Tests by water treatment specialists at RWO indicate how shipowners waste money when they are persuaded to use non-OEM filters in their oily water separator systems.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) sets specific demands for the water treatment equipment fitted on board ships of 400 gross tonnage and above, including oily water separators (OWS).

The International Maritime Organization instrument limits effluent levels of water discharged into the marine environment limits to 15 parts per million, with specific classification notations applying a tighter  5 ppm limit. To demonstrate their compliance, OWS systems must be tested and installed in line with the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee resolution MEPC 107(49). 

For several original equipment manufacturers (OEM), the OWS operation comprises two stages: the coalescence stage and the filter stage, which relies on active carbon filter cartridges.

In common with other areas of marine equipment, filter cartridges for OWS are available from OEM and non-OEM suppliers. The non-OEM parts are frequently cheaper and as a result, many operators with challenging maintenance/OPEX budgets choose the non-OEM option in the belief they are ensuring compliance with a similar-quality product for a lower cost. 

However, while seeming to be equivalent, non-OEM parts will not have been subject to rigorous type approval performance testing. By choosing non-OEM filters, an operator is not only invalidating the guarantee but also the certification of the OWS, leading to a significant compliance issue. Non-compliance caused by using non-OEM spares may result, in certain circumstances, in hefty fines by administrations in the event of a pollution incident.

Beyond superficial similarities such as shape and colour, a close physical comparison of OEM and non-OEM filter cartridges can reveal key differences between the two. For example, OEM cartridges are heavier and more robust, with their smaller pores creating a smoother surface structure which offers superior oil capture.

Beyond the visual clues, tests show that OEM filters contain more active carbon, which ensures better performance and durability. 

Test comparison 

RWO conducted a performance test to compare its own cartridges with those offered by two non-OEM traders. The tests were carried out under IMO type approval testing regime, with the effluent water analysed by an independent water laboratory to ensure impartiality.

With filter cartridge 1, the OWS reached the 15-ppm effluent limit within 10 minutes of operation. A vessel operator might need to exchange the filter set more than 15 times to meet RWO filter performance. Filter cartridge 2, meanwhile, initially appeared to perform adequately, but here too 

effluent levels reached the 15-ppm limit before the type approval requirement. In this case, the owner would need to exchange the filter set at least twice to meet RWO filter performance. For full comparative test results, see here. 

Even if non-OEM spares cost the operator half the price of those supplied by the OEM, RWO’s test data indicates that the life-cycle cost of using non-OEM spares may end up being higher due to more frequent replacement – depending on bilge water composition.

There are reports that several unauthorized distributors provide non-OEM spares that they claim are original but, where RWO cartridge filters are concerned, the real thing will always be recognizable by the RWO stamp on it as well as its performance. 

Those requiring replacements can be assured that genuine RWO cartridge filters are available worldwide. Furthermore, as well as ensuring that regulatory compliance is upheld, their efficiency protects the business interests of the user by minimising running costs, labour hours and downtime throughout the OWS lifecycle.

ENDS

True cyber resilience demands a risk-management approach that looks beyond compliance with cyber requirements, according to the panellists of a recent webinar on cyber security.

Aiming to establish minimum requirements for the cyber-resilience of newbuild vessels and their connected systems, IACS unified requirements (URs) E26 and E27 provide a new benchmark for shipping’s response to its growing exposure to cyber-attacks.

Officially in force from 1 July 2024 and broadly welcomed by industry, the new URs represent another step forward in strengthening Maritime’s resilience to the evolving cyber threat. However, according to a thought-provoking discussion recently hosted by Edwin Lampert, Executive Editor of Riviera in partnership with Inmarsat Maritime (a Viasat company), shipping companies must still conduct comprehensive risk assessments and implement appropriate mitigation measures.

Kostas Grivas, Information Security Officer, Angelicoussis Group told the ‘IACS URs E26 & E27: Bridging the gap between regulation and implementation’ session that the URs bring “obvious benefits” such as eliminating “scattered requirements”. They provide “common and crystal-clear ground for auditing and control purposes”, and establish “a solid description of the minimum technical,  procedural, and other criteria that govern a vessel’s cyber resilience”, he said. Finally, they ensure “all stakeholders are responsible for the vessel’s cyber security”.

Makiko Tani, Deputy Manager, Cyber Security at classification society ClassNK, also acknowledged that the new requirements will “contribute to the visibility of ever-digitalising shipboard networks and their assets”, however, as there is no one-size-fits all cybersecurity solution to all, she continued, “additional controls beyond those specified in the requirements may be necessary, depending on the vessel’s connectivity”.

To properly address the cyber risks that a specific vessel is exposed to, she said, “shipowners must conduct a thorough cyber-risk assessment. This relies on a ‘C-level commitment’ to establishing a cyber-security programme that facilitates compliance with URs E26 and E27 and any other future industry requirements while supporting the organisation’s digital transformation strategy”.

The importance of looking beyond the IACS URs was also emphasised by Laurie Eve, Chief of Staff, Inmarsat Maritime, who proposed three key areas where companies should “focus and invest not only to meet new requirements but also to go beyond compliance and build good cyber resilience”.

“The first key area, ‘people and culture’, addresses the notion that people are the weakest link in cyber security. According to a 2023 report from the United States Coast Guard as well as findings from Inmarsat’s security operations centres, phishing is the most common initial access vector in cyber-attacks. Investing in people, therefore, should be an absolute no brainer”, commented Eve.

Specifically, he continued, a company should focus on training and awareness, managing user privileges, investing in a quality management system and standards such as ISO 27001, assessing suppliers’ risk-management practices, and embedding cyber-security in the organisation’s continuous improvement culture.

The second key area is ‘network-connected systems and services’. Given the number of attack surfaces on board a vessel and the ever-growing volumes of data moving between systems, many companies lack the time and resources to address all possible weaknesses. The solution, Eve said, is a risk-management approach in which the organisation assesses the risks, sets its risk appetite, and implements security measures according to the costs it is willing and able to bear.

The third and final key area according to Eve is an ‘incident response plan’ (IRP). It’s prudent to assume that at some point there will be failures and a breach, an IRP comprises a robust set of contingencies to keep the cost of business disruption to a minimum. It requires investment in backup and data systems as well as regular staff training. “Having a plan is good; training, rehearsing, and improving the plan is better,” explained Eve.

While these recommendations apply to all ship owners, Eve acknowledged that there are differences from small to large operators in terms of the budget and internal capability invested in cyber resilience. “Inmarsat’s Fleet Secure offers a ‘one-stop shop’ for cyber-security requirements which make it a particularly good fit for “smaller operators without the in-house capability to put together their own solutions”, he said. 

Combining three powerful components – Fleet Secure Endpoint, Fleet Secure Unified Threat Management, and Fleet Secure Cyber Awareness Training – the Fleet Secure portfolio provides the tools and facilitates a risk-management approach, supporting “compliance with the new requirements” and, more broadly, “increasing cyber resilience”, Eve added.

ENDS