Best Practice Guidance for the handling of waste water in ports

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Best Practice Guidance for the handling of waste water in ports"

Godwin Wheeler
5 years ago
Views:

1 Development and Assessment Institute in Waste Water Technology at RWTH Aachen University Best Practice Guidance for the handling of waste water in ports 18th Meeting of the HELCOM Maritime Working Group Hamburg, Germany, September 2018

2 Background International PRF Workshop in Kiel, 30th May 1st June Practical technical solutions for dealing with sewage in ports and effective waste water management - Exchange of information on quantities and qualities of waste water, as well as capacities of PRF - Continuous dialogue on technologies, lessons learnt and best practices BSH Initiative Cooperation Platform on Special Area According to MARPOL Annex IV (CP PRF ) and MARITIME exchanging information and best practices on on-board management and treatment of sewage and grey water, if it is mixed with black water, in the Baltic Sea and its relation to delivery to PRF - revision/update of HELCOM Overview, including best practices for port and onboard sewage management - Development of a Best Practice Guidance for the handling of waste water in ports - R&D Project carried out by consultant - To be submitted to HELCOM MARITIME and eventually publication through HELCOM Secretariat Presentation and discussions at different HELCOM and other meetings - BPO Workshop on Development of PRFs in Baltic Ports, Copenhagen, April CP PRF , Hamburg, September MARITIME , St. Petersburg, October SHEBA/SOLAS Shipping Conference, Gothenburg, October BPO Workshop Sewage Reception Workshop, Helsinki, May 2018 Presentation of results at MARITIME

3 Best Practice Guidance Background Information Best Practice Guidance Challenges Solutions 3

4 Background Information - Literature and Information Review Helcom Overview Alaska CLIA Simulation Background Information NAUTEK Ports Other 4

of Klaipeda Port of Rostock Port of Tallinn Port of Trelleborg Port of St.

5 Background Information PIA-Questionnaire Categories of the survey General information Infrastructure information Ship and waste water information Problems with Port Reception Facilities handling Received answers of ports Port of Copenhagen Port of Gdynia Port of Klaipeda Port of Rostock Port of Tallinn Port of Trelleborg Port of St. Petersburg Port of Kiel Port of Lübeck Port of Helsinki Port of Marienhamn Representing (in 2016) ~3,4 of ~4,3m cruise passengers (78%) ~1,5 of ~2,2k port calls (71%) Picture: M. Joswig (PIA) 5

0,0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Source: kathleenhalme.

6 Persons on board [PAX+Crew] Background Information - Baltic Sea Cruise Ship Traffic 3000,0 Average cruise ship size in the Baltic Sea 2500,0 2000,0 1500,0 1000,0 500,0 0, Source: kathleenhalme.com Average Cruise Ship passenger + crew 2431 gross tonnage (GT) year of construction

7 Background Information Waste Water Characteristics black water Parameter Unit Average BW concentration on Cruise Ships 1 Average BW concentration on Cruise Ships 2 Average BW concentration on Cruise Ships 3 COD [mg/l] BOD 5 [mg/l] Alkalinity [mg/l] TKN [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] 78, NO 3 and NO 2 [mg/l] 0, N tot [mg/l] P tot [mg/l] 18,1 78, TSS [mg/l] Based on data collected by the EPA in 2004 and 2005, when black water is mixed with greywater 2 Based on data collected by the TUHH in 2015, 5 Ships 13 Samples 3 Based on data collected by Ohle P. et al grey water Parameter Unit Average GW concentration on Cruise Ship s 1 Average GW concentration on Cruise Ship s 2 Average GW concentration on Cruise Ship s 3 COD [mg/l] BOD 5 [mg/l] Alkalinity [mg/l] 53,8 57,8 TKN [mg/l] 26,2 11,1 - NH 4 [mg/l] 2,13 2,21 4,75 NO 3 and NO 2 [mg/l] 0,0872 0,009 - N tot [mg/l] P tot [mg/l] 10,1 3,34 6,475 TSS [mg/l] Based on data collected by the EPA in Based on data collected by the ASCI in Based on data collected by the TUHH in 2015 Unit Min Max Mean Black water L/P*d Based on data collected by the EPA, TUHH, ASCI, TUI, AIDA and Scanship. Unit Min Max Mean Grey water L/P*d Based on data collected by the EPA, TUHH, ASCI, TUI, AIDA and Scanship. 7

8 Background Information Waste Water Treatment on Board Separation Biology Separation Disinfection Inflow Effluent Sludge MEPC.227(64) incl. section 4.2 total nitrogen total phosphorous further treatment steps additional bioreactor volume precipitation additional sludge production increased air consumption 8

9 Background Information Waste Water Treatment on Board Separation Biology Separation Precipitation Disinfection Inflow Effluent Sludge MEPC.227(64) incl. section 4.2 total nitrogen total phosphorous further treatment steps additional bioreactor volume precipitation additional sludge production increased air consumption 9

10 Challenges: Issues associated with PRF Capacity Issues ~35% Unavailability / Insufficient capacity Insufficient discharge speed Failure of pumping system Technical Issues ~40% Additional discharge standards Odor Corrosion Sewer overflow Clogging of sewer system Exceedance of hydraulic and/or organic loading capacity of MWTP Other Issues ~25% Insufficient communication Rout optimisation costs Non-harmonised cost structure 10

11 Challenges: Issues associated with PRF 11

12 Challenges: Issues associated with PRF 12

13 Challenges: Issues associated with PRF 13

14 Example Capacity Issue: Insufficient Discharge Speed Issue occurs according to CLIA exercise 21,8% PIA questionnaire 27% of problematic port calls Undue delay for cruise ships Source: Port of Stockholm 14

at berth Provision of additional pump station - Pump connection on both sides (ship and port) 4 2 0 Tank Trucks Barges Fixed

15 Discharge time [h] Example Capacity Issue: Insufficient Capacity Improvement of discharge capacity - Installation of fixed PRF - Installation of storage tank - Different types increase flexibility Discharge time Average time spend at berth Provision of additional pump station - Pump connection on both sides (ship and port) Tank Trucks Barges Fixed All types Tank trucks mainly as Plan B options or for special waste streams (sludge or food waste) Pictures: M. Joswig (PIA) 15

000 kg/d Cruise ship discharge may cause a peak load to the MWTP BOD 5 load of 720 kg

16 Example Technical Issue: Exceedance of Capacity of MWTP The design capacity of MWTP is fix (e.g PE) - Flow ~ m³/d - BOD 5 ~ kg/d Cruise ship discharge may cause a peak load to the MWTP BOD 5 load of 720 kg per average cruise ship ~ PEBOD 5 when discharged in 24 h ~ PEBOD 5 when discharged in 4h as shock load 16

17 Example Technical Issue: Exceedance of Capacity of MWTP population equivalent of different ship sizes with untreated Black- and Greywater e.g. Flow ~600 m³ = PEFlow (24h) PEFlow (4h) e.g. BOD5 ~720 kg = ~ PEBOD (24h) PEBOD (4h) Separation of food waste Reduction of 222 kg BOD5 (~30%) PEBOD (24h) PEBOD (4h) Parameter Unit Small Cruise Ship 1 Large Cruise Ship 2 Average Cruise Ship 3 Flow PE [0,150m³/P*d] 2510,0 6693,3 4067,9 COD PE [0,120kg COD/P*d] 5613, ,2 9097,5 BOD PE [0,060kg BOD/P*d] 7450, , ,0 N tot PE [0,011kg N tot /P*d] 3967, ,9 6430,5 P tot PE [0,0018kg N tot/ P*d] 3208,5 8556,1 5200,0 1 Small Cruise Ship with 1500 Pax+Crew, based on data collected by the EPA Big Cruise Ship with 4000 Pax+Crew, based on data collected by the EPA Average Cruise Ship with 2431 Pax+Crew, based on data collected by the EPA Parameter Unit Food waste 1 Flow m³/ship 7,4 COD BOD 5 N tot NH 4 -N P tot kg/ship kg/ship kg/ship kg/ship kg/ship ,9 250,1 222,5 126,2 230,5 1,4 0,7 1,4 0,13 0,13 0,13 1,4 0,2 2,2 1 Average Cruise Ship with 2431 Pax+Crew, based on data collected by the EPA

18 Q [m³/h] Q [m³/h] Example Technical Issue: Exceedance of Capacity of MWTP Diurnal pattern for Q inflow ( PE MWTP) without storage Diurnal pattern for Q inflow ( PE MWTP) with storage Flow Additional Flow Flow Additional Flow time [h] time [h] Discharge rate depends on PRF (e.g. 150 m³) Discharge to MWTP starts when cruise ship discharges to PRF No positive effects Discharge rate depends on storage capacity Discharge to MWTP starts when needed Positive effects: Balancing of diurnal pattern Discharge on demand of the MWTP 18

19 Example other issues: Non-harmonised cost structure Based on the PIA-Questionnaire different fees are applied Free Volume Extra Costs [ /m³] Port A 0 30,00 Port B 130 L/P*d 15,7 Port C 1/3 of discharged amount 15 Port D m³ 2,5 Port E no maximum 0,00 19

20 Ideal Solutions I. Adequate waste water treatment system on board II. Cruise ship and port related solution Technical - Pretreatment - Online measurement of parameters with limit-values - Sufficient design capacity of the MTWP - Capacity - Sufficient pump capacity - A selection of PRF types are offered - Storage tanks for waste water - Other - ANF with additional information for port and ship - Route optimization via online services - Harmonized cost structure - IDEAL SOLUTION 20

21 Way forward November December 2018 Preparation of final draft, including comments from MARITIME January March 2019 Circulation of final draft and time for comments by correspondence March April 2019 Presentation and final discussion at HELCOM PRF Platform Meeting From May 2019 Finalization of draft for adoption at HOD-56 in June 2019 and later publication through the HELCOM Secretariat 21

22 Picture: M. Joswig (PIA) Thank you! Contact: Markus Joswig Phone 0049 (0) Web

HELCOM Ministerial Declaration on the implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan

HELCOM Ministerial Declaration on the implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan 20 May 2010, Moscow The document Roadmap for upgrading the availability of port reception facilities for sewage