Leading the way; making a difference Latin American Panel November 6, 2013 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT JOSEPH ANGELO DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR

Leading the way; making a difference IMO adopts Ballast Water Management Convention in February 2004 Entry into force conditions – 30 countries representing 35% of the world’s grt Currently – 39 countries, representing 31.3% of the world’s grt

Leading the way; making a difference INTERTANKO 5 year Strategic Plan for BWM Desired Outcome – Members able to achieve compliance with current and future discharge standards (both regionally and internationally) Focus – 1. 1.Installation and Operation of appropriate and adequate ballast water management systems 2. 2.Compliance and enforcement – need strong, well defined and realistic international regs

Leading the way; making a difference May INTERTANKO Council recommends comprehensive document detailing technical, operational and compliance challenges and proposing solution to be sent to IMO August 2012 – Joint submission to IMO’s MEPC 64 co-sponsored with Liberia, the Marshall Islands, Panama, BIMCO, CLIA, INTERCARGO, InterManager, IPTA, NACE and WSC

Leading the way; making a difference INTERTANKO (Etal) Submission Explains the challenges being faced for effective implementation of the BWM Convention and to provide proposals to address those challenges Submission covered FOUR key areas: 1. 1.Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8); 2. 2.Availability of Ballast Water Management Systems (BWMS); 3. 3.Survey and certification requirements 4. 4.Procedures for port State control IMO MEPC 64 (Oct 2012)

Leading the way; making a difference 1.Revision of the G8 Guidelines Decided not to amend the G8 guidelines (at this time), BUT agreed to request BLG subcommittee to develop additional guidelines on the application of the G8 guidelines to address the issues raised in our submission 2. Availability of BWMS Established a correspondence group (lead by Japan) to develop an Assembly resolution regarding the implementation of Regulation B-3 OUTCOME OF MEPC 64

Leading the way; making a difference 3.Survey and certification requirements Agreed with our proposal to issue an MEPC Circular 4.Sampling and analysis procedures for PSC Agreed with INTERTANKO proposal to instruct BLG (and FSI) Subcommittee that sampling and analysis procedures for PSC should be no more stringent than what is required for type approval of BWMS OUTCOME OF MEPC 64

Leading the way; making a difference Type approval. INTERTANKO joint submission on type approval guidelines accepted. Increased transparency of type approval process and more info provided to ship operators on BWM system capabilities and limitations. PSC procedures. Agreed to undertake a trial period for port state control sampling and analysis. The trial will commence once the BWM Convention has entered into force and will initially run for 2-3 years. During trial period, it is agreed that port state control officials will refrain from initiating criminal sanctions against the vessel and its crew should the sampling show that the discharged ballast water does not meet the standards in the BWM Convention. OUTCOME OF BLG 17 (Feb 2013)

Leading the way; making a difference Assembly resolution on implementation dates correspondence group outcome Agreement amongst a large majority of the group that there should be an extension of the implementation schedule for existing ships Opposing views almost equally divided as to whether this extension should apply to new ships Extension considered for both new and existing ships was to delay the installation dates until the ship’s first renewal survey after the entry into force of the BWM Convention.

Leading the way; making a difference 1. BWMS Type Approval Approves both type approval certification documents and guidance to administrations on the type approval process resulting in more information being provided to ship owners on the capabilities of the BWMS as well as the ranges/limiting conditions in which BWMS can operate 2. Port State Control Procedures Approves trial period (2-3 years) for PSC sampling, during which PSC will not detain or criminalize on the basis of a failed discharge test, providing the BWMS is being operated according to the type approval and manufacturers requirements (US reserved its position) OUTCOME OF MEPC 65

Leading the way; making a difference 3. Implementation Dates for installing BWMS - Agree to a draft Assembly resolution recommending governments implement the Convention based on the entry into force date of the convention, as opposed the dates currently provided in the IMO BWM Convention. - The new installation schedule considers ALL vessels constructed before entry into force as existing vessels. - These existing vessels will then have until their first renewal survey (IOPP Certificate under Annex I of MARPOL) after entry into force of the BWM Convention to install a BWMS. OUTCOME OF MEPC 65

Leading the way; making a difference BWMS Type Approvals Notwithstanding positive progress at MEPC 65, INTERTANKO Council: 1. 1.Of the view that IMO BWM equipment approval standard still not adequate in providing tanker operators with reliable, dependable BWM equipment to install on board their tankers 2. 2.Recommends that the Secretariat work with other like minded shipping associations and Members States to request IMO to revise and improve the BWMS approval requirements.

Leading the way; making a difference Final regulations issued March 2012 Main requirements include: – BWM plan and record keeping – BWM standard (same as IMO), review in 4 yrs – Compliance schedule (similar to IMO), (no intent to align schedule with Assembly resolution) – Acceptance of “Alternative” BWMS for 5 years (13 BWMS accepted under AMS) – BWMS not required if no discharge in US waters – New ships (12/1/13) may request an extension to compliance date USCG BWM Requirements

Leading the way; making a difference INTERTANKO Action to Assist Members US Ballast Water Management Vessel Implementation Decision Tree Guidance and Model Extension Request (MER) for US Coast Guard Ballast Water Management Clarification of extension requests (allow new tankers to have an extension until the ship’s first drydocking after the first USCG BWMS has been approved) and flexibility in submitting applications inside the 12 months submission period USCG BWM Requirements

Leading the way; making a difference Click to edit Master title style US Ballast Water Decision Tree

Leading the way; making a difference Vessel General Permit (VGP) Dec 2008 – BWM plan and record keeping; – BWM exchange; – Allows states to impose additional requirements; New VGP issued March 28, EIF Dec 19, 2013 – BWM Standard the same as USCG – Implementation dates the same as USCG – No EPA approval process for BWM systems – No extensions for new ships (??) US EPA VGP BWM Requirements

Leading the way; making a difference California law (2006) established performance standards for the discharge of ballast water which are greater than the IMO standard Ships build after 2010/2012 required to comply June 21, CSLC acknowledges a “lack of options available to the shipping industry with which to comply with California’s performance standards at this time” CSLC report recommends that the CA Legislature amend law to delay implementation of performance standards for the discharge of ballast water for all vessel size classes until such time that technologies are determined to be available California BWM Requirements

Leading the way; making a difference Oct 1 – Senate Bill (SB) 814 signed, becomes effective Jan 1, 2014, amends Public Resources Code Section New ships – Jan 1, 2016 Existing ships: 1. Less than 1500 m/tons – Jan 1, Between m/tons – Jan 1, Greater than 5000 m/tons – Jan 1, 2018 CSLC to conduct review by July 1, 2014 California BWM Requirements

Leading the way; making a difference THANK YOU!!