Thankyou.Iam(nameand0tle).I’llbehappytoansweranyques0onsa;erthepresenta0on.

1

2

3

4

5

Nothingnewhere–canbecoveredquicklyNorthAmerican&U.S.CaribbeanSeaEmissionControlAreas(ECAs)

•  August01,2012,establisheda1.00%sulfurlimitforvesselsoperatingwithintheECAs.

•  OnJanuary01,2015,theECAfueloilsulfurlimitwasloweredto0.10%.

Vessels subject to Annex VI and ECA must:

•  Use compliant fuel; or •  Satisfy an Annex VI, Reg. 3 exception or exemption (Like

exhaust gas scrubbers); or •  Satisfy an Annex VI, Reg. 4 equivalent (e.g., alternative

fuels, like LNG, or, a proven technology after successful trials).

NOXTiers• Marinedieselenginesinstalledonshipsa;erJanuary01,2011musthaveIMOTier2engines.• Marinedieselenginesinstalledonshipsa;erJanuary01,2016musthaveIMOTier3engines.

6

NorthAmericanEmissionsControlAreaincludesCanada,UnitedStates,andFrance(FrenchislandsoffeasternCanada)

7

Summarizeanddiscussingeneraltermsofhealth-basedrequirements,inparttosetupgraphiconnextslide

8

2020Reduc0oninannualaveragePar0culateMa\er(PM2.5)witha200-nmECAcomparedtobasecase.

Mostdrama0cimprovementsoccurinportcommuni0es,butevenareasfarfromportsseebenefits.

9

Thisisnotnew.Presentedtosetcontextofdiscussions.

MEPC70(OCT2016)affirmedwithwidesupport,tokeepthe2020schedulefor0.5%sulfurcap.

10

Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reports (FONARs) Currentlyvesselsmaysubmitfueloilnon-availabilityreports(FONARS)whencompliant

fuelisnotavailable(EPA/USCGop0on,notiden0fiedinMARPOL).Vesselsshouldmakeeveryefforttoobtaincompliantfuel,andVesselsmustincludetheplantoobtainenoughcompliantfuelaspartoftheirvoyageplans.

Ø  Ifashipownerisnotabletoobtaincompliantfuelbecauseitisnotavailable,aFuelOilNon-AvailabilityReport(FONAR)mustbesubmi\ed.

Ø  FONARSshouldnotbesentinforfailuretoappropriatelyplanforandacquireenoughcompliantfuel.AFONARisnotawaiver!Itisaformalstatementofnoncompliance.

Ø  If0.10%(1,000ppm)isnotavailable,anotherECA-compliantfuel,suchasultralowsulfuroranotherlowsulfurmarinedis0llate(forexample,15or500ppm),mustbeusedifitisavailable.

ExamplesofwhenFONARSmaybeusedinappropriately–usingsmallestfueltank,

failingtogotopierintheportbeingcalledontogetcompliantfuel.Whileashipisnotrequiredtodeviatefromorundulydelayvoyage,planningtogotopierinportcallingontogetcompliantfuel(wherecompliantfuelmaynotbesoldateverypierinaport),isnotadevia0onorunduedelay.

11

In2011theCoastGuardandtheEPAenteredintoaMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU)ordertoclearlydefinetherespec0verolesofeachagency,whichwasfurtherrefinedin2015viaRevisedProtocolonReferral.• CoastGuardisresponsibleforconduc0ngforeignanddomes0cvesselexamstoverifyAnnexVIcompliance.Thisisprimarilycompletedthroughadocumentandcer0ficatereview,unlesscleargroundsexistforamorethoroughexam.Whenevidenceofnon-complianceisdetectedduringthecourseofaCoastGuardexamina0on,theCoastGuardmaytakeenforcementac0onsorrefertoEPAforenforcement.• EPAisalsoresponsibleforshore-sidefuelsuppliercomplianceandcanprovidetechnicalexper0seduringvesselexamsifrequestedbytheCoastGuard.Morerecently,theCoastGuardcompletedafourweekvoluntaryfuelsamplingprogramworkinginconjunc0onwiththeEPA.Thepurposeoftheprogramwastodetermineiftherearenon-complianceissueswithfueloil.• A total of 47 vessels were requested to take samples (25 vessels at LA/LB, 22 vessels at Baltimore). Out of that 47, 10 (21%) declined to provide samples. • 37 vessels agreed to provide samples for a total of 74 samples. • Nine of the vessels that declined were in Baltimore and one was in LA/LB. • We have received all results back from EPA from all 37 of the vessels that volunteered samples.• Most results came back stating that the fuel oil was compliant except for 6 vessels (16% of the vessels) (9 Samples or 12% of all samples taken). • The highest non-compliant sample was 0.387% and the lowest non-compliant sample was 0.101%. • After reviewing MISLE and receiving feedback from the unit we think the 0.387% tank sample was contaminated since the fuel line sample result came back as compliant (0.086%). • The rest of the non-compliant results ranged from 0.101% to 0.155%. This very minimal and, after reviewing MISLE and receiving feedback from the units, we think this is a result of contamination in the sample lines.

12

13

14

In2011theCoastGuardandtheEPAenteredintoaMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU)ordertoclearlydefinetherespec0verolesofeachagencywhichwasfurtherrefinedin2015viaRevisedProtocolonReferral.InaccordancewiththeMOUtheCoastGuardisresponsibleforconduc0ngforeignanddomes0cvesselexamstoverifyAnnexVIcompliance.Thisisprimarilycompletedthroughadocumentandcer0ficatereview,unlesscleargroundsexistforamorethoroughexam.Whenevidenceofnon-complianceisdetectedduringthecourseofaCoastGuardexamina0on,theCoastGuardmaytakeenforcementac0onsorrefertoEPAforenforcement.TheEPAisalsoresponsibleforshore-sidefuelsuppliercomplianceandcanprovidetechnicalexper0seduringvesselexamsifrequestedbytheCoastGuard.Morerecently,theCoastGuardcompletedafourweekvoluntaryfuelsamplingprogramworkinginconjunc0onwiththeEPA.Thepurposeoftheprogramwastodetermineiftherearenon-complianceissueswithfueloil.• A total of 47 vessels were requested to take samples (25 vessels at LA/LB, 22 vessels at Baltimore). Out of that 47, 10 (21%) declined to provide samples. • 37 vessels agreed to provide samples for a total of 74 samples. • Nine of the vessels that declined were in Baltimore and one was in LA/LB. • We have received all results back from EPA from all 37 of the vessels that volunteered samples.• Most results came back stating that the fuel oil was compliant except for 6 vessels (16% of the vessels) (9 Samples or 12% of all samples taken). • The highest non-compliant sample was 0.387% and the lowest non-compliant sample was 0.101%. • After reviewing MISLE and receiving feedback from the unit we think the 0.387% tank sample was contaminated since the fuel line sample result came back as compliant (0.086%). • The rest of the non-compliant results ranged from 0.101% to 0.155%. This very minimal and, after reviewing MISLE and receiving feedback from the units, we think this is a result of contamination in the sample lines.

15

Shipsmaybeexemptedfromfuelsulfurlimitsforaperiodof0metoallowopera0onaltrialsforthedevelopmentofnewemissionreduc0onandcontroltechnologiesorotherenginedesignimprovements(forexample,developmentofexhaustgasscrubbertechnologiesorconversiontoLNGfuel).Exemp0onsrequirerobustgoals,specificterms,andanaggressiveschedulefor

technologytes0ng.

17

Thankyou.Iam(nameand0tle).I’llbehappytoansweranyques0onsa;erthepresenta0on.

ABSTRACTFORCONFERENCES,ETC:

ArulepublishedbytheU.S.CoastGuardinMarch2012,andeffec0veasofJune21,2012,establishedastandardfortheallowableconcentra0onoflivingorganismsinships'ballastwaterdischargedintowatersoftheU.S.

TherulealsoestablishedCoastGuardrequirementsfortypeapprovalofballastwatermanagementsystems,orBWMSforshort.

TheU.S.ballastwaterdischargestandardalignswiththeInterna0onalMari0meOrganiza0on'sBallastWaterManagementConven0onadoptedin2004.A2011reportbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtec0onAgencyScienceAdvisoryBoardconcludedthestandardspecifiedinthefinalruleisthemoststringentstandardthatvesselscanprac0cablyimplementandtheCoastGuardcanenforceatthis0me.

Astechnologiesadvanceandastreatmentefficaciesimprove,theCoastGuardplanstorevisitthestandardtodetermineifmorestringentrequirementsareprac0cableandenforceable.

