BWTS: It Doesnt Have to Be a Four-Letter Word

Ballast water treatment systems will soon be mandated by both the IMO and U.S. Coast Guard. Are you ready?

By Tony Munoz

Hitching a Ride:

Since ancient man began exploring the world around him by water, a species of some sort has caught a ride and begun breaching the biogeographic barriers that had existed for millions of years. These invading creatures have altered the evolutionary process by competitive exclusion, displacement, hybridization and predatory behavior, all of which can and have led to the extinction of indigenous species. The invaders themselves have evolved and mutated and changed the biological environment – with grave consequences.

- - - - - - - - - -

The global maritime industry is well aware that the proverbial clock is ticking for compliance with the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Ballast Water Management Convention. For companies operating in U.S. waters, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) regulations will basically mirror the IMO Convention, but compliance with California, Wisconsin and New York’s more stringent requirements will be difficult at best. Like it or not, it’s for vessel operators to get their houses in order and begin contemplating the right ballast water treatment system (BWTS) for their fleets.

The IMO has been addressing the issue of invasive species since the late 1970s as have the U.S. and many other maritime nations. Both the U.S. and IMO began legislatively addressing the issue in 1998 and set forth voluntary Ballast Water Exchange (BWE) programs. In 2004, both the IMO and U.S. mandated BWE, and the IMO adopted its Ballast Water Management Convention, which is expected to be ratified by the required 30 member states this year. In the U.S., issuance by the USCG of the final rule for BWTS has been pushed back till April. Additionally, states like California, New York and Wisconsin are threatening to implement standards 100 to 1,000 times more stringent than the IMO or U.S. standards. 

The Mega-Dollar Problem

The global invasive species problem is estimated to cost about $1.5 trillion worldwide annually in terms of control, clean-up, economic losses and environmental damage. The IMO estimates losses to the U.S. economy from invasive species to be about $138 billion annually. Since the late 1800s the Great Lakes bordering Canada and the U.S. have had over 180 nonindigenous species introduced into their waters. In the U.S., at least 21 billion gallons of ballast water are discharged annually. San Francisco Bay is considered by scientists to be one of the most invaded ecosystems in the world and has become a virtual laboratory for invasive species. But invasive species is a global issue, and international shipping is the primary culprit. Every country with a waterway is dealing with it, and governments are demanding that ships become environmentally safe in their waters.

The cumulative investment required for some 50,000+ maritime vessels to install BWTS over the next decade is estimated to be about $34.3 billion. No question lots of BWTS manufacturers are trying to sell their wares, but earning approvals from the IMO and USCG has not been an easy task. In fact, it has taken decades of scientific development to meet international standards.

Hyde Marine has been involved with BWTS since 1996 when it partnered with the University of Michigan to study potential technologies. Hyde began testing equipment in 2000 when it installed a prototype on the Regal Princess. “Our company has been working with the USCG since 2000 and installed the Hyde Guardian system on both the Coral Princess and the Celebrity Mercury,” said Tom Mackey, the company’s Founder. “We are working very hard to be the first to be granted equivalency by the Coast Guard. Essentially, when the Coast Guard completes its ruling in April 2011, which is about the same time the IMO Convention is expected to be ratified, many of the IMO Type Approved ballast water treatment system that also meet USCG standards will earn a Certificate of Equivalency. While there are many different treatment systems, not all will earn certification.”

Who’s On First? Convoluted Government Messages 

To ensure effective implementation of its regulations, the IMO has set a roadmap for shipowners to follow. Regulation D-1, the Ballast Water Exchange Standard, requires all ships to achieve a 95 percent efficiency rate and maintain an approved “Ballast Water and Sediments Management Plan.” Regulation D-2 sets forth performance standards and requires all ships to install ballast water treatment systems between 2014 and 2016. The performance standards limit discharges to fewer than 10 viable organisms of 50 microns or larger per cubic meter and fewer than 10 viable organisms of 10 to 50 microns per milliliter. Systems that use an “active substance” must be further approved and certified by the IMO member state. Regarding implementation, ballast water exchange is permitted until certain dates based on the ship’s age and ballast water capacity and, thereafter, it must have an approved onboard ballast water treatment system installed and running.

Kjetil Leine, Vice President of Operations for Goltens, a global ship repair company, urges shipowners: “In order to meet the compliance schedules of both the IMO and USCG, it is vitally important to plan ahead. While it is tempting to wait, shipowners do not want to endanger their operations and should begin planning now. We foresee a major shortage in the market from 2015 to 2017. Moreover, there are about twelve systems that have received IMO approval and another seven or so in the pipeline. For most vessels, suitable systems exist, but some vessels will require an extensive makeover of the existing engine room and equipment may have to be relocated.” He adds that it’s in everyone’s interest to have the Ballast Water Convention ratified as soon as possible so that there is one standard

In the U.S, the proposed federal regulations are expected to be more stringent than the IMO’s. But states like California, Wisconsin and New York are pushing for much higher standards, as permitted under the Clean Water Act. Whether the technology exists to meet those standards (it doesn’t), or will exist by the time the standards are imposed, is anybody’s guess.

BWT Science Becoming Mainstream

Developing a BWTS that meets the requirements of the IMO Convention and can be scaled effectively to meet specific flow rates without undue complexity and space requirements is among the greatest challenges for manufacturers. In the case of a retrofit, the system must be designed for adaptability, and there are many special considerations, particularly on ships where a system must be installed in a hazardous area. In the case of a newbuild, and for some retrofits with smaller flow rates, it may be desirable to have the system skid-mounted at the factory and delivered as a turnkey system. 

Alfa Laval claims the first chemical-free BWTS approved by the IMO. “Our company has sold 120 units, and there are 30 in operation today. In fact, it’s now in its second generation, the PureBallast 2.0, which consumes less power,” says John Atanasio, President and CEO of Alfa Laval US. “The PureBallast 2.0 Ex version is ideal for tankers and other vessels with potentially explosive environments. It’s designed for Zone 1, group IIC and temperature class T4. These reinforced AOT units are equipped with temperature and fluid-level protection, ventilated and pressure-controlled lamp drive cabinets, and cabinet placement outside the Ex zone. The unit is protected from explosion of gases in ballast water by elimination of the ignition source and designed to stop gas from entering from surroundings and can withstand an explosion from within without transmitting energy to the surrounds.”

Roger Stevens, Environmental Business Stream Manager at Wilhelmsen Maritime Services, noted that his company is second to none in terms of its global service network. “The performance of the BWTS can impact a vessel’s operations, which will require the ship to go 200 nautical miles offshore to do a ballast water exchange. This alone emphasizes the importance of having a wide-reaching and reliable service and support network,” he noted. Wilhelmsen’s Unitor BWTS received its Final and Type Approvals in 2010, thereby demonstrating its ability to meet the D-2 performance standards of the IMO Convention. Stevens added that “The USCG will announce its BWTS standards in April. This will pave the way for the rollout of the USCG Type approval program, but until then neither Unitor nor any other system can claim compliance.” 

Hyde’s Tom Mackey noted that more than 80 IMO Type Approved Hyde Guardian systems had been delivered or ordered with capacities ranging from 60 to 2500 m3/hr, including a ten-ship order for Suezmax crude oil tankers with three systems each. Earlier deliveries included the British Navy’s Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers. “Even though the BW Convention was not ratified and technologies were immature, it was decided to fit these warships with BW systems,” he explained. “A selection process was initiated and assessed by three groups – commercial, technical and support teams – who all conducted independent reviews. Two bids were commercially and technically compliant and the best perceived value was the Hyde Guardian.” 

A major sticking point for manufacturers and scientists is the concept of “equivalency” as many think it should be replaced with “comparability.” This was the intent of the original framers of the regulations, who envisioned the use of mathematical modeling and/or calculations in scaling. The danger is that overly restrictive rules can result in unwieldy systems that are ineffective and vulnerable to performance issues. Even when the IMO Convention is ratified, certain port states may introduce more demanding standards. Newbuildings with keels laid during 2010 and later will need Type-approved systems installed and operating when the ship is delivered. Existing ships will need to comply by 2016, and many before that.

“The Wärtsilä BWT 500i is the first and only integrated BWTS to have both treatment steps, filtration and UV irradiation performed in the same housing,” offered Tom Nyman, General Manager, Water Solutions, Environmental Services for Wärtsilä. “The system is built for maximum efficacy while minimizing the required installation space. Trojan Technologies is responsible for the design of the system, which is based on its leading UV lamp technology and water treatment experience. We are presently at the IMO approval stage and expect full approval to be granted this year.”

“The quality control and validation procedures utilized in most existing IMO certifications are unlikely to meet the U.S. requirements,” Nyman added. “We think equivalency with U.S. Coast Guard standards will be a major issue for most existing systems approved by IMO. As a result, we have chosen to conduct more comprehensive testing of our systems by land-based and/or ship-based methods, testing each model in our product suite to ensure compliance with both IMO and U.S. Coast Guard standards.”

Alfa Laval’s Atanasio stated that “Our approach to BWT is determined not only by legislation surrounding it but also by the important demands of shipyards, vessel owners and ship operators. Our next-generation PureBallast 2.0 incorporates the full spectrum of installation and operational needs as well as lessons learned in years of full-scale, real-life operations at sea. The 2.0 system has a low lifecycle cost with few consumables and requires only minimal maintenance while running on 40 percent less power.”

The Quest for Standardization

Throughout its 50-year history, the IMO has addressed major global issues in order to standardize international regulations. Yet despite its significant efforts in this regard, some member states will have unilateral responses to regulations. The same is true in the U.S. as individual states claim authority to regulate their own waters under the Clean Water Act. The approval of a global ballast water treatment standard is only the latest case in point. But one thing’s for sure: If a vessel-operating company hasn’t seriously addressed the cost and conformance of its BWT policies and operations, the days of reckoning are upon you. – MarEx

Tony Munoz is Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of The Maritime Executive.