CE_11_13 - Cargoes Subject to Liquefaction

7/30/2019 CE_11_13 - Cargoes Subject to Liquefaction

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ce1113-cargoes-subject-to-liquefaction 1/25

International Chamber of Shipping Limited. Registered in England No. 2532887 at the above address

International Chamber of Shipping

12 Carthusian Street London EC1M 6EZ

Tel +44 20 7417 8844Fax +44 20 7417 8877

[email protected] www.ics-shipping.org www.shipping-facts.com

This Circular and its attachments (if any) are confidential to the intended recipient and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you should contact ICS and must not make any use of it. 28 September 2011

To: CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT SUB-COMMITTEE CE(11)13BULK CARRIER PANEL

Copy: ALL MEMBERS FOR INFORMATION

CONCERNS AND RECENT DISCUSSIONS ON IMSBC CODE GROUP ‘A’ CARGOES -BULK CARGOES THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO LIQUEFACTION

Action required: Members are invited to note the fol lowing discussion on recentdevelopments in provisions for the carriage of solid bulk cargoes that may liquefy.Members are further invited to provide comment to the undersigned on a suitableway forward for ICS to pursue in these matters.

Background Discussion

ICS Members have recently raised concern with regard to ships potentially receivingincorrect information on the water content of bulk cargoes that may liquefy; it isunderstood that there have also been instances where cargoes that should betransported as an IMSBC Code Group ‘A’ cargo have been incorrectly declared as aGroup ‘C’ cargo. ICS considers it paramount that a correct cargo description is alwaysprovided to the ship, this is particularly important to ensure safe transportation of cargoesthat may liquefy. The number of recent serious incidents during the carriage of ‘NickelOre’ and ‘Iron Ore Fines’ cargoes has highlighted the need for additional attention tosafely address the concerns that have been raised.

It is to be noted that the IMSBC Code contains no schedule to date for these two

particular cargoes. As both ‘Nickel Ore’ and ‘Iron Ore Fines’ in bulk are considered‘Group A’ classification, that is ‘cargoes that may liquefy if shipped at a moisture contentin excess of their transportable moisture limit (TML), under the recently introducedmandatory requirements, these should as an unlisted cargo be carried under a tripartiteagreement, where the three competent authorities of the port of loading, the port of discharge and the flag State set the preliminary suitable conditions for the carriage of thecargo. There has been concern that these provisions have not always been followed incertain load ports.

In an initial attempt to promote the safe carriage of bulk cargoes and in particular toaddress current concerns with the potential for miss description of the properties of bulk

cargoes that may liquefy, some P&I clubs have recommended the inclusion of anamended charter party clause; one such recommended clause is attached to this circularas ‘Annex A’. It is however understood that even when this amended, and much stricter,C/P clause is accepted by charterers there are certain areas of the world where



implementation of the provisions with regard to access to cargoes by independentsurveyors is made almost impossible. In order to reinforce provisions that would improvethe safe carriage of IMSBC group ‘A’ cargoes industry bodies, including ICS, submittedthe paper DSC 16/4/99 to the recent IMO DSC Sub-Committee meeting titled ‘Measuresto improve safe transportation of solid bulk cargoes by ships’. This paper proposed thatadditional provisions be included in the IMSBC Code so as to make many of therecommendations in the P&I club amended charter party clause mandatory. The jointindustry submission DSC 16/4/99 is attached as ‘Annex B’ to this circular.

DSC 16 Discussions and Outcome

During DSC 16 last week extensive discussion took on amendments and revisions to theIMSBC Code under agenda item 4. The majority of the IMSBC Code discussion related tocargoes that may liquefy. Particular attention was given to matters relating to the carriageof Iron Ore Fines. ICS pursued a safety first approach throughout the discussion,however it would appear political consideration overcame the safety rational proposed ina number of points even though much proposed in DSC 16/4/99 was accepted.

1. General Developments Relating to Cargoes that may Liquefy

The following additional provisions were agreed for inclusion in the IMSBC Code:

1.1 Requirement for certification of cargoes which may liquefy

“When a concentrate or other cargo which may liquefy is carried, the shipper shall providethe ship’s master or his representative with a signed certificate of the TML, and a signedcertificate or declaration of the moisture content, each issued by an entity recognized bythe Competent Authority of the port of loading.”

1.2 Requirement for approval of sampling and testing procedures by competent authority

"When a concentrate or other cargo which may liquefy is carried, procedures for sampling, testing and controlling moisture content to ensure the moisture content is lessthan the TML when it is onboard the ship shall be established by the shipper, takingaccount of the provisions of this Code. Such procedures shall be approved and their implementation checked by the competent authority of the port of loading*. The documentissued by the competent authority stating that the procedures have been approved shallbe provided to the master or his representative."

* Taking into account guidelines to be developed by the organization

1.2 Protection for cargoes transferred to ship by barge

"If the cargo is loaded on to the ship from barges, in developing the procedures under 4.3.3 the shipper shall include procedures to protect the cargo on the barges from anyprecipitation and water ingress."

1.3 Access to stockpiles etc. for ship’s nominated representative

"For a concentrate or other cargo which may liquefy the shipper shall facilitate access tostockpiles for the purpose of inspection, sampling and subsequent testing by the ship'snominated representative."

1.4 Warning on the limitations of can tests

In addition to the provisions above, a warning was added to the guidance within theIMSBC Code for carrying out the simplified “can test” as a reminder that this test may



provide an indication of high moisture content but that the absence of such indicationdoes not provide evidence that the cargo is below its TML i.e.

“If samples remain dry following a can test, the moisture content of the material may stillexceed the Transportable Moisture Limit (TML)”

It is to be noted that the access to the stockpiles was a compromise. This was the bestoutcome available as the US, Brazil and Australia opposed any requirement for thecompetent authority being independent of the shipper. Furthermore, a number of flag

States, most notably the US, argued that ships should not have a right to inspect cargopiles for security reasons.

2. Developments Relating to Carriage of Iron Ore Fines

Consideration of matters relating to the Carriage of Iron Ore Fines was extensive and issummarised under the three main areas noted below:

2.1 Specific proposals for schedules within the IMSBC Code

Three specific proposals for schedules for Iron Ore Fines were submitted to this session

of DSC for inclusion in the IMSBC Code. However, due to time constraints, these, alongwith many other draft schedules, were forwarded for more detailed consideration at theDSC Editorial and Technical meeting (E&T 17) scheduled for March 2012.

2.2 Proposals from Brazil on revisions to circular DSC.1/Circ.63.

Brazil proposed a number of revisions to circular DSC.1/Circ.63. These were presentedas providing needed clarification for Masters of ships carrying such cargoes as Brazilcontended that Masters were refusing to carry cargoes of Brazilian Ore due to its highwater content even though Brazil claims to have been exporting this cargo for decadeswithout a known incident. Following extensive debate and strong reservations expressed

by ICS and the other shipping industry NGOs including notably Intercargo, BIMCO andP&I (the International Group delegation at IMO), the proposals were significantlyimproved.

However, significant reservations remain, including reference within the circular tocargoes of specific grain size. ICS and other industry NGOs, along with a number of administrations were concerned that this could be used to imply that cargoes of slightlylarger grain size did not need to be tested. Concern was also raised that the distinctionthat Brazil had made between ‘standing water’ and liquefaction of the cargo together withthe use of ‘special filters’ as a means of removal of water did not lead to safe practice.

During the final plenary discussion, ICS together with the delegations of Greece, UK,France and Sweden argued that it was premature to amend the circular prior toconsideration of the schedule, whilst the South American States, South Africa and theCooke Islands argued that the Brazilian proposal should be accepted. The Sub-Committee finally decided in favour of the amended circular. The Sub-Committee did notagree to an ICS proposal that if the circular was to be issued the title of the circularshould be amended to “Interim Guidance on the Carriage of ......” rather than “Carriageof...” to emphasise that consideration of this matter is still on-going and that the guidanceis not definitive. It is worthy of note that the P&I clubs privately informed ICS that therewas a ship presently laying in Mauritius with a Brazilian cargo that had liquefied, the

cargo was thought be Iron Ore Fines but this could not be confirmed. This matter couldnot be brought to the attention of the Sub-Committee due to the legal niceties prevailing;ICS will make further enquiries into the cargo carried in due course as this may be highlyrelevant to the forthcoming debate.



The report of the working group is provided as Annex ‘C’ to this circular. This reportprovides the general work of the group together with the IMSBC Code amendmentsagreed to the, the amended draft circular on the ‘Carriage of Iron Ore Fines that mayliquefy’, draft ‘guidelines for the classification of substances harmful to the marineenvironment’ and the draft provisional agenda for E&T 17.

3. The carriage of Nickel Ore

France reported to the Sub-Committee on an extensive research project related to the

testing and transportation of cargoes of Nickel Ore. It was noted that this research is stillon-going and that France intends to submit results and supporting documentation to IMOin J anuary 2012 for consideration at E&T 17 in March.

4. Future Work

4.1 During the course of the discussions it became increasingly apparent that there isuncertainty associated with the results obtained from the currently available tests foridentifying the Flow Moisture Point (FMP) of cargoes. Comments provided indicated thatthis could be a particular problem with cargoes containing a broad range of particle sizes. The Sub-Committee therefore agree to a proposal from Brazil to establish a

Correspondence Group with a remit to:

1. prepare draft individual schedule(s) for iron ore fines and review the existingIron Ore schedule as necessary;

2. consider the adequacy of, and the possibility of improving current methodsand developing alternative methods for determining transportable moisture limits foriron ore and iron ore fines.

4.2 The DCS Editorial and Technical Group meeting (ET 17) to be held 19 – 23 March2012 is to specifically discuss measures to improve safe transport of solid bulk cargoes

that may liquefy and other matters that include evaluation of new entries andamendments to existing schedules of the IMSBC Code and the classification criteria formaterials hazardous only in bulk. (See Annex ‘C’).

4.3 A correct outcome of the work of the correspondence group and particularly theDSC E&T meeting will have to be pursued to provide suitable mandatory provisions for anappropriate and safe carriage of solid bulk cargoes that may liquefy. Members are invitedto provide comment to the undersigned on a suitable way forward for ICS to pursue inthese matters.

David Tongue,Director, Regulatory Affairs



CE(11)13 – Annex ‘A’

Copy of one P&I Clubs recommended charter party Clause for the carriage of solidbulk cargoes that may liquefy

QUOTESolid bulk cargoes are to be presented for carriage, loaded, (and where necessary trimmed)only so far as lawful and harmless, and always in compliance with all applicable internationalregulations, including IMSBC Code 2009 (as may be amended from time to time). All timetaken in complying with such regulations, or as a result of non-compliance shall be forCharterer’s sole time and expense (whether as hire or as laytime/demurrage as applicable).Charterers shall be responsible for any and all additional costs, expenses and liabilitieswhatsoever incurred in such compliance or as a result of any non-compliance. The Charterersare to provide certificate(s) of test from a laboratory which must be approved in advance byOwners at Owner’s absolute discretion, and such certificate(s) of test must show the TML(transportable moisture limit) and FMP (flow moisture point) and moisture content. Such

certificate(s) are to be presented to Owners and Master prior to, and as a condition, of thecommencement of loading. The Master shall also have the right in his absolute discretion torefuse to accept cargo on board or, after loading, to refuse to sail, where in his reasonableopinion, there is a risk (including but not limited to the risk of liquefaction of the cargo)which could jeopardise the safety of the vessel on the voyage. The Master shall also have theright in his absolute discretion to demand that such cargo be offloaded from the vessel. Suchrefusal and/or demand to offload shall not be a breach of charter and Charterers shall beresponsible at their sole time and expense (whether as hire or as laytime/demurrage asapplicable) for all steps required to make the cargo safe and/or to allow the vessel to sail tothe satisfaction of the Master. In any event, Charterers are to allow Owners or theirrepresentatives to take samples of cargoes prior to, and as a condition, of loading and Ownersshall be entitled to test such samples and/or appoint surveyors and/or experts to act on theirbehalf always at Owner’s discretion. Charterers agree to pay and indemnify owners for allcosts and consequences incurred as a result of charterer’s orders to load solid bulk cargoeswhich are or which prove to be non compliant and all the time taken up by the steps outlinedin this clause shall be for Charterer’s account and Charterers shall be responsible at their soletime and expense (whether as hire or as laytime/demurrage as applicable). This clause isalways without prejudice to the obligations of Charterers to provide a safe cargo and inrelation to loading and nothing done or omitted to be done by the Master or Owners pursuantto this clause shall amount to a waiver of any rights of Owners.

UNQUOTE



I:\DSC\16\4-99.doc

E

SUB-COMMITTEE ON DANGEROUSGOODS, SOLID CARGOES ANDCONTAINERS16th sessionAgenda item 4

DSC 16/4/9929 J uly 2011

Original: ENGLISH

AMENDMENTS TO THE IMSBC CODE, INCLUDING EVALUATION OFPROPERTIES OF SOLID BULK CARGOES

Measures to improve safe transportation of solid bu lk cargoes by ships

Submit ted by INTERCARGO, BIMCO, ICS, International Group of P & I Clubs, and IUMI

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This document comments on document DSC 16/4/10 (France)concerning "Transportation of solid bulk cargoes that may liquefy"

Strategic direction: 5.2

High-level action: 5.2.3

Planned output: 5.2.3.3

Action to be taken: Paragraph 9

Related documents: MSC 89/7/4, MSC 89/7/7; DSC 16/4/10; and DSC 16/4/95

Introduction

1 This document comments on document DSC 16/4/10 (France) concerning"Transportation of solid bulk cargoes that may liquefy" and is submitted in accordance withparagraph 6.12.5 of the Guidelines on the organization and method of work of theCommittees (MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.4).

2 Paragraphs 24 to 30 of document DSC 16/4/10 discuss "Improvements to be madeto the IMSBC Code" proposing an amendment to require shippers to introduce procedures tocontrol the sampling, testing and certification of cargoes that may liquefy and for theseprocedures to be approved and periodically checked by the competent authority; proposedtext for an IMSBC Code amendment is included in annex 1 to document DSC 16/4/10. Theco-sponsors support this proposal in principle and make the following observations,comments and proposals to strengthen the concept (shown as additions and deletions).

Amendments to the proposed text

3 The proposed text for a new paragraph 4.3.3 refers to "competent authority of the

country of loading or by an organization recognized by it". In the definition of competentauthority under section 1.7.7 it is recognized that such authority for the purposes of the Codemay be delegated to a recognized body hence there is no need to repeat this in 4.3.3, where



DSC 16/4/99Page 2

I:\DSC\16\4-99.doc

it could imply that the already delegated authority can be further delegated. It is proposed todelete "or by an organization recognized by it" from 4.3.3. In addition, an editorial amendmentis proposed to improve clarity by adding "at a safe level until the cargo is on board the ship".It is anticipated that guidelines will be required to facilitate consistent application andenforcement, text has been added to reflect this. The proposed amended text is:

4.3.3 When a concentrate or other cargo which may liquefy is carried, proceduresfor sampling, testing and controlling moisture content at a safe level until the cargois on board the ship -up to the time of the ship's loading shall be established by theshipper, taking account of the provisions of this Code. Such procedures shall beapproved and their implementation checked periodically by the competent authorityof the country of loading or by an organization recognized by it, taking into accountguidelines developed by the organization. The certificate issued by the competentauthority or organization recognized by it stating that the procedures have beenapproved shall be provided to the master or his representative.

Proposals to strengthen the concept

4 The risk of increased moisture content during the cargo handling processsignificantly increases when barges are used to load the ship. In order to explicitly includecontrolling moisture content when using barges in the procedures required under 4.3.3, it isproposed to add a further paragraph 4.3.4:

4.3.4 If the cargo is loaded on to the ship from barges, in developing theprocedures under 4.3.3 the shipper shall include procedures to protect the cargo onthe barges from precipitation and water ingress from the sea.

5 There are instances where the competent authority in the port of loading is the

shipper. The co-sponsors consider this to be a conflict of interest under the extant Code thatwould also fundamentally undermine the current proposal in 4.3.3. To strengthen theeffectiveness of the Code, and the proposed section 4.3.3, the following amendment toparagraph 1.7.7 is proposed:

1.7.7 Competent authority means any national regulatory body or authoritydesignated or otherwise recognized as such for any purpose in connection with thisCode. The competent authority shall be independent from the shipper.

6 Accurate declaration of cargo properties is the responsibility of the shipper.However, responsibility for the safety of the ship lies with the master and it is reasonable forthe master or their nominated representative to satisfy themselves, as far as is practicable,

that the shipper's declaration is accurate and procedures under 4.3.3 have been followed. To explicitly permit this the following text is proposed:

4.2.4 The shipper shall provide access to stockpiles and loading installations forinspection by the ship's personnel, the carrier's nominated technical persons orother representatives prior to loading. Should it be deemed necessary toindependently sample and test the cargo, access shall be provided in order to carryout sampling in accordance with this Code.

4.2.5 Should independent testing reveal any material discrepancy in the shipper'sdeclaration of moisture content and TML, including when the actual moisturecontent exceeds the TML, the competent authority certifying the procedures under

section 4.3.3 shall be notified. Upon such notification the competent authority shallreview the approval of the shipper's procedures.



