Classification societies play a pivotal role in making ballast water treatment a practical reality
Classification Societies have two masters when it comes to ballast water management: they assess manufacturer’s equipment – often providing type-approval services for flag states – and advice to shipowners. BWTT asked IACS members what their priorities are in serving those two constituencies.
Tihomir Kezic, certification and operations management services director at Bureau Veritas, saw its role as having a simple goal: “to provide clear information and in-time services,” he said. That clarity is needed because some uncertainties still remain over IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) – in particular revisions to Guidelines G8 and requests to review compliance dates.
IRClass is concerned about shipowners struggling to fund ballast water management system (BWMS) installations and told BWTT that its priority is to assist them by bringing forward their IOPP renewal survey before 8 September 2017, provided the relevant flag state has issued a circular about delinking that survey from the normal survey timetable.
Class societies’ contact with the industry also extends to “other stakeholders”, such as test laboratories, said Sahan Abeysekara, Lloyd’s Register’s lead specialist in engineering systems.
The information and guidance on offer from DNV GL is focused on making sure that ships can comply with the BWMC’s D-1 discharge standards by 8 September, said its senior principal engineer in its Environmental Protection Unit, Martin Olofsson. But that does not mean they have to install equipment and most DNV GL-classed ships will be using ballast water exchange, he said.
The Korean Register reported that its most frequent enquiries from owners are about BWMS retrofit timing and the exact detail of the regulations to be implemented when the convention comes into effect, while manufacturers focus on technical items, such as the test criteria for type-approval.
With IMO’s BWMC rapidly approaching its entry into force, class societies might be expected to see a surge in enquiries, both from equipment makers and shipowners.
RINA confirmed that it is seeing growing concern among shipowners because of uncertainties about the final implementation scheme for the D-2 discharge standard that will be discussed at MEPC 71 in July. Its most frequent question is about IOPP certificate renewal before the BWMC’s entry into force and, to provide shipowners with updated information on this issue it has established an ongoing dialogue with all flag administrations for which it is a recognised organisation. The information it gathers is made available to its customers on a database.
Class NK has a large amount of such information in the public area of its website, including statements from many flag states about their approach to IOPP decoupling. It has seen about four times as many enquiries related to ballast treatment-related surveys than a year ago and about 50 per cent more requests to approve ballast water management plans (BWMPs).
It is BWMP approvals that Mr Abeysekara singled out at Lloyd’s Register, reporting high demand for them. In addition, “we have seen an increase in demand for BWMS approval services, both statutory and class approvals,” he said. Meanwhile, “the demand for installations is moderate compared to the expectation,” he said.
Not every class society reported such an increase in enquiries. “Surprisingly, this is not the case,” said Mr Kezic of Buearu Veritas, because “manufacturers are focused on USCG type-approval,” and owners are hoping for “a last-minute decision in their favour [that would] allow a further postponement of the [BWMC] implementation date.”
That focus on USCG requirements opens the question of how class societies view the remaining differences between those and IMO’s revised G8 Guidelines.
Asked whether, in their view, the G8 guidelines should be aligned with USCG’s testing regime, most saw benefits if that could be achieved. “IRClass’ intention is that there should be one uniform standard to be adopted and implemented globally,” was that society’s response. RINA also believes that “an alignment of the standards would be extremely beneficial to producers and shipowners.”
So too does the Korean Register. “We would welcome a move to unify and harmonise the two,” it said in response to the question. “This would effectively upgrade the minimum requirements for type-approval testing.”
Some doubt that it could happen in practice. The recent revisions to G8 have brought the two regimes closer but it would be very difficult to achieve alignment at IMO, suggested Mr Kezic. And Thomas Kirk, director of environmental performance, global marine, at ABS noted that the recent revisions set out to provide an equivalent level of transparency and robustness as the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Technology Verification programme. Beyond that, however, “we are not aware of any efforts by the US or IMO to further align their respective requirements,” he said.
In fact, said Mrrevised G8 Guidelines “are more strict than the USCG requirements in some respects” and he said they had “captured the most recent developments and experiences in BWMS operation and testing.”
To ask whether G8 should align with USCG is to ask the wrong question, suggested Mr Olofsson of DNV GL. “It should be the opposite: USCG’s rules should be aligned with G8,” he said. The class society is one of five USCG-recognised Independent Laboratories for type-approval testing and he reported that, in practice, it plans tests so that they will satisfy both standards. “We have a formula to do that which is accepted by USCG and by Norway, which is the flag we mainly work with,” he said.
© 2023 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd.