|
Methodology for information gathering and the conduct of work of GESAMP-BWWG
2.23 The Committee noted that the GESAMP-BWWG had continued to develop the "Methodology for information gathering and conduct of work" during its second meeting, taking into account the comments made by MEPC 54 and the submissions MEPC 55/2/1 (United States), MEPC 55/2/2 (Japan) and MEPC 55/2/6 (European Commission) commenting on the draft Methodology.
2.24 The delegation of the European Commission expressed its appreciation for the manner in which GESAMP-BWWG had addressed the comments contained in document MEPC 55/2/6 (European Commission).
2.25 Having considered document MEPC 55/2/29 (Norway), the Committee noted that a significant number of delegations supported the view that by-products created during the ballast water treatment comparable to those occurring naturally and which due to their short period of existence do not have harmful effects after discharge should not be regarded as Active Substances. However, due to concerns expressed by some other delegations, the Committee requested the GESAMP-BWWG to consider the issue in light of the document provided by Norway and provide its comments to BLG 11 for further consideration and subsequent reporting to MEPC 56.
2.26 The Committee considered the action items related to the development of Methodology for information gathering and conduct of work contained in annex 4 of document MEPC 55/2/16 (Secretariat) and agreed:
.1 that all information related to safety and environmental protection, including physical properties, environmental fate and toxicity, should be treated as non-confidential;
.2 with the Group's responses to the comments made in documents MEPC 55/2/2 and MEPC 55/2/6. The delegation of the United States, however, was of the view that the draft methodology is still overly prescriptive and not fully consistent with the Procedure (G9), intrusive in Administration responsibilities and does not take advantage of the work properly done by the Administrations in reviewing the applications prior to their submissions;
.3 to develop criteria which would specify how chemicals used in the treatment of ballast water could be handled and stored on board ship. In this respect the Committee invited the GESAMP-BWWG to provide an outline for such criteria to facilitate the process;
.4 to develop a suitable Emission Scenario Document (ESD) to be used by applicants and the Group for the Risk Assessment of chemicals associated with ballast water treatment, particularly with regard to calculating the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) and to invite Governments to come forward with suitable proposals for such a document. The delegation of the United States recognized the merit of an ESD but was not certain on how this could be timely developed and therefore could not agree that such a document should be a pre-condition for Final Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems that make use of Active Substances;
.5 to urge applicants to submit their applications in the standardized format indicated in the Draft methodology for information gathering and the conduct of work of GESAMP-BWWG;
.6 that the Group would not be able to consider full-scale operational risks until an Emission Scenario Document becomes available;
.7 that the Group should not be requested to evaluate conceptual systems that did not include details on how the system would be working in practice. The delegation of Sweden suggested that in order to avoid GESAMP-BWWG becoming a bottleneck, the Administrations should pre-check the completeness of the application dossiers;
.8 that all possible chemicals produced by a proposed system should be considered by the Group in order to evaluate the risks associated with long-term, high volume, regular discharges into the marine environment and that the Draft Methodology should be amended to reflect this. The delegation of the United States, however, was of the view that such an evaluation goes beyond the provisions of the Procedure (G9) and the requirements contained in Regulation D-3.2 of the BWM Convention and therefore could not support the GESAMP-BWWG proposal; and
.9 to refer the GESAMP-BWWG Methodology to BLG 11 for consideration and subsequent reporting to MEPC 56.
Proposed amendments to the BWM Convention
2.27 The Committee considered the proposal for amending Regulation E-1.1.5 of the BWM Convention contained in document MEPC 55/2/24 (Republic of Korea) and agreed that the amendment procedure described in Article 19 of the BWM Convention could not be applied as the Convention was not yet in force. The Committee discussed the merit of the proposal in principle and agreed to put it on record for action as appropriate when the conditions for entry into force of the Convention were met.
Other information related to ballast water management and control
2.28 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 55/2/14 (India) regarding a self validating e-Ballast Water Reporting Form and document MEPC 55/2/28 (ICS) commenting on this document by India, noted that the proposed form was identical to the one contained in resolution A.868(20). Having noted further the comments by Venezuela and FOEI regarding the usefulness of such a form to encourage standardization and possible establishment of a database in the frame of GloBallast Partnerships, the Committee agreed to forward the two documents to BLG 11 for consideration of possible benefits derived from using such a form and subsequent reporting to MEPC 56.
2.29 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 55/2/20 (Brazil) proposing an engineering questionnaire and a table that allows for a better control of information on testing Ballast Water Management Systems, noted that it inaccurately refers to document FSI 14/7/3 (IACS) addressing the validity aspect of Type Approval certificates issued by IACS member societies. The Committee noted further that IACS members would undertake approval of ballast water management systems as required by Regulation B-3 of the BWM Convention in accordance with the Guidelines contained in resolution MEPC.125(53) and would not impose any additional installation requirements over and above those contained in these Guidelines. Having also noted the views of other delegations regarding aspects related to long term effects, maintenance and reliability of Ballast Water Management Systems, the Committee agreed to refer the document by Brazil to BLG 11 for further consideration as appropriate.
2.30 The Committee noted the information provided in document MEPC 55/INF.10 (Japan) regarding the research on the new concept of Non-Ballast Water Ship (NBWS), which could be free from the requirements of the ballast water management and contribute to the marine environment preservation.
Report of the Ballast Water Review Group
2.31 The Ballast Water Review Group met from 9 to 11 October 2006 under the chairmanship of Mr. B. Elliott (United Kingdom).
2.32 Referring to the report of the Review Group (MEPC 55/WP.4) and, in particular, the conclusions of the Review Group introduced by its chairman, ICS, supported by a number of delegations, expressed serious concerns regarding the availability of ballast water treatment technologies by the first application date of the D-2 standard as specified in the BWM Convention and suggested to delay the first operative date for the application of Regulation D-2 by at least two years. As requested, the text of the statement by ICS is attached in annex 6.
2.33 The delegation of Norway, supported by several delegations, spoke in favour of developing an exemption procedure to ensure that shipowners would not be penalized if treatment technologies are not available by 1 January 2009.
2.34 The delegation of Spain expressed concern about the confusing message Member Governments are currently sending to the industry by not ratifying the Convention and urged all Member Governments to follow the example set by Spain and the other five countries by becoming contracting States to the Convention at their earliest opportunity.
2.35 The delegation of Sweden requested clarification regarding the need to complete the testing according to Guidelines (G8) before applying for Final Approval in accordance with Procedure (G9).
2.36 IUCN expressed concern on the lack of information, at this stage of the process, on the way in which Administrations would ascertain proper testing of ballast water treatment systems to safeguard marine biodiversity.
2.37 Many delegations which took the floor expressed appreciation for the work done by the Review Group and its chairman.
2.38 In summarizing the discussions, the Chairman of the Committee stated that the amendment procedure described in Article 19 of the BWM Convention could not be applied until the Convention entered into force and expressed the view that the solution to this situation was the early ratification and entry into force of the Convention, which would allow necessary amendments or exemptions to reflect the availability of the treatment technologies.
2.39 Returning to the report of the Group (MEPC 55/WP.4), the Committee, after consideration, noted with appreciation that all the information provided had been reviewed, and took action as indicated in the following paragraphs.
2.40 The Committee noted the conclusions of the Review Group contained in paragraphs 22 to 28 of its report and, in particular, that type approved ballast water management systems would probably be available for installation prior to the first application date of the BWM Convention.
2.41 The Committee noted, however, that the installation of type approved ballast water management systems on ships already contracted to be built in or after 2009 may not be feasible or only possible at excessive cost and/or delay delivery.
2.42 The Committee noted the two options as presented in the report of the Review Group (i.e. (1) to expedite the process of amending the BWM Convention in order to delay the first date for the application of Regulation D-2 by using a procedure similar to the one used to amend MARPOL Annex IV; and (2) to develop an exemption procedure for the first set of vessels applying the Convention), which were intended to address the concerns raised by Administrations and to minimize the negative consequences caused by the possible delay in the developments of type approved systems envisaged when the Convention was adopted.
2.43 The Committee agreed to request the Legal Office of the Organization to provide legal opinions on the two options above and any other possible options to address the relevant concerns.
2.44 With regard to other actions requested by the Review Group, the Committee agreed to:
.1 invite the Administrations to develop recommendations to ensure that owners allow for technology or its footprint to be included in ship design;
.2 invite Administrations with land-based testing facilities to supply information to MEPC 56 on the existence, utilization, capacity, accreditation and capabilities of their facilities;
.3 invite Administrations to indicate the process for booking time at their facilities and the availability of testing slots to BLG 11;
.4 invite Members and observers to submit information on the estimated number of vessels in the first category to which the Convention may apply for consideration by BLG 11;
.5 urge Member Governments to consider ratification of the Convention at the earliest opportunity based on the findings and actions proposed by this review;
.6 invite Administrations to provide information to MEPC 56 and subsequent meetings on biological effectiveness, compliance with the D-2 standard, challenge water availability, problems with biological efficacy and turbidity, sampling and monitoring requirements and the need for additional sampling guidance;
.7 invite Administrations to propose a suitable Emission Scenario Document (ESD) and assist in clarifying the procedure for final approval of BWM systems that make use of Active Substances; and
.8 note the request of the Review Group to initiate a mechanism to overcome problems related to lack of ballast water treatment technologies, should the two options identified by the Group prove unacceptable from a legal point of view.
|
