• Marpol Annex 1

  • FileName: Marpol April 2010.pdf [read-online]
    • Abstract: 3 Marpol Annex I. Contents. Disclaimer. The information contained in ... Annex III Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried. by Sea in Packaged Form. Annex IV Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships. Annex V Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships. Annex VI Prevention of Air ...

Download the ebook

Marpol Annex 1
Regulations for the prevention
of pollution by oil
A selection of articles previously
published by Gard AS
2 Marpol Annex I
© Gard AS, April 2010
Introduction 5
Shipping industry guidance on the use of Oily Water Separators 6
Ensuring compliance with MARPOL 6
US law – Criminal prosecutions of MARPOL violations 9
ICS/ISF guidance on environmental compliance 12
Oil and water don’t mix 12
Environmental Crime – Myths and Reality 14
Oily water separation and discharge: Risk of oil pollution versus vessel’s safety 15
The finer points of oil pollution 18
Bunker spills 22
US Coast Guard formal policy on voluntary disclosure of MARPOL violations 25
Oily water separator bypass in the US - The tables are turned 26
US Coast Guard – Formal policy on voluntary disclosure of MARPOL violations 27
US law - MARPOL violations in the US 27
MARPOL Annex I – Concentrated inspection campaign and US Coast Guard Policy letter 29
Recent changes in US regulations 30
The United States Ocean Dumping Act 32
Pollution - Ships, crews and shore side management face ever-increasing fines and prison sentences 33
New MARPOL “no discharge zones” 35
Southern South Africa new MARPOL Annex I Special Area 35
Environmental crime - Oily water discharge off the East Coast of Canada 36
Pollution - The hard line taken by the French criminal courts on oil discharge from ships 37
New exclusive economic zone in the Baltic Sea 40
3 Marpol Annex I
The information contained in this publication is compiled from material previously published by Gard AS and is provided for general
information purposes only. Whilst we have taken every care to ensure the accuracy and quality of the information provided at the
time of original publication, Gard AS can accept no responsibility in respect of any loss or damage of any kind whatsoever which may
arise from reliance on information contained in this publication regardless of whether such information originates from Gard AS, its
shareholders, correspondents or other contributors.
© Gard AS, April 2010
4 Marpol Annex I
© Gard AS, April 2010
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from decanting, the next cargo is loaded on top of the remaining oil in
Ships (MARPOL) is the main international convention covering the slop tank, hence the term load on top.
prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships
from operational or accidental causes and has been updated by An important feature of the 1973 Convention was the concept
amendments through the years. of “special areas” which are considered to be so vulnerable
to pollution by oil that oil discharges within them have been
The Convention includes regulations aimed at preventing and completely prohibited, with minor and well defined exceptions.
minimising pollution from ships - both accidental pollution and This involves the fitting of appropriate equipment, including an oil
that from routine operations - and currently includes six technical discharge monitoring and control system, oily water separating
Annexes: equipment and a filtering system, slop tanks, sludge tanks, piping
Annex I Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil and pumping arrangements.
Annex II Regulations for the Control of Pollution by Noxious
Liquid Substances in Bulk Secondly, new oil tankers are required to meet certain subdivision
Annex III Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried and damage stability requirements so that, in any loading
by Sea in Packaged Form conditions, they can survive after damage by collision or
Annex IV Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships stranding.
Annex V Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships
Annex VI Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships The Protocol of 1978 made a number of changes to Annex I of the
parent convention. Segregated ballast tanks (SBT) are required
States Parties must accept Annexes I and II, but the other Annexes on all new tankers of 20,000 dwt and above. The Protocol also
are voluntary. required SBTs to be protectively located that is, they must be
positioned in such a way that they will help protect the cargo
Annex I: PreventIon of PollutIon by oIl tanks in the event of a collision or grounding.
The 1973 Convention maintained the oil discharge criteria
prescribed in the 1969 amendments to the 1954 Oil Pollution Another important innovation concerned crude oil washing
Convention, namely, that operational discharges of oil from tankers (COW), which had been developed by the oil industry in the 1970s
are allowed only when all of the following conditions are met: and offered major benefits. Under COW, tanks are washed not
- the total quantity of oil which a tanker may discharge with water but with crude oil the cargo itself. COW was accepted
in any ballast voyage whilst under way must not exceed as an alternative to SBTs on existing tankers and is an additional
1/15,000 of the total cargo carrying capacity of the vessel; requirement on new tankers.
