The entry into force of the Ballast Water Management Convention is barely 7 months away. A necessary move to minimise the transfer of species to non-native environments, there are still many scientific and technical barriers to overcome, leaving those with vested interests in the unknown.
Moreover, the recent type approval of three Ballast Water Treatment Systems by the United States Coast Guard raises some questions about the robustness and trust seen by ship owners in the IMO testing process. Is the IMO testing system more of a hindrance than a help to those seeking USCG approval, and where do system manufactures and ship owners stand in terms of extensions now that the USCG is making headway with its approvals?
The road to approval
A prevalent issue is the difficulty for system manufactures to attain type approval by the USCG for their systems following IMO approval. For most, IMO type approval comes relatively easily. But until late last year, not a single BWTS was type approved by the US. According to Tom Perlich, Founder & President of Ecochlor, as more and more ship owners started to operate IMO type approved systems, a growing concern was that then IMO test procedures were not explicit enough to indicate that approval would ensure proper system functionality and meet discharge standards.
Furthermore, the USCG’s decision not to accept the Most Probable Number method, which does not determine whether an organism is alive or dead as required by the US and only evaluates its ability to reproduce, created a struggle for technology companies that already have IMO approval. Gaining USCG approval is no easy task and it takes time, states Tom Kennedy, UK Sales Manager of Optimarin, one of the first three companies to have systems type approved by the US.
Optimarin waited a year and a half to learn the USCG had issued a type approval certificate following tests at independent laboratories that they are banned from participating in.
Ecochlor’s Perlich states that his company faced many challenges between starting the US type approval process in 2013 and making its submission in 2016. It is not just the expense, which can reach US $3.3 million for testing and services, and an additional US $700,000 for the BWTS, installation and labour, but the logistics and time scale which exacerbate challenges.
Marcie Mersksamer, Biologist & Vice President at EnviroManagement, Inc, agrees, stating that all those involved in the entire USCG approval process, including selection of the Independent Laboratory, test facilities, manufacturers, are continually gaining new experience and this makes the approval process quite fluid.
Mersksamer indicates that a test plan developed and accepted by the IL at the start may not end up encompassing what the USCG really wants 18 months later when the testing is complete, as new information has been gained in that time. This may result in the USCG issuing limitations on the equipment because it may not have been tested in a certain way.
Despite the challenges, Optimarin, Alfa Laval and OceanSaver have proven that US approval is attainable, following certification in late 2016. However, the timescale it takes to complete all US testing and the fact that there are only three systems on the market today raises further questions about how robust the IMO testing process is when technology companies can acquire this relatively quickly yet struggle to get US approval for the same system.
US approvals, extensions, and tougher competition?
Not only do fewer options lead to higher competition in terms of obtaining and fitting a system in a given timescale where demand outweighs provision, but obtaining a system “fit for purpose” may be far from straightforward.
According to Kathy Metcalf, President and CEO Chamber of Shipping of America, even with more type approvals, it will be several years before there will be sufficient numbers of systems to supply the global fleet that trades to the US.
Furthermore, obtaining a type approved system that is “fit for purpose” thereby avoiding an extension request is tricky.
“It will most certainly be more difficult to receive an extension,” she warns. “However, as long as the subject can successfully make the argument that none of the US type approved systems are “fit for purpose” for that particular vessel, or after discussions with the manufacturer, there is insufficient supply of a “fit for purpose” system before their implementation date, then extensions will still be permitted.”
But what happens in a case where there are no systems “fit for purpose?” According to Metcalf, there are at least 15 more systems in the queue for USCG testing, but when this will happen and if and when type approval is granted is still very uncertain and there is no straight answer as to what a ship owner will do if there is not a treatment system suitable for their ship.
Aligning IMO and port testing procedures
Moreover, the beginning of USCG approvals highlights the need even further to align the IMO and the port state control sampling methods in order to remove imbalance and generate more uniform testing and sampling analyses. “This is absolutely something that needs addressing and ballast water samples must be tested in alignment with the IMO PSC sampling and analysis requirements” states Metcalf.
While the US has finally approved systems and the unavailability of such systems may no longer be used as reasoning for extension requests, the industry is still left in some unease regarding the next steps. Without further type approvals, ship owners may risk being unable to find a system that is suitable, and even if the US continues to approve systems, there may still be the issue of commissioning and installing systems within a given time period. Although the US states that extensions will still be given in light of this reasoning, handing out extensions based on timeframe difficulties adds little to address the purpose of the Convention, which is ultimately to prevent the invasion of non-naïve species and ecological disruption to marine environments.
As for the IMO Guidelines and whether the IMO testing methods will become more intensive to align themselves with the US and PSC, a draft has been agreed by the Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response on determining the number of viable organisms, the result of which will be known following MEPC 71, held July 3-7 2017 where it will be presented for approval.
Fathom News
editor@fathom-mi.com
