1 Management of Ship-Generated Food Waste and Sewage on the Baltic Sea: A

2 Review

3 Céline Vaneeckhautea,b*, Ali Fazlia

a
4 BioEngine, Research team on green process engineering and biorefineries, Chemical

5 Engineering Department, Université Laval, 1065, avenue de la Médecine, Québec, QC,

6 Canada, G1V 0A6, celine.vaneeckhaute@gch.ulaval.ca

b
7 CentrEau, Centre de recherche sur l'eau, Université Laval, 1065 Avenue de la

8 Médecine, Québec, QC, Canada, G1V 0A6

9 *Corresponding author

10 Abstract

11 The combination of increased maritime transportation and the sensitivity of the Baltic

12 Sea makes it necessary to establish efficient, eco-friendly and profitable ship-generated

13 waste management strategies. This study aims to identify best management practices

14 for ship-generated nutrient-rich organic wastes, i.e. food waste and sewage, on the

15 Baltic Sea. Ship-generated waste quantities and characteristics, maritime waste

16 regulations, and disposal methods are reviewed and discussed according to the

17 available literature for the Ports of Helsinki, Stockholm, Tallinn and Copenhagen Malmö,

18 which are the most important and busiest ports on the Baltic Sea. Sorting onboard and

19 separation of food waste from other waste sources such as sewage and grey water is a

20 suitable solution that facilitates further treatment. However, this procedure demands

1 1
2
21 special facilities and sufficient storage space. Aforementioned food waste can be

22 delivered to port reception facilities (PRFs) and used to produce biogas at land.

23 However, currently only food waste from ships operating in the EU may be used as

24 input for biogas production, not international food waste. Grinding of food waste and

25 discharge into the sea is still common practice. In addition, shipping companies can

26 choose buffet type restaurants in order to reduce food waste generation. Grey

27 wastewater is generally discharged into the sea, whereas sewage needs to be treated

28 on board before discharge or delivered to PRFs for treatment. New MARPOL

29 regulations for passenger ships on the Baltic Sea require advanced treatment of

30 pollutant nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, before sewage discharge in order to

31 combat eutrophication of this sensitive area.

32

33 Key-words: anaerobic digestion; Baltic Sea; eutrophication; maritime waste

34 management; MARPOL; port reception facility.

35

36 1. Introduction

37 The significant growth of the maritime transportation sector over the last decade has

38 caused numerous environmental challenges at European ports. The increasing interest

39 in cruise tourism has resulted in an increase of the number of passengers on board of

40 ships of more than 250 % between 2000-2016 (Brida & Zapata-Aguirre, 2009). The

41 cruise ship industry now transports about 22 million people annually all around the world

42 (Brida & Zapata-Aguirre, 2009). Currently, there are 298 cruise ships sailing in the

3 2
4
43 worldwide sea and this number is expected to increase to about 350 ships by 2020

44 (Brida & Zapata-Aguirre, 2009). Moreover, European policy stimulates transport of

45 cargo by sea, thereby also further increasing the number of people (staff) travelling over

46 sea (Brida & Zapata-Aguirre, 2009; HELCOM, 2009). Along with this increase in

47 maritime transportation comes the global increasing amount of ship-generated waste.

48

49 The Baltic Sea is the second largest brackish water basin following the Black Sea. The

50 Baltic Sea is enclosed by several countries including Finland, Sweden, Denmark,

51 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, northwest Russia, Poland, Germany and the North and

52 Central European Plain. Approximately 15 % of the world's cargo and passenger

53 transportation takes place in this area with an increasing trend over the last 15 years

54 (HELCOM, 2009). Cruise ships have about 30 different destination ports on the Baltic

55 Sea. However, usually, cruise lines choose the 5 busiest ports, i.e., Copenhagen, St.

56 Petersburg, Tallinn, Helsinki, and Stockholm with around 200-400 calls each year

57 (approximately 64 % of the total number of calls on the Baltic Sea in 2016). There are 5

58 other ports of increasing interest to cruise lines, i.e., Rostock, Kiel, Gothenburg,

59 Klaipeda, and Riga (Granhag et al., 2018).

60

61 The water residence time in the Baltic Sea is about 30 years and the Danish strait is the

62 only connection with the open seas (Helcom, 2010). Water moves slowly in the Baltic

63 Sea because of the shallow water properties, the lack of tides, low salinity, and its

64 location on a tectonic plate. Moreover, the water is stratified in two layers of different

65 salinity with only a small exchange of water, thereby creating low levels of oxygen in the

5 3
6
66 bottom layer. All of this implies that pollutants released into this area will remain there

67 for several years (Helcom, 2010). Hence, it is clear that the Baltic Sea is highly sensitive

68 to all kinds of environmental impacts. Moreover, the 85 million people living in this area

69 cause high pressure on the maritime ecosystem by their daily household and industrial

70 activities close to the sea and its catchment (WWF, 2018). As such, the Baltic Sea is

71 defined as a sensitive special area in the International Convention for the Prevention of

72 Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) with regard to sewage, garbage, oil, and air pollution

73 (Becker, 1997b; IMO, 2019; Svaetichin, 2016a).

74

75 The MARPOL protocol is an important international agreement concerning cruise ship

76 pollution that was adopted in 1973 by the International Maritime Organization (IMO)

77 specialized agency of the United Nations and the global regulator of shipping. Since

78 2005, this area was designated as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA). A PSSA is

79 a certain zone that requires special protection through legislation and actions by IMO

80 because of the ecological, socioeconomic and scientific importance of the area (MEPC,

81 2005). Declaration of the Baltic Sea as PSSA provides coastal states with the

82 opportunity to apply specific measures to control the maritime activities in this area,

83 such as routing measures, strict application of MARPOL discharge regulations and

84 equipment requirements for ships (MEPC, 2005). Ship-generated waste pollution is one

85 of the main environmental concerns of the Baltic Sea. Hence, development and

86 implementation of optimized ship-generated waste management strategies are of high

87 importance to the Baltic Sea due to its sensitive character and special area designation

88 by IMO regarding management of ship-generated waste (HELCOM, 2013).

7 4
8
 89

90 Cruise ships are the main producers of waste materials on the Baltic Sea, including

91 wastewaters (grey water and black water/sewage), oily waste, solid waste (including

92 food waste), and hazardous waste. Regarding the generated amounts of these wastes,

93 no exact number is available. However, analysis results (Butt, 2007; Svaetichin, 2016b)

94 estimate that waste generated by cruise ships on the Baltic sea with 2000–3000

95 passengers are as follows for one day: 550,000–800,000 liter of grey water, 100,000–

96 115,000 liter of black water, 13,500–26,000 liter of oily bilge water, 7,000–10,500 kg of

97 solid waste, 60–130 kg of toxic waste. Nutrient-rich waste streams such as sewage and

98 food waste are of increased concern in the area since the current single biggest threat

99 to the Baltic Sea is eutrophication due to poor nutrient management (Carstensen et al.,

100 2014; WWF, 2018). Although some measures have been implemented to reduce

101 nutrient loadings in the area, 95 % of the Baltic Sea is still affected by eutrophication

102 (WWF, 2018).

103

104 As compared to land-based waste management, the topic of ship-generated waste has

105 generally received less attention in the scientific literature to date. Moreover, most

106 research in the field of ship-generated waste management has focused on the USA,

107 Great Britain and other parts of Europe besides the Baltic Sea (Svaetichin, 2016a).

108 Olson et al. (1994) investigated different types of generated wastes in both ports and on

109 board of various types of ships. Chen & Liu (2013) investigated the management of

110 garbage on fishing vessels in particular. Some articles have reported on ship-generated

111 waste streams in relation to the port reception facility (PRF) perspective (Butt, 2007;

9 5
10
112 Zuin et al., 2009). The idea to recycle food waste from cruise ships for use as feed in

113 aquaculture has been analyzed from the life-cycle assessment perspective (Strazza et

114 al., 2015b). However, a review on management strategies applied for nutrient-rich

115 organic wastes, food waste and sewage, on the Baltic Sea is missing in the scientific

116 literature, although important for establishment and implementation of best

117 management practices to reduce ship-based nutrient loadings in the area.

118

119 This study aims to review management practices for ship-generated nutrient-rich

120 organic wastes, i.e. food waste and sewage, in the Baltic Sea area. Ship-generated

121 waste quantities and characteristics (Section 2), maritime waste regulations (Section 3)

122 and waste management strategies (Section 4) on the Baltic Sea are reviewed and

123 discussed according to the available literature. A detailed case study is provided in

124 Section 5. It presents quantitative data on waste generation and management strategies

125 for the Ports of Helsinki, Stockholm, Tallinn and Copenhagen Malmö, which are the

126 most important and busiest ports on the Baltic Sea. To conclude this section, best

127 management practices for ship-generated food waste and sewage management on the

128 Baltic Sea are identified and presented.

129

130 2. Ship-based organic waste generation and characterization

131 2.1 Food waste

132 Food waste is a large fraction of ship-generated solid waste with specific characteristics

133 that require appropriate waste management strategies (MEPC, 2005). IMO defines food

134 waste produced on ships as spoiled or unspoiled food substances containing fruits,

11 6
12
135 vegetables, dairy products, meat products, and food scraps (MEPC, 2005). Large

136 vessels (cargo and cruise ships) generally categorize them into two different groups, i.e.

137 soft organic food waste (peels, leftovers, ...) on the one hand and hard ones (bones)

138 and packaging on the other hand (CE Delft, 2007).

139

140 Food waste is a major concern for passengers and staff on board of ships since this wet

141 waste material is subject to microbial activity. Consequently, it undergoes fast auto-

142 oxidation with generation of foul-smelling fatty acids. Furthermore, food waste carries

143 enzymes as plant-based components which might accelerate the spoilage process if

144 they stay in active mode (Oreopoulou, 2007). Although the management of land-

145 generated food waste has been discussed by a great number of authors, management

146 of food waste generated onboard of ships has received less attention in the scientific

147 literature to date. Only a few scientific papers are available on food waste generation on

148 board of ships (ex.: Olson, 1994; Polglaze, 1995; Strazza et al., 2015a; Veritas, 2002),

149 which present very variable quantitative data (Table 1). The quantity and composition of

150 food waste on ships depend on several parameters including the ship type, choice of

151 menu, and the sorting strategy. As shown in Table 1, cruise ships generate up to 3.5

152 kg/person-day, which is significantly higher compared to other ship types. According to

153 Strazza et al. (2015a), a cruise ship with around 3,800 passengers (including staff)

154 generates annually around 1,700 m 3 of food waste, accounting for around 22 % of the

155 total waste produced onboard.

156

157 Table 1 comes here

13 7
14
158

159 Ships are isolated communities that need to control their waste onboard. If not properly

160 managed, food waste can cause inherent health and sanitation risks, particularly in

161 warm climatic zones. Direct discharge of waste at sea is the cheapest and the most

162 straightforward method, but it is not possible in all cases and circumstances due to

163 regulatory restrictions (see Section 3). Sedimentation of food waste disposed of at sea

164 can adversely affect marine biota and increase turbidity. Additionally, upon

165 decomposition, the released nutrients can lead to ecological disturbances and be

166 detrimental for fish health (WWF, 2018). There are some alternative food waste

167 management strategies, such as comminution, shredding or grinding on board followed

168 by collection in bins and sea disposal or delivery to PRFs (Wilewska-Bien et al., 2016,

169 2017, 2018). Ports in areas where discharge restrictions apply need to be capable of

170 receiving food waste and comply with any applicable quarantine requirements

171 (MARPOL, 1988). Since the generation of food waste on ships depends on case-

172 specific factors such as the number of passengers, its management and disposal

173 method is specific according to ship policy (MARPOL, 1988).

174

175 2.2 Sewage

176 Wastewater can be divided into black and grey water. Black water is sewage generated

177 by toilets and medical facilities, while grey water is generated by showers, washing

178 machines, and dishwashers. Sewage on ships is generally more concentrated (about 2-

179 3 times) than its land-based equivalent due to water-saving measures on board (Huhta

180 et al., 2007). The nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, that are responsible for

15 8
16
181 eutrophication constitute a large portion of the sewage water. In average, the release of

182 nitrogen and phosphorus into ship-based sewage water is estimated at 12-15

183 g/person/day and 3-5 g/person/day, respectively (Huhta et al., 2007; USEPA, 2008). A

184 study on grey water made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on large

185 cruise ships reported ammonia and total phosphorus concentrations as high as 78.6

186 and 18.1 mg/L, respectively (USEPA, 2011). This results in a ship-generated nutrient

187 input into the Baltic Sea of about 269 tons of nitrogen and 156 tons of phosphorus in the

188 year 2000 (Huhta et al., 2007), before the implementation of ship-generated nutrient

189 discharge restrictions in the region.

190

191 Black and grey water generated on board can in most cases (non-special areas) be

192 directly released into the open sea if discharge distances are respected (see Section 3)

193 or stored in a tank on board and left for handling on land (Svaetichin, 2016a). Sewage

194 storage strategies vary depending on the type of ship; some vessels store both black

195 and grey water in the same tank. However, storing onboard is associated with

196 difficulties such as limited storage space, odors, and various pests, so ships need to go

197 to land at regular intervals if direct release of wastewater into the sea is not allowed

198 (Granhag et al., 2018).

199

200 In sensitive areas such as the Baltic Sea, strict requirements apply for treatment of

201 sewage wastewater before discharge into the sea (see Section 3). Many ships have a

202 wastewater treatment system onboard, but the traditionally used treatment systems

203 mainly remove bacteria and solids from the water, and to a lesser extent the nutrient

17 9
18
204 substances that cause eutrophication (Huhta et al., 2007; Svaetichin, 2016a). It must

205 also be remarked that wastewater treatment on board still generates a concentrated

206 residual product, i.e. the sewage sludge, which also needs to be treated or delivered to

207 PRFs (Huhta et al., 2007).

208

209 3. Ship-generated waste regulations for the Baltic Sea area

210 Due to the increasing awareness of waste management and pollution problems in the

211 Baltic Sea region, all countries in this area agreed on the Baltic Sea Action Plan with the

212 purpose of restoring the good ecological status of the Baltic maritime environment by

213 2021 (HELCOM, 2007b; WWF, 2018). One of the challenges that needs to be

214 addressed according to this Plan is the reduction of nutrient loadings into the Baltic Sea,

215 which includes both ship-generated nutrients, as well as nutrients produced at land

216 (HELCOM, 2007b; WWF, 2018).

217

218 Generally, ship-generated waste discharge limitations are regulated by MARPOL based

219 on the waste type and area (Svaetichin, 2016b). The MARPOL convention includes six

220 technical Annexes created to prevent and control pollution from ships related to

221 accidental or routine operations onboard. Several important statements of each Annex

222 are summarized in Table 2 in order to provide a general idea of the severeness of

223 restrictions for each waste type. As can be seen, waste regulations exist for oil (Annex

224 I), noxious substances (Annex II), harmful substances (Annex III), sewage (Annex IV),

225 garbage (Annex V) and gaseous emissions (Annex VI).

226

19 10
20
227 Table 2 comes here
228
229 According to Annex V of MARPOL (1988), food waste is an organic material

230 categorized as the waste stream of “Garbage” (Table 2). Annex V explains that all

231 plastics and other garbage such as toilet paper, rags, glass, bottles, crockery, and

232 packing materials cannot be directly discharged into the sea, but exemptions can be

233 obtained (Becker, 1997a; MARPOL, 1988). Food waste can be processed by shredders

234 and be stored on board for discharge into the sea or disposal at PRFs. Discharge of

235 comminuted or grounded food waste is permitted at a distance of more than 3 nautical

236 miles from the nearest land in general and 12 nautical miles from the nearest land in

237 special areas such as the Baltic Sea (MARPOL, 2018). Discharge of not comminuted or

238 grounded food waste is prohibited on the Baltic Sea, but is allowed outside special

239 areas at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land (MARPOL,

240 2018). There are some other solutions such as incineration on board and processing in

241 gasification systems or biological digesters (Wilewska-Bien et al., 2016). Usually, in

242 these cases, an extra step of dewatering is essential for better handling. Any type of

243 vessel (cargo and cruise) carrying 15 or more passengers and workers should have

244 guidelines on the procedures and statistics of onboard waste collection, storage,

245 processing, and disposal (MARPOL, 2018). In any case, ships need to keep their

246 garbage record book up to date including all details about the amount of waste

247 discharged into the sea, delivered to PRFs or incinerated (Wilewska-Bien et al. , 2016).

248

249 Moreover, since food waste can be delivered to PRFs, ships should submit a notification

250 form to the port containing the type and amount of waste to be delivered and/or

21 11
22
251 remaining on board before their arrival (Wilewska-Bien et al., 2016). A penalty system is

252 applicable to infringements of the principles of maritime environmental protection

253 regulations (MARPOL, 1988). Likewise, the port is obliged to develop waste

254 management plans and provide adequate reception facilities and equipment (MARPOL,

255 1988). The port sends feedback on submitted notification forms, including guidelines

256 about reception possibilities. In some cases, the port is not able to receive waste and

257 the information is forwarded to the next port of call (Wilewska-Bien et al., 2016).

258

259 The European Parliament and the Council (EC) No 1069/2009 (previously No

260 1774/2002) defined food waste as an “international catering waste” at EU ports if

261 delivered by vessels that travel outside the EU (European Commission, 2009). This

262 material is considered as high-risk category 1 “animal by-products” that also includes

263 food packaging contaminants such as plastics (European Commission, 2000, 2009).

264 This material must be eliminated according to Regulation No 1069/2009 and Directive

265 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues

266 (European Commission, 2000, 2009). EU Ports on the Baltic Sea must prepare an

267 annual report stating the total amount of received waste (including international waste)

268 from ships with specific details of collected food waste, and the port is obliged to submit

269 this report to the national maritime center (European Commission, 2000; MEPC, 2011).

270

271 Sewage discharge on the Baltic Sea is regulated according to MARPOL Annex IV

272 (MARPOL, 2003; Table 2). In order to reduce nutrient loadings into the Baltic Sea, new

273 sewage discharge restrictions for cruise ships operating in this area have recently been

23 12
24
274 added to MARPOL Annex IV (Granhag et al., 2018). It provides limitations for nitrogen

275 and phosphorus discharge (MEPC, 2012), on top of the existing limitations for fecal

276 coliforms (max. 100/100 mL), suspended solids (max. 35 mg/L), pH (6-8.5) and 5-day

277 biological oxygen demand, BOD5 (max. 25 mg/L) (MEPC, 2012). A simplified overview

278 of the new requirements is provided in Table 3. For comparison, food waste regulations

279 have also been added to this table. Based on these requirements, ships should

280 decrease significantly the content of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in the

281 generated black water composition. In fact, onboard generated black water needs to be

282 treated in a treatment plant onboard or delivered to PRFs (MEPC, 2012). Discharge

283 regulations in special areas as the Baltic Sea specify maximum effluent concentrations

284 of 1 mg/L (or 80 % reduction) for phosphorus and 20 mg/L (or 70 % reduction) for

285 nitrogen (Helcom, 2019; MEPC, 2012). MARPOL does not provide specific limitations

286 for grey water.

287
288 Table 3 comes here

289

290 In addition to the MARPOL rules, there are voluntary initiatives in the shipping industry.

291 For example, the European Cruise Council (ECC) implemented the Agreement on

292 Discharges in the Baltic which declares that its members will stop releasing wastewater

293 in the Baltic Sea region and instead leave it at ports with functional reception facilities

294 that operate under a “no special fee” agreement (ECC, 2009; Wilewska-Bien, 2017).

295 The no special fee (NSF) system was introduced by Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) in

296 order to protect the Baltic Sea environment (Helcom, 2005; Helcom, 2007a). This

297 system encourages ships to deliver waste ashore and avoid discharges into the sea.

25 13
26
298 Concretely, the cost of reception, handling and disposal of ship-generated wastes

299 received by ports is included in the harbor fee or charged to the ship irrespective of

300 whether wastes are delivered to the port or not (Helcom, 2007a). The system should not

301 be economically competitive among the ports so that ships have no preference to keep

302 their waste for disposal at the cheapest port (Svaetichin & Inkinen, 2017).

303

304 4. Ship-generated organic waste management strategies on the Baltic Sea

305 Waste management should be considered as an important environmental, economic

306 and social challenge (Zuin et al., 2009). Aforementioned waste materials should be

307 recycled if reuse is not possible. Reuse of products means to use such materials again

308 for the same application and purpose as the original one (European Commission,

309 2008). Waste disposal into the sea is considered as the last possible solution for cargo

310 and cruise ships sailing on the Baltic Sea. All vessels should prepare a reasonable and

311 efficient policy in order to reduce waste and provide a suitable and practical sorting

312 method and equipment onboard (European Commission, 2008). Although Baltic Sea

313 ports have competitive businesses, they always cooperate with each other on eco-

314 friendly alternatives for waste management to protect this sensitive region against the

315 harmful effect of waste materials (Svaetichin & Inkinen, 2017).

316

317 Since food waste materials are composed of heterogeneous particles of different sizes

318 (colloidal to 25 mm) which tend to stick to each other, they form a dense slurry after

319 direct discharge (IMO, 2005). Separation of these heterogeneous components is

27 14
28
320 complex. Large dense materials like bones accumulate on the shallow sea area while

321 smaller materials distribute at the surface (CE Delft, 2017). So, direct discharge of food

322 waste is prohibited on the Baltic Sea except for materials that can pass through a

323 grinder with openings smaller than 25 mm if they are not contaminated with other

324 garbage (see Section 3). Port reception of waste is recognized as an alternative solution

325 to sea discharge and European Union ports are obliged to receive food waste from

326 ships. Ports should be equipped to the latest and most efficient reception facilities in

327 order to reduce ship-generated waste discharges into the sea (MARPOL, 1988).

328

329 Figure 1 presents a general waste flow diagram for ship-generated food waste (CE

330 Delft, 2007). Soft fractions (ex. vegetable waste) can be comminuted or shredded by

331 adding fresh water and flushed through the piping system to a galley tank or a grey

332 water sewage tank until it can be released into the sea. On the other hand, hard waste

333 (ex. bones), plates and packages, are generally stored in bags to be disposed of at

334 PRFs (Figure 1).

335
336 Figure 1 comes here

338 Food waste can be stored onboard separately for later disposal into the sea or for

339 delivery to PRFs (MEPC, 2011). The following points are essential factors for storing

340 food waste on board of ships (Mohammed, Torres, & Obenshain, 1998): 1) Food wastes

341 and other garbage that may carry diseases or pests need to be stored in covered

342 containers; Some countries’ regulations force ships for double bagging of these wastes.

343 2) It is better to dry food waste to reduce its volume and control the risk of putrefaction;

344 Some ships have cooled waste storage rooms to prevent odor and for disease control.

29 15
30
345 3) Small ships tend to discharge the food waste by emptying the food waste bins at sea;

346 larger ships with more galley waste tend to distinguish between soft and hard organic

347 waste for storage and treatment. Nevertheless, waste streams are often mixed on

348 board, hence food waste is often stored in grey water/sewage tanks. These mixtures

349 should be handled according to the component that has the most strict regulations

350 concerning sea discharge (MEPC, 2011).

351

352 International food waste as a large fraction of food waste generated on ships needs to

353 be handled differently from domestic food waste due to the risk of spreading diseases

354 amongst humans and animals (European Commission, 2000). If a ship stops at any port

355 outside of the EU, it will be considered in international maritime traffic. Leftovers which

356 have been in contact with international catering waste are considered as international

357 food waste and need to be eliminated through landfill or incineration methods (Polglaze,

358 2003). Since most of the cruise ships on the Baltic Sea pass through St. Petersburg,

359 their food waste is considered as international food waste. In the Port of Helsinki, all

360 food waste received from cruise ships is recognized as international food waste

361 (Hänninen & Sassi, 2009b).

362

363 Shipping companies on the Baltic Sea have extended communication with ports and

364 contractors for landing ashore. Submitting notification forms to the port enables the port

365 to order the right kind of containers and trucks to receive the waste (Marcussen, 2017).

366 The collection and onshore treatment depends on whether ships previously visited any

367 ports outside the EU. In such cases food waste is considered as category 1 animal by-

368 products (may transmit diseases) and need to be incinerated or landfilled at an

31 16
32
369 authorized site as explained above (European Commission, 2000; Marcussen, 2017).

370 Food waste that has EU origin can be used for biogas production onshore or for any

371 other valorization strategy applied for land-generated food waste (Marcussen, 2017).

372 Nevertheless, even if energy from food waste can be recovered through biogas

373 production, there should be more focus on reduction of ship-generated food waste in

374 general (Wilewska-Bien, 2018).

375

376 As indicated in Section 3, ship-generated grey water can be discharged into the Baltic

377 Sea without restrictions, but generated black water needs to be treated in a treatment

378 plant onboard or delivered to PRFs. Two particular types of sewage treatment plants

379 are in use involving chemical or biological methods (MEPC, 2012). In the chemical

380 method, a storage tank collects solid material for disposal at permitted areas or at a

381 shore collection facility. Various chemicals are added for odor and color removal and

382 disinfection. These systems are not designed to remove any nutrients (Helcom, 2019).

383 The biological method uses bacteria for breaking down the sewage into an acceptable

384 substance for discharge in terms of suspended solids and BOD 5. Conventional

385 advanced biological wastewater purification systems remove 58-74% of ammonia and

386 41-98% of phosphorus (Granhag et al., 2018) and do hence not always meet the Annex

387 IV Baltic Sea Special Area requirements. There are currently 52 different wastewater

388 purification systems on the market that meet these special area requirements (Helcom,

389 2019).

390

33 17
34
391 A problem still exists in the current combined storage of black water, grey water and/or

392 food waste in the same tank which affects the potential and efficiency of later treatment

393 (Granhag et al., 2018). Separation of food waste from black and grey water is an

394 effective strategy to facilitate the measurement of generated waste quantities and the

395 recycling possibilities (Wilewska-Bien et al., 2018). Installing such system is more

396 feasible for newly built vessels since such method can be introduced in the design

397 platform. However, separate storing of food waste onboard remains troublesome due to

398 hygienic reasons and space limitations (Wilewska-Bien et al., 2018).

399

400 5. Case study

401 Above-mentioned four busiest ports on the Baltic Sea with a role in the cruising industry

402 were examined in further detail with focus on waste quantities and waste management

403 strategies. The ports under study are the Port of Helsinki, Port of Stockholm, Port of

404 Tallinn and Copenhagen Malmö Port which have ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management

405 System and ISO 14001:2004 Environmental Management System certificates and are

406 applying the NSF system (Lam & Notteboom, 2014).

407

408 Stockholm, Helsinki and Copenhagen Malmö ports belong to the Scandinavian-

409 Mediterranean corridor and are assigned as “core ports” with the purpose of developing

410 Europe’s maritime infrastructure network (De Langen & Nijdam, 2007). This is a

411 significant network of maritime roads, ports, and nodes from Russia to Finland and

412 Sweden covering all the way through Europe, ending in Malta. There is more focus on

35 18
36
413 the Port of Helsinki as part of the Baltic Sea network together with the Port of Tallinn

414 because of their high transportation rate. Commonly, environmental policies of all ports

415 are similar, except for some minor differences as specified in De Langen & Nijdam

416 (2007).

417

418 Table 4 presents the percentage of the total discharged garbage (2010 - 2014) amount,

419 related to the number of passengers. Table 5 displays the waste management fees

420 calculated per gross tonnage in all four ports. The table shows for which waste source a

421 fee applies and whether there are restrictions or not.

422 Table 4 comes here

423 Table 5 comes here

424

425 According to the data, the Port of Tallinn receives the highest quantity of garbage from

426 ships with respect to the passenger number (Table 4). The Port of Helsinki, Port of

427 Stockholm and Copenhagen Malmö Port receive less ship-generated garbage

428 compared to the number of travelers (Table 4). In all ports, no special fee is applied for

429 disposal of domestic or international food waste, although there are restrictions for the

430 latter at the Port of Helsinki (Table 5).

431

432 The Port of Helsinki receives the highest amount of sewage, followed by the Port of

433 Stockholm (Table 4). These ports have adequate facilities that can connect the

434 pipelines from cruise ships directly to the municipal wastewater treatment systems.

435 Therefore, they receive all wastewater without extra fee or restrictions (Table 5). The

37 19
38
436 Ports of Copenhagen Malmö and Tallinn have installed wastewater facilities not

437 connected to municipal wastewater treatment systems. Some discharge restrictions

438 apply in these ports (Table 5). The receiving wastewater treatment plants are adapted

439 to receive ship-generated wastewaters with high nutrient concentrations. For instance,

440 the Helsinki port has developed a highly profitable treatment plant that removes over 95

441 % of phosphorus and over 90 % of nitrogen from the wastewater (Svaetichin & Inkinen,

442 2017).

443

444 In the Ports of Helsinki and Stockholm, there are waste trucks waiting for the ship to

445 arrive that transport the waste to the treatment plant (Svaetichin, 2016b). The vessels

446 should keep a garbage record-book up to date with a detailed record of all discharge

447 operations, accidental loss of any garbage and completed release at the port and at

448 sea. Also, the port authority of each port is obliged to ensure availability of PRFs without

449 causing unnecessary delay to vessels (European Commission, 2000; MARPOL,1988).

450

451 General quantitative information on food waste treatment of four selected ships is

452 presented in Table 6 (CE Delft, 2007). According to the data, passenger ships generally

453 grind their food waste for disposal. For such ships, the total amount of food waste

454 discharged into the sea and received by PRFs is 2% and 98%, respectively. The

455 second ship, a bulk carrier, does not treat the food waste and directly discharges it into

456 the open sea (hence not respecting current MARPOL (2018) regulations for the Baltic

457 Sea), while the third ship, a dry bulk carrier, stores the food waste in separate bins in

458 order to release it into the sea or deliver it to PRFs. The fourth ship, a general cargo,

39 20
40
459 uses a shredder and discharges its food waste into the sea. In summary, for the

460 reviewed ships, it can be seen that the major fraction of food waste for passenger ships

461 is delivered to PRFs, whereas for the other ship types the major fraction is discharged

462 into the sea beyond the 12 nautical miles limit (CE Delft, 2007).

463

464 Table 6 comes here

465

466 Furthermore, Wilewska-Bien et al. (2018) investigated waste management data from 27

467 ferry ship operators and 34 cruise ship operators on the Baltic Sea. They conducted two

468 interviews with managers of two different passenger ship companies to document their

469 waste handling methods. Company A transports freight and passengers on the Baltic

470 Sea and generates around 0.25 kg/person/day of waste. This company’s management

471 plan targets food waste separation and reduction of its generation rate. Food waste is

472 grounded onboard to a slurry, transferred to a separate holding tank, and upon arrival at

473 the port, the slurry is collected by a tank truck and transported to a biogas plant.

474 Company B has focused on reducing food waste generation on cruise ships by

475 providing a buffet-type restaurant. Their food waste generation rate is about 0.3

476 kg/person/day. However, total amounts are affected by seasonal changes and the

477 number of tourists on board. The generated food waste is currently stored in the grey

478 water tank and disposed of at land into the sewer system. However, not only unwanted

479 compounds form during biodegradation of organic waste but also under anaerobic

480 conditions, hydrogen sulfide forms in the mixture of sewage, grey water, and food

481 waste, which corrodes the sewer pipes. Hence, food waste separation onboard is

41 21
42
482 noticed as an important challenge, but onboard sorting is also associated with hygienic

483 problems, dirty bins, unpleasant smell, insects and rats. The onboard space for waste

484 storage is also limited. This issue becomes more serious during longer travels.

485

486 If garbage is stored correctly, it can be recycled by ports. Recently, ports on the Baltic

487 Sea have notable progress in the recycling of cruise ship-generated waste. The four

488 ports under study recycle over 50% of all received ship-generated waste. However, a

489 life cycle assessment of waste management throughout the whole valorization chain

490 can be effective to get a better understanding of costs and environmental benefits of

491 waste recycling in this sensitive area (Strazza et al., 2015b). Based on the above

492 review, the best management practices on the Baltic Sea are identified by the authors

493 as (Figure 2): 1) onboard separation of food waste from sewage and grey water, 2)

494 separation of domestic and international food waste and delivery to PRFs for

495 valorization (domestic) and elimination (international) on land; the option to use

496 international food waste for biogas production, while still eliminating the residual

497 digestates may provide an interesting, environmentally friendly alternative that should

498 be further studied and discussed among regulatory authorities; 3) advanced treatment

499 of sewage and discharge into the sea or delivery to PRFs for onshore treatment.

500

501 Figure 2 comes here

502 6. Conclusions

43 22
44
503 Ship-generated food waste and sewage contribute to eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.

504 Waste source separation on board of ships should be implemented to facilitate proper

505 waste management. Comminution of food waste and discharge into the open sea at a

506 distance of more than 12 nautical miles is still common practice on the Baltic Sea.

507 However, when properly collected, EU food waste can and should be valorized through

508 biogas production at land. The option to use international food waste for biogas

509 production should be further studied and discussed among regulatory authorities. Grey

510 water is usually directly discharged into the sea, whereas black water (sewage) needs

511 to be treated either on board or onshore to respect strict MARPOL regulations for the

512 Baltic Sea, now also including nutrient discharge restrictions. Although multiple

513 treatment systems are already on the market that meet these stringent discharge

514 regulations, the sector would benefit from research regarding compact and

515 environmentally friendly treatment systems on ships. Moreover, life cycle assessments

516 should be carried out to evaluate and compare various ship-generated waste

517 management strategies throughout the entire valorization chain.

518

519 Acknowledgements

520 The first author is funded by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of

521 Canada through the award of an NSERC Discovery Grant (RGPIN-2017-04838).

522

523 References

524

45 23
46
525 Becker, R., 1997b. MARPOL 73/78: An Overview in International Environmental

526 Enforcement. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 10, 625.

527 Brida, J. G., Zapata-Aguirre, S., 2009. Cruise tourism: economic, socio-cultural and

528 environmental impacts. International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing,

529 1, 205-226.

530 Butt, N., 2007. The impact of cruise ship generated waste on home ports and ports of

531 call: A study of Southampton. Marine Policy, 31(5), 591-598.

532 Carstensen, J., Conley, D.J., Bonsdorff, E., Gustafsson,B.G., Hietanen, S., Janas, U.,

533 Jilbert, T., Maximov, A., Norkko, A., Norkko, J., Reed, D.C., Slomp, C.P.,

534 Timmermann, K., Voss, M., 2014. Hypoxia in the Baltic Sea: Biogeochemical

535 cycles, benthic fauna, and management. AMBIO – A Journal of the Human

536 Environment, 43(1), 26-36.

537 Chen, C.-L., Liu, T.-K., 2013. Fill the gap: Developing management strategies to control

538 garbage pollution from fishing vessels. Marine Policy, 40, 34-40.

539 De Langen, P.W., Nijdam, M.N. (2007). Charging systems for waste reception facilities

540 in ports and the level playing field: A case from North-West Europe. Coastal

541 Management, 36(1), 109-124.

542 ECC, 2009. ECC Agreement on discharges in the Baltic. European Cruise Council,

543 Brussels, Belgium.

544 CE Delft, 2017. The Management of Ship-Generated Waste On-board Ships. CE Delft

545 for European Maritime Safety Ageny, Delft.

47 24
48
546 European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of

547 the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated

548 waste and cargo residues.

549 European Commission, 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of

550 the Council establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine

551 environmental policy.

552 European Commission, 2009. Regulation (EC) No. 1069/2009 of the European

553 Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-

554 products and derived products not intended for human consumption and

555 repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation).

556 Granhag, L., Wilewska-Bien, M., Andersson, K., 2018. Rapporten Kartläggning av

557 näringstillförsel från sjöfart till Östersjön är finansierad av Stiftelserna Thurséus

558 Forskarhem och BalticSea2020, Chalmers tekniska högskola, Göteborg,

559 Sweden.

560 Hänninen, S., Sassi, J., 2009a. Estimated nutrient load from waste waters originating

561 from ships in the Baltic Sea area - Updated 2009. VTT Technical Research

562 Centre of Finland, Finland.

563 Helcom, 2007a. Application of the no special fee system to ship-generated wastes and

564 marine litter caught in fishing nets in the Baltic Sea area. Helsinki Commission,

565 Finland.

566 Helcom, 2007b. HELCOM Baltic Sea action plan. Helsinki Commission, Finland.

567 Helcom, 2009. Ensuring safe shipping in the Baltic. Helsinki Commission, Finland.

49 25
50
568 Helcom, 2010. Hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea - An integrated thematic

569 assessment of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea. Helsinki Commission,

570 Finland.

571 Helcom, 2013. Interim guidance on technical and operational aspects of delivery of

572 sewage by passenger ships to port reception facilities. Helsinki Commission,

573 Finland.

574 Helcom, 2019. On-board sewage treatment. Helsinki Commission, Finland, available

575 from: http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/shipping/sewage-from-ships/on-board-

576 sewage-treatment/

577 Huhta, H-K, Rytkönen, J., Jukka, S., 2007. Estimated nutrient load from wastewaters

578 originating from ships in the Baltic Sea area. VTT Technical Research Centre of

579 Finland, Otakaari, Finland.

580 IMO, 2019. Special areas under MARPOL, International Maritime Organization,

581 available from:

582 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/SpecialAreasUnderMARPOL/

583 Pages/Default.aspx

584 Klopott, M., 2013. Restructuring of environmental management in Baltic ports: case of

585 Poland. Maritime Policy & Management, 40(5), 439-450.

586 Lam, J.S.L., Notteboom, T., 2014. The greening of ports: a comparison of port

587 management tools used by leading ports in Asia and Europe. Transport Reviews,

588 34(2), 169-189.

51 26
52
589 Marcussen, C.H., 2017. Visualising the network of cruise destinations in the Baltic Sea–

590 a multidimensional scaling approach. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and

591 Tourism, 17(2), 208-222.

592 MARPOL, 1973. Annex V: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage from

593 ships, available from:

594 http://www.marpoltraining.com/MMSKOREAN/MARPOL/Annex_V/r9.htm

595 MARPOL, 2003. Annex IC: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from

596 ships, available from:

597 http://www.marpoltraining.com/MMSKOREAN/MARPOL/Annex_IV/r11.htm

598 MARPOL, 2018. Simplified overview of the disharge provisions of the revised MARPOL

599 Annex V which entered into force on 1 March 2018, available from:

600 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/

601 Documents/Simplified%20overview%20of%20the%20discharge%20provisions

602 %20of%20the%20revised%20MARPOL%20Annex%20V.pdf

603 MEPC, 2005. Designation of the Baltic Sea area as a particularly sensitive sea area.

604 Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC.136(53).

605 MEPC, 2011. Amendments to the annex of the protocol of 1978 relating to the

606 international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships. Marine

607 Environment Protection Committee, MEPC.201(62).

608 MEPC, 2012. Guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests

609 for sewage treatment plants. Marine Environment Protection Committee,

610 MEPC.227(64).

53 27
54
611 Mohammed, J., Torres, R., Obenshain, E., 1998. Waste reduction at sea: Pollution

612 prevention strategies on Miami-based cruise lines. Pollution revention in the

613 coastal zone, National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education,

614 University of Michigan, United States.

615 Olson, P.H., 1994. Handling of waste in ports. Marine pollution bulletin, 29(6-12), 284-

616 295.

617 Oreopoulou, V., Russ, W., 2007. Utilization of by-products and treatment of waste in the

618 food industry. Springer.

619 Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J.K., Wright, N., Ujang, B.Z., 2014. The

620 food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and

621 food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106-115.

622 Polglaze, J., 2003. Can we always ignore ship-generated food waste? Marine pollution

623 bulletin, 46(1), 33-38.

624 Strazza, C., Del Borghi, A., Gallo, M., Manariti, R., Missanelli, E., 2015a. Investigation of

625 green practices for paper use reduction onboard a cruise ship—a life cycle

626 approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(7), 982-993.

627 Strazza, C., Magrassi, F., Gallo, M., Del Borghi, A., 2015b. Life Cycle Assessment from

628 food to food: A case study of circular economy from cruise ships to aquaculture.

629 Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2, 40-51.

630 Svaetichin, I., 2016a. Cruise ship generated waste in the Baltic Sea - A study from the

631 port's point of view on a possible updated waste management system. MSc

632 Thesis, University of Helsinki, Finland.

55 28
56
633 Svaetichin, I., Inkinen, T., 2017. Port waste management in the Baltic Sea area: A four

634 port study on the legal requirements, processes and collaboration. Sustainability,

635 9(5), 699.

636 USEPA, 2008. Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report, United States Environmental

637 Protection Agency, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, Washington, DC.

638 USEPA, 2011. Graywater discharges from vessels, United States Environmental

639 Protection Agence Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC.

640 Wilewska-Bien, M., 2017. Management of ship-generated food waste: Illustrated from

641 the Baltic Sea perspective. PhD Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology,

642 Göteburg, Sweden.

643 Wilewska-Bien, M., Granhag, L., Andersson, K., 2016. The nutrient load from food

644 waste generated onboard ships in the Baltic Sea. Marine pollution bulletin,

645 105(1), 359-366.

646 Wilewska-Bien, M., Granhag, L., Andersson, K., 2018. Pathways to reduction and

647 efficient handling of food waste on passenger ships: from Baltic Sea perspective.

648 Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-14.

649 WWF, 2018. Baltic Sea Action Plan Scorecard, World Wildlife Fund, available from:

650 https://wwwwwfse.cdn.triggerfish.cloud/uploads/2019/01/wwf-baltic-sea-action-

651 pland-scorecard-2018_lr.pdf

652 Zuin, S., Belac, E., Marzi, B., 2009. Life cycle assessment of ship-generated waste

653 management of Luka Koper. Waste Management, 29(12), 3036-3046.

654

57 29
58
655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664 Table 1: Summary of food waste generation rates on ships (Oreopoulou, 2007).
Estimated food waste generation rate Unit Ship type Reference
1.3-3.5 kg/person-day Cruise Strazza et al. (2015a)
1.4–2.4 kg/person-day Not specified Olson (1994)
1.04 kg/person-day Passenger ships Veritas (2002)
0.54–0.98 kg/person-day Navy Polglaze (1995)
0.67 kg/person-day Cargo ships Veritas (2002)
0.48 kg/person-day Oil/Chemical tankers Veritas (2002)
0.28 kg/person-day Fishing ships Veritas (2002)
0.21 kg/person-day Offshore ships Veritas (2002)
665

666

667

59 30
60
668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677 Table 2: Description of The MARPOL convention and what year each Annex entered
678 into force (Svaetichin, 2016b).
Annex Year Regulation Description
Annex I 198 Regulations for Covers prevention of pollution by oil from operational measures
3 the Prevention as well as from accidental discharges. 1992 amendments made it
of Pollution by mandatory for new oil tankers to have double hulls and brought in
Oil a phase-in schedule for existing tankers to fit double hulls, which
was revised in 2001 and 2003.
Annex II 198 Regulations for Details the discharge criteria and measures for the control of
3 the Control pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk. No
of Pollution by discharge of residues containing noxious substances is permitted
Noxious within 12 nautical miles from the nearest land.
Substances
Annex III 199 Prevention of Carried by sea in package form; contains general requirements
2 Pollution by for the issuing of detailed standards on packing, marking,
Harmful labelling, documentation, storage, quantity limitations, exceptions
Substances and notifications.
Annex IV 200 Prevention of Includes requirements to control pollution of the sea by sewage
3 Pollution by discharge limitations. Prohibited sewage discharge into the sea
Sewage from except if the ship has an approved sewage treatment plant or in
Ships the case that ship discharges comminuted and disinfected

61 31
62
 sewage using an approved system at a distance of more than 3
nautical miles from the nearest land. Not comminuted or
disinfected sewage needs to be discharged at a distance of more
than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land.
Annex V 198 Prevention of Deals with different types of garbage and specifies the distances
8 Pollution by from land and the manner in which they may be disposed of; the
Garbage from most important feature of the Annex is the complete ban imposed
Ships on the disposal into the sea of all forms of plastics.
Annex VI 200 Prevention of Air Sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from
5 Pollution ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone
from Ships depleting substances. A chapter adopted in 2011 covers
mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures
aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ships.

