The market and economics of (mobile) port-based Ballast ...€¦ · last water treatment system, as it means there is no internal space available. A deckhouse for PureBallast 3 Ex

The market and economics of (mobile) port-based

Ballast Water Treatment solutions

@BluePortS Meeting - Lisbon, 15 May 2019

@BluePortS Meeting - Lisbon May 15th, 2019

The Regulatory Framework • IMO - BWM Convention

• US: not acceded to the IMO BWM Convention • has instead adopted its own ballast water management requirements• California’s ballast water management regulations are codified in the

Marine Invasive Species Act (“MISA”)

• EU: No Direct EU law• EU Regulation 1143/2014 on Invasive Alien Species entered into force

on 1 January 2015 • recognizes the IMO BWMC as one of the possible management

measures


The Regulatory Framework: IMO

• entered into force globally on 8 September 2017

• The BWMC applies to all vessels, either flying the flag of a Party or operating under the authority of a Party, other than:

1) ships not designed to use ballast water; 2) warships or Naval auxiliary vessels; 3) vessels only on non-commercial voyages; and 4) vessels with permanent sealed ballast.


Ratification

• ships registered under a flag• Ships operating in waters under the authority of a Party

which hasn’t ratified the BWM Convention?

Number of Contracting States: 80(80.94% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant fleet) (as of 2019)


Ratification - Shortsea shippingI. SIGNATORIES

• Netherlands - Subject to approval

• Spain - Subject to ratification

II. Contracting States

• France (accession)1 24 September 2008 8 September 2017

• Greece (accession) 26 June 2017 26 September 2017

• Cyprus (accession) 8 August 2018 8 November 2018

• Portugal (accession) 19 October 2017 19 January 2018

• Spain (ratification) 14 September 2005 8 September 2017

• Morocco (accession) 23 November 2015 8 September 2017

• Tunisia, Algeria ?

• Italy ?

• The UK has yet to ratify the Convention


Shipowners’ view (limited sample):

• Exemption• Not accept voyage• Internal transfer of ballast

ComplianceThe Market


Com

plia

nce

with

the

IM

O C

onve

ntio

n

Exemption eg under the Same Risk Area (SRA) approach – G7

Ballast Water Exchange – G11

On-board system – G3

containerised BWTS

regular BWTS

Mobile port/shore based

barge

containerised mobile BWTS (e.g on a truck)

Fixed port/shore based

treatment facilities (PRF)

containerised BWTS

Deckhouse solution for tankers

Alfa Laval has developed standard deckhouses to fit Alfa Laval PureBallast 3 Ex ballast water treatment systems. Each deckhouse is delivered as a pre-assembled solution, including the PureBallast 3 Ex system and all piping inside the deckhouse, for easy integration into the vessel.

For PureBallast 3 Ex system details, please refer to the Alfa Laval PureBallast 3 product leaflet.

ApplicationA large portion of the world’s tanker fleet uses submersible pumps, e.g. Framo pumps or the equivalent, to eliminate the need for a pump room and maximize space for the trans-port of product. This poses challenges when installing a bal-last water treatment system, as it means there is no internal space available. A deckhouse for PureBallast 3 Ex offers a solution when the pump room is lacking or offers too little space for the installation.

Benefits• Pre-assembled PureBallast 3 Ex system in standardized

deckhouse• Durable construction with marine-approved steel (Grade

A with 3.2 certificates)• Climate regulation through integrated HVAC

Deckhouse for Alfa Laval PureBallast 3 Ex

• DNV-GL type approval covering both deckhouse and treatment system

• Possibility to transport the deckhouse in a pallet-wide high cube container (40’/20’/10’)

• Full backing from Alfa Laval’s global service organization

ConfigurationThe flow-related components of the PureBallast 3 Ex sys-tem (UV reactor, filter and CIP unit) are contained within the deckhouse, while the lamp drive cabinet and control cabinet are installed outside the deckhouse and within the vessel’s safe zone.

Safety classificationAll components and wiring inside the deckhouse are classi-fied for use in hazardous areas in accordance with the IEC 60079 series of standards: • Zone 1• Explosion group IIC• Temperature class T4 (135°)

Type approvalThe standard deckhouse configuration, including the PureBallast 3 Ex system, is type approved by DNV-GL.

