Leading the way; making a difference Ballast Water Planning Workshop Lagonissi, Greece – 22 May 2015 Image courtesy of Samco Shipholding Pte Ltd Tim Wilkins INTERTANKO Senior Manager - Environment

Leading the way; making a difference Session 1 – Regulatory Planning 1000hrsOpening Remarks Mr. Antonios Georgantzis, Consolidated Marine Management 1010hrsUpdate from the IMO Mr. Tim Wilkins, INTERTANKO 1025hrsUpdate from the US Mr. Joseph Angelo, INTERTANKO 1040hrsQ&A RDML Paul Thomas, USCG 1100hrsCoffee break

Leading the way; making a difference Session 2 – Technical Planning 1130hrsOpening remarks Mr. Antonios Georgantzis, Consolidated Marine Management 1135hrsBWMS Manufacturer’s Experience to Date Mr. John Bradley, NEI Treatment Systems 1150hrsShip Yard Planning for BWMS Retrofits on Tankers Mr. Sauvir Sarkar, ASRY 1205hrsShip Yard Experience in BWMS Retrofit on Tankers Mr. Chandru Rajwani, N-KOM 1220hrsQ&A

Leading the way; making a difference Ballast Water Management IMO Update Lagonissi, Greece - May 2015 Tim Wilkins INTERTANKO Senior Manager - Environment

Leading the way; making a difference 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 and Italy in the process – 34.2% Ballast Water Management 1.1 IMO: Where we are today

Leading the way; making a difference Ballast Water Management 1.1 IMO: Where we are today Ballast Water Management Convention MEPC 64 INTERTANKO et al. submission: THREE key challenges: 1. 1.Logical implementation schedule for the Convention 2. 2.Balanced procedures for port State control 3. 3.Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8)

Leading the way; making a difference Ballast Water Management 1.Logical Implementation schedule Assembly Resolution A.1088 (28) adopted, Dec 2013 recommends governments: 1. 1.implement the Convention based on the entry into force date of the Convention 2. 2.considers ALL vessels constructed before entry into force as existing vessels 3. 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 1.1 IMO: Where we are today

Leading the way; making a difference Ballast Water Management 2.Balanced Port State Control Procedures Trial Period (initially for 3 years) following entry into force 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 reserved position) Sampling only after clear grounds and any indicative sample should not form the basis for a decision on compliance – 4 Stage approach: 1. 1.Initial inspection 2. 2.More detailed inspection 3. 3.Indicative sampling 4. 4.Detailed sampling 1.1 IMO: Where we are today

Leading the way; making a difference Ballast Water Management 3. Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8) Better quantity and quality of information with increased transparency – (Resolution MEPC.228(65), BWM.2/Circ.43, BWM.2/Circ.33 and BWM.2/Circ.28) MEPC Resolution (adopted MEPC 67): Commence a review and revision of the type approval guidelines (G8) taking into account all the industry concerns Also take into account the US approval procedures and standards Protection for early-movers : those owners who’ve installed BWMS approved to current G8 Reminder of the PSC trial period Details of ‘Grandfathering’ discussed at MEPC IMO: Where we are today

Leading the way; making a difference Ballast Water Management MEPC 68, May Completed revised G8 Guidelines? Ongoing but not likely to be completed until end Indication of extent of Grandfathering - protection of early movers? shipowners that have installed BWMS approved to the current type approval guidelines should not be required to replace these systems once the new guidelines are introduced if current BWMS are installed, maintained and operated correctly then they should not be required to be replaced for the life of the ship or the BWMS, whichever comes first, due to occasional lack of efficacy early movers should not be penalized (sanctioned, warned, detained or excluded) solely due to the occasional lack of efficacy of the BWMS 1.2 IMO: MEPC 68

Leading the way; making a difference thank you