PORT OF TRELLEBORG, PORT OF HELSINKI

CLEANSHIP Clean Baltic Sea Shipping

Task 4.5 Port Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Sewage

PORT OF TRELLEBORG, PORT OF HELSINKI

Funding Scheme: Collaborative Project Start date of project: 01/04/2011

Duration: 18 months

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

Task 4.5 PORT RECEPTION FACILITIES FOR SHIP-GENERATED SEWAGE

Author(s):

JOSEFIN MADJIDIAN, AINO RANTANEN

Issuing entity:

Port of Trelleborg and Port of Helsinki

Document Code:

CLEANSHIP TASK 4.5

Contributing Partners / Authors

PORTS OF STOCKHOLM, PORT OF TURKU / MARKKU ALAHÄME, GUN RUDEBERG

Pages

44

Figures

12

Tables

14

Annexes

0

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page ii

Disclaimer This publication is part of the Clean Baltic Sea Shipping project and it is subjected to the publicity rules of the Baltic Sea Programme 2007-2013. While the information contained in the documents is believed to be accurate, the author(s) or any other participant in the CLEANSHIP make no warranty of any kind with regard to this material including, but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Neither CLEANSHIP nor any of its members, their officers, employees or agents shall be responsible or liable in negligence or otherwise howsoever in respect of any inaccuracy or omission herein. Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing neither CLEANSHIP nor any of its partners, their officers, employees or agents shall be liable for any direct or indirect or consequential loss or damage caused by or arising from any information advice or inaccuracy or omission herein.

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. iv LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS /GLOSSARY ......................................................................... vii Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Eutrophication ........................................................................................... 1

1.2

State of the Baltic Sea................................................................................ 2

2

IMO regulations and HELCOM measures .......................................................... 3

2.1

MARPOL Annex IV...................................................................................... 4

2.2

EU directive 2000/59 EC ............................................................................. 4

2.3

HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan .................................................................... 5

3 3.1

2.3.1

No Special Fee .................................................................................. 6

2.3.2

Common No Special Fee system for the Baltic Sea region ports? ............. 6

Sewage ....................................................................................................... 7 Port capacity to receive sewage ................................................................... 8 3.1.1

Management practice in the port ......................................................... 9

3.1.1.1 3.1.2

Cruise and ferry ports ................................................................ 10

IMO GISIS - Global Integrated Shipping Information System ................ 10

3.2

Capacity of the municipality to receive sewage ............................................ 11

3.3

Municipal waste water treatment vs. onboard treatment ............................... 11

4 4.1

Case studies .............................................................................................. 12 Port of Helsinki, Finland ............................................................................ 12 4.1.1

Port reception facilities - general ....................................................... 13

4.1.2

Capacity and technical issues ............................................................ 13

4.1.3

Port of Helsinki waste water study in summer 2012 ............................. 15

4.1.4

Amount and quality of received waste waters ..................................... 15

4.1.4.1

Amounts and measuring ............................................................. 15

4.1.4.2

Composition and sampling .......................................................... 17

4.1.5

Combating odour problems - H2S ...................................................... 21

4.1.6

Pricing ........................................................................................... 21

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page iv

4.1.7 4.2

4.3

4.4

Challenges and future issues ............................................................ 22

Port of Trelleborg, Sweden........................................................................ 22 4.2.1

Port reception facilities - general ....................................................... 23

4.2.2

Capacity and technical issues ............................................................ 24

4.2.3

Amount of received waste waters ...................................................... 26

4.2.4

Pricing ........................................................................................... 27

4.2.5

Challenges ..................................................................................... 27

Port of Turku, Finland............................................................................... 27 4.3.1

Port reception facilities - general ....................................................... 27

4.3.2

Capacity and technical issues ............................................................ 27

4.3.3

Amount of received waste waters ...................................................... 28

4.3.4

Pricing ........................................................................................... 29

Ports of Stockholm, Sweden...................................................................... 29

4.4.1 Port reception facilities – general ............................................................... 30 4.4.2 Capacity and technical issues .................................................................... 30 4.4.3 Waste water received in Port of Stockholm ................................................. 32 4.4.3.1 Amount of waste water .................................................................... 32 4.4.3.2. Composition and sampling ............................................................... 34 4.4.4 Pricing .................................................................................................... 35 4.4.5 Challenges .............................................................................................. 36 5 References ................................................................................................... 37

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page v

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 AMOUNTS FROM INDIVIDUAL PUMPINGS IN SUMMER 2012, PORT OF HELSINKI (PASSENGER SHIPS IN WEST HARBOUR)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……17 TABLE 2 AMOUNTS FROM INDIVIDUAL PUMPINGS IN SUMMER 2012, PORT OF HELSINKI (CRUISE SHIPS IN WEST HARBOUR, HERNESAARI)…………………………………………………………………..………………………………………….………………….…..18 TABLE 3 AMOUNTS FROM INDIVIDUAL PUMPINGS IN SUMMER 2012, PORT OF HELSINKI (RORO AND ROPAX IN VUOSAARI)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..18 TABLE 4 WASTE WATER ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR PASSENGER SHIPS IN PORT OF HELSINKI SOUTH HARBOUR AND THE COMPARISON SAMPLES FROM TURKU…………………………………………………..……………………………………………….……..20 TABLE 5 RESULTS FROM PASSENGER SHIP SAMPLING IN SEPTEMBER 2012, SEPARATE FOR BLACK AND GREY WATERS.………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………….……..21 TABLE 6 WASTE WATER ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR CRUISE SHIP IN PORT OF HELSINKI IN AUGUST 2012.………………………… 21 TABLE 7 WASTE WATER ANALYSIS RESULTS IN VUOSAARI, PORT OF HELSINKI, MAY-JUNE 2012.................................22 TABLE 8 GENERAL LIMIT VALUES FOR PARAMETERS THAT CAN AFFECT THE SEWER PIPING SYSTEM , MUNICIPALITY OF TRELLEBORG……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……..…………26 TABLE 9 GENERAL LIMIT VALUES FOR METALS, MUNICIPALITY OF TRELLEBORG………………………………………………………..27 TABLE 10 GENERAL LIMIT VALUES FOR METALS, MUNICIPALITY OF TURKU……………………………………………………………..29 TABLE 11 SHIP CALLS TO PORTS OF STOCKHOLM IN 2012……………………………………………………………………………….31 TABLE 12 AMOUNT OF SEWAGE RECEIVED IN PORTS OF STOCKHOLM IN 2012………………………………………………………34 TABLE 13 SAMPLINGS OF BLACK AND GREY WATER FROM FERRIES IN 2009 AS PART OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, PORTS OF STOCKHOLM…………………………………………………………………………………………35 TABLE 14 RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE WASTE WATER COMPOSITION WAS ANALYZED AND COMPARED TO A BENCHMARK VALUE FOR INCOMING WASTE WATER TO THE MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS…………………………………………………………36

