Coast Guard decision adds confusion to market as industry awaits IMO recount to determine if regulations come into force in 2016

BALLAST water treatment system makers are set to fight a decision by the US Coast Guard that could leave shipowner customers with expensive but useless equipment on board. The news comes as the industry awaits a final decision on whether international rules that push for technology installation will finally come into force.

The USCG is currently putting, or about to put, 32 treatment systems through trials to determine if they are allowed to be used on commercial ships that discharge ballast in US waters.

None have been type-approved to date and with the International Maritime Organization currently recounting its figures to see if the ballast water convention could be about to come into force, it is a tense period for shipowners that must make million-dollar decisions over technologies they will be forced to install in the near future.

The US will not accept the IMO convention and treatment system standards, and has subsequently created its own ballast water rules for owners and its own requirements on the tests that treatment systems must pass before they are accepted for use in US waters.

The decision this week by the USCG that those systems that use ultraviolet light must be able to determine if the organisms in the discharge water are dead rather than what it terms non-viable, will be a setback for the system makers seeking to expand sales just as the international rules will come into force, creating huge demand by shipowners.

Four system makers were sent letters by the USCG to state that a particular method of testing performance, known as Most Probable Number, will not be accepted.

The decision is contrary to the requirements for system makers to gain international type approval under the IMO system, in which organisms need only be non-viable, meaning they cannot reproduce.

The systems makers caught out by the USCG ruling are  Sweden's Alfa Laval, Denmark's Desmi Ocean Guard,  Hyde Marine in the US and Trojan Marinex in Canada.

They were among the first to be type approved under the IMO's guidelines and therefore have been spending the following years selling their products to shipowners that have attempted to remain ahead of the regulations.

Some manufacturers have been waiting nearly 10 years, since gaining IMO type approval to see if the IMO convention will come into force or for the US rules to be finalised, for sales to pick up. Slow uptake led Desmi to announce in 2013 it was scaling back on its sales and marketing activities.

Desmi Ocean Guard chief executive Rasmus Folsø declined to comment immediately following the USCG announcement this week, saying only that the company was preparing a statement.   

Canada's Trojan Marinex marketing manager Mark Kustermans told Lloyd's List the company was disappointed with the USCG position, saying its submission was based on solid scientific evidence that the MPN method is a robust method to determine the risk of aquatic invasive species, and provides an equivalent level of protection compared with the other method allowed by the USCG.

He confirmed the company is considering an appeal of the decision and will still seek to get full US type approval.

Likewise Alfa Laval, which was the first of the 32 makers to submit a letter of intent to the USCG to seek US type approval in 2012, issued a statement to say it remains convinced it will gain type approval by the US in 2016 and does not understand how the USCG decision was made.

Period of grace

As well as potentially stalling these four system makers' sales, the USCG decision will be a further source of confusion and uncertainty for shipowners. If a resolution is not found, owners that have bought systems for their ships will find they are unable to use their vessels in US trade once a current period of grace expires.

Since 32 systems known to have been notified to the USCG seeking type approval, it leaves 27 other systems that have yet to gain the final nod from the US authorities. Some of these also use ultra violet light, others do not, having been designed to use an active substance or chemical instead.

One of those with UV light treatment is Norwegian manufacturer Optimarin. Chief executive Tore Andersen boasted after the USCG announcement that his company had not sought the same method of approval as his competitors and Optimarin was now "leading the way" to getting type approval by the USCG in 2016.

He points to his system's UV power as a key capability to kill off organisms rather than allow them to be discharged alive but incapable of reproduction.

Critics of all UV systems point to the need to constantly replace UV bulbs and the high power demands that will mean extra fuel may need to be used in port. Other critics also highlight the two instances in which IMO type approved systems have been pulled off the marketpreviously as an indication of how shipping is being forced to install a hastily developed industrial solution that none trust.

Article from Lloyd's List

Published: Thursday 17 December 2015