Shipowners’ concerns with Ballast Water Management

Josheph J. Angelo, Deputy Managing Director, INTERTANKO presentation during the 2015 GREEN4SEA Forum

The presentation addressed the concerns related to both the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention and the US Coast Guard ballast water management regulations.  With regard to the IMO convention, Mr Angelo identified the main issues as the procedures for port state control, the availability of ballast water management equipment to meet the IMO implementation schedule and the guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems.  He informed the seminar about the initiatives INTERTANKO and the shipping industry have taken to address these concerns at IMO and the successful outcome of these initiatives.  With regard to the US Coast Guard requirements, he identified the main shipowner concerns are the lack of a US Coast Guard approved BWM system, the uncertainty as to when there will be a US Coast Guard approved BWM system and the dilemma the shipowner will face if the IMO convention enters into force in the expected near future.

IMO Ballast Water Management Convention adopted in 2004 but has not entered into force yet as it requires 35% of the world’s gross tonnage. Currently, 44 countries have ratified the Convention representing 32,86%. Bahamas, China, Greece, Malta, Panama, Singapore or UK, each alone could bring the convention into force. Argentina, Indonesia and Italy have indicated they are in the process of ratification, so it could happen any time this year.

Eleven years now the Convention hasn’t entered into force, mainly due to the following industry concerns:

1. The Guidelines for approval of BWMS (G8) are not robust enough to provide reliable equipment
2. The implementation schedule of the Convention if it was to enter into force, would be unrealistic
3. The PSC procedures that would be developed, they would be more onerous than the type approval

In 2012, INTERTANKO initiated a paper for submission to IMO to address these problems with correspondence by other governments. The outcome was really a success as it was agreed during MEPC 65 (May 2013) the trial period for three years following entry into force. During that trial period, sampling and testing procedures will be used and also 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, they do have a relevant national law. The other positive thing was the development of Guidelines for PSC with four stage approach, adopted during MPEC 67 (October 2014)

IMO Guidelines for PSC

Stage 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 detailed analysis of ballast water can be taken

Last December, the IMO agreed on an implementation schedule of the BWMS by adopting IMO Assembly Resolution (A.1088(28)) which recommends three things:

1. implement the Convention based on the entry into force date of the Convention
2. considers ALL vessels constructed (keel laid) before entry into force as existing vessels
3. 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

The process of BWMS Type Approval was a little bit difficult. Firstly it was rejected by the MEPC 64 as they didn’t agree to amend G8 Guidelines. INTERTANKO and industry made a new submission to MEPC 66 (April 2014) which was rejected again. Afterwards, INTERTANKO and other shipping associations expressed their dissatisfaction with this decision, stated that they would be unable to encourage further ratification of BWM treaty and made a third submission to MEPC 67 (October 2014).

The third submission proposed the adoption of MEPC resolution including the following:

• Comprehensive review of G8 guidelines which should commence before the Convention enters into force
• Issues that the comprehensive review should address
• Identifying requirements of ‘revised G8 guidelines’ that should be made mandatory
• BWMS approved under current G8 guidelines that should be made mandatory
• BWMS approved under current G8 guidelines should be ‘grandfathered’ for the life of the ship
• Review of PSC provisions of the Convention

The outcome was quite a success; they did agree on a Resolution, they adopted MEPC Resolution 253(67) and they immediately began a comprehensive review of the G8 Guidelines, which is ongoing and will probably be completed until April 2016. They also agreed shipowners who have installed BWMS approved to existing G8 guidelines not to be penalized as well as PSC to refrain from criminal sanctions during the trial period. However, regarding the proposal to implement a decision so as not shipowners be penalized, they said this issue should be under discussion at the next meeting, MEPC 68 (May 2015).

Therefore, INTERTANKO and other industry associations have submitted to MEPC 68 a paper to clarify MEPC 253(67) as follows:

• BWMS approved to existing G8 shall not be required to be replaced when new G8 guidelines become applicable
• BWMS approved to existing G8 shall not be required to be replaced for the life of the ship, provided they are installed, operated and maintained correctly
• PSC should not detain ship, or fine or take criminal action against shipowner, if such BWMS does not comply with discharge standard

Norway has also submitted a paper to the forthcoming IMO meeting proposing the replacement of BWMS after 5 years.

For the USCG perspective, they tried to make the requirements of the Ballast Water Management as close to IMO as possible but there are few differences. First in the implementation schedule; US has made it clear that they don’t intent to align the schedule with Resolution A.1088. Therefore, when IMO Convention enters into force, there are going to be two implementation schedules. Another difference is that the US Coast Guard didn’t accept the Alternative Management Systems but only for a five-year period. Eventually, every ship that comes to US is going to have on board a Coast Guard approved system. They do allow the shipowners to request for an extension to compliance date for installation of a USCG approved BWMS.

In my opinion, the US Coast Guard has been very liberal in granting extension requests. Anybody that has a ship with drydocking scheduled for 2014, grants an extension for January 2016. Anybody that has a ship with drydocking scheduled for 2015, grants an extension for January 2017. Extension for ships with drydocking in 2016 is now being considered. Availability of USCG approved BWMS will be a factor in determining the length of time for future extensions. INTERTANKO has developed Model Extension Request (MER) letter for members wishing to request extension.

What we have learned from the USCG is that currently 17 BWMS manufacturers have submitted ‘’Letter of Intent’’ to pursue USCG approval. Although there are in total 54 AMS manufacturers, only 17 have submitted the letter; for proprietary reasons, USCG cannot tell who these manufacturers are. INTERTANKO has contacted all 54 BWMS manufacturers to determine which of them have submitted it. You may find the results at INTERTANKO website, after becoming a member. Only after the testing is done and the manufacturers have the results, they may submit an application to the USCG for approval of their BWMS.

So far, USCG has received three applications for approval which they all make use of UN treatment technologies. USCG said that UV treatment technologies need further validation of methodology for biological efficacy. USCG indicated that they expect to have an approved BWMS ‘sometime in 2015’. They also made it very clear that they will be realistic in requiring when a ship calling at US ports must have a USCG approved BWMS installed.

All this situation lead the shipowners to a dilemma! US which are not a party to the IMO BWM Treaty, allow the use of AMS for five years, after these five years, they require an approved BWMS but currently there is no BWMS approved by USCG. Now, ship operator must decide to either install AMS and hope it gets USCG approval or request an extension and hope there is a CG approved BWMS available for installation on their ship prior to the required installation date under the IMO Convention.

Being the Head of the US Delegation that negotiated with the BWM Treaty, I am the one to blame! So, when someone asks me what to do I will suggest what I would do if I owned a tanker. Therefore, I would:

• Conduct preparatory work to determine:
  • which type of BWMS is best for my ship
  • there is proper space to install the  BWMS I want on my ship
• Request extension from US Coast Guard
• Once I know when IMO BWM convention will enter into force, request the issuance of new MARPOL Annex 1 IOPP Certificate
• When available, purchase USCG approved BWMS that is best for my ship

[divider]

Above article is an edited version of Josheph J. Angelo presentation during the 2015 GREEN4SEA Forum

You may view his presenation video by clicking here

 [divider]

About Josheph J. Angelo

Deputy Managing Director, INTERTANKO

Joe Angelo is the Deputy Managing Director for the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO). He joined INTERTANKO in January 2005 when he became the Director of Regulatory Affairs and the Americas located in their Arlington, Virginia regional office.

Mr. Angelo is a 1971 graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York. He began his career with the U.S. Coast Guard in 1977 and was assigned to various positions of greater responsibility until 1992, when he became a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES). In 1995 he became the first Coast Guard Director of Standards for Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, a position he held until his retirement from the U.S. government in January 2005.

Since 1980, Mr. Angelo has been a key negotiator and the head of numerous delegations for the U.S. to major maritime safety and environmental protection committee meetings and conferences at the International Maritime Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations concerned with international maritime affairs.

Mr. Angelo has received two Presidential Distinguished Executive Service Rank Awards, one from President Clinton in 1999 and the other from President Bush in 2004. In addition, he was the recipient of the 2003 Chamber of Shipping of America’s RADM Halert C. Shepheard Award for Extraordinary Contributions to Merchant Marine Safety.

In the start, I was open with you propecia before and after has changed my life. It has become much more fun, and now I have to run. Just as it is fabulous to sit.