INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E...development of a security consciousness, along with the development of a safety culture and environmental conscience in all maritime operations,

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO

E

SUB-COMMITTEE ON BULK LIQUIDS AND GASES 8th session Agenda item 18

BLG 8/18 28 April 2003 Original: ENGLISH

REPORT TO THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE Table of contents Section Page 1 GENERAL 4 2 DECISIONS OF OTHER IMO BODIES 6 3 MATTERS RELATED TO THE PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY

FOR OIL OUTFLOW ANALYSIS 7 4 REVIEW OF ANNEX I OF MARPOL 73/78 9 5 REVIEW OF ANNEX II OF MARPOL 73/78 14 6 EVALUATION OF SAFETY AND POLLUTION HAZARDS OF

CHEMICALS AND PREPARATION OF CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS 17

7 AMENDMENTS TO REQUIREMENTS ON ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS IN THE IBC AND IGC CODES 23 8 APPLICATION OF MARPOL ANNEX I REQUIREMENTS TO FPSOs AND FSUs 24 9 REQUIREMENTS FOR PROTECTION OF PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN THE TRANSPORT OF CARGOES CONTAINING TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN ALL TYPES OF TANKERS 27 10 OIL TAGGING SYSTEMS 30 11 REVISION OF THE FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE IBC AND IGC CODES 30

BLG 8/18 - 2 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Section Page 12 SHIP RECYCLING-RELATED MATTERS 31 13 CASUALTY ANALYSIS 32 14 CONSIDERATION OF IACS UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS 32 15 WORK PROGRAMME AND AGENDA FOR BLG 9 33 16 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR 2004 35 17 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 35 18 ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMITTEES 36

LIST OF ANNEXES ANNEX 1 AGENDA OF THE EIGHTH SESSION AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS ANNEX 2 DRAFT MEPC RESOLUTION ON TRIPARTITE AGREEMENTS ANNEX 3 DRAFT MEPC RESOLUTION ON REVISED INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR

THE APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF OIL TANKERS UNDER REGULATION 13F(5) OF ANNEX I OF MARPOL 73/78

ANNEX 4 DRAFT MEPC RESOLUTION ON EXPLANATORY NOTES ON MATTERS

RELATED TO THE ACCIDENTAL OIL OUTFLOW PERFORMANCE FOR MARPOL REGULATION I/21

ANNEX 5 DRAFT REVISED MARPOL ANNEX I ANNEX 6 WORLD MOVEMENT OF VEGETABLE OILS ANNEX 7 STATISTICS ON SHIP TYPING CRITERIA ANNEX 8 DRAFT REVISED MARPOL ANNEX II FOR 3-CATEGORY SYSTEM ANNEX 9 DRAFT REVISED MARPOL ANNEX II FOR 5-CATEGORY SYSTEM ANNEX 10 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE IGC CODE FOR MATTERS RELATING

TO THE CARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR CARBON DIOXIDE ANNEX 11 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE IBC AND IGC CODES ON ELECTRICAL

INSTALLATIONS ANNEX 12 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS TO

MARPOL ANNEX I

- 3 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 13 DRAFT MEPC CIRCULAR ON GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION OF MARPOL ANNEX I REQUIREMENTS TO FPSOs AND FSUs

ANNEX 14 DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR ON MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR

SHIPS CARRYING LIQUIDS IN BULK CONTAINING BENZENE ANNEX 15 DRAFT MSC RESOLUTION ON RECOMMENDATION FOR MATERIAL

SAFETY DATA SHEETS FOR MARPOL ANNEX I CARGOES AND MARINE FUEL OILS

ANNEX 16 DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR ON UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE IBC

AND IGC CODES ANNEX 17 PROPOSED REVISED WORK PROGRAMME OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE

AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR BLG 9

BLG 8/18 - 4 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

1 GENERAL 1.1 The Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases held its eighth session from 24 to 28 March 2003 under the chairmanship of Mr. Z. Alam (Singapore). The Vice-Chairman, Mr. S. Oftedal (Norway), was also present. 1.2 The session was attended by delegations from the following Member Governments:

ARGENTINA AUSTRALIA BAHAMAS BRAZIL CANADA CHILE CHINA COLOMBIA CUBA CYPRUS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE�S REPUBLIC OF KOREA DENMARK ECUADOR FINLAND FRANCE GERMANY GREECE INDONESIA IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF) ISRAEL ITALY JAPAN LEBANON

LIBERIA MALAYSIA MALTA MARSHALL ISLANDS MEXICO NETHERLANDS NIGERIA NORWAY PANAMA PERU PHILIPPINES POLAND PORTUGAL REPUBLIC OF KOREA ROMANIA RUSSIAN FEDERATION SAUDI ARABIA SINGAPORE SPAIN SWEDEN TURKEY UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES VENEZUELA

the following Associate Member of IMO:

HONG KONG, CHINA and observers from the following non-governmental organizations:

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING (ICS) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION (ISO) INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MARINE INSURANCE (IUMI) INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (ICFTU) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PORTS AND HARBORS (IAPH)

BIMCO INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES (IACS) EUROPEAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL (CEFIC) OIL COMPANIES INTERNATIONAL MARINE FORUM (OCIMF) INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF SHIPMASTERS' ASSOCIATIONS (IFSMA) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS (OGP) ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN SHIPBUILDERS AND SHIPREPAIRERS (AWES)

- 5 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT TANKER OWNERS (INTERTANKO) INTERNATIONAL TANKER OWNERS POLLUTION FEDERATION LIMITED (ITOPF) DANGEROUS GOODS ADVISORY COUNCIL (DGAC) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRY CARGO SHIPOWNERS (INTERCARGO) INTERNATIONAL PARCEL TANKERS ASSOCIATION (IPTA) INTERNATIONAL MARINE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION (IMCA) WORLD NUCLEAR TRANSPORT INSTITUTE (WNTI)

Opening address 1.3 The Secretary-General welcomed the participants and referred to the various activities undertaken by the Organization during 2002, when, in addition to the regular meetings of the various IMO bodies, the Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Security had successfully been concluded with the adoption of amendments to the SOLAS Convention and a new International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. Noting the successful conclusion of the Conference, he stated that the maritime community had been provided with a well-considered regulatory regime on which to build a suitable maritime security infrastructure and, continuing the momentum created by the Conference, the development of a security consciousness, along with the development of a safety culture and environmental conscience in all maritime operations, ought to be highlighted and promoted. Referring to the terrorist attack on the tanker Limburg off the Yemeni coast last September, the Secretary-General invited Governments to advise companies and ships operating under the flag of their State to take steps, dependent on the degree of perceived risk in their ships� areas of operation, to increase awareness of potential dangers. Crews should be extremely vigilant and alert to any security threat they may encounter or be suspicious of, whether their ships are in port, at offshore terminals or underway. This advice has been repeated in MSC/Circ.1067 on �Early implementation of the special measures to enhance maritime security�, which had been issued on 28 February 2003. The Secretary-General stated that that advice obtained a more important and significant dimension as a result of the armed conflict in the Middle East, which had put shipping and ports around the world on high alert in anticipation of any terrorist attacks. In the meantime, he considered it prudent that all parties concerned should start putting in place all the necessary infrastructure so as to enable them to give effect to the decisions of the Maritime Security Conference without waiting for the entry-into-force date of 1 July 2004, so as to avoid having to take hasty action at the last minute and also to avoid the possibility that the movement of ships found not to be in compliance with the requirements of SOLAS and the ISPS Code would be restricted. Referring to the approval by MSC 75 of the Recommendation for the use of a standard format for the cargo information required by chapter 16 of the IBC Code, he considered this as a positive step forward in the Organization�s endeavours to provide seafarers with clear, concise and accurate information on the health effects of toxic substances carried on board tankers. The Secretary-General then highlighted the progress that had been made in the review of the text of Annexes I and II of MARPOL 73/78. In particular, he noted that the concerns expressed on

BLG 8/18 - 6 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

the impact of the proposed pollution categorization systems on both domestic and international trade in vegetable oils had impeded progress on this issue and that MEPC 48 had instructed the Sub-Committee to study the impact of the 3-Category and 5-Category Systems on these trades and to report results, so that a final decision could be made at MEPC 49. Having singled out the above matters, the Secretary-General recognized that other issues, such as the consideration of the IACS unified interpretations; the review of the electrical requirements in the IBC and IGC Codes; the probabilistic methodology for oil outflow; the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs; and oil tagging systems, were equally important in the Sub-Committee's quest for enhanced maritime safety and prevention of marine pollution. Because of the possibility of regional action being taken in the aftermath of the accident involving the tanker Prestige, the Secretary-General repeated the firm position that IMO should always and without exception be regarded as the only forum where safety and pollution prevention standards affecting international shipping should be considered and adopted. He emphasized that regional, let alone unilateral, application to foreign flag ships of national requirements, which go beyond the IMO standards, would be detrimental to international shipping and to the functioning of the Organization itself and should be avoided. He remained hopeful that the benefits of bringing all safety and environmental issues to IMO for a thorough and in-depth examination before any decisions were made would be recognized and he looked forward to receiving proposals for action before the 11 April deadline for submission of documents to the 49th session of the MEPC to be held in July. Adoption of the agenda 1.4 The Sub-Committee adopted the agenda (BLG 8/1/Rev.1) which, together with a list of documents considered under each agenda item, is set out in annex 1. The Sub-Committee agreed, in general, to be guided in its work by the annotations contained in document BLG 8/1/1. 2 DECISIONS OF OTHER IMO BODIES General 2.1 The Sub-Committee noted the decisions of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) at its seventy-sixth session, the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation (NAV) at its forty-eighth session, the Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers (DSC) at its seventh session, the Sub-Committee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF) at its forty-fifth session, the Sub-Committee on Radiocommunications and Search and Rescue (COMSAR) at its seventh session, the Sub-Committee on Fire Protection (FP) at its forty-seventh session, the Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW) at its thirty-fourth session and the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE) at its forty-sixth session (documents BLG 8/2, BLG 8/2/2 and BLG 8/2/3), and took them into account in its deliberations when dealing with relevant agenda items. Outcome of MEPC 48 2.2 The Sub-Committee also noted the outcome of MEPC 48 (BLG 8/2/1) and agreed that the issues related to the criteria for assigning pollution categories and ship recycling would be addressed under agenda items 5 and 12, respectively.

- 7 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2.3 The Sub-Committee noted that both MEPC 48 and MSC 76 had approved the criteria for assigning carriage requirements to products subject to the IBC Code whilst recognizing that the pollution criteria would need to be added to these once approved by the MEPC. 2.4 It was also noted that MEPC 48 had agreed that certificates issued under the HSSC should be endorsed with the words �Completion date of survey on which this certificate is based: dd/mm/yy� and that the form of certificates of the 1988 SOLAS Protocol, MARPOL and the 1988 LL Protocol should be amended to introduce these words. 2.5 The Sub-Committee recalled the concerns expressed about the difficulties in initiating Tripartite Agreements for the transport of chemicals subject to the IBC Code and, as instructed by MEPC 48, developed a draft MEPC resolution on Tripartite Agreements to assist this situation, as set out in annex 2, for further consideration by MEPC 49. Development of new instruments and international law 2.6 The Sub-Committee noted that C 89 instructed the Committees and through them, their subsidiary bodies, when developing new instruments or amendments to existing ones, to ensure that these were compatible and not in conflict with other instruments or international law and that they should not be interpreted or used in a way that would conflict with such instruments, in particular those addressing human rights. MSC 76, in noting the instruction by C 89, requested the Secretariat to inform the sub-committees of the Council�s decision and to remind the Committee and sub-committees of this decision as and when necessary. Co-ordination within the United Nations system 2.7 The Sub-Committee was advised that C 89 had noted the information provided in documents C 89/23(b)/Add.1 and C 88/21(b)/Add.1 and, with regard to the updating of the study on the Implications of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for IMO, submitted in document C 89/23(b)/Add.1, had recommended to the various organs and bodies of the Organization to keep it in mind as a reference document in the context of their work. 3 MATTERS RELATED TO THE PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY FOR OIL

OUTFLOW ANALYSIS General 3.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that BLG 7 had established a working group to consider matters related to the probabilistic methodology for oil outflow analysis and, having decided that more time was necessary to progress the work on this issue, had agreed to re-establish the correspondence group, under the co-ordination of Germany, with the following terms of reference:

.1 to review the text of the Guidelines for approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers (after the Secretariat has inserted the changes shown in annex 2 to document BLG 7/WP.3 into the Guidelines) and to prepare a draft associated MEPC resolution; and

.2 to finalize the text and the examples to be added to the draft explanatory notes to

the probabilistic methodology for oil outflow analysis, taking into account the information to be provided by Japan and the United States, and to prepare a draft associated MEPC resolution.

BLG 8/18 - 8 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Report of the correspondence group 3.2 In considering the report of the Correspondence Group on Matters Related to the Probabilistic Methodology for Oil Outflow Analysis, as contained in document BLG 8/3 (Germany), and noting the outcome of the group on:

.1 development of the draft Guidelines for approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers; and

.2 the evaluation of draft Explanatory notes to the probabilistic methodology for oil

outflow analysis, the Sub-Committee had a brief discussion on the aforementioned draft Guidelines and agreed that further editorial work was necessary. To this end, the Sub-Committee decided to refer the text of the draft Guidelines to the drafting group (see paragraph 3.4), with a view towards completion at this session. Comments on the draft MARPOL regulation I/21 3.3 The Sub-Committee discussed the submission by Norway (BLG 8/3/1), which proposed to modify the draft MARPOL regulation I/21 by adjusting the mean oil outflow parameters for OBO carriers, and agreed that proposed changes would only serve to weaken the draft requirements contained in annex 1 to document BLG 8/4, which were based on a compromise reached at BLG 7 after extensive discussion by the Sub-Committee. Establishment of the drafting group 3.4 Recognizing the necessity to finalize these issues and recalling its relevant decision at BLG 7, the Sub-Committee established a drafting group on matters related to the probabilistic methodology for oil outflow analysis and instructed it, taking into account the comments and decisions made in plenary, to:

.1 finalize the text of the draft Guidelines for approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers, taking into account the report of the correspondence group (BLG 8/3); and

.2 finalize the text of the draft Explanatory notes to the probabilistic methodology for

oil outflow analysis, taking into account the report of the correspondence group (BLG 8/3).

Report of the drafting group 3.5 Having received the report of the drafting group (BLG 8/WP.7), the Sub-Committee approved the report in general and took action as indicated hereunder. 3.6 The Sub-Committee noted that the group had considered the proposal presented in plenary by the delegation of China with regard to the precise method for assessment of probabilities, as contained in paragraph 10.1 of draft MARPOL regulation I/21, and had concluded that the calculation methodology currently in document BLG 8/3, annex 3, should be retained.

- 9 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

3.7 Following consideration of the above matter, the Sub-Committee further noted that the group had considered the proposal by the delegation of China regarding part A of annex 3 to document BLG 8/3 and had accepted the figure proposed by that delegation. 3.8 The Sub-Committee agreed to the draft MEPC resolution on Revised Interim Guidelines for the approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers under regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, as set out in annex 3, for submission to MEPC 49 for adoption so that the Revised Interim Guidelines could be circulated and used with the existing MARPOL Annex I. 3.9 In this regard, the Sub-Committee also agreed to invite MEPC 49 to instruct the Secretariat to prepare a draft MEPC resolution on Guidelines for the approval of the alternative methods of design of oil tankers under regulation 37 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, which will be in line with the Revised Interim Guidelines with updated references to the revised MARPOL Annex I, for submission to MEPC 50 with a view to their adoption at the same time as the revised MARPOL Annex I would be adopted. 3.10 The Sub-Committee also agreed to the draft MEPC resolution on Explanatory notes on matters related to the accidental oil outflow performance for MARPOL regulation I/21, as set out in annex 4, for submission to MEPC 49 for consideration with a view to their adoption at the same time as the revised MARPOL Annex I would be adopted. 3.11 Noting that the work on this matter had been finalized, the Sub-Committee invited MEPC 49 to delete this item from its work programme. 4 REVIEW OF ANNEX I OF MARPOL 73/78 4.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that BLG 7 noted that the Working Group on Review of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 had finalized the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I, including the IOPP Certificate, Oil Record Book and unified interpretations (BLG 7/15, paragraph 4.17) and had requested the Secretariat to prepare a document for BLG 8 for consideration and subsequent submission to MEPC 49 for approval. 4.2 The Sub-Committee also recalled that BLG 7, having agreed that the correspondence group need not be re-established to work during the intersessional period, had recognized that a careful double-checking exercise and fine tuning would be necessary and that Member Governments should have ample time for a final and careful check of the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I before it is finalized for submission to MEPC 49 for approval (BLG 7/15, paragraph 4.20). 4.3 The Sub-Committee noted that the following submissions were made to this session for its consideration: .1 document BLG 8/4 (Secretariat), providing the text of the draft revised MARPOL

Annex I, including the forms of the IOPP Certificate and Oil Record Book as well as the unified interpretations to MARPOL Annex I, as developed and finalized by the working group at the previous session;

.2 documents BLG 8/4/1 (INTERTANKO) and BLG 8/4/7 (Islamic Republic of

Iran), providing comments on the use of SI units within the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I; and

BLG 8/18 - 10 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.3 documents BLG 8/4/2 (INTERTANKO), BLG 8/4/3 (Japan), BLG 8/4/4 and

BLG 8/4/5 (Netherlands) and BLG 8/4/6 (Sweden), containing proposals for amendments to the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I prepared by BLG 7.

4.4 The Sub-Committee agreed to first consider the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I (BLG 8/4), followed by the submissions providing comments on the use of SI units in the draft revised MARPOL Annex I (BLG 8/4/1 and BLG 8/4/7) and the submissions containing amendments and proposals related to the draft revised MARPOL Annex I (BLG 8/4/2, BLG 8/4/3, BLG 8/4/4, BLG 8/4/5 and BLG 8/4/6), and took decisions as outlined in the following paragraphs. Review of MARPOL Annex I 4.5 Having considered the latest text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I prepared by the Secretariat (BLG 8/4), the Sub-Committee noted the following points made by the Chairman of the Working Group on Review of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 established at BLG 7:

.1 the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I now before the Sub-Committee

was developed and finalized by the working group at BLG 7. It comprises regulations 1 through 37, the forms of IOPP Certificate and Oil Record Book, and the unified interpretations to MARPOL Annex I; and

.2 it is to be hoped that Member Governments have had ample time for a careful

review of the text and that a careful fine tuning exercise has been carried in the intersessional period so that the draft revised MARPOL Annex I can be finally recommended to MEPC 49 for approval within the target completion date of 2003.

SI unit corrections to draft revised MARPOL Annex I 4.6 The Sub-Committee noted documents BLG 8/4/1 (INTERTANKO) and BLG 8/4/7 (Islamic Republic of Iran) and agreed, in principle, that it was desirable that the draft revised MARPOL Annex I should be consistent with the �système international d�unités� (SI System). The Sub-Committee decided to refer this matter to the Working Group on Review of MARPOL Annex I. Proposals for amendments to the draft revised MARPOL Annex I 4.7 The Sub-Committee noted document BLG 8/4/2 (INTERTANKO), containing a proposed amendment to regulation 28 on �Pumping, piping and discharge arrangements� and a new unified interpretation on this subject and agreed to refer this document to the working group indicated in paragraph 4.13. 4.8 Following a brief discussion, the Sub-Committee decided not to support the proposal by the Netherlands (BLG 8/4/4) concerning the granting of a waiver for oil filtering equipment for ships engaged in voyages of 100 hours, or less, in duration outside special areas. It was felt that the proposal did not cover other related aspects such as an adequate provision of reception facilities in the area, the capacity of holding tanks on board or an adequate justification of the proposed duration of the voyage.

- 11 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

4.9 The Sub-Committee considered document BLG 8/4/5 (Netherlands), proposing an amendment to MARPOL Annex I whereby oil tankers of 150 gross tonnage and above can be exempt from the requirements of the oil discharge and monitoring and control equipment, provided they retain all oil or oily mixtures from the cargo area on board for discharge into reception facilities. Following a brief discussion, the Sub-Committee agreed not to take on board the proposal as it represented a fundamental change from a long standing regulation and could lead to compliance and port State control problems worldwide. 4.10 In considering document BLG 8/4/6 (Sweden) containing a proposal for the placing of the unified interpretations directly after the relevant regulations of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I, the Sub-Committee recalled that BLG 4 had decided that this subject should be addressed once the draft revised MARPOL Annex I was finalized. 4.11 The Sub-Committee agreed that the matter was one related to publication and could be left to the Secretariat and that, in any case, the authentic text of the revised MARPOL Annex I would not include the Unified Interpretations. 4.12 The Sub-Committee considered document BLG 8/4/3 (Japan), containing a proposal for amendment of draft MARPOL regulation I/15.6 and agreed to refer this matter to the working group, indicated in paragraph 4.13. Establishment of the working group 4.13 Having considered the above issues, the Sub-Committee agreed to re-establish the Working Group on Review of MARPOL Annex I and instructed it, taking into account the comments and proposals made in plenary, to:

.1 finalize the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I, as contained in document

BLG 8/4, taking into account the documents submitted to the session; .2 consider the use of SI units for the draft revised MARPOL Annex I, taking into

account documents BLG 8/4/1 and BLG 8/4/7, and make recommendations as appropriate; and

.3 liaise with other working and drafting groups for matters relevant to the revision

of MARPOL Annex I.

Report of the working group 4.14 Having considered the report of the working group (BLG 8/WP.3), the Sub-Committee approved the report in general and took action as indicated hereunder. Decisions and editorial adjustments to the draft revised MARPOL Annex I 4.15 The Sub-Committee noted the principal decisions taken by the group and the editorial adjustments made to the draft revised MARPOL Annex I and its appendices, which are summarized in the following paragraphs.

BLG 8/18 - 12 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Use of SI units in the revised MARPOL Annex I 4.16 The Sub-Committee, having noted the provisions of resolution A.351(IX), agreed that the SI System should be introduced, as appropriate, in the revised MARPOL Annex I, IOPP Certificate, Oil Record Book and Unified Interpretations. However, it was also decided that, for certain units or terms, changes should not be made since the worldwide maritime community is well familiarized with their use, in particular, the use of a number of widely used and important units such as litre, tonne, hour, nautical mile, degree (angle) are allowed under the SI System. 4.17 With regard to the use of the term �parts per million (ppm)�, the Sub-Committee decided to retain its use throughout the text and agreed to the following new definition:

�parts per million (ppm) means parts of oil per million parts of water by volume�. This definition is in accordance with that in paragraph 3.4 of the Revised Guidelines and specifications for pollution prevention equipment for machinery space bilges of ships (resolution MEPC.60(33)). Requirements for the control of discharge of oil for ships of less than 400 gross tonnage 4.18 The Sub-Committee endorsed the view of the group that the concerns expressed in document BLG 8/4/3 are sufficiently covered in the draft MARPOL regulation I/14.4 and, therefore, no amendment is needed in the text. In accordance with this regulation, ships of less than 400 gross tonnage should be equipped, as far as practicable, either to retain on board oily mixtures in a bilge water holding tank or to discharge them in accordance with the requirements of draft MARPOL regulation I/15.6. The Sub-Committee agreed that in case a ship of this category wishes to discharge oil mixtures into the sea, this should be made in full compliance with the provisions of draft regulation 15.6, which requires in all cases the operation of equipment to ensure that the oil content of the effluent without dilution does not exceed 15 ppm. Modifications and editorial adjustments of draft revised MARPOL Annex I Regulation 1 � Definitions 4.19 The Sub-Committee noted that paragraph 1.11 was amended to include within square brackets �the Oman area of the Arabian Sea� in the list of Special areas under MARPOL 73/78, as approved by MEPC 48 for eventual adoption by MEPC 49; that the definition given in paragraph 1.28.8 relating to an �oil tanker delivered before [date of entry into force of revised MARPOL Annex I plus 36 months]� has been deleted since no reference to this generation of oil tankers exists in the draft revised MARPOL Annex I; and that a new paragraph 1.29 has been added in order to provide the definition of �parts per million� referred to in paragraph 4.17 above. 4.20 The Sub-Committee also noted that the group, having considered the outcome of the discussions within the Working Group on Review of MARPOL Annex II, relating to document BLG 8/5/1, agreed to replace in the definition of �oil tanker� in paragraph 5 of regulation 1, the expression �chemical tanker� by �NLS tanker�.

- 13 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

4.21 The Sub-Committee further noted that the aforementioned working group had agreed on the deletion of the word �primarily� in the definition of an �NLS tanker� in the draft revised MARPOL Annex II and endorsed the group�s view not to delete that same expression in the definition of �oil tanker� in draft regulation 1.5, as it could affect draft regulation 2.2 dealing with the application of the provisions of Annex I to ships other than oil tankers. Regulation 6 � Surveys 4.22 The Sub-Committee noted that the footnote of paragraph 3.1, which refers to the Guidelines for the authorization of organizations acting on behalf of Administrations, adopted by the Organization by resolution A.739(18), has been incorporated in the text in the same way as SOLAS regulation XI/1, together with the specifications on the survey and certification functions of recognized organizations acting on behalf of the Administration, as contained in resolution A.789(19). Regulation 10 � Duration and validity of certificate 4.23 The Sub-Committee noted that the text which had been added at the end of paragraph 1 during BLG 7, which read �from the date of completion of the initial or renewal survey, as appropriate�, was deleted, taking into account the need for full compliance with the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification. Regulation 28 � Piping and discharge arrangements 4.24 The Sub-Committee noted that paragraph 7 of draft regulation 28 had been amended by the group in accordance with the proposal made by INTERTANKO (BLG 8/4/2) and the comments made in plenary, so that the scope of the installation of a positive means for the prevention of inadvertent spillages through the sea chest are more clearly defined in the regulation itself and that the group had also developed a Unified Interpretation providing examples of such a positive means. Regulation 36 � Reception facilities 4.25 The Sub-Committee noted that paragraph 6 of this regulation was amended to include within square brackets in the list of special areas the �Oman area of the Arabian Sea� referred to in paragraph 3.9 above.

Regulation 37 � Special requirements for fixed or floating platforms

4.26 The Sub-Committee noted that the new version of draft regulation 37 developed by the working group established under agenda item 8 (Application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs) was incorporated into the text and instructed the Secretariat to make editorial adjustments, as appropriate. International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) Certificate 4.27 The Sub-Committee noted that in accordance with paragraph 9.3.22 of document MEPC 48/21, the group amended the IOPP Certificate by adding the sentence �Completion date of survey on which this Certificate is based: dd/mm/yy� following the paragraph commencing with the words �This certificate is valid until �..�.

BLG 8/18 - 14 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Supplement to the IOPP Certificate � Forms A and B 4.28 The Sub-Committee noted that a reference to the Guidelines and specifications for pollution prevention equipment and oil discharge and monitoring systems (resolution MEPC.60(33)) had been added to the text and footnotes, as appropriate, in order to include the newly Revised Guidelines agreed by DE 46 and that the group, taking into account that the draft revised MARPOL Annex II no longer contained provisions for the carriage of Oil-like Substances, had deleted the relevant paragraph 9 from Form B of the Supplement. Oil Record Book (ORB) 4.29 The Sub-Committee noted that the group reviewed parts I and II of the ORB and defined the units that should be used in association with the expression �quantity� throughout the text. The group agreed that when the recording of �quantity� is required in the ORB, this should be expressed in �m3 � with the exception of code letter H in part I of the ORB, where the quantity of fuel or lube oil should be expressed in �tonnes�. Unified interpretations 4.30 The Sub-Committee noted that a reference to the Guidelines and specifications for pollution prevention equipment and oil discharge and monitoring systems (resolution MEPC.60(33)) had been added to the text and footnotes, as appropriate, in order to include the newly Revised Guidelines agreed by DE 46. 4.31 The Sub-Committee further noted that the unified interpretation of the definition of �oil filtering equipment� had been amended to clearly specify that an oil filtering equipment is actually the 15 ppm bilge separator, as defined in the draft Revised Guidelines and specifications for pollution prevention equipment for machinery space bilges of ships. Other matters 4.32 Following the outcome of discussion under agenda item 8 on matters relating to the conversion of an oil tanker into an FPSO or FSU, the Sub-Committee agreed to delete the proposed Unified Interpretation 2.4 concerning regulation I/1.9 of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I, as set out in document BLG 8/WP.3. Action taken by the Sub-Committee 4.33 Having considered the above matters, the Sub-Committee agreed to the draft revised MARPOL Annex I, IOPP Certificate, Oil Record Book and Unified Interpretations, set out in annex 5, for submission to MEPC 49 for approval and subsequent adoption at MEPC 50. 4.34 Noting the above decision, the delegation of the United States reserved its position with regard to regulations 19 and 20 of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I. 5 REVIEW OF ANNEX II OF MARPOL 73/78 Background 5.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that considerable progress was made at BLG 7 in developing the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II.

- 15 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

5.2 The Sub-Committee also recalled that, having agreed to the criteria for defining pollution categories and ship types for both the 3-category and 5-category systems at BLG 7, it had not been in a position to decide which of the two aforementioned systems should be recommended to the MEPC for approval and, as a result, MEPC 48 had been provided with two versions of the text for the draft revised MARPOL Annex II, one for the 3-category system and one for the 5-category system. 5.3 The Sub-Committee noted that, following an in-depth discussion, MEPC 48 had been unable to achieve consensus on this issue due, in part, to concerns expressed about the impact any new system might have on the vegetable oil industry and domestic trade. 5.4 As a result, MEPC 48 had instructed the Secretariat to develop the remaining text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II for both a 3-category and a 5-category system for review by ESPH 8 and BLG 8 so that both texts could be finalized by the target completion date of 2003 and submitted to MEPC 49 for approval in the anticipation that a decision will be made regarding the choice of pollution categorization systems. 5.5 The Sub-Committee also noted that MEPC 48 had instructed it to study the impact of the 3-category and 5-category systems on: .1 the vegetable oil industry; and .2 ships engaged in domestic trade, and to report the results of this study to MEPC 49 so that they can be taken into account when considering the draft revised MARPOL Annex II. Review of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II 5.6 The Sub-Committee had for its consideration four documents submitted under this agenda item, and the outcome of their consideration is outlined in the following paragraphs. 5.7 In considering the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II, prepared by the Secretariat (BLG 8/5), the Sub-Committee agreed that the ESPH Working Group should use this as a basis for developing the final text for submission to MEPC 49. 5.8 With regard to the submission by Norway (BLG 8/5/1), containing a proposal regarding the definition of �chemical tanker�, the Sub-Committee agreed that this issue should be considered under agenda item 6 as part of the report of the ESPH Working Group before giving any related instruction to the ESPH Working Group (see paragraph 6.6). 5.9 In considering document BLG 8/5/2 (Norway), the Sub-Committee agreed that the proposals were of an editorial nature and instructed the ESPH Working Group to take the aforementioned proposals into account along with any pertinent plenary discussion when considering the texts of the two versions of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II. Pollution category systems 5.10 Having considered the above submissions addressing amendments to the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II, the Sub-Committee noted document BLG 8/INF.2 (Japan), containing a proposal to MEPC 49 for a 4-category system to replace the currently proposed 3-category and 5-category systems.

BLG 8/18 - 16 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

5.11 The Sub-Committee recalled the instructions given by MEPC 48 related to the impact of the 3-category and 5-category systems on the vegetable oil and domestic trades. In this context, it was noted that Japan, supported by several delegations at MEPC 48, had expressed their concern that the 3-category system might have serious economic implications to the vegetable oil and domestic trades. 5.12 The Sub-Committee also recalled that, in response to the proposal by Japan, the delegation of Panama had suggested that the concerns regarding the transport of vegetable oils in deep tanks might be overcome by allowing specific derogations similar to those regulations developed for off-shore support vessels. 5.13 The Sub-Committee noted that, as a result of the discussions held during MEPC 48, Members with interests in domestic trade and trade in vegetable oils had been requested to liaise with their appropriate industries in order to submit appropriate information to ESPH 8 and BLG 8, in order to facilitate this study. 5.14 However, it was noted that there had not been any submissions to either ESPH 8 or to this session providing specific details of the perceived problems associated with the impact of either the 3-category or the 5-category versions of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II on the vegetable oil or domestic trade. 5.15 In this context, the Sub-Committee noted that the vegetable oil industry had still not provided all the required acute aquatic toxicity data associated with their products despite frequent requests to do so. 5.16 The delegation of the Netherlands recalled that it had first submitted a document to BCH 22 describing the impact of vegetable oils on the shore and that it was still getting three to four incidents each year, for which clean-up costs of about �100,000 per incident are not an exception. The Sub-Committee recognized that the concerns over the discharge of lipophylic substances was one of the reasons given for revising the criteria for defining pollution categories under MARPOL Annex II. 5.17 With regard to the hazards associated with such products, it was noted that the United States Coast Guard has a website on animal fats and vegetable oils related to response. This site indicates that �animal fats and vegetable oils have many properties similar to petroleum oils and produce many of the same environmental effects when discharged into the environment�. 5.18 Having been informed of concerns that there may be a lack of reception facilities for vegetable oils in the United States caused by the 3-category system, the Sub-Committee invited the United States to provide more information in this regard. 5.19 The Sub-Committee recalled its decision to instruct the ESPH Working Group to reject proposals to classify products if the required data were incomplete and the question was raised as to what effect this should have on those vegetable oils which did not have the necessary data. In this context, it was noted that the vegetable oils industry had been approached on many occasions with a request to provide the necessary data, but such approaches had been to no avail. In this regard, the view was expressed that the differences in the treatment of the vegetable oils industry and the rest of the chemicals industry should be eliminated and that the Organization�s concern about the lack of data needed to evaluate vegetable oils appeared to have been largely ignored.

