NEWS <<Back to news list

US states impose strict ballast regulations

Rajesh Joshi - martes 9 febrero 2010

SEPARATE developments in California and New York have highlighted that restrictive regional state-level ballast water regulations in the US continue to challenge industry.

The Port of Oswego, which spearheaded a host of US and Canadian industry organisations in opposing the State of New York’s ballast water requirements that far exceed those envisioned by the International Maritime Organization, last week lost an appeal in the state’s court system.

In California, an additional reporting burden was proposed for incoming ships which, if adopted, would require the vessels to furnish the state with a report that details the ballast water treatment systems on board.

The developments in the two major states on either US coast come about six months after the US Coast Guard unveiled a proposed rule under which ballast water thresholds required by US law would adhere to standards set forth in the IMO’s yet to be ratified treaty, during a “phasing in” period through to 2016.

Both New York and California have state-level laws that require ballast water discharged in state limits to be exponentially cleaner than the IMO’s proposed standard.

By common industry admission, no technology exists in the world that can achieve the New York and California standards of purity. This has prompted California to keep deferring the actual implementation of its state-level law.

The latest requirement for all incoming ships to file a vessel report is designed to allow California to collect important information about the progress of ballast water management technology. This information “may guide future ballast water management actions by the California Lands Commission”, the state said.

New York last year pushed through ballast requirements similar to those enshrined in California without allowing a public comment period, something California had allowed. New York relied on a loophole that allowed it to introduce the law simply by sending a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

The industry lost a challenge to the law in the state’s court of first instance. New York State’s appellate court last week rejected the ensuing appeal, finding that the state’s environmental conservation department had legal authority to impose the conditions, and that they do not violate the US constitution.

It could not be ascertained immediately whether industry would now approach New York State’s Supreme Court.

x-ref feature