UPDATE ON BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN PANEL April 29 30, 2015 UPDATE ON BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT JOSEPH ANGELO DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR

2 Ballast Water Management Why is Ballast Water Management a major issue for the shipping industry? 1. INTERNATIONALLY IMO Ballast Water Management Convention was adopted in 2004 as a prospective treaty, i.e. It mandated standards that were not achievable when the treaty was adopted with ambitious implementation dates. 2. NATIONALLY IN THE US US Congress passed two separate laws giving two separate federal government agencies, the US Coast Guard and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), authority to regulate ballast water management and their requirements vary from each other and IMO

3 Desired Outcome for Ballast Water Management: Tanker industry is able to achieve compliance with current and future discharge standards (both regionally and internationally) Focus: Ballast Water Management INTERTANKO s Five Strategic Plan 1. Installation and Operation of appropriate and adequate ballast water management systems 2. Compliance and enforcement need strong, well defined and realistic international regulations

4 Ballast Water Management IMO IMO Ballast Water Management Convention Adopted in 2004 Entry into force requires ratification by 30 countries, 35% world s grt Currently, 44 countries, 32.86% grt Bahamas, China, Greece, Malta, Panama, Singapore or UK, each alone could bring the convention into force Argentina, Indonesia and Italy in the process all three would bring convention into force

5 Ballast Water Management IMO Main INTERTANKO Concerns with IMO Ballast Water Management Convention 1. Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8) not robust enough 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

6 Ballast Water Management IMO INTERTANKO (etal) made submission to MEPC 64 (October 2012) to address these issues 1. Port State Control should not be more rigorous than BWMS Type Approval testing procedures 2. IMO Assembly resolution should be developed with a realistic schedule for the installation of BWMS when treaty enters into force 3. G8 guidelines should be revised to require more rigorous Type Approval testing

7 Ballast Water Management IMO 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

8 Ballast Water Management IMO 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

9 Ballast Water Management IMO 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

10 Ballast Water Management IMO BWMS Type Approvals Some progress at MEPC 64 with greater quantity and quality of information with increasing transparency, but does not agree to amend G8 guidelines HOWEVER, INTERTANKO Council decides, still not adequate in providing tanker operators with reliable, dependable BWMS to install on board their tankers INTERTANKO submission to MEPC 66 with industry partner associations: Amend G8 (salinity, temperature, organisms, sediment, flow rates, etc) make it more robost! Grandfathering to protect owners who have taken action Send a signal to Governments on ratification

11 Ballast Water Management IMO BWMS Type Approvals Outcome of MEPC 66, April 2014 Does NOT agree to amend G8 guidelines Requests IMO Secretariat to explore the possibility of conducting a study on the implementation of the ballast water performance standard (D 2 requirements) Agrees to include industry proposals to improve G8 guidelines in the remit of the study INTERTANKO and other shipping associations express dissatisfaction with this decision, would be unable to encourage further ratification of BWM treaty and makes further submission to MEPC 67 in October 2014

12 Ballast Water Management IMO BWMS Type Approvals Industry submission (MEPC 67/2/6) proposes adoption of MEPC resolution which includes: 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 should be Grandfathered for the life of the ship Review of port state control provisions of Convention

13 Ballast Water Management IMO BWMS Type Approvals Outcome of MEPC 67, October 2014 Success!!(?) Adopts an MEPC Resolution which agrees 1. To immediately begin a comprehensive review of G8 guidelines (and Plan of Action to do so) 2. Shipowners that have installed BWMS approved to existing G8 guidelines should not be penalized 3. Port States should refrain from applying criminal sanctions or detaining the ship, based on sampling during the trial period (US reserves its position) Agrees that proposals to implement decision to not penalize shipowners should be submitted to MEPC 68 (May 2015)

14 Ballast Water Management IMO ICS press release (Dec 2014) ICS will no longer actively discourage those governments that have not yet done so from ratifying the (IMO BWM) Convention, in order that it might enter into force sooner rather than later ICS members such as UGS and SSA no longer object to their ratification of IMO BWM treaty by their government INTERTANKO, Intercargo, IPTA, CLIA and WSC want to see the outcome of MEPC 68 on grandfather provision and revision of G8

15 Ballast Water Management IMO INTERTANKO and other industry associations have submitted MEPC 68/2/16 to clarify MEPC 253(67) 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 (MEPC 68/2/17) proposes replacement of BWMS after 5 years

16 Ballast Water Management USCG Final Regulations issued March 23, 2012 BWM plan and recordkeeping (same as IMO) 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

17 Ballast Water Management USCG INTERTANKO Assisting Members with USCG regulations Implementation Schedule Decision Tree

18 USCG Ballast Water Decision Tree

19 Ballast Water Management USCG US Coast Guard INTERTANKO assisting Members Implementation Schedule Decision Tree Model Extension Request (MER) Letter

20 Ballast Water Management USCG US Coast Guard Assisting INTERTANKO Members Implementation Schedule Decision Tree Model Extension Request (MER) Letter Clarification of USCG Rules extension requests (allow new tankers to have an extension until the ship s first drydocking after the first USCG BWMS has been approved) flexibility in submitting applications inside the 12 months submission period

21 Ballast Water Management USCG US Coast Guard Extension requests January 1, 2016 extension date given to ships whose drydocking was scheduled for 2014 January 1, 2017 extension date given to ships whose drydocking was scheduled for 2015 Extensions for ships with drydockings in 2016 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

22 Ballast Water Management USCG US Coast Guard APPROVED BWM Systems CG has advised that 17 BWMS manufacturers have submitted Letter of Intent to pursue USCG approval (54 AMS accepted by USCG) For proprietary reasons, USCG cannot tell who those BWMS manufacturers are INTERTANKO has contacted BWMS manufacturers to determine which of them have submitted Letter of Intent (results on INTERTANKO web site) Only after the testing is completed and the results have been evaluated, will a BWMS manufacturer then submit an application to the USCG for approval of their BWMS

23 Ballast Water Management USCG 1. NK Coldharbour Marine 3. Erma First BWTS 4. RWO Cleanballast 5. Hyde Guardian (UV) 6. Techcross Electrocleen 7. Samsung Purimar 8. Trojan Marinex (UV) 9. Evoqua SeaCure BWTS 10. NEI Venturi Oxygen Stripping 11. Optimarine OBS EX (UV) 12. Oceansaver Mk II 13. Wartsila Aquarius EC 14. Severn Trent Balpure 15. DESMI Oceanguard (UV)

24 Ballast Water Management USCG US Coast Guard APPROVED BWM Systems USCG has received three applications for BWMS type approval (all three make use of UV treatment) UV BWMS need further USCG validation of methodology for biological efficacy CG indicates that they expect to have a USCG approved BWMS sometime in 2015 CG indicates they will be realistic in requiring when a ship calling at US ports must have a CG approved BWM system installed

25 Ballast Water Management Shipowner dilemma!! US is not party to IMO BWM treaty. USCG regs: Allow use of Alternate Management System (AMS) for five years After five years, require installation of USCG approved BWMS Currently no BWMS is USCG approved 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.

26 Ballast Water Management If I owned a tanker, I would Conduct preparatory work to determine: a. which type of BWMS is best for my ship b. 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

27 Ballast Water Management USEPA 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) 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

28 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

29 Ballast Water Management USEPA EPA Guide for Sampling and Monitoring All vessel operators covered under the VGP are required to submit an annual report by 28 February 2015 (for activities conducted through 31 December 2014) Vessels delivered after 1 December 2013 are also required to perform analytical monitoring of ballast water, bilgewater, graywater, and exhaust gas scrubber wastewater and submit results to EPA EPA has issued a guide on Vessel Discharge Sample Collection & Analytical Monitoring which can be found on the INTERTANKO web site

30 THANK YOU!