- 17 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

5.20 The Sub-Committee recognized the importance of the vegetable oil trade and regretted the fact that the lack of the required information was detrimental to the development of the revised text of MARPOL Annex II. In this context, it was noted that some Governments had been attempting to get their national industry to generate the required data. Once again, the Sub-Committee strongly requested Member States to use all means at their disposal to ensure that the required data were submitted for evaluation. 5.21 Having considered this issue in detail, the Sub-Committee expressed regret that there had not been sufficient data submitted to complete the hazard evaluations or details related to the possible impact of the revised versions of MARPOL Annex II on the vegetable oils trade. 5.22 Consequently, the Sub-Committee requested the GESAMP/EHS Working Group to provide a provisional assessment of the incomplete parts of the revised Hazard Profile for those vegetable oils identified as being transported in bulk at sea. The Secretariat was instructed to forward the result of these assessments to MEPC 49 so that their effects on the proposed pollution categorization systems could be taken into account. Instructions to the working group 5.23 Having considered the above issues, the Sub-Committee referred them to the Working Group on Evaluation of Safety and Pollution Hazards of Chemicals and Review of Annex II to MARPOL 73/78, indicated in paragraph 6.13, for further consideration and instructed it to finalize the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II, taking into account the comments and decisions made in plenary (see also paragraph 6.13.1). Report of the working group 5.24 Having considered the part of the report of the working group (BLG 8/WP.1) referring to the issue, the Sub-Committee took action as outlined in paragraph 6.14. 6 EVALUATION OF SAFETY AND POLLUTION HAZARDS OF CHEMICALS

AND PREPARATIONS OF CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS 6.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that it had agreed to forward documents addressing classification tasks directly to the ESPH Working Group prior to further consideration by the Sub-Committee. 6.2 As a result, documents BLG 8/6/1 (Norway) and BLG 8/6/3 (Islamic Republic of Iran), which dealt with a proposal to include dimethylether in the IGC and GC Codes, were put directly to the ESPH Working Group for consideration. Report of the intersessional meeting of the ESPH Working Group 6.3 In considering the report of the intersessional meeting of the ESPH Working Group, (BLG 8/6), the Sub-Committee approved the report in general and noted the following points made by the Chairman of the ESPH Working Group, Mrs. M.C. Tiemens-Idzinga (Netherlands):

.1 the group had assigned pollution categories and carriage requirements for three new products destined to enter the IBC and BCH Codes as well as one new product destined to enter the IGC Code;

BLG 8/18 - 18 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.2 in carrying out this task, the group had requested the Sub-Committee to instruct it to reject proposals for products to enter these Codes unless each of the proposed carriage requirements are complete and supported by appropriate data;

.3 as instructed by MEPC 48, the group started to consider the texts of the draft

revised MARPOL Annex II, for both the 3-category and the 5-category systems, but, due to lack of time, only the text for the 3-category system was completed;

.4 there was insufficient time to consider the alternative revised text of the draft

revised MARPOL Annex II based on a 5-category system and, therefore, the Secretariat was instructed to make the appropriate changes to this text as well as the associated appendices so that the completed texts could be submitted to BLG 8. In this context, it had been noted that some of the unified interpretations had been included in the text, some were now obsolete, whilst others required further consideration, and it might be useful to instruct the ESPH Working Group to identify the most appropriate way of dealing with these;

.5 in carrying out this task, a number of substantial issues related to the text based on

the 3-category system were identified by the group, as shown in paragraph 4.5 of document BLG 8/6, as requiring guidance by the Sub-Committee;

.6 having completed this task as much as possible within the time available, the

group had recalled the following eight outstanding issues, identified in paragraph 3.7 of document BLG 7/6, which would need to be addressed in order to ensure the completion of the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II by the target completion date of 2003:

.6.1 chapters 17 and 18 of the IBC Code will need to be amended to reflect the new

pollution categories, ship types and carriage requirements; .6.2 the Relevant decisions of the MSC and MEPC, currently reflected after the

index in the IBC Code will need to be replaced; .6.3 chapter 16A of the IBC Code may need to be amended in order to make and to

show the proper relationship with the Relevant decisions of the MSC and MEPC;

.6.4 Administrations and/or classification societies will need to amend various

documents, including Certificates of Fitness and P&A manuals, associated with all ships carrying products subject to chapters 17 or 18 of the IBC Code whichever pollution categorization system is adopted;

.6.5 all Tripartite Agreements identified in the MEPC.2 circulars, including the

mixtures, will need to be revised to reflect the new pollution categorization system;

.6.6 MEPC/Circ.265 will need to be revised to be in line with new criteria, taking

into account developments in the GHS system for calculating the hazards of mixtures;

- 19 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.6.7 Administrations, seafarers and industry personnel involved in the transport of chemicals may require training in order to understand the significance of the new system, whichever pollution categorization system is adopted; and

.6.8 the list of substances in the Guidelines for the transport and handling of

limited amounts of hazardous and noxious liquid substances in bulk in offshore support vessels which transport products not included in the IBC Code or MEPC.2 circulars will need to be amended;

.7 in addition to these points, concern was expressed that MARPOL regulation

I/13.8.3, in the text associated with the 3-category system, might cause an increased demand for shore reception facilities for some vegetable oils though it was recognized that treatment of the resultant wash water would not require any specialized treatment;

.8 the group evaluated ten candidate products for inclusion in the list of cleaning

additives meeting the requirements of paragraph 1.8.2 of the P&A Standards of which nine were found to meet the requirements;

.9 the group addressed some of the concerns, which were based on the world

movement of vegetable oils set out in annex 6 and the statistics on ship typing criteria set out in annex 7, raised during MEPC 48 regarding the possible impact of both the 3-category and the 5-category systems on the trade of vegetable oils. From this information, it was concluded that whilst any change to the current system might have an impact on the trade of these products, no major disruption to this trade was anticipated;

.10 in line with normal procedure, the group considered those products reported to

IMO for inclusion in MEPC.2/Circ.8 and those which would be past their expiry date by 17 December 2002, and made editorial amendments and deletions as appropriate;

.11 the group identified some of the amendments to the IBC Code, which would be

required as a result of changes to the draft revised MARPOL Annex II, and included the task of revising the text of the IBC in its work programme subject to the approval of the Sub-Committee; and

.12 the group considered alternative models for calculating the pollution categories

and ship types of mixtures containing �Pollutant only components�, but recognized that further consideration would need to be given to this issue before a recommendation could be made to the Sub-Committee.

6.4 The Sub-Committee thanked the ESPH Working Group and its Chairman, Mrs. M.C. Tiemens-Idzinga (Netherlands), for the considerable amount of work that had been done and, having considered the work carried out at the intersessional meeting of the ESPH Working Group, took action as indicated hereunder. Proposals for products to be entered in the IBC Code 6.5 The Sub-Committee instructed the ESPH Working Group to reject proposals for products to enter the IBC Code unless each of the proposed carriage requirements is supported by the appropriate data.

BLG 8/18 - 20 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Revision of MARPOL Annex II 6.6 In regard to the revision of MARPOL Annex II, the Sub-Committee: .1 recognized that the definition of �chemical tanker� in MARPOL Annex II is wider

than that in SOLAS and the IBC Code. It noted that, in the text of MARPOL Annex II there are various references to both �chemical tankers� and �ships� whilst recognizing that the articles of MARPOL 73/78 only refer to ships. In this context, the Sub-Committee considered the submission from Norway (BLG 8/5/2) and noted the following points made by the delegations of Norway:

.1.1 the definition of �chemical tanker� in item 1.5 of the draft revised MARPOL

Annex II should be identical to that of SOLAS regulation VII/8.2; .1.2 references to �all ships carrying noxious liquid substances in bulk� or �all

tankers carrying noxious liquid substances in bulk� should be written out in full to avoid the need for shortened version;

.1.3 the definition of �oil tanker� should be amended to read: �Oil tanker means a ship constructed or adapted primarily to carry oil in bulk

in its cargo spaces and includes combination carriers and any other tanker and gas carrier when carrying a cargo or part cargo of oil in bulk�; and

.1.4 having recognized the anomaly and the points made by Norway in document

BLG 8/5/2, the Sub-Committee instructed the working group to give further consideration to this issue, particularly with regard to the potential implications that any change to the definition of �chemical tanker� in MARPOL 73/78 may have on other instruments;

.2 agreed that in regulation 6.3 of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II, the time

given for Governments initiating a Tripartite Agreement to notify IMO should be changed from 90 days to 30 days which was deemed to be quite sufficient (see also paragraph 2.5);

.3 agreed that the essence of the footnote to regulation 8.2.1 of the draft revised

MARPOL Annex II, referring to the Guidelines for the authorization of organizations acting on behalf of Administrations (resolution A.739(18)), should be incorporated in the text in the same way as was done in SOLAS regulation XI/1;

.4 agreed that regulation 12.10 of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II should be

deleted as it was deemed to be unnecessary since it was recognized that the requirements have to be dealt with for operational reasons;

.5 recalled that regarding regulation 13.1.2 of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II,

at present, ships solely certified to carry category D or appendix III substances, are not subject to the water test to determine the residual quantity in the tank and its associated piping, and as a result, agreed that, in line with the agreement that no retrofitting will be required for existing ships, such ships not able to meet the stripping requirements should be allowed to meet the stripping level determined

- 21 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

by their water test. In this context, it was recognised that this requirement would be for enforcement purposes only in order to show that the ship�s procedures comply with the manual.

.6 agreed that the operations listed under regulation 15.2 of the draft revised

MARPOL Annex II were currently incomplete and superfluous as they are reflected in the Cargo Record Book and so should be deleted; and

.7 recognized that, under paragraph 3.1.2 of appendix V of the Procedures and

Arrangements Manual, a reference should be made to the minimum time needed for efficient stripping which would reflect the time observed during the water test. It was recognized that recording the time was essential and in most cases common practice. As a result, the Sub-Committee agreed that the stripping time should be recorded and that, as a consequence, paragraph 3.3 of section 3 of Appendix 4 would need to be amended accordingly.

6.7 Having considered the above issues, the Sub-Committee agreed to request the MEPC and MSC to instruct the Secretariat to provide data associated with the lists of substances subject to MARPOL Annex II, in a format suitable for uploading into databases. 6.8 The Sub-Committee also approved the work programme for the next intersessional meeting of the ESPH Working Group. Comments on the proposed categorization systems 6.9 The Sub-Committee recalled that MEPC 48 had limited its instructions to the Sub-Committee to addressing the impact of the 3-category and the 5-category systems on the vegetable oil and domestic trades. 6.10 Notwithstanding the above observation, the Sub-Committee noted that document BLG 8/6/2 (Republic of Korea) addressed the following issues: .1 the application of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II to existing ships; .2 the discharge requirements of category Z products under the 3-category system;

and .3 the discharge requirements of products assigned to appendix III of

MARPOL 73/78. 6.11 The Sub-Committee noted these concerns and invited the Republic of Korea to put these issues to MEPC 49. 6.12 The Sub-Committee discussed matters related to the impact of the revision of MARPOL Annex II on the vegetable oil trade, which was addressed under agenda item 5. In order to report the discussion with some continuity, the Sub-Committee noted that the complete discussion had been reported under agenda item 5 (see paragraphs 5.11 to 5.22).

BLG 8/18 - 22 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Establishment of the working group 6.13 Recognizing the necessity to make progress on the above issues and recalling its relevant decision at BLG 7, the Sub-Committee established the Working Group on Evaluation of Safety and Pollution Hazards of Chemicals and Review of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 and instructed it, taking into account the comments and decisions made in plenary, to: .1 finalize the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II, taking into account any

editorial changes deemed necessary; .2 develop the carriage requirements for dimethyl ether to be included in the IGC

Code; .3 develop an agenda for the intersessional meeting of the ESPH working group

which should include, and give priority to, all outstanding issues associated with the revision of the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II; and

.4 develop draft amendments to the IBC Code to reflect changes needed as a result of

amendments to MARPOL and SOLAS. Report of the working group 6.14 Having received the report of the working group (BLG 8/WP.1), the Sub-Committee approved the report in general and took action as indicated hereunder. Definition of �chemical tanker� 6.15 In order to avoid any ambiguity over the term �chemical tanker�, the Sub-Committee agreed that the term �chemical tanker� should be replaced with the term �NLS tanker� (Noxious Liquid Substances tanker) and that, where appropriate, the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II should be amended accordingly. Format for dates shown on various forms of certificates 6.16 Noting that MEPC 48 had agreed that certificates issued under the HSSC should be endorsed with the words �Completion date of survey on which this certificate is based: dd/mm/yy� and that this had already been incorporated into the text of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II under consideration, the Sub-Committee agreed to recommend to MEPC 49 and MSC 78 that, wherever a date is requested in a form or a certificate, the format �dd/mm/yyyy� should be used, noting that this specifies four digits for the year. Draft revised MARPOL Annex II 6.17 Having noted the group�s consideration of the texts for both the 3-category and the 5-category versions of the draft revised MARPOL Annex II, as contained in document BLG 8/5, the Sub-Committee instructed the Secretariat to develop the finalized texts for both versions of the revised MARPOL Annex II for inclusion in the Sub-Committee�s report based on the editorial changes identified by the group as well as those substantial issues agreed by the Sub-Committee. The two versions of the revised MARPOL Annex II are set out in annexes 8 and 9 for consideration by MEPC 49.

- 23 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

6.18 The Sub-Committee considered that the work on the item �Review of Annex II to MARPOL 73/78� was completed and invited the MEPC to delete this item from its work programme (see paragraph 15.4.1). Draft amendments to the IGC Code for ships carrying carbon dioxide as cargo 6.19 The Sub-Committee noted that draft exemptions for ships carrying carbon dioxide as cargo in a dedicated trade, as contained in annex 2 of paragraph 4.7 of document BLG 8/6, contained an error and agreed to a corrected draft table showing the exemptions for ships carrying carbon dioxide as cargo in a dedicated trade, as set out in annex 10. The Sub-Committee noted that the proposed tables set out in annex 10 will eventually be included in a future set of amendments to the IGC Code. Intersessional meeting of the ESPH Working Group 6.20 The Sub-Committee approved the agenda for the intersessional meeting of the ESPH Working Group. In this context, the Sub-Committee instructed the group to develop a draft MEPC resolution allowing derogations for the transport of vegetable oils in deep-tanks, similar to those Guidelines developed for offshore support vessels (see also paragraph 15.8). 7 AMENDMENTS TO REQUIREMENTS ON ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS IN

THE IBC AND IGC CODES 7.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that BLG 7 had considered the submissions by Germany (BLG 7/7/1) and Norway (BLG 7/7/2) regarding proposed amendments to the requirements on electrical installations in the IBC and IGC Codes and, after considering the recommendations of a drafting group (BLG 7/WP.9), agreed to the draft amendments to the IBC and IGC Codes, as set out in annex 7 to document BLG 7/15, for finalization at BLG 8, taking into account the outcome of DE 46 (BLG 8/2/3). 7.2 The Sub-Committee also recalled that it had instructed the Secretariat to submit a proposal to BLG 8 for updating the existing cross-references to paragraph 10.2 of the IBC and IGC Codes since the aforementioned paragraph had been deleted in the above draft amendments. 7.3 Having considered document BLG 8/7 (Secretariat), the Sub-Committee noted that the following paragraphs contained references to paragraph 10.2 in the IBC and IGC Codes:

.1 IBC Code: paragraphs 3.7.8, 10.1.4, 10.1.6, 11.3.15, 15.3.10 and 15.11.5; and

.2 IGC Code: paragraphs 3.6.4 and 10.1.4,

and the recommendation that the references to paragraph 10.2 should be replaced by a reference to paragraph 10.1.4, as appropriate. 7.4 The Sub-Committee noted that DE 46 had agreed to draft amendments to SOLAS regulation II-1/45, as set out in the annex to document BLG 8/2/3, for submission to MSC 78 for approval with a view to adoption and that the Sub-Committee was invited to take the aforementioned draft amendments to SOLAS regulation II-1/45 into account when finalizing the draft amendments to the IBC and IGC Codes.

BLG 8/18 - 24 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

7.5 In regard to the task of aligning the provisions in the IBC and IGC Codes with those in SOLAS regulation II-1/45, it was noted that DE 46 had invited the Sub-Committee to consider referencing the relevant SOLAS provisions with those in the IBC and IGC Codes so that any future amendments to regulation II-1/45 would simultaneously apply to all three instruments, safeguarding that the same safety standard would govern the relevant electrical installations at all times. 7.6 After a brief discussion of the relevant documents and having considered the proposal by the delegation of Germany to reference SOLAS regulation II-1/45 in the Codes, as highlighted in paragraph 7.5 above, the Sub-Committee agreed to harmonize the draft amendments to chapter 10 of the IBC and IGC Codes (BLG 7/15, annex 7) with the draft amendments to SOLAS regulation II-1/45 and instructed the Secretariat to prepare a comprehensive document for consideration by plenary, taking into account the references to chapter 10.2 highlighted in document BLG 8/7. 7.7 Having considered the draft amendments prepared by the Secretariat (BLG 8/WP.5), the Sub-Committee agreed to the draft amendments to the IBC and IGC Codes, as set out in annex 11, for submission to MSC 78 for approval and subsequent adoption at MSC 79. 8 APPLICATION OF MARPOL ANNEX I REQUIREMENTS TO FPSOs AND FSUs General 8.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that it had considered a submission by Australia (BLG 7/8/1), containing proposed guidelines on the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs, and the submission by OGP (BLG 7/INF.8), providing detailed information on FPSOs and FSUs deployed in the offshore oil sector, and, following a general discussion on the subject, had agreed that a draft MEPC circular providing appropriate guidance should be developed to clearly specify the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements. 8.2 The Sub-Committee also recalled that BLG 7 had established a drafting group to consider matters related to the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs and, having decided that more time was necessary to progress the work on this issue, had agreed to re-establish a correspondence group with the terms of reference specified in paragraph 8.15 of document BLG 7/15. Report of the correspondence group 8.3 In considering the report of the correspondence group (BLG 8/8), the Sub-Committee noted that the group had further developed:

.1 recommendations regarding the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs;

.2 proposed amendments to MARPOL regulation I/21; .3 a draft IOPP Certificate for FPSOs and FSUs; and .4 a list of proposed consequential changes to the relevant unified interpretations to

clarify:

- 25 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.4.1 in respect of MARPOL regulation I/1(4), that FPSOs and FSUs are not oil tankers and may not be used to transport oil except on a strictly limited basis;

.4.2 that an FPSO/FSU can be converted from an oil tanker and back again without

being subjected to a major conversion in respect of MARPOL regulation I/1(8);

.4.3 MARPOL regulations I/13 to I/13G through deletion of unguided waiver in

UI 4.6.1; and .4.4 proposed revised text of MARPOL regulation I/21 through revision of

UI 10.1, and agreed that the above matters should be further considered by a working group. Increased corrosion of oil tankers after their utilization as FSUs 8.4 The Sub-Committee also discussed the submission by Germany (BLG 8/8/1), expressing concern regarding increased corrosion on the hull structure of single hull oil tankers, and agreed that no further action should be taken on this issue until relevant data and associated recommendations were provided to the Sub-Committee for consideration. Establishment of the working group 8.5 Recognizing the necessity to make progress on these issues and recalling its relevant decision at BLG 7, the Sub-Committee established the Working Group on Application of MARPOL Annex I Requirements to FPSOs and FSUs and instructed it, taking into account the comments and decisions made in plenary, to:

.1 finalize the proposed amendments to MARPOL regulation I/21 and the draft IOPP Certificate for FPSOs and FSUs, taking into account annexes 2 and 3 of document BLG 8/8;

.2 further consider matters related to the draft unified interpretations to MARPOL

regulation I/21, taking into account annex 4 of document BLG 8/8, and make recommendations as appropriate;

.3 further consider matters related to the draft Guidelines for application of

MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs, taking into account annex 1 of document BLG 8/8, and make recommendations as appropriate; and

.4 prepare a recommendation regarding the need for a correspondence group and, if

so, prepare the draft terms of reference for consideration by the Sub-Committee. Report of the working group 8.6 Having received the report of the working group (BLG 8/WP.8), the Sub-Committee approved the report in general and took action as indicated hereunder.

BLG 8/18 - 26 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

8.7 The Sub-Committee noted that the group made minor changes to the proposed text of the draft MARPOL regulation I/21(1) to limit the terms FPSOs and FSUs to offshore production and storage of produced oil. One of the effects of this change was to exclude some storage facilities from inclusion within the term FSU. 8.8 The Sub-Committee also noted that the existing unified interpretation 10.1.1 required modifications to satisfactorily deal with certain categories of contaminated sea water from FPSOs and FSUs and that unified interpretation 10.1.2 would no longer be appropriate within the framework of guidelines developed. 8.9 Having considered the concerns expressed by the delegation of the United States that conversion of an oil tanker to an FPSO/FSU, or vice versa, should be considered a �major conversion�, the Sub-Committee agreed to delete the proposed amendments to unified interpretation 1.3.3 set out in annex 2 to document BLG 8/WP.8. 8.10 The Sub-Committee agreed that a provision giving effect to resolution A.744(18), as amended, should be retained to ensure maintenance of a satisfactory standard of structural integrity, particularly in relation to FPSOs/FSUs which are not subject to the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI, such as non-disconnectable units, and that this should be subject to a provision allowing acceptance of in-water surveys in lieu of dry-dockings where this does not compromise safety and pollution prevention. 8.11 The Sub-Committee agreed that overboard discharge provisions should be based on those developed in relation to MARPOL regulation I/9(1)(b), subject to recognition that any overboard discharges could only be carried out if a waiver of the requirement for them to be carried out en route had been obtained from the coastal State. The text prepared by the group provides for such discharges to be one of five environmentally responsible methods that may be used. 8.12 Having considered the above issues, the Sub-Committee agreed to the draft amendments to the unified interpretations to MARPOL Annex I, as set out in annex 12, and to the draft MEPC circular on Guidelines for the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs, as set out in annex 13, for submission to MEPC 49 for approval. 8.13 Noting the above decision, the Sub-Committee agreed that, since the proposed amendments to MARPOL regulation I/21 have already been incorporated in the draft revised MARPOL Annex I as new regulation 37, which is expected to be approved by MEPC 49, there was no need to submit a similar set of amendments for the existing MARPOL regulation I/21 to MEPC 49 for approval. 8.14 With regard to the draft MEPC circular on Guidelines for the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs, the Sub-Committee noted that the regulations referred to in the draft MEPC circular were those in the current MARPOL Annex I so that the Guidelines would be used under the existing MARPOL Annex I. However, the Sub-Committee agreed to invite MEPC 49 to instruct the Secretariat to prepare a similar draft MEPC resolution with updated references to the revised MARPOL Annex I, for adoption at the same time as the revised MARPOL Annex I, with a view to their application under the new MARPOL regulation I/37. 8.15 Having considered the above matters, the Sub-Committee noted that the delegation of the United States reserved its position on matters related to MARPOL regulations I/13F and I/13G, as contained in the draft MEPC circular on Guidelines for the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs.

- 27 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

9 REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL PROTECTION INVOLVED IN THE

TRANSPORT OF CARGOES CONTAINING TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN ALL TYPES OF TANKERS

Background 9.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that it had considered the proposals by Germany (BLG 7/9/4) and Denmark (BLG 7/9/1) to amend SOLAS to deal with occupational health issues for seafarers on tankers and, after having noted that Administrations could address occupational health issues as part of their implementation of the ISM Code, agreed that amendments to mandatory IMO instruments should not be developed. In this regard, the Sub-Committee noted that MSC 76 had concurred with this view. 9.2 The Sub-Committee also recalled that it had considered a proposal by Denmark (BLG 7/9/1) to update MSC/Circ.752 on Minimum safety standards for ships carrying mixtures the benzene content of which is 0.5 percent or more and agreed to revise the aforementioned circular taking into account paragraph 4.2 of document BLG 7/9/1. 9.3 The Sub-Committee further recalled that it had considered a submission by the United States (BLG 7/9/2) to develop management-based guidelines on shipboard occupational health and safety programme and, after endorsing the proposal in principle, agreed that the guidelines should be non-mandatory. Minimum safety standards for ships carrying mixtures the benzene 9.4 The Sub-Committee considered the proposal by Denmark (BLG 8/9) to update MSC/Circ.752 on Minimum safety standards for ships carrying mixtures the benzene content of which is 0.5% or more and, having recognized that chronic exposure to very low concentrations of benzene vapours in air, of the order of a few parts per million, may cause leukaemia, agreed to revise the aforementioned standards with the view to submitting them to MSC 77 for approval as an urgent matter in accordance with paragraph 45 of the Guidelines on the organization and method of work (MSC/Circ.931-MEPC/Circ.366). 9.5 Notwithstanding the above decision, the Sub-Committee agreed that the revised MSC circular should not contain the structural recommendations for ship designers and shipowners, as set in annex 2 to document BLG 8/9, pending further consideration of this issue at BLG 9 and decided that a drafting group should be established to prepare the revised MSC circular for consideration by plenary (see paragraph 9.11). Safety data sheets for MARPOL Annex I cargoes or marine fuel oils 9.6 The Sub-Committee considered the submission by Norway, INTERTANKO, OCIMF and ITOPF (BLG 8/9/1), proposing to:

.1 develop guidelines on safety data sheets for MARPOL Annex I cargoes or marine fuel oils;

.2 prepare an MSC resolution urging States to ensure the supply and carriage of a

specific safety data sheets for MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils; and

BLG 8/18 - 28 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.3 add a new sub-section to SOLAS chapter VII and other appropriate instruments, to require safety data sheets for hazardous liquid substances,

and agreed to develop a draft MSC circular on Guidelines on safety data sheets for MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils and a draft MSC resolution urging States to ensure the supply and carriage of a specific safety data sheets for the carriage of MARPOL Annex I cargoes or marine fuel oils, for submission to MSC 77 for approval as an urgent matter. 9.7 In considering whether a new sub-section should be added to SOLAS chapter VII and other appropriate instruments, the Sub-Committee agreed to recommend to the MSC to expand the work under this item to include the development of mandatory requirements for safety data sheets for the carriage of MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils and, to this end, decided that a drafting group should be established to prepare an appropriate justification for consideration by the Committee (see paragraph 9.11). Development of management-based guidelines on shipboard occupational health 9.8 The Sub-Committee recalled that BLG 7 had considered the submission by the United States (BLG 7/9/2) and agreed to develop management-based guidelines on shipboard occupational health and safety programme. 9.9 Having considered the draft Guidelines on the basic elements of a shipboard occupational health and safety programme and the associated draft MSC circular prepared by the Secretariat (BLG 8/WP.4), the Sub-Committee agreed that the draft Guidelines addressed a wide range of issues that were outside the scope of the Sub-Committee (e.g. training, ship safety management, auditing of shipboard procedures, fatigue, hazard identification, equipment, etc.). To this end, the Sub-Committee instructed the Secretariat, subject to MSC�s approval, to forward document BLG 8/WP.4 to the COMSAR, DE, FP, FSI, SLF and STW Sub-Committees for consideration so that they could comment or make proposals, as appropriate. 9.10 The Sub-Committee, recognizing that the subject of occupational health also falls within the competence of ILO and WHO, also agreed to invite these organizations to participate in the development of the aforementioned management-based guidelines, thereby making available their special expertise and knowledge regarding occupational health and medical issues, and instructed the Secretariat to communicate with these organizations accordingly seeking their contribution. Establishment of the drafting group 9.11 Recognizing the necessity to finalize the urgent matters highlighted above, the Sub-Committee established a drafting group and instructed it, taking into account the comments and decisions made in plenary, to: .1 prepare a draft MSC circular on Minimum safety standards for ships carrying

liquids in bulk with mixtures containing benzene, on the basis of document BLG 8/9;

.2 finalize the content of the proposed material safety data sheet (MSDS) for

MARPOL Annex I cargoes or marine fuel oils and the guidelines for the completion of the MSDS as contained in annexes 1 and 2 of document BLG 8/9/1, and prepare an associated MSC resolution urging States to ensure the supply and carriage of such material safety data sheets; and

- 29 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.3 prepare a justification for extending the work of the Sub-Committee on this

agenda item to develop mandatory requirements for the carriage and use of safety data sheets for MARPOL Annex I cargoes or marine fuel oils.

Report of the drafting group 9.12 Having received the report of the drafting group (BLG 8/WP.6), the Sub-Committee approved the report in general and took action as indicated hereunder. Safety standards for ships carrying mixtures containing benzene 9.13 The Sub-Committee endorsed the view of the group on the ambiguity of benzene concentration and agreed that it would be reasonable to use the criteria �by volume� for gas and �by mass� for liquid, and the wording �by mass� and �by volume� should be used in the minimum safety standards as suggested by the group. 9.14 After making further editorial changes, the Sub-Committee agreed to the draft MSC circular on Revised minimum safety standards for ships carrying liquids in bulk containing benzene, as set out in annex 14, for submission to MSC 77 for approval. Safety data sheets 9.15 In considering the safety data sheet (SDS) contained in annex 2 of document BLG 8/WP.8, the Sub-Committee agreed that, in order to make the SDS simple, all the contents within the square brackets should be deleted and all the other text should not be underlined. 9.16 Having considered the above matters, the Sub-Committee agreed to the draft MSC resolution on Recommendation for material safety data sheets for MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils, as set out in annex 15, for submission to MSC 77 for adoption and invited MEPC 49 to note the outcome on this matter. Development of mandatory requirements 9.17 In considering the draft justification for expanding the work on this agenda item, as contained in annex 3 to document BLG 8/WP.6, the Sub-Committee recognized that in developing mandatory requirements for the carriage and use of material safety data sheets, other competent organizations such as ILO and WHO, should be invited to participate. It was also recognized that the other sub-committees such as the STW Sub-Committee may also need to be involved. 9.18 Therefore, the Sub-Committee decided, rather than inviting MSC 77 to approve the above mentioned justification for expanding its work on this agenda item, to instruct the Secretariat to communicate with ILO and WHO seeking their contribution and inform the STW Sub-Committee accordingly. Upon the receipt of input from ILO, WHO and the STW Sub-Committee, such a justification could be submitted to the MSC for approval, with a view that the Sub-Committee would be the co-ordinator on this issue. Extension of target completion date 9.19 Noting the above decisions, the Sub-Committee agreed to invite MSC 77 to endorse the course of action set out on paragraphs 9.9, 9.10 and 9.18 above and to extend the target

BLG 8/18 - 30 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

completion date for the item to 2005. Members were also invited to submit to BLG 9 comments and proposals on the development of mandatory requirements for safety data sheets for the carriage of MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils, taking into account the outcome of MSC 77 on this matter. 10 OIL TAGGING SYSTEMS 10.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MEPC 45 had considered a submission by the United Kingdom (MEPC 45/11/1) which described a full-scale test on the DNA tagging of oil and information on tests being conducted. Having considered the matter, MEPC 45 had instructed the Sub-Committee to add oil tagging systems to its work programme. 10.2 The Sub-Committee also recalled that, at BLG 6, it considered a submission by the United Kingdom (BLG 6/11) on the implications of DNA tagging of oil and the continuing full-scale trials of applying DNA tagging technology to heavy fuel oil on board ships. In this context, the United Kingdom had pointed out that research had shown that the science of DNA tagging has been demonstrated and, therefore, work should begin on the practical implementation of this technology as soon as possible. 10.3 In the course of discussion at BLG 6, several delegations had raised questions on oil tagging in general and, in particular on whether DNA tags are rapidly biodegradable, reliable for enforcement purposes and if there is any influence on engine operations. The United Kingdom therefore had offered to submit further information to this session. Members were invited to submit comments and proposals on the subject to this session and, in particular to forward comments on the issues identified in paragraph 11.4 of document BLG 6/16. 10.4 The Sub-Committee also recalled that at BLG 7, having noted the submission by the United Kingdom (BLG 7/INF.5) providing information on research into the DNA tagging of oil, Members and international organizations were invited to submit comments to BLG 8. 10.5 The Sub-Committee noted that no document had been submitted under this agenda item to the session and, having been informed by the delegation of the United Kingdom that research on oil tagging systems would not be forthcoming for the foreseeable future, decided that it should deal with the issue at a future session under its present item to be retained in the work programme and to issue any documents containing information or research on oil tagging systems under the agenda item on �Any other business�. The MEPC was invited to consider the above decision and take action as appropriate. 11 REVISION OF THE FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE IBC AND

IGC CODES 11.1 The Sub-Committee noted that MSC 74, in considering document MSC 74/18/1 (Republic of Korea), had agreed to include, in its work programme, a high priority item on �Revision of the fire protection requirements of the IBC and IGC Codes�, because a number of the identified requirements of the IBC and IGC Codes and the revised SOLAS chapter II-2 were not technically identical and, therefore, there would be a need to carefully check the references, in particular in terms of application of the relevant requirements to existing ships, with a view to harmonizing them with the corresponding requirements of the revised SOLAS chapter II-2. 11.2 The Sub-Committee considered documents BLG 8/11 (Secretariat) and BLG 8/11/1 (Republic of Korea), providing references to SOLAS chapter II-2 in the IBC, IGC, BCH and GC

- 31 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Codes and related recommendations for updating the references in the Codes, and agreed that a detailed review of the proposed amendments would be necessary to properly address this matter. 11.3 In considering how best to proceed with such a detailed review, the Sub-Committee noted that, in addition to updating the references to SOLAS chapter II-2 in the IBC and IGC Codes, a number of references would also have to be updated in the BCH and GC Codes and agreed that a working group should be established at BLG 9 with a view towards providing a set of draft amendments to the Codes for approval by the Committees. The Committees were therefore invited to amend the title of this work programme item to read �Revision of the fire protection requirements of the IBC, IGC, BCH and GC Codes�. 11.4 Members and interested international organizations were also invited to submit to BLG 9 comments and proposals on the revision of the fire protection requirements of the IBC, IGC, BCH and GC Codes. 12 SHIP RECYCLING-RELATED MATTERS 12.1 The Sub-Committee noted that the MEPC had been addressing the issue of ship recycling and, during MEPC 47, the Correspondence Group on Recycling of Ships had been re-established. 12.2 The Sub-Committee recalled that, in developing an Assembly resolution on Ship recycling and IMO Guidelines for ship recycling, MEPC 48 had recognized that further inputs from the DE, BLG and FSI Sub-Committees were required. As a result, BLG 8 was instructed to: �take into account any input from the DE Sub-Committee to produce a list of potentially

hazardous materials which might be found on board ships from those shown in appendices 6 and 7 of the report of the Correspondence Group on Ship Recycling (MEPC 48/3). Such materials may be inherent in the structure of the vessel or its equipment, carried as stores or spares or generated during normal operations of the vessel including cargo residues.�

12.3 In this context, the Sub-Committee noted the lists of potentially hazardous materials which might be found on board ships (BLG 8/2/1), which had been developed by the working group during MEPC 48. 12.4 The Sub-Committee was also informed of the outcome of DE 46 (BLG 8/2/3) and noted, in particular: .1 with regard to the substances listed in annex 1 to document BLG 8/2/1, DE 46 had

noted that halon, which is listed in section A of annex 1, is not the only fire-extinguishing medium and proposed that this entry could be expanded to include perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and

.2 with regard to the substances listed in annex 2 to document BLG 8/2/1, DE 46 had

concluded that it had insufficient expertise at that session to offer advice on the matter to MEPC 49.

12.5 In considering the outcome of MEPC 48 (BLG 8/2/1) on matters related to the lists of potentially hazardous materials which might be found on board ships, the Sub-Committee noted that considerable progress had been made at MEPC 48 and decided not to establish a working group at this session, as had been agreed at BLG 7.

BLG 8/18 - 32 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

12.6 With regard to the substances listed in annexes 1 and 2 to document BLG 8/2/1, the Sub-Committee agreed that the reference to the EU Council regulations and the BASEL Convention were unnecessary as the list of hazardous materials developed at MEPC 48 (BLG 8/2/1, annex 1) adequately covered the matter. Therefore, the MEPC was invited to delete the references to the EU Council regulations from the list of potentially hazardous materials which may be on board vessels delivered to recycling yards and the whole of annex 2 of document BLG 8/2/1 from the draft IMO Guidelines for Ship Recycling. The Sub-Committee noted that the guidelines issued under the Basel Convention on ship recycling matters do not include the list of hazardous wastes covered by the Basel Convention included in annex 2 of document BLG 8/2/1. The Sub-Committee also noted that the EU Council regulations were confusing and did not add value to the draft Assembly resolution. 12.7 Having considered the above matters, the Sub-Committee agreed that no further action was needed on this agenda item and invited the Committees to delete it from its work programme. 13 CASUALTY ANALYSIS 13.1 The Sub-Committee noted that FSI 10 had agreed to the summary of casualty analyses and recommendations, as set out in annex 4 to document FSI 10/WP.1, and forwarded the aforementioned annex to other relevant sub-committees for consideration, as appropriate, so that they would be informed as to what type of accidents are occurring and take appropriate action if deemed necessary. In this regard, the Sub-Committee decided to consider this matter at this session and included an item on �Casualty analysis� in the provisional agenda for BLG 8. 13.2 The Sub-Committee also noted that FSI 10 had developed a proposed revised method on the interactive process between the FSI Sub-Committee and other sub-committees, as illustrated in a graphical presentation set out in annex 5 to document FSI 10/WP.1, to identify maritime safety and marine pollution issues and forwarded the aforementioned graphical presentation to the sub-committees for information purposes. 13.3 Having considered the casualty analysis and recommendations contained in annex 4 to document FSI 10/WP.1 and the graphical presentation on the interactive process between the FSI Sub-Committee and other sub-committees to identify maritime safety and marine pollution issues, the Sub-Committee decided that no further action on the above matters was required at this time. 14 CONSIDERATION OF IACS UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS 14.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 75 and MSC 76 had referred to the Sub-Committee for further consideration the IACS unified interpretations contained in documents MSC 75/19/2 and MSC 76/18/2 (IACS) and that MSC 76 had included a high priority item on "Consideration of IACS unified interpretations" in the Sub-Committee�s work programme and provisional agenda for BLG 8 with a target completion date of 2004. 14.2 The Sub-Committee noted that MSC 75 and MSC 76 had instructed the Sub-Committee to review the aforementioned interpretations, which fall within the Sub-Committee�s purview, and to prepare, on the basis of those unified interpretations, appropriate interpretations of the respective IMO instruments for approval by the Committee and dissemination to Member Governments for the latter to use when applying relevant provisions of such IMO instruments.

- 33 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

14.3 In this regard, the Sub-Committee recalled that at BLG 7, having noted the relevant IACS interpretations set out in annex 5 to document MSC 75/19/2 falling within the Sub-Committee�s purview, it had agreed to further consider the above interpretations and invited Members and interested international organizations to submit comments to this session of the Sub-Committee. 14.4 In considering documents MSC 75/19/2 and MSC 76/18/2 (IACS), the Sub-Committee noted that following IACS unified interpretations were under its purview:

.1 IBC Code, paragraph 8.3.2 (annex 1 to document MSC 76/18/2); .2 IBC Code, paragraph 8.3.3.2 (annex 5 to document MSC 75/19/2);

.3 IGC Code, paragraph 8.2.10 (annex 5 to document MSC 75/19/2); and .4 MARPOL Annex I, regulation 13F (3)(c) (annex 3 to document MSC 76/18/2). 14.5 In reviewing the above interpretations, the Sub-Committee noted that the IACS unified interpretation on MARPOL Annex I, regulation 13F(3), as contained in annex 3 to document MSC 76/18/2, had not yet been considered by the MEPC and agreed that no action should be taken on this matter pending the outcome of MEPC 49. 14.6 Having considered the above matters and the document prepared by the Secretariat (BLG 8/WP.9) containing a draft MSC circular on IACS unified interpretations, the Sub-Committee agreed to the aforementioned draft MSC circular, as set out in annex 16, for submission to MSC 78 for approval. The Sub-Committee, noting that the IACS unified interpretations set out in annex 16 also address matters related to fire protection, instructed the Secretariat to inform the FP Sub-Committee accordingly. 14.7 The Sub-Committee agreed to retain this item on the agenda for BLG 9, pending the outcome of MEPC 49 on matters related to IACS unified interpretation on MARPOL Annex I. 15 WORK PROGRAMME AND AGENDA FOR BLG 9 Terms of reference for the Sub-Committee 15.1 The Sub-Committee noted that MSC 76, having considered the Chairmen�s Meeting recommendation that the sub-committees should be requested to review and update, as necessary, their own terms of reference (BLG 8/2), had instructed the Sub-Committee to prepare updated terms of reference for consideration by MSC 78 and MEPC 50. 15.2 After discussing the above issues, the Sub-Committee agreed that it would need more time to consider this matter in detail and invited Member Governments to submit comments and proposals to BLG 9 with a view to preparing the updated terms of reference for approval by MSC 79 and MEPC 51, bearing in mind the tentative schedule for meetings of the Committees and Sub-Committees. 15.3 The Sub-Committee noted the comments by the delegation of the Bahamas that the terms of reference for the Committees, as contained in articles 28 and 38 of the Convention on the IMO, should be updated to assist the sub-committees in updating their own terms of reference. Having noted the difficulties associated with amending the articles of the Convention on the IMO, the delegation of the Bahamas suggested that Committees should at least consider

BLG 8/18 - 34 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

developing their own �working terms of reference�, which should be approved by Council. The sub-committees� terms of reference should be derived from these. Work programme and agenda for BLG 9 15.4 Taking into account the progress made during the session and the provisions of the agenda management procedure, the Sub-Committee reviewed its work programme and agenda for its next session (BLG 8/WP.10) and prepared a proposed revised work programme and draft provisional agenda for BLG 9. While doing so, the Sub-Committee agreed to invite the MSC and MEPC to:

.1 delete the following work programme items, as work on them has been completed:

.1.1 item H.1 - Matters related to the probabilistic methodology for oil

outflow analysis;

.1.2 item H.2 - Review of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78;

.1.3 item H.3 - Review of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78;

.1.4 item H.4.1 - Development of the final guidelines;

.1.5 item H.8 - Application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs;

.1.6 item H.9 - Ship recycling-related matters; and

.1.7 item L.1 - Amendments to requirements on electrical installations in

the IBC and IGC Codes;

.2 extend the target completion date of the following work programme item:

.2.1 item H.5 - Requirements for protection of personnel involved in the transport of cargoes containing toxic substances in all types of tankers, to 2005;

.3 replace the target completion date by the number of sessions needed to complete

the following work programme item:

.3.1 item H.6 - Oil tagging systems 2 sessions; and

.4 renumber the work programme items accordingly.

15.5 The MSC and MEPC were invited to approve the proposed revised work programme of the Sub-Committee and draft provisional agenda for BLG 9, as set out in annex 17.

- 35 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Arrangements for the next session 15.6 The Sub-Committee agreed to establish, at BLG 9, working groups on the following:

.1 revision of the fire protection requirements of the IBC, IGC, BCH and GC Codes;

.2 evaluation of safety and pollution hazards of chemicals; and .3 requirements for protection of personnel involved in the transport of cargoes

containing toxic substances in all types of tankers. Intersessional meetings 15.7 The Sub-Committee noted that MEPC 48 and MSC 76 had approved the holding of an intersessional meeting of the ESPH Working Group in 2003, which is tentatively scheduled to take place from 1 to 5 September 2003. 15.8 The Sub-Committee agreed to invite MEPC 49 and MSC 77 to approve the holding of an intersessional meeting of the ESPH Working Group in 2004. Dates of the next session 15.9 The Sub-Committee noted that its ninth session had been tentatively scheduled to take place from 7 to 11 June 2004. 16 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR 2004 16.1 The Sub-Committee, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Maritime Safety Committee and Marine Environment Protection Committee, unanimously re-elected Mr. Z. Alam (Singapore) as Chairman and Mr. S. Oftedal (Norway) as Vice-Chairman, for 2004. 17 ANY OTHER BUSINESS Availability of working papers in all working languages 17.1 The delegations of Argentina and France drew the attention of the Sub-Committee to the difficulties experienced by the Spanish and French speaking delegations when invited to approve texts only available in English. The practice to ask the forbearance of these delegations to agree to consider working papers in English only, with the proviso that the discussion may be reopened in plenary after they have been able to review the documents once available in their respective languages, had become the norm rather than the exception and, in many instances, some documents were not available in their languages in time to enable them to raise comments in plenary. 17.2 Following an explanation by the Secretariat that the difficulties experienced are owed, to a great extent, to the fact that only one translation night shift (from Thursday to Friday) is budgeted for Sub-Committee meetings and that, if a decision was made to have another night shift (from Wednesday to Thursday), this would have budgetary implications, the Sub-Committee, at the suggestion of the delegation of Spain, agreed to invite MSC 77 to note the aforementioned concerns and, if agreeable, to recommend to Council to consider deciding in favour of an additional translation night shift. To this effect, the Sub-Committee requested the

BLG 8/18 - 36 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Secretariat to assess the cost of implementing the above proposed measures and report to MSC 77 and C 90 accordingly. Expression of condolences 17.3 The Sub-Committee noted, with regret, the death of Captain F. Høgelid (Norway) who, as a long-standing member of the Norwegian delegation, had made valuable contributions to the Sub-Committee�s meetings for many years. The Chairman of the Sub-Committee requested the Norwegian delegation to convey the Sub-Committee�s and his personal, sincere condolences to Captain Høgelid�s bereaved family and colleagues on behalf of the Sub-Committee. 18 ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMITTEES 18.1 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its seventy-seventh session, is invited to:

.1 approve the draft MSC circular on Revised minimum safety standards for ships carrying liquids in bulk containing benzene (paragraph 9.14 and annex 14);

.2 adopt the draft MSC resolution on Recommendation for material safety data

sheets for MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils (paragraph 9.16 and annex 15);

.3 endorse the Sub-Committee�s course of action on requirements for the protection

of personnel involved in the transport of cargoes containing toxic substances in all types of tankers (paragraphs 9.9, 9.10 and 9.17 to 9.19);

.4 approve, subject to MEPC's concurrent decision, the proposed revised work

programme of the Sub-Committee and provisional agenda for BLG 9 (paragraph 15.5 and annex 17);

.5 approve, subject to MEPC's concurrent decision, the holding of an intersessional

meeting of the ESPH Working Group in 2004 (paragraph 15.8); and

.6 consider the views expressed regarding the timely translation of working papers in all working languages and take action as appropriate (paragraphs 17.1 and 17.2).

18.2 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its seventy-eighth session, is invited to:

.1 note the outcome of the work related to the probabilistic methodology for oil outflow analysis (paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9 and annexes 3 and 4);

.2 instruct the Secretariat, subject to MEPC�s concurrent decision, to provide data

associated with the lists of substances subject to MARPOL Annex II, in a format suitable for uploading into databases (paragraph 6.7);

.3 recognizing the previous decision that certificates issued under the HSSC should

be endorsed with the words �Completion date of survey on which the certificate is based: dd/mm/yy�, consider that wherever a date is requested in a form or a certificate, the format �dd/mm/yyyy� should be used, noting that this specifies four digits for the year (paragraphs 2.4 and 6.16);

- 37 - BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.4 approve the draft amendments to the IBC and IGC Codes for circulation to IMO Members and Contracting Governments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention in accordance with article VIII of the Convention, with a view to adoption by MSC 79 (paragraph 7.7 and annex 11);

.5 approve the draft MSC circular on Unified interpretations of the IBC and IGC

Codes (paragraphs 14.6 and annex 16); and .6 approve the report of the Sub-Committee in general.

18.3 The Marine Environment Protection Committee is invited to:

.1 consider the draft MEPC resolution on Tripartite agreements and take action as appropriate (paragraph 2.5 and annex 2);

.2 adopt the draft MEPC resolution on Revised Interim Guidelines for the approval

of the alternative methods of design of oil tankers under regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 (paragraphs 3.8 and annex 3);

.3 endorse the Sub-Committee�s recommendation to instruct the Secretariat to

prepare a draft MEPC resolution on Guidelines for the approval of the alternative methods of design of oil tankers under regulation 37 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 with a view to adoption together with the revised MARPOL Annex I (paragraph 3.9);

.4 consider the draft MEPC resolution on Explanatory Notes on matters related to the

accidental oil outflow performance for MARPOL regulation I/21 with a view to adoption together with the revised MARPOL Annex I (paragraph 3.10 and annex 4);

.5 approve the draft revised MARPOL Annex I for circulation to IMO Members and

Contracting Governments to the 1973 MARPOL Convention in accordance with article 16 of the Convention with a view to adoption by MEPC 50 (paragraph 4.33 and annex 5);

.6 note the discussion on matters related to the trade of vegetable oils and the

pollution categorization systems and take action as appropriate (paragraphs 5.10 to 5.21, 5.22, 6.3.9 and annexes 6 and 7);

.7 instruct the Secretariat, subject to MSC�s concurrent decision, to provide data

associated with the lists of substances subject to MARPOL Annex II, in a format suitable for uploading into databases (paragraph 6.7);

.8 recognizing the previous decision that certificates issued under the HSSC should

be endorsed with the words �Completion date of survey on which the certificate is based: dd/mm/yy�, consider that wherever a date is requested in a form or a certificate, the format �dd/mm/yyyy� should be used, noting that this specifies four digits for the year (paragraphs 2.4 and 6.16);

.9 consider the finalized texts for the 3-category and the 5-category versions of the

draft revised MARPOL Annex II and take action as appropriate (paragraph 6.17 and annexes 8 and 9);

BLG 8/18 - 38 -

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.10 note the outcome of matters related to the draft amendments to the IBC and IGC

Codes on electrical installations (paragraph 7.7 and annex 11); .11 approve the draft amendments to the Unified Interpretations to Annex I of

MARPOL 73/78 (paragraph 8.12 and annex 12); .12 approve the draft MEPC circular on Guidelines for the application of MARPOL

Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs (paragraph 8.12 and annex 13); .13 endorse the Sub-Committee�s recommendation to instruct the Secretariat to

prepare a draft MEPC resolution on Guidelines for the application of the revised MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs, with a view to adoption together with the revised MARPOL Annex I (paragraph 8.14);

.14 note the draft MSC resolution on Recommendation for material safety data sheets

for MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils (paragraph 9.16 and annex 15);

.15 consider the Sub-Committee�s course of action on matters related to oil tagging

systems and take action as appropriate (paragraph 10.5); .16 consider the Sub-Committee�s recommendations regarding ship recycling-related

matters and take action as appropriate (paragraphs 12.6 and 12.7); .17 approve, subject to MSC's concurrent decision, the proposed revised work

programme of the Sub-Committee and provisional agenda for BLG 9 (paragraph 15.5 and annex 17);

.18 approve, subject to MSC's concurrent decision, the holding of an intersessional

meeting of the ESPH Working Group in 2004 (paragraph 15.8); and .19 approve the report of the Sub-Committee in general.

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 1

AGENDA FOR THE EIGHTH SESSION INCLUDING A LIST OF DOCUMENTS 1 Adoption of the agenda

BLG 8/1/Rev.1 Secretariat Provisional agenda BLG 8/1/1 Secretariat Annotations to the provisional agenda

2 Decisions of other IMO bodies BLG 8/2 Secretariat Outcome of NAV 48, SLF 45, DSC 7 and

MSC 76 BLG 8/2/1 Secretariat Outcome of MEPC 48 BLG 8/2/2 Secretariat Outcome of COMSAR 7, FP 47 and

STW 34 BLG 8/2/3 Secretariat Outcome of DE 46 3 Matters related to the probabilistic methodology for oil outflow analysis BLG 8/3 Germany Report of the correspondence group BLG 8/3/1 Norway Proposal for adjustment of the mean outflow

criteria for OBO carriers BLG 8/WP.7 Report of the drafting group

4 Review of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78

BLG 8/4 Secretariat Revised draft text of Annex I BLG 8/4/1 INTERTANKO Annex I SI Corrections BLG 8/4/2 INTERTANKO Amendment to revised regulation 28 BLG 8/4/3 Japan Proposal for revised text of Annex I of

MARPOL 73/78 for ships of less than 400 gross tonnage

BLG 8/4/4 Netherlands Proposal for an amendment of the regulations concerning the waiver for the Oil Filtering Equipment (OFE)

BLG 8/4/5 Netherlands Proposal for an amendment of the regulations concerning the Oil Discharge Monitoring and control equipment (ODM)

BLG 8/4/6 Sweden Comments on the revised draft text of Annex I

BLG 8/4/7 Islamic Republic Annex I SI Corrections of Iran

BLG 8/WP.3 Report of the working group

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 1 Page 2

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

5 Review of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 BLG 8/5 Secretariat Revised draft text of Annex II BLG 8/5/1 Norway Definition of Chemical Tanker BLG 8/5/2 Norway Editorial comments to the draft revised

MARPOL Annex II BLG 8/INF.2 Japan Proposed 4-catorgory system under and Corr.1 MARPOL Annex II 6 Evaluation of safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of

consequential amendments BLG 8/6 Report of the eighth session of the Working

Group on the Evaluation of Safety and Pollution Hazards of Chemicals

BLG 8/6/1 Norway Proposal to carry dimethyl ether in the gas carrier Codes

BLG 8/6/2 Republic of Korea Comments on category system and ship typing criteria of noxious liquid substances

BLG 8/6/3 Islamic Republic Proposal to carry dimethyl ether in the gas of Iran carrier codes

BLG 8/WP.1 Report of the drafting group 7 Amendments to requirements on electrical installations in the IBC and IGC Codes BLG 8/7 Secretariat Identification of references to paragraph 10.2

in the IBC and IGC Codes BLG 8/WP.5 Secretariat Amendments to the requirements on

electrical installations in the IBC and IGC Codes

8 Application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs BLG 8/8 Australia Report of the correspondence group BLG 8/8/1 Germany Increased corrosion of oil tankers after their

utilization as FSUs BLG 8/WP.8 Report of the drafting group

9 Requirements for protection of personnel involved in the transport of cargoes

containing toxic substances in all types of tankers BLG 8/9 Denmark Revision of MSC/Circ.752 BLG 8/9/1 Norway, Proposed outline for a Material Safety Data INTERTANKO, MSDS for marine use when handling OCIMF and ITOPF MARPOL Annex I type cargoes and marine fuel oils BLG 7/9/2 United States Guidance on the basic elements for a

shipboard occupational health and safety programme

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 1

Page 3

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

BLG 8/WP.4 Secretariat Guidelines on shipboard occupational health and safety programme

BLG 8/WP.6 Report of the drafting group

10 Oil tagging systems No document submitted 11 Revision of the fire protection requirements of the IBC and IGC Codes

BLG 8/11 Secretariat Identification of references to SOLAS

chapter II-2 in the IBC, IGC, BCH and GC Codes

BLG 8/11/1 Republic of Korea Proposal amendments to the fire protection requirements of the IBC and IGC Codes

12 Ship recycling-related matters BLG 8/2/1 Secretariat Outcome of MEPC 48 MEPC 48/3 Bangladesh Report of the correspondence group MEPC 48/WP.12 Report of the working group and Add.1 13 Casualty analysis FSI 10/WP.1, annex 4 Report of the working group 14 Consideration of IACS unified interpretations MSC 75/19/2 IACS IACS unified interpretations and Corr.1 MSC 76/18/2 IACS IACS unified interpretations

BLG 8/WP.9 Secretariat Draft unified interpretations to the IBC and IGC Codes

15 Work programme and agenda for BLG 9 BLG 8/WP.10 Secretariat Work programme and agenda for BLG 9 16 Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2004 No document submitted 17 Any other business No document submitted


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

18 Report to the Committees BLG 8/18 Secretariat Report to the Maritime Safety Committee

and the Marine Environment Protection Committee

BLG 8/WP.11 Secretariat Draft report to the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee

***

BLG 8/INF.1 Secretariat List of participants

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 2

DRAFT MEPC RESOLUTION

TRIPARTITE AGREEMENTS THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, NOTING regulation 3(4) of Annex II to MARPOL 73/78, which describes the procedure for obtaining a provisional assessment of liquid substances carried in bulk which have not been categorized under paragraph (1) of this regulation, NOTING ALSO that unified interpretations 2A.1 describes, in detail, the procedure to be carried out in order to obtain such a provisional assessment, RECOGNIZING that for the Government of the State Party to MARPOL 73/78 shipping or producing the substance to be provisionally assessed needs to be able to contact the Government of the State in whose port the cargo will be received and the Government of the flag State involved in transporting the substance, RECOGNIZING ALSO that such contact points are published by the Organization in MEPC.2 circulars, which are updated every year in December, NOTING the difficulties experienced by some States in contacting other States which have not informed the Organization of their contact details to be included in the MEPC.2 circulars, 1. AGREES that those contact points which have not informed the Organization of their latest contact details should be deemed to have accepted the tripartite agreements whilst other contact points should still follow the Unified Interpretations 2A.1.4 and 2A.1.6 of regulation 3(4) of Annex II to MARPOL 73/78; 2. AGREES ALSO to review the application of this agreement at a future date.

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 3


REVISED INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR THE APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE

METHODS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF OIL TANKERS UNDER REGULATION 13F(5) OF ANNEX I OF MARPOL 73/78

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, NOTING resolution MEPC.52(32) by which the Committee adopted new regulation 13F and 13G and related amendments to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, NOTING ALSO resolution MEPC.66(37) by which the Committee adopted new Interim Guidelines for the approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers under regulation 13F(5) of annex I of MARPOL 73/78, NOTING FURTHER that by resolution MEPC.66(37), the Committee resolved to keep the Interim Guidelines under review and to develop final guidelines in the light of experience, HAVING CONSIDERED the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases, at its eighth session, 1. ADOPTS the Revised Interim Guidelines for the approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers under regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, the text of which is set out in the Annex to the present resolution; 2. INVITES Member Governments to give due consideration to the Revised Interim Guidelines when evaluating other methods of design and construction of oil tankers as alternatives to the requirements prescribed in regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 for submission of such designs to the Committee for approval; 3. AGREES to keep the Revised Interim Guidelines under review in the light of experience gained; 4. INVITES the Maritime Safety Committee to note the Revised Interim Guidelines; 5. URGES Member Governments to bring the aforementioned Revised Interim Guidelines to the attention of shipbuilders, shipowners, ship operators and other parties concerned with the design, construction and operation of oil tankers with a view to encouraging their use for oil tankers constructed on or after [1 April 2005]; 6. REVOKES resolution MEPC.66(37).


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX

REVISED INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR THE APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE

METHODS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF OIL TANKERS UNDER REGULATION 13F(5) OF ANNEX I OF MARPOL 73/78

Preamble 1 The purpose of these Revised Interim Guidelines, hereunder referred to as "the Guidelines'', is to provide an international standard for the evaluation and approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers under regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. 2 The basic philosophy of the Guidelines is to compare the oil outflow performance in case of collision or stranding of an alternative tanker design to that of reference double-hull designs complying with regulation 13F(3) on the basis of a calculated pollution-prevention index. 3 The oil outflow performance of double-hull tankers which comply with regulation 13F(3) may be different. The longitudinal subdivision of the cargo tanks has a major influence on the oil outflow in case of inner hull penetration. The selected reference double-hull designs exhibit a favourable oil outflow performance. 4 The calculation of oil outflow is based on the probabilistic methodology and best available tanker accident damage statistics. Reappraisal of the Guidelines may be appropriate when more information on tanker accident damage has become available and more experience with the application of these Guidelines has been gained. 5 Falling tides will have an adverse effect on oil outflow from a stranded tanker and the Guidelines take account of this. The tide values specified in section 5 represent realistic average tidal changes which have been chosen to identify the influence of tidal changes on the oil outflow in case of stranding. 1 General 1.1 Regulation 13F of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 specifies structural requirements for new tankers of 600 dwt and above, contracted on or after 6 July 1993. Paragraph (3) of the regulation requires tankers of 5,000 dwt and above to be equipped with double hulls. Various detailed requirements and permissible exceptions are given in the regulation. Paragraph (5) of the regulation specifies that other designs may be accepted as alternatives to double hull, provided they give at least the same level of protection against oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding and are approved in principle by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) based on Guidelines developed by the Organization. 1.2 These Guidelines should be used to assess the acceptability of alternative oil tanker designs of 5,000 dwt and above with regard to the prevention of oil outflow in the event of collision or stranding as specified in paragraph (5) of regulation 13F.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 3

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

1.3 For any alternative design of an oil tanker not satisfying regulation 13F(3) or (4), a study of the cargo oil outflow performance should be carried out as specified in sections 4 through 6 of these Guidelines. 1.4 This study should cover the full range of ship sizes with a minimum of four different ship sizes, unless the approval is requested for only a limited range of vessel sizes. Data for four reference double-hull designs are given in section 7. 1.5 Evaluation of the cargo oil outflow performance of the proposed alternative design should be made by calculating the pollution-prevention index E, as outlined in section 4 of these Guidelines. 1.6 The probabilistic methodology for the calculation of oil outflow according to these Guidelines is based on available tanker casualty statistics. With the collection of additional statistical material, the damage density distribution functions specified in paragraph 5.2 should be periodically reviewed. 1.7 In principle, and as far as applicable, the requirements of paragraphs (3)(d)-(f), (6) and (8) of regulation 13F apply also to alternative designs. The requirements of paragraph (9) of regulation 13F also applies to alternative designs. In addition, it should be demonstrated by means of a risk analysis that the new design under consideration provides an adequate safety level. Such analysis should address any specific risks associated with the alternative design and, if there are any, it should be demonstrated that safe solutions exist to cope with them. 2 Applicability 2.1 These Guidelines apply to the assessment of alternative designs of oil tankers to be constructed of steel or other equivalent material, as required by SOLAS regulation II-2/11. Designs for tankers intended to be constructed of other materials or incorporating novel features (e.g. non-metallic materials) or designs which use impact-absorbing devices should be specially considered. 2.2 The approval procedure of these Guidelines applies to oil tankers of sizes up to 350,000 dwt. For larger sizes the approval procedure should be specially considered. 3 Approval procedure for alternative tanker designs 3.1 An Administration which receives a request for approval of an alternative tanker design for the purpose of complying with regulation 13F, should first evaluate the proposed design and satisfy itself that the design complies with these Guidelines and other applicable regulations of MARPOL Annex I. That Administration should then submit the proposal and the supporting documentation, together with its own evaluation report, to the Organization for evaluation and approval of the design concept by the MEPC as an alternative to the requirements of regulation 13F(3). Only design concepts which have been approved in principle by the MEPC are allowed for the construction of tankers to which regulation 13F(5) applies.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

3.2 The submission to the Administration and the Organization should at least include the following items:

.1 detailed specification of the alternative design concept; .2 drawings showing the basic design of the tank system and, where necessary, of the

entire ship; .3 study of the oil outflow performance as outlined in paragraphs 1.3 to 1.5; .4 risk analysis as outlined in paragraph 1.7; .5 details of the calculation procedure or computer program used for the probabilistic

oil outflow analysis to satisfy the Administration that the calculation procedure used gives satisfactory results. For verification of the computer program see paragraph 6.2.

Any additional information may be required to be submitted if deemed necessary. 3.3 In addition to the approval procedure for the design concept specified in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 above, the final shipyard design should be approved by the Flag State Administration for compliance with these Guidelines and all other applicable regulations MARPOL Annex I. This should include survivability considerations as referred to in paragraph 5.1.5.10. 3.4 Any approved design concept will require reconsideration if the Guidelines have been amended. 4 Oil outflow analysis 4.1 General 4.1.1 The oil pollution prevention performance of a tanker design is expressed by a non-dimensional oil pollution prevention index E which is a function of the three oil outflow parameters: �probability of zero oil outflow�, �mean oil outflow� and �extreme oil outflow�. The oil outflow parameters should be calculated for all conceivable damage cases within the entire envelope of damage conditions as detailed in section 5. 4.1.2 The three oil outflow parameters are defined as follows:

.1 Probability of zero oil outflow. This parameter represents the probability that no cargo oil will escape from the tanker in case of collision or stranding. If, e.g., the parameter equals 0.6, in 60% of all collision or stranding accidents no oil outflow is expected to occur.

.2 Mean oil outflow parameter. The mean oil outflow represents the sum of all

outflow volumes multiplied by their respective probabilities. The mean oil outflow parameter is expressed as a fraction of the total cargo oil capacity at 98% tank filling.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 5

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.3 Extreme oil outflow parameter. The extreme oil outflow is calculated - after the volumes of all outflow cases have been arranged in ascending order - as the sum of the outflow volumes between 0.9 and 1.0 cumulative probability, multiplied by their respective probabilities. The value so derived is multiplied by 10. The extreme oil outflow parameter is expressed as a fraction of the total cargo oil capacity at 98% tank filling.

4.1.3 In general, consideration of ship's survivability will not be required for the conceptual approval of an alternative design. This may, however, be required in special cases, depending on special features of the design. 4.2 Pollution-prevention index The level of protection against oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding as compared to the reference double-hull designs should be determined by calculation of the pollution-prevention index E as follows: E = k1 PO/POR + k2 (0.01 + OMR)/(0.01 + OM) + k3 (0.025 + OER)/(0.025 + OE) ≥ 1.0 (4.2) where:

k1, k2 and k3 are weighting factors having the values: k1 = 0.5 k2 = 0.4 k3 = 0.1

PO = probability of zero oil outflow for the alternative design OM = mean oil outflow parameter for the alternative design OE = extreme oil outflow parameter for the alternative design POR, OMR and OER are the corresponding parameters for the reference double-hull design of the same cargo oil capacity as specified in section 7.

4.3 Calculation of oil outflow parameters The oil outflow parameters PO, OM and OE should be calculated as follows:

Probability of zero oil outflow, PO: n

PO = ∑ Pi Ki (4.3-1) i=1

where:

i represents each compartment or group of compartments under consideration, running from i = 1 to i = n

Pi accounts for the probability that only the compartment or group of compartments under consideration are breached

Ki equals 0 if there is oil outflow from any of the breached cargo spaces in i. If there is no outflow, Ki equals 1.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Mean oil outflow parameter, OM: n

OM = ∑ (Pi Oi)/C (4.3-2) i=1

where:

Oi = combined oil outflow (m3) from all cargo spaces breached in i C = total cargo oil capacity at 98% tank filling (m3)

Extreme oil outflow parameter, OE:

n

OE = 10 ﴾∑ (Pie Oie)/C﴿ (4.3-3) i =1

where the index �ie� represents the extreme outflow cases, which are the damage cases falling within the cumulative probability range between 0.9 and 1.0 after they have been arranged as specified in paragraph 6.1. 5 Assumptions for calculating oil outflow parameters 5.1 General 5.1.1 The assumptions specified in this section should be used when calculating the oil outflow parameters. 5.1.2 Outflow parameters should be calculated independently for collisions and strandings and then combined as follows:

.1 0.4 of the computed value for collisions; and .2 0.6 of the computed value for strandings.

5.1.3 For strandings, independent calculations should be done for 0 m and 2.5 m fall in tide. Outflow parameters for the stranded conditions should be a weighted average, calculated as follows:

.1 .7 for 0 m tide condition; and .2 0.3 for 2.5 m fall in tide condition.

5.1.4 The damage cases and the associated probability factor Pi for each damage case should be determined based on the damage density distribution functions as specified in paragraph 5.2. 5.1.5 The following general assumptions apply for the calculation of outflow parameters:

.1 The ship should be assumed loaded to the load line draught ds with zero trim and heel. All cargo tanks should be assumed loaded to 98% of their volumetric capacity. The nominal density of the cargo oil should be calculated as follows:

ρ n = 1000 (DW)/C (kg/m3) (5.1.5.1)

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 7

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.2 For the purposes of these outflow calculations, the permeability of each space

within the cargo block, including cargo tanks, ballast tanks and other non-oil spaces should be taken as 0.99, unless proven otherwise.

.3 For all cases of collision damage, the entire contents of all damaged cargo oil

tanks should be assumed to be spilled into the sea, unless proven otherwise. .4 For all stranded conditions, the ship should be assumed aground on a shelf.

Assumed stranded draughts prior to tidal change should be equal to the initial intact draughts. Should the ship trim or float free due to the outflow of oil, this should be accounted for in the calculations for the final shipyard design.

.5 In general, an inert gas overpressure of 0.05 bar gauge should be assumed if an

inert gas system is fitted, otherwise the inert gas overpressure should be taken as zero.

.6 For the calculation of oil outflow in case of stranding, the principles of hydrostatic

balance should apply, and the location of damage used for calculations of hydrostatic pressure balance and related oil outflow calculations should be the lowest point in the cargo tank.

.7 For cargo tanks bounded by the bottom shell, unless proven otherwise, oil outflow

equal to 1% of the volume of the damaged tank should be assumed to account for initial exchange losses and dynamic effects due to current and waves.

.8 For breached non-cargo spaces located wholly or in part below breached cargo oil

tanks, the flooded volume of these spaces at equilibrium should be assumed to contain 50% oil and 50% seawater by volume, unless proven otherwise.

.9 If deemed necessary, model tests may be required to determine the influence of

tidal, current and swell effects on the oil outflow performance. .10 For ship designs which incorporate cargo transfer systems for reducing oil

outflow, calculations should be provided illustrating the effectiveness of such devices. For these calculations, damage openings consistent with the damage density distribution functions defined in paragraph 5.2 should be assumed.

.11 Where, for the final shipyard design referred to in 3.3 and in the special cases

referred to in paragraph 4.1.3, damage stability calculations are required, the following should apply:

A damage stability calculation should be performed for each damage case.

The stability in the final stage of flooding should be regarded as sufficient if the requirements of MARPOL regulation I/25(3) are complied with.

Should the ship fail to meet the survivability criteria as defined in

MARPOL regulation I/25(3), 100% oil outflow from all cargo tanks should be assumed for that damage case.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

5.2 Damage assumptions 5.2.1 General, definitions The damage assumptions for the probabilistic oil outflow analysis are given in terms of the damage density distribution functions specified in paragraphs 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. These functions are so scaled that the total probability for each damage parameter equals 100% (i.e. the area under each curve equals 1.0). The location of a damage refers always to the centre of a damage. Damage location and extent to an inner horizontal bottom or vertical bulkhead should be assumed to be the same as the statistically derived damage to the outer hull. The location and extent of damage to compartment boundaries should be assumed to be of rectangular shape, following the hull surface in the extents defined in paragraphs 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. The following definitions apply for the purpose of paragraphs 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. x = dimensionless distance from A.P. relative to the ship�s length between

perpendiculars y = dimensionless longitudinal extent of damage relative to the ship�s length

between perpendiculars zt = dimensionless transverse penetration extent relative to the ship�s breadth zv = dimensionless vertical penetration extent relative to the ship�s depth zl = dimensionless vertical distance between the baseline and the centre of the

vertical extent zv relative to the distance between baseline and deck level (normally the ship�s depth)

b = dimensionless transverse extent to bottom damage relative to the ship�s breadth

bl = dimensionless transverse location of bottom damage relative to the ship�s breadth

5.2.2 Side damage due to collision Function for longitudinal location: fS1 = 1.0 for 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.1; Function for longitudinal extent: fS2 = 11.95 � 84.5y for y ≤ 0.1 fS2 = 6.65 � 31.5y for 0.1 < y ≤ 0.2 fS2 = 0.35 for 0.2 < y ≤ 0.3; Function for transverse penetration: fS3 = 24.96 � 399.2zt for zt ≤ 0.05 fS3 = 9.44 � 88.8zt for 0.05 < zt ≤ 0.1 fS3 = 0.56 for 0.1 < zt ≤ 0.3;

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 9

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

fS4 = 3.83 � 11.1zv for zv ≤ 0.3 fS4 = 0.5 for zv > 0.3 Function for vertical location: fS5 = zl for zl ≤ 0.25 fS5 = 5zl - 1.0 for 0.25 < zl ≤ 0.5 fS5 = 1.50 for 0.5 < zl ≤ 1.0. Graphs of the functions fS1, fS2, fS3, fS4 and fS5 are shone in figures 1 and 2. 5.2.3 Bottom damage due to stranding Function for longitudinal location: fb1 = 0.2 + 0.8x for x ≤ 0.5 fb1 = 4x � 1.4 for 0.5 < x ≤ 1.0; Function for longitudinal extent: fb2 = 4.5 � 13.33y for y ≤ 0.3 fb2 = 0.5 for 0.3 < y ≤ 0.8; Function for vertical penetration: fb3 = 14.5 � 134zv for zv ≤ 0.1 fb3 = 1.1 for 0.1 < zv ≤ 0.3; Function for transverse extent: fb4 = 4.0 � 12b for b ≤ 0.3 fb4 = 0.4 for 0.3 < b ≤ 0.9 fb4 = 12b � 10.4 for b > 0.9; Function for transverse location: fb5 = 1.0 for 0 ≤ b1 ≤ 1.0. Graphs of the functions fb1, fb2, fb3, fb4 and fb5 are shone in figures 3 and 4. 6 Probabilistic methodology for calculating oil outflow 6.1 Damage cases 6.1.1 Using the damage probability distribution functions specified in paragraph 5.2, all damage cases n as per paragraph 4.3 should be evaluated and placed in ascending order of oil outflow. The cumulative probability for all damage cases should be computed, being the running sum of probabilities beginning at the minimum outflow damage case and proceeding to the maximum outflow damage case. The cumulative probability for all damage cases should be 1.0.