18

RAC-REMPEITCUNEP

19

Maintopicsthatwillbediscussedinthispresenta0on:

RefertoUSCG.milwebsiteformoreinfoonthesetopics,andlinkwillbelistedatendofpresenta0on.

20

ReasonwhytheCoastGuardismovingfromimplementa0ontocompliance:

Withallofthechallenges,thereisgoodnews.TheCoastGuardcon0nuestoimproveandevolvetheBWprograminresponsetochangingcircumstances.

21

ImportantpointsonthecurrentstatusoftheUSCGBWprogram:

CoastGuardrecognizesthatthecon0nuingchallengetoselectanappropriatetechnologyormanagementmethodthatfitsavessel’sneeds.However,theCoastGuardisrequiredtoprotectthemarineenvironmentfrompollu0on,includingbiologicalpollu0onviainvasivespecies.

Nowthatcomplianceisthefocus,wewilldiscussop0ons:ItisimportanttoknowthatavesseldoesNOTneedtoinstallaBallastWaterManagementSystemtomeetthedischargestandard.TheFinalRulehasseveralop0onstomeetthedischargestandard:1) RetainballastwateronboardwhileinwatersoftheU.S.(i.e.,within12nm)-lotsofinnova0onhere2) InstallaCoastGuard-approvedBallastWaterManagementSystem-mostselectedmethod3) Dischargetoafacilityonshoreortoanothervesselforpurposeoftreatment–overseasthisisemergingasanop0on,notinUSyet4) UseONLYwaterfromaU.S.PublicWaterSystem(PWS).Therearealsotwotemporarycomplianceop0ons:1) UseanAlternateManagementSystem,orAMS.-110op0ons(Thisisaforeign-approvedBWtreatmentsystemreviewedandacceptedbytheCoastGuard.)Or,2) TheCoastGuardmaygrantavesselanextensiontoitscompliancedate.–moredifficulttojus0fy

23

Firstdiscussop0ontotemporarilycomplyviaaninstalledAMS:

24

TheAMSprogramsupportsthedevelopmentofahealthymarketplaceforthesenewtreatmenttechnologies• 111 AMS acceptance letters issued to manufacturers as of August 2018.

• 24 of them are accepted for use in fresh water.

AMSisabridgingprogramforvesselsthatinstalledforeigntype-approvedsystemspriortotheircompliancedate.60monthsofusageallows0mefortheAMSmanufacturertopursuetypeapproval.

ThemanufacturermustworkwiththeCoastGuardtoupdateitsAMSacceptancele\ertoreflectanychangestoitsforeigntypeapproval,includingrenewals,revisions,restric0ons,andaddi0onalequipmentorconfigura0onsapproved.O;enonlyauthorizedfortwosalini0es.Canbeamendedbymanufacturertoreflectallthree.

TemporarycomplianceviaextensioncannotleadtotemporarycomplianceviaAMS,soextensionsarenotusedtofacilitateAMSinstalla0on.

25

Nextdiscussop0ontotemporarilycomplyviaanextension:

26

• ThegoaloftheCoastGuardcomplianceextensionprocedureistoprovidereasonableflexibilitytovesselownersandoperators,whereappropriate,whileensuringsteadyprogresstowardachievingthestatutoryintentofenhancingprotec0onofU.S.watersfrominvasivespeciesinballastwaterthatcandamagetheenvironmentandharmoureconomy.

• TheCoastGuardisbalancingthedualmissionsofenvironmentalprotec0onandfacilita0ngsecuremari0metrade.TheCoastGuardiscommi\edtoassis0ngvessels’pursuitofathoughpullydevelopedandwelldocumentedcomplianceop0on.However,vesselsmustbeawarethatalackofforesightandplanningwillnotbeconsidera0onsingran0ngextendedcompliance.

• Factorsaffec0ngCoastGuardapproachtoextendingcomplianceincludethenumber,type,andopera0ngprofileofapprovedsystems,thecapacityofmanufacturersandshipyards,andvessel’snormalopera0ngandmaintenanceschedules.Thedynamicnatureofthesefactorsresultinongoingreviewandupdateofourprocedures.

• TheCoastGuardunderstandsthatnosinglesystemisappropriateforeveryvessel,soitisincumbentuponvesselowners/operatorstoemployengineeringandopera0onalsolu0onsinordertoinstallatreatmentsystematorbeforethevessel’scompliancedate.Wheretechnicalandopera0onalaccommoda0onscanbemade,theCoastGuardmayconsiderextendingthecompliancedatebasedonaninstalla0onplan.

• AsofMay2018,OESreceived14,780extensionrequests(12,241grantedand2,539notgranted).

27

•  Asser0onsmustbecapableofbeingsupportedwithdocumenta0on•  Examplesofacquisi0on=contract,purchaseorder,completedanalysesdemonstra0ngthat

systemwillbeintegrated•  ExamplesofexpectedTA=onlistofsystemsunderreviewbyMSC,statementfromILon

statusoftes0ng•  Examplesofinstall=contractwithinstaller,shipyardormanufacturer

•  Whereacquisi0onofanapprovedsystemisnotreasonable,theCoastGuardwillconsideradetailedanalysis,suchascompletedengineeringstudiesand3Dscanning,thatsupporttheowner/operatoreffortstomatchthevesselwithanapprovedBWMSatafuturedatebeforeconsideringanyextensionrequest.Vesselowners/operatorsshouldbeworkingcloselywithBWMSmanufacturerstoensurethesystemsindevelopmentmeettheneedsoftheirvessels.

•  Reasonsandcommonerrorsregardingextensionrequestsü  Complianceispossiblebyupcomingcompliancedate.ü  Informa0onmissing,orasser0onsnotsupported.

•  Commonconcernsü  Le\ertransferableincaseofnewownerorvesselname,issuedtoIMO#.ü  Drydockslipsmayresultinless0methanplanned.ü  FailuretoplanaheadmayresultinshipdelaysorlapseineligibilitytotradeinU.S.waters.

Whilenotrequiredbyregula0on,requestsforextensionshouldbemaintainedonboardthevesselasabestprac0ceandbeavailableforinspec0onandvalida0onbyCoastGuardMarineInspectorsandPortStateControl(PSC)Examiners.Ifinconsistenciesaredetected,oravessel,whichisotherwiserequiredtobeincompliancelackstheappropriatedocumenta0on,themarineinspectororPSCexaminershouldexpandthePSCExam.Complianceisexpecteda;erextensionsexpire.

28

USCGtypeapprovedBWMSismosto;entheselectedcompliancemethod:

29

Asof22Aug2018:• 9type-approvalcer0ficates,• currentrangeofflowrates:50to16,200m3/hr–threesystemshavecapaci0esover10K,

• and10moreapplica0onsunderreview(threeofwhichareupdates).

In2018,weexpect7-10moreapplica0ons:

• Totalof56Le\ersofIntent,includingthosemen0onedabove(notallareexpectedtofollowthrough).

30

Becauseflowratesoftypeapprovedsystemsmeetaverageflowrate,itisgenerallypossibletocomplyviaUSCGtypeapprovedBWMS.Theavailablesystemsmaynotbesuitedforaspecificvessel’sopera0onalortechnicalprofile,soeachsitua0onisreviewedonacase-by-casebasis.

Datasource:ABS,2014

31

Notasimpleintegra0onprocess:CoastGuardhasheardfromshipownerswhoarefrustratedwiththequalityofequipmentandavailabilityoftechnicalsupportand0melyresolu0onofissuesintheglobalBWMSmarket.AstheU.S.hastransi0onedtoacomplianceregime,andnowrequiresvesselstousetypeapprovedsystemsorAMS,vesseloperatorswillbeartheburdenoffamiliariza0onwithnewtechnologies.We'velistenedtoowners,andonephraseinevitablycomesup–theywanta"PlugandPlay”system.Ownerswhoboughtnewshipsinthelastseveralyears,wroteBWMS-readyspecifica0onsintocontractstoensuretherewasadequatespace,power,andpipingavailableforafuture"plugandplay"system.Ownerswhobought/installedBWMSdescribeproblemswithitnoteffec0velytrea0ngwaterinportswhereeitherthewaterdoesn'thaveenoughsaltoritstoomurky.Theseownersexpressfrustra0onthatthesystemdoesn'tseamlesslyintegrateintotheirexis0ngopera0ons.Astheseownersbegintorealizethatthesystemsarenot"plugandplay",theyalsoexpressfurtherfrustra0onwiththelackoftraining,repairandmaintenancefollow-upfortheinstalledsystems...thesupportsideforthesesystemsarealsonot"plugandplay"withowners'opera0ons.Lastly,theownerswhohavenotyetinvestedinaBWMS,andwhoareseekingextensions,pointtothelackof"plugandplay"capability--foranyofthereasonsdescribedabove--astheirprimaryconcernfornotinves0ng.TheCoastGuardunderstandsthefrustra0on.Whilemanyshipownerswanttodotherightthing,marketforceshaven'tincen0vizedthemtospendthenecessarycapitaltofullyinvestinBWMS.Hence,insteadof"owning"thisproblem,theyarelookingforvendorsandpartnerswhocanintegrateintotheiropera0onsandprovidethiscapabilitywithoutdisrup0on.Hereinliestheproblem.ThebreadthofBWMSimpactonvesselopera0onsmeansthata"plugandplay"solu0onisnotpossibleformanyships.InordertocomplywiththeBWMSregula0ons,allshipswillhavetomodifytheirdesign,opera0onsandsupporttosomeextent;someshipswillrequiremorefundamentalchanges.Thisisunlikewhatwe'veseenbeforewhenaddressingenvironmentalregula0ons.IfyoulookatBWMSthroughthelensofotherenvironmentalstandards,thereareinteres0ngparallels.Whetheritsoilywaterseparators,airemissions,orotherwastemanagementtherearethingsthatwecanlearnfrompastexamplesofwhenregula0onsledchange.Howeverifyoulookcloser,thecomparisonsbetweenBWMSandtheotherenvironmentalregula0onsquicklyfadeaway.Inmostcases,cargoloadinganddischargeweren'tdependentontheopera0onofanOWS,exhaustscrubber,ortankcleanerinthesamewaythatBWMSare.Sowhilethemindsetanddesirefor"plugandplay"wasreasonableforthesetypesofenvironmentaltechnologies,itisnotadequateforBWMS.BecauseBWMSissocloselylinkedtotheabilitytoloadordischargecargoinreal0me,ownersshouldn'texpect"plugandplay"andinsteadshouldrequirethesamelevelofdiligenceandintegra0onasanyothercargomanagementsystemonboard.Inthesameconversa0ons,weo;enhearowners/BWMSmanufacturersacknowledgethatthemarketisnot‘there’yetwithrespecttointegra0onandthatmore0meisneeded.Whileweappreciatethatitwilltake0meforintegra0ontooccur,theCoastGuardisnotconvincedthatitwilloccurwithoutaforcingfunc0on.Postponementisnottheanswer.Wesuspectthatifthecompliancedateswerepostponed(assumingwecouldwithoutregulatorychanges),marketforceswouldsimplystallandwewouldfindourselvesinasimilarsitua0onseveralyearsfromnow.Weknowthatfortheregula0onstomeetthesocietalexpecta0onstopreventthespreadofinvasivespecies,thatcon0nuedintegra0on,familiariza0on,andtechnologydevelopmentarenecessary.Ownersandmanufacturerswhocannavigatethismarketandadjusttheirdesign,opera0onsandsupporttosustainablyachievetheintendedresultswillul0matelyprevail.

USCGtypeapprovalisalimited,butrobust,reviewoftheBWMS:EngineeringReview:1. ILassessBWMScompliancewithdesignandconstruc0onof§162.060-202. BillofMaterialsanddrawingtoverify

46CFRSubchapterF-MechanicalEngineering46CFRSubchapterJ-ElectricalEngineeringUSCGrecognizedclasssocietyrules

3. ATEXcer0fica0onNotacceptedbyCGasequivalenttoSubchapterJMaynotbeinstalledonUSflaggedvesselsinhazardousloca0onsBiologicalefficacytes0ngisconductedatlandbasedtestfacili0estoensuretreatmentsystems

doinfactkillorganisms.Shipboardtes0ngtakesplacefor6-monthtrialsaboardcommercialshipstoverifysystemswork

asdesigned.Componenttes0ngisperformedonelectricalandelectronicpartstoprovelongtermmarine

use.Shipscomeinmanytypesandsizes,andsomusttreatmentsystems.Thisisproblema0cbecausetes0ngdura0onsandcostsmakeitimprac0caltotestallversionsofthesystem.Mostmanufacturersplantooffermul0plesizesandvaria0onsoftheirbaseunit.Filtersarekeycomponentsthatvarywithdifferentsizemodels.Manufacturerswanttooffermanysizesoftreatmentsystemswithfilterop0onswithouthavingtotesteachvaria0on.Scalingmaybeusedtoassessthesystemadequacy.

Datacancomefromtwosources:

34

DNVGLinHovik,Norway(mergerofDetNorskeVeritasandGermanischerLloydin2013)includes:• DanishHydraulicIns0tute(DHI)inDenmark• CaliforniaMari0meAcademy’sGoldenBearresearchfacilityandtrainingvessel.KoreanRegisterofShipping,whichincludes:KoreaMarineEquipmentResearchIns0tute(KOMERI),BusanTechnoPark(BTP),KoreaTes0ngLaboratory(KTL),SDSKorea,KoreaTes0ngandResearchIns0tute(KTR),LabFron0er(LF),MarineEco-TechnologyIns0tute(MEI),andNLPCo.ControlUnionCer0fica0onsbasedinNetherlandsLloyd’sRegisterEMEA(Europe–MiddleEast–Africa),includesDHI(Denmark),DHISingapore,andDelta(Denmark).NSFInterna0onalinAnnArbor,MIincluded:• Forbiologicaltes0ng–theGreatShipsIni0a0ve(GSI)inSuperior,WI,andMari0meEnvironmentalResourceCenter(MERC)inBal0more,MD.• Forenvironmentaltes0ng–RetlifLabs,whichhasloca0onsintheeasternU.S.

DodotheUSCGandIMOtypeapprovalprocessesrelate?

36

Intheseareas,theG8GuidelinesandU.S.tes0ngrequirementsaresimilar.

VesselpicturedisCaliforniaMari0meAcademy’sGoldenBear.

37

Thereare4keytechnicaldifferencesinthetypeapprovalprocess,includingdischargestandard,shipboardtes0ng,hold0me,andcomponentorenvironmentaltes0ng.

Thispictureshowsacomponentundergoinginclinetes0ng.

38

TheHoldTimereferstotheprocedurethatsamplesare“held”fora0mebeforemeasuringorganismstoobserveandmeasureifre-growthoccured.

2016Guidelinesforapprovalofballastwatermanagementsystems(G8)(resolu0onMEPC.279(70))(thiswillbesupersededbytheBWMSCode(resolu0onMEPC.300(72)),inOctober2019)h\p://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/BallastWaterManagement/Pages/BWMFAQ.aspx

39

CoastGuardissuedonMarch1,2018:NVIC01-18–“BallastWaterManagementForControlOfNon-IndigenousSpeciesInWatersOfTheUnitedStates”

ThiscomplianceapproachwillfollowasimilarregimeinplaceforallotherCGequipmentinspec0on(OWS,MSD,etc.)ACoastGuardinspectorwillreviewdocumenta0onincludingthetypeapprovalcer0ficateorAMSacceptancele\er.Theinspectorwillverifythecrew’sknowledgeregardinguseoftheequipmentandverifytheequipment’scondi0on.

Ifaninspectorisnotsa0sfiedbytheseresults,theycantakesamplesoftheballastwaterdischarge.(TheCoastGuardcon0nuestodevelopmorerapidandaccuratemethodsforsamplingandanalysis.)

40

•8,277BWMexams,1.9%increase•Deficienciesincreasedfrom110in2016to219in2017•Majorityofthedeficiencieswere:logs/records,alternatemanagementsystems(AMS),mandatoryprac0ces,BWMplan,andthedischargeofuntreatedballastwaterintowatersoftheU.S.•Opera0onalcontrolrestric0onsimposedon17vessels•Sanc0onsrangedfromwarnings,No0ceofViola0ons(NOV),andAdministra0veCivilPenalty(ClassI)againstseveralvesselsforfailuretoimplementBWMrequirementsExampleA•Vesselallegedlydrydockeda;erextendedcompliancedate•A;erthePSCteamwentonboarditwasdeterminedthatthevesseldidnotgotodrydock•COTPacceptedBWEasoneoftheBWMmethodsandallowedthevesseltodischargeBWExampleB•Masterwasnotawareoftheimplementa0onscheduleforapprovedBWMmethods•Unitrequiredthevesseltogoout12NMandconductBWEanduseitsAMSasexchangedBW•Manufacturer'sinstruc0onsrequiredBWtobetobefilteredandUV'dontheuptakeanddischarge•Vesselwentbeyond12NMandconductedexchangeasdescribed,thenreturnedEXAMPLEC•AMSinoperableforalmostayear;whenitarrivedinUS,itaskedforanextension•Extensiondenied;itwasapparentthatAMSwouldn’tberepairedunlessownerwasrequiredto•AMSrepaireda;erCOTPOrderwasissuedprohibi0ngdischarge•VesselusedNa0onalCargoBureau(NCB)tocer0fycargoholds(servingasBWtanks)cleanbeforeli;ingBWEXAMPLED•VesselfailedtousetheAMSwhileconduc0ngaBWopera0onsintheriver•ManufactureradvisedvesselthatAMSwasnotaffectedbysalinity,butthatbecauseIMOrequirestes0ngof2of3condi0ons(saltwater,brackishwater,andFW),theyonlytested2•VesselprohibitedfromdischarginguntreatedBWun0loneoftheBWMrequirementsismet•USCGunitreceiveddocumenta0onthatvesselwasabletouseAMSpriortodischargingintoriver

41

Whynotjusttakethe4cket?• Educa4on-EnsurevesselisawareoftheirBWMobliga0onsthroughoutreachbeforeenforcementbecomenecessary• LOW-Formalwri\enno0ceofminorviola0ons(LOWinlieuofCPandinlieuofS&R)

• NOV-Pre-determinedmonetarypenalty(max$10K)• CP(ClassI)-AdjudicatedbyaCGHOandowner/operatormaybesubjecttoCPs,asupdatedannuallyforinfla0on

• S&RProceeding-Presenta0ontoanALJofallevidencesurroundingaspecificoffensecommi\edbyamarinerholdingmerchantmarinercreden0alsissuedbyCG

• LOU/SuretyBonds-Wheneveraviola0oncaseispursued,theMI/PSCOshouldnormallyrequireaLOUoraSuretyBondfromtheowner/operatortoensurepaymentofapenalty/fine• CriminalProceedings-PersonknowinglyviolatestheBWMregsmaybeguiltyofaClassCFelonyandbesubjecttocriminalproceedings.

42

Inoperablesystemsareareality:• CG-CVCPolicyLeKer18-02–“GuidelinesForEvalua0ngPoten0alCoursesOfAc0onWhenAVesselBoundForAPortInTheUnitedStatesHasAnInoperableBallastWaterManagement(BWM)System”• Shipownershavecomplainedthatthisle\erdoesnotallowforlong-termoutages.Thatiscorrect.Ifamanufacturerdoesnotrepairthesystem,theshipownermustfindanotherqualifiedseviceprovider.

43

44

45

Ingeneral,theCoastGuard'sOfficeofCommercialVesselCompliance(CG-CVC)istheappropriatepointofcontactforques0onsaboutcurrentUSCGrequirements:CGCVC@uscg.milExtensionrequestsforcompliancedatesunderBallastWaterManagementregula0onsshouldbedirectedtoenvironmental_standards@uscg.milTheUSCGMarineSafetyCentermanagestheU.S.TypeApprovalprocess,andapplicantsshouldsendques0onstomsc@uscg.milQues0onsabouttes0ngfacili0esandacceptanceasIndependentLabsforthepurposeofevalua0ngBallastWaterManagementSystemsshouldbesenttotypeapproval@uscg.milDetailsregardingUSCGapprovedequipmentcanbefoundattheCoastGuardMari0meInforma0onExchange(CGMIX)ath\p://cgmix.uscg.milNOTE:TheCoastGuarddoesnotadministertheVesselGeneralPermit(VGP)program.PleasevisittheU.S.EnvironmentalProtec0onAgency'swebsiteformoreinforma0onath\ps://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels-incidental-discharge-permi�ng-3oremailvgp@epa.govCommercialVesselCompliance(CVC)-CompliancemanagerOpera0ng&EnvironmentalStandards(OES)-Regula0on&policyprogrammanager

Con0nued

MarineSafetyCenter(MSC)-Typeapprovalmanager

Design&EngineeringStandards(ENG)-3rd-partyIndependentLabmanager

47

Foulingplatetest,SmithsonianEnvironmentalResearchCenter

48