With the US setting – and now implementing – its own ballast water management requirements, suppliers are faced with a number of issues. Will there be a market for equipment that meets IMO’s standards but not USCG’s, and are the US Coast Guard standards effectively the global benchmark? BWTT put those points to suppliers and received a spectrum of views.
Joe Thomas, managing director of Wärtsilä Water Systems and director of its Ballast Water Management Systems, suggested that there will be a market. The two performance standards have the same numeric values, he said, and “shipowners not trading in US waters have no need to purchase equipment that fulfils USCG-specific requirements,” he added.
Matt Granitto, business manager at Evoqua Water Technologies, also believes there is a potential market for IMO-only type-approved systems on vessels that are purpose built and will never enter US waters. However, “the challenge will be for how long these systems will be acceptable,” he said.
Revisions that are being discussed to modify the G8 guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems once BWMC enters into force, “seek to harmonise the IMO testing with that of the more stringent USCG testing,” he said, and a spokesman for Cathelco agreed: “There may be a small market for BWMSs that meet [only] the IMO’s standard … depending on the extent to which the revised G8 guidelines harmonise with the USCG’s.” In the main, however, “the USCG standard will set the level for the international standard,” the Cathelco spokesman predicted.
At Trojan Marinex, its managers suggested that it was not as simple as this. “There are some shipowners who need a USCG type-approved system, some who simply want [one], and then the majority who only need an IMO type-approved system,” their feedback notes said. They also offered a more nuanced assessment of progress on the G8 revisions, saying that, although the current review appears to be narrowing the gap between IMO and USCG standards, “the USCG’s preliminary decision on the MPN method has added a significant obstacle in this process.”
Tore Andersen, chief executive of Optimarin, is quite firm in his view that “USCG has set the de facto standard for BWMSs.” There may be a market for IMO-only systems based on MPN analysis, he said, but if shipowners want the flexibility of trading in US waters, “they must choose a USCG-compliant system. Full stop.”
Despite this, some equipment suppliers “insist that USCG testing is something that they are not going to look at,” said Andrew Marshall, chief executive of Coldharbour Marine. “But the reality is that having two different certification schemes, both enforceable, is unworkable if the requirements remain as diverged as they currently are,” he said.
A Techcross spokesman reminded BWTT that some UV-based system makers have challenged USCG’s rejection of MPN analysis. He nonetheless echoed the overwhelming view when he said: “If the USCG does not accept their appeals, a possible market for the UV-based system relying on the MPN method will be limited.”
© 2023 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd.