Helcom Maritime 17 10 October 2017 CLIA Europe Baltic Exercise on Sewage CLIA Europe 10 October 2017
The Baltic as a key market 3rd market by destination in the world 2.1% growth last year 353 MLN spending Unique destination
Passenger numbers 2000-2010: +400% and 2016-17: +13% (exp.)
Engagement Regional Dialogue in the Baltic (Copenhagen 2016), European Maritime Days, European Shipping Week, Kiel workshop, Ship Tours, Sewage Exercise etc. HELCOM (Maritime, PRF Platform) ESSF PRF WG IMO
Industry practices (1/2) CLIA Member No Untreated Sewage Discharge Policy: Existing and newly built CLIA Member ships, follow CLIA s policy of no discharge of untreated sewage. Fleet Adoption of Advanced Water Treatment System: ordered at least 26 new builds with AWTs. Estimated 47% of newly built capacity over the next 10 years will be using advanced wastewater treatments.
Industry practices (2/2) Compliance with Wastewater Discharge Requirements: The cruise industry must meet or exceed international and national wastewater quality standards and overall the cruise industry s rate of compliance is commensurate or better than the rest of the maritime industry. Baltic Sea Practices for Wastewater Reception Facilities: cruise ships voluntarily using port wastewater reception facilities in the Baltic Sea when available; this voluntary practice precedes implementation of new requirements.
Approach Exercise
The CLIA Sewage Exercise Action: CLIA coordinated a simulation exercise in the Baltic Sea during the 2016 season. To test the availability and adequacy of PRFs in the area and identify challenges and bottlenecks. Execution: Operated cruise ships in the Baltic as if the MARPOL Annex IV Special Area provisions were already in effect. Ships documenting experiences using a template. Ports provided with a similar template. Resulting report assessing the availability and adequacy of PRFs in the region, highlighting the challenges faced and help to develop a roadmap to address the issues identified. Timeline: May-September 2016
Adequacy explored Availability Undue delay Discharge operations and forms/definitions Use of facilities technically possible or not Accessibility of PRF Charges Next port of call vs next port of delivery
Methodology
Guest Capacity (maximum) 4000 Sewage Exercise Ships OVERVIEW CRUISE SHIPS PARTICIPATING IN CLIA'S SEWAGE EXERCISE 3000 2000 1000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year Built
Number of entries Feedback received Number of entries received per size of cruise ship 270 92 56 Small (<1500) Medium (>1500, <3000) Large (>3000) Size cruise ship (total number of persons on board)
Sewage Exercise Ports Baltic ports Country Overview Total number of single visits Aarhus Denmark 3 Copenhagen Denmark 99 Fredericia Denmark 3 Gdansk Poland 2 Gdynia Poland 9 Gothenburg Sweden 4 Helsingborg Sweden 2 Helsinki Finland 73 Hundested Denmark 1 Karlskrona Sweden 1 Kiel Germany 21 Klaipeda Lithuania 19 Travemu nde Germany 2 Lulea Sweden 1 Mariehamn Finland 3 Baltic ports Country Overview Total number of single visits Malmö Sweden 1 Nynashamn Sweden 7 Örnsköldsvik Sweden 1 Pori Finland 1 Riga Latvia 20 Rønne Denmark 1 Rostock 6 Germany Warnemünde 52 St Petersburg Russia 71 Skagen Denmark 2 Stockholm Sweden 76 Tallinn Estonia 83 Umea Sweden 1 Visby Sweden 3 Wismar Germany 1
Sewage Exercise Ships and ports Ships participating 29 Total number of reports 579 Data entries per completed form 84 Total data entries 48636 Ports visited 30 Total amount of ports providing information 29 Ports providing aggregated volumes of sewage discharged 6
