Leading the way; making a difference Hellenic Mediterranean Panel April 10, 2014 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT JOSEPH ANGELO DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR

Leading the way; making a difference Desired Outcome for Ballast Water Management: Tanker industry is 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 regulations Ballast Water Management INTERTANKO’s Five Strategic Plan

Leading the way; making a difference Why is Ballast Water Management a major issue for the shipping industry? 1. 1.INTERNATIONALLY – IMO Ballast Water Management Convention was adopted as a “prospective” treaty, i.e. It mandated standards that were not achievable when the treaty was adopted with ambitious implementation dates. 2. NATIONALLY IN THE US – US Congress passed two separate laws giving two separate federal government agencies, the US Coast Guard and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), authority to regulate ballast water management Ballast Water Management

Leading the way; making a difference 1. 1.The Regulatory Environment 1. 1.IMO i. i.Historical ii. ii.State of Affairs 2. 2.USA i. i.USCG ii. ii.EPA 2. 2.Ballast Water Technology 1. 1.Approved Systems 2. 2.Approval Process Ballast Water Management Overview

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, 38 countries, 30.38% grt Bahamas, Panama, Singapore and UK, each alone could bring the convention into force Ballast Water Management - Historical 1. The Regulatory Environment : IMO

Leading the way; making a difference Ballast Water Management Convention May 2012 – INTERTANKO Council recommends comprehensive document be sent to IMO detailing technical, operational and compliance challenges and proposing solutions Oct 2012 – MEPC 64 Submission 1. 1.Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8) 2. 2.Availability of Ballast Water Management Systems (BWMS) 3. 3.Procedures for port State control 4. 4.Survey and certification requirements Ballast Water Management - Historical

Leading the way; making a difference Outcome of MEPC 64 – October Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8); No revision of Guidelines BUT increased transparency of type approval process and more information provided to ship operators on BWMS capabilities and limitations 2. 2.Availability of Ballast Water Management Systems (BWMS); Develop a draft Assembly Resolution to reschedule implementation of the Convention 3. 3.Procedures for port State control Sampling and analysis procedures for PSC should be no more stringent than what is required for type approval of BWMS Proposed a trial period for sampling by PSC 4. 4.Survey and certification requirements Agreed with INTERTANKO and issued a Circular Ballast Water Management - Historical

Leading the way; making a difference Implementation schedule (availability of BWMS) IMO Assembly Resolution (A.1088(28)) adopted, December 4, 2013 recommends governments: implement the Convention based on the entry into force date of the Convention considers ALL vessels constructed before entry into force as existing vessels 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 Ballast Water Management - State of Affairs

Leading the way; making a difference Port State Control – MEPC 65 (May 2013) Trial Period (initially for 2-3 years) following entry into force To trial sampling and testing procedures 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 reserves its position) Still disagreement on when it is appropriate to sample – what evidence, if any, should be present to initiate a PSC sampling (guidelines under development) Ballast Water Management - State of Affairs

Leading the way; making a difference BWMS Type Approvals Good progress at MEPC 65 with greater quantity and quality of information with increasing transparency May 2013 – INTERTANKO Council, G8 Guidelines, ‘still not adequate in providing tanker operators with reliable, dependable BWMS to install on board their tankers’ Industry submission to MEPC 66: 1. 1.Amend G8 (salinity, temperature, organisms, sediment, flow rates) 2. 2.Grandfathering to protect owners who have taken action 3. 3.Send a signal to Governments who have not ratified Ballast Water Management - State of Affairs

Leading the way; making a difference BWMS Type Approvals OUTCOME OF MEPC 66 (Last week) Does NOT agree to amend G8 guidelines Requests IMO Secretariat to “explore the possibility of conducting” a study on the implementation of the ballast water performance standard (D-2 requirements) Agrees to include industry proposals to improve G8 guidelines in the remit of the study INTERTANKO and other shipping associations intend to continue to pursue this matter at the next MEPC meeting Ballast Water Management - State of Affairs

Leading the way; making a difference Final regulations issued March 23, 2012, main requirements include: BWE prior to discharge in US waters (12 miles) BWM Plan and record keeping BWM discharge standard (same as IMO), review in 4 yrs Compliance schedule for BWMS (similar to IMO), (no intent to align schedule with Assembly Resolution) Acceptance of “Alternative” AMS BWMS for 5 years BWMS not required if no discharge in US waters Ships may request an extension to compliance date for BWMS Ballast Water Management – US Coast Guard

Leading the way; making a difference INTERTANKO Assisting Members with USCG regulations Implementation Schedule Decision Tree … Ballast Water Management – US Coast Guard

