REPORT TO THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION … · 2019-08-28 · I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx E SUB-COMMITTEE ON POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RESPONSE 6th session Agenda item 20 PPR

$Page 1: REPORT TO THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION … · 2019-08-28 · I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx E SUB-COMMITTEE ON POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RESPONSE 6th session Agenda item 20 PPR$
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx

E

SUB-COMMITTEE ON POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RESPONSE 6th session Agenda item 20

PPR 6/20/Add.1 26 March 2019

Original: ENGLISH

REPORT TO THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE

Attached are annexes 1 to 22 to the report of the Sub-Commmittee on Pollution Prevention and Response on its sixth session (PPR 6/20).

PPR 6/20/Add.1 Page 2


LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 DRAFT MEPC CIRCULAR ON GUIDANCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF PROVISIONAL CATEGORIZATION OF LIQUID SUBSTANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH MARPOL ANNEX II AND THE IBC CODE RELATED TO PARAFFIN-LIKE PRODUCTS

ANNEX 2 DRAFT MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE IBC

CODE AS APPROVED BY MEPC 73 AND MSC 100 ANNEX 3 DRAFT MSC-MEPC CIRCULAR ON 2019 GUIDELINES FOR THE

CARRIAGE OF BLENDS OF BIOFUELS AND MARPOL ANNEX I CARGOES

ANNEX 4 DRAFT MEPC CIRCULAR ON GUIDELINES FOR THE PROVISIONAL

ASSESSMENT OF LIQUID SUBSTANCES TRANSPORTED IN BULK ANNEX 5 DRAFT PPR.1 CIRCULAR ON DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO THE

CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRODUCTS ANNEX 6 PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR ESPH 25 ANNEX 7 DRAFT REVISED BWM CIRCULAR ON DATA GATHERING AND

ANALYSIS PLAN FOR THE EXPERIENCE-BUILDING PHASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE BWM CONVENTION

ANNEX 8 REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL GROUP ON AMENDMENTS TO THE AFS

CONVENTION ANNEX 9 SIMPLIFIED COMPILATION OF IDENTIFIED CANDIDATE CONTROL

MEASURES TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THE ARCTIC OF BLACK CARBON EMISSIONS FROM INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING

ANNEX 10 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI ANNEX 11 DRAFT GUIDANCE FOR PORT STATE CONTROL ON CONTINGENCY

MEASURES FOR ADDRESSING NON-COMPLIANT FUEL OIL ANNEX 12 DRAFT MEPC RESOLUTION ON 2019 GUIDELINES FOR CONSISTENT

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI

ANNEX 13 DRAFT MEPC CIRCULAR ON 2019 GUIDELINES FOR ON BOARD

SAMPLING FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE SULPHUR CONTENT OF THE FUEL OIL USED ON BOARD SHIPS

ANNEX 14 DRAFT MSC-MEPC CIRCULAR ON DELIVERY OF COMPLIANT FUEL

OIL BY SUPPLIERS ANNEX 15 DRAFT MEPC RESOLUTION ON 2019 GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE

CONTROL UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI

PPR 6/20/Add.1 Page 3


ANNEX 16 DRAFT METHODOLOGY TO ANALYSE IMPACTS OF A BAN ON THE USE AND CARRIAGE OF HEAVY FUEL OIL AS FUEL BY SHIPS IN ARCTIC WATERS

ANNEX 17 DRAFT GUIDE ON PRACTICAL METHODS FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPRC CONVENTION AND OPRC-HNS PROTOCOL

ANNEX 18 DRAFT UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI

(REGULATIONS 13.2.2, 13.5.3, 14.1 AND 16.9) ANNEX 19 BIENNIAL STATUS REPORT 2018-2019 ANNEX 20 PROPOSED BIENNIAL AGENDA FOR THE 2020-2021 BIENNIUM ANNEX 21 PROPOSED PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR PPR 7 ANNEX 22 STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS

***


PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 1, page 1


ANNEX 1

DRAFT MEPC CIRCULAR

GUIDANCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROVISIONAL CATEGORIZATION OF LIQUID SUBSTANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH MARPOL ANNEX II AND THE

IBC CODE RELATED TO PARAFFIN-LIKE PRODUCTS

1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its [seventy-fourth session (13 to 17 May 2019)], recognizing the need to provide clarification on the implementation of existing products which had been reclassified and published with validity for all countries, without expiry dates, in list 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular and how the revised requirements for such products shall be complied with until the revisions are incorporated in the next amendment to the IBC Code, approved the Guidance on the implementation of provisional categorization of liquid substances in accordance with MARPOL Annex II and the IBC Code related to paraffin-like products, which is set out in the annex. 2 Member Governments and international organizations are invited to bring the annexed Guidelines to the attention of Administrations, recognized organizations, port authorities, shipowners, ship operators and other parties concerned.



ANNEX

GUIDANCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROVISIONAL CATEGORIZATION OF LIQUID SUBSTANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH MARPOL ANNEX II AND THE

IBC CODE RELATED TO PARAFFIN-LIKE PRODUCTS 1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), at its seventy-first session (3 to 7 July 2017), endorsed the amendments to the names of four paraffin-like products and their minimum carriage requirements, namely "n-Alkanes (C10-C20)", "Paraffin wax, highly-refined", "Paraffin wax, semi-refined", and "Hydrocarbon wax",1 as contained in list 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular on Provisional categorization of liquid substances in accordance with MARPOL Annex II and the IBC Code as of December 2017 (MEPC.2/Circ.23). 2 The table below shows the pollution categories and hazards that were assigned to the four paraffin-like products.

Product Name Pollution Category Hazards

Hydrocarbon Wax X* S*/P

Paraffin wax, semi-refined X* S*/P

Paraffin wax, highly-refined Y P

n-Alkanes (C10 – C20) Y P

* The product has been reclassified as toxic due to its safety hazards, and category X due to its pollution

hazards requiring mandatory prewash in compliance with Regulation 13.6 of MARPOL Annex-II.

3 MEPC 71 approved the inclusion of the above four paraffin-like cargoes in MEPC.2/Circ.23, which was issued in December 2017 (MEPC 71/17, paragraphs 9.3). The Committee also approved, in principle, the draft revised chapter 21 of the IBC Code (MEPC 71/17, paragraph 9.5; and PPR 4/21, annex 1), pending finalization of the revision of chapters 17 and 18 of the IBC Code, with a view to entry into force on 1 January 2021. 4 According to paragraph 7 of the Foreword of the IBC Code (2016 edition), annex 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular includes products that are expected to become new entries or amended information in existing entries in the IBC Code. The product information set out in the circular serves as prior notice of the carriage conditions, which will apply to that product when the next set of amendments enter into force. 5 The carriage requirements in the current chapter 17 of the IBC Code (resolution MEPC.166(56)) for "n-Alkanes (C10+)", "Paraffin wax", "Petrolatum", and "Waxes" are therefore applicable for the carriage of these paraffin-like products until the entry into force of the revised chapter 17 of the IBC Code on 1 January 2021. 6 If a shipment is to be carried out in accordance with the four new amended entries, "n-Alkanes (C10-C20)", "Paraffin wax, highly-refined", "Paraffin wax, semi-refined" and "Hydrocarbon wax", prior to entry into force of the revised chapter 17 of the IBC Code, the following should be taken into account:

.1 the products as listed above in paragraph 1, should be listed in an addendum to the Certificate of Fitness; and

1 Corresponding to the following previous product names respectively: n-Alkanes (C10+), Paraffin wax,

Petrolatum, and Waxes.



.2 confirmation should be obtained from the port of discharge that adequate reception facilities are available for receiving any prewash.

7 If the products listed in paragraph 1 above are not listed in an addendum to the Certificate of Fitness, then they cannot be loaded or shipped under the names listed in paragraph 1 and should be shipped in accordance with the existing entries in the current chapter 17 of the IBC Code (resolutions MEPC.250 (66) and MSC.369(93)). 8 If a receiving State intends to apply the amended carriage requirements as per list 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular in advance of the entry into force of the revised chapter 17 of the IBC Code, then it is invited to:

.1 notify the IMO Secretariat in writing ([email protected]) of its intention, for dissemination in an ESPH information document; and

.2 ensure that adequate reception facilities are available at its port for receiving

any pre-wash required after discharge.

9 If a cargo listed in paragraph 1 is loaded prior to the entry into force date of the amendments to the IBC Code, the product name and associated carriage requirements at the time of loading will apply throughout the voyage.

***




ANNEX 2

DRAFT MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE IBC CODE AS APPROVED BY MEPC 73 AND MSC 100

Chapter 1 – General 1 A new paragraph 1.3.30 is added as follows:

"1.3.30 Recognized organization is an organization authorized by an Administration in accordance with MARPOL Annex II regulation 8.2.2 and SOLAS regulation XI-1/1."

2 The existing paragraph 1.3.30 and subsequent paragraphs are renumbered as 1.3.31 to 1.3.39. 3 Paragraph 1.5.1.2 is replaced by the following:

"1.5.1.2 The recognized organization, referred to in 1.3.30, shall comply with the provisions of the SOLAS and MARPOL Conventions, and with the Code for recognized organizations (RO Code)."

PPR 6/20/Add,1 Annex 2, page 2


Chapter 17 – Summary of minimum requirements 4 The following entries are deleted from the table of minimum requirements.

a c d e f g h i' i'' i''' j k l n o

Alkanes (C5-C7), linear and branched Y S/P 2 2G Cont No T3 IIA No C FT ABC No 15.12, 15.17, 15.19.6

Alkanes (C10-C17), linear and branched Y S/P 2 2G Cont Inert T3 IIB No R F ABC No 15.19

Alkanes (C10-C26), linear and branched (flashpoint ≤60oC) Y S/P 3 2G Cont No T3 IIA No R F ABC No 15.19.6

Alkanes (C10-C26), linear and branched, (flashpoint >60°C) Y S/P 3 2G Open No - - Yes O No ABC No 15.19.6

Bio-fuel blends of Diesel/gas oil and Alkanes (C10-C26), linear and branched with a flashpoint >60°C (>25% but <99% by volume)

X S/P 2 2G Cont No - - Yes C T ABC No 15.12, 15.17, 15.19.6

Bio-fuel blends of Diesel/gas oil and Alkanes (C10-C26), linear and branched with a flashpoint ≤ 60°C (>25% but <99% by volume)

X S/P 2 2G Cont No T3 IIA No C FT ABC No 15.12, 15.17, 15.19.6

Bio-fuel blends of jet fuels and Alkanes (C10-C17), linear and branched (>25% but <99% by volume)

X S/P 2 2G Cont No T3 IIB No C FT ABC No 15.12, 15.17, 15.19.6



Chapter 19 – Index of Products Carried in Bulk 5 The following entries are deleted from the table containing the Index of Products Carried in Bulk.

***

Index Name Product Name Chapter

ALKANES (C5-C7), LINEAR AND BRANCHED 17

ALKANES (C10-C17), LINEAR AND BRANCHED 17

ALKANES (C10-C26), LINEAR AND BRANCHED (FLASHPOINT ≤60°C)

17

ALKANES (C10-C26), LINEAR AND BRANCHED, (FLASHPOINT >60°C)

17

BIO-FUEL BLENDS OF DIESEL/GAS OIL AND ALKANES (C10-C26), LINEAR AND BRANCHED WITH A FLASHPOINT >60°C (>25% BUT <99% BY VOLUME)

17

BIO-FUEL BLENDS OF DIESEL/GAS OIL AND ALKANES (C10-C26), LINEAR AND BRANCHED WITH A FLASHPOINT ≤ 60°C (>25% BUT <99% BY VOLUME)

17

BIO-FUEL BLENDS OF JET FUELS AND ALKANES (C10-C17), LINEAR AND BRANCHED (>25% BUT <99% BY VOLUME)

17

HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil) ALKANES (C10-C26), LINEAR AND BRANCHED, (FLASHPOINT >60°C)

17




ANNEX 3

DRAFT MSC-MEPC CIRCULAR

2019 GUIDELINES FOR THE CARRIAGE OF BLENDS OF BIOFUELS AND MARPOL ANNEX I CARGOES

1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its sixty-second session (11 to 15 July 2011), recognizing the need to clarify how biofuels subject to MARPOL Annex II, when blended with MARPOL Annex I cargoes, can be shipped in bulk, approved the 2011 Guidelines for the carriage of blends of petroleum oil and biofuels (MEPC.1/Circ.761). 2 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its sixty-fourth session (1 to 5 October 2012), approved amendments to the 2011 Guidelines, as set out in annex 3 of document BLG 16/16, relating to deck fire-fighting system requirements and the fire protection assignment (column l) given for the entry "Biofuel blends of Gasoline and Ethyl alcohol (>25% but <99% by volume)" (MEPC.1/761/Rev.1). 3 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its [seventy-fourth session (13 to 17 May 2019)], recognizing the need to make consequential amendments to the 2011 Guidelines for the carriage of blends of petroleum oil and biofuels (MEPC.1/761/Rev.1), as a result of the inclusion of a new annex 12 on energy-rich fuels in the MEPC.2/Circular, and the Maritime Safety Committee, at its [101st session (5 to 14 June 2019)], recognizing the need to include reference to SOLAS regulation VI/5.2 regarding the prohibition of the blending of bulk liquid cargoes and production processes during sea voyages, approved the 2019 Guidelines for the carriage of blends of MARPOL Annex I cargoes and biofuels. 4 Member Governments and international organizations are invited to bring the annexed Guidelines to the attention of Administrations, recognized organizations, port authorities, shipowners, ship operators and other parties concerned. 5 This circular revokes MEPC.1/Circ.761/Rev.1.



ANNEX

2019 GUIDELINES FOR THE CARRIAGE OF BLENDS OF BIOFUELS AND MARPOL ANNEX I CARGOES

1 APPLICATION 1.1 These Guidelines apply to ships carrying bulk blends of biofuels and MARPOL Annex I cargoes, subject to MARPOL Annexes I and II, respectively. 2 SCOPE 2.1 These Guidelines have been developed to clarify how biofuels subject to MARPOL Annex II, when blended with MARPOL Annex I cargoes, can be shipped in bulk. 3 DEFINITIONS For the purpose of these Guidelines: 3.1 Biofuels are ethyl alcohol, fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) and vegetable oils (triglycerides), as identified in chapters 17 and 18 of the IBC Code or the MEPC.2/Circular. Following circulation of these Guidelines, further biofuels identified as falling under the scope of the Guidelines will be recorded in annex 11 of the MEPC.2/Circular. 3.2 Biofuel blends are mixtures resulting from the blending of those biofuels identified in paragraph 3.1 above with a MARPOL Annex I cargo. 4 CARRIAGE OF BIOFUEL BLENDS The carriage requirements for biofuel blends are assigned based on their volumetric composition, as follows: 4.1 Biofuel blends containing ≥75% of a MARPOL Annex I cargo 4.1.1 When the biofuel blend contains ≥75% of a MARPOL Annex I cargo, it is subject to MARPOL Annex I. 4.1.2 When carrying biofuel blends as described in paragraph 4.1.1, Oil Discharge Monitoring Equipment (ODME – see resolution MEPC.108(49)) shall be in compliance with regulation 31 of MARPOL Annex I and approved for the mixture being transported. 4.1.3 When considering the deck fire-fighting system requirements of SOLAS chapter II-2, regulations 1.6.1 and 1.6.2, when carrying biofuel blends containing more than 5% ethyl alcohol, then alcohol resistant foams should be used. 4.2 Biofuel blends containing >1% but <75% of a MARPOL Annex I cargo 4.2.1 Biofuel blends containing >1% but <75% of a MARPOL Annex I cargo are subject to MARPOL Annex II, with the carriage requirements set out in chapter 17 of the IBC Code. 4.2.2 With respect to any new biofuels identified as falling under the scope of these guidelines, carriage requirements for specific blends of biofuels and MARPOL Annex I cargoes to be shipped in accordance with MARPOL Annex II will be incorporated into list 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular, as appropriate.



4.3 Biofuels blended with ≤1% of a MARPOL Annex I cargo 4.3.1 Biofuels blended with ≤1% of a MARPOL Annex I cargo are not considered as blends and are therefore to be shipped in accordance with MARPOL Annex II, under the appropriate product entry in the IBC Code. 5 BLENDING OF MARPOL ANNEX I CARGOES AND BIOFUELS ON BOARD 5.1 Blending on board describes the mixing of two products resulting in one single product (a blended mixture) and reflects only physical mixing as distinct from any chemical processing. Such mixing operations should only be undertaken whilst the ship is within port limits. 5.2 The physical blending on board of biofuels and MARPOL Annex I cargoes during a sea voyage to create new products is prohibited, in accordance with regulation 5.2 of SOLAS chapter VI. 6 CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 6.1 The certification for the biofuel blend to be shipped should be in compliance with MARPOL Annex II, where appropriate. If the biofuel blend, based on its composition, is shipped in accordance with MARPOL Annex I, no certification is required.

***




ANNEX 4

DRAFT MEPC CIRCULAR

GUIDELINES FOR THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT OF LIQUID SUBSTANCES TRANSPORTED IN BULK

1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its [seventy-fourth session (13 to 17 May 2019)], recognizing the need to update MEPC.1/Circ.512 to capture all relevant decisions in relation to the assignment of carriage requirements under the IBC Code following the finalization of draft revised chapters 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the IBC Code, approved the revised Guidelines for the provisional assessment of liquid substances transported in bulk, which are set out in the annex. 2 Member Governments and international organizations are invited to bring the annexed Guidelines to the attention of Administrations, recognized organizations, port authorities, shipowners, ship operators and other parties concerned. 3 This circular revokes MEPC.1/Circ.512.



ANNEX

GUIDELINES FOR THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT OF LIQUID SUBSTANCES TRANSPORTED IN BULK

Table of contents Section 1

Introduction

Section 2

Assessed products

Section 3

Unassessed products

Section 4

Provisional assessment of pure or technically pure products, and generic mixtures evaluated as a whole

Section 5

Assessment of pollutant only trade-named mixtures containing products already assessed by IMO

Section 6

Assessment of trade-named mixtures presenting safety hazards containing products that have already been assessed by IMO

Section 7

Assessment of mixtures containing one or more components which have not yet been assessed by IMO

Section 8 Establishing tripartite agreements and related administrative requirements

Section 9 Complex mixtures submitted for assessment as an Annex II product Section 10 Submission of data to GESAMP/EHS and IMO

Appendix 1 – Flow diagrams for the provisional assessment of liquid substances carried in bulk

Appendix 2 – References to related information and recommendations for ascertaining the carriage requirements for products shipped in bulk

Appendix 3 – Example of an Addendum to the Ship's Certificate of Fitness

Appendix 4 – Examples of determination of Pollution Categories for mixtures

Appendix 5 – Examples for the determination of ship types and mixtures

Appendix 6 – Format for proposing tripartite agreements for provisional assessment of liquid substances



1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The carriage of liquid substances in bulk is regulated by SOLAS, as amended, and MARPOL, as amended, which collectively address both safety and pollution prevention considerations. 1.2 Liquid substances that may be offered for shipment in bulk can be divided into the following groups:

.1 liquefied gases;

.2 oils; and

.3 noxious and non-noxious liquid substances, hereinafter referred to as "products".

1.3 Liquefied gases listed in chapter 19 of the IGC Code are subject to the provisions of that Code. For tripartite agreements established under the provisions of the IGC Code (after 1 January 2016), reference is made to resolution MSC.370(93), as amended. 1.4 "Oil", as referred to in paragraph 1.2.2 above, is defined as per MARPOL Annex I. 1.5 Energy-rich fuel products, obtained from biological origin or non-petroleum sources as defined in MEPC.1/Circ.879, are considered as MARPOL Annex I cargoes. When carrying energy-rich fuels listed in Annex 12 of the MEPC.2/Circular, the requirements of MARPOL Annex I, rather than MARPOL Annex II, should apply. 1.6 Trade-named mixture as defined in lists 2, 3 and 4 of the MEPC.2/Circular, means a mixture or solution composed of two or more components which are mixed but not chemically combined or reacted, and which can be separated by physical means. 1.7 A number of products can be shipped either on gas carriers or chemical tankers. These are included in both chapter 19 of the IGC Code, marked with an asterisk, and in chapter 17 of the IBC Code. 1.8 Each liquid substance offered for carriage in bulk should be identified as either a "liquefied gas", an "oil" or a "product". These Guidelines apply only to liquid substances identified as products. 1.9 The requirements for the carriage of liquid products in bulk are defined in the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) and Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH Code). The IBC Code applies to chemical tankers built on or after 1 July 1986 and is mandatory under both SOLAS and MARPOL. The BCH Code applies to those tankers built before 1 July 1986. The latter is mandatory under MARPOL and recommended under SOLAS. 1.10 The present Guidelines make reference to the IBC Code. Reference to the BCH Code is implied, where applicable. 1.11 The procedures described in the present Guidelines are presented in flow chart form in appendix 1.



Bodies involved in the assessment process and related documentation 1.12 The process for the full assessment of liquid products offered for carriage in bulk involves a number of entities that, as a result of the assessments undertaken, produce a number of related product lists. These entities and lists, which are defined below, are referred to throughout the Guidelines. GESAMP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine

Environmental Protection (GESAMP)

GESAMP/EHS GESAMP Working Group on the Evaluation of the Hazards of Harmful Substances Carried by Ships (EHS). An independent body of scientific experts that meets annually to assess the hazards of bulk liquid substances regulated under MARPOL Annex II and, based on the data received, assign a pollution category for a product. This is known as the GESAMP Hazard Profile (GHP). Once evaluated, an entry for the substance and its GESAMP Hazard Profile is permanently added to the GESAMP Composite List, which is updated and circulated annually as a PPR.1/Circular, following each GESAMP/EHS meeting.

GESAMP Hazard Profile

The GESAMP Hazard Profile consists of an alphanumerical rating system indicating a substance's hazards to the marine environment and human health. Ratings are applied to each of 13 end-points that represent an environmental or human health effect of a given product. These 13 ratings collectively make up the hazard profile.

PPR Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response

ESPH PPR Working Group on the Evaluation of Safety and Pollution Hazards of Chemicals and Preparation of Consequential Amendments (ESPH). On the basis of the GESAMP Hazard Profile and other properties, the ESPH Working Group determines the pollution category and carriage requirements for the respective products, in accordance with MARPOL Annex II and chapter 21 of the IBC Code. These substances are then added to the product lists included in the MEPC.2/Circular, which is updated and issued annually by IMO.

Reporting country Refers to the country that, through its Administration, undertakes the provisional assessment of a product, in accordance with the criteria set out in the present guidelines, and establishes a tripartite agreement for the product

Receiving country Refers to the country(ies) that will be the recipient of the product, covered by a provisional assessment and tripartite agreement

Participating country

Refers to the country(ies) that have concurred and signed on to a tripartite agreement proposed by the reporting country. These include the flag State(s) of the vessel(s) that would be carrying the product and the recipient countries that would be receiving the product.

MEPC.2/Circular Known as the Provisional Categorization of Liquid Substances in accordance with MARPOL Annex II and the IBC Code. This circular is a compilation of products and their carriage requirements, established



either under a tripartite agreement (with an expiry date) or that have been fully assessed by IMO (no expiry date). An updated list is disseminated each December by IMO, incorporating any new products assessed or any modifications made to existing products during the year. Products in list 1 of the circular that have been formally reviewed by ESPH and are valid for all countries will be incorporated into the IBC Code when the Code is next updated.

PPR.1/Circular

Source of the latest "GESAMP Composite List". The PPR.1/Circular contains a compilation of all substances assessed by GESAMP/EHS and the resulting GESAMP Hazard Profiles (GHP). GESAMP/EHS meets annually to assess substances. Following this, the PPR.1/Circular is circulated, which includes the report of the meeting and the update of the GESAMP Composite List.

GESAMP/EHS Product Data Reporting Form

This form sets out all the technical information required by GESAMP/EHS to evaluate a product and assign a GESAMP Hazard Profile. It can be accessed on the IMO website at: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/ChemicalsReportingForms.aspx

PPR Data Reporting Form

This form sets out all the technical information required by the ESPH to assign a pollution category (in accordance with MARPOL Annex II) and carriage conditions (under the IBC Code) for liquid substances carried in bulk. The form and related guidance notes are set out in MEPC.1/Circ.857. These are also available for download at the IMO website.1

1.13 These Guidelines also make reference to a number of documents to be referred to when ascertaining the carriage requirements for liquid products shipped in bulk. A summary of these information sources is included in appendix 2. 2 ASSESSED PRODUCTS 2.1 "Assessed products" are those products that have been evaluated by the GESAMP/EHS and have had their carriage requirements confirmed by IMO. These are subsequently included in chapters 17, 18 or 19 of the IBC Code, or in the latest edition of the MEPC.2/Circular, for all countries with no expiry date. 2.2 A product can be still be shipped as an assessed product if it contains up to a total of 1% unassessed components, which are mixed with the assessed component(s). Such unassessed component(s) cannot be oil as defined in MARPOL Annex I or mixed with a product with pollution category "OS". 2.3 It should be noted that technically pure substances may contain impurities or by-products from processing but that the name of the product would reflect the chemical name of the substance and not to any impurities or by-products present and that this would not affect the carriage requirements in any way.

1 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/Chemical

sReportingForms.aspx



2.4 If a liquid substance is to be shipped as a product, the shipper should first check whether it is listed in chapters 17, 18 or 19 of the IBC Code, or in the latest edition of the MEPC.2/Circular. 2.5 If it appears in any of these, then the product must be shipped under the product name listed in chapter 17 or 18 of the IBC Code or the latest edition of MEPC.2/Circular. 2.6 The products listed in the IBC Code are pure or technically pure products and also includes solutions and generic mixtures that have been evaluated as a whole. The product lists set out in chapters 17, 18 or 19 of the IBC Code are updated with each subsequent amendment of the lists, usually on a 4-5 year cycle. 2.7 Chapter 19 of the IBC Code, i.e. the Index of Products Carried in Bulk (later referred to as the "Index") sets out most of the commonly used synonyms of the products listed in chapters 17 and 18. The Index is also updated in each consecutive edition of the IBC Code. 2.8 If the product is not listed in chapters 17, 18 or 19 of the IBC Code, the next step is to consult list 1 of MEPC.2/Circular. List 1 of the circular contains pure or technically pure products and generic mixtures evaluated as a whole. 2.9 The MEPC.2/Circular also includes the following other lists:

.1 List 2: Pollutant only mixtures containing at least 99% by weight of components already assessed by IMO (covered in section 5);

.2 List 3: (Trade-named) mixtures presenting safety hazards (covered in section 6);

.3 List 4: Pollutant only mixtures containing one or more components, forming more than 1% by weight of the mixture, which have not yet been assessed by IMO; and

.4 List 5: Substances not shipped in pure form but as components in mixtures.

2.10 If the product is not listed in the IBC Code or in the MEPC.2/Circular then it is necessary to check whether the product has already been provisionally assessed under a tripartite agreement by consulting the appropriate section of the IMO website:

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/TripartiteAgreements.aspx

This portion of the website is updated throughout the year based on receipt of notification from Member States of any new tripartite agreements established through their respective Administrations.

2.11 If a product has already been provisionally assessed and a tripartite agreement exists, any interested countries should contact the reporting country, i.e. the country that has initiated the tripartite agreement, to obtain a copy of the agreement. It will then review the assessment and, if it agrees, will consider becoming a party to it. When carrying out this review, any new data should be taken into account, so that an accurate assessment can be made in accordance with the applicable section of these guidelines. If an interested party is in agreement with the provisional assessment as it stands and wishes to join the tripartite agreement, it must make a request to the reporting country directly. Once this has been agreed, the inclusion of the new country in the agreement must be duly communicated to IMO by the reporting country, which will then update this information in its database (GISIS) and on its website. The new information will be also reflected in the MEPC.2/Circular when next issued.



2.12 If there is no tripartite agreement for the product, one must be established, as described in section 8, in order to be able to ship the product. 3 UNASSESSED PRODUCTS 3.1 Unassessed products are those products that have not had their carriage requirements confirmed by IMO. Consequently, they would not appear in chapters 17, 18 or 19 of the IBC Code, nor in the latest edition of MEPC.2/Circular, other than under a tripartite agreement with an expiry date. 3.2 Unassessed products are grouped as follows:

.1 pure or technically pure products and mixtures assessed as a whole; (list 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular; see section 4);

.2 pollutant only mixtures, containing at least 99% by weight of components

already assessed by IMO (list 2 of the MEPC.2/Circular; see section 5); .3 trade-named mixtures presenting safety hazards (list 3 of the

MEPC.2/Circular; see section 6); and .4 pollutant only mixtures containing one or more components, forming more

than 1% by weight of the mixture, which have not yet been assessed by IMO (list 4 of the MEPC.2/Circular; see section 7);

.5 Complex mixtures (see section 9).

3.3 The products or mixtures referred to paragraphs in 3.2.1, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 above may be provisionally assessed under a tripartite agreement, as described in section 8, in accordance with regulation 6.3 of MARPOL Annex II. 3.4 Once the provisional assessment has been made, a tripartite agreement, as described in section 8, should be established in order to be able to ship the product. 3.5 Pollutant only mixtures, containing at least 99% by weight of components already assessed by IMO that do not present a safety hazard, referred to in paragraph 3.2.2 above, are assessed in a more simplified manner. 3.6 Given that these products only represent a pollution hazard and that virtually all the components of the mixture would have already been assessed (99%), it is possible for the reporting country to assess the product and assign carriage requirements without the concurrence of the flag States and receiving countries, as is normally required for the establishment of tripartite agreements (see section 8). 3.7 For such cases, the Administration of the reporting country will assign a pollution category and carriage requirements for the product and communicate the results of its assessment to the relevant flag State and receiving country, as well as to IMO, so that the information may be posted on the IMO website. The product entry will also be included in the MEPC.2/Circular, when next issued. These mixtures will be shipped under the applicable generic entry in the IBC Code ((i.e. Noxious Liquid (n.o.s.) covered under chapter 17) or Non-Noxious Liquid (n.o.s.), covered under chapter 18), without the need for an addendum to the ship's Certificate of Fitness.



4 PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT OF PURE OR TECHNICALLY PURE PRODUCTS, AND GENERIC MIXTURES EVALUATED AS A WHOLE

4.1 In the case of pure or technically pure products and generic mixtures assessed as a whole, the Administration of the reporting country should provisionally assess the product and assign the pollution category, the ship type and carriage requirements, in accordance with the provisions of MARPOL Annex II and the IBC Code, on the basis of the data supplied by the manufacturer/shipper, and the product's GESAMP Hazard Profile, if available. 4.2 The following reference documents provide guidance to the Administration for assessing the pollution and safety hazards of a product:

.1 Guidelines for the categorization of noxious liquid substances (MARPOL Annex II, appendix I);

.2 chapter 21 of the IBC Code, Criteria for assigning carriage requirements for

products subject to the IBC Code; and .3 GESAMP Reports and Studies No.[…] – The GESAMP hazard evaluation

procedure for chemical substances carried by ships.

4.3 The first step for the Administration is to consult the latest version the GESAMP Composite List (PPR.1/Circular). 4.4 If a GESAMP Hazard Profile exists in the GESAMP Composite List for the product in question, its pollution category can be derived following the Guidelines set out in MARPOL Annex II, appendix I (see 4.2.1 above). Once the pollution category has been identified, the ship type and carriage requirements can be then derived by following the criteria set out in chapter 21 of the IBC Code (see 4.2.2 above). 4.5 If no hazard profile exists for the product, all available data needed to establish a provisional hazard profile should be provided by the manufacturer/shipper based on the parameters set out in GESAMP Reports and Studies No.[…]. 4.6 When adequate data are available, a provisional hazard profile can be derived, based on the criteria developed by GESAMP/EHS (see 4.2.3 above). The provisional pollution category should then be derived on the basis of the provisional hazard profile by following the guidelines referred to in 4.2.1 above. The ship type and carriage requirements should be derived in accordance with 4.2.2. 4.7 When sufficient data are not available, the Administration of the reporting country should use the information submitted by the manufacturer/shipper to make an assessment by analogy to chemically similar substances, from the following sources:

.1 the IBC Code (chapters 17, 18, 19);

.2 the MEPC.2/Circular, which lists the products assessed by IMO and those provisionally assessed by tripartite agreement; and

.3 the GESAMP Composite List (PPR.1/Circular), listing all substances for which hazard profiles exist.

4.8 When several alternative analogies are possible, the most severe should prevail.



4.9 Once the provisional assessment is made, a tripartite agreement, as described in section 8, should be established in order to be able to ship the product. 5 ASSESSMENT OF POLLUTANT ONLY TRADE-NAMED MIXTURES CONTAINING

PRODUCTS ALREADY ASSESSED BY IMO

5.1 This section addresses the mixtures defined in paragraph 3.2.2, i.e. pollutant only mixtures presenting no safety hazard and containing at least 99% by weight of products (i.e. pure/technically pure products) already assessed by IMO. Products that have been assessed by IMO are:

.1 those listed in chapters 17, 18 or 19 of the IBC Code; and

.2 those listed in list 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular, without an expiry date.

5.2 Deleted.

5.3 The pollution category and the ship type for these mixtures are derived from the GESAMP Hazard Profiles of the components, using the calculation method set out in paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6. For all assessments, the GHP in the most recent edition of the GESAMP Composite list should be used. 5.4 For the purpose of this calculation, unassessed components up to 1% are to be assigned a component factor of 10,000 for pollution categorization and a component factor of 100 is to be used for assignment of ship type. A component factor of 100 is also assigned to diluent mineral oil.2 Calculation of the pollution category 5.5 The first step in the assessment process is to establish the pollution category of the mixture by the following procedure:

.1 identify the GESAMP Hazard Profile of each component from the latest edition of the Composite List (PPR.1/Circular);

.2 multiply the concentration of each identified component in the mixture,

expressed in percent by weight, by the factor associated with its GESAMP Hazard Profile using table 1, taking the ratings resulting in the highest component factor into account;

.3 add the resultant multiples to obtain the "Sp" value;

i.e. Sp = (Each component %wt) x (Each component factor); then

.4 refer to table 2 to determine the pollution category that corresponds to the resultant Sp value.

2 Most lube oil additive components are produced in mineral oil and have been assessed a whole. Sometimes

more mineral oil is added to a mixture to make it pumpable. This additional mineral oil is referred to as "diluent mineral oil".



Table 1 – Component factors for calculation of pollution category

Row Rule No (Guidelines for categorization, Appendix 1 to MARPOL Annex II)

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2 Component Factor

Row

a 1 >4 NR >6 100,000 a

b 1 >4 >6 100,000 b

c 1 NR >6 100,000 c

d 4 >4 NR CMRTNI3 25,000 d

e 1 >6 10,000 e

f 1 >4 NR 5 10,000 f

g 1 >4 5 10,000 g

h 1 NR 5 10,000 h

i 1 5 1,000 i

j 2 >4 NR 4 1,000 j

k 2 >4 4 1,000 k

l 3 NR 4 1,000 l

m 5 4 100 m

n 11 CMRTNI 25 n

o 6 3 10 o

p 7 2 1 p

q 8 >4 NR Not 0 1 q

r 9 >1 1 r

s 10 Fp, F or S if not Inorganic

1 s

t 12 Any product not meeting the criteria of rules 1 to 11 and 13

0 t

u 13 Any OS substance 0 u

Table 2 – Determination of pollution category based on Sp value

Sp Value Pollution category

Sp > 25,000 X

Sp < 25,000 and Sp > 25 Y

Sp < 25 unless all individual components are OS Z

a mixture where all individual components are OS OS

Calculation of ship type 5.6 The next step is to establish the ship type for the mixture as follows:

.1 identify the ship type for each component from the IBC Code (chapters 17 or 18) or the MEPC.2/Circular, as appropriate;

.2 multiply the concentration of each component in the mixture, expressed in

percent by weight, by the factor associated with its ship type according to the table 3;

3 Column D3 refers to products with long-term health effects as follows: C (carcinogenic), M (mutagenic),

R (reprotoxic), T (specific target organ toxicity), N (neurotoxic) or I (immunotoxic).



Table 3 – Component factors for calculation of ship type Ship type Factor

1 1,000

2 100

3 10

NA 0

diluent mineral oil 10

.3 add the resultant multiples to obtain the "Ss" value;

i.e. Ss = (Each component %wt) x (Each component factor);

.4 refer to the left-hand column of table 4 for determining ship types and identify the row that corresponds to calculated "Ss" value; and

.5 refer to table 4 below to determine the ship type that corresponds to the

resultant Ss value in the left-hand column and then, reading across the row, answer the questions to determine the ship type.

Table 4 – Determination of ship types based on Ss value

5.7 Examples of the calculations for determining the pollution category are given in appendix 4 and examples for calculating the ship type for mixtures are given in appendix 5. In addition, an automated tool, with accompanying guidance notes, has also been developed to assist Administrations in undertaking the above calculations, which are known as "mixture calculations" for trade-named mixtures. This tool can be accessed on the IMO website at: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/ChemicalsReportingForms.aspx 5.8 On the basis of the calculated pollution category and ship type, and taking into account its flashpoint, a mixture is then assigned to the appropriate generic "Noxious (or non-noxious) liquid, n.o.s." entry in the IBC Code with the assignment of the corresponding carriage requirements. 5.9 A pollutant only mixture is identified by reference to the appropriate generic n.o.s. entry in the IBC Code, completed by the identification of a trade name and of the component responsible for the assigned pollution category. Trade names should be of a commercial nature and should not contain anything that could be construed as a chemical name, chemical formula, or other generally accepted chemical descriptor.

Ss Value Question Answer Ship Type

Ss 10,000 Is the sum of ST 1 multiples

10,000? Yes → 1

No → 2

10,000 Ss 1,000 Is the sum of ST 1 & 2 multiples

1,000? Yes → 2

No → 3

1,000 Ss 100 3

Ss <100 Is the pollution category of the mixture X or Y?

Yes → 3

No → NA

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/ChemicalsReportingForms.aspx






5.10 If the mixture contains diluent mineral oil, which could contribute the assignment of the pollution category, the n.o.s. designation of the mixture should be followed by the words "contains mineral oil". 5.11 The process of assigning a pollutant-only mixture of assessed components to one of the generic n.o.s. entries in the IBC Code is of a purely mathematical nature and does not require an assessment. In the interest of facilitating shipments, the Administration of the reporting country may authorize the manufacturer to carry out the assignment on its behalf. 5.12 In such a case, the obligation to inform the flag States and the receiving countries of the product assignment falls on the delegated manufacturer. The manufacturer should also inform IMO, if so requested by the authorizing Administration. Notification of the assignment by the manufacturer should be accompanied by an authorization letter indicating that the manufacturer is acting under instruction and on behalf of the Administration. Following notification to IMO, the mixture will be added to the list of products on the IMO website and in list 2 of the MEPC.2/Circular, when next issued. 5.13 The manufacturer should also inform the authorizing Administration of the assignment performed. Upon request, the manufacturer should also provide the flag State and/or the receiving country with details of the mixture assignment. 6 ASSESSMENT OF TRADE-NAMED MIXTURES PRESENTING SAFETY

HAZARDS CONTAINING PRODUCTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED BY IMO

6.1 This section addresses those mixtures presenting a safety hazard, i.e. one or more of the components designated an "S" or "S/P" in column d of chapter 17 of the IBC Code or of the MEPC.2/Circular, containing at least 99% weight of products assessed by IMO. 6.2 For the purpose of this section, products that have been assessed by IMO are:

.1 those listed in chapters 17, 18 and 19 of the IBC Code; and .2 those listed in list 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular, without an expiry date.

6.3 Similar to the procedure set out in section 5, the first step for the Administration of the reporting country is to calculate the pollution category and ship type for the mixture, following the method set out in paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6. 6.4 The Administration should then assess the safety hazards of the mixture and assign carriage requirements. The minimum carriage requirements of each column in the Code is determined by selecting the most stringent requirement of the components present in the mixture. However, if the PPR Data Reporting Form contains data on the mixture as a whole for certain safety criteria, the carriage requirements can be assigned accordingly. The Administration should also determine the ship type based on the criteria in paragraph 21.4.5.2 of the IBC Code and, if it is more stringent than that in paragraph 6.3, assign the more stringent ship type. 6.5 Trade-named mixtures presenting safety hazards cannot be shipped under any of the generic n.o.s. entries in the IBC Code. A shipping name must therefore be assigned and will be composed of:

.1 the trade name, followed by;



.2 an identification, in parentheses, of the principal substance(s) responsible for the safety and/or pollution hazards of the mixture. This is what is known as the "contains name" of the product.

6.6 Assigned trade names for such mixtures should be of a commercial nature and should not contain anything that could be construed as a chemical name, chemical formula or other generally accepted chemical descriptor. Products submitted for assessment through the relevant bodies (GESAMP/EHS and IMO) may be rejected or require renaming if chemical descriptors, as identified above, are included as part of the trade name. The contains name for the mixture should be the corresponding product name, as set out in chapter 17 of the IBC Code or list 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular. 6.7 The contains name of a trade-named mixture may be a single product or two different products. The selected contains name(s) should correspond to a product name(s) set out in chapter 17 of the IBC Code or list 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular. Where a trade-named mixture contains both pollution and safety hazards, the product representing the safety hazard should be listed first in the contains name, followed by the product representing the pollution hazard, unless they are one and the same. If the mixture contains diluent mineral oil, which could contribute the assignment of the pollution category, this should also be indicated in the contains name, following the product name(s) as follows: "contains mineral oil". Mixtures assessed as a whole 6.8 Mixtures with a generic technical name presenting safety hazards assessed as a whole should be assigned to list 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular. 6.9 Once a provisional assessment is made, a tripartite agreement, as described in section 8, should be established in order to be able to ship the product. 7 ASSESSMENT OF MIXTURES CONTAINING ONE OR MORE COMPONENTS

WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN ASSESSED BY IMO 7.1 This section addresses mixtures containing one or more components, forming more than 1% by weight of the mixture, that have not yet been assessed by IMO. Given that these components have not been assessed, they would not be listed in chapters 17, 18 or 19 of the IBC Code, nor in the MEPC.2/Circular. 7.2 There are two possible ways of assessing such mixtures:

.1 if sufficient data are available for the mixture as a whole, it should be assessed as if it were a pure or technically pure product, in accordance with section 4;

.2 if sufficient data for the mixture as a whole are not available, the

Administration of the reporting country should:

.1 provisionally assess each unassessed component, in accordance with section 4; and then

.2 assess the mixture by calculation, as shown in section 5, for a

pollutant only mixture, and section 6, for trade-named mixtures presenting safety hazards.



Mixtures presenting only pollution hazards 7.3 Following a provisional assessment of the mixture presenting only pollution hazards, the reporting country may initiate a tripartite agreement, as described in section 8. These mixtures will be shipped under the applicable generic entry in the IBC Code (i.e. noxious liquid (n.o.s.) or non-noxious liquid (n.o.s.)), without the need for an addendum to the ship's Certificate of Fitness. 7.4 Once the tripartite agreement has been communicated to IMO, the details of the assessment will be included on the IMO website and in list 4 in the next edition of the MEPC.2/Circular. 7.5 As described in paragraph 7.2, the manufacturer has the option of forwarding the available data on the whole mixture to GESAMP/EHS, in the case of 7.2.1, or on each individual unassessed component, in the case of 7.2.2, in order to establish the respective GESAMP Hazard Profiles. This should be done following the procedure set out in section 10. Mixtures presenting safety hazards 7.6 When an unassessed component presents safety hazards, the Administration of the reporting country should follow the procedure set out in section 4, as if the component is to be shipped as a pure or a technically pure product. 7.7 Once the provisional assessment has been made for a component as described in 7.6 above, the procedure set out in section 6 should be followed. 7.8 Further to the provisional assessment, the reporting country should initiate a tripartite agreement, as described in section 8, in order to be able to ship the product. 7.9 Provisionally assessed trade-named mixtures presenting safety hazards will be included in the list 3 of the MEPC.2/Circular, and mixtures with a generic technical name will be included in the list 1 of the MEPC.2/Circular, both with an expiry date of three years. 7.10 The manufacturer will forward the available data on the mixture as a whole to GESAMP/EHS, in the case of 7.2.1, or on each individual unassessed component in the case of 7.2.2, in order to assign the respective GESAMP Hazard Profiles. This should be done following the procedure set out in section 10. 7.11 When information on the mixture or on all of the components is available, the product should be reviewed and a submission made to IMO to reassign it to the appropriate list in the MEPC.2/Circular, as an entry for all countries without an expiry date. 8 ESTABLISHING TRIPARTITE AGREEMENTS AND RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUIREMENTS Tripartite agreements 8.1 In order to be able to ship a product which has been provisionally assessed, but has not yet been fully assessed by IMO, the reporting country must establish a tripartite agreement.



