European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ WORKSHOP REPORT

EMSA Workshop on Ballast Water Sampling and the development of a Joint European Ballast Water Sampling Strategy

23 rd and 24 th February 2010



### 1European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ Table of contents

I. Introduction 3

II. Objective of the workshop 3

III

. Workshop Report

Day 1

Background to Sampling

Port State Control

Sampling for Compliance

Analysis for compliance

Experiences of Shipboard Testin g and the Analysis of Samples

The Member State’s Perspective

The Sampling Protocol

Day 2

The Ballast Water Sampling Strategy 3

3

4

5

6

6

7

8

9

11

11

IV. Conclusions 12



### 2European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ I. Introduction

In November 2008, EMSA hosted a workshop entitled: Implementing the Ballast Water Management Convention 1 (BWM) – the EU dimension. This workshop resulted in the development of an Action Programme, through which the European Maritime Safety Agency and the European Commission could add value to the Member States work in ratifyin g the BWM Convention and developing and contributing to the strategies be ing developed by the Regional Sea Organisations 2

.

Issues surrounding ballast water sampling and analysis were included in this Action Programme. Therefore, in order to develop an EU-wide ballast water sampling strategy EMSA set up this wo rkshop to discuss the many issues surrounding compliance testing. The workshop was attended by 17 Member States, Croatia and Norway (please see A nnex 1 for an attendance list). It also bought together 36 experts in ballast water sampling, ballast water analysis, policy making, port State control, statistics and legal issues from both the industry, EMSA and the Memb er States. It should be noted that two further Member States, Denmark and Sweden, could not attend due to other commitments and Turkey could not attend due to visa logistics.

II. Objectives of the workshop

The overall objectives of the workshop were to:

 develop an understanding of the follo wing within the Member States: 1). the latest developments in sampling and analysis for compliance testing; 2). the practicalities and proble ms encountered when sampling on board a vessel; 3). the practicalities and proble ms encountered when analysing a sample; and 4). the practicalities and problems encountered when developing a case against a ship for non-compliance;

 identify the elements that need to be included in a European Ballast Water Sampling Strategy; and,

 identify any actions or research that may be needed in order to develop a European Ballast Water Sampling Strategy.

III. Workshop Report

Day 1

The meeting was opened by Theresa Cro ssley, EMSA’s Head of Department B – Implementation. After welcom ing everyone to Lisbon an d to EMSA, she outlined the history of EMSA’s work in the field of Ballast Water, which has resulted in the

1 The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments

2004

2 HELCOM (the Helsinki Commission), the OSPAR Commission, the Barcelona Convention, through REMPEC, and the Black Sea Commission.



### 3European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ development of a Ballast Water Action Programme. She th en outlined the objectives of the workshop and wished everyone success in their endeavours. Brian Elliott, Senior Projec t Officer in EMSA’s Environm ental Protection Sector and Co-Chairman of the Workshop then also welcomed everyone and ran through the Agenda of the workshop.

Background to Sampling

Originally the IMO was asked to attend th e meeting, set the sce ne and outline the development of guidance on ballast water sampling and analysis at the MEPC and BLG Committees. Unfortunately due to th e proximity to the BLG 14 and MEPC 60 meetings and the workload that this entail s, Dandu Pugiuc, Head of Biosecurity at IMO could not attend. In absentia, he supplied a paper on the issue entitled "Ballast Water Sampling – An overview of the work carried out by IMO”, which was presented by Mirja Ikon en, Senior Project Officer in EMSA’s Environmental Protection Sector. This paper outlined th e principles that have been developed and the discussions on sampling that have been held under the auspices of the IMO and the Globallast Project, from the fi rst Globallast Workshop on this matter in Brazil in 2003, to the adoption of the Guidelines (G2) at MEPC in 2008.

Key principles that have been developed and utilised in the development of the Guidelines (G2), include:

 sampling techniques and programmes shou ld be tailored to the purpose of sampling, such as scienti fic research, risk assessment, capacity building, efficacy testing of ballast water management systems or compliance monitoring;

 sampling has to be practical, rapid and, most importantly, needs to enable comparison of results when samples are taken in different countries by different stakeholders;

 the samples should be representative of the whole discharge from any single tank or any combination of tanks;

 sampling methods should be safe to the ship, inspectors, crew and operators as well as simple, feasible, rapid and applicable at the point of the ballast discharge;

 compliance testing methods can be grouped into indicative analysis, which can be completed rapidly and conducted by the port State control officers, and detailed sampling, which is time-consuming, labour-intensive and requires expert personnel and laboratory facilities;

 indicative analysis can help the port State to identify immediate mitigation measures to avoid additional impact from a possible non-compliant ballast water discharge, and assist ships’ Capt ains to evaluate the situation and decide on the most approp riate course of action;

 sample analysis shall not be used as a basis for unduly delaying the operation, movement or departure of the ship; and,

 that automated systems for ballast water sampling can be used, provided such systems are suffi ciently progressed and can be validated.

The Guidelines (G2) provide a set of principles that, if properly applied, ensure a consistent approach and provide much need ed certainty to the shipping industry. However, the IMO still need to compile further guidan ce on appropriate ballast water sampling and analysis protocols; uniform application of such protocols; and, the i nterpretation of the results arising from sample analysis. An aidememoire has been developed to help comp ile guidance and an IMO circular on these issues. The IMO hope that the EM SA Workshop on Ballast Water Sampling



### 4European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ will carry out a candid evaluation of i ssues surrounding sampling and analysis and offer its findings to the international co mmunity to facilitate further progress on this complex matter, both at the BLG and FSI Sub-Committees.

At the end of the presenta tion the Workshop the delegates were informed of recent developments at BLG 14, which was held two weeks before the EMSA Workshop. The issue of the development of further guidance on sampling and analysis protocols and the interpretation of the results has been a high priority

item for the BLG Sub-Commi ttee over the last few years, however very little progress has been made and only two su bmissions on this matter from Brazil (BLG 14/5/2) and Germany (BLG 14-INF.06) were made to BLG. In the light of the work that the European Commission, through EMSA, was planning to undertake on this issue, the IMO asked if EMSA could co-ordinate the development of a base paper on this matter for discussion at BL G 15. After liaison with the European Commissi on, their Permanent Repres entative at IMO and the Member States, it was agreed that the find ings of the workshop could be used for this purpose and an EC paper would be developed and submitted to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee. A statement to this effe ct was then drawn up and

used to inform BLG 14 of our intentions. This statement can be found in Annex 2.

Port State Control

Brian Elliott then gave a presentation on the issues faced by a port State control (pSc) officer in checking a ship fo r compliance with the BWM Convention, specifically the D-2 Standard. Key issues that were covered in this presentation

included:

 What, realistically, would the port/flag State control inspectors check on a ship;

 Is checking certification, document ation and record keeping a sufficient deterrent? Or do we need to sample?;

 When to take a sample - What is the trigger? or the threshold?;

 What are the “Clear Grounds” needed to stop a discharge?;

 Pollution liability issues that arise when allowing a vessel to continue discharging if there is a suspicion it is not in compliance with the D-2 Standard, and/or restarting the dischar ge to undertake testing; and,

 Ways to overcome these issues.

Extensive discussion followed on what ex actly a pSc Officer can do in the short period he is on board, espe cially if he arrives during the ballast water discharge or after it has happened. Unlike other enviro nmental legislation the BWM Convention offers the port State the opportunity to sample a very large discharge which takes place over a long time scale. There wa s some concern amongst some Member States that the pSc officers were not experts in this field and sampling for compliance should be done by trained professionals. Nevertheless, the logistics of calling on specialised personnel or experts to attend remote or distant ports was identified as a significant problem that would be costly and cause undue delay.

EMSA was thanked for raising the issue of the potential port State liability for any damage caused by the ballast water disch arge once the pSc officer thinks there may be a problem, but doesn’t have “clear grounds” to stop the discharge. None of the Member States had had experience of this problem with other discharges, mainly because testing methods are not ba sed on biological standards. However, the point was made that there is in fact two sets of liability, one for the pollution and one for the undue delay that any halt in the discharge may cause, if it has



### 5European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ not been based on “clear grounds”. This is especially difficult as under the new pSc Directive - EC Directive 2009/16/EC on Po rt State Control - it the Recognised Organisations and the Master/Owner of th e ship are likely to challenge any pSc decision that will detain the vessel if there is no clear and common guidance. What is needed is some form of simple spot check sampling methodology that can provide “clear grounds” that an offence has been committed. This can then be added to the tools used by the pSc officer to decide if the ship is in compliance

with the D- 2 Standard and whether th e ballast water discharge needs to be stopped.

Sampling for Compliance

Stephan Gollasch of Go-Con sult then gave a presenta tion on “Onboard Ballast Water Sampling for Compliance Control”. His presentation covered the following

issues:

 An overview of sampling methodologies for compliance control;

 Comparison of sampling methods for discharge directly after treatment and for treatment on uptake and then storage in the ballast water tank

before direct dischar ge to the sea;

 Representativeness – statistical versus biological conflicts;

 Effect of homogeneity on representativeness;

 How to test for performance, i.e. se quence testing versus. Sampling over the entire discharge;

 Suitable sample volumes;

 Timing of the sample;

 Problems with concentrating a sample;

 Sample handling; and

 The pro’s and cons of indicative sampling and full scale sampling.

He then finished his presentation outlining recommendations for sample frequency and size for full scale testing. Issues raised in the following discussion

included:

 the time it takes for sampling a discharge event, bearing in mind that the discharge may occur continuously over a long time (for bulk carriers), or consist of many small individual operations (for container ships);

 the time it takes to get a sample to a laboratory and how to get it there, especially from remote ports, or in countries that have no facilities for analysis; and

 how the filtered water should be disposed of during sampling;

Additionally the question was raised as to whether there were any methods to undertake indicative sampling? A few methodologies were briefly outlined, however the issue of whether they are re presentative has yet to be tested.

Analysis for Compliance

Tracey McCollin of Marine Scotland then outlined the issues surrounding analysis for compliance. In her presentation sh e identified the differences between traditional plankton analysis methods and the specific an alysis needed for compliance testing for the D-2 Standard. Issues surrounding the measurement of plankton, testing for viability, counting number s of organisms and the robustness of statistical analysis were also discussed.



### 6European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ The discussion that followed raised some interesting poin ts with regard to how to test, measure and record species that form colonies. Additionally, the potential

need for an ISO Standard on this matter was discussed.

Experiences of Shipboard Testin g and the Analysis of Samples

The next two presentations were give n by Marcel Velhuis from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea (NIOZ) an d August Tobiesen from the Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Bo th of these organisations have been shipboard testing and analysing results fo r sometime now. Although, this testing and analysis has been focussed on certific ation through the type approval testing there are some parallels and lessons can be learnt for compliance testing.

Issues raised in these presentations included:

 Phytoplankton analysis and flow cytometry can be used but viability testing is difficult. The presence of some active substances for example

can reduce the effectiveness of some of the stains used to test for viability, resulting in false positive results;

 There seem to be inherent flaws in th e statistical calculation of how many samples are needed to test for repr esentativeness. If the model being used was applied in the natural en vironment – the whole environment

would have to be dest royed to sample it;

 The pro’s and con’s of manual versus automated sampling;

 Problems encountered with respect to the variation in organism size;

 The creation of false negative re sults from ballast water treatment system’s that need time to take effect i.e. Ultra-violet systems;

 Significant dead volume in piping and tanks exist, which needs to be discharged before sampling can begin;

 Evidence of potential re-growth of organisms in the ballast water tank has been observed after the water has been treated on uptake;

 Intake water is never homogenous with respect to the type and number of organisms;

 On average systems are achieving 1 order of magnitude lower than the D2-Standard, however numbers of orga nisms can vary significantly in the discharge within the compliance limits of the D-2 Standard;

 Sampling for less than 10 organisms in any volume of water gives a 31% statistical variation, therefore part of the D-2 standard practically becomes “between 7 and 13 organisms”;

 Presently a gap exists between the IMO definition of viability and what can be observed. Tests are done using strain s that reflect the integrity of cell membranes or presence of DNA, howe ver stains are needed to test for reproductive ability;

 Some organisms may die or be injure d during the concentration process and movement in a concentrated sample may be limited; and,

 Although tests have been devised to count the number of viable organisms

in the 10-50 μ m siz e range, these are not suitable for all species, i.e. some species do not grow in test tubes.

During these presentations, some interesting methods of undertaking indicative analysis and sampling, and even full scale sampling, were raised. From using very basic statistics to identify the number of organisms over 50 μ m in size and then extrapolating up to check that the D-2 Standard is being met – to creating a system where the vessel is told a set volume will be taken analysed for live organisms and then the results extrap olated to check for D-2 compliance. However, the issue of representativene ss repeatedly came up, with questions



### 7European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ being raised on the meaning of the resu lts of these proposals and whether they can be used as “clear ground s” to stop the discharge.

Later in the day, the discussi on turned back to the pSc issue and the role of pSc officers in the process of sampling. Ho wever in this section of the workshop questions were specifically raised on th e issue of when samp ling would be needed

and the fact that it would not be needed in every case. Therefore, some form of

check list would be needed as a tool to help pSc officers conclude whether there are “clear grounds” that the ship is not meeting the D-2 Standard, and make a

decision on fu rther action.

The Member State’s Perspective

Karin Schröder of the Bundesamt für See schifffahrt und Hydrog raphie (BSH – the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency) then gave a presentation on issues that may need to be considered from a Member States perspective when considering compliance testing, based on the three documents available to the port State: Art. 9 of the BWM Conven tion; the Guidelines for Ballast Water Sampling (G2); and, the Aide-Memoire atta ched to the guidelines (G-2). Issues raised in this presentation included:

 The principles that need to be cons idered – no undue delay and sampling has to be safe to ship, inspectors, crew and operators, simple, feasible, rapidly applicable at the point of discharge and representative;

 The need to identify and define “clear grounds”;

 Compliance testing means testing the sh ip’s discharges for compliance to

the D-2 Standard – not the BWTS. Therefor e, port States need to also look and focus on the operation and use of the system by the ship;

 The focus is on indicative analysis rather than indicative sampling in the guidance to evaluate the potential of compliance or non-compliance, with the goal of identifying imme diate mitigation measures;

 What happens after this point? – what mitigation measures can be used and is further sampling needed?

 The need for a feasible/practical sampling methodology using small sampling quantities; simple, standardiz ed and fast methods; and, light equipment that does not require the user to attend a extensive training course to use (i.e. longer than a couple of days);

 Sampling and analysis is mentioned/planned for in the BWMC – so compliance should not only be based on “paper” inspection – therefore are we obliged to sample?;

 The potential need for an ISO Standa rd on Sampling and Analysis; and,

 Examples and potentially a definition of “clear grounds” are needed.

Following the presentation there was so me debate over the terminology being used in the workshop, the BWM Convention and the new EC Directive 2009/16/EC on Port State Control. For example the di fferent terminology being used for initial inspection and detailed inspection are not consistent and thus some confusion is starting to occur. This needs to be sort ed out in any further documentation. The other non defined term being used is “cle ar grounds ”. Other points raised were the link between ballast water sampling and the ISM code and the fact that ballast water discharges are often not constant, depending on the loading pattern, the initial trim of the vessel and the water levels in the port.

The workshop then went on to discuss ot her issues that the Member States had with respect to sampling. These included:



### 8European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________  The need for representative and in dicative analysis or sampling;

 The timing of the arrival of the pSc office in conjunction with the deballasting operations of the ship

 The need to fill the present gaps in the D2 Standard through development

of the aide memoir

 Could the owner be made to take an d analyse the sample? Or could this

be linked to the interim and annu al surveys? – this was discussed extensively, however the detention of the ship on the masters evidence was found to be a problem;

 The need for guidance on how to prov e “clear grounds”. In this way the vessel is then responsible for fixing the problems and there should not be any undue delay caused by the sampling methodology – (ie logistics and or time for equipment to be set up ). The use of indicative analysis/ sampling would limit the grey areas wh ere the pSc officer does not have “clear grounds” to stop the discharge and pass the responsibility over to the owner, but thinks there may be a problem and needs to confirm it. This is critical as it may take the owner weeks to fix any fault;

 What does pSc do if a ship reports a problem en-route into the port – what management options are legally available?;

 Awareness of other methods under B3 .7 of the BWM Convention may be needed, although the method of co mpliance testing these should be available on the ship;

 The need to encourage or make use of data recording apparatus built into the systems for manufacturers to test whether a system is working; and,

 Looking for other key indicators , for example Japan are looking at testing for active substance by-products to indicate whether a system has worked; Australia are working with on e manufacturer to develop specific

indicative methods for th eir systems to aid pSC; and, Brazil are suggesting that sampling protocols for individual vessels and be held onboard or type

of vessels.

However time and time again the debate returned to the key questions:

1). What does the port St ate control officer do? 2). How and when is sampling needed? 3). How can indicative analysis and sampling be incorporated in into the compliance testing procedure? 4). How can this be representative?

The Sampling Protocol

Matej David from the University of Ljubljana then gave a presentation on the ballast water sampling protocol and implications for pSc. He:

 split the compliance testing proceedure into stages from the pSc perspective to begin integrating pSc and ballast water compiance testing proceedure;

 discussed the role and scope of indica tive analysis/sampling in ballast water compliace testing;

 discussed the difference between biolog ical and statistical representativeness and the istantaneous and average treatment of results;

 discussed the impact of sediment load on the sample;

 provided recommendations for:

o the appropriate sampling point;

o safe sampling methods;

o sample sizes,



### 9European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ o handling and storage of samples and

o what the port State could do in the

 pre sampling stage both prior to going on a vessel, and on boarding a vessel;

 during the testing procedure; and,

 the post testing period.

The workshop then discussed the following major points:

 The uniqueness of the BWM Convention in that the consequence of the failure of a BWTS is major for the ship’s operation and business;

 The need for long term monitoring of the performance of BWTS;

 Can indicative sampling be undertaken without full scale sampling? This would depend on whether it is repr esentative and can provide “clear grounds”;

 A common, colllective, consistent understanding on the approach to sampling is important for the EU as each individual Member State may not

be able to formulate individual strategies on their own;

 The need to send a positive message to the industry that pSc take this issue seriously, however using indicative sampling only may undermine this message;

 pSc need to have a system that provides “clear grounds” of a violation so the discharge can be stopped, but Memb er States also have to consider any potential legal challenges base d on undue delay or the specific reasons for the recorded violation;

 concerns as to whether the BWTS will meet the D-2 stan dard at all times

as:

o systems may not be able to deal with the large spikes in the number of organisms passing through the BWTS, that are caused by migrating plankton forming naturally occurring horizontal variation in the ballast tank;

o the time lag that may be needed for a BWTS to begin working at full efficiency after being switched on; and,

o the fact that some of the Type Approval testing is based on a regime that averages results. De spite evidence to the contrary – systems are proving to be at leas t ten times more effective than

the D-2 Standard – and are made to meet the D-2 Standard at all times, there is still a concern whether systems can meet this standard at all times;

 pSc will not be able to do everything, a balance is needed through a staged appoach using indi cative analysis and sa mpling, and then full sampling if needed;

 the need to define indicative analysis, indicative sampling and full scale sampling and whether or not the indi cative tests can provide “clear grounds” or be representative;

 the potenti al to use samples before treatment and after treatment as an indicative analysis (to see if the BWTS is working). This would be difficult as there is only one sampling point an d it would not be appropriate for UV systems with time lag effect or sytems that treat on uptake; and

 The potential to extrapolate the results of indicative analysis for compliance testing.



### 10European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ Day 2

Day 2 began with Henrik Ringbom, EMSA’s Head of Unit B.3, and the CoChairman of the workshop, welcoming everyone back to the meeting.

A European Ballast Water Sampling Strategy (BWSS)

The only presentation of the day was then given by Brian Elliott from EMSA. This presentation began by identifying what a BWSS ideally should include – that is a system that easily identi fies a ship whose ballast water discharge does not comply with the D-2 Standard. However, ov er the course of the workshop certain issues have been identified that complic ate this ideal. Thes e include: sample representativeness; sample homogeneity; the definition of “clear grounds”; inherent variability in results; liability; and, undue delay. Combined with the practicality, logistics and costs of sa mpling then there are some significant problems to be rectified. This ideal situation is also restricted by the traditional method of enforcement through pSc which is not set up to take samples and relies on other parties to progress enforc ement matters past the point of inital concern and the order to stop any discharge.

The presentation went on to identify a practical methodolog y for enforcement, based on a staged approach - firstly thro ugh pSc, then Indica tive Sampling (later changed to Indicative Analys is, followed by a new concept - Indicative Sampling - to be in line with the Guidelines (G-2)) and then full sampling. The use of each would depend on:

 when and how “clear grounds” can be found to ascertain whether the discharge is non-compliant and therefore stop the discharge;

 whether some form of analysis/sampling is needed to provide these “clear grounds”; and,

 whether full scale sampling is needed to gather data for enforcement procedures or restart the discharge.

A flow diagram of this procedure can be found in Annex 3.

Methods of how to undertake indicative analysis/sampling and full scale sampling were then discussed, with the emphasis on devisi ng an indicative analysis/ sampling test that indicates whether a system is working or not. For example - if a BWTS does not work there will be a significant number of live individuals in a small sample of water, rather than one or two. Therefore, such a test maybe used in the meantime until the issues of repr esentativeness, homogeneity and liability in full testing can be worked out and we can specifically test to the D-2 Standard.

The presentation then went on to discu ss what can be in a BWSS for Europe and

this is outlined in the Conclusions.

Following this presentation the following issues were raised:

 The possibility of automatic testing and the potential for this technology to mature in the future, either through flow cytometry or algal monitoring (which has been built into one system);

 The need to enhance the guidelines for pSc being developed at FSI. EMSA’s pSc expert outlin ed the work that has been undertaken at FSI and indicated that there was a correspondance group discusing the pSc Guidelines on this matter. The group felt that there were some key issues



### 11European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ that had been bought up in this wo rkshop and these needed to be passed to the Group. The Chair suggested that he would liaise with the respective Member State interested and pr esent any issues to the IMO Correspondance Group through the EMSA Member contact point, and this was welcomed by the delegates;

 Instantaneous versus average testing – the chair started by stating that previously there had been no consensu s on this issue an d that there was unlikely to be at this meeting, th erefore any EU BWSS would have to consider both options. After some discussion this conclusion proved to be right as there were opposing views be tween the Member States on how to interpret the results of any analysis;

 That this Strategy is meant to be guidance – MS can and may have to add to it to ensure compliance with the BWM Convention under their legal
system;

 The need for training all the way through the process; and,

 The need for research – the chair put forward some views on what

research needs to be undertaken and the workshop added to these. After

some discussion it was felt that re search was needed in the following

areas:

o How to test for representativeness of a discharge from a BWTS and a ballast water tank;

 For a discharge from a BWTS, this can be achieved through testing the discharge prior to treatment and after it to see if there is any correlation between organism levels. This can also be used to see if a system can meet the D-2 Standard throughout the discharge cycle and deal with spikes in the numbers of organisms present.

o How to undertake indicative analysis/sampling to provide “clear grounds” for stopping a dischar ge and/or enforcement; and,

o The development of guidance fo r how to take and analyse a sample. In addition research on the long term efficiency of the BWTS was suggested for future research; maybe five years after the systems have

been installed on vessels.

Brian Elliott then outlined proposals for future work on this issue which included the following actions:

 Papers will be put on the EMSA Website as soon as possible;

 Workshop report will circulated widely (EC, MS and speakers) by mid March;

 Input to the FSI correspondence Group by 16 th March;

 Workshop report will be widely distributed for information and to pave the way for the BLG 15 paper – US, Can, NZ, Aus, Japan, Bz etc.;

 Workshop report used as basis of re port to ICES meeting in mid-March;

 Preliminary European Ballast Water Sampling Strategy circulated for comment at the end of April/mid May;

 Research tender Sent out in Mid May; and,

 Draft paper for IMO sent out at the end of the summer 2010

The co-chairs then thanked everyone fo r attending and closed the workshop.



### 12European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ IV. Conclusions

The workshop concluded that an EU BW SS is valuable, but needs to focus on the following issues:

a. Pre pSC – Guidance for port States on what to do when a vessel indicates that they have a problem with their BWTS prior to entering a port;

b. pSc -

i. bringing the specific ballast water issues that were raised in the workshop to the attention of the FSI Correspondance Group;

ii. providing guidance on how “clear grounds” can be identified in the normal pSc inspection

iii. providing guidance on, or proced ures for, when a pSc office suspects there is something am iss, but needs some form of analysis/ sampling to prove “clear grounds”;

iv. providing guidance for the port State on management options for the vessel once a discharge has been stopped; and,

v. providing training to pSc officers.

c. Indicative analysis/sampling

i. Guidance on how to undertake indicative analysis/sampling within pSc inspections and/ or supplementary to pSc inspections, the difference betw een indicative analysis and indicative sampling and how to interpret the results from these tests;

d. Full scale testing/analysis –

i. Guidance on:

1. the relationship between indicative analysis, indicative sampling and full scale sampling;

2. preparations needed before sampling, including the

use of Health and Safe ty Risk Assessements;

3. going on board to sample;

4. the sampling procedures (an EU, IMO or ISO Standard);

5. Sample handling, transpor t and chain of custody procedures; and,

6. the analysis procedure (an EU, IMO or ISO Standard);

ii. Research and the developmen t of standards to ensure representativeness:

a. In situations where discharge takes place after treatment; and,

b. situations where the discharge takes place after a holding period in the ballast water tank;

iii. providing training to sa mplers and analysts

e. Research into;

i. How to obtain a representative sample from a BWTS that is directly discharging into the sea;



### 13European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________

14 ii. How to undertake indicative analysis/sampling to provide “clear grounds” for sto pping a discharge and/or enforcement; and,

iii. The development of guidance on how to analyse a ballast water sample.European Maritime Safety AgencyWorkshop ReportAnnex 1: ParticipantsCountryNameFirstNameOrganisationE-mailBelgiumMilleWalterFederal Public Service Mobility&Transportwalter.mille@mobilit.fgov.beBulgariaGeorgievaVenetaBULGARIAN MARITIME ADMINISTRATIONmep_vn_veneta@abv.bgCroatiaMarovićIvanaHarbour Master Office Splitivana.marovic@pomorstvo.hrCyprusAttasNicosDepartment of Merchant Shippingnattas@dms.mcw.gov.cyFinlandMäkinenAnitaTransport Safety Agency, Marine EnvironmentProtection Unitanita.makinen@trafi.fiFinlandHelavuoriMarkusFinnish Transport Safety Agencymarkus.helavuori@trafi.fiGermanyKarinSchröderFederal Maritime and Hydrographic AgencyKarin.Schroeder@bsh.deGermanyGollaschStephanGoConsultsgollasch@aol.comGreeceKarayannisTheofanisMerchant Ships Inspection Directorate Generalkarayannis@yen.grIrelandTaylorDavidMarine Survey Officedavidtaylor@transport.ieItalyRobertoGiangrecoItalian Ministry of Environment territory and seagiangreco.roberto@minambiente.itLithuaniaSupinieneEgleLithuanian Environment Protection AgencyDepartment of Marine Researche.supiniene@aaa.am.ltMaltaKeonVellaMerchant Shipping Directoratekeon.vella@transport.gov.mtNetherlandsVollaardTheoKVNRvollaard@kvnr.nlNetherlandsPronkLeonNetherlands Shipping Inspectorateleon.pronk@ivw.nlNetherlandsVeldhuisMarcelRoyal NIOZmarcel.veldhuis@nioz.nlNetherlandsKaagNicolaasIMARESklaas.kaag@wur.nlNorwayTobiesenAugustNIVAaugust.tobiesen@niva.noNorwayTerjeSagebakkenNorwegian Maritime Directoratetes@sdir.noPolandDudekMartaCentrum Techniki Okretowej S.A.Marta.Walk@cto.gda.plPortugalViegasGraçaAPSSgviegas@portodesetubal.ptPortugalCruzMariaManuelAdministraçãoo do Porto de AveiroS.A.mariamanuel@portodeaveiro.ptPortugalSemedo Da SilvaJorgeIPTMjorge.semedo@imarpor.ptPortugalChainhoPaulaFaculdade de Ciências da universidadede Lisboapmchainho@fc.ul.pt_____________________________________________________________________15European Maritime Safety AgencyWorkshop Report_____________________________________________________________________16RomaniaZanfirLaurentiuRomanian Naval Authoritylzanfir@rna.roSloveniaDavidMatejUniversity of LjubljanaMatej.david@fpp.uni-lj.siSpainVelascoAidaCEDEX-CEPYCaida.velasco@cedex.esUnited KingdomHughesEdmundMaritime & Coastguard Agencyedmund.hughes@mcga.gov.ukUnited KingdomMcCollinTracyMarine Scotland Sciencet.a.mccollin@marlab.ac.ukEMSAElliottBrianEMSABrian.Elliott@emsa.europa.euEMSARingbomHenrikEMSAHenrik.Ringbom@emsa.europa.euEMSACrossleyTheresaEMSATheresa.Crossley@emsa.europa.euEMSAIkonenMirjaEMSAMirja.Ikonen@emsa.europa.euEMSAPanellaEleonoraEMSAeleonora.panella@emsa.europa.euEMSAMeyerHolgerEMSAHolger.Meyer@emsa.europa.euEMSASoaresMárioEMSAMario.Soares@emsa.europa.euEuropean Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ Annex 2: The European Commission’s Statement at BLG14

"The European Commission, through the Eu ropean Maritime Safety Agency, in conjunction with the EU Member States , have begun to discuss ballast water sampling for enforcement and will continue debating and discussing it in various fora over the next few months. The European Commission will share the

conclusions and results of this debate wi th the IMO Member States in due course. Based on the conclusions and findings of our discussions, we intend to present a paper to BLG 15 on this issue, that deve lops the existing "aide memoire" into a potential draft guidance document. The European Commission will welcome offers of help from any IMO Member State or observer who would like to assist us, help us in this endeavour, or po tentially co-sponsor a paper."



### 17European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report



### _____________________________________________________________________ Annex 3: A Flow Diagram of the proposed Staged Approach to Compliance Testing



### Ship to Fix

or Detention

port State

control Indicative Analysis/Sampling port State

control Inspection of

Documentation/

BWTS and use

of the BWTS No Problem Proceed with Discharge

Problem:
“Clear Grounds”

Stop Discharge - Ship’s Liability Problem:
No “Clear

Grounds”

Stop Discharge - port State Liability

Options “Clear Grounds” Yes

No

Further Sampling Options Available?

Yes Indicative Analysis/Sampling

Full Sampling

No



### 18