DSC 16/4/99Page 3

I:\DSC\16\4-99.doc

7 There is evidence that the indicative "can test" under section 8 of the Code is beingused inappropriately to "pass" cargo for carriage. The can test is only able to provide anindication of when a cargo is in excess of its flow moisture point (FMP); it cannotdemonstrate that a cargo is safe for carriage. As stated in the Code, cargoes which mayliquefy shall only be accepted for loading when the actual moisture content is less than the

transportable moisture limit (TML). Determining the accurate TML can only be achieved bytesting cargo samples in a laboratory. In order to provide clarity to the extant Code andsupport the proposed paragraphs 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 the following additional paragraph undersection 8 is proposed:

8.5 If a sample exhibits free moisture or fluid conditions during a can test, thisindicates that the moisture content of the material exceeds the Flow Moisture Point(FMP) and that the cargo may liquefy. However, it cannot be assumed that there isno risk of liquefaction if samples remain dry following a can test as the moisturecontent of the material may still exceed the Transportable Moisture Limit (TML).As stated elsewhere in this Code, cargoes which may liquefy shall only be acceptedfor loading when the actual moisture content of the cargo is less than the TML, notthe FMP. Determining the TML is only possible by testing cargo samples in alaboratory.

8 In addition the co-sponsors propose guidelines are developed to assist in thedevelopment and application of the procedures under 4.3.3.

Action requested of the Sub-Committee

9 The Sub-Committee is invited to consider the above comments and proposals anddecide as appropriate.

___________



I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

E

SUB-COMMITTEE ON DANGEROUSGOODS, SOLID CARGOES ANDCONTAINERS16th session Agenda item 4

DSC 16/WP.322 September 2011Original: ENGLISH

DISCLAIMER As at its date of issue, this document, in whole or in part, is subject to consideration by the IMO organ

to which it has been submitted. Accordingly, its contents are subject to approval and amendmentof a substantive and drafting nature, which may be agreed after that date.

AMENDMENTS TO THE IMSBC CODE, INCLUDING EVALUATION OF PROPERTIES OFSOLID BULK CARGOES

Report of the Working Group

BACKGROUND

1 The Working Group on Amendments to the IMSBC Code, including evaluation of properties of solid bulk cargoes, met from 19 to 22 September 2011, under the chairmanshipof Dr. Phillip Belcher (Bahamas).

2 The Group was attended by representatives from the following Member States:

ARGENTINA AUSTRALIABAHAMASBRAZILCANADACHILECHINACOOK ISLANDSCUBA

DENMARKFINLANDFRANCEGERMANYGREECEITALYIRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)JAPANLIBERIA

MARSHALL ISLANDSNETHERLANDSNIGERIANORWAYPANAMAPERUPOLANDREPUBLIC OF KOREARUSSIAN FEDERATION

SOUTH AFRICASPAINSWEDENTHAILANDTRINIDAD AND TOBAGOUNITED KINGDOMUNITED STATESVENEZUELA



DSC 16/WP.3Page 2

I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

and observers from the following non-governmental organizations in consultative status:

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING (ICS)BIMCOINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES (IACS)

EUROPEAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL (CEFIC)INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF P&I ASSOCIATIONS (P&I Clubs)INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRY CARGO SHIPOWNERS

(INTERCARGO)ICHCA INTERNATIONAL (ICHCA)INTERNATIONAL BULK TERMINALS ASSOCIATION (IBTA)HOT BRIQUETTED IRON ASSOCIATION (HBIA)

TERMS OF REFERENCE

3 Taking into account the comments and decisions made in plenary, the Working

Group was instructed to:

.1 consider document DSC 16/4/100 regarding consideration of IACS UI onventilation of enclosed spaces and advice the Sub-Committee accordingly;

.2 consider documents MSC 89/7/4, MSC 89/7/7 and other submissions madeto DSC 16 on measures to improve safe transport of solid bulk cargoeswhich may liquefy and advise the Sub-Committee accordingly;

.3 consider documents MEPC 61/7/5, MEPC 61/7/12, MEPC 61/7/13, andother submissions made to DSC 16 in relation to the revised MARPOL Annex V and advise the Sub-Committee accordingly;

.4 consider document DSC 16/4/13 and other submissions made to DSC 16 inrelation to classification criteria for solid bulk materials hazardous only inbulk and advise the Sub-Committee accordingly;

.5 prepare draft provisional agenda for E&T 17;

.6 subject to availability of time, have discussions on other submissions madeto DSC 16 under agenda item 4 and referred to the Working Group byplenary and, in particular, have discussions on how a proposal for a newschedule should be submitted in the future;

.7 submit a written report, covering .1, .2, .3, .4 and .5 above, by Thursday,22 September 2011;

.8 deliver an oral report on the progress made on Friday, 23 September 2011;and

.9 submit a written report, soon after DSC 16, for consideration at E&T 17 andapproval by DSC 17.



DSC 16/WP.3Page 3

I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

CONSIDERATION OF IACS UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS ON VENTILATION OF ENCLOSED CARGO

SPACES (SOLAS REGULATION II-2/19.3.4)

4 As instructed by the Sub-Committee, the Group considered documentDSC 16/4/100 (Secretariat), regarding consideration of IACS UI on ventilation of enclosed

cargo spaces as required by SOLAS regulation II-2/19.3.4. The Group considered theimplementation of this unified interpretation with reference to the number of air changes, thepositioning of the ventilators and the performance standards of the ventilators. However,following extensive discussion, the Group agreed that no further amendments werenecessary to this unified interpretation. Subsequently, the Group agreed with the unifiedinterpretations of the aforementioned SOLAS regulation.

MEASURES TO IMPROVE SAFE TRANSPORT OF SOLID BULK CARGOES

General measures to improve safe transport of cargoes that may liquefy and their consequential amendments

5 The Group considered documents MSC 89/7/4 (China), MSC 89/7/7(INTERCARGO and BIMCO), DSC 16/4/10 (France), DSC 16/4/77 (China), DSC 16/4/95(INTERCARGO, BIMCO, ICS, P&I Clubs and IUMI) and DSC 16/4/99 (INTERCARGO,BIMCO, ICS, P&I Clubs and IUMI), which contain proposals related to general measures toimprove safe transport of cargoes that may liquefy and their consequential amendments.

6 The above-mentioned submissions were introduced and the background to thisissue was recalled, which related to the sinking of three vessels with the loss of 45 seafarers.

