Shipping

The Ballast Water Management Convention
Status, content and things to be aware of
Kjetil Martinsen
June 2012
BWM-2010-12
Agenda
Status
Ratification Application Entry into force Implementation Yard capacity BWM Plan Technologies Approval status Considerations
Ballast Water Management Convention March 2011 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 2
The Ballast Water Management Convention

Environment & Health Aims to minimize
- transfer of invasive aquatic species between ecosystems - transfer of bacteria harmful to human health
Examples
- Great lakes, Canada
- Sea lampreys - Zebra Mussels
- Argentina & Brazil

- Golden mussels
- Pandemic outbreak, South America

- Cholera
Background for the Convention

BBC - UK
Agenda
Status
Ratification Entry into force Application Implementation Yard capacity BWM Plan Technologies Approval status Considerations
The 2004 Ballast Water Management Convention

The Convention was adopted in 2004 Entry into force 12 months after signing by:
- 30 states, representing - 35% of world merchant shipping tonnage
Ratification is likely to happen in 2012
Requirements for ratification:

Status as per June 2012:
30
35
Requirements for ratification: Status as per June 2012:
35% 27.95%
6 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.
7.05% to ratification
Country
Panama Bahamas Hong Kong Singapore Greece Malta China Cyprus Germany
% GT
22,95 % 5,57 % 5,01 % 4,89 % 4,71 % 4,02 % 3,22 % 2,54 % 1,94 %
GT
180868 43927 39509 38576 37138 31649 25358 20033 15282
Italy
Japan
1,69 %
1,56 % 1,26 % 1,22 % 1,09 %
13318
12290 9913 9620 8567
Ratification & local requirements Local requirements Ratification
Denmark Antigua & Barbuda India
Finland
0,18 %
1458
Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.
Ballast Water Management Convention

The Ballast Water Management Convention requires
- Ship-specific Ballast Water Management Plan approved by Administration onboard - Ballast water record book onboard - Ballast water exchange (Regulation D-1) - Approved ballast water treatment system (Regulation D-2)
The Convention will require compliance for all ships and offshore structures regardless of age and size
BW Management Standards
Exchange standard (reg. D-1)

95% Exchange 200nm & 200m deep; or 50nm & 200m deep Methods Sequential Flow through Dilution
BW Management Standards
Treatment standard (reg. D-2)

Organisms >50 microns <10 organisms per m3 Organisms =>10 microns <50 microns <10 organisms per ml Vibrio cholerae <1 cfu per 100ml Escherichia coli <250 cfu per 100ml Intestinal enterococci <100 cfu per 100ml
10
Ships constructed prior to 2009 (Reg. B-3)
2012
2013
2014
2016
<1500 m3
Exchange or treatment
Treatment
1500 -5000 m3
Exchange or Treatment
Treatment
>5000 m3
Treatment
Ratification Entry into force

Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 11
1st Intermediate /renewal survey
Ships constructed between 2009-2011(Reg. B-3)
2012
2013
2016
<1500 m3
Treatment
1500 -5000 m3
Treatment
>5000 m3
Treatment

Ships constructed on or after 2012 (Reg. B-3)
2012
2013
<1500 m3
Treatment
1500 -5000 m3
Treatment
>5000 m3
Treatment

Application
Applies -Party of the Convention -Sailing in waters of a Party Does not apply
International BWM Certificate
Excemption Reg A-4

Based on risk analysis according to G7
Ballast free ships
Local operation (FlagTrade same)
Local operation (Flag of party operation under other party only)
Navy Ships
Premanent ballast
Exceptions Reg A-3
Between specified ports
5 Years period
Emergency
Accidents
Inn/out in high seas
Inn/out at same location
Ships can be granted exemption from a Party or Parties in waters under their jurisdiction
A risk assessment of spreading of invasive organisms via ships ballast water can be undertaken to give exemption from the regulation
The US Coast Guard BW Regulations
The new USCG Regulations (33 CFR part 151 & 46 CFR part 162) will enter into force 2012-06-21 All ships calling at US ports and intending to discharge ballast must either do exchange or treatment, in addition to fouling and sediment management Treatment must be done by either a USCG Type Approved system or a system Type Approved by another Administration which the USCG has accepted The treatment discharge standard is the same as the IMO BWM Convention D-2 standard
Ballast Water Management Convention 2012-03-29 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 16
The US Coast Guard BW regulations
The new USCG regulations follow similar definitions as the IMO Scaling of BWT systems have requirements similar to those of BWM.2/Circ.33 In cases of emergency or malfunction of the treatment system, the USCG may allow the use of BW exchange as a contingency When calling a US port, DNV recommends that ships report all activities related to Ballast water at least 24 hours before arrival, as required by the USCG regulations
Additional requirements in the new regulations
Clean ballast tanks regularly to remove sediments Rinse anchors and chains when the anchor is retrieved Remove fouling from the hull, piping and tanks on a regular basis Maintain a BWM Plan that includes the above in addition to BW Management (no requirements for approval of the BWM Plan) Maintain records of ballast and fouling management
Submit a report form 24 hours before calling a US port

Implementation schedule of the USCG treatment standard

Ballast water capacity New ships All Construction date Compliance date
On or after 2013-12-01
On delivery First scheduled drydocking after 2016-01-01 First scheduled drydocking after 2014-01-01 First scheduled drydocking after 2016-01-01
Less than 1500 m3
Before 2013-12-01
Existing ships 1500 m3 to 5000 m3
Before 2013-12-01
Greater than 5000 m3 Before 2013-12-01
Agenda
Status
There will be a spread of the actual implementation year for all ships built before 2012
The longer it takes for the ratification to take place, the more congested this situation will look
Agenda
Status
Manufacturers type approval by DNV (1)

Manufacturer Alfa Laval OceanSaver Optimarin Headway Marine Technology Auramarine Knutsen OAS Trojan UV MMC Sunrui Company NK Co., Ltd. BWT System PureBallast 2.0/2.0 Ex OceanSaver Optimarin Ballast System (OBS) OceanGuard BWMS Crystal Ballast BWMS KBAL Wartsila BWT MMC BWMS Balclor BWMS BlueSeas NK-O3 Technologies Advanced Oxidization + filtration Cavitation + electrolysis + saturation + filtration UV + filtration Electrocatalysis + filtration + ultrasound UV + filtration Pressure drop + UV UV + filtration UV + filtration Electrolysis + filtration Ozonation Active Substances Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Stage of approval Type Approved Type Approved Type Approved Type Approved Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Final Approval Final Approval Other approval No No No CCS (China) No No No No CCS (China) Korea
23
Manufacturers type approval by DNV (2)

Manufacturer Panasia Co., Ltd. Techcross BWT System GloEn-Patrol Electro-Cleen System PACT BWMS Technologies UV + filtration Electrolysis Active Substances No Yes Stage of approval Submitted Final Approval / Submitted Submitted Other approval Korea Korea
PACT Environmental Techonology Ltd., Co. Fujian Newland EnTech Ltd.,Co. Redox Marinetech Co. Elite Marine Ballast Water Treatment Corp.
UV + filtration
No
No
Fujian BWMS Redox BWMS CleanSeaWay BWMS Seascape BWMS
UV + filtration UV + filtration + ozonation Dual frequence control + UV UV + Ultrasound + filtration
No Yes No
Submitted Ongoing Submitted Submitted
No No No No
24
Manufacturers approval status by other Administrations (1)

Manufacturer BWT System Technologies Active Substances No Stage of approval Type Approved Approval body Marshall Islands Japan Japan Germany China China Germany Japan NEI Ventury Oxygen Stripping JFE BWMS Hitachi BWMS CleanBallast Blue Ocean Shield BWMS BSKY BWMS BalPure FineBallastOZ Deoxygenation
JFE Hitachi RWO China Ocean Shipping Company Kosco Severn Trent De Nora Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., LTD. Mahle
Chemical injection + filtration Filtration + coagulation + magnetic separation Filtration + electrolysis + electrochlorination UV + filtration UV + ultrasonic + filtration Filtration + electrolysis Cavitation + ozonation
Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
Type Approved Type Approved Type Approved Type Approved Type Approved Type Approved Type Approved
Ocean Protection System OPS
Filtration + pre-filtration + filtration
No
Type Approved
Germany
25
Manufacturers approval status by other Administrations (2)

Manufacturer BWT System Technologies Active Substances Stage of approval Approval body
HHI
EcoBallast
UV + filtration
Yes
Final Approval
South Korea
Japanese Association of Marine Safety
SP Hybrid
Cavitation + ozonation
Yes
Final Approval
Japan
Ecochlor
Ecochlor BWMS
Chemcial injection (ClO2)
Yes
Final Approval
Germany
21st Century Shipbuilding
ARA BWMS
Filtration + high energy plasma + UV
Yes
Final Approval
South Korea
Techwin Eco Co., LTD
Purimar System
Filtration + electrolysis
Yes
Final Approval
Korea
26
Technologies ups & downs
Filters
Ups Downs Self cleaning Efficiency in high sediments waters Easy installation Easy maintenance Flow rate reduction 316/316L candles Pressure drop
UV
Ups Efficient Easy installation Minimal safety issues Independent of salinity Downs High sediments waters Power consumption 316/316L chamber 2-ways treatment
Electrolysis
Ups Onboard disinfection Efficient 1-way treatment Downs Salinity Power consumption Hydrogen Corrosion
Cavitation
Ups Efficient Independent of salinity Downs Pressure drop
Chemical injection
Ups Low cost 1-way treatment Easy installation Downs Safety Storage Corrosion
Ozonation
Ups Efficient Independent of salinity 1-way treatment Downs Corrosion Safety
De-oxygenation
Ups Corrosion Easy installation Downs Efficiency Maintenance of IG system Holding time High fuel cost producing IG
DNV Services Advisory
Decision support for owners

- Criteria rating manufacturers and ship types - Ship types assessment done with the Managers/Owners - Results in recommendation on which system is most suitable for an individual ship
DNV feasibility study
Example Decision support for owners

Based on the decided weighting criteria the shortlisted systems are rated individually based on the different criteria thus providing a solid foundation for decisions.
ECA: Scrubber / LNG / low sulphur diesel ?
Agenda
1. Background
2. The three main ECA solutions
2. Selection process and tools
38
Demanding regulatory timeline

CO2
SOx
NOx
Ballast
39
The three main ECA solutions
1. Background
40
Low Sulphur Fuel
+
A safe, proven and available solution Reduces SOx, and PM Available globally through current bunkering system Very limited investments needed (pump parts etc) Limited additional crew training required Bunker recording regime already established
~40% OPEX-increase; an expensive ECA solution over time Risk of engine shutdown during switchover, potential ship adrift and in danger
?
Distillate availability/ -Refinery capacity around the globe?
Future distillate costs increases even more than oil?
Low flash point challenges

Increasing concentration of abrasive cat fines Does not help meeting new NOx demands 2016 newbuilds
Is 0,1% the actual quality?
41
Fuel Switch: areas of challenge

The main issues are: Low viscosity Lubricity Acidity Flashpoint Ignition and combustion quality (MGO) (MGO/MDO) (MGO/MDO/HFO) (MGO/MDO/HFO) (HFO)*
Increased catalytic fines
(HFO)*
* May be affected through blending with some Cutter Stocks
42
Scrubbers + HFO
+
Often the most costeffective solution Very efficient SOx (and particulate) removal under right conditions Well established theory, long track record No need for new fuel tanks, new fuel supply routines etc Easier to refit than LNG
Space requirements, structure & stability
?
Ability to perform in all operating modes ? Marinification? Corrosion? Capability of operating in series with NOx abatement technology and exhaust gas boilers Sludge production and disposal, Port State Controls in this regard How to prove compliance (air/sea)
Quite extensive integration with ship

Requires operators attention and maintenance Fuel penalty Does not help meeting new NOx demands 2016 newbuilds
Manufacturer and installation capacity?
43
Categorisation of EGCS systems and main suppliers

Manufacturers
Dry systems
Couple Systems
Exhaust Gas Scrubbers for Marine Use

Wet systems
Open loop
Marine Exh. Sol. Hamworthy Ecospec
Hybrid (Open/Closed)
Clean Marine Belco Clean Air Aalborg industries Hamworthy Green Tech Marine
Closed loop
Wartsila
44
LNG as fuel
+
A safe, proven and available solution Reduces NOx, SOx, PM, CO2 Particularly suitable for fixed trading routes Boosting CSR profile
Additional CAPEX needs No worldwide bunkering and fuel standards Inadequate LNG bunkering grid LNG tank steals space onboard Lagging 2-stroke market No experience from industrial shipping
?
LNG fuel prices De-coupling of LNG price from oil price? Price pressure from land based LNG consumers?
Rate of bunker grid expansion

Development of spaceefficient LNG tanks Dual fuel vs mono fuel engines?
Can give supreme NPV
Additional training and certificates
45
LNG: Technically proven, safe in operation

40 years of LNG tanker operation Used as marine fuel since 2001, now in 20 ships, and growing Class rules in place, IMO regulations in the pipeline Relatively high CAPEX, OPEX highly dependent on the LNG market price To consider
LNG availability and future price Government incentive schemes Infrastructure development pace Retrofit, or newbuildings only Safety record due to higher than normal safety focus
~ 15%
Reduced CO2 / GHG
~ 100%
Reduced SOx and Particulates
46
8590%
Reduced NOx
The European LNG bunkering grid

Bod
Existing bunkering facilities Planned bunkering facilities Proposed bunkering facilities
Flor Porvoo Mongstad ra CCB Halhjem Lysekil Nynshamn Paldiski and Tallin Snurrevarden Gteborg Risavika Hirtshals Klapeida Teesside Hamburg Swinoujscie Rostock Rotterdam Zeebrgge
Dunkerque
LNG bunker can be delivered by truck for small volumes of LNG supply to any remote area. This is done in the Oslofjord, Boknafjord etc.
However, Ship to Ship bunkering is a more permanent solution and seems viable in the Baltic Sea
Agenda
1. Background
48
DNV Approaches New Technology by Risk Methodology

Failure mode and criticality analysis
Hazard studies of Installation and operation
49
Economic Calculations
Model data Scenario data Fuel, interest rate, sailing patterns etc. Scrubbers SOx LNG User selection Measure combination Fuel price scenarios Time in ECA Operational profile SCR NOx Ship parameters
Model
analysis
Fuel Switch
Cost effective Solution
50
Additional cost for meeting SOX requirements in ECA for newbuild with 7000kW installed, 100% ECA operation
Compliance conditions: Assumptions
Abatement technology Retrofit / New-build Gas price Diesel price SOX
New-build European level European level
Ship type
Installed power
Reefer
ca. 7000 kW 100%
Time in ECA
Base Case
HFO
51
Summary
ECA poses a threat to traditional ship operation
- The risk picture is complex since many solutions are based on novel technologies. But upcoming positive developments!
The overall risk exposure can be reduced and managed by:

- Getting an overview of your various exposures to ECA - Manage your risk exposure and reduce where your ECA consequences are highest - Start planning now, involve your top management
ECA adaption can give competitive advantages!

Inadequate ECA performance can give: - Port detention, media coverage, break of IMO,EU,USCG regs. - High OPEX, Off-hire, reduced second hand value, market exclusion
Safeguarding life, property and the environment

www.dnv.com
53

Shipping

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shipping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ballast Water Management Convention

Status, content and things to be aware of

The Ballast Water Management Convention

- Argentina & Brazil

- Pandemic outbreak, South America

Background for the Convention

The 2004 Ballast Water Management Convention

Ratification is likely to happen in 2012

Requirements for ratification:

Requirements for ratification: Status as per June 2012:

6 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.

Ratification & local requirements Local requirements Ratification

Denmark Antigua & Barbuda India

Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.

Ballast Water Management Convention

Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.

Exchange standard (reg. D-1)

Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.

Treatment standard (reg. D-2)

Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.

Ships constructed prior to 2009 (Reg. B-3)

Ratification Entry into force

1st Intermediate /renewal survey

1st Intermediate /renewal survey

Ships constructed between 2009-2011(Reg. B-3)

Ratification Entry into force

1st Intermediate /renewal survey

Ships constructed on or after 2012 (Reg. B-3)

Ratification Entry into force

International BWM Certificate

Excemption Reg A-4

Ballast free ships

Local operation (FlagTrade same)

Local operation (Flag of party operation under other party only)

Exceptions Reg A-3

Between specified ports

Inn/out in high seas

Inn/out at same location

The US Coast Guard BW Regulations

The US Coast Guard BW regulations

Additional requirements in the new regulations

Submit a report form 24 hours before calling a US port

Implementation schedule of the USCG treatment standard

Less than 1500 m3

Existing ships 1500 m3 to 5000 m3

Greater than 5000 m3 Before 2013-12-01

Manufacturers type approval by DNV (1)

Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.

Manufacturers type approval by DNV (2)

Fujian BWMS Redox BWMS CleanSeaWay BWMS Seascape BWMS

UV + filtration UV + filtration + ozonation Dual frequence control + UV UV + Ultrasound + filtration

Submitted Ongoing Submitted Submitted

Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.

Manufacturers approval status by other Administrations (1)

Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Ocean Protection System OPS

Filtration + pre-filtration + filtration

Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.

Manufacturers approval status by other Administrations (2)

Japanese Association of Marine Safety

Chemcial injection (ClO2)

21st Century Shipbuilding

Filtration + high energy plasma + UV