Latest reports of legislative developments in the USA

Supplied by the Champer of Shipping of America

This is the latest in a series of reports supplied by the Chamber of Shipping of America with the intention of keeping everyone appraised of legislative developments in the US affecting international shipping.

Vessel General Permit New York State graywater extension

A number of CSA members have notified us that they have recently received a letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) that extends the implementation date for compliance with the provisions of the New York State 401 certification to 1 August 2013. This extension is consistent with a similar extension granted with regards to the implementation of ballast water treatment technology requirements granted earlier. Vessel owners which submitted requests for extension should be receiving similar letters in the near future. Those that did submit requests for extension and which do not receive any response should contact NYS DEC Bureau of Water Permits directly at 518.402.8111. While we have been led to believe that all entities that requested the extension received a similar extension, CSA would be interested in receiving any input from vessel owners who did not receive an extension, including any supporting information on why the extension was not granted.

Vessel General Permit New York State extension of extension request deadline for ballast water technologies on vessels constructed on or after 1 January 2013

CSA has learned that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has granted at least two companies an extension for filing the extension request for applicability of ballast water technology to vessels constructed on or after 1 January 2013 (Condition 3 of the NYS certification). Condition 3 would require ballast water treatment to a level equal to 1,000 times the standard contained in the ballast water convention. The condition stipulates that any entity which believes it will not be able to comply with this standard on 1 January 2013 must file a request for extension by 30 June 2011. By written request, the deadline for filing the extension request has been extended to 30 September 2011 and from review of the NYDEC response, it appears that the deadline for filing such an extension request has been extended on an industry wide basis. The criteria for requesting an extension of the 1 January 2013 deadline is identical to the criteria contained in Condition 2 (ballast water treatment systems on existing ships) e.g. shortage of supply of the necessary technology, unavailability of the equipment and exhaustion of all other options to meet the standard. While the extension request effort for Condition 2 was a relatively easy argument, meeting the criteria noted above for vessels which will not be build for 18 months may likely be more difficult due to the need to predict the state of technology in the more distant future. While CSA expects technologies meeting the IMO standard to be available within this time frame, we do not anticipate than any technologies will be certified to meet this far more stringent standard by 1 January 2013.

Impending deadline for comments on hazardous substance vessel response plans

On 17 February 2011, the US Coast Guard published a notice in the Federal Register noting its reopening of a comment period for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Hazardous Substance Vessel Response Plans originally published in 22 March 1999. While CSA and a number of trade associations and vessel owners operating in the chemical trade submitted comments in 1999, which still must be considered in the current process, CSA has decided to submit comments at this time which reinforce comments made previously as well as address new issues which have manifested themselves in the 12 years since publication of the original NPRM. A draft set of CSAs comments have been circulated to ICS, BIMCO and INTERTANKO staff for review, comment and assessment as to whether separate comments by individual organizations are preferable to one comment document endorsed by a number of entities. CSA has determined that it is in the best interest of our members to submit separate comments to the docket, but other organizations are welcome to use the text of this draft comment document to either craft their own comments or endorse the CSA comments under separate letter submitted to the docket.

CSA supplemental comments on EPA notice seeking stakeholder input on petition to revise the performance standards for Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD)

Based on additional review of the over 600 responses CSA received on our MSD survey which was original sent out late in 2010, we have conducted additional analysis on these responses and in some cases have reached out to submitters to gain additional information on onboard operating and maintenance procedures relative to MSDs. A copy of the relevant portion of these comments is found below. Annexes 1 through 9 referenced in the text below were also attached to the submitted comments.

While our December 30, 2010 supplemental comments provided important information relative to the type of marine sewage systems installed aboard the 634 response received from our global survey, we further recognized the need to solicit additional information and specifics from these respondents relative to their onboard systems and procedures relative to insuring the continuing proper operation of these systems as well as on board monitoring and recordkeeping in place associated with these systems. This additional information was solicited and we now present the results of these responses within the context of the specific questions posed in the original request for comments. A copy of the excel spreadsheet containing the specific survey responses is found at Annex 1 which is attached to these comments.