8.2 Provisional assessments by tripartite agreement will expire three years after their first publication in the MEPC.2/Circular. It is intended that this three-year period would allow sufficient time for the product (and/or its components, as appropriate) to be fully assessed by both the GESAMP/EHS and IMO (see section 9) and subsequently included in the MEPC.2/Circular, with validity for all countries and with no expiry date. 8.3 It is critical that this is done within the specified period as, once a tripartite agreement has expired, no new tripartite agreement may be established for the same product, even under a different name. As a consequence, the product can no longer be carried until it has been fully assessed and included in either the MEPC.2/Circular, as an entry for all countries without an expiry date. 8.4 It is in the best interest of the manufacturer or shipper to submit the necessary data for a provisional assessment by tripartite agreement to the Administration of the reporting country well in advance of a planned shipment. The Administration should avoid unnecessary delays in initiating the tripartite agreement, after receiving the complete set of information. 8.5 When the provisional assessment of products that present safety hazards is completed, an addendum to the ship's Certificate of Fitness must be issued by the Administration of the flag State of the ship, before the product is loaded on board. An example of an addendum is given in appendix 3. 8.6 Until the provisional assessment is fully agreed by the countries involved and a tripartite agreement has been established, the product(s) shall not be carried. Administrative aspects of establishing a tripartite agreement 8.7 To initiate a tripartite agreement, the Administration of the reporting country should seek the concurrence of the Administrations of the flag State(s) and receiving countries for the provisional assessment, by providing information on which the provisional pollution and safety hazard assessments have been based. For this purpose, the standard format for proposing tripartite agreements for the provisional assessment of liquid substances should be used; as set out in appendix 6. Contact details for tripartite agreements are published in annex 8 of the latest MEPC.2/Circular and can also be accessed at any time on the GISIS web portal of the IMO website.4 8.8 Once a provisional assessment for the establishment of a tripartite agreement has been received by a flag State or receiving country, Administrations are expected to respond within 14 days. 8.9 In the absence of an interim or final response to the proposal for a tripartite agreement from any of the parties within this 14-day period, the provisional assessment proposed by the Administration of the reporting country is deemed to have been accepted. 8.10 Those contact points that have not informed the Organization of their latest contact details are also deemed to have accepted the tripartite agreement, whilst other contact points should still follow regulation 6.3 of Annex II of MARPOL and these Guidelines. 8.11 In the event of disagreement, the most severe of the conditions proposed should prevail for the purposes of the tripartite agreement.

4 https://gisis.imo.org/Public/CP/Browse.aspx?List=BCCP



8.12 Following express or tacit agreement by the parties, the Administration of the reporting country should inform IMO of the tripartite agreement, with details of the provisional assessment within 30 days (or ideally as soon as possible), as required by regulation 6.3 of MARPOL Annex II. 8.13 Following the establishment of the tripartite agreement, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to submit the product (pure or technically pure substance; or the unassessed component(s) of a mixture; or the mixture as whole), with all required technical data, to GESAMP/EHS for assignment of a GESAMP Hazard Profile well in advance of the expiry date of the tripartite agreement as stated in the latest MEPC.2/Circular. The process for submitting products for evaluation by GESAMP/EHS is set out in section 10. 9 COMPLEX MIXTURES SUBMITTED FOR ASSESSMENT AS AN ANNEX II

PRODUCT 9.1 This section addresses complex mixtures submitted to IMO for consideration as an Annex II product and the criteria that will be applied to determine whether such products should be classified under MARPOL Annex I or MARPOL Annex II. 9.2 A complex mixture is considered to be an Annex I cargo if all of the following criteria apply:

.1 the product is a petrochemical complex mixture not produced by chemical synthesis; and

.2 the product is obtained by refining (elimination of impurities) or distillation of

either crude oils or their blend-stocks or de-aromatization; and .3 the composition of the product can be described as a mixture of hydrocarbon

classes of chemicals, including alkanes with straight or branched-chain, cycloalkanes and aromatics (e.g. naphthalene) etc.; and

.4 the composition incorporates a number of different chemical structure types

and the composition is a complex petrochemical mixture that may vary from batch to batch depending on the origin of the crude oil feed stock, and could be characterized as a UVCB5 substance.

9.3 In addition, Gas to Liquids (GTL) oils, as referenced in BLG.1/Circ.23, and Shale oils6 are considered as MARPOL Annex I cargoes. 10 SUBMISSION OF DATA TO GESAMP/EHS AND IMO 10.1 Following the establishment of a tripartite agreement for a pure or technically pure product or of a mixture containing more than 1% by weight of unassessed components, the manufacturer should take the necessary steps to ensure that their product, or the product components (for mixtures), is duly assessed by GESAMP/EHS and assigned a hazard profile(s), within the specified timeframe, i.e. prior to expiry of the tripartite agreement.

5 Substances of unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products or biological material (OECD

Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals, Second Edition, Series on Testing & Assessment, No.194, 2017).

6 Reference BLG 14/WP.3.



10.2 The first step in this process is to complete the GESAMP/EHS Product Data Reporting form and to submit the form, together with the required technical information, to the attention of the GESAMP Secretariat, for assessment by GESAMP/EHS. Product submissions should follow the guidance as given in GESAMP Reports and Studies No.64, second edition, with respect to the technical information to be supplied. The required form may be downloaded at: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/ChemicalsReportingForms.aspx 10.3 Assessments undertaken by GESAMP/EHS are charged at a fixed rate per assessment, i.e. per product or component (for mixtures) assessed (see BLG.1/Circ.28). 10.4 Once a GESAMP Hazard Profile for a substance or components of a mixture has been assigned, the manufacturer shall then submit to the Administration of the reporting country a completed PPR Product Data Reporting Form, using the required information from the GESAMP Hazard Profile and other technical data, as may be required. The proposal should include the proposed pollution category and ship type and associated carriage requirements. The PPR Data Reporting Form is available for download at the link shown in paragraph 10.2. 10.5 The Administration of the reporting country should then submit a proposal to IMO (either PPR or ESPH), for inclusion of the product in the MEPC.2/Circular as an entry for all countries, without an expiry date. This should comprise a covering note, in the appropriate IMO document format, and a completed PPR Data Reporting form (see MEPC.1/Circ.857).

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/ChemicalsReportingForms.aspx

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/ChemicalsReportingForms.aspx



APPENDIX 1

FLOW DIAGRAMS FOR THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT OF LIQUID SUBSTANCES CARRIED IN BULK

The following flow diagrams have been developed to assist users in conducting a provisional assessment of a liquid substance to be carried in bulk in accordance with MARPOL Annex II and the IBC Code. The diagrams follow sequentially and reference each other as appropriate.

Diagram 1 – Determining whether a liquid substance to be carried in bulk is subject to

the requirements of the IBC Code

Liquid substance to be carried in bulk

Check vapour pressure at 37.8 ̊C

>0.28MPa YesLiquefied Gas (see

Gas Codes)

Oil(Petroleum)

No

Biofuel BlendMSC-MEPC.2/

Circ.[…] applies

Energy Rich Fuel Annex 12 of MEPC.2/

Circ.

Subject to MARPOL Annex I

Subject to MARPOL ANNEX I

(MEPC.1/Circ.879)

Go to Diagram 2

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Subject to MARPOL Annex II



Diagram 2 – Provisional assessment of pure or technically pure products or products

assessed as a whole (List 1 and IBC Code chapters 17, 18 and 19 products)

Pure or technically pure chemical product or generic mixture

assessed as a whole

(From diagram 1)

Consult Chapter 17, 18 and 19 of

IBC Code

Product found YesApply IBC Code Requirements

No

Check MEPC.2/Circ List 1

From A (Diagram 3) Entry found YesFull entry, all

countries, no expiry date

Yes

Apply carriage requirements specified in

circular

NoCheck IMO Website

for new Tripartite Agreements

No

Contact Reporting country to join

Tripartite Agreement

Entry found YesReview

assessment and agree

yes

Join Tripartite Agreement and

reporting country to inform IMO

No

Agree New Tripartite

Agreement Yes

No

Sufficient data available for assessment

No

GHP Available

Develop Pollution Category, Ship

Type and Carriage requirements

YesSufficient

Safety data available

Yes

Assign Carriage requirements

Chapter 21 IBC Code

Sufficient data for provisional

profile

No

Reassess available data

No

Develop provisional hazard

profileYes

No

Similar chemical

products listed Yes

Assessment by analogue to

similar chemical product

Initiate New Tripartite

Agreement (See diagram 4)

No



Diagram 3 – Provisional assessment of trade-named mixtures (List 2, 3 and 4 products)

Trade Name Products

Review Composition

Assess mixture as a whole

YesGo to A (Diagram 2)

No

All components have full GHP

Yes

Calculate Provisional Pollution

Category and Ship Type using Mixture Calculation method

Product has Safety Hazards Yes

Assign carriage requirements based on overall hazards

identified

No

Assign to List 2 as ‘nos’ entry

Inform Flag state and receiving

countries and IMO

No

Assess unassessed

component to give provisional GHP

Calculate provisional Pollution

Category and Ship Type using mixture calculation method

Assign to List 3

Initiate Tripartite Agreement

(Diagram 4)Assign carriage requirements for

pollution

Product has safety hazards

Assign carriage requirements based on overall hazards

identified

Yes

No

Product still considered as having safety

hazards

No

Yes

Assign to List 4 as ‘nos’ Entry

Complex mixture (see

section 9)Yes

MARPOL Annex I cargo

No



Diagram 4 – Establishing a Tripartite Agreement for a product

INITIATE NEW TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT

(from Diagram 2 or 3)

Reporting Country

Communicates with receiving countries and Flag States

Response received within 14

days

YesResponse positive

YesProposal accepted

No

Proposal deemed

acceptable by tacit

agreement

No

Discuss with initiating

country and assign and

agree carriage requirements

PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT BY TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHED

(Provisional assessments by Tripartite Agreement will expire three years after first publication)

Flag State issues addendum to ships

Certificate of Fitness

Reporting Country reports to IMO

details of Tripartite

Agreement

Manufacturer submits unassessed product

data to GESAMP/EHS for assessment within

three years

IMO updates Tripartite details

onto external web site

GESAMP/EHS issues a GESAMP Hazard

Profile (PPR.1/Circ)

Tripartite Agreement

included in the next issue of MEPC.2/Circ

Submission to IMO for full entry into IBC Code or MEPC.2/Circ, within

3 years



APPENDIX 2

REFERENCES TO RELATED INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ASCERTAINING THE CARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN BULK

Information requirement

Reference to relevant documents

Subject Remarks

Information for assessed or provisionally assessed products

IBC Code, chapters 17, 18, 19

Chapters 17, 18: Identification of assessed products Chapter 19: Index of products carried in bulk (synonyms of products listed in the IBC Code)

MEPC.1/Circ.512/Rev.1 section 2

MEPC.2/Circular, list 1 (issued in December of each year)

Provisional categorization of liquid substances in accordance with MARPOL Annex II and the IBC Code (potential entries to the IBC Code)

Check latest MEPC.2/Circular

Tripartite Agreement Information (BLG.1/Circ.27)

Substances already shipped under Tripartite Agreement arising since the last MEPC.2/Circular

Check IMO website7 for

current list

Information for provisional assessment

MARPOL Annex II, appendix I

Guidelines for the categorization of noxious liquid substances

Use for the assignment of pollution category

IBC Code, chapter 21 Chapter 21: Criteria for assigning carriage requirements for products subject to the IBC Code

See also MARPOL, Annex II, appendix I to identify endpoint ranges from GESAMP hazard profiles

MEPC.1/Circ.512/Rev.1 Guidelines for the provisional assessment of liquid substances transported in bulk

Refer to relevant section, flowcharts and examples in appendix

GESAMP/EHS Working Group Report (PPR.1/Circular)

Hazard evaluation of substances transported by ships and GESAMP hazard profiles

Contains latest GESAMP Composite List with full listing of GESAMP hazard profiles

PPR.1/Circ.[…] Decisions with regard to the categorization and classification of products

Interpretation of the ratings of GESAMP hazard profiles

PPR.1/Circ.[…] Gas to Liquids (GTL) oils

7




Information requirement

Reference to relevant documents

Subject Remarks

Information for proposing tripartite agreements

MEPC.1/Circ.512/Rev.1, section 8

Guidelines for the provisional assessment of liquid substances transported in bulk

Section 8 contains process and format for proposing tripartite agreements

MEPC.2/Circular, annex 8 Tripartite contact details Contact points also available from GISIS

website8

Information for submission of data to GESAMP/EHS for hazard evaluation

GESAMP Reports and Studies No.64, 2nd edition

Revised GESAMP hazard evaluation procedure for chemical substances carried by ships GESAMP/EHS Product Data Reporting Form

Download from

website9

Download from IMO

website10

BLG.1/Circ.28 Introduction of charges for product evaluation work undertaken by GESAMP/EHS

Sets out evaluation fees for submission of products to GESAMP/EHS

Submission to IMO (for MEPC.2/Circ. and IBC Code)

MEPC.1/Circ.512/Rev.1 section 10, appendix 4

PPR Product Data Reporting Form

Download from

IMO website11

8 http://gisis.imo.org

9 www.gesamp.org/publications

10 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/

ChemicalsReportingForms.aspx

11 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/

ChemicalsReportingForms.aspx

http://gisis.imo.org/



http://www.gesamp.org/publications





APPENDIX 3

EXAMPLE OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE SHIP'S CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS

(Also known as International Certificate of Fitness/International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk)

Addendum to Certificate No.: Issued at: dd/mm/yyyy

Issued in pursuance of the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk/International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk/Annex II to MARPOL, as amended* under the authority of the Government of: ….………………………………………………

Name of Ship Distinctive Number or Letters

IMO Number

Port of Registry

Gross Tonnage

Ship Type

THIS IS TO CERTIFY: That the ship meets the requirements for the carriage in bulk of the following product(s), provided that all relevant operational provisions of/the Code and/Annex II of MARPOL are observed*:

Noxious Liquid Substance/Product Conditions of carriage (tank numbers, etc.)

Pollution category

The transportation of this product is permitted between the following countries: The issuance of this Addendum is based on document: The Tripartite Agreement for this product is valid until: (dd/mm/yyyy)…………….. This Addendum will remain in force until: (dd/mm/yyyy)……………. Place and date of issue: (dd/mm/yyyy)………………………

Signed…………………. (signature of authorized official)

* Delete as appropriate.



APPENDIX 4

EXAMPLES OF DETERMINATION OF POLLUTION CATEGORIES FOR MIXTURES This section presents a number of examples to illustrate how pollution categories are derived for mixtures, based on the procedures identified in this document. Please note that only parts GESAMP hazard profiles have been presented for the purposes of the examples. It should, however, be noted that a value for each rating would normally be included in a complete GESAMP hazard profile. Methodology

Step 1

Determine for each component the applicable row in table 1, by means of its hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP Composite list. This will determine the component factor. Test the rows in descending order and find the first combination of ratings that is consistent with the GESAMP hazard profile.

Step 2

Multiply the component factor with the percentage of the component in the mixture. This will result in the value Sp.

Step 3

Add all resultant Sp values and determine the pollution category.

Example 1 Steps 1 and 2 The amount of component 1 in the mixture is 11%. Its GESAMP hazard profile (GHP), taken from the GESAMP Composite list is:

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

4 NR 6

The next step is to consult table 1. The GHP corresponds to row a in table 1. The component factor is 100,000. The multiple is therefore 1,100,000. (i.e. 11 % by wt x 100,000 = 1,100,000) The amount of component 2 is 67% of the mixture. Its GESAMP hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP Composite list is:

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

4 NR 1 1

The GHP corresponds to row q in table 1. The component factor is 1; the multiple is 67. The amount of component 3 in the mixture is 22%. Its GESAMP hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP Composite list is:

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

R 3



This GHP corresponds to row o in table 1. The component factor is 10; the multiple is 220. Step 3 Component number

Applicable Row Table 1

Component Factor (Cp)

% in mixture

Multiple (Cp x %)

1 a 100,000 11 1,100,000

2 q 1 67 67

3 o 10 22 220

Sp 1,100,287

Sp = multiple 1 + multiple 2 + multiple 3 = 1,100,287 Referring to table 2, identify the row corresponding to the calculated Sp value. The Sp > 25,000, the mixture is therefore Pollution Category X. Example 2 Steps 1 and 2 The amount of component 1 is 11% of the mixture, its GESAMP hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP/EHS Composite list is: A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

5 C

The GHP corresponds to row i in table 1. The component factor is therefore 1,000 and the multiple is 11,000. The amount of component 2 is 67 % of the mixture, its GESAMP hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP/EHS Composite list is: A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

4 NR 1

This GHP corresponds to row q in table 1. The corresponding component factor is 1 and the multiple is 67. The amount of component 3 is 22% of the mixture, its GESAMP hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP/EHS Composite list is: A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

3

This corresponds to row o in table 1. The corresponding component factor is 10 and the multiple is 220.



Step 3

Component number



% in mixture

Multiple (Cp x %)

1 i 1,000 11 11,000

2 q 1 67 67

3 o 10 22 220

Sp 11,287

Sp = 11,287

Referring to table 2, Sp < 25,000 and Sp ≥ 25, the mixture is therefore pollution category Y.

Example 3

Steps 1 and 2

The amount of component 1 is 2% of the mixture, its GESAMP Hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP Composite list is:

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

3

The GHP corresponds to row o in table 1. The component factor is 10; the multiple is 20.

The amount of component 2 is 4% of the mixture, its GESAMP Hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP Composite list is completely blank.

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

4 NR 1

The GHP corresponds to row q in table 1. The component factor is 1; the multiple is 4.

The amount of component 3 is 94% of the mixture, its GESAMP Hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP Composite list is completely blank.

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

The GHP corresponds to row u in table 1. The component factor is 0; the multiple is 0.

All components are OS, which corresponds to row u in table 1. The component factors and multiples are both 0.

Step 3

Component number



% in mixture

Multiple (Cp x % )

1 o 10 2 20

2 q 1 4 4

3 u 0 94 0

Sp 24

Sp = 24

Referring to table 2, Sp < 25 and not all components are OS therefore pollution category Y.



Example 4

Steps 1 and 2

The amount of component 1 is 20% of the mixture, its GESAMP Hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP Composite list is completely blank or zero.

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

0

Component 2 is 80% of the mixture, its GESAMP Hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP Composite list is completely blank.

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

All components are OS, which corresponds to row u in table 1. The component factors and multiples are both 0.

Step 3

Component number



% in mixture

Multiple (Cp x % )

1 u 0 20 0

2 u 0 80 0

Sp 0

Sp = 0

Referring to table 2, a mixture where all individual components are OS, therefore the mixture is OS.

Example 5

Steps 1 and 2

The amount of component 1 is 70% of the mixture, its GESAMP hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP Composite list is:

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

4

This corresponds to row m in table 1. The component factor is 100 and the multiple is 7,000.

The amount of component 2 is 29% of the mixture. It is a diluent mineral oil so there is no applicable row in table 1. The component factor assigned to diluent mineral oil is 100 (see paragraph 5.4) and the multiple is 2,900.

The amount of component 3 is 1% of the mixture. It is an unassessed component, so there is no applicable row in table 1. Given the component is 1% of the mixture, the component factor is 10,000 (see paragraph 5.4) and the multiple is therefore 10,000.



Step 3

Component number



% in mixture

Multiple (Cp x % )

1 m 100 70 7000

2 Component is diluent mineral oil

100 29 2,900

3 Unassessed component

10,000 1 10,000

Sp 19,900

Sp = 19,900

Referring to table 2, Sp < 25,000 and Sp 25. The mixture is therefore pollution category Y.

Example 6

Steps 1 and 2

The amount of component 1 is 2% of the mixture, its GESAMP Hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP Composite list is:

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

5 NR M

This corresponds to row d in table 1. The component factor is 25,000 and the multiple is 50,000.

Component 2 is 98 % of the mixture, its GESAMP Hazard profile, taken from the GESAMP Composite list is:

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

1

This corresponds to row r in table 1. The component factor is 1 and the multiple is 98.

Step 3 Component number



% in mixture

Multiple (Cp x % )

1 d 25,000 2 50,000

2 r 1 98 98

Sp 50,098

Sp = 50,098 Referring to table 2, the Sp > 25,000, the mixture is therefore pollution category X.



APPENDIX 5

EXAMPLES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF SHIP TYPES FOR MIXTURES Methodology

Step 1 Identify ship type and the multiplication factor for each component using the IBC Code, the MEPC.2/Circular or the GESAMP Hazard Profiles, and table 3 of this circular;

Step 2 Determine the concentration of each component and multiply the percentage by the factor identified in step 1;

Step 3 Add multiples together and determine the resulting ship type, using table 4 of this circular; and

Step 4 Apply the previously determined pollution category of the mixture if the sum of the multiples are < 100. If they are > 100, no further action is required.

Example 1 Step 1 Component 1 is ship type 1, the multiplication factor is 1,000. Component 2 is ship type 3, the multiplication factor is 10. Component 3 is ship type 3, the multiplication factor is 10. Step 2 Component 1 is 11% of the mixture. The multiple is 11,000. Component 2 is 40 % of the mixture. The multiple is 400. Component 3 is 49% of the mixture. The multiple is 490. Step 3 Component number

Ship type

Factor (f)

% in mixture

Multiples (f x %)

Pollution category of mixture

Resultant ship type

1 1 1,000 11 11,000 Step 4 Not applicable (Ss >100)

1 2 3 10 40 400

3 3 10 49 490

Ss 11,890

Ss = multiple 1 + multiple 2 + multiple 3 = 11890 Referring to column 1 of table 4, Ss ≥ 10,000 In response to the associated question in column 2 of table 4 (reading across the row), the sum of the ST 1 multiples is 11,000, i.e. ≥ 10,000, therefore the ship type is 1.



Example 2

Step 1

Component 1 is ship type 2 and the multiplication factor is 100. Component 2 is ship type 3 and the multiplication factor is 10. Step 2

Component 1 is 5% of the mixture. The multiple is 500. Component 2 is 95% of the mixture. The multiple is 950.

Step 3

Ss = multiples = 1450 Referring to column 1 of table 4, 10,000 > Ss ≥ 1,000.

In response to the associated question in column 2 of table 4 (reading across the row), the sum of the ST 1 & 2 multiples is 500, i.e. not ≥ 1,000, therefore the ship type is 3. This is because there is no ST 1 value component in the mixture in this case and therefore the sum of ST 1 (0) + ST 2 (500) multiples = 500.

Component number

Ship type Factor (f)

% Multiples (f x %)


Resultant ship type

1 2 100 5 500 Step 4 Not applicable (Ss >100)

3 2 3 10 95 950

Ss 1,450

Example 3

Step 1

Component 1 is ship type "n/a", the multiplication factor is 0. Component 2 is ship type 3, the multiplication factor is 10. Component 3 is diluent mineral oil, the multiplication factor is 10.

Step 2

Component 1 is 10% of the mixture. The multiple is 0. Component 2 is 8% of the mixture. The multiple is 80. Component 3 is 82% of the mixture. The multiple is 820.

Step 3

Component number


% Multiples (f x %)


Resultant ship type

1 n/a 0 10 0 Step 4 Not applicable (Ss >100)

3 2 3 10 8 80

3 Diluent mineral oil

10 82 820

Ss 900

Ss = 900 Referring to column 1 of table 4, 1,000 >Ss ≥ 100. Since there is no associated question in column 2 of table 4, the ship type is 3.



Example 4 Step 1 Component 1 is Ship type 2, the multiplication factor is 1,000 Component 2 is Ship type 3, the multiplication factor is 10 Component 3 is unassessed; the multiplication factor is 100 Step 2 Component 1 is 4% of the mixture. The multiple is 400. Component 2 is 95 % of the mixture. The multiple is 950. Component 3 is 1 % of the mixture. The multiple is 100. Step 3 Component number


% in mixture

Multiples (f x % )


Resultant ship type

1 2 100 4 400 Step 4 Not applicable (Ss >100)

3 2 3 10 95 950

3 Unassessed 100 1 100

Ss 1,450

Ss = multiple 1 + multiple 2 + multiple 3 = 1,450 Referring to column 1 of table 4, Ss >1,000 In response to the associated question in column 2 of table 4 (reading across the row), the sum of the ST 1 & 2 multiples is 400, i.e. < 1,000, therefore the ship type is 3. Example 5 Step 1 Component 1 is ship type "n/a", the multiplication factor is 0. Component 2 is ship type 3, the multiplication factor is 10. Component 3 is ship type 3, the multiplication factor is 10. Step 2 Component 1 is 91% of the mixture. The multiple is 0. Component 2 is 7% of the mixture. The multiple is 70. Component 3 is 2% of the mixture. The multiple is 20. Step 3 Component number

Ship type

Factor (f)

% in mixture

Multiples (f x %)


Resultant ship type

1 n/a 0 91 0 Y

3 2 3 10 7 70

3 3 10 2 20

Ss 90

Ss = multiple 1 + multiple 2 + multiple 3 = 90 Referring to column 1 of table 4, Ss < 100 In response to the associated question in column 2 of table 4 (reading across the row), is the Pollution Category of the X or Y, therefore the ship type is 3.



APPENDIX 6

FORMAT FOR PROPOSING TRIPARTITE AGREEMENTS FOR PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT OF LIQUID SUBSTANCES

(for insertion in lists 1, 3 or 4 of the MEPC.2/Circular) Name of Product: Proposed for inclusion in list: [ ] of the MEPC.2/Circular Contains name: (for list 3 and 4 products)

Reporting country:

Participating countries: Company: Proposed GESAMP hazard profile:

A1 A2 B1 B2 D3 E2

Pollution category:

Based on analogy to (if applicable):

Pollution category:

Ship type:

Proposed carriage conditions:

Column Column Column

d i' l

e i'' m -deleted-

f i''' n

g j o

h k



Additional technical information:

Property Qual Value or

range References and comments

Molecular weight

Density @ 20ºC (kg/m3)

Flash Point (cc) (°C)

Boiling Point (°C)

Melting Point/Pour Point (°C)

Water solubility @ 20ºC (mg/l)

Viscosity @ 20ºC (mPa.s)

Vapour Pressure @ 20ºC (Pa)

Vapour Pressure @ 40ºC* (Pa)

SVC @ 20ºC (mg/l)

SVC @ 40ºC* (mg/l)

AutoignitionTemp (°C)

Explosion Limits (% v/v)

Carriage Temperature (ºC)

Unloading Temperature (ºC)

MESG (mm)

*Note: If temperatures other than 20ºC are used, please indicate the reference temperature. Toxicity/Human health:

Property Units Qualifier Value or range

Oral ATE/LD50 (mg/kg)

Dermal ATE/LD50 (mg/kg)

Inhalation ATE/LC5012 (mg/l/4h)

Corrosive to skin13 (Y/N)

***

12 The criteria for inhalation toxicity are based on LC50 data relating to four-hour exposures. Where LC50 data

for one-hour exposures are available, such values can be divided by four to be considered equivalent to LC50 (four hours).

13 If corrosive, include exposure time (hours).



ANNEX 5

DRAFT PPR.1 CIRCULAR

DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO THE CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRODUCTS

1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its [seventy-fourth session (13 to 17 May 2019)], and the Maritime Safety Committee, at its 101st session [(5 to 14 June 2019)], recognizing the need to update BLG.1/Circ.33 to capture all relevant decisions in relation to the assignment of carriage requirements under the IBC Code following the amendments to chapters 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the IBC Code, approved the revised Decisions with regard to the categorization and classification of products, set out in the annex. 2 Member Governments and international organizations are invited to bring the annexed Guidelines to the attention of Administrations, recognized organizations, port authorities, shipowners, ship operators and other parties concerned. 3 This circular revokes BLG.1/Circ.33.

PPR 6/WP.3 Annex 5, page 2


ANNEX

DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO THE CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRODUCTS

1 The following decisions have been taken to assist in the categorization and classification of products.

.1 "NI" in column A2 should be regarded as "NR" (Not Readily Biodegradable).

.2 "NI" in column B2 (Aquatic chronic toxicity)

If column B2 is "NI" or column A1 is "NI" or column "A2" is "NI", the chronic aquatic toxicity rating (B2) is assigned using this method:

.1 if column B1 is 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6; and .2 column A2 is "NR" or "NI", or column A1 is 4, 5 or 6; the product is deemed not to be chronically toxic to aquatic organisms and is assigned a "1" in column B2. .3 In all other cases, the product is deemed not to be chronically toxic

and is assigned a "0" in column B2.

The above method is illustrated in the table shown below.

* B2 is 0 when B1 is ≤ 1, irrespective of the value of A1 or A2.

.3 "NI" in column E2 should be regarded as "F" or "S" (Floater or Sinker), however, during the classification revision process it was agreed to qualify floaters, based on their properties, either as an F or as an Fp (persistent floater). Since an F alone has no impact on the assignment of ship typing, NI in column E2 should be regarded as Fp.

.4 "NI" in other columns used for classification purposes should be regarded as

insufficient data to permit proper classification. .5 GESAMP Hazard Profiles with ratings in brackets (indicating estimated

values) are treated in the same manner as ratings without brackets for the purposes of product classification.

A1 Bioaccumulation

A2 Biodegradation

B1* Acute toxicity

Assign B2 as

≤ 1 (0)

≤ 3 R ≥ 2

≥ 4 ≥ 2

(1) NI (NR) ≥ 2

NR ≥ 2



.6 Only the ratings "R" and "NR" are used in column A2 for categorization purposes and so it is necessary to translate the notation "Inorg" into a rating that can be used for categorization. The rating of "Inorg," is taken to mean a product would be readily biodegradable.

.7 When a material has floater characteristics but this is combined with dissolution or evaporation properties (having an FD, FE or FED rating for column E2 in the GESAMP Hazard Profile), consideration of this combined rating should not trigger a Pollution Category Y on the basis of the F reference presented in column E2 of the hazard profile in view of the substance's associated properties and behaviour.

.8 When assigning the pollution category of a product in relation to the condition "not Fp, F or S (if not organic)" as set out in rule 13 of Appendix 1 to MARPOL Annex II, it was confirmed that "if not organic" has the same meaning as "unless inorganic".

.9 Procedures for estimating acute inhalation toxicity ratings are reflected in the report of the forty-first session of the GESAMP/EHS Working Group (BLG/Circ.15, annex 3). The decision table utilized for this purpose which is based on C1/C2 and D1/D2 ratings is shown below:

Highest Oral and/or Dermal ratings for Columns C1 and/or C2

Highest Skin and/or Eye irritation ratings for Columns D1 and/or D2

Proposed estimated Acute Inhalation Toxicity rating for Column C3

0 0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

1 0 1

1 2

2

3 3

2 0 2 1

2

3 3

3 0 3

1 4 2

3

4 0 4 1

2

3



.10 In the case of inorganic solid substances transported in aqueous solution where it can be shown that the solids concerned are non-volatile and that there is a minimal risk of generating aerosols or mists from solutions during transport and transfer, the provisions in chapter 21 of the IBC Code (paragraph 21.1.3), where human factors or other factors indicate a need for alternative arrangements to be followed when assessing carriage requirements, should be considered. Based on the following criteria:

.1 the substance itself has low volatility and high stability under

ambient temperature and pressure conditions; and .2 the solution does not produce hazardous vapours, it may be appropriate that a requirement for controlled venting or gauging or operational requirements, in relation to the inhalation toxicity (C3) or corrosivity (D1) ratings, are not required. If this approach is followed, to formalize this position, a footnote/reference indicating this by using the wording below, should be associated with the product entry:

"With reference to chapter 21 of the IBC Code (paragraph 21.1.3) deviations from the normal assignment criteria used for some carriage requirements have been implemented."

It should be noted that use of the above reference is not intended for tripartite

agreements but only for products which have been assessed and agreed by the ESPH Working Group.

.11 When products are shipped not in pure form but only as components in

mixtures, it is only necessary to have ratings in columns A1, A2, B1, B2, D3 and E2. The Ship Type of these products can be established based on the GESAMP/EHS report, after which the entry will be included in annex 5 to the MEPC.2/Circ. and can be used for mixture calculation purposes. If the component presents a safety hazard this should be taken into account. Submissions to GESAMP/EHS should clearly state the application relates to a reduced hazard profile for annex 5 purposes.

.12 In cases where products which contain mineral oil are proposed as entries

for List 1 but the products are not conventional mixtures since the oil is a diluent which is present as a necessary consequence of manufacture and hence effectively integral to the product concerned, the term mineral oil does not need to be reflected in the product name.

.13 As the boiling point of a product is not always less than its autoignition

temperature, boiling point should not be used to estimate flammability criteria. Additionally,

.1 if the autoignition temperature is >200°C, then an accurate value

does not need to be provided unless the flashpoint is <60°C, when it is required to assign electrical apparatus; and

.2 if the autoignition temperature is <200°C, then an accurate value is

needed to assign certain carriage requirements.



.14 Column "l" of chapter 17 of the IBC Code should list all suitable fire-fighting media in order to allow an appropriate type to be selected for the range of products to be carried on a ship. Although in paragraph 21.4.12.1 of the IBC Code it states that "all appropriate media shall be listed", with respect to the need to specify Dry Chemical (D) usage, this should not be used unless the Water Reactivity Index (WRI) condition is invoked (WRI to be >1).

.15 (Aqueous solution), in line with established practice for reporting water

solutions, the term aqueous should be deleted and the brackets removed. .16 If there is no information in columns i' and i'' the default requirement is set as

T4 and IIB respectively, if the flashpoint of the product is ≤ 60oC or if the product is heated to within 15oC of its flashpoint.

.17 Taking into account that some components of mixtures can potentially react

chemically with each other, manufacturers should provide information, in the PPR Product Data Reporting Form, on the final composition of mixtures as far as practicable, rather than simply providing the initial "recipe" chemicals.

2 Background information and rationale for the decisions set out above can be found in the following documents: BLG/Circ.15, BLG 11/3/2, BLG 12/3, BLG 14/3, BLG 15/3, BLG 16/3, PPR 3/WP.3, PPR 5/3, PPR 5/WP.4 and PPR 6/3.



APPENDIX

RATIONALE FOR DEVIATING FROM THE CARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN

CHAPTER 21 OF THE IBC CODE (MEPC.74(xx) and MSC.101(xx))

The information set out below provides the rationale for deviating from the carriage requirements based on the criteria set out in chapter 21 of the IBC Code for the following products, as agreed by the ESPH Working Group.

1. Ammonium nitrate solution (93% or less): it was agreed that this product would require 1G tanks due to the carriage temperature and the thermal stress placed on the structure, if shipped in 2G tanks. It was further agreed that Special Requirement 15.2 should be amended to make this clear.

2. Ammonium sulphide solution (45% or less): it was agreed that due to the Temperature Class being rated as T4, i.e. auto-ignition temperature <200°C due to H2S, then a ship type 2 would be required for this product.

3. Coal tar pitch (molten): it was agreed that due to the high carriage temperature, 1G tanks should be retained due to the stress levels on the structure.

4. Diethyl ether: it was noted that this product has a high vapour pressure and was also listed in chapter 19 of the IGC Code. It was therefore agreed that the appropriate section of chapter 15 of the IBC Code should be amended to identify that 1G tanks would be appropriate for carrying this product.

5. Ethylamine: it was noted that this product was also included in chapter 19 of the IGC Code. Given its high vapour pressure, it was agreed that carriage in 1G tanks should be retained for this product.

6. Hydrochloric acid: it was agreed that the product should be retained in 1G tanks due to its corrosivity and that a new special requirement be added following 15.8 to indicate that Hydrochloric acid should only be carried in 1G tanks.

7. Methyl alcohol: during the review of chapters 17 and 18 of the IBC Code, it was agreed the requirements in paragraph 15.12.3.1 of the IBC Code would not to be applied to the revised carriage requirements, on the basis of experience and expert judgement. All other requirements of 15.12 would apply in addition to all other applicable carriage requirements.

8. Phosphoric acid: the group could not agree on the proposed deviation to the carriage requirements, based on the information presented. The group therefore requested industry to submit data on the C1 and C2 ratings to GESAMP to reassess the GESAMP Hazard Rating, as the current C1 and C2 ratings were not based on actual data, but by analogy to the D1 and D2 ratings.

9. Phosphorus, yellow or white: it was agreed that the existing tank type should be retained as the special requirements in 15.7 implied independent tanks. It was also agreed that the wording in chapter 15.7 would need to be amended to emphasis this point.

10. Sodium hydrosulphide/Ammonium sulphide solution: it was agreed that due to the temperature class being rated as T4, i.e. auto-ignition temperature <200ºC, then a ship type 2 would be required.

Entry into force on 1 January 2021.



11. Sulphur (molten): due to its carriage at high temperature and corresponding stress on the tank, it was agreed to retain its carriage in 1G tanks. It was also agreed that special requirement 15.10 would need to be amended and a new entry under 15.10.7 be added to require the carriage of this product in 1G tanks only.

***




ANNEX 6

PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR ESPH 25

Opening of the session

1 Adoption of the agenda

2 Decisions of other bodies

3 Evaluation of products

4 Evaluation of cleaning additives

5 Review of MEPC.2/Circular – Provisional classification of liquid substances transported in bulk and other related matters

6 Review of products in lists 2, 3 and 4 of the MEPC.2/Circular

7 Revision of MEPC.1/Circ.590 – expanded guidance on what can be considered as a cleaning additive for the cleaning of NLS cargo residues

8 Proposed provisional agenda for ESPH 26

9 Report to the Sub-Committee

***



I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docxI:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx

ANNEX 7

DRAFT REVISED BWM CIRCULAR

Data gathering and analysis plan for the experience-building phase associated with the BWM Convention

1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), at its seventy-first session (3 to 7 July 2017), adopted resolution MEPC.290(71), establishing the experience-building phase associated with the BWM Convention, to allow the Marine Environment Protection Committee to monitor and improve the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004. 2 MEPC 72 (9 to 13 April 2018) considered and approved the Data gathering and analysis plan for the experience-building phase associated with the BWM Convention (BWM.2/Circ.67). 3 [MEPC 74 (13 to 17 May 2019)], considered and approved a revision of the circular in order to include a link to standard operating procedures for collection of treated ballast water samples, as agreed by PPR 6 (18 to 22 February 2019). 4 Member Governments and international organizations are encouraged to use the annexed plan to gather, prepare and submit data to the experience-building phase (EBP). 5 This circular supersedes BWM.2/Circ.67.



ANNEX

DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS PLAN FOR THE EXPERIENCE-BUILDING PHASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE BWM CONVENTION

1 Overview of the experience-building phase 1.1 Resolution MEPC.290(71) established the experience-building phase associated with the BWM Convention (EBP). The annex to resolution MEPC.290(71) sets out the structure of the EBP, whose purpose is to allow the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) to monitor and improve the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (the Convention). 1.2 This data gathering and analysis plan for the experience-building phase associated with the BWM Convention (DGAP) supplements the annex to resolution MEPC.290(71) by setting out the specific arrangements for data gathering during the EBP, with regard to both the interfaces through which data may be submitted to the EBP and the specific data requirements for each interface. The DGAP also includes principles and organizational arrangements for analysing the data collected and sets out the timeline for the EBP. The DGAP is intended to be a living document, to be revised as needed by the Committee in light of developments and trends identified as the data gathering progresses. 1.3 The EBP consists of a data gathering stage, a data analysis stage and a Convention review stage. The EBP begins with the entry into force of the Convention and ends with the entry into force of a package of priority amendments. The priority amendments are those that implement improvements to the Convention needed before the end of non-penalization measures specific to the EBP that are set out in resolution MEPC.290(71). A timeline for the stages of the EBP is set out below in section 6. 1.4 Aside from the non-penalization set out in resolution MEPC.290(71), the EBP does not alter the basic roles, responsibilities, obligations and recommendations under the Convention, its guidelines and relevant guidance. 1.5 The EBP includes the more specific "trial period" associated with methods for sampling and analysing ballast water during port State control (PSC).1 The arrangements for the trial period have been updated and incorporated within the EBP (see section 5 below), and data associated with the trial period will be gathered and analysed in parallel with data concerning other aspects of the Convention. 2 Organizational arrangements 2.1 The EBP will be supported by the Secretariat, which will administer the data gathering and analysis stages on behalf of the Organization. Member States and other stakeholders are invited to make financial contributions in support of the Secretariat's work on data gathering and analysis. Consistent with the resources available, the Secretariat will undertake data handling and management, work with submitters to ensure the quality of data, make global data available to the Committee and its Ballast Water Review Group (BWRG) for consideration as appropriate, and manage the production of a data analysis report.

1 See document BLG 17/18, annex 6, Recommendations related to the trial period for reviewing, improving

and standardizing the Guidance for ballast water sampling and analysis for trial use in accordance with the BWM Convention and Guidelines (G2). These recommendations were agreed in principle at MEPC 65.



2.2 The BWRG should meet at each session of the Committee during the EBP. During the data gathering stage, the BWRG will consider the global data in order to register any arising issues with the Convention and propose early actions to the Committee if appropriate. The BWRG will also consider the analysis report and will be the primary forum for discussion during the Convention review stage, preparing the necessary materials and recommendations for the Committee's consideration. The BWRG should also continue to undertake reviews in accordance with regulation D-5 of the Convention during the EBP. 3 Data gathering and data quality 3.1 Member States are encouraged to participate fully in the EBP in order to maximize the information available to the Committee. However, participation is voluntary and Member States may determine the areas in which they wish to provide data. Four different interfaces are provided for submitting data:

.1 Basic interface – straightforward reports from port and flag States that summarize basic data that would normally be collected by these States:

.1 basic flag State interface report (see appendix A); and .2 basic port State interface report (see appendix B);

.2 Supplementary interface – reports on specific topics from port States and

flag States that would require greater analysis and/or additional research work:

.1 ballast water analysis interface report (see appendix C);

.3 Trial period interface – reports from port States on methods for sampling and analysis during PSC (see appendix D); and

.4 Stakeholder interface – reports from all stakeholders on their perspectives

and experience (e.g. shipowners, BWMS manufacturers, recognized organizations) (see appendix E).

3.2 The process of data gathering is as follows. The State determines which of the interfaces it wishes to participate in. It assembles the appropriate data and completes the appropriate common data template appended to this document. The State submits the completed template as a report to the Secretariat. The Secretariat includes the data provided by the State in the EBP, making the information available to the Committee and ultimately to the BWRG (figure 1).



Figure 1: Flowchart of data gathering 3.3 States are particularly encouraged to submit basic reports, which impose the lowest administrative burden while contributing key information on the implementation of the Convention. It is understood that, in light of the additional effort involved, supplementary and trial period reports might be provided by a smaller number of States. 3.4 The EBP is intended to be inclusive and the stakeholder interface is provided to ensure that stakeholder perspectives are considered as the Convention is improved. For practical reasons, stakeholders are invited to provide their voluntary reports to a relevant Member State for aggregation and submission to this interface. In the case of shipowners, the relevant Member State is the flag State. States should ensure that any reports received are included in the EBP. 3.5 Commercial sensitivities will be protected through the use of aggregate reporting by port States and flag States. The EBP does not require ships or shipowners to be identified in data submissions. 3.6 Reports should be submitted in electronic format to the Secretariat, which will work with submitters to ensure that the data adheres to the DGAP, is in the correct format, and that the data quality of the EBP will be maintained when submissions are aggregated. The EBP will consider all data submitted by port States and flag States in accordance with the four interfaces and the report specifications set out in the appendices to this plan. States are requested to submit reports rather than raw data in order to manage the volume of information, and to ensure comparability between reports. Information submitted to the EBP will become part of the public domain.



3.7 The Secretariat, the Committee and the BWRG will maintain a consistent emphasis on data quality, recognizing that aggregating low-quality data with higher-quality data can diminish the usefulness of the product. This plan balances the need for high-quality data with the need to achieve a straightforward process that maximizes participation in the EBP. 3.8 Member States are requested to pay particular attention to the accurate categorization of qualitative data, having regard to the report specifications. In the case of quantitative data, Member States are requested not to aggregate data gathered by multiple methods whose results are not comparable, and instead to submit multiple reports if necessary. 4 Data analysis 4.1 As opposed to the data gathering plan (which is highly structured so as to coordinate the input of many Member States), the plan for data analysis takes a more principles-based approach. This provides flexibility for relevant analysis and synthesis to be undertaken based on the data, taking into account emerging trends, and for conclusions to be conveyed in the most appropriate way to the Committee. 4.2 The analysis should shed light on specific provisions of the Convention and its guidelines, as well as on more general topics concerning the implementation itself, such as:

.1 the progress of, and any challenges in, transitioning ships to the Convention; .2 the degree of compliance with regulations D-1 and D-2, and any systematic

reasons for non-compliance; .3 whether compliance other than with regulations D-1 and D-2 is achievable

or not; .4 any unforeseen operational, safety or environmental hazards associated with

the methods used to comply with the Convention; .5 optional/additional actions taken by port States in implementing the

Convention; .6 the outcome of the trial period on sampling and analysis; and .7 additional aspects of the Convention that require consideration during the

analysis stage. 4.3 While the analysis will be based primarily on the data gathered through the EBP, it should also take into account any relevant information otherwise provided to the Organization pursuant to the Convention and its guidelines (e.g. notifications under regulation C-3 and BWMS type approval reports under Guidelines G8)).2 4.4 During the data analysis stage, the Secretariat will oversee the development of a final analysis report for the Committee and the BWRG. This report should convey the outcomes of data gathering, and provide deep insights into the Convention and any challenges associated with its implementation, such as those questions outlined above. The report should contain a separate chapter on the outcome of the trial period, including any recommendations for

2 In the context of this circular, the Guidelines (G8) refer to the guidelines adopted by resolution

MEPC.174(58), the 2016 Guidelines (G8) adopted by resolution MEPC.279(70) and the Code for approval of ballast water management systems adopted by resolution MEPC.300(72), as may be appropriate.



sampling and analysis methods for PSC as appropriate. A draft of the final analysis report should be provided to the Committee by the Secretariat for consideration and comment by the BWRG prior to completion of the report. The specific terms of reference for this report should be approved by the Committee towards the end of the data gathering stage. The terms of reference may direct the analysis, inter alia, to also:

.1 take into account additional information accepted by the Committee that has come to light other than through the EBP;

.2 undertake additional transparent research to identify reasons for patterns

emerging within the data that cannot be gleaned from the data itself; and/or .3 make recommendations on specific aspects of the Convention approach for

consideration by the BWRG and the Committee during the Convention review stage.

