Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

2017 A supplement to Marine Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery

www.nkcf.com

Without FILTER.

Now you have two NK options available.

Contact information

NK CO., Ltd. 502, Gwahaksandan-ro, Gangseo-gu, Busan Korea Sales Dep't T +82-51-200-0130 | F +82-51-204-2215 | E-mail jypark@nkcf.com , sales@nkcf.com

“USCG’s rules should be aligned with [IMO’s] G8” Martin Olofsson, senior principal engineer, Environmental Protection Unit, DNV GL, see page 50

Choosing the right Ballast Water System can be hard say.biz

Choosing the right retrofit partner is not Goltens Green Technologies has engaged in over 200 projects across fourteen vessel types with systems from Optimarin, Bio-UV, Headway, Severn Trent DeNora, Alfa Laval, Auramarine, NK, Hyde Marine, Wärtsilä and others making us the clear leader in ballast water retrofits.

46 46 22 20 19 18 17 10 10 8 6 3 2 1

228

VESSELS

Bulk carrier Specialized offshore vessel Tanker LPG tanker Container vessel General cargo LNG tanker Navy vessel Ro-Ro vessel Chemical tanker Tug Nuclear fuel carrier Cement carrier Other

Global coordination and project execution

UK

Spain

Goltens executes complex retrofits in an efficient and seamless fashion. Coordinate with Goltens experts in your own region while we coordinate our global teams to handle execution wherever the vessel may sail with limited to no disruption of operational schedules.

Oslo

Poland Germany Rotterdam Italy Greece Turkey

Dalian

Korea

Houston Miami

Bahrain Abu Dhabi Saudi Arabia

Dubai Fujairah Mumbai

Guangzhou Vizag Chennai

Equador

Green Technology Centers of Excellence Stations Agents

Shanghai

Philippines Vietnam Singapore Jakarta Surabaya

Chile

Start planning your project with a Goltens expert today Visit our BWTS retrofit site: bwts-retrofit.goltens.com

One proven process The same process used for BWT system retrofits can be applied to exhaust gas scrubber installations. 63 sulphur emission control projects across six vessel types have been completed by Goltens with the same focus on limiting the cost and operational impact to owners.

contents

2017

26 34

Comment 7 Making the convention count

Regulation 8 MEPC 70 decisions are making waves 11 Buying time by decoupling; A slow start for same risk areas

Technology 15 New methods get MEPC 70 approval 17 IMO sets a new technical course 18 Operating methods must match operational needs

USCG type-approval 51

20 Navigating the USCG type-approval maze 21 Will the USCG review its opposition to MPN? 22 UV test war rumbles on

Independent laboratories 25 Water conditions affect type-approval testing

Environment 26 Bacteria and viruses: the hidden menace 27 Ocean pathogens can have indirect impacts; Hull fouling spreads pathogens

Ship operators’ forum

58

28 Owners are facing up to tough choices 29 Lack of faith delays decisions 30 Too old to upgrade?

Suppliers forum 33 Suppliers are caught between opportunity and uncertainty 35 Does USCG type-approval bring a market advantage?

Training 36 BWMS makers see training as vital; Training is essential to comply with ballast regulations 37 Optimarin supports manager’s training initiative; Survey suggests onboard training must cover the basics 39 GloBallast trains regional officials; Online course for crew and port workers; Company managers benefit from focused ballast training

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

contents Regrowth

Published April 2017

40 Hide and seek: the problem of regrowth

Tank sediments 43 The forgotten aspect of ballast treatment 44 USCG sets out its sediment strategy

Onboard testing 46 Getting the best from onboard tests 47 Test kits are becoming widely available

Port and flag states 48 No level playing field as BWMC approaches 49 Three states, three statements of intent; Flag states offer support for owners

Class societies 50 Class acts in dual role over ballast rules 51 Is there mutual respect for ballast systems?

Consultants 52 Consultants help ease the burden

System selection 54 Decision time poses tough choices for owners 56 Owners favour established brands

Retrofit planning

Executive Editor: Paul Gunton t: +44 20 8370 7003 e: paul.gunton@rivieramm.com Sales Manager: Paul Dowling t: +44 20 8370 7014 e: paul.dowling@rivieramm.com Head of Sales – Asia: Kym Tan t: +65 9456 3165 e: kym.tan@rivieramm.com Group Production Manager: Richard Neighbour t: +44 20 8370 7013 e: richard.neighbour@rivieramm.com Subscriptions: Sally Church t: +44 20 8370 7018 e: sally.church@rivieramm.com Chairman: John Labdon Managing Director: Steve Labdon Finance Director: Cathy Labdon Operations Director: Graham Harman Head of Content: Edwin Lampert Head of Production: Hamish Dickie Business Development Manager: Steve Edwards Published by: Riviera Maritime Media Ltd Mitre House 66 Abbey Road Enfield EN1 2QN UK

58 Planning ahead pays dividends

Servicing and maintenance 61 Maintenance is a factor when buying a BWMS

Case studies 65 Small vessels; big choices 66 Failing to plan is planning to fail 67 Expect the unexpected 68 Exploring all the options

www.rivieramm.com ISSN 2055-5172 (Print) ©2017 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd

Finance 71 Don’t bank on the bank 72 BWMS suppliers offer credit to customers

Port-based systems 74 Boxed ballast units will provide port treatment 75 Dutch ports lead the world in port ballast treatment; Containerised system can be switched around

Opinion 77 The emperor has no clothes 78 Take care over selection and installation 80 Best of the web 83 Directory Disclaimer: Although every effort has been made to ensure that the information in this publication is correct, the Author and Publisher accept no liability to any party for any inaccuracies that may occur. Any third party material included with the publication is supplied in good faith and the Publisher accepts no liability in respect of content. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, reprinted or stored in any electronic medium or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

You Youcan canoperate operate wherever whereveryou youwant want

WÄRTSILÄ WÄRTSILÄ CONNECTS CONNECTS THE THE DOTS DOTS

TheThe modern modern world world demands demands smarter smarter shipping. shipping.

Wärtsilä Wärtsilä hashas thethe most most complete complete offering offering of marine of marine solutions solutions in the in the world. world.

From From dualdual fuelfuel engines engines to environmental to environmental solutions, solutions, we we provide provide all the all the products, products, solutions solutions andand services services youyou need. need.

LetLet Wärtsilä Wärtsilä connect connect thethe dots dots thatthat make make your your life life both both easier easier andand more more profitable. profitable.

www.wartsila.com www.wartsila.com

this ensures environmental compliance

Wärtsilä has the most complete range of environmental solutions in the World

COMMENT | 7

MAKING THE CONVENTION COUNT I

f anyone thought that things would become easier once IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) reached its threshold of 35 per cent of the world fleet, the months since it reached that landmark have proved us wrong.

For months, we were focused on the arithmetic that might drift it across the line but since 8 September 2016, when Finland gave it the final shove, we have all stopped counting. At the time of writing, the BWMC has 54 signatories representing 53.41 per cent of the world fleet. I had to look that up; six months earlier the equivalent figures were in the front and centre of my mind.

Now we obsess about how long it is taking to achieve a significant number of US Coast Guard (USCG) type-approved systems, about decoupling from the International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) certificate timetable and many other details.

Those details can be filed under two headings: ‘How to comply’ and ‘How not to comply’ – or, to be fair, ‘How to delay complying’.

In the first folder we must put our concerns about the small number of

Paul Gunton

Editor Ballast Water Treatment Technology

systems that have achieved USCG typeapproval (at the time of writing, in late March, three, with one in the works). We must also include the work that has been done on revising IMO’s G8 Guidelines on testing procedures.

Some believe that a trick has been missed by not aligning them with the USCG requirements and I agree that it would be helpful to have a common set of testing standards, but I believe politics means that neither IMO nor USCG could move completely into the other’s camp.

Port-based systems can also be placed under this heading: especially as the US Environment Protection Agency works on the next version of its Vessel General Permit – due to come into effect in December next year – which must take account of the potential of such systems, following a court ruling in 2015.

At the same time, however, we see loopholes – such as IOPP decoupling – being exploited to delay for as long as possible fitting treatment systems. And careful reading of USCG guidance about using systems with Alternate Management System status reveals that there may be

an opportunity to defer fitting a USCGcompliant system for several years.

I do not criticise such strategies: with ballast treatment representing a cost with no commercial benefit, it makes sense to defer decisions and investment until the dust has settled.

And there is much dust still to settle: we should not forget that 118 IMO member states have not ratified the BWMC and some of them have their own requirements that visiting ships will have to satisfy: Australia, China and Saudi Arabia, for example: it is not just the US that has acted independently of IMO. Other significant shipping nations that have not ratified include the Bahamas, Cyprus, Greece, India, Malta, the UK and Vanuatu. Of those, Cyprus is certainly working towards ratification and I believe the UK will not be far behind.

Then there are port state responsibilities that are still unresolved. As discussed elsewhere in this guide, how ports plan to deal with ballast tank sediments is haphazard. Let’s not forget that IMO’s convention addresses “the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. And Guidelines G1, which address sediment disposal, impose no discharge standards or testing requirements.

Despite these uncertainties, this is the year when ballast water management becomes a global reality. As the BWMC enters into force, we might have stopped counting, but this is when it really starts to count. BWTT

Click here for more editor's comment videos

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

8 | REGULATION

Päivi Luostarinen, Finland’s permanent representative to IMO, triggered the BWMC’s entry into force by handing over its instrument of acceptance (credit: IMO)

MEPC 70 DECISIONS ARE MAKING WAVES Decisions made

by IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee will affect how BWMC will work in practice

F

inland’s ratification of IMO’s 2004 Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) in September last year not only ended a seven-year wait by IMO and system makers, it has also removed the obstacle to making what many from the shipowning side of the industry see as the much-needed amendments to the rules – especially those around type-approvals.

It may seem odd that more than 12 years after the convention text was agreed, it is only now that it is entering into force and coming into effect that the changes that almost all feel are necessary can begin to be formulated and discussed, but that is how IMO conventions operate. One observer commented to BWTT that IMO might reflect on the experience gained from BWMC’s journey to ratification when making future regulations or applying those already agreed in situations that require new and untried technologies.

Developing ballast water treatment systems that meet the regulation has proved far more difficult than anticipated, so much so that the

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

draft new G8 Guidelines presented at the 70th meeting of IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 70) in October last year even contain requirements for systems not being able to operate satisfactorily under all conditions. This means that shipowners that have invested in systems in good faith may find that the money laid out will not protect them from penalties and delays when port state control officials deem the ship has not complied with the discharge standard demanded.

Shipowners have long argued that the typeapproval process is severely flawed and allows systems to achieve certification even though they fail to operate effectively in practice. Despite there being an older IMO document – Resolution MEPC.174(58) of 2008 – that describes over 28 pages the type-approval process, the G8 Guidelines are only guidelines and it is up to flag states to approve or reject the procedures adopted by testing facilities and type-approvers.

There is anecdotal evidence of systems

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

TOTAL SOLUTION

PROVIDER MANPOWER A / S SERVICE

ENGINEERING PRODUCT

PRODUCTIVITY

We are BWMS total solution provider.

TECHCROSS

ECS

www.techcross.com

10 | REGULATION

MEPC 70 recommended adopting the revised guideline as soon as possible (credit: IMO)

achieving approval having completed the requisite number of successful tests only by virtue of the fact that multiple tests were performed and in many cases the success rate was less than 30 per cent. There are others who say that the guidelines are not applied consistently by flag states or typeapprovers so a treatment system may be accepted by one and rejected by another. Shipowners planning installations are usually only interested in knowing that a system is type-approved by their flag state and are unaware of what occurred during the type-approval process.

The draft G8 Guidelines presented at MEPC 70 were adopted and have been circulated as Resolution MEPC.279(70). This is a much more detailed document than the previous G8 Guidelines, with the key elements expanded by about 50 per cent. The revision updates the

approval procedures for treatment systems and includes more robust test and performance specifications along with more detailed requirements for type-approval reporting and control and monitoring equipment.

It was also agreed that the approval process should be made mandatory and IMO plans to issue it as a code for approval of ballast water management systems. To do that will require an amendment to the convention’s wording which the secretariat is now preparing in time to be ready to implement in September when the convention enters into force.

The meeting recommended applying the revised guideline as soon as possible and agreed that systems installed on ships on or after 28 October 2020 should be approved taking into account the revised guidelines. Systems installed prior to that date could be approved using either the existing guidelines or revised guidelines.

Following on from the decisions taken at MEPC70, the sub-committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) held its fourth meeting in early February. Several points around ballast water treatment were considered including one on the lack of an approved standard for sampling ports for treatment systems.

The paper presented as PPR4/6 pointed out that there are now around 4,000 treatment systems installed on ships, noting that there are “many variations of ballast water sampling ports that may not comply with the G2 Guidelines, are not aligned with port state control methods, may compromise the watertight integrity of the ship, or could likely result in false positive and false negative results due to sampling port contamination.�

A solution was proposed in the paper but the meeting was short of time and further discussion was held over until the next meeting of the sub-committee (PPR 5) early next year.

The revised G8 Guidelines are more detailed than previous editions

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

REGULATION | 11

Buying time by decoupling For the past few years shipowners have been attempting to postpone the day when they must install a treatment system by opting for an early drydocking. By doing so, the renewal of the International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) certificate – which has been chosen to define the compliance date for existing vessels to meet the D-2 Discharge Performance Standard – can be put off for five years from the drydocking date.

Based on that timetable, as the convention enters into full effect this September, many shipowners could have been looking at being forced to install a treatment system. But a loophole that will delay their compliance date is being heavily exploited.

Ships are required to carry a number of statutory certificates documenting their compliance with the various IMO conventions and codes. The need to carry these certificates has arisen as each code or convention came into force and, since all require a survey, a situation arose where ships were frequently needing to renew one certificate or another. So in 2000, IMO adopted the Harmonised System of Statutory Certificates (HSSC) which permitted all certificates to be issued or renewed simultaneously.

One of the certificates included in the system is the IOPP. The HSSC may have been introduced for the benefit of shipowners but it is not mandatory unless made so by a flag state. Shipowners, including those that have undertaken an early drydocking, have realised that by decoupling the IOPP from the harmonised process, they will gain five years of leeway before they will be required to undergo the next renewal survey at which point a treatment system will need to be installed unless some other exemption was granted.

There is no automatic right for shipowners to take advantage of this loophole – which would need to be completed before 8 September – but the list of flag states that are prepared to consider it is growing. Some flag states have given shipowners carte blanche to make the arrangements but others have taken a more cautious approach and require shipowners to apply on a case-by-case basis.

Some states, perhaps in anticipation of some environmentalist criticism, have issued statements along the lines of not supporting the principle of decoupling certificates to prolong the lead time for fitting treatment systems, but acknowledging that there is no legal requirement for the IOPP anniversary date to be aligned with other HSSC certificates saying the decision rests with the shipowners.

All three of the major registers – Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands – along with at least 24 other states have permitted decoupling. Several European flags including France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Malta, Cyprus and the UK appear on that list, which would seem to indicate that leading flag states do not believe that the situation around treatment systems is yet fully played out.

Australia has taken a contrary position and refuses to accept decoupling. The Australian Maritime Safety Agency (AMSA) has advised shipowners that “the administration considers this a retrograde step and inconsistent with the principals applied at IMO. As such, AMSA does not support this process.” Australia’s position is in line with the country’s long-term view on ballast management but the fact that it is the only opposition shows how much flag states have felt they need to accommodate shipowners’ desire to defer installation.

What is not clear is how the environmental protection agencies

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

The Marshall Islands advises: “The Administrator allows for early renewal and decoupling of the IOPP renewal survey”

of the states that have permitted decoupling will deal with the issue of compliance. It could be that they will take an equally accommodating line when it comes to enforcement but that can never be guaranteed.

Decoupling may not be an allowable strategy if the vessel is planning to trade to the US. Under the US regulations, a ship – unless it has been granted an exemption – is required to comply with the regulations from its first scheduled drydocking after its compliance date and there is no link to any specific certificate.

Since all compliance dates have now passed, that effectively means that ships operating to the US must comply from their next scheduled drydockings. Now that there are three US typeapproved systems available and more on the way, the ability to obtain a new exemption is becoming severely limited.

Vessels with IMO type-approved systems that have been accepted as an Alternate Management System (AMS) are unlikely to receive extensions because they are already considered to be compliant. The AMS rules permit vessels to use an AMS for up to five years after their compliance dates but for some early adopters that time is fast approaching and it is possible that unless USCG type-approval is obtained between now and the end of the five-year period, such ships may find themselves in the unenviable position of having to change the system for an approved model.

A slow start for same risk areas There are areas where certain provisions of IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention have been undeveloped when arguably they should have been fully agreed upon before the text was adopted, or very soon after. The concept of same-risk areas is one of these areas.

It is recognised in the convention and Regulation A4 permits exemptions to be given to vessels that operate solely in defined constricted areas. Up to now, no single area has been officially recognised although moves are underway to grant this status to some areas.

In anticipation of port states planning to provide exemptions under regulation A4, IMO adopted the G7 Guidelines in July 2007, contained within Resolution MEPC.162(56). The guidelines detail a choice of three methods of risk assessment that can be used ›››

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

12 | REGULATION

››› to determine if an exemption can be granted and to allow port states the option of performing the assessment themselves or allowing individual shipowners to undertake the work. Being only recommendations, the G7 Guidelines are not mandatory and flag states are under no obligation to grant any exemptions.

Considering that IMO was required by the convention to confirm if suitable technology was available before the first deadline for compliance, some argue that it should have been possible for port states to begin considering and defining same-risk areas as soon as, if not before, the convention was adopted in 2004 or at least since 2007 when the G7 Guidelines were adopted.

It is worth noting that, on this topic, the US regulations as set out in the US Coast Guard’s final rule in 2012 currently allow exemptions based on its Captain of the Port zones but this may be changed in the future to reflect species distribution rather than administrative districts.

Considering the fact that a great number of vessels are involved in short sea traffic in areas such as northern Europe, the Mediterranean and the seas of southeast Asia where species transfer can take place by way of several natural vectors, attempts to obtain exemptions have been few and far between. At the 67th meeting of IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee in October 2014, Denmark and the industry organisation Interferry submitted a joint paper on the issue and a report was also provided by the Danish Ministry for the Environment.

The paper highlighted a number of aspects connected with granting exemptions and the peculiar anomalies that can arise due to the wording and interpretation of Regulation A4. For example, the report contained a passage which read: “You are obliged to meet [the] D-2 standard following the 4km journey between Elsinore in Denmark and Helsingborg in Sweden, where intense shipping traffic has taken place for 100+ years, but not if you travel 1,400km from Swedish Luleå to Helsingborg or for that matter the 600km from Danish Esbjerg in the North Sea to Elsinore in The Sound. Even without a G7 risk

assessment at hand, it is not unlikely that the risk associated with the 4km crossing of The Sound may indeed be the least and this is the only journey requiring a risk assessment.”

The joint paper also contained a paragraph highlighting the inaction and reasons for it, saying that “serious concern exists regarding the time available to gather necessary biological data for an application for exemption and, combined with the commercial risk should the subsequent exemption not be granted, it is felt that shipowners may be effectively forced to refrain from seeking exemptions, even for seemingly obvious cases.”

The paper acknowledged that “it could be argued that there has been ample time since the adoption of the convention to gather biological survey data” but said that “the costs of such surveys are very significant and that such data has a validity limited to five years subject to intermediate review.”

At subsequent MEPC meetings, Denmark has continued to advise on the issue and at MEPC 69 in April last year, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam advised they were working on assessing the possibility of establishing a common risk area but needed to undertake baseline studies and inventories to determine the spread of species in the area.

As the deadline for installing systems draws closer, the position described in the Danish paper takes on a new significance. Most shipowners would expect that the responsibility and cost of studies needed should be undertaken by port states, arguing that they do not possess the necessary expertise to undertake the studies themselves.

Although the strategy of decoupling IOPP surveys provides a delaying tactic that shipowners could employ, getting same-risk areas established in time to avoid the cost of installing systems for operation in those areas seems to be a hard objective to achieve. However, now that the convention is in force, it may be possible for an amendment to the wording to be made by IMO member states to the effect that enforcement of the convention could be delayed while assessments needed to establish samerisk areas are carried out. BWTT

Helsingborg, Sweden: Ships travelling 4km to Elsinore in Denmark must meet the D-2 standard, but not if they journey 1,400km to Swedish Luleå (credit: Wikimedia)

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Retrofit Ready 1 1 Y E A R S AT The Ecochlor Ballast Water Treatment System: High ballast water flow-rates. ÂŽ

Low energy consumption. Low operating costs. System design options for hazardous areas.

The Ecochlor Ballast Water Treatment System: proven effective and reliable ÂŽ

for over 11 years at sea. Meets or exceeds USCG and IMO standards.

USCG Type Approval Pending

Meets or exceeds the most demanding IMO and USCG regulations. www.ecochlor.com

COMPLIANCE ASSURED, WHEREVER YOU ARE. SeaCURE® BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

KEY BENEFITS OF THE SeaCURE® SYSTEM

Evoqua offers a ballast water management system that provides a reliable, safe and environmentally sound solution designed to protect against the proliferation of aquatic invasive species.

• • • • •

The Type-Approved and AMS Accepted SeaCURE system uses a combination of physical separation and a proprietary on-demand treatment with biocides, produced in-situ from seawater, without the addition of chemicals. The system is based on more than 35 years of proven experience and over 2,500 shipboard installations of Evoqua‘s well-known Chloropac® marine growth prevention system (MGPS).

TO LEARN MORE VISIT WWW.EVOQUA.COM/ SEACURE www.evoqua.com/seacure

© 2017 Evoqua Water Technologies LLC

marine@evoqua.com

Operates anywhere Reduced OPEX & CAPEX Trusted, tested & safe system Simple & flexible installation Global service support

Visit us at Sea Asia 25-27 April Singapore

Visit us at Nor-Shipping 30 May-2 June Oslo

Visit us at Kormarine 24-27 October Busan

Visit us at Marintec China 5-8 December Shanghai

TECHNOLOGY | 15

New methods get MEPC 70 approval New treatment technologies are still emerging in the crowded BWMS marketplace

A

fter nearly two decades of developing technologies aimed at removing the threat of invasive species in ballast water, it should come as no surprise that finding a new method of treatment among the systems available is a rarity. That said, two systems discussed at the 70th meeting of IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 70) in October last year do make use of chemicals or systems not used in any other systems.

By far the majority of the systems available make use either of UV or some form of electrochemical treatment but there are systems employing physical treatment such as ultrasound, oxygen stripping, cavitation or heat to destroy organisms, while others use chemical dosing.

Systems that do not use active substances only need to achieve type-approval to enter into the commercial arena and, since many of the newer arrivals appear to be publicity shy, often the first that the wider world hears of them is when their type-approval is advised at an MEPC meeting. Any system that makes use of an active substance has a longer journey through the IMO approval process and is required to pass its basic and final approval tests of the active substance before being permitted to seek type-approval from a

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

TOP: This ultra low frequency unit is a vital part of the Semb-Eco LUV 500 BWMS (credit: Ecospec) BOTTOM: A small-scale version of the LeesGreen BWMS under test by the Shanghai Ocean University (credit: Shanghai Lee)

recognised organisation.

The number of new systems appearing each year has been gradually reducing as the entry into force date loomed closer but, even so, new systems are appearing on a regular basis. At MEPC 70, one active substance system was given basic approval, two received final approval and the meeting was advised of four other systems having achieved G8 type-approval. Not all of these were new systems: one had achieved type-approval two years previously, another was a variant of a previously approved system and two were new additions to the list of available systems.

The two newly-announced systems are the Semb-Eco LUV 500 system developed

by Ecospec and to be manufactured by Sembcorp Marine Repairs and Upgrades in Singapore. This system uses filtration and UV but also has a third feature described by Ecospec as ultra low frequency (ULF) wave treatment. The SembEco BWMS comprises a self-cleaning filter, the main biofouling control (BFC) unit and a supplementary UV reactor. The intake ballast water passes through the filter and is then exposed to low intensity UV irradiation from low pressure UV lamps.

In the final stage, the ballast water passes the BFC unit emitting the ULF wave. Ecospec claims it is the combination of the ULF wave and the low

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

16 | TECHNOLOGY

intensity UV light exposure that disrupts the living cell metabolic activity and DNA of the microorganism cell and inhibits reproduction. It says that without the ULF wave treatment, its UV treatment would consume so much power that it would be practically prohibitive to use – something that many system makers would dispute.

The second new system is the LeesGreen Ballast Water Management System

tasked with evaluating systems suggested that more thought be given to the issues, which has clearly been done for it now to achieve basic approval.

ClearBal uses a solution of two active substances; brilliant green (BG) and cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) in a 1:2 ratio to inactivate marine species in ships’ ballast water tanks in situ. The ClearBal solution is contained in a storage tank connected to the

threat of PSC detentions, new systems and new methods may be necessary for the future.

As the type-approval process tightens, the shortcomings of older systems will become more obvious and although some protection has been promised, that can never be guaranteed.

A number of industry associations – including the International Chamber of Shipping, BIMCO and Intertanko – along with India

A proposal was submitted to MEPC 70 to delay installation dates

manufactured by Shanghai Lee’s FUDA Electromechanical Technology. It is another in the growing list of filtration and UV systems and the description of the system supplied to the IMO shows no evidence of other unique technology.

The system achieving active substance basic approval is the ClearBal developed by University of Strathclyde in the UK but notified to the meeting

by Denmark. It had been previously presented for basic approval at MEPC 68 but was rejected for a number of reasons connected with its ability to ensure that the chemicals it uses would be adequately mixed in a ship’s ballast tanks, a potential risk to human health and some missing test results on toxicity to fish. The expert group

dosing unit, which delivers it via a dosing pump and a control unit that adjusts the amount of biocide injected into the ballast system suction pipeline based on the flow rate measurement recorded by a flow meter.

The ClearBal BWMS is an in-line system with a minimum 24 hours holding time in ballast tanks. Upon deballasting, the ballast water is detoxified using activated charcoal before it is discharged. The detoxification system consists of a unit for dosing activated charcoal to the ballast pipe, a mixing unit and a separation unit to retrieve residual ClearBal and activated charcoal from the ballast water.

For two systems to appear with new technologies is an unusual event these days but it may be that if ballast treatment is to work effectively and ships are to be safe from the

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

co-sponsored a submission to MEPC 70 pointing out that since the G8 Guidelines covering procedures for type-approving BWM systems are currently under review, it would make sense for vessels whose first renewal survey falls within two years of the entry into force date to be granted an extension to the second renewal survey to ensure that they can obtain systems approved under the revised guidance.

The committee did not manage to achieve agreement on this and it was finally agreed that both sets of proposed amendments should be forwarded to MEPC 71 (scheduled to take place in July) for adoption.

The recent discussions at MEPC suggested that there are around 4,000 systems currently installed

on ships although it is known that not all of these are in regular use. In terms of the total number of vessels that may need to fit treatment systems – the question of exemptions in similar risk areas has the potential to considerably reduce the total number – 4,000 is actually quite a high percentage. If those ships need to improve treatment efficiency they may be obliged either to upgrade systems where that is possible or to replace the installed system completely.

One answer for such ships could be supplied by port authorities or terminal operators providing a shore ballast treatment system or by one of the increasing number of containerised systems that are appearing. Damen of the Netherlands set that particular ball rolling but they are no longer alone. Some system makers have been looking at the concept and could produce versions themselves and other third party engineering concerns are following the Damen model.

One of those is Ballast Water Containers of the UK, which has developed a range of containerised treatment systems that in theory can be fitted with any maker’s treatment system. At present systems from Wärtsilä and Optimarin are planned. The containerised systems only require a flow and return connection to the ship’s ballast piping to be installed at a point where the container can be connected.

For a fleet operator, the flexibility offered by containerised systems with standard connections is that units could be switched between ships relatively easily. That could permit a ship operating in fresh and brackish waters to use a UV system but change to an electrochemical one when operating in saltwater and areas of high turbidity. BWTT

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

TECHNOLOGY | 17

IMO sets a new technical course A

fter many years of criticism, the G8 type-approval guidelines are to be tightened up and made mandatory, it was agreed at the 70th meeting of IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 70) in October last year.

For the time being, the new guidelines are just recommendations but are expected to become mandatory in October 2020 and no doubt some shipowners will want to ensure that current systems approved to existing standards will be upgraded to meet the new requirements

Manufacturers rise to new challenges set at MEPC 70 with new guidelines and a new concept

when the type-approvals already granted expire. From the system makers’ point of view, the new testing requirements may prove expensive but, for the end user, they will resolve the problem of systems not performing as expected.

For many shipowners,

especially those with small fleets and limited shore staff, determining which ballast treatment systems will best suit their requirements is not something that can be done easily. Most will be choosing systems based predominantly on cost, availability and their ability to be accommodated

IMO’s MEPC 70 meeting set BWMS manufacturers some new challenges (credit: IMO)

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

in what may be limited space on board. Apart from how it affects things such as draught and main engine cooling performance, the characteristics and chemical makeup of seawater are of little concern to shipowners or the crew on board. But when it comes to how effective ballast treatment systems are, such things take on a much greater significance.

The new testing requirements toughen up parameters such as water temperature and total suspended solids. More importantly for owners, the concept of ‘system design limitations’ (SDL) has now become part of the testing and type-approval process, which should make the selection of an appropriate system much easier.

A view widely expressed in the shipping community is that the majority of systems that have been installed have not performed as well as expected. Some systems – installed in anticipation of an earlier entry into force – have not even been operated other than during tests and checks so for them problems may still remain to be identified.

SDL, as laid out in the new guidelines, requires that “the limitations of the ballast water management systems determined in addition to the required typeapproval testing parameters – as submitted by its manufacturer and validated by the administration –

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

18 | TECHNOLOGY

should be documented on the type-approval certificate.

These system design limitations do not determine if the equipment may be type-approved or not, but provide information on the conditions beyond the typeapproval testing parameters under which proper functioning of the equipment can be expected.”

It will be down to manufacturers to identify all known operational parameters to which the design of the system is sensitive that are material

to its ability to achieve the discharge performance standard, set out in regulation D-2 of IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention.

The parameters should include both water quality parameters – such as salinity, temperature, oxidant demand, and ultraviolet transmittance – and operational parameters, such as minimum flow rate and holding time.

For each parameter, manufacturers should claim a low and/or a high value for which the system is capable of achieving the

D-2 performance standard.

The guidelines suggest that the information should be presented in a matrix but, at the time of writing in February, has not decided on its exact format. Work on developing the matrix is ongoing but in the meantime there is no reason why shipowners should not investigate the issues surrounding different systems and begin considering which best suits their operational profile.

As the new version of the G8 Guidelines is intended

to be made mandatory and while some of the measures within them are still to be finalised, there are likely to be more amendments that will affect the technical development and operation of systems. What has still to be determined is what the position will be when systems are operated in full accordance with makers’ instructions but fail to meet the D-2 discharge standard.

System makers may benefit from the new ruling on design limitations but owners and crews may not.

Operating methods must match operational needs Faced with a range of treatment technologies, shipowners must weigh up with techniques best suit their operations.

Filtration, for example, can have a detrimental effect on ship operations where it forms part of the treatment process.

If the filter constantly needs to be flushed it will make the ballasting process longer which could in turn have an effect on demurrage and despatch claims or time charter performance issues. So if a vessel relies upon a high ballasting or deballasting rate, then either it should not have a filter fitted or use one that is able to cope with the flow.

It is in the choice between mechanical, electrochemical and UV systems where most considerations will come to bear.

A UV system treats the water immediately on uptake and can repeat the treatment again on discharge if it is felt necessary.

Such systems are not without problems of their own. The method of treatment with UV is aimed more at rendering organisms unviable than killing which has caused some issues in the past as to their suitability for use in US waters. This is less of a problem now that two of the three systems with USCG type-approval are UV systems. The biggest problem with UV is that of turbidity which can reduce the effectiveness of treatment.

Mechanical systems, such as Coldharbour’s Gas-Lift Diffusers or Bawat's pasteurisation/deoxygenation technology, rely on constant treatment of ballast in the ballast tanks and therefore may not be suited to ships that operate on short voyages. The same issue can arise with electrochemical or pure chemical systems where the disinfection takes place in the ballast tank. Different systems will have different dwell times that will be influenced by the size of the tanks, the chemical composition of the water and the temperature.

Temperature and salinity of the uptake water are vital parameters for any electrochemical system and, if outside of the range where electrolysis can take place, remedial measures must be taken. That involves adding chemicals to the water in appropriate quantities which will need to be determined by measurement and monitoring of the intake

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

Coldharbour’s Gas-Lift Diffusers provide constant treatment within the ballast tank (credit: Coldharbour)

water. Control and monitoring systems have been covered by the BWMC’s G8 Guidelines from the outset but the section devoted to them in the revised version issued by MEPC 70 has been much enlarged and extended.

This is another area where more work is considered as being needed. There are expectations that, as more technologies for measuring the biological effectiveness of treatment systems are developed, these will need to be integrated into systems. Such systems will give a degree of confidence to crew that the system is working as intended or if that is not the case make necessary arrangements at the next port of call. BWTT

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Type approved by the U.S. Coast Guard

PureBallast is pure confidence in all waters Alfa Laval PureBallast 3.1 is now type approved by the U.S. Coast Guard. For you who deballast in United States waters, that means total peace of mind.

Certified for fresh, brackish and marine water, PureBallast 3.1 sets the benchmark with its unique combination of capabilities. Behind it is an equally unique supplier with a decade of experience – one who has sold over 1200 systems and installed hundreds as retrofits.

Discover pure confidence and sign up for the PureBallast newsletter at www.alfalaval.com/pureballast3

20 | USCG TYPE-APPROVAL

Navigating the USCG type-approval maze With typeapprovals now emerging from the US Coast Guard, consultant Jad Mouawad describes his experience of the process

W

ith three ballast water management systems (BWMSs) type-approved by the US Coast Guard (USCG) at the time of writing in early April, another two applications working their way through the system and many more preparing to apply, we have started to learn what the USCG is requesting from the manufacturers in terms of information, documentation and the testing standards.

At the time of writing, a newly conducted survey by the Norway based Mouawad Consulting on test facilities shows them to be very busy testing BWMSs. For 2017, it seems that the most popular centres are fully booked with many tests reserved for 2018.

Alfa Laval’s PureBallast, Optimarin’s OBS and OceanSaver’s OceanSaver BWMS are the three systems that have received USCG type-approval.

Both Alfa Laval and Optimarin are UV-based and OceanSaver is electrolysis-based.

Ecochlor is the latest manufacturer to submit an application for USCG typeapproval, joining SunRui Marine Environment Engineering in the approval queue. Of the other manufacturers that are well underway in their testing process, the following can be mentioned: Aquastar, De Nora Water Technologies, Erma First ESK Engineering Solutions, Evoqua Water Technologies, Qingdao Headway Technology, Hyde Marine, Hyundai Welding, NK BMS, Panasia and

Testers from DHI checking SunRui’s Balchlor BWMS ahead of its USCG type-approval application (credit: SunRui)

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

USCG TYPE-APPROVAL | 21

Wärtsilä Water Systems.

For the sake of clarity, that list includes BWMSs that have started testing and that we are aware of. Many others are still in their ‘Readiness Evaluation’ phase or have tested unsuccessfully for different reasons.

We expect Aquastar, De Nora, Elite Marine, Evoqua, Headway, Hyundai and NK to submit their applications during 2017.

The reasons behind the delay in managing the Readiness Evaluation and application process are multiple; however, the most usual ones relate to these issues: • IMO type-approved BWMSs have had an evaluation of their readiness by different administrations. Those evaluations, while robust for many of them, differ from that of the USCG. So instead of taking one month to finish, BWMS manufacturers are using up to six months to clear that phase, often with their control and automation forming the largest uncertainty, even under USCG regime.

• Testing for USCG approval under different conditions from when testing against IMO standards has proved to be challenging. We are still uncovering areas in chemistry and biology that no one has done research on and that we do not fully grasp.

• The USCG-approved Independent Laboratories (ILs) are sometimes overreaching with their interpretations of tests requirements and results and this has led to manufacturers changing IL test facilities or dropping out completely. A manufacturer does not need to fail many tests at US$50,000 each before they see the rugs being pulled from under their feet by their management and ownership.

• Once tests are done – including the major hurdle of shipboard tests (which involves finding a ship and then finding organisms in the water) – manufacturers and their ILs underestimate the length and effort it takes to compile a typeapproval application.

That last point is nothing new: ever since we started type-approving BWMSs in 2007, estimates of the time needed for the final effort of compiling a good application with all necessary information have ranged from a couple of days to a few weeks. In practice, it might take up to four months to prepare a good application.

Testing for additional filtration also takes a few months and the availability of test facilities add to the reasons why not many manufacturers are underway with their USCG type-approval applications.

ILs and manufacturers then try to combine both revised IMO G8 Guidelines and USCG requirements. In our experience, this effort can also lead to more delays.

As the last stage of approval process, the USCG review has taken longer than the

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

expected four weeks. In general, so far, the USCG has reverted within that time with questions related to the application. The feedback so far has involved clarifying such details as how the BWMS complies with the regulations and how testing was done in accordance with the regulations.

During the past three years we have found that there is a spread of interpretation of the USCG regulations by the ILs. We have also experienced that test sites offer different challenging conditions depending on their locations and the time of testing.

This has made it more important for BWMS manufacturers to choose the IL, test location and test time strategically to have higher chances of passing the expensive land-based tests.

It would be to everyone’s advantage if the interpretations of the USCG regulations were aligned between ILs. However, as long as the different requirements are not listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) protocol, it is difficult for the USCG to come up with a conclusion if testing facilities and ILs do not all agree amongst each other.

The latest comments by Mario Tamburri, head of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, on the suitability of testing undergone by different ILs, is an example of the differences between ILs and the inability of the USCG to conclude and act on those (see page 77).

So far, we have seen many BWMS manufacturers retreat from the market. Others are struggling with finances and there is a large number that we do not hear anything from. Of the more-than-90 BWMSs that are listed by manufacturers in the market, only 52 can be considered as viable and we do not expect that all of them will pursue USCG type-approval.

There are about 10 more BWMSs currently being developed and expected to enter the market in the next two years.

Meanwhile, some BWMS manufacturers are discontinuing production and support, or are not pursuing USCG type-approval, posing a challenge to shipowners that have purchased their equipment. Either their BWMS supplier changes ownership and it will become unknown what the new owner’s strategy is for after sales and service, or the manufacturer discontinues production and support to the equipment.

In all cases, it seems that only about 20 to 30 of the already type-approved BWMSs will continue active support and production of their equipment in the longterm, so it is important that shipowners make good preparations and background check before purchasing BWMSs for their ships.

Will the USCG review its opposition to MPN? Some leading manufacturers, covering a range of technologies, offered BWTT their expectations of MPN testing.

They included Optimarin, the first manufacturer to obtain USCG type-approval with its UV-based system. Its chief executive, Tore Andersen, doubts that the USCG will change its stance because “some of the states are looking for even stronger test results.” Andrew Marshall, chief executive of Coldharbour Marine, agreed and suggested that the policy is “not simply a question of science.”

But Anders Lindmark, head of Alfa Laval’s PureBallast activities, noted a comment made to the fourth meeting of IMO’s Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response in January. The US delegation reported that they will review MPN within the Environmental Technology Verification programme, Mr Lindmark said.

Many scientists consider the MPN method to be suitable for evaluating UV-based BWMSs, he said, so “we expect that USCG will finally come to the same conclusion.”

Tom Perlich, founder and president of Ecochlor, believes that changes will be made to the USCG’s Final Rule on Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in US Waters, issued in March 2012. If that happens, “the MPN testing method could be deemed an acceptable test method,” he told BWTT. That is certainly what Rasmus Folsø, chief executive of Desmi Ocean Guard, is hoping for. “We believe the USCG will adopt the MPN method during 2017,” he said. “This will pave the way for a USCG type approval of our RayClean system.” BWTT • For more discussion about MPN, see page 22

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

22 | USCG TYPE-APPROVAL

UV TEST WAR RUMBLES ON

Supporters of the MPN test method hope for change as US lawmakers consider a new discharge regulation

I

t is more than a year since the makers of some UV systems began a legal battle against the US Coast Guard (USCG) over the method of testing used when evaluating the effectiveness of UV systems. The controversy is an extension of the argument over the definition of the term ‘unviable’ which the US interprets as meaning dead and the rest of the world sees as the inability to reproduce.

While most of the systems tested against IMO G8 Guidelines had used the ‘Most Probable Number’ (MPN) method, US rules demand the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) staining method, which uses a combination of two fluorescein-based stains (FDA and CMFDA) to evaluate the status of organisms. ETV can supposedly distinguish between live and dead organisms but cannot identify those no longer able to reproduce.

There have been some developments in the dispute but none that has as yet resulted in a reversal of the USCG’s position. The first development was the granting of US type-approval to Optimarin’s UV system in December last year. The Norwegian manufacturer had decided at an early stage to test according to the method favoured by the USCG and may have won a commercial advantage by doing so.

Other UV system makers – notably Alfa Laval – appear to have recognised that fighting in the MPN corner was not likely to translate into early USCG acceptance and took the pragmatic decision to test using ETV. Alfa Laval has also gained USCG type-approval.

System makers that support the MPN method remain convinced of their case and continue in their efforts to persuade a change of attitude by the USCG. In January, the fourth meeting of IMO’s Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR4), discussed the issue and accepted both methods of testing despite an attempt by the US to defer acceptance of the MPN method.

This builds on an earlier decision at the 70th meeting of IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee in October 2016 when

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

A website dedicated to promoting MPN invites visitors to ‘effect change’ by sending an email to the USCG

the term ‘viability’ was discussed in relation to testing methodologies. IMO accepts that “viability may be established by assessing the presence of one or more essential characteristics of life,” and PPR4 agreed to the possibility of other tests being accepted and their subsequent dissemination as a BWM circular.

IMO’s decision does not yet alter the USCG’s position but it is officially still evaluating the MPN method and may eventually be obliged to accept it. That is because, at the time of writing in February 2017, a bill poised to go before the US senate could see the standard for effectiveness of treatment systems on organisms altered to allow ‘rendered incapable of reproduction’.

The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA), sponsored by Florida’s Republican senator Marco Rubio, has been passed by the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee tasked to study it and is now waiting to be further debated. If it successfully completes its voyage through

the judicial process, the act could permit acceptance of the Most Probable Number (MPN) testing processes.

The act is being strongly resisted by the attorney generals of 10 states. They object to it removing their individual states’ right to impose standards of treatment and the demotion of the US Environmental Protection Agency to a purely advisory role.

They have sent a joint letter to the senate arguing that the act “adopts inadequate, decade-old invasive species standards – developed under the auspices of the IMO – from a treaty the US has never ratified, and then leaves them in place until 2022.

The legislation provides for review of these standards every 10 years by the USCG which may then choose not to revise them based on a ‘practicability review’ that places commercial shipping interests on an equal footing with environmental protection.” BWTT • The full text of VIDA can be read via http://bit.ly/BWTT-VIDA

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

DHI BALLAST WATER CENTRE TESTING AND ASSESSMENT FOR TYPE APPROVAL Operating in land-based test facilities in Denmark and Singapore, our Centre has the largest performance testing team in the world. We can help you with:  laboratory and pilot scale testing  Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) performance evaluation  basic and final approval of systems using active substances.

Our Centre is recognised by international organisations. It holds the:  US Coast Guard recognition as ‘independent laboratory’ together with DNV-GL and Lloyds Register  EN ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation for performance evaluation of BWMS We provide unbiased consultancy based on three fundamentals: Client focus - Flexible solutions - Quality management We can help you meet the BWMS requirements imposed on ship owners – effectively and on time. Contact us!

© DHI / Photo: ©DHI

gip@dhigroup.com - www.dhigroup.com

DHI are the first people you should call when you have a tough challenge to solve in a water environment.

In the world of water, our knowledge is second-to-none, and we strive to make it globally accessible to clients and partners.

So whether you need to save water, share it fairly, improve its quality, quantify its impact or manage its flow, we can help. Our knowledge, combined with our team’s expertise and the power of our technology, hold the key to unlocking the right solution.

INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES | 25

Water conditions affect type-approval testing Variations between independent laboratory tests are down to water conditions, say makers and labs

E

very application for US Coast Guard (USCG) type-approval has to be submitted via one of its accepted independent laboratories (ILs). There are 862 of them but just five are authorised to handle applications for ballast water management systems (BWMSs), each of them supported by a number of sublaboratories (see table).

Manufacturers can choose which IL to use and, because of their geography, there are differences between their testing capabilities, Ian Stentiford, global vice president of Evoqua Water Technologies, explained to BWTT. It is using NSF International and its associated sub-laboratories because “we know the challenge that those laboratories will put on our system.” The water it can access contains sufficient organisms to be certain that “if we can pass under those conditions that our system is going to work in the real world subsequently,” he said.

Asked whether, from their own experience, it is easier to pass tests at some ILs than at others, some suppliers that responded to BWTT’s question were reluctant to comment. “No,” was the short and complete response from Optimarin’s chief executive Tore Andersen. Joe Thomas, managing director of Wärtsilä Water Systems – which, like Optimarin, is working through DNV GL as its IL – said that Wärtsilä was not aware of any issues with ILs, saying that its focus is “on doing the job properly and thoroughly and this was the main driver behind our choice of IL.” Marcie Merksamer, vice president of the environmental consultancy EnviroManagement, acknowledged that the two ILs its clients are working with do have differences in their overall processes and how they approach various aspects. But “one is not necessarily easier or harder than the other,” she said. “I find the process equally challenging with both ILs.” Mark Riggio, senior market manager for Hyde Marine, said the impression that ILs produce different results “simply isn’t true.” What may differ, however, are the organisms in the various test regions.

He cited a paper published in the journal Marine Biology in 2011 that found the results of tests carried out with the CMFDA/FDA test method varied between locations because some may have organisms that create more false positives than others. So any differences are not because some ILs are ‘easier’, he said, but because of differences in the biological make-up at those ILs relative to others.

One of the independent laboratories – Lloyd’s Register –

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

confirmed that water conditions will vary between test centres and this could explain the difference between test results. Flans Kemp, the class society’s type-approval business development manager, told BWTT that there should not be a huge difference between the sub-laboratories “because they all have to meet the same regulation and the IL should ensure that all testing is within the limits of this.”

But he reflected Mr Stentiford’s view, saying that “some manufacturers are very keen to test their systems in very harsh environments, to increase confidence and ensure they work in all conditions.”

Of the five ILs, Lloyd’s Register probably has the second largest market share, he estimated, but said that its share is expanding rapidly. “We are also working to acquire more sub-laboratories so we can offer more test slots to our clients.”

All three of the systems that have obtained USCG typeapproval at the time of writing have worked with DNV GL as their IL and its senior principal engineer in its Environmental Protection Unit, Martin Olofsson, said in February that it was working with about 20 manufacturers on USCG type-approval.

Asked how the USCG ensures consistency, the Korean Register, which has been an IL since March 2015, explained that the USCG works closely with its ILs. “When actively applying typeapproval test criteria, ILs can discuss their requests with the USCG and communicate with other ILs,” it told BWTT. USCG has held a number of conference calls among its ILs and has set up a test panel for ILs to share feedback “on what is possible or not, rational or irrational, seeking ways to improve,” the class society said.

Mr Olofsson also acknowledged the value of these links. The various conference calls, for example, have helped to “establish a very good understanding of what USCG requires,” he said. “Not everything is perfect but we have a fairly good understanding of most of the issues.” BWTT

USCG INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES AND SUB-LABORATORIES Laboratory NSF International DNV GL

Korean Register of Shipping Control Union Certifications Lloyd’s Register EMEA

Country

Sub-laboratories

USA

MERC, GSI, Retlif, ABS, Curtis Strauss

Norway

DHI-Denmark/Singapore, Golden Bear, NIVA, Applica, DELTA, Phoenix TestLab, Retlif, TUVSUD, SGS Gihe, Labtest

Korea

KOMERI, KTL, SGS Giheung Lab, Dt&C.

The Netherlands

IMARES, NIOZ, GoConsult, Dr Matej David Consult, TNO, ABS, GSI

UK

DHI Denmark, DELTA, DHI Singapore, TUV SUD PSB Singapore, Phoenix Testlab, SGS Korea, NIVA

Source: USCG Maritime Information Exchange

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

26 | ENVIRONMENT

BACTERIA AND VIRUSES: THE HIDDEN MENACE I

nvasive species are not just a problem for ecologists: they are also a worry for economists. What is less recognised is that it can also involve emergency medical teams.

There is substantial evidence that international shipping has been key in transmitting both the vibrio parahaemolyticus and vibrio cholerae bacteria. The latter can lead to death in hours if left untreated. There have also been reports that the same strain of bacteria that was behind a 1991 pandemic that started in Peru and spread throughout Latin America – resulting in more than 10,000 fatalities – showed up in the ballast tanks of vessels arriving from there into the Gulf of Mexico.

Will the new convention clear all this up? Maybe. Stephan Gollasch of GoConsult is a leading expert in ballast water treatment research and he explained the tests hinge on three bacterial suspects: vibrio cholerae, E coli and enterococci.

“These are used as indicators for what is likely to be in the ballast water but these are not the only pathogens we need to treat.”

However, he said: “E coli and enterococci are intestinal bacteria and are biased toward fresh water, so do not normally survive in the marine environment for long.”

But v cholera does, although it does not often turn up in validation trials, leading some to point out that even a nonfunctioning system would pass that test.

Other salt-water-tolerant pathogens include a subset of marine species with almost incredible diversity, said

It has been predicted that aquaculture will breed more virulent strains of pathogens (credit: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation)

Ballast treatment regulations are intended to end environmental damage to the oceans. It might not be that simple, writes Stevie Knight

Guillaume Drillet, who heads the ballast water team at DHI Group in Singapore.

Then there are viruses. They are not mentioned in IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC), because at the time of drafting there were no easy methods for identifying them, but they are by far the most abundant life form in the oceans.

Their main targets are the

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

lower forms of life including bacteria, algae and zooplankton.

There has been a general assumption that marine viruses cannot jump species but that is now being questioned: research by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the University of Nebraska showed that almost half of a group of people that were tested showed infection with an algae virus.

And these people scored worse

than uninfected people at visual processing tasks and had shorter attention spans.

Fish farms provide a particularly welcoming environment for more potent strains of disease. Katja Pulkkinen, a researcher at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, has predicted that “intensive fish farming will lead to the evolution of more virulent pathogens.”

This makes a practical difference to shipping: it is not yet known exactly what constitutes a safe distance from a hotspot to avoiding picking up pathogens with ballast uptake. While there are big vaccination programmes against the better known viruses for vertebrates such as salmon, this will not work with crustaceans

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

ENVIRONMENT | 27

as they do not have an adaptive immune system, Dr Stentiford explained. Further, given the diversity of the ocean’s microbes, “we just don’t know what’s out there. There’s a fundamental knowledge gap,” he said.

But solutions could be on the way. According to Dr Stentiford, new techniques are being developed “to get a handle on any diseases before they become a problem.” These may also be adapted for onboard use, giving shipping another weapon to use in the fight against invasive species.

Dr Drillet remains optimistic about the overall impact of ballast water regulations, which he described as “an amazing achievement that will have an extremely positive impact on decreasing the rate of bio-

The ‘resting eggs’ of copepod, extracted from sediment (credit: Guillaume Drillet)

invasions.” But both regulatory and onboard solutions need to be workable, he said. “A ship is not a laboratory.”

• There is a longer version of this feature on the BWTT website.

OCEAN PATHOGENS CAN HAVE INDIRECT IMPACTS Although marine viruses might not seem to have a direct impact on humans, ocean-going pathogens can hit human communities in less direct but potentially devastating ways.

Grant Stentiford, principal scientific officer at the UK’s Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, explained that “since fishing output has flat-lined, aquaculture is going to be the way to answer nutritional needs.” He pointed out that it covers everything from ‘big industry’ worth US$160 billion worldwide to “small-scale, backyard farming to keep families fed.”

Guillaume Drillet, who heads the ballast water team at DHI Group in Singapore, is also president of the World Aquaculture Society for Asia-Pacific where 80 per cent of the global aquaculture output is produced. “Epidemics cause major losses affecting national economies such as the recent necrosis disease outbreaks,” he said. This has cost the shrimp industry in Thailand something over US$5 billion.

Despite the big numbers, it remains a tricky subject. Melba Reantaso, aquaculture officer at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, explained that there is a dearth of real attention on how fish diseases spread and some of the process remains a mystery.

For example, she said, a particularly nasty, fish-killing pathogen commonly called epizootic ulcerative syndrome (EUS) shows up in the records as appearing in both Japan and Australia within a year: 1971 in Japan and 1972 in Australia. She added that retrospective analysis of the timing of EUS occurrence in both countries and their locations – both occurred on the Pacific Coast – suggests that ballast water could have been the route or it may have simply been carried by ocean currents.

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Copepods hide enterococci and other pathogenic bacteria (credit: Wikimedia/Uwe Kils)

Hull fouling spreads pathogens There are other routes besides ballast water that pathogens can travel around the oceans – they can hitch a ride with a number of other invasive species. “Hull fouling is now being seen as another key problem in some areas,” said Stephan Gollasch of GoConsult, a leading expert in ballast water treatment research.

Some areas have marine invasive species that have arrived by a roughly equal split between ballast water, transfer of live fish stock and hull fouling. But in some places – Hawaii is one – “hull fouling may be behind as much as 80 per cent of the marine invasions,” Dr Gollasch said.

Researchers talk of a ‘biofouling community’ developing in the slime on ships’ hulls, complete with bacteria and microalgae that form an incubator for larger organisms.

These develop into complex webs of interdependent organisms: crustacean zooplankton shield bacteria from UV radiation, heat and ozone while barnacles play host to a whole range of microbes.

Some of those microbes have proved fatal to people scratched by the razor-sharp shells. But that is a result of direct contact: more worrying are

highly infectious, transmissible pathogens: “it is well known that intestinal bacteria such as v cholera and enteroccoci hide in copepods,” said Dr Gollasch.

Biocidal coatings are not the answer, according to the executive director of the coatings manufacturer, Subsea Industries, Boud Van Rompay.

“Every ship’s hull in the water for more than half a year has biofouling, so it is carrying the associated parasites, viruses and bacteria,” he said.

For him, biocidal coatings are incompatible with environmental protection as toxins build up in local harbours. “Some species, like the blue striped mussel resident in Zeebrugge, have developed a resistance to copper biocides and are thriving in ports and harbours where copper and organotin residues are high.” So if they travel for a year or two on a hull with biocidal antifouling, they will adapt to the toxicity of the paint and have sometimes proved stronger than the original, resident populations in the receiving ports.” BWTT • IMO issued guidelines in 2011 for the control and management of biofouling. Read them via http://bit.ly/MEPC-207-62.

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

Joe Raymond (USCG): “Enforcement actions help prevent future incidents” (credit: USCG)

OWNERS ARE FACING UP TO TOUGH CHOICES As implementation of IMO’s BWM Convention is now a reality, shipowners and operators are having to make difficult decisions, not just about whether and which systems to install, but also how they operate their vessels and where to ensure compliance

A

lthough some of the uncertainty surrounding implementation of the Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) has receded with the date for it coming into force now set for 8 September 2017, many shipowners and operators are still unclear about some aspects of its interpretation and how it will be enforced in different parts of the world.

In particular, the US Coast Guard (USCG) is attempting to set out some clear regulations and guidance regarding its acceptance of various systems, but at the time of writing in early March its type-approval

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

process is still in its early stage with many systems still working their way through their tests.

This continuing lack of clarity is making it hard for owners and operators to make crucial decisions, such as whether and when to retrofit ballast water systems on existing vessels.

Although the USCG has indicated that there will be a grace period, allowing owners that have already installed ballast water management systems (BWMSs) that may not be compliant with its latest regulations, some ships might only have a limited period where they can operate to the US before the systems

will have to be replaced.

Bob Maxwell, managing director of Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (BSM) in Singapore said “compliance issues will continue to be important. There is still some confusion on implementation of requirements for ballast water treatment systems.”

BSM is due to complete a retrofit project later this year involving 11 container ships under its management that will be fitted with the Wärtsilä Aquarius BWMS. Other ships in BSM’s managed fleet will also be fitted with this system under a longer-term retrofit project.

Some owners are seeking

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

OPERATORS FORUM | 29

to put their ships through special surveys before September in the belief that this will postpone the need to install systems for a further five years. Typical was Vinay Gupta, chief executive of Union Marine Management Services, who said: “Ballast water treatment is not an issue for us at present as our ships will have surveys in 2017 so we will not have to fit systems until at least 2022.”

Given that timescale, “we have not yet shortlisted any particular type or supplier of BWMS equipment,” he said.

The oldest ship in its fleet was built in 2009 and some of its vessels of around that age will be sold, while newbuildings are delivered with BWMSs fitted. Any new deliveries that do not have equipment fitted are ‘BWMSready’, he said, to the extent that they have the necessary spaces for treatment plant and associated piping is already in place, awaiting a final decision on which type and supplier to use.

Shubpreet Singh, business development director at OSM Ship Management Singapore, believes that ballast treatment “will be a big issue and we expect to see some of our older managed ships being scrapped. While markets remain poor, owners will not be willing or able to spend money upgrading or repairing older ships at special surveys and so they are likely to be scrapped.”

Shipbroker Gibson has suggested that the BWMC coming into force is likely to result in some tankers being withdrawn from service, which will alleviate potential overcapacity.

Gibson noted that tankers that are able to drydock prior to this date will not have to fit a BWMS until their special survey after September

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

2017 and are thus likely to continue trading for the time being. However, ships that are due to drydock after September 2017 will be required to fit BWMSs. The broker estimated that 15 per cent of the tanker fleet is 15 years or more old but expects this proportion to grow. By 2020, the percentage of 11-15 year olds will increase substantially to about 35 per cent and a growing number of tankers will cross into the 15-20 and over 20 age brackets.

“The requirement for vessels to fit a BWMS at their next drydocking after September 2017 will create an additional and significant cost that will need to be recouped in the market,” Gibson said.

It also pointed to other new approaching regulations such as the global sulphur cap which will also entail increased costs for operators.

“This, together with the cost of installing a new BWMS may force many owners down the scrapping route.”

Owners’ decisions will also depend on the market conditions when they have to make investment decisions. “We may see a heavy period of scrapping in 2018/19. If owners believe that there will be a phase-out of older, less fuel-efficient tonnage, lacking ballast water systems, then it could soon become attractive to invest in replacement tonnage,” Gibson’s report said.

Interestingly, it added that some owners believe there are potential loopholes that could see them avoid having to fit a BWMS until 2022, five years after its implementation.

Even where systems have been installed, owners remain concerned whether they will meet the regulatory requirements and satisfy port state control regimes in different regions and countries.

Lack of faith delays decisions Vijay Rangroo, managing director at MTM Shipmanagement in Singapore, expressed a view that is a regular reaction when shipowners and managers are asked about their current operating experience.

“[We will] defer decisions on ballast water systems for as long as possible as we have no faith in the equipment” He will “defer decisions on ballast water systems for as long as possible as we have no faith in the equipment and there is still a lot of uncertainty regarding compliance in the US,” he told BWTT. Some of the company’s clients have installed systems on newbuildings “but they are not used routinely”, he said. “They are only run occasionally to keep them maintained and operational.”

They might also be operated for crew familiarisation and training purposes, but many managers report that the additional energy costs of running BWMSs mean that ship operators will only do so if they have to.

Many are still unclear whether they will have to operate their systems routinely, starting on 8 September, to satisfy their flag state and port state inspectors, or if they can find some way of avoiding it through various exemptions. They are also unclear whether port states will start sampling ballast water discharges from day one, or simply check whether they have an approved system onboard.

Vijay Rangroo (MTM Shipmanagement)

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

30 | OPERATORS FORUM

Some owners are still hoping that the much talked about port-based BWMSs might avoid them having to install systems on ships.

Some of these fears about the likelihood of strong enforcement expressed by owners were borne out by action taken by the USCG in early February 2017. It said that after an investigation of ballast water discharge violations, it initiated civil penalty proceedings against vessel operator, Vega Reederei in respect of the 31,700 dwt bulk carrier Vega Mars.

The USCG said its investigators found that ballast water had been discharged from the vessel without the use of a Coast Guard approved ballast water management system or other approved means, a violation of the National Invasive Species Act with a maximum penalty of US$38,175. The ship was moored in Tacoma, in Puget Sound, Washington, on the US West Coast, at the time.

Bob Maxwell (BSM Singapore): There is still some confusion on implementation of requirements for ballast water treatment systems

In its statement about the incident, the USCG said: “Vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that operate in the waters of the US must employ an approved ballast water management method to prevent the unintentional introduction and spread of

Too old to upgrade?

A fundamental decision facing owners of existing ships is whether it is economic to install ballast water management systems on older ships at all or sell them for scrap. In the current depressed shipping markets, the installation cost – often running into millions of dollars for each ship – is a challenging one, bearing in mind that, other than the fundamental ability to continue trading, the investment has no direct economic return.

Owners will have to make a judgment call for each vessel as to whether prospective earnings will recover sufficiently to justify such an investment, taking into account its age and future trading prospects.

Richard Greiner, shipping and transport partner at accountant and consultant Moore Stephens, has highlighted the point that owners say they currently have no money available for such a big investment, in response to a survey it conducted in late 2016.

Mr Greiner said that companies will need access to finance and to other resources to meet the challenges that lie ahead, including the requirement for ballast water treatment, “even if implementation of the Ballast Water Management Convention may be caveated with potential delay and amendment for a little while longer.” (See also page 71.)

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

aquatic nuisance species.”

It quoted Joe Raymond, commanding officer, Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound, who said: “These efforts are in line with the recent approval of four [in fact, three – Ed] different ballast water management systems. These types of enforcement actions help prevent future incidents and reflect the importance of protecting the sensitive waters of the Puget Sound.”

Following this incident the USCG stressed: “It is the responsibility of vessel masters, owners and operators to ensure the proper discharge of ballast water into any water within US jurisdiction.” It added that since 2010, the USCG has performed approximately 55,000 vessel ballast water system and programme inspections.

The significance of this action is that even though the BWMC is not yet in force globally, the US has been applying its own regulations since the beginning of 2016.

It had granted extensions while there were no systems that met new US standards, but since it has now granted approvals for some manufacturers, this new

enforcement action indicates that owners operating vessels to the US will need to ensure that they are in compliance.

Owners are now facing up to these tough choices and several have pointed out the complexities involved, even before getting around to technical issues about which systems and suppliers to use.

In reality each vessel needs to be considered individually in terms of its current and likely future trading pattern in respect of local rules or possible exemptions. In addition, for retrofits the challenge is to integrate BWMSs into existing spaces and systems, which might already have been modified since the ship was built.

The processes involved for owners therefore go way beyond deciding their preference for a particular type or types of systems and the cost involved. With the implementation deadline looming ever closer, owners and managers are having to devote a huge amount of time and resources to preparation work for making these decisions and then implementing them. BWTT

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

The ideal solution for retrofit ballast water systems DE NORA BALPURE® BALLAST WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS

BALPURE® Ballast Water Treatment System • Ideal for retrofits as well as new build vessels • De Nora electrochemistry experience: - 90+ years and more than 6,000 electrochlorination installations - Owner of the slip stream technology patent

• Helping you to achieve compliance: - IMO Type Approval, USCG AMS Certified - USCG testing in progress

• Operating advantages: - Patented slip stream design reduces water treated and increases flexibility - Self-Cleaning electrode design - Systems installed and operating with major ship owners

DE NORA WATER TECHNOLOGIES • info.dnwt@denora.com • www.denora.com

BIO

SEA

by

BIO UV Ultraviolet Solutions

The French BWT specialist From skid to modular version A wide range of systems integration possibilities supported by engineering studies capabilities

biosea@bio-uv.com www.ballast-water-treatment.com

THE FIRST USCG

DNV GL APPROVED STAND-ALONE POWER SUPPLY FOR BWMS

IN THE WORLD! PREMIUM POWER SUPPLY - FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

TM

PowerCare Solution

Build your own customized Power Solution - with Standard Building Blocks.

Tested and approved according to DNV-GL USCG, IACS E10, IMO G8 kraftpowercon.com/powercaresolution

CHECKLIST FOR SHIPOWNERS

CHECKLIST

PowerCare FEATURES

ADVANTAGES FOR SHIPOWNERS

Modular One module size is used for all Power Supplies independent on size.

All ships will be equipped with the same building blocks independent on the size of the BWT System.

Small footprint Compact design and easy to install.

Saving Space on your ship, new and retrofit alike.

Upgradeable Reconfigure to any other output Volts & Amps later if the requirements change.

Possible to Reconfigure if IMO or USCG requirements change. No need to buy a new power supply, just reconfigure.

Flexible design helps with Retrofits The Power Care SolutionTM can be dismantled in to smaller pieces in order to get it on-board the vessel.

No need to cut a hole to get it onboard.

Easy to service In the case of a failure, it is very easy to locate the faulty module and replace it.

There is no need for expertise from the manufacturer.

Your electrical team onboard the ship can easily change a module in the event of a problem. The “plug & play” feature ensures no delays during Ballasting.

Spare Parts Extremely simple spare parts management due to the modular construction.

No need for many different spare parts.

“One power module fits all”.

Efficient High efficiency.

Provides lower running costs and reduces the fuel consumption of the vessel.

Energy Saver High Power Factor.

Saves the Generator from unnecessary Reactive Power and free up power available for other equipment onboard the vessel.

Very high availability • Very quick to service thanks to the modular system.

• The control unit continuously monitors the Power Modules and tries, in an intelligent way, to recover from different fault modes that can occur during operation.

• Less than 30 minutes to change a power module.

• In case of no available spare module, just disconnect the faulty module and run with the rest.

Relax and feel secure you always have power available when it is time for ballasting.

Duty Cycle Designed for running at MAX current and MAX voltage at MAX ambient temperature without overheating.

No risk of overheating in any climate, salinities or fresh water around the globe.

State of the Art Technology Our technology provides very high efficiency, compact and smart design and delivers excellent current quality to the electrolyser.

Does not affect the lifespan of the BWT System.

Satellite Support On-line Analysis possible in acute situations.

We never leave you stranded. Support possible via Satellite wherever the ship is.

Some of our proud partners

SUPPLIERS FORUM | 33

SUPPLIERS ARE CAUGHT BETWEEN OPPORTUNITY AND UNCERTAINTY Demand for BWMSs should peak as the BWMC enters into force, but changes to IMO’s testing standards prompt questions over future typeapprovals

“Coldharbour successfully tested for organisms down to 2µm in size – a far more rigorous test than required by IMO”

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

B

allast water management system (BWMS) suppliers find themselves caught in a pincer movement. Just as IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) nears its entry into force, which should bring a welcome boost to sales, IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) is revising the convention’s G8 Guidelines covering its testing requirements.

Some in the industry had hoped MEPC would take the opportunity of aligning the guidelines with US Coast Guard (USCG) requirements and, although they are closer than before, they are still different. So manufacturers will still need to follow two testing and approval regimes to secure both IMO and USCG type-approval.

BWTT invited a number of leading BWMS manufacturers to offer their insights into some of the issues arising from these developments, and their feedback suggests an industry that is coping with opportunity and uncertainty in equal measure.

With its ratifications finally reaching the all-important 35 per cent of the world fleet in September 2016, manufacturers have seen an increase in enquiries about their products.

“Ratification has served to place a clear time marker in the ground,” said Joe Thomas,

Ecochlor reported a growing orderbook over the past year in response to IMO ratifying the BWMC (credit: Ecochlor)

managing director of Wärtsilä Water Systems. “Enquiry volumes are up [and] customers are approaching their needs more seriously,” he said. Orders themselves – especially for retrofits – will pick up around its entry-into-force date this September, he said.

Mark Riggio, senior market manager for Hyde Marine, has seen a similar trend.

“Ratification has definitely increased our enquiry levels, but has not yet translated to a significant increase in business,” he said. Optimarin’s chief executive, Tore Andersen, echoed that remark. It was the first to obtain USCG type-

approval and Mr Andersen said it had seen “a very high increase in enquiries, but we are not yet drowning in orders.” At Alfa Laval its vice president Anders Lindmark, who is head of its PureBallast activities, reported increased enquiries following both the BWMC ratification and its USCG type-approval two months later.

Their experience was shared by Ian Stentiford, global vice president of Evoqua Water Technologies, who acknowledged increased enquiries but “the tidal wave has not yet hit in terms of actual installations.” That will

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

34 | SUPPLIERS FORUM

hit next year, he predicted. He believes that most buyers have decided what technology they prefer; “it is just a question of which manufacturer in that category,” he said.

China’s SunRui believes that the BWMC ratification is good news for all BWMS makers, “especially those making progress with USCG type-approval” – as SunRui itself is at the time of writing in March. “We believe the booming retrofit market is approaching,” the company told BWTT. Another chief executive, Andrew Marshall of Coldharbour Marine, also reported a marked increase in enquiries, coupled with increased sales activity. “Our firm view is that the active selection process by fleet operators has started in earnest,” he said.

Tom Perlich, founder and president of Ecochlor, reported a growing orderbook over the past year, including orders from Unicom and SCF Novoship, but it has seen a more general increase in customer enquiries “as they begin preparation for compliance with the IMO convention.”

This feedback suggests the initial impact has been to generate enquiries, rather than orders, a view that was articulated by Rasmus Folsø, chief executive of Desmi Ocean Guard. “The impact has not been as significant as expected,” he said, due to uncertainties about USCG type-approvals and possible further postponements of the IMO compliance dates. Nonetheless, its turnover more than doubled in 2016 compared with 2015.

Those uncertainties around USCG and IMO developments prompted BWTT to ask suppliers for their thoughts about the revisions being made to the G8 Guidelines.

Would their equipment satisfy the new requirements and were they concerned that

they would still differ from USCG’s requirements?

Mr Perlich said there were no significant differences that would be of concern to Ecochlor, but it was also clear from his comments which he views as the standard his company’s equipment must meet. “USCG test protocols are generally perceived as more rigorous, standardised, and transparent than the G8 Guidelines,” he said. “The expectation in the industry is that if a BWMS can receive USCG type-approval then it will be acceptable under the revised G8 Guidelines.”

Mr Andersen approached the question from the same angle. Apart from IMO allowing the MPN testing method, the new G8 Guidelines look very similar to USCG requirements, he said.

“So for all makers that have got USCG type-approval, it should be mainly paperwork and maybe a few tests” to confirm compliance with the G8 requirements. SunRui shares that view: “The tests we have done for USCG type-approval can cover all requirements from the revised G8 Guidelines,” it said.

Mr Riggio is also unconcerned by the changes.

“We have been a strong participant in this process and our recent testing has covered

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

all of the upcoming changes,” he said. “We fully expect to have type-approval issued for our product immediately after the new G8 is finalised.”

Joe Thomas of Wärtsilä welcomed the G8 revisions because they move IMO and USCG requirements closer together and “remove elements of the previous G8 Guidelines that were considered open to interpretation.” Wärtsilä is confident, he said, that it will meet the new requirements “with little or no impact on the current Wärtsilä BWMS specifications.”

Mr Marshall also welcomed the revised guidelines. Coldharbour’s IMO type-approval testing met standards that exceeded the IMO guidelines, he said.

For example, to ‘future proof ’ its technology, “Coldharbour successfully tested for

ABOVE: Alfa Laval has conducted a gap analysis to assess its PureBallast BWMS against the revised G8 Guidelines (credit: Alfa Laval)

BELOW: Hyde Marine expects to gain type-approval to the revised G8 Guidelines as soon as they are finalised (credit: Hyde Marine)

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

SUPPLIERS FORUM | 35

organisms down to 2µm in size – a far more rigorous test than required by IMO,” he said. It also showed no significant regrowth after 11 days, which is more than twice the IMO requirement of five days “and 11 times the USCG requirement of only one day,” he said.

Alfa Laval has carried out a gap analysis to compare its completed tests and the requirements of the revised G8 Guidelines. It identified that a few tests of biological efficacy are needed, which were scheduled as this issue went to press. “A completed application for an updated G8 certificate is expected before end of Q2,” Mr Lindmark said.

Desmi Ocean Guard was involved in revising the G8 Guidelines, said Mr Folsø, since it advised the Danish Maritime Administration.

“We just need to complete some additional benchscale testing to address the concern about the required minimum holding time,” he said, which should be completed before Q3 this year. Nonetheless, “We already know that our system meets all the requirements,” he said. “In our view there is a good alignment between the requirements in the revised G8 Guidelines and the USCG requirements.”

Mr Stentiford believes that the gap between the revised G8 Guidelines and USCG requirements will not be certain until MEPC 71 in July. “There is room for interpretation,” he said. Nonetheless, although the revised guidelines may require Evoqua to conduct a few extra tests, “there is nothing in there that is dramatic for our journey,” he said.

However close the two sets of regulations have become, there remains a gap between them. “If you pass USCG type-approval you will pass G8,” he said. “It does not necessarily follow the other way round.”

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Does USCG type-approval bring a market advantage?

As the US Coast Guard tightens its rules on granting compliance date extensions and on allowing ships to fit systems with its Alternate Management System (AMS) status, what market advantage is available to those manufacturers that have achieved USCG type-approval?

A USCG Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB 003/17) was issued in March containing, among other details, advice that “once Coast Guard type-approved BWMSs are available for a vessel, the vessel will no longer be able to install AMS in lieu of type-approved systems.”

Mats Christensen, sales manager at OceanSaver – which has already secured USCG type-approval for its BWMS – believes that only a system’s footprint or its power consumption would be valid arguments to install an AMS instead of a USCG type-approved system. The three type-approved systems available at the time of writing can cover the entire range of flow rates requested by the market, he said.

At Alfa Laval – another company with USCG type-approval – its vice president Anders Lindmark, who is head of its PureBallast activities, believes that this achievement will be beneficial, since “shipowners want to select systems having both IMO and USCG approvals going into the retrofit period to comply with both regulations.”

For those companies that do not yet have that type-approval, views are mixed as to whether they are losing out as a result. Joe Thomas, managing director of Wärtsilä Water Systems, hopes to complete USCG type-approval for both its BWMS technologies this year. “We wait to see the impact of this and indeed what first mover advantages are realised in practice,” he said.

Andrew Marshall, chief executive of Coldharbour, accepts that “those that have secured USCG type-approval to date have an advantage in their chosen market segment,” but this has been negated to some extent, he added, by shipowners bringing forward special survey dates or decoupling their International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) certificate inspections.

But Tom Perlich, founder and president of Ecochlor, was emphatic that USCG type-approval gives a marketing advantage. “Shipowners are now required to start planning for the installation of BWMS and are basing their buying decisions on receipt of USCG type-approval,” he said.

Ian Stentiford, global vice president of Evoqua Water Technologies, also believes that typeapproval gives an advantage. It gives owners comfort, he said. But it is not vital: Evoqua has won orders in competition against companies with typeapproval “and we won on the basis that we will get approval, not that we have got approval.”

Lawrence Quinn, chief executive of De Nora,

Lawrence Quinn (De Nora) expects “a swift rampup in the retrofit market for BWMS”

believes that the advent of USCG type-approvals will benefit the whole sector. When the company secured a retrofit contract to supply BWMSs to four OSG chemical/products tankers, he said it marked “the start of what we expect to be a swift ramp-up in the retrofit market for BWMS.” For Hyde Marine, its eventual USCG typeapproval – probably in early 2018, suggested Mark Riggio, its senior market manager – will be its second attempt. Along with other UV-based systems, its BWMS was turned down in 2015 because the USCG rejected the MPN test method on which its application relied. In the meantime, “we do not think that those who have achieved this certification have seen a significant enough benefit to warrant the the monies invested in being first,” he said.

It has redesigned its system so that it will pass the USCG’s preferred stain-test method. It has also been publicising a detail in the USCG’s various MSIBs issued in 2016 that allows an AMS to be installed in the future for vessels that have obtained a compliance extension.

While that was retained in the bulletin issued in March, it implied that an AMS-approved system cannot be installed unless there are no type-approved systems available for the ship, Mr Riggio said. That, he added, marks “the first step to shut down AMS.” Another of the companies turned down in 2015 is Desmi Ocean Guard. Its chief executive Rasmus Folsø believes the USCG will eventually accept the MPN method. “Although the process has been frustratingly slow, we have lately seen some good progress in the validation work, and we believe the USCG will adopt the MPN method during 2017,” he said. “This will pave the way for USCG type-approval of our RayClean system.” BWTT

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

36 | TRAINING

BWMS makers see training as vital Most BWMS makers offer training as part of their service, seeing it as an important part of supporting customers’ ballast treatment strategies

A

t Alfa Laval, “we believe training is key,” said its vice president, Anders Lindmark, who is head of its PureBallast activities. It was a view echoed by all the ballast water management system (BWMS) makers that responded to BWTT’s invitation to describe their approach to training.

Operational crew and superintendents benefit from training at Alfa Laval’s various training facilities or on board the vessels during

installation, but it is not just they who need training, Mr Lindmark suggested. Its training extends to its global service organisations involved in retrofit projects and the engineering companies conducting the 3D scanning and engineering that lies behind those contracts.

“Our experience is that the knowledge level of the specific system for all involved parties is key to a successfully executed project,” he said.

More than 100 engineers from

Alfa Laval’s training centre in Aalborg includes its PureBallast BWMS (credit: Alfa Laval)

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

external companies have benefited over the past year, he said in February.

Wärtsilä also has training centres in important shipping locations – 10 in all, making up the Wärtsilä Land & Sea Academy (WLSA) – where training engineers and specialists deliver courses, including ballast treatmentrelated training, tailored to the individual needs of shipowners. Joe Thomas,

managing director of Wärtsilä Water Systems, said this training is available in electronic format, but can also be done face-to-face at the customer’s site or in classrooms and purposebuilt BWMS equipment training facilities.

US-based Hyde Marine also recognises that “on-site training during commissioning is not a long-term solution to the training needs of ships.” Its senior market manager, Mark Riggio, said the company provides both instructor-led and distance learning opportunities for shipowners, but it has also helped customers to set up their own training centres and conducted train-thetrainer sessions for long-term learning solutions.

Other manufacturers

Training is essential to comply with ballast regulations IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention includes references to training requirements. Guidelines G4, for example, explain that a ship’s Ballast Water Management Plan “should include training and education on ballast water management practices and the systems and procedures used on board the ship.”

The guidelines address the ballast water management and development of ballast water management plans and include a number of provisions for crew training and familiarisation. Some of these are general, about maintaining the Ballast Water Record Book, for example, but others are specific, requiring training on the operation and maintenance of installed ballast water treatment systems and on the safety aspects associated with the particular systems and procedures used on board the ship.

Similar training goals have been identified by the US Coast Guard (USCG). In an article published in January by the North American Marine Environment Protection Association, Rear Adm Paul Thomas, the USCG’s assistant commandant for prevention policy, said that it was imperative that vessel owners and operators review and update vessel ballast water management plans. These should include crew training requirements, specifically covering “proper procedures and use of any ballast water management equipment.”

In support of these objectives, a wide range of training options is available worldwide, provided by equipment manufacturers, class societies, government bodies and specialist training organisations.

Those mentioned in these pages are typical of many others that can be found through online searches.

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

TRAINING | 37

provide training at their headquarters, such as the UK’s Coldharbour Marine.

Its chief executive, Andrew Marshall, said that its programme is a combination of classroom-based theory and practical ‘hands-on’ style training, operating the equipment in a simulated shipboard environment. All its systems are commissioned

by Coldharbour’s own engineers, rather than by subcontractors, he said.

Ecochlor also involves its experienced technicians in commissioning its systems, said its founder and president Tom Perlich. This extends into their early operation and includes crew training, which will soon be supplemented by video and web-based training.

Desmi Ocean Guard’s systems are “extremely simple, so a few hours of training is sufficient,” said Rasmus Folsø, the company’s chief executive. It offers on-site training as part of system commissioning and dedicated training courses that can take place at the customer’s offices or its own offices. So far, however, “it has been sufficient to conduct crew training when we commission the systems,” he said. SunRui also focuses on onboard training for crews during commissioning but is now preparing its global service network to provide on-site training if customers ask for it.

Ian Stentiford, global vice president of Evoqua Water Technologies summed up its approach to training by saying “it really comes down to what the customer wants.”

It can provide training within its own facilities, through its engineers on vessels during commissioning or during maintenance visits.

“We are trying to make our system as simple as possible so that training needs are minimised,” he said.

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Optimarin supports manager’s training initiative Unless a ship’s crew is properly trained to operate its ballast water management system (BWMS) “it costs money in servicing and broken parts and gives the captain a headache in running the ship,” the chief executive of Norway-based Optimarin, Tore Andersen, told BWTT. “There is no issue if you run the system correctly, as set out in its operating manual.”

He was reflecting on lessons learned during the company’s shipboard type-approval tests carried out on board the 50,000 dwt bulk carrier Saga Future, owned by the Norway-based NYK Line subsidiary Saga Shipholding (Norway).

For these tests, the ship’s crew had been fully trained and their feedback was positive.

“The crew said that once they have learned how to use it, it is an easy operation.” But when that knowledge is passed on to subsequent crew, “then you get a different answer.”

In response to this, Optimarin is working

“It costs money in servicing and broken parts and gives the captain a headache in running the ship”

with the ships’ manager, Anglo Eastern Ship Management in Hong Kong, to provide shorebased training on its BWMS. A system was installed at Anglo Eastern’s training centre in Mumbai, followed by another in its centre in Manila, which went into use during March.

These installations will not be just for Anglo Eastern’s use, however. “The idea is that we can offer training to all our customers at these two schools,” Mr Andersen said.

Survey suggests onboard training must cover the basics Officers and crew must receive proper training in ballast water management, according to IMO and USCG requirements, and there is anecdotal evidence that this support is much-needed.

Alan Clare, fleet superintendent at Ireland’s Corrib Ship Management, conducted some research among ships’ crew as part of his selection process to choose a suitable ballast water management system (BWMS) for his company’s ships (see page 65).

Describing his findings to the Sixth IMarEST Ballast Water Technology Conference in January, he revealed an unexpected result: “most of the seagoing engineer respondents were not aware of the convention and that a treatment system would have to be installed.” If his findings are representative, then onboard training must include some fundamental topics.

One course that does start

with some basic material is available from The Marpol Training Institute in the US, which has an established two-hour Navigating Ballast Water Management course that can be followed either on board or ashore.

Norway’s Seagull provides a one-hour course for both deck and engine crew that also covers a broad brief, starting with the background to ballast water management and the environmental threats and leading on to ballast water management techniques.

Videotel of the UK revised its Ballast Water Management training package in October, shortly after IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention was ratified. It covers ballast water management plan implementation, stressing the need for proper record keeping and operator training on a compliant BWMS. BWTT

Alan Clare, Corrib Ship Management (credit: Riviera Maritime Media)

“Most seagoing engineers were not aware of the convention”

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

TRAINING | 39

GloBallast trains regional officials

Online course for crew and port workers

Training that supports flag and port states is being provided by the UN-backed GloBallast Partnerships (GBP) programme. In July 2016, GBP and other partners conducted a pilot course on compliance, monitoring and enforcement of IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) at the International Maritime University of Panama.

It was arranged in co-operation with the Maritime Authority of Panama (AMP) and the aim was to enable the university to deliver the course in the future to prepare flag and port state control officers to apply the provisions of the BWMC. In a statement at the time, GBP reported that attendees included representatives from AMP, the Ministry of Environment, the Panama Water Authority, the Panama Canal Authority, University of Panama, Technological University of Panama and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.

In a similar initiative in Zagreb, Croatia, in November, GBP ran two training seminars. One provided an update on the implementation status of the convention, and the other looked at carrying out port biological baseline surveys. These involve making risk assessments and preparing inventories of marine life in and around commercial ports.

Online training on the operational aspects of ballast water management is available via the GloBallast Partnership Programme website. The four-module course combines text and video information with multiple-choice questions to lead students through the Introduction and on to Operational Aspects, Survey and Certification, and finally Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement.

Each module provides important facts to develop its users’ knowledge of ballast water management and finally uses hypothetical scenarios to put this new knowledge into practice.

The course can be completed online or can be downloaded for use offline, which would be useful for seafarers who may not always have internet access on board ships.

BWTT’s editor, Paul Gunton, successfully completed the first module and learned something new. “I was not familiar with the Convention on Biological Diversity until I completed this module,” he said.

• To access the courses go to http://globallastlearning.com/login/ index.php and register a username and password.

• As this issue went to press, it was announced that the GloBallast project will end in June. But its training services will continue.

Delegates from Ghana, Nigeria, Jordan, Egypt and Croatia in a break-out session during GloBallast’s training in Croatia (credit: GloBallast)

GloBallast Partnerships offers a four-module online course on the operational aspects of ballast water management. Certificates mark successful completion of each module.

Company managers benefit from focused ballast training Warsash Maritime Academy in the UK has launched a two-day course aimed at company and organisation officials to help them prepare to implement and monitor IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention. At the time of writing the next is scheduled for 24 May. Speaking before the first course was held last October, course leader Capt Nadeem Anwar said that shipping companies “need to develop an in-house ability to inform their decision making regarding the technology” and suggested that this course provides “an opportunity to prepare for compliance.”

It is aimed at those with roles such as superintendents, surveyors, vetting inspectors, maritime lawyers, enforcement agency personnel and seafaring officers. Its wide range of topics includes “the main principles of the treatment technologies available for installation,

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

along with their pitfalls,” the academy said in a statement.

In Greece, the AQE Academy has developed a one-day course for shore staff who will be involved either in planning how to comply with ballast water management legislation or will be responsible for implementing the plan.

It uses a mixture of lectures, case studies, exercises and a final exam to address both IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention and other national requirements, in particular US Coast Guard rules.

It also discusses the various technologies available and considers port state control responses.

AQE Academy also has an established one-day course focusing on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Vessel General Permit. As well as looking at the current, 2013, version it also reviews how local requirements apply in a number of states. BWTT

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

40 | REGROWTH

Hide and seek: the problem of regrowth No BWMS will kill all organisms, writes Stevie Knight. What happens to those that survive?

“T

he smaller the organism, the easier it is to kill. But also, the faster it is to reproduce.” That is how Guillaume Drillet, who heads the ballast water team at DHI Group in Singapore, views the problem of regrowth. Take bacteria: as it needs just one organism to make two, in theory, marine populations could double in size every 20 minutes given optimal conditions.

Moreover, no matter what ballast water management system (BWMS) is used, there is no way to guarantee complete eradication. “It is just not biologically feasible,” he said.

Phil Hughes, commercial manager of Coldharbour Marine made a similar point: there used to be a TV advert for a household bleach that boasted it “kills 99 per cent of all known germs” so even that powerful liquid did not claim a 100 per cent hit rate, he said.

Further, while it might prove simple to destroy interlopers if you could attack everything in equal measure, ballast water organisms rarely line themselves up for treatment and the smaller varieties can play hide-and-seek; one may well lodge inside another. In fact, according to a dissertation by Samantha Lynn Bickel, a researcher at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, zooplankton act as microbial hotspots. They function as microbial microhabitats and can support concentrations of bacteria orders of magnitude higher than in the surrounding water,” she explained.

A BWMS itself can create a benevolent environment by decimating predators and then providing any surviving bacteria with a nutrient-rich soup. In fact, various studies point to bacterial regrowth in as little as 18 hours after treatment: a 2010 study by a team at the Norwegian University for Science and Technology (NTNU) headed by Ole-Kristian Hess-Erga, found that “after less than three days, the number of colony-forming units was back or above the starting point for the control.” Not only that, the NTNU study concluded that after treatment the bacterial community “may have a higher potential as invaders.”

Looking at the subject on a practical level the timescale is important. Although the periods for regrowth vary wildly, “with temperature being key” said Dr Drillet, Mr Hughes said that if vessels are only doing short journeys of three to five days “it is

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

Zooplankton may not be completely eradicated by ballast water treatment – and go on to provide bacterial hotspots. (credit: Matt Wilson & Jay Clark, NOAA)

probably not something you will have to stress too much about.”

However, he added, “if you have got big ships on long journeys – such as ore carriers taking half of Brazil to China – then your ballast leg is over a month.”

In that case it helps to think of a ballast tank as an entire ecology: many zooplankton graze on bacteria and will start to show signs of recovery as soon as there is a food source. Not only does research suggest that certain zooplankton may survive a number of treatment systems, the detritus of dead and decaying organisms can also mix with ballast sediment to give a home to a variety of bugs, making the accumulated sludge at the bottom of a tank a shelter for a number of different kinds of organisms that can evade treatment. In response, Dr Drillet believes there is no other option than to have regular monitoring and “if necessary, an intensive cleaning” to shift it all.

While the main focus is on zooplankton, phytoplankton cannot be ignored. Although they do not grow in the dark of a ballast tank, they can survive for weeks as cysts and some species can be resilient to certain kinds of treatment. In an experiment by the Biological Oceanography department of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, a number of ‘problem’ microalgae, including skeletonema, thalassiosira and chaetoceros (species known to form blooms, the last of which also has gill-damaging spines), along with the shellfish toxinproducing pseudo-nitzschia were treated: all regrew on being returned to benign conditions. BWTT

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

COMPLIANCE

IMPLEMENTATION

MANAGEMENT PLAN

YOUR COURSE TO BALLAST WATER COMPLIANCE With DNV GL the course is clear. Prepare your ballast water treatment plan quickly and easily – online with our My DNV GL app. With the same app you can also submit your plan for verification, then use My DNV GL to arrange a survey and get your BWM certificate. When the time comes to install or retrofit a ballast water treatment system, DNV GL has the experience to ensure that your vessel won’t be caught out when it comes to compliance.

Learn more at www.dnvgl.com/bwm

SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

Create your ballast water management plan at My DNV GL my.dnvgl.com

TANK SEDIMENTS | 43

Sediments: the forgotten aspect of ballast treatment

A

n awareness campaign is needed to explain the problems caused by risks of introducing species and contaminants when sediment is released in water, believes Stephan Gollasch, a marine biologist and founder of the ballast water specialist, GoConsult.

Addressing the 6th IMarEST Ballast Water Conference in London in January, he said that this campaign should address “all stakeholders”, including shipyard staff, vessel crews and operators of sediment disposal facilities.

He warned shipowners: “if you don’t remove the sediment from ballast water tanks and you install a BWMS, it cannot be guaranteed that the D2 standard will be met on discharge.”

Conference chairman Tom Mackey, co-chair of IMarEST’s Ballast Water Expert Group, remarked that dealing with sediments is “a largely neglected issue that deserves more attention.”

Yet it is covered by IMO’s convention, whose full name, Dr Gollasch reminded delegates, is the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments.

Large numbers of species are transported in the sediments in ballast water tanks, he said, “so no matter how good your treatment system is, if organisms originate in the sediment in your tank they can contaminate the treated

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Potential problems from contaminated sediment are often overlooked, believes one leading expert

Stephen Gollasch (GoConsult): “If organisms originate in the sediment … they can contaminate the treated water” (credit: Riviera Maritime Media)

water.” He recommended that ballast tanks should be cleaned before installing a ballast water management system “to ensure proper compliance, monitoring and enforcement controls.”

He is not alone in his concerns. “From a biosecurity perspective, sediment accumulation followed by unmanaged and unregulated discharge is risky,” said Kimberly Holzer, an aquatic ecologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. “There are various organisms that can assume resting stages and survive extended periods in ballast water sediments,” she

told BWTT. At the IMarEST conference, Debra DiCianna, senior compliance engineer at Choice Ballast Solutions, set out another reason for cleaning the tanks before installing a BWMS: it may not work as it did in its type-approval tests.

“In all the land-based testing, the system is not competing with any sediment,” she said.

And in most shipboard testing, the ships are generally either newbuildings or have cleaned out their tanks. So a BWMS will do well in its tests “because there is no sediment to impact how it’s operating,” she said.

Ballast tanks are usually cleaned when ships are

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

44 | TANK SEDIMENTS

drydocked and Dr Gollasch expressed concern during the conference about reception facilities available for sediments. During 2016, he approached yards in 20 ports across Europe to discover how much sediment they receive in a year. “They really were unable to say,” he said, because they use subcontractors to deal with it. He then approached those subcontractors by phone and with a simple questionnaire and not one provided any data. As a result, “it is very difficult to predict what kind of reception facilities we need in our ports.”

Ballast water management systems (BWMS) will do little to reduce the volume of sediment that accumulates in ballast tanks he said. Research reported in 2005 and 2006 into sediment samples from 54 ships in the Great Lakes revealed that about 65 per cent of the sediment is smaller than 20µm. A typical 50µm filter will reduce sediments by just 10 per cent, he said.

This sediment will accumulate and its biological content will increase with successive ballasting operations, he confirmed to BWTT. This will be exacerbated by the same processes that cause regrowth in ballast water, eventually leading to problematic levels of biological matter trapped in tank sediments, he agreed.

Limited preparation has been done to deal with sediments once the BWMC comes into force, he said. They are not treated before being disposed of on land and the convention’s G1 Guidelines – which address sediments do not set out definite treatment procedures or discharge standards. It says “Disposal, handling and treatment measures applied to the sediment shall avoid unwanted side effects that may create a risk to

or damage to the party’s environment, human health, property or resources or those of other states.” The US Coast Guard rules are more specific (see box).

Some at the IMarEST conference recommended that shipowners must make sure their ballast tanks are clean when they install a ballast water management system or they will be fighting a losing battle. But that will not prevent more sediment accumulating.

In practice, ship operators appear to devise their own solutions. On behalf of BWTT, Kuba Szymanski, secretary general of the ship managers representative group Intermanager, asked his members what they do.

The consensus was that they dump it at sea, at least 200 miles offshore and in at least 200m of water, although this practice is not specified by the BWMC. Ms DiCianna described a process she called “swish and spit” during her presentation to the IMarEST conference. It is what shipowners have told her that they do to deal with sediments. It is essentially the same as what Intermanager members reported: rinsing out ballast tanks in mid ocean.

If tanks are not regularly cleaned, about 1 per cent of their volume is filled with sediment per year, Dr Gollasch told the IMarEST conference.

This adds weight to the ship and he estimated that, for a typical Panamax bulk carrier with 10cm of sediment in its ballast tanks, this could amount to about 675 tonnes.

In one vessel he visited a few years ago, he found about 30cm of sediment, but this is unusual, he said. Based on interviews with dockyards, he believes it is usually no more than 10-15 tonnes after a period of five years. BWTT

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

USCG sets out its sediment strategy Under US Coast Guard (USCG) requirements, sediment removal procedures must be included in each vessel’s ballast water management plan and there are recordkeeping requirements if sediment is discharged.

For example, it requires “the master, owner, operator, agent, or person in charge of any vessel equipped with ballast water tanks that operates in the waters of the United States” to “clean the ballast tanks regularly to remove sediments.” But it does not specify how they should be disposed of, other than requiring them to be “disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal regulations.”

Ballast water management (BWM) plans must be developed specifically for each vessel so that “those responsible for the plan's implementation [can] understand and follow the vessel's BWM strategy.” This plan must include “detailed fouling maintenance and sediment removal procedures.”

Records must also be kept of sediment discharges, including the name and location of the facility where sediment disposal took place.

In addition to addressing sediments in the ballast tanks, the USCG requirements also extend to anchors and anchor chains, which must be rinsed when they are retrieved to remove organisms and sediments at their places of origin.

Samples of the sediment can be taken by the Captain of the Port (COTP) and the master, owner, operator, agent or person in charge of a vessel must provide the COTP with access to the vessel to take samples, examine documents “and make other appropriate inquiries to assess the compliance of any vessel.”

• For more details of these US requirements go to bit.ly/USBallast

A typical 50μm filter will reduce sediments by just 10 per cent

Sediment will accumulate and its biological content will increase (credit: GoConsult)

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

AMS APPROVED

46 | ONBOARD TESTING

Bactest’s Speedy Breedy SeaSure test kit comes in a carry-on-board case

WSS’s test kit includes the Nalfleet Ballast-Check 2 unit for detecting chlorophyll fluorescence from live algal cells

GETTING THE BEST FROM ONBOARD TESTS Onboard ballast water testing would seem to be the only way to remain compliant. Paul Fanning looks at the technologies available

T

he revision of the G8 Guidelines by IMO’s MEPC 70 with regard to selfmonitoring requires that ballast water management systems (BWMSs) are to be provided with a system that monitors, records and stores sufficient data/parameters to verify correct operation for the previous 24 months. It also requires that alerts are in place to indicate when the system is shutdown or when an operational parameter exceeds the approved specification.

As with most regulation in this area, of course, this is open to a certain amount of interpretation. It does not mandate a particular type of system or dictate any technology, for instance, being vague in its stipulations. Indeed, it does not explicitly require that testing takes place at all. However, it seems reasonable to conclude from this form of words that it is making it clear that it is a shipowner’s responsibility to know whether its BWMS is compliant or not and to be able to prove it.

Realistically, the only way this can be achieved is by onboard sampling and testing, whether by use of portable or integral testing units. This has obviously put the ball firmly into the court of manufacturers to develop and market systems that mean crew can make accurate D-2 measurements on board that can give realistic confidence to both vessel operator and Port State Control.

In terms of practical experience when it comes

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

to onboard ballast water compliance testing, German inspection company SGS has been involved in a project since 2012 that has looked at onboard testing using a variety of systems, including conducting a voyage when a number of systems were tested.

According to Gerd Schneider, SGS’s global manager of shipping services, one of the problems with this project was the vagueness of the regulation’s wording. Speaking at the Sixth IMarEST Ballast Water Technology Conference in January, he said “guidelines on sampling and analysis are quite vague and open to interpretation. Phrases like ‘sufficient sample quantity’, ‘safe and practical’, ‘manageable size’ are examples of this.”

Despite this, however, the programme has successfully carried out tests on about 450 ships, around 85 per cent of which were found to be compliant. The programme also performed 13 D-2 tests, which showed 12 to be in compliance, from which Mr Schneider concluded that “these treatment systems do seem to work.”

Where non-compliance was found to occur, it was in large part a consequence of factors distinct from the ballast water systems themselves. “The cases where we found non-compliance almost always had nothing to do with the systems themselves, but with their handling,” said Mr Schneider. “Inexperienced teams; vague sample

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

ONBOARD TESTING | 47

port requirements that lead to challenging situations; valve conditions; short holding times and issues with required analysis methods were the main factors.”

In terms of portable testing systems, there is a veritable plethora available. These range from relatively simple test kits to some rather more technologically sophisticated systems.

One such is Ballast-Check 2, offered by Wilhelmsen Ship Service (WSS), which is based around a device of that name made by Turner Designs of the US for WSS group member Nalfleet. The hand-held unit is a multiple turnover Pulse Amplitude Modulated (PAM) fluorometer that provides a rapid, indicative analysis of the abundance and activity of algae in ballast water samples. The instrument is configured to provide ship operators with a rapid, indicative determination of whether treated ballast water is at risk of non-compliance with the IMO and USCG’s D-2 quality standard. Ballast-Check 2 measures algae in the 10-50um range.

Ballast-Check 2 is configured for detecting chlorophyll fluorescence from live algal cells.

Light from the fluorometer is absorbed by algae, which causes the cells to fluoresce. Fluorescence emitted by the cells is detected, quantified, and displayed as a digital number estimating the abundance of algae in the sample as cells/ml. The Ballast-Check 2 has a set threshold value of 10 cells/ml and when the measured abundance of algae reaches or exceeds this, it indicates a high risk that algae may exceed the discharge standard.

Another system is Speedy Breedy SeaSure, a development from the original Speedy Breedy test kit. It gathers test results on microbial, phytoplankton and chemical contamination and records this in a ballast log that can provide a secure audit trail.

This log can be transmitted to organisations such as BWMS manufacturers, shipowners and port state control authorities. The system will assist in meeting the requirement for ships to

implement a ballast water management plan, to carry a Ballast Water Record Book and to carry out ballast water management procedures to a given standard.

The first sales of these devices have been to the port state control team in China’s Shandong Province and, according to the company’s product manager Jean-Pierre Joubert, it is currently in talks with a number of other such teams.

In developing this system, Bactest partnered with Chelsea Technologies to add a test for phytoplankton. Chelsea has been designing and manufacturing sensors and systems for aquatic environments for over 50 years and offers portable and integral systems of its own.

Its FastBallast Portable Ballast Water Compliance Monitor is capable of determining the phytoplankton cell density of ballast water at the IMO D-2 and USCG discharge standards.

FastBallast is available in three versions: a Discrete Sample Compliance Monitor, a Dual Function Compliance Monitor and as an Integrated Compliance Monitor.

FastBallast’s design enables a rapid and detailed analysis and is, according to the company, the only technology that can operate in flowthrough mode, providing a continuous, real time update on discharge compliance.

According to Stephanie Lavelle, Chelsea Technology’s maritime manager, FastBallast’s key advantage is that, rather than using ‘multiple turnover’ technology as other testing systems do, it uses Fast Repetition Flourometry (FRR) to achieve much more accurate results.

She told a Ballast Water Forum organised by the UK Chamber of Shipping in November that indicative tests “cannot distinguish cell size and they assume that all cells emit the same amount of fluorescence, which they don’t,” she said. So indicative tests can only give a ‘Confident Pass’ or a ‘Confident Fail’ at extreme levels, she said, whereas FastBallast technology “can essentially give you a lab test in just eight minutes at the point of discharge.”

Gerd Schneider (SGS): “Guidelines on sampling and analysis are quite vague and open to interpretation.”

Test kits are becoming widely available There are a large number of on-board test kits available and a simple internet search will find many of them. The French company Aqua-Tools, for example, specialises in water microbiology in a number of sectors and has developed a ballast water monitoring kit that it says will track all microorganisms in three minutes. It has developed this in partnership with SGS and LuminUltra of Canada, which makes the measuring instruments.

UK company Marine Testing Solutions includes a ballast water testing option among its range of products. Its MTS-K100188 kit contains a range of testing solutions and hardware and is

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

described as being easy to use and reliably accurate.

The UK and German Tintometer Group offers a ballast water test kit under its Lovibond brand name that includes a Fluorometer, a chlorine analyser and a salinity refractometer. It will confirm compliance to the D1 and D2 standards and promises “results in seconds”, the company’s literature notes.

Germany’s CM Technologies offers a test kit that it says will provide simple and accurate testing for a range of bacteria, for viable organisms and salinity. The kit will “provide all equipment to ensure and prove compliance with the IMO’s Ballast Water Convention,” the company’s website says. BWTT

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

48 | PORT & FLAG STATES

No level playing field as BWMC approaches Despite IMO’s convention nearing its entry into force, there will still be a range of national requirements

W Robert North (IRI): If a Marshall Island-flagged ship were detained, its inspectors would help “develop a pragmatic BWM approach” (credit: IRI)

ith IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) coming into force in September and the US Coast Guard (USCG) already operating its inspection regime, it would seem that shipowners and operators can look forward to predictable requirements wherever they trade.

But that may not be the case. Rob Collins, a shipping and trade specialist at the law firm Clyde & Co, told the 6th IMarEST Ballast Water Conference in January that many jurisdictions “are doing their own thing”. He had asked each of the firm’s global offices to say how their local state was planning to implement the BWMC. “It was notable how many colleagues said they could not provide any meaningful response.”

Ideally, a country that has ratified the BWMC should apply it but he distilled three other reactions: one country that has not ratified and is operating its own requirements, another that has not ratified but is effectively following the convention and one that has ratified but is not planning to apply it (see box, page 49). “It is concerning, to say the least,” he said.

One state that was not included in his analysis is Australia. It has not ratified the BWMC and started applying its 2015 Biosecurity Act in June 2016, which includes ballast water provisions. The act references a list of 59 approved BWMSs that meet Australia’s requirements.

Australia’s Department of Agriculture and Water Resources confirmed to BWTT that “for international shipping, the requirements of the new act now apply.” Experience so far showed that “some operators require greater clarity to differentiate between a BWMS type-approval certificate and a ballast water management plan,” its spokesman said.

Cyprus is another state that has not ratified

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

the BWMC, but Ioannis Efstratiou, acting director of its Department of Merchant Shipping, said it is planning to do so. He told BWTT that following its accession, Cyprus’ port state control officers will verify that visiting ships are compliant. He did not indicate when it plans to ratify the convention.

Saudi Arabia has also not ratified the convention but is gearing up to apply it when it enters into force. In readiness, from 1 May, the state oil company Saudi Aramco will start a pilot project at Ras Tanura and Juaymah, requiring all ships calling at those ports to have their ballast water sampled by an approved inspection agency, at the ship’s cost.

In a note to its customers in March, the ship agent Cory Brothers advised that masters will have to declare their test status during the trial. If this is non-compliant, the ship’s flag state and class will be advised, along with Saudi government agencies, but ships will not be detained.

As with national policies, regional approaches to port state ballast inspections are not yet finalised. The Republic of the Marshall Islands, for example, is a member of the Tokyo MOU and has a representative on a working group developing guidelines for the Tokyo MOU region. Among port states’ responsibilities under the convention is a requirement to deal with ballast tank sediments and these polices, too, are still to be decided, RADM Robert North USCG (rtd), consultant to IRI/The Marshall Islands Registry, said.

• For details of Australia’s ballast water management requirements go to http://bit.ly/Oz-Bio-Act and for its list of approved BWMS go to http://bit.ly/Oz-BWMS • A longer version of this article is available on the BWTT website.

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

PORT & FLAG STATES | 49

Flag states offer support for owners

D

espite being one of IMO’s member states that has not ratified its Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC), Cyprus nonetheless works closely with its shipowners to make sure they comply with it. Ioannis Efstratiou, acting director of its Department of Merchant Shipping (DMS), told BWTT that it is “working towards ratifying the convention.”

BWMC “represents a significant challenge to the industry,” he said, so DMS experts are providing guidance to shipowners. They must “achieve compliance and mitigate the risk of receiving potentially significant fines, as well as manage the impact of delays in port on vessel operations and profitability,” he said.

DMS is urging shipowners “to plan ahead [and ensure] that the process is managed in an efficient manner and with minimal impact on cost and vessel operations.”

Liberia is the largest flag state, in gross tonnage terms, yet to have ratified the convention and the US-based manager of its registry, LISCR, offers its shipowners a range of support to help them comply.

For example, it conducts type-approval checks on

BWMSs being installed on its flagged vessels following concerns “that some BWMSs approved using the IMO existing G8 approval guidelines might not meet the required discharge standard in all physical and environmental conditions,” LISCR’s vice president for operations and standards, David Pascoe, told BWTT. These tests have revealed that “some systems approved using the existing G8 Guidelines have operating limitations that were not identified during the IMO typeapproval process,” he said. He expects that support will be needed after the BWMC enters into force because “many questions will remain, such as ship-specific compliance dates, suitability of BWMSs, and port state control.”

Another of the world’s largest national fleets is the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). It has ratified the BWMC and is supported

by International Registries, Inc (IRI), which has a designated ballast water management (BWM) team available to support its shipowners, explained RADM Robert North USCG (rtd), consultant to IRI/ The Marshall Islands Registry.

Seminars and direct meetings

with companies have been held and a marine guideline has been published to support shipowners, he said, and he expects this will continue after the BWMC enters into force.

Asked what support it would provide in the event that one of its owners’ ships were detained because of a ballast treatment deficiency, he said that RMI nautical inspectors, assisted by the BWM team, “will be available to work with the ship operator and the coastal state to develop a pragmatic BWM approach.”

At the end of January, this situation arose in the US for the Liberian-flagged bulk carrier Vega Mars. The USCG started proceedings against it for allegedly failing to comply with its requirements.

In a statement to BWTT at the time, LISCR said a flag state auditor had attended the vessel and helped the master and owner “resolve the reported deficiencies.” Further advice to its shipowners was planned in the wake of the incident.

In comments for this report, Mr Pascoe said that in similar situations, “we will continue to review the evidence related to enforcement actions taken by port states, appeal decisions and take actions as may be appropriate.” BWTT

Ioannis Efstratiou (Cyprus DMS): Cyprus is “working towards ratifying the convention” (credit: Cyprus DMS)

David Pascoe (LISCR): There are concerns that some BWMSs “might not meet the required discharge standard” (credit: LISCR)

Three states, three statements of intent Clyde & Co’s research across its global offices (see page 48) revealed a confusing picture of how states will apply IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC). But Rob Collins, a shipping and trade specialist at the firm, singled out three countries that each illustrated a particular approach: China, India and South Africa.

China has not ratified the convention and has had its own laws since 2001. It views ballast water in the same light as hazardous substances and pollutants and requires ships to be sanitised before discharging ballast water. “The position in China is very unclear,” Mr Collins said. “Are they going to follow the convention and develop

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

their laws in parallel or ignore it completely?”

India has not ratified the convention but is following it in many ways.

All Indian-flagged vessels above 400gt and engaged in international voyages have to comply and India's authorities will police any port call in Indian waters by a vessel flagged in a country that has ratified the BWMC. It is taking the convention seriously without ratifying it, Mr Collins said.

South Africa ratified the BWMC in April 2008 and in 2013 the country’s Department of Transport published a bill to enact the convention’s provisions but has not brought it into law. “Whether that will change in September we do not know,” Mr Collins said.

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

50 | CLASS SOCIETIES

CLASS ACTS IN DUAL ROLE OVER BALLAST RULES

C

lassification Societies have two masters when it comes to ballast water management: they assess manufacturer’s equipment – often providing type-approval services for flag states – and advice to shipowners. BWTT asked IACS members what their priorities are in serving those two constituencies.

Tihomir Kezic, certification and operations management services director at Bureau Veritas, saw its role as having a simple goal: “to provide clear information and in-time services,” he said. That clarity is needed because some uncertainties

still remain over IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) – in particular revisions to Guidelines G8 and requests to review compliance dates.

IRClass is concerned about shipowners struggling to fund ballast water management system (BWMS) installations and told BWTT that its priority is to assist them by bringing forward their IOPP renewal survey before 8 September 2017, provided the relevant flag state has issued a circular about delinking that survey from the normal survey timetable.

Martin Olofsson (DNV GL): “USCG’s rules should be aligned with G8” (credit: DNV GL)

Tihomir Kezic (Bureau Veritas): “manufacturers are focused on USCG typeapproval” (credit: Bureau Veritas)

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE IN MAKING BALLAST WATER TREATMENT A PRACTICAL REALITY

Class societies’ contact with the industry also extends to “other stakeholders”, such as test laboratories, said Sahan Abeysekara, Lloyd’s Register’s lead specialist in engineering systems.

The information and guidance on offer from DNV GL is focused on making sure that ships can comply with the BWMC’s D-1 discharge standards by 8 September, said its senior principal engineer in its Environmental Protection Unit, Martin Olofsson. Most DNV GL-classed ships will be using ballast water exchange, he said.

The Korean Register reported that its most frequent enquiries from owners are about BWMS retrofit timing and the exact detail of the regulations to be implemented when the convention comes into effect, while manufacturers focus on technical items, such as the test criteria for type-approval.

RINA confirmed that it is seeing growing concern among shipowners because of uncertainties about the final implementation scheme for the D-2 discharge standard

that will be discussed at MEPC 71 in July. Its most frequent question is about IOPP certificate renewal before the BWMC’s entry into force and, to provide shipowners with updated information on this issue, it has established an ongoing dialogue with all flag administrations for which it is a recognised organisation.

Class NK has seen about four times as many enquiries related to ballast treatmentrelated surveys than a year ago and about 50 per cent more requests to approve ballast water management plans (BWMPs).

It is BWMP approvals that Mr Abeysekara singled out at Lloyd’s Register, reporting high demand for them. In addition, “we have seen an increase in demand for BWMS approval services, both statutory and class approvals,” he said.

Not every class society reported such an increase in enquiries. “Surprisingly, this is not the case,” said Mr Kezic of Buearu Veritas, because “manufacturers are focused on USCG type-approval,” and owners are hoping for a

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

CLASS SOCIETIES | 51

further postponement of the BWMC implementation date.

Asked whether, in their view, the BWMC’s G8 Guidelines should be aligned with USCG’s testing regime, most saw benefits if that could be achieved. IRClass would like to see “one uniform standard adopted and implemented globally.”

RINA also believes that “an alignment of the standards would be extremely beneficial to producers and shipowners.”

So too does the Korean Register. “We would welcome a move to unify and harmonise the two,” it said in response to the question. In fact, said Mr Abeysekara, the revised G8 Guidelines “are more strict than the USCG requirements in some respects.”

Some doubt that it could happen in practice; it would be very difficult to achieve alignment at IMO, suggested Mr Kezic. And Thomas Kirk, director of environmental performance, global marine, at ABS noted that the recent revisions set out to provide an equivalent level of transparency and robustness as the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Technology Verification programme.

Beyond that, however, “we are not aware of any efforts by the US or IMO to further align their respective requirements,” he said.

To ask whether G8 should align with USCG is to ask the wrong question, suggested Mr Olofsson of DNV GL. “It should be the opposite: USCG’s rules should be aligned with G8.” The class society is one of five USCGrecognised Independent Laboratories for type-approval testing and he reported that it arranges tests so that they will satisfy both standards.

• A longer version of this section is available online: http://bit.ly/BWTT-Class

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Is there mutual respect for ballast systems?

Korean Register has its own BWMS test facility, which it expanded in July 2016 (credit: KR)

One of the frustrations often expressed to BWTT by ballast water management system (BWMS) makers is the need to obtain approvals from every class society. “How do I confidently design a system and know it will be accepted by more than one class?” one manufacturer recently said.

So BWTT asked class societies whether there is a role for mutual recognition in this area of technology to reduce delays from multiple approvals.

Korea is home to a number of BWMS makers so the Korean Register has worked in the BWMS sector for some time. It does offer a degree of mutual recognition, its response suggested.

“Equipment makers can be exempted partially or totally from certain tests if they comply with relevant IMO regulations or standards and have certificates of approval from recognised organisations or other class societies,” it said.

Bureau Veritas does not rule it out either.

“Mutual recognition should be straightforward,” said Tihomir Kezic, its certification and operations management services director. But, although IMO has issued G8 Guidelines on testing, “flag states and recognised organisations may apply their own rules and methods.” Nonetheless, Bureau Veritas accepts BWMS approvals by other leading societies if the manufacturer holds a class certificate with flag agreement.

RINA also referred to mutual recognition as being a flag matter, with the Italian flag, for example, allowing its ships to fit a BWMS that has any EU flag type-approval. It also mentioned the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) Unified Requirement (UR) M74, which deals with BWMS installations.

That was last updated in May 2016 and “is to be uniformly implemented by IACS societies”

from 1 January 2017 and applies to applications for approval for BWMS installation plans, installation themselves, or for installations in ships contracted for construction after that date. This “will assist stakeholders with technically sound and harmonised criteria,” RINA’s feedback noted.

Thomas Kirk, director of environmental performance, Global Marine, at ABS, also referred to UR M74, saying that its Guide for Ballast Water Treatment is closely aligned with it. But he stressed that “the installation of a system must consider the specifics of the vessel in question” so apart from recognising IMO type-approval certificates issued by another classification society on behalf of a flag administration, “mutual recognition is not appropriate,” he said.

Lloyd’s Register type-approval “is not mandatory for installation of a BWMS in LR-classed ships,” said Sahan Abeysekara, Lloyd’s Register’s lead specialist in engineering systems, “but the BWMS and installation must be assessed in accordance with LR rules,” which are in line with UR M74. But most manufacturers like to have LR type-approval, he said, because when it comes to installation, “the BWMS is already approved.”

DNV GL’s senior principal engineer in its Environmental Protection Unit, Martin Olofsson, acknowledged that there was confusion in the market over this. “Shipowners do not need many type-approval certificates, they only need one, and that is from the flag state, not from the class society,” he said.

Some class societies issue what they call a type-approval certificate, he said, but those simply confirm that a system complies with that society’s rules. “We have tried to avoid that,” he said. BWTT • Read IACS UR M74 via http://bit.ly/UR-M74

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

52 | CONSULTANTS

Consultants help to ease the burden Consultancies are playing a key role in helping shipowners cope with the demands of the Ballast Water Management Convention, finds Paul Fanning

After an initial project on Norwegian Dawn, Foreship was invited to provide the same service for the Norwegian cruise ships Pearl, Sky, Jade and Spirit (credit: Norwegian Cruise Line)

W

hen the Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) finally reached its threshold tonnage in September 2016, the role of marine engineering consultancies suddenly took on significantly greater importance. This was because, as questions over ballast water management systems (BWMSs) moved from the academic to the practical, shipowners and operators were faced with the question of how to source the best possible system, ensure it works and retrofit it on to their vessels.

Olli Somerkallio, manager of the machinery department at the Finnish naval architecture and marine engineering consultancy Foreship, has recently been providing detailed advice on various retrofit options, which has meant undertaking feasibility studies designed to arrive at the best possible solution. What has become clear from this is that there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution. “There are so many factors that need to be considered that we have to look at ships as individuals,” he said.

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

“The layout of the machinery affects the optimal solution, plus we have to look at the space available and consult with crew on their requirements.”

One company with which Foreship is working is Norwegian Cruise Line. After an initial project involving the surveying, installation feasibility study, design drawings and documentation for class approvals on Norwegian Dawn, Foreship was invited to provide the same service for the Norwegian cruise ships Pearl, Sky, Jade and Spirit.

Foreship’s full scope includes mechanical and electrical design work to DNV GL requirements, taking in diagrams for BWMS foundation support structures, piping routeing, machinery arrangements, cabling diagrams and systems integration. Foreship is also contributing on-site installation support, where required, with the bulk of work to take place while ships are in service.

Naturally, the sheer variety of systems available is one of the most daunting obstacles for shipowners so Dutch consultancy UniBallast offers a free

online system selection service to help shipowners choose a suitable BWMS. A shortlist can be identified by using the app to set a number of criteria, including flow rate, power requirement, working principles and type-approvals. The system can be accessed via the company’s website, www.uniballast.nl.

Clearly these are busy times for consultants. During the forthcoming six months, 10 installations of different BWTS are scheduled to be take place on board various types of ships and for different clients, for which the Greek consultant Argo Navis is responsible for the retrofit installation design, the project coordination and supervision.

One recent project for the company was the installation of Ecochlor BWMSs on board three tankers under the technical management of Russia’s SCF Management Services. Argo Navis Marine Consulting & Engineering was responsible for the engineering study and design for the retrofit installation, producing classapproved drawings, monitoring the project and attending on site during installation.

Installation on board NS Stream, an MR ice-class tanker, took place at Victor Lenac shipyard, Croatia while NS Consul and NS Century, two sister Aframax tankers, took place at Tuzla’s TK Shipyard, Turkey.

The biggest challenge was the prefabrication process, because the new equipment was installed inside three newlyfabricated deck houses. The pre-fabrication process was progressed significantly prior ship’s arrival at shipyard. One of the challenges of those projects was the transfer of big filters into the pump room.

Consultants are equally valuable to equipment makers. Norway’s InBallast, for example, worked with Oceansaver to prepare its successful application for US Coast Guard type-approval. Among the services it provided were to design the land-based and shipboard testing and conduct CFD modelling of the system’s working methods.

It finished by completing the documentation package for the USCG, which it completed on 23 September 2016. Exactly two months later, Oceansaver’s BWMS became the first electrochemical system to receive USCG type-approval. BWTT

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Š Islandstock / Alamy

Leading expertise for convention implementation and BWMS applications For more information: Bureau Veritas S.A. Veritaskai 1 21079 Hamburg - Germany Tel: +49 40 2362 5677 ramona.zettelmaier@de.bureauveritas.com www.bureauveritas.de

Move Forward with Confidence

54 | SYSTEM SELECTION

CMA CGM has selected the Wärtsilä Aquarius UV system for four new container ships

Decision time poses tough choices for owners T

he obvious key consideration when making these decisions is whether the system will meet the applicable regulatory requirements in terms of performance and ‘do what it says on the tin’. This is easier said than done taking into account the still-outstanding unanswered questions about what standards are going to be applied in which countries and, crucially, how they will be enforced.

Some progress has been made in this regard to clarify the position in the US, with the US Coast Guard (USCG) starting type-approval for systems that it deems acceptable in accordance with its own interpretation and variations to the IMO standard. As the USCG gets around to approving more systems, more options will be available for owners operating there.

The fact that the BWM Convention is now set to come into force in September 2017 has not made the choices for owners and managers any easier in deciding which type of system to select, Steve Matthews reports

Now that the implementation date for the Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) has been set, owners know, or should know, what they need to do and when each of their vessels is required to comply and, where necessary, plan retrofit schedules subject to drydocking dates.

The high cost of installing BWMSs understandably means that some owners are putting off these decisions for as long as possible, but they will not be able to do so for

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

ever. Some are still hoping to exploit various exemptions or extensions to avoid the expense.

One benefit from delay could be that the situation regarding enforcement in the US, the European Union and elsewhere will become clearer and the array of suppliers will narrow, making the selection process slightly easier.

Among recent examples of leading owners choosing systems from suppliers likely to emerge among the market leaders, Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG) specified De

Nora’s BalPure BP3000-C system for four 69,000 dwt chemical/products tankers.

The systems are due to be fitted by the middle of this year and form a repeat order, following an earlier contract for De Nora to supply BWMSs to two of OSG’s 50,000 dwt vessels. “This deal exemplifies the partnerships we have built and the industry confidence in our offering,” said De Nora Water Technologies’ chief executive Lawrence Quinn.

In the container ship

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

SYSTEM SELECTION | 55

sector, CMA CGM has recently chosen Wärtsilä to supply BWMSs for a quartet of new 3,300 TEU container ships. This is the third series of vessels for which CMA CGM has selected this solution, bringing the total of 10 ships. They will be installed with 500 m3/ hr-capacity Wärtsilä Aquarius UV systems, which use a two-stage process involving filtration and ultra-violet (UV ) irradiation.

Joe Thomas, Wärtsilä Marine Solutions’ director, ballast water management systems, suggested that the main reasons for selecting its system was that it had enjoyed “a long and successful relationship with this major global operator.” He said that its system is extremely efficient and that the company is unique offering customers maintenance contract support for a BWMS installation.

Wärtsilä is confident that it will obtain typeapproval from the USCG for its Aquarius UV system, despite some earlier concerns in the US about the use of UV treatment systems.

Wärtsilä’s other BWMS, the Aquarius EC system, which uses electro-chlorination technology, is also undergoing testing for USCG approval.

Mr Thomas told BWTT that the wrinkles in BWMS selection could have been resolved if more shipowners had fitted systems earlier. He said that while he could understand that, since it was a large investment and owners needed clarity on the technology, “if there could have been more early installations put into operation to provide quality feedback, the industry could have benefited with many of the wrinkles addressed and resolved.”

Other leading BWMS suppliers are also urging owners not to delay making decisions on selecting and ordering equipment. Christopher

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Hyde Marine is introducing two operating modes, for US and IMO waters

Todd, executive director at supplier Calgon Carbon UV Technologies and Hyde Marine, said that uncertainty over some aspects of implementation of the regulations is not a reason for delaying.

He said: “Given that shipowners can purchase equipment today that has USCG alternate management system (AMS) acceptance and given that market prices are as low as they are going to get, combined with the fact that shipowners can safeguard the USCG AMS compliance by up to 10 years, then they should be installing equipment now.”

For vessels in the 10-15 years age range, operators can secure compliance to the end of their useful life, he said.

“There is value in that, which is not yet quite understood by the market. The message has not been communicated very well.”

Hyde Marine has had to retest its system in its bid to receive USCG type-approval, after its initial request was rejected because its most probable number (MPN) technique is not accepted by the USCG, which requires organisms to be killed. Many manufacturers of UV-based systems had relied on an MPN technique to confirm whether their systems comply.

Mr Todd said that in order to achieve compliance, Hyde Marine will increase its system’s UV dose capability. “The impact will only be nominal in terms of capital cost for the shipowner, but there will be a reasonably sizeable increase in its power consumption to meet the USCG testing regime.” As a result, Hyde Marine is looking to introduce two operating modes, one for shipowners operating in US waters, with increased power, and one for other regions with less power.

Hyde Marine’s new tests are expected to take until the third quarter of 2017 to complete and will be followed by shipboard testing, with a fresh type-approval application submitted by the end of the year and type-approval expected early in 2018. The Hyde Guardian BWMS system does have AMS acceptance from the USCG. This process is another illustration of the difficult choices facing owners in choosing the most appropriate system for their vessels. Mr Todd said: “We are very careful about product changes, to ensure that [they] can be retrofitted to existing equipment in the field. We have tried to be as alert to this as possible in order to minimise the difficulty of doing upgrades

on systems that are currently fitted in ships.”

Class society DNV GL has also warned owners about delaying the decision to buy a system. Martin Olofsson, DNV GL senior principal engineer, said: “In our scenario, the IOPP [International Oil Pollution Prevention] certificate renewal, which is when the BWMS needs to be installed, should be evenly spread out.

What we do not want to happen is for a shipowner to find ways of avoiding installing the treatment system and then having to do a lot of retrofits closer to 2022.”

As discussed elsewhere in this guide, many shipowners are planning to reschedule their IOPP renewal surveys. They are exploring whether they can do them before the BWMC enters into force so they get another five years before they need to comply with the convention. Many flag states are allowing this change.

Another option for owners is that some shipbuilders and repairers are offering their own BWMSs. In Singapore, for example, repair yard Sembcorp Marine provides turnkey solutions for retrofit installations.

It will install equipment specified by owners but can also integrate its own SembEco LUV BWMS, which has

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

56 | SYSTEM SELECTION

been type-approved by IMO. Wong Lee Lin, Sembcorp Marine executive vice president and head of repairs and upgrades, said: “The Semb-Eco LUV BWMS is a nonchemical system with low power requirements, currently undergoing further testing to verify its USCG compliance.

Ms Wong highlighted the division between shipowners that are looking to install a system as soon as possible and those wanting to delay.

“Some shipowners have decided to make their vessels compliant and are now actively working on selecting and procuring an appropriate BWMS as well as preparing for retrofit installations,” she said. “Conversely, there are shipowners who have taken the approach of docking their vessels early, before entry into force of the regulations, to avoid having to install the BWMS system on the ships until the next IOPP certification survey.”

For some owners of specialised tonnage, selecting their BWMSs poses particular challenges and limitations.

One example is for vessels operating in ice conditions, which mean that as well as meeting the BWMC’s and USCG’s requirements, they must also comply with IMO’s Polar Code.

Delegates to Tanker Shipping & Trade’s annual conference in November heard how these complexities were tackled in the installation of an Ecochlor system on the 46,941 dwt Sovcomflot oil/chemical tanker NS Stream, which operates in temperatures as low as -30°C. Greek consulting and engineering company Argo Navis was contracted by SCF Novoship Technical Management to tackle these problems. In addition to the challenges posed by the need to retrofit, the cold temperatures where the vessel operates also

Sembcorp Marine in Singapore is offering owners its own system as an alternative to other suppliers for retrofits

had to be considered.

Argo Navis specified Ecochlor’s system, which injects chloride dioxide into the ballast water as it is loaded, because it can operate down to 0°C. But a heating arrangement was needed to prevent the

equipment and its chemicals from going lower than that. At the same time, the deckhouses had to be ventilated.

An electrical system was chosen, which was also the solution to another difficulty: the pipework needed to be

heated to prevent the ballast water freezing, even though the pipes were covered by an insulating layer of polyurethane. A heating cable was strapped along the length of the pipes and around the flanges to achieve this.

Owners favour established brands As they review the ballast water management systems (BWMSs) on offer, shipowners are tending to favour names that are already established among equipment suppliers. Owners are familiar with them and believe they can rely on them, in terms of the equipment performance and after-sales support.

That is certainly the trend shown by system selections being made by leading owners, although smaller, more cash-strapped owners, have a harder choice and might be tempted to go for cheaper options.

Some owners, mainly larger groups, have already made considerable progress in choosing systems. For newbuildings the process is relatively straightforward as the ballast water management systems (BWMSs) can be designed into the vessel with a blank sheet. Once the system has been selected it can be engineered into the vessel’s tank and pipework systems.

For retrofits, the choice is likely to be more limited as owners will have to take into account the existing vessel layout and available spaces, along with the comparative costs of engineering and installing their preferred system. Operating and maintaining

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

it and the associated costs will also have to be considered. These challenges are likely to mean that owners will be forced to make compromises regarding the systems that they ultimately select.

While there are many BWMSs available, most leading suppliers and shipowners believe that this wide field will narrow to a much smaller number of leading suppliers.

This will happen either through some form of consolidation, or by owners voting with their feet so that a limited number of suppliers scoop up the majority of business, with the others left to fight for what is left. This likely outcome will also influence owners’ choices and add further pressure to reducing the scale of realistic choices.

An important consideration for owners and managers will be that they can access spare parts and equipment maintenance and repair services on a global basis wherever their ships happen to be trading. This will favour larger supplier companies that can put such global support networks in place. Owners will not want to risk their BWMSs being out of service and putting them in danger of not being able to trade, at least in certain areas. BWTT

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

USCG INDEPENDENT LAB BWMS TYPE APPROVAL TESTING

Five renowned Test Facilities collaborate with CUC during the Type Approval testing:

NIOZ & IMARES Sub-lab for Land-based testing • 10

Control Union Certifications is an independent,

BWMS: IMO Type Approval

internationally operating certification body that carries

GOCONSULT & DAVIDCONSULT (GCDC)

out inspections and issues certificates.

Sub-lab for Shipboard testing • 100 • 25

Control Union Certifications (CUC) offers you a global one-stop-shop for a wide range of certification programs. Our local offices in over 70 countries carry out inspections, audits and certification activities, thereby reducing

Test Voyages

Clients supported

TNO Sub-lab for Environmental Testing • 40

Years Shock Testing Expertise

costs and improving services.

Control Union Certifications is a USCG-accepted Independent Laboratory (CUC-IL) for Type approval testing of BWMS. CUC coordinates all testing and provides QA/QC. Furthermore we can take care of the transportation of BWMS and identify suitable test ships.

Cees van Slooten CUC-IL Test Coordinator E cvslooten@controlunion.com T +31 38 4260 116

controlunion.com

58 | RETROFIT PLANNING

A 3D scan of an Ecochlor BWMS deckhouse installation (credit: Argo Navis Marine Consulting & Engineering)

PLANNING AHEAD PAYS DIVIDENDS CRAMPED SPACES AND DIFFICULT ACCESS ARE THE STARTING POINTS FOR MANY BWMS RETROFIT PROJECTS, WRITES BILL THOMSON

N

ow that at least some uncertainty has been removed about when shipowners will need to fit ballast water management systems (BWMS) it is time to consider some of the practical issues involved.

For newbuilds, the need for a BWMS should be foreseen and so fitting should not pose problems. For many existing ships, however, it is a different story. Although the underlying principles of BWMS have been around for many years, full information on exactly what would have to be provided, and when, has only recently been finalised.

The main issue is available space.

How big is the chosen system? Where is it best to locate it? Can it be taken to that position without cutting holes in decks or bulkheads or comprehensive dismantling?

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

If there is insufficient room to fit all the equipment together, can its components be distributed around different locations?

Then there are questions of operation.

Can the pipework be easily diverted so ballast water passes through the system?

Will pumps have to be upgraded or additional pumps added? Is sufficient electrical power available onboard to supply the pumps and the treatment equipment?

One observer commented to BWTT that these questions have not been fully addressed by every BWMS manufacturer, shipowner, manager or yard that will have to carry out the installation work. “Leaving aside the important consideration of whether repair yards will have the capacity to deal with the work involved in fitting and commissioning BWMS, there are still

many points to be addressed,� he said.

Fortunately, some installers have been thinking about these issues for some time, and have answers. The Damen group is a case in point: its repair yards can supply and fit a variety of different solutions from a range of manufacturers, offering a design service that first advises on system selection, then undertakes an onboard survey including 3D laser scanning. This allows a detailed design proposal to be drawn up so that all the necessary equipment and parts can be manufactured, installed and commissioned.

Machinery repair specialist Goltens takes a similar approach. The group has established Netherlands-based Goltens Green Technologies, primarily as a BWMS retrofit specialist. To date, Goltens has been involved in BWMS retrofit projects on more than 220 ships, with bulk carriers and specialist offshore vessels accounting for many of these.

Most have used UV-based technology, though Goltens has supplied and fitted electrochlorinaton, ozone, oxidation, chemical and combined systems. As an independent supplier, Goltens is not

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

RETROFIT PLANNING | 59

tied to any manufacturer and has fitted systems from Optimarin, Alfa Laval, Auramarine, NK, Hyde Marine, Wärtsilä, Headway, De Nora and Bio-UV. Goltens has offered owners the chance to plan for the time when they will have to fit BWMS by carrying out shipboard surveys based on 3D scanning well before the due date. This allows a basic design to be produced, where one or more chosen systems can be incorporated in the scanned image, to show where the major components can be sited and to highlight any potential problems.

At this stage, Goltens can make prepurchase comparisons between systems to establish power consumption and ease of installation. When the time comes for a purchase decision, Goltens will prepare detailed drawings, including foundations and pipework, which will enable work to begin on fabrication or to obtain costings from shipyards or other installation partners.

For some clients, Goltens has even gone as far as to fabricate dummy parts that can be put in place. This, it says, ensures that once the chosen system is purchased, fitting can progress quickly and smoothly.

Goltens adds that this approach works particularly well when planning BWMS retrofitting across fleets. The company recognises that BWMS represents an enormous investment so negotiating for volume-driven pricing and planning a more relaxed schedule for installation across a fleet can result in significant cost savings.

One such fleet agreement was with NYK’s Norwegian bulk carrier subsidiary Saga, which had chosen the Optimarin system. Goltens undertook scanning and detailed engineering for 24 vessels, with one ship in each class chosen as lead, enabling installation to be planned across several years to coincide with scheduled drydockings. Saga technical manager

Nils Otto Bjerhovde said that the use of 3D laser scanning offered a big benefit across sister ships. “Not only does the scanning create huge cost advantages, it makes it much easier when working out smaller details for prefabrication,” he said.

More recently, German owner Ernst Jacob approached Goltens Green Technologies to undertake detailed engineering for retrofitting BWMS to four product tankers. The company had chosen the Korean 1,000 m3/h NK-03 Blue Ballast system, which Goltens recognised as one of the larger and more complex systems on the market, presenting a particular retrofit challenge.

Work began with scanning two of the ships, Konstatin Jacob and Georg Jacob during scheduled port calls in Singapore in December 2015 and April 2016 respectively. Once a detailed engineering design had been approved, Goltens manufactured the new piping and foundations in Vietnam and shipped the parts to Malaysia, where the ships were scheduled for dry-docking. Electrical parts were delivered direct to the ships by Goltens Singapore.

Konstatin Jacob was retrofitted during its 10-day scheduled drydocking in Malaysia during April/May 2016 and completed on voyage. For Georg Jacob, which went into drydock in July/August 2016, the same formula was followed but a slight increase in installation personnel numbers enabled all work to be completed during the 10-day drydocking. According to Goltens business development manager Jurrien Baretta, the BWMS for a third vessel is scheduled to be installed in March, as this issue of BWTT goes to press, and a fourth will follow in July.

The 3D scanning approach is of particular benefit where space is limited.

Hyde Marine has worked with Goltens

on several projects, including a BWMS installation on GC Rieber Shipping’s ROV vessel Polar Queen, with significant savings in cost and timeframe. A similar partnership with BWMS supplier Optimarin, which stemmed from the companies working together on the Saga project, worked successfully for pipelay vessel Apache II and seismic survey ship PGS Apollo.

Time was a critical factor in these installations. Detailed engineering carried out in advance, and pre-fabrication of all components, meant both ships received their new equipment quickly – in the case of PGS Apollo the installation was carried out during a three-day port call in The Netherlands.

Apache II received its BWMS during a refit, scheduled for just a few weeks after the survey and 3D scans. BWMS installation work was integrated with the other refit work.

3D scanning played an important role in another significant BWMS retrofit during 2016. Ecochlor worked with Greek company Argo Navis Marine Consulting & Engineering to retrofit its BWMS on three tankers for SCF Novoship. Argo Navis carried out the scanning and the systems were fitted during drydockings in Croatia and Turkey.

The importance of providing an adequate electrical supply has recently been highlighted by a case in which a US-based BWMS system integrator discovered electrical shortcomings when recommissioning a previouslyinstalled BWMS and replacing the whole BWMS seemed to be the most viable solution. As BWMS use comes on stream following the IMO convention’s entry into force, this will probably not be the only instance of an owner’s early investment proving inadequate for the task. The tale underlines the importance of using a knowledgeable and competent installation partner to help make the right decision at the outset. BWTT

A 3D rendering of a BWMS system spread across different compartments (credit: Damen Shipyards)

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

OUR BALLAST WATER SOLUTIONS ARE PURE AND SIMPLE

We will help you to clear things up! UniBallast can retrofit your vessel(s) by building in a ballast water treatment system. Or just install our Universal Ballast Water Port Connector (UBPC) for easy discharge of your ballast water to any treatment facility according to the latest USCG/IMO standards. Just contact us for conclusive advice and a simple & effective solution. Whatever fits your needs. www.uniballast.nl

Ecochlor’s service network can resupply chemicals and, at the same time, perform a BWMS functional check

SERVICING & MAINTENANCE | 61

MAINTENANCE IS A FACTOR WHEN BUYING A BWMS Servicing and maintenance expenses should be balanced against first cost, reports Bill Thomson

T

here is a bewildering array of different technologies among ballast water management system (BWMS) contenders. Some are simple, some more complex.

Some need regular maintenance; others can, their makers say, be left more or less to their own devices. Some are designed for robustness and durability; others have fragile components that need careful handling. Some have no consumable items; others need regular topping up.

Some need specialist care; others can be entrusted to a normal ship’s crew.

Each BWMS seems to have different needs when

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

it comes to servicing and maintenance. When choosing a system, the lifetime costs including consumable parts and chemicals have to be considered alongside the significant capital cost of purchase and installation.

It is easy for a shipyard to recommend the system with the lowest installation cost but that system may have higher running costs than its dearer rivals, impacting on the total lifetime cost of the ship.

Costs are a major problem for today’s shipowner. Roy Strand, chief operating officer of Goltens Worldwide – which engineers and fits systems from

all the major manufacturers – pointed out to BWTT that vessel equipment and machinery investments are usually planned and prioritised based on a fundamental analysis of return on investment and payback period. Yet the large capital expenditures required by the IMO and US Coast Guard environmental compliance regulations “present no such financial payback to shipowners,” he said.

Part of that challenge has been resolved, now that owners have a clearer idea of the latest date when they will be required to have an operational BWMS on board. But the question

remains of whether to invest now in a less costly system, maintenance of which will incur continuing costs for the lifetime of the ship, or bite the bullet with a heavier investment that will minimise everyday costs, with a more positive effect on continuing profitability.

Two more important questions relate to system reliability and maintenance.

Can already-fitted systems, that have had minimal use for some time, be guaranteed to operate to specification once IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention enters into force?

And what arrangements can be made to ensure that, if service is needed at short notice, the system can be brought into operation without undue delay to a vessel’s departure?

There is much to be said for involving a specialist company in the choice, and fitment, of

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

62 | SERVICING & MAINTENANCE

systems, particularly when the specialist is not tied to any particular manufacturer. For example, Goltens’ specialist environmental subsidiary, Goltens Green Technologies, has access to Goltens’ subsidiaries and worldwide network of partner companies to ensure ready availability of service and spare parts. In fact, the company regards service as “possibly the most crucial step in the long-term perspective.”

The Damen Group takes a similar approach. Although the company offers its own BWMS solutions it works with several major system manufacturers in order to provide packages that will continue to ensure compliance. It too puts great emphasis on life cycle support, being able to provide maintenance and system support through its global network of ship repair yards.

Most system manufacturers have addressed the servicing questions, and are able to handle repair and maintenance work either through their own servicing network or through partner installers and repair companies.

Ecochlor, for example, takes steps to continue interaction with individual vessels after installation, which the company considers sets it apart from other manufacturers. Part of Ecochlor’s after-sales activity includes resupply of chemicals and, as long as time allows, this process may include a review of the system, along with any required preventative maintenance, by a certified technician, thus ensuring the system is always ready to operate.

Tom Perlich, Ecochlor’s president, said that shipboard engineers can verify that the system is working correctly through the use of the human machine interfaces (HMI) and programmable logic controllers. The HMI includes a series of screens that allow crew members to monitor the BWMS operation. If operational parameters are

not met warnings and alarms indicate which parameters are not within specification.

Its engineers and technicians can have remote access to the system to assist in fault diagnosis. It also has an agreement with Drew Marine to provide a worldwide network of service engineers, with a global supply chain delivering to more than 900 ports to support its logistics, maintenance and chemical re-supply services.

Wärtsilä Marine Solutions is another manufacturer that addresses ongoing maintenance and claims to be the only company to offer customers maintenance contract support for a BWMS installation. Joe Thomas, its director, ballast water management systems, said that it has the largest through-life support network available, covering 70 countries.

“Our aim is to support the customer and provide peace of mind that there is always someone available or at the end of the phone,” he said.

Cathelco too offers a network of service points, which combines its own subsidiary companies, a

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

network of agents and installers and partner shipyards and marine engineers. Its system incorporates fail-safe features that should reduce the need for maintenance, such as monitors to track parameters such as water temperature, UV lamp intensity and flow. This ensures that the system cannot run without water in it. In addition, a ballast water by-pass system is provided in the unlikely event of a system failure.

Calgon Carbon’s Hyde Guardian BWMS, which employs filtration followed by UV treatment, is also backed by a global network of partner companies to support its own service engineers. Continuous monitoring will alert the ship’s engineers if any part develops a fault or there is a deterioration in system performance. Hyde product manager Mark Riggio pointed out that the system has been designed for easy troubleshooting and repair, and customers are encouraged to use their systems and provide feedback. “With most customers not purchasing full redundancy in BWMS, the effectiveness and availability of service support will be key to long term

performance,” he said.

Mark Kustermans, marketing manager for Canada’s Trojan Marinex, acknowledged the importance of good servicing arrangements and suggested that shipowners should keep that factor in mind when selecting a system.

Depending on which BWMS is chosen, “annual operational expenses can range from 3 per cent to more than 15 per cent of the capital cost of the treatment equipment,” he said.

“A significant portion of these expenditures only occur in later years when replacement and maintenance of the equipment become necessary, so owners deciding to keep a vessel for more than threeto-five years should consider OPEX as an important factor.”

Its own system is fitted with a graphical touchscreen interface that provides clear indications of system status, he said. In the event of it malfunctioning, alarm messages are displayed informing the shipboard engineer of the problem. “The system is designed to alarm and, in certain cases, will shut down if unsafe conditions occur,” he said. BWTT

Servicing the UV components on a Cathelco BWMS

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

GFDO_2520_4

GF Piping Systems

Long-lasting solutions Quality and efficiency from one source • Accurate and reliable • Light and durable • Marine approved

Visit us at booth D05 – 33 in hall D at

www.gfps.com

Be safe with PERACLEAN Ocean Make sure alien species do not use YOUR ship.

The preparation PERACLEAN® Ocean of Evonik provides a highly efficacious and environmentally benign treatment of ballast water.

Decades of experience and production facilities on all continents provide Evonik with the necessary expertise and size to stand for know-how and security of supply.

PERACLEAN® Ocean is the chemical compound in the AVITALISTM BWTS, supplied by TeamTec AS, Norway that is particularly suited for large bulkers and tankers because of its very low energy demand, simple installation and handling as well as reliable efficacy in all types of water.

For detailed information please visit www.evonik.com/peraclean-ocean or contact us directly.

For PERACLEAN® Ocean Evonik Resource Efficiency GmbH Active Oxygens Rodenbacher Chaussee 4 63457 Hanau Germany Phone +49 6181 59-5326 Fax +49 6181 59-75326 peraclean-ocean@evonik.com www.evonik.com/peraclean-ocean

For AVITALISTM BWTS TeamTec A/S Nyvei 41 4902 Tvedestrand Norway Phone + 47 3719 9800 bwts@teamtec.no www.teamtec.no

0099_17_az_peraclean_ocean_190x62mm_englisch.indd 1

09.03.17 18:11

TM

I

Scheduled for US Coast Guard Approval during 2017

RS

SINCE

19 BERS R UB

TE

G

N

OSLO

| HIPP

TEC

84

O

-S

TO IN C IN E RA

N

R

2017

S TA N D

N°C 05-17

AM

SC

30 - JUN E AY 2|

M

| | EJ E CTO RS

TeamTec AS | Nyvei 41 | P.O. Box 203 | N-4902 Tvedestrand | Norway Switchboard: +47 37 19 98 00 | Mail: office@teamtec.no| teamtec.no

AVI_annonse190x62_B.indd 2

09/03/17 16:15

CASE STUDY | 65

Small vessels; big choices Alan Clare, fleet superintendent at Ireland’s Corrib Ship Management, explains how he selected a BWMS for small general cargo vessels

C

orrib Shipping Group operates four small general cargo vessels varying from 3,500 dwt to 6,000 dwt. They operate between the Baltic Sea to northern Europe with occasional voyages to the Mediterranean.

They operate in a range of salinities and temperatures – below zero for much of the time in the Baltic in the winter. Turbidity will also vary. In addition, there is limited space and limited spare electrical power.

We conducted a survey of the company’s chief engineers and marine superintendents to seek their views on these factors. We asked them to rate the importance to them of factors such as physical size, electrical requirement, operational conditions, potential health risks, training requirement and hours of work. The answers generally identified all these as important, but the level of importance varied.

We selected a shortlist of three systems: one using electrochlorination (EC) technology and two UV-based systems, which I will call UV1 and UV2.

All the systems were IMO-approved and matched the maximum flow rate of the ballast pumps.

They were compared by reviewing how they coped with varying salinity, water temperature and turbidity; their size, electrical requirements, training needs, operating manhours and health risks.

Salinity is very low in the Baltic so this was an important factor for the

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

The cramped machinery space where the BWMS will be fitted (credit: Corrib Shipping Group)

EC. The manufacturer advised that this would not be a problem if the vessel retained ballast from a previous voyage that had adequate salinity. But our vessels can load and discharge in the Baltic: would they have enough salinity onboard for EC operation?

Low temperature is not an issue for the EC plant down to -2°C but it can affect UV plants if slush and ice is present. I assumed, however, that the filters would remove slush and ice before it entered the plant. Turbidity can affect some UV systems and both UV options that we looked at did have a limit as to what they can treat, but this was below 50 per cent UV transmittance.

A small footprint was very important as the enginerooms are tightly packed.

Remember that if there is free space in an engineroom it may be needed to access existing machinery. The EC unit was the largest and UV2 the smallest.

Electrical requirements are dictated by the need for enough spare power to close the hatch covers immediately.

If a vessel is loading a cargo such as fertiliser, its hatch covers must be closed immediately if it starts raining. Of our shortlisted trio, UV2 had the lowest maximum requirement.

Training is needed to operate the system correctly but it can help to reduce resistance to change, which causes stress.

All respondents in our survey said the chief engineer’s working hours would increase, which could raise the risk of accidents and a potential breach of the hours of rest requirements.

A treatment plant that was fully automatic and with low maintenance would help to avoid these problems.

Among our three systems under review, all were fully automatic but the EC plant required slightly higher maintenance.

There are potential health risks from treated ballast water from disinfection by-products (DBPs). The owner of the Corrib Shipping Group prefers to use a system without an active substance to reduce potential health risks to crew and the population around port areas.

After evaluating three plants, UV2 was chosen. It was the smallest, it had the lowest electrical requirement, it worked in all the conditions the company vessels were likely to encounter, it had low maintenance and it was fully automatic. BWTT • This study is based on a paper presented at the Sixth IMarEST Ballast Water Technology Conference in January 2017

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

66 | CASE STUDY

Failing to plan is planning to fail Timing and planning are critical, believes Matt Granitto, Evoqua Water Technologies’ business manager, ballast water (USA)

W

hen Evoqua Water Technologies was contracted last year by a tanker owner to retrofit our SeaCure ballast water management system (BWMS) onto two of its ships, our first thoughts were about the timescale.

Timing and planning are absolutely the most critical aspects of any ballast water management system installation, particularly a retrofit. Get these wrong and everything increases: risks, project time, costs. Certainly the absolute minimum time to plan for a retrofit installation is five months prior to undertaking the actual work. Anything less and it is unlikely the project will be completed during the vessel's scheduled drydock.

Pre-planning ultimately minimises the risks involved and allows all parties to optimise their time and resources appropriately so that no further steel cutting and hot works are required when the system is installed and commissioned at a later date.

Evoqua has now completed the pre-BWMS installation work for one vessel, preplanning for a second vessel will be more of a challenge

as both pre-preparation and installation work are expected to take place this year over a nine-day drydocking period.

The challenge has been to carry out the same detailed planning processes but also to figure in the full installation in what is a very rigid timeframe. The most difficult aspect of any tanker retrofit is the installation of filters and related equipment in the pump room adjacent to the cargo tanks, so we have taken a very close look at all the hazardous areas onboard so we can expedite this aspect of the project when the vessel drydocks.

Evoqua also advocates the early procurement of filters, valves and other third party equipment to ensure that suppliers have enough lead time.

Any delay in delivering key components will result in significant costs to the owner, but effective planning also allows the owner and shipyard to get the necessary approvals in place and fabricate filter foundations and other structures prior to the vessel docking down. It also helps to mitigate any minor works or the ergonomic re-siting of

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

Evoqua’s SeaCure BWMS is being retrofitted to two tankers (credit: Evoqua)

components for maintenance practicality. If the minor details are overlooked, expect major delays.

Extensive pre-planning, project flexibility and smooth collaboration between the system manufacturer, shipyard and shipowner will result in a successful ballast water treatment system installation. So it is vitally important that parties take a flexible approach to any in-situ modifications that will inevitably be required.

Typically, retrofit projects have been based on collaboration between shipowner, shipyard, manufacturer and an engineering company often acting as project manager.

However, Evoqua believes that system manufacturers will begin taking more of a project management role, negating the requirement for contracting a separate engineering company.

This model will become the norm as the BWMS retrofit market develops.

With the retrofit market expected to balloon in the next five years, everybody is learning now how to move projects forward safely, efficiently and cost-effectively without financial risk to the shipowner. As such, we see system manufacturers beginning to take on full project management responsibility. While this removes a considerable amount of risk from the owner and places it squarely with the manufacturer, the model is much more costeffective and expedient from an owner’s perspective.

The SeaCure systems Evoqua is currently in the process of retrofitting have been designed to treat 5,000 m³/h of ballast water. The company is also providing the retrofit engineering services, commissioning, start-up and two-year preventive maintenance services. BWTT

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

CASE STUDY | 67

Expect the unexpected W

ith three days left in the NS Power’s drydock schedule it became a race against time.

It was discovered that a ballast water flow meter integral to the Ecochlor ballast water management system (BWMS) was broken and this particular part can take up to a month to deliver. My team jumped into action and located one that was the right size in a warehouse in Amsterdam.

Ecochlor, together with the superintendent engineer, worked through the night to get the replacement to the Viktor Lenac Shipyard in Croatia by the next day.

SCF Novoship Technical Management, the owner of NS Power, contracted Argo Navis Marine Consulting & Engineering for the retrofit installation of an Ecochlor BWMS on its vessel. Class society DNV GL was involved in this complex retrofit from the initial engineering designs to installation review and approvals. In this sort of project, teamwork between all the stakeholders, the shipowner, the shipyard, the engineering firms and the BWMS manufacturer, is essential for a successful installation.

NS Power is a chemical/ oil products tanker with submerged ballast pumps and a total ballast tank capacity of 20,186m3 and gave us many challenges to address for the retrofit. Identifying an appropriate location for the filter installation is difficult on vessels with submerged ballast pumps.

The approach was to locate the filters within a deckhouse on the main deck close to accessible ballast pump piping.

For this installation, two

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Installing a BWMS on a 40,000 dwt chemical tanker required some quick thinking, reports Max Hasson, senior service engineer at Ecochlor filter deckhouses, symmetrical in respect of construction and internal arrangement, were fabricated and installed on the main deck, one each to port and starboard. These deckhouses were placed within a hazardous area of the vessel and required the filtration system and associated components to be rated for a Zone 1 hazardous location. A filter for the aft peak tank pump was installed in engineroom.

The Ecochlor BWMS, which

consists of chemical storage tanks, a chlorine dioxide generator and a control panel, was installed in a deckhouse on the main deck within reach of a vessel crane to support chemical resupply. However, this also required the treatment system to be placed within the Zone 1 hazardous area. Argo Navis resolved this issue by installing the deckhouse so that the interior was rated nonhazardous by elevating it 2.4 meters above the main deck.

Ballast water pipes were routed through the filter deckhouse (credit: Ecochlor)

The Ecochlor system can operate in temperatures down to 0°C, but NS Power is an ice class vessel and operates in temperatures as low as -30°C, so special provisions were necessary to prevent the ballast water and chemicals freezing.

To accomplish this, heating cables were strapped along the length of the pipes and around flanges, which were insulated with a layer of polyurethane.

NS Power was in dry dock for 32 days with five days required for commissioning the BWMS. There are many unavoidable constraints that can affect the time involved in a retrofit. It is important to remember that the shipyard is simultaneously providing maintenance and repair to the vessel and there may be access restrictions when multiple projects are being worked on in one space.

Every retrofit presents unique challenges and planning is crucial. Look for integration engineering firms with expertise in BWMS retrofits. Choose a shipyard that has experience installing your chosen system.

Engage the superintendent engineer early in the process so they understand the installation specifications.

And during the yard period, involve the crew. This will help towards a successful installation and when the system is in operation. And most important, be prepared for the unexpected issues that often happen in a retrofit. BWTT

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

68 | CASE STUDY

Installation in progress of Erma First’s BWMS. The new piping can be seen in blue (credit: Erma First)

Exploring all the options When Erma First was invited to tender for a ballast water management system on an LPG carrier, three options were explored, explains managing director Konstantinos Stampedakis

D

esigning and installing a ballast water management system (BWMS) on board a 35,000m3 LPG/NH3 carrier without affecting its safe operation was a challenging prospect. We had to find a location in the ship’s machinery space that would keep modifications to the existing piping systems and structural members to a minimum yet allow enough space around the equipment for maintenance. And it had to be the most cost-effective installation possible.

The ship’s total ballast capacity is 12,000m3, served by a pair of main ballast pumps mounted in the engineroom, each rated at 500 m3/h at a pressure of 2.5 bar. They serve ballast tanks to port and starboard, along with a forepeak tank so our initial onboard survey reviewed the existing ballast piping arrangements and the pressure drop in the system, as well as the space availability. Equally important was an assessment of the available power.

Erma First Fit BWMS uses a combination of separation and

electrochlorination and has two concepts available: the Erma First BWMS, which uses the most efficient filtration device available, a multi hydrocyclone, and the Erma First Fit arrangement, which is an advanced modular system that combines a high-end backwash filter and an electrolytic cell.

For the LPG carrier, the two main options we considered were based on the Erma First Fit arrangement.

Option One used a single 1,000 m3/h treatment system while Option Two was based around two 600 m3/h systems.

A third option was also considered, also using two 600 m3/h systems but with a different piping layout.

One of the early considerations was whether there was enough generator power. The ship has three generators: two of 1,215kW each and one of 740kW and its power consumption during unloading is 1,365kW. If one of the larger generators is kept on standby and the other two operate at 85 per cent load, that leaves 305.75kW of available power. This compares with power demand for Option One

Components needed for proposed BWMS options Component

Option One

Option Two

Electrolytic cell

1

2

40μm Filter

1

2

Transformer/rectifier

1

2

TRO sensors

2

3

Control board

1

2

Repeater panel

1

2

Flow meter

1

2

Dosing pump

1

2

Neutralising unit

1

1

Back flushing pump & valve

1

2

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

of 71kW and, for Option Two, 178kW. So there would be enough power for either choice.

After reviewing the complexity of the ballast lines for each option and the available space, the eventual choice was Option Two since it required the least piping. This minimised the pressure drop through the system which was calculated to be 0.3 bar, with a further 0.3 bar – at most – from the filter. This meant that no ballast pump upgrade was required.

The whole job took a year, from vendor selection in January 2016 through to installation in December, followed by commissioning. In fact, the design and plan approval of the installation was completed in nine months: it was the vessel’s operational obligations that determined the installation dates.

Those final stages involved just two Erma First staff and a total of 21 days and the only problems they faced were with some minor electrical components. It completed a successful project, on time, on budget and with minimal impact on the ship’s machinery space. BWTT

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Hatches are small, doorways narrow, and space limited.

So we combined filtration + UV in a single unit, and engineered a compact system that is up to 50% smaller than others.

trojanmarinex.com

BWTS BEYOND EXPECTATION

FULLY CERTIFIED

FLEXIBLE DESIGN

SMALL FOOTPRINT

SMART SAVINGS

IMO approved and USCG AMS accepted

exceeding all installation requirements

low power consumption zero maintenance

competitive CapEx low OpEx

CONTACT

OSLO

PIRAEUS

SHANGHAI

www.ermafirst.com info@ermafirst.com

+47 900 37 405 oslo@ermafirst.com

+30 210 40 93 000 piraeus@ermafirst.com

+86 131 20 975 096 shanghai@ermafirst.com

TRITECH ENGINEERS Turnkey Systems & Solutions

BALLAST WATER TREATMENT •

committed to the quality of the world fleet

We are committed to upholding the values of safety, security, and environmental protection. This is evidenced through the quality of our fleet and outstanding port State control record as the only major international flag to remain on the United States Coast Guard’s Qualship 21 roster for 12 consecutive years.

International Registries (U.K.) Limited in affiliation with the Marshall Islands Maritime & Corporate Administrators

london@register-iri.com blog.register-iri.com www.register-iri.com

• • • •

Meeting Compliance: Optimization of BWT for specific vessel type & trade pattern based on customized Efficacy and Opex Analysis – IMO/USCG Installation Plans: Site surveys- 3D Scanning- Working drawings- Technical specifications Plans for Approval & Compliance: Submissions to Class Society, Flag State, USCG Installation Support: – Supervision-Commissioning-Testing- Crew Training After Sales & Service support: OEM world wide service network

Contact : Tritech Engineers, 9 rue Baron Sainte Suzanne, Monte Carlo, 98000 Monaco Email: tritech@libello.com/sales @tritechmc.com Tel: + 377 640623839/640625726 Website;www.tritechmc.com

FINANCE | 71

Don’t bank on the bank Finding the money for ballast water management programmes may need some innovative thinking

A

cross the globe, shipping companies will invest billions of dollars in ballast water management systems (BWMSs) over the next few years. Even for small companies, the cost will run into millions with more to follow once the equipment goes into operation.

Maintenance, consumables and fuel are the most obvious operating costs, but there will also be other costs, such as crew training, that will add to the financial implications of meeting ballast water management requirements. And for those who fail port state control inspections, there will be costs associated with delays, not to mention lawyers’ fees and fines.

Unlike most investments, buying and running a BWMS is not generally seen as bringing any commercial benefit. And without any tangible return, many owners are finding that traditional sources of

SHIPOWERS’ FUNDING EXPECTATIONS FOR BWMS

Shipowner equity Bank finance BWMS makers Shipyards Other non-bank

21% * 19% 15% 12% 10%

* percentage of respondents expecting this to be their most important funding source Source: Moore Stephens

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

finance are lukewarm to their requests for backing. One shipowner expressed the views of many when asked about financing BWMS installations. It “is almost impossible – owners have no money for it,” he said.

He was responding to a survey carried out by the accountant and consultant Moore Stephens as part of its regular Shipping Confidence Survey, published in December 2016. Its research had included a question that asked respondents what they considered would be the most important source of funding for the installation of BWMSs. In its summary of their replies, the firm reported that 21 per cent of respondents felt that shipowner equity (shareholder funds) would provide the source of funding. Next came bank finance at 19 per cent, BWMS manufacturers at 15 per cent, shipyards at 12 per cent and other nonbank finance at 10 per cent.

Commenting on the report’s findings at the time, Moore Stephens partner for shipping and transport Richard Greiner said that in the current downturn companies “will need access to finance and to other resources to meet the challenges which lie ahead” and identified one of those challenges as “the ongoing regulatory environmental compliance programme,” such as meeting ballast treatment requirements.

In September last year – immediately after Finland ratified the BWMC, setting it on its year-long journey towards entry into force – the shipbroker Gibson predicted that the costs associated with compliance could result in some tankers being withdrawn from service. “The requirement for vessels to fit a BWMS at their next drydocking after September 2017 will create an additional and significant cost that will need to be recouped in the market,” the broker noted.

Alan McCarthy: “It is going to be really quite tricky” for some owners to find BWMS financing (credit: Riviera Maritime Media)

Raymond Ko (Marstrat): Shipowners must “actively deal with this challenge” (credit: Marstrat)

It is not just individual ships that could leave the market: some small- and medium-sized shipping companies may not be able to survive the financial impact of installing ballast water management systems (BWMSs), according to the marine finance consultant, Alan McCarthy.

Speaking to BWTT in November, he said that, with a lack of financing and funding, “it is going to be really quite tricky” for such companies. “Over the next two or three years we are going to see some quite profound impacts and changes on that

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

72 | FINANCE

sector of shipping.” Given the traditional ownership structures in the small-tomedium sized company sector, “no matter how passionately you feel about shipping if it is going to take away your family’s wealth you will stop doing it,” he said.

He had earlier addressed a seminar organised by the UK Chamber of Shipping, where he said that most large shipowners are funding installations out of cashflow and equity, but the poor state of the markets means that, for small- and medium-sized owners, “your equity went a long time ago.”

Shareholders are “the hardest people to convince to put more money into a business,” he said and, as for banks, financing equipment installations is not traditional shipping finance. In preparation for his presentation he had spoken to a few banks “and I have not found one that is even thinking of doing it.”

If traditional sources of funds are not readily available, what other options are there? The Geneva-based Ocean Assets Initiative considered this in a newsletter in January. The organisation’s mission is “to help finance solutions for healthy oceans

and coastal communities” and its founder, Michael Adams, acknowledged that, “with slower growth and some credit rating declines, debt solutions will not be cheap for many in the industry.”

He advocated that companies looking to finance ballast water management programmes should consider the green bond market, which he said would be “a perfect channel with a growing appetite for this kind of issue.”

Green Bonds were created to fund projects that have positive environmental benefits and may offer investors tax benefits.

The principles behind them were updated in June 2016 and, at the time of writing in mid-March, the International Capital Market Association (ICMA) reports on its website that “recent activity indicates that the market for Green Bonds is developing rapidly.”

The Climate Bonds Initiative monitors the Green Bonds market and records on its website that, globally, US$81 billion of Green Bonds were issued in 2016, which it expects to rise to US$150 billion this year.

Another approach was advocated in January by Raymond Ko, managing partner of the Dutch consultancy firm Marstrat. Mr Ko

specialises in maritime finance and addressed the Royal Association of Dutch Shipowners in December specifically on the question of funding retrofit BWMS installations.

He urged his audience of shipowners to “actively deal with this challenge” by engaging with shipyards and suppliers.

But he did not exclude banks from the equation: although “from a credit perspective, banks might not see valid reasons to leverage further on a vessel,” he said, “they have a clear interest in their security vessels being compliant and therefore marketable.”

They also have an interest in supporting sustainable shipping, he said, so a combination of funding could be a solution: bank facility increase, seller’s credit and owner’s funds.

He also discussed subsidy and guarantee schemes, such as those available through the European Investment Bank, but those “have proven challenging in the past given availability and size, even for the stronger owners.”

• Learn more about Green Bonds on the ICMA website via http://bit.ly/ICMA-Gbonds

BWMS suppliers offer credit to customers For shipowners looking for finance to cover the cost of their ballast water management system (BWMS) investment, a good starting point could be to ask the BWMS supplier. BWTT asked a number of leading BWMS makers whether they can arrange finance and a good proportion of them can.

Joe Thomas, managing director of Wärtsilä Water Systems, said it can “introduce customers to independent third party financing, which include funding plans covering part or all of the costs associated with equipment purchase, installation and through-life spares and service support.”

Alfa Laval offers a similar service. Its vice president Anders Lindmark, who is head of its PureBallast activities, acknowledged that project finance is “one of the challenges in the BWMS retrofit market” so it has developed “a financing solution for the purchase of the PureBallast system.”

In some countries, state support is available. In Norway, for example, funding is available from the government’s Eksportkreditt scheme, said Optimarin’s chief executive Tore Andersen. That gives access to loans for periods of up to 18 years

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

on competitive terms to finance purchases from Norwegian companies.

A similar scheme is available in the UK and Andrew Marshall, chief executive of Coldharbour Marine, said that the company has been working closely with UK Export Finance, “particularly for multimillion [pound] fleet installation contracts.”

The UK Government’s website sets out the scheme’s goal as “to ensure no viable UK export fails for lack of finance or insurance.”

Rasmus Folsø, chief executive of Desmi Ocean Guard, spoke of “very attractive financing possibilities” through Denmark’s Export Credit Foundation. “We can provide up to five years financing at 5 per cent interest,” he said.

At least one company – SunRui – is considering offering finance arrangements, although details are yet to be finalised.

Its goal will be that the arrangement will “achieve a win-win solution for both parties,” the company said in a statement.

Ian Stentiford, global vice president of Evoqua Water Technologies, pointed out that it is part of a much larger organisation that offers financing schemes in other areas

Ian Stentiford (Evoqua): “We would be prepared to embark on a leasing proposition with our customers” (credit: Evoqua)

of its business, so “we would be prepared to embark on a leasing proposition with our customers.” However, in practice, he said, no customer has yet said they cannot afford the equipment and asked for a leasing programme. “If they did, we would entertain it,” he said. BWTT

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Want to treat 3000 cu.mt/hr?

ACB 9200-600 the smallest large filter

FILTREX Corporate Headquarters: Via R. Rubattino 94/B - 20134 Milano (ITALY) tel: +39 027 533 841- fax: +39 027 531 383 - www.filtrex.it - info@filtrex.it

74 | PORT-BASED SYSTEMS

BOXED BALLAST UNITS WILL PROVIDE PORT TREATMENT Ports may provide ballast treatment services, but responsibility for their output is not yet clear

P

ort-based treatment systems are likely to see a surge in interest and importance in the coming years. IMO recognises them as acceptable alternatives to shipboard systems and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to do the same next year.

In October 2015 the EPA lost a court case when the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York said it had been wrong not to consider shorebased treatment solutions when it prepared its 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP). It allowed the existing VGP to remain “until the issuance of a new VGP,” without setting a deadline.

EPA confirmed to BWTT at the time that this would not be before its planned expiry date on 18 December 2018. No details are available about the form that the next VGP will take, but if it takes account of the court’s ruling, it should include a policy on portbased treatment.

Under IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC), there is scope for ‘other methods’ to be approved to treat ballast water, beyond those anticipated by the regulation, under its regulation B-3.7. That allows for the

development and approval of alternative treatment methods, provided they give equivalent protection to the environment as other approved methods.

When its Marine Environment Protection Committee held its 70th meeting (MEPC 70) in October 2016, its Ballast Water Review Group (BWRG) considered whether a specific example of a selfcontained BWMS should be viewed as an ‘other method’.

It looked at the BWTBoat concept that has been developed

by India’s classification society, IRClass, and decided that it did not need any special consideration as an ‘other method’, declaring that “the concept as described is within the regulatory framework of the BWMC … and no approval as an ‘other method’ … is required.”

In a statement to BWTT at the time, IRClass said “BWTBoat is not a new ‘treatment technology’. Instead it is an innovative method of using existing technology.”

Where appropriate, it said, recognised organisations such as class societies could assure port states that, for example, USCG type-approved systems are installed on BWTBoats.

BWTBoat could either treat

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

Edo Donkers (MEA-nl): “I don’t foresee many problems” over responsibility for meeting discharge standards (credit: Riviera Maritime Media)

ballast water at discharge or serve as a ballast provider, delivering treated water to departing vessels.

An IRClass representative had advised the BWRG that ships would receive delivery notes for treated ballast water and that port state control authorities should only be concerned about whether the water complied with Regulation D-2, rather than whether the ship had a BWMS. This invites a question about responsibility for ballast water that has been treated by a portbased system. If it were found not to be compliant, would the ship, the port or the system operator risk sanctions under the BWMC? BWTT raised this point during discussion at the Sixth IMarEST Ballast Water Technology Conference in January, at which papers had been presented by Matthijs

Schuiten, product manager of Damen Green Solutions, and Edo Donkers, business development manager at MEAnl, a ballast water research and testing organisation.

“This is one of the things that we are working on really hard,” said Mr Schuiten, suggesting that it has not been clarified at IMO. He proposed that the question should be dealt with direct with the treatment service provider, in much the same way that a bunker delivery contract sets out who would be responsible for any spill. Mr Donkers agreed that it could be managed as part of the treatment contract. As long as the contractor has clear instructions, “I don’t foresee many problems with this,” he said.

Speaking from the floor, Sahan Abeysekara, Lloyd’s Register’s lead specialist in engineering systems, suggested that it would be the treatment facility’s responsibility. If the ship is following an approved ballast water management plan, once the water has been discharged to the port facility, “most responsibility of the shipowner will end from that point,” he said.

Also speaking from the floor, Markus Helavuori, a technical officer in IMO’s Marine Environment Division, confirmed that this point has not yet been addressed by IMO. “If nothing is agreed and developed within IMO it would probably be up to the port state administration to determine how these responsibilities are handled,” he said.

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

PORT-BASED SYSTEMS | 75

DUTCH PORTS LEAD THE WORLD IN PORT BALLAST TREATMENT Mobile ballast treatment systems are to become available in all Dutch ports, thanks to an exclusive deal agreed between the Dutch liquid handling specialist MariFlex and Damen Green Solutions (DGS). It will be based on Damen’s containerised InvaSave treatment system, initially using two InvaSave units.

MariFlex president Ruus Cogels told BWTT in January that the deal was signed at the end of December. The system can be mounted on trucks or barges and taken to ships in port where it treats their ballast water on discharge.

Speaking a few days later, during the sixth IMarEST Ballast Water Technology Conference, Matthijs Schuiten, product manager of Damen Green Solutions, said that Groningen Seaports (GSP) will be the first to become operational “in the coming months”. Rotterdam will follow and “we are working very hard to roll this out worldwide,” he said.

Speaking at the conference on behalf of GSP, Edo Donkers, business development manager at MEA-nl, a ballast water research and testing organisation that has been involved in the project to bring port ballast systems to GSP, indicated that some state funding had been provided. He said that providing a

treatment system gave ports a commercial advantage, since customers will be reassured to know that the service exists.

Ports need to consider their contingency planning in the event that a ship arrives with untreated ballast, he said, which port-based systems can provide. But it also needs support from port authorities to enable harbour masters to require ships to use the facility if necessary. Their alternative, said Mr Schuiten, is to keep the ballast on board and reduce their cargo uptake, which would be a costly loss of revenue.

He also outlined non-emergency situations where port-based systems would be an ideal solution. For example, unmanned barges towed on international voyages cannot perform ballast water exchange because no one can go on board during the voyage and fitting treatment systems would be prohibitive.

For older ships of any type, fitting a treatment system may be uneconomic, so a port-based alternative would avoid scrapping those vessels.

• Damen Green Solutions has produced an animation of how a port-based service could work. Go to http://bit.ly/BWTT-INVS

Inside InvaSave: Damen’s containerised system will be available in Dutch ports (credit: Damen Green Solutions)

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Containerised system can be switched around

Containerised ballast water management systems suitable either for barges or other vessels have been developed by Ballast Water Containers (BWC) of the UK. Its prototype BWC Seaforth system began trials last August on a heavy-lift barge and the company’s co-founder and director, Chris McMenemy, described the system at the time as “a game-changer”.

It has a real-time testing device that checks the water as it is discharged and stops if it finds the water is non-compliant with the IMO and USCG discharge standards, he told BWTT. “No other system does that,” he added.

BWC also offers what it claims as “the industry’s most flexible ballast water compliance solution,” the BWC Bute. It can be used as a permanent deckmounted BWMS, as a mobile deck-mounted system that can be shared between vessels or as a port-based shared system, the company’s website notes.

That last role is suitable for vessels on a fixed route between a number of ports, particularly where vessels trade in and out of the same ports and can connect to the system during their visits, the company suggests.

Since the first US Coast Guard type-approval was awarded in December, both systems have been offered with a USCG-compliant system installed as an option. BWTT

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

GREEN SOLUTIONS

SOMETIMES INNOVATION IS ABOUT THINKING INSIDE THE BOX DAMEN INVASAVE 300

O U R U N I Q U E , I M O T Y P E A P P R O V E D B A L L A S T W AT E R T R E AT M E N T U N I T, I N VA S AV E 3 0 0 , P R O V I D E S P O R T O P E R AT O R S W I T H A N E W VA L U E A D D E D S E R V I C E .

The InvaSave is an alternative for on board treatment and completely self-sufficient.

With InvaSave technology, ballast water only needs treating at the point of discharge, in contrast to onboard installations.

WWW.DAMENGREEN.COM

OPNION | 77

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES A

s a research professor, I appreciate that perfect scientific experiments are often not possible and, having worked on the issue of ballast water invasive species since 1999, I have a deep understanding of the complexities and challenges associated with testing ballast water management systems (BWMSs) against specific discharge standards. However, while perfection is unrealistic, it is possible to be rigorous, consistent and transparent when testing BWMSs, which is necessary for ballast water regulations to succeed.

The shipping industry, and much of the world, is looking to US Coast Guard BWMS type-approval certifications to be the gold-standard that overcomes many of the problems associated with past IMO G8 Guidelines, and be granted only to BWMSs that will operate reliably and consistently meet discharge standards.

The USCG itself has stated that “robust, mandatory, consistent and transparent type-approval procedures coupled with testing protocols carried out by independent authorities are critical … to meet environmental goals.” Sadly, however, with the awarding of the first three USCG BWMS certifications, it is clear that the ‘emperor has no clothes’.

Significant problems with the USCG Independent Laboratory (IL) certification testing process are resulting in the same uncertainties and scepticisms that are associated with BWMSs certified under the G8 Guidelines and, although these problems have been brought to the attention of the USCG over the past few years, it has been unwilling or unable to address any of them.

One striking example is the current required test method for organisms >50µm, which is so flawed that it allows test facilities to ignore live larvae of zebra mussel and other molluscs, eggs of various species and large algal cells, simply because they often do not or cannot move on their own, so must be presumed dead.

All stakeholders, and most importantly shipowners who will bear the cost of

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

installing BWMSs and fines when found out of compliance, should be aware that: • USCG decisions and communications with ILs have been ad hoc, ambiguous, inconsistent and not transparent. This includes USCG providing ILs with completely opposite answers to the same question and, astonishingly, even something as basic as the number of test trials required for certification now being different for different ILs. • There is so little consistency or comparability in testing (and thus the probability of success) that the same BWMS will ‘pass’ at one IL and ‘fail’ at another, which is resulting in the system being ‘gamed’ in ways that maximise the likelihood of BWMS passing certification testing as quickly and inexpensively as possible, rather than obtaining robust, reliable and consistent test results.

• USCG set a precedent by denying the use of a specific test method (the ‘Most Probable Number’ analysis of organisms 10-50µm in size) but has not applied the same level of care and scrutiny to any other critical test methods, including fundamental issues such as sizing and counting organisms, artificially manipulating biogeochemical test water conditions, ballast water hold times, appropriate platforms for shipboard testing.

• USCG is not overseeing or even examining what is actually being done at ILs (no review of standard operating procedures or audits of facilities and activities), which test BWMSs on its behalf. Thus the scale of these problems in data quality, consistency and comparability may be far worse than we now know.

The good news is that there are solutions for the many problems but the USCG needs to focus on the goal of preventing invasive species and not simply certifying BWMSs. Unfortunately, although the USCG is well aware of the problems, its current approach to implementing the regulations falls well short of what is needed to minimise the risk of invasions, is unfair to BWMS vendors and shipowners, and leaves the public with the false impression that we have solved a large environmental and economic problem. BWTT

There are problems with the US Coast Guard’s type-approval process, believes Mario Tamburri, a research professor at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Mario Tamburri: Problems “may be far worse than we now know”

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

78 | OPNION

TAKE CARE OVER SELECTION AND INSTALLATION Installing a BWMS is expensive, so it is vital to get it right, says Tom Mackey, co-chair of the IMarEST* Ballast Water Experts Group (BWEG)

Tom Mackey (IMarEST): Take care to avoid basic engineering failures

I

MO’s Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) and USCG regulations are being, or soon will be, enforced.

Owners must quickly begin the difficult and expensive task of planning for, selecting, and installing ballast water management systems (BWMSs) and they must order them as soon as possible to avoid the system availability and installation support backlogs that are sure to occur. Owners operating in US waters should order or agree to purchase a system that is at least recognised as an ‘alternate management systems’ (AMS) by the USCG and should do it now.

Efforts to gather critical performance data from installed BWMSs require support from ship operators, port state control agencies and others, and it is not easy. IMO’s Correspondence Group on the Experience Building Phase of implementing the BWMC plans to help find the best way to gather this and other data. IMarEST’s BWEG also expects to be involved in this effort.

The large number and wide variety of BWMS that have or will soon obtain IMO and USCG type approval, complicates the selection process and creates many installation challenges. Proven reliability, supportability and robustness of the system are vital. The many safety and environmental challenges of BWMS operation aboard ship, including obtaining, storing and handling of chemicals for disinfection or neutralising and discharging chemical residues and disinfection by-products, must be part of the decision process. An analysis of the manufacturers’ service support capability and the BWMS’ capabilities for reliable automated operation and continuous self-monitoring of performance and safe operation must also be considered.

Despite significant research and effort evaluating the cost of BWMS installations, much less has been invested in the significant impacts that improper installation can have on vessel operations. Supplier experience has revealed three primary areas that need to be addressed during the initial design and planning phase to ensure successful installations: ballast pump performance, filter

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

clogging and piping losses.

Mark Riggio of Hyde Marine addressed some of these points during IMarEST’s sixth Ballast Water Conference in January 2017, and I found his analysis compelling. He pointed out that ships are built with ballast pumps to match their loading capacity. So when a BWMS is installed on a vessel with a centrifugal ballast pump, it will invariably increase the discharge head, reducing flow.

Often just a small pressure increase may lengthen ballasting time to 150 or 200 per cent of design and shipowners must take account of this if their vessels are configured in that way.

The most prevalent flow problem is unacceptable performance of automatic backflushing filters. Ballast water filters typically rely on the differential pressure between their clean side and the drain line and clean side pressure depends on screen cleanliness, system pump pressure, back pressure on the piping system, and head losses in the drain line. Drain pressure is affected by position, draught, and piping design.

Each of these factors changes from vessel to vessel and dynamically during ballasting so it is critical that designers control and optimise the pressure differential to ensure proper filter and system performance.

Other details to avoid include unnecessarily long, or less than ideal, piping configurations. Piping is often done in conditions that prevent proper internal coating and subsequent rust or fouling often adds significant backpressure to the system.

Numerous added fittings, spools, valves, and other equipment can quickly increase the overall head loss in the ballast system.

Failure to follow these basic engineering principles and placing too much reliance on the manufacturers and installers to simply “make the system work” may result in systems that cannot meet expectations – with no fault on the BWMS itself. My advice, then is simple: Proper preparation is essential! BWTT *Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

our name is our principle

The heart and soul for your UV BWTS equipment – made in Germany – The heart: Our medium pressure UV lamps We develop and manufacture most powerful UV lamps at highest quality standards to achieve excellent lifetime and utmost UV efficiency.

High quality UV solutions for water treatment.

The soul: Our electronic lamp controls The ELC® X series combines excellent lamp control performance with highest reliability in marine environment applications.

Heraeus Noblelight offers UV ballast water disinfection lamps and power supplies.

The body: Our electronic lamp control cabinets The ELC® X cabinet series builds the perfect frame for our ELC® including power distribution and EMC filtering.

Connect a bus cable with PLC and get started!

Your process challenges: High temperature of the environment Vibration of equipment Humid ambient air Many On/Off-cycles

Our highly flexible engineering and manufacturing guarantees perfect integration into your UV ballast water treatment system.

eta plus electronics gmbh www.eta-uv.de

Because clean water is a matter of trust: Think UV. Think Heraeus.

Contact us at: hng-uv@heraeus.com www.heraeus-noblelight.com

80 | BEST OF THE WEB

BEST OF THE WEB

ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Log on to our website to keep track of the latest industry news USCG addresses ‘misunderstandings’ over its extensions policy New advice on extensions for compliance with the US Coast Guard’s (USCG’s) ballast water management regulations has been issued in response to “widespread misunderstanding of the previously issued guidance”, according to a blog post in March by Rear Adm Paul Thomas, assistant commandant for prevention policy at the USCG. That advice is contained in a Marine Safety Information Bulletin, MSIB 003/17.

It confirmed extensions are still available in some circumstances but said that the length of extension will be based on the analysis provided in the extension request. http://bit.ly/USCG-Ext

IMO’s ballast management guide is ready for approval Work on IMO’s planned publication Ballast Water Management – How to do it was completed during the fourth session of its sub-committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR 4), which took place in January. Its draft text will be considered during MEPC 71 in July for final approval.

“It is intended to be a living manual, to be updated if needed,” a spokeswoman for IMO’s secretariat told BWTT. The manual will be “important and useful for states that have yet to ratify the treaty,” she added.

It will provide advice on the process of ratification, implementation and enforcement of the BWMC and will give practical information to authorities and the industry about the implications of ratifying, implementing and enforcing the BWMC. http://bit.ly/IMO-Bal-Guide

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

P&I clubs may not cover fines for ballast discharges Shipowners threatened with fines over defective ballast water discharges may find they get no financial support from their P&I club. The Standard P&I Club responded to proceedings started in February by the US Coast Guard against the bulk carrier Vega Mars over ballast discharges.

In a statement, the club said that “in such cases, members will be required to satisfy the board that all reasonable steps had been taken to avoid the event giving rise to the fine.” The ship’s own club did not comment on the situation. http://bit.ly/PI-Ballast

Liberia to offer advice on USCG enforcement action Liberia is planning to offer advice to shipowners in the wake of the proceedings being brought against a Liberian-registered ship, Vega Mars, for alleged infringement of ballast water discharge standards.

In a statement to BWTT, a spokesman for the flag’s administrator, LISCR, said that “an update on recent USCG enforcement actions is planned.”

The statement did not say whether the planned update will take the form of an amendment to its Marine Advisory 14-2016, issued in October 2016, or if it will be specifically offering advice on how to respond to USCG enforcement action. http://bit.ly/Lib-Bal

Evoqua’s Chinese deal will spur licensed production Evoqua Water Technologies is to licence production of its SeaCure ballast water management system to Hai Cheung, a

Hong Kong-based engineering company.

The company will initially supply and service Evoqua’s electrochlorinationbased equipment for Chinese shipyards with manufacturing in China following in a second phase of the agreement.

Hai Cheung’s manager for the marine equipment business, spoke of a growth period of three years to grow the business in China. http://bit.ly/Evoq-China

SunRui applies for USCG type-approval China’s SunRui applied for US Coast Guard (USCG) type-approval in January for its BalClor ballast water management system, making it the fourth company to apply for approval. Its application had been expected in the ballast treatment community for some time.

It completed its shipboard tests in April 2016 and its land-based tests in November 2015, working with DNV GL as its independent laboratory.

SunRui is a division of China Shipbuilding Industry Co and had already secured a large number of orders in Chinese yards, including orders announced in November 2016 to supply its equipment to 20 VLOCs and 10 VLCCs. http://bit.ly/SunR-TA

US ballast water discharges to grow as LNG exports boom Growing LNG exports from the US could “drive a massive increase in ballast water flux to the US” resulting in “large effects on transfer of non-native organisms,” according to researchers at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC).

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

BEST OF THE WEB | 81

In a paper published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, they explored how the shift from the US being a net LNG importer to being a net exporter will lead to an increase in vessel movements, with many arriving empty with ballast to discharge. The paper concluded: “While this linkage between energy markets and biological invasions is largely unexplored, understanding how invasion risk is coupled with trade dynamics of specific commodities is crucial to developing successful management strategies.” http://bit.ly/LNG-Ballast

Enquiries boost for latest USCG type-approved systems Type-approvals granted by the US Coast Guard (USCG) to two ballast water management systems on 23 December led to an immediate boost in enquiries. The systems involved are made by OceanSaver of Norway and Sweden’s Alfa Laval, which received approval for two variations of its third generation ballast water treatment system, PureBallast.

OceanSaver becomes the first electrochlorination-based treatment technology to receive USCG typeapproval. Alfa Laval’s system uses UV irradiation and its approval covered flows of 150-3,000 m3/h based on its 300 and 1,000 m3/h reactor sizes.

Type-approvals for its larger sizes were expected to follow. http://bit.ly/TA-Boost

Wärtsilä grants licence for CSSC to make its BWMS Wärtsilä signed a manufacturing licence agreement in December that allows China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) to manufacture its Aquarius EC (electrochlorination) ballast water management system under licence. It has a six-year initial term.

The deal is with CSSC’s subsidiary, Jiujiang Precision Measuring Technology Research Institute. It will manufacture the system for CSSC newbuild and retrofit projects. CSSC’s products will be supplied with Wärtsilä type-approval.

Wärtsilä Marine Solutions director ballast water management systems Joe Thomas told BWTT that it does not cover Wärtsilä’s UV-based system, since CSSC has its own OceanDoctor UV system. http://bit.ly/War-Bal-Lic

USCG awards first BWMS type-approval to Optimarin The US Coast Guard awarded its first ballast water management system type-

approval certificate in December, to Optimarin of Norway for its Optimarin Ballast System. Speaking to BWTT, Optimarin’s chief executive Tore Andersen said the company “expects this to be the ticket to get more orders” and was confident it had sufficient capacity “to increase deliveries as far as the market is willing to purchase.” http://bit.ly/USCG-Opt

Liberia boss regrets flag’s BWMC ratification A key decision maker behind Liberia’s ratification of IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) has said that, with hindsight, it was not the right decision. Scott Bergeron, chief executive of the Liberian International Ship & Corporate Registry (LISCR), which manages Liberia’s ship register, told BWTT: “I was personally very reluctant to do it and, in retrospect, I would have waited.”

At the time he was persuaded by arguments put forward by shipowner organisations that its entry into force would prevent unilateral ballast water regulations being introduced in various parts of the world.

But the BWMC contained “fundamental flaws that IMO keeps having to relearn,” he said. http://bit.ly/Lib-Regret

To view more whitepapers visit the Knowledge Bank on www.containerst.com To upload a whitepaper to the Knowledge Bank, please email Steve Edwards at steve.edwards@rivieramm.com www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk/s/knowledgebank/

Editor’s selection:

Editor’s comment:

Ocean Health and the Future of Global Ballast Water Regulations

This analysis paints an alarming picture. But with a revised G8 Guidelines due to come into effect and measures described in this guide to oversee USCG’s independent laboratories, some of its worries may be allayed. It proposes some robust responses from IMO and others to ensure confidence in treatment systems, which is vital to the whole treatment project.

This paper outlines the author’s concerns about testing procedures – for both IMO and USCG standards – and the problems this will pose for regulators. Shipowners need “absolute confidence” that they will be able to comply with discharge standards, the paper says.

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

Sign up to receive our weekly newsletter and get a free 30 day trial to our website

Just visit www.mpropulsion.com

DIRECTORY | 83

Ballast water treatment systems BWMS MANUFACTURER

ACTIVE SUBSTANCE APPROVAL*

SYSTEM TYPE APPROVAL

USCG AMS**

Yes 2015/01

Y

Yes 2011/03

Y

Yes 2014/02

Y

Yes 2012/06

Y

Yes 2012/10

Y

WEBSITE

COUNTRY

BWMS NAME

PROCESS

Ahead Ocean technology

www.aheadocean. en.ec21.com

China

Ahead

Filtration, UV

Alfa Laval

www.alfalaval.com

Sweden

PureBallast 2.0

Filtration, UV

Alfa Laval

www.alfalaval.com

Sweden

PureBallast 3.0

Filtration, UV

www.aquaeng.kr

Korea

AquaStar

Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

www.auramarine.com

Finland

CrystalBallast

Filtration, UV

www.acgmarine.com

Italy

ELCOLCELL BTs

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Bawat

www.bawat.dk

Denmark

Bawat

Heat, Deoxygenation

Yes 2014/10

Y

Bio UV

www.bio-uv.com

France

Bio-Sea

Filtration, UV

Yes 2013/02

Y

Bio UV

www.bio-uv.com

France

Bio-Sea Low flow

Filtration UV

Yes 2015/12

y

www.cathelco.com

UK

Filtration, UV

Yes 2014/05

Y

www. coldharbourmarine.com

UK

GLD

Ultrasound, Deoxygenation

Yes 2015/02

Y

www.cosco.com

China

Blue Ocean Shield

Cyclonic, Filtration, UV

Yes 2011/02

Y

Dalian Maritime University

www.dlmu.edu.cn

China

DMU-OH

Filtration, Advanced oxidation

Basic 2012/03

No

De Nora Water Technologies

www.balpure.com

USA

Balpure

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2010/10

Yes 2011/07

Y

Desmi Ocean Guard

www.desmioceanguard. com

Denmark

Oxyclean

Filtration, UV, Ozonation

Final 2012/10

Yes 2012/11

Y

Desmi Ocean Guard

www.desmioceanguard. com

Denmark

Rayclean

Filtration, UV

Yes 2014/09

Y

www.dow.com

Singapore

Dow Pinnacle

Filtration, Ozonation

None

No

www.ecochlor.com

USA

Ecochlor

Filtration, Chlorination

Final 2010/10

Yes 2011/11

www.hitachizosen.co.jp

Japan

Ecomarine-EC

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2015/04

No

www.ecospec.com

Singapore

Semb-Eco LUV

Filtration, UV, ULF Wave

Yes 2016/07

www.bwts.cn

China

Seascape

Filtration, UV

Yes 2013/12

Aqua Engineering

Auramarine

Azienda Chimica Genovese

Cathelco

Coldharbour Marine

COSCO

Dow Chemical Pacific

Ecochlor

Ecomarine Technology Research Association

Ecospec / Sembcorp Marine

Elite Marine BWTS Corp.

Final 2011/03

Final 2012/03

Basic 2014/03

USCG TYPEAPPROVAL

2016/12

No

Y

Applied for 2017/3

Y

*Systems with ‘active substance approval status’ under IMO’s G9 requirements have either Final or Basic approval or None.

For systems following IMOs G8 route, which do not need this approval, this column is blank. ** USCG AMS status is indicated but without any date, since some systems have multiple dates depending on system variants.

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

84 | DIRECTORY

WEBSITE

COUNTRY

BWMS NAME

PROCESS

ACTIVE SUBSTANCE APPROVAL*

www.eco-enviro.com

USA

InTank

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

None

Envirotech

www.blueseas.com.sg

Singapore

BlueSeas

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Basic 2011/07

No

Envirotech

www.blueseas.com.sg

Singapore

BlueWorld

Filtration, Chlorination

Basic 2011/07

No

Erma First

www.ermafirst.com

Greece

ESK Engineering

Cyclonic, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2012/03

Yes 2012/05

Y

Erma First

www.ermafirst.com

Greece

FIT

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

None

Yes 2015/01

Y

www.evoqua.com/ seacure

Germany

Seacure

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2012/03

Yes 2014/02

Y

Ferrate Treatment technologies

www.ferratetreatment. com

USA

Ferrate

Ferrate

Flow Water Technologies

www. flowwatertechnologies. com

Cyprus

FlowSafe

Filtration, Electrochlorination

None

No

GEA Westfalia

www.westfaliaseparator.com

Germany

BallastMaster EcoP

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Basic 2011/07

No

GEA Westfalia

www.westfaliaseparator.com

Germany

BallastMaster UltraV

Filtration, UV

Yes 2011/12 and 2014/08

www.gensysgroup.com

Germany

BAWAC

UV

No

www.hanlaims.com

Korea

EcoGuardian

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2013/05

Yes 2015/05

y

www.headwaytech.com

China

OceanGuard

Filtration, Advanced oxidation, Electrocatalysis

Final 2010/10

Yes 2011/03

Y

www.htmarine.com.au

Australia

SeaSafe-3

Heat

www.hitachi.com

Japan

ClearBallast

Filtration, Flocculation

Final 2009/07

Yes 2010/03

www.hsma.com

Korea

HS Ballast

Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Basic 2012/10

No

www.hydemarine.com

USA

Hyde Guardian / Gold

Filtration, UV

Hyundai HI

www.hhi.co.kr

Korea

EcoBallast

Filtration, UV

Hyundai HI

www.hhi.co.kr

Korea

HiBallast

JFE Engineering

www.jfe-eng.co.jp

Japan

JFE Engineering

www.jfe-eng.co.jp

BWMS MANUFACTURER

Envirocleanse

Evoqua Siemens

Gensys

Hanla IMS

Headway Technology

Hi Tech Marine

Hitachi

Hwaseung

Hyde Marine

Jiangsu Nanji Machiinery

Jiujiang PMTR Institute

USCG AMS**

Y

Yes 1997

Y

Final 2010/03

Yes 2011/03

Y

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2011/07

Yes 2011/11

Y

BallastAce

Filtration, Chlorination

Final 2010/03

Yes 2010/05

Y

Japan

NeoChlor Marine

Filtration, Chlorination

Final 2012/10

Yes 2013/06

www.jsnj.com

China

NiBallast

Filtration, Memb, Deoxygenation

www.oceandoctor.cn

China

Ocean Doctor

Filtration, UV, Advanced oxidation

Singapore

Varuna

Singapore

ElysisGuard

www.kalf.sg

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

USCG TYPEAPPROVAL

No

Yes 2009/04

Kadalneer Technologies

KALF Engineering

SYSTEM TYPE APPROVAL

Yes 2013/01

Y

Final 2013/05

Yes 2013/12

Y

Filtration, Electrochlorination

Basic 2015/04

No

Filtration, Electrochlorination

Basic 2014/10

No

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

FREE ACCESS

TO TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION FOR MARINE & OFFSHORE PROFESSIONALS

Take advantage of the Maritime Technology Knowledge Bank.

• A unique, free to access resource for the global shipping industry • Access whitepapers and technical documentation covering every aspect of maritime technology, equipment and new products.

www.ballastwatermanagement.co/knowledgebank

DIRECTORY | 87

WEBSITE

COUNTRY

BWMS NAME

PROCESS

ACTIVE SUBSTANCE APPROVAL*

SYSTEM TYPE APPROVAL

Katayama Chemical

www.katayama-chem. co.jp

Japan

SPO System

Filtration, Chemical, Cavitation

Basic 2011/07

No

Katayama Chemical/Nippon Yuka Kogyo

www.katayama-chem. co.jp

Japan

Sky System

Chemical

Final 2014/04

Yes 2014/10

y

Knutsen Technology

www.knutsenoas.com

Norway

KBAL

Pressure vacuum, UV

Yes 2012/11

Y

www.marinobnc. com/en

Korea

Marinomate (ex KTM)

Cavitation, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2014/10

Yes 2016/03

Y

www.kuraray.co.jp

Japan

Microfade

Filtration, Chlorination

Final 2012/03

Yes 2012/05

Y

www.kurita.co.jp

Japan

KURITA

Chemical

Final 2014/10

No

Kwang San

www.kwangsan.com

Korea

EnBallast

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Basic 2010/03

No

Kwang San

www.kwangsan.com

Korea

BioViolet

Filtration, UV

Yes 2015/04

Y

www.mahleindustrialFiltrationration. com

Germany

Ocean Protection System OPS

Filtration, UV

Yes 2011/04

Y

www.mhsystemscorp. com

USA

Deoxygenation

No

Mitsui Engineering

www.mes.co.jp

Japan

FineBallast OZ

Filtration, Ozonation, Cavitation

Mitsui Engineering

www.mes.co.jp

Japan

FineBallast MF

Membrane Filtration

Yes 2013/11

www.miuraz.co.jp

Japan

Miura BWMS

Filtration, UV

Yes 2014/03

Y

www.mmcgt.no

Norway

MMC

Filtration, UV

Yes 2012/12

Y

www.nei-marine.com

USA

VOS

Deoxygenation, Cavitation

Yes 2009/09

Y

NK Co

www.nkcf.com

Korea

Nk-Cl BlueBallast

Chemical

Final 2016/04

No

NuTech O3/NK Co

www.nkcf.com

Korea

BlueBallast

Ozonation

Final 2009/07

Yes 2009/07

Y

www.oceansaver.com

Norway

MkII

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination, Deoxygenation

Final 2008/10

Yes 2011/12

Y

2016/12

Optimarin

www.optimarin.com

Norway

OBS

Filtration, UV

Yes 2009/11

Y

2016/12

Panasia

http://ccpanox.com/ gloen-patrol

Korea

GloEn-Saver

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Basic 2012/10

No

Panasia

http://ccpanox.com/ gloen-patrol

Korea

GloEn-Patrol

Filtration, UV

Final 2010/03

Yes 2009/12

www.panasonic.co.jp

Japan

ATPS-Blue

Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2016/04

No

www.redoxmaritime.no

Norway

Redox

Filtration, Ozonation, UV

Basic 2013/05

No

www.rwo.de

Germany

CleanBallast

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2009/07

Yes 2010/09

Y

www.samkunok.com

Korea

ARA

Filtration, Plasma, UV

Final 2010/10

Yes 2012/06

Y

BWMS MANUFACTURER

Korea Top Marine

Kuraray

Kurita Water Industries

Mahle

MH Systems

MIURA

MMC Green Technology

NEI Treatment Systems

OceanSaver

Panasonic Environmental Systems & Engineering

Redox Maritime Technologies

RWO

Samkun Century

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

Final 2010/10

Yes 2011/07

USCG AMS**

USCG TYPEAPPROVAL

Y

Y

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

88 | DIRECTORY

WEBSITE

COUNTRY

BWMS NAME

PROCESS

ACTIVE SUBSTANCE APPROVAL*

SYSTEM TYPE APPROVAL

Samsung HI

www.shi.samsung.co.kr

Korea

Neo-Purimar

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2012/03

No

Samsung HI

www.shi.samsung.com

Korea

Purimar

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2011/07

Yes 2011/10

Y

Shanghai Cyeco Environmental Technology

www.cyecomarine.com

China

Cyeco

Filtration, UV

Yes 2012/06

Y

Shanghai Hengyuan Marine Equipment

www.sh-hengyaun.com

China

HY-BWMS

Filtration, UV

Yes 2013/08

Y

China

BALWAT

Filtration, UV

Yes 2013/02

www.sh-lees.com/en/ about.php

China

LeesGreen

Filtration, UV

Yes 2016/01

www.stxmetal.co.kr

Korea

SmartBallast

Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2012/10

Yes 2013/10

Y

www.sunboind.co.kr

Korea

BlueZone

Ozonation

Final 2014/10

Yes 2015/09

y

www.sunrui.net

China

BalClor

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2010/10

Yes 2011/01

Y

www.teamtec.no

Norway/ Germany

AVITALIS

Filtration, Chemical

Final 2014/03

No

Techcross

www.techcross.net

Korea

ECS-HyChem

Filtration, Chemical

Final 2016/10

No

Techcross

www.techcross.net

Korea

ECS-HyChlor

Filtration, Electrochlorination

Final 2016/04

No

Techcross

www.techcross.net

Korea

ECS-Hybrid

Filtration, UV, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Basic 2015/04

No

Techcross

www.techcross.net

Korea

Electro-Cleen

Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

Final 2008/10

Yes 2008/12

Y

www.trojanmarinex. com

Canada

Marinex

Filtration, UV

Yes 2014/03

Y

Ulmatec Pyro

www.ulmatec.no

Norway

Heat

No

University of Strathclyde

www.strath.ac.uk

UK

Van Oord

www.vanoord.com

Netherlands

Wärtsilä

www.wartsila.com

Finland

Aquarius UV

Filtration, UV

Wärtsilä

www.wartsila.com

Finland

Aquarius EC

Filtration, Electrolysis/ Electrochlorination

www.bsky.cn

China

BSKY

www.pactchina.com

China

www.zjyingpeng.com

China

BWMS MANUFACTURER

Shanghai Jiazhou Environmental Mechanical & Electrical Shanghai LEE'S FUDA Electromechanical Science & Technology Co STX Metals

SunBo Industries

SunRui

TeamTec (Evonik)

Trojan

Wuxi Bright Sky

Yi Xing PACT Environmental Technology

Zhejiang Yingpeng

Ballast Water Treatment Technology 2017

ClearBal

Chemical

Basic 2016/10

No

Fresh water, Chlorination

Basic 2013/05 (1)

Yes 2015/11

USCG AMS**

Yes 2012/12

Y

Yes 2013/12

Y

Filtration, UV

Yes 2011/03

Y

PACT Marine

Filtration, UV

Yes 2014/07

Y

YP-BWMS

Filtration, UV

Yes 2015/02

Y

Final 2012/10

USCG TYPEAPPROVAL

Applied for 2017/1

www.ballastwatermanagement.co.uk

European Ballast Water Treatment Technology conference

24 April 2017, Amsterdam

BOOK ONLINE AT

www.bwttconference.com

Compliance through cost-effective approved solutions

Platinum sponsor

The European Ballast Water Treatment Technology Conference takes place on 24th April 2017 in Amsterdam.

With an entry-into-force date of 8 September 2017 now set for IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention, many owners and operators will be making important decisions about ballast water treatment when this conference takes place in late April. Shipbroker Gibson has even suggested that one decision for owners is whether to keep their ships in service. To help inform these decisions, the conference programme has been developed based on detailed discussions with many shipowners and others involved in deciding ballast water management strategy.

Gold sponsors

The event provides a comprehensive update on regulations, technology and management strategies dealing with cost and compliance. Key industry bodies will share their latest initiatives and best practice guidelines and leading technology companies will present their latest solutions.

What you will learn • How to ensure compliance with IMO and USCG regulations • How to deal with port state control • Which type-approved BWM solutions are right for your fleet • What factors to consider when developing retrofit and newbuild strategies

Silver sponsors

The conference will also hear expert discussion on • Technology financing options • Case studies of user experiences with different ballast treatment solutions • The latest approved BWM solutions

Hyde

®

Marine

Ballast Water Management Technology

A CALG O N CAR BO N CO M PANY

For sponsorship and exhibition opportunities or to book your place today contact Paul Dowling on +44 20 8370 7014 or at paul.dowling@rivieramm.com

www.bwttconference.com/book-now

Brought to you by