|
Shipping or trucking – which method of transportation is more environmentally
friendly?Why is the International Maritime Organization changing the way the world adopts maritime regulations? What is the cruise industry doing about making themselves more environmentally responsible?
How can we create effective regulations for ballast water treatment? What ballast water technologies are better for different ship types? What are the risks involved in open ocean ballast water exchange?
Answers to these and other questions were found at the Marine Environmental Engineering Technical Symposium last May 31st through June 1st in Arlington, VA. For our reports on selected sessions check below:
Selected SessionsEnvironmental Policy and Regulations:
Aquatic Nuisance Species/ Ballast Water - Moderator – Ms. Allegra Cangelosi, NE-MW
Institute
CQD Journal for the Maritime Environment Industry provides the following reports based on
presentations made at MEETS 2001, May 31st and June 1st, 2001. Opinions and estimates are those of the Presenter's unless otherwise noted. CQD Journal makes no assertions as to the
validity of the statements or opinions and cannot be held responsible for any of the information or claims contained therein. We make every effort to report as accurately as possible, as presented by the speakers
during the session. For further information, contact persons are supplied.
For further information on how you can sponsor CQDjournal to attend and report at other symposia, please contact us at: emma97@bellatlantic.net
Cargo Transport by Sea and Road – Technical and Economical Factors
, as presented by Hans Otto Kristensen, Danish Shipowners' Association. Email: hok@danmarksrederiforening.dk
Professor Hans Otto Kristensen kicked off the afternoon sessions on Environmental Policies and Regulations. Kristensen described models used to determine the
environmental costs associated with different transportation forms. By using his equations one can compare transportation methods against each other and determine which has a lower cost to the environment.  Kristensen's model determines a cost/ton of cargo carried/km for separate
environmental factors. Environmental costs include total emissions, and well as individual emission components such as CO2, SOx, NOx, particulates, HC, and CO. To
come up with a total external cost number, additional detrimental environmental problems are included such as frequency of accidents, noise pollution and congestion.
Using the model, Kristensen compared road transportation against boat transportation for a sample trip from Gothenburg, Sweden to Algeciras, Spain. A 2000 TEU
containership was compared against an equivalent number of forty ton trucks needed to move the same amount of cargo. Results of the numbers show higher environmental costs/ton in SOx and particulate
emissions for the containership. However, the containership yielded much lower total emission cost/ton numbers thanks to better HC, NOx, CO2, and CO results. The total
external environmental cost was much higher for trucks due to higher numbers for accidents, noise and congestion. Another road vs. sea comparison yielded slightly different results. A Roll-on Roll-off
(RO-RO) ship was compared for the same journey against trucks. Results showed the total external environmental costs were close to even between the two transportation
forms. Although RO-ROs had lower environmental numbers from accidents, noise and congestion, the emission numbers were significantly higher on a cost/ton carried basis.
Kristensen explains that RO-ROs appear less efficient on a cost per cargo ton carried basis, because they carry a specialized type of cargo. A RO-RO carries less weight of
cargo for the same length of ship because the type of cargo (i.e. automobiles) takes up more space on the ship. Environmental factors are based on weight and not type of
cargo, hence the environmental costs on a PER TON basis appear higher for a RO-RO. Still, Kristensen believes that transportation by ship is, in general, the least energy
demanding form of transportation. In the future, he has plans to use his model to compare ship vs. rail transportation.
IMO Environmental Regulations – Is there a case for a change to the
standard Entry-into-Force requirements? As presented by Colin Brookman, ABS Europe. Email: cbrookman@eagle.org
Changing the way IMO does business: a power play or common sense? In 1948, the concepts and procedures for a UN branch responsible for safety and
pollution at sea were designed. It was decided that, with regards to shipping, the International Maritime Organization would be the responsible organization.
The U.S., Norway and the U.K. significantly influenced the manner in which IMO rules and procedures were created. In 1948, those three countries controlled over 60% of the
world's tonnage. In the post World War II era, they were the Flag States. Today, the identity of the Flag States has changed. Less than 5% of the world's fleet
consider themselves flag-bound to the U.S., U.K. and Norway. Panama, Liberia, Greece and others have taken over the Flag State moniker.