HBELL

Function for vetical extent:


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

6.1.2 For each damage case the damage consequences in terms of penetrations (breaching) of cargo tank boundaries should be evaluated and the related oil outflow calculated. A cargo tank should be considered as being breached in a damage case under consideration if the applied damage envelope reaches any part of the cargo tank boundaries. 6.1.3 When determining the damage cases, it should be assumed for the purpose of these calculations that the location, extent and penetration of damages are independent of each other. 6.2 Oil outflow calculations 6.2.1 The probabilistic oil outflow calculations may be done as outlined by the �Example for the Application of the Revised Interim Guidelines� given in the appendix to these Guidelines. Other calculation procedures may be accepted, provided they show acceptable accuracy. 6.2.2 The computer program used for the oil outflow analysis should be verified against the data for oil outflow parameters for the reference double-hull designs given in section 7. 6.2.3 After the final waterline has been determined, the oil outflow from each damaged cargo tank should be computed for each damage case under the assumptions specified in paragraph 5.1.5. 7 Reference double-hull designs 7.1 Data for four reference double-hull designs of 5,000 dwt, 60,000 dwt, 150,000 dwt and 283,000 dwt are summarized in tables 7.1 and 7.2 and are illustrated in figures 5 to 8. Table 7.1 also contains the data for the oil outflow parameters POR, OMR and OER to be used for the concept approval (ship survivability not considered). 7.2 Table 7.2 contains the corresponding data to be used for the shipyard design approval (ship survivability considered).

Table 7.1 - Oil outflow parameters (ship survivability not considered)

Oil outflow parameters (ship survivability not considered)

Reference design number

Deadweight Metric Tons

POR OMR OER 1 5,000 0.81 0.013 0.098 2 60,000 0.81 0.012 0.089 3 150,000 0.79 0.014 0.101 4 283,000 0.77 0.012 0.077

Table 7.2 - Oil outflow parameters (ship survivability considered)

Oil outflow parameters

(ship survivability not considered) Reference

design number

Deadweight Metric Tons

POR OMR OER 1 5,000 0.72 0.110 0.440 2 60,000 0.81 0.019 0.157 3 150,000 0.79 0.016 0.114 4 283,000 0.77 0.014 0.093

(The above tables replace existing tables 7.1 and 7.2)

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 11

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 1 � Side damage due to collision: density distribution functions fs1, fs2 and fs3


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 2 � Side damage due to collision: density distribution functions fs4 and fs5

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 13

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 3 � Bottom damage due to stranding: density distribution functions fb1, fb2 and fb3


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 4 � Bottom damage due to stranding: density distribution functions fb4, and fb5

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 15

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 5 � Reference double hull design no. 1

Deadweight: 5,000 dwt


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC



BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 17

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC




I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 8 � Reference double hull design no. 4 Deadweight: 283,000 dwt

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 19

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

APPENDIX

EXAMPLE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE REVISED INTERIM GUIDELINES

1 General 1.1 The application of the Revised Interim Guidelines, hereunder referred to as �the Guidelines�, is shown in the following worked example illustrating the calculation procedure of the oil outflow parameters for a tank barge. For presentation purposes, a simplified hull form and level of compartmentation have been assumed. The procedures described herein are readily adaptable as a computer application, which will be necessary as more complicated arrangements are evaluated. This example is evaluated in accordance with the requirements for �concept approval�. Additional requirements for a shipyard design approval are noted where applicable. 1.2 An application of the Guidelines will typically follow these seven basic steps:

.1 Vessel design: In accordance with paragraph 3.1 of the Guidelines, the vessel is designed to meet all applicable regulations of MARPOL Annex I.

.2 Establishing of the full load condition: In accordance with paragraph 5.1.5 of the

Guidelines, a full load condition is developed.

.3 Assembling of the damage cases: By applying the damage density distribution functions provided in the Guidelines, determine each unique grouping of damaged compartments and the probability associated with that damage condition. Independent sets of damage cases are derived for side (collision) and bottom (stranding) damage.

.4 Computation of the equilibrium condition for each damage case: Compute the

final equilibrium condition for all side and bottom damage conditions. This step is only required for the final shipyard design, in accordance with paragraph 5.1.5.10 of the Guidelines.

.5 Computation of the oil outflow for each damage case: Calculate the oil outflow

for each damage case. Separate calculations are done for side damage and for bottom damage at 0.0 m and 2.5 m fall in tide conditions. For side damage, all oil is assumed to escape from damaged tanks. For bottom damage, a hydrostatic balance method is applied. For the final shipyard design, survivability is evaluated in accordance with the requirements of MARPOL regulation I/25(3).

.6 Computation of the oil outflow parameters: The cumulative probability of

occurrence of each level of oil outflow is developed. This is done for the side damage and for each bottom damage tide condition. The associated oil outflow parameters are then computed. The bottom damage tidal parameters are combined in accordance with paragraph 5.1.3 and the side and bottom damage parameters are then combined in accordance with paragraph 5.1.2 of the Guidelines.

.7 Computation of the Pollution Prevention Index E: The new design has

satisfactory characteristics if index E, as defined in paragraph 4.2 of the Guidelines, is greater than or equal to 1.0.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2 Analysis procedure The basic steps 1 through 6 below are described in this section. 2.1 Step 1: Vessel design The arrangement and dimensions of the example barge are as shown in figure A1 (Barge arrangement). For clarity purposes, a simple arrangement has been selected which does not meet all MARPOL 73/78 requirements. However, for actual designs submitted for approval as an alternative to double hull, the vessel must meet all applicable regulations of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. 2.2 Step 2: Establishing of the full load condition An intact load condition shall be developed with the vessel at its maximum assigned load line with zero trim and heel. Departure quantities of constants and consumables (fuel oil, diesel oil, fresh water, lube oil, etc.) should be assumed. Capacities of cargo oil tanks should be based on actual permeabilities for these compartments. All cargo oil tanks shall be assumed to be filled to 98% of their capacities. All cargo oil shall be taken at a homogeneous density. For this example, it is assumed that the permeability of the cargo oil tanks is 0.99 and 0.95 for the double bottom/wing tank ballast spaces. The 100% capacity of the cargo oil tanks CO1 and CO2 is:

CO1: 9,623 m3 CO2: 28,868 m3 Total: 38,491 m3

Cargo tank capacity at 98% filling: C = 0.98 x 38,491 = 37,721 m3. For this barge, for simplicity reasons, zero weight for the constants and consumables has been assumed. At the 9.0 m assigned load line the following values for the cargo oil mass (W) and density (ρC) are obtained:

W = displacement - light barge weight = 33,949 t

ρC = 33,949 t/C = 0.90 t/m3 2.3 Step 3: Assembling of the damage cases In this step the damage cases have to be developed. This involves applying the probability density distribution functions for side damage (figures 1 and 2) and the probability density distribution functions for bottom damage (figures 3 and 4). Each unique grouping of damaged compartments is determined together with its associated probability. The sum of the probabilities should equal 1.0 for both the side and the bottom damage evaluations. There are different methods available for developing the compartment groupings and probabilities, each of which should converge on the same results.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 21

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

In this example, the compartment groupings and the use of the probability density functions is shown by a �step-wise� evaluation method. This method involves stepping through each damage location and extent at a sufficiently fine increment. For instance, it is assumed (for the side damage) to step through the functions as follows: longitudinal location = 100 steps, longitudinal extent = 100 steps, transverse penetration = 100 steps, vertical location = 10 steps, and vertical extent = 100 steps. You will then be developing 109 damage incidents. The probability of each step is equal to the area under the probability density distribution curve over that increment. The probability for each damage incident is the product of the probabilities of the five functions. There are many redundant incidents which damage identical compartments. These are combined by summing their probabilities. For a typical double-hull tanker, the 109 damage incidents reduce down to 100 to 400 unique groupings of compartments. 2.3.1 Side damage evaluation The damage density distribution functions provide independent statistics for location, length, and penetration. For side damage, the probability of a given damage longitudinal location, longitudinal extent, transverse penetration, vertical location and vertical extent is the product of the probabilities of these five damage characteristics. To maintain the example at a manageable size, fairly coarse increments have been assumed:

Longitudinal location at 10 steps = L/10 = 0.10L per step Longitudinal extent at 3 steps = 0.3L/3 = 0.10L per step Transverse penetration at 6 steps = 0.3B/6 = 0.05B per step.

To further simplify the evaluation, each damage is assumed to extend vertically without limit. Therefore, the probabilities of vertical location and vertical extent are taken as 1.0 for each damage case. This is a reasonable assumption as the double bottom height is only 10% of the depth. Taking the area under the density distribution function for vertical location up to 0.1D (see figure 2, function fS5) yields a value of 0.005. This means that the probability of the centre of damage location falling within the double bottom region is 1/200. Figure A2 (Side damage definition) shows the steps for longitudinal location, longitudinal extent and transverse penetration in relation to the barge. Table A1 (Increments for step-wise side damage evaluation) gives the range for each step, the mean or average value over the step, and the probability of occurrence of that particular step. For instance, Z1 covers the range of transverse penetration beginning at the side shell and extending inboard 5% of the breadth. The average penetration is 0.025B or 2.5% of the breadth. The probability of occurrence is the likelihood that the penetration will fall within the range of 0% to 5% of the breadth. The probability equals 0.749, which is the area under the density distribution function for transverse penetration (figure 1, function fS3) between 0.0B and 0.05B. The area under each probability density function is 1.0, and therefore the sum of the probabilities for all increments for each function is 1.0. A total of ten longitudinal locations, three longitudinal extents and six transverse penetrations will be evaluated. All combinations of damages must be considered for a total of (10)\times(3)\times(6) = 180 separate incidents. The damaged compartments are found by overlaying each combination of location/extent/penetration onto the barge. These damage boundaries define a rectangular box. Any compartment which extends into this damage zone is considered damaged. Each of the 180 incidents results in damage to one or more compartments.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Incidents with identical damaged compartments are collected into a single damage case by summing the probabilities of the individual damage incidents. Let us begin at the aft end of the barge and proceed forward. The first damage location X1 is centred 0.05L forward of the transom. The first damage extent Y1 has an average length of 0.05L. The average value for the first transverse penetration Z1 is 0.025B. The resulting damage box lies entirely within the WB1 compartment and therefore damages that compartment only. The probability of this incident is:

P111(X1Y1Z1) = (0.1000) x (0.7725) x (0.7490) = 0.05786

If we step through the transverse penetrations Z2 through Z6, we find that only the WB1 compartment is damaged for each of these cases. The probabilities for these cases are 0.01074, 0.00216, 0.00216, 0.00216, 0.00216, and 0.00216 respectively. The combined probability for the six cases at longitudinal damage location X1 is: P111-6(X1Y1Z1-6) = 0.05786 + 0.01074 + 0.00216 + 0.00216 + 0.00216 + 0.00216 = 0.07725 Next, we move to damage extent Y2. The damage box X1Y2 Z1 once again falls within the WB1 compartment. Likewise, transverse penetrations Z2 through Z6 fall within this compartment. We compute the probability for these cases and find that: P121-6 (X1Y2 Z1-6) = 0.01925. Similarly, the damage boxes defined by X1Y3 Z1-6 lie within the WB1 compartment and have a combined probability P131-6(X1Y3 Z1-6) = 0.00350. We now move to the next longitudinal location, X2. With longitudinal extent Y1, the damage stays within the WB1 compartment. The combined probability is P211-6(X2Y1 Z1-6) = 0.07725. The forward bound of the damage box X2Y2 Z1 extends forward of the transverse bulkhead located 20.0 m from the transom, damaging compartments both fore and aft of this bulkhead. Transverse penetration Z1 extends to a point just outboard of the longitudinal bulkhead. Therefore, this combination damages both the WB1 and WB2S compartments. The probability is P221(X2Y2 Z1) = 0.01442. We find that the damage box X2Y2 Z2 extends inboard of the longitudinal bulkhead, damaging compartments WB1, WB2S and CO1. A cargo oil tank has been damaged and oil outflow will occur. Similarly, damage penetrations Z3 through Z6 result in breaching of the three compartments. The combined probability for these five incidents is:

P222-6(X2Y2 Z2-6) = 0.00268 + 0.00054 + 0.00054 + 0.00054 + 0.00054 = 0.00483 By stepping through the barge for all 180 incidents and combining unique damage compartment groupings, we obtain the compartment grouping and probability values shown in table A2 (Probability values for side damage). Each compartment group represents a unique set of compartments. The associated probability is the probability that each particular group of compartments will be damaged in a collision which breaches the hull. For instance, the probability of damaging the WB1 compartment is 0.17725. This means there is approximately a 17.7% likelihood that only this compartment will be damaged. Likewise, the probability of concurrently damaging the WB1 and WB2S compartments is 0.03408 or about 3.4%. Note that the cumulative probability of occurrence for all groups equals 1.0.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 23

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2.3.2 Bottom damage evaluation For bottom damage, the probability of a given damage longitudinal location, longitudinal extent, vertical penetration, transverse location and transverse extent is, analogously to the side damage evaluation, the product of the probabilities of these five damage characteristics. The following increments are assumed for the bottom damage evaluation: Longitudinal location at 10 steps = L/10 = 0.10L per step Longitudinal extent at 8 steps = 0.8L/8 = 0.10L per step Vertical penetration at 6 steps = 0.3D/6 = 0.05D per step. To further simplify the evaluation, all damage is assumed to extend transversely without limit. Therefore, the probabilities of transverse extent and transverse location are taken as 1.0 for each damage case. Compartment groupings are developed using the same process as previously described for side damage. Analogously, a total of ten longitudinal locations, eight longitudinal extents and six vertical penetrations need to be evaluated. The damage incidents to be taken into account for groundings sum up to a total of (10) x (8) x (6) = 480 separate incidents. Figure A3 (Bottom damage definition) shows the steps for longitudinal location, longitudinal extent and vertical penetration in relation to the barge. Table A3 (Increments for step-wise bottom damage definition) gives the range for each step, the mean or average value over the step, and the probability of occurrence of that particular step. Again, putting the aftmost compartment WB1 together in terms of damage increments, the following probabilities have to be summed up: P111-6 X1Y1 Z1-6) = (0.0240) x (0.38333) x (1.0) = 0.00920 P121-6(X1Y2 Z1-6) = (0.0240) x (0.2500) x (1.0) = 0.00600 P131-6(X1Y3 Z1-6) = (0.0240) x (0.11677) x (1.0) = 0.00280 P211-6(X2Y1 Z1-6) = (0.0320) x (0.38333) x (1.0) = 0.01227. Therefore the likelihood of damaging the WB1 compartment sums up to: PWB1 = P11 + P12 + P13 + P21 = 0.03027. By addressing each of the 480 incidents to the relevant compartment (or groups of compartments) the likelihood of a damage to these resulting from a grounding is obtained. This is shown in table A4 (Probability values for bottom damage). 2.4 Step 4: Computation of the equilibrium condition for each damage case This example describes the concept analysis only. Damage stability analyses to determine the equilibrium conditions are only required for the final shipyard design, in accordance with paragraph 5.1.5.10 of the Guidelines.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2.5 Step 5: Computation of the oil outflow for each damage case In this step the oil outflow associated with each of the compartment groupings is calculated for side and bottom damage as outlined below. 2.5.1 Side damage evaluation For side damage, 100% of the oil in a damaged cargo oil tank is assumed to outflow into the sea. If we review the eleven compartment groupings for side damage, we find that oil tank damage occurs in three combinations: CO1 only, CO2 only, and concurrent damage to CO1 and CO2. The oil outflow for these tanks is as follows: CO1 (98% full volume) = 9,430 m3 CO2 (98% full volume) = 28,291 m3 CO1 + CO2 (98% full volume) = 37,721 m3. 2.5.2 Bottom damage evaluation For bottom damage, a pressure balance calculation must be carried out. The vessel is assumed to remain stranded on a shelf at its original intact draught. For the concept analysis, zero trim and zero heel are assumed. An inert gas overpressure of 5 kPa gauge is assumed in accordance with paragraph 5.1.5.5 of the Guidelines. The double bottom spaces located below the cargo oil tanks �capture� some portion of the oil outflow. In accordance with paragraph 5.1.5.8 of the Guidelines, the flooded volume of such spaces should be assumed to contain 50% oil and 50% seawater by volume at equilibrium. When calculating the oil volume captured in these spaces, no assumptions are made on how the oil and seawater is distributed in these spaces. The calculations are generally carried out for two tidal conditions: 0.0 and 2.5 m fall in tide The actual oil volume lost from a cargo tank is calculated for each of the two tidal conditions, assuming hydrostatic balance as follows:

g zC ρC + 100∆p = zS ρS g where:

zC = height of remaining oil in the damaged tank (m) ρC = cargo oil density (0.9 t/m�3�) g = gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2) ∆p = set pressure of cargo tank pressure/vacuum valves (5 kPa gauge) zS = external seawater head above inner bottom (m) zS = T - 2 = 7.00 m ρS = seawater density (1.025 t/m3)

See also figure A4. From the above equation one obtains for the height of remaining oil zc for the zero-tide condition:

zC = 7.40 m.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 25

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Thus, the height of lost oil (hl =0.98 hC - zC) is:

hl = 17.64 -- 7.40 = 10.24 m. The volume of lost oil (Vl) of cargo tank CO1 is:

Vl = 10.24 x 36 x 15 x 0.99 = 5,474 m3. In this case the total volume (VWO) of oil and water in the water ballast tanks is:

VWO = 2 x [20 x 2 + VWO x 2] x 60 x 0.95 = 6,202 m3 where:

zwo = 0.5(zC + zS) = 7.20 m. If one assumes that 50% of VWO is occupied by captured oil, one obtains for the total oil outflow (Voutflow) of cargo tank CO1:

Voutflow = Vl - 0.5VWO = 2,373 m3. The oil outflow of cargo tank CO2 is:

Voutflow = 10.24 x 36 x 45 x 0.99 - 0.5 x 6,202 = 13,322 m3 and the total oil outflow of cargo tanks CO1 and CO2 is:

Voutflow = 10.24 x 36 x 60 x 0.99 - 0.5 x 6,202 = 18,796 m3. Step-wise application of the damage extents and assumed increments results in fourteen compartment groupings for bottom damage. Oil tank and double bottom damage occurs in three combinations. The oil outflows for these tanks at 0.0 m and 2.5 m fall in tide are summarized in the table below:

Oil outflow [m3] at Tank combination 0.0 m tide 2.5 m fall in tide

WB2S + WB2P + C01 2,373 3,862

WB2S + WB2P + C02 13,322 17,244

WB2S + WB2P + CO1 + C02 18,796 23,935 2.6 Step 6: Computation of the oil outflow parameters In this step the oil outflow parameters are computed in accordance with paragraph 4.3 of the Guidelines. To facilitate calculation of these parameters, place the damage groupings in a table in ascending order as a function of oil outflow. A running sum of probabilities is computed, beginning at the minimum outflow damage case and proceeding to the maximum outflow damage case. Tables A5 and A6 (Cumulative probability and oil outflow values) contain the outflow values for the side damage and bottom damage for the two tide conditions.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Probability of zero oil outflow, PO: This parameter equals the cumulative probability for all damage cases for which there is no oil outflow. From table A5, we see that the probability of zero outflow for the side damage condition is 0.83798, and the probability of zero outflow for the bottom damage (0.0 m tide) condition is 0.84313. Mean oil outflow parameter, OM: This is the weighted average of all cases, and is obtained by summing the products of each damage case probability and the computed outflow for that damage case. Extreme oil outflow parameter, OE: This represents the weighted average of the damage cases falling within the cumulative probability range between 0.9 and 1.0. It equals the sum of the products of each damage case probability with a cumulative probability between 0.90 and 1.0 and its corresponding oil outflow, with the result multiplied by 10. For this example, the computed outflow values are as shown in tables A5 and A6. In accordance with paragraph 5.1.3 of the Guidelines, the bottom damage outflow parameters for the 0.0 m and 2.5 m fall in tides are combined in a ratio of 0.7: 0.3, respectively. In accordance with paragraph 5.1.2, the collision (side damage) and stranding (bottom damage) parameters are then combined in a ratio of 0.4: 0.6, respectively. In table A7 (Summary of oil outflow parameters) the oil outflow parameters PO, OM and OE for the example tank barge are listed.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 27

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Table A1 � Increments for step-wise side damage evaluation

Longitudinal location (step = 0.1L)

Range of increments minimum maximum midpoint probability

X1 0.0L 0.1L 0.05L 0.1000 X2 0.1L 0.2L 0.15L 0.1000 X3 0.2L 0.3L 0.25L 0.1000 X4 0.3L 0.4L 0.35L 0.1000 X5 0.4L 0.5L 0.45L 0.1000 X6 0.5L 0.6L 0.55L 0.1000 X7 0.6L 0.7L 0.65L 0.1000 X8 0.7L 0.8L 0.75L 0.1000 X9 0.8L 0.9L 0.85L 0.1000 X10 0.9L 1.0L 0.95L 0.1000

1.0000

Longitudinal extent (step = 0.1L)


Y1 0.0L 0.1L 0.05L 0.7725 Y2 0.1L 0.2L 0.15L 0.1925 Y3 0.2L 0.3L 0.25L 0.0350 1.0000

Transverse penetration (step = 0.05B)


Z1 0.0B 0.05B 0.025B 0.7490 Z2 0.05B 0.10B 0.075B 0.1390 Z3 0.10B 0.15B 0.125B 0.0280 Z4 0.15B 0.20B 0.175B 0.0280 Z5 0.20B 0.25B 0.225B 0.0280 Z6 0.25B 0.30B 0.275B 0.0280 1.0000


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Table A2 � Probability values for side damage

Unique compartment groupings Damage extents and probabilities Group

Probability 1 WB1 X1Y1Z1-6

0.07725 X1Y2Z1-6 0.01925

X1Y3Z1-6 0.00350

X2Y1Z1-6 0.07725

0.17725

2 WB1 + WB2S X2Y2Z1 0.01442

X2Y3Z1 0.00262

X3Y3Z1 0.00262

X3Y2Z1 0.01442

0.03408

3 WB1 + WB2S + CO1 X2Y2Z2-60.00483

X2Y3Z2-60.00088

X3Y2Z2-60.00483

X3Y1Z1 0.05786

X4Y1Z1 0.05786

X4Y2Z1 0.01442

X4Y3Z1 0.00262

X5Y1Z1 0.05786

X5Y2Z1 0.01442

X5Y3Z1 0.00262 4 WB2S X6Y1Z1

0.05786 X6Y2Z1 0.01442

X6Y3Z1 0.00262

X7Y1Z1 0.05786

X7Y2Z1 0.01442

X7Y3Z1 0.00262

X8Y1Z1 0.05786

0.41532

5 WB2S + CO1 X3Y1Z2-60.01939 0.01939

6 WB2S + CO1 + CO2 X4Y1Z2-60.01939

X4Y2Z2-60.00483

X4Y3Z2-60.00088

X5Y3Z2-6 0.00088 0.02598

7 WB1 + WB2S + CO1 + CO2 X3Y3Z2-60.00088 0.00088

X5Y1Z2-60.01939

X5Y2Z2-60.00483

X6Y1Z2-60.01939

X6Y2Z2-6 0.00483

X6Y3Z2-60.00088

X7Y1Z2-60.01939

X7Y1Z2-6 0.00483 8 WB2S + CO2 X7Y3Z2-6

0.00088 X8Y1Z2-60.01939

0.09381

9 WB2S + WB3 X8Y2Z1 0.01442

X8Y3Z1 0.00262

X9Y2Z1 0.01442

X9Y3Z1 0.00262 0.03408

10 WB2 + CO2 + WB3 X8Y2Z2-60.00483

X8Y3Z2-60.00088

X9Y2Z2-60.00483

X9Y3Z2-6 0.00088 0.01142

11 WB3 X9Y1Z1-60.07725

X10Y1Z1-60.07725

X10Y2Z1-60.01925

X10Y3Z1-6 0.00350 0.17725

1.0000

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 29

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Table A3 � Increments for step-wise side bottom damage definition

Longitudinal location (step = 0.1L)

Range of increments

minimum maximum midpoint probability X1 0.0L 0.1L 0.05L 0.0240 X2 0.1L 0.2L 0.15L 0.0320 X3 0.2L 0.3L 0.25L 0.0400 X4 0.3L 0.4L 0.35L 0.0480 X5 0.4L 0.5L 0.45L 0.0560 X6 0.5L 0.6L 0.55L 0.0800 X7 0.6L 0.7L 0.65L 0.1200 X8 0.7L 0.8L 0.75L 0.1600 X9 0.8L 0.9L 0.85L 0.2000 X10 0.9L 1.0L 0.95L 0.2400

1.0000

Longitudinal extent (step = 0.1L)


Y1 0.0L 0.1L 0.05L 0.3833 Y2 0.1L 0.2L 0.15L 0.2500 Y3 0.2L 0.3L 0.25L 0.1167 Y4 0.3L 0.4L 0.35L 0.0500 Y5 0.4L 0.5L 0.45L 0.0500 Y6 0.5L 0.6L 0.55L 0.0500 Y7 0.6L 0.7L 0.65L 0.0500 Y8 0.7L 0.8L 0.75L 0.0500

1.0000

Vertical penetration (step = 0.05D)


Z1 0.0D 0.05D 0.025D 0.5575 Z2 0.05D 0.10D 0.075D 0.2225 Z3 0.10D 0.20D 0.125D 0.0550 Z4 0.15D 0.15D 0.175D 0.0550 Z5 0.20D 0.25D 0.225D 0.0550 Z6 0.25D 0.30D 0.275D 0.0550 1.0000


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Table A4 � Probability values for bottom damage

Unique compartment groupings Damage extents and probabilities Group Probabilities

1 WB1

X1-2Y 1Z1-6 0.02147

X1Y2Z1-6 0.006

X1Y3Z1-6 0.0028

0.03027

2 WB1 + WB2S + WB2P

X2-3Y2Z1-20.01404

X2-3Y3Z1-20.00655

X1-4Y4Z1-2 0.00562

X1-4Y5Z1-20.00562

X1-5Y6Z1-20.0078

X1-5Y7Z1-2 0.0078

X1-4Y8Z1-2 0.00562

0.05305

3 WB2S + WB2P + WB3

X8-9Y2Z1-20.0702

X8-9Y3Z1-20.03276

X7-10Y4Z1-

2 0.02808

X7-10Y5Z1-

2 0.02808

X6-10Y6Z1-

2 0.0312

X6-10Y7Z1-20.0312

X7-10Y8Z1-20.02808

0.24960

4 WB1 + WB2S +WB2P +WB3

X5-6Y8Z1-2 0.00530

0.00530

5 WB2S + WB2P

X3-8Y1Z1-20.1507

X4-7Y2Z1-20.05928

X4-7Y3Z1-20.02766

X5-6Y4Z1-2 0.0053

X5-6Y5Z1-20.0053

0.24824

6 WB3

X9-10Y1Z1-60.16867

X10Y2Z1-60.06

X10Y3Z1-60.0028

0.25667

7 WB1 + WB2S + WB2P + CO1

X2-3Y2Z3-60.00396

X2Y3Z3-60.0082

X1-2Y4Z3-6 0.00062

X1Y5Z3-60.00026

X1Y6Z3-60.00026

0.00592

8 WB2S + WB2P+ CO1

X3Y1Z3-6 0.00337

0.00337

9 WB2S + WB2P+ CO2

X5-8Y1Z3-60.03508

X5-7Y2Z3-60.01408

X6-7Y3Z3-60.00513

X6Y4Z3-6 0.00088

0.05517

10 WB2S + WB2P + WB3 + CO2

X8-9Y2Z3-60.0198

X8-9Y3Z3-60.00924

X7-10Y4Z3-

6 0.00792

X7-10Y5Z3-

6 0.00792

X7-10Y6Z3-

6 0.00792

X8-10Y7Z3-60.0066

X8-10Y8Z3-60.0660

0.0660

11 WB1 + WB2S + WB2P + CO1 + CO2

X3Y3Z3-60.00098

X3-4Y4Z3-6 0.00098

X2-4Y5Z3-60.00132

X2-5Y6Z3-60.00194

X1-5Y7Z3-6 0.0022

X1-4Y8Z3-6 0.00158

0.00903

12 WB2S + WB2P + WB3+ CO1 + CO2 X6Y6Z3-60.00088

X6-7Y7Z3-6 0.0022

X7Y8Z3-6 0.00132

0.00440

13 WB1+WB2S +WB2P +WB3+ CO1 + CO2

X5-6Y8Z3-6 0.0015

0.00150

14 WB2S + WB2P + CO1 + CO2 X4Y1Z3-6 0.00405

X4Y2Z3-60.00264

X4-5Y3Z3-60.00267

X5Y4Z3-6 0.00062

X5-6Y5Z3-60.0015

0.01148

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 31

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Table A5 � Cumulative probability and oil outflow values

Side damage

Compartment groups Oil outflow Oi

(m3)

ProbabilityPi

Cumulative probability [sum of Pi]

Mean oil outflow Pi x Oi (m3)

Probability Pie

Extreme outflow Oie x Pie x 10

(m3) WB1 0.00 0.17725 0.17725 0.00 WB1 + WB2S 0.00 0.03408 0.21133 0.00 WB2S 0.00 0.41532 0.62665 0.00 WB2S + WB3 0.00 0.03408 0.66073 0.00 WB3 0.00 0.17725 0.83798 0.00 WB1 + WB2S +CO1 9430.00 0.01054 0.84852 99.39 WB2S+CO1 9430.00 0.01939 0.86791 182.85 WB2S+CO2 28291.00 0.09381 0.96172 2653.98 0.06172 17461.2052 WB2S+CO2 + WB3 28291.00 0.01142 0.97314 323.08 0.01142 3230.8322 WB1 + WB2S +CO1 + CO2 37721.00 0.00088 0.97402 33.19 0.00088 331.9448 WB2S +CO1 + CO2 37721.00 0.02598 1.00000 979.99 0.02598 9799.9158

4272.48

0.10000 30823.898


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Table A5 � Cumulative probability and oil outflow values (continued)

Bottom damage (0.0 metre tide)


(m3)

ProbabilityPi



Probability Pie


(m3) 1 WB1 0.00 0.0302 0.03027 0.00

2 WB1 + WB2S + WB2P 0.00 0.05304 0.08331 0.00

3 WB1 + WB2S + WB2P + WB3 0.00 0.00530 0.08861 0.00

4 WB2S + WB2P 0.00 0.24825 0.33686 0.00

5 WB2S + WB2P+ WB3 0.00 0.24960 0.58646 0.00

6 WB3 0.00 0.25667 0.84313 0.00

7 WB1 + WB2S + WB2P + CO1 2373.00 0.00592 0.84905 14.05

8 WB2S +WB2P + CO1 2373.00 0.00337 0.85242 8.00

9 WB2S +WB2P + CO2 13322.00 0.05518 0.90760 735.11 0.00760 1012.4720

10 WB2S +WB2P + WB3 + CO2 13322.00 0.06600 0.97360 879.25 0.06600 8792.5200

11 WB1 + WB2S + WB2P + CO1 + CO2 18796.00 0.00903 0.98263 169.73 0.00903 1697.2788

12 WB3 + WB2S + WB2P + CO1 + CO2 18796.00 0.00150 0.98413 28.19 0.00150 281.9400

13 WB1 + WB2S + WB2P + WB3 + CO1 + CO2 18796.00 0.00440 0.98853 82.70 0.00440 827.0240

14 WB2S +WB2P + CO1 + CO2 18796.00 0.01147 1.00000 215.59 0.01147 2155.9012

2132.62 0.10000 14767.1360

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 33

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Table A6 � Cumulative probability and oil outflow values (existing table for 2.5 m is replaced by table below).

Bottom damage (2.0 2.5 metre tide)


(m3)

Probability Pi



Probability Pie


(m3) 1 WB1 0.00 0.03027 0.03027 0.00

2 WB1 +WB2P+WB2S 0.00 0.05304 0.08331 0.00

3 WB1+WB2P+WB2S+WB3C 0.00 0.00530 0.08861 0.00

4 WB2P+WB2S 0.00 0.24825 0.33686 0.00

5 WB2P+WB2S+WB3 0.00 0.24960 0.58646 0.00

6 WB3 0.00 0.25667 0.84313 0.00

7 WB1 + WB2P + WB2S + CO1 3862.00 0.00592 0.84905 22.86

8 WB2P+WB2S+CO1 3862.00 0.00337 0.85242 13.01

9 WB2P+WB2S+CO2 17244.00 0.05518 0.90760 951.52 0.00760 1310.5440

10 WB2P+WB2S+WB3 + CO2 17244.00 0.06600 0.97360 1138.10 0.06600 11381.0400

11 WB1+WB2P+WB2S+CO1+CO2 23935.00 0.00903 0.98263 216.13 0.00903 2161.3305

12 WB3+WB2P+WB2S+CO1+CO2 23935.00 0.00150 0.98413 35.90 0.00150 359.0250

13 WB1+WB2P+WB2S+WB3+CO1+CO2 23935.00 0.00440 0.98853 105.31 0.00440 1053.1400

14 WB2P+WB2S+CO1+CO2 23935.00 0.01147 1.00000 274.53 0.01147 2745.3445

2757.39 0.10000 19010.4240


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Table A7 � Summary of oil outflow parameters

Bottom damage

(70%) 0.0 m tide

(30%) 2.5 m tide Combined

Probability of zero outflow Po 0.8431 0.8431 0.8431

Mean outflow (m3) 2133 2757 2320

Extreme outflow (m3) 14767 19010 16040

Combined side and bottom damage

(40%) Side damage

(60%) Bottom damage Combined

Probability of zero outflow Po 0.8380 0.8431 0.8411 Mean outflow (m3) 4272 2320 3101 Extreme outflow (m3) 30824 16040 21954 Mean outflow parameter OM 0.0822 Extreme outflow parameter OE 0.5820

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 35

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure A1 � Barge arrangement


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure A2 � Side damage definition

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 3

Page 37

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure A3 � Bottom damage definition


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure A4 � Oil outflow scheme for bottom damage

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 4


EXPLANATORY NOTES ON MATTERS RELATED TO THE ACCIDENTAL OIL OUTFLOW PERFORMANCE FOR MARPOL REGULATION I/21

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, NOTING resolution MEPC.[...(50)] by which the Committee adopted amendments to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 containing provisions related to the probabilistic methodology for oil outflow analysis, NOTING ALSO that the Marine Environment Protection Committee, in adopting above amendments, recognized the necessity of development of appropriate explanatory notes for implementation of the regulations adopted, in order to ensure their uniform application. HAVING CONSIDERED the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its eighth session, 1. ADOPTS the Explanatory notes on matters related to the accidental oil outflow performance for MARPOL regulation I/21, the text of which is set out in the Annex to the present resolution; 2. INVITES Member Governments to give due consideration to the Explanatory notes when implementing the requirements prescribed in regulation 21 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78; 3. AGREES to keep the Explanatory notes under review in the light of experience gained; 4. INVITES the Maritime Safety Committee to note the Guidelines; 5. URGES Member Governments to bring the aforementioned Explanatory notes to the attention of shipbuilders, shipowners, ship operators and other parties concerned with the design, construction and operation of oil tankers with a view to encouraging their use for oil tankers constructed on or after [1 April 2005].