Responses to specific questions in the Federal Register request for comments

Category 2 What existing product information or performance data is available for:

The vast majority of respondents indicated that zero (0) operational failures or malfunctions have occurred on their MSD units over the past 2 years. Those that did indicate operational failures also indicated that the vast majority of repairs were completed by ships crew and that the system was tested out and found to be operational before entering regulated waters. Common areas of malfunction noted were blower and pump failures, failures associated with the high level float alarm system or clogging of air ejectors or lines running between system components. Quantitative results of survey responses in this area are as follows:

Number of responses indicating operational failures: 67 (11%)

Total number of operational failures reported: 85 (some vessels reported multiple operational failures)

Operational failures repaired by crew: 65 (97%)

Operational failures repaired by shore staff: 2 (3%)

Operational failures by type:

Category 5 What existing information is available on the current practices, protocols or regulatory approaches to testing, monitoring and/or reporting sewage discharges from vessels, and what, if any are the practical limitations or burdens associated with these practices?

CSA reviewed all responses with regard to onboard testing, monitoring and effluent sampling procedures in place on the subject vessels.

All responses indicated that the MSD and sewage system operation is an integral part of the vessel planned maintenance system process and that a variety of checks/inspections are conducted on the system on a periodic basis, and in a vast majority of cases, daily as part of the normal engine room watchstanding routines. Daily checks include visual observation of the effluent via sight glass and monitoring of equipment control panels to insure proper operation. In addition, a wide variety of additional periodic checks are conducted on a weekly, monthly, semi-annual and annual basis related to system manufacturers instructions on operation and maintenance procedures.

Operations, maintenance and any malfunctions of the MSD and sewage system are typically logged in relevant engine room documents including the planned maintenance system database, engine room log book and/or the sewage logbook.

Effluent monitoring and sampling was widely varied with regard to frequency and type. 69% of the responses indicated that a daily visual inspection was made of the effluent. 40% of the responses indicated that weekly bench testing was conducted as well as daily visual inspections. The weekly bench tests included testing for concentrations of treatment components e.g. residual chlorine. A few responses (less than 2 %) indicated that samples were taken and send to certified labs on a semi-annual or annual basis at which time samples were tested for fecal coliform and total suspended solids. One company which provided responses for a number of vessels indicated that they had previously sent samples to certified labs for analysis on an annual basis, but had discontinued that practice due to the logistical impossibility to get the samples to the labs within a time period specified by the lab as necessary for accurate analysis.

Quantitative results of survey responses in this area are as follows:

Conclusion

Reviewing the entire response sample of 634 responses to our survey provides significant evidence that sewage system operations aboard marine vessels are an integral part of the vessels operating and preventative maintenance programs. While the level of detail of these procedures may vary, it is clear that all vessels make regular checks of the system to assure continued proper operation and that when a malfunction does occur, with few exceptions, ships crew are able to repair the problem prior to the vessels entry into coastal waters. It is also worth noting that there are a number of manufacturers of certified marine sanitation devices utilizing a variety of treatment methodologies. A common thread throughout this process is the fact that vessels do incorporate manufacturers operating and maintenance procedures into vessel operating, maintenance and watch-standing protocols.

Finally, a number of survey responses provided copies of onboard and/or manufacturers operating and maintenance procedures. We have attached samples of a number of these submissions attached to these comments as follows:

Annex 2 MSD manufacturers maintenance and operation instructions
Annex 3 MSD maintenance instructions (tabular version) with log sheet (1)
Annex 4 1st Assistant Engineer Standing Watch Orders
Annex 5 MSD maintenance summary sheet (tabular version)
Annex 6 Sample sewage plant weekly log sheet
Annex 7 MSD maintenance instructions (2)
Annex 8 MSD maintenance instructions (3)
Annex 9 Effluent testing instructions (bench weekly; semi-annual lab)

The Chamber hopes that this additional information provides a more comprehensive picture of the current onboard practices and procedures which have been implemented to ensure the continued proper operation of the MSDs and sewage systems aboard a wide variety of marine vessels as well as the onboard documentation which exists to evidence these ongoing efforts including corrective action measures taken should the system malfunction.

We are hopeful that the qualitative information provided in our prior submission taken in conjunction with the quantitative analysis which we provided in our December 2010 supplemental submission and the information provided here will inform the EPA decision to NOT revise the current MSD regulations.

Marine vapour recovery systems
proposed rule (FR 21 October 2010)

CSA has submitted comments to the USCGs proposed rule on marine vapour recovery systems which was published on 21 October 2010 in the Federal Register at pages 65152 65195. Relevant text of these comments is found below.

CSA strongly supports the USCGs desire to update the 1990 regulations relating to facility and vessel vapor control systems (VCSs) so as to incorporate VCS design and technology changes in these systems since the 1990 rule was promulgated. We further agree that the current approval system which must necessarily make use of the exemption and equivalency determination provisions in the 1990 regulation is unwieldy, does not provide the necessary regulatory clarity and requires the commitment of additional resources by both the VCS owners requesting approval and the USCG in the equivalency determination process that will be unnecessary with the proposed alignment into regulations of those provisions currently contained in NVIC 1-96 (April 1996) and any new design and technology considerations which have been developed since that time.

Assuming, as is stated in the preamble, that this proposed rule does not create any new requirements for the installation or design of VCSs inconsistent with those approved under the current exemption and equivalency approval process, we support this codification of current practices into the final rule. However, acknowledging that design and technology developments may well progress beyond that which is currently the status quo, there may be a periodic need to review the final rule which is promulgated in this process so that it may be updated consistent with future practices and we would be supportive of such action where the current case by case approval process is recreated due to advancements in technology and design.

With this positive perspective in mind, CSA would like to provide/pose a few comments/questions on various elements contained in the proposed rule:

1. A number of CSA member companies have reviewed in detail the contents of the proposed rule from the perspective to conducting a gaps analysis. While no significant differences between existing case by case approval requirements and those contained in the proposed rule have been noted, we would request the USCG to confirm that the proposed rule requirements are consistent with the existing CFR regulations and practices approved under the existing exemption and equivalency approval process and do not include new technical requirements.

2. Relative to VCS systems which have already been approved under existing Class, International and State regulations, based on our review of the proposed rule, we conclude that these approvals would continue to be recognized under this proposal but for the provision in 154.2020(b) which would require recertification for any VCS that was operating prior to July 23, 1990 subject to the five operating condition changes contained in subparagraphs (1) through (5) of that section. We would request confirmation of this conclusion and any further elaboration on the conditions which would mandate a recertification of an existing VCS.

3. With regard to certifying entities which are covered under 154.2011, providing the conditions outlined in this section are met, we assume that Classification Societies may be deemed certifying entities. Assuming this to be true, we would also assume that Classification Societies delegated responsibilities under the Alternative Compliance Program as applied to US flag vessels may review and approve modifications to VCSs. We would request confirmation of this conclusion.

4. With regard to the training provisions contained in 154.2030 and 154.2031, while we agree in concept with the training topics which must be covered, we would request further clarification as to the documentation requirements which would evidence that these training requirements have been met. It is our assumption subject to response to this question that the VCS owner could self-certify their employees serving as VCS PICs and we would request confirmation of this conclusion by the USCG.

5. Finally, there continue to be spacing issues associated with the vapor recovery connections between vessels and terminals. New tankers all comply with the OCIMF recommended 2 meter spacing for cargo headers, fuel oil and VCS headers with a vapor connection at both ends of the manifold. Many terminals however have the old tight spacing for their chiksans and some terminals have actually converted an existing cargo chiksan to a vapor recovery arm. The result of these design differences is that many times the VCS connections on the vessel do not properly match up with the terminal connections. Such mismatching could be avoided if standardized manifold spacing and placement were adopted by both vessels and facilities. CSA would recommend USCG review of this issue and would welcome a proposal to adopt the OCIMF recommendations for oil tanker manifolds and associated equipment.

Source: BIMCO