COVID-19: Ballast Water Management Extensions답변여닫기
On 1 April 2020, USCG is adjusting its extension policy, for those vessels impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic with BWMS compliance dates before 1 April 2021, recognizing the resulting in closed country borders.
USCG expects that the installation and commissioning of BWMS will be completed as scheduled for any vessel which conducts a credit drydock before 1 April 2021. In instances where the COVID-19 pandemic has rendered it impractical to perform necessary or scheduled work on a vessel, the following guidance regarding an extension is provided.
1. USCG will extend all compliance dates up to 12 months upon request. There is no need to provide any supporting documentation, however vessel owner or operator will need to identify the vessels in order for USCG to adjust the necessary documentation. It should be understood that this is not an interim extension, and additional time to accommodate operational or regulatory schedules should not be expected.
2. In those instances where an extension of more than 12 months is needed, the person in charge of a vessel may request an extension in accordance with 33 CFR 151.2036 (Extension of Compliance Date). Requests for more than 12 months should include:
A. Documentation that a system was purchased, and arrangements were made to have it installed. As is normally provided in extension requests, contractual documents or third party correspondence that include the previously arranged date and location of installation is adequate.
B. Documentation that the system could not be installed due to COVID-19 related restrictions. It includes third party documentation, typically from the drydock facility or BWMS maker.
C. The plan for installing the system, including a list of previously performed and scheduled work, and an estimate as to when and how installation and commissioning will be completed.
In instances where arrangements were made to convert an AMS to USCG type approved system, but the conversion was not completed due to the pandemic, and extension may be requested to continue operating the AMS under 33 CFR 151.2026 (Alternate Management System) until the conversion can be accomplished by providing details as noted above.
As such, all extension requests should be scanned and sent in by e-mail at Environmental_Standards@uscg.mil in order to expedite review. The review and approval of an extension request could take as long as 30 days.
Guidelines For Evaluating Potential Courses Of Action When A Vessel Bound For A Port In The United States Has An Inoperable BWMS답변여닫기
A vessel that HAS NOT passed its compliance date’ and has an inoperable BWMS may use any of the other BWM methods set forth in 33 CFR 151.1510(a) or 33 CFR 151.2025(a), as appropriate. Such a vessel remains eligible to claim the route exemption allowed by 33 CFR 151.2040(a) and not perform ballast water exchange (BWE) if its voyage will not take it beyond 200 nautical miles from shore for enough time to perform BWE.
A vessel that HAS passed its compliance date and has an inoperable BWMS may use one of the other BWM methods outlined in 33 CFR 151.2025(a). If the vessel intends to use 33 CFR 151.2025(a)(3), BWE, it must obtain approval from the District Commander or Captain of the Port (COTP) first. The route exemption provided in 33 CFR 151.2040(a) is not available to a vessel using BWE pursuant to 33 CFR 151.2040(b).
If the vessel is otherwise unable to comply with 33 CFR 151.1510(a) or 33 CFR 151.2025(a), the person directing the movement of a vessel must ensure that the inoperable BWMS is reported to the nearest COTP or District Commander as soon as possible. Using guidance provided in the vessel's BWM Plan, the person making the report should be prepared to discuss alternative BWM strategies available to the vessel based on its capabilities, route and voyage duration. An alternative strategy that results in the discharge of untreated BW into the waters of the U.S. will only be authorized for safety or stability concerns, and should not be implemented unless authorized by the COTP or District Commander.
The regulations in 33 CFR 151 Subparts C and D provide an exhaustive list of options available to ships subject to those regulations for non-safety related situations. Alternative strategies should be derived from the BWM methods identified in 33 CFR 151.1510(a), 33 CFR 151.2025(a), or 33 CFR 151.2055, as applicable.
While 33 CFR 151.1515 and 33 CFR 151.2040 require the person directing the movement of the vessel to report an inoperable BWMS to the nearest COTP or District Commander, the Coast Guard recommends the person directing the movement of the vessel also contact the COTP at the next port of call, if different than the nearest COTP, as soon as practicable.
A lack of consumables that render a BWMS inoperable does not meet the intent of “stops operating properly” as used in 33 CFR 151.1510 or 33 CFR 151.2040 and will not be justification to employ an alternative management method.
Submitting a BWM report to the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC) does not fulfill the requirement to notify the COTP; NBIC is not a USCG unit and does not have the capability of notifying the COTP of the failure.
USCG units should promptly respond to a vessel that has reported its BWMS inoperable to gather details on the vessel’s proposed interim BWM practices and a repair timeline for the inoperable BWMS, including details on the availability of repair parts and/or service technicians. While the Coast Guard cannot require a vessel to provide repair details, doing so can help expedite the COTP or District Commander’s decision on alternatives and route approval. Conversely, without the repair details the Coast Guard may have to wait until the BWMS is repaired before allowing a vessel to continue on its route.
The COTP may accept one of the approved BWM methods pursuant to 33 CFR 151.2040(b)(1) after considering a variety of factors.
A vessel past its compliance date and reporting its BWMS as inoperable for the first time may be allowed to use BWE in lieu of using the BWMS, provided the COTP is notified in advance and BWE is acceptable to the COTP. Absent safety or stability concerns BWE must occur in an area 200 miles from any shore. In cases where a vessel is past its compliance date, has more than one documented report that its BWMS was inoperable, and reports its BWMS as being inoperable on a subsequent voyage to the U.S., a COTP should validate: 1) the date of the most recent BWMS repair, 2) the date and location of when the BWMS was last operable, and 3) crew training records demonstrating competency in the operation and maintenance of the BWMS. After consideration of the totality of the vessel's record, a COTP may allow the vessel to employ an alternative BWM method, including BWE 200 nautical miles from any shore. However, vessel owner/operators and COTPs are reminded that the discharge of unmanaged BW into waters of the U.S. is prohibited except in emergencies where the safety or stability of the vessel is jeopardized.
When the person directing the movement of a vessel presents a repair proposal, the COTP should evaluate it like any other repair proposal. After reviewing the proposal, the COTP may accept the work as proposed or suggest changes to the proposal that would make it more reasonable.
If the vessel has additional scheduled port calls in the U.S. prior to sailing foreign, the COTP may allow the vessel to continue its voyage if the repairs will not be completed prior to departing the COTP’s zone. Any deficiency issued by the COTP should identify whether the vessel must perform BWE between BW discharge events. The original COTP should coordinate with other COTPs or District Commanders where the vessel intends to travel.
When entering the deficiency into MISLE, the Coast Guard unit should ensure that both the deficiency and a MISLE Special Note (good for two years) are created. While duplicative, both have value. The deficiency improves MISLE search results, while Special Notes are easier to spot for other MISLE users.
Any vessel past its compliance date must repair its BWMS before returning to the U.S. after sailing foreign if the BWMS is the vessel’s primary BWM method.
Acceptable U.S. Ballast Water Management Methods vs. BWM Convention Methods답변여닫기
R ecently, the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse has received a number of reports indicating that untreated ballast water exchanges had been undertaken by vessels beyond their compliance date and without a valid Coast Guard extension. An investigation into these circumstances has found that "Statements of Compliance for Ballast Water Management" endorsed for "sequential exchange method" [Regulation D-1 of the BWM Convention] have been misinterpreted as applying to the U.S. BW regulations. These Statements of Compliance are issued under the provisions of the BWM Convention, which the United States is not signatory to. Under the U.S. BW regulations, meeting the BWM Convention requirements for sequential exchange is not an acceptable BWM method for vessels beyond the compliance date specified in 33 CFR 151.1512 & 151.2035 without a valid Coast Guard extension. Accordingly, vessels beyond their compliance date are reminded to employ one of the following BWM methods when operating in the waters of the United States ;
- Use a Coast Guard-approved ballast water management system (BWMS)
- Use only water from a U.S. public water system (PWS)
- Use an alternate management system (AMS) [NOTE: Only valid for 5-years from compliance date]
- Do not discharge BW into waters of the United States (includes the territorial sea as extended to 12 nautical miles from the baseline) or
- Discharge to a facility onshore or to another vessel for purposes of treatment.
