Plastic pellets a nurdle hurdle for IMO
Plastic pellets don’t belong in the ocean, but regulating to keep them out of it is hard
The International Maritime Organization is mulling regulations to prevent polluting spills of plastic pellets from containers, which are bad for the environment and hard to clean up
THE International Maritime Organization has a plastic pellet problem.
Its pollution prevention and response subcommittee, which meets on January 27, is grappling with how to stop spills of plastic pellets, the lentil-sized precursors of most plastic products.
Such pellets, also called nurdles, are shipped in containers by the billions. Container spills such as the 2021 X-Press Pearl (IMO: 9875343) casualty off Sri Lanka harm marine life and are fiendishly hard to clean up.
In response, the IMO came up with a circular (MEPC.1/Circ.909) advising measures to prevent spills: storing containers with pellets below deck, or in sheltered areas of exposed decks; making packaging tough enough not to tear in normal transport; and ensuring shipping information made clear which containers carried pellets and how they should be stowed.
The IMO asked states to try the measures in practice and report their findings to inform future mandatory measures. Several options have been floated:
- Assignment of an individual UN number for plastic pellets,
- Amending Marpol Annex III to recognise plastic pellets as a “harmful substance”,
- Creating a new chapter of Marpol Annex III to prescribe requirements for transporting pellets in containers without classifying them as a harmful substance or as dangerous goods.
But in a recent submission (PPR 12/11/3), Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates found several problems with these options. They argued the first was outside the IMO’s remit, and would take four to five years to enter into force through amending the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.
They said the second option would go against standard global criteria for classifying and labelling chemicals, running counter to the goal of uniform global rules.
“Plastic pellets are not harmful substances/dangerous goods, and therefore the IMDG Code is not the appropriate instrument,” the two countries said, adding that invoking it would “lead to numerous unintended consequences”.
Adding a new chapter to Marpol Annex III would avoid this, but it would set a precedent and take a long time, Saudi Arabia and the UAE argued.
Environment groups Friends of the Earth International and the Clean Shipping Coalition want stricter rules to make packaging tougher and more secure, so plastic pellets are less likely to spill from fallen containers or leak from flimsy bags.
Plastic makers, represented by the European Chemistry Industry Council (Cefic), disagree. Cefic has argued against regulations for years, and pointed instead to voluntary industry measures.
China submitted that the IMO’s approach to crafting the rules “should be undertaken in a scientific and prudent manner, ensuring sufficient time for discussion and industry experience-building”.
It said the Chinese government has incorporated the IMO circular into local policies, and by August 2024 Cosco had updated its booking system and issued a customer notice.
Since then, Cosco received 1,293 booking requests for containers carrying plastic pellets from shippers, amounting to 9,067 teu, mainly on the Middle East-Asia route.
China said Cosco had complied with the circular with no adverse effects on vessel stability or cargo stowage, and no reports of containers overboard or pellet leakage. It urged other states to share their experiences adjusting to the guidance.
The PPR12 meeting will also cover topics such as scrubber pollution, biofouling and in-water hull cleaning.