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX

EXPLANATORY NOTES ON MATTERS RELATED TO THE ACCIDENTAL OIL

OUTFLOW PERFORMANCE FOR MARPOL REGULATION I/21

PART A - BACKGROUND 1 Introduction 1.1 Under resolution MEPC.51(32), the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted, at its thirty-second session, amendments to Annex I of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. The key issues of these amendments were the new MARPOL regulations I/13F and I/13G, which address the prevention of oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding. MARPOL regulation I/13G, which covered the treatment of existing tankers, will not be discussed in this paper. MARPOL regulation I/13F addressed oil tanker newbuildings and contained the double-hull requirements applicable to oil tanker newbuildings, for which the building contract is placed on or after 6 July 1993. 1.2 Paragraph (4) of MARPOL regulation I/13F addressed the so called "mid-deck design", which means that the protective double-bottom ballast tanks may be dispensed with, if a horizontal partition ("mid-deck") is fitted in such a way that the internal cargo pressure plus vapour pressure is less than the external sea water pressure. This is called the hydrostatic balance principle. 1.3 By means of the IMO comparative study on oil tanker design (OTD)(1)* it was demonstrated that the oil outflow performance of mid-deck tankers is at least equivalent to that of double-hull tankers, but it was recognised that within this overall conclusion each design gives better or worse oil outflow performance under certain conditions. 1.4 It was therefore recognised early by the MEPC that there is a compelling need for IMO to establish internationally agreed guidelines for the assessment of the oil outflow performance of alternative tanker designs in relation to basic double-hull designs. This intent was expressed in paragraph (5) of MARPOL regulation I/13F as follows:

"(5) Other methods of design and construction of oil tankers may also be accepted as alternatives to the requirements prescribed in paragraph (3)1, provided that such methods ensure at least the same level of protection against oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding and are approved in principle by the Marine Environment Protection Committee based on guidelines developed by the Organisation2."

* Refers to reference (1) on page 43. 1 Paragraph (3) of Regulation 13F contained the double hull requirements. 2 It is worthwhile to note that IMO reserves the right for the approval in principle of any new design and that this is not left to the discretion of a national administration. This was done in order to ensure uniform assessment of such alternatives.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 3

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

1.5 Interim guidelines were adopted in September 1995. They were included as per Appendix 8 to MARPOL Annex 1 as "Interim Guidelines"(2)*. The word �interim� expresses the intent to update the Interim Guidelines when experience had been gained during a three to four years application period. 1.6 The calculation methodology prescribed in the Interim Guidelines involves direct application of the provided probability density functions (PDFs) to the design. As there are five probability density functions (pdfs) for side and bottom damage this is a calculation-intensive approach. 1.7 Following this development, the MEPC considered it necessary to reconsider and revise the then existing MARPOL regulations I/22 through I/24, which covered a similar issue, i.e. minimising oil pollution from oil tankers due to side and bottom damages, in a more traditional (deterministic) manner. It was recognized that the existing deterministic regulations did not properly account for variations in subdivision in general, and longitudinal subdivision in particular. Therefore, the accidental oil outflow MARPOL regulation I/21 was developed. The envisaged goal was to provide a performance based accidental oil outflow regulation that effectively handles variations in subdivision. This regulation is made consistent with the Interim Guidelines (2)* to avoid the possibility of contradictions in acceptability of oil pollution prevention regulations due to their difference in nature. 1.8 While it was felt that the rigorous approach prescribed by the Interim Guidelines (2)* was suitable for the evaluation of alternative tanker designs and possible unique tank-configurations, a less complex regulation was considered necessary for application to all tankers. Thus, a �simplified� method based on the same background was developed. These explanatory notes describe the assumptions and philosophy underlying this simplified approach for assessing oil outflow, provide background on the development of the performance index, and contain examples demonstrating application of this regulation. 1.9 This simplified method based on minimum clearances between the cargo tanks and the hull is suitable for tank arrangements. For certain designs such as those characterized by the occurrence of steps/recesses in decks and for sloping bulkheads and/or a pronounced hull curvature, more rigorous calculations may be appropriate. 1.10 Combination carriers are ships designed and built for carrying both dry and liquid cargo (i.e. bulk cargo and oil cargo). Traditionally these ships are built without any centreline bulkhead. The new probabilistic method is suitable also for the combination carriers, but due to the nature of the design they may not be able to comply with the outflow performance index (mean outflow parameter) of a standard oil tanker. For combination carriers, separate mean oil outflow parameter may be applied provided it is demonstrated by calculations that the increased structural strength of the hull is providing for improved environmental protection compared to a standard double hull oil tanker of the same size. The calculations are to be to the satisfaction of the Administration.

* Refers to reference (2) on page 43.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2 Overview of the methodology 2.1 There are three basic steps involved when applying this regulation:

.1 determine the probability of penetrating each oil tank within the cargo block length, for both side damage (collisions) and bottom damage (strandings);

.2 assess the expected oil outflow from each damaged oil tank; and .3 compute the mean outflow parameter and compare to the specified maximum

permissible value.

2.2 This approach differs from the Interim Guidelines (2)*, which calls for calculation of three separate outflow parameters: the probability of zero oil outflow, the mean outflow, and the extreme oil outflow.

.1 the probability of zero outflow, P0, represents the likelihood that no oil will be released into the environment, given a collision or grounding casualty which breaches the outer hull. P0 equals the cumulative probability of all damage cases with no outflow;

.2 the mean outflow parameter, OM, is the non-dimensionalized mean or expected

outflow, and provides an indication of a design�s overall effectiveness in limiting oil outflow. The mean outflow equals the sum of the products of each damage case probability and the associated outflow. OM equals the mean outflow divided by the total quantity of oil onboard the vessel; and

.3 the extreme outflow parameter, OE, is the non-dimensionalized extreme outflow,

and provides an indication of the expected oil outflow from particularly severe casualties. The extreme outflow is the weighted average of the upper 10% of all casualties (i.e. all damage cases within the cumulative probability range from 0.9 to 1.0).

2.3 In accordance with the Interim Guidelines (2)*, the parameters are combined using the following formula, in order to provide an overall assessment of a design�s outflow performance in the event of a collision or grounding. P0, OM, and OE are the oil outflow parameters for the alternative design, and P0R, OMR, and OER are the oil outflow parameters for the reference ship of equivalent size. The pollution prevention index �E� must be greater than or equal to 1.0, for a design to be considered equivalent to the reference ship.

E (0.5)(P )P

(0.4)(0.01 O )0.01 O

(0.1)(0.025 O )0.025 O

O

OR

MR

M

ER

E= +

++

++

+ (2.3)

2.4 Application of the Interim Guidelines(2)* requires determination of the probability of occurrence and oil outflow for each unique damage case. For a typical tanker, this involves assessment of thousands of damage conditions. These data are then applied when computing the three outflow parameters.


BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 5

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2.5 A significant difference between regulation 21 and the Interim Guidelines(2)* is in the assessment of damage cases. Rather than determining each unique damage case and its associated probability, the probability of damaging each oil tank within the cargo block length is calculated. This equals the probability that an oil tank will be breached, either alone or in combination with other tanks, and equals the sum of the probabilities for all of the unique damage cases which involve that particular oil tank. 2.6 The simplified probabilistic calculation method as applied in this regulation is based on the following principle: Mean Outflow = Σi(pivi) = Σj(pjvj) (2.6) where:

pi = probability of occurrence of damage scenario i (where one cargo tank or a group of adjacent tanks may be involved)

vi = volume of oil outflow from cargo tanks involved in damage scenario i under consideration

i = subscript denoting the damage scenario under consideration pj = probability of occurrence that cargo tank j is damaged (irrespective of the damage

scenarios involved) vj = volume of oil outflow from cargo tank j j = subscript denoting the cargo tank under consideration Σ = symbol for the summation to be carried out over all possible damage scenarios i or cargo

tanks j respectively resulting in a non-zero contribution to the mean oil outflow

2.7 The mean outflow parameter, Om, equals the mean outflow divided by the total oil onboard, C. For regulation 21 as well as the Interim Guidelines (2)*, C is defined at the total cargo oil capacity at 98% tank filling. 2.8 Because the unique damage cases are not determined, calculation of the probability of zero outflow and extreme outflow are not practical with this simplified approach. In regulation 21, the mean outflow parameter alone is used to assess the outflow performance. Of the three parameters, mean outflow performance is considered to be the best indicator of overall outflow performance. 2.9 This is considered a reasonable simplification, as each design must also meet the provisions of regulation 13F. It is assumed that the double hull provisions of regulation 13F and the more rigorous analytical approach contained in the Interim Guidelines (2)* assures that the design provides adequate protection against the likelihood of spills, as is measured by the probability of zero outflow parameter. The extreme oil outflow parameter provides an indication of the expected oil outflow from particularly severe casualties. To a large extent, the impact of large spills is reflected in the mean outflow parameter, as it represents the weighted average of all spills. 3 The probability density functions (pdf�s) 3.1 The Interim Guidelines (2)* contain probability density functions (pdf�s) describing the location, extent and penetration of side and bottom damage. These functions were derived from historical damage statistics for 52 collisions and 63 groundings, compiled by the classification * Refers to reference (2) on page 43.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

societies at IMO�s request (3)*. These statistics were derived from casualties to oil tankers, chemical tankers, and combination carriers of 30,000 tonnes deadweight and above, for the period 1980 to 1990. 3.2 Figure 1 shows the statistic data and piecewise linear probability density function, representing the longitudinal extent of damage when subject to bottom damage. Other forms of curve fitting such as beta distributions were also considered. However, they were found to have little impact on the overall analysis, and therefore the easier to apply piecewise linear fit was adopted for the Interim Guidelines (2)**.

BOTTOM: Longitudinal Extent

4.5

0.50.50.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Damage Length/Ship Length

Prob

. Den

sity

TANKER DATA - 63 CASESPIECEWISE LINEAR FIT

Figure 1 � Histogram and Probability Density Function:

Longitudinal Extent of Bottom Damage 3.3 Side damage pdf's as shown in figures 2 through 6 provide the probability of damage as a function of:

• Longitudinal location • Longitudinal extent • Vertical location • Vertical extent • Transverse penetration

3.4 Bottom damage pdf's as shown in figures 7 through 11 provide the probability of damage as a function of:

• Longitudinal location • Longitudinal extent • Transverse location • Transverse extent • Vertical penetration

3.5 The density scales are normalized by the ship length for longitudinal location and extent, by ship breadth for transverse location and extent, and by ship depth for vertical location and extent. The pdf variables are treated independently for the lack of adequate data to define their dependency. * Refers to reference (3) on page 43. ** Refers to reference (2) on page 43.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 7

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

3.6 These functions are based on limited statistics consisting of damages to largely single-hulled tankers. These statistics should be periodically reviewed as new data becomes available.

SIDE: Longitudinal Location

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Long'l Location

Prob

. Den

sity

A.P. F.P

SIDE: Longitudinal Extent

11.95

3.5

0.35 0.350

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35Damage Length/Ship Length

Prob

. Den

sity

Figure 2: Side Damage: Figure 3 - Side Damage: Longitudinal Location Longitudinal Extent

SIDE: Vertical Location

0.25

1.50

0

1.50

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Vertical Location/Ship Depth

Prob

. Den

sity

Dk LvlBL

SIDE: Vertical Extent

0.500.50

3.83

0

1

2

3

4

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Damage Extent/Ship Depth

Prob

. Den

sity

Figure 4 - Side Damage: Figure 5 - Side Damage: Vertical Location Vertical Extent

SIDE: Transverse Penetration

0.560.565.00

24.96

05

1015202530

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Transverse Penetration / Ship Beam

Prob

abilit

y D

ensi

ty

Figure 6 - Side Damage: Transverse Penetration


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

BOTTOM: Longitudinal Location

0.20.6

2.6

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00Long'l Location

Prob

. Den

sity

A.P. F.P.

BOTTOM: Longitudinal Extent4.5

0.50.5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8Damage Length/Ship Length

Prob

. Den

sity

Figure 7 - Bottom Damage: Figure 8 - Bottom Damage: Longitudinal Location Longitudinal Extent

BOTTOM: Transverse Location

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Transverse Location

Prob

. Den

sity

BOTTOM: Transverse Extent

4.0

0.4 0.4

1.6

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Transverse Penetration/Ship Beam

Prob

. Den

sity

Figure 9 - Bottom Damage: Figure 10 - Bottom Damage: Transverse Location Transverse Extent

BOTTOM: Vertical Penetration14.5

1.1 1.1

024

68

1012

1416

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3Vertical Penetration/Ship Depth

Prob

. Den

sity

BL

Figure 11 - Bottom Damage:

Vertical Penetration

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 9

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

4 The tables of probability for side and bottom damage 4.1 To ease application of the probability density functions, the probability density distributions for damage location, extent, and penetration have been converted into a set of tables and simple equations. These tables indicate the probability that the damage is bounded on one side by a given longitudinal, transverse or horizontal plane. 4.2 For example, the function pb(d) is the probability that damage is restricted to less than d, the normalized damage location, given g(y), the probability density distribution of extent of damage, h(x), the probability density distribution of location, and c, the maximum extent of damage. Similarly, pa(d) is the probability that damage is restricted to more than d.

p g(y) h(x)dxdyb

d y/c

= ⋅−

∫∫0

2

0

(4.2-1)

p g(y) h(x)dxdyad y

c

= ⋅+∫∫

/2

1

0

(4.2-2)

4.3 These equations are repeated for all of the damage probability calculations. For the cases involving penetration they simplify to single integral equations. For the cases involving both extent and location, special consideration must be given to the ends of the density. The functions define the damage location as the centre of damage. Damage zones towards the ends or sides of the ship can span beyond the vessel. This explains why all the probability tables do not extend to 1.00.

Figure 12 - Integration Region for Integrated Damage Probability Pj of j-th Tank

4.4 To obtain the probability that a region bounded by d1 below and d2 above is damaged, one finds p = 1 - pb(d1) - pa(d2). Note that this probability includes all damages which include the region, not just those that damage that region alone. To determine the probability of damage for a region in three-dimensional space the appropriate probabilities in each dimension are multiplied together reflecting the independence between the pdfs. To simplify the calculation process each three dimensional region is modelled as an equivalent rectilinear block described by six boundaries.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

4.5 The tables and equations for side damage provide the following parameters:

PSa = the probability the damage will lie entirely aft of location Xa/L; PSf = the probability the damage will lie entirely forward of location Xf/L; PSl = the probability the damage will lie entirely below the tank; PSu = the probability the damage will lie entirely above the tank; and PSy = the probability the damage will lie entirely outboard of the tank.

4.6 The tables and equations for bottom damage provide the following parameters:

PBa = the probability the damage will lie entirely aft of location Xa/L; PBf = the probability the damage will lie entirely forward of location Xf/L; PBp = the probability the damage will lie entirely to port of the tank; PBs = the probability the damage will lie entirely to starboard of the tank; and PBz = the probability the damage will lie entirely below the tank.

5 The probability of penetrating a cargo oil tank 5.1 The probability, PS, of breaching a given cargo oil tank subject to side damage is computed as follows:

PS = (1 - PSf - PSa) (1 - PSu - PSl) (1 - PSy) (5.1)

(1 - PSf - PSa) is the probability that the damage will penetrate into the longitudinal zone defined by transverse planes located at the extreme fore and aft bounds of the tank. (1 - PSu - PSl) is the probability that the damage will penetrate into the vertical zone defined by horizontal planes located at the extreme upper and lower bounds of the tank. (1 - PSy) is the probability that the transverse extent of damage will penetrate into the zone defined by the outboard bulkhead of the tank. 5.2 Similarly, the probability PB, of breaching a given cargo oil tank subject to bottom damage is computed as follows:

PB = (1 - PBf - PBa) (1 - PBp - PBs) (1 - PBz) (5.2)

(1 - PBf - PBa) is the probability that the damage will penetrate into the longitudinal zone defined by transverse planes located at the extreme fore and aft bounds of the tank. (1 - PBp - PBs) is the probability that the damage will penetrate into the transverse zone defined by vertical planes parallel to centerline, located at the extreme port and starboard most bounds of the tank. (1 - PBz) is the probability that the vertical extent of damage will extend into the zone defined by the bottom of the tank. 5.3 The extreme boundaries of each compartment are applied when determining the dimensions of the rectilinear block. Although the averaging of sloping boundaries was investigated, it was found that application of the extreme boundaries generally provided more consistent and usually slightly conservative results as compared to the more rigorous procedures discussed in paragraph 10 of regulation 21.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 11

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

6 Calculation of mean outflow from side damage 6.1 There were no available data on the percentage of outflow from a tank subject to side damage, and theoretical calculation of the portion of retained liquid was considered impractical. Therefore, it is conservatively assumed that for side damage, total (100%) of the oil outflows from each damaged cargo tank. This is consistent with the approach applied in the Interim Guidelines (2)*. 6.2 In accordance with paragraph 6 of regulation 21, the mean outflow from side damage is calculated as follows:

OMS = C3 ∑n

iPs(i) Os(i) (m3) (6.2)

Where Ps(i) is the probability of penetrating cargo tank i from side damage, and Os(i) is the outflow from side damage to cargo tank i. 6.3 In accordance with the simplified approach prescribed in regulation 21, the probability that damage will extend transversely into a cargo tank is calculated based on the minimum horizontal distance between the compartment and the side shell. Where the distance to the shell is not uniform, this assumption will result in over-estimates of oil outflow. This is most evident in way of the forward and aft cargo tanks, where hull curvature is most pronounced. 6.4 More rigorous calculations carried out to validate the methodology showed that tankers with two continuous longitudinal bulkheads within the cargo tanks (i.e. with a three across cargo tank arrangement) are most affected by this conservative approach . Figure 13 presents the mean outflow parameters for a series of tankers calculated using the simplified approach as per regulation 21 without consideration of the C3 factor, and also calculated based on the hypothetical sub-compartment methodology specified in paragraph 10.1 of regulation 21. The vessels with capacities of under 200,000 m3 which have a single centerline bulkhead show good correspondence. The simplified regulation 21 approach overestimates the outflow performance of vessels over 300,000 m3 capacity, all of which have two longitudinal bulkheads within the cargo tanks. Therefore, in the case of such designs the outflow from side damage is multiplied by the C3 factor 0.77.



I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.020

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000

98% Cargo Capacity(m3)

Mean Outflow Parameter

OM

Calculated using Simplified approach

Calculated using hypothetical sub-compartments perParagraph 10.1 of Reg. 21Criteria

Figure 13 � Comparison of calculations using the simplified method

and hypothetical sub-compartments 7 Calculation of mean outflow from bottom damage 7.1 For bottom damage, oil loss is calculated based on the pressure balance principle. 7.2 In accordance with paragraph 7 of regulation 21, for a given tidal condition the mean outflow from bottom damage is calculated as follows:

OMB(0) = ∑n

iPB(i) OB(i) CDB(i) (m3) (7.2)

7.3 As explained below, the factor CDB(i) accounts for oil entrapped within non-cargo tanks located immediately below a cargo tank. 7.4 Independent calculations are carried out for zero and minus 2.5 m tide conditions and the outflow values are then combined as follows:

OMB = 0.7 OMB(0) + 0.3 OMB(2.5) (m3) (7.4)

7.5 Tidal Effects 7.5.1 When an oil tanker experiences bottom damage as a result of a stranding and remains aground, the occurrence of a fall of tide may result in an outflow of oil because of the hydrostatic balance principle. For this regulation, oil loss is calculated assuming tide reductions of 0 and 2.5 meters. 7.5.2 The random nature of the fall of tide may be described by the following two probability density functions:

.1 probability density function of relative fall of tide assuming that the tidal motion may be represented with sufficient accuracy by a long-periodical harmonic motion and that the time dependent probability of occurrence of a grounding accident is uniformly distributed over the tidal period. The relative fall of tide is defined as the ratio of the actual fall of tide and the double amplitude of the tidal motion.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 13

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.2 probability density function of the double amplitude of tidal motion at the time of

the accident. From the statistics, which are restricted to data available from the OTD study [1], an approximate analytical description of the probability density function can be estimated.

Figure 14 � Histogram and Probability Density Function: Fall of Tide

7.5.3 From these two probability density functions the probability density function of the actual fall of tide may be derived. Although extreme tides of 6 m or more occur in certain areas of the world, such large tides are relatively rare. The probability density function for the fall of tide shows a significant effect up to about 3 m. That is, the probability of an actual fall in tide in excess of 3 m is less than 5%. 7.5.4 There is also a reduced probability that vessels will ground at high tide, as under keel clearances are typically increased. 7.5.5 It was determined that the tidal effect could be reasonably represented by performing calculations at two tides, 0 m and �2.5 m and then combining the results by 70%:30% ratio. 7.6 Cargo tanks bound by the bottom shell 7.6.1 Even if they are in hydrostatic balance, some cargo oil outflow can be expected from cargo tanks bounding the bottom shell which are penetrated due to bottom damage. These losses are attributable to initial exchange losses occurring on impact, and dynamic effects introduced from current and waves. 7.6.2 For the OTD study (1)*, model tests were carried out for the purpose of assessing the magnitude of these dynamic losses. For the purposes of that study, it was decided that oil outflow equal to at least 1% of the cargo tank volume should be assumed. This same assumption is applied in the Interim Guidelines (2)** as well as regulation 21. 7.7 Oil retained in non-oil tanks located below the cargo tank 7.7.1 When a double hull tanker experiences bottom damage through the double bottom tanks and into the cargo tanks, a certain portion of the oil outflow from the cargo tanks may be

* Refers to reference (1) on page 43. ** Refers to reference (2) on page 43.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

entrapped in the double bottom tanks. Where the pressure differential between the cargo in the tank and the outside sea is small (e.g. during a falling tide), it is reasonable to assume that the double hull space will be very effective in retaining lost oil. However, when the pressure differential is relatively large and the penetration small, model tests conducted during the OTD study (1)* demonstrated that only about 1/7 of the oil flowing out was retained in the double hull spaces. 7.7.2 As a consequence of these studies, it was surmised that �if both outer and inner bottoms are breached simultaneously and the extent of rupture at both bottoms is the same, it is probable that the amount of seawater and oil flowing into the double hull space would be the same.� On this basis, the Interim Guidelines (2)** specify that for breached non-cargo spaces located wholly or in part below breached cargo oil tanks, the flooded volume of these spaces at equilibrium should be assumed to contain 50% oil and 50% seawater by volume, unless proven otherwise. 7.7.3 With the simplified approach applied in regulation 21, the combination of tanks involved in each damage scenario is not determined and therefore oil retention in non-cargo spaces cannot be directly computed. To account for oil retention in this regulation, the oil outflow from a cargo tank located above a non-cargo space as determined from the hydrostatic balance calculation is multiplied by an outflow reduction factor CDB(i). 7.7.4 To determine the outflow factor CDB(i), bottom damage outflows for ten actual double tankers as well as the parametric series of designs discussed in paragraph 8 were calculated with and without double bottom retention. The outflow reduction factor fell between 0.50 and 0.70 for all of the actual tankers, and 83% of the designs in the parametric series. On this basis, an outflow reduction factor CDB(i) of 0.60 was selected. That is, (1 � 0.60) or 40% of the outflow is assumed to be entrapped by the non-oil tanks below. 8 Calculation of the mean outflow parameter 8.1 A collision to grounding ratio of 40%:60% is assumed for the purposes of combining the side and bottom damage outflow values into a single overall mean outflow. This is consistent with the assumption in the Interim Guidelines (2)**. The mean outflow parameter OM is calculated by dividing the combined side and bottom damage mean outflow by the total cargo volume C. For the purposes of this regulation as well as the Interim Guidelines (2)**, 98% filling is assumed for all oil tanks within the cargo block length. OM = (0.4 OMS + 0.6 OMB ) / C (8.1) 9 The maximum permissible mean outflow parameter 9.1 A parametric series of 96 designs were evaluated in order to assist in establishing the maximum permissible outflow values. Nine ship sizes were considered, ranging from 5,000 to 460,000 tons deadweight. For each size, a series of designs were evaluated covering variations in cargo tank arrangement, and wing tank and double bottom clearances. Outflow calculations assume the nominal double bottom and wing tank clearances are maintained through the cargo block. When calculating the probabilities of breaching cargo tanks, a simplified prismatic hull shape is assumed.

* Refers to reference (1) on page 43. ** Refers to reference (2) on page 43.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 15

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

9.2 The mean outflow parameters are displayed as a function of the cargo capacity in figure 15. In table 1, designs are sorted by mean outflow parameter. The cargo tank arrangement and nominal double hull dimensions are also listed in table 1. For example, �5x2 1x1.1�, refers to a design with cargo tanks arranged two wide and five long; with a 1.0 m wing tank width, and a 1.1 m double bottom height. The simplified approach was also evaluated on a series of actual tankers (refer to part A, section 6.4 of these Explanatory Notes for details).

0.0050

0.0100

0.0150

0.0200

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,000 600,000 650,000

98% Cargo Capacity "C" (m3)

Mea

n O

utflo

w P

aram

eter

, Om

All ShipsInterim Guideline Reference ShipsLimiting Criterion

Figure 15 � Graph: Mean Outflow Parameters for Series of Tankers

5,000 MT 40,000 MT 60,000 MT 95,000 MT 150,000 MT 220,000 MT 283,000 MT 350,000 MT 450,000 MT

C=5,849 m3 46,784 m3 70,175 m3 111,111 m3 175,439 m3 257,310 m3 330,994 m3 409,357 m3 526,316 m3Standard Standard Standard 5x2 2x2 5x2 2x2.32 6x2 2.5x2.5 Standard Standard Standard

0.015 0.015 0.015 0.017 0.018 0.015 0.013 0.012 0.0125x2 1x1.1 5x2 2x2 5x2 2x2 5x2 2.25x2.25 6x2 2x2.32 Standard 5x5 3x3 5x4 3x3 5x4 3x3

0.013 0.013 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.014 0.009 0.009 0.0106x2 1x1.1 5x2 2.25x2.25 5x2 2.25x2.25 Standard 5x2 2.5x2.5 7x2 2.5x2.5 5x4 3x3 5x5 3x3 5x5 3x3

0.012 0.012 0.013 0.015 0.015 0.013 0.009 0.009 0.0095x2 1.25x1.25 6x2 2x2 6x2 2x2 6x2 2x2 Standard 6x2 3x3 5x5 4x2 5x3 3x3 5x3 3x3

0.011 0.012 0.012 0.015 0.015 0.013 0.009 0.009 0.0097x2 1x1.1 5x2 2.5x2.5 5x2 2.5x2.5 5x2 2.5x2.5 7x2 2x2.32 7x2 3x3 5x3 3x3 5x5 3.5x3.5 5x5 3.5x3.5

0.011 0.011 0.012 0.014 0.015 0.012 0.009 0.009 0.0096x2 1.25x1.25 7x2 2x2 7x2 2x2 6x2 2.25x2.25 6x2 2.5x2.5 6x2 3.5x3.5 5x5 3.5x3.5 5x4 3.5x3.5 5x4 3.5x3.5

0.010 0.011 0.011 0.014 0.014 0.012 0.009 0.008 0.0095x2 1.5x1.5 6x2 2.25x2.25 6x2 2.25x2.25 7x2 2x2 5x2 3x3 7x2 3.5x3.5 5x3 4x2 5x5 4x4 5x5 4x4

0.009 0.011 0.011 0.014 0.013 0.011 0.009 0.008 0.0087x2 1.25x1.25 7x2 2.25x2.25 6x2 2.5x2.5 6x2 2.5x2.5 7x2 2.5x2.5 5x3 2.5x2.5 5x4 4x2 5x3 3.5x3.5 6x3 3x3

0.009 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.0086x2 1.5x1.5 6x2 2.5x2.5 7x2 2.25x2.25 7x2 2.25x2.25 6x2 3x3 6x3 2.5x2.5 5x4 3.5x3.5 6x3 3x3 5x3 3.5x3.5

0.009 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.012 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0087x2 1.5x1.5 7x2 2.5x2.5 7x2 2.5x2.5 7x2 2.5x2.5 7x2 3x3 5x3 3x3 5x3 3.5x3.5 5x4 4x4 5x4 4x4

0.008 0.009 0.010 0.012 0.011 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0085x3 2x2.32 5x3 3.5x3.5 6x3 3x3 5x3 4x4 5x3 4x4

0.010 0.007 0.008 0.007 0.0085x3 2.5x2.5 6x3 3x3 6x3 4x2 6x3 3.5x3.5 6x3 3.5x3.5

0.009 0.007 0.008 0.007 0.0075x3 3x3 6x3 3.5x3.5 6x3 3.5x3.5 6x3 4x4 6x3 4x4

0.008 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007

Table 1 �Mean Outflow Parameters for Series of Tankers 9.3 Figure 16 shows the maximum permissible mean outflow parameter for oil tankers and combination carriers of 5,000 metric tons deadweight and above. The criterion for combination carriers may be applied if calculations demonstrate that the increased structural strength of the combination carrier provides outflow equivalency at least equal to a standard double hull tanker of equal size.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Combination Carrier

Oil Tanker

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

5000

075

000

1000

00

1250

00

1500

00

1750

00

2000

00

2250

00

2500

00

2750

00

3000

00

3250

00

3500

00

3750

00

4000

00

4250

00

4500

00

4750

00

5000

00

98% Cargo Capacity "C" (m3)

Mea

n O

utflo

w P

aram

eter

, OM

Figure 16 � Graph: Mean Outflow Parameter Criterion as per regulation 21,

paragraph 3.1

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 17

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

PART B - GUIDANCE ON INDIVIDUAL REGULATIONS

1 This part of these explanatory notes provides guidance on application of certain of the provisions of Regulation 21. 2 Paragraph 3.1 of regulation 21.3.1 2.1 For combination carriers, a separate criterion for the mean oil outflow parameter may be applied provided it is demonstrated by calculations that the increased structural strength of the design is providing for environmental protection at least equivalent to a standard double hull oil tanker of the same size. The calculations are to be to the satisfaction of the Administration. 2.2 These standard oil tankers shall comply with MARPOL 73/78, including the requirements relating to width of wing-tanks and height of double bottom. The scantlings of the standard tanker shall be as per the requirements for a tanker of the same size as the combination carrier, and with the same loading conditions, apart from the dry bulk conditions. 2.3 The calculations are to demonstrate the enhanced strength of the double bottom and/or side structure of the combination carrier sufficiently reduces the extent of damage, such that the oil outflow performance of the combination carrier is comparable to that of the standard oil tanker referred to above in terms of the extent of damage and influence on oil outflow. The calculations are to include a series of collision and/or grounding calculations by means of finite element method (FEM) or other appropriate means. For each damage position (each collision or grounding case) a development of dissipated plastic deformation energy shall be evaluated. The collision calculations shall be carried out assuming the combination carrier being the struck ship at full load condition for different striking positions defined by the drought differences to the striking ship. 3 Paragraph 3.2 of regulation 21 3.1 The probabilistic methodology for hypothetical oil outflow applies to tankers of 5,000 DWT and above only, and does not have an outflow criterion for the smaller vessels. In this case, tank size is governed by the 700 m3 tank size limitation required by MARPOL paragraph 6.2 of regulation I/19 and the maximum tank length specified in paragraph 3.2.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

4 Paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 of regulation 21 4.1 In accordance with paragraph 4.4, cargo density is determined by dividing the total deadweight at the summer load line draft by the total cargo volume. It is recognized that loading the vessel with maximum cargo and no consumables may result in trim of the vessel. However, for the purposes of this regulation calculations should be carried out based on a hypothetical condition with zero trim and zero heel. The use of a hypothetical condition rather than actual load cases was adopted in order to insure uniform application of this regulation. 5 Paragraph 4.5 of regulation 21 5.1 The permeability of cargo tanks should be taken as 0.99. This is less than the value of 0.95 typically applied for tanks when assessing damage stability, but is considered a more realistic permeability for cargo tanks of double hull tankers that are relatively free of structure. 6 Paragraph 5.1 of regulation 21 6.1 For an oil tanker that is symmetrical about the ship�s centerline, the mean oil outflow values OMS and OMB are calculated assuming damage to one side of the ship only. For designs with asymmetrical cargo tank arrangements, calculations should be performed from both sides and the results averaged. 6.2 For side damage, the probabilities of damage are derived from five dimensions as defined in paragraph 8.2. These are: Xa, Xf, Zl, Zu, and y. Xa, Xf, Zl, and Zu will have the same values, for both port and starboard damage. For damage from the starboard side, y is measured inboard from the starboard side shell. For damage from the port side, y is measured inboard from the port side shell. This will result in two outflow values for side damage, OMS-port and OMS-starboard. Averaging these values yields the overall mean outflow from side damage. OMS = ( OMS-port + OMS-starboard ) /2 (6.2) 6.3 As described in paragraph 9.2, for bottom damage the probabilities are derived from the following dimensions: Xa, Xf, Yp, Ys, and z. The methodology is based on the center of damage located to the starboard side. Therefore, the values Yp and Ys represent the distances from the compartment boundaries to the starboard side of the shell, represented by a vertical plane located BB/2 to starboard of the ship�s centerline. In the case of an asymmetrical arrangement, a second set of calculations are done assuming the distances Yp and Ys are measured to a plane located BB/2 to port of the ship�s centerline. Xa, Xf, and z will have the same values, for both port and starboard damage. Similar to side damage, the values for port and starboard damage are averaged to obtain the overall mean outflow from bottom damage: OMB = ( OMB-port + OMB-starboard ) /2 (6.3)

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 19

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

7 Paragraph 7.3.2 of regulation 21 7.1 It is recognized that in actual damage scenarios, where the cargo density exceeds the seawater density, all or most of the cargo may be lost in the event of bottom damage. However, for the purposes of these calculations, even in cases where the nominal cargo oil density as calculated in paragraph 4.4 exceeds the density of seawater, the cargo level and remaining oil after damage should still be calculated based on hydrostatic pressure balance in accordance with paragraph 7.3.2. 8 Paragraph 8.2 of regulation 21 8.1 Compartment boundaries Xa, Xf, Zl, Zu and y shall be developed as shown in the figures below. The shaded region represents the cargo tank under consideration.

Xa = the longitudinal distance from the aft terminal of L to the aft most point on the compartment being considered;

Xf = the longitudinal distance from the aft terminal of L to the foremost point on the compartment being considered;

Figure 17- Definition of Xa and Xf

(Profile-looking inboard)

Zl = the vertical distance from the moulded baseline to the lowest point on the compartment being considered;

Zu = the vertical distance from the moulded baseline to the highest point on the compartment being considered. Zu is not to be taken greater than Ds; and

y = the minimum horizontal distance measured at right angles to the centreline between the compartment under consideration and the side.

Xa

Xf

AFT TERMINAL


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 18 � Zu, Zl and y for outer cargo tank

(Section looking forward)

Figure 19 � Zu, Zl and y for center cargo tank

(Section looking forward) An example showing how to measure y, in particular for a mid-deck tanker, is shown below. y shall be measured at the position above 1.5h, where h is defined as per paragraph 2.2 of regulation I/19 of MARPOL.

Zu Ds

Zl

BL

y

y

Zl

Zu

BL

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 21

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 20 � Zu, Zl and y for mid-deck tanker

(Section looking forward) 9 Paragraph 9 of regulation 21 9.1 Compartment boundaries Yp, Ys, and z shall be developed as shown in the figures below:

Yp = the transverse distance from the port-most point on the compartment located at or

below the waterline dB, to a vertical plane located BB /2 to starboard of the ship's centreline;

Ys = the transverse distance from the starboard-most point on the compartment located at or below the waterline dB, to a vertical plane located BB /2 to starboard of the ship's centreline; and

z = the minimum value of z over the length of the compartment, where, at any given longitudinal location, z is the vertical distance from the lower point of the bottom shell at that longitudinal location to the lower point of the compartment at that longitudinal location.

y

1.5 h

Zl BL

Zu


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 21 � Ys, Yp and z for starboard cargo tank

(Section looking forward)

Figure 22 � Ys, Yp and z for center cargo tank (Section looking forward)

0.5 BB

Yp

Ys

BL

dB = 0.3 Ds

Section at maximum beam

0.5 BB

Yp

Ys

Z

dB


BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 23

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 23 � Ys, Yp and z for port cargo tank (Section looking forward)

[Yp should be corrected to the intersection of dB and the port most cargo tank boundary] 10 Paragraph 10.1 of regulation 21 10.1 Introduction

10.1.1 The mean oil outflow parameter (OM) may be calculated either damage scenario method or damaged tank method. The damage scenario method is denoted in the Interim Guidelines (2)* referred to in MARPOL regulation I/19.5 and the simplified approach of damaged tank method is described in regulation I/21. 10.1.2 The damaged tank method as applied in MARPOL regulation I/21 is much simpler, and gives the same calculation results as those by the damage scenario method for the ships having rectangular hull form and tanks. For the actual ships having hull curvature and sloped shape tanks, however, the calculation results by the simplified method are higher than the correct values. 10.1.3 Considering the above gap by the simplified damaged tank method, regulation I/21.10 states that more rigorous calculations may be appropriate. The damaged tank method through application of hypothetical sub-compartments, as well as the damage scenario method denoted in the Interim Guidelines (2)* referred to in MARPOL regulation I/19.5 are designated as rigorous calculation procedures in MARPOL regulations I/21.10.1 to I/21.10.3.


0.5 BB

Yp

Ys

Z

dB



I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

10.2 Hypothetical sub-compartment Calculation Procedure: 10.2.1 The probability PS and PB of each cargo tank in regulation 21.8 and 21.9 can be calculated through application of hypothetical sub-compartments using the following equations :

( )( )( )∑∑−−

−−−= ++1s2

K

1s2

J

nK)(J,(K)1)(K(J)1)(J

nPs1PsPsPsPsPs

zx

yzzxx (10.2.1-1)

where:

nsx = total number of longitudinal sub-compartments nsz = total number of vertical sub-compartments j = 1 ~ nsx, represents each longitudinal sub-compartment k = 1 ~ nsz, represents each vertical sub-compartment Psx(J) = probability of damage for longitudinal sub-compartment, in small order of 1-Psf (j) and Psa(j), j = 1~nsx Psz(k) = probability of damage for vertical sub-compartment, in small order of

1-Psu(k) and Psl (k), k = 1~nsz J = 1~2nsx K = 1~2nsz

Psϒ(J,K) = probability of damage by the smallest yjk of sub-compartments of which the probability range between 1-Psf (j) and Psa (j) or between 1-Psu(k) and Psl

(k) includes the range between Psx(J+1) and Psx(J) or between Psz(K+1) and Psz(K) Psf (j), Psa (j) , Psu(k), Psl (k) and yjk shall be calculated by the definition of regulation 21.8 for sub-compartments

( )( )( )∑∑−−

−−−= ++12

M

12

L

BB nM)(L,(M)1)(M(L)1)(L

nBBBBBB P1PPPPP

yx

zyyxx (10.2.1-2)

where:

nBX = total number of longitudinal sub-compartments nBy = total number of transverse sub-compartments l = 1~nBx, represents each longitudinal sub-compartment m = 1~nBy, represents each transverse sub-compartment PBx (L) = probability of damage for longitudinal sub-compartment, in small order of

1-PBf (l) and PBa (l), l = 1~nBx P By (M) = probability of damage for transverse sub-compartment, in small order of

1-PBp (m) and PBs(m), m= 1~nBy L = 1~2nBx M = 1~2nBy P Bz (L,M) = probability of damage by the smallest zlm of sub-compartments of which the probability range between 1-PBf (l) and PBa (l) or between 1-PBp (m) and PBs (m) includes the range between PBx (L+1) and PBx (L) or between PBy (M+1) and PBy (M) PBf (l), PBa (l), PBs (m), PBp (m) and zlm shall be calculated by the definition of regulation 21.9 for sub-compartments

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 25

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

10.3 Example of the hypothetical sub-compartment calculation 10.3.1 Sample calculations by the above procedure are carried out for the side damage and the probabilities Ps are compared with those by the damage scenario method denoted in the Interim Guidelines (2)* referred to in MARPOL regulation I/19.5. To simplify the evaluation, the following simple 2-dimensional tank and hull model are assumed.

Ship length = 300 m Ship breadth = 60 m

60 m 60 m Cargo Tank Center Line 3 m 15 m

Figure 24 � Arrangements for hypothetical sub-compartment calculation example

In the case that no sub-compartment is assumed, the probability Ps is calculated according to the MARPOL regulation I/21.8 as follows:

Xa (m) Xf (m) Xa/L Xf/L Psa Psf 1-Psf 1-Psf-Psa 60 120 0.20 0.40 0.167 0.567 0.433 0.266

y (m) Psy 1- Psy Ps=(1-Psf-Psa)( 1- Psy)

3 0.749 0.251 0.066766 Calculations by the formula in paragraph 10.2 are carried out for several numbers of sub-compartments. For example, the probability Ps assuming four (4) sub-compartments is shown below:

j. Xa (m) Xf (m) Xa/L Xf/L Psa Psf 1-Psf 1 60 75 0.20 0.25 0.167 0.717 0.283 2 75 90 0.25 0.30 0.217 0.667 0.333 3 90 105 0.30 0.35 0.267 0.617 0.383 4 105 120 0.35 0.40 0.317 0.567 0.433



I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

The Psa and 1-Psf values are sorted in ascending order, as shown below: Psa 1-Psf

J. Values sorted ascending Psx (J) 1 0,167 -----> 0,167 Psx (J+1) 2 0,217 -----> 0,217 0,217 3 0,267 -----> 0,267 0,267 4 0,283 -----> 0,283 0,283 5 0,317 -----> 0,317 0,317 6 0,333 -----> 0,333 0,333 7 0,383 -----> 0,383 0,383 8 0,433 -----> 0,433

In the table below, each hypothetical sub-compartment or group of hypothetical sub-compartments (j) is associated with the minimum distance (y) to the outer shell. Each probability of breaching a hypothetical sub-compartment or exact group of hypothetical sub-compartments (j) is then evaluated by multiplying the longitudinal and transverse probabilities:

J Psx (J) Psx (J+1) Psx (J+1)- Psx (J)

j� y (m) Psy (J) 1- Psy (J) (Psx (J+1) - Psx (J)) x (1- Psy (J))

1 0.167 0.217 0.050 1 3 0.749 0.251 0.0125502 0.217 0.267 0.050 1,2 3 0.749 0.251 0.0125503 0.267 0.283 0.016 1,2,3 3 0.749 0.251 0.0040164 0.283 0.317 0.034 2,3 6 0.888 0.112 0.0038085 0.317 0.333 0.016 2,3,4 6 0.888 0.112 0.0017926 0.333 0.383 0.050 3,4 9 0.916 0.084 0.0042007 0.383 0.433 0.050 4 12 0.944 0.056 0.002800 Σ 0.041716

10.3.2 The results of the calculation together with those by the damage scenario method denoted in the Interim Guidelines (2)* referred to in MARPOL regulation I/19.5 are shown in the following graph. It is demonstrated that the calculation procedure through application of hypothetical sub-compartments gives the damage probability gradually approaching to the correct value as the number of sub-compartments is increased:


BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 27

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Calculation method Definition of N Symbol Other calculation

conditions Damaged tank method through application of hypothetical sub-compartments

The number of longitudinal sub-compartments

♦ -

■ Longitudinal extent at 3 steps Transverse extent at 6 steps

▲ Longitudinal extent at 6 steps Transverse extent at 6 steps

Damage scenario method denoted in the Interim Guidelines [2] refered to in regulation 19.5

The number of steps for longitudinal location

● Longitudinal extent at 6 steps Transverse extent at 12 steps

Figure 25 � Comparison between hypothetical sub-compartment as defined in paragraph 10.1 of regulation 21 and the damage scenario method denoted

in the Interim Guidelines

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

0.05

0.055

0.06

0.065

0.07

0 10 20 30 40

N

Ps

Simplified damaged tank method according to Regulation 21.8(No sub-compartment is assumed.)


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

PART C � EXAMPLES

1 Tank barge example 1.1 General 1.1.1 The application of the Accidental Oil Outflow Performance regulation is shown in the following worked example illustrating the calculation procedure for a tank barge. 1.1.2 The arrangement and dimensions of the sample barge are as shown figure 26. For clarity purposes, a simple arrangement has been selected which does not comply with all MARPOL requirements. However, for actual designs, the vessel must satisfy all applicable regulations of MARPOL Annex I.

Figure 26 � Barge Arrangement

1.2 Establishing the nominal cargo oil density 1.2.1 The deadweight (DW) equals the displacement at the summer load line draft measured in seawater with a density of 1.025 t/m3 minus the lightship. No deduction is taken for consumables.

DW = 36,900 � 2,951 = 33,949 t

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 29

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

1.2.2 The cargo volume C equals the total cargo volume at 98% filling. In accordance with paragraph 4.5 of regulation 21, the capacity of cargo tanks are calculated based on a permeability of 0.99.

100% Capacity 98% Filling(m3) (m3)

CO1 9,623 9,430 CO2 28,868 28,291

C= 37,721

1.2.3 In accordance with paragraph 4.4 of regulation 21, the nominal density is calculated as follows: ρ n = 1000 (DW)/C (kg/m3) = 1000 (33,949)/37,721 = 900 kg/m3 (1.2.3) 1.3 Calculating the probabilities of side damage 1.3.1 The first step is to determine the values for the dimensions and clearances Xa, Xf, Zl , Zu and y as defined in paragraph 8.2 of regulation 21:

Xa Xf Zl Zu yTank m-AP m-AP m-BL m-BL mCO1 20.000 35.000 2.000 20.000 2.000CO2 35.000 80.000 2.000 20.000 2.000

1.3.2 From the ratios Xa/L, Xf/L, Z/Bs, Zl/Ds, Zu /Ds, Yl/Ds, and y, the probabilities associated with these subdivision locations are interpolated from the table of probabilities for side damage provided in Paragraph 8.3 of regulation 21. For instance, for compartment CO1, the forward boundary Xf is at 35.0 m from the A.P, and Xf/L = 0.35. From the table, we find that Psf = 0.617. The probabilities for CO1 and CO2 are as follows:

Tank Xa/L PSa Xf/L PSf Zl/DS PSl Zu/DS Psu y/Bs Psy

CO1 0.2000 0.1670 0.3500 0.6170 0.1000 0.0010 1.0000 0.0000 0.0500 0.7490CO2 0.3500 0.3170 0.8000 0.1670 0.1000 0.0010 1.0000 0.0000 0.0500 0.7490

1.3.3 In accordance with paragraph 8 of regulation 21, the probability factors are then combined to find the probability, Ps, of breaching a compartment from side damage.

For tank CO1: PSL = (1 - Psf - Psa) = (1 � 0.617 � 0.167) = 0.216 PSV = (1 - Psu - Psl) = (1 � 0.000 � 0.001) = 0.999 PST = (1 - Psy) = (1 � 0.749) = 0.251

Ps = PSL PSV PST = (0.216)(0.999)(0.251) = 0.0542 For tank CO2:

PSL = (1 - Psf - Psa) = (1 � 0.167 � 0.317) = 0.516 PSV = (1 - Psu - Psl) = (1 � 0.000 � 0.001) = 0.999 PST = (1 - Psy) = (1 � 0.749) = 0.251

Ps = PSL PSV PST = (0.216)(0.999)(0.251) = 0.1294


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

1.3.4 Given a collision that penetrates the outer hull, Ps is the probability that the damage will extend into a particular cargo tank. As shown above, the probability of breaching the CO2 tank from side damage is 0.1294, or about 12.9%. 1.4 Calculating the mean outflow from side damage 1.4.1 For side damage, the total content of the tank is assumed to outflow into the sea when the tank is penetrated. Thus, the mean outflow is calculated by summing the products of the cargo tank volumes at 98% filling and the associated probabilities, in accordance with the formula given in paragraph 6 of regulation 21:

OMS = ∑n

iC3 Ps(i) Os(i) (m3) (1.4.1)

1.4.2 C3 = 0.77 for ships having two longitudinal bulkheads inside the cargo tanks extending over the length of the cargo block, and 1.0 for all other ships. In this case, there are no longitudinal bulkheads within the cargo tanks, and C3 = 1.0.

The mean oil outflow from side damage is therefore: OMS = (1.0)(0.0542)(9,430) + (1.0)(0.1294)(28,291) = 4,172 m3

1.5 Calculating the probabilities of bottom damage 1.5.1 The first step is to determine the values for the dimensions and clearances Xa, Xf, Yp , Ys and z. Xa and Xf are as previously specified for side damage. Yp , Ys and z are defined in paragraph 9.2 of regulation 21:

Yp Ys zTank m m mCO1 38.000 2.000 2.000CO2 38.000 2.000 2.000

1.5.2 From the ratios Xa/L, Xf/L, Yp/BB, Ys/ BB, and z, the probabilities associated with these subdivision locations are interpolated from the table of probabilities for bottom damage provided in Paragraph 9.3 of regulation 21.

Tank Xa/L PBa Xf/L PBf Yp/BB PBp Ys/BB PBs z/Ds PBz

CO1 0.2000 0.0290 0.3500 0.8100 0.9500 0.0090 0.0500 0.0090 0.1000 0.7800CO2 0.3500 0.0760 0.8000 0.2520 0.9500 0.0090 0.0500 0.0090 0.1000 0.7800

1.5.3 In accordance with paragraph 8 of regulation 21, the probability factors are then combined to find the probability, PB, of breaching a compartment from bottom damage.

For tank CO1: PBL = (1 - PBf - PBa) = (1 � 0.810 � 0.029) = 0.161 PBT = (1 - PBp - PBs) = (1 � 0.009 � 0.009) = 0.982 PBV = (1 - PBz) = (1 � 0.780) = 0.220

PB = PBL PBT PBV = (0.161)(0.982)(0.220) = 0.0348

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 31

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

For tank CO2: PBL = (1 - PBf - PBa) = (1 � 0.252 � 0.076) = 0.672 PBT = (1 - PBp - PBs) = (1 � 0.009 � 0.009) = 0.982 PBV = (1 - PBz) = (1 � 0.780) = 0.220

PB = PBL PBT PBV = (0.161)(0.982)(0.220) = 0.1452

1.5.4 Given a grounding that penetrates the outer hull, PB is the probability that the damage will extend into a particular cargo tank. As shown above, the probability of breaching the CO2 tank from bottom damage is 0.1452, or about 14.5%. 1.6 Calculating the mean outflow from bottom damage 1.6.1 For bottom damage, outflow is computed based on hydrostatic pressure balance, in accordance with the assumptions described in paragraph 7 of regulation 21. Independent calculations are performed for 0.0 m and minus 2.5 m tides, and then the results are combined to provide an overall mean outflow for bottom damage. 1.6.2 Per paragraph 7.3.2 of regulation 21, the cargo level after damage, measured in meters above Zl, is calculated as follows:

hc = {(ds + tc - Zl) ( ρ s) - (1000 p) / g }/ ρ n where: ds = the load line draught = 9.0 m tc = the tidal change = 0 m and �2.5 m Zl = the height of the lowest point in the cargo tank above baseline = 2.0 m ρ s = density of seawater, to be taken as 1,025 kg/m3 p = inert gas overpressure = 5 kPa g = acceleration of gravity = 9.81 m/s2 ρ n = nominal density of cargo oil = 900 kg/m3

For 0.0 m tide:

hc = {(9.0 + 0.0 � 2.0)(1,025)-(1000)(5)}/900 = 7.406 m For 2.5 m tide:

hc = {(9.0 �2.5 � 2.0)(1,025)-(1000)(5)}/900 = 4.559 m 1.6.3 The oil outflow, OB, from each tank due to bottom damage equals the original volume (98% of tank capacity) minus the amount remaining (oil up to level hc).

Tank at 0.0 m time at -2.5 m tideCO1 5,471 6,993 CO2 16,413 20,979

Oil Outflow (m3) at

1.6.4 In accordance with paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of regulation 21, the mean outflow from bottom damage is calculated as follows:

OMB(0) = ∑n

iPB(i) OB(i) CDB(i) (m3)

OMB(2.5) = ∑n

iPB(i) OB(i) CDB(i) (m3)


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

1.6.5 It is recognized that a portion of the oil escaping from a cargo tank may be entrapped by a double bottom tank below, thereby preventing the oil from reaching the sea. In accordance with paragraph 7.4 of regulation 21, CDB(i) is to be taken as 0.6 when a cargo tank is bounded from below by a non-oil compartment. 1.6.6 The mean outflow from bottom damage without tidal change is:

Tank PB(i) OB(i) (m3) CDB(i) OMB(i) (m

3)CO1 0.0348 5,471 0.6 114 CO2 0.1452 16,413 0.6 1,430

OMB(0) = 1,544 1.6.7 The mean outflow after a 2.5 m reduction in tide is:

Tank PB(i) OB(i) (m3) CDB(i) OMB(i) (m

3)CO1 0.0348 6,993 0.6 146 CO2 0.1452 20,979 0.6 1,828

OMB(2.5) = 1,974 1.6.8 In accordance with paragraph 5.2 of regulation 21, mean outflow values from the 0.0 m and -2.5 m tide conditions are combined in a 70%:30% ratio to obtain the bottom damage mean outflow:

OMB = 0.7 OMB(0) + 0.3 OMB(2.5) (m3) OMB = (0.7)(1,544) + (0.3)(1,974) = 1,673 m3

1.7 Calculating the mean outflow parameter 1.7.1 In accordance with paragraph 5.1 of regulation 21, the mean outflow from side damage and bottom damage are combined in a 40%:60% ratio and then this value is divided by the total oil volume C to obtain the overall mean outflow parameter:

OM = ( 0.4 OMS + 0.6 OMB ) / C OM = [(0.4)(4,172) + (0.6)(1,673)] / 3,721 = 0.071

1.7.2 The final step in the evaluation of an actual oil tanker is to compare the calculated value of OM with the maximum permissible value given in paragraph 3.1 and regulation 21. 2 VLCC example 2.1 General Data L : 321.10 m (length as defined in regulation 1.19) ds : 21.20 m (moulded load line draught) dB : 8.865 m (moulded draught corresponding to 30% of the depth Ds) Bs : 60.00 m (the greatest moulded breadth at the deepest load line ds) BB : 60.00 m (the greatest moulded breadth at the waterline dB) Ds : 29.55 m (moulded depth) DW : 300,000 ton (deadweight as defined in regulation 1.23) C : 333,200 m3 (total volume of cargo oil at 98% tank filling)

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 33

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 27 - Tank Arrangement

Figure 28 - Side Damage (No. 1 COT (Fr. 96 � Fr. 106))


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 29 - Side Damage (Nos. 2,3,4 Cot (Fr.66-Fr.96))

Figure 30 - Side Damage (No.5 COT & SLOP (Fr. 56-Fr.66))

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 35

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 31 - Bottom Damage (No.1 COT (Fr. 96-Fr. 106))

Figure 32 - Bottom Damage (Nos. 2,3,4 COT (Fr.66-Fr.96))


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Figure 33 - Bottom Damage (No.5 & SLOP (Fr. 56- Fr.66))

2.2 Side damage outflow calculation 2.2.1 Each tank capacity and compartment boundaries Xa, Xf, Zl, Zu and y are as follows:

Cargo Tank 98% Vol (m3) Xa (m) Xf (m) Zl (m) Zu (m) y (m)No.1 C.O.T. (P) 14,372 252.000 302.000 3.000 29.550 25.600No.1 C.O.T. (C) 28,890 252.000 302.000 3.000 29.550 7.600No.1 C.O.T. (S) 14,372 252.000 302.000 3.000 29.550 2.750No.2 C.O.T. (P) 19,081 202.000 252.000 3.000 29.550 41.700No.2 C.O.T. (C) 31,821 202.000 252.000 3.000 29.550 18.300No.2 C.O.T. (S) 19,081 202.000 252.000 3.000 29.550 3.500No.3 C.O.T. (P) 19,081 152.000 202.000 3.000 29.550 41.700No.3 C.O.T. (C) 31,821 152.000 202.000 3.000 29.550 18.300No.3 C.O.T. (S) 19,081 152.000 202.000 3.000 29.550 3.500No.4 C.O.T. (P) 19,081 102.000 152.000 3.000 29.550 41.700No.4 C.O.T. (C) 31,821 102.000 152.000 3.000 29.550 18.300No.4 C.O.T. (S) 19,081 102.000 152.000 3.000 29.550 3.500No.5 C.O.T. (P) 12,681 67.000 102.000 3.000 29.550 38.100No.5 C.O.T. (C) 31,821 52.000 102.000 3.000 29.550 7.200No.5 C.O.T. (S) 12,681 67.000 102.000 3.000 29.550 3.500

Slop tank (P) 4,219 52.000 67.000 3.000 29.550 30.600Slop tank (S) 4,219 52.000 67.000 3.000 29.550 3.200

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 37

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2.2.2 The probability Ps of breaching a compartment from side damage is calculated in accordance with paragraph 8.1 of regulation 21:

Ps = PSL PSV PST (2.2.2) Where: PSL = 1 - PSf - PSa PSV = 1 - PSu - PSl PST = 1 - PSy

From the ratios Xa/L, Xf/L, Z/Bs, Zl/Ds, Zu /Ds, Yl/Ds, and y, the probabilities associated with these subdivision locations are interpolated from the table of probabilities for side damage provided in Paragraph 8.3 of regulation 21.

Cargo Tank Xa/L Psa Xf/L Psf Zl/Ds Psl Zu/Ds Psu y/Bs Psy No.1 C.O.T. (P) 0.7848 0.7518 0.9405 0.0315 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.4267 1.0000No.1 C.O.T. (C) 0.7848 0.7518 0.9405 0.0315 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.1267 0.9029No.1 C.O.T. (S) 0.7848 0.7518 0.9405 0.0315 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.0458 0.7247No.2 C.O.T. (P) 0.6291 0.5961 0.7848 0.1822 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.6950 1.0000No.2 C.O.T. (C) 0.6291 0.5961 0.7848 0.1822 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.3050 1.0000No.2 C.O.T. (S) 0.6291 0.5961 0.7848 0.1822 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.0583 0.7876No.3 C.O.T. (P) 0.4734 0.4404 0.6291 0.3379 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.6950 1.0000No.3 C.O.T. (C) 0.4734 0.4404 0.6291 0.3379 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.3050 1.0000No.3 C.O.T. (S) 0.4734 0.4404 0.6291 0.3379 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.0583 0.7876No.4 C.O.T. (P) 0.3177 0.2847 0.4734 0.4936 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.6950 1.0000No.4 C.O.T. (C) 0.3177 0.2847 0.4734 0.4936 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.3050 1.0000No.4 C.O.T. (S) 0.3177 0.2847 0.4734 0.4936 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.0583 0.7876No.5 C.O.T. (P) 0.2087 0.1757 0.3177 0.6493 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.6350 1.0000No.5 C.O.T. (C) 0.1619 0.1289 0.3177 0.6493 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.1200 0.8992No.5 C.O.T. (S) 0.2087 0.1757 0.3177 0.6493 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.0583 0.7876

Slop tank (P) 0.1619 0.1289 0.2087 0.7583 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.5100 1.0000Slop tank (S) 0.1619 0.1289 0.2087 0.7583 0.1015 0.0011 1.0000 0.0000 0.0533 0.7652

Cargo Tank PSL PSV PST PS

No.1 C.O.T. (P) 0.2167 0.9989 0.0000 0.0000 No.1 C.O.T. (C) 0.2167 0.9989 0.0971 0.0210 No.1 C.O.T. (S) 0.2167 0.9989 0.2753 0.0596 No.2 C.O.T. (P) 0.2217 0.9989 0.0000 0.0000 No.2 C.O.T. (C) 0.2217 0.9989 0.0000 0.0000 No.2 C.O.T. (S) 0.2217 0.9989 0.2124 0.0470 No.3 C.O.T. (P) 0.2217 0.9989 0.0000 0.0000 No.3 C.O.T. (C) 0.2217 0.9989 0.0000 0.0000 No.3 C.O.T. (S) 0.2217 0.9989 0.2124 0.0470 No.4 C.O.T. (P) 0.2217 0.9989 0.0000 0.0000 No.4 C.O.T. (C) 0.2217 0.9989 0.0000 0.0000 No.4 C.O.T. (S) 0.2217 0.9989 0.2124 0.0470 No.5 C.O.T. (P) 0.1750 0.9989 0.0000 0.0000 No.5 C.O.T. (C) 0.2217 0.9989 0.1008 0.0223 No.5 C.O.T. (S) 0.1750 0.9989 0.2124 0.0371

Slop tank (P) 0.1127 0.9989 0.0000 0.0000 Slop tank (S) 0.1127 0.9989 0.2348 0.0264


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2.3.4 The mean outflow for side damage OMS is calculated in accordance with paragraph 6 of regulation 21.

OMS = C3 ∑n

i Ps(i) Os(i) (m3) (2.3.4-1)

C3 = 0.77 for ships having two longitudinal bulkheads inside the cargo tanks extending over the length of the cargo block, and 1.0 for all other ships. In this case, there are two longitudinal bulkheads within the cargo tanks, and C3 = 0.77.

Cargo Tank OS(i) (PS)(OS(i))

No.1 C.O.T. (P) 14,371.7 0.0 No.1 C.O.T. (C) 28,890.4 606.9 No.1 C.O.T. (S) 14,371.7 856.3 No.2 C.O.T. (P) 19,080.6 0.0 No.2 C.O.T. (C) 31,820.6 0.0 No.2 C.O.T. (S) 19,080.6 897.7 No.3 C.O.T. (P) 19,080.6 0.0 No.3 C.O.T. (C) 31,820.6 0.0 No.3 C.O.T. (S) 19,080.6 897.7 No.4 C.O.T. (P) 19,080.6 0.0 No.4 C.O.T. (C) 31,820.6 0.0 No.4 C.O.T. (S) 19,080.6 897.7 No.5 C.O.T. (P) 12,681.2 0.0 No.5 C.O.T. (C) 31,820.6 710.4 No.5 C.O.T. (S) 12,681.2 470.9

Slop tank (P) 4,218.9 0.0 Slop tank (S) 4,218.9 111.5

∑PS(i)OS(i) 5,449 m3 (2.3.4-2) OMS = 0.77 x 5,449 m3 = 4,195 m3 (2.3.4-3)

2.3 Bottom damage outflow calculation 2.3.1 Compartment boundaries Xa, Xf, Yp, Ys and z are taken as follows:

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 39

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Cargo Tank Xa (m) Xf (m) Yp (m) Ys (m) Z (m)

No.1 C.O.T. (P) 252.000 302.000 56.500 39.000 3.000 No.1 C.O.T. (C) 252.000 302.000 41.700 18.300 3.000 No.1 C.O.T. (S) 252.000 302.000 21.000 3.500 3.000 No.2 C.O.T. (P) 202.000 252.000 56.500 41.700 3.000 No.2 C.O.T. (C) 202.000 252.000 41.700 18.300 3.000 No.2 C.O.T. (S) 202.000 252.000 18.300 3.500 3.000 No.3 C.O.T. (P) 152.000 202.000 56.500 41.700 3.000 No.3 C.O.T. (C) 152.000 202.000 41.700 18.300 3.000 No.3 C.O.T. (S) 152.000 202.000 18.300 3.500 3.000 No.4 C.O.T. (P) 102.000 152.000 56.500 41.700 3.000 No.4 C.O.T. (C) 102.000 152.000 41.700 18.300 3.000 No.4 C.O.T. (S) 102.000 152.000 18.300 3.500 3.000 No.5 C.O.T. (P) 67.000 102.000 56.500 41.700 3.000 No.5 C.O.T. (C) 52.000 102.000 41.700 18.300 3.000 No.5 C.O.T. (S) 67.000 102.000 18.300 3.500 3.000

Slop tank (P) 52.000 67.000 51.780 41.700 3.000 Slop tank (S) 52.000 67.000 18.300 8.220 3.000

2.3.2 The probability PB of breaching a compartment from bottom damage is calculated in accordance with paragraph 9.1 of regulation 21. PB = PBL PBT PBV (2.3.2) Where, PBL = 1 - PBf - PBa PBT = 1 - PBp - PBS PBV = 1 - PBZ

2.3.3 From the ratios Xa/L, Xf/L, Yp/BB, Ys/ BB, and z, the probabilities associated with these subdivision locations are interpolated from the table of probabilities for bottom damage provided in paragraph 9.3 of regulation 21.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Cargo Tank Xa/L PBa Xf/L PBf Yp/BB PBp Ys/BB PBs z/Ds PBZ

No.1 C.O.T. (P) 0.7848 0.3892 0.9405 0.0379 0.9417 0.0128 0.6500 0.4940 0.1015 0.7817 No.1 C.O.T. (C) 0.7848 0.3892 0.9405 0.0379 0.6950 0.1750 0.3050 0.1750 0.1015 0.7817 No.1 C.O.T. (S) 0.7848 0.3892 0.9405 0.0379 0.3500 0.4940 0.0583 0.0128 0.1015 0.7817 No.2 C.O.T. (P) 0.6291 0.2257 0.7848 0.2766 0.9417 0.0128 0.6950 0.5390 0.1015 0.7817 No.2 C.O.T. (C) 0.6291 0.2257 0.7848 0.2766 0.6950 0.1750 0.3050 0.1750 0.1015 0.7817 No.2 C.O.T. (S) 0.6291 0.2257 0.7848 0.2766 0.3050 0.5390 0.0583 0.0128 0.1015 0.7817 No.3 C.O.T. (P) 0.4734 0.1302 0.6291 0.5200 0.9417 0.0128 0.6950 0.5390 0.1015 0.7817 No.3 C.O.T. (C) 0.4734 0.1302 0.6291 0.5200 0.6950 0.1750 0.3050 0.1750 0.1015 0.7817 No.3 C.O.T. (S) 0.4734 0.1302 0.6291 0.5200 0.3050 0.5390 0.0583 0.0128 0.1015 0.7817 No.4 C.O.T. (P) 0.3177 0.0644 0.4734 0.7120 0.9417 0.0128 0.6950 0.5390 0.1015 0.7817 No.4 C.O.T. (C) 0.3177 0.0644 0.4734 0.7120 0.6950 0.1750 0.3050 0.1750 0.1015 0.7817 No.4 C.O.T. (S) 0.3177 0.0644 0.4734 0.7120 0.3050 0.5390 0.0583 0.0128 0.1015 0.7817 No.5 C.O.T. (P) 0.2087 0.0313 0.3177 0.8307 0.9417 0.0128 0.6950 0.5390 0.1015 0.7817 No.5 C.O.T. (C) 0.1619 0.0199 0.3177 0.8307 0.6950 0.1750 0.3050 0.1750 0.1015 0.7817 No.5 C.O.T. (S) 0.2087 0.0313 0.3177 0.8307 0.3050 0.5390 0.0583 0.0128 0.1015 0.7817

Slop tank (P) 0.1619 0.0199 0.2087 0.8898 0.8630 0.0549 0.6950 0.5390 0.1015 0.7817 Slop tank (S) 0.1619 0.0199 0.2087 0.8898 0.3050 0.5390 0.1370 0.0549 0.1015 0.7817

Cargo Tank PBL PBV PBT PB



2.3.4 Per paragraph 7.3.2 of regulation 21, the cargo level after damage, measured in meters above Zl, is calculated as follows:

hc = {(ds + tc - Zl) (ρ s) - (1000 p) / g }/ρ n (2.3.4) where: ds = the load line draught = 21.20 m tc = the tidal change = 0 m and �2.5 m Zl = the height of the lowest point in the cargo tank above baseline = 3.0 m ρ s = density of seawater, to be taken as 1,025 kg/m3 p = inert gas overpressure = 5 kPa g = acceleration of gravity = 9.81 m/s2 ρ n = nominal density of cargo oil = 900 kg/m3

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 41

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2.3.5 For the condition with the tidal change tc equal to 0 m, the cargo level after damage hc is 20.153 m. The remaining volume for each cargo tank after damage, in m3, the oil outflow OB(i) are as follows:

Cargo Tank hc (m) Remain Vol. (m3) OB(i) (m3)

No.1 C.O.T. (P) 20.153 10,558 3813.7 No.1 C.O.T. (C) 20.153 21,267 7623.4 No.1 C.O.T. (S) 20.153 10,558 3813.7 No.2 C.O.T. (P) 20.153 14,163 4917.6 No.2 C.O.T. (C) 20.153 23,427 8393.6 No.2 C.O.T. (S) 20.153 14,163 4917.6 No.3 C.O.T. (P) 20.153 14,163 4917.6 No.3 C.O.T. (C) 20.153 23,427 8393.6 No.3 C.O.T. (S) 20.153 14,163 4917.6 No.4 C.O.T. (P) 20.153 14,163 4917.6 No.4 C.O.T. (C) 20.153 23,427 8393.6 No.4 C.O.T. (S) 20.153 14,163 4917.6 No.5 C.O.T. (P) 20.153 9,342 3339.2 No.5 C.O.T. (C) 20.153 23,427 8393.6 No.5 C.O.T. (S) 20.153 9,342 3339.2

Slop tank (P) 20.153 2,960 1258.9 Slop tank (S) 20.153 2,960 1258.9

For the condition with tidal change tc equal to �2.5m, the remaining volume for each cargo tank after damage, in m3, and the oil outflow OB(i) is as follows:

Cargo Tank hc (m) Remain Vol. (m3) OB(i) (m3)

No.1 C.O.T. (P) 17.307 8,974 5397.7 No.1 C.O.T. (C) 17.307 18,263 10627.4 No.1 C.O.T. (S) 17.307 8,974 5397.7 No.2 C.O.T. (P) 17.307 12,070 7010.6 No.2 C.O.T. (C) 17.307 20,119 11701.6 No.2 C.O.T. (S) 17.307 12,070 7010.6 No.3 C.O.T. (P) 17.307 12,070 7010.6 No.3 C.O.T. (C) 17.307 20,119 11701.6 No.3 C.O.T. (S) 17.307 12,070 7010.6 No.4 C.O.T. (P) 17.307 12,070 7010.6 No.4 C.O.T. (C) 17.307 20,119 11701.6 No.4 C.O.T. (S) 17.307 12,070 7010.6 No.5 C.O.T. (P) 17.307 7,926 4755.2 No.5 C.O.T. (C) 17.307 20,119 11701.6 No.5 C.O.T. (S) 17.307 7,926 4755.2

Slop tank (P) 17.307 2,436 1782.9 Slop tank (S) 17.307 2,436 1782.9


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2.3.6 In accordance with paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of regulation 21, the mean outflow from bottom damage is calculated as follows:

OMB(0) = ∑n

iPB(i) OB(i) CDB(i) (m3) (2.3.6-1)

OMB(2.5) = ∑n

iPB(i) OB(i) CDB(i) (m3) (2.3.6-2)

2.3.7 It is recognized that a portion of the oil escaping from a cargo tank may be entrapped by a double bottom tank below, thereby preventing the oil from reaching the sea. In accordance with paragraph 7.4 of regulation 21, CDB(i) is to be taken as 0.6 when a cargo tank is bounded from below by a non-oil compartment.

