IMO Archives - SHIP IP LTD

HAZOPS-1030x666.jpg

IMO will hold an Extraordinary Session of its Council to address the impacts on shipping and seafarers of the situation in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

The Extraordinary Session (C ES 35) will be held on 10 and 11 March in remote session, and it was convened following requests from several Council Members. In light of the Ukraine-Russia tension, the IMO Secretary-General, Kitack Lim, issued a statement supporting the call of UN Secretary-General António Guterres for hostilities to cease immediately.

As IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim said:

As the humanitarian crisis continues to unfold in Ukraine, I fully support and stand with UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ call for hostilities to cease immediately


imo.jpg

1 April 2022

Adopted by MEPC 75:

Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI on sulphur content definition and sampling 

  • Amendments to Regulation 2 ‘Definitions’, to include new definitions for “Sulphur content of fuel oil” – meaning the concentration of sulphur in any fuel oil, measured in % m/m as tested in accordance with standard acceptable to the Organization; “Low-flashpoint fuel”, to mean gaseous or liquid fuel having a flashpoint lower than otherwise permitted under paragraph 2.1.1 of SOLAS regulation II-2/4; “MARPOL delivered sample”, to mean the sample of fuel oil delivered in accordance with regulation 18.8.1 of MARPOL Annex VI; “In-use sample”, to mean the sample of fuel oil in use on a ship; and “On board sample”, to mean the sample of fuel oil intended to be used or carried for use on board that ship.
  • Fuel oil sampling and testing – amendments to Regulation 14 ‘Sulphur oxides (SOX) and particulate matter’, to add new paragraphs related to in-use and onboard fuel oil sampling and testing, to add new paragraphs to require one or more sampling points to be fitted or designated for the purpose of taking representative samples of the fuel oil being used or carried for use on board the ship. The representative samples of the fuel oil being used on board are to be taken in order to verify the fuel oil complies with the regulation.
  • Appendix I amendments to the International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) certificate – Consequential amendments to update the IAPP certificate to add a reference to sampling points and also to note where there is an exemption to the provision for low-flashpoint fuel.
  • Appendix VI on the Fuel verification procedure for MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil samples consequential amendments to verification procedures, to cover verification of the representative samples of in-use fuel oil and on board fuel oil.

1 June 2022

Adopted by MEPC 75: 

Amendments to BWM Convention 

  • Amendments to the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (BWM Convention), concerning commissioning testing of ballast water management systems and the form of the International Ballast Water Management Certificate.

1 June 2022 – IMDG Code 40-20

Adopted by MSC 102:

  • Amendments to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) (amendment 40-20) related to segregation requirements for alcoholates; segregation in relation to liquid organic substances; classification and transport of carbon, following incidents involving the spontaneous ignition of charcoal; classification of UN portable tanks for multimodal transport; and provisions for labels.
1 November 2022 
Adopted by MEPC 76
  • Entry into force of  Revised MARPOL Annex VI  – including carbon intensity measures (requirements for ships to calculate their Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) following technical means to improve their energy efficiency and to establish their annual operational carbon intensity indicator (CII) and CII rating – read more)
  • Entry into force of amendments to MARPOL Annex I (addition of a new regulation 43A) to introduce a prohibition on the use and carriage for use as fuel of heavy fuel oil (HFO) by ships in Arctic waters on and after 1 July 2024. The prohibition will cover the use and carriage for use as fuel of oils having a density at 15°C higher than 900 kg/m3 or a kinematic viscosity at 50°C higher than 180 mm2/s. Ships engaged in securing the safety of ships, or in search and rescue operations, and ships dedicated to oil spill preparedness and response would be exempted. Ships which meet certain construction standards with regard to oil fuel tank protection would need to comply on and after 1 July 2029. A Party to MARPOL with a coastline bordering Arctic waters may temporarily waive the requirements for ships flying its flag while operating in waters subject to that Party’s sovereignty or jurisdiction, up to 1 July 2029.
  • Entry into force of amendments to  MARPOL Annexes I and IV concerning the exemption of UNSP barges from survey and certification requirements. The amendment specifies that the Administration may exempt a UNSP barge from the annual survey and certification requirements, for a period not exceeding 5 years provided that the UNSP barge has undergone a survey to confirm that certain conditions are met. The amendments also provide the form for the International Oil Pollution Exemption Certificate for Unmanned Non-self-propelled Barges.
1 January 2023
Entry into effect of carbon intensity measures including CII (read more)
  • On or before 1 January 2023, the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) shall include methodology for calculating the ship’s attained annual operational CII and the required annual operational CII.
  • Operational CII – After the end of calendar year 2023 and after the end of each following calendar year, each ship of 5,000 gross tonnage and above, shall calculate the attained annual operational CII over a 12-month period from 1 January to 31 December for the preceding calendar year.
  • The Attained annual operational CII shall be documented and verified against the required annual operational CII to determine operational carbon intensity rating A, B, C, D or E, indicating a major superior, minor superior, moderate, minor inferior, or inferior performance level, either by the Administration or by any organization duly authorized by it.
  • A ship rated D for 3 consecutive years or rated as E shall develop a plan of corrective actions to achieve the required annual operational CII.
1 January 2023 – STCW / ESP 
Adopted by MSC 103:
  • Amendments  to International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), adding the definition of “high-voltage” in STCW regulation I/1.
  • Amendments to section A-I/1 of the STCW Code, including the capacity “electro-technical officer” in the definition of “operational level”, as a consequential amendment to the introduction of this capacity as part of the 2010 Manila Amendments.
  • Amendments to the International Code on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections during Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, 2011 (ESP Code), relating to thickness measurements at the first renewal survey of double hull oil tanker.
1 January 2023
Adopted by MEPC 76:
  • Amendments to the IMO Convention for the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (AFS Convention), to include controls on the biocide cybutryne. Ships shall not apply or re-apply anti-fouling systems containing this substance from 1 January 2023. Ships shall remove or apply a coating to AFS with this substance at the next scheduled renewal of the anti-fouling system after 1 January 2023, but no later than 60 months following the last application to the ship of an anti-fouling system containing cybutryne.

1 January 2024 – SOLAS records of equipment, FSS code, IGF code, LSA code 

Adopted by MSC 101: 

  • Amendments to the appendix to the annex to the 1974 SOLAS, concerning the addition of a footnote to Forms C, E and P in the Records of Equipment.
  • Amendments to chapter 15 of the International Code for Fire Safety Systems (FSS Code), relating to inert gas systems.
  • Amendments to parts A and A-1 of the International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases or other Low-flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code), including those relating to regulations on loading limit for liquefied gas fuel tanks, regulations for fuel distribution outside of machinery space, regulations for internal combustion engines of piston type and fire protection for fuel storage hold space; and amendments relating to the protection of the fuel supply for liquefied gas fuel tanks, aimed at preventing explosions.
  • Amendments to chapters IV and VI of the International Life-Saving Appliance Code (LSA Code), relating to general requirements for lifeboats and launching and embarkation appliances.

Adopted by MSC 102: safe mooring  

 

  • Amendments to chapter II-1 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), related to towing and mooring. The amendments to SOLAS regulation II-1/3-8 (Towing and mooring equipment), require appropriate and safe-to-use designs of mooring arrangements, and introduce a maintenance and inspection regime, as well as proper documentation. Related  guidelines were also adopted, covering the design of mooring arrangements and the selection of appropriate mooring equipment and fittings for safe mooring; and inspection and maintenance of mooring equipment including lines; as well as revised guidance on shipboard towing and mooring equipment.
  • Amendments to parts B-1, B-2 and B-4 of SOLAS chapter II-1 related to watertight integrity requirements. The amendments are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2024.
  • Amendments to the International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases or other Low-flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code),  related to the fuel containment systems, fire safety, welding of metallic materials and non-destructive testing.
  • Amendments to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code), related to welding procedure tests for cargo tanks and process pressure vessels.

 

 

Adopted by MSC 103:

  • New SOLAS regulation II-1/25-1, requiring water level detectors on multiple hold cargo ships other than bulk carriers and tankers.
  • Amendments to SOLAS regulation III/33 and the LSA Code, aiming to remove the applicability of the requirements to launch free-fall lifeboats to test their strength with the ship making headway at speeds up to 5 knots in calm water on cargo ships of 20,000 GT and above.
  • Chapter 9 of the International Code for Fire Safety Systems (FSS Code), relating to fault isolation requirements for individually identifiable fire detector systems installed, in lieu of section identifiable fire detector systems on cargo ships and passenger ship cabin balconies; and clarifying the acceptability of less complex and costly section identifiable fault isolation for individually identifiable fire detector system on cabin balconies; and clarifying the acceptability of less complex and costly section identifiable fault isolation for individually identifiable fire detector systems.

 

 

 

Adopted by MSC 104:

  • A minor amendment to chapter II (Conditions of assignment of freeboard), as well as amendments to chapter III (Freeboards) of annex I (Regulations for determining load lines) of Annex B to the 1988 Load Lines Protocol, concerning watertight doors on cargo ships, and associated amendments concerning watertight doors on cargo ships to chapter 2 (Ship survival capability and location of cargo tanks) of the International Code of the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code).

 

1 July 2024
Adopted by MEPC 76
  • Entry into effect of amendments to MARPOL Annex I (addition of a new regulation 43A) to introduce a prohibition on the use and carriage for use as fuel of heavy fuel oil (HFO) by ships in Arctic waters on and after 1 July 2024. The prohibition will cover the use and carriage for use as fuel of oils having a density at 15°C higher than 900 kg/m3 or a kinematic viscosity at 50°C higher than 180 mm2/s. Ships engaged in securing the safety of ships, or in search and rescue operations, and ships dedicated to oil spill preparedness and response would be exempted. Ships which meet certain construction standards with regard to oil fuel tank protection would need to comply on and after 1 July 2029. A Party to MARPOL with a coastline bordering Arctic waters may temporarily waive the requirements for ships flying its flag while operating in waters subject to that Party’s sovereignty or jurisdiction, up to 1 July 2029.

imo.jpg

LIST OF NATIONAL OPERATIONAL IMO CONTACT POINTS

  • Flag State contact points for PSC matters, Casualty investigation services and Ships’ inspection services (including Secretariats of Memoranda of Understanding on Port State Control)
  • List of national operational contact points responsible for the receipt, transmission and processing of urgent reports on incidents involving harmful substances, including oil from ships to coastal states (see annex under Related Documents) – From January 2018 onwards, the official version of the updated list will be issued electronically and uploaded here on a quarterly basis (quarterly dates: 31 January, 30 April, 31 July and 31 October)
For ship inspection purposes, the only official version of the List of national operational contact points responsible for the receipt, transmission and processing of urgent reports on incidents involving harmful substances including oil from ships to coastal States annex is the updated version, which is issued electronically on a quarterly basis. The quarterly date for this official version is specified at the top of each page of the above list.
From January 2018 onwards, the quarterly dates for the official version of the updated list will be as follows:
31 January, 30 April, 31 July and 31 October. It will be available on the IMO website and can
be downloaded as stated in paragraph 5. In this connection, the next circular under this title
(MSC-MEPC.6/Circ.17) will be issued on 31 January 2019.

CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS TO THE LIST OF NATIONAL OPERATIONAL CONTACT POINTS RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE RECEIPT, TRANSMISSION AND PROCESSING OF URGENT REPORTS ON INCIDENTS INVOLVING HARMFUL SUBSTANCES INCLUDING OIL FROM
SHIPS TO COASTAL STATES

The following updates are based on information from countries that notified IMO of additions,
changes, or amendments to MSC-MEPC.6/Circ.19:

Updates from 30 October 2021 to 31 January 2022
BAHRAIN
CAMEROON
ECUADOR
EGYPT
ESTONIA
GEORGIA
GUYANA
ICELAND
ISRAEL
LIBYA
LUXEMBOURG
MOROCCO
NIGERIA
PAKISTAN
QATAR
THAILAND

Updates from 1 August to 29 October 2021
COLOMBIA
CYPRUS
ECUADOR
GHANA
GUYANA
INDONESIA
ISRAEL
LUXEMBOURG
MALAYSIA
OMAN
PAKISTAN
PALAU
PERU
PHILIPPINES
QATAR
SAUDI ARABIA
SOUTH AFRICA
UKRAINE
Note: This summary page will appear on the Internet whenever changes or amendments
are received by the Secretariat before the printed copy of the list is re-issued


109221352-ship-vessel-is-on-leaving-departure-from-the-port-terminal-after-completion-of-loading-discharging-o.jpg

The Club would like to draw to Members’ attention that the World Health Organization (WHO) has just released ‘An implementation guide for the management of Covid-19 on board cargo ships and fishing vessels’. The target audience of this guide includes port operators and ship operators.

The guide is recommended for use with WHO’s Handbook for management of public health events on board ships. The purpose of this handbook is to assist competent authorities at the local level to manage potentially internationally significant public health events at ports.

 

Source: ukpandi


download.jpg

Cruise players fear carbon-cutting measures that come into force next January will create “unintended consequences”, potentially driving up the sector’s absolute emissions.

Shipping as a whole has 12 months to prepare for the International Maritime Organization’s Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) that it adopted last June, which will require vessels to meet the current Energy Efficiency Design Index standards for newbuildings.

But it is the regulator’s plan for annual monitoring of the carbon intensity of vessels that is uniquely proving a sticking point for passenger ships.

The Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), also adopted last summer, will rate vessel efficiency between A and E and require those rated D and E to lower their emissions.

Although none of the leading cruise operators would be drawn on the detail of their plans to meet the new ratings, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) has graded the current CII proposals an F, and is calling for them to be revised.

“The IMO’s recent adoption of the CII, while well-intentioned, requires further refinement to be truly useful,” the association told TradeWinds. “The focus on carbon intensity, without also considering its relationship to overall carbon output, could generate unintended consequences.

 

Source: tradewindsnews


1546505361420-JWSN9dEO0InU.jpg
In the winter of 2020-2021, five vessels lost nearly 3,000 containers into the stormy Pacific. In just two months, those post-Panamax vessels accounted for more than twice number of lost containers in the previous year. Across widespread media coverage, a kneejerk reaction was to blame supersized vessels or increasingly unpredictable weather. But environmental conditions and vessel design are only part of the picture. Understanding this complex issue, and why losses are incredibly challenging to wholly avoid, holds the key to reducing losses not just from container vessels but across all cargo shipping sectors.
First, some context. According to the Word Shipping Council, international liners transported around 226 million containers in 2019, the last year for which figures are available. From 2008-2019, total container losses averaged 1,382 a year, representing around a thousandth of a percent of containers moved. And until the recent spate, the number of incidents has stayed relatively stable year-on-year, undermining the view that bigger ships and worsening weather are key factors.
Why spend time and resources analyzing such an infrequent occurrence? Because, according to Holger Jefferies, Head of DNV’s Container Ship Excellence Centre, even these few incidences can have a big impact. While the value of goods lost each year is difficult to calculate, there are much more damaging and wide-ranging consequences than the direct financial considerations on ship operators and cargo owners. Rogue containers can put lives, vessels, shoreside infrastructure and the environment at risk.
“Every incident has the potential to cause a lot of damage. Then there is a huge cost in finding the containers, cleaning them up, cleaning the beaches where they land and the extra measures that need to be taken when a dangerous cargo is lost.” says Holger Jefferies, Head of DNV’s Container Ship Excellence Centre.
Those consequences and clean-up costs typically spread much further than the ship owner, contributing to another reason for addressing the issue: reputational damage. In a consolidated market with just a handful of recognizable companies, maintaining a high safety record is a competitive advantage for container liners. And that perception can be easily negated by images of a broken container washed up on a once pristine beach.
As class rules and IMO regulations seeking to minimize container loss show, there is a motivation to tackle the problem on an industry level.
Design dilemma 
Incorrect stowage is one basic factor contributing to container loss. The lashing systems used to hold stacks of containers in place are complex. On a large vessel they can comprise ten thousand of locks, rods and other components that all need to be used in an exact way. If they are not, container stacks can collapse and boxes can be lost overboard.
Lashing systems are designed to consider the weather that container vessels might encounter.  The key factors are probability and risk. No ship or lashing system can be designed such that it will not lose containers in any weather scenario. Arne Schulz-Heimbeck, Programme Manager for Containership Development at DNV, draws a parallel with grounding.
“Ships are not usually designed to withstand grounding without damages. Of course, they could be, but it would lead to extremely heavy and expensive ships. The cost of transport would be so high that society worldwide would not accept them.”
Source: xindemarinenews

The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) is expected to develop Panama Canal Green Vessel Classification system and a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Fee to ‘aid in making Canal operations carbon neutral’, and incentivise green shipping through the canal by establishing a price differential for energy-efficient vessels.

 

Source: intercargo


700fr2.png

Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 104), 4-8 October 2021

MSC 104 will be held remotely, from 4-8 October 2021

Time: 11.00 am to 14:00 pm London Time each day.

Highlights:  

COVID-19

The MSC will consider a draft Assembly resolution consolidating issues related to crew change, access to medical care, ʺkey workerʺ designation and seafarers’ vaccination to further highlight the relevance of these problems, with a view to adoption at the 32nd session of the IMO Assembly (6-15 December).

The draft Assembly resolution on comprehensive action to address seafarers’ challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic can be found in document MSC 104/17/1.

Piracy and armed robbery against ships and other illicit maritime activity

The MSC will consider a draft update of IMO Assembly resolution A.1069(28) on Prevention and suppression of piracy and armed robbery against ships and illicit activity in the Gulf of Guinea. The resolution is expected to be finalized and approved for adoption by the the 32nd session of the IMO Assembly.

The draft revised resolution can be found in document MSC 104/8/1.

The Committee will also be updated on IMO initiatives in the Gulf of Guinea.

Domestic ferry safety

The Committee will consider matters pertaining to domestic ferry safety. A related working group is expected to be established, with a view to finalizing recommendatory Model Regulations on Domestic Ferry Safety, for adoption at MSC 105 in April 2022.

Goal-based ship construction standards (GBS)

The Committee is expected to consider the report of the combined GBS audit on the rectification of non-conformities of IACS and DNV-GL ship construction rules.

The International Goal-based Ship Construction Standards for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (“the Standards”) describe the goals and establish the functional requirements that the rules for the design and construction of bulk carriers and oil tankers of an organization recognized by the Administration, or the national rules of an Administration, shall  conform to, as defined in SOLAS regulations II-1/2.27 and II-1/3-10. Additionally, the Standards establish that the abovementioned rules shall be verified as conforming to the goals and functional requirements.

The verification is achieved by conducting regular GBS audits of the ship construction rules of organization recognized by the Administration who had already been verified to conform to the Standards. Those ROs or Administration seeking to have their ship construction rules verified to be GBS-conform for the first time will have to undergo an initial GBS audit, in accordance with the Revised guidelines for verification of conformity with goal-based ship construction standards for bulk carriers and oil tankers (resolution MSC.454(100))

The next scheduled GBS audits will be conducted in early 2022 when the first three-year maintenance audit cycle begins.

Amendments to mandatory instruments

The MSC is expected to consider for adoption:

  • draft amendments to chapters II (Conditions of assignment of freeboard) and III (Freeboards) of annex I (Regulations for determining load lines) of annex B to the 1988 Load Lines Protocol, concerning amendments to the acceptable arrangements of scuppers and discharges, as well as satisfactory condition of equilibrium after flooding, respectively; and
  • draft amendments to chapter 2 (Ship survival capability and location of cargo tanks) of the International Gas Carrier Code (IGC Code), concerning watertight doors on cargo ships, with the entry into force date of 1 January 2024.

Modernization of the GMDSS – approval of amendments to SOLAS and related instruments  

Following a comprehensive review of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) by the Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue (NCSR), the MSC is expected to approve, for adoption at the next session, a set of draft amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention, including amendments and revisions to existing related instruments.

The aim is to enable the use of modern communication systems in the GMDSS whilst removing requirements to carry obsolete systems concerning the modernization of the GMDSS.

The revision of the relevant regulations in SOLAS chapters II-1, III, IV and V and preparation of related and consequential amendments to other existing instruments is the result of a decade of detail-oriented work by IMO, in particular by the NCSR Sub-Committee.

Safety of navigation and safety of life at sea depend on the integrated satellite and terrestrial radiocommunication systems to support ship-to-ship, ship-to-shore and shore-to-ship distress, urgency and safety communications at sea, which is known as the GMDSS in general. Mandatory requirements for the GMDSS are laid down in the SOLAS Convention.

The MSC is expected to approve, for adoption at MSC 105, draft amendments to:  

  • SOLAS chapters II-1, III, IV and V, and the appendix (Certificates)
  • the 1988 SOLAS Protocol;
  • the 1994 and 2000 HSC Codes;
  • the 1983 and 2008 SPS Codes; and
  • the 1979, 1989 and 2009 MODU Codes.

In addition, the MSC is expected to approve, in principle, a further 11 draft MSC resolutions and two draft MSC circulars, with a view to final approval/adoption at MSC 105, as follows:

  1. draft MSC resolution on “System performance standard for the promulgation and coordination of maritime safety information using high-frequency narrow-band direct-printing”, revising and superseding resolution A.699(17);
  2. draft MSC resolution on “Performance standards for the reception of maritime safety information and search and rescue related information by MF (NAVTEX) and HF”, revising and consolidating resolutions A.700(17) and MSC.148(77), as amended;
  3. draft MSC resolution on “Provision of radio services for the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)”, revising and superseding resolution A.801(19), as amended;
  4. draft MSC resolution on “Performance standards for search and rescue radar transponders”, revising and superseding resolutions A.530(13) and A.802(19), as amended;
  5. draft MSC resolution on “Performance standards for shipborne VHF radio installations capable of voice communication and digital selective calling”, revising resolution A.803(19), as amended;
  6. draft MSC resolution on “Performance standards for shipborne MF and MF/HF radio installations capable of voice communication, digital selective calling and reception of maritime safety information and search and rescue related information”, revising and consolidating resolutions A.804(19), as amended, and A.806(19), as amended;
  7. draft MSC resolution on “Performance standards for Inmarsat-C ship earth stations capable of transmitting and receiving direct-printing communications”, revising resolution A.807(19), as amended;
  8. draft MSC resolution on “Guidelines for the avoidance of false distress alerts”, revising and superseding resolution A.814(19);
  9. draft MSC resolution on “Performance standards for survival craft portable two-way VHF radiotelephone apparatus”, revising resolution MSC.149(77);
  10. draft MSC resolution on “Amendments to the performance standards for radiocommunication equipment (resolution MSC.80(70))”;
  11. draft MSC resolution on “Performance standards for a shipborne integrated communication system (ICS) when used in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)”, revising resolution A.811(19);
  12. draft MSC circular on “Participation of non-SOLAS ships in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)”, to be disseminated as MSC.1/Circ.803/Rev.1; and
  13. draft MSC circular on “Guidance for the reception of maritime safety information and search and rescue related information as required in the Global Maritime Distress.

Other matters

The Committee is expected to:

  • Adopt the draft MSC resolutions on “Amendments to the Performance standards for shipborne simplified voyage data recorders (S-VDRs) (resolution MSC.163(78), as amended)” and “Amendments to the Performance standards for shipborne voyage data recorders (VDRs) (resolution MSC.333(90))”;
  • Approve the draft revised text of the Interim Iridium SafetyCast service manual, for dissemination as MSC.1/Circ.1613/Rev.1;
  • Approve the draft MSC circular on “Guidance on the validity of VHF radiocommunication equipment installed and used on ships”, to be disseminated as MSC.1/Circ.1460/Rev.3; and
  • Approve the draft MSC circulars on “Guidelines for shore-based maintenance of emergency position-indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs)”, to be disseminated as MSC.1/Circ.1039/Rev.1, and “Guidelines on annual testing of emergency position-indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs)”, to be disseminated as MSC.1/Circ.1040/Rev.2.

source https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/IMOMediaAccreditation/Pages/MSC-104-preview.aspx


2.2.jpg

The IMO’s MARPOL Annex IV Convention, which aims to control sewage pollution from ships, is being revised to ‘confirm the lifetime performance’ of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs). Although the focus is on the new ships, some Member States and NGOs propose ‘concrete measures’ to improve the existing STPs on existing ships. [1, 2]. So how do existing STPs perform, and what does it take to improve them?

A survey of 127 ships showed a huge gap between rules and realities (table above). Merely three percent of STPs met the IMP’s STP performance standards [3]. If a standard was to be set to accommodate the 95th percentile of the best performing ships, it would be 10 times the concentration of untreated domestic sewage. It is evident that despite the availability of technologies type approved under the IMO’s approval regimes over a last decade or so, the IMO’s STP performance standards remain aspirational and unproven.

STPs are developed to pass type tests only. The performance standard has not been applied to actual discharges from ships. The lack of effective implementation has led to a situation far worse than poor treatment performance. Let’s hope this new initiative, backed by shipping NGOs, will help the maritime industry with a much-needed reality check – i.e., to find out to what degree the existing STPs can be improved, and to what extent the huge gap between rules and realities can be narrowed.

What does it take to improve your STP?

1) To have a good intention. There should be no penalties or brownie points. To crack open sea water valves, or to send to the lab a bottle of tap water in lieu of STP effluent, would invite bad regulation for the industry. To make an STP perform is never ‘care-free’ – commitment is needed.

2) Applications. Small ships face the most challenging conditions in terms of space, resources, and fluctuated sewage loading. Small ships are at the periphery of the approval and inspection regimes, and are most likely to have installed underperforming STPs [10]. Therefore, small ships are critical to establish the true boundary of an evidence-based, practicable and sustainable sewage regulation, and let’s hope they are well represented in this initiative.

3) Know your STP. To improve an existing STP, technical know-how is required. For example, to pursue good effluent qualities without measuring and assessing its effluent flow rate can be worse than meaningless, because it would encourage dilution. Not all STPs can be helped: STPs without a solids-separation step [7] and STPs using chlorination disinfection without de-chlorination [8] are still spreading on new ships.

4) Scope of improvements. A certified STP should not be modified without the involvement of its maker and its approval authority. Hence the scope of improvement needs to focus on STP interface conditions, training, and operation and maintenance (O&M). Features to provide the basic visibility of STP operational conditions can be essential. Keep a record of the observations.

5) Benchmarking. To benchmark an STP, its effluent flow rate and turbidity are essential. Take regular photos of STP effluent for future reference. When an accredited laboratory is involved, please note the effluent sample point needs to be disinfected, residual chlorine (if applicable) and pH need to be tested immediately, sample bottles must be transported in cool boxes, and a signed chain of custody needs to be in place.

6) Interfaces. All waste streams into the STP should be evaluated. Make a note if food waste and its derivatives are connected to the STP [11]. Measure the daily flows and peak flows, and ensure they are within the certified capacity of the STP. Note grey water, when treated, can increase organic and hydraulic loadings to an STP. Keep the vent pipe clear.

7) Operation & Maintenance (O&M). Failing to operate an STP ‘in accordance with the manufacturers O&M manual’ has led to most STP-related detainments. So do get trained and do follow the O&M manual. Keep manufacturer approved spares and consumables. Check chemical shelf-life. Disinfection processes can be checked by the test kits specified in the O&M manual. Maintaining good solids separation by settlement, flotation or filtration is crucial for good effluent quality.

Seeing improvements? Now, observe the STP effluent again, and compare it with the benchmark in terms of flow rates and turbidity or any other parameters of concern. Make your findings known. Burying bad news encourages and sustains bad rules.

Better regulations are needed

Our aqua environment has improved over the past century, thanks to the effective regulations on-land that evolve over a ‘regulatory cycle’ (Figure below). The maritime industry also has a taste of success in Alaska [12,13], demonstrated by the performance of the advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTS) that is a startling contrast to that of the STPs (Figure) [14]. The IMO’s MARPOL Annex IV is so incompatible with effective regulation that the AWTS’ performance cannot be defined under the IMO rules. In this context, any tangible improvements that can be achieved by this positive initiative should be most welcome by the maritime industry.

 

Source: maritime-executive


2.3-BzJjPgiI7vVM.jpg

BIMCO is launching a new survey with the aim of gathering information from shipowners about the effectiveness of their anti-fouling systems (AFS). The information gathered will help BIMCO provide factual information to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) about biofouling management in practice.

 

The topic of biofouling is increasingly on the agenda at the IMO and several national governments. The existing IMO guidelines on biofouling (Resolution MEPC.207(62) – 2011 Guidelines for the control and management of ships’ biofouling to minimise the transfer of invasive species) are currently under review.

BIMCO is actively involved in the revision of the guidelines and is seeking to ensure that the revised guidelines remain practical for shipowners. To build our argumentation on facts, BIMCO has developed a questionnaire to collect shipowners’ views on the practices of biofouling management, especially the use and effectiveness of anti-fouling systems (AFS) and in-water cleaning.

 

Source: hellenicshippingnews