IMO Archives - Page 21 of 25 - SHIP IP LTD

The International Maritime Organization has drawn up a roadmap to help countries implement procedures to relieve ship crews. Worldwide, tens of thousands of seafarers are stuck on board because they are unable to disembark or fly home due to strict coronary measures.

The 55-page 12-step plan was drawn up by a broad coalition of international shipowners’ associations and shipping organisations. The book provides governments with a blueprint to facilitate crew changes and ship crew repatriation. The protocols lay down the responsibilities of governments, shipowners, carriers and seafarers.

In two weeks’ time, some 150,000 seafarers worldwide need to be relieved in order to comply with international maritime regulations on working conditions according to the IMO. Tens of thousands of them are currently stuck on board due to travel restrictions.

Safety at stake

Apart from the need for shipping companies to comply with international rules and contractual obligations, employment contracts cannot be extended indefinitely without impacting the health and welfare of ship’s crew and ultimately on the safety of ship operations.

‘The problem is simple, but the solution is complex. So we have taken our responsibility, drawn up protocols and are now working with governments to implement them’, says Guy Platten, Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS).

Accidents on board

Platten: ‘If we can’t free our seafarers from their covid-19 blockade, this will be a huge disruption to trade and, more importantly, the risk of accidents and psychological problems on board will increase. Postponement is no longer an option.’

Read the 12-step plan here.

This article was first published (in Dutch) on Nieuwsblad Transport, which is also published by SWZ|Maritime’s publishing partner Promedia.


The IMO’s (International Maritime Organization) new Sulphur regulations, IMO 2020, will have far-reaching consequences for the global trade community. During the 17th session of MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee) meeting at London on 28th Oct. 2016, International Maritime Organization (IMO) took a landmark decision which will enforce a new regulation from 1st of Jan. 2020.

According to this regulation, the marine sector emissions in international waters will be slashed even outside the emission-controlled area: ECAs (Emission Control Areas; The Baltic Sea Area, The North Sea area, The United States, Canada, and the United States Caribbean Sea area).

The ships now have to reduce their Sulphur emission by over 80% – 85% by switching to Lower Sulphur Fuel.

The current maximum fuel oil limit of 3.5% m/m will fall to mere 0.5% m/m. This regulation will see the largest reduction in the Sulphur content of the transportation fuel under taken at any time in the history.

IMO 2020: The basics, the challenges, and how to lessen its impact on you

What is IMO 2020? (Sulphur cap)

Due to the high level of pollutants in the exhaust of the bunker currently used to power some 60,000+ ships globally, the IMO is going to implement a new regulation regarding these fuels on January 1, 2020. The regulation will require ships to use a fuel that’s better for the environment or undergo physical upgrades to accommodate either of two alternate solutions, effectively reducing Sulphur emissions by more than 80%.

Ships and carriers use heavy fuel oil that contains Sulphur. During the combustion in the ship’s engine, the fuel emits gases that contain Sulphur which harmful to the environment and its ecosystems. To reduce this pollution IMO has passed the regulation that puts a 0.5% cap on Sulphur in marine fuels. This regulation will be implemented from 1st January 2020 and it is a major step towards Sustainability.

Compliance with this new standard will primarily be achieved through the burning of low-Sulphur fuel, although compliance choices include other methods like the use of scrubbers and liquid natural gas (“LNG”) as fuel. Under this regime, the primary responsible party in the freight market will be the vessel owner or operator.

Ships and carriers will gradually limit SO(X) emissions by replacing the current fuel IFO380 with Very low Sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) or using Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) as fuel or by installing exhausted gas cleaning systems (ECS) for their existing fuel.

The move towards a greener future may cost for surely but it won’t cost our environment!

This has been done to curb pollution and make the industry greener and world more sustainable.

Duration of disruption may last around for 3 years down the line but alternative scenarios range from one to five years, Disruption still underway if HSFO-LSFO spread incentivizes previously uneconomic refinery optimization.

Implications & Possibilities (post IMO implementation)

So the next question is Why this reduction? & Why now?

One of the pillars of IMO is MARPOL (prevention of Marine Pollution in international waters). The ships use the lowest grade of fossil fuel today. Most of the marine fuels which are used on-board ships, use high Sulphur up to 3.5% m/m. The burning of this fuel in ships are main engines, boilers and generator engines and produces exhaust containing Sulphur oxide (SOX) which then reacts with water, oxygen and other chemical to form Sulphuric acid n secondary inorganic aerosols.

Sulphur is also ozone depleting substance which cause harmful rays reaching to earth surface, this done mixed with water and other compounds of atmosphere and turn into the acid rain which is harmful not only to the environment but also to humans – causing diseases lie asthma, lung cancer, stroke and other pulmonary diseases.

Actually, this is not at all recent. If you follow the previous IMO holdings the first reduction came in 2005 by set a limit of 4.5% m/m of Sulphur cap. Later in the year 2012, it was further reduced to 3.5% m/m. The decision to make it 0.5% m/m in 2020 was taken way back in 2008 and it got ratified in 2016 in the 17th session of MEPC meeting.

So, this is not sudden. Ship-owners got ample to prepare for this regulation. Following a typical business mind set-up, most of the shipping companies did not expect regulation to come so early even after the resolution was adopted 28th Oct. 2016. Shipping companies still believed that implementing such a strict regulation will not be possible at least till 2020. However, as the time approached, everyone realized the Doom’s day is near.

Here are the available options for vessel owners:

  1. Switch to a low-Sulphur fuel
  2. Implement on-board scrubbers that process the exhaust created by current fuel
  3. Convert fuel supply to liquid natural gas (LNG)

The IMO will allow each carrier to select the option that works best for its fleet. In development for more than five years, the regulation—referred to as IMO 2020—may cost the industry upwards of $15 billion in 2020. If a carrier opts for scrubber installation or engine conversion to accommodate LNG, these processes will cost approximately $1 million per ship, with each upgrade taking between 30 and 60 days, depending on the size of the vessel.

Landmark set of regulations that will cost carriers $15 billion per year

Now everyone is rushing to the shipyard for fitting different equipment or retrofitting to ensure they comply with IMO 2020 and not get fined or detained by different regulatory authorities.

Hence, we are looking at such a hype for IMO 2020. One of the biggest impacts are operating and preparation cost of the ships.

To understand the impact on the ship-owners, let first understand – how current ship-owners can comply with this regulation:

Reduction in Sulphur content done by – Fitting an exhaust gas cleaning system which will treat the exhaust and reduce the SOX emission to the desirable limit value. Shifting to a cleaner compliant fuel such as low Sulphur oil Shifting to alternate fuel such as Liquefied Natural Gas, Methanol, Ethanol or Bio-fuel using Shore Power in port.

While complying with this new regulation the shipping company will have following impact:

  • Huge cost in fitting an exhaust cleaning system which can go from 6-12 M USD per ship depending upon the size of the ships.
  • Maintenance and operation cost of exhaust cleaning system
  • Higher fuel bill if switching to cleaner and compliant fuel
  • For company having fleet of 200-250 ships, the cost can go up to 1.5 B USD when using liquefied natural gas as a fuel which is costly and the owner needs to modify the engine and boiler for consumption of LNG which will incur additional cost this all can cost up to 20-30 M USD per ship to the owner
  • Apart from these investments, to procure technology or the compliant fuel, the ship-owner will need to invest in training of the seafarers for the technology fitted on board such as exhaust scrubber etc.
  • Clean and dedicated tank for low Sulphur fuel
  • Make arrangement to store liquefied natural gas on board ship
  • Make arrangement to bunker liquefied natural gas on board ship
  • Fuel oil transfer line modification to avoid contamination of fuel – to acquire compatible grade of lube and cylinder oils
  • Modification in engine and boilers to burn LNG fuel
  • Comply with documents and paperwork of the compliant fuel

While complying with this new regulation, the petrochemical refineries will have following impact:

  • Expected to witness price spikes in 2020 as refiners and chemical producers adjust to the new environment
  • Key petchem feedstock naphtha outlook hinges on balance between marine fuels and gasoline
  • Propylene/OlefIns production likely to be affected
  • Rising container freight rates expected to have minimal polymers impact on total cost
  • Aromatics producers hope for wider product margins, but full impact remains hazy
  • Chemical shipping tankers eyeing LSFO to fundamentally improvement
  • For chemical shipping tanker segment supply-demand balance may improve
  • Shipping market will expect more LNG demand after the mandate implementation
  • Methanol will be more expensive due to unfavourable density and energy levels

Reducing sulphur emissions by utilizing low sulphur fuel oils in shipping vessels will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 requirements. That’s 8.5 million metric tons annually

Surcharges passed on to shippers

Once carriers implement their solution, it is expected that they will charge an additional fee per container thought to be between $100 and $300, based on load factor, vessel size, route, and other factors. In trade lanes where surcharges would exceed the actual shipping costs, some carriers may opt to implement a smaller surcharge.

New fuel will likely cost more than current bunker fuels and fuel surcharges will likely be added by carriers & its expected to increase freight rates by at least 15% to 30% in 2020

As carrier begins to adjust their rates, then down hierarchy players such as NVOCCs, LSPs, Trucking, Warehousing etc. will also need to update freight tariffs accordingly.

Near term concern: Capacity issues in Q3 and Q4 will outweigh the surcharge

While the per-container surcharge is a factor that has been discussed, the immediate issue has nothing to do with the added costs that will be passed on to shippers. The real issue is the disruption caused by the new regulation.

If carriers choose to outfit their fleets with scrubbers or convert them for LNG consumption, the ships will need to be dry-docked until work is completed—older ships will be decommissioned and scrapped. It’s simply too cost prohibitive to retrofit older vessels.

All of this could create a capacity shortage that will last into the peak pre-holiday season. Worse, it may last months, certainly into early 2020, and perhaps more than a year.

The cost of IMO 2020 non-compliance on government authorities

Individual countries are responsible for monitoring compliance and enforcing the new regulations. Both the state of registry of a ship and port states have rights and responsibilities to enforce compliance. According to the IMO, ships of all sizes will need to use fuel oil that meets the 2020 regulations.

At this time, the IMO does not allow exemptions to the regulations. That said, if a ship cannot obtain compliant fuel oil, they can complete a fuel oil non-availability report (FONAR). The port state control can take this into account when processing, but this does not qualify as an exemption for that vessel.

Impact of IMO 2020 Non-Compliance on the business trade

Vessels are integral to the energy trade. Refiners, shippers, suppliers, owners and vessel operators cannot afford the penalties of non-compliance. A vessel provides economies of scale to transport feedstock (crude or other feedstocks) or refined products to market. Each party is incented to avoid delays in the supply chain and avoid unnecessary delays, penalties or fines.

Business trade efficiencies would be hurt based on being caught for non-compliance.

  • The first cost is FINANCIAL. As with the case in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the shipowners and operators incurred a penalty. The $3 million was meant as a signal to other potential offenders. Some owners and operators may be able to cover the $3 million without issues. Most cannot and will suffer financially.
  • The second cost is to REPUTATION. The energy supply chain is based on relationships and working with reputable parties to provide for feedstocks or deliver finished products. More and more, energy companies are getting savvy in only dealing with players that have a good reputation. Still recent in the minds of refiners are the issues with fraudulently issued Renewable Identification Numbers under the Renewable Fuels Standard program. There are numerous cases of fraud by the U.S. Department of Justice for those that tried to deceive. These individuals and companies were placed on “blacklists” and circulated amongst the reputable companies.
  • The third cost of non-compliance is TIME. The Ocean Princess was anchored at the port in the U.S. Virgin Islands and detained along with the crew while the investigation was underway. That represents a huge cost to the supply chain where each party tries to run lean, just-in-time inventory. A detained ship means that product was either not delivered or picked up according to schedule. That imposes other delays downstream in the process, affecting overall inventory and increasing costs unnecessarily.

How can you prepare?

With IMO 2020 just around the corner, it is essential that all parties seek to implement robust compliance plans and due diligence of their counter-parties—including charter parties, fellow shippers, vessel owners and operator and bunker fuel sale counter-parties.

  • Shipping early to avoid the capacity shortage, and arrange for domestic storage if required
  • Optimize flexibility in the event your first or second option are blank sailings
  • Diversifying shipments so that no single carrier has all of your product and understanding how using multiple carriers can work for you in periods of limited capacity
  • Considering air freight for certain shipments
  • Reconfirm allocations and forecasts for coming months to help prepare in advance

For all of its good intentions, IMO 2020 is adding new layers of stress to a system that has already endured many months of stress due to the U.S./China tariff war—and will surely endure many more. Like the ones caused by the escalated tariffs, the changes caused by IMO 2020 will require importers and exporters to work with logistics experts to find solutions that preserve the integrity of supply chains and the profitability of their businesses.

Preparing for a New Marine Freight World

With the new regulation soon to go into effect companies must ask themselves what is to be done. Companies must plan and think about managing their supply chain effectively. It’s paramount that shippers, refiners, marketers and traders prepare now so fines don’t mount, and trade flows aren’t further disrupted. Refiners must focus on relationships with suppliers and other logistics companies now to negotiate term deals for fuel.

Final thoughts

The new IMO 2020 regulations reducing sulphur oxide emissions to less than 0.50% will have a significant impact on today’s shipping industry. But it’s important to remember that these regulations are not the first sulphur oxide emissions standards. Previous requirements did not cause a significant fuel shortage or permanently increase prices.

There is no doubt, this new regulation has a significant positive effect on the environment.

However, the increased cost of cleaner ocean freight shipping would get passed along to the shipper and eventually to the consumer.

Credits: Alphaliner, BCG, Google Images, MARPOL & IMO


IMO 2020 Global Sulphur Limit

In order to effectively implement the IMO’s 2020 global sulphur limit, China Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) has issued the attached notice – a translation of which has been provided by the China Classification Society (CCS). The requirements are summarized in the tables below.

Table 1 – Brief on fuel oil sulphur content(m/m) limit for international ships entering China waters

Effective date
Inland waterway ECA
Hainan waters within ECA
Other waters
1 January 2020
0.10%
0.50%
0.50%
1 January 2022
0.10%
Table 2 – Ban on carriage of non-compliant fuel oil and discharge of wash water from open-loop scrubbers
Effective date
Requirement
1 January 2020
ships are prohibited to discharge wash water from open-loop scrubbers in China emission control areas.
1 March 2020
international ships entering waters under the jurisdiction of China are prohibited to carry non-compliant fuel oil onboard.
In accordance with MEPC.1/Circ.881, from 1 March 2020 onward, a foreign ship carrying non-compliant fuel oil in the Chinese waters may be required to:
·  discharge the non-compliant fuel oil
·  if permitted by the MSA of calling port, to retain the non-compliant fuel oil on board with a commitment letter stating it will not be used in waters under the jurisdiction of China.
The circular mentions that the fuel oil sampling and testing may be taken by MSA for supervision and enforcement. Judgment on the testing result will be made in accordance with MEPC.1/Circ.882.
The circular also provides guidance for ships using or carrying non-compliant fuel oil due to the non-availability of compliant fuel oil and a template of Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report (FONAR).
MSA will carry out site inspection and review/examine the completeness and authenticity of the FONARs submitted by the ships. Penalty could be imposed on ships infringing this regulation or if the submitted FONAR is examined to be not compliant and true.
SOURCE STANDARD CLUB
IMO 2020 Global Sulphur Limit

s&P Global Platts has started publishing time charter equivalent assessments based on 0.5% sulphur bunker fuel for scrubber and non-scrubber dry bulk carriers from November 1, this year, exactly two months ahead of the International Maritime Organization sulphur cap regulations

 

The new TCE assessments are calculated using daily 0.5% delivered bunker prices published by Platts. The vessel speed and consumption used in these TCE calculations were derived by extensive market survey and reflect market practice for vessels using low sulphur fuel.

The scrubber indices reflect the average of the difference between the TCE returns for scrubber-fitted and non-scrubber ships for respective routes under each vessel class.

Last month S&P Global Platts launched a capesize earnings index. The CapeT4 Index reflects ton-mile demand on four time charter equivalent (TCE) assessments.


The new IMO global sulphur cap requirements enter force on 1st January 2020 and a robust and consistent approach to compliance is expected by all Port State Control (PSC) regimes. PSC inspections will be carried out in accordance with the IMO PSC procedures, the 2019 guidelines for PSC under MARPOL Annex VI.

In order to establish whether a ship is in compliance, PSC inspectors will likely focus their attention on documents and procedures maintained on board. In certain jurisdictions PSC inspectors will carry portable sulphur testing kits and if the results of these tests are inconclusive or indicate potential non-compliance then additional sampling will take place for verification ashore.

It is important therefore that ships’ crews are aware and familiar with the new regulations, associated documentation and procedures and are able to confidently demonstrate this knowledge to a PSC inspector.

Bunker Delivery Notes (BDNs) and Fuel Sampling

Details of fuel delivered on board for combustion purposes should be recorded by means of a BDN. The BDN should be accompanied by a Representative Sample of the fuel delivered – the MARPOL Sample. Most ships will also take commercial samples in the normal way. The Representative Sample is to be sealed and signed by the supplier’s representative and the Master (or senior officer in charge of the bunker operation) on completion of bunker delivery and retained on board until the fuel has been substantially consumed, but in any case for a period of not less than twelve months from the time of delivery. BDNs and associated samples should be easily identifiable and filed properly on board. BDNs should be retained on board for at least three years after the fuel has been received on board.

There are two locations where fuel sampling might be required by PSC: (1) downstream of the fuel oil service tank and (2) the storage tanks, “in use” and “on-board” respectively. In accordance with ISO 4259-2: 2017, and allowing for a 95% confidence limit, the maximum amount of sulphur allowed in these samples is 0.11% m/m for ECA fuel and 0.53% m/m for global fuel.

In situations where the Commercial Samples (taken during bunkering) indicate a higher sulphur content than noted on the BDN then the flag administration and PSC at destination need to be notified in writing without delay. Note that the ship will have likely sailed by the time these test results are known. In the event of any further investigation by PSC, the Representative Sample (MARPOL sample) will be used by PSC for further verification procedures and the ship may be ordered to de-bunker the fuel at the next port.

 

SOURCE : MARINE INSIGHT


Guidance on inspections of ships by the port States in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1257/2013 on ship recycling Inventory of hazardous materials Overview IHM

 

The purpose of Regulation (EU) No 1257/20131 on ship recycling (hereinafter the “SRR”) is to prevent, reduce, minimise and, to the extent practicable, eliminate accidents, injuries and other adverse effects on human health and the environment caused by ship recycling. The Regulation is also designed to enhance safety, the protection of human health and of the Union marine environment throughout a ship′s life-cycle; in particular to ensure that hazardous waste from such ship recycling is subject to environmentally sound management. The Regulation also lays down rules to ensure the proper management of hazardous materials on ships.

The aim of this EMSA guidance is to assist the Member States and their designated inspectors in their efforts to fulfil the requirements of SRR and PSC Directive, in relation to inspections covering the respective requirements of these two instruments. It is a reference document that provides both technical information and procedural guidance thus contributing to harmonised implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the SRR and the PSC Directive.

Inventory of hazardous materials Overview IHM

During each inspection of a ship initiated under the PSC Directive regime, the port State control inspector (PSCO), as a minimum, must check the inventory certificate s (IC) or a ready for recycling certificate (RfRC) or a statement of compliance (SoC) as applicable is kept on board and report this in THETIS.
The IC and RfRC formats, which have been established, respectively, under Commission Implementing Decisions (EU) 2016/2325 and 2016/2321 can be found in Annexes 4 and 5 of this guidance document. A model of a SoC that may be used for ships flying the flag of a third country is provided in Annex 3 of this guidance document.
It should be noted that, any initial check of the SR certificates or the PSCO’s observations of the ship may reveal clear grounds to imply that the ship is not in compliance with the SRR. In this case, the PSCO will continue the inspection under the SRR regime.

Before boarding, relevant information about the ships in port may be obtained from THETIS or THETIS-EU and other sources (e.g. from AIS, NGOs, port Authorities etc). This may include information on ship particulars, last and next port of call, arrival and departure times, port stay duration, possible intention to send the ship for recycling etc. Further information may directly be obtained through the port Authorities or the ship’s agent

The general application date of the SRR was 31 December 2018. From thereon, new EU ships6 have to carry a the inventory certificate (IC) and EU ships going for recycling have to carry a ready for recycling certificate (RfRC).
However, it should be noted that existing EU ships7 shall only carry a certificate on the inventory of hazardous materials (IC) from 31 December 2020.
Moreover, non-EU ships should only be requested to submit a statement of compliance (SoC), together with the inventory of hazardous materials, from 31 December 2020.

Inventory of hazardous materials Overview IHM

  INSPECTIONS FROM THE EU PORT STATES TO ENFORCE PROVISIONS OF THE SHIP RECYCLING REGULATION INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OVERVIEW IHM (2.8 MiB, 1,099 hits)


Classification Society ClassNK has released its new Cyber Security Management System for Ships, providing guidance on implementing, maintaining, and continuously improving cyber security for companies and vessels.

The new release includes management measures to be followed to protect against cyber risks both in vessel operations and in the construction/design stage of ships, through Security by Design.

The standards were created with reference to the latest IACS recommendations and the ISO27001 (Information Security Management System) and ISO27002 (Code of practice for information security controls) global standards.

The new measures have been introduced with one eye on the recent changes to the ISM Code, which will recommend that cyber risks are included within a company’s safety management system from 2021.

The Cyber Security Management System is available for download free of charge via ClassNK’s website for those who have registered for the ClassNK ‘My Page’ service.


IMO 2020

Rome – On 1 January 2020, the date of entry into force of the new Global Sulfur Cap regime, it is a milestone of fundamental importance for international shipping. Last October 2016, the IMO MEPC 70, in accordance with Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention, established the application of the limit of 0.50% m / m sulfur content in marine fuels starting from this term in non-SECA areas. This legislation, based on the study published by DNV GL, will involve more than 70,000 ships, entailing considerable costs for shipowners and a large investment for the continuous search for new technologies.

As is known, at the moment, to achieve the result required by the new legislation, ship owners have the possibility to choose different options based on various factors, including the age of the ship. They are:
1. use of fuel with low sulfur content or fuel blends which comply with the limit of 0.50% sulfur content;
2. use of marine gas oil (MGO) or distillates instead of fuel with high sulfur content (HSFO); 3. modification of ships in operation in order to allow the use of alternative and sulfur-free fuels such as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG); and
4. installation of waste gas scrubbing systems (scrubbers) capable of operating with HSFO.

However, this last option risks having huge additional costs for the owners. While some ports such as those in China, Singapore, Belgium and the UAE have already banned the use of open loop scrubbers, the Singapore Port Authority (MPA) has also established that exhaust gas cleaning residues , including those of scrubbers, must be considered as toxic industrial waste which must therefore be managed by companies with specific licenses and transported in packaged form or in tanks on trucks or on boats with a specific license issued by the MPA. All this leads to a significant increase in costs for shipping companies.

With reference to the use of compliant purification devices, it should also be noted that, based on the MEPC 305 Resolution (73), from 1 March 2020, in the absence of the same, a ban on the transport of non-compliant fuel will be in force. purpose of combustion for propulsion or operation on board a ship, maintaining the possibility of transporting HSFO as a cargo. However, in the event of violation of this prohibition, the ship may be seized by the PSC without the need to determine the purpose of use of the fuel: a measure that leaves ample room for the action of the PSC and that has a strong preventive value. The amendment in question entails, inter alia, also a modification of the IAPP certificate such as to specify that, for a ship without a scrubber, the sulfur content of the fuel oil transported for use on board does not exceed 0.50% m / m, as documented by the delivery note of the bunker.

With regard to the use of distillates, it is instead appropriate to consider that a “safety issue” related to the distillation process is configured, which increases the risk of “catalytic fines” both on machinery and combustion plants. These particles can cause considerable damage resulting from the abrasion of the cylinders during the combustion process. It is therefore important to clean the tanks containing the fuel, the c.d. tank cleaning, or use alternative solutions such as the use of specific conversion procedures to be gradually discharged through the feeding system until obtaining the required sulfur content.

The complications arising from the change of fuel can be avoided through the preparation of guidelines and the training of crews, but above all thanks to the use by the shipping companies of a Ship Implementation Plan (SIP), specific for each ship. This plan, which is not mandatory, nor subject to the approval of the flag State or classification societies, should include, inter alia, risk assessment and a mitigation plan in relation to the fuel change, changes to the fuel system combustion and possible tank cleaning, information on capacity, segregation and supply of fuel oil, as well as the changeover plan decided for the vessel in question. According to Rule 18.2.3 of Annex VI of MARPOL, the PSC will be able to take into consideration the SIP during the inspection activities aimed at verifying the new limits of sulfur content imposed, without, however, being able to use the same as a basis for detecting ship deficiencies.

It is clear that, together with the above-mentioned technologies, there is also the need to have infrastructures able to support them and to plan an efficient bunkering strategy.

In this sense, the potential of Italian ports, in particular those of Augusta and Civitavecchia, in the supply of low sulfur fuel bunkering could significantly increase, thanks to their decisive position for traffic in the Mediterranean and to the investments that are being made to achieve this goal . Bunker Energy S.p.A. has already started a logistics plan to make the port of Augusta, already today the main Italian petrochemical port, adequately equipped with barges, storage facilities and a terminal capable of ensuring well before 1 January 2020 (possibly within the third semester) of the year) the regular availability and delivery of fuels in compliance with the new regime that will come from a refinery in Northern Italy. Pending the finalization of the new pumps that will avoid any risk of contamination deriving from HSFO, the applicable price structure is being defined. In the same way, the Company has launched a plan also in the Port of Civitavecchia where it expects even higher demand based on the large volume of ferry and cruise ship traffic.

The “consistent implementation” of Regulation 14 of Annex VI stands today as the main challenge for the Member States which, through the work of the subsequent MEPC and the PPR Sub Committee, must, inter alia, investigate the mechanisms for the enforcement of the new limits and verification of the conformity of naval units and fuel suppliers, with the consequent need to introduce specific procedures for checking the fuel in use in addition to those relating to the “Marpol sampling”.

The control measures of the PSC, in fact, will be based mainly on the control of the IAPP Certificate and Bunker Delivery Notes on board. However, in the presence of reasonable grounds, there will then be the possibility of conducting more detailed inspections including sampling.

In case of violation of the limit deriving from the use of non-compliant fuel or from not being able to prove the lack of availability of compliant fuel in the port of bunkering – in this sense we recall the presentation to the flag State of the Fuel Oil Non Availability Report (FONAR), pursuant to Rule 18 of Annex VI – Member States will have to put in place an adequate sanctioning system that will include fines, seizure of the ship and de-bunkering of the same, variable port-in-port measures.

Together with the above-explained IMO regime, it is necessary to remember, for completeness of information, that at European level the Directive 2016/802 is also in force, c.d. Sulfur Directive, a further instrument aimed at reducing sulfur dioxide emissions deriving from the combustion of heavy fuel oil, gas oil, marine gas oil and marine diesel oil used in the EU. It is added to the IMO regulation, establishing stricter limits in EU waters. In fact, a maximum limit of 0.50% m / m of sulfur content in marine fuels is foreseen for ships of any flag present in European waters from 1 January 2020. Furthermore, the limit of 0.1% is established for ships moored in EU ports, unless they remain at berth with the engines turned off and are connected to an electrical ground system or their stop does not exceed two hours.

Finally, we point out that Italy, through the Ministry of the Environment and the Protection of the Territory and the Sea, in agreement with the Ministry of Transport, has made itself the proponent of the Barcelona Convention (1978), of a agreement of a political nature aimed at acquiring the consent of all Mediterranean countries for the creation, possibly by 2024, of a Sulfur Emission Control Area (SECA) in the Mediterranean Sea, characterized by a sulfur emissions limit of 0.10% m / m, even at sea. Also thanks to the solid foundations of the SAFEMED project managed by the European Maritime Safety Agency and aimed at harmonizing maritime legislation in the Mare Nostrum, the MATTM, in particular through the efforts of the Marine Environmental Department of the Harbor Corps Corps, is carrying out important negotiations with the countries of the Middle East and North Africa in order to achieve this ambitious goal.

IMO 2020

SOURCE : THE MEDI TELEGRAPH


GUIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHIP IMPLEMENTATION  PLAN FOR THE
CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT
UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI

To facilitate compliance, the IMO has developed guidelines that include an indicative template for a Ship Implementation Plan (SIP) specific to each individual ship, which shipping companies are recommended to use.

The plan is not mandatory and is not subject to endorsement by the flag state or a recognized organization (RO).

However, PSC may consider the preparatory actions described in the SIP when verifying compliance.

The plan addresses issues related to the use of compliant fuel oil and how to identify any safety risks associated with such fuels.

Items covered by the plan can include, as appropriate, but are not limited to:

  • Risk assessment and mitigation plan (impact of new fuels)
  • Fuel oil system modifications and tank cleaning (if needed)
  • Fuel oil capacity and segregation capability
  • Procurement of compliant fuel
  • Fuel oil changeover plan (conventional residual fuel oils to 0.50% sulphur compliant fuel oil)
  • Documentation and reporting

Issues relating to use of sulphur compliant fuel oil

-All fuel oil supplied to a ship shall comply with regulation 18.3 of MARPOL Annex VI and chapter II/2 of SOLAS.
-Meanwhile, operators could consider ordering fuel oil specified in accordance with the ISO 8217 marine fuel standard.

SHIP IP LTD CAN ASSIST YOU AND DEVELOP YOUR PLAN IN WORD FORMAT CLICK THE LINK TO LEARN MORE

EURO 399 SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


IMO cyber crime.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is readying for the advent of automation in the shipping industry, with a major scoping exercise to safeguard against future disasters, including oil spills and collisions.

Speaking at the regional Spillcon event held in Perth, Australia, in May, Patricia Charlebois, deputy director, Implementation Marine Environment Division, stressed the oil spill response community would need to consider new risk scenarios.

Charlebois told SAS that the IMO had a key strategic direction to integrate new and advancing technologies into its regulatory framework.

“Of course, cyber-risk management is very important as more and more systems become automated,” she said. “Whether you’re talking about an oil tanker or a different kind of ship, cyber-risk management should [play] a part .”

The IMO is now looking at how existing regulations might apply to ships with varying degrees of automation through a regulatory scoping exercise on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS).

The IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) agreed to examine how safe, secure, and environmentally sound operation of MASS could be introduced in IMO regulations in 2017 after a proposal by member states.

The scoping exercise includes a review of safety and maritime security (SOLAS); collision regulations (COLREG); loading and stability (Load Lines); training of seafarers and fishers (STCW, STCW-F) search and rescue (SAR); tonnage measurement (Tonnage Convention), and convention for safe containers (CSC).

IMO guidelines on maritime cyber-risk management set out procedures on how to safeguard shipping from current and emerging threats and vulnerabilities.

The guidelines, which cover digitisation, integration, and automation of processes and systems in shipping, identify bridge systems, propulsion and machinery management, power control, and communication systems among the most vulnerable to cyber attack.

The IMO aims to complete the scoping exercise by 2020. Meanwhile interim guidelines for MASS trials were approved in June.

IMO cyber crime

SOURCE


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