5 Trial period and other sampling and analysis 5.1 MEPC 65 approved the Guidance on ballast water sampling and analysis for trial use in accordance with the BWM Convention and Guidelines (G2) (BWM.2/Circ.42). This Guidance sets out recommended methodologies and approaches to sampling and analysis for testing compliance with the standards described in regulations D-1 and D-2 of the Convention. Member States and observers were encouraged to further develop sampling and analysis protocols towards later revisions of the Guidance. The Guidance was revised by MEPC 68 and subsequently disseminated as BWM.2/Circ.42/Rev.1. 5.2 Recognizing that many of the sampling and analysis methods in the Guidance had not been adequately validated, the methods in the Guidance were not fully integrated in the Guidelines for port State control under the BWM Convention (resolution MEPC.252(67)) (PSC Guidelines) and MEPC 65 agreed in principle with recommendations for a trial period for reviewing, improving and standardizing the Guidance (as set out in annex 6 to document BLG 17/18). These recommendations are being addressed through the present DGAP. 5.3 As an element of the EBP, the trial period is intended to gather and analyse data on the practical utility for PSC of the methodologies and approaches to sampling and analysis for compliance set out in BWM.2/Circ.42/Rev.1. Recognizing the non-mandatory nature of the Guidance and the Committee's encouragement that sampling and analysis protocols be further developed, the trial period is also intended to gather and analyse data on other sampling and analysis protocols in use by port States. It is to be noted that MEPC 64 agreed that sampling for PSC should be no more stringent than the sampling used for type approval of a BWMS. 5.4 Use of the standard operating procedures (SOPs) developed by the ICES/IOC/IMO Working Group on Ballast and Other Ship Vectors is recommended in order to support the comparable collection and analysis of samples.3 This would facilitate the trial period, as well as research studies during the EBP by groups studying the biological efficacy of ballast water management systems.

3 The procedures referred to are the Standard Operating Procedures – Collection of Treated Ballast Water

Samples Using an Inline Sample Port available at: http://www.ices.dk/community/ Documents/Expert%20Groups/WGBOSV/SOP_inline%20ballast%20water%20sampling.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/community/Documents/Expert%20Groups/WGBOSV/SOP_inline%20ballast%20water%20sampling.pdf






5.54 Data relating to the trial period should be analysed with regard to validity, practicability (e.g. cost-effectiveness, timeliness and general applicability with regard to ship type and geographic region) and effectiveness in assessing compliance (e.g. consistency with type approval sampling procedures). The Committee may revise BWM.2/Circ.42/Rev.1 during the EBP as appropriate. 5.65 During the EBP, port States should share the results of the sampling and analysis process in accordance with chapter 3 of the PSC Guidelines, making clear the trial nature of the procedure. 5.76 The goal at the end of the EBP is to have a suite of accepted procedures that can be used for sampling and analysing ballast water in a globally consistent way. The finalization of this suite of accepted procedures should be done during the Convention review stage, on the basis of the data gathered and analysed in accordance with this DGAP. At least one standard precise protocol for indicative and detailed analysis of organisms at each size class is desired. 5.87 Ballast water sampling and analysis during the EBP may be undertaken:

.1 on a mandatory basis, by or under the authority of a PSC officer pursuant to article 9 of the Convention (in which case the inspection should be in accordance with the PSC Guidelines); or

.2 independently of a PSC inspection with the voluntary participation of the ship

(in which case the sampling may be undertaken by appropriate personnel of the port State, the flag State or another entity).

5.98 The ship should be advised of the context of sampling and whether participation is voluntary or mandatory before a sample is taken. Before voluntary sampling begins, the ship should be advised of any consequences that could follow if the ballast water is found to be non-compliant with the standards in regulations D-1 or D-2 (as appropriate). 5.109 Data derived from both voluntary and PSC-related sampling and analysis will be equally informative to the Committee concerning the effectiveness of BWMS in reaching the standard described in regulation D-2. Therefore, reports on the results of both voluntary and PSC-related sampling and analysis should be reported together through the supplementary EBP interface. Regardless of the voluntary or mandatory nature of any sampling and analysis, quality assurance and quality control should be ensured. 5.110 Only sampling and analysis done in association with PSC inspections will be informative to the Committee concerning the practicability and utility of particular sampling and analysis methods for PSC purposes. Therefore, only data derived from PSC inspections should be reported through the trial period interface. 6 Timeline 6.1 The timeline for the EBP should be short enough to ensure that the outcomes of the EBP are relevant to the Convention review stage, but long enough to generate a reasonable picture of the implementation of the Convention. 6.2 The EBP should unfold according to the following timeline:

.1 a summary of any data received to date should be submitted by the Secretariat to MEPC 74;



.2 an aggregate data report, reflecting submissions to the EBP through the second year of experience with the Convention, should be submitted by the Secretariat to MEPC 75, at which the Committee is also expected to take stock of this timeline;

.3 the next aggregate data report, reflecting submissions to the EBP concerning

the third year of experience with the Convention, should be submitted by the Secretariat to MEPC 76,34 at which the Committee should also finalize the draft terms of reference for the data analysis report;

.4 the draft data analysis report should be submitted to MEPC 77; .5 the final data analysis report should be submitted to MEPC 78, at which

the Committee should also agree to the prioritized evidence-based list of issues with the Convention; and

.6 the package of amendments to the Convention should be submitted to

MEPC 79.

Table 1: Summary of the EBP timeline

MEPC session

Timing Milestone EBP / MEPC action

73 Autumn 2018 Convention has been in force for

one year

74 Spring 2019 First year of data available.

75 Spring 2020 Convention has been in force for

two years Second year of data available, stocktaking of EBP timeline.


three years

Partial third year of data available, enough to agree to data analysis report terms of

reference.

77 Spring 2021 Full third year of data available, Draft analysis report received.

78 Spring 2022 Convention has been in force for

four years Final analysis report received.

Convention issues agreed.


five years Package of amendments submitted to the Parties.

34 This may reflect a partial year, recognizing that the deadline for document submission to the meeting would

occur before the end of the third year that the Convention is in force. The complete data for the third year is expected to be available and taken into account during the preparation of the draft data analysis report.



APPENDIX A: BASIC INTERFACE: BASIC FLAG STATE REPORT TEMPLATE

Part 1: Fleet and its ballast water management plans Response

Member State:

Time period of report

Date report prepared

Ships to which Convention applies:

Total number of ships

Container ships

Bulk carriers

Tankers

Ferries

Cruise ships

Other (attach details)

Number currently subject to regulation D-2

Number fitted with BWMS

Electro-chlorination

Ozonation

Other chemical injection

Ultraviolet


Approved ballast water management plans

Total number of approved plans

Number of approved plans that include:

D-1 procedures

Contingency measures

Exemptions (regulation A-4)

Other methods (regulation B-3.7)

Use of reception facilities (regulation B-3.6)

Prototype BWMS (regulation D-4)

Part 2: Outcome of ballast water surveys Response

Number of surveys undertaken

Initial

Annual

Renewal

Intermediate

Deficiencies noted during these surveys (even if later resolved)

Mechanical

Physical

Treatment process

Electrical

Piping

Location



Part 2: Outcome of ballast water surveys Response

Maintenance and cleaning

Sampling facilities


Part 3: Reported accidents and defects Response

Number of reports of accidents to the ship and/or defects (regulation E-1.7)

Originating outside the ship's ballast water system

Originating in the ship's ballast water system

BWMS treatment equipment

BWMS control and monitoring equipment

Other aspect of the ballasting system (attach details)

Number of other safety incidents reported to the flag State that relate to the Convention

Associated with the ship's ballast water system

BWMS treatment equipment

BWMS control and monitoring equipment

Other aspect of the ballasting system (attach details)

Associated with the storage or handling of Active Substances (including neutralizers)

Associated with the use of ballast water to control trim, list, draught, stability or stresses of the ship (attach details)




APPENDIX B: BASIC INTERFACE: BASIC PORT STATE REPORT TEMPLATE

Part 1: PSC inspection outcomes Response

Member State:



Total number of inspections undertaken

With no ballast water sample

With a ballast water sample45

Analysed with respect to regulation D-1

Analysed with respect to regulation D-2

Number of PSC inspections by outcome

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Valid certificate not on board

Approved ballast water management plan not on board

Deficiency in record book entries

Ship not in compliance with regulation D-1

Ship not in compliance with regulation D-2 (BWMS was installed, maintained and operated correctly)

Ship not in compliance with regulation D-2 (BWMS was not installed, maintained and operated correctly)

Maintenance issues

Crew not designated or unfamiliar with ballast water responsibilities

Unsanctioned changes to structure, equipment, fittings, arrangements or material

BWMS not used in accordance with operational instructions

BWMS and equipment not in good working order or treatment not fully operational

BWMS safety procedures not followed

BWMS has been bypassed


45 Results of sampling/analysis should be reported through the Supplementary Interface (together with the

results of non-PSC sampling/analysis).



Part 2: Actions arising from unsatisfactory inspections (report number of actions)

Action Deficiency concerning

regulation D-1

Deficiency concerning

regulation D-2 or a BWMS

Deficiency concerning other

aspect of the Convention

No action taken

Information/advice provided

Warning

Sanction

Detention

Exclusion

Other



Part 3: Implications of unsatisfactory inspections for ballast water discharge (report number of discharges)

Action Deficiency concerning

regulation D-1

Deficiency concerning regulation D-2 or a

BWMS

Deficiency concerning other aspect of the

Convention

Discharge permitted without contingency measure

Discharge permitted following contingency measure

Ballast water exchange

Emergency treatment

Discharge ashore


Discharge not permitted

Other



APPENDIX C: SUPPLEMENTARY INTERFACE: BALLAST WATER ANALYSIS REPORT TEMPLATE

Both port and flag States are invited to submit this report if they have engaged in ballast water sampling and analysis. Report for submission

Part 1: Identification Response

Member State:



Part 2: Summary of ballast water sampling and biological analysis***

Method Sample group Results for group

Sampling method *

Analysis method *

Purpose (PSC or other) **

Ballast water salinity (F/B/S) **

Ship ballast water management method **

BWMS type (if any) **

BWMS/ ship issues Yes/No **

# of ships sampled

# fails per size class

Degree of failures per size class (mean and standard deviation)

* These columns should reference attached details on sampling methods (including probe type and sampling device) and analysis methods

(whether indicative or detailed).

** These columns should report standard categories.

*** Information from samples should not be combined and reported on the same line unless the samples share all the same values for the blue columns.



Part 3: Summary of ballast water sampling and chemical analysis***

Method Sample group Results for group

Sampling method *

Analysis method *

Ballast water salinity (F/B/S) **

Ship ballast water management method **

BWMS type (if any) **

BWMS/ ship issues Yes/No **

# of ships sampled

Residual TRO (mean and standard deviation)

Relevant Chemical concentrations (add columns for mean and standard deviation of each specific chemical considered)

* These columns should reference attached details on sampling methods (including probe type and sampling device) and analysis methods

(whether indicative or detailed).

** These columns should report standard categories.

*** Information from samples should not be combined and reported on the same line unless the samples share all the same values for the blue columns.

Part 4: Information to be submitted concerning each ballast water sample analysed

Sta

ndard

asse

ssed (

D1/D

2)

Measure

ment

type (

e.g

. ≥50 µ

m s

ize c

lass)

Measure

ment

result (

e.g

. count/volu

me ±

sta

nd

ard

err

or)

Isokin

etic s

am

ple

co

llection (

pro

be s

ize,

flo

w

rate

s a

nd location c

orr

ect)

(Y

/N)

Tota

l volu

me o

f w

ate

r dis

charg

ed fro

m

sam

ple

d t

anks d

uri

ng s

am

plin

g (

m3)

Volu

me o

f sam

ple

(s)

colle

cte

d (

indic

ate

L o

r

m3)

Was t

he s

am

ple

(s)

conce

ntr

ate

d b

efo

re

ana

lysis

(Y

/N)

Analy

sis

meth

od

Num

ber

of

subsam

ple

s a

naly

sed

Analy

sis

com

ple

ted w

ith

in s

tandard

hold

ing

tim

e (

Y/N

)

Analy

sis

com

ple

ted b

y (

aff

iliation)

Exchange c

on

ducte

d (

Y/N

)

BW

MS

utiliz

ed (

Y/N

)

BW

MS

manufa

ctu

rer

and m

od

el

Date

BW

MS

in

sta

lled

Dura

tion B

WM

S in r

egula

r use

(# tre

atm

ent

cycle

s)

Tim

e s

ince last calib

ration o

f B

WM

S s

ensor

(month

s)

Ship

re

port

s d

ifficulty w

ith B

WM

S

opera

tion/m

ain

tenance in g

enera

l (Y

/N)

BW

MS

ala

rm o

ccurr

ed d

urin

g s

am

ple

treatm

ent

(Y/N

)

BW

MS

main

tenance u

p to d

ate

(Y

/N)

Balla

st

wate

r sourc

e locatio

n(s

)

Age o

f balla

st

wate

r (d

ays)

Balla

st

wate

r salin

ity a

t upta

ke/tre

atm

ent

(PS

U)

Balla

st

wate

r te

mpera

ture

at

upta

ke/t

reatm

ent

(°C

)

Maxim

um

Allo

wable

Dis

charg

e C

once

ntr

ation

excee

ded (

Y/N

)

Any o

ther

deficie

ncie

s d

uri

ng P

SC

insp

ection

(Y/N

)



APPENDIX D: TRIAL PERIOD INTERFACE: TRIAL PERIOD REPORT TEMPLATE


Member State:



Part 2: Sampling (provide one copy per sampling method used and attach relevant documentation)

Response

Sampling

Name of method/approach

Comments on validity

Comments on cost-effectiveness

Comments on timeliness

Comments on consistency with the type-approval sampling procedures in Guidelines (G8)*

Part 3: Analysis (provide one copy per analysis method used, and attach relevant documentation)

Response

Analysis

Name of method/approach

Comments on validity

Comments on cost-effectiveness

Comments on timeliness

Comments on consistency with the type-approval sampling procedures in Guidelines (G8)*

* In the context of this circular, the Guidelines (G8) refer to the guidelines adopted by resolution MEPC.174(58),

the 2016 Guidelines (G8) adopted by resolution MEPC.279(70) and the Code for approval of ballast water management systems adopted by resolution MEPC.300(72), as may be appropriate.



APPENDIX E: STAKEHOLDER INTERFACE: STAKEHOLDER REPORT TEMPLATE

Instructions:

- Please categorize the stakeholder reports by type according to the table below, and submit a separate template for each type of report.

- Attach the text of the stakeholder reports (or a summary of the reports).

- Reports should be appropriately redacted in accordance with paragraph 3.5 of the data gathering and analysis plan.

- Duplicate reports should not be submitted. Reports from ships should be forwarded through the flag State of the ship.

- The reports submitted should pertain to specific aspects of the Convention and its implementation. Administrations are requested

to review the reports and submit only information that is pertinent to the EBP.


Member State:



Part 2: Category of attached reports

(Please select only one category per submitted stakeholder

report template)

Mark one category below

Shipowner

Obtaining, fitting, commissioning and surveying BWMS

Maintaining and operating a BWMS

Regarding other aspects of the Convention

Other

Recognized organization

BWMS manufacturer

Other (please identify category)

***




ANNEX 8

REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL GROUP ON AMENDMENTS TO THE AFS CONVENTION

General

1 The Technical Group on Amendments to the AFS Convention met from 18 to 19 February 2019 and was chaired by Dr Sarah Bailey (Canada).

2 The meeting was attended by delegations from the following Member Governments:

BRAZIL GERMANY GREECE IRELAND

JAPAN REPUBLIC OF KOREA UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES

by observers from the following intergovernmental organizations:

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE EXPLORATION OF THE SEA (ICES)

and observers from the following non-governmental organizations:

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING (ICS) INTERNATIONAL SHIP MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION (InterManager) INTERNATIONAL PAINT AND PRINTING INK COUNCIL (IPPIC)

Terms of reference

3 Taking into account comments and decisions made in plenary, the Technical Group was instructed to:

.1 review the comprehensive proposal to amend Annex 1 to the AFS Convention to include controls on cybutryne, contained in documents PPR 6/6 and PPR 6/INF.7;

.2 provide a recommendation on whether international controls pursuant to the AFS Convention were warranted for cybutryne and on specific control measures which it believed to be more suitable; and

.3 submit a written report to plenary by Thursday, 21 February 2019.

Review of the comprehensive proposal 4 As instructed by the Sub-Committee, the Group considered the comprehensive proposal to amend Annex 1 (Controls on anti-fouling systems) to the AFS Convention to include controls on cybutryne, contained in documents PPR 6/6 and PPR 6/INF.7. In doing so, the Group recognized that it had to conduct its review and prepare its report in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively, of article 6(4) of the AFS Convention. Therefore, in accordance with these provisions, the Group first undertook the evaluation described in sub-paragraph (a)(i) before proceeding with the evaluations and considerations described in sub-paragraphs (a)(ii) to (a)(v) of article 6(4). In this regard, the Group also confirmed that the comprehensive proposal covered the items required by Annex 3



to the AFS Convention. Finally, the Group noted that, in accordance with article 6(5), its report would have to be circulated to Parties, Members States and international organizations prior to its consideration by the Committee, and invited the Sub-Committee to do so. Evaluation of the association between cybutryne and related adverse effects observed in the environment or on human health 5 In accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(i) of article 6(4) of the AFS Convention, the Group undertook an evaluation of the association between cybutryne and the related adverse effects observed either in the environment or on human health. The Group recognized that, in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) of this article, it might decide not to proceed with the remaining evaluations and considerations if it determined after this evaluation that the proposal did not warrant further consideration. In this regard, the Group also noted that this evaluation should include, but not be limited to, the consumption of affected seafood, and should be based on the data provided with the submitted comprehensive proposal. 6 In the ensuing discussion, one delegation expressed the view that the adverse effects of cybutryne were observed only in specific locations, which might make controls at the local or regional level more appropriate than global controls under the AFS Convention. However, the Group agreed that the adverse effects of cybutryne could be considered global, as demonstrated by modelling and monitoring studies, and that global controls would be better with a view to having in place consistent requirements applicable for all international shipping. 7 The Group also discussed whether more information would be required in order to justify in detail a potential decision to introduce specific controls on cybutryne, and whether the approach prescribed in the AFS Convention should be enhanced with regard to specifying what constituted an unacceptable level for a specific substance. Following discussion, the Group recognized that it was exactly its role and purpose to recommend such controls based on its expert judgement, and agreed that any amendment to current provisions of the AFS Convention were outside of the scope of the current output and would constitute a new work item. Moreover, the Group agreed that cybutryne would be recommended for prohibition and, therefore, the discussion on unacceptable levels would not be pertinent on this occasion. The Group agreed that a standard approach to risk assessment would be desirable for the future evaluation of anti-fouling substances and might be proposed as a separate work item. 8 In light of the above, the Group determined that the proposal did warrant further consideration and proceeded with the evaluations and considerations described in sub-paragraphs (a)(ii) through (a)(v) of article 6(4). Evaluation of the potential risk reduction attributable to any control measures 9 The Group conducted an evaluation of the potential risk reduction attributable to any control measures that may be introduced for cybutryne, in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of article 6(4) of the AFS Convention. The Group noted that the submitted comprehensive proposal did not include any specific control measures, however the Group had a term of reference requiring it to provide a recommendation on specific control measures which it believed to be more suitable, and it was recognized that any control measures were most likely to be of a similar nature to the existing controls on organotin compounds. It was therefore agreed that the Group would base this evaluation on such specific control measures, which are discussed in more detail in paragraphs 18 to 23 under the Group's second term of reference.



10 The Group noted that reductions in the concentrations of cybutryne were recorded in areas where anti-fouling systems containing cybutryne had already been regionally banned and monitored. It was therefore agreed that commensurate reductions would be expected globally following the introduction of controls on cybutryne under the AFS Convention. In this regard, the Group cautioned that at present there was globally no baseline against which to ascertain the exact effect of such controls, agreed that such baselines could be obtained by interested Member States prior to the entry into force of these controls, and invited the Sub-Committee to encourage Member States to conduct such baseline studies prior to the entry into force of controls on cybutryne, in order to allow the subsequent determination of the effectiveness of these controls. Consideration of the technical feasibility of control measures and the cost-effectiveness of the proposal 11 As required by sub-paragraph (a)(iii) of article 6(4) of the AFS Convention, the Group considered the technical feasibility of the control measures and the cost-effectiveness of the comprehensive proposal. It was noted that sealer coats may not be readily available for anti-fouling systems containing cybutryne and that the development of such sealer coats would need to be investigated. However, the Group agreed that this might not be an issue as, in the absence of such coats, the option to remove existing anti-fouling systems containing cybutryne would be available. 12 In this regard, the Group also agreed that existing practices and infrastructure for removal of anti-fouling coatings (such as blasting) would continue being available and applicable. However, it was noted that the management of wastes might entail differences, and the Revised guidance on best management practices for removal of anti-fouling coatings from ships, including TBT hull paints (AFS.3/Circ.3/Rev.1) should be revised; in this connection, it was agreed that this would be included in the consideration of the consequential revision of relevant guidelines (see paragraphs 29 and 38). Consideration of other effects from the introduction of control measures 13 As required by sub-paragraph (a)(iv) of article 6(4) of the AFS Convention, the Group considered any other effects from the introduction of control measures on cybutryne, as outlined in the following paragraphs 14 to 16. Effects on the environment, shipyard health and safety concerns 14 The Group noted that its consideration should include, but not be limited to, the cost of inaction and the impact on air quality, as well as the potential effects on shipyard workers. In this regard, the Group noted that potential effects would arise from activities related to drydocking, including blasting and the management of wastes, and would be addressed by already established best management practices and covered by land-side domestic regulations. 15 Noting that sealer coats might not be readily available for cybutryne, which would necessitate blasting for the removal of existing non-compliant anti-fouling systems (see paragraph 11), some concerns were expressed with regard to environmental impacts related to air quality and wastes. The Group noted that these impacts would depend on the specific practices followed in each facility and this matter should be considered by relevant stakeholders such as shipyards, dry-docking facilities and their associations.



Cost to international shipping and other relevant sectors 16 The Group agreed that it was not possible to determine any costing implications with any detail or accuracy; however, at a high level, it was agreed that costs would be different for sealing, which could be considered part of normal operations, and removal, which would entail higher costs. It was therefore recognized that this would depend on the share between sealing and removing, which was unknown and not possible to predict. It was also noted that this issue may be more significant for pleasure craft, for which the removal of anti-fouling coatings is not typical and the implications would depend on their size and hull material (such as fibreglass). The Group discussed the use of a new anti-fouling system for coverage of an existing non-compliant anti-fouling system and concluded that a sealer coat must be used in accordance with the existing requirements. Consideration of the availability of suitable alternatives 17 As required by sub-paragraph (a)(v) of article 6(4) of the AFS Convention, the Group considered the availability of suitable alternatives, including a consideration of the potential risks of such alternatives. In this regard, the Group acknowledged that there were a few alternatives with reduced environmental risks compared to cybutryne. On the other hand, the Group also recognized that the introduction of controls under the AFS Convention might gradually limit the availability of such alternatives, with potential implications on the efficacy of available anti-fouling systems and, consequentially, on biofouling. Consideration of specific control measures 18 The Group recalled that the Sub-Committee had instructed it to provide a recommendation on whether international controls pursuant to the AFS Convention were warranted for cybutryne and on specific control measures which it believed to be more suitable. In this regard, the Group agreed that, following the evaluations and considerations already undertaken in accordance with sub-paragraphs (a)(ii) through (a)(iv) of article 6(4) (see paragraphs 9 to 16), it was clear that international controls pursuant to the AFS Convention were warranted for cybutryne and the first part of this term of reference had already been covered. The Group therefore proceeded to the consideration of specific control measures with a view to providing a recommendation to the Sub-Committee. 19 Recalling that the submitted comprehensive proposal did not include any specific control measures, the Group agreed to consider a draft proposal put forward by the Chair, in line with the expectation that control measures on cybutryne would be similar to the existing controls on organotin compounds (see paragraph 9). 20 In addition, the Group noted the need to take into account article 4(2), which addressed timing constraints for the retention of existing anti-fouling systems following the entry into force of relevant controls, when considering the schedule of controls on cybutryne. 21 The Secretariat explained the procedure for entry into force of any amendment to annexes of the AFS Convention in accordance with article 16 of the AFS Convention. The Group noted that the earliest entry into force of such an amendment, if agreed at this session and subsequently approved by MEPC 74 and adopted by MEPC 75, would be on 3 October 2021, based on the tentative dates for MEPC 75 (30 March to 3 April 2020).



22 In light of the above, and using the proposal by the Chair as a basis, the Group developed draft text for controls on cybutryne; the Group recommended that ships should not apply or re-apply anti-fouling systems containing cybutryne from 3 October 2021 and should either not bear or seal such anti-fouling systems from 3 October 2026. The Group agreed that this timeline would allow sufficient lead time for stakeholders and industry to prepare, including the development of appropriate sealer coats (see paragraph 11). 23 In conclusion, the Group invited the Sub-Committee to agree to the draft amendment to Annex 1 (Controls on anti-fouling systems) to the AFS Convention to include controls on cybutryne, set out in annex 1, with a view to its approval by MEPC 74. Form of the International Anti-fouling System Certificate 24 The Group considered whether the model form of the International Anti-fouling System Certificate (IAFSC), set out in appendix 1 to Annex 4 to the AFS Convention, should be amended if controls on cybutryne were introduced pursuant to the Convention. 25 On the one hand, it was recognized that the IAFSC only referred to "an anti-fouling system controlled under Annex 1", which would include cybutryne and any other harmful substances that might be controlled in the future. On the other hand, it was noted that the second to fourth compliance options on the IAFSC required the insertion of dates relating to controlled anti-fouling systems' application, removal or sealing, and that these dates could be different for organotin compounds and cybutryne in light of the respective controls. In this regard, it was also noted that during a period of several years different options on a ship's IAFSC might be applicable for organotin compounds and cybutryne due to the different schedules of the respective controls. 26 In addition, the Group noted the need to consider regulation 2(3) of Annex 4, which addressed timing constraints for the issuance of the IAFSC following the entry into force of new controls, as well as article 4(2), with regard to any effect these may have on the form of the IAFSC. The Group noted that the form of the Certificate itself would not be affected but the timing of issuance of Certificates would; specifically, for ships bearing an anti-fouling system containing cybutryne that was applied before the date of entry into force of the relevant controls, the Administration would be required to issue a new Certificate not later than 3 October 2023 (two years after entry into force of the controls, see paragraph 22). 27 In the ensuing discussion, different options were considered for the second to fourth compliance options currently listed on the Certificate. Following discussion, the Group agreed that the best solution would be to replace that section of the Certificate with a table listing all the substances controlled under Annex 1 to the AFS Convention and identifying which option was applicable for each substance. It was recognized that this approach would make future amendments to the form of the Certificate easier, should controls on further substances be introduced. 28 In conclusion, the Group invited the Sub-Committee to agree to the draft amendment to the model form of the IAFSC, set out in annex 2, with a view to its approval by MEPC 74. Consequential revision of relevant guidelines 29 The Group recalled that, in addition to the amendment of Annex 1 to the AFS Convention to include controls on cybutryne, this output also entailed the consequential revision of relevant guidelines. The Group noted that this included the Guidelines for brief sampling of anti-fouling systems on ships (resolution MEPC.104(49)), the 2010 Guidelines for survey and certification of anti-fouling systems on ships (resolution MEPC.195(61)) and



the 2011 Guidelines for inspection of anti-fouling systems on ships (resolution MEPC.208(62)). In addition, it was identified that the Revised guidance on best management practices for removal of anti-fouling coatings from ships, including TBT hull paints (AFS.3/Circ.3/Rev.1) might also have to be revised (see paragraph 12). 30 Noting that no proposal for such a revision had been submitted, the Group agreed to consider a table put forward by the Chair, identifying the parts of the aforementioned guidelines that might require revision. In the ensuing discussion, a number of points to be considered were identified, as outlined in the following paragraphs 31 to 38. One point that was common for all guidelines was that they contained numerous explicit references to organotin compounds, which would need to be reviewed. Guidelines for brief sampling of anti-fouling systems on ships 31 The Group noted that the two possible methods for brief sampling and analysis of anti-fouling systems on ships contained in the appendix to this guidance were specific for organotin compounds and might not be suitable for cybutryne. It was therefore agreed that a new appendix would need to be developed specifically for cybutryne. The Group noted that different methods for sampling might be needed. 32 In addition, the Group recognized that organotin compounds were still allowed in specified low concentrations where they did not act as biocides, whereas the controls introduced for cybutryne required the complete absence of this substance, which would affect the respective sampling and analysis requirements. 2010 Guidelines for survey and certification of anti-fouling systems on ships 33 One delegation raised the issue that each recognized organization requested individual verification of the anti-fouling system. Another delegation suggested that there should be a consistent approach with mutual recognition. The Group agreed that this should be taken into account during the review of these Guidelines. 2011 Guidelines for inspection of anti-fouling systems on ships 34 The Group noted that these Guidelines contained various references to the two methods for brief sampling and analysis of anti-fouling systems contained in the sampling Guidelines, which would not be suitable for cybutryne and these references would therefore need to be revised in light of the new method(s) that would be developed specifically for cybutryne (see paragraph 31). 35 In addition, the Group noted that these Guidelines contained references to a two-stage analysis, which might or might not be applicable for cybutryne and this should also be considered. 36 Finally, the Group noted that appendix 1 contained several forms that either included the aforementioned two sampling and analysis methods and/or two-stage analysis, or explicitly addressed organotin compounds only. It was therefore agreed that these forms would need to be reviewed, with new forms developed or the existing ones amended, as appropriate.



Revision of Guidelines under the AFS Convention – conclusion 37 In conclusion, the Group proposed to invite interested delegations to submit proposals to PPR 7 on amendments to the Guidelines for brief sampling, survey and certification, and inspection of anti-fouling systems on ships (resolutions MEPC.104(49), MEPC.195(61) and MEPC.208(62), respectively), taking into account the issues raised in paragraphs 31 to 36, due to the introduction of controls on cybutryne. Revised guidance on best management practices for removal of anti-fouling coatings from ships, including TBT hull paints 38 With regard to this guidance, the Group noted that it primarily fell under the purview of the London Convention/Protocol and had been developed as an LC-LP circular (LC-LP.1/Circ.31), with only subsequent transposition as an AFS circular. In light of this, the Group recommended that MEPC should request the governing bodies of the London Convention and Protocol, at their next meeting, to consider a revision of this guidance in light of the introduction of controls of cybutryne under the AFS Convention. Links to the Hong Kong Convention 39 The Group noted that organotin compounds were included in the items to be listed in the Inventory of Hazardous Materials under the Hong Kong Convention and that this should also be the case for cybutryne when the respective controls entered into force. In this regard, the Group proposed that the Committee should note this for consideration in the context of the Hong Kong Convention's eventual entry into force. Action requested of the Sub-Committee 40 The Sub-Committee was invited to approve the report in general and in particular to:

.1 circulate the report to the Parties, Members of the Organization, the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies, intergovernmental organizations having agreements with the Organization and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Organization, prior to its consideration by the Committee (paragraph 4);

.2 invite proposals for a standard approach to risk assessment for the future

evaluation of anti-fouling substances (paragraph 7); .3 encourage Member States to conduct baseline studies prior to the entry into

force of controls on cybutryne, in order to allow the subsequent determination of the effectiveness of these controls (paragraph 10);

.4 agree to the draft amendment to Annex 1 (Controls on anti-fouling systems)

to the AFS Convention to include controls on cybutryne, set out in annex 1, for consideration by MEPC 74, with a view to approval (paragraph 23);

.5 agree to the draft amendment to the model form of the International

Anti-fouling System Certificate, set out in annex 2, for consideration by MEPC 74, with a view to approval (paragraph 28);



.6 invite proposals to PPR 7 on amendments to the Guidelines for brief sampling, survey and certification, and inspection of anti-fouling systems on ships (resolutions MEPC.104(49), MEPC.195(61) and MEPC.208(62), respectively), taking into account the issues raised at this session (paragraph 37);

.7 invite the Committee to request the governing bodies of the London

Convention and Protocol, at their next meeting, to consider a revision of the Revised guidance on best management practices for removal of anti-fouling coatings from ships, including TBT hull paints (LC-LP.1/Circ.31/Rev.1), in light of the introduction of controls on cybutryne under the AFS Convention (paragraph 38); and

.8 invite the Committee to note the need to consider an update to the list of

items to be listed in the Inventory of Hazardous Materials under the Hong Kong Convention to include cybutryne when the respective controls enter into force (paragraph 39).



ANNEX 1

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO ANNEX 1 TO THE AFS CONVENTION

(CONTROLS ON ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS)

The following rows are added to the table in Annex 1 to the AFS Convention:

Anti-fouling system Control measures

Application Effective date

Cybutryne CAS No.28159-98-0

Ships shall not apply or re-apply anti-fouling systems containing this substance

All ships 3 October 2021

Cybutryne CAS No.28159-98-0

Ships either: (1) shall not bear this substance on their hulls or external parts or surfaces; or (2) shall bear a coating that forms a barrier to this substance leaching from the underlying non-compliant anti-fouling systems

All ships (except fixed and floating platforms, FSUs, and FPSOs that have been constructed prior to 3 October 2021 and that have not been in dry-dock on or after 3 October 2021)

3 October 2026



ANNEX 2

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO APPENDIX 1 TO ANNEX 4 TO THE AFS CONVENTION (MODEL FORM OF INTERNATIONAL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEM CERTIFICATE)

The section of the Certificate listing the compliance options for controlled anti-fouling systems on the ship is replaced by the following:

An anti-fouling system controlled under Annex 1 containing:

has not been applied during or after construction

of this ship

has been applied on this ship

previously, but has been

removed by

has been applied on this ship

previously, but has been

covered with a sealer coat applied by

was applied on this ship prior to

organotin compounds which act

as biocides

□

…………………

(insert name of the facility)

on ……………… (date)

□

………………… (insert name of the facility) on …………….

(date)

□

No longer applicable

cybutryne

□

…………………

(insert name of the facility)

on ……………… (date)

□

………………… (insert name of the facility) on …………….

(date)

□

3 October 2021, but must be removed or

covered with a sealer coat prior

to 3 October 2026

□

***



ANNEX 9

SIMPLIFIED COMPILATION OF IDENTIFIED CANDIDATE CONTROL MEASURES TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THE ARCTIC OF BLACK CARBON EMISSIONS FROM INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING

The table below provides a simplified compilation of candidate control measures to reduce the impact on the Artic of Black Carbon emissions from international shipping, as identified in: .1 documents PPR 6/7 and PPR 6/INF.6 by the Correspondence Group established by PPR 5; .2 documents PPR 6/7/2 and PPR 6/INF.15 by Finland, based on its evaluation of the control measures of Black Carbon emission from

marine diesel engines using measurement methods identified by IMO; .3 documents PPR 6/INF.11 (Canada, Finland and the Republic of Korea), based on the outcome of the Fifth Workshop on Marine

Black Carbon emissions, organized by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT); and 4. document PPR 6/INF.18 by Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC), based on a review by Dr Daniel Lack in November 2018. In order to have the full understanding of possible effects of these measures and their limitations, refer to the related documents.

Number

Measures

PPR 6/7 and PPR 6/INF.6

(Correspondence Group)

Control measures shortlisted in documents

PPR 6/7/2 and PPR 6/INF.15

(Finland)

Appropriate control measures identified

in document PPR 6/INF.11 (Canada, Finland and the

Republic of Korea)

Technologies shortlisted

in document PPR 6/INF.18

(CSC)

Fuel type

1 Liquefied natural gas (LNG)* x x x x

2 Distillate fuel* x x (moderate effect but makes it

possible to use diesel particulate filters)

x x

3 Biodiesel* x x (oxygen-containing biofuels)

x x

4 Methanol* x x x x



Number

Measures





(Finland)



Republic of Korea)



(CSC)

5 Nuclear x

6 Hydrogen x

7 Ammonia x

8 Other renewable fuels x

Fuel treatment

9 Water-in-fuel emulsions (WiFE)*

x x

10 Colloidal catalysts x

Exhaust gas treatment

11 Diesel particulate filters (DPF)*

x x

(in combination with clean distillate fuels)

x (paired with fuels with low sulphur and ash content,

e.g. distillates)

x

12 Exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers)*

x x

13 Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)

x

14 Electrostatic precipitators (ESP)

x x

15 Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)*

x

16 Diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs)

x

17 Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) with scrubbers*

x

18 Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with diesel particulate filter (DPF)

x

x (paired with fuels with low sulphur and ash content,

e.g. distillates)



Number

Measures





(Finland)



Republic of Korea)



(CSC)

19 Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with scrubbers

x

Engine and propulsion system design

20 Engine stroke type x

21 Slide valves* x

22 Engine rating x

23 Engine control technology* x x

24 Full battery electric x x x

25 Hybrid/energy storage* x x x

- Hydrogen fuel cell

- Engine retrofit to common-rail

-

Tuning engines to low BC emissions (combined with NOx reducing technologies)

x

Ship design

26 Improve energy efficiency of new ships*

x

27 Improve energy efficiency of existing ships*

x

Operational measures

28 Slow steaming* x x (combined with modern

injection systems)

29 Engine load* x

30 Voyage optimization* x

31 Training and crew awareness*

x

32 Trim optimization* x



Number

Measures





(Finland)



Republic of Korea)



(CSC)

33 Adaptive engine/condition based maintenance

x

Regulatory measures

34 Expand or establish additional ECAs

x

35 Prohibit the use of residual fuel*

x

36 Establish a Black Carbon emission standard for ships*

x

37 Include Black Carbon in GHG reduction strategies*

x

38 0.5% global fuel sulphur cap* x

39 Engine tier x

Other measures

40 Promote ship recycling* x

41 Promote shore power* x x

Note: control measures with * have been identified as measures that could be implemented within the next five years by at least one participant of the Correspondence Group.

***



ANNEX 10

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI

(Definitions of "sulphur content of fuel oil", "low-flashpoint fuel", "MARPOL delivered sample", "in-use sample" and "on board sample", in-use and on

board fuel oil sampling and testing and verification procedures for a MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil sample)

ANNEX VI

REGULATIONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS Regulation 1 Application 1 The paragraph is replaced with the following:

"The provisions of this Annex shall apply to all ships, except where expressly provided otherwise."

Regulation 2 Definitions 2 New paragraphs 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 are added as follows:

"51 Sulphur content of fuel oil means the concentration of sulphur in a fuel oil, measured in % m/m as tested in accordance with a standard acceptable to the Organization.1 52 Low-flashpoint fuel means gaseous or liquid fuel oil having a flashpoint lower than otherwise permitted under paragraph 2.1.1 of SOLAS regulation II-2/4.

53 MARPOL delivered sample means the sample of fuel oil delivered in accordance with regulation 18.8.1 of MARPOL Annex VI.

54 In-use sample means the sample of fuel oil in use on a ship. 55 On board sample means the sample of fuel oil intended to be used or carried for use on board that ship."

Regulation 14 Sulphur oxides (SOX) and particulate matter 3 "In-use and on board fuel oil sampling and testing" and a new paragraph 8 are added at the end of regulation 14 as follows:

1 Refer to ISO 8754: 2003 Petroleum products – Determination of sulfur content – Energy-dispersive X-ray

fluorescence spectrometry.



"In-use and on board fuel oil sampling and testing 8 If the competent authority of a Party requires the in-use or on board fuel oil sample to be analysed, it shall be done in accordance with the verification procedure set forth in appendix VI to determine whether the fuel oil being used or carried for use on board meets the requirements in paragraph 1 or paragraph 4 of this regulation. The in-use fuel oil sample shall be drawn taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization.2 The on board fuel oil sample shall be drawn taking into account the guidelines to be developed by the Organization.3"

4 "In-use fuel oil sampling point" and new paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 are added at the end of regulation 14 as follows:

"In-use fuel oil sampling point 9 For each ship subject to regulations 5 and 6 of this Annex, sampling point(s) shall be fitted or designated for the purpose of taking representative samples of the fuel oil being used on board the ship taking into account guidelines developed by the Organization.2 10 For a ship constructed before entry into force of these requirements, the sampling point(s) referred to in paragraph 9 shall be fitted or designated no later than the first renewal survey that occurs 12 months or more after the entry into force of this regulation. 11 The requirements of paragraphs 9 and 10 above are not applicable to a fuel oil service system for a low-flashpoint fuel for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board the ship. 12 The competent authority of a Party shall, as appropriate, utilize the sampling point(s) which is fitted or designated for the purpose of taking representative sample(s) of the fuel oil being used on board in order to verify the fuel oil complies with this regulation. Taking fuel oil samples by the competent authority of the Party shall be performed as expeditiously as possible without causing the ship to be unduly delayed."

Regulation 18 Fuel oil availability and quality 5 Paragraph 8.2 is replaced with the following:

"8.2 If a Party requires the representative sample to be analysed, it shall be done in accordance with the verification procedure set forth in appendix VI to determine whether the fuel oil meets the requirements of this Annex."

2 Refer to the 2019 Guidelines for on board sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil

used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864/Rev.1).

3 Refer to the Guidelines to be developed prior to entry into force of the provision.



Appendix I Form of International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate (Regulation 8) Supplement to the International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (IAPP Certificate) 6 New paragraphs 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 are added as follows:

"2.3.4 The ship is fitted with designated sampling point(s) in accordance with

regulation 14.9 or 14.10............................................................................................□

2.3.5 The requirement for fitting or designating sampling point(s) in accordance with regulation 14.9 or 14.10 is not applicable for a fuel oil service system for a low-flashpoint fuel for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board the

ship…………………………......................................................................................□"

Appendix VI Fuel verification procedure for MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil samples (regulation 18.8.2) 7 Appendix VI is replaced with the following:

"Verification procedures for a MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil sample (regulation 18.8.2 or regulation 14.8) The following relevant verification procedure shall be used to determine whether the fuel oil delivered to, used or carried for use on board a ship is compliant with the applicable sulphur limits of regulation 14 of this Annex. This appendix refers to the following representative MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil samples:

Part 1 – sample of fuel oil delivered4 in accordance with 18.8.1, hereafter referred to as the 'MARPOL delivered sample'. Part 2 – sample of fuel oil in use,5 intended to be used or carried for use on board, hereafter referred to as the 'in-use sample' in accordance with regulation 2.54 and 'on board sample' in accordance with regulation 2.55.

Part 1 – MARPOL delivered fuel oil sample 1 General Requirements 1.1 The representative fuel oil sample, which is required by regulation 18.8.1 (the MARPOL delivered sample) shall be used to verify the sulphur content of the fuel oil delivered to a ship. 1.2 A Party, through its competent authority, shall manage the verification procedure.

4 Samples taken in accordance with the 2009 Guidelines for the sampling of fuel oil for determination of

compliance with the revised MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.182(59)). 5 Samples taken in accordance with the 2019 Guidelines for on board sampling for the verification of the

sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864/Rev.1).



1.3 A laboratory undertaking the sulphur testing procedure given in this appendix shall have valid accreditation6 in respect of the test method to be used. 2 Verification Procedure Part 1 2.1 The MARPOL delivered sample shall be conveyed by the competent authority to the laboratory. 2.2 The laboratory shall:

.1 record the details of the seal number and the sample label on the test record;

.2 record the condition of the seal of the sample as received on the

test record; and .3 reject any sample where the seal has been broken prior to receipt

and record that rejection on the test record. 2.3 If the seal of the sample as received has not been broken, the laboratory shall proceed with the verification procedure and shall:

.1 unseal the sample; .2 ensure that the sample is thoroughly homogenized; .3 draw two sub-samples from the sample; and .4 reseal the sample and record the new reseal details on the test

record.

2.4 The two sub-samples shall be tested in succession, in accordance with the specified test method referred to in regulation 2.51 of this Annex. For the purposes of this Part 1 verification procedure, the results of the test analysis shall be referred to as '1A' and '1B':

.1 results '1A' and '1B' shall be recorded on the test record in

accordance with the requirements of the test method; and .2 if the results of '1A' and '1B' are within the repeatability (r)7 of the

test method, the results shall be considered valid; or .3 if the results '1A' and '1B' are not within the repeatability (r) of the

test method, both results shall be rejected and two new sub-samples shall be taken by the laboratory and tested. The sample bottle shall be resealed in accordance with paragraph 2.3.4 after the new sub-samples have been taken.

6 The laboratory is to be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 or an equivalent standard for the performance of

the given sulphur content test ISO 8754:2003.

7 Repeatability (r) calculation in accordance with ISO 4259:2017-2 and as defined in the test method used.



.4 in the case of two failures to achieve repeatability between '1A' and '1B', the cause of that failure shall be investigated by the laboratory and resolved before further testing of the sample is undertaken. On resolution of that repeatability issue, two new sub-samples shall be taken in accordance with paragraph 2.3. The sample shall be resealed in accordance with paragraph 2.3.4 after the new sub-samples have been taken.

2.5 If the test results of '1A' and '1B' are valid, an average of these two results shall be calculated. The average value shall be referred to as 'X' and shall be recorded on the test record:

.1 if the result 'X' is equal to or less than the applicable limit required by regulation 14, the fuel oil shall be considered to have met the requirement; or

.2 if the result 'X' is greater than the applicable limit required by

regulation 14, the fuel oil shall be considered to have not met the requirement.

Table 1: Summary of Part 1 MARPOL delivered fuel oil sample procedure

On the basis of the test method referred to in regulation 2.51 of this Annex

Applicable limit % m/m: V Result 2.5.1: X < V Result 2.5.2: X>V

0.10 Met the requirement Not met the requirement 0.50

Result 'X' reported to 2 decimal places

2.6 The results obtained from this verification procedure are final. 2.7 The laboratory shall provide a copy of the test record to the competent authority managing the verification procedure. Part 2 – in-use and on board fuel oil samples 3 General Requirements 3.1 The in-use or on board fuel oil sample, as appropriate, shall be used to verify the sulphur content of the fuel oil as represented by that sample fuel at the point of sampling. 3.2 A Party, through its competent authority, shall manage the verification procedure. 3.3 A laboratory undertaking the sulphur testing procedure given in this appendix shall have valid accreditation8 in respect of the test method to be used.

8 The laboratory is to be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 or an equivalent standard for the performance of

the given sulphur content test ISO 8754:2003.



4 Verification Procedure Part 2 4.1 The in-use or on board fuel oil sample shall be conveyed by the competent authority to the laboratory.

4.2 The laboratory shall:

.1 record the details of the seal number and the sample label on the test record;

.2 record the condition of the seal of the sample as received on the test

record; and .3 reject any sample where the seal has been broken prior to receipt

and record that rejection on the test record. 4.3 If the seal of the sample as received has not been broken, the laboratory shall proceed with the verification procedure and shall:

.1 unseal the sample; .2 ensure that the sample is thoroughly homogenized; .3 draw two sub-samples from the sample; and .4 reseal the sample and record the new reseal details on the test

record. 4.4 The two sub-samples shall be tested in succession, in accordance with the specified test method referred to in regulation 2.51 of this Annex. For the purposes of this Part 2 verification procedure, the results obtained shall be referred to as '2A' and '2B':

.1 results '2A' and '2B' shall be recorded on the test record in accordance with requirements of the test method; and

.2 if the results of '2A' and '2B' are within the repeatability (r)7 of the

test method, the results shall be considered valid; or

.3 if the results of '2A' and '2B' are not within the repeatability (r) of the test method, both results shall be rejected and two new sub-samples shall be taken by the laboratory and tested. The sample bottle shall be resealed in accordance with paragraph 4.3.4 after the new sub-samples have been taken.

.4 in the case of two failures to achieve repeatability between '2A' and

'2B', the cause of that failure shall be investigated by the laboratory and resolved before further testing of the sample is undertaken. On resolution of that repeatability issue, two new sub-samples shall be taken in accordance with paragraph 4.3. The sample shall be resealed in accordance with paragraph 4.3.4 after the new sub-samples have been taken.



4.5 If the test results of '2A' and '2B' are valid, an average of these two results shall be calculated. That average value shall be referred to as 'Z' and shall be recorded on the test record:

.1 if 'Z' is equal to or less than the applicable limit required by regulation 14, the sulphur content of the fuel oil as represented by the tested sample shall be considered to have met the requirement;

.2 if 'Z' is greater than the applicable limit required by regulation 14 but

less than or equal to that applicable limit + 0.59R (where R is the reproducibility of the test method),9 the sulphur content of the fuel oil as represented by the tested sample shall be considered to have met the requirement; or

.3 if 'Z' is greater than the applicable limit required by regulation 14

+ 0.59R, the sulphur content of the fuel oil as represented by the tested sample shall be considered to have not met the requirement.

Table 2: Summary of in-use or on board fuel oil sample procedure10

On the basis of the test method referred to in regulation 2.51 of this Annex

Applicable limit %m/m:

V

Test margin value:

W

Result 4.5.1: Z< V

Result 4.5.2:

V<Z < W

Result 4.5.3: Z > W

0.10 0.11 Met the requirement

Met the requirement

Not met the requirement 0.50 0.53

Result 'Z' reported to 2 decimal places

4.6 The results obtained from this verification procedure are final. 4.7 The laboratory shall provide a copy of the test record to the competent authority managing the verification procedure."

***

9 Reproducibility (R) calculation in accordance with ISO 4259:2017-2 and as defined in the test method.

10 Results of testing undertaken by the Company or other entities are outside the MARPOL process and hence

should be considered within the approach given by ISO 4259:2017-2 regarding recipient drawn samples.




ANNEX 11 DRAFT GUIDANCE FOR PORT STATE CONTROL ON CONTINGENCY MEASURES FOR

ADDRESSING NON-COMPLIANT FUEL OIL 1 In the case of non-compliant fuel oil, communication between the ship and the port State should occur. The ship and the port State should consider the following as possible contingency measures:

.1 actions predetermined in the Ship implementation plan for consistent

implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI (MEPC.1/Circ.878);

.2 discharging non-compliant fuel oil to another ship to be carried as cargo or

to an appropriate shipboard or land-based reception facility, if practicable and available;

.3 managing the non-compliant fuel oil in accordance with a method acceptable

to the port State; and .4 operational actions, such as modifying sailing or bunkering schedules and/or

retention of non-compliant fuel oil on board the ship. The port State and the ship should consider any safety issues and avoid possible undue delays.

2 Having considered all of the options in paragraph 1 above, the non-compliant fuel oil may be discharged to the port or retained on board, as acceptable to the port State. Port State consideration may include environmental, safety, operational and logistical implications of allowing or disallowing the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil. The carriage of non-compliant fuel oil is subject to any conditions of the port State. 3 The port State, the flag State and the ship should work together to agree on the most appropriate solution, taking into account the information provided in the Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report (FONAR), to address the non-compliant fuel oil. 4 After the non-compliant fuel oil is completely used/discharged, such actions should include the possibility of cleaning and flushing through dilution of remaining residues by using compliant fuel oil with the lowest sulphur content available.

***




ANNEX 12

DRAFT MEPC RESOLUTION

2019 GUIDELINES FOR CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships, RECALLING ALSO that, at its fifty-eighth session, the Committee adopted, by resolution MEPC.176(58), a revised MARPOL Annex VI which significantly strengthens the emission limits for sulphur oxides (SOX), RECALLING FURTHER that, at its seventieth session, the Committee adopted, resolution MEPC.280(70), Effective date of implementation of the fuel oil standard in regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI, confirming "1 January 2020" as the effective date of implementation for ships to comply with global 0.50% m/m sulphur content of fuel oil requirement, NOTING ALSO that, at its seventy-third session, the Committee approved circular MEPC.1/Circ.878 on the Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its seventy-fourth session, draft 2019 Guidelines for consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, prepared by the Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response, at its sixth session, 1 ADOPTS the 2019 Guidelines for consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, as set out in the annex to the present resolution; 2 REQUESTS Parties to MARPOL Annex VI and other Member Governments to bring these Guidelines to the attention of shipowners, ship operators, fuel oil suppliers and any other interested groups; 3 AGREES to keep these Guidelines under review in the light of experience gained with their application.



ANNEX

2019 GUIDELINES FOR CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI

1 Introduction 1.1 Objective 1.1.2 The purpose of these Guidelines is to ensure consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI. These Guidelines are intended for use by Administrations, port State, shipowners, shipbuilders and fuel oil suppliers, as appropriate. 1.2 Definitions 1.2.1 For the purpose of these Guidelines, the definitions in MARPOL Annex VI apply. 1.2.2 The following definitions of fuel oils are used, as applicable:

.1 Distillate marine fuels (DM) are as specified in ISO 8217:20171 (e.g. DMA, DMB, DMX, DMZ);

.2 Residual marine fuels (RM) are as specified in ISO 8217:20171

(e.g. RMD 80, RMG 380); .3 Ultra-low sulphur fuel oil (ULSFO) are as specified in ISO 8217:20171

(e.g. maximum 0.10% S ULSFO-DM, maximum 0.10% S ULSFO-RM); .4 Very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) (e.g. maximum 0.50% S VLSFO-DM,

maximum 0.50% S VLSFO-RM); and .5 High sulphur heavy fuel oil (HSHFO) exceeding 0.50% S.

2 Ship implementation planning for 2020 2.1 MEPC 70 agreed to "1 January 2020" as the effective date of implementation for ships to comply with the 0.50% m/m fuel oil sulphur content limit requirement and adopted resolution MEPC.280(70) on the Effective date of implementation of the fuel oil standard in regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI2. 2.2 In this context, MEPC 73 agreed that Administrations should encourage ships flying their flag to develop implementation plans, outlining how the ship may prepare in order to comply with the required sulphur content limit of 0.50% by 1 January 2020. The plan should be complemented with a record of actions taken by the ships in order to be compliant by the applicable date.

1 The latest edition of the ISO standard is recommended.

2 Regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI, was amended by resolution MEPC.305(73).



2.3 MEPC 73, recognizing the need for guidance to support the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, approved MEPC.1/Circ.878 on the Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI. 3 Impact on fuel and machinery systems 3.0.1 The experiences and lessons learned from the transition to the 0.10% m/m SOX-ECA limit indicated that current ship machinery operations should be sufficiently capable of addressing the concerns regarding combustion of the new 0.50% m/m limit fuel oils. 3.0.2 Currently most of the marine diesel engines and boilers on ships operating outside Emission Control Areas (ECAs) are optimized to operate on heavy fuel oil. From 2020 ships are required to use fuel oils with a sulphur content of 0.50% m/m or lower, unless fitted with an approved equivalent means of compliance. 3.1 Distillate fuels 3.1.1 A major challenge with distillate fuels is low viscosity. Low viscosity may cause internal leakages in diesel engines, boilers and pumps. Internal leakages in fuel injection system may result in reduced fuel pressure to the engine, which may have consequences for the engine performance (e.g. starting of the engine). Equipment makers recommendations should be taken into account, and adequate testing, maintenance and possible installation of coolers, etc., may be performed. 3.1.2 Cold Filter Plugging Points (CFPP) and Cloud Points (CP) as well as the Pour Point (PP) for distillate fuels need to be considered in light of the ship's intended operating area and ambient temperatures. 3.1.3 These issues are critical concerns as they can result in the formation and accumulation of wax sediment, which can cause costly and avoidable maintenance. In the worst-case scenario, sediment can cause engine fuel starvation and power loss. 3.1.4 ISO 8217:20173 limits the cold flow properties of a fuel through setting a limit on the PP. However, given that wax crystals form at temperatures above the PP, fuels that meet the specification in terms of PP can still be challenging to operations in colder operating regions, as the wax particles can rapidly block filters, potentially plugging them completely. For cold weather, additional cold flow properties, CFPP and CP, should be reported by the supplier when the receiving ship has ordered distillate fuel for cold weather operations, a requirement that is specified in ISO 8217:20173. 3.1.5 Since the residual fuels are usually heated and distillate fuels are not heated, particular attention needs to be given to the cold flow properties of distillates. Cold flow property challenges can be managed by heating the fuel. CIMAC has issued "01 2015 CIMAC Guideline Cold flow properties of marine fuel oils".4 3.1.6 Fuel temperature should be kept approximately 10°C above the PP in order to avoid any risk of solidification however this may not reduce the risk of filter blocking in case of high CFPP and CP.

3 The latest edition of the ISO standard is recommended.

4 https://www.cimac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_WG7_2015_01_Guideline_Cold

__Flow_Properties_Marine_Fuel_Oils_final.pdf

https://www.cimac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_WG7_2015_01_Guideline_Cold

https://www.cimac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_WG7_2015_01_Guideline_Cold



3.1.7 It is good practice to review the possibilities of heating arrangements for distillate fuels on board. This is usually very limited, as it is not standard practice to have heating arrangements in distillate storage, settling or service tanks. Transfer arrangements may be adapted to pass through a residual fuel oil heat exchanger should the need arise. 3.1.8 Knowing the fuel properties before bunkering will assist in taking the necessary precautions where and when necessary. If the ship is heading towards colder climates and the cold flow properties are inferior, the fuel may be:

.1 either used before entering cold regions, or .2 used with suitable heating arrangement, as mentioned above.

3.1.9 If the approach of applying heat is being followed it should be ensured that the fuel is not overheated resulting in the viscosity dropping below the minimum recommendation of 2 cSt at any point in the fuel system, including the engine inlet. In order to reduce this risk, heating should be limited to max 40°C. 3.2 Distillate fuel with FAME content 3.2.1 Increased demand for Distillate fuels may result in more land based products making their way into the marine supply pool, some of these fuels (e.g. biodiesel) may contain Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME). 3.2.2 There are various technical challenges associated with use of fuel having FAME content, e.g. potential oxidation of biodiesel, its biodegradable nature etc. with adverse implications, limitations in storage life etc. It also needs to be tested for stability. 3.2.3 The ISO 8217:20173 standard includes a maximum FAME content of 7.0% by volume for DFA/DFZ/DFB fuel oil grades since some ports may offer automotive diesel fuel as the only fuel available, which contains FAME and could violate the fuel flashpoint requirements addressed in SOLAS chapter II-2. The maximum 7.0% (v/v) has been chosen as this aligns with the concentrations allowed in some of the countries applying environmental regulations. 3.2.4 Manufacturers of engines and equipment like oily water separators, overboard discharge monitors, filters, coalescers etc. need to be consulted to confirm the ability of engines and equipment to handle biodiesel blends of up to B7 (i.e. 7.0% v/v). 3.2.5 It is recommended to avoid using such biodiesel blend fuels for lifeboat engines, emergency generators, fire pumps, etc. where it is stored in isolated individual unit fuel tanks and subjected to conditions for accelerated degradation. 3.2.6 CIMAC has provided a Guideline for Ship Owners and Operators on Managing Distillate Fuels up to 7.0% v/v Fame (Biodiesel).5

5 https://www.cimac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_WG7_Guideline_for_Ship_Owners_and_

Operators_on_Managing_Distillate_Fuels_May_2013.pdf

https://www.cimac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_WG7_Guideline_for_Ship_Owners_and_





3.3 Residual fuels 3.3.1 Stability and compatibility 3.3.1.1 It is essential to distinguish between "Fuel stability" within a single batch of fuel and "Fuel compatibility" between different fuel batches. 3.3.1.2 Regarding stability: the fuel must be stable and homogeneous at delivery it is the responsibility of the fuel oil blenders and suppliers to ensure this. 3.3.1.3 A wide range of blends of refined products will be used to make the new 0.50% sulphur fuels, and the stability and compatibility of the blends will be an important concern for shipowners/operators. Unstable fuels can separate on their own and incompatible ones can do so when mixed in a single bunker tank, forming sludge that can block filters and ultimately cause engine failures. [3.3.1.4 It will be important to test for compatibility of residual fuel oils prior to bunkering. While the existing spot tests for assessing compatibility between different grades of fuel oil may not be fully appropriate for the blended fuel oils types with a maximum 0.50% sulphur content, it is anticipated that a more suitable assessment tool will be available. In the event that residual fuel oils are incompatible, it will be important to ensure that incompatible residual fuel oils are kept segregated as far as practically possible.] [3.3.1.4bis It is recommended that ships have a commingling procedure as part of the Ship Implementation Plan (SIP). The plan should primarily aim to ensure new bunkers are loaded into empty tanks to the extent possible. In the event that a ship finds itself possibly having to commingle a new bunker with bunkers already on board, then it is important that the ship determines the compatibility between the two said bunkers before comingling.] 3.3.1.5 The reference test method shall be the total potential sediment test in accordance with ISO 10307-2:2009. 3.3.2 Catalytic fines 3.3.2.1 Cat fines are a by-product of refining and consist of small particles of metal that are deliberately introduced as catalysts to "crack" the fuel oil. Unless reduced by purification, cat fines will become embedded in engine parts and cause serious and rapid engine damage. Reference should be made to engine manufacturer's guidance with respect to managing cat fines. 3.4 Key technical considerations for shipowners and operators 3.4.1 Ship tank configuration and fuel system – the viscosity of most of these blended residual fuels is such that they cannot be used in distillate fuel-only systems and machinery, as they require heating for cleaning and combustion. A fully segregated fuel system for both distillate fuels and these new fuels is recommended. 3.4.2 Tank cleaning is recommended when using a residual fuel tank for storing these new fuels. This is to prevent sludge that has built up in these tanks from entering the fuel system. Further information on tank cleaning is set out in appendix 3 of MEPC.1/Circ.878 on Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI.



3.4.3 Heating requirements – due to the cold flow properties of most of these new fuels, permanent heating of the fuel may be necessary to minimize the risk of wax formation, also in storage. This is especially important in colder regions. 3.4.4 Fuel treatment system – Some of these new fuels may contain cat fines and/or sediments and therefore need on board cleaning. Separator temperature and settings should be adjusted to the fuels' viscosity and density. Please refer to recommendations from OEM and fuel supplier. 3.4.5 Considering that many of these new fuels have lower viscosities compared to conventional residual fuels, care should be taken to ensure no overheating occurs. 3.5 ISO Standard for residual fuels 3.5.1 The bunker market uses ISO 8217:20173 specifications to ensure that the properties of the fuels it delivers conform to a standard that mean they comply with MARPOL Annex VI. 3.5.2 The existing ISO 8217:20173 specification for marine fuels takes into consideration the diverse nature of marine fuels and incorporates a number of categories of distillate or residual fuels, even though not all categories may be available in every supply location it covers all marine petroleum fuel oils used today as well as the 0.50% Sulphur fuels of 2020. The General requirements, in the ISO 8217:20173 specification for marine fuels and characteristics, included in table 1 and 2 of ISO 8217:2017,3 identified safety, performance and environmental concerns and further takes into consideration the on board handling requirements, including storage, cleaning and combustion aspects of all fuel oils used today and the anticipated fuel blends of 2020, irrespective of the sulphur content of the fuel oils. 3.5.3 It is important that any new standards address and do not preclude the use of renewable and alternative non-fossil crude derived products, so long as they comply with the chemical properties specified for these fuel oils. 3.6 Cylinder lubrication 3.6.1 The choice of cylinder lubricating oils will often follow the fuel type in use. So, when changing to VLSFO operation from RM operation the choice of appropriate cylinder lubricating oil should be considered in accordance with the recommendations of the engine manufacturer. 4 Verification issues and control mechanism and actions 4.1 Survey and certification by Administrations 4.1.1 When undertaking a survey in accordance with regulation 5 of MARPOL Annex VI, the Administration should conduct a survey of a ship to verify that the ship complies with the provisions to implement the 0.50% sulphur limit. In particular, the Administration should check whether the ship carries compliant fuel oils for use, based on the Bunker Delivery Note (BDN) on board, any other document or fuel oil samples as appropriate consistent with the provisions of regulation 18 of MARPOL Annex VI. If carriage of HSHFO for use is identified, the Administration should check whether regulation 3.2, regulation 4 of MARPOL Annex VI are applied to the ship, or if the ship encountered a fuel availability problem and is operating pursuant to regulation 18.2 of MARPOL Annex VI.



4.1.2 When an Administration decides to analyse a fuel oil sample to determine compliance with the sulphur limits in regulation 14.1 or 14.4, the final analysis should be carried out in accordance with ISO 8754:2003 by a laboratory that is accredited for the purpose of conducting the test in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025 or an equivalent standard. The test results should be in accordance with ISO 8754 reporting protocol, meaning a tested value at or above 0.10% sulphur should be reported with no more than two decimal places. 4.1.3 According to regulation 11.4 of MARPOL Annex VI, the Administration shall investigate any report of an alleged violation and thereafter promptly inform the Party which made the report, as well as the Organization, of the action taken. When informing the Organization, the MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module should be used. 4.2 Control measures by port States 4.2.1 Port States should take appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the 0.50% of sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, in line with the regulation 10 of MARPOL Annex VI and the 2019 Guidelines for port State control under MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.[…](74)) (2019 PSC Guidelines). Specifically, the port State should conduct initial inspections based on documents and other possible materials, including remote sensing and portable devices. Given "clear grounds" to conduct a more detailed inspection, the port State may conduct sample analysis and other detailed inspections to verify compliance to the regulation, as appropriate. 4.2.2 Regulation 18.2.3 of MARPOL Annex VI requires a Party to take into account all relevant circumstances and the evidence presented to determine the action to take, including not taking control measures. Administrations and port State control authorities may take into account the implementation plan when verifying compliance with the 0.50% sulphur limit requirement. 4.2.3 Inspections based on documents and other possible targeting measurements 4.2.3.1 During the port State control and other enforcement activities, the port State should investigate whether a ship carries either compliant fuel oils or HSHFOs for use, based on the documents listed in paragraph 2.1.2 of the 2019 PSC Guidelines additionally records required to demonstrate compliance should also then be viewed. Results from remote sensing could be used to trigger inspections and portable devices could be used during the initial inspections, as appropriate. Remote sensing and portable devices are, however, of indicative nature and should not be regarded as the evidence of non-compliance, but may be considered clear grounds for expanding the inspection. 4.2.3.2 Port state should determine if regulations 3.2, 4 or 18.2.3 apply together with retained bunker delivery notes and IAPP Certificate when considering the status of any RM being carried for use on board. 4.2.4 Fuel oil sample analysis 4.2.4.1 When the port State identifies clear grounds of suspected non-compliance of a ship based on initial inspections, the port State may require samples of fuel oils to be analysed. The samples to be analysed may be either the representative samples provided with BDN in accordance with regulation 18.8.2, MARPOL delivered samples or samples from designated sampling points in accordance with the 2019 Guidelines for on board sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864/Rev.1) (in-use fuel oil samples) or other samples obtained by the port State.



4.2.4.2 Where the MARPOL delivered sample is taken from the ship a receipt should be provided to the ship. The outcome of the analysis undertaken with appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI should be advised to the ship for its records. 4.2.4.3 In detecting suspected non-compliance, the sample analysis should be conducted in a uniform and reliable manner as described in paragraph 4.1.2. The verification procedure for MARPOL delivered samples should be in accordance with appendix VI6 of MARPOL Annex VI. For other samples taken on board the ship, the in-use and onboard sample, the sample should be deemed to meet the requirements provided the test result from the laboratory does not exceed the specification limit +0.59R (where R is the reproducibility of the test method) and no further testing is necessary. 4.2.4.4 Notwithstanding the above process, all possible efforts should be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed. In particular, sample analysis of fuel oils should not unduly delay the operation, movement or departure of the ship. 4.2.4.5 If a non-compliance is established, consistent with regulation 18.2.3 the port State may prevent the ship from sailing until the ship takes any suitable measures to achieve compliance which may include de-bunkering all non-compliant fuel oil. In addition, the port State should report the information of the ship using or carrying for use non-compliant fuel oil to the Administration of the ship and inform the Party or non-Party under whose jurisdiction a bunker delivery note was issued of cases of delivery of non-compliant fuel oil, giving all relevant information. Upon receiving the information, the Party detecting the deficiency should report the information to the MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module in accordance with paragraph 3.4 of these Guidelines. 4.2.4.6 The Parties, however, may permit, with the agreement of the destination port authority, a single voyage for bunkering of compliant fuel oil for the ship, in accordance with regulation 18.2.4 of MARPOL Annex VI. The single voyage should be one way and minimum for bunkering, and the ship proceeds directly to the nearest bunkering facility appropriate to the ship. In the case that the port State permits a single voyage of a ship, the port State should inform the Administration and the authority at the destination port of that single voyage of the information of the ship granted with permission for the single voyage with the certified record of analysis of the sample as the evidence.

4.2.5 Other open-sea compliance monitoring tools:

.1 fuel oil changeover calculator;

.2 data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships (resolution MEPC.278(70)); and

.3 continuous SOX monitoring.

4.3 Control on fuel oil suppliers 4.3.1 Designated authorities should, if deemed necessary, take a sample and test fuel oils from bunker barges or shore bunker terminals. Sampling of fuel oils in bunker barges or shore bunker terminals can be taken and tested in the same manner that the MARPOL delivered fuel oils are tested by the PSC. All possible efforts should be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed. If a sample is analysed, sample analysis of fuel oils should not unduly delay the operation, movement or departure of the ship.

6 Amendments to MARPOL VI, Appendix VI, Verification procedures for a MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil sample

(regulation 18.8.2 or regulation 14.8), expected to be adopted in Spring 2020 and set out in annex […] to document MEPC 74/18.



4.3.2 If non-compliance, such as issuance of an incorrect BDN or a BDN without measurement of sulphur content, was found, the designated authorities should take appropriate corrective measures against the non-compliant supplier. In such case, the designated authorities should inform the Organization for transmission to the Member States of the non-compliant supplier, in accordance with the regulation 18.9.6 of MARPOL Annex VI and paragraph 4.4 of these Guidelines. 4.4 Information sharing related to non-compliances under MARPOL Annex VI 4.4.1 When a Party finds a non-compliance of a ship or a fuel oil supplier, the information of the non-compliance should be reported to the MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module (regulation 11.4). 4.4.2 Publication of information on non-compliant ships/fuel oil suppliers or a reporting scheme to IMO to be registered on centralized information platforms are proposed as elements of an effective enforcement strategy. Various PSC regimes have successfully used the publishing of information related to substandard ships/fuel suppliers as a deterrent to non-compliance. Port States also need to report detentions of ships to IMO which may affect the future PSC targeting of the ship. The IMO GISIS database already makes available certain information related to non-compliances with the MARPOL Annex VI regulations. 5 Fuel oil non-availability 5.1 Guidance and information sharing on fuel oil non-availability 5.1.1 Regulation 18.2.1 of MARPOL Annex VI provides that in the event compliant fuel oil cannot be obtained, a Party to MARPOL Annex VI can request evidence outlining the attempts made to obtain the compliant fuel oil, including attempts made to local alternative sources. Regulations 18.2.4 and 18.2.5 then require that the ship notifies its Administration and the competent authority of the port of destination on the inability to obtain compliant fuel oil, with the Party to notify IMO of the non-availability. This notification is commonly referred to as a Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report (FONAR). 5.1.2 Guidance on consistent evidence 5.1.3 Regulation 18.2.1.2 of MARPOL Annex VI requires that evidence be provided to support a claim that all efforts were made to obtain compliant fuel oil. In this regard, a Party may develop more detailed guidance for the consistent use and acceptance of these reports, including what evidence is needed to accompany a report to ensure that port States are applying the provisions under regulation 18.2.3, consistently. 5.1.4 Should a ship, despite its best effort to obtain compliant fuel oil, be unable to do so, the master/Company must:

.1 present a record of actions taken to attempt to bunker correct fuel oil and provide evidence of an attempt to purchase compliant fuel oil in accordance with its voyage plan and, if it was not made available where planned, that attempts were made to locate alternative sources for such fuel oil and that despite best efforts to obtain compliant fuel oil, no such fuel oil was made available for purchase; and



.2 best efforts to procure compliant fuel oil include, but are not limited to, investigating alternate sources of fuel oil prior to commencing the voyage. If, despite best efforts, it was not possible to procure compliant fuel oil, the master/Company must immediately notify the port State Administration in the port of arrival and the flag Administration (regulation 18.2.4 of MARPOL Annex VI).

5.1.5 In order to minimize disruption to commerce and avoid delays, the master/Company should submit a FONAR as soon as it is determined or becomes aware that it will not be able to procure and use compliant fuel oil. 5.1.6 Investigating non-availability 5.1.7 A Party should investigate the reports of non-availability. This process is important to ensure a consistent supply of compliant fuel to industry, as well as prevent incentives for ships to use ports where it is known that compliant fuel is not available on an ongoing basis. Critical to this process will be the sharing of information between Member States on reported compliant fuel oil supply issues. 5.1.8 Regulation 18.2.5 of MARPOL Annex VI provides that a Party to MARPOL Annex VI notify the Organization when a ship has presented evidence of the non-availability of compliant fuel oil in a port or at their terminal. For this purpose, MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module provides the platform for Parties to upload such notifications. 5.1.9 Regulation 18.1 of MARPOL Annex VI provides that each Party take all reasonable steps to promote the availability of above compliant fuel oil and inform the Organization through MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module of the availability of compliant fuel oils in its ports and terminals. 5.1.10 Port State control authority may contact the submitter (and/or shipowner or operator), including in the event of an incomplete submission, and request additional information, or to pursue an enforcement action such as a Notice of Violation. 5.2 Standard format for reporting fuel oil non-availability 5.2.1 For ships which are unable to purchase fuel oil meeting the requirements of regulations 14.1 or 14.4 of MARPOL Annex VI, the standard format for reporting fuel oil non-availability is set out in appendix 1 to this document, pursuant to regulation 18.2.4 of MARPOL Annex VI. 6 Possible safety implications relating to fuel oils meeting the 0.50% m/m sulphur

limit 6.1 MEPC 73 (October 2018) approved MEPC.1/Circ.878 on Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI (hereafter the "Ship Implementation Plan Guidance") addresses some safety issues identified with regard to 0.50% maximum sulphur fuel oil, in particular through the section on risk assessment (section 1 of the Ship Implementation Plan Guidance) and additional guidance provided on impact on machinery systems and tank cleaning (appendix 2 and appendix 3 of the Ship Implementation Plan Guidance, respectively).



6.2 Identified potential safety implications include, but are not limited to, the following:

.1 stability of blended fuel oil; .2 compatibility, including new tests and metrics appropriate for future fuels; .3 cold flow properties; .4 acid number; .5 flash point; .6 ignition and combustion quality; .7 cat fines; .8 low viscosity; and .9 unusual components.

6.3 Additional technical information and a review, displayed in tabular format, of the possible potential safety implications is set out in appendix 2.

6.4 Reference should also be made to general industry guidance on potential safety and operational issues related to the supply and use of 0.50% maximum sulphur fuels.



APPENDIX 1

FUEL OIL NON-AVAILABILITY REPORT (FONAR) Note: 1 This report is to be sent to the flag Administration and to the competent authorities in the relevant port(s) of destination in accordance with regulation 18.2.4 of MARPOL Annex VI. The report shall be sent as soon as it is determined that the ship/operator will be unable to procure compliant fuel oil and preferably before the ship leaves the port/terminal where compliant fuel cannot be obtained. A copy of the FONAR should be kept on board for inspection for at least 36 months. 2 This report should be used to provide evidence if a ship is unable to obtain fuel oil compliant with the provisions stipulated in regulations 14.1 or 14.4 of MARPOL Annex VI. 3 Before filing a FONAR, the following should be observed by the ship/operator: 3.1 A fuel oil non-availability report is not an exemption. According to regulation 18.2 of MARPOL Annex VI, it is the responsibility of the Party of the destination port, through its competent authority, to scrutinize the information provided, including on potential claims already filed during a period of 12 months, and decide appropriate action to take. 3.2 In case of unduly and/or repeated claims of non-availability, the Party may require additional documentation and substantiation of fuel oil non-availability claims. The ship/operator may also be subject to more extensive inspections or examinations while in port. 3.3 Ships/operators are expected to take into account logistical conditions and/or terminal/port policies when planning bunkering, including but not limited to having to change berth or anchor within a port or terminal in order to obtain compliant fuel. 3.4 Ships/operators are expected to prepare as far as reasonably practicable to be able to operate on compliant fuel oils. This could include, but is not limited to, fuel oils with different viscosity and different sulphur content not exceeding regulatory requirements (requiring different lube oils) as well as requiring heating and/or other treatment on board. 1 Particulars of ship 1.1 Name of ship: _______________________________________________________ 1.2 IMO number: ________________________________________________________ 1.3 Flag: ______________________________________________________________ 1.4 (if other relevant registration number is available, enter here): __________________ 2 Description of ship's voyage plan 2.1 Provide a description of the ship's voyage plan in place at the time of entry into "country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable) (Attach copy of plan if available): _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________



2.2 Details of voyage: 1 – Last port of departure ___________________________________________________________________ 2 – First port of arrival in "country X": ___________________________________________________________________ 3 – Date of departure from last port (dd-mm-yyyy): ___________________________________________________________________ 4 – Date of arrival at first "country X" (dd-mm-yyyy): ___________________________________________________________________ 5 – Date ship first received notice that it would be transiting in "country X" waters

(and ECA, if applicable) (dd-mm-yyyy): ___________________________________________________________________ 6 – Ship's location at the time of notice:

___________________________________________________________________ 7 – Date ship operator expects to enter "country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable)

(dd-mm-yyyy): __________________________________________________________________ 8 – Time ship operator expects to enter "country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable)

(hh:mm UTC): __________________________________________________________________ 9 – Date ship operator expects to exit "country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable)

(dd-mm-yyyy): __________________________________________________________________ 10 – Time ship operator expects to exit "country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable)

(hh:mm UTC): __________________________________________________________________ 11 – Projected days ship's main propulsion engines will be in operation within

"country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable): ___________________________________________________________________ 12 – Sulphur content of fuel oil in use when entering and operating in "country X"

waters (and ECA, if applicable): __________________________________________________________________



3 Evidence of attempts to purchase compliant fuel oil 3.1 Provide a description of actions taken to attempt to achieve compliance prior to entering "country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable), including a description of all attempts that were made to locate alternative sources of compliant fuel oil, and a description of the reason why compliant fuel oil was not available: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 3.2 Name and email address of suppliers contacted, address and phone number and date of contact (dd-mm-yyyy): ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Please attach copies of communication with suppliers (e.g. emails to and from suppliers) 4 In case of fuel oil supply disruption only 4.1 Name of port at which ship was scheduled to receive compliant fuel oil: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 4.2 Name, email address, and phone number of the fuel oil supplier that was scheduled to deliver (and now reporting the non-availability): ___________________________ 5 Operation constraints, if applicable 5.1 If non-compliant fuel has been bunkered due to concerns that the quality of the compliant fuel available would cause operational or safety problems on board the ships, the concerns should be thoroughly documented. 5.2 Describe any operational constraints that prevented use of compliant fuel oil available at port: __________________________________________________________________________ 5.3 Specify steps taken, or to be taken, to resolve these operational constraints that will enable compliant fuel use: __________________________________________________________________________ 6 Plans to obtain compliant fuel oil 6.1 Describe availability of compliant fuel oil at the first port-of-call in "country X", and plans to obtain it: __________________________________________________________________________



6.2 If compliant fuel oil is not available at the first port-of-call in "country X", list the lowest sulphur content of available fuel oil(s) or the lowest sulphur content of available fuel oil at the next port-of-call: __________________________________________________________________________ 7 Previous Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reports 7.1 If ship owner/operator has submitted a Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report to "country X" in the previous 12 months, list the number of Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reports previously submitted and provide details on the dates and ports visited while using non-compliant fuel oil, as set out below: Report: ___________________________________________________________________ Date (dd-mm-yyyy): _________________________________________________________ Port: _____________________________________________________________________ Type of fuel: _______________________________________________________________ Comments: ________________________________________________________________ 8 Master/Company information Master name: ______________________________________________________________ Local agent in "country X": ____________________________________________________ Ship operator name: _________________________________________________________ Shipowner name: ___________________________________________________________ Name and position of official: __________________ ________________________________ Email address: _____________________________________________________________ Address (street, city, country, postal/zip code): ____________________________________ Telephone number: _________________________________________________________ Signature of Master: _________________________________________________________ Print name: ________________________________________________________________ Date (DD/MM/YYYY): ________________________________________________________



APPENDIX 2

TECHNICAL REVIEW OF IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF 2020 COMPLIANT FUELS

Fuel Property Potential Challenges Remarks

Stability The consequences of a ship receiving an unstable fuel, or one that becomes unstable during storage or handling, can be serious. Sludge may build up in the storage tanks, piping systems or centrifuges and filters can become totally blocked by voluminous amounts of sludge.

The challenge for the fuel producer is to blend a fuel which is not only stable but also has a degree of reserve stability such that it will remain stable during periods of storage and treatment at elevated temperatures. More paraffinic blend components are expected for Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) compared to existing fuels. Whereas aromatic components have a stabilizing effect on asphaltenes, paraffins do not. Fuel suppliers are responsible for ensuring that the supplied fuel is stable.

Compatibility issues

Challenges are the same as with stability (above).

An incompatible mix may be harmful to ship's operation. VLSFOs are expected to be paraffinic based in some regions and aromatic based in other regions. There is a risk of experiencing incompatibility when mixing an aromatic fuel with a paraffinic fuel. The same risk exists today, but with the wide range of products which may exist post 2020, it is important to segregate fuels as far as possible and to be cautious of how to manage/handle incompatible fuels on board.

Cold flow properties and Pour Point

ISO 8217:2017 limits the cold flow properties of a fuel through setting a limit on the pour point (PP). However, given that wax crystals form at temperatures above the PP, fuels that meet the specification in terms of PP can still be challenging when operating in colder regions. Wax particles can rapidly block filters, potentially plugging them completely. The paraffin's may crystallize and/or deposit in the storage tanks leading to blockages at the filters and reduced fuel flow to the machinery plants. If fuels are held at temperatures below the pour point, wax will begin to

VLSFO products are expected to be more paraffinic compared to existing fuels. As such, it is important to know the cold flow properties of the bunkered fuel in order to ensure proper temperature management on board. It is important to note that for additives to be effective, they have to be applied before crystallization has occurred in the fuel. Reference 1.




precipitate. This wax may cause blocking of filters and can deposit on heat exchangers. In severe cases the wax will build up in storage tank bottoms and on heating coils, which can restrict the coils from heating the fuel (fuel will become un pumpable from the bunker tanks).

Acid number The fuel shall be free from strong, inorganic acids. Fuels with high acid number test results arising from acidic compounds cause accelerated damage to marine diesel engines. Such damage is found primarily within the fuel injection equipment.

There is currently no recognized correlation between an acid number test result and the corrosive activity of the fuel. ISO 8217:2017, appendix E covers the topic.

Flashpoint Flashpoint is considered to be a useful indicator of the fire hazard associated with the storage of marine fuels. Even if fuels are stored at temperatures below the determined flash point, flammable vapours may still develop in the tank headspace.

SOLAS requirement.

Ignition and combustion quality

Fuels with poor ignition & combustion properties can, in extreme cases, result in serious operational problems, engine damage and even total breakdown. Poor combustion performance is normally characterized by an extended combustion period and/or poor rates of pressure increase and low "p max" resulting in incomplete combustion of the fuel. The resulting effects are increased levels of unburned fuel and soot that may be deposited in the combustion chamber, on the exhaust valves and in the turbocharger system, exhaust after treatment devices, waste heat recovery units and other exhaust system components. Extended combustion periods may also result in exposure of the cylinder liner to high temperatures which may disrupt the lubricating oil film, leading to

High and medium-speed engines are more prone to experience operational difficulties due to poor ignition and combustion properties than low speed two stroke types. With four stroke engines, poor ignition can result in excessive exhaust gas system deposits, black smoke, engine knocking and difficulties operating at low load. If the ignition process is delayed for too long a period by virtue of some chemical quality of the fuel, too large a quantity of fuel will be injected into the engine cylinders and will ignite at once, producing a rapid pressure and heat rise and causing associated damage to the piston rings and cylinder liners of the engine. Reference 2.




increased wear rates and scuffing. Unburnt fuel droplets may also carry over impinging on the liner surfaces causing further risk of damage to the liner.

Cat fines Cat fines will cause abrasive wear of cylinder liners, piston rings and fuel injection equipment if not reduced sufficiently by the fuel treatment system. High wear in the combustion chamber can result.

Major engine manufacturers recommend that the fuel's cat fines content does not exceed 10 mg/kg (ppm) at engine inlet.

Low viscosity Low-viscosity fuels (less than 2 cSt at engine inlet) challenge the function of the fuel pump in the following ways:

.1 breakdown of the oil film, which could result in seizures;

.2 insufficient injection

pressure, which results in difficulties during start-up and low-load operation; and

.3 insufficient fuel index

margin, which limits acceleration.

Low fuel viscosity does not only affect the engine fuel pumps. Most pumps in the external fuel oil system (supply pumps, circulating pumps, transfer pumps and feed pumps for the centrifuge) also need viscosities above 2 cSt to function properly. Viscosity is highly temperature dependent and the crew must take proper care of fuel oil temperature management to avoid viscosity related issues. Reference 3.

Unusual components

The below components and group of components can be linked to the risk of encountering the following problems: Polymers (e.g. polystyrene, polyethylene, polypropylene) Associated with filter blocking Polymethacrylates Associated with fuel pump sticking Phenols Occasionally Associated with filter blocking/fuel oil pump sticking Tall oils Associated with filter blocking Chlorinated hydrocarbons Associated with fuel pump seizures

Only for few components, there exists a clear cause and effect between component and associated operational problems. There is no statistical study performed of which components are typically found in marine fuels and in which concentration. As per ISO 8217:2017, annex B: The marine industry continues to build on its understanding of the impact of specific chemical species and the respective critical concentrations at which detrimental effects are observed on the operational characteristics of marine fuels in use. Only in some of the past cases the origin of the unusual components found in bunkers were revealed and




Estonian shale oil Associated in the past with excessive separator sludging Organic acids Associated with corrosion as well as fuel pump sticking

were due to various reasons such as:

.1 Russia/Baltic states 1997, cross contamination in storage/piping (polypropylene);

.2 Singapore 2001, 4 bunker barges received material from road tankers which, in addition to transporting fuel, also collected/transported waste oil from shipyards and motor shops (esters);

.3 Ventspils 2007, Estonian shale oil to convert HSHFOs to LSFOS; and

.4 Houston 2010/11, bunker barges that were not cleaned between cargoes (polyacrylates) Reference 4.

References

1 CIMAC WG7 Fuels Guideline 01/2015: "Cold flow properties of marine fuel oils" 2 CIMAC WG7 Fuels 2011: "Fuel Quality Guide: Ignition and Combustion" 3 MAN Service Letter SL2014-593/DOJA 4 Bureau Veritas Verifuel, Investigative analysis of marine fuel oils: Pros & Cons

***




ANNEX 13

DRAFT MEPC CIRCULAR

2019 GUIDELINES FOR ON BOARD SAMPLING FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE SULPHUR CONTENT OF THE FUEL OIL USED ON BOARD SHIPS

1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its seventy-fourth session (13 to 17 May 2019), having considered amendments, approved the 2019 Guidelines for on board sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships concerning an agreed method for sampling to enable effective control and enforcement of liquid fuel oil being used on board ships under the provisions of MARPOL Annex VI. 2 Member Governments are invited to bring the annexed Guidelines to the attention of Administrations, industry, relevant shipping organizations, shipping companies and other stakeholders concerned. 3 This circular supersedes MEPC.1/Circ.864.



ANNEX

2019 GUIDELINES FOR ON BOARD SAMPLING FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE SULPHUR CONTENT OF THE FUEL OIL USED ON BOARD SHIPS

1 Preface The objective of these Guidelines is to establish an agreed method for sampling to enable effective control and enforcement of liquid fuel oil being used on board ships under the provisions of MARPOL Annex VI. 2 Sampling location The in-use1 representative sample or samples should be obtained from a designated sampling point or points. The number and location of designated fuel oil sampling points should be confirmed by the Administration following consideration of possible fuel oil cross-contamination and service tank arrangements. Fuel oil sampling points to be used should fulfil all of the following conditions:

.1 be easily and safely accessible;

.2 take into account different fuel oil grades being used for the fuel oil combustion machinery item;

.3 be downstream of the in-use fuel oil service tank;

.4 be as close to the fuel oil combustion machinery as safely feasible taking into

account the type of fuel oil, flow-rate, temperature, and pressure behind the selected sampling point;

.5 be clearly marked for easy identification and described in either the piping

diagram or other relevant documents;

.6 each sampling point should be located in a position shielded from any heated surface or electrical equipment and the shielding device or construction should be sturdy enough to endure leaks, splashes or spray under design pressure of the fuel oil supply line so as to preclude impingement of fuel oil onto such surface or equipment; and

.7 the sampling arrangement should be provided with suitable drainage to the

drain tank or other safe location.

1 In-use sample means the sample of fuel oil in use on a ship.



3 Sample handling The fuel oil sample should be taken when a steady flow is established in the fuel oil circulating system. The sampling connection2 should be thoroughly flushed through with the fuel oil in use prior to drawing the sample. The sample or samples should be collected in a sampling container or containers and should be representative of the fuel oil being used. The sample bottles should be sealed by the inspector with a unique means of identification installed in the presence of the ship's representative. The ship should be given the option of retaining a sample. The label should include the following information:

.1 sampling point location where the sample was drawn; .2 date and port of sampling; .3 name and IMO number of the ship; .4 details of seal identification; and .5 signatures and names of the inspector and the ship's representative.

***

2 The sampling connection is the valve and associated pipework designated for sample collection which is

connected to the fuel oil service system.




ANNEX 14

DRAFT MSC-MEPC CIRCULAR

DELIVERY OF COMPLIANT FUEL OIL BY SUPPLIERS 1 The Maritime Safety Committee at its one hundred and first session (5 to 14 June 2019) and the Marine Environment Protection Committee at its seventy-fourth session (13 to 17 May 2019) recommended that Member States should take appropriate action to ensure that fuel oil suppliers under their jurisdiction deliver compliant fuel oil. 2 SOLAS and MARPOL contain provisions applicable to the supply of compliant fuel oil to ships that relate to both safety and environmental requirements. Specifically, safety and fuel oil quality are addressed in SOLAS chapter II-2 and regulations 14 and 18 of MARPOL Annex VI. 3 A Party to MARPOL Annex VI is required to take all reasonable steps to promote the availability of fuel oils that comply with MARPOL Annex VI. Fuel oil for combustion purposes delivered to and used on board ships to which MARPOL Annex VI applies shall meet the requirements set out in regulation 18.3 of MARPOL Annex VI. 4 Pursuant to regulation 18.9 of MARPOL Annex VI, Parties undertake to ensure that appropriate authorities designated by them take action as appropriate against fuel oil suppliers that have been found to deliver fuel oil that does not comply with that stated on the bunker delivery note. 5 Members States should urge fuel oil suppliers to take into account the following guidance, as relevant:

Guidance on best practice for fuel oil purchasers/users for assuring the quality of fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.875); and

Guidance on best practice for fuel oil suppliers for assuring the quality of fuel oil delivered to ships (MEPC.1/Circ.875/Add.1).

6 Member States are invited to bring this guidance to the attention of Administrations, recognized organizations, port authorities, shipowners, ship operators, fuel oil suppliers, shippers/manufacturers and other parties concerned.

***




ANNEX 15

DRAFT MEPC RESOLUTION

2019 GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by the international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution,

RECALLING ALSO that, at its fifty-eighth session, the Committee adopted, by resolution MEPC.176(58), a revised MARPOL Annex VI which significantly strengthens the controls on emissions,

NOTING that articles 5 and 6 of the MARPOL Convention and regulations 10 and 11 of MARPOL Annex VI provide control procedures to be followed by a Party to the 1997 Protocol with regard to foreign ships visiting its ports,

RECALLING that, at its fifty-fifth session, the Committee adopted, by resolution MEPC.181(59), 2009 Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI,

NOTING that the revised MARPOL Annex VI entered into force on 1 July 2010 and since then there have been several amendments to the provisions,

RECOGNIZING the need to revise the 2009 Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI, in accordance with provisions of the MARPOL Annex VI, as amended,

HAVING CONSIDERED, at is seventy-fourth session, draft 2019 Guidelines for port State control under MARPOL Annex VI prepared by the Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Control, at its sixth session, following a review by the Sub-Committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments, at its fifth session,

1 ADOPTS the 2019 Guidelines for port State control under MARPOL Annex VI (2019 PSC Guidelines), as set out in the annex to the present resolution; 2 INVITES Governments, when exercising port State control under MARPOL Annex VI, to apply the 2019 PSC Guidelines from 1 January 2020; 3 INVITES Governments, when exercising port State control under MARPOL Annex VI, to apply the provisions of MARPOL Annex VI concerning the prohibition on the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship from 1 March 2020;

4 INVITES Governments, when exercising port State control under MARPOL Annex VI, to apply the provisions of MARPOL Annex VI concerning electronic record books from [1 October 2020]; 5 AGREES to keep these Guidelines under review in the light of experience gained with their application;

6 REVOKES the 2009 Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI adopted by resolution MEPC.181(59), from 1 January 2020.



ANNEX

2019 GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI Chapter 1 GENERAL 1.1 This document is intended to provide basic guidance on the conduct of port State control inspections for compliance with MARPOL Annex VI (hereinafter referred to as "the Annex") and afford consistency in the conduct of these inspections, the recognition of deficiencies and the application of control procedures. 1.2 Chapters 1 (General), 4 (Contravention and detention), 5 (Reporting requirements) and 6 (Review procedures) of the Procedures for Port State Control, as adopted by the Organization, as may be amended, also applies to these Guidelines. Chapter 2 INSPECTIONS OF SHIPS REQUIRED TO CARRY THE IAPP CERTIFICATE 2.1 Initial inspections 2.1.1 The PSCO should ascertain the date of ship construction and the date of installation of equipment on board which are subject to the provisions of the Annex, in order to confirm which regulations of the Annex are applicable. 2.1.2 On boarding and introduction to the master or responsible ship's officer, the port State control officer (PSCO) should examine the following documents, where applicable:

.1 the International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (IAPP Certificate) (regulation VI/6), including its Supplement;

.2 the Engine International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (EIAPP

Certificate) (paragraph 2.2 of the NOX Technical Code) including its Supplement, for each applicable marine diesel engine;

.3 the Technical File (paragraph 2.3.4 of the NOX Technical Code) for each

applicable marine diesel engine; .4 depending on the method used for demonstrating NOX compliance for each

applicable marine diesel engine:

.1 the Record Book of Engine Parameters for each marine diesel engine (paragraph 6.2.2.7 of the NOX Technical Code) demonstrating compliance with regulation VI/13 by means of the marine diesel engine parameter check method; or

.2 documentation relating to the simplified measurement method; or .3 documentation related to the direct measurement and monitoring

method;

.5 the Approved Method File (regulation VI/13.7);



.6 the written procedures covering fuel oil change over operations (in a working language or languages understood by the crew) where separate fuel oils are used in order to achieve compliance (regulation VI/14.6);

.7 the approved documentation relating to exceptions and/or exemptions

granted under regulation VI/3;

.8 the approved documentation (SECC where issued, ETM, OMM, SECP) and relating to any installed exhaust gas cleaning system or equivalent means, to reduce SOX emissions (regulation VI/4);

.9 that the required EGCS monitoring records have been retained and show

compliance. Additionally, that the EGCS Record Book including nitrate discharge data and performance records,1 or approved alternative, has been duly maintained.

.10 the bunker delivery notes (BDNs) and representative samples or records

thereof (regulation VI/18); .11 the copy of the type approval certificate of any shipboard incinerator installed

on or after 1 January 2000 (for the incinerators with capacities up to 1,500 kW) (resolutions MEPC.76(40) and MEPC.244(66));

.12 the Ozone Depleting Substances Record Book (regulation VI/12.6); .13 the VOC Management Plan (regulation VI/15.6); and .14 any notification to the ship's flag Administration issued by the master or

officer in charge of the bunker operation together with any available commercial documentation relevant to non-compliant bunker delivery, regulation VI/18.2.

The Record Books referenced in sub-paragraphs .4, .6 and .12 above may be presented in an electronic format. A declaration from the Administration should be viewed in order to accept this electronic record book. If a declaration cannot be provided, a hard copy record book will need to be presented for examination. 2.1.3 As a preliminary check, the IAPP Certificate's validity should be confirmed by verifying that the Certificate is properly completed and signed and that required surveys have been performed. 2.1.4 Through examining the Supplement to the IAPP Certificate, the PSCO may establish how the ship is equipped for the prevention of air pollution. 2.1.5 In the case where the bunker delivery note or the representative sample as required by regulation VI/18 presented to the ship are not in compliance with the relevant requirements (the BDN is set out in appendix V of MARPOL Annex VI), the master or officer in charge of the bunker operation may have documented that through a Notification to the ship's flag Administration with copies to the port Authority under whose jurisdiction the ship did not receive

1 In assessing the Emission Ratio and discharge water records the PSCO should be mindful that such factors

as transient engine operation or analyser performance outputs may result in isolated "spikes" in the recorded output which, while these measurements in themselves may be above the required Emission Ratio or discharge water limit values, do not indicate that overall the EGCS was not being operated and controlled as required and hence should not be taken as evidence of non-compliance with the requirements.



the required documentation pursuant to the bunkering operation and to the bunker deliverer. A copy may be retained on board the ship, together with any available commercial documentation, for the subsequent scrutiny of port State control. 2.2 Initial inspection on ships equipped with equivalent means of SOX compliance. 2.2.1 On ships equipped with equivalent means of compliance, the PSCO will look at:

.1 evidence that the ship has received an appropriate approval for any installed equivalent means (approved, under trial or being commissioned);

.2 evidence that the ship is using an equivalent means, as identified on the

Supplement of the IAPP certificate, for fuel oil combustion units on board or that compliant fuel oil is used in equipment not so covered; and

.3 bunker delivery notes on board2 which indicate that the fuel oil is intended to

be used in combination with an equivalent means of SOX compliance or the ship is subject to a relevant exemption to conduct trials for sulphur oxides emission reduction and control technology research.

2.2.2 In the case where an exhaust gas cleaning system is not in compliance with the relevant requirements for other than transitory periods and isolated spikes in the recorded output, the master or officer in charge may have documented that through a Notification to the ship's flag Administration with copies to the competent authority of the relevant port of destination, and present those corrective actions taken in in order to rectify the situation in accordance with the guidance given in the EGCS Technical Manual. If a malfunction occurs in the instrumentation for the monitoring of emission to air or the monitoring of washwater discharge to sea, the ship may have alternative documentation demonstrating compliance.3 2.3 Initial inspection within an ECA 2.3.1 When a ship is inspected in a port in an ECA designated for SOX emission control, the PSCO should look at:

.1 Evidence of fuel oil delivered to and used on board with a sulphur content of not more than 0.10% m/m through the BDNs and appropriate on board records including records of bunkering operations as set out in the Oil Record Book Part 1 (regulation VI/18.5 and VI/14.4).

.2 For those ships using separate fuel oils for compliance with regulation VI/14,

evidence of a written procedure (in a working language or languages understood by the crew) and records of changeover to fuel oil with a sulphur content of not more than 0.10% m/m before entering the ECA such that compliant fuel was being used while sailing in the entire ECA as required in regulation VI/14.6.

2 Resolution MEPC.305(73) Prohibition on the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil for combustion purposes for

propulsion or operation on board a ship is not applicable to fuel oil carried as cargo or for ships fitted with an approved equivalent means of compliance.

3 MEPC.1/Circ.[…] on Guidance on temporary indication of ongoing compliance in the case of the failure of a

single monitoring instrument, and recommended actions to take if the EGCS fails to meet the requirement of the Guidelines, ships should have documented notification of system non-compliance to relevant authorities as in paragraph 2.2.2.



2.4 Initial inspection outside an ECA or first port after transiting an ECA 2.4.1 When a ship is inspected in a port outside ECA the PSCO will look to the same documentation and evidence as during inspections in ports inside the ECA. The PSCO should in particular look at:

.1 Evidence that the sulphur content of the fuel oil is in accordance with regulation VI/14.14 through the BDNs and appropriate on board records including records of bunkering operations as set out in the Oil Record Book Part 1 (regulation VI/18.5 and VI/14.4).

.2 Evidence of a written procedure (in a working language or languages

understood by the crew) and records of changeover from fuel oil with a sulphur content of not more than 0.10% m/m after leaving the ECA such that compliant fuel was being used while sailing in the in the entire ECA.

2.4.2 If the certificates and documents are valid and appropriate and, after an inspection of the ship to check that the overall condition of the ship meets generally accepted international rules and standards, the PSCO's general impressions and observations on board confirm a good standard of maintenance, the inspection should be considered satisfactorily concluded. 2.4.3 If, however, the PSCO's general impressions or observations on board give clear grounds (see paragraph 2.4.4) for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment do not correspond substantially with the particulars of the certificates or the documents, the PSCO should proceed to a more detailed inspection. 2.4.4 "Clear grounds" to conduct a more detailed inspection include:

.1 evidence that certificates required by the Annex are missing or clearly invalid; .2 evidence that documents required by the Annex are missing or clearly

invalid;

.3 the absence or malfunctioning of equipment or arrangements specified in the certificates or documents;

.4 the presence of equipment or arrangements not specified in the certificates

or documents; .5 evidence from the PSCO's general impressions or observations that serious

deficiencies exist in the equipment or arrangements specified in the certificates or documents;

.6 information or evidence that the master or crew are not familiar with essential

shipboard operations relating to the prevention of air pollution, or that such operations have not been carried out;

.7 evidence of inconsistency between information in the bunker delivery note

and paragraph 2.3 of the Supplement to the IAPP certificate;

4 Resolution MEPC.305(73) Prohibition on the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil for combustion purposes for

propulsion or operation on board a ship is not applicable to fuel oil carried as cargo or for ships fitted with an approved equivalent means of compliance.



.8 evidence that an equivalent means has not been used as required; or .9 evidence, for example by fuel calculators, that the quantity of bunkered

compliant fuel oil is inconsistent with the ship's voyage plan; and .10 receipt of a report or complaint containing information that the ship appears

to be non-compliant including but not limited to information from remote sensing surveillance of SOX emissions or portable fuel oil sulphur content measurement devices indicating that a ship appears to use non-compliant fuel while in operation/underway.

2.5 More detailed inspections 2.5.1 The PSCO should verify that:

.1 there are effectively implemented maintenance procedures for the equipment containing ozone-depleting substances; and

.2 there are no deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances.

2.5.2 In order to verify that each installed marine diesel engine with a power output of more than 130 kW is approved by the Administration in accordance with the NOX Technical Code and maintained appropriately, the PSCO should pay particular attention to the following:

.1 examine such marine diesel engines to be consistent with the EIAPP

Certificate and its Supplement, Technical File and, if applicable, Record Book of Engine Parameters or Onboard Monitoring Manual and related data;

.2 examine marine diesel engines specified in the Technical Files to verify that

no unapproved modifications, which may affect on NOX emission, have been made to the marine diesel engines;

.3 examine marine diesel engines with a power output of more than 5,000 kW

and a per cylinder displacement at or above 90 litres installed on a ship constructed on or after 1 January 1990 but prior to 1 January 2000 to verify that they are certified, if so required, in accordance with regulation VI/13.7;

.4 in the case of ships constructed before 1 January 2000, verify that any

marine diesel engine which has been subject to a major conversion, as defined in regulation VI/13, has been approved by the Administration; and

.5 emergency marine diesel engines intended to be used solely in case of

emergency are still in use for this purpose. 2.5.3 The PSCO should check and verify whether fuel oil complies with the provisions of regulation VI/14 taking into account appendix VI5 of this Annex.





2.5.4 The PSCO should pay attention to the record required in regulation VI/14.6 in order to identify the sulphur content of fuel oil used by the ship depending on the area of trade, or that other equivalent approved means have been applied as required. The fuel oil consumed in and outside the ECA, and that there is enough fuel in compliance with regulation VI/14 to reach the next port destination. 2.5.5 Where EGCS is used, the PSCO should check that it has been installed and operated, together with its monitoring systems, in accordance with the associated approved documentation according to the survey procedures as established in the OMM. 2.5.6 If the ship is equipped with an EGCS as an equivalent means of SOX compliance, the PSCO should verify that the system is properly functioning, is in operation, there are continuous-monitoring systems with tamper-proof data recording and processing devices,6 if applicable and the records demonstrate the necessary compliance when set against the limits given in the approved documentation and applies to relevant fuel combustion units on board. Checking can include but is not limited to: emissions ratio, pH, PAH, turbidity readings as limit values given in ETM-A or ETM-B and operation parameters as listed in the system documentation. 2.5.7 If the ship is a tanker, as defined in regulation VI/2.21, the PSCO should verify that the vapour collection system approved by the Administration, taking into account MSC/Circ.585, is installed, if required under regulation VI/15. 2.5.8 If the ship is a tanker carrying crude oil, the PSCO should verify that there is on board an approved VOC Management Plan. 2.5.9 The PSCO should verify that prohibited materials are not incinerated. 2.5.10 The PSCO should verify that shipboard incineration of sewage sludge or sludge oil in boilers or marine power plants is not undertaken while the ship is inside ports, harbours or estuaries (regulation VI/16.4). 2.5.11 The PSCO should verify that the shipboard incinerator, if required by regulation VI/16.6.1, is approved by the Administration. For these units, it should be verified that the incinerator is properly maintained, therefore the PSCO should examine whether:

.1 the shipboard incinerator is consistent with the certificate of shipboard incinerator;

.2 the operational manual, in order to operate the shipboard incinerator within

the limits provided in appendix IV to the Annex, is provided; and .3 the combustion chamber flue gas outlet temperature is monitored at all times

the unit is in operation (regulation VI/16.9). 2.5.12 If there are clear grounds as defined in paragraph 2.1.6, the PSCO may examine operational procedures by confirming that:

.1 the master or crew are familiar with the procedures to prevent emissions of ozone-depleting substances;

6 Equivalent emission values for emission abatement methods are 4.3 and 21.7 SO2 (ppm)/CO2 (% v/v) for

marine fuels with a sulphur content of 0.10 and 0.50 (% m/m) respectively.



.2 the master or crew are familiar with the proper operation and maintenance of marine diesel engines, in accordance with their Technical Files or Approved Method file, as applicable, and with due regard for Emission Control Areas for NOX control;

.3 the master or crew are familiar with fuel oil bunkering procedures in connection to the respective bunker delivery notes and on board records including the Oil Record Book Part 1 (regulation VI/18.5 and VI/14.4) and retained samples as required by regulation VI/18;

.4 the master or crew are familiar with the correct operation of an EGCS or other

equivalent means on board together with any applicable monitoring and recording, and record keeping requirements;

.5 the master or crew are familiar and have undertaken the necessary fuel oil

changeover procedures, or equivalent, associated with demonstrating compliance within an Emission Control Area;

.6 the master or crew are familiar with the garbage screening procedure to ensure that prohibited garbage is not incinerated;

.7 the master or crew are familiar with the operation of the shipboard incinerator, as required by regulation VI/16.6, within the limits provided in appendix IV to the Annex, in accordance with its operational manual;

.8 the master or crew are familiar with the regulation of emissions of VOCs, when the ship is in ports or terminals under the jurisdiction of a Party to the 1997 Protocol to MARPOL 73/78 in which VOCs emissions are to be regulated, and are familiar with the proper operation of a vapour collection system approved by the Administration (in case the ship is a tanker as defined in regulation VI/2.21); and

.9 the master or crew are familiar with the application of the VOC Management Plan, if applicable.

2.6 Detainable deficiencies

2.6.1 In exercising his/her functions, the PSCO should use professional judgment to determine whether to detain the ship until any noted deficiencies are corrected or to allow it to sail with certain deficiencies which do not pose an unreasonable threat of harm under the scope of the Annex provided they will be timely addressed. In doing this, the PSCO should be guided by the principle that the requirements contained in the Annex, with respect to the construction, equipment and operation of the ship, are essential for the protection of the marine environment, the navigational safety or the human health and that departure from these requirements could constitute an unreasonable threat of harm to the mentioned protection aspects and should be avoided.

2.6.2 In order to assist the PSCO in the use of these Guidelines, there follows a list of deficiencies, which are considered, taking into account the provisions of regulation VI/3, to be of such a serious nature that they may warrant the detention of the ship involved:

.1 absence of valid IAPP Certificate, EIAPP Certificates or Technical Files, if applicable;



.2 a marine diesel engine, with a power output of more than 130 kW, which is installed on board a ship constructed on or after 1 January 2000, or a marine diesel engine having undergone a major conversion on or after 1 January 2000, which does not comply with the NOX Technical Code or that does not comply with the relevant NOX emission limit;

.3 a marine diesel engine, with a power output of more than 5,000 kW and a

per cylinder displacement at or above 90 litres, which is installed on board a ship constructed on or after 1 January 1990 but prior to 1 January 2000, and an Approved Method for that engine has been certified by an Administration and was commercially available, for which an Approved Method is not installed after the first renewal survey specified in regulation VI/13.7.2;

.4 on ships not equipped with equivalent means of SOX compliance, based on

the methodology of sample analysis in accordance with appendix VI7 of MARPOL Annex VI, the sulphur content of any fuel oil being used or carried for use on board exceeds the applicable limit required by regulation VI/14. If the master claims that it was not possible to bunker compliant fuel oil, the PSCO should take into account the provisions of regulation VI/18.2.

.5 on ships equipped with equivalent means of SOX compliance, absence of an

appropriate approval for the equivalent means, which applies to relevant fuel combustion units on board. With regard to combustion units not connected to an EGCS, the sulphur content of any fuel oil being used on these combustion units does not exceed the limits stipulated in regulation VI/14, taking into account the provisions of regulation VI/18.2.

.6 non-compliance with the relevant requirements while operating within an

Emission Control Area for SOX and particulate matter control; .7 an incinerator installed on board the ship on or after 1 January 2000 does

not comply with requirements contained in appendix IV to the Annex, or the standard specifications for shipboard incinerators developed by the Organization (resolutions MEPC.76(40) and MEPC.244(66)); and

.8 the master or crew are not familiar with essential procedures regarding the

operation of air pollution prevention equipment as defined in paragraph 2.5.12 above.

Chapter 3 INSPECTIONS OF SHIPS OF NON-PARTIES TO THE ANNEX AND OTHER

SHIPS NOT REQUIRED TO CARRY THE IAPP CERTIFICATE 3.1 As this category of ships is not provided with the IAPP Certificate, the PSCO should judge whether the condition of the ship and its equipment satisfies the requirements set out in the Annex. In this respect, the PSCO should take into account that, in accordance with article 5(4) of the MARPOL Convention, no more favourable treatment is to be given to ships of non-Parties.





3.2 In all other respects the PSCO should be guided by the procedures for ships referred to in chapter 2 and should be satisfied that the ship and crew do not present a danger to those on board or an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment. 3.3 If the ship has a form of certification other than the IAPP Certificate, the PSCO may take such documentation into account in the evaluation of the ship.

***



ANNEX 16

DRAFT METHDOLOGY TO ANALYSE IMPACTS OF A BAN ON THE USE AND CARRIAGE OF HEAVY FUEL OIL AS FUEL BY SHIPS IN ARCTIC WATERS

Background 1 The overarching problem has been defined at MEPC as risk of possible fuel oil spills by ships that use and carry heavy fuel oil (HFO) for use as fuel in Arctic waters. MEPC 71 recognized that the release of oil into Arctic waters remains a significant threat from ships to the Arctic marine environment. Future ship traffic in Arctic waters is projected to rise, thus increasing the likelihood of HFO spills and associated impacts on Arctic environments, indigenous and local communities, industries and economies. Spill response in the Arctic can be hindered by harsh weather conditions. Due to low temperature of Arctic waters the degrading process of HFO is very slow. HFO is more persistent than other fuels when spilled, and as such poses a unique hazard to the Arctic environment, impacting a broader range of marine life, and is thus more challenging to clean up. At MEPC 72, measures to mitigate the risks of spills were proposed, including a ban on HFO used and carried as fuel by ships in Arctic waters. Step 1: Defining the scope 2 Given discussions at MEPC, the Committee instructed PPR, on the basis of an impact assessment, to develop a ban on HFO for use and carriage as fuel by ships in Arctic waters, on an appropriate timescale. In order to develop such a measure, there is a need to analyse its impacts including, but not limited to, social, environmental and economic considerations. Therefore, the problem that prompted development of this methodology is the need to fully assess the effects on Arctic indigenous and local communities, industries, economies and coastal and marine ecosystems, both adverse and beneficial, of a potential ban of the use and carriage of HFO as fuel by ships in Arctic waters. Step 2: Defining a policy objective 3 MEPC 71 agreed that the risk of an HFO spill in the Arctic warranted a new output, namely, the development of measures to reduce risks of use and carriage of HFO as fuel by ships in Arctic waters. There are two elements inherent to this policy objective that all viable policy options must meet. First, the policy option(s) must reduce the risk of an HFO spill from ships in Arctic waters. Second, due to the urgent need to protect fragile Arctic environments and in light of the likely increase in Arctic shipping, the policy option(s) must reduce risk in the near term. Therefore, policy options must be assessed not only for their impacts, but also for how well they meet policy objectives to solve the defined problem within an appropriate timescale. Step 3: Policy options 4 The scope of work stated in document MEPC 72/17 (paragraph 11.9) contains the policy options that MEPC has approved for work at the PPR Sub-Committee. 5 Impact assessments should consider the following identified policy options:

.1 to develop, on an appropriate timescale, a ban on the use and carriage of HFO as fuel based on document MEPC 72/11/1 (Finland et al); or

.2 to develop, on an appropriate timescale, a ban on the use and carriage of HFO as fuel, with other factors incorporated.



Step 4: Analysis of impacts 6 Analysis of impacts of an HFO ban should be guided by but not limited to the impact assessment methodology presented in the annex to this document, based on MEPC 73/9/1, which represents a balanced approach to assessing both costs and benefits of an HFO ban to indigenous and local communities, industries, economies and the coastal and marine ecosystems of the Arctic. Step 5: Comparison of policy options and recommendation of preferred option(s) 7 The PPR Sub-Committee has been directed to "on the basis of an assessment of the impacts, develop a ban on HFO for use and carriage as fuel by ships in Arctic waters, on an appropriate timescale" as stated in document MEPC 72/17 (paragraph 11.9.3). Policy options that were identified in step 3 of this combined methodology above would result in choosing one of the following options:

.1 to develop, on an appropriate timescale, a ban on the use and carriage of HFO as fuel based on document MEPC 72/11/1; or

.2 to develop, on an appropriate timescale, a ban on the use and carriage of

HFO as fuel, with other factors incorporated (step 4 of the annex). 8 As stated in paragraph 3 above, the option that is chosen as preferred must reduce the risk of an HFO spill from ships in Arctic waters, and reduction of risk must occur in an appropriate timescale.



ANNEX

DETAILS OF STEP FOUR OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Step 1: Determination of the study area

1 While an HFO ban would only apply to Arctic waters as defined in the Polar Code (MARPOL Annex I, regulation 46.2), assessment of the impact of a ban may extend to "near Arctic" areas that are directly related to shipping in the Polar Code Arctic, or are significantly affected by it. The "study area" should be defined by looking at key elements, including, but not limited to:

.1 indigenous and local communities, services and industries that rely upon ships that would be affected by an HFO ban;

.2 ports, areas and indigenous and local communities within the Polar Code Arctic;

.3 ports and areas in the near Arctic that, inter alia, act as hubs to and are directly related to indigenous and local communities and industries within the Polar Code Arctic;

.4 existing ship traffic patterns;

.5 coastal and marine ecosystems of Arctic waters that could be affected by HFO spills from ships; and

.6 operating areas including lower risk voyages, as described in paragraph 12.9 of MEPC 71/14/4.

2 For each community identified, population and other relevant demographic data should be considered in order to define populations that would be affected by a ban. The contribution of each economic activity to regional and national economies within the study area should be evaluated, as well as the extent to which they currently rely upon HFO-fuelled ships. For each port and area identified in the study area, the assessment should consider:

.1 current usage by HFO-fuelled ships;

.2 Arctic indigenous and local communities and industries served by the port;

.3 whether ships can refuel with HFO at the port currently, and whether and how other non-HFO type fuels can be supplied;

.4 capacity at each port; and

.5 the goods, fuels and products imported and exported and other services.

3 Arctic ship traffic in the study area should be summarized and regional traffic patterns identified using available literature and automatic identification system (AIS) data. Ship traffic may be broken down by ship type and by ship routes throughout the study area, including ships exercising the right of innocent passage. Arctic traffic projections may be applied to current ship traffic in the study area in order to estimate future ship populations for an appropriate time period. Ships not likely to be fuelled by HFO should be removed from the analysis of impacts of a ban on indigenous and local communities and industries. The number of ships using HFO may be validated against studies that have identified HFO-fuelled ships in the Arctic, and reports on changes to the Arctic fleet composition as reflected by new builds, ship retirements and changing market service patterns.



Step 2: Assessing costs to Arctic indigenous and local communities and industries 4 Impacts of an HFO ban on Arctic indigenous and local communities and industries would manifest themselves as increases in the cost of goods that are transported to and from communities and industries by ships, or potential changes to availability of services, and increases in operating expenses derived from use of ships, respectively. Therefore, the impacts resulting from an HFO ban are primarily derived from costs of a ban to ships, including, inter alia:

.1 fuel costs; .2 one-time costs; and .3 debunkering and associated costs, if any.

5 Once ship costs are estimated, the impact assessment should evaluate what portion of the pricing of goods or industry expenses would be affected by an HFO ban. Conclusions may include effects on the price of goods, and on employment, wages and profits for businesses. An analysis of ship costs should also address whether a ban on HFO would have a significant or disproportionate impact on small entities or other segments of the Arctic shipping industry. 6 Fuel costs to ships that use HFO will depend primarily upon their current fuel use behaviour. Care should be taken to account for ship fuel cost increases due solely to an HFO ban, and not increases incurred from other causes, e.g. switching to fuel that is compliant with the 2020 global sulphur standard. Current fuel use behaviours can be grouped into the following categories:

.1 ships that use only HFO; .2 ships using HFO that use exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers) in order

to comply with air emissions standards; and .3 ships that currently switch fuels between HFO and non-HFO.

7 The cost of installing scrubbers to comply with MARPOL Annex VI should not be conflated with costs that would be passed on to indigenous and local communities as a direct result of an HFO ban, because the ban would not necessarily prevent ships with scrubbers from using other high sulphur fuels. 8 Because many ships are already switching fuels between HFO and marine distillates, one-time costs incurred by owners or operators as a result of an HFO ban in the Arctic will not apply to all ships, but could include, inter alia:

.1 costs to install, clean or modify equipment; .2 costs of out of service days related to modifications; and .3 costs for crew training.

9 The costs of debunkering HFO may need to be included in the assessment because a ban would not allow HFO carriage in fuel tanks within the Polar Code Arctic. It should be noted that operators active in the Arctic would likely transition their vessels or fleet for summer work; thus, debunkering, if needed, would be associated with normal seasonal preparations



rather than individual voyages. The need for HFO debunkering could be minimized by following requirements and recommendations under the Polar Code (chapter 11) for voyage planning. It should also be noted that the Polar Code (part II-B, section 1.1) encourages ships not to use or carry HFO in the Arctic. 10 If ship costs increase as a result of a ban, the increase may be passed on through raising prices of goods, charter rates and ship-related industry expenses. Price increases that are attributable to an HFO ban should be distinguished from increased costs due to other factors. The following factors, inter alia, should be considered and, where appropriate, separated out from the impacts of an HFO ban:

.1 costs that are incurred each time goods are transferred to or from non-HFO-fuelled vessels should already be incorporated into current costs;

.2 delivery costs for goods that are bought in bulk for the year (e.g. gasoline and residential fuel) are often prearranged well in advance of delivery and thus could reflect past fuel prices or multiple other factors. A review of past pricing for bulk goods and associated ship fuel costs could be used to establish how tightly bulk pricing tracks ship costs for each community; and

.3 competition and alternative means of shipping goods (e.g. by air) can influence price adjustments made by vendors.

Step 3: Assessing the benefits of an HFO ban to Arctic indigenous and local communities and ecosystems 11 The assessment should determine the value, both monetary and non-monetary, of benefits that would occur with an HFO ban in place. Potential benefits, compared to a non-HFO spill, include the avoidance of the costs, inter alia, associated with:

.1 response and clean-up of HFO spills;

.2 loss of marine and coastal natural resources important to food security that could be affected by an HFO spill;

.3 loss of culturally important subsistence activities; and .4 adverse impacts to Arctic marine and coastal ecosystems from an HFO spill.

12 The assessment should include costs of response to potential HFO spills in areas in Arctic waters. Indigenous and local people who live, hunt, gather and fish in or near remote Arctic indigenous and local communities could be the first responders to an oil spill in the Arctic due to limited spill response capabilities of regional and national spill responders. Therefore, costs of response and clean-up of HFO spills should also account for other relevant costs. 13 Estimating the prominence of subsistence culture and lifestyle within Arctic indigenous and local communities may help to understand the impact that an HFO spill would have on Arctic communities. For this part of the assessment, consider the proportion of population in Arctic indigenous and local communities that is reliant on subsistence activities for household food security. The economic value of food obtained through subsistence activities likely varies from household to household. At a minimum, three types of costs or losses would be avoided with an HFO ban:

.1 the loss of marine and coastal natural resources;



.2 healthcare costs incurred from switching food sources from subsistence to purchased foods; and

.3 loss of the economic buffer provided by food and materials obtained through

subsistence activities against price fluctuations of other goods.

14 The importance of subsistence activities is twofold. As previously described, one value is monetary. However, subsistence activities are integrated more broadly in a cultural sense as an aspect of the underpinnings of social cohesion, language, public health and identity. Populations that may already be at risk economically can also face social threats that could be exacerbated by the effects of an HFO spill on coastal and marine resources and subsistence activities associated with them. As such, the important cultural value of subsistence activities that would be protected by an HFO ban should be considered, and cannot simply be reduced to monetary terms. Step 4: Other factors 15 There may be other factors that could either ameliorate adverse impacts of a ban or accommodate specific situations. Some examples are:

.1 delay implementation for ships engaged exclusively in trade between ports or terminals of a State;

.2 delay implementation for ships routinely making voyages between specified

ports or locations; and .3 adjust HFO phase-out schedules to accommodate other factors, e.g. local

availability of fuel compliant with the global sulphur cap and availability of ships that use fuels other than HFO.

16 If other factors are considered, the assessment should evaluate how impacts to indigenous and local communities and industries are reduced by adding them, as well as how they affect the efficacy of a ban.

***

P a g e | 1

Guide on the Implementation

of the

OPRC Convention

and the

OPRC-HNS Protocol


ANNEX 171

DRAFT GUIDE ON PRACTICAL METHODS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPRC CONVENTION AND THE OPRC-HNS PROTOCOL

1 Available in English only.________________________

P a g e | 2

Contents OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1. Background and Context ............................................................................................................... 7

1.2. Benefits of the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol ........................................................ 10

1.3. Overall Approach and Checklists ................................................................................................ 11

1.4. Case Study ................................................................................................................................... 16

2. ESTABLISH THE LEGISLATIVE BASIS ..................................................................................................... 17

2.1. Amending Existing Laws or Codes ............................................................................................... 19

2.2. Regulating Pollution Preparedness and Response ..................................................................... 19

2.3. Applicability to all Oil and HNS Pollution Risks ........................................................................... 20

2.4. Funding Pollution Preparedness and Response .......................................................................... 20

2.5. Challenges of HNS Preparedness and Response ......................................................................... 23

2.6. Links to other Conventions ......................................................................................................... 25

2.7. Places of Refuge .......................................................................................................................... 27

2.8. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 29

3. COORDINATE WITHIN GOVERNMENT ................................................................................................. 31

3.1. Marine Pollution Preparedness and Response as a Multi-Disciplinary Issue ............................. 31

3.2. National Pollution Preparedness and Response Forum ............................................................. 31

3.3. Engagement with Private Sector ................................................................................................. 33

Oil .............................................................................................................................................. 33

HNS ............................................................................................................................................ 33

3.4. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 35

4. CLARIFY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................... 36

4.1. Responsibilities for Preparedness ............................................................................................... 37

4.2. Responsibilities for Operational Response ................................................................................. 38

4.3. On-water and Shoreline Preparedness and Response ............................................................... 39

4.4. Incident Management Systems .................................................................................................. 40

4.5. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 40

5. DEVELOP CAPACITY ............................................................................................................................. 42

5.1. Scoping Project Proposals ........................................................................................................... 43

5.2. Sources of Guidance and Support ............................................................................................... 44

5.3. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 45


P a g e | 3

6. REVIEW AND ASSESS STATUS OF NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS ............................................................ 46

6.1 Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 46

6.2 Competency for Reviews and Evaluation ................................................................................... 48

6.3 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 48

7. DEVELOP NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS .................................................................................................. 49

7.1 National Contingency Plan .......................................................................................................... 50

7.2 Core Concepts in Planning .......................................................................................................... 53

Reporting and notification ........................................................................................................ 53

Tiered preparedness and response .......................................................................................... 53

NEBA ......................................................................................................................................... 54

7.3 Shipboard, Port, and HNS or Oil-Handling Facility Plans ............................................................ 55

7.4 Equipment Stockpiles .................................................................................................................. 56

7.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 57

8. REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION .............................................................................. 59

8.1 Regional Co-operation ................................................................................................................ 60

8.2 The Operational Imperative ........................................................................................................ 61

8.3 Sub-regional Co-operation .......................................................................................................... 62

8.4 International Offers of Assistance (IOA) ..................................................................................... 62

8.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 63

9. IMPLEMENT TRAINING AND EXERCISING ........................................................................................... 64

9.1 OPRC Model Courses .................................................................................................................. 66

9.2 OPRC-HNS Model Courses .......................................................................................................... 66

9.3 Exercises ...................................................................................................................................... 67

9.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 68

10. SUSTAIN PREPAREDNESS .................................................................................................................... 69

11. LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION .......................................................................................................... 71

11.1 The IMO instruments .................................................................................................................. 72

Pollution from oil tankers ......................................................................................................... 72

Benefits of the international compensation regime for tankers .............................................. 74

Pollution from ships’ bunker fuel oil ......................................................................................... 74

HNS pollution from ships .......................................................................................................... 75

11.2 Pollution from sources other than ships ..................................................................................... 76


P a g e | 4

ACRONYMS

API American Petroleum Industry

ARPEL Regional Association of Oil, Gas and Biofuels Sector Companies in Latin America and the Caribbean (from Spanish)

Cedre Centre of Documentation, Research & Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution

Cefic European Chemical Industry Council

CLC Civil Liability Convention

COLREG International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency

GEF Global Environment Facility

GI Global Initiative

GI WACAF Global Initiative for West, Central and Southern Africa

HNS Hazardous and Noxious Substances

IMLI International Maritime Law Institute

IMO International Maritime Organization

IMS Incident Management System

IOA International Offers of Assistance

IOGP International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

IOPC Funds International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds

IOSC International Oil Spill Conference

IPIECA The global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues

ISO International Standards Organization

ITCP International Technical Cooperation Programme (of the IMO)

LLMC Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims

MAR-ICE Marine Intervention in Chemical Emergencies (Network)

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

MAS Maritime Assistance Service

MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee (of the IMO)

NCP National Contingency Plan

NEBA Net Environmental Benefit Analysis

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OPRC International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation

P&I Protection and Indemnity Associations (‘P&I Clubs’)

POLREP Pollution Report

POSOW Preparedness for Oil-polluted Shoreline cleanup and Oiled Wildlife interventions Project (POSOW II)

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

RAC Regional Activity Centre

RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe

Regional Marine Pollution Emergency, Information and Training Centre- Wider Caribe

REMPEC Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea

RETOS Readiness Evaluation Tool for Oil Spills

SAR Search and Rescue

SIMA Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment


P a g e | 5

SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

SOPEP Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

WMU World Maritime University


P a g e | 6

OVERVIEW Summary of the guide’s layout and steps


P a g e | 7

`

1. INTRODUCTION The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and

Co-operation (‘OPRC Convention’) was adopted in 1990 to define

appropriate levels of planning and preparation for marine oil pollution. To

broaden the scope of the OPRC Convention, the Protocol on Preparedness,

Response and Co-operation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious

Substances (‘OPRC-HNS Protocol’) was adopted in 2000.

This guide is intended to:

promote understanding of the overall OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS

Protocol concept,

explain the benefits of participation in this international regime,

provide a step-wise approach for the planning, preparedness and

implementation process at national and regional levels, and

identify existing publications and support mechanisms to assist with

implementation.

Information is provided on the benefits of participation in the International

Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions that relate to liability and

compensation for ship-source pollution, which are an important element of

the pollution preparedness and response framework.

This Chapter:

describes the background and technical articles of the OPRC Convention

and OPRC-HNS Protocol (Chapter 1.1),

explains the benefits of participation in the IMO regimes and,

describes the differences between the two agreements (Chapter 1.2),

presents a series of integrated steps through which to ratify and

implement the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol

(Chapter 1.3), and

provides a case study for how one country implemented the OPRC

convention (Chapter 1.4).

1.1. Background and Context Accidental oil pollution from ships, offshore units, sea ports and oil handling

facilities can present hazards to the public and responders, and cause various

impacts to ecological, socio-economic and cultural resources. In the case of

major incidents, or in locations where the resources are particularly

vulnerable, these impacts can be serious for the area’s environment,

economy, and communities.

Experience has shown that the most effective response to major oil spills

stems from coordinated and cooperative preparedness involving a wide

range of organizations. This typically includes national and local government;

Whilst prevention of spills is

paramount, adequate

forethought and planning are

important in being prepared for

possible incidents.

The OPRC Convention involves

establishing national and

regional systems for oil pollution

preparedness and response.


P a g e | 8

`

the private sector, as represented by the oil, ports and shipping industries;

and international organizations. Recognizing the importance and challenges

of coordination and planning, the IMO, a specialized agency within the

United Nations responsible for the safety and security of shipping and the

prevention of marine pollution by ships, developed the OPRC Convention1.

Parties to the OPRC Convention are required to establish procedures for

dealing with oil pollution incidents, either nationally or in co-operation with

other countries. Provision is made for the reimbursement of costs associated

with any assistance provided. The Convention also sets out requirements

relating to spill reporting and oil pollution response preparedness for those

organizations with oil spill risks.

The technical Articles of the OPRC Convention are:

Article 3 Oil pollution emergency plans

Article 4 Oil pollution reporting procedures

Article 5 Action on receiving an oil pollution report

Article 6 National and regional systems for preparedness and response

Article 7 International co-operation in pollution response

Article 8 Research and development

Article 9 Technical co-operation

Article 10 Promotion of bilateral and multilateral co-operation in

preparedness and response

Article 11 Relation to other Conventions and other agreements

Article 12 Institutional arrangements

At the time of the OPRC Convention’s development, IMO recognized the

potential benefits of expanding the scope at a future date to include

pollution incidents from hazardous substances other than oil. The OPRC-HNS

Protocol2 was adopted in 2000 as a result. For the purposes of the Protocol,

a Hazardous and Noxious Substance is defined as any substance other than

oil which, if introduced into the marine environment is likely to create

hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage

amenities, or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.

1 See http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Oil-Pollution-Preparedness,-Response-and-Co-operation-(OPRC).aspx 2 See http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Protocol-on-Preparedness,-Response-and-Co-operation-to-pollution-Incidents-by-Hazardous-and-Noxious-Substances-(OPRC-HNS-Pr.aspx

The OPRC-HNS Protocol mirrors

the OPRC Convention but extends

provision to cover hazardous and

noxious substances.


http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Oil-Pollution-Preparedness,-Response-and-Co-operation-(OPRC).aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Oil-Pollution-Preparedness,-Response-and-Co-operation-(OPRC).aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Protocol-on-Preparedness,-Response-and-Co-operation-to-pollution-Incidents-by-Hazardous-and-Noxious-Substances-(OPRC-HNS-Pr.aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Protocol-on-Preparedness,-Response-and-Co-operation-to-pollution-Incidents-by-Hazardous-and-Noxious-Substances-(OPRC-HNS-Pr.aspx

P a g e | 9

`

The technical articles of the OPRC-HNS Protocol are:

Article 3 Emergency plans and reporting

Article 4 National and regional systems for preparedness and response

Article 5 International co-operation in pollution response

Article 6 Research and development

Article 7 Technical co-operation

Article 8 Promotion of bilateral and multilateral co-operation in


Article 9 Relation to other conventions and international agreements

Article 10 Institutional arrangements

The OPRC-HNS Protocol entered into force in 2007, and within 10 years had

been ratified by more than 20% of IMO Members States, whilst more than

65% of Member States had ratified the OPRC Convention at that point. A

country must be a Party to the OPRC Convention prior to ratifying the

OPRC-HNS Protocol.

The IMO is responsible for various functions and activities under the OPRC

Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol and has provided significant support to

their implementation, including:

detailed publications covering various technical aspects of

preparedness and response;

development and assistance in the delivery of OPRC Model Training

Courses (Chapter 9.1);

national and regional workshops focussed on the development of

preparedness and response frameworks;

facilitation of the development of multilateral cooperation

agreements;

co-operation with the private sector, including the joint Global

Initiative with the international oil industry (Chapter 3.3); and

providing postgraduate education and research programmes for key

personnel in maritime administrations through the IMO’s World

Maritime University (WMU) and the International Maritime Law

Institute (IMLI); this includes promotion of key conventions and

protocols.

Feedback to the IMO indicated that some Member States, notably small

island States and developing countries, were encountering challenges with

the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS-Protocol implementation process. This

guide has been produced to promote understanding of the overall process

and facilitate implementation.

Furthermore, the guide assists in identifying available publications that can

be accessed and helpful in the implementation process. Information is

provided on the benefits of the international framework relating to liability

The IMO has various functions

under the OPRC Convention and

the OPRC-HNS Protocol.

The framework relating to

liability and compensation for

ship-source pollution are an

integral part of pollution



P a g e | 10

`

and compensation for ship-source pollution, which are an important element

of the pollution preparedness and response framework (Chapter 11).

1.2. Benefits of the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol The ratification and implementation of the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS

Protocol provide a range of direct and indirect benefits. These include

measures that lead to marine environmental protection through cost-

effective and efficient oil and HNS pollution preparedness. The key benefits

are identified in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 – Benefits of the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol

Benefit Comment

Ensures timely reporting of discharge or probable discharge of oil or HNS

Rapid reporting and response leads to more effective outcomes following a marine pollution incident.

Entities with oil or HNS pollution risks shall have relevant pollution emergency plans

Plans ensure that ships, offshore facilities, sea ports and marine terminals establish contingency arrangements that are aligned to the national response system and that meet minimum requirements set by the competent national authority.

Clarifies roles and responsibilities of the involved organizations

Avoids the pitfalls and potential confusion associated with emergency preparedness and response functions either being missed or duplicated by different organizations during an incident.

Establishes a national contingency plan for preparedness and response

A national contingency plan captures and disseminates the overall policy, responsibilities and organizational framework within a single document.

Provides a conduit to regional and international support

Regional and global pollution response capability can be accessed through co-operation mechanisms developed under the Convention and Protocol.

Requires that pollution combating equipment stockpiles are established, commensurate with the risks involved

The link to a risk assessment ensures that suitable pre-positioned local capability is integrated with national, regional and international support.

Mandates suitable training and exercising of relevant personnel

Long-term and sustainable implementation requires an on-going training and exercising programme.

Requires that detailed plans, communication procedures and co-ordination arrangements are established

Ensures integrated co-ordination of key organizations’ plans and procedures across governments and with the private sector.

There are substantial benefits

associated with implementing

the OPRC Convention and

OPRC-HNS Protocol.


P a g e | 11

`

Benefit Comment

Facilitates the exchange of research and development outcomes and technical co-operation

Lessons learned from research or international experiences in dealing with incidents are shared and incorporated into national and regional preparedness.

