While the IMO Ballast Water Convention’s entry into force has been postponed into 2017, the US Coast Guard has made its decision on accepted testing methods, bringing clarity and uncertainty at the same time.
The maritime industry was close, it looked like in November 2016 the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) might enter[ds_preview] into force. In late 2015, Morocco, Ghana and Indonesia signed the convention, stirring up hopes that the international regulation on the treatment and discharge of ballast water might finally bring clarity. But a recalculation of tonnage data dashed that hope.
At least 30 states representing 35% of the world’s tonnage have to accede the Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC). Once both numbers are reached, the convention will come into force twelve months later and will establish a global legislative regime to control the discharge of ballast water and potentially invasive species. Up to now, 47 states have ratified the BWMC, representing a total tonnage of 34.35%.
The threshold value might not be reached yet, but it should be clear to anybody that the entry into force (EIF) is now only months away rather than years. Lars Nupnau, Director Global Business Development Ballast Water of Evoqua, says, this might have been a wake-up call for shipowners. »It is so close now that even very small flag-states might tip the scales,« he says. In January, Panama – not a small flag-state at all – which is accounting for about 20% of the worldwide tonnage, announced that it started the process of ratifying the BWMC. Panama’s accession will immediately raise the tonnage share above the required 35%. It may take a few months, but the EIF will definitely happen in 2017.
With the BWMC still pending for at least another year and the USCG sticking to its disputed »kill« standard, uncertainty remains for the whole market. This uncertainty will also, very likely, lead to a delay in the equipment of ships with treatment systems, say experts from industry organizations and class societies. The industry is concerned, whether the IMO’s scheduled compliance dates after the EIF are still realistic. »Once the BWM Convention has accrued sufficient tonnage, some shipowners, depending on the date of their International Oil Pollution Prevention Renewal Survey, will have slightly more than 12 months to achieve compliance with the IMO’s D 2 ballast water performance standards,« says Debra Cianna, Senior Environmental Solutions Engineer, ABS.
All shipowners should at least prepare for this case. Considering the installation of a Ballast Water Management System (BWMS), that costs between 500,000$ and 5mill. $, refitting a whole fleet of ships within a short period of time could be a challenge for many in the industry, struggling under the current market conditions already. The high investment costs might lead to a lot of vessels being scrapped because refitting BWMS might not be financially worthwhile for many owners.
Unviable or dead
Shipowners can equip their ships with BMWS today. They can choose from a variety of systems, using different technologies. Some national and regional regulations already require the use of such systems. IMO guidelines G8 and G9 give an orientation for manufacturers of ballast water management systems, administrations and their designated bodies on developing and evaluating BWMS. The problem owners face is the lack of systems approved by both IMO and US standards.
Ships trading in US waters already have to comply with the US Coast Guard’s own requirements for the discharge of ballast water, which will exist along with the Convention in the rest of the world. Most systems already have attained IMO approval, but so far no manufacturer holds an approval for the US, although a range of different BWMS are in the approval process.
What is causing a headache for manufacturers of BWMS, mainly of systems based on ultra violet radiation as well as on shipowners who have equipped their vessels with such systems or plan to do so, is the USCG’s »kill« standard. The USCG’s discharge standard – number of living microbes allowed per millilitre – is the same as the IMO’s, but the regime is stricter in other respects. The Coast Guard requires systems to kill most discharged organisms, while the IMO is satisfied if the microbes are »unviable«, i.e. unable to reproduce.
Moreover, when the USCG issued its Final Rule on ballast water discharge in 2012, it had not decided which testing methods for the efficacy of BWMS are valid. While the IMO guidelines G8 and G9 are only guidelines, the US Coast Guard clearly defines the accepted method of testing. In December, it declined the Most Probable Number (MPN) method that assesses the ability of an organism to colonize after treatment. In the view of the Coast Guard, it does not measure the efficacy to the performance standard required by the regulations, meaning whether a ballast water treatment systems is able to kill certain organisms – an »unviable« microbe will not reproduce as will a dead one.
The Coast Guard has instead achieved good results with the vital stain FDA/CMFDA approach (Fluorescein Diacetate/Chloromethylfluorescein Diacetate), in which indicator molecules are taken up by the microbes and then are altered during the metabolic process. The result is a fluorescing compound. All living organisms will show under light, dead ones won’t.
The question is not, whether UV can fulfil the USCG standard or not, Christoph Thomsen-Jung of Zeppelin Power Systems clarifies. The company works as distributor for manufacturer Optimarin. »There has been a certain misinterpretation of the USCG statement against the MPN method. It is not a statement against UV systems.« In practical terms, it just means that the UV system manufacturers that were already well advanced in the USCG approval process will have to re-test their products, since they all submitted MPN results to prove their systems’ effectiveness.
Norwegian company Optimarin, who precautionary also conducted FDA/CMFDA testing, does not see itself affected by the USCG statement and is confident to be one of the first to finish the approval process. »Our system fulfils the IMO standard at around 50% capacity of the 35 kW lamp. The USCG will set a new target, which will be somewhere between 60% and 100% for the ›kill‹ requirement, depending on the turbidity of the water«, says Thomsen-Jung. Besides increasing the UV radiation by turning up the voltage, killing the microbes could also be achieved by double-treating the water, reduced flow rate or by any system design that ensures longer exposure time. Either way, it will cost more, time or fuel and so does re-testing.
Uncertainty for everybody
Questions arise, whether under these conditions UV systems will enjoy a strong demand in the future. While systems utilizing active substances aim to kill most organisms in the ballast water anyway in only one treatment step, higher doses of ultra violet light require more electrical power and thus more fuel. Considering the short total time a BWMS is running during one year of vessel operation, fuel consumption is not really an issue – assuming that the vessel has sufficient power installed –, Thomsen-Jung explains. »In the end, customers prefer a no-frills system that works and is easy to use.«
In times of a low oil price, and considering the extra step in the approval process for active substances systems, energy costs may be seen as a negligible disadvantage. But as suddenly as the oil price dropped, it will go up again sometime in the future. Increased power consumption would be necessary only in US waters, while in all other regions the IMO regulations would apply, where the systems easily can comply with the viable/non-viable standard. Nevertheless, getting a UV-BMWS approved in America could at least mean extra costs for re-testing and possibly re-designing. In case of an adjustment to lower flow rates, longer layovers in port could be a disadvantage. Danish manufacturer DESMI Ocean Guard announced it would appeal the Coast Guard’s decision. Other manufacturers might follow but will likely consider the time and uncertain outcome.
Not having a USCG approved BWMS on board will only be an option for vessels that will never operate in US waters. Otherwise, it might have a negative impact on a vessel’s charter rates, Nupnau explains. »The vessel’s versatility would be limited.« Evoqua is also in the race for a USCG approval with its electro-chlorination system.
Shipowners are perplexed about how to proceed, DiCianna says. »The USCG has granted extensions for compliance dates, but the BWMC, at this time, has no means to provide extensions to compliance dates. If some contingencies are not added to the BWM Convention, shipowners may be forced to install a BWMS type approved to the current G8 Guidelines, rather than one approved to the revised G8 Guidelines or one which meets US requirements.«
Felix Selzer
