Guest wrote:I wonder if the Bramble would be affected by the rule if it never pumps out its ballast water.
The Bramble could switch over to permanent ballast or a mix of permanent ballast (steel blocks) and water ballast -- like 150 tons of steel ballast and 60 tons of water.
I am going to look at that if the sale of the Bramble goes through. She carries 9000 gallons of ballast water, which is about 34 tons. What I would like to do is convert the ballast tanks to fuel tanks, and carry some permanent ballast instead. I will need to go over that with a naval architect to see if it is feasible. If that does not work, then I might figure on pumping the tanks out while refitting and refilling with chlorinated water, and then top off as necessary with more potable water and use them as back up drinking water tanks along with the permanent ballast.
The Marine Safety Detachment at Sturgeon Bay was not overly worried about the ballast tank issue. However, if each state decides to put in its own standards, that is going to be a nightmare to try and keep in compliance with them all.
There are many factors pertaining to ballast water regulations, which the Coast Guard intends to release in April, that everyone needs to be aware of and consider. A major hurdle is the fact that each state can propose its own standards. That is what has happened in New York. Never mind that no technology exists that can even test the water to determine if it meets the 1000 times IMO standard! Even if the water could be tested to that degree, there hasn't been any system designed to date that is capable of filtering water to IMO standards Except in salt water. Throw in a hodgepodge of different standards by state, and now no one knows what to or what to design. Another misnomer is that the regulations don't pertain to lakers. Even though a true laker has never introduced an invasive species to the lakes, lakers will be required to treat ballast. Salt water flushing for oceangoing ships is required and has been very effective in killing organisms that can live in fresh water. Every vessel that transits the seaway has the ballast tanks inspected. There hasn't been a new invasive discovered since 2005 as a result of those inspections. So, what is the rationale for requiring ballast water treatment on lakers? Enviros say that it will Slow the spread. It certainly won't eliminate the spread! Once in the system the invasives will swim wherever they want, won't they? Again, the technology doesn't exist to test or treat water to the proposed standards, but the enviros believe that if they make it law it will force industry to develop the technology. What if you were required to get 60 mpg with your current cars?
A vessel only needs ballast when in an unloaded condition. A fully loaded vesses is loaded down to her marks. Adding ballast to a fully loaded vessel will not only make her unstable but also be against regulations. Filling only certain tanks will put strain on an already stressed fully loaded vessel. What is a Captain suppose to do?
Even if the new regs were put in place and complete tank inspections were performed, it still does nothing to address the things attached to the Outside of the hull.
I wonder if the Bramble would be affected by the rule if it never pumps out its ballast water.
The Bramble could switch over to permanent ballast or a mix of permanent ballast (steel blocks) and water ballast -- like 150 tons of steel ballast and 60 tons of water.
From my understanding, the likelihood that anyone can meet the New York State standards is essentially zero. Invasive organisms can enter the ballast tanks of a vessel. If these organisms are adult forms, they will be flushed out when the tanks are emptied. However, juvenile forms will enter the accumulated sediments in the ballast tanks and not be flushed when the tanks are emptied. They can then mature and enter the Great Lakes system at a later date. One potential solution would be to chlorinate the ballast tanks. However, in addition to the fact that most (all ?) vessels are not equipped to cholinate their ballast tanks, the chlorination would only affect organisms in the water in the tanks. Accumulated sediments in the ballast tanks would destroy any added chlorine and juvenile forms of invasive species in the sediments would survive. The other possibility would be to force vessels to tie up and discharge their ballast tanks at a shore side facility. The problem with this approach is that I don't believe such shore side facilities presently exist. Also, this would cost vessel operators several thousand dollars an hour while they are tied up flushing ballast tanks. The New York State regulaltions would increase the cost of shipping through the Great Lakes and/or give New York State total control over all international shipping on the Great Lakes.
As Timerover51 said though , any lakers that go east into salt water as far as Nova Scotia or the eastern seaboard and return up to the lakes system will have to go by the new rules . Back when I sailed on he Algoport and Algobay we did it anyway , and that was in the `90s . Not a hard operation really , just pump out the full ballast tanks down to 15 to 18 ft , then press them up - fill - until they overflowed for a while . We might do it twice before we even got to Trois Rivieres , about 10 hours before the Seaway . Pretty well took care of the problem . But not everyone did that and along came the zebra mussels and whatever else is hitched a ride onto the lakes .
If they operate strictly in the Great Lakes, do not entire saltwater or any overseas port, and do not enter New York waters, they are not going to have to worry about the new regulations. The Lake boats that are going to have to deal with the new regulations will be those that operate on the Lakes in the shipping season and then move to salt water during the winter.
The aim of the IMO regulations and the extremely restrictive New York regulations is to keep foreign species from being brought into the Great Lakes or US waters, to include the various river systems. I am will be discussing the requirements of the regulations if the Bramble purchase goes through, as to the extent to which I will need to comply with them. As the Bramble is not a cargo ship, I am not likely to take on any ballast water overseas.
I don't think the ballast regulations have much to do with lakers, has more to do with saltwater boats coming into the lakes. They can not bring ballast water into the lakes and dump it. It has to be flushed out and treated Before coming into the lakes, I believe 200 miles off shore.
New ballast regulations (NY) are suppose to come into effect in the next few years. How prepared is the Great Lakes fleet? Do any of the ships have ballast treatment, IMO type equipment installed?