Page 1

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

William L. Hurley, Jr., P.E., Spencer S. Schilling, Jr., and Thomas P. Mackey

Contract Designs for Ballast Water Treatment Systems on

Containership R.J. Pfeiffer and Tanker Polar Endeavor

ABSTRACT

The Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project is a joint U.S. and Canadian

cooperative project which recently funded three

6-month, full-scale design studies of promising

ballast water treatment systems. The intent of

each study is to fully develop, for a specified

“target” vessel, the contract design and life-cycle

cost of a reliable, optimized flow-through, onboard treatment system that effectively removes

living organisms from the ship’s ballast water

before it is discharged into an ecosystem other

than its original source. The authors address two

of these three studies, selecting two different

kinds of target vessels. These ships represent

classes of vessels typically involved in ballast

water discharge in the ports and waterways of

the U.S. West Coast, Hawaii and Alaska. This is

one of the first efforts devoted to developing

contract design level technical solutions,

quantifying life-cycle costs and assessing actual

vessel operational impacts on effective

ecosystem maintenance.

INTRODUCTION

Introduction of nonindigenous species to new

environments is one of the greatest threats to the

world’s coastal waters. Ballast water is a major

contributor to the transfer of harmful organisms

and pathogens. Potential economic impacts and

impacts on human health and the ecology are

very significant and cannot be ignored.

A substantial amount of scientific study has

been devoted to the problem of invading species

that are carried in ships’ ballast water. The

solutions to the problem are simple in concept,

but complex in execution. These solutions are

illustrated in Figure 1 below. Most maritime

professionals agree that ballast water exchange,

which is currently the only officially recommended method for limiting the transfer of

organisms in ballast water, has many limitations

and is not the long-term answer. Effective

ballast water treatment methods must, therefore,

be developed and their efficacy established. The

installation engineering of these systems as

applied to specific ships is the focus of this

paper and will be part of a larger project report.

Figure 1. Paper Focus (Chart Originated in [1])

BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT

Solutions to the NIS Problem

PORT-BASED SHIPBOARD

TREAT AFTER

DEBALLASTING

BALLAST WITH

TREATED WATER

Land-based Plant

Receiving Vessel

ONBOARD

TREATMENT

BALLAST WATER

EXCHANGE

Emptying & Refilling

Flow-through Exchange

PRIMARY

Filtration

SECONDARY

MECHANICAL CHEMICAL

Ultra Violet (UV)

Heat (in transit)

Ultra Sound

Magnetic Field

Electrical Field

Biocides

Chlorine

Ozone

Hydrogen Peroxide

Organic Chemicals

Other

Paper Focus

Installation

Engineering Costs

Operational Impact

Cyclonic
Page 2

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Table 1. Summary of Studies

Target Vessel Treatment System

Ship Name, Type and

Owner

Ballast Rate Ballast

Capacity

Route Primary

Treatment

Secondary

Treatment

M/V Polar Endeavor

(Millennium Class),

Polar Tankers, Inc.

Two (2) @ 2,860 m3/hr

(12,600 gpm);

(main system)

60,700 m3 TAPS Trade

– Alaska &

U.S. West

Coast

Cyclonic

Separator*

Ultraviolet

Radiation*

M/V R. J. Pfeiffer

2,420 TEU Containership,

Matson Navigation

Two (2) @; 350 m3/hr.

(1540 gpm);

(Only one pump is used

for ballasting)

14,600 m3 U.S. West

Coast and

Hawaii

Cyclonic

Separator**

Ultraviolet

Radiation

*Treatment System for Polar Endeavor includes a chemical treatment option.

**Primary Treatment System for R.J. Pfeiffer includes MicroKill filters with automatic backflush as an alternate.

The Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project (GLBTDP) [2, 3], led by the

Northeast Midwest Institute and the Lake

Carriers’ Association, has made an important

step in the process of moving toward control of

invasive species. It seeks operationally sound

and biologically effective ballast water treatment

solutions, going from the science and study

stage to the engineering stage by applying the

science to specific, full-scale installations – with

the objective of assessing engineering

practicalities and cost. 

GLBTDP contracted with Herbert

Engineering and The Glosten Associates – two

leading Naval Architecture and Marine

Engineering design firms experienced in

conducting design studies, developing contract

plans, and preparing packages for regulatory

review and approval. Hyde Marine supported

the studies with equipment definition. Ship

owners Polar Tankers, Inc., (previously ARCO

Marine, Inc.) and Matson Navigation supported

the effort at no cost. These ship owners have a

real interest in installing treatment systems in

their vessels. Addressing owner preferences was

a very important part of the study.

Two design studies addressed the application

of specifically selected systems to target vessels

by retrofitting ballast water treatment systems

into these existing ships. It is anticipated that

designing treatment systems for new

construction will be significantly less expensive

than the retrofits presented in this study. 

Although generic treatment system types

were selected for the study, specific equipment

was identified and integrated into the ship

systems’ designs, and firm equipment prices

were used in the cost estimates. System performance data presented in this paper are based

on manufacturer claims, but some of the systems

have been previously tested and evaluated.

Table 1 briefly describes the primary

treatment systems and targeted vessels selected

for each of the two studies. Complete details of

the treatment systems and vessels can be found

in the following sections. 

TREATMENT SYSTEM

REQUIREMENTS

Goals

Each design study provides a reliable onboard treatment system that “effectively”

removes living organisms from shipboard ballast

water before it is discharged into an ecosystem

other than its original source. Moreover, each

design study develops a treatment system that

aims towards the optimization of the following

GLBTDP goals:

• Maximizes killing and/or inactivation of

living organisms from the target vessel’s

ballast water. 

• Meets demands of the shipboard marine

environment.

• Minimizes operational changes to the vessel’s existing ballast management processes.

• Fits within normal and existing operational

procedures of shipboard personnel and

imposes minimal additional workload. 

• Minimizes adverse effects on environment.
Page 3

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

• Minimizes extent and physical impact of

modification to the vessel.

• Minimizes initial capital as well as life-cycle

and long-term operational costs.

• Meets the existing safety standards of the

industry, regulatory bodies and the target

vessel operating company.

Biological Sampling and Equipment

Monitoring

The systems must be designed to provide the

following sampling and monitoring features:

• Routine monitoring and sampling to ensure

proper system operation.

• Initial extensive sampling for biological

evaluation to verify installation.

• Automated operation and alarm.

• Reporting and data logging features.

SELECTED TREATMENT

SYSTEMS

There is currently a wide variety of possible

treatment options for ballast water [4]. Treatment systems were selected for this study that

have either undergone testing and evaluation and

have some documented results, or were

requested for investigation by the ship owner.

Cyclonic Separator

An in-line flow-through cyclonic separator

(CS) separates and removes suspended sediment

from ballast water passing through the system.

Past studies and testing have shown that

cyclonic separation will remove entrained

particles that are heavier than seawater [5].

Cyclonic separators are passive devices that

allow the separation and removal of larger and

heavier solids with some associated pressure

drop added to the system. A major advantage of

a CS is that there are no moving parts, and it is

therefore highly reliable. There are some disadvantages as well. The CS will not remove

materials with densities less than or equal to the

ballast water. It also cannot handle significant

differences in flow rate and will lose its

effectiveness if the flow rate is reduced and the

vortex collapses.

The CS requires a backpressure valve to

build pressure to force the solids to discharge

overboard against the static head of the ship

during ballasting.

These separators are particularly suitable on

the ballast intake cycle where the separated particles can be discharged back into the harbor of

origin with an estimated 5 to 10% of the pumped

water.

Cyclonic separators can be scaled in size to

even the largest ballast pumping rates of ships.

Ultraviolet (UV) Light Treatment

The second stage treatment irradiates the

“clean” ballast water processed through the

cyclonic separator via application of UV light to

the water stream. UV irradiation is currently

available and has been demonstrated to kill or

deactivate biological organisms, viruses and

bacteria. The irradiation can be accomplished

during both ballasting and deballasting. A UV

unit has been installed on a ship specifically to

treat ballast water, and UV units have undergone

study and a full scale evaluation [5]. 

New units are under development with

increased irradiation intensity to increase

effectiveness in turbid water with transmittances

as low as 30%.

The UV light units have the following

positive attributes:

• Long history in marine industry with proven

use in other shipboard applications. 

• Readily available on the market. 

• Low maintenance, easy lamp replacement.

• High and low flow rates available.

• Small pressure drop and simple piping

modifications allow treatment in both ballast

and deballasting operations.

• Capable of electronic monitoring/alarms.

• Compact size – 3,500 m3/hr flow rate unit is

about 2 meters long by 1 meter in diameter.

Filtration with Backflush

In-line filters have been tested and results

and efficacy are reported in references [3] and

[5]. Key technical issues and conclusions are:

• A 5 mm prescreen should be used upstream

to protect finer filter screens.

• Automatic backwash is required and should

be implemented during ballasting.

• A screen size of 50 microns is necessary;

however, up to 100 microns size may be

satisfactory if used with UV treatment. 

• Filtration improves ballast water clarity.
Page 4

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Filtration with backflush may be a necessary

component in the system if the ecosystems

contain organisms that are known to be resistant

to the UV irradiation levels selected. It is also a

viable alternate to the cyclonic separator, and is

particularly advantageous in vessels with lower

ballast rates (less than 500 m3/hr). In this

regard, we reviewed current filtration technology being evaluated by the GLBTDP, plus at

least two other filter technologies. Of these, the

MicroKill filter was identified for this study.

Backflush filtration requires high pressure

and flow capability to overcome filter resistance

on existing ships. This design feature could

require changing ballast pumps, or reducing the

overall throughput rate due to the nature of the

backflush action. 

To retain the ballast throughput rate, external

sources such as the ship’s firemain or seawater

service system, perhaps backed up by

compressed air, could be used to backflush the

filters. The backflush liquid, which should be

minimal, can be pumped directly overboard

during ballasting, or at the end of the ballasting

period, using a separate pump or eductor.

Backflush collection tanks and independent

pumps can be provided.

On larger vessels, backflush filters are much

more expensive than cyclonic separators, both

for first cost and in operation.

Chemical Treatment

Chemical treatment is a potential secondary,

tertiary or stand-alone treatment system that

could be used in conditions where the primary

and secondary systems of separators with UV or

filters with UV are not effective. Chemical

treatment does carry with it potentially onerous

hurdles such as storing, handling and dosing the

material on board ship, and gaining approvals

for use and application. 

Chemicals proposed for ballast water

treatment include SeaKleen, glutaraldehyde,

acrolein, hypochlorite and ozone, among other

candidate treatments. Chemicals can be added

using existing injection technology.

Chemical treatment considerations that need

to be addressed include, among others: toxicity 

implications, efficacy, product availability,

ecosystem damage and political acceptance.

This study looks at equipment and materials

compatibility and practical application of the

technology with minimal cost. 

TARGET VESSELS

Two ship types were selected to represent

major vessel types and operations on the West

Coast: the TAPS trade tanker and the

containership. The new Polar Tankers’ Polar

Endeavor (Fig. 2), the first delivery of the

Millennium Class, was selected as the tanker for

the study, and the existing Matson containership

R.J. Pfeiffer (Fig. 3) was selected as the

containership.

Ship owners Polar Tankers, Inc., and Matson

Navigation supported this project. Their ships

call at U.S. ports including some of the most

sensitive areas such as San Francisco, Puget

Sound and Valdez, Alaska. 

Polar Tankers, Inc., is currently operating a

fleet of tankers in the U.S. domestic trade

between Alaska and the U.S. West Coast. 

Matson Navigation is a U.S. domestic carrier

operating a fleet of containerships between the

West Coast and Hawaii. 

Design Study #1 – “Other Vessel of

10,000 MT Displacement or Greater”

Vessel Name M/V Polar Endeavor

Vessel Type 125,000 DWT Crude Oil

Carrier 

Year Delivered 2001 (new building)

Owner/Operator Polar Tankers, Inc.

Length Overall 272.69 m

Beam 46.20 m

Depth 25.30 m

Draft 16.31m

Deadweight 127,005 MT

Ballast Capacity 60,700 m3 (55,000 m3 used

for heavy ballast condition)

Number of Ballast

Tanks

6 pairs main tanks + 1 focsle

tank + 4 aft tanks

Ballast Pumping

Capacity

2 at 2,860 m3/hr, main pumps

2 at 1,000 m3/hr, aft pumps
Page 5

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Characteristics of Polar Endeavor:

1. Large volume of ballast and large pumping

capacity with both pumps typically in use for

ballast operations. Excellent comparison

with other target ship types with lower ballast

pumping requirements.

2. Dependence on gravity feed for loading and

discharging ballast for operational efficiency.

3. Because of its trade routes between Puget

Sound and other West Coast ports and Prince

William Sound (PWS), it ballasts and

deballasts in environmentally sensitive ports.

4. Could be a candidate for incentives (from the

California State Lands Commission and the

State of Washington Aquatic Nuisance

Species Coordinator) to install the proposed

system.

Figure 2. M/V Polar Endeavor

Figure 3. M/V R.J. Pfeiffer
Page 6

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Design Study #2 – “2000 TEU or Greater

Containership Regularly Calling at U.S.

Port”

Vessel Name M/V R.J. Pfeiffer 

Vessel Type 2,420 TEU Containership 

Year Delivered 1992

Owner/ Operator Matson Navigation Company

Length Overall 217.47 m

Beam 32.21 m

Depth 20.27 m

Draft 11.58 m

Deadweight 28,758 MT

Container Capacity 2420 TEU 

Ballast Capacity 14,600 m3

Ballast Tanks 26

Ballast Pumping

Capacity

2 at 350 m3/hr

Characteristics of R.J. Pfeiffer:

1. This vessel is a typical Panamax containership with ballast in the double bottom and

wings used to maintain stability as well as

control trim and list. It was selected over

post-Panamax sized vessels because the

larger vessels have much more flexible

ballasting options and can often avoid port

discharge through careful planning.

2. Only one ballast pump is used at a time

providing a flow rate of 350 m3 per hour.

3. The required system capacity is essentially

identical to the system installed on the

GLBTDP barge [2, 3].

4. Because of its trade routes on the U.S. West

Coast and in Hawaii, it ballasts and deballasts

in environmentally sensitive ports. Biological data for these ports are readily available.

5. Could be a candidate for incentives (from the

California State Lands Commission and the

State of Washington Aquatic Nuisance

Species Coordinator) to install the proposed

system.

DESIGN SUMMARY – POLAR

ENDEAVOR

Vessel Ballast System Characteristics,

Ballasting Practices and Common Port

Calls

Polar Endeavor is entering service this year

in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)

trade on the West Coast. The ship is designed to

deliver North Slope crude oil from Valdez, AK,

to the U.S. West Coast ports in Puget Sound,

San Francisco, Long Beach (CA) and Hawaii. 

There are two ballast systems on the vessel:

the primary system consisting of two

2,860 m3/hr (12,600 gpm) pumps serving the six

pairs of forebody tanks and a single forepeak

tank (both main pumps are typically used

simultaneously); and the aft ballast system

consisting of two smaller pumps serving four

small tanks in the aft end of the vessel. The

primary system also has an eductor system for

stripping the forebody ballast system, and the aft

ballast system is used to control trim and list. 

Tanker ballasting operations are characterized by moving large volumes of ballast each

trip. The ship must have a minimum draft when

not carrying cargo to control hull stresses,

provide good seakeeping and maneuvering, and

provide propeller submergence. 

Deck officers, or mates, perform the ballasting operations from the cargo control room.

Pumps and valves are controlled by the ballast

control system, which is part of cargo control. 

“Gravitating” ballast is an important

component of the ship’s ballasting operations.

Gravitating is allowing water to flow into or out

of the tanks using the head differential between

the tank level and the outside water level, and

not using pumps. The ability to gravitate

reduces the owner’s cost because of reduced

pump operating time, and provides simpler and

more efficient operations for the crew.

The timeline (Table 2) roughly describes the

anticipated operations of the vessel, without

consideration of ballast water treatment.

Gravitating ballast is not possible in a

treatment system using a cyclonic separator.

The head differential used to gain the flow is not

adequate to overcome the additional resistance

imposed by the separator. Without gravitating,

additional pump time is necessary. Additionally, pumping time is extended further due to the

added resistance in the system and reduced flow

rate, as well as the lost 5 to 10% capacity due to

the sludge return from the cyclonic separator.

Table 3 summarizes the impact on ballast

pump times. These data were developed using a

piping system flow model of the Polar

Endeavor’s ballast system that accounts for the

changing tank levels during the pumping

operation, the resistance of each component and

the actual pump performance curve.
Page 7

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Increased pump usage is accounted for in the

life cycle cost study in terms of pump maintenance increase and fuel cost associated with the

additional electrical power generation.

One could presume that overall ship operation timelines would not be affected because

pumping ballast will always be faster than

gravitating ballast; however, because of ship’s

generator power limitations, ballast pumps

cannot operate simultaneously with full output

of cargo pumps. If the CS and UV were

installed, the 5 hour increase in ballast pumping

time would have to occur during the 8 hours of

transit time outbound from the refinery to the

sea buoy. There is potential for the vessel

schedule to be affected. Arriving in Prince

William Sound, the vessel could still gravitate

on the ballast discharge, as the water was treated

on the intake. However, as the system is

currently designed, this operation would bypass

the second UV treatment on the discharge.

Table 2. Vessel Operations Timeline – Anticipated

Time Event

Day 1

Hour 0

Enter Puget Sound at Cape Flattery

with 125,000 dwt tons of oil at a

44 foot draft, no ballast on board. 

Day 1

Hour 8

Dockside, at the Puget Sound

refinery, ballast is allowed to freeflood into the forebody tanks as

cargo discharge begins. 

Day 1

Hour 18

The free-flood rate diminishes as the

ship draft decreases, and ballasting

operations are suspended. 29,000

tons of ballast is taken on by

gravitating in this 10 hour period.

Day 2

Hour 2

Cargo discharge is completed in a

total of 18 hours of pumping. With

power available for ballast pumps,

they are started in order to finish

ballasting.

Day 2

Hour 10

After 8 hours of pumping, main

ballast tanks are loaded to the normal ballast condition. Ship departs

with 50,300 tons of main ballast on

board. Aft ballast tanks are empty.

Time Event

Day 2

Hour 18

Ship clears Cape Flattery buoy

heading northbound.

Day 3

Hour 12

Ship encounters heavy weather and

mates take on 3,300 tons of ballast in

the aft tanks, 2,200 in the focsle tank

and 4,300 in the #6’s to get to the

heavy ballast condition, with a total

of 60,100 tons of ballast.

Day 6

Hour 6

Ship arrives at Cape Hinchinbrook,

entrance to Prince William Sound,

and with a low sea state is able to

gravity-drain ballast.

Day 6

Hour 12

Vessel arrives at Valdez, and begins

taking on crude oil. Both main

ballast pumps are started to

discharge ballast. 21,750 tons are

discharged by gravitating. 

Day 6

Hour 20

Ballast tanks are empty, cargo loading continues. 38,350 tons are discharged by the main ballast pumps.

Day 6

Hour 22

Cargo tanks full, ship departs southbound to Puget Sound.

Day 10

Hour 10

Enter Puget Sound at Cape Flattery.

Table 3. Ballast Pumping Time Comparison Filling Tanks with Cargo Discharge at

Puget Sound Refinery – Polar Endeavor

Procedure Gravitating Time

(Free Flooding)

Pumping Time Total Ballasting

Time

Gravitating and Pumping,

no Separator / UV treatment 10.2 hours 7.5 hours 17.7 hours

Pumping Only,

no Separator / UV Treatment – 10 hours 10 hours

Pumping Only,

with Separator / UV Treatment – 12.3 hours 12.3 hours
MEETS 2001 Technical Paper Page 8

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Polar Endeavor Treatment Philosophy

and Functionality

We have selected treatment systems that

either have demonstrated effectiveness (or look

to be the most promising of the existing

treatments) and that have the capacity to support

the vessel’s large ballast system with minimal

impact on operations. For example, we are

using cyclonic separators instead of filters

because the ballast system rate is high for fine

filtration applications. 

To provide design and operational flexibility

and so that various water contamination

problems can be treated, we have also specified

redundant systems and different types of

systems. These different treatment systems have

been estimated and engineered separately, but

can be combined in a number of ways depending

on:

• Final rulings from the regulatory bodies

on acceptability of equipment.

• New efficacy information that comes

available.

• New regulations that come into force.

• Owner preferences. 

The main and aft ballast system primary

treatment is in three stages. The first stage is to

treat the ballast as it is taken aboard by

separating heavier particles with a cyclonic

separator unit. The sludge is immediately

discharged back into the harbor of origin. The

secondary treatment irradiates the cleaned water

with ultraviolet light to kill or inactivate the

organisms in the water. Interference with UV

irradiation is reduced by separating solid

particles before entering the UV unit. Since

surviving organisms may multiply while in the

ballast tank during the voyage, the third stage

irradiates the water again when discharged in the

receiving harbor.

An optional chemical treatment system is

provided as either a fourth stage, an alternate

secondary treatment, or a stand-alone alternate

treatment. Incoming ballast water can run

through the cyclonic separator and the UV, and

then also be treated chemically, or the cyclonic

separator and UV can be bypassed and the water

only treated chemically. 

If incoming ballast water is clean and without

solids, the cyclonic separator can be bypassed

and water run only through the UV. It is not

possible in this system design, however, to run

water through the separator and bypass the UV

unit, although the UV can be de-energized and

water flow through without irradiation.

Both the main and aft ballast systems will

have this functionality. Each of the four pumps

has an associated separator and UV unit;

however, one chemical tank serves the four

possible ballast supply lines with four separate

dosing pumps. The aft system is smaller in scale

and capacity than the main system, matching the

aft ballast pump capacity.

An eductor system has the capability to strip

the ballast tanks and pump directly overboard.

Hence a fifth UV unit is provided in that discharge line to provide the third stage treatment –

irradiating water flowing through that system as

it may be discharged in the receiving harbor.

Description of Polar Endeavor System

Equipment 

The following treatment equipment was

selected for installation in the Polar Endeavor:

Main Ballast System, Capacity 2860 m3/hr x

2 pumps

• Cyclonic Separators (2): MicroKill Model

3000 (Capacity 2,700 to 3,200 m3/hr)

• UV Light Treatment (2): MicroKill UV

Model MP600-08-7300 (Capacity 3,000

m3/hr @ 120mWs/cm2)

Eductor System, Capacity 500 m3/hr

• UV Light Treatment (1): MicroKill UV

Model MP300-02-2500 (Capacity 500 m3/hr

@ 50mWs/cm2)

Aft Ballast System, Capacity 1000 m3/hr x

2 pumps

• Cyclonic Separators (2): MicroKill Sep

Model 1000 (Capacity 800 to 1200 m3/hr)

• UV Light Treatment (2): MicroKill UV

Model MP300-04-2500 (Capacity 1000

m3/hr @ 50mWs/cm2)

Chemical Treatment, Capacity to treat 60,000

tons ballast at 5,720 m3/hr ballast rate.

• SeaKleen Chemical Treatment System: One

200 gallon tank with four feed pumps, each

sized for 30 liters per hour. Tank’s 200

gallon capacity is sized for chemical volume

required to treat full 60,000 m3 ballast

volume of ship.
MEETS 2001 Technical Paper Page 9

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Polar Endeavor Equipment Installation

Issues

Equipment installation in Polar Endeavor,

and potentially in all tankers, is complicated

because the ballast piping, pumps and valving

are all located in the pump room, which is a

hazardous area. The pump room also happens to

be the most crowded, densely packed space on

the vessel. 

In addition, it is probably not possible to

install a UV unit in that space because it would

introduce electrical equipment and its wiring in a

hazardous area. Electrical equipment in

hazardous areas is not allowed unless “essential

for operation purposes.” The electrical

equipment that can be allowed in the pump room

must be intrinsically safe, and so far an

intrinsically safe UV unit is not available. 

There are three potential solutions to the

problem: 1) Route the ballast piping out of the

pump room up into a small UV unit compartment accessible from the engine room and install

the UV unit in that space. 2) Continue in the

development of an intrinsically safe unit and

also gain acceptance from the regulatory bodies

that the unit is essential for operation purposes.

(OptiMarin has applied to DNV for certification

as explosionproof and intrinsically safe).

3) Drop the UV unit and proceed with other

alternatives. 

Option 1 would be the best choice, but it is

not easy to accomplish given the pump room

space arrangements and physical size of the

piping. Also, there are still potential regulatory

problems as the ballast piping could be

considered to pass through spaces where sources

of ignition are present. This alternative is shown

in Figure 4.

Additionally, although the lamps are isolated

from the internal volume of the ballast piping

with quartz sleeves, the internal piping may also

have oil vapors when dry. This problem can be

addressed by installing a flow sensor on the

piping that does not allow the UV unit to be

energized unless the pipe is full of flowing

ballast water.

We have proceeded with developing the

contract plans for the installation, and the UV

unit is included in the drawings pending

approval from the American Bureau of Shipping

(ABS) and the U.S. Coast Guard and pending

development of a unit that can be approved for

use in pump rooms. 

The aft ballast systems are much easier to

install because the components can all be in the

spacious enginerooms, and not be subject to the

space and hazardous location constraints of the

pump room. System diagrams are provided and

the arrangement of the aft ballast system in the

enginerooms can be developed and detailed by

the shipyard.

The chemical treatment system is the

simplest and least-cost installation and requires

very minor storage facilities and tank volume.

However, before discharge of the chemical is

accepted, approval of all regulatory bodies

(federal, state and local) is required. The

regulatory approval process may be long, and

may not be resolved by completion of this study

– hence the optional nature of this chemical

treatment system. 

SeaKleen is the chemical identified for this

study; the following engineering, design and

cost information is used in this report:

• The chemical is a water-soluble powder.

One kg of powder is mixed with 10 kg of

water, which treats 1,000 metric tons of

seawater.

• To treat 60,000 metric tons of ballast we

would need 60 kg (132 lb) of powder mixed

in 600 kg (1,322 lb or 160 gal) of fresh water. 

• SeaKleen is a natural biocide, relatively safe

compared with other chemicals. It has no

particular storage or handling problems or

unusual safety concerns.

• Toxicity diminishes over time so that it is

relatively benign by the time the vessel

reaches the ballast water receiving port and is

ready to discharge ballast.

• Current cost estimates from SeaKleen

indicate about $0.20 per ton of seawater

treated, based on laboratory production of the

chemical. This equates to about $200/kg of

dry chemical. The final cost may be as low

as one-half this cost, which is addressed later

in life cycle cost estimates.
MEETS 2001 Technical Paper Page 10

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Figure 4. Alternate UV Unit Location

The chemical must be mixed just before

ballasting, as degradation of the biocide begins

as soon as it is mixed with water. A 200 gallon

tank is specified because the chemical is mixed

for each trip. A storage area is required, suitable

for 900 kg (2,000 lb) of dry, powdered

SeaKleen, which is adequate for about 15 trips.

The entire system will be installed on one or two

of the flats in the vertical access above the pump

room. 

SeaKleen may be manufactured in pellets,

which would make it easier to store and use.

System Setup, Operation and Equipment

Monitoring

Ballasting operations will become significantly more complex for the ship’s crew,

although nothing that cannot be accommodated.

Ballasting operations and monitoring would

include:

Operation of the cyclonic separator: Exit

pressure is automatically monitored and the

backflow pressure valve automatically adjusted

with the changing draft of the ship. The sludge

line will have a flow meter, and much of the

other monitoring can be done with the automatic

control and monitoring system. 

Operation of the UV unit: Operation of the

UV unit is set up to be automatic. Initial

energizing of the unit at the controller will be

linked to the ballast pump startup, and final

energizing will be linked to the flow meter in the

piping. The light transmittance is monitored and

recorded, along with temperature. The unit

control panel logs the data, and a summary

alarm is added to the ship’s machinery

monitoring system to indicate if ballast is

flowing but transmittance level is below

threshold.

Operation of the chemical treatment system:

Operation of the system is relatively automatic,

with most of the impact on the crew occurring in

the setup of the system and mixing of the

chemical. The proportioning pumps will be

energized in conjunction with the corresponding

ballast pump. Chemical flow will be monitored

and again alarmed if the flow rate is below

specification. 

Mixing of the chemical in the nurse tank,

although relatively simple, will be a new

operation for most crews. First, approximately

0.6 m3 (160 gal.) of fresh water is metered into

the tank. The chemical tank will have a sight

glass for level indication. Then 60 kg (132 lb)

of powder (or pellets) is added through a hatch

in the top of the tank. The dry chemical will be

stored in an expanded metal cage adjacent to the

tank. Access platforms and fixtures to aid in the

pouring of the chemical will be provided. 

Given the sensitivity of the chemical dosage

and short duration of its effectiveness, a dry

chemical dispensing system should be
Page 11

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

developed, to dispense 10 kg at a time with a

coordinated metering of 100 kg (27 gal) of

water.

For automatic dispensing of the chemical

into the ballast tanks when gravitating, a second

dispensing rate will need to be determined so

that, at the end of the gravity fill, the proper

amount of chemical will have been added.

Sampling and Treatment Performance

Monitoring

Means must be provided to sample the ballast

water on board to determine treatment

effectiveness. It is intended that the ship’s crew

will perform this function, but on occasion a

trained science technician will come aboard to

test the efficacy of the system. Sampling ports

are provided in three places: incoming ballast

before the cyclonic separator, outgoing ballast

after the UV treatment, and at the sludge

discharge. 

A simple test kit will have to be developed

and supplied to ships’ crews, and they must be

trained in its use.

System Maintenance

Maintenance of the ballast water treatment

systems specified is relatively low. There is no

maintenance on the cyclonic separator, and the

UV unit only needs lamp replacement and

occasional calibration of the light intensity

monitoring equipment. The chemical treatment

system also may require little maintenance. 

A section that follows on life-cycle costs

includes the effect of the system on ballast pump

maintenance (from increased usage). 

Personnel Training and Safety

The proposed systems do not present any

particularly problematic training or safety issue.

The systems are much less complex than many

of the other systems on the vessel. Safety issues

relating to the handling and storage of the

chemical are minor. Coveralls, gloves and face

masks will be all that is necessary.

Polar Endeavor Shipyard Scope of Work

The treatment systems on the Polar

Endeavor are divided into four areas of work.

The owner can select these components for

implementation either individually or

collectively. They are:

1) Main ballast system cyclonic separators.

The ballast system piping will be modified

to install the cyclonic separators (two, one

for each ballast pump) as shown on the

drawing, including its foundation, sludge

lines and new dedicated overboard

discharge. New hydraulic actuated valves

will be installed with control integrated into

the ship’s ballast valve control system.

2) Main ballast system UV light treatment

units. The ballast system piping will be

modified to install the UV units (three total),

as shown on the drawing, including foundation, control panel and power panel.

Electrical power (480 VAC 60 kW each for

the two main units and 5 kW for the eductor

unit) will be fed from an auxiliary

machinery power panel, and control and

monitoring wiring will interconnect the

equipment with the ship’s alarm system.

New hydraulic actuated valves will be

installed with control integrated into the

ship’s ballast valve control system.

3) Aft ballast system cyclonic separators and

UV units. The aft ballast system piping will

be modified to install cyclonic separators

(two) and UV units (two), as shown on the

drawing, including foundations, sludge

lines, and new dedicated overboard

discharge line. All equipment will be

installed in the two main enginerooms, port

and starboard. The new hydraulic valves

will be remotely controlled by the cargo

control system. Alarm and monitoring

systems will be modified to allow the new

inputs.

4) Chemical treatment system. The fresh water

system will be extended to a flat in the

vertical access above the pump room, where

a 200 gallon fabricated tank will be

installed. The fresh water piping will be

arranged to meter into the tank (an air gap

must be provided). On the level above the

tank the dry chemical storage area will be

fabricated of expanded metal cage. The

tank will have a hinged hatch in the top for

adding the chemical. Independent supply

piping will run to each of four air-powered
Page 12

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

diaphragm pumps for injecting the

chemical, and chemical feed piping will run

to the designated ballast mains. 

Installation Cost Estimating Assumptions

and Data

A budgetary cost estimate was developed for

this study, which is intended to be confirmed by

a shipyard quotation. An in-house historical

cost database was used to generate the estimate.

Typical estimating assumptions were made as

follows:

• Shipyard labor rate of $50/hr.

• Shipyard engineering cost about 15% of the

installation cost.

• Material markup of 15%. This is a fairly

standard value among most yards.

• Estimating contingency of 12%. This value

is appropriate for this contract design level,

particularly since we have firm quotations

for the treatment equipment.

A summary of the estimate is provided in

Table 4.

Life Cycle Cost Analysis Assumptions

and Data

The method for calculating life cycle costs is

presented as follows:

Life Cycle Cost is the overall estimated cost

for the particular modification over the assumed

remaining life of the ship, including direct and

indirect initial non-recurring costs plus any

periodic or recurring costs of operation and

maintenance. Life cycle cost is simply the sum

of the projected cash flow over the life of the

ship, including assumed inflation rates that vary

with the cost components.

Present Value of the Life Cycle Cost is the

present worth or value of the projected cash flow

assuming a discount rate. 

Discount Rate is the nominal interest rate that

the owner may expect to obtain if he were to

invest the same money at t=0 in an income

producing venture, either in other internal

company projects or in external investments. 

This is a highly variable number. It will vary

among owners, as well as depend on prime

interest rates at the time, projected profit

margins for the company, and target corporate

rate of return.

Uniform Equivalent Annual Cost is the

present value of the life cycle cost distributed

over the life of the ship using the same discount

rate, so that each year has a equal cost. This is

also known as the average annual cost (AAC).

The following assumptions were applied in

the life cycle cost analysis for the Polar

Endeavor:

• Life of the ship: 30 years

• Hypothetical discount rate: 8%

• Shipboard crew labor rate, 

direct + indirect: $50/hr

• Inflation rates

Fuel and Chemicals: 3.0%

Labor: 5.5%

UV lamps and parts: 4.0%

• Increased ballast pump usage was calculated

as described earlier, including: the effect of

non-gravitating, the increased head in the

system from the CS’s, a 5% increase in total

pump volume required to fill the tanks due

to the sludge discharge of the CS, the

increase in pump maintenance and the

increased fuel consumption for generating

electrical power to drive the pumps. 

• UV lamps have a 1000 hour life, and their

material cost as well as the labor cost of

replacing the lamps is included. UV units

are energized for both the ballasting and

deballasting operations.

• The increased fuel consumption for generating UV unit electrical power is included.

• The cost of the chemical additive is included

on a per-ton basis, assuming 2 hours of labor

each trip to handle and mix the chemical.

• Polar Tankers reports they have no

significant problems with the accumulation

of mud in the ballast tanks of TAPS trade

tankers, so there is no cost savings

associated with reducing mud in the tanks.

The results of life cycle cost analysis for the

Polar Endeavor are presented in Table 5.
Page 13

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Table 4. Installed Cost Data – Polar Endeavor

Item Material Cost Labor Cost Material Markup Contingency Total

1. Main Ballast

System Cyclonic

Separators

$321,000 $83,000 $48,000 $39,000 $491,000

2. Main Ballast

System UV Light

Treatment Units

$427,000 $181,000 $64,000 $73,000 $745,000

3. Aft Ballast System

Cyclonic Separators and UV Units

$474,000 $135,000 $71,000 $73,000 $753,000

4. Chemical

Treatment

$38,000 $22,000 $6,000 $5,000 $71,000

Table 5. Life Cycle Cost Data – Polar Endeavor

Item Life Cycle (LC)

Cost

Present Value of

LC Cost

Uniform Equivalent Annual Cost

(AAC)

1. Main Ballast System

Cyclonic Separators

$726,000 $561,000 $50,000

2. Main Ballast System

UV Light Treatment

Units

$1,530,000 $815,000 $72,000

3. Aft Ballast System

Cyclonic Separators and

UV Units

$1,049,000 $832,000 $74,000

4a. Chemical Treatment @

$0.20 / ton

$10,233,000 $3,583,000 $318,000

4b. Chemical Treatment @

$0.10 / ton

$5,353,000 $1,884,000 $167,000

Cost Scenarios

The life cycle cost data can be combined in

various ways, depending on final owner

decisions on implementation, and in

consideration of the latest data on treatment

effectiveness of the various systems. For

example purposes, we assume the following

hypothetical scenario:

• Install the cyclonic separators in the main

ballast system as primary treatment.

• Do not install the UV units in the main ballast system because regulatory acceptance for

the installation is not in place.

• Install the chemical treatment system for use

in the main ballast system. Assume that the

regulatory agencies have approved its use and

cost is $0.10 / ton ballast water.

• Install the aft ballast system – separator and

UV units, because installation is simpler and

relatively cost effective.

Table 6 presents the cost data for this

scenario. While present value cost in $/ton is

one cost measure, it is important to note that this

cost will vary greatly among ships even when

the same system type is installed in the same

ship type. Economic factors such as life of the

ship and the owner’s particular discount rate

have a significant impact on the resulting

number.
Page 14

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Table 6. Hypothetical Scenario Cost Summary – Polar Endeavor

Item Installation Cost Present Value of

Life Cycle Cost

Uniform Equivalent Annual Cost

(AAC)

1. Cyclonic Separators

in Main Ballast

System

$491,000 $561,000 $50,000

4b. Chemical Treatment

System (@$0.10/ton)

$71,000 $1,884,000 $167,000

3. Aft Ballast System $753,000 $832,000 $74,000

Totals $3,277,000 $291,000

Tons of Ballast Pumped (Life Cycle and AAC) 43,056,000 1,435,200

Cost/Ton (Life Cycle and AAC) $0.08 $0.20

DESIGN SUMMARY –

R.J. PFEIFFER

Pfeiffer Ballast System Characteristics,

Ballasting Practices and Common Port Calls

R.J. Pfeiffer trades on the U.S. West Coast

and in Hawaii, ballasting and deballasting to

maintain stability and control trim and list.

Typical port calls include Long Beach, Oakland,

Seattle and Honolulu. Pfeiffer has a total ballast

capacity of 14,300 m3 as compared with the

60,000 m3 of Polar Endeavor, but the ballast

can be loaded into 26 different tanks compared

with 17 in Endeavor. The Pfeiffer is outfitted

with a separate heeling pump and two dedicated

wing tanks, one port and one starboard, to adjust

for adverse heel associated with unbalanced

cargo loading conditions. 

Pfeiffer carries ballast in the full-load

condition for stability and in a partial load

condition for trim. Currently, the ship’s ballast

system does not have the capability to transfer

ballast between tanks. As a result, ballast water

is discharged to the sea when tanks are

deballasted even though new ballast water may

be brought into other tanks to reach the desired

load condition. If possible, ballast adjustments

are made at sea prior to arriving, in anticipation

of the expected loads, or after departing the port.

Some ballasting may be necessary during

container loading and unloading operations. A

review of previous voyages indicates that a total

of about 400 to 500 tons may be loaded in

multiple ports during a typical round-trip

voyage. Most ballast discharged in port is deep

ocean water.

Unlike the Polar Endeavor, Pfeiffer does not

utilize gravity flow ballasting, and the added

pump energy to overcome the added pressure

losses is negligible in this size range,

particularly given the smaller quantities pumped.

Increase in ballasting time is only the amount to

make up for the sludge discharge, which is

accounted for in the life cycle costs (there is a

minor amount of added fuel for the added power

generation) but has no impact on the ballast

operations. 

Treatment Philosophy and Functionality

We have selected treatment systems that have

demonstrated effectiveness for this study. The

initial plan, based on the results from the Great

Lakes testing [3, 5] was to pursue a filter system

with automatic backflush as the primary

treatment and a UV light unit as the secondary

system. However, the cyclonic separator was

chosen as the preferred primary treatment

because of the mechanical simplicity of the

separator as compared to the filters. The actual

shipboard maintenance costs for the filters are

also not yet fully understood. The separator also

fits better into the engineroom arrangement.

Normal ballasting operations require the use

of only one pump, so only one treatment system,

consisting of separator and UV unit, is needed. 
Page 15

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Both the separator and the UV system are sized

to the 350 m3/hour (1,500 gpm) capacity. The

system is designed so that ballast water flows

through both the separator and the UV unit when

loaded, but only through the UV unit on the

discharge. The cross connection to permit

transfer of ballast forward and aft (and only

forward and aft) would be made on the port side. 

While both options are studied, only one is

intended for installation.

Chemical treatment is not desired or

considered at this time for this vessel.

Description of System Equipment

The following treatment equipment was

selected for installation in the R.J. Pfeiffer.

• Option 1 (preferred)

Primary Treatment: Cyclonic Separator,

MicroKill Sep, Model SKX350

Secondary Treatment: UV Light Treatment,

MicroKill UV, Model MP300-04-2500

• Option 2

Primary Treatment: MicroKill Filter, Model

6 x 4" with backflush unit

Secondary Treatment: UV Light Treatment,

MicroKill UV, Model MP300-04-2500

Equipment Installation Issues

Equipment installation on R.J. Pfeiffer is

relatively simple compared with the Polar

Endeavor. There are no hazardous space

complications, and the engineroom (although

not spacious) has available room for the

machinery. There are no significant equipment

installation issues. 

System Setup, Operation and Equipment

Monitoring

Ballast operations and monitoring of the

cyclonic separator and UV unit are similar to

those discussed for Polar Endeavor, but the

setup, operation and monitoring of the filter

system is unique to the R.J. Pfeiffer.

The equipment provider has proposed that the

Pfeiffer filtration unit be continually backflushed

as required during the ballasting operation. The

backflush process is begun by securing the

valves on the input and output side of one

filtration element. A separate backflushing

pump with a hydrophore tank will be activated

and used to manually backflush that element of

the filtration unit. The backflush water will be

collected in a separate tank and then discharged

using a newly installed line to the suction side of

the existing bilge/ballast eductor. The actual

discharge process could be accomplished either

in port or at sea after leaving port. Alternatively,

the tank could be emptied automatically using a

float activated switch controlling a dedicated

pump and a separate discharge pipe line with a

hull penetration and appropriate valving.

Particular to the R.J. Pfeiffer, and possibly

other vessels, it will not be simple to add to the

existing alarm and monitoring system. The

system is a custom, one-off design that is

difficult to change because of lack of vendor

support. It will probably be necessary to install

independent alarms and monitoring for the

ballast treatment system, keeping the monitoring

system independent of the main ship system.

Sampling and Treatment Performance

Monitoring

Sampling ports will be provided to sample

ballast water on board to determine treatment

effectiveness, in the same manner discussed for

Polar Endeavor. See an earlier Polar Endeavor

section on sampling.

System Maintenance

Maintenance issues are manageable for both

options. Issues of UV light intensity calibration

and lamp replacement will be the same as on

Polar Endeavor, with added maintenance

imposed by the filter unit. The section on life

cycle costs, below, includes the effect of

maintenance on ship’s crew costs.

Personnel Training and Safety

Training and safety issues are also

manageable. See the discussion for Polar

Endeavor.

Shipyard Scope of Work

The two options for treatment systems on

R.J. Pfeiffer have separate shipyard work scopes.

Option 1 – Cyclonic separator with UV light

treatment unit serving the starboard side ballast

pump.
Page 16

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

The ballast system piping will be modified

to install the cyclonic separator as shown on

the drawing, including its foundation, sludge

line and new dedicated overboard discharge.

New motor operated valves will be installed. 

The ballast system piping will be modified

to install the UV unit as shown on the

drawing, including foundation, control panel

and power panel. 

Electrical power (approximately 5 kW)

will be fed from an auxiliary machinery power

panel. 

Control and monitoring wiring will

interconnect the equipment to the control

panel installed in the machinery control room

and to the ballast control station in the ship’s

office on the main deck.

Option 2 – Filter system with UV light treatment

unit serving the starboard side ballast pump.

The ballast system piping will be modified

to install an Arkal filter system with a separate

manual backflush pump and hydrophore tank.

The unit will be configured to best fit into the

space, providing access to all components. 

The backflush holding tank will be installed complete with level indicator signaling

automatic startup of the backflush discharge

pump. A dedicated overboard discharge

piping line with hull valves will be installed.

Power for the solenoid valves will be fed to

the unit control panel from a local 120V

power panel. 

Installation Cost Estimating Assumptions

and Data

We applied the same cost estimating

assumptions to R.J. Pfeiffer as we did to Polar

Endeavor. A summary of the estimate is

provided in Table 7. 

Life Cycle Cost Analysis Assumptions &

Data

Life cycle cost estimating methods for

R.J. Pfeiffer are the same as for Polar Endeavor,

but there are a few differences in the

assumptions:

• Remaining life of the ship: 20 years

• Hypothetical discount rate: 8%

• Shipboard crew labor rate, 

direct and indirect: $50/hr

• Inflation rates

Fuel: 3%

Labor: 5.5%

UV lamps and filter parts: 4%

• UV lamps have a 1000 hour life. Material

cost, as well as the labor cost of replacing

the lamps, is included.

• The increased fuel consumption for generating electrical power for the UV units is

included.

• Cost savings for reduced mud in tanks is

considered insignificant in the Pfeiffer and is

not addressed.

The results of the life cycle cost analysis for

R.J. Pfeiffer are presented in Table 8. Table 9

gives a summary of cost.

Table 7. Installed Cost Data – R.J. Pfeiffer

Option Material Cost Labor Cost Material Markup Contingency Total

1. Cyclonic Separator

and UV Light

Treatment Unit

$159,000 $35,000 $24,000 $19,000 $237,000

OR

2. Arkal Filter and

UV Light

Treatment Unit

$179,000 $54,000 $27,000 $28,000 $288,000
Page 17

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

Table 8. Life Cycle Cost Data – R.J. Pfeiffer

Option Life Cycle (LC)

Cost

Present Value of

LC Cost

Uniform

Equivalent

Annual Cost

(AAC)

1. Cyclonic Separator

with UV Light

Treatment

$304,000 $257,000 $26,000

2. Filter with UV Light

Treatment 

$427,000 $330,000 $34,000

Table 9. Cost Summary – R.J. Pfeiffer

Option Installation Cost Present Value of

Life Cycle Cost

Uniform

Equivalent

Annual Cost

(AAC)

1. Cyclonic Separator

with UV Light

Treatment

$237,000 $257,000 $26,000

Tons of Ballast

Pumped, Remaining

Life of Ship & /year

--- 260,000 13,000

Life Cycle and AAC

in $ per ton --- $1.00 $2.00

2. Filter with UV Light

Treatment

$288,000 $330,000 $34,000

Tons of Ballast

Pumped over

Remaining Life of

Ship

--- 260,000 13,000

Life Cycle and AAC

in $ per ton --- $1.26 $2.60

CONCLUSIONS

Ballast water treatment technologies are

advancing beyond the scientific investigation

stage to the engineering stage, where potential

ship systems can be evaluated, designed and

installed. Nonetheless, continued scientific

bench testing and additional full-scale testing of

treatment solutions are needed.

Ship owners must know that their treatment

installation will have long term acceptance by

the regulatory bodies in order to confidently

proceed with installations. They want assurance

that, after initial approvals, regulations do not

immediately change and become more stringent.

The owners recognize their responsibility to

maintain and monitor the equipment over the life

of the vessel, but the initial installation must

promise acceptable results.

Selection of appropriate methods of cost

analysis are also important to properly assess the

treatment systems. The present value in $/ton of

ballast pumped is one measure of economic

merit that sounds simple, as does increase in

required freight rate. However, these measures

are difficult to use across various ship types.

Methods of evaluating treatment system cost

must be specific to each type of vessel (volume
Page 18

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey 1 June 2001

of ballast handled varies), to each individual

ship within a type (remaining ship life varies)

and to each owner (economic models vary).

Further discussion and evaluation of

appropriate economic measures is needed. It

may then be possible to tabulate expected life

cycle costs against varying vessel type,

remaining ship life and owner economic model.

However, the economic assessment is complex

and we anticipate that each individual ship will

need its own installation evaluation.

For a given ship, a rough evaluation can be

made by following the approaches presented in

this paper. The ship owner, along with their

naval architect/marine engineer, will look at (in

order):

1) Ballast system operational changes that do

not affect ship operations.

2) Piping modifications.

3) Installation of new treatment equipment.

Selection of this equipment and the

associated treatment method will be based not

only on life cycle cost, but also on simplicity of

changes and owner preferences and judgment.

Elements of the system installation design and

equipment selection processes will vary from

ship to ship.

REFERENCES

1. Mackey, T.P., R.D. Tagg, M.G. Parsons,

“Technologies for Ballast Water

Management,” 8th ICMES 2000/SNAME

New York Metropolitan Section

Symposium, May 22-23, 2000.

2. Parsons, M.G., R.W. Harkins, T. P. Mackey,

D.L. Munro, A. Cangelosi, “Design of the

Great lakes Ballast Technology

Demonstration Project,” SNAME

Transactions, Vol. 105, 1997.

3. Parsons, M.G. and R.W. Harkins, “The

Great Lakes Ballast Technology

Demonstration Project Filtration Mechanical

Test Program,” Marine Technology, Vol. 37,

No. 3, Summer 2000.

4. Technology Summary, International Ballast

Water Treatment R&D Symposium, IMO

London, Global Ballast Water Management

Programme, 26-27 March 2001.

5. Cangelosi, A, et al., “Prepublication Report

on Preliminary Results (Confidential)

Bioeffectiveness Study of a Commercially

Available Ballast Treatment System (HydeOptimarin Shipboard Cyclonic Separator

and Ultraviolet Radiation System), Feb. 12,

2001.

6. Mackey, T.P. “Ballast Water Treatment

Technologies: Including a Review of Initial

Testing and Lessons Learned Aboard the

Regal Princess,” Marine Environmental

Engineering Technology Symposium,

(MEETS), ASNE / SNAME, 1 June 2001 

7. Tagg, R.D., “Ballast Water Management –

Mitigating the Introduction of Invasive

Marine Organisms form Ship’s Ballast

Water,” SNAME Joint California Sections

Meeting, May 19, 1999.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Great Lakes Ballast Demonstration Project

has made another important step in addressing

the problems associated with the introduction of

non-indigenous species (NIS) into marine

ecosystems. The marine engineering

represented in this paper addresses two ships or

ship classes. More importantly, two major U.S.

ship owners participated in the process, and they

are much closer to getting viable ballast

treatment systems installed in ships.

Polar Tankers, Inc., and Matson Navigation

Company are acknowledged for their input,

enthusiasm and support for this project and this

paper. 

William L. Hurley, Jr., P.E., is the principal

author and he is President of The Glosten

Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA.

Spencer S. Schilling, Jr., is Vice President of

Herbert Engineering Corp., Alameda, CA.

Thomas P. Mackey, is President of Hyde

Marine, Inc., Cleveland, OH.
Appendix

Page A-1

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey Appendix

Figure A-1. Polar Endeavor Aft Ballast Treatment System (starboard side shown, port side similar)

Figure A-2. Polar Endeavor Main Ballast Treatment System, CS Detail and UV (one side shown,

other side similar)

from

pump

to tanks or

overboard
Page A-2

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey Appendix

Figure A-3. Polar Endeavor Ballast Stripping Eductor UV Treatment System 

Figure A-4. Polar Endeavor Chemical Treatment System Detail

from ballast

tanks

to main

ballast stbd

to main

ballast port

to aft ballast

tank piping
Page A-3

MEETS 2001 Technical Paper

Hurley, Schilling, Mackey Appendix

Figure A-5. R.J. Pfeiffer Ballast System Modifications