ABB unveils new fuel saving concept for larger ships
MARCH 14, 2014 — ABB is launching a new Dynamic AC (DAC) concept that optimizes engine speed, leading to significant fuel savings. ABB says that the concept has been created with a
MARCH 14, 2014 — ABB is launching a new Dynamic AC (DAC) concept that optimizes engine speed, leading to significant fuel savings. ABB says that the concept has been created with a
MARCH 14, 2014 — A League City, TX, dinner boat captain has been charged on four counts alleging that she used a stolen identity for more than 20 years. Cynthia Lyerla, 52,
MARCH 14, 2016 — Wärtsilä is using this week’s Seatrade Cruise Global event in Fort Lauderdale, FL, to launching its new WTT-40 transverse thruster. The first WTT-40’s have been ordered and are
The well-being of crew has always been a priority for the UK P&I Club PEME scheme. When the PEME scheme was launched 20 years ago, in 1996, we noticed an increase in crew illness claims and a lack of accountability from clinics. We found huge inconsistencies in the standards used by clinics for pre-employment medical examinations; many clinics adhered only to the minimum standards required by their local authority and there was no liability to the ship owner. We also found that examinations of crew were not detailed enough to screen out pre-existing medical conditions that could impact on a ship owner’s obligation to compensation.
That is why the UK P&I Club developed the PEME Program, and since the launch, the Program has become one of the Club’s leading loss prevention initiatives. Clinics which are approved under the program are held accountable to both the Club and Members for their performance. The scheme is designed to protect ship owners from claims arising from medical conditions existing prior to employment, and to provide crew with a first rate health check before going to sea. The program has been appraised as the most extensive and inclusive system available in the industry. The PEME Program is a key element in the services provided by the Club’s Loss Prevention department.
The program aims to reduce the volume and value of crew illness claims which are caused by a pre-existing illnesses or disease. These underlying conditions often impact on the crew member’s fitness for service and can endanger not only the health of the seafarer, but also the on-board safety of other crew.
As part of the PEME examination an enhanced medical screening service is administered to all crew. The crew are screened on all the major body organs and functions. The confidential data collected from medical examinations is regularly analyzed and the results are used for identifying trends in crew health.
UK P&I Club has been reviewing findings and developments from screenings, with particular focus on the last decade.
The top 10 health issues found from UK P&I pre-employment medical examinations over the last 10 years are listed below, in order from most to least:
Worryingly, the decade long PEME study found that hearing defects are now the third main cause of pre-employment medical failure, with the incidence of hearing defects increasing by 40%. Put into perspective, 10 years ago hearing defects did not even make the top 10 list for pre-employment medical failure.
Audiometry exams are used to test crew’s ability to hear sounds within the UK P&I Club PEME medical. UK P&I Club found that the largest group of seafarers who were affected by abnormal audiometry results worked in engine rooms of ships. Typically, crew with poor audiometry results can also display signs of mild to moderate high frequency hearing loss.
Unsurprisingly, those seafarers working in engine rooms also had a higher tendency to experience hearing disabilities. This is especially true for crew who do not use precautionary measures. High levels of ambient noise, typically above 85 dBA cause noise-induced hearing loss. The negative effects of such levels of noise and higher, depend upon individual physiology and the duration of exposure.
Identifying hearing damage
Audiometric testing is the only reliable diagnostic evaluation relevant to indicate noise-induced hearing loss. The screening is performed by an audiometric testing machine , and receiver, located within a sound proof booth. The patient, wearing headphones, is subject to noises of various volumes and frequencies (pitches) and asked to respond by pressing a button when hearing each sound. Audiometry provides an accurate measure of any damage. Below are recommended measures Member’s should put in place for their crew:
Ensuring a robust hearing conservation program
The UK P&I Club PEME Program believes that if the above recommendations are implemented, they will help protect seafarers from hearing loss and thus safeguard ship owners/operators from facing claims resulting from hearing damage incurred while on-board.
Raising awareness and education of seafarers on hearing risks such as permanent hearing disability is required. Individual crew themselves also have a responsibility to safeguard their exposure to hearing risks. It is highly recommended shipping companies include, as part of their health and safety policy, hearing protection zones in machinery spaces and other working areas where levels of high noise are prevalent.
As a further measure, companies should allow breaks for seafarers between each episode of exposure to loud noise (levels in excess of more than 85 dB) especially when sound levels are excessive and prolonged. It is in the Members’ best interest to continually monitor the hearing of its seagoing employees and so to initiate schemes to carry out clinical examinations such as Otoscopy; Weber’s test; Rinne’s test (Tuning fork) every eight months.
By implementing these recommendations the Club hopes its Members can improve the conditions of their sea-going staff and help to negate the dangers of hearing loss and prevent any future claim in this area.
Marine Log: Can you tell us about the founding of the company and how it has evolved over the years?
Morton S. Bouchard III: Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc. was founded and incorporated in 1918 by my Great Grandfather, Captain Fred Bouchard.
Capt. Fred Bouchard became a tugboat Captain at the young age of 14. In 1916, while on watch, the Black Tom explosion occurred on Staten Island, and Capt. Fred maneuvered his tug and pulled ammunition scows out to safety. He was blown out of the wheel house on two occasions, but continued to pull the scows to safety. For his heroic actions, he was awarded salvage money from the state and federal government; and with those funds he bought a coal scow, lived and worked the scow, and created his own company, Bouchard Transportation Company, which was incorporated in 1918.
In 1931, Capt. Fred acquired Bouchard’s first oil barge, a sunken 15,000-barrel vessel, which he purchased for $100. After raising this vessel in Jacksonville, FL, he towed it to a Norfolk, VA, shipyard where it was converted to a hot oil system, oil barge. From there it was towed up to NY Harbor, signifying Bouchard’s first of many vessel purchases and construction projects.
The company was passed on to my grandfather, Morton (“Buster”) S. Bouchard Sr., who continued to grow the company, then was passed on to my father, Morton S. Bouchard Jr., and then on to me. The philosophy has not changed for four generations: Work hard, do not take anything for granted, take care of your customers, and invest the profits into new more modern equipment, and maintain our existing equipment to the highest standards possible.
Sometimes I sit back and wonder about what all three of them (Capt. Fred Bouchard, Morton S. Bouchard Sr., and Morton S. Bouchard Jr.) would think, as the company has grown beyond their imaginations, and will hopefully continue to grow as the 5th generation, Brendan J. Bouchard, becomes more involved.
ML: When did you first begin working at the company?
MB: I began working at Bouchard when I was 19, a sophomore in college. I worked in the shipyards and our outside office. The following summer I worked on the vessels, and the summer after that I was a night dispatcher, filling in for the night staff vacations. When I graduated college, I was a dispatcher, but was also attached to my father’s hip. I was with him for every meeting and important phone call. I became President at the age of 32.
ML: One of the major regulatory challenges for petroleum marine transportation companies was the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Tell us how Bouchard addressed that challenge.
MB: OPA 90 changed our industry in every aspect. When OPA 90 was passed, my father and I had a meeting, and he had the entire bill with him. He asked me if I had read it, and I told him no – not the entire bill, but the most important segments. He was very upset, and felt that Bouchard should sell. After a lengthy discussion, which was mostly listening on my part, I finally got my father to realize that 1990 was the year that we would need to decide what our next business plan would be for the company. From this conversation, I finally convinced my father that we should build double hulls, and be the first company to invest in double hulls, which we did. Bouchard was the first to build double hulls (1992 & 1993), and continues to be the leader in double hulls. All of Bouchard barges are flat deck double hulls, we do not believe in trunk deck barges, and feel that the trunks should not be allowed to carry petroleum, for the trunks are not double hull.
OPA 90 also increased the awareness of safety for trained crew members, as well as shoreside personnel. I continuously tell all of our employees that we cannot be profitable unless we are safe, and we must give every employee the resources needed to be safe.
ML: One of your latest deliveries was the 10,000 hp/250,000 bbl Articulated Tug Barge Donna J. Bouchard and the B. No. 272. Those vessels are some of the last under a major investment in renewing and expanding your fleet. Tell me about your fleet expansion?
MB: Bouchard and Halter have enjoyed a relationship for over 40 years. The management of Halter has changed over those years, however Bouchard and Halter continue our relationship.
The latest expansion program involved two units, M/V Kim M. Bouchard & B. No. 270, and the M/V Donna J. Bouchard & B. No. 272. We felt that there was a market need for vessels of this size, and that ATBs are more economical than ships, and just as safe. We started studying various capacities. We were originally targeting 350,000 bbl and 15,000 hp tugs; however, after many meetings and discussions with our customers, and possible future customers, we decided to scale the size down to 250,000 BBLs & 10,000 HP, which proved to be a smart decision. These two new units bring Bouchard’s fleet to three units this size, all flat deck double hulls: M/V Danielle M. Bouchard & B. No. 245, M/V Kim M. Bouchard & B. No. 270, and M/V Donna J. Bouchard & B. No. 272.
Bouchard also contracted to build two 6,000 hp Intercon Tugs with Halter; M/V Morton S. Bouchard Jr. & M/V Frederick E. Bouchard, and contracted with Bollinger to convert the B. No. 210 & B. No. 220 to Intercon barges with segregated ballast. The B. No. 210 & B. No. 220 were two of the first double hull barges Bouchard built, and were wire barges. Upon the completion of their conversion, I am very proud to say that Bouchard’s entire fleet above 60,000 BBL is flat deck, double hull, Intercon ATBs that range in capacity from 55,000 BBLs (B. No. 250 only 1), then 80,000 BBLs to 250,000 BBLs. No other company has such a modern and safe fleet.
ML: Quality, safety and the environment are clearly issues that are of primary concern to Bouchard. How are those issues addressed in the corporate culture and corporate policy?
MB: Quality, safety, environment, and crew safety are Bouchard’s highest priority. Every employee at Bouchard knows that safety is our highest priority. As I mentioned earlier, Bouchard cannot be profitable unless we are safe. This philosophy is practiced every day, 24 hours, 365 days a year – no exceptions. Every captain in Bouchard’s fleet knows that they have the authority to put the operation on hold if they feel the safety of the crew and vessel is being jeopardized. For example:
When it comes to the safety of the crew and fleet, Bouchard employees know all decisions will have my full support. Safety is the most important policy at Bouchard.
ML: Tell our readers about Bouchard’s work with SUNY Maritime. How did that relationship come about?
MB: Education is of vital importance at Bouchard. It is very simple, the more educated our employees are, the safer we as a company will be. A major aspect of education is simulator training.
New York Harbor was always the home of a simulator, and it was relocated to Houston. When I became aware of this, I was upset with myself for not being aware of it. After speaking with various other companies, I decided that a simulator was needed for ocean going tug & barges. I wanted a simulator that could be used by Bouchard employees, but also by the cadets to learn tug & barge operations while enrolled at school. After several meetings with my dear friends at SUNY Maritime, Bouchard made the proud decision to build the Morton S. Bouchard Jr. Tug & Barge Simulator, which can be used for cadets, Bouchard employees, as well as other companies.
Bouchard’s commitment to this simulator is not one and done, it entrails yearly upgrades to the software, and the simulator itself. We just recently upgraded the software to include tractor tugs, and ship docking, all funded by Bouchard.
This type of commitment just enforces our corporate philosophy that there is no budget for safety and proper training, and safety is our number 1 and top priority.
ML: What would you like the legacy of the Bouchard brand to be?
MB: Bouchard’s legacy should be recognized for the following:
“Tank cleaning is where companies try to establish a competitive edge,” says Ajay Gour, INTERTANKO’s chemicals and vetting expert and Regional Manager for the Indian Sub-Continent, Middle East and Africa. “This is where they can claim to be better than the competition. But the majority of ship operators are all experienced, and the technology and methodology are pretty much the same across the board. Cleaning chemicals have seen some significant advances, but where we found the biggest change was not in cleaning, but in tank testing.”
Testing technology has improved immensely, Gour relates, but operators have not necessarily been the drivers behind improvements. “There are many different external influences, including scientific community, and testing today can measure levels of cleanliness far beyond the original requirements for the same cargoes.”
Ever more sensitive testing methods beg the question: Should tanks be as clean as possible? Or just sufficiently clean?
Lacking a working standard
INTERTANKO studied cases emanating from Houston, a major chemical tanker hub.
“We looked at over 250 different listings,” Ajay Gour recalls. “We found that there were various cleaning standards and varying results for the same cargo with the same end-use. There was evidence that resources were being wasted in over-cleaning, including manpower, energy, time, chemicals, and the resulting emissions were excessive.”
In response, INTERTANKO has proposed a simplified set of standards in order to bring the high-flying cleanliness requirements back down to sea level. “Product manufacturers realize that they have been pushing unduly stringent standards, and they understand that this is a cost driver. In a number of cases, small deviations will not push the cargo off-spec,” Gour maintains.
A working group of chemical tanker operators, owners, charterers, and manufacturers is in the early stages of reviewing existing standards, not for tank cleaning, but for tank cleanliness. “We are not telling anybody how to clean in order to achieve a certain standard,” Gour clarifies, “just advising on what standard they need to clean to.”
Nor do the proposed standards advise on how to test. “For example wall washing,” Gour relates. “It’s been around for a long time, but it has its weaknesses. It gives only a snapshot, not the status of the entire tank.” All the same, INTERTANKO is not singling out wall wash tests, or any other particular method.
“We are simply trying to refine cleanliness standards,” he says, “to make sure they are appropriate for today’s needs. High sensitivity testing is feeding anxiety in cargo owners and charterers, and our intention is to ensure quality while improving efficiency in the use of resources.”
Regarding the timeline for change, Ajay Gour’s advice to owners and operators: Watch this space. “The process is set in motion, and the first draft of new guidelines should be presented by the end of 2016,” he reports. “For this to happen, though, operators, shippers, and cargo buyers must all be on board. The drafting process will be used to quantify the overall benefits, but the end result should be that the goalposts are fixed for everybody.”
Taking the confusion out of tank cleaning
Understanding the required cleanliness standard for your vessels’ next cargo is one thing, but consistently achieving it can be a challenge. With decades of experience in the field, here are some words of wisdom from service leader Wilhelmsen Ships Service (WSS) on how not to go astray in the critical business of keeping tanks and cargoes up to spec.
Regardless of whether it is the result of poor preparation, lack of knowledge, time constraints or inadequate equipment, an unsatisfactory tank cleaning can become very costly, very quickly. Extra time in port, additional labour and chemicals, added surveyor charges, and in the worst cases demurrage claims, can turn what should be a routine exercise into a laborious and dreaded task.
To make matters worse for owners and operators, the issues affecting the tank cleaning process are amplified by the increasingly vigorous ad-hoc cleanliness standards currently being demanded by charterers and cargo owners. Often over-zealous and in many cases totally unnecessary, when it comes to the actual chemistry of contamination, there is unfortunately no officially-defined, universal set of cleanliness standards at present.
Instead, there are just two, very broad and de-facto criteria covering the various tank cleaning requirements currently demanded by charterers.
An inadequate pair
The first is the Water White Standard, which means the tank is visually clean, dry and odour-free. A suitable standard for CPP/vegetable oils, this standard does not involve a wall wash test.
The second, the High Purity Standard (HPE), is required for sensitive cargoes to be loaded such as products applied in food processing (Food Grade) or in pharmaceutical production (USP), where any contamination is unacceptable. All active solvents, such as chlorinated hydrocarbons, glycol ethers, light alcohols, for example, methanol, ketones such as acetone and many hydrocarbons like hexane also require the HPE.
In addition, many chemical companies require the HPE because the application of the product during processing is very sensitive to contamination.
Though there are guidelines on the procedures and typical level of cleanliness required by the High Purity Standard for each and every product available, many companies have additional, off-spec requirements. Creating unwanted confusion for cleaning crews and posing considerable problems when it comes to demurrage claims, these ad-hoc requirements are why bodies such as Intertanko are eager to establish a new, detailed set of cleaning standards. An ongoing initiative aimed at creating an industry wide set of rules, its acceptance is by no means guaranteed. So, for now we’re stuck with the existing pair of standards and the numerous company-by-company and cargo-by-cargo variations demanded by charterers.
In spite of this, with detailed planning, preparation and access to some basic information on the cargo’s properties and the conditions inside and outside the tanks, tank cleaning should actually become a matter of routine. Systematic, efficient and completed quickly to the required standard, whatever that may be. No rejections, hold-ups, incidents or accidents.
Chemistry 101
Knowing the properties of the products you’re discharging and loading, along with understanding how they interact with each other and with the surface of your tanks is obviously key. However, learning this from scratch can seem a daunting prospect, hence the ongoing success of Supercargo specialists. But in practice, the vast majority of commercially traded cargoes and their associated tank cleaning processes can comfortably be managed in-house with access to a specific cargo-handling database, such as Miracle or Milbros, and just a little basic knowledge on the major product groups, as outlined below.
Water-soluble or water-miscible
Water-Soluble substances and water-miscible substances are easy to clean with water. In addition, the solubility of such substances might increase at higher temperatures. While the use of a cleaning agent is not required, it can help reduce cleaning times.
High melting point
Such products should be washed at a temperature of 15-20C above melting point. During washing there should be no ballast water or cold cargoes adjacent to the tank to be cleaned. Special attention must also be given to liquid and vapor line systems to avoid freezing/solidification at cold line segments. Beginning the tank cleaning process as soon as possible after discharge is strongly recommended.
High viscosity
These products should be washed at higher temperatures. In general the viscosity is closely related to the temperature and will decrease at higher temperatures. During washing there should be no ballast water or cold cargoes adjacent to the tank to be cleaned. As with products with a high melting point, washing should begin as soon as possible after discharge.
High vapor pressure/boiling point
Products with a high vapor pressure (higher than some 50 mbar at 20 C) can actually be removed from the tank by evaporation. As always, during ventilation, special care must be taken to prevent the risk of explosion (flammable products) and emissions (toxic vapors).
Polymerization
The initial wash of products that tend to polymerize should be carried out with cold (ambient) water. Washing with hot water results in polimeric residues being left in tanks and lines, meaning an incredibly difficult clean-up job.
Evaporation of volatile substances
Cargoes consisting of mixtures with different vapor pressures should neither be cleaned by evaporation, nor prewashed hot. The evaporation of the light substances from a mixture could result in non-volatile residues, which are very difficult to remove.
Isocynates
Must never come into contact with water, not even the residues, because the reaction product and insoluble urethane (plus CO2) are very difficult to remove. Such products must be washed with a suitable solvent that does not contain any water.
Reaction with oxygen
Drying and semi-drying vegetable and animal oils react with oxygen to form a varnish-like polymeric film. This is very difficult to remove from bulkheads. Since heat increases the speed of the reaction the initial washing of these products must be done with water at ambient temperature, and as quickly as possible.
Reaction with hard water
Formed by the calcium and magnesium present, seawater, for example, has a very high water hardness. This poses no problem for most products, but fatty acids and vegetable oils with a high free fatty acid content will form white sticky residues if they are cleaned with a water of a high water hardness.
Smell
Minor residues of a smell-producing cargo left in lines, valves and pumps (including pump cofferdams) can contaminate a sensitive cargo. To neutralise the smell of some chemicals (e.g. Acrylate, Nitrobenzene or Pygas) the use of a smell killer may be recommended.
Understanding the conditions. Inside and out
Along with product knowledge, an understanding of just how the conditions in and outside tanks can affect a cleaning job is vital for consistently successful cleaning:
The neighboring areas
Temperature is one of the major parameters in any tank cleaning procedure and it must be monitored and managed carefully. The temperature in the cargo tank can be significantly influenced by the surrounding conditions, including outside temperature, seawater temperature, ballast conditions, and the temperature of adjacent cargoes.
Deviations from the desired operating temperature can affect the entire tank or just parts of the tank, typically around bulkheads, tank bottoms or tank walls. Two common results are freezing due to lower than allowed temperature, and polymerization/drying due to higher than allowed temperature.
The Tank Surface
Having managed the surrounding conditions, focus should turn to the surface of the tanks. Their composition and condition can have significant implications for the cleaning process.
Stainless steel
Corrosion can occur if there is surface contamination. Both pickling and passivation are chemical treatments applied to the surface of stainless steel to remove contaminants and assist the formation of a continuous, passive chromium oxide film. Pickling and passivation are both acid treatments and neither will remove grease or oil. If the steel is dirty, it may be necessary to use a detergent or alkaline cleaning before pickling or passivation.
Zinc silicate coating
An anti-corrosive paint system made from zinc dust, with certain additives and a binder. The high levels of zinc dust produce a zinc-zinc metal contact resulting in cathodic protection, similar to that obtained from galvanizing. However, zinc coatings are inherently porous, presenting a variety of cleaning problems. It is believed that the cargo migrates into the pores and capillaries, similar to fluid adsorption processes. Zinc coatings have a good resistance against solvents, but are not resistant to strong acids and bases.
Epoxy coatings
Pure epoxy, phenolic epoxy and isocyanate epoxy form cross linkages resulting in relatively good resistance to a greater range of cargoes. Epoxy systems are usually resistant to some weak acids and strong alkalis and do not absorb oil-like substances. Epoxy coatings are, however, prone to absorbing some solvent-like cargoes. This absorption is caused by swelling and subsequent softening of the coating. After transporting aggressive cargoes, the coated tank has to be ventilated until the cargo has been desorbed (released) from the coating film, which results in hardening and decreased swelling. This can take up to several days, depending on the type of cargo, type of coating and film thickness. Water may not be used for cleaning until this ventilation process is finalized. Otherwise the water can lead to blistering and subsequent serious damage of the coating. The more solvency power a cargo has, the more cargo residues could still be present in the coating. This could lead to either contamination of the next or subsequent cargoes, or breakdown of the coating film.
Countless Federal laws govern nearly every aspect of the inland waterways transportation industry, yet the convergence of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) Subchapter M impending Final Rule with Internal Revenue Services (IRS) Inland Waterways Excise Tax audit practices might have a more profound, far reaching impact then industry observers have as yet considered. Fortunately, it appears that taxpaying tow & barge operators may come out on top if they take full advantage of this unlikely Federal rulemaking interplay.
Background
The inland waterways constitute a 25,000 shallow-draft transportation system of which 12,000 miles are taxable Inland Waterways. This domestic waterborne transportation system is a prominent fixture in supporting key American industries such as: mining, agriculture, timber, petroleum and chemicals, cement, metal, and paper and allied products. Barging is a highly energy-efficient freighting solution that has historically been safe, congestion free, and creates a low impact land use and low pollution impact footprint. The movement of immense quantities of raw materials at low cost over long distances is the sustaining force of the waterways system. Stretching from Pennsylvania in the Northeast, to Texas in the Deep South, and Minnesota in the Heartland this “waterways highway” is a vital “import & export” network between states and an artery to foreign markets.
The economic impact in terms of product value transported between states on the inland waterways exceeds $100 billion annually. The 70,000 person inland waterways workforce underpins various industries of more than 800,000 workers. States along the inland waterways contribute 54 percent of the national population, 49 percent of GDP, 50 percent of Federal tax revenue, 56 percent of heavy manufacturing jobs, and 61 percent of agricultural jobs. Countless millions of payroll taxes are generated for Federal and State governments as a result of the inland waterways industry. The Inland Waterways Trust Fund has accrued in excess of $1.6 billion from fuel tax revenue since 1986 and is a catalyst for major construction and rehabilitation projects on the inland waterways.
Subchapter M is the result of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (CGMTA 2004) in which Congress authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to create regulations for towing vessel safety management systems and hours of service for towing vessel personnel. The Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC), a Federal Advisory committee to the United States Coast Guard comprised of a broad spectrum of interested parties in the inland waterways industry, established a working group to assist USCG in framing the rules required under CGTMA 2004. Over the course of six years TSAC conducted numerous public meetings that culminated in four TSAC reports submitted to USCG for review and revision. USCG published the Subchapter M Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in August 2011 and held four public hearings nationwide for public comment. Publication of the Sub Chapter M Final Rule is anticipated in 2016.
Objective Evidence
Objective evidence is best defined as documented statements of fact, other information or records, both quantitative and qualitative, related to the quality of an item or activity, based on observations, measurements, or verifiable tests.
The 2011 NPRM publication set forth the U.S. Coast Guard’s intent to adopt “objective evidence” as a safety requirement through “…detailed processes, procedures, recordkeeping and auditing…” documented in “logbooks, non-conformity reports, and/or other reports of audits.”
The Internal Revenue Service applies accounting’s “Objective Evidence” standard when conducting audits of towing operators for compliance with the Inland Waterways Excise Tax as reported on IRS Form 720. A typical IRS Information Document Request (IDR) to an inland towing operator will include the vessel log, fuel purchases, maintenance records, machinery tech manuals, and fuel operating reports.
Workboat eLogs
Federal law details what entries must be made by watch officers in the vessel’s official logbook. TSAC, in a 2008 report to USCG, reinforced existing recordkeeping requirements for inland towing operators and expanded upon the increased recordkeeping burden Sub Chapter M rules will likely have from a watch officer perspective. Although Federal law does not require log entries related to geographic position, waterway conditions, or commercial activities, it does require the logging of pre-departure testing of steering & propulsion, safety items & drills, crew, and marine casualties. Log entries must be timely and are presumed accurate thus binding the vessel owner to those entries. Negating the binding effect in litigation is held to a rigorous test. The maintenance of a proper and accurate log cannot be over-emphasized as the consequences for poor onboard recordkeeping can be legally and financially catastrophic to a marine operator.
Appreciating the increased onboard recordkeeping burden Subchapter M posed, the U.S. Coast Guard provided for the automation of the onboard recordkeeping processes through definition of a towing vessel record, or workboat eLog, in Part A Section 136.110 of the NPRM. This definition allows any onboard recordkeeping or documentation of events required by Subchapter M to be “a book, notebook, or electronic record”. Thus, according to the NPRM, inland towing operators have the advantage of adopting workboat eLogs as a primary recordkeeping tool.
Workboat eLogs and Marine Enterprise Solutions
While the presence of an onboard workboat eLog offers considerable advantage to watch officers and onboard auditors, it is only through the integration of the eLog with a shoreside marine enterprise solution that its benefits can be fully realized. The ability to “push” onboard data shoreside for interrogation by various marine enterprise solution modules offers an unlimited variety of analytical models for decision makers to consider.
The two distinct audit report functions of safety (USCG) and accounting (IRS) are easily achievable within the framework of a mature, interfaced onboard/shoreside recordkeeping solution. Of course, affordability, scalability, ease of user interface, system stability, and system configurability play an irreversible role in the success of a mature marine enterprise solution. It should also be noted that the presence of Key Performance Indicator data pushed by eLogs to the marine enterprise solution and applied to an industry best practices regime can only improve asset utilization, workforce performance, and customer satisfaction.
Conclusion
The unintended opportunities facing inland waterway operators by opting into the Subchapter M onboard electronic recordkeeping options in lieu of manual recordkeeping are hard to contest. These options are greatly enhanced if the marine operator also elects to interface office accounting, safety, and personnel functions with the vessel as part of a shoreside marine enterprise solution.
Adopting a software architecture and infrastructure where the marine operator can satisfy the reporting requirements of a multitude of Federal agencies (USCG, USACOE, IRS, EPA) through a single electronic reporting system which also provides critical commercial data to the carrier, clients, vendors, and other interested third parties offers immeasurable value.
MARCH 11, 2016—The Maersk Group envisions that one day it will be able to use drones for vessel inspections, firefighting, surveillance for navigation and anti-piracy operations, and to deliver vital goods to
MARCH 11, 2016 — Taiwan media reported that two people died when a helicopter carrying five crashed into the sea off New Taipei City today while checking for oil slicks during an
Tucked away in southwestern Finland is Salo, a town of about 50,000, where 40 percent of all the doors for large cruise ships are produced. Antti Marine’s production facility in Salo has produced a quarter of a million doors for 300 cruise ships in just over 20 years. It takes about 10 weeks to produce a typical order of 3,000 doors. They are supplied over a period of six months, as and when the ship’s cabins are built
“We are devoted to lean thinking,” says Commercial Director Markko Takkinen. “The production time of the doors is short, as we do not want them remain in storage here.”
Antti Marine specializes in what it calls ‘“tailored mass production”—necessary because on one cruise ship there may be 150 different types of doors.
Antti Marine is not the only Finnish marine company that benefits from many of the world’s large cruise ship fleet being built in Finland.
Cruise ships also have a lot of toilets and a need for a lot of waste management systems. Finnish headquartered Evac Group has just received its biggest cruise vessel contract ever: total waste management systems for four large cruise ships plus an option to outfit an additional six vessels. The initial four-vessel contract is valued at about EURO 30 million.
Each ship will have an Evac Cleansea wastewater treatment plan, allowing operation in Environmentally Sensitive Sea Areas (ESSAs) and Special Areas (SAs), dry and wet waste treatment systems, a bio sludge treatment unit, plus vacuum collecting systems and some 3,000 vacuum toilets.
Evac also supplies its products to a wide range of users ashore and afloat. So, too, does fire protection specialist Marioff Corporation Oy, but its roots are in the marine market and it last year launched a new generation Hi-Fog 3000 sprinkler series for marine applications that replaces earlier Hi-Fog 1000 and Hi-Fog 2000 sprinkler series.
“With the launch of this new generation of Hi-Fog 3000 sprinklers, we are offering to our marine customers enhanced Hi-Fog systems with faster activation, more efficient suppression and improved passenger and crew safety,” says John Hemgård, Director of Marine Business, Marioff Corporation Oy.
The Hi-Fog 3000 sprinkler series is designed, tested and type approved according to IMO Res.A800(19) as amended in IMO Res.MSC.265(84).
Another Finnish product that really took off after its widespread adoption is ABB’s Azipod. It’s become the propulsor of choice for cruise ships and ABB is currently delivering the complete electrical power plant and propulsion systems for two new 3,300 passenger cruise ships building at Germany’s Meyer Werft. The 20.5 MW Azipod XO propulsion unit for the first of the ships recently left the ABB factory in Helsinki.
ABB has delivered, or has on order, Azipod propulsion units for about 200 vessels
Each Azipod propulsion unit takes about two months for technicians to assemble at ABB’s Vuosaari plant. Across town at ABB’s Helsinki motors, generators and drives factory, the powerful synchronous motors at the system’s core take shape over six months.
COOPERATION AMONG STAKEHOLDERS
The major driver for marine engine designers is bringing engines into compliance with emissions requirements while keeping fuel consumption and maintenance costs under control.
A new pressurized EGR (exhaust gas recovery) economizer from Alfa Laval shows how Scandinavian maritime innovation often results from a cooperation between suppliers, university departments and shipowners. It also illustrates that, for some ships, EGR may be a better means of coming into compliance with new NOx limits than the better known SCR (selective catalytic reduction).
In a project supported by the Danish Energy-Technological Development and Demonstration Program (EUDP) and developed in cooperation with Aalborg University, the EGR economizer has been rigorously tested aboard the containership Maersk Cardiff.
“As a front-runner in the pursuit of green technologies, we were keen to see what the Aalborg EGR-HPE could do,” says Ole Christensen, Senior Machinery Specialist at A.P. Moller-Maersk. “But while we were enthusiastic about the boiler’s potential, we were also somewhat uncertain as how it would handle the physical realities of EGR. The temperatures are twice as high as those of traditional waste heat recovery, and the gas pressures are far greater.”
Those concerns disappeared when the boiler was brought online with the Maersk Cardiff’s two-stroke MAN B&W 6S80ME-C9 engine in November 2014. “Not only did the boiler survive,” says Christensen, “[but also] the results we have seen during testing are very promising.”
“EGR provides Tier III NOx compliance with a very compact footprint, but compliance itself is only part of the full potential,” says John Pedersen, Business Manager, Boilers, Combustion & Heaters at Alfa Laval. “Working closely with MAN Diesel & Turbo to optimize the EGR technology, we saw additional opportunities through our expertise in marine boilers.”
In the EGR process, around 30% of the exhaust gas is directed back into the engine, which reduces the combustion temperature and thus the production of NOx. Since only the remaining 70% of the gas reaches the traditional exhaust gas boiler after the turbocharger, waste heat recovery is reduced by 30% as well.
The Aalborg EGR-HPE is a revolutionary new economizer enclosed in a pressure casing that is placed in-line ahead of the pre-scrubber sprayers in the EGR circuit.
“By moving the break point for waste heat recovery from a medium engine load down to a low load, the Aalborg EGR-HPE enables even slower steaming,” says Pedersen. “That means fuel savings that quickly pay back the economizer, offset the EGR investment and lower CO2 emissions on top of the NOx reduction.”
Positioned ahead of the pre-scrubber spray jets, the Aalborg EGR-HPE has access to much higher temperatures than traditional exhaust gas boilers. It is integrated with the conventional waste heat recovery after the turbocharger by its steam drum, which is shared with the traditional exhaust gas boiler. With the output of the traditional economizer feeding into the shared drum, the Aalborg EGR-HPE produces extremely high-quality steam with a temperature of just above 400°C, bringing the waste heat recovery system to a much higher level of efficiency.
Using the Aalborg EGR-HPE in an integrated system allows waste heat recovery to occur at lower main engine loads than possible with a traditional waste heat recovery system in Tier III operation. This creates the possibility of even slower steaming.
“The EGR economizer makes waste heat recovery beneficial at far lower engine loads, down to around 30%” says Pedersen. “This means that vessels can steam even slower, with huge fuel savings as a result.”
DUAL FUEL
B&W in MAN-B&W stands for Burmeister & Wain and the Burmeister & Wain shipyard in Copenhagen built the Selandia, the world’s first successful diesel-powered oceangoing ship. That was in 1912.
More than a century later MAN Diesel & Turbo in Copenhagen is still on the cutting edge of diesel innovation.
One beneficiary of this is TOTE Maritime which opted for MAN Diesel & Turbo dual fuel technology for its two new Marlin Class, Jones Act containerships. Both of these ships have been delivered for operation between the U.S. and Puerto Rico, burning LNG as fuel and thereby meeting all U.S. SECA emissions requirement. Each is powered by the world’s first dual-fuel slow-speed engine, an MAN-B&W 8L70ME-GI, built in Korea by licensee Doosan Engine.
The technology in the ME-GI engines wasn’t just pulled out of a hat. It is a natural development of the MAN B&W low speed electronically controlled ME family of engines. The first testing of the GI principles was carried out in 1987 and MAN Diesel
& Turbo introduced its first two-stroke ME-GI dual fuel engine series in 2011, adding the ME-LGI engine series (which can burn liquid fuels such as methanol and ethanol) in 2013.
In theory, any ME engine can be converted into an ME-GI engine, but to be recognized by a classification society as “LNG ready” an ME engine equipped newbuild will have to be designed with provision for such things as the necessary LNG fuel tanks, piping and other ancillaries.
MEDIUM SPEEDS, TOO
LNG fueling has also proved an attraction for many operators of vessels with medium speed diesels who have to operate in emissions control area.
That trend sees Wärtsilä set to deliver the 100th Wärtsilä 34DF dual-fuel marine engine from the factory in early 2016. It is part of an order for three new large escort tugs under construction for Norwegian operator Østensjø Rederi by Spanish shipbuilder Astilleros Gondan. The tugs will operate at Statoil’s Melkøya terminal near Hammerfest in Norway.
“These 100 engines do not include those delivered for land-based energy generation applications,” says Lars Anderson, Vice President, Wärtsilä Marine Solutions.
“Within its power range, the Wärtsilä 34DF has become the workhorse of the marine industry, thanks to its superior reliability and lower operating costs. It is a highly efficient engine that is also making a notable contribution to environmental compliance,”
The Wärtsilä 34DF dual-fuel engine was upgraded in 2013 with a higher MCR (maximum continuous rating) and better efficiency than its earlier version, the first of which was delivered in 2010. The upgraded version has a power output range from 3,000 to 10,000 kW at 500 kW per cylinder.
ELIMINATE THE ENGINE?
Of course, if you can eliminate the engine and switch to battery power, that gets rid of emissions issues entirely. One area where this could be possible is in certain short range ferry operations and we have already noted the E-ferry way project under way in Denmark at Søby Værft AS.
Wärtsilä, too, is eyeing this niche. In January it launched a concept for a series of zero or low emission shuttle ferries. The concept has been developed in line with new Norwegian environmental regulations for ferries, and Wärtsilä says this regulatory trend is also evident in other countries.
The ferries are designed to run entirely on batteries or in a battery-engine hybrid configuration where the fuel options are liquefied natural gas (LNG) or biofuel.
In plug-in operation, the fuel consumption is reduced by 100 percent compared to conventional installations, and all local emissions are completely eliminated. With the plug-in hybrid configuration, emissions are reduced by up to 50 percent.
The concept features Wärtsilä’s new wireless inductive charging system, which offers major benefits for typical shuttle ferry operations involving 20,000 or more departures a year because of its time and energy savings. The system eliminates physical cable connections, thus reducing wear and tear and enabling charging to begin immediately when the vessel arrives at quay.
Wärtsilä has now signed an agreement with Cavotec SA to jointly develop a combined induction charging and automatic mooring concept. It would incorporate Wärtsilä’s wireless induction power transfer into a vacuum-based automated mooring technology in which remote controlled vacuum pads recessed into, or mounted on the quayside, moor and release vessels in seconds.
FILTER PROMISES TO CUT NOX
The Exilator, an environmental filter for smaller ships, able to reduce both sulfur, carbon monoxide, NOx and noise, has been successfully tested on a Danish Maritime Authority ship. The technology has been testing over a 12-month project phase followed by a three-month practical test of the concept on the Danish Maritime Authority’s ship Poul Løwenørn. The filter’s performance has been documented by the Danish Technological Institute, and the installation and mounting of the filter has been approved by LR.
The filter has been designed for ships with engines of up to 6 MW. Current regulations don’t require the cleaning of exhaust gas from smaller ships if they already sail on marine diesel with a maximum sulfur content of 0.1%. Still, developer Exilator ApS
believes that there is already a market for the filter, as it reduces soot pollution and NOx on the ship itself and also cuts engine noise considerably — particularly attractive in the yachting sector, or expedition vessels sailing in very sensitive nature areas.
According to the test from the Danish Technological Institute, the filter reduces soot particle emissions by 99,1%, carbon monoxide by 98% and NOx by 11%. Though those tests didn’t cover the filter’s noise reduction properties but the company expects a noise reduction up to 35 dB, including low frequency noise.
Financing for development and testing was secured through the Danish Growth Fund and investment & development company CapNova.
The filter works by catalytically incinerated the soot in the exhaust as soon the ship’s engines reach exhaust temperatures above 325 degrees C. Ash is accumulated in the filter, which means that the filters must be cleaned after about 5,000 operational hours, as part of the recycling process.
The filter requires that the ship uses marine gas oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.1%. According the test, the filter improves the ship’s fuel consumption by around 1%.
The exhaust gas, after passing through the turbo charger, goes to a muffler that removes the deep resonance. Then comes the particle filter, which also serves as an oxidation catalyst, where the soot is captured and burned – and finally the gas is led through a reducing catalyst, which minimizes NOx and NO2, before being emitted into the atmosphere.
Development is now underway in a collaboration with DTU, the Technological Institute and an engine manufacturer aimed at increasing the filter’s NOx reduction from 11% to 40% in phase 1, and to 80% in the subsequent phase 2. When this is achieved, the filter will enable compliance with IMO Tier III NOx limits.
SCRUBBERS
Shipowners face no shortage of options if they decide to use exhaust gas scrubbers to cut sulfur emissions. Recent customers for Alfa Laval’s PureSOx exhaust gas cleaning systems include Buss Shipping, which is retrofitting hybrid PureSOx systems on two 1,025 TEU container feeder ships that operate exclusively in Emission Control Areas (ECAs). Since they frequent the low-alkalinity waters between Rotterdam and St. Petersburg, as well as ports like Hamburg with zero-discharge requirements, a scrubber with closed-loop mode was a necessity.
Each ship will receive a hybrid PureSOx system with multiple inlets, connecting the main engine and two auxiliary engines to one U-design scrubber. In contrast to earlier systems with multiple inlets, the inlets will now lead into a single scrubber jet section – an advance in construction that will make the scrubber even more compact.
“The PureSOx solution was well engineered and allowed a sophisticated integration of the scrubber system into our container feeder ships,” says Christoph Meier, Project Manager, Buss Shipping. “The custom construction let us avoid major modifications inside the vessel, which together with the pre-outfitting gave us a short installation time. All those factors contributed to a competitive price.”
Though there’s no doubt that scrubbers work, they also involve a substantial investment. That led Finland’s family-owned Langh Ship to develop a scrubber of its own, the decision was made a little easier by the fact that another family-owned company has 40 years’ experience in cleaning washing waters.
The resulting product was successfully tested over an extended period on one of Langth’s own ships, the M/S Laura, and received final class approval from GL in August 2014. All of Langh’s five vessels have now been fitted with the scrubber and last year a hybrid version was installed on Bore Shipping’s M/V Bore Song.
“It has lived up to our expectations: minimum sludge handling, very clean outgoing water and in that respect minimum impact on the environment,” said Jörgen Mansnerus, VP, Marine Management at Bore Ltd.
Scrubbers could become less expensive as the result of a pilot project developed by Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) researchers Carlos Dorao and Maria Fernandino.
Called the Lynx Separator, the technology now being examined for possible use in marine exhaust gas scrubbers was originally developed for use in the natural gas industry and involves using a steel sponge along with centrifugal force to remove the fluid from a gas stream, offering a brand new solution for the gas industry.
In the Lynx Separator, wet gas flows through the separator. A tubular metal sponge spins rapidly so the liquid is separated from the gas and thrown to the side and down, allowing dry gas to stream up to where it’s needed.
The Research Council of Norway’s Innovation Program MAROFF (Maritime activities and offshore operations) has now funded a pilot project to examine the possibility of applying the separator technology to cleaning ships’ exhaust emissions from ships andetheoretical calculations and testing show promising results
BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Another major focus of compliance concern for shipowners is, of course, ballast water management. Needless to say, most of the major players in the Scandinavian marine equipment sectors have horses in this race. It’s just to soon to pick any winners given the fact that no system has yet gained full U.S. Type Approval.
As this was written, Norway’s Optimarin was claiming to be on the brink of the coveted approval and was pleased when the U.S. Coast Guard told manufacturers of ultraviolet (UV) based BWMS that it will not accept the Most Probable Number (MPN) testing method in its approval process. The MPN methodology evaluates organisms on the basis of “viable/unviable,” with most UV systems depositing “unviable” organisms back into the water – meaning they are still alive but cannot reproduce. The USCG said that the FDA/CMFDA test, which judges life forms as “living/dead,” must be the standard for approval.
Optimarin says the decision is good news.
The Coast Guard has told UV system manufacturers that it will not accept the Most Probable Number (MPN) testing method in its approval process. The MPN methodology evaluates organisms on the basis of “viable/unviable,” with most UV systems depositing “unviable” organisms back into the water – meaning they are still alive but cannot reproduce.
“This is a clear indication to the industry that USCG wants absolute certainty with regard to standards – they do not want living organisms deposited in their territory,” comments Tore Andersen, Optimarin’s CEO. “MPN is acceptable for IMO, but that won’t be any consolation to shipowners with global fleets that want the flexibility of sailing in and out of U.S. waters.”
He says that Optimarin, which has over 20 years of industry experience and installed the world’s first commercial BWT system in 2000, is the only UV manufacturer that is currently within “touching distance” of USCG approval.
Its technology successfully satisied the FDA/CFMDA criteria during testing last year. Further tests in other water salinities are scheduled for spring 2016, after which point approval is expected later this year.
Andersen says the system’s power is the key to its efficacy. “Each of our system lamps has a 35 kW capacity, which is huge for a UV system. That power instantly kills invasive organisms and that’s exactly what USCG wants to see,” he says