 Oct 2005 urging all ships (other than tankers) with a draught of 11m or more or with Irradiated Nuclear Fuel (INF) cargoes to take on a pilot when they enter or leave the Baltic Sea, as recommended by the IMO under Resolution MSC.138(76). The DMA backs up this assertion with a report that from 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2005, 22 ships grounded on the Great Belt – none of which had a pilot onboard. Intercargo recognises all IMO Recommendations. Careful review was taken of the recommendations contained within the letter and the “Groundings and collision reports in the Great Belt 1997-2005”. Intercargo reacted to the letter through a clear statement in the INTERCARGO Bulletin No. 202, October 2005 with a recommendation from the DMA that the IMO recommendations should be followed and that members should include the INTERTANKO Clause in their Charter Parties, as follows: Where the vessel is to pass through the entrances to the Baltic Sea the vessel shall comply with the recommendations set out in the IMO Resolution MSC.138(76) adopted on 5 December 2002 as amended from time to time including the use of pilots for the passage. Charterers shall reimburse owners for any pilotage expenses incurred by compliance with these recommendations on any ballast passage to a port of loading or on the laden passage unless such expenses have already been taken into account in the freight payable [in accordance with the terms and conditions of Worldscale]. 2. Intercargo Position Intercargo responded to DMA’s letter with a position that the IMO recommendations should be followed but, as intended by IMO, there is a distinction between Recommendations and Mandatory Resolutions. However, in this particular instance, Intercargo is fully prepared to go further and urge its members to comply with the recommendation contained in Resolution MSC.138 (76) regarding pilotage in the Danish Straits and include the INTERTANKO Clause in their Charter Parties. The DMA was also informed that Intercargo is in the process of establishing an Ad Hoc Correspondence Group to review the issue of Pilotage as it relates to dry bulk carriers. Intercargo welcomes and promotes the creation of a 'User Group' where industry and pilot interests can be debated openly, issues can be discussed and problems solved.

34 ■


However, in urging our members to comply with this resolution and, as we propose in other pilotage situations, we advocate the mutual sharing of responsibility by the respective parties. It is therefore our contention that the pilotage service provider, when contracting to provide such services, should accept liability for loss or damage caused by the vessel under pilotage, where such loss and/or damage is attributable to the deliberate and/or negligent actions of the pilot and/or the service provider, and that the national authority responsible for licensing and regulating the pilots and pilotage service providers ensures that the pilotage service provider maintains adequate insurance protection to discharge this liability. We believe that this approach highlights that our primary concern is about damage caused by the ship, and addresses both the duties of the pilotage service provider, with regards to such matters as training, ensuring pilots are competent both physically and professionally, provision of appropriate equipment and backup etc. By drawing this distinction between the pilotage service provider and the national regulatory authority, Intercargo believes this highlights that the pilot is not the employee of the regulatory authority but the service provider – by doing so, and if the regulatory authority chooses to also be a service provider, it should be subject to the same responsibilities as all service providers in regard to its activities. 3. Issues of further consideration 3.1) Reaction of the adjacent States It is noted that the issue is highly sensitive due to the recent boom in Russian oil exports that move through the straits. Baltic Sea States have declined to agree to make pilotage compulsory, with Russia in particular arguing that the international law of the sea should be respected. 3.2) Commercial aspects One relevant issue as raised some time ago by a member was the unwillingness of a time charterer to pay for nonmandatory pilotage expenses in the English Channel where a Master of a deep draughted bulk carrier chose to take a pilot but was not required to do so. The Charterer argued that Masters of such ships which they had previously chartered had sufficient experience not to require a pilot. Therefore, they took the view that they should not have to pay. We agree that the bottom line should be safety and nothing else. However we have to be aware that our members are moving in a commercial world and usually do not like to see mandatory conditions applied to their operation.

INTERCARGO

3.3) Liability and human element of the service provider Liability:- With regard to the pilotage provider, when providing such services, there is an issue of liability for causing loss or damage to the vessel under pilotage, where such loss and/or damage may be attributable to the deliberate and/or negligent actions of the pilot and/or the service provider (and also the national authority responsible for licensing and regulating pilots?). Do the pilotage service providers maintain adequate insurance protection to discharge this liability? By drawing a distinction between the pilotage service provider and the national regulatory authority that the pilot is not the employee of the regulatory authority but the service provider –then if the regulatory authority chooses to also be a service provider, then it should be subject to the same responsibilities as all service providers in regard to its activities. Human element:- Concerns about the quality, qualifications of pilotage and the efficiency of the whole system in the area, including the number of appropriately qualified pilots, training, professional competency both physically and professionally, provision of appropriate equipment and backup, etc. need to be addressed. Procedures:- to manage their areas of responsibility, including measures to deal with pilot fatigue. 3.4) Common practice of members What is the common practice of the membership when their vessels pass through the Danish Straits? 3.5) The regulatory regime of DMA Review of the system:- Are there any independent reviews of the pilotage regulatory system and regular reviews of the pilotage operations? Information on support and fair treatment of every vessel with or without a pilot onboard is needed. Code of practice to cover: * Clarification of the responsibility of provider organisations and individual pilots; * Effective and comprehensive fatigue management arrangements; * Effective and safe boarding arrangements; * Emergency management arrangements; * Maintenance of effective training programs; and * Introduction of a "check" pilot system. 3.6) Price Is the $7,500 a reasonable charge for the pilotage service? Is the price referred to review by a Surveillance Authority in the EU system?


4. Safety measures in the Baltic Sea area: The Baltic Sea States have agreed on certain safety measures in the Baltic Sea area, like ship routing, ship reporting, traffic separation schemes, pilotage, safety of winter navigation etc. Route T A transit route (Route T) through the Kattegat, the Great Belt and the Western Baltic has been established for deep draught ships. SHIPPOS IMO recommends that large ships navigating Route T participate in the radio reporting service SHIPPOS. The system, which is free of charge, provides beneficial information to ships. Ship reporting systems IMO has adopted a mandatory ship reporting system in the Great Belt Traffic Area. Ships with a gross tonnage equal to or exceeding 50 GT, and all ships with an air draught of 15 metres or more, are required to submit a ship report to the VTS Centre. Participation is free of charge. Mandatory ship reporting systems have also been established nationally by the Baltic Sea States in approaches to oil terminals. Automatic Identification System (AIS) The Baltic Sea area within A1 sea area will be covered by land-based monitoring systems for ships, based on AIS signals (by 1 July 2005). The AIS information will improve the safety of navigation via real time information as well as statistical information on shipping in the Baltic Sea. The AIS information will also be used to identify offenders of antipollution regulations. Pilotage Pilotage services are established locally by the coastal states. IMO recommends that, when navigating the Sound, local pilotage services should be used by: - loaded oil tankers with a draught of 7 metres or more; - loaded chemical tankers and gas carriers irrespective of size; and


INTERCARGO


- ships carrying a shipment of irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high-level radioactive wastes (INFcargoes). IMO also recommends that, when navigating Route T, established pilotage services should be used by: - large ships with a draught of 11 metres or more; and - ships carrying a shipment of irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high-level radioactive wastes (INFcargoes). Traffic separation schemes Traffic separation schemes are established and adopted by IMO in the following parts of the Baltic Sea area: Area

Number of schemes

In Samsø Belt/Great Belt

2

In the Sound

2

Off Kiel lighthouse

1

South of Gedser

1

South of Öland Island

1

South of Gotland Island

1

Entrance to the Gulf of Finland

2

In the Gulf of Finland

5

Deep sea pilotage Certified Baltic deep sea pilots are available in all Baltic Sea States. Safety of winter navigation Adequate ice strengthening is required for ships sailing in ice. Information about ice conditions in the Baltic Sea area can be obtained from the national ice services. Contact information of the national ice services and basic information about ice conditions in the Baltic Sea area can be obtained from the common website of the national ice services of the Baltic Sea States www.bsis-ice.de.

**********

36 ■


INTERCARGO


Ship Recycling .3 1. Background MEPC 52 (11-15 October 2004) approved an MEPC circular on the Guidelines for the development of a ship recycling plan. MEPC 53 (18 to 22 July 2005) approved an MEPC circular MEPC/Circ.419 on the Implementation of the IMO Guidelines on ship recycling, providing specific recommendations and guidance to Administrations in recycling States, shipowners and recycling facilities. Another circular MEPC/Circ.466 on “Gas- free- for- hot-work” certification in connection with recycling operations was also approved. The circulars are available for download from http://www.imo.org/home.asp. The 24th IMO Assembly (A24) (21 November to 2 December 2005) adopted a resolution to develop the abovementioned instrument and agreed to complete the new legally binding instrument on ship recycling in time for consideration and adoption by a diplomatic conference in the 2008-2009 biennium. The instrument would cover the design, construction and operation of ships as well as preparation for the delivery of a ship prior to recycling. A24 adopted amendments to resolution A.962(23). Contact [email protected] for the sources of the amendments. It was also agreed that the development of a new legally binding instrument on ship recycling should not shift the attention of stakeholders away from implementation of the current IMO Guidelines on ship recycling adopted by Resolution A.962(23). Contact [email protected] for the source of A.962(23). 2. Draft structure for the new instrument on ship recycling MEPC 53 developed a preliminary draft structure for the new instrument on ship recycling and had an initial consideration on a number of issues related to the development of the appropriate mandatory requirements on ship recycling, including items as outlined in the table at the end of the article. 3. Green passport The outcome of MEPC 53 indicated that the Green Passport should contain, at least, the following information on the ship details: .1 .2

the name of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly; the date on which the ship was registered with that State;

.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .11

the date on which the ship ceased to be registered with that State; the ship’ identification number (IMO number); hull number on new-building delivery; the name and type of the ship; the port at which the ship is registered; the name of the shipowner and its address; the name of all classification society(ies) with which the ship is classed; the ship’ main particulars (Length overall (LOA), Breadth (Moulded), Depth (Moulded), Lightweight); and shipbuilder’ name and address.

4. Hazardous Materials Inventory Inventory of the materials known to be potentially hazardours, containing the location and the approximate quantity/volume of each identified material on board the ship, split into the following parts: Part 1 - Potentially hazardous materials in the ship’ structure and equipment; Part 2 - Operationally generated wastes; and Part 3 - Stores. Any changes relating to Part 1 of the inventory should be recorded so as to provide updated and current information together with a history of the changes. Inventories of operationally generated wastes (Part 2 of the inventory) and potentially hazardous items carried as stores (Part 3 of the inventory) should be prepared by the shipowner prior to or during the final voyage to the recycling facility and handed to the recycling facility on delivery of the ship, as part of the Green Passport. It is a less confusing issue regarding requirement for a Green Passport on a newbuilding, on a voluntary basis, than for the purchase of second hand ship when its issue of a Green Passport could be confusing no matter how long an owner intends to keep the ship. On existing ships, there is still nor firm conclusion as to when the mandatory requirement will be in place or to what extent retrospective application will apply. A cautious approach for existing ship owners is to prepare for application as soon as possible. 5. Gas Free Certification At MEPC 53, it was decided that ship owners, ship recycling facilities and member states will be urged to consider the matter of gas-freeing vessels in preparation for recycling by circular MEPC/Circ.466 on


INTERCARGO

the Implementation of the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling - “Gas-free-for-hot-work” certification, 6. Responsibility delineation between yard and last operating owner Although it encourages ship owners to deliver vessels with a “gas-free-for-hot-work” certificate, it recognises that it is the main responsibility of the ship recycling facility to ensure that those tanks which have been certified are maintained in the gas-free state. Shipowners are urged to enter into contract only with those recycling facilities with the ability to maintain and monitor ships in “gasfree-for-hot-work” condition during the whole process of ship recycling. 7. Licensed/Approved recycling Facilities In the framework of the legal instrument, ship recycling facilities will also be regulated to ensure safe and environmentally sound recycling. Under the proposed regime, recycling yards and facilities are required to be licensed/ approved to conduct the recycling business. 8. Intercargo position Intercargo has the following position on the IMO Convention: Continue to support the development of an IMO Convention on Ship Recycling, and to underline that the IMO is the key UN agency on this issue. Intercargo will:

•

• •

invite members to provide feedback on the implementation of various aspects of the IMO Guidelines so that this may be presented during the IMO mandatory process; ensure an active participation in both the Working Group and Correspondence Group during MEPC meetings; and provide members with continuous feedback on the development of the Convention

9. References (contact [email protected] for the sources of information) 1). Resolution A.962(23) IMO Guidelines on ship recycling, adopted on 5 December 2003 2). Amendments to the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling (Resolution A.962(23)) 3). MEPC/Circ.466 on Implementation of the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling (Assembly resolution A.962(23)) 4). MEPC/Circ.419 on Guidelines for the Development of the Ship Recycling Plan

38 ■



********

INTERCARGO


Items of the preliminary draft structure for the new instrument on ship recycling Mandatory Requirement

Guidelines Reference

Recycling Facilities Recycling State to require operational waste reception facilities at recycling facilities

9.4.2.3

Ship Recyclers to be "licensed"

9.4.4.1

Shipowners required to use “approved/licensed” recycling facilities

8.1.6

Shipowners to arrange for removal of materials the recycling facility cannot handle

8.1.5

Reporting Ship Recycling Plan Recycling facility to prepare a ship recycling plan in consultation with the shipowner

8.3.2.2

Ship Recycling Contract Shipowners/Recycling facilities to include elements of the Guidelines such as the Ship Recycling Plan, etc. in recycling contracts

8.3.2.5, 9.2.2, 9.4.3.3, 9.8.2

Potentially Hazardous Materials States to prohibit/restrict/minimize the use of potentially hazardous materials in new ships

6.1.1, 6.1.4, 6.1.2

Shipbuilders to provide the first shipowner with Part 1 of the inventory

5.5

States to prohibit/restrict/minimize the use of potentially hazardous materials in existing ships

7.2.1

Shipowners to provide an updated inventory of potentially hazardous materials on board on arrival at the recycling facility

5.6

Shipowners to mark assumed and identified potentially hazardous materials included in the inventory and any potentially hazardous spaces in accordance with the Ship Recycling Plan

8.3.1.1, 8.3.1.2.2, 8.3.3.2.8, 8.3.4.1.24

Shipbuilders to seek advice on limiting the use of identified potentially hazardous materials in ships

6.1.6

Green Passport Shipbuilders to provide new ships with a “Green Passport”

5.5, 5.5.1, 5.8

Shipowners to maintain Ship Details and Part 1 of Inventory sections of the “Green Passport”

5.1, 5.3

Shipowners to prepare Parts 2 and 3 of the Green Passport prior to the final voyage to the recycling facility

5.6

Shipowner to develop “Green Passport, Part 1” for existing ships as far as is reasonable and practicable

5.5.2

Shipowners to deliver “Green Passport” to recycling facility

5.1

Gas Free for Hot Work Certificate Shipowners to arrange with recycling yard for a "gas-free-for-hot-work" certificate covering enclosed cargo and other spaces and empty fuel spaces at handover or in accordance with the Ship Recycling Plan

8.3.4.1, 9.4.3.2, 8.1.3.3

Ship Details Shipowners to hand over the Continuous Synopsis Record to the recycling facility

5.2.1 (Pending development of the “Green Passport”)


INTERCARGO


Oily Water Separators - New Requirements of the US Coast Guard

New Development On November 3, 2005, the U.S. Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to change pollution prevention equipment (PPE) performance standards to make them consistent with the new International Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines and specifications issued under Annex I of the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). In short, the NPRM would: (1) (2)

require newly constructed oil tankers to install cargo monitors meeting new PPE standards; and require newly constructed vessels and existing oceangoing vessels (only when an existing vessel is replacing the exiting PPE) to install oily water separating equipment and bilge alarms to meet new PPE standards. Comments are due February 1, 2006.

Background Many in the maritime community have expressed concerns that existing pollution prevention equipment, especially technology related to oily water separator systems, does not work properly. Of particular concern is the processing of oily bilge waste and the methods by which the oil content of the effluent is measured. In response to those concerns, the IMO issued Resolution MEPC.107(49) "Revised Guidelines and Specifications for Pollution Prevention Equipment for Machinery Space Bilges of Ships." Subsequently, the Coast Guard issued MOC Policy Letter No. 04-13, which provides guidance on implementation of Resolution MEPC.107(49). Please see http://www.blankrome.com/publications/maritime/ update0405_06.asp dated April 2005 for a discussion of the IMO guidelines and Coast Guard policy. The Coast Guard noted that the policy will remain in effect until regulations are promulgated. In addition, IMO issued Resolution MEPC No.108(49), Revised Guidelines and Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers, which upgrades cargo monitor PPE standards. The IMO standards become effective internationally as an amendment to MARPOL on April 1, 2007. The Proposed Rule The NPRM would not change the type or class of vessel that requires a cargo monitor, oily water separator, or bilge alarm, but would require that such equipment meets the new IMO PPE standards. The new IMO standards are applicable to vessels newly built on or after January 1, 2005. Although not clearly stated in the NPRM, under Resolu-

