First order of business – defining nurdles subject to the carriage recommendation
The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) representing the European petrochemical segment proposed a definition of nurdles:
“Plastic pellets means [(a) solid polymeric substances, or blended mixtures (consisting of polymers and other substances of varying percentages), that are insoluble in water and transported in granule or nurdle form, or as powder or flakes; that (b) have a diameter of 5 mm or less. Plastic pellets include, but are not limited to, polymers such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate, or polyvinyl chloride including a size limitation to 5 millimetres which is boundary for microplastics.”
While CG participants agreed with including a definition, many took issue with the proposed size limitation. The 5mm size is a generally accepted limit for microplastics, but many pointed out that a spill of 5.5mm or 6mm pellets would cause just as much environmental harm and be just as difficult to clean-up as a marginally smaller pellet size. And as the primary measures set out in the recommendations would likely be the template for mandatory regulation, a size limitation would be an invitation to avoid regulation by slightly increasing the size of the nurdles manufactured.
The debate over packaging In the third round, the CG
participants commented on wording: “Plastic pellets should be packed in good quality packaging/bags with a maximum mass of [25 kg] per package/bag. The use of single bags should be avoided”. “Single bags” refers to using a single plastic liner within the container. When the steel container is pierced, so is the plastic liner resulting in spill of nurdles even when the container itself remains on board as was the situation in the Trans Carrier spill.
CEFIC argued that there should be no packaging recommendation and to maintain the options currently in use by shippers “bags, boxes, drums, supersacks, gaylords, Octabins and lined bulk containers” arguing that the root cause of nurdle spills was not packaging within the container but instead loss of the containers, fires, or other casualties. CEFIC argued that the packaging in use was satisfactory for normal carriage situations and shippers should not be required to do more. At the other end of the spectrum was the environmental NGO Clean Shipping Coalition who maintained that packaging within the container should be required to withstand loss of the container and to remain intact for better odds of retrieval.
Notification and stowage requirements
The recommendation is that “transport information should clearly identify, as an addition in the cargo information required by SOLAS Regulation VI/2, those cargoes containing plastic pellets.” The intent of notification is to more quickly identify containers with nurdles to aid in retrieval should they be lost and also to initiate clean-up and contingency planning earlier. How notification is to be made – by an IMDG code or a new process based on the bill of lading is part of the discussion about the options for mandatory regulations.
Following discussion within the three rounds, Norway reports the draft stowage recommendation as:
“Freight containers containing plastic pellets should be properly stowed and secured so as to minimize the hazards to the marine environment without impairing the safety of the ship and persons on board. Specifically, freight containers containing plastic pellets should be stowed:
- under deck wherever reasonably practicable; or
- inboard in sheltered areas of exposed decks.
Underdeck stowage is recommended by the plastic industry initiative Operation Clean Sweep and the recommendation was broadly supported. A possible difficulty is volumes shipped and whether stowage underdeck would displace other more dangerous cargos.
Broad(er) support for mandatory regulation
Looking at the regulatory proposals, almost all of the correspondence group participants including CEFIC, supported some form of mandatory regulation. In the submission to PPR 9, CEFIC opposed mandatory regulation and proposed continued plastics industry self-regulation though Operation Clean Sweep. In the second round of the correspondence, CEFIC proposed a new regulatory solution by adding a new chapter to MARPOL Annex III. This new proposal was subject to comments by the participants in the third round.
The Correspondence Group Report does not recommend a preferred instrument but lays out the three proposals:
- an assignment of an individual UN Number (class 9) for plastic pellets transported at sea in freight containers;
- an amendment to Appendix I of MARPOL Annex III that would recognize plastic pellets as a harmful substance and
- a new chapter to MARPOL Annex III that would prescribe requirements for the transport of plastic pellets in freight containers without classifying the cargo as a harmful substance/dangerous goods.
Assigning a new UN number allows for closely tailoring of requirements to nurdles but the process takes longer because the number must be assigned by the UN Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods on application by the IMO. The option of amending Appendix I to MARPOL Annex III
120 | The Report • June 2023 • Issue 104
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144