Cargo Tank CDB(i) PB(i) PB(i)OB(i)CDB(i) (m3)

[tc=0 m] PB(i)OB(i)CDB(i) (m3)

[tc=-2.5m]



∑PB(i) OB(i) CDB(i) 2,211 m3 3,110 m3

2.3.8 In accordance with paragraph 5.2 of regulation 21, mean outflow values from the 0.0 m and -2.5 m tide conditions are combined in a 70%:30% ratio to obtain the bottom damage mean outflow:

OMB = 0.7 OMB(0) + 0.3 OMB(2.5) (2.3.8) = 0.7 x 2,211 + 0.3 x 3,110 = 2,481 m3

2.4 Mean oil outflow parameter OM 2.4.1 The non-dimensional mean oil outflow parameter OM is calculated as follows in accordance with paragraph 5.1 of regulation 21.

OM = (0.4 OMS + 0.6 OMB)/C (2.4.1) = (0.4 x 4,195 + 0.6 x 2,481 ) / 333,200 = 0.0095

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 4

Page 43

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2.4.2 For oil tanker of 5,000 metric tons deadweight and above, the required mean oil outflow parameter is calculated in accordance with paragraph 3.1 of regulation 21.

OM ≤ 0.015 (for C ≤ 200,000 m3) OM ≤ 0.012 + (0.003/200,000)(400,000 - C) (for 200,000 m3 < C < 400,000 m3) OM ≤ 0.012 (for C ≥ 400,000 m3)

Since C is equal to 333,200 m3, the required mean oil outflow parameter OM is as follows.

Required OM ≤ 0.012 + (0.003/200,000)(400,000 - 333,200) = 0.0130 Required OM, 0.0130 > actual OM, 0.0095

The vessel is therefore in compliance with the �Accidental oil outflow performance� regulation 21.

REFERENCES (1) Report of the IMO Comparative Study on Oil Tanker Design (MEPC 32/7/15) (2) Interim Guidelines for the approval of alternative methods of design and construction of

oil tankers under 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 adopted by MEPC.66(37) (3) Statistical Analysis of Classification Society Records for Oil tanker Collisions and

Groundings, Lloyds Register STD Report No. 2078-3-2

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 5

DRAFT REVISED MARPOL ANNEX I

This annex is contained in document BLG 8/18/Add.1.

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 6

WORLD MOVEMENT OF VEGETABLE OILS 1 As reported in paragraphs 9.5.23 to 9.5.24 of document MEPC 48/WP.8, MEPC 48 instructed ESPH 8 and BLG 8 to study the impact of the 3-category and the 5-category systems on, inter alia, the vegetable oil trade. Member Governments and international organizations with interest in the vegetable oil trade were requested to liaise with their appropriate industries in order to submit appropriate information to ESPH 8 and BLG 8. 2 In order to assist the Organization, IPTA has compiled a list of the major vegetable oils, in which both importers and exporters are have been compiled from data obtained from the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) and Cámara de la Industria Aceitera de la República Argentina (CIARA) 3 This information is shown in the following tables:

World movement of vegetable oils 1999/2001 (�000 MT)

World movement of animal fats and oils 1999/2001 (�000MT)

Oil 1999 2000 2001 Fat/Oil 1999 2000 2001

Palm Oil 13,868 15,004 17,371 Butter 603 703 674

Palm Kernel Oil 1,294 1,197 1,308 Tallow 2,343 2,242 2,115

Soyabean Oil 7,595 6,855 7,981 Fish Oil 716 832 718

Cottonseed Oil 199 216 232 Lard 212 200 156

Groundnut Oil 244 242 245 Sunflower Oil 2,950 3,088 2,318 Total 3,874 3,977 3,663

Rapeseed Oil 1,737 1,862 1,205

Corn Oil 690 755 704

Coconut Oil 1,046 2,036 2,106

Olive Oil 565 508 542

Castor Oil 237 277 256

Sesame Oil 23 26 25

Linseed Oil 148 126 112

Total 30,596 32,192 34,405


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Major exporters of palm oil 1999/2001 (�000 MT) Major importers of palm oil 1999/2001 (�000 MT)

Country 1999 2000 2001 Country 1999 2000 2001

Malaysia 8,914 9,081 10,618 China, P.R. 1,347 1,764 2,049Indonesia 3,319 4,140 4,800 EU 2,290 2,414 2,985

Pakistan 1,052 1,107 1,229Papua New Guinea 254 336 320 Egypt 511 524 564Cote D'Ivoire 105 110 124 India 3,257 3,677 3,507Colombia 90 86 121 Japan 365 373 376Singapore* 292 240 259 Malaysia 165 57 116Hong Kong* 94 158 187 Turkey 166 204 257Others 800 853 942 South Korea 172 200 220 Myanmar 225 202 227TOTAL 13,868 15,004 17,371 USA 143 165 171 Bangladesh 107 226 320 Indonesia 4 7 7 South Africa 169 195 290 Saudi Arabia 212 206 244 Kenya 214 213 218 Ex - USSR 151 142 202 Others 3,317 3,576 4,386 TOTAL 13,867 15,252 17,368

Major Exporters of Sunflower Oil 1998/2000 Major Importers of Sunflower Oil 1998/2000

Country 1998 1999 2000 Country 1998 1999 2000

Argentina 1,568 1,874 1,566 India 304 456 629Ex-USSR 113 61 568 Algeria 226 290 203USA 336 379 234 Iran 168 82 193Hungary 133 123 70 Egypt 163 279 187Rumania 102 100 52 Mexico 162 189 169Turkey 110 57 38 South Africa 152 126 126 Ex-USSR 279 234 103European Union 260 192 174 Turkey 158 132 98 Brazil 79 59 52Others 151 164 172 Yugoslavia 116 55 39 TOTAL

2,773

2,950 2,874

Guatemala 30 28 37

Chile 91 71 36 Poland 59 34 35 Switzerland 30 30 31 Colombia 31 18 30 Venezuela 33 26 26 Canada 15 24 25 Albania 20 20 23 Japan 13 10 23 Cuba 3 28 17 Singapore 12 14 13 Australia 8 5 10 Iraq 13 18 7 European

Union 185 241 115

Others 488 447 498

TOTAL

2,838 2,916 2,725

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 6

Page 3

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Major Exporters of Soya Bean Oil 1998/2000 Major Importers of Soya Bean Oil 1998/2000

Country 1998 1999 2000 Country 1998 1999 2000Argentina 2,464 3,016 2,989 India 369 902 813Brazil 1,367 1,552 1,073 Iran 819 921 730USA 1,464 883 596 China 1,624 804 352Iran 200 240 195 Bangladesh 336 516 496Malaysia 172 170 176 Ex-USSR 182 363 297Bolivia 104 89 154 Pakistan 287 334 163Paraguay 102 94 88 Venezuela 177 243 235Hong Kong 598 89 110 Morocco 165 259 280China 185 53 35 Hong Kong 653 187 206Singapore 26 37 28 Turkey 158 166 159European Union 1,085 1,113 1,061 Brazil 223 159 105Others 166 259 276 Tunisia 151 142 136 South Korea 65 135 135TOTAL 7,933 7,595 6,781 Colombia 139 125 143

Dominican Republic 96 110 103

Peru 169 114 108 Mexico 106 110 108 Algeria 80 15 25 Senegal 97 108 85 Chile 88 71 44 Poland 131 77 81 South Africa 62 67 52 Singapore 46 58 48 Others 1,435 1,588 1,748 TOTAL 7,658 7,574 6,652

Major Exporters of Rapeseed Oil 1998/2000 Major Importers of Rapeseed Oil 1998/2000

Country 1998 1999 2000 Country 1998 1999 2000Canada 741 701 839 USA 500 523 534Hong-Kong 270 57 173 Hong-Kong 328 111 290United States 156 101 121 China 424 98 170China 73 26 85 USSR 215 240 135Australia 41 43 40 India 181 200 105Malaysia 23 51 15 Canada 31 39 91Singapore 4 7 9 Mexico 119 75 66Czech Republic 22 16 8 Vietnam 23 45 36Poland 9 24 6 Tunisia 15 18 23European Union 853 666 461 Algeria 48 28 22Others 42 45 56 Singapore 17 13 13 Poland 24 32 10TOTAL 2,234 1,737 1,813 Morocco 38 6 9 Senegal 3 8 7 Ethiopia 2 3 2 European Union 7 9 6 Others 234 365 330 TOTAL 2,209 1,813 1,849


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Major Exporters of Coconut Oil 1998/2000

Major Importers of Coconut Oil 1998/2000

Country 1998 1999 2000 Country 1998 1999 2000 Philippines 1,179 479 1,022 USA 587 334 478Indonesia 444 350 735 Malaysia 62 53 116Malaysia 49 43 59 China PR 65 34 96Papua/N.Guinea 53 50 53 South Korea 39 41 44Vietnam 5 9 20 Ex-USSR 27 25 38Ivory Coast 18 14 14 Singapore 39 34 37Singapore 19 16 13 Japan 33 28 32USA 4 7 7 Mexico 24 9 19 Canada 13 15 14European Union 26 31 35 Australia 18 15 12Others 67 47 64 European Union 783 517 752 Others 285 51 247TOTAL 1,864 1,046 2,022 TOTAL 1,975 1,156 1,885

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 7

STATISTICS ON SHIP TYPING CRITERIA

1 The vast majority of internationally trading chemical tankers, built over the last 10 to 15 years, have been constructed so that all tanks are capable of carrying Type 2 products. Most internationally trading chemical tankers cross-trade in petroleum products and since the advent of OPA 90 and MARPOL regulation I/13F, it has been necessary for new vessels to have double hulls in order to carry these products. It has simply made commercial sense to maximise the flexibility of such vessels by building to Type 2 standard.

2 Many surveys of the chemical tanker fleet class all single-hulled chemical tankers as Type 3, but this fails to take into account the fact that a great many single-hulled chemical tankers have centre tanks constructed to Type 2 standard. On such vessels, typically some 55% of the cargo carrying capacity will be capable of carrying Type 2 products. 3 IPTA carried out a survey to gain an idea of how much cargo carrying capacity of each type is available within the internationally trading chemical tanker fleet. Data were collected on some 440 vessels with a total deadweight of nearly 10 million tonnes. The vessels ranged in age from 1 to 27 years and in size from 3,000 tonnes to 46,000 tonnes. They are operated by companies based in Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, Malaysia and Singapore and registered under 25 different flags. 4 Only around 10% of vessels currently trading internationally are pure Type 3. Around 50% are fully Type 2 and 40% fall into the category referred to earlier, i.e. centre tanks Type 2 and wing tanks Type 3, which for the sake of simplicity, are referred to as Type 2/3 (figures 1(a) and (b)). 5 If the oldest tonnage is eliminated, in 2007, the number of fully Type 2 ships will increased to around 60% (figures 2(a) and (b)). If we concentrate it still further, on vessels built since 1995, or those which will be 12 years old or less in 2007, the number of fully Type 2 vessels jumps to approximately 90% (figures 3(a) and (b)). 6 Only 26% of the tank space currently available on internationally trading vessels is restricted to Type 3 cargoes (figure 4). On vessels built since 1982 that percentage is reduced to 22% (figure 5), and on vessels built since 1995, less than 10% (figure 6). 7 At the beginning of 2002, approximately 250 chemical tankers, with a combined deadweight of over 7 million tonnes, were contracted for delivery within the next three years, in addition to the 88 ships, with a combined DWT of 2 million tonnes, delivered in 2001. As owners take advantage of softening building costs, especially in China, Republic of Korea and Japan, we can expect the order book to increase further. The vast majority, if not all, of these vessels will be built to Type 2 standard. 8 Based on these statistics: .1 the likelihood is that when the revisions to MARPOL Annex II come into force

less than one quarter of the cargo carrying capacity of the internationally trading fleet will be restricted to Type 3 cargoes.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Fig.1(b)Ship Types - Current by Deadweight

Type 310%

Type 2/340%

Type 250%

.2 We have examined the results of the GESAMP hazard profiles shown in document BLG 7/5/2 and calculate that of the 547 cargoes so far evaluated over 270, or around 50%, will still be able to be carried in Type 3 tanks.

.3 More important in this context than the number of products, however, is the

volume of cargo shipped. In document ESPH 7/3/2, CEFIC provided statistics on the major high volume products shipped annually in tankers, pointing out that the total volume of bulk liquids shipped annually under MARPOL Annex II is around 100 million tonnes. From this paper it can be seen that a mere 10 products make up some 46% of the total volume transported:

Methanol 10.19 million tonnes Molasses 7 � � MTBE 5.92 � � Caustic Soda 5 � � Phosphoric Acid 4 � � Sulphuric Acid 3.59 � � Ethylene glycol 3.47 � � Styrene 4.13 � � Benzene 2.02 � � Toluene 1.22 � �

.4 All these products would still be able to be carried in Type 3 tanks. If one adds all

the other products that it would be possible to carry in such tanks, it would seem fair to assume that well over 50% by volume of the total bulk liquids shipped annually could be carried in Type 3 space. This being the case, we would suggest that rather than there being a shortage of cargo to fill the available Type 3 space, it seems far more likely that large amounts of cargo that could be carried in Type 3 tanks would actually be carried in Type 2 tanks, as indeed is often the case at present, as this constitutes the majority of the cargo carrying capacity available.

Fig 1(a)Ship Types - Current by No. of Vessels

Type 39%

Type 2/340%

Type 251%

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 7

Page 3

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Fig. 2(a)Ship Types Vsls 25 Yrs old or less

in 2007 - No. of Vessels

Type 38%

Type 2/334%

Type 258%

Fig. 2(b)Ship Type Vsls 25 Yrs old or less

in 2007 - DWT

Type 39%

Type 2/330%

Type 261%

Fig3. (a)Ship Type Vsls 12 yrs old or less

in 2007 - No. of Vessels

Type 36%

Type 2/33%

Type 291%

Fig. 3(b)Ship Type Vsls 12 Yrs old or less

in 2007 - DWT

Type 39%

Type 2/32%

Type 289%

Fig. 4Capacity Tank Type - Current

Type 17%

Type 267%

Type 326%


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Fig. 5Tank Type Capacity on Vsls 25 Yrs old

or less in 2007

Type 14%

Type 274%

Type 322%

Fig. 6Tank Type Capacity on Vessels 12 Yrs old

or less in 2007

Type 15%

Type 286%

Type 39%

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 8

DRAFT REVISED MARPOL ANNEX II FOR 3-CATEGORY SYSTEM


***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 9

DRAFT REVISED MARPOL ANNEX II FOR 5-CATEGORY SYSTEM


***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 10

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE IGC CODE FOR MATTERS RELATING TO THE CARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR CARBON DIOXIDE

1 The Sub-Committee agreed, in principle, to the following table relating to the carriage requirements for carbon dioxide for eventual inclusion in a future set of draft amendments to chapter 19 of the IGC Code:

2 If the aforementioned draft amendments are approved by the Committees, the following exemptions for ships carrying carbon dioxide as cargo in a dedicated trade are anticipated to apply:

Paragraph Interpretation or application 3.1.2 A single A-0 bulkhead is sufficient.

5.2.1.4 Electrical bonding of piping and tanks is not required.

5.6.4 Fusible elements in the emergency shutdown system are not required.

10 Certified safe electrical equipment is not required.

11 This entire chapter is not applicable.

12.1.9 Safe placing and safe construction of electric fan motors is not required.

12.1.11 Protection screens in vent ducts is not required.

13.6 Applicable will be paragraphs: .13 and .14.

***

* Because of physical properties ** MFAG tables referred to in the IGC Code are no longer applicable, however, in order to be consistent with the

present IGC Code, the number is mentioned. In the future edition reference shall be made to the new MFAG.

a b c d e f g h I

Product name

UN

num

ber

Ship

Typ

e In

depe

nden

t tan

k

type

C re

quire

d C

ontro

l of V

apou

r sp

ace

with

in c

argo

tank

V

apou

r Det

ectio

n G

augi

ng

MFA

G ta

ble

No.

Special requirements

Carbon Dioxide 1013 3G Yes* - - C 620**

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 11

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE IBC AND IGC CODES

INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT OF SHIPS CARRYING DANGEROUS CHEMICALS IN BULK (IBC CODE)

Chapter 10 - Electrical installations

1 In paragraph 10.1.2.1, at the end of the first sentence, the following footnote is added:

�* Refer to the relevant standards of the International Electrotechnical Commission, in particular publication 60092-502: 1999�

2 In paragraph 10.1.3, the footnote at the end of the paragraph is deleted. 3 Paragraph 10.1.4 is replaced with the following:

�Electrical equipment, cables and wiring should not be installed in the hazardous locations unless it conforms with the standards not inferior to those acceptable to the Organization*. However, for locations not covered by such standards, electrical equipment, cables and wiring which do not conform to the standards may be installed in hazardous locations based on a risk assessment to the satisfaction of the Administration, to ensure that an equivalent level of safety is assured.�

__________ * Refer to the standards published by the International Electrotechnical

Commission, IEC 60092-502:1999 �Electrical installations in ships � Tankers�.� 4 In paragraph 10.1.6, the reference �10.2.2� in the last sentence is replaced by the words �for cargoes having a flashpoint not exceeding 60 °C�. 5 Existing paragraph 10.2 is deleted. 6 Existing paragraphs 10.3 and 10.4 are renumbered as paragraphs 10.2 and 10.3.

Chapter 11 � Fire protection and extinction 7 In paragraph 11.3.15, the text �referred to in 10.2� is replaced by �except as permitted by 10.1.4�.

Chapter 15 � Special requirements 8 In paragraph 15.3.10, the text �described in 10.2.3� is replaced by �if it conforms with 10.1.4�. 9 In paragraph 15.11.5, the references to �10.2.3.1, 10.2.3.2, 10.2.3.3, 10.2.3.4, 10.2.3.6 and 10.2.3.7� are replaced by �10.1.4�.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT OF SHIPS

CARRYING LIQUEFIED GASES IN BULK (IGC CODE)

Chapter 3 � Ship arrangements 1 In paragraph 3.6.4, the reference to �10.2.5.4� is replaced by �10.1.4�.

Chapter 10 - Electrical installations 2 In paragraph 10.1.2, at the end of the first sentence, the following footnote is added:

�* Refer to the relevant standards of the International Electrotechnical Commission, in particular publication 60092-502.�

3 In paragraph 10.1.3, the footnote at the end of the paragraph is deleted. 4 In paragraph 10.1.4, the words �when the exceptions listed in 10.2 are permitted� in the first sentence are deleted. 5 The following new sentence is added at the end of paragraph 10.1.4:

�Electrical equipment, cables and wiring should not be installed in hazardous locations unless it conforms with the standards not inferior to those acceptable to the Organization*. However, for locations not covered by such standards, electrical equipment, cables and wiring which do not conform to the standards may be installed in hazardous locations based on a risk assessment to the satisfaction of the Administration, to ensure that an equivalent level of safety is assured.�

__________

* Refer to the standards published by the International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 60092-502:1999 �Electrical installations in ships � Tankers�.�

6 Existing paragraph 10.2 is deleted.

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 12

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS TO MARPOL ANNEX I

U.I. 1.0.2 1 Insert the following new text:

�FPSOs and FSUs are not oil tankers and are not to be used for the transport of oil except that, with the specific agreement by the flag and relevant coastal States on a voyage basis, produced oil may be transported to port in abnormal and rare circumstances.�

U.I. 4.6.1 2 Delete existing text since content is replaced by the Guidelines for application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs and amend the heading of paragraph 4.6 to read as follows:

�Oil tankers used for the storage of dirty ballast�. Note: re-number existing UI 4.6.2 as �UI 4.6.1� U.I. 10.1 3 10 Requirements for fixed or floating platforms 10.1 Application of MARPOL 73/78 Delete existing text and insert the following in its place: �There are five categories of discharges that may be associated with the operation of fixed or floating platforms covered by this regulation when engaged in the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources, i.e.:

.1 machinery space drainage; .2 offshore processing drainage; .3 production water discharge; .4 displacement water discharge; and .5 contaminated sea water from operational purposes such as produced oil tank

cleaning water, produced oil tank hydrostatic testing water, water from ballasting of produced oil tank to carry out inspection by rafting.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Only the discharge of machinery space drainage and contaminated sea water should be subject to MARPOL 73/78 (see diagram shown in appendix 6).1� Appendix 6 4 Has been amended in accordance with revised U.I. 10.1. (Appendix 6 attached).

1 See appendix 6 to Unified Interpretations

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 12

Page 3

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

APPENDIX 6

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 13

DRAFT MEPC CIRCULAR

GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION OF MARPOL ANNEX I REQUIREMENTS TO FPSOs AND FSUs

1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its [forty-ninth session (14 to 18 July 2003)], recognizing the necessity to provide appropriate guidance for the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to floating production, storage and offloading facilities (FPSOs) used for the offshore production and storage of oil, and floating storage units (FSUs) used for the offshore storage of produced oil, approved the Guidelines for application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs, set out in the annex. 2 Member Governments are invited to use the annexed Guidelines when applying relevant provisions of MARPOL Annex I to FPSOs and FSUs and to bring them to the attention of all parties concerned.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX

GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION OF MARPOL ANNEX I

REQUIREMENTS TO FPSOS AND FSUS

1 The purpose of these Guidelines is to provide for uniform application of MARPOL Annex I to Floating Production, Storage and Offloading facilities (FPSOs) and Floating Storage Units (FSUs) that are used for the offshore production and storage or for offshore storage of produced oil. 2 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its [forty-ninth session (14 to 18 July 2003)], noted the complex issues involved in applying the requirements of MARPOL Annex I to FPSOs and FSUs, whose arrangements, functions and operations fall under the over-riding control of coastal States. 3 In addition, the Committee found that the role of FPSOs and FSUs in operation does not include transport of oil. Accordingly, FPSOs and FSUs are a form of floating platform and do not lie within the definition of oil tanker in MARPOL regulation I/1(4). They are therefore subject to the provisions of Annex I that relate to fixed and floating platforms, including regulation 21. 4 The Committee noted that the environmental hazards associated with the quantities of produced oil stored on board operational FPSOs and FSUs are similar to some of the hazards related to oil tankers and that relevant requirements of MARPOL Annex I in relation to oil tankers could be adapted to address those hazards in an appropriate manner. Based on the above and recognizing that these floating platforms are stationary when operating, the Committee recommends that coastal States, flag States and others associated with the design, construction and operation of FPSOs and FSUs apply the relevant MARPOL Annex I regulations in accordance with the annex to this Circular. References contained in the annex relate to MARPOL Annex I up to and including the amendments contained in resolution MEPC.95(46). 5 This Circular has been prepared with a view to providing the necessary guidance and interpretation information which may be specifically applicable to FPSOs and FSUs, and accordingly represents a single document describing the application of MARPOL Annex I to these floating platforms. 6 The provisions of this circular are for application to FPSOs and FSUs when located at their operating station. However they also take into account the abnormal and rare circumstances of:

.1 voyages for drydocking, repair or maintenance work; or .2 disconnection of the platform in extreme environmental or emergency conditions.

In either case, the FPSO/FSU should not transport oil to a port or terminal except with the specific agreement of the flag and relevant coastal States, obtained on a voyage basis. When undertaking any voyage away from the operating station, for whatever purpose, FPSOs and FSUs will be required to comply with the discharge provisions of MARPOL Annex I for oil tankers.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 13

Page 3

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

7 In order to avoid development of an entire new text from MARPOL Annex I attending to such terminology matters and notwithstanding the basis for these Guidelines outlined above, in any regulation indicated to apply to FPSOs and FSUs by the Guidelines at annex, the following interpretation of terminology should be used:

.1 �oil tanker� should be read as �FPSO or FSU�; .2 �carry� should be read as �hold�; .3 �cargo� should be read as �produced oil and oily mixtures�; and .4 �voyage� should be read to include �operations�.

8 Oil tanker requirements that are extended by the Guidelines to apply to FPSOs/FSUs are identified through the phrase �recommend application� or similar, while �applies� is used for requirements to be implemented irrespective of the contents of this circular. 9 The requirement for oil tankers to undergo the enhanced survey programme (resolution A.744(18)) was deleted from regulation I/13G of MARPOL by resolution MEPC.95(46) and its provisions have subsequently been solely given effect through Chapter XI-I of SOLAS. Since SOLAS does not apply to the vast majority of FPSOs and FSUs, which are permanently moored at their operating stations, the relevant oil tanker requirements of resolution A.744(18) have been included as one of the provisions of the Guidelines in order to ensure a satisfactory standard of structural integrity for FPSOs and FSUs. Reflecting the operational characteristics of FPSOs and FSUs, the Guidelines also make provision for limited departure from A.744(18) in respect of acceptance of in-water surveys under conditions which do not compromise safety and pollution prevention. 10 It is recommended that contracting Governments give effect to the provisions of this Circular to FPSOs and FSUs as soon as practicable, but not later than [two years after date of approval of this Circular] for construction or conversion contracts placed on or after that date. In the absence of a building or conversion contract, the keel laying date for purpose-built new-construction FPSOs and FSUs or the commencement date of a ship�s conversion should be used. FPSOs and FSUs contracted, built or converted prior to that date need not be upgraded in accordance with the provisions of the circular. 11 In implementing the provisions of this circular, Member Governments are invited to use and recognize the Record of Construction and Equipment for FPSOs and FSUs at Annex 2 in place of Forms A and B appended to Annex I of the Convention. 12 The Committee noted that most operations of FPSOs and FSUs are different from other ships covered by Annex I and, recognizing that the coastal State has jurisdiction over fixed and floating platforms operating in waters under its jurisdiction, Member Governments may find it necessary to depart from the provisions of this Circular. Accordingly, the Committee invites Member Governments to advise the Organization of their experience in applying this Circular so that it can be taken into account if future amendments to this Circular are deemed necessary.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 1

RECOMMENDED PROVISIONS OF MARPOL AND ANNEX I FOR

APPLICATION TO FPSOS AND FSUS

Article Subject Basis of Application Art. 2(3)(b)(ii) Def. Discharge In accordance with Reg. 21 and UI 10.1, produced water, offshore

processing drainage and displacement water are not included in the meaning of discharge.

Art. 2(4) Def. Ship FPSOs/FSUs are �fixed or floating platforms� and are therefore included in this definition.

Regulation Subject Basis of Application 1(1)-(3) Defs. Oil, Oily

mixture, Oil fuel Applies

1(4) Def. Oil tanker FPSOs/FSUs are adapted primarily for a purpose other than to carry (transport) oil and are therefore excluded from this definition.

1(5) Def. Combination carrier

Not applicable for same reasons as 1(4).

1(6)-(7) Defs. New ship, Existing ship

Applies

1(8) Def. Major conversion

Not generally applicable. Conversion of an oil tanker or combination carrier to an FPSO/FSU and vice versa should not be considered to be a major conversion. Similarly, alterations or modifications required for an existing FPSO/FSU to move to another field should not be considered a major conversion.

1(9)-(10) Defs. Nearest land, Special area

Applies

1(11) Def. Instantaneous rate of discharge of oil

Not applicable to FPSO/FSU at operating station as this definition applies when the ship is under way (refer regs. 9(1)(a)(iv) and 15(3)(a)) .

1(12)-(25) Defs. (Various) Applies. 1(26)-(27) Defs. New oil

tanker, Existing oil tanker

Not applicable

1(28) Def. Crude oil Applies 1(29)-(30) Defs. Crude oil

tanker, Product carrier

Not applicable

1(31) Def. Anniversary date

Applies

2(1) Application Applicable

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 13

Page 5

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Regulation Subject Basis of Application 2(2)-(3) Application Not applicable as the scope of application of these Guidelines is for

FPSOs and FSUs when located at their normal operational station, including where appropriate temporary disconnection from the riser at the operating station for the minimum period necessary to ensure the safety of the vessel in extreme environmental or emergency conditions.

2(4) � Any Administration using this clause in relation to FPSOs/FSUs would need to justify such use in relation to the terms of clause (a) and in accordance with the requirements of clause (c).

3(1)-(2) Equivalents Applies 4(1)-(4) Surveys &

inspections Applies. Notwithstanding whether SOLAS�74 applies to an FPSO/FSU, surveys of FPSOs and FSUs should be conducted to the standard specified for oil tankers in SOLAS�74 regulation 11-2, except for the provisions of 2.2 of Annex B to resolution A.744(18) as amended in relation to dry-dock survey. The coastal and flag States may accept bottom survey of the ship afloat instead of in dry-dock when the conditions are satisfactory and the proper equipment and suitably qualified personnel are available.

5(1)-(3) Issue of certificate

IOPP Certificate should be issued unless flag and coastal States have other means of certificating/documenting compliance

6(1)-(4) Issue of certificate by another Government

Applicable

7 Form of certificate

Applicable. When completing the IOPP certificate, FPSOs�/FSUs� �type of ship� should be shown as �ship other than any of the above� and this entry should be annotated with �FPSO� or �FSU� together with details of operational location. Record of Construction and Equipment for FPSOs and FSUs given at Annex 2 should be used for the IOPP Supplement. Where this is done Form A or Form B required by the Convention need not be provided

8 Duration of certificate

Applicable

8A Port State control on operational requirements

Applies to FPSO/FSU at its operating station, recognizing that under Art. 2(5) and UNCLOS Arts. 56 and 60, the coastal State exercises sovereign rights for the purposes of exploration and exploitation of their natural resources. However, port State control powers are applicable at other times such as if the FPSO/FSU voyages to a port in another State for maintenance purposes.

9(1)(a) Control of discharge of oil

Recommended application whenever the FPSO/FSU is not at its operating station.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Regulation Subject Basis of Application 9(1)(b) � In accordance with Reg. 21 and UI 10.1, applies only to machinery

space discharges and contaminated sea water from operational purposes such as produced oil tank cleaning water, produced oil tank hydrostatic testing water, water from ballasting of produced oil tank to carry out inspection by rafting. Since FPSOs/FSUs and other fixed and floating platforms cannot comply with 9(1)(b)(ii) when operating on station then these oils and oily mixtures may, with the agreement of the coastal State:

a. be sent ashore; b. be incinerated; c. have water separated and discharged if not exceeding

15ppm oil content under 9(4); d. be discharged in accordance with this clause subject to

waiver of the en route requirement; e. be added to the production stream; or f. be treated using a combination of these methods.

9(2)-(7) � Applies 10(1)-(2) Methods for the

prevention of oil pollution from ships while operating in special areas

Applies

10(3) Methods for the prevention of oil pollution from ships while operating in special areas

Applicable, but FPSOs/FSUs cannot comply with (3)(b)(iii) when operating on station. This requirement should be handled consistent with 9(1)(b) above. Coastal State may issue dispensation from (3)(b)(iii) where satisfied that this dispensation does not prejudice the environment.

10(4)-(6) � Applies 10(7)-(8) � FPSOs/FSUs should not be considered as offshore terminals and

should not receive dirty ballast or slops from offload tankers 11 Exceptions Applies 12(1)-(5) Reception

facilities FPSOs/FSUs should not be considered as offshore terminals and should not receive dirty ballast or slops from offload tankers

13(1)-(11) Segregated ballast tanks, dedicated clean ballast tanks and crude oil washing

Recommend application subject to the conditions listed for 13(2) and (3).

13(2) � Not applicable, but FPSO/FSU should have sufficient ballast capacity to meet stability and strength requirements in design and operational conditions of loading

13(3) � Recommend application noting that there should normally be separation between ballast and produced oil (crude) tanks and pumping systems, but temporary cross-connection may be permitted for the duration of transfer operations. In such exceptional cases where sea water is introduced into produced oil tanks for the operational purposes listed above in relation to 9(1)(b), it should be dealt with as provided for under that clause.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 13

Page 7

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Regulation Subject Basis of Application

13A(1)-(4) Requirements for oil tankers with dedicated clean ballast tanks

Recommend application similar to 13(1)-(11)

13B(1)-(2) Requirements for crude oil washing

COW system should be fitted unless produced oil characteristics are not suitable for COW

13B(3) � For safety reasons, inert gas must be fitted in conjunction with any COW system

13B(4) � Recommended application to any produced oil tanks used for water ballast as water ballast is subject to different discharge requirements than produced water.

13B(5) � COW O&E Manual is to be provided for any COW system fitted 13C Existing tankers

engaged in specific trades

Not applicable

13D(1) Existing oil tankers having special ballast arrangements

Recommend application to meet 13(2) and 13(3) as modified by these Guidelines

13D(2) � Recommended application consistent with 13(3) and 13B(4) as modified by these Guidelines.

13D(3) � Not applicable. 13E(1)-(4) Protective

location of segregated ballast spaces

Not applicable. Refer 13F(3)(a) for corresponding provisions in relation to both new purpose-built FPSOs/FSUs and other non-purpose-built FPSOs/FSUs.

13F(1)-(9) Prevention of oil pollution in the event of collision

Not applicable, except as detailed below

13 F(3)(a) & (f) Prevention of oil pollution in the event of collision

Recommend application to new purpose-built FPSOs/FSUs so as to provide protection against relatively low-energy collision (NOTE: Appropriate measures should also be taken for other FPSOs/FSUs to address this collision hazard)

13F(5) � Applicable to the extent that the Guidelines referred to can be used to demonstrate equivalency with 13F(3)(a) and (f) as modified above.

13F(8) � Recommend application to new construction purpose built FPSOs/FSUs and other FPSOs/FSUs which are arranged with a fore peak or collision bulkhead. Similarly, oil should not be held in integral tanks located at the stern in FPSOs/FSUs which may offload to a tanker moored astern or alongside of the FPSO/FSU.

13F(9) � Recommend application to new construction purpose built FPSOs/FSUs and other FPSOs/FSUs which may be modified to meet this regulation.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Regulation Subject Basis of Application 13G (1)-(8) (as amended by Res.MEPC.95(46))

Prevention of oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding � Measures for existing tankers

Not applicable.

14(1)-(3) Segregation of oil and water ballast and carriage of oil in forepeak tanks

Applies

14(4) � Applies to FPSOs/FSUs which are capable of disconnecting from the riser at the operating station as collision bulkhead requirement is in SOLAS rather than MARPOL. This principle is also relevant to stern collision as per 13 F(8).

14(5) � Applies with regard to extending the principles of 14(4) to all other FPSOs/FSUs

15(1)-(2) Retention of oil on board

Applies

15(3) (Oily discharge monitoring equipment)

Applies only to tank cleanings and contaminated sea water (refer Art 2(3)(b)(ii), Reg 21 and UI 10.1) and should be read in light of Reg.9. Not required where all oily mixtures are discharged to shore.

15(4) � Recommend application if FPSO/FSU is less than 150gt. 15(5)

� Recommend application in order to sanction the waiver arrangements outlined in 15(3), eg. for operations within special areas (15(5)(b)(ii)(1)) in compliance with 15(5)(b)(ii)(3) to (6). Transfer of oily mixtures to offload tankers for discharge ashore is acceptable within this waiver.

15(6)-(7) � Not applicable.

16 Oil discharge monitoring and control system and oil filtering equipment

Applicable subject to applicable provisions of Reg. 9. For reasons of practicality, the equipment need not be fitted provided the machinery space discharges are disposed of in accordance with options a, b, d or e in relation to regulation 9(1)(b). A waiver may be issued under 16(3)(a), where all oily mixtures are discharged either ashore or into production stream.

17 Tanks for oil residues (sludge)

Applicable

18(1) Pumping, piping and discharge arrangements of oil tankers

Applies, except that manifold is to be provided in at least one position on the FPSO/FSU.

18(2) � Not applicable for FPSOs. 18(3)-(6) � Recommend application, particularly for management of

contaminated sea as per reg.13(3).

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 13

Page 9

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Regulation Subject Basis of Application 19 Standard

discharge connection

Applicable.

20(1)-(7) Oil record book Part I to be applied. Part II should be applied in principle as part of oil production management system when on station, noting that this function must be complied with on voyage.

21 Special requirements for fixed or floating platforms

Applies subject to UI 10.1.

22(1)-(2) Damage assumptions

Recommend application with regard to side damage only. It is recommended that protective measures, such as fendering, be used to minimize side impact damage such as that which might be experienced during offloading and supply vessel berthing operations. Such protection, however, should not be considered to reduce the minimum transverse extent of side penetration damage.

23(1)-(5) Hypothetical outflow of oil

Recommend application for side damages only in accordance with 22 above.

24(1)-(6) Limitation of size and arrangement of cargo tanks

Recommend application based on 22 and 23 above.

25(1)-(5) Subdivision and stability

Recommend application only in respect of side damage in accordance with 22 above.

25A Intact Stability Recommend application 26(1)-(3) SOPEP Applies. However, contingency plan in accordance with

requirements of OPRC Art 3(2) may be accepted under UI 12.2.1 as meeting this requirement. In such cases a separate SOPEP in accordance with the MARPOL format is not required. This acceptance of the contingency plan does not apply to a disconnectable FPSO/FSU unless that plan remains applicable when the FPSO/FSU is not connected to the riser.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 2

RECORD OF CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT FOR FPSOs AND FSUs

In respect of the provisions of MEPC Circ� �Guidelines for application of MARPOL Annex I1 requirements to FPSOs and FSUs�, hereafter referred to as the �Guidelines�. Notes: 1 This form should be used for Floating Production Storage and Offloading facilities

(FPSOs) and Floating Storage Units (FSUs) to which regulation 21 of Annex I of the Convention applies.

2 This Record should be permanently attached to the IOPP Certificate. The IOPP

Certificate should be available on board the ship at all times. 3 If the language of the original Record is neither English nor French nor Spanish, the text

should include a translation into one of these languages. 4 Entries in boxes shall be made by inserting either a cross (x) for the answers "yes" and

"applicable" or a dash (-) for the answers "no" and "not applicable" as appropriate. 5 Unless otherwise stated, regulations mentioned in this Record refer to regulations of

Annex I of the Convention as implemented under the Guidelines and resolutions refer to those adopted by the International Maritime Organization.

1. Particulars of ship 1.1 Name of ship ..��......��

1.2 Distinctive number or letters ��

1.3 IMO number (if applicable) ��..

1.4 Port of registry. (if applicable)��.��..

1.5 Gross tonnage.. (if applicable)��..��.

1.6 Produced liquids holding capacity of ship ��.��..��. (m3)

1.7 Deadweight of ship ��.. (tonnes) (regulation 1.22)

1.8 Length of ship ��.��.(m) (regulation 1.18)

1.9 Operating station (lat.long)��.

1.10 Coastal State��

1.11 Date of build:

1.11.1 Date of building contract ��

1.11.2 Date on which keel was laid or ship was at a similar stage of construction .��.��.

1 Annex I of International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the

Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, hereafter referred to as the �Convention�.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 13

Page 11

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

1.11.3 Date of delivery ..............................��.�

1.12 Conversion to FPSO/FSU(if applicable):

1.12.1 Date of conversion contract.....................��.

1.12.2 Date on which conversion was commenced .......��.�� 2. Equipment for the control of oil discharge from machinery space bilges and

oil fuel tanks (regulations 10 and 16)

2.1 Carriage of ballast water in oil fuel tanks: 2.1.1 The ship may under normal conditions carry ballast water in oil fuel tanks □ 2.2 Type of oil filtering equipment fitted: 2.2.1 Oil filtering (15 ppm) equipment □

(regulation 16(4)) 2.2.2 Oil filtering (15 ppm) equipment with alarm and automatic stopping device

(regulation 16(5)) □

2.3 Approval standards :*

2.3.1 The separating/filtering equipment:

.1 has been approved in accordance with resolution A.393(X); □

.2 has been approved in accordance with resolution MEPC.60(33); □

.3 has been approved in accordance with resolution A.233(VII); □

.4 has been approved in accordance with national standards not based upon resolutions A.393(X) or A.233(VII) □

.5 has not been approved □ 2.3.2 The process unit has been approved in accordance with resolution A.444(XI) □

2.3.3 The oil content meter :

.1 has been approved in accordance with resolution A.393(X); □

.2 has been approved in accordance with resolution MEPC.60(33); □ 2.4 Maximum throughput of the system is ..........�� m3/h

* Refer to the Recommendation on international performance and test specifications of oily-water separating

equipment and oil content meters adopted by the Organization on 14 November 1977 by resolution A.393(X), which superseded resolution A.233(VII); see IMO sales publication IMO-608E. Further reference is made to the Guidelines and specifications for pollution prevention equipment for machinery space bilges adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the Organization by resolution MEPC.60(33), which, effective on 6 July 1993, superseded resolutions A.393(X) and A.444(XI); see IMO sales publication IMO-646E.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

2.5 Waiver of regulation 16:

2.5.1 The requirements of regulations 16(1) and 16(2) are waived in respect of the ship:

.1 As the ship is provided with adequate means for disposal of oily residues in accordance with the Guidelines □

.2 In accordance with regulation 16(3)(a) the ship is engaged exclusively

in operations within special area(s): □ Name of special area(s)��

2.5.2 The ship is fitted with holding tank(s) for the total retention on board of all oily bilge water as follows: □

Tank location Tank

identification Frames

(from) - (to) Lateral position

Volume (m3)

Total volume: ......��..m3

3. Means for retention and disposal of oil residues (sludge)(regulation 17)

and bilge water holding tank(s)* 3.1 The ship is provided with oil residue (sludge) tanks as follows:

Tank location

Tank



Volume (m3)


3.2 Means for the disposal of residues in addition to the provisions of sludge tanks :

3.2.1 Incinerator for oil residues, capacity .....��... l/h □

3.2.2 Auxiliary boiler suitable for burning oil residues □

3.2.3 Tank for mixing oil residues with fuel oil, capacity ........ m3 □

3.2.4 Facility for adding oil residues to production stream □

3.2.5 Other acceptable means: ��.. □ * Bilge water holding tank(s) are not required by the Convention, entries in the table under paragraph 3.3 are

voluntary.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 13

Page 13

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

3.3 The ship is provided with holding tank(s) for the retention on board of oily bilge water as follows:

Tank location

Tank



Volume (m3)


4. Standard discharge connection

(regulation 19)

4.1 The ship is provided with a pipeline for the discharge of residues from machinery bilges and sludges to reception facilities, fitted with a discharge connection □ 5. Construction

(regulation 13, 24 and 25) 5.1 In relation to the application of regulation 13, the ship is:

5.1.1 Provided with SBT □

5.1.2 Provided with COW □

5.1.3 Provided with sufficient ballast capacity to meet stability and strength requirements □

5.1.4 Provided with CBT □

5.2 Segregated ballast tanks (SBT):

5.2.1 The ship is provided with SBT consistent with regulation 13 □

5.2.2 The ship is provided with SBT which includes tanks or spaces not used for oil outboard of all produced oil tanks □

5.2.3 SBT are distributed as follows:

Tank Volume (m3) Tank Volume (m3)

Total volume .........m3

5.3 Dedicated clean ballast tanks (CBT):

5.3.1 The ship is provided with CBT consistent with regulation 13A □


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

5.3.2 CBT are distributed as follows:

Tank Volume (m3) Tank Volume (m3)

Total volume . ......... .m3

5.3.3 The ship has been supplied with a valid Dedicated Clean Ballast Tank Operation

Manual, which is dated ��....��.. □

5.3.4 The ship has common piping and pumping arrangements for ballasting the CBT and handling produced oil □

5.3.5 The ship has separate independent piping and pumping arrangements for ballasting the CBT □ 5.4 Crude oil washing (COW) :

5.4.1 The ship is equipped with a COW system □

5.4.2 The ship is equipped with a COW system consistent with regulation 13B □

5.4.3 The ship has been supplied with a valid Crude Oil Washing Operations and Equipment Manual which is dated ��.. □

5.5 Limitation of size and arrangements of produced oil tanks (regulation 24):

5.5.1 The ship is constructed according to the provisions of regulation 24 □ 5.6 Subdivision and stability (regulation 25):

5.6.1 The ship is constructed consistent with regulation 25 □

5.6.2 Information and data required under regulation 25(5) have been supplied to the ship in an approved form □

5.6.3 The ship is constructed consistent with regulation 25A □ 5.7 Double-hull/side construction: 5.7.1 The ship is constructed consistent with regulation 13F as follows:

.1 paragraph (3) (double-hull construction) □

.2 paragraph 3(a) and (3)(f) (double sides) □

.3 paragraph (5) (alternative method approved by the Marine Environment Protection Committee) □

5.7.2 The ship is constructed consistent with regulation 13F(7) (double bottom requirements) □

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 13

Page 15

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

6. Retention of oil on board (regulation 15)

6.1 Oil discharge monitoring and control system:

6.1.1 The ship comes under category. ......... .oil tanker as defined in resolution A.496(XII) or A.586(14)∗ (delete as appropriate) □

6.1.2 The system comprises: .1 control unit □ .2 computing unit □ .3 calculating unit □

6.1.3 The system is: .1 fitted with a starting interlock □ .2 fitted with automatic stopping device □

6.1.4 The oil content meter is approved under the terms of resolution A.393(X) or A.586(14)� (delete as appropriate) suitable for crude oil □

6.1.5 The ship has been supplied with an operations manual for the oil discharge monitoring and control system □

6.2 Slop tanks:

6.2.1 The ship is provided with ....... dedicated slop tank(s) with the total capacity of ......... m3, which is. .... % of the oil carrying capacity, in accordance with: .1 regulation 15(2)(c) □ .2 regulation 15(2)(c)(i) □ .3 regulation 15(2)(c)(ii) □

6.2.2 Produced oil tanks have been designated as slop tanks □ 6.3 Oil/water interface detectors:

6.3.1 The ship is provided with oil/water interface detectors approved under the terms of resolution MEPC.5 (Xlll) □

6.4 Waiver of regulation :

6.4.1 The requirements of regulation 15(3) are waived in respect of the ship as follows:

.1 The ship is engaged exclusively in operations within special area(s) (regulation 15(5)(6)). □

Name of special area(s)��

∗ FPSOs and FSUs the keels of which are laid, or which are at a similar stage of construction, on or after 2 October

1986 should be fitted with a system approved under resolution A.586(14); see IMO sales publication IMO-646E. � For oil content meters installed on tankers built prior to 2 October 1986, refer to the Recommendation on

international performance and test specifications for oily-water separating equipment and oil content meters adopted by the Organization by resolution A.393(X). For oil content meters as part of discharge monitoring and control systems installed on tankers built on or after 2 October 1986, refer to the Guidelines and specifications for oil discharge monitoring and control systems for oil tankers adopted by the Organization by resolution A.586(14); see IMO sales publications IMO-608E and IMO-646E, respectively.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.2 The ship is provided with adequate means of disposal of contaminated sea water

a. sent ashore □ b. incinerated □ c. added to the production stream □

7. Pumping, piping and discharge arrangements

(regulation 18)

7.1 The overboard discharge outlets for segregated ballast are located:

7.1.1. Above the waterline □

7.1.2 Below the waterline □ 7.2 The overboard discharge outlets, other than the discharge manifold, for clean

ballast are located�:

7.2.1 Above the waterline □

7.2.2 Below the waterline □ 7.3 The overboard discharge outlets, other than the discharge manifold, for dirty

ballast water or oil-contaminated water from produced oil tank areas are located:

7.3.1 Above the waterline □

7.3.2 Below the waterline in conjunction with the part flow arrangements consistent with regulation 18(6)(e) □

7.3.3 Below the waterline □ 7.4 Discharge of oil from produced oil pumps and oil lines (regulation 18(4) and (5)):

7.4.1 Means to drain all produced oil pumps and oil lines at the completion of produced oil discharge:

.1 drainings capable of being discharged to a produced oil tank or slop tank □

.2 for discharge a special small-diameter line is provided □ 8. Shipboard oil pollution emergency plan

(regulation 26)

8.1 The ship is provided with a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan in compliance with regulation 26(1) □

8.2 The ship is provided with an oil pollution emergency plan approved in accordance with procedures established by �.�� as the coastal State in compliance with the unified interpretation of regulation 26(1) □

8.3 The ship is provided with a contingency plan in accordance with requirements of OPRC Art 3(2) accepted in accordance with regulation 26 □

� Only those outlets which can be monitored are to be indicated

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 13

Page 17

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

9. Surveys 9.1 Records of surveys in accordance with A.744(18), as amended maintained onboard □ 9.2 In-water surveys in lieu of dry-docking authorized as per documentation �� □ 10. Equivalents 10.1 Equivalents have been approved by the Administration for certain requirements

of the guidelines on those items listed under paragraph(s) ��.. ��..��. of this Record □

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that this Record is correct in all respects.

Issued at ��.. (Place of issue of the Record) ��

(Signature of duly authorized official issuing the Record)

(Seal or stamp of the issuing authority, as appropriate)

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 14

DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR

REVISED MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR SHIPS CARRYING LIQUIDS IN BULK CONTAINING BENZENE

1 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its sixty-first session (7 to 11 December 1992), recognized that chronic exposure to very low concentrations of benzene vapours in air, of the order of a few parts per million, may cause leukaemia. 2 The Committee, at its sixty-sixth session (28 May to 6 June 1996), desiring to protect the health of seafarers and to keep it at a level similar to that of shore-based workers engaged in similar tasks, approved MSC/Circ.752, by means of which it: .1 approved minimum safety standards for ships carrying mixtures the benzene

content of which is 0.5 per cent or more; and .2 invited Member Governments to apply the standards as soon as possible. 3 The Committee, at its [seventy-seventh session (28 May to 6 June 2003)], noting that the diseases caused by above mentioned exposure were still a source of great concern, agreed that MSC/Circ.752 was in need of revision, in particular concerning cargo operation, which pose the largest risk of crew exposure to vapours from the products carried, and approved revised consolidated operational requirements attached as follows: Annex Minimum safety standards for ships carrying liquids in bulk containing

benzene; Appendix Example of precautions to be given to the crew in connection with loading

and gas freeing operations. 4 Member Governments are invited to apply the annexed Revised minimum safety standards for ships carrying liquids in bulk containing benzene, including precautions to be given to the crew in connection with loading and gas freeing operations appended thereto as soon as possible. 5 MSC/Circ.752 is hereby revoked.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX

REVISED MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR SHIPS CARRYING LIQUIDS IN

BULK CONTAINING BENZENE

Chronic exposure to very low concentrations of benzene vapours in air may inter-alia cause leukaemia. In order to protect the health of seafarers to the same level as that of shore-based workers performing comparable tasks, measures should be taken for all ships carrying bulk liquids containing benzene the content of which is 0.5 per cent or more by mass. Such measures should include the following: 1 Information to the master 1.1 Prior to loading, the shipper should provide both to the master and the Company, as defined in the ISM Code, a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) formatted in accordance with MSC resolution [�], for cargoes containing benzene. 1.2 The cargoes that may contain benzene are, for example, the cargoes listed in Appendix I to Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, and the following bulk liquids: .1 benzene and benzene mixtures; .2 naphtha, varnish makers and paints(75%); and .3 white spirit. 2 Information to the crew 2.1 It is the responsibility of the master and the Company, as defined in the ISM Code, that the crew is made aware of any work situation that may impose a risk to their health. The crew should be informed of relevant safety precautions prior to cargo operations. 2.2 The Appendix gives an example of precautions to be given to the crew in connection with loading and gas-freeing operations. 3 Occupational exposure limits1 3.1 Crewmember exposure to airborne concentrations of benzene vapours should be within the following limits: .1 a Time Weighted Average (TWA) of one part of benzene per million parts of air

by volume (1 ppm), over an eight-hour period, which covers the time a person is assumed to work in any 24-hour period; and

.2 a Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) of five parts of benzene per million parts of

air (5 ppm) over any 15 min period.

1 Refer to the latest editions of the Tanker Safety Guide (Chemicals) (ICS) and the International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers & Chemicals

(ISGOTT) ( ICS, OCIMF and IAPH).

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 14

Page 3

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

4 Air quality monitoring 4.1 The airborne concentration of benzene vapour should be measured by a trained2 and properly protected person with an approved instrument, before any crew member is authorized to work in a given area. Such measuring should be continued whilst there is a risk of exposure to benzene vapours. 4.2 Alternative methods giving the same degree of safety may also be considered acceptable. 5 Personal protection .1 Safety equipment

Ships carrying mixtures the benzene content of which is 0.5 per cent or more should carry safety equipment equivalent to what is required in paragraph 14.2 of the IBC Code.

.2 Equipment for cargo operations on deck Whenever direct or representative measurements indicate that the exposure limits

are exceeded during normal cargo handling operations,3 crew required to work in the affected area should wear appropriate respiratory equipment to be used in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. Such equipment is indicated below,4 however the crewmember may select a higher level of protection:

.1 Half face piece: in areas where the airborne concentration of benzene

vapours is expected to exceed 1 ppm but not more than 10 ppm; .2 Full face (filter) piece with cartridge: in areas where the airborne

concentration of benzene vapours is expected to exceed 10 ppm but not more than 50 ppm;

.3 Air supplied respirators: in areas where the airborne concentration of

benzene vapours is expected to exceed 50 ppm, but not more than 100 ppm;

.4 Pressure demand breathing apparatus and full protective clothing,

resistant to chemical attack5: in areas where the airborne concentration of benzene is expected to be greater than 100 ppm; and

.5 Personal protective equipment: eye protection, impervious gloves and a

protective apron should be readily available to crew members while sampling and gauging or when skin contact with the cargo is likely.

2 See also paragraph 8 3 These recommendations regarding air purifying masks apply to operational uses of respiratory equipment for the purposes of protection during

normal cargo handling operations and are not to be confused with those provisions specified in 14.2.8 of the IBC Code. 4 There are existing standards for respiratory protection equipment. These standards include: American National Standard for Respiratory Protection (ANSI Z88.2 � 1992). British Standard for Respiratory Protection Devices, Valved Filtering Half Masks to Protect Against Gases or Gases and Particles (BS EN

405: 1993). 5 Refer to SOLAS regulation II/2-19


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

6 Maintenance of equipment for personal protection The equipment for personal protection should be maintained and replaced in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions and in accordance with paragraph 14.2.6 of the IBC Code. Maintenance records should be kept on board. 7 Entering into enclosed spaces Explicit instructions6 from the master or a responsible officer are required before any entry into enclosed spaces. The hazards likely to be encountered should be evaluated and it should be ensured that all precautionary measures are taken. It should also be ensured that a responsible person is in attendance during the period of entry and while the space is occupied. 8 Training7 Crewmembers who might be exposed to benzene vapours should be given proper training, which should include:

.1 the respiratory hazard and the effect on the wearer if the respirator is not used

properly; .2 the engineering and administrative controls being used and the need for respirators

to provide protection; .3 the reason for selecting a particular type of respirator; .4 the function, capabilities, and limitations of the selected respirator; and .5 the method of donning the respirator and checking that it fits and is operational.

9 Medical monitoring Crewmembers potentially exposed to benzene vapour inhalation should be submitted to a programme of regular suitable medical checks on their health. The results of such checks should be kept on record under normal confidential practices in the medical profession. 10 Ship/shore connections Prior to disconnecting, efficient and complete draining* and purging of all pipes, hoses and hard arms used for cargo handling should be ensured. 11 Precautions during cargo operations Cargo loading, tank cleaning and gas freeing are those procedures on board a tanker that expose the crew to the largest risk of exposure to vapours from the products carried, both in the accommodation and on open deck. It is therefore essential during these operations that all:

6 Refer to Recommendations for entering enclosed spaces aboard ships, adopted by the Organization by resolution A.864(20). 7 Refer to the provisions of the International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as

amended in 1995, and in particular to the �Mandatory minimum requirements for the training and qualifications of masters, officers and ratings on tankers� � regulation V/1 of the annex to that Convention � and to section A-V/1 of the STCW Code (paragraphs 15 to 21).

* Note: In accordance with MARPOL regulation II/7(3), drainage back into the cargo tanks is not allowed

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 14

Page 5

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.1 openings to the accommodation are closed or battened down; .2 ventilation in the accommodation is either re-circulated or shut down; and .3 work on deck follows the provisions given in paragraph 5.2 of this circular. 12 Controlled tank venting system 12.1 Vapours displaced from the tank during loading, tank cleaning, tank breathing and gas freeing should be emitted through a controlled tank venting system complying with either SOLAS regulation II-2/16.3.2, or paragraph 8.3.2 of the IBC Code, or paragraph 2.14.2 of the BCH Code, as applicable. 12.2 Whenever a vapour emission control system is available ashore, vapours displaced from the tank during loading should be returned to that system (vapour return). 13 Cargo measurements and sampling All cargo related measurements (e.g. ullage, temperature and sampling) should be carried out in a closed mode to minimize the risk of exposing the crew and shore personnel to harmful vapours. When this is not possible, personal protection equipment should be worn. 14 Contaminated clothes Working clothes should not be brought into the accommodation. Therefore whenever possible, all working clothes should be removed and put in designated lockers prior to the crew entering the accommodation. The IBC Code, chapter 14, and the BCH code, paragraph 3.16, deals extensively with personnel protection, including storage of protective equipment and working clothes.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

APPENDIX

EXAMPLE OF PRECAUTIONS TO BE GIVEN TO THE CREW IN CONNECTION

WITH LOADING AND GAS-FREEING OPERATIONS 1 All doors leading from the outside to the accommodation and to the engine room shall be closed and kept closed during these operations. Only one door on the windward side/nearest to the cargo control room is to be used as an access.∗ 2 All doors inside the accommodation shall be kept closed during the operation. 3 The ventilation to the accommodation shall be stopped/re-circulated and the fire flaps kept closed*. 4 Vapour concentrations on deck shall be measured prior to any work being undertaken. 5 The crew working on deck shall wear appropriate protective equipment. 6 Only work related to cargo handling is allowed on deck. 7 Presence of personnel in the engine room shall be kept to a minimum during these operations. 8 Bring no working clothes into the accommodation.

***

∗ To be modified to the actual ship.

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 15

DRAFT MSC RESOLUTION

RECOMMENDATION FOR MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS FOR MARPOL ANNEX I CARGOES AND MARINE FUEL OILS

THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 28(b) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Committee, RECALLING ALSO that, at its seventy-sixth session, approved the Recommendation for the use of a standard format for the cargo information required by chapter 16 of the IBC Code set [(MSC/MEPC circular)], BEARING IN MIND that there are currently no mandatory requirements for occupational health and safety information relating to the transport of MARPOL Annex I type cargoes and marine fuel oils, RECOGNIZING the importance of providing seafarers with clear, concise and accurate information on the health effects of toxic substances carried on board tankers, HAVING CONSIDERED the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its eighth session, 1. ADOPTS the Material safety data sheets (MSDS) for marine use suitable to meet the particular needs of the marine industry containing safety, handling and environmental information to be supplied to a ship prior to the loading of MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils, as set out in the annex 1 to the present resolution;

2. ADOPTS ALSO the Guidelines for the completion of MSDS for the MARPOL Annex 1 type cargoes and marine fuel oils, as set out in the annex 2 to the present resolution;

3. URGES Governments to ensure the supply and carriage of the material safety data sheets (MSDS) for MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils, as from [date of adoption of the resolution].


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 1

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS (MSDS)

FOR MARINE USE SUITABLE TO MEET THE PARTICULAR NEEDS OF THE MARINE INDUSTRY CONTAINING SAFETY, HANDLING AND ENVIRONMENTAL

INFORMATION TO BE SUPPLIED TO A SHIP PRIOR TO THE LOADING OF MARPOL ANNEX I TYPE CARGOES AND MARINE FUEL OILS

1. Identification of the substance

or mixture and of the supplier • Name of the category - see supporting guidelines

for each Annex I category type • The name of the substances • Trade name of the substances • Description of Bill of Lading (B/L) • Other means of identification. • Supplier�s details (including name, address,

phone number etc). • Emergency phone number.

2. Hazards identification • GHS classification of the substance/mixture and any regional information.

• Other hazards which do not result in classification (e.g. dust explosion hazard) or are not covered by the GHS.

3. Composition/information on ingredients

• Common name, synonyms etc. • Impurities and stabilizing additives which are

themselves classified and which contribute to the classification of the substance.

• The chemical identity and concentration or concentration ranges of all ingredients which are hazardous within the meaning of the GHS.

• See supporting guidelines for each Annex I category type.

[Note: For information on ingredients, the competent authority rules for CBI take priority over the rules for product identification]

4.

First aid measures

• Description of necessary measures, subdivided according to the different routes of exposure, i.e. inhalation, skin and eye contact and ingestion.

• Most important symptoms/effects, acute and delayed.

• Indication of immediate medical attention and special treatment needed, if necessary

5. Fire-fighting measures

• Suitable extinguishing media. • Special protective equipment and precautions for

fire-fighters 6.

Accidental release measures

• Personal precautions, protective equipment and emergency procedures.

• Environmental precautions. • Methods and materials for containment and

cleaning up.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 15

Page 3

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

7.

Handling and storage

• Precautions for safe handling. • Conditions for safe storage, including any

incompatibilities. 8.

Exposure controls/personal protection.

• Control parameters e.g. occupational exposure limit values

• Appropriate technical precautions. • Individual protection measures, such as personal

protective equipment 9. Actual Physical, [and] chemical

and operational properties • See supporting guidelines for each Annex I

category type 10. Stability and reactivity • Chemical stability.

• Possibility of hazardous reactions. • Conditions to avoid (e.g. static discharge).

11. Toxicological information • Concise but complete and comprehensible description of the various toxicological (health) effects and the available data used to identify those effects, including:

• Information on the likely routes of exposure (inhalation, ingestion, skin and eye contact);

• Symptoms related to the physical, chemical and toxicological characteristics;

• Delayed and immediate effects and also chronic effects from short- and long-term exposure.

• Numerical measures of toxicity (such as acute toxicity estimates)

12. Ecological information

• Ecotoxicity (aquatic and terrestrial, where available).

• Persistence and degradability • Bioaccumulative potential • Mobility in soil • Other adverse effects

13. Disposal considerations • Description of waste residues and information on their safe handling and methods of disposal, in line with MARPOL requirements.

14. Transport information • UN number • UN Proper shipping name. • Transport Hazard class(es). • Special precautions which a user needs to be

aware of or needs to comply with in connection with transport (e.g. heating and carriage temperatures)

15. Regulatory information • Safety, health and environmental regulations specific for the product in question.

16. Other information including information on preparation and revision of the SDS

• Version No. • Date of issue • Issuing source


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 2

GUIDELINES FOR THE COMPLETION OF MSDS FOR THE MARPOL ANNEX I

TYPE CARGOES AND MARINE FUEL OILS 1 Categories of liquids The following categories subdivide the full scope of substances covered by Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 and set in groups specific products for general identification purposed to define the technical and environmental parameters required for the MSDS.

.1 crude oils;

.2 fuel and residual oils, including ship�s bunkers (ISO 8217, table 2);

.3 unfinished distillates, hydraulic oils and lubricating oils;

.4 gas oils, including ship�s bunkers (ISO 8217, table 1);

.5 kerosenes;

.6 napthas and condensates;

.7 gasoline blending stocks;

.8 gasolines and spirits; and

.9 asphalt solutions. 2 Outline of technical, physical and environmental properties 2.1 The following properties should be reported for all liquids categorized in paragraph 1:

.1 Technical Properties: Density at 15ºC � kg/m3 Sulphur Content % mass

Benzene Content � mg/kg Hydrogen Sulphide Content � mg/kg

Saturated Vapour Pressure at recommended carriage temperature � kPa; and

.2 Environmental Properties: Distillation % recovered at 200, 340, and 370ºC. 2.2 In addition to parameters required in paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 above, the following properties should be reported by liquid category:

.1 crude oil: Kinematic Viscosity at 20 and 50ºC � mm2/sec: Pour Point temperature � ºC Cloud Point temperature � ºC Reid Vapour Pressure � kPa Asphaltene content - % wt.

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 15

Page 5

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.2 residual and fuel oils, including ship�s bunkers:

Parameters stipulated by Table 2 of ISO 8217 Identification of differing additives and their percentage in the shipped liquid Asphaltene content - % wt

.3 unfinished distillates, hydraulic oils and lubricating oils:

Kinematic Viscosity at 20 and 40ºC � mm2/sec Flash Point (PMCC) � ºC

Pour Point temperature � ºC Cloud Point temperature � ºC Reid Vapour Pressure � kPa Identification of differing additives and their percentage in the shipped liquid

Asphaltene content - % wt

.4 gas oils, including ship�s bunkers: Parameters stipulated by Table 1 of ISO 8217

Identification of differing additives and their percentage in the shipped liquid Asphaltene content - %wt

.5 kerosenes:

Total Acidity � mgKOH/g Aromatic Content - % volume

Flash Point � ºC Identification of differing additives and their percentage in the shipped liquid

.6 napthas and condensates:

Total Acidity � mgKOH/g

Aromatic Content - % volume Flash Point � ºC Reid Vapour Pressure � kPa

.7 gasoline blending stocks: Aromatic Content - % volume

Reid Vapour Pressure - kPa Flash Point � ºC

.8 gasolines and spirits: Total Acidity � mgKOH/g

Aromatic Content - % volume Reid Vapour Pressure - kPa

Identification of differing additives and their percentage in the shipped liquid; and


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

.9 asphalt solutions:

Aromatic Content - % volume

Flash Point (PMCC) � ºC Asphaltene content - % wt Identification of differing additives and their percentage in the shipped liquid Pour Point � ºC.

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 16

DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR

UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE IBC AND IGC CODES 1 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its [seventy-eighth session (� to� May 2004)], with a view to ensuring uniform application of the provisions of the IBC and IGC Codes, containing vague wording which is open to diverging interpretations, approved the unified interpretations relating to cargo tank venting systems set out in the annex. 2 Member Governments are invited to use the annexed unified interpretations as guidance when applying relevant provisions of the IBC and IGC Codes for ships constructed on or after [1 July 2004] and to bring them to the attention of all parties concerned.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX

UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE IBC AND IGC CODES

INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT OF SHIPS CARRYING DANGEROUS CHEMICALS IN BULK (IBC CODE)

Chapter 8 � Cargo tank venting and gas freeing arrangements

Paragraph 8.3.2 - By-passing of P/V valves By-passing of P/V valves is allowed during cargo operations for cargoes which do not require a vapour return system, provided that the vent-line outlet is fitted with flame arresters and is located at the required height above the deck level. However, by-passing of high-velocity valves is not permitted. Paragraph 8.3.3.2 � Area classification and selection of electrical equipment 1 Areas on an open deck, or semi-enclosed spaces on an open deck, within a vertical cylinder of unlimited height and 6 m radius centred upon the centre of the outlet, and within a hemisphere of 6 m radius below the outlet which permit the flow of large volumes of vapour, air or inert gas mixtures during loading/discharging/ballasting are defined as Zone 1.

Permitted electrical equipment: Certified safe type equipment for Zone 1. 2 Areas within 4 m beyond the zone specified in paragraph 1 above are defined as Zone 2. Permitted electrical equipment:

.1 certified safe type equipment for Zone 1; .2 equipment of a type, which ensures the absence of sparks, arcs and of �hot spots�

during its normal operation; .3 equipment having an enclosure filled with a liquid dielectric, when required by the

application, or encapsulated; .4 pressured equipment; and .5 equipment specifically designed for Zone 2 (for example type �n� protection in

accordance with IEC 60079-15).

BLG 8/18 ANNEX 16

Page 3

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT OF SHIPS CARRYING LIQUEFIED GASES IN BULK (IGC CODE)

Chapter 8 � Cargo tank vent systems

Paragraph 8.2.10 - Area classification and selection of electrical equipment 1 Areas on an open deck, or semi-enclosed spaces on an open deck, within a vertical cylinder of unlimited height and 6 m radius centred upon the centre of the outlet, and within a hemisphere of 6 m radius below the outlet which permit the flow of large volumes of vapour, air or inert gas mixtures during loading/discharging/ballasting are defined as Zone 1.

Permitted electrical equipment: Certified safe type equipment for Zone 1. 2 Areas within 4 m beyond the zone specified in paragraph 1 above are defined as Zone 2. Permitted electrical equipment:

.1 certified safe type equipment for Zone 1; .2 equipment of a type, which ensures the absence of sparks, arcs and of �hot spots�

during its normal operation; .3 equipment having an enclosure filled with a liquid dielectric, when required by the

application, or encapsulated; .4 pressured equipment; and .5 equipment specifically designed for Zone 2 (for example type �n� protection in

accordance with IEC 60079-15).

***

BLG 8/18

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

ANNEX 17

PROPOSED REVISED WORK PROGRAMME OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR BLG 9

PROPOSED REVISED WORK PROGRAMME OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE Target

completion date/number of sessions needed for completion

Reference

1 Evaluation of safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of consequential amendments

Continuous BLG 1/20, section 3; BLG 8/18, section 6

2 Casualty analysis (co-ordinated by FSI) Continuous MSC 70/23, paragraphs 9.17 and 20.4; BLG 8/18, section 13

H.1 Matters related to the probabilistic methodology for oil outflow analysis

2003 BLG 1/20, section 8; BLG 7/15, section 3

H.2 Review of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 2003 BLG 1/20, section 9; BLG 7/15, section 4

H.3 Review of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 2003 BLG 1/20, section 9; BLG 8/18, section 5

H.4 H.1

Environmental and safety aspects of alternative tanker designs under MARPOL 73/78 regulation I/13F

BLG 3/18, paragraph 15.7

.1 development of the final guidelines 2 sessions BLG 1/20, paragraph 8.15

__________ Notes: 1 "H" means a high priority item and "L" means a low priority item. However,

within the high and low priority groups, items have not been listed in any order of priority.

2 The strike-out text indicates proposed deletions and the shaded text shows

proposed additions or changes.

3 Items printed in bold letters have been selected for the provisional agenda for BLG 9.


I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

Target

completion date/number of sessions needed for completion

Reference

.2 .1

assessment of alternative tanker designs, if any (as necessary)

Continuous BLG 1/20, section 16; BLG 4/18, paragraph 15.3

H.5 H.2

Requirements for protection of personnel involved in the transport of cargoes containing toxic substances in all types of tankers

2004 2005 BLG 1/20, section 12; BLG 8/18, section 9 and paragraph 15.4.2.1

H.6 H.3

Oil tagging systems 2003 2 sessions

MEPC 45/20, paragraph 17.4; BLG 8/18, section 10 and paragraph 15.4.3.1

H.7 H.4

Revision of the fire protection requirements of the IBC, and IGC, BCH and GC Codes (in co-operation with FP as necessary)

2004 MSC 74/24, paragraph 18.5; BLG 8/18, section 11

H.8 Application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs

2003 MEPC 41/20, paragraph 7.7; MSC 69/22, paragraph 20.8.1; BLG 7/15, section 8

H.9 Ship recycling-related matters 2003 MEPC 47/20, paragraph 3.27; BLG 7/15, section 2

H.10 H.5

Consideration of IACS unified interpretations


L.1 Amendments to requirements on electrical installations in the IBC and IGC Codes (in co-operation with DE)


BLG 8/18 ANNEX 17

Page 3

I:\BLG\8\18.DOC

PROPOSED PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR BLG 9∗ Opening of the session

1 Adoption of the agenda

2 Decisions of other IMO bodies

3 Evaluation of safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of consequential amendments

4 Requirements for protection of personnel involved in the transport of cargoes containing

toxic substances in all types of tankers

5 Revision of the fire protection requirements of the IBC, IGC, BCH and GC Codes

6 Consideration of IACS unified interpretations

7 Work programme and agenda for BLG 10 8 Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2005 9 Any other business 10 Report to the Committees

____________

∗ Agenda item numbers do not necessarily indicate priority.

Documents

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E...development of a security consciousness, along with the development of a safety culture and environmental conscience in all maritime operations,