RESPONDENT

DATE RECEIVED

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

Response highlights 3 perceived deviations from standard MARPOL requirements in draft MSN and 6 perceived deviations in draft MGN.

2 questions posed relating to draft MGN. Questions relate to Sewage and Discharge controls respectively.

Suggests that proposed regulations should extend to vessels on domestic voyages.

Answers to specific questions posed in consultation letter (not all questions answered):

Q1: Preference for Option 2 (‘Go beyond International Requirements’) in Impact Assessment document.

Q6: Feel that Impact Assessment underestimates risk to marine environment due to the exclusion of domestic voyage only vessels in the assessment and a lack of rigorous analysis of sea bed impact. Also suggest comprehensive analysis of available shipping traffic trends data.

Q7: Suggest that a better targeted range of measures for smaller operators, based on a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis might help to reduce the disproportionate burden upon smaller operators, evident in the current proposals.  

Q9: Suggest that the RSPCA should be consulted.

Broadly welcome the proposed legislation but make the following points:

1. Suggest further consultation relating to shore side reception facilities.

2. Raise questions ref definition used for sewage.

3. Additional shore side waste management costs not considered in the impact assessment.

4. Would welcome clarification on whether the proposed sewage disposal methods will meet the environmental objectives of the proposed Marine strategy Directive and the UK Marine Bill.

5. Would welcome opportunity to assist MCA in assessing performance of on-board sewage treatment systems.

Draft SI

a) Suggest that regulations should include powers for MCA Surveyors or any other appointed inspectors to inspect against the provisions of the regs for garbage on fixed/floating platforms engaged in exploration/exploitation of the sea bed, when fixed on location.

b) Request amended wording at 23(1) to better clarify that a fixed/floating platform, FSU, FPSO that is not engaged in an international voyage falls outside the scope of the regulations for sewage i.e. is not deemed ‘a relevant platform’.

Draft MGN

a) Suggest that wording should be included in the MGN and Instruction to Surveyors to show that provisions for sewage do not apply to fixed/floating platforms, FSU or FPSO not engaged in an international voyage.

b) Suggest alternative wording to replace that at 14.3 of MGN relating to equivalence for Garbage Record Books for fixed or floating offshore installations.

c) Suggest that Para 8.3 should advise that Garbage Record Book equivalence details can be found at 14.3 (see b) above)

d) Suggested new text provided for para 12.3.

Strongly favour Option 2 in the Impact Assessment. Suggest that the consultation documents fail to provide rigorous analysis of the impacts of marine pollution from shipping.

Answers to specific questions posed in consultation letter (not all questions answered):

Q1: Suggest a duty is placed on authorities to monitor compliance with regulations with regard to declarations that ships will never engage in international voyages.

Q3: Suggest that the aim should be for cessation of all sewage discharges to marine environment. Failing that, discharges should be undertaken in a manner where dilution effects cause least impact.  

Q4: Agree that offences are proportionate.

Q6: Social and economic cost of ship sourced sewage and garbage in the impact assessment is likely to have been underestimated.

Q7: Impact Assessment should have advised on the impact of accepting option 2.

Q9: Suggest that the RSPCA should be consulted.  

Current Government policy is not to go beyond that of international requirements.  Your comments and others that wish to see international requirements will be taken into consideration for future policy amendments.

Comments made on IA will be taken into consideration with others.

Suggest that MGN should explicitly state that the proposed sewage regulations do not apply to offshore installations as defined in the Petroleum Act 1998.

Suggest clarification needed on whether the exemption provided in Reg 35 is deemed to be in place through equivalence with existing legislation.

Ref: prohibition of discharge of comminuted food waste within 12 nautical miles of land. Suggest that Reg 29(2) is included in Reg 35 to allow exemptions on a case by case basis.

Suggest provision for extra time for compliance with regs, to the first dry-docking after 27/09/08.

Feel that Impact assessment is flawed in key areas – environmental benefits largely overstated.

No extension will be given as the international into force date for existing vessels (27/09/08) has been in the public domain a sufficient length of time for ship owners to be in compliance.

The RIA will be reviewed in light of comments and additional information received from consultees.

Suggest provision for extra time for compliance with regs, to the first dry-docking after 27/09/08.

Feel that Impact assessment is flawed in key areas – environmental benefits largely overstated.

No extension will be given as the international into force date for existing vessels (27/09/08) has been in the public domain a sufficient length of time for ship owners to be in compliance.

The RIA will be reviewed in light of comments and additional information received from consultees.