Intertanko Meeting Practical Considerations associated with Ballast Water System and Scrubber Installation

Practical Considerations 1. Ballast Water Installations Best Practices Study Operational Status Technology Types 2. SOx Scrubber Installations Adoption Status & Trends Planning and Selection Design and Procurement Installation and Commission Operation

Ballast Water Treatment Systems Best Practices / Operation Experience In 2017 and 2018 ABS sent questionnaires to shipowners that have installed BWTS to obtain operational status and feedback ABS led workshop discussions with the shipowners using the aggregated data from the responses 2017 Houston: 220 vessels 2018 New Orleans, Shanghai, Singapore: 479 vessels

Reported Operational Status 2017: 220 installations 14% 15% 30% 44% 2018: 479 installations 25% 6% 59% 11% Regularly operated and subject to monitoring and/or efficacy testing Inoperable Operations problematic System running but not subjected to monitoring or efficacy testing

BWMS Operational Experience Questionnaire Results BWMS Technology Types 2017 vs 2018 50% 45% 40% 40% 35% 30% 28.4% 25% 20% 15% 17% 16% 21.1% 18% 19.8% 18.0% 10% 5% 0% Filtration + Sidestream EC + Neutralization Filtration + UV Treatment Ozone Treatment + Neutralization Filtration + Full Flow (In-line) EC + Neutralization 5% 7.5% In-line Flow Electrolytic Chlorination 4% 5.0% Filtration + Chlorination via chemical addition 0.2% 1% Deoxygenation Filtration + Oxidation 2017 2018

Scrubber Adoption Status & Trends Accumulative Adoption by Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 July-18 Aug-18 Sep-28 Oct-18 New Building 293 338 422 487 557 623 665 Retrofit 169 169 175 254 344 663 844 Total 462 507 597 741 901 1286 1509 250 238 30.0% Number of Ships 200 150 100 50 0 27.2% 154 19.5% 126 16.8% 116 72 49 5.7% 6.5% 3.9% 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year of Build 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% October 2018: 1509 vessels with scrubbers adopted Increasing percentage of vessels selecting a scrubber Increasing number of retrofit installations Scrubber Vessel Scrubber Vessel as % of service/on-order Source: Clarkson Research Oct 2018

Planning and Selection Key Considerations Intended trade route Ship specific emission strategy Polar Waters: IMO Polar Code prohibits discharge of noxious liquid substances

Design & Procurement Feasibility Evaluation: - Space Challenges (Funnel enlargement) - Power Availability Procurement - Technical limitation and operational restriction - Emission monitoring technology - Dimensions and weight - Power requirements - Material of key components and accessories - Spare and service availability

Design Consideration Scrubber Systems - Material selection - Back pressure - Integration and by-pass - Safety Shutdown - Sludge Disposal Shipboard Impact - Structure - Electrical - Piping including seachest - Stability - Lightship Component Common Material Scrubber reaction chamber Super austenitic stainless steel - SMO 254 (6 Moly) (UNS S31254) Washwater lines (effluent, bleed-off downstream of scrubber) Water lines (scrubbing, cooling, reaction, makeup water) Alkali (NaOH) supply Sludge tanks Sludge lines Valves (Exhaust, bypass, isolation) GRP (glass reinforced plastic) Super duplex stainless steel GRE (glass reinforced epoxy) Carbon steel with PE (polyethylene) lining Stainless steel - SS 316L Plastic tank Steel with synthetic coating GRE FRP/GRP Nickel alloys

Installation and Commission Installation: - Define Roles of stake holder Owner, yard, vendor Onboard work by riding squad Prefabrication on shore Works in dry dock and at Yard Commission - Monitoring system calibration Functional test Performance test Crew Training

Lessons Learned for Scrubber Installation Observation Wash water carryover by exhaust gas Operationinterruption (e.g., wash water supply) Unexpectedhigh exhaust gas backpressure Incompliance performance wash water ph, SOx/CO2 ratio) Reliability of monitoring sys. instrument malfunction (detectors for SOx/CO2, ph, PAH, Turbidity, Temp.) Loosen nozzle, water/gas leak Extended test period Possible Causes Inappropriate exhaust gas flow path Chocking of filter in supply piping Scrubber undersized Sharp bend in piping Water spray resistance Inadequate wash water Low ph of supply water Wash water/gas contact Not for marine application Lack of calibration Inappropriate installation Poor workmanship Lack of test plan/pre-commission Recommendation Flow path improvement forwater droplet knockout Redundancy consideration FMEA Design improvement, design verification and simulation for back pressure evaluation Design improvement CFD simulation verification Supply water ph verification Approved monitoring system Proven product Follow maker instruction Workmanship Improvement Test plan approval Pre-commission done

In Service Operation Manning and Crew Intervention Demonstration of compliance Contingency Measures Maintenance, Repair and Calibration Service Restriction