Ppr.1 Circ.6 Gesamp Ehs List
Ppr.1 Circ.6 Gesamp Ehs List
Ppr.1 Circ.6 Gesamp Ehs List
4 ALBERT EMBANKMENT
LONDON SE1 7SR
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7735 7611 Fax: +44 (0)20 7587 3210
PPR.1/Circ.6
2 May 2019
The report of the fifty-sixth session of the GESAMP Working Group on the Evaluation of
the Hazards of Harmful Substances Carried by Ships (GESAMP/EHS Working Group), held
from 8 to 12 April 2019, is attached.
Email: [email protected]
***
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2
2 OUTCOME OF OTHER BODIES .............................................................................. 2
3 EVALUATION OF NEW SUBSTANCES ................................................................... 4
4 RE-EVALUATION OF SUBSTANCES AND CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES
RELATED TO EVALUATIONS .................................................................................. 5
5 CLASSIFICATION ISSUES ....................................................................................... 7
6 CONSOLIDATION OF EXISTING DATA FILES ....................................................... 8
7 COMMUNICATION AND PUBLICATION .................................................................. 8
8 ANY OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................... 8
9 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT .......................................... 8
LIST OF ANNEXES
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The fifty-sixth session of the GESAMP Working Group on the Evaluation of
the Hazards of Harmful Substances Carried by Ships (GESAMP/EHS Working Group) was
held at IMO in London, United Kingdom, from 8 to 12 April 2019, chaired by Dr. Thomas Höfer.
The list of experts attending the meeting is set out in annex 1.
1.2 The Group reviewed the agenda and the provisional timetable, and agreed to some
modifications to the timetable. Subsequently, the Group adopted both.
Outcome of GESAMP 45
2.1 The Group noted the report by the Chair on the outcome of the forty-fifth session of
GESAMP, which took place from 17 to 20 September 2018 in Rome, Italy, hosted by the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO). A summary of the outcome of the meeting is set out in
annex 2.
2.2 The Group noted that the following meetings of relevance had taken place since the
fifty-fifth session of the GESAMP/EHS Working Group:
2.3 The Group noted the information presented by the Secretariat on the outcome of the
above-mentioned meetings on matters of relevance to the work of the GESAMP/EHS Working
Group, as summarized in annex 3.
2.4 The Group noted that PPR 6 had invited GESAMP/EHS to review the guidance
contained in the draft PPR.1 circular on decisions with regard to the categorization and
classification of products (PPR 6/20, annex 5), and to consider the possibility of a review and
update of GHP ratings for products in the GESAMP Composite List, in line with this guidance,
for purposes of consistency and harmonization (PPR 6/20, paragraph 3.38).
2.5 The Group reviewed the above-mentioned draft PPR.1 circular and also reviewed the
draft revised MEPC.1/Circ.512 on guidelines for the provisional assessment of liquid
substances transported in bulk (PPR 6/20, annex 4). Subsequently, the Group agreed to
suggest the following editorial modifications:
2.6 In the context of the draft PPR.1 circular on decisions with regard to the categorization
and classification of products (PPR 6/20, annex 5), the Group requested the Secretariat to
bring the following points to the attention of ESPH 26:
2.7 In relation to the possibility of a review and update of GHP ratings for products in the
GESAMP Composite List, in line with the guidance contained in the draft PPR.1 circular on
decisions with regard to the categorization and classification of products, the Group advised
that the GHP ratings reflect scientific data. The Group agreed that it is not appropriate to show
amended GHP ratings in the Composite List based on the guidance in the draft revised PPR.1
circular.
Cut-off values to be used when assessing mixtures containing components with a long-
term health effect
2.8 The Group recalled that PPR 5 had requested it to consider the proposal in
document PPR 5/3/3 (Norway) and to advise the ESPH Working Group with regard to
recommended cut-off values to be used when assessing mixtures containing components with
a long-term health effect.
2.9 The Group also recalled that due to time constraints at its fifty-fifth session, it had
been unable to finalize the requested advice but had agreed that the relevant text from the
revised GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure for Chemicals Carried by Ships would form
the basis for developing a recommendation, at EHS 56, for consideration by the ESPH Working
Group.
2.10 The Group agreed that the table of concentrations of ingredients of a mixture that
would trigger long-term health effect ratings for that mixture, which had been developed by the
Group and included in the draft revised GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure for Chemicals
Carried by Ships, could be used by the ESPH Working Group. The rules are set out in annex 4.
With regard to the two thresholds for mutagenicity, sensitization (skin and respiratory) and
target organ toxicity, the Group was of the view that the ESPH Working Group could go for the
worst-case option and use the lower percentage limits when utilizing the mixture calculation
rules for assigning carriage requirements. In this context, the Group noted the perspective that
manufacturers could request GESAMP/EHS for a full profile of a mixture, which would then be
rated based on the appropriate percentage limits for the subcategories of the above-mentioned
health effects, subject to appropriate data being submitted.
3.1 The Group recalled that when submitting new substances for evaluation by the
GESAMP/EHS Working Group, a full set of data, addressing all the relevant information
requirements set out in the GESAMP/EHS Product Data Reporting Form, was required. The
Group further noted that insufficient data, or a lack of adequate supporting arguments, where
estimates had been used, would result in no rating being assigned for the end-point concerned
or, as a worst case, no full hazard profile being issued for the chemical under review. In
addition, the Group emphasized that requests for evaluations of mixtures, for which the
assessment would be based on data for individual components of the mixture, should be
accompanied by detailed and realistic compositional information (i.e. percentages, ratios or
concentrations of the components).
3.2 The Group considered the following new substances, which had been submitted
for evaluation to this session:
3.3 The Group, in assessing the submitted products, made observations and reached
conclusions, as set out in the ensuing paragraphs. The resultant hazard profiles assigned by
the Working Group for inclusion in the GESAMP Composite List are set out in annex 5.
3.4 In considering the submission, the Group noted that according to the information
provided, the product was a mixture of variable composition of different organic aliphatic
substances. The information on composition according to the submitter indicated that each of
the ingredients may be present in a range from 0 to 100%. The Group also noted that no
impurities (e.g. alpha-olefins of a chain length lower than 12) were reported. In this regard, the
Group reiterated that submitters should provide detailed and realistic compositional information
(i.e. percentages, ratios or concentrations of the components) in order for the Group to be able
to produce an accurate GESAMP Hazard Profile.
3.5 Notwithstanding the above, the Group considered the data provided for the product
and assigned a GESAMP Hazard Profile accordingly. In reviewing the data available, the
Group noted that the acute inhalation toxicity of the vapour of the mixture was lower than the
toxicity based on exposure to mist. Therefore, the Group agreed to append a hash mark (#) to
the entry, denoting that a lower acute inhalation risk may be considered for the purposes of
risk management of exposure to the vapour.
3.6 In considering the submission, the Group noted that a full set of data had been
provided for the mixture and all components. Consequently, the Group assigned a GESAMP
Hazard Profile accordingly. In reviewing the data available, the Group noted that the acute
inhalation toxicity of the vapour of the mixture was lower than the toxicity based on exposure
to mist. Therefore, the Group agreed to append a hash mark (#) to the entry, denoting that a
lower acute inhalation risk may be considered for the purposes of risk management of
exposure to the vapour.
3.7 In considering the submission, the Group noted that a full set of data had been
provided for the product and assigned a GESAMP Hazard Profile accordingly. The assessment
was based on the most concentrated aqueous solution. Having also noted the low vapour
pressure, the Group agreed to append a hash mark (#) to the entry, denoting that a lower acute
inhalation risk may be considered for the purposes of risk management of exposure to the
vapour.
4.1 The Group recalled that, as part of its work, it routinely considered requests for the
re-assessment of products, based on the submission of new data or new scientific insights into
the hazards of substances that may result in a change to a hazard profile.
4.2 The Group also recalled its ongoing review and update of the existing GESAMP/EHS
files for completeness and consistency and the need for communication of any amendments
relating to such matters, bringing these to the attention of IMO (i.e. the ESPH Working Group
of the PPR Sub-Committee).
4.3 The Group considered a request to undertake a review of the hazard profiles for Ethyl
tert-butyl ether (EHS 2085), Fish by-products (fresh) (EHS 2499), Fish silage (containing 3%
or less formic acid with antioxidant) (EHS 2500) and Sodium aluminate (solution) (EHS 1234).