7 In considering document MSC 89/7/4 (China), the Group welcomed thedevelopment of operational guidance for seafarers working on board ships carrying solid bulk

cargoes that may liquefy. However, without proposals to consider, the Group suggested thatinterested parties should submit proposals to E&T 17 for detailed consideration.

8 The Group also considered the issue of developing alternative requirements on theprevention of accidents through ship design. The Group was of the opinion that, as theimmediate cause of the sinking of the vessels following liquefaction was loss of positivestability, the competence on this subject lay with the SLF Sub-Committee. It was further suggested that it may also be prudent to inform the DE Sub-Committee of this matter asmitigation measures would probably be developed by that Sub-Committee.

9 The Group then considered document DSC 16/4/77 (China) and agreed to amendthe first sentence of section 4.3.2. The amendments are set out in Annex 1. Regarding new

section 4.8 relating to authorization following instructions from the plenary, the Group did notagree to this new section.

10 The Group then considered document DSC 16/4/10 (France) and the relateddocuments DSC 16/4/95 (INTERCARGO, BIMCO, ICS, P&I Clubs and IUMI) andDSC 16/4/99 (INTERCARGO, BIMCO, ICS, P&I Clubs and IUMI).

11 With regards to the issue of the new sampling and testing methodologies outlined indocument DSC 16/4/10 (France), the Group thanked France for its work in this area andinvited France to submit proposals on this subject to E&T 17 for full consideration. Francestated its intention to make its work available to all interested parties in early 2012.



DSC 16/WP.3Page 4

I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

12 The Group agreed to discuss the proposed schedule on Nickel Ore together with allthe other new schedules for inclusion in the IMSBC Code for consideration by E&T 17.

13 Following the decision by the plenary to use, as the base document, the text for anew subsection 4.3.3 proposed in document DSC 16/4/10 (France), the majority of the Group

agreed to the new section 4.3.3 as contained in annex 1 to that document, with somemodifications based in suggestions made in document DSC 16/4/99 (INTERCARGO,BIMCO, ICS, P&I Clubs and IUMI). A footnote was included referring to the production of guidelines by the Organization on procedures to be used by the shipper for sampling, testingand controlling moisture content to ensure the moisture content is below the TML.

14 The Group conducted an extensive discussion on the other matters referred to itemanating from document DSC 16/4/99 (INTERCARGO, BIMCO, ICS, P&I Clubs and IUMI).The Group (with the exception of one delegation) agreed to a new section 4.3.4 on theprotection of cargoes loaded from barges and to amend section 1.7.7 by a reference to thecompetent authority operating independently from the shipper. The issue of access to thecargo stockpile by ship's personnel caused some debate. This was resolved by includingreference to the shipper facilitating access through the ship's nominated representative inorder to conduct inspection, sampling and testing of the stockpile of cargoes, and inserting itas a new paragraph into section 4.4. Such access would be limited only to thoseconcentrates or other cargoes that may liquefy. The Group also agreed to the insertion of anew paragraph section 8.4.2 stating that following the can test, the moisture content of amaterial may still be above the TML. These amendments are detailed in annex 1.

15 Following a debate on the above-mentioned caveat relating to the test itself, theefficacy of the can test was called into question by various delegations. These delegationswere of the opinion that, as the can test cannot confirm that the moisture content of amaterial is below the TML, reference to it should be removed from IMSBC Code as it may

give a false assurance of safety to the ship's master. However, the deletion of the can testwas viewed as being outside of the Group's terms of reference.

Transport of iron ore fines in bulk

16 The Group considered documents DSC 16/4/9 (Norway), DSC 16/4/74 (Brazil),DSC 16/4/75 (Brazil), DSC 16/4/86 (Australia), DSC 16/4/88 (Japan), DSC 16/4/97 (Brazil),DSC 16/5/6 (ICHCA), DSC 16/INF.4 (Brazil), relating to the transport of iron ore fines in bulk.

17 In consideration of the issue as to whether "group" and "class" should becomemandatory within section 1.4.2 of the IMSBC Code, the Group agreed that they should.Consequently, the Group prepared amendment to section 1.4.2 as set out in annex 1.

18 The Group noted the information in document DSC 16/5/6 (ICHCA International)relating to a series of accidents involving vessels carrying Iron Ore Fines and thankedICHCA International for bringing these to the attention of the Group.

19 As instructed by plenary, a discussion was held as to the way forward for dealingwith the submissions related to a new schedule for iron ore fines. Two options werepresented with the intention to produce a schedule or schedules for iron ore fines: firstly, toinvite interested parties to work intersessionally for discussion at E&T 17 or secondly, to setup a correspondence group with terms of reference. Following discussions as to the mostefficient manner in which to work and taking into account the four-week deadline for submission to E&T 17 (20 February 2012), the Group agreed that with the short time frame,

a correspondence group would be the most appropriate means to progress the matter.The Group then developed terms of reference for this group as follows and it should be noted



DSC 16/WP.3Page 5

I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

that the correspondence group would inform E&T 17 and E&T 17 would be able to review thework and comment as necessary.

Terms of reference for a correspondence group

20 The Group considered documents DSC 16/4/9 (Norway), DSC 16/4/74 (Brazil),DSC 16/4/75 (Brazil), DSC 16/4/86 (Australia), DSC 16/4/88 (Japan), DSC 16/4/97 (Brazil),DSC 16/5/6 (ICHCA International), DSC 16/INF.4 (Brazil) and agreed that a correspondencegroup be established, under the coordination of [...]*, with the following terms of reference:

.1 prepare draft individual schedule(s) for iron ore fines and review theexisting Iron Ore schedule as necessary;

.2 consider the adequacy of and the possibility of improving current methodsand developing alternative methods for determining transportable moisturelimits for iron ore and iron ore fines;

.3 inform E&T Group, at its 17th session, of the progress of the consideration;and

.4 submit a written report to DSC 17.

21 As instructed by the plenary, the Group considered the revision of DSC.1/Circ.63with a view to improving the safe carriage of this cargo.

