Agenda Item - OSPAR Commission

Transcription

Agenda Item - OSPAR Commission
Agenda Item 13
OIC 06/13/1-E
Original: English
OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE
NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC
MEETING OF THE OFFSHORE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE (OIC)
COPENHAGEN: 20-24 FEBRUARY 2006
Summary Record
Opening of the Meeting......................................................................................................................................3
Representation at the Meeting ............................................................................................................................3
Agenda Item 1 – Adoption of the Agenda..........................................................................................................3
Agenda Item 2 – Offshore Chemicals ................................................................................................................4
Development of environmental goals ............................................................................................................4
Harmonisation of the control system for the use and discharge of offshore chemicals (HMCS) .................7
Issues where agreement was reached ........................................................................................................7
Issues for further work...............................................................................................................................8
Normalisation of biodegradation values ....................................................................................................8
Inherent biodegradation .............................................................................................................................8
REACH ......................................................................................................................................................9
Conclusions and arrangements for intersessional work ............................................................................9
Protocols for Koc .......................................................................................................................................9
Overview assessment of implementation reports on OSPAR Decision 2000/2 and
Recommendations 2000/4 and 2000/5 ....................................................................................................10
Compilation of ranking systems ..............................................................................................................11
Guidance on confidentiality issues ..........................................................................................................11
The PLONOR List .......................................................................................................................................12
Review of the criteria ..............................................................................................................................12
Review of the list .....................................................................................................................................12
Chemicals identified for priority action .......................................................................................................13
Background documents and monitoring strategies on priority substances..............................................13
One-off survey of monitoring of discharges of heavy metals in produced water ...................................13
Mineral weight materials .........................................................................................................................13
Jacking grease ..............................................................................................................................................13
Agenda Item 3 – Produced Water ....................................................................................................................14
OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1 for the Management of Produced Water ...............................................14
Criteria for alternative methods acceptance ............................................................................................14
Revision of OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1........................................................................................15
Techniques for the management of produced water ................................................................................16
Exchange of information on aromatic hydrocarbons ..............................................................................16
Cooperation with the Bonn Agreement .......................................................................................................17
Agenda Item 4 – Pollution from Other Sources ...............................................................................................17
Radioactive Substances ................................................................................................................................17
RSC work on non-nuclear sectors ...........................................................................................................17
IAEA ........................................................................................................................................................18
Oil from reservoirs on cuttings ....................................................................................................................18
Underwater noise .........................................................................................................................................18
Agenda Item 5 – Adverse Effects of Offshore Activities other than Pollution................................................19
Potential adverse effects (other than pollution) arising from offshore activities ........................................19
1
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
Restoration, where practicable, of marine areas which have been adversely affected by offshore
activities .......................................................................................................................................................19
Cuttings piles management regime ..........................................................................................................19
Placement of CO2 .........................................................................................................................................20
Agenda Item 6 – Reports on Emissions, Discharges and Losses .....................................................................21
2004 Report on Discharges, Spills and Emissions.......................................................................................21
Arrangements for reporting 2005 data and assessment of data ...................................................................22
Expert Assessment Panel (EAP) ..................................................................................................................22
Agenda Item 7 – Monitoring of Environmental Effects ...................................................................................22
Monitoring in the vicinity of offshore platforms .........................................................................................22
Information collection .............................................................................................................................23
Agenda Item 8 – Review of Existing Measures and of their Implementation .................................................23
Implementation reporting and assessment procedure ..................................................................................23
Agenda Item 9 – Cooperation between OSPAR and the EC............................................................................23
European Marine Strategy ...........................................................................................................................23
SIAM ............................................................................................................................................................24
Agenda Item 10 – Assessment and Monitoring Strategy .................................................................................24
Assessment of the impact on the marine environment (OA-1) ....................................................................24
Assessment of possible effects of disturbance of cuttings piles (OA-2) .....................................................25
Assessment of human activities (BA-5).......................................................................................................25
Overview of assessments (AA-1).................................................................................................................26
Agenda Item 11 – Organisational Issues ..........................................................................................................26
Programme of work for 2006/2007 ..............................................................................................................26
Future meeting arrangements .......................................................................................................................26
Allocation of meeting days ......................................................................................................................26
Agenda Item 12 – Any Other Business ............................................................................................................27
Entry into force of the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 ...............................................................................................27
Agenda Item 13 – Adoption of the Summary Record ......................................................................................27
List of participants.............................................................................................................................. Annex 1
Agenda and list of documents ........................................................................................................... Annex 2
List of actions to be undertaken during the intersession .................................................................... Annex 3
Draft OSPAR Recommendation 2006/x on Environmental Goals for the Discharge by the
Offshore Industry of Chemicals that Are, or Which Contain Substances Identified as
Candidates for Substitution ............................................................................................................... Annex 4
Revised PLONOR criteria and procedure .......................................................................................... Annex 5
List of national contact points concerning chemicals used offshore ................................................. Annex 6
Draft OSPAR Recommendation 2006/x amending OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1
for the Management of Produced Water ............................................................................................ Annex 7
Draft OSPAR Recommendation 2006/X on a Management Regime for Offshore Cuttings Piles .... Annex 8
Draft programme of work 2006/07 revision....................................................................................... Annex 9
2
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
Agenda Item 13
OIC 06/13/1-E
Original: English
OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE
NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC
MEETING OF THE OFFSHORE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE (OIC)
COPENHAGEN: 20-24 FEBRUARY 2006
Summary Record
Opening of the Meeting
0.1 The 2006 meeting of the Offshore Industry Committee (OIC) was held in Copenhagen at the kind
invitation of the Danish Government. Mr Jørgen Magner, Head of the Water Division at the Danish
Environmental Protection Agency, opened the meeting and welcomed delegates to Copenhagen.
0.2 Mr Magner identified two main issues on OIC’s agenda: the substitution of chemicals which might
cause problems for the marine environment; and the reduction of oil discharged with produced water. Both
issues contained difficult and complex questions and challenges for which harmonised, well-balanced,
sound and operational solutions were needed in order to protect and improve the marine environment in the
North-East Atlantic and at the same time make it possible for the industry to supply our energy dependant
society with important resources. Mr Magner pointed out that the work of OIC would therefore be followed
with interest by politicians and industry alike.
0.3 A very good and constructive debate on the same issues had taken place over the past six months
between the Danish Minister of Environment and the Danish offshore industry, and OIC were invited to take
note of the resulting Action Plan in OIC 06/1/2. This debate had made clear the key role played by OSPAR
in the work to safeguard a harmonised regulation of the offshore industry in the Convention area.
0.4
Mr Magner wished OIC every success for its meeting and delegates a pleasant stay in Copenhagen.
Representation at the Meeting
0.5 The meeting was chaired by Mr Aart Tacoma (the Netherlands), and was attended by representatives
from the following:
a.
Contracting Parties
Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK);
b.
Intergovernmental Observer Organisations
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);
c.
Non-Governmental Observer Organisations
the European Oilfield Speciality Chemicals Association (EOSCA), the International
Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP), KIMO International and the World Wide Fund
for Nature (WWF).
A list of participants is at Annex 1.
Agenda Item 1 – Adoption of the Agenda
OIC 06/1/1
1.1 The draft agenda for the meeting (OIC 06/1/1) was adopted without amendment. A copy of the agenda
together with a list of documents presented to the meeting is at Annex 2. A list of actions arising from the
meeting is at Annex 3.
3
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
1.2 The Secretariat presented the 2005/06 Programme of Work for the Offshore Industry Committee
(OIC 06/1/Info.1) as a basis for the discussions at the meeting.
1.3 OIC took note of the Danish Offshore Action Plan as decided by the Danish Minister for the
Environment on 19 December 2005 (OIC 06/1/2).
Agenda Item 2 – Offshore Chemicals
OIC 06/2/1- OIC 06/2/18, OIC 06/2/Info.1, OIC 06/2/Info.2
Development of environmental goals
2.1 Following agreements at OIC 2005, Norway and the UK presented the outcome of the intersessional
work on the development of environmental goals for chemicals identified as candidates for substitution
(OIC 06/2/1). Norway proposed that any further work on goal setting for these chemicals should concentrate
on production chemicals. Although the quantity of chemicals used and discharged in drilling operations are
higher than the amounts of chemicals related to production, the drilling chemicals in general could be said to
be less environmentally harmful, due to a higher proportion of PLONOR chemicals than is the case for the
production chemicals. The report included the information received from UK, Denmark and Netherlands, in
addition to Norway. In the light of the outcome of this work, Norway proposed to OIC two ways of meeting
the requirements in the Offshore Strategy for setting measurable environmental goals for the substitution
candidates:
a.
a target date for the cessation of the discharge of chemicals that are, or which contain added
substances that have been identified as candidates for substitution, with possible appropriate
exemption where chemicals cannot be substituted on technical or safety grounds;
b.
a percentage reduction target for the substitution candidates related to total quantity of
chemicals used.
As an alternative to the above, Norway also proposed that, given the progress made to date, it might also be
concluded that there was no justification for setting common reduction targets or goals, and that Contracting
Parties should continue to pursue national reduction strategies. In such circumstances, progress should be
reported to OSPAR at regular intervals.
2.2 OIC welcomed the great effort made by the intersessional group in this work under the lead of
Norway and the UK and thanked Norway for the report. In reacting to the Norwegian alternative proposals
in it Contracting Parties made the following points:
a.
the Chairman reminded the meeting that in 2003 OSPAR adopted a Programme for establishing
environmental goal for chemicals. In 2005 OSPAR adopted goals for priority chemicals. In
2006, OIC was expected to adopt environmental goals for chemicals identified as candidates for
substitution;
b.
the Netherlands stressed that data in the report in OIC 06/2/1 was not directly comparable from
country to country due to differences in reporting and questioned what type of information
should be reported and Contracting Parties’ willingness to share it. A mechanism to provide
accurate data would need to be developed. In their view BAT and BEP was crucial for setting
environmental goals for chemicals;
c.
the UK pointed out that it was not clear which types of chemicals had been included in the
“production chemicals” (e.g. if water injection, well stimulation and well service chemicals had
been included). They were not confident that the data submitted would allow for setting an
early baseline to show reduction progress. The UK was reviewing their data on chemicals
substituted since 2002. Alternative mechanisms to the proposals in paragraph 2.1 could also be
explored;
d.
