29395260-Technical-and-Operational-for-Bulk-Carriers by pgupta71

VIEWS: 461 PAGES: 51

 International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners

    Technical and
Operational Update for
    Bulk Carriers
            March 2006 Issue One
Photograph front cover courtesy of Bocimar

Technical and Operational
 Update for Bulk Carriers

       March 2006 Issue One
     International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners


INTERCARGO is grateful to the Members of its Safety, Technical and Environ-
mental Committee (CASTEC) for contribution in the drafting process of this pub-
lication. Appreciation also goes to the INTERTANKO Safety, Technical and
Environmental Committee (ISTEC) for the comments and suggestions received.
The valuable information from the following source is unique and relevant to
many common interest issues:


All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material
form (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means
and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publica-
tion) without the written permission of the copyright owner. Applications for the
copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication
should be addressed to the publisher.

                             © INTERCARGO 2006

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this
publication is correct, neither the authors nor INTERCARGO can accept any re-
sponsibility for any errors or omissions or any consequences resulting therefrom.

No reliance should be placed on the information contained in this publication
without independent verification.


                        St Clare House, 30-33 Minories,
                              London EC3N 1DD
                          Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7977 7030
                           Fax: +44 (0) 20 7977 7031
                          Email: info@intercargo.org


Air Pollution Prevention - MARPOL Annex VI………….   5

Ballast Water Management………………………………              12

Bunkers - MARPOL Annex VI and EU Directive ………    8

Cargoes - Dangerous…………………………………….                30

Cargoes - Direct Reduced Iron…………………………..         32

Cargoes - Petcoke………………………………………..                19

Cold Ironing………………………………………………..                  10

Emergency Towing……………………………………….                  33

Entry into Force ………………………………………….                1

IACS Common Structural Rules………………………...          28

Lifeboats……………………………………………………                     9

MARPOL Special Areas………………………………….                27

Oily Water Separators ……………………………………              40

Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas………………………..       9

Pilotage - Denmark ………………………………………                34

Reception Facilities - Baltic………………………………         21

Ship Recycling…………………………………………….                  37

Index of Abbreviations…………………………………….             42
         International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners


It gives me great pleasure to be associated with Intercargo’s initiative to publish a sum-
mary of regulatory developments and other useful guidance designed to promote safety
in the bulk carrier sector.

Many countless hours have been spent in developing Regulations and Conventions, both
nationally and in the main international fora of the IMO and IACS. “Best practice” ex-
amples are increasingly being communicated to industry through international and na-
tional shipping associations. Although the result of this regulation and self-regulation
has seen a markedly safer bulk carrier industry, re-emphasising these new developments
will undoubtedly increase the knowledge base of the dry bulk supply chain.

This document, which will be published regularly after the introduction of significant
developments at both IMO and IACS, is equally commended to Technical Departments
and those providing commercial and strategic direction in the industry as a means of un-
derstanding the interlinking nature of issues. I commend the foresight in producing a
published record suitable for the bulk carrier sector and look forward to the issuance of
future editions.

                                                                               March 2006

Tom Allan
Former Chairman of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee
        INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                              Entry into Force
                            - Index of New Requirements to be Implemented

The index contains currently available requirements and            The dry bulk cargo residue will be treated as gar-
regulations relevant to bulk carriers with entry into force        bage. The residue and cargo hold wash water
dates from 19 May 2005 to 1 Jan 2009. It will be updated           should be treated carefully in accordance with the
periodically with new items of requirements and regula-            relevant national, regional and international re-
tions when they are adopted and their entry into force             quirements and regulations.
dates are fixed.
                                                                 Relevant information:

19 May 2005: entry into force                                       Intercargo Guide on compliance with MARPOL
                                                                    Annex V. Contact info@intercargo.org for more
1.1 MARPOL Annex VI: Air Pollution Prevention.                      information.

  Relevant information:
                                                               1 Jan 2006: entry into force
    Circular IMO MEPC/Circ.472 on Guidelines for Port
    State Control under MARPOL Annex VI (Resolution            4.1 Amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 concerning
    MEPC.129(53)). It is available for download from           means of access for inspections within spaces in the
    http://www.imo.org/home.asp.                               cargo area of oil tankers and bulk carriers, adopted by
                                                               Resolution MSC.151(78). Contact info@intercargo.org
    Intercargo Guide on C125                                   for the sources of the document.
    ompliance with MARPOL Annex VI - Air pollution
    prevention. Contact info@intercargo.org for the full       4.2 Amendments to the Technical Provisions for
    text of an up to date version.                             Means of Access for Inspections, adopted by Resolution
                                                               MSC.158(78). Contact info@intercargo.org for the
22 Jul 2005: entry into force                                  source of the document.

2.1 Resolution MEPC.130(53) - Guidelines for On-Board            Relevant information:
Exhaust Gas-SOx Cleaning Systems. Contact
info@intercargo.org for the source of the document.                 IACS Unified Interpretations (UI) SC 191for the
                                                                    application of amended SOLAS regulation II-1/3-6
                                                                    (Resolution MSC.151(78)) and revised Technical
1 Aug 2005: entry into force                                        Provisions for Means of Access for Inspections
                                                                    (Resolution MSC.158(78)). Contact
3.1 Revised MARPOL Annex IV on Regulations for the                  info@intercargo.org for the source of the docu-
prevention of pollution by sewage from ships, adopted by            ment.
Resolution MEPC.115(51). Contact info@intercargo.org
for the source of the document.                                4.3 Revised NAVTEX Manual. The relevant circular
                                                               MSC/Circ.1122 on the Revised NAVTEX Manual is
    Annex IV may cause difficulties for ships without a        available for download from http://www.imo.org/
    holding tank in certain ports, such as in Korea and the    home.asp.
    Black Sea region. IMO may develop relevant port
    State control guidelines for the implementation of An-     4.4 Early implementation and guidance on safety dur-
    nex IV in the future.                                      ing abandon ship drills using lifeboats and the Guide-
                                                               lines for simulated launching of free-fall lifeboats.
3.2 MARPOL Annex V: Amendments to MARPOL An-
nex V on “cargo residues” to the Form of the Garbage Re-       MSC 79 urged Member Governments to give effect to
cord Book contained in the Appendix to MARPOL Annex            the amendment to SOLAS regulation III/,
V on Regulations for the prevention of pollution by gar-       adopted by Resolution MSC.152(78), prior to 1 July
bage from ships, adopted by Resolution MEPC.116(51).           2006 (which is the amendment’s entry into force date)
Contact info@intercargo.org for the source of the docu-        and approved MSC circular MSC/Circ.1127 on Early
ment.                                                          Implementation of Amendment to SOLAS Regulation

                                                                                              March 2006 Issue One ■ 1
        INTERCARGO                                           Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

III/ adopted by Resolution MSC.152 (78).                 Circular MSC/Circ.1145 on Precautionary Advice to
                                                                 Masters When Undertaking Ballast Water Exchange
Contact info@intercargo.org for the source of Resolution         Operations.
MSC.152(78). The relevant circular MSC/Circ.1127 is
available for download from http://www.imo.org/               5.3 The adopted amendments to SOLAS chapters II-1,
home.asp.                                                     by Resolution MSC.170(79). Contact
                                                              info@intercargo.org for the source of Resolution
                                                              MSC.170(79) and the amendments.
1 Jul 2006: entry into force
                                                              The amendments were made in:
5.1. Amendments to SOLAS Chapter III, adopted by              • Regulation 2 - Definitions of bulk carrier;
Resolution MSC.152(78). Refer to 4.4 above.                   • Regulation 18 - Construction and initial tests of wa-
                                                              tertight doors, sidescuttles, etc., in passenger ships and
Resolution MSC.152(78) adopted amendments to:
                                                              cargo ships; and
 - Chapter III Life-Saving Appliances and Arrangements        • Regulation 45 - Precautions against shock, fire and
in:                                                           other hazards of electrical origin
    Regulation 19 - Emergency training and drills
    Regulation 20 - Operational readiness, maintenance        5.4 Amendment to SOLAS Chapter III (Life-Saving
    and inspections                                           Appliances and Arrangements)
    Regulation 32 - Personal life-saving appliances (An
    immersion suit shall be provided for every person         The following new paragraph 1.8 is added after the exist-
    on board the ship).                                       ing paragraph 1.7:
                                                                “1.8 Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph
- CHAPTER IV Radiocommunications in:                            1.1, bulk carriers as defined in regulation IX/1.6 con-
   Regulation 15 - Maintenance requirements.                    structed on or after 1 July 2006 shall comply with the
                                                                requirements of paragraph 1.2.”.
5.2 Amendments to SOLAS Chapter XII (Additional
Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers). Contact
info@intercargo.org for the source of the revised Ch XII.     5.5 Amendments to Chapter V (Safety of Navigation)

In relation to the entry into force of the revised Ch XII,    In paragraph 2.5 of Regulation 19 (Carriage requirements
the following Resolutions have the same entry into force      for shipborne navigational systems and equipment), the
date:                                                         existing text of subparagraph .1 is replaced by the follow-
  Resolution MSC.168(79) - Standards and Criteria for
  Side Structures of Bulk Carriers of Single-Side Skin          “.1 a gyro compass, or other means, to determine and
  Construction; and                                             display their heading by shipborne non-magnetic
                                                                means, being clearly readable by the helmsman at the
                                                                main steering position. These means shall also transmit
  Resolution MSC.169(79) - Standards for Owners’ In-
                                                                heading information for input to the equipment referred
  spection and Maintenance of Bulk Carrier Hatch Cov-
                                                                in paragraphs 2.3.2, 2.4 and 2.5.5;”
                                                              The following new paragraph 2, regulation 20 (Voyage
Contact info@intercargo.org for the source of the
                                                              data recorders) is added after existing paragraph 1:
MSC.169(79) and MSC.168(79).
                                                                  “2 To assist in casualty investigations, cargo ships,
Relevant circulars (effective when issued and available
                                                                when engaged on international voyages, shall be fitted
for download from http://www.imo.org/home.asp):
                                                                with a VDR which may be a simplified voyage data
                                                                recorder (S-VDR) as follows:
  Circular MSC/Circ.1135 on As-Built Construction
  Drawings to Be Maintained On Board the Ship and
                                                                  .1 in the case of cargo ships of 20,000 gross tonnage
  Ashore, 15 December 2004;
                                                                and upwards constructed before 1 July 2002, at the
                                                                first scheduled dry-docking after 1 July 2006 but not
  Circular MSC/Circ.1143 on Guidelines on Early As-             later than 1 July 2009;
  sessment of Hull Damage and Possible Need for Aban-
  donment of Bulk Carriers; and                                  .2 in the case of cargo ships of 3,000 gross tonnage
                                                                and upwards but less than 20,000 gross tonnage con-

  2 ■   March 2006 Issue One
          INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

  structed before 1 July 2002, at the first scheduled dry-       were adopted by Resolution MSC.194(80). Contact
  docking after 1 July 2007 but not later than 1 July 2010;      info@intercargo.org for the source of annex 1 to Reso-
  and                                                            lution MSC.194(80). The amendments are in:

   .3 Administrations may exempt cargo ships from the              Regulation 3-2: Corrosion prevention of seawater
  application of the requirements of subparagraphs .1              ballast tanks in oil tankers and bulk carriers (This
  and .2 when such ships will be taken permanently out of          regulation applies to oil tankers and bulk carriers
  service within two years after the implementation date           constructed on or after 1 July 1998);
  specified in subparagraphs .1 and .2 above.”
                                                                   Regulation 3-7: The amendment includes Construc-
5.6. Unified interpretation of SOLAS Chapter XII                   tion drawings maintained on board and ashore;

MSC 80 agreed to the need to provide ship designers with           Regulation 3-8: Towing and mooring equipment; and
interpretations of the revised SOLAS chapter XII, before
its entry into force. At its twenty-fourth regular session of      Regulation 23-3: Water level detectors on single hold
the IMO Assembly (A24), the unified interpretations of the         cargo ships other than bulk carriers.
regulations 6.5.1 & 6.5.3 were adopted. IMO circular
SLS.14/Circ.250 with the unified interpretations is avail-       7.2 Amendments to the Guidelines on the Enhanced
able for download from http://www.imo.org/home.asp.              Programme of Inspections during Surveys of Bulk Car-
                                                                 riers and Oil Tankers (Resolution A.744(18), as
  Note: The IACS Common Structural Rules will be imple-          amended) by Resolution MSC.197(80). Contact
  mented to tankers and bulk carriers contracted for con-        info@intercargo.org for the source of Resolution
  struction on or after 1st April 2006. IACS believe that the    MSC.197(80).
  objective of removing competition on scantlings for each
  ship type has been achieved. The IACS Council also en-         7.3 The revised MARPOL Annex II, as adopted by
  dorsed a long-term harmonisation plan between the              Resolution MEPC.118(52), is expected to enter into
  tanker and bulk carrier rule sets at its meeting in Dec        force on 1 January 2007. Contact info@intercargo.org
  2005.                                                          for the source of Resolution MEPC.118(52).

22 Nov 2006: amendment of entry into force                       1 Jan 2008: amendment of entry into force

6.1 Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI and the NOx                    8.1 Under the terms of the ASF Convention
Technical Code by Resolution MEPC.132(53). Contact               (International Convention on the Control of Harmful
info@intercargo.org for the source of the Resolution             Anti-fouling Systems on Ships ), by 1 January 2008
MEPC.132(53).                                                    (effective date), ships shall either:

  Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI are the introduction             (a) not bear such compounds on their hulls or external
  of the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification               parts or surfaces; or
  (HSSC) and the introduction of the North Sea as a new          (b) bear a coating that forms a barrier to such com-
  SOx Emission Control Area (SECA), (Regulation 14(3)                pounds leaching from the underlying non-
  (a)).                                                              compliant anti-fouling systems.

6.2 Amendments to the revised Survey Guidelines under
the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification                1 Jan 2009: amendment of entry into force
(Resolution A.948(23)) for the purpose of MARPOL An-
nex VI by Resolution MEPC.128(53).                               9.1 Amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 parts A, B and
                                                                 B-1, II-2, VI, IX, XI-1, XI-2.
  The Resolution MEPC.128(53) was adopted on 22 July
  2005. IMO invited Governments to apply the Guidelines,         The amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 parts A, B and
  as soon as possible. Contact info@intercargo.org for the       B-1, II-2, VI, IX, XI-1, XI-2 were adopted by Resolu-
  source of Resolution MEPC.128(53).                             tion MSC.194 (80). Contact info@intercargo.org for
                                                                 the source of Resolution MSC.194(80).

From 1 January 2007: amendment of entry into force               The reasons for the entry into force date:

7.1 Amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 parts A-1 and C.               As the revised SOLAS chapter II-1 introduces a
                                                                    fundamental change to the way ships are de-
The amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 parts A-1 and C                signed and would have a significant effect on

                                                                                                March 2006 Issue One ■ 3
          INTERCARGO                                           Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

   shipbuilders and ship operators, there is a need for suf-      10.2 circular MSC/Circ.1142 - MEPC/Circ.425 on
   ficient time before the revised chapter II-1 enters into       Marking the ship’s plans, manuals and other docu-
   force in order that shipbuilders and ship operators            ments with the IMO ship identification number. The
   can develop and optimize new designs before such               circular is available for download from http://
   entry into force; and                                          www.imo.org/home.asp.

   The time period between the adoption of amend-                 10.3 Resolution MSC.200(80)- Amendments to the
   ments to SOLAS chapter II-1 and their entry into               revised recommendation on testing of life-saving ap-
   force should be sufficient for the DE Sub-                     pliances. Contact info@intercargo.org for the source
   Committee to deal with consequential amendments to             of Resolution MSC.200(80).
   SOLAS chapter III, in particular to SOLAS regulation
   III/21.1.2, so that the draft amendments to SOLAS               Governments are recommended to apply the
   chapter II-1 under consideration at this session and            amendments to the Revised recommendation on
   proposed amendments to SOLAS chapter III, when                  testing of life-saving appliances (Resolution
   developed by the DE Sub-Committee and adopted by                MSC.81(70)), when testing life-saving appliances.
   MSC, could enter into force simultaneously.
                                                                  IMO Circulars (available for download from http://
9.2 Annex 2 to Resolution MSC.198(80) - Amendments to             www.imo.org/home.asp):
the Format and Guidelines for the Maintenance of the Con-
tinuous Synopsis Record (CSR). Contact                              MSC/Circ.1140 - MEPC/Circ.424 on Transfer of
info@intercargo.org for the source of Resolution MSC.198              ships between States.
(80).                                                               Amendments to the FAL/MEPC/MSC circular
                                                                      FAL/Circ.90 - MEPC Circ.368 - MSC Circ.946
   The amendments require the use of Registered Owner                 on list of certificates and documents to be carried
   ID Number and Company ID Number.                                   on board ships.
                                                                    MEPC/Circ.472 on Guidelines for Port State Con-
9.3 Resolution MSC.194(80) - Amendments to SOLAS                      trol under MARPOL Annex VI (Resolution
Ch XI-1include a new regulation 3-1 Company and Regis-                MEPC.129(53)).
tered Owner ID number. Contact info@intercargo.org for              MEPC/Circ.469 on Revised consolidated format for
the source of Resolution MSC.194(80).                                 reporting alleged inadequacy of port reception
                                                                      facilities - an effort to improve the rate of report-
9.4 Resolution MSC.195(80) - Amendments to ISM Code:                  ing of alleged reception facility inadequacies so
Company Identification Number to be added in the DOC                  that the problem can be tackled more effectively.
and SMC Certificates. Contact info@intercargo.org for the           MSC/Circ.1108 on Guidelines for assessing the
source of Resolution MSC.195(80).                                     longitudinal strength of bulk carriers during load-
                                                                      ing, unloading and ballast water exchange.
9.5 Resolution MSC.196(80)- Amendment to ISPS Code:                 MSC/Circ.1114 on Guidelines for periodic test-
Company identification number to be added in the Ship                 ing of immersion suit and anti-exposure suit
Security Certificates. Contact info@intercargo.org for the            seams and closures.
source of Resolution MSC.196(80).                                   MSC/Circ.1115 on Prevention of accidents in high
                                                                      free-fall launching of lifeboats.
                                                                    MSC/Circ.1117 on Guidance for checking the
Voluntary requirements                                                structure of bulk carriers.
                                                                    STCW.7/Circ.14 on Guidance for masters on
10.1 Resolution MSC.160(78) on “Adoption of the                       keeping a safe anchor watch.
IMO unique company and registered owner identifica-                 SN/Circ.245 on Amendments to the Guidelines
tion number scheme” requires voluntary implementation                 for the installation of a shipborne automatic
before the requirements are made mandatory from 1 Jan                 identification system (AIS) (SN/Circ.227).
2009. Contact info@intercargo.org for the source of Reso-           MSC/Circ.1145 on Precautionary advice to masters
lution MSC.160(78).                                                   when undertaking ballast water exchange opera-
 MSC 78 adopted the IMO unique company and regis-                   MSC/Circ.1159 on Guidelines on the provision of
 tered owner identification number scheme for implemen-               stability-related information for bulk carriers.
 tation on a voluntary basis. The Resolution recommends             MSC/Circ.1119 on Ship/Terminal Interface Im-
 Governments concerned to voluntarily implement the                   provement for Bulk Carriers.
 scheme as far as is practicable, and to inform IMO of              MSC/Circ.1135 on As-Built Construction Drawings
 measures taken in this respect.                                      to Be Maintained On Board the Ship and Ashore,
                                                                      15 December 2004.

    4 ■   March 2006 Issue One
        INTERCARGO                                             Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                        Air Pollution Prevention
                            - Guide on Compliance with MARPOL Annex VI

                                                                        strate that while the ship is passing through a SOx
1. Background                                                           emission control area (SECA) it is either:
                                                                        (4) (a) using fuel which has a sulphur content not
MARPOL Annex VI was adopted in 1997 and entered                         exceeding 1.5% m/m, or
into force on 19 May 2005.                                              (4) (b) using an approved exhaust gas cleaning de-
                                                                        vice or any other technological method which en-
In the 8 years since the adoption of Annex VI, there have               sures that the total emission of sulphur oxide from
been significant technical advances in the control of                   the ship does not exceed 6.0 g SOx/kW h;
harmful emissions from diesel engines, including marine            III. Regulation 14(6) for those ships using separate fuels
engines. Since 2000, virtually all new ship engines have                to comply with Reg14(4)(a) records must be kept on
met or exceeded Annex VI requirements for nitrogen                      the completion of any fuel change-over procedure
oxides (NOx).                                                           when entering and leaving a SECA to verify compli-
                                                                        ance. The records shall include the date, time and
There has been an MEPC project on monitoring the                        position of the ship when the fuel change-over is
worldwide average of sulphur content of residual fuel oil               complete. It shall also record the quantity of the low
ever since MEPC 45 (2-6 Oct 2000). The information of                   sulphur fuel in each tank;
the project for 2004 as provided by the Netherlands                IV. Regulation 18(4), which states that the ship is to re-
(MEPC 53/4) has the conclusion that the three year                      tain the BDN, readily available for inspection, on
(2002-2004) rolling average can be established as 2.67%,                board the ship for a minimum of 3 years;
which is identical to the previous three years average.            V. Regulation 18(6), which states that the Annex VI
                                                                        sample is to be retained under the ship’s control until
Subsequent to the entry into force of MARPOL Annex                      the fuel is substantially consumed, but in any case
VI regulating emissions from ships, MEPC 53 agreed to                   for a period of not less than 12 months from the time
delegate to the IMO Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquid and                    of delivery; and
Gases (BLG) the revision of MARPOL Annex VI by                     VI. Resolution MEPC.96(47), which requires that the
April 2006 with the aim of reducing further the limits.                 ship’s master should develop and maintain a system
                                                                        to keep track of the retained samples.
The preliminary indications at MEPC 53 are that all cur-
rent emissions limits would be subject to revision and, in        2.2) Bunker delivery notes and fuel samples.
addition, it is proposed that elements like Particulate Mat-
ters (PM) be added to the convention. The revision proc-          MEPC 53 endorsed that “it was clear that a ship, which
ess would also aim to bring greater clarification through         has on board only non compliant fuels, would be asked to
amendments to the current provisions, particularly to the         obtain compliant bunker fuels before leaving port.”
NOx Technical Code.
                                                                  As raised at the last Intercargo Safety, Technical and Envi-
2. Areas of possible difficulties and problems                    ronmental Committee (CASTEC) meeting in June 2005 in
                                                                  Hong Kong and the Follow-up Action No. 12 (FUA 12) ,
2.1) What Masters are required to do.                             members are concerned about what will happen if the ship
                                                                  could not get the required sample and relevant documenta-
Vessels must retain the bunker sample for minimum of 1            tion when receiving PSC inspection at ports of the 20 or so
year. The BDN (Bunker Delivery Note) must be retained             signatory States of MARPOL Annex VI.
on board for 3 years. If the vessel’s flag is a signatory
State of MARPOL Annex VI, the vessel must comply                  MEPC 53 recognized that Annex VI places requirements
with Annex VI regardless of where they purchase their             on ship owners in respect of bunker delivery notes and
fuel.                                                             representative samples of the fuel delivered. If the country
                                                                  of fuel oil supply is not a Party to the 1997 Protocol, then
Ship’s Master is to comply with:                                  the required bunker delivery note or the representative
                                                                  sample may not be available. It also noted the concern
 I. Regulation 14(1), which states that the sulphur con-          about problems relating to ships that cannot obtain the
     tent of any fuel used on board shall not exceed 4.5%         appropriate documentation - the bunker delivery note and
     m/m (mass of sulphur per mass of fuel);                      the representative sample(s) of fuel delivered, when bun-
 II. Regulation 14(4), which requires ships to demon-             kering in ports and terminals under the jurisdiction of non-

                                                                                                March 2006 Issue One ■ 5
        INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

Party States to MARPOL Annex VI.                               between the supplier and the receiver, and that according
                                                               to MARPOL Annex VI, the ship is responsible for docu-
Suppliers are to comply with:                                  mentation of the fuel oil quality on board and used.
 I. Regulation 18(7) (b), which states that the supplier
      is to provide a compliant BDN and a representa-          MEPC 53 agreed to urge countries, which are not Parties
      tive sample of the fuel oil delieved. This sample is     to MARPOL Annex VI, to institute relevant measures in
      to be used solely for determination of compliance        order that ships are provided with the necessary bunker
      with Annex VI by port state authorities;                 delivery note and representative samples of the fuel oil
 II. Resolution MEPC.96 (47) Guidelines for the sam-           delivered.
      pling of the fuel oil, which requires that the IMO
      sample should be taken at the receiving ship’s           With regard to ships flying the flags of non signatory
      bunker inlet manifold according to specified pro-        States to MARPOL Annex VI, those ships may have ob-
      cedures; and                                             tained a certification or document of compliance by a
 III. Regulation 18 (1) (a) & (b), which requires the          Classification Society, MEPC 53 noted that para 3.3 of
      fuel to be of a specified quality.                       the draft PSC Guidelines for MARPOL Annex VI stipu-
                                                               lates that “……, the PSCO may take such documentation
Suppliers need to be registered with the appropriate Au-       into account in the evaluation of the ship”.
thorities and are required to provide a mandatory sample.
This is to be taken by either a:                               Paragraphs relating to the above Bunker Delivery Note
  I. continuous drip sampler,                                  issue in the PSC Guidelines are:
  II. time proportional automatic sampler, or
  III. flow proportional automatic sampler.                       Chapter 2:

The sample should be taken at the receiving vessel’s     any notification to the ship’s flag Administra-
manifold in accordance with resolution MEPC.96(47). It            tion issued by the master and the officers in charge of
must be a minimum of 400ml.                                       the bunkering operation crew together with any avail-
                                                                  able commercial documentation relevant to non-
The sample will be accompanied by a Bunker Deliver                compliant bunker delivery.
Note (BDN). The supplier is required to retain a copy of
BDN’s for 3 years.                                                2.1.4bis In the case where the bunker delivery note or
                                                                  the representative sample as required by regulation 18
2.3) PSC Guidelines under Annex VI.                               of this Annex presented to the ship are not in compli-
                                                                  ance with the relevant requirements, the master or the
MEPC 53 noted that a number of bunker providers oper-             officers in charge of the bunkering operation should
ating under the jurisdiction of a MARPOL Annex VI                 have documented that through a Notification to the
non-Party State are issuing a “Bunker Certificate of              ship’s Flag Administration with copies to the port au-
Compliance” to receiving ships, in order to provide them          thority under whose jurisdiction the ship did not re-
with documentation of the fuel oil on board, in case the          ceive the required documentation pursuant to the bun-
ship should be subject to port State control in the port of       kering operation and to the bunker deliverer. A copy
call under the jurisdiction of a MARPOL Annex VI                  should be retained onboard the ship, together with any
Party. MEPC 53 confirmed that according to the applica-           available commercial documentation, for the subse-
tion of regulations 14 and 18 of MARPOL Annex VI, it              quent scrutiny of port State control.
is the ship which is responsible for documenting compli-
ance.                                                    the sulphur content of any fuel oil being used
                                                                  on board exceeds 4.5% m/m.
Having considered the issue, MEPC 53 agreed that a
Bunker Certificate of Compliance could not replace ap-         2.4) Letter of Protest.
propriate documentation issued by a bunker provider
operating under the jurisdiction of a Party to MARPOL          In event that either the BDN or the statutory sample, or
Annex VI. It was also agreed that it was at the discretion     both, have been found to be non-compliant, a Letter of
of the port State control Authority of a MARPOL Annex          Protest (LOP) should be issued in accordance with the
VI Party whether to accept the Certificate of Compliance       ship’s standing instructions. It is recommended that the
or not and to take appropriate action.                         ship’s flag administration is consulted as to whether they
                                                               have any procedural requirements for LOP.
The IMO Secretariat has received many enquiries from
both receivers and suppliers of bunker fuel oil. In re-        If no standing instructions exist then it is recommended
sponse to the enquiries, the Secretariat has informed          that 4 or more copies of the LOP may be issued. One to
them that the issue is considered as a commercial issue        the supplier, one to the port State Authority overseeing

  6 ■   March 2006 Issue One
          INTERCARGO                                             Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

the registration of the suppliers, another for the ship’s re-       mittee (CASTEC) is carrying out a project of data col-
cord and you may consider sending a further LOP to the              lection and analysis, in order to report their experiences
ship’s Flag Administration.                                         back to MEPC 58 (October 2008), using the following
Issuing of the LOP will demonstrate the ship’s understand-                          NAME AND TYPE OF SHIP:
ing of Annex VI requirements putting the onus on the sup-                Fuel consumption (FC) at  Voyage or time period
plier in the event that a port State Authority challenges any            sea and in port in tonnes data
non-compliance identified.
                                                                    y Fuel         Fuel      Fuel             Cargo           Distance
                                                                    a type         type      type             (tonnes or      (NM)
2.5) Options to comply with Annex VI.
                                                                    g ( )          ( )       ( )              units)
  I.     The ship is not intending to operate in a SECA. All
         fuel on board is not to exceed the global sulphur          1
         maximum of 4.5% m/m.                                       2
  II.    All heavy fuel oil (HFO) carried on board is to be         3
         less than 1.5% sulphur content.
  III.   Dual fuel operation <1.5% & <4.5% HFO – change-            4
         over procedures apply.
  IV.    Alternative technological method – specify.                                  CO2 Index reporting sheet
  V.      Strategy for handling national boundary emission
         regulations, such as those imposed by the EU and           Fuel type includes: Diesel/Gasoil, light fuel oil (LFO),
         USA.                                                       Heavy fuel oil (HFO).

3. CO2 index - MEPC Circular 471                                    4. Guidelines for On-Board Exhaust Gas (SOx)
                                                                    Cleaning Systems
In 1997 IMO adopted a resolution on CO2 emissions from
ships, requesting to consider what CO2 reduction strategies         MEPC 53 adopted the Guidelines for On-Board Ex-
would be feasible for ships. Resolution A.963(23) on IMO            haust Gas (SOx) Cleaning Systems (EGCS-SOx). It
policies and practices related to the reduction of green-           also endorsed the view that small engines such as life-
house gas emissions from ships was adopted, which re-               boat engines and emergency generators would rarely, if
quests the MEPC to develop a greenhouse gas emission                ever, be run on high sulphur fuel and therefore will not
index for ships, and guidelines for application of that index.      be subject to exhaust gas scrubbing. At present it would
As urged by the Assembly, MEPC 53 approved circular                 also be inappropriate to standardize connections for
MEPC/Circ.471 on Interim Guidelines for Voluntary Ship              delivering scrubber wash water to shore-based recep-
CO2 Emission Indexing for Use in Trials. The most com-              tion facilities due to the variety of dimensions used,
mon equation used, and that which has found its way into            differing needs of different ship types and inadequate
the CO2 Guidelines is expressed as:                                 experience to date in using such a system.
  Index = Fuel consumed x Carbon content / mass cargo x
                           distance                                 MEPC will address the issue of exhaust wash water
                                                                    discharges with more specific recommendations and
The objective of these guidelines is to provide the users           criteria relevant to EGCS-SOx wash water discharges
with guidance on achieving the targets set by IMO Assem-            in the near future as amendments to the Guidelines.
bly Resolution A.963 (23).
                                                                    5. References
The guidelines present the concept of an index for the en-
ergy efficiency of a ship in operation, limited to an expres-       1). MEPC/Circ 472 - PSC Guidelines under Annex VI.
                                                                    2). MEPC/Circ 471 - Interim Guidelines for Voluntary Ship CO2
sion of efficiency expressed in way of CO2 emitted per unit         Emission Index for Use in Trial.
of transport work. The guidelines are intended to monitor           3). Resolution MEPC.128(53) Adopted on 22 July 2005 Amend-
the efficiency of ship operation. They should be used to            ments to the Revised Survey Guidelines under the Harmonized Sys-
establish a common approach for trials on the voluntary             tem of Survey and Certification (Resolution A.948(23)) For The
                                                                    Purpose of MARPOL Annex VI.
CO2 emission indexing, which will enable shipowners to              4). Resolution MECP.130(53) Guidelines for On-Board Exhaust Gas-
evaluate the performance of their fleet with regard to CO2          Sox Cleaning Systems.
emissions. As the amount of CO2 emitted from a ship is              5). Lloyd’s Register “Marine Fuel Sulphur Record Book for the
directly related to the consumption of bunker fuel oil, the         control of sulphur oxide emissions”
CO2 indexing will also provide useful information on a              Contact info@intercargo.org for the sources of the above circulars.
ship’s performance with regard to fuel efficiency.

The Intercargo Technical, Safety and Environmental Com-

                                                                                                       March 2006 Issue One ■ 7
           INTERCARGO                                         Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                    Bunkers - MARPOL Annex VI and EU Directive

                                                                 oils (MDO) used by ships in intra-European voyages
1.     The differences between IMO MARPOL An-                    and when in EU ports should have a maximum sulphur
       nex VI and the EU Sulphur Directive                       content of 0.2%. The lack of supply of these oils has
                                                                 created a number of problems and since the original
In July 2005 the European Union (EU) adopted signifi-            EU Sulphur Directive did not cover residual fuels,
cant amendments to the EU Directive 1999/32, now                 many ships have been forced to use exclusively inter-
amended by the EU Sulphur Directive (2005/33). These             mediate fuel oil (IFO) and heavy fuel oil (HFO) when
amendments have largely aligned the EU Sulphur Direc-            in Europe.
tive with the IMO MARPOL Annex VI requirements.
However there are still a few important differences:             The amendments have changed the situation and ad-
                                                                 dress all marine fuel oils but with one significant
(1) Differing dates for the commencement of the North            change: from 11 August 2006, the 0.2% sulphur limit
Sea/English Channel Sulphur Emissions Control Area               will apply ONLY to DMA and DMX grade marine gas
(SECA).                                                          oils (MGOs) but no longer to DMB and DMC grade
                                                                 marine diesel oils (MDOs), which are commonly used
North Sea/English Channel becoming a SECA.                       by sea-going ships. As the ISO specification of grade
According to IMO, the North Sea/English Channel will             DMB is close to the specification of grade DMA (the
become a SECA (i.e. where fuels with a maximum sul-              differences being in order to allow for the bunkering of
phur content of 1.5% must be used) on 21 November                DMA through a contaminated bunkering hose), one
2007, while the interpretation given by the EU Commis-           could assume that if MGOs are not available, the ship
sion to their own Sulphur Directive is:                          could use grade DMB for a short period of time and
                                                                 avoid the problem of non-compliance due to lack of
"In the North Sea and English Channel SECA, operators            supply.
of all ships other than passenger vessels should comply
with the 1.5% sx.ulphur fuel limit from 11 August                It should also be aware that from 1 January 2010,
2007." (Passenger ships must, however, comply with the           when ships are at berth they will be required to use
1.5% sulphur fuel limit from 11 August 2006 whilst on            only fuels with a 0.1% sulphur content.
regular services in European waters.)
                                                                 2      EU Sulphur Directive - What do the provi-
We have no doubt that EU Member States will imple-               sions on marine distillate fuels (MDO & MGO) mean
ment this requirement within their 12 nautical mile terri-       in practice?
torial zone, which according to the United Nations Con-
vention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is under their            There are different provisions in Article 4 of EU Di-
jurisdiction. But while the EU can enforce this require-         rective 1999/32 and the new Articles 4a and 4b of
ment in its own territorial waters (12 miles), we cannot         2005/33 which relate to marine gas oils (MGO) and
clarify whether they could legally monitor enforcement in        marine diesel oils (MDO). Confusion can arise here
international waters. However, bearing in mind that the          because the new directive is an amending proposal
difference between the IMO and EU enforcement dates              which has to be read in conjunction with the original
for ships (other than passenger ships) is only 3 months          directive. The following clarifications are proposed:
and 10 days, we cannot foresee that this discrepancy
would create too much of a problem as long as ship op-           ·     Until 10 August 2006, the existing 0.2% sulphur
erators take it into account when trading in the North Sea/      limit continues to apply to all marine distillates used in
English Channel at this time.                                    EU territory waters, including ships in territorial seas
                                                                 and on inland waterways, but excluding ships in the
(2) Requirements that ships use very low sulphur con-            territory waters of Greece, the French DOM-TOM,
tent fuels while "at berth".                                     Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands. The term
                                                                 used in the directive is “marine gas oil” but the defini-
Use of very low sulphur fuels                                    tion includes all marine distillates under ISO 8217:
Before these amendments, the EU Sulphur Directive re-            DMA, DMB, DMC and DMX grades, i.e. also includ-
quired that all marine gas oils (MGO) and marine diesel          ing marine diesel oils;

     8 ■   March 2006 Issue One
        INTERCARGO                                             Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

·     From 11 August 2006 until 31 December 2007, the
0.2% sulphur limit now applies only to marine gas oils                            Lifeboats
used in EU territory waters with a viscosity or density                - Measures to prevent accidents
falling within the ranges of viscosity or density defined
for DMX and DMA grades under ISO 8217. The exemp-                IMO produced the following documents with meas-
tion for Greece and the outermost regions continues to           ures to prevent life-boat accidents:
apply. For DMB and DMC grade marine diesel oils the
0.2% sulphur limit in EU territory waters is dropped, and        •   MSC/Circ 1049 Accidents with Lifeboats
a less stringent limit of 1.5% sulphur is introduced with        MSC/Circ 1093 Guidelines for Periodic Servicing
respect to fuels placed on the market in EU Member               and Maintenance of Lifeboats, Launching Appli-
States’ territory. This is to allow the use of marine diesel     ances and On-Load Release Gear
oils to comply with the SOx Emission Control Areas, in           • MSC/Circ.1136 Guidance on Safety During
case supplies of 1.5% S heavy fuel oil are insufficient;         Abandon Ship Drills using Lifeboats
                                                                 • MSC/Circ.1137 Guidelines for Simulated
·     From 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2009, a
                                                                 Launching of Free-Fall Lifeboats
0.1% sulphur limit applies to marine gas oils used in EU
territory with a viscosity or density falling within the         • Resolution MSC.152(78) Adoption of Amend-
ranges of viscosity or density defined for DMX and               ments to the International Convention for the
                                                                 Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, As Amended
DMA grades under ISO 8217. The exemption for Greece
and the outermost regions continues to apply; and

·     From 1 January 2010, the provisions originating
from Directive 1999/32 and relating to the use of marine
gas oils in EU territory waters (described above) are
now deleted. Instead a 0.1% sulphur limit is introduced              Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas
for marine gas oils placed on the market in EU Member
States’ territory, and a 0.1% sulphur limit starts to apply      The following Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas
to all types of marine fuel used by ships at berth in EU         (PSSA) have been designated:
ports and by inland waterway vessels. This applies to            • the Great Barrier Reef, Australia (designated a
any use of the fuel e.g. in auxiliary engines, main en-          PSSA in 1990);
gines and boilers. There are the following exemptions:           • the Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago in Cuba
for ships which spend less than 2 hours at berth accord-         (1997);
ing to published timetables, for hybrid sea-river vessels        • Malpelo Island, Colombia (2002);
while they are at sea, and for ships which switch off all
                                                                 • the sea around the Florida Keys, United States
engines and use shore-side electricity. The outermost
regions continue to be exempt from this provision, but
Greece does not, apart from a 2-year derogation for 16           • the Wadden Sea, Denmark, Germany, Nether-
named Greek vessels until 2012.                                  lands (2002);
                                                                 • Paracas National Reserve, Peru (2003);
                                                                 • Western European Waters (2004);
                                                                 • Extension of the existing Great Barrier Reef
                     **********                                  PSSA to include the Torres Strait (proposed by
                                                                 Australia and Papua New Guinea) (2005);
                                                                 • Canary Islands, Spain (2005);
                                                                 • the Galapagos Archipelago, Ecuador (2005);
                                                                 • the Baltic Sea area, Denmark, Estonia,
                                                                 Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
                                                                 Sweden (2005).

                                                                                           March 2006 Issue One ■ 9
          INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                                      Cold Ironing

                                                                   According to Princess Cruise Lines, the cost of pur-
1. Introduction                                                    chased power of some 100,000 kWh per day some-
                                                                   what exceeds the cost of diesel fuel that would be con-
There are reports on the feasibility studies in the US             sumed if the ship's generators were operated in port.
about cold ironing to meet environmental concerns. Cold-           However, if new legislation further reduces the emis-
ironing refers to shutting down auxiliary engines on ships         sion level in ports, ships may be offered an option to
while in port and connecting to electrical power supplied          use shore power instead of using different types of fuel
at the dock, thus eliminating virtually all emissions from         and related installations to balance the added cost with
a ship while it is in port. (Cold-ironing is also referred to      a contribution to protecting the environment. Modify-
as “shore power” and alternative maritime power). The              ing a ship to accept cold ironing costs more than
term “cold-ironing” comes from the act of                          $500,000 per vessel. Currently, the cruise line is im-
dry-docking a vessel, which involves shutting down all             plementing cold ironing at its docks in Seattle. A ma-
on-board combustion, resulting in the vessel going                 jor Chinese line has also begun implementing cold
“cold.” Without cold-ironing, auxiliary engines run                ironing for its freighters that dock in Long Beach,
continuously while a ship is docked, or “hotelled,” at a           California, which is known for its concerns about air
berth to power lighting, ventilation, pumps, communica-            pollution (source http://www.copper.org/resources/
tion, and other onboard equipment. Ships can hotel for             cutopics/Ct98/ports_pollution.html).
several hours or several days.
                                                                   This approach is especially concerning for the tanker
There are no effective standards for electrical connection         industry. There are obvious safety issues when con-
to shoreside power, and wide variations in the electrical          necting to the mains ashore. Other issues cover the
infrastructures of both ships and ports. Ships which can           availability of large amounts of power needed for
connect in the US cannot easily do so in Europe (and vice          tankers. Attention should also be paid to the type of
versa). Controls are likely to apply primarily to regular          energy plant that will be required to deliver this elec-
visitors. Some examples are:                                       tricity (quite possibly coal based in U.S.), and the loca-
                                                                   tion of the power plant in relation to densely inhabi-
      Cruise Ships in Alaska: Cruise lines now use
                                                                   tated areas. Therefore an immediate question is what is
      shoreside power when alongside. Princess Cruise
                                                                   the real gain from the introduction of cold ironing by
      Lines, based in Santa Clarita, California, has spent
                                                                   burning more coal.
      over $4.5 million to enable its big cruise ships to
      accept local power in Juneau, the capital of Alaska.
                                                                   2. New development
      New terminal in Los Angeles: The port was sued
      by a local community who was not adequately con-             At the last meeting of the Inter-Industry Shipping and
      sulted before a new terminal went ahead. A settle-           Ports Contact Group (IISPCG) on 15 Nov 2005, IAPH
      ment required ships at the terminal to use shoreside         (International Association of Ports and Harbours) re-
      power.                                                       ported the progress of cold ironing in the US. Los An-
                                                                   geles and Long Beach ports are considering introduc-
      BP in Los Angeles: With the port paying for the
                                                                   ing AMP (alternative marine power) but only for the
      shoreside installation, BP has also invested to allow
                                                                   hotelling operation, i.e. only providing shore electric-
      its tankers, bringing oil from Alaska, to use shore-
                                                                   ity to ships for crew living on board, not for opera-
      side power while unloading. It makes clear this is
                                                                   tional needs. It was also reported at the meeting that
      voluntary, and it has no legal obligation to do so.
                                                                   the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) is
                                                                   in the process of developing standards but using differ-
The costs, complications and additional shoreside emis-            ent vocabulary from those used by shipping.
sions appear to make it unattractive as a general solution
without significant change in both ship and shore electri-
cal technologies. (Source: The USA & Shipping Emis-                3. Comments from Members
                                                                   Based on current information and initial comments
In order for a ship to “cold iron”, it must be equipped to         from CASTEC members, we have the following sum-
do so and the terminal at which it is docked must be               mary:
equipped to provide power to the ship.
                                                                   •    It is extremely important NOT to underestimate

   10 ■    March 2006 Issue One
        INTERCARGO                                             Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

    what it takes to “shut a ship down” these days and          Cold ironing is only one of the tools to locally reduce air
    accordingly arrangements should, at all costs, allow        pollution from ships in ports and can be effective in some
    for parallel running of the shore supply and ship’s         special cases, depending on local circumstances and sen-
    power plant. The relevance of this increases with the       sitivity of the local environment. It is often difficult to
    decrease in expected stay alongside. Matching of            adapt the ship to shore connection. The cables are
    power supplies will be an issue.                            bulky, safety critical, and need special handling, espe-
                                                                cially for ships of different lengths and sizes and shifting
•   It is difficult to make the changeover between              in berth.
    ship and shore power supplies without power inter-
    ruptions, however short. This imposes extra costs           Intercargo would like to see uniform measures and re-
    and safety precautions to a great deal of the sensitive     quirements to tackle the emission problem. If the IMO
    electronic equipment upon which modern ships de-            development is directed to low sulphur fuel on board and
    pend                                                        shipping has purchased expensive fuel with the installa-
                                                                tion of additional storage tanks and handling systems,
•   Heating is a service normally provided by the boiler.       another regime following a different approach would
    Electric heating is not really practical (the average or    undermine the implementation of the IMO requirements.
    typical 30kW~40kW heaters for domestic services
    found are often inadequate) and the power required          It is noted that the issue is not a high priority for bulk
    for the machinery heating services would be im-             carriers compared to cruise ships, tankers and container
    practically large.                                          ships. However, it is realised that participation in the joint
                                                                industry initiative may be necessary:
•   What will be a much more significant problem is if
    the requirement is also to shut down the                     •   To monitor closely the progress in the US on cold
    boiler. Owners would then be faced with all the                  ironing;
    problems of keeping the main engine and the fuel at          •   To provide feedback and comments of the bulk car-
    the correct temperature and supplying hot water and              rier sector to the process;
    heat for the accommodation for which on most ships           •   To influence the standard being developed by ISO;
    the boiler is required. If the boiler cannot be used         •   To bring the issue to IMO when necessary to reduce
    then significant expense will be involved.                       the negative impact on shipping;
                                                                 •   To influence the early practice and protect and bal-
•   The power demands are large in comparison with                   ance ships interests (high cost and long term conse-
    other port uses. The approach of cold ironing is ca-             quences); and
    pable of handling the ships normal power require-            •   To exchange views with other industry partners.
    ments excluding that required for the deck cranes,
    which would require to be fitted with individual            Intercargo would encourage safety assessments for bulk
    power supply points.                                        carriers and feasibility studies for bulk carrier terminals
                                                                with moving loading/unloading facilities.
4. Industry position

The environmental benefit achieved depends on a number
of factors, such as the time the vessel is berthed at
the quay, the fuel used, the performance of the engines
and so on. The relative benefit of electricity supply from
the shore depends on how the electricity is produced. If
the shore power is generated by coal other than wind
power, analysis may come out with a different view.
The total cost for onboard generation of electricity will
depend on the design of the ship’s power supply system
and the fuel used (the fuel prices vary largely over time
and by fuel quality). The total cost will also depend on
costs for investments and maintenance (the investment
costs will vary with the type of engine (two/four
stroke, engine brand, size etc), age and running hours per

                                                                                               March 2006 Issue One ■ 11
            INTERCARGO                                         Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                     Ballast Water Management

1. Background                                                             (53);
                                                                  3) Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange (G6),
The Ballast Water Management Convention (BWM Con-                         adopted by Resolution MEPC.124(53);
vention) was adopted in 2004 and is expected to enter             4)      Guidelines for the Approval of Ballast Water
into force in 2009 (a summary of BWM Convention is at                     Management Systems (G8), adopted by Reso-
annex I to this document). Relevant technologies of bal-                  lution MEPC.125(53); and
last water management have been developing since 2004.            5)      Procedure for the Approval of Ballast Water
IMO will use the evaluation methodology to conduct a                      Management Systems that make use of Ac-
technology review covering aspects of safety, environ-                    tive Substances (G9), adopted by Resolution
mental acceptability, practicability, cost-effectiveness and              MEPC.126(53).
biological effectiveness.
                                                                  Substantial work was undertaken on the remaining 9
By noting that the International Conference on Ballast            sets of guidelines, all of which will be completed by
Water Management for Ships (February 2004) had                    the end of 2006. Contact info@intercargo.org for the
adopted the International Convention for the Control and          information of the Programme for Development of the
Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments                  Guidelines for Uniform Implementation of the BWM
(BWM Convention), MEPC 51 in April 2004 considered                Convention.
the requirements under the BWM Convention and ap-
proved a work programme for the development of guide-             3. Technology available
lines for the uniform implementation of the BWM Con-
vention.                                                          Categories of technology include filtration, ultraviolet
                                                                  radiation (UV), oxidation, ultrasonic, non-oxidizing
MEPC 52 in October 2004 finalized the “Guidelines for             chemical biocides, heat, and deoxygenation processes,
approval of ballast water management systems” ( also              as well as combinations (usually with an initial filtra-
referred to as G8) and approved the “Procedure for ap-            tion step) in multi-stage systems. . Some systems pre-
proval of active substances” (G9), with a view to adop-           sented used more than one technology.
tion at MEPC 53 in July 2005. MEPC 52 also agreed on a
set of recommendations for the conduct of a review of the         On reviewing some 14 different types of systems
ballast water management technologies, as required by             (detailed in annex II to this document) MEPC 53
regulation D-5 of the BWM Convention, and invited                 agreed that for the time being there was no need to
IMO Member States and Non-Governmental Organisa-                  review the implementation dates as set out in the Con-
tions (NGO’s, Intercargo being one of NGO’s) to submit            vention. However, not enough information has been
relevant information to MEPC 53 to facilitate the review.         provided to firmly conclude on cost effectiveness. It
                                                                  should also be noted that no systems had been fully
MEPC 53 made significant progress on the development              tested on board before MEPC 53.
of guidelines called for under the BWM Convention and
adopted 5 sets of Guidelines.                                     MEPC 53 agreed that it would undertake a second
                                                                  review at its 55th meeting in October 2006 (MEPC 55)
2. Up-to-date Progress                                            to assess the progress made on the technologies re-
                                                                  viewed at its 53rd session. There is a growing concern
There are 14 sets of Guidelines to be developed by                that sufficient capability will not be available in time
MEPC in order to implement the BWM Convention. At                 to produce and install the systems on all the vessels
MEPC 53 the following 5 sets of Guidelines have been              mandated to use them.
adopted by MEPC Resolutions. Contact
info@intercargo.org for information of the resolutions            4. When type approved systems will be available
and the Guidelines.
                                                                  The program for a (G8) type approval (not using active
1)           Guidelines for Ballast Water Management              substances) could potentially range from 8 months for
             Equivalent Compliance (G3), adopted by Reso-         land-based and shipboard testing in parallel and to up
             lution MEPC.123(53);                                 to 2 years if difficulties are encountered.
2)           Guidelines for Ballast Water Management and
             the Development of Ballast Water Management          1) A G8 process might be achievable within the fol-
             Plans (G4), adopted by Resolution MEPC.127           lowing dates:

     12 ■    March 2006 Issue One
       INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                                                by heating may need to be cooled to less than 10 deg C
•   Systems that do not use Active Substances: Land-            above ambient to minimize any environmental impact.
    based test facilities available: February 2006;
                                                                5). Systems with filters on up-take and/or discharge
•   Earliest type approval using parallel ship and land-        should ensure that any residual waste discharged by
    based testing: October 2006. However, it is ques-           back-flushing may only be discharged at the point of
    tionable whether any operator would consider the            origin. The capabilities of filters may impose a limit on
    installation of a test system without the confidence        achievable flow rate.
    given by an extensive land-based test; or
                                                                6). The size range of the systems onboard varies be-
•   Type approval assuming difficulties encountered:            tween systems and between flow rates for the same sys-
    February 2008                                               tem.

2) A combined G8 & G9 approval for a system that used           7). Systems that include an in-tank treatment stage may
active substances would have to follow the (G9) process         introduce a minimum voyage time and may not be prac-
and assuming that data for an Active Substance was              ticable for voyages of short duration. The minimum
available at the earliest opportunity, then a combined          voyage time may be of the order of 24 to 48 hours.
(G8)/(G9) process might be achievable within the fol-
lowing dates:                                                   8). There was not enough information at MEPC 53 to
                                                                come to any firm conclusions about likely costs.
•   Systems that use Active Substances: Consideration
    by the Technical Group December 2005; Basic ap-             6. Annexes
    proval at MEPC 54 March 2006;
                                                                Annex I Summary of the Ballast Water Management
•   Earliest (G8) completion using parallel land and            Convention; and
    ship testing: January 2007. Earliest final approval at      Annex II Summary of the technologies presented at
    MEPC 56: July 2007; or                                      MEPC 53.

•   (G8) completion assuming difficulties encountered:
    May 2008. Final approval assuming difficulties                                    ***********
    encountered, at MEPC 58: October 2008.

5. Advice to Members

1). No equipment should be permanently installed be-
fore it is type approved, during which full consideration
should be given to the issues of safety, environmental
risks and practicality.

2). The calibration or consistency of manufacture is also
an important area of concern. There are uncertainties
with regards to maintenance, robustness, design-life and
calibration of the system. Owners should consider ex-
tending guarantees and/or warranties for maintenance
cover since the system may have not been life-cycle

3). Storage facilities should be given appropriate design
consideration for systems that use Active Substances,
since it is possible for ships to store and carry large
quantities of potentially hazardous and toxic chemicals
for use in ballast treatment systems. Investigation should
be made to check whether some technologies may have
other waste products from the Active Substances used on
board. Residual chemicals may be produced when using
non-active substance treatment systems.

4). The ballast water that has been subject to treatment

                                                                                            March 2006 Issue One ■ 13
           INTERCARGO                                         Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

Annex I                                                         Construction Date: keel laying date; 50 tons or 1% of
                                                                structural material – whichever is less; or major conver-
Summary of the Ballast Water Management Conven-                 sion.
The new Ballast Water Convention has been adopted and           Major Conversion: change of ballast capacity of 15%;
will enter into force when 30 States representing 35% of        change of ship type; projected life is extended by 10
the world’s gross tonnage become signatories.                   years; or ballast system modification except for replace-
                                                                ment-in-kind or modifications needed to carry out ballast
All ships including submersibles, floating craft/platforms,     water exchange.
FSUs and FPSOs) are to manage their ballast water in ac-
cordance with an approved Ballast Water Management              Ballast Water Exchange is to take place as follows:
Plan and record such management in a Ballast Water Re-
cord Book in accordance with the provisions of the Con-         1. at least 200 nm from the nearest land and in more
vention based on the following implementation schedule:         than 200 m water depth;

•      D1 = Ballast Water Exchange (95% volumetric              2. at least 50 nm from the nearest land and in more
       exchange) or pumping through three times the vol-        than 200 m water depth; or
       ume of each tank;
                                                                3. in the event throughout the intended route the sea
•      D2 = Ballast Water Treatment systems approved by         area does not afford the above characteristics, in a sea
       the Administration which treat ballast water to an       area designated by the port State.
       efficacy of:
       ∗ not more than 10 viable organisms per m3 >50           All ships > 400gt (except floating platforms, FSUs and
            micrometers in minimum dimension; and               FPSOs) are to be surveyed (initial, annual, intermediate,
       ∗ not more than 10 viable organisms per millilitre       and renewal) and certificated (not exceeding 5 years).
            < 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and
            >10 micrometers in minimum dimension.               States may establish additional ballast water manage-
                                                                ment measures for ships to meet, based on Guidelines
                                                                which remain to be developed.
Indicator Microbe concentrations shall not exceed:
                                                                The MEPC shall undertake a review of the Ballast Water
a) toxicogenic vibrio cholerae: 1 colony forming unit (cfu)
                                                                Standards no later than 2006 and is to include an assess-
per 100 millilitres or 1 cfu per gram of zooplankton sam-
                                                                ment of the technologies available that achieve the stan-
b) Escherichia coli: 250 cfu per 100 millilitres; and
c) Intestinal Enterococci: 100 cfu per 100 millilitres

                                            First, Intermediate or Renewal Survey , which ever occurs first after
    Ballast Capac-
                   Construction Date        anniversary date of delivery in the year indicated below
    ity (m3)
                                                2009 - 2014            2015              2016             2017
                                   <2009                          D1 or D2                                 D2
                                   >2009                                      D2

           > 1500                  <2009          D1 or D2                                D2
           < 5000                  >2009                                      D2
           > 5000                  <2012                          D1 or D2                                 D2
           > 5000                  >2012                                      D2

    14 ■    March 2006 Issue One
                                     INTERCARGO                                                                                                 Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                            Annex II Summary of the technologies presented at MEPC53

                              Technology           Description            Active substances      Anticipated size     State of develop-     Extent of testing      Other relevant       Cost information
                                                                          used                   range                ment                                         information

                              No.1 (Heat           Heat water to 38-      Does not use ac-       Between 50 and       Tested on a dry       Positive results for   The system pro-
                              Method in docu-      40 degrees Celsius     tive substances        5000 cubic meters    bulk carrier,         eliminating viable     vides a level of
                              ment MEPC            for a period of                               per hour. Space      141,475 dwt trav-     organisms.             simplicity, which
                              53/2/15)             time in order to be                           requirements         elling between        has not been un-       for practical pur-
                                                   effective. Limited                            should not be sig-   Japan and Austra-     dertaken in rela-      poses is desirable
                                                   by length of voy-                             nificant.            lia.                  tion to the D-2        in a shipboard
                                                   age and ballast                                                                          standard or the G8     system.
                                                   capacity.                                                                                guidelines
                              No.2 (Filtration     This system uses       An active sub-         Constrained by a     Not undergone         The testing under-     Chlorine dioxide
                              and Chlorine         filtration on uptake   stance (Chlorine       ballasting rate of   shipboard trials      taken has provided     is widely used in
                              Dioxide Treat-       with a secondary       dioxide) is used, to   2,500 cubic meters                         positive results;      municipal water
                              ment Method in       chemical treatment     be generated on        per hour due to                            however testing        treatment.
                              document MEPC        of ballast water       board the ship         filtration                                 has not been un-
                              53/2/15)             with Chlorine di-      from its subcom-                                                  dertaken in rela-
                                                   oxide.                 ponents.                                                          tion to the D-2
                                                                                                                                            standard or the G8
                              No. 3                a) mechanical          The active sub-        Available for all    Will be commer-       Pilot tests have       Designed in a        Operation does not
                              (Mechanical          separation             stance is generated    ship types and all   cially available in   been carried out       modular fashion      require consum-
                              Separation and       (filtration) and       onboard                ship sizes due to    the near future       under worst case       no upper limit in    ables. However,
                              Disinfection in      b) generation of an                           the modular sys-     (end of 2006).        conditions in river.   the flow rate        cleaning chemi-
                              document MEPC        active substance                              tem design                                 Standard D-2 can                            cals and spare
                              53/2/11)                                                                                                      be met for organ-                           parts replacements
                                                                                                                                            isms >50 µm and                             are needed.
                                                                                                                                            organisms <50 and
                                                                                                                                            >=10 µm.

                            Note: Technologies 8, 10 and 13 are not included as they are duplicates of other technologies already submitted.

March 2006 Issue One ■ 15
                                INTERCARGO                                                                                                 Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

16 ■
                       Technology              Description             Active substances     Anticipated size      State of develop-     Extent of testing      Other relevant      Cost informa-
                                                                       used                  range                 ment                                         information         tion

March 2006 Issue One
                       No. 4 (Filtration and   A first step filtra-    The active sub-       For ships with a                            Pilot tests have       Due to the          Consumables are
                       UV in document          tion, second step       stance needs to be    ballast water flow                          been carried out       modular design      required on a
                       MEPC 53/2/11)           UV-radiation and        dosed directly into   rate up to 250 cu-                          and did not meet       system, compo-      very limited
                                               third step disinfec-    the ballast water     bic meters per                              the D-2 Standard       nents can be        scale. Costs for
                                               tion                                          hour. It requires                           completely. The        placed in differ-   maintenance and
                                                                                             approx. 5 square                            insufficient filtra-   ent locations       consumables are
                                                                                             meters.                                     tion rate for larger   within the ship.    below 10k US$
                                                                                                                                         organisms needs        Larger flow rates   annually.
                                                                                                                                         the use of active      can be treated by
                                                                                                                                         substances to meet     using multiple
                                                                                                                                         the D-2 standard       systems in paral-
                       No. 5 (Physical Sepa-   A first step me-        The system makes      Tested on land        Fully developed       Reached or even        No constraint       Installation cost
                       ration and Disinfec-    chanical separation     use of an active      with a flow rate of   and ready for         exceeded the D-2       resulting from      cannot be as-
                       tion in document        (hydro cyclone          substance             200 and 500 cubic     shipboard testing     standard               the voyage          sessed at the
                       MEPC 53/2/11)           and 50µm filtra-        PERACLEAN®            meters per hour.      in accordance                                length. The         present. Costs
                                               tion) and a second      Ocean, which is a     Size 4.8 and 14.8     with G8.                                     treated water       for operation are
                                               step treatment with     readily biodegrad-    square meters.                                                     should be re-       anticipated at
                                               an oxidizing agent.     able and chlorine-                                                                       tained for a        0.30 US$ per
                                                                       free.                                                                                    minimum of 24       treated m³ of
                                                                                                                                                                hours.              ballast water.
                       No. 6 (Filtration and   First step filtration   The system uses an    5 square meter size   Installed on a        Results in relation    The system can      Estimated opera-
                       Disinfection in docu-   (mesh size 50 µm)       active substance.     for a flow rate of    container vessel      to D-2 from on-        be designed for a   tion costs for
                       ment MEPC 53/2/11)      and a second step       Produces no spe-      300 cubic meters      (1.100 TEU)           board testing are      ballast water       1000 m³ of
                                               disinfection based      cial risks for the    per hour.             since May 2005.       not available at       flow rate up to     treated ballast
                                               on electro-             environment. No                             No influence to       present.               5000 m³/h and       water are be-
                                               chemical-               special risk for                            the normal bal-                              should be world     tween 4 € to 10
                                               activation              health or onboard                           last water opera-                            wide commer-        €.
                                                                       safety.                                     tion. It starts and                          cially available
                                                                                                                   stops automati-                              in summer 2006.
                                                                                                                   cally with the
                                                                                                                   common ballast
                                     INTERCARGO                                                                                                Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                            Technology              Description            Active substances      Anticipated size      State of develop-    Extent of testing     Other relevant      Cost informa-
                                                                           used                   range                 ment                                       information         tion

                            No.7 (Filtration and    The method of          The system does        A 300 cubic meter     Installed on         The current ver-
                            UV Radiation in         treating ballast       not utilize active     system is approxi-    board a total of 7   sion has not been
                            document MEPC           water with a low-      substances. No         mately 1.5 square     ships; 5 retrofits   tested under the
                            53/2/16)                pressure loss sepa-    safety hazard for      meters in size. Ex-   and 2 new            current D-2 stan-
                                                    rator and UV.          the ship or the        pected lifetime of    builds. The first    dards and G8 test-
                                                                           crew running and       3000 running          installation since   ing guidelines.
                                                                           operating the sys-     hours                 May 2000. There
                                                                           tem.                                         are no environ-
                                                                                                                        mental concerns.
                            No. 9 (Filtration,      Uses nitrogen in-      Not using Active                                                  Undergone labora-     Comprises a
                            Dual Pulsed Shock       jected into a          Substances.                                                       tory tests, land-     compressor and
                            Wave/                   steam-plume es-                                                                          based test and is     membranes for
                            Supersaturation and     tablished in the                                                                         currently evaluated   nitrogen produc-
                            Oxygen Deprivation      flow in the ballast                                                                      in a shipboard        tion, only the
                            in document MEPC        pipe line following                                                                      situation.            filter, injection
                            53/2/16)                filtration through a                                                                                           and cavitation
                                                    50 micrometer                                                                                                  components
                                                    mechanical auto-                                                                                               need to be in-
                                                    matically back                                                                                                 stalled.
                                                    flushing filter.
                            No.11                   Electrochemical        Active substances      Electrochemical       Land-based pilot                           There are no        The capital cost
                            (Electrochemical Dis-   disinfection uses      are not added to       reactor module,       test with ballast                          waste streams       including instal-
                            infection in document   various active sub-    the system but         dimension (mm)        water flow rate                            that have to be     lation is expected
                            MEPC 53/2/31)           stances produced       produced during        840 W x 740 D x       of 60 cubic me-                            disposed of and     to be in the range
                                                    from electrolysis      electrolysis of sea    2700 H. Rectifier     ter is being con-                          require special     of 160K - 170K
                                                    of sea water.          water,     attacking   dimension (mm)        ducted.                                    concern during      US$ for new
                                                                           simultaneously an      1400 W x 1300 D                                                  the system op-      vessel with 1500
                                                                           organism or organ-     x 2350 H.                                                        eration.            m3/hr ballast
                                                                           isms for disinfec-                                                                                          pump and 180K
                                                                           tion so that a syn-                                                                                         - 200K US$ for

March 2006 Issue One ■ 17
                                                                           ergy effect can be                                                                                          an existing ves-
                                                                           expected.                                                                                                   sel.
                               INTERCARGO                                                                                              Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

18 ■
                       Technology              Description          Active substances      Anticipated size      State of develop-   Extent of testing     Other relevant      Cost informa-
                                                                    used                   range                 ment                                      information         tion

March 2006 Issue One
                       No.12 (Filtration and   Automatically        No substances are      A area of 3 square    A full-scale pro-   Compliance with       Power consump-      Operational costs
                       Advanced Oxidation      black-flushing       added and no re-       meters for equip-     totype has since    the D-2 standard      tion depends on     including power
                       in document MEPC        filter for removal   siduals are created.   ment is required to   September 2003      should be             the amount of       consumption and
                       53/2/6)                 of large particles                          treat 500 cubic       been installed on   achieved. Full-       ballast water to    consumables
                                               and the AOT unit                            meters per hour.      board a transoce-   scale land-based      be treated, e.g.    about 0.015US$/
                                               producing hy-                                                     anic car carrier.   tests according to    500 cubic meters    m3 treated ballast
                                               droxyl radicals in                                                                    G8 are yet to be      per hour requires   water.
                                               breaking down                                                                         tested.               15 kW.
                                               and bacteria.
                       No.14 (Chlorine Di-     Based on a chlo-     Uses Active sub-       All equipment and     Currently under-    Vendor reports that                       Capital for
                       oxide in document       rine dioxide         stance ClO2. Its       tanks housed in a     going full-sized    the design dose                           equipment and
                       MEPC 53/2/14            (ClO2) generator     storage and han-       standard 20 foot      shipboard tests     achieves treatment                        installation:
                                               which produces a     dling are not a con-   long shipping con-    on a 11,000 cu-     meeting IMO D-2                           $300K to $450K;
                                               treatment solution   cern because it is     tainer. Target flow   bic meter ballast   standard                                  technical support
                                               from sulphuric       generated on           rate capability is    water capacity      concentrations.                           including materi-
                                               acid and sodium      board. Design dose     1,000 -10,000 cu-     container ship      Shipboard tests to                        als: 50K - 100K
                                               chlorate/hydrogen    is 5 mg/L ClO2         bic meters per        with a ballast      validate at full                          US$ per year.
                                               peroxide.            with 24-hour incu-     hour.                 flow rate of        scale are under-
                                                                    bation.                                      2,500 cubic me-     way.
                                                                                                                 ters per hour.
         INTERCARGO                                             Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                                Cargoes - Petcoke
                    - Guide on disposal of petcoke residue and cargo hold wash water

                                                                   with these requirements by completion of log books,
1. Background                                                      oil record books, incinerator logs and records of port
Due to the entry into force of the amendments to MAR-
POL Annex V on 1 Aug 2005, cargo residues become                   2. Operational experience
“garbage” under the amended Annex V.
                                                                   2.1 Experts contacted
After carrying green delayed petcoke, subsequent clean-
ing will remove both the residues and the residual foot-           The following members and organisations were con-
print (the paint pigment) left behind. The cargo residue           tacted for advice:
has polluting properties which leave a sheen on the sur-
face, therefore it needs a port reception facility to collect      Intercargo membership:
it. The water cleaning operations may use chemicals/                 Anglo-Eastern Ship Management (Hong Kong) Ltd.
detergents to remove the "footprint". The resultant wash             COSCO UK
water then needs special attention. The wash water may               Bocimar, Belgium
be contaminated by oil, or hydrocarbons and may trigger              IMC Singapore
application of regulation 3(2), or 5(2) of Annex V which             Kristen Marine S.A. Greece
states that "when the garbage is mixed with other dis-               Oceanbulk Maritime S.A. Greece
charges having different disposal or discharge require-              Pacific Basin UK
ments the more stringent requirements shall apply".                  Thomas Miller Ltd
                                                                     Unisea Shipping Ltd
If a bulk carrier is within special areas (as defined within         Wallem Shipmanagement Ltd, Hong Kong
MARPOL Annex V) or within port limits (this definition
to be determined by the port authority regarding how far           Others:
out to sea this goes), the wash water cannot be discharged           Experts from Intertanko
overboard. Even if the ship is out of the special areas, but         Thenamaris Ships Management Inc. Greece
the chemicals/detergents of the wash water do not break              Strømme ASA, Norway
down the oily deposit and prevent the 'sheen' from occur-
ring and/or the chemicals/detergents are not the ones as           2.2 Advice received
approved by IMO, the wash water is still not allowed to
be discharged overboard. Ships turn to adequate port re-           MEPC circular MEPC.2/Circ.8 issued in Dec 2002
ception facilities for assistance, which are required by           indicates the restriction on the types of detergents used
MARPOL as statutory obligation of ports. Without                   in washing under Para. 3.4 Cleaning additives as:
proper port reception facilities to receive the cargo resi-        “1.8.2 When small amounts of detergents are added to
dues, a ship may not be able to physically present itself          water in order to facilitate tank washing, no detergents
with clean holds to back load at a port or terminal within         containing pollution category A components should be
one of the Special Areas. Intercargo is aware that it is not       used except those components that are readily bio-
easy for a ship to clean for loading after a discharge in          degradable and present in a total concentration of
either North West Europe or the Mediterranean.                     less than 10%.” No restrictions additional to those
                                                                   already applicable to the tank due to the previous
The PSC inspectors may quickly become aware of the                 cargo should apply (amendments to the Standards for
issue.                                                             Procedures and Arrangements for the Discharge of
                                                                   Noxious Liquid Substances, implemented as of 1 July
MARPOL Annex I contains limits on the amount of oil                1996).
which ships can legitimately discharge into the sea.
Where discharge from bilge tanks is permitted it is a re-          The IMO BLG Sub-Committee evaluated a list of
quirement that an Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control             cleaning additives and found it to meet the require-
System together with Oil Filtering equipment (Oily Wa-             ments of paragraph 1.8.2. Annex 12 of the MEPC.2/
ter Separator) be fitted so as to ensure that the oil content      Circ.8 details the consolidated list.
of any discharge does not exceed the maximum permitted
under Annex I (15ppm). Any residue or sludge should                Cargo residues: Having a similar property is fuel
then either be incinerated or discharged into port recep-          sludge, petcoke should be collected by a shore facility.
tion facilities. Owners are required to ensure compliance          Owners’ best proposal is to get the cargo receiver and

                                                                                                March 2006 Issue One ■ 19
         INTERCARGO                                          Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

receiving terminal involved as early as possible for their          is not approved under the above class and its use
preparation and arrangement to deal with the cargo resi-            should be avoided. The disposal has to go through
dues.                                                               standard discharge and monitoring equipment if
Cargo hold washing: It is normal that after discharging
of petcoke there are always some dark foot prints left          6). For dry petcoke
behind on the bulkheads of cargo holds. These are nor-              EDGE or Enviromate 2000 is usually recommended.
mally cleaned with bridgeable cleaning agents which                Edge or Enviromate 2000 would be the product of
remove these stains and any oily content or sheen which            choice if a spray on application is going to be used.
is then emulsified into a harmless solution and is dis-
charged as normal and won’t invoke Marpol Annex I.              EDGE is recommended when stubborn stains are a
Procedure to wash cargo holds after discharge:
                                                              US Practice:
 1) Sweep tank (Very Important to Thoroughly Sweep
    Out);                                                     A vessel may not discharge wash water of any kind from
 2) High pressure water wash if possible with warm            her bilge tank(s) directly into the sea. Any wash products
    water (50 to 60 deg C);                                   that may form a sheen (shiny translucent film) in the wa-
 3) Manual spray at 100 to 150 liters of cleaner per 1000     ter or contain chemicals, oil, hydrocarbons or any other
    cubic meters of tank space or tank cleaning machine;      product unfriendly to the aquatic life environment, cannot
 4) Let soak 45 to 60 minutes maximum; and                    be disposed overboard in US waters.
 5) High pressure water wash.
                                                              The procedures call for the secure transfer of the wash
Chemicals for different types of petcoke                      water or of any other liquid type to be disposed into spe-
                                                              cial holding tanks (frac tanks). Once the wash water has
 1) Only products listed under IMO MEPC.2/CIRC.8              been transferred into the holding tanks a tank transporta-
    can be used and disposed of at sea for cargo tank         tion company would thereafter transport the tank content
    cleaning when cargo residue slops are permitted to be     to an approved (EPA agency) facility for final disposal.
    disposed at sea. It is suggested to check with the
    manufactures for a Certificate of Compliance of the       All the disposals are governed by federal, state and local
    products to meet the requirements of MEPC.2/Circ.8.       environmental control regulation.

 2) The cleaning products EDGE, Enviromate 2000 and             • 3. References (contact info@intercargo.org for the
    DREW TC at Sea have been evaluated by IMO bulk                information of them):
    liquid and gases (BLG) working group on the evalua-
    tion of safety and pollution hazard of chemical           1.   Summary of the amendments to MARPOL Annex V.
                                                              2.   Introduction of Petcoke.
    (ESPH) and found to meet the requirement of Para-         3.   Garbage management plans - MEPC/Circ.317.
    graph 1.8.2 of Procedures and arrangement standards       4.   Provisional categorization of liquid substances, IMO MEPC.2/
    and is listed on IMO MEPC.2/CIRC.8.                            Circ.8, Dec 2002.
                                                              5.   Research project - Precautions when fixed for Green Delayed Pet-
                                                                   coke, Strømme AS, Nesveien 15, PO Box 31 N-1305 Haslum, Nor-
 3) OSD/LT is an oil spill dispersant used to breakdown            way.
    sheen and TYPE 1 approved by the UK environ-              6.   Cleaning Manual for bulk carriers, Strømme AS.
    mental and food council.                                  7.   Solutions to petcoke problems, Strømme AS.
                                                              8.   Solving hold cleaning problems in vessels transporting petcoke,
                                                                   Strømme AS.
 4) Cleaning chemical Aqutuff from Unitor was evalu-          9.   Pollution Prevention Equipment Required By Marpol 73/78.
    ated through IMO’s BCH Working Group on the
    Evaluation of Safety and Pollution Hazards of
    Chemicals and found to meet their requirements of
    paragraph 1.8.2 of the P&A Standards.

 5). For oily petcoke
     Solvent cleaning is required. Drew TC Sea or TC #4
    can be applied or used through a tank cleaning ma-
    chine, combigun or maxigun.

 If De-odoring is required then use Drew EDGE.

 The product TC#4 is not listed under this category and

  20 ■    March 2006 Issue One
           INTERCARGO                                          Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                          Reception Facilities - Baltic
                                      - Introduction of its no-special-fee System

1.       INTRODUCTION of the Baltic Strategy

          Main Components of the Baltic Strategy

     •    Port reception facilities: Over 210 port reception
     facilities in the Baltic Area
     • Notification: 24 hours in advance
     • Mandatory delivery: obligation to deliver to a
     port reception facility before leaving
     • ”No-special-fee”: Ports charge the reception
     costs as part of their harbour fee, irrespective of de-
     livery of any waste or not and irrespective of
     • Promotion of sound waste management on
     board and on shore
     • Information and awareness raising
     • Control and enforcement: aerial surveillance
     supported by satellite observations
                                                                  ships, in the entire Baltic Sea area.
The Baltic Sea area has been designated as a special area          Source: http://www.helcom.fi (GRID Arendal)
under Annexes I, II and V. Prohibitions and restrictions
on any discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixtures, nox-       The HELCOM Recommendation 26/1on “Application
ious liquid substances and garbage have been introduced           of the no-special-fee system to ship-generated wastes
by the Baltic Sea States.                                         in the Baltic Sea area” was adopted on 2 March. It
                                                                  recommends that the Governments of the Contracting
The Baltic Sea area comprises the Baltic Sea proper, plus         Parties to the Helsinki Convention apply the attached
the Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Finland, and the entrance        Guidelines for the establishment of a harmonised "no-
to the Baltic Sea bounded by the parallel of the Skaw in          special-fee" system for the operation of reception
the Skagerrak at 57°44.43'N, with a total area of about           facilities in their ports as of 1 January 2000 for ship-
370,000 km².                                                      generated wastes covered by Annex I (oily wastes
                                                                  from machinery spaces) of MARPOL 73/78 and as of
The Helsinki Commission has approved the Strategy for             1 January 2006 for wastes covered by Annex IV
Port Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Wastes and           (sewage) and Annex V (garbage) of MARPOL 73/78.
Associated Issues, also known as the Baltic Strategy,             “No-special-fee” for the reception of ship-generated
which comprises a set of measures and regulations with            waste means that the ports charge the reception and
the main goals to ensure ships' compliance with global            treatment costs to all ships calling as part of their har-
and regional discharge regulations and to eliminate illegal       bour fee, irrespective of whether a certain ship delivers
discharges into the sea of all wastes from all ships.             any waste or not and irrespective of amounts dis-
In addition, regulations concerning the discharge of sew-         charged. In addition, they have a mandatory commit-
age into the sea and the prohibition of incineration of           ment for ships to deliver all their wastes to port recep-
ship-generated wastes in the territorial seas of the Baltic       tion facilities before leaving port.
Sea States have been adopted by the Contracting Parties
to the HELSINKI CONVENTION (refer to the attached                 The "no-special-fee" system has the dual purpose of
Introduction to the Convention). There is also a general          encouraging ships to deliver waste ashore thus avoid-
ban on dumping and incineration of other wastes, not              ing undesirable waste streams between ports and en-
incidental to or derived from the normal operation of             couraging a sound sharing of the waste burden. This

                                                                                                 March 2006 Issue One ■ 21
          INTERCARGO                                                 Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

means that fees covering the cost of the reception, han-               CONVENTION, which was signed in 1974 and came
dling and final disposal of ship-generated wastes are in-              into force in 1980. The 1974 Convention was the first
cluded in the harbour fee and otherwise charged to the                 international agreement worldwide to take into account
ship, irrespective of whether any wastes are actually de-              all aspects of marine environment protection. The Con-
livered.                                                               vention aims to prevent pollution from ships (including
                                                                       dumping), pollution from land-based sources, and pollu-
Over 210 port reception facilities are provided in ports               tion resulting from the exploration and exploitation of
located around the Baltic Sea.                                         the seabed and its subsoil. The Convention also regulates
                                                                       the co-operation to respond to marine pollution by oil
Additionally, the Baltic Sea States have agreed that by 1              and other harmful substances.
January 2001 ships bound for or leaving a port of a Baltic
Sea State and carrying dangerous or polluting goods,                   A new Convention was signed in 1992 in order to ex-
must report on the substances to the competent authority               tend, strengthen and modernize the legal regime for the
of that Baltic Sea State. Some Baltic Sea States have al-              protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea
ready made this reporting requirement obligatory under                 area. The 1992 HELSINKI CONVENTION entered into
their national law.                                                    force on 17 January 2000. The Convention text and
                                                                       HELCOM Recommendations can be found in the inter-
CHAIN of responsibility                                                net, see www.helcom.fi.

The responsibility for avoiding discharges of oil or other             The discharge regulations are as follows:
harmful substances rests not only with the master and his
crew but also with the charterer, the ship-owner and the               Oil
                                                                       Any discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the Baltic Sea
The charterer should include in the Charter Party a clause             area is prohibited. Oil means petroleum in any form in-
stating his policy on pollution prevention compliance.                 cluding crude oil, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse and refined
The ship-owner should ensure sound management in                       products. The prohibition applies not only to discharges
safety and pollution prevention, as required by the Inter-             from the cargo tanks of oil tankers but equally to dis-
national Safety Management Code for certain categories                 charges from the machinery spaces of any ship. Only if
of ships.                                                              the oil content in the effluent does not exceed 15 parts
                                                                       per million can a discharge be permitted. The oil filtering
Ports should be prepared to accept tank cleaning slops, or             equipment must be provided with arrangements that en-
cargo that has been mixed with retained residues.                      sure that any discharge of oil or oily mixtures is auto-
                                                                       matically stopped when the oil content in the effluent
Notes: 10 Contracting Parties (9 Baltic Sea coastal States and the     exceeds 15 parts per million. Since 1 January 2002 ships
European Community)                                                    of less than 400 tons gross tonnage, flying the flag of a
        HELCOM: the Helsinki Commission, Governing body of the
Convention . HELCOM MARITIME: the Maritime Group of the Hel-           Baltic Sea State, should also comply with the adopted
sinki Commission                                                       guidelines concerning holding tanks/oily water separat-
                                                                       ing or filtering equipment.

Attachments:                                                           Finland has prohibited the use of bilge water separators
                                                                       in her inland waterways and in the territorial waters,
                                                                       within an area of 4 nautical miles from the nearest land.
1. Introduction to the Helsinki Convention.
2. Application of the “No-Special-Fee System” to Ship-                 Noxious liquid substances carried in bulk
Generated Wastes in the Baltic Sea Area.
                                                                       Within the Baltic Sea area there is a prohibition on dis-
                                                                       charges from tanks that have contained Category A or B
                        ********                                       substances, specified by IMO’s International Bulk
                                                                       Chemical Code, which categorizes noxious liquid sub-
Attachment 1                                                           stances carried in bulk as A, B, C or D according to their
                                                                       magnitude of harm to the marine environment if dis-
          Introduction to the Helsinki Convention
               (source: http://www.helcom.fi/)                         Tanks having contained Category A or B substances
                                                                       must be pre-washed and the resultant tank washings
Growing awareness that national measures alone are not                 must be delivered to a reception facility. This is either to
sufficient to protect this highly sensitive marine environ-            ensure a certain concentration of the substance in the
ment led the Baltic Sea States to adopt the HELSINKI

   22 ■    March 2006 Issue One
         INTERCARGO                                              Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

effluent or a certain concentration of the substance in the       cause no harm to the marine environment, may be used.
wake astern of the ship. The same applies to tanks that
have contained high-viscosity or solidifying Category C           The Baltic Sea States have also agreed to take actions to
substances. The eventual discharge into the sea must com-         reduce and finally prohibit the use of ozone-depleting
ply with provisions on the speed of the ship, discharge           substances on board ships flying the flag of a Baltic Sea
below the waterline, distance from the nearest land and           State.
depth of water.
                                                                  When Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78 on “Regulations for
For discharges from tanks that have contained other Cate-         the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships” enters into
gory C substances there are provisions on the concentra-          force on 20 May 2005 the Baltic Sea area will obtain the
tion of the substance in the wake astern of the ship, maxi-       status of a SOx emission control area requiring that on
mum quantity of cargo to be discharged, speed of the ship,        and after 20 May 2006 all ships navigating in the area use
distance from the nearest land, discharge below the water-        fuel oil with a sulphur content not exceeding 1.5% m/m
line and depth of water.                                          or an exhaust gas cleaning system or any other technical
                                                                  method reducing the total emissions of sulphur oxides
Likewise provisions on concentration of the mixtures to           from ships. In accordance with Annex VI deliberate
be discharged, speed of the ship and distance from the            emissions of ozone-depleting substances will be prohib-
nearest land apply to discharges from tanks that have con-        ited.
tained Category D substances.
                                                                  Prohibition of incineration
The discharge into the sea of noxious liquid substances,
which have not been categorized, provisionally assessed           Incineration means the deliberate combustion of wastes
or evaluated, or of ballast water, tank washings, or other        or other matter at sea for the purpose of their thermal
residues or mixtures containing such substances, is pro-          destruction, excluding activities incidental to the normal
hibited.                                                          operation of ships or other man-made structures.

Sewage                                                            Incineration, except for incineration of ship-generated
                                                                  wastes, is prohibited throughout the Baltic Sea area.
For ships flying the flag of a Baltic Sea State it is prohib-     However, incineration of wastes deriving from the nor-
ited to discharge sewage within 12 nautical miles of the          mal operation of the ship is also prohibited in the territo-
nearest land. This prohibition also applies to all other          rial seas of the Baltic Sea States.
ships in the territorial seas of the Baltic Sea States. How-
ever, sewage that has been comminuted and disinfected             Prohibition of dumping
using an approved system may be discharged at distances
greater than 3 nautical miles from the nearest land. In any       Dumping means any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes
case, when discharging from a sewage holding tank, the            or other matter from ships, or any deliberate disposal
discharge must be at a moderate rate and the ship must be         from ships at sea. The prohibition of dumping does not
proceeding en route at a minimum speed of 4 knots. Only           apply to the disposal of dredged materials at sea, pro-
if an approved sewage treatment plant is used onboard can         vided specific provisions are complied with.
discharge take place at any distance from the nearest land.
                                                                  Dumping is prohibited throughout the Baltic Sea area.
For ships, flying the flag of a Baltic Sea State, certified to
carry more than 50 persons and engaged in international           Mandatory delivery of wastes at port reception facili-
voyages in the Baltic Sea area, regulations on Surveys and        ties
Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificates also apply.
                                                                  All ships, with some exceptions, are under an obligation
Garbage                                                           to deliver to a port reception facility, before leaving the
                                                                  port, their ship-generated wastes and cargo residues that
Discharge of garbage in the Baltic Sea area is prohibited.        cannot be legally discharged under the global Interna-
However, food wastes may be discharged, but in any case           tional Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
not less than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land.            Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating
                                                                  thereto (MARPOL 73/78), or under the HELSINKI
Fuel oil quality                                                  CONVENTION.

In the Baltic Sea area ship-owners are encouraged to use          Availability of port reception facilities
marine fuel oils with as low sulphur content as possible,
but not exceeding 1.5% m/m (mass/mass) by weight. Al-             To enable ships to deliver their ship-generated wastes and
ternatively, exhaust gas treatment systems, proven to             cargo residues, over 210 port reception facilities are pro-

                                                                                                 March 2006 Issue One ■ 23
         INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

vided in ports located around the Baltic Sea area.

Notification of the intended use of port reception fa-           Co-operation in investigation
                                                                 The Baltic Sea States are co-operating to investigate
To ensure the use and efficiency of the port reception           violations of anti-pollution regulations.
facilities, an information sheet must be forwarded to the        This is particularly important when a ship violates the
next port of call 24 hours in advance of the intended use        discharge regulations in the waters of one State, with-
of a port reception facility. The sheet must include the         out calling at a port in that State, and proceeds to a port
following information: the capacity of the waste storage         in another State. Thus, a Baltic Sea State can request
tanks/bins on board; the amounts of wastes delivered at          another State to conduct a Port State Control inspection
the last port of call and the estimated amounts of wastes        upon the ship's arrival at the next port of call, to obtain
to be delivered at the next port of call. The notification       the necessary information and evidence of the sus-
can also be accomplished electronically via the Baltic           pected violation.
Ports Waste Information System.
                                                                 To enhance this co-operation, the Baltic Sea States
The “no-special-fee” system                                      have elaborated a Baltic Legal Manual specifying the
                                                                 requirements for obtaining a conviction in each Baltic
According to the “no-special-fee” system, a fee covering         Sea State and Guidelines on ensuring successful con-
the cost of reception, handling and final disposal of ship-      victions of offenders of anti-pollution regulations at
generated wastes is levied on the ship irrespective of           sea.
whether or not ship-generated wastes are actually deliv-
ered. The fee is included in the harbour fee or otherwise        Fines
charged to the ship.
                                                                 The Baltic Sea States have agreed to harmonize admin-
Detection and prosecution of offenders of anti-                  istrative fines by deciding on a minimum level, which
pollution regulations                                            is intended to be preventive - discouraging the master
                                                                 or other person in charge of a ship from violating the
The Baltic Sea States place high priority on the elimina-        anti-pollution regulations. The minimum level will
tion of violations of anti-pollution regulations, and on the     prevent fines varying greatly between the Baltic Sea
conviction of any offenders. Various actions have been           States, and will also avoid a situation in which it is
taken to this end.                                               cheaper to discharge illegally than to use port reception
Cargo, Oil and Garbage Record Books

MARPOL 73/78 and the HELSINKI CONVENTION lay                                          ********
down a duty to keep Cargo, Oil and Garbage Record
Books, and specify the operations requiring entries in the
appropriate Record Books. Accurate and timely entries in         Attachment 2
Cargo, Oil and Garbage Record Books are of utmost im-
portance to ensure compliance with the special discharge
regulations. A copy of the relevant Record Book may be           Application of the “No-Special-Fee” System to Ship-
used in judicial proceedings as evidence of facts stated in           Generated Wastes in the Baltic Sea Area
the entry.                                                                  (source: http://www.helcom.fi/)
Aerial surveillance                                              THE COMMISSION,
In order to prevent and detect any violation of discharge        RECALLING Article 8 of the Convention on the Pro-
regulations, the Baltic Sea States regularly conduct aerial      tection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea
surveillance supported by satellite observations of their        Area, 1992 (the Convention) which calls for develop-
response regions and jointly survey specific parts of the        ment and application of uniform requirements for the
Baltic Sea area.                                                 provision of reception facilities,
During the joint surveys a chosen traffic route is surveyed
for a minimum of 24 hours by a number of aircraft from           RECALLING ALSO Article 9 of the Convention
the Baltic Sea States. A joint command post manages the          stipulating a need for special measures in relation to
surveillance in close co-operation with patrol vessels,          pleasure craft, which includes the establishment of ade-
ready to take proper measures when offenders are de-             quate reception facilities for wastes from pleasure craft,

  24 ■    March 2006 Issue One
       INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                                                   age and Garbage to Port Reception Facilities
CONSCIOUS that the "no-special-fee" system consti-
tutes a system with the dual purpose of encouraging            1 Definition of the "no-special-fee" system
ships to deliver waste ashore and to avoid undesirable         1.1 In this context the "no-special-fee" system is defined
waste streams between ports, thereby encouraging a             as a charging system where the cost of reception, han-
sound sharing of the waste burden,                             dling and disposal of ship-generated wastes, originating
                                                               from the normal operation of the ship, is included in the
CONSCIOUS ALSO that the “no-special-fee” system                harbour fee or otherwise charged to the ship irrespective
constitutes one of the prerequisites for a substantial de-     of whether wastes are delivered or not.
crease in the number of operational and illegal dis-
charges and thus for the prevention of pollution of the        1.2 The "no-special-fee" system is not restricted to any
marine environment from ships,                                 specific type of ship-generated waste.

NOTING that the port authorities are responsible for           2 Obligation to pay
providing reception facilities for wastes covered by An-       2.1 Every sea-going ship's obligation to pay for recep-
nex I (oil), Annex II (noxious liquid substances), Annex       tion, handling and disposal of oil residues, sewage and
IV (sewage) and Annex V (garbage) of the International         garbage is deemed to arise with the arrival of a ship in
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,         any port of the participating countries, irrespective of
1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating             whether or not that particular ship will actually make use
thereto (MARPOL 73/78),                                        of the reception facilities, which are available there.

NOTING ALSO that the consignor in the loading port             2.2 The above fee covers the waste collecting, handling
is responsible for reception arrangements for cargo re-        and processing including infrastructure and shall be dis-
lated wastes covered by Annex I (oil residues from cargo       tributed among ships and collected as part of or in addi-
tanks) of MARPOL 73/78,                                        tion to the port dues.

NOTING FURTHER that the consignee in the unload-               3 Exemptions
ing port is responsible for reception arrangements for         3.1 A ship may be exempted by the competent authority
wastes covered by Annex II (residues of noxious liquid         from the obligation to pay, when engaged in scheduled
substances) of MARPOL 73/78,                                   traffic with regular and frequent port calls and it is en-
                                                               sured that the disposal requirements will be met on the
RECOMMENDS that the Governments of the Contract-               ship’s own account.
ing Parties apply the attached Guidelines for the estab-
lishment of a harmonised "no-special-fee" system for the       3.2 For the purpose of these Guidelines "scheduled traf-
operation of reception facilities in their ports as of 1       fic with regular and frequent port calls" means the traffic
January 2000 for ship-generated wastes covered by An-          meeting the following criteria:
nex I (oily wastes from machinery spaces) of MARPOL
73/78 and as of 1 January 2006 for wastes covered by             3.2.1 scheduled: the ship must have a published or
Annex IV (sewage) and Annex V (garbage) of MAR-                        planned list of times of departures and arrivals,
POL 73/78,                                                             between nominated ports or terminals;

TAKING NOTE of the adoption within the European                 3.2.2 regular: for being exempted, the ship must make
Union of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facili-               repeated journeys between those nominated ports
ties for ship-generated waste and cargo residues,                     or terminals; or

REQUESTS the Governments of the Contracting Parties             3.2.3 frequent: the ship must visit the port for which the
to support or seek active co-operation with the North Sea             exemption applies at least once a week.
States for the purpose of establishing a similar "no-
special-fee" system also in the North Sea Region,              3.3. When a ship applies for an exemption, the compe-
                                                               tent authority of the Port State should require evidence
REQUESTS ALSO the Governments of the Contracting               of the ship’s scheduled traffic as well as evidence of
Parties to report on the implementation of this Recom-         waste management practice (contract, receipts, copy of
mendation and attached Guidelines in accordance with           garbage record book, oil record book etc.). The ship has
Article 16(1) of the Convention.                               to organise its waste management according to a contract
                                                               and deliver its waste regularly under this arrangement in
 Guidelines for the Establishment of a Harmonised              a certain port/ports. If it chooses to deliver elsewhere, a
                 "No-Special-Fee"                              port can charge the ship according to the real costs
  System for the Delivery of Ship-Generated Oily               (direct fee).
                 Wastes Originating
From Machinery Spaces and for the Delivery of Sew-             3.4. The Contracting Parties should also advise on ex-

                                                                                            March 2006 Issue One ■ 25
         INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

emptions issued to other Port States along the scheduled        ing and operation of reception facilities, and evaluate
route. The Contracting Parties will inform the HELCOM           such reports at the meetings of the Maritime Group of the
Secretariat of their competent authority responsible for        Helsinki Commission.
granting exemptions from the mandatory delivery and
notification requirements.

4 Basis of calculation of the no-special-fee                                        ********
4.1 The waste management fee imposed on a ship should
be independent of the volume of the wastes delivered to
the port reception facilities. To obtain the maximum fair-
ness in specifying the ship’s contribution to the “no-
special-fee” system the gross tonnage, as indicated in the
vessel's Data Sheet, could be taken as the basis of calcu-
lation by the port. The basis of the quantity calculation of
oil, garbage and sewage may depend on the type and size
of the ship as well as the number of crew and passengers.

4.2 A high quality standard of the applied waste manage-
ment procedures and waste processing equipment on
board can also be taken into account in scaling the waste
management fee, having in mind the general aim of mini-
misation of waste production, and the benefit of waste

4.3 The waste management fee shall be fair, transparent
and non-discriminatory to all ships, i.e. the size of the
waste management fee shall be visible to every ship even
if it is included in the harbour fee.

4.4 The waste management fees received from ships shall
be used for no other purposes than:
         - investments in reception facilities, stationary
         and mobile;
         - operation of reception facilities;
         - repair and maintenance costs of such facilities;
         - costs of handling, treatment and final disposal
         of the received wastes.

5 Avoidance of competitive distortion
5.1 To avoid competitive distortions between ports lo-
cated in different sea areas, all possible efforts shall be
made to achieve as soon as possible a harmonised waste
management fee system for the ports in the Baltic Sea
and in the North Sea Regions.

5.2 The Contracting Parties involved shall make the nec-
essary efforts in order to implement a harmonised fee
system simultaneously in the ports of the Baltic Sea as
well as in the North Sea Regions.

5.3 Provisions should be made to preclude any subsidis-
ing of the waste management fee through public funds for
the operation of reception facilities.

5.4 The Governments of the Contracting Parties shall
exchange periodic reports on the implementation of these
Guidelines in their ports, including reports on the financ-

  26 ■    March 2006 Issue One
         INTERCARGO                                         Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                        MARPOL Special Areas

                                                               der amendments to Annex VI adopted by the MEPC in
Special areas under MARPOL 73/78 are as follows:               July 2005, with expected entry into force in November
1) Annex I: Regulations for the prevention of pollu-
tion by oil                                                                     *********
Regulation 10 identifies the following special areas with
strict controls on discharge of oily wastes:

•   Mediterranean Sea area
•   Baltic Sea area
•   Black Sea area
•   Red Sea area
•   “Gulfs” area
•   Gulf of Aden area
•   Antarctic area
•   North West European Waters
•   Oman Sea area of the Arabian Seas (from 1 January

2) Annex II: Regulations for the prevention of pollu-
tion by Noxious Liquid substances

Regulation 1 identifies the following special areas with
strict controls on tank washing and residue discharge

•    Baltic Sea area
•    Black Sea area
•    Antarctic area

3)     Annex V: Regulations for the prevention of
       pollution by Garbage

Regulation 5 identifies the following special areas, in
which there are strict controls on disposal of garbage:

•    Mediterranean Sea area
•    Baltic Sea area
•    Black Sea area
•    Red Sea area
•    “Gulfs” area
•    North Sea
•    Antarctic area (south of latitude 60 degrees south)
•    Wider Caribbean region including the Gulf of Mex-
ico and the Caribbean Sea

4) Annex VI: Prevention of air pollution by ships

This annex enters into force on 19 May 2005 and estab-
lishes the Baltic Sea area as a "SOx Emission Control
Areas" (SECA) with more stringent controls on sulphur
emissions from ships.

The North Sea was adopted as a SECA in July 2005, un-

                                                                                          March 2006 Issue One ■ 27
          INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                  IACS Common Structural Rules

                                                                   ment in newbuildings and who are not interested in a
General industry position                                          ship’s life longer than 20 years. These are entirely le-
                                                                   gitimate concerns and interests, which will need to be
INTERCARGO, together with the other three Round                    accommodated within the CSR development process.
Table International Shipping Associations (BIMCO, ICS
and INTERTANKO), lends its full support to IACS and                There are still areas of ship design and building issues
its commendable work on developing Common Structural               waiting for new technology to come up with new solu-
Rules (CSR) for Bulk Carriers. We believe that the broad           tions or clarification. The advance of new technology
application of the Rules by all IACS members is funda-             will leave the CSR under continuous pressure for re-
mental to the future of Class and is in the best interests of      view and evaluation.
maintaining the highest standards of ship safety and qual-
ity. INTERCARGO has shown and will continue to show                Information flow between key stakeholders of the CSR
its commitment to work together with IACS in the har-              can either promote or restrict the understanding and
monisation and future reviews process.                             appreciation of the CSR. Lack of transparency or
                                                                   shortage of information flow will delay the process of
As to the history, the 2nd draft of Common Structural              CSR development and the review process.
Rules for Bulk Carriers was published on the JBP Web-
site on 8th April, 2005. Large number of comments from             Shipyards and marine products manufacturers have to
the Industry have already reached IACS and led to the              respond to the CSR positively. New designs under the
revision of the 2nd draft CSR. It shows that the IACS              CSR will therefore impact on their standards. The cost
harmonisation process has difficulties. It is the request of       of absorption will be passed down to the end user,
the shipping industry that the IACS members should en-             shipowners, with commercial uncertainty.
deavour to maximise those elements of harmonisation
which can be achieved before the implementation of the             The principle of CSR is to reduce the competition
CSR.                                                               level between IACS Members but internal conflicts
                                                                   have been evidenced in the review and harmonisation
Both IACS and the industry have covered much ground,               of the CSR between tanker and bulk carrier and the
however the industry still has areas of concern and has            ramification study, although recent perceived unanim-
requested IACS to consider them during the harmonisa-              ity within IACS Members has been greatly welcomed
tion process and future revisions in the review process.           by the wider shipping industry. There is always a
                                                                   question as to what extent the CSR incorporates the
Uncertainties at present with the impact on the CSR                industry comments and feedback.

The IMO is also busy with the development of Goal-                 Overall impact on shipping
based New Construction Standards (GBS), which are
indirectly linked to the CSR development. Such a link              CSR, covering both single and double side skin bulk
will have a significant impact on the future review of the         carriers, will come into force for ships contracted for
CSR. This leaves CSR with a level of uncertainty for its           construction on or after the 1st of April 2006, as de-
user.                                                              cided by IACS Council in December 2005. From April
                                                                   1, 2006, ships contracted will be subject to the new
Maritime safety and environmental issues are increas-              rules.
ingly attracting the attention of the public, who together
with their governments, are demanding increasingly ro-             According to the IACS assessment, bulk carriers, built
bust ships. These pressures alone are enough to push the           to the new common rules, could be expected to require
development of CSR to the fullest extent of its safety             “5%-6%” more steel on average than ships either built
margins.                                                           or under construction that did not already comply with
                                                                   the Unified Requirements issued by IACS for ships
Shipping is driven by commercial interest. Shipowners              contracted after July 1, 2003. This equals to a 3% rise
who put more attention on the long term benefit, will              in scantlings over a ship built to UR S25.
respond positively to the increase of safety margins, but
there are also groups of shipowners positioning them-              Apart from the opportunity cost of ship new buildings
selves with the intention of relatively short term invest-         between the first draft CSR available in 2004 and final

   28 ■    March 2006 Issue One
        INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

implementation in 2006, same uncertainties remain and          implement the CSR from 1 Apr 2006, the following sug-
may leave a long term impact on new ships during their         gestion is offered to those owners who are planning new-
25 years of commercial life.                                   buildings:

On the positive side, the CSR is expected to raise the         1. The CSR for bulk carriers are completely new to all
overall safety bar for new ships. It is also expected to       yards. There will be more certainty in terms of cost, de-
reduce market forces on ship design and building and           sign, planning approval, and delivery date if the new-
avoid compromise on the safety level of ships. The same        building contract follows existing rules prior to the intro-
set of rules across the whole design and construction sec-     duction of CSR on 1 Apr 2006, because normal yards
tor is expected to provide the same design in term of          have years of experience using them. This will make for a
main scantling and strength elements, which will reduce        cheaper newbuild vessel price. However, those with the
the opportunity to optimize design and new building stan-      perception to use the CSR may have a more robust,
dards.                                                         ‘forward-proofed’ ship offering the long-term benefits
                                                               such as a sound second hand resale security and compli-
On the commercial side, heavier ships will incur higher        ant with future IMO strengthening requirements; and
cost of building and a burden on the original owner but
will give more certainty to the second hand owners.            2. Owners will need to check the up-to-date development
                                                               in the areas of uncertainty, for an overall appreciation and
On the negative side, all new ships with IACS member           understanding of the situation. Only then will they be in a
societies’ class will follow the new CSR and bear the          position to take the decisions necessary for a satisfactory
possible cost of all uncertainties. A tiny proportion of       outcome.
ships of non IACS Member societies may compete with
the CSR ships with the advantage of an initial low invest-
ment on newbuildings, although it is not widely antici-
pated that owners will overturn the many years of experi-                             ********
ence with IACS Members in favour of untried non tech-
nically competent non IACS members. The CSR may
result in a higher cost for new orders. Those owners who
have newbuildings shortly after 1 July 2006 may have to
bear the cost of change or re-arrangement of production
lines with ship yards.

New rules will also improve the design and drawing ap-
proval process. Extra resources from shipowners may
need to be allocated to digest the new rules, especially to
those who have new building contracts with yards around
1 July 2006.


Industry welcomes the development of the CSR with the
expectation that there will be improvement on the safety
level of ships. However, the influences from different
interest groups internally and externally may push the
CSR development into a compromise situation. In addi-
tion, there are a number of areas of uncertainty from dif-
ferent parts of the whole safety chain, which will load
significant and different long term cost impacts on indi-
vidual shipowners. CSR ships may have material differ-
ences regarding loading capacity, maintenance and opera-
tion, and ship/terminal regimes. They will need to be
tested against the real sea and cargo conditions, which
goes some of the way to explaining why the development
process has been as time-consuming as it has been to the
INTERCARGO working group and others who have con-
tributed so extensively to the debate.

With the perception that IACS will move forward and

                                                                                             March 2006 Issue One ■ 29
         INTERCARGO                                         Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                           Cargoes - Dangerous
                            - Requirements on Ships Carrying Dangerous Cargoes

                                                                    Board Ships, adopted by the IMO by resolution
The following IMO Conventions, Resolutions, Codes,                  MSC.88(71), as subsequently amended;
Circulars, Manuals as well as EU Directives are relevant
for a ship carrying dangerous cargoes. The ships should      (11)   Cargo Securing Manual: a manual for the secur-
comply with their provisions according to which type of             ing of cargo, as required by SOLAS, prepared
dangerous cargoes are on board. It is also prudent for              pursuant to IMO guidelines, MSC/Circ.745, as
those ships to make sure whether there are additional               subsequently amended;
requirements from their flag States and the visiting port
States:                                                      (12)   MARPOL 73/78: the International Convention
                                                                    for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973,
(1)    BC Code: the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk            as modified by the Protocol of 1978, as subse-
       Cargoes, adopted by the IMO by resolution A.434              quently amended;
       (XI), as subsequently amended;
                                                             (13)   MFAG: the Medical First Aid Guide for Use in
(2)    BCH Code: the Code for the Construction and                  Accidents Involving Dangerous Goods, MSC/
       Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemi-                 Circ. 857, as subsequently amended;
       cals in Bulk, adopted by the IMO by resolution
                                                             (14)   Resolution A.673 (16): the IMO Guidelines for
       A.212 (VII), as subsequently amended;
                                                                    the transport and handling of limited amounts of
(3)    Directive 2002/59/EC: the EU Directive 2002/59/              hazardous and noxious liquid substances in bulk
       EC establishing a Community vessel traffic and               in offshore support vessels. The resolution ap-
       monitoring and information system and repealing              plies to all combustible substances, irrespective
       Directive 93/75/EEC, as subsequently amended;                of whether or not they are listed in Appendix 1 of
                                                                    the resolution;
(4)    MSC Circular EmS: Emergency Response Proce-
       dures for Ships Carrying Dangerous Goods, MSC/        (15)   SOLAS (Chapter VII): the International Conven-
       Circ.1025, as subsequently amended;                          tion for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974, as subse-
                                                                    quently amended; and
(5)    GC Code: the Code for the Construction and
       Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in        (16) STCW: the International Convention for Stan-
       Bulk, adopted by the IMO by resolution A.328               dards, Training, Certificates and Watchkeeping
       (IX), as subsequently amended;                             1978, as subsequently amended.

(6)    Gas Code for existing gas carriers: the Code for      Normally there are entry-into-force dates clearly indi-
       Existing Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk,      cating its implementation. In absence of an entry into
       adopted by the IMO by resolution A.329 (IX), as       force date, the adoption date should be complied with.
       subsequently amended;
                                                             Ships carrying cargoes covered by the above provisions
(7)    IBC Code: the International Code for the Con-         should, to the extent they are covered by the body of
       struction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dan-        legislation, keep the following documentation on board:
       gerous Chemicals in Bulk, adopted by the IMO by            SOLAS, Chapter VII;
       resolution MSC.4(48), as subsequently amended;             SOLAS, Regulation II-2/19 / Regulation II-2/54;
                                                                  MARPOL, Annex III;
(8)    IGC Code: the International Code for the Con-              BC Code;
       struction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Lique-           IMDG Code;
       fied Gases in Bulk, adopted by the IMO by resolu-          EmS;
       tion MSC.5(48), as subsequently amended;                   MFAG; and
                                                                  Directive 2002/59/EC.
(9)    IMDG Code: the International Maritime Danger-
       ous Goods Code, adopted by the IMO by resolu-         Packages containing dangerous goods offered for sea
       tion A.716(17), as subsequently amended;              transport should be marked and packaged in compliance
                                                             with applicable regulations, and accompanied by the
(10)   INF Code: the International Code for the Safe Car-    necessary transport documents. Goods which do not
       riage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Pluto-     comply with this should be refused for transport. Goods
       nium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on             in damaged packaging should always be refused.

  30 ■    March 2006 Issue One
        INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

All ships carrying dangerous goods should have a spe-
cial list, manifest or detailed stowage plan which sets out
the dangerous goods on board and the location thereof.

The relevant training to the ships’ crew should be made
according to the requirements of the IMDG Code and
STCW, and must be documented, as referred to in the
IMDG Code, Volume 1, Chapter 1.3 and STCW 1995,
Chapter II, Section A-II/2 including Tables, and Section
B-V/c of the STCW Convention. Safety measures for
dangerous packaged goods should also be in place.


                                                                                         March 2006 Issue One ■ 31
           INTERCARGO                                           Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                   Cargoes - Direct Reduced Iron

                                                                 •      IMO Circular DSC.1/Circ.36 on Accidents involv-
The cargo DRI or direct reduced iron is one of the raw                  ing transport of direct reduced iron (DRI) fines;
materials used in the production of steel by certain
method. When moist, hydrogen is released. It also cre-           •      IMO Circular MSC/Circ.1149 on Accidents In-
ates heat, which can be so extreme that the DRI glows
                                                                        volving Bulk Cargoes Not Specifically Listed In
white hot. It has been known to melt through steel plate.
                                                                        the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes
The hydrogen it produces in an enclosed space like the
                                                                        (BC Code);
cargo holds could be ignited and causes an explosion.

Before its loading, following cautions should be taken:          •      IMO MSC79 meeting paper on report of the ex-
                                                                        plosion and subsequent sinking of M.V. Ythan
                                                                        carrying DRI (MSC79 12-1);
•      Prior to shipment the DRI has to be aged for at
       least 72 hours or treated with an air-passivation
       technique, or some other equivalent method that           •      DSC.1/Circ.26 on Incident involving transport of
       reduces the reactivity of the material to at least the           zinc ingots;
       same level as the aged product would have (72
       hours);                                                   •      DSC.1/Circ.27 on Explosion in a Cargo Hold
                                                                        Loaded With Recycled Aluminium; and
•      It should not be loaded when it is either hot or
       damp;                                                     •      MSC/Circ.1146 on Lists of Solid Bulk Cargoes for
                                                                        Which a Fixed Gas Fire-Extinguishing System
•      Its condition should be monitored during loading.                May Be Exempted or for which a Fixed Gas Fire-
       Cargo with a temperature in excess of 65 ºC                      Extinguishing System Is Ineffective.
       should never be loaded;
                                                                 Contact info@intercargo.org for details of the above in-
•      During loading the DRI must be protected from
       exposure to rain or other respiration;

•      As far as is reasonably practical, DRI should not                               ********
       be dropped from a height into the hold;

•      DRI, which has been exposed to wetting on an
       open-conveyor or elsewhere, should be rejected;

•      During loading or discharging no smoking, burn-
       ing, cutting, chipping or other source of ignition
       should be allowed in the vicinity of the holds; and

•      Movable cargo lights, if used, must be not less
       than 3m from the coaming in a position where
       they are not likely to be broken during operations,
       and not over the square of the hatch.

Relevant information with requirements and reports of
•      IMO BC Code (the Code of Safe Practice for
       Solid Bulk Cargoes), as adopted by Resolution

•      IMO Circular DSC/Circ.8 on Incident reports in-
       volving dangerous cargoes;

    32 ■    March 2006 Issue One
       INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                           Emergency Towing
                                 - Progress report of New Requirements

Background                                                          2. Emergency towing procedures on ships
                                                                    2.1 Ships shall be provided with an emergency
The DE Sub-Committee, at its forty-eighth session in Feb                 towing procedure. Such a procedure shall be
2005, established an intersessional correspondence group                 carried aboard the ship for use in emergency
(CG) on Mandatory emergency towing systems in ships                      situations and shall be based on existing ar-
other than tankers greater than 20,000 dwt (DE 48/25                     rangements and equipment available on board
paragraph 14.4) coordinated by Germany.                                  the ship.
                                                                    2.2 The procedure shall include:
The CG was instructed to prepare a revised proposal for                  .1 drawings of fore and aft deck showing pos-
draft SOLAS amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1, Regu-                           sible emergency towing arrangements;
lation 3-4 and related guidelines as per Annex 1 and 2 of                .2 inventory of equipment on board that can
DE 48/14 for the assessment of deck equipment to be                           be used for emergency towing;
used in emergency towing, taking into account comments                   .3 means and methods of communication; and
and proposals made in plenary, and to submit a report to                 .4 sample procedures to facilitate the prepa-
DE 49 in Feb 2006.                                                            ration for and conducting of emergency
                                                                              towing operations.
Intercargo is one member of the CG, together with Ger-              2.3 This regulation applies to ships, regardless of
many, Australia, Cyprus, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands,                  the date of construction, as follows:
the United Kingdom, the United States, ICS, IMCA, In-                    .1 all new ships constructed after [1 July
tertanko and ISU.                                                             2008];
                                                                         .2 cargo ships constructed before [1 July
Work of the DE 48 CG                                                          2008] and above 20,000 dwt and all pas-
                                                                              senger ships not later than [1 July 2008];
The Correspondence Group did not make any progress                            and
but, Germany still insists on developing new regulations.                .3 cargo ships constructed before [1 July
The only concern so far is their suggestion that the emer-                    2008] and below 20,000 dwt not later
gency towing can be arranged without assistance by crew                       than [1 July 2010].
                                                              An intersessional correspondence group will be estab-
From the limited input received, it can be summarised         lished to finalise the guidelines for owners/operators on
that there is a need:                                         the development of emergency towing procedures, and
                                                              submit a report to DE50. The Co-ordinator is Dipl.-Ing
• for a common understanding of certain terms used in         Stephan P. Assheuer, ash@gl-group.com.
  the context of the guidelines (towing, emergency,
  redundant propulsion systems …), and                        Clarification at DE 49

• that there be a re-emphasis on developing and meeting       1) Certificates and document required to be carried on
  functional requirements for procedures and arrange-         board ships.
  ments for emergency towing.
                                                              This should be considered as a verification that such pro-
Outcome of DE 49                                              cedures are available on board, rather than an approval or
                                                              verification of the content. Such availability on board
Intercargo agrees to the development of emergency pro-        could sufficiently be granted by inclusion of the emer-
cedures but not mandatory requirements for equipment          gency towing procedures in FAL.2/Circ.87 - MEPC/
and supports the application to new ships only. Intercargo    Circ.426 - MSC/Circ.1151.
accepts the comments:
                                                              2). The emergency towing procedures should be added to
At DE 49 in Feb 2006, it has been agreed that there will      the list of documents to be carried on board ships and that
not be requirements for equipment installation but only       circular FAL.2/Circ.87 - MEPC/Circ.426 - MSC/
procedure requirements for new and exiting ships.             Circ.1151 should be amended accordingly.

The following draft amendments to regulation 3-4 of SO-
LAS Chapter II-1 were agreed at DE 49:

                                                                                            March 2006 Issue One ■ 33
         INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                           Pilotage - Denmark

1. Background                                                    However, in urging our members to comply with this
                                                                 resolution and, as we propose in other pilotage situa-
The Danish Maritime Authority (DMA) wrote to Inter-              tions, we advocate the mutual sharing of responsibility
cargo on 10 Oct 2005 urging all ships (other than tankers)       by the respective parties. It is therefore our contention
with a draught of 11m or more or with Irradiated Nuclear         that the pilotage service provider, when contracting to
Fuel (INF) cargoes to take on a pilot when they enter or         provide such services, should accept liability for loss or
leave the Baltic Sea, as recommended by the IMO under            damage caused by the vessel under pilotage, where such
Resolution MSC.138(76). The DMA backs up this asser-             loss and/or damage is attributable to the deliberate and/or
tion with a report that from 1 January 2002 to 30 June           negligent actions of the pilot and/or the service provider,
2005, 22 ships grounded on the Great Belt – none of              and that the national authority responsible for licensing
which had a pilot onboard. Intercargo recognises all IMO         and regulating the pilots and pilotage service providers
Recommendations.                                                 ensures that the pilotage service provider maintains ade-
                                                                 quate insurance protection to discharge this liability.
Careful review was taken of the recommendations con-
tained within the letter and the “Groundings and collision       We believe that this approach highlights that our primary
reports in the Great Belt 1997-2005”. Intercargo reacted         concern is about damage caused by the ship, and ad-
to the letter through a clear statement in the INTER-            dresses both the duties of the pilotage service provider,
CARGO Bulletin No. 202, October 2005 with a recom-               with regards to such matters as training, ensuring pilots
mendation from the DMA that the IMO recommenda-                  are competent both physically and professionally, provi-
tions should be followed and that members should in-             sion of appropriate equipment and backup etc.
clude the INTERTANKO Clause in their Charter Parties,
as follows:                                                      By drawing this distinction between the pilotage service
                                                                 provider and the national regulatory authority, Intercargo
Where the vessel is to pass through the entrances to the         believes this highlights that the pilot is not the employee
Baltic Sea the vessel shall comply with the recommenda-          of the regulatory authority but the service provider – by
tions set out in the IMO Resolution MSC.138(76) adopted          doing so, and if the regulatory authority chooses to also
on 5 December 2002 as amended from time to time in-              be a service provider, it should be subject to the same
cluding the use of pilots for the passage. Charterers shall      responsibilities as all service providers in regard to its
reimburse owners for any pilotage expenses incurred by           activities.
compliance with these recommendations on any ballast
passage to a port of loading or on the laden passage             3. Issues of further consideration
unless such expenses have already been taken into ac-
count in the freight payable [in accordance with the             3.1) Reaction of the adjacent States
terms and conditions of Worldscale].                             It is noted that the issue is highly sensitive due to the
                                                                 recent boom in Russian oil exports that move through
2. Intercargo Position                                           the straits. Baltic Sea States have declined to agree to
                                                                 make pilotage compulsory, with Russia in particular
Intercargo responded to DMA’s letter with a position that        arguing that the international law of the sea should be
the IMO recommendations should be followed but, as               respected.
intended by IMO, there is a distinction between Recom-
mendations and Mandatory Resolutions. However, in this           3.2) Commercial aspects
particular instance, Intercargo is fully prepared to go fur-     One relevant issue as raised some time ago by a member
ther and urge its members to comply with                         was the unwillingness of a time charterer to pay for non-
the recommendation contained in Resolution MSC.138               mandatory pilotage expenses in the English Channel
(76) regarding pilotage in the Danish Straits and include        where a Master of a deep draughted bulk carrier chose to
the INTERTANKO Clause in their Charter Parties.                  take a pilot but was not required to do so. The Charterer
                                                                 argued that Masters of such ships which they had previ-
The DMA was also informed that Intercargo is in the              ously chartered had sufficient experience not to require a
process of establishing an Ad Hoc Correspondence                 pilot. Therefore, they took the view that they should not
Group to review the issue of Pilotage as it relates to dry       have to pay. We agree that the bottom line should be
bulk carriers. Intercargo welcomes and promotes the              safety and nothing else. However we have to be aware
creation of a 'User Group' where industry and pilot inter-       that our members are moving in a commercial world and
ests can be debated openly, issues can be discussed and          usually do not like to see mandatory conditions applied
problems solved.                                                 to their operation.

  34 ■    March 2006 Issue One
        INTERCARGO                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

3.3) Liability and human element of the service pro-           4. Safety measures in the Baltic Sea area:
Liability:- With regard to the pilotage provider, when         The Baltic Sea States have agreed on certain safety meas-
providing such services, there is an issue of liability for    ures in the Baltic Sea area, like ship routing, ship report-
causing loss or damage to the vessel under pilotage,           ing, traffic separation schemes, pilotage, safety of winter
where such loss and/or damage may be attributable to the       navigation etc.
deliberate and/or negligent actions of the pilot and/or the
service provider (and also the national authority responsi-                              Route T
ble for licensing and regulating pilots?). Do the pilotage
service providers maintain adequate insurance protection       A transit route (Route T) through the Kattegat, the Great
to discharge this liability?                                   Belt and the Western Baltic has been established for deep
                                                               draught ships.
By drawing a distinction between the pilotage service
provider and the national regulatory authority that the                                 SHIPPOS
pilot is not the employee of the regulatory authority but
the service provider –then if the regulatory authority         IMO recommends that large ships navigating Route T
chooses to also be a service provider, then it should be       participate in the radio reporting service SHIPPOS. The
subject to the same responsibilities as all service provid-    system, which is free of charge, provides beneficial infor-
ers in regard to its activities.                               mation to ships.

Human element:- Concerns about the quality, qualifica-                           Ship reporting systems
tions of pilotage and the efficiency of the whole system in
the area, including the number of appropriately qualified      IMO has adopted a mandatory ship reporting system in
pilots, training, professional competency both physically      the Great Belt Traffic Area. Ships with a gross tonnage
and professionally, provision of appropriate equipment         equal to or exceeding 50 GT, and all ships with an air
and backup, etc. need to be addressed.                         draught of 15 metres or more, are required to submit a
                                                               ship report to the VTS Centre. Participation is free of
Procedures:- to manage their areas of responsibility,          charge.
including measures to deal with pilot fatigue.
                                                               Mandatory ship reporting systems have also been estab-
3.4) Common practice of members                                lished nationally by the Baltic Sea States in approaches to
What is the common practice of the membership when             oil terminals.
their vessels pass through the Danish Straits?
                                                                         Automatic Identification System (AIS)
3.5) The regulatory regime of DMA
Review of the system:- Are there any independent re-           The Baltic Sea area within A1 sea area will be covered by
views of the pilotage regulatory system and regular re-        land-based monitoring systems for ships, based on AIS
views of the pilotage operations?                              signals (by 1 July 2005).

Information on support and fair treatment of every             The AIS information will improve the safety of naviga-
vessel with or without a pilot onboard is needed.              tion via real time information as well as statistical infor-
                                                               mation on shipping in the Baltic Sea. The AIS informa-
Code of practice to cover:                                     tion will also be used to identify offenders of anti-
                                                               pollution regulations.
* Clarification of the responsibility of provider organi-
  sations and individual pilots;                                                         Pilotage
* Effective and comprehensive fatigue management
  arrangements;                                                Pilotage services are established locally by the coastal
* Effective and safe boarding arrangements;                    states.
* Emergency management arrangements;
* Maintenance of effective training programs; and              IMO recommends that, when navigating the Sound, local
* Introduction of a "check" pilot system.                      pilotage services should be used by:

3.6) Price                                                     - loaded oil tankers with a draught of 7 metres or more;
Is the $7,500 a reasonable charge for the pilotage service?
Is the price referred to review by a Surveillance Authority    - loaded chemical tankers and gas carriers irrespective of
in the EU system?                                              size; and

                                                                                              March 2006 Issue One ■ 35
          INTERCARGO                                           Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

- ships carrying a shipment of irradiated nuclear fuel,
plutonium and high-level radioactive wastes

IMO also recommends that, when navigating Route T,
established pilotage services should be used by:

- large ships with a draught of 11 metres or more; and

- ships carrying a shipment of irradiated nuclear fuel,
plutonium and high-level radioactive wastes

                Traffic separation schemes

Traffic separation schemes are established and adopted
by IMO in the following parts of the Baltic Sea area:

                                         Number of
 In Samsø Belt/Great Belt                 2
 In the Sound                             2
 Off Kiel lighthouse                      1
 South of Gedser                          1
 South of Öland Island                    1
 South of Gotland Island                  1
 Entrance to the Gulf of Finland          2
 In the Gulf of Finland                   5

                     Deep sea pilotage

Certified Baltic deep sea pilots are available in all Baltic
Sea States.

                Safety of winter navigation

Adequate ice strengthening is required for ships sailing in

Information about ice conditions in the Baltic Sea area
can be obtained from the national ice services. Contact
information of the national ice services and basic infor-
mation about ice conditions in the Baltic Sea area can be
obtained from the common website of the national ice
services of the Baltic Sea States www.bsis-ice.de.


   36 ■    March 2006 Issue One
         INTERCARGO                                           Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                                 Ship Recycling

                                                                 .3    the date on which the ship ceased to be regis-
1. Background                                                          tered with that State;
                                                                 .4     the ship’ identification number (IMO number);
MEPC 52 (11-15 October 2004) approved an MEPC cir-               .5    hull number on new-building delivery;
cular on the Guidelines for the development of a ship recy-      .6     the name and type of the ship;
cling plan.                                                      .7    the port at which the ship is registered;
                                                                 .8    the name of the shipowner and its address;
MEPC 53 (18 to 22 July 2005) approved an MEPC circu-             .9     the name of all classification society(ies) with
lar MEPC/Circ.419 on the Implementation of the IMO                     which the ship is classed;
Guidelines on ship recycling, providing specific recom-          .10   the ship’ main particulars (Length over-
mendations and guidance to Administrations in recycling                all (LOA), Breadth (Moulded), Depth
States, shipowners and recycling facilities. Another circu-            (Moulded), Lightweight); and
lar MEPC/Circ.466 on “Gas- free- for- hot-work” certifi-         .11   shipbuilder’ name and address.
cation in connection with recycling operations was also
approved. The circulars are available for download from          4. Hazardous Materials Inventory
                                                                 Inventory of the materials known to be potentially
The 24th IMO Assembly (A24) (21 November to 2 De-                hazardours, containing the location and the approxi-
cember 2005) adopted a resolution to develop the above-          mate quantity/volume of each identified material on
mentioned instrument and agreed to complete the new              board the ship, split into the following parts:
legally binding instrument on ship recycling in time for           Part 1 - Potentially hazardous materials in the ship’
consideration and adoption by a diplomatic conference in                    structure and equipment;
the 2008-2009 biennium. The instrument would cover the             Part 2 - Operationally generated wastes; and
design, construction and operation of ships as well as             Part 3 - Stores.
preparation for the delivery of a ship prior to recycling.
                                                                 Any changes relating to Part 1 of the inventory
A24 adopted amendments to resolution A.962(23). Con-             should be recorded so as to provide updated and cur-
tact info@intercargo.org for the sources of the amend-           rent information together with a history of the
ments. It was also agreed that the development of a new          changes.
legally binding instrument on ship recycling should not
shift the attention of stakeholders away from implementa-        Inventories of operationally generated wastes (Part 2
tion of the current IMO Guidelines on ship recycling             of the inventory) and potentially hazardous
adopted by Resolution A.962(23). Contact                         items carried as stores (Part 3 of the inventory)
info@intercargo.org for the source of A.962(23).                 should be prepared by the shipowner prior to or dur-
                                                                 ing the final voyage to the recycling facility and
2. Draft structure for the new instrument on ship recy-          handed to the recycling facility on delivery of the
cling                                                            ship, as part of the Green Passport.

MEPC 53 developed a preliminary draft structure for the          It is a less confusing issue regarding requirement for
new instrument on ship recycling and had an initial con-         a Green Passport on a newbuilding, on a voluntary
sideration on a number of issues related to the develop-         basis, than for the purchase of second hand ship when
ment of the appropriate mandatory requirements on ship           its issue of a Green Passport could be confusing no
recycling, including items as outlined in the table at the       matter how long an owner intends to keep the ship.
end of the article.                                              On existing ships, there is still nor firm conclusion as
                                                                 to when the mandatory requirement will be in place
3. Green passport                                                or to what extent retrospective application will apply.
                                                                 A cautious approach for existing ship owners is to
The outcome of MEPC 53 indicated that the Green Pass-            prepare for application as soon as possible.
port should contain, at least, the following information on
the ship details:                                                5. Gas Free Certification

.1    the name of the State whose flag the ship is entitled      At MEPC 53, it was decided that ship owners, ship
      to fly;                                                    recycling facilities and member states will be urged
.2    the date on which the ship was registered with that        to consider the matter of gas-freeing vessels in prepa-
      State;                                                     ration for recycling by circular MEPC/Circ.466 on

                                                                                              March 2006 Issue One ■ 37
           INTERCARGO                                          Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

the Implementation of the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recy-                               ********
cling - “Gas-free-for-hot-work” certification,

6. Responsibility delineation between yard and last
operating owner

Although it encourages ship owners to deliver vessels
with a “gas-free-for-hot-work” certificate, it recognises
that it is the main responsibility of the ship recycling fa-
cility to ensure that those tanks which have been certified
are maintained in the gas-free state. Shipowners are urged
to enter into contract only with those recycling facilities
with the ability to maintain and monitor ships in “gas-
free-for-hot-work” condition during the whole process of
ship recycling.

7. Licensed/Approved recycling Facilities

In the framework of the legal instrument, ship recycling
facilities will also be regulated to ensure safe and envi-
ronmentally sound recycling. Under the proposed regime,
recycling yards and facilities are required to be licensed/
approved to conduct the recycling business.

8. Intercargo position

Intercargo has the following position on the IMO Con-
vention: Continue to support the development of an IMO
Convention on Ship Recycling, and to underline that the
IMO is the key UN agency on this issue.

Intercargo will:

•      invite members to provide feedback on the imple-
       mentation of various aspects of the IMO Guide-
       lines so that this may be presented during the IMO
       mandatory process;
•      ensure an active participation in both the Working
       Group and Correspondence Group during MEPC
       meetings; and
•      provide members with continuous feedback on the
       development of the Convention

9. References (contact info@intercargo.org for the
sources of information)

1). Resolution A.962(23) IMO Guidelines on ship recy-
    cling, adopted on 5 December 2003
2). Amendments to the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recy-
    cling (Resolution A.962(23))
3). MEPC/Circ.466 on Implementation of the IMO
    Guidelines on Ship Recycling (Assembly resolution
4). MEPC/Circ.419 on Guidelines for the Development
    of the Ship Recycling Plan

    38 ■    March 2006 Issue One
     INTERCARGO                                                            Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

    Items of the preliminary draft structure for the new instrument on ship recycling

Mandatory Requirement                                                                                                 Guidelines Refer-

Recycling Facilities

Recycling State to require operational waste reception facilities at recycling facilities                   

Ship Recyclers to be "licensed"                                                                             

Shipowners required to use “approved/licensed” recycling facilities                                                   8.1.6

Shipowners to arrange for removal of materials the recycling facility cannot handle                                   8.1.5


Ship Recycling Plan

Recycling facility to prepare a ship recycling plan in consultation with the shipowner                      

Ship Recycling Contract

Shipowners/Recycling facilities to include elements of the Guidelines such as the Ship Recycling Plan, etc. in, 9.2.2,
recycling contracts                                                                                         , 9.8.2

Potentially Hazardous Materials

States to prohibit/restrict/minimize the use of potentially hazardous materials in new ships                          6.1.1, 6.1.4, 6.1.2

Shipbuilders to provide the first shipowner with Part 1 of the inventory                                              5.5

States to prohibit/restrict/minimize the use of potentially hazardous materials in existing ships                     7.2.1

Shipowners to provide an updated inventory of potentially hazardous materials on board on arrival at the recy-        5.6
cling facility

Shipowners to mark assumed and identified potentially hazardous materials included in the inventory and any ,,
potentially hazardous spaces in accordance with the Ship Recycling Plan                                     ,

Shipbuilders to seek advice on limiting the use of identified potentially hazardous materials in ships                6.1.6
Green Passport

Shipbuilders to provide new ships with a “Green Passport”                                                             5.5, 5.5.1, 5.8

Shipowners to maintain Ship Details and Part 1 of Inventory sections of the “Green Passport”                          5.1, 5.3

Shipowners to prepare Parts 2 and 3 of the Green Passport prior to the final voyage to the recycling facility         5.6

Shipowner to develop “Green Passport, Part 1” for existing ships as far as is reasonable and practicable              5.5.2

Shipowners to deliver “Green Passport” to recycling facility                                                          5.1

Gas Free for Hot Work Certificate

Shipowners to arrange with recycling yard for a "gas-free-for-hot-work" certificate covering enclosed cargo and,,
other spaces and empty fuel spaces at handover or in accordance with the Ship Recycling Plan                

Ship Details

Shipowners to hand over the Continuous Synopsis Record to the recycling facility                                      5.2.1 (Pending
                                                                                                                      development of the
                                                                                                                      “Green Passport”)

                                                                                                                 March 2006 Issue One ■ 39
         INTERCARGO                                             Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                           Oily Water Separators
                                  - New Requirements of the US Coast Guard

                                                                  tion MEPC No.108(49), cargo monitors originally in-
New Development                                                   stalled on vessels built before January 1, 2005, may meet
                                                                  either the new or previous standards when replaced. Oily
On November 3, 2005, the U.S. Coast Guard published a             water separating equipment and bilge alarms, however,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to                 installed on existing vessels to replace existing equip-
change pollution prevention equipment (PPE) performance           ment must meet the new standards. In addition, the
standards to make them consistent with the new Interna-           NPRM would remove existing requirements for bilge
tional Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines and speci-          monitors.
fications issued under Annex I of the International Con-
vention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships                 The NPRM would require the use of pollution preven-
(MARPOL). In short, the NPRM would:                               tion equipment that is more technologically advanced
                                                                  than that found on most oceangoing vessels now operat-
(1)    require newly constructed oil tankers to install           ing. With respect to cargo monitors, the new regulations
       cargo monitors meeting new PPE standards; and              would include updated standards for monitors used with
(2)    require newly constructed vessels and existing             category C and D oil-like noxious liquid substances.
       oceangoing vessels (only when an existing vessel is        Under the new regulations, oily water separators would
       replacing the exiting PPE) to install oily water sepa-     be required to effectively process emulsified oils, surfac-
       rating equipment and bilge alarms to meet new PPE          tants, and contaminants. In addition, the proposed rule
       standards. Comments are due February 1, 2006.              would impose stricter standards for bilge alarms, includ-
                                                                  ing requirements that every bilge alarm:
Background                                                        • Pass new tests using emulsified oil and contami-
Many in the maritime community have expressed concerns            • Has a ppm display that would display each change
that existing pollution prevention equipment, especially
                                                                  in oil content of the mixture being measured within 5
technology related to oily water separator systems, does
                                                                  seconds after the change occurs instead of 20 seconds;
not work properly. Of particular concern is the processing
of oily bilge waste and the methods by which the oil con-         • Limit access to the bilge alarm beyond checking
tent of the effluent is measured.                                 instrument drift, and require the breaking of a seal to
                                                                  repeat the instrument reading and re-zero the instrument;
In response to those concerns, the IMO issued Resolution          • Activate the alarm whenever clean water is used for
MEPC.107(49) "Revised Guidelines and Specifications for           cleaning or zeroing purposes;
Pollution Prevention Equipment for Machinery Space                • Record date, time, alarm status, and operating status
Bilges of Ships." Subsequently, the Coast Guard issued            of the 15 ppm bilge separator;
MOC Policy Letter No. 04-13, which provides guidance on
implementation of Resolution MEPC.107(49). Please see
                                                                  • Store data for at least 18 months; and
http://www.blankrome.com/publications/maritime/                   • Have the ability to display or print a protocol.
update0405_06.asp dated April 2005 for a discussion of            Furthermore, in the event that the 15 ppm bilge alarm is
the IMO guidelines and Coast Guard policy. The Coast              replaced, means must be provided to ensure that the data
Guard noted that the policy will remain in effect until regu-     recorded remains available on board for 18 months.
lations are promulgated. In addition, IMO issued Resolu-
tion MEPC No.108(49), Revised Guidelines and Specifica-           Impact of Proposed Rule
tions for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems
for Oil Tankers, which upgrades cargo monitor PPE stan-           Owners and operators should consider the lack of speci-
dards. The IMO standards become effective internationally         ficity associated with the replacement of PPE in the
as an amendment to MARPOL on April 1, 2007.                       NPRM with respect to the applicability to existing ves-
                                                                  sels. For example, the NPRM provides only that existing
The Proposed Rule                                                 oceangoing vessels subject to the new regulations would
                                                                  be required to install oily water separating equipment
The NPRM would not change the type or class of vessel             and bilge alarms that meet the new standards whenever
that requires a cargo monitor, oily water separator, or bilge     the owners or operators "replace" the equipment. The
alarm, but would require that such equipment meets the            NPRM, however, does not clarify the extent to which
new IMO PPE standards. The new IMO standards are ap-              components must be replaced in order to trigger the new
plicable to vessels newly built on or after January 1, 2005.      requirements. For example, applicability is unclear when
Although not clearly stated in the NPRM, under Resolu-            only parts of an oil-water separator are replaced. This

  40 ■    March 2006 Issue One
       INTERCARGO                                             Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

poses several questions: Can owners/operators continually
replace components piecemeal, even when a complete re-
placement is needed, in order to prevent the expense of a
whole new system? If not, which components can be re-
placed without requiring a complete replacement?
Owners and operators should take into account the fact that
these new standards apply to PPE equipment placed on
new and existing vessels after January 1, 2005, and will
become enforceable either when made effective by the
Coast Guard, or January 1, 2007, when the MARPOL
amendment becomes effective, whichever comes first. Ac-
cordingly, owners and operators should ensure that PPE
equipment installed after January 1, 2005, meets the stan-
dards as discussed above in order to avoid possible en-
forcement action. In addition, the NPRM provides inade-
quate guidance with regard to the replacement of cargo
monitors on existing vessels. These issues should be care-
fully considered and commented upon in response to the

Conclusions and Recommendations

Owners, operators, manufacturers, and other interested
parties should review the NPRM carefully to determine the
impact on their operations, comment on the proposed rule
and continue to monitor the development in the US.


                                                                                         March 2006 Issue One ■ 41
       INTERCARGO                                                      Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

                                    INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

 A24                           the twenty-fourth regular session of the IMO Assembly
 AIS                           Automatic Identification System
 AMP                           alternative marine power, also referred to as “cold ironing”
 Anti-fouling Convention       The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti- fouling Systems on Ships, 2001
 ASF Convention                The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships

 BC Code                       the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes
 BCH Code                      the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk
 BDN                           Bunker Delivery Note
 BLG Sub-Committee             The IMO Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquid and Gases
 BLU Code                      the Code of Safe Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers
 BLU Manual                    the Manual on Loading and Unloading of Solid Bulk Cargoes for Terminal Representatives
 BWM Convention                The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004

 CASTEC                        The Intercargo Safety, Technical and Environmental Committee
 cfu                           colony forming unit
 Circ                          circular
 COLREG                        The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972
 CSR:                          IACS common structural rules

 D1 or D-1                     Ballast Water Exchange (95% volumetric exchange) or pumping through three time the volume of each tank
 D2 or D-2.                    Ballast Water Treatment systems approved by the Administration which treat ballast water to an efficacy of:
                               not more than 10 viable organisms per m3 >50 micrometers in minimum dimension; and not more than 10
                               viable organisms per millilitre < 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and >10 micrometers in minimum
 DE Sub-Committee              The IMO Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment
 Directive 2002/59/EC          Establishing a Community vessel traffic and monitoring and information system
 DMA                           Danish Maritime Authority
 DOC:                          Document of Compliance
 DRI                           direct reduced iron. When moist, it releases hydrogen as well as creates heat.
 DSC Sub-Committee             The IMO Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers

 EGCS-SOx                      On-Board Exhaust Gas (SOx) Cleaning Systems
 EU Directive (2005/33)        The amendments to the EU Directive 1999/32
 EU Directive 2000/59/EC       Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, 27 November 200
 EU Sulphur Directive          EU Directive (2005/33)

 FSI Sub-Committee             The IMO Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation
 FUA 12                        Follow-up Action No. 12

 HFO                           heavy fuel oil

 IACS                          International Association of Classification Societies
 IAPH                          International Association of Ports and Harbours
 ICS                           International Chamber of Shipping
 IFO                           intermediate fuel oil
 IISPCG                        Inter-Industry Shipping and Ports Contact Group
 IMDG                          The Code the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code
 IMO                           International Maritime Organisation
 INMARSAT                      The Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organization, 1976
 Intercargo                    International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners
 INTERTANKO                    the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners

42 ■    March 2006 Issue One
    INTERCARGO                                                Technical and Operational Update for Bulk Carriers

ISM Code             the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention
ISO                  International Standardisation Organisation
ISPS Code            the International Code for the Security of Ships and of Port Facilities

LFO                  light fuel oil
LL                   The International Convention on Load Lines, 1966
LOP                  Letter of Protest

m/m                  mass of sulphur per mass of fuel in weight
MARPOL 73/78         the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of
MARPOL Annex I       Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil
MARPOL Annex IV      Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships
MARPOL Annex V       Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships
MARPOL Annex VI      Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships
MDO                  marine diesel oil
MEPC                 IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee
MEPC 49              the 49th session of IMO MEPC on 14 to 18 July 2003
MEPC 50              the 50th session of IMO MEPC on 1 and 4 December 2003
MEPC 51              the 51st session of IMO MEPC on 29 March to 2 April 2004
MEPC 52              the 52nd session of IMO MEPC on from 11 to 15 October 2004
MEPC 53              the 53rd session of IMO MEPC on 18 to 22 July 2005
MEPC 54              the 54th session of IMO MEPC on 20 -24 Mar 2006
MGO                  marine gas oils
MSC                  IMO Maritime Safety Committee
MSC 78               the 78th session of IMO MSC on 12 to 21 May 2004
MSC 79               the 79th session of IMO MSC on 1 to 10 December 2004
MSC 79/4/1           the submitted paper No.1 under agenda item 4 to MSC 79
MSC 80               the 80th session of IMO MSC on 11 to 20 May 2005
MSC 81               the 81st session of IMO MSC on 10 – 19 May 2006

NAVTEX               transmission of maritime safety information, including navigational and weather information and forecast
NGO                  Non-Governmental Organisation
NOx                  nitrogen oxides
NOx Technical Code   the Technical Code on Control of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines

ppm                  one part of oil per million parts of water by volume

SAR                  The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979
SECA                 SOx Emission Control Area
SMC:                 Safety Management Certificate (ISM Code)
SN/Circ.227          Circular N0.227 issued by IMO Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation
SO2                  sulphur dioxide
SOLAS                the International Convention of the Safety of Life at Sea
SOLAS Ch XII         Chapter XII of SOLAS “Additional safety measures for bulk carriers”
SOx                  sulphur oxides
STCW                 The International Convention for Standards, Training, Certificates and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978

UNCLOS               The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UR S25:              No.25 of the IACS Unified Requirements concerning Strength of Ships
UV                   ultraviolet radiation

                                                                                                     March 2006 Issue One ■ 43
 International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners


Intercargo’s vision is for a safe, efficient and environmentally friendly dry cargo maritime
industry where its member’s ships serve world trade - operating competitively, safely and

Intercargo, the International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners, represents the interests
of 62 Full and 59 Associates members who between them own and operate about 800 dry
cargo ships. Promoting the interests of our member companies in regulatory fora such as
IMO and IACS, Intercargo works closely with the other members of the Round Table of in-
ternational maritime associations (BIMCO, ICS Intercargo and Intertanko) to promote a safe,
high quality, efficient and profitable industry.

On 1st June 1998, the Intercargo Executive Committee decided to set up a bulk carrier Tech-
nical, Safety and Environmental Committee (CASTEC) comprising of selected technical/
operational managers from Intercargo member companies. Leo Cappoen was elected as
CASTEC Chairman in June 2005.

CASTEC is one of Intercargo’s key Committees. It was established to promote and protect
the interests of the INTERCARGO membership in relation to International, National and
Local Legislation and Regulation as it affects Ship Design, Safe Bulk Carrier Operations and
the Protection of the Environment. It will also foster co-operation with IMO, IACS, Round
Table international shipping associations (BIMCO, ICS, Intercargo and Intertanko) and other
recognised bodies involved with bulk carrier safety and the protection of the environment.

To ensure members views are represented effectively CASTEC meets twice a year, one be-
ing the forum for Asian based members the other for those in the Western hemisphere. The
statutory and classification matters debated by IACS and at IMO provide the main areas of
discussion for CASTEC members at these meetings. CASTEC also oversees technical pub-
lications such as the annual Bulk Carrier Casualty Report, a new guide on Port State Control
and analysis of ship-terminals interface experiences.

For further information on joining Intercargo, please contact info@intercargo.org.
                            International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners

Ninth Floor,
St Clare House,30/33 Minories,
London EC3N 1DD
Tel: 020 7977 7030 (Switchboard)
Fax: 020 7977 7031
Email: info@intercargo.org
Web Site: www.intercargo.org

To top