Provides a framework which facilitates implementation of international liability and compensation regime following a ship-source marine pollution incident

International instruments have been established by the IMO for ship-source pollution liability and compensation for Member States who ratify these agreements.

Many countries face immediate social and economic challenges beyond the

consequences of potential marine pollution. Thus, the ratification and

implementation of the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol are at risk

of being assigned a low priority on a governmental agenda. A potential

consequence of this policy is that a serious marine pollution incident can

cause widespread and long term ecological, socio-economic and cultural

impacts, particularly for small and developing nations with a heavy reliance

on the sea for fishing, mariculture, or tourism and where preparedness,

response and co-operation are weak. Gaining high-level political support for

ratification and implementation of the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS

Protocol is a key factor in having the capacity to reduce the effects of marine

pollution incidents.

Once the political desire has been established and a decision made to

become a Party to the OPRC Convention and subsequently the OPRC-HNS

Protocol, it is necessary to consider the means of ratification and

implementation. The implementation process requires a clear legislative

basis to mandate the obligations and actions required by the Convention and

Protocol. The benefits to Member States can only be fully realized when all

Parties carry out these obligations.

1.3. Overall Approach and Checklists The six integrated steps necessary to implement the OPRC Convention and

the OPRC-HNS Protocol are:

1. establish the legislative basis and necessary funding (Chapter 2) that

includes the IMO ship-source marine pollution compensation

Conventions (Chapter 11);

2. create a national organizational structure that embraces

appropriate government agencies and private sector participants

(Chapter 3);

Understanding the benefits of

the OPRC Convention and

OPRC-HNS Protocol allows

suitable priority to be given to

their ratification and

implementation.

An effective national


framework can be established

only where adequate time and

resources are allocated to

planning, preparedness, and

sustained capacity.

.


P a g e | 12

`

3. Develop capacity (Chapter 5) and assess the level of preparedness

(Chapter 6);

4. prepare a National Plan (Chapter 7) and define the roles and

responsibilities of each agency or entity involved (Chapter 4) in the

plan;

5. foster regional and international relationships and agreements for

mutual support and cooperation (Chapter 8); and

6. develop and maintain a regular training and exercising programme

at local, national and regional levels (Chapter 9).


P a g e | 13

`

The key steps involved in implementing the OPRC Convention and HNS

Protocol are summarized in the following checklists.

Establish a sound legislative basis for implementing the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol

Pending In progress Complete

Establish the government authority for spill preparedness and response and task with developing draft laws and regulations to address the six conditions for implementation (as identified in the preceding)

Identify legal counsel to work with the drafting authority

Define in law concepts of polluter pays principle and requirements for contingency planning

Establish requirements for notification and reporting of spill incidents or imminent threat of release

Establish regulatory language for funding mechanisms, enforcement, and sustained response capacity

Coordinate spill response preparedness and planning activities


Identify government and industry entities with established responsibilities within emergency spill response

Formalize participating and contributing members of a national pollution preparedness and response forum (through legislation or intragovernmental agreements)

Consider contributions or membership to the national forum from other private interests, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and stakeholders

Clearly define roles and responsibilities in context of spill emergency preparedness having considered existing arrangements with regard to broader disaster, emergency or civil protection frameworks


Define the specific government entity (agency/staff) assigned as the competent national authority for preparedness

Identify the operational response lead agency(ies) for spills within the marine environment and, if other, to shorelines

Establish clear spill emergency response management organization such as the Incident Management System (IMS) or one adopted for national emergencies

Identify agency leads assigned to key functions within the spill emergency management structure


P a g e | 14

`

Develop in-country capacity


Identify key topics and areas needed for capacity building within membership of the national pollution preparedness and response forum

Develop a step-wise approach to deliver training and obtain experience and expertise

Enlist international, national, and/or industry assistance and expertise to conduct training workshops (e.g., IMO, regional initiatives such as the Global Initiative, Regional Seas)

Consider national funding mechanisms with contributions from international partnerships and initiatives

Ensure personnel that are developing capacity remain engaged in the national spill preparedness effort or forum

Review and assess the status of national preparedness


Identify qualified personnel to conduct assessment (in country and/or supplemented with international expertise)

Compile and review information available (e.g. plans and regulations)

Conduct interviews with key response authorities

Inspect and assess spill response equipment and logistical support assets

Complete review and identify gaps using international guides (e.g. the ARPEL Manual and RETOS tool)

Prioritize steps to address gaps and identify personnel/groups responsible, resources needed, and timelines

Develop a national contingency plan


Select contents for a combined oil and HNS contingency plan or for separate plans, and list appendices to plan(s) (see examples in ARPEL, IMO, and neighbouring/regional countries)

Identify the threats related to oil and HNS at the national level (locations, products and volumes handled) as well as records of spills


P a g e | 15

`

Conduct at a minimum a qualitative risk assessment, including prevention and mitigation measures, to identify potential impacts and priority protection areas through use of technically sound trajectory modelling for key spill scenarios

Establish an inventory of response resources (nationally, regionally and internationally; or Tier 1, 2 and 3), including equipment, manpower, and technical expertise appropriate to the spill hazards and ranges of environmental operating conditions

Prepare a draft plan using information gathered from risk assessment and assessment of preparedness (Chapter 6) through National Planning Committee efforts

Utilize flow-diagrams for required notifications, callout procedures, and decision diagrams

Minimize text to the extent realistic and provide linkages to external supporting documents and tools

Develop national participation in regional and international preparedness programmes


Enact outreach and liaison with neighbouring countries and counterparts on spill emergency preparedness and planning

Nominate participating expertise (likely the Competent National Authority) to participate in bi-lateral and regional preparedness initiatives (i.e. Regional Seas)

Develop procedures and protocols, including spill notification and reporting, to obtain and provide mutual assistance for spill response and for managing International Offers of Assistance

Establish and maintain effective training and exercise programmes


Undertake national training and exercise programme for capacity building (see Chapter 5)

Establish criteria for minimum training requirements applicable to initial oil spill and HNS responders and incident management team personnel

Enlist international, regional, and industry expertise for delivering model OPRC and complementary training courses

Define minimum requirements for exercises to entail notifications, table-tops, and deployments relevant to each tier

Establish mechanisms to verify training and exercises meet compliance (see also Chapter 10)


P a g e | 16

`

1.4. Case Study The specific legal framework, government organization and regional setting

will differ between countries; however, the principles detailed within this

guidance can be applied universally. Table 1-2 provides a summary of how

one country addressed the primary steps needed for implementation of the

OPRC Convention. It is hoped this provides motivation and inspiration for

others to follow a similar route. It is noted that some of the actions listed

below could occur simultaneously and the timescale thereby shortened.

Table 1-2 – Example of a timeline for OPRC Convention implementation

Year Actions Comments

-1 Prepare ratification instruments

The country consulted different authorities and stakeholders to reach agreement to ratify the OPRC Convention

0 OPRC Convention ratified

1 to 2

Oil pollution response Law enacted

Established the principles of preparedness and response, including the powers, duties, liabilities and responsibilities of government institutions, organizations and potential polluters. Two competent national authorities were established, from the environmental and transportation Ministries.

National working group established

Key organizations have forum to discuss required legislation and implementation strategy on oil and HNS spills.

3 Regulation on implementation

Defines the actions and methods for the implementation of the Law.

4

Government notification on minimum capabilities for organizations preparing risk assessments and contingency plans

Set standards for organizations compiling contingency plans.

Set contingency planning standards for relevant ship, operators and authorities.

Set standards regarding consultation, development and approval of contingency plans

5

Order concerning training and exercise

Set standards for the type and frequency of training and exercising. Schedule of national exercises established.

Government notification on rules for financial insurance for coastal facilities

Established national insurance and liability requirements for facilities not covered by the IMO conventions.

National plan developed Established the response organization and operational roles and responsibilities for relevant government entities and private sector, addressing oil and HNS spills.

6 Coastal sensitivity maps developed

Whole coastline mapped by government institute and data consolidated into a geographic information system.

Regional engagement Country hosts regional full-scale exercise.

Some countries chose to put

initial focus on establishing the

framework for compensation

from ships through ratification of

LLMC, CLC, Fund and Bunker

Conventions.


P a g e | 17

`

2. ESTABLISH THE LEGISLATIVE BASIS Chapter 2 presents the process by which a State can meet the requirements

of the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol and so benefit from that

participation. The Chapter addresses:

the legislation and regulations necessary to create a national pollution

response policy and to establish and fund a marine pollution

preparedness programme (Chapters 2.1 and 2.2);

the costs associated with, and the potential funding mechanisms for,

creating and sustaining pollution preparedness and response

(Chapter 2.4);

differences between the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol

(Chapters 2.3 and 2.5);

other relevant conventions associated with maritime safety and marine

pollution prevention, such as search and rescue, SOLAS, and MARPOL

(Chapter 2.6); and

places of refuge and the recommendation to pre-identify locations

where vessels in distress may be stabilized to minimize the risks

associated with a spill (Chapter 2.7).

The Government of a State that ratifies the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS

Protocol should be able to implement and enforce their provisions through

appropriate national legislation. The ratification process in many countries

can be time-consuming. There may be standardized procedural and

bureaucratic requirements including: certified translation of the text into the

national language, analysis of the cost of implementation, parliamentary

scrutiny and enactment of implementing regulations. Given that the process

can take a long time, other steps in the OPRC implementation process may

be initiated in parallel with the legislative process. Acceptance and

implementation of the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol brings

significant benefits and should not be an onerous financial burden.

Typically, a State’s marine administration administers the implementation of

an IMO convention and provides advice to the legal branch and the

Government of State as well as advising the oil and shipping industries and

port authorities. The OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol differ

compared to most IMO instruments, in that the responsibilities for

implementation may be divided between different government entities. A

major oil or HNS pollution incident may potentially impact not only marine

interests but also environmental, socio-economic and cultural resources.

Such incidents can raise health and safety issues, local authority concerns

and involve civil protection structures.

Almost all maritime States have accepted and implemented key existing

international marine safety conventions (e.g. SOLAS, Load Lines, COLREG),

The complexity of marine

pollution incidents brings

potential challenges in

establishing a legal basis for

implementation of the OPRC

Convention and the OPRC-HNS

Protocol.

Recommendation

Allocate responsibilities for legal

issues with the key authorities, as

this is critical to progressing

ratification and implementation.

See Chapter 4 for more

information on roles and

responsibilities.


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=&url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Manual_on_Oil_Pollution.html?id%3DtD8pAQAAIAAJ%26source%3Dkp_cover&psig=AFQjCNFeNAd_CzPq3w1CkAHGRXGxMZv_bg&ust=1503059373357253

P a g e | 18

`

through some form of maritime administration. It is recommended that the

existing maritime administration be examined and lead coordination of the

undertakings and duties involved in ratifying the OPRC Convention and

OPRC-HNS Protocol. In some cases, the Government of a State may delegate

the lead coordination role to another entity early in the process. The entity

delegated to lead the coordination is also likely to be designated as a

competent national authority under Article 6(1)(a)(i) of the OPRC

Convention and Article 4(1)(a)(i) of the OPRC-HNS Protocol.

Whichever entity or entities take the lead, early review and consultation

within and across government should be conducted to establish a suitable

legislative basis for implementation. This consultation would be an early

agenda item for a national pollution preparedness and response forum

(Chapter 3.2).

TOOLS AND REFERENCES

IMO Manual on Oil Pollution Section II – Contingency Planning, 4th

Edition (2016). Appendix 1 contains sample legislation establishing

a National Response System.

http://cep.unep.org/racrempeitc/activities/steering-committee-

reports/2016-8th-ordinary-steering-committee/OSC%208-10-

2%20Section%20II%20of%20IMO%20Manaul%20on%20Oil%20Poll

ution.pdf

IMO Manual on Oil Pollution, Section V – Administrative Aspects of

Oil Pollution Response (2009 edition)

http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20

and%20Mailers/Mailers/ia572e.pdf

Go to Chapter 3.2 for

more information on

establishing a national

forum for coordination.


http://cep.unep.org/racrempeitc/activities/steering-committee-reports/2016-8th-ordinary-steering-committee/OSC%208-10-2%20Section%20II%20of%20IMO%20Manaul%20on%20Oil%20Pollution.pdf




http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%20Mailers/Mailers/ia572e.pdf

http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%20Mailers/Mailers/ia572e.pdf

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=&url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Manual_on_Oil_Pollution.html?id%3DtD8pAQAAIAAJ%26source%3Dkp_cover&psig=AFQjCNFeNAd_CzPq3w1CkAHGRXGxMZv_bg&ust=1503059373357253

P a g e | 19

`

2.1. Amending Existing Laws or Codes Many countries are Parties to the International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and have enacted

environmental protection laws or codes to either prohibit or control oil or

chemical discharges that may result in marine or air pollution. Punitive fines

or criminal charges may be associated with violations of such laws.

Regulations or rules that control the creation, management and handling of

waste may exist. The type, volume and location of waste generated during

an oil spill can create abnormal challenges. It may be necessary to amend

waste regulations to allow specific exemptions from normal controls for

pragmatic waste management procedures during an emergency response.

The OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol require establishing pollution

combatting capabilities under a national pollution response policy

framework. The national policy considers response actions that may include

the containment and recovery of floating pollution, enhanced dispersion of

oil using dispersants, and the controlled in-situ burning. The deployment of

these legitimate response actions could require exemptions from existing

environmental protection laws, such as discharging oily water from recovery

operations to maximize on-board storage, the addition of oil spill control

agents into the sea (for example sorbents and dispersants), and the creation

of visible air pollution associated with controlled in-situ burning. The national

policy, and law, should provide for exemptions from applicable

environmental laws, to allow the use of recognized response methods that

may be considered polluting, in and of themselves. A process should be

available and widely disseminated for the approval of these response

options, under appropriate circumstances.

2.2. Regulating Pollution Preparedness and Response The full implementation of the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol

requires the development of regulation(s) that address the following:

requirements for oil pollution emergency plans for ships, offshore

units, sea ports and oil handling facilities aligned to the national

system (OPRC Convention Article 3 and OPRC-HNS Protocol Article

3);

reporting procedures for discharges or probable discharges of oil or

HNS irrespective of the source (OPRC Convention Article 4 and OPRC-

HNS Protocol Article 3); and

Legitimate pollution response

actions may require the

exemption from existing

environmental protection laws.

Recommendation

To ensure that the full suite of

response actions can be

considered, have a mechanism to

grant appropriate exemptions

from environmental laws that

prohibit discharges or emissions.

This mechanism may require

amendments to the existing

laws.

Go to Chapter 4 for

more information on

roles and

responsibilities.


P a g e | 20

`

establishing national and regional systems for preparedness and

response (OPRC Convention Article 6 and OPRC-HNS Protocol Article

4). This should define clear mandates and responsibilities for key

authorities (see Chapter 4 concerning roles and responsibilities).

Further regulations or rules may be required to address technical aspects of

preparedness and response, for example:

the approval and authorization for use of oil spill control agents (e.g.

dispersants, herders and sorbents);

the approval of controlled in-situ burning;

the authorization for use of subsea dispersants; and

the accreditation or approval of oil or HNS spill response

organizations.

Relevant regional or international published guidelines may be considered

prior to finalizing legislation. Examples include reporting or communication

procedures used at the regional level or technical/operational guides. Such

guidance can be incorporated or referenced in a draft national contingency

plan.

2.3. Applicability to all Oil and HNS Pollution Risks The OPRC Convention represented a landmark convention for IMO by

extending its mandate beyond pollution from ships; the Convention applies

to all oil pollution incidents no matter what their source. The OPRC-HNS

Protocol adopted a similar approach. Sectors regulated under different laws,

such as shipping, the offshore industry, pipelines and oil and HNS handling

facilities, may require new or amended legal instruments that are aligned

under the Convention and Protocol framework with respect to pollution


Coordination between different sectoral regulators is an important factor for

ensuring the timely and aligned development of the necessary new or

amended legal instruments. Further information is provided in Chapter 3.

2.4. Funding Pollution Preparedness and Response “What are the costs and who pays?” are high priority questions frequently

raised when establishing a legislative basis for pollution preparedness and

response. The “polluter pays” principle is generally accepted in international

environmental law but implementing the concept can become complex.

The costs associated with managing oil and HNS pollution preparedness and

response can be divided into two main categories:

The costs primarily associated with preparedness, incurred in the

absence of any incidents. They may include:

IMO has published Guidelines for

the Use of Dispersant for

Combating Oil Pollution at Sea,

Part II, Template for National

Policy for Use of Dispersants. This

template can assist in developing

dispersant regulation.

The broad applicability of the

OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS

Protocol requires that legislative

developments or amendments

may be required across sectors.

This requirement

emphasizes the need for

a national forum for

coordination.


P a g e | 21

`

o the development, implementation and update of national

and relevant ships’, operators’ and authorities’ contingency

plans;

o the development of decision support tools, such as

sensitivity maps and protection plans;

o the establishment of a minimum level of pre-positioned

pollution combating equipment, commensurate with the

risk involved, and programmes for its use; and

o the training and exercising of personnel.

The costs incurred in the event of response to an incident, including

but not limited to:

o the mobilization of response capability to combat the

pollution;

o a reasonable part of the purchase price of the items used

(typically based on a daily rate that is calculated in such a

way that the capital cost of the item is recovered over its

expected useful working life, plus a proportion of the costs

of storing and maintaining the equipment);

o associated logistics;

o personnel costs;

o waste treatment;

o environmental reinstatement;

o third party claims; and

o government and agency costs.

Countries should enact national legislation requiring operators with pollution

risks (for example ships, offshore units, sea ports and oil handling facilities)to

address their preparedness costs (typically the development of relevant

ships’, operators’ and authorities’ plans, response capacity, and trained

personnel within an organization). The same entities can also be required to

have a financial mechanism in place, through either insurance or reserves, to

meet potential costs arising in case of a pollution incident. Such legislation

addresses the requirements of the OPRC Convention Article 3 and OPRC-HNS

Protocol Article 3.

The development of facility or port contingency plans, response capacity, and

associated personnel is normally limited to the internal capability of the

facility operators, possibly supported by direct or retained contractors for

larger incidents. Government agencies at local or national levels who incur

costs in the review, support, and monitoring of these pollution preparedness

and response activities are typically funded through national budgets or

other sources of authorities’ income.

The overall national capacity for preparedness and response requires a

budget. A national budget may have line items including:


P a g e | 22

`

the allocation of certain responsibilities with respect to development

of a national contingency plan;

engagement and regional co-operation; and

an emergency fund to respond to possible mystery or orphan

pollution events with no identified polluter or responsible entity.

Costs incurred during an incident by national / local government and their

contractors can be reclaimed from the polluter when known. For incidents

from ships, this issue can be addressed through the compensation regime

established under various IMO instruments. For offshore units, it is possible

to enact national legislation that places liability for incidents, including

response costs and compensation, squarely on the operator.

Challenges can be expected if government’s preparedness costs are added

to the costs incurred for an incident response. Successful and welcomed

preventive actions reduce the occurrence of incidents and consequently the

opportunity for government to offset preparedness costs through income

from response activities. Furthermore, a legal argument may be presented

that under the international regime it is unreasonable to charge a polluter

for a government’s preparedness costs.

An alternative approach is for governments to impose a direct levy on

industry or shipping operations or include a line item for preparedness and

response in national budgets funded by State-owned oil companies. There

may be a reluctance to do this as it could be detrimental to competitiveness.

Furthermore, imposing a tax or levy raises practical issues. A national

response framework invariably involves a multitude of entities from both

local and national government, across different Ministries and Agencies.

Some of these entities may already have established emergency or civil

protection procedures and capacity, which are likely to be funded from

disparate budgets. Efforts to bring them together under a single budget could

be complex, challenging, and bureaucratic.

A country may overcome some of these funding complexities by enacting

legislation that provides a preparedness budget line (derived either from

overall national taxation or a specific tax or levy) for the competent national

authority or authorities as identified under the OPRC Convention and OPRC-

HNS Protocol. This budget would cover the clearly identified costs of

preparedness outside of the private sector’s mandated emergency planning.

Those government entities beyond the competent national authority would

be expected to participate in preparedness activities, including training and

exercising, within their existing means or from the national budget.

Table 2-1 summarises the types costs arising from pollution preparedness

and response, with possible sources of funding and support to address them.

Go to Chapter 11 for

information on the

international regime for

compensation relating

to ship-source pollution.


P a g e | 23

`

Table 2-1 – Costs arising and possible sources of funding and support

Costs Possible sources of funding and support

Pre

par

ed

ne

ss

Development of national and local contingency plans

IMO Technical Co-Operation Programme (ITCP) and assistance

International and/or regional programmes

Donor agencies or international financial institutions

Tax or levy on oil and HNS imports/exports

Line items in budgets funded by State Owned Oil Companies

NGO programmes

Development of decision support tools

Establishment of a minimum level of pre-positioned pollution combating equipment

Training and exercise programme

Re

spo

nse

Personnel and equipment mobilization and deployment

Polluter pays principle

International compensation regime for ship-source pollution

National emergency fund (from taxes or levies)

Logistical support and services

Waste treatment and disposal

Reinstatement or restoration of environment

Claims for economic losses / property damage

2.5. Challenges of HNS Preparedness and Response The foregoing sections have addressed issues associated with both the OPRC

Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol. However, it should be acknowledged

that preparedness and response to oil versus HNS pollution incidents present

some significant differences as summarized in Table 2-2.

Go to Chapter 5 for

more information on

building capacity.


P a g e | 24

`

Table 2-2 – Summary of the differences between oil and HNS responses

Oil HNS

FATE AND BEHAVIOUR

Although there are different types of oil, there is some uniformity in properties and behaviour

• Oil normally floats and spills are visible

Spills on the water surface may spread over extensive areas, presenting appearances that can drive media, social and political concerns

EQUIPMENT

• Approach and equipment options are relatively standard

• Oil spill response technology and equipment are well developed and described

HEALTH AND SAFETY

• Relative danger and hazard to human health is well known

RESPONSE

Preparedness and response to marine oil spills is relatively well understood

Greater potential for large spills to cross international maritime borders and require bi-lateral and multilateral coordination

FATE AND BEHAVIOUR

There is a large number and wide variety of substances (> 8 million), with differing properties and behaviours from substance to substance

In many cases, spills would not be visible and/or not float

Potential adverse chemical reactions between substances and/or with seawater

EQUIPMENT

Specialized response equipment and personal protective equipment (PPE) may not be readily available

HEALTH AND SAFETY

There are varying types and degrees of hazard

There exist potential significant dangers to human health and environment (corrosive, toxic, explosive, flammables substances)

RESPONSE

Response may be difficult or limited, depending on substance


P a g e | 25

`

The specific safety concerns and response complexities associated with HNS

pollution incidents have direct implications for the development of national

policy and legislation. The OPRC-HNS Protocol allows flexibility in its

implementation but this raises various questions about applicability (e.g.

types and volumes of HNS covered) and emergency planning requirements

for those handling or shipping HNS.

For some countries, it may be decided that ratifying and implementing the

OPRC Convention is the priority. Whilst the various challenges of HNS

preparedness and response have been highlighted, some of the

organizational framework for command, control, and co-ordination may

overlap with oil spill preparedness. There will be a need for additional

specialized advice on the behaviour, fate, threat to responders and the

environment posed by HNS incidents. The conventional resources

established for oil spill response may not be applicable to many HNS spills. In

this context, after a functioning national response system for oil pollution is

established and embedded, attention would then be turned to extending this

to the OPRC-HNS Protocol.

2.6. Links to other Instruments

2.6.1. Conventions The OPRC Convention recognizes the importance of precautionary measures

and prevention in avoiding oil pollution in the first instance, and is embedded

in a wider framework of existing international instruments dealing with

maritime safety and marine pollution prevention whose strict application is

required, where ratified. Key Conventions are:

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

1982;

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) imposes a

general obligation on States to protect and preserve the marine

environment. It further provides that States:

o shall take, individually or jointly as appropriate, all measures

to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine

environment from any source, using for this purpose the

best practicable means at their disposal and in accordance

with their capabilities;

o have the right to take and enforce measures beyond the

territorial sea proportionate to the actual or threatened

damage to protect their coastline or related interests from

pollution or threat of pollution following upon a maritime

casualty; and


P a g e | 26

`

o shall individually or jointly develop and promote contingency

plans for responding to pollution incidents in the marine

environment.

the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)3

1974, as amended;

SOLAS requires ships to be safe and environmentally friendly meaning that

the ship shall have adequate strength, integrity and stability to minimize the

risk of loss of the ship or pollution to the marine environment to structural

failure, including collapse, resulting in flooding or loss of watertight integrity

(Regulation 3-10.2.1).

SOLAS also contains requirements for certain ships to carry on board an

approved Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP):

the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR)

1979, as amended;

The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) has

developed an international SAR plan so that, no matter where an accident

occurs, the rescue of persons in distress at sea will be co-ordinated by a SAR

organization and, when necessary, by co-operation between neighbouring

SAR organizations. The network and communications under the SAR

arrangements (i.e. Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres) can be utilized for

reporting and coordination of pollution incidents, as they have 24/7

operational capability; however maritime assets, including personnel and

logistical resources, may be prioritised for SAR operations in the case of

incidents that include combined elements of persons in distress and pollution

response.

the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High

Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (Intervention Convention)

1969, as modified in 1973 and as amended; and

According to UNCLOS, coastal States are empowered to take and enforce

measures within their territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ)

to protect their coastline or related interests, including from pollution or the

threat of pollution following a maritime incident.

The basis for a coastal State to intervene in a pollution incident on the high

seas, i.e. outside their territorial waters and EEZ, is provided through the

International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases

of Oil Pollution Casualties (Intervention Convention 69) that entered into

3 http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx


http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx

P a g e | 27

`

force in 1975. Under certain conditions, State parties to the Convention are

empowered to take measures on the high seas as may be necessary to

prevent, mitigate, or eliminate grave and imminent danger to their coastline

or related interests from pollution or threat of pollution of the sea by oil. A

Protocol to the Convention was adopted in 1973 to extend its scope to

substances other than oil.

the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from

Ships (MARPOL)5 1973, as modified in 1978 and as amended.

MARPOL addresses pollution from ships by oil; by noxious liquid substances

carried in bulk; harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form; sewage;

garbage; and the prevention of air pollution from ships. MARPOL is primarily

a technical instrument and has greatly contributed to a significant decrease

in pollution from international shipping.

The OPRC Convention’s Article 3(1)(b) requires ships to have an approved

ship-board oil pollution emergency plan (SOPEP), and Article 4(2) on

reporting makes a specific reference to analogous requirements under

MARPOL. This ensures consistency between the two instruments, albeit they

have a different focus, prevention in the case of MARPOL and preparedness

for the OPRC Convention.

The IMO liability and compensation regime

The OPRC Convention takes into account the importance of the IMO’s liability

and compensation instruments for ship-source marine pollution. The

Convention encourages Parties to give the instruments due consideration

and to co-operate when settling compensation claims. The IMO liability and

compensation regime forms an integral part of a preparedness and response

regime (Chapter 11).

Regional, multilateral and bilateral co-operation agreements. The OPRC

Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol promotes the establishment of regional,

multilateral and bilateral co-operation agreements. These agreements aim

to ensure a consistent and integrated co-operation framework between

national, regional and international levels. National laws and regulations

need to consider any commitments made under these various agreements

that go beyond the requirements of IMO instruments (Chapter 8).

2.6.2. Non Mandatory Instruments In addition to the international conventions, the IMO develops guidance

documents in keeping with international developments relating to maritime

safety and marine pollution prevention and response, which have an impact

5 http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx

Go to Chapter 11 for

information on the

international regime for

compensation relating

to ship-source pollution.

Go to Chapter 8 for

more information on

regional co-operation.


http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx

P a g e | 28

`

on the implementation and ratification of the OPRC Convention and the

OPRC-HNS Protocol.

Maritime Assistance Service (MAS)

For example, States may have established a Maritime Assistance Service

(MAS) under Resolution A.950(23), the functions of the MAS could, at the

discretion of the Administration, be carried out by an existing organization,

preferably an MRCC, or alternatively a harbour master’s office, a coast guard

operations centre (if one exists) or another body.

Under certain conditions, a MAS can be involved in marine pollution

prevention and response, for example in cases where rescue of people is not

necessary and in particular when:

o a ship is involved in an incident (e.g. loss of cargo, accidental

discharge of oil, etc.) that does not impair its seakeeping

ability, but nevertheless has to be reported;

o a ship, according to its master’s assessment, is in need of

assistance but not in a distress situation (about to sink, fire

developing, etc.) that requires the rescue of those on board;

and

o a ship is found to be in a distress situation and those on

board have already been rescued, with the possible

exception of those who have remained aboard or have been

placed on board to attempt to deal with the ship’s situation.

If, however, in an evolving situation, the persons on board

find themselves in distress, the involvement of the MRCC

and not the MAS will have priority.

Places of refuge.

With regard to ship in distress, and in the wake of the Erika incident, the issue

of "places of refuge" was considered by IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee

(MSC).

This issue of places of refuge relates to stricken vessels which may pose a

threat to the marine ecology and socio-economic activities in an area.

Consequently, the IMO adopted Resolution A.949(23)6 ‘Guidelines on places

of refuge for ships in need of assistance’, which are intended for use when a

ship is in need of assistance but the safety of life is not involved. Where the

safety of life is involved, the provisions of the SAR Convention should

continue to be followed.

The guidelines recognize that, when a ship has suffered an incident, the best

way of preventing damage or pollution from its progressive deterioration is

6http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=9042&filename=949.pdf


http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=9042&filename=949.pdf

http://www.imo.org/SharePoint/mainframe.asp?topic_id=875

http://www.imo.org/SharePoint/mainframe.asp?topic_id=875

http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=9042&filename=949.pdf

P a g e | 29

`

to transfer its cargo and bunkers, and to repair the casualty. Such an

operation is best carried out in a place of refuge. However, to bring such a

ship into a place of refuge near a coast may endanger the coastal State, both

economically and environmentally, and local authorities and populations

may strongly object to the operation.

Granting access to a place of refuge could involve a political decision which

can only be taken on a case-by-case basis. In so doing, the IMO Guidelines

should be taken into account and consideration would need to be given to

balancing the interests of the affected ship with those of the environment.

It is recommended that coastal States designate places of refuge for use

when confronted with situations involving ships (laden tankers, in particular)

in need of assistance off their coasts and, accordingly, draw up relevant

emergency plans. Being unprepared to face such situations increases the risk

of the wrong decision being made by improvising or, in the heat of the

moment, acting under pressure from groups representing various interests.

2.7. Summary Recommended steps for establishing a sound legislative basis for

implementing the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol entail:

educating appropriate national entities on the importance of

implementation to garner needed political will;

including ministries and authorities responsible for legal and

environmental issues, disaster preparedness, contingency planning,

port and maritime operations, and enforcement;

establishing budgetary requirements and timelines, with associated

deadlines, for implementation;

establishing the government authority for spill preparedness and

response and tasking with developing draft laws and regulations to

address the six conditions for implementation (see Chapter 1.3);

identifying legal counsel to work with the drafting authority;

defining in law concepts of polluter pays principle and requirements

for contingency planning, including national authority(ies) for


establishing requirements for notification and reporting of spill

incidents or imminent threat of release;

establishing requirements for funding mechanisms, enforcement,

and sustained response capacity;

ensuring account is taken of the IMO liability conventions;

establishing requirements requiring oil and shipping operators to

secure a minimum level of spill response equipment;


P a g e | 30

`

establishing a training and exercise programme along with

requirements to review and update the national contingency plan;

and

developing a strategic plan for implementation with assignments,

funding requirements and associated deadlines.


P a g e | 31

3. COORDINATE WITHIN GOVERNMENT Chapter 3 emphasizes the importance of a coordinated approach to oil and

HNS spills that involves government agencies, the private sector and public

participation.

marine pollution preparedness and response requires a multidisciplinary

programme that encompasses a wide range of agencies, administrative

and regulatory bodies, environmental and economic issues, and has to

integrate with the private sector, and communication with the public

(Chapter 3.1);

a national forum can provide a first step for discussing potential intra-

governmental and private sector coordination options (Chapter 3.2); and

the international shipping and oil/chemical industries may be a valuable

resource for developing a preparedness and response programme. These

industries have created co-operative organizations that provide technical

support and, in some cases, a response capacity, to their members

(Chapter 3.3).

3.1. Marine Pollution Preparedness and Response as a Multi-

Disciplinary Issue Marine pollution and actions to combat it can impact ecological resources,

disrupt local economic activities, and disturb cultural sites or features. The

effort to plan for and respond to such pollution invariably involves a range of

government Ministries, Departments and Agencies. Beyond the potential

impacts to environmental and economic resources, the response can raise

significant challenges concerning:

maintaining safety of the community and responders;

managing personnel;

coordinating national and international support;

integrating or overseeing private sector capability; and

maintaining public information systems.

The potential internal administrative and regulatory cross-sectoral, multi-

disciplinary, and transboundary features of dealing with major marine

pollution incidents need to be recognized. Identifying and addressing these

issues is fundamental to effective implementation of the OPRC Convention

and OPRC-HNS Protocol. It is therefore important that multiagency

awareness be conducted to emphasize the risks of being unprepared, along

with the benefits of implementation.

3.2. National Pollution Preparedness and Response Forum A national intra-governmental forum that is appropriate for discussion of

OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol implementation may already

exist. This may be a committee or group charged with overall responsibility

There may be a variety of

governmental entities with

legitimate roles in preparedness,

response and co-operation or

possibly all three. These entities

may not, in their normal

business, be either familiar with

each other or used to working

together.

Recommendation

To avoid confusion, actions to

implement the OPRC Convention

and the OPRC-HNS Protocol

should be discussed and agreed

through some form of national

intra-governmental forum.

See Chapter 4 for more

information on roles and

responsibilities.


P a g e | 32

for disaster or emergency management. Alternatively, a State may have an

established civil protection framework under which implementation can be

discussed. Whilst such groups or frameworks may exist, it is possible that

their maritime expertise and marine awareness is underdeveloped. In many

cases the responsibility of preparedness, response and cooperation falls to

different agencies, which can bring complications and emphasizes the need

for intra-governmental discussions.

A national forum for pollution preparedness and response, established to

ensure development of a national system for preparedness and response,

should have its terms of reference endorsed from the highest political level

(for example a Prime Ministerial or Presidential Office). Box A provides an

example of how the forum may be organized.

The agenda and work programme for the forum can be based on the steps

described within this guidance (for example, Chapter 1.3).

Poor coordination between key

organizations is one of most

frequent causes of delays in

implementation.

Recommendation

Representatives from key

organizations should be of

sufficient seniority to make

substantive contributions to the

dialogue, endorse decisions, and

approve a work programme.

Box A: Organizing a national forum

Participants

Membership should integrate governmental representatives from key interests,

supplemented by additional representatives able to address health and safety,

regional co-operation and transboundary issues, finances and logistics as needed.

Typical participants may include:

Ministry of Transport (e.g. Maritime Administration, Coastguard)

Ministry of Environment (e.g. Nature Conservation, Fisheries)

Ministry of Public Works

Ministry of Defence

Ministry of Finance

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Ministry of Energy / Industry

Ministry of Internal Affairs

Civil Protection interests

Private Sector (as contributing observers, e.g. oil, HNS and shipping

industries)

Coastal communities (as contributing observers)

Remit

To develop a national system for preparedness and response in line with OPRC

Convention Article 6 and OPRC-HNS Protocol Article 4.

To discuss and propose or agree required legislative changes; designated

responsibilities and duties required by the OPRC Convention or OPRC-HNS

Protocol; and each entity’s role in the implementation process related to oil and

HNS.

Meeting frequency

At least biannually, with delegated tasks and deadlines set to ensure progress

between meetings. In addition, technical workshops may be organized to help

development or review of the national contingency plan.


P a g e | 33

3.3. Engagement with Private Sector

Oil

The OPRC Convention emphasizes the important responsibilities that the oil

and shipping industries have in effective preparation for combating oil

pollution incidents. These responsibilities include prescriptive requirements

for emergency planning (Article 3) and pollution reporting (Article 4), and a

reference to co-operation in ensuring suitable response, exercise, training,

communication, and coordination capabilities are established (Article 6).

These maritime industries are likely to have expertise in the fate and

behaviour of spilled oil, health and safety issues, environmental impacts of

oil pollution and technical knowledge relating to response methods.

Therefore, engagement with the oil and shipping industries at an early stage

of OPRC Convention planning and implementation is beneficial, can save

time, and is encouraged.

Where there is an established or developing offshore oil industry, there may

be individual companies or national/regional associations which may be

willing to support and contribute to the process. This effort can include

channelling international support, sharing of experiences, and promoting

good practices. Oil companies may be able to mobilize significant logistical

and operational response through their corporate structures. The oil industry

also owns various not-for-profit oil spill response co-operatives. These co-

operatives often have knowledge-sharing and outreach programmes, along

with holding a substantial in-house response capability that is maintained

and operated by dedicated personnel.

Oil companies, through their various associations, actively co-operate to

improve maritime safety, pollution prevention, preparedness, and response.

International associations created by the oil industry7 have active

programmes and published resources to facilitate and encourage their

members to engage with the development of national and regional response

frameworks. IPIECA has participated in a joint ‘Global Initiative’ programme

with IMO since 1996 with key objectives that include encouraging and

supporting the ratification and implementation of the OPRC Convention.

HNS

The OPRC-HNS Protocol also places responsibilities on the private sector in

relation to HNS pollution, including emergency planning for ships, seaports

and HNS handling facilities (Article 3), reporting requirements (Article 3) and

a reference to co-operation in ensuring suitable response, exercise, training,

communication, and coordination capabilities are established (Article 4).

7 Primarily IPIECA (the global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues) and IOGP (the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers)

The private sector may have

substantial expertise and

capacity to support development

of national preparedness and

response.

Recommendation

Engaging the oil, shipping and

chemical industries as observers

within a national forum can be

beneficial and facilitate

expedited implementation.


P a g e | 34

HNS incidents can be complex and pose significant safety challenges, leading

to the need for expert knowledge and advice. Recognising this, the chemical

industries have supported mechanisms to assist authorities in the case of

HNS incidents. An example is the Marine Intervention in Chemical

Emergencies (MAR-ICE) Network in Europe.

MAR-ICE was established by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA),

in close cooperation with the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) and

the Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental

Water Pollution (Cedre). The MAR-ICE network of experts provides

information and specialist advice on chemicals involved in maritime

emergencies. National authorities benefit from rapid access to a network of

marine pollution response and chemical experts, via a dedicated single-

contact point.

The MAR-ICE network offers product and incident-specific information and

expert advice within 1 hour of the request and more detailed information

shortly thereafter. The information provided includes:

relevant substance-specific documentation; and

expert advice on properties and hazards through direct contact with

a knowledgeable chemical company.

Furthermore, and on a case-by-case basis, the service provides:

risk assessment for responders and the environment;

drift and weathering modelling results, indicating areas potentially

impacted by the released chemical(s); and

advice on response methods and options.

Shipping industry support

The shipping industry also supports national and regional efforts to

implement the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol. Some

countries may have a national association able to represent shipping

interests. Depending on the circumstances, technical staff from

organizations, representing the shipping industry, may be available to

support preparedness activities organized in conjunction with governments,

including capacity building, training and contingency planning, as part of a

programme to implement the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol.

For example, from the international perspective, ITOPF Ltd., a not-for-profit

organisation funded by the global shipping industry, has a breadth of marine

oil and chemical spill response experience. ITOPF, along other organizations,


P a g e | 35

has developed a wide range of technical services to promote effective spill

response and to support their core role of responding to ship-source spills8.

3.4. Summary Steps for undertaking spill response preparedness and planning coordination

within a country include:

identify government and industry entities with established

responsibilities within emergency spill response;

formalize participating and contributing members of a national

pollution preparedness and response forum (through legislation or

intra-governmental agreements);

determine how the State will handle spill risks that do not have a

responsible entity or adequate means to respond, including

development of mutual aid agreements, participation in bi-lateral or

multi-lateral agreements, retainers with commercial service

providers, or the establishment of State-owned response capability;

and

consider contributions or membership to the national forum from

other private interests, non-governmental organisations (NGOs),

and stakeholders.

8 See ITOPF technical documents at: http://www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/documents-guides/technical-information-papers/


http://www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/documents-guides/technical-information-papers/

http://www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/documents-guides/technical-information-papers/

P a g e | 36

4. CLARIFY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Chapter 4 explains the critical organizational and responsibility framework

needed to effectively plan for, implement, and manage an oil or HNS

pollution incident. Key aspects of the chapter include:

the importance of establishing / designating a competent national

authority or authorities for oil and HNS pollution. The competent

national authority or authorities is the point of contact for all

administrative and operational activities concerning preparedness for

marine pollution (Chapter 4.1);

the operational component of a response to an oil or HNS spill may reside

with a competent national authority or this role may be assigned to a

different agency, such as a maritime administration, Navy, Coast Guard

or an environmental agency (Chapter 4.2);

the need for well-defined roles and responsibilities, and having a single

decision-making authority for a spill that reaches a shoreline, given

potential overlapping authorities or environmental and economic

interests (Chapter 4.3); and

toles and responsibilities are defined in a spill management plan. A

common and internationally-accepted approach to organizing and

managing major emergencies follows the Incident Management System

(IMS). This concept can be adapted to fit an existing national

organizational structure and system for disaster management or civil

protection (Chapter 4.4).

The extent to which a response is successful can often be attributed to the

effectiveness of the incident management system and how well it is

implemented. Clear assignment of roles and responsibilities of personnel and

organizations is important for all planning and response levels, from the

national framework to a specific facility or site. Alignment of emergency

management organization and roles across planning levels (local-regional-

national and reflected in Tiers 1, 2 & 3; see Chapter 7.3.2) is recommended.

Consistency of expectations, terminology, and familiarity across these levels

facilitates integration and co-ordinated response actions between

organizations.

Small and/or developing States may experience difficulty in finding sufficient

and suitable personnel to fill key roles in a response organization. In these

cases, the response structure may need to be reduced in size and individuals

or teams may need to be prepared to be involved in more than one type of

emergency response, having roles in one or more of oil spill response, fire,

civil defence, etc.

This Chapter addresses the following key requirements for the

implementation of the OPRC Convention Article 6(1)(a) and OPRC-HNS

The OPRC Convention requires

that key roles and responsibilities

are defined.

Recommendation

Clarify and define key roles in

legislation.

Go to Chapter 2 for

more information on

national legislation.


P a g e | 37

Protocol Article 4(1)(a) related to national and regional systems for

preparedness and response, which includes designation of the following:

the competent national authority, or authorities, and operational

contact points for oil and HNS pollution preparedness and response

(including alert and notification);

the authority entitled to act on behalf of the State to request

assistance or to decide to render assistance requested;

the authority to lead the National Contingency Plan development;

the authority assigned as the spill emergency operational lead; and

the roles and responsibilities of authorities, industry, and others in

planning and operational response.

4.1. Responsibilities for Preparedness Government, industry and other stakeholders have a mutual interest in

having integrated and comprehensive spill contingency plans and associated

response capabilities and preparedness. One of the most substantial

challenges in developing and implementing a preparedness programme is to

have identified an authority and even specific individuals tasked to lead the

effort. The same authority (and individuals) must be provided with the

management and financial support to undertake their responsibility.

A wide variety of local to national government entities and other

stakeholders can be expected to contribute to the national planning and

preparedness effort. The competent national authority is the authority, or

authorities, designated under the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol

as having responsibility for preparedness and response to oil or HNS

pollution incidents. The competent national authority or authorities makes

and implements decisions to mitigate the threat of such incidents.

The competent national authority/ authorities is/are typically delegated as

the lead for national contingency plan development, review, revision and

updates as the plan custodian. This may or may not be the national authority

in charge of operational aspects of implementing the national preparedness

and response programme.

A national pollution preparedness and response forum, established to

develop a national system for preparedness and response in line with OPRC

Convention Article 6 and OPRC-HNS Protocol Article 4, is recommended as a

mechanism to bring together all the key organizations. Within the forum’s

participants, identification should be made of those authorities able to

contribute technical knowledge and outreach in:

public health and safety;

emergency management and pollution response;

contingency plan development;

Assignment of political

appointees often does not

provide an appropriate expertise

for the competent national

authority.

Recommendation

Assign duty to an agency and

personnel with expertise in:

oil and HNS response

methods

environmental protection

marine salvage

maritime operations

leadership skills

A national preparedness and

response forum should support

the competent national authority

in the development of the

national contingency plan.

Go to Chapter 3.2 for

more information on a

national forum.


P a g e | 38

legal provisioning / legal counsel;

financial support (e.g. Ministry of Finance);

natural resources (biota, sensitive and protected areas, cultural

sensitivities);

environmental regulations and enforcement;

logistical support (e.g. Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of

Transports and others);

vessel and port operations entailing movement and transfers of oil

and HNS cargo;

vessel salvage and firefighting operations;

offshore and onshore oil development, production and storage;

customs and immigration rules and procedures; and

waste management.

4.2. Responsibilities for Operational Response The operational lead for response to oil or HNS pollution incidents may be

the same competent national authority tasked with national planning, or

may be a different assigned authority. The success of the response to a spill

event hinges on the capability of the authority designated to lead operational

response. As such, the operational lead for response should:

be clearly identified in legislation and national contingency planning;

have a capacity for directing operations at sea, along coastlines, and

in air;

be recognized and supported by government and industry

responders; and

identify capable, trained personnel to fulfil the emergency

leadership role and provided those individuals with full authority to

make decisions and to incur costs for response.

