Ballast Water Management - Update on IMO and the US Regulations

Shuji Maruyama, ABS SUMMARY This paper provides an overview of IMO and US regulations for BW management and also provides information on the development and approval of BWM systems. All 14 Guidelines supporting the implementation of the BWM Convention are completed. However, efforts are continuing at IMO to further develop detailed Guidance for uniform enforcement. In the US, no federal regulation currently exists for both performance standards and type approval procedure of BWM systems. However, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking package is expected to be released later in 2009 for public comment. It may create some practical difficulties as some US States have adopted or have indicated an intention to adopt more stringent biological standards than IMO D-2 under the US Clean Water Act. To date, six BWM systems have been type approved in accordance with the IMO procedure and more approved systems are expected to be available in the near future. The marine industry is encouraged to take early action in preparation for the implementation of the BWM Convention. NOMENCLATURE The following abbreviations are used in this paper. AS BLG BW BWE BWM BWMC BWMS cfu CSLC EIF EPA FSI GT NPDES Active Substances Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases Ballast Water Ballast Water Exchange Ballast Water Management Ballast Water Management Convention Ballast Water Management System Colony Forming Unit California State Lands Commission Entry Into Force United States Environmental Protection Agency Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation Gross Tonnage National Pollution Discharge Elimination System PSC Port State Control STEP Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program USCG United States Coast Guard UV Ultraviolet Irradiation VGP Vessel General Permit for Discharge Incidental to the Normal Operation of Commercial Vessels and Large Recreational Vessels Abbreviations commonly used in the industry such as IMO, MEPC, etc. are omitted in the above list. 1. INTRODUCTION More than five years have passed since the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (referred to as BWMC in this paper) was adopted by the IMO in Feb 2004. Ratification of the BWMC and its Entry into Force (EIF) date are yet to be determined. A review of the MEPC papers appears to indicate that many member States still harbour concerns with respect to the Convention. The reasons for this reluctance are largely two fold and may be summarized as: concern that there has not yet been clear detailed guidelines issued that would provide for the uniform implementation of the Convention requirements by all member States; and the availability, or more specifically the lack thereof, of the BWM technologies needed for builders and operators to meet the required performance standards. These two aspects will be addressed in this paper as well as an update on the ratification status and implementation schedule of the BWMC. This paper also addresses the applicable US Federal and State regulations and the problems that are associated with them. Principal among them is that there is currently no federal performance standard. In the absence of clear federal direction, and in accordance with the US Clean Water Act, individual States may impose local standards in a unilateral manner. Not only does that result in operators being confronted by different standards in different jurisdictions but these standards may also be more stringent than those contained in the BWMC. Currently, some States have adopted the same standard as the IMO D-2. However, one State has adopted standards that are 100-fold more stringent than the IMO D-2, and others have imposed requirements that are 1,000-fold more stringent than the international standard. The USCG has announced that its Proposed Rule package is scheduled to be released by mid August of this year. It is hoped that this will address the current void in the provision of clear federal standards. However, the different performance standards among the various individual States, and the possibility that these may also differ from the proposed federal standard, could continue to create difficulties for the builders and operators when

The international shipping industry is preparing for a rapidly increasing number of new or proposed regulations intended to minimize the industrys impact on the environment. One of the most prominent of these addresses the issue of ballast water management. The subject is of interest to designers, builders and operators of vessels as conformance with the Ballast Water Management Convention will require the incorporation of new treatment systems into the design of both new and existing vessels as well as imposing new operational requirements to be addressed by the vessels manager.

selecting the BWMS and installing the system on their vessels. It is possible that the US Congress legislates federal standards that provide for the pre-emption of State authority to stipulate more stringent discharge standards under the Clean Water Act. However, there is no certainty at this time that the Congress will adopt this approach. 2. 2.1 IMO REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE BWMC

By other equivalent alternative methods that are approved by MEPC At present there is no known recognized reception facility that has been provided anywhere in the world, and the discussion on developing the procedure for assessing equivalent, alternative methods has only recently begun at the IMO BLG. It is therefore considered that the first two methods are considered, at least for the time being, to be the only practical methods for dealing with BWM. The first method i.e. BW exchange (D-1) is generally considered an interim method because of its variable efficacy and operational restrictions. BW exchange may not be possible under adverse weather conditions and even when conducted under good weather conditions present operational challenges may threaten the safety of ships and their crews. The biological performance standard that ships will be required to meet is as shown in the IMO column of Table 2. It is considered that this performance standard can only be achieved by BWMS provided with treatment technology to remove, sterilize or disinfect harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens. 2.3 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE OF BWM

