Environmental port issues - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Environmental port issues PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: d3f78-ZDc1Z


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Environmental port issues


Environmental port issues. IAPH Regional meeting Africa / Europe. 1 3 March 2006 ... Maintain harmonisation of requirements with IMO Convention and resist unilateral ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:52
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 23
Provided by: erikra


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Environmental port issues

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

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

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

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

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
  • Lack of suitable bunkers

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
  • Availability??

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

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)

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

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

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.

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
  • Vessels need sufficient time to treat and comply

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
  • 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

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

Port Reception Facilities (1)
  • 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
  • All supported by INTERTANKO

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

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

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

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

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!!

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
  • 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
  • INTERTANKO Cooperate with authorities for
    universal solutions
  • INTERTANKO international standards for shore
    connection systems

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