environmental technology
DESCRIPTION
As with every other industry, the modern world demands that shipping is conducted with at least some element of environmental stewardship. It was not always that way; but while some persist in branding shipping a dirty industry it is in fact quite environmentally friendly and is acknowledged as being the most energy efficient means of moving large quantities of goods around the world.TRANSCRIPT
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
REGULATIONCleaner seas courtesy of MARPOL
NOXA matterof timing
WASTE WATERDealing with black
and grey water streams
OIL & GREASESeparators, seals and lubricants to keep the sea
clean
• A guide to regulation and technology •
ShipInsight• CRITICAL INFORMATION ON MARITIME TECHNOLOGY AND REGULATION •
AU
G 2
014
SPONSORED BY
OTHER MEASURES
Being greener can keep owners
in the black
WÄRTSILÄ AQUARIUS® BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Unique offering of different technologies for all ship types, sizes and conditions
Type approved system complies with IMO Convention
Partnership program covering all stages from fleet evaluation to lifecycle support
Turnkey solutions
THE SMART WAY TO ENSURE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCEAND STOP MARINE INVASIONS
For environmental peace of mind Wärtsilä supply the widest range of marine technologies on earth, this includes a range of ballast water management solutions to help meet specific requirements of individual owners and their vessels. Our technologies use a simple two stage process involving filtration and a choice of either electro-chlorination (EC) or UV treatment. With our partnership program, we work in close co-operation with you on all stages of the project, and our turnkey solutions provide everything you need from the same place – from selection and configuration to engineering and supervision. Read more at www.wartsila.com
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 03
| INTRODUCTION | INTRODUCTION
A S WITH EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY, the modern world demands that shipping is conducted with at least some element of environmental stewardship. It was not always that way; but while some
persist in branding shipping a dirty industry it is in fact quite environmentally friendly and is acknowledged as being the most energy efficient means of moving large quantities of goods around the world.
Efficiency is something that ship operators have always pursued for their own ends and most would argue that the prescribed requirements of some of the latest IMO regulations in this area are unnecessary and unwarranted. Even so, some ship operators may benefit and if nothing else the EEDI and exhaust emission regulations have spurred innovation and development in engines and propulsion systems that will give additional efficiencies and permit a greater choice of fuels going forward.
Other aspects of environmental protection are not likely to give any benefit to operators and will result in extra costs for them to absorb. But few would argue that controls on discharging waste products and sewage into the ocean are welcome developments and operators are prepared to accept them so long as they see all operators treated equally. If they do have a complaint in connection with cleaning up shipping’s act, it is that all too often they are not getting the support they need from ports and terminals or from regulators happy to prosecute but not to provide facilities even where they are charged for.
As things stand, there is little chance that shipping can evade the environmental spotlight but it can take some solace from the fact that each new area of regulation leaves less to be regulated on further down the line.
Malcolm Latarche
Malcolm Latarche
WÄRTSILÄ AQUARIUS® BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Unique offering of different technologies for all ship types, sizes and conditions
Type approved system complies with IMO Convention
Partnership program covering all stages from fleet evaluation to lifecycle support
Turnkey solutions
THE SMART WAY TO ENSURE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCEAND STOP MARINE INVASIONS
For environmental peace of mind Wärtsilä supply the widest range of marine technologies on earth, this includes a range of ballast water management solutions to help meet specific requirements of individual owners and their vessels. Our technologies use a simple two stage process involving filtration and a choice of either electro-chlorination (EC) or UV treatment. With our partnership program, we work in close co-operation with you on all stages of the project, and our turnkey solutions provide everything you need from the same place – from selection and configuration to engineering and supervision. Read more at www.wartsila.com
BALLAST WATER TREATMENT
XX PURPOSE OF A BRIDGE NAVIGATIONAL WATCH ALARM SYSTEM (BNWAS) IS TO MONITOR BRIDGE ACTIVITY AND DETECT OPERATOR DISABILITY WHICH COULD LEAD TO MARINE ACCIDENTS.
Editor: Malcolm Latarche
Head of Design: Chris Caldwell
Layout & Production: Steven Price
Advertising Sales: [email protected]
Address: ShipInsight, 12 - 14 Bridge Steet
Leatherhead, Surrey, KT22 8BZ, UK
www.shipinsight.com
This guide is produced by ShipInsight Ltd.
Care is taken to ensure the information it contains is accurate
and up to date. However ShipInsight Ltd accepts
no responsibility of inaccuracies in, or changes to, such
information. No part of this publication may be produced in
any form or by means including photocopying or recording,
without the permission of ShipInsight Ltd.
Register at shipinsight.com
to receive the next free guide.
ShipInsight
06 | CHAPTER 1 – Regulation
Cleaner seas courtesy of MARPOL, the VGP and more
14 | CHAPTER 2 – NOx
A matter of timing, exhaust gas recirculation, catalytic reduction or water
20 | CHAPTER 3 – ExxonMobil
Premium HDME 50 Marine Fuel
24 | CHAPTER 4 – SOx
A choice between changing fuels or coming clean with scrubbers
34 | CHAPTER 5 – Waste water
Dealing with black and grey water streams
42 | CHAPTER 6 – Oil & grease
Separators, seals and environmentally friendly lubricants to keepthe sea clean
50 | CHAPTER 7 – Other measures
Being greener can keep owners and operators in the black
CONTENTS
04 | AUGUST 2014
JULY 2014 | 05
CLIENT: ExxonMobil LubricantsPRODUCT: SHC Aware - UKJOB#: P35999_HSPACE: NoneBLEED: 154 mm x 216 mmTRIM: 148 mm x 210 mmSAFETY: 132 mm x 194 mmGUTTER: NonePUBS: Ship In SightISSUE: NoneTRAFFIC: Darcey LundART BUYER: NoneACCOUNT: NoneRETOUCH: Steve LakemanPRODUCTION: Len RappaportART DIRECTOR: NoneCOPYWRITER: None
This advertisement was prepared by BBDO New York
FontsMobil (Regular), Helvetica (Medium, Light, Bold, Light Condensed)Graphic Name Color Space Eff. Res.SHOT-2_011_v1 layered.psd (CMYK; 516 ppi), Mobil_SHC_4C-TM.tif (CMYK; 2233 ppi)
Filename: P35999_H_EML_G01_V3.inddProof #: 3 Path: Studio:Volumes:Studio:MECHANIC...chani-cals:P35999_H_EML_G01_V3.indd Operators: Bright, Jordan / Brand, Adrienne
Ink Names Cyan Magenta Yellow Black
Created: 6-23-2014 10:57 AM Saved: 6-23-2014 3:13 PMPrinted: 6-23-2014 3:46 PMPrint Scale: None
Copy
right
© 2
014
Exxo
n M
obil
Corp
orat
ion.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. A
ll tra
dem
arks
use
d he
rein
are
trad
emar
ks
or re
gist
ered
trad
emar
ks o
f Exx
on M
obil
Corp
orat
ion
or o
ne o
f its
sub
sidi
arie
s un
less
oth
erwi
se n
oted
.
Regulations change. Your deadlines don’t.Introducing Mobil SHC Aware™ — the marine lubricant that meets VGP regulations and exceeds expectations. A shipping company’s major concern is protecting equipment; now United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Vessel General Permit (VGP) regulations require this is done whilst minimising impact tothe environment. Mobil SHC Aware™ offers the protection of a synthetic whilst meeting new U.S. EPA requirements for biodegradability. Which is good for the environment. And good for business.
Go to exxonmobil.com/marine to fi nd out how to avoid the costs of noncompliance.
Copy
right
© 2
014
Exxo
n M
obil
Corp
orat
ion.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. A
ll tra
dem
arks
use
d he
rein
are
trad
emar
ks
or re
gist
ered
trad
emar
ks o
f Exx
on M
obil
Corp
orat
ion
or o
ne o
f its
sub
sidi
arie
s un
less
oth
erwi
se n
oted
.
S:132 mmS:194 m
m
T:148 mmT:210 m
m
B:154 mmB:216 m
m
Legal is 5.5 ptsHelvetica Light Condensed
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
06 | AUGUST 2014
| CHAPTER 1: REGULATION
Cleaner seas courtesyof MARPOL
EVEN BEFORE SHIPS HAD ENGINES they had the
potential to impact on the environment. As well as the
alien species that hitched a ride on ships whether in the
ship, in the cargo or under the hull, there was the waste
produced by the crew and passenger on board and occasionally a
cargo that needed to be dumped at sea.
With the advent of engines came oil, firstly as lubricants and
later for fuel – steam engines of course ran on coal which is
mostly inert and has no effect on the environment but were heavy
users of lubricants. Oil inevitably means oily waste is generated
and with no regulation barring it, that waste was regularly dumped
at sea. This was recognised quite early on after the first diesel
engine was used in 1912 but it was the increase in crude oil
transport and the consequent disposal of tanks washings at sea
that was the spur for the first regulations prohibiting disposal of oil.
That was not to be until The International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil (OILPOL) was formulated
at London in 1954. The 1954 Convention came into force in
1958 and was amended in 1962, 1969 and 1971. It was eventually
superseded by the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and its measures are now included
there.
OILPOL did not put a complete ban on disposal at sea and
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 07
merely prohibited the dumping of oily wastes within a certain
distance from land and in ‘special areas’ where the danger to the
environment was especially acute. It also imposed a requirement
for contracting parties to provide reception facilities but, more
than half a century on, the lack of facilities is still a bone of
contention for the industry. OILPOL was mainly concerned with
operational discharges as was the 1973 version of MARPOL drawn
up by the IMO.
This was to be amended by the Protocol of 1978 adopted
in response to a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-1977. As the
1973 MARPOL Convention had not yet entered into force, the
1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent Convention. The
combined instrument entered into force on 2 October 1983.
In 1997, a Protocol was adopted to amend the Convention and
a new Annex VI was added which entered into force on 19 May
2005. MARPOL has been updated by amendments through the
years. Most of the measures in MARPOL are the province of the
IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) which
is also entrusted with the development of other environmental
conventions.
IMO says of MARPOL that it includes regulations aimed at
preventing and minimising pollution from ships - both accidental
pollution and that from routine operations - and currently includes
six technical Annexes. Special Areas with strict controls on
operational discharges are included in most Annexes.
The Annex I Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil
(entered into force 2 October 1983) covers prevention of pollution
by oil from operational measures as well as from accidental
discharges; the 1992 amendments to Annex I made it mandatory
for new oil tankers to have double hulls and brought in a phase-in
schedule for existing tankers to fit double hulls, which was
subsequently revised in 2001 and 2003.
Annex II Regulations for the Control of Pollution by Noxious
Liquid Substances in Bulk (entered into force 2 October 1983)
THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL (OILPOL) WAS FORMULATED AT LONDON IN 1954.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
08 | AUGUST 2014
details the discharge criteria and measures for the control of
pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk; some 250
substances were evaluated and included in the list appended to
the Convention; the discharge of their residues is allowed only
to reception facilities until certain concentrations and conditions
(which vary with the category of substances) are complied with. In
any case, no discharge of residues containing noxious substances
is permitted within 12 miles of the nearest land.
Annex III Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried
by Sea in Packaged Form (entered into force 1 July 1992) contains
general requirements for the issuing of detailed standards on
packing, marking, labelling, documentation, stowage, quantity
limitations, exceptions and notifications. For the purpose of
this Annex, “harmful substances” are those substances which
are identified as marine pollutants in the International Maritime
Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) or which meet the criteria
in the Appendix of Annex III.
Annex IV Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships (entered
into force 27 September 2003) contains requirements to control
pollution of the sea by sewage; the discharge of sewage into
the sea is prohibited, except when the ship has in operation an
approved sewage treatment plant or when the ship is discharging
comminuted and disinfected sewage using an approved system
at a distance of more than three nautical miles from the nearest
land; sewage which is not comminuted or disinfected has to be
discharged at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the
nearest land.
In July 2011, IMO adopted the most recent amendments to
MARPOL Annex IV which entered into force on 1 January 2013.
The amendments introduce the Baltic Sea as a special area under
Annex IV and add new discharge requirements for passenger ships
while in a special area.
Annex V Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships (entered
into force 31 December 1988) deals with different types of garbage
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 09
REGULATION
and specifies the distances from land and the manner in which
they may be disposed of; the most important feature of the Annex
is the complete ban imposed on the disposal into the sea of all
forms of plastics.
In July 2011, IMO adopted extensive amendments to Annex V
which entered into force on 1 January 2013. The revised Annex
V prohibits the discharge of all garbage into the sea, except as
provided otherwise, under specific circumstances.
Annex VI Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (entered into
force 19 May 2005) sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide
emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions
of ozone depleting substances; designated emission control areas
set more stringent standards for SOx, NOx and particulate matter.
In 2011, after extensive work and debate, IMO adopted
mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures;
The energy efficiency design index (EEDI), Ship energy efficiency
management plans (SEEMPs) and the energy efficiency operational
index (EEOI) which were included in Annex VI and entered into
force on 1 January 2013.
MARPOL with its six annexes and SOLAS between them
regulate many aspects of ship construction aimed at minimising
the environmental aspects of ships. Similarly MARPOL has
influenced many operational practices onboard tankers and every
other type of ship. These areas will not be covered by this guide,
which is focussed on describing the technology and equipment
designed to aid compliance with those areas of regulation that can
only be met using equipment.
In the main these are regulated by Annexes I, IV, V and VI of
MARPOL but there are other areas outside of these where shipping
has to meet regulatory demands. As examples, the International
Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti Fouling Substances
on Ships, 2001 and the International Convention for the Control
and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 are
being addressed by a new generation of coatings and a growing
number of ballast water treatment systems.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
10 | AUGUST 2014
Both of these areas are the subject of other ShipInsight Guides
which deal with them more comprehensively than they are
covered in this. However, there is a chapter in this guide which
deals with the wider subject of water waste and another covering
the topic of coatings. So far all of the regulation mentioned has
been promulgated by the IMO but there are also local regulations
in some parts of the world that affect the equipment installed on
ships. Once again ballast water treatment serves an example; with
the US having adopted its own rules that are already in force while
the IMO convention has not yet been ratified by sufficient states to
come into force and in Brazil where ballast exchange is permitted
but treatment by systems – even those approved by the IMO – is
not yet recognised as meeting local rules.
US RULES COVER MORE
Concurrent with the development of MARPOL, the US was
introducing its own regulations in the form of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) passed by the US Congress in 1972 and covering cleaning up
the territorial waters of the US. This was done through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit programme
which controls water pollution by regulating sources that discharge
pollutants into the nation’s waters. In most cases, the NPDES
permit program is administered by individual states but for matters
extending beyond individual states, the Environment Protection
Agency (EPA) is the governing body.
Section 301(a) of the CWA prohibits the discharge of any
“pollutant” unless authorised by an NPDES permit. Shortly after the
enactment of the CWA, the EPA issued a regulation that exempted
from NPDES permitting “any discharge of sewage from vessels,
effluent from properly functioning marine engines, laundry,
shower, and galley sink wastes, or any other discharge incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel”.
After the turn of the century, environmentalists began legal
actions in some states demanding ships should not be exempted
from the regulations. In December 2003, the California federal
district and appeals courts ruled that the EPA had exceeded its
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 11
AFTER THE TURN OF THE CENTURY, ENVIRONMENTALISTS BEGAN LEGAL ACTIONS IN SOME STATES DEMANDING SHIPS SHOULD NOT BE EXEMPTED FROM THE REGULATIONS.
REGULATION
authority when it excluded ships’ discharges from the NPDES
permitting system.
As a consequence EPA had to implement a permit system
for a wide variety of vessel discharges which would affect all
US-flagged vessel and foreign-flagged vessels trading to the US.
This resulted in the introduction in 2008 of the Vessel General
Permit (VGP) that would apply to all affected vessels whose
owners filed a Notice of Intent.
A document explaining the VGP can be found at the following
web address: www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vessel_vgp_permit.pdf It
is a long – 165 pages – document but explains the system in detail
together with amendments introduced by individual states.
In the fact sheet that it issued as a guide to the VGP, the EPA
emphasises that it fought efforts to require incidental discharges to
be permitted not because it dismissed the significance of aquatic
invasive species, or other environmental hazards resulting from
these discharges, but rather because, in its view, permitting was
not the best or most efficient way of addressing the problem.
The EPA notes that Congress has already enacted legislation that
directed the US Coast Guard, rather than the EPA, to address
and come up with a regulatory programme for the discharge of
ballast water and other discharges, and that nothing in the CWA
prevented individual states from coming up with regulations to
control ballast water discharges under state law.
In 2013, a new version of the VGP was introduced. It will
continue to regulate 26 specific discharge categories that were
contained in the 2008 VGP, and would provide coverage for fish
hold effluent in the event that a permitting moratorium currently
in effect expires in December 2014.
For the first time, the final VGP contains numeric ballast water
discharge limits for most vessels. The permit generally aligns with
requirements contained within the 2012 U.S. Coast Guard ballast
water rulemaking. Additionally, the VGP contains requirements to
ensure ballast water treatment systems are functioning correctly.
The final permit also provides additional environmental protection
for certain vessels. For example, certain high-risk vessels entering
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
12 | AUGUST 2014
THE VGP CONTAINS REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS ARE FUNCTIONING CORRECTLY.
REGULATION
the Great Lakes must conduct additional management measures
to reduce the risk of introducing new invasive species to US
waters. The final VGP also contains more stringent effluent limits
for oil to sea interfaces such as propeller shaft seals and also
exhaust gas scrubber washwater. EPA has also amended several
of the VGP’s administrative requirements, including allowing
electronic recordkeeping, requiring an annual report in lieu of
the one-time report and annual noncompliance report, allowing
combined annual reports for some vessel operators.
TIMELINE: MARPOL ANNEX VI
26 Sept 1997 Annex VI formally adopted
1 Jan 2000 Engine-makers begin building and certifying
NOx Tier I engines
19 May 2005 Annex VI enters into force SOx – 4.5% global, 1.5%
ECA NOx Tier I
19 May 2006 Baltic Sea SECA established
11 Aug 2007 EU implements North Sea SECA
21 Nov 2007 Official IMO date for North Sea SECA
1 Oct 2008 MEPC approves revised Annex VI and NOx
Technical Code
17 July 2009 MEPC approves proposed US/Canada ECA (SOx,
NOx and PM)
1 July 2010 SOx 1.0% ECA
1 Jan 2011 NOx Tier II
1 July 2011 MEPC approves proposed US Caribbean ECA
(SOx, NOx and PM) SOx 3.5% global
1 Jan 2012 SOx 3.5% Global
1 Aug 2012 Implementation of US/Canada ECA
1 Jan 2014 Implementation of US Caribbean ECA
1 Jan 2015 SOx 0.1% ECA
1 Jan 2016 NOx Tier III (only applicable in ECAs)
2018 Review into availability of low-sulphur fuel
1 Jan 2020 SOx 0.5% global (if deemed possible following
2018 review)
1 Jan 2025 SOx 0.5% global (delayed date of 2018 review)
3-5% TYPICAL FUEL SAVINGS
3 MONTHS 100%+ PAYBACK PERIOD (subscription-based model)
€100,000 TYPICAL ANNUAL SAVINGS(based on subscription based model of ro-ro vessel and consumption of 35 metric tonnes per day)
1-2 DAYS FAST, EASY INSTALLATION PROCESS, OFTEN UNDER A DAY, NO MAJOR EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT WWW.GREENSTEAM.DK
PLEASE VISIT US
AT THE DANISH PAVILION
AT SMM HALL B1.EGTOWARDS 100% FUEL EFFICIENCYGREENSTEAM
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
14 | AUGUST 2014
| CHAPTER 2: NOX
KrystallonScrubbers
HIGHEST ON TODAY’S LIST of shipping’s
environmental impacts is the matter of exhaust
emissions and particularly NOx, SOx, particulates and
CO2. Each of these requires different treatment and
controlling some can affect the production of others. All exhaust
emissions come under MARPOL Annex VI and have been regulated
according to the timeline on the previous page. NOx is given
particular attention because of the technical complexities involved
with it and a large part of Annex VI is the NOx Technical Code 2008.
In all internal combustion engines and boilers it is necessary
to mix air with the fuel to allow combustion to take place. Air is
mostly composed of nitrogen and oxygen with a few trace gases
and the fuels are a complex mix of hydrocarbons with other
components depending on their type. Different fuel types burn
best at different temperatures and this along with their chemical
composition and the spray pattern into the combustion chamber
is instrumental in determining the exhaust gases produced.
LNG is often proposed as the ideal solution to reduce NOx
emissions and while it is true that the level of NOx from a gas
burning engine is very low it is only a solution for ships equipped
with pure gas or dual fuel engines. It is possible for some diesel
engines to be converted but this is a major conversion and one
that would have to be evaluated weighing up many factors.
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 15
The production of NOx is easier to control in some engine
types than others and as a consequence the allowed limits for
each stage of the roll out programme differ depending on engine
speed with the low speed engines given the highest permissible
output as shown in the following tables.
NOX EMISSIONS
Tier I (all ships effective 19 May 2005)
Engine speed
<130rpm 17.0g/kWh
>130–2,000rpm 45 × rpm(-0.2)g/kWh
>2,000rpm 9.8g/kWh
Tier II (ships built from 1 January 2011)
Engine speed
<130rpm 14.4g/kWh
>130–2,000rpm 44 × rpm(-0.23)g/kWh
>2,000rpm 7.7g/kWh
Tier III (ships built from 1 January 2016)Applies only to ships operating in ECAs
Engine speed
<130rpm 3.4g/kWh
>130–2,000rpm 9 × rpm(-0.2)g/kWh>2,000rpm 2.0g/kWh
The NOx Technical Code allows for a variety of ways of proving
compliance. Ensuring engines meet the NOx limits is in the first
instance down to the engine maker. The engine should come with
a technical file and a certificate confirming the engine complies
with the relevant limits. Thereafter, the owner has a choice of
three methods of ensuring the engine continues to perform as
required.
LNG IS OFTEN PROPOSED AS THE IDEAL SOLUTION TO REDUCE NOX EMISSIONS.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
16 | AUGUST 2014
Wärtsilä Hamworthyscrubber technology
The first is the engine parameter check, under which it needs
to be demonstrated that all those areas that influence NOx
production remain in strict accordance with the engine maker’s
original test bed condition as regards components, calibration,
setting and operational parameters. Adopting this may mean
that no change to engine settings can be made without it
being accounted for in the technical file and it may mean that
use of third-party spare parts is out of the question. The parts
affected would probably include all those for the fuel injection
system, camshaft, valves and valve timing, pistons, heads and
liners, connecting rods and piston rods, charge air system and
turbochargers, plus others depending on the engine type.
While some operators are quite happy to stick to OEM spares,
others prefer cheaper pattern parts and for the latter there are two
options to consider, namely the simplified measurement method
or direct monitoring on board.
Simplified measurement entails an effective repeat of the
initial manufacturer’s test-bed certification procedure at every
intermediate and special survey. This may involve specialist
attendance. There is, however, no requirement that all parts on the
engine need to be OEM parts. Alternatively, direct measurement
and monitoring is possible, using type-approved equipment
available from a number of suppliers. Monitoring can either take
the form of spot checks logged with other engine operating data
on a regular basis and over the full range of engine operation, or
monitoring can be continuous and the data stored.
A variety of technologies are used in the monitoring systems,
most of which rely on traditional gas detection techniques. As is
to be expected, each of the makers believes that its equipment (or
the technology used in it) is the most appropriate.
No system is perfect, however, and each of them could
develop faults that would affect the accuracy of the test results.
Probes and sensors can become clogged, affecting accuracy
either way; leaks in the exhaust system and absorption of gases
are also problems that have been identified. To overcome this
problem, the monitoring equipment needs to be calibrated on a
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 17
MONITORING CAN EITHER TAKE THE FORM OF SPOT CHECKS LOGGED WITH OTHER ENGINE OPERATING DATA ON A REGULAR BASIS AND OVER THE FULL RANGE OF ENGINE OPERATION.
NOX
regular basis to ensure that it is functioning correctly.
The reliability of monitoring systems has improved over time as
their use has expanded. When there was only a need to monitor
NOx emissions most of the systems in use were set up to do just
that. However, now that SOx scrubbers (see next chapter) are
becoming more common, so the makers of monitoring systems
have enhanced their products to cover other regulated exhaust
emissions.
The new breed of monitors come with other enhancements
and at least one model on the market has a GPS input and can
be programmed to send an alarm to the bridge when the vessel
is close to a regulated emissions control zone in order that
arrangements can be put in hand to ensure compliance with the
rules effective there.
It should be noted that the NOx limits apply to the engine and
not the ship. A vessel which has replacement engines fitted will
need to comply with the limits applicable at the time of the engine
manufacture. There is also provision in the code for engines being
obliged to comply with a higher Tier limits if the OEM produces
means to make this possible. MAN Diesel & Turbo is one maker
that has done this for a limited number of engine types.
Meeting the NOx Code limits for Tier I and Tier II has been
achieved without too much difficulty and for Tier III a number of
options are being explored. These include:-
• Engine Tuning (Miller timing)
• Fuel water emulsions or direct water injection
• Air humidification
• Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)
• Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) - up to 95% reduction – more
difficult but achievable on slow speed diesels due to lower exhaust
gas temperature – allows engine to be tuned for minimum fuel
consumption
• Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) can achieve Tier 3 levels without
treatment
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
18 | AUGUST 2014
The first four options are under the control of engine
manufacturers and will doubtless be incorporated into future
engine models. Several makers have already announced Tier III
compliant engines but that does not mean that other methods
will not also be made use of not least because with some of the
options there are drawbacks such as increased fuel consumption
or sub-optimal operation.
Engine tuning works by reducing the length of the compression
stroke by way of later closing of the inlet valve. This has the effect
of reducing the combustion temperature and helps prevent
the formation of NOx. The use of water either as an emulsion,
direction injection or by humid air also reduces the combustion
temperature.
EGR has been common in smaller road engines for some time
and is now being adopted into marine engines. By recirculating
exhaust gas into the charge air, the oxygen content in the cylinder
is reduced and the specific heat capacity increased. Both cause
lower combustion temperatures and therefore fewer NOx
emissions.
Tier III only applies when vessels are operating in ECAs that
limit NOx emissions. When outside of such areas, the engines
need only meet Tier II standards and this makes SCR a possibly
attractive option.
In an SCR system a reducing agent (gaseous ammonia,
aqueous ammonia or aqueous urea solution) is added into the
stream of exhaust gas. The exhaust gases and reducing agent at a
temperature of 300 to 400º C are absorbed onto a catalyst, upon
which the nitrogen oxides are transformed on the catalytic surface
into nitrogen (N2) and water (H
2O). When urea is used then CO2
is also formed during the process. SCR is capable of removing
up to 99% of the NOx which is comfortably in excess of the 80%
reduction from Tier I levels required under Tier III.
SCR systems are not fool proof. If the exhaust gas temperature
is too high, the ammonia burns rather than forming a compound
with nitric oxide. If it is too low, it forms ammonium hydrogen
sulphate and gradually blocks the catalytic converter. The same
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 19
NOX
happens if the sulphur content of the exhaust gas is too high. The
minimum temperature required depends on the fuel’s sulphur
content.
The catalyst in an SCR system consists of a ceramic carrier
with the active catalyst an oxide of a metal such as tungsten
or vanadium. SCR systems are separate from the engine and
although leading engine makers are involved in their development,
there are also independent suppliers. Similar to the situation
with SOx exhaust gas cleaning systems, there are relatively
few manufacturers and both have formed loose trade bodies.
For scrubbers it is the EGSCA and for SCR it is the International
Association for Catalytic Control of Ship Emissions to Air
(IACCSEA).
SCR systems do have a relatively high capital cost and annual
running costs to take into account. The catalyst will need replacing
at intervals of around four to five years but because the catalysts
are arranged in a layered system which allows for only damaged
catalysts to be identified, removed and exchanged it is not
necessary to replace the entire catalyst at the same time. IACCSEA
has recently developed a tool that can be downloaded from the
organisations website and which allows an estimate of the capital
and running costs of a system for individual ships to be calculated.
A limiting factor in the take-up of SCR beyond the fact that the
need for them is really only just beginning has been the size and
weight of the systems and the need to carry sufficient supplies of
ammonia (normally in the form of urea). Even on the smallest ship
type the reagent storage tanks would likely need to be 5m³ and
on a large tanker, bulker or container ship possibly ten times larger
than that.
As regards the requirements of the NOx Technical Code, a
ship fitted with an SCR system will need to also be fitted with
continuous monitoring equipment to prove compliance.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
20 | AUGUST 2014
| CHAPTER 3: EXXONMOBIL
Lubricants meetthe requirements
WHAT VESSEL OPERATORS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE
REVISED VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT
Q: What is the Vessel General Permit (VGP)?
The VGP regulates incidental discharges from normal vessel
operations. The VGP is designed to ensure operators comply with
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act and
Oil Pollution Act.
Q: How is the revised VGP different from previous years?
All vessels must now use an environmentally acceptable lubricant
(EAL) in all oil-to-sea interfaces. There are also specific stipulations
to maintain seals and equipment to regulation standards, and
specific fines for non-compliance.
Q: What vessels need to fall under the latest VGP?
The VGP impacts all commercial vessels greater than 79 feet. This
includes those constructed on or after 19th December 2013 and all
vessels built before this date, unless technically infeasible.
Q: What jurisdiction does the VGP cover?
The VGP covers the waters of the United States, up to a range of 3
miles out from the coast, and Great Lakes.
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 21
Q: When did the latest VGP come into effect?
The 2013 VGP came into effect on December 19th 2013.
Q: In operational terms, what applications have been affected by
the revised VGP?
Applications that have been affected by the updated VGP include
stern tubes, controllable pitch propellers, stabilisers, rudders, paddle
wheels, thrusters, azipods, wire ropes and towing notch interfaces.
It is also recommended (but not a requirement) that deck
equipment use EALs if there is a risk of leakage running overboard.
Q: Do you have any more information?
For further information visit the EPA website – www.epa.gov
WHAT EXXONMOBIL IS DOING TO HELP OPERATORS
COMPLY WITH THE REVISED VGP
Q: Does ExxonMobil have VGP compliant products?
Yes. In September 2013, ExxonMobil launched Mobil SHC Aware™,
a comprehensive series of synthetic, environmentally acceptable
lubricants that are VGP complaint.*
Developed through extensive laboratory and in-service testing,
the Mobil SHC Aware range includes:
• Mobil SHC Aware™ H hydraulic fluids
• Mobil SHC Aware™ ST stern tube lubricants
• Mobil SHC Aware™ Grease EP 2 multi-purpose grease
• Mobil SHC Aware™ Gear range of gear oils
Mobil SHC Aware lubricants meet the stringent requirements
for environmentally acceptable lubricants as outlined in the 2013
VGP from the U.S. EPA, in addition to helping marine operators
enhance vessel reliability, minimise maintenance costs and reduce
potential environmental impact.
EXXON MOBIL OFFER THE ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE LUBRICANTS SUCH AS OUTSTANDING EQUIPMENT PROTECTION, HELPING SHIP OWNERS REDUCE COSTS AND INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
22 | AUGUST 2014
Risk of thermalshock reduced
Do your VGP compliant products meet Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) requirements?
ExxonMobil has many OEM endorsements in place and is continuing
to evaluate the requirement for any additional approvals.
Does the US Coast Guard/EPA know your products are VGP
compliant?
We recognise that consistent understanding and execution are
critical to the successful implementation of any regulations.
ExxonMobil has been proactively engaging with the US Coast Guard
and the EPA to provide education on lubricant technologies and
how they support the EPA/Coast Guard’s objectives to improve
environmental stewardship, while also proactively providing
education on our products and their capabilities.
How can I find out more information?
For further information please visit www.exxonmobil.com/marine
*Environmentally acceptable lubricants are defined in the VGP as lubricants that are
biodegradable, minimally toxic and are not bioaccumulative.
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 23
EXXONMOBIL LAUNCHES EXXON MOBIL PREMIUM HDME
50 MARINE FUEL
EXXONMOBIL MARINE FUELS & LUBRICANTS has
launched a new marine fuel designed to help marine
operators comply with the 0.10 percent sulphur cap set
to be introduced in Emission Control Areas (ECA)
beginning 1 Jan. 2015. ExxonMobil Premium Heavy Distillate Marine
ECA 50 (HDME 50) is a new category of marine fuel formulated to
meet the 2015 ECA sulphur limit and to help marine engineers safely
and efficiently operate their engines and boilers.
ExxonMobil Premium HDME 50 offers performance benefits
associated with both marine gas oil (MGO) and heavy fuel oil (HFO).
The fuel contains a low sulphur content associated with MGO, and
has the higher flashpoint and lower volatility properties typically
found in HFO. These characteristics enable marine operators to
comply with the upcoming sulphur cap and to reduce the risk of
engine and boiler damage.
The higher viscosity of ExxonMobil Premium HDME 50 makes
storage and handling the fuel on board similar to HFO. With the fuel
having to be heated, the risk of thermal shock to engine components
is reduced during switchovers when entering and leaving an
ECA. Thermal shock can result in fuel pumps seizures and engine
shutdowns.
Prior to its introduction, ExxonMobil Premium HDME 50 was tested
with Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics, one of the world’s leading shipping
and logistics groups, and is suitable for use in main and auxiliary engines
and marine type boilers. Following successful field trials, the new fuel
has received No Objection Letters from MAN Diesel & Turbo (MDT) for
use in MAN B&W two-stroke and MAN B&W Holeby genset designs,
provided MDT’s specific engine type guidelines are followed.
ExxonMobil Premium HDME 50 is already in use by a range of vessel
operators. It is available from Antwerp via barge delivery for vessels
operating in the Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp (ARA) region. In
addition, ExxonMobil continues to offer MGO at more than 40 ports
worldwide.
EXXON MOBIL PREMIUM HDME 50 MARINE FUEL
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
24 | AUGUST 2014
| CHAPTER 4: SOX
Pollution - Big consequences in Asia
MOST OF THE WORLD HAS ADOPTED the MARPOL
ANNEX VI regulations but there are some regional
regulations in force that go beyond it. Notably these
are all ports in member states of the EU where a
0.1% limits is in place under the EU Sulphur Directive, California and
Hong Kong.
On 1 January 2014, the California Ocean-Going Vessels Fuel
Regulation came into effect and set new reduced limits the for
both marine gas oil (DMA) and marine diesel oil (DMB) of 0.1%
m/m. The regulation comprises a fee provision by which ships that
are unable to achieve the fuel compliance can pay a fee instead.
In Hong Kong, the Air Pollution Control (Marine Light Diesel)
Regulation came into force on 1 April 2014. It introduced a new
sulphur content cap of 0.05% m/m for locally supplied marine
MARPOL ANNEX VI SOX LIMITS
Outside an ECA established to limit SOx and particulate matter emissions
Inside an ECA established to limit SOx and particulate matter emissions
4.50% m/m prior to 1 January 2012 1.50% m/m prior to 1 July 2010
3.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2012 1.00% m/m on and after 1 July 2010
0.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2020* 0.10% m/m on and after 1 January 2015
* - alternative date is 2025, to be decided by a review in 2018
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 25
light diesel. It also plans to impose the global cap of 0.5% on
vessels in port.
MARPOL Annex VI sets limits by mass for the sulphur content
of fuels as the primary means for controlling SOx emissions from
ships. Because it is purely a product of the combustion process,
SOx is only an issue for vessels burning residual fuels either in
diesel engines or in boilers. Ships that operate purely on distillates,
LNG or any of the newer gas fuels that do not contain sulphur
are not affected by any of the regulations controlling SOx and are
saved the additional expense of complying with the requirements
of MARPOL.
In 2009, the MEPC.184(59) guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning
Systems (EGCS) were adopted. These guidelines enable a ship to
achieve low-sulphur requirements by water washing the exhaust
gas stream prior to discharge to the atmosphere. Each country
party to Annex VI needs to ensure that its port and terminal
facilities can accommodate residues from exhaust gas cleaning
systems.
Reducing SOx levels in exhaust emissions can come about in
one of two ways. Either the sulphur level in fuel has to be reduced
or abatement technology – commonly referred to as scrubbing
– has to be employed. Unlike with NOx, there are no adjustments
that engine manufacturers can make but the use of low sulphur
fuel requires additional precautions that need to be taken in the
choice of engine lubricants.
When the SOx timetable and emission limits were being
determined a decade ago, many within the industry believed that
the only means to meet them would be a wholesale switch to
distillate fuels. In a debate that became very heated at times there
were even calls for residual fuels to be banned completely so that
all ships would be obliged to burn the same fuel and thus ensure a
level playing field.
Even though the price differential between standard and low-
sulphur fuels of around $70 was then much smaller than it is
today, the idea of a ban on residuals did not sit well with many ship
operators. While the first ECA sulphur limits were achievable using
SHIPS THAT OPERATE PURELY ON DISTILLATES, LNG OR ANY OF THE NEWER GAS FUELS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN SULPHUR ARE NOT AFFECTED.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
26 | AUGUST 2014
low-sulphur fuel oils, the reduction to 0.1% in 2015 was always going
to be impossible to meet given the state of technology at the time.
Although most industry expects were expecting owners to opt
for running on distillate fuels, some within the industry pinned
their faith on fledgling scrubber technology. Others have been
slower and with a new deadline approaching on 1 January 2015,
the take up of scrubbers is only just beginning to accelerate.
A MATTER OF CHOICE
Scrubbing technology is already established in shore-based
situations cleaning up emissions from oil and coal-based power
plants. The technology falls into two distinct categories – wet
and dry. Wet scrubbers are further divided into two types; open
loop and closed loop which were developed separately but which
are now usually combined into a hybrid system that can employ
the most appropriate technology depending upon prevailing
circumstances.
In an open loop scrubber seawater is used as the scrubbing and
neutralising medium and no additional chemicals are required.
The exhaust gas from the engine or boiler passes into the scrubber
and is treated with seawater. The volume of seawater will depend
upon engine size and power output but equates approximately to
around 40m3 per MWh meaning a quite high pumping capability
is required. The system is around 98% effective and even allowing
for fuel oil with 3.5% sulphur should have no problem reaching the
maximum 0.1% 2015 ECA level.
When fuel oil containing sulphur is burned in the presence of air,
the sulphur in the fuel combines with oxygen to form sulphur oxides.
In a scrubber, the sulphur oxides in the exhaust are passed through a
water stream reacting with it to form sulphuric acid and are removed
from the exhaust gas which then passes out of the system.
Sulphuric acid is highly corrosive but when diluted with
sufficient alkaline seawater it is neutralised and the wash water
can be discharged into the open sea after being treated in a
separator to remove any sludge. The alkalinity of seawater varies
due to a number of reasons. In estuaries and close to land it
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 27
IN AN OPEN LOOP SCRUBBER SEAWATER IS USED AS THE SCRUBBING AND NEUTRALISING MEDIUM.
SOX
may be brackish and closer to neutral and in some areas where
underwater volcanic activity takes place the water may naturally
be slightly acidic.
An open loop system can work perfectly satisfactorily only
when the seawater used for scrubbing has sufficient alkalinity.
Fresh water and brackish water are not effective and neither is
seawater at high ambient temperature. For this reason, an open
loop scrubber is not considered as suitable technology for areas
such as the Baltic where salinity levels are not high. MARPOL
regulations require the wash water to be monitored before
discharge to ensure that the PH value is not too low.
A closed loop scrubber works on similar principals to an open
loop system but instead of seawater it uses fresh water treated
with sodium hydroxide as the scrubbing media. This converts the
SOx from the exhaust gas stream into harmless sodium sulphate.
Unlike the flow through method of open loop scrubbers, the
wash water from a closed loop scrubber passes into a process
tank where it is cleaned before being recirculated. The fresh water
can either be carried in tanks or else produced on board if a fresh
water generator is installed on the ship.
In order to prevent build-up of sodium sulphate in the system,
a small amount of wash water is moved at regular intervals
either over side or to a holding tank and new freshwater added.
The volume of wash water required in a closed loop system is
around half that of the open loop version however, more tanks
are required. These are a process or buffer tank in the circulation
system, a holding tank where discharge to sea is prohibited and a
storage tank able to have a controlled temperature between 20º
and 50ºC for the sodium hydroxide which is usually used as a 50%
aqueous solution. There must also be storage space for the dry
sodium hydroxide.
The hybrid system is a combination of both wet types that
will operate as an open loop system where water conditions and
discharge regulations allow and as a closed loop system at other
times. Hybrid systems are proving to be the most popular because
they can cope with every situation.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
28 | AUGUST 2014
The wet systems are not the most compact pieces of
equipment and would take up considerable space if it were
necessary to install them in under deck machinery spaces.
Fortunately they can be installed in the funnel casing and can in
some cases replace part of the conventional exhaust system.
A dry system – of which only one has yet been devised for
marine use and the maker of it has since ceased trading – employs
pellets of hydrated lime to remove sulphur. An additional benefit
is that the high temperature in the scrubber burns off any soot
and oily residues. The lime pellets absorb sulphur and transform
to gypsum. Although spent pellets need to remain on board for
discharge at ports, they are not considered as waste because they
can be used for fertiliser and to produce plasterboard among
other things. The dry system has a lower power consumption than
wet systems as no pumps are required. However, the weight of the
unit is much higher than wet systems.
All scrubber systems require a treatment bypass for when
the ship is operating without the need to use the scrubber. This
prevents damage to the scrubber and reduces maintenance.
Care needs to be taken to ensure that the scrubber is not causing
backpressure to the engine as this could be damaging and will
affect NOx reduction systems.
The wording or MARPOL means that the decision whether to
allow scrubbers to meet the emission requirements rests with flag
states, and although none have yet declared against scrubbers it is
possible that their use may not be available to every vessel. Where
scrubbers are allowed, MARPOL rules permit their use by setting
equivalent emission limits in regulations 14.1 and 14.4 of ANNEX VI.
These limits are expressed as a ratio of SO2(ppm)/CO
2(% v/v) and
work out at approximately 43.3 for each 1% of sulphur content in
the fuel as shown in the following table.
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 29
THE HIGH TEMPERATURE IN THE SCRUBBER BURNS OFF ANY SOOT AND OILY RESIDUES.
SOX
Fuel Oil Sulphur Content(% m/m)
Ratio EmissionSO
2(ppm)/CO
2(% v/v)
4.50 195.0
3.50 151.7
1.50 65.0
1.00 43.3
0.50 21.7
0.10 4.3
Note: The use of the Ratio Emissions limits is only applicable when using petroleum based Distillate or Residual Fuel Oils. Flag states that decide to permit scrubbers on board ships will need to ensure that operators can prove compliance. Under ANNEX VI regulation 4 there are two schemes allowed for a system to be permitted that mirror the requirements for NOx compliance.
One demands that the performance of any scrubber is
certified before use and, as with the NOx systems, providing it is
always operated within approved parameters there is no need
for continuous exhaust emission measurements on the ship.
Parameters that must be continuously recorded include scrubbing
water pressure and flow rate at the scrubber inlet, exhaust pressure
before the scrubber and the pressure drop, fuel oil combustion
equipment load, and exhaust gas temperature either side of
the scrubber. A record of chemical consumption must also be
maintained.
Under the second scheme, the exhaust gas must be
continuously monitored when the equipment is in use and there
is no need for the system’s performance to be certified. Under
both schemes the condition of any washwater discharged to sea
must be continuously monitored for acidity, turbidity and PAH
(a measure of the harmful components of oil) and data logged
against time and ship’s position. A test for nitrate content is also
required at each renewal survey.
Wet scrubbers are good at removing particulate matter and
soot which although not currently regulated for specifically
are likely to be so in future. Typically a scrubber will remove at
least 500kg of particulate matter for every 100 tonnes of fuel oil
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
30 | AUGUST 2014
burned and possibly more depending on how much wash water
is used. These solids must be removed before the wash water is
discharged overboard and to conserve space the system should
have a separation phase included that removes as much of the
water as possible before sending the sludge to be stored for later
disposal ashore.
Scrubbers are increasingly being fitted to newbuildings but
the majority now in operation have been retrofits. The time for
a retrofit is currently more than a typical scheduled drydocking
meaning that extra lost earning days add to the capital outlay. The
capital cost of scrubbers is currently high at between $500,000
to $5M depending upon maker and vessel size but that would
conceivably reduce if volume sales materialise.
Payback time for a scrubber depends upon three variables;
the capital and installation cost of the system, annual fuel
consumption in ECAs and the price differential between distillate
fuel and the normal fuel used on the vessel. Makers often talk of a
payback time of less than year for ships operating full time in ECAs.
Take up rates for scrubbers may be improved if flag states and
others offer state aid. So far this has been mooted in Europe and
Finland is one of the first EU states to take action in line with a new
EC directive establishing a €30 million fund that owners can draw
on to cover half the capital and installation cost of any system they
install.
GLOBAL CAP COULD BE A GAME CHANGER
Currently the focus is on the rapidly approaching 2015 deadline
for the reduction to 0.1% sulphur in fuels applying in ECAs but the
biggest change will come in 2020 or 2025 depending on an IMO
review of fuel availability. The final effect of the current Annex VI
regulation on sulphur will be the reduction to sulphur limits of 0.5%
applying globally.
This is potentially a much more expensive regulation for the
whole shipping industry to deal with as all fuel will need to be low
sulphur. It is then when the demand for scrubbers is likely to soar
especially if they are proven effective in dealing with the more
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 31
SCRUBBERS ARE INCREASINGLY BEING FITTED TO NEWBUILDINGS BUT THE MAJORITY NOW IN OPERATION HAVE BEEN RETROFITS.
SOX
stringent demands in ECAs coming in 2015.
When the global cap of 0.5% comes into force, it is expected that
the price difference between ordinary HFO and low sulphur fuels
and distillates will widen beyond what it is today. Ships equipped
with scrubbers will still retain the option of burning virtually any fuel
but those without will be obliged to use only the more expensive
fuel. For newbuildings, another option is to install a dual-fuel or pure
gas burning engine as LNG does not contain sulphur. However,
some see this as a risky strategy as the future price of LNG is an
unknown factor and while there appears to be plenty available on a
global scale, the switch away from coal, nuclear and oil for shore-
based power production in the developed world could be a factor
in pushing future prices upward.
MAKING THE SWITCH
While scrubbers can allow ships to continue to make use of
lower cost fuels with high sulphur content, they do not suit every
operating strategy. For a ship which enters an ECA or any other area
(EU and Californian ports) where sulphur is limited only on very few
occasions, the capital outlay on a scrubber may not be recouped in
a reasonable period.
For such vessels the only means to remain compliant is to
switch from HFO to low-sulphur distillate fuel prior to entering
the controlled area. Switching fuels is something many operators
calling at EU and ECA ports have become familiar with over the
last few years but which may still be unfamiliar to crews operating
mostly outside of these areas.
The process can be long winded and is not without hazards
that need to be taken into account. For example, low-sulphur fuels
may damage existing HFO pumps because of reduced fuel oil
viscosity and lubricity leading to overheating and excessive wear.
Fuel injection pumps can be similarly affected necessitating their
replacement by special equipment such as tungsten-carbide-
coated pumps. Unless approved by the engine manufacturer, such
changes may affect the engine’s compliance with NOx legislation.
When running on HFO many components of the fuel system
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
32 | AUGUST 2014
are either heated directly or will become hot because of the fuel
temperature. MGO running through hot piping may vaporise,
creating vapour locks that interrupt the fuel supply to the engine.
During the changeover, rapid or uneven temperature change
could cause thermal shock, creating uncontrolled clearance
adaptation, which in turn may lead to sticking/scuffing of the
fuel valves, pump plungers, suction valves and, in the worst-case
scenario, total seizure of the pump. To maintain an appropriate
viscosity if MGO is used in an engine designed to run on HFO, a
new cooler may have to be fitted; in some cases it may even be
appropriate to install a chiller to remove heat through vapour-
compression or an absorption refrigeration cycle.
Ships entering ECAs must have a defined written procedure on
board to comply with Marpol Annex VI Regulation 14. The rules
also require that the following be recorded in the engine logbook:
• volume of low-sulphur fuel oils in each tank;
• date, time and position of vessel when changeover occurred
before entering an ECA and
• date, time and position of the vessel when changeover took place
after leaving it.
Several equipment-makers have developed devices intended
to facilitate switchover for crews. Electronically controlled engines
may be easier to manage during switchover, but that is a side-
effect of the technology. Devices designed with the changeover
in mind include automatic switchover management systems and
components for inclusion into the fuel treatment process. Some
have the ability to log the data and even transmit it to a shore
office. Where this feature is available it may be used to counter
claims about illegal use of fuels in ECAs.
Some devices also allow switching of fuels running at full load.
Sensors detect if fuel temperature changes too rapidly, in which
case the system freezes the position to protect the engine’s fuel
injection system from thermal shock and sends an alarm. For
safety, the fuel changeover process can also be stopped manually.
It some is also possible to integrate a flow and density meter to
calculate total fuel consumption.
SOX
Des
ign
Cri
teri
as
• E
nerg
y ef
fici
ent
• Fi
tted
as
In-l
ine
or B
y-P
ass
syst
em e
asy
to
build
in
• Ca
paci
ty f
rom
4 M
W t
o 20
MW
• W
eigh
s 30
to
40
% le
ss
• Ca
n be
pla
ced
hori
zont
al, v
erti
cal a
nd
anyt
hing
in b
etw
een
to m
inim
ize
stru
ctur
al
wor
k on
ret
rofi
t
• E
asy
mai
ntai
nabl
e i.e
. noz
zles
can
be
repl
aced
whi
le in
ope
rati
on
A hi
gh-t
ech,
ligh
t wei
ght c
ompo
site
or a
lloy
scru
bber
sys
tem
for t
he p
urifi
catio
n of
flue
gas
. H
ydro
dyna
mic
flui
d di
strib
utio
n en
sure
s op
timal
abs
orpt
ion
of s
ulph
uric
aci
d an
d pa
rtic
les.
ww
w.P
ure
teQ
.com
Mar
itim
e T
urb
o Sc
rubb
er
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
34 | AUGUST 2014
| CHAPTER 5: WASTE WATER
BIOCON wastewater treatment
IN RECENT YEARS, BALLAST WATER treatment has been the
topic of major interest as regards water treatment systems
on board vessels. The delay in ratifying the IMO convention
continues to hold up sales and installations although the US
requirements have meant that more operators are installing systems
than was previously the case.
The subject of ballast water treatment is extensive and is
covered in detail in the ShipInsight Ballast Water Guide which can
be downloaded from shipinsight.com. As a consequence the topic
will not be discussed here.
Leaving aside oily bilge water which is covered in the next
chapter, there are two other streams of waste water produced
on board ships. Commonly known as black and grey water these
are sewage and general cooking and cleaning waste respectively.
On a global scale sewage is subject to regulation and Annex IV
of MARPOL is where the international regulations can be found.
There are no international rules applying to grey water although
some contend that the chemicals used in laundry, dishwashing
and cleaning can be as hazardous to the marine environment as
sewage.
Annex IV has been in force since September 2003, and applies
to ships of 400GT and above and ships below 400GT that
are certified to carry more than 15 persons. It contains a set of
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 35
regulations regarding the discharge of sewage into the sea, ships’
equipment and systems for the control of sewage discharge and
requirements for survey and issuance of the International Sewage
Pollution Prevention Certificate (ISPP) that all ships subject to the
regulation must carry.
Rules on black water discharge, specified in MEPC 159(55)
under MARPOL Annex IV, came into force in January 2010. They
cut permissible sewage discharge levels of suspended solids from
new buildings by more than half, even in open sea, the volume
of allowable faecal coliform discharges by more than 70% and
biochemical oxygen demand by 50%. The rules also introduced
a particularly low limit of residual chlorine to protect the marine
environment and aqua life from the side effects of sewage
treatment.
In 2011, Annex IV was revised so that a higher level of
protection against sewage pollution can be applied in Special
Areas. The amendments introduced the concept of Special Areas
and the designation of the Baltic Sea as the first Special Area. It
also introduced new provisions applying to Passenger Ships.
The equipment required on board ships subject to Annex IV
is detailed in Regulation 9. Prior to the 2011 amendments, only
paragraph 1 was in force with paragraph 2 being added in 2012.
REGULATION 9
1. Every ship which, in accordance with regulation 2, is required to
comply with the provisions of this Annex shall be equipped with
one of the following sewage systems:
.1 a sewage treatment plant which shall be of a type approved by
the Administration, taking into account the standards and test
methods developed by the Organization∗, or
.2 a sewage comminuting and disinfecting system approved by
the Administration. Such system shall be fitted with facilities to the
satisfaction of the Administration, for the temporary storage of
sewage when the ship is less than 3 nautical miles from the
nearest land, or
.3 a holding tank of the capacity to the satisfaction of the
THERE ARE NO INTERNATIONAL RULES APPLYING TO GREY WATER ALTHOUGH SOME CONTEND THAT THE CHEMICALS USED IN LAUNDRY, DISHWASHING AND CLEANING CAN BE AS HAZARDOUS TO THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT AS SEWAGE.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
36 | AUGUST 2014
Administration for the retention of all sewage, having regard to
the operation of the ship, the number of persons on board and
other relevant factors. The holding tank shall be constructed to the
satisfaction of the Administration and shall have a means to
indicate visually the amount of its contents.
* Refer to the Recommendation on International effluent standards and guidelines for
performance tests for sewage treatment plants adopted by the Organization by resolution
MEPC.2(VI). For existing ships national specifications are acceptable.
2. By derogation from paragraph 1, every passenger ship which,
in accordance with regulation 2, is required to comply with the
provisions of this Annex, and for which regulation 11.3 applies
while in a special area, shall be equipped with one of the following
sewage systems:
.1 a sewage treatment plant which shall be of a type approved by
the Administration, taking into account the standards and test
methods developed by the Organization,2 or
.2 a holding tank of the capacity to the satisfaction of the
Administration for the retention of all sewage, having regard to
the operation of the ship, the number of persons on board and
other relevant factors. The holding tank shall be constructed to the
satisfaction of the Administration and shall have a means to
indicate visually the amount of its contents.”
The new paragraph 2 removed one of the previous sewage
treatment options permitted to ships operating in the Baltic
and also introduced new performance standards for treatment
plants. In October 2012 The MEPC adopted the 2012 Guidelines
on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests
for sewage treatment plants. The new standards apply to new
passenger ships from 1 January 2016 and for existing passenger
vessels from January 2018. A decision on which nitrogen and
phosphorus removal standard to adopt is expected to be made at
MEPC 67 in October 2014.
As can be seen from Regulation 9, the approval of sewage
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 37
THE MEPC ADOPTED THE 2012 GUIDELINES ON IMPLEMENTATION OF EFFLUENT STANDARDS AND PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS.
WASTE WATER
treatment plants is left to the flag state. There is plenty of choice
both in numbers of suppliers and in the technologies and
treatment methods used.
Systems for treating sewage employ methods ranging from
those based on physical or chemical separation to biological
and electrolytic treatment systems. Not surprisingly because the
objective is to destroy harmful bacteria in sewage many of the
treatment methods employed are the same as those used in
ballast water treatment systems. As well as biological treatment,
hypochlorination and UV are commonly employed. Some systems
do not rely on a single method but combine methods to increase
effectiveness. Membrane bio-reactors are also popular.
Greywater issues have remained largely absent from the
maritime conscience, perhaps due to the rather more obvious and
immediate effects of blackwater. But greywater can pose equally
difficult challenges, particularly if a dangerous chemical finds its
way into a sink, laundry or shower system.
Greywater has managed to creep under the regulatory radar,
mostly because it has a tenth of the levels of nitrogen and
pathogens that appear in sewage and decomposes more rapidly.
But due to the high volume of untreated greywater produced by
the ever-increasing number of passenger cruise ships and ferries,
manufacturers have developed systems aimed at greywater
treatment.
The development of greywater-oriented systems has also
come about because of the need to establish ways to effect the
complete degradation of organic matter found in greywater,
including fat and grease. Many manufacturers are active in the
sector and again a variety of technologies are employed. In order
to remove fat and grease, some systems make use of separation
technology similar to that used for treating oily bilge water and
described in more detail in the following chapter.
It is not unknown for black and grey water to become mixed
due to operational reasons such as use of wrong tanks or when
one tank becomes full and the only space available is in the other
system’s holding tank. In 2012 at IMO MEPC 64, the delegation
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
38 | AUGUST 2014
Headworks CleanSea® wastewatersystem being installed
of the Netherlands informed the Committee of some preliminary
results on a survey conducted on the performance status of the
sewage treatment plants installed on board ships, which indicated
that a vast majority of the equipment did not meet the existing
sewage treatment standards due to improper use of detergent,
lack of maintenance or not following the operational instructions.
Revelations such as this can mean a concerted inspection
campaign will be initiated by PSC regimes.
Although MARPOL does not regulate grey water, some other
national and state bodies do. Regional rules vary and change
frequently. In Alaska, stringent limits regarding cruise ship
discharges were introduced in 2000 (33CFR159 sub-part E) with
grey water regulated for the first time.
In addition to Alaska’s clean-up efforts, the Great Lakes, US
waters (EPA Vessel General Permit, 2013), and inland waterways in
Europe (2012/49/EU) have also regulated grey water treatment in
various shapes and forms, each affecting certain shipping sectors.
There are already four sets of different type approval specifications
and at least five different compliancy regimes for operators and
equipment makers to contend with.
Some equipment makers have developed treatment systems
that can handle both black and grey water. These systems ensure
compliance with regulations and also save space as there is no
need to duplicate equipment.
WASTE WATER
40 | AUGUST 2014
COMPANY WEBSITE NOX
SOX
DIESEL SWITCH EMISSION MONITORING BLACK & GREY WATER OWS/OCM SEALS LUBES MISCELLANEOUS
ACO MARINE WWW.ACOMARINE.COM •
AEC MARITIME WWW.AECMARITIME.COM •
ALFA LAVAL WWW.ALFALAVAL.COM • • • •
AQUAMETRO WWW.AQUAMETRO.COM • •
CASTROL WWW.CASTROL.COM •
CJC WWW.CJC.DK •
CLEAN MARINE WWW.CLEANMARINE.NO •
COMPASS WATER SOLUTION WWW.CWORLDWATER.COM •
CR OCEAN ENGINEERING WWW.CROCEANX.COM •
CROLL REYNOLDS WWW.CROLL.COM •
DECKMA WWW.DECKMA.COM •
DELTALANGH WWW.DELTALANGH.COM •
DESMI A/S WWW.DESMI.COM •
DUPONT BELCO WWW.BELCOTECH.COM/MARINE •
DVZ WWW.DVZ-SERVICES.DE • •
ENSOLVE BIOSYSTEMS WWW.ENSOLVE.COM • •
EVAC WWW.EVAC.COM •
EXXONMOBIL WWW.EXXONMOBIL.COM •
GEA WESTFALIA SEPARATOR GROUP WWW.GEA.COM • • •
GREEN INSTRUMENTS WWW.GREENINSTRUMENTS.COM •
GREEN TECH MARINE WWW.GREENTECHMARINE.COM •
GULF OIL WWW.GULF-MARINE.COM •
HALDOR TOPSØE WWW.TOPSOE.COM •
HITACHI ZOSEN WWW.HITACHIZOSEN.CO.JP •
INSATECH A/S WWW.INSATECHMARINE.COM • • • • •
JOWA WWW.JOWA.SE • • •
KLUBER WWW.KLUEBER.COM •
MAHLE WWW.MAHLE-INDUSTRY.COM •
MAN DIESEL WWW.MANDIESELTURBO.COM • • • •
MARINE EXHAUST TECHNOLOGY WWW.MAEXTE.COM •
MARINFLOC WWW.MARINFLOC.COM • •
MARTEK MARINE WWW.MARTEK-MARINE.COM •
MES WWW.MARINEEXHAUSTSOLUTIONS.COM •
MYCELX WWW.MYCELX.COM •
PANASIA WWW.WORLDPANASIA.COM • •
PURETEQ WWW.PURETEQ.COM •
RSC BIO SOLUTIONS WWW.RSCBIO.COM •
RWO WWW.RWO.DE • •
SAACKE WWW.SAACKE.COM •
SKF WWW.BV-INDUSTRIES.COM • •
THORDON BEARINGS WWW.THORDONBEARINGS.COM •
TOTAL LUBMARINE WWW.LUBMARINE.COM •
VICKERS OIL WWW.VICKERS-OIL.COM •
VICTOR MARINE WWW.VICTORMARINE.COM • •
WARTSILA WWW.WARTSILA.COM • • • • • • • •
YARA WW.YARA.COM • •
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
AUGUST 2014 | 41
COMPANY WEBSITE NOX
SOX
DIESEL SWITCH EMISSION MONITORING BLACK & GREY WATER OWS/OCM SEALS LUBES MISCELLANEOUS
ACO MARINE WWW.ACOMARINE.COM •
AEC MARITIME WWW.AECMARITIME.COM •
ALFA LAVAL WWW.ALFALAVAL.COM • • • •
AQUAMETRO WWW.AQUAMETRO.COM • •
CASTROL WWW.CASTROL.COM •
CJC WWW.CJC.DK •
CLEAN MARINE WWW.CLEANMARINE.NO •
COMPASS WATER SOLUTION WWW.CWORLDWATER.COM •
CR OCEAN ENGINEERING WWW.CROCEANX.COM •
CROLL REYNOLDS WWW.CROLL.COM •
DECKMA WWW.DECKMA.COM •
DELTALANGH WWW.DELTALANGH.COM •
DESMI A/S WWW.DESMI.COM •
DUPONT BELCO WWW.BELCOTECH.COM/MARINE •
DVZ WWW.DVZ-SERVICES.DE • •
ENSOLVE BIOSYSTEMS WWW.ENSOLVE.COM • •
EVAC WWW.EVAC.COM •
EXXONMOBIL WWW.EXXONMOBIL.COM •
GEA WESTFALIA SEPARATOR GROUP WWW.GEA.COM • • •
GREEN INSTRUMENTS WWW.GREENINSTRUMENTS.COM •
GREEN TECH MARINE WWW.GREENTECHMARINE.COM •
GULF OIL WWW.GULF-MARINE.COM •
HALDOR TOPSØE WWW.TOPSOE.COM •
HITACHI ZOSEN WWW.HITACHIZOSEN.CO.JP •
INSATECH A/S WWW.INSATECHMARINE.COM • • • • •
JOWA WWW.JOWA.SE • • •
KLUBER WWW.KLUEBER.COM •
MAHLE WWW.MAHLE-INDUSTRY.COM •
MAN DIESEL WWW.MANDIESELTURBO.COM • • • •
MARINE EXHAUST TECHNOLOGY WWW.MAEXTE.COM •
MARINFLOC WWW.MARINFLOC.COM • •
MARTEK MARINE WWW.MARTEK-MARINE.COM •
MES WWW.MARINEEXHAUSTSOLUTIONS.COM •
MYCELX WWW.MYCELX.COM •
PANASIA WWW.WORLDPANASIA.COM • •
PURETEQ WWW.PURETEQ.COM •
RSC BIO SOLUTIONS WWW.RSCBIO.COM •
RWO WWW.RWO.DE • •
SAACKE WWW.SAACKE.COM •
SKF WWW.BV-INDUSTRIES.COM • •
THORDON BEARINGS WWW.THORDONBEARINGS.COM •
TOTAL LUBMARINE WWW.LUBMARINE.COM •
VICKERS OIL WWW.VICKERS-OIL.COM •
VICTOR MARINE WWW.VICTORMARINE.COM • •
WARTSILA WWW.WARTSILA.COM • • • • • • • •
YARA WW.YARA.COM • •
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
42 | AUGUST 2014
| CHAPTER 6: OIL & GREASE
Alfa LavalPureDry
ALTHOUGH MOST CURRENT INTEREST in shipping’s
impact on the environment has been focussed on
ballast water and exhaust emissions, it is pollution by oil
that is the raison d’etre of MARPOL and most other
regulation. Above all it is pollution resulting from operational
reasons rather than accidental loss of cargo or bunkers as a result of
grounding or collision that is the issue and this is covered in ANNEX I
of MARPOL as well as the US EPA’s VGP introduced in 2008.
The major part of ANNEX I is actually concerned with
construction and cargo operations of oil tankers over 150GT and
the parts which affect other vessel types over 400GT is confined
to a very few operational matters as well as the form and issuing
of the International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate (needed in
most ports to obtain custom’s clearance) and the need for ships to
have and maintain an oil record book.
The first demand as regards the operational waste oil from
machinery is that the ship must be fitted with adequate holding
tank capacity for any waste that cannot be dealt with by way of
discharge or incineration. Most ships generate large amounts of
oily waste (waste contaminated with oil) and waste oils (such as
spent lubes or sludge from fuel and lube treatment systems).
As well as the oil in the bilge water there will be grease,
detergents and cleaning fluids along with contaminants that may
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 43
have been removed from fuel and lube treatment systems, some
of these may present more of a hazard to the marine environment
than oil does. Prior to the introduction of regulations, all of this
waste would generally have been disposed of at sea. Today all
vessels above 400GT are required to filter the waste so as to
reduce the oil content to a maximum of 15ppm (Canadian rules on
the Great Lakes have a maximum of 5ppm) before discharging it at
sea. Some classification societies also demand a higher standard
of 5ppm to comply with their voluntary clean design notations
The resultant waste must be retained on board for disposal
ashore. The filtering is done by a bilge or oily water separator – a
piece of equipment that has gained an unenviable reputation
in recent years. As well as the separator, all vessels subject to
the regulation must also be fitted with an oil content monitor
(OCM) and bilge alarm to detect if the treated bilge water being
discharged meets the discharge requirements. Separators used on
board ships are not generally unique pieces of equipment design
specifically for marine use but will be versions of separators used
in many industries ashore.
It is generally accepted that separators have not performed
as well at sea as they do in applications ashore. There are many
reasons for this including the fact that the waste products are less
easy to deal with, the conditions at sea with constant movement
in many planes affecting operation and the fact that installed
systems often lack the capacity to meet the demands placed on
them.
As a consequence, they require constant monitoring and
frequent cleaning and overhaul which has made them unpopular
with many seafarers. This coupled with the operators’ desire to
reduce the cost of disposing of treated waste ashore has led to
several instances where the separator has been by-passed and
waste discharged illegally overboard. These are the so-called
‘magic pipe’ incidents that lead to regularly reported prosecutions
by port state control regimes and heavy fines and imprisonments
especially in the US.
The regulations may lay down a maximum limit of oil but they
THE SHIP MUST BE FITTED WITH ADEQUATE HOLDING TANK CAPACITY FOR ANY WASTE THAT CANNOT BE DEALT WITH BY WAY OF DISCHARGE OR INCINERATION.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
44 | AUGUST 2014
leave the means of achieving this open. As a consequence, several
technologies are used across the diverse range of separators
available and crew members may find themselves having to
operate and service unfamiliar equipment. For someone trained
on centrifugal separators, dealing with those that use membranes,
flocculation or absorption filters means valuable time must be
spent searching out manuals and attempting to make sense of
them.
Early separators were mostly of the gravity separation type
that employ plate or filter coalescing technology to separate oil
and water. The bilge water is usually heated gently to improve
separation with the oil gradually settling out above the water
content. The oil is then pumped to the holding tank and the water
discharged to sea after passing through the OCM. Without further
refinements, gravity separators can have difficulty in meeting
the 15ppm standard especially when the bilge water contains
emulsified oils which do not separate easily.
Centrifugal separators also work using the different densities of
oil and water but with the centrifuge greatly multiplying the gravity
effect as the centrifuge accelerates. This type of separator is more
efficient and can generally deal with emulsified oils. Many crew
members are familiar with this type of equipment which is also
used for preparing fuels and lubes before use by removing sludge
and homogenising the fuel or lube. They are more compact than
gravity type separators but have the disadvantage of requiring
power to operate the centrifuge and because of their moving parts
often have a higher maintenance requirement.
One way for separator performance to be improved is to add a
polishing device into the circuit. Several makers’ current systems
include a polishing stage but for older vessels, adding a polishing
unit between separator and monitor will improve the performance
sufficient to prevent alarms sounding constantly.
Other technologies are also used for cleaning bilge water
including absorption and adsorption, flocculation, biological and
membrane separation. Absorption and adsorption are very similar
physicochemical processes and for the purpose of this guide can
Join your peers, partners and prospects at the leading maritime event week, when the maritime world will meet again in Norway to explore the future.
Reserve your exhibition space today atwww.nor-shipping.com
THESTAGE IS YOURS
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
46 | AUGUST 2014
be considered together. In both cases, the bilge water is forced
through the sorption media in a reactor or contactor vessel and
the oil is removed. When the sorption material has reached its
full capacity it is removed and replaced with fresh material. Some
sorption materials can be regenerated on board but others will
need to be delivered to shore. Popular absorption materials
include bentonite and zeolite used as substrates or in cartridges.
Typically 100m3 of bilge water will require 10kg of media.
Flocculation and coagulation make use of an emulsion
breaking chemical to treat emulsions after any free oil has been
separated. The chemical breaks down the emulsion and the
released oil comes together to form flocks which can then be
skimmed off leaving the remaining water to go through further
filtration stages. This method tends to produce large amounts of
sludge and requires an outlay on the chemical reagent.
Biological treatment employs microbacteria in a bioreactor to
literally consume the organic chemicals in the oil converting it
to carbon dioxide and water. It is a slow but effective treatment
for oil and emulsions as well as also removing some of the other
solvents often found in bilge water. Capital outlay can be high but
operating costs are low. Care must be taken to avoid overload on
the microrganisms and maintaining operating temperature within
the safe range to avoid destroying them.
Membrane technology, ultrafine filtration and reverse osmosis
are all physical means of preventing oil and other large molecules
from remaining with the water that can pass through the filter
barrier. They are efficient but require attention to prevent blocking
of the filter or membrane.
Avoiding problems with separators begins long before the
device is switched on and involves a proper plan for managing
waste streams and doing as much as possible to prevent
emulsions forming especially if they are chemical emulsions
resulting from the use of cleaning chemicals and detergents. So
called primary emulsions in which larger drops of oil are dispersed
in water generally separate through gravity within 24 hours.
Secondary emulsions caused by turbulent conditions where oil
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 47
IT IS A SLOW BUT EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR OIL AND EMULSIONS AS WELL AS ALSO REMOVING SOME OF THE OTHER SOLVENTS OFTEN FOUND IN BILGE WATER.
OIL & GREASE
droplets are very fine become stable and will not separate easily.
Solid material should also be prevented from contaminating the
bilge as much as possible. Not only does it promote emulsification
it also creates false alarm situations and shuts down the separator
requiring crew intervention to restart the separation process. Filters
and removal of solids before treatment will allow the separator to
operate more effectively and for longer.
Oil-in-water monitors may be fooled by suspended solids such
as rust and scale which are quite innocuous but they may not
detect the presence of some chemicals which could be toxic to
marine life when discharged into the sea. The monitor is a crucial
component of separators and is often not an in-house product of
the separator maker.
SEALING THE LEAKS
Lubricant leak from propeller shaft and rudder bearings are a
common cause of pollution and have attracted attention in recent
years. Until around 50 years ago, many ships were fitted with
propeller shaft bearings made from lignum vitae an extremely
dense timber with a high degree of natural lubricity but these were
abandoned in favour of metal bearings and mineral oil lubricants.
Now, as environmental regulations tighten, water-lubricated
propeller shaft bearings are becoming a popular alternative to
oil-lubricated bearings for commercial vessels. This was already
happening before the US EPA revised the VGP last year but that
action is likely to accelerate take up of water lubricated bearings
and new seal types and also a greater use of new approved
lubricants.
Conventional seals inevitably leak over time due to wear
and damage but water-lubricated bearings avoid oils and grease
lubricants altogether. Seawater is pumped into the bearing and it
simply discharges to the sea. It lubricates and dissipates heat from
shaft friction and most manufacturers of water lubricated seals say
their products provide equal performance.
US rules mean lube changes
Under the new VGP introduced in the US last year the list of
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
48 | AUGUST 2014
permitted substances and the quantity each ship above 300GT will
be allowed to discharge was reduced – quite dramatically in some
cases. One of the changes under the VGP affects lubricants in any
equipment or system that has an oil-to-sea interface. In essence,
that affects all propulsion systems and also deck machinery where
run-off over the ship’s side could occur.
Previously under the earlier 2008 VGP, operators were free
to use any lubricant they wished but from December 2013 the
rules require environmentally acceptable lubricants (EALs) unless
doing so would be ‘technically unfeasible’. EALs are defined as
biodegradable, which rules out all mineral-based lubricants and
even some synthetic alternatives. The exact definition of an EAL
is contained in an EPA document, EPA 800-R-11-002 November
2011, which can be accessed via the organisation’s website.
Operators have to apply for a VGP before a vessel enters US
waters and to do so they need to identify all oil-to-sea interfaces
and lubricants involved. Among the most obvious systems are
the stern tube, rudder bearings, CP propellers, thrusters, and fin
stabilisers. In addition, winches, cranes, hatch covers, and even
crane wires and the like must be considered. The ship will be
required to document all lubricants and any reason why the use of
an EAL would be technically unfeasible.
Most major oil companies and some specialist suppliers
have formulated compliant products that are readily available
although with a premium price tag. However, these products are
not necessarily compatible with some makes of seals, especially
conventional rubber seals. This is a known problem and most
combinations of lubricants and seals have been tested for
compatibility over normal dry docking cycles of two to three years.
In selecting an EAL, operators must therefore seek advice from
the seal manufacturer and great care must be exercised if the
vessel makes use of enhanced or extended dry docking strategies.
Inspections with regard to EALs would involve visual sheen tests
and inspections of deck runoff. Some checking will be carried out
by state authorities, with California and Florida expected to be
quite active. The ‘unless technically infeasible’ proviso can allow
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 49
OIL & GREASE
some temporary relief if the ship has seals that are incompatible
with any EALs, in which case it can continue to use mineral oil
until the next planned docking, when the seals are to be replaced,
or if the equipment manufacturer has no recommended seal-EAL
combination for its product. Some pre- lubricated wire ropes are
also included in the exemption.
If the use of an EAL in an oil-to-sea interface is claimed to be
technically infeasible, the ship must carry documentation to that
effect. Supporting documentation written by the manufacturer
or owner must not be more than one year old and must confirm
the factual situation. Any such claims may be investigated by the
US authorities, with severe penalties if they are found to be falsely
declared.
ACO Greaseseperator
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
50 | AUGUST 2014
| CHAPTER 7: OTHER MEASURES
ALL SHIPS TEND TO GENERATE garbage such as food
waste, packing materials, securing and separation
materials and cargo residues. Getting rid of
ship-generated waste costs money and it is likely that
those costs have increased over the last 18 months since the 2011
amendments to MARPOL ANNEX V came into force on 1 January
2013.
Incinerators or compactors were already installed on
many ships allowing them to manage their waste but others
have only rudimentary facilities that could eventually prove
inadequate under the new regime. Even for those ships fitted
with incinerators, the new regulations mean the ash residue is
considered as garbage and should be disposed of ashore.
The 2013 rules contained detailed descriptions of different
VOMM - Treatmentof food waste
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 51
waste types and where they may be discharged at sea. Segregating
the waste requires effective management on board and alongside
the new discharge regulations is a requirement for every ship
above 100GT to have in place a garbage management plan and
to carry a record book detailing all aspects of waste handling and
disposal.
A ship’s garbage management plan should contain a list
of the particular ship’s equipment and arrangements for the
handling of ship-generated garbage, and may contain extracts
from and/or references to existing company instructions and
manuals. In addition, a crew member has to be designated as the
environmental control officer responsible for maintaining records
and arranging disposal.
Any garbage that cannot be disposed of onboard will need to
be sent to a shore waste facility any may need to be segregated.
The most appropriate procedures for handling and storing
garbage will vary depending on factors such as the type and size
of the ship, the area of operation, shipboard garbage processing
equipment and storage space, the number of crew or passengers,
the duration of the voyage, and regulations and reception facilities
at ports of call.
However, in view of the cost involved with the different
garbage handling options, it is economically advantageous first to
limit the amount of material that may become garbage from being
brought on board the ship and, second, separate garbage eligible
for discharge into the sea from other garbage that may not be
discharged in this way.
Several companies provide segregation and compacting plant
suitable for any size of ship, although on small vessels it should be
quite easy for the crew to fashion something suitable themselves.
Compactors, baling presses, shredders, and crushers, can
reduce the volume of ship generated waste by up to 90%. That is
significant if the cost of shore disposal is taken into account.
EVEN FOR THOSE SHIPS FITTED WITH INCINERATORS, THE NEW REGULATIONS MEAN THE ASH RESIDUE IS CONSIDERED AS GARBAGE.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
52 | AUGUST 2014
TYPE OF GARBAGE SHIPS OUTSIDE SPECIAL AREAS SHIPS WITHIN SPECIAL AREAS OFFSHORE PLATFORMS (MORE THAN 12NM FROM LAND) AND ALL SHIPS WITHIN 500M OF SUCH PLATFORMS
FOOD WASTE COMMINUTED OR GROUND
DISCHARGE PERMITTED 3NM FROM THE NEAREST LAND, EN ROUTE AND AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE
DISCHARGE PERMITTED 12NM FROM THE NEAREST LAND, EN ROUTE AND AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE
DISCHARGE PERMITTED
FOOD WASTE NOT COMMINUTED OR GROUND
DISCHARGE PERMITTED 12NM FROM THE NEAREST LAND, EN ROUTE AND AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE
DISCHARGE PROHIBITED DISCHARGE PROHIBITED
CARGO RESIDUES1 NOT CONTAINED IN WASH WATER
DISCHARGE PERMITTED 12NM FROM THE NEAREST LAND, EN ROUTE AND AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE
DISCHARGE PROHIBITED DISCHARGE PROHIBITED
CARGO RESIDUES1 CONTAINED IN WASH WATER
DISCHARGE PERMITTED 12NM FROM THE NEAREST LAND, EN ROUTE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE
DISCHARGE PERMITTED 12NM FROM THE NEAREST LAND, EN ROUTE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE AND SUBJECT TO TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS2
DISCHARGE PROHIBITED
CLEANING AGENTS AND ADDITIVES1 CONTAINED IN CARGO HOLD WASH WATER
DISCHARGE PERMITTED DISCHARGE PERMITTED 12NM FROM THE NEAREST LAND, EN ROUTE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE AND SUBJECT TO TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS2
DISCHARGE PROHIBITED
CLEANING AGENTS AND ADDITIVES1 IN DECK AND EXTERNAL SURFACES WASH WATER
DISCHARGE PERMITTED DISCHARGE PERMITTED DISCHARGE PROHIBITED
CARCASSES OF ANIMALS CARRIED ON BOARD AS CARGO AND WHICH DIED DURING THE VOYAGE
DISCHARGE PERMITTED AS FAR FROM THE NEAREST LAND AS POS-SIBLE AND EN ROUTE
DISCHARGE PROHIBITED DISCHARGE PROHIBITED
ALL OTHER GARBAGE INCLUDING PLASTICS, SYNTHETIC ROPES, FISH-ING GEAR, PLASTIC GARBAGE BAGS, INCINERATOR ASHES, CLINKERS, COOKING OIL, FLOATING DUNNAGE, LINING AND PACKING MATERIALS, PA-PER, RAGS, GLASS, METAL, BOTTLES, CROCKERY AND SIMILAR REFUSE
DISCHARGE PROHIBITED DISCHARGE PROHIBITED DISCHARGE PROHIBITED
MIXED GARBAGE WHEN GARBAGE IS MIXED WITH OR CONTAMINATED BY OTHER SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM DISCHARGE OR HAVING DIFFERENT DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS, THE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL APPLY
SIMPLIFIED OVERVIEW OF THE DISCHARGE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED MARPOL ANNEX
These substances must not be harmful to the marine environment.According to regulation 6.1.2 of MARPOL Annex V the discharge shall only be allowed if: (a) both the port of departure and the next port of destination are within the special area and the ship will not transit outside the special area between these ports (regulation 6.1.2.2); and (b) if no adequate reception facilities are available at those ports (regulation 6.1.2.3).
SHIPINSIGHT.COM
AUGUST 2014 | 53
BY PREVENTING FOULING THEY ALLOW SHIPS TO BURN LESS FUEL AND THEREFORE PLAY A ROLE IN REDUCTION OF EXHAUST EMISSIONS.
OTHER MEASURES
COATINGS
Coatings used to protect against hull fouling have different
environmental impacts. By preventing fouling they allow ships
to burn less fuel and therefore play a role in reduction of exhaust
emissions. However, even though TBT which was said to have
had an adverse environmental effect causing problems for some
marine organism has now been banned from use, some are saying
that the copper-based substitutes are also hazardous.
Details on most of the current range of coatings and the
technologies employed can be found in the ShipInsight Guide to
Paints & Coatings.
While criticisms are being directed at the replacement anti-
fouling products for still having the potential to hard wildlife,
the IMO has recognised the role that anti-foulings can have
in preventing species transfer. In July 2011, the IMO issued
RESOLUTION MEPC.207(62) “Guidelines for the control and
management of ships’ biofouling to minimise the transfer of
invasive aquatic species”. The guidelines are contained in a 25
page document and while couched in the typical language of IMO
regulations, they are nothing more than industry best practice
on application, inspection and maintenance of the hull coating
system.
Currently the guidelines are purely advisory, although flag states
are encouraged to ensure their use on board ships. It is expected
that at some future date, the guidelines will become mandatory.
EFFICIENCY DRIVE
The push for efficiency improvements in ships needed partly to
allow newbuildings to meet the EEDI requirements but mostly
driven by operators desiring to reduce fuel costs is being met
by manufacturers across a range of products. Every method of
reducing fuel consumption that can be employed has the added
environmental benefit of cutting exhaust emissions.
Energy saving devices (ESDs) come in many guises from hull
modifications, through to propeller/rudder combinations and
appendages and adaptations to engines and machinery. Taking
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
54 | AUGUST 2014
things a little further, the term can include means of exploiting
energy from the wind, sun and waves or storing excess power by
way of batteries for use later.
Today, ESDs have become linked in the minds of many to the
slow steaming strategies adopted by some operators – particularly
in the container trades. While it is true that some devices such
as turbocharger cut-outs and concepts such as variable turbine
geometry have come about simultaneously with slow steaming,
their use can be extended to vessels for other reasons as well.
Several means of cutting fuel use were explored in the
ShipInsight Guide to ESDs and employing one or more of the
devices could lead to savings from 2% to 17%. In many cases the
payback period is measured in months and not years.
Software too has a role to play in reducing fuel use and so
cutting emissions. Two type of application in particular are worthy
of particular consideration; Trim optimisation and weather routing.
Both have been heavily promoted by proponents of e-navigation
although the need for such software has been questioned by
some who believe that it undermines the knowledge and expertise
of ships’ navigating officers.
Coatings play a role inreduction of exhaust emissions
56 | JULY 2014
53° 33‘ 47“ N, 9° 58‘ 33“ E
hamburg
scan the QR code and view the traileror visit smm-hamburg.com/trailer
smm-hamburg.com
new in 2014: the SMM
theme days
keeping the course9 – 12 september 2014
hamburgthe leading international
maritime trade fair
8 sept fi nance day
9 sept environmental protection day
10 sept security and defence day
11 sept offshore day
12 sept recruiting day H
MC
- S
MM
– A
nzei
ge -
Shi
pIns
ide
| Dat
ei: H
MC
_SM
M_I
mag
e_S
hipI
nsid
e_20
14_1
48x2
10.in
dd
4c E
uros
kala
, Offs
et |
Form
at: 1
48 x
210
mm
| B
esch
nitt:
3 m
m
HMC_SMM_Image_ShipInside_2014_148x210.indd 1 03.02.14 17:26