- the rate at which oil may be discharged must not exceed 60
litres per mile travelled by the ship; and Drainage and discharge arrangements were also altered in
- no discharge of any oil whatsoever must be made from the Protocol, regulations for improved stripping systems were
the cargo spaces of a tanker within 50 miles of the nearest introduced.
Some oil tankers operate solely in specific trades between
An oil record book is required, in which is recorded the movement ports which are provided with adequate reception facilities.
of cargo oil and its residues from loading to discharging on a Some others do not use water as ballast. The TSPP Conference
tank-to-tank basis. recognized that such ships should not be subject to all MARPOL
requirements and they were consequently exempted from the
In addition, in the 1973 Convention, the maximum quantity of oil SBT, COW and CBT requirements. It is generally recognised that
permitted to be discharged on a ballast voyage of new oil tankers the effectiveness of international conventions depends upon the
was reduced from 1/15,000 of the cargo capacity to 1/30,000 of degree to which they are obeyed and this in turn depends largely
the amount of cargo carried. These criteria applied equally both upon the extent to which they are enforced. The 1978 Protocol to
to persistent (black) and non persistent (white) oils. MARPOL therefore introduced stricter regulations for the survey
and certification of ships.
The 1973 Convention recognised the “load on top” (LOT) system
which had been developed by the oil industry in the 1960s. On The 1992 amendments to Annex I made it mandatory for new
a ballast voyage the tanker takes on ballast water (departure oil tankers to have double hulls – and it brought in a phase-
ballast) in dirty cargo tanks. Other tanks are washed to take on in schedule for existing tankers to fit double hulls, which was
clean ballast. The tank washings are pumped into a special slop subsequently revised in 2001 and 2003.
5 Marpol Annex I
tank. After a few days, the departure ballast settles and oil flows
to the top. Clean water beneath is then decanted while new A revised Annex I was adopted in October 2004 and entered into
arrival ballast water is taken on. The upper layer of the departure force on 1st January 2007 and provides a more user friendly and
ballast is transferred to the slop tanks. After further settling and simplied Annex I.
© Gard AS, April 2010
Shipping industry guidance on the use of Oily Water Separators
Ensuring compliance with MARPOL
The global shipping industry is committed to a zero tolerance • Make the best use of the available technology
approach to any non-compliance with the International
• Establish a realistic operating budget for environmental
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
In particular, the industry is committed to strict adherence
to International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements • Provide meaningful and targeted training in environmental
concerning the use of Oily Water Separators and the monitoring awareness and MARPOL compliance
and discharge of oil into the sea.
• Provide specific and targeted training in oily water
separator (OWS) operation
National maritime authorities with responsibility for the
environmental protection of their coastlines quite properly adopt • Recognise the value of open communication with the crew
a similarly strict approach to the enforcement of MARPOL.
• Verify compliance through appropriate physical inspection,
operational tests and document analysis
Companies and seafarers need to understand that even the most
minor violations of MARPOL will be detected by the authorities. • Reward compliance and address potential non-compliance.
In addition to large fi nes amounting to literally millions of
dollars, both company management and seafarers can be liable technIcAl APProAches
to criminal prosecution and imprisonment for any deliberate General
violation of MARPOL requirements or falsifi cation of records. Shipping companies should consider:
• Installing the latest equipment, or an upgrade in capability,
The following industry guidelines are intended to highlight some if existing equipment does not perform to requirements
of the issues concerning the use of oily water separators (OWS)
• Upgrading related equipment to minimise the production of
and to remind company management, and shipboard personnel,
how they can act to prevent MARPOL infringements.
