Maritime environmental challenges: Requirements and solutions for shipping

Requirements and solutions for shipping

DNV SERVING THE MARITIME INDUSTRY environmental management

MANAGE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES

THEPOWERTO

02 I MARITIME I environmental management I

The amount of regulations that shipping companies have to comply with is increasing year by year. New regulations have a high impact on business and are often expensive and complicated to implement. The environmental agenda is driving innovation for ship designers, makers, yards and owners. The shipping industry faces difficult choices on what options to choose and when. Every choice has upsides and downsides and there is no silver bullet or one solution that fits everybody.

THE POWER TO MANAGE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES

DNV HELPS THE INDUSTRY TO STAY AHEAD OF DEVELOPMENTS AND MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICES TO IMPROVE AND SAFEGUARD BUSINESS

© N

ina

E. R

angø

y

02 I MARITIME I environmental management I I environmental management I MARITIME I 03

CONTENTS

04 A challenging decade06 Ballast water08 CO2

10 SOx

12 NOx

14 Recycling16 Green Ship

20 1120 01 2012 2014 2015 2016 2019 20 20

2011

HFO prohibited in Antar ticc a

2010

1.0% ECAsulphur lim

2012

- BW conventionentry intro force (?

))

BW treatment (D2on some ships

s

2011

NOx tier II for NB

2018

2018

MO LS fuellaa a bii lity revv iew

2015

0.1% ECA sulphur limit

2012

2012

North American ECA

2012

3.5% global sulphur limit

2012

DMA or DMB <0.1% S in California

2013

2013

Entry into force of EEDI and S EEMP

2017

2017

EU MBM fullyimplemented (?)

2020

0.5% global suplhur ll imit(delay until 2025?)

2020

BW treatment on all ships

2020

2016

NOx tier III in ECAs for NBs

it

s

Entry into force of Recyling Convention (?)


The shipping community is entering a challenging decade. Against the backdrop of a turbulent world economy, steadily increasing energy prices, excessive fleet capacity and even tougher competition, the strengthening of environmental requirements represents yet another challenge for shipping.

A CHALLENGING DECADE

MARPOL has been in force since 1983 and has subsequently been expanded and strengthened, resulting in steadily decreasing pollution from ships. Nevertheless, shipping is still perceived as being less regulated than other industries.

The world of shipping is changing. Regulators and other stake-holders are demanding new levels of environmental performance from shipping, reflecting the increasing world-wide concern for both the local and global environment. New regulations are being adopted, and customers are demanding that the goods they buy are transported with minimal environmental impact.

What makes this particularly challenging for shipping is the combination of uncertainties. Some of the technologies required are considered immature and not necessarily proven to function under all operational conditions, the cost picture remains unclear, supplier and yard retrofit capacity is limited, the time to ensure compliance is getting short for key regulations, and enforcement mechanisms remain unclear.

So where should a company place its bets? Should you retrofit your ships with new technologies, accept higher operational costs, or possibly even replace your ships with new ones? What will my ship be worth in 10 years? These are absolutely critical business decisions, and they should be made soon.

In the business environment we can expect over the next few years, it may be very expensive to get it wrong, but it should also be recognised that change provides business opportunities. Ultimately, the companies that over the next few months and years place the right bets thus have a real opportunity to create a lasting competitive advantage.

SCRUBBER

SCR

SCR +SCRUBBER

LNG

MGO

MGO

LNG

L N G

What investment decisions do I need to make and when?

What will future regulations look like? How will they all be enforced?

Will there be enough capital and resources available?

20 1120 01 2012 2014 2015 2016 2019 20 20

2011

HFO prohibited in Antar ticc a

2010

1.0% ECAsulphur lim

2012

- BW conventionentry intro force (?

))

BW treatment (D2on some ships

s

2011

NOx tier II for NB

2018

2018

MO LS fuellaa a bii lity revv iew

2015

0.1% ECA sulphur limit

2012

2012

North American ECA

2012

3.5% global sulphur limit

2012

DMA or DMB <0.1% S in California

2013

2013

Entry into force of EEDI and S EEMP

2017

2017

EU MBM fullyimplemented (?)

2020

0.5% global suplhur ll imit(delay until 2025?)

2020

BW treatment on all ships

2020

2016

NOx tier III in ECAs for NBs

it

s

Entry into force of Recyling Convention (?)


© C

oor

Med

ia


The Convention will apply to all ships and offshore structures that carry ballast water and are engaged in international voyages.

The BWM Convention requires:A ship-specific Ballast Water Management Plan approved by the Administration on boardA Ballast Water Record Book on boardBallast water exchange(Regulation D-1)An approved ballast water treatment system(Regulation D-2)An International Ballast Water Management Certificate

The Convention stipulates two standards for discharged ballast water. The D-1 standard covers ballast water exchange while the D-2 standard covers ballast water treatment. Depending on the ship’s date of construction and ballast water capacity, D-1 will be phased out and replaced by D-2 as shown in the figure below on the right.

Many treatment systems are now available in the market and, with ratification of the Convention awaiting, ship owners have an excellent opportunity to evaluate how these systems perform before the Convention enters into force. The minimum treatment efficiency required by IMO is outlined in the D-2 standard and type approval is necessary to demonstrate compliance.

However, such approval is no guarantee that the treatment system will perform well in the areas where the ship will trade. A treat-ment system that is optimal for one vessel may not be the best solution for another. Several countries have also established local restrictions on ships calling into their ports or sailing in waters

under their jurisdiction – causing confusion and concern in the market.

The careful selection of a treatment system is also important in order to ensure that the system meets the ship-specific require-ments, such as ballast water capacity, power limitations, the inte-gration of control systems, etc. Another important aspect is also to gain insight into the manufacturer’s commercial reliability, support network and quality of supply capabilities.

DNV has wide knowledge of and expertise in ballast water mana-gement and treatment technologies. As advisors to the shipping industry, DNV has developed decision-support services to help ship owners select the right systems for their ships.

BALLAST WATERThe introduction of invasive marine species into new environments by ships’ ballast water has been identified as one of the four greatest threats to the world’s oceans. In 2004, IMO adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. The Convention will enter into force 12 months after it has been ratified by 30 states representing 35 per cent of the world’s merchant shipping tonnage. As at September 2011, the Convention has been ratified by 28 states representing 25.4% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant fleet.

© U

we

Ohs

e/Sc

anSt

ockP

hoto

I environmental management I MARITIME I 0706 I MARITIME I environmental management I

SOLUTIONS

DATES OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT CONVENTION

BALLAST WATER CAPACITY

DATE OF CONSTRUCTION OF SHIP 4, 5

BEFORE 2009 2009 2009 – 2011 2010 OR LATER 2012 OR LATER

< 1500 m³ or treatment until 20161

only after 20161

or treatment until 20113

only from 20113

1500 – 5000 m³ or treatment until 20142

only after 20142


only from 20113

> 5000 m³ or treatment until 20161

only after 20161


only after 20161

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROS CONS

Filters Self cleaningEasy installationEasy maintenance

Reduced efficiency in high sediments watersFlow rate reductionPressure drop

UV EfficientEasy installationMinimal safety issuesIndependent of salinity

Reduced efficiency in high sediment watersHigh power consumptionTwo-way treatment

Electrolysis Onboard disinfectionEfficientOne-way treatment

Reduced efficiency in water with low salinityHigh power consumptionUses hydrogenCorrosion

Cavitation EfficientIndependent of salinity

Pressure drop

Chemical injection Low cost1-way treatmentEasy installation

SafetyStorageCorrosion

Ozonation EfficientIndependent of salinityOne-way treatment

CorrosionSafety

De-oxygenation CorrosionEasy installation

Lower efficiencyMaintenance of IG systemHolding timeHigh fuel cost of producing IG

1 The ship shall conduct Ballast Water Management that at least

meets the standard described in Regulation D-2 (i.e. treatment)

not later than the first intermediate or renewal survey,

whichever occurs first, after the anniversary date of delivery

of the ship in 2016.



not later than the first intermediate or renewal survey,

whichever occurs first, after the anniversary date of delivery

of the ship in 2014.



not later than the second annual survey, but not later than

31 December 2011.

4 Constructed in respect of a ship means a stage of construction

where:

1. the keel is laid; or

2. construction identifiable with the specific ship begins; or

3. assembly of the ship has commenced comprising at least

50 tonnes or 1 percent of the estimated mass of all

structural material, whichever is less; or

4. the ship undergoes a major conversion.

5 Major conversion means a conversion of a ship:

1. which changes its ballast water carrying capacity

by 15 percent or greater, or

2. which changes the ship type, or

3. which, in the opinion of the Administration, is projected

to prolong its life by ten years or more, or

4. which results in modifications to its ballast water system

other than component replacement-in-kind. Conversion

of a ship to meet the provisions of regulation D-1 shall

not be deemed to constitute a major conversion for

the purpose of this Annex.


As the international community struggles to reach consensus on how to address climate change, shipping is coming under increasing pressure to do its part. The CO2 emissions from the fuels commonly used by shipping correspond directly to the amount of fuel burned. Transitioning to low- or zero-carbon fuels is therefore a long-term challenge for shipping, while immediate benefits can be achieved by improving energy efficiency. This is now materialising through both regulations and stakeholder demands for increasingly energy efficient shipping.

CO2

The first formal regulations on CO2 were adopted by IMO in 2011. These comprise the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), both of which will enter into force on 1 January 2013.

The EEDI is a mathematical formula that provides a specific energy-efficiency figure for an individual ship design, expressed in grams of CO2 per ship’s capacity-mile, e.g. tonne-mile. A smaller EEDI value means a more energy-efficient ship design. The EEDI applies to newbuilds only.

The SEEMP provides an approach for monitoring ship and fleet efficiency performance over time, and encourages the ship owner, at each stage of the plan, to consider new technologies and prac-tices when seeking to optimise ship performance. The SEEMP will be mandatory for all vessels.

In addition to mandatory regulations, IMO has established the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI). This is a voluntary

guideline allowing ship operators to calculate the operational CO2 emissions per tonne-mile. It is considered a tool for bench-marking a ship’s performance over time and also allows com-parison with other similar ships. The EEOI, or other similar monitoring approaches, are to be included in the SEEMP.Parts of the international community consider these regulations insufficient. There is therefore a strong political drive to regulate shipping further, e.g. through regional or international Market Based Measures (MBM). Proposals under review range from a contribution or levy on CO2 emissions from shipping, via emission trading systems to schemes based on ship efficiency. If agreed, MBMs may appear towards the end of this decade.

Commercial requirements as to energy efficiency are becoming increasingly important. The creation of various voluntary rating schemes for environmental performance, including CO2 perfor-mance, are providing tools that allow charterers and cargo owners to use only ships that satisfy their requirements.

SOLUTION PROS CONS

Ship design measures A sound basis for higher operational efficiency Charter rates may not reward good designs A good design can still be operated badly

Ship operation measures Low cost with potential high savings Difficult to measure effectiveness

Port operations The minimisation of time waiting at or in port through just-in-time arrivals can allow speed optimisation

Ship-port coordination is challenging

Alternative fuels A lower carbon footprint means less CO2 emissions May require significant engine and tank modificationsAvailability and pricing of new fuel

Speed reduction Low investment and technical adjustments May lead to requirements for more ships Potential reduction of ship revenue

SOLUTIONS


© D

NV

REDUCTION FACTORS (IN PERCENTAGE) FOR THE EEDI RELATIVE TO THE REFERENCE LINE FOR EACH SHIP TYPE

Size Phase 01 Jan 2013–31 Dec 2014

Phase 11 Jan 2015–31 Dec 2019

Phase 21 Jan 2020–31 Dec 2024

Phase 31 Jan 2025 onwards

Bulk Carrier >20,000 DwT10-20,000 DwT

0%n/a

10%0-10*

20%0-20*

30%0-30*

Gas tanker >10,000 DwT2-10,000 DwT

0%n/a

10%0-10*

20%0-20*

30%0-30*

Tanker and combination carriers

>20,000 DwT4-20,000 DwT

0%n/a

10%0-10*

20%0-20*

30%0-30*

Container ships >15,000 DwT10-15,000 DwT

0%n/a

10%0-10*

20%0-20*

30%0-30*

General cargo ships >15,000 DwT3-15,000 DwT

0%n/a

10%0-10*

20%0-20*

30%0-30*

Refrigerated cargo carriers >5,000 DwT3-5,000 DwT

0%n/a

10%0-10*

20%0-20*

30%0-30*

* The reduction factor is to be linearly interpolated between the two values depending on the vessel size. The lower value of the reduction factor is to be applied to the smaller ship size.


Sulphur oxides (SOx) are mainly formed from combustion of fuel containing sulphur. DNV currently sees a trend towards reduced SOx emissions from land-based sources, and recent international regulations aim to also reduce the SOx emissions from shipping accordingly by putting limits on the fuel sulphur content.

SOX

REQUIREMENTSThe revised Annex VI to MARPOL was adopted by IMO on 10 October 2008. The sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions from ships will in general be controlled by setting a limit for the sulphur content of marine fuel oils. Within specified Emission Control Areas (ECAs), the sulphur limit will be even stricter. The 2015 ECA sulphur limit will have severe implications for ship owners and charterers as well as for entire supply chains. In addition, local limits are enforced in certain areas such as in EU ports and California, and new local rules may emerge.

SOLUTIONSBased on a review of existing marine engine technology and expected technology development, ship owners currently mainly have three choices if they wish to continue sailing in ECAs from 2015: switch to low sulphur fuel, install an exhaust gas scrubber, or switch to liquefied natural gas (LNG) as fuel.

Marine Gas Oil (MGO) and Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) can be supplied with a sulphur content of below 0.10%. Switching to such fuels only requires minor modifications to the fuel system on board the ships. On the negative side, the availability of low sulphur fuel is already limited and rising demand is expected to increase this fuel’s price uncertainty.

An exhaust gas scrubber can be installed to remove sulphur from the engine exhaust gas using sea water and/or chemicals. Dry scrubbers are also available. Scrubbers are generally bulky and require significant alterations on board: additional tanks, pipes, pumps and a wash water treatment system. The sulphur-rich sludge produced is categorised as special waste, to be disposed of at dedicated shore facilities. Moreover, scrubbers increase the power consumption, thereby increasing total CO2 emissions. Scrubbers can be retrofitted to ensure ECA compliance for exist-ing ships although there is still some uncertainty about the conse-quences of scaling up such installations for large diesel engines, e.g. in the range of 50 MW and upwards.

The third alternative is to use LNG as fuel. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel available and, when fuelling a ship with LNG, no additional abatement measures are required in order to meet the ECA SOx requirements. However, an LNG-fuelled ship requires purpose-built or modified engines and a specially designed system including gas tanks, a vaporiser and double- insulated piping with gas sensors and shut-down arrangements. Available space for cylindrical LNG fuel tanks on board ships has been a key challenge, but new prismatic tanks are expected to simplify this issue. DNV Class rules are in place to ensure safe LNG fuel operations.

RESTRICTIONS FOR SULPHUR CONTENT IN MARINE FUELS:

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.02005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Sulp

hur

cont

ent

GLOBAL CAP: 4.5% S

(S)ECA CAP: 1.5%S

1.0% S

0.1% S0.5% S

Average sulphurcontent today

3.5% S

A review in 2018 may conclude that the0.5 limit should be postponed to 2025


© iS

tock

phot

o

SOLUTIONS

SOLUTION PROS CONS

Scrubber Can use cheaper, high sulphur fuelFuel available

Takes up spaceSignificant investment costNo significant reduction of NOx

Requires additional energy during operationDischarge of water

LNG Currently cheaper fuel, but future price development is uncertain Reduces NOx and CO2

Retrofit difficultRequires larger fuel tanksFuel availability uncertainInfrastructure currently limited

Distillate fuel No or little modifications and investment neededWell known and tested

Higher fuel costPrices likely to increaseFuel availability uncertainWear and tear


While SOx is formed from sulphur in the fuel, the formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx) results from nitrogen in the air during the combustion process which is relatively independent of the fuel being used. The main determining factor for the NOx formation is the maximum peak combustion temperature – which is quite high in marine diesel engines. Due to the adverse environmental impact and the potential health hazards caused by NOx emissions, this has become an issue of major global concern.

NOX

NOx emissions are regulated through the revised MARPOL Annex VI 2008, which puts a limit on the specific emission from engines as a function of the rpm. The limits are imposed on engines larger than 130 kW, in three tiers based on the year of construction and operation area:

TIER I (GLOBALLY):Engines installed on vessels constructed on or after 1 January 2000.

Engines larger than 5,000 kW and with a per cylinder displace-ment at or above 90 litres, installed on vessels constructed on or after 1 January 1990 but prior to 1 January 2000. (This requirement is subject to the availability of an approved engine upgrade kit.)

TIER II (GLOBALLY):Engines installed on vessels constructed on or after 1 January 2011.

TIER III (SAILING IN NOX ECAS):Engines installed on vessels constructed on or after 1 January 2016 when operating within NOx controlled ECAs.

REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIESRecent engine designs will most likely comply with the Tier II requirements. Measures suggested to reduce NOx emissions from existing and new engines include the following:

Water can be added as direct water injection, emulsified water in the fuel, humidity in the scavenge air, etc. This is an effective way of reducing NOx emissions, but there is some concern that it may affect the thermal efficiency of the engine and cause fuel consumption to increase. This measure will only reduce NOx emissions to Tier II levels.

Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), i.e. feeding exhaust gas into the combustion process, is regarded as a quite promising method and engine makers currently have a strong focus on developing their EGR systems to ensure compliance with the strict Tier III requirements.

Selective Catalytic Reactors (SCR) have already been installed on a number of ships and seem to work well, although certain operational issues have to be resolved, such as minimum exhaust temperature requirements to achieve the optimum effect of the catalyst. The SCR efficiency is also known to be reduced at low engine loads. Sulphur in the fuel also has a tendency to pollute the catalyst material, so the SCR should ideally be installed after a SOx reducing step, if not using fuel with low sulphur content.

In addition, one possible solution is to use natural gas such as LNG as fuel, as this will reduce the NOx emissions by some 90%.

20.0

16.0

12.0

8.0

4.0

0.00 500 1000 1500 2000

NO

-lim

it (g

/kW

h)

Tier ITier IITier III

Rated Engine Speed (rpm)

x


SOLUTIONS

© G

etty

Imag

es/la

rigan

– P

atric

ia H

amilt

on

SOLUTION PROS CONS

ADDING WATER Simple and inexpensive Increased fuel consumptionDoes not comply with Tier III

LNG Cheaper fuelEffective NOx reduction

Retrofit difficultFuel availability uncertainInfrastructure currently limited

SCR Effective NOx reduction Complex system and operationRequires ammonia normally in the form of urea

EGR Promising development to reach Tier III emission levelRequires engine modifications and additional arrangements

Known technologyRequires no addition of chemicals


Recycling a ship is a challenging process due to the struc-tural complexity and the many environmental, safety and health issues involved. A variety of hazardous substances may be present in the structures and equipment of ships and installations, posing risks during decommissioning and recycling as well as during operation.

RECYCLING

Adopted in May 2009, the text of the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships will place responsibilities on ship builders, ship owners, recycling facilities and national authorities to ensure safe and environmentally viable conditions within the ship recycling industry. The main responsibilities are:

Ship builders are to deliver new ships with an Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM) and without certain prohibited substancesShip owners are to prepare and maintain the IHM on existing ships and deliver end-of-life vessels to authorised recycling facilitiesShip recycling facilities are to undertake the safe and environ-mentally sound recycling of the ship and handling of hazardous wastes Parties (nations) to the Convention are to facilitate and enforce the effectuation of the Convention

As part of the requirements for shipyards and ship owners, an Inventory of Hazardous Materials, formerly a “Green Passport”, will be required for each new ship and for existing ships not later than five years after the entry into force of the Hong Kong Convention. Ratification may take about 10 years, meaning it could be an internationally mandatory instrument from 2020. However, the IHM has already become an industry best practice standard and more and more ship owners see the benefit of having an inventory for their ships.

The IHM quantifies and locates hazardous materials on board ships which are known to represent a potential hazard to people and the environment.


© S

canp

ix /

Sean

Sm

ith /

Gua

rdia

n

16 I MARITIME I environmental management I©

Mar

iko

Hag

aki


Do you want to know what requirements apply to your ship? DNV has developed an App for iPhones showing the main global requirements on environment for any given ship. Search for “Green Ship” on Appstore or use the QR-code below.

GREEN SHIP


Classification Verification Advisory services

GLOBAL SERVICES TO THE MARITIME, OIL & GAS AND ENERGY INDUSTRIES


DubaiBur Juman Office Tower14th FloorTrade Center RoadUnited Arab Emirates+971 4 3526626

PiraeusDet Norske Veritas S.A.5 Aitolikou Street18545 PiraeusGreece+30 210 41 00 200

HamburgBei den Mühren 120457 HamburgGermany+49 40 890 5900

Pusan7th/8th/9th Floor, KolonBuilding 36-7,Namchon1-dong,Suyong-GuNampusan PO Box 120Pusan 613011Republic of Korea+82 51 610 7700

Houston1400 Ravello DrKaty, TX 77449United States+1 281 396 1000

RioRua Sete de Setembro,111/12 Floor20050006 Rio de JaneiroBrazil+55 21 3722 7232

KobeSannomiya Chuo Bldg.,9th Floor4-2-20 Goko-doriChuo-kuKobe 651-0087Japan+81 78 291 1321

ShanghaiHouse No. 9, 1591 HongQiao RoadShanghai 200336China+86 21 3208 4518

LondonPalace House3 Cathedral StreetLondon SE1 9DEUnited Kingdom+44 207 357 6080

SingaporeDNV Technology Centre10 Science Park DriveSingapore 118224Singapore+65 6779 12 66

OsloVeritasveien11363 HøvikNorway+47 67 57 99 00

Vancouver804-1112 W. PenderStreetVancouver, BC V6E 2S1Canada+1 604 689 7425

MAIN MARITIME OFFICES

DET NORSKE VERITAS ASNO-1322 Høvik, Norway I Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 I Fax: +47 67 57 99 11www.dnv.com

THIS IS DNVDNV is a global provider of services for managing risk, helping customers to safely and responsibly improve their business performance. Our core competence is to identify. assess and advise on risk management. DNV is an independent foundation with presence in more than 100 countries.

© Det Norske Veritas AS. Design and layout: Coor Service Management/Graphic Services 1108-052. front cover: Getty Images/Sami Sarkis

MANAGE ENVIRONMENTAL

CHALLENGES

THEPOWER

TO

Documents

Maritime environmental challenges: Requirements and solutions for shipping