RESEARCH REPORT NO VTT-R-07396-08 | 20.3.2009

Estimated nutrient load from

waste waters originating from

ships in the Baltic Sea area –

Updated 2009

Authors: Saara Hänninen, Jukka Sassi

Confidentiality: Public

RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

2 (66)

Distribution (customer and VTT)

Customer: 1 copy

VTT: 1 copy, pdf version on the web-site.

The use of the name of the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) in advertising or publication in part of

this report is only permissible with written authorization from the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

3 (66)

Preface (updated)

Since the 1800s, the Baltic Sea has changed from being an oligotrophic clear-water sea into a eutrophic marine environment. The Baltic Sea is one of the world’s largest brackish water areas and

is ecologically unique. It is highly sensitive to the environmental impacts resulting from human

activities in its catchment area. Eutrophication is a condition in an aquatic ecosystem where high

nutrient concentrations stimulate the growth of algae, which leads to an imbalance in the functioning of the system: intense algal growth means an excess of filamentous algae and phytoplankton

blooms, the production of excess organic matter, an increase in oxygen consumption, oxygen depletion and the death of benthic organisms, including fish.

Maritime transport in the Baltic Sea area, and especially in the Gulf of Finland, has changed

significantly over the last decade. The new oil terminals in Russia and the economic boom in

the Baltic States have resulted in a remarkable rise in maritime traffic, mainly tankers and

cargo ships. Meanwhile, the customers’ environmental awareness has become an important

image and competition factor among the shipowners and ports.

This report is an update of VTT’s Research Notes 2370 “Estimated nutrient load from waste

waters originating from ships in the Baltic Sea area”, which was published in 2007. The purpose of the original study was to estimate the nutrient load from waste waters originating

from ships in the Baltic Sea area. The study also included information about the maritime traffic, waste-water management and legislation. The estimated nutrient load from ship-generated

sewage was calculated, assuming there is no waste-water treatment on-board and all waste

waters are discharged into the sea.

On the basis of the calculations and references, the nutrient load originating from ships is

rather small, but not negligible due to the sensitivity of the Baltic Sea marine environment.

The nutrient load is concentrated along the shipping routes and is immediately available for

uptake by, e.g., blue–green algae, adding to the severe eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.

The vulnerable nature of the Baltic Sea area and the ever-increasing eutrophication are forcing

a reduction in the nutrient load into the Baltic Sea. The nutrient load from ships is much easier

to control, when compared with the atmospheric emissions or nutrient inputs from land-based

sources even though the main nutrient load is derived from the latter.

The purpose of this updated study was to provide background information for the ad hoc

HELCOM Correspondence Group regarding the possible designation of the Baltic Sea as a

special area where more stringent regulations on discharges of sewage from ships would be

applied. The main task of the Group is to estimate the effect of the new proposals for new

provisions in MARPOL Annex IV on the nutrient load of the Baltic Sea.

This report was commissioned by the Finnish Maritime Administration.

Espoo, 20.3.2009

Authors
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

4 (66)

Contents

Preface (updated)........................................................................................................3

Contents ......................................................................................................................4

1 Introduction (updated) ............................................................................................6

2 Nutrient load sources and inputs in the Baltic Sea area .........................................8

2.1 General ...........................................................................................................8

2.2 Pathways, sources and amounts of nutrient input.........................................10

3 Maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea area...................................................................14

3.1 Present situation ...........................................................................................16

4 Waste-water management....................................................................................21

4.1 Origin ............................................................................................................21

4.2 Quantity estimations .....................................................................................22

4.3 Treatment options on-board ships ................................................................23

4.3.1 Waste-water pretreatment..................................................................24

4.3.2 Oxidation............................................................................................25

4.3.3 Clarification and filtration....................................................................26

4.3.4 Disinfection ........................................................................................26

4.3.5 Sludge treatment................................................................................26

4.3.6 New technologies for waste-water purification...................................27

4.3.7 Grey water treatment systems ...........................................................30

4.4 Reception facilities........................................................................................30

5 Port Reception Facilities update (new chapter) ....................................................32

5.1 The use of port reception facilities ................................................................32

5.1.1 Cruise ships .......................................................................................32

5.1.2 Finland ...............................................................................................33

5.1.3 Sweden..............................................................................................34

5.1.4 Estonia...............................................................................................34

5.1.5 Poland................................................................................................35

5.2 Technical problems related to port reception facilities ..................................36

5.2.1 Comments from the CLIA and the ECC.............................................36

5.2.2 Comments of the ESPO/Finnish Port Association .............................36

5.2.3 Comments from the ports...................................................................37

5.3 Holding tank capacity and other relevant matters .........................................37
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

5 (66)

6 Supplier inquiry in May 2008 (new chapter)..........................................................39

6.1 Results..........................................................................................................40

6.1.1 Evac...................................................................................................40

6.1.2 Veolia.................................................................................................42

6.1.3 HAMANN AG .....................................................................................42

6.2 Other relevant information.............................................................................43

7 Ship-borne nutrient input into surface waters (updated).......................................44

7.1 Estimated nutrient load into the Baltic Sea area ...........................................44

7.2 Estimated nutrient load into the Gulf of Finland ............................................46

7.3 Nutrient load from ship-borne waste waters compared with other sources of

nutrients in the Baltic Sea .............................................................................48

8 Uncertainties and data gaps (updated).................................................................51

9 Waste-water legislation ........................................................................................52

9.1 International regulations and conventions.....................................................52

9.2 Regional conventions (Helsinki Convention, EU directives)..........................55

9.3 Examples of national legislation....................................................................56

9.4 Local regulations and voluntary measures....................................................56

10 Future scenarios (updated)...................................................................................57

11 Conclusions and recommendations (updated) .....................................................58

References (updated)................................................................................................61

Appendices................................................................................................................65
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

6 (66)

1 Introduction (updated)

Since the 1800s, the Baltic Sea has changed from being an oligotrophic clear-water sea into a eutrophic marine environment. The Baltic Sea is one of the world’s largest brackish water areas and

is ecologically unique. It is highly sensitive to the environmental impacts resulting from human

activities in its catchment area. In recent years the Baltic Sea has suffered from excessive eutrophication caused by the long-lasting airborne and water-borne nutrient loads. Eutrophication is a condition in an aquatic ecosystem where high nutrient concentrations stimulate the

growth of algae, which leads to an imbalance in the functioning of the system: intense algal

growth means an excess of filamentous algae and phytoplankton blooms, the production of excess

organic matter, an increase in oxygen consumption, oxygen depletion and the death of benthic

organisms, including fish.

The nutrient load has been restricted by setting limits on the discharges from sewage disposal

plants. So far, the attempts to diminish the nutrient load into the Baltic Sea have been inadequate, e.g. the blue-green algal blooms are still occurring every summer. Restriction of the

external nutrient load is extremely important because all the incoming nutrients only worsen

the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea”.

One source of the water-borne nutrient load is maritime traffic. According to the MARPOL

regulations 73/78 Annex IV, the discharge of sewage into the sea is allowed if the ship is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using a system approved by the Administration

at a distance of more than 3 nautical miles from the nearest land, or sewage which is not

comminuted or disinfected at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land,

provided that, in any case, the sewage that has been stored in holding tanks shall not be discharged instantaneously but at a moderate rate when the ship is en route and proceeding at not

less than 4 knots. If the ship has in operation an approved sewage treatment plant which has

been certified by the Administration, discharge of sewage is permitted anywhere. The effluent

shall not produce visible floating solids nor cause discoloration of the surrounding water. The

public disapproval that arose in Finland after it became known that some shipping companies

discharge sewage into the Baltic Sea has particularly affected the passenger ship companies,

and most of the passenger ship companies have started to discharge the sewage into the municipal sewer network ashore.

Finland has regarded the above-mentioned MARPOL 73/78 Convention as inadequate in relation to the Baltic Sea’s sensitive marine environment. In 2006, Finland made a suggestion at

HELCOM for defining the amount of nutrient load originating from ship sewage in the Baltic

Sea area. The VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland was commissioned to conduct a

study of the nutrient load from maritime traffic discharged into the Baltic Sea. As part of this

study, questionnaires on the waste water and passenger amounts were sent to the ports and

shipowners in the Baltic Sea area.

Thus, the purpose of the original study was to estimate the nutrient load from waste waters

originating from ships in the Baltic Sea area. On the basis of the calculations and references,

the nutrient load originating from ships is rather small, but not negligible due to the sensitivity

of the Baltic Sea marine environment. The nutrient load is concentrated along the shipping

routes and is immediately available for uptake by, e.g., blue–green algae, adding to the severe

eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

7 (66)

The vulnerable nature of the Baltic Sea area and the ever-increasing eutrophication is forcing

a reduction in the nutrient load into the Baltic Sea. The nutrient load from ships is much easier

to control, when compared with the atmospheric emissions or nutrient inputs from diffused

land-based sources. Due to the ‘no special fee’ system, the Baltic Sea ports have invested in

waste reception facilities.

The purpose of this updated study was to provide background information for the ad hoc

HELCOM Correspondence Group regarding the possible designation of the Baltic Sea as a

special area where more stringent regulations on discharges of sewage from ships would be

applied. The main task of the Group is to estimate the effect of the new proposals for new

provisions in MARPOL Annex IV on the nutrient load of the Baltic Sea. The new information

in this report is gathered by the authors and the members of the ad hoc HELCOM Correspondence Group and it consists of:

- Availability of sewage treatment plants capable of reducing discharges of nutrients

(nitrogen and phosphorus).

- Voluntary discharge of sewage into port reception facilities (PRFs) in the ports of the

Baltic States (the amount of sewage discharged into PRFs).

- Technical problems related to the discharge of sewage into PRFs.

- Update of the estimate of the environmental consequences of discharge of sewage into

the Baltic Sea

- Other relevant information on the issue.

A rather wide inquiry was sent to the manufacturers of sewage treatment plants but unfortunately only a few responses were received. The ad hoc HELCOM Correspondence Group had

a slightly better response rate from the ports. In addition, a response was received from the

Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), Inc. The Cruise Line International Association

represents 24 member cruise lines that operate approximately 175 passenger vessels under

various international flags. Also, the European Cruise Council (ECC) provided responses

concerning nutrient load estimations and PRFs.

Chapters 5 and 6 have been added to this report, and the Preface, References and Chapters 1,

7, 8, 10 and 11 have been updated. The remaining chapters have been preserved in their original form.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

8 (66)

2 Nutrient load sources and inputs in the Baltic Sea area

2.1 General

This study covers the Baltic Sea area. For the purposes of the Helsinki Convention and

MARPOL 73/78, the Baltic Sea area is defined as the Baltic Sea Proper, with 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 at 57 degrees 44.8 minutes North. The Baltic Sea area does not include

the internal waters of the Coastal States (HELCOM, 1992a). The catchment area of the Baltic

Sea is ca. four times larger than the sea area itself and serves as home to some 85 million people. The Baltic Sea catchment area is presented in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1. The Baltic Sea catchment area (HELCOM, 2005).

The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) describes the nature of

Baltic Sea in the following way: “The Baltic Sea is connected to the North Sea by the narrow

and shallow waters of the Sound and the Belt Sea. This limits the exchange of water with the

North Sea, and means that the same water remains in the Baltic for up to 30 years – along

with all the organic and inorganic matter it contains. The average depth of Baltic Sea is only

53 metres. It contains 21,547 km3 of water and every year rivers bring about 2% of this volume of water into the sea as runoff” (HELCOM, 2006).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

9 (66)

The Baltic Sea is the largest area of brackish water in the world. Due to the slow rate of natural cleansing and the low salinity level, the Baltic Sea marine ecosystem is very vulnerable to

pollution. Only relatively few animal and plant species live in the brackish ecosystems of the

Baltic Sea. Some marine and freshwater species are adapted to the brackish conditions, and

there are also a few true brackish water species living the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Sea’s special

geographical, climatological and oceanographic characteristics make it highly sensitive to the

environmental impacts of human activities in its catchment area. Therefore, several protected

areas have been established in the Baltic Sea area. These areas include Baltic Sea Protected

Areas (BSPAs), the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (COWI or Ramsar

Convention), UNESCO’s Biosphere reserve areas and the EU’s Bird Directive areas. The Baltic Sea area is also one of the IMO’s particularly sensitive sea areas (PSSA). The protected

areas are presented in Figure 2-2 (HELCOM, 2006; Hänninen & Rytkönen, 2004).

Figure 2-2. Baltic Sea protected areas.

Nowadays, the oxygen-depleted areas are unusually wide in the Baltic Sea. Due to the slow

water exchange, excessive external nutrient input and the internal nutrient loading, intense

blue-green algal blooms are a common phenomenon in the summertime. The Baltic Sea is

also strongly affected by hazardous substances, increased maritime transport and fisheries.

The major part of the pollution originates as water-borne from land-based sources. Other

sources of pollution are atmospheric deposition and maritime traffic (BMEPC, 1990; Hänninen & Rytkönen, 2004).

The ship-based pollution is released either accidentally or deliberately. Oil and chemical spillages can create severe acute problems for the marine life. Chemical spillages can also cause

danger to human health. Sewage discharges from ships disappear quicker from the water surface, but they are no less harmful than oil and chemical discharges. Human sewage can carry

enteric bacteria, pathogens, diseases, viruses, the eggs of intestinal parasites and harmful nutrients. Grey water also contains pollutants such as faecal coliform, food waste, detergents,

oil, grease, shampoos, cleaners, pesticides and heavy metals. Ingesting contaminated fish or
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

10 (66)

direct exposure to water contaminated with sewage pose health risks for humans. Discharges

of untreated or inadequately treated waste water from ships can cause bacterial and viral contamination of commercial and recreational shellfish beds, producing serious risks to public

health (The Ocean Conservancy, 2002).

The eutrofying plant nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus are a significant part of the waste water. The quantity of nitrogen in the sewage water is 12–15 g/person/day. The quantity of

phosphorus in the sewage water is remarkably lower than the quantity of nitrogen. Nowadays,

the usual amount of phosphorus is between 3–5 g/person/day (RIL, 2003).

Nitrogen and phosphorus are among the main growth-limiting nutrients in aquatic ecosystems, and, as such, do not pose any direct hazards for the marine organisms. Eutrophication,

however, is a condition in an aquatic ecosystem where high nutrient concentrations stimulate

the growth of algae, which leads to an imbalanced functioning of the system (RIL, 2003):

 intense algal growth: excess of filamentous algae and phytoplankton blooms

 production of excess organic matter

 increase in oxygen consumption

 oxygen depletion

 death of benthic organisms, including fish.

2.2 Pathways, sources and amounts of nutrient input

The main pathways of the nutrient input are the following (HELCOM, 2005):

 Direct atmospheric deposition on the sea surface.

 River inputs to the sea. Rivers transport nutrients that have been discharged or leached

to inland surface waters within the Baltic Sea catchment area.

 Point sources discharging direct to the sea.

Nitrogen enters the Baltic Sea either as airborne or water-borne inputs; phosphorus mainly as

water-borne.

The different sources for the inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus are shown in Figure 2-3:

 Atmospheric emissions of nitrogen compounds from traffic or combustion of fossil fuels (heat generation), and from animal manure and husbandry, etc.

 Point sources, including inputs from municipalities, industries and fish farms, both discharging into inland surface waters and directly into the Baltic Sea.

 Diffuse sources, which mainly originate from agriculture but also include nutrient

losses from, e.g., managed forestry and scattered dwellings.

 Natural background sources, mainly referring to natural erosion and leakage from unmanaged areas, and the corresponding nutrient losses from, e.g., agricultural and managed forested land that would occur regardless of human activities.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

11 (66)

Figure 2-3. Sources of nutrients within the Baltic Sea catchment area (HELCOM, 2005).

In 2000 the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen amounted to 264,100 tonnes, and the total water-borne input of nitrogen was 744,900 tonnes. Thus the total input of nitrogen into the Baltic

Sea was 1,009,000 tonnes (HELCOM, 2005).

The inputs of airborne nitrogen have decreased recently. In 2003 the atmospheric supply of

nitrogen was 217,000 tonnes. In 2004 the total water-borne load of nitrogen entering the Baltic Sea amounted to 502,000 tonnes. No data was submitted from Russia and Latvia for 2004

(Knuuttila, 2005).

About 75% of the nitrogen entered the Baltic Sea as water-borne input and 25% as airborne

input. Diffuse loading, mainly from agriculture and managed forestry, contributed almost

60% of the water-borne inputs to the sea, 28% entered from the natural background sources

and 12% came from point sources.

Phosphorus mainly enters the Baltic Sea as water-borne input, but it can also enter as atmospheric deposition. However, it has been estimated that the airborne contribution is only 1–5%

of the total phosphorus input. The total phosphorus input was 34,500 tonnes in 2000. In 2004

the total phosphorus load was 22,500 tonnes, but no data was submitted by Russia and Latvia.

Concerning the phosphorus input, diffuse loading contributed nearly 50% of the total waterborne phosphorus inputs to the sea. Point sources and natural background sources each contributed approximately 25% of the phosphorus input (HELCOM, 2005).

The proportion of sources contributing to phosphorus inputs into the Baltic Sea sub-regions in

2000 is presented in Figure 2-4.

Point sources

Diffuse sources

+

Atmospheric deposition

Natural background

sources

Retention

Point sources directly

into the Sea River load Atmospheric deposition

directly into the Sea

Total input to the

Baltic Sea
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

12 (66)

Figure 2-4. Proportion of sources contributing to phosphorus inputs into Baltic Sea subregions in 2000 (HELCOM, 2005).

A large proportion of the nutrient loads originate far away from the sea, and even from outside the HELCOM area. Many processes occur after nutrient input into the catchment area,

which affect their final input to the Baltic Sea. Rainfall and subsequent river run-off, as well

as groundwater inflow to inland surface waters, are controlling factors that determine the final

amounts of nutrients entering the Baltic Sea. Biological, physical, morphological and chemical factors also retain and/or transform nutrients within river systems.

Another cause of increased nutrient levels in the sea, especially in the case of phosphorus, is the

“internal load”: phosphorus reserves accumulating in the sediments on the sea bed are released

back to the water under anoxic conditions (HELCOM, 2005).

High nitrate concentrations are still prevalent in the Bothnian Bay, the Gulf of Finland, the

Gulf of Riga, the Pomeranian Bay, the Belt Sea and the Kattegat (Figure 2-5). Concentrations

of both nitrogen and phosphorus have increased in deep waters (HELCOM, 2006).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

13 (66)

Figure 2-5. Regional distribution of nitrate nitrogen (μg/l) in the surface water, January–

February 2000 (HELCOM, 2006).

In general, nutrient concentrations in the Baltic Sea have not decreased since the assessment

period 1994–1998; instead, they have increased or remained persistently high. But, from a

longer-term perspective, different trends can be seen. Winter surface concentrations of dissolved inorganic nitrogen compounds (nitrate + nitrite) have decreased significantly since

1980, but only in the northern Baltic Proper (HELCOM, 2006).

Nitrogen
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

14 (66)

3 Maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea area

Traffic data was requested from harbours and ship-owners that operate in the Baltic Sea area.

All the major harbours were contacted directly or via national port associations (Appendix 1).

The following information was requested from each port (Appendix 2):

 number of passengers annually (latest available data)

 number of ship calls annually, divided in different ship types (passenger ships, oil tankers, bulk carriers, etc.)

 amount of received waste waters (black water and grey water separated)

 reception facilities for waste waters.

In addition to the Finnish ports, 9 ports from Estonia and Russia, 4 ports from Latvia, 3 ports

from Poland, 2 ports from Lithuania, 20 ports from Denmark, 7 ports from Germany and 38

ports from Sweden were contacted and asked for the same information. A total of 29 answers

were received, which means that only approximately 26% of the ports replied to the inquiry.

The answers were received from ten cargo ports and 19 passenger ports. A summary of the

responses is presented in Appendices 5 and 6.

In most of the ports the amount of received waste water compared to the number of ship calls

was considerably smaller, as can be seen in Figure 3-1. The cargo ports had not received sewage in 2005 and only the biggest passenger ports had received waste water.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Rauma

Turku

Helsinki

Sölvesborg

Kalmar

Öxelosund

LandskornaHelsingborg

Århus

Roenne

Copenhagen

Frederikshavn

Gdynia

Ventpils

Riga

Ship calls

0

50

100

150

200

250

thousand m3

Ship calls (year 2005)

Received w aste w ater

(thousand m3)

Figure 3-1. Received waste water and ship calls in 2005.

In most of the cargo and passenger ports the waste water from the ship is pumped to a tank

truck. In some of the Finnish and Swedish passenger ports the sewage can be discharged di-
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

15 (66)

rectly into the sewer network. Of the 29 ports that replied, three Swedish ports announced that

they do not have waste-water reception facilities.

The ship-owners (Appendix 3) received the inquiry (Appendix 4) with the following questions:

 total number of passengers annually (2005) for different routes in the Baltic Sea area

 amount of waste waters (both black and grey) per person per journey

 average time for one journey (if you operate several routes, average time for each route)

 type of waste-water treatment technology for black and grey waste waters utilized onboard your ships.

The inquiry was sent to 16 shipping companies in Finland. Because the contact information

for foreign shipping companies was not known, the inquiry was sent to the shipowners’ associations in Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and the port authorities in Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. The port authorities and shipowners’ associations were asked to

forward the questionnaires to the shipping companies. The number of replies was quite low.

The information was received from three shipping companies in Finland and three shipping

companies in Denmark. No answers were received from companies that transport cargo. A

summary of the responses is presented in Appendix 7.

The relationship between the travel time and waste-water production on the basis of the inquiry is presented in Figure 3-2. The amount of sewage per passenger increases as the duration of the journey becomes longer. However the waste-water production is not directly proportional to the travel time.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0,33 0,83 1,33 1,5 2 2,5 2,66 3 3,25 11 11 16,5 17 21,5

Travel time (h)

Sewage amount (l/passenger)

Sewage (l/pax)

Figure 3-2. Waste-water production vs. travel time.

The sewage production increases considerably when the travel time exceeds ten hours. This is

due to the fact that there are passenger services, e.g. day spas and hairdressers, on the longer

routes that increase the water consumption and hence the amount of waste water.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

16 (66)

The MARPOL 73/78 Convention demands that every ship shall be equipped with one of the

following systems:

 a sewage treatment plant

 a sewage comminuting and disinfecting system for the temporary storage of sewage

when the ship is less than three nautical miles from the nearest land

 a holding tank of sufficient capacity for the retention of all sewage, having regard to the

operation of the ship, the number of persons on-board and other relevant factors.

According to the shipping companies that did reply, waste water is not treated on-board. The

passenger ferries that operate between the Danish straits and the passenger/car ferries that operate in the Gulf of Finland discharge sewage into the sewer network ashore. One shipping

company reported that some chemicals are added to the sewage to prevent the formation of

sulphuric hydrogen and their vessels are equipped with the chemical or biological waste-water

treatment plants, which are not operational but are on standby.

3.1 Present situation

The main ports for passenger and cargo traffic in the Baltic Sea are presented in Figure 3-3.

The main flow of cargo traffic follows the Swedish coastline and turns east towards the Gulf

of Finland and St Petersburg on the eastern side of Gotland. Other cargo flows are directed to

the Gulf of Bothnia and the ports of Riga, Gdansk and Klaipeda. The busiest passenger routes

in the Baltic Sea area are the route across Öresund between Helsingborg and Helsingör with

10 M passengers per year, the route across Fehmarn Bælt between Rödby and Puttgarden with

7 M passengers, the route from Stockholm to Finland and between Finland and Estonia with 7

M passengers, and the route between Göteborg and Fredrikshavn with 2 M passengers (Figure

3-4). The routes from Sweden to Estonia, Lithuania and Poland have increased significantly in

recent years, in both capacity and transportation; for example, there are more than 400,000

passengers per year on the route between Karlskrona and Gdynia (Baltic Maritime Outlook,

2006).

According to the statistics for 1998 the ten biggest passenger ports in the Baltic Sea were Helsingborg, Helsingør, Stockholm, Helsinki, Tallinn, Malmö, Göteborg, Fredrikshavn, Turku

and Copenhagen. At that time, 35% of the 80 million annual ferry passengers recorded in Baltic Sea Region ports were going through the two ports of Helsingborg and Helsingør. In 2000

the biggest passenger ports were Helsingborg, Helsingør, Stockholm, Helsinki, Tallinn and

Turku (Hanell et al., 2000).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

17 (66)

Figure 3-3. Container traffic (left) and passenger traffic (right) in the Baltic Sea area in 2000

(Hanell et al., 2000).

Figure 3-4. Passenger traffic and cargo routes in the Baltic Sea area in 2003 (Baltic Maritime Outlook, 2006).

In 1993 it was concluded that around 70 million passengers travelled on ferries in the Baltic Sea

area, and that was regarded as a low estimate (SSPA, 1994). On the other hand, Wickens et al.

(1994) estimated the number of passengers in the Baltic ferry traffic to be around 61 million.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

18 (66)

The Swedish Maritime Administration have estimated that a little more than 235,000 trips were

made by ferries and a total of about 53 million passengers were transported in 1998 (SMA,

1999). Hanell et al. (2000) concluded that, based on the 1998 figures, the number of passengers

in the top 20 harbours was around 87 million.

The figures in Table 3-1 represent the number of passengers in the various ports based on the

figures presented in the references and the data received from ports during the execution of

the project.

Table 3-1. The number of passengers in various ports in the Baltic Sea area.

Port Number of passengers

Ref.: Hanell et al.,

20001

Ref.: Kalli et al.,

20052

Information received from

ports (2005 Figures)

Helsingborg 14,200,000 11,102,138

Elsinore (Helsingør, in

1997) 13,657,000

Stockholm 9,300,000 9,643,000 10,900,0003

Helsinki 8,620,000 8,685,000 9,067,000

Tallinn 5,441,000 7,007,558

Malmö 5,300,000

Gothenburg 4,600,000

Fredrikshavn 4,305,000 2,930,093

Turku 4,229,445 4,101,577 3,770,000

Copenhagen 4,202,181 1,504,773

Oslo 2,493,000

Kiel 2,100,000

Rostock 1,813,450 2,160,000

Rønne 1,379,521 1,560,000

Lübeck 1,300,000 371,547

Kristiansand 1,117,551

Marienhamn - 1,100,000

Ystad 1,000,000

Sassnitz-M 997,230 761,008

Szczecin and

ĝwinoujĞcie - 807,580

Vaasa 820,040 90,000

Larvik 713,000

Total 87,588,418

When the inquiry results are compared to the statistics presented by Hanell et al. (2000) and

Kalli et al. (2005), it can be seen that in most of the ports the passenger numbers have decreased during recent years. The passenger numbers in Hanell et al.’s report represent the

situation in the late 1990s, when tax-free shopping between Scandinavian countries was still

possible on a voyage. The EU ended the tax-free shopping on internal traffic on 1.7.1999,

which can clearly be seen to have affected the passenger numbers. In addition, it is likely that

the commission of the Great Belt Fixed Link between the Danish islands of Zealand and Fu1

 Figures for 1998.

2

 As an average number for the years 2001–2003.

3

 Figures for 2004, excluding the traffic in the archipelago.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

19 (66)

nen across the Great Belt in 1998 also affected the passenger numbers, at least in Helsingborg,

Helsingør, Copenhagen and Malmö.

On the other hand, the passenger numbers in Tallinn, Helsinki, Stockholm and Rostock have

increased. One reason for this is the lower price level in Estonia and the release of alcohol

importation after Estonia joined the EU in 2004. The increase in passenger numbers in the

port of Rostock is probably due to the ferry connection from Hanko; the route opened in 2001

and car/passenger ferries operate daily between Hanko and Rostock.

An example of the ship type distribution in ports in the four Baltic Sea areas is presented in

Figure 3-5.

Ship calls (2005), the port of Helsinki

3347

6357

247

3274 Passenger vessels

Express ships

International cruise ships

Cargo ships

Ship calls (2005), port of Aarhus

23

4557

1182

443

1954 Cruise ships

Ferries

Liners (container, roro)

Tanker

Other (bulk carriers)

Ship calls (2005), the port of Gdynia

18

214

56

1458

288 445

141

19

258

622

22

385

34

58

9

1

623

Research vessel

Barge& pontoon

Reefer vessel

General cargo carrier

Tug

Container ship

Bulk carrier

Naval ship

Passenger vessel

Ropax vessel

Fishing vessel

Ro-ro ship

Other vessel

Car carrier

School ship

Multipurpose vessel

Tanker

Ship calls (2005), the port of Riga

518

577

402

25

8

2006

508

1

79

Passenger vessels/ferries

Container ships

Bulker carriers

Reefer

Ro-ro ships

Dry cargo vessels

Tankers

Fishing vessels

Other vessels

Figure 3-5. Example of ship type distribution in the Baltic Sea ports.

The maritime transport in the Baltic Sea region is directed from the northern ports to Germany. In 2003 the maritime transport in the Baltic Sea area totalled 178 M tonnes. Dry bulk

was the largest commodity (75 M tonnes), followed by liquid bulk (62 M tonnes) and other

cargoes (41 M tonnes). The oil and container trades are the fastest growing segments in the

Baltic Sea area maritime transport (Baltic Maritime Outlook, 2006).

According to the reference (Saurama et al., 2008) totally 88.7 million passengers passed

through 52 ports in the Baltic Sea in 2006. The busiest route for passenger traffic was the narrow channel between Denmark and Sweden. Ferry lines connecting Elsinore and Helsingborg

had 10.7 million passengers. Half (51.4%) the passengers travelling on ferry or cruise vessels

went through the five biggest passenger ports (Table 3-2).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

20 (66)

Table 3-2. Top 20 passenger ports in the Baltic Sea in 2006 (Saurama et al., 2008).

1 Helsingborg 10,763,267 11 Rostock 2,541,144

2 Elsinore (Helsingør) 10,721,000 12 Gothenburg 2,199,150

3 Helsinki 9,045,502 13 Ystad 1,936,622

4 Stockholm 8,249,304 14 Trelleborg 1,696,646

5 Puttgarden/Fehmarn 6,789,335 15 Gedser 1,507,000

6 Rødby Færgehavn 6,789,000 16 Kiel 1,465,603

7 Tallinn 6,760,000 17 Rønne 1,409,000

8 Turku 3,162,612 18 Kappelskär 1,381,798

9 Mariehamn 2,681,114 19 Strömstad 1,250,160

10 Frederikshamn 2,594,000 20 Swinoujscie 929,899

Table 3-3. Number of passengers in two main ports in Finland.

Number of departing

passengers4

Number of arriving

passengers7

Number of passengers5

Number of passengers6

Port of Helsinki 4,297,417 4,319,011 8,620,000 9,045,502

Port of Turku 1,826,692 1,829,247 4,229,445 3,162,612

When comparing the passenger figures provided by various harbours and the figures presented in the references (Hanell et al, 2000; FMA, 2008), it appears that the figures include

both arriving and departing passengers (Table 3-3). In the reference (Saurama et al., 2008)

this is clearly mentioned.

4

 Reference: Finnish Maritime Administration. 2008. Passagerartrafiken fördelad efter hamn åren 1973-2007.

Figures from 1998.

5 Reference: Hanell, T., Bengs, C., Bjarnadóttir, H. & Spiekermann, K. 2000. The Baltic Sea Region Yesterday,

Today and Tomorrow – Main Spatial Trends. Nordregio, Nordic Centre for Spatial Development. Figures from

1998.

6

Reference: Saurama, A., Holma, E., Tammi, K. 2008. Baltic Port List 2006. Annual cargo statistics of ports in

the Baltic Sea Region. A publication from the Centre for Maritime Studies, University of Turku. ISBN 978-951-

29-3625-0 (pdf).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

21 (66)

4 Waste-water management

4.1 Origin

Waste waters can be divided into oily and non-oily waste waters. Oily waste waters originate

from engine rooms and machinery spaces, e.g. pump rooms. Oily waste water handling is

regulated by the bilge water regulations in Annex I to the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. Oily

waste waters are not included in this study.

Non-oily waste waters are divided into other non-contaminated drains and contaminated,

“sewage type” waste waters. The non-contaminated waste waters are drainage waters from

exposed deck scrubber systems, dedicated sprinkler drainage systems, AC room condensation

collecting system, etc. These non-contaminated waste waters are also left out of this study

(Salama, 2005).

The sources of contaminated waste water on-board ships are basically the same as in communities ashore. Annex IV to the MARPOL 73/78 Convention defines “Sewage” in the following way:

 drainage and other wastes from any form of toilets and urinals

 drainage from medical premises (dispensary, sick bay, etc.) via wash basins, wash tubs

and scuppers located in such premises

 drainage from spaces containing living animals

 other waste waters when mixed with the drainages defined above (for example a mix of

sewage and grey water).

Sewage is also called black water and the discharge of ship sewage is restricted on the basis of

the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. Sewage on-board ships differs from that of municipalities

by its short retention time and smaller water content. On-board ship, the sewage ends up almost directly in the treatment plant; therefore the amount of dissolved BOD is lower than in

municipal systems and the cleaning process is easier. The smaller water volume of the sewage

on-board ship makes it more concentrated when compared to the municipal sewage (BMEPC,

1990; The Ocean Conservancy, 2002).

Grey water consists of non-sewage waste water, including drainage from dishwashers, showers, laundry, baths, galleys, and washbasins. Grey water represents the largest category of

fluid waste generated by cruise ships. The discharge of grey water is not restricted by international law and in some cases it is discharged directly into the environment. However, in certain sea areas and during berthing the sewage and grey water must be stored or treated

(BMEPC, 1990; The Ocean Conservancy, 2002).

The amount of waste water depends on the ship type. Passenger/car ferries usually leave the

sewage ashore daily, so the storage of sewage on-board does not cause remarkable problems.

On the other hand, cruise trips typically last for seven days and during that time waste has to

be processed in such a way that environmental hazards are avoided and the orders of the authorities are fulfilled (Saari, 2005). When compared to passenger ships, RoRo-passenger
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

22 (66)

(ropax) vessels have very modest sewage treatment systems. The shipowners’ decision to discharge sewage into a PRF or to discharge black waters directly into the sea is based on the

most economical way to fulfil the MARPOL requirements (Salama, 2005).

4.2 Quantity estimations

The quantity of black water (flush water excluded) can be estimated as 1.8 l per person per

day. If the quantity of flush water is 10 litres at a time (gravitation system), the black water

amounts to some 70 litres per person/day. The flux of the water varies considerably and the

difference may range from 10 to 200 litres per person/day, depending on the sewage system.

The smallest amount of waste water is gained with vacuum sewage systems, which generally

produce 12 litres black water per person/day (BMEPC, 1990). The ocean conservancy has estimated the cruise ship black water production to range from 19 l to 38 l per person/day (The

Ocean Conservancy, 2002).

Grey water amounts to approximately 120 litres per person/day (BMEPC, 1990). The ocean

conservancy has estimated the cruise ship grey water production to range from 114 l to 322 l

per person/day (The Ocean Conservancy, 2002).

Some estimates of waste-water generation have been presented in Salama (2005):

 toilet flush (gravity feed): 6–8 litres per flush

 toilet flush (vacuum feed): 1.2 litres per flush

 1 min. shower: 12–14 litres

 total daily grey water accumulation: < 300 litres per day per person

 total daily galley and laundry accumulation: < 70 litres per day

 total daily black water accumulation in vacuum system: < 20 litres per day per person

(Salama, 2005) or 8–12 litres per day per person (Bachér, 2001)

 in large cruise ships the vacuum system produces 20–30 m3 black water per day

(Bachér, 2001).

HELCOM Recommendation 11/10 gives guidelines for the capacity calculation of sewage systems on-board passenger ships (HELCOM, 1990). The total flushing systems used on-board

ships are the conventional system and the vacuum system. The capacity calculations apply to

passenger ships engaged in voyages with a length of more than 24 hours. They are based on the

flow rate in litres per day per person. The calculations are presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Capacity calculations for sewage systems on-board passenger ships (HELCOM,

1990).

Litres per person per day

Conventional system Vacuum system

Sewage (black water) 70 25

Sewage and grey water 230 185

When compared to a municipal sewage treatment plant, the sewage that is treated on-board

has a short retention time. The sewage load on-board can also vary considerably. In cruise

ships the sewage loads are generally biggest in the morning and in the evening. These varia-
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

23 (66)

tions are balanced out by using holding tanks and dimensioning the treatment plants sufficiently large enough. The capacity of the holding tank is calculated using the following equation:

Cr  A·Np·Da, (1)

where

Cr = capacity of the holding tank (m3)

A = 0.06 (m3/person/day), value of A may reduce according to the flushing system,

etc.

Np = the total number of people on-board

Da = the maximum number of days operating in areas where the discharge of sewage

that is not comminuted or disinfected into the sea is prohibited (minimum 1

day).

4.3 Treatment options on-board ships

Sewage can be processed with three principal methods: mechanical, chemical and biological.

The treatment of sewage includes the following stages (Kiukas, 2005):

1. waste-water accumulation and management

2. waste-water pretreatment

3. waste-water oxidation

4. waste-water clarification and filtration

5. waste-water disinfection

6. sludge treatment.

The sewage treatment is usually a combination of the three principal methods, such as mechanical-chemical, mechanical-biological and chemical-biological. The choice of method depends on the purification aims and operating conditions (BMEPC, 1990). The estimates of the

reductions in the BOD and phosphorus concentration for different types of treatment plants

are presented in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2. The reduction estimates for different treatment types (BMEPC, 1990).

Reduction in BOD Reduction in phosphorus

Biological plant 80–95% 20–40%

Chemical plant 50–70% 75–90%

Simultaneous thickening 90–98% 75–90%

Physical sedimentation 20–30% 5–10%

An example of a combined biological and chemical disinfecting system is presented in Figure

4-1.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

24 (66)

Chlorine contact

disinfection

Biological-Chemical Disinfection

Clarification &

Filtration

Aerobic

bacteria

digestion

S

C

R

E

E

N

Sludge

Air

Heat

Bio-solid return

Advantages:

1. Similar to traditional land-based municipal secondary treatment.

Disadvantages:

1. Requires fresh water influx.

2. Disrupted by intermittent flow common to shipboard life.

3. May require chemical disinfections.

Figure 4-1. Simplified schematics of a biological-chemical disinfection (Eley & Morehouse,

2003).

Resolution MEPC.2 (VI) gives recommendations on international effluent standards and

guidelines for performance tests for sewage treatment plants. The sewage treatment plant has

to satisfy the effluent standards for its certificate of type test. The effluent standards include a

faecal coliform standard, suspended solids standard and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)

(Resolution MEPC.2, 1976). In some cases even the amount of residual chlorine is restricted

(Alaska waste-water regulations). The MEPC.2 (VI) resolution standards for waste-water

quality are following:

 BOD5: 50 mg/l

 TSS: 100 mg/l (shipboard test)

 Faecal coliforms: 250 cfu/100 ml.

It should be noted that the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus is not required. In the future,

the limits for marine waste-water discharge may become closer to the land-based criteria. It is

possible that the nitrogen and phosphorus concentration of discharged waste water will be

limited.

The shipboard sewage treatment plant should be small, simple, reliable and have moderate

running costs. The treatment plant should function well in all waste-water concentrations and

during flow peaks. The plant should be also easy to maintain and operate, and fulfil current

purification requirements. The plant operation highly depends on the technical personnel and

the sewage being cleaned.

4.3.1 Waste-water pretreatment

Waste-water pretreatment protects the other phases of the purification process. Sewage contains a lot of solid waste and grease that may cause problems in the later stages of the process.

The pretreatment process reduces the amount of solids in the waste water. Effective wastewater pretreatment also reduces the need for oxidation (Kiukas, 2005). The pretreatment is

mechanical and consists of sieving and sedimentation units. The large particles pass through a

shredding pump before sieving (BMEPC, 1990).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

25 (66)

4.3.2 Oxidation

The mechanical filtering results in a maximum of 50% reduction in organic load. The remaining organic compounds have to be oxidized, either chemically or biologically.

Certain chemicals, e.g. ozone, chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, are added to the sewage in the

chemical oxidation. The chemicals oxidize the organic impurities in the sewage water. When

compared to the ozone and hydrogen peroxide, chlorine is not a very environmental friendly

oxidant because of the carcinogenic compounds that develop as a by-product of the reaction.

The added chemicals have an impact on the organic matter that has dissolved slightly and the

BOD reduction remains small. The estimated treatment results for reduction in BOD and

phosphorus are good (BMEPC, 1990).

Chemical oxidation is utilized in the macerator-chlorinating system that is used in the Unites

States. The macerator-chlorinating system reduces bio solids through oxidation, dilutes the

effluent with ambient seawater, and disinfects the sewage water with the help of an “electro

catalyst” process (Figure 4-2).

Macerator-Chlorinator

Oxidation & Disinfection

Macerator

S

C

R

E

E

N

Sludge

Bio-solid

return

Advantages:

1. Simple process.

2. May use saltwater for flushing toilets.

Disadvantages:

1. Minimum “treatment” of wastewater.

2. Requires chlorine for disinfections.

3. Operating in areas of low seawater salinity requires

chemical make-up or salt tablets.

Electricity

Seawater

Figure 4-2. Simplified schematics of a macerator-chlorinator system (Eley & Morehouse,

2003).

The “electro catalyst” process produces sodium hypochlorite disinfectant from the salt in the

seawater. Some operators add chlorine to the contact tank to ensure that the disinfection is complete. This “over-chlorination” results in high levels of residual chlorine in the discharge, which is

lethal to marine organisms (Eley & Morehouse, 2003).

In the biological treatment the micro-organisms use the impurities in the sewage as their nourishment. There are several types of bioprocesses and the most common biological process is

the active sludge treatment plant, where the sewage is mixed in a continuous-action aeration

tank with active sludge. Biological filters and biorotors are also used as biological treatment

plants. In these devices the bacteria that destroy the impurities attach to the filtering material.

The biological treatment system is the most efficient way of reducing the BOD load. The estimated reduction in BOD is 80–95% and the reduction in phosphorus is 20–40%. The effectiveness of the bioprocess depends on the amount of active biomass and the bacteria living

conditions. No additives are needed in the biological oxidation and the amount of sludge is

small. The disadvantages of biological treatment are the long starting period and its sensitivity
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

26 (66)

to external disturbances. The reasons for malfunction of the biological system are the following:

 Strong chemicals that have got into the plant are destroying the bacteria.

 Bacteria die due to the lack of oxygen when the ventilation does not work.

 The return of active sludge does not work.

When compared to the active sludge filter, the biofilters and biorotors are smaller in size, easier to start up, and recover from toxic shocks better. In addition, they have less energy consumption, better sludge sedimentation characteristics and better sustained loading variations

(BMEPC, 1990).

4.3.3 Clarification and filtration

After oxidation, the sludge is separated in a sedimentation tank and returned to the aeration

tank. Separating the active biomass, sediment particles and bacteria from the water is a critical

phase in the waste-water purification process. The clarification and filtration processes used in

the ships are membrane filtration, dissolved air flotation (DAF) and settling (Kiukas, 2005).

The DAF system relies on the injection of microscopic air bubbles into the feed water stream,

causing the particles to float on the surface of a basin with inclined settling plates, from which

they are continuously skimmed off and removed with a waste-water stream. It is useful when

treating waters that are high in total suspended solids (TSS) or have highly variable suspended

solids content (Ionics Incorporated, 2005).

4.3.4 Disinfection

The last phase in the waste-water purification process is disinfection. Depending on the previous treatment method, the disinfection enhances the quality of the waste water or is an essential part of the purification process. When the membrane clarification and filtration is used,

the disinfection is performed with UV-light. If the water is very turbid, the UV-light is not

suitable for disinfection. The other potential disinfectants are, for example, chlorine, radicals

and ozone. With the help of these disinfectants it is possible to enhance the water purity even

more (Eley & Morehouse, 2003; Kiukas, 2005).

4.3.5 Sludge treatment

The sludge production depends on the treatment process. Effective pretreatment before the

bioreactor reduces the sludge production and enhances the sludge drying. The sludge that

comes straight from the process is centrifuged. The centrifugal treatment raises the drysubstance concentration to 17–27%, compared to the before treatment dry substance concentration of 2–3%. After the decanter centrifuge, the possible sludge handling techniques are

holding, incinerator, steam dryer, filter press or an alternative sludge conditioning process so

that combustion is possible (Kiukas, 2005).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

27 (66)

4.3.6 New technologies for waste-water purification

It said that the waste-water standards have distorted the development of treatment plants.

Some plants collect sludge but do not destroy wastes. In the future the focus will be on systems that destroy wastes. Such systems could be purification through oxidation, chemical

methods combined with sludge destruction, or biological-chemical methods such as simultaneous sedimentation. The advantages of biological-chemical treatment are a small amount of

sludge, increased plant functionality and a good overall cleansing result. However, no method

has proved so superior as to surpass the other methods (BMEPC, 1990).

Some treatment system manufacturers have provided advanced waste-water purification

(AWP) systems that are designed to result in effluent discharges that are of a high quality and

purity. Effluents meeting these high standards would not be subjected to the strict discharge

limitations. AWP systems are at the development stage when it comes to performance and

treatment costs (Saari, 2005; Salama, 2005). Generally advanced treatment systems utilize

enhanced aerobic digestion with physical filtration to clean shipboard waste water. Other advanced treatment techniques are chemical treatment and mechanical decanting (Eley & Morehouse, 2003).

Moving bed bioreactor (MBBR) and flotation

MBBR is a bioreactor to which plastic carrier pieces have been added. These plastic carrier

pieces maximize the area the bacteria can fasten onto.

Black and grey

water

Equalizing & mixing

Sludge

Screen

MBBR

Coagulant &

Flocculant

chemicals

DAF Polishing

filter

UV

Sludge Overboard

Figure 4-3. The principle of the moving bed bioreactor and flotation system (Kiukas, 2005).

In the MBBR there is no need to circulate the biomass back to the process. The sludge is

separated after the bioreactor, either with the help of flotation or sedimentation. Because of

the sludge separation, there is a great need for chemicals in the process and their adjustment is

difficult. After the sludge separation there are still some particles in the water, so the water

must be filtered before disinfection. (Figure 4-3) The advantages of MBBR are simple control

of bioreactor, reasonable investment costs, well-known and reliable structure, and low solid

and pathogen content in the effluent. The BOD5 value in the treated water is quite small, below 5 mg/l (Kiukas, 2005).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

28 (66)

Bio-reactor/filtration

These treatment systems consist of enhanced aerobic digestion and low-pressure membrane filtration. The systems emphasize either aerobic digestion or membrane filtration.

Figure 4-4. Simplified schematics of a bioreactor and ultra filtration (Eley & Morehouse,

2003).

All bio-reactor/filtration units use ultraviolet irradiation before discharge overboard or to a

holding tank. The system produces solid sludge that must be properly handled and disposed of

(Figure 4-4). The biggest problem with the membranes is their clogging. The maintenance

frequency of the filters depends on their type and the capacity calculation of the bioreactor.

Usually, the filters are cleaned by a back flush every twenty minutes or every six months. The

filters of the MBBR reactor can be assembled externally or they can be submerged in the water (Eley & Morehouse, 2003).

External filters

When external filters are used the water is pumped through a filter pack or filter tube under

pressure. Only 10% of the water is filtered and 90% returns to the bioreactor. External filters

have higher energy consumption than the submerged filters. The disadvantages of external

filters are their short exploitation time and their clogging. On the other hand, they are much

easier to change than submerged filters (Kiukas, 2005).

Submerged filters

In submerged filters the water is filtered with the help of hydraulic pressure and filters’ low

internal pressure. Submerged filters have low energy consumption and are very durable, but

they are difficult to change (Kiukas, 2005).

Activated oxidation process

This treatment process consists of a primary screening system, a primary solids separation and

oxidizing system, a secondary oxidation tank, and controls and oxidant generation equipment

(Figure 4-5).

Bio-reactor and Ultra-filtration

Clarification

Flocculation Aerobic

Bacteria

Digestion

S

C

R

E

E

N

Sludge

Advantages:

1. Produces high quality effluent.

Disadvantages:

1. Maintenance and replacement of filters.

2. Requires sludge disposal.

UV

Disinfection

Air Heat

Filtration
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

29 (66)

Figure 4-5. Simplified schematics of an activated oxidation (Eley & Morehouse, 2003).

Because the oxidants are produced electrically, there is no need for chlorine disinfection. The

sludge is removed from the effluent using polymers. The sludge can be de-watered and incinerated on-board. The process is predicted to be less harmful to marine life than chlorine

treatment because the ozone residuals dissipate quickly. The system has been tested in cruise

ships (Eley & Morehouse, 2003).

Closed electro flotation

One of the innovations in waste-water treatment systems concerns the use of closed electro

flotation. The test scale treatment plant is completely automatic and very reliable. The system

is said to treat the black and grey water and produce drinkable water that can be reused. According to the field tests, the system reduces the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in

the effluent by just fewer than 99%. The system also removes the dissolved matter and heavy

metals. The system principle is presented in Figure 4-6.

Figure 4-6. The principle of ECO-H20TM water purifier (Dynamic Design, 2006).

Activated Oxidation

OXIDATION

&

OXIDANT DISINFECTION

S

C

R

E

E

N

Sludge

SOLIDS

SEPARATION &

OXIDATION

OXIDATION

GENERATOR Advantages:

1. Produces high quality effluent.

2. Size.

Disadvantages:

1. May produce ozone by-products.

2. Requires sludge disposal.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

30 (66)

The closed electro flotation water purifier has only been tested on a laboratory scale so far,

and the first treatment plant will most probably be installed on-board in October 2006 (Dynamic Design, 2006).

4.3.7 Grey water treatment systems

Reverse osmosis filtration

In the reverse osmosis filtration the grey water flows through a semi-permeable membrane

into the pure water, after which it flows to the UV disinfection (Figure 4-7).

Reverse Osmosis

Semi permeable

membrane filter

S

C

R

E

E

N

Heat

Advantages:

1. Produces high quality effluent.

Disadvantages:

1. Maintenance and replacement of filters.

2. Requires sludge disposal.

Aerobic Bacteria

Digestion

UV Disinfection &

Activated Charcoal

Sludge

Air

Bio-solid Return

Figure 4-7. Simplified schematics of a reverse osmosis (Eley & Morehouse, 2003).

The treatment system has met the USCG standards for suspended solids and faecal coliforms.

The system produces some sludge that must be incinerated, discharged at sea where legal, or

landed ashore. Reverse osmosis treatment systems have been installed in cruise ships (Eley &

Morehouse, 2003).

Electro coagulation

In electro coagulation aluminium and iron oxides are dissolved in the water. These oxides

precipitate and flock the impurities from the water. The process produces radicals that oxidize

the dissolved organic particles. The sludge is removed in the lamella separator (Kiukas,

2005).

4.4 Reception facilities

Ports are obliged to arrange reception facilities for waste that may not be discharged overboard. Reception of waste should not cause undue delays for ships. Ports need to ensure that

the reception of waste is quick and easy, which encourages ships to leave waste ashore. The

categories of waste that are to be received at ports are mentioned in the six annexes of the

MARPOL 73/78 Convention (Table 4-3).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

31 (66)

Table 4-3. MARPOL 73/78 categories of waste.

MARPOL 73/78

Annex Category of waste Entry in force

I Oil 2.10.1983

II Noxious liquid substances in bulk 2.10.1983

III Harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form 1.7.1992

IV Sewage 27.9.2003

V Garbage from ships 31.12.1988

VI Air pollution from ships 19.5.2005

Ports should have a waste management and handling plan in accordance with Directive

2000/59/EC. The treatment and disposal of ship-generated solid waste in ports should follow

the national and local regulations of the port (Kalli et al., 2005).

Part of the traffic data collection from ports in the Baltic Sea area was to find out what kind of

waste-water reception facilities ports offer to the shipping companies. In the passenger ports

sewage from the ships can be pumped straight into the municipal sewer network; in the cargo

ports the ships’ holding tanks can be emptied into tank trucks.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

32 (66)

5 Port Reception Facilities update (new chapter)

In order to get a better understanding of the status of the port reception facilities (PRFs) in the

Baltic Sea area, an inquiry was sent to the ad hoc HELCOM Correspondence Group and also

to the CLIA. This chapter contains the summary of the answers received by the Correspondence Group. The answers were received only from Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Poland.

The members of the ad hoc HELCOM Correspondence Group were invited to provide information on:

1. Voluntary discharge of sewage into PRFs in the ports of their country (the amount of

sewage discharged into PRFs), and

2. Technical problems related to the discharge of sewage into PRFs.

In addition, an answer was received from the CLIA, which represents 24 member cruise lines

that operate approximately 175 passenger vessels under various international flags. Member

line vessels operate small vessels on coastal and riverine itineraries as well as large vessels on

international and worldwide itineraries. Vessels range from approximately 50 passengers and

a like number of crew up to 6,400 passengers and 2,200 crew (Genesis class, 2009). A vessel’s capability to manage and treat discharges on-board varies hugely depending on the age

and size of the vessel, the duration of its voyages, as well as the nature of its itineraries

(Collins, 2008).

In addition, the European Cruise Council (ECC) provided information based on its experience

concerning the availability of PRFs. The ECC represents the leading cruise companies operating in Europe. It aims to promote the interests of cruise operators with the EU institutions in

all matters of shipping policy and ship operations, and also to promote cruising by the European public and encourage expansion of the European cruise market (ECC, 2009a).

5.1 The use of port reception facilities

New information on the amount of sewage discharged into PRFs was gathered.

5.1.1 Cruise ships

Cruise liners calling at Baltic ports seldom discharge their sewage waters into PRFs. The

shipping companies usually believe that the advanced waste-water purification (AWP) systems that they have on-board the vessels are adequate even though they do not remove nutrients. Presumably the AWP system is used before discharging the waste waters into the sea.

According to the CLIA, cruise ships use approved waste-water treatment systems on-board to

treat and discharge effluent in accordance with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) requirements. They do not discharge untreated

sewage anywhere in the world. Some vessels have attempted to discharge sewage into port

facilities with mixed results: some ports indicating that they offer reception facilities for waste

water have provided tank trucks or barges of insufficient capacity to accept cruise ship waste

water during the few hours that the vessel is in port. Some have not provided information on

the land-based treatment and thus it is not possible to determine whether treatment on land is

of equal or superior quality as that performed on-board ship (Collins, 2008).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

33 (66)

In its response the ECC reported that all ECC member line ships that visited the Baltic Sea in

2008 were equipped with either a Type II Marine Sanitation Device (MSD) or an AWP system. The ECC estimated that approximately a quarter of the ships had an AWP installed, and

the ECC expects this percentage to increase in the future. Most of these systems use technology based on biological treatment, opting to discharge the treated waste water into the sea.

Furthermore, the response from the ECC states that, notwithstanding the requirement under

EU Directive 2000/59 for adequate reception facilities throughout Europe, it is clear from the

Cruise Baltic survey that there is an evident lack of such facilities for cruise ships operating in

the Baltic (ECC, 2009b).

In the spring of 2008, the Port of Helsinki launched a campaign to increase the number of

cruise liners that would opt to leave their waste water ashore. Even though the regular traffic

passenger ships have long used this opportunity, to date it has been rarely used by cruisers.

The service is free from additional charge (Helsingin Sanomat, 2008). All the cruise liners

calling to Helsinki have been informed about the nutrient load problem in the Baltic Sea. By

the end of June, at least one cruise company had engaged with the campaign. The Port of

Stockholm was unable to co-operate with Helsinki on the campaign, since it still has some

cruise quays that do not have the facilities to discharge the sewage from ships directly into the

municipal waste-water treatment plant. In St Petersburg and Tallinn, sewage can be collected

by truck service but it is not efficient in the case of cruise ships (Vuorivirta, 2008).

5.1.2 Finland

The following information was provided by the ESPO7/Finnish Ports Association concerning

the Port of Helsinki (ESPO, 2008):

- 234,305 m3 of waste water were collected from RoRo-passenger ferries in 2007,

- 8 cruise vessels on 34 calls discharged sewage,

- total number of cruise vessels calls 238,

- RoRo-passenger ferries exempt from the mandatory delivery of waste used the port

sewer network for discharging sewage.

The reference (Port of Helsinki, 2008) states that in all three harbours of the Port of Helsinki

facilities exist to discharge the sewage from ships directly into the municipal waste-water

treatment plant. Additionally, international cruise ships can leave their sewage onshore at

Hernesaari and Katajanokka cruise quays. Discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage

using an administration-approved system at a distance of more than 3 nautical miles from the

nearest land, or sewage that is not comminuted or disinfected at a distance of more than 12

nautical miles from the nearest land is permitted by law. When treated by an approved treatment system, ships are allowed to discharge sewage without restriction. Even though the legislation provides for discharging the sewage into the sea, more and more ships leave the black

and grey waste waters to be treated onshore. Pumping the sewage onshore has created odour

problems in and around the harbours. As a solution to this problem, the shipowners have

started to pretreat the sewage on-board regular passenger traffic to Katajanokka. The effect of

the pretreatment has been found to be positive (Port of Helsinki, 2008).

7

 European Sea Ports Association.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

34 (66)

198 588

209 035

234 305

180 000

190 000

200 000

210 000

220 000

230 000

240 000

2005 2006 2007

m3

Figure 5-1 Waste-water amount pumped ashore from the ships in Helsinki 2005-2007 (Port

of Helsinki, 2008).

Information concerning the other ports in Finland is given in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1. Information received on the amount of waste water collected in some Finnish

ports.

Port of Hanko 0 m3 in 2007, in previous years 20–40 m3 per Superfast ferry visit

Port of Rauma 0 m3, 2005–2006 total 40 m3.

Port of Oulu 0 m3 from international traffic, but port ice-breaker sewage water collected

Port of Kemi 0 m3 from international traffic, M/S Sampo (old ice-breaker used for tourism) 62 m3.

According to the Finnish Ports Association the total amount of sewage discharged into PRFs

in Finnish ports was 348,681 m3 in 2007. Some sewage was also discharged into sewage

trucks (50+ m3).

5.1.3 Sweden

Discharges of sewage into PRFs in Swedish ports:

Year Volume

2003 330,000 m3

2004 376,000 m3

2005 874,843 m3

2006 736,457 m3

In Stockholm, the authority responsible for sewage collection from ships is not the port but

the municipal water company (Vuorivirta, 2008).

5.1.4 Estonia

The Port of Tallinn gives the following information on its website:

In accordance with the effective legislation, prior to leaving the port a vessel shall discharge

vessel waste and cargo-related residues generated at loading/discharging vessel. The require-
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

35 (66)

ment may be ignored if prior to leaving the port the utility rate of ship-generated waste in

storage tanks remains under 25%. An obligatory waste fee shall be applied to all vessels calling at the Port of Tallinn, except for fishing boats, small crafts, military vessels and vessels

performing state administrative tasks. The waste fee shall be levied for each vessel call and it

does not depend directly on the amount of waste delivered. The Port of Tallinn has differentiated the waste fee in accordance with vessel type; the fee is based on a vessel’s GT. In return

for a waste fee the port shall accept vessel bilge water, faecal water, garbage, waste including

oil products and oil, except for cargo residues. Cargo residues and cargo-related residues shall

be received for a separate fee in accordance with the amount delivered. Ballast water cannot

be delivered to the port (Port of Tallinn, 2008).

5.1.5 Poland

Poland’s Maritime Office in Slupsk, in response to the inquiry on sewage discharged into the

PRFs in 2007, stated that all the discharged sewage was collected by truck service, since no

pipe network is available in the Polish harbours. The collected sewage was then treated in the

municipal treatment plants or in private mechanical/biological sewage treatment plants. The

information concerning the Polish ports is presented in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Information provided by the Poland’s Maritime Office concerning sewage discharged into the port reception facilities.

Harbour Type and number of ships registered/operated in harbour *

Number of merchant ships that

called to a harbour

in 2007

Amount of sewage discharged to PRFs

Daráowo

fishing ships (53), yachts (10), passengers vessels ** (2), other (5) 32 ca 15 m3

Koáobrzeg

fishing ships (70), yachts (24), passengers vessels ** (5), other (4) 64ca 225 m3 - in total from passenger vessels

Ustka

fishing ships (83), yachts (11), passengers vessels ** (9), other (4) 4 27 m3

àeba

fishing ships (38), yachts (13), passengers vessels ** (8), other (4) 0 ca 30 m3

Swinoujscie n/a n/a

448.90 m3 - 1 passenger ship

and 99 different ships (e.g.

dredgers, barges, tugs etc.)

Szczecin n/a

128 m3 - 16 ships (1 tanker, 3

general cargo ships and 12

different ships)

Gdansk 3 961 85 m3 - 24 ships

Gdynia n/a n/a 312 m3

Police 7 m3

*no RoRo-passenger ferries or Superfast ferries operated in this harbour.

**number of passenger vessels involved in short-distance voyages lasting about 1 hour each and usually shorter

than 1.5 Nm from the port.

In the port of Gdynia it is not possible to collect sewage from ships mooring at the breakwater. In the ports of Szczecin and Swinoujscie the capacity of the installations as well as the

number of companies contracted to receive sewage from ports is much greater than the

amounts of sewage currently being discharged.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

36 (66)

5.2 Technical problems related to port reception facilities

Information concerning technical problems related to the discharge of sewage into PRFs was

received mainly from the CLIA, the Finnish Port Association and the ECC. The ports that replied to the ad hoc HELCOM Correspondence Group had few complaints concerning their

own systems.

5.2.1 Comments from the CLIA and the ECC

Cruise ships rarely find reception facilities in ports sufficient in capacity and quality of treatment. Treatment on-board ship is frequently better than is available onshore, or one may find

that the vendor accepts the waste, only to discharge it into the port without treatment (this is

unacceptable to the cruise lines, therefore, promoting treatment on-board). Amongst the deficiencies of port vendors in meeting the needs of vessels are that they are sometimes unreliable

(do not show up) are not equipped with certified hoses or communications equipment, or have

not undergone emergency response training.

Discharge connections to a sewer are rare (the Port of Helsinki does have them but they are

not always reliable). Discharge to shore has also been attempted in Copenhagen and in St Petersburg (by barge). Discharges to tank trucks require a constant supply of trucks since they

each only hold 25-30 tonnes, with the ships’ duty officers monitoring the connections all

day/night (Collins, 2008).

According to the ECC response, Cruise Baltic has conducted a survey for the cruise industry

concerning the adequacy of PRFs, and 25 ports representing all HELCOM countries were reviewed. The results indicated that 15 out of 25 ports had no direct shore connection available,

while most ports utilized trucks to offload the waste waters from ships. This practice may be

suitable for cargo ships or tankers but it is completely inadequate for cruise ships.

The ECC response remarked that the ship-to-shore interface for unloading waste water requires considerable improvement to ensure safe and environmentally responsible practices in

line with those adopted by the International Shipping Management (ISM) code and the environmental policies and procedures adopted by ECC member lines.

The ECC is aware of a number of operators that have attempted to discharge ashore with

various degrees of success depending upon the PRFs. While ECC member companies welcome the opportunity to use shore-based facilities, the vast majority of facilities available are

inadequate to serve the cruise industry (ECC, 2009b).

5.2.2 Comments of the ESPO/Finnish Port Association

Sewage pumping has caused odour problems in areas around the Port of Helsinki. The South

Harbour environmental permit stipulates that a solution has to be found to them. Also, hydrogen sulphide concentrations at the treatment plant pump station have been elevated which is

an occupational hazard for the employees. The vessels are therefore required (by the Port and

Helsinki Water) to pretreat the sewage (adding of chemicals/ozone) and the performance is

checked through ongoing measurement of hydrogen sulphide. The results have been excellent.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

37 (66)

Municipal treatment plants are sometimes reluctant to receive sewage from ships because of a

fear of dangerous substances in sewage that would disrupt the biological treatment process at

the plant.

Handling of ship sewage is more costly than for average community sewage. Ship sewage

may contain, e.g., food scraps, which raise oxygen consumption at the plant. Treatment plants

often require laboratory tests of the sewage (ESPO, 2008).

5.2.3 Comments from the ports

In Poland, small fishing harbours in particular do not have the technical possibilities to receive sewage directly into their sanitation systems. A common practice is the use of sanitation

cars.

Denmark and Sweden replied that they have no specific information on any technical problems concerning discharges of sewage into PRFs.

5.3 Holding tank capacity and other relevant matters

Discharge of sewage in ports may not be a big problem, but there are several aspects to be

considered. Thus, more information was sought concerning the ability of big passenger ships

to store all sewage in their tanks while sailing in the Baltic Sea area, if it were required that all

sewage should be discharged into PRFs in the Baltic Sea ports. If the current tank capacity is

not sufficient, would it be possible to increase the holding tank capacity in existing ships in

order to store all sewage before entering the next port of call in the Baltic Sea area? This information was sought from the CLIA and its reply was the following (Collins, 2008):

Cruise lines are open to discussing the use of PRFs, and will work with all concerned parties

to determine how best to manage these wastes. It was requested that the following aspects be

considered:

1. Capacity and Quality: Cruise ships make port calls during the day (peak hours) and there

can be multiple cruise ships in port on the same day landing large volumes of waste water.

x there must be adequate waste-water treatment capacity ashore,

x the dock workers and equipment must be provided as soon as the vessel docks,

x the effluent must be treated to quality levels above those already available on-board

ship, and

x the facilities must be operational on all days that vessels are in port.

2. Inadequate PRFs: Some ports attempt to provide vendor services (trucks, barges), however:

x these are often not adequate in capacity to manage the large volumes from ships,

x the sewage may be treated to lower standards than it would be on-board, or

x the sewage may be discharged untreated into the sea by vendors unwilling to pay for

treatment.

3. Assurance of Quality and Commitment: Improper disposal of waste water is not acceptable and we need assurances that some level of supervision is provided (government, organization) to ensure continued compliance with environmental regulations by the port

and port vendors.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

38 (66)

x the service needs to be reliable and timely so as to meet the operational needs of the

vessels,

x hoses, connections, and other equipment must be certified to meet high standards to

prevent a spill,

x reception stations must be manned and equipped with portable communications

equipment in order to stay in touch with the vessel,

x the quality of effluent discharged from the land-based treatment facility must be monitored, and

x dock facilities must be available as soon as the vessel arrives to ensure that there is

sufficient time to discharge all waste water ashore.

4. Compatibility with the ship treatment system:

x advanced waste-water treatment (AWT) systems require nearly continuous operation

to maintain the microbes in the bioreactor and have some holding capacity for treated

water so as to not discharge it in port. The vessel cannot shut down these systems

while in the Baltic Sea, but the effluent can be sent to holding tanks for a few hours. It

is not clear if these systems have sufficient holding capacity to rely completely on discharging to PRFs.

x these ships also operate outside the Baltic Sea, therefore, they must maintain the bioreactor at all times

x vessels not using AWT systems use MSD Type II systems in accordance with MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV

Considering the possibility to increase the holding tank capacity, the CLIA replied (Collins,

2008):

Every foot of space is assigned to a specific use, from the vessel conceptual design

through construction and operation. To provide additional tankage for sewage would require that an equal amount of space be removed from another task on-board. These ships

have been carefully balanced so the assignment of more space for tankage would likely

result in another feature of the ship (power, HVAC, electrical generation, fuel and potable

water capacity, fire fighting & damage control, storage, itinerary length, speed, turning radius, depth in the water, and so on) to be compromised. The only practical method, although not usually feasible, to increase tankage is to lengthen the vessel.

Providing additional tank space also means holding water for longer periods of time, potentially creating a problem with bacterial growth. Waste-water treatment systems greatly

reduce, but do not eliminate, bacteria. Even though the level of bacteria is very low, when

that water sits in storage under wet and warm conditions there is the potential for regrowth. Storage of treated black water under these conditions is corrosive and can adversely affect ship structure, integrity and stability, potentially leading to safety concerns

under the Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).

The ECC noted that waste-water holding capacity varies from ship to ship and is dependent

on a number of design and operational factors that influence the capability. ECC member

lines are reviewing their operational practices and will investigate optimizing the holding and

treatment arrangements for the 2009 season. Where feasible, practicable and in the best interests of the environment, their lines will discharge effluent ashore. All of the foregoing activities by the ECC rely upon adequate port waste reception facilities being available (ECC,

2009b).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

39 (66)

6 Supplier inquiry in May 2008 (new chapter)

VTT’s commission in this report update was to investigate the availability of on-board sewage treatment plants that are capable of reducing discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus. The

availability of such systems was studied by sending an inquiry to established suppliers of different kinds of solutions for water purification on-board ships.

The aim of the inquiry was to gather information concerning the availability and estimated

costs of on-board waste-water treatment plants for the case study ship. The case study ship is

a cruiser with a passenger capacity of 2,500 persons and a staff of 800 persons. The wastewater load (black and grey) is estimated to be 185 litres per person per day, and the ship is

equipped with a vacuum toilet system. Both black and grey waste waters are to be treated onboard. The plant must be capable of reducing nitrogen (ammonium and total N) and phosphorus (soluble total P) loads from the sewage. The reduction rate [%] or target level [mg/l] was

asked to be indicated.

The letter of inquiry, attached to the end of this report, was sent by e-mail to 13 companies

listed in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. The contact list used in the supplier inquiry.

Company Contact person E-mail

Aqua-Pure Ventures (NO) Ivar Solvi ivar.solvi@salsnes-filter.no

Evac (FI) Jari Jokela jari.jokela@evac.zodiac.com

Dynamic Design (FI) Markku Saarikangas markku.saarikangas@gmail.com

GEWATER Leo Pearce leo.pearce@ge.com

Gertsen & Olufsen (DK) Jakob le Fevre jaf@g-o.dk

HAMANN AG (DE) Volker Jautelat vjautelat@hamannag.com

Hamworthy (UK) Martin Bentley mbentley@hamworthy.com

Hansun No contact person info@hansun-marine.com

Hydroxyl Systems (CAN) Steve DePoli sdepoli@hydroxyl.com

Triton-Format (FR) Henri Vuillermoz henri.vuillermoz@triton-format.com

Triqua (NL) No contact person info@triqua.nl

Veolia / Krüger WABAG / RWO Peter Boney peter.boney@veoliawater.com

Zenon, Part of GE’s Water & Process Technologies Business

Peter Ohle peter.ohle@ge.com

The cover note for the inquiry was as follows:

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (www.vtt.fi/) has a commission from the ad hoc HELCOM

Correspondence Group to investigate the availability of on-board sewage treatment plants that are

capable of reducing discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus.

The aim of this enquiry is to gather information concerning the availability and estimated costs of onboard waste-water treatment plants for the case study ship. In addition all the views and comments

related to on-board waste-water treatment plants you may have are welcome.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

40 (66)

The results of this inquiry will be distributed to the HELCOM Correspondence Group in order to support its decision making.

We would appreciate it if you could respond to the attached inquiry by 9 May 2008. If you need more

information relevant to this inquiry, do not hesitate to contact VTT.

6.1 Results

As a result of the inquiry only a limited amount of information was received concerning the

availability of sewage treatment plants that are capable of reducing discharges of nutrients.

Apparently, sewage treatment plants currently on the market are not specifically designed for

this purpose. Three companies out of eleven replied to the inquiry, and the replies from Evac,

Veolia and HAMANN AG are presented below. Only Evac provided a comprehensive response to the inquiry, while the other two replies did not contain detailed information.

6.1.1 Evac

Evac is a company that designs, manufactures and markets environmentally friendly waste

and waste-water collection and treatment solutions for the marine industry worldwide. It provided a rather detailed quotation as part of its reply to the inquiry.

The quotation is a copy of a 3,300 people cruise vessel quote, modified for the purposes of the

inquiry.

General presentation of the Evac MBR process (Evac, 2008)

The Evac MBR is a single-stream advanced waste-water treatment system where all the waste

streams are treated in one process. The Evac MBR is based on effective equalizing and mixing of the incoming waste streams, pretreatment by screens, an aerated biotank and a membrane bioreactor. In this proposal, a nutrient-removal step is added to the basic process.

Figure 6-1. Basic principle of the Evac MBR single-stream process (Evac, 2008).

The Evac MBR process is fully automated and controlled through a PLC by vacuum/pressure

switches, level switches, DO, TSS and pH sensors, flow meters and foam detectors. Membranes are of a submerged type, supplied by the Japanese company Kubota.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

41 (66)

Description of design data and performance

Please note this remark from Evac: The Evac MBR process is designed by using Evac knowhow on waste-water concentrations. In the Evac calculation there is also an approximately

30% “built-in” redundancy for the different waste-water characteristics between different

ships and waste-water fluctuations. It should also be noted that a typical waste-water amount

per person on a cruise ship is 250 litres/person/day (the calculation is based on a requested

185 litres/person/day).

The Evac process is calculated for following hydraulic loading:

 Black: 3,300 people * 15 litres/day = 49.5 m3/day

 Galley: 3,300 people * 32 litres/day = 105.6 m3/day

 Food waste: 3,300 people * 3 litres/day = 9.9 m3/day

 Accommodation grey water 3,300 people * 110 litres = 363 m3/day

 Laundry water 3,300 people * 25 litres = 82.5 m3/day

Total daily nominal flow = 610.5 m3/day.

The expected effluent BOD and TSS values are below 10 mg/l. On-board tests show that effluent from the Evac membrane process fulfils all current and future limits.

The expected nutrient concentrations of effluent are:

Nitrogen: < 10 mg/l

Phosphorus: < 0.5 mg/l

Note: The limit set for the municipal waste-water plant in Viikinmäki (Helsinki) for total

phosphorus is 0.3 mg/l (City of Helsinki, 2008). The limit for nitrogen was not given as such,

but in 2004 the nitrogen concentration in cleaned water in Helsinki was 6 mg/l on average. In

2004, the phosphorus concentration in cleaned water in Helsinki was 0.33 mg/l on average

(Helsingin Vesi, 2004).

Price

The price for one complete turnkey Evac AWP system is around 3-3.5 M€ per ship set. The

installation is approximately 50% of the cost (turnkey retrofit).

Operational costs for 3,300 pax AWP

The estimated annual operational costs (including electric power, chemical, membrane and

filter consumption, labour costs) are around 153,000 €. The major overhaul costs for an as-
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

42 (66)

sumed 30 years’ lifetime of the vessel, including costs of membrane replacement every 10

years (i.e. twice), are about 686,000 € (Evac, 2008).

6.1.2 Veolia

Krüger WABAG is part of Veolia Water, the Water Division of Veolia Environment, which is

the world's leading water services company. It specializes in water treatment managed services for municipal and industrial customers. Through Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies and its subsidiaries, it is also the world leader in engineering, design and execution of

construction projects for turnkey facilities and water treatment plants.

Of all German companies, Krüger WABAG is the one that can cite the largest number of references in the area of membrane technology for both drinking water and waste-water treatment facilities. As a manufacturer-independent plant construction company, Krüger WABAG

has used in its plants both cross-flow and flat-sheet membranes from different manufacturers.

To ensure that outflow values for marine waste-water treatment plants continuously and

safely meet the most up-to-date and stringent guidelines (Alaska and MARPOL clear water

standards) the MEMROD® system is being successfully used on a variety of different ship

types. The innovative aspect of this technology is its use of membranes, which are directly

incorporated into a sludge reactor.

The MEMROD® LT technology is based on the WSMS process and was specifically adapted

to conditions on ships. The MEMROD® LT technology ideally combines the advantages of

the biological treatment of black and grey waste water as well as galley waste water with the

benefits of the micro-filtration process. The arrangement of the filter elements in the reactor

constitutes a reliable, space-saving and gentle method of filtrating waste water following the

biological degradation of its contaminants. The process thus ensures that the effluent figures

not only meet the Alaska levels, but also are significantly and permanently below those levels.

This gives operators the confidence that they will safely meet all likely future legislation and

provides them with a performance level that is far better than what conventional waste-water

treatment technologies can offer.

For almost ten years, the MEMROD® LT technology has been established under the name of

"WSMS" as a purification process in land-based municipal and industrial waste-water treatment facilities, where it has proved very successful. The effluent quality is so high that the

treated waste water can be reused in industrial processes without any problem.

Veolia’s waste-water treatment plants for ships sold until now were not designed to reduce

nitrogen and phosphorus because it was not necessary but they are generally able to do so.

Veolia has experience in land-based waste-water treatment plants for more than 40 years,

where the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus is normal. With small adaptations of the

treatment plants for ships, reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus is possible (Veolia, 2008).

6.1.3 HAMANN AG

The reply from HAMANN AG was short and contained only this information (HAMANN,

2008):

We are a manufacturer and supplier of sewage treatment systems, which are certified in accordance

with the current and future regulations such as IMO MARPOL (MEPC 115(51) and 159(55)), Alaska or

Miami Dade, but to my knowledge we never got an official value for nitrogen and phosphorus. This

was not necessary up to now.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

43 (66)

6.2 Other relevant information

The HELCOM Correspondence Group members were also asked to make inquiries about the

availability of sewage treatment plants capable of reducing discharges of nutrients (nitrogen

and phosphorus). In addition, inquiries on the subject were made from the CLIA. The following comments were obtained from various countries and from the CLIA.

Comments from Germany

Sewage treatment plants using advanced membrane technologies are available on the market

for use on-board ships. These plants are mainly used on-board modern passenger ships. Although these treatment plants are also capable of reducing the discharge load of nutrients by

their biological processing, the reduction capacity has to our information never yet been tested

on-board ships.

Such systems are known as so-called “de-nitrification treatment plants” and are used according to our information only in land-based municipal installations.

The common sewage treatment plant on-board ships (3-chamber biological treatment plant) is

not able to significantly reduce the nutrients in the discharge line. Therefore any future requirements should only apply to new passenger ships and RoRo passenger ferries.

As an alternative, the sewage from these ships and also from cargo ships may be delivered to

the PRFs.

Denmark and Sweden replied that they have no specific information of on-board systems

that are capable of reducing nutrients.

Answer from the CLIA and the ECC:

The technology is coming, but is not yet here, to practically remove all nitrogen and phosphorus from grey and black waters.

 Some advanced waste-water systems remove these as a by-product of their operations

and we welcome information from land-based treatment plants as to how successful

they are in removing these from waste water.

 The CLIA has advised waste-water treatment manufacturers of our desire for systems

to remove nitrogen and phosphorus and we await news of their progress.

 Ships are working with vendors to minimize the amount of phosphorus in cleaning

products (laundry soap, ware washing soap, housekeeping supplies) as part of the continual improvement processes required by their environmental management system

(EMS) (Collins, 2008).

The ECC mentioned in its response that reduction of nutrients is one of the ongoing projects

with pilot plants and full-scale tests. ECC members are also investigating nutrient reduction

options at source and are looking to optimize operational practices to reduce nutrient levels in

effluent discharges. The ECC also has serious doubts both economically and technically on

retrofit applications based on the figures presented for retrofit applications. From prior experience, the ECC considers it very ambitious that effluent of < 10 mg/l for nitrogen and <0.5

mg/l for phosphorus would be achieved with the currently available AWP systems (ECC,

2009b).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

44 (66)

7 Ship-borne nutrient input into surface waters (updated)

7.1 Estimated nutrient load into the Baltic Sea area

The nutrient load calculations are based on the data collected from ports, shipowners and

various references. As a result, it can be concluded that there are substantial fluctuations in the

different studies and data collected. The aim of the calculations is to provide order-ofmagnitude information regarding the nutrient load originating from ships in the Baltic Sea

area.

The ship-borne nutrient load calculations are estimations of the current situation in the Baltic

Sea area. The calculations in Table 7-1 are based on the following assumptions described as a

theoretical worst case scenario:

 for ferries, 458 million passengers annually, average duration of 49 hours for one voyage

 for cruisers, 250 cruises annually, 3,000 passengers for each cruise, average duration of

10 days for one cruise

 for cargo vessels, 584,000 vessels annually (1,600 daily10), crew 15, average duration

one day

 no waste water treatment on-board (0% reduction of N and P)

 all waste waters discharged into the sea

 nitrogen load 15 g/person/day and phosphorus load 5 g/person/day.

The coefficients for nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) have been defined in RIL (2003) as: the

nitrogen content in sewage water is 12–15 g/person/day and the phosphorus content is 3–5

g/person/day.

Kirscmann et al. (1995) suggest that the nutrient load of human urine is 2.5–4.3 kg nitrogen

per person per year (6.85–11.78 g/person/day), and 0.7–1.0 kg phosphorus per person per year

(1.92–2.74 g/person/day). Additionally, the nutrient load of human faeces is 0.5–0.7 nitrogen

per person per year (1.37-1.92 g/person/day) and 0.3-0.5 phosphorus per person per year

(0.82–1.37 g/person/day). Thus, the nutrient load caused by human waste water would be

around 8.22–13.7 g/person/day for nitrogen, and 2.74–4.11 g/person/day for phosphorus.

In SSPA (1994) it was concluded that 70 million passengers in 1993 could have discharged

about 132 tonnes of nitrogen and 33 tonnes of phosphorus into the Baltic Sea. It appears that the

figure used for passengers in the SSPA study includes both departing and arriving passengers.

8

 Around 90 million passengers, calculated both in departing and arriving port.

9

 Reference, SSPA Maritime Consulting AB. 1994. Discharges of sewage and grey water from passenger ships

in the Baltic Sea area.

10 Reference: HELCOM, 2005. Overview of the ship traffic in the Baltic Sea.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

45 (66)

Table 7-1. Nutrient input into the Baltic Sea from airborne and water-borne sources and from

ships.

Nitrogen

[tonnes/year] [%]

Phosphorus

[tonnes/year] [%]

Atmospheric deposition (HELCOM, 2005) 11 264,100 26.1652 - 0

Water-borne input (HELCOM, 2005) 11 744,900 73.7995 34,500 99.6568

Ship-borne nutrient load (SSPA, 1994) 132 - 33 -

Ship-borne nutrient load (Knuuttila, 2006) 438 99

Ship-borne nutrient load

 ferries

 cruisers

 cargo vessels, incl. tankers

356

113

113

131

0.0353 119

38

38

44

0.3432

Total load 1,009,356 100 34,619 100

26.1652 %

73.7995 %

0.0353 %

Atmospheric Water-borne Ship-borne nutrient load (theoretical worst case scenario)

Figure 7-1. Total nitrogen input into the Baltic Sea.

99.6568 %

0.3432 %

Water-borne Ship-borne nutrient load (theoretical worst case scenario)

Figure 7-2. Total phosphorus input into the Baltic Sea.

11 From the HELCOM countries in 2000.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

46 (66)

The figures in Table 7-1 indicate that the nutrient input from ships’ waste waters corresponds

to about 0.0353% of the total nitrogen nutrient input (Figure 7-1) and 0.3432% of the total

phosphorus input (Figure 7-2) into the Baltic Sea based on the data in the references and calculations conducted in this study. The airborne phosphorus has been estimated to be about 1–

5% of the total phosphorus input (HELCOM, 2005).

The coefficients for the nitrogen and phosphorus load may fluctuate in different countries. For

example, in Denmark the coefficient of nitrogen is 12 g/person/day and the coefficient of

phosphorus is 2.7 g/person/day. If these values are used in the calculation, the nitrogen input

into the Baltic Sea corresponds to about 0.0282% of the total nitrogen input and the phosphorus input to about 0.186% of the total phosphorus input.

In the scenario where all the ferries and cruisers operating in the Baltic Sea area would collect

their waste waters on-board vessels and utilize the PRFs, the ship-borne nutrient load (Table

7-1) would decrease by around 63% (nitrogen and phosphorus). Correspondingly, the reduction rate in the Gulf of Finland (Table 7-2) would be around 90% for nitrogen and around

88% for phosphorus.

Additionally, the ECC provided valuable reference information concerning the nutrient load

from cruise ships in the Baltic Sea area. In the ECC study it was concluded that 12

g/person/day for nitrogen and 3 g/person/day for phosphorus would be appropriate nutrient

loads based on a study performed by the Ecological Sanitation Research in Sweden. The ECC

study also used actual data on ships, which allowed more accurate determination of the cruise

complement (defined as crew + maximum passengers) volumes.

In the ECC study it was calculated as 6.15 million days from 288 voyages using 63 ships with

complement range from 154 to 4,813. According to the results the estimated nutrient load

from cruise ships is 74 tonnes/year of nitrogen and 18 tonnes/year of phosphorus, which

equals 0.007% for nitrogen and 0.052% for phosphorus from the total load. Consequently, the

ECC study suggests that the passenger figures and the nutrient loads applied in the VTT estimations are too high and therefore lower figures should have been utilized (ECC, 2009b).

7.2 Estimated nutrient load into the Gulf of Finland

In order to estimate the nutrient load originating from ships’ waste waters, a closer look at the

Gulf of Finland was conducted. According to HELCOM (2005), the total phosphorus input

into the Gulf of Finland area is around 5,370 tonnes and the total input of nitrogen is around

126,482 tonnes.

The nutrient load into the Gulf of Finland originating from ships’ waste waters (Table 7-2)

was estimated utilizing the following assumptions:

 for ferries, 512 million passengers annually, average duration of 413 hours for one voyage

 for cruisers, 250 cruises annually, 3,000 passengers per cruise and average duration of 3

days

12 Around 10 million passengers, calculated both departing from and arriving at port.

13 Reference, SSPA Maritime Consulting AB. 1994. Discharges of sewage and grey water from passenger ships

in the Baltic Sea area.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

47 (66)

 for cargo vessels, 26,600 vessels annually (73 vessels daily14), crew 15, average duration one day

 no waste-water treatment on-board (0% reduction of N and P)

 all waste waters discharged into the sea

 nitrogen load 15 g/person/day and phosphorus load 5 g/person/day.

Table 7-2. The estimated nutrient load originating from ships’ waste waters into the Gulf of

Finland.

Nitrogen

[tonnes/year] [%]

Phosphorus

[tonnes/year] [%]

Atmospheric deposition (HELCOM, 2005) 15 31,621 24,9901 0 0

Water-borne input (HELCOM, 2005) 15 94,861 74,9686 5,370 99,6768

Ship-borne nutrient load

 ferries

 cruisers

 cargo vessels, incl. tankers

52

13

34

6

0,0413 17

4

11

3

0,3232

Total load 126,534 100 5,387 100

24.9901 %

74.9686 %

0.0413 %

Atmospheric Water-borne Ship-borne nutrient load (theoretical worst case scenario)

Figure 7-3. Total ship-borne nitrogen input into the Gulf of Finland area.

14 Reference: Sonninen, 2006.

15 From the HELCOM countries in 2000.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

48 (66)

99.6768 %

0.3232 %

Water-borne Ship-borne nutrient load (theoretical worst case scenario)

Figure 7-4. Total ship-borne phosphorus input into the Gulf of Finland area.

As a result of the estimation, it can be concluded that waste water originating from ships corresponds to 0.0413% of the total nitrogen input (Figure 7-3) and 0.3232% of the total phosphorus input (Figure 7-4) into the Gulf of Finland area.

It must be emphasized that the theoretical worst-case scenario normally applies to cargo vessels and cruisers, which represent a small proportion of the estimated passenger figures. According to the data received, the major passenger/car ferries collect their waste waters in holding tanks and utilize the reception facilities provided by ports. The rules concerning the discharge of sewage are presented in Chapter 9.

Pleasure craft were not included in the calculations since no updated information concerning

the nutrient load from pleasure craft was available. The latest available data were from the

beginning of the 1990s and included inland waters and sea areas in both Finland and Sweden

(Knuuttila, 2006).

7.3 Nutrient load from ship-borne waste waters compared with

other sources of nutrients in the Baltic Sea

When comparing the nutrient load originating from ship-borne waste waters, it is also relevant

to be conscious of the fact that the exhaust gases from ships contributed 6% (equal to around

16,760 tonnes/year) of the total atmospheric deposition of nitrogen in the Baltic Sea in 2000

(Figure 5-5). Data on the deposition from shipping are based on the emissions in only one

year (1990).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

49 (66)

Figure 7-5. Proportion of atmospheric deposition of nitrogen in the Baltic Sea by HELCOM contributions in 2000. Note that the data ships’ emissions only exist for 1990 and the same values

have been used for all subsequent years (HELCOM, 2005).

Wahlström et al. (2006) refer to technologies for reducing emissions from ships, such as reduction by internal engine adjustments and engine process modifications, after-treatment

technologies and alternative fuels and energy sources.

The municipal waste-water plant in Helsinki Viikinmäki deals with waste waters from

750,000 citizens in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area in compliance with the requirements set

by the authorities. The limit for total phosphorus is 0.3 mg/l, and there is no set limit for total

nitrogen in the Environmental Permit (City of Helsinki, 2008). In 2004, the nitrogen concentration in treated water in Helsinki was 6 mg/l on average (Helsingin Vesi, 2004). The following effluent rates for nitrogen and phosphorus into the Baltic Sea were achieved in 2005 (City

of Helsinki, 2006):

 nitrogen (89% reduction): 1.7 g/person/day (equals to 479 tonnes/year)

 phosphorus (97% reduction): 0.1 g/person/day (equals to 24 tonnes/year).

According to the reference (Helsingin Vesi, 2007) the phosphorus load was 20 tonnes and nitrogen load 512 tonnes to the Gulf of Finland in 2007.

Nutrient loads from other municipal waste-water plants are presented in Table 7-3. When

comparing nitrogen and phosphorus loads from the four coastal cities in Finland with ships’

waste-water releases into the Gulf of Finland (Table 5-2), it can be concluded that the annual

nitrogen load from the coastal cities presents a much higher amount while the phosphorus

load appears to be about the same.

Knuuttila (2006) estimates that a ship with 2,000 passengers generates phosphorus load of 2

tonnes and a nitrogen load of 9 tonnes annually.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

50 (66)

Table 7-3. Nitrogen and phosphorus loads from coastal cities in the Gulf of Finland in 2005.

Locality Nitrogen load

[tonnes/year]

Phosphorus load

[tonnes/year] Population

City of Hamina 66 0.9 22,000

City of Kotka 189 3.1 53,000

City of Porvoo 48 1.4 37,000

City of Espoo 439 15.5 295,000

Total 742 20.9 407,000

Ship-borne nutrient load into

the Gulf of Finland 65 22 -

It should also be noted that fish farming contributes 1% (equal to 10.090 tonnes of nitrogen

and 345 tonnes of phosphorus) of all the nutrient input into the Baltic Sea area. In Finland,

3% of the phosphorus load and 2% of the nitrogen load originates from fish farming (Varjopuro, 2000). According to Knuuttila (2006), the nutrient load from fish farming in Finland

in 2005 was 688 tonnes of nitrogen and 85 tonnes of phosphorus, which mainly ended up

straight into the Baltic Sea. Regional and local fish farming may have a significant consequence.

The outlet pipes from municipal waste-water treatment plants are significant point sources

while waste waters from ships create a line load along shipping channels. In addition, the nutrients from ships’ waste waters are immediately available for uptake by blue–green algae.

Minimum requirements have been set for municipality waste-water treatment plants (Table

7-4). The values concerning the concentrations of total phosphorus and nitrogen refer to inhabitant equivalent.

Table 7-4. The minimum requirements for waste-water effluent from municipal waste-water

treatment plants in Finland (RIL, 2003).

Parameter

Concentration

[mg/l]

Reduction rate min.

[%]16

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD7

in 20°C without nitrification) 30 70

Chemical Oxygen Demand (O2) 125 75

Solids 35 9017

Total phosphorus 2 (10,000–100,000)

1 (> 100,000) 80

Total nitrogen 15 (10,000–100,000)

10 (> 100,000) 70

The Council of State in Finland has set the statute in order to reduce discharges from domestic

waste waters and pollution of the environment. According to the statute (542/2003), the load

from domestic waste waters must be reduced by 90% concerning organic matter (BOD7), 85%

concerning total phosphorus and 40% concerning total nitrogen compared with the untreated

waste water. The statute applies to waste waters that originated from areas outside municipal

water supply and sewerage systems. It is possible that in the future discharge limits of nitrogen and phosphorus will be set for waste-water treatment systems on-board ships.

16 Calculated from load entering the waste-water treatment plant.

17 Concentration and reduction rate are optional.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

51 (66)

8 Uncertainties and data gaps (updated)

At the beginning of this study the ports and shipowners were sent an inquiry concerning the

traffic flows in 2005. The purpose of the inquiry was to determine the current passenger numbers and the waste-water reception facilities in the Baltic Sea area. Unfortunately, the response rate to both inquiries was low, so the current passenger amount had to be estimated on

the basis of source material. It was also impossible to estimate the relationship between the

received waste water and the total waste-water accumulation from cargo and passenger traffic.

The cargo ship companies did not respond to the inquiry at all, so the average journey time in

the Baltic Sea had to be estimated based on the information available from various references.

The average journey time for passenger ships in the Baltic Sea could be calculated from the

responses.

While inadequate information was available for nutrient load calculations, several assumptions were made during the execution of the project. Nutrient load factors were based on the

coefficients that are used for onshore waste treatment plants. The number of passengers was

estimated utilizing several references and data received from ports. The average duration of

one voyage was estimated based on SSPA (1994) and the responses received from ports. The

number of cruisers and the duration of one cruise are based on the data obtained from ports

and shipping companies. The number of cargo vessels and the number of crew are based on

the HELCOM data. In addition, it was assumed that no reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus

would be achieved and that all waste water originating from ships would be discharged directly into the sea. As a result of the several assumptions discussed above, a theoretical worstcase scenario was generated. This scenario normally applies to cargo vessels and cruisers

since, according to the references; the major passenger ships do not discharge waste waters

into the sea.

In the follow-up study, the intention was to determine the current situation of the waste-water

reception facilities and their usage in the Baltic ports. Also, the availability and estimated

costs of on-board sewage treatment plants capable of reducing discharges of nitrogen and

phosphorus were investigated. The means used in the investigation were inquiries made by

the ad hoc HELCOM Correspondence Group and the authors of this report from VTT.

Information about the PRFs, their usage and problems related to PRFs were received from

only a few countries in the Baltic Sea area. In addition, the CLIA and the ECC shared their

opinions on the subject, providing important information about how the users of the facilities

perceive these things. Unfortunately, the response rate to the supplier inquiry was poor; only

one supplier gave an extensive quotation containing the sought data on the target level of nutrients as well as the estimated costs of the treatment system. As the removal of nutrients is

not yet required, the solutions are scarce.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

52 (66)

9 Waste-water legislation

The environmental regulations for shipping can be divided into the following levels:

 international regulations and conventions (MARPOL)

 regional conventions (Helsinki Convention, EU directives)

 national legislation

 local regulations and recommendations.

9.1 International regulations and conventions

Revised Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78. Regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships

The United Nations International Maritime Organization (IMO) sets international maritime

vessel safety and marine pollution standards. Based in London, the IMO comprises representatives from 152 major maritime nations. The IMO has adopted the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships, as modified by the Protocol of 1978. This

Convention is known as MARPOL 73/78. The MARPOL Convention contains protocol articles and six technical annexes. The original MARPOL protocol was signed on 17 February

1973, but never entered into force. The current protocol is a combination of two treaties (1973

and 1978), and over the years has been modified by many amendments. It entered into force

on 2 October 1983.

The revised annex IV of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention and its later amendments concern

the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships. The national legislation that regulates the

prevention of pollution by sewage from ships in the Baltic countries is based on the content of

the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. All Baltic Sea countries are parties to the Convention

(Wikipedia, 2006).

The regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships apply to the following

ships that are engaged in international voyages:

 new ships of 400 gross tonnage and above

 new ships of less than 400 gross tonnage that are certified to carry more than 15 persons.

Five years after the new annex entered into force (1st of August 2005), the regulations also

applied to existing ships of 400 gross tonnages and above, and existing ships of less than 400

gross tonnage that are certified to carry more than 15 persons.

According to Regulation 9, every ship shall be equipped with one of the following systems:

 a sewage treatment plant

 a sewage comminuting and disinfecting system for the temporary storage of sewage

when the ship is less than 3 nautical miles from the nearest land
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

53 (66)

 a holding tank of sufficient capacity for the retention of all sewage, having regard to the

operation of the ship, the number of persons on-board and other relevant factors.

Standard dimensions for the discharge connections are presented in Regulation 10.

Discharge of sewage into the sea is prohibited in Regulation 11 of MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV

with the following exceptions:

 The ship is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using a system approved

by administration at a distance of more than 3 nautical miles from the nearest land, or

sewage which is not comminuted or disinfected at a distance of more than 12 nautical

miles from the nearest land, provided that, in any case, the sewage that has been stored

in holding tanks shall not be discharged instantaneously but at a moderate rate when the

ship is en route and proceeding at not less than 4 knots; the rate of discharge shall be

approved by the Administration based upon standards developed by the Organization.

 The ship has in operation an approved sewage treatment plant that has been certified by

the Administration to meet the operational requirements and the test results of the plant

are laid down in the ship’s International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate. Additionally, the effluent shall not produce visible floating solids nor cause discoloration of

the surrounding water.

Regulation 11 shall not apply to the discharge of sewage from a ship necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship and those on-board or saving life at sea, or the discharge

of sewage resulting from damage to a ship or its equipment if all reasonable precautions have

been taken before and after the occurrence of the damage for the purpose of preventing or

minimizing the discharge.

In 2006 the IMO’s sub-committee on bulk liquids and gases has made amendments to MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV Regulation 11 concerning the discharge of sewage to include un-treated

sewage from spaces containing live animals (IMO, 2006):

 A standard rate of discharge of untreated and undiluted sewage from holding tanks of

1/200,000 of hourly swept volume as a maximum permissible discharge, which should

apply to all ships, and a swept volume definition for the discharge of un-treated and undiluted sewage from holding tanks that is not comminuted or disinfected as “ship

breadth x draught x distance travelled”.

 The standard rate for the discharge does not apply to sewage that is comminuted or disinfected that may be held in holding tanks.

 No recording requirements for sewage discharges under Regulation 11.1.1 of the revised MARPOL Annex IV are necessary.

Marine Environment Protection Committee: International effluent standards and guidelines for performance tests for sewage treatment plants

The Resolution of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) gives recommendations on international effluent standards and guidelines for performance tests for sewage
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

54 (66)

treatment plants / MEPC.2 (VI). The international effluent standards the sewage treatment

plant should satisfy are:

 Faecal coliform standard: the geometric mean of the faecal coliform count of the samples of the effluent taken during the test period should not exceed 250 faecal coliforms/100 ml M.P.N (most probable number) as determined by a multiple tube fermentation analysis or an equivalent analytical procedure.

 Suspended solids standard:

a) Where the equipment is tested onshore, the geometric mean of the total suspended solids content of the samples of effluent taken during the test period shall

not exceed 50 mg/l.

b) Where the equipment is tested aboard ship, the geometric mean of the total suspended solids content of the samples of effluent taken during the test period shall

be not more than 100 mg/l above the suspended solids content of ambient water

used for flushing purposes.

In addition, the plant should be so designed that the geometric mean of 5–6 day biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD5) of the samples of effluent taken during the test period does not exceed 50 mg/l. The test standards for sewage treatment plants are given for onshore under

shipboard simulated conditions or on-board ship under actual operating conditions.

In 2006 the IMO’s sub-committee on bulk liquids and gases made amendments to resolution

MEPC.2 (VI) (IMO, 2006). The current effluent standards the sewage treatment plant should

satisfy are:

 The geometric mean of the thermotolerant coliform count of the samples of effluent

taken during the test period should not exceed 100 thermotolerant coli-forms/100 ml as

determined by membrane filter, multiple tube fermentation or an equivalent analytical

procedure.

 The geometric mean of the total suspended solids content of the samples of effluent

taken during the test period shall not exceed 35 mg/l.

 Where the sewage treatment plant is tested on-board a ship, the geometric mean of the

total suspended solids content of the samples of effluent taken during the test period

shall not be more than 70 mg/l above the suspended solids content of ambient water

used for flushing purposes.

 The sewage treatment plant shall be designed to reduce both soluble and insoluble organic substances to meet the requirement that the geometric mean of 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) of the samples of effluent taken during the test period does not exceed 25 mg/l and the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) does not exceed 125 mg/l. Appropriate methods may include COD Manganese and/or COD Chromium.

 The pH of the samples of effluent taken during the test period shall be between 6 and

8.5.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

55 (66)

Concerning the raw sewage quality, the effluent concentration of total suspended solids

should be no less than 500 mg/l in the on-board and onshore testing. It should be noted, that

the nutrient concentration of treated sewage is still not limited.

9.2 Regional conventions (Helsinki Convention, EU directives)

HELCOM recommendations

HELCOM has given guidelines on the sewage treatment systems and the capacity calculation

of sewage treatment systems on-board passenger ships (Recommendation 11/10).

HELCOM has made amendments to Annex IV “Prevention of pollution from ships” to the

Helsinki Convention (HELCOM, 1992b). The amendments place an obligation on Contracting Parties to apply the provisions of Annex I-V of MARPOL 73/78. Additionally, it includes

some requirements for ships other than those referred to in Regulation 2 of Annex IV to

MARPOL 73/78. The instructions to report inadequacies of reception facilities for sewage are

presented in the HELCOM Recommendation 10/6 (HELCOM, 1989).

HELCOM Recommendation 26/1 regards the application of the no-special-fee-system for

ship-borne wastes in the Baltic Sea area. The guidelines were adopted in 2005. The “nospecial-fee” system constitutes a system with the dual purpose of encouraging ships to deliver

waste ashore and to avoid undesirable waste streams between ports, thereby encouraging a

sound sharing of the waste burden. The no-special-fee system is one of the prerequisites for a

substantial reduction in the number of operational and illegal discharges and thus for the prevention of pollution of the marine environment from ships. HELCOM recommends that the

governments of the Contracting Parties aim to establish a harmonized “no-special-fee” system

for the operation of reception facilities in their ports as of 1 January 2000 for ship-borne

wastes covered by Annex I (oily wastes from machinery spaces) to MARPOL 73/78 and as of

1 January 2006 for wastes covered by Annex IV (sewage) and Annex V (garbage) to MARPOL 73/78. According to HELCOM, the governments of the Contracting Parties should also

support or seek active co-operation with the North Sea States for the purpose of establishing a

similar “no-special-fee” system in the North Sea Region (HELCOM, 2005).

Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000

on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues – Commission declaration

The purpose of the Directive is to reduce the discharges of ship-generated waste and cargo

residues into the sea, especially illegal discharges, from ships using ports in the Community,

by improving the availability and use of PRFs for ship-generated waste and cargo residues,

thereby enhancing the protection of the marine environment. The Directive applies to all

ships, including fishing vessels and recreational craft, irrespective of their flag, calling at, or

operating within, a port of a Member State, with the exception of any warship, naval auxiliary

or other ship owned or operated by a State and used, for the time being, only on government

non-commercial service; and all ports of the Member States normally visited by ships. According to the Directive, Member States shall ensure the availability of PRFs adequate to meet

the needs of the ships normally using the port without causing undue delay to ships.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

56 (66)

9.3 Examples of national legislation

As mentioned before, the regulations concerning the prevention of pollution by sewage from

ships in Finland and Sweden are based on the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. In Finland the

valid decree on preventing water contamination caused by ship traffic in Finnish waters came

into force in 1993. In Sweden a similar valid decree is presented in the Statutes of the Swedish Maritime Administration (SJÖFS 2005:8), dated 2005 (SJÖFS, 2005).

9.4 Local regulations and voluntary measures

Cruise industry waste management practices and procedures

The members of International Council of Cruise Lines are committed to protecting the environment by using waste management technologies and procedures. In the case of grey water,

ICCL member lines have agreed that grey water will only be discharged while the ship is underway and proceeding at a speed of not less than 6 knots; that grey water will not be discharged in port and will not be discharged within 4 nautical miles of the shore or such other

distance as agreed to with the authorities having jurisdiction or provided for by local law experts in an emergency, or where geographically limited. Member lines have further agreed

that the discharge of grey water will comply with all applicable laws and regulations. ICCL

members have agreed that all black water will be processed through a marine sanitation device, certified in accordance with US or international regulations, prior to discharge. Discharge will only take place when the ship is more than 4 miles from shore and when the ship

is travelling at a speed of not less than 6 knots (ICCL, 2005).
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

57 (66)

10 Future scenarios (updated)

The EU’s White Paper on Transport includes an intention to develop maritime transport to

become more competitive as a transport alternative and to integrate maritime transport into

the whole transport chain in a more efficient way. Some estimates of the future freight flows

in the Baltic Sea area have been presented in Baltic Maritime Outlook (2006). Transport by

sea is expected to grow by 64% between 2003 and 2020. In 2020, shipping is expected to become the leading mode of transport in international Baltic Sea regional trade, carrying 54% of

the total volume of internationally traded goods, compared with 48% in 2003.

The predicted increase in maritime transport in the Baltic Sea area is based on growing port

capacities, modernization of cargo carriers and improved environmental and safety values in

the maritime transport chain (Baltic Maritime Outlook, 2006).

COWI (1998) has estimated that the maritime traffic on the Baltic Sea will double by 2017.

The growth in general cargo and bulk traffic is assumed to triple. For oil transportation, the

growth is assumed to be only 10%, but this is probably an underestimation since oil transportation from Russia is expected to grow even more. The average annual growth rate is predicted to be 4.7% for general cargo, container, reefer and RoRo traffic, 2.2% for bulk carrier

traffic and 1.4% for oil and gas tankers. The growth in the transportation figures will not directly increase the ship call figures or use of fairways at the same rate because the average

size of the cargo vessels will also increase (Wahlström et al., 2006).

Predicting the development of passenger ship traffic is more difficult than forecasting the development of cargo traffic since there are more factors influencing the development. About

300 passenger ferries visit St Petersburg and about 200 passenger ferries visit Helsinki and

Tallinn each summer. These vessel numbers are expected to stay at the current level in the

coming years’ ship traffic forecasts. The passenger traffic on routes from Turku and Helsinki

to Stockholm and between Helsinki and Tallinn is not expected to grow any further. It is anticipated that airborne and water-borne nutrient loads will be reduced in the future due to

state-of-the-art technology implementation onshore and on-board.

In recent years the public has become more conscious of the state of the Baltic Sea. Even

though discharge of ship sewage into the sea is allowed under certain conditions (MARPOL

73/78 Annex IV), public opinion is opposed to it. For example, public pressure made the Tallink and Superfast ferries pump their sewage into the sewer network ashore (Helsingin Sanomat 29.5.2006). It is probable that discharge limits for nitrogen and phosphorus will be set for

the on-board sewage treatment systems in sensitive sea areas because a total prohibition on

discharging sewage, both treated and untreated, into the Baltic Sea might be difficult to reach.

However, research into and development of waste-water purification systems on-board ship

are needed before the system’s ability to remove nutrients corresponds to the requirements of

municipal treatment plants.

Nutrient removal is not impossible to achieve, since Evac’s MBR system comes close already. The limit set for the municipal waste-water plant in Viikinmäki (Helsinki) for total

phosphorus (0.3 mg/l) almost equals the effluent value that is expected from the Evac MBR

process (< 0.5 mg/l). There is no set limit for total nitrogen in the Environmental Permit (City

of Helsinki, 2008) but in 2004 the nitrogen concentration in cleaned water in Helsinki was 6

mg/l on average (Helsingin Vesi, 2004). The expected effluent value for nitrogen from the

Evac MBR process is 10 mg/l.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

58 (66)

11 Conclusions and recommendations (updated)

The shipping companies, shipowners and port authorities consider the environmental aspects

to be a significant competitive advantage in the future as competition for market shares in

both passenger traffic and cargo transport becomes more stringent. For example, when the

inquiry results of this study concerning the waste-water amounts pumped ashore are compared with the inquiry results of the SSPA study in 1994, it can be seen that the passenger

ports receive more waste water now than ten years ago. In the Gulf of Finland in particular,

the passenger/car ferries have started to pump their waste water ashore as a result of public

pressure. However, the cargo ships and the international cruise ships fulfil the MARPOL

73/78 requirements concerning the prevention of pollution by ships in the most economic way

by discharging their sewage directly into the sea when it is possible according to the MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV regulations.

The HELCOM recommendation (26/1) regarding the no-special-fee system has made the biggest passenger ports invest in sewer network systems at the pier for receiving the waste waters. In most of the responding ports, the black and grey water holding tanks can be emptied

into tank trucks if the ship has ordered depletion. Further investments in the reception facilities may be delayed unless the ships utilize the existing onshore waste-water reception facilities.

In this study, the nutrient load originating from ships’ waste waters was compared with the

airborne and water-borne nutrient loads. The nutrient load caused by nitrogen and phosphorus

from ship sewage is not currently regulated. The standards for ship-borne waste-water quality

only concern BOD, total suspended solids and faecal coliforms. Hence the sewage that is discharged directly into the sea increases the nutrient load in the marine environment. The nutrient load calculations were prepared for the whole of the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland.

The ship-borne nitrogen load represents approximately 0.04% of the total nitrogen load and

the phosphorus load approximately 0.3% of the total phosphorus load for both the Baltic Sea

and the Gulf of Finland. In addition, the nutrient load from ships’ exhaust gases corresponds

to 6% of the total atmospheric deposition of nitrogen in the Baltic Sea.

In the ECC study, the calculations were performed with lower nutrient load factors and passenger numbers. The results indicated that the nutrient loads from cruise ships were 0.007%

for nitrogen and 0.052% for phosphorus from the total nutrient load. The ECC study suggests

that the values used by VTT were too high.

When comparing nitrogen and phosphorus loads from four coastal cities in Finland with

ships’ waste-water releases into the Gulf of Finland it can be concluded that the annual nitrogen load from ships represents a much lower amount while phosphorus represents about the

same load as in the coastal cities.

Although different background data for the calculations were available, compared with the

references, the results appear to be consistent with other studies. The results indicate that the

main nutrient load into the Baltic Sea derives from water-borne inputs and atmospheric deposition. On the basis of the calculations and references, it can be concluded that the nutrient

load originating from ships is rather small but not negligible due to the sensitivity of the Baltic Sea marine environment. The nutrient load is concentrated along shipping routes, and immediately available for uptake by, e.g., blue–green algae, adding to the severe eutrophication

of the Baltic Sea.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

59 (66)

In addition to the ship-borne nutrient load, waste-water discharges from pleasure craft may

have a local effect on archipelago areas and near coastlines. Since pleasure craft were not included in the study, the effect of their nutrient load should also be estimated if the total nutrient load from maritime transport needs to be defined.

The vulnerable nature of the Baltic Sea area and the ever-increasing eutrophication is forcing

a reduction in the nutrient load into the sea. The nutrient load from ships is much easier to reduce, when compared with the atmospheric emissions or nutrient inputs from diffuse sources

such as agriculture, by ordering ships to discharge their sewage into the sewer network ashore

or by installing purification systems on-board. In the future, it is likely that limits will be set

for the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in ships’ waste waters to be discharged. It is

also possible that the growing environmental awareness among customers and shipowners,

and technological innovations in advanced on-board waste-water purification systems, together with public concern, may also create voluntary actions beyond the requirements

The purpose of this updated study was to provide background information for the ad hoc

HELCOM Correspondence Group regarding the possible designation of the Baltic Sea as a

special area where more stringent regulations on discharges of sewage from ships would be

applied. The main task of the Group is to estimate the effect of the new proposals for new

provisions in MARPOL Annex IV on the nutrient load of the Baltic Sea.

The intention was to determine the current situation of the waste-water reception facilities and

their usage in the Baltic ports. Also, the availability of on-board sewage treatment plants capable of reducing discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus was investigated. The means used in

the investigation were inquiries made by the ad hoc HELCOM Correspondence Group and

the authors of this report from VTT. The Correspondence Group members approached the

ports in their own countries. The availability of treatment plants was studied by sending an

inquiry to well-known suppliers of different on-board waste-water purification systems. In the

inquiry, the suppliers were asked to provide a cost estimate of on-board waste-water treatment

plants for the case study ship.

Information about PRFs, their usage and problems regarding PRFs was received only from a

few countries from the Baltic Sea area. Likewise, the response rate to the supplier inquiry was

rather poor; only one supplier gave an extensive quotation containing the sought data on the

target level of nutrients as well as the estimated costs of the treatment system. As the removal

of nutrients is not yet required, the solutions are scarce. It seems that a solution to the problem

is possible, though not necessarily cost-effective or widely available yet. Thus further improvement of waste-water purification systems on-board ship is still needed. The effluent values in the existing on-board system are already near those achieved in municipal waste-water

treatment plants but the system is rather expensive to install as a retrofit.

Discharge of sewage into PRFs may not be a big problem, and more information was sought

concerning the ability of big passenger ships to store all sewage in their tanks while sailing in

the Baltic Sea area, if it would be required that all sewage should be discharged into PRFs in

the Baltic Sea ports. The CLIA and the ECC offered valuable information and according to

them there are several things to be taken into account when considering the storage of all

sewage on-board. To provide additional tankage for sewage would require that an equal

amount of space be removed from another function on-board. The CLIA is also anxious that

storage of treated black water is corrosive and can adversely affect ship structure, integrity

and stability, potentially leading to safety concerns. Additionally, the CLIA and the ECC have

serious doubts concerning the reliability and availability of the PRF services. In general, the

cruise lines seem to be confident with their on-board treatment systems and take the utiliza-
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

60 (66)

tion of PRFs with a grain of salt. Therefore an on-board water treatment system with nutrient

removal capability could be a more suitable solution than storing the sewage on-board for discharging at port. The development of the PRFs would require a uniform approach in order to

generate solutions that could offer real- world alternatives for on-board treatment.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

61 (66)

References (updated)

Bachér, H. 2001. Environmental aspects (in Finnish: Ympäristönäkökohdat). In: Introduction

to the ship technology 16.–17.10.2001, Hanasaari, Espoo, Merenkulkualan koulutuskeskus.

BMEPC (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, Helsinki Commission). 1990.

Maritime Committee (MC), 16th Meeting (MC 16/4d). Agenda Item 4rd, Matters related to

discharges from ships, d) Sewage. Norrköping, Sweden. 18th–21st September 1990.

Baltic Maritime Outlook 2006. Goods flows and maritime infrastructure in the Baltic Sea Region.

City of Helsinki 2006. Environmental Report 2005.

City of Helsinki 2008. Environmental Report 2006.

Collins, 2008. Email from Steve Collins (scollins@cruising.org), Director Environmental and

Health Programs, Cruise Lines International Association to Saara Hänninen

(saara.hanninen@vtt.fi), on August 14, 2008, 18:11.

COWI 1998. Existing and Future Shipping through the Baltic Sea. DG1a, European Commission. de Jonge, E., Hugi, C. & Cooper, D. (2005). Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based instruments, Task 2b-NOx Abatement. Final Report.

Entec UK Limited, Northwich, England. (Retrieved from: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ environment/air/pdf/task2_nox.pdf.).

European Cruise Council (ECC). 2009a. http://www.europeancruisecouncil.com/default.html.

European Cruise Council (ECC). 2009b. Comments to the Draft VTT Report.

Dynamic Design Ltd. 2006. Company presentation material.

Eley, W. D. & Morehouse, C. H. 2003. Evaluation of new technology for shipboard wastewater treatment. In: Proceedings, Oceans 2003 Conference, Marine Technology Society, Columbia, Maryland. Pp. 748–753. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/9015/28646/ 01283364.pdf ?arnumber= 1283364.

European Sea Ports Association (ESPO). 2008. Response to the inquiry.

Evac, 2008. Email from Juha Kiukas (JKiukas@evac.zodiac.com) to Jukka Sassi (jukka.sassi@vtt.fi) on May 12, 2008. Email from Mika Karjalainen MKarjalainen@

evac.zodiac.com to Jukka Sassi (jukka.sassi@vtt.fi) on September 25, 2008.

Finnish Maritime Administration. 2008. Passagerartrafiken fördelad efter hamn åren 1973-

2007.

Hanell, T., Bengs, C., Bjarnadóttir, H. & Spiekermann, K. 2000. The Baltic Sea Region Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow – Main Spatial Trends. Nordregio, Nordic Centre for Spatial

Development.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

62 (66)

HAMANN, 2008. Email from Volker Jautelat (VJautelat@HamannAG.com) to Jukka Sassi

(Jukka.Sassi@vtt.fi) on May 9, 2008, 14:08.

HELCOM 1990. HELCOM Recommendation 11/10. Guidelines for capacity calculation of

sewage system on board passenger ships. Adopted 14 February 1990, having regard to Article

13, Paragraph b) of the Helsinki Convention.

HELCOM 1992a. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea

Area, 1992 (entered into force on 17 January 2000). Article 1, Convention Area.

http://www.HELCOM.fi/Convention/en_GB/text/#art1.

HELCOM 1992b. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea

Area, 1992 (entered into force on 17 January 2000). Annex IV, Prevention of pollution from

ships. http://www.HELCOM.fi/Convention/en_GB/annexes/#annex4.

HELCOM 2005. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission. Nutrient Pollution to the

Baltic Sea in 2000. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 100.

HELCOM 2006. Nutrient concentrations in the Baltic remain high. http://www.helcom.fi/ environment2/eutrophication/en_GB/state/.

HELCOM 1989. Application by the Baltic Sea States of a Helsinki Convention form for reporting alleged inadequacy of reception facilities for sewage. Adopted 15 February 1989 having regard to Article 13, Paragraph b) of the Helsinki Convention. http://www.HELCOM.fi/

Recommendations/en_GB/rec10_6/.

Helsingin Sanomat, 2006. 29.5.2006. Newspaper article.

Helsingin Sanomat, 2008. 14.6.2008 and 18.6.2008. Newspaper articles.

Helsingin Vesi, 2004. Yhteiskuntavastuuraportti 2004. Available online at

http://www.tippana.fi/opettajat/opetusmateriaaleja/yhteiskuntavastuu2004.pdf

Helsingin Vesi. 2007. Vuosikertomus (annual report) & yhteiskuntavastuuraportti 2007.

Hänninen S. & Rytkönen J. 2004. Oil transport and terminal development in the Gulf of Finland. VTT Publications 547. Espoo: VTT. 141 p. + app. 6 p. ISBN 951-38-6412-X; 951-38-

6413-8. http://virtual.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2004/P547.pdf.

ICCL (International Council of Cruise Lines) 2005. Industry Standard E-01-01 (Revision 2)

Cruise Industry Waste Management Practices and Procedures. Cruise industry waste management practises and procedures. Revised: November 16, 2005. Effective: January 1, 2006.

IMO 2006. Sub-Committee on bulk liquids and gases. 10th session, Agenda item 19, BLG

10/19. 30 May 2006. 7 Amendments to Resolution MEPC.2(VI).

Ionics Incorporated 2005. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF). GE Infrastructure, Water & Process

technologies formerly Ionics Incorporated, 2005. Available online at http://www.ionics.com/

technologies/daf/ index.htm
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

63 (66)

Kalli, J., Alhosalo, M., Erkkilä, A., Åkerström, J. & Sundberg, P. 2005. Ship originated air

emissions, solid waste and wastewaters – a Feasibility Study of the New Hansa Project. Publications from the Centre for Maritime studies of Turku. A 41.

Kirscmann, H., Pettersson, S. 1995. Human urine – Chemical composition and fertilizer use

efficiency. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Soil Sciences. Fertilizer Research 40: 149-154.

Kiukas, J. 2005. The treatment options of grey water and black water (Harmaan ja mustan

jäteveden käsittelyvaihtoehdot). In: The seminar Ships HPAC (heating, plumbing, air conditioning) – systems. April 27th – 28th 2005.

Knuuttila, S. 2005. Waterborne inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus. HELCOM Indicator Fact

Sheet 2005. 5.10.2006. http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/ifs/en_GB/cover/.

Knuuttila, S. 2006. Personal communication.

MARPOL 73/78. Annex IV of the protocol of 1978 relating to the international convention

for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1973, as amended by resolution MEPC.115(51).

Revised annex IV of MARPOL 73/78. Regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage

from ships.

Port of Helsinki, 2008. Annual report of Port of Helsinki 2007. Available online at

http://www.portofhelsinki.fi/content/pdf/ymparisto/raportit/VK_2007_ymparisto.pdf.

Port of Tallinn, 2008. Website of Port of Tallinn. Available online at

http://www.portoftallinn.com/?k=3&p1=8&p2=38

Resolution MEPC.2 (VI/17). Annex IV, Recommendation on international effluent standards

and guidelines for performance tests for sewage treatment plants. Adopted on 3 December

1976.

RIL 124-1-2003. Water supply and sewage, Part 1. (In Finnish: Vesihuolto I.) Helsinki: Association of Finnish Civil Engineers (Suomen Rakennusinsinöörien Liitto, RIL).

Saari, R. 2005. The address of ship’s project engineer (Laivan projekti-insinöörin puheenvuoro). In: The seminar Ships HPAC (heating, plumbing, air-conditioning) – systems. April

27th–28th 2005.

Salama, H. 2005. Sewer system on board. In: The seminar Ships HPAC (heating, plumbing,

air-conditioning) – systems. April 27th–28th 2005.

Saurama, A., Holma, E., Tammi, K. 2008. Baltic Port List 2006. Annual cargo statistics of

ports in the Baltic Sea Region. A publication from the Centre for Maritime Studies, University of Turku. ISBN 978-951-29-3625-0 (pdf).

SJÖFS 2005. Sjöfartsverkets författningssamling, SJÖFS 2005:8. SFH 2.1 Sjöfartsverkets

föreskrifter och allmänna råd om åtgärder mot förorening från fartyg. 11 kap. Toalettavfall.

Sonninen, S. 2006. Personal communication with Captain Sanna Sonninen.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

64 (66)

SSPA Maritime Consulting AB. 1994. Discharges of sewage and grey water from passenger

ships in the Baltic Sea area.

SMA (Swedish Maritime Administration). 1999. Action Plan for Maritime Transport in the

Baltic Sea Region.

The Ocean Conservancy 2002. Cruise Control, a report on how cruise ships affect the marine

environment. May 2002.

Varjopuro, R. (ed.). 2000. Tutkimus kalankasvatuksen ympäristöohjauksesta: nykytila ja kehitysnäkymiä (Environmental regulation of fish farming in Finland. Present state and development perspectives). The Finnish Environment 439. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute.

Veolia, 2008. Email from Nina Woelfel (Nina.Woelfel@veoliawater.com) to Jukka Sassi

(Jukka.Sassi@vtt.fi) on May 26, 2008, 21:49.

Vuorivirta, 2008. Phone communication with Kaarina Vuorivirta, Quality and Environment

Manager, Port of Helsinki.

Wahlström, J., Karvosenoja, N. & Porvari, P. 2006. Ship emissions and technical emission

reduction potential in the Northern Baltic Sea. Reports of Finnish Environment Institute

8/2006. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute.

Wickens, A. H., Yates, I. R. & Feilden G. B. R. 1994. Passenger Transport After 2000 AD

(Technology in the Third Millennium). Spon E & F N (UK). ISBN 0419194703.

Wikipedia 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARPOL_73/78#Parties.
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

65 (66)

Appendices

Inquiry 2008
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-07396-08

66 (66)

Inquiry 2008

To whom this may concern,

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland has a commission from the ad hoc HELCOM

Correspondence Group, via the Finnish Maritime Administration, to investigate the availability of on-board sewage treatment plants that are capable of reducing discharges of nitrogen

and phosphorus.

The history behind this is the debate concerning whether HELCOM should propose to the

IMO that Annex IV to the MARPOL 73/78 Convention (Regulations for the prevention of

pollution by sewage from ships) be amended in order to designate the Baltic Sea as a Special

Area where more stringent regulations on discharges of sewage from ships would be applied.

The aim of this inquiry is to gather information concerning the availability and estimated

costs of on-board waste-water treatment plants for the case study ship. The case study ship is

a cruiser with a passenger capacity of 2,500 persons and a staff of 800 persons. The wastewater load (black and grey) is estimated to be 185 litres per person per day, and the ship is

equipped with a vacuum toilet system. Both black and grey waste waters are to be treated onboard.

Those features are be used when estimating purchase, installation and operation costs for a

10-year period as a turnkey option. The sewage treatment plant needs to be retrofitted at a

shipyard. The plant must be capable of reducing the nitrogen (ammonium and total N) and

phosphorus (soluble total P) load from the sewage. The reduction rate [%] or target level

[mg/l] should be indicated.

In addition, all the views and comments you may have in relation to on-board waste-water

treatment plants (e.g. suitable reduction rates for N and P, installations and operations of the

plants, cost issues, etc.) are welcome.

The results of this inquiry will be distributed to the HELCOM Correspondence Group in order

to support its decision making.

We would appreciate it if you could respond to this inquiry by 9 May 2008.

If you need more information relevant to this inquiry, do not hesitate to contact VTT.

Kind Regards,

Jukka Sassi, Research Engineer, B.Sc. (Eng.)

VTT TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND

Maritime Operations and Environment

P.O. Box 1000

FI-02044 VTT, Finland

Tel. + 358 20 722 5322

Mobile + 358 50 307 5318

Fax. + 358 20 722 5888

www.vtt.fi