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
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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ANNEX 10 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI ANNEX 11 DRAFT GUIDANCE FOR PORT STATE CONTROL ON CONTINGENCY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
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 1, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 1, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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.
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 2, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 2, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 3, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 3, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 3, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 5
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 6
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 7
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 8
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 9
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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".
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 10
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 11
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 12
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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;
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 13
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 14
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 15
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 16
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 17
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 18
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 19
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 20
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 21
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 22
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/ChemicalsReportingForms.aspx
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 23
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 24
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 25
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 26
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 27
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
Step 3
Component number
Applicable Row Table 1
Component Factor (Cp)
% 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
Applicable Row Table 1
Component Factor (Cp)
% 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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 28
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Applicable Row Table 1
Component Factor (Cp)
% 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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 29
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
Step 3
Component number
Applicable Row Table 1
Component Factor (Cp)
% 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
Applicable Row Table 1
Component Factor (Cp)
% 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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 30
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 31
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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 %)
Pollution category of mixture
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
Ship type Factor (f)
% Multiples (f x %)
Pollution category of mixture
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 32
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Ship type Factor (f)
% in mixture
Multiples (f x % )
Pollution category of mixture
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 %)
Pollution category of mixture
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 33
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 4, page 34
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 5, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 5, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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
PPR 6/WP.3 Annex 5, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 5, page 5
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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.
PPR 6/WP.3 Annex 5, page 6
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 5, page 7
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 6, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 1
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 5
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 6
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 7
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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;
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 8
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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.
76 Autumn 2020 Convention has been in force for
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.
79 Autumn 2022 Convention has been in force for
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 9
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Other (attach details)
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 10
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
Part 2: Outcome of ballast water surveys Response
Maintenance and cleaning
Sampling facilities
Other (attach details)
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)
Other (attach details)
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 11
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
APPENDIX B: BASIC INTERFACE: BASIC PORT STATE REPORT TEMPLATE
Part 1: PSC inspection outcomes Response
Member State:
Time period of report
Date report prepared
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
Other (attach details)
45 Results of sampling/analysis should be reported through the Supplementary Interface (together with the
results of non-PSC sampling/analysis).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 12
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 13
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Other (attach details)
Discharge not permitted
Other
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 14
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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:
Time period of report
Date report prepared
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 15
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
)
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 16
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
APPENDIX D: TRIAL PERIOD INTERFACE: TRIAL PERIOD REPORT TEMPLATE
Part 1: Identification Response
Member State:
Time period of report
Date report prepared
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 7, page 17
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
Part 1: Identification Response
Member State:
Time period of report
Date report prepared
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)
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 8, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 8, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 8, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 8, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 8, page 5
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 8, page 6
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 8, page 7
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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);
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 8, page 8
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 8, page 9
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 8, page 10
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
□
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 9, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 9, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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)
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)
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 9, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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)
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 9, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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)
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.
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 10, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 10, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
"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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 10, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 10, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 10, page 5
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 10, page 6
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 10, page 7
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 11, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 5
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 6
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 7
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 8
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 9
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 10
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 11
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 12
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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): _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 13
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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): __________________________________________________________________
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 14
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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: __________________________________________________________________________
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 15
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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): ________________________________________________________
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 16
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 17
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
Fuel Property Potential Challenges Remarks
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 18
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
Fuel Property Potential Challenges Remarks
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 12, page 19
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
Fuel Property Potential Challenges Remarks
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
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 13, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 13, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 13, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 5/20/Add.1 Annex 14, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 15, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 15, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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);
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 15, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 15, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 15, page 5
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 15, page 6
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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.
5 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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 15, page 7
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 15, page 8
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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;
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 15, page 9
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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.
7 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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 15, page 10
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 16, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 16, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 16, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 16, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 16, page 5
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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;
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 16, page 6
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
.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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 1
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 2
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 3
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 4
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 5
P a g e | 6
OVERVIEW Summary of the guide’s layout and steps
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 6
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 7
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 8
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
preparedness and response
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
preparedness and response.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 9
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 10
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
preparedness and response
framework can be established
only where adequate time and
resources are allocated to
planning, preparedness, and
sustained capacity.
.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 11
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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 12
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
Pending In progress Complete
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
Pending In progress Complete
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 13
P a g e | 14
`
Develop in-country capacity
Pending In progress Complete
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
Pending In progress Complete
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
Pending In progress Complete
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 14
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
Pending In progress Complete
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
Pending In progress Complete
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)
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 15
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 16
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 17
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 18
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 19
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
preparedness and response.
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 20
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:
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 21
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 22
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 23
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 24
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 25
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 26
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 27
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 28
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
preparedness and response;
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;
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 29
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 30
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 31
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 32
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 33
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,
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 34
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/
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 35
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 36
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 37
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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 38
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 39
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).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 40
P a g e | 41
identify agency leads assigned to key functions within the spill
emergency management structure.
TOOLS AND REFERENCES
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 41
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 42
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 43
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 44
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 45
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 46
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.
TOOLS AND REFERENCES
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 47
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 48
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.
TOOLS AND REFERENCES
ARPEL How to Develop a National Contingency Plan (2005)
https://arpel.org/library/publication/195/
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:
http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Pages/Home.aspx
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
https://ioscproceedings.org/doi/abs/10.7901/2169-3358-2008-1-1
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 49
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/
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 50
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”).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 51
P a g e | 52
Figure 7-1 – The overall process for industry contingency planning (based on
IPIECA-IOGP 2015)
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 52
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 53
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;
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 54
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 55
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 56
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 57
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 58
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
TOOLS AND REFERENCES
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);
OPRC Art. 7 and OPRC-HNS
Protocol Art. 5 (International
co-operation in pollution
response); and
OPRC Art. 10 and OPRC-HNS
Protocol Art. 8 (Promotion of
bilateral and multilateral co-
operation in preparedness and
response).
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 59
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 60
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
preparedness and response;
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 61
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 62
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 63
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 64
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.
TOOLS AND REFERENCES
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 65
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 66
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 67
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 68
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
preparedness and response.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 69
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 70
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 71
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 72
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 73
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 74
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 75
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.
TOOLS AND REFERENCES
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 17, page 76
***
PPR 6/20Add.1 Annex 18, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 18, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20Add.1 Annex 18, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 19, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Status of output for Year 2
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. Improve implementation
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. Improve implementation
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 19, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Status of output for Year 2
References
1. Improve implementation
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. Improve implementation
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
Notes: PPR 6 requested MEPC 74 to extend the TCY to 2021 (PPR 6/20, para. 5.4)
1. Improve implementation
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 19, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Status of output for Year 2
References
1. Improve implementation
1.17 Consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI
2019 MEPC PPR In progress Postponed MEPC 71/17, para. 14.27; PPR 5/24, section 13; and PPR 6/20, section 8
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. Improve implementation
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. Improve implementation
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 19, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Status of output for Year 2
References
1. Improve implementation
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. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework
2.13 Review of the IBTS Guidelines and amendments to the IOPP Certificate and Oil Record Book
2019 MEPC PPR In progress Postponed MEPC 70/18, para. 15.12; PPR 5/24, section 15; and PPR 6/20, section 13
Notes: PPR 6 requested MEPC 74 to extend the TCY to 2020 (PPR 6/20, para. 11.22)
2. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 19, page 5
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Status of output for Year 2
References
2. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework
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
Notes: PPR 6 requested MEPC 74 to extend the TCY to 2020 (PPR 6/20, para. 10.5)
2. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 19, page 6
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Status of output for Year 2
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 19, page 7
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Status of output for Year 2
References
6. Ensure regulatory effectiveness
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. Ensure regulatory effectiveness
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. Ensure regulatory effectiveness
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
Notes: PPR 6 requested MEPC 74 to extend the TCY to 2020 (PPR 6/20, para. 12.32)
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 19, page 8
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
Status of output for Year 2
References
6. Ensure regulatory effectiveness
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
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 19, page 9
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 20, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
ANNEX 20
PROPOSED BIENNIAL AGENDA FOR THE 2020-2021 BIENNIUM
Reference to SD, if applicable
Output No. Description Parent organ(s) Coordinating organ(s)
Associated organ(s)
Target completion
year
1. Improve implementation
1.11 Revised guidelines for the application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs
MEPC PPR 2019
1. Improve implementation
1.12 Review of the 2015 Guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning systems (resolution MEPC.259(68))
MEPC PPR 2019 2020
1. Improve implementation
1.13 Guide on practical methods for the implementation of the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol
MEPC PPR 2019
1. Improve implementation
1.14 Revised guidance on ballast water sampling and analysis
MEPC PPR 2019
1. Improve implementation
1.15 Revised guidance on methodologies that may be used for enumerating viable organisms
MEPC PPR 2019 2021
1. Improve implementation
1.16 Updated IMO Dispersant Guidelines (part IV)
MEPC PPR 2019
1. Improve implementation
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 20, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
Reference to SD, if applicable
Output No. Description Parent organ(s) Coordinating organ(s)
Associated organ(s)
Target completion
year
1. Improve implementation
1.24 Revision of certification requirements for SCR systems under the NOX Technical Code 2008
MEPC PPR 2018
1. Improve implementation
1.25 Guidelines for the discharge of exhaust gas recirculation bleed-off water
MEPC PPR 2018
1. Improve implementation
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. Improve implementation
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. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework
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. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework
2.13 Review of the IBTS Guidelines and amendments to the IOPP Certificate and Oil Record Book
MEPC PPR 2019 2020
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 20, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
Reference to SD, if applicable
Output No. Description Parent organ(s) Coordinating organ(s)
Associated organ(s)
Target completion
year
2. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework
2.14 Amendments to regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI to require a dedicated sampling point for fuel oil
MEPC PPR SSE 2019
2. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework
2.18 Standards for shipboard gasification of waste systems and associated amendments to regulation 16 of MARPOL Annex VI
MEPC PPR 2019 2020
2. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework
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. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework
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. Ensure regulatory effectiveness
6.1 Unified interpretation of provisions of IMO safety, security, and environment-related conventions
MSC / MEPC III / PPR / CCC / SDC / SSE / NCSR
Continuous
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 20, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
Reference to SD, if applicable
Output No. Description Parent organ(s) Coordinating organ(s)
Associated organ(s)
Target completion
year
6. Ensure regulatory effectiveness
6.3 Safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of consequential amendments to the IBC Code
MEPC PPR Continuous
6. Ensure regulatory effectiveness
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. Ensure regulatory effectiveness
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
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 21, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
***
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 22, page 1
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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
PPR 6/20Add.1 Annex 22, page 2
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20/Add.1 Annex 22, page 3
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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.
PPR 6/20Add.1 Annex 22, page 4
I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-20-Add.1.docx
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."
___________