Date and Time of entering figures in this worksheet Reporting datasheet Ship dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm (24hr) CET Reporting Datasheet Sewage Simulation Exercise 2016 Question Subject QuestionAnswer Format Related Forms Answer Format Related Forms Name of Ship Baltic Port Name How many PRF providers can the ship choose from? Name of company operating/providing Description the applied reception facility Number Description WDR Berth/pier/terminal Code or at anchor Description ANF Munipal waste treatment In case the Baltic Sea was entered between the previous port and the current port, when was According the to that company or the treatment facility provider, where is the sewage taken/treated? dd/mm/yyyy system / Other / Unknown Baltic Sea entered? (Date) In case the Baltic Sea was entered between the previous port and the current port, when was Name the of the company providing the sewage treatment facility (if known) ATD Actual Time of Departure of leaving berth Description (Date) Current Port WDR hh:mm (24hr) CET Baltic Sea entered? (Time) Local sewage storage available? ATD Actual Time of Departure of leaving berth Yes (Time) or No When was the vessel assigned to a specific berth? (Date) a) Capacity dd/mm/yyyy n/a or m3 When was the vessel assigned to a specific berth? (Time) hh:mm (24hr) CET Is the current berth equal to the one assigned at first instance? 1) Type of PRF used: Tank Yes car Between Baltic Sea actual exited? (Date) Number of available tank or No cars ETA Estimated Time of Arrival at berth (Date) dd/mm/yyyy Ports PRF facility MARPOL standard connections fitted Yes or No or n/a ETA Estimated Time of Arrival at berth (Time) hh:mm (24hr) CET Baltic Sea actual exited? (Time) at current a) Total capacity available n/a or m3 ATA Actual Time of Arrival at berth (Date) dd/mm/yyyy ANF Port ATA Actual Time of Arrival at berth (Time) berth in b) Total pumping capacity Port Name hh:mm (24hr) CET n/a or m3/hr ETD Estimated Time of Departure from berth (Date) current port dd/mm/yyyy Next port ETA Estimated Time of Arrival at berth (Date) 2) Type of PRF used: Barge Number of available barges ETD Estimated Time of Departure from berth (Time) hh:mm (24hr) CET ETA Estimated Time of Arrival at berth (Time) ubject Number of Question passengers on board when arriving MARPOL standard connections numberfittedanswer Format Related Forms Yes or No or n/a Number of crew on board when arriving number Maximum dedicated sewage storage capacity (notational total maximum Subject a) Total capacity) Questionavailable m3 ANF Answer Format n/a or m3 Related Forms Implemented MEPC.1/Circ.644 - ANF (Advanced Notification Form) Yes or No Implemented Maximum MEPC.1/Circ.645 dedicated - WDR sewage (Waste Delivery storage Receipt) capacity (current trim-adjusted b) Total maximum pumping Does the capacity) cruise ship consider the fees disproportionately Yes or No m3 high such that they create a disincentive Yes or Non/a or m3/hr to utilize the PRFs? When was Volume the ANF submitted of Sewage to the (only current greywater) port? (Date) on board when leaving previous port dd/mm/yyyy ANF m3 / Number of available Fixed 3) Type of Start PRF of used: discharging Fixed operation Reception (Date) Point dd/mm/yyyy When was Volume the ANF submitted of Sewage to the (only current black port? water) (Time) on board when leaving previous port hh:mm (24hr) CET MEPC.1/Circ.834 m3 Reception Points WDR Start of discharging operation (Time) hh:mm (24hr) CET ANF / If submitted, Volume did you of receive Sewage confirmation (mixed black that the and PRF greywater) would be available on board on arrival? when leaving MARPOL previous standard Pumping port capacity connections Yes appliedfitted or No m3 m3/hr Yes or No or n/a MEPC.1/Circ.834 Total volume of sewage on board when leaving previous port a) Total capacity Total volume available of sewage (black, grey and mixed water) m3 delivered to PRF in current port m3 n/a or m3 WDR Estimate amount of sewage to be generated between notification and the current port b) Total pumping Did this volume capacity of m3 sewage delivered to PRF consist of ANF a mixture of black and greywater? Yes or Non/a or m3/hr Estimation Volume of sewage of to sewage be delivered discharged at sea after leaving previous port m3 m3 Completing discharging operation (Date) ANF dd/mm/yyyy During discharge, what was the position of the vessel? Description or n/a WDR Completing discharging operation (Time) hh:mm (24hr) CET Volumes Was the sewage treated before discharge? Was the volume of sewage discharged conform the wishes Yes or of No the ship? or n/a Yes or describe No wage black Why was this sewage discharged? Please elaborate on the foregoing answer Description or n/a Description Delivery of Amount of sewage retained (black, grey and mixed water) on board when leaving current port m3 ANF greywater Annex IV- Sewage How is the total costs of delivery calculated (the Cost Recovery System applied by the facility)? Description Chapter 1 - Was the sewage discharged because of the safety of the ship? What was the total costs of delivery? Yes or No or n/a Euros Regulation 3 - When relevant: please indicate the problems encountered by using one of more of the following code letters (A) No facility available; (B) Undue delay; (C) Use of facility technically not possible; Exceptions A/B/C/D/E/F/G MEPC.1/Circ.834 Did this volume of sewage discharged at sea consist of a mixture of black and (D) greywater? Inconvenient location; (E) Vessel had to shift berth Yes involving or No delay/cost; or n/a (F) Unreasonable Volume of Sewage (only greywater) on board when arriving at current portcharges for use of facilities; (G) Other (please specify under m3 additional comments) Volume of Sewage (only black water) on board when arriving at current port Additional comments m3 Description Volume of Sewage (mixed black and greywater) on board when arriving at current In your opinion, port is the port facility properly accomodated m3to meet the needs of the ship? Yes or No Total volume of sewage on board when arriving at current port In case the cruise ships finds the PRF inadequate, has or m3will an inadequacy report (be) submitted to the Flag State? Yes or No or n/a Next Port of Delivery (if known) Description ANF Subject Question Answ In case the Baltic Sea was exited between the previous port and the current port, when was the In case the Baltic Sea was exited between the previous port and the current port, when was the
Example analysis (1/10) Facility properly accommodated?
Example analysis (2/10) Facility properly accommodated?
Example analysis (3/10) Competition among PRF providers How many PRF providers can the ship select from in the port? (maximum) Number reported by participating ships 1 12 2 5 3 1 Average: 1.39
Example analysis (4/10) Almost all Advance Notification Forms (ANFs) submitted more than 24 hrs ahead of the Actual Time of Arrival Time between ANF and ATA (hrs) Number of discharge operations Percentage total Between 0 and 24 hrs ahead of ATA 29 5.2% Between 24 hrs and 96 hrs ahead of ATA 385 69.2% More than 96 hrs ahead of ATA 96 17.3% Never submitted/no discharge taken place 46 8.3% Totals 556 100% Comparison time submitting ANF and scheduled duration of travel Number of discharge operations Percentage total Between 0 and 24 hrs ahead of ATA 29 5.2% Of total Between 0 and 24 hrs and scheduled duration Of submitted between 0 of travel less than 24 hrs 14 48.3% and 24 hrs ahead of ATA
Example analysis (5/10) Amount of time underway to ports Average amount of time underway to this port (compensated for entry of Baltic Sea) Number of ports Percentage of total 0-0.5 days 3 14% 0.5-1 days 13 62% 1-1.5 days 4 19% 1.5-2 days 1 5% >2 days 0 0% Totals 21 100%
Example analysis (5/10) Amount of time underway to ports Time underway through the Baltic Sea to specific ports Baltic ports Average amount of time underway to this port (compensated for entry of Baltic Sea) Maximum amount of time underway to this port (compensated for entry of Baltic Sea) 0-0.5 days 0.5-1 days 1-1.5 days 1.5-2 days >2 days Copenhagen 01/01/1900 05:44 2.03 4 9 6 17 1 Fredericia 00/01/1900 10:13 0.43 1 0 0 0 0 Gdansk 00/01/1900 13:21 0.83 1 1 0 0 0 Gdynia 01/01/1900 08:38 1.57 1 0 6 1 0 Gothenburg 00/01/1900 16:54 1.00 1 1 1 0 0
Example analysis (6/10) Combination of ports visited Itinerary Number of entries Aarhus to Kiel 2 Aarhus to Tallinn 1 Copenhagen to 0 2 Copenhagen to Copenhagen 1 Copenhagen to Fredericia 1 Copenhagen to Gdansk 1 Copenhagen to GEIRANGER 1 Copenhagen to Gothenburg 1 Copenhagen to HELL / GEIR 1 Copenhagen to HELL/GEIR 1 Copenhagen to Helsinki 6 Copenhagen to Karlskrona 1 Copenhagen to Kiel 9 Copenhagen to n/a 2
Example analysis (7/10) Time spent at berth and time for discharging Time for dischargin g (hrs) Size of ship (total number of persons on board) Small (<1500) Medium (1500-3000) Large (3000-4000) Very Large (>4000) Number of operation s Percentag e total 0-5 years Age of ship 5-10 years 10-15 years more than 15 years 0-1 2 0 13 2 17 6% 0 3 6 8 1-2 2 2 10 5 19 6% 2 5 7 5 2-3 5 8 14 3 29 9% 2 1 16 11 3-4 2 7 17 9 35 11% 5 12 13 5 4-5 1 9 16 9 35 11% 5 12 10 8 5-6 8 6 14 8 36 12% 3 8 14 11 6-7 6 11 21 14 52 17% 3 11 23 15 7-8 0 10 11 3 24 8% 5 6 8 5 8-9 1 8 4 2 15 5% - 4 8 3 More 9 hrs 9 10 22 5 46 15% 2 6 10 28 Totals 36 71 142 60 308 100% 27 68 115 99
Example analysis (8/10) Planning/Operation Current berth equal to the one assigned Berth equal to the one assigned? Number of feedback received Percentage Issues experienced? Berth not equal to the one assigned 10 2% 8 Berth equal to the one assigned 508 98% Total feedback received 518
Example analysis (9/10) Summary of qualitative feedback received from ship S116 Average Stockholm Helsinki Stockholm Helsinki Stockholm Helsinki Helsinki Stockholm Helsinki Stockholm Time between connection made and start discharge (hrs) Time for treated Sewage discharge (hrs) 0.17 0.08 0.20 0.17 0.43 0.27 0.33 0.42 0.25 0.42 0.27 3.75 3.50 4.25 3.00 6.40 7.25 3.00 5.50 1.50 5.50 4.37 Pace reported (m3/hr) 74.80 47.20 78.60 87.70 68.30 89.00 56.30 87.80 88.70 87.80 76.62 Time for Bio Residue discharge (hrs) 1.75 2.17 2.25 2.67 2.42 1.25 1.58 1.17 2.13 1.17 1.86 Pace reported 55.00 42.70 41.00 33.30 40.90 41.60 37.10 32.70 31.70 32.70 38.87
Example analysis (10/10) Summary of qualitative feedback received from ship S116 average Copenhagen Warnemünd e Helsinki Stockholm Stockholm Helsinki Stockholm Helsinki Stockholm Time between connection made and start discharge (hrs) Time for treated Sewage discharge (hrs) Pace reported (m3/hr) 0.42 0.25 0.58 0.17 0.17 0.28 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.18 3.45 1.42 3.92 3.25 4.25 4.75 5.30 2.87 6.38 3.95 Volume (m3) 87.8 88.7 88.25 Time for Bio Residue discharge (hrs) Pace reported 483 133 403 248 324 319 259 300 489 328.67 Volume (m3) 32.7 31.7 51.8 38.73
The outcome of the exercise
Findings (1/2) Total: 220 issues/565 port calls PRF related specific issues experienced: a) No facility available reported: 12.7%; b) Undue delay: 21.8%; c) Use of facility technically not possible: 5.9%; d) Inconvenient location: 5.0%; e) Unreasonable charges for use of facilities: 25.5%; f) Other: 29.1%; Also, during a considerable number of operations, ships responded positively to the question: Does the cruise ship consider the fees disproportionately high such that they create a disincentive to utilize the PRFs? (32%) Compared to other ships, a larger part of ships mixing Black Water (BW) and Grey Water (GW) provided negative feedback to the following questions: In your opinion, is the port facility properly accommodated to meet the needs of the ship? Did the volume of sewage discharged conform the wishes of the ship?
Findings (2/2) Regarding the question whether the port facility is properly accommodated to meet the needs of the ship, some ports stand out. Further investigate quantitative and qualitative feedback on whether the port facility is properly accommodated vs other indicators for instance per berth. Regarding the percentage of occasions when the volume of sewage discharged did not conform with the wishes of the ship, some port stand out as well. Each delay experienced has very significant effects on the operation of cruise ship. From the data received, in general, when a delay is experienced, in approx. half these cases, there is a problem experienced during discharge operations. Although 98% of feedback confirms that the berth is equal to the one assigned at first instance, in 80% of cases when that does not happen a problem is experienced by the cruise ship.
Experiences 2017 So far* 1) Some ports have adequate facilities, but the service is still not included in the port fee and requires an additional charge. Rostock- Only Trucks- 60 Euro/cbm; Skagen- 8 Euro/cbm; St. Petersburg- $30/cbm; Warnemunde- Only 300cbm included in port fees, remaining is charged an additional fee. 2) Some ports continue to have only trucks available. While this may be sufficient for ships without AWP systems, it is not feasible for ships with AWP systems to discharge all their wastewater using only trucks. 3) Ships with AWP systems have 2 different waste streams (bio residue and AWP effluent) but are only able to land one at a time because the PRF offers only one connection. This arrangement requires the ship to discharge one wastestream, disconnect and then discharge the other wastestream. With a port stay of only 7-8 hours, it is not possible to complete the landing of both waste streams. *Preliminary feedback received
Experiences 2017 So far* While this is a port matter, an operator has also begun to look at options onboard to combine these waste streams when discharging ashore. Additionally many ports are still hesitant at excepting bio residue. This needs to be clarified and accepted without limitations moving forward. It is noted that grey water and also black water can be discharged via shore line in Tallinn port free of charge without any problem. Biosludge is not allowed to be discharged into shore connection - separate truck will be arranged for that kind of waste. *Preliminary feedback received
Next steps (1/3) Ports need to update their individual Port Waste Management Plans and cruise industry should be included in those discussions. Also, those ports receiving ships on an extended Sea Time voyage through the Baltic Sea should take this into account when developing adequate PRFs for sewage. It would be recommendable to develop (Key Performance) Indicators for PRF providers and to benchmark them against Best of Class and to include safety and environmental (risk) more prominently. In the next phase of the exercise, the reporting format will provide ship specific options to record their reasons for discharge at sea, including quantity and type of GW and BW volumes. The Standard Format of the Advance Notification Form (ANF) for waste delivery to Port Reception Facilities should include specific definitions and quantities for the following waste streams: Grey Water (GW), Black Water (BW) (sewage) consisting of: Only Black Water and Mixture of BW and GW, Other waste waters including EGCS/Marpol Annex VI, Caustic Soda delivery.
Next steps (2/3) Next port of call vs next port of delivery Next port is scheduled to be next port of delivery? (Yes/No) Number of operations Percentage total Feedback received: "Yes" 260 53% Feedback received: "No" 226 47% Totals 486 100%
Next steps (3/3) Many ships fitted with AWTP s may not have adequate capability to segregate BW and GW on board or in their piping arrangement for discharging. PRF s accepting only BW or only GW may then be considered to be inadequate. When developing operational and regulatory requirements, operational risks on board, sewage treatment and sewage discharges to be taken into account. Those legal, safety and environmental risks to be managed successfully in close cooperation with the other stakeholders. Next steps ahead of the entry into force of the Marpol Annex IV requirements Clear communication of future PRFs Inclusion of the possible clients, cruise ships visiting a port, on the development of port infrastructure The adequacy of PRFs in the Baltic The developments of a contingency / Plan B option, at port as well as at sea.
Final Remarks Let us know what information you need to ensure continued operation of cruise ships at your ports Link to full report online https://www.cliaeurope.eu/images/downloads/clia-europe-baltic- Exercise-on-Sewage-2016.pdf
CLIA Europe Baltic Exercise on Sewage THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION 10 October 2017