Ballast Water Management Systems: Technology Developments

INTERTANKO Lunchtime Seminar on BWM

Debra DiCiannaSenior Principal Environmental Solutions Engineer

London, UK8 September 2015

2

Topics

l Ballast Water Management Options

l USCG Type Approval Process

l Information on Ballast Water Management Systems (BWMS)

l Practical Means For Compliance with USCG Requirementsn USCG extensions requestsn Drydocking movements

l Preparing for Compliance

3

Understanding Compliance Options

l Ships on Worldwide Voyagesn Monitor progress in ratifying the BWM Conventionn Identify the IOPP Renewals Surveyn Monitor changes in the revision of the G8 Guidelines for approval of

BWMS

l Ships Discharging in US Watersn Determine ship ballasting requirementsn Follow USCG type approval processn Identify technology options

4

BWMS Technologies

Ballast Water

Management System

Physical Separation* • Filtration• Hydrocyclone• Coagulation

Dis

infe

ctio

n*Chemical

Disinfection

Physical Disinfection

+• Electro-chlorination• Chlorine-based Chemicals• Ozone• Other disinfectants

• UV• De-oxygenation• Heat

or

Supplementary Treatment*

• Cavitation• Ultrasound• Catalyst• Plasma• Magnetic Separation

+

*Note: BWMS have been developed using different combinations of the technologies.

5

Filtration – Pros and Cons

Filtration

Prosl Eliminates larger organisms, reduces total organisms/biomass

to kill and reduces maximum sediment size allowing improved active substance effectiveness

l Sediment in the ballast tanks may be reduced due to filtration

Cons

l Cloggingl Reliability of the mechanical componentsl Restriction for piping systeml Reliability for corrosionl Susceptible to water-hammer damagel Damage by physical substances in the pipingl Spare parts for moving componentsl Required backpressure for backflow washing

6

Electrochlorination – Pros and Cons

Electrochlorination

Pros

l Low additional flow restrictionl May provide residual disinfectant in ballast tanks for protection

against organism regrowth.l If ballast water temperatures is low, only 1% (or less) of ballast

flow would require heating (side-stream arrangement)l Easier installation on vessels with cargo pump rooms or

hazardous cargo areas (side-stream arrangement)

Cons

l Generation of hazardous gasesl Need for certified safe construction of electrochlorination unit

when used in tankerl Life and maintenance of electrodesl Corrosionl Use in freshwaterl Storage of neutralizing agentsl Neutralization for dischargel Disinfection byproductsl Time for lethality of organisms (varies by vendor)

7

Chemical Application – Pros and Cons

Chemical Application

Pros l Reduced complexity of installed system and CAPEX

Cons

l Active substances – increased potential for corrosionl Additional handling and storage of hazardous chemicals -

personnel (PPE) and training considerationsl Storage, supply and leakage of chemicalsl Fire extinguishing system requirements for system safety must

be consideredl Neutralization for discharge (varies by vendor)l Time for lethality of organisms (varies by vendor)l Some technologies create disinfection byproducts

8

Deoxygenation – Pros and Cons

Deoxygenation

Pros

l Reduced ballast tank corrosionl Increased ballast tank coating lifel Reduced sacrificial anode consumptionl Inert gas technology is common on oil tankersl No active substances and no chemical storage requiredl No neutralization chemicals requiredl No filtration used – minimizes changes to ballasting operations

Cons

l Restriction on access to ballast water tanks due to inertingl Some tank arrangements may make installation complexl Significant amount of time for lethality of organismsl Need for precise inert conditions to meet efficacy

demonstrated during testingl Special consideration for isolation, interlocks and controls to

ensure proper treatment and re-aeration during dischargel Some technologies may use LSMGO fuel for Stripping Gas

Generator and other fuels (i.e., HFO) are not suitable

9

Ozone Treatment – Pros and Cons

Ozone Treatment

Prosl More equipment installation options for small available spaces

– equipment can be located separately with smaller footprintsl Ozone treatment is an effective disinfectant in fresh water

Cons

l Generation of hazardous gasesl Corrosion of coatings and piping materialsl Ozone generation system installation location and ozone/

oxygen leak detection must be consideredl Ozone-induced corrosion of coatings and piping materials

must be consideredl Ozone pipe routing restrictions and sensors -materials of

construction are more expensivel Stainless steel ozone distribution piping costs and more

difficult installation must be consideredl Relatively high power consumption compared to other

technologiesl Neutralization for discharge

10

UV Disinfection – Pros and Cons

UV Disinfection

Pros l No active substances used in treatmentl No neutralization chemicals required

