Ballast water regulations and compliance in the US follows a different pattern to the rest of the world, but shares the issue of challenging waters
Following the passing of the Vessel Incident Discharge Act of 2018 (VIDA), the US Coast Guard (USCG) was required to describe type-approval testing methods, if any, for ballast water management systems (BWMS) that render organisms non-viable in ballast water and may be used in addition to the methods established in 46 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) subpart 162.060.
The subsequent publication of the draft policy letter of July 2019 made it clear the USCG did not find any alternative methods and 38 submissions and comments were entered, most with evidence that methods, such as those used for IMO type-approval, were available and scientifically proven.
The lack of progress on these issues and the time taken to revert left the ballast water treatment industry in a state of limbo, waiting for the USCG to provide some direction on its ruling. The opening statements of the final policy letter make it clear the USCG has not changed its position.
First, the letter states that although the USCG under VIDA was asked to describe type-approval testing methods for BWMS that render organisms non-viable in ballast water, it is not going to do so in the policy letter.
Instead, it reads: “…this policy letter establishes the categories of information the coast guard deems necessary for the evaluation of viability testing methods on the basis of best available science and describes implementation of any accepted methods.”
The final policy letter establishes that the USCG is not going to entertain staining as a method: “The coast guard will not take into consideration any method that relies on a staining method to measure the concentration of organisms greater than or equal to 10 micrometers and organisms less than or equal to 50 micrometers.”
The reason given is: “…the term ’stain’ is undefined in VIDA and is not consistently used in science to describe a specific scientific procedure.”
Another controversial aspect of the draft policy letter is the statement: “[a]t the time of [publication of the draft policy letter], the coast guard does not know of any type-approval testing protocols for BWMS that render organisms non-viable in ballast water that are based on best-available science.”
This drew many comments regarding the available literature on scientific procedures. In the final policy letter, the USCG seeks to clarify its position: “…it is not that we are unaware of viability testing methods; rather we are unaware of viability testing methods that are based on best available science.” (USCG italics).
Other areas of confusion from the policy letter are also addressed: the USCG now makes it clear it will accept most probable number (MPN)-based methods.
For some North America–based providers of BWMS, this is too late. At least one supplier has retreated from the market. Trojan Marines withdrew, saying: “[It] has made the extremely difficult decision to exit the ballast water treatment market and will begin winding down related activity over the next couple of months.”
The company stated that it will continue to support and service vessels with Trojan Marinex ballast water management systems (BWMS) and will complete the manufacture of systems already on order. Trojan first started developing a ballast water treatment system in 2008. In 2011, an agreement with Trojan Technologies enabled Wärtsilä to offer the Canada-based company’s Marinex ballast water management system alongside its own Wärtsilä Hamworthy Aquarius range.
In June 2021, it was announced that Hyde Marine, producer of the popular (in the US market) Guardian BWMS had been sold. De Nora has acquired the UV Technologies Division, including Hyde Marine, from Calgon Carbon Corporation. The acquisition brought together the De Nora BALPURE electrolytic disinfection (EC) BWMS and the Hyde Marine ultra-violet (UV) Hyde GUARDIAN BWMS, making De Nora one of the few global enterprises offering both UV and EC BWMS over a full range of flows.
Challenging waters
One issue that has come to prominence in the run up to the global IMO D-2 standard for ballast water treatment systems on 8 September 2024 is that of challenging waters. This mainly refers to the sediment-laden rivers that flow through some of the busiest ports and terminals. Ports that have become notoriously difficult to manage from a cargo handling criteria perspective include Rotterdam & Amsterdam, Shanghai and ports in California and around the Gulf of Mexico – especially those served by the mighty Mississippi.
One solution growing in popularity for vessels on fixed port-to-port schedules is to pass the treatment of ballast water to the port. A mobile containerised ballast water treatment system on a barge or truck is used during the cargo handling. It can also be used in mitigation where a vessel arrives in port with an inoperable BWMS. Under the BWM Convention, the ballast water management plan must include a mitigation plan.
One of the providers of such port-based systems is Bawat of Denmark, which sponsored the Riviera Maritime Media webinar When alternate ballast water management systems displace retrofit projects. Speaking at the event, ABS Global Sustainability Center Senior Principal Engineer William Burroughs (since the webinar, Bill Burroughs has left ABS and formed his own ballast water reception and treatment company – Monstrant Viam) and Bawat chief commercial officer Jakob Olsson explained how port investments could be alternatives to owners deploying BWMS on their vessels.
“We are unaware of viability testing methods that are based on best available science”
Mr Burroughs urged more ports and terminals to invest in ballast water reception facilities, whether fixed ashore or mobile on barges, for ships docking at their quaysides. “Ballast water reception with full support at ports could work and should be embraced by our industry,” he said. “These would create viable alternatives for BWMS solutions for shipping.”
These facilities would enable ships to discharge their untreated ballast water and refill with treated fluids if required and would be available to ships if their onboard BWMS was not working correctly. “Ports need to provide ballast water reception as an integrated part of ballast water management,” said Mr Burroughs. “Owners need to be prepared to work with ballast water reception facilities.”
Challenges to widespread introduction include the cost of reception facilities, ongoing running costs and technical challenges, such as the methodology of connecting ships to these facilities. “They do not know how to connect the large pipes yet – this is something we need to know for water pipe connections on ships,” said Mr Burroughs.
“Class societies will need to be involved for uniformity of hose connections on ships and reception facilities to minimise issues. There may need to be class notations in the next few years,” said Mr Burroughs. These challenges are worth overcoming as onshore or barge-mounted facilities would be beneficial to shipping as it would help owners avoid port state control fines for BWMS issues or non-compliance.
It could also prevent issues for ships requested to return to sea to deballast or conduct exchange before they are allowed into terminals, which could disrupt schedules, /reloading operations, and charterer agreements.
