China’s new low-sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) futures contract made strong gains in its debut trade on Monday, rising as much as 16.7% on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE).

The front-month January contract, with a listing price of 2,368 yuan per tonne, later pared gains to close 9.8% higher at 2,599 yuan ($367.35) per tonne at the close of afternoon trade.

The contract saw open interest of 24,859 lots and trading volumes of 130,439 lots.

The launch of the contract with sulphur content lower than 0.5% comes after an International Maritime Organization (IMO) ruling which bans ships from using high sulphur content fuel oil this year unless equipped with exhaust scrubbers.

The contract could help boost China’s ambition to build a regional bunkering hub in its port of Zhoushan to vie for the multi-billion dollar ship fuel market dominated by Singapore.

Prices for LSFO futures jumped as the market felt its listing price, set by the Shanghai exchange, was undervalued and came below Zhoushan’s spot prices and Singapore’s 0.5% marine fuel prices, said Jin Xiao, chief analyst for energy and petrochemicals at Orient Futures research unit.

“Considering that the long-term curve of Singapore’s low-sulphur is in a contango structure, we think it is more reasonable for LSFO prices to have a premium to Zhoushan spot prices,” he said.

Contango is a situation where the futures price of a commodity is higher than the spot price.

Open to international investors, the LSFO contract is China’s fifth internationalized one following the opening up of crude oil, TSR 20 rubber, iron ore and purified terephthalic acid futures to foreign participants.

“LSFO prices will see limited declines mainly due to the fact that the most serious impact of the coronavirus epidemic on the economy has ended, demand will gradually recover,” Jin added.

A Shanghai-based trader who traded the contract said whether or not LSFO’s prices could sustain would depend on the demand and supply of the marine fuel.

“In the short term, it will depend on crude oil, which is expected to trend slightly higher.”

($1 = 7.0750 Chinese yuan renminbi)

(Reporting by Muyu Xu in Beijing and Emily Chow; Editing by Tom Hogue and Amy Caren Daniel)


A significant step has been made to protect seafarers’ health and safety amid the COVID-19 pandemic, with IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim’s endorsement of a series of recommendations designed to ensure seafarers can access medical care ashore quickly and safely.

Receiving medical care ashore can be a matter of life or death for seafarers who fall ill while working on ships. But since the beginning of the pandemic, there have been cases of seafarers being denied permission to go ashore, even when they presented medical issues that were life-threatening but not related to COVID-19, including a stroke (read more here).

The Recommendations for port and coastal States on the prompt disembarkation of seafarers for medical care ashore during the COVID-19 pandemic (download here) seek to address this issue. Developed by a broad cross section of global industry associations in consultative status with IMO, they provide guidance to the relevant authorities in port and coastal States so they can ensure seafarers’ access to medical care. This covers any medical situation but also when a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 is involved.

The recommendations include advice on monitoring for signs or symptoms of COVID-19 prior to disembarkation, isolation of suspected or confirmed cases, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and minimizing the exposure to infrastructures and personnel in the port during disembarkation and transfer to a medical facility.

Disembark_banner_02_small

IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim urged Member States to implement the recommendations and share them with the relevant authorities.

“Seafarers are at the heart of everything IMO does. In the darkest hours of the pandemic, they have been selflessly delivering the goods we all need. But their own health and wellbeing are as important as that of anyone else. Now is time for governments around the world to deliver for seafarers, by ensuring they can access medical care without delay, whenever they need it”, Mr. Lim said.

Under the International Labour Organization’s Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), port States must ensure that seafarers on board ships in their territory who are in need of immediate medical care are given access to medical facilities on shore. The obligation to render assistance to seafarers in distress, including medical assistance, is also enshrined in the IMO Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR), Salvage and Facilitation conventions, as well as in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Prompt and efficient disembarkation of seafarers to receive medical care ashore is essential not only for the seafarers’ health, but also for the maintenance of the global supply chain. Due to COVID-related restrictions, ships have faced difficulties arranging for such disembarkation, causing delays or disruptions to their operations and potential danger to the seafarers themselves.

evacuated_seafarer_2_smaller

The Recommendations for port and coastal States on the prompt disembarkation of seafarers for medical care ashore during the COVID-19 pandemic were developed by ICS, IAPH, BIMCO, IFSMA, INTERTANKO, P&I Clubs, CLIA, INTERCARGO, InterManager, IPTA, IMCA, INTERFERRY, FONASBA, ITF and WSC.

Read more: WISTA International Signs MOU With The International Maritime Organisation, IMO

Since May, IMO has been urging its Member States to implement the Recommended framework of protocols for ensuring safe ship crew changes and travel during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, which were also drawn up by industry associations. These protocols specifically ask governments to designate seafarers as key workers and to do everything possible to allow crew changes to happen. Implementing these protocols remains vital, as hundreds of thousands of seafarers remain stranded on ships, having worked for several months beyond their original contracts, or, conversely, stuck onshore, unable to join ships and work.
Source: IMO


A new report from Environmental Defense Fund and University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS) has argued that the International Maritime Organization should follow the lead taken by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in promoting the move to sustainable fuels and accounting for emissions.

Specifically, the report looks at how elements of the ICAO’s market-based climate programme, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), could be adopted in the context of shipping.  According to Environmental Defense Fund, ICAO’s sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) framework offers a ‘solid blueprint for the shipping sector’ – but the report also identifies areas where the IMO ‘should be more ambitious than ICAO to ensure that shipping transitions away from fossil fuels’.

Aoife O’Leary, Director with the Environmental Defense Fund, commented: ‘The International Maritime Organization and the shipping industry need to put in place the right rules for alternative fuels to truly drive the decarbonisation of the sector and it does not need to start from scratch. The rules recently adopted by ICAO offer valuable lessons and a good starting place for the IMO to chart its course toward a genuinely sustainable shipping sector.’

The report’s key recommendations include:

  • Shipping must adopt a full lifecycle perspective, accounting for all greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, and ensure accurate calculations of both the direct and indirect impacts of emissions associated with the whole supply chain (extraction/production, transport/distribution and combustion) of the fuel.

Environmental Defense Fund said that this would be a ‘complex task’, but maintained that ‘ICAO has successfully done it for aviation and the IMO can use this work to jump-start its own progress’.

  • Careful rules must be applied to ensure that the use of biofuels has a real climate benefit. Shipping must ensure that biofuels are not automatically granted a zero-emission status.

Environmental Defense Fund said this was necessary as not all ‘biofuels’ are equally green.

‘The CORSIA framework sets out explicit rules for calculating emissions reductions for each biofuel pathway,’ explained Environmental Defense Fund. ‘It does not automatically allow all biofuels to claim zero carbon combustion emissions (as some other emissions accounting systems have done), as their lifecycle emissions can in some cases approach or even exceed those of petroleum fuels.

‘The report warns the IMO not to create perverse incentives which could promote fuels that could worsen the climate crisis.’

Dr Nishatabbas Rehmatulla, Senior Researcher, UCL and Principal Consultant, UMAS, commented: ‘Using the most appropriate science is key to making the right decisions for our environment. Shipping, as aviation, should ensure that all the emissions from a fuel – from the production to the distribution to the combustion itself – are accounted for if we are to understand the real climate impact. A meaningful policy must incentivise a fair, sustainable and non-perverse shift away from fossil and avoid the risk that emissions are simply shifted elsewhere. Getting this right is mission critical to the shipping industry’s decarbonisation pathway.’

The  report also call on the IMO to:

  • Adopt strict rules on transparency to ensure that shipping companies accurately report their emissions, and don’t double count emission reductions.
  • Allocate adequate resources and draw on the experience and lessons learned from ICAO, where appropriate, to get these rules right.

A full copy of the report can be download here.

The Environmental Defense Fund will be contributing an article about this report in the forthcoming August/September issue of the Bunkerspot magazine. 

 

Source: bunkerspot


Recently the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the shipping agency of the United Nations, issued new rules aiming to reduce sulphur emissions, due to which ships are opting for newer blends of fuels.

What are the new rules of IMO?

  • It has banned ships from using fuels with a sulphur content above 0.5 per cent, compared with 3.5 per cent previously. Because sulphur oxides (SOx), which are formed after combustion in engines, are known to cause respiratory symptoms and lung disease, while also leading to acid rain.
  • The new limits are monitored and enforced by national authorities of countries that are members of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI.
  • As per the new policy, only ships fitted with sulphur-cleaning devices, known as scrubbers, are allowed to continue burning high-sulphur fuel.
  • Alternatively, they can opt for cleaner fuels, such as marine gas oil (MGO) and very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO).

Impact of the move

The new regulations, called IMO 2020, have been regarded as the biggest shake-up for the oil and shipping industries in decades. It affects more than 50,000 merchant ships worldwide.

A brief note on The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)

  • MARPOL is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes.
  • The MARPOL Convention was adopted on 2 November 1973 at IMO.
  • The Convention includes regulations aimed at preventing and minimizing pollution from ships – both accidental pollution and that from routine operations – and currently includes six technical Annexes. Special Areas with strict controls on operational discharges are included in most Annexes.
  • Annex VI of the Convention: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (entered into force 19 May 2005)
    • It sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances; designated emission control areas set more stringent standards for SOx, NOx and particulate matter.
    • A chapter adopted in 2011 covers mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ships.Source: manifestias

Not for the first time in recent weeks shipping has been urged to take a leaf out of the aviation playbook in terms of how it tackles its carbon footprint.

Shipping, as aviation, should ensure that all the emissions from a fuel – from the production to the distribution to the combustion itself – are accounted for if we are to understand the real climate impact

A new 28-page report issued today by Environmental Defense Fund and the influential University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS) states that shipping will fail to tackle its global greenhouse gas emissions unless it puts in place rules that truly reflect the climate impact of shipping fuels.

The report is the first of its kind to explore whether the processes for delivering rules for sustainable marine fuels can be sped up using lessons learnt from aviation, a sector facing similar challenges in transitioning to sustainable alternative fuels.

The report considers how sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) or eligible fuels elements of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) market-based climate program, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), could be adopted in the context of shipping. The analysis shows that ICAO’s SAF framework offers a solid blueprint for the shipping sector. The report also identifies areas where the IMO should be more ambitious than ICAO to ensure that shipping transitions away from fossil fuels.

“The International Maritime Organization and the shipping industry need to put in place the right rules for alternative fuels to truly drive the decarbonisation of the sector and it does not need to start from scratch. The rules recently adopted by ICAO offer valuable lessons and a good starting place for the IMO to chart its course toward a genuinely sustainable shipping sector,” said Aoife O’Leary, director with the Environmental Defense Fund.

In the absence of robust accounting rules, the climate benefit of alternative fuels can be completely undermined, the report warns. Shipping must adopt a full lifecycle perspective, accounting for all greenhouse gas emissions, including methane – a likely swipe at LNG, and ensure accurate calculations of both the direct and indirect impacts of emissions associated with the whole supply chain (extraction/production, transport/distribution and combustion) of the fuel.

The study calls for the application of careful rules to ensure that the use of biofuels has a real climate benefit.

“Shipping must ensure that biofuels are not automatically granted a zero-emission status,” the report states.

The CORSIA framework in aviation sets out explicit rules for calculating emissions reductions for each biofuel pathway. It does not automatically allow all biofuels to claim zero carbon combustion emissions as some other emissions accounting systems have done, as their lifecycle emissions can in some cases approach or even exceed those of petroleum fuels.

The report warns the IMO not to create perverse incentives which could promote fuels that could worsen the climate crisis.

“Using the most appropriate science is key to making the right decisions for our environment. Shipping, as aviation, should ensure that all the emissions from a fuel – from the production to the distribution to the combustion itself – are accounted for if we are to understand the real climate impact. A meaningful policy must incentivise a fair, sustainable and non-perverse shift away from fossil and avoid the risk that emissions are simply shifted elsewhere. Getting this right is mission critical to the shipping industry’s decarbonisation pathway,” said Dr Nishatabbas Rehmatulla, senior researcher at UCL and principal consultant for UMAS.

The authors also call on the IMO to adopt strict rules on transparency to ensure that shipping companies accurately report their emissions, and don’t double count emission reductions.

The topic of aviation and maritime joining forces to develop new clean fuels was brought up during Capital Link’s digital forum last month by Knut Ørbeck-Nilssen, the CEO of DNV GL Maritime.

Esben Poulsson, chairman of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), commented that shipping had had close dialogue with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) during the crew change crisis.

“I found them very, very responsive and quick to come back to us,” Poulsson said, adding: “I think in the future there could be some cooperation and collaboration with the airline industry.”

Splash also reported last month how a front-runner for the next generation of green fuel for the aviation industry could be used for ships.

Oslo-headquartered Norsk e-Fuel is a newly-established industry consortium building Europe’s first commercial plant for hydrogen-based renewable aviation fuel.

The group comprises German power-to-liquid specialist Sunfire, Zurich-based carbon capture expert Climeworks, engineering, procurement and construction company Paul Wurth and green investor Valinor, which owns Norway’s largest private wind power developer Norsk Vind.

Norsk e-Fuel will make use of Sunfire and Climeworks’ technologies to build plants that will convert into syngas renewable electricity, water and carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from ambient air and unavoidable CO2 sources. This syngas will be used for the production of renewable fuels through further processing and refining.

The first such facility is planned to open at the Heroya Industry Park in Porsgrunn by 2023 with an initial capacity to produce 10m litres of renewable fuel per year. There are plans to expand it to 100m litres annually by 2026.

Source: splash247

The EU Ship Recycling Regulation (the “EU Regulation”) was adopted in 2013 and is in essence an early implementation in the EU of the Hong Kong Convention for the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships (adopted in 2009); both of which aim to reduce the negative impacts on human health and the environment arising from the recycling of end of life ships. Under the EU Regulation, from 31 December 2020 all EU flagged and non-EU flagged vessels that call at a port or anchorage in an EU member state must have an Inventory of Hazardous Materials (“IHM”) on board.

There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that of the approximately 35,000 vessels that will be required to comply with the EU Regulation by 31 December 2020, almost a third have not yet begun the work required to prepare and have certified an IHM. In addition to the global COVID-19 restrictions preventing site visits and in-person inspections to carry out the work required to compile IHMs, the sheer volume of vessels that will require expert assistance in this area means the risk of vessels failing to comply with the EU Regulation by the end of this year is very real.

While steps are being taken to address these concerns, including remote IHM surveys, it remains to be seen whether this will be enough.
The EU Regulation

The EU Regulation has come into force gradually since its adoption seven years ago. Articles 4 and 5 of the EU Regulation deal with the control of hazardous substances and set out the requirement for an IHM generally. The general concept behind the IHM centres on the need to reduce harm to the environment and worker exposure to hazardous materials in shipbreaking yards; issues which have been well publicised recently.

While the requirement for an IHM for all new EU flagged vessels came into force on 31 December 2018, from 31 December 2020, the EU Regulation has far wider applicability and, specifically, the IHM requirement will apply to all other EU flagged vessels and any non-EU flagged vessels that call at a port or anchorage in an EU member state.

These obligations under Art. 4 and 5 are reinforced through additional requirements in the EU Regulation including:

• “Initial”, “Renewal”, and “Additional” Surveys to be undertaken throughout the vessel’s operational life in order to monitor compliance with the Regulation (including the IHM requirement);
• Member States being empowered to certify compliance with the EU Regulation; and
• A Final Survey to be undertaken prior to the vessel being taken out of service.

It is the responsibility and obligation of the shipowners to ensure that their vessels comply with the EU Regulation.
Practical considerations: what is required?

In broad terms, an IHM is a list setting out vessel-specific information as to the hazardous materials onboard (including their location and quantities). Under Art. 5(5) of the EU Regulation, an IHM shall consist of three parts:

• Materials contained in the vessel itself, or equipment (Part I);
• Operationally generated waste (Part II); and
• Stores onboard the vessel (Part III).

The International Maritime Organisation (“IMO”) Guidelines provide further, more specific detail in relation to what materials must be recorded in the IHM. The EU Regulation requires that Part I be prepared and certified for new vessels and those already in operation and shall be maintained during the vessel’s operational life. Parts II and III need only be prepared when the vessel is to be recycled, in accordance with the other requirements of the EU Regulation.

The IMO Guidelines provide further detail about the requirements for developing the IHM. The preparation of the IHM for new ships seems, on the face of it, more straightforward as it simply requires declarations from suppliers at an early design and construction stage (in relation to Part I) as to the hazardous material content of products used. However, experience of compliance with similar requirements in other established EU waste law, particularly ROHS (Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electronic and Electrical Equipment), suggests that establishing materials used in the production of many thousands of components is likely to be a significant endeavour.

