BPO Seminar Development of PRF for Sewage in the Baltic
Marco Digioia, CLIA Europe
25 April 2017, Copenhagen
Australia + New Zealand
China
Singapore
Italy
Belgium + Luxembourg
Netherlands
Germany
Spain
UK + Ireland
CLIA Office Locations
3
Alaska
Hawaii
Canada
US + Global
Brazil
France
The Baltic as a key market
• 3 rd market by destination in the world
• 2.1 % growth last year
• 353 MLN spending
• Unique destination
Engagement
•Regional Dialogue in the Baltic (Copenhagen 2016), European Shipping Week, Kiel workshop…
•HELCOM (Maritime, PRF Platform)
•ESSF PRF WG
• IMO
Practices
• 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.
Practices
• Compliance with Wastewater Discharge Requirements: The cruise industry generally meets or exceeds 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.
The CLIA “Sewage Exercise” Action:
• CLIA coordinating 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:
• Operate cruise ships in the Baltic as if the MARPOL Annex IV Special Area
provisions were already in effect.
• Ships documenting (template).
• Ports provided with a similar template.
• The report to assess 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
Report finalized, to be validated in May
Sewage Exercise – Type of Ships
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Gu
est
Cap
acit
y (m
axim
um
)
Year Built
OVERVIEW CRUISE SHIPS PARTICIPATING IN CLIA'S SEWAGE EXERCISE
Sewage Exercise – Ships and ports
Ships participating 28
Total number of reports >560
Data entries per completed form 84
Total data entries 47040
Ports visited 26
Total amount of ports providing information 29
Ports providing aggregated volumes of sewage discharged 6
92
56
270
Small (<1500) Medium (>1500, <3000) Large (>3000)
Nu
mb
er o
f en
trie
s
Size cruise ship (total number of persons on board)
Number of entries received per size of cruise ship
Sewage Exercise – Ports
Baltic ports Country Visited by cruise ship during 2016 Exercise?
Aalborg Denmark No
Aarhus Denmark Yes
Copenhagen (*) Denmark Yes
Fredericia Denmark Yes
Flensburg Germany No
Gdansk(*) Poland Yes
Gdynia(*) Poland Yes
Gothenburg(*) Sweden Yes
Helsingborg Sweden Yes
Helsingør Denmark No
Helsinki(*) Finland Yes
Heiringsdorf Germany No
Hundested Denmark Yes
Kaliningrad Russia No
Kalmar Sweden No
Kalundborg Denmark No
Karlskrona Sweden Yes
Kemi Finland No
Kiel(*) Germany
Yes
Holtenau No
Klaipeda(*) Lithuania Yes
Kotka Finland No
Lubeck Germany
No
Travemunde Yes
Lulea Sweden Yes
Mariehamn Finland Yes
Malmö Sweden Yes
Nynashamn Sweden Yes
Örnsköldsvik Sweden Yes
Pori Finland Yes
Riga(*) Latvia Yes
Rønne Denmark
Yes
Bornholm No
Rostock(*) Germany
Yes
Warnemünde Yes
Saaremaa Estonia No
St Petersburg(*) Russia Yes
Sassnitz Germany No
Skagen Denmark Yes
Stockholm(*) Sweden Yes
Stralsund Germany No
Szczecin Poland
No
Swinoujscie No
Tallinn(*) Estonia Yes
Turku Finland No
Umea Sweden Yes
Veere Estonia No
Ventspils Latvia No
Visby(*) Sweden Yes
Wismar Germany Yes
Baltic ports Country Visited by cruise ship during 2016 Exercise?
Aalborg Denmark No
Aarhus Denmark Yes
Copenhagen (*) Denmark Yes
Fredericia Denmark Yes
Flensburg Germany No
Gdansk(*) Poland Yes
Gdynia(*) Poland Yes
Gothenburg(*) Sweden Yes
Helsingborg Sweden Yes
Helsingør Denmark No
Helsinki(*) Finland Yes
Heiringsdorf Germany No
Hundested Denmark Yes
Kaliningrad Russia No
Kalmar Sweden No
Kalundborg Denmark No
Karlskrona Sweden Yes
Kemi Finland No
Kiel(*) Germany
Yes
Holtenau No
Klaipeda(*) Lithuania Yes
Kotka Finland No
Lubeck Germany
No
Travemunde Yes
Lulea Sweden Yes
Mariehamn Finland Yes
Malmö Sweden Yes
Nynashamn Sweden Yes
Örnsköldsvik Sweden Yes
Pori Finland Yes
Riga(*) Latvia Yes
Rønne Denmark
Yes
Bornholm No
Rostock(*) Germany
Yes
Warnemünde Yes
Saaremaa Estonia No
St Petersburg(*) Russia Yes
Sassnitz Germany No
Skagen Denmark Yes
Stockholm(*) Sweden Yes
Stralsund Germany No
Szczecin Poland
No
Swinoujscie No
Tallinn(*) Estonia Yes
Turku Finland No
Umea Sweden Yes
Veere Estonia No
Ventspils Latvia No
Visby(*) Sweden Yes
Wismar Germany Yes
Ships reporting datasheet 1 Name of Ship
2 Baltic Port Name
3 Berth/pier/terminal Code or at anchor
4 In case the Baltic Sea was entered between the previous port and the current port, when was the Baltic Sea entered? (Date)
5 In case the Baltic Sea was entered between the previous port and the current port, when was the Baltic Sea entered? (Time)