The BWMC will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 States, representing 35% of the worlds merchant shipping gross tonnage. All ships including Floating Storage Units (FSUs) and Floating Production Storage and Offloading Units (FPSOs) will be required to manage their BW in accordance with an approved Ballast Water Management Plan and record such management in a Ballast Water Record Book. All ships of 400 GT and above, excluding FSUs and FPSOs, are to be surveyed and certificated in the same manner as for the other IMO Conventions such as SOLAS and MARPOL. [1] As of 31 May 2009 (the latest date for which IMO has provided information), 18 States, controlling 15.4% of the world fleet in gross tons had ratified the BWMC. These include Spain, Norway, Mexico, Liberia, France and South Africa. A major contributor towards the total gross tonnage share is Liberia which controls almost 10 percent of the worlds fleet and which ratified the BWMC in September 2008. It is not possible to predict the likely EIF date of the BWMC at present. The keys to satisfy the conditions are: When the member States of the EU (especially OSPAR and HELCOM, consisting of 20 member States of the 1992 OSPAR Convention and Helsinki Commission which cooperate to protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic and the Baltic Sea) ratify the BWMC, the Convention will reach the number of States criterion for EIF; and When the larger flag States ratify the BWMC, the gross tonnage criterion for adoption will be reached. Those countries include Panama (21.7%), Bahamas (5.6%), Singapore (4.7%), Hong Kong (4.6%), Marshall Islands (4.6%), and Greece (4.6%). 2.2 BALLAST MANAGEMENT FOR SHIPS

Table 1 provides the intended implementation schedule in accordance with Reg. B-3 of the BWMC. It shows the phase-in schedule as to when ships have to be equipped with BWMS that meets the D-2 standard. This will apply to all ships of signatory flag States and also all ships in jurisdictional waters of signatory States as per the no more favourable treatment clause of Article 3 of the BWMC. 2.3 (a) Delay of D-2 Implementation IMO determined, by Assembly Resolution A.1005(25) adopted on 29 Nov 2007, that A ship subject to regulation B-3.3 constructed in 2009 will not be required to comply with reg. D-2 until its second annual survey, but no later than 31 December 2011 taking into account the availability of BWM technologies at that time. This Resolution also instructed the MEPC to decide whether sufficient technologies would be available for ships constructed in 2010. Having examined the conclusions of the BW Review Group, MEPC 58 (Oct 2008) determined that: BW treatment technologies are available and more technologies would be available in the near future. With regard to whether there are sufficient typeapproved technologies for ships subject to reg. B-3.3 constructed in 2010, the MEPC agreed that this issue would be better addressed at MEPC 59 (13-17 Jul 2009).

Reg. B-3 of the BWMC provides for four BWM methods for ships: To meet the BW exchange standard (D-1) To meet the BW performance standard (D-2) To discharge BW to a reception facility designed in accordance with the IMO Guidelines G5

Ballast capacity (m3) <1500

Table 1: IMO D-2 Standard Phase-In Schedule Construction First Intermediate or Renewal Survey, whichever occurs first, after the date anniversary date of delivery in the respective year
2009 < 2009 in 2009 >2009 < 2009 in 2009 >2009 < 2012 > 2012 Not applicable 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 D-2 D-1 or D-2 D-2 (at delivery or EIF, whichever is later) D-1 or D-2 D-2 (at delivery or EIF, whichever is later) D-1 or D-2 D-2 (at delivery or EIF, whichever is later) D-2 D-2 D-1; D-2 by 2nd Annual but not beyond 31 Dec 2011 or EIF, whichever is later (Note)

D-1; D-2 by 2nd Annual but not beyond 31 Dec 2011 or EIF, whichever is later (Note)