Leading the way; making a difference US Ballast Water Decision Tree

Leading the way; making a difference US Coast Guard INTERTANKO assisting Members Implementation Schedule Decision Tree Model Extension Request (MER) Letter Ballast Water Management – US Coast Guard

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

Leading the way; making a difference US Coast Guard – Extension requests January 1, 2016 extension date given to more than 100 ships whose drydocking was scheduled for 2014 CG holding off on granting extension letters to ships whose drydocking is scheduled for 2015 or later January 1, 2016 date was chosen to encourage shipowners to put pressure on BWM manufacturer to obtain CG approval CG recognizes that January 1, 2016 date may generate second round of extension requests CG wants to have dialogue with shipowners as to whether installation of BWMS must be done in drydocking. (BWM manufacturers indicate drydocking may not be necessary.) Ballast Water Management – US Coast Guard

Leading the way; making a difference US Coast Guard – APPROVED BWM Systems A few BWM manufacturers are “aggressively” pursuing CG approval (no indication which BWM systems) CG expects a CG approved BWM system by early 2015 CG hopes it can announce a few at the same time, but is not going to hold up the announcement of the first one to wait for a “long time” to include the second or third one CG indicates they understand potential installation scheduling problem once a BWM system is CG approved CG indicates they will be “pragmatic” in requiring when a ship calling at US ports must have a CG approved BWM system installed Ballast Water Management – US Coast Guard

Leading the way; making a difference EPA Vessel General Permit issued December 19, 2013 To a large extent EPA VGP requirements are the same as USCG (discharge standard, compliance schedule, etc.) Approval of BWMS is not required BWMS monitoring required (functionality, equipment calibration, effluent, biocides) New ship (keel laid after December 1, 2013) is required to install a BWMS to comply with the VGP, i.e. no acceptance of USCG extension provision in the VGP EPA /USCG MoU – EPA Enforcement Policy announced 27 Dec Vessel with USCG extension is non-compliant (if discharges in US waters – 3 miles), but EPA regards as a low-enforcement priority, provided all other applicable regulations are met Ballast Water Management – US EPA

Leading the way; making a difference Potential issue with EPA Enforcement Policy?? Charter party agreements require tanker to be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations Tanker that receives CG extension would be in compliance with CG requirements Tanker that has CG extension and discharges ballast water within US waters (3 miles) would be in violation of EPA Vessel General Permit Thus far, not aware of any comments from oil majors or charterers on this issue Ballast Water Management – US EPA

Leading the way; making a difference Approved Systems IMO Type Approved (G8)42 US Coast Guard approved 0 Alternate Management Systems (AMS)37 Ballast Water Management 2.Ballast Water Technology

Leading the way; making a difference Approval Process IMO Update requirements for manufacturers submitting information to Administrations (BWM.2/Circ.43) Updated information to be included in Type Approval Certification, e.g. BWMS limitations (Resolution MEPC.228(65)) No Review of G8 planned, but… o o University of Maryland – tests IMO G8 approved BWMS against US approval standards – 3 systems fail o o INTERTANKO et al. submission to MEPC 66 US 2 independent laboratories authorized (US and Norway) Ballast Water Management

Leading the way; making a difference TWO OTHER US ISSUES TO MENTION

Leading the way; making a difference US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conducts surveys of US waterways and issues nautical charts which provides soundings at mean low water US Army Corp of Engineers is responsible for maintaining commercial navigation channels Terminals are responsible for maintaining water depth between commercial navigation channel and terminal Pilots rely on NOAA charts, cooperation of terminals, local knowledge, wind/weather conditions, tide and vessel conditions, including squat resulting from ship speed to determine their recommended underkeel clearance for tankers transiting US pilotage waters. Pilotage Underkeel Clearance

Leading the way; making a difference Each Shipping Company issues instructions on their own particular Under Keel Clearance (UKC) policy. In order to assist members, INTERTANKO has developed UKC guidance which we understand to be generally deemed as safe and within the expectations of the Oil Companies. This guidance can be found on the INTERTANKO web site Keel-Clearance-UKC-Guidelines/ INTERTANKO UKC Guidance

Leading the way; making a difference US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued subpoenas to four companies as part of its investigation to determine compliance with MARPOL Annex VI and the US Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships Subpoenas pertain to the use of fuel with a sulphur content of less than 1% while operating in the North American Emission Control Area (ECA). EPA has identified a number of vessels operated by these companies that have filed fuel oil non-availability reports (FONAR). INTERTANKO Executive Committee will be discussing this matter to develop a proposed course of action US EPA SUBPOENAS ON NA ECA

Leading the way; making a difference THANK YOU!