Parker Kittiwake Developments acquired by Parker Hannifin

 

 

 

CLEVELAND, July 16, 2012 — Parker Hannifin Corporation (NYSE: PH), the global leader in motion and control technologies, today announced that it has acquired Kittiwake Developments Limited based in Littlehampton, United Kingdom. Kittiwake Developments is a leading manufacturer of condition monitoring technology including wear debris sensors, oil testing and analysis instrumentation and acoustic, vibration and gas emissions monitoring sensors. These products are used alongside filtration technology in the commercial marine, oil and gas, power generation and defence markets.

The acquired business has annual sales of approximately $20 million and employs 95 people. Kittiwake Developments will be integrated into Parker’s Filtration Group and the sales will be reported as part of the International Industrial Segment.

“Kittiwake Developments will allow us to extend our position in diagnostic products and reinforce our ability to offer our customers complete health monitoring solution for their filtration systems,” said Peter Popoff, President of Parker’s Filtration Group. “We welcome the employees of Kittiwake to Parker and are excited about the growth opportunities this combination creates.”

With annual sales exceeding $12 billion in fiscal year 2011, Parker Hannifin is the world’s leading diversified manufacturer of motion and control technologies and systems, providing precision-engineered solutions for a wide variety of mobile, industrial and aerospace markets. The company employs approximately 58,000 people in 47 countries around the world. Parker has increased its annual dividends paid to shareholders for 56 consecutive fiscal years, among the top five longest-running dividend-increase records in the S&P 500 index. For more information, visit the company’s web site at www.parker.com, or its investor information web site at www.phstock.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

Forward-looking statements contained in this and other written and oral reports are made based on known events and circumstances at the time of release, and as such, are subject in the future to unforeseen uncertainties and risks. All statements regarding future performance, earnings projections, events or developments are forward-looking statements. It is possible that the future performance and earnings projections of the company, including its individual segments, may differ materially from current expectations, depending on economic conditions within its mobile, industrial and aerospace markets, and the company’s ability to maintain and achieve anticipated benefits associated with announced realignment activities, strategic initiatives to improve operating margins, actions taken to combat the effects of the current economic environment, and growth, innovation and global diversification initiatives. A change in the economic conditions in individual markets may have a particularly volatile effect on segment performance. Among other factors which may affect future performance are: changes in business relationships with and purchases by or from major customers, suppliers or distributors, including delays or cancellations in shipments, disputes regarding contract terms or significant changes in financial condition, changes in contract cost and revenue estimates for new development programs and changes in product mix; ability to identify acceptable strategic acquisition targets; uncertainties surrounding timing, successful completion or integration of acquisitions; ability to realize anticipated cost savings from business realignment activities; threats associated with and efforts to combat terrorism; uncertainties surrounding the ultimate resolution of outstanding legal proceedings, including the outcome of any appeals; competitive market conditions and resulting effects on sales and pricing; increases in raw material costs that cannot be recovered in product pricing; the company’s ability to manage costs related to insurance and employee retirement and health care benefits; and global economic factors, including manufacturing activity, air travel trends, currency exchange rates, difficulties entering new markets and general economic conditions such as inflation, deflation, interest rates and credit availability. The company makes these statements as of the date of this disclosure, and undertakes no obligation to update them unless otherwise required by law.

Offshore Technology Conference, Houston 2012 – Visit Kittiwake on Booth 2241-D

On 30th April – 3rd May, Kittiwake will be exhibiting at OTC 2012.

Come and see us on Booth 2241-D to see how our on-line and on-board condition monitoring solutions can help maximize up-time. Find out how we can help you make informed decisions about asset operation, lubricant changes, emissions levels, and service intervals, on the spot.

  • Reduce Risk
  • Increase Up-Time
  • Monitor Emissions
  • Implement Predictive Service Intervals
  • Full Critical Asset Coverage
  • Simple to Use
  • Rapid Integration
For more information visit us on Booth 2241-D or www.kittiwake.com.
We look forward to seeing you there!

lubMONITOR software: for use with ANALEX fdM, fdM+ and Kittiwake OTC

Kittiwake’s lubMONITOR® is a common software platform that can upload data from Kittiwake’s ANALEX fdM, ANALEX fdM+ and the Kittiwake Oil Test Centre (OTC).

The software is available in three variants:

  • Kittiwake lubMONITOR®: Lube monitoring for OTC
  • ANALEX feMONITOR®: Ferrous monitoring for fdM or fdM+
  • Kittiwake lubMONITOR® & ANALEX feMONITOR®: Combined software for both Lube Oil and Ferrous Monitoring
Features:
  • Hierarchical format: easy to view and set up
  • OTC, fdM & fdM+ data management: options for monitoring trends, setting pre-defined alarms and graphically representing measured parameters
  • Email reports generated directly from the software
  • Data transfer options
  • Compare various parameters to similar machines for diagnosis
To purchase the lubMONITOR® software or for further information please contact Kittiwake Proactive Technologies:
sales@kittiwakeproactive.com
Tel: +91 11 4158 6692

Condition Monitoring: why acoustic emission represents the next generation of vibration

History, experience and familiarity count for a lot where conditioning monitoring is concerned. But that doesn’t negate the need for change, innovation and the advancement of tried, tested and trusted techniques. The late Steve Jobs commented: “Innovation is the ability to see change as an opportunity – not a threat”. Condition monitoring (CM) is transforming rapidly and so too must the mindset of CM practitioners and users. It’s not good enough to simply disregard a disruptive technology in an effort to protect the ‘old guard’. When combating downtime, there’s no place for historical sentiment.

Steadily disrupting traditional vibration techniques is acoustic emission (AE). As the mechanical condition of machinery deteriorates, energy loss processes such as impacts, friction and crushing generate sound wave activity that spans a broad range of frequencies. AE technique is based on frequencies much higher than are monitored in the repetitive synchronous movement of vibration. By detecting only the high frequency part of this signal, it is possible to detect miniscule amounts of activity, for example a slight rub, a brief impact or the crushing of a single particle in the lubricant. By this means it is possible to detect impending failure before damage occurs, as well as monitoring its progress thereafter.

With well-defined ISO standards, traditional vibration techniques including vibration monitoring and vibration analysis have provided a trusted approach to condition monitoring for the past thirty years. Yet, it remains a complex science and requires sophisticated knowledge and understanding from a seasoned expert. In contrast, AE technology extends and simplifies the science, placing the power of vibration techniques directly into the hands of every engineer. Signals can be processed at the AE sensor in to an easily understandable form.

Let’s be clear, vibration analysis (VA) as a technique will have a place for many for years to come for many end users, however there is no escaping from the fact that there is often a requirement for a costly and unsustainable level of knowledge required to affect a good diagnosis. There is not doubt that VA is valuable, but it is too often overly complicated.

In fact the areas in which vibration and AE both apply can be illustrated as overlapping circles However, AE provides an earlier warning detecting wear and small defects, whereas with vibration, damage must have occurred to detect a signal. AE will pick up a lack of lubrication, friction, and cracking, which vibration will not. Although it must be acknowledged that the totality of information obtained from AE will be more limited than that derived from vibration.

The signal processing required by AE is, in itself, not something that can be performed by just anyone; it’s a high frequency signal so the user must have the knowledge to interpret the squiggly lines on an oscilloscope. But recent developments pioneered by Kittiwake Holroyd have enabled this processing at the sensor level. The sensor output can now provide pre-characterised numbers that tell you about the condition of the machine. AE technology has been effectively deskilled, enabling much wider application use.

Suitable for continuously running machinery as well as machinery operating intermittently, slowly or for short durations, AE allows the user to diagnose problems with machinery at an early stage, carry out maintenance procedures and then monitor the improvement. It provides real time information with early sensitivity to faults and applicability to a wide range of rotational speeds.