• The advantages of the pre-processing of waste
Ship operators have ultimate responsibility for establishing a
• Increasing tank capacity for waste where possible
compliance culture within their companies, and it is important
that every effort is made to ensure that seafarers do not engage • Modifying systems to facilitate in-port testing of treatment
in any illegal conduct in the mistaken belief that it will benefit systems
their employer. Every seafarer should be made fully aware of
• Implementing the periodic testing of the oil discharge
the severe legal consequences, both for the company and the
monitoring equipment
seafarers themselves, of even minor non-compliance with
environmental rules. • The use of cleaning agents consistent with equipment
At first glance, the following advice may appear to contain
nothing new; for the vast majority of shipping companies, these control devices
are issues which should already be fully addressed by their Shipping companies should consider:
Safety Management Systems, as required by the International • Fitting uniquely numbered environmental tags on flanges
Safety Management (ISM) Code. Nevertheless, it is strongly to prevent unauthorised by-passing
recommended that the following guidance is carefully analysed
• Using seals on overboard valves and cross-connections
by company management, and that a firm message of zero
tolerance of non-compliance with MARPOL is circulated as widely • Installing strategically placed placards concerning
as possible amongst seagoing personnel. compliance with MARPOL on board ship
• Fitting surveillance cameras
ensurInG comPlIAnce wIth mArPol
Shipping companies should: • Using tamper resistant recording systems, alarms and
• Ensure that the ISM Safety Management System* is used to printouts to verify equipment operation, valve position,
good effect flow, OWS ppm, incineration, ship’s position etc.
• Conduct internal and external audits on environmental • Installing locked boxes or cages over monitoring equipment
compliance and act upon the findings, in full compliance
• Fitting interlocks to prevent falsification of monitoring
with the ISM Code
equipment inputs
6 Marpol Annex I
• Require accountability on environmental compliance issues
• Using meters to record equipment running time for all
within the shore-side and shipboard management team
engine room pumps.
• Minimise waste leakage through good housekeeping and
© Gard AS, April 2010
mAnAGement APProAches • Verify:
role of shore management - routine maintenance
Shipping companies should: - internal record keeping policies
• Assign environmental responsibility to senior management - the accuracy of records by cross-referencing
and ship superintendents, Masters and Chief Engineers on - the progress of training
board ships - that written policies are available
• Ensure adequacy of internal audits and implementation of • Test equipment under routine operational conditions
corrective actions
• Interview crew members
• Review maintenance records and procedures, log entries
• Produce written audit reports
and handover notes
• Conduct post-audit meetings
• Monitor workloads imposed by the operation and
maintenance of oily water separators, and assess the • Ensure senior management review the audit reports
impact on crew priorities
• Track audit findings until corrective action is complete.
• Analyse waste streams to determine content, volume,
means and capacity for storage, and estimate realistically the role of senIor mAnAGement on boArD the shIP
the cost of treatment and disposal General
The Master, Chief Engineer and senior officers in the engine
• Ensure that the operating budget for waste removal and
department should:
spare parts is adequate
• Promote awareness that any attempt to circumvent
• Establish comprehensive check lists for inspections/audits MARPOL requirements is totally unacceptable
• Verify that tests have been performed to ensure the • Determine the most appropriate procedures to maintain
continued correct operation of oily water separators equipment and systems
• Discuss findings and concerns with all levels of the • Minimise and if possible eliminate leakage through good
engineering department housekeeping
• Explore the potential gains from the installation of new • Correctly maintain the oil record book (ORB) and the record
technology. of discharges of oily water separator effluent into the sea
• Ensure that all routine shipboard and ISM safety meetings
include time to discuss a specific agenda item on
Shipping companies should:
environmental matters
• Ensure that training, whether shipboard, in-house or
from an outside authority, is specific on relevant MARPOL • Use sign on/off check lists for duty personnel.
use of oily water separators
• Consider supplementary training on MARPOL issues
The Master, Chief Engineer and senior officers in the engine
• Document the training and assess its relevance department should:
• Instruct users of OWS equipment and verify the standard
• Establish formal policy documents and procedures on
MARPOL compliance and training.
• Verify that maintenance schedules are being followed
Audits and inspections
• Ensure that audits include operational tests and a
Shipping companies should:
reconciliation of records
• Ensure that audits target the correct operation and
maintenance of oily water separators • Ensure that scheduled tank sounding logs are maintained
and signed for
• Ensure that audits are designed to investigate
environmental compliance • Keep records of verification of correct operation through
testing at sea
• Use a comprehensive audit check list and try to investigate
beyond the check list • Ensure that on board spares are adequate to meet the
7 Marpol Annex I
• Conduct unannounced inspections
• Create a culture where complacency in operation and
maintenance standards is unacceptable.
© Gard AS, April 2010
record keeping Shipping industry guidance on the use of Oily Water Separators
The Master, Chief Engineer and senior officers in the engine Published by Maritime International Secretariat Services Limited
department should: 12 Carthusian Street
• Ensure that all entries in the tank sounding log, ORB (oil London EC1M 6EZ
record book†) and incinerator logs are completed by the
crew member who performed the task Tel +44 20 7417 8844
[email protected] www.marisec.org/ows
• Ensure that the ORB is examined and signed by the Chief
Engineer and/or the Master
First edition 2006
• Require signatures from those conducting overboard These guidelines have been developed using the best information
discharges and operational tests available, but they are intended for guidance only, to be used
at the users’ own risk. No responsibility is accepted by any firm,
• Ensure that ship familiarisation procedures verify
corporation or organisation who or which has been in any
that company environmental policy and operability of
way concerned with the furnishing of data, the compilation,
equipment are understood and followed
publication or authorised translation, supply or sale of this
• Require the status of pollution prevention equipment to be guidance, for the accuracy of any information or advice given
recorded in the handover notes of the responsible engineer herein, or any omission herefrom or consequences whatsoever
and the Chief Engineer resulting directly or indirectly from use of these guidelines or
from compliance with or adoption of guidance contained therein.
• Record the independent verification of the correct
operation of the oil discharge monitoring equipment
An electronic version of this leaflet is available at
• Raise awareness of the need for an open chain of command www.marisec.org/ows 
and accurate record keeping that can be substantiated with
Port State Control.
tracking waste and maintenance
The Master, Chief Engineer and senior officers in the engine
department should:
• Conduct analyses of waste disposal records
• Compare waste output to volumes purchased
• Compare waste disposal records with maintenance records
• Remove disincentives to off-loading waste, or purchasing
additional material or parts related to safety and the
The following publications may also be helpful:
*Guidelines on the Application of the IMO International Safety
Management (ISM) Code (published by ICS/ISF)
†Guide for Correct Entries in the Oil Record Book (published by
8 Marpol Annex I
© Gard AS, April 2010
New Pollution Regulations in China - FAQs
Gard News 197, February/April 2010
Gard News presents answers to some frequently asked questions Do the regulations provide for any defences to/exemptions
regarding the new Chinese regulations on prevention and control from pollution liability?
of marine pollution. Yes. Under Article 51, a party is exempt from liability for pollution
if the pollution damage was wholly caused by (1) war; (2) natural
On 9th September 2009 the Chinese State Council of the People’s disaster of an irresistible nature; or (3) negligence/ wrongful act
Republic of China (PRC) promulgated the Regulations of the of government authority in exercising its responsibility for the
People’s Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of maintenance of lights or other navigational aids in the exercise
Marine Pollution from Ships (Regulations). The Regulations will of that function and if the pollution could not be prevented even
come into effect on 1st March 2010.1 though timely and proper measures were taken.
GenerAl comPulsory InsurAnce
what is the purpose of the regulations? why is compulsory insurance required?
The Regulations are intended to establish comprehensive rules The PRC is a state party to the 1992 CLC Convention and the 2001
governing oil pollution prevention, response and clean-up within Bunker Convention. The liability provisions in the Regulations
PRC waters, updating/replacing the previous pollution regulations largely mirror those contained in those Conventions, which
promulgated on 29th December 1983. provide for strict liability of the owner3 for pollution damage
arising from the carriage of persistent oil by sea (1992 CLC) and
what is the scope of the regulations? strict liability of the shipowner4 for pollution damage caused by
The Regulations cover any ship-sourced pollution and any ship- spills of bunker oil (2001 Bunker Convention). These Conventions
related operation that causes or may cause pollution damage in make insurance mandatory for certain vessels.
the internal waters, territorial waters and the contiguous zones,
exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the PRC and all who do the regulations require to maintain compulsory
other sea areas under the jurisdiction of the PRC (wherever the insurance?
pollution occurs). The owner of any ships (except ships of less than 1,000 GT and
not carrying oil cargo) navigating in the PRC governed waters
what do the regulations cover? is required to maintain insurance for oil pollution liability or to
The Regulations cover a wide range of issues, such as the have other appropriate financial security in place in accordance
discharge and reception of oil pollutants; dumping of waste and with the relevant subsidiary legislation/byelaw to be promulgated
permissions for dumping; oil pollution response planning; oil spill by the PRC government (Article 53).
clean-up arrangements reporting and emergency handling of
pollution incidents; investigation and compensation of pollution under the regulations who is an approved insurer in the
incidents; supervision of the loading, lightening and discharging Prc?
of polluting hazardous cargoes; and penalties for contravening The Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) will determine and
any requirement of the Regulations. publish a list of competent insurance providers that will be
qualified to provide the necessary insurance cover. Gard currently
The Regulations also introduce a compulsory insurance regime is on a list of approved insurers issued by MSA.
for certain vessels and a domestic ship oil pollution compensation
fund. what amount of insurance is required for the compulsory
PollutIon lIAbIlIty Not less than the limitation as calculated under the PRC Maritime
under the regulations who is liable for pollution damage? Code, which adopts the same calculation as under the 1976
The party causing the pollution to the marine environment is Limitation Convention,5 or in accordance with the relevant
liable for the pollution damage. If the pollution was wholly international Conventions which PRC adopted or ratified (for
caused by intentional act or fault of a third party, then that third example, the 1992 CLC and the 2001 Bunker Convention)
party is liable (Article 50). (Article 53).
Do the regulations provide for a limit of liability? shIP oIl PollutIon comPensAtIon funD
Yes. The limit of liability is calculated according to the PRC the regulations refer to a “ship oil Pollution compensation
Maritime Code, which follows the 1976 Limitation Convention in fund” - what is it?
respect of any international ships of 300 GT or above. However, A domestic fund to which receivers (and their agents) of
as to marine pollution within Chinese territorial waters caused persistent oil cargoes transported by sea to a Chinese port must
9 Marpol Annex I
by ships carrying persistent oil in bulk (including persistent contribute (Article 56). Note that PRC is not a state party to
hydrocarbon mineral oil), the limitation of liability is calculated the 1992 International Convention on the Establishment of an
pursuant to the relevant international conventions ratified or International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.
acceded by China (Article 52), including the 1992 CLC Convention
and the 2001 Bunker Convention.2
© Gard AS, April 2010
how will the ship oil Pollution compensation fund be under the regulations, who is liable for any clean-up costs
administered and used? incurred by the msA?
This is not included in the Regulations, but the detailed rules as to Where the MSA has taken action in response to pollution,
how the funds are collected, used and administered will be jointly before the ship involved in a pollution incident may sail the ship
formulated by the Finance Department and the Administrative must pay the MSA’s costs or must provide a relevant financial
Department of Communications of the State Council (Article 56). guarantee (Article 42). The MSA may detain the vessel while
investigating any such incident.
cleAn uP contrActs/cleAn-uP costs
the regulations require that clean-up contracts be agreed what type of guarantee is required? An IG club lou? An
in advance of entering a Prc port - who is required to enter lou/guarantee from a Prc insurer? A Prc bank guarantee?
into the contracts? This is unknown at the moment, but the International Group of
The operator of any ship carrying polluting and hazardous liquid P&I Clubs (IG) is seeking clarification.
cargoes in bulk and any other vessel above 10,000 GT is required
to have a pollution clean-up contract with an approved pollution on boArD emerGency resPonse PlAns
response company (Article 33). Do the regulations require any form of emergency response
to whom do the regulations refer when they say “operators”? Shipowners, operators or managers must maintain emergency
Article 33 of the Regulations does not define “Operator”. response plans for the prevention and control of marine pollution,
and have the plans approved by MSA (Article 14). It is generally
what companies has the msA approved as local clean-up understood that a MARPOL SOPEP (Shipboard Oil Pollution
contractors with whom an operator must contract? Emergency Plan) will be sufficient to meet this requirement.
The MSA currently is considering contractors for approval in
various Chinese ports and it is expected that in the near future others
further legislation will be issued concerning approvals. It is what is the ship’s report obligation set out in the
expected that the legislation will cover both the terms of the regulations?
clean-up contracts into which operators must enter and the If a ship has caused or will probably cause pollution within the
MSA-approved contractors. territorial waters of the PRC, or beyond the territorial waters
of the PRC but that has caused or may cause pollution to the
Indications are that there will be four “levels” of contractors territorial waters in the PRC jurisdiction, the incident must be
based upon the capability of the contractor to respond to spills of reported to the local MSA. The accident report should contain the
different size and extent. The additional implementing legislation following information (Artic

Use: 0.2211