Ballast water management options for vessels

Full text

I
BALMAS
Ballast water management system for Adriatic Sea
protection
1.11.2013 – 30.9.2016
Project number: 1°str./0005
IPA Adriatic Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007 – 2013
Work package
4
Activity
4.3
Date
September 2016
Contract delivery due
date
October 2015
Title
Ballast water management options for vessels
Project Partner for
deliverable
LB – Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia
Other partners for
deliverable
Dr Matej David Consult and GoConsult for LB
FB12 – Mare Nostrum
Contributors
Sandro Vidas, Ludvik Penko and Gašper Zupančič
Authors
Matej David, Stephan Gollasch
Report Status (DR = Draft, FI = Final)
FI
Status (PU = Public, IN = Internal for
BALMAS)
PU
Annex (if any)
Contact person
Matej David
Contact person email
matej.david@siol.net
BALMAS website
www.balmas.eu

II
Disclaimer
This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the IPA Adriatic Cross-
Border Cooperation Programme. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility
of Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia and can under no circumstances be
regarded as reflecting the position of the IPA Adriatic Cross-Border Cooperation
Programme Authorities.
This report should be quoted as follows
David M., Gollasch, S. 2015. Ballast water management options for vessels, Final report,
BALMAS project, p. 77
BALMAS overview
The United Nations had recognized the transfer of harmful organisms and pathogens across
natural barriers as one of the four greatest pressures to the world’s oceans and seas, causing
global environmental changes, and posing threat to human health, property and resources.
Ballast water transfer by vessels was recognized as a prominent vector of such species, and
was regulated by the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship´s
Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (BWM Convention). The BWM Convention sets the
global standards on ballast water management (BWM) requirements, while recognizing
that regional and local specifics have to be considered for its effective implementation. The
Adriatic Sea is a unique and highly sensitive ecosystem. The economic development and
social existence of the coastal states strongly depend on the clean and preserved Adriatic
Sea. However, the Adriatic Sea is also a seaway mainly used by international shipping
transporting goods to or from Europe as hinterland, with also intense local shipping.
Increasing, serious concern is the introduction of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens
(HAOP) by ships’ ballast water. By developing a joint Adriatic Ballast Water Management
Decision Support System, Ballast Water Management Plan and Strategy, BALMAS will
ensure uniform BWM requirements to ease shipping and at the same time to maximize
environmental and economic protection of all sea users. The general BALMAS objective is
to establish a common cross-border system, which will link all researchers, experts and
responsible national authorities from Adriatic countries in order to avoid unwanted risks to
the environment from the transfer of HAOP. This can be achieved through control and
management of ships’ ballast waters and sediments. Further, long-term effective ballast
water management (BWM) in the Adriatic will be set at the cross-border level utilizing this
project’s related knowledge and technology.

III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
2 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE BWM
CONVENTION .................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE STANDARD – D-1 STANDARD ............. 4
2.1.1 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE AREAS .............................................. 6
2.1.2 UNDUE DELAY AND DEVIATION FROM PLANNED ROUTE ......... 8
2.2 BALLAST WATER PERFORMANCE STANDARD – D-2 STANDARD .... 8
2.2.1 HOW TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE D-2 STANDARD? . 10
2.3 EXEMPTIONS FROM BWM AND ADDITIONAL MEASURES ............... 11
2.4 EXCEPTIONS FROM BWM ........................................................................... 12
3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
CONVENTION .................................................................................................................. 14
3.1 A BLANKET OR A SELECTIVE APPROACH? .......................................... 14
3.2 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT FEASIBILITY ................................. 14
3.3 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE AREAS IN NORTHERN EUROPE .......................... 16
3.3.1 HELCOM area .......................................................................................... 18
3.3.2 OSPAR area .............................................................................................. 18
3.3.3 Orkney Islands .......................................................................................... 20
3.4 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE AREAS IN THE ADRIATIC ..................................... 23
4 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ............................................... 24
4.1 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES 26
4.1.1 Filtration ................................................................................................... 37
4.1.2 Hydrocyclone............................................................................................ 37
4.1.3 Ultraviolet radiation .................................................................................. 38
4.1.4 Electrochlorination ................................................................................... 38
4.1.5 Chemical dosing ....................................................................................... 39

IV
4.1.6 Neutralisation ........................................................................................... 39
4.1.7 Bioaugmentation ....................................................................................... 39
4.1.8 Plasma ....................................................................................................... 39
4.2 APPLICATION OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES ON
VESSELS 40
4.3 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CAPACITIES AND INSTALLATION
REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................... 42
4.4 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS TESTING AND APPROVALS .............. 44
4.5 THE GLOBAL MARKET FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ............ 46
5 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE AS BWM OPTION FOR THE ADRIATIC 47
6 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 48
6.1 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT CONVENTION .................................................. 48
6.2 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ........................................ 49
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. 50
LITERATURE .............................................................................................................. 51

V
List of frequently used abbreviations
BWDA Ballast Water Discharge Assessment
BWE Ballast Water Exchange
BWEA Ballast Water Exchange Area
BWM Ballast Water Management
BWMS Ballast Water Management System
BWRF Ballast Water Reporting Forms
CME Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
D-1 Ballast Water Exchange Standard (of the BWM Convention)
D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard (of the BWM Convention)
DSS Decision Support System
HAOP Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens
PSC Port State Control
RA Risk Assessment

VI
List of figures:
Figure 1 – The original phase-in plan of the ballast water performance standard
(Regulation D-2) in relation to the ballast water exchange standard (Regulation D-1)
(David and Gollasch 2008). ................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 – Risk assessment procedures according to the BWM Convention (David et al.
2015). ................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3 – World map indicating the main intercontinental shipping routes (blue lines) and
BWE areas according to the BWM Convention (red shading = 50 NM and pink shading =
200 NM limit to nearest land and > 200 m water depth) (David et al. 2015). .................... 15
Figure 4 – The seas surrounding Europe with the 50 nautical miles and 200 meters depth
limit shown in pink, and pink shaded the 200 nautical miles limit. The red lines show the
main shipping routes (David et al. 2015). ........................................................................... 16
Figure 5 – The three Norwegian ballast water exchange areas along the Norwegian coast
(from dark blue to light blue shading) and the OSPAR BWE area indicated as medium blue
part in the frame surounded by the dark blue line (Source: OSPAR 2014). ....................... 19
Figure 6 – Eastern Ballast Water Exchange Zone (purple line), located north-east of
Aberdeen (the green arrow points to the approximate location of the city of Abderdeen) for
vessels approaching Scapa Flow (inset) from the east (OIC 2013). .................................... 22
Figure 7 – Vessel movements and some BWEA options for the intra-Adriatic traffic. ...... 24
Figure 8 – The approval process of BWMS according to the IMO requirements (David and
Gollasch 2015). .................................................................................................................... 46

VII
List of tables:
Table 1 - BWMS manufacturers (in alphabetical order), commercial names of their BWMS,
technologies used and available web pages (last accessed April 2015). Type approved
BWMS are shown with grey shading (updated after David and Gollasch 2015, IMO 2015).
......................................................................................... Napaka! Zaznamek ni definiran.
Table 2 - Generic treatment process and some main BWMS technologies (David and
Gollasch 2015). .................................................................................................................... 36

Page - 1 -
1 INTRODUCTION
As defined at IMO: "Ballast Water Management means mechanical, physical, chemical, and
biological processes, either singularly or in combination, to remove, render harmless, or avoid
the uptake or discharge of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens within Ballast Water
and Sediments."
BWM in its core sense means the prevention, minimization and ultimate elimination of the
transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens (HAOP) via vessels’ ballast waters and
sediments. In light of this, BWM cannot only be understood as mechanical, physical,
chemical, and biological processes preventing the transfer of HAOP, because the process
includes also different precautionary measures to minimize the uptake of HAOP and
sediments. Those include the avoidance of ballast water uptake, where practicable,
• in areas identified by the port State in connection with advice provided by ports;
• in darkness when the organism concentration in upper water layers increases;
• in areas with outbreaks, infestations or known populations of HAOPs;
• in very shallow water because it is more likely to pump in bottom living organisms;
• where propellers may stir up sediment;
• where dredging is or recently has been carried out; and
• nearby sewage outfalls.
Furthermore, no mixing of ballast water should occur and additional management practices
may apply, e.g., risk assessment (RA), decision support system (DSS). Hence BWM should
be understood as a complex, multi-facetted process of all precautionary measures, preventive
and treatment procedures, as well as additional measures taken to prevent, minimize and
ultimately eliminate the transfer of HAOP via ballast water and sediments.
Vessels should also, whenever possible, implement precautionary practices, i.e., avoid the
unnecessary discharge of ballast water. Should it be necessary to take on and discharge ballast
water in the same port to facilitate safe cargo operations, unnecessary discharge of ballast
water that has been taken up in another port should be avoided. Managed ballast water which

Page - 2 -
is mixed with unmanaged ballast water is no longer in compliance with Regulations D-1 and
D-2.
2 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THE BWM CONVENTION
By the basic principle, vessels (not ports) are required to conduct BWM according to the
requirements of the BWM Convention. However, port reception facilities are also considered
by the BWM Convention as a BWM option, i.e., Regulation B-3.6 and Guidelines for ballast
water reception facilities (G5) (G5 Guidelines) (IMO 2006k). During the BWM Convention
negotiations ballast water reception facilities were considered as the primary BWM measure.
However, as ships may need to conduct ballast water operations also outside ports, such
reception facilities would not cover all ballast water discharges. Therefore, treatment on board
ship before ballast water discharge is required (David et al. 2015).
Standards for BWM are dealt with by the BWM Convention in Regulations D-1 and D-2. The
BWM Convention introduces these two different protective regimes as a sequential
implementation regime:
• Ballast Water Exchange Standard (Regulation D-1, so called D-1 standard) requiring
ships to exchange a minimum of 95 % ballast water volume;
• Ballast Water Performance Standard (Regulation D-2, so called D-2 standard) requires
that the discharge of ballast water have the number of viable organisms below the specified
limits.
The D-2 standard is based on a limited number of organisms that can be discharged with
ballast water. The phase-in of the D-2 standard was originally planned gradually, based on the
vessels total ballast tanks capacity and if these vessels are existing or are new builds (see
Figure 1). When the phase-in dates were set, the expectation was that technology and
manufacturing capacity would be first available for vessels with lower ballast water capacities
and flow rates. As such dates were set to allow a gradual maturity of the technology with the
expectation that the very high flow rates would come later due to the technical challenges.

Page - 3 -
These include that on smaller vessels due to engine room limited space might be difficult to
install ballast water management systems (BWMS) at that time. Higher flow rates were
considered difficult as the first generation of BWMS was not able to meet these flow
requirements.
Figure 1 – The original phase-in plan of the ballast water performance standard (Regulation
D-2) in relation to the ballast water exchange standard (Regulation D-1) (David and Gollasch
2008).
However, the BWM Convention has not come into force and certain phase-in dates have
already passed. This resulted in a debate at IMO and Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) at his 65th session (May 2013) approved a draft IMO Assembly
resolution on the application of Regulation B-3 of the BWM Convention, which addresses the
fixed dates, to ease and facilitate the smooth implementation of the BWM Convention. This
was approved at the 28th session of the IMO Assembly (25 November to 4 December 2013).
This resolution recommends that ships constructed before the entry into force of the BWM
Convention will not be required to comply with Regulation D-2 until their first renewal
survey following the date of entry into force of the BWM Convention. The aim of the
resolution is to clarify that although the BWM Convention itself cannot be changed prior to
Ships
built
BW capacity (m³)
Phase in of the D-2 standard of the
BWM Convention
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
<2009
1500 - 5000
<2009
<1500
>5000
2009
<5000
D-2
≥2010
<5000
≥2009
<2012
>5000
≥2012
>5000
D-2
D-1 or D-2
D-1 or D-2
D-2
D-2
D-2
D-1 or D-2
D-2
D-1 or D-2
D-2

Page - 4 -
entry into force, Regulation B-3 may be enforced on a realistic timeline upon entry into force
of the BWM Convention. This needs consensus amongst all IMO Member States. One issue
that was not anticipated was that the term “renewal survey” is not specifically tied to any
statutory requirement. That was solved by using the requirements for the date of the issuance
of the International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) certificate as the trigger for the renewal
survey (IMO 2014).
Several Delegations at MEPC65 expressed their concerns regarding this approach because,
due to the reduced urgency to implement BWM methods on board, it may result in a
relaxation of efforts to ratify the BWM Convention. It was further assumed that this new
approach would negatively impact the developers of BWMS as sales of their units may be
delayed (Stephan Gollasch personal comment).
2.1 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE STANDARD – D-1 STANDARD
Approximately ten years ago when the D-2 standard was negotiated at IMO no BWMS was
readily available. In the absence of full scale BWMS to be installed on vessels, it was
suggested by MEPC that ballast water exchange (BWE) at sea may reduce the risk of species
introductions. Most vessels are enabled to conduct a BWE without needing extra installations
(David et al. 2015).
The reasoning behind BWE is that coastal organisms pumped on board during ballast water
uptake, when discharged at sea are unlikely to survive due to, e.g., salinity issues and the lack
of a hard substrate to complete their life cycle. In addition, high sea organisms when pumped
on board during the BWE will unlikely survive when released in coastal waters also due to
possible salinity changes and the lack of suitable habitats. Further, it is well-known that
organism concentrations are much lower in high seas compared to coastal waters which
reduces the risk of species introductions. However, sampling studies on board of commercial
vessels have shown that in certain instances after BWE a higher concentration of organisms
was found in the ballast water (e.g., Macdonald and Davidson 1998, McCollin et al. 2001).
This specifically occurred when the BWE was undertaken in shallower seas or during high
organism concentrations, such as algal blooms, which are also known to occur in the high
seas.

Page - 5 -
Other BWE efficiency limitations include that, due to ballast tank design, a certain amount of
unpumpable ballast water and sediments always remains inside the tank on almost all ships.
As a result a one time BWE will not be sufficient to reduce the organism load. IMO noted this
and therefore Regulation D-1 of the BWM Convention requires at least a 95% water exchange.
This may be met by emptying and refilling the tank or by pumping through three times the
tank volume (Rigby and Hallegraeff 1994). However, when Gollasch and David conducted
shipboard tests of different BWM methods it was noticed that on vessels which were trimmed
ahead, about 15 % and more of unpumpable water remained in the tanks during the empty-
refill (sequential) BWE. Furthermore, a 95% volumetric BWE is unlikely equivalent with a
95% organism removal because the organisms are not homogeneously distributed in a tank
(e.g., Murphy et al. 2002). In contrast, under certain circumstances, the 95% volumetric
exchange may result in an even higher than 95% organism removal. In conclusion, pumping
through less than three times the volume may also be acceptable provided the ship can
demonstrate that at least 95 % volumetric exchange limit is met (David et al. 2015).
When conducting BWE Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange (G6) are to be considered.
Three methods are accepted to conduct BWE and can be described as follows (IMO 2005c):
Sequential method – is a process by which a ballast tank is first emptied and then refilled with
replacement ballast water to achieve at least a 95 % volumetric exchange.
Flow-through method – is a process by which replacement ballast water is pumped into a
ballast tank, allowing water to flow through an overflow on deck or other arrangements.
Dilution method – is a process by which replacement ballast water is filled through the top of
a ballast tank with simultaneous discharge from the bottom at the same flow rate so that a
constant water level is maintained in the tank throughout the BWE.
In addition to the requirements to be met in relation to the BWE methods used, a ship should
also consider requirements regarding where BWE shall, whenever possible, be conducted. In
the first place, this is at least 200 nautical miles from nearest land and in water depths of at
least 200 metres. If this is impossible, then the BWE should be conducted as far from nearest

Page - 6 -
land as possible, and in all cases at least 50 nautical miles from nearest land and in waters of
at least 200 metres depth (IMO 2004).
2.1.1 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE AREAS
In sea areas where these BWE depth and distance requirements cannot be met, the port state
may designate a ballast water exchange area (BWEA). This should be done in consultation
with adjacent or other states, as applicable. Any such designation should follow the principles
of Guidelines on Designation of Areas for Ballast Water Exchange (G14 (IMO 2006l)).
However, a ship shall not be required to deviate from its intended voyage, or delay the voyage
to conduct BWE. In contrast, a port State may require a ship to deviate from its intended route
or delay its voyage in case a designated BWEA has been established. The BWE activity for
each tank should not start if the process cannot be fully completed (David et al. 2015).
In general, ships should follow the G6 Guidelines and shall only be required to comply with
any BWE requirements if those would not threaten the safety or stability of the ship, its crew,
or its passengers because of, e.g., adverse weather, ship design or stress, equipment failure, or
any other extraordinary condition.
Vessels operating in coastal areas are unlikely to meet the distance (200 nm or 50 nm distance
from nearest land) and water depth (200 metres depth) requirements of the BWM Convention.
Further, routes may be too short to conduct a complete BWE of all ballast tanks intended to
be discharged in the port of call. Management options for those vessels may therefore be
based on a selective approach, i.e., use a designated BWEA or by granting exemptions based
on RA.
The rationale for the BWEA designation is that it provides an area where ships can safely
exchange ballast water as a risk reducing measure while at the same time minimising harmful
environmental effects. However, next to shipping and nautical aspects, the challenge is to
identify such areas from a biological perspective. It is understood that coastal BWEA pose a
higher risk of species introductions compared to mid-ocean exchange, but at the same time it

Page - 7 -
may be preferred to use specially designated BWEA rather than to discharge unmanaged
ballast water in a port or across the entire coastal area (David et al. 2015).
Strong concerns have already been voiced that the designation of near-shore BWEA may
expose certain regions to additional ballast water discharges, which may pose a risk to those
ballast water receiving environments. This is why BWEA need to be selected very carefully
using RA to prove it is environmentally safe. Ideal would be a BWEA with off-shore directed
water currents, it should be as far from nearest land and as deep as possible, free of pollution
or HAOP. When these requirements are met the BWEA may be considered environmentally
safe and effective. When considering shipping aspects, the BWEA needs to be designed as
large as possible and as close as possible to shipping routes (David 2007).
In practice this implies difficulties especially for the designation of BWEA in shallow seas
(e.g., North Sea, Baltic Sea) or semi-enclosed seas (e.g., Adriatic). Considerations should be
given to the trade-offs between (a) additional ballast water discharges in such areas, (b) the
dimension of the BWEA to allow complete BWE and (c) to its location to avoid major
deviations from the vessels´ intended routes. To meet the requirements vessels with bigger
ballast water capacities may slow down when sailing through BWEA to gather extra time to
complete the BWE operation or to exchange just the “critical” (i.e., assessed as highest risk
ballast) ballast water. A decision on the minimum management measure required should be
taken according to the level of RA.
BWEA should be biologically monitored frequently to document the presence/absence of
introduced species or other HAOP. A worst case scenario may be that HAOP become
introduced and established in such an area and are rapidly spread unnoticed due to the
ongoing BWE activities in this area.
A unique situation occurs in e.g. Europe and USA as some of the busiest ports are located in
estuaries with brackish or even freshwater conditions (e.g., Antwerp, Hamburg and parts of
Rotterdam, inner parts of Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay). A high risk for a species
introduction occurs when freshwater organisms (e.g., the zebra mussel) are transported in
ballast tanks between two freshwater ports, but these two ports are separated by marine water
conditions, which poses a natural migration barrier so that the freshwater organisms cannot

Page - 8 -
spread by their natural means between these freshwater ports . In those instances BWE in
higher saline waters, also in coastal waters (i.e., <50 NM from the nearest land and < 200 m
depth), may be a risk reducing measure. However, some organisms show a very wide salinity
tolerance, i.e., BWE alone will not completely eliminate the risk of species introductions
(David et al. 2015).
We therefore recommend that freshwater ballast should be exchanged in marine waters even
if this is in coastal waters provided that the voyage is sufficiently long to complete BWE en-
route in marine waters for the ballast water intended for discharge.
2.1.2 UNDUE DELAY AND DEVIATION FROM PLANNED ROUTE
As per the BWM Convention vessels should not be forced to deviate or be unduly delayed by
BWM requirements. The BWM Convention gives the vessel a right for compensation when it
has been unduly delayed. However, the term “undue delay” has never clearly been defined by
IMO in relation to the BWM Convention or other IMO applications.
The designation of BWEA should not require major vessel deviations. However, a
cost/benefit analysis considering the costs caused by negative impacts of introduced species
vs. re-routing costs for shipping may reveal that a slight re-routing of vessels may be
considered. Similarly, if a RA identifies that a vessel carries ballast water with an
unacceptable risk, then the reasoning for a deviation may apply and it is therefore not “undue”.
It may therefore be considered that vessels use specific routes even if this results in a delay of
a few hours (David et al. 2015).
2.2 BALLAST WATER PERFORMANCE STANDARD – D-2
STANDARD
The Ballast Water Performance Standard as outlined in Regulation D-2 stipulates that ships
meeting the requirements of the BWM Convention must discharge:
• less than 10 viable organisms per cubic meter greater than or equal to 50
micrometers in minimum dimension, and

Page - 9 -
• less than 10 viable organisms per millilitre less than 50 micrometers in
minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum
dimension, and
• less than the following concentrations of indicator microbes, as a human health
standard:
• Toxigenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139) with less than 1 colony
forming unit (cfu) per 100 millilitres or less than 1 cfu per 1 gram (wet weight) of
zooplankton samples,
• Escherichia coli less than 250 cfu per 100 millilitres, and
• Intestinal Enterococci less than 100 cfu per 100 millilitres.
This standard formed the basis for significant discussions and continuing controversy at IMO.
The acceptable organism numbers and the method to determine their size classes were
debated intensively. This compromise was reached through negotiations by various countries
which ranged from an acceptable number of organisms above 50 micron in minimum
dimension between 100 and 0.01 per cubic meter. The current version of the D-2 standard is
seen as a considerable reduction compared to the amount of organisms discharged in
unmanaged ballast water or even that obtained by BWE (David et al. 2015).
The D-2 standard for both organism groups greater than or equal to 10 micrometers in
minimum dimension refers to all organisms, not per species, and not only for non-indigenous
or harmful organisms. As a result the individual taxonomic species identification is not
required for purposes of compliance testing.
Also of note is the inclusion of a discharge limit for “indicator microbes” with a human health
impact in the D-2 standard. A number of delegation insisted on incorporating these bacteria as
they had specific issues, hoping this would result in a strong signal to R&D interests. Existing
and developing ballast water treatment technologies are able to meet these standards using a
combination of treatment methods.
Although the D-2 standard results in a considerable reduction in organisms being released we
note that vessels carry up to 100,000 tonnes of ballast water or more so that still a high
number of organisms may be discharged with ballast water being in compliance with this

Page - 10 -
Convention. Assuming that 10,000 tonnes of ballast water are discharged, the acceptable D-2
standard organism concentration for individuals greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in
minimum dimension is less than 100,000, which theoretically means 99,999. The number of
organisms to establish a founder population in new environments is largely unknown, but we
suspect that an inoculation of approximately 100,000 individuals (although of different
species) may not eliminate the risk of species introductions in all cases. Another weak point
regarding the D-2 standard is that it does not address organisms below 10 micrometres (in
minimum dimension), but a considerable number of species, including bloom forming
harmful algae, are smaller than 10 micrometres (e.g., Phaeocystis spp., Pfiesteria spp. and
Chrysochromulina spp.) (David et al. 2015).
2.2.1 HOW TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE D-2 STANDARD?
The D-2 standard is based on a limited number of organisms that can be discharged with
ballast water, and is not considering only non-indigenous or harmful organisms, but all viable
organisms in relevant size classes, or limited number of cfu per indicator microbes. Indicator
microbes are in general present only in coastal environments, into which these may be
discharged with untreated river run-offs contaminated with human influence or due to
improper sewage treatment plants. Therefore BWE may still be efficient to manage ballast
water according to the D-2 standard in terms of indicator microbes as in open ocean these
organisms are absent. However, the open ocean concentration of viable organisms greater
than or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum dimension, and especially those greater than or
equal to 50 micrometers in minimum dimension, may be higher in BWEA than the D-2
standard (Gollasch and David, own observations). Consequently BWE is not an option to
manage ballast water to comply with the D-2 standard. With this the on board installation of
ballast water treatment systems, so called BWMS, became a viable option and requirement. It
is interesting to note that a recent summary of existing and developing BWMS revealed more
than 100 such systems. However, some of these are not considered realistic, but if only half of
those make it to the market, a large variety of BWMS becomes available so that all vessel
types with their specific BWM requirements can be equipped with BWMS (David et al. 2015).
Issues which further may need to be considered are the possible regrowth of organisms in
ballast tanks after treatment and also that organisms may remain in the tank from previous

Page - 11 -
ballast water operations and may become re-suspended during ballast water operations
(Murphy et al. 2008). Consequently, upon discharge, treated water may contain unacceptably
high organism numbers although the treatment systems proved that the D-2 standard was met
during water uptake. To ensure that ballast water discharges always meet the D-2 standard it
is recommended to treat the water during uptake and discharge and also to develop BWMS
which by far exceed the standards set forth in the BWM Convention (David et al. 2015).
In the case of fresh water ecosystems, some countries such as Canada are examining the
possibility of continuing the use of BWE to take advantage of the salinity shock imposed on
fresh water organisms when vessels travel between freshwater donor and freshwater recipient
ports, i.e., in cases when vessels ballast in freshwater, a marine water BWE would provide a
salinity shock to the originally pumped in freshwater organisms. At the same time, marine
organisms pumped on board during BWE would be exposed to a salinity shock when released
in a recipient freshwater port. Land-based trials have indicated an up to 10 fold reduction of
risk compared to the use of BWMS alone (Briski et al. 2013).
2.3 EXEMPTIONS FROM BWM AND ADDITIONAL MEASURES
Some ships may be exempted from BWM requirements provided that the risk level of such a
discharge is acceptable based on Guidelines on Risk Assessments under Regulation A-4 (G7
(2007k)). In other cases, when the risk is identified as (very) high, such ships may be required
to take additional measures based on Guidelines for Additional Measures Including
Emergency Situations (G13 (IMO 2007l)). The level of risk is a result of RA.
The BWM Convention addresses the selective BWM approach in Article 4.2. This article
requests a party to develop BWM policies, strategies or programs regarding to its particular
conditions and capabilities. It was understood that no “one size fits all” approach is available
because different states may have different geographical, environmental, socio-economic,
organizational, political and other conditions as well as different shipping patterns. In light of
RA based exemptions from BWM requirements, these can be given on the basis of Regulation
A-4, while additional measures may be introduced based on Regulation C-1 (see Figure 2).

Page - 12 -
Figure 2 – Risk assessment procedures according to the BWM Convention (David et al. 2015).
2.4 EXCEPTIONS FROM BWM
Further to the above mentioned exemptions, the BWM Convention also includes provisions
for cases where vessels do not need to manage their ballast water at all. This refers to vessels
being in line with the Regulation A-3 Exceptions. Exceptions are identified for specific cases
including (IMO 2004):
1) ballast water uptake or discharge is needed for ensuring the safety of a ship in
emergency situations;
2) accidental discharge results from damage to a ship or its equipment;
3) uptake or discharge of ballast water is used to avoid or minimize pollution
incidents;
4) uptake and discharge of the same ballast water is conducted on the high seas; or
5) uptake and discharge occurs at the same location, provided no mixing occurs with
other locations.
The “high seas” and “same location” exceptions may apply permanently if this is a regular
vessel operation. Granting an exemption or a permanent exception means that a vessel is not

Page - 13 -
required to install a ballast water treatment system with the clear benefit of avoiding capital
and operational costs as well as burdens associated with the certification and inspections.
However, the BWM Convention is not specific in defining the term “same location” (IMO
2004, Gollasch and David 2012, David et al. 2013). Therefore the concept is subject to
different interpretations which depend on the interpreters’ approach and this may be based on
one or a combination of the following: environmental parameters, hydrological regimes,
biological meaningful parameters, or political aspects. The shipping industry would benefit
from a larger “same location”, as it avoids ballast water management requirements on
voyages inside each such location. In contrast maximizing environmental protection requires
that a “same locations” should be as small as possible. As a result, the “same location” may be
of different dimensions, including a mooring, port basin, port, anchorage, part of a sea, or
even an entire sea with numerous ports. These different interpretations introduce difficulties
in the uniform implementation of the BWM Convention, including an opportunity for the
secondary transfer of organisms between ports within a large “same location” (Gollasch and
David 2012, David et al. 2013, David et al. 2015).
In light of the above the identification of a “same location” for ballast water management is
not an easy task. This should be port specific and each port has its unique peculiar situation
regarding the number of port basins, it may extend over waters of different salinity regimes,
and ports likely have different cargo patterns resulting in different ballast water operation
profiles. The issue becomes more complex when the same location needs to be explained in
biologically meaningful terms addressing aquatic species invasions. To biologically identify a
“same location” the species diversity and their abundance may be considered. This assessment
should include indicator microbes and human pathogens as listed in the D-2 standard. Should
all species, including indicator microbes and human pathogens, be identical and their
abundance is very similar, this area could be considered as the same location (Gollasch and
David 2012, David et al. 2013).
National authorities responsible for the BWM Convention implementation may receive
applications from shipping companies for permanent exceptions based on the “same location”
concept. Consequently the authorities will need to decide, on a case-by-case basis, how the
term should be applied. We recommend that “same location” means the smallest practicable
unit, i.e., the same harbour, mooring or anchorage, as stated in IMO Guidelines G3 (IMO

Page - 14 -
2005d). When considering the diversity of ships ballast operations and ports, as well as
possible differences in environmental conditions and species compositions among port
terminals or basins, we recommend that an entire smaller port, possibly also including the
anchorage, should be considered as “same location”. For larger ports with a gradient of
environmental conditions, the “same location” should mean a terminal or a port basin. We
further suggest that IMO considers the preparation of a guidance document to include
concepts, criteria and processes how to identify a “same location”, which limits should be
clearly identified. Large areas encompassing more ports should not be identified as a “same
location” as this would seriously undermine purpose of the BWM Convention, as unmanaged
ballast water would be transferred in this area (Gollasch and David 2012, David et al. 2013,
David et al. 2015).
3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALLAST WATER
MANAGEMENT CONVENTION
3.1 A BLANKET OR A SELECTIVE APPROACH?
The BWM Convention incorporates two different basic BWM regimes; i.e., the “blanket” and
the “selective” approach. A blanket approach results in a situation where all ships intending to
discharge ballast water in a port are required by the port State to conduct BWM. The selective
approach means that the appropriate BWM measures to take vary depending on the different
levels of risk posed by the intended ballast water discharge, which also depends on the BWM
feasibility in certain circumstances (David et al. 2015).
3.2 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT FEASIBILITY
Whenever possible and until the D-2 standard is required, BWE should be undertaken as a
risk reducing measure. Provided safety permits, it is assumed that most vessels operating on
oceanic voyages are enabled to undertake BWE that meets the IMO water depth and distance
to nearest land limits (see Figure 3).

Page - 15 -
Figure 3 – World map indicating the main intercontinental shipping routes (blue lines) and
BWE areas according to the BWM Convention (red shading = 50 NM and pink shading = 200
NM limit to nearest land and > 200 m water depth) (David et al. 2015).
However, there are limitations in BWE applications, which are primarily due to shipping
patterns of a port (e.g., shipping routes, length of voyages) and local specifics regarding the
required/available conditions according to the BWM Convention (i.e., distance from nearest
land, water depth, BWEA). BWE has also substantial limitations in its biological
effectiveness especially in semi-enclosed or enclosed areas. Ships in these areas usually sail
within 50 nautical miles distance from the nearest land, and therefore, according to the BWM
Convention, cannot meet the requirements to conduct BWE. Because of geographical
specifics, not only ships in Short-Sea-Shipping fall into this category (see Figure 4)

Page - 16 -
Figure 4 – The seas surrounding Europe with the 50 nautical miles and 200 meters depth limit
shown in pink, and pink shaded the 200 nautical miles limit. The red lines show the main
shipping routes (David et al. 2015).
3.3 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE AREAS IN NORTHERN EUROPE
Regional and national BWE areas were identified in northern Europe. The basis for BWE area
identification varies. In the Baltic no BWE areas could be identified and there is no consensus
of Baltic countries if this results in a “do nothing” option until the BWM Convention comes
into force so that the D-2 standard is required to be met.
As required by IMO, BWE should be undertaken at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest
land and in water depths of at least 200 m. If this is impossible, then BWE should be
undertaken as far from the nearest land as possible, and in all cases at least 50 nautical miles
from the nearest land and in water at least 200 m in depth. In sea areas where these parameters

Page - 17 -
cannot be met, the port state may designate a BWE area, in consultation with adjacent or other
states, as appropriate (IMO 2004).
For interoceanic shipping HELCOM and OSPAR jointly agreed since April 1st 2008, on a
voluntary basis and provided safety permits, on requirements for BWE:
 Vessels entering the area have to carry a BWM Plan developed in compliance with the
relevant IMO Guideline.
 Recording of all ballast water operations on all vessels entering the area.
 Ballast water of all tanks should be exchanged according to the requirements outlined
in the D-1 Standard of the BWM Convention, i.e., at least 200 NM from nearest land
and in waters of more than 200 meters depth. These requirements apply to vessels on
trans-Atlantic voyages, and for those entering the region on shipping routes passing
the West African coast before entering the North-East Atlantic. In case of non-
compliance, vessels are expected to conduct BWE in accordance with the same
distance and depth limits within the north-east Atlantic. In those cases where this is
also impossible, BWE should be carried out as far as possible from nearest land, but
always at least 50 NM away and in depths of at least 200 meters.
In intra-Baltic and intra-North Sea shipping the depth and distance requirements for BWE
cannot be met to enable a complete BWE. Regulation B-4.2 of the Convention allows ports
States to designate areas, in consultation with adjacent or other States, as appropriate, where
ships may conduct ballast water exchange. Regulation B-4.2 determines that such sea areas
can be designated in sea areas where the distance from the nearest land or the depth does not
meet the requirements described in paragraph 1.1 or 1.2 of the regulation. The Baltic and
North Seas fall under this category, as the required depth is too shallow. Therefore BWE areas
were identified and their identification for the North and Baltic Seas was conducted on a
national level (Norway and United Kingdom for the Orkney Islands) and on a regional level
within HELCOM and OSPAR.

Page - 18 -
3.3.1 HELCOM AREA
HELCOM considered the identification of BWE areas for intra-Baltic shipping. The 2010
HELCOM Minsterial Declaration implies that BWE is impossible in the Baltic Sea and that
no BWE area can be designated, which was also concluded by a Swedish study in 2007
(Andersson 2007). Therefore ships will be required to implement the remaining ballast water
management options (e.g. treatment, discharge to reception facilities) in the latest upon entry
into force of the BWM Convention, i.e. when the D-2 standard is required for a vessel. As a
consequence, until the D-2 standrd is required, vessels have the “do nothing” option, which is
the interpretation of Sweden and Denmark of this Declaration, other HELCOM countries seek
more clarification.
HELCOM MARITIME 14-2014 agreed that the consequences of no BWE areas in the Baltic
Sea are important and in need of further consideration. Accordingly, MARITIME 14-2014
agreed to establish an ad hoc Correspondence Group on Ballast Water Management to,
amongst other items, consider the “do nothing” option. At the time of writing of this report no
final agreement on this subject was reached at HELCOM (HELCOM 2015).
3.3.2 OSPAR AREA
Norway was the first country in the region to identify a BWE area, which is one component of
the Norwegian Ballast Water Regulation 2010. The Norwegian BWE areas in the Norwegian
Exclusive Economic Zone are shown in Figure 5. The three exchange areas stretch along the
western coast of Norway and were designated where ballast water of those vessels should be
exchanged which claim that the IMO-required depth and distance limits for BWE could not
be met during their voyage (OSPAR 2014). The area is characterised by off-shore directed
water currents.

Page - 19 -
Figure 5 – The three Norwegian ballast water exchange areas along the Norwegian coast
(from dark blue to light blue shading) and the OSPAR BWE area indicated as medium blue
part in the frame surounded by the dark blue line (Source: OSPAR 2014).

Page - 20 -
The work to identify BWE areas continued in OSPAR and the North Sea countries have
designated BWE areas in the region. These areas have been subsequently endorsed by the
OSPAR Commission in June 2014. The “Guidelines on Designation of Areas for Ballast
Water Exchange (G14)” were followed (IMO 2006l) and the details were communicated to
IMO.
The designation of BWE areas in the North Sea is a temporary regulation. It enters into force
when the Convention enters into force, and terminates when ships shall meet regulation D-2
of the Convention, as outlined by IMO Resolution A.1088(28) (IMO 2014).
3.3.2.1 Approach to designate the OSPAR BWE area
The assessment of possible BWE areas was done in the European Space Agency (ESA) DUE
Innovator II project. The objective of this project was to investigate remote sensing data for
the purpose to designate BWE areas (Stelzer 2010). The basic principles applied included to
identify an Average Risk Index (ARI), which is based upon the following criteria:
 clear water indicates a low risk;
 high chlorophyll concentration indicates high risk;
 a close distance to the coast indicates a high risk;
 low depth indicates a high risk (OSPAR 2014).
Considering these factors the BWE areas were identified (OSPAR 2014). The OSPAR BWE
area is shown in Fig. 2 and it becomes clear that the majority of the North Sea surface was
identified as BWE area for intra-North Sea shipping. Areas where no BWE should be
conducted include the coastlines of all North Sea countries, Kattegatt, Wadden Sea and the
Dogger Bank area.
3.3.3 ORKNEY ISLANDS
The existing BWM policy for the Scapa Flow harbour on the Orkney Islands allows …”
“foreign” raw ballast water discharge immediately outside the harbour limits. A small

Page - 21 -
proportion of this unexchanged and untreated ballast water can re-enter Scapa Flow.
Therefore, a relatively high concentration of non-native species (NNS) will impact locally and
some can make their way into Scapa Flow. Consequently, the existing BWM Policy is not
risk-free.” To reduce this risk BWE in a ballast exchange area (named Eastern Exchange Zone
(EEZ) located north-east of Aberdeen (see Figure 6) was defined as an immediate requirement,
to be followed by other ballast water management options in accordance with Regulation D-2
when they come into force.
Vessels approaching Scapa Flow from the west will be required to undertake BWE in the
open sea, preferably at locations at least 200 nm from the nearest land and in water at least
200 m in depth. Vessels approaching Scapa Flow from the east should conducts BWE in the
EEZ and such vessels will be monitored using Automated Identification System (AIS) data
and / or any other systems to ensure they have slowed down sufficiently in order to undertake
the BWE (White 2013).
The location of the EEZ is considered remote enough not to impact any coastal areas. The
water depth within the EEZ and its distance from the coastline will ensure high levels of
dispersion and dilution of the ballast water during exchange, therefore impacts on the
coastline and designated sites are considered to be low (White 2013, OIC 2013).
The Scapa Flow port authority (Orkney Islands) will monitor the EEZ to determine if and
where e.g. harmful algal blooms occur, to advise vessels to avoid BWE in impacted areas to
reduce the likelihood of HAB transfer (OIC 2013).

Page - 22 -
Figure 6 – Eastern Ballast Water Exchange Zone (purple line), located north-east of Aberdeen
(the green arrow points to the approximate location of the city of Abderdeen) for vessels
approaching Scapa Flow (inset) from the east (OIC 2013).
3.3.3.1 Approach to designate the Scapa Flow BWE area
The exchange area has been specified because of certain characteristics:
 similar summer and winter temperature and salinity regimes at the sea surface and
depth to Scapa Flow,
 EEZ is 25 miles from land at its nearest point and is considered to host a discrete
biological community to be representative of North Sea rather than coastal water,
 to the south of EEZ the species assemblage becomes more mixed, in addition to the
water quality and salinity becoming more influenced by estuarine inputs (OIC 2013).
Therefore impacts on the coastline are considered to be low, which was shown in previous
modelling assessments of ballast water releases from within the EEZ.

Page - 23 -
Please note also that the Flotta Terminal of the Scapa Flow port on the Orkney Islands
provides a shore-based ballast water reception facility (Lloyds Register 2011c, 2014).
However, it is unclear if this facility is to be used for all ballast water discharges or only for
ballast water which was transported in cargo holds and which may therefore be contaminated
with oil from a previous cargo voyage of a vessel.
Considering the limitations as stated above, from the most effective BWM perspective
worldwide, the use of BWMS would be essential.
3.4 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE AREAS IN THE ADRIATIC
Options for designating BWEA in the Adriatic for extra-Adriatic traffic were considered
already earlier and Adriatic countries could not agree on designating such area in the Adriatic.
Furthermore, BALMAS partners have also considered oprions on designating BWEAs for
intra-Adriatic traffic (see), but as well could not agree on this..

Page - 24 -
Figure 7 – Vessel movements and some BWEA options for the intra-Adriatic traffic.
4 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
As the entry into force of the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) is approaching rapidly the industry is
more and more aware and considers ballast water management a good business. This becomes
obvious when noting the high number of vessels which need to be equipped with treatment
systems (David and Gollasch 2015).
With the Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8) (G8 Guidelines
(IMO 2008k), IMO has in 2008 adopted requirements for a comprehensive test programme to
evaluate the performance and suitability of BWMS. This includes performance tests in larger
scale on land under controlled conditions as well as shipboard tests to show the efficiency and
seaworthiness of BWMS. Noting some shortcoming in these test requirements some countries

Page - 25 -
have developed their own requirements and test protocols, which set more stringent standards
than the G8 Guidelines. One example is the USA with its Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
U.S. Coast Guard Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) (NSF International
2010, STEP 2010).
At present there are many different treatment technologies available, and most of those were
previously developed for municipal and other industrial applications. However, when
applying those without modifications and improvements to the ballast water treatment
purpose, none of these technologies have shown the capability to treat the ballast water to the
level required by the BWM Convention D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard.
The setting of these proposed regulations is an important driving force for ballast water
treatment technology developments worldwide. As a result, it was expected that the
development and implementation of these systems will proceed at a greatly accelerated rate.
However, the ambitious phase-in of the D-2 standard as shown above was modified at
MEPC65 (in May 2013) and approved by the IMO Assembly in December 2013. The
required starting times were now set as in maximum five years after the entry into force of the
BWM Convention because the time limits as agreed earlier are valid for so many vessels that
timely retrofitting may become very difficult or impossible because of BWMS manufacturing
and dockyard limitations (IMO 2010g,h, IMO 2011za).
This comprehensive review of BWMS was conducted until October 2015. We focus on
BWMS which are currently in use as well as treatment approaches the manufacturers have
chosen for future BWMS. The main purpose of this review is to identify the current
availability of BWMS technologies worldwide, to briefly introduce these and their use on
vessels, identify their timely availability in relation to the BWM Convention requirements,
and to identify the prospects of the global BWMS market. At the beginning of this chapter the
requirements that BWMS need to comply with are presented, followed by an introduction of
BWMS identified, which technologies different BWMS use, how are BWMS applied on
vessels, what are BWMS capacities and their installation requirements, what is the situation
with BWMS testing and approvals and what is the foreseen global market for BWMS. At the

Page - 26 -
end, names of manufacturers, commercial names of their BWMS, treatment technologies used
and links to BWMS web pages are provided, where available (David and Gollasch 2015).
4.1 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
World-wide available information about 104 different BWMS was collected and is presented
in this chapter (IMO 2005a-b, 2006a-j, 2007a-j, 2008a-w, 2009a-r, 2010a-k, 2011a-za, 2012a-
za, 2013a-l, 2015, Mesbahi 2004, Köster 2010, Shiferaw 2012, Stephan Gollasch pers.
comm.) (see Table 1). It is further assumed that not all systems listed will reach a full
commercially ready development and some manufacturers have stopped the further
development of the systems under consideration or had withdrawn the system from the
market. It should be noted that the development of BWMS is a very dynamic market with
newly proposed BWMS appearing almost on a monthly basis. For some BWMS it is difficult
to follow their development as some systems were renamed during the certification process.
As of October 2015, 57 BWMS have been type approved according to G8 (IMO 2015).
Details about all 104 BWMS we are aware of are given in Table 1. It has to be noted that an
additional number of 18 BWMS developers have stopped their efforts and that two already
type approved BWMS were later withdrawn from the market. These 20 BWMS were
excluded from the Table 1. Some BWMS are in the (early) development stage, hence
information about these is limited or not available due to confidentiality reasons or patents
pending. We expect that not all of these BWMS will reach the final development stage and
have them therefore excluded from the list.
Some BWMS underwent modifications without changing the major components or the
management approach. In these cases we have listed the oldest known BWMS as otherwise
we would inflate the list with new generations of systems. The selection to list the oldest
system is because in most cases the oldest system got the original type approval. Further,
systems which were originally not ex-proof, but were later designed this way are only listed
once.

Page - 27 -
Table 1 - BWMS manufacturers (in alphabetical order), commercial names of their BWMS, technologies used and available web pages (last
accessed April 2015). Type approved BWMS are shown with grey shading (updated after David and Gollasch 2015, IMO 2015).
Nr.
Manufacturer
System name
Pre-
treatment
Treat
ment
Residual control
Web site
1
21st Century
Shipbuilding Co., Ltd
ARA Ballast (old:
BlueOceanGuardian)
Filtration
Plasma + UV
-
-
2
Ahead Ocean
Technology (Dalian)
Co., Ltd.
AHEAD
Filtration
UV
-
http://aheadocean.en.ec21.com/
Products--8727817.html
3
Akballast
Akballast
Filtration
UV
-
-
4
Alfa Laval Tumba AB
PureBallast (2.0, 2.0
Ex)
Filtration
UV + TiO2
-
www.alfalaval.com
5
AquaEng Co. Ltd.
AquaStar (and Ex)
Smart pipe
unit
Electrolysis/electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
www.aquaeng.kr
6
atg UV Technology
(ATG Willand)
-
Filtration
UV
-
www.atguv.com
7
ATLAS-DANMARK
ATLAS-DANMARK
ABTS
Filtration
Electrochemical (Anolyte)
-
www.atlas-danmark.com
8
Auramarine
CrystalBallast
Filtration
UV
-
www.auramarine.com/news/auram
arine-
_new_challenger_in_the_market_f
or_ballast_water_treatment_syste
ms
9
Azienda Chimica
Genovese
ECOLCELL BTs
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
-
10
BAWAC Systems
Pte. Ltd.
BAWAC
Filtration
UV
-
http://www.gensysgroup.com/prod
ucts/modularized-
systems/bawac.html

Page - 28 -
Nr.
Manufacturer
System name
Pre-
treatment
Treat
ment
Residual control
Web site
11
Bawat
Bawat BWTS
-
Inert gas+heat /
De-oxygenation and pasteurisation
-
http://www.bawat.dk/
12
Bio-UV
Bio-SEA
Filtration
UV
-
-
13
Brillyant Marine
-
-
Electric pulse
-
www.brillyantinc.com
14
Cathelco Group
Cathelco BWTS A2
Filtration
UV
www.cathelco.com
15
China Ocean Shipping
Company (COSCO)
Blue Ocean Shield
Hydrocyclo
ne +
Filtration
UV
-
www.cosco.com/en
16
CLARCOR Company
PF-BWF
Filtration
http://www.pecofacet.com/
17
Coldharbour Marine
Coldharbour BWT
-
Deoxigenation
-
www.coldharbourmarine.com
18
Dalian Maritime
University
DMU OH BWMS
Filtration
hydroxyl radicals, ozone and
hydrogen peroxide
Sodium thiosulphate
-
19
DESMI Ocean Guard
AS
OxyClean
Filtration
Ozonation+UV
-
www.desmioceanguard.com
20
Dow Chemical Pacific
(Singapore) Pte Ltd.
Dow-Pinnacle BWMS
Filtration
Ozonation
Sodium thiosulphate
(optional)
-
21
Ecochlor Inc
Ecochlor
Filtration
Chlorination (ClO2)
-
www.ecochlor.com
22
Ecologiq
BallaClean
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
-
www.ecologiq.us
23
Ecomarine
Technology Research
Association &
Sumitomo Electric
Industries Ltd.
Ecomarine
Management System
Filtration
UV
24
Electrichlor Inc
Electrichlor
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
-
www.electrichlor.com
25
Elite Marine Ballast
Water Treatment
System Corp – China
Seascape
Filtration
UV
26
EltronWaterSystems
PeroxEgen
-
Chemical injection (Hydrogen
Peroxide)
-
www.eltronwater.com,
www.eltronresearch.com

Page - 29 -
Nr.
Manufacturer
System name
Pre-
treatment
Treat
ment
Residual control
Web site
27
Environmental
Technologies Inc
ETI
Filtration
Ozonation+Ultrasound
-
www.tlmcos.com
28
Envirotech and
Consultany PTE ltd.
BlueSeas BWMS
Filtration
(microsized
strainer)
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
-
29
Envirotech and
Consultany PTE ltd.
BlueWorld BWMS
Filtration
(microsized
strainer)
Chemical injection
Sodium thiosulphate
-
30
Erma First SA
Erma First BWMS
Hydrocyclo
ne+filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium bisulphite
www.ermafirst.com
31
Evonik Industries AG
Evonik Ballast Water
Treatment System with
PERACLEAN®
OCEAN
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
32
Evoqua Water
Technologies, LLC
(old: Siemens)
SeaCURE
(old: SiCURE)
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium sulphite
(optional)
33
Exeno Yamamizu
Corporation /
Panasonic
Environmental
Systems &
Engineering Co., Ltd.
ATPS-BLUE sys
-
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
34
GEA Westfalia
(old: Aquaworx ATC
GmbH)
BallastMaster ultraV
250
(old: AquaTriComb)
Filtration
UV + ultrasound
-
http://www.westfalia-
separator.com
35
Hamworthy
Aquarius UV
Filtration
UV
-
-
36
Hamworthy
Aquarius EC
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium bisulphite
-
37
Hanla IMS Co. Ltd.
EcoGuardian
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
-
38
Headway Technology
OceanGuard, HMT-
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination+U
Sodium thiosulphate
www.headwaytech.com/en/fist.asp

Page - 30 -
Nr.
Manufacturer
System name
Pre-
treatment
Treat
ment
Residual control
Web site
Co. Ltd.
100F to 4000F
ltrasonic treatment (EUT)
(optional)
39
Hi Tech Marine Pty
Ltd.
Ballast water
disinfection
-
Heating
-
www.htmarine.com.au
40
Hitachi
ClearBallast
Filtration
Flocculation (magnetic particles)
-
www.hitachi.com
41
HWASEUNG R&A
Co. Ltd.
HS-Ballast
-
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
-
42
HyCa Technologies
Pvt. Ltd.
HyCator
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
-
43
Hyde Marine Inc-
Hyde Guardian
Hyde Guardian Gold
Filtration
UV
-
www.hydemarine.com
44
Hyundai Heavy
Industries
EcoBallast
Filtration
UV
-
http://english.hhi.co.kr
45
Hyundai Heavy
Industries
HiBallast (and Ex)
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
http://english.hhi.co.kr
46
JFE Engineering
Corporation
JFE BallastAce
BWMS (uses TG
Ballastcleaner)
Filtration
Chlorination+Residual
Clorine+Cavitation (TG
BallastCleaner)
Sodium sulphite (TG
Environmentalguard)
www.jfe-eng.co.jp/en
47
JFE Engineering
Corporation
JFE BallastAce
BWMS (uses NEO-
CHLOR MARINE)
Filtration
Chemical injection (Neo-Chlor
Marine)
Sodium sulphite
www.jfe-eng.co.jp/en
48
Jiangsu Nanji
Machinery
Company, Ltd. –
China
NiBallast
Filtration
Deoxygenation
http://en.jsnj.com/index.html
49
Jiujiang Precision
Measuring
Technology Research
Institute
OceanDoctor
Filtration
UV+Photocatalytic reaction
-
-
50
Kadalneer
Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VARUNA
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
+

Page - 31 -
Nr.
Manufacturer
System name
Pre-
treatment
Treat
ment
Residual control
Web site
51
KALF Engineering
Pte. Ltd
ElysisGuard
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
+
http://www.kalf.sg/Research.aspx
52
Kashiwa Kuraray
Co.Ltd.
Microfade
Filtration
Chlorination (Cl2)
Sodium sulphite
www.kuraray.co.jp
53
Katayama Chemical
Inc.
Sky-System using
PeracleanOcean
-
PeracleanOcean
Sodium sulphite
-
54
Knutsen Ballastvann
AS
KBAL
-
Vacuum+UV
-
-
55
Korea Top Marine
(KT Marine) Co. Ltd.
MARINOMATE
(old: KTM-BWMS
(Plankill pipe))
Plankill pipe
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
-
56
Kurita Water
Industries Ltd
KURITA BWMS
-
Chemical injection
http://www.kurita.co.jp/english/
57
Kwang San Co. Ltd.
En-Ballast
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
-
58
La Rossa
Internacional
Consultoria e Serviços
Lda.
BALMECA
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
59
Mahle NFV GmbH
Ocean Protection
System OPS-250
Filtration
UV
-
www.nfv-gmbh.de
60
Malin Group
Cleanship Solutions
(CSS)
Portable BWT system
http://malingroup.co.uk/csssub/
61
Marenco Technology
Group Inc.
Marenco BWTS
Filtration
UV
-
www.marencogroup.com
62
Maritime Solutions
Inc.
-
Filtration
UV
-
www.maritimesolutionsinc.com
63
MH Systems Inc.
MH Systems BWTS
-
Deoxigenation
-
www.mhsystemscorp.com
64
Mitsui Engineering &
Shipbuilding
FineBallast® OZ
(Special Pipe SP-
Hybrid)
-
Ozonation+Cavitation
Activated carbon
www.mes.co.jp/english

Page - 32 -
Nr.
Manufacturer
System name
Pre-
treatment
Treat
ment
Residual control
Web site
65
Mitsui Engineering &
Shipbuilding
FineBallast® MF
(Special Pipe SP-
Hybrid)
Filtration
(Membrane filtration)
www.mes.co.jp/english
66
MIURA CO. LTD.
MIURA
Filtration
UV
http://www.miuraz.co.jp/en/networ
k/w-net.html
67
MMC Green
Technology AS
MMC
Filtration
UV
-
-
68
NEI Treatment
Systems LLC
Venturi Oxygen
System (VOS) 2500-
101
-
Cavitation+Deoxigenation
-
www.nei-marine.com
69
NK Company
NK-03 BlueBallast
-
Ozonation
Sodium thiosulphate
http://nk-eng.nkcf.com
70
NK Company
NK-Cl BlueBallast
-
Sodium dichloroisocyanurate
Sodium thiosulphate
http://nk-eng.nkcf.com
71
Nutech 03
Mark III
-
Ozonation
-
www.nutech-o3.com
72
Oceansaver AS
(MetaFil AS)
OceanSaver
Filtration
Cavitation+Electrolysis/Electrochl
orination+Deoxigenation
Sodium thiosulphate
www.oceansaver.com
73
Oceansaver AS
(MetaFil AS)
OceanSaver (with
optional N2
supersaturation)
Filtration
Cavitation+Electrolysis/Electrochl
orination(+optional deoxigenation)
Sodium thiosulphate
www.oceansaver.com
74
Optimarin AS
OptiMarin Ballast
System OBS/
Optimarin Ballast
System EX
Filtration
UV
-
www.optimarin.com
75
Panasia Co. Ltd.
GloEn-Patrol
Filtration
UV
-
www.pan-asia.co.kr
76
Panasia Co. Ltd.
GloEn-Saver
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
-
77
Qwater
-
Filtration
Ultrasound
-
www.qwatercorp.com
78
REDOX Maritime
Technologies (RMT)
AS
REDOX AS
Filtration
Ozonation+UV
Sodium thiosulphate
-
79
RWO GmbH Marine
Water Technology
CleanBallast
Filtration
Electrochlorination+OH
Substance unknown
www.rwo.de

Page - 33 -
Nr.
Manufacturer
System name
Pre-
treatment
Treat
ment
Residual control
Web site
802
SAMKUN
CENTURY Co. Ltd.
(old: 21st Century
Shipbuilding Co. Ltd)
ARA PLASMA
(old: Blue Ocean
Guardian BOG)
Filtration
Plasma+UV
http://samkun.en.ec21.com/ARA_
Plasma_Ballast_
Water_Treatment--
6933481_6933484.html
81
Samsung Heavy
Industries
PuriMar/ Purimar 2.0/
Neo-Purimar
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
http://www.shi.samsung.co.kr/Eng/
product/digital_prd01.aspx
82
Sea Knight
Corporation
-
-
Chemical injection+
Deoxigenation+bioaugmentation
-
www.seaknight.net
83
Sea Reliance Marine
Services
-
Filtration
UV
-
http://seareliance.com
84
Seair
-
Filtration
Ozonation
-
www.seair.ca
85
Sembcorp
Semb-Eco
Filtration
UV including LED-UV
-
-
86
Severn Trent De Nora
BalPure
optional
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination+R
esidual Clorine
Sodium bisulphite,
Sodium sulphite or
Sodium thiosulphate
www.severntrentservices.com/den
ora
87
Shanghai Cyeco
Environmental
Technology Co. Ltd.
Cyeco-B200-6000
Filtration
UV
-
-
88
Shanghai Hengyuan
Marine Equipment.
Co. Ltd.
HY-BWMS
Filtration
UV
89
Shanghai Jiazhou
Environmental
Mechanical &
Electrical Co. Ltd.
BALWAT
Filtration
UV
90
SPO System
Special Pipe Hybrid
BWMS with
PeracleanOcean
-
Cavitation+PeracleanOcean
-
-
91
Sincerus
Sincerus maritime
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
-
www.sincerus.de/en/
92
Sumitomo Electric
SEI BWMS
Filtration
UV

Page - 34 -
Nr.
Manufacturer
System name
Pre-
treatment
Treat
ment
Residual control
Web site
Industries Ltd.
93
SUNBO Industries
Co. Ltd.
Blue Zone
-
Ozonation
Thiosulphate
-
94
Sunrui Corrosion and
Fouling Control
Company (Sunrui
CFCC)
BalClor BWMS
(Sunrui BWMS)
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
www.sunrui.net
95
STX Metal Co. Ltd.
Smart Ballast
-
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
www.stxmetal.co.kr
96
Techcross
ElectroCleen System
ECS
(ECS-HYCHLOR,
ECS-HYCHEM,
ECS-HYBRID)
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
Sodium thiosulphate
www.techcross.net/eng_main
97
The Ship Stability
Research Centre
(SSRC), University of
Strathclyde
ClearBal
-
Brilliant Green & cetyltrimethyl
ammonium bromide
Detoxifiction system
based on ion
exchange (Amberlite
XAD-7)
www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo
/Ballast-water-treatment-
system/WO2010086604.html
98
Titan
RT SAFEBALLAST
(KLOROGEN®-BW)
Filtration
Electrolysis/Electrochlorination
99
Trojan
Trojan-UV Marinex
Filtration
UV
-
http://trojanuv.com/
100
Van Oord B.V.
VO-BWMS
-
Drinking water+chlorine
Sodium bisulphite
-
101
Vitamar
Seakleen
Filtration
Seakleen
-
102
Wuxi Brightsky
Electronic Co. Ltd.
BSKY
Filtration
UV
-
-
103
Yixing PACT
environmental
Technology/Co. Ltd.
PACT Marine
Filtration
UV
-
http://www.pactchina.com/
104
Zhejiang Yingpeng
Marine Equipment
Manufacturer Co. Ltd
YP-BWMS
Filtration
UV
-

Page - 35 -

Page - 36 -
To be able to achieve the requirements of the ballast water discharge standards, different
water treatment technologies are used, mostly in combination, and applied in different stages
of the ballasting process. In general, the treatment processes can be split in three stages, i.e.,
pre-treatment, treatment and residual control (neutralisation). In the pre-treatment stage the
main focus is to exclude as much as possible solid material and bigger organisms, and with
this helping the other treatment process(es) to be more effective, e.g., UV efficacy is limited if
there are many solid particles in suspension because organisms survive when being in
shadows of such particles, and the more solids and organisms are in the water, the more active
substances are needed to achieve the same lethal effect. The residual control stage
(neutralisation) is needed if there are any substances left in the ballast water after the
treatment process is completed that could cause harm when being discharged from a vessel,
e.g., residual toxicity from the use of active substances and their by-products (see Table 2).
Table 2 - Generic treatment process and some main BWMS technologies (David and Gollasch
2015).
Pre-
treatment
Treatment
Residual
control
Chemical
Physical
Biological
Filtration
Chlorination
UV radiation
Bioaugmentation
with
microorganisms
Chemical
reduction
(Neutralisation)
Hydrocyclone
Electrochlorination
Deoxygenation
Coagulation
Ozonation
Inert gas or
Nitrogen
injection
Flocculation
Chlorine dioxide
Ultrasonic
treatment
Peracetic acid
Cavitation
Other active
substances
Fine filtration
Heat

Page - 37 -
In the following paragraphs we describe some of the main working principles of BWMS
components.
4.1.1 FILTRATION
Filtration of ballast water seems to be the most environmentally sound method, but the
amounts of ballast water that have to be treated are immense. Different filter technologies are
in use, e.g., disk filters, mesh and wedge-wire filters. Ultra-filtration methods have not yet
been tested or proven to work with large volumes of ballast water and high loads of sediments.
The efficacy of removing particles larger than the mesh-size of these filter units is with 95 -
98 % very effective. In addition some percentage of the smaller particles may also be
removed. Some systems use a combination of two filters where the first removes very large
particles, which enhances the efficiency of the second finer filter. However, although the
organism removal rate is high the D-2 standard is unlikely to be met with filtration as a stand-
alone technology. Most filters used include an automatic backwash mechanisms for self-
cleaning to ensure continuous operation. Overboard disposal of the collected residues as filter
backwash would occur at the location of ballasting rather than at the destination port, thereby
avoiding the transfer of non-native species with the filter backwash.
4.1.2 HYDROCYCLONE
Cyclonic separation has been proposed as a relatively simple and inexpensive way of
removing larger particles and organisms from ballast water. Water and particles enter the
hydrocyclone tangentially, thus setting up a circular flow. They are then drawn through
tangential slots and are accelerated into the separation chamber. Centrifugal action tosses
particles heavier than the water to the perimeter of the separation chamber. The solids gently
drop along the perimeter and end up in the calm collection chamber of the separator. Solids
may be periodically purged or continuously extracted from the separator. However, cyclonic
separation of organisms with a specific gravity similar to that of water is limited which is
valid for many plankton taxa. Therefore, some BWMS use the hydrocyclone as a pre-
separator which is followed by a filtration unit thereby enhancing the performance of the
filtration unit.

Page - 38 -
4.1.3 ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is commonly used for sterilising potable or waste water and for the
purification in aquaculture and fisheries. UV radiation operates by causing photochemical
reactions of biological components such as nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and proteins. The
lower UV wavelengths are generally more effective. However, radiation at these wavelengths
shows a lower transmission in water. It´s performance may further be affected by organic
material, particles or bubbles. The effectiveness of UV treatment depends also largely upon
the pigmentation, size, morphology of organisms (surface/volume ratio). Viruses require
similar dosages to bacteria. Algae require larger dosages than bacteria due to their size and
their pigmentation. Disadvantaging is the effect that some smaller organisms could pass the
UV unit in the shadow of larger organisms/particles with reduced treatment and the reduced
transmission of UV-radiation in turbid waters. It was observed in tests that some organisms
have a self-repair mechanism so that re-growth of organisms after UV treatment occurred.
This is (partly) overcome by applying the UV exposure also during ballast water discharge.
Another and unsolved problem is that the UV effect on organisms is not immediately
observed (Liebich et al. 2012, Martínez et al. 2012) so that compliance with the D-2 standard
is difficult to show when the water is treated during discharge.
4.1.4 ELECTROCHLORINATION
The use of electrochlorination as a means of preventing marine growth is well known.
Electrochlorination is used on board so that the active substances are generated from the
ballast water taken on board (no storage tank of chemicals) and this may either be done in a
side stream or in the full ballast water stream of a vessel. Electrolyzers usually consist of a
number of reactor cells arranged in series. A minimum salinity is needed for its efficient use,
in freshwater and lower brackish ballast water uptake zones marine water may be pumped
into the line from a previously filled ballast tank to reach the required minimum salinity.

Page - 39 -
4.1.5 CHEMICAL DOSING
A large number of chemical disinfectants are commercially available. These have been used
successfully for many years in land-based potable and wastewater treatment applications. For
the purpose of ballast water treatment several substances and formulations were considered,
e.g., Chlorine dioxide, PeracleanOcean and SeaKleen. These systems have in common that an
on board storage is needed and it would be beneficial that a supply of additional such
substances is available in all ports the vessel is calling which may be logistically challenging.
Further, ozone, generated on board from ambient air, is used in several BWMS. Most
chemicals are usually applied during ballast water uptake with a mixing device to allow
efficient treatment.
4.1.6 NEUTRALISATION
The vast majority of ballast water treatment systems which make use of active substances add
a neutralization substance. Such a neutralization step may not always be needed as e.g. on
longer voyages the active substance may be (bio-)degraded before the ballast water discharge
occurs. It seems most useful to apply the neutralising substance during the ballast water
discharge. Proper mixing should occur so that the neutralizer is well circulated in the ballast
water and that its neutralizing power is applied before the ballast water has left the vessel. Our
review has shown that Sodium Thiosulphate is the most frequently used neutralizer today.
4.1.7 BIOAUGMENTATION
Bioaugmentation is in common use in municipal wastewater treatment facilities to restart
activated sludge bioreactors based on a combination of microbial cultures. In most cases this
is done to improve water quality by reducing or extracting certain contaminants. In ballast
water use (micro)organisms are added to treat organisms.
4.1.8 PLASMA
The plasma system functions as a pre-treatment which increases the efficiency of the other
components of the BWMS. The working principle is that high voltage and a current,

Page - 40 -
generated between two electrodes in a reactor, create an ionization field then producing a
high-energy plasma arc. This causes a rapid rise in pressure, temperature and density flow.
This high-energy plasma generated pressure shockwave physically damages the organisms.
4.2 APPLICATION OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
TECHNOLOGIES ON VESSELS
Different vendors developed different BWMS combining different technologies. Different
systems (or parts of these) have their application in different stages of the ballasting process,
i.e., at the uptake of ballast water, during holding the ballast water in tanks during navigation,
and/or at discharge (David and Gollasch 2015).
Among the 104 BWMS identified, 81 apply some treatment at the uptake, of these three apply
treatment at the uptake and during the voyage (nr. 17, 68 and 82), and three are known to
apply the treatment only during the voyage (nr. 11, 17, 39 and 63). 29 BWMS treat the ballast
water at uptake and discharge.
Some pre-treatment technology is used by 81 BWMS, of these 76 use filtration, two use a
combination of hydrocyclone and filtration (nr. 15 and 30), and one uses a combination of
flocculation and filtration (nr. 40). It is interesting to note that 21 systems do not have a pre-
treatment separation step.
Most of BWMS identified are regarded as BWMS that make use of an active substance (55).
The most frequently used technique seems to be electrolysis/electrochlorination (33), and this
is applied either as stand-alone treatment method or in combination with other techniques.
The second most frequently used active substance is ozone used by 8 BWMS. The remaining
BWMS use dosing of different active substances, e.g., chlorine, sodium dichloroisocyanurate,
PeraClean or SeaKleen.
In the second place is UV treatment with 39 BWMS which is either uses as stand-alone
treatment method or in combination with one or more other techniques, i.e., TiO2, ultrasound,
ozonation, vacuum treatment or plasma.

Page - 41 -
In total 26 BWMS use two or more treatment techniques in combination as the main
treatment method, while 72 rely on one treatment technique, no information was available for
six BWMS.
One BWMS (nr. 82) is the only system which makes use of vacuum de-oxygenation and
bioaugmentation. In this BWMS microorganisms will be used to treat living organisms.
Two BWMS (nr. 11 and 39) are known to use heat as main treatment step.
The application of BWMS that make use of active substances may result in residual active
substances above the maximum allowable level (TRO 0.2 mg L-1) when this is to be
discharged into the surrounding waters, hence they need to neutralise these before the
discharge. The BWMS without neutralization will depend on a longer holding time of ballast
water in the tanks during which the chlorine will breakdown to uncritical substances. Chlorine
dioxide has a half-life of approximately 6-12 hours (according to the suppliers and Olivieri et
al. 1986), but at the concentrations at which it is employed it can be safely discharged after a
minimum of 24 hours. However, this relates also to water salinity and temperature and both
should be taken into account when evaluating the minimum retention time before discharge.
33 BWMS that make use of active substances have included also an obligatory neutralisation
process at discharge, and further three have this as an option. The most frequently used
neutralisation is by Sodium Thiosulphate, Sodium Sulphite, Sodium Bisulphite, one BWMS
uses Activated Carbon, one uses Thiosulphate, one uses a detoxification system based on ion
exchange (Amberlite XAD-7) and for three BWMS the substance is unknown. Most
chlorination systems are applying a dose which results in approx. 10 mg L-1 chlorine during
treatment, which has proven to be effective to kill organisms, but less than 0.2 mg L-1 residual
chlorine in the ballast water discharges has proven to be environmentally acceptable to the
recipient waters (see various references of Final Approvals of BWMS and GESAMP BWWG
reports (IMO 2005-2012)). Recently, IMO has recommended that the TRO limit at discharge
should be 0.1 mg L-1. Most ozonation suppliers are using an ozone dose of 1-2 mg L-1 which
has proven to be effective (Lloyds Register 2011a).

Page - 42 -
According to the Lloyd’s Register review of BWMS (Lloyds Register 2011a, b), technical
features of the products are not necessarily common to all of them and are specific to generic
types of process technologies. Deoxygenation is effective because the deoxygenated water is
stored in sealed ballast tanks. However the process takes between one and four days to take
effect, and thus represents the only type of technology where longer voyage length is a factor
in process efficacy. This type of technology is also the only one where, technically, a decrease
in corrosion propensity would be expected (and, according to one supplier, has been recorded
as being suppressed by 50-85%), since oxygen is a key component in the corrosion process.
The water is re-aerated on discharge to avoid any unwanted effects to the recipient
environment. However, the efficiency of deoxygenation is of concern as some organism can
change their metabolism to another source than oxygen and other organism are not dependent
on oxygen at all.
Essentially most UV systems operate using the same type of medium pressure amalgam
lamps. A critical aspect of UV effectiveness is the applied UV dose/power of the lamp. This
information has not been given by all suppliers. Another aspect of UV effectiveness is the
clarity of the water. In waters with a high turbidity or colloidal content, UV would not
expected to be as effective as in very clear waters, but it was shown that UV systems also
under these conditions meet the D-2 standard. Most of the busy ports in Europe (e.g.,
Rotterdam, Antwerp, Felixstowe and Hamburg) are located in estuaries with high sediment
content (David and Gollasch 2015).
4.3 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CAPACITIES AND
INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS
Different BWMS have different capacities and technical profiles, which are mainly related to
the aspects of appropriate capacity of the ballast water system of a vessel, as well as to the
system space requirement and power consumption. For many BWMS the information
available was very limited, and for some BWMS no information became known at all (David
and Gollasch 2015).

Page - 43 -
BWMS capacities range from 50 m3 h-1 to more than 10,000 h-1, while 5 manufacturers
informed that their systems are (will be) able to treat 20,000 and more h-1. In terms of
footprint space requirements the systems with the capacity 200 h-1 could occupy from even
less than 1 m2 and up to 30 m2, while the systems with the capacity 2,000 m3 h-1 would
occupy from 1 m2 and up to 145 m3. Systems operate also with no electricity requirement, and
others may consume up to 200 kW per 1,000 m3 h-1 water to be treated.
Chemical dosing systems such as PeracleanOcean, SeaKleen and chlorine dioxide have low
capital costs because only a dosing/mixing pump is required but these systems require
chemical storage facilities and availability of chemicals in all ports visited. Should the active
substance be transported in higher concentrations, as during shipment to the vessel, some
special regulations regarding the transport of dangerous goods may apply in certain ports due
to safety concerns.
The biggest operating cost for most systems is power and for large power consumers
(electrolytic, advanced oxidation processes and UV) the availability of shipboard power will
be a factor which may limit its installation and operation. For chemical dosing systems, power
consumption is very low and chemical costs are the major factor. For these reasons chemical
addition may be better suited to treat small ballast capacities.
Although the BWMS operate at generally low pressure and thus do not require additional
ballast water pumping pressure, those employing Venturi devices (for exerting shear forces
and proper mixing of chemicals) incur pressure losses of up to 2 bar.
For most systems it is recommended that the installation takes place in the engine/machine
room near the existing ballast water pumps, although installation on deck may also be
possible if appropriate precautions are taken. If the location is in an explosion zone, then the
installation will need explosion proofing. Some of the technologies can be provided as
explosion-proof products, but there is a cost factor for this. The generation of hydrogen by the
electrolytic technologies is not considered an issue, provided the gas is vented and diluted
with air to safe levels.

Page - 44 -
Whilst disinfection by-products are an issue, and central to the approval of ballast water
management systems that make use of active substances, suppliers are confident that the
levels of active substances and by-products generated are unlikely to be problematic. There is
a large amount of scientific and technical information on disinfection by-products formation
that is likely to support this. However, all systems using active substances will be reviewed by
an independent expert group of GESAMP to assess the environmental acceptability of the
treated water at discharge (David and Gollasch 2015).
4.4 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS TESTING AND
APPROVALS
All systems need to be type approved by a Flag State before being sold to a client. Systems
that use Active Substances by the definition in the BWM Convention have to undergo a more
thorough certification process and obtain Basic and Final Approvals by IMO MEPC. This
process was initiated to proof the environmental acceptability of treated ballast water when
discharged from a vessel (David and Gollasch 2015).
All systems are tested in a land-based setting with challenging water conditions (different
water parameters and high organism numbers) to show that the D-2 standard is met. Ten test
cycles need to be carried out in minimum. In addition, at least three test cycles need to be
undertaken over a period of at least six months on board of commercial vessels to document
that they meet the D-2 standard and are seaworthy. These tests are addressed in the IMO
Guidelines G8 (IMO 2008k). Currently a harmonization of sampling methods and sample
analysis options is ongoing with all test facilities and shipboard sampling teams being
involved (GloBalTestNet) and in October 2013 a Memorandum of Understanding of these
was signed to achieve these goals. Test facilities are located in China, Denmark, Germany
(Stephan Gollasch for shipboard tests), Japan, Korea, The Netherlands, Norway, Singapore,
Slovenia (Matej David for shipboard tests), UK and the USA, and others are further planned
in India (Gollasch 2010 and pers. comm.).
IMO works currently through a Correspondence Group towards an update of the test
requirements of the G8 Guidelines. Various aspects are considered by this the group and

Page - 45 -
include test facility validations and quality control measures, BWMS tests in three water
conditions (freshwater, brackish and marine), tests at different temperatures, changing the
requirements for challenge water conditions in land-based tests, scaling of BWMS, the
minimum holding time before discharge of treated water (environmental acceptability and
system efficacy) and that critical water quality and operational parameters specific to the
treatment process and the BWMS are assessed (Report of the Correspondence Group, in
prep.).
After all these tests the system gets eventually type approved by a Flag State. This
comprehensive approval process usually takes 1.5 years or longer. The duration of a type
approval depends on many factors, including the test requirements, the availability of land and
shipboard test facilities, the success of BWMS performance test runs and whether or not a
system makes use of active substances. When active substances are used comprehensive basic
and final approval dossiers need to be prepared, which requires additional tests. These
dossiers are evaluated by the Ballast Water Working Group of GESAMP (see Figure 8).
BWMS
BWMS approval
according to G9
(GESAMP and
MEPC)
BWMS approval according
to G8
(Flag State)
BWMS
approval
according to G9
(GESAMP and
MEPC)
BWMS
Type
Approval
Certificate
(Flag
State)
using active
substance(s)
Basic
Approval
Land
based
tests
Shipboard
tests
Final
Approval
Type
Approval
without
using
active
substance(s)
Land
based
tests
Shipboard
tests
Type
Approval

Page - 46 -
Figure 8 – The approval process of BWMS according to the IMO requirements (David and
Gollasch 2015).
At present BWMS are in different stages of development, testing and approval processes,
while 57 were already type approved by different administrations (IMO, 2013k, IMO, 2015,
see grey shading in Table 1).. We expect this number to rise soon as several other BWMS are
in the final phase of the approval process.
4.5 THE GLOBAL MARKET FOR BALLAST WATER
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Japanese experts calculated the number of vessels to which Regulation D-2 would have
applied if it would have been implemented as originally planned from 2009 to 2020. The
number of vessels would have totalled to more than 75,000 vessels, with the highest annual
number in 2017, i.e., more than 16,000 vessels (David and Gollasch 2015). Divided by 365
this results in an installation demand of ca. 45 BWMS per day. The number of vessels
required to install BWMS was expected to rapidly increase in 2015 and sharply drop in 2020,
because the vessels constructed before 2009 should have installed BWMS between 2015 and
2019. The number of existing vessels that would need to retrofit would be in total
approximately 34,000 vessels and the number of vessels, which are required to retrofit
BWMS is estimated at 2,500 vessels in 2015 and 2016, 11,000 vessels in 2017, and 9,000
vessels in 2018 and 2019. The phase-in of the vessels to meet the D-2 standard was recently
time-wise relaxed, which will likely result in a longer high demand of BWMS to be installed
on board vessels (IMO 2010g,h).
A recent calculation on the estimated value of the global market for purchasing and installing
BWMSs was conducted by IMarEST (IMO 2011za) and the estimations resulted a turn-over
between 2011 and 2016 of possibly $50 to 74 billion.
As per the original IMO requirements more than 21,000 vessels were subject to the first round
of BWMS retrofits. This would have included vessels with a ballast water capacity of 1,500-
5,000 m3. With 16,000 out of these 21,000 vessels, the majority of those vessels would have

Page - 47 -
been general cargo ships. IMarEST analysed the "delivered" vessels by type and it was
estimated that more than 68,000 vessels would need to install on board BWMS before 2020
(IMO 2011za).
Fishing vessels are a special case and only those of > 300 gross tons were included in the
analysis of IMarEST (IMO 2011za). Considering the tight profit range of especially smaller
fishing vessels, it is unlikely that they will include the installation of BWMS in their business
plans. Other limitations for those vessels may be the lack of space to install BWMS so that
those vessels may have to find another way to comply with ballast water management
regulations (David and Gollasch 2015).
According to IMarEST estimates the cost range of BWMS across system types and categories
of ship was estimated to be between $640,000 and $947,000 per vessel, however the authors
in direct contact with BWMS vendors received information that the system prices would start
from approximately 250,000 Euro. It should also be noted that installation costs will vary to a
great extend which is related to the BWMS and ship characteristics and the footprint and other
requirements. In some cases, depending on the number of ballast pumps aboard, more than
one BWMS may have to be installed.
BWMS manufacturers and shipowners assume that minimal or even no lost profit may occur
due to the retrofitting of BWMS provided the installation time does not extend the normal
shipyard time. Alternatively the BWMS may be installed during navigation, but cabin and
lifeboat limitations may occur when planning to accommodate the installation crew (IMO
2011za).
5 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE AS BWM OPTION FOR
THE ADRIATIC
To support identification of BWE options for vessels sailing to Adriatic ports from outside the
Adriatic, theoretical distances including time to enable BWE were studied for >7800ports
worldwide as donor ports for the Adriatic. Results BWE options are in the BALMAS GIS
application http://www.balmas.eu/balmas-tools/balmas-gis.

Page - 48 -
6 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT CONVENTION
Agreements reached on a global level usually represent a combination of significant
compromises coupled with action in the face of limited knowledge – and the BWM
Convention is not an exception. During the BWM Convention negotiations, many issues were
subject of controversial discussions and in certain cases it was extremely hard to reach a
consensus, but when dealing with shipping we believe that solutions to an environmental
problem should be sought at a global scale.
Although the movement of non-indigenous species usually receive predominant attention, the
BWM Convention addresses all species, i.e. cryptogenic species and harmful native species
are also included as IMO uses the term “Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens”
(HAOP).
All IMO Conventions, Codes, Protocols etc., are written for ships involved in international
voyages through international waters and may be adopted by States for domestic
implementation. This Convention protects the coastal environments, mainly up to 50 NM
with port State and flag State requirements relating to HAOP being discharged via ballast
water into the receiving ports/areas. However, ballast water discharge can also affect
international waters especially when ballast water is exchanged “on the high seas” according
to the D-1 standard. The D-2 standard however relates to any discharge of ballast water from
a vessel regardless of its location. The move to a discharge standard provides protection to
high seas as well as coastal regions of the world’s oceans and seas.
A country considering to become a Party to the BWM Convention must make resources
available to ensure that the obligations resting on the country are ensured and not
underestimated. The implementation of this Convention may involve significant costs for the
shipping industry, e.g., to install and operate BWMS. However, we believe that an
appropriate cost / benefit analysis would reveal that funds used to achieve the aims of the
BWM Convention would be well spent, assuming that new biological invasions showing
economic impacts are considerably reduced, and especially when considering the essentially
important environment and human health protection.

Page - 49 -
The BWM Convention will enter into force twelve months after the date on which more than
30 States, with combined merchant fleets not less than 35% of the gross tonnage of the
world's merchant shipping, have signed this Convention. As of May 2015, 44 states ratified
the BWM Convention, representing 32.86 % of the world merchant shipping gross tonnage
(for an update visit Status of Conventions at www.imo.org). Several expert fora assume that
the entry into force of the BWM Convention may occur in the very near future.
6.2 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The development of ballast water management system (BWMS) and especially their
efficiency is very important for an effective prevention of the transfer of harmful aquatic
organisms and pathogens across natural barriers. The BWMS review conducted has shown
that there are very good perspectives to equip vessels with BWMS as certified BWMS are
available. However the BWM Convention requiring their installation is not yet into force, and
there are no other binding regional or national requirements like the D-2 standard applying
today that would force vessels to install BWMS. However, in the USA BWM standards start
to become into effect according to the Vessel General Permit (VGP) requirements starting in
December 2013. This includes avoidance areas for ballast water uptake, cleaning of ballast
tanks regularly to remove sediments in mid-ocean or under controlled arrangements in a port,
or at a dry dock and minimizing the discharge of ballast water essential for vessel operations
while in the waters subject to the VGP. The implementation schedule for the first US
numerical interim BWM standards starts in 2016.
More than 140 BWMS were identified and they use different treatment technologies mostly in
combination to achieve required efficiency over a large variety of ballast water flow rates.
BWMS are in different development stages, and 57 of them were already type approved by
responsible authorities. This makes certified systems available for sales to the shipping
industry, however some uncertainty remains if the BWMS production capacities will be able
to accommodate the installation needs of the shipping industry over certain short periods after
the BWM Convention entry into force. Furthermore, shipyards installation capacities may
become a bottleneck to meet the demand. This is a fast developing field as the interest is

Page - 50 -
triggered by a worldwide market of close to 70.000 vessels that will need to be equipped with
such systems which may result in a peak demand of 45 BWMS to be installed per day.
An IMO Correspondence Group currently works on an update of the G8 Guidelines to make
the tests of BWMS more robust so that the BWMS are fit for purpose.
We believe that it would be very important for the industry to grab the impetus of this
moment and be involved in the development of the BWMS, as the economic perspectives of
the global shipping market are very attractive. Furthermore, the involvement of
administrations in the certification processes is also important to support a fast development
and to ensure the performance quality and reliability of certified BWMS, and hence also
better protect the world´s oceans and seas, human health, property and resources from the
transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens.
To meet the D-2 standard it may also be considered necessary to combine BWE and ballast
water treatment until BWMS become more efficient. By doing so, the efficacy of existing
BWMS may be enhanced when the ballast water taken on board is treated during the
exchange.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research leading to part of these results (BWMS list until June 2012) has received
funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)
under Grant Agreement No. [266445] for the project Vectors of Change in Oceans and Seas
Marine Life, Impact on Economic Sectors (VECTORS).

Page - 51 -
LITERATURE
Andersson P (2007) Ballast water exchange areas. Prospects of designating BWE areas in the
Skagerrak and the Norwegian Trench. Prepared for Swedish National Environmental
Protection Agency, Stockholm and The inquiry on the Ballast Water Convention,
Stockholm. Published by Sveriges Meteorologiska och Hydrologiska Institut,
Norrköping. Report: Oceanography No. 88, 67 pp.
Briski E, Allinger LE, Balcer M, Cangelosi A,Fanberg L, Markee TP, Mays N, Polkinghorne
CN, Prihoda KR, Reavie ED, Regan DH, Reid DM, Saillard HJ, Schwerdt T, Schaefer
H, TenEyck M, Wiley CJ, Bailey SA (2013) Multidimensional Approach to Invasive
Species Prevention. Environ Sci Technol 47(3):1216-1221
David M (2007) A decision support system model for ballast water management of vessels.
Doctoral Dissertation, Portorož
David M, Gollasch S (2008) EU shipping in the dawn of managing the ballast water issue.
Mar Poll Bull 56(12):1966-1972
David M, Gollasch S (2015) Ballast Water Management Systems for Vessels. pp. 109-132.
In: David, M., Gollasch, S. (Eds.) Global Maritime Transport and Ballast Water
Management – Issues and Solutions. Invading Nature. Springer Series in Invasion
Ecology 8, Springer Science + Business Media, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. p. 306.
David M, Gollasch S, Cabrini M, Perkovič M, Bošnjak D, Virgilio D (2007) Results from the
first ballast water sampling study in the Mediterranean Sea - the Port of Koper study.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 53-65.
David M, Gollasch S, Elliott B, Wiley C. (2015) Ballast Water Management Under the
Ballast Water Management Convention. pp. 89-108. In: David, M., Gollasch, S. (Eds.)
Global Maritime Transport and Ballast Water Management – Issues and Solutions.
Invading Nature. Springer Series in Invasion Ecology 8, Springer Science + Business
Media, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. p. 306.
David M, Gollasch S, Hewitt C, Jakomin L (2005) Ballast water management – blanket vs.
flexible approach. Poster presented at the Fourth International Conference on Marine
Bioinvasions, Wellington, 24-26 August 2005
David M, Gollasch S, Pavliha M (2013) Global ballast water management and the same
location concept – a clear term or a clear issue? Ecol Appl 23(2):331–338

Page - 52 -
David M, Perkovič M, Suban V, Gollasch S (2012) A generic ballast water discharge
assessment model as a decision supporting tool in ballast water management, Decision
Support System 53 pp.175-185.
Gollasch S (2010) Global expert workshop on harmonization of methodologies for test
facilities of ballast water management systems. Global Ballast Water Management
Programme (GloBallast). World Maritime University, Malmö, 24-25 January 2010
Gollasch S, David M (2012) A unique aspect of ballast water management requirements – the
same location concept. Mar Pollut Bull 64:1774–1775
Gollasch S, David M, Voigt M, Dragsund E, Hewitt C, Fukuyo Y (2007) Critical review of
the IMO International Convention on the Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and
Sediments. Harmful Algae 6:585-600
Hallegraeff GM (1998) Transport of toxic dinoflagellates via ships' ballast water:
bioeconomic risk assessment and efficacy of possible ballast water management
strategies. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 168:297-309
HELCOM (2015) Interim report from the HELCOM ad hoc Correspondence Group on
Ballast Water Management. Document HELCOM 36-2015. 7 pp.
IMO (1973) Conference to adopt the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships. Resolution 18
IMO (2004) International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast
Water and Sediments. International Maritime Organization. Adopted on 13 February
2004, IMO, London
IMO (2005a) Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water: Information to be considered by the
Review Group. Submitted by Sweden. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 53/2/6. 15 April 2005. IMO, London
IMO (2005b) Application for basic approval of active substances used by Electro-Clean
(electrolytic disinfection) ballast water management system. Submitted by Republic of
Korea. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee,
MEPC 54/2/3. 16 December 2005. IMO, London
IMO (2005c) Guidelines for ballast water exchange (G6). Marine Environment Protection
Committee, Resolution MEPC.124(53), 22 July 2005. International Maritime
Organization, London

Page - 53 -
IMO (2005d) Guidelines for Ballast Water Management Equivalent Compliance (G3). Marine
Environment Protection Committee, Resolution MEPC.123(53), 22 July 2005.
International Maritime Organization, London
IMO (2006a) Report of the first meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG. Note by the Secretariat.
International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee,
MEPC 54/2/12. 28 February 2006. IMO, London
IMO (2006b) Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fifty-fourth
session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 54/21. 27 March 2006. IMO, London
IMO (2006c) Basic Approval of Active Substances used by Special Pipe Ballast Water
Management System (combined with Ozone treatment). Submitted by Japan.
International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee,
MEPC 55/2. 12 April 2006. IMO, London
IMO (2006d) Basic Approval of Active Substances used by NK Ballast Water Treatment
System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 55/2/3, 20 April 2006. IMO,
London
IMO (2006e) Basic Approval of Active Substances used by EctoSys electrochemical system.
Submitted by Sweden. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 55/2/4, 21 April 2006. IMO, London
IMO (2006f) Basic Approval of Active Substances used by PureBallast management system.
Submitted by Sweden. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 55/2/5, 21 April 2006. IMO, London
IMO (2006g) Review documentation of ballast water treatment systems in Germany,
Information (Update of MEPC 53/2/11 Annex 1) provided by Elga Berkefeld GMBH,
Lückenweg, 5, 29227 Celle, Germany and its subsidiary RWO Marine Water
Technology, Leerkämpe 3, 29259, Bremen, Germany. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 55/2/17, Annex 1. 7
July 2006. IMO, London
IMO (2006h) Report of the second meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group
(GESAMP-BWWG). Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 55/2/16. 7 July 2006. IMO, London

Page - 54 -
IMO (2006i) Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fifty-fifth
session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 55/23. 16 October 2006. IMO, London
IMO (2006j) Application for Final Approval of Ballast Water Management System Using
Active Substances. Submitted by Norway. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 56/2/1. 15 December 2006. IMO, London
IMO (2006k) Guidelines for ballast water reception facilities (G5). Marine Environment
Protection Committee, Resolution MEPC.153(55), 13 October 2006. International
Maritime Organization, London
IMO (2006l) Guidelines on designation of areas for ballast water exchange (G14). Marine
Environment Protection Committee, Resolution MEPC.151(55), 13 October 2006.
International Maritime Organization, London
IMO (2007a) Basic Approval of Active Substances used by Resource Ballast Technologies
Systems (Cavitation combined with Ozone and Sodium Hypochlorite treatment).
Submitted by South Africa. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 56/2/3. 6 April 2007. IMO, London
IMO (2007b) Report of the third meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group
(GESAMP-BWWG). Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 56/2/2. 13 April 2007. IMO,
London
IMO (2007c) Review documentation of ballast water treatment technologies in Germany.
Submitted by Germany. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 56/2/10. 4 May 2007. IMO, London
IMO (2007d) Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fifty-sixth
session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 56/23. 30 July 2007. IMO, London
IMO (2007e) Application for Basic Approval of Active Substances used by Hitachi Ballast
Water Purification System (ClearBallast). Submitted by Japan. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 57/2/2. 7 September
2007. IMO, London
IMO (2007f) Application for Final Approval of a ballast water management system using
Active Substances. Submitted by Germany. International Maritime Organization,

Page - 55 -
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 57/2/3. 7 September 2007. IMO,
London
IMO (2007g) Application for Final Approval of a ballast water management system using
Active Substances. Submitted by Germany. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 57/2/5. 7 September 2007. IMO,
London
IMO (2007h) Basic Approval of Active Substance used by GloEn-Patrol™ Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 57/2/4. 7 September
2007. IMO, London
IMO (2007i) Report of the fourth meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group
(GESAMP-BWWG). Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 57/2. 19 December 2007. IMO,
London
IMO (2007j) Application for Basic Approval of a combined ballast water management system
consisting of sediment removal and an electrolytic process using seawater to produce
Active Substances (Greenship Ltd). Submitted by the Netherlands. International
Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 57/2/7. 20
December 2007.
IMO (2007k) Guidelines for Risk Assessment under Regulation A-4 of the BWM Convention
(G7). Marine Environment Protection Committee, Resolution MEPC.162(56), 13 July
2007. International Maritime Organization, London
IMO (2007l) Guidelines for additional measures regarding ballast water management
including emergency situations (G13). Marine Environment Protection Committee,
Resolution MEPC.161(56), 13 July 2007. International Maritime Organization, London
IMO (2008a) Report of the fifth meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group
(GESMP-BWWG). Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 57/2/10. 25 January 2008. IMO,
London
IMO (2008b) Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fifty-seventh
session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 57/21. 7 April 2008. IMO, London

Page - 56 -
IMO (2008c) Application for Final Approval of the OceanSaver® Ballast Water Management
System (OS BWMS). Submitted by Norway. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 58/2/1. 19 March 2008. IMO,
London
IMO (2008d) Application for Final Approval of the Electro-Clean System (ECS). Submitted
by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 58/2. 20 March 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008e) Application for Basic Approval of the Ecochlor® Ballast Water Treatment
System. Submitted by Germany. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 58/2/2. 20 March 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008f) Application for Final Approval of the NK-O3 BlueBallast System (Ozone).
Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 58/2/3. 21 March 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008g) Procedure for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of
active substances (G9). MEPC 57/21. Annex 1. Resolution MEPC.169(57). Adopted on
4 April 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008h) Report of the sixth meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group.
Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 58/2/7. 14 July 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008i) Report of the seventh meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group.
Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 58/2/8. 28 July 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008j) Information on the Type Approval Certificate of the SEDNA® Ballast Water
Management System using Peraclean® Ocean (SEDNA® 250). Submitted by Germany.
International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee,
MEPC 58/INF.17. 31 July 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008k) Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8).
International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee,
MEPC 58/23. Annex 4. Resolution MEPC.174(58). Adopted on 10 October 2008. IMO,
London
IMO (2008l) Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fifty-eighth
session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 58/23. 16 October 2008. IMO, London

Page - 57 -
IMO (2008m) Application for Final Approval of the RWO Ballast Water Management
System (CleanBallast) Submitted by Germany. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/2. 28 November 2008. IMO,
London
IMO (2008n) Application for Final Approval of the Special Pipe Hybrid Ballast Water
Management System (combined with Ozone treatment). Submitted by Japan.
International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee,
MEPC 59/2/1. 4 December 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008o) Application for Basic Approval of the Blue Ocean Shield Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by China. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/2/2. 5 December 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008p) Application for Final Approval of the NK-O3 BlueBallast System (Ozone).
Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/2/3. 8 December 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008q) Application for Basic Approval of the HHI Ballast Water Management System
(EcoBallast). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/2/4. 9 December 2008. IMO,
London
IMO (2008r) Application for Final Approval of the Hitachi Ballast Water Purification System
(ClearBallast). Submitted by Japan. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/2/5. 11 December 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008s) Application for Final Approval of the Greenship Sedinox Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by the Netherlands. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/2/6. 12 December
2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008t) Application for Final Approval of the GloEn-Patrol™ Ballast Water Treatment
System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/2/7. 16 December 2008. IMO,
London
IMO (2008u) Application for Basic Approval of the AquaTriComb™ Ballast Water
Treatment System. Submitted by Germany. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/2/8. 16 December 2008. IMO,
London

Page - 58 -
IMO (2008v) Application for Final Approval of the Resource Ballast Technologies System
(Cavitation combined with Ozone and Sodium Hypochlorite treatment). Submitted by
South Africa. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 59/2/10. 19 December 2008. IMO, London
IMO (2008w) Application for Basic Approval of the Siemens SiCURE™ Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by Germany. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/2/11. 19 December 2008. IMO,
London
IMO (2009a) Information on the Type Approval Certificate of the Electro-CleenTM System
(ECS). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/INF.6. 20 January 2009. IMO,
London
IMO (2009b) Report of the eighth meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group.
Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 59/2/16, Annex 4. 8 April 2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009c) Information on the Type Approval Certificate of the OceanSaver® Ballast
Water Management System. Submitted by Norway. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/INF.17. 6 May
2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009d) Type Approval of the Hyde GUARDIANTM Ballast Water Management System.
Submitted by the United Kingdom. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 59/INF.20. 7 May 2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009e) Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fifty-ninth
session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 59/24. 27 July 2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009f) Application for Basic Approval of the ATLAS-DANMARK Ballast Water
Treatment System (with onboard generated ANOLYTE oxidant). Submitted by
Denmark. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 60/2. 10 August 2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009g) Application for Basic Approval of the DESMI Ocean Guard Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by Denmark. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 60/2/4. 19 August 2009. IMO,
London

Page - 59 -
IMO (2009h) Application for Final Approval of HHI Ballast Water Management System
EcoBallast. Submitted by the Republic of Korea International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 60/2/1. 20 August 2009. IMO,
London
IMO (2009i) Application for Final Approval of the JFE Ballast Water Management System
(JFE-BWMS) that makes use of “TG Ballastcleaner® and TG Environmentalguard®.”
Submitted by Japan. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 60/2/2. 20 August 2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009j) Application for Basic Approval of the Sunrui ballast water management system.
Submitted by China. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 60/2/3. 24 August 2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009k) Application for Basic Approval of Blue Ocean Guardian (BOG) Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 60/2/5. 24 August
2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009l) Application for Basic Approval of the Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
(HHI) Ballast Water Management System (HiBallast). Submitted by the Republic of
Korea. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee,
MEPC 60/2/6. 24 August 2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009m) Application for Basic Approval of Kwang San Co., Ltd. (KS) Ballast Water
Management System “En-Ballast.” Submitted by Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 60/2/7. 25 August
2009.
IMO (2009n) Application for Basic Approval of the OceanGuard™ Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by Norway. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 60/2/8. 26 August 2009. IMO,
London
IMO (2009o) Application for Basic Approval of the Severn Trent DeNora BalPure® Ballast
Water Management System. Submitted by Germany. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 60/2/9. 28 August
2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009p) Draft MEPC resolution on the installation of ballast water management systems
on new ships in accordance with the application dates contained in the BWM

Page - 60 -
Convention. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 60/2/10. 23 September 2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009q) Report of the tenth meeting of the GESMP-Ballast Water Working Group. Note
by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 60/2/11. 30 October 2009. IMO, London
IMO (2009r) Report of the eleventh meeting of the GESMP-Ballast Water Working Group.
Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 60/2/12, Annex 4. 1 December 2009. IMO, London
IMO (2010a) Information on the Type Approval Certificate of the NK-O3 BlueBallast System
(Ozone). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 60/INF.14. 15 January 2010. IMO,
London
IMO (2010b) Report of the twelfth meeting of the GESAMP – Ballast Water Working Group.
Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 60/2/16. 8 February 2010. IMO, London
IMO (2010c) Report of the marine environment protection committee on its sixtieth session.
International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee,
MEPC 60/22. 14 April 2010. IMO, London
IMO (2010d) Information on the Type Approval of the OptiMarin Ballast System. Submitted
by Norway. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 61/INF.4. 21 June 2010. IMO, London
IMO (2010e) Information on the Type Approval Certificate of the Hitachi Ballast Water
Management System (ClearBallast). Submitted by Japan. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 61/INF.21. 23 July
2010. IMO, London
IMO (2010f) Report of the thirtieth meeting of the GESAMP – Ballast Water Working Group.
Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 61/2/15. 26 June 2010. IMO, London
IMO (2010g) Information for examination and analysis of the applicable requirements for
vessels described in regulation B-3.1. Submitted by Japan. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 61/2/17. 23 July 2010.
IMO, London

Page - 61 -
IMO (2010h) Information for examination and analysis of the applicable requirements for
vessels described in regulation B-3.1. Submitted by Japan. Corrigendum. International
Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC
61/2/17/Corr.1. 11 August 2010. IMO, London
IMO (2010i) Information of Type Approval Certificate of the GloEn-PatrolTM Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 61/2/19. 6 August
2010. IMO, London
IMO (2010j) Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its sixty-first
session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 61/24. 6 October 2010. IMO, London
IMO (2010k) Report of the fourteenth meeting of the GESAMP – Ballast Water Working
Group. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 62/2/21. 23 August 2010. IMO, London
IMO (2011a) Report of the fifteenth meeting of the GESAMP – Ballast Water Working
Group. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 62/2/11. 24 February 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011b) Information on the Type Approval of the PureBallast 2.0 and PureBallast 2.0 Ex
Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by Norway. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 62/INF.14. 8 April
2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011c) Information on the Type Approval of the OceanSaver® Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by Norway. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 62/INF.15. 8 April 2011. IMO,
London
IMO (2011d) Report of the sixteenth meeting of the GESAMP – Ballast Water Working
Group. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 62/2/12. 28 April 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011e) Information on the Type Approval of the Resource Ballast Technologies System
(Cavitation combined with ozone and sodium hypochlorite treatment). Submitted by
South Africa. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 62/INF.18. 6 May 2011. IMO, London

Page - 62 -
IMO (2011f) Information on the Type Approval of the JFE Ballast Water Management
System (JFE BallastAce) Submitted by Japan. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 62/INF.25. 6 May 2011. IMO,
London
IMO (2011g) Information on the Type Approval of the Blue Ocean Shield Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by China. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 62/INF.28. 6 May 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011h) Information on the Type Approval of the BalClorTM Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by China. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 62/INF.29. 6 May 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011i) Information on the Type Approval of the BSKYTM Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by China. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 62/INF.30. 6 May 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011j) Report of the seventeenth meeting of the GESAMP – Ballast Water Working
Group. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 62/2/18. 13 June 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011k) Application for Basic Approval of DMU ·OH Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by China. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 63/2. 21 July 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011l) Application for Final Approval of ERMA FIRST Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by Greece. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 63/2/1. 25 July 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011m) Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its sixty-second
session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 62/24. 26 July 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011n) Application for Final Approval of the AquaStar™ Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by the Republic of KoreaInternational Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 63/2/3. 2 August 2011. IMO,
London
IMO (2011o) Application for Final Approval of MICROFADETM Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by Japan. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 63/2/2. 5 August 2011. IMO, London

Page - 63 -
IMO (2011p) Application for Basic Approval of the EcoGuardianTM Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 63/2/4. 8 August
2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011q) Application for Basic Approval of the HS-BALLAST Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 63/2/5. 8 August
2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011r) Application for Final Approval of Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (SHI)
Ballast Water Management System (Neo-Purimar™). Submitted by the Republic of
Korea. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee,
MEPC 63/2/6. 19 August 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011s) Application for Basic Approval of the KTM-BWMS Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 63/2/8. 31 August 2011. IMO,
London
IMO (2011t) Application for Basic Approval of the Hamworthy AQUARIUS™-EC Ballast
Water Management System (Hamworthy AQUARIUS™-EC BWMS). Submitted by
the Netherlands. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 63/2/9. 2 September 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011u) Report of the eighteenth meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working
Group. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 63/2/10. 11 November 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011v) Information on the Type Approval of the HiBallastTM Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 63/INF.4. 25
November 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011w) Information on the Type Approval of the EcoBallastTM Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 63/INF.5. 25
November 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011x) Information on the Type Approval of the Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
(SHI) Ballast Water Management System (Purimar™). Submitted by the Republic of

Page - 64 -
Korea. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee,
MEPC 63/INF.6. 25 November 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011y) Report of the nineteenth meeting of the GESAMP – Ballast Water Working
Group. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 63/2/11. 14 December 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011z) Information on the Type Approval of FineBallast® OZ (the Special Pipe Hybrid
Ballast Water Management System combined with Ozone treatment version). Submitted
by Japan. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 63/INF.12. 23 December 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2011za) Preview of global ballast water treatment markets. Submitted by the Institute
of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST). International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 63/INF.11. 23
December 2011. IMO, London
IMO (2012a) Report of the twentieth meeting of the GESAMP – Ballast Water Working
Group. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 63/2/21. 24 January 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012b) Application for Basic Approval of the OceanDoctor Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by China. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 64/2. 13 March 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012c) Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its sixty-third
session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 63/23. 14 March 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012d) Application for Final Approval of JFE BallastAce that makes use of NEO-
CHLOR MARINETM. Submitted by Japan. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/2/1. 14 March 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012e) Application for Final Approval of the ballast water management system (Smart
Ballast BWMS). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/2/2. 15 March
2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012f) Application for Basic Approval of the HS-BALLAST ballast water management
system. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/2/3. 15 March 2012. IMO,
London

Page - 65 -
IMO (2012g) Application for Basic Approval of the GloEn-SaverTM Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/2/4. 15 March
2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012h) Application for Basic Approval of Dow-Pinnacle Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by Singapore. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/2/5. 16 March 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012i) Report of the twenty-first meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working
Group. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/2/6. 11 June 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012j) Report of the twenty-second meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working
Group. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/2/7. 29 June 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012k) Information on the Type Approval of the OceanSaver® Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by Norway. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/INF.4. 29 June 2012. IMO,
London
IMO (2012l) Report of the twenty-third meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working
Group. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/2/19. 27 July 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012m) Information on the Type Approval of the CyecoTM Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by China. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 64/INF.12. 27 July 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012n) Information on the Type Approval of MICROFADE Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by Japan. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/INF.17. 27 July 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012o) Information on the Type Approval of AquaStarTM Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/INF.18. 27 July 2012. IMO,
London
IMO (2012p) Information on the Type Approval Certificate for the BalPure® BP-500 Ballast
Water Management System. Submitted by Germany. International Maritime

Page - 66 -
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/INF.20. 27 July
2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012q) Information on the Type Approval of the ERMA FIRST BWTS Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by Greece. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/INF.26. 27 July 2012. IMO,
London
IMO (2012r) Information on the type approval of ARA PLASMA BWTS Ballast water
management system. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 64/INF.33. 27 July
2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012s) Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its Sixty-Fourth
Session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 64/23. 11 October 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012t) Application for Final Approval of the AQUARIUS® EC Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by the Netherlands. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/2/1. 12 October
2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012u) Application for Basic Approval of the REDOX AS Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by Norway. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/2/3. 12 October 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012v) Application for Basic Approval of the Van Oord Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by the Netherlands. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/2/2. 19 October 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012w) Application for Final Approval of the EcoGuardianTM Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/2/4. 26 October
2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012x) Application for Basic Approval of the Blue ZoneTM Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/2/5. 26 October 2012. IMO,
London

Page - 67 -
IMO (2012y) Application for Final Approval of the OceanDoctor Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by China. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 65/2/6. 26 October 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012z) Application for Basic Approval of the HyCator®: BWT Reactor System.
Submitted by India. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, MEPC 65/2/7. 26 October 2012. IMO, London
IMO (2012za) Information on Type Approval of the OceanGuardTM Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by Norway. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/INF.2. 29 October 2012. IMO,
London
IMO (2013a) Information on Type Approval of the DESMI Ocean Guard OxyClean Ballast
Water Management System. Submitted by Denmark. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/INF.5. 8 February
2013. IMO, London
IMO (2013b) Information on the Type Approval of the Wärtsilä AQUARIUS® UV ballast
water management system. Submitted by the Netherlands. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/INF.11. 8
February 2013. IMO, London
IMO (2013c) Information on the Type Approval of the KBAL Ballast Water Management
System. Submitted by Norway. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/INF.12. 8 February 2013. IMO, London
IMO (2013d) Information on the Type Approval of the CrystalBallast® Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by Norway. International Maritime Organization,
Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/INF.13. 8 February 2013. IMO,
London
IMO (2013e) Report of the twenty-fourth meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working
Group. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/2/9. 8 February 2013. IMO, London
IMO (2013f) Information on the renewal and update of the Type Approval for the Resource
Ballast Technologies System (cavitation combined with ozone and sodium hypochlorite
treatment). Submitted by South Africa. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/INF.26. 8 March 2013. IMO, London

Page - 68 -
IMO (2013g) Report of the twenty-fifth meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working
Group. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 65/2/19. 22 March 2013. IMO, London
IMO (2013h) Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its Sixty-Fifth
Session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 65/22. 24 May 2013. IMO, London
IMO (2013i) Application for Final Approval of Ballast Water Management System with
PERACLEAN® Ocean (SKY-SYSTEM®). Submitted by Japan. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 66/2. 19 August 2013.
IMO, London
IMO (2013j) Application for Basic Approval of the ECOLCELL BTs Ballast Water
Management System. Submitted by Italy. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 66/2/1. 10 September 2013. IMO, London
IMO (2013k) List of ballast water management Guidelines, guidance documents and
approved ballast water management systems. Note by the Secretariat. International
Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 66/INF2.
03 October 2013. IMO, London
IMO (2013l) Port-based mobile ballast water treatment facility (BWTBOAT) as another
method of ballast water management for regional and coastal trading ships. Submitted
by India. Marine Environment Protection Committee, 26 December 2013. MEPC 66/2/8.
International Maritime Organization, London
IMO (2014) Application of the international convention for the control and management of
ships' ballast water and sediments, 2004. Assembly 28th session, 28 January 2014. A
28/Res.1088. International Maritime Organization, London
IMO (2015) List of ballast water management systems that make use of Active Substances
which received Basic or Final Approval. Note by the Secretariat. International Maritime
Organization, BWM.2/Circ.34/Rev.4. May 2015. IMO, London
Köster E (2010) Sustainable Ballast Water Management Plant (BaWaPla), EU 6th Framework
Programme. http://www.bawapla.com/ (accessed 05 June 2012)
Liebich V, Stehouwer PP, Veldhuis M (2012) Re-growth of potential invasive phytoplankton
following UV-based ballast water treatment. Aquat Inv 7:29-36
Lloyd’s Register (2011a) Ballast water treatment technology, Current status. June 2011.
Lloyds Register Group

Page - 69 -
Lloyd’s Register (2011b) Ballast water treatment technology, Update. September 2011.
Lloyds Register Group
Lloyds Register (2011c) National ballast water management requirements. Lloyds Register
London.
Lloyds Register (2014) National ballast water management requirements. Lloyds Register
London.
Macdonald EM, Davidson RD (1998) The occurrence of harmful algae in ballast water
discharges in Scottish ports and the effects of mid-water exchange in regional seas. In:
Reguera B, Blanco J, Fernandez ML, Wyatt T (eds) Harmful Algae. Xunta de Galicia
and Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, p 220-223
Martínez LF, Mahamud MM, Lavín AG, Bue JL (2012) Evolution of phytoplankton cultures
after ultraviolet light treatment. Mar Poll Bull 64:556–562
McCollin T, Macdonald EM, Dunn J, Hall C, Ware S (2001) Investigations into ballast water
exchange in European regional seas. In: Proceedings of International Conference on
Marine Bioinvasions, New Orleans April 9-11 2001, p 94-95
Mesbahi E (2004) Onboard treatment of ballast water (technologies development and
applications) and application of low sulphur marine fuel (MARTOB), EU 5th
Framework Programme. http://martob.ncl.ac.uk/Home.htm (accessed 05 June 2012)
Murphy KR Field MP, Waite TD, Ruiz GM (2008) Trace elements in ships' ballast water as
tracers of mid-ocean exchange. Sci Total Env 393:11–26
Murphy KR, Ritz D, Hewitt CL (2002) Heterogeneous zooplankton distribution in a ship's
ballast tanks. J Plankton Res 24(7):729-734
NSF International (2010) Generic protocol for the verification of ballast water treatment
technology. For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Technology
Verification Program. In cooperation with U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Standards
Division, Washington, DC and U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Center for Corrosion
Science and Engineering Washington, DC
OIC (2013) Orkney Islands Council (OIC) Harbour Authority. Ballast Water Management
Policy for Scapa Flow. 10 pp. (plus appendices).
Olivieri VP, Snead MC, Kruse CW, Kawata K (1986) Stability and effectiveness of chlorine
disinfectants in water distribution systems. Environ Health Perspect 69:15–29
OSPAR (2014) Ballast Water Exchange Areas in the North Sea. Presented by the
Secretarioate at the June 2012 meeting as document OSPAR 14/3/3-E, 11 pp.

Page - 70 -
Perkovič M, David M, Suban V (2004) Ballast water discharges in the Slovenian sea.
International Conference on Traffic Science – ICTS 2004, Conference proceeding, p.12.
Rigby GR, Hallegraeff GM (1994) The transfer and control of harmful marine organisms in
shipping ballast water: behaviour of marine plankton and ballast water exchange on the
MV “Iron Whyalla”. J Mar Env Eng 1:91-110
Shiferaw M (2012) EcoSeaSafe 7th Framework Programme. http://ecoseasafeproject.com/
(accessed 05 June 2012)
Stelzer K (2010) Project Information: ESA Innovator II Project Ballast Water. Brockmann
Consult. 2 pp.
STEP (2010) U.S. Coast Guard Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program. Ship Enrolment
Application for Ballast Water Management System. Version 2.3
White E. (2013) Sea of revised ballast water management policy. Environmental Report.
Report Reference. P1565_RN3099_Rev1. Prepared for Orkney Islands Council Harbour
Authority. 75 pp. (plus appendices).