As for shipping in US waters, ballast water systems are high on the agenda and subject to intense discussions. The US Coast Guard has strict requirements. Uncertainty remains to shipping companies to some extend.
Ecology is known to be increasingly important in the maritime industry. This applies to the United States in particular. Local[ds_preview] regulations and authorities are considered to be relatively strict. In addition to the strict provisions, e. g. in Californian ports or new limits in Emission Control Areas (ECA), the issue of ballast water is high on the agenda. In the US, ships must be in comliance with US Coast Guard (USCG) Ballast Water Regulations, Vessel General Permit (VGP) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and individual state requirements, Debra DiCianna of classification society American Bureau of Shipping (ABS ) recently said at a conference in Hamburg. Sixteen states have ballast water requirements, California is the most stringent.
In the supply industry a whole series of corresponding treatment systems has already been developed (see also the comprehensive list in this HANSA issue). These specifications apply to US waters within the 12-mile zone. Excluded are non-seagoing vessels, sea-going vessels that do not operate outside the exclusive economic zone and are less than 1,600 GT and vessels that operate exclusively in 1 COTP zone.
New vessels with keel laying after December 2013 need to comply on delivery. For existing vessels, the implementation timetable is the first scheduled drydocking after the beginning of 2016 for ballast water capacities of less than 1,500m3 or over 5,000m3 and the first scheduled drydocking after the beginning of 2014 for capacities between these limits.
There are different compliance options. A more theoretical option is to discharge absolutely no ballast water in the 12-mile zone. The second way – which has been subject to most discussions for some time – is a type approval of the USCG for a Ballast Water Treatment System (BWTS) for treatment on board. Disposal of ballast water at a land based facility constitutes another option. So does disposal at another vessel for treatment or the use of water from the public US water supply.
Two alternatives
In addition to these options, there are two temporary compliance alternatives: The installation of an alternative management system (AMS) for which an approval of up to five years of is feasible or an extension to implementation date. For some 400 vessels with a scheduled drydocking in 2014 or 2015 such an extension has already been granted. According to the Coast Guard there is no final type approval yet – however there are some AMS. Lastly, about 50 of these systems were available on the market that have been accepted by the US authorities as such. The USCG puts great emphasis on the fact that this was not a general approval, but there were two separate programs. »AMS is not on approval, only on acceptance as an alternative,« Commander Ryan Allain said.
Operators should not put too much trust in AMS as there was a lot of false information in the market. Facts and fictions would thus be mixed: »It is not a first step to gaining USCG type approval and it does not guarantee such an approval.« According to Allain, it even would not directly assist in obtaining the approval and it is not required for it. It is simply an acceptance as an alternative. For comparison: According to ABS, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) already issued eight Final Approvals and 14 Basic Approvals.
According to some parties involved, the US authorities are not sufficiently prepared for the demanding test procedure. The list of ballast water treatment systems developed so far is already quite long. For the test procedure, only a very limited number of laboratories are available. In addition to an examination directly at authorities’ facilities there are only two such independent laboratories that are accepted by the USCG: NSF International in Ann Arbor, USA, and the one of Det Norske Veritas in Hovik, Norway.
The Coast Guard is pursuing a fairly strict line in the ballast water treatment. The tests must be according to established guidelines mandatory for independent researchers without cooperation with the manufacturers. »These are not only recommendations«, Allain says. Important criteria are the biological efficacy and engineering performance. In addition, no adjustments to the system may be made during the testing process, if in the development work of the producers new details have been revealed. The type approval regulations have little tolerance for interpretation or compromises.
»Out-of-pocket money«
In contrast to industry officials Allain considers the number of laboratories sufficient but demands early planning correspondingly. Wolfgang Hintzsche from the German Shipowners’ Association VDR invites shipowners to act: »You should apply for extension, until USCG approved type BMWS are available.« The future development was difficult to predict and »the owner is the only party that is made responsible for proper choice of BMTS«. However, he does not recommend AMS, as they are accepted only temporary. In his opinion, extension is the right strategy. »Any investment in BWTS is out-of-pocket money«, Hintzsche adds. The VDR-representative estimates the installation costs per vessel to 0.3 to 2mill.$. But he does not expect a US type approval until the beginning of the 2016.
AMS will be accepted for a maximum of five years. As a prerequisite the treatment system has to be approved by a foreign administration in accordance with the BMW Convention. And it is deemed to be »at least as effective« as ballast water exchange.
It is regarded as bridging strategy so that even entire systems can be installed before the test processes by the USCG will lead to a type approval. »We do not want to punish any shipowners who are converting now.« This is why from temporary approval in principle also permanent type approval may derive, if the system is accepted by USCG correspondingly within the five-year period. If not, however, the shipowner has a problem. Then he must convert his ship again and install either a type-approved system or one which is at least considered as AMS – with the same risk that this system again is not necessarily recognized after five years.
EPA emphasize owners not to worry
In the US various authorities are engaged in the protection of the maritime environment. They emphasize shipowners should not have to worry about possible manifold requirements. The EPA has for example issued a so called Enforcement Response Policy (ERP). »The ERP states that vessels that do not meet the numeric ballast water limits in the VGP and have received at extension from the USCG and are otherwise in compliance with all other VGP requirements are considered a low enforcemebt priority,« says Marcus Zobrist of Water Permits Division at EPA.
The Coast Guard of the United States is aware of much speculation in the market concerning the policies and dealing with BWTS. There have been rumors that implementation dates will be adjusted or type approval may be withheld to await further
developments. Allain denies not only these messages: »Coast Guard is therefore not removing any system from AMS Acceptance List and has no preference for any type of treatment system technology.«