40 ■


tion MEPC No.108(49), cargo monitors originally installed on vessels built before January 1, 2005, may meet either the new or previous standards when replaced. Oily water separating equipment and bilge alarms, however, installed on existing vessels to replace existing equipment must meet the new standards. In addition, the NPRM would remove existing requirements for bilge monitors. The NPRM would require the use of pollution prevention equipment that is more technologically advanced than that found on most oceangoing vessels now operating. With respect to cargo monitors, the new regulations would include updated standards for monitors used with category C and D oil-like noxious liquid substances. Under the new regulations, oily water separators would be required to effectively process emulsified oils, surfactants, and contaminants. In addition, the proposed rule would impose stricter standards for bilge alarms, including requirements that every bilge alarm: • Pass new tests using emulsified oil and contaminants; • Has a ppm display that would display each change in oil content of the mixture being measured within 5 seconds after the change occurs instead of 20 seconds; • Limit access to the bilge alarm beyond checking instrument drift, and require the breaking of a seal to repeat the instrument reading and re-zero the instrument; • Activate the alarm whenever clean water is used for cleaning or zeroing purposes; • Record date, time, alarm status, and operating status of the 15 ppm bilge separator; • Store data for at least 18 months; and • Have the ability to display or print a protocol. Furthermore, in the event that the 15 ppm bilge alarm is replaced, means must be provided to ensure that the data recorded remains available on board for 18 months. Impact of Proposed Rule Owners and operators should consider the lack of specificity associated with the replacement of PPE in the NPRM with respect to the applicability to existing vessels. For example, the NPRM provides only that existing oceangoing vessels subject to the new regulations would be required to install oily water separating equipment and bilge alarms that meet the new standards whenever the owners or operators "replace" the equipment. The NPRM, however, does not clarify the extent to which components must be replaced in order to trigger the new requirements. For example, applicability is unclear when only parts of an oil-water separator are replaced. This

INTERCARGO


poses several questions: Can owners/operators continually replace components piecemeal, even when a complete replacement is needed, in order to prevent the expense of a whole new system? If not, which components can be replaced without requiring a complete replacement? Owners and operators should take into account the fact that these new standards apply to PPE equipment placed on new and existing vessels after January 1, 2005, and will become enforceable either when made effective by the Coast Guard, or January 1, 2007, when the MARPOL amendment becomes effective, whichever comes first. Accordingly, owners and operators should ensure that PPE equipment installed after January 1, 2005, meets the standards as discussed above in order to avoid possible enforcement action. In addition, the NPRM provides inadequate guidance with regard to the replacement of cargo monitors on existing vessels. These issues should be carefully considered and commented upon in response to the NPRM. Conclusions and Recommendations Owners, operators, manufacturers, and other interested parties should review the NPRM carefully to determine the impact on their operations, comment on the proposed rule and continue to monitor the development in the US.

********


INTERCARGO


INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS A A24 AIS AMP Anti-fouling Convention ASF Convention

the twenty-fourth regular session of the IMO Assembly Automatic Identification System alternative marine power, also referred to as “cold ironing” The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti- fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships

B BC Code BCH Code BDN BLG Sub-Committee BLU Code BLU Manual BWM Convention

the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk Bunker Delivery Note The IMO Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquid and Gases the Code of Safe Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers the Manual on Loading and Unloading of Solid Bulk Cargoes for Terminal Representatives The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004

C CASTEC cfu Circ COLREG CSR:

The Intercargo Safety, Technical and Environmental Committee colony forming unit circular The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 IACS common structural rules

D D1 or D-1 D2 or D-2.

DE Sub-Committee Directive 2002/59/EC DMA DOC: DRI DSC Sub-Committee

Ballast Water Exchange (95% volumetric exchange) or pumping through three time the volume of each tank Ballast Water Treatment systems approved by the Administration which treat ballast water to an efficacy of: not more than 10 viable organisms per m3 >50 micrometers in minimum dimension; and not more than 10 viable organisms per millilitre < 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and >10 micrometers in minimum dimension The IMO Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment Establishing a Community vessel traffic and monitoring and information system Danish Maritime Authority Document of Compliance direct reduced iron. When moist, it releases hydrogen as well as creates heat. The IMO Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers

E EGCS-SOx EU Directive (2005/33) EU Directive 2000/59/EC EU Sulphur Directive

On-Board Exhaust Gas (SOx) Cleaning Systems The amendments to the EU Directive 1999/32 Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, 27 November 200 EU Directive (2005/33)

F FSI Sub-Committee FUA 12

The IMO Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation Follow-up Action No. 12

H HFO

heavy fuel oil

I IACS IAPH ICS IFO IISPCG IMDG IMO INMARSAT Intercargo INTERTANKO

42 ■


International Association of Classification Societies International Association of Ports and Harbours International Chamber of Shipping intermediate fuel oil Inter-Industry Shipping and Ports Contact Group The Code the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code International Maritime Organisation The Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organization, 1976 International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners

INTERCARGO

ISM Code ISO ISPS Code


the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention International Standardisation Organisation the International Code for the Security of Ships and of Port Facilities

L LFO LL LOP

light fuel oil The International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 Letter of Protest

M m/m MARPOL 73/78 1978 MARPOL Annex I MARPOL Annex IV MARPOL Annex V MARPOL Annex VI MDO MEPC MEPC 49 MEPC 50 MEPC 51 MEPC 52 MEPC 53 MEPC 54 MGO MSC MSC 78 MSC 79 MSC 79/4/1 MSC 80 MSC 81

mass of sulphur per mass of fuel in weight the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships marine diesel oil IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee the 49th session of IMO MEPC on 14 to 18 July 2003 the 50th session of IMO MEPC on 1 and 4 December 2003 the 51st session of IMO MEPC on 29 March to 2 April 2004 the 52nd session of IMO MEPC on from 11 to 15 October 2004 the 53rd session of IMO MEPC on 18 to 22 July 2005 the 54th session of IMO MEPC on 20 -24 Mar 2006 marine gas oils IMO Maritime Safety Committee the 78th session of IMO MSC on 12 to 21 May 2004 the 79th session of IMO MSC on 1 to 10 December 2004 the submitted paper No.1 under agenda item 4 to MSC 79 the 80th session of IMO MSC on 11 to 20 May 2005 the 81st session of IMO MSC on 10 – 19 May 2006

N NAVTEX NGO NOx NOx Technical Code

transmission of maritime safety information, including navigational and weather information and forecast Non-Governmental Organisation nitrogen oxides the Technical Code on Control of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines

P ppm

one part of oil per million parts of water by volume

S SAR SECA SMC: SN/Circ.227 SO2 SOLAS SOLAS Ch XII SOx STCW

The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979 SOx Emission Control Area Safety Management Certificate (ISM Code) Circular N0.227 issued by IMO Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation sulphur dioxide the International Convention of the Safety of Life at Sea Chapter XII of SOLAS “Additional safety measures for bulk carriers” sulphur oxides The International Convention for Standards, Training, Certificates and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978

U UNCLOS UR S25: UV

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea No.25 of the IACS Unified Requirements concerning Strength of Ships ultraviolet radiation


INTERCARGO


INTERCARGO Intercargo’s vision is for a safe, efficient and environmentally friendly dry cargo maritime industry where its member’s ships serve world trade - operating competitively, safely and profitably. Intercargo, the International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners, represents the interests of 62 Full and 59 Associates members who between them own and operate about 800 dry cargo ships. Promoting the interests of our member companies in regulatory fora such as IMO and IACS, Intercargo works closely with the other members of the Round Table of international maritime associations (BIMCO, ICS Intercargo and Intertanko) to promote a safe, high quality, efficient and profitable industry. On 1st June 1998, the Intercargo Executive Committee decided to set up a bulk carrier Technical, Safety and Environmental Committee (CASTEC) comprising of selected technical/ operational managers from Intercargo member companies. Leo Cappoen was elected as CASTEC Chairman in June 2005. CASTEC is one of Intercargo’s key Committees. It was established to promote and protect the interests of the INTERCARGO membership in relation to International, National and Local Legislation and Regulation as it affects Ship Design, Safe Bulk Carrier Operations and the Protection of the Environment. It will also foster co-operation with IMO, IACS, Round Table international shipping associations (BIMCO, ICS, Intercargo and Intertanko) and other recognised bodies involved with bulk carrier safety and the protection of the environment. To ensure members views are represented effectively CASTEC meets twice a year, one being the forum for Asian based members the other for those in the Western hemisphere. The statutory and classification matters debated by IACS and at IMO provide the main areas of discussion for CASTEC members at these meetings. CASTEC also oversees technical publications such as the annual Bulk Carrier Casualty Report, a new guide on Port State Control and analysis of ship-terminals interface experiences. For further information on joining Intercargo, please contact [email protected].

INTERCARGO


INTERCARGO Ninth Floor, St Clare House,30/33 Minories, London EC3N 1DD Tel: 020 7977 7030 (Switchboard) Fax: 020 7977 7031 Email: [email protected] Web Site: www.intercargo.org

Technical and Operational for Bulk Carriers 2

Recommend Documents