9.5 OPTIONS FOR VESSELS REQUIRED TO UNDERTAKE REMEDIAL BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT UPON ENTRY TO A VICTORIAN PORT

In the event that vessels deemed to be carrying high risk ballast water are denied permission to discharge ballast in Victorian ports, it is important that options are provided for such vessels to manage and treat their ballast water thus enabling them to proceed with normal cargo operations.

Further to the Committee's examination of available technologies for ballast water treatment (Chapter 6), the Committee has identified four options which may provide vessels with suitable alternatives for ballast management in the event that they are requested to undertake remedial action upon entry to a Victorian port. These options are:

Figure 12
Operational system for the Victorian Ballast Water Management System

1. The vessel leaves the port and exchanges ballast at sea in depths of 60-100 m before returning to load. This option and the 60-100m rationale are discussed more fully in Section 9.7 of this Chapter.

2. The vessel loads cargo to its marks or maximum stability criteria, returns to sea (60-100m) to dump all ballast, then returns to port to complete loading.

3. The vessel loads cargo to its marks or maximum stability criteria then moves to a berth designated for off-loading contaminated ballast into shore holding tanks, before returning to the original cargo berth to complete loading.

4. The vessel moves straight to regular cargo loading berth and discharges ballast directly to an on-shore facility while loading.

In examining the implications of implementing a Victorian Ballast Water Management System, the Committee has undertaken a cost analysis of options 1 to 3 for each of Victoria's commercial ports and for four categories of vessel representative of the major types of commercial cargo vessels that utilise Victorian ports⁴⁴¹ These vessel types are; container ship (2000 TEUv), bulk carrier (35,000 dwt) crude tanker (>100,000 dwt ) and product tanker (30,000 dwt).

In Option 4, vessels would move straight to a regular cargo loading berth and discharge ballast directly to an on-shore facility while loading. No costs would therefore be incurred for moving from one berth to another, as is the case for Option 3. Because it is not possible to predict what costs may be charged to vessels for processing of ballast water discharged to shore, costings have not been provided for Option 4.

The total cost given for each option for each port is what the vessel would be required to pay over and above the normal charges and costs associated with a port visit.

The cost estimates have been calculated on the basis that each vessel is carrying a full load of ballast. The Committee notes that all vessels entering Victorian ports do not intend to discharge full loads of ballast and that the actual costs to vessels may be lower than the estimates provided.

The Committee notes that in order to provide an appropriate context for the costs of ballast water management, an understanding of the economic scale within which the shipping industry operates is important. Such an understanding enables realistic cost comparisons to be made, and conclusions to be drawn as to whether the cost to industry of keeping Victorian ports free of non-indigenous marine organisms is a fair and reasonable one. Table 20 lists a number of ongoing costs met by the shipping industry as a regular part of shipping operations.

Table 20
Select operational costs borne by the shipping industry

Select Costs	Bulk Carrier ($AUD)	Product Tanker ($AUD)	Container Vessel ($AUD)	Crude Tanker ($AUD)
Cost of re-ballasting	500	500	700	1,500
Cost of flow-through exchange	1,600	1,600	2,100	4,500
Cost of drydocking (every 5 years)	600,000	1,000,000	850,000	1,500,000
Daily charter rates44213,000	19,500	25,000	36,000
Daily fuel costvi	3,200	3,600	7,400	7,900
Channel dues (per visit)	10,500	10,500	13,000	26,000

Detailed costing information used to calculate the cost estimates in Table 21 is shown in Appendix E. Information provided includes details such as distance from berth to designated ballast exchange area for each port, channel dues, pilotage, linesboat charges⁴⁴³and daily charter rates⁴⁴⁴ Distances from berths to ballast water exchange areas were calculated using navigational charts⁴⁴⁵with routes taken from each port out to a recommended depth of 60-100 metres for exchange⁴⁴⁶ In coastal waters, the 60-100 m depth contour generally is occupied by a significantly different assemblage of organisms from those found in harbours and wharf areas⁴⁴⁷ These differences are related to the availability of various environmental requirements such as light and nutrients⁴⁴⁸ For example, nutrient loadings are extreme in port and nearshore waters and the differences in light penetration between nearshore and offshore waters are also extreme⁴⁴⁹ The Committee is advised that the ability of species to survive in a new environment also depends on its ability to settle:

Many estuarine and harbour encrusting species move up towards the surface but also away from the light, instead preferring dark places; an unlikely behaviour to lead to successful settlement in 60 m of water. Soft substrate organisms will tend to settle downward, but the increased depth will leave them vulnerable to predation. The absence of fine silt/mud in offshore waters will also influence the success of many of the soft sediment species⁴⁵⁰

The Committee notes that depth alone may not be a sufficient barrier to the survival of every organism⁴⁵¹ When, however, the 60-100 m depth contour occurs a significant distance from the port, as is the case with Victorian ports (Appendix E), the likelihood of organism survival and establishment is further diminished. Currents also influence successful organism establishment by ensuring that organisms discharged at some distance from the shore are swept further out to sea rather than inshore⁴⁵² The Committee notes that, if future research were to show that vessels should travel out to distances slightly farther than those nominated by the Committee (Appendix E), any changes to the estimated costs of the options considered by the Committee would be marginal. This is because the greatest costs to a vessel leaving port to exchange ballast result from double pilotage fees, channel dues and tugboat charges, and voyage costs (chartering fees). The extra time required to travel further short distances is unlikely to add significantly to the voyage cost.

The costs of ballast water exchange en route are significantly less than the costs of ballast water treatment options upon arrival in port. The Committee believes that when the cost to a vessel of ballast water exchange en route ($500 to $1600 per visit) is compared with other costs borne by the shipping industry (Table 20), it is apparent that en route ballast water exchange costs are relatively minor. For vessels which have been unable to exchange ballast, and which are required to undertake remedial action upon arrival in Victoria, the costs may be greater.

The Committee emphasises, however, that as discussed in Chapter 7 of this report, the number of vessels which may be required to undertake remedial action as part of the Victorian Ballast Water Management System is likely to be a very small proportion of total ship visits to Victoria, particularly if ships comply with Australian (International) Guidelines. The Committee notes that since the introduction of ballast water regulations in the Port of Vancouver in March 1997, no vessels entering the port have been unable to exchange ballast water for safety reasons.

The Committee concludes that if the shipping industry acts responsibly in complying with the Victorian Ballast Water Management System, few vessels will incur significant costs for ballast water management.

9.5.1 Options 3 and 4 - discharge of ballast to shore

The Committee notes that Options 3 and 4 would require the initial cost of installation on vessels of a shore manifold, and the building/restructuring and continuing maintenance of a ballast water shore treatment facility.

Table 21
Costs to vessels of remedial action to treat high risk ballast upon entry to Victorian portsvii

	Container Vessel $AUD	Bulk Carrier $AUD		Product Tanker $AUD	Crude Tanker $AUD
Port of Melbourne
Option 1	107,800	64,600	63,400			150,800
Option 2	59,200	39,800	42,200			92,900
Option 3	52,200	37,700	38,100			88,800
Port of Geelong
Option 1		64,600	63,400			150,800
Option 2		39,800	42,200			92,900
Option 3		41,000	42,600			97,100
Port of Hastings
Option 1		98,600	102,400			165,400
Option 2		73,800	80,100			107,500
Option 3		69,400	75,600			194,000
Port of Portland
Option 1		64,600	63,400
Option 2		39,800	42,200
Option 3		20,600	20,800

Option 1: The vessel leaves the port and exchanges ballast at sea in depths of 60-100 m before returning to load cargo.
Option 2: The vessel loads cargo to its marks or maximum stability criteria, returns to sea (60-100m) to dump all ballast, then returns to port to complete loading.
Option 3: The vessel loads cargo to its marks or maximum stability criteria then moves to a berth designated for off-loading contaminated ballast into shore holding tanks, before returning to the original cargo berth to complete loading.

The Committee estimates that the cost to a vessel of fitting a shore manifold to enable discharge of ballast to shore is approximately $145,000⁴⁵³ The installation cost analysis is based on a standard handysize bulk carrier (22,000 dwt) and full details of the calculation and costing quotation for a ballast water shore discharge manifold are provided in Appendix F.

It has been estimated that the capital cost of a shore treatment facility for ballast water would be between $9-19 million⁴⁵⁴ This estimate was calculated on the basis of costs of ballast water treatment for a 140,000 dwt bulk carrier and the Committee notes that smaller vessels and ports would probably involve lower capital costs. In addition, the actual costs would depend to a large extent on ship movements and individual ports⁴⁵⁵ The overall annual operating costsviii of a shore-based facility may be expressed as a cost per tonne of ballast water. The Committee has tabulated these costs along with estimated costs per tonne of ballast for Options 1 and 2 (Table 22).

For Option 4, other than the initial one-off cost of fitting a vessel with a shore manifoldix, no additional costs would be incurred by ships because vessels would be discharging ballast as a normal part of cargo operations. Ports may, however, wish to charge fees for use of the on-shore facility and this could be calculated on the basis of tonnes of ballast discharged to shore and treated.

With the exception of Portland, it is likely to be prohibitively expensive for Victorian ports to have on-shore receiving facilities at every berth and many vessels would therefore need to move from the cargo berth to a ballast receiving berth, then back to the original cargo berth.

At the Port of Portland, berths are very close and the Committee believes that it may be possible to install 1.4km of pipeline around the perimeter of the port at an approximate cost of $1.4 million⁴⁵⁶ Ships visiting Portland could then discharge ballast directly to an on-shore treatment facility with no interruption to cargo operations. Other than a possible fee charged by the port per tonne of ballast treated, no costs would be incurred by vessels.

The Committee recognises that the capital and operational costs of on-shore ballast treatment facilities in Victoria may be prohibitively expensive. The Committee nevertheless believes that the EPA, Victorian ports and the shipping industry may wish to consider this option further in the interests of providing an additional alternative to shipping for remedial ballast water management in Victorian ports.

Table 22
Costs of various ballast water treatment options for a vessel entering the Port of Melbourne

Ballast Water Treatment	Cost per Tonne of Ballastx	Cost per Visitxi
Ballast exchange (re-ballasting) en route	$0.03	$500
Ballast exchange (flow-through exchange) en route	$0.08	$1,600
Option 1	$3.17	$64,600
Option 2	$1.95	$39,800
Option 3 (Cost to vessel, no fees for use of on-shore facility included).	$1.85	$37,700
On-shore treatment facilityxii. (All or part of this cost could be passed on to the vessel).	$0.34	$6,900

Option 1: The vessel leaves the port and exchanges ballast at sea in depths of 60-100 m before returning to load cargo.

Option 2: The vessel loads cargo to its marks or maximum stability criteria, returns to sea (60-100m) to dump all ballast, then returns to port to complete loading.

Option 3: The vessel loads cargo to its marks or maximum stability criteria then moves to a berth designated for off-loading contaminated ballast into shore holding tanks, before returning to the original cargo berth to complete loading.

Recommendation 8 That the Environment Protection Authority, in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victorian ports and the Victorian Channels Authority, AQIS and shipping industry representatives, investigate the potential for the establishment of on-shore ballast water treatment facilities in Victoria.

v A TEU is a 20 foot equivalent unit, the standard international measure for measuring container throughput units. One forty foot long container is recorded as 2 TEU.

vi Based on $130/t H.F.O.(Heavy Fuel Oil)

vii All figures have been rounded to the nearest $100

viii Overall annual cost represents interest, redemption and depreciation on capital cost (@15%) plus operating cost.

ix Note that tankers may already be equipped to discharge ballast to shore.

x Figures in $AUD

xi Calculated assuming that vessel is carrying a full load of ballast of 20,368 tonnes. Figure rounded to nearest $100.00.

xii Based on the overall annual cost of a $9 million facility including interest, redemption and depreciation on capital cost (@15%) plus operating cost (AQIS Ballast Water Research Series Report No. 1 "Ballast Water Treatment for the Removal of Marine Organisms". prepared by Gutheridge Haskins & Davey Pty. Ltd. P 85.