–
BWM Convention already counts ten years of existence with 14 guidelines to have been developed, 27 group of expert meetings, 42 systems have been type approved and another 20 are in the pipeline. As per today 38 countries have ratified the Convention which represents the 30.38% of the World Fleet Tonnage. Therefore 4.5% is still missing. Further to these the US Coast Guard has published the final rule summer 2014. So, there have been so many things in the last 10 years related to Ballast water!
But what is the actual problem and its consequences? An average of 10,000 billion tons of ballast water has been transported yearly. Daily, 10,000 different organisms have been transported from one estuary to the other through ships ballast water tanks. So you can see that we’re talking about huge quantities of water and a big number of organisms transported. At the same time the United States citizens have already identify the problem and have undertaken measures to reduce this uncontrolled transportation. Already affected areas have regulated droplets of water which can be stored even on a leisure craft hull or motor. It is evidenced that the public concern has already been raised and we cannot keep ignoring these threats. Many people believe that it is too late. Is this true? There are several opinions about this question. The scientific community though believes that it’s not too late. From relevant charts can be seen that there are several high density public areas which have not been affected yet, so we will support and protect these areas while at the same time the already affected areas will come sooner in a biological balance as long as the uncontrolled transportation of these species will eliminate. So there is still hope.
Technologies are mature enough nowadays. Each system should contain at least a separation space just to remove large organisms and sediments while at the same time it needs a disinfection stage to kill or eliminate pathogens and the remaining organisms.
During the last 10 years, there have been so many challenges which all of them raised from the shipping community, while at the same time the vendors and legislators have manage to solve them in time. For instance, back in 2008 administrations were reluctant to ratify the Convention due to the lack of many type approved systems. Back those days, there were only three type approved systems. Today already 42 systems hold Type Approval. So there has been a huge progress.
In 2010 the corrosion issue was raised. After extensive studies, from both vendors and IMO, it has been proved that when treated ballast water with active substance with less than 10 mg per litre concentration enters a balanced tank there is no corrosion issue. In 2011, we faced some operation and safety issues such as hydrogen production, however, after several risk assessments it has been proved that the correct design of the system eliminates these risks. At the same year we had the phase 1 and phase 2 of United State coastguards which became really sound.
In 2012 we faced some operational limitations like turbidity, low salinity, and low-temperature waters. The vendors immediately upgraded all of their systems in order to be able to work efficiently under these extreme water conditions. In 2013 we faced sampling issues. As per today, there are already in the market few so-called quick and dirty methods which can prove if your treated water is complies with Convention’s discharge standards or not. At the same year we had also the big question about the robustness on type approval process, but in 2013 the United States Coast Guard finalized the ETV which is the methodology of testing a ballast water treatment system, while at the same year G9 guidelines have been amended. In 2014, we are hearing about the amendment of G8 guidelines as well as transparency. . As you can see the interests reflection are quick and accurate.
For the choice of the BWTS we’ve got two decision-makers. The shipyards which decision is based on price, installation cost, 12 months guarantee and convenience for the builder, while at the same time on the other hand side, we have ship owners operators and principals who are looking for low running cost, operation reliability, robustness of the system, trust on the vendor and the technology and after sales support, as well as, existence of the vendors in the future.
Today, especially in new buildings, which vessels are equipped with the Ballast water treatment system the decision comes from the yard. No concern has been raised from the ship builder so far. So, what is happening in cases where the choice of the shipyard for BWTS fails to meet these standards? This is a question that no one can answer at the moment. The missing puzzle though is concern of the ship owners but at the same time, ship owners are not heavily getting involved in the decision of the BWTS in a new building.
When ship owners will start involved on the BWTS choice then this missing puzzle will come back to its place. Having said that the choice criteria today based on emotional criteria and not technical. Ship owners would like to feel much confident to trust a vendor, they can rely on the vendor and the system, they can find vendor who is committed, supportive and able to back him up in case that something goes wrong. They want a vendor who marries its products, they want transparency, they don’t want to see changes of the UV dosage or TRO dosage without an explanation and of course they want vendors who seek for knowledge.
What about the next day? Frankly speaking, all of us are looking for the Silver Bullet Technology, meaning a technology with low capital cost, low footprint, low operational cost and high-efficiency. They only way to achieve this is to follow the path below:
First of all, install systems, operate them, then monitor their performance, report the performance and finally, based on these reports, optimize them. This is the only way to develop systems and make operational outside the sterilized environment of a testing facility.
To our opinion, delaying the installation of systems will result to more ‘what if concerns’ and more expensive equipment. I dare to compare BWTS systems vs STP ; the cost of certifying a STP is much more expensive than the STP. For STP we take only 40 samples whereas for BWTS we take about 3000 samples. More testing will result in higher cost which it will be added on the price of the system. Moreover, by delaying the installation of systems, we make more suspicious and concerned administrations. The optimization process will be slower; the community asks for better systems but at the same time no one is willing to install systems and run them. So how can we optimize the systems? There will be more expensive last-minute choices; to our big surprise the last two months we have received few desperate emails and phone calls from ship owners who have forgotten to ask for extension and they had to install a BWTS at the next dry dock in two or three months’ time. All they wanted to know if there was any in stock which was AMS approval. They didn’t care about cost, technology or even hydraulic capacity. We believe that these cases will become more often.
At ERMA FIRST, we believe that we cover the ship owner in many aspects due to our 30 years’ experience on the construction installation and after sales support of marine equipment. ERMA FIRST system has been tested at the most well-known reputable facilities. The test results have been open to public since the first day. ERMA FIRST has already developed additional equipment for the challenging retrofitting market and is committed to the Greek ship owners.
Above article is an edited version of Konstantinos Stampedakis presentation during2014 GREEN4SEA Forum
More details may be found by viewing hisPresentation video