JULY 14, 2016 — Incat Crowther America, Lafayette, LA, reports that the Veecraft Marine shipyard in in Cape Town, South Africa, has completed two 35 m offshore security patrol vessels — M/V
One of the biggest concerns in shipping is finding and retaining qualified mariners. This is further exacerbated by the downturns in the oil and bulker markets, where vessels are being laid up or sold for scrap, leaving crews to find work where they can, possibly outside of the industry. Even before these mariners actually get their jobs, there is a plethora of regulatory barriers to obtain the original Certificate of Competency for officers, and even numerous hoops to jump through for the unlicensed as well. The 2010 Manilla Amendments to the STCW and the Maritime Labor Convention of 2006 have created further requirements than seen previously.
First and foremost a mariner must obtain a Transportation Worker Identity Credential (TWIC). In the past, mariners background checks were conducted by the USCG. Now the TWIC card reduces the Coast Guard need to conduct said checks, since the TSA is doing so. An original TWIC costs $128.00 out of the prospective mariner’s pocket, before they even have credentials or a job. At this point we are going to focus solely on the U.S. Mariner. Although STCW has standardized much of the training, the implementation in different countries can be vast.
The second step, and sometimes the most difficult to complete is the mariner physical. One would think that it is as easy as walking in to your family doctor’s office, handing them the form, and doing the physical. Unfortunately many doctors are not equipped to deal with the more specific items such as the color vision test. If your doctor cannot do this, then going to the eye doctor may suffice, but call ahead. Yours truly has found that not all eye doctors’ offices have the requisite tests that the Coast Guard wants. It is best to go to an OSHA clinic or a doctor who conducts FAA pilot physicals. The entire medical requirements can be found in NVIC 01-14.
The next step is to have a drug screening. Not any drug screening is acceptable. This must be done in accordance with 46 CFR 16.220, filled out on the appropriate DOT form and submitted to a USCG approved testing facility. This can range from $50 to $150 depending on your location. Many civil service drug tests do not count for the USCG requirements.
With the addition of an entry level rating application and the fees totaling $140 for MMC issuance and evaluation, a mariner is ready to begin looking domestically for a job. At this point the prospective mariner has possibly spent well over $400 of their own money, just to get a credential to work on board. What can an Able Seafarer expect to make? The monthly minimum according to the ILO is $614.00. Now on a U.S.-flag vessel, this low of a wage likely will not be seen. But U.S. seafarers working on foreign-flag vessels may see this.
This, however, is only the beginning. Gone are the days where an Ordinary, or even a Mess man could work their way up the hawse pipe all the way to Captain, without having to take an inordinate amount of classes and jump through bureaucratic hoops.
The next rung on the ladder to advancement is the Rating Forming Part of a Navigational or Engineering Watch. In order to accomplish this the candidate must either have a Qualified Assessor sign off on certain competencies. This is in addition to the required six-month sea time. Another option for the seafarer is to complete a training program approved by the USCG that includes two months of sea time. The price of this course? Anywhere upwards of $1,000.00.
After that, one can either go to a Maritime University, Union Training Center, local Captains School or acquire the requisite sea time and have the competencies signed off on in order to become a vessel officer. Either way the process takes several years of hard work, study, and dedication. In the end it is all worth it. But once you reach officer level, the workload to upgrade that license increases substantially. We will also touch on customer specific requirements for the training of crew and officers.
When I graduated SUNY Maritime in 1997, the school had not fully implemented STCW 95 in to the curriculum yet. Therefore, after graduation, myself and many of my classmates stuck around for a few weeks to complete these requirements. Nowadays the STCW requirements are included in to the curriculum and the cadets graduate ready to sail. From there however, the price of ambition can be high as we will see. Once upon a time officers would sit for each and every upgrade to their license. Now, at least on the deck side, a Third Mate only needs sea time to upgrade to Second Mate. Engineers are far more complicated as the type of plant must be taken into consideration. Plus, I am a deck officer, so I’m a little biased on the subject.
Upon upgrading to Second Mate, this officer must now go through a large amount of training to upgrade to Chief Officer. If the prospective Chief Officer has someone willing to sign off on their Celestial Navigation and Advanced Navigation competency sheets, they have just shaved 80 hours off of their training. If not, then the prospect may be taking close to 450 hours of training. This can be up to 12 weeks of classroom time. The cost? Upwards of $10,000.00. This is before paying the Coast Guard their fees for examination, evaluation, and license issuance. If the mariner is lucky their employer or union sponsors them for this training. As a former union sailor, I had no out of pocket costs for this training. If the mariner does not have a sponsor for this training, the price tag is quite substantial, especially in a market such as this, where jobs are becoming more and more scarce.
One would be led to believe that there could not possibly be any more training required after this. This is not necessarily the case. Management officers are often required to have undergone the Medical Person in Charge training and Fast Rescue Boat. Of course there is also the specialty training that needs to be taken in certain trades such as Person in Charge for Tankers, or Liquid Carriers, Crowd control and Crisis Management for those working passenger vessels. Those officers working for Military Sealift Command may be required to take Small Arms, Chemical, Biological, Radiological Defense Officer (CBR-D), and a manner of other courses dependent on the vessel the mariner will sail upon. These extra courses can total another month or two of the mariner’s off time.
There is a fair proportion of the maritime industry with personnel who have never spent any significant time at sea. That in it of itself is not a problem; not all jobs require seagoing experience. For many however, the mariner is viewed as a tool and not a person who has hopes, dreams, and aspirations. These mariners spend on average six months a year on the ship. Some may trade coastwise, some international
If six months is spent on the ship and then contract requirements or career ambitions require further training, a mariner can only have a total of a few weeks off each vacation to spend with family, friends, and loved ones. I am not proposing that we reduce the educational requirements. I believe that we will see a downward trend in accidents across the board in the coming years due to increased training. But other measures need be considered by ship owners and managers in order to allow the mariners to have a fair amount of time off to do the things that life may require of them and get that much needed rest in order to return refreshed and ready for work. If we are to retain the talent that is required to crew the vessels, than we must remember their humanity.
An increasingly technical world – on board and ashore – and a growing mariner shortage have conspired to make maritime education and training more important than ever. The maritime world plays a significant role in moving the global economy and its goods, people and power. Educational institutions ensure those responsible for moving the world’s assets across the seven seas are well-qualified and prepared for their roles.
According to the latest BIMCO and ICS manpower report, the industry is facing a need for nearly 150,000 officers in the next decade and is already short 16,000 officers. The need to keep men and women sailing on their licenses for longer, and to recruit and train new officers, is growing steadily. In times of high demand, it is not unknown for the quality of a product to decrease. Yet that is an unconscionable risk for the maritime industry and its regulatory agencies. In fact, requirements to earn and upgrade a license are becoming more stringent, meaning that maritime educators must take additional steps to ensure the necessary requirements are met for all entering the fleet.
Additionally, vessels and operating procedures are becoming increasingly complicated; it is imperative that the men and women in charge of them and their cargo know what they are doing.
At SUNY Maritime College in New York City, the professional education and training department is responsible for giving professional mariners the continuing education they need to stay current and qualified under changing regulations. The program also trains students for limited tonnage licenses, playing an important role in the nation’s brownwater fleet.
For more than 100 years, SUNY Maritime has educated and trained merchant mariners, changing its curriculum, facilities and program offerings to align with the needs of the industry and U.S. Coast Guard requirements. Once again, the college is working to meet the growing mariner demand and to ensure that they succeed in their pursuit of Coast Guard mariner credentials.
The changes – among others – include offering additional courses to help licensed mariners maintain and update their skills as well as building facilities to train new mariners. The Manila amendments to the International Convention on Training, Certification and Watchkeeping standards, approved in 2010, go into effect at the end of the year. Safety is, and always will be, paramount to the maritime landscape, and the Manila amendments are designed to enhance crew safety at sea.
The amendments require, among other things, that all mariners take regular courses in basic training, renew their endorsements, and pass leadership courses to upgrade and maintain their credential.
No longer is experience at sea enough.
Basic training, which covers all the subjects most important to a vessel’s safety, still teaches basic firefighting, personal survival techniques, personal safety and social responsibility, and basic first aid. But now mariners will need to take the course, or a version of it, every five years in their professional careers.
After the end of the year, mariners entering the profession will take the original 40-hour course that has been taught for years and which introduces them to onboard safety operations. A 16-hour refresher course will be required for all who have not accrued 360 days of sea time in the past five years. An 8-hour course has been designed for mariners who have accrued the 360 days in a five-year period.
Nor is it enough anymore to earn lifeboatman, fast rescue boat or tankerman-PIC endorsements once and carry them for life. Once the Manila amendments go into effect, mariners must renew these qualifications to keep them.
These courses are being developed by a variety of players, including state maritime academies like SUNY Maritime.
Industry professionals, executives and thought-leaders have always prized safety over all else—safety of their crews, their vessels and, lastly, of their cargo. But tragedies like the sinking of the El Faro serve as an unfortunate reminder to all of us of how dangerous our industry can be and how necessary these skills are for the well-being of all who sail.
Safety practices and awareness are, of course, the most important thing that maritime educators impart to their students. This is a dangerous field and there are too many things that can go wrong.
But the Manila amendments have also recognized the increasing importance of a second set of skills related to teamwork and leadership, not only for those in leadership positions but for all officers onboard a vessel.
The essence of Coast Guard licensure training, at SUNY Maritime and elsewhere, is focused on developing mates and engineers who can work together and make decisions. The Coast Guard requires a regimented lifestyle and, though interpretations of that lifestyle vary, the focus is in developing an individual’s character and leadership skills so that the safety of the crew and vessel are paramount, rather than individual wants and needs.
But the regimental program at SUNY Maritime, in keeping with STCW standards, now includes leadership and teamworking training, while professional mariners can come to the campus to take the individual course. The course will focus on case studies, workload management, maritime conventions and regulations, and situational awareness to enhance decision making skills.
STCW standards also include training for those looking to advance into personnel management positions on both the deck and engine sides of vessel operations. More training has been added to ensure that officers can work together to, once again, ensure the vessel’s operations go as smoothly and safely as possible. The 35-hour course is required for all chief mates, masters, second engineers and chief engineers. It focuses on managing and training shipboard personnel, building situational awareness, and optimizing the use of engineering and bridge resources, among other things.
These requirements are the latest expansion of the necessary training for licensed mariners.
As the scope of training expands, so too have the resources and facilities at the academies which have grown and become more sophisticated. Ships and other vessels are increasingly technical and, though training ships and cadet commercial shipping assignments offer real-world experience onboard, it is unwise to allow a future mariner to sail without previous knowledge and virtual experience.
Simulation technology has become so advanced that cadets and mariners can gain experience with nearly any situation before ever stepping onboard. In a simulator, future mariners can practice standing watch anywhere in the world on a vessel powered by any form of fuel. As the global fleet changes from steam to diesel to, increasingly, natural gas in an effort to reduce pollution, these opportunities help professional mariners gain the experience they need to sail for a variety of companies and on a variety of vessels.
All of the maritime academies have expanded their simulation centers and systems in recent years. At SUNY Maritime, in the past year programs have built or expanded a tug and barge simulator and a full mission engine room simulator, which is enhanced with a 20 desktop station classroom to allow as many students to gain experience as possible.
These technologies, as complex as they are, can only produce data from which a student can learn. The equipment allows for—indeed it requires—a large amount of human interaction.
After all, the human element is by far the most important element of any vessel at any time and in any place. Interpreting the data onboard a simulator allows a professional mariner to correctly interpret the data coming from a vessel’s systems and act based on that data to ensure the safety of the vessel, cargo and crew.
Simulators and simulation systems are imperative for cadets and mariners to become familiar with the equipment onboard a vessel and that they will someday use and be responsible for. Simulation allows them to learn, within a controlled environment, what a navigational bridge or engine room is capable of and how to harness it to move a vessel safely from one port to another. Such training exercises allow students to make mistakes and learn from them without risking millions of dollars, environmental damage and lives.
Simulators at SUNY Maritime, as at the other academies, are nothing new. SUNY Maritime has several Class A bridge simulators, radar/ARPA ECDIS labs and a liquid-cargo handling simulator. As onboard technology and simulation programs become increasingly sophisticated, maintenance and software upgrades ensure that future mariners are getting the best experience possible and that which most closely mimics the world they will be sailing in after earning their Coast Guard licenses.
Partnerships with maritime companies help to ensure not only that new mariners are getting the appropriate training, but that current mariners can also return to maintain and upgrade their credentials. The ATB simulator at Maritime College has been supported and expanded through the generosity of Bouchard Transportation Company, Inc. The latest expansion includes two Class B stations to allow coordination between up to three tugs and a barge.
Mariners and cadets working in SUNY Maritime’s engine room simulator have the additional benefit of being able to train remotely through cloud technology. The simulator is no longer bound to the room in which it is confined, and trainees are able to spend additional time with the equipment. This capability, combined with digital textbooks, means that the possibilities for training and continuing education are endless.
These simulators and additional STCW courses help our nation’s mariners adapt to and thrive in an ever-changing industry. The same way that any other professional must adapt to the changes brought on by the information revolution and a changing world, so too must the mariner. Indeed, since the mariner travels the world and plays such a large role in the functioning of the global economy, the needs for continuing education and training are perhaps even more important than most other professions.
Getting a return on investment (ROI) is more important than ever in today’s challenging business climate. A new standard soon to be released for measuring changes in ship hull and propeller performance should provide an important tool for hull coatings manufacturers to demonstrate ROI to shipowners.
“Poor hull and propeller performance is estimated to account for around 10 per cent of the world fleet’s energy costs ($30 billion),” says Geir Axel Oftedahl, Jotun’s Business Development Director, Hull Performance Solutions.
Oftedahl believes that the new ISO 19030 standard, which prescribes practical methods for measuring changes in ship-specific hull and propeller performance, “will provide much needed transparency for both buyers and sellers of fuel saving technologies and solutions, and, in doing so, enable the industry to operate with genuinely enhanced efficiency and environmental performance.”
Since 2013, Oftedahl has been working with a group of experts on developing the standard. ISO 19030 expected to be publically available this year.
Jotun will now switch from using its own methodology for gauging performance to the ISO 19030 standard to ensure that the HPS offering is fully compliant.
Hull Performance Solutions (HPS), which was launched in 2011, combines the use of SeaQuantum X200 silyl methacrylate antifouling coating technology with a full suite of sensors to measure hull performance and speed loss.
Jotun offers a guarantee, promising to refund customers the cost of the HPS upgrade if their vessel hulls failed to meet performance targets.
This past March, Jotun released data for its first five-year dry-docking of a vessel treated with HPS. Gearbulk’s Penguin Arrow recorded a fuel saving of $1.5 million, cutting CO₂ emissions by some 12,055 tonnes, across the 60-month period.
www.jotun.com
SHIPOWNERS CAN GET CARBON CREDITS
Meanwhile, AkzoNobel’s marine coatings brand, International, has pioneered a different approach for incentivizing shipowners to switch from a biocidal antifouling system to a biocide-free hull coating: carbon credits.
The methodology financially rewards ship owners for using sustainable hull coatings that improve efficiencies and reduce emissions.
Earlier this year, Greek tanker and bulker operator Neda Maritime Agency Co. Ltd. was the first shipowner awarded carbon credits through AkzoNobel’s plan. Neda received 13,365 carbon credits, potentially worth $60,000.
The carbon credits were accrued by the tanker vessel Argenta, which was converted from a biocidal antifouling system to a premium, biocide-free advanced hull coating from AkzoNobel’s Intersleek range –part of the company’s International brand –that is proven to reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions on average by 9%.
Costas Mitropoulos, Technical Director at Neda Maritime, said: “As the shipping industry faces more pressure to improve its sustainability, we continue our commitment to further increase our environmental performance standards. To that respect we see a great potential in AkzoNobel’s pioneering carbon credits initiative as part of our strategy to deliver sustainable and successful business.”
www.international-marine.com
NEW THERMOPLASTIC COATING
Another form of ROI is a long-lasting, durable product. That’s certainly been the case for Tefcite, a broad spectrum antifoulant powder coating that provides a corrosion resistant barrier to fiberglass, FRP, steel, carbon fiber, aluminum and wood.
Tefcite has been successfully marketed to recreational boaters and J. Zach Hall, President of Bay Area Thermo Coatings, LLC, Vancouver, WA, sees potential for Tefcite in the commercial marine market. “We believe there is tremendous value to be gained protecting and maintaining marine assets for the commercial marine sector,” says Hall. “In fact, we currently have commercial marine end users interested in the product and are getting traction coating aluminum and steel vessels.”
Tefcite, which has a continuous service life of 15+ years, was approved by the EPA in May 2014 for use as a copper containing anti-foulant on the West Coast in Oregon and Washington, with California product registration pending.
California, known for being on the green bleeding edge, has the most striongent regulations regarding the copper leach rate from anti-foulings. Tefcite has a copper leach rate of 13.5 micrograms per centimeter squared per day, which is the maximum rate allowed by California.
Tefcite is applied using a specialized mobile thermal spray system process called High Velocity Impact Fusion.
www.baythermo.com
The use of ballast water is critical to the safe operation of ships, but also poses challenges due to the need to maintain the structural integrity of ballast water tanks (BWTs) despite highly corrosive conditions. Appropriate protective coatings act as barriers to corrosion and if applied carefully to properly prepared surfaces can significantly extend the life of BWTs. Two-coat epoxy systems are commonly used today, but rapid curing polyurethanes have performance properties that make them attractive as alternative coating solutions, including tunable properties that allow the formulation of flexible yet hard coatings that resist cracking, excellent adherence to steel, high resistance to corrosion, chemicals, and abrasion and fast return to service.
Ballast tanks located at the bottom, around cargo holds, and near the bow and stern of ships provide a mechanism for maintaining balance. Water is filled or released from the tanks to stabilize and trim ships during sailing and to keep them evenly afloat during the loading and unloading of cargo. Ballast water tanks (BWTs) are typically dedicated for this purpose. Ballast tanks are also used to adjust the buoyancy of submarines and stabilize offshore oil platforms and floating wind turbines.
In marine vessels (tankers, bulk carriers, etc.), ballast tanks typically comprise the largest surface area of steel. Corrosion of these tanks can therefore significantly reduce ship safety and operational life. In the past, ships suffering from severely corroded ballast tanks have experienced total failure of their hull shell plates. There is general agreement in the industry that prevention of corrosion in BWTs is the second most important factor after design integrity in determining the operating life of a ship.
Corrosion prevention in BWTs is not a simple matter, however. The water in ballast tanks can have a high salt content, vary in the type and concentration of other ions and have a wide range for pH and may also contain corrosive chemicals. Empty ballast tanks, on the other hand, are exposed to corrosive atmospheres that cycle with the temperature of the tank. Tanks, when partially full, are also subject to continuous movement of the water.
In fact, different parts of ballast tanks corrode via different mechanisms and at different rates, and empty tanks behave differently than tanks that are often filled with water. For Example, some parts of tanks are exposed to cyclic heating and cooling and/or local heating from warm, adjacent cargo tanks and engine rooms. Additionally, the exterior of the BWT is exposed to the weather above the water line and the differing temperatures of the sea below the water line. Therefore the same tank can experience uneven thermal cycling due to the extreme differences in its exterior exposure. Because the upper portion of the tank is exposed to extreme thermal cycling and repetitive wet and dry service, anodic oxidation is the main source of corrosion in this part of the tank. On the other hand, the bottom area of a tank is constantly exposed to the sea and therefore is maintained at a lower temperature and is subject to cathodic blistering. Any microbes in sediment on the bottom can also cause microbial corrosion.
Many other factors such as bacterial biofilm, mechanical vibration and effectiveness of sacrificial or impressed current anodic protection play a moderate role in determining the rate of corrosion in ballast water tanks.
To prevent corrosion in BWTs, high-performance protective coatings are applied during construction of the ship. Typically two thin layers of a suitable coating with a total dry-film thickness of approximately 300-320 microns are sufficient to provide an effective barrier against corrosion. Such coatings must meet many regulatory requirements related to their environmental and performance characteristics.
Current Coating Technologies
Preferred coatings not only provide a long lifetime of protection (15 years or more is required by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Performance Standard for Protective Coatings (PSPC)¾see below), they must be easy to apply under the varying conditions found at different shipyards around the world and easy to maintain. Coatings that provide greater coverage for less material usage and are more tolerant of poorer surfaces are also in demand. A low volatile organic compound (VOC) content (< 250 g/l) is also necessary.
The majority of BWT coatings applied today are epoxy-based systems. Most are solvent-based, high solids formulations, although some European shipbuilders use solvent-free coatings to meet the requirements of the EU Solvent Emissions Directive (SED). The latter 100% solids epoxy systems have good performance properties, but tend to suffer from poor wetting properties and slower curing rates at low temperatures. Good wettability is necessary to ensure that pitted areas are filled rather than bridged, and thus do not leave a void below the paint film that can act as a starting point for corrosion.
Rapid curing is a very desirable property for BWT coatings because it translates into shorter construction times for new builds and reduced time in dry-dock for recoating and repair. The US Navy has developed a series of 100% solids coatings based on amino polyols prepared from either alkanol amines and polyfunctional epoxy materials or polyamines and monofunctional epoxides that are applied using plural component equipment, which eliminates the poor flow concerns. They are referred to as “single-coat” systems because the necessary two coats can be applied in one day, rather than in two. The technology for a light-to-medium-duty coating based on a medium-viscosity resin has been licensed and is commercially available. In a study at a commercial shipyard in Asia, the rapid curing coating, which meets the IMO PSPC requirements, was shown to provide a nearly 40% increase in painting productivity and a 20% overall cost savings.
Advantages of Polyurethanes
Certain polyurethane (PU) coatings have also been shown to have significant potential as highly protective barrier coatings for ballast water tanks. Specifically, 100% solids rigid and structural polyurethane coatings are promising because they cure very rapidly, even at cold temperatures, and have superior resistance properties.
One of the major issues with epoxy coatings is their inability to build desired dry film thickness at sharp edges, corners, weld seams and other defect sites. Coating failures generally occur first in these areas, usually do to crack formation. Unfortunately, there are many of these sites present in BTWs. While the PSPC does require that sharp edges be addressed prior to coating, this problem remains a concern in the industry. Advances in epoxy coating technology have helped, but further improvements are still desired.
Polyurethanes have the key advantage of property tunability. Careful selection of the polyisocyanate and polyol segments can provide coatings with very specific properties. For ballast water tank applications, a hard coating is needed that retains some flexibility to allow for high film builds at edges, seams and defect sites. This unique mix of properties, which cannot be achieved with epoxy systems, is possible with polyurethane coatings. Careful preparation of the PU resin and development of the formulated PU coating can provide coatings with desirable edge retention properties.
With the appropriate choice of starting materials, it is also possible to formulate polyurethane systems with curing times that allow for the application of perfectly smooth, high-build coatings. These barrier coatings are applied with no defects in one continuous application and serve as abrasion- and impact-resistant protective barriers to corrosion. Furthermore, because they contain no solvent, 100% solids polyurethane coatings are “green” coatings that meet stringent environmental regulations, and most are odor-free, providing a better shipyard application environment than high-solids epoxies.
Surface adhesion, as for all coating applications, is crucial for BWT coatings and has a significant impact on coating performance. More forgiving coatings that have strong adhesion to the different types of steel used in shipbuilding and the different types of surface conditions that can be present are therefore highly desired for the protection of ballast water tanks. Polyurethanes meet this requirement and generally surpass the adhesion properties of many epoxy systems.
The inherent barrier properties of polyurethane coatings are also excellent. PUs show high resistance to corrosion and chemicals. In addition, they provide superior abrasion and impact resistance, which is not true for epoxies systems. Finally, the very rapid curing of polyurethanes over a wide temperature range makes them suitable for application to water ballast tanks regardless of where they are built or dry-docked and ensures reduced coating times during newbuilding and fast return to service for repair/maintenance operations.
Performance Requirements: PSPC and Invasive Species Control
The IMO PSPC became effective in 2008 and provides specific requirements for the types of corrosion control coatings that can be used on ballast water tanks, as well as appropriate application, inspection and maintenance procedures. Extensive documentation is also specified in the standard. The intent is to have all BWTs coated with systems that will provide a 215-year service life.
Coating systems must be pre-qualified/certified prior to use in ballast water tanks. Certification can be obtained from an approved, independent testing laboratory, through demonstrated performance in the field for a minimum of five years, or by presenting results from previous, relevant tests. Coating application during the newbuilding process must be extensively monitored, and inspections performed at numerous phases. For example, testing of the surface profile and water-soluble salt content are required before application of the first coat, and a thorough inspection of the first coat is necessary before the second coat can be applied. These requirements can slow down the coating process and increase the cost. Consequently, rapid-cure coatings that allow the application of two coatings in a single day are attracting significant attention.
Recent regulations attempting to prevent the spread of invasive species through ballast water must also be considered when installing BWT coatings. There have been several cases of the transport of invasive species around the world, some of which have had severe ecological and/or economic impacts. However, many of the current chemical technologies available for destroying harmful marine organisms in ballast water are based on oxidizing agents (e.g., chlorine dioxide, ozone) that are damaging to the coatings and can lead to corrosion problems. Mechanical systems based on filtration/separation and those that use ultraviolet radiation tend to be less problematic. Therefore, it is crucial that testing of corrosion control coatings for ballast water tanks be performed under maximum treatment conditions for a given application.
A Word about Surface Preparation, Quality Assurance and Maintenance
As with all coatings, surface preparation is critical to the performance of BWT coatings. In fact, lack of proper surface preparation is one of the main causes for coating failures in ballast water tanks. It is imperative that appropriate surface preparation standards (SSPC/NACE/ASTM) be met. Attention should be paid to both surface profile and soluble salt content.
Application conditions must also be considered, as temperature and relative humidity during application can affect the ultimate performance of many coating systems, particularly epoxies. While most large, modern shipyards have enclosed areas for conducting abrasive sand blasting and painting (with temperature and humidity control), some smaller facilities do not. Work is therefore performed under ambient conditions using power tools, which can result in poor surfaces for coating. Polyurethanes offer advantages in these situations, as they have superior adhesion to poor surfaces and temperature and humidity do not impact their curing or ultimate performance properties.
PUs are Good for Potable Water Tanks
The properties of polyurethanes that make them ideal as corrosion protection coatings for ballast water tanks also make them well-suited for use as protective systems for marine potable water tanks. Many polyurethanes meet the requirements of the ANSI (American National Standards Institute)/NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) Standard 61 – Drinking Water System Components, which establishes stringent requirements for the control of leachables and extractables from materials that come in contact with either potable water or products that support the production of potable water.
Conclusion
Preventing corrosion in ballast water tanks is crucial for ensuring the safety and longevity of on marine vessels. While epoxy systems are currently the most common coatings used in this application today, properly formulated, fast-curing polyurethanes are attractive alternatives with significant potential to reduce lengthy coating processes, increase shipyard productivity and thus reduce costs.
JULY 14, 2016 — The U.K.’s Port of Milford Haven is continuing to investigate an incident occurred that occurred early Sunday morning, July 10, when its pilot vessel St Davids made hard
JULY 14, 2016 — Cat fines test kit supplier Parker Kittiwake warns that a draft marine fuel standard now under review (ISO 8217 2016) , could have a significant impact on vessel
JULY 14, 2016 — Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics AS (WWL), a Norwegian corporation, has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $98.9 million criminal fine for its involvement in a conspiracy to fix
JULY 13, 2016 — The U.K.’s National Crime Agency (NCA) reports that the captain, Mumin Sahin, and first mate, Emin Ozmen, of an ocean going tug boat have been found guilty of
JULY 13, 2016 — The 50,000 dwt LNG fueled bunker recently ordered at shipbuilder Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (see earlier story) by Korean shipowner Ishin will be powered by an MAN B&W 6G50ME-C9.5-GI