Page 15: of Maritime Reporter Magazine (June 2018)

teen years. Always entertaining, never the Coast Guard proposed the maximum ated a Balkanized enforcement night- The international community, when easy to understand, it has, over time, penalty of $38,175. Separately, another mare that most stakeholders had trouble OPA 90 was rolled out, said in effect, been the ‘gift’ story that keeps on giving. vessel was ? ned $5,000 for a similar un- keeping up with, even with a scorecard “Oh, no, you can’t.” But, the U.S. gov-

Some shippers, upon hearing the news of authorized discharge in Oregon. at the ready. The so-called federal VIDA ernment did it anyways. Hence, if you the IMO decision to delay implementa- Given the regulatory and political his- legislation being pushed for by AWO, wanted to trade in U.S. waters, you got tion of the ballast water convention for tory of the ballast water saga over these LCA and others got caught in the mid- on board. And, here we are today. The some ships, breathed a heavy sigh of re- past 15 years, it’s sometimes hard to term madness last week and is today no world is better for it. Sure: it doesn’t al- lief. Many still think that they can kick recognize the United States as a leader closer to passage. VIDA – the Vessel In- ways turn out that way.

the can down the road a bit longer. For in the quest to eradicate invasive spe- cidental Discharge Act – seeks to both those who want to trade in U.S. waters, cies. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that standardize the regulations and bring On the Waterfront: Will History however, that’s not necessarily true. California was insisting upon an ef? cacy enforcement under one umbrella. It’s a Repeat Itself?

In U.S. waters, there’s no such delay standard of 1,000x the IMO’s bench- good idea whose time has come. It really isn’t an apples-to-apples com- planned. BWTS systems are being ap- mark (matching approximately what the Nevertheless, and even with all that parison, is it? Or, maybe it is. A long time proved and there are more than a few in Coast Guard asks for today), despite the domestic uncertainty abounding, the ago, the world’s largest trading partner the pipeline, the approval process, test- fact that the technology to achieve that United States, especially in the wake of said that shippers would have to comply ing and those who have submitted their standard doesn’t yet exist. Nor, can it be the latest MEPC timelines, has quietly with OPA-90 in U.S. waters. That same paperwork to the Coast Guard for ap- measured to that standard with currently crept into a leadership role. nation now says that you need to be in proval. To that end, the Coast Guard’s existing equipment. Separately, our younger readers might compliance when it comes to ballast wa- escalating enforcement of ballast water And, who could forget when the state not remember that it was the Oil Pollu- ter treatment in U.S. waters. The latest discharge violations has resulted in a of New York ‘blinked’ when Canada tion Act of 1990 (OPA 90), following the news on the Iran nuclear deal might just civil penalty proceeding against a bulk threatened to disrupt SEAWAY Shipping tragic Exxon Valdez grounding, which follow a similar pattern. If so, then what carrier for discharging ballast water in if the Empire State didn’t smarten up ultimately changed how we protect the comes next shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Washington State without using a U.S. and come up with a san(er) ballast water marine environment, ensures that of- That’s because, “when America sneezes,

Coast Guard Type Approved Ballast strategy? fending parties are held accountable and the rest of the world catches a cold.”

Water Management System (BWMS) Beyond that, as many as 17 different that all operators operate in a standard- or other approved means. In that case, individual State mandated standards cre- ized, environmentally correctly fashion. – MLPro www.marinelink.com 15

MR #6 (10-17).indd 15 MR #6 (10-17).indd 15 6/6/2018 11:21:25 AM6/6/2018 11:21:25 AM