Some 35,000 internationally trading ships will need to be fitted with new ballast water management systems (BWMS) by September 2024, and shipowners should not expect an extension to comply
As the September 2024 deadline for IMO’s Ballast Water Performance Standard draws closer, shipowners will face a logjam at shipyards in the race to get their ships fitted with BWMS before it is too late. Simultaneously, they will need to select the most suitable system for their ship and train their crews.
Shipowners should not look for any last-minute reprieve, warned Hong Kong Shipowners Association technical director Martin Cresswell. “IMO will not extend the deadline and flag states will not be soft on ships that don’t comply,” he said.
The logjam is building, with no less than 35,000 internationally trading ships required to install ballast water treatment systems in the next 40 months. That’s a rate of 875 per month, up by 70% on recent years, according to third-party calculations.
“It’s a very tight timetable,” said SGS Testing & Control Services Singapore regional manager for Asia and Oceania Guillaume Drillet.
Mr Cresswell and Mr Drillet were among the panellists who took part in the webinar Ballast water: no time to lose, part of Riviera Maritime Media’s Asia Webinar Week held in late May. The webinar was produced with sponsorship by SGS and Wilhelmsen and with supporting organisation Asian Shipowners’ Association.
Others on the panel were Wilhelmsen Ships Service water solutions product marketing manager Han Ding Hou, Hong Kong Shipping Register regional head (Singapore) Phillip Ho and Landbridge Ship Management (HK) managing director Captain Sanjeev Verma.
Panellists pointed out that a host of factors need to be considered by shipowners in a hurry. This will require shipowners to select a system based on a particular ship and available engineroom space from among the 43 systems that are currently approved. The logistics of delivery and installation must be organised, including docking if necessary, and time must be allowed for the approval of certification.
Another overriding consideration is whether the engine has the necessary power to run the BWMS. If not, an extra generator may be needed.
Of all these factors, one of the most important element is whether the system is right for the vessel. “Selecting the most suitable system for each ship is key to a trouble-free future, depending on the type of ship, its route and other factors”, advised Mr Cresswell.
Muddy waters
The likelihood of sailing in muddy waters is also part of the decision-making mix. Intertanko has identified 192 ports with challenging water conditions that could raise a variety of issues if they lie on the vessel’s route. Filter choice then becomes a priority to prevent clogging in high-sediment water.
Reflecting the importance attached by IMO to the handling of ballast water, Capt Verma provided a few salient facts and figures, “Approximately 10Bn tonnes of ballast water are transported worldwide every year, which could fill about 4M Olympic-sized swimming pools. An estimated 7,000 aquatic species are transferred in ballast water every hour of every day with one new invasion occurring every nine weeks.”
That is why he suggested ships should put together a contingency plan with which crew and managers are familiar. The plan should include the availability of shore support, for instance, from the system’s manufacturer.
Judging by one of several polls taken during the webinar, crew preparedness has some way to go. Only 14% of respondents said they were confident their crews were well trained for BWMS and able to implement a contingency plan, while 41% said they were unsure.
There is also some tension between current standards. As the panellists explained, the current D-1 standard requires water ballast to be rinsed three times in the sea more than 322 km from the coastline with a depth of more than 200 m. The tougher D-2 standard covers water ballasts containing more than 10 microorganisms per m³ measuring more than or equal to 50 microns.
However, another poll, asking what respondents would do if the vessel had passed its D-2 compliance date and still had an inoperable BWMS, found that 44% would opt for any one of three solutions – discharge to another ship or facility, adopt a method acceptable to the port state, or revert to D-1.
On a more positive note, 63% of respondents said their contingency measures were feasible for their ship and trade while just 29% said they were not sure.
Four major issues
However, both standards pose operational and commercial difficulties that may be hard to manage. Capt Verma identified four major issues: First, the length of the voyage with potential for regrowth that could result in discharged ballast water failing regulations.
Second, challenges in handling chemicals that can lead to failure of the electrolytic chlorination unit.
Third, if any adverse consequences are identified within descriptions or warranties, the problem may fall to the charterers’ account but, if not, to the owners’ account.
And fourth, owners must allow for the significant amounts of power required by electro-chlorination and ultra-violet systems.
Concluding, Capt Verma outlined a seven-point system for proper compliance that ranged from training crew and shore staff to regular onboard testing. He also suggested regulators should allow the D-1 standard as a back-up in case there are problems with D-2 while the vessel is in port.
But there is no need to panic – yet. That is the conclusion of Dr Drillet, citing a 98.9% rate of compliance from 45,710 surveys conducted by flag states. “From an administrative point of view, the convention is working very well,” he said. “And 70-80% of discharges are compliant with the D-2 standard. But from a biological point of view, there is room for improvement.”
Commissioning tests had greatly improvement ballast water management, with the failure rate collapsing from around 25% to 6% within two years. “Independent sampling is the future,” he said, quoting experience from other industries.
Wilhelmsen Ship Services’ Han Ding Hou reiterated the importance of periodic onboard testing and analysis by certified labs in the compliance process. Technical problems can quickly accumulate, he said, in the five-step process from taking in and filtering the seawater to discharging it after it has been cleaned up.
All panellists emphasised the vital role of crews. “Start planning the training of your crews. It is very important to build the human element in the operation of this equipment,” summarised Capt Verma. “You can do better than the regulations.”
