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, 25-27 September 2018
Background International PRF Workshop in Kiel, 30th May 1st June 2016 - 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 6-2016) and MARITIME 16-2016 - 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 2017 - CP PRF 7-2017, Hamburg, September 2017 - MARITIME 17-2017, St. Petersburg, October 2017 - SHEBA/SOLAS Shipping Conference, Gothenburg, October 2017 - BPO Workshop Sewage Reception Workshop, Helsinki, May 2018 Presentation of results at MARITIME 18-2018 2
Best Practice Guidance Background Information Best Practice Guidance Challenges Solutions 3
Background Information - Literature and Information Review Helcom Overview Alaska CLIA Simulation Background Information NAUTEK Ports Other 4
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
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 0,0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Source: kathleenhalme.com Average Cruise Ship passenger + crew 2431 gross tonnage (GT) 65673 year of construction 2001 6
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] 1140 6325 7400 BOD 5 [mg/l] 526 3475 3700 Alkalinity [mg/l] 325-382 TKN [mg/l] 111 620 620 NH 4 [mg/l] 78,6 783 783 NO 3 and NO 2 [mg/l] 0,325 - - N tot [mg/l] - 850 - P tot [mg/l] 18,1 78,25 160 TSS [mg/l] 545 3700 1 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. 2009 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] 1890 1000 1150 BOD 5 [mg/l] 1140 354 865 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] - - 22 P tot [mg/l] 10,1 3,34 6,475 TSS [mg/l] 704 318-1 Based on data collected by the EPA in 2004 2 Based on data collected by the ASCI in 2012 3 Based on data collected by the TUHH in 2015 Unit Min Max Mean Black water L/P*d 15 102 31 Based on data collected by the EPA, TUHH, ASCI, TUI, AIDA and Scanship. Unit Min Max Mean Grey water L/P*d 172 350 221 Based on data collected by the EPA, TUHH, ASCI, TUI, AIDA and Scanship. 7
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
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
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
Challenges: Issues associated with PRF 11
Challenges: Issues associated with PRF 12
Challenges: Issues associated with PRF 13
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
Discharge time [h] Example Capacity Issue: Insufficient Capacity Improvement of discharge capacity - Installation of fixed PRF - Installation of storage tank - Different types increase flexibility 16 14 12 10 8 6 Discharge time Average time spend at berth Provision of additional pump station - Pump connection on both sides (ship and port) 4 2 0 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
Example Technical Issue: Exceedance of Capacity of MWTP The design capacity of MWTP is fix (e.g. 100.000 PE) - Flow ~ 15.000 m³/d - BOD 5 ~ 6.000 kg/d Cruise ship discharge may cause a peak load to the MWTP BOD 5 load of 720 kg per average cruise ship ~ 12.000 PEBOD 5 when discharged in 24 h ~ 72.000 PEBOD 5 when discharged in 4h as shock load 16
Example Technical Issue: Exceedance of Capacity of MWTP population equivalent of different ship sizes with untreated Black- and Greywater e.g. Flow ~600 m³ = 4.000 PEFlow (24h) 24.000 PEFlow (4h) e.g. BOD5 ~720 kg = ~12.000 PEBOD (24h) 72.000 PEBOD (4h) Separation of food waste Reduction of 222 kg BOD5 (~30%) 3.700 PEBOD (24h) 22.200 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] 5613,4 14969,2 9097,5 BOD PE [0,060kg BOD/P*d] 7450,6 19868,3 12075,0 N tot PE [0,011kg N tot /P*d] 3967,8 10580,9 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 2000-2012 2 Big Cruise Ship with 4000 Pax+Crew, based on data collected by the EPA 2000-2012 3 Average Cruise Ship with 2431 Pax+Crew, based on data collected by the EPA 2000-2012 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 230 145,9 250,1 222,5 126,2 230,5 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 2000-2012 17
Q [m³/h] Q [m³/h] Example Technical Issue: Exceedance of Capacity of MWTP Diurnal pattern for Q inflow (100.000 PE MWTP) without storage 1400 1200 Diurnal pattern for Q inflow (100.000 PE MWTP) with storage 1200 1000 1000 800 800 600 400 Flow Additional Flow 600 400 Flow Additional Flow 200 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 time [h] 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 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
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 300-500 m³ 2,5 Port E no maximum 0,00 19
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
Way forward November December 2018 Preparation of final draft, including comments from MARITIME 18-2018 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
Picture: M. Joswig (PIA) Thank you! Contact: Markus Joswig Phone 0049 (0)241 75082 15 Email joswig@pia.rwth-aachen.de Web www.pia.rwth-aachen.de