Page 16: of Maritime Reporter Magazine (November 2012)

16Maritime Reporter & Engineering News After many years of negotia- tion, the International Con-vention for the Control and Management of Ships? Bal- last Water and Sediments was adopted on 16 February 2004 by an internationalconference sponsored by the Interna- tional Maritime Organization (IMO). The Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention was a major step forward in reducing the risk of the introduction ofnon-indigenous aquatic species into localmarine ecosystems by means of the dis-charge of ballast water from ships arriv- ing from distant locations. For a variety of reasons, though, the BWM Convention has yet to garner sufficient ratifications to allow it to enter into force. The importance of remedial measuresto address potential aquatic invasive species was highlighted by the 1988 dis- covery of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes of North America. The most likely vector for introduction of zebra mussels from their native habitat of the Black Sea was through the discharge into the Great Lakes of ballast water by freighters ar- riving to load grain to carry back to the Soviet Union. Having no natural preda- tors in North American waters, the filter- feeding zebra mussels have proliferated, clogging water pipes and other underwa- ter structures. Removing the zebra mus- sels from vital structures is estimated tocost in excess of $100 million annually. Other aquatic invasive species have also been introduced around the world by means of ballast water discharges. Al- though ballast water discharge is not the sole vector for such unintended species transfers, it is the most visible.The initial reaction of governments and the maritime industry was the adoption of high seas ballast water exchange. This was always seen as an interim approach. Ballast water exchange, where high salin- ity ocean water is used to replace fresh or brackish water, will kill most aquatic species that might set up residence in anew port, but some critters can survive the exchange process. In addition, dis- charging ballast water while underway on the high seas can be dangerous to the shipand its crew, as evidenced by the near loss of the car carrier Cougar Ace off the Aleutian Islands in July 2006. The preferred solution was a technical approach, but this presented numerous difficulties. No one had ever filtered the volumes of water in the time required to make it commercially practicable for merchant vessels. Ballast water is inher- ently dirty. Aquatic invasive species are almost always small. There was no uni- versal agreement on how clean the dis- charge water had to be. Some jurisdictions (California and Michigan come to mind) proposed that the dis-charged ballast water should ultimately have no living organisms (e.g., sterile water). Somewhat surprisingly though, the IMO and the US federal government were able to arrive at a consensus. Thus, the standard for approved discharge of ballast water is the same under both the BWM Convention and the regulations promulgated by the US Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The international maritime com- munity has never been thrilled with the BWM Convention. Their objections, though, have been somewhat vague until recently. Now, they are raising some spe- cific, and largely valid, concerns. The first concern relates to the implementa- tion schedule. For some reason, the drafters of the BWM Convention as- sumed that the Convention would enter into force promptly. Relying on that as- sumption, they inserted into the Conven- tion hard dates for when vessels would be required to install BWM systems. The Convention was adopted in 2004. It pro- vides, in pertinent part, that any covered vessel with a ballast water capacity of 5,000 cubic meters or less must have in- stalled an approved BWM system by 2009 (more than three years ago). This absurd result could have been avoided if the compliance dates had been calculatedfrom the entry-into-force date. Various marine industry groups have proposed that the implementation datesfor the BWM Convention be delayed. The International Chamber of Shipping(ICS) proposes that existing ships should be defined as those having been con- structed prior to entry into force of theConvention. ICS further proposes that existing ships not be required to retrofit BWM systems until their next full five year survey, rather than the next interme- diate survey should this be sooner. This would have the effect of spreading im- plementation over five years, rather than two or three. INTERTANKO is just as emphatic about the need for changes tothe implementation schedule, but less specific about how this should be accom- plished. In its final rule on standards for living organisms in ships? ballast water dis- charged in United States waters, issued on March 23, 2012, the US Coast Guardadopted a middle position. It defined ex- isting vessel to mean any covered vessel constructed before December 1, 2013.All new vessels must have an approved ballast water management system. Ex- isting vessels must retrofit an approved ballast water management system not later than the vessel?s first scheduled dry- docking after January 1, 2014 (for ves- sels with a ballast water capacity of between 1,500 and 5,000 cubic meters)or the first scheduled drydocking after January 1, 2016 (for all other vessels). Provision is also made for an extension of compliance for up to one year underlimited conditions. GOVERNMENT UPDATE BWMS Looms Large Suggested Ballast Water Management Systems Regulatory Changes Pictured are Bythotrephes longimanus ? Spiny Water Fleas ? an invasive speciesfrom N. Europe introduced via ballast water into LakeHuron in 1984. (Image: Michigan Sea Grant)MR#11 (10-17):MR Template 10/22/2012 4:16 PM Page 16