Environmental port issues

1
Environmental port issues

• IAPH Regional meeting Africa / Europe
• 1 3 March 2006
• Riga, Latvia
• Gunnar A. Knudsen
• Manager, Ports Terminals Section
• INTERTANKO

2
Contents of presentation

• Air Emissions From Ships
• Ballast Water Management
• Anti-Fouling Systems (AFS)
• Port Reception Facilities
• Cold ironing

3
Air Emissions From Ships (1)

• Status
• Ships mainly burn residual fuel
• Most economical choice
• No governmental control of fuels
• Product adequacy of quality left to be policed by
  customers

4
Air Emissions From Ships (2)

• IMO regulatory process
• Debate in IMO since 1992
• Annex VI adopted in Sept. 1997
• Annex VI in force from 19 May 2005

5
Air Emissions From Ships (3)

• EU regulatory process (1)
• Sulphur Directive (1999/33)
• 0.2 sulphur content for gas oils and diesel oils
  within Europe
• Imposed restrictions on user and not on bunker
  deliveries
• Lack of suitable bunkers

6
Air Emissions From Ships (4)

• EU regulatory process (2)
• Ships forced to switch from MDO to residuel fuel
  with higher sulphur
• Amendments to EU Directive in force August 2006
• MDO with 1.5 sulphur content permitted
• Marine gas oils still with max. 0.2 sulphur
• 0.1 fuels at berth will be required from
  2008-2010
• Availability??

7
Air Emissions From Ships (5)

• Consequences
• Adjustments of engine to handle alternate use of
  high vs. low sulphur bunkers
• Reshaping storage capacity on existing ships
• Additional risk elements human factor
• No guarantee of suitable bunker availability

8
Air Emissions From Ships (6)

• Conclusion
• Ships are environmentally friendly
• Control of VOC emissions in hand
• Air pollution must be contained
• Shore commitment needed i.e. suitable bunkers
• Need for gradual decrease of sulphur content in
  marine fuel avoiding specific local requirements
  (INTERTANKO position)

9
Air Emissions From Ships (6)

• Conclusion (contd)
• Feasible (ensuring supply) and safer (limiting
  operational changes and adjustments)
• Involve engine manufacturers
• Involve bunker producers and suppliers
• Involve Government monitoring
• We should not under estimate ships contributions
  to the local air pollution but ships should be
  provided with the right supplies

10
Ballast Water Management (1)

• INTERTANKO issue
• Potential deviation and time loss to prescribed
  exchange zones
• Unknown environmental side effects from ballast
  treatment systems (chemicals?)
• Unknown requirements over and above those in the
  IMO Convention and consequences for IMO compliant
  ships

11
Ballast Water Management (2)

• IAPH issue
• Protection of ports and coastal waters from
  invasive species (maintain biodiversity)
• Combined effort
• Protection of port from side effects of BW
  treatment (chemicals, air emissions?)
• IAPH to watch ballast systems and work with
  shipping industry to point out shortfall of
  current technological proposals (increased air
  emissions, chemical discharges, increased
  nutrients in receiving waters causing
  eutrophication etc.

12
Ballast Water Management (3)

• Combined effort (contd)
• Maintain harmonisation of requirements with IMO
  Convention and resist unilateral action.
• Advise shipping of
• Suitable discharge areas
• If higher standards required, then note port
  state obligation to assist in practical manner
  the ships with IMO approved equipment
• Advise of discharge (treatment) standards in good
  time
• Vessels need sufficient time to treat and comply

13
Anti-Fouling Systems (AFS) (1)

• INTERTANKO issue
• AFS Convention Not apply organotin based
  anti-fouling on hull after 1 Jan. 2003
• No organotin on hulls after 1 Jan. 2008
• EU member states police implementation of own EC
  Regulation
• Slow response from flag states cause problems and
  concern that third party (non-EU) flag states may
  fail to authorise timely Statements of Compliance
  after 2007 for ships trading to EU ports
• Solution Ratify and implement the AFS Convention
  soonest

14
Anti-Fouling Systems (AFS) (2)

• IAPH issue
• Acknowledge that ports struggle against build up
  of organotin in sediments which is released
  during dredging
• Ports must see that use of organotin anti-fouling
  systems is prohibited by the AFS Convention date
  of 2008.
• Ports must play their part in ensuring IMO member
  states ratify the international Convention.
• INTERTANKO would welcome their support to secure
  full ratification of this Convention

15
Port Reception Facilities (1)

• INTERTANKO Issue
• Striving for zero discharge means confidence in
  being able to deliver waste to shore
• Availability and adequacy still a problem in
  Europe and around the world
• Major initiatives focused on resolving the issue
  Med./F.East/Baltic/Canada/Europe
• All supported by INTERTANKO

16
Port Reception Facilities (2)

• Problems range from
• Basic lack of communication (port, agent, ships,
  facility provider)
• Technical problems at berth or anchorage
• Implementation issues associated with regional or
  international regulations
• PRF Directive has failed its objective
• Inconsistent fee mechanisms (example)
• Variable interpretation of Compulsory Discharge
  (example)

17
Port Reception Facilities (3)

• IAPH Issue
• Ports are major part for achieving Zero Discharge
• IAPH/INTERTANKO recognition of problems for
  facility providers and users has been positive
• IAPH is major strategy partner in the Industry
  PRF Forum towards problem solving
• Joint mandate from port and shipping industry
  will sway regulators (coop. in IMO, Europe etc.)
• IAPH/INTERTANKO coop. will assist in day to day
  problems for our members

18
Cold ironing (1)

• Background
• Electric power from shore
• Reduced pollution by shut down auxiliaries
• Few vessels have adequate connection systems
• Variable environmental benefits
• Time alongside
• Fuel used
• Performance of engine

19
Cold ironing (2)

• Arguments
• Complex investment, shore-ship power transfer
  system and distribution infrastructure
• Variable environmental benefits
• High power requirements
• Complete lack of standardisation of power
  voltage, frequency and ship-ship connections
  around the world
• Mounting cost of electric power for citizens

20
Cold ironing (3)

• Examples
• Supply to a tanker 3,000 kW/hour equals electric
  power consumption of approx. 1,100 detached
  Nordic houses/day
• Supply to a container ship 5,000 kW/hour equals
  approx. 2,160 houses/day!!

21
Cold ironing (4)

• Conclusions
• On-shore power does not solve the overall problem
  of air pollution from ships
• Air emissions from ships need to be controlled
• VOC (loading and enroute) is the main tanker
  issue
• INTERTANKO procedure reduces by 80 VOC emissions
  during laden voyage
• INTERTANKO Need a simple system for supply of
  low sulphur fuel adequate for the respective
  engines
• INTERTANKO Cooperate with authorities for
  universal solutions
• INTERTANKO international standards for shore
  connection systems

22
Thank you for your kind attention!Comments or
questions are welcome at gunnar.knudsen_at_intertan
ko.com