BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT | 21
a manufacturer will assess the results and determine whether it is ready to submit a formal request to the USCG to approve its system. So far two manufacturers have completed testing and are poised to apply to the USCG for type approval.: Mr Angelo said that the USCG would not commit to a timeframe for approving a system once it received an actual request, but expected that there would be approved systems by the end of this year. Almost half of the systems approved under IMO use ultra-violet technology. Four of these manufactures have submitted their test results to the USCG, but did not gain approval. The manufacturers requested that the USCG apply an equivalency standard that would allow their systems to be recognised as AMS. This was denied. The manufacturers have appealed this decision. Back in March the expectation was that a decision would be reached around May or June. In the interim, the manufacturers submitted a further 1,000 pages of data for USCG review. A final decision on the appeal will now follow “as soon practicably possible,” Mr Angelo said. He scotched rumours circulating at the end of May that the USCG had already decided to grant the appeal. Somewhat clearer are the outcomes of a USCG practicality review into the IMO discharge standards. The USCG could not identify any systems that meet more stringent standards than what it currently has in its regulations, which are also in the IMO standard. This means ballast water manufacturers are not going to have to change their systems to meet a new standard. Mr Angelo shed light on an October 2015 Federal Appeals Court decision in New York that ordered the US government “to rewrite its rules regulating the discharge of ballast water by ships.” A Reuters report at the time said the Court heard arguments from four environmental groups and said the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when it decided in 2013 to follow an international standard governing the discharge of harmful organisms, though technology was available to adopt a higher standard. Circuit Judge Denny Chin said the EPA, using its authority under the Clean Water Act, should have considered onshore facilities to treat ballast water rather than focus on pollution controls aboard ships, where a lack of
Tanker Shipping & Trade | June/July 2016
space might limit their effectiveness. The EPA said in its submission that it “proceeded methodically and reasonably” toward its conclusions, rather than focus on methods “destined not to play a role at the present time in redressing aquatic nuisance species in ballast water.” The US Department of Justice, which argued the EPA’s case, is reviewing the decision, its spokesman told Reuters. Mr Angelo said that a leading view in Washington was that while the environmental groups had produced science showing isolated cases where a ballast water system, in one facet of its operation, could have met a higher
standard, they had not demonstrated that a ballast water system – in all its facets of operation – was not meeting the highest possible standards. The expectation is that the EPA will now wait until the Vessel General Permit scheme is renewed in 2018 before making its next move. Concluding, Mr Angelo urged the industry to try and see the present regulatory position in a positive light. “Every day that goes by without the ballast water treaty being ratified is another day that the USCG gets to approve another system, which brings us closer to minimising this dilemma!” TST
If ballast water fails a port state control test, there is no alternative discharge option
For more articles visit www.tankershipping.com