BEMA: Contingency measures under BWMC vital for addressing ports with challenging waters

At MEPC 77, the Ballast Water Review Group (BWRG) considered a number of submissions related to the application of the BWM Convention to ships operating at ports with challenging water quality. BEMA presented a proposal for use of the existing IMO guidance contained within BWM.2/Circ.62 with a goal of supporting delivery of the needed guidance to all stakeholders.

The BWRG discussions at MEPC 77 revealed a substantive list of complex issues surrounding the actions ships should take when they encounter ports with challenging water quality (PCWQ) that have the potential to result in insufficient treatment by the installed ballast water management system (BWMS). Many of these complex issues have the potential to require a significant amount of time to reach agreements that broadly satisfy all stakeholders.

To facilitate normal and efficient ship operations in accordance with Article 12 of the BWM Convention, and to reduce uncertainty for shipowners and crew when such situations are encountered, clear guidance is needed urgently, BEMA has urged. Therefore, viewing the issue of PCWQ as similar to any other scenario where a ship may have non-compliant ballast water provides an avenue to use the existing contingency measure guidance

Regardless of the reason a ship may be unable to manage ballast water in accordance with its approved Ballast Water Management Plan (BWMP) (e.g. ship emergency situation, ship equipment failure, BWMS equipment failure, or encountering a PCWQ), the end result is that the ship may potentially have non-compliant ballast water discharge and will need to implement contingency measures.

Further, regardless of when the inability to manage ballast water in accordance with the requirements has been determined (i.e. during uptake or during discharge), the ship may potentially have non-compliant ballast water discharge and will need to implement contingency measures.

RelatedNews

New guidelines on transboundary oil spills in Gulf of Thailand

Djibouti Code of Conduct signatories join forces for security

In light of the above, there is limited value in spending significant resources and time to establish an agreed definition of “ports with challenging water quality”, to wait for gathering of sufficient data to determine the global locations where challenging water quality may be encountered (as this can change tidally and seasonally), or to resolve the other complex issues that were raised during the BWRG discussions.

While these complex topics are important and relevant, the individual scenarios that ships will encounter will be highly diverse and the practical matter is that ships will need to take additional actions to address potentially non-compliant ballast water discharge.

Guidance for the use of contingency measures, when ballast water is discharged, is already included in BWM.2/Circ.62 but is considered to be non-compliant and there is need for expanding the scope of this circular. Hence, it is important to provide guidance that allows ships to manage ballast water that potentially may be non-compliant at the time an issue is identified by crew, and without a requirement to obtain approval in advance from the port State at the next port of ballast water discharge. Methods to address improperly managed ballast water should be included in the ship-specific approved BWMP.

BEMA notes that functionality of a BWMS control and monitoring system is evaluated during type approval testing and should be considered reliable.

In the upcoming MEPC 78, June 6-10 2022, the Committee is expected to discuss all proposals related to application of the BWM Convention to ships operating at ports with challenging water quality.

Explore more by reading the proposed amendments by BEMA