1500 or 5000 >5000

Note: Signatory States may not invoke delayed D-2 enforcement permitted by A.1005(25) 2.3 (b) Unified Interpretation on Implementation Schedule of Reg. B-3.1 and B-3.2 There is a vague phrase contained in the reg. B-3.2 of the BWMC that states in the year of compliance. BLG 13 (Mar 2009) agreed with the IACS view that the anniversary date of delivery of the ship in the year of compliance as specified in regulation B-3.2 refers to the years 2014/2016 specified in regulation B-3.1. An IMO Circular, if agreed by MEPC 59, will be issued to provide a unified interpretation to clarify this matter. To take an example, provided that the Renewal or Intermediate Survey of a vessel is done prior to the anniversary date of its delivery in 2016, there is a possibility that the vessels compliance with the D-2 standard may occur in 2018 or even in 2019 at the latest. 2.3 (c) Potential Problem in Deciding When to Install BWMS Compliance with the D-2 standard is not required unless the BWMC enters into force. However, it is likely that immediate compliance with the D-2 standard is required at the time of EIF if the compliance date of the vessel in accordance with reg. B-3 of the BWMC is prior to the EIF date. For example, assuming that there is a vessel with a BW capacity of 4,000 m3 whose construction date and delivery date is sometime in 2009 and 1 May 2010 respectively. If the flag State does not invoke delayed D-2 enforcement permitted by A.1005(25), and if the EIF date is 1 Aug 2010, which would be known around Aug 2009, it is not required that the vessel be fitted with the BWMS to meet the D-2 standard at delivery, however, a BWMS would be required by 1 Aug 2010. (For this case, the owner will most likely elect to install the BWMS by delivery.) If the flag State invokes the delayed D-2 enforcement permitted by A.1005(25), compliance with D-2 is required by 31 Dec 2011 since the vessels 2nd annual survey (due on 1 August 2012) is after 31 Dec 2011 and the EIF date (1 Aug 2010) is before 31 Dec 2011. Given the current ratification status of the BWMC, it is considered advantageous to take a conservative approach and install the BWMS in accordance with the implementation schedule described in reg. B-3 of the BWMC. However, ship owners and operators may take account of other factors and defer installation on a caseby-case basis. 2.4 GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE BWMC

2.4 (a) 14 Guidelines With the Guidelines G2 adopted at MEPC 58 (Oct 2008), all the basic 14 elements necessary to implement the BWMC were completed. The fact that all 14 Guidelines have been finalized is significant since this allows States that had been waiting on a full set of Guidelines being available prior to ratifying the Convention to minimize the risk of individual States taking unilateral action, to move ahead. These 14 Guidelines with MEPC Resolution numbers are: G1: Sediment Reception Facilities (MEPC.152(55)) G2: Ballast Water Sampling (MEPC.173(58)) G3: BWM Equivalent Compliance (MEPC.123(53)) G4: BWM and Development of BWM Plans (MEPC.127(53)) G5: BW Reception Facilities (MEPC.153(55)) G6: BW Exchange Operational ((MEPC.124(53)) G7: Risk Assessment under A-4 of the BWMC (MEPC.162(56)) G8: Approval of BWMS (MEPC.125(53) as amended to MEPC.174(58)) G9: Approval of BWMS using Active Substances (MEPC.126(53) as amended to MEPC.169(57)) G10: Approval & Oversight of Prototype BWT Technology Programs (MEPC.140(54)) G11: BW Exchange - Design & Construction Standard (MEPC.149(55))

 G12: Design & Construction to Facilitate Sediment Control (MEPC.150(55)) G13: Additional BWM Measures Incl. Emergency Situations (MEPC161(56)) G14: Designation of BW Exchange Areas (MEPC.151(55)) Among these 14 guidelines, G8 and G9 are essential guidelines relative to approval of BWMS. These two guidelines were revised at MEPC 58 and MEPC 57 respectively. Some of the important points of amendment are: 2.4 (b) Revision of Guidelines G8 The Guidelines G8 (MEPC.125(53)) were revised to require that an appraisal of environmental toxicity be carried out during the type approval process for BWMSs that do not make use of ASs. This revision states that where a change in the chemical composition of the treated ballast water is expected, a toxicological study as required by the G9 Guidelines is to be conducted to confirm that the treated water does not have an adverse environmental impact on the receiving waters. 2.4 (c) Revision of Guidelines G9 The revision of the G9 Guidelines includes: Application of G9 to include any system that makes use of, or generates, any ASs, Relevant Chemicals or free radicals during the treatment process Includes an explicit statement that the flag Administration should check the quality and completeness of the Basic/Final approval submission to the IMO Technical Group In regard to toxicity testing, information on Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) and Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) should be provided as part of an application for evaluation, for both BW treatment process and BW discharge A Human Exposure Scenario (HES) and an Emission Scenario Document (ESD) should be provided as part of the Risk Assessment Procedure for BWMS 2.4 (d) Adoption of Guidelines G2 Guidelines G2 are important guidelines in connection with Port State Control (PSC). Article 9 of the BWMC stipulates that a ship may be subject to inspection by PSC officers to determine whether the ship is in compliance with the BWMC. Although such an inspection is limited, it does allow for a sampling of the ships BW. The objective of the G2 Guidelines is to provide all parties, including PSC officers, with practical and technical guidance on BW sampling and analysis for that purpose.