This difficulty will be compounded for operational ships, where materials are already installed and will require visual and sampling checks by IHM service providers (and where the original supplier of some components may no longer exist). The inspection process depends largely on the size and type of the vessel, but it is generally estimated to take at least three months to prepare and certify an IHM.

Current estimates indicate that there are approximately 35,000 vessels which need to comply with the EU Regulation from 31 December 2020 and of that number, approximately a third have yet to begin the work required to demonstrate compliance.To complicate the picture further, current global restrictions arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic present real hurdles to shipowners looking to finalise their IHM for certification, ahead of the 31 December 2020 deadline.

In response to these mounting concerns, on 20 April 2020, the International Association of Classification Societies (“IACS”) issued a letter to the wider industry relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, in response to the industry suggestion that IHM surveys be undertaken remotely subject to an extended survey during the first year, IACS responded “The initial desktop review may be performed remotely and followed up by onboard verification at a later date, subject to Flag Administration approval”.

Additionally, it was announced in May 2020 that US classification society ABS had expanded its offering to include an IHM remote survey. Through a web-based platform, users can submit a survey request together with all supporting information, including reports, photos and videos, which is then reviewed by an ABS surveyor in order for a “non-attendance verification” of the survey to be made.¹¹

We are aware that a number of trade and industry bodies have written to the EU Commission requesting an extension of the deadline for compliance to allow for the unprecedented delays caused by COVID-19. While it is quite possible that a delay may be granted there is of course no guarantee of this, and it would be unwise to rely upon it.
Conclusion

The delay caused by COVID-19 is unprecedented but it does only represent a six-month period in the seven years since the adoption of the EU Regulation; the direction of travel towards safer environmental and health and safety practices in the maritime sector and more robust regulation of the same has been clear for some time. It remains to be seen how the EU Commission will respond to requests to extend the current 31 December 2020 deadline and, in the interim, it would be prudent for shipowners to continue to move forward with plans to ensure compliance with the EU Regulation, including considering remote inspections as alternatives to in-person site visits and inspections.

There are obvious limitations in relying on a virtual inspection to meet the IHM compliance of a vessel, and these will no doubt be reflected in the assurance and warranties provided by the service providers. Additionally, it remains to be seen how those inspecting IHMs will treat significant discrepancies between a ‘virtual’ IHM and the vessel itself. However, in view of the fact that there is now less than six months to comply with the EU Regulation, it may be the best means available of demonstrating compliance in the short term.

Source: Watson Farley & Williams LLP.


Some of the world’s largest shipowning organisations have written to Virginijus Sinkevičius, the European Commissioner for the environment, oceans and fisheries, urging for a delay of the Europe Unions’s impending shipping hazardous materials regulation.

As of December 31 2020, mobile offshore units and vessels sailing under an EU member states’ flag, or MOUs and vessels calling at a European port will be required to have an inventory of hazardous materials (IHM) onboard, a shipping regulation designed to make ship recycling greener that has been in the pipeline for the last seven years.

Inspection capacity is being squeezed, lifting survey prices while the threat of port state control detentions and fines draws inexorably closer

The heads of Bimco, Intertanko, Intercargo and the European and Asian shipowners’ associations are among eight signatories in the letter sent this week asking for a 12-month delay citing the lateness in regulators getting the methodology fixed for what the IHMs need to contain as well as problems to fix site visits thanks to the coronavirus pandemic.

Law firm Watson Farley & Williams suggests that almost a third of the 35,000 vessels that will be required to comply with the EU regulation by the end of the year have yet to begin the work required to prepare and have certified an IHM. Typically, pre-Covid-19, the law firm suggests it takes at least three months to prepare and certify an IHM.

“In addition to the global Covid-19 restrictions preventing site visits and in-person inspections to carry out the work required to compile IHMs, the sheer volume of vessels that will require expert assistance in this area means the risk of vessels failing to comply with the EU Regulation by the end of this year is very real,” the law firm warned in a recent update.

“Shipowners are probably feeling the pressure now as inspection capacity is being squeezed, lifting survey prices while the threat of port state control detentions and fines draws inexorably closer,” a source in the ship recycling sector told Splash.

Source:splash247


In the hazmat world today, most large organizations follow a time-honored process for identifying critical compliance needs and spend the money necessary to make it work. It is a process that tilts the compliance board in advantage of the bigger players.

It starts with a sophisticated purchasing or procurement system, usually with a module that enables environmental health and safety (EHS) staff to review and approve all incoming hazardous items. Nothing arrives into a big company unnoticed. Next, the chemical or product is tracked through some type of bar code or RFID-tagged inventory management system, and data on its location and specific usage is recorded.

Material safety data sheets (MSDSs) are obtained and tracked, using a sophisticated document and data management system that is tied into procurement and chemical tracking. At the end of all this, compliance reports required by EPA and local agencies are generated and submitted, usually electronically. At this point, management plans are made or modified, staff are trained or retrained and the company moves forward safely until the next monthly review period.

This utopian view of compliance management has been practiced for so long in so many high-profile companies that it has become the de facto process for managing compliance. In the world most EHS managers live in, however, the tools and resources just described do not exist. Companies today are forced to manage hazardous materials with limited budgets, staff, tools and systems.

Today, organizations need to create a new framework that takes into account the whole picture of hazmat compliance and its effect on the organization. Companies need to set their sights and marshal resources in one key area – an accurate hazmat inventory.

The picture begins with an accurate, up-to-date inventory of the pure chemicals, mixtures and products within the organization. The inventory becomes the foundation upon which the company manages other critical data and turns that data into knowledge on the hazards present in each of its facilities. This knowledge, when applied on a geographical, functional and hierarchal level within an organization, helps EHS staff make better business decisions.

This increases the value of the organization by reducing risk, cost and liability. A good hazmat inventory improves the bottom line and the basics are easy to understand and implement.

The Inventory

How Often? The frequency with which an inventory should be reviewed will depend on the size of the business and number of locations/departments that contain hazardous materials, the sophistication of purchasing and approval processes and the expected turnover of chemicals and other hazardous materials.

In an ideal world, a master inventory should be taken at least annually by the person responsible for the inventory in a specific location/department. Each new purchase or disposal should be tracked and the inventory modified throughout the year. EHS supervisors at each facility should have pre-purchase review and approval rights for any new product or chemical. Inventories from separate locations within an organization should be rolled up into a corporate-level inventory for analysis and to ensure consistency in process and purchasing.

What Data to Record? At a minimum, the location of each product or chemical should be recorded as well as the container size and quantity on hand of the material, the name of the product or chemical, the name of the company that made the product or chemical and any part number or description assigned by the manufacturer. This basic data will enable EHS staff to match the item to an MSDS, which can provide all the critical data needed for reporting and exposures.

Problems: The staff conducting the inventory may come across unlabeled, illegible and secondary labeled containers. Record these items in a separate discrepancy document, with their specific location and description, then physically flag the item itself, with stickers, labels or string that is easily visible. Review the discrepancy document at the completion of the inventory process to determine appropriate actions such as re-identifying products with appropriate labels and/or removing products from the facility.

Completing the Picture

Once an accurate inventory is obtained, it is possible to begin to add value to each record by associating other data, documents or records with each inventory item and supporting this information with on-site EHS staff or outside resources to assist employees in use and interpretation. This is an important step in seeing the “whole picture.”

MSDSs: Associate each item in the inventory with a manufacturer-specific MSDS and keep the inventory list and MSDS available for easy access by employees. The MSDS provides vital information for exposures and the specific characteristics of the chemicals in a product or mixture. Many companies keep the inventory list and corresponding MSDS in a file – hard copy or electronic – forever to meet OSHA’s exposure record keeping requirements. A process for obtaining new or updated MSDSs will be required as products change, or MSDSs go out of date.

Classification: Assign each item in the inventory a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and Hazardous Materials Identification System (HMIS) rating and classify the item for common modes of transport. NFPA has a system for identifying the hazards of a chemical that was developed with the needs of fire protection agencies in mind. The local fire department may require this information be provided along with the chemical inventory.

The HMIS rating is a labeling system developed by the National Paint and Coatings Association to quickly identify the hazards associated with a certain material. Inventory items should also receive a classification based on how the item is shipped, whether by ground, air or vessel. Each mode requires a different classification based on the size and quantity of the chemicals being transported.

Further instructions also will be needed on how to properly package different types of hazardous materials, what marking and labels go on the package, which placards go on the vehicle, how to complete the required shipping documentation and who to call in a transport emergency.

Why is the inventory so important? Because with so many companies doing it so poorly, a company that does it right gains a significant strategic advantage. When analyzed, the size and diversity of hazardous products within an organization is almost always a surprise. EHS staff and managers have not seen the “whole picture” and the result is misguided programs, misleading reporting, insufficient training and poor decision-making.

The accuracy of the inventory has cascading affects within an organization, from specific EHS responsibilities to employee well-being, management decision-making and corporate responsibility. If even 10 percent of your inventory is inaccurate, the following issues may arise:

MSDS Compliance – MSDSs will not always be available when needed, or when reviewed may contain outdated information. Staff may be spending valuable time and resources acquiring and maintaining MSDS for products that are not used or stored on site. At the same time, if a company uses its MSDS files as its 30-year exposure record, it could include chemicals and products that were not actually used, thus increasing the company’s potential liability.

Chemical Exposures – On-site data may not be available for the chemicals to which an employee is exposed. If the data is provided, it may refer to a previous or generic version of the product, increasing the likelihood of mistreatment.

Disposal of Hazardous Waste – The designated budget for disposal costs may be inadequate if there are items being used and disposed/recycled that the company is unaware of. Contingency planning for emergency response will be incomplete.

Regulatory Reporting – Sensitive chemicals (such as those that appear on SARA 302 Extremely Hazardous Substances List) may be excluded from required reporting. Items listed on the inventory but not actually used or stored on site could trigger higher reporting thresholds and unnecessarily lead to higher fees related to the amount reported.

Training and Preparedness – An incomplete inventory can hamper employee awareness of the chemicals in their workplace. This significantly increases the risk of exposure or injury and the related cost of treatment. Lack of related inventory data, such as MSDS and storage quantities, also can mean that all hazards are not properly evaluated.

Similarly, if a company assumes that the inventories at all sites or departments within its organization are the same, the following issues may arise:

MSDS Compliance – Site-specific MSDSs are not immediately available, in another building or office, or are completely unavailable. In a true emergency, such as ingestion, inhalation or exposure, treatment information contained on the MSDS will not be accessible by responding personnel. The company is then out of compliance with the Hazard Communication standard, which requires access to MSDSs for employees, with no barriers. This exposes the organization to the most commonly cited OSHA violations.

Chemical Exposures – If a company is unaware of the specific hazards at a given site or within a department, it may not be prepared to respond to employee exposure or injury. In addition, it may not have proper personal protective equipment, eyewash stations or containment tools in place for the specific chemicals used or stored at a site.

Disposal of Hazardous Waste – Established processes for handling specific waste streams may not be adequate. This could lead to waste on site, and the related risk and cost, longer than necessary. Uncertainty about what exactly is in a company’s waste stream may result in using waste contractors that do not have proper training, certification, tools and insurance to properly handle its needs. This applies to its staff as well, who may not have the training and tools to manage the waste they are generating.

Regulatory Reporting – Using a “master” report based on one location as representative of all locations may cause some chemicals to be reported unnecessarily. This could also trigger additional local or state reporting and their associated cost. The reverse also is true: A “master” report could leave some chemicals unreported, increasing risk and opening the company up to potential fines for not reporting the true on-site chemicals.

Training and Preparedness – Without an understanding of the exact nature of the hazards at a specific location, proper training will not be possible. Locations where the amounts of hazards have been underestimated will not have enough training. This is amplified in situations where substances that require unique handling procedures, such as lead and mercury, are found on site. Overtraining also can occur, which unnecessarily increases training cost.

Simply starting with an accurate inventory can result in more wins under your belt. By focusing efforts on gathering and analyzing the right information, EHS personnel can impact the cost for their organization to acquire, track, store, ship and dispose of hazardous materials and improve the understanding of hazardous materials among the employees throughout the organization.

EHS departments are winning every day because they are looking at the right data and making good decisions. Strive to become one of them.

Jess Kraus is the founder of the 3E Co. of Carlsbad, Calif. For more information, visit http://www.3ecompany.com.


The importance of issues related to ship scrapping and the need to regulate them was recognized by the international community as early as in the 1980s. Ships are considered waste after the end of their operation and as such are subject to the Basel Convention of 22 March 1989 on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal and the Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 14, 2006 on shipments of waste. The Regulation implements the provisions of the Basel Convention, as well as an amendment to this Convention (adopted in 1995), which has not yet entered into force at international level, and which introduces a ban on the export of hazardous waste to countries that are not members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Ships are normally classified as hazardous waste and their export from the European Union for recycling purposes to plants located in non-OECD countries is prohibited.

The issue of limiting the negative impact of the ship recycling process on human health and the environment and preventing accidents, injuries and other adverse events, as well as increasing safety, protecting human health and the marine environment at every stage of the ship’s life cycle, in particular by ensuring the ecological management of hazardous waste from ship recycling, was reflected in the International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, adopted under the auspices of IMO on May 15, 2009 in Hong Kong. It is worth emphasizing that the Hong Kong Convention is the result of cooperation between IMO, the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the Secretariat of the Basel Convention. The agreement reached in 2009 to provide an efficient and effective solution to the problem of harmful and hazardous ship recycling can be considered as an action aimed at introducing mandatory requirements in this respect at the global level.

The Hong Kong Convention covers the entire life cycle of a ship: regulates the design, construction, operation, including modernization and reconstruction, and preparation for recycling to facilitate safe and environmentally sound scrapping, without compromising the safety and operational efficiency of a ship. It also regulates the safe and environmentally sound operation of ship recycling facilities and establishes control and enforcement mechanisms for ship recycling.

The Hong Kong Convention will enter into force 24 months after ratification by at least 15 countries, representing 40 per cent of world merchant shipping by gross tonnage, and the combined maximum annual ship recycling volume over the previous 10 years will be no less than 3 per cent of the gross tonnage of the total merchant fleet of these countries. Unfortunately, eleven years after the adoption of the text of the Convention, none of the above conditions has yet been met.

Ship recycling has also become the subject of work of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which has published a series of ISO 30000 standards. This series is a kind of guide on ship recycling, with references to issues related to safety, health and environmental protection. ISO activities in this area are focused on supporting IMO in pursuing the goals set by the Hong Kong Convention, such as a cleaner environment and safer work in recycling plants. It is worth noting that the ISO 30000 series of standards are consistent with ISO 9001 (quality management systems), ISO 14001 (environmental management) and ISO 28000 (security in the global supply chain).

After the adoption of the Hong Kong Convention in 2009, the ship recycling topic has not been taken off the agenda of the International Maritime Organization. During several meetings in 2012-2015, its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted a number of guidelines containing detailed solutions in the field of ship recycling and the functioning of ship recycling facilities. They were:

  • Resolution MEPC.210(63), adopted on March 2, 2012: 2012 Guidelines for Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling;
  • Resolution MEPC.211(63), adopted on March 2, 2012: 2012 Guidelines for the Authorization of Ship Recycling Facilities;
  • Resolution MEPC.222(64), adopted on October 5, 2012: 2012 Guidelines for the Survey and Certification of Ships under the Hong Kong Convention;
  • Resolution MEPC.223(64), adopted on October 5, 2012: 2012 Guidelines for the Inspection of Ships under the Hong Kong Convention;
  • Revised guidelines for the Inventory of Hazardous Materials. Threshold values for radioactive substances. Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR), January 2015;
  • Resolution MEPC.269(68), adopted on May 15, 2015: 2015 Guidelines for the Development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials.

Observing the slow pace of ratification of the Hong Kong Convention, the European Union took its legislative action by issuing Regulation (EU) No. 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on November 20, 2013 on ship recycling. An EU initiative was aimed to:

  • facilitating the early ratification of the Hong Kong Convention;
  • introducing adequate control measures for ships and ship recycling facilities – both in European Union countries and outside the Union;
  • reducing differences between countries in the field of health and safety at work and environmental standards, as well as between recycling plants in meeting the requirements and implementing the principles for safe and environmentally sound recycling;
  • introducing the obligation to maintain a European list of ship recycling facilities (European list), which can only include ship recycling facilities that meet the requirements for safe and environmentally sound recycling under the Hong Kong Convention and ensure a high level of protection of workers’ lives and health, thereby excluding plants that do not meet the minimum conditions;
  • the harmonization of guidelines introduced by the Hong Kong Convention, the MEPC Committee and other documents regarding ship recycling and ship recycling facilities.

Pursuant to the provisions of Regulation (EU) 1257/2013, from December 31, 2020, any vessel with a gross tonnage of 500 GT and above entering a port or anchorage of an EU Member State will be required to have a verified Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM) and Inventory certificates (for EU vessels) or Certificate of compliance (for non-EU vessels). It is worth emphasizing that this requirement will apply to ships flying the flag of both an EU and non-EU countries.

It should be recalled that from December 31, 2018 Regulation (EU) 1257/2013 introduced the requirement that ships with a gross tonnage of 500 GT or more flying the flag of an EU Member State should be recycled only at facilities that are on the European list of ship recycling facilities. Link to European list

The European Union’s actions on ship recycling are similar to its actions on monitoring, reporting and verification of CO2 emissions from ships. Regulation (EU) 757/2015 of the European Parliament and of the Council on monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport entered into force on 1 July 2015. Its requirements apply to ships with a gross tonnage above 5000 GT and relate to CO2 emissions from ships during their voyages from the last port to a port of a European Union Member State and voyages from a port of a Member State of the Union to the next port, as well as within a port of a EU State member. This regulation applies to all flag vessels in the same way.

It is also worth pointing out that the guidelines on ship recycling were prepared in 2016 by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) in cooperation with other maritime organizations and associations, including IACS (of which PRS is a member), BIMCO, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and OCIMF. Such a broad approach to the problem of recycling shows that the industry understands the need to conduct this process in a controlled manner. Link to the guidelines

Recognizing the importance of the issue of ship recycling for the protection of health and the environment, the Polish Register of Shipping has prepared its information publications. Those are:

  • Publication No. 31/I – Regulations for Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships – 2012. The publication contains Supplement – Expert Parties Engaged in Visual and/or Sampling Checks for Preparation of Inventory of Hazardous Materials based on IACS Recommendation No. 131 (Rev. Oct 1, 2012);
  • Publication No. 33/I – Recycling of Ship – March 2017, which is an extension of the requirements of Publication No. 106/P – Eco Class Rules – January 2017.

The above documents, which are available at www.prs.pl, familiarize PRS customers and interested parties with recycling issues and help prepare for the implementation of relevant requirements. One of them, which will come into force at the end of 2020, is having a List of hazardous materials. PRS verifies such lists. In addition, PRS issues Inventory Certificates, Ready for Recycling Certificates and Statements of Compliance.

Source: prs.pl


The new notation is applicable to both newbuildings and ships in operation. Ship owners can decide on the set of qualifiers that are best suited to their specific safety objectives and can then choose the most efficient measures and technologies to reach those objectives.

The complete rule publication includes technical updates for both hull, materials, machinery and system related topics and offers four new class notations and also more class notations being upgraded to align with new technology and industry needs.

A more detailed presentation of the 2020 edition of the DNV GL rules for classification of ships follows below:

 

DNV GL rules for classification of ships – July 2020 edition

The 2020 July edition of DNV GL rules for Ships classification of ships is now available on our Rules and Standards page.

1. General information

New and amended rules were formally approved on June 19th 2020 by Group CEO Remi Eriksen and are included in the July 2020 edition of the rules.

The changes to the rules may be categorized as:

  • 1. New and revised class notations
  • 2. Implementation of external requirements (IACS unified requirements and relevant IMO codes)
  • 3. General updates and corrections

The entry into force date for these rules is 1st of January 2021, with the exception of two specific topics which are identified in the details below. The rules may, however, be applied to projects contracted before this date upon agreement between parties.

For more information on the changes, please contact your local DNV GL office. You can also find more details under “current – changes” in the separate documents.

 

2. Main changes

Below is given a general overview of the more important changes in the DNV GL rules for classification of ships.

 

2.1 New class notations

Additional class notations

Class notation Rule reference DNVGL-RU-SHIP
 • HDS
Higher ductility steels
Pt. 6 Ch. 1 Sec. 14
• OILREC FP>60o
Recovered oil reception and transportation
Pt. 6 Ch. 5 Sec. 11
• FCS
Additional fire safety for container vessels
Pt. 6 Ch. 5 Sec. 23

 

2.2 Revised class notations

Class notation Rule reference DNVGL-RU-SHIP
• Container ships Pt. 5 Ch. 2 Sec. 1/9/14
• Non self-propelled units Pt. 5 Ch. 11 Sec. 7

 

Additional class notations

Class notation Rule reference DNVGL-RU-SHIP
• Structural strength and integrity Pt. 6 Ch.1 Sec. 1/9/14
• Electrical energy storage Pt .6 Ch.-2 Sec.-1
• Offshore loading arrangements
Bow loading
Pt .6 Ch.-4 Sec.-1
• Cold climate Pt. 6 Ch.-6
• Survey arrangement
Boiler Monitoring
Pt.6 Ch. 9 Sec. 6

 

2.3 Changes to material related topics (Rules Pt. 2)

a. General requirements for materials and fabrication (Pt. 2 Ch. 1)

  • i. Added compliance document requirements for additive manufacturing feedstock and finished parts.

b. Metallic materials (Pt. 2 Ch. 2)

  • i. Added new grades of steel – (BCA grades and higher ductility steels.

c. Fabrication and testing (Pt. 2 Ch. 4)

  • i. Included requirements for qualification of NDT suppliers in line with IACS UR W35.
  • ii. Included acceptance of permanent underwater wet-welding and repairs.