Germany said that it would be possible to focus environmental goals on production chemicals
at the beginning and introduce goals for drilling chemicals at a later stage. Norway welcomed
this pragmatic approach. In reply to this, the UK and the Netherlands indicated that they would
prefer to base any prioritization on the hazardous characteristics of the chemicals;
4
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
e.
Spain reminded OIC of the ministerial commitment to set these goals for chemicals. Dates
could be discussed but the overall commitment and target of 2020 were already agreed;
f.
EOSCA reminded the meeting that Agreement 2002/6 was applicable not only to production
and drilling chemicals but also to eleven other types of chemicals identified at the Cadiz
meeting of OIC.
2.3 In order to further progress the setting of environmental goals for substitution, OIC convened a
drafting group chaired by Kevin O’Carroll to consider and reach agreement on:
a.
a mechanism for setting goals for candidates for substitution, on the basis of the proposals from
Norway described in paragraphs 2.1 above;
b.
the type of chemicals to be covered by the goal for candidates for substitution (production
chemicals, drilling chemicals, etc.);
c.
proposals for SMART1 goals including the timeframe for any necessary further work.
2.4 The drafting group reported to OIC on their discussions on these issues which had included
consideration of a further proposal for developing goals for chemicals identified as candidates for
substitution elaborated by the UK in the light of Contracting Parties reactions to the alternatives given by
Norway. The UK proposed a mechanism which lay between the alternatives given: it proposed setting
absolute goals based on the properties of the substances but no reduction percentages. In presenting their
proposal the UK explained that:
1
a.
it covered all type of chemicals, as there did not seem to be clear reasons for dividing chemicals
into “production chemicals” and “drilling chemicals”. However, some Contracting Parties
could choose to focus on a particular type of chemicals;
b.
developing goals based on tonnage reductions did not seem feasible, as the likely trend was that
the overall tonnage of candidates for substitution used offshore would increase, despite
Contracting Parties successful efforts to phase out a large number of them. In addition, a
tonnage reduction strategy would require to establish and agree baselines;
c.
goals based on reductions in the use of candidates for substitution as a percentage of the total
chemical use would also require agreement on baselines, and there did not appear to be any
consensus on this issue. Some Contracting Parties confirmed that they did not have the reliable
data necessary to support such a scheme. In addition, there had been a number of reviews of
the candidates for substitution on existing national lists. Some Contracting Parties would like
to use a later baseline year, but this would not take account of the reductions that have already
been achieved;
d.
setting goals by using other methods of normalization would require a number of different
methods and become very complicated, and would not overcome the problems of some
chemicals being used for more than one “use” (or the need to establish and agree baselines);
e.
as far as the ultimate aim is to phase-out and eliminate the use and/or discharge of candidates
for substitution, provided that is feasible, the UK proposed a phase out strategy by specific
dates for chemicals which are, or contain, substances identified as candidates for substitution,
subject to the caveat that there may be cases where substitution is not considered to be feasible;
f.
the UK proposal included deadlines for reaching the phase out goal in accordance to 4 levels of
prioritization which were based on the physical, chemical and biological properties that form
the basis of the hazard and risk assessments;
g.
Contracting Parties should develop National Plans based on a prioritization system. The Plans
could, take account, inter alia, of discussions with operators and chemical
manufacturers/suppliers relating to possible alternatives to chemical use; current R&D to
investigate alternatives; identification of suitable alternative chemistries; function (efficacy)
and compatibility testing; environmental testing and field trials;
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-dependent
5
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
h.
as part of the timetable for reaching the goal, the UK proposal asked Contracting Parties to
report progress regularly, exchanging information on successes and failures, and the
practicability, efficacy, cost and environmental impact of proposed alternatives etc.
2.5 Contracting Parties welcomed the proposal from the UK as a very useful basis for discussion and
expressed their positions as follows:
a.
Denmark welcomed the phase out approach as it avoided the problem of setting baselines and
normalisation of production or drilling chemicals. The Danish Action Plan establishes the
deadline of 1 January 2009 for the phase out of candidates for substitution, with the exception
of cases where substitution is not considered to be feasible. Their major problem related to
production chemicals so they should be able to comply with the deadline for drilling chemicals;
b.
France supported the overall phase out approach. It was clarified that the criteria for inclusion
in the OSPAR List of Substances for Priority Action included inputs and effects on the marine
environment in addition to the 3 properties of toxicity, persistence and biodegradability.
Therefore, this was not equivalent to the level 1 of priority proposed by the UK;
c.
Germany, Ireland and Norway were also supportive of the phase out approach as it sent a clear
message of cessation to the industry and avoided setting baselines;
d.
the Netherlands welcomed the general phase out approach and requested to change the
prioritisation levels in accordance with the HMCS pre-screening categories in OSPAR Decision
2000/2. In addition the reporting on implementation should be done in accordance with Table 8
of the format for reporting on annual discharges, emissions and losses from the offshore
industry in order to avoid duplication of work;
e.
Spain welcomed the general approach and saw the proposal for prioritisation as a programme of
work and not as a categorisation of substances. They stressed the importance of the caveat
relating to chemicals that could not be substituted and recommended establishing arrangements
to implement the strategy, in particular how to prepare a list of candidate substances for
substitution;
f.
the UK confirmed that the proposed prioritisation (deciding the level of risk) and the dates of
the goal for phasing out the use and discharge of use of candidates for substitution were open to
discussion;
g.
OGP welcomed the phase out approach but stressed the importance of the caveat that there may
be cases where substitution would not be feasible. However, OGP expressed concern that the
criteria for identifying candidates for substitution appeared to be applied in different ways by
different Contracting Parties and appealed for greater alignment in this area;
h.
EOSCA noted that part of the Priority level 4 substances would not be susceptible to
substitution. The UK confirmed this. EOSCA also noted the financial and environmental
implications of substitution as green chemicals could be significantly more expensive and result
in larger discharges.
2.6 In the light of the general process set out in the OSPAR Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Strategy for
establishing goals and measures and of the activities identified in it as being of greatest concern, and as a
result of the discussion especially on the date for phasing out the candidates for substitution, OIC agreed to
recommend to OSPAR 2006 the following environmental goal for discharges of offshore chemicals into the
sea:
“As soon as practicable and not later than 1 January 2017, Contracting Parties should have phased out
the discharge into the sea of offshore chemicals that are, or which contain substances, identified as
candidates for substitution, except for those chemicals where, despite considerable efforts, it could be
demonstrated that this is not feasible due to technical or safety reasons. Demonstration of those
reasons should include a description of the efforts.
2.7 In order to give effect to this, OIC agreed to recommend to OSPAR 2006 the Draft Recommendation
2006/x on Environmental Goals for the Discharge by the Offshore Industry of Chemicals that Are, or Which
Contain Substances Identified as Candidates for Substitution at Annex 4.
6
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
2.8
OIC also agreed:
a.
that the national plans referred in paragraph 3.2 of the draft Recommendation at Annex 4
should take account of discussions with operators and chemical manufacturers/suppliers
relating to the points proposed by the UK in paragraph 2.4 (g) above;
b.
to develop an OSPAR list of candidates for substitution on the basis of Contracting Parties’
reports on implementation of Recommendation 2006/x.
Harmonisation of the control system for the use and discharge of offshore chemicals (HMCS)
2.9 OIC examined a report from Norway on intersessional work on further harmonisation of
implementation of OSPAR Decision 2000/2 and Recommendations 2000/4 and 2000/5, in particular with
regard to (a) acceptance of fresh water data; (b) cut-off values for molecular weight; and (c) normalised
values for bioaccumulation (OIC 06/2/2).
2.10 The Netherlands presented the report of the outcome of the Intersessional Group on Environmental
Goals (IGEG) Meeting held in Aberdeen on 8-9 November 2005, which raised some issues related to this
work. OIC welcomed the report but due to its very late presentation was not able to discuss it in detail at the
meeting, as delegations had not been able to consult their colleagues at home. Therefore OIC agreed that
any further work on harmonisation of the HMCS by the IGEG should take into account the points raised by
the IGEG in OIC 06/2/17. The same was applicable to OIC 06/2/18 from the Netherlands.
2.11 OIC tried to conclude on those issues in the reports above (OIC 06/2/2 and OIC 06/2/17) and related
documents (OIC 06/2/13, OIC 06/2/16, OIC 06/2/18) on which the meeting was able to reach agreement.
Issues where agreement was reached
Fresh water data
2.12 In accordance with the conclusion of the IGEG, November 2005, OIC agreed that preferably marine
biodegradation and ecotoxicity data should be provided but that all countries would accept freshwater data
where these were the only data available. Freshwater biodegradation data should be subject to the safety
factor of 0.7 applied to the % degradation, which is the process applied in the CHARM. It was also agreed
that this factor would be applied to freshwater biodegradation data prior to pre-screening and it was
recognised that the acceptable pass limits in Recommendation 2000/4 would have to be amended. OIC noted
that regarding ecotoxicity-testing, Norway accepts data from standard OECD-tests, with the OECD standard
species from OECD 201, 202 and 203 (algae, crustaceans and fish), which is in line with the practice in
other OSPAR countries.
2.13. In order to provide for this, an intersessional correspondence group on harmonisation of the HMCS
(ICGH) should take these agreed amendments into account in its work for the further review of the HMCS.
Toxicity testing under the HMCS (Decision 2000/2)
2.14 OIC 2005 had agreed to amend the OSPAR Guideline for measuring the acute toxicity of offshore
chemicals to juvenile marine fish (Reference number: 1995-7) to introduce the concept of 'limit testing' in
order to reduce the numbers of fish used in toxicity testing while maintaining a mandatory fish toxicity test.
In the light of discussions with chemical suppliers and testing laboratories, the UK proposed in OIC 06/2/13
to clarify some points raised during their first year's experience of working with the limit test.
