The Sub-Committee agreed draft amendments to the SOLAS Convention relating to tanker pump-room safety to make a proposed new SOLAS regulation on cargo pump rooms on tankers also applicable to existing ships.

The proposed regulation II-1/63 was approved by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) at its 69th session in May-June 1998 for adoption at a future session as part of the 2002 amendments to the SOLAS Convention. At the time, the decision on whether to make the regulation applicable to existing ships as well as new ones was deferred.

The proposed regulation includes measures aiming at preventing explosions in tanker cargo pump-rooms,

• including the fitting of temperature sensing devices;
• interlocking lighting with ventilation such that ventilation should be in operation when switching on the lighting;
• providing a system for continuous monitoring of the concentration of hydrocarbon gases; and
• providing bilge level monitoring devices.

Harmonized survey system - draft resolution agreed: The Sub-Committee agreed a draft Assembly Resolution on global implementation of the harmonized system of survey and certification, aimed at encouraging all States to implement the harmonized system, even if they are not parties to the relevant Protocols.

The harmonized system of survey and certification was introduced by the 1988 Protocols to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) and the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (1966 Load Line Convention). The 1988 Protocols will enter into force on 3 February 2000. In addition, amendments adopted by IMO, will introduce the system, on the same date, to

• the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78) (Annexes I and II);
• the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code);
• the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code); and
• the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH Code).

The draft resolution agrees that States which are not parties to the 1988 SOLAS and Load Line Protocols may implement the harmonized system of survey and certification as from 3 February 2000 and may issue certificates in the form prescribed by the 1988 SOLAS and Load Line Protocols.

The draft resolution also invites port States to accept the certificates issued as equivalent to the certificates issued under the SOLAS and Load Line Conventions or Protocols in force for those States; and urges States which have not yet become Parties to the 1988 SOLAS and Load Line Protocols to do so as soon as possible.

Amendments to crude oil washing resolution agreed: The Sub-Committee agreed draft amendments to resolution A.446(XI), as amended by resolution A.497(XII) on Amendments to the revised specification for the design, operation and control of crude oil washing systems.

Crude oil washing, which was introduced into MARPOL 73/78 as part of the 1978 Protocol, involves cleaning of oil tanks by crude oil washing, rather than water - in other words, the cargo itself. When sprayed onto the sediments clinging to the tank walls, the oil simply dissolves them, turning them back into usable oil that can be pumped off with the rest of the cargo. There is no need for slop tanks to be used since the process leaves virtually no oily wastes.

The draft amendments agreed by the Sub-Committee are aimed at simplifying the system for monitoring and controlling COW in order to avoid any health risks associated with internal examinations of tanks by surveyors.

The Sub-Committee also agreed proposed amendments to Section 9 of the Standard Format for the COW manual. Section 9 covers Determination of the suitability of a crude oil for use in crude oil washing.

Gas Carrier C ode to remain recommendatory, Sub-Committee agrees: The Sub-Committee agreed not to make the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (GC Code) mandatory for gas carriers built before the date of application of the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code). (The IGC Code is mandatory under SOLAS Chapter VII and applies to gas carriers built after 1 July 1986).

The majority were against making the GC Code mandatory because existing gas carriers, engaged on international voyages, comply with the provisions of the Code and are issued with the certificate of fitness. Making the Code mandatory would only change a "de facto" situation into a "de jure" situation and would not enhance meaningfully the safety of gas carriers.

Further, the majority of the Sub-Committee felt that mandatory status of the GC Code, although not resulting in excessive cost to industry, would create unavoidable burden to administrations, due to the need to introduce changes in legislation at the national level.

Draft circular on cargo-tank venting agreed: The Sub-Committee agreed a draft circular on Application of cargo-tank venting requirements for combined chemical/oil tankers for submission to Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).

Review of Annexes I and II of MARPOL 73/78: The Sub-Committee continued its ongoing revision of Annexes I (oil) and II (noxious liquid substances carried in bulk i.e. chemicals) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78).

The Annexes are being reviewed in order to simplify them and take into account technological and scientific advances relating to protection of the environment.

Carriage requirements for IBC Code products: The Sub-Committee continued work on developing safety and environmental criteria for assigning carriage requirements to products listed in the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code).

Development of criteria for alternative pollution categorization: The Sub-Committee, through its ESPH (Evaluation of Safety and pollution Hazards) Working Group, continued to develop criteria for assigning pollution categories to products covered by Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 under a three category and five category system. As part of the revision of Annex II, the Sub-Committee is reviewing whether to move to a three-category system from the current five-category system for products in order to ensure their safe carriage and protection of the marine environment.

The revised GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) Hazard Evaluation Procedure is being used as a basis for assigning these criteria.

However, the Sub-Committee noted that additional resources would be needed if the evaluation of products by GESAMP is to proceed rapidly enough for the Sub-Committee to meet the target date of 2002 for the completion of the revision of MARPOL Annex II.

The aim of the whole exercise of re-evaluating products is to make the criteria more consistent and meaningful, in line with the global harmonization process for dangerous goods which was begun after the 1992 UNCED Rio Conference.

Chapter 19 of Agenda 21 adopted by UNCED 1992 included a programme on harmonization of classification and labelling of chemicals and the United Nations Committee of Exerts on the transport of Dangerous Goods and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have been acting as clearing houses for the development of harmonized hazard classification systems covering the physical and biological properties that affect safety and protection of the environment.

Product categorization - background

The existing five product category system in Annex II includes categories A, B, C, D plus "other liquid substances".

Should Floating Production Storage and Offloading Units (FPSOs) and Floating Storage Units (FSUs) be classed as "tankers" or "platforms" - or should they have their own regulatory regime? This is one of the key issues to be addressed by a Correspondence Group established by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases to review IMO rules as they relate to FPSOs/FSUs with a view to clarifying the regulations - in particular, discharge requirements.

Currently, the unified interpretations (10.1.1) of Annex I state that when a tanker is used as a FPSO or FSU, it should be treated as an "other platform". This is interpreted by some to mean that discharge and equipment requirements for "drilling rigs and other platforms" apply - which are less stringent than those for "oil tankers".

However, there is a view that it is necessary to establish whether FPSOs should count as "ships other than tankers fitted with cargo spaces...utilized to carry oil in bulk", in which case, more Annex I regulations would be applicable. The main environmental concern is with those regulations covering discharges of oil and oily mixtures into the sea.

Some delegations believe that FPSOs and FSUs demand special regulatory treatment, being neither ships nor drilling platforms.

A view was also expressed that a distinction should be made between rules applicable when the FPSO or FSU is "in transit" and when it is stationary. In general, except when transiting to avoid extreme environmental or emergency conditions, the FPSO or FSU "in transit" has to comply with the applicable provisions of Annex I of MARPOL as an oil tanker.

When on station, the FPSO or FSU is generally subject to the requirements of the flag Administration (for those FPSOs and FSUs that are flagged), those of the coastal State in which the unit operates and those of the industry or voluntarily complied with by the owners/operators.

The Correspondence Group will collate information on the development of FPSOs and FSUs together with information on regional or national regulations which are applicable to them and exchange views on the extent of application of MARPOL Annex I provisions to different types of FPSOs and FSUs.

Review of Annex I of MARPOL - advice sought from Committee

The Sub-Committee continued its ongoing revision of Annex I (oil) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78).

The aim is to produce a user-friendly, simplified Annex, incorporating the various amendments adopted since MARPOL entered into force in 1983. In effect, the numerous amendments to MARPOL have resulted in a complicated set of regulations and unified interpretations. In many cases, it is difficult, and sometimes confusing, for end-users to comprehend the requirements.

The main aims of the proposed new draft Annex are to: delete requirements that will be outdated by the time the new Annex comes into force; separate hardware from operational requirements; and make clear the distinctions between requirements for new and requirements for existing ships (such as the phasing in of double hull requirements for oil tankers), to be included under the so-called "Grandfather clause".

However, developing a format for the new Annex I is proving complex - owing to the complicated nature of the current Annex I. As a result, the Sub-Committee agreed to seek advice from the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) on the way forward, choosing from three options:

The new revised Annex I is scheduled to be completed by 2002.

Review of Annexes II of MARPOL 73/78

The Sub-Committee also continued its ongoing revision of Annex II (noxious liquid substances carried in bulk (i.e. chemicals) of MARPOL 73/78 and made progress on the draft revised text of Annex II.

However, the completion of a revised Annex II is dependent on the completion of the evaluation of products being carried out by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) under the GESAMP revised Hazard Evaluation Procedure. The revised procedure takes into account the ongoing development of harmonized hazard classification systems covering physical and biological properties that affect safety and protection of the environment under the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

GESAMP's Working Group on the Evaluation of Harmful Substances (EHS) is re-evaluating each product, creating a revised GESAMP Hazard Profile (GHP), which is more extensive than the current one. This is then used by the BLG Sub-Committee's ESPH (Evaluation of Safety and Pollution Hazards) Working Group to assign the appropriate Pollution Category and Ship Type for each product when they are transported under Annex II of MARPOL 73/78.

As part of the development of a revised Annex II of MARPOL 73/78, the BLG Sub-Committee is proposing alternative pollution categorisation systems, possibly simplifying the existing 5-Category System for defining Pollution Categories into a 3-Category System. However, final decisions on which system would be most appropriate are dependent on largely completing the product evaluation process - anticipated to be nearing completion by summer 2002.

Work on accidental outflow performance for tankers reviewed

The Sub-Committee reviewed draft new MARPOL regulation on Accidental oil outflow performance, which is intended to provide criteria for the level of protection against oil pollution in the event of stranding or collision. The draft regulation, developed by a Correspondence Group and reviewed by a Working Group during the session, is based on probabilistic methodology for oil outflow analysis.

The draft regulation establishes the maximum permissible "mean oil outflow parameter" depending on the size of tanker - with different levels permitted for different tankers.

The aim is to provide a means of calculating the probable maximum quantity of oil which would actually be released from a double hull tanker should there be damage. This calculation of the mean oil outflow would take into account the likely outflow of oil from cargo tanks which would be captured by non-oil compartments as well as a figure for the probability of a specific cargo tank being penetrated and the extent to which it might be damaged.

The draft regulation is intended to apply to tankers over 600 DWT, with different parameters proposed for tankers under 5,000 DWT and tankers over 5,000 DWT.

The Sub-Committee agreed to re-establish the Correspondence Group to work further on the draft regulation, including the evaluation of a series of tankers less than 5,000 DWT and the evaluation of a series of tanker designs to assess alternative methods for calculating oil capture, with a view to validating the proposed mean oil outflow criteria.

Draft amendments to interim guidelines on alternative oil tankers agreed in principle

The Sub-Committee agreed in principle to draft amendments to the Interim Guidelines for the approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers under regulation I/13F(5), to bring the guidelines into line with the new proposed regulation on Accidental oil outflow performance.

Regulation 13F requires all new tankers to be built with double hulls - but allows in paragraph (5) for "other methods of design and construction of oil tankers" to be accepted provided they "ensure at least the same level of protection against oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding".

The three-category system is based on the premise - in line with the development of the so-called precautionary approach - that no product should be permitted to enter the sea in unlimited quantities, as is the case with Category D and "other liquid substances" under Annex II. Therefore these two categories could be combined, creating a category for substances with limited restrictions.

A second category could combine current categories B and C, since ship technology now makes it easier for all ships to achieve minimum residue levels of 100 litres per tank - so there is no need to differentiate.

The third category would be equivalent to the existing Category A - in other words, substances considered highly environmentally hazardous and which should not be discharged at all.