The U.S submission MEPC 59/10/10 re-introduces the need for a phase-out of oil pollution prevention equipment as follows, referring to the outcome of DE-52: "The United States supports the Sub-Committee's conclusion regarding the proposal for mandatory phase-out of oily water separators and oil discharge monitoring systems complying with resolutions MEPC.60(33) and A.586(14). Specifically, the Sub-Committee concluded it could not achieve the Committee's tasking because the issue was not a dedicated item on the Sub-Committee-s agenda or work programme. Therefore the United States proposes that the Committee establish a dedicated item in the Sub-Committee's work programme and agenda to facilitate completion of the Committee's instructions.
It should be recalled that the U.S. made the request for the phase-out of existing oily water separators (OWS) when MEPC.107(45) came into force. That proposal suggested an OWS replacement at the next dry-docking of an existing ship. It appears that with a positive response to the current U.S. submission a phase-out of pre-MEPC.107(49) OWS in less than 7 years might come to pass; which would be pretty well in line with most clean ship initiatives, including "Green Marine".
Friday, June 12, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
MEPC 59
IMO posted document MEPC 59/1/2, dated June 1, 2009.
The Note by the Chairman proposes the following arrangements for the working, drafting and other groups at MEPC 59:
The GHG issue is one area where the the Friends of the Earth Int'l and other NGOs are pushing hard for progress, asking for considerable fuel consumption reductions.
The Drafting Group for amendments to MARPOL Annex I suggests tightening of the oil pollution regulations. It should be noted there is a US proposal before the MEPC 59 to phase out MEPC.60(33) compliant bilge filtering equipment.
Does the Technical Group on ECA and other Annex VI issues suggest a planned global approach to ECA designations? If so, could it delay passage of the US - Canada application at MEPC 59.
The Note by the Chairman proposes the following arrangements for the working, drafting and other groups at MEPC 59:
- Working Group on GHG Issues;
- Working Group on Guidelines for Ship Recycling;
- Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group on Human Element;
- Drafting Group on Amendments to MARPOL Annex I; and
- Technical Group on Emission Control Area (ECA) and other MARPOL Annex VI related issues.
The GHG issue is one area where the the Friends of the Earth Int'l and other NGOs are pushing hard for progress, asking for considerable fuel consumption reductions.
The Drafting Group for amendments to MARPOL Annex I suggests tightening of the oil pollution regulations. It should be noted there is a US proposal before the MEPC 59 to phase out MEPC.60(33) compliant bilge filtering equipment.
Does the Technical Group on ECA and other Annex VI issues suggest a planned global approach to ECA designations? If so, could it delay passage of the US - Canada application at MEPC 59.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Mandatory Requirements for Polar Shipping
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) expressed the support of a submission by Denmark, Norway and the United States on mandatory requirements for vessels operating in the Polar Regions, with document MEPC 59/20/7, which was posted at the IMO website June 4,2009.
The submission states that due to climate change and the melting of the ice in the Arctic Ocean, it is predicted that international maritime transport will increase significantly in the High Arctic waters.There is also an urgent need to develop vital Arctic maritime infrastructure to support shipping in the region, including: emergency response capacity, appropriate training for mariners, binding requirements for ships operating in polar areas, accurate navigational charts, adequate communications systems and accurate and timely ice information.
It is noteworthy that Canada is not mentioned in the original submission.
The submission states that due to climate change and the melting of the ice in the Arctic Ocean, it is predicted that international maritime transport will increase significantly in the High Arctic waters.There is also an urgent need to develop vital Arctic maritime infrastructure to support shipping in the region, including: emergency response capacity, appropriate training for mariners, binding requirements for ships operating in polar areas, accurate navigational charts, adequate communications systems and accurate and timely ice information.
It is noteworthy that Canada is not mentioned in the original submission.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
ECA for All
Dennis L. Bryant, who does maritime regulatory consulting since his retirement as a marine lawyer, discusses the joint US - Canada proposal for an ECA in the current Maritime Reporter. The interesting portion of his article is his reference "after several years of indecision and debate, the United States Senate gave its advice and consent to the Protocol on April 7, 2006 and, on July 21, 2008, Congress enacted the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008 to implement MARPOL Annex VI domestically."
The above suggests to me that all North American waters will be governed by the ECA requirements, once IMO approves the application. The reason for this thinking is the primary argument for seeking the designation of an ECA. The core argument in the US - Canada submission is the projected health benefit from lower marine air emissions. If the submission is approved, it is approved to protect the health of the population. If the coastal population benefits from fuel switching 200 nautical miles offshore, surely 1/3 of Canada's population will benefit from cleaner fuels in ships traveling HWY H2O!
The above suggests to me that all North American waters will be governed by the ECA requirements, once IMO approves the application. The reason for this thinking is the primary argument for seeking the designation of an ECA. The core argument in the US - Canada submission is the projected health benefit from lower marine air emissions. If the submission is approved, it is approved to protect the health of the population. If the coastal population benefits from fuel switching 200 nautical miles offshore, surely 1/3 of Canada's population will benefit from cleaner fuels in ships traveling HWY H2O!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
GESAMP invites MEPC 59 to:
agree that Final Approval is given to RWO Ballast Water Management System CleanBallast submitted by Germany comprising:
RWO comments additionally: The RWO CleanBallast uses extremely short lived OH-radicals when operating in fresh water. Therefore the system is capable of operating efficiently in fresh water; the system was successfully tested with river water in the port of Bremen.
- Disc Filter unit
- Advanced EctoSys electrolysis
- Neutralization (thiosulphate)
RWO comments additionally: The RWO CleanBallast uses extremely short lived OH-radicals when operating in fresh water. Therefore the system is capable of operating efficiently in fresh water; the system was successfully tested with river water in the port of Bremen.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Some interesting IMO documents of June 1, 2009
MEPC 59/10/7
The International Fund for Animal Welfare expressed their support of IMarEST proposal (DE 52/20/3) on a guide for diagnosing contaminants in oily bilge water, to maintain, operate and troubleshoot bilge water treatment systems. DE-52 observed that "the proposed Guide could be an excellent tool to help engine-room crews to comply with MARPOL Annex I".
MEPC 59/10/10
The USA supports the mandatory phase-out of oily water separators and oil discharge monitoring systems complying with Resolution MEPC.60(33) and A.586(14). Specifically, the Sub-Committee concluded it could not achieve the Committee's tasking, because the issue was not a dedicated item on the Sub-Committe's agenda or work programme. Therefore, the United States proposes that the Committee establish a dedicated item in the Sub-Committee's work programme and agenda to facilitate completion on the Committee's instructions.
I believe that when the above request is followed, we will see the phasing out of "grand-fathered" oil pollution prevention equipment.
If you are interested in the referenced documents, don't hesitate to contact me for a copy.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare expressed their support of IMarEST proposal (DE 52/20/3) on a guide for diagnosing contaminants in oily bilge water, to maintain, operate and troubleshoot bilge water treatment systems. DE-52 observed that "the proposed Guide could be an excellent tool to help engine-room crews to comply with MARPOL Annex I".
MEPC 59/10/10
The USA supports the mandatory phase-out of oily water separators and oil discharge monitoring systems complying with Resolution MEPC.60(33) and A.586(14). Specifically, the Sub-Committee concluded it could not achieve the Committee's tasking, because the issue was not a dedicated item on the Sub-Committe's agenda or work programme. Therefore, the United States proposes that the Committee establish a dedicated item in the Sub-Committee's work programme and agenda to facilitate completion on the Committee's instructions.
I believe that when the above request is followed, we will see the phasing out of "grand-fathered" oil pollution prevention equipment.
If you are interested in the referenced documents, don't hesitate to contact me for a copy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