A competent national authority oversees communication between public

institutions and the private sector. This authority is typically a maritime

administration, Navy, Coast Guard, Harbourmaster or an environmental

agency. The authority provides qualified staff to direct the response effort in

conjunction with the polluter or independently (if there is no identified

polluter or if the response is considered by the competent national authority

to be inadequate).

The OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol (and MARPOL) also require

the designation of the national operational contact point or points,

responsible for receipt and transmission of pollution reports. The contact

points should be available 24 hours with staff aware of the onwards

notification cascade and related procedures. The national operational

contact points may be the same or a different entity as the competent

national authority.

Corroborate that appropriate

expertise is available within the

assigned authorities to

undertake their duties (obtain

training if needed).


P a g e | 39

The OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol stipulate the designation of

an authority entitled to act on behalf of the State to request assistance or to

decide to render assistance requested. It is important that this entity is aware

of the operational priorities during incidents (see Chapter 8.2). The assisting

entities should work closely with both the competent national authority and

the national operational contact point to ensure timely and efficient

communications and decision-making in relation to regional and

international support mechanisms.

Response operations are generally less complicated when the same agency

is responsible for both oil and HNS spill response. This not only facilitates a

consistent approach to maritime emergency response but is also relevant in

the context of spill incidents involving both oil and HNS, especially in the case

of incidents involving container ships.

Usually no single competent national authority possesses the skills necessary

to address all aspects of the response to a major pollution incident. The

designated competent national authority must have the ability to coordinate

the efforts and input from various supporting agencies that possess the

supplemental skill sets. It is also essential that the competent national

authority has jurisdiction and the ultimate decision-making authority for oil

spill and/or HNS preparedness and response. Supporting agencies should not

have overlapping or duplicative remits with the competent national

authority as these can lead to inefficient preparedness and response,

including contradictory and confusing directives to industry.

4.3. On-water and Shoreline Preparedness and Response The potential division of responsibilities between preparing for and dealing

with pollution on the water, compared to pollution which has stranded on a

shoreline, commonly raises challenges.

In an on-water incident, the identification of a competent national authority

or the operational response lead agency may be straightforward as this

entity may be part of a maritime administration or sit within a

Ministry/Department of Transport or Ministry/Department of Environment.

When pollution affects a shoreline, the number of entities with legitimate

interests increases. Local government or civil protection frameworks may

mandate roles for multiple organizations. As this situation typically involves

overlapping authorities or interests, it is vital that a national contingency plan

clarifies:

Confusion can arise if there are

different organizational

structures and responsibilities for

dealing with on-water and

shoreline pollution preparedness

and response.

It is imperative that a national

contingency plan address this

issue and clarifies the procedures

and structures for integrated

response.


P a g e | 40

the competent national authority, or authorities, in relation to both

on-water and shoreline pollution;

the coordination mechanisms to ensure an integrated response to

an incident that simultaneously has pollution on-water and either

stranded on or threatening shorelines; and

all agencies that may be involved and their potential roles.

4.4. Incident Management Systems A response management organization should address the needs for

coordination and communication between government, industry, other

participants, and the public. A commonly used and internationally accepted

approach to organizing and managing major emergencies is the Incident

Management System (IMS). In some cases, a country may utilize an existing

national organizational structure and system for disaster management or

civil protection.

A well-defined system, with clear roles and responsibilities and that is

regularly exercised, helps to ensure that all stakeholders understand and, as

appropriate, can support the adopted IMS. The IMS should have a clear

hierarchy, provide for management by objectives, and have an organizational

structure that can address the key functions of command, operations,

planning, logistics and finance and their subordinate groups. The IMS

structure should be flexible and adaptable to the scale, nature, and extent of

the incident to be managed. Organizational structures should be defined for

each planning level or Tier.

4.5. Summary Steps for undertaking clear definition of roles and responsibilities in context

of spill emergency preparedness and response include:

define the specific government entity (agency/staff) assigned as the

competent national authority for spill response preparedness;

if, and as needed, identify the operational response lead agency(ies)

for spills within the marine environment and, if other, to shorelines;

establish a clear spill emergency response management organization

such as the incident management system or one adopted for

national emergencies; and

Review existing civil protection or

other national emergency

frameworks for organizational

alignment with best practices

(Incident Management Systems).


P a g e | 41

identify agency leads assigned to key functions within the spill

emergency management structure.


IMO Guidance on the Implementation of an Incident Management

System (IMS), 2012

http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%2

0Mailers/Mailers/I581E.pdf

IPIECA-IOGP Incident Management System for the Oil and Gas Industry,

2014. http://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-practice/incident-

management-system-ims/

IMO List of National Contact Points for Pollution Reporting from Ships.

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Circulars/Pages/CP.aspx


http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%20Mailers/Mailers/I581E.pdf

http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%20Mailers/Mailers/I581E.pdf

http://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-practice/incident-management-system-ims/

http://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-practice/incident-management-system-ims/


P a g e | 42

5. DEVELOP CAPACITY Capacity building for oil and HNS pollution preparedness and response

involves:

establishing step-wise goals and targets (Chapter 5.1) for a wide range of

activities, such as:

o enacting legislation;

o identifying environmental risks;

o creating a well-maintained pool of response equipment;

o management and operational training and exercises; and

o assessing response preparedness.

identifying potential internal and external sources of guidance and

support (Chapter 5.2).

An important step for implementing the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS

Protocol is awareness and understanding of the challenges and issues in

pollution preparedness and response through capacity building. Capacity

building may be accomplished either in-country or externally by providing

the fundamental knowledge and skills to allow assigned personnel to

undertake their duties. Initial ‘buy-in’ and discussion amongst the key players

is critical for further implementation steps; this cannot be over-stated.

A national pollution preparedness and response forum, established to

develop a national system for preparedness and response in line with OPRC

Convention Article 6 and OPRC-HNS Protocol Article 4, provides the

mechanism for on-going feedback and clarifications throughout the

implementation process. The forum can also coordinate or solicit potential

financial or technical support for the implementation process from

international organizations and programmes (e.g. the IMO-IPIECA Global

Initiative, international financial institutions, and donor agencies), private

sector and others

Provision of technical co-operation is a tenet of the OPRC Convention (Article

9) and OPRC-HNS Protocol (Article 7), which state:

(1) Parties undertake directly or through the Organization [IMO] and other

international bodies, as appropriate, in respect of preparedness for and

response to pollution incidents, to provide support for those Parties

which request technical assistance:

a) to train personnel;

b) to ensure the availability of relevant technology, equipment and

facilities;

c) to facilitate other measures and arrangements to prepare for

and respond to pollution incidents; and

d) to initiate joint research and development programmes.

Capacity building may involve a

varied combination of seminars,

training, workshops, study tours,

conferences, and other means.

A national preparedness and

response forum provides the

mechanism for capacity building

discussions.


P a g e | 43

(2) Parties undertake to co-operate actively, subject to their national laws,

regulations and policies, in the transfer of technology in respect of

preparedness for and response to pollution incidents.

IMO has developed a wide array of tools, including model training courses,

manuals and guidance documents9, to assist countries in developing capacity

for oil and HNS pollution preparedness and response. States may also

request assistance from IMO, through its Integrated Technical Co-operation

Programme (ITCP), in meeting these obligations.

Throughout much of the developing world, capacity building efforts may be

delivered without implementing guidelines. States may accept offers and/or

expend their own funds for training, technical assistance and resource

procurements without sound long-term plans of how to effectively capitalize

on the efforts and truly build sustainable preparedness and response

capacity. The scope of various international, governmental and

nongovernmental capacity building programmes available to countries in

need is extensive, but all too often these programmes are neither properly

integrated nor designed to optimally build upon each other in a successive

manner that moves the State(s) towards a more robust response

preparedness posture. The following sections identify how to address these

challenges.

5.1. Scoping Project Proposals An important step in capacity building is to clearly identify a path forward

with well-defined step-wise targets and specific focused goals for

participating personnel. Model OPRC and HNS training courses provide a

foundation for operational to managerial-level capacity building. Other

scoping projects or proposals can and should focus on specific areas or topics

for concerted expertise and capacity building. Examples of specific scoping

projects include, but are not limited to:

developing legislation;

development or review of existing national contingency plan;

risk assessment;

sensitivity mapping;

identifying appropriate types and amounts of response equipment;

and

technical aspects for specific HNS pollution incidents.

Several mechanisms provide opportunities for capacity development, either

nationally or in context of regional programmes. For example, a workshop

approach successfully implemented in the Caribbean by

RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe was designed around a five-step process:

9 See IMO Publications: http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Pages/Home.aspx

Countries may be challenged to

have the capacity for assessing

or developing an appropriate

national response system and

capability.

Recommendation

Prepare project-specific Terms of

Reference for capacity building

training and workshop

programmes and solicit interest

from IMO, Regional Seas

programmes, donor agencies,

national development

programmes, neighbouring

countries, industry and NGOs.

Go to Chapter 9 for

more information on

Model training courses.


http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Pages/Home.aspx

P a g e | 44

1) improve understanding of the oil spill contingency planning process;

2) develop familiarization with, and provide tools for, implementing

national oil spill preparedness and response drills and exercise

programmes;

3) preliminary assessment of national oil spill preparedness and

response programmes, national response systems and national

contingency plans of the Wider Caribbean Region using simple table

top exercises;

4) further assessment of national oil spill preparedness and response

programmes, national response systems and national contingency

plans of the Wider Caribbean Region using RETOS™; and

5) depart the workshop with a strategic plan framework that can be

directly used to build capacity and make needed changes to national

oil spill preparedness and response programmes, national response

systems, and national contingency plans.

5.2. Sources of Guidance and Support Through the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol, governments agree

to provide support for countries requesting technical assistance with respect

to oil and HNS pollution preparedness and response and to cooperate

actively in the transfer of technology, either bilaterally or multilaterally,

through IMO and other international bodies. Within the framework of the

International ITCP, IMO provides assistance to Member States through

activities aimed at implementing thematic priorities relating to the

protection of the marine environment. Examples include, but are not limited

to, assisting countries in implementing the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-

HNS Protocol and enhancing regional cooperation in marine pollution

preparedness, response and cooperation. This support extends to addressing

aspects of the implementation of relevant international regimes on liability

and compensation for oil and HNS pollution damage.

IMO has been successful in integrating OPRC-related issues into regional

action plans and projects supported by the United Nations Environment

Programme (UN Environment), notably its Regional Seas Programme, the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the Global

Environment Facility (GEF), as well as mobilizing funding support from

multiple interested governments through their donor agencies or national

development programmes.

Marine pollution preparedness

and response projects are

an important part of IMO's

Programme on Technical Co-

operation for the Protection of

the Marine Environment and an

important means by which the

strategy for implementing the

OPRC Convention is realized.


P a g e | 45

Regional and/or joint government and industry initiatives such as the Global

Initiative (GI)10 provide a forum and structure whereby experts in areas of

spill response preparedness are available to train and assist personnel tasked

with, or contributing to, the development of national, regional, and

international response capability. The GI is defined as an umbrella for various

mechanisms by which the IMO and industry, primarily through IPIECA, co-

operate to support national and regional implementation of the OPRC

Convention and to enhance oil spill preparedness and response capacity

through the mobilisation of external assistance and industry support at the

national level. The overall aim of the GI is to improve and sustain the

capability of developing countries to protect their marine and coastal

resources at risk from an oil spill incident from any source through the

implementation of the OPRC Convention. Assistance to developing countries

takes the form of training, workshops and technical missions. The GI brings

together a broad network of expertise including IMO, IPIECA, ITOPF,

IOPC Funds, NGOs and the local oil industry.

5.3. Summary Steps for developing capacity in country include:

identify key topics and areas in need of capacity building within the

national pollution preparedness and response forum;

development or review of existing national contingency plan;

develop a step-wise approach to deliver training and obtain

experience and expertise;

enlist international, national, and/or industry assistance and

expertise to conduct training workshops (e.g., IMO, regional

initiatives such as the Global Initiative, Regional Seas Programme);

consider national funding mechanisms with contributions from

international partnerships and initiatives; and

ensure personnel that are developing capacity remain engaged in

the national spill preparedness effort or forum.

10 See information on the GI at: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/MajorProjects/Pages/GIProjects.aspx

GI WACAF has been providing a

targeted and coordinated

programme of oil spill

preparedness activities in West

and Central Africa since 2006 –

see http://www.giwacaf.net/en/

for details.


http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/MajorProjects/Pages/GIProjects.aspx

http://www.giwacaf.net/en/

P a g e | 46

6. REVIEW AND ASSESS STATUS OF NATIONAL

PREPAREDNESS Chapter 6 provides guidelines to evaluate oil planning and preparedness in

terms of:

adequacy;

response competency;

preparedness gaps;

opportunities for improvement; and

sustained readiness.

A fundamental step in the implementation process is to identify and assess

the status of oil and HNS pollution preparedness and response in country and

what gaps need to be addressed through the national preparedness and

response forum or other mechanisms. The ARPEL Readiness Evaluation Tool

for Oil Spills (RETOSTM) application and manual provide a checklist approach

that guides the assessment process for the scope of national spill response

programmes (as well as for local, port, and industry programmes).

Some of the benefits of utilizing a common, internationally accepted

mechanism for preparedness assessment, such as RETOSTM, and particularly

on a regional basis include:

benchmarking – assessment results can be used for prioritizing

funding and for differentiating regional and specific action plans,

thereby minimizing costs and increasing effectiveness;

cooperation and exchange of information - good practices may be

identified regionally whereby leading nations can assist those in

need of support; and

regional, multilateral and bilateral initiatives - results can be used to

identify areas where common and challenging concerns exist for

participating countries and that would likely benefit from a shared

initiative approach (i.e., to address technically challenging aspects of

pollution preparedness).

6.1 Assessment The lead authority charged with developing the national contingency plan,

or a designated competent alternate, should have collected information

relevant to oil and HNS preparedness and response, whether in draft plans

or as available from technical members of the national preparedness and

response forum. Using a tool such as RETOSTM guides the assessment and gap

analysis process through a checklist approach addressing ten fundamental

preparedness categories:

A. Legislation, Regulations & Agreements;

B. Oil Spill Contingency Planning;

The ARPEL “Readiness Evaluation

Tool for Oil Spills (RETOS™)” and

its accompanying Manual were

developed to assist governments

and companies to assess the

level of oil spill response planning

and readiness management and

bridge the gaps identified


P a g e | 47

C. Response Coordination;

D. Health, Safety & Security;

E. Operational Response;

F. Tracking, Assessment, and Information Management;

G. Logistics;

H. Financial and Administrative Considerations;

I. Training & Exercises; and

J. Sustainability & Improvement.

Several key aspects for the gap assessment include:

Risk Assessment (history of spills, locations of key oil and HNS

movement and transfers, volumes and materials handled and spill

trajectories);

Decision making tool, such as sensitivity maps;

Planning (existing oil and HNS plans at local, port, and industry

locations);

Response (locations of spill response assets, trained personnel, and

logistical support infrastructure such as communications and

transportation);

Sustainability and enforcement; and

Prioritizing improvement actions – RETOSTM results include the

“Global Improvement Program”, which provides a prioritized listing

of gaps and references to where additional information sources may

be found (most online). Completion of the Global Improvement

Program requires identifying:

o person(s) tasked to address specific gaps;

o the resources they may need (including possible budget) to

close the gap; and

o timeline for delivery.


ARPEL RETOSTM and Manual https://arpel.org/library/publication/341/

IMO Oil Spill Risk Evaluation and Assessment of Response Preparedness

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionResponse/Inv

entory%20of%20information/Pages/Risk-Assessment-and-Response-

Preparedness.aspx

IOSC 2008 A Proposed International Guide for Oil Spill Response

Planning and Readiness Assessment

https://ioscproceedings.org/doi/abs/10.7901/2169-3358-2008-1-1


https://arpel.org/library/publication/341/


P a g e | 48

6.2 Competency for Reviews and Evaluation The successful review and evaluation of spill response preparedness is

dependent on the qualifications of those conducting the review and their

experience in spill response programmes, audits, field implementation, and

the complexity of the programme being assessed. Some of the qualification

criteria recommended for personnel undertaking reviews of a national

programme include:

actual oil spill response experience;

knowledge of spill contingency plan development and current

response practices;

current, up-to-date knowledge of applicable international

practices, best practices and guidelines, and regulations;

knowledge of oil and HNS spill response strategies, tactics, and

techniques;

understanding of best practices for type of operations to be

addressed in a national spill readiness programme;

familiarity and access to appropriate manuals and reference

materials; and

trained in purpose and use of evaluation tool(s) to be used for

review and assessment.

A team approach is encouraged given the diversity of response preparedness

consideration and required skill sets to properly review and assess where

gaps and opportunities for readiness improvements are needed, as well as

their priorities.

6.3 Summary Steps for undertaking the review and assessment of the status of national

preparedness include:

identify qualified personnel to conduct assessment (in country

and/or supplemented with international expertise);

compile and review information available (plans, regulations);

conduct interviews with key response authorities;

inspect and assess spill response equipment and logistical support

assets;

complete review and identify gaps; and

prioritize steps to address gaps and identify personnel/groups

responsible, resources needed, and timelines.


P a g e | 49

7. DEVELOP NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS Chapter 7 describes the key elements of national planning and preparedness

in terms of:

the scope and contents of a National Contingency Plan (Chapter 7.1);

steps involved in the planning process (Chapter 7.2):

o reporting and notification to a “national contact point” following an oil

or HNS pollution incident (Chapter 7.3.1);

o the “tiered” approach for planning and response that reflects the scale

of the response to an incident (Chapter 7.3.2); and

o an evaluation of the effects of the response options, in the context of

a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA), also known as a Spill

Impact Mitigation Analysis (SIMA) (Chapter 7.3.3), hereinafter referred

to as NEBA.

ship, port or facility oil/pollution spill contingency plans (Chapter 7.4); and

response equipment selection and procurement within a tiered approach

(Chapter 7.5).

Contingency planning is an exercise in preparing response strategies and

tactics to minimize the adverse impacts of a pollution incident. Oil spill

response planning is an exercise in bringing together numerous aspects of

spill operations, environmental policy, and regulatory compliance. Effective

guidance for on-scene initial emergency response and transition into a

project-managed response is fundamental to the success of a spill response

plan.


ARPEL How to Develop a National Contingency Plan (2005)


IMO Manual on Oil Pollution Section II – Contingency Planning, 4th Edition

(2016) http://cep.unep.org/racrempeitc/activities/steering-committee-

reports/2016-8th-ordinary-steering-committee/OSC%208-10-

2%20Section%20II%20of%20IMO%20Manaul%20on%20Oil%20Pollution.p

df

IMO Manual on Oil Pollution Section IV – Combating Oil Spills, 2nd Edition

(2005), see IMO Publications:


IMO Guidelines for the Development of Shipboard Marine Pollution

Emergency Plans, 2010 Edition

http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%20

Mailers/Mailers/IB586E.pdf

IOSC 2008 A Proposed International Guide for Oil Spill Response Planning

and Readiness Assessment


IPIECA-IOGP Contingency planning for oil spills on water (2015)

http://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-practice/contingency-planning-for-

oil-spills-on-water/

IPIECA-IOGP-API (2017) Guidelines on implementing SIMA

http://www.ipieca.org/resources/awareness-briefing/guidelines-on-

implementing-spill-impact-mitigation-assessment-sima/

The two key planning aspects for

implementation of the OPRC

Convention and OPRC-HNS

Protocol requirements are:

a national contingency plan;

and

pollution emergency plans co-

ordinated through a national

system and aligned to the

national contingency plan for:

o ships flying the State flag;

o operators of offshore units

under its jurisdiction (OPRC

Convention only); and

o and authorities or

operators in charge of sea

ports and oil- or

HNS-handling facilities.








http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%20Mailers/Mailers/IB586E.pdf

http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%20Mailers/Mailers/IB586E.pdf

http://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-practice/contingency-planning-for-oil-spills-on-water/


http://www.ipieca.org/resources/awareness-briefing/guidelines-on-implementing-spill-impact-mitigation-assessment-sima/


P a g e | 50

7.1 National Contingency Plan The development of national preparedness for an oil or HNS spill response

requires a solid foundation established in a national contingency plan (NCP).

Numerous guides and examples are available for the content of a NCP,

including a “fill-in-the-blanks” template (see Tools and References).

The content of national plans should reflect:

response policy development, incorporating risk assessment, net

environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) and the tiered preparedness

and response approach;

required notifications and mobilization procedures;

definition of the incident management system and related

organization / procedures;

operational/action planning and decision-making processes;

prescribed facility, vessel and ports’ planning requirements and their

integration with a NCP;

provisions for response equipment and logistical support; and

requirements for training, drills and exercises and post-spill review

and revision.

The IMO Manual on Oil Pollution Section II, Contingency Planning lists the

following basic content for a NOSCP:

competent National Authority or Lead Agency, supporting agencies,

and responsibilities;

relevant national and international legislation;

risk assessment of an oil spill;

assessment and/or identification of places of refuge;

notification and reporting procedures;

oil spill assessment;

oil spill response management system;

response resources;

sensitivity maps, vulnerability atlases or environmental sensitivity

indices;

response strategies;

IPIECA-IOGP Contingency planning for oil spills on water (2015)

http://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-practice/contingency-planning-for-

oil-spills-on-water/

IPIECA-IOGP-API (2017) Guidelines on implementing SIMA

http://www.ipieca.org/resources/awareness-briefing/guidelines-on-

implementing-spill-impact-mitigation-assessment-sima/






P a g e | 51

national policy for use of dispersants and other non-mechanical

response technologies;

waste management;

decontamination;

demobilization and termination of response;

training, exercises, and plan update requirements; and

cost recovery.

Each topic is further described and explored in the IMO Manual. The overall

process for industry contingency planning is illustrated in Figure 7.1 (from the

2015 IPIECA-IOGP “Guideline for contingency planning for oil spills on

water”).


P a g e | 52

Figure 7-1 – The overall process for industry contingency planning (based on

IPIECA-IOGP 2015)


P a g e | 53

Many guidance documents exist on the contingency planning process as a

whole, as well as on specific elements of a contingency plan. Without

claiming to be exhaustive, the IMO Manual on Oil Pollution Section II lists

many publications in its Annex 7. Further topics could be mentioned, such

as the volunteer management covered in the Oil Spill volunteer management

manual (POSOW, 2010) or Sensitivity mapping for oil spill response

(IPIECA-IMO-OGP, 2012).

7.2 Core Concepts in Planning

Reporting and notification

The OPRC Convention (Article 4 – Oil pollution reporting procedures) and the

OPRC-HNS Protocol (Article 3 - Emergency plans and reporting) stipulate

strict reporting requirements for reporting marine pollution discharge or

probable discharge without delay. The MARPOL convention imposes

analogous requirements. In addition, the OPRC Convention (Article 5 – Action

on receiving an oil pollution report) and the OPRC-HNS Protocol (Article 3)

require onwards notification to all States whose interests are affected or are

likely to be affected by the pollution.

To facilitate the reporting process, the OPRC Convention [Article 6(1)(a)(ii)]

and the OPRC-HNS Protocol [Article 4(1)(a)(ii)] require the designation of the

national operational contact point or points, responsible for the receipt and

transmission of reports. The notification to neighbouring countries, as

appropriate, must be done through a similarly defined process.

A centralized national contact point for oil and HNS incidents can ensure that

appropriate operational and management personnel are activated

depending on the scale of the incident (i.e. the appropriate Tier). Countries

may choose to use a common all-emergencies point of notification or a

specific maritime emergencies contact. The notification process must be

defined such that local notifications or observations of pollution, or threat of

pollution, can be reported from areas such as ports to a national centre and

hence to the competent national authority. Legislation should specify the

minimum reporting standards, as well as penalties, for failure to report oil or

HNS pollution as prescribed in the national standards.

IMO has published a Pollution Report (POLREP) format and a list of national

operational contact points responsible for the receipt, transmission and

processing of urgent reports on incidents involving harmful substances,

including oil and HNS releases from ships to coastal States. The list is regularly

updated and included with all shipboard pollution plans.

Tiered preparedness and response

A fundamental concept for emergency planning is the use of a Tiered

response system that has the flexibility to expand in an organized and

National points of contact are

maintained and published by the

IMO.

Recommendation

Define or confirm the

appropriate contact listed on

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWor

k/Circulars/Pages/CP.aspx

A system for reporting pollution

without delay is required,

enabling timely notification to

the appropriate authorities and

facilitating efficient response.

Recommendations

Establish a centralized system for

receiving and disseminating

pollution reports and

notifications.

Specify preferred spill report

forms and checklists to be used:

Shipboard Oil Pollution

Emergency Plan (SOPEP)

example - see Chapter 7.3

Recommended IMO

Pollution Report (POLREP) –

see Chapter 8.2




P a g e | 54

consistent fashion to address local to country -wide emergencies. A Tiered

approach facilitates the rapid and orderly expansion of emergency response

from on-site, local responders and resources to area-wide and even national

to regional and international response. Three standard Tiers are used

to describe the scale of a pollution response. Some countries have

historically adopted a simplistic approach to defining the Tiers, based

primarily on volumes in relation to oil pollution. The international oil industry

associations, IPIECA and IOGP, promote a more detailed and sophisticated

approach. This breaks down the planned response capability into up to 15

elements and encourages the Tiered approach to be assessed for each

relevant element. The assessment is based on a risk and provides a direct link

to provisioning pollution combatting resources within the Tiers (i.e.

equipment types, stockpile sizes and locations, logistical requirement and

trained personnel).

NEBA

NEBA (Net Environmental Benefit Analysis) by the international oil industry

associations – is a process to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks or

limitations of available response options (including natural recovery) and

then selects the response options that have the greatest net environmental

benefit i.e. results in the least overall impact. As part of response planning,

consideration should be given to the full suite of pollution countermeasures

including regulated use of oil spill dispersants, controlled burning, and use of

chemical and biological agents. A national plan should define if and under

what conditions certain response options may require approval. A clear,

expedited decision process is fundamental for practical implementation of

some countermeasures within an applicable window-of-opportunity.

A NEBA should form part of the contingency planning process, though the

same approach can also be expedited during an incident. There are typically

four stages to the NEBA process:

1. compile and evaluate data for relevant oil spill scenarios including

fate and trajectory modelling, identification of resources at risk and

determination of feasible response options;


P a g e | 55

2. predict outcomes/impacts for the ‘no intervention’ (or ‘natural

attenuation/recovery’) option as well as the effectiveness (i.e.

relative mitigation potential) of the feasible response options for

each scenario;

3. balance trade-offs by weighing and comparing the range of benefits

and drawbacks associated with each feasible response option,

including no intervention, for each scenario; and

4. select the best response option(s) to form the strategy for each

scenario, based on the combination of techniques that could

minimize the overall ecological, socio-economic and cultural

impacts and promote rapid recovery.

The IMO Manual on Oil Pollution Section IV – Combating Oil Spill, 2nd Edition

(2005) provides information on the fate and effects of spilled oil and

technical aspects of the response options. There are also specific IMO In-Situ

Burning Guidelines and IMO Guidelines for the Use of Dispersant for

Combating Oil Pollution at Sea.

7.3 Shipboard, Port, and HNS or Oil-Handling Facility Plans Oil pollution emergency plans (OPRC Convention Article 3) or pollution

incident emergency plans (OPRC-HNS Protocol Article 3) – commonly

referred to as pollution spill contingency plans - are required for:

ships that fly the flag of a Party (i.e. a State that has ratified the

Convention or Protocol);

operators of offshore units (including exploration and production

installations) under the jurisdiction of the Party; and

authorities or operators of sea ports and oil or HNS handling

facilities (including oil terminals and pipelines) under the

jurisdiction of the Party.

These contingency plans primarily are developed by industry (as the main

operators of ships and facilities, though port authorities may also be required

to develop plans). The plans should align and integrate with the national

contingency plan and address the procedures to escalate response through

the Tiers of response.

The IMO has produced Guidelines for the Development of Shipboard Marine

Pollution Emergency Plans to help Administrations and ship owners meet

requirements for shipboard plans under the OPRC Convention, OPRC-HNS

Protocol and MARPOL. This document includes Guidelines for the

development of Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans

(SOPEP) (resolution MEPC.54(32)11, as amended by resolution

11http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/OilPollution/Documents/SOPEP/MEPC.54(32).pdf

Appropriate implementation of

NEBA concepts provides an open

and transparent methodology to

address potential preconceptions

commonly attributed to some

pollution response options. The

challenge to those developing

a contingency plan is to

communicate:

the need to set clear response

priorities and objectives; and

the trade-offs that are a direct

consequence of their decisions.


http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/OilPollution/Documents/SOPEP/MEPC.54(32).pdf



P a g e | 56

MEPC.86(44)12 and Guidelines for the development of Shipboard Marine

Pollution Emergency Plans of Oil and/or Noxious Liquid Substances

(Resolution MEPC.85(44)13, as amended by resolution MEPC.137(53)14).

Expectations for shipboard, port, offshore unit and marine terminal

contingency plans should be specified in a regulation and/or in the national

contingency plan. A mechanism could be developed for plans to be

submitted for review, appropriate consultation and approval. The IMO

Contingency Plan guidelines recommend that an appendix to the national

contingency plan may be used to specify the minimum expected content for

these plans and even a plan structure, which in turn facilitates the review

process and contributes towards consistency between plan holders.

7.4 Equipment Stockpiles The pre-identification of pollution combating equipment available to

respond within a country or region is essential to facilitate rapid and effective

response. National mechanisms should be in place for the mobilization of

response equipment and experts in case of emergency. This is a critical

element of the contingency planning process. OPRC Convention Article

6(2)(a) and OPRC-HNS Protocol Article 4(2)(a) require that “a minimum level

of pre-positioned equipment for responding to pollution incidents

commensurate with the risk involved, and programmes for its use” be

established “within its capabilities either individually, through bilateral or

mutual lateral co-operation and, as appropriate, in cooperation with the oil

and shipping industries, port authorities and other relevant entities”.

The appropriate response equipment should be determined through the risk

assessment process and subsequent strategic policy. It is a good practice for

the competent national authority or authorities to develop and enforce

regulations that establish minimum response equipment inventories for oil

handling operations. These requirements may be based upon various

planning criteria, including individual operator’s risk, NEBA, national

legislation, and economic considerations.

The costs associated with the procurement and maintenance of stockpiles

needed for operators with oil and HNS spill risks (e.g. offshore units,

pipelines, oil handling facilities and ports) should be borne by them. In the

case of national stockpiles maintained by government or authorities (e.g. for

passing ship scenarios or mystery/orphan spills), the funding mechanisms

can be challenging (see Chapter 2.4). Where authorities encounter

12http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/OilPollution/Documents/SOPEP/MEPC.86(44).pdf 13http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/OilPollution/Documents/SOPEP/MEPC.85(44).pdf 14http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/OilPollution/Documents/SOPEP/MEPC.137%5b35%5d.pdf

The minimum equipment to

stockpile at ports and transfer

points is challenging to define.

Recommendation

Consider sufficient containment

capacity (boom or other)

commensurate with the risk

involved, and to protect critical

sensitive resources. Pumps,

skimmers, sorbents or other

similar systems should provide

means to recover a realistic

volume of spilled material within

a defined timeframe.




http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/OilPollution/Documents/SOPEP/MEPC.137%5b35%5d.pdf







P a g e | 57

difficulties acquiring a budget for equipment procurement, it may be possible

to approach donor agencies or development programmes for support (see

Chapter 5.2). In these cases, the on-going costs of maintaining equipment

and operational needs should be considered. This maintenance is to ensure

that any equipment provided is kept functional and that suitable means of

deployment and the training of personnel are sustainable.

The minimum stockpile requirements should be scalable. The

equipment required to mount an effective response to a Tier I (a relatively

small pollution incident effectively managed by the polluter on site) should

be maintained on-hand, whereas response equipment required for a Tier

2 or Tier 3 response may take time to be mobilized and deployed. The Tier 1

equipment specified should be appropriate and designed for the

predominant oil types and/or HNS products and met-ocean conditions

prevalent at ports and transfer locations. A key consideration is to develop

or specify planning standards, not performance standards, for response.

These standards can be developed in terms of equipment (e.g. length and

size of containment boom, oil recovery systems, storage type/capacity and

type/volume of dispersant) and response timeframes for deployment (e.g. 2

hours, 6 hours, 24 hours etc.). Timeframes must consider the logistics for and

time required for transporting equipment from their locations to a specific

site.

Planning often focusses on Tier 2 as Tier 1 addresses relatively minor

pollution and the availability of a global network of oil industry spill response

co-operatives provides a Tier 3 capability for many companies. Tier 2 capacity

may be addressed through local co-operation or mutual aid agreements

between governments, operators and/or facilities. The extent of Tier 2

provision is dependent not only on the risk assessment but also on the

proximity of Tier 3 capability and other factors. The adoption of the

international oil industry’s approach to Tiered preparedness and response,

with its individual consideration of elements of response capability, provides

a detailed method to determine the appropriate levels of response needs at

each Tier.

7.5 Summary Recommended steps for development of a national contingency plan

include:

select a table of contents for a combined oil and HNS contingency

plan or for separate plans, and list appendices to plan(s) (see

examples in ARPEL, IMO, and neighbouring/regional countries);

identify the threats related to oil and HNS at the national level

(locations, products and volumes handled) as well as records of spills;

conduct at a minimum a qualitative risk assessment, including

prevention and minimization measures, to identify potential impacts

Information collected

and assessed during the

review of national

preparedness (Chapter

6) provides content and

considerations for a

national plan.


P a g e | 58

and priority areas through use of technically sound trajectory

modelling for key spill scenarios;

establish an inventory of response resources (nationally, regionally

and internationally; or Tier 1, 2 and 3), including equipment,

manpower, and technical expertise appropriate to the spill hazards

and ranges of environmental operating conditions;

prepare a draft plan using information gathered from risk

assessment and assessment of preparedness (Chapter 6) through

National Planning Committee efforts;

utilize a standard pollution reporting format (e.g. POLREP) to

facilitate the rapid transmission of information and requests for

assistance as recommended by IMO, with a view to harmonizing

pollution reporting systems;

utilize flow-diagrams for required notifications, callout procedures,

and decision diagrams;

define national mechanisms for the mobilization of response

equipment and experts in case of emergency; and

minimize text to the extent realistic and provide linkages to external

supporting documents and tools.


P a g e | 59

8. REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION The OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol are by their nature

international. Chapter 8 addresses ways in which cooperation at regional and

broader international levels can be organized and facilitated. The discussion

describes:

the UN Environment Regional Seas Programme (Chapter 8.1);

mechanisms to enable operational cooperation, including the IMO

POLREP system (Chapter 8.2);

sub-regional bilateral or multi-lateral mutual aid or cooperation

arrangements (Chapter 8.3); and

the International Offers of Assistance (IOA) Guidelines (Chapter 8.4).

Co-operation is a fundamental tenet of both the OPRC Convention and the

OPRC-HNS Protocol. This is emphasized in the OPRC Convention’s preamble

which:

recognizes the importance of mutual assistance and international co-

operation relating to matters including the exchange of information

respecting capabilities, preparation of oil pollution contingency

plans, exchange of reports of incidents and research and

development in the field of combating oil pollution;

takes account of the importance of bilateral and multilateral

agreements and arrangements including regional conventions and

agreements; and

is aware of the need to promote international co-operation and

enhance existing national, regional and global capabilities

concerning oil pollution preparedness and response.

In 2005, the IMO adopted Resolution A.983(24) concerning Guidelines for

Facilitation of Response to a Pollution Incident. These guidelines encourage

the development of administrative procedures with respect to requests for

assistance by one Party to either the OPRC Convention or OPRC-HNS Protocol

and the rendering of such assistance, where feasible, by another Party. This

Resolution was aimed primarily at the stipulations of OPRC Article 7 and

OPRC-HNS Protocol Article 5. The agreements described in this Chapter have


IMO Resolution A.983(24) concerning Guidelines for Facilitation of

Response to a Pollution Incident

http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=27250&fil

ename=A983(24).pdf

IMO Guidelines on International Offers of Assistance in Response to

a Marine Oil Pollution Incident (2016 Edition)

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionResponse

/Documents/International%20Offers%20of%20Assistance.pdf

REMPEC Mediterranean Guide on Cooperation and Mutual

Assistance in Responding to Marine Pollution Incidents ( 2018)

https://rempec.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/meetingsportal/Ed1-

Hw6C91BDmpcWEAc3iKoBuGEf4diq6z0UrXYnHe78jg?e=3gfzU5

Various Articles of the OPRC

Convention and the OPRC-HNS

Protocol directly address and

encourage co-operation,

including but not limited to:

OPRC Art. 6 and OPRC-HNS

Protocol Art. 4 (National and

regional systems for

preparedness and response);


Protocol Art. 5 (International

co-operation in pollution

response); and


Protocol Art. 8 (Promotion of

bilateral and multilateral co-

operation in preparedness and

response).


http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionResponse/Documents/International%20Offers%20of%20Assistance.pdf

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionResponse/Documents/International%20Offers%20of%20Assistance.pdf

https://rempec.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/meetingsportal/Ed1-Hw6C91BDmpcWEAc3iKoBuGEf4diq6z0UrXYnHe78jg?e=3gfzU5

https://rempec.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/meetingsportal/Ed1-Hw6C91BDmpcWEAc3iKoBuGEf4diq6z0UrXYnHe78jg?e=3gfzU5

P a g e | 60

largely considered the requirements of this Resolution and embedded

suitable provisions within their co-operation procedures to address them.

8.1 Regional Co-operation The OPRC Convention was developed and entered into force against a

background of broader regional co-operation in the field of marine

environmental protection, already established under the UN Environment

Regional Seas Programme (Figure 8-1). The Regional Seas Programme,

launched in 1974, aims to address the accelerating degradation of the

world’s oceans and coastal areas through a “shared seas” approach –

namely, by engaging neighbouring countries in comprehensive and specific

actions to protect their common marine environment. In most cases, a legal

framework in the form of a regional convention and associated Protocols on

specific problems is being developed or has been implemented.

Work on regional cooperation specifically addressing cases of major oil

pollution began in 1969 in the North Sea (forerunner of the Bonn

Agreement), followed by the Copenhagen Agreement in 1971 that covers

parts of the Baltic Sea and of the North Sea. Arrangements have been

developed subsequently in many regions under the Regional Seas

Programme in the form of Protocols to the relevant regional convention or

as stand-alone memoranda. In many cases, these arrangements have been

aligned to the requirements of the OPRC Convention. There are varying

degrees of maturity, with some regions having a fully functional regional co-

operation mechanism and others remaining in the development stage. The

mechanisms typically comprise a legal or voluntary framework, under which

there are operational plans and procedures that include exchange of

information, training and exercising, requests for assistance, joint response

operations, communications and financial matters. The IMO has channelled

significant technical co-operation support through various regional

mechanisms, to foster OPRC Convention alignment and build regional

capacity. Regions have invariably focussed on the development of co-

operation for cases of oil pollution and many have not yet developed parallel

arrangements for HNS.

The Regional Seas Programme

provided the basis for the initial

development of regional co-

operation mechanisms, now

aligned to the OPRC Convention


P a g e | 61

Figure 8-1 – Regional Sea programmes

The relevant regional seas arrangement provides a logical entry point for a

country’s initial discussions with its neighbours. This engagement may lead a

country to have either more active involvement in a functional regional

mechanism or provide additional impetus to the development and

promotion of such a mechanism within the region.

Engaging with a regional mechanism also brings opportunities for capacity

building. Other countries in the same region may have experiences and

practices that they are willing to share through technical exchanges, training

and exercising. Furthermore, external funding may be prioritized to support

activities relating to the development and implementation of a regional

mechanism.

8.2 The Operational Imperative Normal relations between sovereign States involve measured diplomacy and

considered responses. In contrast, dealing with marine pollution requires

timely evaluation, decision-making, expedited requests for and offers of

assistance, mobilization and deployment of personnel and equipment to

combat the pollution. Therefore, co-operation mechanisms between

countries are necessary to enable a prompt and effective response to

pollution incidents, as addressed by Article 6(1)(a) of the OPRC Convention

and Article 4(1)(a) of the OPRC-HNS Protocol. These Articles oblige Parties to

identify three key entities, as discussed in Chapter 4:

Competent national authority or authorities with responsibility for


National operational contact point or points, responsible for receipt

and transmission of pollution reports; and

An authority entitled to act on behalf of the State to request

assistance or to decide to render assistance requested.

Go to Chapter 4 for

more information on

roles and

responsibilities.

Go to Chapter 5 for

more information on

building capacity.


P a g e | 62

Relevant procedures in national contingency plans, and shared under a

regional mechanism, should ensure that all entities involved are aware of 24-

hour operational contact points and the authorities entitled to approve

assistance requests and replies in a timely manner. The IMO has developed

guidelines on pollution reporting systems (POLREP) to facilitate such

communications.

In some regions, the regional mechanism may be facilitated through a

dedicated co-ordination centre or function. A designated coordination

centre is valuable for ensuring the implementation of technical exchange,

providing a focal point for training and exercising as part of preparedness and

plays a role to support timely communication during response to an incident.

A regional training and exercise programme is essential to ensure that the

agreed co-operation procedures are familiar to key entities and their

personnel.

8.3 Sub-regional Co-operation Opportunities may exist to develop co-operation with neighbouring

countries on a bilateral or multilateral basis. These opportunities could fall

within arrangements under existing regional mechanisms or be an additional

separate activity. Circumstances that could lead to a sub-regional agreement

and cooperation include:

neighbouring countries with close operational and logistical

connections;

where residual sea currents or a geographic feature, such as a large

bay or gulf bordered by more than country, creates an obvious

theatre of shared risk; and/or

where a region is large and division into sub-regions brings

operational and logistical efficiencies.

Bilateral or multilateral arrangements are likely to mirror those at a regional

level, in terms of co-operation aims and procedures. The detail may be

greater where fewer countries are involved and the arrangements may

include a specific programme of joint training and exercising and possibly

harmonized approaches to some aspects of spill contingency planning e.g.

sensitivity mapping or response policy (such as an aligned approach to

dispersant product approval and authorization for use).

8.4 International Offers of Assistance (IOA) The well blowout incident in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 required an

international response that far exceeded the response resources available

within the United States. This complex response highlighted some significant

gaps in managing offers of assistance from international partners, as well as

gaps in existing guidelines.

Bilateral or multilateral

agreements can support or help

build regional co-operation

Recommendation

If regional mechanisms are not

developed or fully functional,

consider sub-regional

agreements to provide a step

towards wider co-operation.

The POLREP system has been

adopted in many regions’ plans,

to facilitate communication.

Recommendation

Ensure that national reporting

systems align with POLREP and

that operational authorities are

familiar with its use.

Go to Chapter 9 for

more information on

training and exercising.


P a g e | 63

The IMO subsequently developed Guidelines on International Offers of

Assistance in Response to a Marine Oil Pollution Incident (2016 Edition), for

use by any country but particularly Parties to the OPRC Convention. The

International Offers of Assistance (IOA) guidelines present a systematic

approach to assist in managing requests for spill response resources and

offers of assistance from other countries and organizations when confronted

with large, complex or significant oil spill incidents. The system proposed in

the IOA guidelines is designed to be supplementary to processes already

covered by existing national, regional, bilateral and multilateral

arrangements.

8.5 Summary Recommended steps for developing national participation in regional and

international preparedness programmes include:

enact outreach and liaison with neighbouring countries and

counterparts on spill emergency preparedness and planning;

nominate participating expertise (likely the Competent National

Authority) to participate in bi-lateral and regional preparedness

initiatives (i.e., Regional Seas); and

develop procedures and protocols, including spill notification and

reporting, to obtain and provide mutual assistance for spill

emergency response and for managing International Offers of

Assistance.


P a g e | 64

9. IMPLEMENT TRAINING AND EXERCISING Training and exercises (or drills) are an essential element of preparedness,

capacity building and sustained readiness at all levels, from national and

international scales to individual vessels or facilities. Chapter 9 describes:

a set of “OPRC Model Courses” developed by the IMO that provide four

(4) levels of oil spill training: Awareness, First Responders, Supervisors,

and Senior Managers (Chapter 9.1);

a complementary set of “HNS Model Courses” developed by the IMO

that provide two (2) levels of (non-responder) HNS training: Operational

and Managerial (Chapter 9.2); and

the type and frequency of exercise methods that can be considered for a

contingency plan and for sustaining response capacity (Chapter 9.3).

The development of capacity and national preparedness, addressed through

earlier steps in this guidance (in particular, Chapters 4, 5 and 7), requires that

participating personnel receive relevant information and are competent to

consider and utilize that information. Building this capacity and preparedness

involves a variety of training activities, including traditional training courses,

workshops, seminars, conferences, and study tours.

Once the national preparedness and response system is established, a wider

programme of training and exercising is necessary to ensure each agency and

every person involved understands their responsibilities and can perform

their allocated duties. A training and exercise programme meets the

obligations of OPRC Convention Article 6(2)(b) which states that:

“…each Party, within its capabilities either individually or through bilateral or

multilateral co-operation and, as appropriate, in co-operation with the oil

and shipping industries, port authorities and other relevant entities, shall

establish… a programme of exercises for oil pollution response organizations

and training of relevant personnel.”

The OPRC-HNS Protocol Article 4(2)(b) has the same training and exercising

obligation relating to hazardous and noxious substances. As highlighted in

Chapter 2.5, a training programme for HNS is likely to focus on safety

concerns and the complexities of dealing with HNS issues.

Initial assessment should be made of the training and exercising

requirements already stipulated under:

the pollution emergency plans, as developed by operators of

offshore units, ports and oil- or HNS-handling facilities to meet the

requirements of OPRC Convention Article 3 and OPRC-HNS Protocol

Article 3;

broader national emergency preparedness or civil protection

structures; and

Go to Chapter 5 for

more information on

building capacity.

Go to Chapter 7 for

more information on

developing national

preparedness.


P a g e | 65

any regional, multilateral or bilateral arrangements.

These existing activities or commitments may provide collaboration

opportunities for personnel from the authorities involved in the national oil

and HNS preparedness and response system. For example, where the private

sector is organizing training and exercising activities for its own personnel,

there may be a willingness to make places available for authority personnel.

This not only assists in development of the authorities’ personnel but has the

mutual benefit of building relationships between government and industry

representatives. The same personnel likely would be working together in the

event of an incident.


IMO OPRC and HNS Model Courses

http://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/environment/pollutionresponse/

imooprcmodelcourses/pages/imo-oprc-model-courses.aspx

IPIECA-IOGP Oil spill training (2014)

http://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-practice/oil-spill-training/

IPIECA-IOGP Oil spill exercises (2014)

http://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-practice/oil-spill-exercises/

API Technical Report 1159 (2014). Guidelines for Oil Spill Response

Training and Exercise Programs

http://www.oilspillprevention.org/~/media/oil-spill-

prevention/spillprevention/r-and-d/spill-response-planning/api-

training-exercise-guidelines-1159.pdf

ISO (2013). Societal security – Guidelines for exercises. ISO

22398:2013 https://www.iso.org/standard/50294.html

ISO (2010). Learning services for non-formal education and training Basic requirements for service providers. ISO 29990:2010

https://www.iso.org/standard/53392.html

EU MARINER project concerning preparedness and response to

HNS spills http://mariner-project.eu/

Transports Canada - Operational Guide on Preparedness and

Response to Accidental Spills of Hazardous and Noxious Substances

(HNS) on Waters – Available in French only

http://wwz.cedre.fr/Ressources/Publications/Guides-

operationnels/HNS


http://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/environment/pollutionresponse/imooprcmodelcourses/pages/imo-oprc-model-courses.aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/environment/pollutionresponse/imooprcmodelcourses/pages/imo-oprc-model-courses.aspx

http://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-practice/oil-spill-exercises/

http://www.oilspillprevention.org/~/media/oil-spill-prevention/spillprevention/r-and-d/spill-response-planning/api-training-exercise-guidelines-1159.pdf





http://mariner-project.eu/

http://wwz.cedre.fr/Ressources/Publications/Guides-operationnels/HNS

http://wwz.cedre.fr/Ressources/Publications/Guides-operationnels/HNS

P a g e | 66

9.1 OPRC Model Courses The OPRC Convention called on the IMO to develop a comprehensive training

programme in cooperation with interested governments and industry. The

IMO has developed a range of training courses to address all aspects of oil

spill planning, response and management. These are known as the OPRC

Model Courses. The courses were designed and developed by an

international group of experts from governments and industry. The

comprehensive supporting materials include instructor’s manuals,

participant’s manuals, and training aids in the form of presentations and

additional guidance and tools.

The IMO Model Courses on oil pollution preparedness and response have

been developed at four levels:

Introductory - Raising Awareness

First Responders (Operational)

Supervisors and On-Scene Commanders (Tactical)

Administrators and Senior Managers (Strategic)

Whilst available off-the-shelf, the courses should be adapted to meet the

local context, environmental setting, and the relevant national and regional

planning framework.

There is no international scheme for the accreditation of oil spill training

courses. Approval or accredition of oil spill training providers typically are the

responsibility of the national competent authority. These national schemes

may include courses adapted from the IMO Model Courses and be accredited

as their equivalance.

9.2 OPRC-HNS Model Courses The OPRC-HNS Protocol also called for the IMO to develop a comprehensive

HNS training programme in cooperation with interested governments and

industry. The IMO has developed two model training courses for

preparedness and response to marine incidents involving hazardous and

noxious substances.

The objective of these model courses is to provide practical training and

guidance in preparing for HNS incidents. The courses are not designed to

train response personnel. This activity is a separate and very specific subject

due to the safety concerns and associated complexities of an HNS response.

The HNS courses are designed to complement the suite of existing IMO OPRC

Model Courses for preparedness and response to marine oil spills and aim to

support the efforts of countries in acceding to and implementing the OPRC

Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol. The courses are aimed at two levels:

Operational: First Responders, Supervisors, On-Scene Commanders

The IMO OPRC Model Courses

provide a comprehensive suite of

technical training materials.


P a g e | 67

Managerial: Administrators and Senior Managers

These courses, when properly linked to a country’s national contingency

plan, can be used to train staff responsible to manage the effective

preparedness and response for HNS spills to the marine environment.

The European Union MARINER project has produced comprehensive

resources to assist in the preparedness and response to HNS spills. These

resources include tools that help to reinforce the training and exercising of

responders.

9.3 Exercises Exercising the procedures and capability described in contingency plans is the

best way to ensure effective preparedness. A well-designed exercise

programme can provide reassurance that an emergency response unfolds as

planned. In addition, the exercise programme can identify areas for

improvement, lead to amendments of plans, provide training opportunities

for new personnel, and sustain and improve the capacity of those already

familiar with their roles.

There are a variety of exercise methods, ranging from simple tests of

notification mechanisms to full-scale exercises. Exercises may incorporate

the mobilization of incident management teams to undertake command and

control, alongside the deployment of pollution combatting resources within

the framework of a pre-designed spill scenario. The different exercise

methods, and their features and benefits within an overall programme are

described in ISO 22398:2013. The IPIECA-IOGP publication concerning oil spill

exercises provides further elaboration of exercise methods, scheduling, and

planning.

A schedule and frequency of exercises should be developed, matched to the

pollution risks and take into the account the time and resources commitment

that each method typically entails. The approximate delivery times for the

exercise methods described by ISO are:

Discussion-based activities:

Seminar (1–4 hours)

Workshop (2–8 hours)

Table-top (2–4 hours)

Operations-based activities:

Drill, including notification test using POLREP (4–8 hours)

Functional exercise (4–8 hours)

Full-scale exercise (8–72 hours)

These indicative times do not consider exercise design and development,

which may be substantial for full-scale exercises (e.g. 6-12 months). The

There are different exercise

methods and an exercise

programme should schedule a

mix of them.

Exercises are the most effective

way to provide a check and

reassurance that preparedness

measures can function as

planned.

Consider use of announced and

unannounced exercises as well as

notification tests conducted

outside of normal business hours.


P a g e | 68

frequency for each method is likely to vary considerably and depends on the

risk profile for an operator or country. Examples are notification drills

occurring monthly or quarterly, table-tops annually, and full-scale exercises

every 2-5 years.

9.4 Summary Steps for establishing and maintaining effective spill emergencies training

and exercise programmes include:

Undertake local, national, sub-regional, regional and international

activities for capacity building (see Chapter 5);

establish criteria for minimum training requirements applicable to

initial oil spill and HNS responders and incident management team

personnel;

enlist international, regional, and industry expertise for delivering

model OPRC and complementary training courses;

define minimum requirements for spill response exercises to entail

notifications, table-tops, and deployments relevant to each tier; and

establish a mechanism to verify training and exercises meet

compliance (see also Chapter 10).

Guiding Principles for Exercises

Ensure that senior management support and endorse the exercise activity.

• Set clear, realistic and measurable objectives for an exercise.

• Focus on improvement through exercising - the aim is not to impress.

• Keep exercises simple and more frequent for faster improvements initially.

• Do not tackle complex exercises until personnel are experienced and

competent.

• Do not overcomplicate an exercise with too many activities, locations and

participants.

• Ensure successful exercise evaluation - this being as important as

conducting it successfully, involving observers where applicable.

• Recognize that planning and conducting a successful exercise is a significant

accomplishment.

• Follow-up on recommendations and findings from evaluation.


P a g e | 69

10. SUSTAIN PREPAREDNESS Chapter 10 outlines key elements of sustaining a preparedness capacity and

response readiness that include:

mechanisms that are in place to ensure that training and exercise

programme goals are achieved; and

a review/revision process to ensure that plans, training and exercises are

appropriately updated.

Oil and HNS pollution preparedness requires an ongoing process for

sustainability and improvement. Externally requested audits or analyses can

provide evaluations of preparedness and response capability (e.g., RETOSTM,

REMPEC, RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe programme on planning initiatives, and

missions carried out in the context of IMO’s ITCP). Frequently, national

contingency plans are developed with associated exercise programmes but

the mechanisms for ensuring that the programme targets are achieved may

be lacking.

Oil spill contingency planning is a moving target and spill contingency plans

should be evergreen documents. Sustained readiness necessitates active

scrutiny of changes in response policies, capabilities, new technologies and

methodologies over time. This review and revision process is an element of

the national contingency plan (Chapter 7.1). Training and exercises, with

evaluation and feedback, provide one means to sustain and/or reach higher

levels of readiness.

The regulated requirements for oil pollution emergency plans provide a

mechanism to mandate a schedule and frequency of training and exercise

programmes. These can be linked to the national system and provide the

basis for testing and reviewing preparedness.

Key elements in the approach to sustaining preparedness are:

establish a schedule for review and updates of the national

contingency plan; this can be linked to national exercises with a

review at least every three years, preferably annual;

mandate review and periodic resubmission of pollution emergency

plans;

ensure key authorities participate in relevant exercises;

ensure exercise evaluation is used to develop and assign

responsibilities for addressing key recommendations from post-

event debriefs;

consider re-assessment of spill readiness programmes (national and

industry) using a benchmarking tool (e.g. RETOSTM provides a

quantitative score for each of three levels of programme maturity);

conduct audits (internal and external) of spill response programmes;

Go to Chapter 9 for

more information on

training and exercises.

OPRC Convention Art. 8 and

OPRC-HNS Protocol Art. 6

promote co-operation between

Parties, and through the IMO or

regional organizations, relating

to research and development

programmes for pollution



P a g e | 70

ensure that practical deployment exercises take place to test spill

countermeasures throughout the range of operating conditions and

for distinct scenarios;

undertake training programmes for new personnel and refresher

and/or advanced level training for returning or established

personnel; and

promote testing and development of new response tools,

technologies and alternative countermeasures.


P a g e | 71

11. LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION The IMO conventions that relate to liability and compensation for ship-

source pollution are an important element of the pollution preparedness and

response framework. Chapter 11 describes the key features of:

the benefits of the international compensation regime for States that

ratify the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol (Chapter 11.1).

compensation for:

o pollution damage from oil tankers (Chapter 11.1);

o pollution damage from bunker fuel carried by ships (Chapter 11.1);

and

o HNS pollution damage from ships (Chapter 11.1).

mechanisms that may be adopted to address oil pollution from sources

other than ships (Chapter 11.2).

There is an established interlocking regime of IMO instruments that address

liability and compensation relating to ship-source marine pollution. This

regime is supported and financed by the shipping and oil/chemical industries.

Links to comprehensive information and guidance regarding liability and

compensation may be found in the Tools and References.

The OPRC Convention takes into account the importance of these liability and

compensation instruments and encourages Parties to give them due

consideration and co-operate when considering the conclusion of

compensation claims. Furthermore, it is common for regional, multilateral or

bilateral arrangements to reference this international regime in their co-

operation plans.

The regime addresses costs associated with actions taken to combat the

pollution and those claims arising as a result of damage associated with a

shipping incident. Claims are assessed based on established criteria and

generally are associated with five types of pollution damage:

property damage; costs of clean-up operations at sea and on shore and preventative

measures; economic losses by fishermen or those engaged in mariculture; economic losses in the recreational sector; and costs for reinstatement of the environment.

A country may wish to consider ratifying the various IMO liability and

compensation instruments alongside the process of OPRC ratification and

implementation. Contemporaneous ratification may be a more efficient and

justifiable approach as the various conventions’ benefits can be considered

part of an overall package for improving marine environmental protection.

Implementation of OPRC Convention also provides the opportunity to check

Go to Chapter 2 for

more information on

establishing the

legislative basis.


P a g e | 72

any previous ratifications of the liability and compensation instruments to

ensure that they have been correctly enacted in national law.

The regime is not designed to fund the costs of contingency planning and

preparedness before an incident happens. It is only to be used to

compensate legitimate claims arising after an incident has occurred and the

cost or damage has been incurred. The regime does not apply to non-ship

releases, such as from offshore units or pipelines. For these risks, national

legislation is required to ensure that operators of such facilities are liable and

able to meet potential compensation claims. Some features from the

international regime for ships may be incorporated into national legislation

for other risks, to provide alignment between the sectors.

11.1 The IMO instruments The compensation regime has developed over several decades and may

appear complex on first examination. The different IMO instruments have

evolved to address different elements (oil tankers, bunker fuel oil and HNS)

and provide the framework of shared and balanced financing between the

shipping and oil industries.

The following provides a brief description of the three instruments and their

relevant features with respect to compensation.

Pollution from oil tankers

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992

(“1992 Civil Liability Convention” or CLC) establishes a first layer of

compensation:

compensation for claims is paid by ship owners;

the maximum liability is dependent on the ship’s tonnage; and

covers claims associated with the loss of persistent cargo or fuel oil

even if the ship is unladen, so long as residues of persistent oil are

on-board.

The International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund

for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (“1992 Fund Convention”)

creates a second layer of compensation:

this Fund is financed through levies on organizations (typically oil

companies) receiving oil transported by tankers in all Member

States, pro rata on volumes received;

is administered by the International Oil Pollution Compensation

Funds (IOPC Funds);

provides a substantial maximum level of compensation, irrespective

of ship’s tonnage; and

pays claims based on criteria set out in the IOPC Funds Claims

Manual and associated Guidelines.

There is no international

compensation scheme for

non-shipping risks; a national

framework is required.


P a g e | 73

Most ship owners obtain their CLC insurance through syndicates known as

Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Clubs.

The Protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment

of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992

(“Supplementary Fund Protocol”) establishes an additional layer. This third

layer:

financed through levies on oil receivers;

administered by the IOPC Funds; and

more than three times the compensation limit that is available under

the second layer, i.e. the 1992 Fund Convention.

The maximum limits of compensation for pollution from tankers in this

three-level regime are shown in Figure 11-1.

Figure 11-1 – Maximum limits of compensation for pollution damage from oil tankers (source: IOPC Funds). SDR are ‘Special Drawing Rights’15, representing a weighted average of various convertible currencies

15 https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/01/14/51/Special-Drawing-Right-SDR

A three-layer regime for

compensation from tankers’ oil

pollution is available through

ratification of the relevant IMO

instruments (Chapter 11.2).

Recommendation

To benefit from this well-established and proven regime for prompt and fair compensation, countries should give serious consideration to ratifying: - 1992 Civil Liability Convention - 1992 Fund Convention - Supplementary Fund Protocol


https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/01/14/51/Special-Drawing-Right-SDR

P a g e | 74

The three-layer international compensation regime for oil tankers has

several beneficial features which are summarized in Table 11-1.

Table 11-1 – Benefits of the international compensation regime for tankers

Benefit Comment

Prompt and adequate payment of compensation

Those conducting clean-up operations or suffering damage and economic loss due to pollution can receive compensation for reasonable costs incurred up to the limit of liability

No cost to the countries, unless they are directly commercially involved in the transportation of oil by ship

The regime is financed through a combination of ship owners’ insurance and a levy on those receiving oil

Strict liability is placed on the ship-owner

No need to prove fault of the ship owner in causing the pollution

Reduction of legal proceedings In most instances, there is no need to engage lawyers or to go to court

Substantial sums are available to cover admissible claims

The limits of the regime have envisaged worst case scenarios

An established and proven system

Comprehensive guidance is available on admissibility and submission of claims, which can be integrated within contingency plans

Pollution from ships’ bunker fuel oil

The success of the 1992 Civil Liability and Fund Conventions led to the

development of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil

Pollution Damage, 2001 (“Bunkers Convention”). This convention:

applies to fuel and lubricating oils used in a wide range of vessels,

including fishing vessels, tugs, ferries, container ships, bulk carriers

and to oil tankers not covered by the 1992 CLC;

is a single-tier compensation regime modelled on the 1992 Civil

Liability Convention;

requires the registered owner of a vessel (over 1,000 gross tonnage)

to maintain compulsory insurance to cover their liability; and

determines the limit of liability of the ship owner by separate

applicable national legislation or the Convention on Limitation of

Liability for Maritime Claims.

In assessing claims under the Bunkers Convention, vessel insurers usually

refer to the IOPC Funds Claims Manual for guidance on admissibility criteria,

on the basis that the countries often are party to the CLC also and can seek

A single-layer regime for

compensation from non-tankers’

oil pollution is available through

ratification of the Bunkers

Convention.

Recommendation

To benefit from this regime for

prompt and fair compensation,

countries should give serious

consideration to ratifying the

Bunkers Convention and

identifying suitable legislation on

liability limits.


P a g e | 75

consistency in claims, irrespective of the type of ship from which the oil has

been released.

HNS pollution from ships

The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in

Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea,

2010 (“HNS Convention”) aims to ensure adequate, prompt and effective

compensation for damage to persons and property, costs of clean up and

reinstatement measures and economic losses resulting from the maritime

transport of hazardous and noxious substances.

Under the Convention, HNS are defined differently compared to the OPRC-

HNS Protocol. The Convention refers to lists of substances included in various

IMO Conventions and Codes. These substances include:

oils;

other liquid substances defined as noxious or dangerous;

liquefied gases;

liquid substances with a flashpoint not exceeding 60°C;

dangerous, hazardous and harmful materials and substances carried

in packaged form; and

solid bulk materials defined as possessing chemical hazards.

The Convention also covers residues left by the previous carriage of HNS,

other than those carried in packaged form.

As with the original oil pollution compensation regime, the HNS Convention

establishes a two-layer system for compensation to be paid in the event of

accidents at sea, in this case, involving hazardous and noxious substances,

such as chemicals.

The first layer is covered by compulsory insurance taken out by ship owners,

who would be able to limit their liability. In those cases where the insurance

does not cover an incident, or is insufficient to satisfy the claim, a second

layer of compensation would be paid from a Fund, made up of contributions

from the receivers of HNS.

At the time of publication, the 2010 HNS Convention had not entered into

force due to an insufficient number of ratifications.

The entry into force of the 2010

HNS Protocol will establish a

two-layer compensation regime

for HNS pollution that mirrors

the regime for oil pollution.


P a g e | 76

11.2 Pollution from sources other than ships Compensation for response costs and damage due to pollution from an

offshore unit, wreck, pipeline, or marine terminal is not governed by IMO

conventions. Countries should therefore establish other legislation, either

nationally or regionally, to address liability and compensation measures for

these types of facilities. Many jurisdictions impose strict liability for the costs

of a clean-up response and the effects of oil pollution arising from such

facilities. Facility operators may purchase insurance to cover their oil

pollution risks on the commercial market; however, many of the larger

operators are self-insured, in which case compensation is paid directly by the

operator causing the pollution.


Various useful documents from the IOPC Funds relating to the

compensation regime and claims are available at:

https://www.iopcfunds.org/publications/iopc-funds-publications/

IPIECA-IOGP Economic assessment and compensation for marine

oil releases (2015) - http://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-

practice/economic-assessment-and-compensation-for-marine-oil-

releases/

ITOPF Technical Information Paper on the preparation of claims

from oil pollution: http://www.itopf.org/knowledge-

resources/documents-guides/document/tip-15-preparation-and-

submission-of-claims-from-oil-pollution/

Full information on the HNS Convention and 2010 Protocol is

available at http://www.hnsconvention.org/

IMO/UNEP Guidance Manual on the Assessment and Restoration of

Environmental Damage following Marine Oil Spills (2009 Edition).

http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20

and%20Mailers/Mailers/i580e.pdf


***

http://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-practice/economic-assessment-and-compensation-for-marine-oil-releases/



http://www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/documents-guides/document/tip-15-preparation-and-submission-of-claims-from-oil-pollution/



http://www.hnsconvention.org/

http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%20Mailers/Mailers/i580e.pdf

http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%20Mailers/Mailers/i580e.pdf

PPR 6/20Add.1 Annex 18, page 1


ANNEX 18

DRAFT UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI (REGULATIONS 13.2.2, 13.5.3, 14.1 AND 16.9)

1 Time of replacement of an engine1

Regulation 13.2.2 reads as follows:

"2.2 For a major conversion involving the replacement of a marine diesel engine with a non-identical marine diesel engine, or the installation of an additional marine diesel engine, the standards in this regulation in force at the time of the replacement or addition of the engine shall apply."

Interpretation:

1.1 The term "time of the replacement or addition" of the engine in regulation 13.2.2 should be taken as the date of:

.1 the contractual delivery date of the engine to the ship;2 or

.2 in the absence of a contractual delivery date, the actual delivery date of the engine to the ship,* provided that the date is confirmed by a delivery receipt; or

.3 in the event the engine is fitted onboard and tested for its intended purpose on or after six (6) months from the date specified in sub-paragraphs of regulation 13.5.1.2, as appropriate, the actual date that the engine is tested onboard for its intended purpose applies in determining the standards in this regulation in force at the time of the replacement or addition of the engine.

1.2 Entry of the date in paragraph 7.1 above, provided the conditions associated with those dates apply, should be made in the item 8.a "Major conversion – According to regulations. 13.2.1.1 and 13.2.2" of the the Supplement of IAPP Certificate.

1.3 If the engine is not tested within six (6) months after the date specified in sub-paragraphs of regulation 13.5.1.2, as appropriate due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the shipowner, then the provisions of "unforeseen delay in delivery" may be considered by the Administration in a manner similar to UI4 of MARPOL Annex I.

2 Engine changeover/on-off recording requirements

Regulation 13.5.3 reads as follows:

"The tier and on/off status of marine diesel engines installed on board a ship to which paragraph 5.1 of this regulation applies which are certified to both Tier II and Tier III or which are certified to Tier II only shall be recorded in such logbook as prescribed by the Administration at entry into and exit from an emission control area designated under paragraph 6 of this regulation, or when the on/off status changes within such an area, together with the date, time and position of the ship."

1 If approved, the unified interpretation should replace the unified interpretation in section 7 of the annex to

MEPC.1/Circ.795/Rev.3.

2 The engine is to be fitted on board and tested for its intended purpose before 1 July 2016.



Interpretation: For the application of this regulation:

.1 "marine diesel engines installed on board a ship to which paragraph 5.1 of

this regulation applies" includes additional or replaced engine* installed on or after the relevant emission control area takes effect; _______________ * additional or replaced engine: refer to section 7.1 of

MEPC.1/Circ.795/Rev.3

.2 "certified to Tier II only" means a Tier II engine that is installed onboard a ship which is constructed on or after the emission control area where the ship is operating takes effect;

.3 Tier II engines stipulated under the Tier II requirement of regulation 13.4,

i.e. Tier II engines installed onboard a ship constructed before the entry into force of the emission control area where the ship is operating, are not considered to be a "Tier II only" engine in the context of record keeping. Such exclusion is extended to Tier II engines replaced after the entry into force of the relevant emission control areas onboard ships of this category, if the replacement engines meet resolution MEPC.230(65);

.4 if an engine installed on a ship constructed before the entry into force of the

emission control area where the ship is operating has undergone a major conversion as described in regulation 13.2.1, those engines are to be Tier III engines; thus the above interpretation in .1 above applies; and

.5 recording is required for the Tier II engine operation in a NECA under the

exemption according to regulation 13.5.4. 3 Application of sulphur limit to emergency equipment Regulation 14 General Requirements Regulation 14.1 reads as follows:3

"1 The sulphur content of fuel oil used or carried for use on board a ship shall not exceed 0.50% m/m."

Interpretation: Regulation 14.1 of MARPOL Annex VI for the prohibition on carriage of non-compliant fuel oil should be applied to the fuel oil of emergency equipment.

3 Unified Interpretation is applicable when MEPC.305(73) enters into force on 1 March 2020.



4 Shipboard incinerators4 Regulation 16.9 reads as follows:

"For incinerators installed in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 6.1 of this regulation the combustion chamber gas outlet temperature shall be monitored at all times the unit is in operation. Where that incinerator is of the continuous-feed type, waste shall not be fed into the unit when the combustion chamber gas outlet temperature is below 850°C. Where that incinerator is of the batch loaded type, the unit shall be designed so that the combustion chamber gas outlet temperature shall reach 600°C within five minutes after start-up and will thereafter stabilize at a temperature not less than 850°C."

Interpretation: For the application of this regulation, the term "waste shall not be fed into the unit" should be interpreted as follows:

For continuous-feed incinerators solid waste shall not be fed into the unit when the combustion chamber flue gas outlet temperature is below 850°C. Sludge oil generated during normal operation of a ship should not be regarded as waste in connection with this regulation, and can be fed into the unit when the required preheat temperature of 650°C in the combustion chamber is achieved.

For the application of this regulation, the term "the unit shall be designed so that the combustion chamber gas outlet temperature shall reach 600°C within five minutes after start-up" should be interpreted as follows:

Batch loaded incinerators should be designed so that the temperature in the actual combustion space where the solid waste is combusted should reach 600°C within five minutes after start-up."

***

4 If approved, the unified interpretation should replace the unified interpretation in section 9 of the annex to

MEPC.1/Circ.795/Rev.3.




ANNEX 19

BIENNIAL STATUS REPORT 2018-2019

SUB-COMMITTEE ON POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RESPONSE (PPR)

Reference to SD, if applicable

Output number

Description

Target completion year

Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)

Coordinating organ(s)

Status of output for Year 1


References

1. Improve implementation

1.11 Revised guidelines for the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs

2019 MEPC PPR Completed MEPC 70/18, para. 15.5; PPR 5/24, section 14; and MEPC 73/19, para. 11.15


1.12 Review of the 2015 Guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning systems (resolution MEPC.259(68))

2019 MEPC PPR In progress Postponed MEPC 69/21, paras. 19.4 and 19.5; PPR 5/24, section 11; and PPR 6/20, section 11

Notes: PPR 6 requested MEPC 74 to extend the TCY to 2020 (PPR 6/20, para. 11.22)


1.13 Guide on practical methods for the implementation of the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol

2019 MEPC PPR In progress Completed MEPC 70/18, para. 15.7; PPR 5/24, section 17; and PPR 6/20, section 15





Output number

Description


Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)




References


1.14 Revised guidance on ballast water sampling and analysis

2019 MEPC PPR III In progress Completed MEPC 68/21, paras. 7.14 and 17.26; MEPC 70/18, para. 4.47; MEPC 71/17, para. 4.45; PPR 5/24, section 5; and PPR 6/20, section 4


1.15 Revised guidance on methodologies that may be used for enumerating viable organisms

2019 MEPC PPR In progress Postponed MEPC 71/17, para. 4.54; PPR 5/24, section 6; and PPR 6/20, section 5



1.16 Updated IMO Dispersant Guidelines (part IV)

2019 MEPC PPR Completed PPR 4/21, section 13; PPR 5/24, section 16; and MEPC 73/19, para. 11.16





Output number

Description


Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)




References


1.17 Consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI


Notes: In view of the need to develop guidelines to support effective and safe implementation of on board sampling of fuel oil not in-use by the ship, the Sub-Committee invited the MEPC 74 to extend the target completion year for the output to 2020 and rename the output as "Development of guidelines for on board sampling of fuel oil not in use by the ship


1.24 Revision of certification requirements for SCR systems under the NOX Technical Code 2008

2018 MEPC PPR Completed MEPC 70/18, para. 15.15; MEPC 71/17, paras. 5.8 and 14.31 and resolution MEPC.291(71) ; PPR 5/24, section 10; and MEPC 73/19, paras 5.7 to 5.9


1.25 Guidelines for the discharge of exhaust gas recirculation bleed-off water

2018 MEPC PPR Completed MEPC 71/17, paras. 5.4 to 5.7; PPR 5/24, section 9; and MEPC 73/19, para. 5.5





Output number

Description


Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)




References


1.26 Amendments to the 2012 Guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants (resolution MEPC.227(64)) to address inconsistencies in their application

2020 MEPC PPR No work requested

In progress MEPC 71/17, paras.14.8 and 14.9; MEPC 72/17, para.15.10; MEPC 73/19, para. 15.19; and PPR 6/20, section 14

2. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework

2.3 Amendments to the IGF Code and development of guidelines for low-flashpoint fuels

2019 MSC HTW / PPR / SDC / SSE

CCC No work requested

Completed MSC 94/21, paras 18.5 and 18.6; MSC 96/25, paras. 10.1 to 10.3; and PPR 6/20, para. 3.39


2.13 Review of the IBTS Guidelines and amendments to the IOPP Certificate and Oil Record Book




2.14 Amendments to regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI to require a dedicated sampling point for fuel oil

2019 MEPC SSE PPR In progress Completed MEPC 70/18, para. 15.10; PPR 5/24, section 12; and PPR 6/20, section 8





Output number

Description


Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)




References


2.18 Standards for shipboard gasification of waste systems and associated amendments to regulation 16 of MARPOL Annex VI

2019 MEPC PPR In progress Postponed MEPC 70/17, para. 15.17; PPR 5/24, section 8; MEPC 72/17, para. 15.10; and PPR 6/20, section 10



2.19 Amendment of annex 1 to the AFS Convention to include controls on cybutryne, and consequential revision of relevant guidelines

2020 MEPC PPR In progress In progress MEPC 71/17, paragraph 14.3; and PPR 5/24, section 19 and para. 24.2.25; MEPC 73/19, paras. 15.12 to 15.15; and PPR 6/20, section 6

3. Respond to climate change

3.3 Impact on the Arctic of emissions of black carbon from international shipping

2019 MEPC PPR In progress Completed MEPC 71/17, paragraph 5.3; PPR 5/24, section 7 and para. 24.2.7; MEPC 73/19, para. 5.3; and PPR 6/20, section 7





Output number

Description


Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)




References

4. Engage in ocean governance

4.3 Follow-up work emanating from the Action Plan to address marine plastic litter from ships

2020 MEPC PPR

No work requested

No work requested

MEPC 72/17, paras. 15.2 to 15.6; and MEPC 73/19, section 8 and annex 10

Note: MEPC 73 adopted the Action plan to address marine plastic litter from ships (resolution MEPC.310(73)) and agreed to change the title of output 4.3 as above.

6. Ensure regulatory effectiveness

6.1 Unified interpretation of provisions of IMO safety, security, and environment-related conventions

Continuous MSC / MEPC

III / PPR / CCC / SDC / SSE / NCSR

Ongoing

Ongoing MEPC 71/17, paragraphs 4.80, 5.22, 9.10, 10.7 and annexes 8 and 20; PPR 5/24, section 20; MEPC 72/17, paras 3.10 to 3.13, 3.56 to 3.57 and annex 9; MEPC 73/19, paras. 4.27 to 4.29, 5.14 to 5.16, 6.8 to 6.9, 6.16 and 15.8, and annex 8, and PPR 6/20, para. 8.69 and section 16





Output number

Description


Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)




References


6.3 Safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of consequential amendments to the IBC Code

Continuous MEPC PPR Ongoing

Ongoing MEPC 71/17, paragraphs 9.3 to 9.5; PPR 5/24, section 3; MEPC 72/17, para. 9.4; and MEPC 73/19, paras. 11.5 to 11.7, and annex 11; and PPR 6/20, section 3


6.10 Review of MARPOL Annex II requirements that have an impact on cargo residues and tank washings of high viscosity, solidifying and persistent floating products and associated definitions, and preparation of amendments

2019 MEPC PPR Completed PPR 4/21, section 4; PPR 5/24, section 4; and MEPC 73/19, paras. 11.10 to 11.12, and annex 13


6.11 Development of measures to reduce risks of use and carriage of heavy fuel oil as fuel by ships in Arctic waters

2019 MEPC PPR No work requested

Postponed MEPC 71/17, paragraph 14.13; MEPC 72/17, section 11; MEPC 73/19, section 9; and PPR 6/20, section 12






Output number

Description


Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)




References


6.13 Use of electronic record books 2018 MEPC PPR Completed FAL.5/Circ.39/ Rev.2; FAL 40/19, paras. 6.18 to 6.21; MEPC 70/18, para. 2.2; PPR 5/24, section 18 and paras. 24.2.18 to 24.2.23; and MEPC 73/19, paras. 11.17 to 11.32, and annexes 4, 6 and 15

OW. Other work OW.10 Measures to harmonize port State control (PSC) activities and procedures worldwide

Continuous MSC / MEPC

HTW / PPR / NCSR

III Ongoing Ongoing MEPC 70/18, paras. 2.2, 5.18 to 5.20 and 15.20; MSC 97/22, paragraph 19.8; PPR 5/24, paras. 11.5, 13.18, 13.21, 18.15 and 18.16; III 5/15, section 5; and MEPC 73/19, paras. 3.8 and 11.30 to 11.33



OUTPUTS ON THE COMMITTEE'S POST-BIENNIAL AGENDA THAT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE

SUB-COMMITTEE ON POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RESPONSE

ACCEPTED POST-BIENNIAL OUTPUTS

Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)

Coordinating organ

Timescale (sessions)

Reference No. Biennium*

Reference to strategic direction, if applicable

Description

1 2018-2019 1. Improve implementation

Review of the 2011 Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species (resolution MEPC.207(62))

MEPC PPR 2 MEPC 72/17, para.15.8

3 2018-2019 2. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework

Development of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI and the NOX Technical Code on the use of multiple engine operational profiles for a marine diesel engine

MEPC PPR 2 MEPC 73/19, para.15.18

Notes:

* Biennium when the output was placed on the post-biennial agenda.

***




ANNEX 20

PROPOSED BIENNIAL AGENDA FOR THE 2020-2021 BIENNIUM


Output No. Description Parent organ(s) Coordinating organ(s)

Associated organ(s)

Target completion

year


1.11 Revised guidelines for the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs

MEPC PPR 2019


1.12 Review of the 2015 Guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning systems (resolution MEPC.259(68))

MEPC PPR 2019 2020


1.13 Guide on practical methods for the implementation of the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol

MEPC PPR 2019


1.14 Revised guidance on ballast water sampling and analysis

MEPC PPR 2019


1.15 Revised guidance on methodologies that may be used for enumerating viable organisms

MEPC PPR 2019 2021


1.16 Updated IMO Dispersant Guidelines (part IV)

MEPC PPR 2019


1.17 Consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI Development of guidelines for on board sampling of fuel oil not in use by the ship

MEPC PPR 2019 2020

Proposed modifications to the Sub-Committee's 2018-2019 biennial agenda, as set out in annex 12 to document MEPC 72/17/Add.1. Outputs printed in bold have been

selected for the draft provisional agenda for PPR 7, as shown in annex 21. Struck-out text indicates proposed deletions and shaded text indicates proposed changes. Output number may be changed by A 31.





Associated organ(s)

Target completion

year


1.24 Revision of certification requirements for SCR systems under the NOX Technical Code 2008

MEPC PPR 2018


1.25 Guidelines for the discharge of exhaust gas recirculation bleed-off water

MEPC PPR 2018


1.26 Amendments to the 2012 Guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants (resolution MEPC.227(64)) to address inconsistencies in their application

MEPC PPR 2020


1.[…] Review of the 2011 Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species (resolution MEPC.207(62))

MEPC PPR 2021

Note: Included from the post-biennial agenda (number 1)


2.3 Amendments to the IGF Code and development of guidelines for low-flashpoint fuels

MSC CCC HTW / PPR / SDC / SSE

2019

Note: A decision on whether output 2.3 will be kept in the 2020-2021 biennial agenda of the PPR Sub-Committee will depend on the outcome of CCC 6 and MSC 102.


2.13 Review of the IBTS Guidelines and amendments to the IOPP Certificate and Oil Record Book

MEPC PPR 2019 2020





Associated organ(s)

Target completion

year


2.14 Amendments to regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI to require a dedicated sampling point for fuel oil

MEPC PPR SSE 2019


2.18 Standards for shipboard gasification of waste systems and associated amendments to regulation 16 of MARPOL Annex VI

MEPC PPR 2019 2020


2.19 Amendment of annex 1 to the AFS Convention to include controls on cybutryne, and consequential revision of relevant guidelines

MEPC PPR PPR 2020


2.[…] Development of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI and the NOX Technical Code on the use of multiple engine operational profiles for a marine diesel engine

MEPC PPR 2021

Note: Included from the post-biennial agenda (number 3)

3. Respond to climate change

3.3 Impact on the Arctic of emissions of black carbon from international shipping

MEPC PPR 2019

4. Engage in ocean governance

4.3 Follow-up work emanating from the Action Plan to address marine plastic litter from ships

MEPC PPR 2020


6.1 Unified interpretation of provisions of IMO safety, security, and environment-related conventions

MSC / MEPC III / PPR / CCC / SDC / SSE / NCSR

Continuous





Associated organ(s)

Target completion

year


6.3 Safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of consequential amendments to the IBC Code

MEPC PPR Continuous


6.10 Review of MARPOL Annex II requirements that have an impact on cargo residues and tank washings of high viscosity, solidifying and persistent floating products and associated definitions, and preparation of amendments

MEPC PPR 2019


6.11 Development of measures to reduce risks of use and carriage of heavy fuel oil as fuel by ships in Arctic waters

MEPC PPR 2019 2020

OW. Other work OW.10 Measures to harmonize port State control (PSC) activities and procedures worldwide

MSC / MEPC III HTW / PPR / NCSR Continuous

***



ANNEX 21

PROPOSED PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR PPR 7

Opening of the session

1 Adoption of the agenda

2 Decisions of other IMO bodies

3 Safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of consequential amendments to the IBC Code

4 Revised guidance on methodologies that may be used for enumerating viable organisms

5 Amendment of annex 1 to the AFS Convention to include controls on cybutryne, and consequential revision of relevant guidelines

6 Review of the 2011 Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species (resolution MEPC.207(62))

7 Standards for shipboard gasification of waste systems and associated amendments to regulation 16 of MARPOL Annex VI

8 Development of guidelines for on board sampling of fuel oil not in use by the ship

9 Review of the 2015 Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (resolution MEPC.259(68))

10 Development of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI and the NOX Technical Code on the use of multiple engine operational profiles for a marine diesel engine

11 Development of measures to reduce risks of use and carriage of heavy fuel oil as fuel by ships in Arctic waters

12 Review of the IBTS Guidelines and amendments to the IOPP Certificate and Oil Record Book

13 Amendments to the 2012 Guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants (resolution MEPC.227(64)) to address inconsistencies in their application

14 Unified interpretation to provisions of IMO environment-related conventions

15 Biennial agenda and provisional agenda for PPR 8

16 Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for 2021

17 Any other business

18 Report to the Marine Environment Protection Committee

***




ANNEX 22

STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS ITEM 6

Statement by the delegation of Japan "Thank you, Chair. First of all, this delegation fully supports phasing out Cybutryne, noting the importance of controlling it from the view point of marine environment protection, as already stated in the plenary and the Technical Group. This delegation appreciates the work and output made by the Technical Group. However, we would like to raise one issue for further consideration, relating to the discussion took place at the Technical Group. As this delegation stated in the plenary, Japan understands that blasting may not be a practical method to remove Cybutryne from existing ships, because blasting may cause serious air pollution. Prevention of air pollution should not be undermined in any circumstance. In our view, there are various measures other than blasting, such as sealer coat and dilution, for existing ships to remove Cybutryne. However, to our concern, there was a discussion at the Technical Group which might close the door to use these measures as an allowed option. In order to secure consistent implementation of the AFS Convention on Cybutryne, we should not close the doors to the other options, including sealer coats and dilution, to remove Cybutryne from existing ships in a timely manner. Bearing these in mind, we would like to emphasize that further consideration based on scientific evidence should be given at MEPC74 in order to address our concern on existing ships, including the potential challenge of blasting on air quality. Finally, we would like to reiterate that Japan fully supports phasing out Cybutryne under the AFS Convention and is willing to further participate in and contribute to the discussion at MEPC 74. Chair, this delegation would like you to record this statement in the report of this session. Thank you very much."

Statements have been included in this annex as provided by delegations/observers, in the order in which

they were given, sorted by agenda item, and in the language of submission (including translation into any other language if such translation was provided). Statements are accessible in all official languages on audio file at: http://docs.imo.org/Meetings/Media.aspx

http://docs.imo.org/Meetings/Media.aspx

http://docs.imo.org/Meetings/Media.aspx



ITEM 8

Statement by the observer of ICS "ICS remains committed to ensuring a level playing field for all ships when the 0.5% sulphur cap takes effect on 1 January next year. We fully recognize and support effective enforcement of the carriage ban, which may include checking representative samples of fuel drawn from the ships bunker tanks in addition to checking Bunker Delivery Notes. However, sir, the matter of drawing samples from fuel oil storage tanks requires further careful consideration to ensure such sampling is performed safely. Unfortunately Sir, fuel oil tanks used for the storage of fuel oil on board ships are not normally provided with the necessary arrangements for safely extracting representative samples of tank contents, nor is there is guidance on how such representative samples can be safely drawn, giving due regard to the safety of the crew and the ship. The existing ISO guidance for sampling from tanks on ships is applicable to cargo tanks, not to ship fuel oil bunker tanks. We would draw the Committee's attention to the footnote to regulation 14 paragraph 8, which simply states 'refer to the Guidelines to be developed prior to entry into force of the provision.' We would urge the Sub Committee to carefully consider if this is an appropriate means of finalizing an amendment to a mandatory IMO instrument without giving due regard to crew safety, and would respectfully request that the Sub Committee holds the reference to on board fuel samples in abeyance until adequate provisions for safe and representative sampling are agreed. In this regard, we would ask the Sub-Committee to clarify under which agenda item it expects to progress development of the guidelines at PPR 7, presumably as a very urgent and top priority item. We request that this statement be attached to the report of the meeting, thank you sir."

Statement by the observer of IPIECA "Thank you Chair, First of all I would like to thank the Chair of the Working Group for his diligent work bringing the development of guidance for consistent implementation of Regulation 14.1.3 to a successful closure.

Next, I want to reassure the Subcommittee that fuel suppliers fully recognize their responsibility to correctly report the sulphur level as measured on the Bunker Delivery Note of all batches of fuel that they deliver. Bunker suppliers that do not faithfully report the fuel sulphur level on the BDN should be discovered and action be taken against them in line with regulation 18.9.4, as the BDN is a legal document that a ship may need to demonstrate her compliance with Regulation 14.

Allow me to briefly explain the concern we are highlighting in the statement in annex 7 of PPR 6/WP.5. In response to a desire to simplify the appendix VI procedure for verifying the sulphur level of the MARPOL delivered samples, the proposed text to revise appendix VI has deleted stage 2 of the current verification process. As a result, a ship can be found to be non-compliant on the basis of the result of testing the MARPOL sample at a single laboratory (see paragraph 2.5 of the proposed revised appendix), even if that result is only marginally above the limit and falls within the reproducibility range of the sulphur value reported on the BDN. In such case, there is a high probability that the actual sulphur value is compliant, but there is no option to retest the sample, as per paragraph 2.6 of the revised appendix VI, the single result would be considered final. Surely, this cannot be the intent of the simplification of the procedure.



We believe it is important to bring this to the attention of the Subcommittee and hope that MEPC 74 will consider this concern before endorsing the proposed changes to appendix VI. May I request that this statement is added to the report of the Sub-Committee? Thank you, Chair."

Statement by the delegation of the Marshall Islands "Mr. Chair The delegation of the Marshall Islands commented that the Ship Implementation Plan (SIP) may not be that appropriate as a contingency measure as it is not mandatory contrary to the Ballast Water Management Plan, and that its scope according to MEPC.1/Circ.878 is how the ship may prepare in order to comply by 1 January 2020. Moreover, MEPC.1/Circ.878 does not propose any retention period of the SIP. Furthermore, it was proposed by the Marshall Islands for the Flag State to be included in the draft guidelines, similarly to paragraph 7 of BWM.2/Circ.62. In case where the port State decides for the non-compliant fuel oil to be retained on board and the ship sails bound to the next port, then the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil in accordance with the provisions of the circular, is subject to any conditions of the port State of the next port. This would be a valid reason why the flag State should be also involved in the process where the ship and port State consider possible contingency measures. Thank you." ITEM 12

Statement by the delegation of Canada "Thank you Mr. Chair. Canada would like to thank the submitters of papers on the results of existing impacts assessments that have been undertaken related to previous proposals. Unfortunately, these assessments were not undertaken using the approved methodology as that methodology has not yet been agreed. As our distinguished colleagues from WWF highlighted yesterday, Indigenous communities need to be involved in the development of the ban as it affects them directly. Moreover, it's widely acknowledged that policy for the Arctic must be informed by those who live there. Canada is an Arctic state. Canada has domestic legal obligation to consult with its Indigenous communities about matters that will affect them and their rights. The HFO ban falls squarely in this category and we need to maintain the timeline originally agreed by MEPC 72 of 2 PPR sessions, to allow for the consultation to be meaningful. In Canada's view it is critical that the impact assessment methodology be completed this week. However, for a ban, or indeed any mitigation measure, to be well designed and achieve the goal of effectively addressing the risks posed by the carriage of HFO, it must be supported by empirical data. This data can only be collected through comprehensive assessments from affected Artic states.



The proposed ban will inevitably have impacts on Northern Canadian communities and Canada has been clear that these need to be considered, including with the participation of Northerners, which will not be possible if all the work is to be completed this week. Canada requests that its statement be included in the record of decision of the meeting."

___________