Now, Europe, the U.S. and other coastal and Port States are pushing for a shift in power away from Flag State control. The IMO battleground for this power struggle has become the entry-into-force provision.
Colin Brookman of the American Bureau of Shipping in the U.K. said the entry into force provision establishes the procedures upon which the most critical IMO conventions and
agreements come into acceptance. In past negotiations, member nations decided that an agreed upon treaty will be considered entered-into-force when 15 IMO member states
and 50% of the gross registered tonnage (GRT) from the world's fleet accepts the convention under consideration. This is currently known as the 15-50 rule for entry-into-force.
Brookman said current concerns are that the 15-50 rule has made it too difficult for some IMO environmental legislation to enter-into-force. For instance, the MARPOL Annex IV
treaty was adopted in 1973, but it has still not entered-into-force. The annex is about 6% short of the required total of 50% GRT of the world's fleet, even though it has been
ratified by 75% of IMO contracting parties. Many Port States have ratified it, but 50% of the Flag States have not, hence it has not entered-into-force.
The typical average for entry-into force is about 5 yrs after adoption by a diplomatic conference, says Brookman. Port States are worried that other environmental legislation
will have the same trouble getting past the 15-50 hurdle. Flag states and others argue against relaxing the 15-50 requirement. Brookman said the arguments to maintain status quo are:
- The vast majority of treaties only take five years.
- Those who contribute the most in IMO funding (Flag States) should have a preferential say in legislative matters.
- The present system was devised when the U.S., U.K. and Norway controlled IMO.
Arguments against the 15-50 rule include:
- The five year adoption phase does not take into account the many years it take to develop treaties, this could be an additional 10 years.
- Coastal states cannot wait 15 or more years for international acknowledgement of environmental problems.
Brookman noted that when states become frustrated over the slow pace of IMO law making, special states may resort to unilateral regional action. Such legislation is a
major problem for ship owners if the local laws are different or perhaps stricter than international ones. A number of alternative methods than entry-into-force are under consideration said
Brookman. He concluded that "over relaxation of entry-into-force requirements will result in weak and ineffective international legislation and the possibility of regional
action being orchestrated by small but determined groups of contracting states." He did however insist the views of states with long coastlines but small fleets should be taken
into account. In all cases environmental legislation for shipping should be left to IMO.
Environmental Compliance in the Cruise Industry
as presented by Don Kim, AMSEC LLC  Email: dkim@mrosenblatt.amsec.comKim gave an overall view of the current environmental regulatory
situation in the cruise ship business. He discussed some of the plans underway by the industry to make their vessels more environmentally friendly. The July issue of CQD Journal for the Maritime Environment
Industry will be about the Cruise Ship industry and their unique environmental challenges. Full details of Don Kim's and other presentations from MEETS will be available at that time.
Aquatic Nuisance Species/ Ballast Water - Moderator – Ms. Allegra Cangelosi, NE-MW Institute Regulatory Model to defend against ANS
as presented by Lt. Alan Blume, USCG Email:
ablume@comdt.uscg.mil Blume described challenges that regulatory agencies must face to create an effective defense against aquatic nuisance species (ANS) such as the
zebra mussel and others. He suggested a model by which future ANS policy might benefit. Policy challenges:
- It is impossible to predict when or where an invasion will occur and,
- Once invaded, it is virtually impossible to eradicate a species that has invaded.
Blume points out that prevention of aquatic species invasion is the key for protecting our watersheds. ANS Model Regulatory Structure: Federal Level:
- Create a Minimum National Discharge Standard maintained through mandatory ballast water exchange or treatment.
- Create requirements for onboard treatment systems, monitoring equipment, and a standard discharge connection for off-ship treatment.
State Level- States must decide whether or not they will:
- Create additional ballast water requirements,
- Require treatment in excess of the national standard,
- Prohibit completely the discharge of ballast water.
Investigation of Ballast Water Management Methods with particular emphasis in the risks of the sequential method,
as presented by Jack Polderman, Lloyds Register of Shipping Email: jack.polderman@lr.org
Polderman outlined a study completed by Lloyds Register in which a wide array of vessels were examined to determine the stresses and potential dangerous strains
presented by the sequential method of ballast water exchange at sea. In the sequential method of ballast exchange, tanks are emptied in the open ocean, and
re-filled with seawater. The method reduces the chance of invasion from non-native species. Unfortunately, the sequential method has potential risks to the ship.
Polderman spoke about some of the problems with the sequential method such as:
- Most ship types have insufficient longitudinal strength for the process.
- When forward ballast tanks are empty or low, certain vessel types will not have sufficient viewing area in front of the bow. This presents a danger to the ship and others in the vicinity.
- Steering component risks in light ballast condition include low forward draft and propeller shafts too high in the water. These conditions mean inefficient steering of the vessel.
- If seas become heavy during the exchange process, sloshing of the water in the tanks creates a dangerous amount of stress against the bulkheads and shell.
Polderman said it is critical that the sequential method of ballast water exchange be conducted in certain areas of the ocean and only when the weather is calm. Such
operational constraints and the potential for lost time pose undue burdens on the owners. He believes that open ocean ballast water exchange could have contributed to the sinking of at least one or more vessels at sea.
Treatment Systems on Containership RJ Pfeiffer and Tanker Polar Endeavor
as presented by Bill Hurley, Glosten Associates and Spencer Schilling, Herbert Engineering Email: wlhurley@glosten.com
Hurley and Schilling discussed designs created for ballast water treatment systems for a crude oil tanker as well as a 2000 TEU containership. They outlined how possible
treatment scenarios are picked for different ballast water configurations. They also detailed expected costs both for installation and the expected life of the vessel.
Tanker – Polar Endeavor: Details: 125000 DWT, crude oil tanker, Ballast Capacity 60,700 cubic meters, maximum ballast flow rate 2,860 cubic meters/hr or 12,000 gals/min.
Selected technologies – Cyclonic separation with UV radiation. Alternative secondary treatment would be chemical treatment. Installation costs expected at over $2,000,000. Annual costs depend on the chosen
secondary treatment system but estimated at $514,000. Hurley expects an equivalent cost of $0.20/ton of ballast water using chemical treatment instead of UV treatment.
Life cycle costs using chemical treatment are higher then similar costs of UV treatment. However, engineering considerations such as limited engine room space and time
constraints make the use of UV technology in the tanker vessel unadvisable. Containership – RJ Pfeiffer:
Details: 2420 TEU Containership, Ballast Capacity 14,300 cubic meters, maximum ballast flow rate 350 cubic meters/hr. Containership has a much lower ballast water demand than the tanker vessel.
Selected technologies – Cyclonic separation with UV radiation, or Filtration with UV radiation. Installation costs expected to be about $237,000 using cyclonic separator and
$288,000 using filtration. Annual costs should be about $26,000 with separator vs. $34,000 with filtration. On a cost per ton basis, ballast water treatment would be about $2.00 and $2.60 respectively.
The unit cost on the containership appears higher than the unit cost of treatment on a tanker. The total volume of ballast treated on a containership is significantly less than
the volume treated on a tanker, hence the unit cost may make treatment appear more expensive than it is. Schilling cautioned that a dollar/ton comparison of ballast water technologies is only
effective when looking at ships of similar type, i.e. tanker vs. tanker. He suggested a better overall cost measurement would be the change in required freight rate that ship
owners must charge to prospective charterers due to the addition of ballast water treatment technologies.
Ballast Water Treatment Technologies – Lessons learned aboard the cruise
ship Regal Princess, as presented by Thomas Mackey, Hyde Marine The July issue of CQD Journal for the Maritime Environment Industry will be about the
Cruise Ship industry and their unique environmental challenges. Full details of Thomas Mackey's and other presentations from MEETS will be available at that time. |
|
The American Society of Naval Engineers (ASNE) and The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) Present a Technical Symposium:
