Question 1

What change is the IMO Correspondence Group working toward in Section 3.2 of the BWMS Code, and at what MEPC session is finalisation targeted?

Accepted Answer

Amending the definition so that 'ballast water system' means the BWMS AND the ship's ballast water fittings (piping, valves, pumps etc.) that would be required even without a BWMS fitted — with remaining amendments targeted for finalisation at MEPC 85, followed by a progress/written report process through MEPC 86 This proposed redefinition would close the precise boundary loophole at the heart of the current dispute, bringing previously 'outside the BWMS' fittings within scope for alarm/recording requirements going forward.

Question 2

What is the core PSC deficiency being raised in ports under the Tokyo MoU concerning BWMS arrangements?

Accepted Answer

The piping arrangement may permit the ballast water management system to be bypassed during ballast uptake and discharge operations without activating an alarm The deficiency centres specifically on undetected bypass capability — valves that allow ballast water to be taken on or discharged without passing through, or being recorded as bypassing, the treatment system.

Question 3

Under Section 7.2 of the BWMS Code (Resolution MEPC.300(72)), what is required of any bypass or override fitted for ship/personnel safety in an emergency?

Accepted Answer

It must be connected to the BWMS so that any bypass activates an alarm, and the bypass event must be recorded both by the control/monitoring equipment and in the Ballast Water Record Book Section 7.2 explicitly requires that any bypass connected to and used in conjunction with the BWMS triggers an alarm and is recorded both electronically and in the Ballast Water Record Book — this is the dual-logging, dual-alarm requirement at the heart of the issue.