It should be noted that the samples taken should be representative of the whole (as opposed to the instantaneous) discharge of BW from any single tank or any combination of tanks being discharged in order to be consistent with the G8 Guidelines, which recommend that type approval of treatment systems use the average of discharge samples. In addition, it is important to note that these G2 Guidelines address general sampling procedures and do not address legal requirements as the legislative procedures and requirements for enforcement action based on biological testing are significantly different from country to country. The enforcement issue is currently being discussed within the IMO FSI SubCommittee as stated in 2.5 (b) below. 2.5 ON-GOING IMO REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT

Although all 14 Guidelines to implement the BWMC were adopted, a significant amount of work remains to be done by MEPC to encourage the uniform enforcement of the BWMC. The BLG and FSI subcommittees have been tasked to work on these issues under the MEPC, with the matter being assigned a high priority. 2.5 (a) Regulatory Development Being Done by BLG Draft guidance was completed by BLG 13 (Mar 2009) to provide for the safe handling and storage of chemicals and preparations used to treat BW and the development of safety procedures for potential risks to the ships crew that could result from the treatment process. The draft guidance is scheduled to be approved at MEPC 59 (July 2009). In addition, the Correspondence Group (CG) of BLG will prepare a report to be submitted to BLG 14 (Feb 2010) on: Framework for determining when basic approval may be applied to another BWMS that uses the same AS Guidance for Administrations on conducting type approval of BWMS BLG will also develop additional guidance at BLG 14 on: Procedure for assessing other equivalent BWM methods as referred to in Reg. B-3.7 of the BWMC: To be adopted as an MEPC resolution. BW sampling and analysis protocol: To be approved as an IMO circular and is intended to provide further guidance on the uniform application of sampling and analysis in respect to the Guidelines for BW Sampling (G2). Target completion of both above-listed work items is scheduled for MEPC 61 (Oct 2010).

2.5 (b) Regulatory Development Being Done by FSI Enforcement issues related to PSC with respect to BW sampling are being handled by the FSI sub-committee. In spite of their best efforts, however, the Group was unable to proceed with its work due to lack of time. This resulted in the whole matter of developing Guidelines on PSC under the BWMC to again be referred to the PSC CG with the following terms of reference: Develop Guidelines on PSC under the BWMC using document FSI 16/8 (the Paris MoU) as a basis, taking into account the relevant provisions of the Guidelines for BW sampling (G2) Consider actions to be taken to ensure compliance with the BWMC in the event of the failure of a sample to meet the D-2 standard Consider the various possibilities of adopting these BWM Guidelines and advise the FSI SubCommittee accordingly As is clearly written in paragraph 1.5 of the G8 Guidelines, approval of a system is intended to screenout management systems that would fail to meet the standards prescribed in Reg. D-2 of the BWMC. Approval of a system, however, does not ensure that a given system will work on all vessels or in all situations. Therefore, it is likely that sample taken will fail to meet the D-2 standard under certain circumstances even if the type approved BWMS is used onboard the vessel. In addition to the above enforcement issue, it is a further technical challenge to develop an efficient, accurate, handy and reliable sampling and analysis device to solve this issue. 3. BWM in the US

provided the initial driving force for the passage of the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. This law commonly referred to by its acronym NANPCA, established the USCGs regulatory jurisdiction over the BWM. In 1996 another Federal law was passed, the NISA, the National Invasive Species Act of 1966, which amended the NANPCA. This Act finalizes regulations for the Great Lakes ecosystem and introduces voluntary BWM guidelines for all other waters of the US. NISA also directed the USCG to convert the voluntary BWM guidelines into a mandatory national program, if the guidelines were deemed inadequate. To comply with NISA, the USCG established both regulations and guidelines to prevent the introduction of aquatic nuisance species (ANS). Eventually, the voluntary program became mandatory under the rules found in 33 CFR 151. [2] 3.2 USCG MANDATORY BWM PROGRAMS IN THE US WATERS

The USCG mandatory BWM practices that are applicable to both US and foreign flag vessels operating in the US waters are: Avoid discharge or uptake of BW from marine sanctuaries and preserves, parks or coral reefs Minimize or avoid uptake or discharge from areas known to have infestations, near sewage outfalls, dredging operations, etc. Clean BW tanks regularly to remove sediment Discharge only the minimum amount of BW essential for vessel operations Rinse anchors and anchor chains Remove fouling organisms from hull, piping and tanks on a regular basis Maintain a vessel specific BWM plan Train personnel onboard on BWM practices In addition, if the vessel carries BW that was taken on board in areas less than 200 nautical miles from any shore and enters into the waters of the US after operating beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), at least one of the following BWM practices must be employed: Perform complete BW exchange in an area not less than 200 nautical miles from the coast prior to discharging BW in the US waters (Note); or Retain BW onboard; or Use an alternative, environmentally sound, BWM method that has been approved by the USCG Among these three options the first option is considered the most practical at present. However, the Master is not required to conduct the BWM practice if he decides that to do so would threaten the safety of the vessel, its crew, or its passengers.