2.4 Changes to hull related topics (Rules Pt.3 and Pt.5)

a) Cold form steel (Pt. 3 Ch. 3)

  •  Included requirements addressing cold forming of extra high tensile steel.

a. Curved flanges (Pt. 3 Ch. 3)

  • Introducing the IACS CSR formula for assessment of effective flange of curved face plate.

b. Composite materials (Pt. 3 Ch. 3)

  • • Introducing the possibility for use of composite materials

c. Loads / Beam sea pressure (Pt. 3 Ch. 4 and Pt. 5 Ch. 2 Sec. 6) (Change entering into force as of July 1st 2020)

  • • The wave loads have been recalculated by studying the effect of removing the steep waves. The assessment has concluded with a possible reduction of the BSP load case for ship types and sizes were partial ship finite element models are normally carried out.

d. Hull local scantling (Pt. 3 Ch. 6)

  • • For the yield capacity of slender (weight optimized) stiffeners with high utilization in both yield and shear, a factor depending on the actual nominal stress level is included in the stiffener web thickness criteria. This adds a safety margin to the structural failure mode “web buckling# ” at end span of laterally loaded stiffeners.

e. Special requirements / Bow impact (Pt. 3 Ch. 10)

  • The rules covering bow impact are modified following operational experience by adding requirements for direct analysis of loads and/or capacity for ships with high flare or unusal structural arrangement in the bow region.

f. Opening and closing appliances (Pt. 3 Ch. 12)

  • • Required minimum thickness for side and stern doors of ship above 170 m may be reduced provided local strength requirments are complied with.

g. Container ship – Hull local scantlings (Pt. 5 Ch.  2 Sec. 5) (Change entering into force as of July 1st 2020)

  • • The load set WB-3 for tank testing and accidental overfilling of ballast tanks, has been modified and may open for reduction of section modulus for stiffeners.

 

2.5 Changes to system related topics (Pt. 4)

There is a limited number of changes for the systems part of the rules this year. Below we have listed one of the more important:

a. Control and monitoring systems (Pt. 4 Ch. 9)

  • • For control systems beyond the traditional scope of the rules, e.g. safety management, decision support, operational support fuel optimization, requirements are added to address integration with ship main functions and systems.

 

3. Class notations commented

Below is a summary of all new class notations and excerpt of changes to some of the revised notations.

 

3.1 New class notations

Class notation Rule reference DNVGL-RU-SHIP
HDS
Higher ductility steels
Pt .6  Ch. 1 Sec. 14
OILREC FP>60o
Recovered oil reception and transportation
Pt .6 Ch. 5 Sec. 11
FCS
Additional fire safety for container vessels
Pt. 6 Ch. 5 Sec. 23
DAT-B
Design ambient temperature
Pt .6 Ch. 6 Sec. 5

 

b) HDS (Higher ductility steels)

  • • The class notation introduces the use of higher ductility steels covering the cargo hold region to add an increased level of safety related to collision behavior.

c) OILREC FP>60o (Recovered oil reception and transportation)

  • • Introducing a class notation reflecting a vessel’s capability to recover oils with flashpoint above 60o; e.g. diesel and HFO.

d) FCS (Additional fire safety for container vessels)

  • • Introducing a modular class notation for container vessels with the intention to mitigate fire risks and improve detection and fire fighting capabilities.
  • • The notation offers more notation qualifiers to cover different measures implemented onboard.

e) DAT-B (Design ambient temperature)

  • • Introducing new class notation covering material requirements for vessel to operate in cold air temperatures outside polar waters

3.2 Revised class notations

Ship type notations

a) Container ship (Pt. 5 Ch. 2 Sec. 6)

  • • Introduced requirements for prismatic fuel gas tank finite element analysis in order to support reduced design time.

b) Pontoon (Non self-propelled units) (Pt. 5 Ch. 11 Sec. 7)

  • • New qualifier for pontoons
  • • Introducing qualifier, B, (B) for unmanned vessels of a simple box shape with no machinery nor electrical installations.

Additional notations:

a) GRAB Grab (Pt. 6 Ch. 1 Sec. 1)

  • • The notation is market adapted in relation to grab weights and vertical extent of grap reinforcements.

b) Coat-PSPC (Pt. 6 Ch. 1 Sec. 9)

  • • Implemented a new qualifier CA covering the use of COT steel as an alternative to protective coating.

c) Battery (Pt. 6 Ch. 2 Sec. 1)

  • • Revised rules for electrical energy storage installations following incidents.
  • • Adjusted requirements for arrangement of spaces, including ventilation and fire safety.
  • • Updated requirements for protection of the electrical arrangement of battery systems (thermal incidents).
  • • Adjusted requirements for calculation and supervision of electrical energy storage capacities.

d) Bow loading (Pt.. 6 Ch. 4 Sec. 1)

  • • Introducing requirement to rupture disc arrangement in bow loading line to limit consequences of unintentional rapid closing of valves.
  • • Including requirement to remotely operated valves with position indication connected to telemetry systems.

e) Operations in cold climate (Pt. 6 Ch. 6)

  • • POLAR – Aligned the interpretations of the IMO polar code with interim guideline MSC.1 /Circ.1614 on life saving appliances and arrangements.
  • • DAT – Introducing class notation DAT-B covering material requirements for vessels to operate in cold air temperatures outside polar waters.
  • • DAV – The class notation is further developed to include the qualifier, Icebreaker, for vessels meeting ice with stern first.

f) Survey arrangement (Pt. 6 Ch. 9 Sec. 6)

  • • BMON – introducing a new qualifier, (+,) for vessels having an automated monitoring and treatment system for boiler feedwater on board.

 

4. Information on coming rule editions

GL publishes main rule editions annually. The next main rule edition will be published in July 2021.

There is already planned amendments to the rules in October 2020 and January 2021. Additional amendments may be carried out, and all amendments will be specifically marked in the rules table of contents found here .

Source: dnvgl


Company DETAILS

SHIP IP LTD
VAT:BG 202572176
Rakovski STR.145
Sofia,
Bulgaria
Phone ( +359) 24929284
E-mail: sales(at)shipip.com

ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED