INTERTANKO’s Anti-Trust/Competition law Compliance Statement
INTERTANKO’s policy is to be firmly committed to maintaining a fair and competitive environment in the world tanker trade, and to adhering to all applicable laws which regulate INTERTANKO’s and its members’ activities in these markets. These laws include the anti-trust/competition laws which the United States, the European Union and many nations of the world have adopted to preserve the free enterprise system, promote competition and protect the public from monopolistic and other restrictive trade practices. INTERTANKO’s activities will be conducted in compliance with its Anti-trust/Competition Law Guidelines.
1. Minutes The Minutes of the Committee’s last meeting held in Dubai on 15th-16th March were circulated on 15th August. They are enclosed for good measure.
The Committee will be invited to approve the Minutes from the last meeting. 2. Membership The Committee had agreed to increase its membership from 16 to 18 members are the last meeting. The revised terms of reference are provided below and will be forwarded to the Council for approval at its next meeting in London in November.
In noting the Terms of Reference for the Committee the members are reminded of the discussion at the last meeting and that membership is held by the individual who is able to contribute to the Committee’s work programme.
Members will also have noted the communication received from Howard Seto regarding his move from Teekay.
The current membership list is enclosed.
The Committee will be invited to note the changes to the Terms of Reference and to elect a new Chairman for the coming two years.
Ballast Water Management – joint ISTEC session
3.1 IMO Submission During its last meeting the Council were advised that ISTEC and the Environmental Committee had considered in depth the potential technical, operational and regulatory problems that will be encountered by installing Ballast Water Management Systems (BWMS) on new and existing tankers. Furthermore, once such installations were in place there remains considerable concern that the enforcement method by port state control and the requirements associated with sampling and testing ballast water would be far removed from the type approval of the equipment and therefore the equipments capabilities. Subsequently the Council endorsed the proposals by ISTEC and the Environmental Committee and requested the secretariat to submit a paper to IMO’s MEPC would detail; the challenges associated with port state control sampling; the robustness of the type approval process; as well as the challenges owners face in connection with the acquisitions and installation of BWMS. The final draft of the submission to MEPC is enclosed and will be presented at its next meeting in October.
Aware of the sentiment of certain member states at IMO as well as other ship owning associations, INTERTANKO also secured support from Liberia, the Marshall Islands, Panama, the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), Intercargo, InterManager, the International Parcel Tankers Association (IPTA), NACE and the World Shipping Council. In its paper, INTERTANKO outlines the four challenges affecting ratification and effective implementation of the BWM Convention as:
need for revision of the Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8) to improve transparency and ensure appropriate robustness of ballast water management systems (BWMS);
availability of BWMS and sufficient facilities to install BWMS;
survey and certification requirements for ships constructed prior to entry into force of the BWM Convention; and,
sampling and analysis procedures for port State control purposes.
In terms of the type approval guidelines, the paper comments that these guidelines are intended to screen out BWMS that would fail to meet the IMO Convention discharge standards. Approval, however, does not ensure that a given system will work in compliance with the discharge standard once installed on board and operated in the actual maritime environment. The proposals in the paper provide are seen as a first step in assessing BWMS in a more credible and effective manner.
On the potential problems faced with installation capacity, the paper proposes that a draft Assembly resolution should be developed with new BWMS installation dates which take into account the capacity of the ship building and repair industry.
The paper also notes and proposes a solution to the possible problem associated with surveying and certifying existing ships, supporting the issuance of Ballast Water Management Certificates prior to entry into force of the BWM Convention.
Finally, the paper also suggests a greater link between the port state control sampling guidelines and the type approval process, noting that at present there appears to be a disconnect between the type approval process and the process of sampling and testing of BWMS by port state control.
The Committee will be invited to note the submission of the paper and comment as appropriate. 3.2 Discharge of clean ballast water from COT INTERTANKO has been approached with a question regarding discharge of heavy weather ballast from COT (not from slop tanks). MARPOL Annex I/reg. 30.6.4 allows heavy weather ballast to be discharged by gravity (cargo sea chest) provided the tank and associated systems had been cleaned to Clean Ballast standard (i.e. COW and water rinse) and the discharge was controlled by the oily water interface detector. (see also Reg.30.2, 32 and Reg.1.17 - definition of clean ballast). This would effectively accept discharge without the ODME.
However, MEPC had made quite a number of revisions in recent years on the ODME specification and guidelines. MEPC 63 just agreed that each ship should have a spare ODME onboard. But all discussions seemed to be related to discharge from slop tanks.
INTERTANKO solicited the opinion of class societies. The message sent and the opinions received are enclosed.
Note to be taken that one class society makes a good point that due to the imminent application of the ballast water convention, discharge of heavy weather ballast from a COT in the traditional way will be over. Even so, it might be a point of clarification with IMO.
The Committees will be invited to consider these aspects and comment accordingly.
4. Environmental Benchmarking – joint ISTEC session Following consideration of the first report from the Working Group on environmental performance and impacts ISTEC and the Environmental Committee requested the Group reconvene to further work on the calculations based on whether the parameters being assed would be used as indicators or benchmarking tools.
The Working Group subsequently met in Athens on 5-6 June at the offices of Roxana Shipping. The full report is enclosed below and details the calculations for the following environmental aspects:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1.1 Energy Efficiency Operational Index (EEOI)
1.2 Refrigerant gases released
Sulphur content in marine fuels
NOx emissions in engine rating terms
Loss of containment: Oil
Oily bilge water generated
Ballast water management
The Working Group considered the importance in developing an Environmental Benchmarking scheme as well as an Environmental Database for INTERTANKO members. In the first instance, the use of environmental performance data from member’s vessels is important in gauging the success of the environmental measures being implemented by the company. Being able to compare and contrast these with the INTERTANKO membership as an average would allow members to understand how their performance rates among the industry average and act as a driver for continuous improvement. It would also allow for companies to set realistic and achievable targets. Measuring and recording environmental aspects that cannot be easily benchmarked due to either the extent of the variables from ship to ship or the fact that the owner and/or manager is unable to control elements of the ship’s environmental performance does however allow INTERTANKO to assess the general environmental performance of the tanker sector. Finally external parties, such as charterers through the TMSA, are also interested in assessing a company’s environmental performance and encourages companies to compare performance data with companies with similar vessel types.
The Working Group commented that it was only possible to benchmark those environmental aspects that an owner or operator had control over, however, collecting data and measuring environmental performance in more general terms as a sector was important as this is the way in which regulation is heading. It was felt that it was likely that the industry will be forced to do this in any case so it was worthwhile beginning the process now and in a transparent manner. Certainly this is the case for MBMs and air emissions, for example the EU have already indicated that they will be looking to monitor emissions from international shipping.
The Working Group agreed that it would be useful to list the companies that are contributing to the database and the benchmarking schemes. No company specific information would be released. The results would be issued as an industry average or industry total depending on the aspect and its measurement.
Once the calculations had been agreed by ISTEC and the Environmental Committee the Working Group felt it important to cross check against other industry databases, indexing and benchmarking schemes to avoid conflicts and duplication.
The Committee will be invited to review the Working Group report with a view to approving the calculations proposed and invite the secretariat to commence work on establishing the database as necessary.
5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions – joint ISTEC session IMO will continue its work on GHG emissions reduction measures at MEPC 64 (1 to 5 October 2012) with the following priorities:
5.1 EEDI/SEEMP Discussions will concern some fine-tuning of enforcement aspects and further developments for ship types which are not included in the current regulations. MEPC 64 will be required to clarify whether existing ships should have the SEEMP onboard on 1 January 2013, the date of enforcement or at the time of the first intermediate or special survey after 1 January 2013, when an existing ship should receive the IEE Certificate. There will be again discussions triggered by a submission from China on whether large tankers and large bulk carriers should have a lower reduction rate of the mandatory EEDI – submission enclosed below. The INTERTANKO position so far has been to support the mandated EEDI reduction rates as included into the newly approved regulation. The decision was based on reporting the EEDI calculated values for VLCCs and Suezmax tankers operated by members to the EEDI baseline defined by IMO. The results indicated that some existing designs had estimated EEDI values below the Reference Line. It was also considered that it is the designers’ responsibility to provide energy efficient designs and it is in the interest of tanker operators that such designs are made available. Finally, it has been reported that Chinese shipyards have launched new large bulk carriers which have an estimated EEDI which is 20% or 25% lower than the IMO reference line which means designs meeting mandated EEDI values for ships are to be contracted in 2020.
In addition, MEPC 64 will be invited to consider two documents submitted by the industry (IACS and the ship owners’ associations) on Guidelines for calculation of the minimum installed power to maintain ship’s manoeuvrability in adverse conditions and Guidelines on practical actions for the verification of the EEDI. These were co-sponsored by INTERTANKO and are enclosed below.
A valid question was raised on whether final drafts should have been circulated to ISTEC for information. The drafts were finalised shortly before the deadline for submissions and various co-sponsors suggested changes. In practice, clean copies of the submissions were available at the time these papers were submitted to IMO by end June and end July respectively. The latter document was circulated ref. ISTEC#721 of 16 July.
5.2 Resolution on Technical Cooperation and Transfer of Technologies This is probably the most difficult aspect which MEPC 64 will have to address under the GHG reduction emissions item. The concept is that such a Resolution may bring the bridge between the IMO’s concept of “no favourable treatment” with the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. Ship building nations like Korea and Japan have particular concerns with regard to the consequences of such an agreement. The MEPC Vice-Chairman, who is from the Panama Administration, has suggested the establishment of an IMO Technology Transfer Trust Fund. The funds will come from voluntary contributions by countries, industry and individuals, thus no mandatory request for financing. The Funds should be used for specific projects for transfer of technologies and knowledge to developing countries.
An alternative proposal for such a Resolution submitted by ten Administrations would condition the enforcement of the EEDI/SEEMP regulations upon satisfactory assessment of the implications on developing countries in accepting, implementing and enforcing such regulations.
Finally, a paper submitted by Brazil, China, India, Peru, Saudi Arabia and South Africa requests that all MEPC decisions on GHG emissions reductions should be taken through consensus, as opposed to voting and that any discussions on MBM should be put on hold until the Resolution on Technical Cooperation and Transfer of Technologies is completed and adopted, including financial aspects of such cooperation and transfer.
5.3 MBMs A number of proponents have re-submitted their suggested MBM schemes, including legal text which could be discussed for approval. The Secretariat will review these proposals and, if of relevance, will provide an oral update.
The Committees will be invited to note the report and comment accordingly. 6. Ship Recycling 6.1 Identification and assessment of asbestos on board One of the outcomes of the discussion on developments relating to ship recycling at the Committee’s last meeting was the need for further information and possible guidance with regards to the assessment and sampling of asbestos on board. This was by way of inclusion in the Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM). It has since come to light that in addition to the assessment of asbestos for the purposes of the Hong Kong Convention and ship recycling, port state control are now at liberty to assess and inspect in relation to the SOLAS requirements as reflected in MSC.1/Circ.1374. This requirement is a feature of the Dutch PSC concentrated inspection campaign for autumn 2012 and expected to commence in October. In summary, PSC inspectors will be accompanied by an asbestos specialist who will may take samples of materials onboard and analyse these for asbestos and as such, asses whether the vessel contravenes the SOLAS II-1/3-5. The statement from the Dutch PSC website adds:
From 1 January 2011, new installation of ACMs is prohibited without exception for all sea-going vessels, pursuant to the SOLAS regulations. Despite this clear and unambiguous prohibition of ACMs, asbestos is still regularly encountered in various locations on board ships. During inspections asbestos has been found in such places as fire blankets, insulation materials, types of sealants, friction material for brakes, wall and ceiling coverings, cables, cords, electric fuses etc. Moreover, ships that were originally free of asbestos appear to have ACMs on board as a result of repairs at shipyards and/or the purchase of spare parts at a later stage. Unquote
The following questions have been put to the Dutch PSC by INTERTANKO. Their responses are provided in blue:
(a) what is the inspection procedure that will be followed onboard by the PSC inspector and the asbestos specialist;
(b) what are the documents to be first reviewed?
(c) what will be the "clear grounds" for carrying out such an enhanced and specialized inspection.
(d) could the ship be delayed/detained due to this inspection, e.g. will the testing of materials for asbestos be undertaken on board or will samples be sent for laboratory testing?
(e) will there be any overlap with the voluntary carriage of the IHM as per the Hong Kong Convention.
Dutch PSC response:
We will start probably in October this year. The relevant information is available on our website: http://ilent.nl/onderwerpen/transport/koopvaardij/port_state_control/inspecties/asbest.Underneath the page you will find the linkage to the English version. Detention is an option, but in the first months, the focus will be that the SOLAS deficiency is rectified before departure. The flag state should issue an exemption based on MSC.1/ Circ. 1374 in case asbestos containing materials are found. With respect to the clear grounds; Despite the clear and unambiguous prohibition of asbestos in SOLAS, asbestos is still regularly encountered in various locations on board ships. For that reason, every ship built after the 1st July of 2002 is eligible for an asbestos inspection. In case documents are onboard clearly indicated by the flag state or class that the ship is asbestos free, based on sampling and analysis, the asbestos inspection may be stopped, unless there is other evidence of asbestos containing materials.( e.g. asbestos gaskets, spare parts purchased in the years after the delivery of the ship). INTERTANKO questions:
...will the sampling by the asbestos specialist require any material destruction of parts of the vessel? If so, who will cover the cost of any such damage? Will the test be carried out immediately or will the samples be required to be sent to a laboratory for assessment? If the latter, would the vessel be restricted in its movement until such times as the results are known? Will the cost of the asbestos specialist be for the owners account?
Dutch PSC response:
The costs for the sampling and analysis are for our account. The sampling will be done immediately and cause no damage. The vessel will not be restricted in its movements ( unless the ship is detained). When the results of the analysis are available after the vessel’s departure, the owner/captain, flagstate, RO and members of the PMoU are informed when asbestos was found. Unquote
The Committee is invited to comment on the initiative and the management of asbestos on board. 6.2 Submissions to IMO MEPC 64
The Committee is invited to note two submissions to be considered at the next MEPC meeting and which INTERTANKO has co-signed with other industry associations. 7. NPDES - VGP 7.1 Ballast water entry into force dates Members may be aware of the misalignment of the entry into force dates of the ballast water requirements within the VGP and those of the recently released USCG rules. INTERTANKO has co-signed an industry paper urging the EPA to bring their entry into force date (January 2012 for new buildings) in line with the USCG’s date of 1st December 2013.
The Committee is invited to take note and comment on any additional items associated with the NPDES-VGP. 7.2 Revision of the INTERTANKO VGP Compliance Guide The Committee requested that the INTERTANKO VGP Compliance Guide be included for consideration and possible update at this meeting. An electronic version is enclosed.
The Committee is invited to consider whether the guide is worth updating in light of the revision of the VGP requirements. 8. Port Reception Facilities 8.1 USCG Pilot Project on ANF and WDR Subsequent to the discussion at the last Committee meeting, INTERTANKO has been in communication with the USCG main focal point for port reception facilities (PRF), Capt. David Condino. Condino has worked with INTERTANKO on PRF at the IMO level and is a supporter of the approach INTERTANKO has taken in the past.
In his response to the proposal to launch a pilot scheme he made the following points:
- In terms of a pilot program, we agree that we need to scope such a project and define what we would like to see as our goal, what the benefits/outcomes might be, and how to approach such a project. Our Goal is likely the universal (100%) voluntary use of ANF and WDR standard formats (keeping in mind that it is unlikely that this would become mandatory under international regulations or U.S. regulations). Then, how to monitor bearing in mind both actions require additional resources.
- We considered a phased approach to the project that would include a period of assessment (i.e. who is using the ANF right now, and are they requesting/receiving the WDR from the port/terminal); a second phase where all (INTERTANKO?) ships would use the ANF, request a WDR, and see what the result is and try to identify program gaps and solutions; and finally, identify areas that the Coast Guard can actively promote within the port/terminal COA stakeholder community.
On noting the above, there appears a need to define the exact benefits for both the ship and port state in moving toward a more consistent use of the ANF and WDR. Furthermore, there is a need to gauge the number of owners currently using the ANF and requesting the WDR.
The Committee will be invited to comment as necessary and to provide views on the relative benefits of the WDR and ANF. 8.2 Hazardous waste At its last meeting the Committee requested due time be allocated for the consideration of landing hazardous waste ashore during its next meeting. This is some respects related to the discussion under agenda item 9 below and the management of garbage as well as the proposed best practice guide.
The Committee will be invited to consider the issue further and propose any action as appropriate. 9. Garbage Management The Committee agreed to hold-off on the completion of an INTERTANKO Guidance document pending discussion on the management of hazardous waste. In addition, the Committee recommended that the cruise industry representative association, CLIA, be contacted with regards to their best practice for waste management. The enclosed document is the CLIA waste management policy and provides some management options for commonly discussed wastes aboard tankers including used/expired pharmaceuticals, batteries, hazardous waste, greywater, incinerator ash and black water. Note that the document appears to be outdated in relation to the recent amendments to MARPOL Annex V. The secretariat have approached CLIA directly on the matter and have arranged to meet during MEPC 64 in October to discuss collaboration on a best management guide.
The Committee will be invited to note the progress on this issue and comment as appropriate. 10. Revision of INTERTANKO Guide and Model TEEMP In light of the entry into force of the mandatory requirements for SEEMP on 1st January 2013, the INTERTANKO Guide to a Tanker Energy Efficiency Management Plan (TEEMP) will be revised. The two main aspects of this revision will be the updating of the legal guidance and the inclusion of a Model TEEMP.
The current edition of the TEEMP is enclosed along with the revised Model TEEMP worked on by the Committee at its last meeting.
The Committee will be invited to note the decision to issue a revision of the INTERTANKO Guide and comment on any additional aspects of either the Guide or the Model TEEMP which may be beneficial to include in the new edition. 11. Biofouling The Committee will be aware that the USCG’s ballast water management rules entered into force on 21 June 2012. While implementation dates for ballast water treatment systems do not become effective until 1 December 2013 for new buildings and 1 January 2016 for existing vessels, there are requirements which enter into force from 21 June and which should be noted. The key item is the presence of a Ballast Water Management Plan which requires the inclusion of the vessels biofouling maintenance procedures.
In communications with the USCG on this latter point, INTERTANKO has been advised that a separate Biofouling Management Plan on board that has been developed in accordance with the IMO Guidelines and referenced in the Ballast Water Management Plan will be adequate to meet the requirements under USCG regulation 33 CFR § 151.2050(g)(3).
This Biofouling Management Plan will then also comply with the new draft "California Biofouling Management Regulations for Vessels Operating in California Waters" which will enter into force on 1 January 2014.
The Committee is invited to note this development and comment on the development of the biofouling plan and experience with regards to enforcement when entering US ports.
12. Liaison with Environmental Organisations There have been no developments on this agenda item since the Committee’s last meeting.
The Committee is invited to advise any further action on this agenda item.
13. Date and Place of next Meeting The Committee is invited to consider a suitable date and place for its next meeting.
14. Any Other Business The Committee is invited to advise of any additional items which have not already been included within the agenda notes.
Agenda for the Environmental Committee Page
To be held in Rome on 20th and 21st September 2012