22 A number of delegations expressed the view that the formation of a correspondencegroup to consider the safe carriage of Iron Ore and Iron Ore Fines recognizes that manyuncertainties concerning the carriage of these cargoes currently exists and hence to amend

DSC.1/Circ 63 before these uncertainties are addressed by the DSC would be premature.Objections were specifically raised in relation to the proposed amendments to the Circular concerning: classifying Iron Ore Fines by reference to a specific particle size since this is atechnical issue which will almost certainly be considered by the correspondence group whenrecommending a definition for Iron Ore Fines; the inclusion of a reference to specificequipment such as filters which is also a technical issue in particular when there is nointernational standard that can be applied to such equipment. These delegations also feltthat the Circular is internationally applicable and the proposed amendments related to aspecific form of Iron Ore Fines and a specific cargo source, and this could create confusionand raise safety issues if applied internationally.

23 However, a number of delegations agreed that the circular should be revised. These

delegations believed that it could only be through a revision that the best practice could bebrought to the attention of ship's masters, shippers and competent authorities. Such bestpractice related to the fitting of specially designed filters to protect bilge suctions to preventclogging from fine particles. Further, in the absence of a definition of Iron Ore Fines, theinclusion of a particle size would lend clarity to the issue and ensure that the ship's master could determine that the iron ore being loaded should be carried in accordance with thiscircular.

* Coordinator:



DSC 16/WP.3Page 6

I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

24 Although the Group was split on the issue, however, it was agreed to prepare arevised draft circular that can be found at annex 2. This revised circular incorporated anumber of amendments to reflect discussions including a reference to the competentauthority and tripartite agreements. However, as the Group could not reach a consensus onthis circular, the Group agreed that a final decision could only be taken by the plenary.

Evaluation of the risk of liquefaction for cargoes not listed in the IMSBC Code

25 The Group considered documents DSC 16/4/16 (Japan) and DSC 16/4/76 (China),concerning criteria related to the risk of liquefaction.

26 The Group discussed the issues related to classification of cargoes which werealways loaded in dry condition as Group A. The definition of Group A cargo as defined insub-section 1.7.12 of the IMSBC Code was recalled. However, it was noted that thedefinition did not encompass accidental wetting of a cargo nor did it cover circumstanceswhere a cargo which could liquefy if wet, was always loaded in a dry condition.

27 The Group agreed, as a matter of principle, that if there was a risk that a cargo mayliquefy, then it should be classified as Group A. However, in view of the issues highlightedby the documents submitted by China and Japan, the Group invited interested parties tosubmit documents to E&T 17.

SOLID BULK CARGO RESIDUES AND REVISED MARPOL ANNEX V

28 The Group considered documents DSC 16/4/2 (Secretariat), MEPC 61/7/5(Norway), MEPC 61/7/12 (CSC), MEPC 61/7/13 (United States), DSC 16/4/8 (Norway),DSC 16/4/83 (Australia) and DSC 16/4/96 (The Netherlands), related to solid bulk cargoresidues and revised MARPOL Annex V.

29 Australia explained that their document DSC 16/4/83 (Australia) touched on a wider issue of how the Group should look at the classification of cargoes hazardous to the marineenvironment in relation the tripartite agreement under section 1.3 of the IMSBC Code.

30 The Netherlands introduced a joint paper presenting merged criteria fromdocuments DSC 16/4/8 (Norway) and DSC 16/4/96 (the Netherlands) regarding theclassification of substances harmful to the marine environment. This joint paper refers,inter alia, to the proposal that in addition to stating that plastics were harmful, other criteriashould be used.

31 Chile stated that they agreed to the first two criteria of the joint paper: environmental

acute 1 and environmental chronic 1 and chronic 2 as they were in line with the classificationcriteria set out in Chapter 2.9 and in line the classification criteria for "packaged goods".However, as Chile deemed that it was not possible to assess the consequences of theproposed human health criteria for bulk solids, they believed that it was pre-mature to includethe other criteria. This was due to technical concerns related to toxicity, ecotoxicity and theassessments of bioavailability, biodegradation and bio-accumulation of metal bearingmaterials as stated below:

.1 technically, to assess the tox and ecotox hazards of complex metal bearingmaterials it is important to recognize that bulk solids are often complexmaterials with variable chemical composition (stones, ores andconcentrates). The metals in these complex materials often have limited

bio-availability (due to e.g. inclusions of hazardous substances in mineralmatrix). Simple mixture rules can therefore not be applied to these



DSC 16/WP.3Page 7

I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

materials. The existing and future recommendations - on the assessmentof metals and metal bearing substances - from the UN Committee of Experts on Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals need to be taken into consideration by this Working Group;

.2 if the Working Group decides to include the use of long term chronic humanhealth criteria (Carcinogenicity, Genotoxicity, Reproductive toxicity,and STOT) we would like to stress that this is already a very difficultassessment for simple substances and their implementation to complexbulk cargoes will be even more challenging;

.3 the proposal from the Netherlands and Norway to always consider inorganic solids as non-biodegradable and bio-accumulative is not in linewith scientific evidence and would induce a huge discrepancy between theassessment of organic and inorganic materials; and

.4 on the contrary, this was because inorganic substances are naturalelements and all life forms have evolved with metals. Therefore, as theGHS mentions that "biodegradation" and bio-accumulation" as defined for organics, do not apply to metals. The GHS does NOT conclude from thisthat all metals are persistent and bioaccumulative.

32 Therefore, Chile believed that the biodegradation and bioaccumulation criteria donot apply to metals and therefore, the human health criteria should not be assigned to metalsand metal bearing substances. The position of Chile was supported by a number of delegations.

33 However, the delegation of the Netherlands supported by a number of delegations

were in favour to follow the criteria as laid down in the joint paper for the following reasons:

.1 the Regulation of solid bulk cargoes should have the same level of protection for the marine environment as bulk liquid cargoes.The classification criteria developed are in general in line with those for pollution Category X under MARPOL Annex II for which a discharge is ingeneral not allowed;

.2 the acute and chronic aquatic toxicity criteria are those used for definingharmful substances in packaged form. Under the IMDG Code there arespecial regulations for the stowage of these goods. Under the regime of theIMDG Code there is no operational discharge;

.3 the discharge regulation under MARPOL Annex II is regulating volumes inthe order of magnitude of 100 to 1000 litres. The IMDG Code is regulatingcargo volumes in the order of magnitude of kilograms. The discharge of residues from solid bulk carriers however, is at a much higher level up to100 metric tonnes. In regulating discharge these differences have to bekept in mind;

.4 most of the solid bulk cargoes are inorganic (e.g. mineral ores) and noteasily soluble in water. The main concern in respect to marineenvironmental protection is their accumulation in the food chain(biomagnification) in the oceans including the contamination of sea food for

human consumption. Therefore, long-term effects like carcinogenicity haveto be taken into consideration; and



DSC 16/WP.3Page 8

I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

.5 biomagnification is not listed as a property in the Safety Data Sheet (SDS). As a pragmatic alternative, properties that are listed in the SDS areproposed to be used for identification of these hazards including long-termeffects on humans and animals.

34 In summation, the Group agreed that the context for the criteria was only withrespect to operational discharges allowed under Annex V of MARPOL. In the long term, theexpectation was that a statement would be added to the individual schedules prohibitingdischarge of cargo residues for those materials which met the criteria. To this end the Groupagreed that as a way forward, technical competence more properly lies within MEPC.However, to further the debate, a draft set of guidelines for the classification of substancesharmful to the marine environment based upon the joint paper was generated and can befound in annex 3. It should be noted that no consensus was reached on these criteria.

PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR E&T 17

35 As instructed by the Sub-Committee, the Group prepared the provisional agenda for E&T 17, as set out in annex 4.

OUTSTANDING ISSUES

36 Due to time constraints the Group was unable to complete terms of reference 2.4and 6 for consideration at DSC 16 and noted that outstanding issues need to be discuss atE&T 17. The Group continued its work on the outstanding issues in order to submit a writtenreport of the work to DSC 17 to be contained in document DSC 17/4.

ACTION REQUESTED OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE

37 The Sub-Committee is invited to:

.1 endorse the Group's views regarding IACS UI concerning ventilation of enclosed cargo spaces as required by SOLAS regulation II-2/19.3.4,namely its agreement that no further amendments were necessary to thisunified interpretation of the aforementioned regulation (paragraph 4);

.2 agree with the Group's decision that as competence for the issue of stabilitylies with the SLF Sub-Committee, the SLF Sub-Committee should beinvited to consider this issue and to inform DE of its decision (paragraph 8);

.3 agree that the proposed amendments will be included in amendment 02-13to the IMSBC Code (paragraphs 9, 13, 17 and annex 1);

.4 note the Group's discussion on the can test and agree to instruct E&T 17 toconsider the matter further and advise DSC 17 (paragraph 15);

.5 consider the Group's recommendation to establish the correspondencegroup on iron ore fines with the terms of reference prepared by the Groupand take action as appropriate (paragraphs 19 and 20);

.6 note the Group's discussion on the revision of DSC.1/Circ.63 on Carriage of iron ore fines that may liquefy and decide accordingly (paragraphs 21 to 24

and annex 2);



DSC 16/WP.3Page 9

I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

.7 inform MEPC of the discussions with respect to operational discharges andforward to MEPC the draft set of guidelines for the classification of substances harmful to the marine environment (paragraph 28 to 34 andannex 3);

.8 agree to the draft provisional agenda for E&T 17 (paragraph 35 andannex 4);

.9 instruct E&T 17 to consider outstanding issues (paragraph 36); and

.10 approve the report in general.

***





DSC 16/WP.3 Annex 1, page 1

I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

ANNEX 1

AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SOLID BULKCARGOES (IMSBC) CODE (resolution MSC.268(85))

SECTION 1General provisions

1.4 Application and implementation of this Code

1 Replace the last sentence of paragraph 1.4.2 as follows:

"The texts in the sections for "Description", "Characteristics (other than CLASS andGROUP)", "Hazard" and "Emergency procedures" of individual schedules of solidbulk cargoes in appendix 1."

1.7 Definitions

2 Insert new sentence at end of paragraph 1.7.7 as follows:

"The competent authority shall operate independently from the shipper."

SECTION 4Assessment of acceptability of consignments for safe shipment

4.3 Certificates of test

3 Replace the first sentence of paragraph 4.3.2 as follows:

"When a concentrate or other cargo which may liquefy is carried, the shipper shallprovide the ship’s master or his representative with a signed certificate of the TML,and a signed certificate or declaration of the moisture content, each issued by anentity recognized by the Competent Authority of the port of loading."

4 Insert new paragraph 4.3.3 with the accompanying footnote as follows:

"When a concentrate or other cargo which may liquefy is carried, procedures for sampling, testing and controlling moisture content to ensure the moisture content isless than the TML when it is onboard the ship shall be established by the shipper,

taking account of the provisions of this Code. Such procedures shall be approvedand their implementation checked by the competent authority of the port of loading*.The document issued by the competent authority stating that the procedures havebeen approved shall be provided to the master or his representative."

* Taking into account guidelines to be developed by the organization

5 Insert new paragraph 4.3.4 as follows:

"If the cargo is loaded on to the ship from barges, in developing the proceduresunder 4.3.3 the shipper shall include procedures to protect the cargo on the bargesfrom any precipitation and water ingress."

6 Renumber the existing paragraphs 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 as 4.3.5 and 4.3.6 respectively.




I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

4.4 Sampling procedures


"For a concentrate or other cargo which may liquefy the shipper shall facilitate

access to stockpiles for the purpose of inspection, sampling and subsequent testingby the ship's nominated representative."

8 Renumber the existing paragraphs 4.4.3, 4.4.4, 4.4.5 and 4.4.6 as 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.4.6and 4.4.7 respectively.

SECTION 8Test procedures for cargoes that may liquefy

8.4 Complementary test procedure for determining the possibility of liquefaction

9 The existing paragraph is numbered as 8.4.1


"If samples remain dry following a can test, the moisture content of the material maystill exceed the Transportable Moisture Limit (TML)."

***




I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

ANNEX 2

DRAFT DSC CIRCULAR

CARRIAGE OF IRON ORE FINES THAT MAY LIQUEFY

1 The Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers (DSC), atits fifteenth session (13 to 17 September 2010), considered a preliminary report submitted bya Member Government relating to two recent serious casualties in the last monsoon seasonof 2009 and many near misses reported by the ship masters on ships engaged in thecarriage of iron ore fines. The Sub-Committee also considered another submission made byan industry organization relating to the carriage of this cargo. DSC at its sixteenth session(19 to 23 September 2011), further considered a number of submissions from Member States and industry groups relating to the development of a schedule for iron ore fines for inclusion into the IMSBC Code. Such discussions have not been finalized.

2 In considering the above submissions, the Sub-Committee concluded that as ironore fines is not specifically listed in the IMSBC Code:

.1 there is a need to raise awareness despite the efforts made by the variousprotection and indemnity clubs and other reporting casualty services,informing of the probable dangers of liquefaction associated with carriageof iron ore fines;

.2 until a definition of that iron ore fines is incorporated into the IMSBC Code,the Sub-Committee took note that iron ore fines is considered to be a cargomainly constituted by iron bearing minerals with a size up to 6.35 mm. If there is a question about the applicability of this circular for a specific

particle size distribution of iron ore, advicse should be sought from athe competente authority of the port of loading;not specifically listed in theInternational Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code;

.3 iron ore fines may liquefy and should be treated as such, in particular theMaster should refer to section 7 of the IMSBC Code, which warns aboutcargoes that may liquefy;

.4 if this cargo is shipped with moisture content in excess of its transportablemoisture limit (TML) there is a risk of cargo shift, which may result incapsizing;

.5 the Master should be aware that some shippers have in the past declaredthis cargo under the "iron ore" schedule in the IMSBC Code, which isclassified as a Group 'C' cargo;

.6 the Master should not accept this cargo for loading unless the moisturecontent of the cargo indicated in the certificate is less than its transportablemoisture limitTML; and

.7 the Master should exercise good seamanship and observe current bestpractice when handling and carrying this cargo, such as the use of specifically designed filters to protecting the cargo holds bilge covers tostop the ingress of this fine cargo into the bilge wells, for further guidance

refer to sections 7 and 8 of the IMSBC Code.




I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

3 In order to investigate further the hazards and risks associated with the carriage of iron ore fines, including clarification of the existing schedules on DRI and iron ore Group 'C'and the need for a new schedule, Member Governments and international organizations areinvited to submit relevant information regarding the safe handling and carriage of this cargo,at their earliest convenience, to the Organization.

It should be noted the sixteenth session of the DSC Sub-Committee established acorrespondence group to develop schedules for iron ore fines for inclusion in the IMSBCCode with particular reference to the phenomenon of liquefaction in some types of iron orefines. Until the new schedule is finalized, competent authorities, shippers and Masters shouldtake into account section 1.3 of the IMSBC Code. Member Governments and internationalorganizations are invited to submit relevant information regarding the safe handling andcarriage of this cargo to this Correspondence Group and the Organization.

4 Member Governments are also invited to bring the above information to the attentionof shippers, terminal operators, shipowners, ship operators, charterers, shipmasters and allother entities concerned, requesting that extreme care and appropriate action be taken,taking into account the provisions of relevant IMO instruments when handling and carryingiron ore fines in bulk.

5 This circular supersedes DSC.1/Circ.63

***




I:\DSC\16\WP\3.doc

ANNEX 3

DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSTANCES HARMFULTO THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

Substances Harmful to the Marine Environment (SHME) only in respect to dischargeregulation under MARPOL Annex V as a cargo residue are those solid bulk materials whichare classified according to the criteria of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling (GHS) respectively the GESAMP Hazard Criteria (based on theGHS) in the following way:

Acute Aquatic Toxicity Category 1; and/or

Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Category 1 or 2; and/or

[Carcinogenicity Category 1A or 1B combined with NR and highbioaccumulation*; and/or

Mutagenicity Category 1A or 1B combined with NR and high bioaccumulation*;and/or

Reproductive Toxicity Category 1A or 1B combined with NR and highbioaccumulation*; and/or

Specific Target Organ Toxicity Repeated Exposure (oral or dermal) Category 1combined with NR and high bioaccumulation*.]

Substances Harmful to the Marine Environment (SHME) are also those solid bulk materialscontaining or consisting of synthetic polymers, rubber, plastics, or plastic feedstock pellets(this includes materials that are shredded, milled, chopped or macerated or similar materials).

[*: Criteria related to biodegradation (NR) and bioaccumulation apply only to organic solidbulk cargoes.]

***






ANNEX 4

DRAFT PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR E&T 17

for the seventeenth meeting of the DSC Editorial and Technical Group

to be held at IMO Headquarters, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR,from on Monday, 19 to Friday, 23 March 2012

(Meeting commences at 9.30 a.m. on Monday, 19 March 2012)

Opening of the meeting

1 Adoption of the agenda

2 Measures to improve safe transport of solid bulk cargoes

.1 Measures to improve safe transport of solid bulk cargoes that may liquefy;

.2 Evaluation of the risk of liquefaction for cargoes not listed in the IMSBCCode;

.3 General measures and their consequential amendments; and

.4 Transport of iron ore fines in bulk.

3 Classification criteria for materials hazardous only in bulk

4 Transport of cargoes under fumigation

5 Preparation of draft amendment 02-13 to the IMSBC Code

.1 New entries and amendments to existing entries for schedules and/or indexentry.

6 Incorporation of proposals agreed at during DSC 16

7 Any other business

8 Report to the Sub-Committee

__________

Documents

CE_11_13 - Cargoes Subject to Liquefaction