In the context of the latter substance, the Group also agreed to re-evaluate Sodium hydroxide
(30% or less)/Sodium aluminate (25% or less) solution (EHS 2486). Any agreed modifications
to the respective hazard profiles for these substances are highlighted in the revised GESAMP
Composite List, set out in annex 6.
4.4 The Group considered a request for a re-evaluation of the B2 rating for this material.
In reviewing the data available, the Group agreed to amend column B2 from NI to 0. The Group
noted that the acute inhalation toxicity of the vapour of the mixture was lower than the toxicity
based on exposure to mist. Therefore, the Group agreed to append a hash mark (#) to the
entry, denoting that a lower acute inhalation risk may be considered for the purposes of risk
management of exposure to the vapour. The Group also amended a number of other ratings,
as set out below.
4.5 The Group considered a request for a re-evaluation of the E2 rating for this material.
Having reviewed the information provided, the Group amended the E2 rating as set out below.
EHS 2500 Fish silage (containing 3% or less formic acid with antioxidant)
4.6 The Group considered a request for a re-evaluation of the E2 rating for this material.
Having reviewed the new information provided by the submitters, which included information
on composition and solubility, the Group amended the E2 rating as set out below.
4.7 The Group considered a request for a re-evaluation of this material. In reviewing the
data available, the Group amended the B1 and B2 ratings, as set out below.
4.8 Having reviewed Sodium aluminate (solution) (EHS 1234), the Group also
re-evaluated Sodium hydroxide (30% or less)/Sodium aluminate (25% or less) solution
(EHS 1253), taking into account that similar data considerations to the former substance would
apply. Subsequently, the Group amended the B1 and B2 ratings, as set out below.
4.9 The Group further agreed to revise ratings for seven substances that were already
listed in the Composite List (see paragraphs 4.10 to 4.16 below), based on discussions
emanating from the review of the new substances that had been submitted at this session. Any
agreed modifications to the respective hazard profiles for these substances are highlighted in
the revised GESAMP Composite List, set out in annex 6.
4.10 The Group reviewed the ratings for Dodecene (all isomers) (EHS 720) and modified
the ratings as set out below. In reviewing the data available, the Group noted that the acute
inhalation toxicity of the vapour of the mixture was lower than the toxicity based on exposure
to mist. Therefore, the Group agreed to append a hash mark (#) to the entry, denoting that a
lower acute inhalation risk may be considered for the purposes of risk management of
exposure to the vapour.
4.11 The Group reviewed the ratings for 1-Dodecene (EHS 2473) and modified the ratings
as set out below. In reviewing the data available, the Group noted that the acute inhalation
toxicity of the vapour of the mixture was lower than the toxicity based on exposure to mist.
Therefore, the Group agreed to append a hash mark (#) to the entry, denoting that a lower
acute inhalation risk may be considered for the purposes of risk management of exposure to
the vapour.
4.12 The Group reviewed the ratings for Olefins C13 and above, all isomers (EHS 2028)
and modified the ratings as set out below. In reviewing the data available, the Group noted
that the acute inhalation toxicity of the vapour of the mixture was lower than the toxicity based
on exposure to mist. Therefore, the Group agreed to append a hash mark (#) to the entry,
denoting that a lower acute inhalation risk may be considered for the purposes of risk
management of exposure to the vapour.
4.13 The Group reviewed the ratings for Alkylbenzenes mixture (containing less than 1%
naphthalene) (EHS 2423) and modified the rating for D3 by deleted the existing C.
4.14 The Group reviewed the ratings for Alkylbenzenes mixtures (containing naphthalene)
(EHS 2424) and modified the rating for D3 by deleting the existing C.
4.15 The Group reviewed the ratings for Ethylbenzene (EHS 740) and modified the rating
for D3 by deleting the existing C and adding a T.
4.16 The Group reviewed the ratings for Cyclopentene (EHS 547) and added brackets to
the existing rating for D1, since it was based on read-across information.
5 CLASSIFICATION ISSUES
5.1 The Group continued its review of flashpoint information for products, as extracted from
the GISIS database, and agreed to continue the review intersessionally, with a view to
completing the work at EHS 57 for incorporation in the Composite List once the revised
GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure for Chemicals Carried by Ships had been published.