Cons

l High replacement cost for UV lampl Possible damage by water hammerl Ingested debris can damage UV quartz sleevesl Certified safe type needed for use in tankerl UV treatment during dischargel UV disinfection may only render organisms not viable and may

not kill organisms

11

UV Disinfection

l UVC damages DNA and stops reproduction

l Points of impact

12

USCG vs. BWM Convention - UV Disinfection

USCG BWM Convention

Terminology in discharge/performance

standard for organisms ≥ 10 μm in minimum dimension

• “Living” organisms

• “Viable” organisms(Guidelines G8 state “viable organisms are organisms and any life stages thereof that are living”)

Method for Counting Organisms

• ≥ 50 μm (zooplankton) –direct counts and mobility

• ≥ 10 μm and < 50 μm (protists) – combination of vital, fluorescent stains (fluorescein diacetate (FDA) and 5-chloromethylfluorescein diacetate (CMFDA)

• No specific methods are listed

• Part 4 provides guidelines for sample analysis and states “When available, widely accepted standard methods …should be used.”

13

FDA/CMDFDA Method

l Specifically listed in Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Protocol

l “Determining the viability of marine protists using a combination of vital, fluorescent stains” (Steinberg et al, Mar Biol (2011) 158:1431–1) – technical paper describing the method and its validation

l Need for a robust viability analysis that is applicable to a broad range of organisms

l How method works:n Stain penetrates celln Esterases convert stains to fluorescent productsn Fluorescent cells counted as “alive”

l “This approach will be used as a benchmark for validating new viability assays and techniques in the future.”

14

Illustration of FDA/CMFDA Method

l Stain sample and living organisms fluoresce

l The fluorescent organisms are counted for the number of living organisms

l “This approach will be used as a benchmark for validating new viability assays and techniques in the future”

15

General Description of “Enumeration” Method

l Two part method to determine the number of living organisms in the 10-50 μm size range:n Autotroph

– Chlorophyll-based most probable number (MPN) dilution-culture technique

n Heterotroph– Absence of Chlorophyll a autofluorescence

l Values from each method are summed to provide a total concentration of living organisms

l Established a standard protocol that would be required of each laboratoryn Dilutionsn Growth median MPN calculator

16

Development of “Enumeration” Method

l “Enumeration” or Most Probable Number (MPN) method has been developed by UV-vendors to address the need for another means to count organisms

l MPN method has been used for almost 40 years for assessing viability of single species cultures

l MPN method procedures vary by laboratoryl USCG and EPA identified the need to develop

a consistent procedure and validate methodl Proposed method developed by a collaboration of

UV manufacturers in consultation with the ETV Enumeration Tech Panel

l Timeline of events:n Late 2012/early 2013 – preliminary mtgs. with USCGn July 2013 – present – testing of methodn March 2015 – propose method submitted to ETV Tech Paneln August 2015 – discussion of MPN “calculator”n TBD – method validation

17

Type Approved BWMS

Ballast Water Management Systems Number of SystemsAvailable or in-development 100+Type Approval Certificate verifying compliance with MEPC.174(58) ~56*

Type Approved BWMS – Explosion Proof 7IMO Final Approval 8IMO Basic Approval 14USCG Type Approval 0USCG AcceptedAlternate Management System (AMS) 50 BWMS by 44 manufacturers

* The number reflects verified approvals for a BWMS manufacturer – not the number of specific models approved and excludes 1 system removed from the market

18

BWMS for Use in US Waters: USCG Accepted Alternate Management System (AMS)

l If installed prior to USCG Type Approved BWMS, AMS may be used for 5-years from the vessel’s specific compliance date

USCG Accepted AMS – 50 BWMS by 44 ManufacturersAquarius™-ECAquarius™-UVAquaStar™*ARA PLASMABalClor™BallastMaster UltraVBALPURE®

BawatBIO-SEA®

Blue Ocean ShieldBSKY™CathelcoCleanBallast®CrystalBallast®Cyeco BWMSEcoBallast™Ecochlor®

ECOMARINEElectro-Cleen™*ERMA FIRSTFineBallast MFGloEn-Patrol™*HiBallast*Hyde GUARDIAN™ HY™-BWMSJFE BallastAce®

(using NEO-CHLOR MARINE™and TG Ballastcleaner)

KBALMICROFADE™Miura BWMSMMC BWMSNEI VOSNiBallast™

NK-O3 BlueBallast®Ocean Protection SystemOceanDoctorOceanGuard™OceanSaver® MKIIOptimarin*OxyCleanPACT Marine BWTSPureBallast

(Models 250 - 2500, 2.0(Ex), 3.0/3.1(EX))Purimar™ *RayClean™SeaCURE™SeascapeSmart BallastTrojan Marinex

As of 8 June 2015

* EX model included

19

Approved BWMS Statistics

CategoryAll Type

Approved BWMS

USCGAMS

No. of BWMS 56* 50No. of BWMS requiring treatment during intake and de-ballasting 50 47

No. of BWMS using active substances 26 22No. of BWMS requiring storage of chemicals 23 20No. of BWMS requiring storage of waste products 1 0Maximum Capacity (m3/h)* 16,200 16,200

*Maximum capacity only includes specific models listed in documentation.

*Excludes one BWMS no longer available.

20

Disinfection Technologies

0

5

10

15

20

25

30IMO Type Approved USCG AMS

21

Limitations of BWMS

l Limitations for operation of BWMS are listed in IMO Final Approval documents and Type Approval Certificates and USCG AMS letters:n Environmental conditions

– Salinity– Temperature– UV intensity

n Operational parameters – min/max pressure– min/max TROs– Holding time

l BWM.2/Circ.43 provides Guidancefor Administrations for consistent information and more robust and transparent type approvals

22

Practical Means for Compliance with USCG BWM Regulations (at this time)l Request extension from USCG

l Review ship survey and drydocking schedules

l USCG accepted Alternate Management System (AMS)

23

USCG Extensions: Request Information

l Basis for request:n Limited availability of USCG Type-Approved BWMSn Constrained shipyard capability and capacity to install BWMS

l Information to be provided:n Name of vessel and vessel IMO or other official numbern Total ballast water capacityn Scheduled delivery date (new vessels) or last drydocking date and first scheduled

drydocking after applicable compliance date (existing vessels)

l Extension requests must be submitted not less than 12 months prior to the vessel-specific compliance date

l Maximum duration of extension requests will not exceed 5 years

l ABS developed templates available for:n Newbuildsn Retrofitn AMS with freshwater limitationn Non-operable BWMS

l Additional extensions will be required to respond to the process of type approving, purchasing and installing BWMS

24

Adjusting Surveys and Drydockings

l Adjusting ship survey and drydocking (DD)n Vessel needs to be removed from

drydock by 31 December 2015n SOLAS Safety Construction

Certificate (lists completion of survey) is the document to be reviewed by USCG PSCO

n Survey report needs to clearly list undocking date

n UWILDS are not considered a DDOct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

2015 2016 2017

Special Periodical Survey Hull with drydocking

25

Important Items to Consider with DD Movement

l Requirements of classification rules

l Survey movement may prematurely “age” a vessel

l Vessel needs to be in the water by 1 January 2016

l Vessel may be quayside

l Need proper documentation

26

Final Points

l Understand the requirements and deadlines

l Prepare for upcoming regulations and requirements

l Understand ship ballasting practices

l Educate personnel and crew on upcoming requirements

l Review ship survey and drydocking cycles

l Develop options for compliance

l Request assistance from ABS

27

BWMS Technology Evaluation

l Guidance for identifying effective solutionsn Interactive multiphase process leveraging an extensive technical and

performance BWMS database n Delivers a customized solution set for decision support

l Key steps of the ABS technology evaluation are:n Review the vessel or fleet, operational and life cycle informationn Provide a preliminary list of acceptable BWMS

including considerations to nuances of IMO, USCG and regional requirements

n Deliver a preliminary report for suitable BWMS –Design and Operations

n Provide a comparative suitability assessment –operational considerations

n Assist understanding of vendor technical and service offerings

n Deliver a final report with recommended options

28

Recent ABS Environmental Publications

l 2014 ABS Ballast Water Treatment Advisory

l 2014 ABS Guide for Ballast Water Treatment (including BWMP template)

l ABS Trends on:n Sulfur Oxide (SOx) Limits

Reduced in ECAs (January 2015)n 2013 VGP Sampling and Analysis

Requirements (June 2014)n 2013 Requirements for EALs

(May 2014)n New Requirement for the

Upcoming 2013 VGP (October 2013)

n US Ballast Water Management Requirements (May 2013)

www.eagle.org