Photos: InvaSave 300 (up) - Alfa Laval PureBallast 3 Ex (down)

Mobile Port/Shore based


Comp

lianc

e with

the

IMO

Con

vent

ion




containerised BWTS

regular BWTS


barge




containerised BWTS

Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 23 April 2018 Task 15a: Summary Report 33 Job 15086.01, Rev A

from the data available but is estimated at <1 per year in waters between 0 and 24 nautical miles offshore.

Based on this conclusion, this study proposes that underway discharges be planned in advance to the extent practicable and, whenever they cannot be practically avoided or conducted outside 24 nautical miles, conducted in port at designated anchorages or “Deep Water Service Stations” (DWSS).

Ballast water capture and treatment operations at a DWSS would be virtually equivalent to bunkering operations at anchor, as shown in the below figure. Barges would be dispatched to vessels at pre-arranged times and secured alongside in the same manner as for vessels at berth. The processes for connection, capture, and treatment of ballast would also be similar.

Figure 10 Open-hatch gantry ship, Star Florida engaged in bunkering operations in Vancouver Harbor,

British Columbia.

If implemented for each zone, DWSS would provide a suitable and practical means of eliminating current underway discharge practices in California, both for inbound and outbound vessels. The few vessels requiring this practice would experience schedule impacts, but the system would not cause disruptions to normal operations at marine terminals, or appreciably contribute to marine traffic in port or other port congestion issues.

It should be noted that planning and conducting ballasting operations at specified locations may result in unintended or undesirable outcomes. These outcomes may include vessels sailing in a less-than-optimal loading condition during transits from offshore waters to port (or vice versa), or vessel schedule delays associated with conducting ballasting operations in port that had previously been conducted while underway.

The barge-based system proposed herein will not prevent those few discharges that must be conducted immediately for the safety of the vessel and crew. In these instances, the capabilities

Source: https://magazine.damen.com/green/retrofit-port-and-mobile-bwt-solutions/

https://magazine.damen.com/green/retrofit-port-and-mobile-bwt-solutions/

Fixed Port/Shore based


Com

plian

ce w

ith th

e IM

O C

onve

ntio

n




containerised BWTS

regular BWTS


barge




containerised BWTS

Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 20 February 2018 Task 3: Assessment of Retrofitting of Ports and Wharves 15 Job 15086.01, Rev -

2.2.2 Marine Vessel Support Requirements

The above design basis identifies the support requirements for marine vessels calling at this terminal. These requirements consider the 95% case of ballast operations for vessels that called between 2014 and 2015. In addition, the ports and wharves modifications consider the containership identified in the Task 2 report, Reference 2.

A 6,300 TEU containership was used for ship geometry inputs. This size vessel is large, though not uncommon, in terms of likely ship calls at this terminal, and as such is considered representative, with some conservatism. The assumed point of discharge for the ballast water from the ship is on the main deck, and assumed to be located approximately 20 meters above the waterline of the ship’s highest point above the water.

The assumed discharge rate from the ship is 750 m3/hr. The assumed pressure at the point of discharge is zero MPA. This pressure from the ship’s presentation flange is adequate to prime the ship to shore connection, but not adequate to lift the received ballast water to the storage and treatment plant. As such, intermediate dockside lift stations are required to complete the transfer to the point of storage and/or treatment. The booster pump/lift station will be located in the container yard approximately 50 m landside of the ship.

2.2.3 Terminal Operations

2.2.3.1 General Arrangement Plan

The general arrangement plan for the TraPac terminal (Figure 13) identifies the overall geometry of the terminal along with the anticipated ship location, points of connection, wharf piping, booster pump/lift station location, piping between the booster pump/lift station and the treatment facility.

Figure 13 General arrangement plan

Fixed Port/Shore based


OIC Harbour Authority Ballast Water Management Policy for Scapa Flow 10 December 2013

Orkney Marine Environmental Protection Committee 29 April 2014 and 29 November 2017

1

ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL

HARBOUR AUTHORITY

BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT POLICY

FOR

SCAPA FLOW

OIC Harbour Authority Ballast Water Management Policy for Scapa Flow 10 December 2013

Orkney Marine Environmental Protection Committee 29 April 2014 and 29 November 2017

21

Map.1. Locations of monitoring sites in Scapa Flow.

NOTES

• Port Reception Facilities :• Covered by Guidelines• Port-based (unless on a barge) BWMS may be subject to different regulations• Municipal Waste Management

• Ballast Water Management Plan• specific to each ship• Requires new Plan • New G8 guidelines


The EconomicsPorts



Port/Terminal Name Details El Segundo – Chevron Offshore Marine Terminal

Port/Terminal Description: offshore mooring for load and discharge of liquid bulk (petroleum) products Primary Vessel Type(s): tankers and ATBs Primary Cargo Type(s): crude oil and refined fuels Annual Discharge Volume (m3) (2015 data): 203,900 Number of Discharge Events (2015): 49 90th Percentile Discharge Volume (m3) (2015): 32,000 Approx. Period per Discharge (days): 1 Approx. Discharge Rate (m3/hr): 3,400

Port of LA/Long Beach – Long Beach Cruise Terminal

Port/Terminal Description: dedicated cruise ship terminal Primary Vessel Type(s): passenger cruise ships Primary Cargo Type(s): passengers and stores Annual Discharge Volume (m3) (2015 data): 165,900 Number of Discharge Events (2015): 256 90th Percentile Discharge Volume (m3) (2015): 1,500 Approx. Period per Discharge (days): 1 Approx. Discharge Rate (m3/hr): 400

Port of LA/Long Beach – SA Recycling, Terminal Is.

Port/Terminal Description: bulk export Primary Vessel Type(s): bulk carriers Primary Cargo Type(s): scrap steel Annual Discharge Volume (m3) (2015 data): 257,300 Number of Discharge Events (2015): 17 90th Percentile Discharge Volume (m3) (2015): 18,000 Approx. Period per Discharge (days): 5 Approx. Discharge Rate (m3/hr): 1,400

1.1 Methods Each of the subject terminals and ports were researched for available vacant space and location for ballast water storage and/or treatment facilities selected to match the vessels that frequently discharge ballast water and the frequency of their discharges in case study ports. Potential locations for the storage and treatment of ballast water were communicated to the team preparing the Task 4 and 5 reports. Reported vessel discharge data was then examined to estimate the practicality and cost of any new infrastructure required on-shore. In general, this included:


Executive Summary

This report is part of an overall coordinated study evaluating the feasibility of using shore-based mobile or permanent ballast water treatment facilities to meet California’s Interim Ballast Water Discharge Performance Standards (CA Interim Standards). Tasks 2 through 5 are submitted together to discuss the practical necessities for shore-based treatment system implementation, from the modifications onboard vessels to the treatment technologies used in the facilities.

This Task 3 report considers the modifications to ports and wharves that are required to receive ballast water from the vessels that call on each case study terminal. Table 1 Case study ports/terminals

Port/Terminal Name Details Port of Stockton – East Complex

Port/Terminal Description: bulk import/export Primary Vessel Type(s): bulk carriers, tank vessels Primary Cargo Type(s): bulk cement, sand, tire chips, liquid fertilizer, anhydrous ammonia, food grade oil, molasses, bagged magnesium, project cargo. Annual Discharge Volume (m3) (2015 data): 1,194,000 Number of Discharge Events (2015): 59 90th Percentile Discharge Volume (m3) (2015): 29,500 Approx. Period per Discharge (days): 1 Approx. Discharge Rate (m3/hr): 2,800

Port of Oakland – TraPac Terminal

Port/Terminal Description: container import/export Primary Vessel Type(s): containerships only Primary Cargo Type(s): containers only Annual Discharge Volume (m3) (2015 data): 7,200 Number of Discharge Events (2015): 2 90th Percentile Discharge Volume (m3) (2015): 7,500 Approx. Period per Discharge (days): 1 Approx. Discharge Rate (m3/hr): 750

Port of Hueneme – North, South & Joint-use Terminals

Port/Terminal Description: auto import and bulk import/export Primary Vessel Type(s): reefer ships, general cargo, ro-ro Primary Cargo Type(s): autos, break-bulk agricultural products (e.g. bananas and other fresh fruit), liquid fertilizer, oil, containers, fish, project cargo) Annual Discharge Volume (m3) (2015 data): 4,800 Number of Discharge Events (2015): 4 90th Percentile Discharge Volume (m3) (2015): 4,000 Approx. Period per Discharge (days): 1 Approx. Discharge Rate (m3/hr): 350


Table 2 Summary of Port of Stockton Berths 5 and 6 wharf modification cost estimate

Location Ballast Capacity (m3) Modification Cost

Port of Stockton 34,000 Wharf Modifications (Berths 5 & 6) $50,000 Piping between wharf and lift station $510,000

Purchase of modification of yard equipment for the movement of piping connection from the wharf to the ship

$500,000

Regulatory Review $250,000 Engineering $110,000 Contingency of 20% $230,000 Total $1,650,000

2.2 Port of Oakland – Berth 30-33, Tra Pac Terminal

2.2.1 Summary of Port TraPac, Oakland is a dedicated container-only terminal located in the Port of Oakland, Outer Harbor Channel at Berth 30 and 32. Presently, TraPac handles four to five vessel calls per week (Reference 8), mostly Panamax-sized.

Figure 11 Location of TraPac Terminal

The terminal area encompasses approximately 66 acres. The berth area is 2,100 feet long and has six working lanes beneath four post-Panamax container gantry cranes. Currently, the yard is set up to accommodate a combination of wheeled and grounded operations, but is designed to allow for conversion to higher density grounding if required.

Ballasting operations at TraPac are typical of container terminals that see a net import of cargo. The vessel offloads cargo, and takes on ballast water to compensate for weight changes. In the TraPac case, there were only five ballast water discharges over a 24-month period that saw an estimated 500 vessel calls (one ballast discharge per 100 vessel calls). Discharges are indicated by Figure 12 below.

Waste Water Treatment Facility

Re-use of BW:Mass balance between ballast water that is taken up and discharged in the same location

Glosten (2018) Prepared for Delta Stewardship Council, California

The EconomicsVessels


Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 20 February 2018 Task 2: Assessment of Retrofitting and Outfitting of Vessels 6 Job 15086.01, Rev -

(1) Port of Stockton ballast discharges are tightly linked to cargo discharge rates, which are occur daily and in high volumes. Due to this tight pattern of consistent high rates and volumes, the design basis is set at the maximum rates with a small margin. Often, there are multiple consecutive days with high volume discharges, resulting in as much as 98,000 tons in a single seven-day period.

(2) Port of Oakland Trapac facility parameters are used to develop a baseline design reception from ship to shore and intermediate storage. The adjoining facility details are then used for sizing transfer station pumps and piping. The total for processing plant considers the rate and total of ballast water to the centralized processing plant. The totals provided use Trapac specific as well as port wide historic ballast water discharge volumes and rates.

(3) Hueneme sees discharges from multiple vessel types, but car carriers provide a reasonable design basis for presentation flange pressure and dimensions. The discharge rates and volumes vary significantly, and there is more than one approach. The design rate is based on slowing down some of the larger vessels discharge rates, but allowing typical discharge volumes to be offloaded in less than eight hours. There are various ways to consider the volume period and amounts. The design basis here is based uses a 20-day period for the ballasting cycle, i.e. how many vessels and ballast discharge volumes per 20-day period. This approach is based on 12 years of data, showing that such a 20-day period will see no more than 4,000 tons of ballast discharge. For the rare, every five years, higher volumes additional barge or other means would be required.

(4) El Segundo vessel discharges are strictly governed by cargo loading rates, which are impractical to slow for all but extreme cases. The discharge volumes and rates are based on typical highest discharges, noting that one vessel called in last several years with higher rates and volumes. That case will require additional time, split discharge, or other special accommodation.

(5) POLA/SA Recycling processes cargo on weekly basis, seeing ballast discharges of as much as 22,000 tons per week. Although ship discharge rates are as high as 2,800 m3/hr, it is reasonable to slow this rate significantly during port collection, as the amount of ballast water to be discharged on a daily basis is no more than 6,000 metric tons. This reduced rate, over an eight-hour period would be only 750 m3/hr. However, it is important to not stress ship's pumps by running at too slow of a rate, i.e. less than 50% of rated. As such, design rate for port reception is 1,400 m3/hr, 50% of ship pumps.

(6) POLB cruise terminal discharges have seen only three vessels routinely discharging over the last several years. That noted, these vessels are typical of the industry in terms of volume discharges and rates, discharging less than 2,000 tons of ballast water in a 4-hour period. That noted, the design basis provides some margin to holding capacity, to account for some growth given newer cruise ships having larger capacities, based on analysis of other cruiseship discharges at other ports. The rate is increased to 400 m3/hr to correspond to 6-hour processing of larger volumes.

(7) Hose sizing follows OCIMF guidance, generally keeping less than 12 meters per second velocity. Actual size considers the available head from the vessels pumps at the presentation flange, and assumes 70 kPa suction lift from the receiving facility (lift station). Hose is assumed to be smooth bore with Hazen Williams friction factor of 140 or less, and total length between 30 and 50 meters. In hose velocities are a special case, where in pipe velocities use the much slower rate of 3 meters per second (10 feet per second) as a guideline.

1.5 Summary of Findings Cost estimates were developed to inform the economic feasibility of modifying vessels for shore-based treatment, and are summarized below.

Table 4 Modification costs by vessel type and size

Vessel Type Case Study Discharge Rate (m3/hr)

Modification Cost

Articulated tug-barge El Segundo 1,700 $151,400 Containership Oakland – TraPac 750 $152,600 Bulk carrier Stockton/SA Recycling 2,800/1,400 $308,900 Oil tanker El Segundo 3,400 $425,900 Passenger cruise ship Long Beach Cruise Terminal 400 $297,300 Automobile carrier Hueneme 350 $297,300

Operations:Certain vessel conduct ballasting operations to offset cargo operations, in order to maintain stability and reduce hull stresses. As cargo is loaded, ballast water must be discharged at the same time. Typical: bulk carriers, oil tankers, ATBs, and some containerships.

A deck manifold connection is the more obvious location for oil tankers, bulk carriers, containerships, and ATBs. A side port connection is likely for car carriers and passenger cruise ships that already use such locations for fuel oil bunkering operations.

• NO universal connection standard for ballast water discharge• SOLAS (above 500GT) specifies an international shore connection

standard for connecting with a vessel’s firemain for firefighting purposes

Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 20 February 2018 Task 2: Assessment of Retrofitting and Outfitting of Vessels 19 Job 15086.01, Rev -

Section 4 General Modifications This section describes the general vessel modifications that would be required for any marine vessel that would transfer ballast water to a shore-based or marine vessel-based treatment system.

4.1 Ship Connection Options Connection between a vessel’s ballast system and shore-based treatment facilities can be made in several manners as outlined in below table. These same connections might be considered for either a ship-to-shore or a ship-to-ship connection. Table 8 Ship connection options

Representative Image Concept

Concept Locations for Connection This image, repeated from the Summary section, identifies

possible locations for capturing ballast water discharges from marine vessels.

A deck manifold connection is the more obvious location for oil tankers, bulk carriers, containerships, and ATBs.

A side port connection is likely for car carriers and passenger cruise ships that already use such locations for fuel oil bunkering operations.

The direct use of existing hull fittings has been considered for capturing ballast water, avoiding the need to modify the marine vessels.

Deck Manifold – Mechanical Loading Arm This image shows a mechanical loading arm connected

between a dock and a marine vessel. It would be very unusual for a marine vessel to already be

outfitted with a ballast water deck fitting. The rare exceptions would be very old tank ships that are still outfitted with non-segregated ballast water. It is also possible that some vessels will have their ballast water crossed over to the fire main, which would have a main deck connection. However, that connection would be DIN100, and unlikely to support needed ballast water discharge rates.

Mechanical loading arms have many advantages, in particular that they avoid interferences with mooring lines, and readily adjust for changes in tides. They are also flexible in size, and very useful for handling high flow rates and pressures.

Glosten (2018) Prepared for Delta Stewardship Council, California

Pricing the service : The ProviderPort/Terminal Operator: Charge a fee per visit and/or per volumePRF – Service provider: Charge a fee per visit and/or per volume

Port Authority / National Port Association : same as above But CAPEX maybe recovered (subsidized by State) or paid by membersShipowners Association: fee per usageBut CAPEX maybe recovered (subsidized by State) or paid by members- Subsidized if mandatory as a contingency measure- Investment Banks

Unless mandatory or subsidized: PRICE = (CAPEX+OPEX) + Profit marginAlternatives : pricing under competition, maximum Willigness to Pay


Pricing the service : The CostCAPEX: capital expensesannual equivalent of the capital cost

initial cost (C) will be paid back in equal instalments over the N-year period at an interest rate of I

N: 8-12 yearsi: average of 5%


OPEX: operating expensesUSAGE: 20 - 80 hrs per week, mean: 60 hours (1mil. c.m. per year)

10 hrs = 3,000

FUEL PRICE : 300 €/ton and a maximum of 650 €/ton

Fuel/Energy cost(Diesel generator, electricity grid, Renewable energy…)

incl. spare parts for main and support equipment, consumable materials (lubrication, coolant, grease), certification for engine and ballast water compliance, average repair costs

TRANSPORTATION/REPOSITIONING COSTS ?PERSONNEL COST ?

0.23212

0.27504

0.27758

0.28439

0.28975

0.29515

0.43279

0.33218

0.31535

0.31705

0.30554

0.30860

Baseline = 0.30087

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Usage (hrs per week)

N of years

interest rate

CAPEX (€)

Fuel price (€/mt)

Other Costs

CAPEX+ OPEX (€/c.m)

CAPEX+ OPEX (€/c.m)Inputs Ranked By Effect on Output Mean

Input High

Input Low

Pricing the service : The Cost


RESULTS

OPEX: 0.1€ per c.m

CAPEX+OPEX:0.23-0.43 € per c.m

Pricing the service : The Cost


OPEX: operating expensesUSAGE: 20 - 80 hrs per week, mean: 60 hours (1mil. c.m. per year)

0.23212

0.27504

0.27758

0.28439

0.28975

0.29515

0.43279

0.33218

0.31535

0.31705

0.30554

0.30860

Baseline = 0.30087

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Usage (hrs per week)

N of years

interest rate

CAPEX (€)

Fuel price (€/mt)

Other Costs

CAPEX+ OPEX (€/c.m)

CAPEX+ OPEX (€/c.m)Inputs Ranked By Effect on Output Mean

Input High

Input LowTable 4 – The ballast volume discharged from different types of vessels per year.

Average vessel

Containership Bulker Tanker Passenger RoRo Other

Ballast water discharges per year

259 223 375 570 167 10 210

Volume per discharge in m3 6,840 3,680 15,313 10,605 816 853 9,771

Source: Adapted from Glosten (2018)

Is it realistic ?• Information online on 4-6 similar concepts • MEPC 65/2/20 22 March 2013 - Ballast Water Treatment Boat (BWTBoat) by India

• MEPC 71/INF.30 28 April 2017 - Experience with contingency measures by IMarEST

• MEPC 71/4/13 19 April 2017 - Contingency planning for ballast water management, port solution by the Netherlands

• MEPC 74/INF.21 7 March 2019 - Statement of Compliance with Guidelines (G5) of the BawatTM BWMS Mk2 Mobile Treatment Unit by Denmark


MEPC 71/INF.30 Page 3

I:\MEPC\71\MEPC 71-INF-30.docx

Development progress 10 The Global Industry Alliance (GIA) held the 2nd Expert Workshop on Port-Based BWM Contingency Measures in October 2013 in Busan, Republic of Korea. This was attended by experts representing all stakeholders in ballast water management. The workshop concluded: "the level of "need" was still unknown and was dependent on uncertainties in the ultimate demand and regulatory requirements". There have been no further GIA workshops on contingency measures since. There has, however, been significant progress on several of the projects as discussed below. 11 The BWTBoat concept, presented by the Indian Register of Shipping, has continued development. This system, in concept design, would deliver and receive ballast water at a network of ports throughout various trading areas. In this manner, a ship could be loaded with treated ballast water for future compliant discharge. Alternatively, a ship could discharge untreated ballast water to the BWTBoat, for treatment. 12 The Top Water Flow mobile concept, developed by a private company in Norway, uses a barge-based treatment system. This system is in the concept phase. The barge connects to the ship's hull at the ballast water discharge pipe using an electromagnetic tip with a rubber seal. 13 The Damen InvaSave system allows placement of any number of InvaSave treatment containers on board a barge, truck, dock, or other suitable platform. The ship then pumps ballast water off to the treatment modules for treatment. This is a commercially offered product, is in full-scale demonstration in a Netherlands port and has been certified to meet the D-2 treatment discharge standard. 14 The Glosten inResponse system is a mobile kit that is deployed on board a ship. The system lowers a device into the ballast water tanks where an Active Substance is mixed into the ballast water, a hold time recorded, and a neutralizing agent then applied. This system is continuing full-scale prototype demonstration trials.

Table 1: Summary of contingency measures development efforts

BWTBoat Top water flow InvaSave inResponse Description Network of ships

to provide treated ballast, or receive untreated ballast

Mobile barge based treatment plant, with hose connecting to ship's hull at ballast discharge pipe

Treatment container that can process discharged ballast water. Locate on barge, truck, shore, etc.

Mobile treatment system brought onto the ship, treating ballast water in-tank

Efficacy Assumed to meet D-2, not yet developed

Assumed to meet D-2, testing data not available

Demonstrated to meet D-2, certified

Mixed results, meeting D-2 when there is good tank access, and short of D-2 when tank access is difficult

Development phase

Concept design Concept design Commercially available, working prototype

Working prototype, with ongoing trials

Limitations Requires deck connection for ballast transfer

Requires special connection to ship's hull

Requires deck connection for ballast transfer

Requires access to ballast water tank hatch/manhole

MEPC 74/INF.21 Annex, page 1

I:\MEPC\74\MEPC 74-INF.21.docx

ANNEX

___________

Is it realistic ? “why are there no other systems ?”

• There are indeed other companies working on the concept

(54-57 BWMS approved, 4-5 containerized BWMS concepts + INVASAVE)

• “Shooting ourselves on the foot” (Manager Business Development and Marketing)

• $30 billion - 56,000 vessels (approx. 10,000 sold)

• BWTS which will be installed (i.e. delivered on board a vessel) prior to Oct. 28th 2020,

should be certified either with the existing G8 or the revised.


Operators’ experience (ABS,2019)

ABS Best Practices for Operations of Ballast Water Management Systems Report 8

2018 BWMS Operational Experience Survey Results ABS received responses from more than 60 shipowners and operators worldwide covering 483 BWMS installations for seven BWMS treatment technologies and a wide range of vessel types including bulk carriers, container ships, gas carriers, general cargo carriers, heavy load carriers, LNG carriers, product carriers, tankers, and vehicle carriers.

The results from the questionnaires were imported into an Excel spreadsheet with the quantifiable information such as dates and sizes, and the information was refined to support sorting for analysis. If not initially indicated, the descriptive sections were deciphered and interpreted to support more comprehensive analysis. Depending on the categorization, data was pulled into numerical terms and presented graphically. The aggregated results allowed for the identification of common issues, challenges, and best practices. The following figures summarize a few of the survey results. A more detailed analysis can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 1 BWMS Operability

Figure 2 BWMS Overall Experience (Positive Feedback)

34%

40%

22%26%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Reliability User Friendliness OPEX Will Use Again


American Bureau of Shipping - March 2019 - 2019 Best Practices for Operations of Ballast Water Management Systems Report

60 shipowners and operators worldwide covering 483 BWMS installations for seven BWMS treatment technologies


2018 BWMS Operational Experience Survey Results ABS received responses from more than 60 shipowners and operators worldwide covering 483 BWMS installations for seven BWMS treatment technologies and a wide range of vessel types including bulk carriers, container ships, gas carriers, general cargo carriers, heavy load carriers, LNG carriers, product carriers, tankers, and vehicle carriers.

The results from the questionnaires were imported into an Excel spreadsheet with the quantifiable information such as dates and sizes, and the information was refined to support sorting for analysis. If not initially indicated, the descriptive sections were deciphered and interpreted to support more comprehensive analysis. Depending on the categorization, data was pulled into numerical terms and presented graphically. The aggregated results allowed for the identification of common issues, challenges, and best practices. The following figures summarize a few of the survey results. A more detailed analysis can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 1 BWMS Operability

Figure 2 BWMS Overall Experience (Positive Feedback)

34%

40%

22%26%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%


BWMS Overall Experience (Positive Feedback) BWMS Operability

Operators’ experience (ABS,2019)


American Bureau of Shipping - March 2019 - 2019 Best Practices for Operations of Ballast Water Management Systems Report

Frequent outages and replacement of UV lamps and clogging of filters that require frequent or continuous back-flushing operations

control system software faults and hardware failures that caused unexplained alarms interrupting continuous operations

effective crew training to allow proper operations, maintenance, troubleshooting, and repairs was problematic


Figure 3 BWMS Overall Experience-Treatment Technologies (Positive Feedback)

Figure 4 In-Operation Concerns Reported

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Filtration +Chlorination via

chemical addition(5.0%)

Filtration +Deoxygenation

(0.2%)

Filtration + FullFlow (In-line) EC +

Neutralization(17.8%)

Filtration + Side-stream EC +


Filtration + UVTreatment

(20.7%)

Full Flow (In-line)EC (7.5%)

Ozone Treatment+ Neutralization

(19.9%)


95%

89%

65%

17%

4%

36%

78%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Filtration +Chlorination via

chemical addition(5.0%)

Filtration +Deoxygenation

(0.2%)

Filtration + FullFlow (In-line) EC +


Filtration + Side-stream EC +


Filtration + UVTreatment

(20.7%)

Full Flow (In-line)EC (7.5%)

Ozone Treatment+ Neutralization

(19.9%)

Hardware Failure Software Failure Human Error

Health and Safety Issues Impact on Ballast Coating of Piping Reduction in Ballast Rate

Other Issues and Challenges



6 Contingency Measures

Well planned BWM contingency measures allow shipowners, operators and crew to identify, practice and implement the BWM strategy and be prepared for unexpected circumstances (i.e., inoperable BWMS, equipment failures, etc.). This could avoid unnecessary downtime for the vessel (i.e., delay at berths or ports, inability to continue cargo operations, etc.) and help avoid economic and/or commercial impacts.

The BWM methods used should be well understood by the vessel’s crew. These should be incorporated as part of the training program and documented in the ship-specific BWMP to allow proper operation and maintenance of the BWMS.

With the increasing number of owners experiencing problematic operations as a result of system design limitations, a considerable amount of time during the workshops was used to review practical and feasible contingency measures.

“Alternate Compliant Methods • Mobile facilities that come alongside to

receive and treat ballast water for vessels or shore- based treatment facilities may be (or become) available in the future.

• In anticipation of these facilities becoming available, the vessel could be provided with a method to connect to shore or shipboard reception facilities to obtain compliant ballast water. However, the responsibility for preventing discharging non-compliant ballast water would be the responsibility of the owner.

• For discharges to U.S. waters inside 12 NM, the use of U.S. public water system (PWS) may be an option. Shore connections provided during the BWMS retrofit could better facilitate ballasting the ship with U.S. PWS if necessary.”

Selection of the best alternative IC

ompl

ianc

e w

ith t

he

IMO

Con

vent

ion




containerised BWTS

regular BWTS


barge




containerised BWTS

Questionnaire under preparation to be sent to stakeholders

WeightingRanking of alternatives


Selection of the best alternative II


Thank you !

Christos Kontovas M.Eng, PhD | Dr.-Ing. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer Senior Lecturer Department of Maritime and Mechanical Engineering James Parsons Building, Byrom Street, Liverpool, L3 3AF e: [email protected] Office: 1.30

www.linkedin.com/in/xkontovas/


Documents

The market and economics of (mobile) port-based Ballast ...€¦ · last water treatment system, as it means there is no internal space available. A deckhouse for PureBallast 3 Ex