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 THE EUTROPHICATION STATUS OF THE BALTIC SEA …………………………………………………………….……………….3 FIGURE 2 THE THREE HARBOURS OF THE PORT OF HELSINKI……………..............................……………………….....……..13 FIGURE 3 HOSES AND CONNECTIONS, PORT OF HELSINKI.………………………………………………...............………...........14 FIGURE 4 RECEIVED WASTE WATERS IN PORT OF HELSINKI. AMOUNTS FROM VUOSAARI ARE MEASURED, AMOUNTS FROM PASSENGER AND CRUISE SHIPS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION FROM VESSELS……..…………………………………….….......…..18 FIGURE 5 THE FOUR CORRIDORS OF THE PORT OF TRELLEBORG, CONNECTING SOUTHERN SWEDEN TO EUROPE.………………23 FIGURE 6 PRF PUMPING STATION IN PORT OF TRELLEBORG………………………………………………………………………………24 FIGURE 7 PRF HOSES IN PORT OF TRELLEBORG.……………………………………………………………………………………………26 FIGURE 8 THE AMOUNT OF SEWAGE PER YEAR DISCHARGED FROM TWO REGULAR RORO FERRIES SERVING TRELLEBORGSASSNITZ AND TRELLEBORG-ROSTOCK. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………27 FIGURE 9 THE AMOUNT OF SEWAGE PER YEAR DISCHARGED FROM PASSENGER FERRIES SERVING TURKU - STOCKHOLM. …….29 FIGURE 10 THE PORTS OF STOCKHOLM AND HINTERLAND CONNECTIONS.……………………………………………………………..30 FIGURE 11 VARIETY OF COUPLINGS PROVIDED IN THE PORTS OF STOCKHOLM…………………………………………………..……32 FIGURE 12 AMOUNT OF WASTE WATER RECEIVED IN PORT OF STOCKHOLM M3).……………………………………………………..33

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS /GLOSSARY AWTS - Advanced Waste Water Treatment Plants BASP - Baltic Sea Action Plan BSR – Baltic Sea Region BSSSC - Baltic Sea States Subregional Co-operation CBSS - Council of the Baltic Sea States EU – European Union H2S – Hydrogen Sulphide HELCOM – Helsinki Commission HSY - Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority IMO - International Maritime Organisation GISIS - Global Integrated Shipping Information System MEPC – Marine Environment Protection Committee MSD - Marine Sanitation Device N – Nitrogen NSF – No Special Fee P - Phosphorous PRF - Port Reception Facility WWTP - Waste Water Treatment Plant

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page vii

Introduction Eutrophication is regarded as the most severe threat to the Baltic Sea, affecting the structure and functioning of the marine ecosystem. Shipping contributes to the eutrophication through nitrogen air emissions, sewage and waste pollution, and, as a result, the maritime transport system needs to be optimised to meet the demands of a sustainable development. The problem has been addressed by the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BASP), by the five point action plan of the Baltic Sea States Subregional Co-operation (BSSSC), as well as by the endorsement of the Baltic Sea EU strategy through the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS). The ship-borne nitrogen load represents approximately 0.04% of the total nitrogen load, and the phosphorus load represents approximately 0.3% of the total phosphorus load both into the Baltic Sea area and into the Gulf of Finland (Hänninen and Sassi 2009). Rather, the main nutrient load from ships into the Baltic Sea is derived from waterborne inputs and atmospheric deposition (6%, equal to around 16 760 ton/year of the total atmospheric deposition of nitrogen). On the other hand, discharge of sewage into the water gives direct input of nutrients to e.g. growing algea. As the nutrient load from ships is much easier to reduce, when compared to the atmospheric emissions or nutrient inputs from land-based sources, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has decided that from 2016 all new passenger and cruise ships are not allowed to release their sewage into the sea (MARPOL Convention Annex IV). From 2018, the same ban will apply to the rest of the passenger and cruise ships travelling in the Baltic Sea. As a part of a clean shipping strategy, within the Clean Baltic Sea Shipping (CLEANSHIP) project, a report concerning port sewage reception facilities is included; The aim of this report is 1) to create a common understanding on technical and operational aspects on sewage delivery to Port Reception Facilities (PRFs), 2) to suggest constructive solutions for functional and effective system for delivery, reception and treatment of sewage from passenger ships, using four case ports, 3) to discuss international and national regulations and policies and lift the economical perspective of providing adequate PRFs in a port.