There are currently three jurisdictions for BWM in the US: USCG regulations: 33 CFR 151 Subpart C and D EPA regulations: Vessel General Permit (VGP) under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Clean Water Act State legislation and regulations This overlapping situation will continue unless the US Congress addresses the BWM issue with new legislation. However, the issue has attracted a wide number of views within the Congress and the outcome is difficult to predict at this time. Each of these three regulatory regimes will be discussed in the following sections. 3.1 US ACTS AUTHORIZING USCG TO CONTROL BWM IN THE US

In the US it was the introduction of zebra mussels from Eastern Europe (Black Sea) into the Great Lakes that

Note: In regard to BW exchange in the US, it should take place 200 nautical miles offshore in general except for the West Coast States, such as California, Washington and Oregon and in the Great Lakes and Hudson River (North of George Washington Bridge) where 2,000 m water depth criteria for mid-ocean BW exchange is required. [3] 3.3 USCG MANDATORY BW REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING

The owner and operator of the vessel must observe selfinspections, monitoring, reporting and record-keeping required by the VGP. Corrective actions must be taken when problems are identified. In regard to BW discharge, the VGP maintains the USCG mandatory regulations as contained in 33 CFR 151 as described in 3.2 of this paper. BW exchange is the only practical measure for the BWM in the US at present. 3.5 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN EPA - VGP

In order to meet the BWM information requirements outlined in NISA, the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC) was established in 1997. The NBIC functions as a single location for the collection, synthesis, analysis, and interpretation of national data concerning BWM and BW-mediated invasions. Masters have to provide specified information on BWM of the vessel in electronic or written format at least 24 hours before the vessels arrival at a US port. Electronic formatting is strongly recommended by the USCG. The report is to be submitted to the NBIC unless the vessel is destined to the Great Lakes in which case the report is submitted to the Captain of the Port (COTP) of the Great Lakes. Masters have to keep the written records onboard for two years. 3.4 EPA VGP UNDER THE US CWA

The current VGP does not include the performance standards for BW discharge as will most likely be included in future federal regulation. However, the CWA allows each individual State to add specific provisions, including performance standards, to the VGP through Section 401 of the CWA certification process. In fact, Part 6 of the VGP contains the performance standards for BW treatment technologies determined by individual States such as California, New York, Pennsylvania and the Great Lakes States such as Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota and Ohio. Table 2 indicates the summary of the performance standards of some typical US States with their implementation schedule. As can be seen in the table, different opinions exist among the US States in regard to the performance standards of BWM. For example, California and New York (NY) States adopt the 1,000fold more strict criteria than the IMO D-2 standards for new vessels, while the Great Lakes States introduce the same standards as IMO D-2. It is interesting to note that Ohio State EPA commented that the IMO D-2 treatment standards are practical and possible methods for ocean-going vessels and that more stringent standards proposed by certain other States (such as California and NY) have not been demonstrated to be practical and possible, and can not be applied at this time. [5] As is mentioned earlier, both California and NY adopted the 1,000-fold more stringent criteria than the IMO D-2 standards and will apply them to new ships starting in 2010 and 2013 respectively. More importantly, it should be noted that NY will also require, by not later than 1 Jan 2012, all (new and existing) vessels to comply with the 100-fold more stringent criteria. This could be a potential problem for vessels intended to serve ports in these States, depending on the availability of technologies which can treat ballast water to meet the required standards. It should be also noted that the standards for discharge of Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) also vary among various States while the federal NPDES permit stipulates 100 micrograms per liter (g/liter) discharges from experimental BW treatment systems.

On 18 Dec 2008, the US EPA issued the final Vessel General Permit (VGP) to regulate incidental discharges from ships during normal operation under the Clean Water Act 1972 (CWA) for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program with its final effective date of 6 Feb 2009. This new regulation stems from the 2003 lawsuit filed by Northwest Environmental Advocates et al. against the EPA in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, challenging a regulation originally promulgated under the CWA. In March 2005, the District Court ruled that the EPA regulation excluding discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from NPDES permitting exceeded the Agencys authority under the CWA. EPA appealed the District Courts decision, however, in July 2008, the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision. [4] The VGP requirements apply to 26 different discharges, which include bilge water, ballast water, grey water, anti-fouling hull coating and other pollutants, incidental to normal operation of all commercial vessels 79 feet or greater in length when operating within the three nautical mile territorial sea of the US commencing on 6 February 2009. The CWA prohibits discharge of a pollutant without an NPDES permit. The owner or operator of a vessel 300 GT or more is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for each vessel to be covered by the permit.

Table 2: Comparison of BW Treatment Performance Standards among IMO and some typical US States IMO California New York Great Lakes Implementation year (Note 1) 2010 2010 2020 2012 2013 2012 2016 Applicability (Note 2) New New All All New New All Organisms per cubic < 10 0 0 < 0.1 0 < 10 < 10 > 50 m meter Organisms per milliliter < 10 < 0.01 0 < 0.1 < 0.01 < 10 < 10 10 50 m (ml) Escherichia coli cfu per 100 ml < 250 < 126 0 < 126 < 126 < 250 < 250 Intestinal cfu per 100 ml < 100 < 33 0 < 33 < 33 < 100 < 100 enterococci Toxicogenic cfu per 100 ml Vibrio cholerae or (O1 and O139) cfu per gram <1 <1 0 <1 <1 N/A N/A (wet weight) zooplankton samples Notes 3 4, 7 5 4 6 Note 1: Note 2: Note 3: Note 4: Note 5: Note 6: Note 7: Implementation year means the earliest year to apply the standards indicated in each column. Applicability: New means new vessels and All means both new and existing vessels. Implementation for the vessels constructed in 2010 will be discussed at MEPC 59 (July 2009). Additional standard of less than 1,000 bacteria per 100 ml and less than 10,000 viruses per 100 ml. This is the same standard as that of several US Federal Bills introduced at the 110th Congress. Great Lakes States adopting these standards include Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota and Ohio. Implementation year 2010 is for new vessels with less than 5,000 m3 BW capacity. For new vessels with more than 5,000m3 BW capacity, implementation starts in 2012. For vessels built prior to 1 Jan 2010, implementation date is 1 Jan 2014 or 1 Jan 2016 depending on its BW capacity. Among these Bills, only the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007 passed the House and was forwarded to the Senate on 28 April 2008. However, all the above bills were dropped as the 110th Congress (for years 2007 2008) and the Bush Administrations could not complete their deliberations prior to the elections. To date the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress (for years 2009 - 2010) has not yet focused their attention on the BWM issue because of other more pressing issues. It should be noted that so-called 100-fold more strict performance standards than the IMO D-2 were proposed in several Bills submitted to the last session of the US Congress. 3.7 (b) USCG Activities under NANPCA/NISA Recently, on 15 May 2009, under the auspices of NANPCA/NISA, the Secretary of Homeland Security approved the Ballast Water Discharge Standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) package for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Since there have been no federal performance standards nor approval procedure for BWMS in the US, this is a long awaited event. OMB has 90 days to review the NPRM, reconcile interagency questions and concerns, and either release the package for publication in the Federal Register or disapprove its publication. The contents of the NPRM are not available to the public until OMB approves the document for publication in the Federal Register. [2]

3.6

INDIVIDUAL US STATES LEGISLATION / REGULATIONS

In addition to the more stringent performance standards for BWMSs, there are other additional requirements of individual States. For example, US West Coast States require that BW exchange should be done in mid-ocean where water depth exceeds 2,000 m in addition to the 200 nautical miles offshore criteria stipulated by the USCG. Also, these States require a separate BW reporting when entering their ports in addition to the reporting to the NBIC required by the USCG. Ballast water exchange is also required for vessels operating between the US West Coast States. 3.7 ON-GOING REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT IN THE US

3.7 (a) US Congress Activities There were several Bills introduced in the 110th US Congress (the House and the Senate) in 2007 such as: The Ballast Water Management Act of 2007 (H.R. 2423, S.1578) Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2830), Title V: BW Treatment

4. 4.1.

APPROVAL OF BWM SYSTEMS APPROVAL OF BWMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH IMO PROCEDURE

necessary for AS approval and the assessment procedure are described in the G9 Guidelines. The BWMS installed onboard the vessels has to be type approved in accordance with the procedure stipulated in G8 Guidelines. As of the end of April 2009, six BWMSs have been type approved as indicated in Table 4. Two of them do not use an AS and obtained type approval without Basic and Final approvals in accordance with the G9 Guidelines. It is expected that the number of systems with type approval certificates will significantly increase over the next one to two years. In regard to G9 approval for an AS, four BWMSs obtained both Final and Basic Approvals and nine BWMSs obtained only Basic approval up until MEPC 58 in October 2008. All four BWMSs that obtained both Final and Basic approvals have obtained Type Approval as well. Applications for G9 approval submitted to MEPC 59 (July 2009) include eight BWMSs for Final approval and four BWMSs for Basic approval. Since GESAMP-BWWG can review only a limited number (three to four) of BWMSs per meeting, they plan to have two additional meetings within 2009 in addition to the regular meeting in October 2009. This indicates they are fully aware that extra effort is required to expedite the review of the BWMSs so that availability of the approved BWMSs will be increased in the market.

Table 3 illustrates the approval procedure for the BWMS. The procedure is outlined in the G8 Guidelines. The robust and lengthy process will require approximately one to two years to obtain type approval. Land-based testing requires at least two sets of test cycles, with different salinity ranges and associated dissolved and particulate contents. Each set of test cycles consists of at least five replicate test cycles, each with a minimum period of five days. Ship-board testing requires at least a six month period. If the BWMS does not use any Active Substance (AS), steps 2 and 4 indicated in Table 3 may be eliminated. AS is defined by the IMO as a substance or organism, including a virus or a fungus, that has a general or specific action on or against harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens. The approval of an AS is intended to ensure that the use of the AS does not have any adverse effect on the environment. These steps are carried out by the GESAMP-BWWG, a working group operating under the IMO. GESAMP stands for Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection and BWWG, Ballast Water Working Group. The basic approval of an AS is a prerequisite for the shipboard testing. The data

Table 3: IMO BWMS Approval Process (Guidelines G8) Step 1 2 3 Approval Documentation Basic approval System review & approval: Landfor active process approval substances (G9) based testing & Shipboard testing Approved by Flag state GESAMPFlag state BWWG 4.2 APPROVAL OF BWMS IN THE US

4 Final approval for the complete BWMS (G9) GESAMPBWWG that the

5 Type approval certificate

Flag state

vessel provided satisfactorily.

system

is

operating

4.2 (a) STEP program At present neither federal regulation to implement performance standards nor provisions for type approval of the BWMS exists in the US. However, there is a USCG program called Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) to support the development of treatment technologies. STEP is similar to Reg. D-4 of the BWMC and is available to all ships of both US and foreign flag. It is designed to facilitate the development of effective BWMS technologies in order to create more options for vessel owners seeking an alternative to BW exchange. It grants equivalency to future BW discharge standards for up to the life of the The STEP is a vessel specific program and is not intended as a substitute for the type approval of BWMS. The acceptance criteria (e.g. 98% removal of organisms > 50 m for entry into STEP) are different from either the IMO D-2 standards or the criteria contained in the Bills proposed in the last session of the US Congress. As of the end of May 2009, three vessels had been enrolled and one vessel was being reviewed (preliminary to becoming enrolled) for STEP. There are three BWMSs that are installed on the vessels enrolled (or nearly enrolled) in STEP. They are listed in Table 4. Two vessels are using the same BWMS. [6]

Table 4: List of BWMSs with IMO Basic, Final and Type Approvals and STEP Approval Manufacturer
Alfa Laval Ecochlor Greenship Ltd Hamann Evonik Degussa Hitachi Hyde Marine JFE Engineering Corp. Mitsui Engineering NEI NKO3 OceanSaver OptiMarin Panasia Co. Ltd Resource Ballast Technologies RWO Marine Water Technology Severn Trent DeNora Techcross Inc. Toagosei Group

Country
Sweden USA Netherlands Germany Japan USA Japan Japan USA Korea/USA Norway Norway Korea South Africa Germany USA Korea Japan

System Name
PureBallast Ecochlor BW Treatment System Sedinox SEDNA System ClearBallast Hyde Guardian JFE BWMS Special Pipe Venturi Oxygen Stripping (VOS) BlueBallast OceanSaver BWMS OptiMarin Ballast System GloEn-Patrol RBT Reactor CleanBallast BalPure Electro-Cleen TG BallastCleaner TG Environmentalguard

Technology Description
filtration + advanced oxidation technology (hydroxyl radicals) filtration + biocide (chlorine dioxide) hydrocyclone + electrolytic chlorination hydrocyclone + filtration + biocide (Peraclean Ocean) coagulation + magnetic separation + filtration filtration + UV filtration + biocide (sodium chlorine) + cavitation (Note 3) mechanical treatment + ozone deoxygenation + cavitation ozone filtration + cavitation + nitrogen supersaturation + electrodialysis filtration + UV filtration + UV cavitation + ozone + sodium hypochlorite + filtration filtration + advanced electrolysis electrolytic generation of sodium hypochlorite + neutralizing agent (sodium bisulfite) electrochemical oxidation + neutralizing agent (sodium thiosulfate) filtration + biocides (sodium hypochlorite) and neutralizing agent (sodium sulfite)

