October 4, 2017 Update on Ballast Water Management · 2017-10-06 · Update on Ballast Water...

Leading the way; making a difference

Latin American PanelOctober 4, 2017

Update onBallast Water Management

JOSEPH ANGELODirector, Regulatory Affairs and the Americas


International – IMO

United States –Coast GuardEPA

Ballast Water Management


INTERTANKO Desired Outcome for Ballast Water Management:Tanker industry is able to achieve compliance with current and future discharge standards (both regionally and internationally)

Focus:1. Installation and Operation of appropriate and adequate

ballast water management systems

2. Compliance and enforcement – need strong, well defined and realistic international regulations

Ballast Water Management


IMO Ballast Water Management Convention• Adopted in 2004

• Entry into force requires ratification by 30 countries, 35% world’s grt

• Finland ratifies on September 8, 2016 bringing totals to 52 countries, 35.1441% grt. Convention will enter into force on September 8, 2017

• Currently 65 countries representing 73.92% have ratified the BWM convention

Ballast Water Management – IMO


Main Concerns with IMO BWM Convention

1. Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8) – not robustenough to provide reliable equipment

2. Availability of Ballast Water Management Systems (BWMS) to meet convention implementation schedule – unrealistic

3. Procedures for port State control – more onerous than type approval



Port State Control – MEPC 65 (May 2013)

• Trial Period (initially for 3 years) following entry into force

• To trial sampling and testing procedures

• During this period, port states will ‘refrain from detaining a ship or initiating criminals sanctions in the event a BWMS does not meet the discharge standard’ (USA reserves its position)

MEPC 67 (Oct 2014) adopts Guidelines for PSC with four stage approach



IMO Guidelines for PSCStage 1 – Initial inspection. Focus on documentation and

crew training to operate BWMS

If there are “clear grounds”

Stage 2 – More detailed inspection. Check to ensure that BWMS operates properly

Stage 3 – Indicative sampling. Without unduly delaying ship,an indicative analysis of ballast water can be taken

Stage 4 – Detailed analysis. If indicative sampling exceeds D2 standard by a certain threshold, a detailedanalysis of ballast water can be taken



BWMS Type Approvals

• 69 BWMS have IMO Type Approval under G8 guidelines

• Comprehensive review of G8 guidelines completed in October at MEPC 70

• “Roadmap” for non-penalization of early-movers agreed at MEPC 70 – owners who’ve installed BWMS approved to current G8 guidelines should not be penalized.



Revised G8 guidelines1. Revised Type Approval Guidelines (G8) approved

2. Agreed to make the Revised G8 Guidelines mandatory through a Code

3. MEPC Resolution agreed with time line for use of the Revised G8 Guidelines:- Administrations to use Revised G8 immediately and

not later than 28 Oct 2018- All BWMS installed after 28 Oct 2020 to be approved

under Revised G8



Roadmap for – “non-penalization of early movers”

• Installed BWMS approved to the current type approval guidelines should not be required to be replaced once the new guidelines are introduced

• If current BWMS are installed, maintained and operated correctly then they should not be required to be replaced for the life of the ship or the BWMS, whichever comes first, due to occasional lack of efficacy

• Early movers should not be penalized (sanctioned, warned, detained or excluded) solely due to “occasional exceedance of BWMS (D-2) standard

• Footnote: non-penalization may be subject to review as additional information becomes available



Implementation schedule (availability of BWMS)

IMO Assembly Resolution (A.1088(28)) adopted, Dec 4, 2013 recommends governments:

• implement the Convention based on the entry into force date of the Convention

• considers ALL vessels constructed (keel laid) before entry into force as existing vessels

• existing vessels to install a BWMS at the first renewal survey (IOPP Certificate under Annex I of MARPOL) after entry into force of the Convention



MEPC 70 (October 2016) considered two proposals related to the implementation schedule in IMO Assembly Resolution (A.1088(28))

1. Liberia – extend the date to install a BWMS to the second renewal survey (IOPP Certificate under Annex I of MARPOL) after entry into force of the Convention, subject to further review. Until then, conduct ballast water exchange with 99% efficiency.

2. Shipping industry – allow date to be adjusted until revised G8 technology is available.



Implementation Schedule• Objective of both proposals is to extend implementation

schedule dates

• Slight majority of member States spoke in favour of amending the implementation schedule

• Alternative implementation schedule developed and will be considered along with A.1088(28) at MEPC 71 (July 2017)

A.1088 – implementation begins Sept 8, 2017

Alternate schedule – implementation begins Sept 8, 2019



Implementation Schedule – MEPC 71

Option 1 – A.1088: implementation for new buildings and existing ships begins Sept 8, 2017 (Japan)

Option 2 – MEPC 70 alternative: implementation for new buildings and existing ships begins Sept 8, 2019 (China and Greece)

Option 3 – Compromise proposal: Sept 8, 2017 for new ships constructed on or after this date, Sept 8, 2019 for existing ships (Brazil, Cook Islands, India, Liberia, Norway and the United Kingdom)



MEPC 71 approves compromise proposal –1. Ships constructed on or after Sept 8, 2017, must comply

upon delivery.2. Ships constructed before Sept 8, 2017 must comply

beginning on Sept 8, 2019 through phase-in:a. the first renewal survey of the MARPOL Annex I

IOPP Certificate after Sept 8, 2017 if, .i the survey is completed on or after Sept 8, 2019, or .ii a renewal survey is completed on or after Sept 8,

2014, but prior to Sept 8, 2017; b. the second renewal survey of the MARPOL Annex I

IOPP Certificate if the first renewal survey after Sept 8,2017 is completed prior to Sept 8, 2019



Main objectives of MEPC 71 compromise proposal

1. Allow shipowners time to install BWMS that meet the new improved BWMS approval requirements; and

2. Limit shipowners ability to “decouple” the IOPP Certificate from other IMO convention certificates

Many Flag States are now allowing shipowner to “recouple” the IOPP Certificate with the other IMO convention certificates



MEPC 71 takes additional action –1. Approves the draft Code for approval of Ballast Water

Management systems (BWMS Code)2. Approves guidance on contingency measures when

ballast water to be discharged from a ship is not compliant 3. Approves circular on Application of the BWM Convention

to ships operating in sea areas where ballast water exchange in accordance with regulations is not possible

4. Adopts MEPC resolution on the experience-building phase associated with the BWM Convention which states that a ship should not be penalized (sanctioned, warned, detained or excluded) solely due to an exceedance of the performance standard



BMW.2/Circ.62 – Guidance on Contingency Measures1. Measures when a ship is unable to manage ballast water

in accordance with its approved Ballast Water Management plan to meet the D-1 or D-2 standard

2. Communication between ship and port State on a case bycase basis should consider the following:.1 actions predetermined in the BWM Plan;.2 discharge ballast to a reception facility;.3 manage the ballast with a method acceptable to the

port State;.4 ballast water exchange; or.5 operational actions, e.g. modifying sailing or ballast discharge

schedules, internal transfer of ballast or retention on board.



Application of the BWM Convention to ships operating in sea areas where ballast water exchange in accordance with regulations is not possibleRegulation B-4.1 criteria for BWE: 200nm + 200m or 50nm + 200mRegulation D-1: 95% volumetric exchange

1. Ship should not be required to install BWMS to meet D-2 standard before their due date

2. Ship should not be delayed or deviate to meet the B-4.1 criteria

3. Ship should record in the Ballast Water Record Book the reasons why ballast water exchange was not conducted

4. If established, ship should comply with terms of port State designated areas for ballast water exchange



Final Regulations issued March 23, 2012

• BWM discharge standard (same as IMO), review in 4 yrs• Schedule for installation of BWMS similar to IMO, BUT

NO intent to align schedule with Resolution A.1088• BWMS not required if no discharge of ballast water into

US waters (12 miles)• Acceptance of “Alternative” (AMS) BWMS for 5 years• All ships must eventually install CG approved BWMS• Ships may request an extension to compliance

date for installation of a USCG approved BWMS

Ballast Water Management – USCG


US Coast Guard – Extension requests• Prior to December 2016, more that 13,000 extensions

have been granted

• Policy guidance on extensions have been issued:- MSIB No. 13-15, issued October 20, 2015- MSIB No. 10-16, issued July 13, 2016- MSIB No. 14-16, issued December 2, 2016

Changed “ground rules” for granting extensions”- MSIB No. 3-17, issued March 6, 2017

Further expanded on the new “ground rules”



US Coast Guard – Extension requestsMSIB No. 13-15, issued October 20, 2015

• Extensions will be granted to the vessel's next scheduled drydocking after the vessel's required implementation date

• Vessel's first scheduled drydocking date will be determined based upon when the vessel enters the drydock

• Existing extension letters with a January 1 dated will not be re-issued. Change will be made when a vessel applies for a supplemental extension

• Supplemental extensions will be required to be submitted



US Coast Guard – Extension requestsMSIB No. 10-16, issued July 13, 2016

• An installed AMS can be used for five years from the “extended compliance date” if the AMS is installed prior to the expiration of the vessel’s extended compliance date

• Guidance in the event a vessel owner enters into a contract with a company to install an AMS before a vessel’s compliance date and, after the contract but prior to AMS installation, a Coast Guard type-approved BWMS becomes available for that vessel. In this instance, the USCG advises that the owner may proceed with the installation of the AMS. The installed AMS may then be employed for up to five years beyond the vessel’s compliance date.



US Coast Guard – Extension requestsMSIB No. 14-16, issued December 2, 2016

• Extensions will remain valid until the extended compliance date specified in the extension letter

• CG will continue to accept requests for extensions, BUT applicant must document why it is not possible to install one of the CG approved BWMS

• Provides examples of the documentation required to support an extension request, eg.

- Correspondence with BWM manufacturer that BWMS not available by compliance date

- Vessel design limitations with approved BWMS- Safety concerns with approved BWMS



US Coast Guard – Extension requestsMSIB No. 3-17, issued March 6, 2017

• Existing extensions will remain valid until the extended compliance date specified in the extension letter

• Future extensions will no longer be linked to the vessel dry dock cycle

• Vessels with an AMS installed do not qualify for an extension because they are in compliance with CG regs

• Coast Guard will consider extension requests differently for vessels with different compliance dates, as follows:



MSIB No. 3-17, issued March 6, 2017 (continued)Vessels having a compliance date before/including December 31, 2018: 1) Extension requests that do not provide a justification as to why compliance with one of the BWM methods is not possible by the current compliance date will be denied.

2) Vessel owners and operators who have identified that a Coast Guard type-approved BWMS is available for a vessel but do not have enough time to install it prior to the vessel’s compliance date must provide a strategy, including a detailed installation plan, for how the vessel would be brought into compliance by installing a Coast Guard type-approved BWMS before the end of the extension. Extensions granted on this basis should be expected not to exceed 18 months.

3) Vessel owners and operators who have identified that a Coast Guard type-approved BWMS is not available for a vessel must provide a strategy, including a timeline, for how the vessel would be brought into compliance before the end of the extension. Extensions granted on this basis should be expected not to exceed 30 months.



MSIB No. 3-17, issued March 6, 2017 (continued)Vessels having a compliance date between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020

The CG will begin considering these requests 18 months prior to the vessel’s compliance date. These requests could be impacted by changes in the market or availability of type-approved systems. Owners and operators are encouraged to submit additional information in support of their extension request.

Vessels having a compliance date of January 1, 2021 or later

The CG does not anticipate granting extensions. Vessel owners and operators should plan to be in compliance on their current compliance date



General guidance provided by CG to applicants• A strategy for compliance includes specific details concerning the

methods you have identified under 33 CFR 151.2025 for managing ballast water. A contract to purchase a specific system will suffice.

• Alternatively, specific make, model and date of installation of a system, or specific details that define the kind of system you will purchase, or details concerning another means of compliance will suffice.

• The strategy will demonstrate that you are knowledgeable about the requirements, the available systems, and you are aware of the need to find a solution that matches the operational requirements of your vessel. It also demonstrates that you are pursuing compliance.

• Many vessel managers have met this requirement by simply providing a short list of preferred ballast water systems, or a specific manufacturer that is most trusted, or a type of system that is most compatible with the operations or design of the vessel.



US Coast Guard – APPROVED BWM Systems

• 48 BWMS manufacturers have submitted “Letter of Intent” (LOI) to pursue USCG approval (59 AMS accepted by USCG)

• At least 19 systems undergoing testing

• Only after the testing is completed by USCG accepted Independent Laboratory (IL) and the results have been evaluated, will a BWMS manufacturer then submit an application to the USCG for approval of their BWMS



US Coast Guard – APPROVED BWM Systems• USCG has approved four BWM systems

- Optimarin (Ultraviolet)- PureBallast – Alfa Laval (Ultraviolet)- OceanSaver (Electrochlorination) - Balclor – Sunrui (Electrochlorination)- Ecochlor (Chlorine dioxide)

• Approval certificates list Operational Limitation, if any, such as holding times, intrinsic safety, flow capacity, etc.

• USCG has received application for approval from - Emma First (Electrochlorination)- Purimar – Samsung (Electrochlorination)



USCG has completed “practicability review” todetermine whether technology to comply with a performance standard more stringent than that required by the Coast Guard’s current regulations on ballast water discharges can be practicably implemented

“Practicability review” concludes:• that, at this time, technology to achieve a significant

improvement in ballast water treatment efficacy onboardvessels cannot be practicably implemented

• there are no data demonstrating that ballast water management systems can meet a discharge standard more stringent than the existing performance standards.



EPA Vessel General Permit issued December 19, 2013

• To a large extent EPA VGP requirements are the same as USCG (discharge standard, compliance schedule, etc.)

• Approval of BWMS is not required• BWMS monitoring required (functionality, equipment

calibration, effluent, biocides) – INTERTANKO guidelines• New ship (keel laid after December 1, 2013) is required to

install a BWMS to comply with the VGP, i.e. no acceptance of USCG extension provision in the VGP

• EPA /USCG MoU – EPA Enforcement Policy, 27 Dec 2013• Vessel with USCG extension is non-compliant (if

discharges in US waters – 3 miles), but EPA regards as a low-enforcement priority, provided all other regs are met

Ballast Water Management – USEPA


Potential issue with EPA Enforcement Policy??• Charter party agreements require tanker to be in

compliance with all applicable laws and regulations• Tanker that receives CG extension would be in

compliance with CG requirements• Tanker that has CG extension and discharges ballast

water within US waters (3 miles) would be in violation of EPA Vessel General Permit

• Would this violate charter party agreements???• Thus far, not aware of any comments from oil majors or

charterers on this issue



US COURT OF APPEALS RULING ON EPA VGP BALLAST WATER REQUIREMENTS

• EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in, among other things, selecting the IMO ballast water standard as the standard in the VGP

• Decision based in part on the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) report “which identified a number of technologies that can achieve standards higher than IMO for one or more organism sizes”

• Court has remanded the matter back to EPA for review

• Court also ruled that the 2013 VGP shall remain in place until EPA issues a new VGP



MUCHAS GRACIAS!

October 4, 2017 Update on Ballast Water Management · 2017-10-06 · Update on Ballast Water...

Documents

Transcript of October 4, 2017 Update on Ballast Water Management · 2017-10-06 · Update on Ballast Water...