This will amend the E1 column in the GESAMP Hazard Profile from indicating tainting to rating
flammability.
6.1 The Group recalled the ongoing review of the GESAMP/EHS files was a regular
agenda item.
6.2 Not having had sufficient time to review these files during the session, in light of other
higher priority work on its agenda, the Group agreed to defer consideration of this item to its
next session.
7.1 The Chair informed the Group of the review of the draft revised GESAMP Hazard
Evaluation Procedure for Chemicals Carried by Ships being conducted by GESAMP. In this
regard, the Group considered feedback from the GESAMP reviewers and agreed on
amendments to the draft. As the review process was ongoing, the Group noted that the Chair
would contact the members of GESAMP/EHS should there be any further comments by the
reviewers that would require significant amendments to the draft.
7.2 Subsequently, the Group invited the Secretariat to take the appropriate action for
finalizing the publication of the revised GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure for Chemicals
Carried by Ships, once the review had been finalized.
8.1 Based on the volume of information contained in submissions in recent sessions, the
Group suggested that the deadline for submissions to future GESAMP/EHS meetings should
be set sufficiently in advance of the meeting so as to allow the members of the Group to
commence preparatory work at least three weeks prior to the session.
8.2 The Group agreed to the draft provisional agenda for its next session, set out in
annex 7, and that its next meeting had been tentatively scheduled to take place from
4 to 8 May 2020, at IMO headquarters in London. Subject to the aforementioned dates being
confirmed, the deadline for manufacturers to submit information to GESAMP/EHS 57 would
be 6 March 2020.
9.1 The Group adopted its report, noting that it would be circulated as PPR.1/Circ.6.
***
ANNEX 1
IMO SECRETARIAT
***
ANNEX 2
GENERAL ACTIVITIES
2 The Group recognized the services of Dr. Stefan Micallef, Administrative Secretary
for GESAMP, who could not attend the session due to his retirement from United Nations
service. It was noted that Dr. Micallef had more than 20 years of experience in GESAMP,
initially as a member of Working Group 1 (1995-2001), then a Technical Secretary for Working
Group 1 (2005-2007), and finally as Administrative Secretary for GESAMP in his position as
the Director of the Marine Environment Division of IMO (2007-2018).
WORKING GROUP 1
5 The Chair of Working Group 1 reported on progress made during EHS 55 and the
months after. GESAMP noted:
.1 that 11 new substances had been evaluated and full GESAMP Hazard
Profiles (GHPs) assigned, and that the GHPs for four substances had either
been modified or reconfirmed, based on consideration of new data;
.3 the WG's progress in drafting a new GESAMP Reports and Studies report
with its publication planned to be in time for GESAMP's 50th anniversary in
2019; and
.4 that the IMO ESPH Working Group and the PPR Sub-Committee had
requested Working Group 1 (WG 1) to give more guidance for the hazard
evaluation of mixtures.
6 GESAMP noted that WG 1 had informally discussed the procedures and the workload
when evaluating new substances. The total volume of data sets, the number of publications
linked to the submitted data and the risk assessment reports on the chemical substances
involved have all increased significantly during the last decade. The main reason for such an
increase in the volume of data sets is the European chemicals policy with the requirements set
under the so-called REACH regulation. Under this European legislation, the chemical industry
has not only to establish a full set of safety information including competent summaries of
scientific studies, but also to compile specific Chemical Safety Reports (CSR). Such reports
usually exceed 100 pages (often running into several hundred pages as in the cases of the
substances evaluated during EHS 55) and are of a confidential nature. With the number of
submissions to be evaluated during a five-day session, a full study of such documents by all
members of the Working Group is not possible. New ways of making such confidential
information available for the Working Group's experts in preparation of the meeting should be
discussed. It was noted that there were legal restrictions for circulation of confidential data and
practical challenges concerning the overall workload of the members of the Working Group
when such homework would be introduced. The situation will be further discussed within WG 1.