2.15 Following the UK proposals, OIC agreed:
a.
to the text amendments to the Guidelines for measuring the acute toxicity of offshore chemicals
to juvenile marine fish and in principle to the OSPAR Recommendation 2000/4 on a
Harmonised Pre-screening Scheme for Offshore Chemicals described by the UK in paragraphs
3, 4, and 5 of OIC 06/2/13.
b.
that an intersessional correspondence group on harmonisation of the HMCS (ICGH) should
take these agreed amendments into account in its work for the review of the HMCS.
7
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
Issues for further work
2.16 OIC made arrangements for further work on the issues relevant to the harmonisation of the HMCS on
which immediate agreement could not be reached as described below.
Cut-off values for molecular weight
2.17 In OIC 06/2/2 Norway highlighted the differences in Contracting Parties and supranational
organisations with regard to cut-off values for molecular weight:
a.
the Norwegian regulations do not require data for substances with molecular weight greater
than 1500. Other countries use 600 as the MW cut-off value for determining potential
bioaccumulation of a substance;
b.
the EU’s Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for marine risk assessment, which was
approved by OSPAR as a common EU OSPAR approach to marine risk assessment, states that
substances with a molecular mass greater than 700 are not readily taken up by fish and are
unlikely to bioaccumulate significantly;
c.
under REACH, a value of 800 was used in an earlier proposal, but in the latest REACH
proposal no such limit is mentioned. Data on Log Pow will be required for all substances
covered by REACH.
2.18 The position of Contracting Parties could be summarised as follows:
a.
Norway proposed to either harmonise to a cut-off value at 700 or to remove the cut-off value
and require log Pow data for all substances, the latter in line with the latest REACH proposal.
Norway would prefer removing the cut-off value and require log Pow data for all substances,
but could live with both approaches;
b.
Spain was in favour of removing the cut-off value in line with the latest REACH proposal or at
least to establish a cut-off value of 1500 to remain on the safe side;
c.
in line with REACH, Germany was in favour of log Pow data and the removing of cut-off
values;
d.
Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK favoured a cut-off value of 700. In the UK’s view
scientific knowledge did not justify a higher one;
e.
EOSCA reminded OIC that the parameter log Pow is not always measurable on many
substances, eg. surfactants.
2.19 In the light of the lack of agreement on a common cut-off value for molecular weight, OIC agreed that
the intersessional correspondence group on harmonisation of the HMCS (ICGH) should consider how to
harmonise OSPAR’s position in this regard and how any OSPAR decision would fit with the EU measures,
taking into account the points raised by the IGEG in OIC 06/2/17. Disharmony between HMCS and REACH
should be avoided as much as possible.
Normalisation of biodegradation values
2.20 As explained in OIC 06/2/2, Norway has always applied the practice of normalisation of Log Powvalues from OECD 117. The practice in other OSPAR countries is to take the highest value Log Pow as an
indication of bioaccumulation potential and the lowest value as an indication of partitioning potential.
Norway said that they would continue the application of normalisation of Log Pow-values from OECD 117,
as this in Norway's opinion gives a more correct image for estimation of both bioaccumulation potential and
discharge, and invited other Contracting Parties to consider adopting this approach.
2.21 OIC agreed that ICGH should review this issue.
Inherent biodegradation
2.22 The Netherlands presented OIC 06/2/16 on pre-screening assessment and readily biodegradability
results. Due to its late presentation this document could only be considered as a working document. In it the
Netherlands proposed:
8
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
a.
to apply criteria as mentioned in the EU TGD for the Pre-Screening Assessment of the ‘< 20%
box’ when inherent biodegradation test results are presented in the HOCNF format;
b.
to establish a new cut-off value for inherent biodegradation test results for the ‘< 20% box’;
c.
to discuss the consequences when accepting inherent biodegradation test results in the PreScreening assessment using the ‘2 out of 3 box’ cut-off values;
d.
to revise the OSPAR Guidelines for Completing the Harmonised Offshore Chemical
Notification Format (HOCNF), Reference number 2005-13, accordingly.
2.23 OIC agreed that this work should be part of the work of the ICGH.
REACH
2.24 The Netherlands informed the meeting that the intersessional correspondence group for environmental
goals (IGEG) had considered the possible impact of new EC legislation under the REACH programme on
the work of OSPAR for the harmonisation of the HMCS (see REACH section in OIC 06/2/17).
2.25 OGP and EOSCA were concerned about how inclusive REACH would be and about implications of a
REACH / HOCNF ‘dual system’ of control. There was also concern regarding costs, confidentiality and
access to the data.
2.26 OIC noted that the implementation of REACH would not be completed for at least 11 years and
therefore agreed that the use of HMCS should continue, and that the management of the process was
essential to ensure HMCS and REACH implemented similar test parameters to reduce the burden on
industry and to ensure that the two systems could run in parallel until the time when they could successfully
be merged. In the light of this, OIC invited the ICGH to take the developments under the REACH
programme into account when considering the further harmonisation of the HMCS.
2.27 Norway was of the view that the REACH implementation project should be made aware of the HMCS
process.
2.28 EOSCA expressed the view that the lack of clarity on criteria for the exemption of substances from
the REACH process could create confusion and supported the view of Norway to provide REACH with the
OSPAR experience on the process of selection and registration of chemicals.
2.29 OIC therefore instructed the Secretariat, taking into account that this is a process that is going on now,
as soon as possible to write a letter to the officials in the European Commission responsible for the REACH
implementation project informing them of the HOCNF and OSPAR measures on pre-screening and on
current work on the implementation and harmonisation of the HMCS.
Conclusions and arrangements for intersessional work
2.30 OIC confirmed that there was a need for further harmonisation of implementation of OSPAR Decision
2000/2 and Recommendations 2000/4 and 2000/5. In order to prepare this work, OIC agreed:
a.
to establish a correspondence group to work intersessionally on the further harmonisation
(ICGH) of the HMCS;
b.
to accept the offer from the UK to host the intersessional meeting of the ICGH in Aberdeen on
16 March 2006. The date was chosen in order to try to allow for a written procedure among
heads of delegation of OIC on the results of the ICGH’s work and to present the outcome to JL
and HOD May 2006 as necessary. The result from the ICGH’s work should be in the form of
specific proposals to amend the relevant OSPAR measures;
c.
that the ICGH should work on the basis of the work described in §§ 2.10, 2.12-2.13, 2.142.15, 2.18-2.19, 2.20-2.21, 2.23, 2.26 above, and 2.45 and 2.47 below taking into account
documents OIC 06/2/2, OIC 06/2/13, OIC 06/2/16, OIC 06/2/17, OIC 06/2/18.
Protocols for Koc
2.31 The Netherlands presented a proposal for a protocol to determine a sorption constant for surfactants
(Koc) as an instrument for the registration of surfactants according to the HMCS (OIC 06/2/3), which used
existing (literature) data and provided a valuable review of the current state of understanding of sorption
9
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
kinetics in sediment systems and their potential application, as well as a comprehensive discussion of the
problems involved in determining sorption constants for surfactants on the basis of Koc or deriving them
from existing data.. In the report it is concluded that because hydrophobic interactions play a less important
role, normalisation of sorption constants to organic carbon content (Koc) is therefore not recommended. The
report contains a proposal to either calculate a distribution coefficient Kp, using the type and the molecular
structure, for sorption or to determine Kp experimentally.
2.32 EOSCA welcomed the report from the Netherlands. However, in view of the considerable time
elapsed between the announcement of the development of an alternative protocol and the appearance of
proposals and the limited data currently available for anything other than "standard" surfactants, EOSCA
requested that the proposal should not be adopted in its present form until an experimental protocol that
could be used for screening or as a definitive test, and properly ring-tested and evaluated, is available. Until
then, EOSCA proposed that existing sorption data should be used to establish a framework of default
sorption constants associated with general types of surfactants (OIC 06/2/15).
2.33 Taking into account that the TGD included an approach in dealing with surfactants, Spain was of the
view that the EC, as Contracting Party to OSPAR, should be consulted for their views about this work.
2.34 The UK was of the view that Contracting Parties should continue for the time being with the
application of the current OSPAR instruments system while performing in parallel a ring-test of the
proposed protocol when assessing chemicals for the validation of the results.
2.35 After discussion, OIC agreed:
a.
to combine and use both the systems proposed by the Netherlands and EOSCA:
b.
to further develop the proposed protocol for the determination of sorption constants for
surfactants;
c.
until a new protocol is agreed, Contracting Parties should continue working in accordance with
the existing OSPAR agreements;
d.
the Netherlands should present to OIC 2007 a further refined proposal for a protocol to
determine a sorption constant for surfactants. The refined proposal should look into:
i.
how to incorporate the use of Kp rather than Koc into future assessments of surfactants
To do this the Netherlands will take account of the further elaborated proposals from
EOSCA on the use of default values;
ii.
the opinion of the EC and developments of the TGD with regard to this work;
iii.
the possible effects of the application of the protocol. In order to provide for this, a ringtest may be considered appropriate.
Overview assessment of implementation reports on OSPAR Decision 2000/2 and Recommendations
2000/4 and 2000/5
2.36 OIC accepted the offer from Denmark to lead the work for preparing by OIC 2007 a draft
overview assessment of implementation reports on OSPAR Decision 2000/2 and OSPAR
Recommendations 2000/4 and 2000/5. In order to provide for this work, OIC agreed that Contracting
Parties should send to Denmark by 15 October 2006 their national reports on implementation of
Decision 2000/2 and OSPAR Recommendations 2000/4 and 2000/5.
10
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
Compilation of ranking systems
2.37 OIC examined a Compilation of Contracting Parties’ Ranking Systems prepared by the Secretariat on
the basis of Contracting Parties’ descriptions of their national ranking systems (OIC 06/2/12).
2.38 EOSCA was of the view that the significantly different approaches taken by Contracting Parties on
ranking systems complicated the work of operators.
2.39 In discussing the compilation report OIC noted that:
a.
there were different levels of detail in the information provided by Contracting Parties in the
report;
b.
although the compilation did not bring new information to operators and suppliers on
Contracting Parties’ ranking systems (in the view of EOSCA and OGP), the detailed
description given by some Contracting Parties (eg. the UK) was of use for those Contracting
Parties who had not yet used or established their ranking systems.
2.40 After discussion, OIC agreed to keep the revision of this product in its Programme of Work as a future
product to be presented to OIC 2008, with a view to presenting more detailed information for those
countries that had submitted general information or no information.
Guidance on confidentiality issues
2.41 The Netherlands presented a proposal for a revised mechanism for dealing with confidential
information in OIC 06/2/4.
2.42 EOSCA presented their comments on the Dutch proposal in OIC 06/2/14. They stressed that the
European Dangerous Preparations Directive 1999/45/EC only requires compositional information to be
submitted to the authorities in whose areas the products are marketed. The conditions of confidentiality
contained in Article 19 of the EU Directive 92/32/EEC also apply to preparations and sharing of information
with other authorities is not allowed unless specified by the supplier of the preparation.
2.43 In response to EOSCA, the Netherlands said that the directive 1999/45 does not explicitly prohibit the
exchange of information between competent authorities. Article 15 of this Directive states that “Confidential
information brought to the attention of the authorities of a Member State or the Commission shall be treated
in accordance with article 19(4) of Directive 67/548/EEC”. Article 19(4) in turn refers to Article 16(1) of
the same Directive which defines the rights and duties of these Competent Authorities, where substance
information is exchanged in every detail. That makes it possible to treat preparations likewise.
2.44 EOSCA commented that if Contracting Parties wanted to follow the European process for exchange
of data, then they should also adopt the European notification process where a registration in one country is
accepted in all the other Member States.
2.45 OIC agreed that the one-time registration process of HOCNF formats should be studied and requested
ICGH to look into it.
2.46 After discussion, OIC agreed on the following guidance for managing confidentiality issues:
a.
the Competent Authorities of the Contracting Parties should have access to all necessary
information of the HOCNF, including § 1.6;
b.
the Competent Authorities may discuss this information with Competent Authorities from other
Contracting Parties for the purpose of development of SMART goals for substances identified
for substitution. For this purpose, the information discussed between competent authorities
should be unequivocal;
c.
the Competent Authorities shall inform the OSPAR Secretariat of any person involved in this
task. They also shall inform the Secretariat whenever they are assisted or represented by a third
party;
d.
all involved persons shall be included on a formal list to be agreed by OIC. For this purpose all
3rd parties listed persons should sign a confidentiality agreement. Contracting Parties shall
inform OIC whenever a member of the list is replaced;
11
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
e.
confidential information will be discussed during meetings of the group of national contact
points. Whenever confidential information is discussed in the group of national contact points,
it shall be made sure that only representatives mentioned on the list in indent (d) above are
present.
2.47 OIC further agreed that ICGH should define which 3rd parties could be included in the list mentioned
above.
The PLONOR List
Review of the criteria
2.48 OIC examined a proposal prepared by Norway for revised criteria for inclusion of substances on the
PLONOR list (OIC 06/2/5). Norway explained that the proposed revisions did not imply a substantial
difference from the current criteria and that they would not exclude any substances compared with the
existing criteria.
2.49 In the discussion it was pointed out that the proposed cut-off value for molecular weight should not be
concluded now since the issue would be discussed intersessionally in relation to proposals for revisions of
OSPAR Recommendation 2000/4 on a Harmonised Pre-screening Scheme for Offshore Chemicals. OIC
agreed that the proposed cut-off value for molecular weight of 600 should be valid until possibly changed
following the review by OIC 2007 of the pre-screening procedure (see §2.18-2.19 above).
2.50 The Netherlands stated that the entry “fibres” should only refer to natural fibres. Some Contracting
Parties were of the view that manmade substances should not be included on the PLONOR list. Others held
the view that a substance fulfilling the criteria should be included irrespective of it being naturally occurring
or manmade. OIC agreed to include criteria for manmade organic substances, non water soluble, as a
separate category of substances in the criteria.
2.51 Following further minor adjustments OIC agreed on the revised criteria as at Annex 5.
Review of the list
2.52 As a follow-up to the agreement at OIC 2004, Norway also presented a proposal on how to review
whether the substances that currently are on the list comply with the criteria. OIC noted the following views
during the discussion:
a.
the substances on the list can be grouped in three: (i) the original PLONOR list form 2001, (ii)
the substances added as additional CAS numbers, and (iii) the true additions of new substances;
b.
it would be difficult to find documentation on the reasons for the inclusions on the original list;
c.
some Contracting Parties were of the view that substances on the list not fulfilling the revised
criteria should be taken off the list, while other Contracting Parties felt that the criteria should
only be applied for new additions to the list;
d.
it should be remembered that it is not necessarily prohibited to use a substance that is not on
the PLONOR list.
2.53 Following discussion OIC agreed that:
a.
Norway as lead country, assisted by Germany, the Netherlands and the Secretariat (ICGPLONOR), should review whether the substances that currently are on the list comply
with the criteria;
b.
the review should be stepwise, starting with a first batch of substances, focusing on substances
from the original list for which the current criteria had not been applied;
c.
Norway should give guidance to the ICG-PLONOR on how to approach the intersessional
work;
d.
an assessment of a first batch of substances should be presented to OIC 2007 for
conclusion on what action should be taken.
2.54 The list of national contact points concerning chemicals used offshore was updated as at Annex 6.
12
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
Chemicals identified for priority action
Background documents and monitoring strategies on priority substances
2.55 OIC noted information from the Secretariat about progress made with regard to development and
follow-up of Background Documents and monitoring strategies for substances on the OSPAR List of
Chemicals for Priority Action (OIC 06/2/6). OIC further noted the 2005 update of the Agreement on
Monitoring Strategies for OSPAR Chemicals for Priority Action (OIC 06/2/Info.2) and identified a need for
a correction, (see paragraph 3.19).
2.56 OIC examined draft conclusions on the exchange of information within OIC in 2004 and 2005 on
presence of octylphenol and 2,4,6 tri-tert-butylphenol in resins and agreed to forward it to HSC(1) 2006 with
a view to recommending it to OSPAR 2006 for publication as addendums to the Background Documents on
octylphenol and 2,4,6 tri-tert-butylphenol (OIC 06/2/11).
One-off survey of monitoring of discharges of heavy metals in produced water
2.57 OIC examined an overview prepared by the Secretariat of information received from Contracting
Parties on selection of a representative number of offshore installations for a one-off survey on heavy metals
in produced water (OIC 06/2/7) and information from the Netherlands on how they planned to contribute to
the survey (OIC 06/2/8). In order to allow an informed decision on the need for future reporting and to
enable a comparison between land-based and offshore sources, OSPAR 2005 had asked that the survey
should be undertaken in accordance with best practice such as the OLF recommended guidelines for the
sampling and analysis of produced water or the detection limits and analytical methods given in the RID
principles.
2.58
During the discussion it was pointed out that:
a.
Contracting Parties had also other guidelines and methods for sampling and analysis that could
be used, and there were uncertainties about the relevance of the RID principles for marine
environmental monitoring;
b.
the most important issue was to harmonise the approach when measurements are below the
detection limits. They should be low enough to allow contents of heavy metals to be reported,
and it should be agreed how samples at or below the detection limit should be reported;
c.
the UK stated that, wherever possible, RID point-source detection limits should be used;
d.
the relevance of including the organic lead and mercury compounds needed to be clarified;
e.
it was emphasised that Contracting Parties should aim at reporting in a harmonised way and
data of sufficiently good quality so that this further one-off survey could be concluded.
2.59 OIC invited the Netherlands to provide data from all platforms. OIC welcomed the offer by
Norway to be lead country for the survey and agreed that Norway should organise the work in order
to present the report to OIC 2007. In doing so, by 1 May 2006, Norway should propose how to deal with
the issues raised above, and also should prepare a reporting format and timetable for reporting.
2.60
The UK confirmed that they would provide data for 12 installations.
Mineral weight materials
2.61 OIC noted progress regarding studies related to environmental effects of lead and other heavy metals
in mineral weight materials, presented by Norway (OIC 06/2/9) and invited:
a.
Contracting Parties to submit any additional relevant information concerning this issue to
Norway as soon as possible;
b.
Norway to present the conclusions to OIC 2007.
Jacking grease
2.62 Norway raised the possible concern for the marine environment in relation to the use of grease in
jacking operations, as it constitutes a considerable source of discharged hazardous substances offshore and
proposed intersessional work to establish more facts about this (OIC 06/2/10).
13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
2.63 One Contracting Party pointed out that OIC 2002 had agreed to exclude certain chemicals such as
lubricants from the HMCS. Norway said that this agreement covered lubricants used in small volumes in
ways that posed no risk to the marine environment. Other Contracting Parties pointed out that whenever
new knowledge about possible risks to the marine environment becomes available this should be looked
into.
2.64 In general there was support for Norway’s proposal. OIC welcomed the offer by Norway to lead the
intersessional work and invited Contracting Parties with offshore operations to send information to
Norway by 15 October 2006 on inter alia:
a.
number of jacking operations per annum;
b.
information about the grease used:
(i)
amount of grease employed per operation;
(ii)
classification and share of substances in the grease according to the OSPAR prescreening criteria;
(iii)
options for more environmentally friendly grease or other possible abatement measures;
(iv)
calculation of the percentage of release of grease to the sea;
c.
environmental impacts detected;
d.
regulation of these substances.
Agenda Item 3 – Produced Water
OIC 06/3/1- OIC 06/3/5
OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1 for the Management of Produced Water
Criteria for alternative methods acceptance
3.1 When adopting the “Oil in produced water analysis - guidelines on criteria for alternative methods
acceptance and general guidelines on sample taking and handling” (Reference number: 2005-16), OSPAR
2005 recognised that there was still scope for further refinement during the next intersessional period in
order to make it more concise and user-friendly. Accordingly the UK presented to the meeting a further
refined text which had been revised by the UK in the light of the comments received from the Netherlands
and Norway. Some late comments on this proposal from Norway had not yet been incorporated.
3.2 OIC examined the revised text for the guidelines in OIC 06/3/1 and agreed on the following
amendments:
a.
some editorial changes related to the numbering of the paragraphs and the replacement of the
word “regulators” by “competent authority”;
b.
the reference to the OSPAR infrared analysis method inter alia in indent (a) of Method B in
section 2.4.1 (page 4 and wherever necessary) should be corrected in line with the text used in
the adopted reference method in Agreement 2005-15;
c.
the following text should be added to indent (d) of Method B in section 2.4.1 (page 5)
“provided that it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authority that there is
no statistically significant difference between the results obtained from the alternative method
and those from the OSPAR Reference method”;
d.
paragraph 3.2.16 should read: “ Other calibration approaches may also be used providing that it
can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authority that there is no statistically
significant difference between the results obtained from the online monitor and those obtained
from the OSPAR Reference method.
3.3 After discussion, OIC agreed that the UK assisted by the Netherlands and Norway should agree
intersessionally on the issue of dynamic calibration, discuss and conclude on the proposed changes
from Norway referred to in § 3.1, incorporate the changes agreed in § 3.2 above and, after adoption by
14
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
OIC heads of delegation in a written procedure, present to OSPAR 2006 for its adoption and publication on
the OSPAR website, the finalised text of the “Oil in produced water analysis - guideline on criteria for
alternative methods acceptance and general guidelines on sample taking and handling”.
Revision of OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1
3.4 Following the mandate in Product 9 of OIC 2005/2006 Programme of Work and of OSPAR 2005 (see
paragraph 8.22 of OSPAR 2005 Summary Record), the Chairman and the Secretariat had reviewed OSPAR
Recommendation 2001/1 in order to reflect factual changes (in particular the outcomes of OSPAR 2005 with
regard to aromatic hydrocarbons and the adoption of the revised reference method of analysis for the
determination of the dispersed oil content in produced water and of the criteria for alternative methods of
analysis and harmonised methods for sampling of oil in produced water). In order to revise
Recommendation 2001/1, the Chairman and the Secretariat proposed in document OIC 06/3/3 an OSPAR
instrument of the same legal status, ie. a draft Recommendation for amending the former.
3.5 OIC 06/3/3 also identified those issues of a more political nature that were consequential to the
factual changes or that the Committee may have to consider at a later stage.
3.6 The Netherlands presented OIC 06/3/2 in order to help discussions on the implementation of
paragraph 4.2.4 of OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1, and in particular to help to assess progress towards
achieving the 15% reduction target for the discharge of oil via produced water.
3.7 Denmark stated that due to the late presentation of OIC 06/3/3 they were not in a position to formally
adopt the draft Recommendation for amending OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1 as it stood. However, they
were open to discuss its content in the drafting group. The same principle was applicable to OIC 06/3/2.
3.8 In order to facilitate discussions OIC convened a drafting group under the lead of Christoph Reuther
(the Netherlands) for the review of Recommendation 2001/1 and gave them terms of reference which
grouped the issues raised in documents OIC 06/3/3 and OIC 06/3/2 under two categories: issues based on
factual changes and policy related issues.
Factual changes
3.9 OIC examined a revised text of the draft Recommendation for amending Recommendation 2001/1
that the drafting group had prepared at the meeting in order to reflect factual changes. Contracting Parties
welcomed the revised text and Denmark clarified that they were in favour of the adoption of this revised text
in the form of a Recommendation.
3.10 OIC agreed to recommend to OSPAR 2006, via J/L and HOD May 2006 as necessary, to adopt the
Draft OSPAR Recommendation 2006/x for amending Recommendation 2001/1 for the Management of
Produced Water as at Annex 7.
Policy related issues
3.11 Contracting Parties reported on progress towards achieving the 15% reduction target for the
discharges of oil in produced water as follows:
a.
Denmark: Danish operators are working continually to reduce as far as possible the
concentration of oil in produced water discharged. However, Denmark does not expect to
achieve the 15% reduction goal by the end of 2006. The Danish EPA, in collaboration with the
Danish Energy Authority and each of the operators, is preparing a report on the possibilities for
further injection into the sub-surface of produced water and other possibilities to reduce
discharge of oil with produced water;
b.
Germany is discharging oil via produced water from one platform (A6) into the sea since the
year 2000. The reduction target of 15% (total oil) was achieved in the years 2003 and 2004. For
future years, this cannot be guaranteed any more for two reasons:(i) the amount of production
water on the A6 platform will increase significantly; (ii) it can be expected that additional
production platforms will be installed in the German sector;
c.
Ireland would hope to achieve the 15% reduction of oil in produced water. Reasons for
increases so far include additional well coming on line, coupled with defective clean-up
15
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
technology. Ireland’s baseline figure was based on produced water from one installation, which
is not considered statistically reliable;
d.
The Netherlands is demonstrating its continued commitment to achieving the overall goal as
outlined in the OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1, ie. the goal of 15% reduction on total oil, e.g.
dispersed oil and aromatic hydrocarbons, discharged has been achieved in 2003 by the
Netherlands;
e.
Norway has increasing produced water amounts which makes it more difficult to reach the
reduction target. However, the reduction achieved by 2004 does not reflect the massive
investment made in Norway to meet the target. The reduction of oil in produced water is thus
expected to decrease in the two coming years.
f.
UK has made considerable progress and is committed to meeting the target.
3.12 OIC agreed to inform OSPAR that in the light of the reports from Contracting Parties on progress
towards the 15% reduction target for the discharges of oil in produced water, it was premature at present to
consider intermediate goals towards 2020.
3.13 OIC also agreed that a further review of the OSPAR Recommendation for the management of
produced water will take place with a view to incorporate agreements to be reached on issues of a more
policy oriented nature.
3.14 With regard to the implementation of paragraph 4.2.4 a of OSPAR Recommendation 2001/12, OIC
agreed that the collection of information on the sources and quantities of substances other than oil was
sufficiently covered by reporting on Table 8 of the data collection format for the annual OSPAR Report on
discharges, spills and emissions, one-off surveys and the review of new techniques to reduce discharges of
substances other than oil.
3.15 With regard to the implementation of the last indent of paragraph 4.2.4, OIC agreed that the Expert
Assessment Panel should review the goals for the reduction of discharges of oil on the basis of the
reports above from Contracting Parties on progress towards the 15% reduction target.
Techniques for the management of produced water
3.16 The Netherlands explained that they had not had the opportunity to revise the Background
Document concerning techniques for the management of produced water from offshore installations with the
information they had received from Norway and the UK. As this information was already discussed and
consisted of factual corrections, the Netherlands undertook to present to the Secretariat by 15 March
2006 a revised draft background document to be recommended by OIC to OSPAR 2006 for publication.
Exchange of information on aromatic hydrocarbons
3.17 The Netherlands presented in OIC 06/3/5 a proposal for methods of sampling and analysis for the
monitoring of aromatic hydrocarbons for the purpose of the management of oil discharged in produced
water in accordance to the OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1. However, most Contracting Parties were not
ready to discuss this proposal as the document had been presented very late.
3.18 OSPAR 2005 had noted that OIC 2005 had decided not to develop performance standards on aromatic
hydrocarbons as requested by § 4.2.5 of OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1 since Contracting Parties saw no
value in doing so, and that OIC 2005 had agreed that Contracting Parties would continue exchanging
information on methods of analysis and monitoring of aromatic hydrocarbons on the basis of work in hand.
OIC noted that in the light of this, OSPAR 2005 had confirmed that it was appropriate to amend OSPAR
Recommendation 2001/1 for the Management of Produced Water accordingly and that OIC should review
Paragraph 4.2.4 states that “by six weeks before the meeting of the Offshore Industry Committee in 2006, each Contracting Party
should have: (a) collected information on the sources and quantities of oil and other substances discharged with produced water
within their jurisdiction; (b) reviewed BAT and BEP for the management of produced water including achievable concentrations of
oil and other substances; (c) reported to the Committee the information collected and the conclusions reached in the review.
On the basis of this information, the Offshore Industry Committee should review the goals for the reduction of discharges of oil and
recommend to the Commission goals for loads and/or concentrations of oil and other substances as appropriate.
2
16
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
this Recommendation in order to reflect the outcomes of this meeting with regard to aromatic hydrocarbons.
This mandate was taken up under the work for the revision of Recommendation 2001/1.
3.19 OIC noted that the terminology used in paragraph 9.3 of the Agreement on Monitoring Strategies for
Priority Substances (Agreement 2004-14) was not consistent with the terms used in the Summary Records of
OIC and OSPAR 2005 when discussing exchange of information on aromatic hydrocarbons. In the light of
this, OIC agreed that the Secretariat should amend paragraph 9.3 of the Agreement for the
Monitoring Strategies for Priority Substances in order to be consistent with paragraph 8.21 and
Annex 22 (OIC Programme of Work for 2005/2006) of the OSPAR 2005 Summary Record.
Cooperation with the Bonn Agreement
3.20 The Secretariat informed the meeting that OTSOPA 2006 (the Technical working group of the Bonn
Agreement) had examined the evaluation of data and information collected from operators on individual oil
spills from offshore installations during the period of the Tour d’Horizon (TdH) flights and had warmly
thanked OIC and Germany, as lead country, for their effort in preparing this report. However, OTSOPA had
noted that, in order to obtain comparable data, there could be a benefit in limiting the data reported by the
offshore installations to the 21 days in which the TdH flights are operated. The comparison of the data from
the TdH flights with the data from the 6 months period as it stands in the evaluation report could give rise to
misunderstandings by the public.
3.21 In order to solve this situation, OTSOPA had agreed to accept the kind offer of the UK to revise the
figures of detections for 2003 limiting the comparison of the data to the time when the TdH flights were
performed. The UK will also lead the work for repeating the same exercise for spills in 2004. For doing so,
the UK should contact Contracting Parties directly in order to obtain the necessary 2004 data. Finally, the
UK delegation to the Bonn Agreement should incorporate the results of this exercise in the corresponding
Tour de Horizon Reports.
3.22 The UK noted that the terminology used in the evaluation report should also be carefully chosen in
order to avoid misunderstandings. Although most of 21 detections were legal discharges, they had been
described as spillages.
3.23 OIC saw a benefit in continuing with this work and Contracting Parties agreed to continue
submitting their data when contacted by the UK’s delegation to the Bonn Agreement.
Agenda Item 4 – Pollution from Other Sources
OIC 06/4/1-OIC 06/4/3
Radioactive Substances
RSC work on non-nuclear sectors
4.1 The Secretariat reported on the outcome of the meeting of the Radioactive Substance Committee as in
OIC 06/4/1. OIC noted that product RM-1 of the JAMP requests OSPAR to prepare “Regular collection of
data on discharges of radionuclides from non-nuclear sectors”.
4.2 OIC noted the results of the first trial run on discharges of radionuclides from the non-nuclear sectors
in accordance with the revised Reporting Procedures for Discharges of Radioactive Substances from Nonnuclear Sectors (Agreement 2005-07).
4.3 OIC also noted the table of contents, introduction, chapters on non nuclear sectors and oil and gas and
conclusions of the third draft of the First Periodic Evaluation of progress towards the objective of the
OSPAR Radioactive Substances Strategy.
4.4 Some delegations could provide additional data to that reported to the RSC meeting. There was
consensus that the quantities reported in both reports should be consistent with the figures in the annual
OSPAR Reports on Discharges, Spills and Emissions from Offshore Oil and Gas Installations. In order to
provide for this, OIC agreed:
a.
that heads of delegations to OIC should contact their heads of delegation to RSC in order
to provide them with the necessary complementary information and/or corrections;
17
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
b.
that the Secretariat should double check for consistency the data in the First Periodic
Evaluation of progress towards the objective of the OSPAR Radioactive Substances
Strategy with the figures in the OSPAR Reports on Discharges, Spills and Emissions from
Offshore Oil and Gas Installations and their assessments.
IAEA
4.5 The representative of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) explained that the IAEA
develops standards regarding the protection of man and the environment from the effects of radiation and
provide for their application in Contracting Parties.
4.6 It was IAEA’s view that the lack of an international harmonized control system for Naturally
Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) issues in the non-radioactive industrial sector not only could lead
to situations where real or potential radiological hazard arise, but also to situations where restrictions are
imposed on materials containing insignificant amounts of radionuclides in terms of radiation protection
causing unnecessary burden on such industries (e.g.: exaggerated control on discharges, unnecessary storage
of materials, avoided recycling, etc).
4.7 IAEA has been working on developing guidance on regulation of NORM and this was potentially
relevant to offshore operation and waste management. In general, worker protection in the industries had
been a priority, now exposures potentially affecting the environment and the public were also in focus.
4.8 IAEA listed existing documents that could be relevant for that purpose and others are in preparation 3.
The documents were prepared with the assistance of Member States and the IAEA was willing to cooperate
for their implementation where the national Competent Authorities could require it. In the light of this, the
Agency offered and OIC accepted that IAEA will present a document on relevant information to this
Committee to OIC 2007.
Oil from reservoirs on cuttings
4.9 Denmark explained that they had not been able to prepare a draft compilation of harmonised data on
oil from reservoirs on cuttings on the basis of the work in hand. However, they had now also received data
from the UK which they would take into account in the compilation to be presented to OIC 2007.
4.10 In the light of the low quantities of oil from reservoir on cuttings shown in their data, the UK
questioned the need to pursue this work. Germany and Norway supported this view as in their countries
cuttings with oil concentrations higher than 1 % will be taken to shore.
4.11 After discussion, OIC agreed that Denmark will present to OIC 2007 a draft compilation of the
data available on oil from reservoirs on cuttings assessing the situation in order to conclude on this
issue.
Underwater noise
4.12 Germany informed the meeting that they were preparing a draft overview on the wealth of scientific
literature that represents the current knowledge on impacts of underwater noise in the marine environment
and presented a preliminary executive summary (OIC 06/4/2). Germany regretted that due to the fact that
noise pollution is a rather complex and contentious issue, the preparation of this document was not likely to
be completed before the end of March 2006.
4.13 The UK offered to send to Germany the results of two reports on the subject they were expecting by
the end of the summer.
3
IAEA International guidance related to NORM: Safety Guide RS G1.6: Occupational radiation protection in the mining and
processing of raw materials (2004); Safety Guide RS G1.7: Application of the concept of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance
(2004); Safety Guide WS G; Regulatory control of radioactive discharges to the environment (2000); Safety Guide WS G 1.2:
Management of radioactive waste from the mining and milling of Ores (2002); Safety Report No 34: Radiation protection and
management of radioactive waste in the oil and gas industry (2003); Technical reports Series No 419: Extent of environmental
contamination by naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and technological options for mitigation (2003); Safety
Guide: Management of waste containing naturally occurring radioactive materials (by 2007); Safety Guide: Protection of the
public against exposure to natural sources of ionizing radiation (by 2007).
18
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
4.14 In reply to a question from WWF, Germany explained that the information sent by NRDC had been
taken into account in their draft overview.
4.15 OIC noted that EIHA had agreed that Germany should distribute the draft overview, as soon as
available (expected by the beginning of June 2006) to EIHA Heads of Delegation for their comments within
2 months from its distribution. Germany should take these comments into account in a further draft which
would then be submitted to EIHA 2006, with a view to recommend the finalised overview document, via
OIC and BDC, to OSPAR 2007 for publication.
4.16 OIC noted the preliminary executive summary of the draft overview annexed to OIC 06/4/2 and
agreed that Germany should involve OIC in the consultation procedure agreed at EIHA, and that
therefore OIC heads of delegation should also be consulted for their comments on the draft overview with
regard to the environmental impact of underwater noise from oil and gas activities within 2 months from its
distribution, and that OIC should be consulted on the finalised overview before it was recommended to
OSPAR for publication.
Agenda Item 5 – Adverse Effects of Offshore Activities other than Pollution
OIC 06/5/1-OIC 06/5/4, OIC 06/5/Info.1
Potential adverse effects (other than pollution) arising from offshore activities
5.1 OIC noted a report from the Netherlands (OIC 05/12/Info.1) informing about their integrated
management plan for the Dutch part of the North Sea 2005, which included an integrated assessment
framework for regulating activities in the Dutch maritime area.
5.2 The UK informed the meeting that they had commissioned an independent review of Environmental
Impact Assessments (EIAs) of offshore activities and would present the outcome of this work to OIC 2007.
5.3 WWF stated they were working with the DTI (UK) to develop a better understanding of how licensing
conditions and EIA’s could better protect certain habitats and species. They welcomed the DTI’s review of
UKCS EIA’s and encouraged other Contracting Parties to share information on what had been learnt from
their own processes, so this information could be provided to BDC for its work on marine protected areas.
5.4 OIC looked forward to the results of the UK review and encouraged other Contracting Parties to share
similar information in order to evaluate how effective EIAs were.
Restoration, where practicable, of marine areas which have been adversely affected by offshore
activities
Cuttings piles management regime
5.5
OIC examined a report prepared by the UK with a draft management regime in the form of a draft
recommendation to be used in a common approach for handling cuttings piles across the Contracting Parties
(OIC 06/5/1). The scientific basis for the proposal came from the report of the UKOOA Joint Industry
Project Drill Cuttings Initiative Phase III (OIC 06/5/Info.1). The draft was also based on the initial findings
of the Netherlands’ working group on drill cuttings and Norwegian studies. The United Kingdom explained
that the proposed management regime was divided into two stages: Stage 1 would involve an initial
screening assessment of all cuttings piles which should be completed within two years. The results of the
screening should be compared against threshold values. If above the thresholds, a stage 2 should be initiated
that would involve a BAT/BEP assessment.
5.6
During the discussions a number of issues were raised that needed to be clarified in a drafting group:
a.
it should be explained how the threshold values had been derived in order to be able to consider
whether the proposed thresholds were restrictive enough. It was also mentioned that the
thresholds should be consistent with the requirements of the OPF Decision 2000/3;
b.
WWF and KIMO expressed their serious concerns at the levels at which thresholds had been
set, as these levels dictate whether remedial actions would be required. As the majority of
platforms are not expected to reach these thresholds, the possibility exists that significant
environmental impacts may continue if these levels do not accurately represent when
19
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
significant impacts would occur. They also had concerns that this may result in the vast
majority of the piles remaining in place, which is against the presumption of a clean seabed.
c.
the first round of implementation reporting would be an opportunity for OSPAR to review the
experience from the use of the thresholds;
d.
it was clarified that the draft recommendation had provisions for addressing other contaminants
than hydrocarbons, such as PCBs and endocrine disruptors. It was also pointed out that the
UKOOA Phase III report had not shown evidence of PCBs or endocrine disruptors leaking from
cuttings piles.
e.
there was a need to include provisions for assessing effects of disturbances of cuttings piles
after decommissioning.
5.7 The Netherlands referred to the work of their working group on drill cuttings and the approach taken
with regard to assessing exposure of biota to contaminants from cuttings piles. Following discussion the
Netherlands was content that their approach would be sufficiently covered by the provisions in the draft
recommendation § 3.20(d).
5.8 The UK explained that the thresholds proposed in the draft regime were derived from the final report
of the UKOOA Joint Industry Project (see OIC 06/5/Info.1):
a.
Setting the rate of loss of hydrocarbons at < 10 te/yr would establish a number considerably
lower than the typical hydrocarbon input of produced water from the vast majority of North Sea
oil installations. This would also be greatly below the historical oil to sea rate from oil based
cuttings discharge for which mitigating measures have already been passed by OSPAR (cf. ban
of discharge of cuttings contaminated with OBF at a concentration greater than 1%, OSPAR
Decision 2000/3);
b.
a persistence threshold of 500 km2yr would indicate that a pile would have to be either virtually
free of any hydrocarbons; of small area; or recovering or able to be demonstrated as such within
the period of tenancy of the operator.
5.9 Following clarifications of how the draft recommendation would address most of the concerns raised,
the draft recommendation was agreed. OIC thanked the United Kingdom for the work and agreed to
recommend the draft Recommendation at Annex 8 to OSPAR 2006, via JL 2006, for its adoption.
Placement of CO2
5.10 On the basis of a request from BDC, OIC had agreed to include in its work programme for 2005/2006
(i) a review of the risk characterisation for selection of potential sites in the OSPAR maritime area for the
storage of CO2, taking account of the different types of site; and (ii) a review of appropriate monitoring and
surveillance mechanisms for the purposes of detecting leakage of CO 2 from sub-seabed reservoirs and
releases of CO2 into the marine environment.
5.11 OIC noted that the issue of placement of CO2 in geological structures was high on the agenda of
several international organisations. The Chairman of the London Convention informed OIC that the 27th
Consultative meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Convention in October 2005 had acknowledged
that CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures had a role to play, as part of a portfolio of
measures to tackle the challenge of climate change and ocean acidification. Furthermore that meeting
decided that the London Convention is the appropriate global forum to address the implications of Carbon
Capture and Sequestration for the marine environment and should consider options for facilitating and/or
regulating CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures, including clarification (and, if appropriate,
amendment) of the Protocol and the Convention. Meetings of the legal and technical working groups would
take place in April/May. There was agreement that there were significant similarities between the work of
both international organisations and that in order to avoid duplication of work, OSPAR and LC should share
information and build on each other’s work and Contracting Parties’ delegations to both forums should be
consistent.
5.12 Following that request Norway presented in OIC 06/5/2 the outcome of reviews undertaken under the
lead of Norway and the UK on risk characterisation for the selection and monitoring/surveillance of
potential sites for the storage of CO2. The report included information received from Germany and WWF.
20
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
The Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
had been central in the work. The report concluded that when appropriately managed it is technically
feasible to store CO2 safely in geological structures, that appropriate monitoring/surveillance technology and
methodologies are in place, and that risks and effects of CO2 storage should be evaluated against the risk to
the marine environment posed by elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Furthermore, the report
concluded that guidelines or a framework for risk management would be useful and Norway recommended
continued work focused on this item.
5.13 WWF had provided input to the lead countries on the risks of placement of CO2 which had not been
fully incorporated. Therefore WWF resubmitted their comments to this meeting in OIC 06/5/3. In their view
it was vital to develop an effective risk assessment process as many general and site-specific risks remained
which were yet to be fully understood and hoped that their comments would be taken into account in the
finalisation of the report.
5.14 The Netherlands welcomed the report from Norway and the UK as a solid basis for further work and
presented in OIC 06/5/4 their comments to it. The Netherlands shared some of the concerns expressed by
WWF and proposed the development of guidelines or a framework for risk management of the placement of
CO2 in geological structures.
5.15 Germany pointed out that they needed more time to study document OIC 06/5/21 in detail. Therefore,
this delegation entered a study reservation and indicated that they would present comments on this issue at
BDC 2006. Furthermore, this delegation stressed that according to German policy nuclear power is not a
mitigation measure.
5.16 Contracting Parties welcomed the proposal from the Netherlands as a good starting point for further
work. Due to the late presentation of the paper delegations would need to consult at home.
5.17 WWF welcomed the proposal from the Netherlands as it provided an opportunity to develop an
operational framework for site-specific risk evaluation and management. WWF welcomed the opportunity to
contribute to any intersessional work for the further development of this proposal. As potential providers of
long-term storage structures OGP supported the need for risk assessments.
5.18 After discussion, OIC agreed:
a.
that the report at Annex 9 should be presented to BDC 2006 on behalf of OIC;
b.
that the technical comments presented by WWF in OIC 06/5/3 should be taken into
consideration in the intersessional work;
c.
OIC should recommend to OSPAR the development of guidelines or a framework for risk
management for the storage of CO2;
d.
to establish an intersessional correspondence group (including observers) for the
development on guidelines or a framework for risk management under the lead of the
Netherlands, Norway and the UK;
e.
that in principle the approach taken by the Netherlands in the Annexes to OIC 06/5/4 was one
example for developing the guidelines mentioned in indents (c) and (d) above;
f.
to inform BDC of all the agreements above.
Agenda Item 6 – Reports on Emissions, Discharges and Losses
OIC 06/6/1
2004 Report on Discharges, Spills and Emissions
6.1 OIC examined the draft OSPAR Report on Discharges, Spills and Emission from Offshore Oil and
Gas Installations in 2004, and noted that the data would be assessed in the next meeting cycle along with the
data for 2005 (OIC 06/6/1). The Expert Assessment Panel (EAP) had considered the data and identified
some entries that needed to be checked or explained by the reporting Contracting Parties.
21
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
6.2 OIC invited Contracting Parties to carefully check their data and clarify, in particular, the outstanding
issues identified in the cover page to the draft report and to send any correction to the Secretariat by 1 April
2006. OIC agreed that the draft report (amended, as necessary) should be forwarded to OSPAR 2006 with a
view to its publication.
Arrangements for reporting 2005 data and assessment of data
6.3 OIC agreed on the following arrangements for reporting 2005 data and for the next assessment of the
OSPAR report on discharges, spills and emissions:
a.
by 1 November 2006 at the latest, Contracting Parties with offshore oil and/or gas
installations should report to the Secretariat their 2005 data using the agreed data
collection format which can be downloaded from the website;
b.
by 15 December 2006, the Secretariat will send a compiled data report to the Expert
Assessment Panel (EAP) for checking and assessment. The EAP will work by
correspondence and may, if needed, organise a meeting;
c.
6 weeks before OIC 2007, the EAP should send the draft assessment to the Secretariat.
6.4
In order to prepare for the assessments needed under the JAMP strategy, leading up to the QSR
2010, OIC agreed to ask the EAP to assess trends over the years since annual reporting started. The EAP
was invited in the 2006/2007 meeting cycle:
a.
to check and validate the 2005 data (part A of the report);
b.
to assess the trends in the cumulative data in Part B. If this is not possible due to lack of
data or lack of harmonized reporting, this should be explained;
c.
to assess also cumulative data on gross production, water injected and number of
installations injecting water;
d.
to review quality assurance procedures regarding reporting on discharges, spills and
emissions.
Expert Assessment Panel (EAP)
6.5
Mr Leo Henriquez, the Netherlands, had stepped in as an interim leader of the EAP last summer.
OIC welcomed that he was willing to continue, and appointed him as leader for the EAP for the meeting
cycle 2006/07. Other members of the EAP are: Mr Emmanuel Garland (France), Mr Tage Andersen
(Denmark), Mr Kurt Machetanz (replacing Mr Soentgerath) (Germany), Mr Henning Natvig (Norway) and
Mr Kevin O’Carroll (UK).
Agenda Item 7 – Monitoring of Environmental Effects
OIC 06/7/1, OIC 06/7/2, OIC 06/7/Info.1
Monitoring in the vicinity of offshore platforms
7.1 OSPAR 2005 concluded that it was essential to ensure that the necessary information was available
for the assessment by 2007 of the impact on the marine environment of offshore oil and gas activities
(JAMP OA-1). This assessment would be supported by the information collected under the product OM-1
(information collected through a harmonised reporting system by 2006 to compile environmental monitoring
data and information relating to offshore oil and gas activities). Contracting Parties should submit by
1 November 2005 at the latest, clear statements of what they were doing, the information that would be
available, the ways in which the national information was collected and managed, and the justifications for
their practices (focusing in particular on the differences between different production areas, as mentioned in
the guidelines). OIC 2006 would then have a sound basis on which to agree the harmonised reporting system
to which all Contracting Parties were committed.
7.2 Norway presented a proposal for a harmonised reporting system to compile environmental monitoring
data and information related to offshore oil and gas activities (JAMP product OT-3) (OIC 06/7/1). They
explained that the reporting format was not a revision of Annex 2 to the OSPAR Guideline on
22
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
Environmental Monitoring, but a practical guidance that should be used to the extent possible in order to
harmonise the information collection.
7.3 In the discussion it was mentioned that the transect approach emphasised in the draft guidance was
only one of a number of forms of monitoring. There was also some concern about the substantial amount of
monitoring this guidance seemed to imply. Some Contracting Parties stated that they welcomed the
possibility for harmonisation of information collection that the guidance would give, but underlined at the
same time that the guidance should allow for flexibility in its use. It was also mentioned that the guidance
should be seen as a living document that could be updated with additional guidance in time.
7.4
OIC thanked Norway for the work and adopted the Harmonised Reporting format to compile
environmental monitoring data and information related to offshore oil and gas activities as at OIC 06/7/1
and recommended it to OSPAR 2006 for publication as an other Agreement
Information collection
7.5 Information on environmental monitoring was only received from the Netherlands (see below), but
during the meeting Contracting Parties exchanged information on available environmental monitoring data
that would be used for the assessment by OIC 2007 of the impact on the marine environment (see Agenda
Item 10).
7.6 OIC noted an overview of past environmental monitoring in the Netherlands in relation to offshore oil
and gas activities, which also explained the reasons why the Netherlands do no perform environmental
monitoring around its offshore installations (OIC 07/2).
Agenda Item 8 – Review of Existing Measures and of their Implementation
OIC 06/8/1
Implementation reporting and assessment procedure
8.1 Taking into account the outcome of the discussions during the meeting, OIC reviewed the
implementation reporting requirements on measures related to OIC to ensure that arrangements to prepare
for the implementation reporting and overview assessments due in the next meeting cycle were in place
(OIC 06/8/1).
8.2 OIC agreed that the deadline for submission of implementation reports due in the cycle of meetings
2006/2007 should be 15 October 2006. OIC welcomed the offer from Denmark to take over the lead from
Norway for the overview assessment of the implementation of HMCS-related measures (see paragraph
2.36).
8.3 OIC welcomed the offer by the United Kingdom to be lead country for the overview assessment
on OSPAR Recommendation 2005/2 on environmental goals. The first implementation reporting was due
by 31 January 2007, and OIC agreed that the overview assessment should be presented to OIC 2008.
8.4
The Secretariat was invited to update the OIC Programme of Work accordingly.
Agenda Item 9 – Cooperation between OSPAR and the EC
OIC 06/9/1, OIC 06/9/Info.1
European Marine Strategy
9.1 The Secretariat presented an initial analysis of the possible implications for the Offshore Industry
Strategy of the adoption by the European Commission of the Communication on a Thematic Strategy on the
Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment and of the Commission proposal for a Marine
Strategy Directive (OIC 06/9/1). This followed an agreement by HOD November 2005 that the OSPAR
main committees (except RSC) should consider progressively, starting if possible during the current meeting
cycle, what would be involved in adapting the OSPAR strategies, so that they would be able to deliver the
specific targets that might be needed under the proposals for the European Marine Strategy. The document
23
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
analysed the definitions of environmental status, the requirements for assessment and monitoring and target
setting of the draft marine strategy directive and the implications for work under the Offshore Strategy.
9.2 As the document was presented very late, it was only possible for Contracting Parties to give some
general reflections at the meeting. OIC noted that:
9.3
a.
it would be difficult at this stage to perform a precise analysis of the implications for the future
work of OIC of the Draft Marine Strategy Directive since it was not yet adopted. A main
obstacle for the analysis would be the lack of a definition of “good environmental status”;;
b.
the OSPAR Offshore Industry Strategy should continue to be the basis for OIC’s work, and
OSPAR should seek to achieve that the European Commission takes the work under the
Offshore Strategy into account in order to have a harmonised approach towards offshore oil and
gas activities.
OIC agreed to comment on the draft analysis in a written procedure as follows:
a.
Contracting Parties and observers should send their comments to the Secretariat by 1
April 2006;
b.
the Secretariat should revise the document and circulate it to the OIC heads of delegation
for conclusion with a view to presenting it as part of a report from the Secretariat to
OSPAR HOD in May 2006.
9.4
OIC regretted that despite some common issues on the agenda, the European Commission had not
attended this meeting.
SIAM
9.5
OIC noted the conclusions of the comparative analysis of synergies in assessment and monitoring
between OSPAR and the European Union (the “SIAM” report, publication number 2005/230)
(OIC 06/9/info.1).
Agenda Item 10 – Assessment and Monitoring Strategy
OIC 06/10/1, OIC 06/10/2
10.1 OIC reviewed progress on the preparation of the relevant Theme O: Offshore Products as described in
the 2005 update of the Strategy for a Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) and made
arrangements for delivering the assessments products due by 2007 as presented below (OIC 06/10/1). The
Secretariat will update the JAMP Implementation Plan according to progress.
Assessment of the impact on the marine environment (OA-1)
10.2 The JAMP requires by 2007 the preparation of an assessment of the impact on the marine
environment of offshore oil and gas activities (JAMP Product OA-1). The purpose is to assess progress
against the objective of the offshore strategy and to contribute to assessments of the quality status of the
marine environment. The assessment will consider the impact and, if possible, trends of concentrations in
the marine environment for selected chemical and biological parameters as a result of discharges and losses
of oil and chemicals from offshore installations.
10.3 Realising that the mechanisms set up under the JAMP to compile environmental monitoring
information have been delayed (see agenda item 7). OIC agreed on a pragmatic approach to preparing by
2007 the assessment OA-1 of the impact on the marine environment of offshore oil and gas activities by
collecting and assessing available information in OSPAR and Contracting Parties.
10.4 During discussions in a drafting group Contracting Parties informed about available monitoring and
plans for monitoring. Most of the relevant Contracting Parties had performed sediment monitoring for many
years, often in relation to discharges of oil-based muds. Water column monitoring was limited, but would
expand. Most used the OSPAR Guidelines for Monitoring the Environmental Impact of Offshore Oil and
Gas Activities when monitoring water and sediment. Some had plans for starting registration/mapping of
marine mammals and birds. It was noted that there were different objectives for the monitoring and therefore
24
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
different strategies and design of the activities, which should be explained if these data should be used for
the assessment of impacts of oil and gas activities.
10.5 Following discussion, OIC agreed on the following for preparing a draft assessment of the available
relevant information:
Approach
a.
b.
Available monitoring data, including, but not restricted to the following, should be assessed:
(i)
Water column: chemical and biological parameters, including studies using bio-markers,
endocrine disruptors etc.;
(ii)
Sediments including cuttings piles: chemical and biological parameters, including effects
on / recovery of bottom fauna, hydrocarbons, contaminants;
(iii)
Other: Heavy metals in mineral weight material, effects on marine birds, mammals;
Contracting Parties in submitting their information should include an explanation of the
objectives of their monitoring for the various themes, the strategy for collecting information
and conclusions reached.
Organisation of the work
10.6 Norway offered to be lead country for the intersessional work, assisted by the Secretariat.
10.7 Steps to bring work forward:
a.
Contracting Parties should submit relevant information as described in §10.5 and any
other relevant available information to the Secretariat by 15 October 2006;
b.
Norway, assisted by the Secretariat, should compile the information, make an initial draft
of common conclusions, and forward the material to the Contracting Parties for
comments by end of November 2006;
c.
if necessary an assessment meeting could be organised in January 2007. The draft assessment
should be presented to OIC 2007.
Assessment of possible effects of disturbance of cuttings piles (OA-2)
10.8 The assessment by 2007 of the possible effects of releases of oil and chemicals from any disturbance
of cuttings piles (OA-2) should consider the extent to which parts of the maritime are adversely affected by
offshore activities in particular those resulting from the natural redistribution of waste which was disposed
of in the past. The assessment should also conclude on the need for further action such as development of
programmes and measures for the restoration, where practicable, of marine areas which have been adversely
affected.
10.9 Apart from some information from the UKOOA JIP Phase III project report, there is little
information available on which to base this assessment. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Norway
informed the meeting that they have some data. OIC welcomed the confirmation by the United Kingdom
that they would be lead country for the work, and agreed that Contracting Parties should send the
available data to the United Kingdom by 15 October 2006, and that the United Kingdom should
prepare a draft assessment for presentation to OIC 2007.
Assessment of human activities (BA-5)
10.10 The JAMP Appendix 3 lists the human activities that shall be assessed under the biodiversity strategy.
OIC and BDC have agreed that the activity “Exploration for oil and gas and placement of structures for the
exploitation of oil and gas” shall be assessed by OIC. Following consideration, OIC agreed to inform BDC
that:
a.
Norway would continue as lead country for the product;
b.
the assessment would be based on data collected by Norway through the questionnaire used for
preparing the Background Document on Environmental Impacts of Oil and Gas Activities other
than Pollution would be assessed as part of the assessment;
25
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
c.
the Appendix 3 of the JAMP should be amended to reflect this.
Overview of assessments (AA-1)
10.11 The Secretariat presented the draft chapter on oil and gas industry for the ASMO JAMP product
AA-1, overview of OSPAR assessment work 1998 – 2006, and explained that the overview should be a
stock-taking of available assessments of concentrations and effects in the marine environment, and identify
gaps that need to be filled in time for the QSR 2010. According to guidance from the ICG-Overview, which
was established under ASMO to prepare the overview, the available material should be prepared for the
overview report with a focus on the assessment of the quality of the marine environment (OIC 06/10/2).
10.12 During the discussions in plenary and in a drafting group, the following main points were made:
a.
the draft gives a too negative description of the situation especially with regard to the
availability of information about the knowledge of effects of offshore oil and gas activities
other than pollution;
b.
information was available or would become available in Contracting Parties that could be used
as a basis for the assessment of environmental effects;
c.
some of the conclusions drawn on inputs and trends should be checked against the annual
report on discharges, spills and emissions as they seemed not to be correct, for example
discharges of produced water, oil and air emissions;
d.
it was not correct to compare the annual average concentration of dispersed oil in produced
water with the performance standard since the latter is related to monthly average.
10.13 The Secretariat received some suggestions for amendments during the meeting, but as there was need
for some further checking of facts and conclusions, OIC agreed that:
a.
Contracting Parties and observers should give any further corrections or proposals for
amendments to the Secretariat by 3 March;
b.
the Secretariat would revise the draft and include it in the compilation report to be sent to
ICG-Overview for further consideration on 10 March;
c.
when uploading the final draft overview report as a meeting document for ASMO 2006, the
Secretariat would circulate the document to OIC HODs. Any further comments should then be
channelled through the national delegations to ASMO.
Agenda Item 11 – Organisational Issues
Programme of work for 2006/2007
11.1 Taking into account the 2005/2006 Programme of Work for OIC (OIC 06/1/Info.1) and the progress
made at the present meeting, OIC agreed to forward the draft 2006/2007 revision of the Programme of Work
at Annex 10 to OSPAR 2006 with a view to its adoption.
Future meeting arrangements
Allocation of meeting days
11.2 Taking into account the work contained in the draft OIC 2006/2007 revision of the Programme of
Work at Annex 9, OIC agreed to recommend to OSPAR 2006 that 5 complete days (ie. starting on the
Monday morning) should be allocated for the meeting of the Offshore Industry Committee in 2007.
26
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E
11.3 In view of the deadlines agreed for the delivery of a large number of products and the need for the
Expert Assessment Panel to complete its assessment of the offshore reports for 2004 and 2005, OIC agreed
to recommend to OSPAR 2006 that the meeting of OIC 2007 should revert to being held in March as had
been the case in previous years.
11.4 France informed OIC that it would examine the possibilities of hosting OIC 2007 and would inform
the Secretariat as soon as possible of the outcome.
Agenda Item 12 – Any Other Business
OIC 06/12/Info.1
Entry into force of the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972
12.1 The Chairman of the London Convention, Mr Victor Escobar (Spain) informed the meeting that the
26th country (Mexico) had ratified the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 on 22 February 2006 and that this Protocol would
therefore enter into force 30 days from that date. This Protocol represented a major change of approach to
the question of how to regulate the use of the sea, in essence, dumping is prohibited, except for materials on
an approved list. This contrasts with the 1972 Convention which permitted dumping of wastes at sea, except
for those materials on a banned list.
12.2 Mr Escobar was pleased to point out that 12 of the 26 countries which had so far ratified the Protocol
were OSPAR Contracting Parties; this was a clear indication of how seriously OSPAR took its commitment.
He invited the remaining three OSPAR Contracting Parties to complete their ratification as soon as possible.
Agenda Item 13 – Adoption of the Summary Record
13.1 The summary record was adopted as amended.
27
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record OIC 2006
OIC 06/13/1-E

Similar documents