Ballast Water Management Decision Support System Model Application - Global Maritime Transport and Ballast Water Management: Issues and Solutions - page 276

Table 4 Feasibility of BWE sequential (SEQ) and pump-through (FT) methods for vessels bound
for the Port of Koper arriving from selected ports in the central Adriatic (CA) via the BWEA and
the potential extended length

Potential
+ BWEA
SEQ
factor

Potential
+ BWEA
PT
factor

Potential
+ BWEA
distance

Vessel
speed

BW for
disch.

BWEA
distance

SEQ
factor

PT
factor

Vessel Source Port Area

(m 3 ) (knots) (NM) (NM)

1 ŠIBENIK CA 14 3,426 15 0.06 0.04 45 0.17 0.11

2 SPLIT CA 14 348 30 0.32 0.22 60 0.65 0.43

3 SPLIT CA 15 720 30 0.16 0.11 60 0.32 0.21

4 SPLIT CA 15 400 30 0.31 0.21 60 0.63 0.42

5 VELA LUKA CA 15 470 60 0.26 0.17 90 0.39 0.26

6 ORTONA CA 15 751 20 0.12 0.08 50 0.31 0.21

7 ORTONA CA 15 700 20 0.13 0.09 50 0.32 0.21

8 ORTONA CA 15 352 20 0.22 0.15 50 0.56 0.37

9 VASTO CA 15 200 30 0.74 0.50 60 1.49 0.99

Where the fi eld is marked red the vessel would not be able to complete the BWE when travelling
at her normal speed

data on salinity as key environmental matching parameter and the presence of
HAOP in the ballast water source ports become relevant. The BWRA in addition
considers data reliability. In this regard, port baseline surveys and monitoring for
HAOP are considered as critical factors for data reliability.

Data Availability and Related Assumptions

For the environmental matching RA, salinity data for the Port of Koper and for all
source ports were collected. It was recognised that the Port of Koper is a marine port
with a salinity always being above 30 psu. None of the source ports had salinity
levels below 1 psu (i.e., freshwater port), therefore, none of the ports was found
enough environmentally incompatible to trigger a low risk.
When searching for data on port baseline surveys and/or monitoring programmes
for HAOP in source ports it was recognized that no source port has these data
available. 4 In the light of the precautionary approach and considering the results
from the BWS study in the Port of Koper (David et al. 2007b ), even if ballast water
originates from the same biogeographic region as the Port of Koper, the presumption
is taken that the ballast water may contain non-indigenous species. With this, by
default a high risk RA result is triggered for all considered source ports.
As the next step possibilities to trigger intermediate risk (i.e., if the same HAO
are present in the source and receiving ports) or extreme risk (i.e., if some of the
HAO present in the source port are under a control programme in the receiving port
or Slovenian sea) have been considered. The option of identifying a source port as

4 i.e., no baseline surveys or monitoring programs for HAO were conducted in source ports.