Masters, owners/operators, agents and persons-in-charge are further reminded to maintain an up-to-date vessel specific BWM plan as detailed in 33 CFR 151.2050(g) and to provide training on the application of ballast water and sediment management and treatment procedures as required by 33 CFR 151.2050(h). These plans should include options for the Master to consider if the BWMS stops operating or becomes unexpectedly unavailable during a voyage, and the need to contact the cognizant COTP or District Commander as soon as possible to discuss options not addressed above.
For regulatory details, the CFRs can be conveniently accessed online at http://www.ecfr.gov/
Ballast Water Management (BWM) Extension Program (Mar. 2017)답변여닫기
If a type-approved system is not available for a vessel, and compliance with the other approved ballast water management methods is not possible, the vessel owner/operator may apply for an extension of the vessel’s compliance date. Whether a type-approved system is “available” will be based on evidence submitted by the vessel owner/operator with the application for extension.
The length of compliance date extensions, when granted, will be based on the availability of Coast Guard type-approved systems and detailed installation plans. Vessel owners and operators should anticipate that this will not typically align with scheduled dry docking.
1. Vessels having a compliance date before and including December 31, 2018:
These requests will be evaluated as follows:
1) Extension requests that do not provide a justification as to why compliance with one of the BWM methods in 33 CFR 151.1510 or 151.2025 is not possible by the current compliance date will be denied.
2) Vessel owners and operators who have identified that a Coast Guard type-approved BWMS is available for a vessel but do not have enough time to install it prior to the vessel’s compliance date must provide a strategy, including a detailed installation plan, for how the vessel would be brought into compliance by installing a Coast Guard type-approved BWMS before the end of the extension. Extensions granted on this basis should be expected not to exceed 18 months.
3) Vessel owners and operators who have identified that a Coast Guard type-approved BWMS is not available for a vessel must provide a strategy, including a timeline, for how the vessel would be brought into compliance before the end of the extension. Extensions granted on this basis should be expected not to exceed 30 months.
2. Vessels having a compliance date between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020:
The Coast Guard will begin considering these requests 18 months prior to the vessel’s compliance date. These requests could be impacted by changes in the market or availability of type-approved systems. Owners and operators are encouraged to submit additional information in support of their extension request.
3. Vessels having a compliance date of January 1, 2021 or later:
We do not anticipate granting extensions. Vessel owners and operators should plan to be in compliance on their current compliance date.
4. Alternative Management System (AMS):
Vessels having an AMS installed do not qualify for an extension because the vessel is in compliance with the regulations; the AMS can be used for a period of five years after the vessel’s compliance date. Once Coast Guard type-approved BWMS are available for a vessel, the vessel will no longer be able to install AMS in lieu of type-approved systems. Therefore, if a vessel is not past its compliance date and installing an AMS is being considered as a compliance method, the vessel owner or operator should evaluate whether a Coast Guard type-approved BWMS is available for the vessel. If it is determined that such as system is not available, an AMS can be installed before the vessel’s compliance date and used for up to five years after the vessel’s compliance date.
5. Existing compliance date extensions:
are valid until the date specified in the letter and may be transferred to a new owner/operator for the remainder of its term. Upon the letter’s expiration, a vessel must implement one of the approved ballast water management methods specified in 33 CFR 151.1510 or 151.2025.
6. Extension requests:
Vessel owners and operators are reminded to submit a request for an extension 12-16 months before the vessel’s compliance date. Requests that are submitted less than 12 months prior to the vessel’s compliance date are in jeopardy of being denied. The Coast Guard requires this time to review the application, request additional information from the applicant, and make a determination whether to grant or deny the request. If the extension request is denied, this allows the vessel owner or operator enough time to prepare for and install a BWMS, or assess compliance options using another approved ballast water management method prior to the vessel’s compliance date.
7. Additional extensions:
If the Coast Guard grants an extension for a vessel, the vessel owner/operator should plan operations to ensure the vessel will be in compliance at the vessel’s extended compliance date. Issuance of supplemental extensions should not be anticipated.
Review of MEPC 71답변여닫기
The 70th session of MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee) was held from July 3 to 7 at IMO Headquarters in London. Reviews related to ballast water management are as below.
1. The status of BWM Convention Ratification shows 60 countries representing 68.45% of world tonnage. (As of July, 2017)
2. IMO Basic Approval 2, Final Approval 1 (Techcross’ ECS-Hybrid System), Type Approval 4
3. 73 ballast water management systems have been granted Type Approval from their administration until now.
4. D-2 implementation scheme
1) New vessels (Construct after September 8, 2017)
Ship constructed on or after September 8, 2017 will have to comply with the D-2 standard at delivery.
2) Existing vessels (Construct before September 8, 2017)
Ships constructed before September 8, 2017 must comply with the D-2 standard as follows:
①Ships completed IOPP renewal survey September 8, 2014 ~ September 7, 2017 are comply with D-2 standard at the first IOPP renewal survey completed after ratification.
②Ships completed IOPP renewal survey September 8, 2012 ~ September 7, 2014 are comply with D-2 standard at the second IOPP renewal survey completed after ratification.
③Ships which did not complete IOPP renewal survey prior to September 8, 2017, are comply with D-2 standard at the first IOPP renewal survey completed after September 8, 2019.
④Ships which the IOPP certification scheme does not apply, must comply with the D-2 standard by September 8, 2024 at the latest.
5. In case that ships operating in areas where ballast water exchange is not possible, it was agreed to publish BWM circular with the reasons why ballast water exchange was not conducted in accordance with regulation.
6. Regarding the topic of gravity discharge for topside tanks, some ship owners proposed amendments to the Convention which allow those ships to conduct the ballast water exchange instead of the installation of the system even after the deadline of the installation of the system. However, many countries expressed the view that there were already ships installed the system and the retrofit is not structurally impossible, and no agreement was reached on this proposal.
7. At MEPC 68, it was agreed to develop guidance on contingency measures in case that a ship is unable to manage ballast water in accordance with Convention. As a result of the discussion, it was agreed to publish the guidance as BWM circular to stipulate followings: ①Discharging ballast water to another ship or land-based reception facility as an alternative measure. ②Having considered all the alternative measures, ballast water may be discharged, as acceptable to port state. ③Ships should take appropriate measures such as repair of the system in consultation with the port authority.
8. At MEPC 68, it was agreed to introduce experience-building phase to gather data and analyze the concerns for implementation of the BWM Convention. It was approved at MEPC 71 and the experience-building phase are scheduled to be completed in about 5 years with 3 stages; data gathering to collect the concerns over the implementation, data analysis and review requirements under the Convention.
9. MEPC 70 adopted the revised G8 Guidelines to strengthen testing requirements of the system and agreed to rename the G8 Guidelines as Code for Approval of BWMS (BWMS Code). It is expected to be adopted at MEPC 72.
(As of September 9) Ratification of BWM Convention답변여닫기
(As of June 13) Status of BWM Convention Ratification답변여닫기
(As of March 9) Status of BWM Convention Ratification답변여닫기
As of March 9, Belgium ratified the convention, 49 countries representing 34.82% of world tonnage have ratified the Ballast Water Management Convention (BWM Convention). The BWM Convention shall enter into force 12 months after the date on which not less than 30 states and the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 35% of the gross tonnages of world’s merchant fleets have ratified.
Antigua & Barbuda
Republic of Korea
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Syrian Arab Republic
Trinidad and Tobago
(As of November 25) Status of BWM Convention Ratification News답변여닫기
Indonesia signed the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention on November 24, one day after Morocco signed. Finland is also expected to sign the same Convention in the near future, too. Morocco’s ratification on November 23 brought the tonnage 32.93 percent.
Industry opinion is divided on whether Indonesia has sufficient tonnage, but if Finland ratified, it is most likely that the convention will finally enter into force.
Meanwhile, IMO secretary general Koji Sekimizu raised the possibility that its tonnage might over the 35 percent of the world tonnage that have ratified the convention, but stressed that this was subject to verification.
The BWM Convention shall enter into force 12 months after the date on which not less than 30 states and the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 35% of the gross tonnages of the world’s merchant fleets have ratified.
What is BWM Convention?답변여닫기
BWM Convention (Ballast Water Management Convention) is an international convention adopted by IMO (International Maritime Organization) to prevent marine pollution induced by ships’ ballast water in February 2004. This convention includes related specifics such as the definitions of related terms, convention coverage, the issue and the inspection of management certificates and legal punishment in breach of convention regulations.