8 Having recalled the agreed timeline for completion of the revision of the Hazard
Evaluation Procedure for finalization and publication in time for the 50th anniversary of
GESAMP in 2019, the Group comprehensively reviewed the draft that had been prepared
intersessionally and concluded that all technical and scientific matters had been considered
sufficiently and to the satisfaction of the Group. GESAMP noted the progress and agreed that,
as the draft revision was a result of a comprehensive review by WG 1, it should be subject to
a formal review by GESAMP and it should be assigned a new Report and Studies number.
Subsequently, GESAMP invited the Secretariat to take appropriate action for the revised
"GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure for Chemicals Carried by Ships, 2019" to be
published before EHS 56.
8 The terms of reference of the GESAMP EHS Working Group, as given by GESAMP
at its sixth session in 1974 and amended at its eighth session in Rome (1976) are: "To examine
and evaluate data and to provide such other advice as may be requested, particularly by IMO,
for evaluating the environmental hazards of harmful substances carried by ships, in
accordance with the rationale approved by GESAMP for this purpose".
9 GESAMP noted that the above terms restricted the scientific evaluation and advice to
environmental hazards. However, during the last years, Working Group 1 had been requested
to evaluate occupational hazards for ships crews and those handling the cargo, as well as to
offer advice on maritime emergency response. The GESAMP Hazard Profile is used by IMO
and maritime administrations for assigning minimum carriage requirements for the transport of
liquid bulk cargoes in general. Most of these technical requirements target ship safety, many
relate to environmental protection and others relate to occupational protection. Upcoming IMO
regulations will specify the involvement of the GESAMP EHS Working Group and the use of
the GESAMP Hazard Profile in all of these three areas.
10 Accordingly, GESAMP approved the revised Terms of Reference for Working Group 1
to read as follows: "The GESAMP Working Group on the Evaluation of the Hazards of Harmful
Substances Carried by Ships is an expert group to provide best available scientific assessment
of the environmental, occupational and safety hazards of chemicals, in particular to:
OTHER WORK
11 The task of Working Group 34 (WG 34), the "GESAMP Ballast Water Working
Group", is to evaluate the risks for the crew and the ships safety, the risk for the public at large,
and the environmental safety of the Ballast Water Management Systems. During two sessions
in November 2017 and June 2018, the Group evaluated three systems. WG 34 had initiated
the drafting of a Reports & Studies report on the whole subject including the Methodology for
working procedures. GESAMP decided that the current draft should be distributed among
GESAMP members for peer review, for the final publication to be available before the 50th
anniversary of GESAMP in 2019. (Review has taken place.)
14 "Sources, fate and effects of plastics and micro-plastics and in the environment" are
dealt with in Working Group 40 (WG40). WG 40 held three workshops in September 2017 in
Paris, in March 2018 in San Diego, and in June 2018 in Bangkok. A report on guidelines covering
terminology and methodologies for the monitoring and assessment of marine macro-plastics and
microplastics was finalized in late 2018 and published as Reports and Studies No.99.
15 Working Group 41, the "Working Group on marine geoengineering" had finalized a
draft report, which underwent internal and external review. GESAMP noted that the report
would be published in early 2019. The Working Group had no scheduled meetings and
depending on the discussion of the report, the lead agencies would consider their interest in
further funding. Key points from the report were: .1 some 25 approaches had been assessed
in 8 categories; .2 the information available varied widely from just concepts to many scientific
papers; .3 there was generally insufficient information to assess to permit robust scientific
assessment; and .4 consequently, the WG focused on evaluating illustrative examples from
each of the eight categories. The report has since been published as Reports and Studies
No.98.
17 As always, the Sponsoring Organizations and the Secretariat reported their work
related to the marine environment, e.g. the UN Regular Process and the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the United
Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. GESAMP experts are
involved in some of these activities.
19 GESAMP agreed to further scope out the issue of the impact of "armed conflict on the
marine environment" in the intersessional period. GESAMP noted the progress of some
scoping activities including the "Relevance of inputs of disinfection byproducts (DBPs) into the
marine environment", the "Update the Information on Sources of the Main Pollutants Impacting
the Global Marine Environment (The 80:20 Conundrum)" and "Sand and Gravel Mining".
***
ANNEX 3
1 OUTCOME OF ESPH 24
Evaluation of chemicals
1.1 ESPH 24 considered a number of products as part of its routine assessment and
assignment of carriage requirements, in accordance with the IBC Code. Decisions that were
based on the outcome of GESAMP/EHS 55 or that are relevant to GESAMP/EHS 56 are
summarized below.
