BALLAST WATER TREATMENT IN PORTS. FEASIBILITY STUDY · BALLAST WATER TREATMENT IN PORTS,...

$Page 1: BALLAST WATER TREATMENT IN PORTS. FEASIBILITY STUDY · BALLAST WATER TREATMENT IN PORTS, FEASIBILITY STUDY A027616. Feasibility Study. December 2012 C:\Users\UCB\Desktop\NST-mobile$
BALLAST WATER

TREATMENT IN

PORTS.

FEASIBILITY

STUDY This study investigates the possibilities and feasibility of the

port based ballast water treatment by mobile units

2012

2014

TITEL: BALLAST WATER TREATMENT IN

PORTS. FEASIBILITY STUDY

Projektgruppe:

A consortium of Danish Ship Owners’ Association, Maersk A/S, DFDS

A/S and Danish Ports

Udgiver:

Naturstyrelsen

Haraldsgade 53

2100 København Ø

www.nst.dk

År:

2012

Redaktion [evt. fotos og illustrationer]:

Danish Partnership on Ballast Water

ISBN nr. 978-87-7091-621-9

Ansvarsfraskrivelse:

Naturstyrelsen offentliggør rapporter inden for vandteknologi, medfinansieret af Miljøministeriet.

Offentliggørelsen betyder, at Naturstyrelsen finder indholdet af væsentlig betydning for en bredere kreds.

Naturstyrelsen deler dog ikke nødvendigvis de synspunkter, der kommer til udtryk i rapporterne.

Må citeres med kildeangivelse.

http://www.nst.dk/

NOVEMBER 2012

DANISH SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, MAERSK, DFDS, DANISH PORTS

BALLAST WATER TREATMENT IN PORTS.

FEASIBILITY STUDY

ADDRESS COWI A/S

Parallelvej 2

2800 Kongens Lyngby

Denmark

TEL +45 56 40 00 00

FAX +45 56 40 99 99

WWW cowi.com

PROJECT NO. A027616

DOCUMENT NO. A27616-FS-01

VERSION 3.0

DATE OF ISSUE 2012-12-21

PREPARED CKI,MHO,LEGL, JNAN, JOVP, PSP

CHECKED CKI, PSP

APPROVED PSP


BALLAST WATER TREATMENT IN PORTS, FEASIBILITY STUDY

A027616. Feasibility Study. December 2012

C:\Users\UCB\Desktop\NST-mobile BWMS report.docx

5

CONTENTS

1 Executive Summary 7

2 Introduction 9

2.1 Methodology 11

3 Treatment of ballast water in ports – a

possibility 14

3.1 General 14

3.2 Modes of operation 14

3.3 Environmental considerations 15

4 Logistical challenges - Equipment, operation, costs. 24

4.1 General 24

4.2 Principles of treatment 25

4.3 Equipment 25

4.4 Mode of operation 29

4.5 Capital investments (Capex) 35

4.6 Operating cost (Opex) 36

4.7 Conclusion 37

5 Scenarios, business cases 39

5.1 Scenario A-1 - Esbjerg 40

5.2 Scenario A-2 - Esbjerg 44

5.3 Scenario A-3 - Service ships 47

5.4 Summary Esbjerg 47

5.5 Scenario B-1 - Fredericia 48

5.6 Scenario A-4 - Treatment from barge 50

5.7 Scenario A-5 - Supply of treated water 51

5.8 Summary 52

6 Financial analyses 54

6.1 Basic assumptions 54

6.2 Results 54

6.3 Evaluation and sensitivity check 55

6.4 Comparative scenario 56

6.5 Scenario A-4 - Treatment from barge 57

6.6 Scenario A-5 - Supply of treated water 57

6.7 Cost and price 57

6.8 Recapitulation 58

7 Summary - conclusions 59

7.1 The study results 59

7.2 Conclusions 60

8 Testing the concept 62

8.1 Description 62

8.2 Programme 63

APPENDICES

Appendix A Regulations D-1 and D-2 64

Appendix B Regulation B-3 65

Appendix C Guideline G-5 66

Appendix D Regulation A-3 72

Appendix E Regulation A-4 73

Appendix F Ships at berth 1/1-31/3 2012 74




7

1 Executive Summary

The spreading of possible harmful invasive aquatic organisms from one region to

another caused by discharge of ship’s ballast water, represents a threat to the

world’s oceans and has gained increasing awareness worldwide. Since 1992

voluntary guidelines have been issued and adopted by the UN for prevention of the

spread of invasive species from ship’s ballast water.

In 2004 the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) adopted the International

Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and

Sediments.

When the convention enters into force all ships in international traffic will be

required to manage and treat their ballast water to certain standards and

regulations. The convention will enter into force 12 months after a total of 30

states, representing 35% of the world’s shipping tonnage, have ratified it. (At the

end of 2012 in total 36 states with 29% of the world’s tonnage have ratified the

convention).

In general, the convention’s requirements for ballast water management and

treatment will, within a certain time line, require special treatment units onboard

the ships navigating internationally. The convention also mentions the option of

establishing treatment facilities in ports, as an alternative to the onboard treatment.

This study investigates the possibilities and feasibility of the port based ballast

water treatment by mobile units. The study was carried by COWI A/S assigned by

a consortium of Danish Ship Owners’ Association, Maersk, DFDS and Danish

Ports.

The study has been based on two Danish ports and several scenarios and business

cases have been addressed, mainly involving freight ferries and service ships in

regular service.

The investigations have covered the following main issues:

› Conditions and process for the environmental approvals

› Technical and operational challenges and feasibility

› Financial feasibility of the business cases

The results and conclusions of the study can be summarized as follows:

› Environmental approvals by the authorities can probably be obtained

› The technical and operational concepts can be considered feasible

› The port based treatment seems only realistic for ships in regular sailings and

with a yearly minimum amount of ballast water treated of 0.2 mill. ton per unit

› The business case with best results includes several selected Ro-Ro ferry

routes in the North Sea, operated by one company

› The estimated cost of the onboard treatment seems somewhat lower than the

calculated treatment cost of the best case, however that needs to be

investigated further, taking all conditions into account, to reach a more solid

base for comparison between the concepts.




9

2 Introduction

In February 2004 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water

and Sediments (BWM). The convention aims to prevent the spread of harmful

aquatic organisms from one region to another, by establishing standards and

procedures for the management and control of ships’ ballast water and sediments.

Under the convention and when entering into force all ships in international traffic

will be required to manage and treat their ballast water to certain standards –

especially regulations D-1 & D-2. These set the requirements for ballast water

exchange (D-1) and the final requirements for treatment of ballast water (D-2).

Regulations D-1 and D-2 can be found in Appendix A.

The convention will enter into force 12 months after a total of 30 states,

representing 35 % of the world’s shipping tonnage, have ratified it. At mid year

2012 in total 36 states have ratified the convention, representing 29 % of the

world’s shipping tonnage.

The time-frame for implementation depends on whether the ship is newly built or

existing and when the construction took place. The rules are as follows:

In general, the convention’s requirements for ballast water management and

treatment according to regulation D-2, within a certain time line, will require

special treatment units onboard the ships navigating internationally in several

biological zones.

http://www.ballast-water-treatment.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/timeline-for-vessels-equipment.jpg

Regulation B-3.6 refers to the option of establishing reception facilities for ballast

water in ports. If implemented the planning and design of those facilities should

follow the guidelines G5 of the Convention. Regulation B-3 can be found in

Appendix B, and the guidelines G-5 in Appendix C. Certain exceptions are listed in

Regulations A-3 (mainly concerning situations of distress and if the ballast water is

discharged where it was taken in, see Appendix D) and possibilities for exemptions

are described in A-4 (see Appendix E).

The consortium of Danish Ship Owners’ Association, Maersk A/S, DFDS A/S and

Danish Ports has engaged COWI A/S to carry out a feasibility study with the

purpose of investigating and clarifying the possibilities of treatment of ballast

water from ships in ports, as an alternative to the treatment onboard the ships.

There are various reasons for taking an interest in this option. Retrofitting

equipment in existing vessels is expensive and may lead to suboptimal operation

and maintenance conditions. One on-quay plant may service many ships and

thereby use the invested capital better. If the process takes place on land, the

authorities’ environmental monitoring will be easier; and a dedicated organization

can ensure better management than if the process is an addition to ship crews’

many other duties. Finally, although Regulation A-4 allows exemptions for ships

operating exclusively between specified locations, it is far from certain that such

exemptions will be granted.

The consortium envisages that for ships sailing in fixed routes with regular calls at

few ports or for ships with rare exchange of ballast water, mobile treatment units

could be employed in the ports to service the ships. In this way the installations on

each ship could be avoided, with the anticipated resulting savings in space, cost of

installations and operational costs.

Establishing and operating land based mobile treatment plants is envisaged as a

possible approach to ballast water treatment, as a relatively small number of

treatment plants can service a greater number of ships.

The principal purpose of this study is to investigate and clarify the possibilities and

the feasibility of implementation of port based mobile treatment units for ships’

ballast water, hereunder:

› The conditions and process for the environmental approvals of the land based

treatment solution

› The technical and operational challenges of the mobile treatment facilities in

the ports

› The financial basis and the feasibility of the realistic business cases

› Presenting conclusions and the basis for carrying out tests of a prototype plant




11

2.1 Methodology

Two major ports in Denmark have been selected as case studies – Esbjerg Port

located on the west coast of Jutland and Fredericia Port, located on the east coast of

Jutland.

The port of Esbjerg has been chosen because of the high frequency of calls from

ships on fixed routes between the port and a limited number of other ports.

Furthermore, the port of Esbjerg is the base for the service ships to the offshore

platforms in the North Sea. Such shipping activities seem the most likely to be able

to utilize land based ballast water treatment facilities instead of onboard treatment

units.

The port of Fredericia services shipping lines with more random calls at the port

and by various types of vessels. The port also includes a major terminal for export

of crude oil.

As concerns equipment, DESMI’s OceanGuardTM

has been chosen. It has been

developed by DESMI Pumping Technology A/S in Nørresundby, Denmark, and it

has received approval from IMO for treatment of ballast water.

2.1.1 Main approach

The main approach of the study and investigations has been the following:

› Investigation of the conditions and the main changes with regard to

regulations and environmental approvals by adopting the land based treatment

of ballast water instead of the onboard treatment plants. Clarification of the

possible barriers and solutions related to the environmental aspects and

approvals.

› On the basis of two Danish ports, selected as case studies, investigation of the

logistics and the technical possibilities, challenges and solutions. Development

of the concepts of the mobile treatment units and their mode of operation.

› Selection of realistic scenarios for the treatment operations with regard to the

frequency and number of ship-calls at the ports and the operational aspects.

Financial analyses for the chosen business cases.

› Evaluation and conclusions

It must be noted that the described equipment and technical processes are on a

conceptual base and shall be further investigated and designed for a development

of a prototype plant, if so decided.

