A lack of specialist expertise and training of the manufacturers is hampering the new system installation as suggested in the Ballast Water Management Convention, reports Ross Davies.
- Ballast Water Management installation ends up in a hurdle as shipowners shows slow response
- The delay is due to exist of some manufacturers from the market.
- Moreover, the retrofitting costs have made the situation worse.
- A lack of specialization in the Ballast Water Treatment is leading to further delay.
- Proper training and assistance from the system manufacturers is the only way out.
Similar to the city of Rome, the BWMC wasn’t built in a day and required tremendous on part of the charterers. When the measure finally came into force in September last year, it marked the end of 13 years of deliberations by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which adopted the BWMC back in 2004.
The primary motive of the convention to protect the environment and the biodiversity of the world from potential invasive species introduced by the shipping industry. The convention’s aims are to prevent the spread of potentially invasive alien species in the ballast water of ships. Vessels are now required to manage more closely their ballast water systems, by avoiding and removing the discharge of unwanted organisms and pathogens within ballast water and sediments.
The BWMC was lauded by IMO secretary-general Kitack Lim as “a landmark step”, and one that will “provide a global level playing field for international shipping, and robust standards for the management of ballast water on ships”. Despite the good intentions, BWNC is posing some serious questions for shipowners and manufacturers, making it quite a problem.
Shipowners shows slow response to the BWMC
The convention is presently made up of two different standards. Under the D-1 standard, vessels are obligated to discharge their ballast water at least 200 nautical miles from the coastline. This, says the IMO, will give unwanted organisms less chance of survival. The D-2 standard specifies the limit of organisms free to be discharged, including microbes that pose a threat to human health. New ships are obliged to meet this standard, while existing ships must initially act in accordance with D-1.
Eventually, international trade vessels have to conform to the D2 standard which requires the installation of new Ballast Water Management Systems, approved by national authorities, overseen by the IMO. The system first need to be tested on land-based facilities to ensure its safety for the purpose, says Nadeem Anwar, a petrochemical senior lecturer at Southampton Solent University.
“The entry into force of the BWM 2004 Convention has allowed the maritime industry to cross a threshold, but, other than that, the issues that were being experienced before that time, in general, remain in place,” says Anwar.
“The number of approved and available systems remains low. The number is even lower for the US Coast Guard [USCG] approved systems. The delay of entry into force of the convention has also resulted in some of the manufacturers exiting the treatment system market.”
A paucity of choice of available systems has also contributed to a prevailing wait-and-see attitude witnessed across the industry. “There are ongoing issues in quite a few cases with operational efficiency,” says Anwar, who also leads a ballast water management course at the Warsash Maritime Academy, created in direct response to the BWMC.
“Though the trials and approval processes demonstrated that the systems were robust enough for the diverse marine environments, unfortunately, it is not the case. Particular concerns are being experienced with the filtration component.”
However, according to Jad Mouawad, a Norway-based maritime industry consultant, there are some indications that shipowners are beginning to act – particularly with regards to new vessels.
“Owners have started to realise that they need to take decisions soon,” he says. “We have seen some have live demos on their ships that help them take those decisions.”
And while Mouawad agrees with Anwar that there has been an exodus of systems manufacturers – “due to high R&D costs and new systems coming in” – he is confident more system approvals will be seen soon.
“We will see some more BWMS getting USCG type approval, and hopefully some will get the brand new 2016 G8 guidelines approval,” he says. “There is still hard competition, but we see some makers doing good deals and making some profit.”
The challenges of an expensive retrofitting
Retrofitting costs pose a serious problem for shipowners. “Dependent on the amount of pipework, cabling, and any changes to be made, a retrofit could cost around $30,000 upwards for a vessel around 10,000 gross tonnage – excluding the actual cost of the system”, said Anwar.
Another area of concern is the lack of specialist expertise around ballast water management systems. Most engineering companies and service providers offer combined services – ballast water with scrubbers and biofouling – making them, to a certain degree, jacks of all trades, but masters of none.
“It’s creating a weak base where no one specialises in one area,” says Mouawad. “Biofouling is a particularly difficult area. This lack of specialisation in ballast water is leading to sub-standard installations, resulting in non-compliance for ships.”
System Manufacturers need to assist the operators
Furthermore, a lack of training on offer from the system manufacturers have added to the problem. “This is an area which requires industry-wide action – especially on the part of system manufacturers – to bring about a positive improvement,” Anwar says.
“Even the best system may not perform as required if the operators are not fully aware of the procedures to be followed. In addition to the system-related issues, the shipboard operators are also concerned about many aspects of the convention and feel they need training.”
“They need to play a more active role in assisting and questioning such practices.Overall, after a costly installation, if a system cannot be used to its full operational efficiency, it is not going to provide a fix to the problem which it is designed to resolve”, he added.
The nature and magnitude of the BWMC would pose such teething problems but the only solution is greater assistance and understanding between administrators, manufacturers , port officials and recognised organizations.
Did you subscribe for our daily newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe!
Source: Ship Technology
