SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 — IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention has at last gained enough signatories to trigger its entry into force. Finland handed its instrument of acceptance to IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim
AUGUST 29, 2016 — Alfa Laval continues to develop and expand its line of PureBallast ballast water management systems (BWMS). A new skid-mounted PureBallast 3.1/300 Compact will be on display at SMM
JUNE 28, 2016 —The first production version of Damen Shipyards’ InvaSave ballast water treatment system – intended for use at Groningen Seaports – will be on display at the upcoming DelfSail sailing
JANUARY 19, 2016 — Back in November, it looked like IMO’s Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention looked like it had finally achieved the necessary ratifications to enter into force. Turns out it
The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) says that the fixing of a definite implementation dategives shipowners some of the certainty needed to make important decisions about whether to refit the new mandatory treatment equipment or otherwise to start sending ships for early recycling.
However, IMO has to finalize the much needed revision of its type approval guidelines for Ballast Water Treatment Systems (BWTS).
The International Chamber of Shipping says that this revision is needed “as soon as possible, in order to ensure that shipowners can have absolute confidence that the expensive equipment they will soon have to install will be effective in treating ballast water conditions normally encountered during worldwide operations and be regarded as fully compliant during Port State Control inspections.”
In other words, the IMO Type Approval process currently in place doesn’t give absolute confidence that an IMO approved system will actually work. That, of course, is why the IMO approvals of BWTS have never been taken at their face value by the U.S., which has its own, tougher, approval system in place.
The International Chamber of Shipping has never been very happy about that and says that entry into force of the new IMO regime “does not resolve the extreme difficulties that still exist in the United States. There is still great uncertainty with respect to the more stringent United States approval regime for treatment equipment, which started to be enforced in January 2014 (the U.S. not being a Party to the IMO Convention).
“The U.S. regulations require all ships that discharge ballast water in U.S. waters to use a treatment system approved by the Coast Guard. However, because no systems have yet been approved, ships already required to comply with the U.S. regulations have either been granted extensions to the dates for fitting the required treatment systems or else permitted to install a USCG accepted Alternate Management System (AMS), in practice a system type-approved in accordance with the current IMO Guidelines.
“However, an AMS will only be accepted for operation for five years, after which time a fully USCG approved system must be installed. But the USCG does not guarantee that an AMS will be subsequently granted full approval. Hence shipowners that may have installed an AMS in good faith, at a cost of between $1 million -5 million per ship, might then have to replace the system completely after only five years. This is a particular concern for operators that have installed ultra-violet (UV) systems.
“There are over 50 treatment systems approved under the current IMO regime, but worryingly fewer than 20 manufacturers have so far indicated their intent to submit their systems for U.S. approval. The conflicting IMO and U.S. requirements, when combined with the complete lack of systems fully approved by the USCG, could produce an impossible situation in which some ships might not be able to operate in U.S. waters when the IMO Convention enters in force.”
An “action item” alert from law firm Blank Rome sheds some light onto the significance of this decision.
Blank Rome notes that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the issue to the EPA to redraft the ballast water sections of the VGP.
The firm says that “the differences between the VGP ballast water provisions, International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) Ballast Water Management Convention, and U.S. Coast Guard’s ballast water regulations have posed a number of compliance challenges thus far, which may be further exacerbated by possible new VGP requirements. While substantive changes to the VGP ballast provisions, if any, are likely years away, shipowners and operators should be aware, closely monitor, and be prepared to comment on a new draft VGP in the future.”
“Most notably,” says Blank Rome, “the court stated that the EPA failed to adequately explain why stricter technology-based effluent standards should not be applied, failed to give fair and thorough consideration to onshore treatment options, and failed to adequately explain why pre-2009 Lakers were exempted. The court instructed the EPA to reconsider the VGP ballast water provisions in accordance with its ruling. In the meantime, the 2013 VGP will remain in effect.”
“The possibility that the EPA may alter its VGP ballast water provisions does, however, create uncertainty for those striving to comply with both the VGP and U.S. Coast Guard ballast water requirements,” notes Blank Rome. “The U.S. Coast Guard’s ballast water regulations, like the current VGP ballast water requirements, for the most part mirror the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention, though there are some differences. Ship owners and operators have struggled to understand and comply with these overlapping requirements. Any changes to the EPA’s ballast water requirements will require extensive discussion with the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure any new VGP ballast water requirements can co-exist with the U.S. Coast Guard and IMO regimes.
“The ruling does not impact the U.S. Coast Guard’s ballast water management system type approval process. That said, should the EPA create stricter technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs) than the U.S. Coast Guard and IMO standards, it will be even more challenging for vessels to comply with both the U.S. Coast Guard and EPA standards because the systems approved by the U.S. Coast Guard and required to be installed may or may not meet the stricter VGP TBELs. It is also unclear how the EPA would enforce stricter TBELs as the Coast Guard generally conducts the vessel inspections and passes information on possible violations to the EPA.”
Read the full text of the Blank Rome action item HERE
DECEMBER 22, 2014 — IMO Secretary-General Koji Sekimizu has welcomed a decision by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) to “no longer actively discourage” Governments from ratifying theInternational Convention for the Control
MAY 21, 2013 — “INTERTANKO applauds the progress made last week by the IMO’s MEPC on the challenges of implementing the Ballast Water Management Convention, specifically related to the implementation schedule, port
MARCH 6, 2013 — Classification society ClassNK has granted AIP (Approval in Principle) to a tanker design that reduces the weight of ballast water required by about 65 percent compared with a
OCTOBER 8, 2012 — The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), which represents over 80 percent of the world merchant fleet, says that governments have acknowledged there will be significant problems with the