1.1 Eutrophication Eutrophication could be described as an ecosystem response to the addition of artificial or natural substances, such as nitrates and phosphates, through e.g. fertilizers or sewage, to an aquatic system. In marine waters, nitrogen is more commonly the key limiting nutrient, while phosphorous is the key limiting nutrient in freshwaters. Several ecological effects can arise from stimulating primary production, whereof three result in particularly troubling ecological impacts: decreased biodiversity, changes in species composition and dominance, and toxicity effects. The high nutrient concentrations stimulate the growth of algae which leads to imbalanced functioning of the system; algal blooms limit the sunlight available to bottom-dwelling organisms and cause wide swings in the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water. Oxygen is required by all aerobically respiring plants and animals and it is replenished CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 1

in daylight by photosynthesizing plants and algae. Under eutrophic conditions, dissolved oxygen greatly increases during the day, but is greatly reduced after dark by the respiring algae and by microorganisms that feed on the increasing mass of dead algae. When dissolved oxygen levels decline to hypoxic levels, fish and other marine animals suffocate. As a result, benthic organisms such as fish, shrimp, and especially immobile bottom dwellers die off, increasing the excess of organic matter further. In extreme cases, anaerobic conditions follow, promoting growth of bacteria, such as Clostridium botulinum, that produces toxins deadly to birds and mammals. Zones where this occurs are known as dead zones. Moreover, in these anoxic zones organic matter, nutrients and also hazardous substances bound to sediments are released back to the water column causing intensified internal loading and circulation of toxic material.

1.2

State of the Baltic Sea

The Baltic Sea area, about 370 000 km², comprises the Baltic Sea proper, plus the Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Finland, and the entrance to the Baltic Sea bounded by the parallel of the Skaw in the Skagerrak. It is the world‟s second largest brackish water basin and ecologically unique, with the species populating the Baltic Sea living on the edge of their salinity tolerance limits (high or low). Moreover, due to its narrow straits the circulation time of water is long. As a result, the Baltic Sea is highly sensitive to the environmental impacts resulting from human activities in its catchment area. During the last ~100 years, the Baltic Sea has changed from an oligotrophic clearwater sea into a eutrophic marine environment (Elmgren 2001) (Fig. 1a and b). Indeed, the Baltic Sea holds the world‟s largest and growing human-induced dead zone (Conley et al. 2009), an effect of the adding of 20 million tones of nitrogen and 2 million tones of phosphorous over the past 50 years (Gustafsson et al. 2012). About 75% of the nitrogen load and at least 95% of the phosphorus load enter the Baltic Sea via rivers or as direct waterborne discharges. About 25% of the nitrogen load comes as atmospheric deposition. Another cause for increased nutrient levels in the sea, especially in the case of phosphorus, is the “internal load”; phosphorus reserves accumulated in the sediments of the sea bed are released back to the water under anoxic conditions. Neither this internal load, nor the amount of nitrogen fixed by cyanobacteria or blue-green algae, is considered in the overview of total loads to the Baltic Sea (HELCOM 2007). In a model ensemble study for the Baltic Sea, researchers have found that eutrophication, and thus anoxic conditions, will be more severe in warmer climates, spurred by increased runoff of nutrients, reduced oxygen flux from the atmosphere to the ocean due to increased temperature, and intensified internal nutrient cycle (Meier et al. 2011).

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 2

a)

b)

Figure 1. a) The eutrophication status of the Baltic Sea based on average, data for 2003-2007 at 110 assessment units in the Baltic Sea. The assessments are based on an integration of the results from core set indicators on nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) concentrations, chlorophyll a concentrations, water transparency and zoobenthos communities using the HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool (HEAT). The interpolated map has been produced in three steps: 1) the integrated status of coastal assessment units have been interpolated along the shores, 2) the integrated status of open sea basins have been interpolated and 3) the coastal and open interpolations have been combined using a smoothing function. The larger circles indicate the status of open sea assessment units and the smaller circles that of the coastal assessment units (from HELCOM). b) Cyanobacteria cover the Baltic Sea in green slime, spurred by flows of nitrogen and phosphorous (from ENVISAT/ESA).

2 IMO regulations and HELCOM measures In general, the regulations for shipping can be divided into the following levels: -

International regulations and conventions (MARPOL) Regional conventions (Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), EU directives) National legislation Local regulations and recommendations

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 3

National legislations that regulate the prevention of pollution from ships in the Baltic countries are based on the content of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention and all Baltic Sea countries are parties to this Convention. Since many of the international regulations don‟t apply to ports before they are part of the national legislation ports may have slightly different legislation.

2.1 MARPOL Annex IV MARPOL Convention Annex IV - Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships, entered into force 27 September 2003. Annex IV contains a set of regulations regarding the discharge of sewage into the sea from ships, including regulations regarding the ships' equipment and systems for the control of sewage discharge, the provision of facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of sewage, and requirements for survey and certification. According to the current Annex IV, the discharge of sewage into the sea is allowed if a ship is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage at a distance of more than three nautical miles from the nearest land. Other sewage can be discharged at a distance of >12 nautical miles from the nearest land. This because it is generally considered that on the high seas, the oceans are capable of assimilating and dealing with raw sewage through natural bacterial action. In July 2011 IMO (MEPC 62) approved the most recent amendments to MARPOL Annex IV, entered into force on 1 January 2013. The amendments introduce the Baltic Sea as a special area under Annex IV and add new discharge requirements for passenger ships while in a special area; discharge of sewage into the sea from passenger ships will be prohibited unless the ship uses an approved sewage treatment plant, capable of reducing nutrients on board, according to established concentration standards. Alternatively, untreated sewage could be delivered to a PRF. From 2015 all new passenger and cruise ships are not allowed to release their sewage into the sea (MARPOL Convention Annex IV). From 2018, the same ban will apply to the rest of the passenger and cruise ships travelling in the Baltic Sea. The revised Annex applies to new ships engaged in international voyages of 400 gross tonnage and above or which are certified to carry more than 15 persons. The Baltic Sea Special Area will enter into effect when the Baltic Sea Countries via HELCOM notify IMO that adequate port reception facilities for sewage in their passenger ports are available.

2.2 EU directive 2000/59 EC At another level, the countries in the Baltic Sea region must comply to EU-regulations regarding PRFs. Directive 2000/59/EC1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues pursues the same aim as the 73/78 MARPOL Convention on the prevention of pollution by ships, which all the Member States have signed. However, in contrast to the Convention, which regulates discharges by ships at sea, the Directive focuses on 1

There will be a revision of this directive, probably during 2013.

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 4

ship operations in European Union (EU) ports. It addresses in detail the legal, financial and practical responsibilities of the different operators involved in delivery of shipgenerated waste and cargo residues. The EU Directive 2000/59 requires Member States to ensure adequate PRF solutions and handling plans, including mandatory delivery for ship generated waste, advance waste notification, a fee system (functioning as an incentive not to discharge into sea) and inspections. This Directive is being updated. Article 8 of the Directive regards fees for ship-generated waste and in short says that the costs of port reception facilities shall be covered through the collection of a fee from ships, that such a fee should follow the “polluter pays” principle, that these costs shall include the treatment and disposal of the waste, and that the collection of the fee is for Member States to ensure. Importantly, the cost recovery systems for using PRF shall provide no incentive for ships to discharge their waste into the sea. Moreover, the part of the costs which is not covered by the “indirect fee”, if any, shall be covered on the basis of the types and quantities of ship-generated waste actually delivered by the ship, and a port may give reduction from fees if the ship‟s environmental management, design, equipment and operation are such that it produces reduced quantities of waste. Naturally, the amount of the fees and the basis on which they have been calculated should be made clear for the port users. The indirect fee (sometimes incorporated into the port dues or as a separate waste fee) is for some ports called the “No Special Fee” (Scandinavia), “Mandatory Fee" (some UK ports) or “Sanitary Fee” (Poland). Article 9 of the Directive allows to exempt ships engaged in scheduled traffic with frequent and regular port calls from the payment of fees (as well as from notification and delivery) provided there is sufficient evidence of delivery of sewage and payment of fees in a port along the ship‟s route.

2.3 HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) Baltic Sea Action Plan (BASP) has identified eutrophication as one of the single greatest threats to the Baltic Sea and subsequently one of four main issues that must be dealt with in order to improve the health of the Baltic Sea (HELCOM 2009). BSAP has set strategic goals for its member states, objectives which, when obtained, will classify this area of water as maintaining a good ecological/environmental status (HELCOM 2009). According to the HELCOM BSAP, the maximum allowable total amount of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) that each member state is allowed to emit into the Baltic while still maintaining „good status‟ is 600 000 tonnes (t) of N and 21 000 t P (HELCOM 2005). The 1997-2003 annual average amounted to 737 000 t N and 36 000 t P, therefore calling for reductions of 15 000 t P and 137 000 t N respectively (HELCOM 2005). The Contracting States to HELCOM undertake to ensure that PRFs in all relevant ports and terminals are provided for the reception of sewage, without causing delay to ships, adequate to meet the needs of the passenger ships using them, in relation to the designation of the Baltic Sea as a special area under Annex IV of MARPOL, by 2015 at the latest. CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 5

The regional work of HELCOM supports the global regulation work carried out within IMO.

2.3.1 No Special Fee In HELCOM Recommendation 28E/10, guidelines for the establishment of a harmonised fee system for delivery of ship generated wastes to PRFs can be found. The No Special Fee system (NSF) is supposed to function as an incentive for shipping companies to discharge their sewage and garbage onshore. According to the HELCOM NSF-system, a fee covering the cost of reception, handling and final disposal of shipgenerated wastes is levied on the ship irrespective of whether or not ship-generated wastes are actually delivered. The fee should be included in the harbour fee or otherwise charged to the ship. The NSF-system should be applied in all Baltic Sea ports to oily wastes from machinery spaces, sewage and garbage, as well as litter caught in fishing nets. A ship may be exempted to pay if it is engaged in regular services and if it can ensure that the disposal requirements are met. As for today, this means that all regular service ships could be exempted for paying if either discharging their sewage at another port or at sea at a distance of >12 nautical miles from the nearest land. An interim guidance to facilitate the work on upgrading reception facilities for sewage in passenger ports of the Baltic Sea has recently been completed, with the help of the Cooperation Platform on Port Reception Facilities in the Baltic Sea established in 2010 (representatives of Baltic Sea passenger ports, shipping industry, national administrations and agencies of the coastal countries as well as municipal waste water treatment plants). By identifying concrete and specific challenges it provides an intermediate step toward providing adequate PRF capacity in the region by 2015 according to the decision of IMO MEPC 62 in 2011 and HELCOM Commitments. This guide will thus function as a step towards updating IMO regulations of MARPOL Annex IV to include a harmonized system of NSF for BSR.

2.3.2 Common No Special Fee system for the Baltic Sea region ports? Today the countries around the Baltic Sea apply the NSF-system in different ways, as both the Directive from EU as well as the recommendations from HELCOM allows free understanding. A resultant dilemma is for example competitive disadvantage for ports applying NSF to a 100%. In Sweden, all ports must comply with the NSF-system, independent of volumes or discharge at last port of call. According to the Swedish Transport Agency, Sweden wishes to change its NSF-system to one resembling that used in e.g. Danish ports, where the NSF only includes waste from the last port of call. In Finland the NSF-system is 100% for all wastes, but not e.g. for >40 m3 sludge. In Germany, a “reverse model of the indirect fee system” has been implemented, i.e. a direct charge with the possibility of reclaiming the cost, or part of it, after delivery (EMSA 2012). On the other hand, in countries applying a direct fee on discharge of sewage, ships tend not to discharge sewage, and in turn it becomes meaningless for a port to go for building/updating PRFs. For a common 100% NSFCLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 6

system, based on gross tonnage of ships, in the ports of the Baltic Sea region, data on the amount of potential sewage from all types of ships needs to be counted and analysed. In the best of worlds, this amount would then be more evenly distributed between ports of the Baltic Sea region, naturally, also depending on what kind of traffic calls a port. There are several issues that must be tackled before a common NSF-system in the Baltic Sea region can be feasible. One crucial issue is the definition of what the characteristics of sewage included in NSF should be, and in turn, what fractions of sewage could be charged separately according to the polluter pays principle. For example, how should water from SOx scrubbers or ballast water be treated? Another related issue is the national and regional regulations regarding what sewage may consist of to be accepted in the municipal waste water treatment plants; these differences must be taken into account when defining sewage for NSF. It is of importance for a port to know what would happen when a waste water treatment plant rejects to receive sewage from a ship, e.g. as a result of exceeding amounts of much metal or H2S. As a result, compatibility between municipal waste water treatment demands on sewage composition and the composition of sewage from ships should be studied in more detail, if feasible on a port-by port basis. Also, solutions to the treatment of sewage containing atypical substances should be sought for in cooperation between shipping, ports and municipal treatment plants. In the interim guidance to HELCOM, two of the outstanding issue related to sewage composition was that there is a need for an agreement on parameters for sewage composition and also a unified sampling methodology. The diversity of ports and ships conceivably necessitates several sewage categories, including set standards of composition and sampling of grey water, black water and a mix of the two. Another reflection is that a 100% NSF-system does not provide incentives for waste minimization on board ships. On the other hand, a ship‟s port fee may be reduced if the ship‟s environmental management, design, equipment and operation are such that the ship produces reduced quantities of waste.

3 Sewage Sewage discharges from ships disappear quicker from the water surface than oil and chemical spillage, but are harmful in other ways. Human sewage can, apart from nutrients, for example contain enteric bacteria, pathogens, diseases, viruses and eggs of parasites. The composition of sewages to PRFs depends on ship type, sailing distance and number of passengers. Typical black water sewage (toilet) on cruise ships and ferries consist of • • • •

nutrients (P and N) heavy metals hydrogen sulphide (H2S) pre-screening and bio-residue materials used on cruise ships.

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 7

Grey water (household) also contains pollutants such as detergents, oil, grease, pesticides and heavy metals. Excess of H2S not only causes odour, health risks, corrosion of pipe lines, but also reduced efficiency of waste water treatment plants. It is produced under anoxic conditions during long time storage of waste water. Because cruise ships often use an onboard aerobic waste water treatment plant which does not promote H2S-formation, the formation of H2S is mainly a problem for ferries. On the other hand, ferries generally have short voyages, and could discharge sewage at every call. In MARPOL Annex IV sewage is defined as: - drainage and other wastes from any form of toilet and urinals; - drainage from medical premises via wash basins, wash tubs and scuppers located in such premises; - drainage from spaces containing living animals; or - other waste waters when mixed with drainages. Moreover, sewage sludge and bio-residues from on board Advanced Waste Water Treatment Plants (AWTS) and Marin Sanitation Devices (MSD) falls under the MARPOL definition of sewage. This type of sewage is of higher viscosity and usually consists of 1-3% solids as well as various polymers and coagulants used in solid separation. Because municipal waste water treatment plants are foremost designed to receive waste water from households and primary for reducing nutrients, it is probable that some sewage from ships will not be accepted in municipal waste water treatment plants. In such instances the sewage must be treated as industrial waste or any alternative manner, which is a more costly alternative. The cost should be levied on the ship following the polluter pays principle. Separate on-board drainage of black and grey water from that of other types of waste water would enable municipal treatment of a large share of ship sewage. Many ships do already separate these. It‟s also good to notice that grey water can be of various quality, grey water from the ships laundry is very different to grey water from the ships galley.

3.1 Port capacity to receive sewage At least 210 PRFs are provided in ports located around the Baltic Sea (www.gisis.imo.org); however, these are very diverse and the passenger traffic volume and size of passenger ships visiting often set the stage. Many of these facilities need to be upgraded in order to comply with the new MARPOL Annex IV regulation for the Baltic Sea, which will enter into force when the HELCOM countries have notified IMO that adequate PRFs for sewage are available in their passenger ports. Each country undertakes to ensure that: -

facilities for the reception of sewage are provided in ports and terminals which are in a special area and which are normally used by ships in normal traffic;

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 8

-

the facilities are adequate to meet the needs of those passenger ships; and the facilities are operated so as not to cause undue delay to those passenger ships.

Thus, to achieve adequacy, the PRFs shall be capable of receiving the types and quantities of ship-generated waste and cargo residues from ships normally using that port, taking into account the operational needs of the users of the port, the size and the geographical location of the port, the type of ships calling at that port, etc. Adequate port reception facilities should meet the needs of users, from the largest merchant ship to the smallest recreational craft, and of the environment, without causing undue delay to the ships using them. In some of the countries the costs for upgrading of the port´s and the municipality sewage reception systems are regarded as high and becoming principal obstacle for the implementation of the HELCOM and IMO strategy for BALTIC SEA REGION. In short, in large ports, situated in smaller municipalities, further investments may have to be supported through federal aid in respective country, to facilitate mandatory sewage delivery, while in ports situated in larger municipalities, with existing sewerage and large waste water treatment plants there is less concern. According to the information collected in CLEANSHIP task 3.2, all ports interviewed (16) either have sufficient PRF infrastructure or are in the planning phase to build PRFs or introduce tank trucks or barges. One obstacle is, however, whether the existing and planned infrastructure will be sufficient if/when a common agreement within the NSF-system on minimum volume and pumping capacity will come to place. For example, the cruise industry has requested a pumping capacity of 200-300 m3/h and the ferry industry of 200 m3/h. On the other hand, most vessels cannot pump 100 m3/h and it would be impossible to pump thick black water at such speeds. Furthermore, if more ports offer PRFs, the less one single port has to be able to take.

3.1.1 Management practice in the port The management of PRFs in Baltic Sea region ports is of great diversity; Direct pumping to waste water treatment plant situated in the port, pumping to municipal treatment plant through municipal sewer system, or using tank trucks to the municipal treatment plant. Dimensions for a standard discharge connection between the port PRF and the ship‟s discharge pipeline can be found in MARPOL Annex IV (table in Regulation 11). Two important matters are the pumping capacity (flow) and the capacity to receive sewage (total volume), as it is important to ensure that the capacity in the port is large enough, so that use of the facilities does not cause undue delay to the ships discharging sewage. There is a need to agree between the Baltic Sea region countries concerning pumping capacity. When ports provide information of flow and volume capacity single ships can plan their onshore discharge better. At the same time, it is recommended that ships should notify ports when they intend to discharge sewage, including what volumes, 24 hours before arrival or at the latest when departing previous port. CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 9

The composition of the waste water is also an important matter as the municipal waste water treatment plant might oppose to receive waste water if it does not meet local requirements. Ships may discharge different kind of sewage, some ships for example separate black and grey water, while others mix these fractions (treated as black water). As a result, sewage being pumped from a ship can either be liquid or with higher viscosity, and contain more or less clogging material (e.g. grease), which, in turn, results in differing pumping speed and maintenance issues of pipes. On the other hand, sewage usually has a constant composition depending on if the ship has a vacuum black water system or not, while grey water from the galley can be much more clogging due to grease and oil content. It is important that temporal/maintenance problems of a PRF can be dealt with, so that alternative reception facilities can be arranged; Planning for emergency situations should form part of a port´s operations. IMO has a revised consolidated format for reporting alleged inadequacy of port reception facilities.

3.1.1.1 Cruise and ferry ports

Cruise ships and ferries have very different conditions both considering the amount and the quality of sewage discharged. Cruises are planned several years in advance, and create large volumes of sewages, although it should be mentioned that also cruise ships vary in size. Cruise ships are also often equipped with advanced own waste water treatment plants, creating sewage sludge, the content of which further depends on what kind of onboard treatment is used (different varieties of AWTS or MSD). Best practice for discharge of sewage from cruise ships would be direct discharge of sewage from the ships to the municipal sewer systems at quays where the ships berth, but tank trucks with sufficient capacity could also be considered adequate depending on the size of the ship. The cruise industry has expressed their view of PRF adequacy to the Cooperation Platform on Port Reception Facilities in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM) where the wish is the existence of direct shore-side connections with port discharge capacity of 200-300 m3 per hour, port capacity to receive 800-1200 m3 sewage per cruise ship, and possibility to discharge 270 m3 of sewage sludge per ship. Ferries usually leave the sewage ashore daily and do not have advanced onboard treatment system. Further, ferries are often subject to extremely short turnaround times, although some stay in port all day. The expressed needs from the ferry industry, regarding adequateness of PRFs include direct shore-side connections, port discharge capacity of 200 m3/h, and PRF availability at all berths.

3.1.2 IMO GISIS - Global Integrated Shipping Information System Currently every Baltic Sea region port has some kind of PRF. General obligations under each of the regulations listed previously also state that Parties should communicate information on their PRFs to the International Maritime Organization (IMO). To this end, the IMO has established the Port Reception Facilities Database (PRFD) within its Global Integrated Ship Information System (GISIS). The PRFD relies on up-to-date information being provided by port States. Port State authorities are CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 10

encouraged to regularly seek accurate and up to date information from reception facility operators and port authorities and to maintain entries on the PRFD. Reception facility operators and port authorities should also be pro-active in communicating updated information to port State authorities. Stakeholders can use the Port Reception Facilities Database (PRFD) on the GISIS website www.gisis.imo.org, to disseminate the current information on PRFs to the maritime community on a global basis through the Internet. On the PRF module is possibly to find precise information regarding reception facilities in all ports, e.g. waste category the facility is intended for, type of facility, discharge quantity, availability of the reception facility (working hours), charging system, even alleged inadequacies and service provider details. However, the database on port reception facilities database needs to be updated. The IMO-GISIS portal should further be used to enter temporary reductions of PRF capacity by either the Port State (if notified by the port itself) or by the flag state of the ship. In the case of temporary reduction in PRF capacity the port should make best efforts to inform all ships scheduled to call at the port for the expected duration of the non-available PRF.

3.2 Capacity of the municipality to receive sewage An essential part of the PRF chain is the municipal waste water treatment plant. Ports and municipalities are therefore encouraged to cooperate fully in handling ship sewage, to fulfill the HELCOM implementations of regulations, to improve their municipal capacity to receive and treat the ship sewage. It is crucial that the municipal sewer system and waste water treatment plants are in place and have adequate capacity to receive sewage deriving from its port. In the Baltic stringent nutrient limits are set out by HELCOM Recommendations 28E/5 and 28E/6, agreed upon by the Ministers of the Environment of the Baltic Sea as a part of the Baltic Sea Action plan in 2007. According to Recommendation 28E/5, effluents from waste-water treatments plants with a population equivalent of more than 100 000, discharging directly into a marine environment, should not contain more than 0.5 mg/l P (or 90% reduction) and 10 mg/l N (or 70-80 % reduction).

3.3 Municipal waste water treatment vs. onboard treatment According to MARPOL Convention Annex IV, if ships do not discharge sewage onshore, it is possible to process it with an approved onboard sewage treatment plant. However, this equipment must reduce nutrient concentrations according to established concentration standards of N and P. Today, onboard treatment of sewage has one drawback, namely that it does not separate nutrients. In 2014 an IMO review will determine requirements for waste water treatment plants onboard with regards to nutrient removal.

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 11

4 Case studies In this section the focus will be on ports in Finland and Sweden, as these countries have been using the NSF-system to a high degree. It will also embrace the differences between the countries as well as ports and thus shed light on e.g. the pricing problem. In Task 3.2 of Cleanship, a general picture of BSR ports‟ existing PRF infrastructure can be found.

4.1 Port of Helsinki, Finland Port of Helsinki is Finland's main port, specialized in unitized cargo services. The Port of Helsinki has three harbours: West harbor (including Hernesaari), South harbour and Vuosaari (Fig. 2). The Port of Helsinki offers frequent and regular passenger lines to Stockholm, Tallinn, Gdynia, St. Petersburg, Rostock and Travemünde. Passenger traffic is served in the South Harbour and the West Harbour. The main cargo harbour is Vuosaari Harbour, which specializes in container and RoRo traffic. The Hansa Terminal in Vuosaari also serves RoPax ferries. The Port of Helsinki is also popular with international cruise tourism. The size of the visiting vessels varies from 4200 GT to 121 000 GT. In 2012 there were altogether 8729 ship calls which comprised of 232 different vessels. Cargo traffic in 2012 was 10.8 million tons and regular passenger traffic 10.6 million passengers. In addition to regular liner traffic there were 365 000 international cruise passengers in 2012.

Figure 2. The three harbours of the Port of Helsinki.

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 12

4.1.1 Port reception facilities - general Waste water reception in the Port of Helsinki started in 1997 in the South Harbour. The first connection was established for a regular passenger ferry to Stockholm. Now all berths in every harbour have reception facilities. Currently there is a new sewer line under construction in the West Harbour in one of the berths. Most of the regular liner traffic vessels use the reception facilities. The majority of the waste waters received at the Port of Helsinki come from passenger ships. Cargo ships generate only small amounts of waste water due to the small number of passengers and crew members.

4.1.2 Capacity and technical issues Waster waters are pumped from vessels via hoses in to the Port of Helsinki sewers and from there in to the general sewage system of the city (Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority, HSY). The receiving capacity of the reception facilities varies approximately from 60 – 120 m3/hr depending on the solid content of the waste water. Most of the hoses connected to vessels are 10 m long sections which can be connected approximately up to 100 m. The diameter of the pipeline is 4 inches. Vessels can be offered the opportunity to discharge waste water through two hoses, allowing the vessel to discharge twice as much waste water.

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 13

Figure 3. Hoses and connections, Port of Helsinki.

There are sewers in all of the quays in all of the three harbours. All sewers are pressure sewers. The sewer pipes are mainly plastic pressure pipes. Vuosaari cargo harbour has a separate pre-treatment unit in which waste waters are treated before pumped further to the municipal sewer. The purpose of the unit is odour removal. There are possibilities for aeration and chemical treatment (lye, sodium hydroxide). The treatment unit has an automatic flow measurement system. Waste waters are treated in Viikinmäki waste water treatment plant in Helsinki. The plant is operated by Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority, HSY. The waste water treatment process employed at the Viikinmäki plant is based on the activated sludge method and includes three phases: mechanical, biological and chemical treatment. Nitrogen removal has been enhanced with a biological filter that utilises denitrification bacteria. The organic matter contained in the sludge produced in the waste water treatment process is exploited by digesting the sludge, and the biogas generated in the digestion process is collected for further use. Thanks to the energy produced from biogas, the treatment plant is self-sufficient in terms of heating and about 50 per cent selfsufficient in terms of electricity. In the Viikinmäki waste water treatment plant, all solid and oxygen-consuming substances as well as 95 per cent of the phosphorus and 90 per cent of the nitrogen are removed from the waste water.

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 14

4.1.3 Port of Helsinki waste water study in summer 2012 During summer 2012 Port of Helsinki made a small study on waste waters received from the vessels. Interviews of environmental officers or chief engineers were conducted on a total of 15 ships. Interviews dealt with vessels´ waste water treatment systems, duration of pumping, maximum pumping output and the usual waste water volumes discharged by the vessel per visit. Waste water samples were also taken to analyse the waste water in more detail. Samples were taken at the pumping station at Vuosaari, and on the passenger ships in the South Harbour. Another sample was taken at Hernesaari (West Harbour) on a cruise. All the environmental officers interviewed were satisfied with the waste water reception at the Port of Helsinki. Special thanks were received for the quick connection of waste water hoses and good service on the quay in general. There were some minor complaints concerning for example the layout of waste water receipts. According to the interviews, the receiving capacity in the port is sufficient and there is no need to increase it at the moment. According to the interviews, the maximum pumping output was about 120 m3/h. The majority of the black water pumped at the Port of Helsinki comes from passenger ships (passenger ferries). During the survey in summer 2012 many of the surveyed international cruise ships discharged very little or hardly any black water at the Port of Helsinki. They mainly discharge pre-treated water. The majority of the cruise ships have waste water treatment plants on board.. Cargo ships generate only small amounts of black water due to the small number of passengers and crew members.

4.1.4 Amount and quality of received waste waters 4.1.4.1 Amounts and measuring

Received waste waters are continuously measured in Vuosaari cargo harbour. In South and West harbour there are no fixed flow measurement systems. Individual measurements of the pumped amounts were made in summer 2012. During the survey the amounts pumped per vessels visit varied from 50m³ to 1000 m³. The pumping capacity varied from 25 m³/h to 120 m³/h. Examples of waste water amounts received by vessel visit during individual pumpings in the summer of 2012 are presented below (tables 1-3). Table 1. Amounts from individual pumpings in summer 2012, Port of Helsinki (passenger ships in West harbour) Vessel

Black water Grey water Black + grey Pumping Frequency of m3/visit m3/visit m3/visit output, m3/h visits to Helsinki

Silja

40

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

210

250

25–30

Every other day Page 15

Symphony Silja Serenade

40

210

250

25–30

Every other day

Viking Gabriella

15

105

120

120

Every other day

Viking Mariella

25

135

160

-

Every other day

Viking XPRS 10

70

80

55

Twice a day

Total:

130

730

860

Vessel

Black water Grey water Black + grey Pumping m3/visit m3/visit m3/visit output

Frequency of visits to Helsinki

Nordlandia

10

60

70

-

Once a day

Star

5

45

50

-

Three times a day

Superstar

5

45

50

-

Three times a day

Baltic Princess

5

40

45

-

Once a day

Total:

25

190

215

Table 2. Amounts from individual pumpings in summer 2012, Port of Helsinki (cruise ships in West harbour, Hernesaari) Cruise ship

Black water Grey water Black + m3/visit m3/visit m3/visit

Norwegian Sun

None

800

800

100–120

Marina

None

400

400

60

Queen Victoria

None

600

600

50

Eurodam

None

300

300

80–90

Celebrity Constellation

None

300

300

60

Costa Luminosa

None

800

800

90

Crystal Symphony

None

200

200

50

Seven Seas Voyager None

None

None

-

Total:

4 400

4 400

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

grey Pumping output, m3/h

Page 16

Table 3. Amounts from individual pumpings in summer 2012, Port of Helsinki (RoRo and RoPax in Vuosaari) Vessel

Black water Grey water Black + grey Pumping m3/visit m3/visit m3/visit output, m3/h

Frequency of visits to Helsinki

Finnmaid

20

80

100

30

1-3 times a week

Finnlady

20

90

110

30

1-3 times a week

Nordlink

25

100

125

-

1-3 times a week

Finnstar

20

90

110

30

1-3 times a week

Europalink

25

75

100

-

1-3 times a week

Total:

110

435

545

The amount of received waste waters has been constantly rising during the recent years (Fig. 4). In 2011 the total amount of received waste waters from vessels was approximately 392 000 m³.

2009 Vuosaari amount also includes 2 months from 2008

Figure 4. Received waste waters in Port of Helsinki. Amounts from Vuosaari are measured, amounts from Passenger and Cruise ships are based on information from vessels.

4.1.4.2 Composition and sampling

Most of the received waste waters in Port of Helsinki are grey waters. According to the study made during summer 2012 proportions of black water of the total waste water amount varied approximately from 0 to 20 % depending on the vessel.

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

Page 17

Waste waters samples were taken from different vessels during summer 2012. Two samples were taken at Vuosaari, three in the South Harbour and one on a cruise ship at Hernesaari (West harbour). The samples were taken by the consulting company FCG Ltd. Samples were analysed in MetropoliLab Ltd, a testing laboratory T058 accredited by FINAS, the Finnish Accreditation Service. Samples were taken in South Harbour from two passenger vessels in regular traffic between Helsinki and Stockholm. The sampling involved three grab samples per vessels: at the beginning, middle and end of pumping. Finally, samples were mixed together into a composite sample. During the sampling, the vessel 1 pumped 170 m3 of black water and 75 m3 of grey water and vessel 2 pumped 120 m3 of black and grey water mixed together. Results are presented in table 4 below. They are also compared to samples taken in Port of Turku earlier in 2011 and 2012. The table shows how much the composition of waster waters changes between vessels and also within one vessel between different pumping sessions. Table 4. Waste water analysis results for passenger ships in Port of Helsinki South harbour and the comparison samples from Turku. Passenger Vessel 1 (7/2012) Helsinki Waste volume

water m3

Conductivity

mS/ m

pH

Passenger Passenger vessel 2 vessel X (7/2012) (Turku) Helsinki

Passenger vessel Y (Turku) 4/2012

Passenger vessel Y (Turku) 2/2011

245

120

107

54

36

187

163

290

100

130

7.2

6.7

7.1

7.0

7.4

BOD-7 ATU

mg/l

630

3 100

570

1 200

570

Total phosphorus

mg/l

15

48

15

18

31

Total nitrogen

mg/l

140

300

140

96

77

Solids

mg/l

200

4 900

440

930

570

Sulphate

mg/l

40

3.0

Total sulphur

mg/l

22

22

30

160

88

56

Grease content mg/l Greases oils

and mg/l

CLEANSHIP Task 4.5

7.0

45

Page 18

The proportion of grey water of the total flow in vessel 1 waste water sample was about 31%. Of the composite sample, one third (33%) was grey water. The differences in the results may be explained by several factors: amount of passengers, amount of water used by passenger and pumping speed (the solids may exit the tank in pulses during pumping, meaning that the amount of solids in the water may be higher at certain moments). Also the high analysis results for solids and BOD-7 ATU in vessels 2 may be partly explained by the mixing of food waste to the waste water. Another sampling was made to take separate samples of grey water and black water (Vessel 3, September 2012, see table 5)

Table 5. Results from passenger ship sampling in September 2012, Port of Helsinki, separate for black and grey waters. Vessel 3 Conductivity

mS/m

pH

Black water

Grey water

203

51.1

7.2

9.8

BOD-7 ATU

mg/l

560

350

Total phosphorus

mg/l

14

3.4

Total nitrogen

mg/l

130

12

Solids

mg/l

710

64

Sulphate

mg/l

74

38

Grease content

mg/l

19

13

Greases and oils

mg/l