6 When was the vessel assigned to a specific berth?
7 Is the current berth equal to the one assigned at first instance?
8 ETA Estimated Time of Arrival at berth
9 ATA Actual Time of Arrival at berth
10 ETD Estimated Time of Departure from berth
11 Number of passengers on board when arriving
12 Number of crew on board when arriving
13 Implemented MEPC.1/Circ.644 - ANF (Advanced Notification Form)
14 Implemented MEPC.1/Circ.645 - WDR (Waste Delivery Receipt)
15 When was the ANF submitted to the current port?
16 If submitted, did you receive confirmation that the PRF would be available on arrival?
17 Estimate amount of sewage to be generated between notification and the current port
18 Estimation of sewage to be delivered
19 Maximum dedicated sewage storage capacity (notational total maximum capacity)
20 Maximum dedicated sewage storage capacity (current trim-adjusted maximum capacity)
21 Volume of Sewage (only greywater) on board when leaving previous port
22 Volume of Sewage (only black water) on board when leaving previous port
23 Volume of Sewage (mixed black and greywater) on board when leaving previous port
24 Total volume of sewage on board when leaving previous port
25 Volume of sewage discharged at sea after leaving previous port (black and grey water)
26 During discharge, what was the position of the vessel?
27 Was the sewage treated before discharge?
28 Why was this sewage discharged?
29 Was the sewage discharged because of the safety of the ship?
30 Did this volume of sewage discharged at sea consist of a mixture of black and greywater?
31 Volume of Sewage (only greywater) on board when arriving at current port
32 Volume of Sewage (only black water) on board when arriving at current port
33 Volume of Sewage (mixed black and greywater) on board when arriving at current port
34 Total volume of sewage on board when arriving at current port
35 How many PRF providers can the ship choose from?
36 Name of company operating/providing the applied reception facility
37 According to that company or the treatment facility provider, where is the sewage taken/treated?
Ships reporting datasheet (1/2) 1 Name of Ship
2 Baltic Port Name
3 Berth/pier/terminal Code or at anchor
4 In case the Baltic Sea was entered between the previous port and the current port, when was the Baltic Sea entered? (Date)
5 In case the Baltic Sea was entered between the previous port and the current port, when was the Baltic Sea entered? (Time)
6 When was the vessel assigned to a specific berth?
7 Is the current berth equal to the one assigned at first instance?
8 ETA Estimated Time of Arrival at berth
9 ATA Actual Time of Arrival at berth
10 ETD Estimated Time of Departure from berth
11 Number of passengers on board when arriving
12 Number of crew on board when arriving
13 Implemented MEPC.1/Circ.644 - ANF (Advanced Notification Form)
14 Implemented MEPC.1/Circ.645 - WDR (Waste Delivery Receipt)
15 When was the ANF submitted to the current port?
16 If submitted, did you receive confirmation that the PRF would be available on arrival?
17 Estimate amount of sewage to be generated between notification and the current port
18 Estimation of sewage to be delivered
19 Maximum dedicated sewage storage capacity (notational total maximum capacity)
20 Maximum dedicated sewage storage capacity (current trim-adjusted maximum capacity)
21 Volume of Sewage (only greywater) on board when leaving previous port
22 Volume of Sewage (only black water) on board when leaving previous port
23 Volume of Sewage (mixed black and greywater) on board when leaving previous port
24 Total volume of sewage on board when leaving previous port
25 Volume of sewage discharged at sea after leaving previous port (black and grey water)
26 During discharge, what was the position of the vessel?
27 Was the sewage treated before discharge?
28 Why was this sewage discharged?
29 Was the sewage discharged because of the safety of the ship?
30 Did this volume of sewage discharged at sea consist of a mixture of black and greywater?
31 Volume of Sewage (only greywater) on board when arriving at current port
32 Volume of Sewage (only black water) on board when arriving at current port
33 Volume of Sewage (mixed black and greywater) on board when arriving at current port
34 Total volume of sewage on board when arriving at current port
35 How many PRF providers can the ship choose from?
36 Name of company operating/providing the applied reception facility
37 According to that company or the treatment facility provider, where is the sewage taken/treated?
Ship reporting datasheet
A In your opinion, what PRF system worked best?
B In which Baltic port was this PRF system applied?
C In your opinion, what Cost Recovery (Fee) System worked
best?
D In which Baltic port was this Cost Recovery system
applied?
E What were the main challenges that you experienced?
F Were there any moments in which the tanks were nearly
filled, with no prospect of being able to discharge onshore
in the short term? Where?
G and when?
H Other comments / impressions
Add: Ports Visited during specific Itinerary
Ports reporting datasheet
Please provide an overview of the availability of PRF:
Berth #
Pumping
capacity
(m3/hr)
MARPOL standard
connections fitted
(Yes/No)
Type of PRF
(Barge/Truck/Fixed
connection)
Connection to local
storage/municipal waste
treatment/other (please
specify)
What would be Plan
B if (e.g. due to a
technical problem)
the planned PRF is
not available?
Berth 1
Etc.
Port specific characteristics
Question
What are your expectations on future demand for PRF in your port?
and how are you planning to cope with this demand?
Please eleborate on the future investments in PRFs in the port and other
relevant developments
Please describe the cost fee structure and the fees, as described in EU
Directive 2000/59
How many independent PRF providers are present in the port?
Does the port allow for a profit by the PRF provider?
Please elaborate on the foregoing answer
Overall impressions
Question
What were the main challenges that you
experienced during this simulation
exercise?
Other comments / impressions
Issues explored
• Availability
• Undue delay
• Use of facilities technically possible or not
• Convenient location
• Charges
• Next port of call vs next port of delivery
To discuss together
Planning for reception facilities on a scale which recognises multiple
cruise ship calls on any one day ?
To what extent are the operating parameters of the cruise
industry understood in the planning ?
Is there a single reception facility strategy applying to Baltic
States that acknowledges the port sequence of typical cruise itineraries
and plans reception facilities accordingly ?