While for some, the criticality of certain applications coupled with the scale of some companies might justify the cost of vibration techniques, others could still benefit from the efficiencies realised by similar CM techniques. AE is specifically designed to allow users with little knowledge of the subject to check bearings and major slideways for condition in a way that would be near impossible using traditional vibration techniques. Vibration analysis is typically undertaken on ships using outside, third party consultants, if at all. With AE technology, you give it to a ships engineer right out of the box and by the end of their shift they will have an accurate assessment of all the engine room pumps, turbine and generator bearings, crane slewing rings and any ancillary air leaks in the engine room.

As awareness of the unique capabilities of acoustic emission increases, so too does the number of applications that it is suited to and the formats in which it is available. Kittiwake Holroyd, for example, provides a range of portable instruments, permanently installed remote sensors for areas of difficult access, as well as stand-alone programmable smart sensors for continuous surveillance.

Ultimately, maintenance personnel are responsible for keeping machinery running. If they are empowered to monitor condition themselves, identify where action is needed and then check that the action taken has solved the problem, then AE has significant advantages of cost, speed, flexibility and ease of field application in comparison to traditional vibration analysis techniques. It is the efficient and effective approach to CM; an easy way to implement a ‘no surprises’ maintenance policy.

Martin Lucas, managing director, Kittiwake 

Marine Propulsion, February 2012

Continuous emissions monitoring: A powerful tool in managing environmental transition

Tony Bowers, Marine CEMS Specialist at Kittiwake Procal, explains how the accuracy of in-situ continuous emissions monitoring in ensuring ‘real time’ environmental data for marine applications can be a powerful tool in managing transition within a rapidly changing world

Reducing shipping emissions will be the major driver of change in the maritime industry for decades to come. In the near term, the sulphur limit for fuels burnt in emission control areas (ECAs) will drop from 1.0% to 0.1% in 2015. And since 2010, vessels also need to comply with EC Regulation 2005/33/EC when in EU ports, which, apart from a few exceptions, requires the use of 0.1% sulphur fuel or equivalent emissions. Moreover, legislation pertaining to Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) has already been implemented, whilst beyond the horizon, legislation around Greenhouse Gases, from either the International Marine Organization (IMO) or the European Union, or both, is imminent.

So ship owners and operators have serious decisions to make and data sets to provide; ultimately based on a complex set of circumstances and a fluid regulatory background. However, there are only three choices enabling vessels to comply with SOx emissions regulations; burn marine distillates, switch to liquefied natural gas; or install a scrubber system.

To monitor emissions, continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) have an important role to play, and ‘in situ’ tools are the most accurate yet. The IMO regulation allows for abatement technology to achieve sulphur emission reductions and Wärtsilä’s recent acquisition of Hamworthy Krystallon, coupled with increasing industry uptake, illustrates the ongoing development of the scrubber market. Systems capable of measuring down to the equivalent of 0.1% sulphur fuel are key for confirming compliance with SOx regulations when after treatment is used. Similarly, if fuel switching is the chosen option, monitoring provides assurance that fuels have been changed in a timely manner before entry into an ECA. That compliance is ongoing with more ECAs likely to be implemented soon. With the approval of a US-Caribbean ECA and the proposed Pearl River Delta and Japanese ECAs gathering momentum; the proliferation of regulation seems inescapable.

However, innovative ship owners and operators are not waiting for regulators to tell them what to do. The emergence of emissions benchmarking and vessel efficiency tools – such as shippingefficiency.org from the Carbon War Room, the Environmental Ship Index (ESI) from the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) or the Swedish-led Clean Shipping Index – shows that shipping innovators are aware that charterers see a value in vessel efficiency. The likes of Caterpillar, Volvo and Wal-Mart are now asking for emissions data and Maersk Line has become the first shipping line to publish independently verified CO2 emissions data, vessel by vessel. However, this needs to be accurately assessed, and the days of measuring CO2 through a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation based on the amount of bunker fuel purchased will not meet international standards for CO2 data collection in the medium to long term.

Shipping emissions monitoring is already a fact of life for the shipping industry. IMO MARPOL Annex VI’s now well-established regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships have made emissions monitoring an essential data tool to monitor and report emissions in order to demonstrate compliance. This means that both the commercial incentives and regulatory requirement to manage emissions are here today, and the commercial and operational benefits of getting it right are substantial. Moreover, there is no doubt that, in time, emissions monitoring from the stack will become mandatory.

When it comes to meeting emissions limits through lower sulphur bunker fuel, a testing agency simply takes a sample of the fuel as it is pumped onto a vessel. Compliance with ECA regulations is therefore straightforward. However, accurately assessing SOx or NOx levels when a vessel is fitted with a scrubber or a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) unit is not.

The most effective method for measuring emissions is through in-situ monitoring using CEMS. In contrast to extractive sampling where an exhaust gas sample needs to be physically extracted from the system and then analysed, ‘in-situ’ emissions monitoring provides a continuous, real time measurement of the content of your exhaust gases – with data provided instantaneously on a screen that can be installed in the engine and on the bridge.

The unique nature of infra-red in-situ systems are sensitive enough to confirm compliance, even when emission limits are very low. Emissions that are the equivalent of 0.1% sulphur fuel are around 22ppm of SOx in the exhaust gas. Any instrument with a range over 0-100 ppm will not be accurate enough to measure this and an inappropriate choice for operational scrubber monitoring. For example, Kittiwake’s Procal 2000 – an infra-red (IR), duct or stack-mounted system, designed to provide in-stack analysis – has an SO2 monitoring range of 0-100 ppm but can automatically switch ranges to 0-500/1000 ppm for monitoring operations outside of an ECA on high sulphur fuels.

Such systems are also versatile enough to measure several gases and from several onboard locations. Kittiwake’s Procal 2000 can analyse up to six different exhaust gases from multiple engines and boilers, including SO2, CO2 and NOx. It comprises up to six exhaust-mounted analysers, each with automatic verification facilities, which makes it ideal for a crew lacking experience in emissions analysis. The Procal 2000 analyser has an in-situ sample cell that sits inside the exhaust, avoiding the need to manually extract gas using costly, high maintenance sample handling systems, and enabling analysis of an unmodified, representative gas sample. Kittiwake’s Procal 2000 can also measure H2O or water vapour, which means that measurements can be reported in as ‘dry’ or ‘wet’, another key advantage over many extractive alternatives.

As well as meeting regulatory standards, continuous emissions monitoring performs a valuable operational and commercial role. Armed with accurate data about the emissions of its vessels, an owner/operator can optimise operational efficiency within those regulatory limits. Accurate emissions data will also allow an owner/operator to baseline the existing combustion systems on its vessels and then benchmark the performance and value for money of emission reduction tools techniques and technologies.

The better information you have, the better decisions you can take, not just in ensuring regulatory compliance and avoiding the costs of emission breaches, but also in maximising operational efficiency and making the right strategic calls on new technology investments. When it comes to controlling your emissions, knowledge coupled with accuracy and transparency becomes a powerful tool to mange transition within a rapidly changing world.

Nautilus International, February 2012

Kittiwake launches ATEX certified Metallic Wear Debris Sensor

Kittiwake has launched its ATEX and IECEx certified metallic wear debris sensor. Continuously checking the health of an asset and providing alerts to changing wear patterns, the sensor provides the user with instantaneous condition information and can now be used in hazardous zone 1 and 2 applications.

ATEX & IECEx certified metallic wear debris sensor

Traditionally used with critical gearboxes, the addition of ATEX and IECEx certification allows the sensor to be used in environments where explosive gases are likely to be present; such as around top drives, draw works, mud pumps and also in chemical plants, refineries and other oil and gas areas.

The metallic wear debris sensor can be mounted within any lubrication system on any type of asset. The sensor measures ferrous and non-ferrous metals within the lubricant, using a combination of proven inductive coil technology, combined with smart algorithms to provide a particle size distribution count.

Martin Lucas, managing director, Kittiwake Group said: “While temperature, pressure, vibration and acoustic emission sensors all have their part to play in a condition monitoring package, early detection of changes in oil and lubricant condition and regular, consistent monitoring of wear metal debris in rotating plant provide greater insight into the actual condition of vital machinery and equipment.

“With both ATEX and IECEx certification, this new product is now suitable for hazardous environments where potentially explosive gas, vapour or mist is present. This is an industry first as there is no similar device certified for use in Zone 1.”

To learn more about the metallic wear debris sensor click here.

Follow this link to visit the Kittiwake Information Centre, a comprehensive condition monitoring resource.

For more information email: marketing@kittiwake.com

Acoustic Emission Sensor Enables Early Fault Detection

Dr Steve Dye, Business Development Manager at Kittiwake Developments, discusses the latest acoustic emission technology in a recent feature article in Eureka Magazine.

Kittiwake Holroyd, a Kittiwake Group company, has developed a new handheld Machinery Health Checker (MHC) sensor, used to capture the acoustic emissions from bearings and assess their condition.

MHC Memo Pro

A special acoustic emission sensor allows the user to listen to sound signals being generated on headphones where special audio circuitry filters out normal vibrations and audible signals to let engineers clearly hear rubs, scuffing and impacts as they happen.

Vibration measurements often need a lot of sampling, analysis and diagnostics but Kittiwake wanted an almost instantaneous reading that tells engineers what they need to know.

“The beauty of this is that it is bearing independent,” says Dr Dye. “This allows engineers to very quickly determine if you have a problem or not.”

The sensors are available in a handheld, standalone version and also as Smart sensors which can be integrated on to machines to take continuous readings that feed back data to a PLC or SCADA. To facilitate sensor coupling a variety of mounting methods are available including magnetic front face, adhesive bonding, bolt-on and screw-in. The MHC sensor has two modes, Standard and Super-slo mode which together allow measurements to be taken between 0.25 to 2500rpm.

To read the full article click here.

To find out more about the Kittiwake Holroyd product range follow this link to visit their website.

Acoustic Emission Monitoring: An opportunity not a threat

A recent feature article in Power Engineering magazine sees Martin Lucas, managing director of Kittiwake Developments, argue that Acoustic Emission (AE) technology should be welcomed as the next generation in vibration monitoring.

Condition Monitoring (CM) is transforming rapidly and so too must the mindset of CM practitioners and users. The article simplifies the science behind AE as well as looking at the key benefits provided, such as earlier warning of potential damage and shorter measurement periods.

Acoustic Emissions & Vibration Analysis

Acoustic Emissions & Vibration Analysis

Click this link to read the full article.

Comment from Trevor Holroyd, Kittiwake Holroyd

What are the main advantages of adopting acoustic emission’s AE technology over traditional vibration analysis? (VA)

“With well-defined ISO standards, traditional vibration techniques including vibration monitoring and vibration analysis have provided a trusted approach to condition monitoring for the past thirty years.Yet, it remains a complex science and requires sophisticated knowledge and understanding from a seasoned expert. In contrast, AE technology extends and simplifies the science, placing the power of vibration techniques directly into the hands of every engineer. Signals can be processed at the AE sensor into an easily understandable form.

“Let’s be clear, vibration analysis (VA) as a technique will have a place for many years to come for many end users, however there is no escaping from the fact that there is often a requirement for a costly and unsustainable level of knowledge required to affect a good diagnosis. For VA, the defect repetition frequencies are critically dependent upon the machine component design and geometry, as well as the precise running speed. Vibration can occur independently in X, Y or Z axis and so orientation of the sensor is as important as location. For a detailed interpretation it is also necessary to know the internal machine geometries, shaft speeds, meshing frequencies etc and to analyse the data before making a diagnosis. So, in objective summary, VA is valuable, but too often overly complicated.

“In fact the areas in which vibration and AE both apply can be illustrated as overlapping circles. AE provides an earlier warning detecting wear and small defects, whereas with vibration, damage must have occurred to detect a signal. AE will pick up a lack of lubrication, friction, and cracking, which vibration will not. Although it must be acknowledged that the totality of information obtained from AE will be more limited than that derived from vibration”

Is AE more reliable than VA?

“It’s not more reliable per se, but as it doesn’t require a vibration expert to interpret the results, it could be viewed as more reliable when used by maintenance staff in general.

“AE in no way invalidates traditional vibration techniques, it simply extends the impact way beyond what we’ve been able to achieve to date. The signal processing required by AE is, in itself, not something that can be performed by just anyone; it’s a high frequency signal so the user must have the knowledge to interpret the squiggly line on a stethoscope. But recent developments have enabled this processing at the sensor level. The sensor output can now provide pre-characterised numbers that tell you about the condition of the machine. AE technology has been effectively deskilled, enabling much wider application use.

“Suitable for continuously running machinery as well as machinery operating intermittently, slowly or for short durations, AE allows the user to diagnose problems with machinery at an early stage, carry out maintenance procedures and then monitor the improvement. It provides real time information with early sensitivity to faults and applicability to a wide range of rotational speeds.

” As awareness of the unique capabilities of AE increases, so too does the number of applications that it is suited to – many of which have proven difficult for other forms of condition monitoring to address. For example, the analysis signals, whether from AE sensors or VA accelerometers, requires a sufficiently long period of machine running at constant speed so that a statistically meaningful signal characterisation can be made. But that is where the similarity stops. AE can be effective after around 10 seconds of measurements. For example, the algorithm used to derive the widely used acoustic emission parameters of Distress® and dB Level in the MHC range of products from Kittiwake Holroyd requires a 10 second period of running at an approximately constant speed. Comparing this where Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) based vibration analysis typically needs 60-120 seconds measurement time and tight tolerances on machine speed for an effective signal interpretation.

“In those cases where a hand-held instrument is used for periodic Condition Maintenance (CM), it may be possible to interrupt normal machine operation and put it into a special continuously running mode for the duration of CM measurements. However, such disruption is not always possible and never convenient. Furthermore it is not compatible with the current trend towards CM automation, which require continuous online monitoring with permanently installed sensors inputting CM data or status into SCADA systems or PLC’s. Kittiwake Holroyd’s AE product range includes portable instruments, permanently installed remote sensors for areas of difficult access, as well as stand-alone programmable smart sensors for continuous surveillance.”

From a financial viewpoint are there any benefits associated with AE over VA?

“For vibration techniques to be effective you need equipment that’s far from cheap coupled with clever people to get the best from it. Every result must be analysed to understand what’s good and what’s bad. For those that cannot afford the luxury of in-house vibration experts, there are many vibration specialists who offer a contract monitoring service; again, requiring not insignificant investment. While for some, the criticality of certain applications coupled with the scale of some companies might justify this cost, others could still benefit from the efficiencies realised by similar CM techniques.

“Ultimately, maintenance personnel are responsible for keeping machinery running. If they are empowered to monitor condition themselves, identify where action is needed and then check that the action taken has solved the problem, then deskilled AE technology has significant advantages of cost, speed, flexibility and ease of field application in comparison to traditional vibration analysis techniques. It is the efficient and effective approach to CM.”

Is AE suitable for both land and marine based applications?

“Based on frequencies much higher than are monitored in the repetitive synchronous movement of vibration, AE technique is absolutely suitable for both land and marine based applications. These frequencies are the result of shock, impact, friction and cracking for example. By this means it is possible to detect impending failure before damage occurs, as well as monitoring its progress thereafter.

“AE technology spawned from the aviation industry where vibration analysis simply couldn’t be easily applied, short of a suicidal maintenance technician hanging off the wings. It is specifically designed to allow users with little knowledge of the subject to check bearings and major slideways for condition in a way that would be near impossible using traditional vibration techniques.

“In land based applications throughout industry, AE is favoured by maintenance personnel as a front line technique. Whether food and drinks, manufacturing, utilities or building services, the use of AE allows maintenance staff to quickly assess machine condition, without knowing the bearing’s ISO number, speed, size or history. This allows them to focus maintenance activities when and where they are required with minimum disruption to operations and, most importantly, to check there and then that a repair has been effective.

In a marine setting, vibration analysis is typically undertaken on ships using outside, third party consultants, if at all. With AE technology, you give it to a ship’s engineer right out of the box and by the end of their shift they will have an accurate assessment of all the engine room pumps, turbine and generator bearings, crane slewing rings and any ancillary air leaks in the engine room.”

Trevor Holroyd, managing director, Kittiwake Holroyd

Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide, January 2012

Scrubber Technology – Go from ‘A’ to ‘B’

‘Scheme B’ is the only scrubber technology that will work, says Martin Lucas, managing director of Kittiwake.

Come 2015, owners operating in emission control areas (ECAs) will have only three choices to comply with mandatory 0.1% sulphur levels: burn marine distillates, switch to liquefied natural gas or install a scrubber system.

The trouble is, 2015 is only just around the corner so decisions must be made now. This has, understandably, heightened the debate about the efficacy of available technology and emissions measurement techniques.

There are major players in the scrubber supply market such as Wärtsilä, Hamworthy and Aalborg. These are substantial engineering companies with excellent reputations all saying that their scrubbing technology is an effective and viable reality. Ultimately, however, proving these claims depends upon the provision of reliable and accurate measurement.

At present, scrubber guidelines (MEPC 184[59]) allow for two methods of approval in the shape of Scheme A or Scheme B. Scheme A demands and initial certification of performance followed by only a recommendation that a daily spot check on the exhaust gas quality, in terms of SO2 (ppm)/ CO2 (%) ratio, is used to verify compliance. Scheme B recommends performance confirmation by constant monitoring of emissions with daily operating parameter checks.

Kittiwake Procal is firmly of the opinion that Scheme B should be the single allowable method. First, despite scrubbers being used ashore and on tankers for many years, this is a relatively new technology for emissions control on board ships. To mitigate any technical uncertainty that may exist, despite numerous successful trials, Scheme B gives complete and ongoing assurance of emissions at exit from ship, whereas Scheme A does not.

Second, if continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMs) are not fitted, there is a potential risk that the indirect Scheme A method of monitoring system parameters could result in non-compliant emissions being undetected between daily emission spot checks – particularly undesirable in port and ECAs. Constant monitoring of exhaust gas emissions is the only way to provide complete reassurance, no matter the type of scrubber system installed.

Furthermore, while CEMs for Scheme B must be approved according to MEPC 184(59), the daily spot checks required under Scheme A risk use of unapproved portable analysers that are neither ranged appropriately for a very low level of SO2 emissions – less than 20ppm – nor meet the performance specifications appropriate to the application.

As a consequence of the manual method of obtaining an emissions reading using a portable analyser, there is risk of an inconsistent and non-representative result, not to mention the associated safety risks, for example, if an access point to a hot flowing exhaust needs to be opened and a hand-held probe inserted.

There are further persuasive points that can be made but, essentially, the argument centres round the provision of accurate and reliable measurement that provides a simple means of determining compliance and the adoption of the same methodology regardless of vessel location, providing reassurance and clarity.

Ultimately, the clock is ticking and whether shipowners and operators choose to switch between high and low-sulphur fuel or install a scrubber, CEMS has a central role to play.

Article taken from Fairplay | December 2011