2.1.2 Structure

The investigations and analyses have been structured as follows:

› Initial assessments, selection of the ports for the case studies

› Meetings with the port organisations for discussions of the conditions and

logistics in the ports including the data for ship-calls at the ports

› Data and registration of calls at the ports for the ships involved.

› Meetings with the selected supplier of treatment plants in Denmark, DESMI

A/S

› Development with DESMI of the preliminary features and concept of

operation of the mobile treatment unit

› Environmental considerations and investigations of the possible solutions for

handling of residual material. Evaluation of barriers for approvals

› Establish the cost data and economical basis for the mobile units

› Interviews with the relevant parties

› Development of the various possible scenarios for the implementation of the

mobile units at the two ports and the connecting ports of call

› Perform the financial analyses for the scenarios selected and the assessment of

the comparable solution with the treatment onboard the ships

› Summary – evaluation - conclusions

Interviews, in addition to the meetings, have been made with among others:

› Maersk Maritime Technology, Copenhagen

› DFDS Technical org., Esbjerg;

› DFDS Stevedore, Esbjerg;

› Danbor, Esbjerg;

› OW Bunkers, Ålborg;

› Bek & Verburg, Rotterdam, (barge services);

› Shell Terminal, Fredericia;

› Fredericia Shipping;

› Unifeeder, Århus;

› IMO, London.




13

We thank all the interviewed parties for their valuable contributions.

Terminology

This study has used the following terminology for the main elements:

The convention: Ballast Water Management Convention. 2004. IMO

Ballast water treatment: Treatment process by filtering and UV irradiation as

approved by IMO and under approval of the flag state, Denmark.

Mobile treatment unit: The complete treatment plant mounted on a flatbed trailer,

with truck unit.

Residue / filtrate: The residual material from the backflushing of filters.

Slurry: The slurry pumped to the tank on the trailer via a hydrocyclone contained in

the treatment unit. The content of suspended material will be around 5 %.

Barge: Self-propelled harbour barge, 35 – 40m in length.

Operator: The stevedoring company which carries out the operation of the mobile

treatment units.

3 Treatment of ballast water in ports – a

possibility

3.1 General

Of the various options for managing ballast water, on-quay treatment at arrival is

not an obvious one. It means that ships will carry potentially invasive species in

their ballast tanks and that emergency dumping of ballast water, although rare, will

entail environmental risks. If de-ballasting before entering a port is necessary, due

to e.g. tidal conditions, on-quay treatment is not an option. Reasonable guarantees

of availability are also needed to avoid costly waiting time.

On the other hand, on-board treatment has drawbacks. The space needed for the

equipment could be used for cargo; retrofitting equipment can be inconvenient in

terms of working conditions under installation, operation and maintenance; and

operation will require crew’s attention at moments when this attention is required

elsewhere. Capital is invested in equipment with little operating time. Environ-

mental authorities’ monitoring of the activities is difficult.

On-quay treatment of ballast water therefore merits a study.

3.2 Modes of operation

Various types of equipment, based on different technologies, have been developed

for this purpose. At present, 22 types of approved equipment are available on the

market. Of these, 12 are based on UV irradiation and filtration, 7 on electrolysis

and filtration, one on de-oxygenation, one on chemical injection and one on pure

ozone. The present study considers only DESMI’s OceanGuardTM

, a system based

on UV irradiation and filtration.

For the onboard plants with filters, which probably will be installed in many

vessels not sailing in regular routes, the treatment takes place both during

ballasting and during de-ballasting. In this way the backflushing material is

dumped into the sea where it was taken from. During the de-ballasting in the port

of arrival the ballast water contains only a small amount of suspended material and




15

the backflushing material is returned to ballast tanks or the filters are bypassed.

This is the modus operandi for which DESMI’s equipment is intended.

The principal difference between ballast water treatment onboard ships and on the

quay by mobile treatment units lies in the process of handling the return material

from the backflushing of the filters of the treatment units in question. The treatment

process itself within the units will be similar, both in the onboard plants and in the

land based units.

The land based treatment units will have to treat the ballast water in one single

operation during de-ballasting and the backflushing material must be handled in a

safe and appropriate way. This means that in most cases the operation of the

mobile treatment units in ports must be approved by the local environmental

authorities. This is in addition to the required testing and approvals of the treatment

plants by IMO and the flag state – in Denmark the Danish Nature Agency and the

Danish Maritime Authority.

3.3 Environmental considerations

According to regulation D-2 of the Convention, "Ballast water performance

standard", the ballast water from ships must comply with certain quality standard

before it can be discharged it into coastal waters or ports. To meet the standards

some sort of treatment prior to discharge will be necessary. The IMO standards are

summarized in the table below.

IMO D-2 Standard for Discharge Ballast Water

Microorganism category Regulation

Plankton, size > 50 μm < 10 viable cells / m3

Plankton, size 10-50 μm < 10 viable cells / mL

Toxicogenic Vibrio Cholerae < 10 Colony Forming Unit / 100 mL

Escherichia Coli < 250 Colony Forming Unit / 100 mL

Intestinal Enterococci < 100 Colony Forming Unit / 100 mL

The supplier of the treatment plant chosen for this study, DESMI A/S, has

informed that the proposed mobile treatment plant (OceanGuardTM

, capacity 300

m3/h) can meet the above IMO quality standards. The system has now obtained

approval from IMO.

3.3.1 Environmental aspects for port based ballast water

treatment outside the ship

Environmental aspects

Environmental aspect Pollution sources

Air pollution Air pollution from plant’s generating set.

Noise Noise from plant operation

Waste Filtration residue of suspended matter or sediment

from treatment plant

Wastewater Treated ballast water

Risk for soil, ground water or

surface water

Spill or leakage from fuel store storage

Table 1: Important environmental aspects for a treatment plant placed outside the ship.

The noise and air pollution from operating the plant is not expected to exceed the

guidelines for port areas from the Environmental Protection Agency. The supplier

of the power generating set for the treatment unit shall document that its emission

requirements are fulfilled and that the fuel tank fulfils the safety requirements for

the equipment. The aspect likely to be critical in the eyes of the authorities is noise.

According to the data sheet of the proposed generating set, SMDO J77K, the

source level is 92Lwa. At a distance of 100 meters, the noise contribution from this

source is estimated to be approximately 35dBA, and if two sets are operating next

to each other, 38dBA. The recommended limit for mixed residential and industrial

areas is 40 DBA at night (22-07) and higher in daytime. It is thus very likely that

the noise emission criteria can be met, both day and night.

It is the handling of the treated water and the treatment residue that poses the

challenges as can be seen in the section 3.3.3 below.

3.3.2 Relevant legislation and regulation

Environmental matters are the subject of three laws, generally called the Planning

Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Marine Environment Act. These

acts and the related executive orders and guidelines are described below:

The Planning Act (“Planloven”)

This law has been passed in response to a number of European Union directives.

The law prescribes the rules to be followed by public authorities in planning,

including:

› To reconcile societal interests




17

› To contribute to protecting nature and environment through prevention of

pollution

› To create and conserve valuable buildings

› To involve the public in the planning process.

This act is supplemented by “VVM-bekendtgørelsen”, executive order 1510 of 15

December 2010 of the Ministry of the Environment on environmental impact

assessments (EIA). The order aims at ensuring that such assessments are made and

used as the basis for according or refusing permission to build plants that may have

a substantial influence on the environment. Public involvement is an important part

of the decision process. The order’s Appendix 1 contains a list of plant that is

considered always to have a substantial impact on the environment and therefore

always requires an EIA. A clear majority of cases are found in Appendix 2. These

will not necessarily have a substantial impact on the environment and only an

environmental screening is mandatory.

Guideline 9339 of 12 March 2009 from the Environmental Protection Agency

(Ministry of the Environment) on EIA in the Planning Act gives general guidelines

for carrying out EIA’s and environmental screenings.

The Environmental Protection Act (“Miljøbeskyttelsesloven”)

Also this law has been passed as a response to various European Union directives.

It is a framework law which gives the ministry wide powers to comply with the

requirements. Its purpose is to contribute to protect nature and environment so that

society can develop on a sustainable basis respecting the conditions for human life

and the protection of plant and animal life. The law aims particularly at:

› Preventing and abating pollution of air, water, soil and sub-soil as well as

vibration and noise.

› Establishing hygiene-based rules relating to environment and humans

› Limiting use and wastage of raw materials and resources

› Promoting cleaner technology

› Promoting recycling and limiting problems related to disposal of waste.

The act is supplemented by a number of executive orders and guidelines.

Executive order 486 of 25 May 2012 (Ministry of the Environment) on approval of

listed businesses (“Godkendelsesbekendtgørelsen”) prescribes that major

businesses and businesses that may pollute their surroundings need an

environmental permit. The approval specifies requirements to design and operation

to ensure that they are run without environmental impacts on the environment.

Such businesses are referred to as ‘listed businesses’ (“listevirksomheder”).

Guideline 9339 of 12 March 2009 from the Environmental Protection Agency

(Ministry of the Environment) on external noise from businesses

(“Støjvejledningen”) prescribes i.a. that if a business that is not subject to

environmental approval creates noise nuisances the municipality may order it to

reduce the noise. The order describes how noise conditions are to be formulated

and gives guidelines for noise limits.

Executive order 1415 of 12 December 2011 (Ministry of the Environment) on

waste (“Affaldsbekendtgørelsen”) concerns handling and disposal of waste from

households and businesses.

Executive order 1448 of 11 December 2007 (Ministry of the Environment) on

waste water permissions (“Spildevandsbekendtgørelsen”) applies to all private and

public waste water treatment plants. It applies to all installations for transport or

treatment of waste water prior to discharge. It also applies to emission of

substances directly to the ground water.

Guideline 2, 2006 from the Environmental Protection Agency (Ministry of the

Environment) on connecting sewers from industries to public waste water

treatment plants (“Spildevandsvejledningen”) gives general guidelines on

administration of permits for industries to discharge sewage to public waste water

treatment plants.

Executive order 1650 of 13 December 2006 (Ministry of the Environment) on the

use of waste for agricultural purposes (“Slambekendtgørelsen”) determines the

types of waste that may be used for agricultural purposes. In order to be used, the

waste must improve the quality of the soil. The order also sets rules for the quality

of the waste, including its content of heavy metals and substances extraneous to the

environment, as well rules for handling and treatment so that the use of waste will

not endanger the health of humans or animals.

The Marine Environment Act (“Havmiljøloven”)

Similarly passed in response to European Union directives, the intention of the law

is to prevent and reduce pollution of and other impacts on the marine environment

from Danish and foreign ships, aircraft, platforms and pipelines; and to maintain a

preparedness for combating pollution on the sea, along coasts and in ports.

As far as this report’s subject is concerned, the act is supplemented by two

executive orders.

Executive order 32 of 07 January 2011 (Ministry of the Environment) on dumping

marine excavation material (“Klapbekendtgørelsen”) contains an exception to the

general prohibition of dumping at sea, and a definition of material that may be

dumped.

Executive order 654 of 15 June 2012 (Ministry of the Environment) on handling

ballast water and sediments from ships’ ballast water tanks sets rules for handling

ballast water and sediments in order to prevent invasive species from spreading.




19

3.3.3 Handling of ballast water treated in the Danish ports,

outside the ships

The technology of the system from DESMI chosen for this study is based on a

combination of mechanical filtration and UV irradiation, including treatment with

self-produced ozone. It will, apart from the discharge of treated ballast water back

into the sea, lead to production of a filter residue (filtrate) by the backflushing of

the filters. This residue must be handled, treated and disposed of in an

environmentally acceptable manner. It cannot be excluded that viable aquatic

organisms are still present in the residue material.

Disinfection could be achieved by chlorination in reception tanks in which the

slurry shall be kept for at least 24 hours. After this treatment, the slurry could be

deposited in storage tanks for settlement of the suspended residue material. That

material could then be delivered to a controlled depot or a land reclamation area.

The amount of chloride due to the chlorination can be considered negligible

compared with the chloride content due to the natural salinity of the water.

The amounts of residue to be handled following the treatment of ballast water from

one vessel will depend on the concentration of suspended solids in the ballast water

and the total volume. Based on the ongoing tests of the equipment, and given the

volume of backflushing water of 1% of the total containing 5% dry matter, it is

expected that the production of slurry will be in the range of 10 – 15 t per day,

corresponding to approx. 500-800 kg dry residue per day. This is for the treatment

of ballast water volumes within 1,000-1,500 m3 per day in Esbjerg Port.

Table 2 below shows the investigated possibilities for handling treated ballast

water and filter residue as well as the approvals or permits required for the feasible

and possibly feasible solutions according to Danish law and regulations. The

authority for the approvals of the land based treatment of ballast water is the

municipality where the port is located.

Ballast water taken in outside the port of destination

A: Treatment

onboard ship

Ship’s own

treatment plant or

plant “borrowed”

from the port or

from another ship

Approvals/permits

Approval of plant

according to executive

order 654 of 15/06/2012.

Final approval by IMO

and type approval

certificate by the flag

state to be obtained.

Feasible handling of treated waste water

Port basin

Treated ballast water may be discharged to the port

basin if the ballast water has been handled according

to chapter 2 of executive order 654 of 15/o6/2012.

Feasible handling of filtrate from treatment

No filtrate may be discharged to the port basin, cf.

chapter 3 of executive order 654 15/06/2012.

The municipality has an obligation to indicate a way of

disposing of the filtrate, see below C. Filtrate handling.

B: Treatment

outside the ship

Mobile unit or

fixed plant on land

or barge

Approvals/permits

Before establishing a

treatment plant, an

environmental screening

has to be carried out. If

the screening so

indicates, an

environmental impact

assessment (EIA) shall

be made.

The screening concerns

environmental effects on

air, noise, recipient, soil

and groundwater. The

treatment plant is

subject to point 12 C in

executive order 1510 of

15/15/2010.

In case of discharge to

the sea, a discharge

permit as per §28 of the

Environmental

Protection Act is

required.

It is not a listed activity

Possibly feasible and obvious handling of treated

water

Discharge to port basin, land based treatment units.

It may be difficult to obtain a discharge permit

according to the Environmental Protection Act §28 as

the content of pollutants is unknown. However, the

authorities may grant permission without removal of

pollutants based on a BAT (best available technology)

consideration. The discharge permit is established

according to executive order 1022 of 25/08/2010.

Discharge to port basin, treatment plants on barges

The plants on barges are considered as onboard

treatment plants and shall be approved as such.

Non-feasible handling of treated water

To a sewer discharging to a public sewage treatment

plant

The treated ballast water cannot be discharged to a

sewer as it will not fulfil the requirement of less than

1000 mg/l of chloride. This requirement has been set

due to the risk of corrosion in the sewer system. The

concentration of chloride in the filtrate is approximately

19,400 mg/l (corresponding to the salinity of the North

Sea).




21

cf. executive order BEK

486 of 25/05/2010 so no

environmental permit is

required according to

§33 of the

Environmental

Protection Act, cf.

executive order 879 of

26/06/2010.

The authorities may,

after the establishment

of the plant, issue orders

according to §42 of the

Environmental

Protection Act if the

plant causes significant

environmental pollution

incl. generation of

waste, cf. executive

order 879 of 26/06/2010.

Directly to a waste water treatment plant

Not an obvious possibility due to the problems of

transporting the water to the plant.

Probably the chloride content of the treated water is

too high to allow it to be discharged to a plant. The

activated sludge in the plant is sensitive to chloride as

these impair nitrification. The guidelines of the

Environmental Protection Agency. no. 2, 2006 do not

indicate a contents of chloride acceptable for the

activated sludge.

Port basin

The residue may not be discharged to the port basin.

Feasible handling of filtrate

The municipality has an obligation to indicate a way of

disposing of the sludge, see below C. Sediment

handling.

C. Filtrate, the

residue from the

backflushing of

filters

Approvals/permits

The filtrate is considered

as waste, cf. executive

order 1415

The filtrate requires an

environmental permit

according to §33 of the

Environmental Approval

Act as per list item K204

if biological or physical-

chemical treatment of

waste water sludge

takes place before

disposal, cf. executive

orders 879 and 486.

Feasible and obvious handling of filtrate

Ordinary landfills and spray fields

The filtrate may be disposed of in an ordinary landfill or

spray field. Normally, at a landfill a content of at least

15% dry matter is required. The filtrate must be listed

on the site’s positive list.

Possibly feasible handling of filtrate

Kommunekemi:

The filtrate may be disposed of at Kommunekemi

(hazardous waste incineration facility). Expensive

option.

Incineration

The dry matter content must be at least 25-30% for the

filtrate to be received at an approved incineration plant.

The filtrate has a high content of chlorides. It will be

difficult to find a plant that will receive the filtrate as

plants cope with the emission requirements for HCl.

Directly to a waste water treatment plant:

Probably the chloride content of the treated water is

too high to allow it to be led to directly to a plant. The

activated sludge in the plant is sensitive to chloride as

chlorides impair nitrification. The guidelines of the

Environmental Protection Agency no. 2, 2006 do not

indicate a content of chloride acceptable for the

activated sludge.

Non-feasible handling of filtrate

To a sewer discharging to a public water treatment

plant

The filtrate cannot be discharged to a sewer as it will

not fulfil the requirement of less than 1000 mg/l of

chloride. This requirement has been set due to the risk

of corrosion in the sewer system. The concentration of

chloride in the filtrate is approximately 19,400 mg/l

(corresponding to the salinity of the North Sea).

The sea:

It is forbidden to dump the filtrate at sea, cf. Marine

Environment Act. Nor is it possible to dump it at

designated dumping sites (for dredged material) at

sea, as it is not “dump-able” material, cf. executive

order 32 of 07/01/2011.

Agricultural use:

The treated water cannot be used as waste for

agricultural purposes. The water has no fertilizing or

soil-improving properties, cf. executive order 1650 of

13/12/2006.

Table 2: Handling of treated ballast water and filter residue. Approvals or permits

required according to Danish regulations and guidelines

From the above it may be seen that the treatment in the ports outside the ships will

require various approvals by the local environmental agencies. In Denmark it

would be the local municipality which is the central authority for the required

approvals.




23

The approvals required for the land based treatment of ballast water are related to

the discharge of the treated ballast water and the handling of the filtrate.

To summarize it can be concluded that a number of disposal options exist for

ballast water taken up in international waters and treated on the quay or on a barge

in the port of call. Among these it is likely that the environmental authorities’

approval can be obtained for discharging the treated water to the port basin and for

disposing of the treated slurry in an approved land-fill or spray field.

It should, however, be noted that the implementation of the IMO ballast water

regulations will create a new type of waste to be handled, namely slurry from the

possible land based treatment units, from cleaning of ship’s ballast tanks, from ship

yards, etc. Since no generic regulations for this waste exist it would be

recommendable that the environmental authorities and the other relevant

authorities coordinate to address this issue for common regulations and guidelines.

4 Logistical challenges -

Equipment, operation, costs.

4.1 General

The investigations and the study have been based on the ports of Esbjerg and

Fredericia located on the west coast respectively east coast of Jutland in Denmark.

The ballast water treatment operations in the ports by mobile units on the quays are

the main focus of this study. However, also treatment units placed on barges have

been envisaged for the treatment services to ships in the ports.

Furthermore, this study addresses the use of mobile treatment units and not any

possible fixed treatment plants in the ports. Although that may be a possibility at

some dedicated berths and terminals for tankers, the logistics of most port

operations, like those of the Esbjerg and Fredericia, would require treatment by

mobile units.

Figure 4-1 Possibilities for treatment

The main technical, logistical and operational challenges of the planning and

implementation of the ballast water treatment in the ports instead of the onboard

treatment include:

Ballast water treatment

Treatment in ports

Mobile units Units on barges

Fixed land plants

Treatment on ships




25

› The technical concepts concerning installation of the equipment on a 40’

trailer, connection to the ship and the safe handling of the backflushing

residual material.

› The planning of the facilities and operations for the treatment so that all ships

in question can be serviced without causing delays.

› Selection of realistic scenarios for the business cases which the financial

analyses may prove to be feasible. This relates to both the shipping companies

and the operators for the treatment services

4.2 Principles of treatment

The requirements of the Convention can be fulfilled in two ways by the mobile

units:

› Ballast water is treated at the port of departure and discharged at destination

without further treatment.

› Ballast water is taken in without treatment and treated immediately before

discharge at the destination.

To make a system based on the first principle operational, the environmental

authorities at the destinations must trust the treatment at the point of departure and

the ship’s cleaning of its tanks. This would require an internationally accepted

certificate system which is not considered a realistic scenario for ships in general.

However, with regard to ships sailing in certain fixed routes the provision (“sale”)

of treated water to the ships could a feasible solution. This has been included as

scenario A-5 addressed in section 5.7.

The second principle has treatment and discharge permits under the same

environmental authorities. This is the one principally considered in the present

study.

4.3 Equipment

The mobile units envisaged for the treatment of ballast water in the ports are based

on the technology of a Danish manufacturer, DESMI A/S. This treatment

technology is under testing and final approval by the relevant authorities.

Like several of the systems developed by other suppliers world-wide, this system is

based on two stages – filtration followed by disinfection. The filtration is realized

by use of fixed screens or stacked discs with automatic backflushing. The

disinfection is carried out by use of ultraviolet irradiation (UV) treatment. Ozone as

a by-product of the UV treatment is introduced into the stream and acts as

additional treatment.

This study shall not go into details and assessment of the proper treatment methods

but will focus on the general operation and production of the treatment units in

ports, including the capital and operational costs of the facilities.

The treatment capacity of the unit in question is 300 t / h. This corresponds to the

average expected de-ballasting of the Ro-Ro ships per call at the ports, according to

information from the ship’s masters. The discharge amount varies considerably

from ship to ship and from call to call and the normal range for the ships included

in this study is expected to be 100 – 500 t per treatment.

4.3.1 The mobile unit

The treatment equipment consists of pumps, filters and UV units. The equipment is

installed in a 20 ft standard container mounted on a 40’ flatbed trailer with a

tugmaster or truck unit for hauling in the ports and on the roads.

The power consumption is approximately 90 kW during operation and for some

ports, as the case study ports, this will require an independent power source due to

limited power supply at the quay, which in Esbjerg and Fredericia is 63 Amps,

corresponding to approximately 43 kW. The independent power supply will be by

a generator mounted on the trailer.

The connection to the ship’s ballast water piping system will be trough a 8’’ hose

coiled up on a reel and with a special dry disconnect coupling (DDC). The fixed

part of the coupling will be installed on the discharge pipe at the side of the ship.

This coupling type can be quickly disconnected without any spillage.

At the back of the trailer a 4 m3 tank receives the backflushing slurry from the

filters via a hydrocyclone.




27

Figure 4-2 Top view of mobile treatment unit (concept)

Figure 4-3 3D rendering of mobile treatment unit (concept)

The total estimated weight of the treatment equipment on the trailer amounts to

8.5 t dry and 12.0 t during operation.

In ports with many operations, a reserve unit shall be kept ready in cases of

breakdowns or for assistance during peak periods.

4.3.2 Other installations

These consist of:

› A reception tank of approximately 2 x 16 m3 (20’ container), with agitators,

for reception and chlorination of the residual backflushing slurry.

› A storage tank of 150 m3 capacity for the temporary storage of the treated

slurry.

Those tanks are to be located in a location near the quay areas conveniently for the

operation of the units.

4.3.3 Modifications on ships

The piping arrangement onboard the ships shall be modified so that the discharge

pipe is terminated near the side of ship at least 1m above the quay level when the

ship is fully loaded at low water. The ship’s ballast pumps normally provide a

working pressure of min. 3.0 bar at sea level and the pressure at the higher level

discharge after the modification shall be at least 1.5 bar at 300 t/h for the proper

operation of the treatment unit on the quay. Discharge points shall be provided at

both sides of the ship and located near the stern for flexibility regarding the

different berth conditions in the ports of call.




29

The owner of the RoRo freight ferries (DFDS) investigated in this study is carrying

out an outline design of the modifications needed on the ships.

4.4 Mode of operation

4.4.1 Mobile units’ operation (the operation process)

The mobile units, as described in section 3.2, are connected to a tugmaster or truck

for the hauling in the port and on the road. In ports with many operations a reserve

unit shall be kept ready in cases of breakdowns or assistance during peak periods.

The typical activities for the treatment service to a ship with short stay at berth

would be as follows:

› The ship calls the service provider for the required treatment

› When de-ballasting takes place during the hours at berth, the mobile unit is

parked at the side of the ship and the hose is hoisted by use of a winch to the

ship’s discharge pipe for ballast water. The connection is established by use of

the dry disconnect coupling.

› The ballast water is then pumped though the unit by the ship’s pumps and

treated. With the capacity of 300 t / h of the treatment unit, the flow will be

controlled by valves so that with higher capacity pumps on the ship, say 500

t/h, the treatment process will go on with the optimal flow through the unit.

› During the treatment process the filters in the unit are automatically being

backflushed and the residual product is pumped via a hydrocyclone to the

slurry tank mounted at the back of the trailer.

› When the treatment is completed the hose is disconnected from the ship’s

discharge pipe and rolled up on the reel mounted on the trailer. The unit is

then hauled to the reception tank where the backflushing slurry is pumped to

one of its chambers. Here chlorine is added to the slurry for disinfection.

› By alternating between the two chambers the chlorination process can take

place over 24 hours, which should be sufficient for the disinfection process.

› After disinfection the slurry it is pumped to the storage tank, where it settles

with overflow or drainage of the water content.

› When the storage tanks are full the concentrated slurry is transported to a

reclamation area or disposal site. Regarding the needed approvals and

regulations for that see section 2.2.

Figure 4-4 Rendering of the operation with mobile treatment unit (concept)

Taking 250 t/h as the estimated average amount of ballast water to be treated per

ship, the time for a complete cycle for the operation as described above is

estimated to be 1.75 -2.0 hours, as follows:

Operation Duration

Hauling of unit to the side of the ship 10 min

Connection of the hose 10 min

Treatment operation 50 min

Disconnection and hauling to the slurry tank 15 min

Pumping of the slurry to the tank 10 min

Return to base, cleaning, etc. 15 min

Total time for complete treatment operation 110 min




31

That means that one unit will be able to service max. 4 ships during an 8 hours

work shift.

During special peak hours when more ships have to be serviced at the same time

the reserve treatment unit can be mobilized with short notice.

The conditions at the quays of Esbjerg and Fredericia Port in general would allow

the mobile units to be parked alongside the ships during the treatment process. The

stevedoring companies operating in these ports see no major obstacles to such

parking. In cases where the freight ferries moor at a single pier without space for

vehicles alongside, the treatment unit could be driven onboard the ferry and do the

treatment or use a connection hose to the ship’s discharge pipe, although this

option is likely to hamper loading and unloading activities.

Figure 4-5 Ro-Ro ship at quay

4.4.2 The ports

The infrastructure of the ports selected for case studies, Esbjerg and Fredericia,

does not present any barriers or major problems for the operation of the mobile

treatment units. The quays areas are adequate for the hauling and parking of the

mobile units and suitable spaces can be provided for the base and the tanks.

The power supply at the quays of both ports can provide only 63 amps and this

necessitates the use of an independent power supply by a generating set installed in

the mobile unit.

The depth conditions at both ports are sufficient so that the ships in question will

not have to discharge ballast water to reduce draft before entering the ports. At

several other ports many ships will have to discharge ballast water at sea to reduce

draft, and ships calling those ports will need the onboard treatment plant.

http://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?photoid=183508&size=full

At Esbjerg Port the main traffic consists of the RoRo freight ferries of DFDS line

and Sea Cargo line and furthermore the service ships operating between the port

and the offshore platforms in the North Sea. These ships in regular sailings

represent in total 1,175 calls per year at the port of Esbjerg. These are described in

the case study scenarios, section 4.

At the quays where the service ships are loaded / unloaded the space will be limited

for the mobile units during the treatment process, which in many cases shall take

place concurrently with the normal daily cargo handling. However, the stevedoring

company (Danbor) considers this to be manageable, especially since the mobile

treatment unit can be placed at the stern of the ship, by using the full length of 25

m of the hose.

At the port of Fredericia the traffic consist of more random calls by various types

of ships, including large tankers at the crude oil export terminal operated by Shell.

The normal traffic apart from the large tankers includes (based on registered calls):

Type of ship Calls per year

Container (feeder) ships 240

RoRo 90

Small tankers 150

General cargo 40

Total 520

The container (feeder) ships, Ro-Ro ferries and general cargo ships can be serviced

by the mobile units placed at the side of the ships. This would only cause minor

and acceptable hampering of the normal activities by cranes and other equipment

on the quays. This again is mainly due to the possibility of placing the mobile units

near the stern of the ships and the fact that these container ships are serviced by

mobile cranes and not rail-bound cranes travelling along the quayside, as is the

case in the ports servicing the large container ships.

The small tankers will normally need to be serviced with the mobile unit placed at

least 20 m away from the ship, due to safety requirements. This can be managed by

using an extension of the hose between the ship and the treatment unit and this will

naturally increase somewhat the operation time for those ships as the extension

hose has to be rolled in and out. This is based on oral information from the port

management. The particular safety requirements applicable to oil and gas

installations in ports have not been studied.




33

4.4.3 Operators

The scenarios addressed in this study presume that the treatment operations are

carried out by a company, independent of the ship owners and the ports. That

company may provide the treatment services in one or several ports and may

develop the business of treatment services in ports internationally.

For some ports it may be feasible to operate the treatment services within their own

organisations. However, in most ports the most practical and feasible solution

seems to be that the existing stevedore companies, already operating in the ports,

take on the treatment service business. Those companies have their organization

and the experience being able to optimize the added business activity of the

treatment services.

The staff costs of operation of one mobile unit (incl. reserve unit) in ports like

Esbjerg and Fredericia are estimated to be DKK 1,500,000 per year. This is based

on preliminary estimates from stevedore companies.

The services are to be paid for by the ship owners based on a combination of the

actual amounts of ballast water treated and number of treatments. The prices to be

expected per ton and per treatment for each business case are indicated in the

results of the financial analyses (section 6).

4.4.4 Treatment units on barges

The use of barges for the ballast water treatment in ports has been envisaged as

alternative to the land based mobile units. This possibility has been investigated

and based on the experience of the port organisations and operators of barges for

supply of bunker fuel to ships, the findings and conclusions were:

› Addition of ballast water treatment to the fuel supply activities of an

established supply company was found not to be realistic, due to the frequent

treatment demands compared to the fuel supply events to ships in the ports.

› In large ports like Hamburg and Rotterdam barge services are already

provided to ships for taking solid waste and special tasks. The barge operator

in Rotterdam interviewed expressed interest in the services of ballast water

treatment, using barges with the treatment units installed.

› Especially providing the treatment services to large container ships seems to

be a business possibility for barge operators, since those ships cannot be

serviced from the mobile units, due to the travelling container cranes.

› An operation of barges especially for ballast water treatment in ports like

Esbjerg and Fredericia was considered to be to costly, complicated and not

feasible compared to the mobile land based units. This was the opinion of both

the port organisations and the barge operators. The cost of a barge before

installation of the treatment plant would be around 2.5 million EUR.

› However, the alternative scenario of using barges in Esbjerg has been

addressed and analysed for comparison. Here the cost of long term rental of a

barge with crew as informed by the barge operator in Rotterdam is used in the

financial analysis.

In general, the possible pros of using barges say in Esbjerg port – access to ships,

larger capacity of equipment and tanks, space for additional equipment and

services - were found to be far from balancing or justifying the disadvantages in

capital investment, inflexible operations and a heavy organization. Furthermore,

none of the case study ports would be interested in the treatment operation with

barges, by themselves or by others.

Figure 4-6 Example of barge service

4.4.5 Delivery of treated water (treatment at the source)

Principles

Instead of treating the ballast water in the port of arrival by the mobile units before

discharge in the port, the possibility of treatment at the moment of taking it on

board has been considered. Treatment at the source and delivery to ships has two

important advantages:

› Spillages of ballast water are innocuous as the water contains no invasive or

non-invasive species

› The filter residue can be led back to the sea as it contains only native species.

It is therefore not necessary to include the treatment, handling and disposal of

residual slurry as in the case of treatment at discharge of the ballast water.




35

The inconvenience is that the environmental permit for discharging the water at the

destination would depend on the authorities accepting the treatment at the source

and the storage on the way in the (clean) ballast tanks. A system of certificates

would have to be established and mutually accepted by the authorities in the

departure and destination ports. If for some reason a certificate were rejected, the

plant at the destination (intended for delivery of ballast water for departing ships)

would have to handle also water from arriving ships.

It must be noted that this concept of supply of treated water to ships may only be

implemented for ships in fixed routes between 2 ports, where the time between

supply and discharge of the ballast water is limited to few hours. That is due to the

risk of growth of zoo-plankton which, at the allowable low level, still may be

present in the treated water.

Equipment

Technically, the set-up of the mobile treatment unit would not be very different

from that treating at discharge, except that as mentioned above, the treatment

equipment would also have to be able to handle incoming ballast water from other

ships and if for some reason its purity certificate were rejected by the authorities. In

ports like Esbjerg an additional unit could be employed only for supply of treated

water.

The additional equipment needed in the mobile unit would be a submersible pump

to pump the water from the port basin through the treatment unit to the ship’s

tanks.

Storage

The treatment unit could treat water round the clock for storage near the berth

dedicated to fixed route ships and those ships could be supplied from stock rather

than directly from the mobile unit. This would provide high level of flexibility but

at higher capital cost. Due to the risk of growth of the small amount of plankton

remaining in the treated water, the certain level of chlorination will be needed.

4.5 Capital investments (Capex)

The capital investments needed for each mobile treatment unit have been

calculated based on prices from suppliers and general cost estimation. The basis is

a DESMI unit mounted on a trailer equipped with a generating set, tank, hose, etc.,

a truck for hauling it and a set of tanks for storage of the slurry from the

backflushing.

4.5.1 Equipment cost

Mobile treatment unit

Item Cost, thousand DKK

Treatment unit, capacity 300 t / hour, complete, at port 2,400

Flatbed trailer, complete with platform and adjustments 200

Set of spare parts, flexible pipe, hoses, etc. 150

Truck unit for transport 750

Generating set installed 200

Total with truck unit 3,700

Total without truck unit 2,950

Tanks etc. installed:

Item Cost, thousand DKK

2 x 16 m3 container tank 50

150 m3 open tank with overflow 300

Various costs (ground slab at base, etc.) 150

Total, fixed facilities 500

4.5.2 Capital investment

The capital investment for one operating unit amounts to:

DKK 4,200,000 with truck unit and tanks etc.

DKK 2,950,000 for a reserve unit

The period for depreciation is set to 15 years for all equipment.

4.6 Operating cost (Opex)

Under operating costs, staff and administration are considered, as well as power for

the unit, fuel for transport and disposal fees for slurry.




37

4.6.1 Fixed operating cost

The fixed operating cost per year (opex fixed) of one station in a port in Denmark

has been estimated at:

Personnel

Item Cost, DKK/year

Stevedore operator’s personnel 1,200,000

Administration, management 300,000

Opex fixed, total 1,500,000

For the ports in England, Holland and Germany the fixed operating cost shall be

considered 20% lower in the economic analyses, due to lower personnel cost.

4.6.2 Variable operating cost

The variable operating costs, (Opex var.) for the treatment of one ton of ballast

water have been calculated based on information from the supplier and the test runs

carried out by the supplier of the equipment:

Item Cost, DKK/t

Power, 91 kW; 300 t/h; 1.50 DKK/kWh 0.50

Use of spares and maintenance 0.60

Various (fuel for truck, maintenance) 0.40

Estimated cost of transport of slurry to depot (5 kg/t) 0.40

Depot fee 0.20

Opex variable, total 2.10

The variable operating costs are considered equal for the operation of all mobile

treatment units.

4.7 Conclusion

After an overview of the selected ports, Esbjerg and Fredericia, and their traffic the

operating mode for treating of ballast water in the port has been established and the

capital and operating costs have been estimated. The concept design of the mobile

treatment unit includes: the treatment equipment in a 20’ container mounted on a

40’ flatbed trailer together with the generator set, slurry tank and hose reel and,

hauled by a truck, (figure 3-2). In addition, a set of tanks are required for temporary

storage of filter slurry.

The investment cost amounts to DKK 4,200,000 for a unit including truck and

tanks and DKK 2,950,000 for a reserve unit, i.e. without truck and slurry tanks.

The fixed operating cost amounts to DKK 1,500,000 per year, and the variable

operating cost to DKK 2.10 per m3 of ballast water.




39

5 Scenarios, business cases

For both of the ports of Fredericia and Esbjerg, the main scenarios for this study

have been determined based on the actual registered daily and yearly calls of ships

which have regular calls to each port and which have been sailing outside Danish

waters.

The registration of ship calls at the ports over a period of 3 months has been the

basis for the definition of the main scenarios. These scenarios are investigated and

analysed as business cases for the operator:

Esbjerg Port

Scenario A-1: One operator handles all ships calling the port regularly. Those are

Ro-Ro freight ferries by DFDS and Sea Cargo and the service ships for offshore

platforms.

Scenario A-2: One operator – DFDS Stevedore – handles all DFDS ships in the

ports of the selected North Sea routes and the service ships in Esbjerg.

Scenario A-3: One operator - Danbor - handles the service ships in Esbjerg

Scenario A-4: A barge operator provides the treatment services to all ships calling

the port regularly.

Scenario A-5: The ships of the selected DFDS North Sea routes are provided with

treated water to clean ballast tanks.

Fredericia Port

Scenario B-1: One operator handles all ships which make regular calls at the port,

excl. of the large tankers.

Scenarios A-1 and B-1 are seen from the port’s perspective only. They include all

ships with regular calls at the port and do not take into account the needed

treatment operations in the ship’s other ports of call. Thus it is for these scenarios

presumed that those ports all have treatment facilities in operation. (Only ships

with regular calls at maximum two ports other than the case study ports have been

taken into consideration in the scenarios.)

The other scenario A-2 is seen from the perspective of the shipping companies.

This scenario includes the treatment operations in all the ports of call of ships of

the selected DFDS North Sea routes and the service ships of Esbjerg. The ship

types are freight ferries (Ro-Ro and Ro-Pax) and service vessels for the offshore

platforms.

Figure 5-1 The selected North Sea routes of DFDS. Scenario A -2

As mentioned earlier the scenarios are based on the assumption that the treatment

facilities are established and operated by companies separate from the shipping

companies and the ports. However, a close cooperation shall be established

between the parties to ensure the optimal economical operation.

5.1 Scenario A-1 - Esbjerg

For the port of Esbjerg, scenario A includes all ships which call the port in regular

sailings:

› Ro-Ro ships in regular shipping to Harwich and Immingham, DFDS Seaways

A/S

› Service ships for offshore activities with Esbjerg Port as base.

› Ro-Ro ships in regular sailings to Norwegian and Dutch ports, Sea Cargo

This scenario (A-1) is thus based on the assumption that all other ports of call for

the ships will have operating treatment facilities for ballast water.




41

5.1.1 Pattern of ships calls and mooring times

In Esbjerg Port the calls registered during a representative 3 months period show a

pattern of ships calls and times at berth, which would allow for treatment service to

all ships by one mobile unit. See Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3.

Figure 5-2 Ships at berth in Esbjerg Port calculated at every hour.

See Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5

Figure 5-3 Number of calls at Esbjerg Port in the time period from 1/1-2012 to 31/3 2012

with a given mooring time.

Figure 5-2 shows that up to 9 ships are at berth at the same time and Figure 5-3

shows that the mooring time is down to a couple of hours and that it is primarily

the route ships that have a short mooring time.

At moments with a high number of ships at berth most of the ships are service

ships, which generally have a longer mooring time. This is therefore most likely

not to be the most critical moment with regards to treatment of ballast water with

only one mobile unit. In Appendix F, graphs show ships at berth in Esbjerg Port in

the time period from 1/1-2012 to 31/3 2012 for supply and route ships with more

0123456789

10

01

-01

-20

12

08

-01

-20

12

15

-01

-20

12

22

-01

-20

12

29

-01

-20

12

05

-02

-20

12

12

-02

-20

12

19

-02

-20

12

26

-02

-20

12

04

-03

-20

12

11

-03

-20

12

18

-03

-20

12

25

-03

-20

12

Nu

mb

er

of

ship

s at

be

rth

Ships at berth

Route ships

Supply ships

010203040506070

0-1

1-2

2-3

3-4

4-5

5-6

6-7

7-8

8-9

9-1

0

10

-11

11

-12

0,5

-1 d

ay

1-2

day

s

2-3

day

s

>3

day

s

Nu

mb

er

of

calls

/ 3

mo

nth

s

Mooring time[hr]

Mooring time

Route ships

Supply ships

II III

I

than 5 arrivals within the time period. From this the three most critical situations (I-

III) with regard to treatment capacity is found. See Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5.

Figure 5-4 Ships at berth in Esbjerg Port in the time period from 21/1-2012 to 22/1 2012

(Situation I)

Figure 5-5 Ships at berth in Esbjerg Port in the time period from 1/2-2012 to 2/2 2012

(Situation II + III)

The figures show that the most critical situation would be situation III where there

are four ships at berth in the same 8 hours time period.

These figures for the registered calls confirm that that one mobile treatment unit

will be able to service all ships calling regularly at Esbjerg Port.

5.1.2 Ships in regular shipping service

The relevant ships with regular calls comprise in total 5 ships, freight ferries Ro-Ro

and Ro-Pax, which each make between 100 and 150 calls yearly at the port. This

includes 3 ships from DFDS and 2 ships from Sea Cargo line with regular calls at 4

other ports, 3 in Norway and one in Holland.

21

-01

-12

00

:00

21

-01

-12

03

:00

21

-01

-12

06

:00

21

-01

-12

09

:00

21

-01

-12

12

:00

21

-01

-12

15

:00

21

-01

-12

18

:00

21

-01

-12

21

:00

22

-01

-12

00

:00

22

-01

-12

03

:00

22

-01

-12

06

:00

22

-01

-12

09

:00

22

-01

-12

12

:00

22

-01

-12

15

:00

22

-01

-12

18

:00

22

-01

-12

21

:00

23

-01

-12

00

:00

Ships at berth TROMS CASTORREM VISIONMÆRSK FRONTIERHAVILA NEPTUNEHAVILA HERØYHAVILA FANØESVAGT OMEGAESVAGT GAMMAEDDA SPRINTEDDA FREYATRANS CARRIERJUTLANDIA SEAWAYSFIONIA SEAWAYSDANA SIRENAAMBER

01

-02

-12

00

:00

01

-02

-12

03

:00

01

-02

-12

06

:00

01

-02

-12

09

:00

01

-02

-12

12

:00

01

-02

-12

15

:00

01

-02

-12

18

:00

01

-02

-12

21

:00

02

-02

-12

00

:00

02

-02

-12

03

:00

02

-02

-12

06

:00

02

-02

-12

09

:00

02

-02

-12

12

:00

02

-02

-12

15

:00

02

-02

-12

18

:00

02

-02

-12

21

:00

03

-02

-12

00

:00

Ships at berth TROMS CASTORREM VISIONMÆRSK FRONTIERHAVILA NEPTUNEHAVILA HERØYHAVILA FANØESVAGT OMEGAESVAGT GAMMAEDDA SPRINTEDDA FREYATRANS CARRIERJUTLANDIA SEAWAYSFIONIA SEAWAYSDANA SIRENAAMBER




43

These ships represent in total 655 calls at Esbjerg Port per year. The average

discharge of ballast water to the sea at port is estimated to 300 t / call / ship. This is

based on information from DFDS ships’ chief officers.

The total amount of ballast water to be treated for those ships in Esbjerg can thus

be estimated at 196,000 t per year.

The freight ferries of DFDS sail to Harwich (one Ro-Pax) and to Immingham (two

Ro-Ro) in England. The Ro-Pax ferry has 148 calls / year at Harwich and the Ro-

Ro ferries have 308 calls / year at Immingham. The ships from Sea Cargo make

regular calls at 3 ports in Norway and at one in Holland.

5.1.3 Service ships

The service ships operating out of Esbjerg regularly include 7 ships, which mainly

provide service to the offshore platforms in the North Sea.

These service ships make in total approx. 520 regular calls at Esbjerg Port per year.

The average amount of ballast water, taken in at the platforms and discharged to

the sea at port, is estimated to 200 t / ship / call.

The total amount of ballast water to be treated for those vessels can thus be

estimated at 104,000 t per year.

5.1.4 Treatment units

The capacity of the treatment units is 300 t / h each. The operation time of the unit

for each ship is estimated to be 1½ –-2 hour, including preparation, connection,

treatment process (½-1 hour), disconnection and transport.

Based on the registered calls and the time at berth of the ships in Esbjerg it is

assessed that even in peak hours one unit will be able to provide the treatment

service to the ships without causing delays of departures. However, taking into

account time for maintenance, extreme demand events and possible breakdowns a

reserve unit shall be considered.

5.1.5 Ballast water to be treated

The total amount of ballast water to be treated in this scenario can be assumed as

follows:

Esbjerg Port:

Item t/year

Ro-Ro / Ro-Pax ferries (DFDS) 136,000

Service ships 104,000

Item t/year

Ro-Ro ferries (Sea Cargo) 60,000

Total amount in the this scenario 300,000

Total number of treatment units in operation 1 unit (+ one as reserve)

5.1.6 Capital investment (Capex)

For scenario A the capital investment the mobile treatment units in Esbjerg is

estimated as follows:

Item DKK

One operating unit with truck 4,200,000

One unit in reserve 2,950,000

Total Capex 7,150,000

5.1.7 Operating cost (Opex)

Item Cost

Fixed operating cost (Opex fixed) 1,500,000 DKK/year

Variable operating cost (Opex var.) 2.10 DKK/t

5.2 Scenario A-2 - Esbjerg

This scenario covers the service ships for the offshore platforms of Maersk and five

of the North Sea routes of DFDS. In addition to the DFDS sailings included in

scenario A-1, the following regular freight ferry routes are considered.

› Three Ro-Ro ferries (DFDS) between Rotterdam (Vlaardingen) and

Felixstowe. 15 calls per week at each port.

› Two Ro-Ro ferries (DFDS) between Rotterdam and Immingham. 6 calls per

week at each port.




45

› Three Ro-Ro ferries between Gothenburg and Immingham. 6 calls per week at

each port.

This scenario takes into account the operations of the treatment facilities in all the

ports involved. As a conservative measure the possible treatment service of ballast

water to other lines are not considered. The selection of routes for this scenario and

business case of the operator has been made based on evaluation of each route and

especially the combined effect on the “turn over” of the treatment services in each

port. Other routes of DFDS could be included in case the ship owner wishes to

have greater flexibility in the employment of the ships.

5.2.1 Gothenburg – Immingham

This route with 3 Ro-Ro ferries involves 6 calls per week in Immingham and

Gothenburg. Although this would add to the treatment services in Immingham the

business in Gothenburg would not be economically feasible with service only to

the DFDS ferries.

However, the total amount of treated ballast water on this route would be approx.

180.000 t /year and it would include one treatment unit in Gothenburg with the

possibility of additional services for other lines. Therefore the route is included in

this scenario A-2.

5.2.2 Rotterdam – Immingham

This route with 2 Ro-Ro ferries involves 6 calls per week at each port. The total

amount of treated ballast water would be 180,000 t per year and it would include

one unit in Rotterdam, which will also service the ferries to Felixstowe.

5.2.3 Rotterdam – Felixstowe

This route with 3 Ro-Ro ferries involves 15 calls per week at each port. The total

amount of treated ballast water would be 450,000 t per year.


The estimated total amount of ballast water to be treated is based on the assumed

amount per call / ship, namely in average 300 t / call.

The total amount of ballast water to be treated in this scenario can be assumed as

follows:

Item t/year

Esbjerg Port, Ro-Ro ferries (DFDS) 136,000

Esbjerg Port, service ships 104,000

Item t/year

Harwich port, Ro-Pax ferry (DFDS) 44,000

Immingham port, Ro-Ro ferries (DFDS) 270,000

Gothenburg port, Ro-Ro ferries (DFDS) 90,000

Rotterdam port, Ro-Ro ferries (DFDS) 315,000

Felixstowe port, Ro-Ro ferries (DFDS) 225,000

Total amount in the this scenario 1,184,000

Total number of treatment units in operation 5 units (+ 3 as reserve)

It is presumed in this scenario that the mobile treatment unit in Felixstowe can

service the Ro-Pax ferry calling Harwich from Esbjerg with only 148 calls per

year. The unit with truck can make the return drive of 2 x 55 km on road between

Felixstowe and Harwich 3 times per week.

5.2.5 Capital Investment (Capex)

For this scenario A-2 the capital investment for the mobile treatment units in all

ports involved is estimated as follows:

Item Unit cost, DKK Nos. DKK

Operating units 4,200,000 5 21,000,000

Reserve units 2,950,000 3 8,850,000



Due to the lower cost of labour in UK and Holland the yearly fixes operating cost

for the ports in those countries is 20% lower than the Danish calculated cost.

Item Cost

Fixed operating cost (Opex fixed) (4 x 1,2 + 1.5 mill. DKK) 6,300,000 DKK/year





47

5.3 Scenario A-3 - Service ships

This is a variant of scenario A-1 and addresses the treatment of ballast water of the

service ships for the offshore platforms in the North Sea at Esbjerg Port, which are

handled by one operator exclusively. The operator, Danbor, handles the 7 service

ships which make in total 520 calls at Esbjerg per year.

The total estimated treated amount is 104,000 t / year with one mobile unit.

The capital investment will be 4,200,000 DKK for one mobile unit including truck

and tanks.

The operating costs will be similar to those for scenario A-1.

Item Cost


Variable operating cost (Opex var) 2.10 DKK/t

5.4 Summary Esbjerg

Table 5-1 Yearly treatment amounts

Scenario A-1 Scenario A-2 Scenario A-3

Esbjerg 300,000 t 240,000 t 104,000 t

Harwich (44,000 t)* 44,000 t

Immingham (123,000 t)* 270,000 t

Gothenburg 90,000 t

Rotterdam 315,000 t

Felixstowe 225,000 t

Totals 300,000 t 1,184,000 t 104,000 t

*Not included in the financial analyses

Table 5-2 Number of units

Scenario A-1 Scenario A-2 Scenario A-3

Esbjerg 1 (+1) 1 (+1) 1

Harwich (1)* 1 (+1)

Immingham (1)* -

Gothenburg - 1

Rotterdam - 1 (+1)

Felixstowe

Totals 1 (+1) 5 (+3) 1

*Not included in the financial analyses

5.5 Scenario B-1 - Fredericia

The traffic in the port of Fredericia consists of tankers, container ships, freight

ferries and a mix of various bulk and cargo ships.

By far the largest through put in the port is the export by large tankers of the North

Sea oil arriving to the port by pipelines. The amounts of ballast water exchange

from those ships vary considerably and are much larger than those from the other

types of ships investigated. As an example, a large tanker of 100,000 ton dead

weight often exchanges 40,000 tons ballast water when sailing between

Gothenburg and Fredericia. The capacity of the ballast pumps is up to 2 x

2200 t / h.

The large terminal, Skanseoddehavn, at Fredericia Port handles all the oil export

operations, managed by Shell. For safety reasons no vehicles are allowed onto the

quays during the operations and thus no treatment can be done by mobile units.

A solution which could be considered for the treatment of ballast water from large

tankers moored at terminals would include a fixed land based facility, receiving the

ballast water via pipelines on the jetty. A large tank may be used as a buffer to

make up for insufficient peak capacity of treatment plant.

Scenario B-1 for Fredericia includes all ships which make regular calls at the port,

except the large tankers at the Shell terminal. Thus this scenario presumes all other

ports of call on the ships’ routes do have the treatment facilities in operation. This

assumption is probably only realistic in the future, since it requires that the

shipping companies all establish or arrange for the facilities in the relevant ports of

call.




49

The total registered number of ship calls at Fredericia in a typical 2 months period

includes:

Type of ship Calls per year

Container (feeder) ships 240

RoRo freight ferries 90

Small tankers 150

Various freighters 40

Total 520


With the assumption that the average treatment of ballast water per ship

corresponds to that of the DFDS freight ferries – 300 t /ship/ call, the total

estimated amount of ballast water to be treated will be 156,000 tons per year. The

feeder line Unifeeder, which operates small to medium size container ships (feeder

ships) calling the port, has informed that the above assumed figure of 300 t / ship /

call in average corresponds well to that of their container ships.

A scenario seen from the shipping company’s perspective, i.e. arranging their own

system of treatment units in the ports of call, similar to scenario A-2, would not be

realistic at Fredericia Port due to the few calls at the port by the ships of each

company.


For scenario B-1 the capital investment in the mobile treatment units in Fredericia

Port is estimated as follows:

Item DKK

One operating unit with truck 4,200,000

One unit in reserve 2,950,000



Item Cost



5.6 Scenario A-4 - Treatment from barge

This scenario is based on the treatment of the ballast water from the ships included

in scenario A-1 and that a barge operating company handles all ships by use of one

barge. The size of the barge corresponds to those used in Rotterdam port for

services to ships of disposal of solid waste etc. The length of the barge would be

approximately 40 m.

5.6.1 Ballast water to treated

Ballast water to be treated t/year

Total yearly amount 300,000

Total yearly amount 300,000


Item DKK

Barge, flat deck type 18,000,000

Treatment unit, complete incl. generator 2,800,000

Modifications of barge 500,000





51


Fixed operating cost:

Item DKK/year

Rental cost of barge, incl. crew, 200 EUR x 8 x 365 4,300,000

Administration, port fees etc. 400,000


Variable operating cost

Item Cost


5.7 Scenario A-5 - Supply of treated water

This scenario includes the supply of treated sea water from the mobile units to the

ships of the DFDS North Sea routes selected for the scenario A-2.

5.7.1 Ballast water to be supplied

The total estimated yearly amount of treated sea water to be supplied to the ships

would be:

Amount of water t/year

Total from section 5.2.4 1,184,000

Less service ships, Esbjerg Port 104,000

Total yearly amount 1,080,000


For this scenario A-5 the capital investment for the mobile treatment units in all

ports involved is estimated as follows:

Item Unit cost, DKK Nos. DKK

Operating units 3,700,000 5 18,500,000

Reserve units 2,950,000 3 8,850,000



Due to the lower cost of labour in UK and Holland the yearly fixed operating cost

for the ports in those countries is 20% lower than the Danish calculated cost.

Item Cost

Fixed operating cost (Opex fixed), 4 x 1.2 + 1.5 mill. DKK 6,300,000 DKK/year


5.8 Summary

Based on the pattern of ship calls and mooring times, assumed amounts of ballast

water, and a set of configurations of target ships and equipment operators, a

number of scenarios (business cases) have been described. The results are

summarized below:

Sc

en

ari

o

Des

cri

pti

on

Un

its

Wa

ter,

00

0 t

/ye

ar

Cap

ex

, M

DK

K

Op

ex

fix

, M

DK

K/y

ea

r

Op

ex

va

r, D

KK

/y

A-1 Esbjerg, one operator, all

ships calling regularly: Ro-

Ro ferries by DFDS and Sea

Cargo and service ships for

offshore platforms.

1+1 300 7.15 1.500 2.10

A-2 Esbjerg, DFDS Stevedore –

handles all DFDS ships in

the ports of the selected

North Sea routes and the

5+3 1,184 29.85 6.300 2.10




53

Sc

en

ari

o

De

sc

rip

tio

n

Un

its

Wa

ter,

00

0 t

/ye

ar

Ca

pe

x, M

DK

K

Op

ex

fix

, M

DK

K/y

ea

r

Op

ex

va

r, D

KK

/y

service ships in Esbjerg

A-3 Danbor stevedoring handles

the service ships in Esbjerg

1 104 4.20 1.50 2.10

A-4 A barge operator provides

the treatment services to all

ships calling Esbjerg

regularly

1 300 21,30 4.70 2.10

A-5 Ships of selected DFDS

North Sea routes are

provided with treated water

to clean ballast tanks

5+3 1,080 27,35 6.30 1.20

B-1 Fredericia, : one operator

handles all ships which

make regular calls at the

port, excl. large tankers

1+1 156 7.15 1.50 2.10

These scenarios are subject to a financial analysis in the following chapter.

6 Financial analyses

The financial analyses are based on a simple financial model.

6.1 Basic assumptions

Table 6-1 Basic assumptions

Interest rate (debt) 6,5%

Return on equity 15%

Depreciation 15 years

Operating period 15 years

Tenor on debt 10 years

Debt financed 80%

Equity financed 20%

These assumptions may not match the current market situation or the exact terms

under which a private service provide would operate, but they are fairly reasonable

and are primarily aimed at providing a homogenous base for comparison of the

scenarios presented above. Changing these assumptions will not change the

ranking between the scenarios, i.e. the most expensive scenario under these

assumptions will be the most expensive under any other reasonable assumptions.

6.2 Results

The result of the analysis is a treatment price per ton ballast water. The prices

reported are based on the assumption of an internal rate of return (IRR) on equity

of 15%. Given the financing structure of 80% debt financing, the IRR of the entire

project will be lower.




55

6.2.1 Treatment cost, Esbjerg

Table 6-2 Financial results Esbjerg

Esbjerg Port Investment NPV Project Equity Treatment cost

Ballast water

Treatment cost

Total DKK DKK IRR IRR DKK/t t/call DKK/call

Scenario A1 -7,150,000 2,192,311 10% 15% 10.38 300 3,115

Scenario A2 -29,850,000 2,649,479 10% 15% 10.28 300 3,084

Scenario A3 -4,200,000 1,285,174 10% 15% 22.09 200 4418

Scenario A4 -21,300,000 6,515,438 10% 15% 27.55 300 8,264

Scenario A5 -27,350,000 8,380,606 10% 15% 10.52 300 3,157

Scenarios A-1, A-2 and A5 are almost identical in terms of the cost of treatment.

Scenario A-3, which only covers the service ships, is significantly more expensive,

as the yearly volume of ballast water treated is very low. Scenario A4, which is the

barge in Esbjerg, is likewise very expensive as the ballast water treated is the same

as in scenario A1 while the capital investment is much higher.

6.2.2 Treatment cost, Fredericia

Table 6-3 Financial result, Fredericia

Fredericia Port

Investment NPV Project IRR

Equity IRR

Treatment cost

Ballast water

Treatment cost

Total DKK DKK DKK/t t/call DKK/call

Scenario B-1 -7,150,000 2,187,080 10% 15% 18.03 300 5,409

The treatment cost in scenario B-1 is high. This is mainly due to the low total

yearly volume of ballast water for treatment.

6.3 Evaluation and sensitivity check

The amounts of ballast water estimated to be treated at each ship call may vary

considerably between ships and from time to time. Especially the amounts may be

reduced due to the effect of the price to be paid by the shipping lines and thus

causing more economical operations managed by each ship.

However, variations in the amounts of treated ballast water will affect the price per

ton, but only marginally the price per call. This is due to the relative low variable

operating cost compared with the total fixed costs. This is especially the case for

scenarios A-1 and A-2. The system to be implemented for the treatment charges

should therefore consist of a combination of a fixed charge per call and a charge

per ton of water treated.

6.4 Comparative scenario

For comparison with the above analyses for treatment of ballast water by mobile

units in the ports, the following brief assessment has been carried out of the

financial aspects regarding treatment by units installed onboard the ships.

The following assumptions have been made:

› The cost of units installed on the ships is approximately 3.0 million DKK,

including the price of the treatment units.

› The fixed operating cost (crew) is set to nil, since the crew members are

assumed to be able to carry out the treatment activities during the sailings and

at berth

› The variable operating cost is estimated to be equal to that of the quayside

operation minus the cost of the treatment and handling residual material

› The units on board will take up space and depending of the location of the

plant in the ship an opportunity cost may be incurred.

6.4.1 Capital cost (Capex)

The ships involved in this scenario are the same as in scenario A-2, namely the 5

routes of DFDS and the service ships operating out of Esbjerg Port.

The number of vessels on which the treatment units shall be installed amounts to

11 Ro-Ro ships from DFDS and 7 service ships, in total 18 vessels. These ships

represent a total of 4260 calls at ports yearly.

Total capital expenditure (Capex) 3,000,000 x 18 = 54,000,000 DKK


Variable operating cost for treatment of a yearly total of 1,184,000 t ballast water:

1,184,000 t/y x 1.20 DKK/t = 1,342,000 DKK / year

6.4.3 Cost of on-board treatment

The assessment of the ballast water treatment with on board installed units

indicates the following estimated treatment costs.




57

Table 6-4 Financial result, onboard treatment

Investment NPV Project Equity Treatment cost

Ballast water

Treatment cost

Total DKK DKK IRR IRR DKK/t t/call DKK/call

Onboard treatment -54,000,000 16,539,886 10% 15% 7.48 300 2,244

These estimated figures do not take into account any cost incurred for the space

allocation for the units onboard, nor any manpower cost of the crew.

The estimated treatment cost of an on board facility is 27% lower than the main

scenarios A-1 and A-2 of the land based solutions examined above. This is mainly

due to the high fixed operating costs on land.

6.5 Scenario A-4 - Treatment from barge

The cost of the treatment charged by an independent operator in this scenario is

estimated to be:

Cost per ton of treated ballast water 27.55 DKK / t

Cost per call with treatment (300 t / treatment) 8,264 DKK

The high cost is due to the relative small amount of business turnover for the

ballast water treatment for such a barge operation in the port. That is evidently the

reason why there are no services by barges in Danish ports, except by the large

companies for bunker supply using large barges operating from few base ports.

6.6 Scenario A-5 - Supply of treated water

The cost of the treated water supplied by the treatment units is estimated to be:

Cost per ton of treated water 10.52 DKK / t

Cost per supply of 300 t 3,157 DKK

As may be seen the cost per ton for the supply of treated water is around 10 %

lower than the cost of treatment at discharge of the ballast water.

6.7 Cost and price

The prices charged by the operators in the various ports will probably differ from

the calculated costs, as the operator will have to ensure a reasonable level of profits

and that fixed operating costs are recovered even if the amounts of water to be

treated are small.

6.8 Recapitulation

Scen

ari

o

Po

rt

Desc

rip

tio

n

To

ns/c

all

Co

st,

DK

K/t

on

Co

st,

DK

K/c

all

A-1 Esbjerg One operator, all ships 300 10.38 3,115

A-2 Esbjerg DFDS stevedore handles

DFDS ships and service ships

300 10.28 3,084

A-3 Esbjerg Danbor handles service ships 200 22.09 4,418

A-4 Esbjerg Barge operator, all ships 300 27.55 8,264

A-5 Esbjerg DFDS ships buy treated water

from land

300 10.52 3,157

B-1 Fredericia One operator, all ships except

large tankers

300 18.03 5,409

On-

board

n/a Ship’s own plant on board 300 7.48 2,244

These results are discussed in the next chapter.




59

7 Summary - conclusions

7.1 The study results

The investigations and financial analyses show the following key points:

› Treatment of ballast water by mobile units in ports seems to be a realistic

alternative to treatment onboard the ships, both technically and financially.

However, this would mainly be feasible for ships in regular shipping service

between few ports.

› The calculated cost of treatment, which would be charged by independent

operators in scenarios A-1 & A-2 in Esbjerg Port is 10.4 DKK per ton of

ballast water and 3,100 DKK per call at the ports. These scenarios cover

services to all ships which regularly call the port (A-1) and all ships of

selected DFDS North Sea routes and the service ships for offshore platforms

(A-2).

› The calculated cost of treatment for scenario A-3 with one operator for the

service ships only, amounts to 22.1 DKK per ton of ballast water. This high

cost, due to the low turnover of treatment, renders this scenario clearly

unacceptable.

› The calculated cost of treatment for scenario A-4, with treatment operation by

use of barge, amounts to 27.5 DKK per ton of ballast water. The high cost

renders this scenario clearly not interesting as a business case in ports like

Esbjerg and Fredericia.

› The calculated cost of treatment for scenario B-1 in Fredericia Port amounts to

18.0 DKK per ton of ballast water. This relatively high cost, due to the low

turnover of treatment, renders this concept uninteresting given the present

traffic volume in Fredericia.

› The calculated cost of treatment for scenario A-5, supply of treated water to

ships, is 10.5 DKK per ton of ballast water and 3,157 DKK per call at the

ports.

› Treatment of ballast water onboard the ships, which is expected to be the case

for most of the ships world vide, has been evaluated, although outside the

scope of this study. The estimated expected cost price was 7.5 DKK per ton of

ballast water treated.

7.2 Conclusions

The main conclusions which can be drawn from the study are:

› It can be considered with a reasonable degree of certainty that the

implementation of treatment of ballast water by mobile units in ports can be

approved by the relevant environmental authorities in Denmark.

› The conceptual technical and operational solutions as described can be

considered feasible. However, the concept of supplying treated water to ships

(scenario A-5) is only realistic for certain ships in fixed routes between 2

ports, due to the possible growth of plankton in the ship’s tanks.

› Scenario A-1, with treatment service to all ships regularly calling the port, can

only be realistic business case if all other ports of call implement the same

treatment services simultaneously. This is not likely to happen, since some

ports would have to operate with small turnover of treatment and thus with

unacceptable financial results.

› Scenario A-4, with treatment services from barges, would only be financially

feasible in large ports like Rotterdam, with expected large volumes of ballast

water to be treated and where barge operators at present provide various

services to ships. Barge may be used for treatment ballast water from large

container ships, where the treatment services from the quay would be difficult

due to the travelling ship to shore cranes.

› The scenario and business case which seems most realistic, operationally and

financially, is scenario A-2. This includes establishment of treatment services

in Esbjerg and the ports of call of selected North Sea routes of DFDS. The

mobile units with its facilities will service all the RO-RO ferries and the

services ships for offshore platforms in the North Sea. The calculated cost of

treatment is moderate and may be lower at time due to expected more business

of providing treatment services to other ships calling the ports in question.

› It is recommended to consider and pursue this business case further by

carrying out comparative analyses with the generally considered concept of

the onboard treatment of the ships’ ballast water. Naturally, the decisions

regarding which concept to select will depend to a high degree on the total

cost of the installation of the treatment plants onboard the ships and

furthermore on the operational conditions of the ships, with regard to

flexibility, reliability, etc.

› When the ongoing technical design and cost estimations for the onboard

treatment plants are completed the decision can be taken regarding the further




61

steps to be taken, including carrying out testing of the ballast water treatment

by mobile units.

8 Testing the concept

8.1 Description

In order to ensure that the treatment by mobile units can be implemented in general

as described and that the technical and operational problems can be identified and

mitigated, a full-scale test of the system is necessary.

Such a test of the system with one ship and one mobile unit could be carried out in

Esbjerg Port and would comprise:

› Design of the necessary modifications to the ship’s ballast water system:

› ballast water discharge pipe at a suitable height relative to the unit parked

on the quay,

› determination of required pump size and decision on whether existing

pumps can be used (depending on available pump characteristics,

pressure requirement from unit and head loss in piping,

› valves, pipes, control and instrumentation

› Approval of modified design by classification agency

› It may be wished to submit the working arrangement on land to the Danish

Working Environment Authority (Arbejdstilsynet) for comment

› Agreement with stevedore company on operation and storage of the unit

› Application for environmental permit for discharging the treated ballast water

into the port basin. This permit is not expected to represent an obstacle as the

alternative is that the ship, without need for a permit, discharges the non-

treated water into the basin,

› Arrangement for disposal of slurry from the trial:




63

› As the first choice, the slurry will be disposed of in the port basin

› If an environmental permit cannot be obtained, disposal of the slurry at a

controlled depot or similar will be necessary

› In this trial period the sludge will not be chlorinated due to the H&S

complications of handling chlorine or hypochlorite and the difficulty of

obtaining an environmental permit for discharging the chlorinated

material into the port basin.

› Modification of ship’s ballast water piping system (by the ship-owner)

› Order of the mobile unit complete installed on the flatbed trailer

› Rental of slurry tank (if slurry cannot be discharged into the port)

› Delivery of the mobile unit

› Trial period as such – one month’s operation time is proposed to allow for a

substantial number of treatments and adjustments

› Evaluation and conclusion.

8.2 Programme

A plausible time schedule could be as follows:

Table 8-1 Tentative test program

Test operation

1 2 3 5 6 7 8

Environmental permit, purified water

Slurry disposal arrangement

Design of ship's modification

Class approval of ship's modification

Modifications on ship

Consultation with "Arbejdstilsyn" on set-up

Agreement with steevedore

Order of mobile unit

Rental and installation of slurry tank

Delivery of mobile unit

Test period

Evaluation

Month

Appendix A Regulations D-1 and D-2

Regulation D-1 Ballast Water Exchange Standard

1 Ships performing Ballast Water exchange in accordance with this regulation

shall do so with an efficiency of at least 95 percent volumetric exchange of

Ballast Water.

2 For ships exchanging Ballast Water by the pumping-through method, pumping

through three times the volume of each Ballast Water tank shall be considered

to meet the standard described in paragraph 1. Pumping through less than

three times the volume may be accepted provided the ship can demonstrate

that at least 95 percent volumetric exchange is met.

Regulation D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard

1 Ships conducting Ballast Water Management in accordance with this

regulation shall discharge less than 10 viable organisms per cubic metre

greater than or equal to 50 micrometres in minimum dimension and less than

10 viable organisms per millilitre less than 50 micrometres in minimum

dimension and greater than or equal to 10 micrometres in minimum

dimension; and discharge of the indicator microbes shall not exceed the

specified concentrations described in paragraph 2.

2 Indicator microbes, as a human health standard, shall include:

2.1 Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139) with less than 1 colony

forming unit (cfu) per 100 millilitres or less than 1 cfu per 1 gram (wet

weight) zooplankton samples ;

2.2 Escherichia coli less than 250 cfu per 100 millilitres;

2.3 Intestinal Enterococci less than 100 cfu per 100 millilitres.




65

Appendix B Regulation B-3

Regulation B-3 Ballast Water Management for Ships

1 A ship constructed before 2009:

1.1 with a Ballast Water Capacity of between 1500 and 5000 cubic metres,

inclusive, shall conduct Ballast Water Management that at least meets the

standard described in regulation D-1 or regulation D-2 until 2014, after

which time it shall at least meet the standard described in regulation D-2;

1.2 with a Ballast Water Capacity of less than 1500 or greater than 5000

cubic metres shall conduct Ballast Water Management that at least meets

the standard described in regulation D-1 or regulation D-2 until 2016,

after which time it shall at least meet the standard described in regulation

D-2.

2 A ship to which paragraph 1 applies shall comply with paragraph 1 not later

than the first intermediate or renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after the

anniversary date of delivery of the ship in the year of compliance with the

standard applicable to the ship.

3 A ship constructed in or after 2009 with a Ballast Water Capacity of less than

5000 cubic metres shall conduct Ballast Water Management that at least meets

the standard described in regulation D-2.

4 A ship constructed in or after 2009, but before 2012, with a Ballast Water

Capacity of 5000 cubic metres or more shall conduct Ballast Water

Management in accordance with paragraph 1.2.

5 A ship constructed in or after 2012 with a Ballast Water Capacity of 5000

cubic metres or more shall conduct Ballast Water Management that at least

meets the standard described in regulation D-2.

6 The requirements of this regulation do not apply to ships that discharge Ballast

Water to a reception facility designed taking into account the Guidelines

developed by the Organization for such facilities.

7 Other methods of Ballast Water Management may also be accepted as

alternatives to the requirements described in paragraphs 1 to 5, provided that

such methods ensure at least the same level of protection to the environment,

human health, property or resources, and are approved in principle by the

Committee.

Appendix C Guideline G-5




67

Side 1 indsættes som pdf

Side 2




69

Side 3

Side 4




71

Side 5 indsættes som pdf

Appendix D Regulation A-3

Regulation A-3 Exceptions

The requirements of regulation B-3, or any measures adopted by a Party pursuant

to Article 2.3 and Section C, shall not apply to:

1 the uptake or discharge of Ballast Water and Sediments necessary for the

purpose of ensuring the safety of a ship in emergency situations or saving life

at sea; or

2 the accidental discharge or ingress of Ballast Water and Sediments resulting

from damage to a ship or its equipment:

2.1 provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken before and after

the occurrence of the damage or discovery of the damage or discharge for

the purpose of preventing or minimizing the discharge; and

2.2 unless the owner, Company or officer in charge wilfully or recklessly

caused damage; or

3 the uptake and discharge of Ballast Water and Sediments when being used for

the purpose of avoiding or minimizing pollution incidents from the ship; or

4 the uptake and subsequent discharge on the high seas of the same Ballast

Water and Sediments; or

5 the discharge of Ballast Water and Sediments from a ship at the same location

where the whole of that Ballast Water and those Sediments originated and

provided that no mixing with unmanaged Ballast Water and Sediments from

other areas has occurred. If mixing has occurred, the Ballast Water taken

from other areas is subject to Ballast Water Management in accordance with

this Annex.




73

Appendix E Regulation A-4

Regulation A-4 Exemptions

1 A Party or Parties, in waters under their jurisdiction, may grant exemptions to

any requirements to apply regulations B-3 or C-1, in addition to those

exemptions contained elsewhere in this Convention, but only when they are:

1.1 granted to a ship or ships on a voyage or voyages between specified ports

or locations; or to a ship which operates exclusively between specified

ports or locations;

1.2 effective for a period of no more than five years subject to intermediate

review;

1.3 granted to ships that do not mix Ballast Water or Sediments other than

between the ports or locations specified in paragraph 1.1; and

1.4 granted based on the Guidelines on risk assessment developed by the

Organization.

2 Exemptions granted pursuant to paragraph 1 shall not be effective until after

communication to the Organization and circulation of relevant information to

the Parties.

3 Any exemptions granted under this regulation shall not impair or damage the

environment, human health, property or resources of adjacent or other States.

Any State that the Party determines may be adversely affected shall be

consulted, with a view to resolving any identified concerns.

4 Any exemptions granted under this regulation shall be recorded in the Ballast

Water record book.

Appendix F Ships at berth 1/1-31/3 2012

The graph shows ships at berth in Esbjerg Port in the time period from 1/1-2012 to

31/3 2012 for supply and route ships with more than 5 arrivals within the time

period.




75

The principal purpose of this study is to investigate and clarify the possibilities and the

feasibility of implementation of port based mobile treatment units for ships’ ballast water

Date post:	09-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

BALLAST WATER TREATMENT IN PORTS. FEASIBILITY STUDY · BALLAST WATER TREATMENT IN PORTS,...

Documents