BEWARE - Scrubber wash water being discharged!!!

As per the IMO, the problem with sulphur emissions from Heavy Fuel Oil is as follows:

"In the atmosphere, SOx can lead to acid rain, which can harm crops, forests and aquatic species, and contributes to the acidification of the oceans."

So by using Open Loop Scrubbers which pump wash water directly overboard, wouldn't it be correct to say:

"Open loop systems merely bypass the atmosphere and pump the noxious material directly to the ocean, effectively speeding up the destructive process”

In an article released in Oct 2018, a leading scrubber manufacturer highlighted the dangers of using scrubbers with cheaper materials over more expensive corrosion-proof material, which begs the question - "What corrosion? - If scrubber wash-water is "as safe as drinking water" why would we need robust anti corrosion materials?

The shipping industry is currently in the process of collectively investing about 10 billion dollars into scrubber technology as one of the methods to comply with the 2020 sulphur regulations, about 70% of which will be based on open loop scrubbers and we are still not clear whether the process is acceptable or causes a bigger problem elsewhere.

The IMO's Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response was supposed to undertake a review of the 2015 Guidelines on Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems at PPR 6, held in Feb 2019, however they only agreed to an extension of the target completion year to 2020 with a view to continuing the review at PPR 7.

In the meantime individual Port states have already begun banning the discharge from open loop scrubbers (Map courtesy of GARD) and most recently the European Commission called for stricter discharge criteria for open-loop scrubbers. Some port states have even been able to impose fines as highlighted in a previous article - SCRUB - Good? SLUDGE - BAD! POLLUTION - NASTY!!

Expert studies have been released by both sides of the debate which should have been expected. Everytime ANY industry has a contentious issue, there is very "CLEAR" evidence that it is both "EXEMPLARY" and "CATASTROPHIC" at the same time. These are just a few examples:

In the 1950's the highly successful Tobacco industry faced a crisis of cataclysmic proportions. Smoking had been categorically linked to the dramatic rise of lung cancer. So they did what any responsible industry would do - They hired lobbyists, paid off doctors and funded researchers and over the years they have publicly denied that smoking causes lung cancer. Until recently the industry has even denied its product is addictive.

Hinkley is still best known as the “Erin Brockovich town.” In 1996 a group of residents famously won a massive direct-action arbitration against Pacific Gas and Electric. The utility company was found liable for dumping hexavalent chromium (aka chromium-6), a carcinogen used to suppress rust formation at the Hinkley gas compressor station, into an unlined pond in the ’50s and ’60s. The chemical seeped into the town’s groundwater. PG&E hid the crisis and misled the community on the effects of that specific type of chromium and its possible connection to health problems in the town through contradicting literature supported by doctors and chemical experts.

In 2015, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that Volkswagen installed illegal defeat devices in hundreds of thousands of 2.0-litre engines in the United States since 2009. The software, helped the cars meet exhaust pollution standards when monitored in tests but on the road their emissions exceeded the limits. The company later admitted that some 11 million diesel vehicles worldwide, including 8.5 million in Europe, and 600,000 in the United States, had been fitted with the software. Investigators found that some cars spewed out up to 40 times more harmful nitrogen oxide—linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases—than legally allowed. The scandal has so far cost the Volkswagen Group around $30 billion and is still likely to rise by several billion dollars.

Keeping the above catastrophes in mind, shipping industry regulators need to honestly evaluate whether it is logical to accept that a ship burning HFO, with an open loop scrubber will be able to use seawater to scrub all air pollution causing impurities at the funnel, and then pump the contaminated water straight back into the sea without any effect to the marine environment.

Is it reasonable to accept that "treatment" of dirty wash-water by dilution is all it takes to get rid of those nasty death causing emissions?

Rising CO2 levels and and its corresponding absorption, has already caused the chemical balance of our oceans and coastal waters to change. Known as ocean acidification, this process makes it difficult for shellfish, corals and other marine organisms to grow, reproduce and build their shells and skeletons. Surface level pH values have been declining rather rapidly of late. Therefore isn't it absurd that we are actually considering the use of "water" to trap "sulphur" and then pumping that mixture back into the ocean without treatment? Surely basic school level chemistry should indicate that water and sulphur mixed together forms an acidic mixture which will further exacerbate the lowering of pH levels in our oceans and coastal waters.

Hopefully, our industry is able to rally together, to do what is right instead of trying to defend a dodgy method of complying with important legislation whose sole purpose is to protect our environment. There is nothing wrong with scrubber technology, we just need to be responsible with how we handle the waste and byproduct of the process before it creates a bigger problem.