Approvals
IMO Basic and Final TA (Norway) IMO Basic STEP IMO Basic IMO Basic and Final TA (Germany) IMO Basic STEP TA (U.K.) IMO Basic IMO Basic TA (Liberia and Marshall Islands) IMO Basic IMO Basic and Final TA (Norway) (Note 4) (Note 4) IMO Basic IMO Basic IMO Basic STEP IMO Basic and Final TA (Korea) IMO Basic

Note 1: This table was developed based on the CSLCs report 2009 Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters issued in January 2009 with updated information collected by the author. [7] Note 2: Shaded rows indicate the BWM systems that are type approved (TA) in accordance with IMO G8 Guidelines. Note 3: TG BallastCleaner and TG Environmentalguard at the bottom row is used as Active Substances for the JFE BWMS. Note 4: The CSLC 2009 report says that at least two BW treatment systems, OceanSaver and OptiMarine have potential capability to satisfy the California performance standards. [7] 4.2 (b) California Standards California is often considered the most environmentally sensitive state in the US. In fact, California State Lands Commissions Ballast Water Performance Standards, which are contained as Attachment 3 of the EPAs VGP, indicate that their standards are 1,000 times more stringent than IMO D-2 in terms of concentration criterion for organisms 10 50 m in minimum dimension. Please refer to the 5th row in Table 2.

CSLS staff reviewed currently available 30 shipboard BWMSs developed in 10 countries. And their assessment results were included in their report issued in January 2009. The report says that remarkable improvement was observed from the previous assessment done in 2007, and that at least two BW treatment systems have potential capability to satisfy the California performance standards based on the best available assessment method. CSLC admits that the assessment of bacteria and viruses to Californias standards in treated BW has been problematic due to a lack of techniques to both enumerate and evaluate the viability of all bacteria and viruses in BW. [7] 5. CONCLUSIONS

and also for an owner deciding when to install the BWM system. As of the end of April 2009, six BWM systems have been type approved in accordance with the procedure of IMO G8 Guidelines. More systems are expected to be approved in the near future. Technical availability of the IMO approved BWM systems may be sufficient for the short term. Again, 1,000-fold or 100-fold more strict standards than the IMO D-2 adopted by some US States would be another hurdle for the marine industry to clear. In light of the above, it appears that this year and next year (2009 and 2010) will be very important years in the journey towards implementation of the BWM Convention. It is thought advantageous for owners, operators and builders to begin preparing for the entry into force of these new requirements as early as possible. 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Updates of BWM regulatory developments of the IMO and the US, both federal and States levels, have been outlined. An approval status of BWM systems has been provided. It can be concluded that: The BWM Convention took a significant step towards entry into force (EIF) with the ratification by Liberia in September 2008, though the EIF date remains uncertain. Its EIF requires ratification by the flag States that hold the major share of the worlds GT as well as other environmentally conscious countries such as OSPAR-HELCOM member States. With the 14 Guidelines finalized at MEPC 58 (Oct 2008), the basic framework necessary to implement the BWMC can be considered complete. Efforts continue at the IMO to develop further detailed guidelines for the unified implementation of the BWMC. Among these efforts are the development of a protocol for sampling and analysis in order to verify compliance with the IMO D-2 performance standards and an enforcement issue relative to PSC under the BWMC. Both are important issues that require further discussion. Target completion of these efforts is scheduled within next year (2010). In the US, neither federal regulation for biological performance standards nor procedures for type approval of BWM systems has existed until now. However, the USCG recently announced that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) package would be released by mid August this year for public hearing, if approved by the Executive Branch. The outcome of this NPRM should be carefully watched. The US Clean Water Act allows individual US States to impose more stringent regulations than the federal regulations. For instance, California adopts 1,000-fold more stringent standards than the IMO D-2 for new vessels on a sliding schedule starting in 2010. This will create a potential problem in the industry for BWM system development, selection

The author wishes to acknowledge the generous support of the Corporate staff of ABS for the development of this paper. The opinions and/or views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ABS. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. REFERENCES International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 adopted on 16 Feb 2004 USCG Ballast Water Management website: http:/ www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/ cg522/cg5224/bwm.asp USCG, Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 07-04, Change 1, 29 Oct 2004 EPA- NPDES VGP website: http:/cfpub.epa.gov/ npdes/home.cfm?program_id=350 EPA-NPDES: Vessel General Permit for discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of the Vessel (VGP), 5 Feb 2009 USCG TEP website: http:/www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/ cg522/cg5224/step.asp Dobroski, N. et al, 2009 Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters, Marine Facilities Division, CSLC, Jan. 2009 AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHY

8.

Shuji Maruyama is a Principal Engineer, Technology and Business Development, at ABS. He is stationed in Yokohama, Japan. He received a Bachelors degree in Naval Architecture from Osaka University in Japan and is a member of the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers.