• Published:18th April 2016

The UK Chamber of Shipping and Fathom Maritime Intelligence held a Ballast Water Forum in London that gathered experts from across the industry to discuss the challenges ship operators, owners and technology manufacturers face in the lead up to the implementation of the Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention.

Bursting with discussion and debate surrounding the regulatory procedures for BWM compliance and the differences in achieving International Maritime Organization (IMO) versus United States Coast Guard (USCG) Type Approval, the forum bore many insights.

No Penalties for Early Movers on Ballast Water Tech Uptake


A point of concern is the competitive disadvantage that many ship owners feel they will face if they choose to install a ballast water management system (BWMS) at this point in time. Throughout the day’s discussions this point was raised, resulting in strong agreement that no penalisation should be given to early movers who have already fitted BWTS.  Both the IMO and the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) said that this was imperative and was a point that is supported by the IMO Roadmap that stipulates there will be no need to replace BWTS Type Approval in accordance with the current (G8) Guidelines.

Moreover, the IMO confirmed that BWMS will not need to be replaced as long as they are operated and maintained correctly, even if occasional lack of efficacy is present.  They said that next week the MEPC’s 69th session will review the G8 Guidelines and although revisions may be adopted, it is unlikely that those ships that have already fitted systems will be affected.

The Ballast Water Convention Ratified Tonnage Has Dropped

After much industry debate surrounding the actual percentage of tonnage that has ratified the Convention, Markus Helavuori, Technical Officer, at the IMO revealed at the Forum that the final ratification of world tonnage represented by flag States dropped by 0.03% between March and April 2016.

Whilst previously standing at 34.82%, it now stands at 34.79%, which has serious implications for the final date for entry into force due to its close proximity to full ratification.  The gross tonnage registered with a flag State changes month-to-month with new vessels, re-flagging of vessels and scrapping of vessels happening continually and in light of this the IMO have decided to conduct monthly calculations of the tonnage that has been ratified, to ensure accurate and up-to-date ratification figures.

Port State Control Issues Tackled

The IMO also revealed that Port State Control (PSC) has caused ship owners some problems in regards to BWTS testing.  In the IMO PSC 4-stage approach samples are taken on the condition of the ship and the system condition with samples allowed to be taken immediately.  However, according to the IMO, PSC should not sample unless due grounds for concern.

Markus Helavuori of the IMO also emphasised the importance of ports, flag States, ship owners and operators working together to facilitate contingency measures that allow ships to upgrade but still remain compliant.  Revised Guidelines are essential to ensure that when the convention enters into force, all systems work properly and there are no grounds for non-compliance penalisation. For instance, this means having a more practical approach to regulation.  Inclusion of Member States in a local area to exempt ships from installing BWTS in the chosen area is also vital to ensuring the risk is addressed without impacting the operation of that particular ship.

Ship Operators Welcome Rigorous Ballast Water Testing At Port

According to the Deputy Harbour Master, Strategy & Support, Orkney Islands Council- Harbour Authority David Hawkins, despite port-side controversy, the rigorous testing of ships’ ballast water at the Port has been welcomed by many ship owners and operators to date.

Revealed during Wednesday’s discussions, Mr Hawkins stated that Orkney’s array of environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSIs) and millions of special conservation areas, situated at or close to ports, requires rigorous monitoring due to the significant impacts such vessels can have on the biodiverse and ecologically sensitive environment.  However, as revealed by Mr Hawkins, the “vital monitoring” and assessments that have taken place on ships passing through has not resulted in any confrontation.


BWMS Breakdowns Are Common

In a presentation made by Sudhir Bhimani, Anglo Eastern Ship Management, revealed that BWMS failure and breakdown is an issue for some and that finding a system that “is approved for all types of water is very hard”.

With experience in fitting systems to 108 ships of 12 different makes, newbuilds and retrofits and with both UV and electrolysis, Anglo Eastern’s experience in ballast system installation and operational difficulties provided the floor with some truly valuable insight.

With limited support from makers for providing kits for testing above samples to meet USCG requirements, he said that ship owners are left in uncertainty when it comes to choosing a sustainable solution that will comply.  He indicated during the session that makers need to provide information regarding the type of ships their systems are installed to and to prove that they have worked flawlessly.  Societies also need to do the same, issuing where approval, review and working has occurred, whilst US Environmental Protection Areas (EPA) and ports have a responsibility to provide information regarding system functionality for validation. He also drew upon the importance of laboratories having a key role, proving the EPA method within 8 hours was used to show that systems have been tested correctly.  In addition, lack of adequate information manuals is a critical problem today he commented, revealing that ordering spare parts, maintaining the system, insufficient rectification and alarms not reporting inadequacies can lead to non-compliance without the ship owner being aware.  However, the role of ports is still left unknown in terms of whether they will provide rebate on non-compliant ships if they have a system which is faulty without making the ship owner aware.

Furthermore, the 6-9 month lead time required following order to installation led to the Anglo Eastern representative saying that “if you want to have a ship installed with a system on the 2nd half of 2017, you want to start now”. Many manufacturers have withdrawn recently, which makes it even harder to choose.  With 2,233 ships installed with systems but more than 90,000 ships in operation, not only is there pressure on manufactures to provide compliant systems, but also on shipyards to install them before entry into force of the convention and with only four manufacturers existing to provide systems for large ocean-going ships, exacerbating the difficulties for large ship operating owners even more.

Furthermore, Mr Bhimani raised the point that if only 2.5% of the world’s ships have systems installed, how is it possible to get enough experience to comply with the regulation? This key point raised highlights the difficulties present throughout the industry in improving and learning from BWTS installations when to date only a very small percentage has actually been made.

How Is the Risk Between Owner And Charter Allocated?

Ian MacLean, Hill Dickinson LLP, raised the issue of legal issues and the allocation of risk between owner and charterer for the operation of a BWMS. MacLean said that before operation, both parties must accept and ascertain the risk, and allocate it between the two in order to avoid problematic legal issues in the event the ballast system does not function in line with a “seaworthy” ship.

The question was asked: In the event of delays during sampling, leading to non-compliance, who bears the risk? According to Mr MacLean, this should be allocated in the clause of the charter party, so in the case of a huge delay the decision whether to make the ship off-hire will have already been decided.

Today, big clauses are being put into contracts to ensure that a charterer doesn’t apply a sudden Notice of Readiness or a criminal prosecution is not suddenly applied without both parties being aware of where the risk lies. “It’s all about bargaining power”, stated Mr MacLean.  Intertanko and BIMCO are now inserting charter clauses to safeguard such problems.  For example, Intertanko now states that owners shall maintain a BWM plan in accordance with flag State, however, if the owner has full compliance but there are problems, the ship is not made to be in a situation where the charter applies the Notice of Readiness.


USCG Says 5550 Extension Letters Have Been Filed To Date

The USCG revealed that 5,500 extension letters have been issued to date for vessels operating at the moment.  There have been no applications refused so far, Meridena Kauffman from the USCG revealed, and although the process is quick, taking approximately a week or two, the process could be speeded up if the applications were submitted complete.

This is apparently an issue which ship owners can work on to improve the process if they are worried about non-compliance.  At the moment there is a backlog of applications due to the fact that some of them are handed in with little information, making the process take much longer, not just for their extension letter to be issued but also for the USCG to work through the submissions.

2016 May See The First BWMS Granted With US Type Approval

Despite the fact that there is not a single USCG Type Approved system, the USCG is hopeful that 2016 will welcome the first one.

USCG Addresses Dismissal Of MPN Ballast Water Testing Method

Despite the USCG making the decision in December 2015 to not approve the Most Probable Number (MPN) method for testing ballast water, it is still currently used for water testing around the world which led to some questioning from the ICS.  However, Kauffman stated that for the USCG, the approaches for drinking water and ballast water cannot be compared due to the lack of source classification of the ballast water.  Therefore, the methods of testing for ballast water must be far more rigorous than those for source identifiable drinking water.

Kauffman also commented on the face that the USCG alternatively recognises a method known as FDA/CMFDA which uses a dye to identify living organisms and according to the USCG, which has proven to be the most reliable to date.

USCG Gives Vital Insight into Future of  BWTS Type Approval

The USCG Representative also revealed that there are currently 19 BWTS going through the USCG Type Approval process. Interestingly, 9 of these BWTS are UV-treatment based and the other 10 are systems are ones that use electrolysis, deoxygenation, electrochlorination and other active substance-based treatment methods.  When questioned about the status of these in-progress Type Approvals and when the industry might see the first Type Approval being granted, Kauffman responded that due to the fact that the USCG does not control the testing process they could not pinpoint when one may cross the line. Especially as the testing process and scheduling is organised between the manufacturers and laboratories independently of USCG involvement.

She also stressed that having a good completed application can speed up the approval process and drive the likelihood of approval (whether it is as an Alternate Management System (AMS) or as Type Approved).  However once enforced and systems start to receive
USCG Type Approval, more and more details will be required for submission and testing may become even tougher.

Who is responsible for system compliance was a key question that was asked with her response being that after 5 years there is likely to be an update required or a recertification.  She said that if there are changes made to the system as well there is potential for retest or the need to apply for recertification but at the moment this is still being discussed by the USCG and as there are no Type Approvals, the finalisation of follow up procedures has not been determined.

USCG To Take A Four Stage Approach

Current Guidelines state that member states need a 4-stage approach to enable PSC to access all information in order when coming onboard.  In light of this, the USCG revealed at the forum that a similar 4-stage approach is likely to occur, probably with some sampling but the exact procedure and technologies used are still being determined, with Kauffman emphasising that at the moment this is fairly speculative.

Short Sea Shipping Issues Addressed

The logistical ability to successfully fit a BWTS to vessels that operate on short sea routes was a principal issue that was raised by participants of the forum. According to David Balston, “short sea shipping is in a particularly difficult situation…something has got to be done in the small ship sector”.

The power generation required and the size of additional power generators make it difficult for small ships to actually utilise the BWTS on the market today, and therefore it was made clear that manufacturers need to work harder in the future to develop systems that are small enough to fit these ships.  Port reception facilities may be beneficial for ballasting operations according to Mr Helavuori, IMO, indicating the valuable role ports may play in future ballast regulation.

The forum was held in conjunction with Fathom Maritime Intelligence and featured in the Ship Efficiency Review.