679

681

682

683

684

685 Table 3: Simplified overview of the MARPOL requirements for black water, grey water
686 and food waste disposal into the Baltic Sea (NM = Nautical Miles) (Granhag et al.,
687 2018).

Black water Grey water Food waste

Passenger From 2019 on, all new passenger ships MARPOL does Food waste must be
must either clean N and P in black water or not provide comminuted/grounded
leave black water at port reception facilities specific and discharged at least
for treatment in wastewater purification limitations. 12 NM from the
systems. Untreated black water must not be nearest land.
pumped into the ocean.
Other Untreated black water may be pumped into MARPOL does Food waste must be
ships the ocean at least 12 NM from the coast. not provide comminuted/grounded

63 32
64
 Treated black water (N and P don’t need to specific and discharged at least
be removed) may be pumped out, without limitations. 12 NM from the
the requirement of minimum distance from nearest land.
the coast.
688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698 Table 4: Number of passengers and waste quantities per waste type at the ports under
699 study (N/A = Not Available) (Becker, 1997a; Svaetichin & Inkinen, 2017).

Tot
Oily Wastes Garbage (Ton) Garb
Number of (To
passengers Oily Oily Mixed
Food Other Hazardous
Wastes Rags Cardboard Glass Metal Domestic
Waste Wastes Waste
(m3) (Ton) Waste
2010 342,000 2343 1.1 28.9 1.0 1.4 0.3 567.4 3.7 0.5 604
2011 385,000 2529 0.9 216.8 1.4 0.7 0.7 636.1 0.0 1.6 858
Helsinki 2012 368,000 2364 0.3 204.0 1.8 3.6 0.3 536.3 0.0 0.1 746
2013 420,000 2891 3.0 429.0 3.0 13.0 1.0 759.0 3.3 1.5 1212
2014 420,000 2668 1.7 366.6 87.7 172.1 34.7 716.8 4.1 9.6 1393
Stockholm 2010 415,000 1858 23.3 N/A 3.7 9.2 93.1 739.1 104.9 82.7 1056

65 33
66
 2011 452,000 2162 10.2 N/A 10.8 10.5 39.5 728.5 68.0 51.4 918
2012 470,000 2064 3.5 N/A 20.1 0.0 36.9 782.9 64.6 15.2 923
2013 485,581 1837 0.2 N/A 2.5 62.9 0.1 609.0 7.2 35.2 717
2014 470,000 2412 N/A N/A 7.4 0.7 5.3 649.7 15.4 34.6 713
2010 662,000 1790 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2753.0 N/A N/A 2753
2011 815,000 2724 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1675.0 N/A 18.0 1693
Copenhagen 2012 840,000 2779 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1504.0 N/A 17.0 1521
2013 800,500 1839 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1545.0 N/A 18.0 1563
2014 739,000 1957 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1778.0 N/A 21.7 1799
2010 390,000 4453 18.3 204.3 385.0 395.4 97.9 689.0 114.3 65.7 1951
2011 437,517 4158 25.8 204.3 331.6 382.2 84.0 730.8 237.6 113.1 2083
Tallinn 2012 440,504 4906 22.2 179.1 306.7 242.2 85.5 681.1 190.8 151.2 1836
2013 519,319 6020 26.7 314.7 455.0 382.2 104.7 998.3 331.8 198.3 2784
2014 479,000 5120 50.7 349.8 349.4 395.4 111.3 696.1 261.1 259.5 2422

700

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711 Table 5: The studied ports and their tariffs according to the waste types in 2015 (GT =
712 Gross Tonnage; LNG = Liquefied Natural Gas; N/A = Not Applicable; pax = passenger)
713 (Svaetichin & Inkinen, 2017).

Copenhagen Tallinn Helsinki Stockholm

Waste DKK 3.60/GT € 0.032 or € 12.65/100 net (min € SEK 0.53/GT (≈ € 0.06)
management (≈ € 0.50) € 0.029/GT 233, max. € 2915) (max. SEK 10,450
fees ≈ € 1142)

Oily wastes No special fee; “oily No special fee No special fee No special fee
tank washing water” (max. 20 m3)
costs DKK 590/m3
Wastewater No special fee for 7 m3: no special No special fee No special fee
black water (130 fee; the ship pays
L/day); grey water for the exceeding
costs DKK 115/m3 amounts
(≈ € 82)
Domestic No special fee No special fee No special fee No special fee
waste

67 34
68
 International No special fee No special fee No special fee No special fee
food waste (max. 7 m3 or 6 tons)
Hazardous No special fee No special fee On the basis of costs No special fee
waste that occurred
Electronics No special fee No special fee On the basis of costs No special fee
that occurred
Scrubber On the basis of No special fee On the basis of costs On the basis of costs that
waste costs that occurred that occurred occurred, tariffs by asking
the port
Reductions 7th (and following) If the cruise ship N/A SEK 5.51/pax reduction if
call: 25 % reduction sorts: € 0.029/GT sorted; LNG ship: SEK
0.05/GT reduction at 11th
visit (and following)
Passenger fee DKK 3/pax € 1.46/pax €0.965/arriving pax; SEK 31.53/pax (with
(≈ € 0.40) €0.965/departing pax reduction: 26.02/pax
≈ € 2.85/pax)
Additional N/A N/A Loading time: 4 h; N/A
restrictions going over time:
€ 73.50/h
Remarks 2015: sorting N/A N/A 1 million SEK to vessel
started at the port owner that rebuilds the
vessel to use LNG;
Discounts if the carbon
dioxide emissions are low
714
715

716

717

718
719
720 Table 6: Food waste treatment of four studied ships related to the generated amount of
721 waste (CE Delft, 2007).

Type of vessel Time period Amount Amount Amount Amount

(days) generated (m )3
treated delivered to disposed of at
(m )
3
PRF (m ) 3
sea (m )3

Passenger ship 21 181 4 177 4

Bulk carrier 130 4.11 0 1.70 2.40
Dry bulk carrier 140 2.75 1.42 1.33 1.42
General cargo 90 1.25 1.15 0.10 1.15
722

723
724
725
726
727

728

69 35
70
729

730

731

732

733

734

735 Figure 1: Food waste flow diagram (PRF = Port Reception Facility) adapted from CE

736 Delft (2007); dotted line indicates a common practice that is not allowed on the Baltic

737 Sea.

738

739

740

71 36
72
741

742

743

744

745 Figure 2: Overview of best management practices for ship-generated food waste and sewage

746 management on the Baltic Sea; striped line shows current practice, dotted line suggests a more

747 sustainable future option.

748

73 37
74