1.2 The Group considered document ESPH 24/3/26 (Norway), which proposed that the
Group reconsider the requirements for controlled venting and increased ventilation rates for
non-volatile corrosive products in a similar manner as had been done at PPR 5 for non-volatile
toxic products.
1.3 In this context, the Group recalled that the ESPH Working Group at PPR 5 had agreed
to follow, on a case-by-case basis, a similar approach for non-volatile solid substances
transported in aqueous solutions as had been used in the case of inorganic brines
(see BLG.1/Circ.33, annex, paragraph 10) in relation to inhalation toxicity when the SVC/LC 50
ratio could not be calculated due to the exact vapour pressure of the solid not being available.
1.4 The Group further recalled that the rationale behind the above-mentioned decision
was that, in general, the vapour pressure of solid substances was very low and only water
vapour (i.e. non-toxic vapours) would be emitted when transporting such non-volatile solid
substances in aqueous solution.
1.5 Subsequently, the Group agreed that the same rationale could be extended, on a
case-by-case basis, to non-volatile corrosive solid substances transported in aqueous
solutions. Specifically, it would be applicable when considering vapour-related requirements
such as whether controlled or open venting arrangements should be assigned (column g of
chapter 17 of the IBC Code) or whether or not increased ventilation would be required
(paragraph 15.17 of the IBC Code). The Group also agreed to amend paragraph 10 of the
annex to BLG.1/Circ.33 accordingly.
1.6 The Group noted that, had the above decision regarding non-volatile corrosive solid
substances been reached before or during PPR 5, less stringent requirements could have
been assigned in columns g and o (i.e. "Open" in column g, "No" in column n and no "15.17"
in column o) for "Potassium hydroxide solution", "Sodium borohydride (15% or less)/sodium
hydroxide", "Sodium chlorate solution (50% or less)", "Potassium formate solutions" and
"Sodium hydroxide solution" in the draft revised chapter 17 of the IBC Code (PPR 5/24/Add.1).
1.7 In this regard, the Group suggested that the delegation of Norway could submit a
document to MEPC 74 and MSC 101 proposing that the carriage requirements in columns g,
n and o for "Potassium hydroxide solution", "Sodium borohydride (15% or less)/sodium
hydroxide", "Sodium chlorate solution (50% or less)", "Potassium formate solutions" and
"Sodium hydroxide solution" be modified prior to the adoption of the draft revised chapter 17
of the IBC Code.
Guidance for assessing and classifying products under Annexes I and II of MARPOL
Energy-rich fuels
1.8 The Group agreed that the following products, that were listed in annex 11 (Biofuels
recognized under the 2011 Guidelines for the carriage of blends of petroleum oil and biofuels)
of MEPC.2/Circ.23, fulfilled the characteristics described in section 4 of the draft guidelines for
the carriage of energy-rich fuels and their blends:
1.9 Consequently, the Group agreed that, subject to the draft guidelines for the carriage
of energy-rich fuels and their blends being approved at MEPC 73, the products listed in
paragraph 1.8 above should be listed in a new annex 12 (Energy-rich fuels subject to Annex I
of MARPOL) to MEPC.2/Circ.24 (issued on 1 December 2018). Accordingly, the
above-mentioned products and their corresponding biofuel entries would be deleted from list 1
and annex 11 of the MEPC.2/Circular, as appropriate.
1.10 With regard to consequential amendments emanating from the inclusion of the
annex 12 to MEPC.2/Circ.24, the Group noted that consequential modifications would have to
be made to the draft revised chapter 17 of the IBC Code prior to its adoption (i.e. deletion of
the entries that had been included in annex 12 to MEPC.2/Circ.24, as well as deletion of their
corresponding biofuel blend entries).
1.11 Similarly, consequential amendments to the 2011 Guidelines for the carriage of
blends of petroleum oil and biofuels, as amended (MEPC.1/Circ.761/Rev.1) would have to be
made (i.e. deletion of references to alkanes (C10-C26), linear and branched with a flashpoint
of either 60°C or less or more than 60°C).
