World Bunkering > News > Autumn 2010 > ISO8217 - What next?

It is a month after the publication of the 4th edition of ISO8217 standard, which was released just five years after the publication of the 3rd edition of ISO8217. Time for the ISO committee to sit back and take a deep breath? Far from it. “We have already been active and planned a meeting in November to discuss how we should move forward towards the next revision,” says committee chair Wanda Fabriek. “There were some technical comments received during the DIS ballot that could not be addressed at that time and which now need to be resolved. In addition, we have to be swift to decide what we’re going to work on so that future editions of the specification for marine fuels will make perfect sense around 2018/2020. We won’t be covering the huge range of issues for the next edition that we did this time, but the work will go deeper into specific areas.”

For the moment, though, the industry is beginning to take stock of ISO8217 2010. A number of significant changes were made to the standard ISO8217, including:

• Hydrogen sulphide limits introduced
• Acid number limits included
• Ash limits reduced
• Vanadium limits reduced
• Aluminium and silicon limits reduced
• CCAI (Calculated Carbon Aromaticity Index) added
• There is no provision for the inclusion of biofuels in the standard

Biofuels and blends

The biggest issues to resolve were not necessarily those where major changes were introduced. “The most important issue for us to resolve in ISO8217 was the inclusion of bio-derived fuels. We debated it at every meeting over two years of work,” says Fabriek. Ultimately, the committee concluded that the scope of the standard could not be changed, meaning that fuels with FAME content are still excluded from the ISO standard. “I am confident that we reached the right conclusion. Maersk only recently announced its study to look at whether biofuel is suitable for use in marine engines and how it needs to be handled by the fuel system on board. It is clear that [the use of biofuel] is a serious technical issue, which is related to the lack of sufficient experience at this point in time. This study indicates that companies are concerned about the inclusion of biofuels in the fuel standard at a time when the marine industry is not yet ready for this.”

On the other hand, Fabriek says, the situation is changing fast, and it may soon be necessary to revisit this question. “We cannot hang about, and it will probably take a few years working on the biofuel issue in terms of research before we can include it in the standard. The committee needs to answer certain questions, including how the purifiers will work, whether the reduction of cat fines will be affected, and so on.” In particular, she says, the committee is concerned to protect the DMX grade, a special grade for emergency purposes. It is absolutely essential that the grade must be usable without the risk of it stalling engines or causing damage. “Perhaps ultimately the answer will be to insert a single biofuel grade into the standard, but the research and the experiences gained through the industry studies will guide the committee members and allow us to decide how to best proceed with this issue,” she says.

H²S

The inclusion of an H²S limit was another major point of discussion, and caused considerable comment from across the industry. The new limit is 2mg/kg in the liquid phase, which can translate to considerably higher levels in the vapour phase. This led to considerable controversy in the review phase of ISO8217, with suggestions that the concentration should be measured in the vapour phase after delivery, and that it should be set at zero.

These issues were discussed in great depth by the committee. “Regrettably, the H²S limit was and perhaps still is misunderstood by many. I believe that many stakeholders didn’t understand what we were trying to do in setting a limit. The committee adopted the industry’s acceptable guiding limit and proposed an additional check point for this important fuel characteristic,” says Fabriek. “It would appear that perhaps there is insufficient knowledge of how refineries work today to release marine fuel, and of the limitations of the test methodologies available for the measurement of H²S. By including a limit, where previously there had been none, the ISO standard did not increase the permissible level of H²S. The methodology chosen in the standard gives us the potential maximum level of H²S present that can potentially be released into the vapour phase, but might not be. In fact, it is more dangerous to use a methodology that underestimates the levels and shows them as lower than they are, than to overestimate it.”

Biofuels are excluded from the ISO standard – for now

CCAI

CCAI limits of 850 for RMA grade, 860 for RMB, RMD and RME grades, and 870 for both RMG and RMK grade fuels were included in the ISO8217 standard in order to avoid fuels with uncharacteristic density-viscosity relationships. The introduction of CCAI in the ISO8217 was a controversial issue, with the committee criticised for setting CCAI at levels that could still potentially cause damage to some engines. Ultimately, though, the panel is happy with the limit that was set, says Fabriek: “We have taken a step forward in this important area. Annex F of the standard is worded appropriately to help the suppliers and buyers of marine fuels, where ignition is known to be very critical, to agree on tighter specifications in respect of ignition quality.”

On the other hand, the panel were accused at the review stage of ignoring commercial realities by setting standards that were too strict. This was not at all the case, says Fabriek: “Although we were challenged on the changes to the CCAI, the panel is aware of the commercial reality. If we drive every specification limit right down to the demand of some few stakeholders, we will eliminate 40% to 50% of fuel availability in today’s market.”

Reaching consensus

The ISO balloting process – involving reaching a national, and then an international consensus on each of the issues raised – was long and thorough. “No decision can be taken in a hurry because we have to face the industry at the end of it, and have to produce a workable and useful standard,” says Fabriek. “Everything is backed up by vast amounts of statistical data provided by committee members from around the world, which have been constantly reviewed. That means we are able to be really thorough in looking at the effects of each of the proposed changes.”

While the process of ISO8217 revision took just over two years – instead of the more usual nine – the committee met 13 times over this period. A lot of time and hard work was assigned to resolve the DIS technical comments to the ISO DIS draft version: “We spent over a week in sessions just to look at and resolve the comments on the technical issues.”

On the whole, Fabriek says, the new ISO8217 standard has been well received. “We have already seen some suppliers stating that they are ready now to supply to the new ISO8217.” She herself is pleased with the outcome, and the way that the industry has responded to ISO8217 “I think I’m happy with the results, and I know that the committee members are happy with the standard too.”

Far from resting on her laurels, though, Wanda is already planning the next move. “I’m happy to move on. It’s good to make use of the momentum created by the introduction of the 4th edition of ISO8217– that’s why the committee will meet in November. Before Christmas, we should be clear on the next main issues to be worked on and what steps we need to take to deal with them. “