Evaluation of chemicals
2.1 The Group evaluated and assigned minimum carriage requirements for one list 1
products and three list 3 products (PPR 6/WP.3, section 3 and annexes 1 and 2).
2.2 The Group recalled that ESPH 24 had noted that, as a result of the addition of
annex 12 to MEPC.2/Circ.24, consequential modifications to the draft revised chapters 17
and 19 of the IBC Code would need to be introduced prior to their adoption (i.e. deletion of the
entries that had been included in annex 12 to MEPC.2/Circ.24, as well as deletion of their
corresponding biofuel blend entries).
2.3 Consequently, the Group prepared draft modifications to the draft revised chapters 17
and 19 of the IBC Code. The full set of modifications to the amendments are set out in annex 5
to document PPR 6/WP.3, to be considered and adopted together with the amendments to the
IBC Code by MEPC 74 and MSC 101.
Revision of MEPC.2/Circ.512
2.4 The Group, having recalled that PPR 5 had requested GESAMP/EHS 55 to advise
the ESPH Working Group with regard to recommended cut-off values to be used when
assessing mixtures containing components with long-term health effects, considered whether
to await the outcome of this work by the GESAMP/EHS Working Group for the current revision
of the MEPC.1/Circ.512. However, having noted that the revision of the circular was almost
finished and the timeline for the completion of the work by GESAMP/EHS was unclear, the
Group agreed that there was no need to include this in the current revision of the circular and
instead to revisit this at a future session once GESAMP/EHS had completed its work.
2.5 Having agreed on a number of final modifications and having resolved the outstanding
issues, including the development of recommendations for the assessment of complex
petrochemical mixtures, the Group finalized the draft revision to MEPC.1/Circ.512 on Revised
guidelines for the provisional assessment of liquid substances transported in bulk, as set out
in annex 7 to document PPR 6/WP.3.
Revision of BLG.1/Circ.33
2.6 The Group recalled that ESPH 24 had prepared an updated draft list of decisions with
regard to the classification of products, as set out in annex 5 to document PPR 6/3. The Group
further recalled that ESPH 24 had agreed that the ESPH Working Group at PPR 6 would
prepare a final revised circular for consideration by the Sub-Committee.
2.7 The Group reviewed the draft in detail and, having agreed on a number of final
modifications, finalized the draft revised PPR circular on decisions with regard to the
categorization and classification of products, as set out in annex 8 to document PPR 6/WP.3.
2.8 The Group further agreed to invite GESAMP/EHS to review the guidance contained
in the circular and to consider the possibility of a review and update of GHP ratings for products
in the GESAMP Composite List, in line with this guidance, for purposes of consistency and
harmonization.
***
ANNEX 4
***
ANNEX 5
1 This annex sets out the GESAMP Hazard Profiles (GHP) assigned for the
products submitted to the current session. The respective substances and their GHPs are
summarized in the subsequent table.
***
EHS 56/9
Annex 6, page 1
ANNEX 6
Notes:
1 In the Composite List, both EHS and TRN (shipping) names are shown for each
product. The alphabetical listing of the products is based on the EHS names.
2 Any changes introduced in the table since the last issue of the Composite List are
highlighted.
3 Entries with an EHS name marked with a single asterisk (*) represent cleaning
additive components that have only a partial hazard profile assigned. These profiles cannot
be used for mixture calculations in relation to bulk shipments.
4 Entries with an EHS name marked with a double asterisk (**) represent mixture
components for which only a partial hazard profile has been assigned. These profiles
may be used for mixture calculations in relation to bulk shipments.
5 Entries with an EHS name marked with a hash mark (#) reflect that for the C3 rating,
the product, as a vapour rather than an aerosol or mist, could be considered to have a lower
inhalation hazard for the purposes of risk management.
6 Entries with an EHS name marked with an exclamation mark (!) refer to a mixture that
contains components with substantially different physical properties and therefore different
physical behaviours when released in the marine environment. The E2 rating assigned reflects
the most severe impact from an environmental standpoint. For example, a mixture assigned a
rating of Fp may also have a major component(s) with sinker characteristics (S) or dissolver
characteristics (D).
***
EHS 56/9
Annex 7, page 1
ANNEX 7
5 Classification issues
___________